A case not really made -- A critical review of Karen Armstrong's "The Case for God: What Religion Really Means"

Before I move on to review Karen Armstrong's "The Case for God", I think I should make it clear to you all, especially those who have read Lee Strobel's works, that this book is not akin to the books in Strobel's "The Case for ..." series (incidentally, I have read two books from this series; specifically, "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith"), in that this book was not written as a Christian apologetic.

Changed conceptions

Instead, in this book of hers, Armstrong traces the historical evolution of how concepts/terms such as "God", "religion" and "faith" were understood by people. According to her, ancient conception of these concepts was very different from how we, in today's world, conventionally understand them.

Specifically, Armstrong argues that unlike how we conventionally understand these concepts, these concepts were understood in a significantly less literal/more allegorical and less dogmatic manner.

For example, according to Armstrong, the creation myth found in the Book of Genesis was not, in ancient times, read "as a literal account of the origins of existence". Similarly, "The Eden story is not a historical account" but "an imaginary account of the infancy of the human race".

Also, as described by Armstrong, the word "belief" "originally meant 'loyalty to a person to whom one is bound in promise or duty'", it was only from the seventeenth century onwards that it was "used to describe an intellectual assent to a hypothetical -- and often dubious -- proposition".

And, most importantly of all, in contrast with how we now conventionally understand "God" as being a supernatural being, "God", to the ancient people, was understood as an abstract, ineffable, transcendental Being. Indeed, I suppose "God" was perhaps used in ancient times as a convenient shorthand label for a supposed mystical and transcendental reality [cf. Plato's concept about Ideas/Forms].

As for "religion", it was not understood as being a belief system or social institution but as a form of spiritual exercise through human beings would be able to experience the mystical and transcendental reality mentioned above. As Armstrong would say: religion is not something we believe in but something we do.

This paradigm shift in how these concepts were understood was a consequence of the rise of the scientific mindset and the reaction it caused amongst religious believers.

Science/reason and religion/faith: impossible bedfellows?

It is also Armstrong's argument that science/reason and religion/faith were, in the pre-modern period, not perceived as being antithetical to one another. Instead, it was recognised that each of these served starkly different but equally valid and essential functions required by humankind (here, Armstrong made reference to Stephen Jay Gould's idea of NOMA).

As Armstrong puts it, "Religion was never supposed to provide answers to questions that lay within the reach of human reason. That was the role of logos. Religion's task, closely allied to that of art, was to help us to live creatively, peacefully and even joyously with realities for which there were no easy explanations and problems that we could not solve: mortality, pain, grief, despair, and outrage at the injustice and cruelty of life."

Conversely, "Scientific rationality can tell us why we have cancer; it can even cure us of our disease. But it cannot assuage the terror, disappointment and sorrow that comes with the diagnosis, nor can it help us to die well. That is not within its remit."

However, as was mentioned above, people's conceptions changed during the modern period. Both religious fundamentalists and the New Atheists (a term used by Armstrong to describe individuals such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens) began to insist that their respective ways of understanding the world was the only valid way. With such a viewpoint, both of these camps thus became intolerant of one another and sought to encroach into one another's sphere of expertise.

Return to the past, we must

Hence, based on her opinion that we in the modern period have misunderstood the original true meanings of "God" and "religion", Armstrong proposes that we learn from, if not make a return to, ancient principles and conceptions about these concepts/terms.

Particularly, in line with this project of hers, Armstrong argues that we need to interpret religious teachings in a manner which will inspire compassion, tolerance, peace and goodwill.

An eloquent but unconvincing case

So what do I think about the arguments made by Armstrong?

On the overall, I would say that Armstrong have made several valid, interesting and thought-provoking points in her book. However, there are perhaps a few aspects in which her argument is deficient.

Firstly, with regards to Armstrong's argument that we should make a return to ancient principles and conceptions about "God" and "religion", I cannot help but wonder: is it possible for us to do so?

I am sceptical about the possibility of us making a return to the ancient paradigm because in my opinion, we have perhaps become so entrenched in our current conventional way of viewing "God" and "religion" that it will be most difficult, if not impossible, for us to abandon it to make a return to the ancient paradigm.

One will just need to think about how religion has now become a significant social institution, for example: the Catholic Church, to recognise that it is perhaps overly-idealistic, if not naive, to think that we can simply make a return to the ancient paradigm of religion being a "spiritual exercise".

In addition, although it may indeed be true that our interpretation of "God" and "religion" have departed greatly from the original/ancient interpretation of these terms, this does not necessarily mean that our interpretation is "wrong".

I mean, if I am not wrong, many words have changed their meanings or taken on new meanings over time; would this thus mean that we are using these words "wrongly" and should return to the original meanings of these words?

In fact, Armstrong states in her book that ancient scholars did not approve of people "clinging nervously to the insights of the past". Yet, she seems to contradicts this principle by arguing that we should make a return to the ancient paradigm.

Furthermore, I find it somewhat hypocritical for Armstrong to fault religious fundamentalists and the New Atheists as being intolerant in their insistence that theirs is the only valid way of interpreting religion while she perhaps does the same in her assertion that the viewpoints of religious fundamentalists and the New Atheists are incorrect.

Lastly, while I can agree with Armstrong's argument that religion serves a significant and essential function, I cannot help but wonder if this function can only exclusively be provided by religion. As Armstrong herself has stated, philosophers, poets, musicians and even some scientists have also managed to experience the same feelings which are experienced by the religious. Would this not imply that philosophy, poetry, music and science can and have also been able to serve the same function that Armstrong's interpretation of religion has? If so, why should we cling onto "religion" as interpreted by Armstrong?

Hence, in conclusion, I would say that Armstrong's case, while eloquent and intelligent, is perhaps ultimately unconvincing.

Ethnicity-based statistics -- how useful or accurate are they?

Today, in local news, it was reported that Singapore's Ministry of Education has "released its annual report on the academic performance of Singapore's three main ethnic groups". Unsurprisingly, in light of Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim's (who is, besides being the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs) recent remarks on a similar topic, the spotlight is placed on how, despite improvements made by the local Malay community, this community apparently continues to lag behind the other two main ethnic groups in terms of academic performance, especially in mathematics.

However, as I read the news reports, I cannot help but wonder: how useful are these ethnicity-based statistics? How accurate a picture do they portray?

Do not worry; since I am not statistically-inclined, I will not be attempting to provide answers to the above questions through statistical analysis. Instead, I will be critically examining the implicit assumptions that perhaps led to the government's compiling and presenting of these ethnicity-based statistics.

The assumptions

Firstly, what is "ethnicity"? Well, the dictionary definition of "ethnic group" is "a group sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like" or, similarly, "large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background".

Hence, by presenting statistics which classifies Singaporeans into the three main ethnic groupings of Chinese, Malays and Indians, the implicit assumption is that each of these three groupings has a common and distinctive background based on either culture, religious beliefs or language. Also, the implicit assumption is perhaps that members of these three ethnic groups generally, if not universally, share a similar background with other members in the same group.

Secondly, by presenting statistics on how Singapore's three main ethnic groups performed academically, the implicit assumption is that there is a correlation between one's ethnicity and academic performance. And judging by how the statistics seem to be interpreted, it appears that the assumption is that there exist a relationship of causation between one's ethnicity and academic performance. In other words, the assumption is that how well or badly an individual performs academically is caused, if not determined, by that individual's ethnicity.

Examining the assumptions

Now, the question is: are these assumptions valid?

With regards to the assumption that the Chinese, Malays and Indians each constitute a separate and distinctive ethnic group, I would say that this is perhaps generally true. However, this does not mean that these ethnic groups are somehow monolithic in nature. Instead, I would think that there exist significant variations amongst members of each ethnic group. These variations or differences can, for example, be based on socio-economic status, educational background, gender or even sexual preferences. In fact, sometimes, intra-ethnicity variations may be greater than inter-ethnicity variations.

Specifically, while two individuals may both be classified as being ethnically Chinese, they may differ in almost every other aspect of their lives. One may be a middle-class, elite school alumnus, Christian heterosexual man while the other can be a working-class, neighbourhood school alumnus, atheist lesbian woman.

Conversely, while two individuals may be classified as belonging to different ethnic groups, they can perhaps be more similar with one another than with the other members of their respective ethnic groups. For example, the hypothetical Chinese man mentioned above will perhaps be more similar to a (similarly hypothetical) middle-class, elite school alumnus, Christian heterosexual Indian man than the abovementioned hypothetical Chinese woman.

Thus, in light of the above, the presentation of statistics which only take into account individuals' ethnicities will evidently gloss over all the other meaningful variations and similarities, be they found intra-ethnically or inter-ethnically, that are present amongst individuals.

Moving on to the second assumption that one's academic performance is shaped by one's ethnicity, I would say that while it is indeed possible that one's ethnicity could contribute to how well or badly one performs academically, it is however not the sole or most significant contributing factor. As was mentioned above, other variables or factors, which could also contribute to one's academic performance, may potentially be one's socio-economic status, educational background, family background and so on.

In fact, with regards to the above, it appears some of those observers interviewed by the local media about the statistics in question would agree, consciously or otherwise, that other variables also contribute to one's academic performance.

Specifically, in the report by CNA, the following (in italics) was mentioned.

Neither has the gap significantly narrowed between Malay students and other ethnic groups. This is despite continual efforts of the Malay community to reach out to students. Some observers said one reason is broken families. [emphasis mine]

Abdul Halim Kader, president, Taman Bacaan, said: "If you do not address this issue properly, it will continue to affect the educational performance of the Malay students, especially at the lower educational levels."

I do not know about you all but I doubt broken families is a syndrome exclusive only to the local Malay community. And I would think that this variable will be a greater negative contributing factor to one's academic performance than one's ethnicity. I mean, hypothetically, a Chinese student with a broken family will more likely suffer in his or her studies than a Malay student who has a functioning and whole family, right?

Also, in the Straits Times report, other possible variables that could negatively contribute to an individual's academic performance would include government policies, indifferent parents and inability by parents to afford private tuition classes for their children. These variables, in my opinion, are not limited to a single ethnic community and neither are they variables which are caused by one's ethnicity (lest any of you all claim that these are just intervening variables while the ultimate cause remains as one's ethnicity). I would also think that these variables are more significant than one's ethnicity in determining one's academic performance.

Conclusion

Hence, in light of the above discussion, I would think that while it may perhaps be administratively expedient to release ethnically-based statistics about Singaporean students' academic performance, this, without taking into account other possible and significant variables, however will not give us an accurate, comprehensive or useful picture of what exactly are the factors which contribute positively or negatively to an individual's academic performance. I mean, with slight exaggeration, if we continue to only take into account individuals' ethnicities when examining their academic performance, it will perhaps be similar to us just taking into account individuals' physical heights or astrological signs to examine how well or badly they perform academically.

It would thus be more meaningful and better for us to, while not being ethnicity-blind, broaden the scope of variables we compile statistics on and to examine their possible linkages with academic performance if we are to truly improve the academic performance of Singaporean students.