»

The Case For God

Karen Armstrong’s new book The Case For God is billed as a rebuttal to the New Atheists. And a rebuttal it is, although anyone expecting Hitchens-like vitriol will be sorely disappointed. Instead, it’s a reasoned look at how we got to where we are in this fundamentalist shouting match currently going on in the Western world, and why both sides have it wrong.

Armstrong begins with a description of the Lascaux caverns and their 15,000 year old shamanistic paintings, using it as an example of the intrinsic religious nature of humans – a concept with which I totally agree. She says “religion was not something tacked on to the human condition, an optional extra imposed on people by unscrupulous priests. The desire to cultivate a sense of the transcendent may be the defining human characteristic.”

Most of the book is a brief history of Western religious thought. There is some overlap with her earlier book A History of God, though The Case for God focuses mostly on Christianity. Her main argument is that from the dawn of time until the Enlightenment, people understood the difference between mythos and logos – whether a myth (including a religious myth) is literally true is beside the point. People were content with not knowing – they understood some things were beyond their capacity to know.

Enlightenment thinking and the rise of science changed Western culture, and religion changed with it. As more and more of the natural world was explained, people began to expect that everything would eventually be explained and should be explained, and in the process we lost the sense of mythos. Only then did theologians and other religious leaders begin to read the Bible literally. When science began to show that the Bible was not literally true, some couldn’t accept it and began the reactionary movement we know as fundamentalism.

It is literal interpretations and fundamentalist religions that the New Atheists rant against. Armstrong spends only a few pages pointing out the weakness of their argument. She says “the new atheists show a disturbing lack of understanding of or concern about the complexity and ambiguity of modern experience, and their polemic entirely fails to mention the concern for justice and compassion that, despite their undeniable failings, has been espoused by all three of the monotheisms.” Also, “the danger of this secularization of reason, which denies the possibility of transcendence, is that reason can become an idol that seeks to destroy all rival claimants.”

Most of the book describes the historical precedent for, and the advantages of, a better way. But it isn’t an easy way: “Religion is a practical discipline, and its insights are not derived from abstract speculation but from spiritual exercises and a dedicated lifestyle” and “The truths of religion are accessible only when you are prepared to get rid of the selfishness, greed and self-preoccupation that, perhaps inevitably, are ingrained in our thoughts and behavior but are also the source of so much of our pain.” It is only through spiritual practice (meditation, prayer, ritual, study) that the wisdom of religious myths begins to speak to us, and it is only through ethical practice (acts of compassion and a refusal to harm others) that the true power of religion manifests in the material world.

As you might expect, not everyone agrees with Armstrong. Many of the book reviews I found on-line were negative, some to the point of ridicule. In a Wall Street Journal piece, Richard Dawkins called Armstrong an atheist because her God isn’t the God Dawkins doesn’t believe in either. More dispassionately, Ross Douthat of The New York Times states the primary objection:

Most people, though, are not mystics and philosophers, and they are hungry for myths that are not only resonant but true. Apophatic religion [silent religion that embraces unknowing] may be the most rigorous way to go in search of an elusive God. But for most believers, it will remain a poor substitute for the idea that God has come in search of us.

Armstrong admits that some people need a literal religion. If they practice it diligently and with compassion, it can still be meaningful to them and helpful to the world – look at the charities run by Catholic church or the disaster relief work of the Southern Baptist Convention.

But the rest of us – a group that includes most Pagans and virtually all UUs – find ourselves caught between those that say we believe too little and those who say we believe too much. We don’t have to convert them or defeat them. We just have to have the confidence and the courage – and the determination – to practice our faith to the best of our abilities.

From almost the very beginning, men and women have repeatedly engaged in strenuous and committed religious activity. They evolved mythologies, rituals, and ethical disciplines that brought them intimations of holiness that seemed in some indescribable way to enhance and fulfill their humanity. They were not religious simply because their myths and doctrines were scientifically or historically sound … they were not bludgeoned into faith by power-hungry priests or kings. The point of religion was to live intensely and richly here and now. …

Instead of being crushed and embittered by the sorrow of life, they sought to retain their peace and serenity in the midst of their pain. Those who applied themselves most assiduously showed that it was possible for mortal men and women to live on a higher, divine, or godlike plane and thus wake up to their true selves.

May we have the courage to wake up!

Print Friendly

About John Beckett

I’m a Druid in the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids. I’m an ordained priest in the Universal Gnostic Fellowship. I’m the Coordinating Officer of the Denton, Texas Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans. This year I’m also serving as a member of the Board of Trustees of CUUPS National. I’m a member of the Denton Unitarian Universalist Fellowship.

I write as a spiritual practice. It helps me organize my thoughts and work through ideas and concepts. It helps me evaluate my beliefs and practices against my core values and against what I know (or at least, what I think I know) to be true. It helps me interpret my experiences (religious and otherwise) in ways that are both meaningful and honest.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12333184436301854794 Steve Caldwell

    You may want to check out this video of a talk by Daniel Dennett where he talks about modern "sophisticated" theology:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ

    Dennett mentions Karen Armstrong's
    theology and he does respond to something that she said in response to the new atheist writers and the question of god's existence that Armstrong doesn't think is that important.

    Armstrong said during an NPR interview that "God was no being at all." Dennett said that this was sophisticated theology.

    However, the statement "no being at all is God" would be considered crude atheism even though it's logically equivalent.

    Dennett calls this kind of "sophisticated theology" language a “deepity”: a statement that has two meanings, one of which is true but superficial, the other which sounds profound but is meaningless.

    One example of a deepity in Dennett's talk is the statement “Love is just a word.”

    True, it’s a word like “cheeseburger,” but the supposed deeper sense is wrong: love is an emotion, a feeling, a condition, and not just a word in the dictionary.

    Dennett also suggests in his talk that religion wasn't imposed on human communities by unscrupulous and manipulative priests. The aspects of religion that appear to be manipulative in religion may have evolved through an unconscious mimetic process similar to Darwinian natural selection.

    Religious ideas that are manipulative may thrive better than non-manipulative ideas in a darwinian mimetic competition — which could explain why religions that are oppressive and discourage questioning seem to thrive better than liberal religions.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635 Robin Edgar

    Guess what Steve. . .

    Ever so "liberal" Unitarian*Universalists, including U*U clergy and top level UUA leaders, are oppressive in various ways and discourage questioning in various ways, sometimes very heavy-handed ways.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00875369837359076688 JohnFranc

    I rarely watch long videos that people recommend (this one is 56 minutes), but I watched this one and it was quite good.

    From what I've read and seen of the "Four Horsemen", Dennett seems the most dispassionate. And nothing he had to say in this video was wrong. But he's still stuck criticizing religion at the literal level and ignoring the ethical and the mystical levels.

    While I've read numerous articles and essays by and about the New Atheists (and a lot by Christopher Hitchens), I've never read any of their books – they simply don't interest me. But perhaps I'm missing something in their shorter work that's present in the longer. While I was buying calendars today, I picked up a copy of "The God Delusion". I'll let you know what I think after I'm done with it.

  • http://joylightning.wordpress.com/ joylightning

    Thank you for this. Excellent summary. My friend had it out in audio books from the library. I listened to it over last weekend. All in one gulp. Luckily I am familiar with much of her work so I was able to absorb it at such a rate. I am also curious about the work of the new atheists. I have heard some of this kind of thinking in church.

    I love the point that she makes that people call people atheist because they believe differently. I love the irony that someone applied it to her.. Delightful!

    I don't know if I have the ability to read the work of the new atheists but I think it would be more intellectually honest if I did.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X