Be aware of this “neologism”:

Snickercrit — (n.) This simply refers to the ridiculing or laughing at an idea, or a person defending an idea, without considering the worth of the person or idea, or the evidence presented, or the source of that evidence.  (source of this: KIDz¹, or Knapp’s Internet Dictionary)

With regard to the world of science, this is a common practice of dismissing the worth and significance of so-called “religious nuts.”  With regard to the world of Christianity, this is a common practice of dismissing the worth and significance of so-called “Godless atheists.”


Snickercrit may be useful in dismissing card-carrying members of the Flat-Earth Society, or even those who insist science declares that “the universe is all that is, was, or ever will be,” when such a statement is really not a proof based on evidence, but an “Article of Faith” or philosophy.  (Whoa! let’s not open Pandora’s box.  Many may insist that the work of science assumes that the universe is “all that is,” and I’ve no problem with that, because science works very well within its walls–but walls that need defining.  Whew!  Some terms like faith, however, also need some sharp defining.  Eventually we’ll try to do that.)

Back to snickercrit.  If we really want to learn about ourselves and our world, we’ll not just listen to and read things that agree with what we believe in.  In Christian circles that’s often said to be “preaching to the choir.”  To Christians who wonder, read Richard Dawkins, critique it, and grow in your faith.  To “Godless atheists,” (I’m generalizing and speaking to a faceless group, please understand), the sermon is the same.  To you I’d recommend former atheist philosopher Antony Flew’s last book (mercifully thin), There Is a God. You’ll not forget it.

Recognize snickercrit and call it what it is, but don’t practice it…as much as you can.  It’s not very kind.


¹The “z” separates “KIDz” from “kid” so you can easily search for our other definitions.