The Case for God

Feb 27, 2010 William rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

With all of the wars, crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, Jihadists, Creationists and the rest of it, God has got a lot to answer for. Armstrong's case for the defence is essentially that people are interpreting religion wrongly: to the founders of the religions faith was about mystery, symbolism, practice and good works. Early Christians, Armstrong argues, looked to the scriptures for inspiration not information, and would be shocked at what religion has become for many people today. (But not...more

21 likes · like · see review

Aug 15, 2011 William rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: uk, spirituality, christianity, history, nonfiction, monotheism, candidate-to-reread

Armstrong is a scholar of comparative religion. In numerous examples, she shows how worship in virtually all world religions depends on a foundation of silence, or what she calls unknowing. This is the silence through which one gets intimations of the divine presence. I found the description remarkably like two kinds of Eastern meditation I have practiced over the years. There was no presumption on the part of early theists that they could grasp God. He was beyond human comprehension. Since know...more Armstrong is a scholar of comparative religion. In numerous examples, she shows how worship in virtually all world religions depends on a foundation of silence, or what she calls unknowing. This is the silence through which one gets intimations of the divine presence. I found the description remarkably like two kinds of Eastern meditation I have practiced over the years. There was no presumption on the part of early theists that they could grasp God. He was beyond human comprehension. Since knowledge was not possible the only alternative was what Armstrong calls kenosis, or self emptying: techniques that led one toward the necessary quiet contemplation. Armstrong is liberal with her examples here and they are all fascinating. In fact, this part of the book is a kind of survey course in comparative religion, but without the other students.

There is a wonderful description, the first I have come across, of the Eleusinian Mysteries of ancient Greece. Armstrong describes this ritual, emphasizing how inherent in it were two key concepts: "mythos" and "logos." Mythos was a "story that was not meant to be historical or factual but expressed the meaning of an event or narrative and encapsulated its timeless, eternal dimension." Mythos was a teaching tool; one that helped to impart to the initiate or religious a sense of the sacred. The other term is Logos. Logos means "dialogue, speech; reasoned, logical, and scientific thought." In the past, religion was always a matter of practice. Practice is defined as daily ritual. Like the Mass, for instance, in Catholicism; or the five daily prayers in Islam; or the Passover seder in Judaism. Religion was not, she stresses, about "belief." No one was expected to believe in God. In fact, the idea of belief as we know it today did not then exist. There was, too, among all monotheistic religions, a remarkable lack of rigidity when it came to interpreting the holy books (Bible, Talmud, Koran). The object being not to pick interpretations that were correct and inflexible, but to find new and innovative interpretations. In fact, if the initiate was not finding some new twist in the scriptures, some novel interpretation, that person was considered remiss in his or her practice. And practice was the only way to know the sacred.

Then the Enlightenment came along, and with it the scientific revolution. The scientific method taught that facts were right or they were wrong. Either you could repeat the experiment, or you could not. Many early scientists were religious. Newton, for one, but many others as well. Gradually there was a shift from kenosis, from the gentle act of self-emptying for purposes of contemplation of God in silence, to one which began to seek "scientific proofs" of God's existence. For instance, it was at first thought that the incredible detail revealed microscopic structures was a sign of the divine. How else could these astonishingly minute structures have occurred but through God's hand. This way of knowing God flourished. God thus became an outsize if finite being, to the extent that he was knowable. For a while science continued to provide these "proofs" of his existence.

Then something happened, two things really that threw this approach to knowing God on its ear: the first were certain advances in geology. Geology showed that the earth was not created in six days, as stated in Genesis. It pointed to time spans that were almost beyond human conception. Then came Evolution. Darwin showed us that Man and his fellow creatures were not created all at one time and set down on the planet in their current form. Evolution, in fact, showed us that there was no Intelligent Design, for its process (selection) was not in any way directed. That is to say, it was a geologically slow and muddled process marked by eons of struggle, most of it futile, and mass extinction. Persons of faith, however, were by this time hooked on their concept of "belief," which they had gleaned from the sciences. The silent contemplation of early monotheism--unknowing, kenosis--had been lost in the West. Faith began to be sustained through a literal (i.e. rigid) interpretation of scripture. So here we are in the present day. The Fundamentalists believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Something never required of early worshippers. Somehow, it has come to be thought, that religion must be made to match science, truth for truth. And of course religion can never do that. Historically, it has never functioned in that way. Yet we need it in our lives. Why? Why can't we do away with it as the New Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al.) seem to believe we can? Armstrong quotes Jean Paul Sartre saying that when we do away with religion there is left in the human psyche a "God-shaped hole." Armstrong argues here, makes her case for god, for maintaining touch with the old, kenotic ways of belief. She is very persuasive. I treasure this book and look forward to rereading it.

(less)

6 likes · like · see review

Dec 25, 2011 Mohamed Osman rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

من الصعب أن تكتب تعليق مناسب لهذا الكتاب نظرا لضخامة كم المعلومات التي يحتويها والتي يصعب مراجعتها ،بالإضافة إلي القضية التي يتناولها و التي يقترب عمرها من عمر الإنسان علي هذه الأرض .

نستطيع أن نقسم الكتاب نصفين النصف الأول خاص بنشوء الوجود الآلهي في الفكر الإنساني وكيفية تطوره وخاصه عبر الديانة المسيحية واليهودية ، بينما يناقش النصف الثاني الاله الحديث وتداخل العلم مع الإيمان وهل مات الاله حقا أم لا .

النصف الأول لم أعجب به مثل النصف الثاني من الكتاب لكن من المؤكد لي أن الجزء الأول لن ينال رضا أو...more من الصعب أن تكتب تعليق مناسب لهذا الكتاب نظرا لضخامة كم المعلومات التي يحتويها والتي يصعب مراجعتها ،بالإضافة إلي القضية التي يتناولها و التي يقترب عمرها من عمر الإنسان علي هذه الأرض .

نستطيع أن نقسم الكتاب نصفين النصف الأول خاص بنشوء الوجود الآلهي في الفكر الإنساني وكيفية تطوره وخاصه عبر الديانة المسيحية واليهودية ، بينما يناقش النصف الثاني الاله الحديث وتداخل العلم مع الإيمان وهل مات الاله حقا أم لا .

النصف الأول لم أعجب به مثل النصف الثاني من الكتاب لكن من المؤكد لي أن الجزء الأول لن ينال رضا أو إعجاب الأصوليين من جميع الأديان وقد يشكل صدمة لبعض مما يجعلهم ينكروا الرؤية التي اتخذتها الكاتبة في سرد الأحداث التاريخية.

النصف الثاني هو الأكثر إمتاعا بالنسبة لي ، بداية التنوير وبروزالصراع بين الإيمان والعلم ، مرورا بالإلحاد انتهاءا بخاتمة أعتقد إنها كانت أفضل ما في الكتاب حيث استطاعت أن تجمع ملخص الكتاب في جزء بسيط في الآخر .

ما قد يؤخذ علي الكاتبة والكتاب إنها سارت علي طريق محدد سيفرض عليها أن تأخذ وجهات نظر معينة لتصل إلي الهدف الذي تريده .

في تناولها لقضية الإلحاد تناولت المفهوم الأولي لمعني الإلحاد والذي يقابل الزندقة عندنا وحتي الآن لا أفهم السر في تناول الغرب لتاريخ الإلحاد بهذا الشكل ففي فيلم وثائقي يعد الأشهر في هذا الموضوع
Atheism A Rough History of Disbelief
وقعوا في نفس الخطأ ، من وجهة نظري وجد الكفر يوم وجد الإيمان ، وعلي سبيل المثال لا الحصر طائفة الدهرية لا تؤمن بوجود خالق فهي تتفق مع المعني المراد تمام لكلمة الإلحادأو ما يطلق عليه الإلحاد الحديث ، وأيضا ما يؤخذ عليها هنا اعتمادها في ضرب مثال لإلحاد علي طائفة الملحدين الجدد وتركيزها علي أشخاص بعينها أمثال دوكينز وسام هاريس و كريستوفر هيتشنز
-توفي الأخير قريبا - ، وبرغم استمتاعي بنقدهم لأن عرضت ما يتفق مع رؤيتي لهم في هذا الجزء برغم صغر حجمه واقتضابه مما لم يشبع نهمي، فتركيزها علي طائفة دون الآخري أخل بالحيادية كثير .

من الجميل في هذا الكتاب هو تناولها بالحديث عن الإسلام ليس فقط بحيادية بل بإيجابية ، ومثال علي ذلك أرجعت تطرف الشيخ سيد قطب إلي ما عاناه علي يد زبانية جمال عبد الناصر .

هناك نقطة تؤخذ علي من قاموا بالترجمة ، هناك بعض المصطلحات والتي كان يجب أن يوضع بجوارها النص الأصلي أو الكلمة الإنجليزية فمثال كلمة الامبريقية لن يستوعب الكثير أنهم يقصدون تجريبية و أيضا كلمةالأليجورية والتي يترجمها بعض الأخوة العرب الأليغورية والمراد بها أقصوصة رمزية.

في النهاية الكتاب ممتع وأكثر من رائع سواء اتفقت أو لم تتفق مع ما طرحته الكاتبة ويقرا أكثر من مرة لا ستيعابه ، ويفضل أن تقراه بلغته الأصلية .

كلمة أخيرة لموقف حدث لي أثناء قرائتي لكتاب في المرة الأولي ، في المعتاد احمل دائما معي كتاب لقرائته في أي مكان اذهب إليه ، وقد كان هذا الكتاب معي اقراه يوم محاضرة المشروع وفي المعتاد الدكاترة يتأخرون فاندمجت في القراءة لأفاجئ بوقوف أحد الدكاترة منهم أمامي فأخذ الكتاب مني وقلب صفحاته في ثواني لا تكمل العشرة ليقلب الكتاب في نهايته ونظر علي السعر ونظر لي "ده أنت مسترخص بقي ؟! "
لا أريد ذكر ردة فعلي عليه ، لكن الحال وصل بنا لكي يكون الدكاترة أو الأساتذة الذي من المفترض أن يعلمونا يقيسوا أهمية الكتب والعلم والثقافة بالمال المدفوع في الكتاب .
لا عزاء للعقلاء(less)

11 likes · like · see review

Oct 16, 2010 Ginny rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: ebook, library-book, non-fiction

I'm not going to lie; this was a slog. A breath-taking overview of western religious culture going back to ancient French cave paintings and mentioning every major philosopher, theologian, and scientist since (as well as quite a few minor ones). This reads like a seminary dissertation. Initially I was bored to tears. But in the end, all that history culminates in a forceful argument in favor of the author's premise (as far as I can tell, though I suspect I'm not educated enough in theology or ph...more

8 likes · like · see review

Feb 17, 2013 James rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is the best book on God that I've read so far. Karen Armstrong describes the premodern Abrahamic God, inconceivable and transcendent. Armstrong also educates her readers about the nature of the Scriptures. Apparently neither their authors nor the early theologians wanted them to be taken as literal or static, but rather as allegories that point to the Inconceivable and as objects of never-ending commentary and interpretation. Then she describes the development of the modernist God of the We...more

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 23, 2012 Si Barron rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book can be read in two ways, either as a confused counterblast to Dawkins or as a plea to others of faith to adapt their religious practice and adopt her rather peculiar (almost Atheistic) religious stance.

As other reviewers have noticed this seems at first glance to promise a detailed rebuttal of Dawkins, et al - the derivative cover and blurbs encourage this. Armstrong does eventually get onto this task in the last chapters but first we have to plough through millennia of Christian histo...more This book can be read in two ways, either as a confused counterblast to Dawkins or as a plea to others of faith to adapt their religious practice and adopt her rather peculiar (almost Atheistic) religious stance.

As other reviewers have noticed this seems at first glance to promise a detailed rebuttal of Dawkins, et al - the derivative cover and blurbs encourage this. Armstrong does eventually get onto this task in the last chapters but first we have to plough through millennia of Christian history, selectively chosen to illustrate her tendentious thesis- that Religion is NOT what the New Atheists (and incidentally pretty much everybody else) think it is.

No indeed. Religions purpose according to Armstrong is a purely practical: it is to turn us into compassionate beings. We get there through meditation on scriptural myths. She maintains that Religious tracts such as the Bible only contain metaphorical stories "Jews, Christians and Muslims all knew that revealed truth was symbolic, that scripture could not be interpreted literally." (pp 310). Religion is to help us with life's problems and to discover and nurture new capacities of human nature such as compassion. It is not (and never has been)a reliance on creed, doctrine or dogma; these elements are not important and it is only through the idolatrous perversion of fundamentalists and New Atheists that anyone ever thought so in the first place.

She seems to be advocating a re-evaluation of religion along radical Don Cupit/ NOMA-esque lines: religion has nothing factual to say whatsoever. One can't even say that God exists, for example on page 291 she takes Dawkins to task for suggesting that god is a supernatural intelligence that designed the universe, you must not think this way she says apparently no religious people do, and they never did!

If you are starting to think that Armstrong is departing from reality as well as mainstream religious thought you would be right; she seems to be blissfully unaware of what the religious believer in the street (and in the Vatican) actually holds. Most Christians (not just Fundamentalists) actually do believe some (at least) parts of the bible; they do believe that God created the universe; they do believe that miracles occur; they do believe that Christ rose from the dead. It's all very well for her to insist that this is a perversion of religion but she seems to be in a minority of one, I wonder what the Pope or The Archbishop of Canterbury would say to the idea that God didn't create the universe. For most believers junking all the truth claims of religion would be the same as junking faith itself with nothing left worth holding on to.

She is right though when it comes to her assertion that this re-write of religious practise will defeat those nasty New Atheists. After all if religion just consisted of compassionate people meditating on old myths with no pretension to truth in the privacy of their retreats (Armstrong used to be nun) there would indeed be nothing much to complain about. Religion isn't this though. It does make factual claims, it always has; it does seek to impose it's will on others, it always has and it is the source of much of today's woes.

She reminds me of a revisionist airbrushing unwanted elements out of history. She has redesigned religion as something so rarefied and thin as to not offend anyone, she has defeated the New Atheists by the simple expedient of becoming an atheist herself. No Christian with anything more than a super-subtle academic veneer of faith will ever adopt her anaemic God-free revision of religion. (less)

1 like · like · see review

Feb 19, 2011 Scott Hotes rated it 4 of 5 stars

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...more

3 likes · like · see review

Mar 13, 2010 Shel rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

I was enticed to read The Case for God after hearing a snippet of the book on NPR that told how mystics of the past reached for God in silence, ritually acknowledging the inadequacy of words to describe deity. Afterwards, an interviewer questioned Armstrong on her views. She promptly corrected him. "It's not just a bee in my bonnet. I've been studying this for 20 years." I was hooked, curious to hear more from Armstrong.

My enjoyment of the work was no doubt enhanced because I listened to the au...more I was enticed to read The Case for God after hearing a snippet of the book on NPR that told how mystics of the past reached for God in silence, ritually acknowledging the inadequacy of words to describe deity. Afterwards, an interviewer questioned Armstrong on her views. She promptly corrected him. "It's not just a bee in my bonnet. I've been studying this for 20 years." I was hooked, curious to hear more from Armstrong.

My enjoyment of the work was no doubt enhanced because I listened to the audio book read by the British author. Armstrong's proper, authoritative tone adds interest. Her work, A Short History of Myth (2005), read by an actor, contained many of the same ideas and information as the opening to The Case for God, but lacked the cadence and emphasis Armstrong gives her own words.

The Case for God is a history of mankind from a theological perspective from primitive times to the postmodern era. It includes the thoughts of philosophers through out the ages from Socrates to Derrida. Having read books on physics, which touch on the theological, it was refreshing to read a book of theology paralleling some of the thinking of quantum physicists and theologians.

The case Armstrong makes is for an incomprehensible, mysterious, mythical, ineffable God. She advocates for our acceptance of unknowing. By embracing religion as a practice of compassion not as a means to an end (a way to answer questions about the cosmos or to prepare for an afterlife) people open themselves to transformative experiences which increase enjoyment of the here and now.

The Case for God shines light between the polarized arguments of atheists and theists and recalls the human history of open-minded discourse on mythology, philosophy and religion. Armstrong presents theology as an accessible, intriguing and useful study and portrays spiritual seeking as an expression of the desire for ecstatic experience inherent in human nature.

Pairs well with: Victoria Nelson's The Secret Life of Puppets, which makes the case that the absence of the mysterious and unknowable in modern culture and American literature fuels, in some, an appetite for science fiction; Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels, a study of the texts and early Christianity.
(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Mar 28, 2013 Phyllis Duncan rated it 2 of 5 stars

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,...more

like · see review

Mar 18, 2013 David rated it 5 of 5 stars

Everything you know about the Bible is WRONG. Anyone who quotes the Bible to defend a point of view is WRONG. Anyone who thinks the Bible has been completed is WRONG.

This accessible, necessary book blows apart our modern understanding of faith. Armstrong presents detailed historical background with deft and engaging prose. Her exploration of religion is focused on Judaism and Christianity -- especially while dissecting biblical myths with an anthropologist's scalpel -- but also explores the simi...more

1 like · like · see review

Nov 11, 2012 Ryan rated it 4 of 5 stars

I've read a few of Armstrong's books, but it was many years ago. I came to this one by accident - I was sitting next to a gentlemen on a flight and he was reading it. I'm certainly glad I picked it up.

Based upon the title, I though the book was going to be a plea of standard conversion to Christianity, which was surprising from what I know about Armstrong's own struggles. But it was much different than that - Armstrong is trying to make a case for a different conception of God than the one conta...more I've read a few of Armstrong's books, but it was many years ago. I came to this one by accident - I was sitting next to a gentlemen on a flight and he was reading it. I'm certainly glad I picked it up.

Based upon the title, I though the book was going to be a plea of standard conversion to Christianity, which was surprising from what I know about Armstrong's own struggles. But it was much different than that - Armstrong is trying to make a case for a different conception of God than the one contained within modern culture. At the root, she makes a case for religion as a particularly different (and evolving) way of thinking, rather than a rote set of behaviors and beliefs (a word which Armstrong notes has lost it's original meeting) that people learn and conform to.

Armstrong's claim is that traditional religion used the concept of God as a way to express what lay beyond conscious thought and expression. Contemplation of myths and other mysteries would allow someone to enter and reside in an different mental space. To fully appreciate the power took practice and commitment. And there really was no question of an existence proof. But somewhere along the way, namely when the Enlightenment got involved, God became a concept of original cause, or first mover. Once God became the source of our everyday world, slowly the fights over his existence became relevant and discussions turned more towards proving literal connections rather than understanding and applying old myths. Consequently, the symbolic power of religion to take people to a different type of thinking began to drain away as fights over certainty took center stage.

Armstrong traces this development through the Enlightenment all the way to our current day, where fundamentalist groups of all stripes - Christian, Islamic, Judaic and Atheist - battle over explanations of the world and what's provable.

As someone who's pretty sick of everyone involved in this conversation - from Osteen to Dawkins - I found Armstrong's path much more palatable. And much more useful.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Aug 11, 2012 Marta rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I loved this book - not because I agreed with Armstrong on everything (in truth, I find some of her claims to be unsupported by historical evidence), but because her vision is so breathtaking and beautiful. Religion as a way of living, not a set of dogmas to ascribe to; charity as the highest principle and the measuring rod of humanity; humility in the face of suffering. Neither of these claims is unique, especially not in the vast perspective of human history, but Armstrong weaves them together...more

like · see review

Aug 07, 2012 Alan Hughes rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book is well written, well argued and well documented. It is not a light work in any sense and does require a reasonable investment of time and effort. It proposes that the monotheistic religions have made us lose sight of the truth of religion and , as a consequence, atheists have a simple, but inaccurate, target.

The theologist Rahner proposed "The transcendent is not an add-on, something separate from normal existence, because it simply means to go beyond. When we know, choose and love ot

...more

like · see review

Jun 10, 2012 Maureen rated it 5 of 5 stars

The title is misleading- this book is not an argument for believing in God at all. Karen Armstrong instead gives an abbreviated history of Western philosophy and religion, starting with the cave paintings at Lascaux and ending with modern fundamentalists. A great strength of the book is the focus with which it traces the themes of knowing and unknowing through Western history.

Armstrong argues that argues that our current definition of religious "faith" as "intellectual assent to a set of pure n...more
The title is misleading- this book is not an argument for believing in God at all. Karen Armstrong instead gives an abbreviated history of Western philosophy and religion, starting with the cave paintings at Lascaux and ending with modern fundamentalists. A great strength of the book is the focus with which it traces the themes of knowing and unknowing through Western history.

Armstrong argues that argues that our current definition of religious "faith" as "intellectual assent to a set of pure notional doctrines" is - not quite an artifact, that word is too strong- but a definition that came into use only with the modern age. She argues that
in ancient and medieval times, people never took the Bible or Talmud or even the ancient Greek myths completely literally. The stories were only meant to help people live compassionately and optimistically in a cruel and unjust world. During the Enlightenment, when people began to think that all the world could be explained, churches tried to get on the science bandwagon and insist that their readings be interpreted with equal rational truth. Of course, this ended up being their undoing, and now we have a world in which fundamentalist Christians interpret the Bible literally, even for scientific knowledge, and in which fundamentalist atheists deny that there is any path to knowledge other than rationality.

Armstrong's arguments are based on many writings from famous philosophers and theologians. She is a scholar and writes with authority, but it still felt strange for me to see Aquinas and Augustine's writings used as evidence for conclusions which are clearly not orthodox Catholicism. Of course, by her arguments, these were the orthodox positions before about 1500 CE. Although the themes in The Case for God are very similar to her other books, I found this one more readable because of the shorter length and more specific focus. The ideas concerning the separate spheres of mythos and logos were also very helpful to me personally.

I would recommend this book to anyone with an interest in comparative religion, and especially to scientists seeking to reconcile rationality with traditional religious beliefs.(less)

like · see review

Jun 01, 2012 Erika RS rated it 4 of 5 stars

Armstrong was a valuable resource during my Bible blog project. I still consider her The Bible: A Biography to be the most readable introduction to the many contexts in which the Bible was written. Thus, when I saw her newish book, The Case For God, on the "hey look at me!" display at the library, I decided to pick it up.

First things first, the title of this book must have been chosen just to catch attention. The book is not really a case for God at all. If anything, it is a case for compassion...more Armstrong was a valuable resource during my Bible blog project. I still consider her The Bible: A Biography to be the most readable introduction to the many contexts in which the Bible was written. Thus, when I saw her newish book, The Case For God, on the "hey look at me!" display at the library, I decided to pick it up.

First things first, the title of this book must have been chosen just to catch attention. The book is not really a case for God at all. If anything, it is a case for compassionate understanding of Christian traditions that were largely forgotten for the past several hundred years. But more than anything, this book is a history in Armstrong's normal style.

Many of Armstrong's books are quite similar in both organization and content. Having read a couple of other books by Armstrong, much of the content of this book seemed familiar. In my opinion, if you want to read just one of Armstrong's general religious histories, choose this one. It isn't too long (only about 330 pages), and as the latest book, it states with more power and precision many of the ideas presented in the earlier books.

However, Armstrong's books are not all the same. What changes from book to book is the emphasis. In this book, Armstrong chose to emphasize the thread of deeply intellectual, contemplative, apophatic tradition throughout Judaism and Christianity. She emphasizes that both these religious traditions have always had a thread which emphasized the transcendent and unknowable nature of God. This tradition has always understood anything that can be said about such a God is symbolic.

This traditional was never universal, but until the rise of the modern era, it was prominent, sometimes dominant. However, with the rise of scientific thinking, many Christians decided that they wanted to read the Bible, especially its statements about God, as facts rather than as symbols meant to conjure up insights about transcendence. They wanted to show not that science was compatible with God -- this was taken for granted in the earliest days of modernism -- they wanted to show that science necessitated God.

This, ultimately, would be destructive for religion since a literal interpretation of the Bible shows God to be monstrous or just plain nonsensical. Fundamentalists and atheists alike, Armstrong contends, are products of this modern ethos since they both view God as a being with specific properties to be affirmed (for the fundamentalist) or denied (for the atheist).

Armstrong sums up her view of the purpose of religion, a purpose which she thinks is starting to gain new life, in the epilogue of the book:

We have become used to thinking that religion should provide us with information. Is there a God? How did the world come into being? But this is a modern preoccupation. Religion was never supposed to provide answers to questions that lay within the reach of human reason. That was the role of logos. Religion's task, closely allied to that of art, was to help us to live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there were no easy explanations and problems that we could not solve: mortality, pain, grief, despair, and outrage at the injustice and cruelty of life. Over the centuries people in all cultures discovered that by pushing their reasoning powers to the limit, stretching language to the end of its tether, and living as selflessly and compassionately as possible, they experienced a transcendence that enabled them to affirm their suffering with serenity and courage.

If such a view of religion were revived in modern times, it might be a religion that even atheists could get behind.(less)

like · see review

Jan 01, 2012 Stephanie rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: religion-spirituality

Karen Armstrong has a knack for tracing a thread far and wide--The Case for God is lucid, timely, and meaningful. She manages to follow a concept, beginning in 30,000 BCE and tracing through the ancients, medievals, renaissance and moderns, all the way to postmodernity, drawing on ancient mythology, every major philosopher, and all world religions. Her analysis is blended with history and poetry and, yes, it would be too much, if she didn't limit her scope, which she does perfectly.

In this "cas...more Karen Armstrong has a knack for tracing a thread far and wide--The Case for God is lucid, timely, and meaningful. She manages to follow a concept, beginning in 30,000 BCE and tracing through the ancients, medievals, renaissance and moderns, all the way to postmodernity, drawing on ancient mythology, every major philosopher, and all world religions. Her analysis is blended with history and poetry and, yes, it would be too much, if she didn't limit her scope, which she does perfectly.

In this "case for God", Armstrong collects the story but avoids editorializing almost entirely. She begins with a basic distinction between two ways of knowing: logos and mythos—the first being objective, empirical knowledge. The second being a way to explore what we can’t explain. Similarly, Armstrong is careful to distinguish between the modern understanding of belief as “mental assent to a list of assertions” and the ancient concept which meant something as simple as “trust”. The rest of the book explores how people have, historically, either understood or confused these two ways of knowing.

Throughout, Armstrong centers on the apophatic thread of theology, the idea that “God transcends the capability of human speech.” We must affirm, deny, deny the denials, search, and comment. She quotes one modern theologian saying “This reduction of talk to silence is what is called ‘theology’”. This is what the ancients knew—in the east, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Maximus the Confessor, Denys the Areopagite. In the West, Socrates, Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. It leads necessarily to questioning, ritual, spiritual exercise, disciplined practice, and continued interpretation. It’s what the mystery cults, Greek mythology, and Rabbinical midrash were about. This kind of theology has more in common with poetry than science.

For pre-moderns, spirituality was rich, nuanced, and required participation. She explains, “Theology depended on practice, and its truth could be assessed only by people who allowed its doctrines to change them. We could not speak about God rationally…” Focusing on the “people of the book”, Armstrong identifies the layers in pursuit of divinity—cultural, textual, interpretive. Tradition builds, with “each generation deepening its understanding of the sacred text in a cumulative ‘bricolage’”.

Enter politicians like Constantine who needed definition and uniformity of belief. Politics do not mix well with religion, and we have the Crusades. Newtonian science, rationalism, and culture follow with an overt aim to make “religion simple” and easily understood by the masses.

In the renaissance, empiricism and reason lead to a natural theology, which objectively defines and systemizes all God thought. Armstrong explains, “The spirituality of silence was giving way to wordy debate” (187). And it continues, the protestant reformation replaces mystery, symbolism, ceremony, and communal tradition with rational creeds, sola scriptura, systematic theology, and individual study. The printing press helps to depersonalize and fix information, “to secularize the relationship of the reader to the truth that he was trying to acquire,” and to “draw ever finer dogmatic distinctions” (173).

All along the way, Armstrong traces the pendulum as it swings between objective and subjective paths to truth—there are currents and cross-currents throughout. In modernity, believers continue to fix their faith on timeless truths, text, dogma, and certainty, which does not prepare them to receive Naturalism, Darwinism, etc. Intolerance sets in. Scientific detachment does not suit spirituality, and Atheism is born. The French Revolution creates a link between liberty and “God’s dramatic abdication”. Enlightenment Deism arrives. The Higher Criticism crosses to America. Christian fundamentalism responds. Zionism is born. Muslim fundamentalism responds. And there you have it.

Finally, Armstrong asks, can today’s postmodern believers deconstruct the modern God, reclaim a theology of "unknowing", and find joy in uncertainty again? Undaunted by today’s new atheists, Armstrong sees them as uneducated in mainstream theology, thereby making the same mistakes as the fundamentalists—they are stuck in literalism and certainty.

(I have a list of personal notes and quotes as well. Comment if you’re interested and I’ll send you a copy.)

(less)

like · see review

May 01, 2011 Sam Osborne rated it 3 of 5 stars

My opinion of Karen Armstrong is that she has an interesting point and that she is typically well documented and cohesive in the positions of her opinions. Her style of non-fiction writing is a constant emphasis of her point, that our idea of what 'god' is has changed throughout time and that fundamentalism is a trap and an idol.

This book shows what an influence individuals within and without the fold of Judeo/Christian thought have had on the religion itself and how those opinions have in turn...more

like · see review

Apr 21, 2011 Jud Barry rated it 4 of 5 stars

I read this book and then wondered if there could be a joke along the lines of "an atheist and a fundamentalist walk into a library arguing about God, the librarian gives them this book, they read it, and then they leave the library unable to say anything."

The idea behind this book (and behind the "joke" such as it is) is that the modern notion of God--whether held by believers or atheists--is not the same as the notion of God held by those who "formulated" the major religions.

For example, the i...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 05, 2011 Keith rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: religion, non-fiction

This book was not at all what I expected. What I expected was some sort of argument for the relevance of religion in a world where scientific reasoning dominates all discussion of truth, and it is that to some degree, but what it primarily is is a historical tour of Western religion, and in particular Western Christianity. As a scholarly work of history, it succeeds brilliantly; as an argument for religious relevance, I think it fails rather spectacularly.

This book is not for the faint of heart....more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 22, 2011 Bob Nichols rated it 2 of 5 stars

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...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 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?

(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jon Stout Again, I'm really impressed that you've taken the trouble to understand this point of view.

A couple of points: I don't think that debate is ruled out...more
Mar 22, 2011 05:59am

Bob Nichols Thanks. I think what you are saying is that while you act with "God" and I act without "God," our (hopefully "good") actions can be the same. What doe...more
Mar 22, 2011 08:31am

Mar 06, 2011 Mehrsa rated it 5 of 5 stars

I would probably say that this is one of the best books I have ever read--certainly the most important. But also the most dense and difficult to read. It took me about 2 months (and I usually can get through books in a week or two max). I always read this book with a pencil and I think there are whole pages or sections in my book that are underlined. However, this book is not for everyone. If you cannot accept some gray in your religious belief or don't want to read something that will likely ch...more

5 likes · like · see review

Oct 30, 2010 Rachael rated it 3 of 5 stars

I largely enjoyed this book but I had to give it 3 stars because the position she advocates is an arguable one, to say the least, but the book gives no indication of that whatsoever. Armstrong argues that 'real' religion, or at least religion as practiced by the majority of humans for most of history, wasn't about belief propositions. Indeed, people knew that belief propostions couldn't be taken as historical fact. No, religion has been about some ineffable sense of transcendence, or a way of be...more I largely enjoyed this book but I had to give it 3 stars because the position she advocates is an arguable one, to say the least, but the book gives no indication of that whatsoever. Armstrong argues that 'real' religion, or at least religion as practiced by the majority of humans for most of history, wasn't about belief propositions. Indeed, people knew that belief propostions couldn't be taken as historical fact. No, religion has been about some ineffable sense of transcendence, or a way of being to be practiced, not a straightforward explanation of the universe. The way she defends this massive proposition is to select at her convenience thinkers which she thinks fits the mold. She argues that things changed with modernity, and the preoccupation with 'proving' God's existence and explaining his attributes was born out of a modern preoccupation.

Now I learned some great things from this, something that particularly sticks out is the enlightening explanation of the trinity. I also think she's right to point out that it makes no sense to fully explain God's nature if God is truly so much more than human beings- at some point our language should fail us. But is this really the heart of religion for most people most of the time? I think beliefs matter much more than she thinks. Unless God really was somehow active in some predictable manner in the world I do not think it would be a concept with much power.

She also doesn't seem to much time or thought to the more sophisticated versions of natural theology. She mentions Paley's argument from design as fi that is the height of rational inquiry into demonstrating God's existence. There are some very powerful arguments that at least suggest the thorough rationality of accepting God's existence. Perhaps the heart of religious life isn't made out of this kind of rational inquiry, but to exclude it altogether is to live life with a limb cut off. She talks about faith being a matter of the full will, a total trust and commitment, if that is so, then why shouldn't the rational mind also be included?(less)

like · see review

Jun 23, 2010 Lisa Louie rated it 3 of 5 stars

The Case for God is Karen Armstrong's reply to the literalistic extremes she perceives in the recent atheist arguments put forward by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. And for the most part, it is a relatively convincing one if, like me, you are inclined to keep mystery and poetry alive irrespective of whether their metaphysical underpinnings are under siege.

Her argument is a historical one; it contends that the current predilection for separating the logos mode...more

like · see review

Apr 10, 2010 Wade rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: history, religion, favorites

My favorite book so far. Armstrong captures my feelings for the importance of both Mythos and Logos in life. This was a great historical overview of religion and spirituality. Reading this book has given me a greater appreciation for all church fathers (and mothers) throughout history; Moses, Abraham, Rabbi Hillel, Jesus, Peter, Gregory, Basil, Francis of Assisi, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Muhammad, Siddhartha, Lehi, Moroni, Constantine, Descartes, Copernicus, Newton,...more

2 likes · like · see review

Feb 20, 2010 Will rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a fine book that spins a modernist tale about how religion once was mystical and experiential but now is textual and intellectual. Armstrong builds her story primarily to attack modern fundamentalism (including the militant atheists) with an emphasis on Christianity. Toward the end of her narrative, she accuses the entire Christian Church of engaging in idolatry, defining God in its own image, and encourages a return to what she claims is the root of religion, an apophatic, mystical expe...more

like · see review

Feb 01, 2010 Judy rated it 4 of 5 stars

I had never heard of Karen Armstrong until I happened upon the debate in the Wall Street Journal between Armstrong and Richard Dawkins. Very interesting arguments on both sides were presented in that debate. Then out of the blue, my friend, Samatha, mentioned how much she likes Armstrong's books. So I thought that I would give one a try. I loved this book. Rather than a set of arguments, bolstered by "experts" in the field who agreed with her such as was the situation in The Case for Christ by L...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 23, 2010 Barbara P rated it 3 of 5 stars

Karen Armstrong is a clear writing theologian. I have read some of her books in the past and chose to read this, her current book. I found it helpful in that she goes back to the beginnings of all religions in religious history to clarify theological doctrines, etc. Although Armstrong definitely believes in God I realized that I would profit more from her book if I returned to seminary. The book it too heady and detailed for me, although in the past I have always reveled in anything that has to...more

like · see review

Jan 17, 2010 G-- rated it 5 of 5 stars

Karen Armstrong is always solid and thought-provoking with her historical take on the evolution of the concept of God. This book takes that approach, linking the belief in god to social and individual good.

Quite frankly, I do not always understand the finer philosophical points that she makes, but her overall theme is intelligent, wise and full of insights. I loved her chapter discussing the absolution of the "new atheists" such as Dawkins, suggesting that the religious and nonreligious alike m...more

1 like · like · see review

William I don't think Armstrong tries to argue that because Newtonian physics was superseded by relativity, there might be a supernatural God after all. That...more
Jan 30, 2010 12:35am

Ken The finer philosphical points she attempted to make were important but in several instances she chose to imply things that were rather tumbled interpr...more
Feb 08, 2010 01:43pm

Hank Cochrane This is clever and not at all thoughful
May 14, 2010 05:58pm

Jan 03, 2010 Jon Stout rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: religion

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...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 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.
(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Dec 28, 2009 David rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book is really much more than a "case for God". Karen Armstrong, author of earlier books such as "A History of God" takes the reader on an odyssey of religion from the sunrise of recorded history, through the rise of Judaism and Christianity, to the modern times. In the process, she discusses at length the age-old "war" between science and religion, and explains why this "war" is utterly unnecessary -- the result of fundamental misunderstandings as to the complementary worlds of science and...more

1 like · like · see review

title link	preview: The Case for God
avg rating	preview: The Case for God Goodreads rating: 3.84 (2394 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6359293-the-case-for-god?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1320462485l/6359293.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6359293-the-case-for-god?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Case for God by Karen Armstrong[/url]

The Case for God

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (24)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Karen Armstrong

Books by Karen Armstrong

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Case for God

Quotes from The Case for God