|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Karen Armstrong
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
|
This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Sokal affair[edit]
This is just like the Sokal affair, where a scientist will vehemently criticize something they don't understand. It's wrong when creationists do it (with evolution), and it's wrong when skeptics do it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you expand that point a bit. I don't really understand what is wrong with Dawkins or Dennett (or us) highlighting how her "modern views" differ from the vast majority of religious followers. --DamoHi 23:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well I should first state that I'm not a fan of New Atheism, so forgive any bias present (after nicely pointing it out). What I said was that folks like Dawkins and Dennett rail about idiot creationists misinterpreting scientific theories all the while they rail about theological theories they don't understand. Granted, you could pull out PZ Myers' naked emperor theory (that was him, right?), but you forget that plenty of legitimate evolutionary biologists believe in God while simultaneously positing that evolution by natural selection explains the origin of species. These are quite aware of logic and reason, but their faith would still be ridiculed by so-called anti-theists even though they don't understand the concept of it. I referenced the Sokal affair because it seemed similar to me that Dennett's complain of "deepities" he claimed were meaningless and Sokal's belief that philosophical jargon was also meaningless (which is untrue. It has meaning in its own field)--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose I get what you are saying, but part of me thinks that you are being too charitable to the likes of Armstrong. I do like the so-called new atheism (although I think that really new atheism is the same as old atheism) and I would argue they are right in saying that a lot of the deep philosophical theology that exists is basically a way of getting around the fact that the authors don't believe in god anymore. Can someone be said to be a Christian (or a Jew or any religion really) and not believe that God exists? Some might think that this is a deep and meaningful question. I don't.
- I would however welcome your additions to the article expressing your opinions. DamoHi 23:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- It depends what you call god. I'm an atheist, but I like to try and understand religion. I don't see it as a great evil. People like Dawkins say it causes war, but I think there'd be war anyways. Religion is just an excuse. People would find a new excuse quite easily.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- As they say, there's no there there. I read about half of the book and it's full of horseshit like "God is the God behind God." I mean, come on, really? In this case, Dawkins is right (though I'd maybe make exceptions for things like deism or pantheism). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- (EC)I just looked up PZ's naked emperor argument, and I find that I am in total agreement with him. I should also add that the argument as to whether religion is a force for good or evil is not at all related to whether it is true or not. For example; to the question “What do you think religion is for?” Armstrong answers “Religion is about helping us to deal with the sorrow that we see in life”. Now that might very well be the answer of a non believer sympathetic to religion, but it is not the answer of someone who actually believes in the truth of the religion. She is what Dennett would call someone who "believes in belief", not a believer in the conventional sense. DamoHi 23:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- As they say, there's no there there. I read about half of the book and it's full of horseshit like "God is the God behind God." I mean, come on, really? In this case, Dawkins is right (though I'd maybe make exceptions for things like deism or pantheism). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- It depends what you call god. I'm an atheist, but I like to try and understand religion. I don't see it as a great evil. People like Dawkins say it causes war, but I think there'd be war anyways. Religion is just an excuse. People would find a new excuse quite easily.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would however welcome your additions to the article expressing your opinions. DamoHi 23:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose I get what you are saying, but part of me thinks that you are being too charitable to the likes of Armstrong. I do like the so-called new atheism (although I think that really new atheism is the same as old atheism) and I would argue they are right in saying that a lot of the deep philosophical theology that exists is basically a way of getting around the fact that the authors don't believe in god anymore. Can someone be said to be a Christian (or a Jew or any religion really) and not believe that God exists? Some might think that this is a deep and meaningful question. I don't.
- Well I should first state that I'm not a fan of New Atheism, so forgive any bias present (after nicely pointing it out). What I said was that folks like Dawkins and Dennett rail about idiot creationists misinterpreting scientific theories all the while they rail about theological theories they don't understand. Granted, you could pull out PZ Myers' naked emperor theory (that was him, right?), but you forget that plenty of legitimate evolutionary biologists believe in God while simultaneously positing that evolution by natural selection explains the origin of species. These are quite aware of logic and reason, but their faith would still be ridiculed by so-called anti-theists even though they don't understand the concept of it. I referenced the Sokal affair because it seemed similar to me that Dennett's complain of "deepities" he claimed were meaningless and Sokal's belief that philosophical jargon was also meaningless (which is untrue. It has meaning in its own field)--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't put this in, cause it's mean and personal[edit]
But I just want to vent. She's a sloppy academic, a sloppy writer, and a sloppy teacher. Listening to her talk for more than ten minutes drove me nuts. And inappropriate as it is for an undergrad to challenge a prof, god how I wanted to. Can we at least hide the word "sloppy" here somewhere? ;-) ok, done ranting. 
GodotThe Peyote God awaits 14:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
From this it is clear that the truth of religious beliefs are not important to Armstrong, and that the existence of a deity is not crucial to religion in her view. Rather, it is the fact of belief tha[edit]
Is it really clear? Seems like someone's been stuffing words in her mouth.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Reason for Reverts??[edit]
On what grounds does User:Ace McWicked revert a whole series of carefully constructed changes to an article when he hasn't done a single contribution to the article in its entire history?--WickerGuy (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)