• My first commenter banned – and he is an ordained priest!

    It’s finally happened. I have extolled the virtue of giving people ample chance and opportunity to be well-behaved. In this case, the chances and opportunities were not taken up. But this story goes much further back, to about a year ago, and to what I declare as a form of libel.

    So one day I came across a review on the US listing of Free Will?, my first book. I cannot post the review, which was a diatribe of assertion, and which showed he had not read the book at all. Why? Because he deleted it, and all of my comments with it. His rant about naturalism and atheism, and nothing to do with the content of the book. I complained to Amazon that someone had posted a damaging review of my book without empirically having read it. they proceeded to do nothing, partly because he appeared to have actually bought the book (the verified by Amazon scheme is, it seems, a push to verify that reviewers have at least bought the product, from Amazon at least, as a partial guide as to whether they have experienced the product and have the right to review it). The problem was that this man had apparently bought the book, so it was difficult to claim he hadn’t read, in light of his terrible review for the product.

    The new posted review only made obscure reference to the first part of the book, and in the thread he admitted to just moving on to the next part. So here was further evidence, after two posted reviews, that he had not yet read the book! But what annoyed me was his style. He is a Father, an ordained Catholic priest from Boys Town, who throws around accusations willy-nilly, claims all atheists are liars and so on. He doesn’t substantiate a single claim he makes, and makes assertions that my books and claims are not based on science at all. Firstly, this is not true, and secondly, not a single claim of his is substantiated scientifically, and certainly not philosophically.

    What made matters worse is that he subsequently posted negative reviews of two of my other books, without having read them, in both the US AND the UK (eg here, here and here – actually, this UK one might be the same as the original US one). This was a personal vendetta. Luckily, anyone who reads the threads (on one of my books, the thread has reached over 300 posts, until I set him to ignore) will realise that he is full of malicious shit. But these reviews are important. Negative reviews, when you don;t have THAT many reviews on books can really sway the star ratings, and this is what people intuitively go on when bothering to click on the book at all, in the first place. So this really annoyed me. All of my books had been negatively assessed and reviewed without this imbecile having read the books. And then his justifications of his actions were just incendiary.

    Move on a year, and Aaron Adair, a contributor to this blog, posts something on his own blog about the (now ex-) Pope’s book. Father Clifford Stevens makes an appearance. And my, does he spout. The level of dross from his mind is incredible. Check it out. I popped along for my tuppence worth, warning Aaron of this man. And, due to the fact that I am reposting Aaron’s series on the Star of Bethlehem, Clifford brings his bile to my blog. Read it. It is in no way intellectually stimulating – quite the opposite – but it IS a really interesting exposition of cognitive biases, psychological projection, and not a little aspect of personality disorder.

    And the unsubstantiated claims, the ad hominem attacks, the not-knowing-what-the-hell-he-is-talking-about-whilst-claiming-that-of-others continues and so on. The funniest part is where he attempts to school a PhD molecular biologist (contributor Andy Schueler) on molecular biology. That has to be read to be believed.

    Sometimes you hear atheists bandying about the term “liars for Jesus” and I often wonder whether this is a rhetorical device or not. It is not. The whole basis of Clifford’s approach is predicated upon lies. He lies in his reviews, and his posts are full of them. To claim that he has read three books, and then to post lies about those books which is provable by what he claims about them, means that he is happy to lie.

    To look at this philosophically, he is happy to contravene absolute moral guidelines in order to achieve (at least what he decides) is a greater good. He is, it appears, espousing consequentialist ethics. The morality of what he is doing is not intrinsic in the actions, it is not derived from moral laws, but it is derived from the outcomes of the actions. He is happy to lie for Jesus in point of opinion that it serves a greater good in his own, personal battle against atheism. A bizarre set of actions for an ordained priest to carry out.

    The simple fact of the matter is that on every single account and claim, he was wrong. Not a single claim was referenced, or defended with empirical evidence, or philosophical argument. He literally claimed assertion after begging assertion. Now it may seem like I am whinging here, but go read those threads. Marvel at the infuriating nature of this bigot. Conversations should be dialectical, in a Socratic manner (as set out in my Socrates factfile recent post). I simply ask that posters on this blog live by such humble approaches to gaining and improving knowledge bases.

    I don’t mind bad reviews, if they are honest. At the very least, they inform me of needs to improve in future writing. Luckily, Clifford Stevens has been almost exclusively my only bad reviewer! Long may that continue (and those who have read any of my books and who like them, please please please post positive reviews to Amazon – they make soooo much difference).

    May this be the last banning!

    Category: BloggingBooks

    Tags:

    Article by: Jonathan MS Pearce