The Case for God--Minus the Case

A few weeks ago, Terry Gross of NPR's "Fresh Air" interviewed Karen Armstrong about her new book, The Case for God.  Armstrong is a former nun who left the convent, estranged from her faith.  She ended up returning to spirituality, but in a much less "faith-specific," or denominational form.  She's written a bunch of books on religion, and this is the latest (and full disclosure, I haven't read it; I've only listened to the Terry Gross interview and read a few excerpts from the book.)  What struck me is that I never heard a case for God.

Or certainly not in the way I inferred from the title of the book, which is to say, some kind of logical argument. 

I did, however, hear a clearly intelligent woman argue several points with vigor and passion.  Among them:

• For most of history, no one took the Bible literally, the way fundamentalist Christians do today.  Religion and faith were inherently about myth (or "mythos").  Parable, in other words.  Logic--or logos--is something entirely separate.  (more on this in a minute).
• God isn't a "he," or a "she," or in any way an ultimate expression of humanity.  We just can't really even conceive God's being. 
• The brahmins in India were way ahead, thinking of God as a part of everything (I have to say at this point I expected Armstrong to start talking in that pinched-up Yoda voice about the Force....)
• We need a more expansive and sophisticated view of religion.  As Armstrong writes in the first chapter of the book, "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."

But again, what I never heard was "a case for God."  She tells us all about "mythos" and "logos," how they exist in separate realms, how mythos teaches us about how to deal with the pain of this world and how it serves a different function than logos.  On and on.  It's the same old, "God is outside of the world and science" argument--though she sure makes it sound smarter.  (I'd also like to note that I can "cultivate an appreciation of art," for example; but learning from and appreciating Ulysses does not mean a man named Leopold Bloom ever walked the streets of Dublin.)

This kind of broad, "love is all you need," non-denominational faith is meant to give the "spiritual types"--i.e., the "religious" people who don't go to church, who just want everyone to get along, who feel kinda tingly during a pretty sunset--an argument for that "Surely There Must Be Something Bigger Than Us Out There" feeling.

In the end, thought, it's the same old "dragon in the garage" psychosis.  But I don't see your dragon.  I don't feel it.  I don't sense it in any way, nor can I measure it or detect with any of the instruments available to modern science.  So go ahead and believe if it makes you feel good. 

 Just don't ask me to, 'k?

Comments

[Anonymous atheist]

Using the argument that God somehow exists out of the universe is bunk because anyone could use that to justify the existence of ANYTHING. The only problem is that Christians are not willing to use that argument to justify the existence of other gods and more like other fictional characters like Santa, Goblins, Fairies, and Unicorns.