 |
|
Title: The Case for God
ISBN: 0307269183
Author:
Karen Armstrong
Publicate Date: 2009-09-22
Publish: 2009-09-22
List Price: $27.95
Average Customer Rating: 4.0
Format: Hardcover
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $15.95
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $15.95
Amazon Merchant Price: $18.45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: A semester's worth of theology
Overall, I thought the book, though a lengthy and complex read, was informative and well written. It does not concern itself as much with argument as exposition. By tracing the roots of religious thought from our cave painting ancestors to modern, militant atheism, Armstrong tries to correct some of the misconceptions about God that have entered both sides of the debate. Her exposition against idolatry (i.e. making God a "self help" God) and her thoughts on mythos as a means for discovering truth are interesting, but ultimately, it's simply a re-hashing of her 20 some odd other books. Those who read "A History of God" will find a lot of similarities in the two works, both in style and subject matter.
It's an excellent read for anyone who missed out on a semester of theology in school, or for people interested in understanding the roots of religious tradition. But it's certainly not a book you just pick up and read.
|
2: The case for... what, exactly?
I read Karen Armstrong's book with an open mind. Because I grew up in a strict, fundamentalist church, I have long tried to tamp down my persistent inner voice that insists doctrine and dogma are the primary -- indeed only -- means of experiencing God.
It is because of this willingness to learn that I enjoyed Ms. Armstrong's history, if you want to call it that, of God. One of her main points is that modern religion seeks to define faith as logos, or in words and stated belief, supplanting what she considers a more genuine means of religious experience, called mythos. Because of this, she argues, we go wrong when we try to interpret scriptural texts like the Bible as literal fact-based history and base our faith on that certainty. Instead, we should hue to the historical practice of rituals that will usher us into an ancient understanding of transcendent experience. Okay, I was willing to consider this. I could feel my creaky mind expanding.
But, in the end, I'm not sure what understanding we're supposed to arrive at, exactly. This book does not make a case for a God that I would have any interest in. She argues that God is not a being who intervenes in human affairs, is not even a being in any sense of the word. God is not a spirit, the great creator, the first cause or even a larger "other." Her God, if she is indeed making a case for one, is void of any cause for worship, adoration, awe or even attention. Believers of any faith might be puzzled by this. What are religious rituals for, then?
Karen Armstrong's concept of God is a deeply philosophical one that seems beyond the scope of most people, myself included. It's this exclusionary feeling that rendered the author's treatise ultimately depressing for me. The experience of God should be accessible to all, not just those few fortunate enough to have read the great philosophers, or those who have access to the right rituals. Anne Rice, in Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession for example, talks about communing with God through visual and experiential pathways (rather than the written word) that would be possible for anyone. You can see that Ms. Armstrong's God is deeply meaningful for her, and I'm glad for her, but the meaning doesn't translate well, to me at least. I also felt the lack of any substantial input from theologians, who, although they parse religion with words, could shed some light on the concept of God, I would think.
I rate the book as highly as I do because it's a fascinating, scrupulously researched and well-written book with much to say. But I must admit, I was discouraged by this central theme, and by some of the author's subtexts. One of these is the futility she sees in the current atheist backlash against fundamentalist, literalist Christianity. "When attacking religion that seems obscurantist, critics must be aware that this assault is likely to make it more extreme," she writes. Even as I try to shake loose from my very narrow theological upbringing, I would still characterize myself as a conservative Christian and I'm weary of being told I'm a danger to society and, now, an abberant adherent in the history of faith.
|
3: Good intentions
Karen Armstrong is a person of good - will and good- intentions. Just as in her previous book she tries to unite all religions by claiming they essentially teach the basic principle of the Golden Rule, here she attempts to unite them as having a common conception of an ineffable, transcendent God. She tries to discount the importance of doctrine and creed, and emphasize the importance of inner spiritual apprehension of God.
She in one sense is responding to those who debunk Religion, see it as simply a source of Ignorance, Fundamentalism, and Violence. She does not deny that these negative phenomena have a too prominent place in religion. But rather she sees them as false to the true spirit of religion. She by the way also is critical of the belligent Atheism which rudely equates all Religion with what is worse in it.
In the course of her exposition, it could be argued that she goes too far in stressing the seperation of what she calls Logos from Mythos. She goes too far in seperating Belief from Practice, this in her defense of the great value of religious practice. She points rightly to the tremendous comfort and aid in living which Religion gives to so so many.
It could also be argued that what she does in 'uniting the religions' is deprive them of their special insight and revelation. The God after all of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not simply reducible to the God- consciousness she feels each of us can find within ourselves.
This is a small review of a book which has very much in it, including a capsule history of Religion. It is a book rich in insights but one which also raises many questions and doubts.
|
4: A misleading case against rationalism and modernity
This book is a fascinating history of religion. But read with care, because the author distorts the historical record to promote its agenda.
Her core arguments include the following: that traditional religion did not emphasize literal, factual belief, but rather an emotional devotion that was instilled in people through communal rituals and rites; that modern religious fundamentalism, with its emphasis on scripture and literal belief, was a reaction to the development of modernity and the Enlightenment in the 15th-17th centuries; and that religious fundamentalism did not exist before this time.
What is the concept of God that is being promoted here? It's the notion of "Being" proposed by the philosopher Martin Heidegger, and more recently by Eckhart Tolle. The author is unsuccessful in helping the reader to understand this concept; her descriptions tend to come across as mumbo-jumbo. (Tolle is more persuasive: he at least gives the reader the impression that the concept makes some sense.) I am not sure that that the concept makes sense as a definition of God, but here is an attempt to summarize: "Being" is the state of non-judgmental awareness that can be accessed by meditation practices; the feeling of oneness and connectedness attained when the fears, anxieties, and cravings of the ego are released. Sometimes this outlook is referred to as "non-dualism."
The author's contention that fundamentalism is the step-child of the Enlightenment rests primarily on the evolving meaning the Latin word "credo," which led to the English words credible, credulous, credence, credit, creed. Noting that the word is derived from the Latin root for "heart," she claims that it originally did not refer to intellectual acceptance of a truth claim, but referred to spiritual trust and devotion (this has previously been argued in "Faith and Belief" by Wilfred Cantwell Smith).
But she twists history when she argues that it was only with the Enlightenment that religion began to emphasize "belief" as the acceptance of truth claims. She casts aside a mountain of evidence to the contrary: the Gospels' own emphasis on eye-witness accounts of the resurrection; the early church conflicts over Gnosticism, the divinity of Jesus, and the trinity; the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, etc. And she ignores another mountain of evidence when she argues that religious intolerance developed in reaction to the Enlightenment: the destruction of the library of Alexandria, the persecution of Gnostics, Arians, and Manicheans, the elimination of the Cathars, etc.
Armstrong has some valid points to make about the impact of scientific culture, but unfortunately she is trying to bolster her case with biased accounts and descriptions. For example, she is fawning with praise for early Islam, to the point of making the dubious claim that in early Islamic society "aggressive warfare was outlawed" (p. 101). At the same time, she repeatedly inserts derogatory adjectives to denigrate science and rationalism. Just one example is found in the last page of the introduction, where she refers to the "violent and intolerant strain that has always been inherent ... in the modern scientific ethos." She even attributes the Spanish Inquisition to the modern rationalist outlook that was developing at the time (p.162).
It is interesting to note that both Armstrong and Tolle are former Ph.D. students of literature, who now devote themselves to speaking and writing to promote a world view that, as part of its ideology, disparages rationalism, logic, and science. Armstrong appears to be inspired here by the post-modernist outlook. At heart, this book is a post-modern critique, in which rationalism and scientific culture are the bogeymen that cause religious strife.
|
5: Brilliant and erudite, Karen Armstrong makes a case for God!
The Case for God Well researched and eloquently stated, Armstrong's "A Case for God" is a must-read for doubters and believers alike. It is carefully researched, and as with everything she writes, it is intelligent and thoughtFul and raises timely issues. This is not an easy read, but is well worth the effort. Armstrong links opposing points of religious views with historical and societal events over time and puts scientific and spiritual perspectives into context. Believers and non- believers should find this a fascinating text.
|
|
|
|
|
