babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 02 February 2002 09:07 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My Dad gave me Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God, for Christmas.
It is very interesting look at world history and world present, in terms of it’s religious movements. The mythos, in conjunction with logos or a more scientific logical way of thinking and how each one plays out into the soup of what we have today. It’s a real eye opener as well this book is accessible to readers such as myself that are in a constant state of sleep depravation. Not that it’s a simple read; the author presents the content in a way that makes me want to read on.
I wouldn't judge her writing by just reading the synopsis from the link above. She explains her statements in much greater detail in the book. Actually here is an interview with Armstrong atSalon.com

Dimensions: 480 Pages | ISBN: 0345391691 Published: January 2001 | Published by Ballantine

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Pimji ]


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 February 2002 10:45 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pimji, I found that synopsis very promising, and I hope that many people on this board will take the time to read it. It addresses so many of the topics we debate above -- better, it explains how so many of them are linked, interconnected.

There's one sentence (in her fast overview of Western European history) that I'd like one of the economics thinkers to explain to me:

quote:
Until then, all the great societies were based upon a surplus of agriculture and so were economically vulnerable; they soon found that they had grown beyond their limited resources.

I can't be reading that right, because to me those two statements read as contradictions of each other. Help?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 February 2002 04:00 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Off the cuff, it's because they then had to store their food and defend it from anybody who might want it without growing it or paying for it.

I could be totally wrong though....


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 04 February 2002 11:03 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
speaking of Karen Armstrong, i recently borrowed her biography of the Prophet Muhammad (salli-'llahu 'alayhi wa sallama) from Robart's (U of T main library), and some moron had scribbled his/her invective against Armstrong's views...and, on occasion, against Armstrong herself, calling her a "stupid woman" once or twice. the most pathetic bit was the unknown scribbler often referred to Armstrong in the second person(!!!) if people want to deliver monologues on such issues, fine, but i wish they'd do it without vandalising library books. it irked me so much i spent Friday night going at it with an eraser.

anyhow, if you plan on reading that book, it's a good introduction to the Prophet's life; she doesn't shy away from being critical, but she's never offensive. for Muslims who've read authoritative bios such as Ibn 'Ishaaq's, i think the meat of the book will be a bit of a bore (as it was for me) since there's nothing really new in there except for her opinions; if you're looking for specifically for the latter, you might have more fun with it.


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 08 February 2002 12:26 PM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
my book club read it, but most found it lacking - not in historical content, but in depth of analysis. Now, I was too busy to wade through it myself, and only read a couple of chapters. She's a bit overly fixated on her mythos vs logos theory, and it gets a bit tiresome.

Also, I would have liked some discussion of contemporary Catholic fundamentalism, but there was none


From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 08 February 2002 12:37 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
it irked me so much i spent Friday night going at it with an eraser.

At least he was courteous enough to write his comments in pencil, right?


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 08 February 2002 07:25 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
yeah, at least he didn't go through the book with a permanent marker.

actually, i find Armstrong's mythos/logos idea very useful--i think it helps provide all three monotheistic religions with a way to become more tolerant, and it's also very useful to critique certain texts via some version of it, i've found.

as for not finding it particularly deep, that's certainly understandable, since i don't think she meant it to be heavy. i think that it's a good intro to dealing with fundamentalism, and her mythos/logos framework is nicely suited to her relatively cursory account and analysis. but i think that it's also an invitation to the non-specialist--i.e., i think you're meant to feel unsatisfied, and hopefully the curiosity that you've built up will lead you to seek deeper studies and accounts, and the information you've gleaned from the book, will inform and facilitate your readings


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 08 February 2002 08:35 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I find the book captivating for a person such as myself who doesn't have much time nor has any religious upbringing or formal education. She really does skim over historical figures. This, is fine for me. I can always follow up in greater detail in other texts. The fact she does talk about mythos and logos I find most interesting. Mythos being intangible and not easy to quantify but touches matters relating directly to the human soul. Mythos proplells us. To strip away a persons spiritual way of being and forcing them to look at the bare cold relaities of life or to change sudden direction has always been at the root of much of the grief in our world. These are my views. I'm alwaysn open to revision. At the very least I'm willing to listen.
The person who gave me the book has been concentrating on religious fundimentalism and its and its manifestation into something very tangible and miserable in a world that is fully capable of providing a reasonable measure of peace.
I think to much time and energy is spent on discussing what we (humanity?) do instead of why we do what we do.

From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Just_A_Man
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2181

posted 10 February 2002 10:30 PM      Profile for Just_A_Man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until then, all the great societies were based upon a surplus of agriculture and so were economically vulnerable; they soon found that they had grown beyond their limited resources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't be reading that right, because to me those two statements read as contradictions of each other. Help?


I think it is saying that at one point there was too much food, so much that the population began to increase exponentially, and that the land and growing techniques that were by used could not sustain such population growth, although Im not sure what she means about economically vulnerable.


From: London, Ont | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 11 February 2002 08:42 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The stationary agricultual based societies were no match for the nomadic, highly mobile, herdsmen on horse back from the expanding Ottoman empire.
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca