Book Thoughts: God Is Not One

I finished Stephen Prothero’s God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run The World – and Why Their Differences Matter. Prothero gets at his subtitled thesis of his book in his introduction, where he toes the line between stating that religious tolerance is necessary but that religious pluralism is logically inconsistent. Whether that line exists, I think, is a very interesting question and something that I have continued to think about as I continue to read books of this more philosophical/theological bent recently. In part, Prothero asserts that not only is it inconsistent for a Christian to say that a man like Ghandi is going to heaven, its condescending, because ultimately it assumes that the Christian tradition is right (or at least in terms of the existence of heaven and the need for salvation), and Hinduism is truthfully wrong, even if it produces good people. My own example, how would devout Christians feel if a Muslim told them that Mother Theresa would be in their paradise, etc.?

Prothero’s thesis that there are irreconcilable doctrinal differences between the religions is well founded. Such realities make religious pluralism fairly implausible, and while Prothero doesn’t fully address the impact on the concept of religious tolerance, I think it has an effect on that as well. Do we tolerate (or give respect) to ideas that we believe to be fundamentally wrong about the nature of our existence? The nature of the divine? Whether there is sin? An afterlife? One or many or no Gods? Should we allow wrong ideas to exist? In every other knowledge seeking discipline, it is fairly standard to discard that which is proven to be untrue or unfounded, from biology and physics to history and psychology. Should the same be applied to religion, or do we create a permanent barrier between belief and knowledge (while knowing, that so much of what causes people to act is belief)? I find these to be tough but fascinating questions.

What follows through the remainder of the book are Prothero’s summaries of what he deems the eight major religions (the chapters are in order of what he considers the most impactful for the future – which will obviously lead to disagreements, but also some good reflection I think). His eight (in order) are: Islam, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Yoruba Religion, Judaism, and Daoism. As one can see from this list, Prothero has an expansive view on religion, and some of the more obscure definitely makes for interesting and informative reading. I found Prothero’s summary of each of these thought-systems to be articulate, understandable, and in-depth. For any one interested just in learning about the doctrines and tenets of faith of other religions, this is an excellent book. For those interested in having a resource to easily compare religious thought, to be able to flip back and forth and peruse decent end notes, it is also an excellent book. Overall, I was really impressed with the book and Prothero’s handling of the material.

There was only one drawback for me, and since it was at the end of the book, I suppose it has left a bitter taste. Prothero briefly discusses Atheism at the end of his book. I thought this would be interesting if he approached it in the same way he approached the religions in the book. But rather than solely taking the reporter approach (just providing the information), he editorialized. He focused (admittedly) on the New Atheists as they are frequently referred to (the big names of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) are their very aggressive and almost militant approach to refuting religion. I don’t think his criticisms are out of bounds, many of them are fair and I agree with some of them, but I thought it would have been better, and more in line with the rest of the book to discuss the variety that exists in Atheism. How easy it would have been to have sections not just discussing the New Atheism crowd and than a short story about a “friendly atheist,” but also some discussion about varying degrees of agnosticism and humanism, and the “creeds” and approaches these groups take to the big questions. After all, there is no “god” figure in Confucianism and most of Buddhism and lengthy discussions of their history and creed was provided. The same could have been done with Atheism. I believe it would have been better for Prothero to either discuss Atheism in the same way he did these other thought-systems, or to not have included the chapter at all. It truly felt out of place with the style and spirit of the rest of the book.

With that said, I still found the book to be very informative, and a worthy read for anyone interested in learning more about other faith systems.