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.
Rating: 
Summary: Really enjoyed this look at fundamentalism
Review: Armstrong delivers her theme and sticks to it: Referring to mythos as the mystery, the mysticism of religion, and logos as rationality, she writes, "Fundamentalists have turned the mythos of their religion into logos, either by insisting that their dogmas are scientifically true, or by transforming their complex mythology into a streamlined ideology" (p. 366). Fundamentalist Christians are guilty of the former; fundamentalist Jews and Muslums are guilty of the latter. But Armstrong doesn't point fingers at these fundamentalists and say, "Bad, bad people!" Rather, she looks at the struggles each of the societies she writes about undergoes to modernize, and how each religion adapted, in some people, by turning to fundamentalism. She astutely points out the secularists don't have all the answers, either; all logos and no mythos makes Jack and Jill disillusioned children. Which, of course, leaves them open to fundamentalism, rather than a more balanced approach that leaves reason to reason and mystery to mystery.
Overall, this is a well-researched and well-balanced book. I especially enjoyed the history of Iran leading up to the Iran hostage crisis (which itself gets little ink, as though it were anti-climatic; apparently it turned out to be a much greater venture than the students who took the hostages bargained for!). Some fundamentalists, especially fundamentalist Christians might not like the way they get portrayed; the televangelist scandals of the late 1980s are told a little tongue in cheek. But reading this might help people understand where fundamentalists -- and liberals -- are coming from, and perhaps find ways to bridge the gaps.
Rating:
Summary: "We can not be religious in the same way as our ancestors."
Review: IÕve 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 ArmstrongÕs 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 isnÕt 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" isnÕt simply some bizarre paranoia. ItÕs 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 "GodÕs 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. TheyÕve 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.
Rating:
Summary: A Timely Book
Review: THE BATTLE FOR GOD is the story of the rise of religious fundamentalism, especially among Christians, Muslims and Jews. The subject is now even more timely than when the book was first published five years ago.
Karen Armstrong shows that religious fundamentalism is a relatively recent phenomenon. Religious fundamentalists feel threatened by society's modern advances which are favored by secularists. The secularists in turn feel threatened by the rigid views of the fundamentalists. It is more important than ever for these opposing groups to find some common meeting ground. After reading Armstrong's book, however, I do not feel optimistic about this possibility occurring anytime in the near future.
THE BATTLE FOR GOD is a well-researched study of a complex topic. One inescapable conclusion to draw from reading the book is that religious fundamentalism is deeply entrenched throughout the world and it is a major cause of much of the planet's present unrest.
Rating:
Summary: The Threat of Fundamentalism
Review: 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 take more control of 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.
Rating:
Summary: The fundamentals of Fundamentalism
Review: In The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong once again examines the history of the three big monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. This time, her focus is on the development of fundamentalism within these three faiths.
To provide a history of fundamentalism, first it must be defined. It means different things to different religions, but Armstrong finds similarities between the different types. To her, fundamentalism arises out of a conflict between "mythos" and "logos"; or in simplest terms, faith and reason. As the 20th century shifted to a more "rational" world - one based more on scientific principles - it seemed like faith would be driven into a quiet corner, never to emerge again. Unfortunately, complete rationality has a certain sterile feel and creates a void which fundamentalism fills.
Armstrong focuses on several types of fundamentalism, allowing the reader to see their similarities and differences. In particular, she focuses on the fundamentalists in American Protestantism, Israeli Judaism, Egyptian Sunni Islamism and Iranian Shiite Islamism. Her history begins in the Renaissance and goes to the present day.
While it is clear that Armstrong is no advocate of fundamentalist agendas, she also shows an understanding as to the motives of the movement and does not merely dismiss fundamentalists as idiots or crackpots; indeed, she shows that such dismissals accomplish little and can actually give the fundamentalists greater strength.
As with any book on religion, this one is sure to not be liked by everyone. What seems to be a generally objective look at fundamentalism will probably be dismissed by others as anti-religious. Armstrong also aims her book at a relatively sophisticated audience, and the concepts she deals with are not always easy to grasp. For an American reader who can see the influence of religion in the 2004 presidential election, this book offers some good insights. It is not perfect, and it is not always an easy read, but it is a solid four star book.
Rating:
Summary: A Confusing and Demoralizing Treatise on the Major Religions
Review: This book screams out, "Please God, I want to believe in you but I can't!" Armstrong was a nun and now doesn't know whether she is Buddhist or Muslim, so how can she be objective about the major religions? She is writes with very little insight. She presents an evasive, ambiguous, and confusing theory of religion. Not a good book to read if you are interested in any of the religions she discusses, or should I say dissects and rips apart?
Rating:
Summary: excellent
Review: Excellent, though a bit of a challenge to listen to. And long... 6 hours, as I recall. And that's abridged. Worth it, though.
Rating:
Summary: A very confused lady
Review: The one star is for two reasons:
First, I can't give anything lower, which is stupid.
Second, she is an easy read.
That being said, Ms. Armstrong is one confused, mixed up, and disillusioned lady. It seems that all, or most of her books end up discrediting all religions but Islam. Maybe she gets a "kick" out of suicide bombers, terrorists, killers, torturers, beheaders, and the like. Even though she dislikes most fundamentalists, she loves the Muslims. What a convoluted brain! Or maybe she has her head so buried where the sun doesn't shine that she actually doesn't know what's going on in the world today.
|
