The Case for God

Feb 27, 2010

William rated it

· 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

like 8 likes

· see review

Aug 15, 2011

William rated it

Shelves: uk, spirituality, christianity, history, nonfiction, monotheism

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...moreArmstrong 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)

like 4 likes

· see review

Oct 16, 2010

Ginny rated it

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

like 3 likes

· see review

Dec 25, 2011

Mohamed Osman rated it

· 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 ال...moreمن 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 بنقضهم 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)

like 1 like

· see review

Feb 19, 2011

Scott Hotes rated 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. ...more

like 1 like

· see review

Mar 13, 2010

Shel rated it

· 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 becaus...moreI 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)

like 1 like

· see review

Jan 01, 2012

Stephanie rated it

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.

...moreKaren 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

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 ...more

like

· see review

Apr 21, 2011

Jud rated it

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"...more

like 1 like

· see review

Apr 05, 2011

Keith rated it

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...more

like 1 like

· see review

Mar 22, 2011

Bob Nichols rated it

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") an...moreCiting 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)

like 1 like

· see review

Mar 06, 2011

Mehrsa rated it

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

like 4 likes

· see review

Oct 30, 2010

Rachael rated it

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...moreI 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

Aug 29, 2010

James rated it

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 t...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Jun 23, 2010

Lisa rated it

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 t...more

like

· see review

Apr 10, 2010

Wade rated it

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, Newt...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Feb 20, 2010

Will rated it

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

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 Cas...more

like 1 like

· see review

Jan 23, 2010

Barbara P rated it

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...more

like

· see review

Jan 17, 2010

G-- rated it

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 rel...more

like 1 like

· see review

Jan 03, 2010

Jon Stout rated it

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 ...moreThe 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)

like 2 likes

· see review

Dec 28, 2009

David rated it

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 ...more

like 1 like

· see review

Nov 09, 2009

Patricktherogue rated it

I reviewed this book on my blog: http://patricktherogue.blogspot.com/2009...

Here is part of that review:

'Armstrong asserts that these early versions of the world's religions were not interested in doctrine and the other most divisive aspects of religion, but in how to be good. They were reacting to the great waves of violence that were ripping the ancient world apart, trying to find a way out for mankind. She states that religion is at its worst where it draws up its stand...more

like 1 like

· see review

Oct 10, 2009

Bradley rated it

Recommends it for: Anyone who's looking for enlightenment.

By probably the best known contemporary religious scholar in the world today and a former nun, this book was even better than Robert Wright's book. A welcome antidote to fundamentalists of all persuasions. A great writer who is able to articulate the story of the evolving concept of God, showing that "She" is not who we think She is, while giving just the right dosage of scholarship to this book and the perspective of real authority without bashing anybody's religion or lack thereof. I...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Sep 23, 2009

jordan rated it

Can I really be the only person who finds Karen Armstrong, the author of fifteen books on religion, writing in her latest that one cannot comment on the divine with words but only with silence, more than a little ironic?

To be fair, Armstrong does offer several interesting insights. Her effort to find universal "truths" that run across faiths is worthwhile and thought provoking. One might even imagine that there are many members of exclusivist faiths for whom this would be a...moreCan I really be the only person who finds Karen Armstrong, the author of fifteen books on religion, writing in her latest that one cannot comment on the divine with words but only with silence, more than a little ironic?

To be fair, Armstrong does offer several interesting insights. Her effort to find universal "truths" that run across faiths is worthwhile and thought provoking. One might even imagine that there are many members of exclusivist faiths for whom this would be a revelation, though one can hardly imagine many of them reading Armstrong's work. At the same time, Armstrong offers an intelligent and evocative response to the new wave of atheistic polemicists - Dawkins, Hitchens, etal - and offers a muscular retort to their rather juvenile view of the divine, as almost all of them seem to have decided that they learned all there was to know about religion as teens in Anglican Sunday School. Armstrong deserves great praise for reminding people that theology is an intellectual pursuit, the attempt to seek to understand God, as opposed to what much of religion seems to be today, namely the effort by many to project their own narrow petty views onto the divine.

That said, this work suffers from the same shortcoming of all Armstrong's voluminous work. Were she a theologian, one might forgive her for ignoring all those arguments that ran against her claims of universality, though it would still be intellectually sloppy. However, Armstrong claims to be a historian of religion, and as such she is guilty of appalling sins of omission. When a fact contradicts her thesis, she does not even give it the due regard of inconvenience and seek to reconcile, but simply pretends it is not there. As such, she is not a scholar, but a polemicist, even if a polemicist for a position for which I have sympathy.

Examples are legion. Armstrong claims that no one prior to the Enlightenment no one read the first chapter of Genesis literally. Really? In the Jewish tradition Ibn Ezra did. So did several rabbis in the Talmud. In the Christian tradition one can look to Luther and no lesser figure than Paul. Does that mean that these were majority views? Certainly not in the Jewish tradition, but to pretend that they don't exist is rank intellectual dishonesty and preying on the ignorance of her readers. Likewise, Armstrong's tut tut comparisons between the Crusaders and Jihadists as religiously retrograde, ignores the fact that - certainly in the former group at least - religious warfare was not merely tolerated but extolled near universally through its religious polity of the day as a duty and a path to salvation. By the same method of argument through erasure and faith in her readers ignorance, Armstrong famously whitewashed Muhammad's military career in the efforts to declare him "a great peace maker."

In a recent interview, someone asked Armstrong a question about the anti-Christ. She replied declaring it a "bogeyman" that "isn't even really in the Bible." When the interviewer, plainly ignorant of the bible asked if that claim was true, Armstrong replies "Not really. It's a couple of chance remarks of Saint Paul and then there's the "Book of Revelation." But the whole idea of there being end-time battles reflects a more sort of Zoroastrian view of the world." Oh, just Saint Paul and the Book of Revelations? No biggie.

Of course this isn't my religious tradition, so one might wonder why I would take offense, but readers should beware what any "scholar" has to say who depends mightily on her audiences ignorance in order to succeed in her arguments.
(less)

like 8 likes

· see review

Jul 28, 2011

Mike Smith rated it

Shelves: non-fiction

Another excellent, thoughtful book by Karen Armstrong, former nun, about religion. In this book, Armstrong argues that we have, in the past two hundred years or so, taken a "scientific" approach to defining and understanding God instead of approaching the idea of God through ritual and liturgy. In doing so, we have turned God into a being, an idealized person, bigger, stronger, more powerful. We have forgotten that ancient people thought of God as Being, the indescribable essence b...more

like

· see review

Apr 05, 2011

Aasem rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, religion, owned

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 o...more

like

· see review

Jan 25, 2012

Mark Flowers rated it

This is a really tremendous book, though if you have even a passing knowledge of the history of philosophy since the Renaissance, I would recommend reading just Part One, skimming Part Two, and finishing up with the Epilogue.

The only reason I'm giving it 4 stars instead of 5 is that I found that history of modern philosophy stuff in part two boring since I already knew most of it.

This should be essential reading for basically anyone who wants to talk about God/fundamental...more

like

· see review

Jan 10, 2012

Zoe Brown rated it

When I began this book, I was quickly daunted by its scholarly, comprehensive approach to exploring the idea of God. I had to use the glossary at the back a lot, trying to take in Latin and Greek words like apophatic, meaning silent or wordless, or kenosis, meaning self-emptying. But I'm very, very glad I persisted.

The "God" that Armstrong is making a case for is not the man-in the-sky who oversees and micro-manages everyone's lives – the God that Richard Dawkins and th...moreWhen I began this book, I was quickly daunted by its scholarly, comprehensive approach to exploring the idea of God. I had to use the glossary at the back a lot, trying to take in Latin and Greek words like apophatic, meaning silent or wordless, or kenosis, meaning self-emptying. But I'm very, very glad I persisted.

The "God" that Armstrong is making a case for is not the man-in the-sky who oversees and micro-manages everyone's lives – the God that Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens find so appalling. Starting with the ancient Greeks and moving on to the present, she makes the case that throughout human history, people have experienced a mysterious sense of the divine or the transcendent, a "God" only knowable through "unknowing," self-emptying, listening, questioning. Armstrong introduces the reader to people throughout religious history who did not see God as "a being," supreme or otherwise. She brings to light the seekers for whom "God" may, in fact, be "being" itself.

Armstrong stresses her respect for the rational, the scientific, the knowable, which she refers to as "logos." And she is making an argument for the same respect for the mysterious, for the ineffable yet powerful sense of transcendence that humans have always felt and tried to express. She is more sympathetic to religion as it is practiced and lived, and less interested in belief. Religion, like art or music, in her view, isn't a matter of what we believe, but the transcendence that we experience and how that transcendence changes us. It isn't a matter of forcing oneselves to believe, espouse and convince others of a series of ideas, much less "facts." It's a matter of self-emptying, listening, participating in the rituals of our chosen path in a disciplined way so that we become more in tune with the divine, more fully human and as a result, more compassionate. She gives evidence of this approach in all the major religions of the world and maintains that these were not minority viewpoints, but commonly accepted at many points in the history of these religions.

Armstrong is also convinced that the ascendance of science and its amazing accomplishments since the Renaissance threatened some religious people, because they could not "prove" something that is, by its very nature, beyond human reasoning – and they began to frantically assert God as a "being," turning God into an idolatrous version of the human (and I would say a no-so-good human!) – an unpredictable being, sometimes loving, often frightening, who must be placated, worshipped and reminded of his responsibilities through prayer. (My description - not hers.)

And from there, modern religion, simultanelously enamored and threatened by science, tried to turn their sacred texts into history and biography that was "factual" and must be "believed," rather than powerful stories, sacred because of their very complexity and because of having resulted from the human struggle to understand the experience of transcendence. These stories, she maintains, were never meant to be believed as factual narratives. Instead they are meant to invite us, in fact require us, to wrestle with them in our own contexts, to find our own very different meanings in them. Religion, she says, is the hard work of penetrating into whatever faith tradition is meaningful to us, participating in its rituals and sacred texts, getting our ego out of the way and being open until that tradition can open for us a path toward transcendence. That path can only be genuine if it changes us, making us less certain, less didactic, more open, and above all, more compassionate in the way we live our lives. Religion requires a response from us, rather than belief. It is a summons to change.

According to Armstrong, "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, grief, despair and outrage at the injustice and cruelty of life."(less)

like

· see review

Aug 09, 2011

Larry Gallagher rated it

The Case for God is a well-researched historical study and not - as the title may imply - a persuasive argument for any particular belief. Well, that's not entirely true. By taking us on a grand tour of religious history, Armstrong hopes to persuade us to reverse what she sees as a grievous error of the past 150 years or so: the shift in emphasis from "spiritual practice" to "belief." Thus, her "case for God" is to return to a conception of God as a symbol of the...moreThe Case for God is a well-researched historical study and not - as the title may imply - a persuasive argument for any particular belief. Well, that's not entirely true. By taking us on a grand tour of religious history, Armstrong hopes to persuade us to reverse what she sees as a grievous error of the past 150 years or so: the shift in emphasis from "spiritual practice" to "belief." Thus, her "case for God" is to return to a conception of God as a symbol of the transcendent, that "inner light" accessible to all humans, rather than as dogmatically defined entity.

I perused this book several times in a bookstore before finally purchasing it. If you come across this book, jump right to the Epilogue chapter - in it she recapitulates most of the major themes of the book, and if that whets your appetite, you'll likely enjoy the rest of the book.

The only reason I didn't give this book five stars is the long-windedness of parts of the narrative. Part of this is personal taste - I tend to struggle a bit with scholarly works of history, where authors feel it necessary to weave together a large cast of major and minor characters, their relations, and a smattering of less relevant details. I prefer the journal article, and in fact this entire book could probably be reduced to a long article without losing much of its argumentative force. But, my preferences aside, there were sections where Armstrong literally repeats arguments and claims made in previous chapters - perhaps she was concerned people would not read this cover-to-cover, and felt compelled to re-cover important ground work in each chapter. So be prepared for a bit of a slog at times, but you can gloss over whole paragraphs or pages without losing essential elements.

Who would I recommend this book to? Anybody interested in the history of religion (although as other reviewers have noted, Armstrong has published extensively on that subject - this being the first work of hers I've read, I'm in no position to compare). I would also recommend it to anyone interested in "spiritual" pursuits but leery of organized religion; these readers will be pleasantly surprised to find that much of what they practice was common religious practice in the not so distant past. Lastly, I recommend this book to contemporary atheists (a camp to which I belong). I was struck by many of the parallels between this work and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. Both works decry the reduction of religion to its "cartoon version", with a literalist interpretation of Biblical text and insistence that faith = cognitive belief in the absence of evidence. The greatest weakness of Armstrong's book is her treatment of Dawkins as being narrow minded and "weak in theology." That's a superficial gloss and caricature that calls into question her interpretation of other major religious writing.

The arguments of Dawkins and Armstrong's books are similar, once we are able to come to common understanding of terms. For example, Dawkins dismisses theology as a literally meaningless term (the study of gods) - if there are no gods, then "theology" becomes as trivial a pursuit as "fairy-ology" would be. Armstrong uses the term theology to refer to a much broader scope of spiritual study, meditation, communal reflection, etc. I've heard Dawkins in one of his speeches refer to such spiritual practices as "good mental hygiene" - I see his conception of spiritual practice and Armstrong's advocacy of a return to older conceptions of god as differing in degree, but not kind. That is Dawkins sees spiritual practice as potentially practically healthy, as long as it doesn't require an irrational belief in imaginary beings. Armstrong makes a similar case, and in fact argues that trying to "name" or delimit the qualities of God are doomed to fail - rather it is the experience and exploration of "spirit" that is the heart of the matter. Armstrong is certainly more open regarding the nature of God (she's not hung up on the natural vs. supernatural distinction) than Dawkins, but I don't see them as being worlds apart. If they could simply not argue past each other by using loaded terms like "theology," they might find more common ground.

Both authors turn their big guns on the version of religion that emerged (according to Armstrong) in the Americas in the early 19th century, where biblical literalism and a "common sense" interpretation of the Bible took root and led to the current crop of religious fundamentalists. Dawkins will have no part of this, and Armstrong herself expresses great chagrin that the essential benefits and experiences of religious practice seem lost on so many. Here is where I think Armstrong gets Dawkins wrong - he argues that rather than representing a fringe sect, religious fundamentalism (and in this he lumps any belief in a supernatural, personified God who hears prayers and manipulates the world in response) is the dominant mode of religious experience in the U.S. So when Dawkins targets fundamentalism, he isn't setting up a straw man - he's going after what he views as mainstream belief. Armstrong tries to have it both ways, at first decrying the fact that religious fundamentalism has such strong roots, but then criticizing Dawkins for treating fundamentalism as mainstream.

So what is the case for God? In the end, Armstrong wishes that the world would remember older versions of religious experience and practice. Her implied definition of God is largely one of "spirit" (again, also recognizing that most religions have historically cautioned against trying to define or even speak of qualities of the Divine). So in making the case for God, she is largely advocating for a return to more routine spiritual practice and exploration in people's lives. Hard to argue with that! (less)

like 1 like

· see review

title link	preview: The Case for God
avg rating	preview: The Case for God Goodreads rating: 3.91 (961 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6359293-the-case-for-god?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1320462485m/6359293.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://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 (18)

Genres

Readers Also Enjoyed

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

Groups That Shelved The Case for God