Customer Reviews

The Battle for God

5 star:		(67)
4 star:		(24)
3 star:		(21)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

I picked up this book hoping to gain some insight into "why" fundamentalists view the world as they do. Armstrong did her research which I expected (having read "A History of God", I sensed she would accomplish that) and she delivered interesting observations and a wealth of history. What was a pleasant surprise was that rather than trying to 'fight' fundamentalism, she made a real effort to try to 'understand' it (unlike Bruce Bawer in "Stealing Jesus" whose knowledge of fundamentalism history was unfortunately outdone by his bitterness and intent to strike back).

The contrasting of the fundamentalist perspective with the non-fundamentalist perspective was an eye opener. She points out the need for both meaning in life and reason. The trouble with applying a literal understanding of the Scriptures was discussed as well as the problem of relying upon 'reason' alone.

Even though Armstrong's observations were not as exhaustive as the history she describes, she gives you enough history to enable you to decipher and try out some theories of your own. Overall, I was much more impressed with this work than "A History of God".

IƠve always been interested in comparative religion, but in the aftermath of September 11, it has felt urgent to understand what brings people to beliefs that are so obviously grotesque distortions of any religious tradition. I picked up Karen ArmstrongƠs book because after reading several articles about Islamic fundamentalism, it seemed to me she was the only writer I encountered who had a clue what she was talking about. While others spouted platitudes and engaged in useless debates about whether Islam was a religion of peace or war (virtually all religions are a mixture of the two), Armstrong offered clear and fascinating analyses of how Islamic fundamentalism developed and what its relationship was to the politics of the Middle East.

The book, a comparison of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic fundamentalism, has more than lived up to my high expectations. The world isnƠt less dangerous after reading it, but it makes a little more sense, and I feel better equipped to cut through the platitudes and nonsense.

Armstrong argues that in the modern world "we can not be religious in the same way as our ancestors," and yet without any religion at all, life feels as if it has no meaning. And so all of us, whether devout, agnostic, or atheist, search for meaning, for "new ways to be religious." Fundamentalism represents one of those searches, but it is a way that grows out of fear.

One of the things I found most interesting about this book is that Armstrong emphasizes that this "fear" isnƠt simply some bizarre paranoia. ItƠs often quite legitimate. American Protestant fundamentalism grew up among poor, rural, badly educated people who felt that powerful and sophisticated people were laughing at them and their beliefs. And, to be fair, they were right. And so, in a virtual parody of the people who were looking down on them, they began to argue that their beliefs were "modern" Ñ the Bible was historically and scientifically verifiable. Jewish fundamentalism developed in the aftermath of the Holocaust, which left many Jews with valid reasons to fear annihilation and hope that a picayune observance of "GodƠs law" would save them. Islamic fundamentalism developed in societies asked to modernize too quickly and in ways that had horrendous social consequences. Many Islamic fundamentalist movements, ironically, began as positive attempts to provide social services like health care and education that governments were not providing, but political repression radicalized them and made them more aggressive.

All three fundamentalist religions, Armstrong says, have positive aspects. TheyƠve helped people operate in a confusing modern world without losing their sense of the meaning of life. But all three have also shown a dangerous tendency to lose the compassion that is at the core of any authentic religion, and to degenerate into "a theology of rage and hatred."

Armstrong concludes that fundamentalists need to become not less religious, but more so Ñ more faithful to the compassion that is the heart and soul of religious faith. But at the same time, secularists and people with more liberal notions of faith need to recognize the real fears that fundamentalists face, and deal with the problems that spawn those fears. Fundamentalists are not going away. We need to understand them.

This is a scholarly, detailed book about the development of religious thought from 1492 to 1999. More specifically it is about fundamentalism, which Karen Armstrong describes as movements of "embattled forms of spirituality" engaging in struggles to "re-sacralize an increasingly skeptical world". One can disagree with her contention that fundamentalist movements are "adamantly opposed to many of the most positive values of modern society", but many fundamentalists do seem to identify our age as one of "cosmic war between the forces of good and evil". I thought her contention that fundamentalists perceive that they are at risk of annihilation and that, consequently, they radiate fear does ring true. ----- Armstrong, a former Roman Catholic nun and author of at least 12 other books about religion, apparently is controversial (see other reviews!) but I found this book to be a well-researched history. It examines only four currents of fundamentalist thought: Jewish, American Protestant, Islamic Sunni (in Egypt), and Shiite Islamic (in Iran). (Do NOT look for any examination of fundamentalist currents in Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc - they are NOT represented.) Armstrong's knowledge of Islam is legendary (she is an honorary member of the Association of Muslim Social Sciences and has written extensively about Islam). She also impressed me with her knowledge of Judaism. (Perhaps this is not surprising since she teaches at the Leo Baeck School for the Study of Judaism!). ----- "The Battle for God" can be read as four parallel volumes, and I would recommend readers to go completely through each of the four threads separately, as well as reading the volume straight through. ("The Battle for God" is worth reading and re-reading!) The first time I picked up this book I focused on the historical development of Islam, and found the content to be very helpful. This second time through, I carefully re-read the chapters tracing the Jewish experience. (The author starts "The Battle for God" with Judaism and in an interview stated that this placement was because "the Jewish people were the first of many peoples to experience modernity initially not as liberating and enlightening, but as a lethal assault.") ---- Frankly, as an American living in the Bible Belt (Texas) I found much of the information about Protestant fundamentalism to be "old news." This might not be true of others with less daily contact with American Protestant fundamentalists. Make your own judgement... ---- Especially in my examination of Judaism, I used Armstrong's book along with an online search engine to follow up historical threads (and I was surprised at the enormous amount of detailed online information about Judaism!) This volume opened my eyes to vast new horizons and confirmed my ignorance of enormous areas of human religious thought. I found "The Battle for God" to be highly useful in initiating new explorations...I hope other readers do too!

I wasn't going to review this book until I read the opening series of reviews by offended "believers" who pan a book they do not understand with ad hominem arguments and by crediting the author with absurdly distorted "liberal" (as in Clinton-esque liberal, even though Armstrong is British) notions.

"The Battle for God" is a study of fundamentalism in 3 major world religions, as it developed over centuries. One of the author's theories is that "fundamentalism" is a reaction to changes in the world which seem to threaten old belief systems with annihilation -- scientific & technological progress, secularization of political life, capitalism, among many others. It's interesting that "fundamentalists," whatever they call themselves, take offense at this loose categorization, and then proceed to rail against the very ideologies Armstrong touched upon in her definition.

Then again, Armstrong contends that fundamentalism is half-baked and dangerous theology, misreading the traditional basis it presumes to be reclaiming, while departing from the basic tenets of humility, humanity and compassion that all 3 religions were founded upon. The "believers" only add support to her claim by responding with obtuse, illiterate and/or ad hominem attacks on the author.

The modernity of Fundamentalism emerges as a paradox which confuses both fundamentalists and "liberals" alike. It's an impressive insight Armstrong provides when she demonstrates how, for example, discomfort with the theories & discoveries of science leads to the adoption of pseudo-scientific procedures for a new discipline, "creation science." Who needs faith when you have a science to prove your beliefs are correct?

I found the book informative and theoretically persuasive, and it's timely reading for people like myself who wonder about the mindset of Arab terrorists. Certainly it would be foolish to accept this book as the "gospel truth" without doing further research to corroborate Armstrong's findings; one imagines that she would be the first to agree.

I have been travelling a lot around the world and was very often confronted with different ethical problems and cultures. I have spent my life to find the Spirit of the Soul and I can only agree on everything which is said in this book:

The differences of the religions are very big, but every culture has its own Battle for God. You will understand differerent views of this phenomenon and definitely better understand how different people have different views regarding of god.

Brilliantly and enthusiastically written.

In "The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism" Karen Armstrong has produced a tour de force. I was inspired to read this book by having heard the author speak about the same subject (very eloquently) at our local university. In reading the current work I was impressed by her grasp of history (something I wish were true of those she writes about) and the circuitous route of that history to the modern world as we know it. As she suggests, the fundamentalists of Islam, Judaism and Christianity are indeed part of the modern world and in fact could not exist in any other.

There are many stripes of fundamentalism, not just Islamic, Jewish or Christian, but (as Ms. Armstrong notes) Hindu, Buddhist, and other religions. Even scientists, atheists, and other rationalists can have a fundamentalist mindset. Communism, Nazism and other non-theological ideologies have actually caused more death in the 20th Century than religious disputes, but then these were, in more ways than one, secular religions. As Armstrong points out, militant religious fundamentalism exists at least in part as a reaction to the threat posed by militant modernity (and vice versa). The humbling of William Jennings Bryant at Dayton, Tennessee, during the Scopes trial is a case in point. Although Scopes was convicted of illegally teaching evolution against state law, the unthinking Christian fundamentalism of Bryant (who was in many other ways a liberal reformer) was exposed to ridicule by Darrow and Mencken. This insult was not lost on the fundamentalists, who developed more radical views in their bitterness and this eventually led to the strident assaults on evolution in the schools by creationists and proponents of "Intelligent Design". Similarly Osama bin Laden in a video (not covered in this book as it happened too recently) stated that his attack on the United States was in part hatched when he watched US ships fire on targets in Lebanon during the Israeli invasion. Christian, Moslem, and Jewish fundamentalism are the result of a fearful reaction to the threat which, the fundamentalists believe, the modern secular world poses to their way of life.

Certainly neither I nor Ms. Armstrong can exactly compare the creationist onslaught on public schools to the actual slaughter of innocent people by Islamic militants, but they are both a result of a deep resentment of the modern world's disdain of their most cherished beliefs. To be able to combat such acts they must be understood in that context.

To show how far from their supposed principles fundamentalists can go in pursuit of their goals Armstrong notes that several of the hijackers of the airliners that slammed into the World Trade Center acted in a most un-Islamic way prior to their mission, including drinking and entering nightclubs. Yet they thought that by sacrificing their lives in destroying the towers, they would enter the Islamic heaven. Many extreme fundamentalists believe that what you do on earth is no consequence if you are faithful in the performance of certain acts of violence in opposition to secularism. Extreme Christian fundamentalists also believe that they may need to help bring on the End Times, leading to the rule of Christ in a new age of righteousness. Some bitter fanatics would even resort to violence, much like the Islamic militants, as in the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in response to the government destruction of the Branch Davidians. Extreme fundamentalists have indeed gone very far from their core teachings. In Christianity they tend to ignore Jesus' actual words (except for a few that fit their rather skewed view of reality) and yet claim to be true to every jot and title of the Bible. Millenarianists who "need" to bring on the End Times, or to protect themselves from a perceived (and sometimes real) threat by modernity, and believers who are convinced that they will be richly rewarded for an act of violence, are very dangerous to the society in which they live. How do we give people the maximum of religious liberty and at the same time discourage such dangerous tendencies toward nihilism?

This book is (as far as I know) the most complete current exposition on this very human difficulty. The abiding question of whether we can lessen the intolerance of both fundamentalism for the modern world and the modern world's intolerance for religious belief is very important for the future of our civilization. As an agnostic and a scientist who has contact with a number of religious groups it is my fervent hope that moderate and liberal religion can have more impact on religious thought, and that modernity, as represented by the secular state and science, can be more tolerant (and even respectful) of religion. By moderate and liberal religions I mean those that exhibit one of the best characteristics of all major religions- compassion! After all it is not exactly true that any of us, in our very core, is certain of our facts. None of us was there when the foundations of the universe was laid down! Thus we should be able to respect the right of every human to come to their own way of finding meaning in life, as long as they do not advocate physical harm to others who do not believe as they do. Like it or not we live in a pluralistic society and to maintain the benefits of that society, while tackling the difficult problems that beset us, we need to not be at each other's throats.
Read this book if you would have some understanding of the historical background of the fundamentalist mindset. Even if you disagree with Karen Armstrong in her analysis, you will gain much insight as to how we got to this point in our history and how we may be able to pull back from disaster.

I have been following the works of Karen Armstrong for several years. I believe her to be on a fearless quest for Truth. She is not afraid to follow the path where ever it may lead. I can't wait to see where she takes us next.

In "The Battle for God," Armstrong clearly shows Fundamentalists and Modernists can absolutely not understand each other. And, how both sides need to take a clear, objective look at the other's position.

This book is an honorable and respectful treatment of sensitive subject matter.

This book has contributed greatly to my understanding of fundamentalism, the history of the United States, and the origin of almost every hot-button political issue of our time. It seems to me that Armstrong goes to considerable lengths to make a sympatheic case for the fundamentalists of each of the monotheistic faiths. I suspect that this even-handed treatment may be what irks some reviews by Christian fundamentalists.

I confess that I still find fundamentalists to be somewhat mystifying, but I have a much better understanding of the sources of their dismay at the direction of modern society.

For an American, the most interesting aspect of the book is the way in which Armstrong shows how the major political conflicts of our present are the result of fundamentalists' (mis)interpretation of our country's origins.

This book was very interesting and historically informative. The author has done a good job of bringing together the similar evolutions of the three monotheistic faiths. However, there are some parts of the book that are entirely her own theory, that seem to be based on nothing more than what she believes, which is fine, but is a stark contrast to the established history that dominates the book. Much of this work is a view from the "other side," ie, an Iranian revolutionary's view on the Ayatollah Khomeni, and the logic of his beleifs. I would reccomend this book for people who are already informed on religion, and who will not be entirely swayed the author's opinions, as they show strong favorites.

In this book, Karen Armstrong presents a brief history of fundamentalist movements in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. While each movement has its distinctive characteristics, Armstrong presents a common thread among the three: a reaction against the assault of modernity, which each community interprets as a threat to the survival of their faith. Her approach is scholarly, yet attempts to be deeply sympathetic of each movement. This is not to say that she agrees with the fundamentalists, but that she shows a sincere effort to understand why they approach their faith the way they do. Armstrong's language and theological approach could come strait from a mainstream (liberal) theological seminary. She describes fundamentalist thought using modernist, liberal analysis. I would not expect a fundamentalist to be satisfied with this approach, but that is not her intended audience.

One of the themes in the book is the contrast between mythos (myth) and logos (rationality). Myth is a concept which is central to each of these religions, but which has become foreign to the modern mind. Armstrong defines mythos as that aspect of religions faith which gives meaning and significance to life, something which science and rationality (logos) cannot provide. It is also a way of looking at the foundational stories and texts of a religious faith. Armstrong insists that mythos and logos are equally necessary. One of the problems with fundamentalist thought is the confusion of the two.

The use of the word "myth" by itself creates problems for fundamentalists. We are accustomed to thinking of myths as things which are not true, such as the stories of the Greek and Roman gods. To the liberal theological community, of which Armstrong is a part, the word has a much deeper meaning. The point of a myth is not whether it is "true" in the sense of a verifiable historical event. The point of a myth is found in the Truth to which the myth is witness. That Truth is much larger and more important than a mere historical event; it gives meaning to the life of the religious community and defines who they are and how they relate to the divine. For example, to get tied up in debates about creationism vs evolution is to miss the point of the Genesis myth. Understanding that story as mythos allows us to understand it as a story about God's relationship to his people, as the ultimate expression of mature monotheism.

Another major theme, only alluded to at the very beginning, is that of the conservative ethos. This is the attitude which dominated most religious thought until very recently. For much of history, civilization has been a tenuous achievement, subject to destruction at any time. With this in mind, most societies have concentrated their efforts not in a modernistic effort at progress, but in a conservative effort to preserve the achievements of the past. In a religious context, this means preserving a revelation or sacred text, which appeared at some time in antiquity. To the true fundamentalist, there is no such thing as progress in the religious understanding ; one can do no better than to preserve the original understanding of the founders.

Armstrong has undertaken a task of gargantuan proportions. In roughly 400 pages, she attempts not only to summarize 500 years of history for three complex religious faiths, but to defend a theory to make sense of all of this. This book could easily have been three times as long, and perhaps would have been better for it. If her theory is less than completely convincing, she can be forgiven for failing at an impossible task. She has still taken us on a journey of discovery, which will leave the reader wiser and eager for more. She has chosen a subject large enough that it can never be adequately summarized by any one viewpoint. I give her tremendous credit for her commitment to understanding those with whom she disagrees, whether or not she is completely successful in the attempt.