The Battle for God - Karen Armstrong

Karen Armstrong's look at fundamentalism across the monotheistic religions seeks to address why, over the course of the 20th century, each of the three developed what Armstrong calls 'militant piety' - in layman's terms "why do good people do bad things". The book focuses on the Jews of Israel, the Christians of the USA, and the Muslims of Egypt and Iran (Sunni and Shia respectively) and uses some thirteen hundred years of history to discuss the ebbs and flows of each religions guiding philosophies.

This is the third of Armstrong's books I have read and while the first two, A Short History of Islam and A History of God, were focused on theological history, this, The Battle for God, seems more like a political science text. The book discusses briefly the origins of each religion, theological progressions and related philosophical theories from each era, imperialism, modernity and finally how groups in society come to feel both essential and alienated from mainstream society.

Armstrong begins by creating the mythos/logos paradigm, the idea that there are distinct components that make up a religion, some are more emotive/intangible while others are more practical and utilitarian. Mythos is defined as "a mode of knowledge rooted in silence and intuitive insight that gives meaning to life but cannot be explained in rational terms". Logos is "rational, logical or scientific discourse". The distinction, confusion and intentional misunderstanding of these two concepts lies at the heart of Armstrong's argument for the development of faith based fundamentalism over the course of the 20th century.

Readers coming from a Western background will be more than familiar with the concept of Logos. This idea that as a race we can scientifically dissect our world to the point that we understand what is real (and should be respected) and what is illogical (and ought to be discarded in favour of more efficient practices). In A History of God, Armstrong tracks the Western sense of existential angst and disengagement that has developed since the 1600s, here she takes these same discoveries and analyses their impact through the periods of colonialism and imperialism. What must it have been like to be told that secular humanism (a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making) is the way of the future and that any deviation from this philosophy was a demonstration of ignorance?

Of the three religions in question I always felt that Judaism and Islam had a wider paradigm to traverse, that these two ebbed and flowed between the two quite distinct natures of the mythos/logos paradigm. This could be for a couple of reasons, first, as religions they are more focused on day to day rituals and the practical nature of worship, second, Christianity is the dominant religion for the originators of the secular humanism and forfeited the mythos component of the paradigm early in the piece and thirdly because Judaism and Islam have both responded to enforced Western philosophies by powering up on mythos.

With this paradigm in place the discussion then moved to why and how parts of society felt alienated by their own people. How people felt the need to separate themselves from their peers and return to the fundamentals of their religion. These enclaves, madrasahs, yeshivas etc go on to form the vanguard or chosen ones who will, through a variety of actions, return their people to the correct path (as defined by them). This is where the problem begins - when people feel so alienated by societal norms they feel the need to withdraw from the community in order to create their own perfect societies. From here it is a logical progression from 'we have been chosen' to 'we have been chosen to act'.

The Battle for God concludes with these main points:

• Rational logos cannot address questions of ultimate meaning that lie beyond the reach of empirical inquiry. Mythos and logos must be respected as having separate roles if a society is to function. Mythos cannot be turned into logos. Attempts to distill mythos down to a logical conclusion result in a distorted religious reality that bypasses tolerant, inclusive and compassionate teachings in favour of defensive, fear based policies that create an 'us and them' scenario.
• Modernity has been both beneficial and cruel to humanity. This is particularly true for the developing world who experienced Western culture as invasive, imperialistic and alien. As a result it is not unexpected that groups will use 'modernity', 'the West' or whoever as 'the other' by which they define and justify their own practices.
• Suppression of free will and coercion are not answers to fundamentalism. They lead to backlashes that make potential fundamentalists even more extreme. The desire to create fundamentalist enclaves is based out of a terror of extinction that has made all fundamentalists believe, at one point or another, that secularists are going to wipe them out. This terror is very real and needs to be understood and addressed.

Karen Armstrong stands by her claim that compassion should remain the core of all religions and that once people start acting in a way that compromises this vision then they are no longer acting according to God's will. Unfortunately it is this ability for individuals, groups, and nations to create their own scale of good and evil that allows for the justification of even the most atrocious actions.