Review: A History of God by Karen Armstrong
The name of this blog should give you a clue that I am interested in religion. Some of that is definitely a morbid attraction, but otherwise the experience of religious belief has affected history for centuries, and I find understanding the history of religion to be important (but not centrally so) in thinking about how we got here.
To that end, I recently bought and read Karen Armstrong’s book The History of God
It begins with a description of how monotheism came about, based mainly on a critical reading of the bible and how a middle eastern tribe moved from the belief that their god wanted no other gods before him to the belief that there were no other gods. Once this monotheism is set up, the action moves to the god of early Christianity, and then to the god of Muhammed and early Islam, before continuing to the present day comparing and contrasting beliefs about god in all three traditions.
The over-riding principle of Armstrong seems to be that there are essentially three main views that the Abrahamic religions have held about god - the personal god, the philosophers’ god and the mystics’ god. Towards the end of the book she argues that the reason that western Christianity has problems is that it has been too heavily focussed on the personal god, at the expense of the other views (she suggests that the problems existing in Islam and Judaism are linked to external causes rather than theological ones).
The personal god, Armstrong suggests, is the god that atheists reject (and with good reason) as contradictory. This is the sky daddy god, the god of the Simpsons, and I think the one that Dawkins attacks the most in The God Delusion. It’s the first conception of god that the Israelites had and it remains popular.
The philosophers view of god, is the argued, rational logical one. In Armstrong’s view this is the god of Newton and the enlightenment, Aristotle and the Greeks, Pascal’s wager and the Deists. Unfortunately for people who might think that proving that god exists using logic and reason is a good idea, the more thought that goes into this Armstrong contends, the more it becomes unworkable. The rational god is the one that Nietzsche proclaimed is dead.
Armstrong feels on stronger ground with the god of the mystics. This is the god that has been most commonly described or experienced in Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. This is the god of Buddha, the Kabbalah, Sufi and Hasidic thought. Contemplation of the paradoxes in creation and hard spiritual work lead to glimpses of the divine. Armstrong is keen to stress that the mystical god is not the emotional outburst of the conversion experience, but requires study and brings calm and peace, saying:
A sense of peace, serenity and loving-kindness are the hallmarks of all true religious insight.
The implication in the book is that the god of the mystics may be the god that modern society creates for itself and that is certainly plausible. But this is clearly the god that Armstrong herself believes in, of course she thinks it’s right but it doesn’t make it any more real as far as I’m concerned - mystical experiences can be real without being supernatural.
A History of God is a good book if you are interested in religious thought. The beginning of the book is an excellent introduction to what modern scholars think is most likely to be the origin of the bible and Judaism. It also contains an introduction to Islam which is equally as fascinating. On the other hand, it is long and I often got the sense that these theists were all equally deluded but in their own unique ways, which was slightly frustrating.
Popularity: 36% [?]
Religious Discrimination: What Do You Think?
Where do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable discrimination on the grounds of religion?
Clearly there is a line. Even if you think there should never be any religious discrimination, or that there always should be, that’s still making a choice, and drawing a line.
I’m thinking that it’s ok to discriminate religiously when employing (or whatever) a minister of religion if you are yourself a religious organisation.
I also think that some types of religious discrimination are ok when employing (or whatever) a minister of religion if you are not a religious organisation e.g. a hospital, prison or armed force. Not nearly as many though, and more based on factors caused by that religion, for example I’m guessing the Army may not want to employ a Quaker chaplain, since Quakers are typically non-violent. One of the abiding qualities of a chaplain in a non-religious organisation should be being able to provide support for everybody in the organisation regardless of religious belief - there may be some faiths or denominations for whom that is not possible.
I think it may be ok to discriminate on the grounds of religion in a religiously based organisation, like a Catholic school, or an Islamic charity. But I think this discrimination should be limited only to the places that it is strictly relevant, being a teacher of religious studies - probably, being a secretary - not so much. This is less discrimination than is currently normally allowed. Most religiously based organisations strongly prefer their employees to share the religious beliefs of the organisation, but I don’t think that’s good unless the position really demands religious belief and couldn’t be done by a non-believer. I imagine that my criteria for religion being necessary are stricter than many religious people.
I think it’s fundamentally not ok to discriminate on the grounds of religion in a non-religiously based organisation. The grey area here is when people’s religious beliefs mean that they cannot perform some of the requirements of the job in question. An evangelical Christian should be able to take up employment at an evolutionary biology lab. Any belief in young earth creationism should not affect your ability to mop floors, it may not even affect your ability to carry out research (although I might question your choices). I think that in all cases, it isn’t what you think but what you do that should be discriminated on.
Naturally non-religion should no more be discriminated against than religion. I see no reason why an atheist couldn’t be a prison chaplain, a Catholic school teacher, or an accountant, just as I see no reason why a Buddhist, Baptist, Muslim, Mormon or Sikh can’t.
What do you think?
Popularity: 38% [?]
Empathy, Compassion, and Consequences
I think that being compassionate and feeling empathy is a good thing.
Empathy, the ability to put yourself in another’s shoes, is what makes human society function well.
Usually, when someone commits a crime, or breaks the unwritten rules of society there are consequences, or more normally potential consequences. Sometimes those consequences can have a domino effect.
For example in the UK, minor crimes are often tried in a magistrate’s court. The maximum prison sentence that can be given is 6 months. In the great scheme of things, 6 months is not that long - it’s not long enough for a rehabilitation programme or anything - but it is long enough to potentially lose your home, your job, your partner and your children.
Lots of people are (as they should be) compassionate where they thing the initial consequences do not fit the crime. I think it’s also a good thing to be compassionate, and have empathy, when you do think that the initial consequences fit the crime. After all, the person involved may have taken on the risk of the subsequent consequences, but that still doesn’t mean that they are fair.
Leaving aside fairness of punishment though, I think it’s good to have empathy, even where the punishment does fit the crime. Not sympathy. Not wishing that you could help them avoid the consequences. Empathy. Being able to put yourself in their position as far as you can, and still treating them like the human that they are.
What’s your take?
Popularity: 52% [?]
