Jesus, George Bush and Carl Sagan walk into a bar…
I have been asked to comment on a perceived lack of humor on Christian blogs compared to Atheist blogs. Here’s the gist of it (paraphrased from The Exterminator):
There’s a tendency… to take ourselves [atheists] too seriously, but a little humor goes a long way. It’s rare to see a comment thread in the Atheosphere that doesn’t contain at least a few wisecracks… I’m talking about casual banter, puns and wordplay, self-denigrating humor, mock insults flying back and forth, political and social satire, and even funny anecdotes. Yet, the Christians who visit our blogs are rarely comical.
Are the kinds of theists who are attracted to blogging usually humorless?
If you read No More Hornets, you’ll find his assessment is pretty accurate. The theists who generally post on his blog are about as sharp as a primitive bludgeon. Not exactly our shimmering, crown jewels of intelligence and wit. I haven’t read every single comment on every post, but I also suspect that many of them are also fundamentalists looking to cash a convert or two. This is based on the ideas expressed both in their comments and on their personal bogs.
Now, before I take a stab at whether or not Christian bloggers are actually humorless, let’s first examine the supposed mindset of Christian bloggers and the atheists’ definition of humor. Since Ex generalized, I will also generalize while acknowledging individual exceptions exist. I’ll present my assertions from what I assume is their perspective, (i.e. this may not represent my perspective on life and faith).
The Christians that comment on his blog are looking to “prove” to the atheists that their beliefs are nonsensical. They’re not interested in listening to the atheists. They’re just looking to get into an argument and win to get some magical tally on Jesus’ Blackboard of Holy-Scores.
Reason 1: Arguments aren’t very funny.
Now, it would seem that some humor would lighten up a conversation and increase the atheists’ chances of listening (and increase their chances of getting converted). On the surface one would think that humor would help their cause. But take a look the kind of humor Ex lists as atheopreciated (appreciated by atheists). Much (not all) of it either belittles oneself or others. I would love to say that the Christians don’t participate in such humor because of Jesus’ mandate to love their neighbor. However, my guess is that the real reason Christians don’t participate in such humor is because belittling people in a humorous way doesn’t help win souls (although, apparently belittling them for their moral, political and (un-)religious views without the use of humor is ok). They’re obligated more out of a sense of guilt.
Reason 2: Making fun of people is a sin, and sinning isn’t funny.
While this would explain why comments aren’t funny, it still doesn’t account for his assertion that their own blogs aren’t funny either. Ex speaks a lot of poking fun and lively banner. While poking fun is a sin, why doesn’t the playful banter happen? I frequent many Christian blogs, and a few atheist ones. For reasons that I don’t understand, the community of bloggers seems to be closer on atheist blogs. Perhaps it’s a function of a Christianity-saturated culture. Christian blogs so inundate the marketplace, that it’s difficult to cultivate a core of followers and develop personal relationships. Whereas atheist blogs are fewer and farther between, therefore once they find each other, it’s easier to get to know each other personally. They also probably feel embattled and the constant communal defense cultivates closer interpersonal ties. Whatever the reason, the atheists seem to know each other way better than the Christians. Perhaps that familiarity makes it easier to poke fun and joke with each other.
Reason 3: The Christian community doesn’t know how to joke with each other.
With generalizations, there are always exceptions which need to be acknowledged. Ex was courteous enough to say that I didn’t display the same level of dim-whittedness as some who traffic his site. To further show that there are exceptions to generalizations (funny Christians), I would check out Scotteriology. Not every post is funny, but there’s some pretty funny stuff posted and in the comments. The Worst Preacher Ever tournament is my personal favorite.
I’ll concede that there seems to be less of Ex’s type of humor on Christian blogs. I’ll also admit that I was hesitant to join in with the humor that his blog readers seem to appreciate. I’m not much of one for humor that belittles others, even if done in jest. Counter-intuitively, I yielded to Ex’s prodding and joined the melee. Whereas I normally find that denigrating humor erodes good communication, the opposite seems to be true on atheist blogs.
Nice post and thanks for addressing this topic so articulately.
But I’m not convinced that banter and wordplay and anecdotes and all the other forms of humor I mentioned are necessarily “belittling” — at least in the way you seem to mean that word.
Perhaps all humor, even “innocent” childlike nonsense (a la Lewis Carroll, say, or Dr. Seuss), springs from an ability to see something or someone differently than others do. In a way, that something or someone, whatever or whoever it might be, is “belittled” — even in the most mild-mannered joke. The jester’s new vision causes listeners/readers to think in a new way about the topic at hand. And thinking in a new way, whether the subject is earth-shaking or trivial, is upsetting; it temporarily discombobulates the thinker. How does the audience react? They explode. In laughter. It’s an emotional release.
Now, as far as good-natured mutual insults go: on the surface, I agree, these kinds of interchanges do seem to belittle. However, on a psychological level, they actually reinforce the bonds of friendship. What they say is: we’re good enough friends that we can enjoy one another’s follies and foibles and recognize those “flaws” as being parts of the likable wholes that make you you and me me. A lot of this kind of humor comes from the intimate tone, which is difficult, but not impossible, to produce in writing. (Don’t try this at home, kids.) But it’s those very kinds of back-and-forth dialogues that make you recognize the camaraderie in the Atheosphere. Think about that.
By the way, I read Scotteriology’s latest post. Talk about belittling! His sendup of Jack van Impe and the glorious Rexella is very well done. Mrs. Ex and I often watch their hilarious show. I’m not familiar with Paula White, but from what I saw in the videos, reducing her to Botox and fart jokes doesn’t begin to scratch the surface of her outrageousness.
I would simply say the reason is self confidence. Your ability to join in and laugh tells me you’re confident in your beliefs. Seeing those who can’t tells me their confidence is tenuous or out to lunch. This could also be why they are so adamant about winning points and trying to convert, because such things are confidence builders.
As Nietzsche’s Zarathustra said, “learn to laugh!”
Besides, if we didn’t mention Evo’s singing he’d be hurt.
I’m not sure I see our banter as belittlement either. There’s certainly a difference between poking at someone about something they’ve done, even a mistake that’s been made, and saying something intentionally mean. I don’t think anyone intends to make anyone feel bad. It’s more a way of emphasizing with each other. We all know we’re not perfect and we accept that about one another.
The other humor contributors that you didn’t mention are jokes about sex, politics, and religion or jokes that include language that most Christians find inappropriate. In fact, completely sterile, clean language tends to drive me a little bonkers.
Ex:
I agree with your assertion that the humor isn’t as belittling as its would initially seem. I like your point about humor arising from taking a different and unexpected perspective. I think that as such, humor is valuable because it broadens our ability to understand life, even the shitty parts of life (and the shitty pants of life).
But a necessary component of that kind of humor is a relationship with the person with whom you are joking. This is the component that many lack on your blog and other Christian blogs (my whole point in reason 3). They then become so entrenched in their embattled roles on your blog, that they become unable to recognize everyone’s humanity. In doing so they lose that ability to joke with you.
Philly:
Your assertion about self-confidence seems plausible. Perhaps their arguments are subconscious attempts to convince themselves of what they believe. The frustrating thing is, it works out great for them if they “win,” but if they don’t they seem to get upset rather make an attempt to recalibrate their understanding of life. Either way, most of them seem to take themselves too seriously.
OG:
Yeah, sterility makes me a little bonkers, too. It’s like spending too much time in an airport. I just wanna run over to the magazine rack and start ripping them up and throwing them on the floor.
All:
So here’s where I’m at now in the hypothesis: It would seem that reason 3 (the community not being so tight) explains a lot more about the perceived lack of humor.
The belittling humor is valuable when it illuminates an alternative perspective to understand the crappy parts of life.
Also, I’m not saying I agree with their reasons for not participating in the “belittling” humor; I was just trying to present their perspective the way I understand it.
For it me it depends on the type of “belittling” humor. Jokes poking fun at something stupid someone did and that kind of thing are fine by me. However, jokes that devalue a person or people group I tend to get uneasy with. I just don’t enjoy jokes that promote racism, classism and sexism. But I feel like that’s an entirely different category than most of what is said on your blogs.