Karen Armstrong says that, “I'm slightly down on cleverness” but then classifies herself as a “Freelance monotheist”—whatever that means. She then not so artfully dodges the interviewer’s question on whether she believes in God with the appropriately condescending answer “No, because people who ask this question often have a rather simplistic notion of what God is”. And does she consider herself a religious person? “Yes. It's a constant pursuit for me. It's helped me immeasurably to overcome despair in my own life. But I have no hard and fast answers”. This is all after pooh-poohing Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as monomaniacal religion haters; two scholars I might add that don’t have particularly fast answers--but do have hard ones.

Karen Armstrong finds it difficult to deal rationally with secular humanists like Richard Dawkins (who she characterized as “Very, very one sided”) because the so called ‘other side’- which she is obviously invested in- is largely smoke and mirrors; affectations that help her “overcome despair” in her own life.

Is it really Dawkins and Harris that have the ‘pathologies’ Karen?

“I think some atheistic readers read a few words of the article and screamed "OH NO AN ARTICLE ABOUT RELIGION! I'M MELTING... MELLLLTTTIIIIIINNNNG!"”

It’s not articles about religion that annoy atheist readers at Salon IKPO; it’s the approach taken in the interview. When a good interviewer like Steve Paulson lobs softball questions and then doesn’t make the interviewee qualify her simplistic- and I might add -not so logical responses- then atheists are going to get persnickety.

Karen Armstrong blathered on about the coaxial age, mysticism and gave one-line evasions to complex questions, only to have the interviewer answer by salivating. She then slammed secular humanists for having such a “very one sided” worldview (a thinly veiled attack on the scientific method as a valid gauge for so called ‘spiritual matters’), again, only to have the interviewer answer with more saliva.

Atheists have every right to criticize both the methodology and content of the interview.

Zippy said: “It’s pretty hilarious to see a bunch of diehard atheists get all jittery and pissy and whiney and wailey just at the mention of the word God…Re-read the article again, this time with an open heart, if not an open mind.”

Well Zippy, it’s not nearly as hilarious as hearing you get all jittery and pissy and whiney and whaley while telling atheists to read Armstrong again with an “open heart”. What kind of nebulous, intellectually bankrupt advice is that?

Atheists are atheist because we have the temerity to insist on extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Armstrong makes extraordinary claims but gives no evidence(unlike real intellectuals like Richard Dawkins who backs up everything with evidence or dismisses ideas for the lack thereof).

P.S. The heart is a muscle that pumps blood through the body and does not possess the faculties for reason or thought.

Thanks so much for that trenchant article on ‘Cool Jews’. This is a subject that I’ve lost considerable sleep over in the past few years (Ambien can help, but it doesn’t take away the pain!).

By the way, is David Marcheses’ job title ‘Editorial Fellow’ a euphemism for ‘Intern’? And is the editor that signs off on these articles in a coma or have a nagging substance abuse problem?

Just curious.

Thanks so much for that trenchant article on ‘Cool Jews’. This is a subject that I’ve lost considerable sleep over in the past few years (Ambien can help, but it doesn’t take away the pain!).

By the way, is David Marcheses’ job title ‘Editorial Fellow’ a euphemism for ‘Intern’? And is the editor that signs off on these articles in a coma or have a nagging substance abuse problem?

Just curious.