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.

Read more »

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!

Stephen Law's Five Morals To Guide Atheists and Believers In Our Debates

You'll find Dr. Stephen Law online all over the place. He seems indefatigable in the goals of educating people and helping them escape from faith-based reasoning. Today I discovered he's an active writer at the site for Center for Inquiry. What's more I found his most recent essay to be something I agree with completely, where he offers five morals that should guide debates between atheists and believers. This is refreshing to me personally, having participated in daily discussions/debates with believers for ten years now. So here they are with my comments, along with a link to what he wrote from a forthcoming book chapter. His focus is on issues that might cause offense between us that could potentially shut down our debates, having atheists mostly in mind. [He uses the name Peter to refer to a Christian believer.]

1. There's a tendency among the religious to take offence at comparisons drawn by atheists between religious belief and other supernatural beliefs such as belief in ghosts, fairies, etc. No doubt some atheists do just want to belittle and bait the religious by making such comparisons. However, it seems to me that drawing such a comparison can be very appropriate. I certainly intend no offence by drawing it. I don't think the religious should take offence.

Read more »

Professor Keith Parsons Advocates 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. So does Richard Carrier, as does Stephen Law. Keep in mind we don't advocate this as the only response.

Let's Have a Head to Head Face Off!

I've read the comboxes of a lot of atheist and Christian blogs, and I can say without fear of contradiction that the people who comment here at DC are, over-all, some of the most educated, intelligent and respectful ones you'll see out there. Kudos to them. This is the case even though I have vigorously defended the value of ridicule. Yes, my commenters will ridicule from time to time, as I do. But it still is as I say. Think otherwise? Then let's have a head to head faceoff. ;-) Join us. Comment. Both Christians and non-Christians. See for yourselves. Come away from those other blogs you regularly visit. [Bible thumpers need not apply. If all you do is mindlessly quote-mine the Bible you deserve any ridicule we throw at you. Someone on your side of our debates needs to properly inform you how to deal with us.]

Michael Moore's Satire "Where To Invade Next?" Is Both Hilarious and Brilliant!

I've written a lot about ridicule and satire. I've defended their use in our religious and cultural debates in several posts here at DC. I argue ridicule and satire work to change minds. Ridicule works to the degree there is truth behind it.

Enter Michael Moore with his just released movie, "Where To Invade Next?" It is both very funny and based on fact. Below for your consideration I'm including a trailer along with an interview he did with Stephen Colbert. If you care about the direction of America this is a don't miss movie, a movie that is neither liberal nor conservative. Chris Woods, a friend of mine and movie aficionado wrote, "IMO, Michael Moore's Where To Invade Next is not only the best Michael Moore movie I've seen, but also the best movie I've seen so far this year." I agree.

There were three segments to Moore's movie that really touched me. The children in France are fed good lunches in their schools, compared to the shit that gets fed to American students in our schools. Why does this continue! It's a complete and utter disgrace.

In another segment we're told of the recent Tunisian political revolution where women have successfully risen up to gain equal rights, something I hadn't heard of before. The president was interviewed by Moore, who is clearly a Muslim with conservative Muslim values (i.e., repressive of women), but he has come to embrace secularism, or the separation of State and Church, where people should be free to live the way they desire irrespective of their religious values. Now there's an idea Christians should wish upon the Muslim world. Why don't more of them wish it upon us in America! That befuddles me.

Then in a segment directly following the Tunisian one, Moore interviews Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, who was the first woman in the world to be elected head of state, in Iceland. For about what seemed to be ten minutes afterward, there was a superior montage of women leaders and activists around the world, showing what women have accomplished. It was inspiring. Viewers could clearly understand that it's time for women to take charge of the world. The rule of testosterone-driven male egoists should end, and I agree wholeheartedly. [Of course, in America we should tackle one problem at a time. So while Moore and I truly think women should lead us, both he and I endorse Bernie Sanders for President. Here are his reasons why.

Read more »

A Message From Kenneth Who Comments Here

Don't you think more Christians would be willing to participate in these sites if the atmosphere was a little more welcoming? I know you are an advocate for ridicule, but it's kind of a turn off. If the stray christian wanders onto this blog, comments, and then gets blasted with crude, rude, insulting, ridicule.... how many do you think will stick around for the rest of what you have to say?

I'm an extremely avid reader, and I can say with confidence that you haven't gotten half the attention your work deserves. The Christian community needs to grapple with what you have to say. I think that more Christians would engage here if they felt like it was a safe place for them to dialog...

My response:

Fair enough kenneth. Thanks. I appreciate your kind words. I do wish people would use less snark and ridicule and more dispassionate reasoning. I do think the commenters here are better on average than anywhere else. I should take what you say to heart. It's just that I used to be as you describe. I'm just jaded after nearly ten years of suffering what I consider to be fools.

More On the Effective Use of Ridicule

If you have ever read Plato's Dialogues you know Socrates ridiculed his opponents. Anyone who has read the ending of the Euthyphro dilemma sees this plainly:

Read more »

Hitchens on Ridicule

I don’t ridicule people to their face, but ridicule is as Hitchens' says it is!

Read more »

Richard Carrier On the Use of Ridicule (via email)

By and large the minds of the ridiculous can't be changed. It's their flock we're talking to. But even the ridiculous change under ridicule some respond by getting more ridiculous (and those are the ones who could never be swayed even by the politest methods), but others accumulate shame until they see the error of their ways (I've met many ex-evangelicals who have told me exactly that). Thus, ridicule converts the convertible and marginalizes the untouchable. There is no more effective strategy in a culture war.

I like what he said.

Quote of the Day On Ridicule, By Doug Krueger

Doug Krueger is the author of the excellent book, What is Atheism? On Facebook he said:

We should ridicule the ridiculous. This is sometimes more effective than arguments because believers often substitute emotion for argument, which is why they are so resistant to evidence.

He joins an ever growing list of other atheists. See tag "Ridicule" below.

Sir_Russ Dismantles Victor Reppert On Ridicule

Vic complains about the commenters here at DC, saying they attack him. They most certainly attack his ideas. By contrast his commenters personally attack atheists and have little substance beyond that. So compare them to what sir_russ wrote below. There is some snark going on in it, but his reasoning and writing are very good.

Read more »

Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End

I'm done writing and editing books, so I'm highlighting each one of them in thirteen separate posts.

Today let's consider my 2016 book, Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. Just like my books The Outsider Test for Faith, and How To Defend the Christian Faith, this one was also forged in the heat of debate here at DC. I don't expect Christian philosophers to agree with it until after they abandon their faith. Secular philosophers have disagreed with it. But noteworthy ones agree. Actually, I think most all scientifically minded atheist philosophers should agree.

Read more »

An Exposé of the Dishonesty and Hypocrisy of Jeff Lowder

I must keep this short, so I want to say from the outset that Jeff Lowder is a valued atheist intellectual, even if I'm right about everything I write below. I am most grateful that he used his B.S. degree in computer science to co-create Internet Infidels, a huge repository of scholarly essays debating the merits of religious propositions. But Jeff Lowder and I have had a series of fights, which I wrote about previously in An Open Letter to Jeffery Jay Lowder. Anyone interested should read that post. We made a bit of a truce for a time then it started bursting out in the last few months. It came to a head with something he posted on his popular blog. [Click on the above image]. He wrote a post titled "Loftus Says I'm not Making an Impact." After a day he deleted it when I called him out on it. Then he apologized. Them's the facts. Lowder says it was an honest mistake. I don't believe that for a minute. I'm sure his fan boys do. Cognitive bias theory predicts they would too. So let me explain.

Read more »

Day Eight of the Twelve Days of Solstice

We're celebrating the 12 days of Solstice rather than the 12 days of Christmas. I'm done writing and editing books, so I'm highlighting each of my twelve books leading up to the 25th of the month when we party. I'll tell something about each of them you probably don't know. [See the Tags Below]

Today let's consider my 2016 book, Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. Just like my earlier books, The Outsider Test for Faith, and How To Defend the Christian Faith, this book was also forged in the heat of debate here at DC. I don't expect Christian philosophers to agree with it, not until after they abandon their faith. Secular philosophers have also disagreed with it. But as you can see from the Reviews on Amazon, some agree. Actually, I think most secularists would agree if they heard of my proposal, especially if they are scientists and/or scientifically minded philosophers.

Read more »

Two Confusions of My Book "Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End"

“I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” -- Richard Nixon

It's sad that too many people misunderstand my book "Unapologetic." Let me address two of the biggest confusions.

ONE) Some people might conclude I have nothing but distain for the discipline I majored in, the philosophy of religion, even though I have contributed several books based in that discipline.

I do nothing more than what the late biblical scholar Dr. Hector Avalos did in his book calling for The End of Biblical Studies. He called for the end of them AS THEY WERE BEING PRACTICED! The reason I say this is because Avalos and I both know that how our respective disciplines are being practiced won't change anytime soon. So we seek to undermine them, to expose them as the sham they really are, by doing our part to end them.

Avalos wrote:

From my perspective, there are really only 3 alternatives for what is now called biblical studies.

1. Eliminate biblical studies completely from the modern world.
2. Retain biblical studies as is, but admit that it is a religionist enterprise.
3. Retain biblical studies, but redefine its purpose so that it is tasked with eliminating completely the influence of the Bible in the modern world.

Dr. Avalos argued it's unreasonable to think biblical scholars could achieve alternative #1. Like the automobile it's here to stay, so long as there are Christians. Likewise, when it comes to the philosophy of religion. So long as there are Christian philosophers in defense Christian theism, they aren't going away either. Option #2 is already being done in seminaries. They actually consider biblical studies to be an extension of Anselm's dictum, "faith seeking understanding." When it comes to the philosophy of religion, merely acknowledging that it's a religionist faith-based enterprise made subservient to apologists is not good enough. For then we'd be found to enable foolish, delusional thinking, with the dubious goal of having a discussion for discussion's sake when we need to change minds.

Dr. Avalos preferred the option #3.

I prefer the third option. The sole purpose of biblical studies would be to help people move toward a postscriptural society...What I seek is liberation from the very idea that any sacred text should be an authority for modem human existence. Abolishing human reliance on sacred texts is imperative when those sacred texts imperil the existence of human civilization as it is currently configured. The letter can kill. That is why the only mission of biblical studies should be to end biblical studies as we know it. LINK to Excerpt.

When it comes to debunking Christianity I seek to use all the tools available, all of them, including the philosophy of religion. Just take a look at two books I had published AFTER I wrote the book Unapologetic: The Case against Miracles along with God and Horrendous Suffering. They have sections in them that fall squarely in the philosophy of religion area. My goal in them, my focus, is to change minds. I seek to help reason people out of their faith, even though I know it's extremely hard to reason people out of that which they were never reasoned into, who have a tribal motivation to stay within the confines of their cultural indoctrination. I also know such a goal gets tougher and tougher the more educated people become in their delusion.

My focus is on the irrationality of faith itself, and the lack of any relevant objective evidence for any of the miracles in the Bible. My focus is on five powerful reasons not to believe.

The best online excerpt explaining the goal of my book is probably the one Hemant Mehta posted just after its release, right here.

I argue toward what anthropology professor Dr. David Eller advocates in his next book to be published, Liberatheism. It's the third book in a trilogy that includes Natural Atheism (2004) and Atheism Advanced (2007) [See my review of this book!] Eller explains this third book in his Preface:

Natural Atheism was an explanation, examination, and defense of atheism on the premise that humans are born without any religious ideas or beliefs and hence “natural” atheists. Atheism Advanced Further Thoughts of a Freethinker, as the name suggests, pushed atheism in new directions, especially beyond argument about the Christian god, for instance, emphasizing that there are many other theisms and many other gods than Christianity and its god, and noting how arguing about god(s) in a Christian context still has us “speaking Christian.” This current book pushes further still, envisioning a future when we no longer fight about god(s) because we are free of god(s)....

The first step in this process, in theism-dominated societies, is atheism—saying no to god(s). The eighth chapter describes the profound damage that religion has done to philosophy, the oldest form of rational inquiry. It condemns the academic field of philosophy of religion as little more than an adjunct to Christian theology and apologetics. An ultimate betrayal of the commission to analyze and critique our pet ideas and concepts, as well as a colossal waste of brainpower and resources, philosophy of religion is encouraged to liberate itself from its role as a defender of Christianity to become a genuine philosophical approach to the question of religion. The tenth chapter provides some practical advice on how to change people’s minds from theism to atheism, taking advantage of the best knowledge and practices in psychology, education, marketing, and behavioral economics. The chapter invites us to think in terms of “attitude change” and away from conventional confrontational tactics like argument and debate.

The next step is liberatheism—getting free of god(s). The final step is not talking about god(s) at all. The goal is to accelerate toward the day when we no longer argue about god(s) but live free from god(s), when god(s) are simply not worth talking about anymore.

TWO) Some people might conclude I advocate ridicule to the exclusion of reasoned arguments, and that this would be counter-productive toward my goals of reaching believing Christians. I have documented the effectiveness of ridicule in several blog posts. But the evidence of my writing on this blog and in my books should dispel this confusion easily, since in them I exclusively reason with believers. I advocate telling our debate opponents the truth even though it may offend them, but only if it's based on good sound arguments, something philosopher Dr. Stephen Law has argued in an essay I agree with completely. He offers five morals that should guide debates between atheists and believers. I don't advocate ridiculing people to their faces, and I almost never do so. But as a general rule ridicule is good and effective. Comedians do it all the time. It can even be considered venting, and in that case why should we not do it in public? If people don't want to come to the show they don't have to do so.

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

John W. Loftus is a philosopher and counter-apologist credited with 12 critically acclaimed books, including The Case against Miracles, God and Horrendous Suffering, and Varieties of Jesus Mythicism. Please support DC by sharing our posts, or by subscribing, donating, or buying our books at Amazon. Thank you so much!

Dr. W. L. Craig Caught Telling More Untruths: A Case Study in Theistic Apologetics

Character Assassination by Theistic Apologists in the YouTube Era.

Theists repeatedly characterize atheists as having little or no regard for the truth. But over on YouTube a blogger using the moniker, “Drcraigvideos,” has posted a gem of a study in the theistic ethics of truth-telling---see
Craig Attack video

It is hard to count the number of untruths in this video, but the story gets even stranger when I confronted the website about these untruths. Since the website would not post my comments there, I decided to bring their unscrupulous tactics to light here. It is a study in how self-described professional evangelical apologists, such as Dr. Craig, use character assassination with little regard for basic fact-checking or fairness.

Read more »

Peter Boghossian's Famous Tweet Merits a Place Along With Other Important Satires

Taylor Carr just won't let up. Now he's trying to show the inconsistency of using the philosophy of religion in order to argue that it's an illegitimate discipline:

I'll just put this out there... is it not itself a philosophy of religion to claim that because religious language has no actual referents, therefore philosophy of religion is illegitimate?

Read more »

Julian Baggini Concerning Philosophy of Religion "What the Hell Are You Doing?"

Julian Baggini's 2005 review of Michael Martin's anthology, The Impossibility of God, was needed and brilliant! It should be required reading for discussion by everyone interested in philosophy of religion. LINK. It might be subtitled, "What the hell are you doing?"

Baggini, as an atheist philosopher, starts off saying he "found the book faintly dispiriting, futile even. Rather than finding myself standing on the metaphorical touchline cheering my team as it chalked up point after point, it seemed to me that everyone on the pitch was engaged in a useless game that no-one was ever going to win. This was a bravura performance, but who was it for?" His main point is: "I just don't believe that detailed and sophisticated arguments make any significant difference to the beliefs of the religious or atheists."

The book is useless for the unintellectual, he says, who won't read it much less understand it. "The fight against unthinking religion must be fought in terms unthinking believers can relate to. Discovering Angelina Jolie is an atheist is much more likely to make the unintellectual doubt their belief than the arguments of Patrick Grim" (an author in the book). A current example is The Big Bang Theory sit-com. It's doing a fantastic job of influencing the young away from faith via example and ridicule. As many of us have argued, ridicule does indeed have an impact upon the masses. Baggini surprisingly also says Martin's book is useless for the intellectual, both the believer and the atheist, for "when we get to this level of detail and sophistication, the war has become phoney. Converts are won at the more general level." [My emphasis].

Read more »