Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

The Battle for God

The Battle for God

4.0 20
by Karen Armstrong

See All Formats & Editions

Fundamentalism has emerged as one of the most powerful forces at work in the world. However, it remains incomprehensible to large numbers of people. In The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong brilliantly and sympathetically shows us how and why fundamentalist groups came into existence and what they yearn to accomplish.

Focusing on Protestant, Jewish, and


Fundamentalism has emerged as one of the most powerful forces at work in the world. However, it remains incomprehensible to large numbers of people. In The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong brilliantly and sympathetically shows us how and why fundamentalist groups came into existence and what they yearn to accomplish.

Focusing on Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim fundamentalism, she examines the ways in which these movements, while not monolithic, have each sprung from a dread of modernity — and often in response to assault, sometimes unwitting, sometimes intentional, by the mainstream society.

Armstrong sees the fundamentalist groups as complex, innovative, and modern — rather than 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 urging the other on to greater excess, she suggests compassion as a way to defuse what is now an intensifying conflict.

Editorial Reviews

Harold Kushner
An impressive achievement. Armstrong has mastered a mountain of material, added somebrilliant insights of her own, and made it accessible.
Publishers Weekly - Publisher's Weekly
Former nun and A History of God iconoclast Armstrong delves deeply once again into the often violent histories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, this time exploring the rise of fundamentalist enclaves in all three religions. Armstrong begins her story in an unexpected, though brilliant, fashion, examining how the three faiths coped with the tumultuous changes wrought by Spain's late-15th-century reconquista. She then profiles fundamentalism, which she views as a mostly 20th-century response to the "painful transformation" of modernity. Armstrong traces the birth of fundamentalism among early 20th-century religious Zionists in Israel, biblically literalist American Protestants and Iranian Shiites wary of Westernization. Armstrong sensitively recognizes one of fundamentalism's great ironies: though they ostensibly seek to restore a displaced, mythical spiritual foundation, fundamentalists often re-establish that foundation using profoundly secular, pseudo-scientific means ("creation science" is a prime example). Armstrong is a masterful writer, whose rich knowledge of all three Western traditions informs the entire book, allowing fresh insights and comparisons. Her savvy thesis about modernization, however, could be improved by some attention to gender issues among fundamentalists. The book is also occasionally marred by a condescending tone; Armstrong attacks easy Protestant targets such as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart (whose name she misspells) and claims that fundamentalists of all stripes have "distorted" and "perverted" their faiths. Despite its underlying polemic, this study of modernity's embattled casualties is a worthy and provocative read. (Mar.) Copyright 2000 Cahners Business Information.|
Library Journal
Armstrong, author of A History of God and other books on the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions, writes very perceptively about the intense fear of modernity that has stimulated various fundamentalisms: Protestant, in the United States; Jewish, in Israel; Sunni Muslim, in Egypt; and Shii Muslim, in Iran. Each is ultimately modern in its attempts at converting mythic thinking into logical thinking and in its use of widespread literacy and the democratic ideas about individual importance that modernity fostered, but each is also at war with its liberal co-religionists and with secularists who "have entirely different conceptions of the sacred." Armstrong concludes that both sides--fundamentalists and secularists (including governments)--need compassion in order to be true to their own religious or humanistic values. The historical range and depth of this work, which transcends other treatments of the subject, make this highly recommended for all libraries. [Previewed in Prepub Alert, LJ 11/1/99.]--Carolyn M. Craft, Longwood Coll., Farmville, VA Copyright 2000 Cahners Business Information.\
As a portrait of militant fundamentalism—Jewish, Islamic, and Christian—it is a stunning acheivement.
The Christian Science Monitor
Chris Hedges
Whether or not you see fundamentalism as a threat, as Karen Armstrong does in The Battle for God, hers is one of the most penetrating, readable and prescient accounts to date of the rise of the fundamentalist movements in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Rather than make sweeping pronouncements, she wisely focuses on the fundamentalist strains in the United States, Israel, Iran and Egypt. She displays, as she should, sympathy for the plight of those who turned to fundamentalism after being shunted aside by forces and states that have little patience with the quest by the poor and the dispossessed to find meaning and purpose.
The New York Times Book Review
Internet Bookwatch
Fundamentalism has emerged as one of he strongest forces in the world, and this examination tells how fundamentalist groups evolved and what they hope to achieve. The Battle for God is in-depth and essential reading for any who would understand fundamentalist religion and behavior, and provides an excellent history and survey.
From the Publisher
"One of the most penetrating, readable, and prescient accounts to date of the rise of the fundamentalist movements in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."
—The New York Times Book Review

"EXCELLENT . . . HIGHLY INTELLIGENT AND HIGHLY READABLE . . . This is a book that will prove indispensable . . . for anyone who seeks insight into how these powerful movements affect global politics and society today and into the future."
—The Baltimore Sun

"ARMSTRONG SUCCEEDS BRILLIANTLY . . . With her astonishing depth of knowledge and readily accessible writing style, [she] makes an ideal guide in traversing a subject that is by its very nature complex, sensitive and frequently ambiguous."
—The San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle

—The Boston Globe

Product Details

HarperCollins Publishers
Publication date:
Edition description:
Abridged, 5 CDs, 6 hrs
Product dimensions:
5.25(w) x 5.95(h) x 0.75(d)

Read an Excerpt

The Battle for God


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." Its manifestations are sometimes shocking. Fundamentalists have gunned down worshippers in a mosque, have killed doctors and nurses who work in abortion clinics, have shot their presidents, and have even toppled a powerful government. It is only a small minority of fundamentalists who commit such acts of terror, but even the most peaceful and law-abiding are perplexing, because they seem so adamantly opposed to many of the most positive values of modern society. Fundamentalists have no time for democracy, pluralism, religious toleration, peacekeeping, free speech, or the separation of church and state. Christian fundamentalists reject the discoveries of biology and physics about the origins of life and insist that the Book of Genesis is scientifically sound

in every detail. At a time when many are throwing off the shackles of the past, Jewish fundamentalists observe their revealed Law more stringently than ever before, and Muslim women, repudiating the freedoms of Western women, shroud themselves in veils and chadors. Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists both interpret the Arab-Israeli conflict, which began as defiantly secularist, in an exclusively religious way. Fundamentalism, moreover, is not confined to the great monotheisms. There are Buddhist, Hindu, and even Confucian fundamentalisms, which also cast aside many of the painfully acquired insights of liberal culture, which fight and kill in the name of religion and strive to bring the sacred into the realm of politics and national struggle.

This religious resurgence has taken many observers by surprise. In the middle years of the twentieth century, it was generally taken for granted that secularism was an irreversible trend and that faith would never again play a major part in world events. It was assumed that as human beings became more rational, they either would have no further need for religion or would be content to confine it to the immediately personal and private areas of their lives. But in the late 1970s, fundamentalists began to rebel against this secularist hegemony and started to wrest religion out of its marginal position and back to center stage. In this, at least, they have enjoyed remarkable success. Religion has once again become a force that no government can safely ignore. Fundamentalism has suffered defeats, but it is by no means quiescent. It is now an essential part of the modern scene and will certainly play an important role in the domestic and international affairs of the future. It is crucial, therefore, that we try to understand what this type of religiosity means, how and for what reasons it has developed, what it can tell us about our culture, and how best we should deal with it.

But before we proceed, we must look briefly at the term "fundamentalism" itself, which has been much criticized. American Protestants were the first to use it. In the early decades of the twentieth century, some of them started to call themselves "fundamentalists" to distinguish themselves from the more "liberal" Protestants, who were, in their opinion, entirely distorting the Christian faith. The fundamentalists wanted to go back to basics and reemphasize the "fundamentals" of the Christian tradition, which they identified with a literal interpretation of Scripture and the acceptance of certain core doctrines. The term "fundamentalism" has since been applied to reforming movements in other world faiths in a way that is far from satisfactory. It seems to suggest that fundamentalism is monolithic in all its manifestations. This is not the case. Each "fundamentalism" is a law unto itself and has its own dynamic. The term also gives the impression that fundamentalists are inherently conservative and wedded to the past, whereas their ideas are essentially modern and highly innovative. The American Protestants may have intended to go back to the "fundamentals," but they did so in a peculiarly modern way. It has also been argued that this Christian term cannot be accurately applied to movements that have entirely different priorities. Muslim and Jewish fundamentalisms, for example, are not much concerned with doctrine, which is an essentially Christian preoccupation. A literal translation of "fundamentalism" into Arabic gives us usuliyyah, a word that refers to the study of the sources of the various rules and principles of Islamic law. Most of the activists who are dubbed "fundamentalists" in the West are not engaged in this Islamic science, but have quite different concerns. The use of the term "fundamentalism" is, therefore, misleading.

Others, however, argue simply that, like it or not, the word "fundamentalism" is here to stay. And I have come to agree: the term is not perfect, but it is a useful label for movements that, despite their differences, bear a strong family resemblance. At the outset of their monumental six-volume Fundamentalist Project, Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby argue that the "fundamentalisms" all follow a certain pattern. They are embattled forms of spirituality, which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis. They are engaged in a conflict with enemies whose secularist policies and beliefs seem inimical to religion itself. Fundamentalists do not regard this battle as a conventional political struggle, but experience it as a cosmic war between the forces of good and evil. They fear annihilation, and try to fortify their beleaguered identity by means of a selective retrieval of certain doctrines and practices of the past. To avoid contamination, they often withdraw from mainstream society to create a counterculture; yet fundamentalists are not impractical dreamers. They have absorbed the pragmatic rationalism of modernity, and, under the guidance of their charismatic leaders, they refine these "fundamentals" so as to create an ideology that provides the faithful with a plan of action. Eventually they fight back and attempt to resacralize an increasingly skeptical world.

To explore the implications of this global response to modern culture, I want to concentrate on just a few of the fundamentalist movements that have surfaced in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the three monotheistic faiths. Instead of studying them in isolation from one another, I intend to trace their development chronologically, side by side, so that we can see how deeply similar they are. By looking at selected fundamentalisms, I hope to examine the phenomenon in greater depth than would be possible in a more general, comprehensive survey. The movements I have chosen are American Protestant fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, and Muslim fundamentalism in Egypt, which is a Sunni country, and Iran, which is Shii. I do not claim that my discoveries necessarily apply to other forms of fundamentalism, but hope to show how these particular movements, which have been among the most prominent and influential, have all been motivated by common fears, anxieties, and desires that seem to be a not unusual response to some of the peculiar difficulties of life in the modern secular world.

There have always been people, in every age and in each tradition, who have fought the modernity of their day. But the fundamentalism that we shall be considering is an essentially twentieth-century movement. It is a reaction against the scientific and secular culture that first appeared in the West, but which has since taken root in other parts of the world. The West has developed an entirely unprecedented and wholly different type of civilization, so the religious response to it has been unique. The fundamentalist movements that have evolved in our own day have a symbiotic relationship with modernity. They may reject the scientific rationalism of the West, but they cannot escape it. Western civilization has changed the world. Nothing — including religion — can ever be the same again. All over the globe, people have been struggling with these new conditions and have been forced to reassess their religious traditions, which were designed for an entirely different type of society.

There was a similar transitional period in the ancient world, lasting roughly from 700 to 200 BCE, which historians have called the Axial Age because it was pivotal to the spiritual development of humanity. This age was itself the product and fruition of thousands of years of economic, and therefore social and cultural, evolution, beginning in Sumer in what is now Iraq, and in ancient Egypt. People in the fourth and third millennia BCE, instead of simply growing enough crops to satisfy their immediate needs, became capable of producing an agricultural surplus with which they could trade and thereby acquire additional income. This enabled them to build the first civilizations, develop the arts, and create increasingly powerful polities: cities, city-states, and, eventually, empires. In agrarian society, power no longer lay exclusively with the local king or priest; its locus shifted at least partly to the marketplace, the source of each culture's wealth. In these altered circumstances, people ultimately began to find that the old paganism, which had served their ancestors well, no longer spoke fully to their condition.

In the cities and empires of the Axial Age, citizens were acquiring a wider perspective and broader horizons, which made the old local cults seem limited and parochial. Instead of seeing the divine as embodied in a number of different deities, people increasingly began to worship a single, universal transcendence and source of sacredness. They had more leisure and were thus able to develop a richer interior life; accordingly, they came to desire a spirituality which did not depend entirely upon external forms. The most sensitive were troubled by the social injustice that seemed built into this agrarian society, depending as it did on the labor of peasants who never had the chance to benefit from the high culture. Consequently, prophets and reformers arose who insisted that the virtue of compassion was crucial to the spiritual life: an ability to see sacredness in every single human being, and a willingness to take practical care of the more vulnerable members of society, became the test of authentic piety. In this way, during the Axial Age, the great confessional faiths that have continued to guide human beings sprang up in the civilized world: Buddhism and Hinduism in India, Confucianism and Taoism in the Far East; monotheism in the Middle East; and rationalism in Europe. Despite their major differences, these Axial Age religions had much in common: they all built on the old traditions to evolve the idea of a single, universal transcendence; they cultivated an internalized spirituality, and stressed the importance of practical compassion.

Today, as noted, we are undergoing a similar period of transition. Its roots lie in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of the modern era, when the people of Western Europe began to evolve a different type of society, one based not on an agricultural surplus but on a technology that enabled them to reproduce their resources indefinitely. 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 religious change has become necessary. All over the world, people are finding that in their dramatically transformed circumstances, the old forms of faith no longer work for them: they cannot provide the enlightenment and consolation that human beings seem to need. As a result, men and women are trying to find new ways of being religious; like the reformers and prophets of the Axial Age, they are attempting to build upon the insights of the past in a way that will take human beings forward into the new world they have created for themselves. One of these modern experiments — however paradoxical it may superficially seem to say so — is fundamentalism.

We tend to assume that the people of the past were (more or less) like us, but in fact their spiritual lives were rather different. In particular, they evolved two ways of thinking, speaking, and acquiring knowledge, which scholars have called mythos and logos. Both were essential; they were regarded as complementary ways of arriving at truth, and each had its special area of competence. Myth was regarded as primary; it was concerned with what was thought to be timeless and constant in our existence. Myth looked back to the origins of life, to the foundations of culture, and to the deepest levels of the human mind. Myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning. Unless we find some significance in our lives, we mortal men and women fall very easily into despair. The mythos of a society provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day lives; it directed their attention to the eternal and the universal. It was also rooted in what we would call the unconscious mind. The various mythological stories, which were not intended to be taken literally, were an ancient form of psychology. When people told stories about heroes who descended into the underworld, struggled through labyrinths, or fought with monsters, they were bringing to light the obscure regions of the subconscious realm, which is not accessible to purely rational investigation, but which has a profound effect upon our experience and behavior. Because of the dearth of myth in our modern society, we have had to evolve the science of psychoanalysis to help us to deal with our inner world.

Myth could not be demonstrated by rational proof; its insights were more intuitive, similar to those of art, music, poetry, or sculpture. Myth only became a reality when it was embodied in cult, rituals, and ceremonies which worked aesthetically upon worshippers, evoking within them a sense of sacred significance and enabling them to apprehend the deeper currents of existence. Myth and cult were so inseparable that it is a matter of scholarly debate which came first: the mythical narrative or the rituals attached to it. Myth was also associated with mysticism, the descent into the psyche by means of structured disciplines of focus and concentration which have been evolved in all cultures as a means of acquiring intuitive insight. Without a cult or mystical practice, the myths of religion would make no sense. They would remain abstract and seem incredible, in rather the same way as a musical score remains opaque to most of us and needs to be interpreted instrumentally before we can appreciate its beauty.

In the premodern world, people had a different view of history. They were less interested than we are in what actually happened, but more concerned with the meaning of an event. Historical incidents were not seen as unique occurrences, set in a far-off time, but were thought to be external manifestations of constant, timeless realities. Hence history would tend to repeat itself, because there was nothing new under the sun. Historical narratives tried to bring out this eternal dimension. Thus, we do not know what really occurred when the ancient Israelites escaped from Egypt and passed through the Sea of Reeds. The story has been deliberately written as a myth, and linked with other stories about rites of passage, immersion in the deep, and gods splitting a sea in two to create a new reality. Jews experience this myth every year in the rituals of the Passover Seder, which brings this strange story into their own lives and helps them to make it their own. One could say that unless an historical event is mythologized in this way, and liberated from the past in an inspiring cult, it cannot be religious. To 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. It is to confuse mythos with logos.

Logos was equally important. Logos was the rational, pragmatic, and scientific thought that enabled men and women to function well in the world. We may have lost the sense of mythos in the West today, but we are very familiar with logos, which is the basis of our society. Unlike myth, logos must relate exactly to facts and correspond to external realities if it is to be effective. It must work efficiently in the mundane world. We use this logical, discursive reasoning when we have to make things happen, get something done, or persuade other people to adopt a particular course of action. Logos is practical. Unlike myth, which looks back to the beginnings and to the foundations, logos forges ahead and tries to find something new: to elaborate on old insights, achieve a greater control over our environment, discover something fresh, and invent something novel.

In the premodern world, both mythos and logos were regarded as indispensable. Each would be impoverished without the other. Yet the two were essentially distinct, and it was held to be dangerous to confuse mythical and rational discourse. They had separate jobs to do. Myth was not reasonable; its narratives were not supposed to be demonstrated empirically. It provided the context of meaning that made our practical activities worthwhile. You were not supposed to make mythos the basis of a pragmatic policy. If you did so, the results could be disastrous, because what worked well in the inner world of the psyche was not readily applicable to the affairs of the external world. When, for example, Pope Urban II summoned the First Crusade in 1095, his plan belonged to the realm of logos. He wanted the knights of Europe to stop fighting one another and tearing the fabric of Western Christendom apart, and to expend their energies instead in a war in the Middle East and so extend the power of his church. But when this military expedition became entangled with folk mythology, biblical lore, and apocalyptic fantasies, the result was catastrophic, practically, militarily, and morally. Throughout the long crusading project, it remained true that whenever logos was ascendant, the Crusaders prospered. They performed well on the battlefield, created viable colonies in the Middle East, and learned to relate more positively with the local population. When, however, Crusaders started making a mythical or mystical vision the basis of their policies, they were usually defeated and committed terrible atrocities.

Logos had its limitations too. It could not assuage human pain or sorrow. Rational arguments could make no sense of tragedy. Logos could not answer questions about the ultimate value of human life. A scientist could make things work more efficiently and discover wonderful new facts about the physical universe, but he could not explain the meaning of life.9 That was the preserve of myth and cult.

By the eighteenth century, however, the people of Europe and America had achieved such astonishing success in science and technology that they began to think that logos was the only means to truth and began to discount mythos as false and superstitious. It is also true that the new world they were creating contradicted the dynamic of the old mythical spirituality. Our religious experience in the modern world has changed, and because an increasing number of people regard scientific rationalism alone as true, they have often tried to turn the mythos of their faith into logos. Fundamentalists have also made this attempt. This confusion has led to more problems.

We need to understand how our world has changed. The first part of this book will, therefore, go back to the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, when the people of Western Europe had begun to develop their new science. We will also examine the mythical piety of the premodern agrarian civilization, so that we can see how the old forms of faith worked. It is becoming very difficult to be conventionally religious in the brave new world. Modernization has always been a painful process. People feel alienated and lost when fundamental changes in their society make the world strange and unrecognizable. We will trace the impact of modernity upon the Christians of Europe and America, upon the Jewish people, and upon the Muslims of Egypt and Iran. We shall then be in a position to see what the fundamentalists were trying to do when they started to create this new form of faith toward the end of the nineteenth century.

Fundamentalists feel that they are battling against forces that threaten their most sacred values. During a war it is very difficult for combatants to appreciate one another's position. We shall find that modernization has led to a polarization of society, but sometimes, to prevent an escalation of the conflict, we must try to understand the pain and perceptions of the other side. Those of us — myself included — who relish the freedoms and achievements of modernity find it hard to comprehend the distress these cause religious fundamentalists. Yet modernization is often experienced not as a liberation but as an aggressive assault. Few have suffered more in the modern world than the Jewish people, so it is fitting to begin with their bruising encounter with the modernizing society of Western Christendom in the late fifteenth century, which led some Jews to anticipate many of the stratagems, postures, and principles that would later become common in the new world.

What People are Saying About This

Michael Wolfe
Karen Armstrong takes the bull by the horns in this richly detailed study of fundamentalism's many faces through the ages...The book is a timely reminder: that religious ideologues and secular advocates of the nation-state, having helped create each other, must moderate their conflicts or pay the price—in violence at the expense of spirit.
— (Michael Wolfe, author of The Hadj and One Thousand Roads to Mecca)
Marcus J. Borg
Insightful and important, filled with fascinating historical details, this comparative study of fundamentalism greatly illuminates central tensions within Western religions and modernity itself. Highly recommended.
— (Marcus J. Borg, author of Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time)
Harold Kushner
An impressive achievement. Armstrong has mastered a mountain of material, added some brilliant insights of her own, and made it accessible to the general reader.
— (Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of When Bad Things Happen to Good People and How Good Do We Have to Be?)
John Voll
Armstrong's Battle for God must immediately have a place on the bookshelf of anyone who wants to understand contemporary religious revivalism. She combines historical perspective with clear and balanced analysis in a way that provides remarkable insight into how religion interacts with modernity to create both conflict and new visions.
— (John Voll, author of Islam: Continuity and Change in the Modern World)
Irving Greenberg
Going beyond her best-selling A History of God, Karen Armstrong has given us a wide-ranging review of the wrenching "Battle for God" between the forces of modernity and fundamentalism. Too many prefer to curse and denigrate the rise of fundamentalism. Karen Armstrong chooses to light a candle of understanding and comparative analysis.
— (Rabbi Irving Greenberg, president of the Jewish Life Network)
John S. Spong
The Battle for God presents us with a sweeping panoramic view of the cultural and religious development of the Western world. Karen Armstrong first leads her readers into a brilliant udnerstanding of our present situation, then with equal skill she enables us to grasp a vision of a apiritual future that holds enormous promise. No one who occupies a role of leadership in political, educational, or religious arenas should ignore this illuminating book.
— (Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, author of Why Christianity Must Change or Die)

Meet the Author

Karen Armstrong, author, scholar, and journalist, is among the world's foremost commentators on religious history and culture. Her books include the bestselling A History of God and The Battle for God, as well as Buddha and Islam: A Short History.

Karen Armstrong, author, scholar, and journalist, is among the world's foremost commentators on religious history and culture. Her books include the bestselling A History of God and The Battle for God, as well as Buddha and Islam: A Short History.

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews

Battle for God 4 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 20 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
I learned so much from this book. The history is wonderful and at times overwhelming in volume. But for me, the best part was the clearing and defining of the term 'myth'. I had always defined myth in my own mind as a 'not truth'. What she taught me is that it isn't always important that the story be fact. The importance can be in the moral value even when the facts of the story are not true. That the intuitive sence that the myth brings has value and should be balanced with logic. I will recommend this book to anyone who really would like to understand where fundamentalism came from and is going. And it shows how it has impacted our world today.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Anyone who knows the tenants of the three religions studied in this book knows that the fundamentalist sects within are an abomination. No Christian who follows the Bible could ever condone the hyper-conservative politics carried out in it's name. No Muslim who follows the Koran could ever condone the acts carried out in its name. Fundamentalism at its root appeals to the lowest common denominator. The problem todays is that fundamentalist ideals can also appeal to the mainstream in those moments often referred to as "when the chips are down." The question this book tries to answer is "how did we get here?" It goes back several centuries and tracks how the end of mysticism, the beginning of enlightenment and the acceptance of secular science gave birth to religious fanaticism. What this book doesn't go enough into is how negative emotion is fed, and feeds fundamentalism in a sick circle of perpetual hate. God says it's ok to hate person x, so I hate person x. My hatred of person x makes me love God more because I have to protect God's people from person x. Because I love God more, I hate person x more. Because I hate person x more, I love God more. And on and on and on ad nausem. None of the three religions in this book would tolerate this nonsense, however, as this book shows, modernistic sects within these religions have twisted their faiths, and flattered themselves that this perpetual hatred is at the core of their faith in God. Unfortunately, this book doesn't go so far as to offer solution. However, with the keen historical understanding that it gives, perhaps a solution is there, and I just didn't see it.
Guest More than 1 year ago
All faiths- Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc.- have developed a sense of ¿military piety¿, according to Karen Armstrong in her well researched and profound historical/theological book, The Battle for God. This sense of polemic is not a desire to reside in and/or a turn back in history. It is a ¿current¿ response to the ever changing and modernized world which is putting the fundamentals of religion under question. It is a response to a ¿secular¿ view of the world in which a scientific response to each question can and must be found and at the same time any religious interpretation of the same account would be deemed vain and futile. The basic tenet of the book revolves around a very fundamental concept and that is the difference between ¿logos¿ and ¿mythos¿. Myth is what cannot be constructed by mere reason and rational proof. It is regarded as primary, timeless, omnipresent, and related to mind. It is not to be concerned with practical matters of the human life but with its meaning. On the other hand, logos are the epitome of reason, rational thoughts, pragmatic, and scientific approaches that would enable humans to function in this world. Literal interpretations of myths by one side and limiting everything to logos and pernicious attacks on religion by the other, has inflamed the present battle between secular and religious groups and. With the mind boggling progress in science, one would think religion would play a minor role in explaining or leading the current events. However, over the past 500 years, and exclusively the last 100 years, religion has become to be one of the most important factors in instigating people and elucidating ¿natural¿, ¿historical¿, and ¿day to day¿ events. Moreover, in doing so, religious revivalists are propagating the richness and absoluteness of the religious fundamentals not in old and archaic terms but through using the ¿same¿ scientific¿ approach and terminology that seculars use. Karen Armstrong covers a course of 500 years in establishing her argument. She focuses on three main monotheistic religions ¿Islam, Judaism, and Christianity- without getting into the rights or wrongs of any one, depicts the approaches and interpretations of believers of each faith to its principles. This shows how various interpretations have resulted in atrocities against another group and how philosophical schools of thought have hastened this process. She covers a wide range of philosophers in the West, such as Kant, Freud, Sartre, Hobbes, Nitche, Darwin, and many others whose theories deeply revolutionized the traditional approaches to religion and its rites. From the current decades she mentions Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. In the East, people such as Seyed Jamaal, Abdu, Qut, and Ayatollah Khomeini from the Islamic tradition, and Rabbi Kook and Luria from Judaism ¿and many others from all three traditions- are mentioned. Armstrong explains how these people introduced new blood into the religious interpretations and created a wave of fundamentalism against the seculars who had dominated the society¿s intellectual circles, schools, churches, and universities. She finds an element of each of these revivalists in religious Zionists in Israel, Egyptian Sunnis and- specifically- Iranian Shiites resisting Westernization, and finally American Protestant Evangelists who had a deep/literal interpretation of Bible. The Battle for God consists of 10 chapters in addition to two valuable introductions and an afterword. The printed copy of 2001 includes ¿A New Preface¿ in which Armstrong quickly reviews the catastrophe of 9/11 from both Christian and Islamic fundamentalist perspectives. In this scholarly and heavily researched book, Armstrong rightly conveys the message that Fundamentalism is not an Islamic phenomenon. It is a response to the ever changing world or ¿just one of these modern religious experiments¿ that all religions have manifested. Fun
JDubbaU7 More than 1 year ago
Regardless of what you believe, we all think in the same way. Karen Armstrong illustrates this point beautifully in her monumental work that follows the three major monotheistic faiths from their origin to the present. This book provides major insights into the thought processes behind the religious communities of America, Egypt, Iran, and Israel, and further illustrates how these communities influence the government of their country. A must read for anyone seeking to understand the present world conflict!
Guest More than 1 year ago
As one who most probably fits into Armstrongs definition of a fundamentalist I nonetheless found her book compelling.It is always helpful to see oneself through eyes of another. I particularily found the information on Islam very helpful. Although I do think she was a little harsh and possibly mistaken in her assessment of Luther and the other reformers. Nonetheless a must read for anyone interested in religion.
CandyG More than 1 year ago
I am reading Karen Armstrong book; "the battle for God". it is clear and succinct. Very fluid and easy however very rich content. She travels between time effortlessly to portray the central issue. I Felix Gregorian, read the book on my wife's account, Candace Gregroian
JaneM2 More than 1 year ago
Ms. Armstrong is an unapologetic Islam apologist. Seeking to justify an ideology that incites its followers to hatred and murder is contemptible, in fact no better than holocaust denial. Just because an evil ideology comes under the guise of a religion does not make it any less evil.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Guest More than 1 year ago
Armstrong does a wonderful job of selecting material for creating a program to understand the forces fueling some of the less favorable aspects of religion today. She assumes that her readers may or may not know a good deal about the subject, which makes her writings both engaging and appealing to general audiences. My main objections to her work arise in two categories. One, there is a general failure to recognize the multiplicit dimension of these movements. They are neither totally united nor of totally similar dispositions. While skillfully showing the unique and similar nature of revivalism in the three monotheistic religions, her folly is found in over generalizing the other faiths. This is especially true of Christianity¿the religion who she treats with the most harshness. Two, she attempts to polarize modern religion between two camps of backward, militantly insane revivalists one hand and on the other the progressive liberals who are the bastions of human decency. This is a distortion and a great weakness of her book, truly bringing to service her agenda. Nice read though, but it should encourage further reading if prior reading has not been done upon the subject before reading this work.
Guest More than 1 year ago
My eyes were opened more than once. The concepts are often easily applied to situations out of context of the story being told. This book is a must read for a gay activist. Unless you have a degree in religions, you will need a quiet corner and lots of concentration. The history of the religions other than your own require a commitment of time and energy. Great stuff!
Guest More than 1 year ago
Karen Armstrong continues her wonderul series of books examining the three great faiths of Abraham -- Judaism, Islam and Christianity. This time she examines the rise of fundamentalism, or more correctly, militant piety, which grew out of each reliigion's reaction to modernity. And fundamentalism isn't just a 20th-century phenonomenon, nor is it limited to American Christianity.
Sojan More than 1 year ago
If you EVER wanted to know what Islam, Judaism and Christianity have in common and more importantly, why the practisioners do the things they do and say the things they say, then you simply MUST read this book.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This is the second book by K. Armstrong that I read, the first being The History of God, and I am as enthusiastic and mentally stimulated as by the initial introduction to this erudite and intelligent author, who also can speak from her personal religious experiance, which, for me, validates her work so much more.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This book is good only if you begin with the presupposition that there is no God or that God is unknowable. While many will scoff that this is a foregone conclusion I will confidently assert that for every protest against the existence of God you may offer entire volumes of scientific research and archeological evidence can be brought to bear to unsettle or refute the protest. If one wanted to be truly intellectually honest the question would not be: What wrong with fundementalism and how do we stop it? but rather: Is there a God and if so how do we determine His nature and revelation? Why accommodate earthly influences that could jeopardize the soul? There is nothing unscientific or irrational about these latter questions, but they are questions many refuse to even ask with any form of sincerity and this author seems to have done just that. As proof I refer to the author's statement that fundementalism does not embrace pluralism. Why should it? If the issue at hand is knowing the true will of the Creator and living your life to His will, why should you tolerate lifestyles that serve as an obviously corrupting influence? Last time I looked atheism is as equally unforgiving of everyone that declines its rigid dogmas. Atheism presses its every effort to deprive people of faith from their rights within the arena of public discourse. If believers seek scientific answers they are branded as corruptors of science. If they seek to vote their conscience they are branded threats to democracy (a hypocrisy in its own right). The fact of the matter is that modern people refuse to even allow for the notion that absolutes may exist. Yet they defeat themselves by making that very same refusal an absolute in its own right. This text suffers from the same fatal logical flaw, making it a dead work from its very conception. The New Testament records that Jesus said, 'No man comes to the Father except by me.' meaning the non-pluralistic nature of christianity (fundementalism notwithstanding) isn't a fabrication of mindless zealots, and the author does a disservice to her readers by her wholesale disallowance of open-mindedness (an inherently two-way street). After all, Abraham Lincoln was a devout christian who framed the American Civil War as necessity to end the 'evil' of slavery which he saw as a moral absolute derived from his religious beliefs. If this author be true Lincoln should go down in history as one of the most delusionally murderous individuals of all time.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Probaly the better one of her books, but that is not saying much. Apologist Karen Armstrong tries to provoke sympathy for Islam while denouncing Judaism and Christianity as the reasons why the western world looks down upon Islam. If Ms. Armstrong would take the time to read The Koran page for page, word for word she would realize quickly that there is no such thing as fundamentalism in Islam. Overall I strongly recommend renting the book or borrowing it from a friend. But then again what kind of friend would let another friend read garbage like this?