Customer Reviews

For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

If I were going to pick ten "must read" books out of the two hundred or so I have reviewed for Amazon or in print, this brilliant work would be near the top. One of the others was Stanley Jaki's Savior of Science; Stark treats Christianity and science in far more detail and more convincingly than Jaki, and three related aspects of religious history just as well. Your education is not complete, and may be defective, until you have come to terms with Stark's arguments.

Stark makes four main arguments. First, faith in God leads to quarrelsomeness (what someone referred to as the "joy of sects") and to reformations. (Brilliantly contrasting the "Church of Power" and the "Church of Piety.") Stark has some very interesting insights deriving from Adam Smith about what happens when a religion has a monopoly, and what happens when (as in the US) there is a free market of spiritual ideas in effect. But he somehow manages to spin his sociological theories without impinging on individual human choice.

Second, Stark argues that faith in God encouraged Christians to invent science. Having read other books making the same claim, I think Stark's approach to this question is one of the best. Not only does he go over the development of technology in the so-called "Dark Ages," and show how the "Enlightenment" picture of Copernican era science is a myth, he studies 52 key early scientists, and shows that more than 60 % were "devout," while only 2 were skeptics. The critic below who asks why Christianity did not produce science in Russia did not read attentively: Stark argues that faith in God was a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the rise of science. Other factors were also involved. True, he does goes on quite a tangent (10-15 pages; but in a 400 + page book) on evolution. But even there, he finds some interesting things to say -- I didn't know the story of the debate between Huxley and Wilberforce was untrue, for example.

The third section of the book gives a detailed, and I think true, explanation of the witchhunts. "Anti-Semitic violence, persecution of heretics, and witch hunts were collateral results of conflicts between major religious forces" (ie, Islam and Christianity). I do not think this "denigrates" or "trivializes" the idea that witchhunting was an act of "social solidarity," as is claimed below; in fact Stark looks in detail at such community-level causes as well as the "big picture." (See the works of Rene Girard for fascinating insight on "scapegoating" in general, a concept that may help bridge Stark's approach and the "social solidarity" approach.) Stark also points out that the witch hunts claimed less than one in a hundred as many victims as often alleged, that it was not enlightenment figures, but inquisitors and a Jesuit, who first spoke against persecution of "witches," and that early Christians like Augustine thought belief in witches was pure superstition.

Finally, Stark shows how Christians put an end to slavery, beginning in the "Dark Ages." His discussion of this subject is more complete and detailed than any I have read. As with his treatment of science, he draws from a wide array of sources, and gives facts and figures when possible. (How much England paid to free the slaves, the percent of abolitionists who were pastors, and so on.) Along the way, Stark takes his favorite hobby-horses in the sociology of science out for a handsome trot across the landscape.

Finally, let me offer a rebuttal to recent critism. The previous reviewer complains of Stark's many errors. Unfortunately, the only example he gives (calling the Dao Dejing by the name of its author, Lao Zi) is not a mistake. I have a copy of the book on my shelf in Chinese with just that title; both titles are now used. Calling a philosophy book by the name of its author was standard in ancient China: the Zhuang Zi, Xun Zi, or Mencius.

Another critic (who may or may not have read the rest of the book) rants angrily against Stark's attempt to set the relationship between Christianity and persecution of witches in a more context. She calls it "the dumbest thing I ever heard." But contrary to what she seems to think, Stark does NOT say witches worship the devil, rather: "the concept of satanism was deduced by leading Church intellectuals." The critic also suggests we ask a modern witch. Good idea. Neo-pagan historian Jenny Gibbons has written an on-line article that admits, with embarrassment at such sensationalism in the New Age community, many of the very points Stark makes.

The "militant skeptic" below gives a fairer review, and may have caught Stark out in a minor error or two on a periferal subject. (I haven't read Libanios.) But I can find such micro-flubs in most books, even my own. In a book of this scope and detail, that is hardly reason to grade such a sweeping, and empirically tested, argument down. Stark often gets big facts I am aware of right where many or most writers get them wrong.

Contrary to what some seem to assume, this is not a text of apologetics. I recently saw Stark quoted by a skeptic, assuming he was one of their own. An honest arbitaire, like the Jesuits of Paraguay whose remarkable story Stark tells, may get it from both sides. Don't let niggling criticism dissuade you from reading this brilliant, essential, and deeply enlightening work.

author, Jesus and the Religions of Man

I got the book for the contents of chapter 4: "God's Justice: The Sin of Slavery", as a deliberate part of my directed self-study on the issue of the hermeneutics of slavery. After finishing the chapter i completed the rest of the book because of the author's persuasive and compelling writing and knowledge. Two important motifs stand out from the general arguments of the book. The first is the distinction of the "Church of Power" and the "Church of Piety", brought about by the unfortunate Constantinian synthesis that brought power, wealth, control and lots of conniving people into what had been a lowly, poor, unpowerful movement of aimed at righteous living, thus deforming everything it touched. This is the introduction, "Dimensions of the Supernatural". He has a well thought out, and interesting presentation of several related ideas: the level of commitment as indicative of not just what people are willing to put into an institution but what they expect to obtain from it, level of commitment as the psychological motor of reformation and sect-formation. This is the second great idea of the author's: The one true God of monotheism leads naturally to the idea of the one true faith as expressive of belief in this God, along with the level of commitment of individual's as determinative of where they lie on a continuum of interest/commitment. The more people demand of an institution that controls a monopoly on the belief system the more it either splits externally or reforms internally, depending on how the institution treats the rising commitment levels. This is chapter 1: "God's Truth: Inevitable Sects and Reformations", and apparently the author's first book, <u> the One True God</u>, which i ordered on the grounds of reading this one.

His research and argumentation is top-notch, for instance, in the section on comparing Islamic and Western slavery(in the Americas) he notes that roughly equal numbers of Africans where taken to both areas(7 million, pg 304). But where there are millions of the descendents of these slaves throughout the Americas, there exists few to none in the Islamic crescent from the Sudan through the old Ottoman empire, to India and ending with Indonesia. Such a simple yet compelling observation, indicative of much of the reasoning in the book, straightforward, interesting, and very persuasive.

I did not get what i came to read, that is an analysis of the arguments for and against slavery, but i got more than i expected, and interesting and awareness increasing book. If you are interested in getting a taste of the book before commiting to read it, i would start with the first dozen or so pages of chapter 2: "God's Handiwork: The Relgious Origins of Science." A very readable revisionist, debunking account of the rise of Western science and the relationship it had to Christian theology.

Stark, an influential sociologist of religion, might have chosen the title The Book of Debunkings III. Volumes one and two are his earlier The Rise of Christianity and One True God. The relentlessly contrarian, vigorously argued, and impressively documented argument is that scholars of the modern era have routinely discounted and distorted the role of religion, and of monotheism in particular, in world history. The present volume continues the argument under four headings: God's truth, God's handiwork, God's enemies, and God's justice. Belief in the unity of God's truth explains the reformations (plural) and formation of sects in Christian history. These things did not happen in classical polytheism or the "godless" spiritualities of the East for the same reason that science did not develop in those worlds. Belief in the truth that the creation is God's handiwork generated the scientific progress that began not in the eighteenth century but in medieval scholasticism. Stark's discussion of science includes a succinct and convincing critique of the dogmatic materialism propounded by prominent evolutionists. The third part, "God's enemies," treats the outbreak of witch-hunting, concentrated in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, which, contra conventional wisdom, resulted in thousands, not millions, of deaths of both men and women, and in which the Inquisition was typically a moderating influence. The belief in evil forces such as witchcraft, Stark contends, was the flip side of the unity of truth and commitment to reason, and was supported by Newton and many others revered by the Enlightenment. Witch-hunting was ended not by Enlightenment skepticism but by Christians protesting torture and other injustices entailed in the practice. Finally, "God's justice" explains why the near-universal institution of slavery was abolished under the influence of Christian morality, having been condemned by Christian thinkers and popes-sometimes with little effect upon temporal powers and slaveholders-for many centuries. (A major reason for slavery's survival in Islam, Stark says, is that Muhammad bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves.) On these and other questions, Stark's findings are sometimes so sympathetic to Catholicism that he early on makes a point of his not being a Roman Catholic. In a postscript titled "Gods, Rituals, and Social Science," Stark takes on a sociological tradition that, beginning with Durkheim, assumes that ritual rather than belief explains the influence of religion in society. Along the way, he also challenges Marxist and postmodern theorists with their sundry revisionisms that deny or relegate to epiphenomenal status the power of religion, notably of monotheism, in historical change. For the Glory of God, like the two earlier volumes, is an important book. It is immensely learned, consistently contentious, and filled with brilliant, if sometimes eccentric, insights. Its publication should create a furor, but that probably will not happen since the secularist prejudices it exposes are so deeply entrenched in the intellectual habits of modernity. Yet for those who are open to a very different interpretation of the development of Western Civilization-and the difference between the West and "the rest"-For the Glory of God is strongly recommended. This is from a First Things review.

In "Aristotle's Children" by Richard Rubenstein, we learned how the rediscovery of ancient wisdom, especially the writings of Aristotle, illuminated the Dark Ages despite the opposition of the Christian Church.

In "For the Glory of God" Stark posits that science was born in Christian Europe because of the Christian Religion, not in spite of it. He further asserts that the rediscovery of Classical wisdom impeded rather than enhanced the growth of Science.

"Aristotle's Children" argues that Islam's rejection of Aristotle led to scientific stagnation whereas the West's embracing Aristotle spurred scientific discovery. "For the Glory of God" stands for the proposition that, had the West rediscovered Aristotle too soon, Science might never have come to be. Science did not conquer Christianity, the Christian concept of God gave birth to Science. Read the book to see how this could be.

Stark says a number of other things which don't square with the conventional wisdom on religion. And he supports his assertions with sound evidence and sound argumentation.

This was a fascinating book. It is my first Sociology book, and while I hear Marxism still has a strong hold among Sociology professors, Stark does not present his data and theories filtered through that lens. In fact, he is rather critical of other sociological writings covering this period and topic, which may explain the negative reviews that say he is "way out of the sociological mainstream" - and more power to Stark as far as I am concerned.
"Monotheism" presents a riveting analysis of the sources of some of the odder behavior that our western civilization has produced, both our desired behaviors such as the abolition of slavery and advancement of true science as well as the embarrassing behavior of witch-hunts. He presents a well-supported theory of historical religion and its patterns that respects both religious details and religious believers (monotheist, polytheist, and atheist), which apparently sets him apart from colleagues who dismiss all things religious as irrelevant and seek the underlying economic factors for everything (which is the common Marxist pattern of analysis).
This book is easy to read, not too long, and I found it very enjoyable and very worth recommending. It also serves as a good reminder of the debt we owe previous generations and institutions for the freedoms we take for granted, and makes a strong case for the importance of freedom of religion and lawful religious expression as opposed to the removal of most or all religious expression through the elevation of any one "preferred" religion - be it a flavor of Protestant Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Atheism, or any of the other variety of beliefs present in our society.

Rodney Stark's book sets to establish the idea that Christianity led to religious as well as political reformations, increase in science, and the "end of slavery." I deliberately put the end of slavery in parenthesis because of the review below mine. The traditional notion of slavery has been essentially demolished (kidnapping someone from their homeland) and the below review axe to grind statements misses that important context that is axiomatic in the book and in Stark's writing. Stark reminds readers that Christian beliefs and practices logically and practically led to the end of slavery, while other belief systems did not (for example, it was not until 1965 that Saudi Arabia terminated slavery within its country).

Further, the rise of science really was sparked by many factors, but a leading this charge were Christian ideas and principles both from a Reformed idea and Catholic Natural Law. It is one of the reasons why Western Christian nations generally developed much faster in science, technology, and politics than the rest of the world. Further, science without a Christian moral vision as been dastardly (abortion, Nazi experiments, communist Russia, etc). Stark's appendix 2.1 shows the record of the most important Western scientists who built the foundation for our day and the list, not disputed by even historians over whelming shows that these men were themselves religious.

The book is well researched and written, and Stark is a first class academic (he used to be an agnostic if I remember correctly, but since he now teaches at Baylor, I assume he is at least a Christian in some form or another). His book reads well as a primer or intermediate text on the subject and a lay person can easily "get into the book" as well.

Whether you wish to attack Christianity or support it, you have to read this book. It provides detailed evidence leading to conclusions that will be surprise anyone raised and educated in the secular Western world.

Stark shows why Western Civilization really is God-given in important areas.

And along the way he manages to uncover how much Secular Historians and Sociologists have distorted, downplayed and dismissed the deep and fundamental positive Christian influence on History. Its astonishing to read how much nonsense and dishonesty there's been - and still are. Stark manages to tackle an enormous amounts of anti-Christian myths head on, not the least by actual checking the Historical sources.

The main point is to examine possible correlations between a belief in god/gods and sociological/cultural developments, and he succeeds admirably in this - against old theories like Durkheim and others who insisted that religion was about rituals only and that the actual content of the faith was irrelevant and silly anyway.

Stark is able to show - by using actual historical data - how the kind of God/gods one believe in - and the intensity of this belief - are significant variables in at least four areas:

First: When, where and what kind of reformations occur. Even if he insists (quite rightly) that any religious body which establishes a monopoly will lead to strife, that reformations are unavoidable, and never is blind to atrocities or negative aspect of neither Protestants nor Catholics, he shows in every chapter the necessity of Christianity for the modern world.

Second: The rise of Moderne Science (Stark shows a high correlation between belief in a rational God and a rational Creation on the emergence of science from about the fourteenth century, while other beliefs had a negative effect) is a direct outcome of a Christian view of the Universe. Even if that view was not a sufficient cause, it was a neccessary cause. And there's a lot of stuff on the antireligious rhetoric about the "war between Science and Religion" - there never was any such war, however many Christians, Atheists or others who do believe there was, or is trying to set up a war these days.

Without a passionate belief in God (and Jesus) there would be no Modern Science or (and this is his third point) Abolition of Slavery.

Stark's fourth conclusion is that the Church - contrary to a popular myth - even hindered and stopped Witch-hunts. That does not mean that the church not also was part of the reason that courts in the late fifteenth century (more than a thousand years after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire) started taking up such cases when realising that Non-Christian "magic" (herbs, hexes, wise women) in fact worked, and worked even better than Christian "magic" (prayers, relics etc), in an age of religious strife which reduced former tolerance of religious noncomformity.

What Stark does here is in fact to make some kind of sense of the craze, and to show that any country with a strong, central government (like in Spain, Portugal and Italy) managed to stop almost all cases before they went to court or to executions. While perhaps three quarters of the total number of withces executed (about 30 000 of 40 000) died in the autononymous German "Borderlands" along the Rhine river.

This book will become a classic of Modern Sociology of Religion, even if of course some of his findings may and should be questioned, as with all science. And no doubt it will lead to a lot of aggressive debate (and I guess, even more distortions, downplayings and dismissals, perhaps even in this review section), as it goes so directly against Political Correct History.

This was a very good read. Rodney Stark knows his material. He starts with a premise and builds upon it until you almost can't help but agree. He adds a lot of historical data to show that he did a lot of research to come to his conclusion. He gives a history of slavery that very few researchers ever cover. He was not only thoughtful but unbiased in his approach. He gives the opposing viewpoints even if he disagrees with them he tells why and adds the historical data to back up his disagreement. As an amature historian and theologian it was nice to see a non-Christian cover these subjects objectively. He puts blame where blame is due and resists the urge to scapegoat. The Christians who read this book will say "Wow, I never thought of it like that before." The non-Christians will be hard pressed to disagree. All in all, an excellent treatise on the subjects.

Stark challenges many historical "facts" with well-documented contrary views. These distortions live on, he concludes, primarily because they serve to maintain positions deemed politically/intellectually correct. Thankfully Stark is willing to resist that kind of correctness.
I read with amusement some of the critical reviews written by self-esteemed experts who thought they were ripping Stark's scholarship to shreds.