{"id":14611,"date":"2022-04-22T17:45:02","date_gmt":"2022-04-23T00:45:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/?p=14611"},"modified":"2022-04-22T18:01:07","modified_gmt":"2022-04-23T01:01:07","slug":"stephen-prothero-god-is-not-one-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/2022\/04\/22\/stephen-prothero-god-is-not-one-2010\/","title":{"rendered":"Stephen Prothero, GOD IS NOT ONE (2010)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is a book I\u2019ve mentioned a couple times, having read portions of it over the years since it was published. Only last month did I read it all the way through.<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/protherogno.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/protherogno-257x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"257\" height=\"300\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Mixed review. The book makes some excellent points at the start, goes into a great deal of detail, perhaps too much, in the middle, and ends with a sniping chapter in which he is very angry and those he calls the \u201cangry New Atheists.\u201d The last sorta spoils the book. Prothero, I conclude, has faith in faith; it doesn\u2019t matter which faith a person might follow, but a person needs faith. As a way of self-examining the human condition. Not about what\u2019s really true.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>(It\u2019s as if someone wrote an admiring book about pseudoscience, marveling at the history and inventiveness and complexity of the theories of astrology, of alien abductions, of the flat earth, and including a chapter at the end in which he expressed Great Anger at those spoilsport scientists and rationalists who are out to ruin everyone\u2019s fun by pointing out that those pseudoscience, uh, aren\u2019t true.)<\/p>\n<p>Still, the book has some very good points to make, initially. I\u2019ll repeat some comments from one of my memoir essays (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/2020\/03\/18\/my-religious-upbringing-such-as-it-was\/\">here<\/a>):<\/p>\n<p>Prothero\u2019s 2010 book is to challenge the nostrum that all religions are more or less the same, that they all worship the same god. No, they\u2019re not, no they don\u2019t. His central observation is that all the major religions presume to identify some crucial problem that afflicts humanity, and offers a cure.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Christianity identifies the problem as sin; the cure is salvation.<\/li>\n<li>Islam thinks the problem is pride; the cure is submission.<\/li>\n<li>Confucianism identifies the problem is chaos; the solution is social order.<\/li>\n<li>Judaism identifies the problem as exile; the solution is to return to God.<\/li>\n<li>Buddhism identifies the problem as suffering; the solution is awakening.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This is a useful way to consider religion, because it establishes religion as an issue of human psychology, a need to fit the problems of the world into some cause-and-effect paradigm. Or problem-solution paradigm.<\/p>\n<p>I will summarize the 24-page introduction in some detail, since that\u2019s where the interesting points are made.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Since the counterculture in the 1960s, it\u2019s been fashionable to affirm that all religions are one, all beautiful and all true. No one says this of political of economic systems. Huston Smith [[ author of the popular mid-20<sup>th<\/sup>-century book THE WORLD\u2019S RELIGIONS, which I have a copy of; it\u2019s like an encyclopedia, with main sections remarkably like Prothero\u2019s ]] used the analogy of different paths up the same mountain. But religions do not even agree on the number of gods. Dalai Lama: the essential message is the same. Karen Armstrong: a common harmony of peace, love, and understanding. Of course the ethics of the religions do share similarities.<\/li>\n<li>But these sentiments are dangerous, disrespectful, and untrue. It\u2019s wishful thinking, driven by the rejection of the thinking that only one\u2019s own religion is true. The idea of a unity of religions is na\u00efve and dangerous, because it blinds us to the clashes of religions that threaten the world.<\/li>\n<li>Different religions have very different rituals and doctrines, that sometimes move adherents to fight and kill.<\/li>\n<li>We want to get along; we don\u2019t want to argue. The notion of religious tolerance admits that differences exist.<\/li>\n<li>Huston Smith\u2019s book sold 2 million copies, with its proclamation of the essential unity of all religions. He emphasized religions at their best. He struck a chord, in his time. The idea of religions as different paths up the same mountain was echoed in Huxley, Campbell, and recently Karen Armstrong and Bill Moyers. Others disagree, presuming that others are e.g. \u2018anonymous Christians.\u2019 But we need to understand religions for what they are.<\/li>\n<li>Sociologists may have felt religion was fading, but in general the world is furiously religious. You need to understand religion to understand the world, and its history \u2013 many examples, including 9\/11.<\/li>\n<li>The 21<sup>st<\/sup> century\u2019s \u2018new atheists\u2019 saw only the shared sins of religions. Yes, religion has done evil, but also inspired social movements and much great art.<\/li>\n<li>Author recalls how his students rejected Nazi interpretation of the Bible as not being \u2018real\u2019 Christians \u2013 just as some Muslims dismissed the 9\/11 perpetrators as not \u2018real\u2019 Muslims. [[ This is the https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/No_true_Scotsman \u00a0\u2018No True Scotsman\u2019 fallacy ]] So is religion toxic or tonic? Yes, and yes.<\/li>\n<li>We cannot understand politics, of America or India, without understanding the Bible, or Hinduism and Confucianism.<\/li>\n<li>The world\u2019s great religions share a starting point: that there is something wrong with the world. Examples. But they part in what to do about it: sin, suffering. And there are many variations, varieties of Christianity, of Islam. There is no one essence that all religions share, not even belief in a God.<\/li>\n<li>The world\u2019s religions are related, but like second cousins. Each religion includes a problem, a solution, a technique, and an exemplar.<\/li>\n<li>In <strong>Christianity<\/strong> the problem is sin, the solution salvation, the technique some combination of faith and good works, and the exemplars the saints.<\/li>\n<li>In <strong>Buddhism<\/strong> the problem is suffering, the solution or goal is nirvana; the technique is the Eightfold Path; and the exemplars includes the bodhisattvas\u2026<\/li>\n<li>This is a bit simplistic but helps to highlight the differences between religions.<\/li>\n<li>This book doesn\u2019t cover every religion of course. What does it mean to refer to religions as great? Not that they are necessarily good. So included are religions, for better or worse, that are widespread and weighty. The order here is by influence.<\/li>\n<li>Which is the greatest, then? Christianity in the US, certainly. But Islam comes in first in global impact and current growth. Muslims make no distinction between religious and ordinary life.<\/li>\n<li>Author intends to be careful but honest in discussing the various religions, restricting terms to the religions that acknowledge them, e.g. not every religion is about salvation or beliefs or rituals; Buddhists do not believe in sin. There\u2019s an analogy with sports, each sport pursuing different goals.<\/li>\n<li>Author thought he knew the answers to the big questions, until realizing he didn\u2019t even have the questions right. He lost the Christian faith of his youth and became a religious studies professor. The world\u2019s religions do not ask the same questions. They do ask after the human condition.<\/li>\n<li>Great is not necessarily good. How is greatness determined? Partly by numbers; also historical significance. And contemporary impact. Today, the two are Christianity and Islam.<\/li>\n<li>The Greatest Religion is Islam; it\u2019s growing, while Christianity is declining slightly. And Muslims have no public\/private distinction. It\u2019s more influential in the world\u2019s hot spots.<\/li>\n<li>Sports and Salvation. Author got advice about how to discuss religions. Their terms are distinct. They\u2019re not all about faith or believing. Nor is it about salvation; that\u2019s a Christian concept. Again, the sports analogy; different ones have different goals. So which of the Big Questions the religions ask should we be seeking? The usual big ones: what is god? What happens after we die? And so on. But it\u2019s not the answers, but the questions that matter. It\u2019s civically responsible to be religiously literate. All religions in some sense ask about the human condition.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The central some 300 pages of the book consists of eight chapters, about the \u2018major\u2019 religions, in order of the author\u2019s perceived order of importance: Islam, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Yoruba Religion, Judaism, and Daoism.<\/p>\n<p>I will not attempt to summarize these chapters; glosses on these religions\u2019 beliefs and histories are easily available. I will note some general observations, however.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>All of these religions change over time, giving way to political forces, splitting into sects for seemingly mundane reasons, often by force of personality of religious leaders who emphasize one aspect of belief over another. (You see this throughout Christianity, but it happens in other religions too.)<\/li>\n<li>As said above, some of these, the eastern religions, are more philosophies than belief-systems, especially Confucianism and Buddhism. But Buddhism became *more* like western religions, with its sudden identification of many gods (Buddhas), once they came into competition with western religions, via globalization as it was in the late 19<sup>th<\/sup> century.<\/li>\n<li>The Yoruba religion, which I\u2019d never heard of, is the if you like \u2018tribal\u2019 religion of West Africa and then the New World, especially Cuba and Brazil. It involves destiny and many gods, the author\u2019s summary sounding like an over-complicated fantasy novel. (Author mentions a fun fact: in the 1950s show \u201cI Love Lucy,\u201d Desi Arnaz\u2019s occasional pleas to \u201cBabaluaye\u201d was to one of the Yoruba gods.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Then the final Chapter 9, \u201cA Brief Coda on Atheism: The Way of Reason\u201d<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Atheism is not a great religion by this book\u2019s standard; it\u2019s for elites rather than ordinary folk. [[ Elites meaning intelligent and educated, apparently. But I agree with him! ]] Not influential, except maybe in western Europe. Still it\u2019s a venerable teaching tradition. Yet in the past decade there have been books about atheism. The writers can deny only the gods they know. [[ Nonsense; they dismiss the very idea of gods, and teacups ]] Their solution is to flush the poison of religion away. [[ And yet, this will never happen; human nature. ]]<\/li>\n<li>Some distinguish between strong and weak atheists, or between angry and friendly. The New Atheists are the angry type; aggressive and evangelical.<\/li>\n<li>[[ Why is this any worse than aggressive and evangelical Christians? I\u2019ve always wondered why these writers have been dismissed as \u201cangry\u201d; to me their writings and public speeches have much the same tone as a pseudo-science debunker, patiently trying to explain to someone why the world is *not* flat. ]]<\/li>\n<li>p320.4: \u201cIn decades past, western intellectuals honored a gentleman\u2019s agreement of sorts to keep their faith, or lack thereof, largely to themselves.&#8221; Then the US Religious Right came in the \u201870s, Muslims poured into Europe; and 9\/11. These led to public debate, with the \u201cwrecking-ball\u201d atheists questioning the very idea of religious tolerance.<\/li>\n<li>Critics responded about dividing the world into good and bad. The Atheists are as fundamentalist as those they criticize, as if the evidence for their side is obvious. [[ It is. ]]<\/li>\n<li>Most atheists would resist being called religious; but recall the French Revolution. It depends what we mean by religion. How does it stack up against the four c\u2019s: creed, cultus, codes, communities? Michael Onfray disputes ethical codes of the other atheists. There are a few communities, like summer camps. But Onfray still finds the stench of religion among many. Perhaps humans are religious by nature. If the problem is religion, the solution may be religious too.<\/li>\n<li>Most atheists are no more hardcore than most religious people. Examples: \u201cFriendly Atheist\u201d; William Lobdell; Julia Sweeney; others. Some want religion done away with; some want mutual tolerance. It\u2019s now at a crossroads. A \u2018new\u2019 new Atheism may be emerging, less angry and friendlier.<\/li>\n<li>[[ Error: He cites the website \u201cFriendly Atheist\u2019 (recently folded in to the OnlySky site (<a href=\"https:\/\/onlysky.media\/\">https:\/\/onlysky.media\/<\/a>)), as if its title means something different than the stance of the \u201cnew atheists.\u201d In fact, its author Hemant Mehta is as derisive about day to day examples of the irrationality of faith \u2013 especially the many right-wing evangelists and \u201cprophets\u201d \u2013 as any of the \u201cnew atheist\u201d authors of the 2000s. Prothero clearly hasn\u2019t read the site. ]]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This chapter has references to a fifth \u201cNew Atheist,\u201d Michael Onfray, a French writer of many books, only one or two of which have been translated into English. Notably Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam published in English in 2007. Yet another book I\u2019ve had on my shelves for years, and last month, just after reading this Prothero book, finally read. About that in future post.<\/p>\n<p>Prothero\u2019s final Conclusion:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The worlds religion do converge at points. All adherents are humans with human bodies and failings. It\u2019s up to each of us to find our own gate, out of Dao\u2019s ten thousand. New Atheists see all religions as the same idiocy; philosophers see them as the same truth. (He\u2019s lumping Dawkins and Huston Smith into the same group that doesn\u2019t understand the truths author sees.) Both don\u2019t see the diversity. Yet there are those of all stripes who see rival religions as dangerous, and justifying war.<\/li>\n<li>Author hopes for a world in which everyone gets along with their religious rivals. Start by understanding their differences. A new inter-faith dialogue.<\/li>\n<li>There were two ways to talk about religion: one to take them at face value; the other to discuss them secularly. Like art history vs making art. So we need religious literacy. [[ The answer he doesn\u2019t see is understanding religion for the functions it serves, and not as literal rival cosmologies, but as a product of evolution. P337 ]] We need literacy as this book has tried to lay out. But we need more. More of the second way of talking about religion. Not like the blind men examining the elephant. We need to realize it\u2019s about the limitations of human knowledge. We need the reminder that we should be humbled, that any god must know more than us about the things that matter most.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is a book I\u2019ve mentioned a couple times, having read portions of it over the years since it was published. Only last month did I read it all the way through. Mixed review. The book makes some excellent points &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/2022\/04\/22\/stephen-prothero-god-is-not-one-2010\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-book-notes","category-religion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14611","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14611"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14611\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14618,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14611\/revisions\/14618"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}