---
product_id: 1366538
title: "The Case for God"
price: "KSh6254"
currency: KES
in_stock: true
reviews_count: 13
url: https://www.desertcart.co.ke/products/1366538-the-case-for-god
store_origin: KE
region: Kenya
---

# The Case for God

**Price:** KSh6254
**Availability:** ✅ In Stock

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** The Case for God
- **How much does it cost?** KSh6254 with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Yes, in stock and ready to ship
- **Where can I buy it?** [www.desertcart.co.ke](https://www.desertcart.co.ke/products/1366538-the-case-for-god)

## Best For

- Customers looking for quality international products

## Why This Product

- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Description

NATIONAL BESTSELLER • A nuanced exploration of the role of religion in our lives, drawing on insights of the past to build a faith for our dangerously polarized age —from the New York Times bestselling author of The History of God Moving from the Paleolithic age to the present, Karen Armstrong details the great lengths to which humankind has gone in order to experience a sacred reality that it called by many names, such as God, Brahman, Nirvana, Allah, or Dao. Focusing especially on Christianity but including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Chinese spiritualities, Armstrong examines the diminished impulse toward religion in our own time, when a significant number of people either want nothing to do with God or question the efficacy of faith. Why has God become unbelievable? Why is it that atheists and theists alike now think and speak about God in a way that veers so profoundly from the thinking of our ancestors? Answering these questions with the same depth of knowledge and profound insight that have marked all her acclaimed books, Armstrong makes clear how the changing face of the world has necessarily changed the importance of religion at both the societal and the individual level. Yet she cautions us that religion was never supposed to provide answers that lie within the competence of human reason; that, she says, is the role of logos. The task of religion is “to help us live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there are no easy explanations.” She emphasizes, too, that religion will not work automatically. It is, she says, a practical discipline: its insights are derived not from abstract speculation but from “dedicated intellectual endeavor” and a “compassionate lifestyle that enables us to break out of the prism of selfhood.”

Review: I wish everyone would read this book - There's an awful lot of talk about God these days; and, frankly, most of it is facile. The internet in particular seems to be constantly abuzz with heated "debate" (if you can even call it that, since it tends more toward an exchange of insults than an exchange of ideas) between "ignorant" believers and "arrogant" nonbelievers who actually think that they are making devastatingly clever, irrefutable arguments when, in fact, most of what they say is so naïve, ill-informed, and poorly reasoned that even a first-year theology or philosophy student couldn't listen to it without facepalming. Sure, if you look hard enough you can find more sophisticated discussions of "the God question", even on the internet; but these can be somewhat difficult for the layperson with little or no background in the philosophy of religion to follow; and thus they tend to attract less attention than do the more puerile debates on popular online discussion forums, and similarly puerile popular books written by well-known partisans in the culture wars. So, in the face of all the nonsense that gets said on a daily basis nowadays by both sides in the God debate, it's refreshing to read this delightful book by noted religious historian (and ex-nun) Karen Armstrong, who devotes 330 pages to patiently, meticulously, and respectfully explaining exactly where both sides in this debate have gone astray, and how believers and nonbelievers alike would benefit from a little more sophistication in how they think about God, and a little more humility in how they approach the subject. Armstrong traces the history of religious thought from ancient times to the present day, to show how our understanding of God -- along with related concepts such as religion, faith, belief, myth, scripture, doctrine, etc. -- has changed over the centuries. In particular, she demonstrates how our modern conception of God is radically different from the way our pre-modern ancestors would have thought about God. The idea of God that many people have today seems overly simplistic when compared with the more sophisticated idea of God that many religious thinkers held in centuries past. In fact, the modern "God" is so simplistic, so limited, so anthropomorphic that it could be seen as idolatrous -- a false god that man has created in his own image. Armstrong argues that the current debate between believers and nonbelievers is really a fight over this false, modern "God", and has nothing to do with the God that the greatest religious minds of antiquity wrote about. I won't try to summarize the differences between the pre-modern idea of God and the modern idea of God, because it gets a bit complicated, and Armstrong explains it much better than I ever could. But, suffice it to say, the arguments you hear so often today about God apply only to the modern "God", and simply cannot be made to apply to the pre-modern God. You'll have to read the book to understand why. If we were to take Armstrong's advice and give up the modern view of God -- and, along with it, the modern understanding of what faith, religion, and scripture are all about -- in favor of an older, more sophisticated approach to these things, the debates between defensive believers and offended nonbelievers would essentially become irrelevant, and we could move forward with a more respectful, more compassionate, and more edifying dialogue between people of all faiths and of no faith. I sincerely wish that everyone -- especially those who take "the God question" seriously enough to get involved in debates over the issue -- would take the time to carefully read this book, and give serious consideration to the merits of Armstrong's argument. Sadly, I fear that the people who are most in need of this book are those who are (a) least likely to actually read it, (b) least likely to understand Armstrong's argument even if they did read it, and (c) most likely to reject Armstrong's insights out of hand simply because they don't fit neatly into their own preconceived worldviews. I am referring, of course, to the most vocal participants in the God debate, namely religious fundamentalists on the one hand, and irreligious fundamentalists (i.e. the so-called "new atheists") on the other. I refer to the new atheists as "irreligious fundamentalists" because (a) the "new atheism" is clearly a reaction against religious fundamentalism, and (b) new atheists actually have a lot more in common with religious fundamentalists than they would care to admit. Both share the same, overly simplistic, modern conception of God, along with similarly simplistic views about what it means to have religious faith. Both insist upon a literalistic interpretation of scripture, refusing to acknowledge that there can be any truth at all in "myth". Both also share the same craving for certainty, and are unwilling to admit that there are some things that are simply beyond human understanding. Therefore, both are obsessed with "proof", each trying to establish irrefutable evidence in support of its own views about God. And, most damningly, both are guilty of hubris, and the intolerance that springs from it. Each views the other with utter contempt, blaming each other for everything that's wrong with the world today. Religious fundamentalism and the new atheism are not so different after all. They are, in fact, the twin offspring of the modern conception of God; and theirs is a true sibling rivalry, which probably goes a long way toward explaining why it is so bitter. So, I will continue to refer to the new atheists as "irreligious fundamentalists", preserving the same family name as their less skeptical, but no less misguided, brethren. Both types of fundamentalists, religious and irreligious, would benefit from Armstrong's insights about God. Both are in desperate need of a more sophisticated understanding of God. Both seem to cling to the image of God they learned as small children -- an image which somehow never matured as they grew up. But if they were willing to give Karen Armstrong a chance, considering her arguments with an open mind, she could teach them a better way to think about God, which would give them a new perspective on what faith is really all about, and what religion can be at its best rather than at its worst. If one were willing, even if only for a moment, just as an experiment, to try to see things the way that Karen Armstrong sees them, one would find that both types of fundamentalism look quite absurd, because both depend on childish notions about God. If everyone who participates in the God debate were to read this book and take it to heart, the debate would still go on; but I am convinced that it would be a much more civil and more productive debate. And that would truly be a blessing from God (or possibly from Darwin -- take your pick; I'm OK with both).
Review: Highlights from: “The Case for God” by Karen Armstrong, OBE, FRSL - Karen Armstrong has written an insightful summary of the historical development of the God concept from earliest time to the present. The best review of the major contributions of her case study can be found in the book’s prologue and epilogue. Her overview of the ways in which human interpretations of the transcendental “other” have appeared in history is invaluable in sorting out the objects of religious devotion (or the denials thereof) which have challenged human understanding. To convey the scope and artistry of her analyses, I have selected ideas from her book which particularly appealed to me. She presents her case in two parts; the first is The Unknown God (30,000 BCE to 1500 CE) during which ultimate reality was not a personalized God, but a profound mystery which could never be plumbed (mythos beyond logos). Reality that transcends language must be expressed symbolically, which was variously developed: in Hebrew monotheism, in Greek philosophy, in rabbinical Judaism, in early Christianity, in Eastern orthodoxy and in Islamic revelation. Central to many of these developments were the ideas that accessibility to God involved one or more of: “kenosis” (emptying oneself of selfishness), “pistis” (commitment to engagement), “ekstasis” (stepping out of habitual thought patterns), all of which required long, hard practice or ritual devotion. Attempts to prove God’s existence through logic were proposed, but those who claimed an experience of God seemed to accept the “apophatic assumption” which was that reason was incapable of encompassing what God was. The second part of the book (1500 CE to the present) covers the period in which religion and science were seen progressively to contradict each other. As the scientific method developed, observational and experimental “truths” contradicted metaphorical “truths” in scripture, which were mistakenly taken literally and suppressed for being at odds with doctrine. The philosophical enlightenment of the 18th century attempted to use logic and reason to explain transcendent experience, and this gave rise to deism and atheism but also to literal fundamentalism as a reaction to any attempt to question the veracity of scripture. But secular ideologies, such as the logical positivist’s limitation of meaningful inquiry to objective sense data, are as deadly as religious bigotry, and both represent inherently destructive idolatries. Armstrong observes that “every single fundamentalist movement, scientific as well as religious, is rooted in profound fear and is fiercely reductionistic”. Just as the monkey trial and the use of suicide bombings illustrate the weaknesses of religious fundamentalism, the holocaust as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki illustrate the danger of science, unfettered by compassion, as a tool of militarism. If we can no longer look to an all-powerful, oriental-despot God who, if properly appeased by devotion and praise, may bless us with favors, what kind of god does this case study suggest? An answer postulated by recent German theologians seems to hark back to "that profound mystery which could never be plumbed" – a.k.a. the ground of all being. Gould has suggested that God belongs to a religious magisterium, concerned with values which is separated from a scientific magisterium which deals only with empirical sense data. Science itself is an act of faith whereas religion requires response rather than belief. In this reviewer’s opinion, Armstrong stops short of summarizing her case, perhaps because she has chosen not to include the insights that have come from analyses of those resuscitated from death or near death. There is growing evidence that consciousness, non-localized to the bodies of individuals in these and other circumstances, can expand to realms similar to, if not identical with, those experienced in mystical traditions, in order to sense that overwhelming oneness and love which is the hallmark of the perennial God experience.

## Technical Specifications

| Specification | Value |
|---------------|-------|
| Best Sellers Rank | #161,452 in Books ( See Top 100 in Books ) #29 in Sociology & Religion #101 in General History of Religion #128 in History of Religions |
| Customer Reviews | 4.5 out of 5 stars 684 Reviews |

## Images

![The Case for God - Image 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/7197heyEVeL.jpg)

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ I wish everyone would read this book
*by G***L on March 8, 2013*

There's an awful lot of talk about God these days; and, frankly, most of it is facile. The internet in particular seems to be constantly abuzz with heated "debate" (if you can even call it that, since it tends more toward an exchange of insults than an exchange of ideas) between "ignorant" believers and "arrogant" nonbelievers who actually think that they are making devastatingly clever, irrefutable arguments when, in fact, most of what they say is so naïve, ill-informed, and poorly reasoned that even a first-year theology or philosophy student couldn't listen to it without facepalming. Sure, if you look hard enough you can find more sophisticated discussions of "the God question", even on the internet; but these can be somewhat difficult for the layperson with little or no background in the philosophy of religion to follow; and thus they tend to attract less attention than do the more puerile debates on popular online discussion forums, and similarly puerile popular books written by well-known partisans in the culture wars. So, in the face of all the nonsense that gets said on a daily basis nowadays by both sides in the God debate, it's refreshing to read this delightful book by noted religious historian (and ex-nun) Karen Armstrong, who devotes 330 pages to patiently, meticulously, and respectfully explaining exactly where both sides in this debate have gone astray, and how believers and nonbelievers alike would benefit from a little more sophistication in how they think about God, and a little more humility in how they approach the subject. Armstrong traces the history of religious thought from ancient times to the present day, to show how our understanding of God -- along with related concepts such as religion, faith, belief, myth, scripture, doctrine, etc. -- has changed over the centuries. In particular, she demonstrates how our modern conception of God is radically different from the way our pre-modern ancestors would have thought about God. The idea of God that many people have today seems overly simplistic when compared with the more sophisticated idea of God that many religious thinkers held in centuries past. In fact, the modern "God" is so simplistic, so limited, so anthropomorphic that it could be seen as idolatrous -- a false god that man has created in his own image. Armstrong argues that the current debate between believers and nonbelievers is really a fight over this false, modern "God", and has nothing to do with the God that the greatest religious minds of antiquity wrote about. I won't try to summarize the differences between the pre-modern idea of God and the modern idea of God, because it gets a bit complicated, and Armstrong explains it much better than I ever could. But, suffice it to say, the arguments you hear so often today about God apply only to the modern "God", and simply cannot be made to apply to the pre-modern God. You'll have to read the book to understand why. If we were to take Armstrong's advice and give up the modern view of God -- and, along with it, the modern understanding of what faith, religion, and scripture are all about -- in favor of an older, more sophisticated approach to these things, the debates between defensive believers and offended nonbelievers would essentially become irrelevant, and we could move forward with a more respectful, more compassionate, and more edifying dialogue between people of all faiths and of no faith. I sincerely wish that everyone -- especially those who take "the God question" seriously enough to get involved in debates over the issue -- would take the time to carefully read this book, and give serious consideration to the merits of Armstrong's argument. Sadly, I fear that the people who are most in need of this book are those who are (a) least likely to actually read it, (b) least likely to understand Armstrong's argument even if they did read it, and (c) most likely to reject Armstrong's insights out of hand simply because they don't fit neatly into their own preconceived worldviews. I am referring, of course, to the most vocal participants in the God debate, namely religious fundamentalists on the one hand, and irreligious fundamentalists (i.e. the so-called "new atheists") on the other. I refer to the new atheists as "irreligious fundamentalists" because (a) the "new atheism" is clearly a reaction against religious fundamentalism, and (b) new atheists actually have a lot more in common with religious fundamentalists than they would care to admit. Both share the same, overly simplistic, modern conception of God, along with similarly simplistic views about what it means to have religious faith. Both insist upon a literalistic interpretation of scripture, refusing to acknowledge that there can be any truth at all in "myth". Both also share the same craving for certainty, and are unwilling to admit that there are some things that are simply beyond human understanding. Therefore, both are obsessed with "proof", each trying to establish irrefutable evidence in support of its own views about God. And, most damningly, both are guilty of hubris, and the intolerance that springs from it. Each views the other with utter contempt, blaming each other for everything that's wrong with the world today. Religious fundamentalism and the new atheism are not so different after all. They are, in fact, the twin offspring of the modern conception of God; and theirs is a true sibling rivalry, which probably goes a long way toward explaining why it is so bitter. So, I will continue to refer to the new atheists as "irreligious fundamentalists", preserving the same family name as their less skeptical, but no less misguided, brethren. Both types of fundamentalists, religious and irreligious, would benefit from Armstrong's insights about God. Both are in desperate need of a more sophisticated understanding of God. Both seem to cling to the image of God they learned as small children -- an image which somehow never matured as they grew up. But if they were willing to give Karen Armstrong a chance, considering her arguments with an open mind, she could teach them a better way to think about God, which would give them a new perspective on what faith is really all about, and what religion can be at its best rather than at its worst. If one were willing, even if only for a moment, just as an experiment, to try to see things the way that Karen Armstrong sees them, one would find that both types of fundamentalism look quite absurd, because both depend on childish notions about God. If everyone who participates in the God debate were to read this book and take it to heart, the debate would still go on; but I am convinced that it would be a much more civil and more productive debate. And that would truly be a blessing from God (or possibly from Darwin -- take your pick; I'm OK with both).

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Highlights from: “The Case for God” by Karen Armstrong, OBE, FRSL
*by D***G on April 8, 2017*

Karen Armstrong has written an insightful summary of the historical development of the God concept from earliest time to the present. The best review of the major contributions of her case study can be found in the book’s prologue and epilogue. Her overview of the ways in which human interpretations of the transcendental “other” have appeared in history is invaluable in sorting out the objects of religious devotion (or the denials thereof) which have challenged human understanding. To convey the scope and artistry of her analyses, I have selected ideas from her book which particularly appealed to me. She presents her case in two parts; the first is The Unknown God (30,000 BCE to 1500 CE) during which ultimate reality was not a personalized God, but a profound mystery which could never be plumbed (mythos beyond logos). Reality that transcends language must be expressed symbolically, which was variously developed: in Hebrew monotheism, in Greek philosophy, in rabbinical Judaism, in early Christianity, in Eastern orthodoxy and in Islamic revelation. Central to many of these developments were the ideas that accessibility to God involved one or more of: “kenosis” (emptying oneself of selfishness), “pistis” (commitment to engagement), “ekstasis” (stepping out of habitual thought patterns), all of which required long, hard practice or ritual devotion. Attempts to prove God’s existence through logic were proposed, but those who claimed an experience of God seemed to accept the “apophatic assumption” which was that reason was incapable of encompassing what God was. The second part of the book (1500 CE to the present) covers the period in which religion and science were seen progressively to contradict each other. As the scientific method developed, observational and experimental “truths” contradicted metaphorical “truths” in scripture, which were mistakenly taken literally and suppressed for being at odds with doctrine. The philosophical enlightenment of the 18th century attempted to use logic and reason to explain transcendent experience, and this gave rise to deism and atheism but also to literal fundamentalism as a reaction to any attempt to question the veracity of scripture. But secular ideologies, such as the logical positivist’s limitation of meaningful inquiry to objective sense data, are as deadly as religious bigotry, and both represent inherently destructive idolatries. Armstrong observes that “every single fundamentalist movement, scientific as well as religious, is rooted in profound fear and is fiercely reductionistic”. Just as the monkey trial and the use of suicide bombings illustrate the weaknesses of religious fundamentalism, the holocaust as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki illustrate the danger of science, unfettered by compassion, as a tool of militarism. If we can no longer look to an all-powerful, oriental-despot God who, if properly appeased by devotion and praise, may bless us with favors, what kind of god does this case study suggest? An answer postulated by recent German theologians seems to hark back to "that profound mystery which could never be plumbed" – a.k.a. the ground of all being. Gould has suggested that God belongs to a religious magisterium, concerned with values which is separated from a scientific magisterium which deals only with empirical sense data. Science itself is an act of faith whereas religion requires response rather than belief. In this reviewer’s opinion, Armstrong stops short of summarizing her case, perhaps because she has chosen not to include the insights that have come from analyses of those resuscitated from death or near death. There is growing evidence that consciousness, non-localized to the bodies of individuals in these and other circumstances, can expand to realms similar to, if not identical with, those experienced in mystical traditions, in order to sense that overwhelming oneness and love which is the hallmark of the perennial God experience.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ The Case for Yoga
*by P***N on October 20, 2009*

In The Case for God, Karen Armstrong doesn't so much argue for God as she argues for the Socratic over the scientific method. For practice over doctrine. For much of the 330 pages, Armstrong gives us a theological history lesson, a tiresome struggle as the strand of thoughts on God and creation evolve over time in back and forth nudges. She breaks the book into two main sections: pre-modern and modern. In a nutshell, pre-modern people saw God as a transcendent and indefinable thing, only attainable through ritual and intellectual rigor. This is what gave meaning to their lives. If you think of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism, Armstrong argues that this is what virtually all religion was like in pre-modern times. Key to her argument though is that pre-modern people did not take scripture literally. In fact, they seemed to revel in exegesis, or `the art of interpreting and explaining the text of scripture'. They discussed scripture and understood it as symbolism, or as myths, and by doing that, attained greater wisdom and comfort in their lives. This point is what both atheists and most religions miss today, Armstrong argues. Modern people meanwhile have been influenced by science. At first, religion used science to their advantage, primarily by claiming that only God could have created such a complex, natural world. However, as more and more things were explained (other than the origin of it all, which remains a mystery) it became harder for theologians to keep up, until eventually, science and religion stood on opposite sides. It is in this environment that the modern God was created. In a world where people needed certainty and religion came under constant fire for their seemingly outlandish beliefs, a more defined, an even more outlandish God came about: one who controlled all aspects of the world and would send you to hell if you sinned. Or, in the view of Armstrong, an idol, a being held on a pedestal to be worshipped and adored. Or, in further contrast to the pre-modern concept of God, one who deprived life of meaning rather than gave it. One was not free with the new God; their reward would be in the hereafter. It is this God that atheists now attack and Armstrong seems to agree with their arguments as it pertains to this modern God, though she thinks their antagonistic methods and lack of theological education do damage to what she thinks is an important dialogue. And in the end this is what she argues for: dialogue, in the Socratic method. She wants atheists to lay down their arms and use their intelligence to better the world. She argues that they create fundamentalism through their antagonism. Further, by arguing against scripture and ignoring the virtues of religion, they make the same mistakes fundamentalists do by taking scripture literally. She wants them to discuss theology with the religions of the world to advance the human race. She wants to go back to the old way of thinking, where people focused on practice, on activities that help us engage with God, such as civil discussion, meditation, prayer, volunteering, etc. She wants us to leave science and religion separate to deal with what they each do best. And by doing that, by giving up on using science to explain God, we will submit to the unknown and become, like the mystics, more wise and loving. I thought the strength of this book was the bookend opinion sections. The history she provided in the core was interesting, but a slog to get through, and ultimately not necessary for her argument. Much of the history she presents is interpretive anyway, which doesn't become fully evident until she discusses events of the last decade or so, when we can clearly see based on our direct experience of the events that she's presenting a large dose of opinion with her facts. But I think her broader argument is spot on. Right now the debate between religion and atheists is at a standstill, and I believe it is sucking the world dry of spirituality. Life is chaotic, and people are looking to faith of some sort to help them through. The need for spirituality will never go away. People need to be comforted when bad things happen, they need to feel they are making a difference. Science will not do that. I dont think it's a coincidence that, while modern religion is increasingly shunned these days, so many people are now studying Buddhism or taking yoga. It's these ancient elements of practice and compassion that people need to help improve their lives and feel transcendent. And it's these very things that Armstrong argues for.

## Frequently Bought Together

- The Case for God
- A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://www.desertcart.co.ke/products/1366538-the-case-for-god](https://www.desertcart.co.ke/products/1366538-the-case-for-god)

---

*Product available on Desertcart Kenya*
*Store origin: KE*
*Last updated: 2026-05-18*