God Would Be An Atheist, HNN Hit it Big in Blogosphere

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Aug. 23, 2006



I have a confession to make. I've been online since 1995. I launched my first website two years later. I spend anything between four and twelve hours a day at a computer screen hopping between Word, Excel, Dreamweaver, Outlook and other programs. But when it comes to blogs, I'm totally ignorant.

So when last weekend the number of subscribers to my weekly column www.godwouldbeanatheist.com suddenly shot up and several people wrote to me about a column that I'd published last November, I had the vague impression that it had been reprinted on a site that got a lot more readers than I usually have. What I wasn't aware of was exactly how many people had, either directly, or indirectly, read my take on Gregory Paul's study of religion and behavior.

Duncan Crary of the Institute for Humanist Studies, publisher of Humanist Network News, opened my eyes: in just one day 23,000 people read my column on the HNN website; 16,000 people read the post about my column on Fark.com and left and 423 comments; readers on Digg.com gave my column 1157 "diggs" and left 232 comments; almost 100 blogs posted entries and linked to my column.



I took a look at some of the entries. My first reaction was disappointment. Half of the comments were from people reacting to previous comments rather than directly to my piece. Every entry should be preceded by my name and godwouldbeanatheist.com in bold, just to remind everyone what they were talking about.

But once I'd swept my deflated ego aside and could look more clearly at what was being said, it was obvious that most contributors had read the piece and had very definite opinions on what I -- or rather Paul -- was saying. They either agreed that there was a strong, possibly causative, link between religious belief and high violence and teen pregnancy rates or that the connection was bunkum. What about China or Soviet Russia, for example, atheistic societies where there had been mass murder on an appalling scale?

Good point, I thought, then read on and saw the answer provided by another blogger. Russia and China were examples of state-sponsored atrocities, whereas Paul's study referred to individual behavior. Interestingly, I did not spot any link between Islam and violence, although I am sure someone must have made that point somewhere.

The weakest link in the comments was the reaction not to the connection but to the possible reasons why, assuming the connection was true, religious faith, which preaches responsible behavior, should lead to high rates of violence and teenage pregnancies. Some contributors gave other possible reasons -- e.g. homogeneity in a society such as Japan will reduce conflict -- and I am willing to accept that they also play a role. But I'm still convinced that some forms of religion, particularly those associated with fundamentalism of any stripe, instill a sense of being "chosen" in their followers, and that sense of superiority leads them to be less likely to observe the moral rules that bind the rest of us.

Anyway, whatever the truth of the matter, I succeeded in making people think -- and that's always been the priority in my column. Whether anyone changed their mind? No, I'm not going to claim that much influence.

Martin Foreman is the author of "God Would Be An Atheist," a syndicated print column that appears regularly in Humanist Network News. For information about syndicating his column, visit www.godwouldbeanatheist.com to contact the author.