Karen Armstrong attempts four things in this book: to define "fundamentalism," write a history of what this "modern innovation" in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, explain how it relates to secularism, and promote her liberal, middle path between the two.

Armstrong is a fluent writer, though at times a bit too portentious.  The book is very detailed, touching on a lot of different sometimes obscure, sometimes important religious movements.

Her attempt to systematize that history is not a complete flop.  Certainly "modernity" has challenged theists around the world, and the attempt to group all these different people into one faction called "fundamentalism" has at least some superficial plausibility to it.

I found her argument unsatisfying on many levels, though.

* Armstrong makes much of the idea that ancient peoples were fond of two things, which she calls "mythos" and "logos," and that to take religions (mythos) as literally true (logos) is a modern mistake.  But surely this is nonsense.  It is patently clear that ancient Jews, Christians and Muslims often, or usually, took their essential beliefs quite literally, though of course the more philosophical believers found hidden, analogical meanings in Scripture as well.

As a psychological heuristic, this talk of "logos" and "mythos" may be well and good.  As a general description of how people think in different periods of time, poppycock.  Even Gibbon remarks that in ancient Rome, philosophers saw all religions as equally false, and the common people saw them all as equally true.

What Christianity accomplished (and this is clear if you read Paul's sermons in Acts carefully, especially in the context of Stoic, Cynic, and Peripatetic thought) was to join "mythos" and "logos" into one -- thus in John's words, "The Word Became Flesh, and dwelt among us."  So I think Armstrong is "fundamentally" in error in her reading of both mythos and logos.

* What is a "fundamentalist?"  Armstrong seems smitten by her own mythos here.  She wants to pretend that the core of every religion is compassion.  That may be the core of her religion, but quite evidently was not the heart of EVERY ancient religion.  And then she claims "fundamentalists" have, in fear of modernity, invented this novel reactionary religion that itself owes more to modernity than to whatever religion the fundamentalists claim to be following.

This is all very dubious.  Surely the most sensible definition of "fundamentalism" has to do with the "fundamentals" of a given religion.  And since every religion differs, that means there really is no such thing as a generic "fundamentalism."

I think what is really going on, is that universal literacy has allowed people of all religions to read their own sacred texts for themselves.  As a result, people around the world move from a traditional syncretism, to a more knowledgable faith derived from those texts, with help from interpreters.  But since religions differ in tone and style as well as theology, what you get as a result is more varied than a can of mixed nuts.

* Why does Armstrong ignore radical Hindu and Buddhist movements?  Christians, Muslims, and members of the lower castes have taken it on the chin in India of late.  Young Buddhists have also returned to their cores texts in the last generation or two, producing a Buddhism that is far more like that of Siddhartha Gautama than the traditional East Asian mish-mash.  (One interesting way to see the difference is to read the Dalai Lama's Autobiography, then that of his mother!)

* Armstrong says only 8 (9?) % of Americans self-identify as "fundamentalist."  Yet she persists in describing conservative Christians with this term.  On the other hand, she talks about "Christian Identity," without explaining what, if any, relationship it has with orthodox Christianity.  (Precious little.)  Would she talk about the Nation of Islam so loosely?  Given that "Christian Identity" is a flaky cult with little to no connection with the "fundamentals" of Christianity, her discussion of it here is both confused and confusing.

* She also says Timothy McVeigh was "influenced" by Christian Identity, but fails to point out that he apparently self-identified as an agnostic.

* Religions also tend to borrow from one another.  Liberalism can be described (again heuristically) as the blending of any religious tradition with the secular humanism currently popular among the intelligensia.  Thus Armstrong is also engaged in a form of myth-creation, telling a story to explain reality from within her chosen religious viewpoint.

* Armstrong has a soft spot for Islam, which she indulges by what appear to be cover-ups.  She knows (see History of Islam, where she admits this) that Mohammed murdered some 700 unarmed Jewish men who had been taken prisoner in a single day, for example.  So how can she pretend that the hostage-taking in Iran outrageously violated core Muslim teachings about how to care for hostages?

* As many reviewers note, Armstrong sometimes gets important facts wrong. She claims Muslims never persecuted Jews in Spain.  In fact, there were widespread massacres in 1066, 1090, and 1447-1460, at least -- as Stark argues in One True God, records seem to be incomplete.  She claims that 13,000 were killed by the Spanish Inquisition.  The true number of victims was some ten thousand less than that.

Much of her history is interesting; for me the book was worthwhile, overall.  But keep a few slices of cucumber or garlic by your side as you read it, to dip in the many grains of salt with which it is best taken.
Karen Armstrong attempts four things in this book: to define "fundamentalism," write a history of what this "modern innovation" in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, explain how it relates to secularism, and promote her liberal, middle path between the two. Armstrong is a fluent writer, though at times a bit too portentious. The book is very detailed, touching on a lot of different sometimes obscure, sometimes important religious movements. Her attempt to systematize that history is not a complete flop. Certainly "modernity" has challenged theists around the world, and the attempt to group all these different people into one faction called "fundamentalism" has at least some superficial plausibility to it. I found her argument unsatisfying on many levels, though. * Armstrong makes much of the idea that ancient peoples were fond of two things, which she calls "mythos" and "logos," and that to take religions (mythos) as literally true (logos) is a modern mistake. But surely this is nonsense. It is patently clear that ancient Jews, Christians and Muslims often, or usually, took their essential beliefs quite literally, though of course the more philosophical believers found hidden, analogical meanings in Scripture as well. As a psychological heuristic, this talk of "logos" and "mythos" may be well and good. As a general description of how people think in different periods of time, poppycock. Even Gibbon remarks that in ancient Rome, philosophers saw all religions as equally false, and the common people saw them all as equally true. What Christianity accomplished (and this is clear if you read Paul's sermons in Acts carefully, especially in the context of Stoic, Cynic, and Peripatetic thought) was to join "mythos" and "logos" into one -- thus in John's words, "The Word Became Flesh, and dwelt among us. "  So I think Armstrong is "fundamentally" in error in her reading of both mythos and logos. * What is a "fundamentalist? "  Armstrong seems smitten by her own mythos here. She wants to pretend that the core of every religion is compassion. That may be the core of her religion, but quite evidently was not the heart of EVERY ancient religion. And then she claims "fundamentalists" have, in fear of modernity, invented this novel reactionary religion that itself owes more to modernity than to whatever religion the fundamentalists claim to be following. This is all very dubious. Surely the most sensible definition of "fundamentalism" has to do with the "fundamentals" of a given religion. And since every religion differs, that means there really is no such thing as a generic "fundamentalism. "

I think what is really going on, is that universal literacy has allowed people of all religions to read their own sacred texts for themselves. As a result, people around the world move from a traditional syncretism, to a more knowledgable faith derived from those texts, with help from interpreters. But since religions differ in tone and style as well as theology, what you get as a result is more varied than a can of mixed nuts. * Why does Armstrong ignore radical Hindu and Buddhist movements? Christians, Muslims, and members of the lower castes have taken it on the chin in India of late. Young Buddhists have also returned to their cores texts in the last generation or two, producing a Buddhism that is far more like that of Siddhartha Gautama than the traditional East Asian mish-mash. (One interesting way to see the difference is to read the Dalai Lama's Autobiography, then that of his mother! )

* Armstrong says only 8 (9? ) % of Americans self-identify as "fundamentalist. "  Yet she persists in describing conservative Christians with this term. On the other hand, she talks about "Christian Identity," without explaining what, if any, relationship it has with orthodox Christianity. (Precious little. )  Would she talk about the Nation of Islam so loosely? Given that "Christian Identity" is a flaky cult with little to no connection with the "fundamentals" of Christianity, her discussion of it here is both confused and confusing. * She also says Timothy McVeigh was "influenced" by Christian Identity, but fails to point out that he apparently self-identified as an agnostic. * Religions also tend to borrow from one another. Liberalism can be described (again heuristically) as the blending of any religious tradition with the secular humanism currently popular among the intelligensia. Thus Armstrong is also engaged in a form of myth-creation, telling a story to explain reality from within her chosen religious viewpoint. * Armstrong has a soft spot for Islam, which she indulges by what appear to be cover-ups. She knows (see History of Islam, where she admits this) that Mohammed murdered some 700 unarmed Jewish men who had been taken prisoner in a single day, for example. So how can she pretend that the hostage-taking in Iran outrageously violated core Muslim teachings about how to care for hostages? * As many reviewers note, Armstrong sometimes gets important facts wrong. She claims Muslims never persecuted Jews in Spain. In fact, there were widespread massacres in 1066, 1090, and 1447-1460, at least -- as Stark argues in One True God, records seem to be incomplete. She claims that 13,000 were killed by the Spanish Inquisition. The true number of victims was some ten thousand less than that. Much of her history is interesting; for me the book was worthwhile, overall. But keep a few slices of cucumber or garlic by your side as you read it, to dip in the many grains of salt with which it is best taken.