Rating: 
Summary: No second Axial Age
Review: Different perspectives lead to different sets of facts, and this account of fundamentalism couldn't have be written by a secularist. Of value then to a secularist student of the puzzle of resurgent religion at a time when the forces of modernity are under assault by postmodern initiatives--or fantasies. Armstrong's history makes good reading then as an exercise to reroute perception, at least momentarily, toward the complexities of modern religious culture filtered out of standard historiography. A useful history for that reason and yet the author's attitude is ambiguous and seems quite sly in its unstated 'egging on' the whole phenomenon.
At a time when the author is promoting the idea of a second 'Axial Age' we are left to wonder. The point is relevant to the frequent out of focus references to this idea of Karl Jaspers, here at the beginning of the text.It is worth considering what Jaspers said, and then looking at the phenomenon of the Axial period to ask what the phenomenon was, and what it means. To say that the Axial period is associated with the emergence of some idea of transcendence in relation to religion is misleading and finally false. The Axial Age produced two religions, one theistic, and one atheistic, a great deal of philosophy, Chinese, Indian, and Greek, the first stage of the scientific revolution, and the Ionian Enlightenment, along with the world's first democracy. It is thus incorrect to say the phenomenon has an intrinsic relation to religion at all. Therefore the suggestion that fundamentalism might somehow be evidence of a postmodern second Axial Age is far off the mark. In general the resurgence of fundamentalism shows that the only real candidate for a 'second Axial Age' is the rise of modernity itself, one that is being countered by retrograde social forces, a point that should be obvious from the facts of the case, albeit obvious to a secularist. This consideration shows a wrong analysis of Armstrong's own data. We can see the problem in here statements about logos and mythos, which are mostly sophistical, if not malarky. Collating logos and mythos in conjunction is a recipe only for dismantling clear thinking and indulging in religious propaganda (mythos). In general the wrong idea of the Axial period is vitiating all Armstrong's histories, time to focus on the original usage of Jaspers, which unfortunately is itself flawed, but which is at least the source of the idea. Cf. also the reviewer's material.
Rating:
Summary: Innacurate history
Review: This book distorts history and creates blatant inaccuracies. The book sets out to look at fundamentalism and its violent nature. But wait a sec there are no violent fundamentalist Christians or Jews that exist today. There are no Jewish or Christian terrorists today. So in order to balance the book and not make it simply a laundry list of Islamic terror the author creates Christian and Jewish terror by claiming 'Jewish and Christian fundamentalism is involved in terror as well'. But history proves this wrong. When is the last time a Jewish or Christian fundamentalist hijacked an airplane? Never. When is the last time a Jewish or Christian fundamentalist strapped a bomb on and blew up a bus? Never. So this argument doesn't pass muster. In the past their have been extreme Christian sects and the book is correct in this analysis. The book is weak in trying to talk about 'violent Judaism'. What violence? 3500 b.c was the last time Jewish tribes went romper-stumper on their neighbors in a fundamentalist manner. But this book claims Israel's wars are fundamentalist, unfortunately the author never realized the IDF and Israel is a socialist secular nation like France. So this book is a fabrication because the author didn't want to admit the only fundamentalists who are violent today are Islamicsts, the terrorists. The book doesn't tell the truth about intolerance and hate in the middle east, instead it covers up terror by accusing Christianity of hate. A typical tactic.
Rating: 
Summary: Reaching for Compassion
Review: ==Reaching for Compassion==Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God" (Knopf, 2000), "History of God" (1994), and "Islam, A Short History" (2000) are too good to spoil with any superlative descriptions. I read this trilogy and also all 83 reviews on Amazon.com. Armstrong's analysis is reflected from each of these reviews. She touched the heart or core and got reactions. She exposes again the basic problem of hypocrisy and un-authenticity besetting human life and communities. Those extremists, either modern or religious, who think they can "obligate" God to fulfill promises as THEY see them, ironically court disaster and disobedience. Armstrong's "Battle for God" has traced the currents of history. She has seen three major streams in the major religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam: logos (which is rationalism trying to explain everything in words), mythos (which is the emotional and historical elements of life's meanings), and tradition (the rules, rituals and regulations of religious institutions). When any one of these dominates the other two, problems and trouble arise. On emotions check out www.behavior.net/column/nathanson . Modernism is a form of secular, sometimes sacred, rationalism. One does not read the Bible or Quran, for example, to know how to drill for oil, nor read an oil-drilling manual for the meaning of life. God, it would seem, is still creator and revealer, both in history. Sovereignty cannot be imprisoned in a doctrine. Finally, I think she best expresses the difficulties in her Afterword (367): "What seems sacred and positive in one camp appears demonic and deranged in another." Humanity has yet to settle on a description and practice of what is the "positive." Each person and community have so many differing experiences. Both compassion and confusion are contagious among crowds of people. The logos lawyer will still ask, "Who is my neighbor?", and the Good Samaritan's mythos will help. This is the challenge that continues to be acted out. The Rev. Dr. Charles G. Yopst, D.Min., D.T.R.
Pastor, Presbyterian Church (USA)
Chaplain, Northwest Community Hospital, Arlington Heights, Illinois
Expressive Arts Movement Therapist, Alexian Brothers Behavioral Health Hospital, Hoffman Estates, Illinois
Rating: 
Summary: overbroad, but fundamentally useful
Review: Armstrong bites off somewhat more history than she can digest in these few hundred pages, but this doesn't leave her effort entirely unworthy. It really is completely impossible to accurately summarize the rise and retreat of the three major faiths throughout the past few centuries without glossing things a bit. But what she has done, she has done very well. Her central thesis--that fundamentalism is always a move toward "fear and rage" that actually betrays the highly mythical and spiritual needs that religion is supposed to satisfy--is well argued, and she artfully arranges the narratives of the three major religions to support it. Her treatment of Islam is especially interesting. The author carefully challenges misconceptions that most readers are bound to have about it without being too sneaky about her intentions. Like myself, most Westerners have absolutely no sense of Muslim history, and it is especially helpful to see how it has interrelated with Judeo-Christianity throughout the past several centuries. This is an essential read for anyone trying to understand the inspirations, motivations, and ultimate implications of paranoid Americans, militant Israeli settlers, or suicidal Muslim terrorists. As Armstrong demonstrates, they aren't so far apart as you might think.
Rating:
Summary: Great information, but watch out for Armstrong's premise
Review: If I could, I would give Armstrong's book 3½ stars because it *is* an excellent source of information dealing with fundamentalist-like religious sects from Columbus' time and on. Armstrong writes eloquently and her material is well-organized and easy to understand. However, in an attempt to explain the fundamentalist mindset, Armstrong argues that "people of the past... evolved two ways of thinking, and acquiring knowledge... mythos and logos". She describes mythos as "concerned with what was thought to be timeless and constant in our existence... [concerned] with meaning... [and with] the origins of life" (p. xv). Logos, then, supposedly "was the rational, pragmatic, and scientific thought that enabled [people] to function well in the world" (p. xvi). The modern West, she contends, has lost mythos, preferring a future-oriented world view (logos) that prioritizes factuality and rationality. Armstrong thus constructs a happy little world in the past where both logos and mythos balanced each other perfectly (cf. p. xvii), setting up the argument that fundamentalism today is a response to the contemporary lack of mythos. Unfortunately, such a balanced world simply did not exist, and her premise is consequently undermined. For example, on p. 95, Armstrong laments the Higher Criticism assessment of the Bible as "the triumph of the rational discourse of logos over myth". By this time, she writes, "Western people had lost the original sense of the mythical, and thought that doctrines and scriptural narratives were logoi, narratives that purported to be factually accurate..." Excuse me, but what Bible is Armstrong using? My Bible certainly 'purports' its narratives actually did happen, or that at least the writers believed so (not that I agree). Luke claims he wrote his account "after investigating everything carefully from the very first" (Lk. 1:3, NRSV). John includes the "testimonials" of a few people who swear to the factuality of the events they are recounting (cf. Jn. 19:35; 20:30-31; 21:24-25). Paul leans on the literal resurrection of Jesus to support his teachings (1 Cor. 15:14). The Old Testament cites now-lost books as if to further substantiate its account of Israel's history (cf. Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18). Thus, the narratives Armstrong considers "mythoi" are affirmed by their own authors as something strikingly more akin to her definition of logos. And note that the New Testament writers looked *forward* to the literal Second Coming of Jesus, clearly more in the spirit of logos. In fact, many of them broke with tradition (the past), believing something new had come and would return. Another example: Armstrong portrays the Passover Seder as a mythos meant to help Jews experience the Exodus myth and "[bring] this strange story into their own lives... to make it their own" (p. xvi). She asserts that "[t]o ask whether the Exodus from Egypt took place exactly as recounted in the Bible or to demand historical and scientific evidence to prove that it is factually true is to mistake the nature and purpose of this story." Oh, is it now? A cursory reading of the Haggadah reveals how its authors intended the Seder to be a commemoration of an event which they believed occurred, not in mythical "timeless realities", but in actual history. Many other texts could be used to demonstrate how the neatly divided realms of mythos and logos did not exist. The Nicene Creed, for example, does not present a Jesus who was crucified in the eternal world of mythic truth, since its sources do not do so either. But I trust that I've made my point. In short, I *do* recommend this book for its historical information: dates, events, people, and places. But I suggest readers not take too seriously the whole mythos-logos premise as the reason for the rise of fundamentalism.
Rating:
Summary: relatively good effort overall but theologicaly misleading
Review: Armstrong's "the battle for God" makes for an undeniably interesting read and considering the amount of information present, she has done a more then decent job at structuring her flow, certainly not easy to do when dealing with a subject such as hers. It seems all agree on those points and the obvious relevance of the book.
I do however, strongly wish to bring up a few points. The author not only writes as an apologist for Islam ( subtly yet forcefuly) but also seems to bring up one of its sects in better light then others.
The quotations of sacred texts are not inter-balanced. Such aspects may not jump to the eyes of the regular reader who is absorbed by the authoritative yet suple writing of a scholar, as is the case with the aspect of the faith teachings of the different religions. When quoting the Qur'an it is usually a situation-specific quote and the dogmatic quotes are ignored. I live in a Muslim country wherein a lot of my good friends are muslims, some describable as fundamentalists in the modern connotation. Ask any reader of the Qur'an what the latter teaches concerning violence and non-muslims. He or she will not be abashed to tell you straight out because they speak not with the political correctness obssession of western intellectuals.
Also sometimes the Old Testament is refered to as Bible, leading one to believe that the issue in question remains set in that theological hue till this day. While it is true that Jesus said He came not to refute the Old Testament but to complete it, He also completely shatters some of the old tenents, as does most of the New Testament. The teaching is straightforward : Love your enemy (not simply tolerate) and anyone who cannot love the other has not the spirit of God within and is not a Christian. One verse has Jesus proclaiming that at judgement, some will come to Him saying - oh Lord we have done miracles in your name - and He will tell them to depart for He knows them not.
Also, im bored and frustrated at the simply unoriginal and frankly insulting claim to any believer in any religion that modernisation and its unsetteling effects are such a source of religious and identity turmoil. The Bible in fact prophecises the increase of knowledge and loss of faith as the days go by.
If a theory fits conveniently that doesnt guarantee automatic law-like status. Its a great book to cuddle with for anyone looking for a safe pair of academic spectacles. :)
Rating:
Summary: best non-fiction read of 2002
Review: Karen Armstrong is wonderful author and while I loved her first book: " The History of God" I found this, her second book, more relevant. It is concise and well organized, she thinks like I do! A pleasure to read--not just for the information contained but because of the easy and logical format.
There is little else I can add about the book itself that has not been previously covered by other reviewers. It starts in 1492 and covers systematically each of Jerusalem's Big Three, devoting a section to each, up to current date. It makes so much sense to write it that way! It was an easy read for me because of this format and the best book I read of 2002! I have given this book away 4 times already and am on my 5th copy now.
Rating:
Summary: 5 stars, except...
Review: it gets a little bogged down at the beginning. Otherwise, it seems to be historically accurate, and it is one of those books that stimulates thought. This is my 3rd Karen Armstrong book to read. From a satisfied reader, it sure won't be my last. Kudos, Karen.
Rating:
Summary: Responses to the Modern World
Review: This is a remarkable book and probably the best explanation of all of the negative features of day-to-day life. Starting at the departure point that organized religion has had difficulty dealing with the modern world, Armstrong demonstrates how religion has evolved over the past 500 years. There appears to be something in human nature that is in conflict with the tenents of the modern world. Freud examined this idea in "Civilization and its discontents" Armstrong shows how this has had an impact on the three monotheistic religions. Basically the choice was to adapt to modern life which proved itself to be far more efficient and capable of addressing material needs or to rebel against it. While some segments of Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam were able to make the leap into the modern world, others did not and positively rebelled against it. One need only look at a recent front page of the newspaper with talk about the Jewish settlers on the West Bank, doctor killing pro-lifers and al Qada terrorists to see just how wide spread this reaction against modernity is and how deadly fundamentalism can be. Armstrong is not totally hostile to fundamentalism and believes that it is a way of dealing with the spirital needs of humanity. The most important observation that she makes however is that these moments, if they turn their backs on compassion (elements of all three of the monotheistic religions) then they truly become lost and are literally, as September 11th demonstrated, dangerous movements.
Rating:
Summary: just drop everything and read it......
Review: This book literally pushed its way from the bottom of my to-be-read list, and forced me to regret every minute i didn't read it. From the tone of concern, through the extraordinary well researched data, to the high level threads it is a must read book. Two interrelated but distinct pairs of complementary ideas are at the center of the book. Everything else revolves around these most interesting ideas. First is the pair: conservative and liberal. She gives conservative the meaning of a person, rooted in the past when religion was part of an agrarian culture. The key element is the binding of people's consciousness to a traditional way that would not out run the resources available to an agriculturally based pre industrial society. The thesis looks mildly Marxist with its superstructure of intellectual things build on the means of production. But i think it is just a recognization that how we make a living will greatly effect how we think. The liberal is defined as modern, future orientated, post industrial, built on the limitless abundancy of modern industrial-scientific materialist output. The second pair is: logos and mythos. This is where her organization really shines. I dont think a page goes by where you are not aware of how she is intertwining and relating the story back to these ideas. Logos is reason, personified in science, mythos is the pre rational, deeply felt side of humanbeings that gives rise to stories, myths, scriptures which try to capture in words the passage of people into this supernatural world. The organization is chronological, where the 3 monothesistic Abrahamic faiths are posed side by side in time, to show how their respective fundamentalist movements orginated and grew. The insights are important, apropos to a world where polarization and the failure to communicate is a problem increasing almost daily. One particularly appropriate idea is that mythos translated into logos is a disaster, it yields bad religion and even worse science...... So. drop whatever you're reading and get ahold of this 5 star book and have at it. I used up an entire yellowing pen on it...*grin*
|
