Steven
Throughout the introduction, Author Karen Armstrong made various good points in her discussion about God. One thing she wrote that I never really thought of before was "We beg God to support 'our side' in an election or a war, even though our opponents are, presumably, also God's children and the object of his love and car". It is pretty ironic that people pray to God in hopes that "he" will assist them, even if it means harming another one of his "children" in the process.
Another very valid point Armstrong made was that humans are responsible for the various doctrines and scriptures in which religions follow. How are we expected to follow these readings without questioning their validity? I also believe that somewhere down the road some messages were lost in translation.
Armstrong also made a few interesting points about myths. From what I understand after reading the introduction, a myth is a story that is passed on to help us understand certain aspects of humanity and to help us develop particular moral values.
Updated on Wednesday, 01/12/2011 2:50 PM by Elizabeth
Karen Armstrong’s introduction to The Case for God exposes an interesting perspective about how we should approach religion. She describes how in the pre-modern world people tended to subscribe to two main aspects of life: logos and mythos. Logos represented rational, pragmatic human thought whereas mythos helped people to identify with things they couldn’t explain logically, such as emotions. Religion was therefore mystical in way, and offered insight into the depths of one’s self.
In modern times, many tend to carry out religion by looking at it scientifically and logically, often taking scripture literally. However, it was not meant to be read this way and it takes away from the “unknowing” in religion. The fact is that God or a higher being is beyond our comprehension. I agree with Armstrong’s assertion that to add science and logic to religion takes away from its original, mystifying purpose. I think that many people today feel the need to rationalize religion, because I think they are scared to enter the realm of the unknown
I too was fascinated by Armstrong's argument that religion today is extremely primitive. She emphasizes that it is not enough for one to say they believe religious stories, for the stories are not told for the sake of being told. The very purpose of religious stories, or of mythos for the ancient Greeks, was to inspire people in their lives, to help deal with tough situations, obstacles, hardships and more. The stories are meant to inspire religious action, to shape your morals and guide you through life. If your decisions and actions do not reflect the religious stories you claim to believe, than, according to Armstrong, religion isn't really shaping or affecting your life.
ReplyDeleteWhile many have argued that science and religion cannot coexist, there are other who feel that the two can exist in the same world. Many, like the Greeks, feel that science is necessary in many aspects of our lives- for medicine, technology, etc. Science has the final say over the aspects of our lives which are certain and concrete. But for the aspects which depend on faith, thought and feeling, religion has the final say, and science leaves religion alone. The ancient Greeks treated logos and mythos in this way, and there are still many today who argue that science and religion should be treated in the same manner.
After I read this introduction, I agree with Karen that “we remind God that he has created the world and that we are miserable sinners, as though this may have slipped his mind.” As Karen mentioned in the introduction, “politicians quote God to justify their policies, teachers use him to keep order in the classroom, and terrorists commit atrocities in his name.” Since religion is a cultural thing, therefore people start to use religious power to achieve their purpose. We could be considered as sinners because we did not really in religious if we just want to use religions. I also think that “mythos” and “logos” are two very interesting words in this introduction. I do not really agree that:” Today we live in a society of scientific logos, and myth has fallen into disrepute.” It is right that people live their life more logos than before which means that people do not make decision by the rules of scriptural. However, I really do not think that Myth has fallen because in my perspective, logos and myths could occur in the same time. I also agree with Zhuangzi that do not try to use logical way to explain religious because science can not explain religion clearly enough.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested when Armstrong began to touch on how humanity is truly unable to comprehend God and I related that to something she said later in the article about mythos: "But if we failed to apply it to our situation a myth would remain abstract and incredible." I think this is the basis of Armstrong's argument where she is trying to say that myth has evolved into what we see religion as today. God is incomprehensible and unless humanity applies religion or faith to their situation then it will remain as something "abstract and incredible." Religion, as she said can not be acquired unless put into action and I think this relates back to our discussion about the dichotomy between spirituality and religion. I believe that like myths and religion, they are not fully realized until applied to a situation and spirituality and religion also go hand in hand. Religion and being religious may not be fully conceivable unless spirituality is also applied.
ReplyDeleteOne the most poignant parts of Armstrong's introduction in A Case for God is how she describes religion as a practical discipline (xiii). Religion is not something can be understood through the reading of epic texts, it must be experienced. It is through the kneeling during mass, or the meditation at dawn, or the repetition of the morning prayer that aides the modern body and mind in transcending the separate logos and mythos to a healthy juxtaposition of the two.
ReplyDeleteIn the modern idea of religion, as Armstrong writes, that we have become dependent on looking to logical, scientific sources for answers. The study of the bible through a scientific lens has removed what many says is the spirituality from the modern culture. It is a larger understanding of many different aspects truth that will lead a greater sense of reality and spirituality. As Russel Shorto writes in Gospel Truth: The New Image of Jesus Emerging from Science and History, and Why It Matters, "scientific truth-- test-tube truth, literal truth--occupies only one slender band of the spectrum of human reality."
Chasen Bender
ReplyDeleteIn regard to myth and science and their influence in religion, it is visibly evident that religion has deviated from its natural course due to the development of the manner of thinking called logos. As the humanity has evolved and progressed throughout the ages, it would be seem incomprehensible that this was however not a natural development. To ensure survival and as a matter of convenience, humanity was forced to think in a rational manner that is reflected in the truths of reality. Without such, civilization would be ensnared in a primitive and stagnant state. Nonetheless, there is still inherent value in that of myths and thus they should not be discarded so quickly. The interpretation and underlying message of myths can still be utilized as a guidance tool for everyday life. It is these morals that are embedded in myths that provide answers to modern day issues.
I found Armstrong's introduction extremely interesting. I had recently been discussing the idea of religion versus science with a friend and we came to a clash on if both could exist. I think Armstrong's intro shows logically and respectably how they certainly can. She shows how there is a place for logos and mythos, as the Greeks trademarked. In the past, being a very scientific person, I found difficulty in seeing how someone could be both religious and scientific. The idea of splitting the two and seeing the latter as mythical tellings of something deeper in humanity than we could perhaps discover otherwise I think could appeal particularly to scientific people like myself. Furthermore, I was intrigued when she suggested that atheists have chosen to ignore mainstream tradition. This greatly reflects my difficulty in understanding the division of science and religion, as I realized I too have focused on solely fundamentalist versus mainstream beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be thought provoking. I definitely share Karen’s opinion that in general, society today is way too scientific. Everything needs to have a proof and scientific reasons for it to be true. Religion has always been based on “myth”. I found it particularly interesting when Karen talked about how in the past, people were taught to learn about religion and study sacred texts very figuratively. Not everyone owned a bible and it wasn’t translated. Now, everything is translated and people study sacred texts very literally, reading into every word. This goes with her idea that religion isn’t something you think, it’s something you do. Sometimes I guess it’s okay to stop thinking so hard and just believe, no science involved.
ReplyDeleteI was really impressed with Karen Armstrong's eloquent, concise introduction to "The Case for God," which can be perceived in a broader context to be a rebuttal to the mainstream atheistic writings of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Armstrong makes a variety of good points, the strongest being that the central flaw in religious thinking is that some people (he doesn't really specify, except to say that it's those responsible for violence and intolerance) believe that everything - on a religious level - can be known and applied. I believe her point that another central flaw is that that people believed that God could be known only by dedicated practice. Her point of religion being used as a discriminating tool throughout history was spot-on, I thought, and her basic point that religion is complex and "no single tendency ever prevails in its entirety" (xviii) is a nice way to frame her points. Finally, as someone who has had doubts about religion, I thought that her point on atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, and fundamentalists, was perfectly articulated. She was right in conceding that atrocities and crimes have been committed in the name of religion, but that fundamentalism is inherently unorthodox. Overall, she creates a balanced and qualified frame in which to make her points.
ReplyDeleteArmstrong’s introduction in A Case for God was captivating. Why you ask? Because it was thought provoking. I concur with Armstrong’s belief that religion and “its truth [is] acquired by practice”. The myriad of examples to support her claim are true. However, can it really apply to religion? Often times people of many different faiths, whether in a heightened state of ecstasy, will believe what they want to believe. For example, individuals who turn to religion when in need of something, whether it be a cure for a disease or money, will feel miraculously cured even though they might not be cured out all. This does not even necessarily have to apply to religion. When determined, humans do have a tendency to see whatever they want to see (the infamous Placebo effect can attest to this). Take a look at this research experiment conducted at Cornell University: http://research.chicagobooth.edu/cdr/docs/dunning.pdf . The overarching question is: Do followers of a certain religion feel closer to God because of practice, or do they feel that way because that’s how they want to feel? I feel as though the veil of veridicality lies within an individual – but I’ll let you be the judge…
ReplyDeleteAs I greatly enjoyed Armstrong's introduction to her novel A Case for God, the theme seemed to be humanity’s struggle with trying to understand God. It seems that all throughout history and even today people have been trying to grasp a concept that is not meant to be grasped. Initially even theologians thought of religion more symbolically, as mass was conducted in a language that churchgoers could not understand. This reminds me of Prothero’s statement about how only 22% of Muslims speak Arabic and can read and understand the Qur’an. I feel that this mysticism that the early followers felt toward Latin and their mass can be compared to Muslims and other religious people today. It seems that this primitive almost blind way of worship and thinking was simpler before the boom of science. As humanity commenced it favored mythos and religion was “not something people thought but something they did” and gradually it favored logos and over thought everything with science in order to try to understand an indefinable concept. The quotation from Descartes' Bones by Russell Shorto about how humanity chose science as a measure of its success in the 17th century is consistent with Armstrong’s introduction. Both discuss how humanity has never been able to grasp the concept of God and so science is a more sturdy measure, so we more often rely on it because we can make sense of it. Even though this is fact, I disagree. I feel that just because we are not able to define something does not mean that it does not exist. I also believe that we do not need to understand something in order to believe in it.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the early modern, scientific period came the new rationalized interpretation of religion. This brought fundamentalism and atheism. In my eyes, both are good in a way. I feel that fundamentalists and atheists both have God on their mind for an extensive amount of time. In order to come to a conclusion about such a topic requires must inner debate. Therefore, just the mere idea of this shows that they still acknowledge God’s existence. Overall, I thoroughly agree with Armstrong’s delegation of humanity’s religious struggles over something it cannot understand.
Karen Armstrong's article definitely made me think about religion in a way that I never have before. Her points make sense, that God cannot truly be defined and His presence is only known after much ritual and tradition. It is something that is felt, and cannot be explained. It is easy to claim that religion bares no scientific proof, and is based on myths depicting heroes fighting monsters, which always seemed too unrealistic for me to buy into. However, after reading this article, it now seems like maybe there is some validity to religion, maybe not in the stories themselves, but in the feelings and actions that the stories provoke.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of Armstrong's introduction, she talks about how people on different sides of a war or people belonging to different political parties pray to the same God in hopes that they will win. When I was a kid I remember asking my mom about this: How does God pick who wins if both sides put in their fair share of pray time? I think this is also why people become more religious during hard times in their life, or when they want to accomplish something.
ReplyDeleteI also though it was interesting that many more people today own and can understand their religious texts than in earlier times yet religious literacy is probably worse now. I think this is because religion used to be much more ritualized and sacred than it is today. For example, Catholic masses used to be held in Latin and people knew a great deal about the Church and its teachings. Possibly more than the majority of Catholics today.
Armstrong makes an interesting point when she says that Fundamentalism and Atheism are related. I had never thought about Atheism being a reaction against religious movements before. It makes sense that atheism would change slightly as religion changes and evolves. It seems that some atheists think the majority of Christians are Biblical literalists who don't believe in evolution when in reality these people make up only a small part of Christians. If religion were taught in schools, maybe this misunderstanding could begin to be corrected.
Blog entry: 1-14 Alex Leeds
ReplyDeleteArmstrong’s analysis provides insight into modern conceptualizations of God. Armstrong posits that modern attempts to “define” God (referring to God as all knowing, benevolent, or even as a him) using scientific method is primitive and if anything, a step back from how our forbearers developed religion. She goes on to point out that the division between the spiritual world (mythos) and the world governed by earthly reason ( logos) are not mutually exclusive, but are complements in guiding one’s life. The connection between myths, and the rituals that are practiced in honor of them, work to ensure that a “believer” understands the truth behind the metaphor by constant practice in the believer’s daily life, not necessarily through literal interpretation. In effect, the myth served as the manual for spiritual guidance and that truth could not be attained by simply studying the myth, but by employing religious values in everyday life. This principle which guided the faithful in pre-modern times is juxtaposed to modern standards of what faith is and how it should carry out. Furthermore, I found Armstrong’s take on the birth of modern scientific reasoning and the correlation to fundamentalism ironic. I had always thought that fundamentalists denied logic outright and permitted mythos to dominate logos, allowing their religious beliefs to corrupt their sense of reasoning. Armstrong suggests that it is the reverse. I believe that the onset of modern scientific thought encouraged skepticism of religious texts, and in response fundamentalists attempted to legitimize their beliefs by utilizing the same logic. However, Armstrong is keen to point out that mythos and logos are considered different because there is a barrier between the world that is considered “knowable” and the world that is considered “unknowable”. I feel that where much of the debate arises is where to draw the line between the two worlds. The question that is then posed is what do we know we can know and what do we know we can never know?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Karen Armstrong’s “The Case for God”, I found it surprisingly refreshing. I haven’t read too many critiques on religion or how people today follow religion and I found it very enlightening. I thought that Armstrong made several interesting points, especially on how many people have very limited views on God. In the beginning of the Introduction, Armstrong starts off by saying “we tend to tame and domesticate God’s ‘otherness’”. As I read on and thought about that particular phrase for a bit, I found myself agreeing with her. I feel that many people do indeed categorize God (most of the time it is positive categorizing, that he is Almighty, the Great One, etc.) and thus it also influences them to categorize religion. I agree with Armstrong in that it restricts people from being more open-minded about religion in general. People will believe that God is on “their” side of a conflict, thus leading them to believe that he stands for a particular thing and is against a particular group of people, when in all reality, God is meant to love everyone for he is in fact known to have made everyone. Although this particular part of the Introduction was my favorite portion, at the same time I disagreed with the ending of the excerpt. After touching on Enlightenment a bit, Armstrong discussed many people’s resistance to religion and the declining belief; however, I believe that it may not be that people are believing in God less, but instead that people have realized that religion can be a personal thing and may not be so open with religion as they would have been before, when religion was more a communal practice. The ending aside, I agreed with Armstrong’s take on religion and enjoyed the passage.
ReplyDeleteKaren Armstrong presents, in my opinion, a very poignant and insightful argument. To put it succinctly, her point is this: We are overanalyzing religion. It is not a rulebook, Armstrong says, but a handbook. I like Armstrong’s approach very much. I agree with her in that we should step back from our logos thinking and perhaps allow more mythos to swirl into the mix, as the results can be surprisingly beneficial. Armstrong uses the example of the classic hero to iterate this point: “The myth of a hero taught people to unlock their own heroic potential…But if we failed to apply it to our situation, a myth would remain abstract and incredible.” It is almost like Armstrong is advocating for a variant of what Professor Berry cited as “cafeteria religion,” which might, in fact, be good overall. The mysticism that myths instilled created what Armstrong calls “self-forgetfullness,” or an “ekstatis that enabled one to step outside the prism of the ego and experience the sacred.” This is a fascinating concept—one that science, ironically, can help analyze—that certainly demands further study. If we can learn to make religion once again created that ekstatis, religion will be once again be serving its real purpose.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this and all of the comments I felt that the story of Job strongly applies because it deals with the issue of having an absolute faith in God. I agree with Armstrong that "God is not a being at all" as well as the notion of ekstasis. Those both presented very holistic views of religion. I especially found the part about music to be really interesting.
ReplyDeleteHere is a recap of the story of Job:
http://www.ainglkiss.com/bibst/job.html
I think that the structure of some religious texts is a cause for religious fundamentalism. While Karen argues that the religious stories and teachings should not be taken literally, there are specific rules laid down in such texts as; the Bible, Halakha (Hebrew), Qur’an, etc. When people hear very narrowly focused laws such as the Qur’an’s ban on alcohol consumption, they often associate the surrounding lessons with the specific rules. Because of this, people interpret the laws in lax way, while at the same time interpreting the stories in a literal way.
ReplyDeleteI think that other causes for religious fundamentalism are the general expansion of the human population, and the move away from strict punishment of blasphemers. As the Catholic Church lost its monopoly on Christian religious teaching, it lost its ability to punish those who stray away from the doctrine chosen by the pope and his advisors. Because the Church was no longer persecuting certain groups, various strains of Protestantism emerged; some of which with fundamentalist flare.
Armstrong is attempting to clarify the deviation of the concept of and regard for God for mankind over time in her introduction to "A Case for God", attributing the loss of trust in mythos, or mythology, as a contributor to the misunderstanding of the significance of God in everyday life. In doing so, she steers away from condemning specific religions, instead emphasizing the lack of confidence which stems from a diluted conception of God and what it means to have a relationship with God. I think she is successful in providing a logical explanation for this shift in collective consciousness while at the same time putting faith (in the secular sense of the word) in action and ritual as a means of rediscovering the presence of God as a transcendental being. I find myself warming up to her claim that letting go of all preconceptions of God and abstaining from heavy conceptualization will allow the psyche to feel the omnipresence of God, reaching that higher place that requires no literary explanation for its power to be conceived. It's interesting that she includes that atheism used to be a term to enshroud Christians and Muslims, for the simple fact that these theologies were considered radically different from established religions. This is wildly different from our concept of atheists in modern society, as we generally view atheists as those who have either lost faith in their religion, or are pragmatic, logos-oriented people who hold science in a higher regard. Science and religion are not a dichotomy, and to believe so would truncate the depth of each ideology.
ReplyDeleteI have often thought about the concepts Karen Armstrong discussed in the article so it was refreshing to read a text that verbalized the argument for God so logically. I appreciate the sense in which Armstrong points out that the current interpretations of God are unique to this modern era. Society attempts to “tame and domesticate” a god that is in essence a transcendent being beyond comprehension of human minds. Therefore we turn the mythos into a much easier to swallow logos. Unfortunately the God of logos is either interpreted radically or “jettisoned”. I feel that today’s society too easily associates with select theological groups, much like political parties, and their interpretations of the Bible. With the creation fundamentalists on one extreme taking the mythos of creation and instituting it as fact, while the atheists on the other extreme utterly deny divine existence. I preferred how pre-modern theologians and atheists accepted the difficulty of verbalizing concepts of God. The only opposition I had to her article was her prediction that there is a growing religious revival in which people are once again appreciating the “value of unknowing”, but Ill leave that for debate.
ReplyDeleteZoya
ReplyDeleteThe article by Karen Armstrong was fascinating. I have always had the same thoughts on religion until I read this article; the article made me rethink the way I thought about religion. For me, religion is something to turn to when things cannot be explained and one needs some sort of guidance. The fact Armstrong picks up on that one cannot define God since there is no literal presence reminded me of how much trouble I had with the concept when I was younger. I was taught to read the Qu’raan but was never actually taught to read Arabic. I was always torn about why I was being forced to do something that didn’t really give me much meaning.
The most fascinating thing I found about this article was the "ekstasis." I play guitar and only know the feeling too well when someone asks, how did you come up with that lick. It is an undescribeable sense of just knowing. The hard part I personally find is that faith itself makes perfect sense, but faith in what? I find myself believeing in something, and like Armstrong states that "religion requires perseverance, hard work and discipline." It is difficult to want to put in that type of effort when there is no answers behind it. I personally do like the concept of the rituals and their place in religion. The concept of gathering to discuss how/what/why this feeling of ekstasis exists and making a practice out of it laying that sort of power in a deity's hands does make logical sense and can be an attractive option. Later in the article Armstrong touches on the concept of losing the "knack" of god. I believe that this is very very important especially in the modern context. Is it possible that while we all search for the answers of the unexplainable through a higher being, that modern religions have been marred by the media? As someone that was raised in a roman catholic household, I find that christmas and easter have almost been destroyed by the portrayal of getting physical gifts and goodies rather than the original meaning. We are supposed to gather our loved ones together and celebrate being alive, this precious existence which I believe we only get once. It makes me sad to think that instead of taking a moment to think about who we involve in our lives and for what reason that we need to run to the store and buy cheap little gifts to supposedly show our caring for eachother.
ReplyDelete