The Case for God: What Religion Really Means



The Case for God: What Religion Really Means Tugas Agama, Sangat Mirip Dengan Seni, Yakni Membantu Kita Hidup Secara Kreatif, Damai, Dan Bahkan Gembira Dengan Kenyataan Kenyataan Yang Tidak Mudah Dijelaskan Dan Masalah Masalah Yang Tidak Bisa Kita Pecahkan Setelah Melacak Perkembangan Konsepsi Manusia Tentang Sang Pencipta Dalam Sejarah Tuhan, Kini Karen Armstrong Menampilkan Kajian Tentang Masa Depannya Dalam Buku Ini, Karen Armstrong Menunjukkan Pembelaan Terhadap Tuhan Dan Agama Menentang Fundamentalisme Dan Ateisme.Di Berbagai Penjuru Dunia, Kita Melihat Agama Agama Sedang Mengalami Kebangkitan Dampaknya Terasa Di Berbagai Bidang Politik, Sosial, Dan Ekonomi Namun, Pada Saat Yang Sama, Skeptisisme Dan Nihilisme Terhadap Tuhan Dan Agama Pun Terasa Meningkat Sebagai Respons Terhadap Perkembangan Itu Dalam Buku Ini, Karen Armstrong Tampil Lebih Tegas Mendukung Agama Dari Serangan Bertubi Tubi Fundamentalisme Maupun Pemikir Ateisme Semacam Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Sam Harris Karen Armstrong Memperlihatkan Kesejajaran Antara Ateisme Gaya Dawkins Dan Fundamentalisme Kontemporer.Dengan Nada Optimisme Spiritual Yang Tenang, Karen Armstrong Menyajikan Gambaran Menggairahkan Tentang Masa Depan Agama Agama Argumentasi Yang Dibawanya Sanggup Meruntuhkan Sejumlah Pendapat Kaum Ateis Yang Dengan Gagah Menyatakan Bahwa Tuhan Telah Mati Idrus F Shahab, Tempo Karya Karya Karen Armstrong, Mantan Biarawati, Senantiasa Menarik Memberikan Perspektif Agar Kita Melihat Masalah Masalah Tentang Tuhan Dan Agama Secara Lebih Bijak Azyumardi Azra, Guru Besar Sejarah, Direktur Sekolah Pascasarjana Universitas Islam Negeri UIN JakartaKaren Armstong Adalah Salah Satu Komentator Terkemuka Dunia Tentang Masalah Masalah Agama Dan Penyebar Semangat Keberagamaan Yang Penuh Cinta Kasih.

10 thoughts on “The Case for God: What Religion Really Means

  1. says:

    Poor Karen Armstrong has been ploughing a lonely furrow in recent years, trying to show that there is a valid Third Way between increasingly defensive religious groups and increasingly forthright new atheists Neither side thinks much of her For those of us a bit detached from the arguments, she often seems like the only one talking any sense.Her main problem can best be summarised by saying that she and I share almost identical views on religion, and yet I would call myself an atheist whereas she describes herself as a freelance monotheist In other words, she succeeds in finding a definition of God which I am happy to accept, but only by defining it pretty much out of existence.The arguments in here build on her extraordinary back catalogue of books on theological history, two of which A History of God and The Battle for God are absolutely essential reading for anyone who wants to enter into the debate This book, which is designed as a sort of comeback against the attacks of Hitchens, Dawkins et al., mostly rehashes work from those two masterpieces, so I can only reall...

  2. says:

    With all of the wars, crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, Jihadists, Creationists and the rest of it, God has got a lot to answer for Armstrong s case for the defence is essentially that people are interpreting religion wrongly to the founders of the religions faith was about mystery, symbolism, practice and good works Early Christians, Armstrong argues, looked to the scriptures for inspiration not information, and would be shocked at what religion has become for many people today.The case opens with a rather long history of Western philosophy focussing on Christianity, but also taking in Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius, Augustine, al Ghazzali, Aquinas, Spinoza, Paine, Hume, Kant, Derrida and many , in which they are shown to have developed variations around the idea that practising meditation and compassion while accepting that you can t know everything can make you a better person, while temporarily shutting off the chatter of your own mental commentary can bring a special feeling of peace and refle...

  3. says:

    Armstrong is a scholar of comparative religion In numerous examples here, she shows how worship in virtually all world religions depends on a foundation of silence, or what she calls unknowing This is the silence through which one gets intimations of the divine presence I found the description remarkably like two kinds of Eastern meditation I have practiced over the years There was no presumption on the part of early theists that they could grasp God He was beyond human comprehension Since knowledge was not possible the only alternative was what Armstrong calls kenosis, or self emptying techniques that led one toward the necessary quiet contemplation Armstrong is liberal with her examples here and they are all fascinating In fact, this part of the book is a kind of survey course in comparative religion, but without the other students

    There is a wonderful description, the first I have come across, of the Eleusinian Mysteries of ancient Greece Armstrong describes this ritual, emphasizing how inherent in it were two key concepts mythos and logos Mythos was a story that was not meant to be historical or factual but expressed the meaning of an event or narrative and encapsulated its timeless, eternal dimension Mythos was a teaching tool one that helped to imp...

  4. says:

    Atheism A Rough History of Disbelief .

  5. says:

    Can I really be the only person who finds Karen Armstrong, the author of fifteen books on religion, writing in her latest that one cannot comment on the divine with words but only with silence, than a little ironic To be fair, Armstrong does offer several interesting insights Her effort to find universal truths that run across faiths is worthwhile and thought provoking One might even imagine that there are many members of exclusivist faiths for whom this would be a revelation, though one can hardly imagine many of them reading Armstrong s work At the same time, Armstrong offers an intelligent and evocative response to the new wave of atheistic polemicists Dawkins, Hitchens, etal and offers a muscular retort to their rather juvenile view of the divine, as almost all of them seem to have decided that they learned all there was to know about religion as teens in Anglican Sunday School Armstrong deserves great praise for reminding people that theology is an intellectual pursuit, the attempt to seek to understand God, as opposed to what much of religion seems to be today, namely the effort by many to project their own narrow petty views onto the divine.That said, this work suffers from the same shortcoming of all Armstrong s voluminous work Were she a theologian, one might forgive her for ignoring all those arguments that ran against her claims of universality, though it would still be intellectually sloppy However, Armstrong claims to be a hist...

  6. says:

    I m not going to lie this was a slog A breath taking overview of western religious culture going back to ancient French cave paintings and mentioning every major philosopher, theologian, and scientist since as well as quite a few minor ones This reads like a seminary dissertation Initially I was bored to tears But in the end, all that history culminates in a forceful argument in favor of the author s premise as far as I can tell, though I suspect I m not educated enough in theology or philosophy to be qualified to judge The premise is this God, whatever that is, is an unknowable transcendence, and religion throughout the ages has been a practice or craft based on ritual and contemplation of myth designed to bring practitioners in touch with the transcendent, a project that was all mucked up in the Enlightenment when religious folks got the idea that their God, just like the universe, was reducible to a knowable notion a fact leading to their initial reliance on and eventual antipathy toward science and ending up with the current vogue of religion qua science, an aberrant perversion of both There is no inherent conflict between religion and science, she argues, as they are separate magisteria concerned with separate questions There is than one kind of truth science arrives at one while art, literature, and ...

  7. says:

    I would probably say that this is one of the best books I have ever read certainly the most important But also the most dense and difficult to read It took me about 2 months and I usually can get through books in a week or two max I always read this book with a pencil and I think there are whole pages or sections in my book that are underlined However, this book is not for everyone If you cannot accept some gray in your religious belief or don t want to read something that will likely challenge your religious understanding, you might want to stay away Having said that, I was uplifted by the book The book is an answer to modern atheists and is a defense of God I have to say that I have read others like this, but this so far surpasses those in breath that I think to say that it is a defense of God minimizes what she is trying to do Karen Armstrong has done her homework The book is basically a thorough history of religion and philosophy and science She claims that modern religion has unnecessarily entangled itself in logic and has turned away from it...

  8. says:

    This book can be read in two ways, either as a confused counterblast to Dawkins or as a plea to others of faith to adapt their religious practice and adopt her rather peculiar almost Atheistic religious stance.As other reviewers have noticed this seems at first glance to promise a detailed rebuttal of Dawkins, et al the derivative cover and blurbs encourage this Armstrong does eventually get onto this task in the last chapters but first we have to plough through millennia of Christian history, selectively chosen to illustrate her tendentious thesis that Religion is NOT what the New Atheists and incidentally pretty much everybody else think it is.No indeed Religions purpose according to Armstrong is a purely practical it is to turn us into compassionate beings We get there through meditation on scriptural myths She maintains that Religious tracts such as the Bible only contain metaphorical stories Jews, Christians and Muslims all knew that revealed truth was symbolic, that scripture could not be interpreted literally pp 310 Religion is to help us with life s problems and to discover and nurture new capacities of human nature such as compassion It is not and never has been a reliance on creed, doctrine or dogma these elements are not important and it is only through the idolatrous perversion of fundamentalists and New Atheists that anyone ever thought so in the first place.She seems to be advocating a re evaluation of religion along radical Don Cupit NOMA esque lines religi...

  9. says:

    Don t be fooled by the title this is not some trite attempt to prove that God exists or that religion is a great thing Instead, it s a tremendous, sweeping yet detailed account of the changing conception of religion from the dawn of humanity to the present day Along the way, Armstrong stresses several themes.For millennia religion was not seen primarily as a series of propositions to which one was required to assent God exists , etc Instead, it was a commitment to a particular way of living At its heart lay a sense of ineffable divinity an ultimate transcendence that was beyond understanding, beyond words, beyond even such concepts as existence or omnipotence This ultimate transcendence was called God in the monotheistic religions Although beyond knowing, some degree of contact with divinity was possible through ritual, symbolism and a variety of meditative practices not just straightforward meditation as in Buddhism, but also theological reflection, philosophy or even the constant practice of humility and generosity Contact with the ineffable helped people rise above worldly suffering and adopt a compassionate way of life it enabled them to become human in a fuller, richer sense.By around 15000 CE, however, this ancient conception of religion was starting to be overtaken by a new way of seeing things An increased faith in the power of reason alone to solve all problems helped literalise religion Slowly belief changed from a commi...

  10. says:

    I was enticed to read The Case for God after hearing a snippet of the book on NPR that told how mystics of the past reached for God in silence, ritually acknowledging the inadequacy of words to describe deity Afterwards, an interviewer questioned Armstrong on her views She promptly corrected him It s not just a bee in my bonnet I ve been studying this for 20 years I was hooked, curious to hear from Armstrong My enjoyment of the work was no doubt enhanced because I listened to the audio book read by the British author Armstrong s proper, authoritative tone adds interest Her work, A Short History of Myth 2005 , read by an actor, contained many of the same ideas and information as the opening to The Case for God, but lacked the cadence and emphasis Armstrong gives her own words The Case for God is a history of mankind from a theological perspective from primitive times to the postmodern era It includes the thoughts of philosophers through out the ages from Socrates to Derrida Having read books on physics, which touch on the theological, it was refreshing to read a book of theology paralleling some of the thinking of quantum physicists and theologians.The case Armstrong makes is for an incomprehensible, mysterious, mythical, ineffable God She advocates for our acceptance of u...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *