Customer Reviews

God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(26)
3 star:		(20)
2 star:		(13)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

I loved Prothero's last book, "Religious Literacy," and found his argument spot on -- that while the U.S. is one of the most religious countries on earth, Americans know next to nothing about their own religions and even less about the religions of others. In his new book, Prothero takes the natural next step and offers approachable chapters on each of the eight "great religions"(plus a coda on atheism), giving readers a clear and interesting way in to traditions beyond their own (and maybe even offering an opportunity to learn something about their own religion along the way!).

Prothero's main premise in "God is Not One" is to go up against what he calls "Godthink" -- the popular view that all religions are one. This view is visible not only among multiculturalists who say all religions are equally beautiful and true but also among new atheists who say that all religions are equally dangerous and false. Neither of these dichotomies work in today's world, in which religion plays such a huge role. Knowledge is power, and this book informs us so that we can see the great religions as they really are, not just as we desire them to be. There can be a beauty in recognizing the differences even more than just the similarities.

No doubt this approach is controversial among partisans of Huston Smith and Christopher Hitchens alike, but for the rest of us, this book probably offers the best discussion of the world's religions available. Though an academic, Prothero writes for the general readership, gives us stories that make up the rich stuff within religions, and helps us make the connections between these ancient traditions and contemporary politics, economics, and culture. Who knew that the Chinese government is rapidly turning to Confucianism (as opposed to Marxism/Leninism) as its official state ideology?

Highly recommended for religious and irreligious people alike.

I'm feeling a little bit conflicted on this. On one hand, I've had Steve Prothero as a professor. He's extremely intelligent and completely engaging - more so than any other college professor I've come across. Great human being in person too. I found the book to be fair and well-researched, definitely a clear and worthy introduction to many major world religions. His unique method of introducing the problem/ solution that each religion offers is fantastic. Christianity addresses sin through salvation, Islam addresses pride through submission, etc. For its content, I think this should be the standard introduction to world religions for any high school or undergraduate course. There is never a dull moment and he draws fascinating parallels and brings in interesting anecdotes. Further, the Professor makes a very valid point. In our politically correct world, people try to underplay important differences in doctrine, ritual, and worldview and paint all religions as one. Forget about disparity between religions, huge differences exist within religions: the God of Abraham is very unlike the God of Moses or the God of Second Isaiah. This is where the Professor makes a valid and important point - these religions are not the same, so we need to stop pretending they are! Not only is it false, but it's intellectually demeaning.

Now, here's where the conflict comes in. I completely disagree with the entire premise of the book, that "God is not one." In fact, the unity of Godhead is the one thing that all religions seem to share. The very definition of God itself presupposes an all-inclusiveness; if there is a God, God MUST be one. In the same way that Christopher Hitchens took on Islam's phrase "Allahu Akbar" with his book "God is not great" - Professor Prothero here seems to take on the Jewish phrase "Jehovah Echad" with this book: "God is not one." I noticed Huston Smith's biographer posted a defense of the perennial philosophy on here, which is a philosophy I find myself subscribing to on a very deep level. I think the issue behind the conflict is that people often confuse religion and God. God exists independent of religion. God may be one, but there is no doubt that the religions that attempt to reach God are very very different. However, just because particular religions have different opinions about God, does not mean that they are speaking about separate gods. Each person I meet has different opinions and conclusions about me, but that does not mean that there are multiple versions of me. I am one person. We cannot dismiss God's unity simply because various folks approach deity in unique ways.

All religions talk about two realms, the heavens and earth, matter and spirit, prakriti and purusha, etc. To truly understand God as he/she is we need to approach it on the spiritual realm, not the material realm. All that religions and rituals and even words can possibly discuss are in the material world. They are just the finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself. As the Tao Te Ching says "The way that can be spoken of is not the constant way; the name that can be named is not the constant name." To the mystics, which were not deeply addressed in the book, there is a shared experience of a common underlying Reality because they reach God through the spiritual realms, not through material dogma, ritual, and myth. Jehovah and Vishnu are worlds apart, but the Kabbalistic Ain Soph and Vedantic Brahman are one in the same. So here, perhaps the better book title would have been "Religion is not One." Not as catchy, but perhaps more accurate.

Plus sides:
- Informative about major world religions
- Unbiased in portraying the good, bad, and ugly of various traditions
- Fun to read and not a dull moment, very engaging
- Great problem/ solution method - simple but not simplistic

Down sides:
- Focuses on mainstream religion, ignores the esoteric/ mystical paths
- Assumes religious differences mean God is not one

Recommendation:
Buy it. Even if you don't subscribe to the idea of "God is not one" - it will be a great and informative read, especially on lesser-known religions such as the Yoruba, Taoism, and Confucianism.

The initial premise is intriguing: Prothero want to disabuse us from the notion that all great religions are essentially the same--i.e., that Allah/God/Yahweh are just different names for the same deity, and "believers" are simply ascending different sides of the same mountain, but with the same ultimate goal).

The book does give a reasonably good overview of eight major religions, and I am thankful for some of his insights. For example, he discusses why a "Godless" religion (like Confucianism) deserves to be thought of as a religion and not just a systems of ethics. He also points out that someone can be deeply religious but in a quiet manner: A fire-and-brimstome evangelical preacher isn't necessarily *more* religious than, say, a quietly devoted Methodist.

But the book feels superficial. It reads like a professor giving an overview of religions for college freshmen, and wanting to keep it fun and fast paced: hoping to become their favorite professor. After each chapter, I found myself needing to turn to the Internet to read up on each religion for more information on the basic beliefs and practices of each.

Prothero writes in a chatty, "witty" tone which some may find charming, but I found annoying: as if he's worried the material will be too dry or too impenetrable for his audiences, so he funs-it-up and dumbs-it-down. Here are the first two sentences of the chapter on Buddhism:

"Buddhism begins with a fairy tale. Unlike Cinderella or Rocky, however, this is no underdog fantasy of someone who has nothing and gains the whole world."

Really? That's how we're going to begin an overview of Buddhism? And does he mean that Buddhism themselves think of the story of The Buddha as a fairy tale, or is that just his opinion?

The final chapter on atheism seems dashed off and dismissive. Take this sample sentence:

"After all, atheism is a religion of sorts, or can be. Many atheists are quite religious, holding their views about God with the conviction of zealots and evangelizing with verge."

After writing in depth about three non-theistic religions (Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism), it's odd that he then writes a "coda" about atheism at all, and then jumbles up theism and religion as analogous concepts.

He also tends to weigh the merits of each religion against his own personal experience, as if he's shopping for the best religion and trying to figure out which is the best fit. I feel like I know more about Stephen Prothero now than I do about the major religions.

In my opinion, the introduction is the best chapter in the book. I was glad to have a book written by a professor of religion, for (during some parts) it felt like I was actually in his class.

In the intro Mr. Prothero outlines four basic criteria for a religion: a problem (addressed), a solution, techniques (for achieving that solution), and exemplars (to use as guides). Every other book on religion that I had read had focused mainly on descriptions and explanations; this book begins with the premise that religions are not all the same in the end because they address different topics, see completely different "ultimate problems", and instruct their followers to do things to fix the problem that often clash with other religions. It gives you an easy to understand formula to apply to religion, and promises that based off this formula all religions are very different.

So far so good.

The chapters in this book cover:
1- Islam
2- Christianity
3- Confucianism
4- Hinduism
5- Buddhism
6- Yoruba
7- Judaism
8- Daoism
9- Atheism

After the first chapter I was left with a feeling of disappointment. Sadly, that feeling never really went away. Although the author refutes the "perennial philosophy" of prominent authors (to include Karen Armstrong and Huston Smith)that all religions are basically the same, he does little to include and prove his argument in each chapter. The topics he does cover are communicated brilliantly, but they offer little more that what is covered in books by authors he disagrees with.

I fully expected the author to apply his four point formula to the eight religions covered, and through the use of that formula prove to us that religions are NOT all different paths up the same mountain. After all, Islam's solution of submission to the problem of human pride is nothing at all like Christianity's solution of salvation to the problem of human sin or Confucianism's solution of social order to the problem of societal chaos, right?

If you've read Karen Armstrong's book "The History of God", then chapters 1, 2, and 7 in this book give you nothing new. If you've also read her "Case for God", then chapters 2 and 7 in this book will probably bore you. If you've read her "Islam", or Rezla Aslan's "There is no god but God", then chapter 1 here is just a re-hash. If you've read Robert Wright's "The Evolution of God", then chapters 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 here are useless to those who are looking for new information. I'm not here to plug Armstrong or Aslan or Wright; I'm simply pointing out that Mr. Prothero argues against most of their positions, then does almost nothing to back up his hypothesis.

Perhaps the best (and most useful) chapters in the book are the ones on Confucianism, Yoruba, and Daoism. I have not found another book on the Chinese religions that examines them in the way this one does, and if you go to your local bookstore you'd be hard-pressed to find a mainstream religious author that dares to travel farther east than Buddhism or farther into Africa than transplanted Islam. That being said, it seems silly to buy a book for only 27% of its content.

I'm not here to bash the book, insult the author, or downplay the importance of the basic message of the book. I do agree that not all religions are the same, nor are they taking us through different paths to the same end goal. I just really wish that Mr. Prothero had been more aggressive and forthright in his argument throughout the course of the book, rather than beginning with a spectacular introduction and following with what I've read over and over before.

This is an AMAZING book for people who want to start a collection on religious philosophy and need a good overarching text. For those of us who have a few years (and authors) under our belts, I recommend passing on this one.

God is NOT one! Not all religions are striving for the same thing! Religious tolerance has condensed all of religious ideology into one format, and it has wrongly assumed that we are all climbing some imaginary mountain but taking different paths. The trouble is that we aren't all striving for the same goal. We aren't taking different paths to the same end! We are climbing different mountains! Prothero acknowledges that religions are DIFFERENT. Hallelujah! If there is going to be understanding and cohabitation, we need to grasp the fundamental differences in our world views and in what we believe happens at the end of life. That has everything to do with how we live, and how we live alongside others. This is a well-written book with very few biases. Where Prothero has opinions he openly states his self-perceived biases. It's easy reading and well, well worth the time.

As Professor Prothero says, the book contains a summary of the eight religions that run the world. Very well done and well written. In telling us about the religions in descending order of
membership, we learn about the founding of each group and the views of the founders and the followers. Though Professor Prothero does not do it, the groups he discusses can be divided into
two groups. First we have those who believe in a God, a supernatural entity, creator, rule maker and enforcer. Second we have the groups based on a great teacher, leader, or thinker who had
and taught ideas that helped people deal with the mysteries and problems of life and death.
For those of us who have never been persuaded of what a supernatural rule maker might be, the second group offers more substance in dealing with the problems religion is supposed to help us with.
For anyone who wishes a learned discussion of these religions, Professor Prothero has given a well written and well thought out and well organized book.

Overall, I was pretty disappointed with this book - as it fails on a number of fronts, some vital to the intent of the book. Its basic and broadest aim is to provide a corrective to the sweeping, and therefore academically sloppy, generalizations made about the world's religious traditions' basic unity. However, though the author sets the stage for a radicle debunking of previous "all religions are one" hypotheses, the play itself never really gets going, so to speak. The author's interest in highlighting difference over similarity (a la J.Z. Smith) is indeed a laudable one, but he does not himself move meaningfully past generalizations about such difference.

Given that the author is trying so hard to move beyond the vague generalizations and essentializing of previous scholars he should have been more on guard in avoiding such scholarship himself. The way he classifies the world's religious traditions (Hinduism as "the way of devotion"; Buddhism as "the way of awakening"; Christianity as "the way of salvation" etc.) is both at times highly problematic and deeply ironic - for, though he is saying that all religions are NOT one, he is implying that Hinduism (e.g.), in all its great variety, is primarily about ONE thing, "devotion". Certainly, some headings are better than others, but the basic problem still exists and works to undermine his overall objective. There are also instances in which he uses anachronistic devices to "explain" religions - for instance, he uses the model of geologic layers to describe the rich religious history of Hinduism over time; but, such a model implies that each layer has its day and then is "overlain" or "replaced" by something new, thereby minimizing the potentially longer lasting effects of each layer and its true relevance to the tradition (this allows him to say that Hinduism is primarily about devotion etc.).

The book would have been infinitely more useful if the author had unpacked some key concepts a bit better and used the book as a true forum for getting at the heart of how the world's religions really differ on key issues. It is not enough to say, as Prothero does, that Christians believe in sin, but Buddhists do not. At face value this is an interesting claim that could take us somewhere profitable, but in the end we are left only with this blanket statement - he does not unpack how the concepts of "sin" and "karma" are different and how that difference directs religions like Christianity and Buddhism on different paths. THAT would have been useful and made the book much more educational. So too, rather than dismiss Buddhism as largely atheistic, why not look at the concept of deity in Buddhism and juxtapose it against Islam's (e.g)? Instead of engaging in such work, however, the book essentially amounts to a mediocre primer of the world's religious traditions. Though difference is indeed highlighted, which is admittedly a plus, the superficial and incomplete manner in which that difference was addressed disappointed me. The nature of the material and the intent of the author's critique require a much more serious treatment than the book provides. In the end, most of the real work is left up to the reader, he or she must connect the dots that the author did not. Now, it is certainly all well and good to ask the reader to think and ponder on their own, but the point of a book like this should be to lead the reader somewhere - not leave them hanging.

The writing style was also off-putting to me. The author attempted to make the book "popular" by employing a more casual and anecdotal style of writing - however, I found it to be patronizing (both to the reader and to the traditions discussed), thus negatively affecting the book's overall quality. Like a previous reviewer, I found the initial few sentences of the Buddhism section curious at best, if not insulting, "Buddhism begins with a fairy tale. Unlike Cinderella or Rocky, however, this is no underdog fantasy..." Could the author really not think of anything more intelligent to say in his first TWO sentences on Buddhism, but to link that tradition immediately with movies or popular culture? or dismiss the Buddha's early life as mere "fairy tale"? It all comes off as very flip and disrespectful.

Oh, and next time include Sikhism! If you have time to make a special point about how much you regret NOT including it, why not just include it and give the tradition its due attention? I'm willing to bet that the average reader is more likely to come into contact with a Sikh than a practitioner of Yoruba religion - thus making the former tradition worth including.

This is a thoughtful, thought provoking, and yes - even fun - follow up to Religious Literacy. Religious Literacy convinced me of the importance of understanding our world religions, and now this book has allowed me to do just that. I think this will be a useful, enjoyable read for just about anyone - students, academics, and people who just want to understand our complicated world better.

Professor Prothero pointed out very clearly in his previous book, "Religious Literacy", how lacking most of us are in our real understanding of religions, both our own and others. Happily, this book takes us on a wonderful journey through the "great religions" of the world in an interesting,knowledgeable and often fun manner. He is articulate and thought provoking without making one feel they are being lectured at or uninformed. Prothero speaks both of the similarities and the differences between all of these religions and makes us pause to consider all the possibilities they present us toward living and working in this multi-religious world.

We will each be ready and able to help find peaceful solutions to a great many of our world problems after first understanding what others believe and why.

This book is written for "everyone". I recommend "Read It".

LWBlanchard

Prothero's Chapter on Hinduism
I found his chapter to be ill-researched and he seemed to treat Hinduism very lightly; I felt he treated other faiths with reverence that he did not show while writing this chapter. He is factually wrong in many places. It would have been advisable to have at least one Hindu scholar read this chapter for accuracy. Let me corroborate my critique with some concrete points.
1.Translation of the gana on p. 133 as gang is highly objectionable and insulting.
2.On p. 137, while discussing aims of life, for kama he mischievously inserts a reference to Kama Sutra!
3.On p. 137, he totally confuses karma kanda of Vedas with Karma yoga clearly defined in Bhagvad Gita. The former deals with rituals while the latter deals with the actions: the choice action based on moral code, the quality of action and how one reacts to results of actions. In other words, Karma Yoga is about mental attitude and has little to do with rituals. Karma yoga is described as a way of acting, thinking and willing by which one orients oneself toward realization by acting in accordance with one's duty (dharma) without consideration of personal self-centered desires, likes or dislikes.
4.On p. 138 he says that Hinduism began over 2,500 years ago! Siddharth Gautam Buddha was born a Hindu in 563 BCE. So clearly Hinduism is not as young as 2,500 years.
5.Hinduism being layered based on geology, Aryan Migration theory and Indus Valley Civilization being a precursor to Hinduism is at best a disputed and outdated theory. The discovery that the river Saraswati (prominently mentioned in scriptures) dried up around 1,900 BCE, the migration of Aryans never being mentioned in the Vedas are some of the key pointers. The whole theory was based on flimsy grounds. Yet Prothero states that anyone who disputes this theory is right-wing Hindu nationalists!! It is widely believed that there is no timeline associated with the development of different yogas or paths to Moksha but these different paths have existed simultaneously as people with different aptitudes need different paths. This idea known as Adhikarbhed in Sanskrit is a very important hallmark of Hinduism as it is believed that on a spiritual path "one size fits all" is not workable. But according to Prothero, these paths were developed sequentially in the order: Karma yoga, Gnana Yoga and Bhakti Yoga! By the way he totally misses Raj Yoga (the path of meditation).
6.On p. 140 where he lists the names of Vedas, he misspells twice: Yahur instead of Yajur, Acharva in place of Atharva.
7.On p. 140, he strangely separates the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the Upanisads from the Vedas. It is well known that each Veda has four sections: Karma Kanda, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the Upanisads. In fact, because the Upanisads are the end portion of the Vedas, they are also known as Vedanta (end of the Vedas; also the aim of the Vedas). For each Upanisad we know which chapter of which Veda it is.
8.On p. 144, he compares different schools of thought (six darshanas; with 3 sub schools so totaling eight) of Hinduism to the historic sequence of three faiths of the family of Abraham. This is based his mistaken notion of time sequence attached to the six schools of thought. These have simultaneously existed and continual debates among these schools of thought go on even today (particularly three major schools of the Vedantic tradition: advaita, dvaita and vishishtadvaita).
9.On p. 145, he states that Hinduism now recognizes three aims (dharma, artha and kama) besides moksha... Hinduism has always recognized these four aims of life and not some strange historical sequence.
10.On p. 150, where he talks about devotional Hinduism, he has a strange twist that somehow this is connected with caste and gender. Note however, that Bhagvad Gita expounds upon all four paths (yogas): Bhakti, Karma, Gnana and Raja. It is true that in different periods of time different major personalities have come along emphasizing one of more of these paths. But this has been ongoing through eternity and not in any particular time sequence.
11.On p. 161, he says that Krishna was in disguise as Arjuna's charioteer. It was widely known and there was no disguise!
12.On p. 163, he is totally mistaken in that Rama had trust issue second time around with Sita. It was based on a citizen casting aspersions. This is actually a fascinating episode of a King having a dilemma regarding familial duty versus duty towards his citizens. Prothero clearly misunderstands.

In summary this is very poor scholarship.