A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam Paperback – August 9, 1994

I bought this book when I heard a famous Brazilian historian speak very highly of it. I myself am an avid reader of History of Religions in general as I acknowledge that religions have shaped our world, so it is impossible to even begin to understand the world without spending a lot of time on the history of religions. This book is a survey of the concept and shapes of God and a very good one at that. The author’s arguments are very thought-provoking and interesting, and anyone who wants to understand the world a little better, with or without any faith, would certainly profit from this reading. I highly recommend it.

I have read a number of Karen Armstrong's books and always finish the book believing that I have read a balanced, well-informed and very well-written book. Her own life story (The Spiral Staircase) is also of great interest and a backdrop to what she has written. A History of God was the first of her books that I read. Having previously read the Torah, the bible and the Quran I had no idea how little I knew and understood about these texts, the Quran in particular.

The book is separated by 11 chapters.~ Chapters 1-2 (In The Beginning, One God).The author begins by exploring the most primitive conceptions of the divine. She delves into the Axial Age (800 - 200 BCE) and explains the Aristotelian god, Buddhism conceptions (Nirvana, Atman, Brahman), the old polytheistic pagan religions, and the important revelations and that have become expedient in the doctrines and worship of the major religions of the world today (Moses, Abraham, etc). Also - and perhaps most importantly - the author explains how monotheism and the praising of one god came about.~ Chapters 3-5 (A Light to the Gentiles, Trinity: The Christian God, Unity: The God of Islam)As you can probably expect, these chapters explore the roots of the major Abrahamic religions. It is interesting to see the trials and tribulations each one endured. You can expect to read about the evolution of ideas between the religions, how they relate to each other, and their ever-evolving conceptions of outsiders.~ Chapters 6-8 (The God of the Philosophers, The God of the Mystics, A God for Reformers)Perhaps the most interesting sections of the text. In these chapters, history is amalgamated with philosophy: the author explores the 3 major conceptions of God, with how they came about, and then ties them to their implications, doctrines, and perceptions. To explain each briefly: The God of the philosophers came about when God got caught up in the mix of philosophy. As civilizations started to advance, philosophers took it upon themselves to look at and try to prove the existence of God rationally. The philosopher's God was one that can be proven through inquiry and rational thought, and one that should be liable to discourse. For some time many religious sects adopted this game plan for God, for example, the Faylasufs. The God of the Mystics was an alternative: it can not be proven through rational thought because it lay beyond experiment and observation. The God of the Mystics was one that could be felt deep inside us, and in nature, even though it's essence itself was impenetrable. The God for Reformers is a more contemporary, personal, and rule imposing entity. This God was used to reform certain societies and their norms; it was the centerpiece for theocratic empires.~ Chapters 9-11 (Enlightenment, The Death of God?, Does God Have a Future?)If there's history in any sense in these chapters, it is not the main goal of them. These chapters talk about the enlightenment era with its advent of science and technology. This was the time in history where discoveries were made that shattered preconceived conceptions of the physical world, the solar system, and most importantly our place in it. This was the time where we really started to discover that perhaps life does not have any divine meaning, and by observing natural phenomenon we come to see that there is also no purpose. For the first time, it was possible to become an Atheist. Many prominent intellectuals came to abhor the idea of a creator, or master engineer, that that twists and turns the knobs of life and discriminately favors some while punishing others. Much of the general public had severe reservations of how personal God was, and can be, just like the Mystics and the Buddhists. Is God dead? The New Right Christian movement of the late 20th century doesn't seem to portend to any fatality of superstition. Does God Have a Future? Who knows. Apparently the author believes that the God of the Mystics does, which I discuss below.I must concede that what is so prolific about the book is the author's candor. In her sentiment you can detect of a whiff of fate, and thus reckon her intrapersonal disappointment in her tone, but she nevertheless casts her emotions aside to justly display the truth. Much sections of the book reads as if it was written by an atheist. But this doesn't mean that she didn't purvey her opinions. Often you can extrapolate her convictions on matters by the way she alludes to it and by what (I almost said 'who', but that would have been incorrect) she chooses to quote. I'm not an expert on religious matters, but she seemed to be objective - atleast in motivation - for the most part when explicating and trying to explain God's history. I believe that for the most part, such a goal (i.e. objectivity) is not feasible. In the history of divinity and religion; with it's prophets and revelations; there are too many uncertainties to be able to explain these topics without a substantial amount of subjectivity. The whole religious enterprise seems to be subjective. This isn't an existential rejoinder, but an observational truth. It's possible for such experiences to be "real", in the non-materialist and neuron-void sense, but it is not plausible. There is admittedly not a complete material understanding of consciousness and the brain, but there is a fairly adequate scientific understanding of it that takes dominion over the archaic notions of Dualism and non-material "magic" that so many intellectuals have resorted (or succumbed) to in the past when explaining subjective experience and the human mind. It seems that the author, Karen Armstrong, doesn't seem to understand this and I think the contemplative reader is ultimately left in the midst when trying to string together her "God", the one that would purportedly work in the future. She rejects a personal God, and denotes such an idea as unjustifiable, dangerous, and detrimental to religion. So then wouldn't she be a deist? She speaks a lot about deism but doesn't seem to allude to being a deist, per se. She seems to be enthralled by the God of the mystics; the one that lacks shape or form, that can't be anthropomorphized, and is all around us; and that's attainable through introspective practices. She doesn't mention it, but if she doesn't believe that this God created the universe, and is knowledgeable incorporeal entity, than what is the point of God? She seems to insinuate that you need such belief or faith because it attenuates the inner conflict of struggle and inevitable death, but this conclusion is parochial in nature and it does not deserve any kind of fidelity.I would also like to mention, as other reviewers did before me, that she seems to paint Islam in good light. She is in no way a Muslim, but perhaps she felt propelled to be a little persuasive in tonality when speaking on behalf of Islamic religion and Koranic scripture because of prevailing vitriol and inflicted cultural subjectivity in the Western portrait of Islam. This of course was around the time the book was published (1991), and i'm sure although Islam deserves much of it, many academics nevertheless go overboard; that is, doing it fallaciously; in demonizing it. The problem is that Armstrong's fervor shows in this aspect, and often seems to undermine and juxtapose the other major monotheistic religions which seems like an effort to bring them down just to enhance the comparative look of Islam. At one point she seems to blame the downfall of what used to be an open-minded and rationally motivated religion (i.e. Islam) on the Westernization of Islamic territory through Colonialism. This seems like a feeble attempt to deposit blame on other things while simply ignoring requisite facts of an (or at least what came to be an) inherently destructive religion. Maybe some positive light needed to be shedded, because anything that is entirely bad doesn't last long. Even though Islam may have, or have had, some good tenets, I still remain a little skeptical of its exegesis in this text.Note that when I say "seems that the author, Karen Armstrong, doesn't seem to understand this...", i'm coming from my pre-conceived conviction in the fidelity of Materialism (which is what I meant by "this"). In other words, I'm assuming it to be the truth, which many people - especially readers of this book - wouldn't adhere to. Even though I don't necessarily agree with everything the author has to say, the text itself was engaging and I sincerely enjoyed reading it. There is a lot of information to be gleaned and I do recommend it. It deserves a high rating.4.4/5

Of all the books about religion that I've read--and I've read a good many over many years--this is the best and most concise recounting of the beginnings and development of the three monotheistic faiths. The precis of the book's central theme is very clearly and more than adequately expressed in the Amazon description of the book.Religious historian Karen Armstrong's discussion and in-depth study of the invention of "God" is thorough and deep: her remarks and history are supported by many, many, many primary sources. She makes no judgment on the believability of any tenet; her focus here is how people's need for explanations of the unexplainable produced a supreme being, and how those beliefs change over time to accommodate changing politics, economic conditions, and emerging knowledge.The one finding that stood out for me was the incontrovertible fact that each set of beliefs was ALWAYS preceded by the acknowledgment that "God" was unknowable and unfathomable, and THEN followed by the assertion that the set of beliefs had found THE one and only way to know "God." And each such unshakeable rightness/correctness led to a backlash of another set of beliefs, whose authors declared that THIS set alone would lead to knowing all about the unknowable "God."Be forewarned: this book is not going to help you find answers and reassurances that any one faith is the one and only road to knowing "God." But, if you persevere, this book gives a very clear, precise history of how men created "God"--and are still doing so today.