Karen Armstrong and The Case for God

As an antidote to Christopher Hitchens I've been reading Karen Armstrong's The Case for God: What Religion Really Means. It's a summary of religious thought from prehistoric times to the present - I found it exhilarating.

Armstrong spent seven years as a Catholic nun but became disillusioned with the God thing after being sent to study English literature at Oxford. She then wrote a memoir about the absurdity and pettiness of convent life. But some years later she discovered a new side to religion and decided to explore it by writing history books. The rise of fundamentalism - the Salman Rushdie fatwah occurred at about this time - gave her a potentially wide audience, and she is now much in demand as a commentator on religious matters.

Armstrong's idea, articulated in most of her writings, is that Western theism is a modern invention. Go back and look at the traditional texts and you'll find that religious and spiritual thinkers insisted that God is unknowable. They would be baffled by modern notions of God as a supreme being who runs the universe and answers prayers. Far from prescribing how to behave, most religion is based on the Golden Rule 'do as you would be done by' first articulated by Confucius.

Armstrong also insists on the distinction between myth-making and reason. In the ancient world, she says, Biblical myths such as the Genesis story were seen as a way to grasp truth imaginatively, but weren't meant to be taken literally. Religion was meant to be practiced, in prayer, contemplation and ritual; only by these means can it be properly understood, not by the application of reason.

She is interesting on the origins of the idea of belief, which is one of the things that always baffles me about Christianity. In most versions, belief in a set of propositions - the holy Trinity, that Jesus is the Son of God, etc - is what makes one a Christian; it's not just about being nice to other people (this includes liberal Anglicans as well as fire-breathing Evangelists) To modern ears, the words 'Believe in me, and you shall have eternal life' sound like an invitation to suppress reason, a sort of magic spell. But why did Jesus insist on faith, when other religions do not?

The answer is he didn't, says Armstrong. The word used in the original Greek Gospels is pistis, which means 'trust, loyalty, engagement, commitment'. In other words Jesus was asking his followers to commit to his teachings, not to believe in his divinity. In Middle Ages English, the world bileven meant 'to prize, to value, to hold dear', from the German belieben meaning 'to love'. It was only during the seventeenth century that the concept of knowledge became more theoretical, and the world 'belief' became used to describe 'an intellectual assent to a hypothetical - and often dubious proposition'.

I've always empathized with Armstrong, from having similar backgrounds - not the nun thing, obviously, but Oxford English Lit graduates turning against Christianity and then rediscovering a quite different kind of religion in later life, influenced among other things by Buddhism. In a book that is mainly about Western religion, it's interesting that her very last paragraph should be about the Buddha. A Brahmin priest comes across the Buddha seated in contemplation and, struck by his serenity and self-discipline, asks if he is a god or an angel or a spirit.

No, the Buddha replied. He explained that he had simply revealed a new potential in human nature. It was possible to live in this world of conflict and pain at peace and in harmony with one's fellow creatures. There was no point in merely believing it; you would only discover its truth if you practised his method, systematically cutting off egotism at the root. You would then live at the peak of your capacity, activate parts of the psyche that normally remain dormant, and become fully enlightened human beings. 'Remember me,' the Buddha told the curious priest, 'as one who is awake.'

Armstrong now calls herself a freelance monotheist. Clarifying her ideas in an interview she says:

Religion is a search for transcendence. But transcendence isn't necessarily sited in an external god, which can be a very unspiritual, unreligious concept. The sages were all extremely concerned with transcendence, with going beyond the self and discovering a realm, a reality, that could not be defined in words. Buddhists talk about nirvana in very much the same terms as monotheists describe God.

Critics generally complain that her view of ancient religion is rose-tinted. I think that's quite possible. But with so many extant texts to choose from there can be many different approaches. Atheist historians prefer to highlight those that are cruel and dogmatic. But is their view more true than hers?

A more serious accusation is that she fudges the question of whether or not God exists. Here's Richard Dawkins:

Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: "Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn't matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism."

Well, if that's what floats your canoe, you'll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world's peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right.

The comment doesn't do her justice. Armstrong is no post-modernist, she's a historian helping secularists understand the complexity of religious thought through the ages. As a bridge builder this is important work; there's a purpose to the fudge. If Westerners can be brought to believe that religious Muslims, to take the most obvious example, are not malignant zombies bent on blowing us all up but followers of a tradition that gives meaning and richness to their lives, it may help to take the temperature down a notch or two. But Dawkins has a point. In the scientific age the 'existence' question is one we're bound to ask.

These days 'God' is a loaded term. In a recent post Robert Perry draws attention to the way that the New Age prefers terms like 'energy', 'consciousness' or 'the Universe'. Interestingly, we don't doubt that these things exist - the question is, what is their underlying meaning? How significant are they, in a metaphysical sense? But even then, it's not clear exactly what we mean by 'significant'.

For many people, myself included, the way forward is to ask, not 'does God exist?' but 'Does consciousness survive the death of the body?' Then we are on surer ground, as we have a lot of potentially significant data to work with.

This is where I'm at odds with Armstrong, who thinks the question of afterlife is a red herring. She objects to it on moral grounds.

I think the old scenarios of heaven and hell can be unreligious. People can perform their good deeds in the spirit of putting their installments in their retirement annuities. And there's nothing religious about that. Religion is supposed to be about the loss of the ego, not about its eternal survival.

I agree there's a moral tangle here but I'm not convinced these things, true spirituality and an awareness of the possibility of surviving death, are mutually exclusive. This damns at a stroke an awful lot of earnest spirituality seekers in the Christian tradition in the past few centuries. It's possibly true that looking forward to another life made some of them egotistical, but they couldn't all have been blind to that problem - indeed many Christians are powerfully aware of the 'sin of spiritual pride'.

So I think that questions about survival of consciousness are fair enough, especially when there are so many indications of it. To establish it would not be the same as establishing the existence of God, but it would be a meaningful first step.

Comments

[badocelot]

I disagree overall with Armstrong's approach to the history and nature of religion and spirituality, but she raises some important points.

Both sides of the cultural flame war between believers and disbelievers are convinced, or act as if they are convinced, that the (a) issue at hand is all-or-nothing, black and white, and that (b) the evidence (or lack thereof) should settle the issue for everybody.

As I see it, this could not be more wrong. Position (a) is a failure to appreciate the fluidity of religions, while position (b) is simply a failure of imaginative empathy.

[Robert Perry]

Hey, thanks for the mention of my blog.

I probably shouldn't comment on Armstrong's book, given that I haven't read it. I've just read reviews like yours and heard her talk on the radio about it. Having said that, however, you can obviously tell that I'm about to go ahead and comment anyway!

I hate to say it, but I feel that Dawkins has a point. My sense is that she is doing exactly what she claims others are doing: projecting a contemporary perspective back onto past believers, only hers is more 20th century than 18th.

And, to be honest, it strikes me as an attempt to put God at a safe distance, where he becomes immune to scientific and philosophical criticism.

I really applaud her focus on religion as practice designed to make us better people here on earth. But that practice rests on an ontology, and that ontology can stand or fall.

My sense is that she's saying there is no ontology, or at least it's incredibly fuzzy and mysterious, and thus there is no way it can fall. It's totally immune. But if it's totally immune, it's likewise totally vacuous.

I personally think that the way of the future is more in line with your comment, Robert, about evidence of survival of consciousness. That evidence is good, and let's face it, it does have bearing on the question of God.

So much of the paranormal evidence is directly or indirectly attached to God. We don't want to talk about it. We look the other way. But the cords are clearly there, running from the phenomenon in question to God.

What I would like to see is that we face this issue head-on, face that we have a whole collection of paranormal phenomena that at least present themselves as attached to God, like so many crystals dangling from a single chandelier, and start to push our investigations in that direction--see if we can't approach the question of God scientifically.

[Ron Murphy]

This video of Greta Christina is primarily an atheist view of sexuality. But if you listen from 31:00 she covers aspects of the materialist view of life, though here specifically with regard to sex, that contains all the humanism that many modern theists like Armstrong are looking for, without any need for the theistic spirituality.

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

[86tlgvlityd86uiyd]

" You would then live at the peak of your capacity, activate parts of the psyche that normally remain dormant, and become fully enlightened human beings."

In my experience Buddhism is no different than any other religion. They are all fundamentally bait and swtich schemes. They promise you something (for the purpose of collecting donations, empowering priests, and perpetuating the bureaucracy) but what you get is something else. With buddhism you are promised enlightenment, but what you get is sore knees. Meditation has a lot of benefits but for the average person, enlightenment is not one of them.

(Christianity promises forgiveness, what but what you get in the afterlife is a big karmic debt you have to pay off.)

"To establish it would not be the same as establishing the existence of God"

To establish the existence of God you have to define the word "God" first. God is a human concept invented in the minds of humans. It refers to the creator of the universe, the creator of the solar system, the creator of life on earth, and the answerer of prayers.

There might be one or more entities responsible for these jobs. The notion that one entity is responsible for all of them is not necessarily the only explanation.

You can believe in God and not the afterlife or the afterlife and not God. However if you can get folks to accept the evidence for the afterlife then you've cracked ther mind open far enough to enable them to consider the possibility of entities doing some of those jobs.

[Kozenda]

It seems as though secular humanism suffers an interesting contradiction. While criticizing religion and attached deities on the basis of the lack of objective evidence, they themselves promote values and a flexible morality also lacking an objective basis. As what is considered morally "right" is dependent on the person and context, the result is RELATIVE to an individual's personal preference and temperament, social pressures and fear of the law.

So although secular humanists criticize believers, it appears humanism itself provides no real objective reason to do so. It boils down to a subjective dislike of religion, how it impacts society and a personal rejection of the "supernatural".

One could also argue moral decision-making on a personal level largely works the humanist way already, so the humanists aren't promoting anything new, just stripping pretense of the "divine" from the equation by choice.

Also on discarding the "supernatural"; should sufficient evidence for an afterlife be established via serious investigation into the so called "pseudosciences" (NDE, reincarnation, psi, mediumship, etc), how will secular humanism respond to the new reality? Will it be as simple as redefining "natural"? How will a materialist philosophy which outright rejects the notion of "spirit", or anything beyond the physical body, adapt? Would secular humanism and philosophies like it survive the process at all?

[Paul]

86tlgvlityd86uiyd - good comment.

[Alexander1304]

Kozenda: "How will a materialist philosophy which outright rejects the notion of "spirit", or anything beyond the physical body, adapt?"
There was materialist-biologist Gerhad D.Wassermann,he developed theory of psychic phenomena/possible survival in purely materialistic terms,involving the concept borrowed from physics,"shadow matter"(He wrote the book about it "Shadow Matter and Psychic Phenomena",1993).Meaning,humans have 2 bodies/brains,one made of normal matter,another -of shadow matter.and it is shadow matter body that experience OBE etc.Have to admit that the theory is very speculative and since 1993 doesn't seem to get any support even in parapsychology,not to mention genral science.Here is the review of this book by Douglas M.Stokes(Sept.1993):
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shadow+Matter+and+Psychic+Phenomena.-a015383549

[BenSix]

"...she's a historian helping secularists understand the complexity of religious thought through the ages..."

I can't help suspecting that Armstrong promotes inclusivity at the expense of truth. For example, she's written (in the Guardian, 6/4/05) that "til the 20th century, anti-semitism was not part of Islamic culture", which is flat-out mistaken. Now, don't get me wrong, we're all entitled to make mistakes, but when I read her work I'm not sure she's entitled to make claims to any great expertise.

"But with so many extant texts to choose from there can be many different approaches..."

A fair point, but she comments on belief not merely as an abstract notion but as it inspires people in the world. What's important, then, isn't how we could intepret a religion but how its believers do.

"Armstrong's idea, articulated in most of her writings, is that Western theism is a modern invention."

Would she classify, say, Thomas Aquinas as "modern"? I can't help thinking Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and the like would be vaguely - or VERY! - insulted to be told that their sincere beliefs are just misunderstandings. Heck, with that in mind Armstrong is no more defending faith - as it's popularly held - as Dawkins.

[Doug D]

You need to change:

"from the German belieben meaning 'to love'"

to

"related to the German..."

See page 87 in the book.

[sean]

"Religion was meant to be practiced, in prayer, contemplation and ritual; only by these means can it be properly understood, not by the application of reason."

Are you serious? With that sentence you have catagorically declared yourself as unable to have a meaningful conversation. What a charade, the "noumena" argument...that religious experiences can't be examined quantitatively or discussed rationally. You're a quack, and intellectually dishonest...and I feel sorry for the weak people who read your work and accept such sophmoric viewpoints.

[Bruce Siegel]

Sean said:

"With that sentence you have catagorically declared yourself as unable to have a meaningful conversation."

Two things, Sean:

1. The only people who are truly incapable of participating in meaningful conversations are the ones who attack others, as you've just done.

2. Armstrong makes an essential point. Religion and spirituality need to be understood experientially. Reason can be useful in these matters (as I'm sure Robert agrees), but it only goes so far.

[rick49]

Sean,

There is so much anger in your response that you invalidate any point you seem to want to make. Could you clarify why and or how the statement that you refer to in your post invokes an avalanche of disdain and anger like "quack", "sophomoric", "weak people","intellectually dishonest".

Your post comes off as a random spewing of hostility by a mentally disturbed person shouting hostile expletives at everyone and no one. My only response to a post like yours is... Huh?

[Sante Poromaa]

Hello Robert.
This is the first time I comment on your blog though I've been following it for some time. I read your excellent book Randi,s Price and started following your blog. It has helped me find several good reads indeed! Like Fringeology, Aping Mankind and most recently The case for God, by karen Armstrong. I'm a zen buddhist teacher and have been practising zen buddhism for thirty years. I have written two books, one that's only avaialble in swedish (my native tounge) and german and one - The Net of Indra, Rebirth in Science and Buddhism (http://www.amazon.com/Net-Indra-Rebirth-Buddhism-ebook/dp/B00452VAN0/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1314515930&sr=1-1)- that is translated to english and available through Amazon. When writing this book I interviewed some neuroscintists and parapsychologists and made some friends in these different communities.
In some of the commentaries to your excellent review of Karen Armstrongs book I was (again) struck by how difficult it is for people to be openminded in all directions. Our rational mind seems like a cone of light shining in some direstion but keeping other directions dim. So you can be open minded about the possibility of the paranormal but hold a dim view of for example organized religion (or vice versa). Many people posting here seems to be (often rightly, I guess) suspiscious about religion, especially in it's organized forms.
But isn't that somewhat oversimplifying things? What if someone said that they were sceptical about organized science? Isn't to organize some enterprise, a human activity that has it's risks (in science as well as in religion) but also nessecary to get anything done? My years involved in Buddhism, as a practitioner and a teacher has taught me that organized buddhism is not very different from other organized religions and not really different from organized academia. Organizing has it 's advantages and it's drawbacks. A neuroscientist I know recently took part in a "Mind - Brain conference" in Stockholm. He learned that the institution he worked in was not happy with this, because one of the backers of this conference (that included people like Roger Penrose)was Deepak Chopra. It could reflect badly on the venerable institution to have one of it's scientists taking part!
Being open is difficult!
Sante

[rick49]

Sante,

Your Buddhism serves you well. Beliefs are relative and conceptual and limiting. Some may be more interesting, complex,or compelling than others. However, they must be held with a "light touch" that allows them to change and expand as we do.

One of my favorite quotes is from the late John Lilly, a true empirical explorer of the "inner world".

Lilly's Law
"In the province of the mind, what is believed to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind, there are no limits."

[Sante Poromaa]

rick49:
Agree about the need for a "light touch". When someone asked me what zen buddhists believed in, I said: "I am a Zen Buddhist - we do not do beliefs." :)

[MJS]

Robert have you read "The Last Superstition" or "Aquinas" by Edward Feser? Read it and you'll see what's been going on at a deeper level.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Sante:
”Isn't to organize some enterprise, a human activity that has it's risks (in science as well as in religion) but also nessecary to get anything done?”

Quite true. I’ve given this a lot of thought since leaving the Catholic Church. I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental difference between organisations that are formed around a worldview (religious or secular) and organisations that are formed around getting something done (manufacturing a product, providing a service, doing charitable work, etc).

The former group of organisations tend to encourage people to define themselves relative to the organisation. As a result, they become Christians, Buddhists or academics; it is not merely something that they do (and cannot be, since it is essentially a belief system). Because they self-identify with these worldviews, they cannot easily distance themselves from them (to receive criticism of their worldview constructively, for example).

The latter group of organisations tend to attract a much more diverse group of people to the shared cause. Instead of looking for a way to acquire their identity from membership in the organisation, they look for a way to express their identity (which originates elsewhere) by working in the organisation. They perceive their role in the organisation as something that they do, not who they are. Consequently, they can detach themselves from it more easily when they feel that this is appropriate.

Now, an action-oriented organisation can be troublesome simply because the action is destructive (ethnic cleansing, for example). However, an action-oriented organisation can also become troublesome by becoming overly preoccupied with a belief system. I think that this is a big component of the problems within science that you mention, and perhaps Buddhism as well.

[Sante Poromaa]

Hrvoje Butkovic:
Yes, I agree. Most organisations, though, are a mixture of "action orinted" and "belief" - Apple comes to mind. :)

[Kris]

I just had to pass on this. Sorry to change the subject a bit but I suspect everyone will like this.

Dr Woerlee really stuck his foot down his throat this time.

http://tinyurl.com/4ynjdg7