Professor Keith Parsons's "Rules of the Use of Ridicule"

Previously Professor Keith Parsons advocated the use of ridicule, saying:

A single belly-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms” said H.L. Mencken. Fundamentalism and fundamentalists should be ridiculed in the media, by comedians, or wherever. You don’t have to worry about fairness, since, as Poe’s Law famously notes, no satire can possibly be more absurd than the real thing. Come on. You just can’t come up with anything more ridiculous than someone who honestly thinks that all human woes stem from an incident in which a talking snake accosted a naked woman in a primeval garden and talked her into eating a piece of fruit. Again, most ridicule would consist of pointedly drawing attention to what they really believe. Nothing could be fairer than that. As a sign admonished on The Simpsons, put the fun back in fundamentalism. Laugh it to death. LINK.

Now I present for your consideration his rules for ridicule:

More In Defense of Ridicule *Sigh*

There seems to be a great amount of (willful?) misunderstanding about my defense of ridicule. It's as if people don't even try to understand. The fact that we laugh at ridiculous beliefs is not going away, nor is the social pressure to conform to one's peers. Several important people agree with me and/or have used ridicule successfully. Without needing to write a whole book on the nuances and uses of ridicule, or on what constitutes good ridicule (which might end up being in the eye of the beholder), let's look at three concrete examples below. I like concrete examples. They work when I don't want to waste time chasing the rabbit of endless qualifications down the rabbit hole.

Chris Matheson's new book is a comedy about God from the biblical texts themselves, titled: The Story of God: A Biblical Comedy about Love (and Hate). I provided a sample of his book right here. It holds up for ridicule the God of the Bible. I wrote a blurb for it. It's laugh out loud funny. Read it and tell me what Chris did wrong, and/or about its effectiveness. My claim is that it's funny because with keen insight Chris accurately teaches us what's supposedly going on behind the scenes.

Since reading is a chore to some people, let's try two posters I think are funny. They're funny to me regardless of whether or not I share them. They're funny to almost all atheists. These kinds of things are what we laugh about at conferences. They are accurate and insightful.

Bertrand Russell Used Ridicule Effectively, as Does Julia Sweeny, George Carlin and Bill Maher

The list of people who advocate and/or use ridicule effectively should be more than enough to convince the deniers. British atheist and Freethinker George William Foote (1850-1915) wrote:

Goldsmith said there are two classes of people who dread ridicule–priests and fools. They cry out that it is no argument, but they know it is. It has been found the most potent form of argument. Euclid used it in his immortal Geometry; for what else is the reductio ad absurdum which he sometimes employs? Elijah used it against the priests of Baal. The Christian fathers found it effective against the Pagan superstitions, and in turn it was adopted as the best weapon of attack on them by Lucian and Celsus. Ridicule has been used by Bruno, Erasmus, Luther, Rabelais, Swift, and Voltaire, by nearly all the great emancipators of the human mind. ["On Ridicule" Seasons of Freethought, 2013, page 260. See the tag "Ridicule" below for others who embrace it.]

To see what Socrates, Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Erasmus, and modern thinkers like Keith Parsons, Richard Carrier and Stephen Law said about ridicule click here. There are more people who advocate it, or use it, than can be named, including Bertrand Russell.

On Justifying the Use of Ridicule and Mockery

Hey, I KNOW Christians don't like being mocked. I get that. So it's no surprise they would object to it by saying it doesn't cause them to change their minds, that it makes them dig their heels in deeper, and that it just makes them think less of the one doing the mocking. You would expect them to say this. The facts however are different. Ridicule and mockery have been very effective in any cultural war and they will forever be effective and necessary.

Professor Keith Parsons joins with others in advocating ridicule. He advocates this as one response to fundamentalism. He writes:

“A single belly-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms” said H.L. Mencken. Fundamentalism and fundamentalists should be ridiculed in the media, by comedians, or wherever. You don’t have to worry about fairness, since, as Poe’s Law famously notes, no satire can possibly be more absurd than the real thing. Come on. You just can’t come up with anything more ridiculous than someone who honestly thinks that all human woes stem from an incident in which a talking snake accosted a naked woman in a primeval garden and talked her into eating a piece of fruit. Again, most ridicule would consist of pointedly drawing attention to what they really believe. Nothing could be fairer than that. As a sign admonished on The Simpsons, put the fun back in fundamentalism. Laugh it to death. LINK.

It's not just the so-called "new atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, and PZ Myers who advocate ridicule. I do too (see below). So does Richard Carrier, as does Stephen Law. Keep in mind we don't advocate this as the only response.

Examples of Ridicule

Recently I've defended the use of ridicule. Good ridicule must be based on some truth, otherwise it wouldn't be funny. It must also bring home an important point. Some of it is gentle humor while some of it is quite mean-spirited. Some people focus on ridicule while others focus on elaborately reasoned arguments. If you think ridicule is unbecoming of an atheist, or anyone for that matter, then you cannot like the comedy style of Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, or even Jay Leno or David Letterman. Look at the following good examples and then try to honestly tell me ridicule has no place in our cultural wars. [Click on the tag "Ridicule" below for more on this topic.]

The Power and Effectiveness of Good Ridicule

Since believing scholars are really good at defending the indefensible with their pseudo-scholarship, honest uncommitted seekers who read our debates might go away thinking each side has some good points, or that they're a wash. That being said, can anyone imagine a Christian scholar ever abandoning the Christian faith? Can you imagine that happening to William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland, Chad Meister, Norman Geisler, Douglas Groothuis, Craig Bloomberg, Michael Licona, David Wood, Mary Jo Sharp, Daniel Wallace, Ben Witherington, Matthew Flannagan, Steven B. Cowan, William Dembski, Scott Sullivan, Ravi Zacharias, Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell, H. Wayne House, Dennis W. Jowers, Gregory Ganssle, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Stewart Goetz, Richard Swinburne, R. Douglas Gevett, N.T. Wright, Craig Evans, Francis Beckwith, Dinesh D'Souza, Craig Hazen, Peter Kreeft, David Marshall, Vic Reppert, Thomas Howe, Richard Howe, Craig Blaising, Randal Rauser, Greg Koukl, David Beck, David K. Clark, James Sennett, Thomas Talbott, Paul K. Moser, Abdu Murray, Timothy Keller and many others? I honestly can't. They will all die in their faith no matter what we throw at them. They are impervious to reason, so politely discussing/debating them will not change their minds, ever. We argue with them mainly to reach honest uncommitted seekers, and that's it. They are the goal, the prize.

The power and effectiveness of good ridicule is that it by-passes this perceived stalemate between us. Christian scholars are the last ones to give up their faith because they're the most indoctrinated. They have the most to lose if they abandon it. So we need not gain their approval before we turn to ridicule. We need not reason with them because they cannot be reasoned with. We know they're delusional. So ridicule helps honest uncommitted seekers to understand what non-believers really think. Taking Christian pseudo-scholarly arguments seriously (while needed) does not convey how abysmal we think their arguments really are. To be sure, I don't ridicule Christian scholars very often. But I do seek to justify the use of ridicule for those who do it well. [See tag "Ridicule" for more].

Here's Proof Christians are Deluded!

Want to see an utterly ignorant analogy by a Christian intellectual named Ed Feser? He's not alone. Victor Reppert linked to what he said. Feser's gripe is against the "New Atheist Types." He says that "Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, and their clones in the blogosphere routinely display exactly the sort of ignorance and bigotry of which they haughtily accuse their opponents."

But Feser ends up being the ignorant bigot on this one.

Quote of the Day, By Faisal Saeed Al Mutar On Ridicule

Let's put ridicule into perspective. Faisal Saeed Al Mutar lectures on Muslim issues around the world. His focus is on Islamic problems in the Middle East and how they can be solved. On Facebook he wrote: "If you hold ridiculous beliefs, your beliefs deserve to be ridiculed. You have rights, your beliefs don't."


Now Victor Reppert has gone on record as stressing ridicule is unwarranted. So what does he advocate when it comes to Muslim militancy? A lot of us, me included, don't know that much about Islam. But we know killing and maiming others is wrong. Does Vic really think ridicule should not be used by us against these Muslims? Most of us don't really know any other way to express ourselves. I think ridicule can open the Muslim mind up to consider arguments to the contrary. It can be the grease that helps unscrew the mental bolts that shut off a reasoned discussion of their faith. And if Reppert can see this with regard to the faith of others, then he should have no principled objection to the use of ridicule itself.

Don't Be a Dick, Phil Plait

The title of this post is supposed to get attention. I do this regularly. It creates hits. Try it sometime. But I also want to make this point. There appears to be a storm of controversy by skeptics weighing in on one side or the other about Phil Plait's talk, "Don't Be a Dick," at TAM 8 posted below. I only know that there is controversy. I have not read what people have said. I don't need to. Watch his 30 minute talk below. Then read what I have to say about it afterward.

I Still Want a Respectful Educated Discussion of the Ideas That Separate Us

Have I changed my attitude from wanting a respectful discussion of the issues that divide us? If so, why? Have believers changed me? Should I let them change me? Will they be better off if they do?...or worse off? Can I remain steadfast in hopes of the ideal in the midst of some utterly ignorant comments and personal attacks from people I think are delusional? Am I that kind of person? Should I even care?

Once again Victor Reppert has taken a pot shot at me. He has become somewhat fixated on me. I guess that's a compliment since he wouldn't do this if I was not a threat to his faith. And while I don't respond to many criticisms posted by Christian Bloggers I do feel the need to respond to him, which is a compliment to him as well. Should I bother responding?

Quote of the Day On Ridicule, By G.W. Foote

British atheist and Freethinker George William Foote (1850-1915) wrote:

Goldsmith said there are two classes of people who dread ridicule–priests and fools. They cry out that it is no argument, but they know it is. It has been found the most potent form of argument. Euclid used it in his immortal Geometry; for what else is the reductio ad absurdum which he sometimes employs? Elijah used it against the priests of Baal. The Christian fathers found it effective against the Pagan superstitions, and in turn it was adopted as the best weapon of attack on them by Lucian and Celsus. Ridicule has been used by Bruno, Erasmus, Luther, Rabelais, Swift, and Voltaire, by nearly all the great emancipators of the human mind. ["On Ridicule" Seasons of Freethought, 2013, page 260. See the tag "Ridicule" below for others who embrace it.]

Ridicule is a Type of Peer Pressure That Changes Minds

We know that peer pressure changes minds, even against what seems quite clear to someone with a different opinion. We KNOW this. If you doubt that then watch this four part ABC Dateline Program, What Were You Thinking? Go ahead. Watch it. Ridicule is a type of peer pressure. If a person says she doesn't agree with belief A that tells you something important, even if this is all she says. But if she laughs at belief A that tells you she doesn't have any respect at all for belief A. Now imagine most of the people you know laughing at belief A. That would get your attention and could indeed change your mind. Peer pressure works. Ridicule is a type of peer pressure. Ridicule changes minds. Ridicule from lots of people has more power to change minds. It's quite simple really, such that anyone who disagrees is ignorant. There are other questions to address, but let's start with baby steps.

Keith Parsons is Just Old. That Explains Why He Favors the Old Atheism.

Evangelicals seem to love Keith Parsons. And he likes it. When it comes to writing something in Christian anthologies he's the go-to guy. That slap on the back must feel good. Now he's a good guy I'll admit. But even Edward Feser likes him. Something's gotta be wrong! ;-) They agree in that they both want to return to that old time religion, er, atheism. I understand why Feser wants to live in the past, but Parsons?

Look, I am not interested in merely having a discussion. I'm interested in changing minds. Karl Marx spoke for me when he quipped, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

At issue are the differences between Old Atheism and New Atheism. Parsons prefers the Old Atheism as does Feser. My view is they both want to live in the past. One must accept the changes and move on into the future. There is no going back. Christianity is dying. Why in the world would Parsons want to return to the good old days when Christianity had a huge monopoly in American academia, and where it was considered a respectable faith? There is at the present time a massive exodus from Christianity by young people. I just learned today that over half the people in Scotland are non-religious. As that happens in westernized countries we no longer need to respect faith-based reasoning, but rather tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about religion.

What are the unique differences between Old Atheism and the New Atheism?

Christian Scholars Are Defending Me? Now I Know I'm Doomed! ;-)

In writing to Jeffrey Jay Lowder who is the co-editor and contributor to the best skeptical book so far on the resurrection of Jesus, Christian philosopher Victor Reppert used me as a contrast with the “so-called” New Atheists:

I think the New Atheists are doing things which are a fundamental betrayal of the basic rules which must underlie all discourse concerning matters so serious as religion. It affects people like John Loftus, who has some interesting ideas, but invariably ruins the possibility of serious discourse with him by propagandistic tactics. A kind of atheist fanaticism is brewing, which undermines the very process which makes atheist-theist dialogue at all rewarding. Link

David Marshall, a Christian apologist who has written several books defending his faith, said:

My Inaugural Speech, On the State of the Case for Christianity

Ladies and gentlemen, dignitaries and non-dignitaries, believers and nonbelievers, I am honored to briefly speak to you tonight on the inaugural of my next year's term as president and owner of this blog. About seven years ago, almost to the day, I started this Blog. Each year you have reelected me to another term. I have posted something about 1.5 times a day ever since. I have fought many battles with both believers and nonbelievers in order to stay on track with my goal of debunking Christianity in all of its forms. It's been very time consuming but very rewarding work. You already know my goals and what I have to offer, and you also know I have critics on both sides of these debates, but you still reelected me for yet another term here at DC, for which I am very grateful.

So my heartfelt thanks goes out to the various writers who have been team members at DC over the years, most notably Hector Avalos, Harry McCall, and more recently Jonathan Pearce. Thanks also to my readers for seven years of comments and debate, especially my peeps, including the amazing and indefatigable articulett, also a team member. You have helped to make this blog one of the top places to discuss the best arguments for and against Christianity. This means a great deal to me personally. Without you I would've thrown in the towel a long time ago out of fatigue, discouragement and/or financial ruin.

Ridicule and Shaming Work, So Let's Use Them. The Arguments Behind This Are Solid and Factual

Who says ridicule, and now shaming, doesn't work? No one, probably, but it does, most emphatically, as I've written in several posts to date. Now there is a call to ridicule and shame the anti-vaccine movement, just as we do to the KKK. Now, let's consider the impact of ridicule and shame on religions like Christianity and Islam. No wonder Muslims don't like being ridiculed. They know where it can lead.

Saudi TV Series Deploys New Weapon Against ISIS: Satire

People hate ridicule. But if you want to get their attention like nothing else then ridicule them. There's just something about it, and Saudi TV is using it against ISIS (or IS), LINK. Michael Rubin, formerly a U.S. State Department official, agrees with this approach: "Islamists cannot handle free thinking in the best of times, but ridicule is their kryptonite, for it shows that the would-be caliphs have no clothes...Hence it should be an essential part of any strategy." [See tag "Ridicule" for more].

Quote of the Day On Ridicule, By Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

"Our best hope for progress is for atheists to speak out and (as politely as possible) tell any theists who will listen why religious beliefs are ridiculous." -- Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, in Louise Antony’s anthology, Philosophers without Gods, p 78.

Sinnott-Armstrong joins a long list of philosophers, pundits and essayists who see the value of ridicule. <-- Take a look see! The people being ridiculed don't like it, okay, but that cannot be a reason against doing it. Anyone who argues against the importance and value of ridicule is just an ignorant person. I can see no reason not to do it, nor can anyone argue consistently against its value. Christians have been ridiculing atheists for centuries. Now that they are on the receiving end they look silly when they argue against doing what they've been doing way too long. It just goes to show you they'll say anything in defense of the indefensible when it comes to faith, for faith itself is irrational. So let them continue to argue against the use of ridicule. That in itself is ridiculous!

In Defense of the New Atheists: An Excerpt From My Book "Unapologetic"

    It's time for atheist philosophers of religion to end their own sub-discipline under Philosophy proper. I explain in detail what I mean in my book Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End (2016). Below is an excerpt from it where I defend the new atheists Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Stenger from the philosophical elites. A few months ago I defended Hitchens' Razor. You can see the same dismissive attitude in both of these essays. I have no personal axe to grind. It's a principled disagreement. You can comment but before I'll respond you should first read my book.

Was David Hume's Argument "Of Miracles" Original? The Role of Ridicule.

[Edited on 7/20/21] If you're here from following a link in my anthology, "The Case against Miracles", thanks so much! You now have an edition of the book that's been thoroughly checked for typographical errors. As of 7/20/21 the book is probably error free. To read updates and further discussions about the book click on the following tag: Case against Miracles.

-------------

Previously I have justified compiling an anthology on miracles, and described Hume's towering influence over us right here. Some would say there's nothing let to say after David Hume's chapter "Of Miracles". If so, we might as well throw up our hands and complain that the ancients have stolen all of our ideas. There hasn't been a book length treatment of miracles like this written by atheists in forever, so it's long overdue. It's also a major defense of David Hume.

In the dedication to The Case against Miracles I wrote: "This volume is dedicated to the legacy of David Hume, considered to be the greatest English-speaking philosopher who ever lived." Then readers will find this quote from Hume:

I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument...which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures. – “Of Miracles” by David Hume (1711-1776).

No one likes an arrogant person. No one likes to be ridiculed for what they think either. What if Hume didn't say this? What if he played nice with believers? What if he had toned down his rhetoric? What we know is that no one likes to be taunted, belittled, or called ignorant, or delusional. Yet this is what Hume did. Doing so brings believers out of their caves to debate, and debate Hume they have. It's as if what Hume said had a self-fulfilling effect to it.

John Earman viciously criticized Hume in his anthology Hume's Abject Failure, The Argument Against Miracles (2000). One of his claims is that "Hume's famous essay on miracles is set in the context of the larger debate that was taking place in the eighteenth century about the nature of miracles and the ability of eyewitness testimony to establish the credibility of such events. Hume's argument against miracles is largely unoriginal..." He says, "'Of Miracles' is often treated as if it were a genuinely original piece of philosophy. But although it does contain some original insights and is cast in Hume's characteristically forceful prose, it is in fact a largely derivative work." [Chapter 1, Section 7].

While some of the arguments Hume made were, loosely speaking, floating around in his day, it hardly goes to say that his particular argument in "Of Miracles" was made by anyone else. Earman shows where John Locke had some influence on Hume, but merely suggests some others may also have influenced him, without providing any direct evidence. Hume doesn't really say he came up with his argument, anyway. He says he "discovered" it, even though it's clear he's taking ownership of it. The way a particular argument is expressed can make that argument more powerful. Sometimes it matters who makes that argument. People were forced to pay attention to Hume, known to "the wise and learned" as a great philosopher and a great historian. For he had became widely known for his massive 6 volumes series on The History of England, published from 1754 to 1762. When readers of Hume's history learned he ridiculed believers for believing in the impossible, it was his arrogance and his ridicule that most likely thrust what he argued into the spotlight like nothing else, and it still does.

Hume knew the effect of taunting believers who disagreed. At the end of his chapter on miracles he wrote:

So our over-all conclusion should be that the Christian religion not only was at first accompanied by miracles, but even now cannot be believed by any reasonable person without a miracle. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its truth; and anyone who is moved by faith to assent to it is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person—one that subverts all the principles of his understanding and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.

Then at the end of Hume's Enquiry itself, he concluded:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Whew. Them's fighting words! And believers have been fighting with Hume ever since. Now I've written a lot to justify the use of ridicule. Hume used it brilliantly. He was also arrogant. He knew the effect that arrogance, inflammatory rhetoric and ridicule would have on believers, when most everyone else thought it was better to engage them with respect. Bravo to Hume!