Well, folks, this blog site is one week old, and I’m trying to take stock and see what I’ve got myself into. My aim (naive??) was/is to try to disseminate the results of scholarly research to a wider public, and invite productive engagement with it. There have been over 8600 views in the last 7 days, but I have no idea whether that’s a high or low number for a new site.
We’ve also had one or two cases that I find wearisome and dispiriting, people who seem to want to use the site as a platform to lob rhetorical questions (for which they really don’t want any answers) as a ruse for working out their own personal religious issues (in these two cases, both sort of village green atheists I guess). Obviously, I’m not the only person bothered by this, as you can see from Rich Griese’s comment on the “Eyewitnesses” blog elsewhere in this site.
He makes the point that some use the blog-site comment facility as if it were a place for school-boy type sparring. Seems so.
In any case, I’ll try at this point to clarify the intended ethos of this site, briefly. Questions (real ones), disagreements (reasoned), and serious discussion pointers welcome, fully. But those who wish simply to use the comment facility for their own programme should confine themselves to a brief comment pointing anyone interested to their own web site or to relevant publications.
I’m new to the “blogosphere”, and I spend my own time fulflling responsibilities of a university professor. That includes serious, original research, and also trying to teach students, and disseminate results (which I find exciting) to the wider public. To do the latter requires an active “wider public”, ready to query as well as listen. So, let’s see how things go in week two.
P.S. I think it’s appropriate in civil conversation if everyone uses their real names. So, I do ask that. I’d like to avoid “avatars” firing from concealed positions!