All Apologies: Laughing at the Devout

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study deals with an important topic. Based on the text, there is no doubt about the author's expertise in the subject. Exploring the topic is also very useful if it is done using an appropriate and well-founded methodology. The reviewer has a difficult task, because in its current state, the study is difficult to interpret and is not acceptable from a methodological point of view.

First of all, the genre: the author has classified the text as a study, but in my opinion, the manuscript does not follow the structure and style of international studies. There are no research questions, and it is unclear what methodology the author used to address the topic. The examples and counterexamples given are arbitrary. There is no place for references of this kind in a scientific manuscript: "A quick overview of YouTube" – this proves nothing; this is not a thorough, exploratory study. The same problem applies to the inclusion of various authors and programs. Since there is no research question or methodology, references to them and the inclusion of individual authors are arbitrary.

Suggested changes:

1. Establishing the research methodology of the study. Both the examples included and the illustrations used by the author to prove his own statements.
2. Change the structure of the study. The introduction chapter should raise the topic, but should not include quasi-research questions and a presentation of the structure of the thesis. The presentation of the context should cover all the discourse and media that the author includes to prove his argument. The explanation should then be provided in a separate chapter. It is also necessary to justify why the author refers to these texts and authors, and on what basis these authors are included. The chapter on possible answers mixes the description of the commenters' responses with the interpretation of the answers to the problem raised. This also needs to be clarified. If the research itself is aimed, for example, at analyzing how commenters respond to a given author's arguments in various posts, then this should be analyzed. However, what we read is not an analysis, but various arguments that are not substantiated.
3. The contents of Chapter 3 clearly illustrate the pitfalls inherent in the topic. This should be made clear in the manuscript and presented as an earlier example that is relevant to the author's topic. It should not be a description, but a well-structured analysis.
4. The arguments of Dawkins and Mitcallef are easy to follow, but the study does not reveal why the author chose these particular texts and what his purpose is in doing so. This would also be easier to understand if the research methodology were explained and the research questions were clarified.
5. The Conclusions chapter should be compared with the foundational literature review and should not only contain the author's findings, as this is not well-founded.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Global Appreciation and Critical Analysis of the Article

The article offers a timely and insightful contribution by addressing the use of humour in critiques of theism, particularly Christian theism. Its core thesis—that humour is permissible only when backed by solid argumentation and the capacity to justify satire with reason—provides two clear heuristics for evaluating such discourse. Across five well-structured sections, the author systematically dismantles not so much the conclusions, but the argumentative strategies and rhetorical style of Richard Dawkins and Shaun Micallef, exposing their failure to meet these standards. In doing so, the article sets a higher bar for intellectual integrity in public debate, where humour must serve truth, not merely entertain or provoke.

List of Errors to Correct

• Line 26 – “zeitgeist” should be written Zeitgeist (in italic and with capital letter as it is a German word)
• The dash (—) should be long and consistently used throughout the text — see lines 46, 48, 162, 169, 173, 188, 322
• On line 56, the reference to Christopher Hitchens is incorrectly written as “ChristopherHitchslap” — this should be corrected to “Christopher Hitchens.”
• There is a font formatting issue on lines 316–319 — the text appears inconsistent in typeface or style and should be corrected for uniformity.

Suggestions for improvement

1 – In the introduction, the author writes “first section” and later “Section 2” instead of “second section.” This should be made consistent for uniformity.

2 – I would not refer to Richard Dawkins as a “commentator,” especially in the abstract. It would be more accurate to call him a “biologist.” Moreover, I suggest mentioning journalist Christopher Hitchens, philosopher Daniel Dennett, and philosopher Galen Strawson in the abstract, as they are also key figures in this cultural and intellectual context.

3 – This quotation requires proper bibliographic references: “Bertrand Russell said some unkind things about Hegel; Ayer and Carnap said some unkind things about Heidegger; and, more recently, everyone piled in on Derrida. But the things these authors said were not only unkind, at times they were downright funny, and they were intended to convince philosophers that the target of their attacks should not be taken seriously.”

4 – It is surprising that an article on humour and religion makes no mention — not even in passing — of the Charlie Hebdo incident or of Woody Allen, namely the work “Mere Anarchy” both of whom are highly relevant to the topic.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper should analyse why the atheists against christianity and mainly laugh ta believers of christianity and not against Islam. Why do they hate christianity so much. Are they atheist or antichristian?

Author Response

I appreciate the reviewers comment. I do not think I have scope to address this question in the present article, but I have already begun research for a later paper. Please also see footnote four and my addition of the discussion on Charlie Hebdo. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate that you took the suggestions on board. The study is now clearer, easier to follow, and of a higher scientific standard.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper of “All Apologies: Laughing at the Devout” introduces a thought-provoking examination of humour as a rhetorical strategy within religious debate. It successfully identifies a fascinating cultural phenomenon, the widespread use of satire, irony, and ridicule by critics of theism, nd situates it both within academic discourse and the broader sphere of popular culture. By referencing figures such as Richard Dawkins and Shaun Micallef, the abstract bridges scholarly analysis and mass media, highlighting how similar rhetorical devices transcend contexts and audiences.

One of the most compelling strengths of this abstract lies in its balanced tone. Rather than condemning humour outright or celebrating it uncritically, the author proposes a nuanced position: humour is permissible, yet its use must be intellectually accountable. This insistence on coupling humour with sound reasoning in “truth-tracking” contexts underscores an ethical dimension to argumentation. It suggests that wit, while powerful, should never become a substitute for rigorous logic or evidence. This perspective enriches contemporary discussions about discourse ethics, civility, and persuasion in both academic and public arenas.

The paper promises a clear methodological approach by proposing “ground rules” for the use of humour in debates about religion. This framework invites deeper philosophical reflection on the boundaries between ridicule and reason, amusement and argument. The decision to analyze examples from both an intellectual (Dawkins) and comedic (Micallef) source adds contrast and depth, showing how similar rhetorical techniques can vary in seriousness, intent, and impact.

Overall, the abstract is concise, intellectually engaging, and highly relevant. It raises important questions about how laughter functions not only as entertainment but as a vehicle for critique — and how, when misused, it risks undermining the very truth-seeking ideals it aims to advance.