Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.81 AVERAGE
3.81 AVERAGE
More of a history of the intersection of philosophy and God, told from a Judeo–Christian perspective. Touching on prehistoric religion, eastern religions this book doesn't really make a case for God, rather it makes a case against atheists, particularly the "new atheists."
Really enjoyed another book of Karen Armstrong's specifically about the Bible—how it was compiled and how it's been interpreted throughout the years. I hate to jump the gun, but this book did little to convince me she's adding a lot of new insight with each new book she publishes. There were lots of passages in here that seemed to be identical to what she said in that other book. It's not that I don't find it devoid of insight this time around, it's just that I've heard it before from the very same person. For that matter, the title's a bit misleading—this is mostly a history of religion and the social forces surrounding it, focusing on the major monotheisms. She only really explicitly makes her case for God at the very beginning and end of the book and, at that point, it's just to say we should be open to God being unknowable and transcendent. All well and good, but isn't that just agnosticism with a slightly more friendly stance toward religion? Still, I appreciate her consolidating so much history into one volume and I love hearing specifically about the mystical undercurrents and traditions implicit in most faiths that were then undermined by modernity. I agree with her that we'd all be a little better off if we swapped that style of religion in for fundamentalism; also, her critique of the New Atheists seemed pretty salient to me. As I've gotten older, that form of reductionist religion bashing has become less and less appealing. Not the greatest book on faith and comparative religion I've ever read, but nowhere near a waste of time either.
The recent rise in fundamentalist religion, or perhaps irreligion, as in the "new atheists," was the impetus for Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, which serves less as a defense of a creator being and more as a declaration of Armstrong's own unique brand of monotheism. Armstrong summarizes thousands of years of theological history to arrive at the conclusion that one should approach God apophatically, which she describes as a form of silent contemplation of the transcendent divine. Another goodreads reviewer has rightly pointed out the hypocrisy of a thesis like this coming from Karen Armstrong, the author of over twenty books on God and religion.
Yet, despite the author's own struggles with the apophatic tradition, The Case for God is an eye opening book. It presents a sort of 'middle path' between the intolerance of the new atheists and the current evangelical christian movements. Armstrong makes the case for reading sacred texts allegorically, rather than literally, and dealing compassionately with our fellow humans, an attitude Armstrong claims is central to all religious traditions.
Yet, despite the author's own struggles with the apophatic tradition, The Case for God is an eye opening book. It presents a sort of 'middle path' between the intolerance of the new atheists and the current evangelical christian movements. Armstrong makes the case for reading sacred texts allegorically, rather than literally, and dealing compassionately with our fellow humans, an attitude Armstrong claims is central to all religious traditions.
Why do we need or not need god now, in the current age? This book does not answer this question.
Retitle it "The History Of God" and it would be more accurate. I'm done reading about religion now - it's going the same way as politics, with both sides arguing their own case without engaging with the other.
Retitle it "The History Of God" and it would be more accurate. I'm done reading about religion now - it's going the same way as politics, with both sides arguing their own case without engaging with the other.
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.
I have begun to question my spirituality and was hoping to understanding why. Karen Armstrong couldn't think of a better person to turn to for an broad education on religious beliefs. The Case for God begins by describing how the earliest humans in prehistoric times attempted to deal with their fears for their safety and survival and to help them structure their understand on the unknown. The book progresses through succeeding Old Testament, New Testament biblical periods and into the Reformation, Enlightenment, Scientific and modern periods. It's a book that's so long on theological theory and terminology that it's worth several times so that it all sinks in. Don't give up on it. It's rough in the beginning but picks up speed and becomes more easily comprehensible as it approaches the Middle and Modern Ages.
A rather confused book that is 90% truncated religious history (focused almost exclusively on the West and monotheism) and 10% polemic in favor of apophatic (e.g. negative) theology against modernist rationalist and fundamentalist religion and atheism. There is no unifying or overarching argument in the book, and for every concise and helpful summary of a philosophical/theological position or historical situation, there is at least one oversimplification or outright falsification.
The overview of the Documentary Hypothesis (JEPD) in the Hebrew Bible is decent, but the understanding of early American religion is almost complete nonsense. Likewise, the critique of New Atheists is right on, even when the solution to it becomes an embrace of a hodgepodge understanding of God across traditions without an acknowledgement of difference or competing claims (and the certainty that orthodoxy has NEVER, in any religion, treated texts in ways modernists or fundamentalists do is a complete fabrication).
For a text attempting to provide an understanding of truth amidst falsehood, it fails miserably despite the occasional insight worth sharing.
The overview of the Documentary Hypothesis (JEPD) in the Hebrew Bible is decent, but the understanding of early American religion is almost complete nonsense. Likewise, the critique of New Atheists is right on, even when the solution to it becomes an embrace of a hodgepodge understanding of God across traditions without an acknowledgement of difference or competing claims (and the certainty that orthodoxy has NEVER, in any religion, treated texts in ways modernists or fundamentalists do is a complete fabrication).
For a text attempting to provide an understanding of truth amidst falsehood, it fails miserably despite the occasional insight worth sharing.