Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins were invited by the Wall Street Journal to answer the question "Where does evolution leave God?" Dawkins answers as we would expect. Armstrong capitulates by placing religion in the category of myth - subjective meaning beyond reality and reason. This is no favor to religion, and Christianity in particular because it surrenders unnecessarily to materialism. Armstrong is saying the same thing about reality and religion as Dawkins, just in a different way.
Armstrong accepts that evolution has satisfactorily explained the origin and existence of the universe. That's interesting because Dawkins himself has admitted on numerous occasions that science has no idea how the process of evolution got started - the ultimate answer of origins. That's because science is held hostage by the presupposition of materialism, which rules out categorically any inference to a Personal explanation - despite the admitted appearance of design. Armstrong accepts that evolution explains the natural history of pain, death, and racial extinction as though these are inconsistent with the idea of a Designer. Of course, the Bible offers a perfectly reasonable explanation. But Armstrong doesn't take that explanation seriously because for her religion is myth rather than reality. And that is not Christianity.
She states that "'God' is merely a symbol," nothing literal and "beyond the reach of words." That's not what I'm talking about when I speak of God. I am referring to a real person who has made Himself known in words and invaded history to reach us.
Armstrong writes, "Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason...." That's because for her religion is not real. And this is the problem of the modern pluralistic reflex to boil all religions down to essentially the same thing. Her characterization may fit some religions, but would be wholly rejected by many and most certainly by Christianity.
Christianity's claim is that God is real, He created the world, which is now fallen, and He took the initiative to solve the problem of sin. A mythological "haven of peace" is no solace when our problems are real.
It's quite disappointing that the WSJ invited someone to speak for the God-side of the question who doesn't even believe He is real. Her view makes religion mere wishful thinking and capitulates completely to the materialist worldview, which claims alone to speak to reality and facts. Dawkins wins this exchange by default because Armstrong believes his view is the real one.