This is where a notice will be displayed.

BookDaily bookdaily


The Case for God

The Case for God

[audio=http://audible.edgeboss.net/download/audible/content/bk/rand/001980/bk_rand_001980_sample.mp3]
Sample audio clip
Download Now


Are you an AUTHOR? Click here to include your books on BookDaily.com

Chapter One

Homo religiosus

When the guide switches off his flashlight in the underground caverns of Lascaux in the Dordogne, the effect is overwhelming. "The senses suddenly are wiped out," one visitor recalled, "the millennia drop away. . . . You were never in darker darkness in your life. It was—I don't know, just a complete knockout. You don't know whether you are looking north, south, east, or west. All orientation is gone, and you are in a darkness that never saw the sun." Normal daylight consciousness extinguished, you feel a "timeless dissociation from every concern and requirement of the upper world that you have left behind." Before reaching the first of the caves decorated by our Palaeolithic ancestors in the Stone Age, seventeen thousand years ago, visitors have to stumble for some eighty feet down a sloping tunnel, sixty-five feet below ground level, penetrating ever more deeply into the bowels of the earth. Then the guide suddenly turns the beam of his flashlight onto the ceiling, and the painted animals seem to emerge from the depths of the rock. A strange beast with gravid belly and long pointed horns walks behind a line of wild cattle, horses, deer, and bulls that seem simultaneously in motion and at rest.

In all there are about six hundred frescoes and fifteen hundred engravings in the Lascaux labyrinth. There is a powerful bellowing black stag, a leaping cow, and a procession of horses moving in the opposite direction. At the entrance to another long passage known as the Nave, a frieze of elegant deer has been painted above a rocky ledge so that they appear to be swimming. We see these images far more clearly than the Palaeolithic artists did, since they had to work by the light of small flickering lamps, perched precariously on scaffolding that has left holes in the surface of the wall. They often painted new pictures over old images, even though there was ample space nearby. It seems that location was crucial and that, for reasons we cannot fathom, some places were deemed more suitable than others. The subject matter was also governed by rules that we can never hope to understand. The artists selected only a few of the species known to them, and there are no pictures of the reindeer on which they relied for food. Animals are consistently paired—oxen and bison with horses, bison with mammoths—in combinations that would not occur in real life. Lascaux is not unique. There are about three hundred decorated caves in this region of southern France and northern Spain. In some the artwork is more elementary, but in all these caverns the imagery and layout are basically the same. The earliest site, at Grosse Chauvet, dates from about 30,000 BCE, a time when Homo sapiens seems to have undergone an abrupt evolutionary change in this locality. There was a dramatic rise in population, which may have resulted in social tension. Some historians believe that the cave art records a "corpus of socially-constructed rituals . . . for conflict control . . . pictorially encoded for storage and transmission through generations." But the paintings also express an intensely aesthetic appreciation of the natural world. Here we have the earliest known evidence of an ideological system, which remained in place for some twenty thousand years, after which the caves fell into disuse in about 9000 BCE.

It is now generally agreed that these labyrinths were sacred places for the performance of some kind of ritual. Some historians have argued that their purpose was purely pragmatic, but their upkeep alone would have required an immense amount of unproductive labor. Some of these sites were so deep that it took hours to reach their innermost core. Visiting the caves was dangerous, exhausting, uneconomical, and time-consuming. The general consensus is that the caves were sanctuaries and that, as in any temple, their iconography reflected a vision that was radically different from that of the outside world. We do not build temples like this in the modern West. Our worldview is predominantly rational, and we think more easily in concepts than images. We find it hard enough to decode the symbolism of a medieval cathedral such as the one in Chartres, so these Palaeolithic shrines offer an almost insurmountable challenge.

But there are a few clues to aid our understanding. A remarkable picture, dated to about 12,000 BCE, in a cave at Lascaux known as the Crypt because it is even deeper than the other caverns, depicts a large bison that has been eviscerated by a spear thrust through its hind-quarters. Lying in front of the wounded beast is a man, drawn in a far more rudimentary style than the animals, with arms outstretched, phallus erect, and wearing what seems to be a bird mask; his staff, which lies on the ground nearby, is also topped by a bird's head. This seems to be an illustration of a well-known legend and could have been the founding myth of the sanctuary. The same scene appears on an engraved reindeer horn at nearby Villars and on a sculpted block in a cliff shelter at Roc de Sers near Limoges, which is five thousand years older than the Lascaux painting. Fifty-five similar images in the other caves and three more Palaeolithic rock drawings in Africa have been found, all showing men confronting animals in a state of trance with upraised arms. They are probably shamans.

We know that shamanism developed in Africa and Europe during the Palaeolithic period and that it spread to Siberia and thence to America and Australia, where the shaman is still the chief religious practitioner among the indigenous hunting peoples. Even though they have inevitably been influenced by neighboring civilizations, many of the original structures of these societies, which were arrested at a stage similar to that of the Palaeolithic, remained intact until the late nineteenth century. Today there is a remarkable continuity in the descriptions of the shaman's ecstatic flight all the way from Siberia, through the Americas to Tierra del Fuego: he swoons during a public séance and believes that he flies through the air to consult the gods about the location of game. In these traditional societies, hunters do not feel that the species are distinct or permanent categories: men can become animals and animals human. Shamans have bird and animal guardians and can converse with the beasts that are revered as messengers of higher powers. The shaman's vision gives meaning to the hunting and killing of animals on which these societies depend.

The hunters feel profoundly uneasy about slaughtering the beasts, who are their friends and patrons, and to assuage this anxiety, they surround the hunt with taboos and prohibitions. They say that long ago the animals made a covenant with humankind and now a god known as the Animal Master regularly sends flocks from the lower world to be killed on the hunting plains, because the hunters promised to perform the rites that will give them posthumous life. Hunters often abstain from sex before an expedition, hunt in a state of ritual purity, and feel a deep empathy with their prey. In the Kalahari Desert, where wood is scarce, the Bushmen have to rely on light weapons that can only graze the skin, so they anoint their arrows with a lethal poison that kills the animal very slowly. A tribesman has to remain with his victim, crying when it cries and participating symbolically in its death throes. Other tribes identify with their prey by donning animal costumes. After stripping the meat from the bones, some reconstruct their kill by laying out its skeleton and pelt; others bury these inedible remains, symbolically restoring the beast to the netherworld from which it came.

The hunters of the Palaeolithic age may have had a similar worldview. Some of the myths and rites they devised appear to have survived in the traditions of later, literate cultures. Animal sacrifice, for example, the central rite of nearly every religious system in antiquity, preserved prehistoric hunting ceremonies and continued to honor a beast that gave its life for the sake of humankind. One of the functions of ritual is to evoke an anxiety in such a way that the community is forced to confront and control it. From the very beginning, it seems, religious life was rooted in acknowledgment of the tragic fact that life depends upon the destruction of other creatures.

The Palaeolithic caves may have been the scene of similar rites. Some of the paintings include dancing men dressed as animals. The Bushmen say that their own rock paintings depict "the world behind this one that we see with our eyes," which the shamans visit during their mystical flights. They smear the walls of the caves with the blood, excrement, and fat of their kill in order to restore it, symbolically, to the earth; animal blood and fat were ingredients of the Palaeolithic paints, and the act of painting itself could have been a ritual of restoration. The images may depict the eternal, archetypal animals that take temporary physical form in the upper world. All ancient religion was based on what has been called the perennial philosophy, because it was present in some form in so many premodern cultures. It sees every single person, object, or experience as a replica of a reality in a sacred world that is more effective and enduring than our own. When an Australian Aborigine hunts his prey, he feels wholly at one with the First Hunter, caught up in a richer and more potent reality that makes him feel fully alive and complete. Maybe the hunters of Lascaux reenacted the archetypal hunt in the caves amid these paintings of the eternal hunting ground before they left their tribe to embark on the perilous quest for food.

We can, of course, only speculate. Some scholars believe that these caverns were likely to have been used for the initiation ceremonies that marked the adolescent boy's rite of passage from childhood to maturity. This type of initiation was crucial in ancient religion and is still practiced in traditional societies today. When they reach puberty, boys are taken from their mothers and put through frightening ordeals that transform them into men. The tribe cannot afford the luxury of allowing an adolescent to "find himself" ?Western-?style; he has to relinquish the dependency of infancy and assume the burdens of adulthood overnight. To this end, boys are incarcerated in tombs, buried in the earth, informed that they are about to be eaten by a monster, flogged, circumcised, and tattooed. If the initiation is properly conducted, a youth will be forced to reach for inner resources that he did not know he possessed. Psychologists tell us that the terror of such an experience causes a regressive disorganization of the personality that, if skillfully handled, can lead to a constructive reorganization of the young man's powers. He has faced death, come out the other side, and is now psychologically prepared to risk his life for his people.

But the purpose of the ritual is not simply to turn him into an efficient killing machine; rather, it is to train him to kill in the sacred manner. A boy is usually introduced to the more esoteric mythology of his tribe during his initiation. He first hears about the Animal Master, the covenant, the magnanimity of the beasts, and the rituals that will restore their lives while they are undergoing these traumatic rites. In these extraordinary circumstances, separated from everything familiar, he is pushed into a new state of consciousness that enables him to appreciate the profound bond that links hunter and prey in their common struggle for survival. This is not the kind of knowledge we acquire by purely logical deliberations, but is akin to the understanding derived from art. A poem, a play, or, indeed, a great painting has the power to change our perception in ways that we may not be able to explain logically but that seem incontestably true. We find that things that appear distinct to the rational eye are in some way profoundly connected or that a perfectly commonplace object—a chair, a sunflower, or a pair of boots—has numinous significance. Art involves our emotions, but if it is to be more than a superficial epiphany, this new insight must go deeper than feelings that are, by their very nature, ephemeral.

If the historians are right about the function of the Lascaux caves, religion and art were inseparable from the very beginning. Like art, religion is an attempt to construct meaning in the face of the relentless pain and injustice of life. As meaning-seeking creatures, men and women fall very easily into despair. They have created religions and works of art to help them find value in their lives, despite all the dispiriting evidence to the contrary. The initiation experience also shows that a myth, like that of the Animal Master, derives much of its meaning from the ritualized context in which it is imparted. It may not be empirically true, it may defy the laws of logic, but a good myth will tell us something valuable about the human predicament. Like any work of art, a myth will make no sense unless we open ourselves to it wholeheartedly and allow it to change us. If we hold ourselves aloof, it will remain opaque, incomprehensible, and even ridiculous.

Religion is hard work. Its insights are not self-evident and have to be cultivated in the same way an appreciation of art, music, or poetry must be developed. The intense effort required is especially evident in the underground labyrinth of Trois Frères at Ariège in the Pyrenees. Doctor Herbert Kuhn, who visited the site in 1926, twelve years after its discovery, described the frightening experience of crawling through the tunnel—scarcely a foot high in some places—that leads to the heart of this magnificent Palaeolithic sanctuary. "I felt as though I were creeping through a coffin," he recalled. "My heart is pounding and it is difficult to breathe. It is terrible to have the roof so close to one's head." He could hear the other members of his party groaning as they struggled through the darkness, and when they finally arrived in the vast underground hall, it felt "like a redemption." They found themselves gazing at a wall covered in spectacular engravings: mammoths, bison, wild horses, wolverines, and musk oxen; darts flying everywhere; blood spurting from the mouths of the bears; and a human figure clad in animal skin playing a flute. Dominating the scene was a large painted figure, half man, half beast, who fixed his huge, penetrating eyes on the visitors. Was this the Animal Master? Or did this hybrid creature symbolize the underlying unity of animal and human, natural and divine?

(Continues...)

Amazon.com abebooks.com Download Now

Excerpted from "The Case for God" by Karen Armstrong. Copyright (C) by Karen Armstrong. Excerpted by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher. Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

BookDaily User Reviews

Be the first to review this book.

Please login or create an account to review this book.

Amazon User Reviews

Amazon Rating message matters, myth(s) is metaphorical Jul/25/2010

Review and critique - beware this is not brief.

Intro
(p XV) Logos or scientific method attains truth primarily via sensible experience.
Author states "We lost the art...of gods walking the earth, dead men striding out of tombs,..." etc. This is the case because these things never actually occurred!

"The nature of religious truth", does author shed light on what this nature is?

"quarreling about religion is counterproductive and not conducive to enlightenment" Agreed it can be messy like politics, and maybe this is the way it should be.

pg. xviii. "...there is a growing appreciation of the value of unknowing". This is a confusing notion given that author refers to some of the ancients. For example, Aristotle in logical writings begins, "all people [sic] by nature desire to have knowledge". Not ignorance, not unknowing, not ambiguity, but to know!

Ch 1 - p 8 -author states a myth "will tell us something valuable about the human predicament". Author could help us along by giving an example. What is the value of a person "resurrecting" from the dead? Or walking on water? Or a so-called virgin birth? I have thought about the latter and it seems to me if God has created all of nature, and if God is the embodiment of all that is good, then why wouldn't this God want to be born into life just like all of His creatures, and reveal that even sex itself is part of the full experience of life?

At best a myth can convey metaphoric truth. Otherwise myths should be challenged when their proponents infuse them with greater meaning then they could ever deliver.

P 9 - author states, "the desire to cultivate a sense of the transcendent may be the defining human characteristic." Is this sense any more than the creative impulse as expressed through art, music, science, or other creative endeavors?

P 140, the so-called ascetics of the Medieval period, such as Francis of Assisi need to be re-examined from modern view. Were these people actually religious or deranged by choosing a life of poverty? And then some of them promoted the crusades? Sounds antithetical to the message in the Gospels.
p. 146 Continuing on theme of Francis, it seems his life could be described as antihuman, regressive and an unsound version of Christianity. In further discussions on religious figures Rolle and Catherine of Siena, under the examination of a psychiatrist they would require some intensive therapeutic intervention.

In the "Death of God" chapter author notes at start: "...and the young railed against the modern ethos of their parents". And this ethos we rebelled against included racism, legalized drug addiction (e.g., tobacco abuse and alcoholism), marital discord and spousal abuse, and collaboration of authority institutions like the churches with these same failing individual and social behaviors.

Pg, 293, author right on target when she states that all fundamentalist movements, whether Christian, Islam, or Jewish, are "..defensive...rooted in fear of annihilation....and paranoid...of (enemy)."

Pg 294, refers to Islamic notion "..if their society is just and egalitarian, it will prosper..."
Huh? Islam just and egalitarian? For whom? The mullahs and sheiks? Seems a failed culture for most of its adherents. What is modernity?

Then on next page refers in the "Jewish world, fundamentalism took ...major steps...after the Shoah...and after the October War of 1973". Can you blame them? It seems to me Jewish culture is hardly fundamentalist except for possibly Hasidism(?).

On pgs 300 and 301 author quotes polls on attitudes of Muslims about the West, and to improve relations "present Islamic values in a positive manner." Do you mean Sharia law? Polygamy?
And finally the old saw about "the political issues and grievances...of the Muslim world". Let them eat cow chips - how's that for a grievance?

In subsequent pages refers to scientists such as Monod and the dauntless Dawkins (aka Darwin's "Saul of Tarsus") pontificating on the cause of the "religious impulse". Like most scientists they are better off in their own disciplines. Gould is probably closer to explaining the distinction between religion and science, though poets, muses and the arts do a better job overall. Do we need a scientific examination of the aesthetic value of Handel's "Messiah" or Bach's "Mass in B Minor"? To mine ears there's an ecstasy!

Pg 306, "..science itself has to rely on an act of faith." It's not clear why this is the case. It is not the same as religious faith if this is what these thinkers meant.
A scientific hypothesis is nothing akin to religious faith, unless the hypothesis is an estimation of the number of angels on a pinhead. I would say science is based more on a hunch or a supposition(s), given the evidence in hand or lack thereof. By definition, theology presupposes there is a god, and then it fills in the details whether the evidence is supportive of this presupposition or not.

p. 309 per P. Dirac "It is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit the experiment." Aren't the equations derived from experimental work, which is often messy, chaotic, disorganized, and subject to misinterpretation? Rather I would say it`s important that the experimental work gets done right, so that the equations themselves, beautiful or plain, can be as accurate as possible.

In many ways the works of Augustine and Aquinas are outdated by today's thinking. When Augustine uttered "What do I love when I love my God"? (p 315), how do we make sense of such a statement? Put yourself in his position, on the cusp of the end of the Roman empire, at the beginning of a "dark" cultural and historical era, and embracing a risky and embattled new faith. Augustine threw his lot in with this faith, and he was latching on to a certain kind of life, or ideal, that he could continually strive toward, and at the same time he was contributing to the philosophical basis of this new faith.

In Epilogue, p 319, refers to the "Socratic dialogue was never aggressive...conducted with courtesy, gentleness, and consideration."
Unfortunately this is some kind of Platonic ideal, for in the modern era, in order to get to the truth, scientific, forensic, or otherwise, a certain assertiveness or toughness with data are sometimes required. We are dealing with a far greater array of scoundrel today, from the neighborhood pedophile, to the deranged "religious" terrorist to the myriad financial hucksters and charlatans.

Author states "perhaps time to return to a theology...more open to silence and unknowing". What makes more sense is less theology and more commitment, engagement in the world, and curiosity.

p. 329 "Muslims venerate Muhammad as the "Perfect Man"...the ideal human being." This is hogwash and propaganda at its best. Even Christ himself was not the "Perfect Man" and he did not go around murdering his rivals. (Read E. Gibbon and his discussion of the Musselmen).

Bottom line: what is the purpose or function of religion? Does belief in a supreme being really matter? Does it matter if Christ was an incarnation of God or a common laborer looking for a career change? Is there a meaningful distinction between religion and theology? Do we need theology?

Author refers to quite a few literary, philosophy and scientific giants. No doubt the poetry of Wordsworth (read "Tintern Abbey" and "Intimations of Immortality") are literary gold; philosophers Kant and the lesser known Lonergan are uniquely insightful; and the mathematical genius of Newton (read book "Isaac") was key to the new scientific age.

Author is trying to address many concerns the other former monastic, Thomas Moore (not the saintly one), attempts in his numerous quasi-spiritual books. Armstrong touches all the bases so to speak, but in the end does she convince?

Only one error, pg. 122 - Augustine died in year 430 not 630 AD. Otherwise, very well written and in many ways an entertaining book by Prof. Armstrong.

by T. Kepler (California, USA)

Amazon Rating Not christian Jul/24/2010

OK, i read this book,in part because a theist friend told me it was the opposite of the God Delusion & i can only answer "It sure is." One book went with quantifiable fact & the other went with "I have a feeling" dressed up to look like fact. I seriously couldn't even consider this book to be a representative of christianty, but more a very light version of Deism.

Beyond that it was painful to read. The style is hard to churn through & i must assume written in such a way that it sounds too complex for the common man to refute. Not worth the cover price for anybody regardless of thelogical bent.

-M

by Matthew Lane (Joondalup, Western Australia)

Amazon Rating Excellent merger of religious writings and historical events Jul/10/2010

This book takes you through an easy to follow and extremely relevant progression of religous developments throughout our history. A number of aspects that have long been changed or reinterpretted are presented in their original context, which imbues some of the teachings with a much different tone.

by reader/writer (Manchester, NH USA)

Amazon Rating More propaganda from the Westar Institute, a.k.a the "Jesus Seminar" Jul/05/2010

.

There is not really much to offer in the way of analysis of Karen Armstrong's works beyond what has already been written, for the simple fact that "The Case for God" is not a "new" work, but rather a re-hash of the author's earlier work.

The early pages repeat the MYTHOS / LOGOS arguments. Theologian John Hick's ideas are parodied.
(Hicks denies the resurrection of Jesus Christ).

Otherwise, the author rambles on, mimicking the similar "Jesus Seminar" attempts to discredit Christianity, the Gospels of the New Testament, the Messiaship of the Crucified and Resurrected Christ, in an attempt to make Jesus Christ look like some kind of 1st Century nutcase whose confusion about "wisdom" cannot be properly construed as the Gnostic Heresy endorsed by Elaine Pagels of the "Jesus Seminar" and the members of the Westar Insitute.

Of course, consistent with the disingenuous writings of Karen Armstrong, the book is entitled,


"The Case FOR God"----[caps mine--BB]


Any objective reader of Armstrong's writings will rapidly discern that the book is a
Case----AGAINST----God. One does not have to be a rocket surgeon to perceive this.


Armstrong's methodology is as follows.

(1) A "See-Saw" tactic.

(2) Rhetorical Qualifiers

(3) Omissions of Fact

(4) Revisions

Here is how they can be percieved in the author's chapters.

(A) The author presents some kind of dichotomy concerning any issue of dispute.
Subsequently, the author argues Back----And----Forth in the manner of a "See---Saw" so as to maintain the appearance of considering the extremes of any issue. In this methodology, the author can be seen to argue both FOR and AGAINST any issue, at one and the same time.


(B) Rhetorical Qualifiers are obscure statements in the form of Knowledge Claims.
One never knows when these will pop up in Armstrong's paragraphs. They do not always appear as the central arguments of a Chapter either. They are thrown about in a manner not consistent with logical coherence, and as though they bore no direct relevence to the issue discussed. Often as not, the reader will gloss over these statements, hardly noticing that the author's assertion as to some essential and critical feature of knowledge has direct bearing on something written elsewhere in the book.

This has several benefits for the author.

First, it makes her appear very knowledgeable, so as to appear as informed as a genuine scholar.

Second, only a highly analytical reader can detect the Knowledge Claim as fundamentally flawed or offered in the complete absence of definition as to terminology employed.


(C) Omissions of fact are also difficult for a popular readership to discern, because a reader must be prescient as to the existence and relevence of a historical fact, in order to observe the instances in published material wherein Karen Armstrong entirely bypassess relevant moments in history which serve as a direct contradiction of her conclusions.


(D) REVISIONS The author's Revisions are also difficult for an unprepared reader to trace, because Karen Armstrong writes so self-assuredly and convincingly, and drops assertions with such an aplomb as to make them appear as unquestionable and unchallengable facts.

In other words, to read Karen Armstrong with an intent to actually understand what the author is claiming, one has to come prepared to engage in an objective analysis of the written word. The difficulty is that many readers and reviewers come prepared to assume, a priori, that at least a significant portion of what a published person writes, is representative of generally accepted fact. That is a critical mistake with Armstrong's works.


The author's web of deception begins immediately with the Preface and Introduction, and continues throughout the author's chapters.

It may be remembered, that I indicated that critical analysis is necessary, but that it does not require that one be a rocket surgeon to see the transparencies and confusions in this author's work.

For example, consider Chapter Twelve. The author entitles this Chapter as "The Death of God?"

Now, one can conclude there are several options offered by an author considering this question objectively, and they emerge as follows:

First: God actually has been discovered or proven...DEAD.

Second: God may be alive or dying, but is in the middling stages of either condition, which is to say,
obviously in Decline or Ascent. (You figure it out, because Armstrong only argues popular and cultural circumstance, not FACT about God nor proper orthodox theological doctrines. Armstrong will argue New Age ideology.)

Third: God is eternal and everlasting alive, ineffable and represented by Jesus Christ, enthroned in Heaven. (Or even as the central deity of another religion, because take your pick, the author's ideas and questions are not directly pressing issues in any religion or theology.)

Armstrong concludes in chapter twelve, with a question that is hardly sensible as a factual observance about a Judaeo-Christian Deity, and I quote:

"And how best can we move beyond premodern theism in to a perception of "God" that truly speaks to all the complex realities and needs of our time?"----Chapter 12, p. 317, (hardback) from "The Case for God" by Karen Armstrong 2009

If I may, let me show how a proper analysis would work on such a rambling and confused rhetoric.

(1) The author is not, strictly speaking, arguing a "God"; but rather a "perception" of a "God".

(2) The author's reference to a PREMODERN THEISM presupposes the relevance of a PREMODERN THEISM, ergo, the author's argument is circular, engaging the classical fallacy of Circulus In Demonstrando, in which the terms of the premise appear in the terms of the conclusion.

(3) The author is arguing some vague criteria referred to as NEEDS OF OUR TIME.

For the sake of brevity, suffice it to say that the only NEED made evident by Karen Armstrong, is the NEED to simply pronounce God as a pleasant but antiquated idea, that can be argued as DEAD, so that mankind can get on with satisfying his NEEDS. (Whatever those are, because they are not scripturally relevant.)

(4) COMPLEX REALITIES are never identified in specific in this author's work. It further serves the author's tactical methodlogy of Self-Authentication [Cartesian Affliction] common to New Age writings.

(5) What I find disturbing about the writing of Karen Armstrong, is that it shares so much commonality with New Atheist authorship, as well as New Age authorship, in the employment of the Bandwagon Technique associated with Propaganda, in which the author writes in First Person Plural, writing as WE, and using OUR, rather than as "I" and "MY". Atheist author Sam Harris uses the same method in Chapter One of "The End of Faith" as does Daniel Dennett in "Breaking the Spell".

Here is what a professional watchdog organization writes about the propaganda technique of the Bandwagon Fallacy which is evident in writing of one's self as a collective of persons.

***************************************


"Propagandists use this technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd. This device creates the impression of widespread support. It reinforces the human desire to be on the winning side. It also plays on feelings of loneliness and isolation. Propagandists use this technique to convince people not already on the bandwagon to join in a mass movement while simultaneously reassuring that those on or partially on should stay aboard. Bandwagon propaganda has taken on a new twist. Propagandists are now trying to convince the target audience that if they don't join in they will be left out. The implication is that if you don't jump on the bandwagon the parade will pass you by. While this is contrary to the other method, it has the same effect: getting the audience to join in with the crowd."------------from The Institute of Propaganda Analysis

******************************************

Another propaganda technique that Karen Armstrong employs is "Card Stacking" in which an author appears to offer evidence relevant to both sides of an argument, when in fact, they omit or discinclude significant facts and evidences. This is the specific method I indicated as a kind of SEE--SAW tactic, in which an author appears to offer FOR and AGAINST arguments, misleading readers, because their FOR and AGAINST propositions are either simplistic presentation of the arguments, or the arguments are considered entirely out of their original context. In other words, if the issue pertains to a LEGAL issue, the propaganda technique is to consider the issue as though it were a MORAL issue. After than mischaracterization is introduced, the author
"Runs---the---Proverbial----Picket---Fence" with a corruscating (roller coastering) barrage of verbiage. By the time the author is finished, the reader, if unobjective, will offer an ascent to the arguments, rather than assume that the author makes them feel stupid, for not comprehending the nonsense.

.



------------------------------------------------



Where Armstrong really gets into errors in LOGIC, is when she characterizes the modern SCIENCE of PSYCHIATRY as a function of MYTHOS, wherein PSYCHIATRISTS and PSCHOLOGISTS are characterized as virtual modern day SHAMANS, guiding mankind through an inward MYTHOLOGICAL and SYMBOLIC labyrinth. This is where Armstrong displays the very epitome of contradiction and irrationality. Armstrong specifically cites Freudian PSYCHOANALYSIS as the tool which modern science uses for therapeutic application. In fact, PSYCHOANALYSIS has never dominated the therapeutic field, and in fact, PSYCHOANALYSIS has largely been a dead practice for over fifty years.


This is exemplary of the manner in which Armstrong plays FAST-AND-LOOSE with historical facts. She characterizes "SCIENTIFIC RATIONALISTS" constantly as some kind of modern day, prototypical and PROMETHEAN advanced thinkers, merely because they view the proposition of a DIVINE BEING as mere MYTHOLOGY, and not as the progenitor of THOUGHT itself, or a "Divine Architect" or a "Higher Power".


----------------------------------------

CONCLUSION


This author manufactures so much rhetoric that direct analysis of her work, as a proposition, becomes an overwhelming proposition. I cited the final paragraph of Chapter Twelve as merely one example of a typically irrational passage, in which rhetoric is substituted for an objective analysis of any idea, but the terminology alone is so contextually complex as to reduce any statement or question offered by the author to a form of absurd self dialogue that is entirely inconsistent with Socratic Method or genuine scholarship.

Armstrong, in any context, is overly wordy, theologically unsound, and ideologically irrelevant.

.





by Romans 9:33/Remember Jackie Robinson (Englewood, CO United States)

Amazon Rating historical beliefs about God Jun/20/2010

This is an excellent book. No one should find this book offensive. That said, this book is one of the best sleep aids I have ever had. It was difficult to get through the first quarter of the book. It was interesting, but it just didn't excite me. After that, the book was wonderful. And the early part was important to understanding some background for later material.

The book relates many interesting historical perspectives and events. I came away with two overall perspectives.

The first one is tradition. I was reminded of the musical "Fiddler on the Roof" and its song "Tradition". Why do we do these things? Tradition! Our whole lives are filled with tradition.

Allegedly, Roman Senator once said, "All my great ideas have been stolen by the ancients." How true! My religious views are not necessarily new or better developed; they are just part of the historical views of religion that keep coming around. Religion is beyond our understanding; therefore, everything we think or say is inadequate. To keep from becoming idolatrous in our religion, we need to change among these views (the second perspective). The similarity I see are the various management styles in companies: none is adequate; which ever one is being used is lacking; so the next manager changes the style to something else and we just keep reusing old styles. The new style is not any better--it's just different, but it may temporarily get us out of the rut we were in. Religion changes to try to change government and society. In the same way, we need to keep changing the perspective of science, philosophy, and government because all are beyond our understanding and therefore flawed. None will ever be perfect; our desire for perfection in knowledge and understanding may continue, but we will always be unknowing and imperfect in our understanding no matter how much we (individuals, societies, and humanity) ever understand!

by Wayne Ward (Minnesota)

Washington Post Review

Amazon.com abebooks.com Download Now

About the Book

Moving from the Paleolithic age to the present, Karen Armstrong details the great lengths to which humankind has gone in order to experience a sacred reality that it called by many names, such as God, Brahman, Nirvana, Allah, or Dao.

Focusing especially on Christianity but including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Chinese spiritualities, Armstrong examines the diminished impulse toward religion in our own time, when a significant number of people either want nothing to do with God or question the efficacy of faith.

Why has God become unbelievable? Why is it that atheists and theists alike now think and speak about God in a way that veers so profoundly from the thinking of our ancestors? Answering these questions with the same depth of knowledge and profound insight that have marked all her acclaimed books, Armstrong makes clear how the changing face of the world has necessarily changed the importance of religion at both the societal and the individual level.

She makes a powerful, convincing argument for drawing on the insights of the past in order to build a faith that speaks to the needs of our dangerously polarized age. Yet she cautions us that religion was never supposed to provide answers that lie within the competence of human reason; that, she says, is the role of logos. The task of religion is to help us live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there are no easy explanations. She emphasizes, too, that religion will not work automatically. It is, she says, a practical discipline: its insights are derived not from abstract speculation but from "dedicated intellectual endeavor" and a"compassionate lifestyle" that enables us to break out of the prison of selfhood.


Amazon.com Download Now

Not yet a Member?

* Indicates required fields

By clicking "sign up". I agree to terms




Copyright © 2010 ArcaMax Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.