The Battle For God

Rating:
Summary: There are better books on the topic. Disappointing.
Review: The book describes historical activity of Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalists opposing modernism in time-spans leading to present day. Surprisingly, the book rarely explains what or why "fundamentalists" believe as they do. Nor are modernists clearly illuminated.

Instead, it's a socio-political history of groups. Group-X did this, then Group-Y did that, with each group treated as an unexplained black-box. There are occasional comments in passing like " ... they believed the Pope to be the Anti-Christ..." without explanatory background.

I started by reading just sections on Christianity, something familiar. Found them so askew, didn't read about Judaism and Islam, since I would expect to be miseducated.

There are so many problems with this book, I recommend avoiding it. Instead see "The Universe Next Door:A Basic Catalog of World-views"(Sire) and "How Now Shall we Live?"(Colson and Pearcy). Both books ably live up to the promise of deepening (revolutionizing?) your understanding of the modern world, without religious jargon. If you want to understand "fundamentalists", read something they might recommend, no?

Problem#1: Use of term "fundamentalist". Don't know any orthodox people describing themselves with the word. It's a label (like "boogey-man") used by irreligious (media), to categorize and dismiss those they don't understand. Use here seems a marketing ploy to bring in PBS crowd (hi!).

Problem#2: The author doesn't explain what SHE means by "fundamentalism" or "modernity" until the terms have been used dozens of times. You get 50-70 pages into the book before being able deduce the central issues under discussion.

Problem#3: "fundamentalists" are finally(!) described as those whose beliefs are arrived at emotionally. "Modernists" are rationals who emphasize reason and the over-turn of tradition (she says). Thus the books' combatants are defined not by WHAT they believe, but HOW they believe.

This conveniently allows the author to proceed without explaining the basis of belief. If she went into the whys and whats, she would end up falsifying the basic framework of the book, which is ...

Problem#4: The division of understanding into "mythos" (truth by myth-story) and "logos" (rationality). The author says religious thought emphasizes myth, while modernity is reason. Very self-serving, very wrong. Consider the following Enlightenment ideas "rational" Moderns are "logo"-ed into:

1."There are no absolutes". Comment:The statement claims absolute knowledge, thus contradicts itself. Are there no absolutes or are there people who PREFER there be no absolutes, so they can do what they want?

2."We can't know anything with certainty". Comment:Except, it seems, this one belief. Which, being an example, is thus self-refuting and meaningless. It asserts an absolute truth as it claims one is not possible.

3."There is no truth". Comment:If true, the statement is an example contradicting it's assertion. Another impossible idea that excludes itself.

4."Only empirically verifiable or falsifiable statements have any meaning". Comment: This idea cannot be verified and prohibits itself from being simply assumed true. It is thus impossible.

Moderns, when they aren't congratulating themselves on their rationality, base it on impossible beliefs that can't be spoken without contradiction by the end of the sentence.

Contrary to the author, this is a familiar story; modernity is not modern at all. It is as old as history, documented in Genesis, when humans freely chose to disobey God to gain worldy knowledge, to be their own little god. Educated Christians understand modernity in exquisite detail.

Modernity seems new because consequences of that original sin can now be so widely and rapidly propagated with the printing press and television. There are vastly more ways to be in error than to be correct. Mass media only leverage the broad path to error that has always existed.

At one point the author actually talks about "Christian Utopia". For Christians, Utopia CANNOT POSSIBLY be created by human design because of the introduction of sin into the world ("The Fall"). Even phrasing the idea displays the books' profound ignorance (or willfull misrepresentation) of the subject.

Utopianism IS modernity, made scientifically plausible by Darwin whose Victorian-era studies seemed to eliminate God, thus Original Sin. The result was predicted and predictable; Karl Marx quickly adopted Darwin's science, leading to communism and the attempt to perfect human nature scientifically, to create a Worker's Paradise (60 million killed in Russia, 50 million killed in China). Then come the Nazi's (National Socialists) trying to create an Aryan super-race, also based on the science of Darwin (20 million dead & Holocaust). And then eugenics and abortion: the modern world. Now, 140 years later, Darwin falls apart ("Darwin's Black Box",Behe).

Biblical Christianity advocates the METHOD of science (comparison of observation with reality). It is the materialistic assumption of science PHILOSOPHY that is in error.

The only reason humanist John Locke could think it "self-evident" that all humans have certain inalienable rights is because he lived in a culture permeated with the Christian idea Man was created in the image of God. Darwinism has no basis for human rights -- one reason they don't catch on in countries lacking a Christian background.

This is the history of the secular world: ripping-off the culture of Christianity, distorting it, forgetting where it came from, then impugning the original basis of their very own adopted (now warped) secular beliefs. The book does this repeatedly.

In original Greek, the Bible (John) says "In the beginning was the Logos..." (logic, or reason). It is saying God, and all He creates is based on reason. This was a radical idea to the old pagans, with their capricious, arbitrary gods. It meant it was worth studying the world; it could be understood. Out of this came the scientific METHOD (completely biblical), education, literacy, and even the stunted off-shoots of Christianity-Now-Garbled: modern utopianism and atheism. Which, ironically, don't recognize the Christian tradition they totally depend on ... but which does not depend on them.

Rating:
Summary: Not worth the price
Review: This book is truly a waste of time. Three hundred and seventy-one pages of bigoted opinion. This book was written with such bias that it is hard to believe people would even consider taking it seriously. Mrs. Armstrong's unsupported assumptions form the very basis of the work. She assumes that Marxist sociological conflict theory is inherently true. Armstrong also assumes that "religion" (particularly fundamentalism) can only respond to a secular society. Over and over Armstrong stresses that fundamentalism is a fearful response to those secular societies in which it exists. She glibly assumes that "fundamentalism" is a twentieth century invention. Beam me up Scotty! Has she never heard of a city called Geneva or a Man by the last name of Calvin? For all the praise lavished on this book for its "panoramic view" of the history of fundamentalism, one is left wondering where all the history is. Perhaps Mrs. Armstrong was only covering the history of fundamentalism on the moon. She certainly leaves out names (only to name some Christians, although many could be named from both Islam and Judaism) such as Bunyun, Edwards, Spurgeon, and Whitefield. I am saddened that this book will probably be read by people seeking to understand "fundamentalism" and who will only find Mrs. Armstrong's narrow definition of it. Mrs. Armstrong misses the theme which runs through fundamentalism in all three of the monotheistic faiths. These "fundamentalisms" are not built on a foundation of fear but on a heartfelt desire to grow closer personally to the almighty God of the universe. Yes, as Mrs. Armstrong has pointed out, politicians in many lands have tried to use fear to sway the fervent of all faiths; but those that are swayed are by definition not the faithful. Mrs. Armstrong would know this if she were truly trying to understand fundamentalism as she claims. To sum it up-do not be fooled by Mrs. Armstrong's faux attempt at "understanding fundamentalism." The only thing to find here is veiled condescension and contempt. Its not worth the price.

Rating:
Summary: A Fascinating Look At Fundamentalism
Review: 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".

Rating:
Summary: Impressive
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Armstong's Journey Continues
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Generally good with a few weak spots
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Sojourners
Review: By faith, I am a Christian, and as a Christian I believe the Word of God (Old and New Testaments) as not a "mythological story" but the historical path of two groups of sojourners (the Hebrews or Jews and Followers of Jesus Christ)who look for the eternal Promised Land of The Sovereign God and Creator.

Your labels of "Fundamentalism" are just that- interpretations of your world view of those who truly believe in something, just as the author has individual beliefs...is this such a threat to you (and your world view) that you have to attempt to bring negative conotations against those who have beliefs that are rooted in faith?

I would rather choose to believe something that I know if I am wrong I won't loose anything,but if I am right in my beliefs- I will have much to gain.

Yes, there are those who are extremists and distort Truth. But do not make the common mistake of lumping all Christians,or all Jews (or whatever faith), into the group of those who are disgracing their so-called religion by out of balance practices. This is ludicrous and very dangerous in a world that is looking for someone/something to be constant in their beliefs as related to spiritual matters, especially.

Thank you, author, for a another display of bias which is not unusual in our day.

Rating:
Summary: The battle for the Soul - Simply Great
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: More pop social psychology babble
Review: Let's see, "modernization" and "Western consumerism" (whatever that is) were long thought to be the bane of religion. Now, we have a study that says these same things are what spur religious zeal. Hmmmm...the ultimate tautology it seems. Basically "consumerism" can explain anything you want it to. Maybe the author should tell us what a "non-consumer" culture looks like (do people just produce stuff and leave it sit around). This book is methodologically unsound and theoretically vacuous. Try again.

Rating:
Summary: Easy to misunderstand this book
Review: 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.