Karen Armstrong’s “The Case For God”

Simon Blackburn has reviewed Karen Armstrong’s book, “The Case For God” in the Guardian. The only reason I’m writing this post is to call your attention to a succinct little burn:

So Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris have chosen a straw man as a target. Real religion is serenely immune to their discovery that it is silly to talk of a divine architect.

So what should the religious adept actually say by way of expressing his or her faith? Nothing. This is the “apophatic” tradition, in which nothing about God can be put into words. Armstrong firmly recommends silence, having written at least 15 books on the topic.

Oh, snap!

Well, I’ve read Karen Armstrong’s “History of God,” and actually it was pretty good, so don’t take this post of mine as any kind of slam against her. So far as I can tell, she actually mostly has her head screwed on straight. Mostly. (That’s the only book of hers I’ve read, so some screws may have loosened since then, I suppose.)

But, that was a pretty damn good burn, Mr. Blackburn, pretty damn good.

~ by scaryreasoner on July 5, 2009.

4 Responses to “Karen Armstrong’s “The Case For God””

  1. Except the zinger is old, and even she said it about the mystics in the History of God.

  2. Why not check out these closely reasoned related references on God, religion, and SCIENCE instead–you will probably be suitably horrified.




    Plus a unique understanding of the cultural significance of the famous equation E=MC2 (except that the author extends the equation to C=E=MC2) C being consciousness.




  3. “(except that the author extends the equation to C=E=MC2) C being consciousness.”

    Hahahahaha. Deriving E=MC^2 is not all that difficult (the insight to come up with the derivation in the first place is pretty impressive, but once the path is shown, it’s not difficult to comprehend.) We learned how to do it in one of my undergraduate physics courses, and I’m sure this is standard stuff in all undergradute physics courses. It’s just not that hard to derive E=MC^2 if you are given the right hints and think about it a little bit.

    But, C=E=MC^2???? I am sorry, that is just laughable, and demonstrates EXTREME ignornace.

    Let me ask you this: Can consciousness be reduced to a single number?

    If not, then saying C=E=MC^2 is idiotic, because E, M, and C CAN be reduced to single numbers, which is necessary for it to make sense to plug them into a mathematical equation. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg as to why C=E=MC^2 is idiotic.

    E = MC^2 describes the relationship between energy and mass. Your equation basically says C = E. C is energy. Adding another symbol that is exactly the same doesn’t add any information to the equation. You’ve added nothing at all. Calling it “consciousness” is idiotic.

    Summary: You’re an idiot.

    Harsh, but true.

    Edit: On looking over a few of the links you provided…. TIMECUBE!!!
    You’re a total moron.

  4. interesting…so many books she has written on the subject.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: