Recently Karen Armstrong is coming out with a book arguing for an extremely apophatic conception of God that rejects all manner of biblical literalism but still insists on some important reference to God and is critical of the New Atheists. Recently she and Richard Dawkins both responded to a Wall Street Journal solicitation for their views on God in light of evolution. In a previous post, I quoted a Daily Dish reader advocating against Armstrong. In reply to my post, in the comments section, VorJack of Unreasonable Faith fame
I never feel knowledgeable enough about the Middle East to pronounce precisely on these issues. So, as much as ever, I need Your Thoughts.
2009/09/17/nuff-said-award-winner-a-daily-dish-reader/#comment-1452″ target=”_blank”>wrote the following:
Speaking practically, I don’t know if there’s enough difference between Dawkins’ “God in no way exists” and Armstrong’s “God in no way exists – but is nevertheless the most important reality” for Armstrong to work as a moderate. Folks like Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary are just lumping her in with the atheists.
And despite what Armstrong seems to think, people with her mystical approach to religion have always been in the extreme minority throughout history. I don’t think that’s likely to change.
So I don’t think Armstrong is likely to have much success in converting people, and so I generally consider her a side show without much chance of making it to the big tent.
If Armstrong ever brings any unity to the warring sides, it’s because atheists and fundamentalists are joining forces to beat up on the moderates.
HA, indeed. This reminds me of my earlier post written in reply to your initial thoughts on Robert Jensen’s comparably vague God idea. I personally acknowledge some value to the existence of the Armstrongs and Jensens in the world as a halfway house for religion itself as it hopefully might moderate generation by generation. The moderates by staying within the faith at least have some pull with other believers (even if they become stigmatized for their abandonment of non-literalism, etc.) since they at least talk the language. There is a danger of leaving religion only to the fundamentalists the way that the Republican party has now been left to them. You see what happens when there are no moderates left and the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins are the only voices within the movement. There is no countervailing reason and the lay people radicalize where they may have moderated due to the conflict and nuance among leaders with varying viewpoints.
So, similarly, if all the moderates went all the way to atheism then there would be greater social and intellectual pressures against fundamentalism. While that might make it less attractive and atheism easier to accept, it also would also expose us to the fundamentalism backlash effect. Fundamentalism, by its nature, seems to me to be reactionary. It’s a reassertion of alleged “fundamentals” against perceived threats to identity. It is a reaction that fears change as a form of obliteration of order and identity. So, if all the moderates jump ship from a party or a religion, the remaining fundamentalists are susceptible to self-fulfilling prophecies that the world is against them. They entrench in their insistence on their narrow, indisputable conception of the world while conscious of huge swaths of the culture at odds with them. This only redoubles their reactionary determination. And they now lack moderate voices that they at all identify with.
So, these are serious reasons to consider at least some moderates to be important allies even while thinking in a perfect world they should just be atheists helping us move on from faith based thinking altogether. And, additionally, I really think there are many for whom simply saying no to their faith tradition decisively is not psychologically possible despite their complete disbelief for all intents and purposes. The Armstrongs and Jensens of the world accommodate them in a way that, yes, keeps them from just becoming atheists, but also keeps them from flipping back to fundamentalism as their only other option. For me, moderateness was never an option, it would always have been sheer insincerity. I had to be either a devout Evangelical or an atheist. For many if their only other option is atheism they will go more fundamentalist but since they have moderate options, they stay there. It’s better moderate leaders exist for those people.
Finally, the reasons to object to moderates are also twofold. First, their leavening effects on religion also comes at the price of their helping provide institutional support and cover for religions that also breed fundamentalists who take the trappings of the tradition literally (and these are probably inevitable within any mythic tradition.) And secondly, and the occasion for the frustration of The Daily Dish reader I quoted in the previous post is that the moderates irritatingly characterize the atheists as doing more harm than good, as being obtuse to sophisticated theology and philosophy, and of being innately belligerent simply for speaking up for unequivocal, but vigorously rationally defended, beliefs. It’s frustrating to have Karen Armstrong accusing Dawkins of superficiality when all she’s offering are poetic non-statements. And more frustrating than that is when the moderates perpetuate the idea that anything but accommodationism is “militancy.”
The moderate temperament makes them hostile to passion in either direction and so they equate both passions, that of the fundamentalist and that of the uncompromising atheist, as irrational. And similarly the atheist accommodationists seem particularly miffed that other atheists would bother to make an argument to them that they should stand up for atheism. They tend to project an attitude that says, “What did I do wrong, I think like you, why are you complaining about me.” What they don’t realize but which the New Atheists do realize is that it’s not simply about your abstract positions but whether you help aid the cause of increasing rationalism and stem the tide of backlash irrationalistic fundamentalism. And so where the moderate dislikes the adamancy and passion of both fundamentalists and New Atheists, the New Atheists and the fundamentalists both dislike the moderates’ seeming obliviousness to what’s at stake in these debates and the moderates’ seeming indifference to logical consistency and truth in general. The New Atheists and the fundamentalists agree on one thing—that one side must be fundamentally right and the other fundamentally wrong and those in the middle are just fooling themselves.
I would rather the moderates, if they must fool themselves and they must be a moderating force within their religious traditions would at least do us logically consistent atheists the favor of not accusing us of just being motivated by hate or militancy and to stop equating us with being as irrational and badly informed as fundamentalists, and, finally, to stop telling us to shut up. I recognize the moderates’ place as moderators. I’d appreciate it if they’d appreciate ours the ones who give the strongest most unreserved pull against fundamentalism in the tug of war over the ethos of our culture and the world at large in the favor of rationalism in reason and politics and morality.