The Case for God (Karen Armstrong)

BOOK LINK:

Here is a summary of Karen Armstrong’s book The Case for God:

Armstrong argues that modern conceptions of God are often simplistic and facicle. Throughout history, most theologians acknowledged the difficulty and limitations of describing the divine.
In premodern societies, there was a distinction between logos (reason/fact) and mythos (myth/meaning). Myths provided psychological and spiritual insights in a symbolic, non-literal way. They were not meant as historical facts but as programs of action to live by.
Major theologians discouraged taking scriptures literally and emphasized God’s utter transcendence. Words like “good” or “wise” could not truly capture God, who is beyond human understanding. Rituals and ceremonies helped position people in the proper spiritual frame of mind.
Armstrong traces how ideas of God and religion have changed over time, from ancient hierarchies to modern apprehensions about science. She examines the complex interplay between faith and reason from antiquity to the present.
The book argues we must revive a more modest, thoughtful approach to religious language and concepts of God that acknowledges their symbolic nature and human limitations in comprehending the divine.
Myth and ritual were inseparable for ancient societies. Rituals allowed people to experience myths on a deeper level and gain spiritual truths through practical action, not just thinking.
Religion is thus best understood not as something people believe but something they do. Its truths are acquired through dedicated practice of rituals and disciplines over time, like learning a skill.
Through devoting oneself to religious practice, one can achieve feats and transcendent experiences that seem impossible. This “stepping outside” of oneself was called ekstasis.
Early Daoists viewed religion as an acquired “knack” gained through constant practice, not analysis. Its workings could not be fully expressed but only experienced.
Music allows glimpses of transcendence by eliciting emotions directly and going beyond rational limits of language. It hints at a transcendent reality intertwined with human experience.
Modern rationalization of religion led to literal Biblical interpretations (fundamentalism) and atheism as alternative reactions against each other, both viewing religion through an empirical-rational lens.
The passage discusses the concept of God and religion from both premodern and modern perspectives. It addresses views from classical Western atheism in the 19th-early 20th centuries as well as more recent “new atheism” of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.
It argues that classical atheism was a response to the dominant concepts of God in Europe at the time, while new atheism focuses exclusively on fundamentalist interpretations of religion, which are not representative of mainstream traditions. This weakens their critique.
While some criticisms of religion by new atheists are valid, like atrocities committed in the name of religion, their analysis is shallow because it is based on poor theology and they refuse dialogue with mainstream theologians.
The passage suggests the concept of God has been misunderstood and that religious traditions have long insisted God does not exist in a literal sense but to preserve God’s transcendence. This important theological tradition is now overlooked.
In summary, it critiques both religious fundamentalism and new atheism, arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the concept of God based on understanding theological traditions rather than narrow interpretations.

The passage discusses cave art from the Paleolithic period found in places like Lascaux cave in France. Some historians believe the cave paintings depict ritualistic behavior and symbolism that was important for social cohesion and conflict resolution. The paintings also show an early appreciation for the natural world aesthetically.

It’s now thought that the caves served sacred purposes for ritual activities, not just pragmatic uses, given the labor required to access and maintain some sites deep within the caves. The caves likely reflected a worldview different from the outside.

One painting from Lascaux cave around 12,000 BCE depicts a wounded bison and a man in a bird mask approaching it with an erect phallus, suggesting a founding myth. Similar scenes have been found elsewhere. This points to the role of shamanism in Paleolithic societies, with shamans entering trances and believing they flew to communicate with gods.

Hunting rituals from indigenous societies are discussed, showing the complex relationship between hunter and prey, involving rituals, taboos and symbolic identification. Paleolithic cave rituals may have served similar purposes around acknowledging life’s dependence on death and restoring the souls of slain animals.

Speculations are made that the caves could have been sites for adolescent male initiation rituals, an important rite of passage in traditional societies to prepare boys for adulthood, facing death and rebirth symbolically. Overall, the passage examines theories about the sacred and symbolic roles of Paleolithic cave sites and art.

The passage discusses the spiritual nature of ancient religious rituals and sites like the Trois Frères caves in France. It argues that ancient myths and rituals were not about literal “beliefs” but were pragmatic ways to cultivate a sense of the transcendent and ultimate meaning in life. Entering the dark, cramped caves would have been an intense, transformative experience for ancient people, evoking powerful spiritual impressions.

Rituals like hunting rituals were not expressions of pre-determined religious ideas, but ideas emerged from the rituals themselves. As long as rituals evoked profound conviction, people continued them; otherwise they were abandoned. Agriculture replaced hunting around 9000 BCE but people still sought new spiritual expressions.

The cave paintings at places like Lascaux depicted symbolic associations between the moon, females, fertility and the regenerative power of nature. Ancient spirits were more concerned with the underlying unity and creative energy sustaining all life (“Being”) than supernatural beings. Certain natural objects like rocks and the moon came to symbolize this creative life force. There was no single supreme deity, rather many spiritual forces (“gods”) were thought to manifest the underlying sacred order of the universe. In summary, the passage examines the pragmatic, non-literal nature of ancient spiritual experience emerging from ritual practices.

By the 10th century BCE when Aryans settled in India, they conceived of an ultimate reality called Brahman. Brahman was the unseen sacred principle that enabled all things to grow, more fundamental than gods.
Brahman transcended personality and could not be prayed to. It was the energy holding all elements together. Brahman had greater reality than mortal beings.
Brahman could never be defined as it was “the All.” Vedic hymns hinted at Brahman through intricate, paradoxical poems that jolted listeners.
Priests developed competitions where contestants tried to verbally define Brahman through cryptic questions, aiming to silence opponents and manifest Brahman through language’s failure.
Other ancient cultures conceived of similar transcendent realities beyond the gods, described through paradox to convey their ineffable nature, such as the Chinese Dao and Mesopotamian ilam.
Religious discourse was symbolic rather than literal, meant to be actualized through rituals at sacred sites representing unity of heaven/earth and the divine source of being. Myths expressed humanity’s alienation from the absolute and nostalgia for lost wholeness.
In ancient mythology, the original high god (Heaven/Uranus) was overthrown by his son (Kronos). Later, Kronos was also overthrown by his son Zeus, who became the head god on Mount Olympus.
In modern times, the monotheistic God has lost effectiveness as the rituals and practices that made him compelling have declined. He has become a weakened deity who has in effect “died.”
In ancient times, creation myths were not seen as factual accounts but as symbolic stories teaching lessons. They reminded people that progress often requires struggle and sacrifice, and that all must work to sustain the cosmos. Myths were told during crises to access sacred energy.
Early Mesopotamian myths like the Enuma Elish linked creation to the establishment of urban civilization against the forces of chaos. Building the first cities required perseverance against floods.
Upanishadic sages in ancient India pioneered an interior spirituality, discovering the transcendent Brahman exists within the human psyche. Initiation helped students realize their inner self (atman) was identical to Brahman through symbolic exercises. This brought liberation from fear.

So in summary, ancient myths centered on overcoming chaos through sacrifice and struggle to establish order, while later Indian thought focused on realizing the transcendent divine within through personal experience and liberation.

The passage discusses early Indian spiritual practices and philosophy as presented in the Upanishads. It notes how the sages explored the human psyche with sophistication, discovering the unconscious. However, the deepest core of personality or “atman” eluded them, as it was identical with Brahman and indefinable.

It describes yoga practices meant to achieve self-forgetfulness and dissolve ordinary consciousness. These were physically and mentally demanding techniques like controlling breath and silencing thoughts. They aimed to extract the “I” from thinking and evoke feelings of calm and expanded awareness.

Ethically, yoga required nonviolence and equanimity towards others. When mastered, it led to “indescribable joy.” A creation myth emerged where the singular Person created all beings and realized their oneness with Brahman.

Religion was not theoretical but about attaining natural, blissful states through dedicated practice. Traditions like Buddhism agreed on focusing inward through meditation instead of debating theology. Achieving stillness within led to an enriched life beyond ordinary ego-dominated existence. Dogma was unhelpful - enlightenment required personal responsibility and action, not faith alone.

The passage discusses how ancient religious traditions like Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism emphasized living according to principles like non-attachment, compassion and respect for others over focused belief in doctrines or a supreme being.
For example, Buddhism teaches cultivating dispassion from the ego and transient mental states in order to achieve enlightenment and relief from suffering.
Confucius focused on living according to ritual and treating others with respect through practicing the Golden Rule daily, which could help transform society and bring transcendence.
Religious practice was about cultivation of virtues and discipline of the self rather than beliefs or clerical authority. The ultimate reality was experienced through such practice rather than understood intellectually.
It then discusses how Judaism attempted to make God the sole symbol of ultimate reality, as seen in the Genesis creation story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and their expulsion from paradise.
However, the Eden story is analyzed as a myth conveying human experiences rather than a factual account or basis for original sin doctrine, which was a later Christian interpretation not shared by Judaism.
In ancient Middle Eastern creation myths, the construction of temples was often linked to creation stories and cosmogony. King Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem was designed as a symbolic recreation of Eden.
For Israelites, the temple was a symbol of the original harmonious cosmos created by Yahweh. Participating in temple rituals gave pilgrims a sense of “peace” and healed their separation from the divine, replicating the pre-fall state in Eden.
The Eden story describes a ritual experience of unity between the human and divine rather than a historical account. In the temple rituals, opposites like natural/supernatural coincided as in Eden before the fall.
The Adam and Eve narrative was likely written in the 8th century BCE by the Jahwist (J) and Elohist (E) source documents that were later combined. These provided foundation stories for the kingdoms of Judah and Israel respectively.
Archaeological evidence does not support the biblical conquest narrative. The stories reflect the 8th-7th century conditions rather than the periods depicted and were not meant as strict history. They adapted old tales to contemporary contexts.
While more historical than other Near Eastern myths, Genesis creation was a later addition. J and E focused on the patriarchal history of Israel rather than pre-history or cosmology. Miracles supplemented historical meaning rather than explained events factually.
The story of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea was originally a much older poem celebrating a different event - a victory by the River Jordan when the Israelites entered Canaan.
Originally, Israelite religion was not that different from its neighbors - they worshipped other gods in addition to Yahweh. Over time, a group of prophets and priests campaigned for exclusive worship of Yahweh alone.
Genesis stories reflect how views of God evolved - from a supreme creator in Chapter 1, to a more ambiguous and complex figure. There is no single consistent image of God in the Bible.
Israel transitioned from sharing Canaanite religious symbols like standing stones, to rejecting them as idolatry. Exclusive focus on Yahweh as their symbol risked simplifying or anthropomorphizing God.
In the 7th century BCE, King Josiah’s court tried to reform religion, insisting on sole worship of Yahweh in reaction to earlier assimilation of Assyrian gods. They “discovered” an early version of Deuteronomy mandating this.
King Josiah of Judah discovered the Book of Deuteronomy, which commanded the Israelites to have no dealings with the Canaanites and destroy all traces of their religion.
Josiah carried out religious reforms based on Deuteronomy - he destroyed all pagan altars and shrines throughout Judah and the former kingdom of Israel, consolidating worship in Jerusalem alone.
The reforms intended to establish a secular system separate from cult, make the king subject to Torah law, and centralize worship at the Jerusalem temple.
However, this rational ideology was also intolerant. By equating their national god YHWH fully with the national will, the Deuteronomists crafted an image of god in their own image and felt obliged to destroy any rival.
Josiah was killed confronting the Egyptians, and Judah became subject to Egypt and Babylon. The Deuteronomists’ aggressive theology blinded them to practical realities and led to disaster. Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BCE.
Exiles in Babylon underwent a crisis of faith but emerged with a new spirituality centered on god dwelling among the exiles rather than the temple, as presented in the Priestly source of the Bible.
P (Priestly source from the Pentateuch) made an innovative legal change for exiled Israelites in Babylon - they would live as if they were priests serving in the Temple in Jerusalem, observing purity and dietary laws to symbolically recreate an invisible temple. This linked exile with holiness.
Laws of separation and purity made the exiles symbolically relocate to the realm of holiness where God dwelled. Rituals of separation would heal the estrangement from God.
Holiness also had an ethical component - exiles must respect all life and not despise foreigners, loving them as native Israelites.
Dietary laws forbade eating “unclean” wild animals to protect them from harm, inspired by ahimsa (non-violence) in Indian thought. These laws honored all of God’s creations.
P’s Genesis creation account gently rebutted Babylonian myths, showing a non-violent creation by divine command rather than battle. It provided therapeutic comfort for exiles and linked creation to the rituals and Sabbath rest of the symbolic temple they would build in exile.
Second Isaiah’s prophecies predicted the defeat of Babylon by Cyrus and the Persian Empire, as well as the Jews’ eventual return from exile. However, his writings also included aggressive monotheism and the destruction of gentile nations.
In contrast, four “songs of the servant” envisioned a nonviolent, compassionate approach to establishing justice in the world without force. The servant would heal people through patient suffering rather than retaliation.
When Cyrus conquered Babylon, he allowed exiled peoples to return home, and some Jews rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem around 530 BCE. However, resettlement was difficult as the exiles had to contend with opposition.
The Hebrew Bible was taking shape but contained contradictory messages of tolerance and strident nationalism. It was unclear if it had official religious significance yet.
Ezra came to Jerusalem in 398 BCE with a mandate from the Persian king to enforce Mosaic law. He was disturbed that some Jews had taken foreign wives contrary to scriptural commands.
Ezra read from the Torah publicly for the first time, with Levites providing commentary to help people understand. The people wept upon hearing the unfamiliar demands of the law.
Ezra interpreted scripture in an exclusive manner, emphasizing separation from foreigners. However, this selectivity neglected other biblical calls for treating strangers with love and respect.
Ezra’s presentation marked the beginning of classical Judaism, which focused on ongoing reinterpretation of revelation through scripts and commentaries like midrash.

The Milesians were early Greek natural philosophers (physikoi) who lived in Miletus on the coast of Asia Minor. Influenced by Eastern cultures during trade missions, they sought natural explanations for phenomena like thunder and lightning rather than attributing them to gods. Their approach may have been encouraged by the deliberative political system of the Greek city-state or polis, where universal laws ruled rather than individuals.

Early physikoi like Thales, Anaximenes, and Anaximander proposed theories of the arche or primordial substance from which all else emerged - water, air, and an undefined substance called the apeiron respectively. Parmenides proposed a skeptical rationalism, questioning whether observed phenomena reflected reality. Leucippus and Democritus proposed matter consisted of tiny invisible indivisible particles (atoms) in constant motion, forming temporary objects.

Pythagoras developed science as a philosophical and spiritual quest rather than just rational exploration. He saw mathematics and music as spiritual exercises. Greek religion and rituals like Thesmophoria emphasized humankind’s frailty and dependence on nature, influencing early natural philosophers. Overall, Milesian thinkers took early steps towards scientific reasoning but were still influenced by mythology and tradition. Their work laid foundations for later Greek rationalism.

The Mysteries were important religious cults in Ancient Greece that developed alongside the public cults of the polis. They offered a more personal spirituality.
The word “mystery” does not imply something irrational or indulgent. The Mysteries, like the Eleusinian Mysteries, involved carefully constructed psychodramas and initiation rituals meant to transform participants’ understanding of life and death.
The Eleusinian Mysteries reenacted the myth of Demeter and Persephone. Through rituals like fasting, sacrifice, and a frightening overnight ceremony, initiates experienced Demeter’s suffering and learned to accept death as part of life. This was intended to be a profound experience, not just imparting information.
Critics like Xenophanes began questioning traditional Greek mythology and whether the gods could truly have human qualities like emotions. Others like Anaxagoras and Protagoras raised doubts about whether the gods existed or could be known.
Philosophers and playwrights like Aeschylus and Euripides explored moving toward a more transcendent concept of god and argued human reason and experience could guide moral understanding, even without certainty about the divine.
It was in this context that Socrates began his philosophical mission in Athens, seeking to dismantle preconceptions through dialogue and challenging Athenians to think more deeply about religious and moral questions.
Socrates was condemned to death in 399 BC in Athens for corrupting the youth, not believing in the city’s gods, and introducing new deities. He claimed he was not an atheist like Anaxagoras but rather taught about virtue and goodness.
He could have escaped but chose to obey Athens’ laws and died as a martyr, witnessing to the untruth that was prevailing at the time.
We rely on Plato’s dialogues to understand Socrates’ teachings as he did not write anything down himself, believing living dialogue was superior to written words.
Socrates focused more on questioning and living virtuously than defining concepts. He felt natural philosophers like the physiologists failed to ask the truly important questions about morality and meaning.
His dialectical questioning was meant as a spiritual exercise to expose ignorance and elicit truth, challenging people’s beliefs and helping them attain self-knowledge and virtue. This could be distressing but aimed to transform participants.
Socrates believed the unexamined life was not worth living and saw his role as a gadfly provoking self-examination in others through relentless questioning.

Here is a summary of their spiritual progress:

Socrates’ conversations aimed for personal philosophical growth, not winning debates. His goal was to expose his own and others’ lack of knowledge through questioning, resulting in a “turning around” or conversion (metanoia) of one’s understanding and beliefs.
True dialogue required openness to changing one’s views rather than forcing opposition. It was a joint effort to understand different perspectives through respectful exchange.
Socratic questioning was likened to an initiation or spiritual awakening (myesis) that could lead to ecstasy (ekstasis) and transforming one’s perception through inhabiting another’s viewpoint.
Participating in dialogue required willingness to change and have faith in Socrates’ guidance through confusion (aporia) to find insight and pleasure in doubt. The goal was to become aware of one’s lack of wisdom and need for continued growth.
For Plato and his Academy, philosophy aimed at apprenticeship for death by living detached from bodily desires and worldly concerns. It focused on cultivating justice, moderation and rationality to transcend fear of mortality. Mathematics supported spiritual understanding and detachment from the individual self.

So in summary, their approach emphasized personal spiritual growth through open-minded questioning and dialogue, rather than intellectual debates, with the goal of transforming one’s perceptions and detachment from worldly concerns in preparation for death.

Plato developed his doctrine of forms, which held that ideal concepts like beauty, justice, and circles exist in a perfect realm apart from the imperfect physical world. According to this view, all earthly objects are merely imperfect reflections of their ideal form.
Plato believed that concepts like virtue are objective phenomena that exist independently, rather than being derived from examples in everyday life as Socrates argued.
For Plato, philosophers could achieve a higher level of abstraction by freeing themselves from sense perceptions and contemplating the ideal forms. This allowed them to understand the world in a different, more rational way.
Plato’s allegory of the cave illustrated the process of philosophical initiation, where prisoners chained in a cave represent the unenlightened viewing shadows rather than true reality. Philosophers must undergo a gradual education to comprehend the ideal forms as the true nature of reality.
Aristotle departed from Plato by focusing on physical objects and change rather than ideal forms. He viewed forms as the immanent structures that determine how substances develop, rather than eternal archetypes. For Aristotle, change and development were part of understanding life rather than flaws to be avoided.

Ancient Greek philosophy saw theory as secondary to practice, and philosophy as a way of life rather than just a theoretical system. The major philosophical schools, including Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism and Epicureanism, developed spiritual disciplines and emphasized practicing philosophy to achieve inner peace and freedom from distress. They viewed scientific inquiry primarily as a spiritual exercise to cultivate contemplation of nature or the cosmos. This kind of contemplation was thought to help remove anxiety and provide a calmer perspective on human affairs. While critical of popular religion, these philosophical traditions required an act of faith or commitment to their doctrines and way of life with the aim of achieving enlightenment and virtue. Overall, ancient Greek philosophy developed as a rational tradition but also had elements of faith, spirituality, and religion. It emphasized wisdom, humble acknowledgment of limitations, and compassion toward others.

Some Jews in the centuries before Christ were influenced by Greek philosophy and found parallels between Greek philosophical ideas like wisdom and God’s activities in the world. Writers like Philo of Alexandria used allegory to interpret the Hebrew Bible through this Hellenistic lens.
However, mainstream Judaism remained centered around temple worship in Jerusalem. In 70 CE, the Roman destruction of the Second Temple shocked the Jewish world and forced new directions.
Two Jewish sects survived - the Pharisees and early Christians. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai established a new center for Pharisee teachings at Yavneh after escaping besieged Jerusalem. They began preserving temple traditions for a future restoration.
Under Yohanan and others like Hillel, Pharisaic Judaism shifted the focus from the temple to studying Torah. Compassion and kindness replaced sacrifices as the essence of Jewish observance. Rabbinic teachings developed ethics as central to the faith, transforming Judaism into a religion of the book after losing the temple.
The rabbis viewed all human beings as made in God’s image, so murder was not just a crime but a sacrilege against God. Humiliating or disdaining others was likewise seen as defacing God’s image.
They engaged in exegesis/scriptural interpretation not to retreat into the past but to progress into an uncertain future after the Temple’s destruction. Their goal was practical teachings and rulings to help communities.
Early Christians also interpreted scriptures regarding Jesus, seeing him as the fulfillment of prophecies. They initially observed Jewish law but grew to see themselves as a new Israel after the Temple fell in 70 CE.
Figures like Paul argued Jesus’s death and resurrection fulfilled Judaism’s destiny. The gospels were viewed as commentaries finding references to Jesus in Hebrew scriptures using midrashic techniques like the rabbis.
Exegesis was seen as a spiritual exercise to find new meaning and progress after crisis, as Jews had always done through finding fresh lessons in ancient texts during difficult periods.
Early Christians would gather in small groups to study and interpret the scriptures together. Through discussion, the texts would “open up” and provide fresh insights and illumination.
As with Jesus and the disciples on the road to Emmaus, these gatherings gave Christians a sense that the scriptures were coming alive. Their hearts would “burn” as hidden meanings and connections were revealed.
Christians saw Jesus acquiring a symbolic, mythical status. His life was understood through hymns and stories as a “kenosis” or self-emptying, where he humbled himself and accepted death to glorify God.
Figures like Paul emphasized imitating Christ’s humility and self-sacrifice, not doctrinal beliefs. Early Christians focused on living compassionate lives together through ritual meals, not debates over Jesus’s divine nature.
The virgin birth stories were creative interpretations highlighting Jesus’s significance, not factual claims. His divine sonship was understood in Jewish terms of being given a special role, not as assertions of his pre-existence or divinity.
Jesus asked for “pistis” or commitment to his mission, not “belief” in doctrinal propositions. Miracles were not seen as proofs but opportunities to live obedient, faithful lives. Interpreting Jesus centered on practicing his teachings.
In the ancient world, miracles were not seen as proof of divinity. Many people had abilities to perform healings and exorcisms, which were attributed to spiritual or unseen forces rather than any supernatural status.
Figures like Elijah, Elisha, and devout Jewish miracle workers from Galilee like Honi the Circle Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa performed miracles similar to Jesus’s but were not considered divine.
Jesus presented himself as a hasid, or devout man, in the tradition of Jewish miracle workers from Galilee. He was likely a skilled exorcist who attributed his miracles to the “powers” or abilities granted by God.
The gospels are somewhat ambivalent about Jesus’s miracles. He regularly told people not to spread word of his healings. The miracles fulfilled prophecies but did not inspire full faith or commitment from witnesses.
Even Jesus’s inner circle lacked full faith or understanding. The miracles stories likely reflect the disciples’ understanding after the resurrection apparitions, not as proof of Jesus’s divinity during his life.
In Judaism, miracles did not prove theological arguments. Rabbis like Akiva developed new interpretations of scripture to keep tradition alive and relevant, rather than relying on miracles or divine proof. Revelation was an ongoing, communal process of interpretation.

Rituality refers to the customary actions or practices related to a religious ritual or ceremony. Some key points about rituality based on the passage:

The rabbis saw an ongoing Oral Torah that evolved over generations through ongoing discussion, not rigid adherence to written scripture. This maintained a living tradition responsive to change.
Talmudic study was open-ended and democratic, allowing students to engage in discussion, make their own contributions, and come to their own conclusions without anyone having the final word. This emphasized tradition evolving, not being set in stone.
Figures like Origen approached scriptural interpretation through allegory, seeing deeper symbolic meanings beyond the literal text. This was a spiritual exercise requiring discipline and effort to gain insights. Ritual study of texts was meant as a mystical initiation into encountering the divine.

So in summary, rituality for these traditions emphasized an evolving, living tradition maintained through ongoing communal discussion and spiritual exercise, not rigid adherence to past texts or definitive answers. The focus was on an open, mystical process of gaining insights rather than fixed doctrines.

Origen’s method of reading scripture through literal, moral and spiritual/allegorical senses became standard in Christianity. John Cassian later added an anagogical (eschatological) sense, making it a fourfold method.
This method was used by monks in meditation and by preachers. It involved starting with the literal meaning but progressing to deeper symbolic meanings.
Early Christians like Cyril of Jerusalem show scripture was viewed as a “mystery” directing one to hidden spiritual realities, not hard doctrines. Full understanding required spiritual effort and ritual experience.
Rituals like baptism were “mysteries” - initiatory experiences meant to transform one spiritually, not bare propositions to intellectually believe. They evoked an “ecstasy” shifting one’s thinking.
Early Muslims likewise viewed their faith not as propositions but a way of life/commitment expressed through ethical actions and ritual practices like prayer, not intellectual belief. Speculation was dismissed in favor of compassionate works.

So in summary, for early Christians and Muslims, scripture and faith involved spiritual transformation through ritual experience and moral practice, not mere intellectual assent to doctrines as in modern understanding of “belief.”

In early Islam, there was no literal or simplistic reading of scripture. The Quran’s messages were understood analogically as “signs” or “parables” to guide behavior, not impose beliefs.
Muslims were meant to model their behavior on God’s generosity by showing kindness to others, especially the poor, freeing slaves, and performing daily acts of compassion. This would cultivate a “refinement” of character.
Early Islam saw itself as continuing the traditions of Jews and Christians as fellow “People of the Book.” Muslims were told to accept the revelations to all prophets, from Abraham to Jesus.
Forced conversion was against Islamic principles, as each faith tradition had its own validity. God’s message was for all humanity, not any single group.
Muslims were commanded to live at peace, debate others respectfully, and avoid aggressive disputes. Jihad meant spiritual/moral struggle, not solely military warfare which was justified only in self-defense.
This reflects the early emphasis on orthopraxy (right practice) over orthodoxy (right belief) shared by Islam and Judaism as religions more focused on practical devotion.
The new doctrine of creation ex nihilo proposed that God created the universe and all creatures from nothing, not emanating naturally from God. This separated the physical world from God ontologically.
Some Christians led by Arius argued that if creation was ex nihilo, the Logos/Word must also have been a created being. Bishop Alexander and Athanasius disagreed, saying this risked idolatry by not considering Jesus divine.
The debate polarized between Arius’ view of Christ as the highest created being and Athanasius’ view of Christ as divine but incarnate. It spread widely and passionately.
Both sides accepted creation ex nihilo but disagreed on its implications for Christ’s nature. Athanasius said we cannot know God’s essence so Christ’s divinity is a mystery, while Arius conceived of God in human terms requiring Christ’s creation.
The 325 Council of Nicaea ruled Christ was begotten not created, in an “ineffable” relationship to God, but diversity of beliefs remained for over 50 years of further conflict.
Later, Western and Eastern Christianity developed different doctrines, with the West emphasizing Christ’s work to expiate sin and the East seeing incarnation as deifying all humanity in Christ. Interpretations of Christ’s nature remained varied.

This passage discusses the theology of Maximus the Confessor, a Byzantine theologian of the 7th century, regarding the relationship between God and humanity after the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Some key points:

According to Maximus, through the incarnation of the divine Logos as man, God and humanity became inseparable. Jesus revealed the nature of God in human form.
We can no longer think of “God” without thinking of “human,” or vice versa. God took on human flesh while remaining fully divine.
Revelation shows that God is ultimately unknowable and transcendent. The purpose of revelation is to tell us that we know nothing about God.
Language and concepts are inadequate to fully express or understand God. Words take on different meanings when applied to God.
Maximus embraced a spirituality of contemplative silence and “unknowing” pioneered by monks like Evagrius of Pontus. Prayer involved shedding thoughts rather than discussion or meditation.
Emotions and sensations could be a distraction from apprehension of the transcendent God. Monastic disciplines of stillness, repetition and community supported the contemplative journey beyond earthly perceptions.
Hesychia or contemplative silence was not just for monks but should inform all Christian practices and human relationships. The goal was an experience of the divine beyond reason or language.
Moses climbed Mount Sinai and entered darkness, leaving normal perception behind and intuiting a silent otherness beyond words and concepts. This revealed God’s essence cannot be defined or known through rational means.
Early Christians were confused by concepts like the Trinity from the Council of Nicaea. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa tried to explain that God is not a being that can be fully known or categorized.
The Trinity symbolizes that God is beyond rational categories like number. It is meant as a contemplative exercise, not a theological problem to solve. Seeing God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit prevents viewing God as a mere being.
The Cappadocians spoke of God’s essence (ousia) which is unknowable, and divine energies (hypostases) which are how God’s essence is accessed. Language, incarnation etc are hypostases but not the full essence.
The Trinity exercise trains the mind to continuously move between the one and three, producing an spiritual experience of balance beyond words. It symbolizes kenosis or mutual deference at the heart of God.
The passage describes Andrei Rublev’s famous 15th century painting “The Trinity” and its depiction of the three angels representing the Trinity. It focuses on their silent communing and how their gazes direct the viewer’s attention within in a circle of mutual devotion.
It then discusses how certain Orthodox theologians and Hindu traditions understand the Trinity/Brahman as ultimately unknowable and beyond human concepts of individual identity or selfhood. Each person refers to the others in “eternal personal dispossession.”
It shifts to discussing how western Christians like Augustine arrived at a similar conception of the Trinity through philosophical introspection. Augustine explored the faculties of memory, intellect, and will within the human mind as analogues for understanding the Trinity.
For Augustine, genuinely knowing God involved a loving relationship, not just intellectual assessment. He encouraged others to undertake the same introspection that led him to this theological understanding in order to make it a reality for themselves.
In summary, the passage analyzes depictions and conceptualizations of the Trinity from both Eastern Orthodox and Western Christian philosophical perspectives, emphasizing its ineffable and unknowable nature beyond human categories.
Augustine became bishop of Hippo in 396 but faced criticism and a divided diocese while in poor health.
Around this time, Roman Empire falling as Alaric sacked Rome in 410, beginning the Dark Ages in Western Europe with barbarian invasions.
Augustine developed the controversial doctrine of original sin from Genesis, claiming Adam’s sin condemned all to damnation, and humanity was weakened by concupiscence/irrational desire since the fall.
This reflected the tragedy of Rome falling to barbarian tribes despite its civilization. Greeks never accepted this view not facing similar invasions.
The doctrine has had a difficult legacy linking sexuality with sin and alienating men and women from their humanity in the West.
Even so, Augustine wasn’t a literalist and took science seriously, saying revelation accommodated ancient science/culture but passages must respect science today through allegorical interpretation.
He stressed interpreting scripture with love, not hatred or acrimony. Hippo was later burned by Vandals besieging the town after Augustine died in 630.
The passage outlines Dionysius the Areopagite’s method of negatively describing God through dialectic - affirming attributes, denying them, and then denying the denials. This leads to apophatic theology where language breaks down before God’s unknowability.
Applying this method repeatedly induces an “intellectual rapture” or ekstasis where we experience God beyond concepts in darkness and silence like Moses on the mountain.
Dionysius intended this not as an elite practice but as communal liturgical instruction, with priests and congregants descending and ascending together through the symbols and drama of worship.
His method influenced Western theologians through translation by John Scotus Erigena. It became central to understanding God apophatically in the West by the medieval period.
The passage then shifts to discussing the rise of rational theology in the 11th century West as Europe recovered from dark ages. Monastic education and pilgrimages increased lay piety. Theologians like Anselm of Laon now sought to make faith rationally coherent, advancing understanding through faith rather than making faith dependent on reason.
Anselm wanted to make theological truths both intuitively grasped and intellectually understandable, involving reasoning faculties. He saw human reason as a tool given by God to contemplate the divine.
However, human reason is incapable of fully understanding God. Anselm’s goal was to grasp a little divine truth, not through understanding leading to faith, but through faith leading to understanding.
His “ontological argument” for God’s existence in the Proslogion was meant to stir up the reader’s mind through contemplation, not convince skeptics through logic. It played on the medieval view that ideas in the mind relate to realities.
Reading spiritual works like the Proslogion was meant as a spiritual exercise (lectio divina) for personal transformation, not just information. It required withdrawing from daily concerns into inner reflection.
Anselm’s “proof” came to him through divine grace illuminating his heart and mind during prayer, not purely rational discovery. He aimed to write it down to give others spiritual pleasure in contemplating faith seeking understanding.
His approach drew on medieval Christian appropriation of Islamic philosophical studies of ancient Greek thought, which emphasized using reason to explore faith rather than proceeding directly from reason to faith.
Muslim scholars in the Abbasid caliphate made great advances in medicine, philosophy, mathematics, and science by building upon Greek knowledge. They called their philosophical tradition “falsafah.”
Like European philosophers, the Muslim “faylasufs” wanted to apply rational laws to understand religion. They developed philosophical proofs for God’s existence based on Aristotle and Plotinus. However, some found the idea of creation from nothing unacceptable.
Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali critiqued philosophical ideas like divine emanation for making claims beyond rational proof. He argued direct spiritual experience through Sufi practices was needed to truly know God.
After al-Ghazzali, most Muslim thinkers emphasized fusing philosophy with mysticism. Ordinary Muslims also practiced Sufism to intellectually and spiritually engage with God.
Jewish scholars in the Islamic world developed their own philosophical tradition. While helpful for experts, Maimonides argued philosophy was unsuitable for common people. Kabbalah mystical tradition later developed as a more religiously meaningful alternative.
In the 12th century, the first Crusades were launched against Islam in Western Europe. Some Crusaders attacked Jewish communities along the Rhine valley in 1096, and massacred Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem in 1099. Crusading appealed to knights but made anti-Semitism an incurable disease in Europe and scarred relations with Islam.
At the same time, some Europeans traveled to Spain to study under Muslim scholars in Cordoba and Toledo. They discovered the works of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers/scientists translated from Arabic to Latin, sparking an intellectual renaissance.
Figures like Francis of Assisi represented a popular strand of literal imitation of Christ’s life, including poverty and wounds. He approved of Crusades but didn’t participate in fighting.
Thomas Aquinas did much to absorb Aristotelian rationalism while promoting the medieval trend of apophatic theology - that God is ultimately unknowable and above human reason/language. His works sought to reduce readers to silent awe of divine transcendence.
Thomas outlined five “proofs” of God’s existence but saw they could not define God, only demonstrate God is not a particular way and is known through effects, not essence. Reasoning ultimately shows God is beyond human grasp.
Thomas Aquinas lays out five “ways” or arguments for the existence of God. These arguments are not original to Aquinas and are based on ideas from Aristotle, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and others.
The five arguments include the Prime Mover argument, the argument from efficient causation, Avicenna’s argument for a Necessary Being, a moral argument from Aristotle, and Aristotle’s idea of final causation in nature.
However, Aquinas quickly shows that while we can prove God’s existence, we have no real understanding of what “God” or “existence” means in this context. Our language and concepts fall short.
Similarly, while we can ascribe attributes like goodness or simplicity to God, we don’t actually know what these mean when applied to God rather than finite beings.
For Aquinas, the “proofs” achieve showing us that God is an unknowable mystery that we cannot define or comprehend fully with language. Pushing reason to its limit turns it inside out.
Other theologians like Bonaventure took a similarly apophatic (negative theology) approach - affirmative and negative language are simultaneous, as our concepts ultimately break down before God. For all involved, language about God is analogical at best.
This section discusses the transition from analogical thinking about God to more univocal and conceptual thinking, as seen in the works of John Duns Scotus and later philosophers/theologians.
Scotus argued that words like “existence” must have the same basic meaning when applied to God and creatures. Thomas argued they could only be used analogically.
Scotus believed reason could demonstrate God’s existence through “natural theology.” This required knowing what was meant by saying “God exists.”
Later thinkers pursued more clear, distinct, and certain theological language based on demonstrable grounds. They tried solving theological problems mathematically.
This reflects the influence of studying logic, mathematics and science prior to theology in the university curriculum. It moved away from analogical thinking towards more transparent, univocal language.
Hypothetical thinking about God’s power started being tolerated, like imagining feats of creation, which paved the way for future scientific thinking about the natural world.

The period of late scholasticism in the 14th-15th centuries saw a growing divide between theology and spirituality. Scholars like Scotus and Ockham engaged in highly abstract theological speculation that some found dry and off-putting. This led some people to believe the intellect could not reach God and that spiritual experience was based solely on intense emotional states and private prayer detached from intellectual inquiry or communal life.

Richard Rolle exemplified this new emotional mysticism focused on sensations of warmth, comfort and love rather than theological contemplation. While some mystics like Julian of Norwich and The Cloud of Unknowing author still integrated the apophatic tradition, later mystics like Rolle rejected spiritual direction and engagement with communal life. Meister Eckhart was uneasy with this trend, believing spiritual fulfillment required transcending the feeling self through intellectual detachment from images, concepts and experiences. This divide between theology and emotion-based spirituality has persisted into modern times.

The passage discusses the “thick cloud of forgetting” referenced in the quote. It’s described as a state of unknowing that one reaches by paring down all talk of God until only a single syllable remains, like “God” or “Love.” This creates a vacuum that the mind tries to fill with thoughts, so one must turn a deaf ear to distractions.

Over time, with perseverance, the intellect will abdicate and allow love to take over. However, mystical experiences like raptures or feelings of love are dismissed - the author seems to have another mystic in mind who emphasized intense love experiences. Novices are warned against taking mystical language literally and straining to feel emotions physically.

True interiority is achieved through the discipline of “forgetting.” The author tells his disciple they will be “nowhere,” which is not a place but off our normal experience maps. They should let go of distinctions like inner/outer and see beyond words. This “nothing” seems like darkness but is actually overwhelming spiritual light. The apprentice must wait patiently in darkness with a simple intent reaching for God, not seeking benefits.

Overall, it discusses moving beyond knowledge through a process of emptying oneself and describes the “thick cloud of forgetting” as a state of unknowing reached through discipline rather than mystical experiences.

Portugal’s King Manuel offered to exempt Jews from the Inquisition for 50 years if they converted to Catholicism. The converted Jews, known as Marranos, adopted that term as a badge of pride. Practicing their faith in secret, they formed an underground Jewish community without access to Jewish literature or rituals. Their faith became diluted over generations of Christian education.

Some Spanish and Portuguese Jews settled in Safed, Palestine and encountered Kabbalist Isaac Luria. His new creation myth portrayed an initial contraction of God to make space for the world, with sparks of divine light falling into chaos. This myth resonated with the exiles’ sense of displacement and trauma. Lurianic Kabbalah rituals helped Jews process their grief and find healing through mystical disciplines.

By the 1500s, Europe was undergoing an economic transformation based on technological innovation and capital reinvestment, rather than agricultural surplus. This encouraged new ideas and confidence in progress. Religion remained pervasive but began secularizing as states centralized power. The Renaissance, Reformation and Scientific Revolution further reduced the church’s role while deeply involving religion in modernization processes.

Desiderius Erasmus wanted to read scripture in the original languages and translate it into a more elegant Latin. His textual work was important to reformers. Renaissance art benefited from Andreas Vesalius’ anatomical drawings. Painters used new understandings of space and perspective to depict objects realistically based on a single viewpoint. This “scientific art” achieved transcendent visions as scientists sought elegant divine solutions.

Renaissance religion rejected scholastic theology’s aridity. It embraced personalized spirituality. Humanists wanted emotive theology they believed reached the heart, not proofs. Their biblical study sought Christianity’s origins to rediscover the gospels and Church fathers like Paul and Augustine as individuals on personal quests. Humanists created the individual crucial to modernity - free of authority to innovately experiment, revise tradition, and cooperate with others.

Even recognizing achievements, humanists knew ideas reflect conditions. Experience widened sympathies. They studied diverse ancient worlds. As philosophy, science and technology progressed, rejecting tradition seemed necessary for new truths. Reports of exotic new worlds encouraged novelty over tradition. While innovations reflected changed circumstances, the medieval approach wasn’t entirely misguided for its time.

Reformers like Luther, Zwingli and Calvin rejected the recent past strongly. Seeking personal faith, Zwingli and Calvin remained influenced by humanism. People could no longer be religious the same way. Reform expressed a powerful but inchoate religious mood. Spiritual revival among laity empowered criticism of formerly accepted abuses. Luther expressed alienation from older practices, wanting absolute faith-based certainty over anxiety-inducing rituals. The reforms spoke to needs of a generation feeling lost in societal change.

Luther’s view of faith meant total trust in God’s power and goodness, not rational reasoning or certainty. He rejected the natural theology approaches of his contemporaries like Scotus and Ockham. Speculating too much about God’s power could lead to despair.
Lutheran theology relied more on scripture alone rather than tradition or ritual. Ritual acts designed to earn merit were seen as futile or blasphemous. Printing helped spread the new ideas but also changed how people related to religious texts.
Protestantism led to more emphasis on exact formulation of doctrines and distinctions between denominations. Catechisms were used to ensure correct beliefs. Protestant debate encouraged questioning of dogma by laypeople.
The Catholic Church also reformed at the Council of Trent, reinforcing hierarchy, doctrine, education and parish organization while maintaining communal ritual practices. Spanish reformers like Teresa of Avila and Ignatius of Loyola aimed to systematize and make the spiritual quest more productive.
Both Protestant and Catholic reforms succumbed to modern iconoclasm and desire to destroy what had been superseded, though Protestants were more extreme in destroying images. The divisions accelerated secularization despite intense religiosity on all sides.
In the early modern period, as nationalism grew, princes began separating themselves from the political power struggles between squabbling Christian churches and denominations in order to maintain social order. This diminished the political influence of the churches.
As nations struggled for independence from Rome, they developed distinct national identities and affiliated with either Catholicism or Protestantism. Nonconformists were often persecuted as political dissidents.
Writers like Shakespeare and Montaigne emphasized the complexity of human behavior and rejected simplistic views of human motivation or attempts to impose absolute truths. Shakespeare showed how people are mysterious even to themselves and acted in unpredictable ways. Montaigne was skeptical of human reason and ability to attain truth.
Scientists like Copernicus also challenged established views. Copernicus developed a sun-centered model of the universe that contradicted Aristotelian physics but better explained observations. However, most found this incredible as it went against common sense perceptions and scripture. It marked a growing divide between new scientific rationalism and traditional religious authority and perspectives.
Early modern scientists like Copernicus, Kepler, and Bruno were not trying to rebel against religion. They sought to develop new ideas about the cosmos through mathematics and observation.
Figures like Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon did not see science as a threat to religion. They believed the biblical account was not meant to be taken literally on scientific matters.
Kepler and Bruno were fascinated by Copernicus’s hypothesis but wanted to develop it further. Kepler formulated his three laws of planetary motion based on Brahe’s observations.
Kepler believed science allowed one to study and commune with God. He saw the mathematical order in the cosmos as evidence of its divine origin.
However, the Catholic church grew more rigid and intolerant in the late 16th century under influences like the Protestant Reformation. It sought absolute control over doctrine.
As a result, innovative thinkers like Telesio, Campanella, Patrizi, Pucci, and Bruno faced censorship and punishment for their ideas challenging Aristotle and advocating things like planetary worlds and infinity.
It was in this climate that Galileo announced evidence supporting Copernicus, through mathematics and observation rather than mysticism. But this clashed with Catholic orthodoxy.
Galileo was a famous Italian scientist in the early 1600s who made many significant contributions through careful observation and mathematical theories. His most iconic achievement was perfecting the refracting telescope.
Using the telescope, Galileo observed craters on the moon, sunspots, Jupiter’s moons, and phases of Venus - disproving Aristotelian notions of perfect heavenly bodies. This provided strong evidence for the Copernican model of a sun-centered solar system.
Galileo published his findings to great acclaim, helping popularize telescope use across Europe. However, the Catholic Church was becoming more strict and intolerant in defending Orthodox doctrine.
Galileo insisted on separating science and religion as distinct domains, but failed to recognize how theology had become a rigid system under the post-Tridentine Catholic Church. He got in trouble for not presenting his heliocentric theory hypothetically and for appearing to contradict scripture.
Despite initial support from influential Church figures, Galileo’s writings eventually led the Inquisition to sentence him to house arrest in 1633 for refusing to renounce his Copernican views, in a clash between the new scientific spirit and Catholic intolerance. Galileo became emblematic of the perceived conflict between science and religion.
Galileo was judged guilty of disobedience by the Catholic Church’s Holy Office in 1633 for his support of Copernican heliocentric theory, which went against Church doctrine. He was forced to recant his views on his knees.
The Church’s views on science and doctrine were becoming more rigid and dogmatic. Figures like Thomas Aquinas who allowed for uncertainty were being replaced by a demand for absolute certainty in religious matters.
Some of the first modern Western atheists were Marrano Jews who had lived under cover as Catholics in Iberia for generations. Upon arriving in the more liberal Dutch Republic, they found rabbinical Judaism’s laws and rituals difficult to accept after being without open religious practice for so long.
Two prominent cases were Uriel da Costa and Juan da Prado. Da Costa published an attack on the Torah and was excommunicated, later committing suicide in despair. Da Prado argued all religion was nonsense and reason alone determined truth, getting himself excommunicated as well.
Their stories showed that without spiritual exercises to give substance, conventional religious ideas based on reason alone could produce only a detached deism easily dismissed. At the same time, Christian thought was also moving toward a rational “scientific” view of religion.
The passage discusses Lessius, Mersenne, and Descartes and their views on atheism in the early 17th century.
Lessius argued against ancient atomists like Democritus who saw the universe resulting from chance without a guiding God. He said the intricate natural world required an intelligent Creator.
Mersenne supported Galileo but also identified modern “atheists,” though none denied God’s existence outright. He argued nature had no occult powers and depended entirely on God.
Descartes’ philosophy aimed to find absolute certainty amid religious conflicts. Starting from radical doubt, he concluded “I think, therefore I am” was certain. This became the foundation for proving God and the external world. His goal was establishing truths all people could agree on.
Descartes developed these ideas after witnessing the devastation of the Thirty Years War firsthand as a soldier. He wanted to pull Europe from the “abyss” by establishing a new philosophical method based on mathematics and certainty.

So in summary, it discusses the views of three early 17th century thinkers on atheism and how they aimed to prove God’s existence through reason, experience, and mathematics amid growing philosophical skepticism and religious conflict.

Descartes finds doubt revealing because it shows our imperfection and lack of perfection. We can only understand imperfection in relation to perfection.
He argues we must have an innate idea of perfection/God, as a finite being couldn’t conceive of perfection on its own. This innate idea allows us to recognize our own defects.
Most medieval theologians rejected ontological arguments like Anselm’s that called God a “thing”. But Descartes is comfortable calling God a being and asserting God’s existence in the same way as other entities.
God’s existence is as certain as mathematical truths for Descartes. God guarantees the existence of the external world since we can’t trust our senses.
Descartes views the universe as a perfectly ordered machine created and sustained by God. This appeals as a stable vision in turbulent times.
However, his highly rationalized vision of God as a clear idea risks making God an idol. His philosophy focuses on the ego rather than producing awe.
Others are excited by the mechanical universe model and hope a single rational method can produce certainty about God and align with the new scientific spirit. But Pascal warns this risks atheism by losing the personal, relational aspect of faith.

Baruch Spinoza was born in Amsterdam to Portuguese Marrano parents who had outwardly converted to Orthodox Judaism. He received both a traditional Jewish education and instruction in rational fields like mathematics. As a Marrano, he was accustomed to viewing religion rationally and argued that “God” was simply the totality of nature itself.

In 1656, Spinoza was excommunicated from the Jewish community for his pantheistic views. As an isolated but independently wealthy thinker, he developed one of the first fully secular philosophies. He believed God was not a personalized deity but the immanent principle governing the natural world. Through studying nature, humans could understand the eternal reality of God acting within them and experience “intellectual love of God.”

Most thinkers rejected Spinoza’s pantheism as too radical. His views contributed to revolutionary debates in 17th century England during a time of political upheaval, civil war and the growth of democracy. Scientists like Isaac Newton incorporated belief in God as the first cause and designer of the universe’s precise mechanics, which Spinoza’s philosophy challenged by identifying God with nature itself.

Newton overturned centuries of Christian tradition by arguing that his laws of mechanics could explain God’s attributes and the workings of the universe, showing God to be ordered and rational. This was a departure from prior views that God was unknowable.
Newton saw gravity and the laws that held the universe together as evidence of God’s “dominion” or control over the cosmos. He argued other divine attributes like intelligence, perfection, eternity could be inferred from studying the universe.
Newton reduced God to a scientific explanation and functional part of the cosmos. God was “omnipresent substantially” in nature, acting through physical forces. Some saw this as making God too tangible and rational.
Newton’s scientific theology helped counter skepticism and “atheism.” Others like Bentley and Clarke built on it, arguing nature proved an intelligent Designer. Clarke viewed God’s will as producing nature’s uniform effects.
There were concerns that reducing God to science turned God into an idol or human projection. And what would happen if science found other ultimate explanations for the universe? Overall, Newton overturned traditional views of God for a scientific, ordered conception, but this raised theological issues.
The summary describes the rise of scientific rationalism and Deism during the Enlightenment period in both Europe and the American colonies in the 17th-18th centuries.
Key figures discussed include Newton, Van Leeuwenhoek, Cotton Mather, and Voltaire. Their work applied rational, evidence-based approaches to understand nature and religion.
Deism portrayed God as a rational creator of natural laws that could be discovered through science, rather than one who intervened directly. This appealed to Enlightenment ideals of reason over faith and tradition.
However, complete abandonment of traditional religious belief was still rare. Most found ways to reconcile science with continued belief in providence and intervention. Consistent Deism was difficult to sustain fully.
The goal was to “purify” religion of mystery and base it on evidence and reason discovered through science, thereby promoting social progress, justice and tolerance over theological disputes and violence. This represented a culmination of scientific rationalism since Galileo.

The Enlightenment period involved the development of rational, scientific thinking that began to view the natural world as governed by discoverable laws without reference to God. Philosophers like Adam Smith and Voltaire explored natural laws of economics and morality. This led to a polarization between the natural and supernatural.

However, not everyone was convinced by Enlightenment thinking. Groups like the Levelers, Quakers, and Diggers continued to oppose the establishment from a principled position. There was also opposition from the more conservative “country” wing of the Church of England led by figures like John Hutchinson. Some became disenchanted with the new rational, scientific forms of religion and theology.

In reaction, pietistic movements emphasized faith in the heart over intellectual assent. Leaders like Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf argued faith was an inner presence rather than logical proof. Figures like John Wesley applied a scientific method to spirituality but insisted religion was a light in the heart, not just doctrine.

However, an overemphasis on emotion could lead religion to descend into hysteria or sentimentality without discipline. The First Great Awakening in America showed how religious fervor could spin out of control without proper supervision of emotions.

The Enlightenment also had a paradox - it advocated individual reason and liberty but insisted on conformity with the scientific method. Alternative modes of discovering truth were belittled. Overall, the account discusses both the development of rationalism during the Enlightenment and some of the reactions and critiques it encountered from alternative perspectives.

Vico believed that to truly understand other cultures and time periods, one must go beyond surface-level analysis and try to grasp the internal, integrating principles and underlying preconceptions that drew a society together. Truths are not absolute and depend on cultural context.
Vico sensed a growing gap between science and the humanities. The scientific method values detachment and objectivity, but this approach does not work as well for understanding people, religion, and the arts, which are experiential and symbolic in nature.
Rousseau agreed that science could be divisive by leaving most people behind. He advocated listening to the “heart” or instinct over reason alone to cultivate compassion. In Emile, he proposed educating individuals based on this idea.
In France, the revolution had an antireligious dimension as religion was seen as part of the old regime to be swept away. Some advocated for atheism, seeing religion as a means of social control. Figures like La Mettrie argued matter was dynamic and did not require God.
However, the American revolution was more pragmatic and did not reject religion, which served to justify and mobilize support for independence from a Christian perspective for many colonists.
Diderot originally considered becoming a Jesuit but later studied philosophy, biology, and medicine. He sought rational evidence for God but was not fully convinced.
Experiments by Trembley and Needham showed microscopic organisms spontaneously generating, making Diderot question if the cosmos generated itself without a creator.
In his 1749 work “Letter on the Blind”, Diderot uses a fictional dialogue where a blind man denies God’s existence, instead envisioning nature evolving through natural selection without design.
After prison, Diderot edited the Encyclopedia to spread Enlightenment ideas. Baron d’Holbach also promoted “scientific naturalism”, arguing nature generated itself without final causes or God.
The French Revolution embodied Enlightenment ideals but was compromised by violence. Atheism became associated with revolution, though the public still believed in God. The revolution temporarily replaced Christianity with deism but Napoleon later reinstated the Catholic Church.
Enlightenment thought gradually undermined traditional religious authority through science, reason and questioning theological arguments for God’s existence.

Here is a summary of the key points about the Enlightenment, science-based religion, and their critiques:

During the Enlightenment, some scientists and philosophers began developing a more skeptical and empirical approach to investigating truth claims, casting doubt on the ability of human intellect to achieve absolute certainty. Figures like Maupertuis, D’Alembert, and Condorcet questioned proofs for God’s existence based on design in nature.
David Hume fundamentally challenged rationalist philosophies like Descartes’, arguing that human knowledge is subjective based on our psychology and perception of sense data. He viewed “proofs” of God’s existence with skepticism.
Immanuel Kant agreed we cannot achieve objective knowledge of reality or prove/disprove God’s existence, as it lies beyond our senses. However, he believed faith remained natural and valid despite the limits of reason.
Pierre-Simon Laplace furthered the idea that scientific explanations did not require invoking God. His nebular hypothesis proposed a natural formation of the solar system.
William Paley’s Natural Theology was very influential in arguing that design in nature points to an intelligent Creator akin to a watchmaker. But it was criticized by figures like Blake for promoting an oppressive vision of God and science.
Romantic poets like Wordsworth sought a more spiritual understanding of nature as inherently divine, imbued with spirit, rather than viewing it as an object for science and manipulation. They questioned Enlightenment rationalism and Catholic/Protestant orthodoxies.
In the late 18th/early 19th century, some poets, philosophers and theologians were moving away from the scientific rationalism and mechanistic views of nature that characterized the Enlightenment.
Wordsworth sought a “wise passiveness” toward nature rather than seeking to master it. He wanted to acquire lessons from nature through receptive listening rather than analysis.
Keats advocated for “Negative Capability” - being able to exist with uncertainties and doubts without chasing after facts and reason. He saw imagination as sacred and creative of truths.
Schleiermacher argued religion should begin with analyzing the human psyche, not the cosmos. God was found in the “depths of human nature.”
Hegel saw “Spirit” or “Mind” as the inner essence of the world, not a separate being. Spirit achieved fulfillment through the natural and human worlds. He presented a more immanent view of God as inherent in human nature.
These thinkers were recovering a sense of mystery, questioning Enlightenment dichotomies, and advocating a more receptive stance toward the world and religion rather than rationalism and analysis. However, atheism and a new form of evangelical Christianity were also on the rise.
In the early 19th century, many Americans felt dissatisfied with the aristocratic republican government, which taxed them heavily but did not share their hardships. Frontiersmen were ready to embrace a new style of preacher during the Second Great Awakening (1800-1835).
Preachers like Lorenzo Dow and Barton Warren Stone promoted a more populist, democratic form of Christianity that translated Enlightenment ideas like freedom and equality into terms common Americans could understand. They emphasized that education and wealth did not determine one’s relationship to God.
Their movements mobilized large numbers of people and helped establish denominations like the Disciples of Christ. This populist Christianity reflected American values like individualism and democracy and moved many away from the rationalism of the Enlightenment era.
However, Evangelical Christianity also embraced aspects of Enlightenment thought. While critical of Deism, Evangelicals saw God revealed through science and nature. They sought to make theology a rational, evidence-based “science” and present religious language as clear and transparent.
Figures like Lyman Beecher and Charles Grandison Finney brought this version of Christianity to urban areas. By the mid-19th century, Evangelicalism had become mainstream in America and the number of congregations had grown tremendously, reflecting religion’s empowering role in American society.

By the 1850s, Christianity in America had adapted ideas from the Enlightenment and seemed well-suited to the modern, scientific worldview. However, a new type of atheism was emerging in Europe that went beyond earlier forms. This new atheism developed out of radical intellectual and social circles in Germany that were inspired by both the French Revolution and the theology and philosophy of thinkers like Schleiermacher, Hegel, and Feuerbach.

Ludwig Feuerbach argued that the idea of God was merely a projection of human qualities and attributes. Removing God would encourage human self-confidence and undermine authorities claiming divine legitimacy. Karl Marx built on this, arguing that religious belief was a result of material and social conditions under oppressive systems like capitalism. Abolishing religion was necessary for human happiness and progress.

Other writers like Auguste Comte argued religion would naturally be replaced as human intellectual development progressed from theology to positivism focused solely on empirical facts and science. Scientific advances were undermining traditional religious beliefs and suggesting nature operated through gradual, natural processes rather than direct divine intervention. This new atheism developed as part of a broader push for radical social and political change in 19th century Europe.

In the 19th century, scientific discoveries like evolution challenged traditional Christian views that saw God as directly involved in designing and creating the world and species. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection undermined the argument from design.
This shook the confidence of many Christians who had come to rely on science as proof for religious beliefs. Poet Alfred Tennyson captured this crisis of faith in his poem “In Memoriam”. Nature now seemed “red in tooth and claw” rather than evidence of a divine plan.
Not all theologians accepted the canonization of natural theology based on science. Figures like Horace Bushnell argued religious language was vague and imprecise as God was beyond rational understanding.
Darwin’s theory accelerated the tendency to exclude theology from scientific discussion. By the late 19th century, most scientists only accepted hypotheses based on empirical evidence and natural causes, rejecting God as an explanation.
Conservative theologians like Charles Hodge saw this as a threat to religious faith. But many Christians still tried to accommodate evolution, though Darwin shattered fundamental preconceptions.
In addition, the German higher biblical criticism, introduced to Britain via essays and reviews, challenged traditional views of biblical authorship and miracles, further troubling conservative Christians.
In 1861, Essays and Reviews was published by seven Anglican clergymen and academics at Oxford, including Benjamin Jowett and Mark Pattison. It subjected the Bible to rigorous scholarly analysis like other ancient texts, arguing against a plain literal interpretation.
This higher criticism was deeply disturbing to evangelical Protestants who believed in the literal truth and plain meaning of scripture.
The hierarchy of the Church of England was also disturbed. Two authors were tried for heresy but later had the ruling overturned. Jowett was temporarily suspended from duties.
Support for higher criticism often came from scientists, who used similar rigorous historical analysis in their own fields. Figures like Charles Lyell defended and supported critics of a literal biblical interpretation.
In the US as well, more liberal Christians were open to higher criticism while conservatives like Charles Hodge insisted on the literal infallible truth of the Bible. Institutes like Moody Bible were founded to combat higher criticism.
As biblical infallibility could no longer be maintained, unbelief became a more intellectually viable option for some. Figures like Thomas Huxley embraced agnosticism as a skeptical method rather than asserting atheism based on insufficient evidence.
However, some saw science and religion locked in an inevitable conflict, with figures like Draper arguing science had liberated humanity from the tyranny of religion. This polarized the debate.
Andrew Dixon White’s 1896 book A History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom argued that religious interference with science has always caused harm, while unfettered scientific inquiry has benefited both religion and science.
This promoted the narrative of an inevitable conflict between science and religion, but the relationship was actually more complex. White misrepresented figures like Augustine to fit his biased narrative.
Other popularizers of Darwin like Huxley, Vogt, and Haeckel went further, engaging in polemical attacks on religion. Their critique of religion lacked the precision of their scientific work and involved wild generalizations.
The notion that belief itself was immoral, promoted by figures like Clifford, gained traction in this era that venerated science. But most scientists did not fuel antagonism - it was popularizers reacting against religion being undermined by Darwinism.
Despite their lack of balance, these polemicists attracted huge crowds, as atheism provided an emotional release for those with private doubts unwilling to fully abandon faith. Others felt sorrow at the loss of faith, as captured by Arnold’s poem “Dover Beach.”
Nietzsche argued that by the late 1800s, God had already died in people’s hearts, though few realized it yet. Scientific progress made God irrelevant, focusing people solely on the physical world.
Nietzsche argues that God is dead in the minds of Europeans. The ideals that God was thought to represent, like goodness, order and justice, are being eliminated from culture. Morality will be based on immediate needs rather than transcendent values.
Without a new absolute to replace God, everything will become relative and meaningless. Nietzsche believes humans can become the new absolute by making themselves divine through the Übermensch/Superman concept.
Freud viewed religion as a neurosis originating from childhood dependencies and desires for justice/fairness. He saw it as wish-fulfillment that would be replaced by science. However, his critique of religion was flawed and possibly reflected his own hostility to authority like his father.
Many agnostics in the late 19th century hoped science and rationalism would create a better world without God or religion. But wars like the American Civil War and Franco-Prussian War revealed the horrors of industrialized warfare, undermining optimism about progress without religion. European nations embarked on disastrous arms races leading to WWI. Pessimism grew about the ability of humans to replace God and religious ideals.

At the end of the 19th century, many in Europe anticipated a future of continued progress and scientific advancement. However, World War I shattered this optimism, revealing the destructive potential of modern ideologies and technologies.

After the war, modern physics underwent a radical transformation. Einstein’s theories of relativity overturned Newtonian assumptions about space, time and causality. Quantum mechanics developed by Bohr, Heisenberg and others introduced profound uncertainties, paradoxes and probabilities that seemed to defy classical logic and common sense.

These revolutionary changes in scientific understanding bewildered even physicists. They suggested the human quest for certainty and comprehensibility was built upon foundations that could be overturned. While some Christians sought to reconcile the new physics with faith, figures like Planck argued science and religion addressed different domains and should not be conflated. Overall, the upheavals of the early 20th century shook Western confidence in the inevitability of continual social and intellectual progress. Uncertainty and paradox appeared built into the human condition and scientific endeavor.

In the 1920s, developments in science, such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, showed that science could not provide definitive certainty and its findings were inherently limited and provisional. This undermined the traditional view that science could achieve absolute systematic knowledge.
However, physicists were still making progress by hypothesizing theories like relativity that could not be perfectly verified but seemed to work in practice. There was an element of “faith” involved, like in religion. This influenced Popper’s view that science progresses through conjectures and refutations rather than pure empiricism.
Meanwhile, the logical positivists argued only factual statements based on empirical evidence could be meaningful. They dismissed speculation about ethics, aesthetics, religion, etc. Pentecostal Christianity represented a grassroots rebellion against rationalism, emphasizing a mystical experience of God beyond words.
In the end, while certainty was no longer the goal, scientists still enjoyed puzzling over mysteries and making discoveries. Einstein reflected that the mystical was essential to true science and religion. Not all were ready to abandon the quest for certainty or dismiss other ways of knowing, however.

This passage discusses the rise of Pentecostalism and fundamentalism in the early 20th century United States. Pentecostalism relied on intense emotional and spiritual experiences to validate their beliefs. Fundamentalism emerged as a defensive reaction to liberal Christianity. Conservatives feared modern ideas like Higher Criticism and evolution, which they associated with German militarism and the erosion of morality.

The fundamentalist movement grew in the aftermath of World War I, when apocalyptic thinking was common. However, liberal theologians attacked conservatives, comparing them to Germans and Bolsheviks. This triggered an escalating war of words between liberals and conservatives.

In 1920, prominent figures like A.C. Dixon and William Jennings Bryan formally established fundamentalist organizations to defend traditional Christianity. Bryan launched a national crusade against the teaching of evolution in schools, sparking the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial” of 1925. Though Scopes was convicted, the trial was widely seen as a victory for rationalism and a defeat for fundamentalism. Journalists like H.L. Mencken lambasted fundamentalists as backward enemies of science and modernity. This cemented fundamentalism’s negative association in the early 20th century United States.

After the Scopes Trial, fundamentalist Christians went quiet but did not disappear. They withdrew to create their own institutions like churches, schools, etc. and build a counterculture.
In the late 1970s, this emboldened fundamentalist movement launched a counteroffensive to convert the nation to their principles. During this time in the wilderness, they became more radical and bitter against mainstream culture.
The trial backfired and made fundamentalists more extreme in their views. Where evolution was previously not a major issue, it became central after the trial.
World War 2 and the Holocaust called into question ideas of progress and revealed humanity’s potential for harm. While some blamed religion, others noted the Holocaust’s efficient, rational, and technologically advanced nature - it was also an expression of modern, secular ideologies like nationalism and scientific racism.
The Holocaust was a profound crisis of faith for some. Some saw it as God dying at Auschwitz, while others sought ways to maintain faith even in the face of immense evil and suffering, such as through mysticalconcepts of God or affirming meaning despite apparentmeaninglessness.
The residing rabbi announced the evening prayer after pronouncing a verdict. Prayer and finding meaning in dark times must continue, even as ideas about God come and go.
The idea of God is a symbol representing something indescribable and transcendent. The modern conception of God as a powerful creator knowable through reason is a recent development from a more optimistic era.
After World War 2, philosophers struggled with the concept of God, seeking to move beyond literalism. Wittgenstein argued religious language works differently than scientific language and should not be subjected to evidentiary standards. Heidegger saw Being as the highest reality, not a being, knowable through receptive thinking not investigation.
Theologians like Bultmann argued for de-objectifying God and understanding scripture existentially, not factually. Tillich argued the modern God is an idol and aspect of human predisposition to idolatry. Symbols of God allow glimpses of transcendence but had become opaque facts for many. Overall it discusses evolving 20th century philosophical and theological perspectives on the concept and language of God.

This passage discusses the work of several 20th century theologians who argued for understanding God in non-literal, non-objective terms:

Paul Tillich argued God is “being itself” rather than an object that exists. He called God the “ground of being” or “ultimate concern” that we experience through values like truth, love and justice.
Karl Rahner stressed God as mystery beyond words/concepts. Religious doctrines are symbolic expressions of our awareness of the transcendent in everyday experiences like love, which compel us beyond ourselves.
Bernard Lonergan rejected the idea that knowledge comes solely from sense data. True insight requires understanding things in various modes like science, art and ethics, which leads to awareness of the transcendent “Real and Unconditioned” (God).
Michael Polanyi argued all knowledge is “tacit” rather than explicitly acquired, learned through participation like practicing a skill or internalizing a culture. Scientific understanding also involves tacit beliefs that can later be proved wrong.

So in summary, these theologians understood God in non-objective terms, as the ground or mystery of being that is experienced through our transcendental capacities for understanding, valuing and relating - not as an object that exists or doesn’t exist.

The humanities confront problems like mortality, evil, and the nature of happiness that do not have clear or definitive solutions. Understanding a great work of literature, for example, can take a lifetime of contemplation as new meanings are revealed over time.
Gabriel Marcel distinguished between a “problem,” which can be clearly defined and solved, and a “mystery,” which we are inherently part of and cannot fully comprehend. Trying to treat mysteries like problems and solve them through logic alone risks “corrupting the intelligence.”
In the 1950s, mainstream theology still conceptualized God in a very abstract, definitional way that could not satisfy many thoughtful people. By mid-20th century, atheism seemed to be on the rise as secularism triumphed, though some still found a godless worldview unbearably meaningless.
Philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus grappled with existential questions of meaning, freedom, and the absurdity of human life in a universe without God or an afterlife. Camus concluded that finding meaning through one’s efforts was possible despite the certainty of death.
During the 1960s, much of Europe experienced a dramatic decline in religious faith and observance. Some saw this as fulfilling Enlightenment ideals of rationality, while others saw it as marking a “postmodern” era questioning modern assumptions. Atheism became more widely accepted, as discussions focused less on logic and more on the “hard realities” of human suffering.
In the 1960s, the “Death of God” theology emerged, led by thinkers like Altizer, Van Buren, and Hamilton. They argued that advances in science and technology had invalidated traditional notions of God and Christianity needed to give up the idea of a transcendent deity.
Black theologians criticized this movement for being a theology developed by privileged white people who had participated in systems like slavery that used God to oppress others.
In the late 1970s, there was a resurgence of religious fundamentalism around the world in reaction against secularization. Examples included the Iranian Revolution, rise of religious Zionism in Israel, and the Moral Majority movement in the US.
Fundamentalism seeks to bring religion back to the center of public life from which it had been relegated by modern secular culture. Though diverse, these movements share a defensive and paranoid reaction against perceived threats to their religious traditions.
Christian fundamentalism takes hardline stances against issues like evolution, abortion, feminism. Extremist elements have engaged in violence. Fundamentalist attitudes across religions are highly intolerant of other faiths.
Fundamentalism distorts religious traditions in its anxiety and selective reading of scripture to rigidly define core beliefs and enemies. It rejects modern rationalism and secularization.

The passage discusses religious fundamentalism across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It notes that Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists tend to cite more aggressive or violent passages from their scriptures while ignoring calls for peace, tolerance, and forgiveness. Fundamentalists believe they are fighting for God, but this type of religiosity actually represents a retreat from true spirituality.

The passage then argues it is important for critics of religion to understand fundamentalism in its proper historical context. Fundamentalism is an aberration, not typical of faith. Movements toward fundamentalism are often reactions to perceived attacks from liberal members of their own faith or secular regimes. They become more extreme in response to further assaults.

The passage provides historical examples of this pattern across different religions and regions. It emphasizes that early 20th century Muslim intellectuals widely embraced aspects of Western modernity. Fundamentalism in Islam really took hold in the late 1960s after several military and political defeats for Arab nations. Rapid secularization imposed from above, without social preparation, also radicalized some Muslims. Figures like Sayyid Qutb developed new, more radical interpretations of scripture in response to experiences like imprisonment and torture by authoritarian regimes.

In summary, the passage analyzes the historical roots and reactive nature of religious fundamentalist movements across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in response to both internal and external threats perceived by their adherents.

Political fundamentalism, whether religiously or secularly articulated, often stems from nationalist or ethnic sentiments. Examples given are Zionist extremism in Israel and Islamic fundamentalism in Palestine.
Hamas initially formed as a resistance movement against the ineffective and corrupt secular policies of Fatah and the occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel for over 40 years. Their violence targets only Israelis and is politically rather than religiously motivated.
Scholars disagree on the role of religion in terrorism. While some see cult of murderous martyrdom as endemic to Islam, others argue terrorism is primarily a response to foreign occupation and politics, not religion. Data shows over 95% of suicide attacks aim to compel withdrawal of military forces from what terrorists view as their homeland.
Western politicians assume Muslims hate Western values, but surveys found Muslims admire Western technology, work ethic, democracy and human rights. Grievances relate more to issues like Palestine and disrespect for Islam. Accusations that Islam causes terrorism are simplistic and counterproductive.
Secular fundamentalism emerged among some biologists overly confident in science’s capacity for absolute truth. Richard Dawkins argues religion is an accidental byproduct of evolution and poisons society, but others say science can’t prove or disprove God’s existence. Stephen Jay Gould upheld science and religion as separate magisteria not in conflict.
The universe is made of various fundamental particles and forces. Current scientific theory is that the Big Bang occurred around 13.8 billion years ago, forming the initial conditions from which the universe and all its contents have evolved according to the laws of physics.
Religion and science represent two distinct magisteria or domains of inquiry - religion addresses questions of ultimate meaning and moral values while science studies the natural world based on observations and experiments. They do not overlap or encompass all aspects of human knowledge.
Some “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins take a rigid position that rejects any distinction between religion and science. They view atheism as the only rational position and religion as always false or harmful. However, their critique of religion ignores historical/theological nuance and complexity.
By portraying religion only in its most fundamentalist/extreme forms, the new atheists engage in the same type of simplification and bias they criticize in religious fundamentalists. Their view that religion is always the root of problems overlooks non-religious influences and good done in the name of religion.

So in summary, while rightly critiquing religious extremism, the new atheists adopt an oversimplified and immoderate view of religion that mirrors the fundamentalism they oppose. A nuanced understanding recognizes multiple influences and the distinct roles of religion and science.

The passage discusses perspectives on religion from theologians like Bultmann and Tillich as being more nuanced than those of new atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. It argues the new atheists lack theological literacy compared to past critics like Feuerbach, Marx, and Freud. Their critiques of religion are therefore shallow and lack intellectual depth.

The passage acknowledges some of Dawkins’ points about evolution promoting altruism but notes theologians could accept this view. It argues religions have elevated basic instincts like altruism to a higher moral plane. The passage questions whether meaningful dialogue is possible with the new atheists given their rudimentary understanding of theology.

It goes on to say the popularity of the new atheists’ works suggests many people today struggle with modern conceptions of God and do not receive sophisticated theological training from clergy. The passage advocates theologians make their ideas more accessible. It warns the atheist assault could drive religious fundamentalists to increasingly extremist views.

The rest of the summary discusses how science also depends on non-rational factors like intuition. It notes modern physicists accept more unknowing and mysteries in the universe compared to figures like Dawkins. The passage argues postmodern thinking appropriately acknowledges the ambiguous and theory-laden nature of human understandings of reality.

Postmodernism rejects the idea that we can arrive at an absolutely true understanding of the world. Instead, our worldviews are constructed and shaped by ideological lenses we choose to view the world through.
Postmodernists are suspicious of grand narratives or totalizing systems that seek to impose a single explanation on all of history, society, politics, etc. This includes both religious and scientific/ideological narratives.
They seek to deflate such narratives but do not want to replace them with another absolute story of their own. Postmodernism is defined by skepticism of grand narratives.
Philosophers like Derrida applied this skepticism even to atheism, arguing we cannot make absolute declarations of belief or unbelief. Belief and doubt are both constructions.
Some applied these ideas to theology, arguing religion has always been interpretive and need not make absolute truth claims. This “weakens” religion and counters aggressive certainty in both religion and atheism.
The goal is not to abandon secularism or religiosity but find a “postsecular” balance that is skeptical of absolute positions on either side and promotes pluralism over singular narratives.
John Caputo sees God as the “desire beyond desire.” God is the space between what exists and what does not, addressing what we know and don’t know. The question is not whether God exists, but what we desire.
For Caputo, religious truth is truth without knowledge. He adapts Derrida’s concept of différance to create a “theology of the event,” distinguishing between a name like “God” and the restless, evolving event or meaning behind the name.
We pray for what is “to come,” not what already exists in a static conception of God. The event inspires us to realize peace, justice, love in the world.
Caputo sees negative theology as emphasizing unknowing rather than a deeper truth. Both he and Vattimo stress the apophatic tradition of religion.
Religion speaks to realities like mortality that rationality cannot fully address or solve. It helps people live with problems that have no easy answers. It was never meant to provide definitive factual answers but to inspire creative living.
Mystical traditions show religion requires dedicated spiritual practice and lifestyle, not just speculation. It involves pushing reason to its limits and experiencing a transcendent insight that modern philosophy also sought.
The concept of God that many people were taught as children did not evolve as their understanding matured. As a result, many rejected the notion of God they had inherited.
Referring to God as an entity that exists raises questions that language cannot answer adequately. God transcends human categories like gender, existence, or perfect attributes.
During the Enlightenment, God became reduced to a scientific hypothesis or explanation, rather than a symbol pointing to mystical transcendence. This paved the way for atheism.
True faith involves imaginative and practical engagement with religious symbols through ritual and ethics, allowing them to transform one’s life - not just intellectual assent. Many feel caught between rigid fundamentalism and militant atheism.
Personalizing God as an idol risks making finite ideas or ideologies supreme, denying transcendence. Both idolatrous theology and aggressive atheism fall into intolerance.
Religious debates should be open, compassionate dialogues rather than competitive efforts to defeat opponents. Informed critique can refine theology but antagonism exacerbates tensions, as seen with attacks on religious doctrines like creationism.
The doctrine of creation ex nihilo taught Christians that natural world cannot reveal God, and the Trinity showed God cannot be simply thought of as a personality. Even Christ’s incarnation showed the divine reality is elusive.
Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholars stressed independent thinking over clinging to past insights, expecting inventiveness and interpretive confidence in faith.
Religion should not impede but help embrace future uncertainties. For Calvin, science and theology had different spheres; if texts contradicted science, texts must be reinterpreted.
Past theologians like the Cappadocians emphasized an apophatic (unknowing) approach to God, seeing divine reality as ineffable. This was the orthodox medieval position, though now we view faith differently and made it problematic.
In the past, faith was more open and less about factual beliefs. Myths were not seen as untrue, mysteries not laziness. Religious terms like “belief” and “dogma” now mean something different.
Religious leaders emphasized doctrinal conformity over spiritual exercises. Past scholars learned from various traditions but attitudes hardened in modernity.
A return to a less assertive, more apophatic theology open to silence could help dialogue with atheism to dismantle idolatrous ideas through skepticism. Religious experiences in ordinary responses can reveal traces of transcendence.
The passage discusses how premodern religions deliberately humanized the divine by seeing sacred qualities like enlightenment or holiness as potentials that humans can achieve through spiritual practice and refinement of their humanity. Figures like Buddha and Jesus were seen as embodying these higher states.
It argues that religions aimed to enhance people’s lives in the present rather than just provide information about the cosmos or an afterlife. Religious disciplines helped people live with intense significance, peace, courage, generosity and justice.
The passage quotes the Buddha telling a priest that through Buddhist practice, one can realize the truth that it is possible to live in peace even amid conflict, and become a fully enlightened human being. Overall it portrays religious figures as awakening their highest human capacities and showing that mortality need not preclude living on a divine or godlike plane.

Here is a summary of the key points from the passages cited:

Leo Frobenius discusses African culture histories and myths related to origins. Campbell cites his work on primitive mythology.
Eliade discusses the history of religious ideas, including myths of origins.
Campbell and Moyers discuss myths, including the hero’s journey and myths of eternal return. Eliade also discusses myths of eternal return.
Burkert discusses Greek myth and ritual, including animal sacrifice.
Campbell discusses the importance of mapping history and myths.
Eliade details myths of eternal return and the cyclical nature of time in myths.
Sources discuss Paleolithic cave art and symbols, including evidence for lunar notations and religion.
Eliade and Boyce provide background on Zoroastrianism, including its dualistic worldview.
Sources explain concepts in Hinduism like Brahman, the Vedas, and Upanishads.
Zhuangzi stresses harmony and relativity in Daoism.
Smith discusses the polytheistic background of early Israel and biblical monotheism.
Eliade examines religious symbolism cross-culturally, including sacrifice and myths of origins.
Scripture passages are cited from the Rig Veda, Upanishads, Buddhist texts, and Analects of Confucius regarding concepts like Brahman, rebirth, the Dharma, and ren.

Here are summaries of the requested passages:

Numbers 11:31-33 describes how a wind brought quails and dumped them around the camp while the meat was still between their teeth.
Genesis 1:2 describes the earth being formless and empty prior to God’s creation.
Genesis 1:14-18 describes God creating lights in the heavens to separate day from night. He created the sun, moon, and stars.
Genesis 1:21-22 describes God creating living creatures of the sea and every winged bird according to their kinds.
Genesis 1:3, 11, 14 describes God commanding light to shine out of darkness, and plants and trees to grow from the earth.
No summary provided for the book reference.
Genesis 1:31 states that God saw all that he had made and it was very good.
Exodus 25-31, 35-40 describes regulations for building the tabernacle and instructions for making priestly garments and implements for worship.
Exodus 39:32, 43; 40:33; 40:2, 17; 31:3, 13 states that the Israelites did all the work of constructing the tabernacle and its furnishings as the Lord had commanded Moses.
Isaiah 40:1 states “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.”
Isaiah 43:11-12 says that besides God there is no savior; he alone saved Israel from Egypt.
Isaiah 11:15-16 describes God drying up the Egyptian sea and striking down the Euphrates so that his redeemed may return.
Isaiah 46:1, building on 45:21, declares that Bel and Nebo, the gods of Babylon, will be carried away on beasts of burden.
Isaiah 42:13 states that God will go out like a warrior and arouse his zeal and shout; he will prevail over his enemies.
Isaiah 41:17-24 describes how when the poor and needy seek water and there is none, God will make rivers flow on barren heights and fountains in the midst of valleys.
Isaiah 42:12, 16; 51:23 states that God will lead the blind by a road they do not know and turn darkness into light before them. He will keep them from stumbling.
Isaiah 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12 portray the suffering servant who will bring justice to the nations and be a light to them.
Isaiah 42:2-3 says the servant will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, and a bruised reed he will not break.
Isaiah 50:5-6, 9 says that the Lord God has opened the servant’s ear and he was not rebellious but set his face like a flint knowing he would be vindicated.
Isaiah 52:13-53:5 describes the servant’s suffering and exaltation and how by his knowledge he shall justify many for he bore their iniquities.
Isaiah 49:6 says the servant will also be a light for the Gentiles so that God’s salvation may reach to the end of the earth.
Ezra 7:6 states that Ezra was a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses which was given by God of Israel.
no summary provided
Nehemiah 8:7-8 describes how the Levites helped the people to understand the Law while the people stood in their place.
Ezra 10 describes how the people were made to give up their foreign wives and children for having married foreign women.
no summary provided
no summary provided

Here is a summary of the key points from the requested sources:

Luke 6:20-23 and Luke 6:27-38 discuss Jesus teaching his disciples to love their enemies and not judge others. Matthew 5:38-48 discusses turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor.
Romans 12:9-13 and 1 Corinthians 6:7 discuss treating others with brotherly love, honoring others over yourself, and resolving disputes within the church.
Akenson’s Surpassing Wonder discusses how the rabbinic movement emerged during Roman times partly in response to the destruction of the Temple.
Fredricksen’s Jesus of Nazareth discusses Jesus as a charismatic Jewish holy man and prophet during his lifetime.
Matthew 5:17-19 and Luke 16:17 discuss Jesus fulfilling, not abolishing, the law and prophets.
Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 discuss the Golden Rule to treat others as you wish to be treated.
Acts 2:1-13 describes the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles at Pentecost.
Acts describes the early spread of the church from Jerusalem into Judea, Samaria and parts of the world.
Several passages from Isaiah, Zechariah, Tobit and others discuss nations coming to worship God in Jerusalem in the end times.
Romans, Galatians and Fredricksen discuss concepts like sonship and being called sons or children of God in reference to Jesus and believers.
Matthew and Daniel discuss prophecies referring to the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.
Mark, Isaiah and Jeremiah discuss Jesus cleansing the temple of money changers.
Matthew discusses where two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name.

Here are summaries of the two passages requested:

Oliver Davies and Denys Turner, eds., Silence and the Word: Negative Theology and Incarnation (Cambridge, U.K., 2002), pp. 128-30.

This section discusses how apophaticism, or “negative theology,” involves negation of concepts and affirming what God is not rather than what God is. It focuses on Pseudo-Dionysius, who framed God in terms of what cannot be said about God due to God’s infinite transcendence. For Pseudo-Dionysius, we must progress through purification of concepts and images to ultimately experience a level of prayer or contemplation beyond thinking or language.

Panikkar, Trinity, pp. 46-67.

This section of Panikkar’s book discusses the doctrine of the Trinity. It outlines the mainstream Christian understanding of God as three persons in one substance or being. It then explores alternative understandings suggested by Eastern Christianity and mystical traditions. Specifically, it discusses how some mystical traditions see the Trinity as a model for the divine-human relationship rather than a mapping of the Godhead itself. It also explores how the Trinity relates to concepts like shunyata (emptiness) in Buddhism.

Here is a summary of pp. 260-264:

Discusses the condemnation of 1277 by Bishop Tempier in Paris, which condemned over 200 philosophical theses. This represented a rejection of Aristotle’s arguments for God’s absolute power over nature.
Thomas Aquinas took a moderate view, arguing philosophy and theology could be reconciled if reason was subordinate to revelation. Later thinkers took more extreme views like Siger of Brabant who argued for God’s absolute power based on faith alone.
Discusses the influence of Franciscan thinkers like Bonaventure and how they emphasized the role of mystery and faith over rational arguments. Later thinkers like Nicholas of Autrecourt took more skeptical views of reason’s ability to reach theological truths.
By the late Middle Ages, many theologians accepted faith and reason could conflict and emphasized divine revelation over natural reason. Notable exception was Nicholas of Cusa who tried to reconcile the two.
Also discusses the views of later medieval mystics like Meister Eckhart who emphasized letting go of rational understanding and images to achieve a direct experience of God beyond knowing. This represented a shift from the earlier dominance of scholastic theology.

Here are the key points summarized from the passages:

Passages 73-74 refer back to an earlier source (“Ibid.”) on pages 92-93 and 90-91 respectively for more details.
Passage 77 discusses Galileo and the Church, mentioning views from Shea and Westman that the Copernicans played a role.
Passage 79 references a letter from Bellarmine to Foscarini in 1615 containing Galileo’s views from a source in Opere. It also mentions Shea’s discussion of this.
Passage 81 discusses views from McMullin and Buckley on Galileo’s views on science and scripture.
Passage 83 further discusses Shea’s views on Galileo and the trial.
Passages 86-87 discuss Yovel’s analysis of Galileo as a “Marrano of Reason” and references to Orobio de Castro.
Passages 89-90 continue discussing Yovel’s analysis and interpretation of Galileo.
No summaries are provided for the individual passages, just contextual connections and references to other scholars discussed in the passages. The key detail is that the passages reference other texts, scholars, and each other to discuss Galileo and the Church’s condemnation of his scientific views.

Here are the summaries of the sources provided:

Josephine K. Piercy (Gainesville, Fla., 1968), p. i - No summary provided, only a bibliographic citation.
Ibid., pp. 2-3; Mather’s italics. - No summary provided, only a bibliographic citation.
Ibid., p. 2; Mather’s italics. - No summary provided, only a bibliographic citation.
Ibid., p. 294. - No summary provided, only a bibliographic citation.
Robert Briggs, “Embattled Faiths: Religion and Natural Philosophy” in Euan Cameron, ed., Early Modern Europe (Oxford, 1999), pp. 197-205. - No summary provided, only a bibliographic citation.

And so on for the remaining citations. No substantive summaries are provided for any of the sources cited. The references simply list the bibliographic details without any description of the contents or arguments.

Here is a summary of the selected sources:

Ludwig Feuerbach argued that God is simply a projection of human qualities and attributes, emphasizing anthropology over theology (sources 18-21).
Karl Marx critiqued Feuerbach’s humanism as insufficiently materialist, emphasizing the social and political dimensions of religion (sources 22-25).
In the 19th century, geological discoveries raised questions about the literal interpretation of Genesis, while scientific authorities like Charles Lyell defended evolutionary views of earth history against biblical literalism (sources 26-28).
Figures like Thomas Malthus, Phillip Henry Gosse, and the Agassiz further strained traditional biblical interpretations with ideas like population limits, “special creation” of species, and opposition to transmutation of species (sources 29-32, 40).
In poetry, Tennyson struggled with loss of faith in works like In Memoriam while Horace Bushnell advocated accommodating Christianity to modern science (sources 33-39).
Later 19th century developments like Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection posed new threats to traditional Christianity, spurring both rejection and attempted accommodation (sources 40-49).
By the late 19th century, mainstream theologians like Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield defended biblical inerrancy and creationism, while others adopted more liberal biblical interpretations (sources 44-47, 49, 51).
Figures like Ingersoll, Draper, and White popularized conflicts between science and religion and presented science as disproving traditional religious claims (sources 64, 67-69, 71).
Toward the 20th century, works by Nietzsche and Freud posed new philosophical and psychological critiques of religion (sources 80-87).

Here are summaries of the selected passages:

Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, pp. 184-89: Discusses the development and characteristics of fundamentalism in early 20th century America. It adopted a militant opposition to theological modernism and secularism.
Szasz, Divided Mind, pp. 117-35: Examines how attitudes towards mental illness have changed over time and the relationship between psychiatry, medicine, and social control.
Numbers, Creationists, pp. 98-103: Traces the emergence of scientific creationism in the 1920s-30s and its conflict with mainstream Protestant beliefs. Scientific creationism aimed to reconcile biblical literalism with science.
Moore, Religious Outsiders, pp. 160-63: Looks at how outsider religious groups that adopted extremist stances were viewed with suspicion by mainstream Americans in the 19th century. Their contemplativeness was seen as a threat to social order.

The other summaries discuss concepts like the Holocaust and its impact on religious thought, thinkers including Wittgenstein and their views on religious language, theological views of figures like Tillich and Rahner, and existentialist perspectives from figures such as Marcel and Camus. I’ve focused on concisely summarizing the key arguments and topics discussed in the selected passages. Let me know if you would like me to expand on any part of the summaries.

Here is a summary of the key terms:

Many terms are derived from Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Sanskrit and other ancient languages and relate to theological, religious and philosophical concepts.
Terms describe ideas like revelation, beginning, original pattern, freedom from pain, incarnation, signs, essence of existence, enlightenment, highest mind, belief, trust, commitment, creation, discourse on the cosmos, examination of truth, holiness, ineffable divine essence, divine energies/manifestations, Babylonian creation epic and last things.
Other terms refer to religious figures like God, Christ, Buddha, gods or particular traditions like Daoism.
The definitions help explain concepts that are central to understanding religious texts and theological/philosophical thought but whose precise meanings have evolved over time. Knowing the origins and nuances of terms provides important context for comprehending and interpreting biblical and other religious writings.

Here are summaries of the key terms:

Eschaton (Greek) - The study of the last days or end times.
Exegesis (Greek) - The art of interpreting and explaining scriptural texts.
Ex nihilo (Latin) - The doctrine that God created the world from absolute nothingness, which emerged in Christianity during the 4th century.
Faith - Trust or loyalty, from the Latin and Greek words. Originally did not necessarily mean acceptance of orthodox theology.
Falsafah (Arabic) - The attempt by Muslim scholars to interpret Islam using Greek philosophical rationalism.
Gospel - “Good news;” the message proclaimed by the early Church.
Hesychia (Greek) - Inner tranquility or interior silence; a contemplative spiritual practice.
High God - A supreme deity worshipped in remote antiquity who created the world alone and gradually faded from worship.
Incarnation (Latin) - The embodiment of the divine in human bodily form.
Islam (Arabic) - Surrender or submission of one’s entire being to God.
Kabbalah (Hebrew) - The mystical tradition of Judaism.
Logos (Greek) - Reasoned thought; also the Word/Wisdom of God in Christianity.
Messiah - The anointed one; a future redeemer or king expected in Judaism.
Nirvana (Sanskrit) - Extinction or blowing out of the self; enlightenment and liberation in Buddhism.

Here is a summary of some of the key ideas regarding the workings of human nature and the nature of the divine based on the selected terms:

Human nature (anthropic) - Humans have an innate desire to understand the divine/transcendent and make sense of the world. We use symbols, myths, religious practices etc. to express our experience of the divine which always eludes full comprehension.
Divine nature (theistic) - The divine is described using terms like essence, substance, presence to denote something beyond human categories that can never be fully grasped intellectually. It is experienced through revelation, contemplation, symbols rather than rationally defined.
Reason and imagination both play a role - Humans use reason to philosophically explore the divine but also rely on imagination, intuition, mystic experience to have an awareness of what lies beyond rational thought.
Community and practice are important - Most religious traditions involve a community (ummah, polis) that shares understanding and practices like study, worship that cultivate experience and knowledge of the divine.
Revelation is ongoing- Divine truths are not fixed but depend on human exploration over time using philosophy, science, evolving understanding.
Transcendence of divine - The divine is described as transcending human categories of being, thought. It is beyond but encountered in earthly realities like scriptures, icons, natural phenomena.

Here are brief summaries of some of the sources listed:

Montignac, France, 1952 - Describes cave art found in Montignac, France that dates back centuries.
Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton (1885) - Biographical work about Isaac Newton’s life and scientific work.
The Death of Christian Britain (2001) - Examines the process of secularization in Britain from 1800-2000.
After the Death of God (2007) - Collection of writings by John Caputo and Gianni Vattimo on theology after the “death of God.”
The Origin of Species (1859) - Charles Darwin’s seminal work introducing the theory of evolution by natural selection.
The God Delusion (2006) - Bestselling book by Richard Dawkins arguing against the reasonable of belief in God.
Key Philosophical Writings (1997) - Collection of writings by René Descartes, a foundational figure in modern philosophy.
Patterns in Comparative Religion (1958) - Mircea Eliade examines recurrent mythological and religious themes across societies.

Here is a summary of key details from the provided citations:

New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud was newly translated and edited by James Strachey and published in New York in 1965.
Moses and Monotheism by Sigmund Freud was published in London in 1990.
The Future of an Illusion by Sigmund Freud was translated and edited by James Strachey and published in New York in 1961.
Totem and Taboo by Sigmund Freud was published in London in 1990.
Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Eliot Friedman was published in New York in 1987.
Kuhn vs Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science by Steve Fuller was published in London in 2003.
The key details provided are publication locations (New York, London), years of publication (1961, 1965, 1987, 1990, 2003), and translators or editors (James Strachey). The citations focus on works by Sigmund Freud and secondary sources discussing theories of science.

#book-summary