Armstrong vs Dawkins

[Cheeky Monkey]

I think science people like the great fool becuase he does know some things about scinece and he's such a cheer leader for it. He doesn't know shit about theology or philosophy.


In my book anyone who thinks that you don't have to know about the thing your criticizing because you think it's stupid is a total idiot.

Heh, Dawkins doesn't engage philosophy much, he's got Dennet for that. I remember him remarking once that theology wasn't even a subject because how could you have a study of an imaginary thing. I use that sometimes to rile people up a bit but I know the argument is barse-akwards, you can't just dismiss a discipline by just not admitting it exists.

[Cheeky Monkey]

who is armstrong?

Karen Armstrong is an historian as far as I can make out, I came to her work many years ago when I read her "History of God". She's an ex-nun who has explored the roots and developments of the competing theologies that have run through the three Abrahamic faiths. She seemed to be very focused on the history of Islam for a while there but this new book "A Case for God" looks interesting. She's a popularizer, and synthesizer of ideas in the same way as say Dawkins has been for evolutionary biology rather than an original thinker per se, which is why she's gone under the radar for you. I think you'll find if you scratch most of the thoughtful atheists and agnostics they will have read at least one of her works. I think she deserves to be more widely read because she's much easier to come to than say Tillich but expresses many of the same ideas with little loss of nuance and meaning.

[Metacrock]

who is armstrong?

Karen Armstrong is an historian as far as I can make out, I came to her work many years ago when I read her "History of God". She's an ex-nun who has explored the roots and developments of the competing theologies that have run through the three Abrahamic faiths. She seemed to be very focused on the history of Islam for a while there but this new book "A Case for God" looks interesting. She's a popularizer, and synthesizer of ideas in the same way as say Dawkins has been for evolutionary biology rather than an original thinker per se, which is why she's gone under the radar for you. I think you'll find if you scratch most of the thoughtful atheists and agnostics they will have read at least one of her works. I think she deserves to be more widely read because she's much easier to come to than say Tillich but expresses many of the same ideas with little loss of nuance and meaning.

I've heard of her. I think she's good. when I first realized I was not going to get the academic career I wanted, I took hope in her example.

[Cheeky Monkey]

This is funny. From the lamentable Discovery Institute's blog. Saying that Armstrong "mangles" theism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/da ... .html#more

[Metacrock]

I think science people like the great fool becuase he does know some things about scinece and he's such a cheer leader for it. He doesn't know shit about theology or philosophy.


In my book anyone who thinks that you don't have to know about the thing your criticizing because you think it's stupid is a total idiot.

Heh, Dawkins doesn't engage philosophy much, he's got Dennet for that. I remember him remarking once that theology wasn't even a subject because how could you have a study of an imaginary thing. I use that sometimes to rile people up a bit but I know the argument is barse-akwards, you can't just dismiss a discipline by just not admitting it exists.

No offense but that's why I think he's an imbecile. And those little mindless know nothing take him seroiusly.

[Cheeky Monkey]

I think science people like the great fool becuase he does know some things about scinece and he's such a cheer leader for it. He doesn't know shit about theology or philosophy.


In my book anyone who thinks that you don't have to know about the thing your criticizing because you think it's stupid is a total idiot.

Heh, Dawkins doesn't engage philosophy much, he's got Dennet for that. I remember him remarking once that theology wasn't even a subject because how could you have a study of an imaginary thing. I use that sometimes to rile people up a bit but I know the argument is barse-akwards, you can't just dismiss a discipline by just not admitting it exists.

No offense but that's why I think he's an imbecile. And those little mindless know nothing take him seroiusly.

None taken. It's personally a bit sad for me becuase I was a supporter of his side in the Dawkins v Gould stuff but he's not really gone well beyond his depth in taking on religion wholesale and has aquired a set of followers that are not even as nuanced as he is and that's saying something.

[Metacrock]

None taken. It's personally a bit sad for me becuase I was a supporter of his side in the Dawkins v Gould stuff but he's not really gone well beyond his depth in taking on religion wholesale and has aquired a set of followers that are not even as nuanced as he is and that's saying something.

agreed. I wish more atheists were as insightful as you are. I'd like to get blowfly over here.

[fleetmouse]

I posted this at Metafilter.

A lot of interesting responses. And it was a good deal more civil than what usually happens when the topic of Dawkins comes up.

http://www.metafilter.com/85374/Man-vs-God

[Metacrock]

This is funny. From the lamentable Discovery Institute's blog. Saying that Armstrong "mangles" theism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/da ... .html#more

who wrote that? what are his theological credentials? There are people who think God is a big man in the sky and they are very upset by the idea that God might actually be greater than our understanding.

[Cheeky Monkey]

This is funny. From the lamentable Discovery Institute's blog. Saying that Armstrong "mangles" theism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/da ... .html#more

who wrote that? what are his theological credentials? There are people who think God is a big man in the sky and they are very upset by the idea that God might actually be greater than our understanding.

Those Discovery Institute guys are a bunch of hard core fundies in science drag. They set up the blog in question to combat Francis Collins' BioLogos site because they hate his accomdationist views. They want full scale conflict between fundamentalism & science/secularism. Obviously they'd have no time for Armstrong and her ilk.