Philosophy : The Case for God
The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions | 
 | 60% Recommended by our customers.
Catalog:
Manufacturer: Knopf
Release Date: 2009-09-22
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
List Price: $27.95
Our Price: $15.08
Used Price: $10.98
(all prices are subject to changes)
More Details
Amazon international :
| |
- ISBN13: 9780307269188
- Condition: New
- Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
|
|
 Some theories I question
First I applaud Armstrong for trying to present Islam in a positive manner, but I would recommend that she read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, raised inside Islam as a women, and present a balanced picture of Islam as practiced not just theory.
Second, Armstrong goes into great detail that God is unknowable, yet she passes over comments by Jesus that God is a like a Father and can be love and known (John 17). I wish she had presented all the available evidence.
The Case against God; No Case for "God"
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.
message matters, myth(s) is metaphorical
Intro
(p XV) Logos or scientific method attains truth primarily via sensible experience.
Author states "We lost the art...of gods walking the earth, dead men striding out of tombs,..." etc. This is the case because these things never actually occurred!
"The nature of religious truth", does author shed light on what this nature is?
"quarreling about religion is counterproductive and not conducive to enlightenment" Agreed it can be messy like politics, and maybe this is the way it should be.
pg. xviii. "...there is a growing appreciation of the value of unknowing". This is a confusing notion given that author refers to some of the ancients. For example, Aristotle in logical writings begins, "all people [sic] by nature desire to have knowledge". Not ignorance, not unknowing, not ambiguity, but to know!
Ch 1 - p 8 -author states a myth "will tell us something valuable about the human predicament". Author could help us along by giving an example. What is the value of a person "resurrecting" from the dead? Or walking on water? Or a so-called virgin birth? I have thought about the latter and it seems to me if God has created all of nature, and if God is the embodiment of all that is good, then why wouldn't this God want to be born into life just like all of His creatures, and reveal that even sex itself is part of the full experience of life?
At best a myth can convey metaphoric truth. Otherwise myths should be challenged when their proponents infuse them with greater meaning then they could ever deliver.
P 9 - author states, "the desire to cultivate a sense of the transcendent may be the defining human characteristic." Is this sense any more than the creative impulse as expressed through art, music, science, or other creative endeavors?
P 140, the so-called ascetics of the Medieval period, such as Francis of Assisi need to be re-examined from modern view. Were these people actually religious or deranged by choosing a life of poverty? And then some of them promoted the crusades? Sounds antithetical to the message in the Gospels.
p. 146 Continuing on theme of Francis, it seems his life could be described as antihuman, regressive and an unsound version of Christianity. In further discussions on religious figures Rolle and Catherine of Siena, under the examination of a psychiatrist they would require some intensive therapeutic intervention.
In the "Death of God" chapter author notes at start: "...and the young railed against the modern ethos of their parents". And this ethos we rebelled against included racism, legalized drug addiction (e.g., tobacco abuse and alcoholism), marital discord and spousal abuse, and collaboration of authority institutions like the churches with these same failing individual and social behaviors.
Pg, 293, author right on target when she states that all fundamentalist movements, whether Christian, Islam, or Jewish, are "..defensive...rooted in fear of annihilation....and paranoid...of (enemy)."
Pg 294, refers to Islamic notion "..if their society is just and egalitarian, it will prosper..."
Huh? Islam just and egalitarian? For whom? The mullahs and sheiks? Seems a failed culture for most of its adherents. What is modernity?
Then on next page refers in the "Jewish world, fundamentalism took ...major steps...after the Shoah...and after the October War of 1973". Can you blame them? It seems to me Jewish culture is hardly fundamentalist except for possibly Hasidism(?).
On pgs 300 and 301 author quotes polls on attitudes of Muslims about the West, and to improve relations "present Islamic values in a positive manner." Do you mean Sharia law? Polygamy?
And finally the old saw about "the political issues and grievances...of the Muslim world". Let them eat cow chips - how's that for a grievance?
In subsequent pages refers to scientists such as Monod and the dauntless Dawkins (aka Darwin's "Saul of Tarsus") pontificating on the cause of the "religious impulse". Like most scientists they are better off in their own disciplines. Gould is probably closer to explaining the distinction between religion and science, though poets, muses and the arts do a better job overall. Do we need a scientific examination of the aesthetic value of Handel's "Messiah" or Bach's "Mass in B Minor"? To mine ears there's an ecstasy!
Pg 306, "..science itself has to rely on an act of faith." It's not clear why this is the case. It is not the same as religious faith if this is what these thinkers meant.
A scientific hypothesis is nothing akin to religious faith, unless the hypothesis is an estimation of the number of angels on a pinhead. I would say science is based more on a hunch or a supposition(s), given the evidence in hand or lack thereof. By definition, theology presupposes there is a god, and then it fills in the details whether the evidence is supportive of this presupposition or not.
p. 309 per P. Dirac "It is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit the experiment." Aren't the equations derived from experimental work, which is often messy, chaotic, disorganized, and subject to misinterpretation? Rather I would say it`s important that the experimental work gets done right, so that the equations themselves, beautiful or plain, can be as accurate as possible.
In many ways the works of Augustine and Aquinas are outdated by today's thinking. When Augustine uttered "What do I love when I love my God"? (p 315), how do we make sense of such a statement? Put yourself in his position, on the cusp of the end of the Roman empire, at the beginning of a "dark" cultural and historical era, and embracing a risky and embattled new faith. Augustine threw his lot in with this faith, and he was latching on to a certain kind of life, or ideal, that he could continually strive toward, and at the same time he was contributing to the philosophical basis of this new faith.
In Epilogue, p 319, refers to the "Socratic dialogue was never aggressive...conducted with courtesy, gentleness, and consideration."
Unfortunately this is some kind of Platonic ideal, for in the modern era, in order to get to the truth, scientific, forensic, or otherwise, a certain assertiveness or toughness with data are sometimes required. We are dealing with a far greater array of scoundrel today, from the neighborhood pedophile, to the deranged "religious" terrorist to the myriad financial hucksters and charlatans.
Author states "perhaps time to return to a theology...more open to silence and unknowing". What makes more sense is less theology and more commitment, engagement in the world, and curiosity.
p. 329 "Muslims venerate Muhammad as the "Perfect Man"...the ideal human being." This is hogwash and propaganda at its best. Even Christ himself was not the "Perfect Man" and he did not go around murdering his rivals. (Read E. Gibbon and his discussion of the Musselmen).
Bottom line: what is the purpose or function of religion? Does belief in a supreme being really matter? Does it matter if Christ was an incarnation of God or a common laborer looking for a career change? Is there a meaningful distinction between religion and theology? Do we need theology?
Author refers to quite a few literary, philosophy and scientific giants. No doubt the poetry of Wordsworth (read "Tintern Abbey" and "Intimations of Immortality") are literary gold; philosophers Kant and the lesser known Lonergan are uniquely insightful; and the mathematical genius of Newton (read book "Isaac") was key to the new scientific age.
Author is trying to address many concerns the other former monastic, Thomas Moore (not the saintly one), attempts in his numerous quasi-spiritual books. Armstrong touches all the bases so to speak, but in the end does she convince?
Only one error, pg. 122 - Augustine died in year 430 not 630 AD. Otherwise, very well written and in many ways an entertaining book by Prof. Armstrong.
 Not christian
OK, i read this book,in part because a theist friend told me it was the opposite of the God Delusion & i can only answer "It sure is." One book went with quantifiable fact & the other went with "I have a feeling" dressed up to look like fact. I seriously couldn't even consider this book to be a representative of christianty, but more a very light version of Deism.
Beyond that it was painful to read. The style is hard to churn through & i must assume written in such a way that it sounds too complex for the common man to refute. Not worth the cover price for anybody regardless of thelogical bent.
-M
 Excellent merger of religious writings and historical events
This book takes you through an easy to follow and extremely relevant progression of religous developments throughout our history. A number of aspects that have long been changed or reinterpretted are presented in their original context, which imbues some of the teachings with a much different tone.
|
|
|
