The Battle For God

Rating:
Summary: I Understand Now! - How Ironic
Review: Karen Armstrong has been citicized for undergoing such a complicated subject as the history of religion and simplifying it to a model of mythos vs. logos. I direct your attention to Harold Blooms' "How To Read And Why", and find that irony is a great vehicle to understanding any subject. Seek the self in everything you read, study or do, and there you will find irony.

Ms Armstrong has forever changed my perspective on the battle between fundamemtalists & secularists, i.e. modernism. Her basic view is the way world used to be seen and how it is seen today - mythos vs logos. Before 1500 she says these two were compatible until the scientific and rationalistic eras moved in to confuse and divide the two making them distinct ways of thinking. And while many philosophers embraced explaing the world in scientific terms, their lives (and ours) became quite empty and devoid of God. Fundalmentalists reacted to these new scientific discoveries with fear, thereby reacting sometimes with violence towards the constantly changing world before them. Fundamentalists seek to uphold the old social order and "go back" to the way things were, back to a literal reading of the bible for example. Yet despite the passionless, meaningless, existentialist world of the secularist they are open to the creative world that has benefited and improved the way we live today with ever new scientific discoveries and inventions.

But the world of fear and abhorrance toward newness and progress (of fundamentalist - mythos), must be married to the dry meaningless world of the scientific rationalist - of logos, Ms Armstrong says, if we are to continue to improve our lives and the march forward. Clearly, fundamentalists are holding back progress. Secularists need to find meaning in their lives and that mythos is an important way of thinking about the world, i.e. of God and religion. Fundamentalists need to accept change, new discoveries and their uses, as a part of our ever progressing world.

Karen Armstrong has written a dandy. I understand much better now. How ironic.

Rating:
Summary: Understanding liberalism
Review: Karen Armstrong says she is trying to understand fundamentalism, as an evangelical christian I try and understand liberalism and subjectivism considering I find the doctrine of Absolute Truth so easy to understand, whereas it's presentation probably at times has a lot to be desired when at the hands of fakes and hotheads. It is well written and well researched and fairly honest a book, as well as fairly balanced as far as the author will let herself. It is something I will undoubtedly have on my bookshelf if ever I go for ordination, but I do find it sometimes aggressive and uncomprimising in it's approach and difficult to swallow

Rating:
Summary: A thoughtful book on fundamentalism
Review: This book tries to understand monotheistic fundamentalism, that is Muslim, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalism among all the others. That is the "focus" of the book, such as it is. Actually, it is a very useful mix, even though the three kinds of fundamentalism have little in common with each other. But these three cultures are intimately entwined in modern times, and seeing all three fundamentalist groups being described at once provides rich opportunities for insights into why we have the problems we have today among these three cultures. At any rate, you would be missing an enormous education reading only the Christian parts. In fact, she seems to be interested in fundamentalists in the order I listed above in my first sentence, based on the amount of space she gives each in this book. Her knowledge of Islam is renowned, and it shows in this book. But she may perhaps be too close personally to Christian fundamentalism to treat it with as much dignity and depth as she does Islamic fundamentalism. But all three fundamentalisms are treated with a richness of detail that is simply astonishing, and it is all neatly tied together from an historical point of view.

Ms. Armstrong's book by volume is perhaps 95% objective and superbly organized history, and 5% philosophy and interpretation. Her interpretations are heavily laden with theories and assumptions, which she rather cursorily spells out at the beginning of the book. Much of her interpretation depends on a distinction between mythos and logos. To simplify, mythos is the spiritual truth seen in the stories and actions portrayed in sacred writings and traditions. The stories are regarded as pointing beyond their literal meaning to spiritual truths that cannot be put into literal words. Logos is practical life, getting the job done in the most rational way possible. Ms. Armstrong seems to be saying that until the Protestant Reformation, Christians did not read the Bible literally, that it was always regarded as stories pointing (literally) infinitely beyond themselves, at another plane of existence. I'm not sure I can buy into this, as some of the basic Christian doctrines that got established in the early Councils were the result of literal readings of the Bible being victorious over metaphorical readings, readings that point to spiritual truths of far greater value than what the literal readings produced in the way of Church Dogma.

I have a problem with Ms. Armstrong's constant dependence on the distinction between mythos and logos. In the late 20th century, which she treats at the end of her book, her emphasis is on how in "former times" there was always this separation between the two in everyone's mind. They each spoke of separate domains and there could be no conflicts. I am no historian, so I can't judge how true this was in the past, but it is an oversimplification of what is going on in the world today. Ms. Armstrong would say that when scientific rationalists started "explaining away" God, fundamentalism rose up as its implacable enemy. This is what Ian Barbour calls the Conflict relationship between science and religion. Ms. Armstrong seems to think that prior to scientific theories coming into conflict with a literal reading of the Bible, everyone embraced what Barbour calls the Independence relationship between science and religion: separate domains of equal value in life but not to be mixed together, as they dealt with separate planes of existence. Fundamentalism gives up mythos and treats the Bible as logos, and that is the root of the problem, according to Armstrong.

The important thing is, for the past forty or fifty years at least, there have been alternatives to Conflict and Independence, what Barbour calls Dialog and Integration. Barbour favors Dialog and Integration, and perhaps they offer a way out of the fundamentalist/humanist conflict. Armstrong seems only vaguely aware of such possibilities in the last chapter of her book. Clearly, what the world needs is a religious myth that is inextricably bound up in the scientific picture of the world. Science and religion can no longer be independent, and conflict is absurd, childish, and dangerous.

Although Ms. Armstrong tries to understand why fundamentalists believe and behave as they do, she does not hold back her own personal feelings about them. Ms. Armstrong embraces modernity, the enemy and cause of fundamentalism according to her theories. Fundamentalism attacks all of her cherished values. So when she compares it to what she regards as the highest forms of religious behavior, fundamentalism often comes off looking rather evil. She severely chastises it for being unreligious, because in her view it is cruel, deliberately ignorant, stubborn, self-righteous, and often downright terrifying.

Armstrong tries to show how fundamentalists are a product of the fear of annihilation. They fear that the forces in the modern world want to exterminate them, and with them, the only true worship of God left in the world. So the most extreme forms of fundamentalism often strike out and try to destroy icons in the modern world.

To me, all of this is extraordinary food for thought, but even after carefully reading this extraordinarily rich book, it is not entirely clear to me what the proper response should be to fundamentalism. I like the prospects of Integration, and believe that that provides the most promising solution.

Rating:
Summary: How Religions React to Secular Change
Review: I picked this book up assuming that the author would re-plow some ground from her earlier books, especially A History of God. I was delighted to see that she has come up with fresh insights that more than justify reading the book. Armstrong's central thesis here is that changes in the secular world have repeatedly forced schisms within the monotheistic religions which have then profoundly affected society as a whole. She provides many fascinating examples out of Judaism, Islam and Christianity from numerous civilizations over the last 2000 years. To see the ripples caused by one fundamentalist zealot expand through civilization as a whole is astounding. Just as interesting is to see how rapid modernization has repeatedly provoked a fundamentalist reaction that rewrites the face of the civilization more profoundly than the modernization itself.

Rating:
Summary: A more complete understanding
Review: Armstrong does an excellent job in writing about the growth of "fundamentalism" in the context of history. Clearly writing for a Christian audience she spends a lot of time on the details of Judaism and Islam. Yet, she also ties the threads that link all of these fundamentalist movements together.

Reading is often a slow process as the text is dense with facts and opinions. I think that it is clear that she understands the modern secular person as well as the fundamentalist in the sense that she states "they cannot talk to each other because they do not recognize what the other holds to be sacred."

Perhaps this book will promote some understading of the fundamentalist belief structure. I doubt that it will convert either the secularist or the fundamentalist. I do know that something is going on in the world and Anderson has helped me to realilze just what that is.

Rating:
Summary: Great history, problematical analysis
Review: This book tries to understand monotheistic fundamentalism, that isMuslim, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalism among all theothers. That is the "focus" of the book, such as itis. Actually, it is a very useful mix, even though the three kinds offundamentalism have little in common with each other. But these threecultures are intimately entwined in modern times, and seeing all threefundamentalist groups being described at once provides richopportunities for insights into why we have the problems we have todayamong these three cultures. At any rate, you would be missing anenormous education reading only the Christian parts. In fact, sheseems to be interested in fundamentalists in the order I listed abovein my first sentence, based on the amount of space she gives each inthis book. Her knowledge of Islam is renowned, and it shows in thisbook. But she may perhaps be too close personally to Christianfundamentalism to treat it with as much dignity and depth as she doesIslamic fundamentalism. But all three fundamentalisms are treated witha richness of detail that is simply astonishing, and it is all neatlytied together from an historical point of view.

Armstrong's book byvolume is perhaps 95% objective and superbly organized history, and 5%philosophy and interpretation. Her interpretations are heavily ladenwith theories and assumptions, which she rather cursorily spells outat the beginning of the book. Much of her interpretation depends on adistinction between mythos and logos. To simplify, mythos is thespiritual truth seen in the stories and actions portrayed in sacredwritings and traditions. The stories are regarded as pointing beyondtheir literal meaning to spiritual truths that cannot be put intoliteral words. Logos is practical life, getting the job done in themost rational way possible. Armstrong seems to be saying that untilthe Protestant Reformation, Christians did not read the Bibleliterally, that it was always regarded as stories pointing (literally)infinitely beyond themselves, at another plane of existence. I'm notsure I can buy into this....

I have aproblem with Armstrong's constant dependence on the distinctionbetween mythos and logos. In the late 20th century, which she treatsat the end of her book, her emphasis is on how in "former times"there was always this separation between the two in everyone'smind. They each spoke of separate domains and there could be noconflicts. I am no historian, so I can't judge how true this was inthe past, but it is an oversimplification of what is going on in theworld today. Armstrong would say that when scientific rationalistsstarted "explaining away" God, fundamentalism rose up as itsimplacable enemy. This is what Ian Barbour calls the Conflictrelationship between science and religion. Armstrong seems to thinkthat prior to scientific theories coming into conflict with a literalreading of the Bible, everyone embraced what Barbour calls theIndependence relationship between science and religion: separatedomains of equal value in life but not to be mixed together, as theydealt with separate planes of existence. Fundamentalism gives upmythos and treats the Bible as logos, and that is the root of theproblem, according to Armstrong. .... Barbour favors Dialog and Integration, and perhaps theyoffer a way out of the fundamentalist/humanist conflict. Armstrongseems only vaguely aware of such possibilities in the last chapter ofher book. ....

Although Armstrong tries to understand whyfundamentalists believe and behave as they do, she does not hold backher own personal feelings about them. ....

Rating:
Summary: Corrections
Review: Two corrections need to be make for accuracy. One minor and one not so minor. First, the minor correction. Goldsboro, North Carolina is mentioned in the book with the city misspelled. In the book she spelled it Goldsborough. Its "Goldsboro." Secondly, Ms Armstrong stated the beginning of "Pentecostalism" was "in Los Angeles" in 1906. This in incorrect. The Pentecostal Movement began in 1901, at a bible school in Topeka, Kansas, when Agnes Ozman received the glossolalia experience in a school pray assembly. The school was under the direction of Charles Parham. Ref. "Old Time Power" by Vinson Synan. The "Azusa Street" revival Ms Armstrong refers to was some five years later.

Rating:
Summary: In-depth, essential, well written historical survey/analysis
Review: Fundamentalism has emerged as one of he strongest forces in the world, and this examination tells how fundamentalist groups evolved and what they hope to achieve. The Battle for God is in-depth and essential reading for any who would understand fundamentalist religion and behavior, and provides an excellent historical survey and analysis.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent look at the three major monotheistic religions
Review: I picked this book up because I have a friend who is more or less a fundamentalist Christian and I wanted to better understand where he was coming from. To me, fundamentalism was incomprehensible. This book provided background not only on the development of fundamentalism in the three major monotheistic faiths, but also an excellent discussion on what the author views as the basic aspects of religious belief and the purpose it has (or the needs it fulfills) in our everyday lives. An excellent and interesting read. Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Another Excellent Book From Karen Armstrong
Review: This book takes a sensitive and in-depth look at one type of religious faith.