Whenever I see Joe Hoffmann’s latest burst of hatred at Da Noo Atheists, I decide to ignore it because he obviously loves the attention. (He’s like Michael Ruse that way. Exactly like Michael Ruse. Ruse writes a stupid generalized sneer about noo atheism, gets flack for the stupidity and generality, writes an aggrieved response to the flack. Repeat. Repeat repeat repeat. This is what Hoffmann has taken to doing.) Then other people don’t ignore it, so once the pleasure of seeing the post ignored is no longer available, I shrug and don’t ignore it too.
So the latest one, the New Year edition, is pathetically titled “Re-Made in America: Remembering the New Atheism (2006-2011).” As if he could make it be dead just by entering a terminal date. Nice try, Joe, but it’s not dead yet.
And then – it’s the usual kind of thing. Elegantly written and witty in its way, but vitiated by spite and generality. Lots of magisterial summing up with no actual examples of the badness he so freely attributes to people he dislikes. There’s not really much more to say about it. It’s so arbitrary that it undermines itself; it’s embarrassingly obvious that attention is the only purpose.
The funny (as opposed to witty) part is the predictable rambling self-referential slush of his acolyte “steph.”
You’re so funny Veronica. Yay, congratulations you beat me! Isn’t it ‘wonderful’… I know how that makes you screech and run and tell every other ant all about it. “Everybody knows”: it’s a song. Do you know it?
Mr MacDonald grants Dawkins favours freely too? More fool old Mack, eh?
I wonder what your definition of angry is. This post is witty, yes, and incisive. Accurate as always. The style is no different from previous essays on other websites. Erudite and eternally critical, which is the nature of good academic scholarship. He’s always consistently interesting don’t you think? No? It’s fascinating that when the subjects of a critique are atheists, the subjects angrily growl that it’s ‘angry’ critique. Generally critiques of atheism are described by atheists as either ‘angry’, written by a ‘faitheist’ or even as ‘passively aggressive’ or ‘accommodationist’. How can anyone be ‘angry’ with something that’s destroying itself Veronica? How can anyone be angry with something so small? It’s blindingly obvious the ‘atheism’ in this essay is on the road to oblivion and I can’t imagine how your imagination stretches to Joe being angry unless it’s evidence of your own psychological projection. If only David and Goliath were true … but atheists just ain’t go the right pebbles.
Do admit. Notice especially the vulgar “old Mack” – from someone who sets herself up as a critic of gnu rudeness.
Sad. Hoffmann really isn’t vulgar in that way. It’s sad that he’s reduced to friends like that.
Maybe I’m thinking of someone else, but hasn’t “R.” been declaring the Death of New Atheism since before 2011?
Here’s what R. Joey wrote about our hostess:
I love the egotism revealed by that. B&W used to be interesting when “R.” wrote for it.
That’s consistent with his continuous jealous whining that these infernal New Atheists are selling so many books and not paying tribute to the Old Atheists like him who were toiling away so hard (accomplishing nothing other than patting each other on the back).
I will not revisit that stupid “new oxonian” home of pseudo-erudite stupidity reminiscent of Buckley at his worst. There are plenty of real intellectuals out there to pay attention to.
Why “new oxonian” anyway? Hoffman’s connection to Oxford is way out of date – kind of like if I called my site “the new montrealer”….when I haven’t lived there for over thirty years.
You are right, he is like Ruse – in that I’m convinced they are both angling for Templeton money. But I think even the Templetons can see through such a phony.
I think they are more than “friends”, actually. And I’m beginning to believe there’s an element of mutually-reinforcing mental illness here. I am beginning to feel sympathy in addition to frustration.
Maybe, just maybe, if we declare the New Atheism dead, people will finally, finally give poor “R.” the recognition he believes he so richly deserves for all of his digging in the trenches:
Poor Hipster Atheists. They were atheists before it went mainstream and sold out.
R liked atheism’s first album, but all the rest were derivative crap.
James – I really really doubt that. I’ve seen “steph” imply it on Facebook (and I’m guessing that’s why you think so)…but I really doubt it.
sailor1031 says:
“Why “new oxonian” anyway?”
Was Hoffmann born in the US or England? I did a Google search but couldn’t find info on his place of birth. If he is American, then I suggest he wishes he were British.
Quick screen for seriousness in these matters: Does the writer quote Terry Eagleton’s review of TGD approvingly? Check. Not serious.
US. I think he did graduate work at Oxford.
Yes; admiring that review is really…well I mean to say.
Is it just too, too petty to note that people who style themselves “First Initial, period, Ronald Collins” are already on the Train to Pompous Town?
Haven’t stepped over there to check since I first was directed to R’s screed, but I think Hoffman eschews comments which disagree. I’m prepared to be wrong about this. Someone with more guts than me will have to look.
Could I just ask, what the HELL is his problem?
Marta
Hoffmann does post comments from people who disagree with him, but for his latest post, he is letting Steph post replies to those who criticize Hoffmann or his post. In one reply, Steph included the whole of Kate Greenaway’s original “A is for Apple Pie.”
Screeechy monkey: +1 internetz for “Poor Hipster Atheists. They were atheists before it went mainstream and sold out.” Also I need a new keyboard kthx.
Steph just pulls out a cork and babbles. She lurches between free association and venomous rage; very odd combination. She surprised even Nathan Bupp recently, and he is no slouch in the gnu-hating department himself.
One of her more unattractive qualities is loathing of Americans – all Americans, Americans as such. We’re her King Charles’s head. A mention of apple pie set her off on Joe’s post (one of them – he has two, with different sets of comments, confusingly).
Oh yes, the Kate Greenaway one that Veronica mentioned.
And then in goes the whole thing.
Wheeeeee!
Poor Joe. He must cringe and cringe and cringe again.
Josh@12:
That’s been my experience, too. Or if not pompous, disagreeable in some other way: G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, J. Edgar Hoover.
Though I have to make an exception for Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski.
You can turn a phrase, Opehlia. That second clause made me laugh so hard I scared the cat off the sofa. I heart you.
Lily Tomlin did one of my favorite comedic scenes as Ernestine the telephone operator who called J. Edgar Hoover:
“Is this Mr. Hoover? Mr. Jedgar Hoover?”
I still regard her as a fair-broker who needs to rise above the temptation to turn the whole kit and kaboodle over to the grousers who loiter around her kitchen table. I mean campfire.
Hey! How come no one passed me my share of the s’mores?
Ophelia – I have reason to believe they are in fact, err, cohabiting. The mind reels.
Nobody is paying attention to poor R. Joey. And that’s mean. If it weren’t for people like him, then gnu atheists wouldn’t have anyone to rage at us (except goddists, of course).
Ohmygod, James. Ewwwwwwwww.
And here I am to ungraciously throw cold water on the camaraderie:
James, do tell how your gossipy sniping comports with your defend-Chris-Stedman-at-all-costs Pavlovian reaction. Don’t misunderstand. . . I like the snarky gossip and I think R. Pompous has it coming in spades. But I’m genuinely curious how you justify to yourself being so bitchy (yeah) about him and yet shitting all over people who object to the passive-aggressive, uncalled-for libels your BFF Chris showers down on us nearly weekly.
Hoffman is an asshole, no doubt. Not just because he’s malicious, but because he’s misguidedly malicious. He takes aim at people for offenses he makes up in his head. He’s most uncharitable.
So I’m inclined to want to see him brought low. But I’m suspicious of you.
“Is it just too, too petty to note that people who style themselves “First Initial, period, Ronald Collins” are already on the Train to Pompous Town?”
Unless you’re a stage or music director, at least here in America, then it’s de rigueur, as are beards and capes, and saying things like de rigueur.
This general tactic has become so rife of late. When all else fails, attempt to declare your enemies passé.
Allow me:
(Clears throat…)
Euw, dahling, nobody who’s anybody calls religion directly bullshit anymore. It’s simply not done at the finer dinner parties! Fashionable people know that the stylish atheist is an invisible atheist, who says little of anything terribly directly, if they can possibly avoid it. Come. Leave those dreadfully jejune plebians before you get something on you, and join us at the high table, where we’re all very fashionably vague on all the correct questions. Your dance card will thank you, dahling!
(In related: love the title. GlaDOS is my copilot.)
Here is the key to dealing with Hoffmann:
Don’t Feed The Trolls.
Even if others are.
Josh, I’ll go a step further than you. I don’t like the snarky gossip, and don’t see why this rumored personal relationship is relevant. I mean, if Hoffman was reviewing a book by Ruse, or constantly leaping to Ruse’s defense without divulging his bias, ok, fair game. But as near as I can tell, neither of those guys needs any additional reason to bash Gnus.
David Gerard – not feeding was plan A. But then when others fed, plan B came into effect. It’s all very well to say “even when others are” but once others are, the point of plan A is gone, because RJH already has the reward he’s after.
screechy – very droll.
Why did I click that link to read that nutty, worthless blog? Remember that Hoffmann wants nothing more than to be relevant. That ship has sailed.
I’m prepared to cut people slack on the “R. Name Lastname” style; a college friend of mine used “R. Name Lastname Jr.” because his father was “Roland N. Lastname” and it saved my friend explaining that he was called “Middlename” rather than “Roland,” because casually it was just “This is my friend Middlename” or “Hi, I’m Middlename.”
Melody – probably a little like watching a street brawl. That’s true in my case anyway.
This article by Richard Carrier provides some further insight into Hoffmann’s character.
Oh yes…I remember that post (but had forgotten it in the meantime). Yikes.
It is quite odd that RJH rants about scientists passing judgement on religion, but was himself the chair of the CFI’s Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. He now acts as though science is inappropriate for the task. Has something happened to cause him to forget his own past?
More like other way around. It’s the fact that CFI no longer funds CSER that is behind a lot (or perhaps all) of this nonsense. RJH wasn’t just the chair, he was the onlie begetter.
This bugged me, where he tries to criticize Jerry Coyne’s quote:
His newsflash doesn’t work. If it had been God who copied those books, maybe it would. That’s the only equivalent to leprechauns in the analogy. The monks and rabbis are more like the “old wives” and pub-goers who tell the tales about leprechauns. A minor point perhaps, because who hasn’t made a bad analogy at some point? But it still bugged me.
Beyond that, what is really the point of pointing out that monks and rabbis, or other religious folk, had an influence, however strong, on the development of science and the scientific method? That doesn’t mean that belief in God is compatible with science! If there were good evidence to support the belief, then it would be compatible. I’m not sure what fallacy he’s making here, but there ought to be some kind of name to go with that silliness.
Not to mention the fact that without intrusive monotheism perhaps there would have been no need for monks and rabbis to copy manuscripts because secular scholars and researchers would have been doing it (and adding useful new ones) instead.
Do you think RJH blames Dawkins and Harris for the defunding of CSER?
Possibly, but a more baroque (yet highly plausible) explanation has occurred to me. He of course blames the management of CFI much more than he blames Dawkins and Harris (and PZ and Greta and poor little me)…but he can’t very well throw shit at them in public without risking a public washing of dirty laundry.
Do you get the impression that RJH is playing games with the comments on his blog? I have seen comments disappear. but after the poster complains on another blog the comments suddenly reappear. This makes the person complaining look slightly foolish. I have also seen him let some comments through to let his attack dogs Steph, Stevie or Dan reply, but then disappear the replies to Steph or Stevie. Also making it look like the person has no answer. It does seem perverse.
Oh it’s more than an impression. He plays lots of games of that kind.