So what is it for a religion “to work”? To attract members? To justify one’s acts or prejudices? This quote doesn’t seem very flattering to religion, especially to those of us who value logic or scientific soundness.
Sorry for posting on the thread topic, and for intercepting a post directed at Polycarp and Siege, but that book sounds fascinating. Thanks for the recommendation. I notice on Amazon that she also wrote a “sequel” called The Battle for God; have you read it or have an opinion on that?
One of the problems with discussing/arguing/defending theism itself, instead of politics and religious tolerance, is that it inevitably devolves into arguments over terminology and the connotations of that terminology. Because at the core, you’re attempting to describe something that defies human description. From your synopsis, it sounds as if Armstrong recognizes shifts and schisms in religious belief as an ongoing process to understand the nature of God (along with plays for political power, of course) without having to dismiss it as having no value.
Too often we’re left with defending against simplistic arguments like “Where is this heaven and why can’t we see it?” as if that were a damning argument against the whole of the religion. And responding that our notions of God as a person and Heaven as a place are just attempts to translate intangible concepts into language we can understand, is seen as either blasphemous, or New Age-y, or hand-waving.
And too often we’re given over-simplified statements like “religion is the opiate of the masses,” or told condescendingly that it’s nothing more than a sociological phenomenon so that people can go into denial and put themselves at ease, as if the obvious sociological aspects of religion automatically invalidate any truth in it.
I’m about as far from being a theological scholar as one can get; I suppose I should be embarrassed to admit that the most resonant theological works I’ve ever read were Good Omens and Terry Pratchett’s Discworld books. The idea of human beings’ belief creating God, or at least giving an already-existing God power, is an interesting one – I’m pretty sure Pratchett didn’t originate it, but it was the first I’d heard of it and it’s obviously the most accessible version (outside of the videogames Black and White and Populous, I guess). But I’d say that humans didn’t “create” God any more than I “create” a chair just by giving a name to what I’m already sitting on.
We have a winnnah!!!
Sol
Yes-that is what she is saying. I am only on page 57, so bear with me. I ahve read her Through the Narrow Gate and one another that escapes me at present. She was a nun for 7 years, had mis-diagnosed epilepsy (put down to “nerves” and a liking for self-drama on the part of the Sisters of her order…<editorial remark: nimrods>) and has written about religion and spirituality since then.
I heard her interviewed on Fresh Air a few weeks ago, and got intrigued.
She also says in her book that Man (except for Hindu and Buddha teachings) has always anthropomorphized deities. God, in other words, cannot help but reflect at least some of our POV and values.
It is very interesting, and pertinent to the schisms I see today. There really are 2 (at least) ways of conceiving the Christian God at this point–for lack of better terms, I would call them fundamentalist and liberal.
Hoodoo --no she isn’t always flattering to those who practice religion(or to the religions themselves). But that is not her point. I am not completely sure of her entire premise, but it would seem that she is saying that even if the Deity is changed to suit the needs of the people who worship It–that does not detract from the Deity Itself. It is not an anti-religious book, by any means. If anything, it examines the approaches to theology throughout the ages.
It is neither an apology or a condemnation, but a clear eyed exploration.
For me, it is most welcome. And to keep this even slightly on topic, I hope that Judge Greer finds a church home soon.
Funny you should mention that; I happen to be reading The Battle for God right now, and it’s fascinating reading. (I’m also a fan of Good Omens and the Discworld books; in fact, I think I might be turning into Granny Weatherwax!) It talks about how Fundamentalism in all three monotheistic religions is as much as a response to the modern era as it is a throwback. I actually started reading it to try to get a better handle on why Fundamentalism is rising.
One of the key points Ms. Armstrong talks about is logos vs. mythos, the idea of facts vs. story telling, and how some people try to force the world into only one model. From what I’ve read, it explains how some people can try to make the story-telling of Genesis into the factual explanation that becomes Creationism. They seem to want to make Truth dependent on just one form. Me, I’m a poet and a programmer. Earlier this evening, the gentleman in my life was laughing at me as I applied logic to romance; on the other hand, I’ve also seen beauty in a well written piece of code. I use my trust in the stories that make up the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth to use logic to derive what actions in this world should be. The way I see it, Jesus told us what our starting assumptions should be: we are to love God and love our neighbor. Kicking a person out of one’s church and doing what someone specifically said she did not want done violates the second assumption, therefore one should not do it. (OK, that is a vast oversimplification.)
Excuse me. I’d post more, but the gentleman has just arrived. Somehow his application of logic meant the most logical thing for us to do was spend the evening together! 
, even if that smiley doesn’t exist!
CJ
I would add, religion is also presented in a way the people of a particular time and culture will understand. The Old Testament was a time of war. Empires were rising and falling. Warlords and kings were constantly fighting for supremacy. The Israelites were alternately nomads, warriors, city builders, rih in the middle of all this. It was a time when quarrels were “solved” violently and ruthlessly. Everyone understood smiting. They would have laughed at turning the other cheek - in their world that was a good way to get killed quicker. “Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentation of the women” was a recipe for survival.
In the New Testament times, they had Pax Romana. It was relatively peaceful (in comparison), although it was a peace enforced by military power and brute force. It was a time when people were realizing they could live together without always being at each other’s throats. After all, the Roman Empire (while still ruthless) could be fairly tolerant of differences. With these differences, ideas could be exchanged. People were becoming more sophisticated.
I’m not saying any of these people were stupid. If they were, they would have vanished. But, any religion had to be in their frame of reference, to their level of understanding. So, in the OT, their God was the mighty king who ruled through power and gave orders. In the NT the “new version” became a little less forceful, a little less “military”.
That’s my hypothesis. It’s framed in the references I understand.