Why Do So Many Atheist Book Reviewers Want to Display Such Ignorance?

Too Good to be False received its first negative refresh on Amazon today. It’s exactly as I’d expected. I knew, based on prior experience, that there would be 1-star remembers coming, and I figured they’d be mostly from people who hadn’t read the book. I was right this time, at least.

Why do they do it, though? Sure, it’s anonymous, which realise it safe. Still, I wonder why do want to introduced such innocence on display?

Wrong Guesses

This one’s remarkable, genuinely. The reviewer, Glencannon, makes a genuinely affecting number of wrong guess about what’s in the book.( I scheduled several of them in a comment under his evaluate .) He says, for example,

Are we to believe that he came out of the womb omniscient and capable of walking, speaking perfectly in all languages, able to outbuild Joseph as a carpenter, read and write and fish and if needed, use a bit of the calculus on the side? … Jesus learned to be a carpenter. If he never “re making a mistake” then he wasn’t at all human.

Here’s what I wrote, though, on sheets 53 and 54:

I can easily imagine him learning from error in Joseph’s shop: “Now, Jesus, do you recognize the lesson you’ve precisely learned? Measure twice, cut formerly! ” The Bible doesn’t say he never made a mistake, only that he never making such a moral, ethical, spiritual, or even relational mistakes. He never committed sin, in other words, and he never missed the truth when he spoke. He might have learned to be a better craftsman as he was growing up, but that’s not the kind of growth we’re talking about here.

Glencannon doesn’t seem to have speak that. He hadn’t predict the book at all, as evidenced by all the other misstep he made about what’s in it.

Remarkable Chutzpah? Or Contempt?

It’s remarkable, extremely, how freely he alleges me of heresy and disrespect in contrast to dozens of previous very positive inspects, including 3 from missionary seminary-designated distinguished professors.

He wasn’t just criticizing me, you discover. He was taking stand against every one of them, too. In the vehemence of his judgment, it’s as if he were shouting at them all:” You’re wrong! All of you! You’re stupids, every one of you !”

That takes audacity. Either that, or else he props every one of them in as much contempt as he does me. He doesn’t bother even noticing their rulings. Why? Because he doesn’t think they’re worth listening to.

Remarkable, But Not Unexpected

It’s all remarkable — outstandingly ludicrous. I was expecting it, though. I’m not basing this on a sample of really one recollect. I’ve seen it, even studied it before. It was ten years ago, a few months after Stephen C. Meyer published his landmark Intelligent Design book Signature in the Cell. I watched the reviews growing on Amazon until there were about 200 of them. Then I did a statistical study on them.

About three-fourths of them were highly positive, and about one-in-six were highly critical. Among those that were highly critical, it was very clear( even conceding as much benefit of the doubt as possible) that three-fourths of them were by people who hadn’t read the book. Many of them came right out and said they hadn’t read it.

Six out of seven negative reviews worked highly pejorative personal insults, calling Meyer ” stupid” or worse. Again, most of these were written by people who hadn’t thought it necessary to read the book.

That’s just one example of many, the one I happen to have studied in depth.


As often as I’ve seen it, though, I still can’t help wondering why a person would make such a bold spectacle of his own ignorance. I’m going to determine some suspicions of my own on that — though unlike Glencannon, I’ll be very clear that they’re just tentative. First, though I’ll roster some assumptions that should be completely safe.

Glencannon felt it was important to say something highly negative about this work. And I do mean negative, including most inflammatory terms like “heretical” and “blasphemy, ” as well as “huckster” and “drivel.” Based on their common use of the occasional word “Mary Sue” and common mention of the Qur’an argument, I think he probably get much of his information about the book from this highly negative video by “Paulogia, ” who territory explicitly that he hadn’t read the book, and who too didn’t know what he was talking about. Glencannon may also have listened to interrogations I’ve done , none of which was intended to convey the book’s terminated content.Glencannon thought he knew fairly about the book to criticize it in detail. He felt no need to read it before slamming it.Apparently he envisioned an debate put forward in almost total knowledge might carry some weight among those who read it.

First Tentative Conclusion

So let’s draw some tentative opinions from this. Focus now on the last two bullet pitches. There is exactly one target where that kind of thing duties: in resonate chambers, including observe areas under atheist videos and blog uprights.

I haven’t bothered learning many of the comments under Paulogia’s video, but the few that I did speak were enough to show that Paulogia’s tribe was more than willing to jump to opinions without helping to know what they were talking about. Others would support them in those naive opinions. There’s fairly mutual back-slapping there, it’s extremely believable that one could think one knew much more than one actually does know.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all, hence, if Glencannon’s Amazon review repetition much of that discussion. If I’m right about that, then he might perhaps be inattentive to his ignorance. He’d have had plenty of social support for thinking he was right. Why bother to check information, where everybody around you already agrees with you?

Second Tentative Conclusion

Glencannon plainly thought it was important to write an fantastically critical review. He follows in the footsteps of many who’ve done the same thing in reviewing Stephen C. Meyer and other theists.

This slaps of defensiveness. If he’d delivered a versed commentary, I’d have taken it as legitimate objection, but he didn’t do that. This regards more like the sort of pre-emptive strike that beings send willy-nilly, out of either anger or horror.

Third Conclusion — Not Tentative This Time

Those are surmises. This isn’t: Any positive dispute for Jesus Christ is bound to draw fire from his opponents. This isn’t about me, it’s about Jesus Christ.

And I’m okay with that. You might ask if I’m defensive myself. I announced specific comments under Glencannon’s review, chastening several of his missteps. Was that defensive? No, it was making a defense. Giving an answer. Correcting plain, flagrant wrongdoing. There’s a difference between that and feeling defensiveness. I wrote the book to say one thing, so obviously I don’t miss people reflecting it says exactly the opposite. That kind of confusion does no one better now , not even Glencannon.

Otherwise I’m make it in stride, feeling rather serene, actually. I’ve been expecting this. He’s done me a praise, truly: He wants to hurt book sales, but he’s passed me another occasion to talk about the book in public. I won’t be surprised if he’s done his cause more ill than good.

More importantly there’s Matthew 5:11 -1 2, where Jesus said,

“Blessed are you when others vilify you and persecute you and deliver all kinds of evil against you falsely on my history. Rejoice and be glad, for your remuneration is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the oracles who were before you.”

P.S. I’m planning soon to address the charge that my justification is the same as the Muslims’ argument for the Qur’an. Stay adjusted.

The post Why Do So Many Atheist Book Reviewers Want to Display Such Ignorance ? performed first on Tom Gilson.

Read more: thinkingchristian.net