The Battle for God
by Karen Armstrong
On This Page
Description
"In The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong shows us how and why fundamentalist groups came into existence and what they yearn to accomplish." "We see the West in the sixteenth century beginning to create an entirely new kind of civilization, which brought in its wake change in every aspect of life - often painful and violent, even if liberating. Armstrong argues that one of the things that changed most was religion. People could no longer think about or experience the divine in the same why; show more they had to develop new forms of faith to fit their new circumstances." "Armstrong characterizes fundamentalism as one of these new ways of being religious that have emerged in every major faith tradition. She examines the ways in which these movements, while not monolithic, have each sprung from a dread of modernityoften in response to assault (sometimes unwitting, sometimes intentional) by the mainstream society." "Armstrong sees fundamentalist groups as complex, innovative, and modern - rather than as throwbacks to the past - but contends that they have failed in religious terms. Maintaining that fundamentalism often exists in symbiotic relationship with an aggressive modernity, each impelling the other on to greater excess, she suggests compassion as a way to defuse what is now an intensifying conflict."--Jacket. show lessTags
Recommendations
Member Reviews
http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1979182.html
I was really impressed by this historical account of religious fundamentalism (well, of Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalism) over the centuries up to 1999. I have not always been convinced by Armstrong's approach of parallelling changes in different cultures that happened at the same time, but this worked really well for me, disposing breezily with the importance of balancing logos and mythos, tracking the different religions' responses to the Enlightenment and modernisation, and then exploring the parallel rise of hardline fundamentalist reaction in all three traditions during the late twentieth century. For the most recent period, Armstrong also restricts her geographical focus down show more to the USA for Christianity, Israel for Judaism, and Egypt and Iran for Islam, which means of course that all kinds of interesting material from elsewhere is simply omitted. But those are all fascinating countries, and I found her analyses of the religious politics of Israel and Iran particularly illuminating.
Writing in 1999, Armstrong thought that fundamentalism was establishing a new equilibrium after a period when it had appeared insurgent and had then suffered a series of defeats in the 1980s and 1990s. I think she would now agree that we have seen a distinct rise in the strength of fundamentalism in all three traditions in the years since. In the last few pages she looks at how the rest of us should deal with fundamentalism. Repression does not work, she points out, and indeed makes these movements stronger; we must remember that they are based on fear and incomprehension. Rather we should challenge fundamentalists on their own ground, on their lack of compassion for their fellow human beings; this is where they miss a crucial core value to all three of the religious traditions. Definitely worth reading if you are interested in understanding the extremists. show less
I was really impressed by this historical account of religious fundamentalism (well, of Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalism) over the centuries up to 1999. I have not always been convinced by Armstrong's approach of parallelling changes in different cultures that happened at the same time, but this worked really well for me, disposing breezily with the importance of balancing logos and mythos, tracking the different religions' responses to the Enlightenment and modernisation, and then exploring the parallel rise of hardline fundamentalist reaction in all three traditions during the late twentieth century. For the most recent period, Armstrong also restricts her geographical focus down show more to the USA for Christianity, Israel for Judaism, and Egypt and Iran for Islam, which means of course that all kinds of interesting material from elsewhere is simply omitted. But those are all fascinating countries, and I found her analyses of the religious politics of Israel and Iran particularly illuminating.
Writing in 1999, Armstrong thought that fundamentalism was establishing a new equilibrium after a period when it had appeared insurgent and had then suffered a series of defeats in the 1980s and 1990s. I think she would now agree that we have seen a distinct rise in the strength of fundamentalism in all three traditions in the years since. In the last few pages she looks at how the rest of us should deal with fundamentalism. Repression does not work, she points out, and indeed makes these movements stronger; we must remember that they are based on fear and incomprehension. Rather we should challenge fundamentalists on their own ground, on their lack of compassion for their fellow human beings; this is where they miss a crucial core value to all three of the religious traditions. Definitely worth reading if you are interested in understanding the extremists. show less
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 show more 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. show less
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 show more 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. show less
Karen Armstrong is rightly recognized as one of the leading scholars of western religions. In this monumental best seller she traces the people and causes of the rise of fundamentalism in Judaism, Islam and Christianity from the years 1492 (when the last European bastion of Islam, Granada, fell to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella) through the end of the 20th century.
Armstrong's thesis is that "Contrary to popular belief, fundamentalism is not a throwback to some ancient form of religion but rather a response to the spiritual crisis of the modern world...the collapse of a piety rooted in myth and cult during the Enlightenment forced people of faith to grasp for new ways of being religious--and fundamentalism was born."
Using the two show more terms mythos, that which is concerned with "the eternal and the universal" as contrasted with logos, that which is concerned with what is "rational, pragmatic and scientific" she illustrates how the two have acted and reacted to one another to create the spiritual crises of the last five hundred years. While I initially did not understand this framework's usefulness, it grew in relevance and became the foundation of ultimately understanding how fundamental groups so often become polarised: "Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists ... turned their mythoi into pragmatic logoi designed to achieve a practical result. Protestant fundamentalists ... perverted myth in a different way. They ... turned the Christian myths into scientific facts, and had created a hybrid that was neither good science nor good religion." (p. 355)
Readers with a background in European and Euroasian history will find this tome especially rewarding as it fills in the "why" gap of much of the post-Crusades history of the region. On that note, this book is perhaps best read hand-in-hand with a history of the Ottoman Empire or the European Enlightenment which will provide the larger historical and geographical picture of the societies that gave rise to the personalities that inspired the movements in the three religions. Many names will be familiar to readers--Muhammad Ali, Moses Maimonides, John Locke, Khomeini, John of the Cross, but rarely does find one work that tells their stories as part of a single narrative as well as Armstrong does.
Another strong point of this book is it explains in very simple language why certain historical events have happened as a result of religious whiplash. Two examples: the American temperance movement sprang, for example, from the fears of the early Protestant settlers of America when large numbers of Catholic immigrants began to appear. American support for Israel stems in part from its fundamentalist population, which sees the return of "Israel to the Israelites" as proof of the literal accuracy of the Bible.
As a reader who remembers the [in]famous Time magazine cover that announced "God is Dead", I found for the first time explanations of behaviours that I have long (personally) found incomprehensible. Coverage of such events as the Iran Crisis explained as rational behaviour from Khomeini's point of view is fascinating (pp. 317 ff.), and some readers may discover that they were rooting for 'the wrong guy'.
I suspect this work's usefulness for most will be as a reference work in the area of history of religions. It's a work that one can turn to frequently if interested in the broader history of the region and the growth and spread of these three great monotheistic religions.
One would hope that it would also bring mankind closer together in understanding. As Armstrong shows us, "suppression and coercion are clearly not the answer" (p. 368). "If fundamentalists must evolve a more compassionate assessment of their enemies in order to be true to their religious traditions, secularists must also be more faithful to the benevolence, tolerance, and respect for humanity which characterises modern culture at its best, and address themselves more empathetically to the fears, anxieties, and needs which so many of their fundamentalist neighbours experience but which no society can safely ignore" (p. 371)
Dare we be optimistic and hope this message will be heard in time? show less
Armstrong's thesis is that "Contrary to popular belief, fundamentalism is not a throwback to some ancient form of religion but rather a response to the spiritual crisis of the modern world...the collapse of a piety rooted in myth and cult during the Enlightenment forced people of faith to grasp for new ways of being religious--and fundamentalism was born."
Using the two show more terms mythos, that which is concerned with "the eternal and the universal" as contrasted with logos, that which is concerned with what is "rational, pragmatic and scientific" she illustrates how the two have acted and reacted to one another to create the spiritual crises of the last five hundred years. While I initially did not understand this framework's usefulness, it grew in relevance and became the foundation of ultimately understanding how fundamental groups so often become polarised: "Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists ... turned their mythoi into pragmatic logoi designed to achieve a practical result. Protestant fundamentalists ... perverted myth in a different way. They ... turned the Christian myths into scientific facts, and had created a hybrid that was neither good science nor good religion." (p. 355)
Readers with a background in European and Euroasian history will find this tome especially rewarding as it fills in the "why" gap of much of the post-Crusades history of the region. On that note, this book is perhaps best read hand-in-hand with a history of the Ottoman Empire or the European Enlightenment which will provide the larger historical and geographical picture of the societies that gave rise to the personalities that inspired the movements in the three religions. Many names will be familiar to readers--Muhammad Ali, Moses Maimonides, John Locke, Khomeini, John of the Cross, but rarely does find one work that tells their stories as part of a single narrative as well as Armstrong does.
Another strong point of this book is it explains in very simple language why certain historical events have happened as a result of religious whiplash. Two examples: the American temperance movement sprang, for example, from the fears of the early Protestant settlers of America when large numbers of Catholic immigrants began to appear. American support for Israel stems in part from its fundamentalist population, which sees the return of "Israel to the Israelites" as proof of the literal accuracy of the Bible.
As a reader who remembers the [in]famous Time magazine cover that announced "God is Dead", I found for the first time explanations of behaviours that I have long (personally) found incomprehensible. Coverage of such events as the Iran Crisis explained as rational behaviour from Khomeini's point of view is fascinating (pp. 317 ff.), and some readers may discover that they were rooting for 'the wrong guy'.
I suspect this work's usefulness for most will be as a reference work in the area of history of religions. It's a work that one can turn to frequently if interested in the broader history of the region and the growth and spread of these three great monotheistic religions.
One would hope that it would also bring mankind closer together in understanding. As Armstrong shows us, "suppression and coercion are clearly not the answer" (p. 368). "If fundamentalists must evolve a more compassionate assessment of their enemies in order to be true to their religious traditions, secularists must also be more faithful to the benevolence, tolerance, and respect for humanity which characterises modern culture at its best, and address themselves more empathetically to the fears, anxieties, and needs which so many of their fundamentalist neighbours experience but which no society can safely ignore" (p. 371)
Dare we be optimistic and hope this message will be heard in time? show less
On the whole, I would say that this is a very good book. She does a very good job of tracing the course of history when seen from a religious aspect, through the ages. I especially liked the way that she emphasized the play between the mythos and the logos. I must confess that, when I read the book, I was going through some strange times, so I did not concentrate that much on the book. In that sense, I possibly did not do the book as must justice as I should have.
While she does do a very good job of tracing the development of the recent trends in fundamentalism in the three religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism - I felt that there was too much information in the book. This was probably required in the telling of the tale. Yet, show more the information does tend to get heavy at times, especially if you are not in the best concentrating mood.
It is a book that needs to be read slowly, and with care.
Karen's strengths evidently lie in these three religions. I have never come across any writing from her on the religions of the East. This is a pity, because I have seen the rise of fundamentalism in Hinduism. While Hindus often talk of this as a reaction to militant action by the Muslims over the centuries, and by British oppression; this alone cannot describe the rise of fundamentalism among the Hindus.
For the next edition of her book, she should cast her eyes eastwards. show less
While she does do a very good job of tracing the development of the recent trends in fundamentalism in the three religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism - I felt that there was too much information in the book. This was probably required in the telling of the tale. Yet, show more the information does tend to get heavy at times, especially if you are not in the best concentrating mood.
It is a book that needs to be read slowly, and with care.
Karen's strengths evidently lie in these three religions. I have never come across any writing from her on the religions of the East. This is a pity, because I have seen the rise of fundamentalism in Hinduism. While Hindus often talk of this as a reaction to militant action by the Muslims over the centuries, and by British oppression; this alone cannot describe the rise of fundamentalism among the Hindus.
For the next edition of her book, she should cast her eyes eastwards. show less
Very interesting history of the three major religions and how and why the fundamentalists in each have developed over time.
There are people that think I am anti-religion but I am not, I am anti-fundamentalist. The extremists in all the religions are dangerous crazy people. All the religions basically preach love and I know that the religion is good for many, I just don't need it for myself and it isn't logical to me. I AM against the crazies that do things in the name of religion. They scare the hell out of me. We definitely to not need them running ANY part of this world and this book shows many reasons why and what their goals are.
There are people that think I am anti-religion but I am not, I am anti-fundamentalist. The extremists in all the religions are dangerous crazy people. All the religions basically preach love and I know that the religion is good for many, I just don't need it for myself and it isn't logical to me. I AM against the crazies that do things in the name of religion. They scare the hell out of me. We definitely to not need them running ANY part of this world and this book shows many reasons why and what their goals are.
For the last decade or so, most of us have had to form some kind of opinion on religious fundamentalism, and it's a subject which can very easily become hysterical, sensational or just terrifying when it's addressed by the mass media. This exceptional book, which came out a few years ago now, is a careful examination of fundamentalism in Islam, Christianity and Judaism, and it tries to answer the basic questions many people feel – who the hell are these people, and how can they believe what they believe?
As a jumping-off point, Armstrong points to an ancient distinction between two forms of truth (as described by the Greeks): mythos and logos. Logos is scientific, rational truth which has allowed us to build cars and bridges and visit show more other planets. Mythos is a different kind of truth, found in myth, art, and in the beliefs of religion. The central theme of her book is that fundamentalism is essentially the result of confusing one kind of truth with another.
As she demonstrates, pre-modern peoples saw religion as belonging firmly to the realm of mythos. Religion was concerned with stories and concepts not to be taken literally, but used as ways to consider the nature of humanity, our relationship to the spiritual, and our place in the world. Logos is useful for science and politics, but it cannot answer the big questions of existence: that is the job of mythos, and the two realms of truth were kept very separate until a few hundred years ago. But after the Enlightenment, when rationalism became so effective and so much a part of life, there was a gradual change of mood, and an increased sense that scientific truth was more important than spiritual or mythic truths. Mythos became sidelined and subsequently discredited as ‘only’ a myth. It was, Armstrong argues, in reaction to this mentality that some religious groups, feeling threatened, attempted to reinterpret mythos as logos, taking religious concepts as being literally true, and using them as a basis for legislation and political life.
Using this distinction between scientific and spiritual truths makes for an interesting reexamination of historical issues: the Reformation, for instance, becomes a clash between idea systems. In the pre-modern Catholic church, the Eucharist was a rich spiritual symbol of human participation in the divine. But for the rational Reformers, it must either be literally true (Luther), or else plain false (Zwingli, Calvin). They were unable to see beyond scientific truth. Similarly, for many Orthodox Jews in the 1930s and '40s, the idea of a modern State of Israel was deeply abhorrent. For them, Israel was a profound symbol of their religion, a vital part of Jewish spirituality to be contemplated – not a place to make a farm and start tilling sacred soil. When many of the ultra-Orthodox considered a kibbutz, Armstrong writes, they ‘felt the same outrage and dread as, later, people felt when the heard about the Nazi death camps.’ She adds, ‘This is not an exaggeration,’ and cites Jewish clerics who actually blamed the Holocaust on the settlement of Israel.
By pointing to such fundamental differences of opinion, Armstrong shows that most contemporary fundamentalist movements are in fact decidedly modern, despite the fact that they all profess a wish to go ‘back to basics’. The literalism which is seen in fundamentalism is a concept which is really only a few centuries old.
She is particularly strong when it comes to Islam, pointing out that while Western Europe had three or four hundreds years to adjust to modern rationalism, most Islamic countries had such ideas foisted on them more or less overnight by colonial powers (generally Britain, France, Russia and later the US). It is difficult for most of us to understand, for example, why terrorists seem to hate democracy, but she points out that the Islamic experience of democracy has been very different from ours – imposed on a country in one fell swoop, and usually resulting in a lot of business contracts for foreign companies, and a lot of money for those in power but little for anyone else. Her case studies of Egypt and Iran make this point beyond doubt, and show the importance of making a place for religion in society, to prevent it from becoming sidelined and hence feeling threatened.
If you're from the UK or the States, the book is not comfortable reading, since most of the problems in the Middle East are traced squarely back to Western interference, and in some cases the details are heartbreaking. In particular, America's complete failure to understand Islamic societies throws a lot of light on the Iranian Revolution as well as the rise in reactionary groups, and reading this won't make you feel too hopeful about Iraq's or Afghanistan's chances, let alone the way Iran itself is currently being dealt with.
But this is far from being an exclusively Islamic problem; rather, the book shows that fundamentalism is just a reaction to the secularism of modern life, a frightened response to the ‘God-shaped hole’ which Sartre talked about, or Nietzsche's ‘God is dead’. We have lost an appreciation of mythos in the West – though many people feel the lack of it, which may explain the popularity of such things as tarot cards, dream dictionaries and psychoanalysis. In that sense, this book, while clearly condemning the abuses of fundamentalism, is equally unimpressed by modern secularism. ‘If fundamentalists must evolve a more compassionate assessment of their enemies in order to be true to their religious traditions,’ she writes, ‘secularists must also be more faithful to the benevolence, tolerance and respect for humanity which characterizes modern culture at its best, and address themselves more empathetically to the fears, anxieties and needs which so many of their fundamentalist nieghbours experience’. These movements do not represent a knee-jerk reaction, but a considered response to modernity, and unless we try and understand that, the problems will not go away.
This is an important book. Suffice to say that if you have any interest in religion, politics, history or current affairs then you will get something out of it. I hope as many people as possible read it.
http://community.livejournal.com/hipsterbookclub/712037.html show less
As a jumping-off point, Armstrong points to an ancient distinction between two forms of truth (as described by the Greeks): mythos and logos. Logos is scientific, rational truth which has allowed us to build cars and bridges and visit show more other planets. Mythos is a different kind of truth, found in myth, art, and in the beliefs of religion. The central theme of her book is that fundamentalism is essentially the result of confusing one kind of truth with another.
As she demonstrates, pre-modern peoples saw religion as belonging firmly to the realm of mythos. Religion was concerned with stories and concepts not to be taken literally, but used as ways to consider the nature of humanity, our relationship to the spiritual, and our place in the world. Logos is useful for science and politics, but it cannot answer the big questions of existence: that is the job of mythos, and the two realms of truth were kept very separate until a few hundred years ago. But after the Enlightenment, when rationalism became so effective and so much a part of life, there was a gradual change of mood, and an increased sense that scientific truth was more important than spiritual or mythic truths. Mythos became sidelined and subsequently discredited as ‘only’ a myth. It was, Armstrong argues, in reaction to this mentality that some religious groups, feeling threatened, attempted to reinterpret mythos as logos, taking religious concepts as being literally true, and using them as a basis for legislation and political life.
Using this distinction between scientific and spiritual truths makes for an interesting reexamination of historical issues: the Reformation, for instance, becomes a clash between idea systems. In the pre-modern Catholic church, the Eucharist was a rich spiritual symbol of human participation in the divine. But for the rational Reformers, it must either be literally true (Luther), or else plain false (Zwingli, Calvin). They were unable to see beyond scientific truth. Similarly, for many Orthodox Jews in the 1930s and '40s, the idea of a modern State of Israel was deeply abhorrent. For them, Israel was a profound symbol of their religion, a vital part of Jewish spirituality to be contemplated – not a place to make a farm and start tilling sacred soil. When many of the ultra-Orthodox considered a kibbutz, Armstrong writes, they ‘felt the same outrage and dread as, later, people felt when the heard about the Nazi death camps.’ She adds, ‘This is not an exaggeration,’ and cites Jewish clerics who actually blamed the Holocaust on the settlement of Israel.
By pointing to such fundamental differences of opinion, Armstrong shows that most contemporary fundamentalist movements are in fact decidedly modern, despite the fact that they all profess a wish to go ‘back to basics’. The literalism which is seen in fundamentalism is a concept which is really only a few centuries old.
She is particularly strong when it comes to Islam, pointing out that while Western Europe had three or four hundreds years to adjust to modern rationalism, most Islamic countries had such ideas foisted on them more or less overnight by colonial powers (generally Britain, France, Russia and later the US). It is difficult for most of us to understand, for example, why terrorists seem to hate democracy, but she points out that the Islamic experience of democracy has been very different from ours – imposed on a country in one fell swoop, and usually resulting in a lot of business contracts for foreign companies, and a lot of money for those in power but little for anyone else. Her case studies of Egypt and Iran make this point beyond doubt, and show the importance of making a place for religion in society, to prevent it from becoming sidelined and hence feeling threatened.
If you're from the UK or the States, the book is not comfortable reading, since most of the problems in the Middle East are traced squarely back to Western interference, and in some cases the details are heartbreaking. In particular, America's complete failure to understand Islamic societies throws a lot of light on the Iranian Revolution as well as the rise in reactionary groups, and reading this won't make you feel too hopeful about Iraq's or Afghanistan's chances, let alone the way Iran itself is currently being dealt with.
But this is far from being an exclusively Islamic problem; rather, the book shows that fundamentalism is just a reaction to the secularism of modern life, a frightened response to the ‘God-shaped hole’ which Sartre talked about, or Nietzsche's ‘God is dead’. We have lost an appreciation of mythos in the West – though many people feel the lack of it, which may explain the popularity of such things as tarot cards, dream dictionaries and psychoanalysis. In that sense, this book, while clearly condemning the abuses of fundamentalism, is equally unimpressed by modern secularism. ‘If fundamentalists must evolve a more compassionate assessment of their enemies in order to be true to their religious traditions,’ she writes, ‘secularists must also be more faithful to the benevolence, tolerance and respect for humanity which characterizes modern culture at its best, and address themselves more empathetically to the fears, anxieties and needs which so many of their fundamentalist nieghbours experience’. These movements do not represent a knee-jerk reaction, but a considered response to modernity, and unless we try and understand that, the problems will not go away.
This is an important book. Suffice to say that if you have any interest in religion, politics, history or current affairs then you will get something out of it. I hope as many people as possible read it.
http://community.livejournal.com/hipsterbookclub/712037.html show less
Made a couple of minor changes: Rarely does one come across a book that is recognized as erudite, essential, and readable simultaneously. The author of [b:The History of God|1923820|Holy Bible King James Version|Anonymous|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1195454548s/1923820.jpg|6405906] has brilliantly analyzed the rise of fundamentalism as a reaction to the emphasis on logos of the Enlightenment as opposed to mythos that had been essential to one's view of the world. "The economic changes over the last four hundred years have been accompanied by immense social, political, and intellectual revolutions, with the development of an entirely different, scientific and rational, concept of the nature of truth; and once again, a radical show more religious change has become necessary." As science and technology began to become associated with such visible successes in overcoming disease and social ills, the tendency was to believe that logos (rational, scientific thinking related exactly to facts and external realities) was the only “means to truth and began to discount mythos [that which is timeless and constant, “looking back to the origins of life . . to the deepest levels of the human mind . . . unconcerned with practical matters” and rooted in the unconscious, that which helps us through the day, mythological stories not intended to be literal, but conveying truth:] as false and superstitious.” The temptation is to think of mythos as meaning myth. In this context that would be incorrect. Armstrong uses this word as it relates to mystery and mysticism, rooted ultimately in traditional biblical and Islamic history “which gives meaning to life, but cannot be explained in rational terms.”Logos, however, was unable to assuage pain and suffering leading to a vacuum the fundamentalists sought to revive. The danger unseen by modern fundamentalists is that they have tried to imbue mythos with an element of literalism essential to logos. The difference between these two concepts forms the basis for the battle between modernism and fundamentalism.
Armstrong traces the beginning of the fundamentalist movement back to the time of Columbus when a crisis occurred in Spain. Ferdinand and Isabella expelled both Muslims and Jews from Spain. The three religious groups had actually coexisted quite happily and profitably together for several centuries, but the prospect of modernity and threats from a new world view, science, threatened age-old traditions and myths. The fundamentalist movement was an attempt by traditionalists to retain a sectarian view of the world.
For many of these people the world can be divided into two
e faithful. Often an arrogance and condescension – I plead guilty here – make secularists insensitive to those who feel their religious beliefs have been undermined and challenged. The seemingly irreconcilable difference between rationalism and mysticism perhaps make militant fundamentalism inevitable. The danger for fundamentalist lies in their attempts to turn mythos into logos, e.g., have sacred texts be read literally and inerrantly as one would read a scientific text. That may lead to inevitable discrepancies between observation and belief that may hasten the defeat of religion.
Of great benefit, is Armstrong's clear explanation of the differences and conflicts that exist in Islam. Shiite and Sunni branches represent very different interpretations of a major faith.
The eventual outcome of the dichotomy of secular versus sectarian remains unknown. What is apparent is that fundamentalism cannot tolerate pluralism or democracy and compromise seems unlikely. The author identifies two major threads in the development of fundamentalism: (a) fear of the modern world and (b) that the response to fear is to try to create an alternative society by preaching "an ideology of exclusion, hatred, and even violence." She warns at the end of the book, "If fundamentalists must evolve a more compassionate assessment of their enemies in order to be true to their religious traditions, secularists must also be more faithful to the benevolence, tolerance, and respect for humanity which characterizes modern culture at its best, and address themselves more emphatically to the fears, anxieties, and needs which so many of their fundamentalist neighbors experience but which no society can safely ignore." show less
Armstrong traces the beginning of the fundamentalist movement back to the time of Columbus when a crisis occurred in Spain. Ferdinand and Isabella expelled both Muslims and Jews from Spain. The three religious groups had actually coexisted quite happily and profitably together for several centuries, but the prospect of modernity and threats from a new world view, science, threatened age-old traditions and myths. The fundamentalist movement was an attempt by traditionalists to retain a sectarian view of the world.
For many of these people the world can be divided into two
e faithful. Often an arrogance and condescension – I plead guilty here – make secularists insensitive to those who feel their religious beliefs have been undermined and challenged. The seemingly irreconcilable difference between rationalism and mysticism perhaps make militant fundamentalism inevitable. The danger for fundamentalist lies in their attempts to turn mythos into logos, e.g., have sacred texts be read literally and inerrantly as one would read a scientific text. That may lead to inevitable discrepancies between observation and belief that may hasten the defeat of religion.
Of great benefit, is Armstrong's clear explanation of the differences and conflicts that exist in Islam. Shiite and Sunni branches represent very different interpretations of a major faith.
The eventual outcome of the dichotomy of secular versus sectarian remains unknown. What is apparent is that fundamentalism cannot tolerate pluralism or democracy and compromise seems unlikely. The author identifies two major threads in the development of fundamentalism: (a) fear of the modern world and (b) that the response to fear is to try to create an alternative society by preaching "an ideology of exclusion, hatred, and even violence." She warns at the end of the book, "If fundamentalists must evolve a more compassionate assessment of their enemies in order to be true to their religious traditions, secularists must also be more faithful to the benevolence, tolerance, and respect for humanity which characterizes modern culture at its best, and address themselves more emphatically to the fears, anxieties, and needs which so many of their fundamentalist neighbors experience but which no society can safely ignore." show less
Members
- Recently Added By
Lists
LtGen James Mattis' Reading List
58 works; 2 members
Author Information
57+ Works 36,352 Members
Karen Armstrong is one of the foremost commentators on religious affairs in both Britain and the United States. She spent seven years as a Roman Catholic nun and received a degree at Oxford University. (Publisher Provided)
Awards and Honors
Distinctions
Series
Belongs to Publisher Series
Work Relationships
Is contained in
Common Knowledge
- Canonical title
- The Battle for God
- Original publication date
- 2000
- Dedication
- For Jenny Wayman
- First words
- One of the most startling developments of the late twentieth century has been the emergence within every major religious tradition of a militant piety popularly known as "fundamentalism." (Introduction)
In 1492, three very important things happened in Spain. - Last words
- (Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)If fundamentalists must evolve a more compassionate assessment of their enemies in order to be true to their religious traditions, secularists must also be more faithful to the benevolence, tolerance, and respect for humanity which characterizes modern culture at its best, and address themselves more empathetically to the fears, anxieties, and needs which so many of their fundamentalist neighbors experience but which no society can safely ignore.
- Original language
- English
- Canonical DDC/MDS
- 200.9
- Canonical LCC
- BL238
Classifications
- Genres
- Religion & Spirituality, Nonfiction, History, General Nonfiction
- DDC/MDS
- 200.9 — Religion The Bible & Christianity Religion History, geographic treatment, biography
- LCC
- BL238 — Philosophy, Psychology and Religion Religions. Mythology. Rationalism Religions. Mythology. Rationalism Natural theology
- BISAC
Statistics
- Members
- 3,168
- Popularity
- 5,447
- Reviews
- 32
- Rating
- (3.93)
- Languages
- 12 — Chinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish
- Media
- Paper, Audiobook, Ebook
- ISBNs
- 33
- ASINs
- 8