Finale for Armstrong's "Think Again about God"

The final two points that Karen Armstrong deals with science and politics. The statements she considered are simple: "God is the Enemy of Science" and "God is Incompatible with Democracy". The answers are equally simple: "He doesn't have to be." and "No".

Armstrong's comments on each topic are interesting. Looking at science, she wrote, The conflict with science is symptomatic of a reductive idea of God in the modern West. Ironically, it was the empirical emphasis of modern science that encouraged many to regard God and religious language as fact rather than symbol, thus forcing religion into an overly rational, dogmatic, and alien literalism.

And, in considering the relationship between religion and democracies, she centered on what many see as an inherent conflict between Islam and western style democrcy. She asserted: The 2007 Gallup poll shows that support for democratic freedoms and women's rights is widespread in the Muslim world, and many governments are responding -- albeit haltingly -- to pressures for more political participation. There is, however, resistance to a wholesale adoption of the Western secular model. Many want to see God reflected more clearly in public life, just as a 2006 Gallup poll revealed that 46 percent of Americans believe that God should be the source of legislation.

As a professional in the field of religion, I admit to a level of bias, but I think her concluding paragraphs are spot on:
Religion may not be the cause of the world’s political problems, but we still need to understand it if we are to solve them. "Whoever took religion seriously!” exclaimed an exasperated U.S. government official after the Iranian Revolution. Had policymakers bothered to research contemporary Shiism, the United States could have avoided serious blunders during that crisis. Religion should be studied with the same academic impartiality and accuracy as the economy, politics, and social customs of a region, so that we learn how religion interacts with political tension, what is counterproductive, and how to avoid giving unnecessary offense.

And study it we'd better, for God is back. And if "he" is perceived in an idolatrous, literal-minded way, we can only expect more dogmatism, rigidity, and religiously articulated violence in the decades ahead.

Thus, I agree that no one should buy into the argument that the things of God are passe in our society. This speaks to my belief that all people ought to become more informed of religious beliefs.