Book Review: Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God
I was a little wary of this book. How can you compare fundamentalisms? But I am very impressed by her treatment. Armstrong's strength is her command of detail--the footnotes are there if you want them--but somehow she also manages to trace the patterns of fundamentalist development through the three largest monotheistic religions in the world: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. It's not a perfect book but hey, whose is? As a recovering fundamentalist, I found much food for thought here.
Check it out on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0345391691/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-9845336-7461730#reader-link
Highlights
Doesn't start in the modern era, but quite rightly begins with the persecution of the Jews in the medieval period.
Maintains that fundamentalism is first a response to change within a religion, and then is a response to economic and social change in the modern world. It is not a throwback to an earlier time, but a response to problems in the current time.
Has a fascinating and readable history of Islam and politics, particularly in Iran and Egypt.
Makes it very clear why the war in Iraq is such a colossal mistake for the United States. The book was published just before the USA attacked Iraq.
Problems
Armstrong's division of all religious responses into logos (the response of rationality) and mythos (the spiritual response) works a lot of the time. When there is a clash between those world views, dialogue always breaks down over first principles. But Armstrong's insistence that having the two together makes a workable religion inevitably overstates her case, and it simplifies too much of the complexity of religious expression.
She does not mention why she focuses on fundamentalisms in monotheistic religions exclusively. There are Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist fundamentalisms too. She can't do them all, but at least she could mention why monotheism is her focus.
Summary
The strengths outweigh the weaknesses. This is a popular book and so it isn't for specialists, but it's a smart book too. In a world where fundamentalism has successfully put religion back on the political agenda of many modern states, it's worth figuring out who fundamentalists are, what they want, and why they are on the world stage right now.
Check it out on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0345391691/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-9845336-7461730#reader-link
Highlights
Doesn't start in the modern era, but quite rightly begins with the persecution of the Jews in the medieval period.
Maintains that fundamentalism is first a response to change within a religion, and then is a response to economic and social change in the modern world. It is not a throwback to an earlier time, but a response to problems in the current time.
Has a fascinating and readable history of Islam and politics, particularly in Iran and Egypt.
Makes it very clear why the war in Iraq is such a colossal mistake for the United States. The book was published just before the USA attacked Iraq.
Problems
Armstrong's division of all religious responses into logos (the response of rationality) and mythos (the spiritual response) works a lot of the time. When there is a clash between those world views, dialogue always breaks down over first principles. But Armstrong's insistence that having the two together makes a workable religion inevitably overstates her case, and it simplifies too much of the complexity of religious expression.
She does not mention why she focuses on fundamentalisms in monotheistic religions exclusively. There are Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist fundamentalisms too. She can't do them all, but at least she could mention why monotheism is her focus.
Summary
The strengths outweigh the weaknesses. This is a popular book and so it isn't for specialists, but it's a smart book too. In a world where fundamentalism has successfully put religion back on the political agenda of many modern states, it's worth figuring out who fundamentalists are, what they want, and why they are on the world stage right now.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home