You are currently browsing the daily archive for July 18th, 2009.
While I have linked some of Karen Armstrong’s books (particularly the History of God and her history of the crusades), but I have a hard time understanding how someone who understands the history and development of the mythological mindset could actually have a theistic view. Furthermore, even if one loves the historical development of thought–particularly religious thought–as I do and not see the limitations and flaws in a modern context. Armstrong has a bad habit of essentially cherry-picking the good parts of marginalized groups to increase tolerance while downplaying the bad.
So this brings me to Armstrong’s current book. One of my favorite philosophers who writes for a lay argument, Simon Blackburn, did a really good job on critique Armstrong’s new book, The Case for God. , and points out that its not a “case for God” at all:
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. Words such as “God” have to be seen as symbols, not names, but any word falls short of describing what it symbolises, and will always be inadequate, contradictory, metaphorical or allegorical. The mystery at the heart of religious practice is ineffable, unapproachable by reason and by language. Silence is its truest expression. The right kind of silence, of course, not that of the pothead or inebriate. The religious state is exactly that of Alice after hearing the nonsense poem “Jabberwocky”: “Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas – only I don’t exactly know what they are.” If Alice puts on a dog collar, she will be at one with the tradition.
Armstrong is not presenting a case for God in the sense most people in our idolatrous world would think of it. The ordinary man or woman in the pew or on the prayer mat probably thinks of God as a kind of large version of themselves with mysterious powers and a rather nasty temper. That is the vice of theory again, and as long as they think like that, ordinary folk are not truly religious, whatever they profess. By contrast, Armstrong promises that her kinds of practice will make us better, wiser, more forgiving, loving, courageous, selfless, hopeful and just. Who can be against that?
So what can a freelance monotheist actually tell us? A lot about history, a great deal about how we got to our current ideological points, but it tells us very little about the nature of reality.
Walter Cronkite has passed away. I can’t help put feeling that with him a good portion of the attempt to the have media legitimacy will fade with him. His voices was the voice of what was going on for several generations.
I don’t have a lot add to the observation, and sadly I doubt will get the outpouring of concern that we got for Michael Jackson.
If, on walking past the “New Age” section of the local chain book store to get to the philosophy section, I see another “Raven [insert last name or made-up name here]” I think I may errupt into massive fits of vomitting. If I were a pagan writer, I would pick a more interesting bird name, such Magpie, Bee Hummingbird, Ostrich, Emau, or maybe Cuckoo or Loon.
If you want to understand the development of the modern neo-pagan movements, read Ronald Hutton anyway. I find the neo-pagan movement fascinating and have since I dated a Wiccan in high school and married a former neo-pagan. Yet the are trends of popular expression here that I find completely banal, and primarily of the marketing to the 13-17 crowd.
