Scan barcode
treylathe's review against another edition
4.0
Having read Karen Armstrong's book "History of God" and finding it an excellent book, I bought this one immediately upon seeing it on the shelves.
Though I do not believe "Battle for God" is as excellent as her "History of God", it is an very good history of 'fundamentalism' in the three main 'monotheistic' faiths. Ms. Armstrong does an excellent job of defining a very hard to define "fundamentalism" and being able to find the similarities of the fundamentalist strains of three very different religious perspectives (and their differences). One of her main theses (as I see it) that fundmentalism in all three religions attempts to maintain the 'mythos' (mystical, religious, non-rational 'truth') of the faith through the means of "logos" (rational 'truth') is very insightful and interesting. Of course, I also believe that the thesis she derives from this, that fundamentalism by using 'logo's not only does _not_ return to some earlier truth but creates something very new and not true to the spirit of the religion they are trying to return to, is very true for all three strains of fundamentalism. That thesis though is, I believe, much more open to criticism, especially from Christians, Jews and Muslims of a fundamentalist bent.
Still, the book is excellently written, thoroughly researched and pleasant to read.
I do have two caveats. First, I find the book's premise that 'logos' and 'mythos' were well established and each had its sphere of use and truth in the ancient or pre-modern world somewhat of an unfortunately naive dichotomy. From my reading of religions and history, I do not think the pre-modern world saw these as two distinct ways of truth, rather they were very intertwined. I don't think this weakens her main thesis though. Secondly, the use of specific dates to delineate periods as she does for her chapters is always problematic (when did the "renaissance" actually begin?), but even more so for this study of three different faiths on three different historical trajectories. The author admits this and states it very clearly, I only wish she hadn't used dates as chapter headings, they are a bit misleading. Still, it is a small quarrel :).
And as an aside in response to some reviews: I do not find Karen Armstrong any more sympathetic to Islam than she is to Christianity or Judaism (she is quite sympathetic to all three actually :), nor does the accusation that this is 'new age' tripe hold up at all (it reflects both a very poor understanding of what 'new ageism' actually is and a poor reading of the book). And of course, most who are fundamentalist or have a strong distaste for Islam or Judaism will hate this book.
Though I do not believe "Battle for God" is as excellent as her "History of God", it is an very good history of 'fundamentalism' in the three main 'monotheistic' faiths. Ms. Armstrong does an excellent job of defining a very hard to define "fundamentalism" and being able to find the similarities of the fundamentalist strains of three very different religious perspectives (and their differences). One of her main theses (as I see it) that fundmentalism in all three religions attempts to maintain the 'mythos' (mystical, religious, non-rational 'truth') of the faith through the means of "logos" (rational 'truth') is very insightful and interesting. Of course, I also believe that the thesis she derives from this, that fundamentalism by using 'logo's not only does _not_ return to some earlier truth but creates something very new and not true to the spirit of the religion they are trying to return to, is very true for all three strains of fundamentalism. That thesis though is, I believe, much more open to criticism, especially from Christians, Jews and Muslims of a fundamentalist bent.
Still, the book is excellently written, thoroughly researched and pleasant to read.
I do have two caveats. First, I find the book's premise that 'logos' and 'mythos' were well established and each had its sphere of use and truth in the ancient or pre-modern world somewhat of an unfortunately naive dichotomy. From my reading of religions and history, I do not think the pre-modern world saw these as two distinct ways of truth, rather they were very intertwined. I don't think this weakens her main thesis though. Secondly, the use of specific dates to delineate periods as she does for her chapters is always problematic (when did the "renaissance" actually begin?), but even more so for this study of three different faiths on three different historical trajectories. The author admits this and states it very clearly, I only wish she hadn't used dates as chapter headings, they are a bit misleading. Still, it is a small quarrel :).
And as an aside in response to some reviews: I do not find Karen Armstrong any more sympathetic to Islam than she is to Christianity or Judaism (she is quite sympathetic to all three actually :), nor does the accusation that this is 'new age' tripe hold up at all (it reflects both a very poor understanding of what 'new ageism' actually is and a poor reading of the book). And of course, most who are fundamentalist or have a strong distaste for Islam or Judaism will hate this book.
erikars's review against another edition
3.0
This book is classic Armstrong.
The Battle For God describes the aspects of the histories of the three great monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) which led to the rise of modern fundamentalism in all three. In the process, she explores some of the commonalities of these different fundamentalisms and their origins. This book is jam packed with information, so I will not try to cover any of the specific. Instead, I will focus on the high level themes.
In Armstrong's view, fundamentalisms arise as a result of the process of modernization and are themselves deeply modern movements. By the process of modernization she means, roughly, the transformation from mostly agrarian societies with a focus on the past and present to societies whose success is based and innovation and whose members are future oriented. This future orientation causes a focus on the rational and a discounting of the mythological. Armstrong claims that in pre-modern times, these two modes of reasoning were seen as complementary, not competitive. In modern times, mythological truth is seen as an oxymoron. Myth is seen as story and lie.
Armstrong defines mythological truth implicitly rather than ever coming out and saying what it is. She seems to see mythological truth as having two components: it cannot be proven rationally and its purpose is to give meaning rather than to be right. One of the commonalities of different fundamentalism is that they try to make mythological truths into rational truths which causes damage both to the religion itself and the world they try to apply their literalized truths to.
One of Armstrong's central theses is that fundamentalism is essentially a modern response to the changing world. Fundamentalists generally try to turn their mythological truths into logical truths. As such, the fundamentalist vision of a religion is no more authentic than the world they are rebelling against. However, the fundamentalist vision is structured so that the adherents to the vision think it is more authentic.
The modernization process began as scientists like Copernicus showed that our intuitions and perceptions do not map cleanly onto the truth of reality. In fact, sometimes or intuitions and perceptions can be downright misleading. Fundamentalist ideologies, whether religious or not, often are rebelling against this complexity of reality. They try to push a simplified version of reality onto their adherents and, sometimes, onto others.
But the rise of fundamentalism is not related solely to changes in our views of the world and its abstractions. Fundamentalism often arises because of specific historic events. It is undeniable that the modernization process has often been harsh. The raising up of people in the lower ranks of society has often led to a demand for more uniformity. The "other" has always been perceived as a threat, but when that fear of the other is combined with the increasing power of modern states, the results can be disastrous.
Because of this, much of The Battle for God reads like an extended lesson in the history of Europe, the Middle East, and the US from the 15th century through the present. As someone who is not a history buff (and, therefore, whose view of history is strongly influenced by the western bias of history lessons in the American education system), I learned a lot. I pretty much knew nothing about most of the history of the Middle East. Now I know a little! While her view was certainly biased (even if you ignore the bias that all authors bring to the table, she was only interested in those events which related to the topic of religious fundamentalism), it is still impossible for someone like me to come away with this without having some seriously altered views.
Probably the most fundamental change in view that I got from the history Armstrong presented had to do with my perception of the attitudes of Muslims to the west. While I knew at an abstract level that the west had not been good to the Middle East, I had not realized what a rational basis their hatred has. The west has screwed over that region again and again and again. Now, I don't think that the fact that the hatred has a rational basis means the hatred itself is rational, but if I had been treated like they were, I would also likely perceive the west as evil.
Armstrong, as usual, gives us a book jam packed with information. The main strength of this book is the sympathy with which Armstrong views fundamentalists. While she clearly thinks that they are going about "rescuing" religion in the wrong way, she also helps the reader to understand why these fundamentalists react the way they do. This is certainly a good read in you are interested in understanding where fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came from.
The Battle For God describes the aspects of the histories of the three great monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) which led to the rise of modern fundamentalism in all three. In the process, she explores some of the commonalities of these different fundamentalisms and their origins. This book is jam packed with information, so I will not try to cover any of the specific. Instead, I will focus on the high level themes.
In Armstrong's view, fundamentalisms arise as a result of the process of modernization and are themselves deeply modern movements. By the process of modernization she means, roughly, the transformation from mostly agrarian societies with a focus on the past and present to societies whose success is based and innovation and whose members are future oriented. This future orientation causes a focus on the rational and a discounting of the mythological. Armstrong claims that in pre-modern times, these two modes of reasoning were seen as complementary, not competitive. In modern times, mythological truth is seen as an oxymoron. Myth is seen as story and lie.
Armstrong defines mythological truth implicitly rather than ever coming out and saying what it is. She seems to see mythological truth as having two components: it cannot be proven rationally and its purpose is to give meaning rather than to be right. One of the commonalities of different fundamentalism is that they try to make mythological truths into rational truths which causes damage both to the religion itself and the world they try to apply their literalized truths to.
One of Armstrong's central theses is that fundamentalism is essentially a modern response to the changing world. Fundamentalists generally try to turn their mythological truths into logical truths. As such, the fundamentalist vision of a religion is no more authentic than the world they are rebelling against. However, the fundamentalist vision is structured so that the adherents to the vision think it is more authentic.
The modernization process began as scientists like Copernicus showed that our intuitions and perceptions do not map cleanly onto the truth of reality. In fact, sometimes or intuitions and perceptions can be downright misleading. Fundamentalist ideologies, whether religious or not, often are rebelling against this complexity of reality. They try to push a simplified version of reality onto their adherents and, sometimes, onto others.
But the rise of fundamentalism is not related solely to changes in our views of the world and its abstractions. Fundamentalism often arises because of specific historic events. It is undeniable that the modernization process has often been harsh. The raising up of people in the lower ranks of society has often led to a demand for more uniformity. The "other" has always been perceived as a threat, but when that fear of the other is combined with the increasing power of modern states, the results can be disastrous.
Because of this, much of The Battle for God reads like an extended lesson in the history of Europe, the Middle East, and the US from the 15th century through the present. As someone who is not a history buff (and, therefore, whose view of history is strongly influenced by the western bias of history lessons in the American education system), I learned a lot. I pretty much knew nothing about most of the history of the Middle East. Now I know a little! While her view was certainly biased (even if you ignore the bias that all authors bring to the table, she was only interested in those events which related to the topic of religious fundamentalism), it is still impossible for someone like me to come away with this without having some seriously altered views.
Probably the most fundamental change in view that I got from the history Armstrong presented had to do with my perception of the attitudes of Muslims to the west. While I knew at an abstract level that the west had not been good to the Middle East, I had not realized what a rational basis their hatred has. The west has screwed over that region again and again and again. Now, I don't think that the fact that the hatred has a rational basis means the hatred itself is rational, but if I had been treated like they were, I would also likely perceive the west as evil.
Armstrong, as usual, gives us a book jam packed with information. The main strength of this book is the sympathy with which Armstrong views fundamentalists. While she clearly thinks that they are going about "rescuing" religion in the wrong way, she also helps the reader to understand why these fundamentalists react the way they do. This is certainly a good read in you are interested in understanding where fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came from.
momogajo's review against another edition
I don't know who this book is for. It is a dense history with a thematic narrative over it. It made a lot of assumptions and the made more assumptions based on those assumptions and then drew a conclusion that was incomplete due to only working with their assumptions. I guess I just couldn't completely buy into the simplistic cause and effect that the author laid out for complex groups reasoning.
radchik1313's review against another edition
5.0
Excelente libro que logra explicar que el origen del fundamentalismo es la modernidad. La tecnología y posmodernidad han llevado a los tres monoteísmos a refugiarse en los fundamentos literales de sus libros.
Esto es sorpresivo, ya que lo primero que viene a la mente con dicha palabra es “antigüedad.” Pero a través de un recorrido histórico nos desmuestra que en la mayoría de los casos las religiones de antaño eran mucho mas libres. En el mundo musulan las mujeres podían exigir el divoricio!
Este libro se remonta al año de 1492 con la expulsión de los judios. A través de un recorrido histórico nos da una guía de religiones comparadas que culmina con una respuesta concisa de que es el fundamentalismo.
Encontre este libro por casualidad en una feria del libro y sin lugar a dudas es de las mejores casualidades de este año.
Esto es sorpresivo, ya que lo primero que viene a la mente con dicha palabra es “antigüedad.” Pero a través de un recorrido histórico nos desmuestra que en la mayoría de los casos las religiones de antaño eran mucho mas libres. En el mundo musulan las mujeres podían exigir el divoricio!
Este libro se remonta al año de 1492 con la expulsión de los judios. A través de un recorrido histórico nos da una guía de religiones comparadas que culmina con una respuesta concisa de que es el fundamentalismo.
Encontre este libro por casualidad en una feria del libro y sin lugar a dudas es de las mejores casualidades de este año.
justfoxie's review against another edition
4.0
I started reading this book in December, and about 15 pages in it became really obvious that I didn't know enough about the basics of Islam and Judaism to be able to follow it effectively. So I laid it aside and switched to [b: History of God|3873|A History of God The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam|Karen Armstrong|http://images.gr-assets.com/books/1386924363s/3873.jpg|2011826], and only just a month or so ago picked this one back up again.
In many ways I feel that Battle is a fantastic sequel to History and where the author's own subjectivity comes out to play, but in ways that I think highlight the frustration of many people in her (and my) position - we just don't get these people, and that's part of the problem. This book, fortunately, is a very accessible way to bridge that gap. It covers Fundamentalism amoung Protestants in the US, Sunni in Egypt, Shia (Shii? Shiah?) in Iran and Judaism in the Diaspora and later in Isreal.
I had no idea that the creation of the state of Israel was as controversial among Jews as it was among other nationalities. A huge eye-opener, and one that makes the tension in the region all the more understandable and flecked with grey than I ever understood before.
Also, set in the context of the other religious movements, the American Protestants seemed even more unintelligibly - unlike the Egyptians, Israelis and Iranians, they have no excuse for claiming to be oppressed. They live in a society that does expressly allow them to express ideas and worship virtually anyway they please - as well as be economically successful; then for them to turn around and want to rid others of the same freedoms doesn't do their movement any justice. They come across as merely strident and unreasonable, not freedom fighters or those struggling for a place in the world that repressed them since day one.
As for the Islamic movements, I had suspected that colonialism and bad political leadership had contributed to their development, but never truly understood the confusion and haphazard development that underlies it still. Not that these roots excuse the violence or cruelty, mind you, but at least knowing where they're coming from there is room for dialogue and through dialogue perhaps resolution.
All in all, I do highly reccomend this book to anyone looking to better understand these peoples and the struggle with extremism.
In many ways I feel that Battle is a fantastic sequel to History and where the author's own subjectivity comes out to play, but in ways that I think highlight the frustration of many people in her (and my) position - we just don't get these people, and that's part of the problem. This book, fortunately, is a very accessible way to bridge that gap. It covers Fundamentalism amoung Protestants in the US, Sunni in Egypt, Shia (Shii? Shiah?) in Iran and Judaism in the Diaspora and later in Isreal.
I had no idea that the creation of the state of Israel was as controversial among Jews as it was among other nationalities. A huge eye-opener, and one that makes the tension in the region all the more understandable and flecked with grey than I ever understood before.
Also, set in the context of the other religious movements, the American Protestants seemed even more unintelligibly - unlike the Egyptians, Israelis and Iranians, they have no excuse for claiming to be oppressed. They live in a society that does expressly allow them to express ideas and worship virtually anyway they please - as well as be economically successful; then for them to turn around and want to rid others of the same freedoms doesn't do their movement any justice. They come across as merely strident and unreasonable, not freedom fighters or those struggling for a place in the world that repressed them since day one.
As for the Islamic movements, I had suspected that colonialism and bad political leadership had contributed to their development, but never truly understood the confusion and haphazard development that underlies it still. Not that these roots excuse the violence or cruelty, mind you, but at least knowing where they're coming from there is room for dialogue and through dialogue perhaps resolution.
All in all, I do highly reccomend this book to anyone looking to better understand these peoples and the struggle with extremism.