Bloggasm

Jessa Crispin, one of Bookslut’s bloggers, has been cherry-picking criticisms of the outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins to echo the tired notion that he is some kind of bully. First, she linked to this article by Catholic Peter Steinfels (who in his article doesn’t think it’s important to mention that he’s religious, a conflict of interest, no?) who mentions the already-debunked New York Review of Books criticism that puts forth the silly idea that Dawkins doesn’t know enough about theology to disprove God. This despite the fact that most of The God Delusion doesn’t bother itself with silly specific theological nitpicking, because doing so would be futile. Instead, most the book is spent with the overall God hypothesis and engaging it from a logical standpoint, thereby bypassing the argumentative blackholes of engaging the religious from their own unproven religious texts, which leads nowhere.

Then today, she links to a Guardian piece in which Dawkins supposedly disses another author for believing in God. She ends her post with a shallow “I’m going to start believing in god, just because I don’t want to be associated with this blowhard.”

Has she not read The God Delusion? Specifically the preface where he addresses the “bully” argument. Despite Jessa’s claim to not believe in God, she still subscribes to the notion Dawkins describes in his book that we must put religious beliefs in a shield of criticism not given to other kinds of beliefs. Dawkins is not especially mean to religion, he just treats it the same as any other belief system, whether it’s a belief in bigfoot, unicorns, or creationism. Had Peter Kay said he believed in Santa Clause because it “gives him comfort,” would Crispin be so defensive? How much more evidence for God exists than for Santa Clause? None.

That very “blowhard” stands up for atheist rights, and does so unapologetically. It’s religious apologists like Crispin who hurt the image of atheism more than anybody else.

UPDATE: Well well, what a surprise. It turns out that whole quote was taken wildly out of context.

I knew something was fishy because the article never told us why and where Dawkins was saying what he said:

The believer-baiting academic responded with contempt. “How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it ‘comforting’?” he said.

Responded where? To whom?

Well, it turns out that someone called him up in order to bait him to saying something controversial without telling him who he was responding to:

I am distressed to find myself reported as participating in a “literary spat”, and as “pouring scorn” on an individual, comedian Peter Kay, for whom I actually feel nothing but goodwill (Heard the one about the atheist who scorned a comedian for his belief in a comforting God? March 8). The explanation is as follows. I am one of those whom reporters regularly telephone for a soundbite. Last week, I was fed a quotation from somebody, previously unknown to me, who said he believed in God because he found it comforting. Assuming I was one of a panel of usual suspects being asked to comment on this rather common sentiment, I gave my usual response.

Now it seems that I was being set up by a hired publicity machine, so that I would appear to be mounting a personal attack upon a particular individual who is my rival for a literary prize. And I also learn that the quotation they selected is an unrepresentative one from a book I haven’t read (I look forward to doing so), which is competing with my own for the same prize. I hope you will allow me publicly to apologise to Peter Kay and wish him well in the competition.

In my original post above, I said “Then today, she links to a Guardian piece in which Dawkins supposedly disses another author for believing in God.”

I used the word “supposedly” for a reason. Without even knowing the context, I could tell that the quote was out of context because of how it floated with no explanation.

Wow, I’m going to stop reading books and being a slut just so I’m not associated with this blowhard.

***

Edward Champion has more on Crispin’s “typical insouciant ignorance.”

***

Related posts: Oprah’s secret, Wired writer pays her way onto the front page of Digg