…and this is a 
I was having a conversation with a colleague last night, and one of the things we were talking about is the way modern religion has rushed to emulate the trappings of science, where every explanation must have an epistemological foundation in real world observations. A paradigmatic example is Ken Ham's bizarre Creation "Museum", which on the one hand repeatedly rejects the power of human reason, while on the other constantly throws up pseudo-scientific displays that mimic those of real museums, trying to illustrate the apocalyptic fever dreams of a world-destroying flood with mechanistic explanations, from floating islands of logs that carried the koalas to Australia to faux-authentic maps of the path of the tidal wave that killed everyone; the literature of creationism is also thick with 'feasibility studies' of the engineering of the Ark, estimates of how many species could have fit aboard, peculiar adoptions of physics software that, by diddling certain inputs, they use to justify such nonsense as hydroplate theory, explanations of the distribution of fossils by hydrologic sorting, etc., etc., etc. Witness also the recent small surge of creationists maneuvering to get Ph.D.s from prestigious institutions, from Berkeley to Harvard, not with the intent of doing actual scientific research, but because it adds an illusion of authority to their apologetics and denial of science.
What we are witnessing is the obvious bankruptcy of spiritual thought. We know it, and they know it; it is not sufficient to declare the Noachian Flood to be a miracle, a catastrophe conjured up in an instant with a snap of God's omnipotent fingers, with all of its traces magically erased or juggled by God for God's ineffable purposes. It is not enough to say that God willed that trilobites would come to rest in certain layers of Flood sediments, and the bones of mammals would be buried in yet another graveyard of stone; no, they must invent natural processes that assist their enfeebled deity, that sound more plausible than that their god placed each dead clam in its final resting place, one by one, with loving attention to its stratigraphic layer and accompanying fauna.
Their work is an admission of failure. They are struggling to embed their deity in the natural universe of Newton and Darwin, steadily stripping him of powers in order to accommodate themselves to a very human success story, the power of rational, scientific thought, while somehow, they hope, not losing god among the protons and black holes and mitochondria and ion fluxes across neuronal membranes. It's not working. They dream of shackling dinosaurs to help them popularize creationist apologetics, but it only works if the people don't look too closely, don't get so enthralled with the gimmick that they look more deeply at the evidence than at the faith message, and discover that the creationists are lying to them. They are lost because they are praising the evidence of the natural world rather than the unfounded revelations of spiritual guesswork, and at some point, some people are going to notice the bait-and-switch of using dinosaurs to sell god.
At least some people are noticing, though. The Wall Street Journal commissioned Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins to answer the same question: Where does evolution leave God?. Of course, Richard Dawkins slams that one out of the park. Evolution leaves the gods nowhere, with nothing to do. The world trundles along on the laws of physics, with never a violation in sight, and god has become a cosmic irrelevancy, and worse, a boojum that defies reason and evidence. We have no need of that hypothesis, and it is nothing more than an obstacle to comprehension.
Karen Armstrong takes a different tack. She has noticed that religion has been busily undermining itself by coupling faith to fact. When theologians accept the explanations of science and try to absorb them into their religious understanding, they are binding their notion of god to a rather more limited body of abilities; now God's actions are suddenly constrained by E=MC2. Not that they would say such a thing, of course; God is omnipotent, so he can break all the speed limits if he wanted to, he just chooses not to. She admits that Darwin has created a crisis for religious thought because "Christians [had] become so dependent upon their scientific religion that they had lost the older habits of thought and were left without other resource."
For once, I agree with Armstrong. She's precisely correct — rational thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and science in general are inimical to the spiritual state of mind, and draw us away from superstition and other failed modes of thinking. What has occurred over the course of the last few centuries is a growing (but by no means universal or certain) recognition that science gets the job done, while religion makes excuses. Sometimes they are very pretty excuses that capture the imagination of the public, but ultimately, when you want to win a war or heal a dying child or get rich from a discovery or explore Antarctica, you turn to science and reason, or you fail.
If you're one of these New Atheists, the lesson is obvious: ditch the useless faith, and follow science. But then, we're the results-oriented children of the Enlightenment, so of course we prefer to do what actually works. If you're a die-hard faith-head like Karen Armstrong, though, you instead turn to that religious style of thinking, and make excuses for happily following the path of failure and nebulous, airy-fairy know-nothingness.
But Darwin may have done religion--and God--a favor by revealing a flaw in modern Western faith. Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our understanding of God is often remarkably undeveloped--even primitive. In the past, many of the most influential Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers understood that what we call "God" is merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence cannot be proved but is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enable us to cultivate new capacities of mind and heart.
Neat trick, that; she takes the notion of a worldly god, one tied to the operation of the world, and calls that "primitive", while suggesting that a god that is a symbol, a transcendence, a spiritual (whatever that word means) intuition, is somehow the more sophisticated god. As Dawkins explains, mere existence and effect are trifles with which a truly awesome god does not trouble himself. Armstrong carries it even further: her god is a sublime state which we can only appreciate by contemplating the pain and suffering of life and distancing ourselves from it — god seems to be that which we get when we reject the universe. She even asserts that religion explains nothing, as if this were a positive attribute.
Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace
Shorter Karen Armstrong: Ignorance is bliss.
I don't want to live peacefully with difficult realities, and I see no virtue in savoring excuses for avoiding a search for real answers. I am the product of millions of generations of individuals who each fought against a hostile universe and won, and I aim to maintain the tradition. I want my children to do the same, and I want all of my fellow human beings to struggle to wrest a better world from the rocks and gasses and radiation of this universe we find ourselves in. There are no easy solutions. Each of us can think of a thousand thorny problems, from the personal to the global, and we all know this: we will not solve them by going to church and kneeling down and praising an immaterial god whose primary attribute in the sloganeering of theologians like Armstrong is that he is a symbol of that which doesn't exist.
In my conversation last night, my friend reminded me of a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche that is appropriate here: "Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they are not even shallow." Let's work to spare humankind from further further religious 'thought', that shallow pretentiousness with delusions of profundity.
Comments
Posted by: Jack Krebs | September 12, 2009 10:27 AM
Some excellent thoughts, PZ, especially, in my opinion, the part about many religious advocates essentially capitulating to the power of science by trying to find "evidence" for their beliefs. This runs from the obvious inanities of the young-earth creationist to the superficially more sophisticated attempts of the IDists to argue about information etc. as evidence for "design."
Posted by: Carlie | September 12, 2009 10:27 AM
This is a fabulous post, yet all I can think of is "Thank the FSM that fish picture isn't at the top of the page any more."
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 12, 2009 10:32 AM
Mainstream theism is on the inevitable path to deism - at least, when the theists are in the presence of atheists it is. However, I suspect that the second our backs turn their intangible, spiritual-only inspirational being becomes the hands-on, prayer-answering, manna-from-heaven, flood-the-earth-and-turn-people-into-pillars-of-salt-when-he's-pissed-off interventionist Old Testament Yahweh.
I've got a great idea for a cartoon of this but I don't have the drawing skills to pull it off, dammit.
Posted by: flaq | September 12, 2009 10:34 AM
Are we certain that she's not being tongue-in-cheek here? I mean, that is such blatant nonsense. Not even shallow is right. My 12-year-old cat's left pinky toe has more power in this world than that thing she's describing.
Posted by: JD | September 12, 2009 10:36 AM
More excellent prose from the master squid!
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz
|
September 12, 2009 10:38 AM
Plas, plas, plas, plas...
These are the posts that make following Pharyngula a delight.
BTW, I think today is the first showing of Amenábar's new movie, "Agora", about Hypatia and the fight for reason and enlightenment that was lost to the Christian hordes and lead the world to the darkness of the Middle Ages.
I hope we don't loose this one...
Posted by: Jesse | September 12, 2009 10:39 AM
Incredible article PZ. That was my favorite from you in awhile. Thank you.
Posted by: whydowebelieve | September 12, 2009 10:40 AM
It is baffling that there exists this reverence toward god-belief; a suggestion that even though we know it to be grounded on fallacious assumptions, that somehow there is something that can be ultimately good coming out of it. Baloney!
Preach it PZ!
Posted by: alopiasmag
|
September 12, 2009 10:40 AM
Very good post PZ! Keep'em coming! and.... when can we expect your book???
Posted by: theVOID | September 12, 2009 10:48 AM
Brilliantly said PZ.
Posted by: llewelly | September 12, 2009 10:49 AM
Karen Armstrong:
Admit it, PZ. You know atheists don't do their spiritual exercises and are thus spiritually weak and spiritually obese. That's the real reason you can't intuit God. Not enough spiritual push-ups, spiritual pull-ups, and most importantly, spiritual running around in circles. Y'all gonna die of spiritual arteriosclerosis.
Posted by: Francesco Orsenigo | September 12, 2009 10:49 AM
The only problems with Science is that so far it has always focused on very practical problems, leaving self-development, happiness, satisfaction and so on open terrain for religion, superstition, magical thinking and so on.
For example, meditation is usually seen as a 'supernatural' practice rather than just some self-training exercises to better use your brain.
If I want to know how to be happy, any priest/shaman/crook will know something to tell me however effective, while Science has barely started to scratch the problem and can provide hints at best.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 12, 2009 10:50 AM
Brilliant, brilliant post this morning. I found my head nodding in agreement with what PZ have written. (Only in place of Karen Armstrong, I imagined my mother... It was not difficult, same words, same feelings, just substitute Hinduism for Christianity)
Karen goes:
That last bit had me in splits. Compassion that lies at the heart of faith? Which world does Ms. Armstrong inhabit? Certainly not ours! It sounded very much like Francis Collins' 'no morality without god' non-argument.
But I loved the fishy illustrations!!
Posted by: Jacob | September 12, 2009 10:50 AM
I agree that many religous folks have basically made God into a hypothesis to be tested. They do more damage to their selves in this regard.
At the same time, I question the metaphysical claims that you depend on--such as, humans are rational. Have you seen this faculty of reason? I haven't. I have seen people give reasons--but reason giving and rationality, it seems to me, are different, no? Empirically we can see that people are reason giving animals; that says nothing about their (magical?) powers of rationality.
Science is useful, I would agree. But, I wouldn't say science is truthful--that is the faith statement of a philosophical realist. Point is, I guess, that sounds too metaphysical for me also.
As you mentioned, you are working within and arguing in support of a tradition of thought and action--but isn't that what Christians are doing?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 12, 2009 10:50 AM
I still suspect that one can find room for an interventionist god in the gaps in our causal explanations of the universe (note that this is the opposite of what the creationsts attempt to do with the "God of the Gaps" class of argument). However, such an attempt needs to be seen for what it is: a desperation move to preserve some moderate level of orthodoxy in the face of the explanatory obsolescence of one's theology.
Armstrong's approach seems to be to resign that game, and give up on any well-defined (and therefore potentially falsifiable) god-concept -- which strikes me as basically trying to retain the language for its warm-fuzzy associations, while emptying it of all meaning. About such gods I am formally agnostic, for the simple reason that the question "Does it exist?" is unanswerable without some coherent definition of "it".
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 12, 2009 10:50 AM
God was once very much alive: He made animals, controlled the natural forces of the earth, acted in military conquests, participated in scientific experiments. He even rose the dead - a truly omnipotent deity.
But when it was his turn to die, God remained dead. No resurrection, no second coming. The church has always known that God remains dead, a few among the faithful may glimpse a living deity but its those who know that God is dead who pull the strings - it's Weekend At Bernie's on a grand scale.
So scared that this secret would get out, the crimes committed against anyone who would dare to speak out were unfathomable. When the enlightenment came, the astonishment was evident. "God is dead? Preposterous! Why just yesterday I saw him order his angels to put the sun across the sky". By the time Hume exposed the concealment and Darwin "confessed the murder" there was nothing left to do but have Nietzsche write the obituary.
"Oh Tyler Durden, we made you in our image - the perfect form of humanity - the ultimate desire by which we are too wretched to live by. We nailed you to a cross, so that you could suffer with us. There's only one track in the sand, could it really be that I was looking into a darkened mirror, that the candle in the dark has illuminated my own reflection? Could it be that you're a schizophrenic hallucination? Was the comfort I felt an illusion? Were you suffering alongside me, or what I suffering alone?"
God is dead, God remains dead, can't we finally move on?
Posted by: sailor1031 | September 12, 2009 10:52 AM
No flaq, she's not being tongue-in-cheek. I'd have respect for that. She's being seriously arrogant by essentially saying "I have invented a transcendent being I call god who is undetectable except by other brilliant theologians like me. So all you poor schmucks who think that religion is about a god that actually did stuff or does stuff that can be detected just aren't getting it". Furthermore she thinks hers was the common understanding before the enlightment made everybody's thinking so rational and mechanistic. This of course is a complete rewrite of world history and so nonsensical as to be unworthy of attention. I'd recommend reading her book (she's written and published it several times now) if you have a day or two to waste. It's amazing that anybody bothers with her nonsense; staggering that she is actually taken seriously in some quarters.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 12, 2009 10:54 AM
llewelly at #11: FTW!
Posted by: SteadyEddy | September 12, 2009 10:57 AM
Yet another thought provoking and inspiring post from PZ. I'm glad you're finally taking the time to author a book to broaden your audience. Thanks PZ!!!
Posted by: Thorne | September 12, 2009 10:58 AM
I love this!
Translation? Don't think too hard! Stay in front of your TV watching the latest parade of "reality" shows, or the latest hollywood gossip, or what passes for "real" news. Don't try to find out anything hard, just have faith. Don't do the work. Trust us. We know better.
I think I'll pass on that. I like the hard solutions. They make it all seem worthwhile, somehow.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 11:02 AM
PZ, just seeing Karen Armstrong's drivel in Comic Sans with the Gumby icon made my day.
I call bullshit. Sure, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers said this in the past, but they were never influential. The interventionist, anthropomorphized God has always been the one worshipped and spoken of by the vast majority of believers.
Posted by: CJColucci | September 12, 2009 11:04 AM
If any significant number of religious folk actually believed the Karen Armstrong style religion, which, as I understand it, is "there's a lot I don't understand that doesn't lend itself to scientific explanation and there's this handy tradition -- no better than someone else's handy tradition, but it's the one I grew up with so I'll use it -- that addresses such things through contemplation and spiritual exercise," that would be a wonderful thing. I wouldn't agree with it, but I wouldn't be bothered by it either. If anyone knew of a practical way we could encourage such a result, I'd sign up to help.
Posted by: tsig | September 12, 2009 11:05 AM
Karen Armstrong = courtiers reply.
Posted by: speedwell | September 12, 2009 11:05 AM
Hello, folks. I'm mostly ignorant about Nietzsche. What work of his is the quote from? I've done a Google search with no success. Thanks!
Posted by: Pteryxx | September 12, 2009 11:06 AM
To Wowbagger #3:
Randall Munroe didn't need much for drawing skills either. Toss up a sketch somewhere and let us see. I'd be willing to give it a shot, and I'm sure there are others.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 12, 2009 11:09 AM
Armstrong:
Yeah, sure.
Posted by: t3knomanser | September 12, 2009 11:14 AM
Hail Eris! Eris, unlike lesser gods, doesn't feel the need to actually exist, worldly, transcendent or otherwise. Eris is a happy fiction, and she's perfectly content with that, unlike some other gods, that want to be believed in, or recognized, or worshiped.
Posted by: raven | September 12, 2009 11:16 AM
Ask Giordano Bruno or Galileo just how "therapeutic" that cosmology was.
Posted by: madrone | September 12, 2009 11:17 AM
I think Karen is trying to tell us that people who need gods will imagine the gods that they need.
Posted by: Butterbean | September 12, 2009 11:18 AM
to Speedwell @25:
I think the quote is garbled. It may be an accurate quote of a bit of Nietzsche I haven't read, but it looks like #27 in the 'Maxims and Arrows' chapter of 'Twilight of the Idols':
Women are considered deep - why? because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.
(And I'm not going to defend his misogyny - great philosopher, great big feet of clay.)
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 12, 2009 11:20 AM
Well, I suppose you could take this as a somewhat gentler rewording of Lewis Black's description of Genesis as: "a wonderful story told to the people in the desert--to distract them from the fact that they didn't have air conditioning."
Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 12, 2009 11:22 AM
Jacob @14:
Would you care to elaborate what that cryptic statement means? Science is a study in empirical naturalism. Any claim that science makes comes out of empiricism - hypothesis, experiments, observation and analysis, all within the framework of reason. It is possible that at a given level of knowledge, mistakes have been made, and wrong conclusions, arrived at, but science is essentially self-correcting because it is also a system of continuous self-examination and critique. As our knowledge-base keeps expanding as a result of endeavors of scientists, better tools are made available for better and deeper investigations, leading to finer analysis. Science is not stagnant, like the 'god hyphothesis'.
Therefore, you, sir, may not 'say science is truthful', that is your prerogative, but it is mine to call your statement, "bullshit", in the absence of more interesting epithets.
Posted by: IaMoL | September 12, 2009 11:23 AM
They will brand me an atheist? Ahh, the pejorative atheist. The ultimate disparaging label according to superstitious blowhards. I wonder why she didn't go ahead and add, " and atheists are so ghey."Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 12, 2009 11:24 AM
@Jacob #14,
The primary difference is the efficacy. The epistemic foundations of science provide the observation of reality as the base of knowledge. This has given us better control of (wait for it...) reality.
It's as simple as that, really.
The epistemic foundation of Christianity (and other religions) is fundamentally intuition and introspection. As you noted, humans are not rational, at least not anywhere near 100% rational. Our own irrationality allows us to create an imposture of knowledge and call it wisdom.
The methodology and practice of science attempts to sift the rational from the irrational by comparing potential knowledge against reality itself. This does, of course, assume that "rationality" is the ability to perceive reality.
Science is the great sieve of knowledge.
So, no, there really is no equality in rationality between science and religion. It's nice to assume there are "other ways of knowing," but you have to ask, knowing what? And how is this knowledge relevant to... well, anything?
Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 12, 2009 11:24 AM
Blockquote fail!! The last bit should read as:
Ummm... No. Faith, espoused by Christians and followers of other religions, is the very antithesis to reason, the lynchpin of science. A tradition qua tradition makes no sense, any more than the blind following of that tradition does, without the framework of rationality.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 11:28 AM
I don't think PZ ever claimed humans are rational. Humans are capable of thinking rationally, but it's a learned skill.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 12, 2009 11:29 AM
Dude, that's a quote from Dawkins.
Posted by: Rick T | September 12, 2009 11:30 AM
"Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace"
What history book has she been reading? Religion was invented to control the masses and to explain the world. Living creatively is certainly not part of religion unless it is trying to create new excuses for why your religious beliefs don't jive with reality.
It should be obvious to her that, after a couple millennia of killing and power grabbing, the last thing religion is about is helping us cope with realities or finding a haven of peace. If it were they would not spend so much time beating down gays, diddling boys, or amassing wealth, none of which has anything to do with peace.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 12, 2009 11:33 AM
First, thanks go to PZ for the post. Others above have done a better job than I of praising it.
Second, FWIW reading this strongly evoked a recollection of a passage from Dostoevski. He like to use the "story within a story" device. In the Brothers Karamazov he had one brother tell the other the story of what would happen if Christ really came back. Here comes the spoiler: They crucified him again. Religion and God™ have become sources of political, social and economic power and influence. Of course you're going to see a herd of holy men forming a human pyramid to keep their God's™ head above water.
Perhaps someone can recall who originated the famous quote "you can not explain something to a person whose job relies on not understanding the concept."
Oh, and one last random thought: My favorite scene in The Last Temptation of Christ is when St. Paul says to the very much alive Jesus 30 years after the crucifixion "Oh, you really are him. Well, I'm really glad I met you. Now get lost."
Posted by: gman | September 12, 2009 11:33 AM
I think Armstrong is a very good theologian, and I immensely enjoyed her "History of God" a few years ago.
But it seems to me that in the preface to that book she admitted that, as a nun, she was never able to experience spiritual transcendence despite her diligent and faith-filled efforts to do so. This and this alone led to her leaving her religious order.
So it's very odd to see her now touting spiritual experience, not only as real, but beneficial.
Also in HoG she sharply and acutely criticises fundamentalism as wrongheaded. But in recent years she seems to have adopted a woolly-headed relativism, suggesting that all paths to God are equally valid.
It seems there's two ways to build a religion:
1. make falsifiable claims, and then ignore disconfirming observations (Hamm et al).
2. make non-falsifiable claims (because they're vague or meaningless) but claim that they constitute non-scientific wisdom anyway (Armstrong).
Posted by: Steve | September 12, 2009 11:37 AM
Actually, in the ancient world, as among fundamentalists today, people believed quite literally in the gods and magic and all that. They believed in them because they thought they worked. According to the story anyway, one of the reasons Constantine went with Christ as his deity was that he helped him gain a military victory [the famous Milvian Bridge incident]...that type of thinking is no different from Christians today who say things like 'Jesus healed me, so I believe in Him.' When Christian missionaries chopped down pagan idols and the locals saw that Perun or Thor or Crom or whoever did nothing about it, they concluded that they were on the wrong team. When Native American shamans could do nothing to stop smallpox, they concluded that the white man's magic must be stronger. I think that for most people, if a god or goddess ceases to act in the real world, he or she will become irrelevant and will no longer be believed in - let's hope that happens!
Posted by: gf | September 12, 2009 11:38 AM
I thought Armstrong's piece was reasonable.
I don't think she deserved the ranting icon besides her quotes.
If 'religious' people were all to adopt this attitude, I'd have no problem with them. I really enjoy comic books, and find the evoloving interpretations of the mythologies of these characters to be an enthralling part of my life - with their stories often providing inspiration and perspective on my own problems. If others choose to view God and the Bible in the same way as I view Superman and his stories, that's entirely up to them. I hope it makes their lives better.
Some 'religious' people really don't think their religion had a super-natural origin, or provides accurate claims about the nature of reality, but rather, just enjoy the mythology. I think these people should be seen as potential allies in the promotion of rationalism, and we should be encouraging them to be clearer about their beliefs to those with a more irrational view of reality, so as to avoid giving the impression that they share their super-natural beliefs.
(I've not read much Armstrong stuff, so I'm just going off this article and a few other little pieces I've seen her write.)
Posted by: George | September 12, 2009 11:41 AM
Well said. Spot on.
Posted by: nal | September 12, 2009 11:42 AM
Let's work to spare humankind from further further religious 'thought', that shallow pretentiousness with delusions of profundity. SB:
Let's work to spare humankind from further religious 'thought', that shallow pretentiousness with delusions of profundity.
Great line.
Posted by: RHM | September 12, 2009 11:42 AM
Wonderful post, PZ.
Perhaps we shouldn't be so anxious to exterminate the efforts of Ham and his ilk; just keep handing them more rope and they'll end up doing most of the work themselves.
Hmmmm.....
I think I've just free-associated my way toward a BLT. Lunchtime.
Posted by: Miguel | September 12, 2009 11:44 AM
Vacuous nonsense. Go ahead Karen, give yourself a pat on the back. You know you want to.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 11:47 AM
You find dishonest historical revisionism reasonable?
Posted by: IaMoL | September 12, 2009 11:50 AM
Karen describes herself as spiritual but not religious. She collects unicorns and likes walks on the beach but she dislikes pessimism and mean people. She and her nine cats await your reply.
Posted by: Alan E. | September 12, 2009 11:50 AM
"I am the product of millions of generations of individuals who each fought against a hostile universe and won, and I aim to maintain the tradition."
This is a very moving and inspirational line. You have summed up the basic reasoning for our present existence. When someone asks me what reason, as an atheist, I have to do good and be happy, I will quote this.
Posted by: Iris | September 12, 2009 11:53 AM
Excellent post PZ... 'cause you said..."boojum."
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: SteadyEddy | September 12, 2009 11:54 AM
"Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip."
-Dawkins
Dawkins is so in tune with our economy. If god existed in the first place, that would be one big unemployment check to pay out. One good thing to come out of it- wine would be served in the bread lines...
Posted by: gf | September 12, 2009 11:54 AM
@47: Well, the historical claims she made about religion were so vague as to be almost meaningless (from what I remember).
A lot of religious people like Armstrong do seem to cling to a softness expression that allows people to interpret their words as if they are supportive of the super-natural, or making false historical claims, etc. This is a bad thing, and it would be fair to ask for clarification or supporting evidence, but I don't feel comfortable jumping to the conclusion that she's lying. When interpreting the writings of others I think it's best to try to give them the benefit of the doubt at first.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 12:00 PM
gf, here's where she's being dishonest:
Armstrong has dedicated most of her adult life to studying the history of Abrahamic religions. She knows better.
If she wants to advocate the texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as useful fictional literature, then she's welcome to do so, but that's not religion, it's literary criticism.
Posted by: Strider | September 12, 2009 12:12 PM
Excellent essay, PeeZed!!! Full of quotes I intend to use!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 12, 2009 12:15 PM
With all due regard to Armstrong & Dawkins, perhaps the most revealing and thought-provoking material on the page they share is the little cluster of ads at the bottom.
Lo, the self-proclaimed "masters of the universe" have fallen far indeed when the Wall Street Journal is reduced to advertising -
Maybe the Seed Overlords could notify wsj.com about how to upgrade their sponsors by listing "Hot Russian Brides!" - but I hope they (the O'lords) charge them (the Murdoch minions) a hefty commission for the hook-up.
Posted by: Susan | September 12, 2009 12:16 PM
Sex, drugs and rock & roll are a lot more fun to get there, though.Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 12, 2009 12:20 PM
I've long felt that (other than outright mockery) one of the best ways to pull religions' fangs is to turn them into performance art and cultural artifact. Kind of like what Ken Ham is doing with his christian disneyland nonsense. But make it cute.
There's plenty of good arguments in favor of having social rituals. So, instead of trying to destroy religion, promote splashier and more fun new cultural rituals. Maybe ones that are a bit more fun-based and less guilt-based, etc. And with big hats! Because, you know, big hats are important homo sapien selection something or others.
Since religion utterly fails to derail science (cell phones work, prayer doesn't - game over) in the long run, we're going to be left with the spiritual mumbojumboists and the pure fidests. The way to attract people away from "real faith"(tm) is with wedge strategies like santa claus and the easter bunny. I think that the atheists who put up christmas displays are on the right track; but they should be making sure that their displays are funnier, cooler, and more eye-catching. Make religion into a vast mardi gras and that'll pull its fangs.
Posted by: Brian | September 12, 2009 12:23 PM
It's a mistake to read Karen's attempt to interpret the religious viewpoint as her own perspective. Karen Armstrong is far from an advocate of any faith. She's not a theologian. She's a religious historian who's books explore the phenomenon of religion. To me there's no better debunking of the historicity of judeo-christian belief than the 'The History of God'.
She's gone from nun to atheist to 'freelance monotheist' (which is just an evasion). She couldn't do what she does if she claimed belief or atheism.
Posted by: AndrewB | September 12, 2009 12:31 PM
Gman @40
If you think Karen Armstrong is a "very good theologian" then what is a bad theologian.
Posted by: AndrewB | September 12, 2009 12:33 PM
Awesome post PZod I knee before thee.
Posted by: Tom Wood | September 12, 2009 12:40 PM
Excellent post PZ, thanks.
I've not read any Karen Armstrong, but the little bit here raises a confusion that's always annoyed me. When I'm in the mood to be annoyed by such things.
There seems to be the presumption that being religious and being spiritual are one and the same. I think religion and spirituality are mutually exclusive. Religion demands certainty about the nature of the unknowable, spirituality at least lives with uncertainty.
Both are ultimately a pretense to deepness, while actually being not even shallow, so I guess that explains how they seem to be the same. Until there's a definitive answer to the 'big questions' then any answer is pure pretense.
Where did it all come from? Why isn't there just nothing? Why are we here?
Not a clue...
Posted by: Carlo | September 12, 2009 12:42 PM
Is it typical of the Wall Street Journal to refer to Ph.D. Professors as 'Mr.' and completely leave out their credentials? As in:
—Mr. Dawkins is the author of "The Selfish Gene," "The Ancestor's Tale," "The God Delusion." His latest book, "The Greatest Show on Earth," will be published by Free Press on Sept. 22.
Posted by: Hillary Rettig / www.lifelongactivist.com | September 12, 2009 12:42 PM
fabulous post, PZ. And let's not forget how much religious ferver, throughout history, has been catalyzed by the profit motive.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 12:44 PM
Carlo, the Wall Street Journal leaves out titles generally. They even refer to the US President as "Mr. Obama". I don't see a problem with it.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 12, 2009 12:46 PM
Brian @ # 58: Karen Armstrong is far from an advocate of any faith. ... She couldn't do what she does if she claimed belief ...
Then why does the blurb at the end of her WSJ piece say her forthcoming next book is titled The Case for God?
Posted by: Andi | September 12, 2009 12:50 PM
Great post PZ! Really nails it down ...
Posted by: steve | September 12, 2009 12:54 PM
Karen hallucinated:
For something that is "indescribable" she sure spends a lot of time and energy trying to describe it.
Perhaps she should hire a mime.
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 12, 2009 1:07 PM
First comment under the WSJ article is by Rus Bowden, who got his knickers in a twist in the "Five Best Arguments for Creation" thread because the sciencey people were mean to him:
Karen Armstrong starts her article called Man vs God with the words "Richard Dawkins", so I expected less than what followed. She actually went her own way, and developed some cogent thinking on the matter after a rocky first paragraph.
Dawkins, on the other hand, has his face so glued to the physical world that he is blind to our spiritual existence.
Posted by: gf | September 12, 2009 1:08 PM
@53 truthspeaker:
I'm really not comfortable with saying that's a lie. I know what you mean, and I think the passage you quoted is likely to lead to a misleading impression being created, but I'd rather ask for clarification at this point.
"many of the most influential": How many would be needed to count as 'many'? How influential to be considered one of the most influential? It's such a vague claim that it could be interpreted so as to be true.
There does seem to be a recurring attempt amongst the 'religion as a valuable myth' group to imply that, at some unknown earlier date, their views of religion were dominant. Perhaps they see creating this impression as being another valuable myth. It is misleading, and we should push them to clarify what they mean, but I don't think the passage you quoted allows us to condemn Armstrong as being dishonest.
I think Armstrong's piece is a reasonable start to a discussion. I would rather see this starting point being taken up so that we could pin down exactly what her views are, rather than jumping straight to dismissing her as a dishonest kook. She's previously been unfairly condemning of PZ, but I think he and some of the commentators here have been unfair here in return (although they could have been writing based on prior knowledge about Armstrong's beliefs which I am unaware of). It seems that Dawkins was not aware of Armstrong's piece when he wrote his, which is a shame as when I read them they were presented as if he was to provide a reply.
Posted by: Gryllus | September 12, 2009 1:09 PM
Zackly so - we even had a little paper in our South African Journal of Science that said some of this - basically creationists have taken the battle to the scientists by claiming scientific validity for ID and IC etc. This confuses students who are doing science. The paper claims that teaching 'what science is' earlier in courses can help counter this; also that if the creationists want their 'science' to stand up they shouldn't whine when evolutionary biologists pull it apart based on its scientific value (i.e. little to none). It came out in 2007 I think - can track it down if anyone interested. PZ was pithier though :)
Posted by: Hank Fox | September 12, 2009 1:17 PM
Beautiful post, PZ.
One thing all the accommodationists fail to realize is that pretty much everything you just said here, especially the moving ending, is unavailable to those who desperately desire science and religion to peacefully coexist.
A rational person MUST see the poison in religion before he/she can advance to the beautiful understandings that lie beyond. It's only after you get the poison out of your head that you begin to feel the power of the Real.
Those people who insist that science and religion are compatible -- when they absolutely are NOT -- have to live with heads full of fuzz, so they're never able to fully appreciate rationality, never able to fully use or discover the power of reason and science.
Worst of all, they’re never able to fully SUPPORT reason and science. They might use the fruits of it, or give lip service to it, but they’re parasites more than champions or backers.
The godders and accommodationists who accuse you of anger, hate or vehemence themselves fail to realize three things:
1) Expressing yourself powerfully, harnessing strong feelings in the service of exposing lies is a GOOD thing.
2) A tepid approach when faced with lies, even traditional lies, is BAD.
3) Denying that poison is poison, staying forever in a state of denial where you simply don’t want to recognize it for what it is, is also BAD.
Nothing good comes from cozying up to lies, no matter how comforting you find them, how long they’ve been with us, or how much powerful support they have.
The best way to move forward is to make a sharp, clean break.
For our entire civilization, IT’S TIME.
Posted by: bobxxxx | September 12, 2009 1:18 PM
I spent $2 on today's Wall Street Journal just to have the article by Dawkins. It was very convincing. I don't see how a rational person could read it and still be a theist.
Unfortunately not everyone is rational. I think part of their problem is they can't accept the reality that people are part of nature instead of being separate from nature. They have been raised to believe people are not the same as all other animals. They just can't escape from that idea and that's why they continue to believe in Mr. Creator, despite the total lack of evidence for it.
Posted by: Ian Tester | September 12, 2009 1:18 PM
Nice 'rant' there PZ. I myself recently started wondering why the creationists go to so much trouble twisting science and evidence to their irrational beliefs (or outright lying) when they believe in a God that can supposedly do anything!
Of course, many do resort to 'goddidit'. But like you said, there does seem to be an underlying need for evidence and reason. And yet they claim that their god is unknowable...
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 1:19 PM
gf, outright lies are a subset of dishonesty. She may have concinved herself that at some mythical time in the distant past, her views were the dominant religious views. Deceiving oneself is still deception.
I don't see anything in her article worthy discussing. It's mostly vacuous nonsense. I don't think she's a kook. In some ways she and people like her are similar to people who go to Star Trek conventions. They know all the stories, they talk about the stories, they even sometimes put on costumes and raise their hands in the Vulcan salute. The difference is most Trekkers don't think their activities have some overarching benefit to humanity. It's just something they enjoy.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | September 12, 2009 1:21 PM
Carlo asks: Is it typical of the Wall Street Journal to refer to Ph.D. Professors as 'Mr.' and completely leave out their credentials?
As a footnote to truthspeaker's reply: WSJ's not alone in this. I was greatly amused some years back when, in a NYTimes article about the rock singer Meat Loaf, everything after first mention referred to him as "Mr. Loaf."
Re: Ms Armstrong's mention of "...a compassionate lifestyle that enable us to cultivate new capacities of mind and heart."
It's possible to do this without any gods, too. Not even more difficult.
The idea of "transcendence" bugs me. I've never seen a definition of it that isn't a cheerier way of saying "Get over it." Yeah, no shit, there are awful things and pain and fear and grief and rage in life. Some of these things can be helped. Some can't, and God's Plan just gives us someone to blame personally, while scolding us for being anything but all smiley and Stockholm Syndrome-ish about it.
Every time someone goes on about the beautiful mysteries of the "transcendent" you turn around and someone else with a telescope or a microscope or years of patient observation or a big cube of stinky fishbait* has found things more beautiful than any mystic ever described, and is holding it out for us to see and love.
*Fiji petrel! Holy crap!
Posted by: bloodyhell | September 12, 2009 1:24 PM
Karen Armstrong: "The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry."
She assumes that all poetry is beautiful. Obviously she never met a Vogon.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 12, 2009 1:25 PM
So why not take the next step beyond saying that God is an ineffable symbolic transcendent whatnot, and go ahead and say he doesn't actually exist, then our faith becomes even more sophisticated, right?
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 1:27 PM
Except that our spiritual existence is part of the physical world.
Posted by: gf | September 12, 2009 1:31 PM
But her claim about "many of the most influential" could be true, depending upon how you interpret it. It might not be any sort of subset of dishonesty.
I think her piece is worth discussing because it puts foreward a defense of religion which I seem to be hearing ever more often, and which may be reasonable in itself but unless it is explained more clearly, may still end up providing a justification for others to maintain their own unreasonable beliefs.
I quite enjoy exploring ideas anyway, but even in more utiliatrian terms, wouldn't it be worthwhile if we were able to get supporters of this view to acknowledge and be open about the fact that they are similar to Trekkers? I think that this would help isolate and undermine those religious followers who take a more super-natural view of their faith.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 12, 2009 1:34 PM
Look at who the first comment is from in the "Man vs. God" article! Good ol' Rus Bowden, the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, who dishonestly argued that he was not promoting the idea of a god in an earlier post here.
Oh, Rus, you cheeky fellow. You're also blind to our flamigial existence, and our blixmunic existence, and all sorts of other existences for which there is no solid definition or evidence.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 1:34 PM
I really don't see how. Their lack of influence is evident from a study of history.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 12, 2009 1:37 PM
Jacob writes:
At the same time, I question the metaphysical claims that you depend on--such as, humans are rational. Have you seen this faculty of reason? I haven't. I have seen people give reasons--but reason giving and rationality, it seems to me, are different, no? Empirically we can see that people are reason giving animals; that says nothing about their (magical?) powers of rationality.
I think by "rational" what is often meant is similar to how the christians speak of "christian goodness" -- we 'know' what it is even if we seldom practice it. :D
Joking aside, it's possible to say that there may be orderly ways of thinking and that we may try to think in ways such that our thoughts are not contradictory. If we can do that, within the limits of shared language, we may be able to communicate those thoughts to another and (unless they are able to induce contradiction) they may find them easier to adopt because of the supporting arguments that may come with them. I think "rationality" is really not much more than the seek to reduce contradiction in one's world view.
Science can't deal with phyronnian skeptical challenges any more than religion can; it's not possible for us to "prove" to even ourselves that we're not a brain in a box or a subroutine plus data structures in a simulation. Beyond that, it's hard to accept that rationality offers anything but trying to keep our own thoughts orderly. (I can envision a madman whose notion of 'contradictory' is very different from mine. He would consider himself "rational" but would be able to hold views, simultaneously, that I couldn't. It would be very difficult to "reason" with such a person and it might take me a long time before I realized that communication with such a person might be completely invalid.) So - some of us try to be whatever we personally think is "rational" and hope that those we communicate with are rational, as well.
Another way of saying what we just said, I suppose is "watching some of what is advanced as 'rational argument' in this blog makes me doubt that when we say 'rational' we are all talking about the same thing."
Science is useful, I would agree. But, I wouldn't say science is truthful--that is the faith statement of a philosophical realist. Point is, I guess, that sounds too metaphysical for me also.
"Truth" is something I don't see science as offering. It offers very very very very high degrees of likelihood based on past observation - which is really, really, really useful (as you can see by all the cool technological widgets around us, and the global warming) but "truth" and "knowing" like the faithful talk about: who wants it? I'm not convinced I even know what it is.
Cziko's book "without miracles" (universal selection theory) does a pretty cool job with showing how science does an end-run around skepticism by basically playing evolution/selection on ideas, and expectations of future interactions based on past observations. "The sun will rise tomorrow" appears to be a useful statement because "the sun will not rise tomorrow" has not survived hundreds of thousands of years of failure. Etc. I wish someone who can write better than Cziko would take up the topic - it's a really good book but it's pretty leaden.
Anyway, "rational" appears to be atheist shorthand for "I have sets of beliefs based in reason rather than religion, yet I try to act consistently with my own views and generally adopt social norms." Where convenient.
Posted by: Vollmond | September 12, 2009 1:41 PM
Well said PZ and Dawkins! I can't wait for AAI 2009 in Burbank!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 12, 2009 1:43 PM
bobxxx writes:
...the article by Dawkins. It was very convincing. I don't see how a rational person could read it and still be a theist.
If they're theists, they're not rational. So they probably just file it all away under "stuff that hurts my brain to think about" and ignore it.
(if by rational we mean having an ordered non-contradictory world-view that is at least somewhat grounded on first or second-hand evidence)
Posted by: gf | September 12, 2009 1:44 PM
@81 truthspeaker:
For an exagerated example, let's assume that by 'most influential' she was talking about the 10,000 most influential philosophers from these traditions. By 'many', lets assume she means 'more than 5’. Then her statement would certainly be true.
That what I meant by saying it was so vague as to be meaningless. It's not making any firm claim about reality at all, it's just making a noise which is intended to lead you in a certain direction. I think it's very likely to be misleading, but not necessarily, and I think it would be better to ask for a clarification than conclude that she was being dishonest.
Posted by: Jacob | September 12, 2009 1:44 PM
Kausik,
Would you care to elaborate what that cryptic statement means?
Sure, as a practical activity science is useful. The scientific method can help people manipulate and predict phenomena. Just because some set of methods is practically useful does not logically entail that the set of methods or the outcomes they predict are true.
There is often a conflation between useful and truthful--which you seem to be making. But truthfulness and usefulness are logically distinct. One flows from a pragmatic understanding of science; the other flows from a philosophical realist notion of science.
Why the anger? Because I've attacked your faith in the Truth of Science.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 1:45 PM
gf, "influential" means they influenced people. I think it's clear that they didn't influence very many believers. From that we can conclude that "most influential" is not true.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
September 12, 2009 1:48 PM
A profound analysis, PZ. Bravo!
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 1:50 PM
Reliable prediction implies more than usefulness, it implies factual accuracy, which is as close to truth as science - or anything else - can get.
Posted by: Jacob | September 12, 2009 1:53 PM
But aren't the epistemic foundations of science resting on a presumption about the nature of reality. In particular, it seems, the claim that "science provide[s] the observation of reality" presumes a philsophical dualism. That is to say, before you can argue that scientific theories match up with a reality outside those theories, you must presume that there is a gulf between subjects and objects, known and knower. Philosophical dualism is one logical presumption about the nature of the world. Philosophical monism is another logical position.
"Science is the great sieve of knowledge"--sounds like a statement of faith to me. Or have you tested that hypothesis?
To be clear, I'm not claiming that there is "equality in rationality between science and religion." Rather, I am arguing that both science and religion are rooted in certain traditions. Sure, the tradition of science is useful and the tradition of religion is not so useful. But both are traditions.
So, no, there really is no equality in rationality between science and religion. It's nice to assume there are "other ways of knowing," but you have to ask, knowing what? And how is this knowledge relevant to... well, anything?
Posted by: gf | September 12, 2009 1:55 PM
@ 87 truthspeaker:
How many people would they need to have influenced before you would allow someone else to class them as being amongst the most influential? Do you not see that others could have very different figures to you, without being dishonest?
Posted by: Margaret | September 12, 2009 2:01 PM
'Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our understanding of God is often remarkably undeveloped--even primitive.'
That sentence is a bit wrong. Didn't she mean to say
Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our faith in God is often remarkably undeveloped--even primitive.
This is a really good post. Thanks PZ
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 2:08 PM
At least 40% of the total believing population.
No. "Most" means "more than the others". Even to be among the "most influential" means they would have had to influence a hell of a lot of people.
Posted by: Jacob | September 12, 2009 2:10 PM
How does prediction logically entail accuracy?
A predictive statement is useful. Why must it be accurate?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 12, 2009 2:14 PM
Jacob writes:
But aren't the epistemic foundations of science resting on a presumption about the nature of reality. In particular, it seems, the claim that "science provide[s] the observation of reality" presumes a philsophical dualism. That is to say, before you can argue that scientific theories match up with a reality outside those theories, you must presume that there is a gulf between subjects and objects, known and knower.
You can presume there's a gap, and it still works anyway - obviously. I don't "know" in any real sense that you exist; you could be a perl script or a figment of my imagination. In fact, I could be a brain in a box or a subroutine. But, until I find out otherwise, I can continue to act as if I know something because, really, what's my alternative? There are alternatives: I could try to bash my way out of the box, but I might actually not be in one, either. Since I have no way of "knowing" I may as well be happy monkey meat robot as anything else.
The cool thing about science is that it can avoid actually "knowing" the "truth" about anything. Even our observations. They could be mistakes, like Blondlot's N-rays. Eventually things that appear to happen the same way enough to appear to be predictable appear to allow us to build things that appear to work.
Put another way, you personally don't "know" that semitrailers are real or that the "bigger they come the harder they hit" appears to be a physical law, but I bet that I couldn't talk you into stepping in front of one just to show me what a brilliant skeptical philosopher you are.
Sure, the tradition of science is useful and the tradition of religion is not so useful. But both are traditions.
That appears to be intended to sound profound, but really doesn't say much.
It's nice to assume there are "other ways of knowing," but you have to ask, knowing what?
No, I don't have to ask. If I'm a brain in a box, I'm pretty comfortable here and I don't need to worry about skeptical challenges because my nutrient bath is really nice and warm and I haven't been programmed to.
And how is this knowledge relevant to... well, anything?
Science works even if you don't know anything. That's the great thing about it. I, personally, don't know anything about what it's like to get hit by a semitrailer, because I saw what they do to deer and I'm willing to operate based on guess-work and someone else's past observations. And it works, apparently. Well enough to build this magnificent simulation I live in, anyway.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 12, 2009 2:25 PM
Jacob writes:
There is often a conflation between useful and truthful--which you seem to be making.
You know the old saying "see the buddah, slay the buddah"?? I always thought that the best way to deal with phyronnists was to just keep punching them in the mouth until they admit there's enough of some kind of shared reality that they ask you to stop.
I understand that there is no way of "truly" "knowing" anything. So, one simple way of dealing with it is to accept that it doesn't matter. Apparently "truth" and "knowing" matter to you - but that's because you're acting like a creo: you're asking for reasons to believe in something that may not be there, or may be pointless to believe in. I'm comfortable that I don't "truly" "know" anything but I can still live my life as I understand how it appears to be, completely without having to care. That leads me to suspect that those who are concerned with "truth" and "knowing" are wankers pursuing philosophical handjobs.
I'm going to (as far as I can tell) get in what appears to be my scientifically created and fairly predictable truck and go eat what appears to be a cheezburger at the local seems-to-be a truck stop. You can have your ataraxia pose, assuming you even exist.
Posted by: Dr Benway | September 12, 2009 2:26 PM
PZ, this is a keeper. Very well written.
Posted by: gf | September 12, 2009 2:29 PM
@93 truthspeaker
I think you need to take a fresh look at this. Armstrong's not making any historical claim which she can be held to, it's just an almost meaningless gesture.
"In the past, many of the most influential Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers understood that what we call "God" is merely a symbol..."
This is not the same as saying "25% of those religious thinkers who've been proven to have influenced over 40% of the believing population believed that God was merely a symbol."
When you said: "At least 40% of the total believing population" were you joking?
Most, means 'more than the others', but there are an awful lot of 'others' over the history of religious thought. 'Religious thinkers' is such a vague group that narrowing it down to the 'most influential' amongst them is like dividing infinity.
I'm really confused by your replies, and the way you're approaching Armstrong's use of language. In a way, you're illustrating the point made by people like her that atheists have an autistic like inablity to understand the role allusion can play in communication.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | September 12, 2009 2:34 PM
#6 El Guerrero del Interfaz
WHOO HOOO! I had no idea they were making a movie about my mother! Thank You, Thank You for the heads-up.
Today is my birthday & this is like a gift.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
September 12, 2009 2:35 PM
I detest the arrogance of Karen’s brand of airy-fairy apologetics. “Ooooh, we’re all spiritual and stuff. We see farther. We know that there’s more to the world…”
Bullshit.
The people who see farther are those who focus their attention on what actually is. They let the truth exist—whatever it is. They study it. They examine it from all angles, and the endeavor gives them insights and sparks their imagination. All too often, spiritual people begin with imagination (either theirs or other’s), and stay there because it’s so much easier than genuine investigation. It’s lazy-mindedness. It’s mental masturbation sanctioned and organized and given undue—and often forced—respect over many centuries until it has morphed into a corrupt tradition of thought that, still today, keeps people spending their entire lives preoccupied with nonsense.
Perhaps at one time religion did begin as a focus on the transcendent, a meditative exercise of the mind to grasp ineffable concepts and appealing ideals, but that is not what religion became, and it is certainly not what religion is today. The meditative exercise has always been corrupted for political ends, an attempt to control people’s thoughts and actions. “God” is most definitely not merely a symbol for the vast majority of people. It is a being with a history, a personality, and a plan of action, and you’d better worship it or else. To imply otherwise is blatant nonsense.
And why try to turn back the clock to a time when people didn’t have many answers and merely dwelled on mythology and possibilities? Why do that? Nostalgia? The impulse to ponder the unknown with humility will always be with us—it doesn’t need to be organized into a religion.
Posted by: cag | September 12, 2009 2:44 PM
It has become obvious that deity has turned into diety, as the gaps are getting slimmer and slimmer all the time.
Posted by: patrick | September 12, 2009 2:52 PM
The problem with claiming that god is ineffable transcendent floozy is that you then find yourself believing in ... what exactly? It sounds like Armstrong is affirming a belief in basic human goodness. Well, if that's the case, then why retain the word god, which refers to an external, omnipotent entity? It's like referring to human reproductive processes as a "crane."
Posted by: Thorne | September 12, 2009 3:00 PM
@Gryllus #70: "PZ was pithier though "
Yeah, he has a nasty habit of pithing all over these people.
Posted by: IaMoL | September 12, 2009 3:00 PM
My bad. That's what I get for multi-tasking and scanning.
Posted by: Lilith | September 12, 2009 3:00 PM
A thoughtful and interesting post, PZ.
Pierce @65
That must be only forthcoming in the US because there are already 3 copies in the ACT (Canberra) library system. I'd just checked her on the online catalog to see if they had 'History of God' because that sounded far more interesting than 'The Case for God'.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 3:04 PM
So you're saying that Armstrong's statement is basically meaningless? Isn't that at least as bad as being dishonest? If you're right then I'm wrong, then she's making a vacuous statment instead of a dishonest one. How are vacuous statements useful for discussion?
The way I read what she wrote, she is making a historical claim. She is vague on the numbers but she is making a general claim that is testable.
And no, I was not joking about the 40%. Obviously it wouldn't have to be exactly 40%. But even if it were as low as 15% Armstrong would still be wrong, and she is well-educated enough to know it's wrong. I read History of God. She does her research, or at least she used to.
"Among the most influential" has a fuzzy meaning but it still has meaning, and that meaning is inconsistent with the historical record.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 3:07 PM
^If you're right and I'm wrong
Posted by: David L | September 12, 2009 3:13 PM
An excellent, well-written piece.
Posted by: anonymouroboros | September 12, 2009 3:24 PM
By "philosophical dualism," you mean substance dualism, correct? If so, I believe you're confused as to what substance dualism is, or you mis-stated what you wrote here. Substance dualism is when you divide the world between "spiritual" essence and reality. No atheist believes that (well, not very many), and your type of "dualism" isn't dualism at all, so much as it is the separation of discrete objects. The originally quoted statement should be self-evident to anyone. Unless you believe that nothing we have gained from science is knowledge. It sounds like you were just trying to be snarky here, but a problem results from the pithiness of your reply. I have no idea what you are trying to dispute, though there are many possibilities: science has not given us any knowledge (obviously false, as by definition anything we know is knowledge), science has not given us any useful knowledge (false, as you yourself say science is useful), among many others that I could only guess. Too vague for me to make any sense of. So? If religion's claims about the world are wrong, and science's are the most useful (i.e. work, make testable claims about the world, etc.), what does it matter what tradition it's based on? It could be based on Confucianism for all I care, so long as it is useful and reflects reality more accurately than any other systems, and it can show that it does. Prediction does not necessarily entail accuracy, but that doesn't mean that prediction is not a good indicator accuracy. A problem here results in your vagueness of "truth" and "accurate." You seem to be confusing two different conceptions of truth, or you are using one that would result in confused thinking about science.I think, though, your problem is that what you're speaking of is the kind of "Truth" that religion has, and that type of "truth" doesn't really exist. It's not truth at all, it's just certainty. Knowledge without certainty is the only way we can approach reality, perhaps never quite reaching it, but it is convenient, though not completely accurate, to call it "truth" tentatively, is it not? That's what at least some here mean by truth, not the sort of religious certainty that you've been implying with your "truth."
Posted by: gf | September 12, 2009 3:27 PM
@106 truthseeker
Yes, that statement of Armstrong's was pretty much meaningless (as I saind in 52). At the very least, it's meaning was so vague as to be untestable. I expect it was used for rhetorical reasons, as a way of emotionally manipulating the reader and gentley waving away complaints from the religious of abondoning the 'true' faith, without ever really addressing them. Discussing this point with her would, for me, only be of interest to see if she could be pushed to defend a more factual claim, like the one you thought she was originally making.
Using language like this in an editorial piece is, to me at least, quite different from being dishonest. In order to try to persuade others of your arguments it's quite normal and acceptable to use language to guide their emotional responses as much as provide them with information.
Posted by: Akiko | September 12, 2009 3:48 PM
I believe the more logical and intelligent a person is the less likely they will be religious. If you are logical you cannot suspend your disbelief long enough to swallow it. But a logical, intelligent child can be converted if you scare them enough and plant enough doubt about themselves thus the concept pf Hell and Satan was concocted. My 6 year old says while watching a magician "They call it Magic Tricks because they trick you into thinking there is such a thing as Magic."
Posted by: Jordan Licht | September 12, 2009 3:49 PM
Am I the only one who noticed this?
If evolution displaced a creative god, then wouldn't mean that psychology displaces a metaphorical god?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 12, 2009 3:50 PM
Great post PZ.
Sorry, it's not a very informative comment but I had to say it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 12, 2009 3:53 PM
gf #110
I fail to see how blowing smoke in the faithfuls' eyes isn't dishonest.
I agree with truthseeker. If she's claiming that a notable number of "influential" theologians were arguing in favor of deism I'd say she was wrong. Spinoza was excommunicated (cherem) by the Amsterdam rabbis for advocating deism. Likewise the Catholic Church put his books on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and his books were burned by the Calvinist hierarchy in Geneva and Zurich. So the most famous deist theologian I know of had his theology soundly rejected by the religious mainstream.
Posted by: Susannah | September 12, 2009 3:57 PM
20 years ago, I was reading Paul Tillich on the nature of God. When he descended into statements akin to this, I realized that he didn't know what he was talking about at all. It sounds "deep" if you don't think, but I got the whiff of desperation; an attempt to drown with vague circumlocutions the knowledge that there was really nothing behind the God stories.
Here's Tillich:
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 12, 2009 4:05 PM
Jacob rambled:
A predictive statement is useful. Why must it be accurate?We know they are accurate when they come true. We know that our rules for making predictions are relatively trustworthy and as close as possible to true when the consistently produce true predictions. I'd be surprised if you did not know that this is how science works. Otherwise you're trying to equate scientific predictions with prophecies. It's not a matter the idea that predictions must be accurate. Predictions can be inaccurate, but when they are, we discard them and find a more consistently accurate method of prediction.
Posted by: MickyW | September 12, 2009 4:07 PM
Karen Armstrong puzzles me; her "History of God" is the reason I'm now an atheist, but she seems unable herself to take the final step.
Her new book, "The Case for God" is in the bookstores now. I'll read it, but I don't expect it to actually make a case for anything except more reason to doubt.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 12, 2009 4:08 PM
hmmm..... I remember reading The Battle for God and liking it. I of course don't remember any details, and the woo she just wrote up there makes me doubt my previous judgment...
I suppose I can blame liking that book on the fact that back then I was the sort of agnostic who liked the idea of a warm and fuzzy religion, and would have viciously defended herself against accusations of atheism.
Posted by: Midnight Rambler | September 12, 2009 4:12 PM
gf @110:
That doesn't make it less dishonest, far from it. It means you're claiming "lots of important and influential people agree with me", when really you're using weasel words to cover up the fact that (to use numbers from earlier in this discussion) only 5 out of 10,000 major theologians agreed with this position, and they had little influence on mainstream thought. You may call that meaningless, I call it a lie, even if it is trying to manupulate emotions in a debate.
Posted by: Fred | September 12, 2009 4:15 PM
Karen Armstrong puzzles me; her "History of God" is the reason I'm now an atheist, but she seems unable herself to take the final step.
No puzzle here at all. Just fear, plain and simple.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
September 12, 2009 4:17 PM
Nice post.
When the religious attempt to bolster their failed system by stealing the appearance of doing science, they end up with cargo cult science. To actually do science would destroy their system, so they are left with posturing.
Another analogy for this is mimicry. The Wiki entry says it well:
The hoverfly benefits when it is perceived to be a highly effective wasp. Likewise Ken Ham and his ilk when they take on the appearance of doing Science.
The other interesting characteristic of the religious faction is projection. It is fascinating to watch when they retaliate by inappropriately echoing a telling argument that has been made against them. You'd think they'd be embarrassed, but it's like laying down chaff to confuse the dupes, often including themselves.
Things like "Science requires more faith than Religion" and "Atheism is a Religion," come to mind.
Posted by: gf | September 12, 2009 4:24 PM
@ 114 'Tis Himself
I don't think blowing smoke, or using manipulative language is the same as being dishonest, especially within the context of a magazine polemic! Indeed, it's almost inevitable, when we're trying to discuss complicated topics in a concise and persuasive manner. Anyone who really thought about the claim being made would realise it was not substantial, but for people just flicking through the article, it might help them gloss over one objection they might have, so that they could go on to engage with the rest of the argument.
It's worth noting that this is what has happened, and it would be nice to have her write with greater clarity, but I don't think it warrants the jeering dismissal meted out by some here.
@119 Midnight rambler
Lots of important people do agree with her interpretation of religion (‘lots’ being ‘anything more than 5’ imo). They are outside the mainstream, and have never been (to my knowledge) the dominant school of thought, but she has not said otherwise.
You can say things which are true in an ambiguous and misleading way, and I think that this is what she has done. Given that her claim is so vague and meaningless that it certainly could be true, I do no feel comfortable calling her ‘dishonest’ for making it.
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | September 12, 2009 4:24 PM
Regarding Armstrong's ideas of "many of the most influencial" ; maybe she means is actually those who were most influencial for her ( and who should have been more influencial because, in her eyes, they were right). Kinda like the "royal we". It's like she's claiming that some obscure early seventy's band whom nobody but herself and a few critics have ever heard of were "really influencial" while everyone else was a commercial sellout. She is one of the Chosen Few who Really Gets It. When you Know The Truth, (and Capitalizing Words makes them More Important) numbers don't really matter. Because these thinkers influenced HER, that makes them Important.
Just guessing out loud.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 12, 2009 4:31 PM
Looks to me like an admission of a failure of faith first and foremost, and an attempt to compensate for it by introducing natural causes or phenomena that dont require faith but can be understood by "normal" people.
it is a good sign.
As to Karen Armstrong, I find her books rather garbled and unreadable.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2009 4:42 PM
What I've bolded is pretty much the definition of dishonesty.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 12, 2009 5:02 PM
How mean of you PZ; Karen was clutching at straws and you pulled the bale out of her reach; now she clutches at nothing but air in vain attempts to halt her fall. Maybe an angel will catch her, but I'd like to think she'll fall into the darkest depths of hell. What a pity there's no hell.
Posted by: gf | September 12, 2009 5:06 PM
@125 truthspeaker:
I think 'ambiguous' and 'evasive' would be better fits - and this is just to my personal interpretation. I do not know I'm right about that passage being intentionally manipulative. #123 mentions another interpretation, and I'm sure there are many others. To jump in and accuse her of being dishonest seems unfair to me.
Posted by: SaintStephen | September 12, 2009 5:11 PM
It sounds like Karen Armstrong is advocating her "God beyond God" chicanery like a drug. She's obviously lost her Faith, and now stoops to peddling cotton candy laced with Ecstasy to children. (Presumably Karen is long past her productive years as a working girl.)
Great writing, PZ. Enjoyed that read.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 12, 2009 5:13 PM
"Armstrong carries it even further: her god is a sublime state which we can only appreciate by contemplating the pain and suffering of life and distancing ourselves from it ..."
God is Opium! Why did they send Karl Marx to hell then?
I fell over laughing when I read the bit where Armstrong says we should ditch the abrahamic religions in favor of buddhism. Why doesn't she phrase her thoughts more concisely:
"The Xian god which I claim to believe in doesn't exist. I'm thinking of becoming a Buddhist and believing in Nirvana instead."
Oh the hilarity - a god which exists but really doesn't exist for real but only as a concept of freedom from the cycle of death and incarnation is pure sophistry - so you can call the silly notion "sophisticated" indeed if you use the archaic meaning and not the meaning which people use today.
Posted by: Jeff
|
September 12, 2009 5:36 PM
Mad Scientist: How mean of you PZ; Karen was clutching at straws and you pulled the bale out of her reach; now she clutches at nothing but air in vain attempts to halt her fall. Maybe an angel will catch her, but I'd like to think she'll fall into the darkest depths of hell. What a pity there's no hell.
Seriously? There are millions of fundies who fantasize daily about our eternal torment - and Karen Armstrong is the one you want in hell?
If you mean this, you have some serious issues.
Posted by: AndrewB | September 12, 2009 5:45 PM
How many times can you say the same thing over and over gf?
Are you serious? To quote you :
"You can say things which are true in an ambiguous and misleading way, and I think that this is what she has done. Given that her claim is so vague and meaningless that it certainly could be true, I do no feel comfortable calling her ‘dishonest’ for making it."
1. You know what this is it's intellectual dishonesty. If you're going around purposefully using misleading arguments then you being intellectually dishonest. You even admit that's what you think she's doing. Yet you try to claim that she isn't being dishonest. What the fuck is wrong with you?
2. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt that she actually doesn't know she's misleading people. Her argument, and this is in your words, 'is so vague and meaningless that is could certainly be true.' Those are your words and what you don't seem to realize is that they're so vague and meaningless, that A) You should discard them because they're vague and meaningless. Why keep them? B) If they might as well be true, then they might as well be false. Hence why you discard them it's not a good argument move on to something else.
3. If you are unsatisfied with the example of her dishonesty here, then perhaps you should read her other works where she is even more of a blatant liar and fraud.
And when it all comes down to it you're defending her because why? If I understand you it's so we can team-up with the fuzzy thinkers who's 'God' is just some happy happy joy joy feelings. It doesn't fucking mean anything. I can see why you might be tempted, as her God has no religious content, nor could it have any content. These aren't people who make good candidates for rational thinking.
Posted by: Lynna | September 12, 2009 6:00 PM
I liked this bit from Richard Dawkins' home run:
Nice touch with the "Good heavens".
It's certainly true that God (of some kind) is real to my religious friends. They refer everything they think and everything they do (and even how they spend their money) to the gatekeeper at the God-house they've built in their minds. The gatekeeper takes the message to God and God may throw the message in the trash, or he/she/it somehow replies, or guides the petitioner.
I submit that this "god" is the individual's ideal self. This "god" is the individual as they would like to be if they lived up to all their ideals, plus the ideals of their church, plus the ideals of their peers, and so forth. God is the part of themselves that plays judge. Unfortunately, this god is subject to emotional blackmail, especially of the "eternal life is at stake" variety.
Since our subconscious mind continues to work on problems when our conscious mind is elsewhere, it's no surprise to discover that an answer has frequently been sent to the conscious mind. The mysterious sender of the answer or decision is none other that our lowly selves -- the human brain doing its best to live up to whatever is required of it.
Posted by: @BangClangCrash | September 12, 2009 6:01 PM
Thank you, Professor M, from the bottom of my heart. This was truly beautiful and moving, the way CS Lewis felt for me at 13. Your post and Dawkins' article explain perfectly why humans can live wonderful lives without the eternal boogeyman. Since I'm stuck in a red zone, Pharyngula and it's posters are one of the only feelings of community I can get. So thanks, everyone, for keeping my brain intact and spirits up.
"Why do I have to prove that a soul is just a brain, mom? I'm saying my car is just metal that gets me from point to point. You're saying yours is a Transformer that will save the galaxy. Which one of us needs to prove something?"- Overheard at In &Out Burger
Posted by: windy | September 12, 2009 6:23 PM
I was just going to say that 'therapeutic cosmology' sounds like something out of Douglas Adams.
Posted by: gf | September 12, 2009 6:24 PM
@ 131 Andrew B
I often post on religious board, so I'm used to have to post the same thing over and over again.
1: No, I don't think she's being intellectually dishonest, I think she's being rhetorically manipulative. I think such techniques are par of the course for editorials in which the writer is openly trying to persuade others to adopt their position.
2a: I think they add nothing to her argument. I would have advised her to discard them, had she asked. I don't think that's reason enough to claim she's being dishonest.
2b: Well, if you assume that she meant the majority of religious thinkers most influential on religious people have agreed with her position, then it clearly would be false. But when your faced with a statement that can be understood in ways which make it either true or false, I think it is unfair on the writer to then condemn them as dishonest.
3: With such a recommendation, I don't think you can blame me if I pass.
I'm defending her because I think she's being unfairly treated.
Somthing that disturbs me about this blog is the way the comments section can descend into the sort of tribalism I'd traditionally associated with the religious. You shouldn't need a reason for defending someone from criticism you think is unfair. I have not interest in playing 'their side against ours'. That would be intellectually dishonest.
Imagine if you were reading a religious blog, where the commentators were all attacking PZ for being dishonest, when actually you saw they'd just imposed their own interpretation onto his words, and that they were blind to the claim he'd been trying to make. Wouldn't that make it easy to dismiss them as dogmatic reactionaries? Not taking the time to try to understand the arguments of those they oppose, but instead smugly wallowing in their own misplaced sense of superiority.
I don't have a particular problem with religion, I just don't like bullshit and the two tend to go together. If someone enjoys the stories of the Bible, going to church, etc, etc, that's fine by me. It's only when they start supporting claims of the super-natural that it bother me. I don't see the need to 'team up' with anyone, but I think it's foolish to condescend to those who just enjoy religious stories and ceremonies just because of some instinctive distaste for their past-times.
Posted by: Anri | September 12, 2009 6:40 PM
Francesco Orsenigo sez:
Unless you count getting enough to eat, living mostly free from crippling and deadly disease, being able to share information across space and time, and learning something about the world other than what you can pick up outside of your mud hut important to self-development, happiness or satisfaction.
If those are related, thank science.
Not by scientists who have studied changes in brain activity during meditative states.
In other words, not by people who actually know what they are talking about.
See my first paragraph. Chances are very good that the priest/shaman/crook is only alive because of science. Chances are good that you are, too. The fact that they can communicate with you at all is a direct result of science.
It's hard to be happy when you're dead.
Posted by: Harry | September 12, 2009 6:50 PM
#68 "Karen Armstrong ... developed some cogent thinking on the matter."
To me this is someone, who knows the game is up, turning somersaults to defend the indefensible.
Posted by: efrique | September 12, 2009 7:39 PM
Ooh, you're on form there PZ.
I hadn't heard that Nietzsche quote before - it's perfect (and with a strong suggestion of Pauli's "not even wrong", it makes me wonder if Pauli was paraphrasing)
Posted by: John Morales | September 12, 2009 7:57 PM
Another most excellent post by PZ.
--
The existence of supplicatory prayer in all those religions puts the lie to that claim. One does not ask boons of a symbol, but of an agency.
Posted by: fireweaver | September 12, 2009 7:57 PM
"Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip."
-Dawkins
I love it. I have been using this as an email .sig for many years now:
"At one time, many of us had Jesus as our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence, misconduct, misappropriation of funds, and consistent failure to show up for work."
Posted by: Michael Peck | September 12, 2009 8:25 PM
One thing that occurs to me, in light of your final Nietzsche quote, is that an ever-increasing number of people with whom I discuss their religiosity are claiming that with the advent of "quantum science" nearly all scientific explanations are now essentially "mystical".
I believe this is going to become an ever-increasing problem for atheism. Future generations may come to regard Science, itself, as a relatively mystical phenomenon once we have reached the point that our technology is sufficiently advanced so as to be indistinguishable from magic (credit: ACC).
Posted by: Stacy Kennedy | September 12, 2009 8:28 PM
@El Guerrero del Interfaz #6
Thank you for mentioning Amenabar's Agora! I had not heard of it before, and now I'm all excited. He's one of my favorite filmmakers, and Hypatia is one of my favorite historical characters.
Looks like it doesn't open here in the U.S. until December. Can't wait.
I'm telling all my friends.
Posted by: moonkitty | September 12, 2009 9:15 PM
And by the way, I second gf @35: nasty, self-righteous tribalism is an all-too-human trait, one not limited to religious folks: it pops up here often enough.
Karen Armstrong was not "lying".
"Paul Johannes Tillich (August 20, 1886 – October 22, 1965) was a German-American theologian and Christian existentialist philosopher. Tillich was, along with his contemporaries Rudolf Bultmann (Germany), Karl Barth (Switzerland), and Reinhold Niebuhr (United States), one of the four most influential Protestant theologians of the 20th century." (emphasis added.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
I can't speak for the other religious traditions, but I do know that a more abstract and philosophical notion of "God" was gaining ground amongst liberal Christians in the 20th century, until the Fundies hijacked the religion.
Questions: 1) Is such abstract religion meaningful? 2)Does it serve a purpose, or will its adherants inevitably wind up turning either to atheism or fundamentalism? My answers: 1) I doubt it, but 2) it may serve as a sort of waystation for people who can't quite let go of religion. I dunno, but I see no reason for us to get all pissy and go into attack mode just because someone points out that it exists, and that it is a tad more sophisticated than mainstream Baptist notions of everybody's BFF Jesus.
That said, I found "History of God" unreadable. I much preferred "Through the Narrow Gate," Armstrong's description of her life as a nun (technically she wasn't a nun, she was something else, I forget what, but it amounted to the same thing. She wore a habit and took vows. There was even some self-flagellation involved,) and how she came to leave her order. I hope someday she'll get out of the shadow of that damn gate, but with assholes on both sides wishing her in hell, she has my sympathies.
Posted by: kamaka | September 12, 2009 9:42 PM
This is as close to spiritual as I get. I think it's very cool to be related to all the survivors that have made it down the corridors of deep time. Whatever, wherever that first eukaryote existed, (and all the green slime that came before), that creature was my ancestor, no less than my grampa.
But like the isopod fish-tongue thing, not all relatives are equally admired.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | September 12, 2009 10:33 PM
Dawkins wasn't the only one to hit one out of the yard. Well done, Dr. Myers.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 12, 2009 10:49 PM
Michael Peck
Where the hell do people get the idea that quantum mechanics is "mystical"? It is anything but. It deals only in observables. It provides a precision unimaginable from any other theory. And most important, it requires that the method of measurement be specified completely to determine the result.
There are no quantum "adepts". It has no secrets that are not available to anyone willing to do the frigging math.
Yes, quantum mechanics is weird. Why wouldn't it be? It deals with a realm entirely beyond that experienced by our senses as they evolved. However, weird isn't mystical--and most important, quantum weirdness isn't woo.
Posted by: occam's aftershave | September 12, 2009 11:13 PM
I'm not convinced. I find it easy to explain what is going on pretty easily as a combination of wedge strategy, discrediting the opposition, and simple money-loving wackaloonery. The wedge obviously wants to pose creation as a viable scientific hypothesis not because the masses have pesky rationality and a horrid thirst for evidence, but because they see the strategy neutralizing science by undercutting the public's recognition of and understanding of real science, and because they think they can put the wolf in sheep's clothing sufficiently well to get past legal obstacles to putting their imaginary monster in the classroom. Let's not confuse that with a desire to turn the wolf into a sheep!
I mean, I think the Creation "Museum" illustrates plainly what little rationality and thirst for evidence the faithful really have. It'd be great if they felt a threat, but I don't think they do, or at least not enough do yet. Many are probably happy to have horrid uppity atheists with which to rile the congregation and fill the coffers.
Posted by: windy | September 12, 2009 11:23 PM
moonkitty:
Hello? Armstrong was not talking about modern theologians like Tillich, and I don't see anyone denying that such people exist. She says that the abstract, philosophical God has been the predominant form of religion since antiquity, and that the active busybody God is only a modern misunderstanding (onwards from Newton). THAT is what people are calling dishonest revisionism.
Would it have been too much trouble to actually read Armstrong's piece before whining about "tribalism"?
Posted by: Brad | September 12, 2009 11:38 PM
Shorter Karen Armstrong:"God is real! Even if he exists only in our minds! (And don't call us atheists!)"
Perhaps she is still hoping for a piece of Sky Cake, knowing that it is a vain hope.
Posted by: John Morales | September 13, 2009 12:00 AM
Aftershave @147,
Yeah, what PZ said: Their work is an admission of failure.
The've lost the middle ground, now they're reaching for the edges: Karen and her ineffability, and the Creos with their "science".
I think both are doomed strategies, in the medium-to-long term, because the latter have stepped outta their own turf into that of the empiricists (science) — and the contrast is gonna be too much for most adherents — and because the former abandons all relevance to people's quotidian needs.
Posted by: Anonym | September 13, 2009 12:25 AM
Perhaps Ms Armstrong is pursuing some sort of intellectual convergence with the homeopathic protocol: the more dilute the definitional attributes of 'god', the more efficacious (s)he/it becomes.
Posted by: Susannah | September 13, 2009 12:38 AM
The homeopathic god! (Anonym #151) I am so stealing that!
Posted by: Frank | September 13, 2009 1:10 AM
I've read this blog for a long time, but never had the urge to reply.
But after reading this entry, I must say that this is by far the best thing you ever wrote!!
Congratulations for doing such powerful argument!!
Posted by: Alec | September 13, 2009 1:56 AM
Very good article, even addressed some issues I've had lately and had been researching. Thanks!
Posted by: AndrewB | September 13, 2009 3:07 AM
Homeopathic god, excellent way to describe it, Anonym.
Posted by: bubba | September 13, 2009 8:44 AM
Would you write a frack'in BOOK already!! Excellent post!
Posted by: Kathy | September 13, 2009 9:22 AM
Like Frank, I've read your blog for a long time but never commented. This post is beautifully written. You speak truth without rancor, and you expose the greatest danger religion poses: it distances us from the reality that the deity isn't going to save us. We have to do it ourselves.
Posted by: R. Schauer | September 13, 2009 9:31 AM
If that's what it takes to see gawd...no thanks, I'll just masterbate instead.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 13, 2009 9:33 AM
Exactly. The view of God that Armstrong claims is ancient is actually very new, and modern literalist fundamentalism is a reaction to that new theology. I would have a lot more respect for Armstrong if she admitted that.
Also, I never said she was lying, I said she was being dishonest.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 13, 2009 9:44 AM
And that's what bothers me most about Armstrong's faitheism. She somehow sees at as valuable to pretend the part of ourselves that cares about other people and wants to do the "right" think is actually outside of ourselves. I find that degrading to humanity. Altruism, love, respect, awe, wonder, and compassion are part of being human, not a gift from some external entity.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 13, 2009 9:57 AM
gf, Armstrong claims that the thinkers who came up with this abstract god concept are "among the most influential". If they were influential, why do their ideas appear so rarely in the historical literature? Why do so few people seemed to have had views similar to theirs?
If I claim Ike Turner was among the most influential electric guitar players, I can back that up by comparing recordings of Turner with guitarists who came after him and seeing how often his techniques are replicated or referenced. Having some familiarity with the history of Christianity, I am confident that Armstrong cannot support her claim in such a way.
Posted by: xebecs | September 13, 2009 10:04 AM
At the bottom of that WSJ page online, there is a link to a cool essay about livable cities, written by David Byrne (formerly of Talking Heads).
Posted by: Mr T | September 13, 2009 11:25 AM
I suppose if Armstrong were only talking about apophatic theologians influencing other theologians, she may be right (or not, really what does it matter?), and contrary to what some have said here, that is a very old idea. For what it's worth, I do consider the way she said it dishonest as obviously that's never what most Christians, Jews, or Muslims have believed. It's telling how she attempts to contrast "primitive" literalist beliefs with ancient bullshittery like negative theology.
Look, guys, I can do it too!
We may not say existence or nonexistence apply to God.
We may not say God is defined in space or time.
We may not say God is falsifiable.
We may not say God is imperfect.
We may not say God is evil.
We may not say God is divine.
We may not say God is God.
Whoops, I just spoiled the magic trick, didn't I?
Meaninglessness, meet dishonesty!
Posted by: Joe | September 13, 2009 11:43 AM
PZ:
Your best writing to date (and that is saying something!)
Joe
Posted by: Stephen P | September 13, 2009 11:43 AM
As far as demolishing Armstrong's writing is concerned, PZ appears to have met his match in one Hugh Fitzgerald. I am not sufficiently familiar with the period of history concerned to offer an opinion on the facts of the case, but lovers of a good rant will enjoy this:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=7158&sec_id=7158
Posted by: Mr T | September 13, 2009 12:27 PM
Stephen P, that's a great review, but I must remind you:
We may not say bad things about Muslims.
We may not say Christopher Columbus was not a Jewish convert.
We may not say Karen Armstrong misrepresents history.
Posted by: blueshifter | September 13, 2009 1:28 PM
"I am the product of millions of generations of individuals who each fought against a hostile universe and won, and I aim to maintain the tradition. I want my children to do the same, and I want all of my fellow human beings to struggle to wrest a better world from the rocks and gasses and radiation of this universe we find ourselves in."
Fantastic pair of sentences, my friend. Hurry up with that damn book already!
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 13, 2009 2:50 PM
I don't agree with all of that Fitzgerald review. She may have overstated the case or oversimplified, but on the general history of that era Armstrong is right. Muslim Spain was more tolerant of Jews than Christian Europe at that time, and the Islamic world, along with Orthodox Christian Constantinople, preserved some knowledge of classical Greece and Rome that Catholic Christian Europe had lost.
Posted by: Peter G | September 13, 2009 3:08 PM
I don't find the slightest irony in Ham calling his institution a museum. Considered properly it is an ode in plastic and animatronics to Melpomene the muse of tragedy. With an unintended tip of the hat to Thalia to be sure.
Posted by: Anonym | September 13, 2009 3:22 PM
Past the opening paragraph (which places her rather firmly in the Dawkins camp despite any residual protestations), the argument of Ms Armstrong's WSJ article dissolves like a sugar bunny left out in the rain -- even more than like Humpty Dumpty, you can't put it back together again.
Posted by: Daniel | September 13, 2009 4:41 PM
Karen Armstrong : [quote] The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and which cannot easily be put into words. At its best, it holds us in an attitude of wonder, which is, perhaps, not unlike the awe that Mr. Dawkins experiences—and has helped me to appreciate —when he contemplates the marvels of natural selection.
But what of the pain and waste that Darwin unveiled? All the major traditions insist that the faithful meditate on the ubiquitous suffering that is an inescapable part of life; because, if we do not acknowledge this uncomfortable fact, the compassion that lies at the heart of faith is impossible. The almost unbearable spectacle of the myriad species passing painfully into oblivion is not unlike some classic Buddhist meditations on the First Noble Truth ("Existence is suffering"), the indispensable prerequisite for the transcendent enlightenment that some call Nirvana—and others call God.
[/quote]
I think someone should ask her tough questions.
1) Does the above imply that she is ok with the bible standing in the "Fiction" section in the store? Perhaps she would prefer it to be in the "Self-help" section?
2) If religion is a type of art, why should anyone give it any special status over other art? There are many inspiring concepts besides "god", like "the force", or "The power of three". Should the concept of "god" be preferred in any way to "the force"? Why? Should the mythos of the biblical creation have any preference to the mythoses of Terry Pratchett, or do they have exactly the same spiritual importance?
3) Who are the theologians that share her view? What proof she has that she is rediscovering something, and not inventing it?
Posted by: CJO | September 13, 2009 5:42 PM
The problem here is that phrase "standard practice in the West." If she means to say that through the medieval period scripture was not believed to contain a literal history of events in the ancient near east, then she's talking through her habit. That said, however, of course that literal history was also suffused with symbolism and allegory, and, among a literate, and, crucially, literary, elite, these elements have always held pride of place in exegesis; she's not all that far off in identifying the time period in which such elites began in increasing numbers to turn their analytical efforts toward such absurdities as the exact dimensions of the Ark etc. etc. and geneally rationalizing that which was never really meant to be rationalized.
Here's the thing, though: the period she identifies is congruous with the rise of literacy among non-elites and unprecedented access to these ancient texts in translation. And it's crucial to recognize that access to texts in no way means interest in the literary qualiies of the texts. Expose a generally uneducated despite newly literte population to a bunch of pseudo-historical mumbo-jumbo from an ancient world in which Jehovah, God of Hosts, was supposed to have been personally involved in the affairs of men and women, and there's no way to expect the more refined analysis of centuries of literary elites to simply transfer alongside the texts themselves, especially when the former elites had no interest in sharing their perspective for reasons I'll get into in a moment.
What Armstrong doesn't cop to here is that she herself is a member of a literary elite. What she's saying isn't so much wrong as it is trivially true, for a miniscule subset of the populaion, in any era, and, moreover, a subset to which she belongs.
There's further complicaton, also, in the way these elites have always reserved such lofty and abstract analysis for themselves. The way these texts have been used as tools of political, social and religious control by the very same elites who would disavow crass literalism as they embrace refined literary and theological interpretations is what gives the lie to her generalizations about "pre-modern religion." Whose "pre-modern religion"? we must ask. Clearly the ancient literary elite responsible for the composition and redaction of the texts of the Bible didn't take them as literal history because they are not, and they made them up themselves. But what were their purposes in doing so? They were manifold, clearly, but among them was certainly propaganda of various sorts, and for that purpose to grant non-elites a look behind the curtain, as it were, would be entirely counterproductive. What Armstrong seems to be missing or glossing over is that these texts have always, since their very origins, been both highly literary mythological investigations of the human condition and the interaction of that condition with the transcendent "other" conceived of as "the divine" AND vehicles for coercive strictures to be employed by the elite against the non-elite, who have never, and still are not, encouraged or empowered to share in the "insider's" view.
Basically, she won't come clean on what, exactly, is the root of the problem that modern fundamentalist literalism represents. It is this: in the modern era, the "common people," who were only ever supposed to just accept the stories on a naively literal basis with only the moral strictures on view as "meaning" beyond the suppsedly epic history presented which was acceptable as entertainment, have now been given free access to the texts in translation, but they only have the model of the post-Enlightenment analytical methods of modern history and science to do their amateur exegesis with. One of these things is not like the other, and so the remnant of the literary elite that has always had custody of the texts can say, like Armstrong here, "oh we never really meant it." The disingenuousness of this comes from the fact that you were two-faced, Karen. You never meant it among yourselves, but you always made sure the non-elite believed you did. So don't lay fundamentalism at the feet of the Scientific Revolution, which just happened to coincide with widespread access to the uncensored, translated texts. Lay the blame on all those refined, in-the-know theologians and other political/literary elites through the centuries who read them one way and preached them another.
Posted by: D | September 13, 2009 8:05 PM
@ llewelly (#11): That was beautiful!
However, I was under the impression that the historical record showed God was a very literal idea, and was supposed to be very understandable and very observable in day-to-day life, and if you didn't take your God-smack like everyone else and participate enthusiastically enough in the singing circles, they'd hang you by your toenails until you fell in with the party line.
As for Armstrong's statement that, "Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace," I have an alternative interpretation (an alternative to "Ignorance is Bliss"). I think she's calling for being satisfied with enough and figuring out when you've got it. For example, while one is doing all the good that it is in one's power to do, it simply does zero further good (and in fact quite a bit of bad) to continue angsting over how much there is left to do. Some people can get that inner peace with reason; maybe some people suck at reason and need faith.
This is why it's so important to teach kids to do their logical pushups, epistemological pullups, and ethical situps from day fucking one. If they feel no need for faith, then it shall have no power over them.
Posted by: Heidi | September 13, 2009 8:08 PM
@#39
They must have found out he was a liberal. Only liberals get assassinated. I hypothesize that this is because only conservatives have people batshit crazy enough to go around assassinating people.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 13, 2009 9:57 PM
Lilith @ # 105: ... 'History of God' ... sounded far more interesting than 'The Case for God'.
A more accurate title for History of God would be History of Judeo-Christian-Islamic Theologians, but then that wouldn't sound as interesting either.
I found it worthwhile in parts, but painfully lacking in context of what was going on outside the ivory towers.
Posted by: JBlilie | September 14, 2009 8:15 AM
Nicely said, PZ!
Are we really sure Karen Armstrong isn't a Poe?
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 14, 2009 8:24 AM
Assassination isn't always batshit crazy, and liberals (crazy and otherwise) have been known to assassinate people before. There's a movie out now about the Baader-Meinhof group. You should check it out.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 14, 2009 8:28 AM
CJO #172:
Exactly. Beautifully put. I salute you, sir or ma'am, for that excellent post.
Posted by: bourgeois_rage | September 14, 2009 9:39 AM
A retired UCC minister that I know is fond of saying that creationism is bad science and bad theology. He was at the protest when Ken Ham's 'museum' opened.
Posted by: Elizabeth Liddle
|
September 14, 2009 10:51 AM
Lovely piece.
But I think you might have missed a key point that Armstrong has made elsewhere, if not explicitly in that article - that religion is ART.
As such it can be as profound or shallow as any other art.
The problem, as she says, is mistaking it for science.
Posted by: Justin Chase | September 14, 2009 12:46 PM
Wow. Good stuff, keep it coming.
Posted by: anti_supernaturalist | September 14, 2009 2:15 PM
“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” The madman. ∫125 FW
Hi there PZ -- glad someone quoted Nietzsche to you. You are a scientist who likes to use his work and scientific acumen to make what are historical, logical, and broadly speaking philosophical arguments. But, xianity is an entrenched religion which has 2,000 years of Greek and Latin sophistry, jesuitism, and outright fundie lying to deal with guys like you. Don’t underestimate the oppo.
Now back to Nietzsche. Since Walter Kaufmann (1921-1980) philosopher at Princeton so ably translated N into English let’s use his translation of what is the entire content of section 126 of Die Froeliche Wissenschaft, The Exuberant Science.
Mystical explanations. Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial.
But N is not just for lifting quotes from. Sections 108-126 are a clever and determined assault on the concept of God. They occupy only 15 pages (including Kaufmann's important footnotes) in his small paperback -- his translated title, The Gay Science.*
There N uses in print for the first time his famous phrase 'God is dead.' What you are saying in your post amounts to demanding that the concept of God in the big-3 near eastern theisms be acknowledged as a dead idea -- It is ruled out both by conceptual analysis and by science -- believers modify their concept, trying to save it from falsification.
Essentially they commit the fallacy of ad hoc modification — an “immunizing strategy.” True believers cannot and will not specify the conditions (logical or empirical) under which they will reject the xian God hypothesis. They modify it; they immunize it; they ad-hoc it to death.
Immunizing big time has been going on since about 1730 when the first explicitly atheist publications appeared in France. Deism, which is a God hypothesis resulting from ad-hoc modification is older going back at least to 1600. And as a note: you'll find that US federal courts have and probably will defend the use of 'God' on coins and bills as referring to that Deistic entity as "traditional" to western thinking! Talk about immunizing.
For a humanist dethroning of "God"see: Michel Onfray. Atheist Manifesto. 2008. in French 2006.
http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Manifesto-Against-Christianity-Judaism/dp/1559708506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252950467&sr=1-1
the anti_supernaturalist
*These days, of course, no one remembers that the adjective 'gay' meant primarily 'bright' or 'merry' with a connotation of carefree irreverence. 'Gay' for 'homosexual' was just Australian slang as late as 1952. Maybe -- The Exuberant Science will do. And 'Wissenschaft' in German today can still refer to any disciplined and organized body of rational and empirical investigation. Nietzsche's original field of study was called Philology which is a Wissenschaft, just as Linguistics is today.
Posted by: baz | September 16, 2009 5:22 AM
Your best post in a long time, PZ, many thanks!