Though most Americans take for granted that the crimes of September 11th were committed in the name of Allah, few have more than a cursory understanding of the Islamic religion itself, not to mention its long and complicated relationship with Western Christianity. And yet, if we are to make intelligent decisions, such understanding is crucial. This makes such excellent books as Karen Armstrong’s A History of God invaluable.
Armstrong is a world authority on the great monotheisms that originated in the Levant: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Her splendid History of God is the only book available that provides a thorough, readable overview of the theological, cultural, and political histories of these three religious traditions. She remains deeply respectful of her subject and yet never shies away from taking a critical or controversial stance. Her chapters on Islam are particularly fascinating, as Armstrong is clearly enamored with the elegance of Islamic philosophy, the grandeur of Islamic culture, and the beauty of Islamic art.
Given the breadth of Armstrong’s knowledge of religious history, she is particularly well-qualified to comment on the current rise, in all corners of the world, of religious fundamentalism, which she characterizes as a misguided reaction to the spiritual emptiness of modern life. (Her recent book, The Battle for God, is one of the best on the topic.) She ends A History of God with the following warning and advice:
Human beings cannot endure emptiness and desolation; they will fill the vacuum by creating a new focus of meaning. The idols of fundamentalism are not good substitutes for God; if we are to create a vibrant new faith for the twenty-first century, we should, perhaps, ponder the history of God for some lessons and warnings.
That’s what Powell’s Books had to say about Karen Armstrong’s A History Of God. I highly recommend it. Not a completely unbiased account (her portrayal is more critical of Christianity), but it is one which will help you to understand, in an easy to read book.
Armstrong: “Human beings cannot endure emptiness and desolation; they will fill the vacuum by creating a new focus of meaning.”
It doesn’t necessarily follow that such a focus must be outside oneself, or mystical in nature.
“Spiritual emptiness” can and should be filled with a commitment to one’s own rational self-interest, with the highest moral purpose being nothing more and nothing less than the achievement of one’s own happiness. No ineffable faith or unquestioned external moral authority is required.
She hits it from all sides that the “Big Three” do across their histories – and that’s close to what some branches have believed in the past.
That’s not what I believe however, but that’s cool.
Is that’s Objectivism btw?
Well, there’s more than that to Objectivism, but your post mainly dealt with ethics, so that’s where I was arguing my point — that yes, man seeks a source of value, but that faith is not the only source available. So many ethical discussions assume that it is, and then go on in endless circles about which particular version is a “better” foundation for man’s life.
It’s like political debates between Democrats and Republicans, ignoring or waving away the possibility and validity of other parties, or even political views that eschew the party system completely.
The book covers those debates by covering the big three’s history.