Don't be fooled by the title; this is not some trite attempt to prove that God exists or that religion is a great thing. Instead, it's a tremendous, sweeping yet detailed account of the changing conception of religion from the dawn of humanity to the present day. Along the way, Armstrong stresses several themes.
For millennia religion was not seen primarily as a series of propositions to which one was required to assent ("God exists", etc). Instead, it was a commitment to a particular way of livi Don't be fooled by the title; this is not some trite attempt to prove that God exists or that religion is a great thing. Instead, it's a tremendous, sweeping yet detailed account of the changing conception of religion from the dawn of humanity to the present day. Along the way, Armstrong stresses several themes.
For millennia religion was not seen primarily as a series of propositions to which one was required to assent ("God exists", etc). Instead, it was a commitment to a particular way of living. At its heart lay a sense of ineffable divinity - an ultimate transcendence that was beyond understanding, beyond words, beyond even such concepts as existence or omnipotence. This ultimate transcendence was called "God" in the monotheistic religions. Although beyond knowing, some degree of contact with divinity was possible through ritual, symbolism and a variety of meditative practices (not just straightforward meditation as in Buddhism, but also theological reflection, philosophy or even the constant practice of humility and generosity). Contact with the ineffable helped people rise above worldly suffering and adopt a more compassionate way of life; it enabled them to become human in a fuller, richer sense.
By around 15000 CE, however, this ancient conception of religion was starting to be overtaken by a new way of seeing things. An increased faith in the power of reason alone to solve all problems helped "literalise" religion. Slowly "belief" changed from a commitment to a way of living to a series of unproven statements to which one assented. Along the way the notion of God changed: he became knowable, describable - a being in the world. Such a notion would've been considered idolatrous by older religious figures such as Thomas Aquinas. It made God a thing.
This new notion of religion, divorced as it was from communal practices which had previously been its life-blood, was vulnerable to attack. As a mere series of statements it could seem unconvincing or even ridiculous. This vulnerability was only increased by religion's attempt to co-opt science as a means of making it more respectable. But as science became increasingly able to describe the natural world without any need for a god (conceived as a super-being that created and sustained the laws of nature)the attempt justification through "natural theology" seemed horribly flawed.
The older sense of an ineffable transcendence has never entirely gone away, however. Armstrong argues that it is a mark of the human condition and as such can emerge in some unlikely places - modern physics, for example. She ends by wondering if the naturalistic turn in religion hasn't now run its course. Perhaps it is time to reincorporate unknowing into our approach to the divine.
This is the third of Armstrong's books that I've read ("The History of God" and "The Battle for God" being the other two). I'd say it was comfortably the best of the three and also, perhaps, the most important. ...more
This is an excellent history of humankind's struggle to define reality by creating and regularly reinventing deity. Karen Armstrong surveys humankind's superstition from 30,000 BCE to the present, and provides interesting context to the creation of the books and beliefs that many humans considered (or still consider) divine. The last chapter was a bit strange. The author clearly had an axe to grind with Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, but her attacks on their philosophy seemed out of place and in This is an excellent history of humankind's struggle to define reality by creating and regularly reinventing deity. Karen Armstrong surveys humankind's superstition from 30,000 BCE to the present, and provides interesting context to the creation of the books and beliefs that many humans considered (or still consider) divine. The last chapter was a bit strange. The author clearly had an axe to grind with Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, but her attacks on their philosophy seemed out of place and inconsistent with the rest of the book. That said, great book overall. ...more
The Case for God by Karen Armstrong sounds like a religious apologetic or polemic tract, but it is not that at all. It takes a much more detached and scholarly viewpoint, and could function as a history or survey of how people think about God. I approached it from the context of a faith vs. scientific method debate that I have carried on for years with some of my friends, but one could also approach the topic out of a concern with the dangers of religious fundamentalism, or out of an interest in The Case for God by Karen Armstrong sounds like a religious apologetic or polemic tract, but it is not that at all. It takes a much more detached and scholarly viewpoint, and could function as a history or survey of how people think about God. I approached it from the context of a faith vs. scientific method debate that I have carried on for years with some of my friends, but one could also approach the topic out of a concern with the dangers of religious fundamentalism, or out of an interest in the common grounds of the world religions.
Karen Armstrong came to my attention when she was paired with evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins in a debate in the Wall Street Journal. Armstrong characteristically started off by agreeing with Dawkins about the impact of Darwinian thought on religion, but took issue with the concept of the God the existence of which Dawkins denied, saying that it was a modern distortion of religious thinking throughout history. Her book fleshes out the history of religion in a way which would support her claim.
Her review of history is too exhaustive to summarize, ranging from Biblical origins to postmodern criticism, from the Abrahamic faiths to Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism. She often uses the phrase, “Brahman, Nirvana, God, and Dao,” emphasizing the commonality of religious experience. ”Her basic point is that our experience of God is “apophatic,” wordless, silent, pointing beyond itself to what cannot be expressed in language, but rather must be understood through symbol, myth, ritual and commitment to a way of life. She argues that the logos of science and the mythos of religion deal with different domains, and thus should not be in conflict with each other.
Armstrong sees fundamentalism and atheism as being equally distortions of the religious impulse, in which both claim an absolute knowledge inconsistent with the humility required by religion. She quotes with approval the Italian postmodernist Gianni Vattimo, “When somebody wants to tell me the absolute truth, it is because he wants to put me under his control.” Rather than being apologetic or polemic, Armstrong’s book is a gentle and scholarly reminder of the varieties of ways people have felt religiously and talked about it.
Armstrong makes a compelling argument against what has been called the "new atheism". Debunking the use of a literal interpretation of the Bible as something wholly modern and something that would be completely surprising and foreign to followers of the Christian faith up until at least the Enlightenment, she argues that instead religion is not an intellectual concept or dogma, but rather it is something you do. That without an active involvement, religion loses its essential value.
I find this t Armstrong makes a compelling argument against what has been called the "new atheism". Debunking the use of a literal interpretation of the Bible as something wholly modern and something that would be completely surprising and foreign to followers of the Christian faith up until at least the Enlightenment, she argues that instead religion is not an intellectual concept or dogma, but rather it is something you do. That without an active involvement, religion loses its essential value.
I find this to be a striking counter-attack to the rather tired arguments made by the new atheists, and one I'm not entirely clear how to address. From a second perspective the argument may be made this way: the act of devoting oneself actively to the pursuit of a particular religious faith, through things like prayer, meditation, and the willful act of separating oneself from a purely rational approach to understanding this world we find ourselves in may in fact have the potential of exposing us (in a mental sense) to something that we could not otherwise approach through purely rational thought. In my mind this is an argument not easily reckoned with or pushed aside. ...more
If this were a text book for a comparative religion course, I'd likely give it four or five stars, but Armstrong states that she wrote this tome to counter recent books by atheists Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. I'd suggest, then, she actually read their work instead of basing her research on sound bites from Fox News. So-called modern atheists don't seek to tear down religion or suppress others' beliefs. We simply don't want those beliefs forced on us at every turn, in public, in private, and, If this were a text book for a comparative religion course, I'd likely give it four or five stars, but Armstrong states that she wrote this tome to counter recent books by atheists Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. I'd suggest, then, she actually read their work instead of basing her research on sound bites from Fox News. So-called modern atheists don't seek to tear down religion or suppress others' beliefs. We simply don't want those beliefs forced on us at every turn, in public, in private, and, heaven forbid, in government. She hasn't bothered to understand this, and that makes this book deeply flawed. Nothing she's written in here makes a case for god to me; rather, it just emphasizes to me that humans created religion to address what they didn't understand. We've entrenched it so much in our lives, then, we find it hard to move on from primitive worship of an amorphous, supernatural entity, especially one who apparently sits back and lets bad things happen to innocent people because it's part of his/her plan. ...more
Overall, a very lucid and readable book. Armstrong's case is primarily built against the newage militant atheist as well as postmodern religious fundamentalist but in doing so she obscures further - perhaps inadvertently - the nature of ultimate reality we call God.
She successfully traces back the roots of post-renaissance apophatic theological shift in antiquity and medieval religion. However, her version of God presents another problematic of reducing God to a mere abstract symbol or a set of Overall, a very lucid and readable book. Armstrong's case is primarily built against the newage militant atheist as well as postmodern religious fundamentalist but in doing so she obscures further - perhaps inadvertently - the nature of ultimate reality we call God.
She successfully traces back the roots of post-renaissance apophatic theological shift in antiquity and medieval religion. However, her version of God presents another problematic of reducing God to a mere abstract symbol or a set of symbols. In my humble view, Armstrong's thesis is apt to question a theist's conviction as much as it helps in countering the thesis of an atheist.
Any one interested in broad historical currents of theological metaphysics related to God must not miss it. Perhaps better than many of Armstrong's other books as far as asking the right questions is concerned, but if you are thinking to counter Dawkins and Hitchens, Armstrong's case is not more than a starter. ...more
I thought my review of this book would be about how persuasive I did or did not find Armstrong’s arguments about God. But there’s not much to agree or disagree with in this book. It’s almost entirely history – mostly history of Christianity and its development. Armstrong is obviously very well-read and learned in her subject matter, but I felt she was being downright deceitful by naming this book The Case for God. Most people would expect something else of a book with this title. Armstrong alrea I thought my review of this book would be about how persuasive I did or did not find Armstrong’s arguments about God. But there’s not much to agree or disagree with in this book. It’s almost entirely history – mostly history of Christianity and its development. Armstrong is obviously very well-read and learned in her subject matter, but I felt she was being downright deceitful by naming this book The Case for God. Most people would expect something else of a book with this title. Armstrong already has a book called A History of God. I don’t know why she wrote another one about the same thing. (On a second thought – thanks god this book wasn’t really about making a case for God. I’m not sure I would have liked that any more.)
The only “case” that Armstrong seems to making for God (if you’re patient to first read 300 pages of densely-written religion history) is that the “modern” God is not the same as what humans felt and needed through the previous millennia. Religion is not supposed to provide guidance where reason can; it’s not supposed to provide a factual account of creation; scriptures are not to be taken literally; there is no single True religion or god; etc. These are all modern notions that have contributed to making God unbelievable. Religion is there “to help us live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there are no easy explanations.” Apparently God is supposed to be a piece of poetry and we’ve been taking him too seriously as of late. Well, that may or may not be true, and you can believe in that sort of God if it suits you, but how does it matter now? We live in modern times and are stuck with a “modern” God. We can’t go back now to Greek mythology and the paintings in Lascaux Cave, can we?
Armstrong doesn't like the modern God, and the irony that her own interpretation of God and religion is very post-Enlightenment and modern completely escapes her. ...more
Citing the Greeks, Armstrong's argument begins by stating that there are two realms of knowing. One is through "mythos" and the other is through "logos". The former allows us to access ultimate meaning, something logos can't do as it involves pragmatic reason related to survival. She calls ultimate reality God, but she is clear that God is not a being at all. In rejecting God as a personalized deity, she aligns her thought with that of Tillich ("God above God") and others (e.g., Heidegger's Bein Citing the Greeks, Armstrong's argument begins by stating that there are two realms of knowing. One is through "mythos" and the other is through "logos". The former allows us to access ultimate meaning, something logos can't do as it involves pragmatic reason related to survival. She calls ultimate reality God, but she is clear that God is not a being at all. In rejecting God as a personalized deity, she aligns her thought with that of Tillich ("God above God") and others (e.g., Heidegger's Being as fundamental energy; Brahman, the Dao).
Armstrong also makes it clear that opponents to this point of view (fundamentalists and atheists) are defending and reacting, respectively, to a personalized deity that is in her view wrong headed and at odds with the thought of theologians who are "more representative of the mainstream tradition" that has God as a non-being, transcendent reality. Most of Armstrong's book is a detailed substantiation of this history of the non-personalized God concept, and includes the views of Darwin, Einstein and other individuals of science who seem comfortable with a world of the unknown and the lack of proof for some of their views.
It is not clear in Armstrong why the term "God" is necessary at all for this transcendent reality and why, for example, a term such as cosmic energy might not suffice as a substitute. Armstrong offers a possible clue when she says that the primal religious urge "is an attempt to construct meaning in the face of the relentless pain and injustice of life" and that, as meaning-seeking creatures, we fall into despair without religion. Religious rituals and myth enable us to access this higher reality but, to be effective, religious symbols must represent truth, not the make believe, and God is the symbol of this higher reality. Armstrong also believes that we can access the truth of religion and participate in the greater whole only when we rid ourselves of selfishness through compassion and by following the Golden Rule. The "I" must disappear before we can experience God. Drawing on her extensive background in religious history, she also notes that we can access this higher realm in other ways. This includes the doctrine of forms where truth is not something people create but rather is something that "happens to them," and through the use of mathematics as a spiritual discipline because, in removing us from sense perception, we move into a superior level of being and, accordingly, participate in the hidden life of God.
Armstrong's writing is clear and fluid. Her scholarly attention is impressive. However, toward the end of her book, her annoyance at the modern-day atheists, schooled in scientific naturalism, comes through. Armstrong's world is divided into mythos and logos. She believes there's room for each and resists strenuously the "secularization of reason, which denies the possibility of transcendence" and becomes "an idol that seeks to destroy all rival claimants." While she references the "intemperate" voices of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, polemics (her "case for God") can come in a softer voice as well. She comments that "like all religious fundamentalists, the new atheists believe they alone are in possession of the truth." That may be, but the implication of that statement is that her version is the only truth left standing, particularly when, by her own rules, Armstrong has taken the legitimacy of "mythos" off the table as a subject for debate. She also notes that "these proselytizing atheists" are reacting to fundamentalist belief systems that "have an extremely literal notion of God" that is not typical of Christian religion as a whole. Tillich, for example, is closer to the "mainstream truth" than any fundamentalists she says. Does "mainstream" mean the philosophers and theologians that she quotes extensively or does it mean the Christian masses, for example, who, served by clergy without "advanced theological training," have seemed comfortable enough through the ages with personified deities and God in full person hood? There's substantial evidence regarding the latter. For example, in his "Age of Faith," Will Durant, who is no slouch when it comes to understanding religious history, comments that in Augustine's day, the church ended up accepting "the inevitable anthropomorphism of popular theology" and that Gregory the Great's theology, which would constitute the theology of "the next seven centuries," was "haunted with angels, demons, wizards, and ghosts."
Armstrong, pointing likely at Dawkins, criticizes "the aggressive tenor of a great deal of modern discourse," adding that there are "very few Socratic 'philosophers' these days who know that they lack wisdom....[and] appear unwilling even to consider a rival point of view or seriously assess evidence that might qualify their case." That advice is a two-way street. While the world of science is open to debate her response hints that a non-personal God whose (to use Heidegger's terminology and strong adjectives) "utter transcendence is wholly other" is off the table. Respectful questioning can can ask, for example, if there are alternative explanations for Armstrong's "mythos" world. Might our need for transcendence come from within, from a need for something eternal that transcends the world of change? Does transcendence tap into our fear of death and our need to love and to be loved? If the personalized god is no longer tenable, then does a non-personalized Godhead serve our need for a Jungian-like father figure archetype that protects and stabilizes us in a sea of change? Can we or do we imagine things that are not there? Do we need a transcendent anchor to be good, to engage in altruism, to follow the Golden Rule, or are these based within our own biology? Can Heidegger's "Being" that supports and animates everything that exists be derived from cosmic energy and matter and the world of Logos?
One of my very few DNF. Armstrong starts very well, then drones forever about excruciatingly small details about ancient rites and religions. Not good. When I realized she fully embraced the idiotic “BCE” and “C.E.” acronyms, I stopped. They are typical Politically Correct material: they pretend to be “inclusive”, while in reality they are anti-Christian. What does “Common Era” mean, anyway? Just stupid. They will tell you that C.E. and BCE have been around for 2 centuries, and that it’s simply One of my very few DNF. Armstrong starts very well, then drones forever about excruciatingly small details about ancient rites and religions. Not good. When I realized she fully embraced the idiotic “BCE” and “C.E.” acronyms, I stopped. They are typical Politically Correct material: they pretend to be “inclusive”, while in reality they are anti-Christian. What does “Common Era” mean, anyway? Just stupid. They will tell you that C.E. and BCE have been around for 2 centuries, and that it’s simply a matter of choosing them or “AD and B.C.”, but the simple truth is, they hate Christianity. Including Armstrong, who apparently is now Muslim. ...more