Eric_W's Reviews > The Battle for God

The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1711431
's review

really liked it
bookshelves: religion

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 The History of God 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 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."
5 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Battle for God.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Started Reading
January 1, 2004 – Finished Reading
January 27, 2009 – Shelved
January 27, 2009 – Shelved as: religion

Comments Showing 1-7 of 7 (7 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Trevor (new)

Trevor Excellent review, thoughtful and intelligent. Thank you


message 2: by Asamg1 (new)

Asamg1 Armstrong's is a wonderful voice. I haven't read _The Battle for God_, but her biography (if indeed that's what it is--more like a meditation on the state) of the Buddha is an entrancing read, and one accessible not only to my faculty but to my students as well.


Eric_W I have heard her interviewed many times and appreciate her very rational and intelligent explanation of her research. Apparently, she's an ex-nun who has become quite a scholar. As an atheist, I value her calm voice, so unlike much of the shrill yelling that passes for discourse these days.


Joshua Nomen-Mutatio I have problems with Armstrong. They basically can be summed up in Sam Harris' arguments about the problems with religious moderates/liberals which I know you and Trevor are familiar with. I find her description of herself as a "freelance monotheist" to be disingenuous and at the very least patently absurd. I value her desire to defeat religious fundamentalism but I just do not find her arguments compelling and I think that she's as likely to appeal to fundamentalists as any non-believer might be...which is not much. But I've been thinking a lot about this issue of how to best combat the virulant strains of religious belief and I think it will have to come in through some form of religious liberalism through the likes of scholars like Armstrong, Tillich and so forth, however I'm pessimistic about such ivory tower theology being able to persuade the bulk of the Robertson, Fawell, bin Laden, et al. end of the spectrum. I don't claim to have any better answers, but there's my two cents.


message 5: by Asamg1 (new)

Asamg1 I'm not sure that any reasoned argument is likely to persuade a Robertson, Falwell or Bin Laden. The operational term, here, is "reasoned," after all.


Eric_W Dear FleshSingsOut and Asamg1 - I could not agree with both of you more. In Battle for God, Armstrong, I don't think is making an argument for any belief system, any more than her book on Buddha or Islam or her History of God is making a case for adhering to those myths either. She's a terrific historian, though. By the way, have either of you read any of Bart Ehrman's stuff. He's a former evangelical turned agnostic who has written some excellent books, and has a terrific lecture series from the Teaching Company called Lost Christianities. He wrote a book by the same title also. I highly recommend the following:

God's Problem How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question - Why We Suffer
The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot Library Edition
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament
Lost Christianities Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication
Misquoting Jesus Audio Set The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why!


message 7: by Anthony (new)

Anthony Buckley Thanks, Eric, for yet another thoughtful review.

From a Northern Irish perspective, I find Karen Armstrong a breath of fresh air. I lost my own Christianity so long ago that I have nearly forgotten what it felt like to be a Christian. However, I am aware that religion, like atheism, is mostly a badge of allegiance, a shorhand that can quickly identify who one "is". As such, it should not be too lightly disparaged, for one should not spit too readily on another’s badge of allegiance or identity. For some people too it is also a source of comfort in the face of suffering. Here again, this should not be too lightly disparaged.

As it happens, I have met many fundamentalists, even discussing religion with them. Some of these had found great solace in their religion, and I didn't much feel like disabusing them. In many ways, I preferred the fundamentalist to the liberals, whose views I sometimes found rather thin.

Despite this, Armstrong provides an interesting bridge between belief and unbelief. She is a stepping stone to “mutual understanding” (a catch-phrase in religion-torn NI). I suspect I would enjoy meeting her.


back to top