The Case for God

Reviews (See all 12) Write a reviewfor this

• 
  

  The Case for God is fabulous. Far from being a polemic arguing in favour of any one interpretation of the divine or for the scientific validity or historic proofs in support of any one tradition, it most closely resembles an argument in favour of religion coming from a committed and very learned agnostic. I don't think I've enjoyed a book on religion this much since I read C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters as an overly-devout Christian pre-teen.

  Her argument is complex (note of warning: ... (show more)

  The Case for God is fabulous. Far from being a polemic arguing in favour of any one interpretation of the divine or for the scientific validity or historic proofs in support of any one tradition, it most closely resembles an argument in favour of religion coming from a committed and very learned agnostic. I don't think I've enjoyed a book on religion this much since I read C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters as an overly-devout Christian pre-teen.

  Her argument is complex (note of warning: it took me two months to read this book, and I'm a fast reader; the writing is lovely and clear but dense due to what is clearly an enormous amount of knowledge. Each paragraph feels like it could be a separate article; skimming and skipping are impossible), but could loosely be boiled down to:

  1. God is by definition unknowable; anything that might truthfully be labelled God would need to be so outside of human comprehension and capability that to define or label it is idolatrous. (That she criticizes much of modern religion this way--as being inherently idolatrous, because whatever definitions people put on God inevitably are a projection of the values and priorities of those people and thus make an idol of their own minds--is fascinating, and makes perfectly good sense.)

  2. It is moreover possible and even likely that what we call God is simply a tic of human consciousness or psychology.

  3. But, like art (which also expresses truth without being factual), the expression of that tic is important: it connects us to something larger than ourselves, allows us to cope under terrible circumstances, can give people meaning and purpose, and the committed practice of it can make people better--kinder, more compassionate, etc.

  4. Also like art, religion expresses symbolic and allegorical rather than factual or scientific truths, a point that was understood in all major world religions until the scientific revolution convinced a few prominent western philosophers that God could be "proven" in the same manner as the theory of gravity or evolution--and it's been downhill ever since.

  5. We'd all be a lot better off if we could relearn how to be comfortable with what she calls "unknowing."

  If I had four thumbs, I'd give this book four thumbs up. (show less)

   

   

  by Andrea McDowell on Dec 30, 2009 at 03:48PM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• 
  

  It would be surprising if anyone who “reads religion” has not heard of the prolific and popular Karen Armstrong. The Case for God is titled in parallel to her previous book The Battle for God (2001), however the title misleads. This is not an apologetic defense of God’s existence, but an irenic proposal for understanding the nature of religious truth. As in The Battle for God, Armstrong continues her polemic against “fundamentalisms”, now broadening the attack to include contemporary secular ... (show more)

  It would be surprising if anyone who “reads religion” has not heard of the prolific and popular Karen Armstrong. The Case for God is titled in parallel to her previous book The Battle for God (2001), however the title misleads. This is not an apologetic defense of God’s existence, but an irenic proposal for understanding the nature of religious truth. As in The Battle for God, Armstrong continues her polemic against “fundamentalisms”, now broadening the attack to include contemporary secular fundamentalisms (i.e. atheism). Fundamentalisms distort religion by focusing on belief rather than practice. Religion, for Armstrong, is essentially a practical discipline, or a set of disciplines, that create a capacity for understanding religious doctrine. Armstrong asserts the need for a balance between mythos and logos, but in this book is more concerned with the damaging effects of unbridled logos. Her sweeping but not superficial overview of the course of Western theology is divided in two parts. Part One (“The Unknown God: 30,000 BCE to 1500 CD”) looks to basic elements of ancient religion that are later misdirected or upended. Part Two (“The Modern God: 1500 CE to the present”) traces the religious impact of the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution. Most of us know the outlines of this story well enough, so it is no small thing to note Armstrong’s ability to keep the reader entertained. However, by the end of this 400 page tale I sat back a bit disappointed. Armstrong has argued throughout that we must return to an emphasis upon liturgy, spiritual exercises, and religious practices. She seems to call for a moratorium on divisive God talk, and the practice of apophatic God talk and liturgical silence. Despite her extensive survey of western theology she overlooks the classic medieval distinction between comprehension and knowledge: that is, that God can be known (because of revelation) although never comprehended (because of our own epistemological finitude). Armstrong’s winsome presentation of her own case finally leaves us with a God we can neither know nor comprehend. It is therefore an extensive and well-presented argument for an invisible and silent God. (show less)

   

   

  by Facebook User on Dec 02, 2009 at 08:09PM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• See all reviews
  Write a review