The Battle For God

The Battle For God
by Karen Armstrong

The book takes a historical look at the struggle of three religions to maintain a religious way of life in the modern world beginning in 1492. The author only focuses on Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as they are challenged by modernization, government, and internal conflicts within their own doctrine. The struggle takes the form in a constant conflict between logos and mythos. While science enabled society to come up with life’s explanation beginning with exploration of not only our geography, but all other sciences, religion has always looked to be the anchor in progress by justification with ultimate mythos explanation for that which science has not yet deciphered. Hence there is still today a strong hold on fundamentalism thought within all three groups.

Islam’s roots in the Koran took on many different interpretations within various regions of the Islamic world, basically because of it’s relationships with corresponding government regimes. The primary conflict is to what degree Islamic clergy, the mullah, involved themselves in government. By the Koran government should have it’s roots in the Islamic faith; yet there is constant struggle for just how to influence government. Government, would typically use the sentiment of the mullah and it’s followers to gain rule. Amidst this struggle modernization occurred for which the WEST were first at. Through domination of West over Islam, largely because of the evolution from agriculture to technology, disdain grew out of implementing western practice of science within the thought process of a Muslim mind set. Fundamentalism took the offensive in various countries and different times. They were consistently met with the same challenge: of retaining religious integrity once it entered into the world of the plural, rational and pragmatic thought.

With the exile of Muslims in Spain and the Inquisition, primarily to rid Spain of Muslims, Jews got the boot as well. Again they found themselves as a faith with no home. This time in a world exploding with scientific discovery. As they migrated to different parts of Europe, they story was the same. Typically they found themselves as second class citizens isolated in over crowded sectors of cities with limited rights and relegated to limited professions such as tailors. Again, leaders would rise to somehow rationalize their faith with their rulers in an attempt to integrate and become a part of the dominant culture. This could be achieved through spinning interpretations of the Torah to suite the need of the time. By the time Israel was founded there was also a divide between Fundamentalist and Zionist (spin doctors of the Torah).

Christianity also saw a real move to fundamentalism after the American revolution. The debates between Adams and Jefferson were stirred as well by common folks who saw the elite doctrines to look too much like what they fought against. As such there was an explosion in variation of Christian doctrine from Mormons, to Baptist and many points in between. In the end there were 10 times as many common folks practicing some form of Christianity by 1850. Yet all of these folks as well were met with the challenge of rationalizing their believes to that of scientific fact. The argument about separation of church and state carries on to this day in the likes of Falwell and Robertson. Their basic argument in their contest for power entails bargaining, and giving some ground to opponents which is difficult to square with religious visions which sees certain principals as in violable.

It is interesting that all three religions rejected moderninity, yet they were influenced by modern ideas. Which put them in a position to rationalize their faith to justify their existence. This appears to be an exercise in futility and a self destructing exercise that exposes the proper place for religion. In the end their interpretations of each of their prospective Holy Books not only put them at internal odds with each other, they find themselves in a difficult spot justifying their existence as an influence in government all together. However, fundamentalism is certainly in robust form today. Why is that? Where will it go? In the Fundamentalist quest to re-sacralize society their efforts have become aggressive, distorted, and advocates of hatred and anger. The basic message of this book is that for Fundamentalist to succeed, a more compassionate approach with a bias towards benevolence and tolerance towards their opposition and at the same time to properly address their fears and anxieties of extinction in a way that does not cause adverse movements. There seems to be a place for religion. It does provide the moral compass cardinal headings in life. Yet the means for getting there, where ever there is, appears to now be the purview of science.