Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.81 AVERAGE
3.81 AVERAGE
A re-envisioning of the history and future of religion. Apophatic theology and ritual are seen as the real story, with modern literalism as the temporary aberration. It's the Case for God from the postmodern, Western, Christian point of view, which I share.
I loved this book - not because I agreed with Armstrong on everything (in truth, I find some of her claims to be unsupported by historical evidence), but because her vision is so breathtaking and beautiful. Religion as a way of living, not a set of dogmas to ascribe to; charity as the highest principle and the measuring rod of humanity; humility in the face of suffering. Neither of these claims is unique, especially not in the vast perspective of human history, but Armstrong weaves them together in a striking history of humanity's struggles with the idea of God, Gods, goodness, morality and the meaning of life, death and pain.
This approach to religion - not that common in our times of shouting matches between New Atheists and creationist fundamentalists - allows the reader to look at the long history of religion in a different, more nuanced light.
I do wish Karen Armstrong spent more time on reconciling the evils faith has collaborated in and the ways it can be used as an excuse for violence (on the other hand, as XXth century shows, what can't?); still, I recommend "Case for God" wholeheartedly ;especially the audiobook edition, read by the author herself, whose beautiful and careful voice truly breathes life into the words.
This approach to religion - not that common in our times of shouting matches between New Atheists and creationist fundamentalists - allows the reader to look at the long history of religion in a different, more nuanced light.
I do wish Karen Armstrong spent more time on reconciling the evils faith has collaborated in and the ways it can be used as an excuse for violence (on the other hand, as XXth century shows, what can't?); still, I recommend "Case for God" wholeheartedly ;especially the audiobook edition, read by the author herself, whose beautiful and careful voice truly breathes life into the words.
'The Case for God' is a case not made, from my Examiner column.
Few religious thinkers have eased the consciences of spiritual liberals, anti-fundamentalist religious moderates, and functional nonbelievers unwilling to stake any affirmatively atheistic ground than Karen Armstrong. For years she has been making the assertion that her scholarship proves that the "great" monotheisms ought not be associated with the fear, xenophobia, irrational faith in the absurd, violence, or misogyny that so they so often encourage, but that they have their "true" foundations in love and tolerance--and anyone who doesn't think so hasn't been doing it right. As much as that assertion causes many skeptics to arch their eyebrows, it at least sounds like a good thing to which the faiths could aspire if they were so inclined. Alas.
Her latest book, The Case for God, is not meant to explain the various faiths' dispositions or ideological foundations, but to convince the reader that the most commonly held notions of God, those of a being that created the universe and "exists," are false, and that in actuality, God is an unknowable, unfathomable concept for which the very term "existence" is too limited. If you think that sounds like a pretty weak basis for an argument when dealing with such a grand concept's veracity, you're right. And despite Armstrong's impressive breadth of knowledge and her nuanced grasp of various thinkers' positions throughout the generations, her case never adds up.
Part of the trouble, of course, is that her book's premise is challenged by her own explanation of what God is. It is nigh impossible for me to understand how someone can build a case for God if the central thesis is that God is an unknowable pseudo-entity-but-not-really, something that mere humans are wholly incapable of defining. Where does that leave your book?
[For the rest of this review, see my Examiner column here: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-4275-Secularism-Examiner~y2010m1d3-Book-review-The-Case-for-God-is-a-case-not-made]
Few religious thinkers have eased the consciences of spiritual liberals, anti-fundamentalist religious moderates, and functional nonbelievers unwilling to stake any affirmatively atheistic ground than Karen Armstrong. For years she has been making the assertion that her scholarship proves that the "great" monotheisms ought not be associated with the fear, xenophobia, irrational faith in the absurd, violence, or misogyny that so they so often encourage, but that they have their "true" foundations in love and tolerance--and anyone who doesn't think so hasn't been doing it right. As much as that assertion causes many skeptics to arch their eyebrows, it at least sounds like a good thing to which the faiths could aspire if they were so inclined. Alas.
Her latest book, The Case for God, is not meant to explain the various faiths' dispositions or ideological foundations, but to convince the reader that the most commonly held notions of God, those of a being that created the universe and "exists," are false, and that in actuality, God is an unknowable, unfathomable concept for which the very term "existence" is too limited. If you think that sounds like a pretty weak basis for an argument when dealing with such a grand concept's veracity, you're right. And despite Armstrong's impressive breadth of knowledge and her nuanced grasp of various thinkers' positions throughout the generations, her case never adds up.
Part of the trouble, of course, is that her book's premise is challenged by her own explanation of what God is. It is nigh impossible for me to understand how someone can build a case for God if the central thesis is that God is an unknowable pseudo-entity-but-not-really, something that mere humans are wholly incapable of defining. Where does that leave your book?
[For the rest of this review, see my Examiner column here: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-4275-Secularism-Examiner~y2010m1d3-Book-review-The-Case-for-God-is-a-case-not-made]
Amazing experience reading into the history, philosophy and theology of the human race searching for God. Very detailed views on complex issues yet presented in an orgnized way that leaves you reaching your own conclusions. Karen’s subtle, analytic and compassion tone is much needed in such extremely polarized world.
A work of popular theology. I thought at the beginning that it was aiming to be a survey of all religions of all times. But it was actually only interested in the religions that had influenced Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And of those the focus was mainly on Christianity. Particularly the Christianity of Western Europe and the Americas.
One of her premises is that Biblical literalism is a recent development. Until the later part of the 19th century everyone saw the text of the Bible as metaphors or stories, not as statements of actual historical fact. Only after the rise of science did anyone think to look for explanations of natural phenomena in the Bible.
She believes in a division of spheres, in which science teaches us how the world works, and religion teaches us morality and how to live. The product of a religious life is peace and compassion, and anyone who uses religion as an excuse to cause harm to another is guilty of idolatry, recreating God in their own image to further their own squalid ends.
There were a couple of statements that were new to me. One, that Jesus was only one of many rabbis of his time embracing the new morality of the Golden Rule. And the other was that Jesus never claimed divinity, nor did the early Christian church claim it for him. The epithet of "Son of God" was often bestowed on Jewish prophets as an honor, not a mark of divinity.
A recurring theme of the book was that God is past knowing, defining, or describing. We can try, and often do, but it's a fruitless quest, and in the end we falter, seeing the uselessness of words, and fall into an awestruck silence.
It is ironic that it took her 14 CDs and 17 hours to say this.
This was the best Karen Armstrong book I've read. She offers a history of how people have conceived of, interpreted, and rejected God from the beginnings of Judaism through the postmodern present. While she doesn't advocate belief in God, the basic argument, if there is one that runs throughout, is that present-day fundamentalist atheism (ala Dawkins) is premised on a conception of religion that doesn't take into account how people's belief in God has changed over time. She shows, for example, that fundamentalist/literalist interpretations of Christianity and Islam have very little in common with the way early Christians and early Muslims understood God, the Bible, the Qur'an, etc. I was particularly interested to learn that early Christians did not conceive of Christ as the Son of God. Very educational and synthesizes a lot of history, philosophy, and science in a readable fashion.
I just gave up. I could not stand to listen to this woman any longer. I think it could be interesting but I just don't care enough to continue.
This is the third time I have read this book. The first time I read it, the title was "History of God". The second time I read it the title was "Battle for God". This time around, the title is "Case for God". Don't get me wrong, it is a good book. Karen Armstrong is at her best when writing a broad scope comparative work that stretches millennia into the past and brings us right up to the present. She is doing it again here and this is by far the least caustic of her three titles. I have said multiple times in the past, I love her history but I am not a big fan of her interpretation of it.
There are a few positive points to highlight in this book. First off, she puts a much stronger emphasis on the apophatic tradition within Christianity. Since I believe this is one of the most underlooked ways for us to seek to know God more, I appreciate that. Second, Armstrong built a good case in dispelling the myth that the church and science have been at war since Copernicus and Galileo. The ignorance of so many people perpetuating this myth annoys me and I liked how she made a strong point that this perceived conflict has much, much more recent roots than that. Finally, Armstrong did an excellent job demonstrating that the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are nothing more than the atheist branch of fundamentalism. Here, hear.
Now, on to what I did not like. KA is very heavily into the NOMA camp. NOMA = non-overlapping magisterium. It is the idea that science answers the what and how deep questions and religion the why. While I agree this has some limited use and validity, I think she (and Gould) take it much too far.
Also, Karen Armstrong's god that she is building a case for is so vague and indistinct that it might as well not exist. She strips away pretty much all truth claims and leaves us nothing to replace them with. Ravi Zacharias called the new spirituality a form of intellectual terrorism. They will take shots at everybody else and yet they are unwilling to stand and defend any ground of their own. Well, the same can certainly be true of Armstrong here (and in practically all her works).
In all, I give this 3.5 stars rounding down. If you are a critical thinker and love history, I would very strongly recommend this book. If you are the type who simply believes and absorbs everything you read, don't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
There are a few positive points to highlight in this book. First off, she puts a much stronger emphasis on the apophatic tradition within Christianity. Since I believe this is one of the most underlooked ways for us to seek to know God more, I appreciate that. Second, Armstrong built a good case in dispelling the myth that the church and science have been at war since Copernicus and Galileo. The ignorance of so many people perpetuating this myth annoys me and I liked how she made a strong point that this perceived conflict has much, much more recent roots than that. Finally, Armstrong did an excellent job demonstrating that the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are nothing more than the atheist branch of fundamentalism. Here, hear.
Now, on to what I did not like. KA is very heavily into the NOMA camp. NOMA = non-overlapping magisterium. It is the idea that science answers the what and how deep questions and religion the why. While I agree this has some limited use and validity, I think she (and Gould) take it much too far.
Also, Karen Armstrong's god that she is building a case for is so vague and indistinct that it might as well not exist. She strips away pretty much all truth claims and leaves us nothing to replace them with. Ravi Zacharias called the new spirituality a form of intellectual terrorism. They will take shots at everybody else and yet they are unwilling to stand and defend any ground of their own. Well, the same can certainly be true of Armstrong here (and in practically all her works).
In all, I give this 3.5 stars rounding down. If you are a critical thinker and love history, I would very strongly recommend this book. If you are the type who simply believes and absorbs everything you read, don't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
This book is a hot mess. I didn't think I would ever even use that phrase much less to describe a book but this one deserved it. I try to take notes while reading (in this case listening) and usually average around 6-7 points. I got to 14 with this one. (I have condensed some.)
In no particular order, here they are.
1. She tries way too hard to write a grandiose spiritual narrative (or history...it's hard to tell).
2. She does make some striking observations that come so close yet are so far from the truth. (Disclaimer: I am a devout Christian and disagree with her views. However, the vast majority of my criticism has nothing to do with worldview and everything to do with abysmal writing.)
3. Her statements of basic Christian fact show her to be extremely confused. For example, she states that literal interpretation of the Bible began with Augustine. Even a casual reading of the Bible's own text would show that many of it's authors and historical characters believe in literal interpretation. All of those people lived centuries, even millennia before Augustine. This leads me to question her statements about the beliefs of other religions.
4. Almost without fail, she dismisses the face value of one primary text, the Bible, because, according to the author, it couldn't possibly be true. Instead she misinterprets the text and twists it (see her convoluted dismissal of the definition of "credo") into knots to make her point work.
5. In the same vein as #4, the author gives immense weight to extra biblical books. As someone who purports to be a historian, shouldn't all primary text be given the same weight? She appears to discount the canonical books simply because they are canonical.
6. The section on medieval philosophy (many of those philosophers also twisted themselves into knots trying to make their dialecticals work) reeks of fan girl behavior.
7. My biggest issue with her is that she claims to be a historian of religion. This book follows neither historiographical or theological narrative frameworks. Instead it is an ugly, roughly chronological mash up of whatever floats her boat in an attempt to prove "god."
If she meant this book as a persuasive argument she failed miserably. I highly recommend that people do not read this book. It is not worth the effort.
In no particular order, here they are.
1. She tries way too hard to write a grandiose spiritual narrative (or history...it's hard to tell).
2. She does make some striking observations that come so close yet are so far from the truth. (Disclaimer: I am a devout Christian and disagree with her views. However, the vast majority of my criticism has nothing to do with worldview and everything to do with abysmal writing.)
3. Her statements of basic Christian fact show her to be extremely confused. For example, she states that literal interpretation of the Bible began with Augustine. Even a casual reading of the Bible's own text would show that many of it's authors and historical characters believe in literal interpretation. All of those people lived centuries, even millennia before Augustine. This leads me to question her statements about the beliefs of other religions.
4. Almost without fail, she dismisses the face value of one primary text, the Bible, because, according to the author, it couldn't possibly be true. Instead she misinterprets the text and twists it (see her convoluted dismissal of the definition of "credo") into knots to make her point work.
5. In the same vein as #4, the author gives immense weight to extra biblical books. As someone who purports to be a historian, shouldn't all primary text be given the same weight? She appears to discount the canonical books simply because they are canonical.
6. The section on medieval philosophy (many of those philosophers also twisted themselves into knots trying to make their dialecticals work) reeks of fan girl behavior.
7. My biggest issue with her is that she claims to be a historian of religion. This book follows neither historiographical or theological narrative frameworks. Instead it is an ugly, roughly chronological mash up of whatever floats her boat in an attempt to prove "god."
If she meant this book as a persuasive argument she failed miserably. I highly recommend that people do not read this book. It is not worth the effort.
I thought the author made some interesting points, but honestly, the book was a little long and sometimes tedious for me to really enjoy, especially some of the historical accounts.