radchik1313's review against another edition
5.0
Excelente libro que logra explicar que el origen del fundamentalismo es la modernidad. La tecnología y posmodernidad han llevado a los tres monoteísmos a refugiarse en los fundamentos literales de sus libros.
Esto es sorpresivo, ya que lo primero que viene a la mente con dicha palabra es “antigüedad.” Pero a través de un recorrido histórico nos desmuestra que en la mayoría de los casos las religiones de antaño eran mucho mas libres. En el mundo musulan las mujeres podían exigir el divoricio!
Este libro se remonta al año de 1492 con la expulsión de los judios. A través de un recorrido histórico nos da una guía de religiones comparadas que culmina con una respuesta concisa de que es el fundamentalismo.
Encontre este libro por casualidad en una feria del libro y sin lugar a dudas es de las mejores casualidades de este año.
Esto es sorpresivo, ya que lo primero que viene a la mente con dicha palabra es “antigüedad.” Pero a través de un recorrido histórico nos desmuestra que en la mayoría de los casos las religiones de antaño eran mucho mas libres. En el mundo musulan las mujeres podían exigir el divoricio!
Este libro se remonta al año de 1492 con la expulsión de los judios. A través de un recorrido histórico nos da una guía de religiones comparadas que culmina con una respuesta concisa de que es el fundamentalismo.
Encontre este libro por casualidad en una feria del libro y sin lugar a dudas es de las mejores casualidades de este año.
justfoxie's review against another edition
4.0
I started reading this book in December, and about 15 pages in it became really obvious that I didn't know enough about the basics of Islam and Judaism to be able to follow it effectively. So I laid it aside and switched to [b: History of God|3873|A History of God The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam|Karen Armstrong|http://images.gr-assets.com/books/1386924363s/3873.jpg|2011826], and only just a month or so ago picked this one back up again.
In many ways I feel that Battle is a fantastic sequel to History and where the author's own subjectivity comes out to play, but in ways that I think highlight the frustration of many people in her (and my) position - we just don't get these people, and that's part of the problem. This book, fortunately, is a very accessible way to bridge that gap. It covers Fundamentalism amoung Protestants in the US, Sunni in Egypt, Shia (Shii? Shiah?) in Iran and Judaism in the Diaspora and later in Isreal.
I had no idea that the creation of the state of Israel was as controversial among Jews as it was among other nationalities. A huge eye-opener, and one that makes the tension in the region all the more understandable and flecked with grey than I ever understood before.
Also, set in the context of the other religious movements, the American Protestants seemed even more unintelligibly - unlike the Egyptians, Israelis and Iranians, they have no excuse for claiming to be oppressed. They live in a society that does expressly allow them to express ideas and worship virtually anyway they please - as well as be economically successful; then for them to turn around and want to rid others of the same freedoms doesn't do their movement any justice. They come across as merely strident and unreasonable, not freedom fighters or those struggling for a place in the world that repressed them since day one.
As for the Islamic movements, I had suspected that colonialism and bad political leadership had contributed to their development, but never truly understood the confusion and haphazard development that underlies it still. Not that these roots excuse the violence or cruelty, mind you, but at least knowing where they're coming from there is room for dialogue and through dialogue perhaps resolution.
All in all, I do highly reccomend this book to anyone looking to better understand these peoples and the struggle with extremism.
In many ways I feel that Battle is a fantastic sequel to History and where the author's own subjectivity comes out to play, but in ways that I think highlight the frustration of many people in her (and my) position - we just don't get these people, and that's part of the problem. This book, fortunately, is a very accessible way to bridge that gap. It covers Fundamentalism amoung Protestants in the US, Sunni in Egypt, Shia (Shii? Shiah?) in Iran and Judaism in the Diaspora and later in Isreal.
I had no idea that the creation of the state of Israel was as controversial among Jews as it was among other nationalities. A huge eye-opener, and one that makes the tension in the region all the more understandable and flecked with grey than I ever understood before.
Also, set in the context of the other religious movements, the American Protestants seemed even more unintelligibly - unlike the Egyptians, Israelis and Iranians, they have no excuse for claiming to be oppressed. They live in a society that does expressly allow them to express ideas and worship virtually anyway they please - as well as be economically successful; then for them to turn around and want to rid others of the same freedoms doesn't do their movement any justice. They come across as merely strident and unreasonable, not freedom fighters or those struggling for a place in the world that repressed them since day one.
As for the Islamic movements, I had suspected that colonialism and bad political leadership had contributed to their development, but never truly understood the confusion and haphazard development that underlies it still. Not that these roots excuse the violence or cruelty, mind you, but at least knowing where they're coming from there is room for dialogue and through dialogue perhaps resolution.
All in all, I do highly reccomend this book to anyone looking to better understand these peoples and the struggle with extremism.
erikars's review against another edition
3.0
This book is classic Armstrong.
The Battle For God describes the aspects of the histories of the three great monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) which led to the rise of modern fundamentalism in all three. In the process, she explores some of the commonalities of these different fundamentalisms and their origins. This book is jam packed with information, so I will not try to cover any of the specific. Instead, I will focus on the high level themes.
In Armstrong's view, fundamentalisms arise as a result of the process of modernization and are themselves deeply modern movements. By the process of modernization she means, roughly, the transformation from mostly agrarian societies with a focus on the past and present to societies whose success is based and innovation and whose members are future oriented. This future orientation causes a focus on the rational and a discounting of the mythological. Armstrong claims that in pre-modern times, these two modes of reasoning were seen as complementary, not competitive. In modern times, mythological truth is seen as an oxymoron. Myth is seen as story and lie.
Armstrong defines mythological truth implicitly rather than ever coming out and saying what it is. She seems to see mythological truth as having two components: it cannot be proven rationally and its purpose is to give meaning rather than to be right. One of the commonalities of different fundamentalism is that they try to make mythological truths into rational truths which causes damage both to the religion itself and the world they try to apply their literalized truths to.
One of Armstrong's central theses is that fundamentalism is essentially a modern response to the changing world. Fundamentalists generally try to turn their mythological truths into logical truths. As such, the fundamentalist vision of a religion is no more authentic than the world they are rebelling against. However, the fundamentalist vision is structured so that the adherents to the vision think it is more authentic.
The modernization process began as scientists like Copernicus showed that our intuitions and perceptions do not map cleanly onto the truth of reality. In fact, sometimes or intuitions and perceptions can be downright misleading. Fundamentalist ideologies, whether religious or not, often are rebelling against this complexity of reality. They try to push a simplified version of reality onto their adherents and, sometimes, onto others.
But the rise of fundamentalism is not related solely to changes in our views of the world and its abstractions. Fundamentalism often arises because of specific historic events. It is undeniable that the modernization process has often been harsh. The raising up of people in the lower ranks of society has often led to a demand for more uniformity. The "other" has always been perceived as a threat, but when that fear of the other is combined with the increasing power of modern states, the results can be disastrous.
Because of this, much of The Battle for God reads like an extended lesson in the history of Europe, the Middle East, and the US from the 15th century through the present. As someone who is not a history buff (and, therefore, whose view of history is strongly influenced by the western bias of history lessons in the American education system), I learned a lot. I pretty much knew nothing about most of the history of the Middle East. Now I know a little! While her view was certainly biased (even if you ignore the bias that all authors bring to the table, she was only interested in those events which related to the topic of religious fundamentalism), it is still impossible for someone like me to come away with this without having some seriously altered views.
Probably the most fundamental change in view that I got from the history Armstrong presented had to do with my perception of the attitudes of Muslims to the west. While I knew at an abstract level that the west had not been good to the Middle East, I had not realized what a rational basis their hatred has. The west has screwed over that region again and again and again. Now, I don't think that the fact that the hatred has a rational basis means the hatred itself is rational, but if I had been treated like they were, I would also likely perceive the west as evil.
Armstrong, as usual, gives us a book jam packed with information. The main strength of this book is the sympathy with which Armstrong views fundamentalists. While she clearly thinks that they are going about "rescuing" religion in the wrong way, she also helps the reader to understand why these fundamentalists react the way they do. This is certainly a good read in you are interested in understanding where fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came from.
The Battle For God describes the aspects of the histories of the three great monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) which led to the rise of modern fundamentalism in all three. In the process, she explores some of the commonalities of these different fundamentalisms and their origins. This book is jam packed with information, so I will not try to cover any of the specific. Instead, I will focus on the high level themes.
In Armstrong's view, fundamentalisms arise as a result of the process of modernization and are themselves deeply modern movements. By the process of modernization she means, roughly, the transformation from mostly agrarian societies with a focus on the past and present to societies whose success is based and innovation and whose members are future oriented. This future orientation causes a focus on the rational and a discounting of the mythological. Armstrong claims that in pre-modern times, these two modes of reasoning were seen as complementary, not competitive. In modern times, mythological truth is seen as an oxymoron. Myth is seen as story and lie.
Armstrong defines mythological truth implicitly rather than ever coming out and saying what it is. She seems to see mythological truth as having two components: it cannot be proven rationally and its purpose is to give meaning rather than to be right. One of the commonalities of different fundamentalism is that they try to make mythological truths into rational truths which causes damage both to the religion itself and the world they try to apply their literalized truths to.
One of Armstrong's central theses is that fundamentalism is essentially a modern response to the changing world. Fundamentalists generally try to turn their mythological truths into logical truths. As such, the fundamentalist vision of a religion is no more authentic than the world they are rebelling against. However, the fundamentalist vision is structured so that the adherents to the vision think it is more authentic.
The modernization process began as scientists like Copernicus showed that our intuitions and perceptions do not map cleanly onto the truth of reality. In fact, sometimes or intuitions and perceptions can be downright misleading. Fundamentalist ideologies, whether religious or not, often are rebelling against this complexity of reality. They try to push a simplified version of reality onto their adherents and, sometimes, onto others.
But the rise of fundamentalism is not related solely to changes in our views of the world and its abstractions. Fundamentalism often arises because of specific historic events. It is undeniable that the modernization process has often been harsh. The raising up of people in the lower ranks of society has often led to a demand for more uniformity. The "other" has always been perceived as a threat, but when that fear of the other is combined with the increasing power of modern states, the results can be disastrous.
Because of this, much of The Battle for God reads like an extended lesson in the history of Europe, the Middle East, and the US from the 15th century through the present. As someone who is not a history buff (and, therefore, whose view of history is strongly influenced by the western bias of history lessons in the American education system), I learned a lot. I pretty much knew nothing about most of the history of the Middle East. Now I know a little! While her view was certainly biased (even if you ignore the bias that all authors bring to the table, she was only interested in those events which related to the topic of religious fundamentalism), it is still impossible for someone like me to come away with this without having some seriously altered views.
Probably the most fundamental change in view that I got from the history Armstrong presented had to do with my perception of the attitudes of Muslims to the west. While I knew at an abstract level that the west had not been good to the Middle East, I had not realized what a rational basis their hatred has. The west has screwed over that region again and again and again. Now, I don't think that the fact that the hatred has a rational basis means the hatred itself is rational, but if I had been treated like they were, I would also likely perceive the west as evil.
Armstrong, as usual, gives us a book jam packed with information. The main strength of this book is the sympathy with which Armstrong views fundamentalists. While she clearly thinks that they are going about "rescuing" religion in the wrong way, she also helps the reader to understand why these fundamentalists react the way they do. This is certainly a good read in you are interested in understanding where fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came from.
deborama's review against another edition
4.0
I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/11776757
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/11776757
the_dave_harmon's review against another edition
4.0
very good history. especially the second half. the first half was way too detailed and i would have preferred less detail.
kyladenae94's review against another edition
3.5
i’d be deeply interested to see what the author would make of developments in the 22 years since she published this book.
ksoanes's review against another edition
4.0
I've always viewed many of our problems today as a struggle for whose "Truth" gets to drive decision and policy making. For example, as someone adamantly pro-choice, my thought was always - if you are against abortions - don't have one, both don't prevent women who need to from getting one. My Truth isn't the same as many Christians. I view these matters as Truth vs truths. Armstrong makes the case that matters of religious differences and taking beliefs to the extreme can be better understood through the logos - mythos view. This did help me understand why people need to have their "Truth" triumph over others. I find Karen Armstrong's book informative and fascinating - she is a former nun. Unfortunately, this book further strengthens my belief that organized religions are the source of 95% of our problems, not only today, but through-out history. There is no asterisk after the first commandment that this only applies to other Christians and we would all be better off if we remember that.
nwhyte's review against another edition
4.0
http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1979182.html[return][return]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 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.[return][return]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.