Seems like another believer decrying the “militant atheist.” But I might still be interested to hear her opinion on the “misapplication of science to religion faith.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

There are aspects of Armstrong that are attractive, but she likely represents a marginal minority of the religious, while most mainstream religious people most certainly think science and religion intersect. Certainly the opponents of Galileo and Darwin did.
Armstrong’s rarified God is made immune from criticism unless it is from studies of psychology.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I haven’t read the book, (I’ll wait until it hits the used store)  but I wonder if she touches greatly on the fact that many people in this world do think that they understand the language of God, and do take the bible (all or in part) to be literally true, and that this fact is the largest portion of why many atheists choose to become “militant,” and why many atheists choose to view the idea of God with “infantile” character -  to relate to the believers.
I wonder if she will chose to state the fact that a frightening amount of religious people, indeed the majority, not just Dawkins et al and fundamentalists, do believe in God in the “infantile” way.
Armstrong seems to miss the point: more people than not believe in God in the “infantile” way, and as Sam Harris drives home with authority, that is more dangerous and detrimental to our existence than those few like Armstrong, who in their own way, claim that *they* know how to interpret the bible - or rather that *they* know that the bible is uninterpretable. 
The mission of atheists and non-believers is to appeal to the masses of religionists (not just those with an “intellectual” knowledge that God is uninterpretable), with unwavering reason, to show them the folly of their beliefs.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Karen Armstrong seems to have no idea what most Americans actually believe. The evidence from polling indicates that more Christians in this country take the Bible literally than not. Even if this were not the case - if it were only 10% of Americans who were fundamentalists, would this make criticizing their beliefs any less imperative? I don’t think so. Nothing made this more clear than George W. Bush’s presidency.

I’m sure Ms. Armstrong would prefer a label with enough nuance to match her extensive theological literacy, but she is a moderate, plain and simple. And as Sam has pointed out again and again, moderates only make the problem of religion worse: they want faith to be respected, they perpetuate the religious divisions in our world, and their worldview is fundamentally at odds with scientific progress. The only reason why the moderate is a greater contributor toward a civil society than the fundamentalist is because they are less religious. As someone becomes less and less religious, they become more helpful in the lab, courtroom, or office because they are focused on terrestrial causes and effects.

What dogma have atheists embraced by not take the Greek and Roman gods into account in their lives? The task for Christians is to explain why their God is more likely to exist than any of the other thousands humans have invented over the ages. The truth is that Yahweh is on the same, terrible footing as Zeus: because there is evidence for neither of them.  Retreating back to her obscurantist position with statements such as “God is, by definition, infinitely beyond human language” is of no help. This statement simultaneously attempts to describe the nature of God, and convince us that His nature is beyond our ability to describe.

Even Ms. Armstrong’s history is incorrect, stating that Darwin saw nothing conflicting between his science and religion. Darwin’s anxiety about the impact his science would have on his marriage to his devoutly religious wife was perhaps best illustrated by the construction of the sink in his work area to relieve his constant nausea. And I’m sure after being put under house arrest for his heretical science, Galileo might have had an unkind word or two to say about the church - not that his relationship with the Pope before that was especially cordial.

I would have an easier time appreciating the “imagination of the religious pre-moderns” if their beliefs weren’t having such utterly destructive effects on moderns. Painting the authors of the Bible and Koran as “sensitive, imaginative” people is simply astounding. The authors of these texts were not sensitive people, they were fearful, provincial and ignorant. I would invite Ms. Armstrong to sit down with Ayaan Hirsi Ali so that she might get an idea of the sensitivity of a culture borne out of strict adherence to pre-modern creativity.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

If it doesn’t sell well it will indeed be a reflection of us.

She doesn’t seem to know any of the theists I know. Around here they take their bible as fact, literally the truth. When you start saying that we have lost our ability to “get religion” or some such non-sense, you’re pointing out that we’ve lost much of our fear about the unknown. People in the old days were fearful of so much and rightly so. Then why not turn to a super power to help you out? If that super power loves you and will do favors for you, you will survive. If not, hello to a horrific death being torn apart by a bear, or falling off a cliff and breaking a leg only to lay there unable to move until you starve to death. Wonder why people need religion so badly? Use your imagination. Quit attacking Richard for chrissake. He can take it of course, but you’re wasting your time. Come up with something real to say, something different, and then we might buy your book. It is why we buy Richard’s books, and Chris’ and Sam’s. (I only have one by Richard and two by Sam—I need to get me to a bookstore and get one of Chris’.) I won’t be waiting around for Karen’s.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It seems to have escaped both Mrs. Armstrong and the reviewer that any religious conviction that is and ever has been common in our world requires belief into something nonsensical or unrealistic. That is exactly what those ‘militant atheists’ have been telling us, asides from pointing out that moderate religion paves a safe road for dangerous and fundamentalist belief. The focus on how ridiculous the really whacky beliefs are may distract from the message that even moderate belief is whacky and requires tricking your mind into forming impossible knots, but it does not make that message disappear. It also does not, in fact, deter from the realization that a lot of immoral, intolerant and hostile behavior in humans is fueled by religion, regardless of whether or not the mind-stunts that are required to get there are the most common mind-stunts in history or not.

What an astonishingly ignorant essay on reality- and that’s just the review.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Nothing new here.  I’d actually quite like it if apologists like Armstrong had better arguments.  Same old drivel…selective attention to facts and fallacious reasoning.  Pandering to her audience.

The reviewer is obviously sympathetic to Armstrong’s cause and, typically, unfamiliar with the principles of science and skepticism… oblivious to the irony in such straight-faced references to “dogmatic atheists” and our claims to “absolute knowledge.”  That these grandiose displays of ignorance and preposterous double talk can retain credibility with such a vast audience is a grim reminder of what reason and science are up against.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Karen Armstrong’s scholarly attacks on fundamentalism and her fearless exposé of the abuse to which she was subjected as a nun helped me on my road to atheism.

It is sad to witness her descending to misinformation:

“Both Bible-bashing fundamentalists and dogmatic atheists have a similar idea of what “God” means, she points out, and it is an absurdly crude one. They seem to think the word denotes a large, powerful man we can’t see.”

Here is what Richard Dawkins actually wrote:

“This is as good a moment as any to forestall an inevitable retort to the book, one that would otherwise – as sure as night follows day – turn up in a review: ‘The God that Dawkins doesn’t believe in is a God that I don’t believe in either.  I don’t believe in an old man in the sky with a long white beard.’  That old man is an irrelevant distraction and his beard is as tedious as it is long. Indeed, the distraction is worse than irrelevant.  Its very silliness is calculated to distract attention from the fact that what the speaker really believes is not a whole lot less silly.  I know you don’t believe in an old bearded man sitting on a cloud, so lets not waste any more time on that.  I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.’  (‘The God Delusion’, p.36)

In fact Dawkins goes out of his way to define exactly what he means by ‘the God Hypothesis’ in the ‘The God Delusion’.  (p.31)

‘There exists a super human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately created and designed the universe and everything in it, including us.”

Karen Armstrong may well oppose this view, but to call it “absurdly crude’ is in the first place to misrepresent what Dawkins said, and in the second place, just plain silly.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Karen Armstrong:  Nonsense Expert.  It amazes me how anyone can be an expert and instruct others on phenomena that have never been, nor will ever be substantiated.  Nonsense.  She has wasted her life, as well as numerous trees to publish her 376-page opinion on personal delusions.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I don’t understand how someone could stop at excepting the god concept as an answer and then not explore deeper into existence itself, this is just plain lazy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

” “Thought cannot travel outside was, nor imagination beyond beginning.” God is, by definition, infinitely beyond human language. “

How do we procede from these vapors to a rational basis for thought and behavior?

The author and her sympathetic reviewer are speaking in tongues.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Bill (#11) I could not agree more. Is the best case for God to reduce it from being a man who “created us in his own image” into an amorphous “feeling.” Is this meant to back atheists into a theological corner, “Well Dawkins, I’ve got you now…are you going to tell us now that there is no such thing as Being? Mwah ha ha ha!” Is that what it means to be theologically literate? The ability to know that god definitively exists because…he/she/it doesn’t actually exist? Wow! I guess I really don’t know everything like I obviously thought I did, because that sounds like utter nonsense to me. Praise [insert amorphous concept here], I’m converted!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It’s an obvious contradiction.  “God is, by definition, infinitely beyond human…” blah blah blah.

If God is beyond the human’s ability to whatever, isn’t it also therefore beyond discussion?  If so, then why are Armstrong’s views on God valid and those from “aggressive” atheists not?

You can’t have it both ways.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Darwin and Galileo were “adamant that their discoveries had no impact on religious faith”?  Really?  Didn’t Darwin worry so much about how people would react to the publication of Origin that he felt it was “like confessing a murder”?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The way I see it is that Ms. Armstrong has studied ALL of the major religions to depths that few of us can imagine and realized that they ALL lack evidence and that no rational person could believe any of it, so she made up her own god.  Every “believer” I know has done the same thing but only to the level of their knowledge in their belief.  This is how new religions are formed.  Hopefully this one will not get any traction.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

For a riposte to Karen try http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jul/07/karen-armstrong-case-for-god

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.” - Bertrand Russell

Why do people on both sides of this debate have to be so sure that they are right and the others are wrong. I think this is a point you’re missing about Karen’s work. Science has rewired our brains to believe that literal truth is the highest objective. We are tone-deaf. This is dangerous whether you’re a religious nut or a scientist.

We would all be a lot better off if we were able to say “I might be wrong.” George Soros has written about the Age of Fallibility - I think it’s ironic that a stock market trader might have more insight into this than any scientist or religious authority. I think Jesus would have found that quite appropriate. Karen is making a similar point by saying, If it’s not literally true, we’re not interested.

A Christian minister once said, “In essence we have become addicted to the certainty, sureness or sense of security that our faith provides” but he might as well have been an adherent to The Reason Project.

But then again, I might be wrong.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Why do people on both sides of this debate have to be so sure that they are right and the others are wrong? Asks Jonaldo

That’s not a charge you can level against Richard Dawkins:

“I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”    (‘The God Delusion’ p.51)

Incidentally this was also the position of Bertrand Russell and I would suggest it is the position of most atheists.

Religionists poked fun at the recent ‘atheist buses’ for saying “There PROBABLY is no god”.  “Can’t they be certain of anything?” They asked.

Well, no…..Absolute Certainty…. that takes religion.

Seems to me the mistake Karen Armstrong makes is thinking religion is part of the answer when it’s such a big part of the problem!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

None of this would be a problem if religion, or religious people, didn’t evoke god in places where science has already gone. It would be one thing if god was constrained to areas completely out of scientific purview. But our religions make falsifiable claims. Prayer, miracles and such — that are easily proven false. Fundamentalism is so plainly falsifiable that I’m embarrassed for its proponents. The flood, an ark for all kinds, etc. Those claims became the nails in my coffin of former belief.

People like this author don’t understand that the scientific method is really just a way of thinking. A way that has proven so incredibly affective and, unfortunately for religion, so brutally honest.

I’d love to believe. Life is crazy fun and it would be wonderful to think that it continues in some afterlife. But it just doesn’t add up.

If she stuck with a god who was credited with merely putting the big bang in place and watching the show, well, that would be much, much harder to argue against. But she’s promoting a god who does things that we can clearly see are no more than fairy tales. Fairy tales that science has already put in their place.

http://www.CelebrationOfReason.com

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I have difficulty with the notion that there is really only one way to know God or to believe some religious viewpoint.  Doesn’t it just reduce everything down to only one person gets on the bus to heaven?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wow, reading the reactions, I thought I stumbled into a Fundamentalist website, where people comment on things they only have opinions without reading the science or history behind it. Ms Armstrong has written the best understanding of the fundamentalistic mind in The Battle for God. She understood fundamentalism as a simplistic modernistic view of truth based on fear, then gave a good history of its rise in the monothestic religions. Her template fits the rise on fundy atheism to a tee. Comments and opinions based on preconceived ideas, and not actually reading the material, steadfast holding on to the opinion despite the evidence to the contrary. Long live the truth and lets fire up the ovens.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I tried to read Karen Armstrong’s “A History of God.” I don’t know if she’s a fraud as a scholar, but the success of that book must be. I’m well above average in intelligence, and I couldn’t get any traction with her book. It’s a book likely bought by religious moderates to make themselves feel good.

And I agree with others who commented that Karen Armstong does not seem to be familiar with the religion practiced by a large chunk of Americans.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Poetry @21, Explain please.  Fundy atheism?  Evidence to the contrary?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Once again this discussion assumes that what we call religion is ‘Religion’ the one and only. On this blog [http://hypertiling.wordpress.com/] you can find a good articulated argument for what religion is NOT.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

1.) Waldo, the book review you post does not do much critique of the work.  Please also see another more intellectual criticism:
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/troy_jollimore_on_karen_armstrongs_the_case_for_god_20091203/
2.) atlasmann, Karen Armstrong did not simply search all the religions to find they all were wrong so she made a new divinity that would make them right.  If nothing else, she found some commonalities between world religions, such as the golden rule, something about transcendence, and even the way the art of music can be a means of transcendence where objectivity and subjectivity are fused.  As she states in the introduction, she simply wants to bring something else to the table of the new atheist dialogue. 
3. Based on this arguing, couldn’t we say that the new atheists are starting a new religion or ideology in a sense.  Although brilliant scientists, they are crossing the realm from science into philosophy and things that can’t be discussed empirically.  Like other ideologies and movements, it contains its flaws and contradictions.  As Hitchens mentions in this interview, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShzphSB7E5A&feature=PlayList&p=A490902178E6854D&index=11”, all religions are equally inherently false AND equally inherently dangerous.  We cannot even tolerate them and must actively speak out against them.  Doesn’t seem like a very anthropological approach, does it?  Wouldn’t sociologists or anthropologists go out and try to explore these cultures on the ground or even immerse themselves in the practice?  This is how Armstrong mentions religion should be studied in some of her other works.  This is just pointing out one potential flaw in the new atheists’ arguments.  Indeed, Victor J. Stenger doesn’t seem to be this hostile and make sweeping generalizations.  He advocates for a “natural way” and turns to eastern cultures to help bring this point home.  And then there is Harris’s “science based spirituality.”
4.) “You say po-tae-to and I say po-tah-to, let’s call the whole thing off!”  This seems to be so much of the argument going on today.  We’re playing word games as Wittgenstein would probably suggest.  Why do we spend so much time on this one word and concept?  Maybe because that word has had millions of meanings in human history.  Can some uses be productive, like our notions of divinity helping move us towards transcendence?  Sure, why not.  So can music, Armstrong says, it is thus a “natural theology” because it fuses subjectivity and objectivity.  So can developing habits of ethics and kindness, which basically is what Armstrong is arguing and what she has carried out in her “charter of compassion.”  Don’t need those notions, there, but they can help. 

Once we stop throwing words around (and we really can’t ever make final conclusions about the world and existence)maybe we can see how Armstrong and the new atheists share much common ground.Armstrong mentions that we should explore natural ways that lead our mind to transcendence, including practicing selflessness and compassion.  This is similar to Harris’s natural spirituality, where he emphasizes we use use science to help see how our minds lead to transcendence or selflessness, being another means to experience the world.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.