Karen Armstrong May As Well Admit She's An Atheist

Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins, who have both written books that I enjoy and highly recommend, write a point-counterpoint on "Where Does Evolution Leave God?" I love Mr. Dawkins' conclusion:

If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right.

Language requires a communicator and someone communicated with. A word will change meaning based on who those two parties are, and their understanding of it. In each context, a word means what its speaker honestly thinks the listener thinks it means. If they know each other, it's easier, and they can use words in specialized ways unique to their subculture. They can even develop a secret code if they wish. Public speaking and writing, and other communication with strangers, involves educated guesses about what the overall culture thinks each word means.

Religious teachers are divided into those who do not understand that, and those who do understand it and consistently game the system for their own gain-- persuading their congregations they agree, allowing them to keep believing in a concept of God that Karen Armstrong considers primitive. Privately those clergy mean almost the opposite of how their words are understood by the hearers.

For instance, when speaking to the public, my educated guess from a lifetime of experiences is that "God" carries a cluster of implications such as "non-imaginary", "a person with thoughts, feelings and intentions", "the originator of all things", and "infinite in all perfections". I am agnostic about vague forces out there, but atheist about any divine claims specific enough to be pinned down.

Although she would not use the term, Karen Armstrong is an atheist in the only senses important to most atheists-- except for coming out of the closet about it. She believes that God did not create the universe, and was invented by man's imagination in varied and contradictory forms to meet our varied and contradictory personal needs. Unfortunately she also denies that those needs, and thus those gods, are truly in conflict-- and yet God is real in the sense that our needs are real. Quite fine-sounding. But the fundamentalists are right about one thing: that is not worthy of the appellation of "God".

In Karen Armstrong's conception, "God" is emotionally meaningful, while carrying no informational meaning, like a sigh or a laugh. (Do not confuse these two uses of "meaningless".) The practice of a theologian is the application of vague language to pretend to have said something, while being able to weasel out of any interpretation.

I call that misleading. It is the most charitable way I can put it. They are not lying. But it is something other than the forthcoming straight talk we expect from the virtuous.

Comments

amanda_lodden on Sep. 26, 2009 8:27 PM

I consider "God" to be two-fold: a creator of the universe (and in that sense, I do not believe in God), and a representation of ultimate good.

It's the second half that I have trouble out-and-out denying the existence of. I can deny that the God of Religion X is a representation of ultimate goodness, but that's more a failure of the religion than of the god. Certainly, I don't require that my representation of ultimate good be shaped like a human male, so I usually use atheistic terms when giving the short-form description of my spiritual beliefs, but they aren't really any more accurate than other terms.

matt-arnold on Sep. 27, 2009 5:23 AM

By making that clear, you have satisfied due diligence as a communicator.

Step 1: You do your part by telling me.
Step 2: I meet you halfway by doing word substitution in my head when I hear you from now on.
Step 3: You know I'm doing that.

So that's what the word means between us.

sarahmichigan on Sep. 27, 2009 11:54 AM

I recently read Karen Armstrong's "Spiral Staircase" and also thought her references to god in the end amounted to semantic tricks...

the-leewit on Sep. 27, 2009 2:52 PM

If you're interested in my thoughts on it:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=145822775394

Is it semantic trickery to refer to "god," defined as "such divine as you might believe in or might exist independently of either of our beliefs," and refer to my god (very specific and personal, and I believe it to be self-evident that one's perception of a thing is shaped by one's upbringing and the shape of one's brain; hence, I do not even try to pretend that my god is the only god or She appears to anyone else wearing the same form, or even to me exactly with the same perception twice. I am but a blind man hoping I'm not getting too terribly personal with an elephant I have not even bought dinner for. come to think of it, when we are speaking of matters religious, all we can say is, "I hope this is the elephant. I hope I'm even in the same room with the elephant." I think I'm perceiving you correctly when you seem to be saying not that the "elephant" necessarily exists, but that it is best to base our behavior upon that which we may verify, especially given the manure that has been flung and blamed on the elephnat when it is, in point fact, apeshit?).

the-leewit on Sep. 27, 2009 2:53 PM

*exists or doesn't, I mean.

matt-arnold on Sep. 27, 2009 4:40 PM

Well something is apeshit. The sentence starts as a question but ends with a period, but there's a question mark inside the parentheses to end a sentence that isn't a question, and there's an elephant, excuse me, "elphnat", and there's manure, which is supposed to be a metaphor for something... no, just no. Come back when you can avoid run-on sentences and multiple levels of nesting, Laura. I'm sorry, I really tried. As a communicator you have to meet the reader halfway in effort. I promise to meet you there.

the-leewit on Sep. 27, 2009 5:43 PM

I'm afraid I'll never be able to avoid run-on sentences. They are a vice of mine.

I'm sorry you're tired. I'm tired too. I've worked seven shifts in three days, and I am feeling the lack of sleep, myself. I tried to link back to something I wrote which I felt was more coherent, but you're right, that sort of lack of respect for grammar is inexcusable.

I forgive you the crabbiness, but I read you lima charlie on the "you can't communicate. I tried to read what you said. Please don't talk to me," front.

Thanks for the honest feedback. I will continue to read your blog because I find you amusing, but will refrain from trying to communicate.

Please note that some may feel it a bit of a tu quoque argument to count what I say against those who believe in god or gods, as I am a very small subset of those who are not atheists, and have admitted I am not clever multiple times, whether you have read or heard this or not.

Please also note that a question mark may indicate a rising intonation, as when one is asking for confimation or denial of what has been said.

I feel terribly privileged to have met someone who has never made a typo when discussing something on the fly. Have you applied to The Guinness Book of World Records yet?

I am amazed that someone as seemingly well-read and open to discussing theology and atheism as you seem to be does not include Saxe's "The Six Blind Men and the Elephant" as part of his everyday allusions.

The wording of your reply makes me feel as if you are responding to an attack. I'm sorry if you feel that way. I was not attacking you at all. You make a valid point. To try to invite you into a discussion by my friends regarding a related topic was not a valid response to your entry, and it was not clearly stated that this was my intent.

I wish you a better day than the one you are having.

matt-arnold on Sep. 27, 2009 6:05 PM

I shouldn't have sent that comment, and I'm genuinely ashamed about it. I'm sorry.

My mom went to the emergency room this morning for what appeared to be a heart attack. I have a parking ticket which I do not feel was my fault and I can't afford to pay. There was one other thing which was not all that great but which I'd rather not go into. However, my mother had heartburn, and I think the other situations will resolve positively. I feel better. Thank you for the well-wishes.

the-leewit on Sep. 28, 2009 1:11 AM

What an awful day! It doesn't sound as if you deserved the ticket, and I hope whatever happens to your mother is something easy to diagnose and fix.

In no wise does that make my reply or the typos and grammatical/ logical errors in it excusable; nor does it change the fact that I was oversensitive and I am intellectually out of my league when speaking to you. As I said, I hope you don't judge the class of those who believe in God by my idiocy.

the-leewit on Sep. 28, 2009 1:14 AM

I guess what I mean is, yes, I was hurt by what I perceived as rudeness in your reply. But I invited and deserved it, no matter what sort of day anyone was having, and had no right to squawk when you stepped on me.

matt-arnold on Sep. 28, 2009 3:27 AM

No need to feel bad. Internet griping happens.