Log In

View Full Version : The Case for God



JuliaB
10-28-2009, 09:35 PM
After watching the Dawkins talk on atheism, I thought I would post this for the balance. Julia

The Case for God

By Karen Armstrong

(Alfred A. Knopf; 411 pages; $27.95)

Karen Armstrong has written another big book about the various ways people throughout history and across cultures envision and explain what they can neither see nor understand.

This new work by the prolific British author is titled "The Case for God." It takes 411 pages to argue that the postmodern believer must find a theology of silence, a catechism beyond words.
Her message inspires this advice for time-pressed readers who'd like to practice what Armstrong preaches:

Read the introduction, then skip to the final chapter. Make sure you read the Epilogue, but don't worry too much about those 289 pages in between.
Armstrong, who attracted a loyal following with her 1993 best-seller "A History of God," is a brilliant woman and engaging commentator on the philosophical and theological foundations of the world's religions. But she has an annoying tendency to explain the history of everything every time she wants to make a point.

Her point here is a well-reasoned response to the so-called "new atheists," a trio of anti-religionists (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens) who surprised the publishing world with their own series of best-selling books.

Armstrong rightly points out that these writers have committed literary sins - not so much with their disbelief in God - but in the way they seek to discredit all people of faith by focusing on the intolerant and sometimes violent message promoted by Muslim, Christian and Jewish fundamentalists.

In the process, Armstrong argues, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are guilty of the same narrow-mindedness that they seek to expose. "Like all religious fundamentalists," she writes, "the new atheists believe that they alone are in possession of truth; like Christian fundamentalists, they read scripture in an entirely literal manner."

This former nun and author of 18 other books on religious themes outdoes the new atheists with her own critique of contemporary religious fundamentalism. "It is essential for critics of religion to see fundamentalism in historic context," she writes. "Far from being typical of faith, it is an aberration."

Armstrong does not just go after the easy targets - the Osama bin Ladens and Jerry Falwells of the world. Nor does she avoid the obvious horrors of Christendom - the Crusades, the Inquisition and the wars of religion. She recounts that bloody horror, but continues with a subtler analysis of the way modern theologians sought to rationalize the divine in the wake of the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution.

Philosophers who mistakenly predicted "the death of God" were dead wrong in that prophecy, but they did seriously injure the Almighty by turning divinity into "a purely notional truth attainable by the rational and scientific intellect, without ritual, prayer or ethical commitment."
"Religion was never supposed to provide answers to questions that lay within the reach of human reason," Armstrong concludes. "Religion's task, closely allied to that of art, was to help us live creatively, peacefully, and even joyfully with realities for which there were no easy explanations."
This is not an easy task. True religion "requires a great deal of effort and cannot succeed if it is facile, false, idolatrous, or self-indulgent."
Armstrong does uncover a few gems in her lucid but sometimes tiring recitation of the entire history of Greek philosophy, Jewish mysticism, Christian theology and Muslim thought.

One of them was a sixth century Syrian mystic who used the pseudonym Dionysius the Areopagite, who was St. Paul's first Athenian convert. Here was a Christian writer who appreciated the value of silence and a different kind of knowledge - an "unknowing" that "drives us out of ourselves."
Armstrong writes that Pseudo-Dionysius understood "the inherent finitude of language," and ends her book with the suggestion that "it is perhaps time to return to a theology that asserts less and is more open to silence and unknowing."

Let's err on the side of praise, and find mystical paradox in the way Armstrong takes so many words to get us to a truth beyond words. For, in the end, "The Case for God" sounds an enlightened call for people of faith - and people of no faith - to follow a middle path between mindless fundamentalism and rigid atheism.


Don Lattin is a former Chronicle religion writer. His new book, "The Harvard Psychedelic Club - How Timothy Leary, Ram Dass, Huston Smith and Andrew Weil Killed the Fifties and Ushered in a New Age for America," will be published in January by HarperCollins. E-mail him at [email protected] (https://us.mc1114.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]).

Sonomamark
10-29-2009, 11:10 PM
The reviewer misses the point of the debate. Probably intentionally, as it doesn't appear that she actually makes a "case for God", either.

Dawkins & Co.'s error is not in their factual analysis, but in their communication strategy. People's primary motivation in being religious doesn't spring from the cognitive neocortical mind, and they will not find the satisfactions that religiosity provides through the kind of smug satisfaction that Dawkins and the like seem to get out of being right. Those guys are getting nowhere except with people who also get a real charge out of feeling smart and looking down on those they see as ignorant or stupid.

That said, the odds are overwhelming that they ARE right: that there are no gods, there is no physically puissant "magic" (that includes physically effective--as opposed to psychologically effective--prayer). Evidence that such things exist is vanishingly thin and anecdotal--evidence that they cannot exist is monumental. There is no verifiable phenomenon in the Universe for which a disembodied intelligence that can hear telepathy and cares (for some reason) about the fate and condition of individual humans is the most likely explanation. People believe in them through a combination of wishful thinking, confirmation bias and our easily confused (and led) systems of perception.

Religion serves human needs: that's why we invented them. They serve needs for safety, belonging, social connection, understanding of place in the cosmos and feeling of there being a point to life--needs which stem from older and far less verbal parts of our brains than the frontal lobes. Dawkins, Hitchens and their ilk, with their pretty logical arguments, are nattering on in a manner which has zero traction with those parts of us: they are the equivalent of the dog owner going "blah blah blah blah Ginger" in the Far Side cartoon.

It's entirely possible to serve those needs without subscribing to baseless superstition. There is nothing about ritual observance or about feeling devotion and reverence that requires that you believe things that might have made sense centuries ago, but are now demonstrably false.

If Richard Dawkins really wanted to advance the cause of critical thinking and atheism, he'd be advocating for religious practices rooted in the real, in the nature of our minds and of the Universe, rather than just denigrating religion in general. He's a biologist--if he actually used his faculties to look at the phenomenon of religion, he'd see pretty quickly what it is and what purposes it fulfills. Clearly, his motivations are otherwise: more about his own ego.

I imagine there are probably those who will read this and feel threatened enough by it to leap to defend their personal superstitions. I'm not going to get into that kind of back-and-forth; it's pointless.

I just thought people should know that the Dawkins crowd doesn't really speak for atheists in general. A lot of us are quite spiritual, actually--we just don't need imaginary figures as part of our cosmology to practice it.


[quote=JuliaB;100166]After watching the Dawkins talk on atheism, I thought I would post this for the balance. Julia

The Case for God

By Karen Armstrong

(Alfred A. Knopf; 411 pages; $27.95)

podfish
10-31-2009, 10:27 AM
The reviewer misses the point of the debate. Probably intentionally, as it doesn't appear that she actually makes a "case for God", either.
Coincidentally, I've been reading a bunch of essays from Martin Gardner. He's probably best known for his light writing on science and his puzzles. He's also a public skeptic, who often defends rationalism vs. pseudo-science. Apparently he started his education as a physics student (a LONG time ago) and instead studied philosophy. He has a wonderful essay that deals with why he's NOT an atheist himself. He's a lot more of a gentle soul than Dawkins. Here's the link I got on a google search for "martin gardner proof of god's existence" (it's an excerpt from the book I'm reading). Philosophy: basic readings - Google Books (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZJYNyvuZpcwC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=martin+gardner+proof+of+god%27s+existence&source=bl&ots=rQk7oiIuBW&sig=Kso4ZuXF61llMHa2XX66-PYPl4M&hl=en&ei=MHLsSsjFBIGiswPw9tT1Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=martin%20gardner%20proof%20of%20god%27s%20existence&f=false)

greenbear
10-31-2009, 01:05 PM
:hello:
Hi,
It was nice to see so many faces :wink: at the last fellowship event. I got to chat with some and noticed I knew a few from “real life”.
I do have a few :idea: ideas I would like to post about, but I feel I should disclose my intention first.
I read posts and :hmmm: can observe some interesting flaws in the starting point of view.
For example, a case for GOD. How can one believe in something one has no knowledge of in mind. What? I mean if you do not know of some thing how can you NOT believe in it. Say what? You would need to formulate something in your mind (fact or fiction) then you have some thing to disbelieve or not. Get IT?
Born innocent of the knowledge of good or bad, you are to learn and from that you decide which side you choose. That is the whole point: “Whomsoever believes upon him…”--- is a winner with Father.
Logistically, it happens thus--- One forms an opinion or belief of GOD, then decides not to believe in what was just believed in. They fall for the oldest trick in the book! How?
Exercise time: DO NOT THINK OF A BANANA.
DO NOT THINK OF AN ORANGE.
DO NOT THINK OF THAT LEMON OR LIME BEING CUT OPEN TO MAKE JUICE FOR THE DRINK.
Well, how did you do? Give yourself 100% if you were able to do it.
What? You failed? Not to worry, you passed. This is lost on those who choose not to believe FACTS. One post talks about God being electrical signals and such. Well, there is a gland in the temple area that is responsible for that. Question is, do you believe it?
I hope you can see my point about starting on false ground to make a point.
Example two: a member posted he believed he was stopped by “an officer” to give him a ticket. Another also “believed in the officer” being real. Well, were they? I mean, were they on duty of office or not? There is a way to verify.
Do you know how? Would you go thru the process to verify their claim?
One needs to be clear of ones position before starting to another position, right? In other words, you need to know where you are to know if you can get to where you are going. OR you need to know where you have been to know if you arrived. My favorite is--- “ YOU CAN’T GET THERE FROM HERE, BUT I KNOW OF THIS OTHER PLACE YOU CAN GET :Yinyangv: TO THAT MAKES IT VERY EASY TO GET THERE.”
In short, be clear of where you are and where you wish to be. Don’t start without starting. Don’t arrive until you arrive. This are not mine or new. Only forgotten words, sound of advice long ago echoed thru the canyons of our mind.
Later I hope :thumbsup: to bring to you a test of the community communication communication.
With the warmest :heart: regards,
greenbear