I very much enjoyed Philip Novak's broad, informed introduction to his review of Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism, as well as the review itself. A few moments of introspection can confirm that one of the underlying causes of religious fundamentalism is a reaction to powerlessness and despair—compassionate insight shows that we all share this tendency to turn to a rigidified belief system under the forces of cultural disruption and long-term existential fear (although the direction and degree of our reaction can vary dramatically).

I was, however, surprised at his thought process as he gently dismisses atheist critics of religious belief and behavior in the introduction.

In response to their criticism of religion's "penchant for cosmic reference that has often undermined its ethical project," he cites "purely secular ideologies"—Stalinism and Maoism, although he included Nazism, which did have a definite religious element. Novak says they showed "one doesn't need God as an excuse to engage in massive carnage." But, of course, it was their "penchant for cosmic reference"—for the Communists offshoots, the proletarian paradise, for Nazism, the ideal of an Aryan destiny—that allowed them to destroy vast swaths of humanity. It was their commonality with religion that made them destructive, not their differences. It doesn't matter whether you speak the word "God" when you're killing.

Second, he counters the materialists' complaint of the "sheer implausibility" of a "morally attuned universe" with a materialist response: a call to anthropological statistics showing that there are a lot of believers. If you can't believe the numbers, what can you believe?

These cavils are about the thought process only and not about his conclusions, which I believe he still could have derived applying a bit more intellectual rigor.

One more thought. In concluding the review (which made me want to read the book immediately!), Novak writes that the book gives us a vantage point to see "that there exists a single planetary spiritual history of mankind, and that our own Islamic, Buddhist, Native American, Jewish, and Christian traditions are but strands in that single history." I found the list interesting in its apparent reference to North American religious "strands," those of the immigrants and those of the colonized peoples. But he omitted one other, huge group of colonized people—the Africans who were colonized and then transported, as slaves. Their Yoruba-based religious traditions, as well as animism and others, continue to inform, or even form the basis of, local culture for many North Americans.

Although these may have the flavor of "foreignness" to many Tricycle readers, as we talk and write—and act—we must allow them their own strands in the whole garment of our planetary spiritual consciousness.

Neil Hartbarger
Maryland, USA