Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.

Donate to Project Reason

Join the Mailing List

Sign up to receive email updates from Project Reason.

Log in

 
not a member? Join here.
Forgot your password?

Twitter and Facebook

Follow Project Reason on Twitter

The Scripture Project

Browse the Bible, Qur’an or Book of Mormon for scriptural criticism, insights and careful annotation.

Most Recently Updated Passages

Faith and Belief: ‘The Evolution of God’ by Robert Wright and ‘The Case for God’ by Karen Ar

Jack Miles
Posted: October 10, 2009.
Published: October 11, 2009.

Print: Los Angeles Times

This article reviews two recent books on religion.  The summary paragraphs have been excerpted. 

Robert Wright, “The Evolution of God”:

Wright’s title notwithstanding, his God does not evolve. He is rather a constant, the C-factor without which human evolution does not compute. His book, despite many protestations to the contrary along the way, is finally an argument from design for the existence of God, and as such it does not convince.

Karen Armstrong, “The Case for God”:

In an ambitious work clear in outline and rich in detail, Armstrong writes the history of how apophatic theology was forgotten in the late Middle Ages; how rational and then quasi-scientific Newtonian theology rose to replace it in early modernity; how, when others were recognizing this as a mistake, fundamentalists tightened their embrace of it; and how, in the wake of the passing of modernity and the failure of both its theism and its atheism, postmodern theology may point toward the recovery of what was lost. A god whose existence you can prove is a god to whom you cannot pray, postmodern theology argues, and prayer—not proof—is where religion rises or falls. Armstrong’s very considerable service is to show how this novel idea is a very old idea newly recovered.

Read the full article | Print this article

Comments (9)

Still just very old bullshit!

posted on October 13, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

2. John Wilkinson

Ah yes, the more untrue god claims are, the more true they are! thanks Karen I don’t know how I’ve been so ideological until now.

posted on October 13, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Armstrong and others are keen on the idea that old religious ideas need to be recovered.  The problem is that for twenty or thirty centuries the prevailing ideas have been ignorant, intolerant, divisive and violent.  Humanity has deeper and richer wells to plumb, rather than returning to the dark and violent abyss of the monotheisms.

posted on October 13, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I haven’t read Karen Armstrongs book, but I have seen several lectures and red several articles she wrote. I am strongly reminded of Stephen Batchelor’s book “Buddhism Without Beliefs”

posted on October 14, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It was interesting to read a concept about self-domestication in this article. Mental slavery comes to mind. Thinking does not stop and the god concept seems to think it does stop. The only constant I know of is change.

posted on October 14, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

6. Paul Powell

Karen Armstrong has a beautiful and brave intellect. She understands that all facts must eventually find a human narrative to be meaningful. Her idea is for rational, open-minded individuals to reclaim existential uncertainty. She asks for the intellectual courage to engage the human predicament head-on; an endeavor for any brilliant mind to study and reflect on as a powerful source of human possibility, instead of being an excuse for cynicism and dread, that reduces us to manipulating objective data in an objective universe in which human don’t matter.

posted on October 17, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

7. Sam Speedy

Karen Armstrong’s ‘religion’ is no different from anything an atheist could believe. A God that is just a ‘symbol pointing to a transcendence that cannot be described’ is a God that doesn’t exist. There is only a feeling of transcendence that any atheist could happily experience. If it were just that I wouldn’t mind; I wouldn’t see much point in wrapping it up in religious clothing, but whatever floats her boat. However, she also tries to pretend that this is how religion ‘really is’ - as though there were an objective standard by which to determine what religion ‘really is’ - and she is blatantly rewriting history in saying that the ancients didn’t really believe all that stuff they say they did, as though they were really all de facto atheists like her. This is laughable. And it is not helping us address the problem of religion as it actually IS in the world.

posted on October 19, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Armstrong wants to create a compassionate world community (who doesn’t?), and is appealing to the believing communites to start the project (good luck with that).

It’s like appealing to the NRA to initiate global disarmament.

posted on October 20, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think many people misunderstand Armstrong’s approach. All people carry a narrative (individual, collective)... it’s the evolution of the brain’s story and most use the language or semantic of religion to describe it.

If this species continues to evolve on a conscious level then the story and narrative will change over time. However, I can see how Christians can “adapt” the Christian narrative to the environment.

Atheists have to enter the realm of understanding “Religion” in the context of evolution and the brain. Most of our major religions developed as response to a previous religion. A head start by thousands of years.

posted on April 13, 2010
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.