Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Unavailable
    The Case for God
    Unavailable
    The Case for God
    Unavailable
    The Case for God
    Audiobook16 hours

    The Case for God

    Published by Penguin Random House Audio

    4/5

    ()

    Currently unavailable

    Currently unavailable

    About this audiobook

    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 called by many names, such as God, Brahman, Nirvana, Allah, or Dao. Focusing especially on Christianity but including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Chinese spiritualities, 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 unbelievable? Why is it that atheists and theists alike now think and speak about God in a way that veers so profoundly from the thinking of our ancestors?

    Answering these questions with the same depth of knowledge and profound insight that have marked all 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. Yet she cautions us that religion was never supposed to provide answers that lie within the competence of human reason; that, she says, is the role of logos. The task of religion is "to help us live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there are no easy explanations." She emphasizes, too, that religion will not work automatically. It is, she says, a practical discipline: its insights are derived not from abstract speculation but from "dedicated intellectual endeavor" and a "compassionate lifestyle that enables us to break out of the prism of selfhood."


    From the Hardcover edition.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherPenguin Random House Audio
    Release dateSep 22, 2009
    ISBN9780307702388
    Unavailable
    The Case for God

    Related to The Case for God

    Related audiobooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Time For The Church To Embark On A Navel-gazing Exercise

      Mar 31, 2024

      FOR any political structure that fails in the absence of moral direction, it would seem natural for it to turn to organised religion for leadership. Unfortunately, the direction of most modern institutional religion is decidedly secular. The institu

      5 min read

    • Article

      Spiritual Or Atheist? More Nonbelievers Are Saying ‘Both.’

      Mar 11, 2019

      In a letter up for auction, Albert Einstein talked about admiring “in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of the world.” More nonbelievers say they are seeking a sense of awe and reverence in their own lives.

      6 min read

    • Article

      The Worth of an Angry God: How supernatural beliefs allowed societies to bond and spread.

      Dec 15, 2021

      A god who knows everything, is everywhere, and wields impossible power, is a potent fantasy. Allegiance to it animates the lives of billions worldwide. But this “Big God,” as psychologists and anthropologists refer to it, wasn’t dreamt from scratch b

      8 min read

    • Article

      The Worth of an Angry God

      May 30, 2019

      A god who knows everything, is everywhere, and wields impossible power, is a potent fantasy. Allegiance to it animates the lives of billions worldwide. But this “Big God,” as psychologists and anthropologists refer to it, wasn’t dreamt from scratch b

      8 min read

    • Article

      Two Complementary Knowledge Systems

      Apr 29, 2023

      Throughout history, humanity has depended on two basic knowledge systems: science and religion. These two sources of knowledge provide the basic organising principles by which individuals, communities and institutions function and evolve. However, ma

      2 min read

    • Article

      ‘What Seek Ye?’

      Jul 31, 2020

      ‘What Seek Ye?’
      8 min read

    • Article

      The Ancient Rites That Gave Birth to Religion

      May 30, 2019

      The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was w

      11 min read

    • Article

      Church In A Gay Bar: Queer Chicagoans Find Ways To Merge Religion And Identity

      Aug 19, 2019

      CHICAGO - The second Tuesday of every month, Affirming Worship holds church in Atmosphere, an Andersonville gay bar. The organization, founded in March 2019 by Kelly Ravenscraft, 22, and Michael McBride, 38, works against what a traditional Christian

      7 min read

    • Article

      The Choice Is Ours

      Mar 4, 2024

      In December 1866, mathematician Mary Boole wrote to Charles Darwin: Do you consider the holding of your Theory of Natural Selection, in its fullest & most unreserved sense, to be inconsistent,—I do not say with any particular scheme of Theological do

      3 min read

    • Article

      To Understand Religion, Think Football: Sacred beliefs likely arose out of prehistoric bonding and rituals.

      Aug 11, 2016

      The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was w

      13 min read

    • Article

      To Understand Religion, Think Football: Sacred beliefs likely arose out of prehistoric bonding and rituals.

      Sep 4, 2014

      The invention of religion is a big bang in human history. Gods and spirits helped explain the unexplainable, and religious belief gave meaning and purpose to people struggling to survive. But what if everything we thought we knew about religion was w

      13 min read

    • Article

      What Is The Grail Message?

      Jan 31, 2020

      THE THREE VOLUMES of In the Light of Truth contain a total of 168 lectures whose contents, building upon one another, give a picture of Creation in entirety. The Author’s all-embracing view is based on well-known natural laws, which reveal the hidden

      2 min read

    • Article

      Book Briefs

      Sep 14, 2021

      WHEN DEATH CEASES to be an abstraction and becomes an inevitability, rumination upon its imminence requires a rare act of courage. Such is the exquisite fortitude exhibited by the late scholar C. W. Huntington Jr. in his posthumously published What I

      4 min read

    • Article

      Atheism, the Computer Model

      Feb 16, 2017

      In the United States, the nones have it. The nones being people with no organized religion and increasingly no belief in God or a universal spiritual power. They have the momentum, attention, and an expectation that in the future they will become a m

      10 min read

    • Article

      Can We Feel Safe When We Worship?

      Apr 29, 2019

      In the wake of this weekend’s shooting at a synagogue not far from her home, today’s contributor reflects on how understanding the nature and power of God as Love can bring peace and calm as we attend our places of worship.

      3 min read

    • Article

      Angry Students Called This Professor ‘Disgusting.’ He’s Still An Optimist.

      Apr 2, 2019

      Yale Prof. Nicholas Christakis’ new book, “Blueprint,” looks at how humans have evolved into a species that is fundamentally good.

      6 min read

    Reviews for The Case for God

    4/5

    192 ratings20 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 5/5
      Which God?If you believe in the God of creation, the God that intervenes in history, the one and only God, be it Judaic, be it Muslin, be it Christian, Karen Armstrong’s case is weak. If your God lives with you, encompasses all your weaknesses, accepts your moral idiosyncrasies and relates to your history and desires, Karen Armstrong’s case is strong. The book examines the diverse ideas of God through history and gives special attention to the modern and postmodern concepts of a religious life and it opposite, the atheist self. Science and religion are confronted and reconciled, at least the author tries it. Meanwhile, she advances her ideas of a personal God, without dogmas, a God that gives meaning to our life. Her arguments seems compelling. Her book gives the reader a good and well researched overview of the development of the idea of God in the monotheistic religions.
    • 5/5
      The Case for God by Karen Armstrong presents a most unsettling picture of mankind’s quest to define God. Every era from antiquity, Greeks, Romans, medieval, Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, modern, and the post-modern age based its understanding on the knowledge and culture of that period. These beliefs of Rousseau’s concept of a universal machine, Newton’s God and the universe, Darwin’s evolution, Einstein’s relativity, post-modern atheists of the “God is dead” movement, and the rise of fundamentalism gained some traction. But the search of God continued to be illusive with detractors. It was however determined that the rise of scientific evidence was based on measurement, while religious beliefs centered on virtues. In the epilogue Armstrong did an excellent analysis of what she saw as the foundation of religious beliefs. Nevertheless the contents of this book would be rather disturbing to believers who think they understand their God.
    • 4/5
      I've given this book 3.5 stars, which I actually think is under-rating it, but I must pay attention to the fact that it took me 3.5 years to read it. By definition it would seem that I must have forgotten more than I retained at that rate.Armstrong took us from Zhuangzi (c. 370-311 BCE) to the current tension between Protestant fundamentalists and science, with many stops along the way.The reason it took me so long to read is because I read it on the metro on my way to being picked up for the ride to Frederick on Mondays....15-20 minutes a week....
    • 4/5
      Loved it
      Could have been a bit more concise but one of the best books I have read this month
    • 2/5
      I liked much of Armstrong's A History of God, but then in the second half of the book, she became more and more personal and judgmental, finally subordinating history to plugging her religious preference; this picks up right where that left off. Since this is an argument for a particular point of view, it is not necessarily required to be fair and balanced, but a few things cause me to doubt Armstrong's reliability. There is, for example, a serious discrepancy between Armstrong's claims about Medieval religion and the Crusades for the so-called Holy Land, which she condemns as “one of the most shameful developments in Western Christian history.” The Crusaders' “idolatrous” view of God was widely shared by their society. (p.139) She idealizes some things and ignores issues that seem obvious to me, such as folk religion.Armstrong's contention is that prior to the Age of Enlightenment, no-one took their scriptures literally, but interpreted them via mythos. The divine, whether immanent or transcendent was ineffable, but human beings could bring themselves in touch with it by means of spiritual exercises or a life of virtue: kindness, compassion, etc. She prefers the apophatic (speechless) tradition in which the believer learns to understand that God is beyond description, and gets beyond his or her own intellect. She sometimes seems to be presenting this as universal in basic content and practice, but in other places concedes that it is not (see pp. xviii, 140.) Since she doesn't talk much about the alternatives, one must ask if it is really true that fundamentalism is such a betrayal of its tradition, or just a continuation of the bits she doesn't like (such as the aforementioned Crusades.) Armstrong asserts that it is only with the coming of Modernity that people take their scripture literally; she has great hopes for Post-Modernity. The page numbers correspond to the hardcover Random House edition (2009).I will disclose that I am an agnostic atheist, which in my case means that I think and believe that there is no deity(ies), but I acknowledge that it is not open to empirical verification. I regard the ineffable of which Armstrong speaks as another category. I believe that Armstrong would agree with me that The Ineffable is not a deity, but traditional Christian terminology makes it hard for her not to use “God,” but the term risks confusing the various definitions of the word, the personal being with the impersonal non-being, although for some people I believe that is deliberate. I shall use the term The Ineffable in this review for clarity. A problem here is the question of how the common person experienced this. One of the greatest failings of histories, in my opinion, is not considering class. Some of the practices, such as Origen's (pp. 95-96) seem unavailable to common people who simply don't have the time, being tied up with practical matters, like farming, either for learning about the ideas or working with them. Armstrong asserts that by participating in liturgical ceremonies which induced an altered state and understanding the mythos symbolically they also made contact with The Ineffable. Somehow that doesn't seem the equal of Origen's efforts, or else Origen was trying too hard. In the Middle Ages, the cloister was as much a dumping ground for spare heirs as a haven for those with a religious vocation, and most did not accept the lower classes. One can just imagine the delight of the elite, including most of the church hierarchy, if the younger peasants, slaves, and serfs wanted to lay done their hoes and seek The Ineffable like Origen. Armstrong discusses the belief in The Ineffable in Vedic and early Middle Eastern religion, but one wonders what to make of the many deities, and the saints in Catholicism. Armstrong deals with this only by saying: “The gods were not the source of ilam but, like anything else, could only reflect it.” (p. 14) They may not have been omnipotent, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they were unreal or had no power. After all, politicians are not omnipotent either, but the politically well connected can still get nice advantages from them. Some argue that revering a lesser deity is a symbolic way of getting a small purchase on The Ineffable, but perhaps they indicate that The Ineffable is too remote and abstract to be of comfort or provide a hope of help with life's daily problems. She sees The Ineffable as a source of comfort, but she doesn't address whether it answers prayers or whether comfort came from Itself or from contemplation. I can well understand that, when there is nothing one can do about a situation prayers, ceremonies, and sacrifices would relieve the frustration. Armstrong says Aristotle believed The Ineffable is busy contemplating itself (p.72). How do we know if It notices us, or cares how we behave? This seems somewhat unlikely to me, particularly in traditions where it is also transcendent. Nor do I think that we need The Ineffable to understand the need for kindness and compassion; as Willard Gaylin said in his book Talk is not Enough: 'We human beings do not choose to live in social relations, we are obliged to. Writing in Animals as Social Beings (1964). the great biologist Adolf Portmann said: “Man comes to 'sociability' not by 'arrangement,' by rational decision, but by the natural primary disposition that he shares with all higher animals.” (Chap. 10 “The Therapeutic Alliance”) If this is all to be understood symbolically, to the extent that it is to be understood at all, how does one explain the the bitter contention between Arius and Athanasius, the Albigensian Crusade, the various other Crusade in Europe against pagans as well as Christian heretics, as well as against Islam for the so-called Holy Land, or burning heretics? Armstrong tries to present the expulsion/forced conversion of Spanish Jews and Muslims in the 1490s as a part of the coming modern era, a new intolerance, ignoring the persecution and expulsions of Jews in Europe during the Medieval period. This is an assertion which causes me to doubt her veracity. Why would people makes expensive sacrifices to the deity(ies) or The Ineffable, including the sacrifice of high-ranking people if this is all symbolic? Incidentally, there is an anti-symbolic myth in which a group of Norsemen try to make a symbolic sacrifice to Odin. A devout man, outraged at this impiety, touched the “sacrifice” and said, “I give you to Odin.” At that, the sacrifice became real as Odin claimed his due.In the end, Armstrong doesn't convince me of the arguments that she is trying to make about the nature of earlier religion, the catastrophic effects of the Enlightenment and modernity, or the existence (and non-existence) of The Ineffable, which is why I give it a low score, but the book is still interesting, taking her bias into account. I particularly liked the discussion of the Lascaux caves as possibly being used for initiation rites, and I found it interesting to read an account of Newton and his contemporaries focusing on their religious views. Armstrong complains that atheists discuss only literal minded believers in criticizing religion. These are the believers that cause the most concern, and also the ones who seem to do the best at attracting and retaining members, at least in the United States. In addition, having been raised in a liberal main line church, I agree with A.N. Wilson in his book God's Funeral: "The liberal Protestant way had its charms. It involved minimalism in doctrinal observance, vagueness in theological definition, and cloudiness of expression when anything so dangerous as a definition was required." It is difficult to discuss the nebulous. (Wilson's book is about attitudes towards religion in the Victorian era, not an argument that God doesn't exist.)I want to compliment the publisher, or whoever designed the notes on the clarity with which they are labeled. There is one exception. In one note, Armstrong says that she will hereafter refer to a certain work as "DN." I do not read, let along memorize every note, so I had to scan backwards to find out what "DN" meant in a later note. I think that should be in a separate section of abbreviations, and people shouldn't be too free with widely scattered "op. cits", either.
    • 3/5
      Armstrong offers a creative, convincing response to and critique of the "new atheists" such as Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. She also offers a quick course in the evolution of Christian thinking and practice about God, which toward the end, in her discussion of modern thinkers and theologians, I found a bit compressed and hurried.
    • 4/5
      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 ‘new atheists’. 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 ‘freelance monotheist’. In other words, she succeeds in finding a definition of ‘God’ 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 – A History of God and The Battle for God – are absolutely essential reading for anyone who wants to enter into the debate. This book, which is designed as a sort of ‘comeback’ 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 – 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 – 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 – Basil, Gregory and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus (329-90) – 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 ‘mystery’ that had to be believed but an image that Christians were supposed to contemplate in a particular way.Such ideas were thus thought-exercises – like Zen Buddhist koan – designed to free up your mind to think about the impossible. For many of these mystics and religious thinkers, ‘God’ was not some supernatural entity – rather ‘God’ was a sort of codeword for ‘existence’, ‘reality’, or ‘the universe’, 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 ‘addicted 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.’This doesn't mean that religion is ‘only’ a myth – or rather, it does, except that Armstrong believes that myths, far from being ‘just stories’, 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 ‘sad-eyed angel’, 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: ‘Where is God? Where is He?’ And Wiesel heard a voice within him saying in response, ‘Where is He? Here He is – He is hanging here on this gallows.’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 – 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 ‘silent majority’ 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.
    • 1/5
      Who remembers the old Popeye the Sailor's idiom: That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more? Well I can't stands anymore of this book. I am a big fan of books that deal with why people have beliefs and the different religions and looked forward to reading this book. That is until I read the first long, drawn out, and very boring 130 pages. This book is a textbook for Mensa members who want to write a doctrine in religious studies . . . it's not for the general public. Names, dates, countries . . . one after another, after another. My mind was mush and I couldn't remember what the chapter was about. There were 200 more pages, but I said NO, I had had enough.
    • 4/5
      This one took me a while to read while I digested some of it, this was not an easy read, some of it felt like it was skirting the issue a little. It argues against absolutism and for religion that is built of acceptance and love of other and self. I had minor issues with some parts of it, the thought that logically religion moves from mono to poly-theism doesn't sit well with me and ignores some religions that are still happily co-existing with monotheistic thought. Still, for someone interested in religion and thoughts on the change of the concept of god within western tradition it's an interesting read, but impossible to try all in one go.
    • 5/5
      This is another terrific study of religion by Karen Armstrong, the eminently learned (and prolific) British writer. "The Case For God" in some respects covers the same ground as her earlier "A History of God". This work, however, focusses on central issues in the relationship between human beings and God -- or, perhaps, not-God. Ms. Armstrong is clearly not happy with the "modern" view of God, which she argues (convincingly) has evolved in conflict with and relationship to humanity's exploding scientific knowledge. She leans more towards an attitude of "unknowing" and wordless awe, and towards a mystic view of religion, one that lives through metaphore, ritual, and contemplation. But she is also eminently practical in her view of how religion works in the world: through compassion. Ms. Armstrong, for me, is less convincing in her case for some sort of God than in her case against some views of God -- against rigid dogmatism, against fundamentalism of all stripes, and against the "new" atheism of Hitchens et all. But that may simply mean that I need to read this book again, and to follow Ms. Armstrong's lead into further reading. All in all, a fascinating and valuable book.
    • 5/5
      I was first introduced to Karen Armstrong as part of assigned readings for an accrediting program I was completing. "A History of God" was painfully slow reading but thoroughly engaging. I have continued reading books by this remarkable woman and continue to be both impressed and educated. This book is no exception. As a scientist and a religious educator, I particularly appreciate her ability to weave these two, often antagonistic, threads together. Armstrong was the featured speaker at the national gathering of Unitarian Universalists in June and she was both captivating and funny. I am now on to her newest publication, "The Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life." One published review said this book should be read slowly and savored. I absolutely agree.
    • 4/5
      Karen Armstrong deftly dismantles the wall between science and spirituality, giving reason for both camps to respect and take each other seriously. Staggering bibliography! Authoritative as it gets!
    • 3/5
      Armstrong's books cover a lot of groundl. Here, she surveys the received theology (my words, not here) from 30,000 BCE to our current millenium, narrowing her focus to the Abrahamic faiths as that sort of narrowing starts to make sense, touching on the economic, cultural, scientific and political events as well as the intellectual currents that shaped the unreflective theology of the general run of people. What they more-or-less believed, in other words, if not pressed to far.It is a well-told, coherent narrative, sometimes drifting into little more than lists of names but not often, remarkabke in it's breadth of scholarship and also in the courtesy she shows the reader in just keeping the story going. There's plenty to disagree with, if that's what you're looking for, but I enjoyed the sweeping review of stuff that I have paid attention to for most of my life but never imagined they could be so well combined into a single story.I give the book three stars instead of four because it's obviously polemical but doesn't make the argument strongly enough: "...it is perhaps time to return to a theology that asserts less and is more open to silence and unknowing" (page 326). Just so.Her better books are [A History of God] and [The Battle for God] in my opinion. This one is certainly worth reading, but a little redundant if you've read the others.
    • 3/5
      Karen Armstrong makes no case for God and only a weak, uneven, and confused case for "God." She clearly (and rightly) dismisses theology that treats God as merely the greatest power in existence, but ultimately fails to explain why the word or label "God" remains useful. In the final pages, where I hoped to see her "case" become clear, she only advocates what amounts to active engagement with life, mindfulness, and recognition of uncertainty. Why we need "to engage with a symbol [like "God"] imaginatively [and] become ritually and ethically involved with it" is not clear, except Armstrong claims that doing so will "allow it [the symbol] to effect a profound change in you." (See page 321.)Armstrong rightly points out that "God" the symbol too easily becomes God the idol, which is "one of the pitfalls of monotheism" (page 321), so why should we bother putting a label on "religious experience," which she appears to define as "explor[ing] the normal workings of our minds and notic[ing] how frequently these propel us quite naturally into transcendence" (page 327)? And what is "transcendence" anyway? If putting words on these things creates a dangerous "pitfall," then Armstrong has fatally undercut her case. To portray her book and her argument as being a "case for God," she is only irresponsibly perpetuating the problem that she has spilled so much ink to reveal, not just in this book, but in several earlier ones.It does seem quite "natural" or "normal"—perhaps a better word is "commonplace"—to recognize that we remain ignorant of the true nature of reality, but doing so while actively engaging with life and practicing mindfulness does not require having a label or a symbol like "God." Or Armstrong, at least, has not convincingly argued that it does, which is what I expected her to do, right from the beginning of the book.Ultimately (and unfortunately), this book follows what now appears to this reader as a clear progression in her work: writing that increasingly looks less like history, or even history of ideas, and more like roughly chronological bibliography with connective glosses here and there. It is not an argument, but a guided tour through Karen Armstrong's reading. Taken on those terms, The Case for God is quite an interesting work. But taken on the terms by which it seems to present itself, it is a failure.
    • 5/5
      Excellent stuff - I thought it covered a lot of the same ground as her 'A History of God', albeit with a narrower focus (that book giving an overview of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and more irritation at the way talk about religion is currently conducted by both believers and non-believers. That made it more pointed, and for my money more enjoyable (if less comprehensive). It was also a lot more challenging than her previous books, unless my memory fails me/mind is slowing down - but that's very much a positive. My only caveat is the slight re-hash, otherwise this is fascinating and thought-provoking. If nothing else, it's refreshing to be reminded that there's more to life than scripture-worshippers and Sam Harris.
    • 5/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      This is the first book I've read by Karen Armstrong. I've heard her books referred to as: "A history of God by an athiest." Upon reading this book, I think that is an inaccurate assesment. (Though she says her views on the subject of athiesm have developed since her early days of writing). This book is an historical account of religions (especially Christianity/Judaism/Islam) throughout time. The history is used as a background to describe how fundamentalism and athiesm have developed to the strictly opposing viewpoints that they are. Although the writing is dense and philosophical, I appreciated the message of the book: strict dogmatic viewpoints can lead to emotionally charged (and irrational) clashes. In forcing these unyielding beliefs upon ourselves and our neighbors, we lose the true message of spirituality.
    • 3/5
      Summary/Review:From the title this book appears to be an apologetic approach to theism. Close but not quite. Karen Armstrong in fact writes an history of religious belief and practice (and the parallel growth of atheism) from prehistoric cave paintings to postmodern philosophers. While mostly focused on Western thought - and Christianity within that - Armstrong manages to incorporate a lot of world religion which makes a massive topic for a short book. And yet it's chock full of fascinating tidbits and connections I've never made.Armstrong's main points in this book are that literalism - both that which is insisted upon by religious conservatives and railed against by their anti-theist opponents - is a relatively modern phenomenon. Historically practice trumped belief and our fore-bearers would not comprehend the all-or-nothing approach of today's religious adherents.I'm not going to admit that I understood it all, but I did enjoy Armstrong's writing and ideas and would like to read more of her work.Favorite Passages:A good creation myth did not describe an event in the distant past but told people something essential about the present. It reminded them that things often had to get worse before they got better, that creativity demanded self-sacrifice and heroic struggle, and that everybody had to work hard to preserve the energies of the cosmos and establish society on a sound foundation. A creation story was primarily therapeutic. - p. 16Fundamentalism — be it Jewish, Christian, or Muslim — nearly always begins as a defensive movement; it is usually a response to a campaign of coreligionists or fellow countrymen that is experienced as inimical and invasive. - p. 271Thus the cosmologist Paul Davies speaks of his delight in science with its unanswered, and, perhaps, unanswerable questions .... Davies has confessed "It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion, science offers a surer path to God than religion." He is still asking the primordial question: Why is there something rather than nothing? - p. 310The ideal society should be based on charity rather than truth. In the past, [Gianni] Vattimo recalls, religious truth generally emerged from people interacting with others rather than by papal edict. Vattimo recalls Christ's saying, "When two or three are gathered in my name, I will be in the midst of them," and the classic hymn, "Where there is love, there is also God." - p. 314
    • 5/5
      Superb historical account of the history of religious thought. There is a particular emphasis on Western Christian perspectives but not entirely limited to that. I found the conclusion to be surprising in that Armstrong doesn't argue for a 'God' that exists, rather she explores our need for significance, the need to acknowledge that there are aspects of our lives that go beyond the scientific (science can tell us we have cancer but is silent on how we can best deal with that) and that there are spaces beyond our imagining (why is there something, not nothing).I felt she shone a light on a murky place.
    • 4/5
      I enjoy Karen Armstrong's books, I think she presents a balanced view of religion and human kind's search for spirital meaning. She is very well read and knowledge, remainds me of Wil Durant.