More Stupidity from Hoffmann

R. Joseph Hoffmann, the world's most boring atheist, is at it again with a new post telling us why the New Atheists are just so stupid and everyone should really be listening to R. Joseph Hoffmann and the even-more-boring Jacques Berlinerblau.

The reason why we laugh at Hoffmann is not because he has anything challenging or thought-provoking to say, but because he is so shamelessly contentless in such a sneering and supercilious manner. He claims the New Atheists do nothing but "shouting at people", but gives no examples, all the while getting in a few shouts himself. (Atheists need to "learn table manners"; they don't have "savvy"; they are "historically [incompetent]".)

Of course the Gnus (and I mean Dawkins, Harris, Rosenhouse, Hitchens, etc.) don't shout, but write intelligently and calmly almost all of the time. And they're fun to read, unlike Hoffmann, who is best read late at night when having trouble sleeping.

He claims that "Americn [sic] secularism hasn’t had the savvy to know how to preach its gospel in a way that (really) ups the numbers". Yet all the polls show just the opposite: atheists' numbers are rising faster than almost every religion. (Facts are not Hoffmann's strong suit. Don't bother correcting him, because he likes to remove comments that are uncomplimentary.)

Hoffmann wonders why there is "profound stress and anxiety about religion in these movements". He could, you know, actually ask someone involved in the "movements" to tell him why. No, it's much for fun for a pundit-wannabee to throw out a bunch of made-up explanations as if they were facts.

I'd be happy to tell Hoffmann why there is "profound stress and anxiety about religion", but first he has to remove the fingers he has inserted so deep into his ear canals.

The Most Boring Atheist

I used to read Free Inquiry, but I was never really crazy about it. Sometimes it published dreck, like an article by philosopher Mario Bunge (Spring 1997) that made the following laughably unsupported claims:
-"there is no algorithm to design algorithms"
- "Only a living brain ... can invent radically new ideas"
- "the Internet will never displace refereed academic journals and books".
(The last one seems preposterous today, but was ridiculous even 14 years ago.) Furthermore, it refused to publish a letter taking issue with those claims.

But the main problem with Free Inquiry was that it was boring.

So I gave up reading it, but I always wondered why it was so bad. After all, its sister publication, Skeptical Inquirer, was often entertaining and lively. But I think I've finally figured it out: R. Joseph Hoffmann was Associate Editor of Free Inquiry from 2003 to 2009.

Yes, the same R. Joseph Hoffmann who loves to write mindless pieces like these two. Hoffmann has got to be one of the most unimaginative, boring writers I have ever encountered.

Hoffman has devoted his life to the study of religion, so it's no surprise that he reacts badly when people point out that gods offer no worthwhile answer to any interesting question. I imagine somebody who devoted their life to studying horse-drawn carriages must have felt the same way when the automobile came along: "Horse-drawn carriages are a big idea. Automobiles are unappealing, and so are their advocates. Only 1% of the population drive cars, so the death of automobiles is just a matter of time."

Another motivation seems to be envy. All those atheists he despises (Harris, Dawkins, Coyne, Myers, Rosenhouse) are popular; they're the ones getting the media attention and invitations to speak. No surprise; they're good and entertaining writers, and they have something novel to say. And, irony of ironies, Myers has now been added to Free Inquiry as a columnist. Poor Hoffmann: it must be the final indignity. (Hey, maybe it's time to subscribe to Free Inquiry again.)

But don't bother pointing out any of this on Hoffmann's blog. He's not a big fan of publishing critical comments.