Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong

In some recent postings on Richard Dawkins website by Dawkins himself, he has spoken in less than glowing terms about Karen Armstrong, the historian and theologian. I know calling people 'foolish' and referring to their efforts as 'masturbation' is all part of the cut and thrust of academic wrangling but this usually takes place only within specific disciplines; biologists usually only make rude remarks about other biologists, theologians about other theologians, so these interdisciplinary insults are something of an anomaly. It would make sense (kind of) if Armstrong was saying something that flew in the face of the empirical and rational claims that Dawkins champions, but as far as I can see she doesn't do this. He just doesn't seem to like the brand of poetry that she touts, which is within his gift (I'm not keen on some of it myself), but it's a bit weird that he gets so personal about it.

What makes it slightly more anomalous in my view is that elsewhere Dawkins embraces the 'religious naturalism' of Ursula Goodenough, citing her book 'The Sacred Depths of Nature' which combines information on evolutionary biology with passages alluding overtly to religious sentiment. As Dawkins himself says about Goodenough's writing, 'if that is religion, then I am a deeply religious man', http://richarddawkins.net/articles/804 The point is that, stripped of its biology content, 'The Sacred Depths of Nature' takes essentially the same position on religion as that which Karen Armstrong has argued (along with James Carse and others); that the cause of religious strife and conflict lie with the nature of dogmatic belief, not with religious sentiment and that this sentiment can be applied (or not) to the physical world of empirical science (as Goodenough does) or to human relations, or to the difficult or intangible existential questions, or whatever.

Relevant Richard Dawkins comments are 7 and 36 on this page:
http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,53

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Karen
• Armstrong
• James
• Carse
• religion
• religious
• naturalism
• nature
• science
• god
• empiricism
• theism
• atheism
• rational
• rationalism
• richarddawkins.net
• history
• Carl
• Sagan
• Ursula
• Goodenough
• sacred
• depths
• of
• belief
• dogma
• theology

[saqib09]

7 and 36 comments are about respectively the pope and Dawkin's cartoon appearing on South Park.

[conferencereport]

@saqib09

Your right. The link seems to be wrong. I'll see if I can find the reference and correct it. Thanks for the heads up.

[silversoul7]

That's too bad. I was starting to think that Dawkins might be starting to show signs of maturity, but I guess I was wrong.

[conferencereport]

If anything I would say his position has become more calcified, certainly since he cited Goodenough is some earlier writing.

[strangerthanknown]

@Ewilds You may want to familiarize yourself with Dawkins' before disparaging him. On many occasions, both in lectures and in writing he very clearly does not view religion in a wholly negative light and clearly does not want it to permanently leave our stage.

Your statement can only be interpreted that you haven't read any Dawkins. Why would you simply make up an argument like this?

[Ewilds]

Dawkins is a biologist but his worldview -- his philosophy -- is one of scientific naturalism, or materialism. Therefore Dawkins views religion wholly in a negative light and wants to see it permanently leave the stage of history. Any elevated view of religion where religion actually performs a positive role in peoples' lives is antithetical to his worldview. It is wrong to see Dawkins as just a biologist. He fancies himself an expositor of the true philosophy -- naturalism.

[leconfidant]

Very very fair and very correct. And I think this is the key issue. Because I think Dawkins doesn't see himself as a genetic specialist, but a general authority on life itself, including religion. So he does see himself as a senior religious authority to Armstrong... on account of his scientific authority. I think that Armstrong and Midgeley are a huge threat to Dawkins because they're not just being 'nice christians', they have powerful counter-arguments. He resents this 'disent' intensely.

[leconfidant]

Very very fair and very correct.

[sitemountain]

RD speaks of reverence & the 'scared' nature of nature in purely metaphorical terms because it is similar but NOT the same as what theists talk about. If KA is going to make claims about the nature of reality she is going to have to justify WHY her claims are correct.

When RD says her attitude is masturbatory he is NOT being rude he is just pointing out her obsessional preoccupation with her belief. She claims faith & belief are not equivalent but again fails to say why. why am I not surprised?

[sitemountain]

You say KA is writting on theology & it's history & RD is writting about biology & that the 2 aspects occasionally overlap a fusing of empirical science of biology & with some of the attitudes & emotional engagements that are traditionally associated wth religious practices. But that ISN'T true. They are both making claims about the nature of reality. RDs are empirical KAs aren't. She simply makes proclamations about God but rarely if ever tells us HOW she knows her truth claims. RD always does.

[mthaulow]

I disagree with your assertion that it is not Dawkins place to critisize someone outside his own field, or similarly that Armstrong should not be obliged to answer such critique. It is a very common thing for postmodernists and relativists to say, when confronted with arguments that run counter to their own, "Oh, but this argument has to do with physics/biology, but I am concerned with people/culture/religion".

Science is science, and Armstrongs expertise gives her no immunity from critizism.

[kixmet]

you are absolutely right. Many folks who study sciences find it difficulty to understand the methodology of studying the Humanities like Sociology, History or Economics. I am a Bachelor in D

ental Surgery, currently pursuint a Masters in Political Science and I have begun to realise the difference. One must remember that the Laws of Science are Descriptive while the Laws of the Humanities are Prescriptive.

[willhum]

Karen Armstrong is a social scientist/ theologian and Dawkins is a scientist (evolutionary biologist)... The two are working in very different fields.. with different assumptions and ways of thinking about the world. It is a mistake to read religion as simply bad pre-modern science which is what Dawkins tends to do. Truth is a matter of empirical verification in the hard sciences. Truth is a much more slippery context-bound issue in the social sciences.