All Apologies: Laughing at the Devout

A prominent contemporary cultural trope is the use of humour by the critics of theism against their opponents, in the form of satire, sarcasm, ‘zingers,’ whimsy, and ridicule. The journalist Christopher Hitchens and the philosophers Daniel Dennett and Galen Strawson are well-known examples from within the cultural and intellectual context of critics that employ the tool of humour. This cultural trope is interesting because it occurs in the academic context as much as popular cultural media such as stand-up comedy and satirical news shows like The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight. This article outlines some ‘ground rules’ for the use of humour as a rhetorical ploy in religious debate. I argue that the use of humour is (1) permitted but (2) ought to be backed by good argumentation when it is used in ‘truth tracking’ contexts. I then use these heuristics to criticise two sorry examples of satire and ridicule employed by the biologist Richard Dawkins and comedian Shaun Micallef.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Religions
Published
2025-11-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16111403
Primary Topic
Rhetoric and Communication Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

All Apologies: Laughing at the Devout

Heath Williams
Religions
Rhetoric and Communication Studies
article

All Apologies: Laughing at the Devout

Heath Williams
article en

Abstract

A prominent contemporary cultural trope is the use of humour by the critics of theism against their opponents, in the form of satire, sarcasm, ‘zingers,’ whimsy, and ridicule. The journalist Christopher Hitchens and the philosophers Daniel Dennett and Galen Strawson are well-known examples from within the cultural and intellectual context of critics that employ the tool of humour. This cultural trope is interesting because it occurs in the academic context as much as popular cultural media such as stand-up comedy and satirical news shows like The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight. This article outlines some ‘ground rules’ for the use of humour as a rhetorical ploy in religious debate. I argue that the use of humour is (1) permitted but (2) ought to be backed by good argumentation when it is used in ‘truth tracking’ contexts. I then use these heuristics to criticise two sorry examples of satire and ridicule employed by the biologist Richard Dawkins and comedian Shaun Micallef.

ReligionsVol. 16(11)
The University of Notre Dame Australia (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Rhetoric and Communication Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.