|
The Case for God |  | Author: Karen Armstrong
Publisher: Knopf
Category: Book
List Price: $27.95
Buy New: $15.09
as of 9/4/2010 02:37 PDT details
You Save: $12.86 (46%)
New (41) Used (23) Collectible (3) from $11.28
Seller: treebeardbooks
Rating:  71 reviews
Sales Rank: 17754
Format: Deckle Edge
Media: Hardcover
Edition: Stated First Edition
Pages: 432
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.6
Dimensions (in): 9.5 x 6.4 x 1.7
ISBN: 0307269183
Dewey Decimal Number: 211
EAN: 9780307269188
ASIN: 0307269183
Publication Date: September 22, 2009
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
| • | 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 |
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
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.”
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 71
 The Case against God; No Case for "God" August 29, 2010
Peter Wall (Fresno, CA, USA)
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 July 25, 2010
T. Kepler (California, USA)
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 July 24, 2010
Matthew Lane (Joondalup, Western Australia)
2 out of 5 found this review helpful
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 July 10, 2010
Brian High (Manchester, NH USA)
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.
More propaganda from the Westar Institute, a.k.a the "Jesus Seminar" July 5, 2010
Bruce Bain (Englewood, CO United States)
1 out of 7 found this review helpful
.
There is not really much to offer in the way of analysis of Karen Armstrong's works beyond what has already been written, for the simple fact that "The Case for God" is not a "new" work, but rather a re-hash of the author's earlier work.
The early pages repeat the MYTHOS / LOGOS arguments. Theologian John Hick's ideas are parodied.
(Hicks denies the resurrection of Jesus Christ).
Otherwise, the author rambles on, mimicking the similar "Jesus Seminar" attempts to discredit Christianity, the Gospels of the New Testament, the Messiaship of the Crucified and Resurrected Christ, in an attempt to make Jesus Christ look like some kind of 1st Century nutcase whose confusion about "wisdom" cannot be properly construed as the Gnostic Heresy endorsed by Elaine Pagels of the "Jesus Seminar" and the members of the Westar Insitute.
Of course, consistent with the disingenuous writings of Karen Armstrong, the book is entitled,
"The Case FOR God"----[caps mine--BB]
Any objective reader of Armstrong's writings will rapidly discern that the book is a
Case----AGAINST----God. One does not have to be a rocket surgeon to perceive this.
Armstrong's methodology is as follows.
(1) A "See-Saw" tactic.
(2) Rhetorical Qualifiers
(3) Omissions of Fact
(4) Revisions
Here is how they can be percieved in the author's chapters.
(A) The author presents some kind of dichotomy concerning any issue of dispute.
Subsequently, the author argues Back----And----Forth in the manner of a "See---Saw" so as to maintain the appearance of considering the extremes of any issue. In this methodology, the author can be seen to argue both FOR and AGAINST any issue, at one and the same time.
(B) Rhetorical Qualifiers are obscure statements in the form of Knowledge Claims.
One never knows when these will pop up in Armstrong's paragraphs. They do not always appear as the central arguments of a Chapter either. They are thrown about in a manner not consistent with logical coherence, and as though they bore no direct relevence to the issue discussed. Often as not, the reader will gloss over these statements, hardly noticing that the author's assertion as to some essential and critical feature of knowledge has direct bearing on something written elsewhere in the book.
This has several benefits for the author.
First, it makes her appear very knowledgeable, so as to appear as informed as a genuine scholar.
Second, only a highly analytical reader can detect the Knowledge Claim as fundamentally flawed or offered in the complete absence of definition as to terminology employed.
(C) Omissions of fact are also difficult for a popular readership to discern, because a reader must be prescient as to the existence and relevence of a historical fact, in order to observe the instances in published material wherein Karen Armstrong entirely bypassess relevant moments in history which serve as a direct contradiction of her conclusions.
(D) REVISIONS The author's Revisions are also difficult for an unprepared reader to trace, because Karen Armstrong writes so self-assuredly and convincingly, and drops assertions with such an aplomb as to make them appear as unquestionable and unchallengable facts.
In other words, to read Karen Armstrong with an intent to actually understand what the author is claiming, one has to come prepared to engage in an objective analysis of the written word. The difficulty is that many readers and reviewers come prepared to assume, a priori, that at least a significant portion of what a published person writes, is representative of generally accepted fact. That is a critical mistake with Armstrong's works.
The author's web of deception begins immediately with the Preface and Introduction, and continues throughout the author's chapters.
It may be remembered, that I indicated that critical analysis is necessary, but that it does not require that one be a rocket surgeon to see the transparencies and confusions in this author's work.
For example, consider the Introduction, where the author writes:
"One of the things I have learned is that QUARRELLING about religion is counterproductive and not conducive to enlightenment. It not only makes authentic religious experience impossible but also violates the Socratic rationalist tradition."----sentences 4 & 5, paragraph 2, page xvii, from the Introduction of "TCFG" by Karen Armstrong [caps mine for emphasis---BB]
Deception #1: That the Socratic Rationlist tradition, which is philosophical ARGUMENT, is mischaracterized as QUARRELLING.
Deception #2: That "authentic religious experience" is not possible, as the direct result of the acquisition of knowledge derived by rational discourse or written accounts of dialogue.
These are representative of the propaganda technique of CARD STACKING. I also refer to the appearance of such non-factual and unsubstantiated claims, as Rhetorical Qualifiers that simply "pop up" in the text of an author's handling of a subject. Armstrong uses these with an alarming frequency.
It is an historical fact, that it was the alliance of Christianity with Socratic method in the 13th Century, which produced a flourishing of philosophical knowledge, but also
laid the foundation for the later emergence of Scientific knowledge by the application of empirical principles.
For example, consider Chapter Twelve. The author entitles this Chapter as "The Death of God?"
Now, one can conclude there are several options offered by an author considering this question objectively, and they emerge as follows:
First: God actually has been discovered or proven...DEAD.
Second: God may be alive or dying, but is in the middling stages of either condition, which is to say,
obviously in Decline or Ascent. (You figure it out, because Armstrong only argues popular and cultural circumstance, not FACT about God nor proper orthodox theological doctrines. Armstrong will argue New Age ideology.)
Third: God is eternal and everlasting alive, ineffable and represented by Jesus Christ, enthroned in Heaven. (Or even as the central deity of another religion, because take your pick, the author's ideas and questions are not directly pressing issues in any religion or theology.)
Armstrong concludes in chapter twelve, with a question that is hardly sensible as a factual observance about a Judaeo-Christian Deity, and I quote:
"And how best can we move beyond premodern theism in to a perception of "God" that truly speaks to all the complex realities and needs of our time?"----Chapter 12, p. 317, (hardback) from "The Case for God" by Karen Armstrong 2009
If I may, let me show how a proper analysis would work on such a rambling and confused rhetoric.
(1) The author is not, strictly speaking, arguing a "God"; but rather a "perception" of a "God".
(2) The author's reference to a PREMODERN THEISM presupposes the relevance of a PREMODERN THEISM, ergo, the author's argument is circular, engaging the classical fallacy of Circulus In Demonstrando, in which the terms of the premise appear in the terms of the conclusion.
(3) The author is arguing some vague criteria referred to as NEEDS OF OUR TIME.
For the sake of brevity, suffice it to say that the only NEED made evident by Karen Armstrong, is the NEED to simply pronounce God as a pleasant but antiquated idea, that can be argued as DEAD, so that mankind can get on with satisfying his NEEDS. (Whatever those are, because they are not scripturally relevant.)
(4) COMPLEX REALITIES are never identified in specific in this author's work. It further serves the author's tactical methodlogy of Self-Authentication [Cartesian Affliction] common to New Age writings.
(5) What I find disturbing about the writing of Karen Armstrong, is that it shares so much commonality with New Atheist authorship, as well as New Age authorship, in the employment of the Bandwagon Technique associated with Propaganda, in which the author writes in First Person Plural, writing as WE, and using OUR, rather than as "I" and "MY". Atheist author Sam Harris uses the same method in Chapter One of "The End of Faith" as does Daniel Dennett in "Breaking the Spell".
Here is what a professional watchdog organization writes about the propaganda technique of the Bandwagon Fallacy which is evident in writing of one's self as a collective of persons.
***************************************
"Propagandists use this technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd. This device creates the impression of widespread support. It reinforces the human desire to be on the winning side. It also plays on feelings of loneliness and isolation. Propagandists use this technique to convince people not already on the bandwagon to join in a mass movement while simultaneously reassuring that those on or partially on should stay aboard. Bandwagon propaganda has taken on a new twist. Propagandists are now trying to convince the target audience that if they don't join in they will be left out. The implication is that if you don't jump on the bandwagon the parade will pass you by. While this is contrary to the other method, it has the same effect: getting the audience to join in with the crowd."------------from The Institute of Propaganda Analysis
******************************************
Another propaganda technique that Karen Armstrong employs is "Card Stacking" in which an author appears to offer evidence relevant to both sides of an argument, when in fact, they omit or discinclude significant facts and evidences. This is the specific method I indicated as a kind of SEE--SAW tactic, in which an author appears to offer FOR and AGAINST arguments, misleading readers, because their FOR and AGAINST propositions are either simplistic presentation of the arguments, or the arguments are considered entirely out of their original context. In other words, if the issue pertains to a LEGAL issue, the propaganda technique is to consider the issue as though it were a MORAL issue. After than mischaracterization is introduced, the author
"Runs---the---Proverbial----Picket---Fence" with a corruscating (roller coastering) barrage of verbiage. By the time the author is finished, the reader, if unobjective, will offer an ascent to the arguments, rather than assume that the author makes them feel stupid, for not comprehending the nonsense.
.
------------------------------------------------
Where Armstrong really gets into errors in LOGIC, is when she characterizes the modern SCIENCE of PSYCHIATRY as a function of MYTHOS, wherein PSYCHIATRISTS and PSCHOLOGISTS are characterized as virtual modern day SHAMANS, guiding mankind through an inward MYTHOLOGICAL and SYMBOLIC labyrinth. This is where Armstrong displays the very epitome of contradiction and irrationality. Armstrong specifically cites Freudian PSYCHOANALYSIS as the tool which modern science uses for therapeutic application. In fact, PSYCHOANALYSIS has never dominated the therapeutic field, and in fact, PSYCHOANALYSIS has largely been a dead practice for over fifty years.
This is exemplary of the manner in which Armstrong plays FAST-AND-LOOSE with historical facts. She characterizes "SCIENTIFIC RATIONALISTS" constantly as some kind of modern day, prototypical and PROMETHEAN advanced thinkers, merely because they view the proposition of a DIVINE BEING as mere MYTHOLOGY, and not as the progenitor of THOUGHT itself, or a "Divine Architect" or a "Higher Power".
----------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
This author manufactures so much rhetoric that direct analysis of her work, as a proposition, becomes an overwhelming proposition. I cited the final paragraph of Chapter Twelve as merely one example of a typically irrational passage, in which rhetoric is substituted for an objective analysis of any idea, but the terminology alone is so contextually complex as to reduce any statement or question offered by the author to a form of absurd self dialogue that is entirely inconsistent with Socratic Method or genuine scholarship.
Armstrong, in any context, is overly wordy, theologically unsound, and ideologically irrelevant.
.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 71
|
|
|
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME. Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
