Karen Armstrong, a former Catholic nun, is the author of over a dozen books on religion read in over forty languages. Her books are counted among the prestigious New York Times bestseller lists, including her most recent The Case for God (Knopf, 2009; $27.95). Despite its widespread influence, her work is not universally acclaimed by professional academics in the field of religion. No doubt some of this disapproval is motivated by the absence of scholarly credentials. But something deeper may irritate them: her stance vis-a-vis religion is elusive. She is not so easily pigeon-holed. Part critic, part historian, part apologist, and part theologian, she is simultaneously descriptive and programmatic. Her conviction that religions, at their best, essentially advocate the same message--the Golden Rule--is dismissed as reductionist. Yet Armstrong hardly overlooks religious differences; in fact, her new book celebrates them.

Armstrong is a consummate story-teller, both in writing as well as in speaking. Her lilting British accent and wry sense of humor make listening to her retell religion's greatest hits sheer delight. Her talk on Oct. 8 at the Wortham Theater--with barely a note--wended seamlessly and purposefully from one tradition to another, never detached from the historical. She is a marvelous tour guide, pausing to point out a tradition's excesses or faults only once she has shown what she sees as its best side. Her talk revealed a William Jamesian hermeneutic, that religions are "good" when they inspire their adherents to do good, suggesting that they are equally "bad" when their fruits are life-negating; Religion is meant to be therapeutic.

The Case for God traces the development of religious thought (or, more properly, practice) through historical epochs. Part I describes "The Unknown God" from the first evidence of religious awareness in the cave paintings of 30,000 BCE ("Homo religiosus"), to awareness of transcendent divinity ("God"), to the use of reason to understand the cosmos ("Reason"), to faith--in the sense of reliance or "commitment" rather than belief--as defiance of adversity ("Faith"), to the mystical via negativa ("Silence"), and ending with enlisting reason in the service of faith ("Faith and Reason"). Part II, "The Modern God," explores the influence of science and humanism on religion beginning c. 1500 CE ("Science and Religion"), the shackling of religion to science ("Scientific Religion"), the dethroning of religion ("Enlightenment"), American democratization and fundamentalization of religion and European abandonment of it ("Atheism"), the unraveling of scientific paradigms and subsequent embrace of mystery and strengthening of fundamentalism ("Unknowing"), and the simultaneous rise of secularism and religious resurgence ("Death of God?").

The book's epilogue reveals that Armstrong's intent is not merely to describe the historical evolution of religion. She is engaged in a project: calling religion back to its pure state of unknowing, unspeaking humility and awe, or mythos. This, to quote the British edition's subtitle, is "what religion means." The corners of religion on which she chooses to shine a light, the reader may realize in hindsight, thus conform to a meta-narrative: the progressive disintegration of religion from mythos into logos over time. Armstrong does not deny this selectivity: "My aim is not to give an exhaustive account of religion in any given period, but to highlight a particular trend--the apophatic--that speaks strongly to our current religious perplexity" (140). The success of her enterprise will likely depend on more factors than religion alone. Nonetheless, the attempt of The Case for God to rescue religion from its "bad" side by asking it to withdraw from public discourse is laudable, but is it likely?

--Shira Lander
 

 Dr. Milton and Mrs. Laurie Boniuk with author Karen Armstrong

For centuries, scholars have studied and pondered the purpose of religion. The Western European Enlightenment birthed the modern study of religion, which sought to examine religion as a human experience rather than as a list of doctrines or a system of propositions. This new study of religion was borne from mid-nineteenth century critique, which ranged from curious skepticism to outright denunciation. In 1841, German philosopher and anthropologist Ludwig Feuerbach observed that religion was irreconcilable with reason and had ceased to be relevant (The Essence of Christianity). Feuerbach concluded that religion was humanity’s consciousness of its own consciousness, and that God was a projection of this self-awareness. More famously Karl Marx termed religion “the opiate of the masses,” a vehicle for the lower classes to express and find consolation for their misery in a social system that took advantage of them (Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1843). Marx also reiterated Feuerbach’s characterization of religion as man-made. That observation formed the core of modern religious studies, which has taken a variety of approaches over the course of its relatively short history.

American phenomenological psychologist William James observed that religious experience was a psychological fact and that its function was to heal the self so that individuals could lead more fulfilling and productive lives (The Varieties of Religious Experience, 1902). With The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1912), French sociologist Emile Durkheim proposed that religion served to reinforce and recapitulate the human structures ordering society. German sociologist Max Weber sought to demonstrate that certain social and political conditions produced certain religious modes which evolved and adapted as these conditions changed (The Sociology of Religion, 1922). In The Future of an Illusion (1927), the father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud described religion as a social neurosis that expressed humanity’s collective longing for a universal father-figure. Mircea Eliade, historian of religion, identified religion as a vehicle for people to affirm their existence, their significance and their meaning through myth and ritual in the face of a chaotic and meaningless world (The Sacred and the Profane, 1957).

The debate continues. Writing in the Wall Street Journal’s Weekend Journal (September 12-13, 2009), evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and religion observer Karen Armstrong take opposing sides on the topic “Man vs. God.” For Dawkins, evolution has replaced God. Evolution does what God once was thought to have done and more: creates the world—without suspending the laws of physics, and guides humanity and all existence toward improvement —without moral contradictions. “Evolution,” Dawkins writes, “is God’s redundancy notice, his pink slip.” Armstrong rallies to God’s defense, the topic of her most recent book The Case for God. She blames Christians for the current conflict between science and religion; men like Sir Isaac Newton and William Paley who tried to harness science to theology, thereby robbing it of its essentially symbolic or mythic nature. “Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace,” writes Armstrong.
 
Each position advocated by Dawkins and Armstrong represents a significant intellectual tradition. Each one offers constructive critiques that help human beings reexamine past thinking and gain new understanding. Without evolutionary biology’s critique, Armstrong would not be able to state that “…Darwin may have done religion—and God—a favor by revealing a flaw in modern Western faith.” Without religion’s insistence on “find[ing] ultimate meaning in life’s struggle,” Darwin might never have asked “why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare?” (Origin of Species, Introduction). There is much to be learned from this type of respectful dialogue, even if the only lesson is how to converse civilly with those whose fundamental convictions differ from our own. We hope you’ll join us on October 8 to hear Karen Armstrong and engage in the conversation.

--Shira Lander

Religious tolerance. It's a weighty concept, but a value the world needs desperately. Having dedicated my entire life to promoting interfaith understanding, I am honored and eager to serve as The Boniuk Center's interim director for 2009-2010.

If you live in the Greater Houston area, please join us for an exciting year of public programs. If you don't, we invite you to start an Amazing Faiths Project Dinner Dialogue where you live and to become a partner in promoting religious tolerance. I look forward to meeting you, whether in person or cyberspace! (We're on Facebook.)

--Shira Lander, Ph.D.

The Boniuk Center said a sad farewell to executive director, Dr. B. Jill Carroll on June 30, 2009.  We appreciate and admire all the wonderful things she has done for the Center in her five years of service as executive director. To see Dr. Carroll's resignation letter, please click here.