brade wrote: Her book is interesting because even as it's a thoughtful defense of God, in the sense I've outlined, and a response to the famous new atheists, it's also a far more damning work against the same sorts of fundamentalist religions the new atheists often real against; I think she would lump Mormonism in with the sorts of religions that are on the wrong track.
Interesting that an atheist/agnostic would feel qualified to know which religions are "on the wrong track."
Whatever one might say about Karen Armstrong's credentials (I've heard many objections), her faith journey is an advanced one that's crossed terrain of deep faith and conviction to despondant nihlism to arrive at a place I'd call much too nuanced to fit in the "atheist/agnostic" box you suggest she belongs in.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
brade wrote: Her book is interesting because even as it's a thoughtful defense of God, in the sense I've outlined, and a response to the famous new atheists, it's also a far more damning work against the same sorts of fundamentalist religions the new atheists often real against; I think she would lump Mormonism in with the sorts of religions that are on the wrong track.
Interesting that an atheist/agnostic would feel qualified to know which religions are "on the wrong track."
Hoops, it often occurs to me that you read a great deal of the general discussion of religion and atheism far too personally. I think that is a limiting way to read. But as I said before, I'm pressed with time at the moment, so consider this a placeholder for a larger argument I want to make to you, an argument which I think may ultimately help you better engage in discussion from your own position (i.e., I'm not interested in talking you out of religion, as I hope you know, but in learning to make richer critiques). I'll probably send you some material via pm, but if you don't hear from me by the weekend, will you please remind me?
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Sethbag wrote:Part of my approach to this is an assumption that if there was a good argument out there, I should have seen it already. And why do I assume this? That's a good question. I think at least part of the answer is the notion that a good argument by definition would be demonstrably true, and convincing, and would therefor spread amongst the population of people eager to prove and demonstrate the existence of God. There is such a population, and I have witnessed a reasonably large sample of the kinds of arguments and logic this population produces, and as far as I could tell, the arguments all fail.
So, why am I wrong to assume that true knowledge, and valid, demonstrably correct proofs, or evidence of the existence of God, if they were really out there, would have "floated to the top" as it were, and been visible to me and others on this board already?
Yes, you are wrong and "good ideas" (about god or anything) do not "float to the top" because, as someone once said, the so called "free" marketplace of ideas are only "mere episodes in the sphere of circulation in which competitors maul each other." And even that striking and gladiatorial turn of phrase doesn't half convey how rigged the battle is.
It will take a while to unpack the ideas here and as usual I don't have a minute to spare, as I now have to don my uniform and pack my tools to clock in for my shift at the ideological weapons factory. But, because I owe you a big one for recommending a book that has given me a crucial argument for my own work, I will return and take up my bow of burning gold and my arrows of desire. ...
Erm ... it would seem to be an implication of the way you write here that you have some claim to a point of view above the 'rigged battle'. And you won't be 'mauling' anybody either, but just telling us how it is?
That's quite a claim. But if you are not making it, I'm not quite sure why what you say would have any particular claim on our attention, given the situation you describe.
And can the battle really be so 'rigged' that after all these centuries of looking, by people who start from so many points of view and are so highly motivated to find one, there really is a knock-down conclusive argument for the existence of a deity that just happens to have escaped people's notice entirely? It may be logically possible, but how likely is it?
Of course the best way of making that point would be to produce such an argument.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Whatever one might say about Karen Armstrong's credentials (I've heard many objections), her faith journey is an advanced one that's crossed terrain of deep faith and conviction to despondant nihlism to arrive at a place I'd call much too nuanced to fit in the "atheist/agnostic" box you suggest she belongs in.
Her credentials are irrelevant to how I regard her argument.
And I'm not suggesting that she makes the argument against fundamentalism/sts, I haven't read her book (though I think I will). I'm suggesting that criticizing fundamentalism/sts is band-wagon jumping that seems to be the default position of many agnostics/atheists (the author of the post to which I responded?). With very little consideration of what its actual position is.
I think often the best arguments take a backseat to the simple ones. Consider evolution. Many times you'll hear the argument, "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" This argument doesn't even make sense in terms of debunking evolution, but it still is repeated quite often. The average person doesn't have the time/desire to dig deep into arguments, and instead often will take the easy argument that will lead them back to an unearned certainty. I know I am guilty of doing this. As far as this goes in relationship to God, If there is a God that wants us to know that he exists, he has set up our existence in a way that makes it difficult to discover whether or not he is real.
Last edited by _Stormy Waters on Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Whatever one might say about Karen Armstrong's credentials (I've heard many objections), her faith journey is an advanced one that's crossed terrain of deep faith and conviction to despondant nihlism to arrive at a place I'd call much too nuanced to fit in the "atheist/agnostic" box you suggest she belongs in.
Her credentials are irrelevant to how I regard her argument.
And I'm not suggesting that she makes the argument against fundamentalism/sts, I haven't read her book (though I think I will). I'm suggesting that criticizing fundamentalism/sts is band-wagon jumping that seems to be the default position of many agnostics/atheists (the author of the post to which I responded?). With very little consideration of what its actual position is.
Having read her book, I'd say she's got a good handle on what the fundamentalist position is, and I think she makes a compelling argument that religious fundamentalism (e.g. biblical literalism) is disconnected from and appears to fail to understand religious history, the development of the Bible, and the intentions of many of the relevant ancient religious groups. I do hope you read her book.
Having read her book, I'd say she's got a good handle on what the fundamentalist position is,
I would assume so. Though just because it's in print doesn't make it accurate.
and I think she makes a compelling argument that religious fundamentalism (e.g. biblical literalism) is disconnected from and appears to fail to understand religious history,
Possibly. Though it's been my experience that quite often fundamentalists at least try to reconcile social-context, historical and theological development, and nuanced possibilities of the text. Not always. But often enough that I'm suspicious of these blanket assertions.
I do hope you read her book.
Sounds interesting. I left my kindle where I can't get at it for a week or so, but perhaps I'll jump in then.
Hoops, it often occurs to me that you read a great deal of the general discussion of religion and atheism far too personally.
That probably would be how it appears. Not my intention though. I wonder when was the last time anyone on this board has attended a SBC service in the deep south, or a charismatic church in the upper midwest, or a Episcopal church in a very liberal city. I'm fortunate that I have and I think this gives me a perspective some might find valuable. Most probably not. That's the only reason I often weigh in on these topics.
I think that is a limiting way to read.
Me to. I'll try to do better.
But as I said before, I'm pressed with time at the moment, so consider this a placeholder for a larger argument I want to make to you, an argument which I think may ultimately help you better engage in discussion from your own position (i.e., I'm not interested in talking you out of religion, as I hope you know, but in learning to make richer critiques).
I'll take it!!
I'll probably send you some material via pm, but if you don't hear from me by the weekend, will you please remind me?