A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

“In fact Hell seemed a more potent reality than God, because it was something that I could grasp imaginatively. God, on the other hand, was a somewhat shadowy figure, defined in intellectual abstractions rather than images.”

Karen Armstrong opens A History of God by acknowledging her own spiritual development over time. She admits that she struggled to conceptualize God as a young child and adult, with God remaining a “shadowy figure.” Armstrong’s personal spiritual journey foreshadows the larger theological developments she will trace throughout the book, with various human cultures seeking and struggling to define God and spirituality in their own ways.

“‘What is God?’: ‘God is the Supreme Spirit, Who alone exists of Himself and is infinite in all perfections.’ Not surprisingly, it meant little to me, and I am bound to say that it still leaves me cold.”

Armstrong’s rejection of the abstract definition of God offered here showcases some of Armstrong’s personal biases in her approach to her subject matter. Her admittance that such abstractions “still leav[e] [her] cold” will shape her feelings toward rationalism and mysticism in her exploration of faith, with Armstrong tending to favor a more emotional and mystical approach to spiritual questions.

“Increasingly, God seemed an aberration, something that the human race had outgrown.”

Armstrong here casts the spiritual dilemma of modernity as a crisis of faith. In the wake of major scientific and technological developments, religious skepticism has gained ground, especially in the western world. This growing skepticism as shaped by changing social and cultural contexts introduces the theme of The Influence of Social Change on Religious Beliefs.

“We shall see that it is far more important for a particular idea of God to work than for it to be logically or scientifically sound. As soon as it ceases to be effective it will be changed—sometimes for something radically different.”

Armstrong emphasizes The Influence of Social Change on Religious Beliefs by stressing that conceptions of God need, first and foremost, to “work” within the cultural context in which they appear. What is strictly logical or scientific need not apply as long as the conception adequately fills the needs of the community. Armstrong’s assertion that ideas of God can and are “changed” whenever they cease to be “effective” emphasizes her approach to religious ideas as contingent upon specific historical contexts.

“Throughout history, men and women have experienced a dimension of the spirit that seems to transcend the mundane world.”

Armstrong introduces Religion as a Universal Experience as one of her key themes, arguing that despite the variations of spiritual beliefs across diverse cultures and eras, there is nevertheless a common thread of religiosity that binds humanity. She argues that this spiritual dimension has appeared “throughout history,” creating an important pattern in human development over time.

“One of the reasons why religion seems irrelevant today is that many of us no longer have the sense that we are surrounded by the unseen. Our scientific culture educates us to focus our attention on the physical and material world in front of us.”

Armstrong once more emphasizes The Influence of Social Change on Religious Belief by drawing links between religious skepticism in the modern world with the specific social and cultural context that surrounds us. She claims that the modern emphasis on “the physical and material world” has come at the expense of the more spiritual dimension, rendering religion “irrelevant” in the eyes of many.

“In the new ideologies of the Axial Age, therefore, there was a general agreement that human life contained a transcendent element that was essential. The various sages we have considered interpreted this transcendence differently, but they were united in seeing it as crucial to the development of men and women as full human beings.”

This passage once more emphasizes Religion as a Universal Human Experience, with Armstrong spotlighting how, although “various sages [ . . . interpreted this transcendence differently” they were nonetheless “united in seeing it as crucial” for human development. Such assertions reflect Armstrong’s belief that, while specific manifestations of religious ideas can vary, certain broad spiritual concerns are common across eras and cultures.

“Isaiah was no Buddha experiencing an enlightenment that brought tranquillity and bliss. He had not become the perfected teacher of men. Instead he was filled with mortal terror.”

Isaiah is an important prophet in the development of Judaism. The passage begins with the use of antithesis in contrasting the attributes of Isaiah with Buddha. While Buddha is depicted as someone who experienced “enlightenment that brought tranquillity and bliss,” Isaiah’s experience is positioned in stark contrast as one of “mortal terror,” reflecting differences in individual experiences of the divine.

“Despite the bad press it has in the Bible, there is nothing wrong with idolatry per se: it becomes objectionable or naive only if the image of God, which has been constructed with such loving care, is confused with the ineffable reality to which it refers.”

Armstrong frequently highlights Intersections and Divergences within Monotheism, including those that occur within the same broad religious tradition, such as Judaism. In asserting that “idolatry” is not necessarily always “objectionable,” and that it is the particular use of an image that makes it sinful or not, Armstrong attempts to convey the hidden nuances of religious doctrine and practice.

“Animals have no difficulty in living up to their nature, but men and women seem to find it hard to be fully human.”

Juxtaposition is present, specifically in the pairing of “animals” and “men and women.” By placing these two categories side by side, the statement highlights the simplicity of animals’ lives in contrast to the intricate challenges faced by humans. This arrangement serves to foreground the inherent disparities between the two, despite the shared characteristic of being living beings. The phrase “living up to their nature” also taps into the notion of inherent purpose or destiny, implying that there’s a preordained standard or expectation for each species, yet humans uniquely grapple with this alignment.

“It is not difficult to see that this bhakti (devotion) to the Buddhas and the bodhisattvas was similar to the Christian devotion to Jesus. It also made the faith accessible to more people, rather as Paul had wished to make Judaism available to the goyim.”

The passage establishes an analogy by drawing parallels between “bhakti to the Buddhas and the bodhisattvas” and the “Christian devotion to Jesus.” This comparison serves to highlight similarities across religions, suggesting that there is a core essence of devotion that remains constant even across diverse religious landscapes, reflecting the theme of Religion as a Universal Human Experience. Lastly, the allusion to Paul’s intentions with Judaism underscores the universality of the challenge in making faith traditions resonate with larger groups.

“These myths were never intended as literal accounts of creation and salvation; they were symbolic expressions of an inner truth. ‘God’ and the Pleroma were not external realities ‘out there’ but were to be found within.”

Here, Armstrong presents a more metaphorical and mystical approach to religious traditions and stories, one that claims they “were never intended as literal accounts of creation and salvation” but were instead meant to reflect “inner truth.” This metaphorical approach to religious stories contrasts with the more literal approaches of fundamentalism.

“Human beings are aware that something is wrong with their condition; they feel at odds with themselves and others, out of touch with their inner nature and disoriented. Conflict and a lack of simplicity seem to characterize our existence. Yet we are constantly seeking to unite the multiplicity of phenomena and reduce them to some ordered whole. When we glance at a person, we do not see a leg, an arm, another arm and a head, but automatically organize these elements into an integrated human being.”

Armstrong uses the comparison of how humans conceive of one another as a whole—and not as a number of distinctive parts, such as legs and arms—to illustrate what she regards as the broader human tendency to “unite the multiplicity of phenomena and reduce them to some ordered whole.” Spiritual inquiries are thus one means by which humans attempt to bring order into a world and to a condition of being that often feels “wrong.”

“The Logos had been the instrument used by God to call other creatures into existence. It was, therefore, entirely different from all other beings and of exceptionally high status, but because it had been created by God, the Logos was essentially different and distinct from God himself.”

The emphasis on the distinctiveness and high status of the Logos is underscored using antithesis. The Logos, while being the instrument of creation, placing it in a unique position, is juxtaposed against the fact that it is still a creation and thus separate from God. This contrast—between its elevated role in creation and its inherent difference from God—highlights the unique theological position of the Logos.

“Yet by making Jesus the only avatar, we have seen that Christians would adopt an exclusive notion of religious truth: Jesus was the first and last Word of God to the human race, rendering future revelation unnecessary. Consequently, like Jews, they were scandalized when a prophet arose in Arabia during the seventh century who claimed to have received a direct revelation from their God and to have brought a new scripture to his people.”

This passage highlights the tension that arose between Christianity’s exclusive claim of Jesus as “the first and last Word of God to the human race” and Muhammad’s later claims of receiving a further and “final” revelation. The appearance of a new and third monotheistic faith distinct from Judaism and Christianity illustrates the theme of Intersections and Divergences within Monotheism.

“It is as though Muhammad had created an entirely new literary form that some people were not ready for but which thrilled others. Without this experience of the Koran, it is extremely unlikely that Islam would have taken root.”

This passage amplifies the significance and uniqueness of Muhammad’s work with the Koran. The juxtaposition in the reaction of “some people” versus “others” to this literary form—with some embracing it and others rejecting it—emphasizes the divisive and transformative nature of Muhammad’s revelations.

“This reminds us that, like any other faith, Islam could be interpreted in a number of different ways; consequently it evolved its own sects and divisions.”

Armstrong here emphasizes that Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, was not and is not a monolith. Instead, it contains a diversity of sects and theological approaches, reflecting the Intersections and Divergences within Monotheism even within a specific faith tradition.

“These heavenly archetypes were felt to be true in the same way as the events and forms that inhabit our imaginations often seem more real and significant to us than our mundane existence. It can be seen as an attempt to explain our conviction that, despite the mass of dispiriting evidence to the contrary, our lives and the world we experience have meaning and importance.”

This passage suggests that, much like our most vivid imaginings, spiritual understandings or truths have a realness, despite not being physically tangible. Additionally, the notion that these imaginative events “often seem more real and significant to us than our mundane existence” emphasizes the depth and significance of internal experiences over daily, routine life. Armstrong here favors the mystical and emotional approach to questions of spirituality, suggesting that a purely scientific or materialistic approach cannot adequately contain all phenomenon that people experience.

“Wherever we look in the world, we see composite beings that consist of a number of different elements. A tree, for example, consists of wood, bark, pith, sap and leaves. When we try to understand something, we ‘analyze’ it, breaking it up into its component parts until no further division is possible. The simple elements seem primary to us and the composite beings that they form seem secondary. We are continually looking for simplicity, therefore, for beings that are irreducibly themselves.”

Armstrong once more emphasizes what she sees as the human tendency to seek wholeness and “simplicity” first and foremost before breaking things down into individual “component parts.” Armstrong’s argument that humans favor experiencing things holistically once more reveals her support for experiences and perspectives that are intuitive instead of purely rational.

“The prophets had declared war on mythology: their God was active in history and in current political events rather than in the primordial, sacred time of myth.”

This passage highlights The Influence of Social Change on Religious Beliefs by discussing the shift toward regarding God as “active in history and in current political events” instead of being relegated to the more transcendent and abstract “sacred time of myth.” This conflation of religious belief and current political realities is one of the aspects of fundamentalism.

“There is a linguistic connection between the three words ‘myth,’ ‘mysticism’ and ‘mystery.’ All are derived from the Greek verb musteion: to close the eyes or the mouth. All three words, therefore, are rooted in an experience of darkness and silence.”

Armstrong here explores the connections between “‘myth,’ ‘mysticism,’ and ‘mystery’” to present all three as “rooted in an experience of darkness and silence.” Throughout A History of God, Armstrong views a mystical and individualized approach to spirituality in a favorable light.

“The dark side of the Western spirit was even manifest during the Renaissance. The philosophers and humanists of the Renaissance were highly critical of much medieval piety. They disliked the scholastics intensely, feeling that their abstruse speculations made God sound alien and boring.”

Armstrong once more draws attention to The Influence of Social Change on Religious Beliefs in exploring the contrasts between Renaissance and Medieval approaches to spirituality. While the Renaissance humanists and the medieval scholastics both belonged to the Christian tradition, the Renaissance humanists were nevertheless “critical” of the “abstruse speculations” the medieval scholastics had specialized in. Renaissance innovations in theology and religious practices thus reflect how changing social and cultural contexts impact religious beliefs and approaches.

“Like the philosophers and scientists, post-Reformation Christians had effectively abandoned the imaginative God of the mystics and sought enlightenment from the God of reason.”

Armstrong continues to trace The Influence of Social Change on Religious Beliefs by discussing how “post-Reformation Christians” rejected mysticism in favor of a more rational approach to questions of faith. This emphasis on “reason” would continue to grow during the Age of Enlightenment and beyond.

“This new confidence in the natural powers of human beings meant that people came to believe that they could achieve enlightenment by means of their own exertions. They no longer felt that they needed to rely on inherited tradition, an institution or an elite—or, even, a revelation from God—to discover the truth.”

Armstrong discusses how the rapidly changing social and scientific contexts of the modern world resulted in an increase in religious skepticism. Since modern humans began to believe that they could discover truths without resorting to “a revelation from God,” traditional religious conceptions came under increasing scrutiny.