Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Karen Armstrong’s Case for G_d


I have just posted my review of Karen Armstrong’s The Case for God on my university website. Although the book does not spend many pages on ID in name, she clearly objects to the broadly natural theological mentality that provides support for ID. Hers is a very consistently anti-rationalist case for religion.  I’m sure there are people attracted to the position but not me.

You can respond to my review here or there.  No doubt I’m not alone in finding it more instructive to review books by those with whom I disagree.

CannuckianYankee at 4: Yes, I think that is very close to the mark. Timothy V Reeves
Allanius states: "I was under the impression that he had already made the case for himself" I saw this prophecy video yesterday and have to agree with you: The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrQqhINYrc4 I would have to say 2500 years correct to the time of year sure is a lot more precise than any of Nostradamus' prophecies bornagain77
So Karen makes the case for God. I was under the impression that he had already made the case for himself. But I'm sure he must be thrilled! allanius
So in essence, it appears that she's decrying the preeminence of logos over mythos in both orthodox science and ID. The thing is, it is orthodox scientists who are fond of opening their pie holes about religion. All IDist aver is that, based on the evidence, there has to be some kind of intelligence or other behind the universe and the life it contains. A fight ensues, because the ID position pulls down the "theory of everything" hubris in which orthodox scientists LOVE to engage, and draws the line between "non-overlapping magisteria" along points which nullify a lot of the political and cultural clout that such scientists enjoy -- along with most of their Sagan-esque mythos. From your review, I'd guess that the author may have merely belied her own personal problem with a personal "God who is there" amidst all her verbiage. jstanley01
Just a guess, but Armstrong is probably heavily into the Nag Hamadi Gnostic writings and whatnot. The problem with esotericism as the basis for faith is that it is usually elitist - requiring an understanding of a secret mysticism that is available only to an initiated few. Christianity is a complete opposite of this - open to all who believe. Christianity must thereby be evidence based. Christ died on a particular time and in a particular place, and there were witnesses. Not only that, the early believers were careful to construct an historical account of the events surrounding his life, death and resurrection; such that there is sufficient evidence to either accept it or reject it based on the evidence, and not simply on one's distaste for a particular mysticism. CannuckianYankee
CannuckianYankee has got me right here. Armstrong understands the natural theology roots of ID and that these are intimately tied to the Abrahamic faiths. But she thinks that all of this has damaged religion -- and science, but that is not her direct concern. But I think it is a credit to religion (and science). In the end of her book, I really get the sense that she's a pure 'mysterian' with regard to religion. Steve Fuller
"Is it really a 'theological mentality that provides support for ID'?" I think it's Karen Armstrong's opinion, PaulBurnett. She doesn't approve of an evidence based Christianity. Hers is a new age approach; faith for faith's sake, no evidence allowed. CannuckianYankee
Steve wrote in his short article above "...she clearly objects to the broadly natural theological mentality that provides support for ID." and in his referenced review: "Armstrong makes it absolutely clear that, if anything, ID is too enamoured of science (at least its worst tendencies) and too fixated on its own scriptural base in the Abrahamic faiths..." Is it really a "theological mentality that provides support for ID"? Is intelligent design actually "fixated on its own scriptural base in the Abrahamic faiths"? These quotes sound like something that would come from someone conflating intelligent design and religion. Have you given up on the claim that there's no connection? PaulBurnett

Leave a Reply