The Case for God: What religion really means

Karen Armstrong covers a wealth of knowledge about Islam, Judaeism and Christianity in this book, which is a distillation of familiar themes from other books (Battle for God, the Bible). Its not simplistic in the slightest, but she leads the reader through clear scholarship without overindulging. The underlying theme is that the current phase of fundamentalisms and literalistic interpretations of scriptures is an aberration, the real meaning of faith being faithfulness to religious practice, particularly its rituals, and not correct belief about doctrines. In doing so she hopes to liberate God from a sterile tug of war between atheists and fundamentalists in all their guises. It's clear that this is a personal as well as an academic issue for her. How useful this is is less certain. Denys the Areopagite in the sixth century is referred to approvingly, who believed that true knowledge of God came through the unknowing that came after exhausting language for what God is and is not. However, it's difficult for a reader with a background of irreligion or doubt rather than ritualistic religion to know what to do with this and Karen Armstrong doesn't make any proposals. She is a superlative guide through the maze but doesn't manage to rescue faith for those those who can't live with fundamentalism.

Every one of the author's arguments offered here can apply to literally any myth and yet again Karen Armstrong ties herself up in metaphysical knots trying to justify something for which as ever there is no evidence at all. I also love it when people of her ilk strive to deconstruct the opposing views of atheists and fail miserably. I am sure most atheists (including myself) would love to be proved wrong for the consequences would be extraordinary and potentially wonderful for all mankind. Alas, inventing supernatural figures and hoping for the best is frankly an insult to humankind. Flood gates open, dear readers, come on in..

This thoroughly researched book provides an overview of the development of the concept of God over the centuries, allowing us to see where, how and why modern thought arose. Questions which many of us have struggled with find answers here. The book is clearly the fruit of a lifetime of honest searching and questioning. I would not expect less from Karen Armstrong.

The Case for God is a comprehensive history of the God of the three religions of the book. It is easy to read and well researched. I learnt a lot reading this book and would recommend it to anyone with an interest in religion, history, philosophy, theology, scripture or sociology.

Karen Armstrong has written a useful overview of religious belief and practice over several millennia. It is infused, however, with the sort of wishful thinking that has appeared in some of her other works. She wants to imagine that Biblical and Koranic literalism and blind faith in the assertions of clerics, are phenomena peculiar to the last 150 years. In Karen Armstrong's ideal, fantasy world, religious practice involves an acknowledgement that so much about the human condition; our origins, our behaviour, our destiny, our relationship with the rest of the cosmos; is, ultimately, unknowable. Good works and charity, coupled with meditation, with or without music, dance and poetry, and the resulting 'ekstasis' have been the good fruits of religion, she imagines, during most of its known history. Certainty and textual literalism, the ugly features of modern Abrahamic fundamentalism, she wants us to believe, are a recent aberration. She has clearly never read Josephus' 'Antiquities of the Jews'. For Josephus, there was nothing allegorical about what we call the Old Testament. The Creation, Flood and Flight from Egypt were as real as the Conquest of the Jews by Pompey. Georg Hegel, a typical 19th century German Protestant, viewed Noah's flood, complete with its Biblical dates, as an historical fact. If 'old time religion' were all about the acknowledgement that the metaphysical is unknowable, why is its story littered with creeds and with the notion of Divinely inspired (as in the Bible) or Divinely dictated (as in the Koran) books? Creeds and Holy Books, by definition, fix, and proclaim as some sort of incontrovertible Truth, such nebulous and unproveable concepts as the Trinity or the Day of Judgement. Hellfire is threatened as a deterrnt to unbelief in both the Koran and Bible. If humility before the ineffable were to the fore in Christianity before the scientific revolution, why did Rome and Constantinople split over something as arcane as the definition of the Trinity in their respective creeds? Why has religion been suffused with concepts such as blasphemy and heresy? Both notions bespeak absolute certainty. If Karen Armstrong were out to promote a manner of thought and behaviour which acknowledges the limits of human knowledge and understanding, then she would do better to promote scientific method rather than the God idea. As she herself acnowledges, Einstein's work left the 'certainties' of Newton as no more than a useful approximation. When has an Islamic scholar questioned the basic assumptions of the Koran, either its provenance or its notions? Why do Christians stand up to honour that strange little quartet of books known as the Gospels? The associated flummery is designed to elevate those works beyond fallible, human status. It is, to say the least, a discouragement to doubters, and the antithesis of the humility towards cosmic knowledge that Karen Armstrong imagines that religion has traditionally embodied. Case for God not dismissed, Ms. Armstrong; I would not be so arrogant, but you present a very poor one.

very good I'm a fan of Karen Armstrong Have only read the opening chapters yet but she is very knowledgeable explains things well

My only criticism of Karen Armstrong's 'The Case for God' is its title which I suspect was chosen by the publishers to make it appear a rejoinder to books of the Dawkins/Hitchens genre. It is much, much more than this. It is a history of man's search for the transcendent. For her 'religion' is not of the didactic, dogmatic type that I experienced as a youngster (and subsequently rejected), and against which Dawkins and Hitchens rail. Whether God exists is the wrong question. It is only in the modern age (c1500- 1980) with the triumph of science that this has become a relevant question. The religion she explores is of the mystical type. She makes no attempt to defend scripture as accurate history; she does not proselytize. Scripture and ritual are symbolic - their meaning emerges from exegesis (exploration), silence and 'unknowing - all of which involves 'hard work' You may be forgiven for not recognizing what you thought religion and god were. She does not so much rebut the militant atheists, as shift the ground. Though allusions are made to the orient, this is really a history of western (mainly Christian) ideas of God. It is wonderful dialectic: myth v logos, faith v reason, science v religion, a great unfolding that takes us via Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant and Nietzsche to the post-modernists which is, in some ways, a completion of the circle. The historical contexts are powerfully drawn. Ms Armstrong is clearly more than a scholarly theologian, she is a historian of substance. I have enjoyed four of Ms Armstrong's books (from the History of God, through the Axial Age, to the Bible and on to the Crusades), but this is special. I will continue to refer back to it for inspiration. It is a beautiful history of "Man's Search for God" (a much better title).

A most comprehensive, erudite, penetrating and inspirational account of the essence of religion and its history. A truly remarkable achievement by the most gifted contemporary religious affairs commentator. A real treasure.

Anyone who has ever read a book by Karen Armstrong knows how thoroughly educated and highly intelligent she really is. Her books are concise, entertaining and most of all accurate. The book itself traces the history of God. Karen shows that notions of God can be found as far back as 12,000 BC. She argues that traditionally God has been understood as being the unknown, the transcendent - and all human attempts to understand it have been just that, grasping at the ends of something we cannot reach. God, she argues, can only be experienced and realised through religiosity. However, following the enlightenment many theologians and philosophers formulated tests/proofs for God, each of which meant that God was confined to a box, or in her words God was turned into a `being'. It was the enlightenment that led to the post modern period and to atheism. She argues that atheism itself is a relatively recent phenomenon. Karen highlights that fundamentalism in any form is wrong, and this includes Dawkins (atheistic fundamentalism). She argues that Kant and Hume would not have taken such strong opinions on objective truth. Darwin himself would never have condoned the statements made by Dawkins. She criticises Dawkins for his use of straw men, and simplistic arguments based on his lack of theological/philosophical understanding. How ironic it is that the thumpers of reason and rationality are in fact unreasonable and show little understanding of logic. She argues that Dawkins and Co's position simply leads to further intolerance, which leads to more extreme fundamentalism, which leads to worse atrocities. She argues that this is unhelpful and so should be thoroughly discouraged. However, these criticisms are hardly new having already been raised before by A. Flex, M. Ruse, A. McGrath, A. Plantinga and many others. Finally, Karen argues in favour of negative theology, which highlights transcendence. Why? Well, she argues that creation ex-nilho means that nothing of God can be found in the creation, that the concept of the trinity is meant to shows us that we cannot even understand Christ, and that revelation itself is an ever ongoing progressive venture. She therefore argues that any attempt to rationalise God would lead to imagining him "as a larger and more powerful version of themselves, which they could use to endorse their own ideas, practices, love and hatreds". As such she argues that the traditional understanding of God should be re-gained. The point of religion, she says, was "to live intensely and richly here and now. Religious people are ambitious. They want lives overflowing with significance". In this way God and religion becomes something helpful once again, which enriches human life, rather than providing a simplistic and irrational mumbo jumbo construct. Overall, I'd highly recommend this book for anyone struggling to understand what God is. I'd strongly recommend that you read this book before you accept anyone else's definition, especially Dawkins or some fundamentalist's. Any enquiry into truth should begin with its historical understanding. Once gained, you're free to shape your own knowledge further. Karen's book provides this knowledge and in doing so takes God out of the box. Because of this I give her book a straight 5 stars. Once again a great book Karen, well done.

Excellent. This book doesn't attempt to neatly define or categorise God as words will never be able to pin down the unknowable in scientific terms. Karen's discussion of man's attempts to understand God is merely the finger pointing to the unknowable. Her premise is that we need to rediscover the myths and symbolism that pervaded religious practice of the past (right brained concepts) and that it is probably more effective to actually observe the practices to help us move towards the unknown rather than debate and define in an academic or scientific sense. Beautifully written, academically researched and argued as always but ultimately leaves the reader to make up their own mind. Highly recommmended for anyone already in a faith (broadens conceptions of other faiths and practices) or for anyone who is exploring the notion of a higher consciousness and wants to know how human beings have related to this great unknown in the past and how we can approach it in our modern age without feeling superior about our own faith tradition. It rekindles the sense of mystery in life enhancing the inner life and making the external more bearable and dare I say beautiful. A case for the return to the mystical and for people to be more understanding of the different spiritual traditions/paths that individuals choose to take in their search for greater meaning in their lives. Post Scriptum: With a good friend I saw Karen Armstrong giving a talk on 31 May 2010 at the Hay-on-Wye festival and also attended the Church service where she was the preacher. What we came away with was one very important word 'PISTIS' which in Greek means 'trust, loyalty, commitment'. Karen illustrated this with images of the early Christians being totally immersed in water as a symbol of their commitment. This image of 'total immersion' as a symbol of total commitment is embodied in the Greek word 'Pistis'. Karen put this message across (possibly subconsciously) accompanied by a hand gesture that suggested a very potent heart energy. We need to get back to the basic faith of the desert fathers - this is not fundamentalism but real faith or 'pistis' - the energy of unconditional love that we need to cultivate whatever faith we practise or even if we don't practise a faith but believe in the future of humanity.