Haiti, God, Evil, and Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is responding to Christians who are looking in all the wrong places for some sort of supernatural “reason” that the earthquake in Haiti caused so much devastation. Obviously, Pat Robertson isn’t helping any Christian PR campaign, but neither are pastors who say “God did this for a reason”:

You nice, middle-of-the-road theologians and clergymen, be-frocked and bleating in your pulpits, you disclaim Pat Robertson’s suggestion that the Haitians are paying for a pact with the devil. But you worship a god-man who — as you tell your congregations even if you don’t believe it yourself — ‘cast out devils’. You even believe (or you don’t disabuse your flock when they believe) that Jesus cured a madman by causing the ‘devils’ in him to fly into a herd of pigs and stampede them over a cliff. Charming story, well calculated to uplift and inspire the Sunday School and the Infant Bible Class. Pat Robertson may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own Bible. Pat Robertson is true to it. But you?

This is what Christian pastors do best. They instill this (false) belief in people that awful occurrences like natural disasters don’t just happen randomly or in certain, pre-determined parts of the world; instead, they occur in placed where God wants to make a point. And if you live in a Christ-filled, God-fearing area, you’ll be spared.

People who want any sort of hope will cling to that like rope on a cliff.

It’s a shame. There are reasons Haiti (or New Orleans or Southeast Asia) was susceptible to such disasters. We can understand this better with scientific knowledge.

Bad things happen. Sometimes, there are no reasons for it. Other times, there are understandable reasons. The Haitian earthquake falls into that latter category. There’s no need to bring a god into the mix.

Daniel Dennett is especially frustrated by God getting a pass when disasters occur:

The idea that God is a worthy recipient of our gratitude for the blessings of life but should not be held accountable for the disasters is a transparently disingenuous innovation of the theologians. And of course it doesn’t work all that well… All the holy texts and interpretations that contrive ways of getting around the problem read like the fine print in a fraudulent contract — and for the same reason: they are desperate attempts to conceal the implications of the double standard they have invented.

Maybe some pastors don’t believe this characterization. If that’s true, then they need to be the voice of reason when members of their congregation say that God had any type of role in this tragedy, good or bad.

Otherwise, they’re just part of the problem.

J. K. Jones

Please review this video:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/01/26/driscolls-sermon-on-haiti/
Jake

Dawkins article is not about Christians looking for reasons for the disaster in Haiti. It is about Dawkins attempting to demonize those Christians who rightfully criticized Pat Robertson’s inane comments in order to validate his own, and I suspect other’s, bigotry.
MaleficVTwin

Jake, disagreeing with Christianity’s main tenets and doctrine while stating that we find it all a bit silly is not bigotry, it’s dissent. I truly grow tired of repeating that.

Bigotry. You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Jake

Bigotry:
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

Yup, it means exactly what I thought it meant.
MikeTheInfidel

No, Jake, the thrust of Dawkins’ article is a rather blunt attempt to force Christians to realize that they can’t have it both ways. You can’t excoriate a man who claims that disasters were the result of an infernal contract and then go on to preach about the virtue of a man who fought with literal demons. This warm, fuzzy, happy Jesus guy that they’re trying to push is a version that is curiously unlike the Biblical one.
MaleficVTwin

So then, anyone who thinks your beliefs are ridiculous is a bigot?
JD

What I think: the Christians that say that Pat Robertson doesn’t represent their views need to point out Christians of similar prominence that repudiate what Pat says. I’ve seen people complain that “the media” casts all Christians in a bad light because of Pat Robertson, but frankly, the repudation of Pat by other prominent Christians has been pretty tepid at best in my opinion. It really does feel to me like the majority is agreeing by their silence. I know several individuals that have rejected Pat’s statements, but they couldn’t name any well-known Christian that publicly rebuked Pat.
Jer

It is about Dawkins attempting to demonize those Christians who rightfully criticized Pat Robertson’s inane comments in order to validate his own, and I suspect other’s, bigotry.

Answer me this Jake –

Do you believe that God caused the earthquake in Haiti for a reason?

or to phrase it differently:

Do you believe that God allowed the earthquake to happen for a reason?

If you answered yes to either one of these questions, then yes, Dawkins is saying that you are no better than Pat Robertson. Please explain to me why you are, in fact, better than him. Because from where I’m sitting I don’t see the difference except that Robertson wraps his rhetoric with an extra layer of superstitious Satanic panic nonsense. It would be educational to hear how you rationalize the difference.

If you answered no to both of those questions, then Dawkins ISN’T TALKING ABOUT YOU. Though you may want to ask yourself why God doesn’t seem to care enough about Haiti to have put up some warning signs not to build on a fault line.
MaleficVTwin

Jake should cite a source for his ‘bigot’ definition. I’m not finding that one in the online dictionaries I’m familiar with.

Look at it this way, Jake. I stubbornly and completely reject Christianity. I will stubbornly repeat that it is false. I will continue to tell its followers that they are wrong when they push their doctrine on me or others. None of that makes me a bigot, it makes me a religious dissident. Why is Dawkins different, other than his larger reach?
Mary

I have had such a hard time watching well-meaning Christians deal with this crisis. I have a friend who prays everyday for aid workers who are still buried in the rubble. Evidently, she believes that an all-powerful being allowed this catastrophe to happen and is now requiring that she pray constantly – and if she prays well enough, he might stoop to save a few people.

This is just disgusting. What kind of sick god is that?
TychaBrahe

This is reminiscent of George Carlin on God, and how if you kill someone, you should assert that God wanted him to die. He then switches to the voice of some stereotypical backwoods country sheriff.

“Let’s go downtown and get this guy God. That’s the fourth person He’s killed this week.”
Casimir

Bigotry:
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

Yup, it means exactly what I thought it meant.

Dawkins is neither stubborn nor does he show “complete intolerance” of any creed the differs from his own. But I guess you define “specific criticism” as “complete intolerance”.
Jer

Evidently, she believes that an all-powerful being allowed this catastrophe to happen and is now requiring that she pray constantly – and if she prays well enough, he might stoop to save a few people.

This is just disgusting. What kind of sick god is that?

If you were to ask her she would probably look at you in shock if you phrased it that way. Most of the Christians I’ve spoken to in the last few weeks don’t think God had anything to do with causing the earthquake – but they know that he’ll do something for the survivors.

That’s why I put my challenge to Jake up above. Most of the Christians I know personally would not say that God caused or even allowed the quake to happen. They don’t think through their religion that much because they’re not apologists – but they’ll pray for the victims without thinking through the whole “all powerful, all knowing” thing and what that means as far as whose responsible for those folks being victims in the first place. They just don’t think through their religion enough to reach that point. And I don’t get on their cases about it because it doesn’t matter to me any more than it matters to them.

It’s the ones who say that God is punishing Haiti, or that God let the quake happen “for a reason” – usually something utterly morally disgusting like “look at how much of the Holy Spirit is showing itself in the volunteers in Haiti” that make me want to scream. Think about what that means for a second – God allowed a massive tragedy to happen, killed a whole bunch of people, just so he could teach a religious lesson? A lesson that he could probably better teach by, I don’t know, miraculously causing loaves of bread and dried fish to appear to the starving people of Haiti rather than dropping buildings on their heads.

And then there are the street preachers here around the college campus I’m on who insist on blaming “sinful Haitians” for causing the quake. Those are the folks who make me want to commit a wanton act of violence – and I tend to be a pacifist.
TychaBrahe

George Carlin on God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMixF9Ry9t8&feature=PlayList&p=ACAE5D428EDA892C&index=3

Starting at 6:07
Pseudonym

Dawkin and Dennett was, of course, not the only panellist to respond.

A few choice quotes:

– John Shelby Spong made the obvious point (for him):

The problem here is in the traditional assumption that God is a Supernatural Being who lives somewhere above the sky and who is in charge of the world. Everyone will deny that they still think of God as “an old man in the sky,” but the current theistic belief is just a slightly more sophisticated and even perfumed version of this mentality.

– Jim Wallis emphasises the divine compassion line:

God is not a vengeful and retributive being, waiting to strike us down. Evil happens, whether at the hands of corrupt people or because the earth shifts along a fault line and the world rumbles.

When evil strikes, it’s easy to ask, where is God. The answer: God is suffering in the midst of the evil with those who are suffering. Throughout the Scripture, we find a picture of a God who is with the people, even in their darkest hours.

– Gustav Niebuhr (who I assume is related to Reinhold Niebuhr) and Jennifer Butler pointed out that theodicy is, to social-justice-oriented Christians, a bit of a pointless exercise.

What I particularly like about Butler’s comment is that she’s not afraid to ask the really hard question that everyone, including Robertson, Dawkins and Dennett, are avoiding: We in the rich developed world are partly to blame for the high death toll.

I recently ran across a comparison between the 1989 San Francisco earthquake and the recent Haitian one. Both measured 7.0 on the Richter scale, but while the San Francisco death toll resulted in almost 70 deaths, the toll in Haiti is 70,000 and rising. Slavery and poverty, predatory lending and oppressive foreign debt, imperial intervention and failed leadership at home have cumulatively left Haiti vulnerable to the forces of nature.

Before reading that (I admittedly don’t know much about the history of Haiti), I thought the idea of the devastation being attributable to “sin” to be ludicrous. Now I’m not so sure.
Ron in Houston

In today’s modern world, most progressive pastors aren’t going to try to sell the story of “driving out demons.” They’ll explain that the Gospel writers were unsophisticated folks who attributed things like mental illness to demons.

Many pastors will also freely admit that living a God fearing life is no guarantee about anything. Yeah, some will say that if you live the life everything will be coming up roses, but they’ll then have a hard time explaining why some wonderful God fearing Christian got cancer and died in 6 months.

Dennett’s comment is good. I’ve yet to hear a good explanation of that double standard from anyone.

In a lot of progressive congregations they don’t focus on the “why.” They’ll actually be quick to say “we don’t know.” What they’ll do is say now that this is happened how can we help relieve the suffering.
Aj

Superstitious thinking, that ill-fortune is punishment for sins is prevalent and ancient, it’s been a part of all types of religion for thousands of years. It’s in the Bible numerous times. Even the liberal Christians who don’t attribute God for bad things, hypocritically attribute God for good things. When asked why God allows bad things to happen they don’t have an explanation. These people criticizing Pat Robertson don’t represent a majority of religious people, and they don’t represent religious thought throughout history.

I watched a show about a Catholic clergyman going around the coasts of countries devastated by the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004. He was not pleased with Catholic, or any other religions, response to the problem of evil (Theodicy), he said that liberal priests don’t address the problem at all. He travelled to many places, talking to Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and Muslims, all of them explained the natural disaster as caused by God to punish people for sins of the present, sins of other people, or sins of past lives. The Catholic clergyman ended the show with an explanation of evil that God couldn’t make a world without natural disasters, and that actually natural disasters aren’t bad after all because it makes room for subsequent generations. Anyone with any sense would reject the first claim that natural disasters are necessary, because theists believe in an interfering God that performs miracles. Declaring death and suffering are not evil doesn’t actually solve the problem of evil, it’s just semantics.
Steve Caldwell

Hemant quoting Dawkins:

You even believe (or you don’t disabuse your flock when they believe) that Jesus cured a madman by causing the ‘devils’ in him to fly into a herd of pigs and stampede them over a cliff.

I guess we should credit Jesus with the invention of “deviled ham” instead of the Underwood company:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Underwood_Company#Deviled_ham_and_devil_logo
Pseudonym

Aj:

Even the liberal Christians who don’t attribute God for bad things, hypocritically attribute God for good things.

Not really true in my experience. Most will thank God for good things, but that’s not quite the same thing; if your child is saved in an earthquake, your first emotion is to be thankful, and if there’s nobody else to thank, God is the obvious choice.

I don’t personally know any Christian who believes that thanking God is a substitute for thanking your surgeon.
Neon Genesis

The problem with Dawkins’ argument that Pat Robertson is more “true” to the bible than middle of the road Christians is that there is no universally accepted explanation for why humans suffer in the bible and the bible’s reasons for suffering change from author to author. There are OT passages where God says that suffering is the result of sin but there are other passages in Ezekiel where God says he doesn’t punish innocent people for the sins of others. According to Job, we can’t understand why God allows suffering because God is beyond human understanding. Ecclesiastes says the existence of God is unimportant and so all this pondering is meaningless. Paul thinks suffering is the result of the fall of man and Jesus says that God rains on the just and the unjust in the gospels, so there really is no universal religious apologetic response to why people suffer.
OneSTDV

I wrote about this at my blog:

Pat Robertson and Religious Pluralism
Matt Johnson

Re: Please review this video:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/01/26/driscolls-sermon-on-haiti/

It worries me when he seems quite excited when he first arrives in Haiti and a soldier said to him (at 13:35min), “You will now see a crisis of biblical proportion”.

Surely the soldier was referring to how bad, nasty and evil it was, probably relating it to some of the evil stuff their so call God did in the bible. That’s nothing to be ether proud of or excited about. Unless you really want to see the handy work of the evil being you worship so blindly.

Kool-Aid anyone?
Matt Johnson

Re: Please review this video:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/01/26/driscolls-sermon-on-haiti/

Oh this just keeps getting better. At 21:25mins he talks about how great God is again. Apparently he gives us these great disasters to spread out the people and hence spread the word of the lord. WTF?

Quote: “She was trusting the Lord that in scattering his people he would be scattering them for mission and church planning”.
Gibbon

What I don’t like more than anything else about this article is that Dawkins seems to be arguing that a preacher of the 1970s brand of Christian Fundamentalism is representative of the entirety of Christendom. He seems to be ignoring the rest of contemporary and historical Christianity. Perhaps he could do with a lesson on the history of fundamentalism, particularly the American type.

One other thing. Because of this article, I can now only respect the science that Richard Dawkins has produced; I have no respect for the person. I’m now at a point where I can only pity him.

Aj

He travelled to many places, talking to Buddhists… …all of them explained the natural disaster as caused by God to punish people for sins of the present, sins of other people, or sins of past lives.

That’s strange, because Buddhist doctrine does not blame deities or supernatural beings for suffering; rather it blames ignorance of the self. That’s what the central Buddhist doctrine, the Four Noble Truths, say at least.
Jeff P

“Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”

This is not what bigotry is. Bigotry is the stubborn and complete intolerance of people who are different than one’s own. Bigotry is not the stubborn intolerance of different ideas. That is a big difference.
Lost Left Coaster

In the same Washington Post On Faith discussion where Dawkins wrote his piece, Jim Wallis, the quintessential liberal Christian, wrote a short piece where he essentially said, to summarize: where is God when the people of Haiti are suffering? He is suffering alongside them.

Forgive me, but that makes absolutely no sense. He is suffering from the evil that he either caused or allowed to happen to the Haitian people? While I try to be tolerant of the views of those Christians who are not right-wing nuts, nevertheless I want to grab Jim Wallis by the shoulders and shake him and ask “what the hell does this mean? Is God omnipotent or isn’t he? Does he answer prayers or doesn’t he? Does he have a plan or doesn’t he? Why the hell would God allow the Haitian people to suffer so much pain and misery and then ‘suffer alongside them’?”

That makes no sense. That’s why liberal Christians get such a bad name sometimes, and that’s why I find myself agreeing with a lot of Richard Dawkins’ comments.
Casimir

What I don’t like more than anything else about this article is that Dawkins seems to be arguing that a preacher of the 1970s brand of Christian Fundamentalism is representative of the entirety of Christendom.

Actually, he’s arguing nearly the opposite, so perhaps you should rethink your disdain of him. Dawkins is criticizing contemporary Christianity for their hypocritical condemnation of Robertson. He’s arguing that Robertson’s views are more in line with Christian theology and the Bible than the views of those who criticize Robertson.
Casimir

I recently ran across a comparison between the 1989 San Francisco earthquake and the recent Haitian one. Both measured 7.0 on the Richter scale, but while the San Francisco death toll resulted in almost 70 deaths, the toll in Haiti is 70,000 and rising. Slavery and poverty, predatory lending and oppressive foreign debt, imperial intervention and failed leadership at home have cumulatively left Haiti vulnerable to the forces of nature.

The ’89 quake’s epicenter was in an uninhabited mountainous region about 75 miles from San Francisco. The epicenter of the Haitian earthquake was underneath a suburb of Port-au-Prince. (Nearly all of Haiti is within 75 miles of Port-au-Prince.) I’d say the comparison is a non-starter.
Ron in Houston

nevertheless I want to grab Jim Wallis by the shoulders and shake him and ask “what the hell does this mean? Is God omnipotent or isn’t he?

I’m sure having the discussion with Wallis about God’s omnipotence would be interesting.

It’s not uncommon for Christians to have a non-theistic view of God. Read Spong’s piece where he discounts the all controlling sky Daddy view of God.
Mike Clawson

nevertheless I want to grab Jim Wallis by the shoulders and shake him and ask “what the hell does this mean? Is God omnipotent or isn’t he?

I’m sure having the discussion with Wallis about God’s omnipotence would be interesting.

It’s not uncommon for Christians to have a non-theistic view of God. Read Spong’s piece where he discounts the all controlling sky Daddy view of God.

Not just Spong – quite a few significant theologians of this past century – Whitehead, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Caputo – have developed views of God which emphasize God’s immanence and Christ’s Incarnation in a way that highlights “God with us,” suffering alongside us, rather than as a detached, omnipotent deity causing stuff to happen to us. According to these theologies, God’s power is found in his weakness, not in domination or control. Or, as my Barth professor put it “Whatever omnipotence means, it has to include diapers.”

I don’t know if Wallis subscribes to this theology, but it is increasingly common in mainline circles.
JulietEcho

Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are frequently criticized for claiming that views like Roberts’ are more “true” to the Bible or more “authentic” or “real” – and I understand why many Christians get upset about those claims. I think part of the problem is a muddled message though.

The message is about the Bible, mostly. The message is: No matter what you teach in YOUR church or YOUR school or YOUR family, the Bible still contains this message. Liberals can’t stand over every ordinary Christian’s shoulder and make sure they interpret in historical context and take certain things metaphorically and don’t insist on inerrancy.

As it stands, the Bible – when read by those who live in areas without liberal churches and by people who haven’t researched textual analysis or Jewish history – supports views like Roberts’ more easily than it supports views like Spong’s. Yes, the Bible can be used by both groups (extremists and liberals) to support opposing viewpoints, but the liberals have to do a lot more to “prove” that the Bible supports their positions. The extremists only have to point to the words on the pages. And because the Bible is revered largely as a stand-alone, perfect, God-inspired book, the average Christian doesn’t look much farther for analysis. They trust their pastors/priests – and as long as pastors and priests encourage them to put their faith in the Bible without qualifying that statement, people are going to be asshats like Roberts.

*That* is what I think Dawkins is saying.
JulietEcho

I’d also like to add that I take no position on whether liberals or extremists are more “correct” about how they interpret the Bible – I simply contend that it takes less work (and perhaps comes more naturally to the literal-minded) to interpret it the way the fundamentalists do than in the way the liberals do.
Mike Clawson

What I particularly like about Butler’s comment is that she’s not afraid to ask the really hard question that everyone, including Robertson, Dawkins and Dennett, are avoiding: We in the rich developed world are partly to blame for the high death toll.

“I recently ran across a comparison between the 1989 San Francisco earthquake and the recent Haitian one. Both measured 7.0 on the Richter scale, but while the San Francisco death toll resulted in almost 70 deaths, the toll in Haiti is 70,000 and rising. Slavery and poverty, predatory lending and oppressive foreign debt, imperial intervention and failed leadership at home have cumulatively left Haiti vulnerable to the forces of nature.”

Before reading that (I admittedly don’t know much about the history of Haiti), I thought the idea of the devastation being attributable to “sin” to be ludicrous. Now I’m not so sure.

I really appreciate you pointing this out Pseudonym. I do know a fair bit about Haiti’s history and Butler is exactly right. We here in America are to blame for much of what has happened in Haiti. There has been “sin” here (or more accurately, generations of systemic injustice and oppression), just not in the way that Robertson thinks. We are the devil Haiti has been dealing with for the past 200 years.
muggle

Dawkins is right.

The Liberal Christians are the ones who need to justify their position that it’s obvious that the hateful things they don’t like (and cudos to them for not liking hateful, vile things) aren’t supposed to be taken literally.

Especially since they all claim it’s the word of “God”.
Gibbon

Actually, he’s arguing nearly the opposite, so perhaps you should rethink your disdain of him. Dawkins is criticizing contemporary Christianity for their hypocritical condemnation of Robertson.

How is it hypocritical for a Christian of one denomination to criticise that of another for a malicious comment that is not consistent with their own beliefs? It’s comparable to calling the Dalai Llama a hypocrite if he criticised Robertson for the man’s comment. Non-fundamentalist Christians believe in a different god to that of the god of people like Robertson, and it is not hypocrisy for them to criticise him.

He’s arguing that Robertson’s views are more in line with Christian theology and the Bible than the views of those who criticize Robertson.

Both you and I know that is utter bollocks. There is nothing in Christian doctrine that says you have to oppose abortion or evolution or separation of church and state to be a Christian. There is nothing that says that subscribing to Biblical literalism makes one a truer Christian than someone who rejects it.

According to the absurdity of Dawkins argument someone like Pat Robertson is closer to being a Christian than a person like Saint Augustine of Hippo or Saint Thomas Aquinas.

The only belief that really determines if someone is a Christian or not is if they believe that Jesus was the son of god and that by allowing himself to be executed he provided humanity with a path out of suffering (a path to salvation). That is the defining tenet of the Christian religion.
sophia

I know that this is just one out of an X number of clergymen, but my father is a Russian Orthodox priest. And as far as I can remember, my dad has never gone down the road of, “God did this for a reason..” mentality when it comes to a natural disaster like this. Thankfully, he claims it just happens, and hopes that the strength of faith and their Lord can get them through hard times. They’ve been taking an extra collection on Sundays and have sent people, and money to help those in Haiti. He has never said anything as irresponsible/disgusting as Pat Robertson. If so, he would get an earfull from his atheist daughter.
Casimir

He’s arguing that Robertson’s views are more in line with Christian theology and the Bible than the views of those who criticize Robertson.

Both you and I know that is utter bollocks. There is nothing in Christian doctrine that says you have to oppose abortion or evolution or separation of church and state to be a Christian. There is nothing that says that subscribing to Biblical literalism makes one a truer Christian than someone who rejects it.

It isn’t bollocks. It’s perfectly accurate. I don’t know what abortion or evolution has to do with this, don’t change the subject.

Dawkins cited specifics in the Bible, not only specific events but the core of Christian theology. The defining tenet of the Christian religion assumes a God who will punish humans for their misdeeds, that’s what Jesus’ path to salvation is for.

How is it hypocritical for a Christian of one denomination to criticise that of another for a malicious comment that is not consistent with their own beliefs?

The inconsistency is between what they actually believe and what they claim to believe. Now I can see an argument that the Haiti earthquake, specifically, was not a punishment for sin. I can see that as a matter of disagreement, and I’m aware of scripture that suggests believers should not concern themselves with whether or not a disaster is punishment for some groups wicked ways. What is ridiculous is the condemnation of Robertson, the argument that his views had no foundation in Christian theology. When there are example after example of God sending down vengeance onto various lands as punishments for their misdeeds.
Pseudonym

Lost Left Coaster, Jim Wallis is not the “quintessential liberal Christian”, at least not in the sense that that term is usually used around here.

He is, as I understand it, in broad agreement with the Lausanne Covenant, which makes him creedally conservative-to-mainline (probably closer to the mainline end) and definitively Evangelical. However, on social justice issues, he’s most closely aligned with liberal politics, hence the “liberal” tag.

I think of him as the quintessential post-Religious-Right-era evangelical. Or should that be pre-Religious-Right-era?
Neon Genesis

How come Fred Phelps hasn’t said if God hates Haiti yet? He’s been quiet on this.
Jenny Bliss

im sure mr phelps will get to it in due course, probably too busy protesting concerts for bands he says god hates (who’d have thought god has a taste in music other than those choirs :D) which just raises their profile and makes them more famous, he should ask for a fee for that 1, could be a gd sustainable buisness model 😀

on the whole dawkins thing though, always enjoy his writing heh although as a person i think id be tempted to hit him with a big stick, but then im like that about alot of authors, like their stuff but dont like the person haha