My Review of Karen Armstrong's Book "The Case for God"
My review was just published in Philosophy Now magazine (follow the link). If the link doesn't work an earlier version is on Amazon. You'll see I made the same arguments against her liberalism that I made against John F. Haught's book, God and the New Atheism, against Cheryl Exum and Dennis MacDonald at last years annual SBL meeting, and that I make against Thom Stark's book The Human Faces of God, Robert Wright's book, The Evolution of God, and Mark Roncace's book Raw Revelation. See what you think. Let's have done with the notion that I don't understand liberal versions of Christianity. I do. I just reject them.
33 comments:
That's usually the case. Believers use that old canard – that we're only talking about fundamentalism and we don't understand "sophisticated" theology – all the time.
Nonsense. We've heard it all, and "sophisticated theology" is an oxymoron.
Nice review, John. Congrats! I'm looking forward to reading Armstrong's book.
I may catch hell for saying this, but if the only theism out there was typical of Jon Sobrino’s , I’m gonna pack up, go home and have a gimlet.
It REALLY is a canard. Only so many hours in a day. I'm gonna worry about the folks whose theology provides them cover when they want to bomb clinics and federal buildings, and not so much about the Unitarians. It's the Mormons who poured 10s of millions into anti-gay lobbying, not Pax Christi.
So-called “liberal” theism doesn’t pose a threat, EXCEPT to the same institutions I want to mess up from my non-theistic position. So I’m not going to waste my time picking fights with folks that I believe I’m in solidarity with, even though some of our philosophical commitments differ.
Will I have great wide-ranging conversations with them on the subject of “what are we left with and why do you keep it and why haven’t I”? You bet. But in those conversations we’re approaching each other in a very different manner than I have found possible in conversations with inerrantists/fundamentalists.
Cheers!
Spot ON!
"Let's have done then with the notion that I don't understand liberal versions of Christianity. I do. I just reject them."
but you can not debunk them until you address how and why it is alleged to be impossible to debunk Christianity.
Not only do you need to deal with the best arguments for Christianity being viable, but you also need to deal with the omniscience factor regarding the Infinite Spiritual Existence (and logically invisible to the human eye)of God as well as the inability to ontologically define God as to debunk such Creator.
Rejecting something just because you don't yet see the logic in how the system holds together is NOT the same thing as debunking it at its premises. Until you address the best arguments for Christianity (particularly born-again Christianity) all you will be doing is nitpicking at the imperfections of the way in which Christians have explained it to you.
Question everything.
Reading Lee Strobel started me on the path to deconversion and Karen Armstrong was the last thing I read before throwing in the towel for good.
"Let's have done then with the notion that I don't understand liberal versions of Christianity. I do. I just reject them."
You need to, you know, actually provide an argument *why* you reject them.
"This means that she cannot fault the New Atheists for attacking fundamentalism, as fundamentalism is what religion is for many, many people today."
That's a pretty pathetic argument.
"I find Armstrong’s religion-as-psychology thesis metaphysically unfulfilling and deeply inadequate."
Of course you do, you're a fundamentalist. Atheist fundamentalists, like their religious brethren, want everything to be in terms of absolutes. Things must be either black or white, values must be either completely right or totally wrong. Knowledge can only be true or false. That you find psychological explanation mushy and wishy-washy marks you as a fundamentalist.
I was raised a liberal and so as a result I find psychological explanation, or mythic narrative if you like, to be very satisfying. When I was younger Joseph Campbell was all over PBS. I loved that stuff, even today, though I reject his Buddhist spirituality, I still find Campbell's narrative of meaning through myth to be very satisfying.
"the New Atheists are attacking a real threat to world peace!"
Nonsense. If we got rid of every theist, if every fundamentalist was converted over night to believe in evolution and they became atheists... war, rape murder, genocide and every atrocity imaginable would continue on unabated.
It's people, John, people who do bad things that are the problem, not religion.
Brenda, make your profile accessible or you will be banned.
"Armstrong claims that just like the religious fundamentalists they argue against, “the new atheists believe that they alone are in possession of truth… they read scripture in an entirely literal manner and seem never to have heard of the long tradition of allegoric interpretation,"
I, like many kids, started out reading scripture as completely allegorical(sort of like the Just So Stories,) and then was shocked to find out that adults were serious about this stuff.
Brenda,
FYI: It’s people who are the power source for religion.
In a reversal roll of the ventriloquist (God) and the dummy (humanity); (in religion) when the human “dummies” walk off from religion, the ventriloquist (God) slumps over useless and dead.
[Even if religion was repackaged and sold in theaters as Paranormal Activity 3, it would be given two thumbs down by Roger Ebert!]
"Brenda, make your profile accessible or you will be banned."
I have no profile, I have no website of any kind. I sign in with my google account which is one of the valid options given in your comment box. BTW, there is no link to this article on the front page. I don't mean the one on Philosophy Now, I mean this one. I think that is causing problems.
Harry H. McCall, CET -- I have no idea what you're trying to say.
it appears he is trying to somehow compare and Infinite Creator Who creates little creators in His Conscious Spiritual Image (who have the ability for relationships and love) to a mere man and his wooden toy.
Even the Father-adopted children analogy breaks at some point under hyper-technicality.
People and wooden dolls don't even come close.
Question everything.
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/543672-inhertitance-of-acquired-behaviour-adaptions-and-brain-gene-expression-in-chickens
john loftus, we're gonna cut off your head...
THE HIGH PRICE OF REVOLUTION
http://www.youtube.com/user/xviolatex?feature=mhum
Brenda: how is it possible to be a "fundamentalist" about something which is neither dogma nor doctrine? And what else can knowledge be, if not true or false?
And yes, inhumanity does not require religion. But religion is the most prevalent and dangerous means by which people come to believe that all sorts of inhumanity, from the mundane to the atrocious, is justified and good.
Moderates and liberals do not get off the hook because for atheists, it's not your conclusions we necessarily object to; it's the method of your inquiry, the means by which you claim to possess truth and knowledge.
Hi Mike D
You say, "But religion is the most prevalent and dangerous means by which people come to believe that all sorts of inhumanity, from the mundane to the atrocious, is justified and good."
The idea of 'god did it' or 'god made me do it', or 'it is god's law', or 'it is written in the scriptures' are all pathologies that externalizes the personal responsibilities for people's actions and deeds and thoughts. These people accept and indeed feel no personal responsibility for the atrocities, and discriminatory actions [such as homophobia] they perpetrate under the banner of 'morality' guided by their christian [and indeed by all colour of] faith. It is this parameter that Ratzi sees allowing women to be ordained as priests as an excommunicable sin and far greater a sin than pedophilia or pederasty for which priest can never be excommunicated. This is tantamount to depraved indifference, a criminal offense under the current law.
The world suffers under the dead hand of religion.
Breckmin says...but you can not debunk them until you address how and why it is alleged to be impossible to debunk Christianity
It is impossible to debunk Christianity because there is no monolithic religion known as Christianity; there are multitudes of somewhat similar religions that fall under the banner of the Christian name. Every Christian has his or her own customized set of beliefs. It is virtually impossible to cut the head off of that Hydra.
Question everything.
Damn good advice there, Breckmin.
Stated: Harry H. McCall, CET -- I have no idea what you're trying to say.
@ Brenda: That Brenda, is why you are religious and remain so!
I need someone to help me understand why Armstrong would be correct to say fundamentalist belief is not typical of Christianity or why an atheist would be incorrect ("pathetic") to agree with John's claim that "fundamentalism is what religion is for many, many people today."
I think there's clear survey data to support the latter claim. And even if the head-count showed literalists to be a statistical minority, their whole is greater than the sum, in that they're exercising enormous influence on public policy. I really think I'm missing something, so help me out, please.
oops, the above was posted in the wrong topic
@Breckmin; maybe you should go back and carefully read all the posts on this blog. And read comment #14 on "25 Hot Topics for a New Book", the one Mr. Loftus posted on the 30th.
Mike D said...
"Brenda: how is it possible to be a "fundamentalist" about something which is neither dogma nor doctrine? And what else can knowledge be, if not true or false?"
It's pretty easy. You just have to believe in absolute truth. That is what fundamentalism, secular or religious, is. Many of today's new atheists are guilty of scientific positivism. They are either blithely unaware or choose to forget that positivism was resoundingly refuted decades ago.
Your atheistic positivism is an unfalsifiable ideology and hence is no more "science" than the religions you despise. How can anyone today seriously believe in absolute truths?
You aren't really atheists, you are believers in the cult of science as absolute truth. All you ever do is read books that validate your ideology. Most atheists I've met are simply science nerds who have never read anything outside of their own narrow fetish for science.
"And yes, inhumanity does not require religion. But religion is the most prevalent and dangerous means by which people come to believe that all sorts of inhumanity, from the mundane to the atrocious, is justified and good. "
The atheists in the former USSR and Maoist China seemed to stack up the bodies just fine without any religious beliefs at all.
"Moderates and liberals do not get off the hook because for atheists, it's not your conclusions we necessarily object to; it's the method of your inquiry, the means by which you claim to possess truth and knowledge."
Seriously? Are you really that ignorant of the methods used in Sociology or other "soft" sciences? Guess what hun, not every science is physics and the hypothetical-deductive nomological method has some serious flaws.
I think that if you expand your reading you'll find that your ideology will slip like sand through your fingers.
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/543672-inhertitance-of-acquired-behaviour-adaptions-and-brain-gene-expression-in-chickens
atheists, we're gonna cut off your heads...
THE HIGH PRICE OF REVOLUTION
http://www.youtube.com/user/xviolatex?feature=mhum
@Brenda:
Your post accidentally creates the impression that you think positivism and the hypothetico-deductive model of science are synonymous.
[If the point you are making is that you would prefer critics of fundamentalism or inerrancy (I'm happy to have someone tell me the most appropriate word I should use) not simply replace "God" with a surrogate, then this particular atheist doesn't have much beef with that. But I still think you're naive to suggest that fundamentalism in religious views isn't problematic, at least in societies that purport to value democracy.]
John,
Your review in Philosophy Now was a very good read and well-written, as always!
In the article you ask:
"why doesn’t she stand up with them against the fundamentalists"
But am I mistaken, but it seems to me that Armstrong has stood up against fundamentalism many times?
In her "The Battle for God" she sets out her protests. In fact, Publishers Weekly review on Amazon accuses her saying, "The book is also occasionally marred by a condescending tone; Armstrong attacks easy Protestant targets such as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart (whose name she misspells) and claims that fundamentalists of all stripes have "distorted" and "perverted" their faiths." So it seems she does speak out -- albeit not in the way you want to demand.
But I do agree with you that the Armstrong gets evangelical at telling us and other believers exactly what religion is suppose to be. She basically sets up her own religion.
Lastly, your review states: "I find Armstrong’s religion-as-psychology thesis metaphysically unfulfilling and deeply inadequate. Her God is a distant God, and as such, can be safely ignored as having no relevance for life."
This just tells us more of your dispositions and intuitions. Why should we care about those? After all, you are putting forward objectivity in this discussion, no? Perhaps such a subjective God can be very well used by Karen even if you can "safely ignore" such feelings. Maybe she does more with her God in her life, than you can imagine given your dispositional limitations.
Dava:
I see you are too scared to list your real name and chose to hid behind anonymity while making threats.
Dava, there is one thing I hate worst than a liar and that’s a coward!
my real name is Dennis Markuze
and I am here to wipe you fuckers out....
Yeah, right!
I've heard your wind blow before.
Waiting for the big wipe out!!!
@Brenda
You aren't really atheists, you are believers in the cult of science as absolute truth. All you ever do is read books that validate your ideology. Most atheists I've met are simply science nerds who have never read anything outside of their own narrow fetish for science.
So if I’ve read Horkheimer and Adorno and Augustine in addition to Darwin and Sagan and Harris, may I please, please, please call myself an atheist?
For someone who often objects to painting religion with too broad a brush, you sure have huge bristles. The statement “I am an atheist” simply is not equivalent to the statement “science is absolute truth,” and not all atheists, even those who self-identify as “New,” believe the latter.
Most atheists I know would probably say something akin to: I don’t know if there are any “absolute truths.” To the extent it means anything to say something is “true,” however, the findings of science seem to be the best candidates for the label.
Your comments you think there are both “non-fundamentalist” and “fundamentalist” atheists. Is this correct? If so, can you please explain what you perceive to be the difference?
Hey Dennis “the Menace” Markuze: Which will occur first? Jesus’ return to earth or the big Dennis “the Menace” Markuze atheistic wipe out?
Fact is, you have resurfaced with a new name “Dava”, but with the same old worn out lies!
You are nothing but a harmless fruit eater!
Wait a minute...
Dennis Markuze...Markuze...Marcuse...Herbert Marcuse?!?!
In the immortal words of Richard Dreyfus in Close Encounters: This means something.
In the immortal words of Peter Falk in Murder By Death: And I don't know what it is.
Other than DM is boooorrrring.
I realize the whole "atheists are science nerds who've never read anything outside of hard science" thing was just a throwaway line, but it really made me laugh. In my experience, most of the atheists I've known have come to it via philosophy or science and haven't been particularly nerdy; the least well-read people I've known have been fundamentalists (it is, after all, inversely correlated with education). Not to say there aren't idiots in both groups regardless of the size of their libraries.
Brenda said..."Your atheistic positivism is an unfalsifiable ideology and hence is no more "science" than the religions you despise. How can anyone today seriously believe in absolute truths?
You aren't really atheists, you are believers in the cult of science as absolute truth. All you ever do is read books that validate your ideology. Most atheists I've met are simply science nerds who have never read anything outside of their own narrow fetish for science."
Yes Brenda sweety,damn pesky science jocks...uggg..yuk!.. And did you also know that flesh of watermellons is always blue on the inside until either the skin is punctured or some other method of investigation is applied,at which stage the flesh will always suddenly turn red.
This theory is also unfalsfiable, and so as such it is just not science! should anyone dare try saying it seems most ulikely to be true.This blueness of watermelon flesh occurs because of properties which we cannot yet understand or know how to investigate.
And anyone saying anything otherwise is also just one of these sad arse fudamentalists idiots you speak of, thats guilty of this utter silliness of the stupidity of scientific positivism.
Brenda we need more people like yourself who are always willing to stand up for sticking to this more logical common sense approach of steering clear of anything that smells slightly like it has a hint of this terrible scientific positivism.
You and i should get together sometimes to swap notes and work out how to approach governments to apply for rights of mega more finance for building places of worship and research, into the very fine theorys of Pink Unicorns ,Yeti,Trolls,Fairys,Tooth Fairys,Belly Fluff Fairys,Celestial Teapots,Ghoblins,Pink Goblins,Purple Ghoblins,Red Goblins,Blue Goblins,Red and Blue Striped Ghoblins,Red and Blue Spotted Ghoblins,and im sure we can think up plenty more very worthy theorys that should be both worshiped and continually explored.
Needless to say most likely you and i can start already claiming ourselves to be millionaires.
Oh what a great hustle.I can see myself finding ways of getting used to loving this unfalsifiable faith idea.
@ Brenda
I can't go past John Dunphy who received so much hate mail from seemingly good, righteous christians when he penned:
"The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognises and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being ... The classroom must a will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of christianity, together with all its [attendant] evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the christian ideal of 'love thy neighbour' will finally be achieved."
I'm also reminded of Ben Mack [author]:
"When these preachers on TV say God spoke to them, what the fuck? Shouldn't this be front page news? Either God is speaking to them and we have a modern day prophet and the newfound words should be published everywhere, or they are criminals swindling their donations."
Armstrong's 'Case for God' is farce. All derived from a collection of writings of unknown date and authorship rendered into English from supposed copies of supposed originals unfortunately lost.
Sheesh
Post a Comment