色盒直播

Torrents of bile: publish and be damned

Matthew Reisz is startled by the abusive responses to one of his articles

Published on
November 26, 2015
Last updated
November 27, 2015
Source: iStock
Pointing the finger: it is a strange experience being singled out for ferocious criticism

Who can ever tell what lurks in the depths of the internet?

Five years ago, I wrote an article arguing that the idea of a 鈥渨ar鈥 between science and religion is not a very helpful one, given that 鈥渁ll-out wars between neighbours tend to be pretty unpleasant, and the reality is that atheistic scientists have to share space in universities with scientifically literate religious believers and religiously committed scientists鈥. Although I was critical of some militantly聽atheistic scientists 鈥 such as one who regards religion as 鈥渋ntellectual terrorism鈥 and 鈥渕ental weakness鈥 鈥 the general tone could hardly have been less inflammatory.

I have obviously written scores of articles since then and have hardly given that one much thought. But the other day, when I was searching for something else, I happened to come across where I was subjected to some pretty startling abuse.

I was accused of 鈥減romoting a science-faith lovefest鈥, being 鈥減retty much biased against atheists鈥, and producing 鈥渢otally juvenile鈥, 鈥渕assively tedious鈥ilge鈥, fit only for being 鈥減ut in the recycling bin or better still in the cat litter tray鈥. I was called 鈥渁n asshole鈥 and a 鈥渟o-called journalist鈥 who managed not only to 鈥渕iss the target when he shot his arrow鈥 but to send it in 鈥渢he wrong direction鈥, where it 鈥渃ame around and shot him square in the ass鈥.

色盒直播

ADVERTISEMENT

One contributor to the thread wondered whether I was 鈥渞eally so blind or stupid鈥 or just 鈥渁 manipulative prick鈥. Another (don鈥檛 tell my boss) was 鈥渟hocked at such an appalling article being in the Times Higher Ed鈥. A third 鈥 best of all 鈥 suggested I was 鈥渓ying for Jesus鈥.

None of this was very pleasant to read, although it is pretty trivial compared with the kind of garbage women and minority groups have to put up with all the time. But what is really weird is just how distant it seems from what I actually wrote. Amid what strike me as a few valid criticisms and a few more I am happy to reflect on, torrents of bile were directed at me for minor irrelevancies, things I hadn鈥檛 said (and don鈥檛 believe) or comments I had quoted from others. Far from being 鈥渂iased against atheists鈥, I am 鈥 for what it鈥檚 worth 鈥 a pretty convinced atheist myself. And although I am sceptical about whether science and religion are engaged in a battle to the death, that hardly means I want to 鈥減romote a lovefest鈥.

色盒直播

ADVERTISEMENT

Nonetheless, I can鈥檛 help taking pride in one rare ability I seem to possess: to manage to be both an arsehole and to shoot myself in the arse. I can only put it down to all the circus-skills training I had as a child.

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (3)

It is, I am finding, increasingly difficult to adopt an irenic stance in the false science/faith binary. Obviously, it's not a valid distinction: "scientist" does not equal "atheist"/ faithist does not include scepticism with respect to any branch of science as an article of faith. Theology and the sciences are different domains. I'm a Catholic - best to come out as one, I guess. Since the Dawkins effect, I have been asked several times whether I believe in evolution. Believe? What is the right answer to that? Yes, I took a leap into the inchoate void and accepted evolution as it perfused my soul? Do I believe in LaPlace's Equation? Have I ever suffered doubts about Newton's second law of motion? Again, though, do I believe in the big bang theory? I 'believe in' evolution in the same way as I believe the Kreb's cycle and tend towards the big bang cosmological genesis, but with justifiable, scientific scepticism. Yet underlying the question is an assumption: I'm 'religious', and therefore delusional, dim and a hidebound Biblical literalist, and probably homophobic to boot: the stereotypical straw man against whom bias is often projected. As Origen wrote in the 2nd century CE, 'For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.' So, you at the back, please catch up on these long-emerging trends in theology, both parties.
Hi. I take your point about name-calling, and have put up a post asking my readers not to hurl invective or engage in name-calling towards people like you who are trying to be civil. I apologize for that unwarranted invective. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/a-plea-for-civility/
"But what is really weird is just how distant it seems from what I actually wrote. Amid what strike me as a few valid criticisms and a few more I am happy to reflect on, torrents of bile were directed at me for minor irrelevancies, things I hadn鈥檛 said (and don鈥檛 believe) or comments I had quoted from others." Edward Feser had the same experience but this time it was with Jerry Coyne himself, not his minions. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ie/2015/10/walter-mitty-atheism.html

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT