10.4 Religion – Book Review                                                                         Version 1.0 April 2011

 

Karen Armstrong, The Case for God, Vintage Books, 2009

Review by Trevor Rogers

THE FOLLOWING ARE ESSENTIALLY NOTES, JUST TO SHOW WHERE I’M GOING.

THIS IS VERY MUCH A FIRST DRAFT.  I GOT DISTRACTED BY OTHER THINGS.

I love Karen Armstrong.  She writes with insight and authority, covering the major theistic religions from the beginnings of human history.  She acknowledges the errors of the fundamentalists and other idolaters. Her view of the best religion is a reverent approach to life rather than a fixed set of beliefs.    She’s an optimist, but so am I, we just look at it differently.

Ms Armstrong explains how the concept of God changed over time and how different concepts have been reprised and revised.  There were the early gods of the hunter gatherers – the Animal Master, then of the farmers – mother earth.  In the Axial Age, around 2,500 years ago, the world was transformed by ideas from Lao Tzu (Daoism), the Vedas (Hinduism), the Buddha, Moses (Judaism), and the Ancient Greeks.  Some of the early gods who created or formed the universe were so remote from the world and individuals in it that people lost interest in them - the early Chinese God of the Sky or some Greek ones.  Then there were tribal gods like the early Jewish Elohim, gods of vengeance etc.  Finally we have the God who is not a being (in the sky or anywhere else) but Being itself.

Most of the stories about the early gods and the creation of the universe were not taken literally, Karen Armstrong explains, but were understood to be allegories, inspiring stories which are aids to mediation and help us see our connections to the world.

These ideas of God were analysed by philosophers, Greeks (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), Christians (Aquinas …) and Muslims ().  On rational grounds the philosophers could only sustain a belief in a god who had little or no contact with the world.  But like the Sky God, the God of the Philosophers was too remote, uncaring, irrelevant, unsatisfying. 

Others preferred a God that interfered in the world, perhaps with occasional miracles, or the God that moves the universe along, keeping the planets revolving, making the plants grow, providing the life force.  This was the God of the early scientists (Newton, etc).

Quibbles

In presenting this enormously wide perspective, Ms Armstrong may at times gloss over some details, or present things in a way that we could quibble with.  One of these quibbles relates to her discussion of Einstein’s special theory of relativity (published in 1905) and the general theory of relativity (published in 1916).  Einstein himself, she explains, used his theories to make 3 predictions that could be tested by experiment.  This is science at its best.  Two of these predictions were confirmed within a few decades, but because of technical difficulties the last was not tested, and confirmed, until the 1960s, some 40 years later,.  This much is true.  But Armstrong suggests that scientists in practice took Relativity “on faithâ€� for over 40 years.  Scientists can accept that there is a degree of “faithâ€� involved in adopting such wide ranging theories, and even in adopting the scientific approach (based on reason and evidence etc) but the faith involved is reduced as more experiments confirm the predictions of the theory.  The faith required to adopt Relativity reduced to almost zero by the development of atomic weapons in 1945.  They are based on the famous equation from Relativity: e = mc².  So the “truthâ€� of relativity was evident and dramatically demonstrated in the 1940s.  It is relevant and well worth presenting in Armstrong’s book the insight that scientists frequently adopt a working hypothesis “on faithâ€� as a basis for further investigations, but it is also worth clarifying that this tentative acceptance applies to all of science.  Nothing in science is deemed irrefutable.  All scientific theories are is potentially falsifiable.  The point of the exercise is often to ascertain whether the “faithâ€� is justifiable. Nothing in science is taken on faith alone, and this was not made clear.  But this is a small quibble.

Another is a passing reference to the introduction of agriculture.  “In about 9000 BCE when human beings developed agriculture and were not longer dependent on animal meat, the old hunting rites lost some of their appeal and people ceased to visit the caves.� (p. 19), She is referring to cave paintings dating from 30,000 BCE to 9,000 BCE found in southern France and northern Spain, and some in Africa.  But the hunter gatherers apparently depended more on the gathering of plant material than hunting big game.  Agriculture began in Middle East around 9000 BCE but did not extend to France, Spain or Africa until some time later.  The timing is a bit out.  The sense she gives, that the change in life style resulted in the cessation of cave visits, may still be accurate enough: there must be a reason why the caves were abandoned after 20,000 years of use, and this is a plausible explanation, but we must take it as being tentative.

 

Essence of Religion

The nature of ultimate reality, called God, Nirvana, Brahmin or Dao.

 

Religious Experience

“Human beings are so constituted that they periodically seek out ekstasis, a ‘stepping outside’ the norm.  Today, people who no longer find it in a religious setting resort to other outlets: music, dance, art, sex, drugs or sport.  We make a point of seeking out these experiences, that touch us deeply within and lift us momentarily beyond ourselves.  At such times, we feel that we inhabit our humanity more fully than usual and experience an enhancement of being.�

 

Transcendence

In archaic thinking, there is no concept of the supernatural, no huge gulf separating the human and the divine.  p.18

To disarm the new atheists she says “Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians have insisted for centuries insisted God does not exist … “  but she adds that they only do this “ … to safeguard God’s transcendence.� p.8

Karen Armstrong does not define transcendence.  It is something greater than the individual.  But her notion of transcendence might not necessarily require a being to be outside the universe – she supports Being not a being – the supernatural is not her way.

 

Concept of God

“… it is inaccurate to call God the Supreme Being, because God is a being at all, and … we really don't know what we mean when we say that he is ‘good’, ‘wise’ or ‘intelligent’.� p.1

 “… despite our scientific an technical brilliance, our religious thinking is sometime remarkably underdeveloped, even primitive.� p.1

“In some ways the modern God represents the High God of remote antiquity, a theology that was unanimously either jettisoned or radically reinterpreted because it was found to be inept.� p.1

“It’s a pity Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris express themselves so intemperately, because some of their criticisms are valid.  Religious people have indeed committed atrocities and crimes, and the fundamentalist theology the new atheists attack is indeed ‘unskilful’, as the Buddhists would say.� p.8

Religion: A Practical Discipline

“Logos (‘reason’) was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled people to function effectively in the world.� p.3

“Myth [mythos] has been called a primitive form of psychology .  … They were designed to help people to negotiate the obscure regions of the psyche, which are difficult to access, but profoundly influence our thought and behaviour.  … It was essentially a programme of action. … The only way to assess the value and truth of any myth was to act upon it.  The myth of the hero, for example, which takes the same form in nearly all cultural traditions, taught people how to unlock their heroic potential.  Later, the stores of historical figures, such as the Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed were made to conform to the paradigm so that their followers could imitate them in the same way.  …people re-enacted myths in stylised ceremonies … myth and ritual were thus inseparable …� p.3

“Religion, therefore, was not primarily something that people thought but something they did.  Its truth was acquired by practical action.  It is no use imagining that you will be able to drive a car if you simply read the manual or study the highway code.  … a musician can lose herself in her music, a dancer become inseparable from the dance …  what the Greeks called ekstatis, a ‘stepping outside’ the norm. … like religion, music marks the ‘limits of reason’ … Music goes beyond the reach of words: it is not about anything. … all art constantly aspires to the condition of music: so too, at its best, does theology.� p.4

“… religion and art were inseparable from the very beginning.  Like art, religion is an attempt to construct meaning in the face of the relentless pain and injustice of life.  … created religions and works of art to help them find value in their lives, despite all the dispiriting evidence to the contrary.� p.17

“Religion is a practical discipline … You will only discover their truth – or lack of it – if you translate these doctrines into ritual or ethical action.� p.4

“Religion is hard work.  Its insights are not self evident and have to be cultivated in the same way as an appreciation of art, music or poetry must be developed.� p.18

“People believed that God exceeded our thoughts and concepts and could only be known by dedicated practice.  We have lost sight of this important insight and, I believe, this is one of the reasons why so many Western people find the concept of God so difficult today.� p.9

“Religion was not something to be tacked on to the human condition, an optional extra imposed on people by unscrupulous priests.� p.19

 

Ms Armstrong says that contemplating God as Being is facilitated by thinking about stories in the sacred texts, treating them as allegories, and by thinking about mysterious doctrines such as the Christian Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are all one).  This she indicates leads to a richer experience and a fuller life.  As with other religious writers (such as Bishop John Selby Spong) she seems to go so far with her rational analysis but stop short of abandoning her faith.  I guess she would advocate that people use the texts, images and techniques they are familiar with, if they work, or adopt others from other cultures if they work.

We are not told, in this book at least, how the richer experience and fuller life lead on to laudable values or provides meaning and purpose.  In fact Ms Armstrong explains that the best faith based approach involves an initial acceptance of a disciplined and moral life, without detailing the core requirements of such a life.  Choose the right values and behave appropriately, and you will be rewarded, but it's that way round.  Having the right values seems to be an expedient to enlightenment rather than a moral choice or a result of following the path.  This approach provides no other explanation of why we should choose the right values.

Karen Armstrong’s faith based approach also requires that you provisionally accept that you will find meaning by following this path.  This may be inexpressible, wordless, ineffable,  “recognising the limits of our knowledge, of silence, reticence and awe� (p.10).  You must be open to an experience of the divine, not coldly analytical.  To this extent, the ‘religious’ path she advocates does not provide any explanation of the meaning of life, but it allows you to rise above the need for such an explanation as you feel the connection with the sacred.

The problem is that an inexpressible, wordless, ineffable experience of the mystery, majesty, unity, and wonder of the universe, and the sense of connectedness, the mind emptying ecstasy, does not require any belief or acceptance in any form of god, except for Being itself.  Armstrong seems to be an atheist with respect to any other kind of God.  And Being seems to be the essence of our existence, nameless, not the void but not not the void, nothingness.

And being the essence of existence, Being is, like, “true� by definition, ‘cos there is existence.

(I’m sure Karen Armstrong would hate the phrasing in that sentence, because Being is not a proposition or a fact of nature that can be true or false, and we cannot even say it exists, because it is existence, but I put it that way to emphasise there can be no dispute with Being.)

So I guess Karen Armstrong should not call herself a Christian, because there is nothing in her approach that could not be adopted by someone from a Hindu or Buddhist background, or indeed from a sceptical, scientific background. 

·         But perhaps she does call herself Christian because that describes her historical origins and identifies the central myths and rituals that she is most familiar with.  She could do this without claiming that her Christian perspective is the only valid approach.  And Ms Armstrong has repeatedly and persuasively acknowledges those parts of the Christian tradition that she objects to and that she does not support.

·         Similarly, there are Jews who wouldn’t call themselves “secular Jewsâ€� because they have a similar faith in the same sort of transcendence that Ms Armstrong espouses, perhaps members of the Jewish Reformed movement(?), who may (perhaps?) call themselves practicing Jews, because this also describes their historical origins and their identity with the central myths and rituals that they are most familiar with (and perhaps also because it seems traitorous to deny being Jewish). 

·         Similarly there are Muslims with a similar faith in the same sort of transcendence that Ms Armstrong espouses, because this also describes their historical origins and their identity with the central myths and rituals that they are most familiar with (and perhaps also because in intolerant Christian societies, where Islam is equated with terrorism and repression, it seems traitorous to deny being Muslim).  These Jews and Muslims can acknowledge their religious backgrounds without claiming exclusive knowledge or wisdom for their tradition.

·         It is acceptable to support an attempt to put forward an approach to religion that is reasonable, that acknowledges the religious errors of the past, that decries literalism, that obtains insight from all the world religions, that has no claim to exclusive revelation, that is universal or global in scope, that can appeal to the billions of serious minded and concerned individuals who are trying to follow the best path they can without losing their cultural identity, without losing face, keeping the best of the past, acknowledging the truth as we learn more about it means.

We can all acknowledge and perhaps even support the approach advocated by Karen Armstrong: a respectful, reverent approach to a mystical experience or a direct connection to the All, to Being. 

·         I’m not sure it is helpful to call this Being God, particularly in these idolatrous, literalist times. 

·         It is more important to deny the God who made the world, or keeps it going, or interferes with it for special friends, or cares about each one of us, or makes rules for us to follow, or chooses to loves or banish us after death.  I’m not sure that taking this approach helps us to define what right behaviour is, what moral positions we should take with respect to other people or indeed ourselves. 

·         And many people will never have a mystical experience or feel a direct connection to the All, or will never acknowledge it, yet they can live happy, fulfilled lives.

So really I’m only disagreeing on the choice of words, the presentation and the style.  We adopt these according to our goals, from among our (limited) personal capabilities.  Armstrong’s purpose is to make the case for a legitimate god, not the idolatrous God of the fundamentalists, or even the more benign god of the more traditional believers.  So she promotes a “return� to a reverent approach to the mystery of life and our connections that she sees in “old time� religion: let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My purpose is to make the case for a reasonable way based on a shared understanding, which also contradicts the beliefs of the fundamentalists and the traditional believers.  So I am promoting a modern analysis, respectful of our history, which also leads to a reverent approach to the mystery of life and our connections, and I accept that this is essentially a religious approach.  But I suggest it is better to more consciously cut the links to the errors of the past, including talk about God and a connection with the traditional religions, which I feel have too much baggage for them to be cleaned up as Ms Armstrong seems to prefer.  I suggest we need to wash away a bit more, to reach for an even cleaner baby, and dress it in new clothes.

We are striving for the same thing, from different backgrounds, and our difference is mostly in the chosen strategy.  I have learnt a lot from her.  That’s why I love Karen Armstrong.

SHAMANISM

Shamanism developed in Africa and Europe in the Palaeolithic period, and spread across Asia to Australia and to Siberia and thence to the Americas.  p.15

Some of the evidence for the early origins of shamanism are found in caves in southern France and northern Spain, where there are about 300 caves, with cave paintings from 30,000 BCE to 9,000 BCE, and some have been found in Africa.  These paintings are in natural caverns a long way from the surface, where there is no natural light.  They show animals, Many paintings show people dancing in animal costumes.  Dozens of these paintings, made over thousands of years, in Europe and a few in Africa, show a man with arms outstretched, phallus erect, with a bird mask, with a staff topped by a bird’s head, depicting the shaman, a religious leader.  These caves were probably the location of rituals to appease the gods and for initiations.

There is a remarkable continuity in the descriptions of the mythical flight of the shaman.  He swoons during  public séance, then flies up to consult the gods on the location of game.  Shamans have bird and animal protectors and can converse with the beasts who are messengers of the higher powers.  p.15

Religious rituals enable people to confront their core anxieties and to control them.  Killing animals, which these societies depend on, causes anxiety, because hunting is dangerous and the animals’ suffering causes stress in the hunters.  The shaman provides a narrative that give meaning to this.  In earlier times the animals made a covenant with humankind and now a god known as the Animal Master sends animals from the lower world to be killed by the hunters because the hunters promised to perform the rites that will give the animals a life after death. p.15

If a priest donned the sacred regalia of an animal pelt to impersonate the Animal Master he became a temporary manifestation of that divine power. p.18

As the hunter gatherer lifestyle was replaced by agriculture about 9000 BCE a new set of myths and rituals developed based on the fertility of the soil that filled the early farmers with awe.   Tilling the fields became a ritual that replaced the hunt, and nurturing the Earth took the place of the Animal Master. p.19

In many parts of the world, the moon is associated with regeneration - the human menstrual cycle and reproduction, women in general, fertility, vegetation, water and snakes (which slough off their old skin to re-emerge gleaming and fresh, and so are symbols in initiation). 20

Ancient religions were commonly based on the “perennial philosophy�, present in some form in many pre-modern cultures.  Every person, animal, object or experience is a replica, or a copy, of a reality in an unseen sacred world that is more effective and enduring than our own (p16).

Primitive religions tell of a dreamtime, in this sacred world, when the gods walked the earth, and the gods made arrangements with people. 

·         The gods did things that the people imitate now, so that every action is a religious act, done as the gods did.  “When an Australian Aborigine hunts his prey he feels wholly at one with the First Hunter he is following the example of the gods, so the day to day act is a religious experience (p.16).

The dreamtime is found all the world’s major religions:

·         In the Jewish bible, in Genesis, there are still stories of God walking in the Garden of Eden.  Christians and Muslims also follow Genesis. 

·         In Hinduism etc

Imitating the actions of the gods or the prophets is found in all the world’s major religions:

·         In the Christian bible, Jesus breaks bread and drinks wine with his disciples saying “Do this in remembrance of meâ€�, and every week in church good Christians do so.

·         In Islam, Muslims undertaking the Haj, the pilgrimage to Mecca, retrace some of the steps of the Prophet Mohammed.

Animal sacrifice was the central rite in nearly every major religion of antiquity (p.16).  The rites honour the beasts that give their lives for the sake of humankind. 

Some of these myths and rites have survived until recent times:

·         In Judaism, at Yom Kippur, a flawless animal was chosen to bear the sins of the people, the scapegoat, and sacrificed, taking the punishment on behalf of the sinners, giving its life for mankind. 

·         Jesus, when he was crucified, became the scapegoat for Christians, the lamb of God, and his death is celebrated each year at Easter.\

·         Is there a similar myth of sacrifice in Islam?

 

INITIATION – DEATH and REBIRTH

Initiation was crucial in ancient religions and is still practiced today. 

·         When they reach puberty, boys are taken from their mothers and put through frightening ordeals that transform them into men.  Girls undertook similar initiate rites about the time of their first menstrual period, to become women.

·         They may be circumcised.  For boys this involves cutting off some flesh around the end of the penis, and if done carefully it causes no great harm, but perhaps a small loss of sensation.  For girls this involves cutting out the clitoris and/or the lips of vagina, which causes major harm, severe loss of sensation and often life long problems, including pain and incontinence.  There is no medical or health benefits in circumcision for boys or girls, and some children die from it, including boys in modern times.

·         They may be isolated and assaulted physically or psychologically.  The initiates may fear for their lives.  The terror of the experience can lead to new insights, including a commitment to ongoing life, directly linked to in the community. 

·         After the initiation children may be introduced to secret parts of the community’s mythology, and often this is different for men and women.

Initiation ceremonies are still practiced today. 

·         In Judaism, the Bar Mitzvah for boys, and in the reformed church the Bat Mitzvah for girls involves a ceremony … Some Jews still impose circumcision on boys, usually a few days after they are born, but do not expect girls to be circumcised.

·         In Christianity, people are baptised, initiated into the Church, by being immersed in water (or at least sprinkled with water), which symbolizes the death of the sinner and rebirth as a new person.  Some Christians still impose circumcision on boys, usually a few days after they are born, but do not expect girls to be circumcised.

·         In Islam Most Muslims still impose circumcision on boys, usually a few days after they are born.  Some Muslims still expect girls to be circumcised. This is not a requirement in the Koran or the Hadith.  It is a cultural expectation rather than a religious rule.

·         The freemasons and other esoteric societies have comparable death and rebirth initiations.

 

Newton’s God

The German philosopher Martin Heidegger called Being, a fundamental energy that supports and animates everything. p.20

 

Notes

Zhuangzi (c.370-311 BCE), a Daoist, saw religion as a ‘knack’.

This reality, which they have called God, Dao, Brahmin or Nirvana, has been a fact of human life.

Early modern period 16^th and 17^th centruries

Fundamentalism erupted in almost every major faith in the 20^th century.  Desire to produce a wholly rational, scientific faith that abolished mythos

At an early stage in their history both Christians and Muslims were called atheists – Christians did not believe in the Roman gods.

Western atheism was developed in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, initially by Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, later by FCC Smart, Peter x, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.