God Is Not One

DWill · Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:12 am

I'm getting around to reading a book I got for Christmas last year, called God Is Not One, by Stephen Prothero, a religion prof at Boston University. I know some members here have said they're sick to death of the religion topic, so they can push 'delete.' But the difference between Prothero's book and any others we've read or discussed here is that the book is about the major religions, seven of them. The author himself says that he "lost the Christian faith of my youth," but this doesn't keep him from being a big advocate of religious literacy, and he would say that if we're going to talk either for or against religion, we should know whereof we speak.

I agree with him on that, but my interest is more general. Religion is so much a part of the human mind--taking humans in the aggregate--that I want to be informed about it. My general view of religion is still that it, and God, are products of consciousness, but if we're dealing with illusion, we're dealing with an important one. Prothero doesn't give those of us who would like to see religion wither, much hope that this is likely to happen, no matter how technologically developed we become. Religion continues to grow worldwide.

The title points to Prothero's contention that many, including atheists, speak of religion as a generality, tending to blur distinctions between its various types. They say that religious beliefs are pretty much the same across the board, when you get down to it. The religions all have similar ethical bases; God is just God, so there's really nothing to argue about and it's silly that people with different religions can't get along. But Prothero says this is a myth, unfortunately, and that religious differences can't be papered over, reflecting as they do deep differences in world views. For all that, though, he also says that it's mistake to think that religion is all about beliefs and faith; mostly, it's about doing and experiencing. The exception to that statement is--surprise--Christianity, which has always placed a strong (and I would say peculiar) emphasis on doctrine.

If anyone has read, or wants to read, this book, I'd be happy to talk about it with you.

heledd · Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:20 am

That sounds interesting. I'm an aetheist myself, but do get a little upset when people are mocked for their beliefs, and told they are not logical. Do you think there is room on this site for people to discuss religious outlooks and literature without it ending up as an argument between believers and non believers? I suppose it would be impossible to control.

DWill · Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:36 am


	heledd wrote: That sounds interesting. I'm an aetheist myself, but do get a little upset when people are mocked for their beliefs, and told they are not logical. Do you think there is room on this site for people to discuss religious outlooks and literature without it ending up as an argument between believers and non believers? I suppose it would be impossible to control.

That's the question of the day. As far as I know, we haven't gotten into the particulars of any religions except to either attack or defend them (only Christianity as well). My guess, though, is that real discusion would be possible. Some have expressed interest in astrology, for example, and in general people just let it go. Prothero's book would be a very good starting point. He's good at comparing and evaluating the religions and never just tells us what they believe as an encyclopedia would. I might suggest it for the nonfiction pick.

I think it's healthy to have an interest in minds that seem different from our own, and for me it's just natural to want to understand more about religious minds.

geo · Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:27 am

I read Karen Armstrong's book about Buddhism not very long ago. There's very little doctrine associated with Buddhism. It's all about worldview. It promotes meditation to achieve an elevated consciousness. There are some mystical associations with words like "higher consciousness" and "universe," but the emphasis is definitely more philosophical than Christianity, which seems concerned mostly with the promise of an afterlife. Anyway, it's a shame that Buddhism isn't more prevalent in our world. Here in the west at least such spiritual concerns have been usurped by material wealth. Our way of life has become unsustainable and, yet, we belittle and dismiss all faiths based on our limited understanding of them.

Robert Tulip · Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:53 pm


	heledd wrote: That sounds interesting. I'm an aetheist myself, but do get a little upset when people are mocked for their beliefs, and told they are not logical. Do you think there is room on this site for people to discuss religious outlooks and literature without it ending up as an argument between believers and non believers? I suppose it would be impossible to control.

Heledd, if you read through threads in this Belief, Religion and Philosophy section of Booktalk, you will find there is much discussion of religious outlooks and literature that is collegial, with people endeavoring to gain a mutual understanding. Of course, when the occasional true believer comes along who makes assertions that wildly conflict with evidence, we get an entertaining sparky debate which catches attention. But it is perfectly reasonable to ask people to be logical in their conversation. Having an interest in religious topics does not make one a believer. Some of our recent non-fiction selections, notably The Evolution of God by Robert Wright and Christ in Egypt by DM Murdock, have been by authors who seek to apply scientific standards of rigor to religious topics.

DWill · Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:25 pm


	geo wrote: I read Karen Armstrong's book about Buddhism not very long ago. There's very little doctrine associated with Buddhism. It's all about worldview. It promotes meditation to achieve an elevated consciousness. There are some mystical associations with words like "higher consciousness" and "universe," but the emphasis is definitely more philosophical than Christianity, which seems concerned mostly with the promise of an afterlife. Anyway, it's a shame that Buddhism isn't more prevalent in our world. Here in the west at least such spiritual concerns have been usurped by material wealth. Our way of life has become unsustainable and, yet, we belittle and dismiss all faiths based on our limited understanding of them.

This makes me think of the forms of Buddhism that are quite involved with the supernatural and superstition, if not with doctrine. It makes me wonder if other religions have this potential, too, I mean to lose the emphasis on the miraculous and on doctrine and go with the distinctive parts that remain. I think some Christians and Muslims, also notably Jews, actually do this with their religions. I'm not sure that what they have there can stand alone, though, as the type of Buddhism you speak about can. Of course, Robert has been attempting to show us how this can be achieved through Christianity. I haven't been able to see this as an attractive alternative. It seems to me that anything, to be applicable, needs to be pretty general and truly universal in that it doesn't insist on the content of any one tradition. Even to center on Christ as a metaphor seems too partial to me.

DWill · Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:09 am

Continuing a bit with Prothero, he has an essay on Confucianism, which even more than Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion, according to how we look at this matter in the West. China doesn't even classify it as a religion, though it is omnipresent there. Confucianism has never enjoyed a Western vogue, though, because of its association with ritual, ancestor veneration, and extreme social conservatism. Prothero talks it up, however, labeling it as a religion of secular humanism. He quotes a bit of scripture that sums up the Confucian attitude toward the divine:


	Quote: Chi-lu asked how the spirits of the dead and the gods should be served. The Master said, "You are not able even to serve man. How can you serve the spirits? " "May I ask about death?" "You do not understand even life. How can you understand death?"

I like that. Prothero also says that Confucians are likely to say they also are Buddhists or Daoists. There are three Great Teachings and none are exclusive. That is also enviable, compared to to the monotheistic notion of "my way or you're dead." Who knows, maybe the attitude in the East toward religion will help it more and more to dominate the world. Our moribund Western idea of the one true way might be an albatross.

geo · Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:54 am


	DWill wrote: This makes me think of the forms of Buddhism that are quite involved with the supernatural and superstition, if not with doctrine. It makes me wonder if other religions have this potential, too, I mean to lose the emphasis on the miraculous and on doctrine and go with the distinctive parts that remain. I think some Christians and Muslims, also notably Jews, actually do this with their religions. I'm not sure that what they have there can stand alone, though, as the type of Buddhism you speak about can. Of course, Robert has been attempting to show us how this can be achieved through Christianity. I haven't been able to see this as an attractive alternative. It seems to me that anything, to be applicable, needs to be pretty general and truly universal in that it doesn't insist on the content of any one tradition. Even to center on Christ as a metaphor seems too partial to me.

Armstrong may have downplayed various supernatural associations with Buddhism. She makes the point that Buddha himself rejected the idea that he was some sort of deity. He said that everyone can achieve higher consciousness and that it doesn't involve anything supernatural. I think it's natural for some people to want to veer off into more metaphysical and mystical terrain and that over time those supernatural elements will become a component of a movement's beliefs. What starts as philosophy or worldview will become more institutionalized and become a religion with various tenets and prescribed rituals.

Wright demonstrates in The Evolution of God how very flexible religious beliefs can be, but I have to agree with you that Christianity has been sullied by its own long history of scandal, abuse, and superstition that it's no longer salvageable. Robert's and Tat's ideas about astrotheism (where they intersect) are actually appealing until you start interweaving them with Christianity's traditions. I know that I have strong biases, but I just don't see much resemblance between the current state of Christianity and its more philosophical roots. And if you want to get back to those more rational and naturalistic roots, why involve Christianity at all?

Armstrong's book was not an easy read. Buddhism has its own metaphysical baggage and its difficult for the modern western reader to identify with pre-science attitudes and concepts about the nature of our existence. And, yet, I found its message of living a mindful and contemplative life and acceptance of death to be inspiring. Buddha, i think, was the original critical thinker.

DWill · Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:46 pm

Prothero talks about the more mystic side of Christianity, which today is hardly noticeable and probably hasn't ever been prominent. I think these mystics such as Meister Eckhart used the traditional theology much more creatively and non-literally, using it as a doorway to some kind of deeper apprehension of God. I don't really know much about all of that. But maybe a revival of it could be an opening for Christianity to develop. Regardless, millions and millions appear to prefer it more by the book (or Book), though Prothero also points out that the non-demominational megachurch movement is a movement away from the doctrinal complexities of the past. In a sense, and though no evangelicals would admit this, they are shifting towards greater secularism. Prothero is helpful in distinguishing between what we usually lump together: fundamentalists, evangelicals, and Pentecostals. He's a good guide to the landscape.

Robert Tulip · Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:22 pm

geo wrote:


	DWill wrote: This makes me think of the forms of Buddhism that are quite involved with the supernatural and superstition, if not with doctrine. It makes me wonder if other religions have this potential, too, I mean to lose the emphasis on the miraculous and on doctrine and go with the distinctive parts that remain. I think some Christians and Muslims, also notably Jews, actually do this with their religions. I'm not sure that what they have there can stand alone, though, as the type of Buddhism you speak about can. Of course, Robert has been attempting to show us how this can be achieved through Christianity. I haven't been able to see this as an attractive alternative. It seems to me that anything, to be applicable, needs to be pretty general and truly universal in that it doesn't insist on the content of any one tradition. Even to center on Christ as a metaphor seems too partial to me.

Religion is intrinsically doctrinal. However, in Buddhism, for example the Dhammapada, there is minimal allegory, in favor of focus on rational ethics. So yes, we should get away from doctrines that lack evidence, but no, we cannot have any discussion of spirituality without doctrine, which simply means teaching.

The metaphor of Christ is allegory for the connection between our planet and the universe. If there was another metaphor that served this purpose we could think about dispensing with Christ, but really, spirituality is entirely about making connections, so a spirituality without Christ misses the central question. The problem I have with Buddhism is that where Christianity calls for a transformation of our planet to accord with the direction of the cosmos, Buddhism sees suffering as inevitable, and the path of truth as an escape from suffering. By contrast, the Christian path of the cross confronts suffering directly and shows a way through.

In terms of a view that is "pretty general and truly universal in that it doesn't insist on the content of any one tradition", I agree that all Christian tradition should be up for critique, and we find that the invention of Christ in the Gospels is evidence of massive fraud, so suspicion is the right hermeneutic attitude. My view is simply that the origins of Christianity display an extremely deep wisdom about the nature of good and evil in our world. At the moment I am reading Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization (The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985, Volume 1), by Martin Bernal, a Professor at Cornell. He provides a systematic explanation of how racist imperialism has constructed myths which remain dominant in scholarship and media. Christianity originated in the close links between Egypt, Greece and Israel. Shifting our paradigm to understand the sociology of knowledge creates an entirely new and different understanding of Christianity. For example, Bernal points out that the precession of the equinox, a central theme I have discussed at length, was actually central to the formulation of Christianity as the new faith of the Age of Pisces. The implication is that we now need a new synthesis for the Age of Aquarius.


	Quote: Armstrong may have downplayed various supernatural associations with Buddhism. She makes the point that Buddha himself rejected the idea that he was some sort of deity. He said that everyone can achieve higher consciousness and that it doesn't involve anything supernatural. I think it's natural for some people to want to veer off into more metaphysical and mystical terrain and that over time those supernatural elements will become a component of a movement's beliefs. What starts as philosophy or worldview will become more institutionalized and become a religion with various tenets and prescribed rituals.

There is a pervasive scientific tendency to automatically associate metaphysics with the supernatural. However, within philosophy there are extensive traditions of natural metaphysics, which simply means logical analysis of themes that are not directly grounded in empirical observation. Any talk of rights, justice, goodness, love or beauty is metaphysics. Science is suspicious of such topics because of their tendency to veer off into dogma. But they cannot really be escaped = for example Einstein and Darwin saw the elegant grace and beauty of their theories before they did all the hard work to prove them. Dogma is a political pathology. All metaphysical claims should be rejected if they contradict evidence.


	Quote: Wright demonstrates in The Evolution of God how very flexible religious beliefs can be, but I have to agree with you that Christianity has been sullied by its own long history of scandal, abuse, and superstition that it's no longer salvageable. Robert's and Tat's ideas about astrotheism (where they intersect) are actually appealing until you start interweaving them with Christianity's traditions. I know that I have strong biases, but I just don't see much resemblance between the current state of Christianity and its more philosophical roots. And if you want to get back to those more rational and naturalistic roots, why involve Christianity at all?

Christianity is the dominant astrotheological system of the world. The cross derives from the four points of the compass, the dying-rising motif from the seasons, the fish from observation of the movement of the stars, the alpha and omega from the identification of Christ with the turning point of cosmic time, the tree of life from the zodiac, and the river of life from the Milky Way. All of this natural basis has been systematically suppressed by the dominant alienated supernatural dogma. As this dogma collapses in its own contradictions, the answer is not a loss of faith, but a re-basing of faith in cosmic observation. The original story is waiting there to catch us when we fall.


	Quote: Armstrong's book was not an easy read. Buddhism has its own metaphysical baggage and its difficult for the modern western reader to identify with pre-science attitudes and concepts about the nature of our existence. And, yet, I found its message of living a mindful and contemplative life and acceptance of death to be inspiring. Buddha, i think, was the original critical thinker.

Yes, Buddhism is rational. The summary acrostic for the eightfold noble path that I find helpful is "Use These Steps And Leave Everything Mara Causes." (Understanding, Thought, Speech, Action, Livelihood, Effort, Mindfulness, Concentration)

The trouble is that contemplative acceptance is a passive approach, whereas the problems of the world call for action.

DWill · Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:14 pm


	Robert Tulip wrote: The metaphor of Christ is allegory for the connection between our planet and the universe. If there was another metaphor that served this purpose we could think about dispensing with Christ, but really, spirituality is entirely about making connections, so a spirituality without Christ misses the central question. The problem I have with Buddhism is that where Christianity calls for a transformation of our planet to accord with the direction of the cosmos, Buddhism sees suffering as inevitable, and the path of truth as an escape from suffering. By contrast, the Christian path of the cross confronts suffering directly and shows a way through.

I have to disagree completely with you here, based on your assumption that there is something intrinsic in Christ that reason must recognize as compelling us toward the salvation you believe is needed. To have allegory, there must be an allegorizer, and it is that person's subjective understanding that is expressed in the allegory. The Buddhist could do something similar with his own materials, or in any event could certainly make a case that his way of looking might achieve the result you're after. But it's not going to be the reality, anyway, that religious transformation causes us to collectively come together to save the world. That is, simply put, a secular project that we need to view in concrete terms.

Robert Tulip · Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:23 pm


	DWill wrote: I have to disagree completely with you here, based on your assumption that there is something intrinsic in Christ that reason must recognize as compelling us toward the salvation you believe is needed.

I didn't mention salvation, because it is a term loaded with so much magical baggage. But if we consider it scientifically, it is a simple statement that we need to be saved from destruction.

To understand the place of Christ in this, it is valuable to ignore the cultural baggage and go back to the rational philosophy. "In the beginning was the Word", says John's Gospel. What this means is that the foundation of religion is an understanding of cosmic reason. Christology, the study of Christ, is the logical analysis of how the eternal logos of the universe can be incarnate in a particular man, how the two natures of the Christ of faith and the Jesus of Nazareth can be united in one person.

Most moderns find this language incomprehensible. However, if we consider it simply, for example against the statement in the Lord's Prayer, 'as in heaven so on earth', there is this idea that culture should be attuned to the universe. We see then that the archetypal symbol represented by Christ is the connection between earth and the cosmos.


	Quote: To have allegory, there must be an allegorizer, and it is that person's subjective understanding that is expressed in the allegory.

No, parables often have an agreed meaning. The seed cast on stony ground is allegory for teaching that meets an unreceptive heart. This is an objective meaning. We can similarly see objective allegory in the overall symbolism of Christ, which is no less true for not being understood by some believers. A prime example is the death and resurrection as allegory for the annual cycle of the sun.


	Quote: The Buddhist could do something similar with his own materials, or in any event could certainly make a case that his way of looking might achieve the result you're after. But it's not going to be the reality, anyway, that religious transformation causes us to collectively come together to save the world. That is, simply put, a secular project that we need to view in concrete terms.

These terms 'secular' and 'concrete' cover a lot of ground in brief. We have to start by looking at whether the world needs saving, what that might mean, how it might happen, and what are the constraints and obstacles. Religious delusion is a primary obstacle to salvation - for example with the insane creationist view that rapture involves escape from nature. Saving the world has to start from correct understanding and thought, with a rebasing of religious faith on evidence rather than fantasy. Merely secular and concrete approaches do not engage with the problem of false religion as a primary danger. Merely rejecting religion only entrenches it, whereas what is needed is reform.

To say that saving the world is a secular project is to neglect the central role of religion in social mobilisation. If it is true that basic cultural change is needed to sustain human life on our planet, then this inevitably has a major religious dimension.

realiz · Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:52 pm

DWill,
This book interests me and I have ordered it. It will probably be a couple weeks before I receive it.

DWill · Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:04 pm


	realiz wrote: DWill, This book interests me and I have ordered it. It will probably be a couple weeks before I receive it.

That's great. I think you'll find it enjoyable and also fairly quick reading. I haven't mentioned the "Brief Coda on Atheism," but Prothero comes out with a perspective that we haven't seen articulated quite so well before. Just let me know when you want to talk about the book!

LanDroid · Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:12 pm

I read (most of) this book a while back. Well done in that he explores broad territory, but manages to keep it very readable. (That may actually be a turn-off for some here that prefer dense reading.)

One illustration that stuck with me in showing how different the goals of the various religions are - he uses a sports analogy, comparing baseball, football, and tennis. Now consider how ridiculous the question "In which sport can I score the most runs?" This gives you a feel for the absurdity of statements like "Only Christianity leads to true salvation". Yes, because it's the only religion concerned with such matters.

Forum rules

God Is Not One Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!