ooh.

I have a real fondness for the sci-fi-and-fantasy site io9, even though I am only sometimes interested in fantasy and almost never interested in sci-fi. The topics io9 covers are so broad and quirky and interesting, and it is generally so attuned to sexism (not exactly a given in nerdland) and smart about discussing it, and it treats science and science-y art and trashy movies and excellent books with equal open-mindedness. And Meredith Woerner’s hilarious recaps of True Blood are alone worth the price of admission.

But everyone messes up sometimes. When I read Charlie Jane Anders’s piece “Why Smug Atheists Should Read More Science Fiction,” I got what she was going for. She didn’t mean that all atheists were smug; she meant that people who love to sneer at religion could learn something from sci-fi, which is full of wonder and mystery. I think? Honestly, I skimmed, because hey, it’s the Internet. I didn’t see anything offensive about her essay. But then, I believe in both organized religion and some kind of divinity; none of my own defensive buttons were pushed.

But others felt differently. The comments section quickly exploded. (In a far more articulate and less venomous way than most other comment sections on the Internet, I should add.)

Said one reader:

“It’s one of my greatest annoyances over the misunderstandings people have of atheists: they assume we are somehow ‘incomplete’ or missing something. That’s nonsense. We are no more incomplete than anyone else is. We are just as able to aspire to or achieve wisdom or complete foolishness as anyone else.”

Said another:

“Charlie literally makes the same strawman propped up by the worst of the worst creationist/apologist. The argument is so stupid that one can insert any kind of absurdity into it.

1. Ad hominem against someone that doesn’t believe a claim.
2. Appeal to ignorance and strawman( you can’t know everything ).
3. Solipsism, all knowledge is subjective.
4. Insert any conclusion.”

Quoth a third:

“So you are saying Atheism has a weaker position than religion?

Because both viewpoints rely on utterly subjective and arbitrary lines drawn in the sand to define their respective ‘arguments’ and religion as a collective exercise actually has more subjective, arbitrary ‘evidence’ to call on than Atheism does.

And please don’t anyone say ‘BUT SCIENCE…’ because science literally has nothing to do with it, other than it’s often something uneducated smug atheists very badly co-opt into making some of their assertions. Arguing that any aspect of science proves a lack of deistic existence has as much validity as claiming something that someone claims as the face of Jesus appearing on their breakfast toast is proof that a deity exists. It’s not just moving goalposts, it’s ploughing your own pitch, drawing your own lines, putting the goalposts where you want it and buying both teams.”

Smart commenters!  (I should say that some commenters sided with Anders, offering a variety of perspectives on what they thought she’d meant, and then everybody talked about what they thought about religion and atheism and I kept waiting for someone to say NAZI but hey, i09 is apparently not Tablet.)  Anders quickly apologized in the comments section:

The lack of specific examples of the kinds of behavior I was talking about, combined with the inflammatory language in the opening paragraph and headline, gave the impression I was saying all atheists were smug, which wasn’t my intention. I also hadn’t really taken on board how much many of us feel discriminated against, or threatened by religious fundamentalists trying to shape public policy according to their anti-science dogma. (Something I’ve decried elsewhere on the site at great length.) Also, it was definitely never my intention to say that reading SF would make you more likely to believe in God, but I can see how this can be read that way. Because we so often think of science fiction as being in opposition to religious belief, I’ve been trying to explore the ways in which the two can flow together, but I think I went overboard this time. I sincerely apologize to anyone who felt attacked or patronized by this article. And thanks again for taking the time to engage with me.

It was a pretty good apology. There was a flash of defensiveness (to paraphrase, “GAH, I decry anti-science bias on this site ALL THE TIME!”) but otherwise the apology was decent. She clearly understood the impact of her words. But some of the commenters pointed out that she still hadn’t offered any examples of smug atheism. And the fundamental point of the essay was…what? That these unnamed smug atheists couldn’t appreciate wonder and were…smug? It really wasn’t well-considered.

A couple of months later, on January 23, on the occasion of 109’s 5th anniversary, Anders wrote a reflective piece about the kind of healthy arguing that goes on in the comments section of the site, and how sometimes it makes her rethink her positions. She wrote:

Like that piece about atheism and science fiction a while back — that was a case where I hadn’t fully thought through what I was trying to say, and I wrote something kind of half-assed, that hurt people who already felt marginalized and under assault from mainstream culture. (And in retrospect, a lot of what I had been reading as “smugness” from a few of my fellow non-believers was probably more like anger at that marginalization.) I’m sorry about that.

It is very rare for a writer to admit she wrote something poorly thought-out. Writers say they were misunderstood or they didn’t express themselves clearly… but they rarely say, “I wrote something half-assed.” Brava. And now we have achieved excellent apology. As journalist Greta Christina (whose blog post pointed out the second post, which I’d missed) said, “This is how it’s done.”