What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱賱賴 賱賲丕匕丕: 賲爻毓賶 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 丕賱兀夭賱賷責
A nuanced exploration of the part religion plays in human life, past and present, from one of the foremost commentators on religion at work today.
Moving from the Paleolithic Age to the present, Karen Armstrong details the great lengths to which humankind has gone in order to experience a sacred reality that it has called God, Brahman, Nirvana, Allah, or Dao. Focusing especially on Christianity but including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Chinese spirituality, Armstrong examines the diminished impulse toward religion in our own time, when a significant number of people either want nothing to do with God or question the efficacy of faith. Why has God become incredible? Why is it that atheists and theists alike now think and speak about God in a way that deviates so profoundly from the thinking of our ancestors? Answering these questions with the same depth of knowledge and profound insight that have marked all of her acclaimed books, Armstrong makes clear how the changing face of the world has necessarily changed the importance of religion at both the societal and the individual level. And she makes a powerful, convincing argument for drawing on the insights of the past in order to build a faith that speaks to the needs of our dangerously polarized age.
520 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
870 people are currently reading
18388 people want to read
About the author
Karen Armstrong
99听books3,343听followersKaren Armstrong is a British author and commentator of Irish Catholic descent known for her books on comparative religion. A former Roman Catholic religious sister, she went from a conservative to a more liberal and mystical Christian faith. She attended St Anne's College, Oxford, while in the convent and graduated in English. She left the convent in 1969. Her work focuses on commonalities of the major religions, such as the importance of compassion and the Golden Rule.
Armstrong received the US$100,000 TED Prize in February 2008. She used that occasion to call for the creation of a Charter for Compassion, which was unveiled the following year.
Armstrong received the US$100,000 TED Prize in February 2008. She used that occasion to call for the creation of a Charter for Compassion, which was unveiled the following year.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 735 reviews
June 27, 2013
Poor Karen Armstrong has been ploughing a lonely furrow in recent years, trying to show that there is a valid Third Way between increasingly defensive religious groups and increasingly forthright 鈥榥ew atheists鈥�. Neither side thinks much of her. For those of us a bit more detached from the arguments, she often seems like the only one talking any sense.
Her main problem can best be summarised by saying that she and I share almost identical views on religion, and yet I would call myself an atheist whereas she describes herself as a 鈥榝reelance monotheist鈥�. In other words, she succeeds in finding a definition of 鈥楪od鈥� which I am happy to accept, but only by defining it pretty much out of existence.
The arguments in here build on her extraordinary back-catalogue of books on theological history, two of which 鈥� and 鈥� are absolutely essential reading for anyone who wants to enter into the debate. This book, which is designed as a sort of 鈥榗omeback鈥� against the attacks of Hitchens, Dawkins et al., mostly rehashes work from those two masterpieces, so I can only really give it three stars although much of what is in here is brilliantly done.
Again, the point she is keen to stress is that religion and science represent different types of knowledge 鈥� what the Greeks called mythos and logos. The latter deals in rational thought and the former in poetic truths. (Thus she immediately sidesteps any claims that religion has to scientific knowledge about the world: she has as much scorn as any atheist for those religious people who think that holy books are records of facts.) She makes a convincing case that, in the pre-modern world, most religious thinkers and mystics saw religion as having symbolic, not factual, importance 鈥� hence the bizarre doctrines which to the modern world seem so impossible.
Such ideas were thus thought-exercises 鈥� like Zen Buddhist koan 鈥� designed to free up your mind to think about the impossible. For many of these mystics and religious thinkers, 鈥楪od鈥� was not some supernatural entity 鈥� rather 鈥楪od鈥� was a sort of codeword for 鈥榚xistence鈥�, 鈥榬eality鈥�, or 鈥榯he universe鈥�, a way of contemplating ultimate truths.
The problem came with the Enlightenment, when religions felt under threat from science and tried to argue that they too had scientific knowledge about the world. For Armstrong, this is where it all went wrong: Western Christians became 鈥榓ddicted to scientific proof and were convinced that if God was not an empirically demonstrable fact, there was no sense in which religion could be true.鈥�
This doesn't mean that religion is 鈥榦nly鈥� a myth 鈥� or rather, it does, except that Armstrong believes that myths, far from being 鈥榡ust stories鈥�, are of supreme value to the way human beings experience the world. Here I agree with her, and this is also my problem with the so-called new atheism, which often seems to take a very reductionist and intolerant view of religion. To see a scientist as brilliant as Richard Dawkins reduced to explaining, in book-length form, that the idea of a benevolent omnipotent god is incompatible with such facts as childhood leukaemia or Auschwitz, makes me feel depressed and a bit embarrassed. The point is not that he's wrong, it's that it's so obvious. You'd have thought we'd be beyond this by now.
Armstrong relates a story Elie Wiesel tells about Auschwitz:
Two things should be crystal clear reading this. The first is the literal truth that no kindly all-powerful being could watch such scenes take place. But the second is the extraordinary poetic beauty of the response that Wiesel suggests. This, to me, is the power of religion 鈥� the same sort of truth as that offered by King Lear or Anna Karenina, something which helps you sympathise with others and which invites you to understand that there is a sense in which all reality is affected by what happens to any one individual.
My only concern is that Armstrong is overplaying the extent to which this premodern view of religion is really representative of the 鈥榮ilent majority鈥� of faithful (I can't remember if she says this outright or just implies it). Certainly there is a huge amount of thought and intelligence behind what's in here, and it succeeds in locating the value in something that many people nowadays find valueless. However, I can't help thinking (not without some satisfaction) that religious believers who pick this book up looking for a quick comeback to a YouTube Hitch-slap might find themselves with more to chew on than they expected.
Her main problem can best be summarised by saying that she and I share almost identical views on religion, and yet I would call myself an atheist whereas she describes herself as a 鈥榝reelance monotheist鈥�. In other words, she succeeds in finding a definition of 鈥楪od鈥� which I am happy to accept, but only by defining it pretty much out of existence.
The arguments in here build on her extraordinary back-catalogue of books on theological history, two of which 鈥� and 鈥� are absolutely essential reading for anyone who wants to enter into the debate. This book, which is designed as a sort of 鈥榗omeback鈥� against the attacks of Hitchens, Dawkins et al., mostly rehashes work from those two masterpieces, so I can only really give it three stars although much of what is in here is brilliantly done.
Again, the point she is keen to stress is that religion and science represent different types of knowledge 鈥� what the Greeks called mythos and logos. The latter deals in rational thought and the former in poetic truths. (Thus she immediately sidesteps any claims that religion has to scientific knowledge about the world: she has as much scorn as any atheist for those religious people who think that holy books are records of facts.) She makes a convincing case that, in the pre-modern world, most religious thinkers and mystics saw religion as having symbolic, not factual, importance 鈥� hence the bizarre doctrines which to the modern world seem so impossible.
In the early modern period, when the West was developing a wholly rational way of thinking about God and the world, philosophers and scientists were appalled by the irrationality of the Trinity. But for the Cappadocian fathers 鈥� Basil, Gregory and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus (329-90) 鈥� the whole point of the doctrine was to stop Christians thinking about God in rational terms. If you did that, you could only think about God as a being, because that was all our minds were capable of. The Trinity was not a 鈥榤ystery鈥� that had to be believed but an image that Christians were supposed to contemplate in a particular way.
Such ideas were thus thought-exercises 鈥� like Zen Buddhist koan 鈥� designed to free up your mind to think about the impossible. For many of these mystics and religious thinkers, 鈥楪od鈥� was not some supernatural entity 鈥� rather 鈥楪od鈥� was a sort of codeword for 鈥榚xistence鈥�, 鈥榬eality鈥�, or 鈥榯he universe鈥�, a way of contemplating ultimate truths.
The problem came with the Enlightenment, when religions felt under threat from science and tried to argue that they too had scientific knowledge about the world. For Armstrong, this is where it all went wrong: Western Christians became 鈥榓ddicted to scientific proof and were convinced that if God was not an empirically demonstrable fact, there was no sense in which religion could be true.鈥�
This doesn't mean that religion is 鈥榦nly鈥� a myth 鈥� or rather, it does, except that Armstrong believes that myths, far from being 鈥榡ust stories鈥�, are of supreme value to the way human beings experience the world. Here I agree with her, and this is also my problem with the so-called new atheism, which often seems to take a very reductionist and intolerant view of religion. To see a scientist as brilliant as Richard Dawkins reduced to explaining, in book-length form, that the idea of a benevolent omnipotent god is incompatible with such facts as childhood leukaemia or Auschwitz, makes me feel depressed and a bit embarrassed. The point is not that he's wrong, it's that it's so obvious. You'd have thought we'd be beyond this by now.
Armstrong relates a story Elie Wiesel tells about Auschwitz:
one day the Gestapo hanged a child with the face of a 鈥榮ad-eyed angel鈥�, who was silent and almost calm as he climbed the gallows. It took the child nearly an hour to die in front of the thousands of spectators who were forced to watch. Behind Wiesel, one of the prisoners muttered: 鈥榃here is God? Where is He?鈥� And Wiesel heard a voice within him saying in response, 鈥榃here is He? Here He is 鈥� He is hanging here on this gallows.鈥�
Two things should be crystal clear reading this. The first is the literal truth that no kindly all-powerful being could watch such scenes take place. But the second is the extraordinary poetic beauty of the response that Wiesel suggests. This, to me, is the power of religion 鈥� the same sort of truth as that offered by King Lear or Anna Karenina, something which helps you sympathise with others and which invites you to understand that there is a sense in which all reality is affected by what happens to any one individual.
My only concern is that Armstrong is overplaying the extent to which this premodern view of religion is really representative of the 鈥榮ilent majority鈥� of faithful (I can't remember if she says this outright or just implies it). Certainly there is a huge amount of thought and intelligence behind what's in here, and it succeeds in locating the value in something that many people nowadays find valueless. However, I can't help thinking (not without some satisfaction) that religious believers who pick this book up looking for a quick comeback to a YouTube Hitch-slap might find themselves with more to chew on than they expected.
November 9, 2013
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.
The case opens with a rather long history of Western philosophy focussing on Christianity, but also taking in Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius, Augustine, al-Ghazzali, Aquinas, Spinoza, Paine, Hume, Kant, Derrida and many more, in which they are shown to have developed variations around the idea that practising meditation and compassion while accepting that you can't know everything can make you a better person, while temporarily shutting off the chatter of your own mental commentary can bring a special feeling of peace and reflectiveness. Well, amen to that. Especially in ancient times before all of the scientific insights we take for granted today, you might reasonably decide to take a poetic view of existence and resolve to live a life inspired by your culture's oldest stories. As an atheist I didn't find much to disagree with, although I felt this this material was covered better in Armstrong's earlier History of God, without the sniping at atheism or overuse of the word "apophatic".
So religion is really meant to be a meditative, allegorical self-improvement programme, but unfortunately today's fundamentalists and (Armstrong claims) atheists fail to realise this and treat it instead as a set of factual claims, leaving us with two warring sides who are both wrong. Even the words belief and faith have shifted in meaning since the Bible was translated into English, from something more to do with trust and belonging, to the modern sense of simply thinking a statement is true. (I remember how as schoolchildren we sniggered when finding the word virgin in crumbly old Latin textbooks, because to us as ten year olds it meant a person who has not had sex - tee hee - while to the innocent author of translation exercises such as 'the virgins carry water from the well' it meant a young unmarried woman. Well, it seems this confusion predates the 1970s and is how the story of Christ being born of a virgin became a miracle.) Armstrong sides with the faithful as they are at least trying, and if only we could get back to taking it all a bit more symbolically again we'd all be better off:
Except that it is never clear in The Case For God when this golden age of non-literalism took place. The Apostles' Creed from the Book of Common Prayer is quite specific about God being creator of Heaven and Earth with Jesus sitting at His right hand having risen from the dead, so it had already gone wrong by its publication in 1662. However, the Nicene Creed of 325 CE contains most of the absurdities of the current version, so this supposedly modern error of mistaking metaphor for fact seems to have been a problem for religion from its earliest times, perhaps because we humans are only partly rational and have always been drawn to superstition, and of course to any myth that tells us we are better than some other group. I can't help wondering how many of the elaborate spiritual exercises of the great medieval mystics ever filtered down to the ordinary people, lectured from the pulpit about heaven and hell. Were the crusaders, witch hunters and inquisitors simply defending their communities against perceived threats while following their mystical, symbolic traditions? The Case For God didn't convince me. At best, it presents religion as something that may have some value for some people if followed in the right spirit, but which is constantly - inevitably - taken the wrong way with catastrophic consequences for millions.
And then there are her odd comments about atheism, where the case collapses into ill-considered muddle. Armstrong's claim that atheists' theology - of all things - is poor and that they do not understand what they criticise is one that you will see repeated on Christian websites and indeed book reviews, and I was disappointed to see an academic I used to respect sink to this level. Atheism is a rejection of the idea of supernatural gods, so to argue that sophisticated believers see God as symbolic, while doubtless true, misses the point. Atheists don't have a problem with symbolic gods, just the supernatural ones. And to claim that atheism is fundamentalist is meaningless mudslinging:
After so many chapters of careful philosophical reasoning, this kind of clumsy point-missing comes as a shock and a disappointment. "Alone in possession of truth"? Is she saying that a fairer-minded atheist than Dawkins would agree that the theists might have a bit of truth to their viewpoint after all? What sense would that make? Does she have any idea of the debate, let alone the repression, persecution and wars, actually going on in the real world, outside her cosy academic ivory tower? Has she ever actually seen a Christian website? Did she just call us fundamentalists?
A found that two thirds of Church of England clergy have no doubt that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead (although naturally the headlines were all about the worrying third of doubters). These are not "religious fundamentalists" in the sense of unrepresentative weirdos, these are the respectable, tea-drinking moderate mainstream, one of whom I might mention announced at my elderly aunt's funeral that she was at that moment renewing her acquaintance with previously deceased friends and relatives. Atheists' criticisms concern what is being said by people living today who think there is an invisible homophobic sky wizard (and ). People who do not think there is an invisible homophobic sky wizard are not part of the problem under discussion. Religion would be fine if people followed it in the way Armstrong describes - as indeed many Buddhists do, among them.
Her unarticulated point might be that many of the "why doesn't God save babies from earthquakes?" type of questions have been asked and answered many times, and theologians groan when they see them and refer you wearily to the standard because we have freedom, because it's complicated, and anyway we must all have faith in something including scientific truth itself set of answers, which may (depending on who you ask) include because God is not a sky wizard but a symbol for indescribable transcendence / metaphor for love / guiding force only appreciable via meditation. This is a favourite trick of theists, to become all philosophical and sophisticated when a debate calls for it, while back in the real world the Pope goes on announcing that Hell is a real place and vicars tell you your late aunt is currently attending a celestial tea party.
The Case for God positions itself as an academic rebuttal to a series of well-written, accessible atheist manifestos by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others. I am sure many people would be interested in such a book - I certainly would - but unfortunately despite good intentions (Armstrong at least rejects supernatural theism and tries to put fundamentalism in perspective), TCFG is heavy going, makes a weak case, ultimately frustrates more than it enlightens, and uses the word "apophatic" too often. Read her earlier A History of God instead.
The case opens with a rather long history of Western philosophy focussing on Christianity, but also taking in Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius, Augustine, al-Ghazzali, Aquinas, Spinoza, Paine, Hume, Kant, Derrida and many more, in which they are shown to have developed variations around the idea that practising meditation and compassion while accepting that you can't know everything can make you a better person, while temporarily shutting off the chatter of your own mental commentary can bring a special feeling of peace and reflectiveness. Well, amen to that. Especially in ancient times before all of the scientific insights we take for granted today, you might reasonably decide to take a poetic view of existence and resolve to live a life inspired by your culture's oldest stories. As an atheist I didn't find much to disagree with, although I felt this this material was covered better in Armstrong's earlier History of God, without the sniping at atheism or overuse of the word "apophatic".
So religion is really meant to be a meditative, allegorical self-improvement programme, but unfortunately today's fundamentalists and (Armstrong claims) atheists fail to realise this and treat it instead as a set of factual claims, leaving us with two warring sides who are both wrong. Even the words belief and faith have shifted in meaning since the Bible was translated into English, from something more to do with trust and belonging, to the modern sense of simply thinking a statement is true. (I remember how as schoolchildren we sniggered when finding the word virgin in crumbly old Latin textbooks, because to us as ten year olds it meant a person who has not had sex - tee hee - while to the innocent author of translation exercises such as 'the virgins carry water from the well' it meant a young unmarried woman. Well, it seems this confusion predates the 1970s and is how the story of Christ being born of a virgin became a miracle.) Armstrong sides with the faithful as they are at least trying, and if only we could get back to taking it all a bit more symbolically again we'd all be better off:
The idea of God is merely a symbol of indescribable transcendence and has been interpreted in many different ways over the centuries. The modern God - conceived as a powerful Creator, First Cause, Supernatural personality realistically understood and rationally demonstrable - is a recent phenomenon.
Except that it is never clear in The Case For God when this golden age of non-literalism took place. The Apostles' Creed from the Book of Common Prayer is quite specific about God being creator of Heaven and Earth with Jesus sitting at His right hand having risen from the dead, so it had already gone wrong by its publication in 1662. However, the Nicene Creed of 325 CE contains most of the absurdities of the current version, so this supposedly modern error of mistaking metaphor for fact seems to have been a problem for religion from its earliest times, perhaps because we humans are only partly rational and have always been drawn to superstition, and of course to any myth that tells us we are better than some other group. I can't help wondering how many of the elaborate spiritual exercises of the great medieval mystics ever filtered down to the ordinary people, lectured from the pulpit about heaven and hell. Were the crusaders, witch hunters and inquisitors simply defending their communities against perceived threats while following their mystical, symbolic traditions? The Case For God didn't convince me. At best, it presents religion as something that may have some value for some people if followed in the right spirit, but which is constantly - inevitably - taken the wrong way with catastrophic consequences for millions.
And then there are her odd comments about atheism, where the case collapses into ill-considered muddle. Armstrong's claim that atheists' theology - of all things - is poor and that they do not understand what they criticise is one that you will see repeated on Christian websites and indeed book reviews, and I was disappointed to see an academic I used to respect sink to this level. Atheism is a rejection of the idea of supernatural gods, so to argue that sophisticated believers see God as symbolic, while doubtless true, misses the point. Atheists don't have a problem with symbolic gods, just the supernatural ones. And to claim that atheism is fundamentalist is meaningless mudslinging:
Like all religious fundamentalists, the new atheists believe that they alone are in possession of truth; like Christian fundamentalists, they read scripture in an entirely literal manner and never seem to have heard of the long tradition of allegoric or Talmudic interpretation.
After so many chapters of careful philosophical reasoning, this kind of clumsy point-missing comes as a shock and a disappointment. "Alone in possession of truth"? Is she saying that a fairer-minded atheist than Dawkins would agree that the theists might have a bit of truth to their viewpoint after all? What sense would that make? Does she have any idea of the debate, let alone the repression, persecution and wars, actually going on in the real world, outside her cosy academic ivory tower? Has she ever actually seen a Christian website? Did she just call us fundamentalists?
A found that two thirds of Church of England clergy have no doubt that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead (although naturally the headlines were all about the worrying third of doubters). These are not "religious fundamentalists" in the sense of unrepresentative weirdos, these are the respectable, tea-drinking moderate mainstream, one of whom I might mention announced at my elderly aunt's funeral that she was at that moment renewing her acquaintance with previously deceased friends and relatives. Atheists' criticisms concern what is being said by people living today who think there is an invisible homophobic sky wizard (and ). People who do not think there is an invisible homophobic sky wizard are not part of the problem under discussion. Religion would be fine if people followed it in the way Armstrong describes - as indeed many Buddhists do, among them.
Her unarticulated point might be that many of the "why doesn't God save babies from earthquakes?" type of questions have been asked and answered many times, and theologians groan when they see them and refer you wearily to the standard because we have freedom, because it's complicated, and anyway we must all have faith in something including scientific truth itself set of answers, which may (depending on who you ask) include because God is not a sky wizard but a symbol for indescribable transcendence / metaphor for love / guiding force only appreciable via meditation. This is a favourite trick of theists, to become all philosophical and sophisticated when a debate calls for it, while back in the real world the Pope goes on announcing that Hell is a real place and vicars tell you your late aunt is currently attending a celestial tea party.
The Case for God positions itself as an academic rebuttal to a series of well-written, accessible atheist manifestos by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others. I am sure many people would be interested in such a book - I certainly would - but unfortunately despite good intentions (Armstrong at least rejects supernatural theism and tries to put fundamentalism in perspective), TCFG is heavy going, makes a weak case, ultimately frustrates more than it enlightens, and uses the word "apophatic" too often. Read her earlier A History of God instead.
November 20, 2019
Armstrong is a scholar of comparative religion. In numerous examples here, 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 in 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.
December 25, 2011
賲賳 丕賱氐毓亘 兀賳 鬲賰鬲亘 鬲毓賱賷賯 賲賳丕爻亘 賱賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳馗乇丕 賱囟禺丕賲丞 賰賲 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷丨鬲賵賷賴丕 賵丕賱鬲賷 賷氐毓亘 賲乇丕噩毓鬲賴丕 貙亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賷 丕賱賯囟賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲賳丕賵賱賴丕 賵 丕賱鬲賷 賷賯鬲乇亘 毓賲乇賴丕 賲賳 毓賲乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賱賷 賴匕賴 丕賱兀乇囟 .
賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳賯爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳氐賮賷賳 丕賱賳氐賮 丕賱兀賵賱 禺丕氐 亘賳卮賵亍 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱丌賱賴賷 賮賷 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賵賰賷賮賷丞 鬲胤賵乇賴 賵禺丕氐賴 毓亘乇 丕賱丿賷丕賳丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賵丕賱賷賴賵丿賷丞 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賷賳丕賯卮 丕賱賳氐賮 丕賱孬丕賳賷 丕賱丕賱賴 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵鬲丿丕禺賱 丕賱毓賱賲 賲毓 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵賴賱 賲丕鬲 丕賱丕賱賴 丨賯丕 兀賲 賱丕 .
丕賱賳氐賮 丕賱兀賵賱 賱賲 兀毓噩亘 亘賴 賲孬賱 丕賱賳氐賮 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賰賳 賲賳 丕賱賲丐賰丿 賱賷 兀賳 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 賱賳 賷賳丕賱 乇囟丕 兀賵 廿毓噩丕亘 丕賱兀氐賵賱賷賷賳 賲賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 賵賯丿 賷卮賰賱 氐丿賲丞 賱亘毓囟 賲賲丕 賷噩毓賱賴賲 賷賳賰乇賵丕 丕賱乇丐賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕鬲禺匕鬲賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 賮賷 爻乇丿 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞.
丕賱賳氐賮 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賴賵 丕賱兀賰孬乇 廿賲鬲丕毓丕 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 貙 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱鬲賳賵賷乇 賵亘乇賵夭丕賱氐乇丕毓 亘賷賳 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵丕賱毓賱賲 貙 賲乇賵乇丕 亘丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 丕賳鬲賴丕亍丕 亘禺丕鬲賲丞 兀毓鬲賯丿 廿賳賴丕 賰丕賳鬲 兀賮囟賱 賲丕 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨賷孬 丕爻鬲胤丕毓鬲 兀賳 鬲噩賲毓 賲賱禺氐 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 噩夭亍 亘爻賷胤 賮賷 丕賱丌禺乇 .
賲丕 賯丿 賷丐禺匕 毓賱賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賳賴丕 爻丕乇鬲 毓賱賷 胤乇賷賯 賲丨丿丿 爻賷賮乇囟 毓賱賷賴丕 兀賳 鬲兀禺匕 賵噩賴丕鬲 賳馗乇 賲毓賷賳丞 賱鬲氐賱 廿賱賷 丕賱賴丿賮 丕賱匕賷 鬲乇賷丿賴 .
賮賷 鬲賳丕賵賱賴丕 賱賯囟賷丞 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 鬲賳丕賵賱鬲 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱兀賵賱賷 賱賲毓賳賷 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 賵丕賱匕賷 賷賯丕亘賱 丕賱夭賳丿賯丞 毓賳丿賳丕 賵丨鬲賷 丕賱丌賳 賱丕 兀賮賴賲 丕賱爻乇 賮賷 鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱睾乇亘 賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 亘賴匕丕 丕賱卮賰賱 賮賮賷 賮賷賱賲 賵孬丕卅賯賷 賷毓丿 丕賱兀卮賴乇 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓
Atheism A Rough History of Disbelief
賵賯毓賵丕 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱禺胤兀 貙 賲賳 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賷 賵噩丿 丕賱賰賮乇 賷賵賲 賵噩丿 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 貙 賵毓賱賷 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賱丕 丕賱丨氐乇 胤丕卅賮丞 丕賱丿賴乇賷丞 賱丕 鬲丐賲賳 亘賵噩賵丿 禺丕賱賯 賮賴賷 鬲鬲賮賯 賲毓 丕賱賲毓賳賷 丕賱賲乇丕丿 鬲賲丕賲 賱賰賱賲丞 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿兀賵 賲丕 賷胤賱賯 毓賱賷賴 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 丕賱丨丿賷孬 貙 賵兀賷囟丕 賲丕 賷丐禺匕 毓賱賷賴丕 賴賳丕 丕毓鬲賲丕丿賴丕 賮賷 囟乇亘 賲孬丕賱 賱廿賱丨丕丿 毓賱賷 胤丕卅賮丞 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 丕賱噩丿丿 賵鬲乇賰賷夭賴丕 毓賱賷 兀卮禺丕氐 亘毓賷賳賴丕 兀賲孬丕賱 丿賵賰賷賳夭 賵爻丕賲 賴丕乇賷爻 賵 賰乇賷爻鬲賵賮乇 賴賷鬲卮賳夭
-鬲賵賮賷 丕賱兀禺賷乇 賯乇賷亘丕 - 貙 賵亘乇睾賲 丕爻鬲賲鬲丕毓賷 亘賳賯丿賴賲 賱兀賳 毓乇囟鬲 賲丕 賷鬲賮賯 賲毓 乇丐賷鬲賷 賱賴賲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 亘乇睾賲 氐睾乇 丨噩賲賴 賵丕賯鬲囟丕亘賴 賲賲丕 賱賲 賷卮亘毓 賳賴賲賷貙 賮鬲乇賰賷夭賴丕 毓賱賷 胤丕卅賮丞 丿賵賳 丕賱丌禺乇賷 兀禺賱 亘丕賱丨賷丕丿賷丞 賰孬賷乇 .
賲賳 丕賱噩賲賷賱 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 鬲賳丕賵賱賴丕 亘丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 賱賷爻 賮賯胤 亘丨賷丕丿賷丞 亘賱 亘廿賷噩丕亘賷丞 貙 賵賲孬丕賱 毓賱賷 匕賱賰 兀乇噩毓鬲 鬲胤乇賮 丕賱卮賷禺 爻賷丿 賯胤亘 廿賱賷 賲丕 毓丕賳丕賴 毓賱賷 賷丿 夭亘丕賳賷丞 噩賲丕賱 毓亘丿 丕賱賳丕氐乇 .
賴賳丕賰 賳賯胤丞 鬲丐禺匕 毓賱賷 賲賳 賯丕賲賵丕 亘丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 貙 賴賳丕賰 亘毓囟 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳 賷噩亘 兀賳 賷賵囟毓 亘噩賵丕乇賴丕 丕賱賳氐 丕賱兀氐賱賷 兀賵 丕賱賰賱賲丞 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賮賲孬丕賱 賰賱賲丞 丕賱丕賲亘乇賷賯賷丞 賱賳 賷爻鬲賵毓亘 丕賱賰孬賷乇 兀賳賴賲 賷賯氐丿賵賳 鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 賵 兀賷囟丕 賰賱賲丞丕賱兀賱賷噩賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲乇噩賲賴丕 亘毓囟 丕賱兀禺賵丞 丕賱毓乇亘 丕賱兀賱賷睾賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱賲乇丕丿 亘賴丕 兀賯氐賵氐丞 乇賲夭賷丞.
賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓 賵兀賰孬乇 賲賳 乇丕卅毓 爻賵丕亍 丕鬲賮賯鬲 兀賵 賱賲 鬲鬲賮賯 賲毓 賲丕 胤乇丨鬲賴 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 賵賷賯乇丕 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞 賱丕 爻鬲賷毓丕亘賴 貙 賵賷賮囟賱 兀賳 鬲賯乇丕賴 亘賱睾鬲賴 丕賱兀氐賱賷丞 .
賰賱賲丞 兀禺賷乇丞 賱賲賵賯賮 丨丿孬 賱賷 兀孬賳丕亍 賯乇丕卅鬲賷 賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 丕賱賲乇丞 丕賱兀賵賱賷 貙 賮賷 丕賱賲毓鬲丕丿 丕丨賲賱 丿丕卅賲丕 賲毓賷 賰鬲丕亘 賱賯乇丕卅鬲賴 賮賷 兀賷 賲賰丕賳 丕匕賴亘 廿賱賷賴 貙 賵賯丿 賰丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲毓賷 丕賯乇丕賴 賷賵賲 賲丨丕囟乇丞 丕賱賲卮乇賵毓 賵賮賷 丕賱賲毓鬲丕丿 丕賱丿賰丕鬲乇丞 賷鬲兀禺乇賵賳 賮丕賳丿賲噩鬲 賮賷 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賱兀賮丕噩卅 亘賵賯賵賮 兀丨丿 丕賱丿賰丕鬲乇丞 賲賳賴賲 兀賲丕賲賷 賮兀禺匕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳賷 賵賯賱亘 氐賮丨丕鬲賴 賮賷 孬賵丕賳賷 賱丕 鬲賰賲賱 丕賱毓卮乇丞 賱賷賯賱亘 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 賳賴丕賷鬲賴 賵賳馗乇 毓賱賷 丕賱爻毓乇 賵賳馗乇 賱賷 "丿賴 兀賳鬲 賲爻鬲乇禺氐 亘賯賷 責! "
賱丕 兀乇賷丿 匕賰乇 乇丿丞 賮毓賱賷 毓賱賷賴 貙 賱賰賳 丕賱丨丕賱 賵氐賱 亘賳丕 賱賰賷 賷賰賵賳 丕賱丿賰丕鬲乇丞 兀賵 丕賱兀爻丕鬲匕丞 丕賱匕賷 賲賳 丕賱賲賮鬲乇囟 兀賳 賷毓賱賲賵賳丕 賷賯賷爻賵丕 兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賰鬲亘 賵丕賱毓賱賲 賵丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 亘丕賱賲丕賱 丕賱賲丿賮賵毓 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 .
賱丕 毓夭丕亍 賱賱毓賯賱丕亍
賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳賯爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳氐賮賷賳 丕賱賳氐賮 丕賱兀賵賱 禺丕氐 亘賳卮賵亍 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱丌賱賴賷 賮賷 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賵賰賷賮賷丞 鬲胤賵乇賴 賵禺丕氐賴 毓亘乇 丕賱丿賷丕賳丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賵丕賱賷賴賵丿賷丞 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賷賳丕賯卮 丕賱賳氐賮 丕賱孬丕賳賷 丕賱丕賱賴 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵鬲丿丕禺賱 丕賱毓賱賲 賲毓 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵賴賱 賲丕鬲 丕賱丕賱賴 丨賯丕 兀賲 賱丕 .
丕賱賳氐賮 丕賱兀賵賱 賱賲 兀毓噩亘 亘賴 賲孬賱 丕賱賳氐賮 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賰賳 賲賳 丕賱賲丐賰丿 賱賷 兀賳 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 賱賳 賷賳丕賱 乇囟丕 兀賵 廿毓噩丕亘 丕賱兀氐賵賱賷賷賳 賲賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 賵賯丿 賷卮賰賱 氐丿賲丞 賱亘毓囟 賲賲丕 賷噩毓賱賴賲 賷賳賰乇賵丕 丕賱乇丐賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕鬲禺匕鬲賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 賮賷 爻乇丿 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞.
丕賱賳氐賮 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賴賵 丕賱兀賰孬乇 廿賲鬲丕毓丕 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 貙 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱鬲賳賵賷乇 賵亘乇賵夭丕賱氐乇丕毓 亘賷賳 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵丕賱毓賱賲 貙 賲乇賵乇丕 亘丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 丕賳鬲賴丕亍丕 亘禺丕鬲賲丞 兀毓鬲賯丿 廿賳賴丕 賰丕賳鬲 兀賮囟賱 賲丕 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨賷孬 丕爻鬲胤丕毓鬲 兀賳 鬲噩賲毓 賲賱禺氐 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 噩夭亍 亘爻賷胤 賮賷 丕賱丌禺乇 .
賲丕 賯丿 賷丐禺匕 毓賱賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賳賴丕 爻丕乇鬲 毓賱賷 胤乇賷賯 賲丨丿丿 爻賷賮乇囟 毓賱賷賴丕 兀賳 鬲兀禺匕 賵噩賴丕鬲 賳馗乇 賲毓賷賳丞 賱鬲氐賱 廿賱賷 丕賱賴丿賮 丕賱匕賷 鬲乇賷丿賴 .
賮賷 鬲賳丕賵賱賴丕 賱賯囟賷丞 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 鬲賳丕賵賱鬲 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱兀賵賱賷 賱賲毓賳賷 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 賵丕賱匕賷 賷賯丕亘賱 丕賱夭賳丿賯丞 毓賳丿賳丕 賵丨鬲賷 丕賱丌賳 賱丕 兀賮賴賲 丕賱爻乇 賮賷 鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱睾乇亘 賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 亘賴匕丕 丕賱卮賰賱 賮賮賷 賮賷賱賲 賵孬丕卅賯賷 賷毓丿 丕賱兀卮賴乇 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓
Atheism A Rough History of Disbelief
賵賯毓賵丕 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱禺胤兀 貙 賲賳 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賷 賵噩丿 丕賱賰賮乇 賷賵賲 賵噩丿 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 貙 賵毓賱賷 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賱丕 丕賱丨氐乇 胤丕卅賮丞 丕賱丿賴乇賷丞 賱丕 鬲丐賲賳 亘賵噩賵丿 禺丕賱賯 賮賴賷 鬲鬲賮賯 賲毓 丕賱賲毓賳賷 丕賱賲乇丕丿 鬲賲丕賲 賱賰賱賲丞 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿兀賵 賲丕 賷胤賱賯 毓賱賷賴 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 丕賱丨丿賷孬 貙 賵兀賷囟丕 賲丕 賷丐禺匕 毓賱賷賴丕 賴賳丕 丕毓鬲賲丕丿賴丕 賮賷 囟乇亘 賲孬丕賱 賱廿賱丨丕丿 毓賱賷 胤丕卅賮丞 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 丕賱噩丿丿 賵鬲乇賰賷夭賴丕 毓賱賷 兀卮禺丕氐 亘毓賷賳賴丕 兀賲孬丕賱 丿賵賰賷賳夭 賵爻丕賲 賴丕乇賷爻 賵 賰乇賷爻鬲賵賮乇 賴賷鬲卮賳夭
-鬲賵賮賷 丕賱兀禺賷乇 賯乇賷亘丕 - 貙 賵亘乇睾賲 丕爻鬲賲鬲丕毓賷 亘賳賯丿賴賲 賱兀賳 毓乇囟鬲 賲丕 賷鬲賮賯 賲毓 乇丐賷鬲賷 賱賴賲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 亘乇睾賲 氐睾乇 丨噩賲賴 賵丕賯鬲囟丕亘賴 賲賲丕 賱賲 賷卮亘毓 賳賴賲賷貙 賮鬲乇賰賷夭賴丕 毓賱賷 胤丕卅賮丞 丿賵賳 丕賱丌禺乇賷 兀禺賱 亘丕賱丨賷丕丿賷丞 賰孬賷乇 .
賲賳 丕賱噩賲賷賱 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 鬲賳丕賵賱賴丕 亘丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 賱賷爻 賮賯胤 亘丨賷丕丿賷丞 亘賱 亘廿賷噩丕亘賷丞 貙 賵賲孬丕賱 毓賱賷 匕賱賰 兀乇噩毓鬲 鬲胤乇賮 丕賱卮賷禺 爻賷丿 賯胤亘 廿賱賷 賲丕 毓丕賳丕賴 毓賱賷 賷丿 夭亘丕賳賷丞 噩賲丕賱 毓亘丿 丕賱賳丕氐乇 .
賴賳丕賰 賳賯胤丞 鬲丐禺匕 毓賱賷 賲賳 賯丕賲賵丕 亘丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 貙 賴賳丕賰 亘毓囟 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳 賷噩亘 兀賳 賷賵囟毓 亘噩賵丕乇賴丕 丕賱賳氐 丕賱兀氐賱賷 兀賵 丕賱賰賱賲丞 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賮賲孬丕賱 賰賱賲丞 丕賱丕賲亘乇賷賯賷丞 賱賳 賷爻鬲賵毓亘 丕賱賰孬賷乇 兀賳賴賲 賷賯氐丿賵賳 鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 賵 兀賷囟丕 賰賱賲丞丕賱兀賱賷噩賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲乇噩賲賴丕 亘毓囟 丕賱兀禺賵丞 丕賱毓乇亘 丕賱兀賱賷睾賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱賲乇丕丿 亘賴丕 兀賯氐賵氐丞 乇賲夭賷丞.
賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓 賵兀賰孬乇 賲賳 乇丕卅毓 爻賵丕亍 丕鬲賮賯鬲 兀賵 賱賲 鬲鬲賮賯 賲毓 賲丕 胤乇丨鬲賴 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 賵賷賯乇丕 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞 賱丕 爻鬲賷毓丕亘賴 貙 賵賷賮囟賱 兀賳 鬲賯乇丕賴 亘賱睾鬲賴 丕賱兀氐賱賷丞 .
賰賱賲丞 兀禺賷乇丞 賱賲賵賯賮 丨丿孬 賱賷 兀孬賳丕亍 賯乇丕卅鬲賷 賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 丕賱賲乇丞 丕賱兀賵賱賷 貙 賮賷 丕賱賲毓鬲丕丿 丕丨賲賱 丿丕卅賲丕 賲毓賷 賰鬲丕亘 賱賯乇丕卅鬲賴 賮賷 兀賷 賲賰丕賳 丕匕賴亘 廿賱賷賴 貙 賵賯丿 賰丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲毓賷 丕賯乇丕賴 賷賵賲 賲丨丕囟乇丞 丕賱賲卮乇賵毓 賵賮賷 丕賱賲毓鬲丕丿 丕賱丿賰丕鬲乇丞 賷鬲兀禺乇賵賳 賮丕賳丿賲噩鬲 賮賷 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賱兀賮丕噩卅 亘賵賯賵賮 兀丨丿 丕賱丿賰丕鬲乇丞 賲賳賴賲 兀賲丕賲賷 賮兀禺匕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳賷 賵賯賱亘 氐賮丨丕鬲賴 賮賷 孬賵丕賳賷 賱丕 鬲賰賲賱 丕賱毓卮乇丞 賱賷賯賱亘 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 賳賴丕賷鬲賴 賵賳馗乇 毓賱賷 丕賱爻毓乇 賵賳馗乇 賱賷 "丿賴 兀賳鬲 賲爻鬲乇禺氐 亘賯賷 責! "
賱丕 兀乇賷丿 匕賰乇 乇丿丞 賮毓賱賷 毓賱賷賴 貙 賱賰賳 丕賱丨丕賱 賵氐賱 亘賳丕 賱賰賷 賷賰賵賳 丕賱丿賰丕鬲乇丞 兀賵 丕賱兀爻丕鬲匕丞 丕賱匕賷 賲賳 丕賱賲賮鬲乇囟 兀賳 賷毓賱賲賵賳丕 賷賯賷爻賵丕 兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賰鬲亘 賵丕賱毓賱賲 賵丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 亘丕賱賲丕賱 丕賱賲丿賮賵毓 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 .
賱丕 毓夭丕亍 賱賱毓賯賱丕亍
March 6, 2011
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 challenge your religious understanding, you might want to stay away. Having said that, I was uplifted by the book.
The book is an answer to modern atheists and is a "defense" of God. I have to say that I have read others like this, but this so far surpasses those in breath that I think to say that it is a defense of God minimizes what she is trying to do. Karen Armstrong has done her homework. The book is basically a thorough history of religion and philosophy and science. She claims that modern religion has unnecessarily entangled itself in logic and has turned away from its roots based in "unknowing." That essentially, we have made an idol out of God and have tried to "prove" him through scientific means. And it is this God that the atheists attack. But this is not how religion started. It used to be much more flexible and comfortable with itself.
There are certainly flaws in the book (I think she over-idealizes the past) and there are certainly parts that I do not agree with, but I am so glad I read this book. In the end, it inspires me to live my religion to take the golden rule seriously.
I highly recommend this book. If there is a more important book out there right now, I haven't come across it. Just know though that it is not an easy book to get through and your religious belief will certainly be challenged.
The book is an answer to modern atheists and is a "defense" of God. I have to say that I have read others like this, but this so far surpasses those in breath that I think to say that it is a defense of God minimizes what she is trying to do. Karen Armstrong has done her homework. The book is basically a thorough history of religion and philosophy and science. She claims that modern religion has unnecessarily entangled itself in logic and has turned away from its roots based in "unknowing." That essentially, we have made an idol out of God and have tried to "prove" him through scientific means. And it is this God that the atheists attack. But this is not how religion started. It used to be much more flexible and comfortable with itself.
There are certainly flaws in the book (I think she over-idealizes the past) and there are certainly parts that I do not agree with, but I am so glad I read this book. In the end, it inspires me to live my religion to take the golden rule seriously.
I highly recommend this book. If there is a more important book out there right now, I haven't come across it. Just know though that it is not an easy book to get through and your religious belief will certainly be challenged.
September 23, 2009
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 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.
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.
October 16, 2010
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 philosophy to be qualified to judge.)
The premise is this: God, whatever that is, is an unknowable transcendence, and religion throughout the ages has been a practice or craft based on ritual and contemplation of myth designed to bring practitioners in touch with the transcendent, a project that was all mucked up in the Enlightenment when religious folks got the idea that their God, just like the universe, was reducible to a knowable notion - a fact - leading to their initial reliance on and eventual antipathy toward science and ending up with the current vogue of religion qua science, an aberrant perversion of both.
There is no inherent conflict between religion and science, she argues, as they are separate magisteria concerned with separate questions. There is more than one kind of truth - science arrives at one while art, literature, and religion arrive at another. Religious people should get back making a commitment to religious practice instead of contorting their brains to accept absurd beliefs.
The ideas are robust. It's too bad the tome probably is above the reading level of most and below the supposed dignity of the rest.
The premise is this: God, whatever that is, is an unknowable transcendence, and religion throughout the ages has been a practice or craft based on ritual and contemplation of myth designed to bring practitioners in touch with the transcendent, a project that was all mucked up in the Enlightenment when religious folks got the idea that their God, just like the universe, was reducible to a knowable notion - a fact - leading to their initial reliance on and eventual antipathy toward science and ending up with the current vogue of religion qua science, an aberrant perversion of both.
There is no inherent conflict between religion and science, she argues, as they are separate magisteria concerned with separate questions. There is more than one kind of truth - science arrives at one while art, literature, and religion arrive at another. Religious people should get back making a commitment to religious practice instead of contorting their brains to accept absurd beliefs.
The ideas are robust. It's too bad the tome probably is above the reading level of most and below the supposed dignity of the rest.
abandoned
May 11, 2021I must confess that I did not finish this book. Unfortunately every time I tried to read it I felt as if I was undertaking a degree in Theology. It is extremely heavy-going.
Karen Armstrong has written numerous books on comparative religion, and is one of this country's leading writers on the subject. This is a detailed chronicle of faith through the ages, to demonstrate her assertion that atheism has never been lack of belief in the sacred, but always a rejection of a particular conception of God. In this way she seem closely allied to New Age ideology.
She certainly posits interesting ideas. One of the recurring themes in her book is that the meaning of such words as belief, faith and mystery has altered so much over the ages that much of the science v. belief controversy is a misguided view of what these concepts actually refer to. I would have liked to investigate this further, but got bogged down in her lengthy history of belief from 30,000 BCE to the present.
A less academic and more accessible style, an overview rather than a plodding dissertation, plus some judicious editing would have ensured that this book reaches a wider audience.
And I might have finished it.
Karen Armstrong has written numerous books on comparative religion, and is one of this country's leading writers on the subject. This is a detailed chronicle of faith through the ages, to demonstrate her assertion that atheism has never been lack of belief in the sacred, but always a rejection of a particular conception of God. In this way she seem closely allied to New Age ideology.
She certainly posits interesting ideas. One of the recurring themes in her book is that the meaning of such words as belief, faith and mystery has altered so much over the ages that much of the science v. belief controversy is a misguided view of what these concepts actually refer to. I would have liked to investigate this further, but got bogged down in her lengthy history of belief from 30,000 BCE to the present.
A less academic and more accessible style, an overview rather than a plodding dissertation, plus some judicious editing would have ensured that this book reaches a wider audience.
And I might have finished it.
November 23, 2012
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.
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.
February 19, 2013
Don't be fooled by the title; this is not some trite attempt to prove that God exists or that religion is a great thing. Instead, it's a tremendous, sweeping yet detailed account of the changing conception of religion from the dawn of humanity to the present day. Along the way, Armstrong stresses several themes.
For millennia religion was not seen primarily as a series of propositions to which one was required to assent ("God exists", etc). Instead, it was a commitment to a particular way of living. At its heart lay a sense of ineffable divinity - an ultimate transcendence that was beyond understanding, beyond words, beyond even such concepts as existence or omnipotence. This ultimate transcendence was called "God" in the monotheistic religions. Although beyond knowing, some degree of contact with divinity was possible through ritual, symbolism and a variety of meditative practices (not just straightforward meditation as in Buddhism, but also theological reflection, philosophy or even the constant practice of humility and generosity). Contact with the ineffable helped people rise above worldly suffering and adopt a more compassionate way of life; it enabled them to become human in a fuller, richer sense.
By around 15000 CE, however, this ancient conception of religion was starting to be overtaken by a new way of seeing things. An increased faith in the power of reason alone to solve all problems helped "literalise" religion. Slowly "belief" changed from a commitment to a way of living to a series of unproven statements to which one assented. Along the way the notion of God changed: he became knowable, describable - a being in the world. Such a notion would've been considered idolatrous by older religious figures such as Thomas Aquinas. It made God a thing.
This new notion of religion, divorced as it was from communal practices which had previously been its life-blood, was vulnerable to attack. As a mere series of statements it could seem unconvincing or even ridiculous. This vulnerability was only increased by religion's attempt to co-opt science as a means of making it more respectable. But as science became increasingly able to describe the natural world without any need for a god (conceived as a super-being that created and sustained the laws of nature)the attempt justification through "natural theology" seemed horribly flawed.
The older sense of an ineffable transcendence has never entirely gone away, however. Armstrong argues that it is a mark of the human condition and as such can emerge in some unlikely places - modern physics, for example. She ends by wondering if the naturalistic turn in religion hasn't now run its course. Perhaps it is time to reincorporate unknowing into our approach to the divine.
This is the third of Armstrong's books that I've read ("The History of God" and "The Battle for God" being the other two). I'd say it was comfortably the best of the three and also, perhaps, the most important.
For millennia religion was not seen primarily as a series of propositions to which one was required to assent ("God exists", etc). Instead, it was a commitment to a particular way of living. At its heart lay a sense of ineffable divinity - an ultimate transcendence that was beyond understanding, beyond words, beyond even such concepts as existence or omnipotence. This ultimate transcendence was called "God" in the monotheistic religions. Although beyond knowing, some degree of contact with divinity was possible through ritual, symbolism and a variety of meditative practices (not just straightforward meditation as in Buddhism, but also theological reflection, philosophy or even the constant practice of humility and generosity). Contact with the ineffable helped people rise above worldly suffering and adopt a more compassionate way of life; it enabled them to become human in a fuller, richer sense.
By around 15000 CE, however, this ancient conception of religion was starting to be overtaken by a new way of seeing things. An increased faith in the power of reason alone to solve all problems helped "literalise" religion. Slowly "belief" changed from a commitment to a way of living to a series of unproven statements to which one assented. Along the way the notion of God changed: he became knowable, describable - a being in the world. Such a notion would've been considered idolatrous by older religious figures such as Thomas Aquinas. It made God a thing.
This new notion of religion, divorced as it was from communal practices which had previously been its life-blood, was vulnerable to attack. As a mere series of statements it could seem unconvincing or even ridiculous. This vulnerability was only increased by religion's attempt to co-opt science as a means of making it more respectable. But as science became increasingly able to describe the natural world without any need for a god (conceived as a super-being that created and sustained the laws of nature)the attempt justification through "natural theology" seemed horribly flawed.
The older sense of an ineffable transcendence has never entirely gone away, however. Armstrong argues that it is a mark of the human condition and as such can emerge in some unlikely places - modern physics, for example. She ends by wondering if the naturalistic turn in religion hasn't now run its course. Perhaps it is time to reincorporate unknowing into our approach to the divine.
This is the third of Armstrong's books that I've read ("The History of God" and "The Battle for God" being the other two). I'd say it was comfortably the best of the three and also, perhaps, the most important.
March 14, 2010
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.
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.
July 31, 2023
Just a brilliant presentation of how religion and popular notions about God have changed over the centuries, ending with the author鈥檚 assertion that, at its core, religion was never supposed to be a vehicle for providing answers, but to help humankind cope with an unanswerable universe. Increasingly, an upsurge in fundamentalism has demanded that science and lived experience move aside so that religion can do the answering, meaning God is no longer about feeling what cannot be explained, but has become instead about explaining what we no longer feel. I resonated deeply with what Armstrong wrote here and thought her research was profoundly well conducted and explained. The only problem is that this is quite a dense book which shouldn鈥檛 be sought out for light reading, and it took me some time to get through.
February 6, 2018
兀毓鬲亘乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 亘賷賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賴賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨丿孬鬲 毓賳 丕賱賱賴 賵鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲
賮賯丿 乇氐丿鬲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 鬲丕乇賷禺 馗賴賵乇 丕賱丿賷賳 賵賮賰乇丞 丕賱廿賱賴 賲賳匕 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賱丨丿 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞.
丕賱丕賯鬲亘爻丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 兀毓噩亘鬲賳賷:
丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 賮賷 乇兀賷 噩賵賱賷丕賳 亘丕噩賷賳賷 : 丕賱鬲夭丕賲 氐乇賷丨 丿賵賳 鬲丨賮馗 亘丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賵丕賱亘丨孬 賵丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱 丕賱毓賯賱丕賳賷 賵賱匕丕 賮賲毓丕乇囟丞 賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賵廿馗賴丕乇 丕賱毓丿丕亍 賵丕賱亘睾囟 賱賴賲 賲毓 賯賳丕毓丞 賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱鬲卮亘鬲 亘氐丨丞 賲丕 賷毓鬲賯丿 亘賴 丕賱卮禺氐 賲賳 丌乇丕亍 賲賳丕賯囟 鬲賲丕賲丕 賱賯賷賲 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿.
兀氐乇 丿賷賰丕乇鬲貙 兀賵賱丕貙 毓賱賶 兀賳 毓賱賶 丕賱賲賮賰乇 鬲賮乇賷睾 毓賯賱賴 賲賳 賰賱 賲丕 丕毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賴 賷毓乇賮賴貙 毓賱賷賴貙 賴賰匕丕 兀禺亘乇 賳賮爻賴 兀賱丕 "兀鬲賯亘賱 兀賷 卮賷亍 亘氐賮鬲賴 丨賯賷賯賷丕 廿賱丕 廿匕丕 毓乇賮鬲 亘賵囟賵丨 兀賳賴 賰匕賱賰 兀賷 兀賳 兀鬲噩賳亘 亘毓賳丕賷丞 丕賱鬲爻乇毓 賮賷 丕賱兀丨賰丕賲 賵丕賱鬲丨賷夭 賱賴丕貙 賵兀賱丕 兀鬲賯亘賱 賲賳賴丕 兀賷 卮賷亍 兀賰孬乇 賲賲丕 胤乇丨 賮賷 毓賯賱賷 亘噩賱丕亍 賵鬲賲賷夭 亘丿乇噩丞 賱丕 兀噩丿 賲毓賴丕 兀賷丞 賮乇氐丞 兀賵 爻亘亘 賱賱卮賰 賮賷賴". 賰丕賳鬲 鬲賱賰 氐賷睾丞 賲毓賯賱賳丞 賲賳 胤乇賷賯 丿賳賷爻 賱賱廿賳賰丕乇. 賷賳亘睾賷 毓賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲 兀賳 賷賮乇睾 毓賯賱賴 賲賳 丨賯锟斤拷卅賯 丕賱賰卮賮 賵丕賱鬲賳夭賷賱 賵丕賱賲賵乇賵孬丕鬲. 賱賷爻 亘賵爻毓賴 丕賱賵孬賵賯 賮賷 兀丿賱丞 丨賵丕爻賴貙 賱兀賳 丕賱亘乇噩 丕賱匕賷 賷亘丿賵 賲爻鬲丿賷乇丕 毓賳 亘毓丿 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賮賷 賵丕賯毓 丕賱兀賲乇 賲乇亘毓丕. 賱賷爻 亘賵爻毓賴 丨鬲賶 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 毓賱賶 賷賯賷賳 賲賳 兀賳 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱丨賷胤丞 亘賴 丨賯賷賯賷丞 賰賷賮 賷鬲爻賳賶 賱賳丕 兀賳 賳毓乇賮 兀賳賳丕 賱賲 賳賰賳 賳丨賱賲 丨賷賳賲丕 乇兀賷賳丕賴丕貙 爻賲毓賳丕賴丕貙 兀賵 賱賲爻賳丕賴丕責 賰賷賮 賱賳丕 兀賳 賳孬亘鬲 兀賳賳丕 賰賳丕 賲爻鬲賷賯馗賷賳責 賰丕賳 賴丿賮賴 賴賵 丕賱毓孬賵乇 毓賱賶 兀賮賰丕乇 亘丿賴賷丞貙 噩賱賷丞 賮賷 丨丿 匕丕鬲賴丕 賵亘兀爻賱賵亘 賲亘丕卮乇貙 賮賯胤 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 "丕賱賵丕囟丨丞" 賵"丕賱賲賲賷夭丞" 賷賲賰賳賴丕 兀賳 鬲賲丿賴 亘兀爻丕爻 賱乇賷丕囟賷丕鬲賴 丕賱卮賲賵賱賷丞.
賮賯丿 乇氐丿鬲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 鬲丕乇賷禺 馗賴賵乇 丕賱丿賷賳 賵賮賰乇丞 丕賱廿賱賴 賲賳匕 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賱丨丿 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞.
丕賱丕賯鬲亘爻丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 兀毓噩亘鬲賳賷:
丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 賮賷 乇兀賷 噩賵賱賷丕賳 亘丕噩賷賳賷 : 丕賱鬲夭丕賲 氐乇賷丨 丿賵賳 鬲丨賮馗 亘丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賵丕賱亘丨孬 賵丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱 丕賱毓賯賱丕賳賷 賵賱匕丕 賮賲毓丕乇囟丞 賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賵廿馗賴丕乇 丕賱毓丿丕亍 賵丕賱亘睾囟 賱賴賲 賲毓 賯賳丕毓丞 賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱鬲卮亘鬲 亘氐丨丞 賲丕 賷毓鬲賯丿 亘賴 丕賱卮禺氐 賲賳 丌乇丕亍 賲賳丕賯囟 鬲賲丕賲丕 賱賯賷賲 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿.
兀氐乇 丿賷賰丕乇鬲貙 兀賵賱丕貙 毓賱賶 兀賳 毓賱賶 丕賱賲賮賰乇 鬲賮乇賷睾 毓賯賱賴 賲賳 賰賱 賲丕 丕毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賴 賷毓乇賮賴貙 毓賱賷賴貙 賴賰匕丕 兀禺亘乇 賳賮爻賴 兀賱丕 "兀鬲賯亘賱 兀賷 卮賷亍 亘氐賮鬲賴 丨賯賷賯賷丕 廿賱丕 廿匕丕 毓乇賮鬲 亘賵囟賵丨 兀賳賴 賰匕賱賰 兀賷 兀賳 兀鬲噩賳亘 亘毓賳丕賷丞 丕賱鬲爻乇毓 賮賷 丕賱兀丨賰丕賲 賵丕賱鬲丨賷夭 賱賴丕貙 賵兀賱丕 兀鬲賯亘賱 賲賳賴丕 兀賷 卮賷亍 兀賰孬乇 賲賲丕 胤乇丨 賮賷 毓賯賱賷 亘噩賱丕亍 賵鬲賲賷夭 亘丿乇噩丞 賱丕 兀噩丿 賲毓賴丕 兀賷丞 賮乇氐丞 兀賵 爻亘亘 賱賱卮賰 賮賷賴". 賰丕賳鬲 鬲賱賰 氐賷睾丞 賲毓賯賱賳丞 賲賳 胤乇賷賯 丿賳賷爻 賱賱廿賳賰丕乇. 賷賳亘睾賷 毓賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲 兀賳 賷賮乇睾 毓賯賱賴 賲賳 丨賯锟斤拷卅賯 丕賱賰卮賮 賵丕賱鬲賳夭賷賱 賵丕賱賲賵乇賵孬丕鬲. 賱賷爻 亘賵爻毓賴 丕賱賵孬賵賯 賮賷 兀丿賱丞 丨賵丕爻賴貙 賱兀賳 丕賱亘乇噩 丕賱匕賷 賷亘丿賵 賲爻鬲丿賷乇丕 毓賳 亘毓丿 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賮賷 賵丕賯毓 丕賱兀賲乇 賲乇亘毓丕. 賱賷爻 亘賵爻毓賴 丨鬲賶 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 毓賱賶 賷賯賷賳 賲賳 兀賳 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱丨賷胤丞 亘賴 丨賯賷賯賷丞 賰賷賮 賷鬲爻賳賶 賱賳丕 兀賳 賳毓乇賮 兀賳賳丕 賱賲 賳賰賳 賳丨賱賲 丨賷賳賲丕 乇兀賷賳丕賴丕貙 爻賲毓賳丕賴丕貙 兀賵 賱賲爻賳丕賴丕責 賰賷賮 賱賳丕 兀賳 賳孬亘鬲 兀賳賳丕 賰賳丕 賲爻鬲賷賯馗賷賳責 賰丕賳 賴丿賮賴 賴賵 丕賱毓孬賵乇 毓賱賶 兀賮賰丕乇 亘丿賴賷丞貙 噩賱賷丞 賮賷 丨丿 匕丕鬲賴丕 賵亘兀爻賱賵亘 賲亘丕卮乇貙 賮賯胤 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 "丕賱賵丕囟丨丞" 賵"丕賱賲賲賷夭丞" 賷賲賰賳賴丕 兀賳 鬲賲丿賴 亘兀爻丕爻 賱乇賷丕囟賷丕鬲賴 丕賱卮賲賵賱賷丞.
April 20, 2017
This is an excellent history of humankind's struggle to define reality by creating and regularly reinventing deity. Karen Armstrong surveys humankind's superstition from 30,000 BCE to the present, and provides interesting context to the creation of the books and beliefs that many humans considered (or still consider) divine. The last chapter was a bit strange. The author clearly had an axe to grind with Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, but her attacks on their philosophy seemed out of place and inconsistent with the rest of the book. That said, great book overall.
November 20, 2019
The title of another book out last year excited me--The Evolution of God--but when I heard the author speak I was disappointed. (There was a lot of talk about zero sum game.) Armstrong's book is what I had hoped for from the other. It covers the changing ways people have viewed God and religion, from 30,000 BCE, when humans crawled deep into caves to cover their walls with paintings of animals and maybe shamans, to the present, when both fundamentalists and atheists insist on a strict literal interpretation of scriptures--a legacy of the modern scientific revolution that has left everyone, including the devout, looking for unambiguous, objective truth derived from some kind of logical deliberation. The modern way is simplistic; Armstrong believes religious life involves hard work, pushing finite hearts and minds to the edges of their understanding, toward the infinite.
I took a long time to read this book and as soon as I finished I started reading it again. There is a lot to absorb and a lot that challenged my unexamined beliefs, a mind-blowing experience that's my drug of choice. As an an agnostic leaning toward a non-belligerent atheism, reading is almost my religion, so when Armstrong wrote convincingly about the printing press's drawback of moving learning and religion in a depersonalized and inflexible direction, leading in religion's case to ridiculous disagreements over finer and finer dogmatic distinctions, I was shocked into a speechless, apophatic state. One of many I experienced while reading her book. Which is maybe, or maybe not, ironic because that apophatic experience I got from reading is the right place, Armstrong believes, to begin transcending our everyday world and experiencing God. Religion, Armstrong writes, historically has been and should be more about practice and experience and less about blind belief in particular doctrines. Sounds great to me.
I took a long time to read this book and as soon as I finished I started reading it again. There is a lot to absorb and a lot that challenged my unexamined beliefs, a mind-blowing experience that's my drug of choice. As an an agnostic leaning toward a non-belligerent atheism, reading is almost my religion, so when Armstrong wrote convincingly about the printing press's drawback of moving learning and religion in a depersonalized and inflexible direction, leading in religion's case to ridiculous disagreements over finer and finer dogmatic distinctions, I was shocked into a speechless, apophatic state. One of many I experienced while reading her book. Which is maybe, or maybe not, ironic because that apophatic experience I got from reading is the right place, Armstrong believes, to begin transcending our everyday world and experiencing God. Religion, Armstrong writes, historically has been and should be more about practice and experience and less about blind belief in particular doctrines. Sounds great to me.
September 7, 2020
Well, that explains everything.
I've read other Karen Armstrong books, but this goes in a different direction. She reviews the history of God and the relationship between philosophy, science, and religion in different cultures and times. She uses all this history to make a very compelling case for God generally, but also for the merits of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. She also makes a compelling case against positivism, "the belief that science is the only reliable means to truth." She doesn't do this lightly, she understands the importance of science today, and she discuss scientific progress from Copernicus to the modern debate in physics about string theory.
She also discusses what she believes are the origins and causes of our modern religious conflicts. She recommends solutions that make a lot of sense.
Karen Armstrong is a powerhouse of religious knowledge and practice. And she clearly also did a lot of research about science. This book is long, sometimes repetitive, and sometimes difficult to understand. I feel like I came to this book at a good time: after having learned about the practice of meditation and the debates about string theory. However, there's a lot more background I wish I brought to the book in the realm of philosophy, history, and religion.
Despite the challenge, or because of the challenge, I think it's well worth it for the religious and non-religious alike. It did for me what I hope every book I open to will do for me- change the way I see the world.
I've read other Karen Armstrong books, but this goes in a different direction. She reviews the history of God and the relationship between philosophy, science, and religion in different cultures and times. She uses all this history to make a very compelling case for God generally, but also for the merits of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. She also makes a compelling case against positivism, "the belief that science is the only reliable means to truth." She doesn't do this lightly, she understands the importance of science today, and she discuss scientific progress from Copernicus to the modern debate in physics about string theory.
She also discusses what she believes are the origins and causes of our modern religious conflicts. She recommends solutions that make a lot of sense.
Karen Armstrong is a powerhouse of religious knowledge and practice. And she clearly also did a lot of research about science. This book is long, sometimes repetitive, and sometimes difficult to understand. I feel like I came to this book at a good time: after having learned about the practice of meditation and the debates about string theory. However, there's a lot more background I wish I brought to the book in the realm of philosophy, history, and religion.
Despite the challenge, or because of the challenge, I think it's well worth it for the religious and non-religious alike. It did for me what I hope every book I open to will do for me- change the way I see the world.
March 28, 2013
If this were a text book for a comparative religion course, I'd likely give it four or five stars, but Armstrong states that she wrote this tome to counter recent books by atheists Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. I'd suggest, then, she actually read their work instead of basing her research on sound bites from Fox News. So-called modern atheists don't seek to tear down religion or suppress others' beliefs. We simply don't want those beliefs forced on us at every turn, in public, in private, and, heaven forbid, in government. She hasn't bothered to understand this, and that makes this book deeply flawed. Nothing she's written in here makes a case for god to me; rather, it just emphasizes to me that humans created religion to address what they didn't understand. We've entrenched it so much in our lives, then, we find it hard to move on from primitive worship of an amorphous, supernatural entity, especially one who apparently sits back and lets bad things happen to innocent people because it's part of his/her plan.
October 30, 2024
Not actually a case for belief in God. Armstrong thinks that both the New Atheists and the Christian Fundamentalists misinterpret the religious tradition they're arguing about. In her view, all religions, from Hinduism and Buddhism to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are attempt to give voice to something ineffable and transcendent by means of allegories and symbols whose real meaning can only be grasped in sustained religious practice. Concerns about the literal truth of doctrines are, according to her, a distinctly modern phenomenon. Armstrong's erudition is considerable and her writing is engaging. At the same time, though, her thesis requires her to play really fast and loose with the hsitory. It's one thing to say that the only rationally tenable religious faith is a kind of allegorical mysticism. It's quite another to claim, as she does, that that's what it's really been all along.
January 4, 2010
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, 鈥淏rahman, Nirvana, God, and Dao,鈥� emphasizing the commonality of religious experience. 鈥滺er basic point is that our experience of God is 鈥渁pophatic,鈥� 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, 鈥淲hen somebody wants to tell me the absolute truth, it is because he wants to put me under his control.鈥� Rather than being apologetic or polemic, Armstrong鈥檚 book is a gentle and scholarly reminder of the varieties of ways people have felt religiously and talked about it.
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, 鈥淏rahman, Nirvana, God, and Dao,鈥� emphasizing the commonality of religious experience. 鈥滺er basic point is that our experience of God is 鈥渁pophatic,鈥� 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, 鈥淲hen somebody wants to tell me the absolute truth, it is because he wants to put me under his control.鈥� Rather than being apologetic or polemic, Armstrong鈥檚 book is a gentle and scholarly reminder of the varieties of ways people have felt religiously and talked about it.
January 31, 2011
I thought my review of this book would be about how persuasive I did or did not find Armstrong鈥檚 arguments about God. But there鈥檚 not much to agree or disagree with in this book. It鈥檚 almost entirely history 鈥� mostly history of Christianity and its development. Armstrong is obviously very well-read and learned in her subject matter, but I felt she was being downright deceitful by naming this book The Case for God. Most people would expect something else of a book with this title. Armstrong already has a book called A History of God. I don鈥檛 know why she wrote another one about the same thing. (On a second thought 鈥� thanks god this book wasn鈥檛 really about making a case for God. I鈥檓 not sure I would have liked that any more.)
The only 鈥渃ase鈥� that Armstrong seems to making for God (if you鈥檙e patient to first read 300 pages of densely-written religion history) is that the 鈥渕odern鈥� God is not the same as what humans felt and needed through the previous millennia. Religion is not supposed to provide guidance where reason can; it鈥檚 not supposed to provide a factual account of creation; scriptures are not to be taken literally; there is no single True religion or god; etc. These are all modern notions that have contributed to making God unbelievable. Religion is there 鈥渢o help us live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there are no easy explanations.鈥� Apparently God is supposed to be a piece of poetry and we鈥檝e been taking him too seriously as of late. Well, that may or may not be true, and you can believe in that sort of God if it suits you, but how does it matter now? We live in modern times and are stuck with a 鈥渕odern鈥� God. We can鈥檛 go back now to Greek mythology and the paintings in Lascaux Cave, can we?
Armstrong doesn't like the modern God, and the irony that her own interpretation of God and religion is very post-Enlightenment and modern completely escapes her.
The only 鈥渃ase鈥� that Armstrong seems to making for God (if you鈥檙e patient to first read 300 pages of densely-written religion history) is that the 鈥渕odern鈥� God is not the same as what humans felt and needed through the previous millennia. Religion is not supposed to provide guidance where reason can; it鈥檚 not supposed to provide a factual account of creation; scriptures are not to be taken literally; there is no single True religion or god; etc. These are all modern notions that have contributed to making God unbelievable. Religion is there 鈥渢o help us live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there are no easy explanations.鈥� Apparently God is supposed to be a piece of poetry and we鈥檝e been taking him too seriously as of late. Well, that may or may not be true, and you can believe in that sort of God if it suits you, but how does it matter now? We live in modern times and are stuck with a 鈥渕odern鈥� God. We can鈥檛 go back now to Greek mythology and the paintings in Lascaux Cave, can we?
Armstrong doesn't like the modern God, and the irony that her own interpretation of God and religion is very post-Enlightenment and modern completely escapes her.
August 25, 2019
Bazofia.
February 20, 2011
Armstrong makes a compelling argument against what has been called the "new atheism". Debunking the use of a literal interpretation of the Bible as something wholly modern and something that would be completely surprising and foreign to followers of the Christian faith up until at least the Enlightenment, she argues that instead religion is not an intellectual concept or dogma, but rather it is something you do. That without an active involvement, religion loses its essential value.
I find this to be a striking counter-attack to the rather tired arguments made by the new atheists, and one I'm not entirely clear how to address. From a second perspective the argument may be made this way: the act of devoting oneself actively to the pursuit of a particular religious faith, through things like prayer, meditation, and the willful act of separating oneself from a purely rational approach to understanding this world we find ourselves in may in fact have the potential of exposing us (in a mental sense) to something that we could not otherwise approach through purely rational thought. In my mind this is an argument not easily reckoned with or pushed aside.
I find this to be a striking counter-attack to the rather tired arguments made by the new atheists, and one I'm not entirely clear how to address. From a second perspective the argument may be made this way: the act of devoting oneself actively to the pursuit of a particular religious faith, through things like prayer, meditation, and the willful act of separating oneself from a purely rational approach to understanding this world we find ourselves in may in fact have the potential of exposing us (in a mental sense) to something that we could not otherwise approach through purely rational thought. In my mind this is an argument not easily reckoned with or pushed aside.
April 5, 2011
Overall, a very lucid and readable book. Armstrong's case is primarily built against the newage militant atheist as well as postmodern religious fundamentalist but in doing so she obscures further - perhaps inadvertently - the nature of ultimate reality we call God.
She successfully traces back the roots of post-renaissance apophatic theological shift in antiquity and medieval religion. However, her version of God presents another problematic of reducing God to a mere abstract symbol or a set of symbols. In my humble view, Armstrong's thesis is apt to question a theist's conviction as much as it helps in countering the thesis of an atheist.
Any one interested in broad historical currents of theological metaphysics related to God must not miss it. Perhaps better than many of Armstrong's other books as far as asking the right questions is concerned, but if you are thinking to counter Dawkins and Hitchens, Armstrong's case is not more than a starter.
She successfully traces back the roots of post-renaissance apophatic theological shift in antiquity and medieval religion. However, her version of God presents another problematic of reducing God to a mere abstract symbol or a set of symbols. In my humble view, Armstrong's thesis is apt to question a theist's conviction as much as it helps in countering the thesis of an atheist.
Any one interested in broad historical currents of theological metaphysics related to God must not miss it. Perhaps better than many of Armstrong's other books as far as asking the right questions is concerned, but if you are thinking to counter Dawkins and Hitchens, Armstrong's case is not more than a starter.
Read
March 23, 2018One of my very few DNF. Armstrong starts very well, then drones forever about excruciatingly small details about ancient rites and religions. Not good. When I realized she fully embraced the idiotic 鈥淏CE鈥� and 鈥淐.E.鈥� acronyms, I stopped. They are typical Politically Correct material: they pretend to be 鈥渋nclusive鈥�, while in reality they are anti-Christian. What does 鈥淐ommon Era鈥� mean, anyway? Just stupid. They will tell you that C.E. and BCE have been around for 2 centuries, and that it鈥檚 simply a matter of choosing them or 鈥淎D and B.C.鈥�, but the simple truth is, they hate Christianity. Including Armstrong, who apparently is now Muslim.
Read
September 22, 2014You see that stack of books on the cover? That's what you're in for. Karen Armstrong has read just about everything every written on the history of religion, from the beginning of time until now, and she is going to share it with you. The book is dense, and at times dry. Fortunately, when Armstrong has a point, she repeats it, so you can remember. Here are her points. Today's atheists reject a concept of God that is not correct. Many of today's believers support a concept of God that is not correct.
Here's how that happened. There are two kinds of thinking/communicating/experiencing the world, which Armstrong calls logos and mythos. Logos is the language of facts, science, and practical matters. We use it to figure things out and get things done. Mythos is the province of our emotions, our subconscious. It is the stuff of art, music, and the deep yearnings we can't express easily in words.
For most of human history, religion was "done" using the mythos-language of symbolism, ritual, mystery, and wonder. Then came the Enlightenment and the scientific religion. People became so enamored of the successes of logos-thinking, that they began to apply logos-thinking to religion. Whereas in the past the scriptures were always interpreted in a symbolic way, they came to be seen as textbooks of literal truth. Whereas in the past, to "believe" in something meant to join the team, so to speak, to place one's self in the care of something or someone, it came to mean a purely intellectual exercise of checking off a list of statements and saying, "I agree, I agree, I agree."
Armstrong argues that God can never be known by intellectual means. God can only be known through the practice of spiritual exercises, prayer, meditation, rituals of communal worship. People who devote themselves over time to spiritual practices come to experience transcendence, something that is beyond easy understanding or description, but that evokes in those who experience it peace, compassion, a detachment from personal desires, and profound joy. Instead of being convinced that he has absolute truth and everyone else doesn't, the religious person realizes how much he does not know, about the mystery of God, and about everything else, and he is humbled. So the strident, self-righteous religious fundamentalists are wrong, and the strident, self-righteous atheists are also wrong.
Armstrong calls this sense of not knowing "apophatic." She quotes many ancient philosophers and doctors of the church who were proponents of apophatic theology. She hopes that we may move in that direction again, and that people of diverse beliefs may be united, because science also, especially contemporary physics, also has come to the realization that the universe is full of mystery and wonder, and we don't really understand it.
Here's how that happened. There are two kinds of thinking/communicating/experiencing the world, which Armstrong calls logos and mythos. Logos is the language of facts, science, and practical matters. We use it to figure things out and get things done. Mythos is the province of our emotions, our subconscious. It is the stuff of art, music, and the deep yearnings we can't express easily in words.
For most of human history, religion was "done" using the mythos-language of symbolism, ritual, mystery, and wonder. Then came the Enlightenment and the scientific religion. People became so enamored of the successes of logos-thinking, that they began to apply logos-thinking to religion. Whereas in the past the scriptures were always interpreted in a symbolic way, they came to be seen as textbooks of literal truth. Whereas in the past, to "believe" in something meant to join the team, so to speak, to place one's self in the care of something or someone, it came to mean a purely intellectual exercise of checking off a list of statements and saying, "I agree, I agree, I agree."
Armstrong argues that God can never be known by intellectual means. God can only be known through the practice of spiritual exercises, prayer, meditation, rituals of communal worship. People who devote themselves over time to spiritual practices come to experience transcendence, something that is beyond easy understanding or description, but that evokes in those who experience it peace, compassion, a detachment from personal desires, and profound joy. Instead of being convinced that he has absolute truth and everyone else doesn't, the religious person realizes how much he does not know, about the mystery of God, and about everything else, and he is humbled. So the strident, self-righteous religious fundamentalists are wrong, and the strident, self-righteous atheists are also wrong.
Armstrong calls this sense of not knowing "apophatic." She quotes many ancient philosophers and doctors of the church who were proponents of apophatic theology. She hopes that we may move in that direction again, and that people of diverse beliefs may be united, because science also, especially contemporary physics, also has come to the realization that the universe is full of mystery and wonder, and we don't really understand it.
February 26, 2015
"丕賳 丕賱丕賱賴 乇睾亘賴 賲丕賵乇丕亍 丕賱乇睾亘賴"
賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賱亘丨孬 毓賳 爻丐丕賱賴 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱鬲乇賰賷夭 毓賱賷 丕賰鬲乇 賲賳 丕鬲噩丕賴 賲賳 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷 賵賱丨丿 丿賱賵賯鬲賷貙 賵丕賷賴 賴賷 丕賱鬲胤賵乇丕鬲 丕賱賱賷 賲乇 亘賷賴丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱睾丕賷賴 賲丕賰鬲卮賮 丕賴賲賷賴 丕賵 賲賵鬲 丕賱丕賱賴 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賴貙 賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷賴 爻乇丿 丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕毓賲丕賱 賮乇賵賷丿 丕賱胤賵胤賲 賵丕賱丨乇丕賲 丕賵 賯氐賴 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 賱丿賷賵乇丕賳鬲 毓賳 丕賴鬲賲丕賲 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷 亘禺賱賯 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賵馗賴賵乇 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷賴 賵賲丨賵乇 鬲胤賵乇賴丕 賲賳匕 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 毓夭乇丕 賵胤賱亘賴 賲賳 丕賱賷賴賵丿 丕賱丕賱鬲夭丕賲 亘亘毓囟 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱鬲賷 賱賲 鬲賵乇丿 丨鬲賶 賮賷 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 賲賵爻賷 丕賱賯丿賷賲賴 丨鬲賷 爻丐丕賱賴賲 賳賴丕賷賴 丕賱賲胤丕賮 丕匕丕 賰丕賳 賷賵噩丿 丕賱賴 賮賱賲賻 賱賲 賷丨賲賷賳丕 賲賳 丕賱賲丨乇賯賴!
賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 禺丕氐賷賴 丕賱丕囟丕賮賴 賲賴賲賴 賮賷 丕賱丕丿賷丕賳 丕賳賴丕 丿丕卅賲賴 丕賱丕噩鬲賴丕丿 貙 丕賳鬲賯賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱鬲睾乇賷賯 亘丕賱賳爻亘賴 賱賱丿賷丕賳丕鬲 賵賳馗乇鬲賴賲 賱賳卮丕賴 丕賱賰賵賳 賵賵噩賵丿 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕賱賴賴 賵賵噩賵丿 賲丨丕賰賲 丕賱鬲賮鬲賷卮 禺丕氐鬲賴賲 丕賱鬲賷 馗賴乇鬲 賯亘賱 丕賱賯乇賵賳 丕賱賵爻胤賶 賮賷 丕賵乇賵亘丕 賵賴匕賴 丕賷囟丕 賲賳 丕賱禺氐丕卅氐 丕賱賲賴賲賴 賮賷 丕賱丕丿賷丕賳 賮丕賱丨賱 丿丕卅賲丕 賲丨丕乇亘賴 丕賷 卮卅 賱丕 賷賮賰乇 亘賳賮爻 鬲賮賰賷乇賴丕 賵賲賳胤賯賴丕 丕賱丕毓賵噩貙 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丕賱賷 丕賱賲爻賷丨 賵丕賱賵賴賷鬲賴貙 賵毓丿賲 丕賱鬲胤乇賯 丕賱賷 睾乇丕亘賴 賵賱丕丿鬲賴 亘毓賷丿丕 毓賳 鬲卮丕亘賴賴丕 賲毓 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲賷孬賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱賯丿賷賲賴 賵賱賰賳 丕賱毓丕賲賱 丕賱丕爻丕爻賷 毓賳丿 丕賱賷賴賵丿 賴賵 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱睾賲賵囟 毓賳丿 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賵賱丕丿丕鬲 丕賱丕禺乇賷 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲丐賰丿 賳馗乇賷賴 丕賱賲賷孬賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賳 賵賱丕丿賴 丕賱亘胤賱 賱丕亘丿 丕賳 賷鬲賲 丕禺鬲乇丕毓 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲毓噩夭丕鬲貙 賵丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丕賱賷 亘賵丿丕 丨賷孬 兀賳賴 丕鬲亘毓 賲賳胤賯 毓丿賲 賲賳丕賯卮賴 賵噩賵丿 丕賱丕賱賴 丕賵 丨鬲賷 鬲爻賲賷鬲賴 賱賰賷 賱丕 賷鬲賲 丕賱鬲丨賵賱 丕賱賷 丿賷丕賳丕鬲 丕賱賵孬賳賷丞 賵賲賳丕丿丕賴 丕賱丕賱賴賴 亘兀爻賲丕卅賴賲貙 孬賲 丿賲噩 丕賱乇賵丨丕賳賷丕鬲 賵丕賱丿賷賳 丿丕卅賲丕 賲丕賰丕賳鬲 鬲乇鬲亘胤 亘丕賱丨賷丕賴 丕賱賷賵賲賷賴 賱賰賷 賱丕 賷鬲賲 賮氐賱 丕賱丿賷賳 毓賳 丕賱丨賷丕賴.
丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丕賱賷 丕賱乇亘 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵亘毓丿 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 賰賵賱賵賲亘賵爻 丕氐亘丨鬲 賯囟賷賴 鬲賵丕賮賯 丕賱毓賱賲 賲毓 丕賱丿賷賳 鬲賲孬賱 賲卮賰賱賴貙 丨賷孬 丕賳 賮乇囟 丕賱丿賷賳 毓賱賷 丕賱毓賱賵賲 噩毓賱 賴賳丕賰 丿丕卅賲丕 胤丕卅賮賴 賲鬲賲乇丿賴 賲賳 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 賱丕亘丿 賲賳 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 丕賱兀爻丕賱賷亘 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 賲毓賴賲 賲孬賱 賲丨丕賰賲 丕賱鬲賮鬲賷卮貙 賲孬賱 賵噩賵丿 丕賱賱賴 賮賷 噩丕匕亘賷賴 賳賷賵鬲賳!
亘毓丿 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賯丿 乇兀賷 丕賳賴丕 亘賲孬丕亘賴 丕賱賮賵囟賷 賵賰爻乇 丕賱賯賷賵丿 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 丨丿孬 丕賱禺賵賮 賵賲賳賴丕 賲丕 賰孬乇鬲 丨丕賱丕鬲 丕賱丕賱丨丕丿 丕賷囟丕貙 賲賲丕 賯丿 爻亘亘 賵噩賵丿 丕賱丕賱丨丕丿 亘賷賳 丕賱賰賴賳賴 丕賷囟丕! 賮丕賱胤亘賷毓賴 賯丿 丨賱鬲 賲賰丕賳 丕賱丕賱賴 賮賷 賰賱 卮卅.
亘毓丿 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕氐亘丨鬲 賴賳丕賰 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 賵丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱鬲賷 賷爻賷乇 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵賷亘丨孬 毓賳 丨賯賵賯賴 賵賵丕噩亘丕鬲賴 亘丿賵賳 丕賱賱噩賵亍 丕賱賷 丕賱賰賳賷爻賴 賱兀賳賴丕 賮胤乇丞 賱丿賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 賮丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丕賷丕賲 丕氐亘丨 氐毓亘丕 丨賷孬 丕賳 丕賵賱 爻丐丕賱 賷胤乇丨 賴賱 賷賵噩丿 丕賱賴!! 亘丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 丕賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賲 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 爻賵賷 賮賷 丕禺乇 50 氐賮丨賴 丕賱丕 丕賳 丕賱禺氐丕卅氐 丕賱爻丕亘賯賴 賱丕 賷禺賱賵 賲賳賴 亘丕賱丕囟丕賮賴 丕賱賷 毓賱丕賯賴 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 賲毓 丕賱睾乇亘 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 丿丕卅賲丕 賲賱賷卅賴 亘丕賱丕丨鬲乇丕賲 丕賱賷 賲丕賯亘賱 丕賱兀賮睾丕賳賷 賵亘毓丿賴丕 馗賴賵乇 丕賱丕乇賴丕亘 賵鬲賮卮賷賴 賵乇丐賷賴 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 丕賱賲禺鬲氐乇丞 賮賷 丕賳 賰賱 賲爻賱賲 氐丨賷丨 賵毓丕賯賱 賱丕亘丿 賮賷 丕賳 賷氐亘丨 賲賯丕鬲賱貙 賮賴賱 賲丕鬲 丕賱丕賱賴責
賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賱亘丨孬 毓賳 爻丐丕賱賴 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱鬲乇賰賷夭 毓賱賷 丕賰鬲乇 賲賳 丕鬲噩丕賴 賲賳 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷 賵賱丨丿 丿賱賵賯鬲賷貙 賵丕賷賴 賴賷 丕賱鬲胤賵乇丕鬲 丕賱賱賷 賲乇 亘賷賴丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱睾丕賷賴 賲丕賰鬲卮賮 丕賴賲賷賴 丕賵 賲賵鬲 丕賱丕賱賴 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賴貙 賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷賴 爻乇丿 丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕毓賲丕賱 賮乇賵賷丿 丕賱胤賵胤賲 賵丕賱丨乇丕賲 丕賵 賯氐賴 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 賱丿賷賵乇丕賳鬲 毓賳 丕賴鬲賲丕賲 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷 亘禺賱賯 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賵馗賴賵乇 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷賴 賵賲丨賵乇 鬲胤賵乇賴丕 賲賳匕 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 毓夭乇丕 賵胤賱亘賴 賲賳 丕賱賷賴賵丿 丕賱丕賱鬲夭丕賲 亘亘毓囟 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱鬲賷 賱賲 鬲賵乇丿 丨鬲賶 賮賷 鬲毓丕賱賷賲 賲賵爻賷 丕賱賯丿賷賲賴 丨鬲賷 爻丐丕賱賴賲 賳賴丕賷賴 丕賱賲胤丕賮 丕匕丕 賰丕賳 賷賵噩丿 丕賱賴 賮賱賲賻 賱賲 賷丨賲賷賳丕 賲賳 丕賱賲丨乇賯賴!
賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 禺丕氐賷賴 丕賱丕囟丕賮賴 賲賴賲賴 賮賷 丕賱丕丿賷丕賳 丕賳賴丕 丿丕卅賲賴 丕賱丕噩鬲賴丕丿 貙 丕賳鬲賯賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱鬲睾乇賷賯 亘丕賱賳爻亘賴 賱賱丿賷丕賳丕鬲 賵賳馗乇鬲賴賲 賱賳卮丕賴 丕賱賰賵賳 賵賵噩賵丿 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕賱賴賴 賵賵噩賵丿 賲丨丕賰賲 丕賱鬲賮鬲賷卮 禺丕氐鬲賴賲 丕賱鬲賷 馗賴乇鬲 賯亘賱 丕賱賯乇賵賳 丕賱賵爻胤賶 賮賷 丕賵乇賵亘丕 賵賴匕賴 丕賷囟丕 賲賳 丕賱禺氐丕卅氐 丕賱賲賴賲賴 賮賷 丕賱丕丿賷丕賳 賮丕賱丨賱 丿丕卅賲丕 賲丨丕乇亘賴 丕賷 卮卅 賱丕 賷賮賰乇 亘賳賮爻 鬲賮賰賷乇賴丕 賵賲賳胤賯賴丕 丕賱丕毓賵噩貙 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丕賱賷 丕賱賲爻賷丨 賵丕賱賵賴賷鬲賴貙 賵毓丿賲 丕賱鬲胤乇賯 丕賱賷 睾乇丕亘賴 賵賱丕丿鬲賴 亘毓賷丿丕 毓賳 鬲卮丕亘賴賴丕 賲毓 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲賷孬賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱賯丿賷賲賴 賵賱賰賳 丕賱毓丕賲賱 丕賱丕爻丕爻賷 毓賳丿 丕賱賷賴賵丿 賴賵 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱睾賲賵囟 毓賳丿 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賵賱丕丿丕鬲 丕賱丕禺乇賷 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲丐賰丿 賳馗乇賷賴 丕賱賲賷孬賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賳 賵賱丕丿賴 丕賱亘胤賱 賱丕亘丿 丕賳 賷鬲賲 丕禺鬲乇丕毓 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲毓噩夭丕鬲貙 賵丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丕賱賷 亘賵丿丕 丨賷孬 兀賳賴 丕鬲亘毓 賲賳胤賯 毓丿賲 賲賳丕賯卮賴 賵噩賵丿 丕賱丕賱賴 丕賵 丨鬲賷 鬲爻賲賷鬲賴 賱賰賷 賱丕 賷鬲賲 丕賱鬲丨賵賱 丕賱賷 丿賷丕賳丕鬲 丕賱賵孬賳賷丞 賵賲賳丕丿丕賴 丕賱丕賱賴賴 亘兀爻賲丕卅賴賲貙 孬賲 丿賲噩 丕賱乇賵丨丕賳賷丕鬲 賵丕賱丿賷賳 丿丕卅賲丕 賲丕賰丕賳鬲 鬲乇鬲亘胤 亘丕賱丨賷丕賴 丕賱賷賵賲賷賴 賱賰賷 賱丕 賷鬲賲 賮氐賱 丕賱丿賷賳 毓賳 丕賱丨賷丕賴.
丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丕賱賷 丕賱乇亘 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵亘毓丿 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 賰賵賱賵賲亘賵爻 丕氐亘丨鬲 賯囟賷賴 鬲賵丕賮賯 丕賱毓賱賲 賲毓 丕賱丿賷賳 鬲賲孬賱 賲卮賰賱賴貙 丨賷孬 丕賳 賮乇囟 丕賱丿賷賳 毓賱賷 丕賱毓賱賵賲 噩毓賱 賴賳丕賰 丿丕卅賲丕 胤丕卅賮賴 賲鬲賲乇丿賴 賲賳 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 賱丕亘丿 賲賳 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 丕賱兀爻丕賱賷亘 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 賲毓賴賲 賲孬賱 賲丨丕賰賲 丕賱鬲賮鬲賷卮貙 賲孬賱 賵噩賵丿 丕賱賱賴 賮賷 噩丕匕亘賷賴 賳賷賵鬲賳!
亘毓丿 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賯丿 乇兀賷 丕賳賴丕 亘賲孬丕亘賴 丕賱賮賵囟賷 賵賰爻乇 丕賱賯賷賵丿 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 丨丿孬 丕賱禺賵賮 賵賲賳賴丕 賲丕 賰孬乇鬲 丨丕賱丕鬲 丕賱丕賱丨丕丿 丕賷囟丕貙 賲賲丕 賯丿 爻亘亘 賵噩賵丿 丕賱丕賱丨丕丿 亘賷賳 丕賱賰賴賳賴 丕賷囟丕! 賮丕賱胤亘賷毓賴 賯丿 丨賱鬲 賲賰丕賳 丕賱丕賱賴 賮賷 賰賱 卮卅.
亘毓丿 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕氐亘丨鬲 賴賳丕賰 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 賵丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱鬲賷 賷爻賷乇 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵賷亘丨孬 毓賳 丨賯賵賯賴 賵賵丕噩亘丕鬲賴 亘丿賵賳 丕賱賱噩賵亍 丕賱賷 丕賱賰賳賷爻賴 賱兀賳賴丕 賮胤乇丞 賱丿賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 賮丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丕賷丕賲 丕氐亘丨 氐毓亘丕 丨賷孬 丕賳 丕賵賱 爻丐丕賱 賷胤乇丨 賴賱 賷賵噩丿 丕賱賴!! 亘丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 丕賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賲 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 爻賵賷 賮賷 丕禺乇 50 氐賮丨賴 丕賱丕 丕賳 丕賱禺氐丕卅氐 丕賱爻丕亘賯賴 賱丕 賷禺賱賵 賲賳賴 亘丕賱丕囟丕賮賴 丕賱賷 毓賱丕賯賴 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 賲毓 丕賱睾乇亘 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 丿丕卅賲丕 賲賱賷卅賴 亘丕賱丕丨鬲乇丕賲 丕賱賷 賲丕賯亘賱 丕賱兀賮睾丕賳賷 賵亘毓丿賴丕 馗賴賵乇 丕賱丕乇賴丕亘 賵鬲賮卮賷賴 賵乇丐賷賴 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 丕賱賲禺鬲氐乇丞 賮賷 丕賳 賰賱 賲爻賱賲 氐丨賷丨 賵毓丕賯賱 賱丕亘丿 賮賷 丕賳 賷氐亘丨 賲賯丕鬲賱貙 賮賴賱 賲丕鬲 丕賱丕賱賴責
September 26, 2024
Been flicking through this for a few weeks here and there for nuggets of information to help formulate my thoughts for my recent dissertation on the death of God. It is rather dense (which is not entirely a bad thing) and the title is somewhat misleading, but Armstrong makes some worthy observations throughout. I especially appreciate her calling out the superficial "New Atheists" for their lacklustre contributions to the God conversation.
The following are some key quotes I found contemplative:
鈥淚t is in this context, perhaps, that we should discuss the vexed question of Jesus' miracles. Since the Enlightenment, when empirical verification became important in the substantiation of any 'belief', many people 鈥� Christians and atheists alike 鈥� have assumed that Jesus performed these miracles to prove his divinity. But in the ancient world, 'miracles' were quite commonplace and, however remarkable and significant, were not thought to indicate that the miracle-worker was in any way super-human. There were so many unseen forces for which the science of the day could not account that it seemed quite reasonable to assume that spirits affected human life, and Greeks routinely consulted a god rather than a doctor. Indeed, given the state of medicine before the modern period, this was probably a safer and more prudent option. Some people had a special ability to manipulate the malign powers that were thought to cause disease, and Jews in particular were known to be skilled healers. In the ninth century BCE, the prophets Elijah and Elisha had both performed miracles similar to Jesus', but nobody ever suggested that they were gods.鈥� (p. 91)
鈥淎fter Einstein, it became disturbingly clear that not only was science unable to provide us with definitive proof, but its findings were inherently limited and provisional. In 1927, Heisenberg formulated the Principle of Indeterminacy in Nuclear Physics, showing that it was impossible for scientists to achieve an objective result because the act of observation itself affected their understanding of the object of their investigation. In 1931, the Austrian philosopher Kurt G枚del (1906-78) devised a theorem to show that any formal logical or mathematical system must contain propositions that were not verifiable within that system; there would always be propositions that could only be proved or disproved by input from outside. This completely undercut the traditional assumption of systematic decidability. In his 1929 Gifford Lectures in Edinburgh, the American philosopher John Dewey (1859-1952) argued that Descartes' quest for certainty could no longer be the goal of modern philosophy. Heisenberg had liberated us from seventeenth-century mechanics, when the universe had seemed like a giant machine made up of separate components, whereas this new generation of scientists was revealing the deep interconnectedness of all reality.鈥� (p. 253-4)
鈥淸T]here is an inherent contradiction in the new atheism, especially in its emphasis on the importance of 鈥榚vidence' and the claim that science always proves its theories empirically, As Popper, Kuhn and Polyani have argued, science itself has to rely on an act of faith. Even Monod acknowledged this. Dawkins' hero Darwin admitted that he could not prove the evolutionary hypothesis but he had confidence in it nonetheless, and for decades, as we have seen, physicists were happy to have faith in Einstein's theory of relativity, even though it had not been definitively verified. Even Harris makes a large act of faith in the ability of his own intelligence to arrive at objective truth 鈥� a claim that Hume or Kant would have found questionable.
[鈥 Religious fundamentalists also develop an exaggerated view of their enemy as the epitome of evil. This tendency makes critique of the new atheists too easy. They never discuss the work of such theologians as Bultmann or Tillich, who offer a very different view of religion and are closer to mainstream tradition than any fundamentalist. Unlike Feuerbach, Marx and Freud, the new atheists are not theologically literate. As one of their critics has remarked, in any military strategy it is essential to confront the enemy at its strongest point; failure to do so means that their polemic remains shallow and lacks intellectual depth.
[鈥 Nor, like Nietzsche, Sartre or Camus, do they compel their readers to face up to the pointlessness and futility that ensue when people lack the resources to create a sense of meaning. They do not appear to consider the effect of such nihilism on people who do not have privileged lives and absorbing work.
[鈥 Typical of the fundamentalist mindset is the belief that there is only one way of interpreting reality. For the new atheists, scientism alone can lead us to truth. But science depends upon faith, intuition and aesthetic vision as well as on reason. The physicist Paul Dirac has argued that 'it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment'.鈥� (p. 292-4)
鈥淔rom almost the very beginning, men and women have repeatedly engaged in strenuous and committed religious activity. They evolved mythologies, rituals and ethical disciplines that brought them intimations of holiness that seemed in some indescribable way to enhance and fulfil their humanity. They were not religious simply because their myths and doctrines were scientifically or historically sound, because they sought information about the origins of the cosmos, or merely because they wanted a better life in the hereafter. They were not bludgeoned into faith by power-hungry priests or kings: indeed, religion often helped people to oppose tyranny and oppression of this kind. The point of religion was to live intensely and richly here and now. Religious people are ambitious. They want lives overflowing with significance. They have always desired to integrate with their daily lives the moments of rapture and insight that came to them in dreams, in their contemplation of nature, and in their intercourse with one another and with the animal world. Instead of being crushed and embittered by the sorrow of life, they sought to retain their peace and serenity in the midst of their pain. They yearned for the courage to overcome their terror of mortality; instead of being grasping and mean-spirited, they aspired to live generously, large-heartedly and justly and to inhabit every single part of their humanity. Instead of being a mere workaday cup, they wanted, as Confucius suggested, to transform themselves into a beautiful ritual vessel brimful of the sanctity that they were learning to see in life. They tried to honour the ineffable mystery they sensed in each human being and create societies that honoured the stranger, the alien, the poor and the oppressed. Of course they often failed. But overall they found that the disciplines of religion helped them to do all this. Those who applied themselves most assiduously showed that it was possible for mortal men and women to live on a higher, divine or godlike plane and thus wake up to their true selves.鈥� (p. 315-6)
The following are some key quotes I found contemplative:
鈥淚t is in this context, perhaps, that we should discuss the vexed question of Jesus' miracles. Since the Enlightenment, when empirical verification became important in the substantiation of any 'belief', many people 鈥� Christians and atheists alike 鈥� have assumed that Jesus performed these miracles to prove his divinity. But in the ancient world, 'miracles' were quite commonplace and, however remarkable and significant, were not thought to indicate that the miracle-worker was in any way super-human. There were so many unseen forces for which the science of the day could not account that it seemed quite reasonable to assume that spirits affected human life, and Greeks routinely consulted a god rather than a doctor. Indeed, given the state of medicine before the modern period, this was probably a safer and more prudent option. Some people had a special ability to manipulate the malign powers that were thought to cause disease, and Jews in particular were known to be skilled healers. In the ninth century BCE, the prophets Elijah and Elisha had both performed miracles similar to Jesus', but nobody ever suggested that they were gods.鈥� (p. 91)
鈥淎fter Einstein, it became disturbingly clear that not only was science unable to provide us with definitive proof, but its findings were inherently limited and provisional. In 1927, Heisenberg formulated the Principle of Indeterminacy in Nuclear Physics, showing that it was impossible for scientists to achieve an objective result because the act of observation itself affected their understanding of the object of their investigation. In 1931, the Austrian philosopher Kurt G枚del (1906-78) devised a theorem to show that any formal logical or mathematical system must contain propositions that were not verifiable within that system; there would always be propositions that could only be proved or disproved by input from outside. This completely undercut the traditional assumption of systematic decidability. In his 1929 Gifford Lectures in Edinburgh, the American philosopher John Dewey (1859-1952) argued that Descartes' quest for certainty could no longer be the goal of modern philosophy. Heisenberg had liberated us from seventeenth-century mechanics, when the universe had seemed like a giant machine made up of separate components, whereas this new generation of scientists was revealing the deep interconnectedness of all reality.鈥� (p. 253-4)
鈥淸T]here is an inherent contradiction in the new atheism, especially in its emphasis on the importance of 鈥榚vidence' and the claim that science always proves its theories empirically, As Popper, Kuhn and Polyani have argued, science itself has to rely on an act of faith. Even Monod acknowledged this. Dawkins' hero Darwin admitted that he could not prove the evolutionary hypothesis but he had confidence in it nonetheless, and for decades, as we have seen, physicists were happy to have faith in Einstein's theory of relativity, even though it had not been definitively verified. Even Harris makes a large act of faith in the ability of his own intelligence to arrive at objective truth 鈥� a claim that Hume or Kant would have found questionable.
[鈥 Religious fundamentalists also develop an exaggerated view of their enemy as the epitome of evil. This tendency makes critique of the new atheists too easy. They never discuss the work of such theologians as Bultmann or Tillich, who offer a very different view of religion and are closer to mainstream tradition than any fundamentalist. Unlike Feuerbach, Marx and Freud, the new atheists are not theologically literate. As one of their critics has remarked, in any military strategy it is essential to confront the enemy at its strongest point; failure to do so means that their polemic remains shallow and lacks intellectual depth.
[鈥 Nor, like Nietzsche, Sartre or Camus, do they compel their readers to face up to the pointlessness and futility that ensue when people lack the resources to create a sense of meaning. They do not appear to consider the effect of such nihilism on people who do not have privileged lives and absorbing work.
[鈥 Typical of the fundamentalist mindset is the belief that there is only one way of interpreting reality. For the new atheists, scientism alone can lead us to truth. But science depends upon faith, intuition and aesthetic vision as well as on reason. The physicist Paul Dirac has argued that 'it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment'.鈥� (p. 292-4)
鈥淔rom almost the very beginning, men and women have repeatedly engaged in strenuous and committed religious activity. They evolved mythologies, rituals and ethical disciplines that brought them intimations of holiness that seemed in some indescribable way to enhance and fulfil their humanity. They were not religious simply because their myths and doctrines were scientifically or historically sound, because they sought information about the origins of the cosmos, or merely because they wanted a better life in the hereafter. They were not bludgeoned into faith by power-hungry priests or kings: indeed, religion often helped people to oppose tyranny and oppression of this kind. The point of religion was to live intensely and richly here and now. Religious people are ambitious. They want lives overflowing with significance. They have always desired to integrate with their daily lives the moments of rapture and insight that came to them in dreams, in their contemplation of nature, and in their intercourse with one another and with the animal world. Instead of being crushed and embittered by the sorrow of life, they sought to retain their peace and serenity in the midst of their pain. They yearned for the courage to overcome their terror of mortality; instead of being grasping and mean-spirited, they aspired to live generously, large-heartedly and justly and to inhabit every single part of their humanity. Instead of being a mere workaday cup, they wanted, as Confucius suggested, to transform themselves into a beautiful ritual vessel brimful of the sanctity that they were learning to see in life. They tried to honour the ineffable mystery they sensed in each human being and create societies that honoured the stranger, the alien, the poor and the oppressed. Of course they often failed. But overall they found that the disciplines of religion helped them to do all this. Those who applied themselves most assiduously showed that it was possible for mortal men and women to live on a higher, divine or godlike plane and thus wake up to their true selves.鈥� (p. 315-6)
June 21, 2016
One might expect this to be somewhat of a critique on God which is followed by a scholarly explanation/reasoning which would essentially entail the primary discourse of this book. This is quite different than that. Karen starts off with way back to the earliest notions of God and then slowly unfolds the history of different religions of the world. Somewhere in the middle she delves into a rather dense polemic strictly pertaining to christianity, which I thought was a bit too technical and detailed for someone like me. That part probably makes this book primarily about history of God but its movement in Christianity as its main subject. It does not touch upon the evolution of Islam all that much. In fact it merely scratches the surface when it comes to both Judaism and Islam. One can argue that it is a fairly decent introduction to history of philosophy in the domain of religion as well. Which would be quite true. I enjoyed how Karen has taken so much and still managed to explain it in quite a lucid way. The central theme of the book is that religion is not merely an idea. The cognizance of the almighty is a matter of disciplined practice, not merely dogmatic clarity. Religions back in the day clearly had a disctinction between LOGOS and MYTHOS. Two different realms of understanding that did not require overlapping. And the fact that the truths of religion only became certain when an individual understood the tenets of that religion and also practiced its rituals with conviction. Only then were the truths about God and religion opened up to them. Religion does not require reason. "The heart has a reason of its own!"
An interesting book. Anyone who is interested in the subject should most certainly pick it up.
An interesting book. Anyone who is interested in the subject should most certainly pick it up.
January 21, 2010
The Case for God provides a great survey of the history of religious thought since Christ and puts in context the polarized fundamentalism and atheism of today. As someone who has never taken a religion course or read much about theology I found The Case for God to be very enlightening and thought provoking. The book at times is a dense read, particularly in the first half, but gains momentum as it progresses to modern times. For those not interested in devoting the time to reading the entire book, I highly recommend the epilogue, which stands well on its own.
August 1, 2011
兀毓丿 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 兀乇賵毓 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賶 賯乇兀鬲賴丕 賮賶 鬲鬲亘毓 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賱賴 賵丕賱兀丿賷丕賳貙 賵賮賷 賳賯丿 丕賱兀氐賵賱賷丞 賵丕賱廿賱丨丕丿. 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 鬲賲賱賰 賲賳 兀丿賵丕鬲 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賰孬賷乇貙 賵鬲毓乇賮 賰賷賮 鬲爻鬲禺丿賲 兀丿賵丕鬲賴丕 賱毓乇囟 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 亘氐賵乇丞 賵丕囟丨丞 賵賲賷爻乇丞貙 乇睾賲 兀賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱鬲賶 鬲賳丕賯卮賴丕 鬲亘丿賵 賲毓賯丿丞貙 賮賲賳 賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 丨鬲賶 賳馗乇賷丞 賲賵鬲 丕賱廿賱賴 孬賲 廿賱賴 賲丕亘毓丿 丕賱丨丿丕孬丞貙 賵賴賶 兀賲賵乇 賲毓賯丿丞 賵兀囟丕毓 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 兀毓賲丕乇賴賲 賱卮乇丨賴丕貙 賵賲毓 匕賱賰 鬲賲賰賳鬲 賰丕乇賳 兀乇賲爻鬲乇賵賳噩 賲賳 毓乇囟 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵鬲鬲亘毓賴丕 賵鬲賯丿賷賲 乇丐賷丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賱賱廿賱賴 賵賱賱兀丿賷丕賳.
乇丐賷丞 鬲丿毓賵 賱賱爻賱丕賲 賵賳亘匕 丕賱毓賳賮貙 賱賱乇賵丨丕賳賷丞 賵賱賷爻 丕賱鬲毓氐亘貙 賱賱毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賵賱賷爻 丕賱禺乇丕賮丞.
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 噩丿丕 .
乇丐賷丞 鬲丿毓賵 賱賱爻賱丕賲 賵賳亘匕 丕賱毓賳賮貙 賱賱乇賵丨丕賳賷丞 賵賱賷爻 丕賱鬲毓氐亘貙 賱賱毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賵賱賷爻 丕賱禺乇丕賮丞.
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 噩丿丕 .
Displaying 1 - 30 of 735 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.