Customer Reviews

One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism.

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Rodney Stark has done much to dispel my natural-science prejudices against sociology with this very well-written book about something that many, if not most, Americans take for granted: monotheism.

Stark goes over all the basics: why people choose a faith, the nature of monotheism as opposed to polytheism, and the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The historical perspectives are particularly handy in these troubled times, as Stark is particularly interested in why religious violence breaks out. Accounts of interfaith violence have been particularly in the foreground of our consciousness with several books on Catholicism (especially the papacy) and anti-Semitism, and above all, the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Much ink has been spent deciphering the relationship with Islam proper and fundamentalism, and this book should give people some much-needed perspective on this haunting, vital question. Moreover, Stark devotes an entire chapter to contemporary trends in monotheistic faiths and their relationships not only with each other but also with the secular elite in America--Stark's honesty and humor in treating this touchy subject was a real treat to read.

My main beef with Stark is his portrayal of religious conversion as a rational, economic decision. He lays it out in Chapter 1: people worship a God because they think that deity will bring good things to them. Now, I'm all for intercessory prayer and getting divine help, but when I've seen genuine converts, they convert because they decide that a faith is true and that they love God and want to know him better. I don't think any religion worth its salt would look well on someone who just wanted to buy off God with some worship in order to get some help in return.

Despite this faulty view of religious conversion, I think Stark is a very honest, very engaging writer with a very important story to tell. He engages all the examined faiths in this book with great respect and empathy, which I find a rare commodity these days. This book is highly recommended.

The reviews of this book below are pretty varied: intelligent readers complain that Stark is trying to use sociology to undermine religion, and to prop it up; that he is a "self-styled agnostic," and that he doesn't back up his faith in God (if that's what you want, read my book, Jesus and the Religions of Man!); that he despises post-modernism but gives in to it, and even that he tries to prove a point that the reader agrees with!

You can't satisfy everyone.

Personally, I found this book enjoyable and thought-provoking, though I didn't agree with every point, either.

Stark thinks for himself. He presents the facts in fresh perspective, offers serious arguments, and lets the chips fall on both sides of the page. You must be doing something interesting when you get criticized as an unbeliever by believers, and as a believer by unbelievers.

Stark's thesis is that belief in "One True God" has sociological effects different from belief in many gods or no gods. Monotheism created the cultural solidarity of the Jews that allowed them to survive as a people. (As long as they retained that faith.) Christianity spread during the early centuries through the social networks of ordinary believers. Professional missionaries, Stark argues, are not much use. (This is a good book for missionaries, by the way.) After the Roman empire became officially Christian, the effort to convert Europeans stalled; Stark doubts if the mass of Europeans ever did become orthodox Christians. Given the nature of monotheism, he thinks conflict between Muslims and Christians was inevitable: "It is precisely God as a conscious, responsive, good supreme being of infinite scope -- who prompts awareness of idolatry, false Gods, and heretical religions." This argument seems somewhat in conflict with his claim that Medieval Europeans were not really that Christian. But it could be argued that even a vague theism lent Europe the solidarity by which to resist Islam, that India for example lacked.

Stark argues that persecution of Jews by Christians and Muslims came during times of stress from "significant (outside) threats." I found this one of his most interesting, and convincing, arguments. Given similar attacks on minorities in Asia, though, I think the phenomena might also be given a broader sociological explanation, such as Rene Girard's theory of scape-goating. It would be interesting to try to fit the two theories together, somehow. Also, to what degree might the three Western monotheisms resemble one another simply because they have interacted, rather than because of their common believe in God?

Stark also offers an intriguing explanation of the general tolerance of American society, which he thinks is stronger among believers than among secularists.

In effect, Stark dares to challenge the great religious dogma of our day, that all religions are basically the same, whether equally good, bad, or useful. (To paraphrase Gibbon.) Stark argues that, for better AND for worse, faiths are not equal. While at some points, he may overlook sociological or psychological similarities that creep into every community of like-minded persons, I think he is right that different world views do make different worlds. His argument may need to be both narrowed and expanded, at different points. Theisms do share some qualities, but in other regards, Confucianism (which can also be a form of theism, BTW) may seem more like Christianity, and Islam more like Marxism or Mormonism. Those characteristics, I might argue, have in part to do with the personalities and actions of their founders.

While I might be inclined to tweak some of his theories a bit, Stark's books constitute a thought-provoking, open-minded starting point for considering how Judeo-Christian faith helped form the peculiar world that we inhabit.

One True God: Historical consequences of Monotheism
Rodney Stark

Oftentimes i find myself very directed in my reading, the last few years have been such a time. I found what is vol 2 of this set For the Glory of God first, as a result of recommendations to read simply one chapter out of it. This book is vol 1 of the set, and now i found that i bought yet another book by Stark The Rise of Christianity, thus moving into the other systematic way of reading, not by topic but by author. And this author has earned such a task, he is witty, interesting and more important presents these big important ideas and defends them with flair.

His big idea is the exchange relationship as a sociological way of looking at religions. The book assumes this and moves on to showing the results of such thinking. The first is that some types of Gods work better as exchange partners, powerful, larger scope(not a local deity, bound to a particular piece of land), a personal Being not an intellectual essence. This is essentially chapter 1- "God's Nature". The subtopic is the inevitable dualism that most answers to the question of theodicy requires, that is blaming the presence of evil in the universe on another less powerful god, devil, satan etc.

Chapter 2- "God's Chosen: Monotheism and Mission" is an analysis of inclusivity vs exclusivity, or universalism vs particularism and the missionary impulse. Aptly summed up in the phrase: "indeed the duty, to spread knowledge of the One True god: the duty to missionize in inherent in dualistic monotheism" pg 35 The analysis of the Church of Power and the Church of Piety and the Constantinian synthesis is worth the reading of the entire book, pg 59-77. It is these pages i would recommend reading to see if you would desire to read the whole book. Converting the masses vs converting the elite and powerful is in fact a great criticism of the church that bears understanding and prayful consideration as a very serious failing.

Chapter 3- "God's Wrath:Religious Conflict" is an analysis of one of the biggest items in history that atheists or secular people point to as a deep criticism of the Church and rightfully so. "But if monotheists believe there is only One True God, they have been unable to sustain One True Religion. Rather, from the start all of the major monotheisms have been prone to splinter into many True Religions that sometimes acknowlege one another's right ot coexist and sometimes don't. Hence internal and external conflict is inherent in particularistic religion." pg 117 He follows up by introducing the idea of the natural difference in the intensity of human committment to religions and how different groups supply a varying amount of requirements to match the person with the system he/she adheres to. This leads naturally into an informative analysis of how the Church as asked and relied upon the State to enforce conformity and why. The Constantinian synthesis with a sociological bent, nicely done. A good subtopic is how both internal and external tolerance are turned on together but external demands, in particular the battles with Islam via the Crusades.

Chapter 4- "God's Kingdom: Religious Persistence" is an analysis of Jewish assimilation and persistence, with an interested example of the Chinese Jews.
Chapter 5- "God's Grace: Pluralism and Civility" is a hopeful analysis and prescription for how to get along(civility) and the basis for such in true pluralism not the synthetic state enforced peace.

So i liked the book, i appreciate the author's writing, both style and creativity and hope that you do as well.

Stark goes right to the heart of religious intolerance. If our God is the one true God, those who worship other Gods are sadly mistaken and must be corrected. We can correct by persuasion or coercion. Missionaries choose persuasion. Countries which make it a capital offense to proselytize a religion other than the state religion choose coercion.

Stark studies the history of religious conflict and the conditions under which religious tolerance can flourish. Two powerful religions sharing the same turf will come into conflict. E.g. Northern Ireland (Protestant versus Catholic), Bosnia (Christian versus Muslim). Multiple religions sharing the same turf can hammer out a modus vivendi of living together with respect for one another. E.g. The United States, where the vast number of creeds and sects, from Amish to Zen Buddhist, live together, not only without trying to kill each other, but for the most part quite courteously.

He observes that, although American creeds practice courtesy, secularists do not, speaking in the most scurrilous and derogatory fashion about those who believe in God in general and Fundamentalists in particular. I'd like to see him write a book on the causes of such religious intolerance from those who have little or no religion.

Rodney Stark's "One True God" provides unusual and surprising insights from this University of Washington professor of sociology and comparative religion. Stark, who has a great command of his subject and of history, cuts his own trail and his viewpoints do not provide easy comfort for either mainstream secular humanism or traditionalist Christian conservatism.

Most surprisingly Stark reveals the largely unknown story of Adam Smith's role as a sociologist of religion. Smith was one of the first, maybe the first, to see value in religious pluralism, essentially a "competitive marketplace" of religions. Smith sees religious pluralism as promoting both civil order and an animated religious community. It is often forgotten that for centuries, even to convinced atheists like David Hume, that the idea of a "state monopoly religion" was seen as not only "normal" but as essential for civic order, even if they did not personally believe. The idea of a pluralism of faiths seemed as strange as the possibility of competitive currencies or competitive legal systems within the one state seems to moderns.

Stark applies his Smithian analysis to the various stages in western history from ancient Rome, medieval Spain to 19th century New York. On the way he challenges and dethrones many sacred cows. For example, he highlights the now politically incorrect episode of Muslim anti-semitism in Moorish Spain, the recurring episodes over the centuries of anti-semitism in southern Germany (mainly in areas where the Church hierarchy was weak), the myth that Judaism was "not a missionary church" and how state support of religion, whether by Emperor Constantine or medieval lords, generally led to weak, lazy and time serving clergies. Stark argues that the characterisation of medieval times as an 'age of faith' is a major exaggeration. The political and social elites may have been converted but the medieval masses, including much of the clergy, were woefully ignorant of formal Church doctrine, in short, the masses were almost functionally pagan.

Stark examines modern religious belief in America and finds myths to bust here as well. Interestingly both the North-east and the South are about as "irreligious" as each other when measures such as Church attendance are examined. Stark sees "the myth of the Bible Belt" as built on faulty historical analysis. In the urban north east competition between protestants, catholics and jews meant that a de facto public agreement not to air the sharp edges of religious disagreement in public evolved. The civic culture still called on God but only in the vaguest and broadest of terms. A similar process developed in the South, but here the catholic and jewish elements were absent, so the civic culture draws on protestant commonalities only leading to a result that seems particular and peculiar to those from other regions. More controversially Stark also finds modern urban secularists to be among the most religiously intolerant groups in the community.

"One True God" is just one part of a wider body of work from Stark. A fascinating study that is sure to be thought provoking and controversial.

This is Stark at his best! Very well researched and meticulously argued, this book is an intriguing exploration into the impact of monotheism on Western culture.

Two comments of his, one about Hinduism and one about Buddhism's fate in India, will illustrate these two points.

Calling Hinduism monotheistic is pure bullheaded willfulness, shoehorning to fit a preconceived theory. THe further south/nonAryan one goes in India, the dichotomy between the normally feminine household/village deities and the "received Hindu hierarchy" alone shows just how wrong this is.

The idea that Buddhism died out in India because it was too intellectual and did not offer a satisfying deity ignores several facts.

First is the Mahayana/Theravada division of Buddhism, developing in and around India long before Buddhism lost its position at the top in India. The division arguably weakened Buddhism in the face of a resurgant Hinduism, not to mention showing the metaphysical diversity of Buddhism already arising..

Which leads to the fact that Stark ignores a resurgent, indeed reformed, Hinduism as the primary reason Buddhism did not remain in India. Given the amount of pages he has written on Christian history, he should have easily seen analogies to the Catholic Counter-Reformation, but either failed to or chose not to.

Remember, or know, two simple facts about Stark before you read any of his books.

1. His academic training is as a sociologist; he is neither a trained historian nor a trained scholar of comparative religion.

2. When he leaves his academic speciality, he invariably makes some sort of right turn straight into evangelical Christian apologetics. (He now teaches at Baylor.) Every book he has written has at least some degree of that stamped on it.

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 was not only thoughtful but unbiased in his approach. 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 subject

Stark's account of monotheism reads as if it could've been written in the 18th century, when the newly born Enlightenment mind was energetic and crowingly confident in its ability to demystify religion. It has an air of no-nonsense social science analysis about it. Unfortunately, it also has an air of extreme naivete.

Stark takes as his subject matter the social consequences of monotheistic religion, claiming that the issue of whether God actually exists is unimportant and undiscoverable. His basic conclusions are two: (1) people gravitate toward religion because it promises them something they want--one might call this a "consumer mentality," although Stark himself doesn't use such a label; and (2) monotheistic religions, insofar as each of them claims to be the exclusive sellers of what people want, necessarily breed intolerance.

The problem is that neither of these claims really stand up as straight as Stark wants them to. Surely, for example, there are many reasons why people accept religious beliefs. Some of them may be as crassly consumerist as Stark maintains, but others aren't. Many people gravitate toward religious belief out of a sheer sense of wonderment, or love, or joy. these motives don't fit nicely into Stark's gameplan, and had he even a passing acquaintance with spiritual autobiographies or the tradition of mystical literature in the three Abrahamic religions, he'd have known this. Moreover, if one questions his claim that the draw of monotheistic religions is primarily giving people what they want, then his claim that the traditions are necessarily intolerant because competing against one another likewise becomes problematic.

Stark, a self-styled agnostic, argues that his agnosticism allows him to look upon the phenomenon of religion objectively. One wonders, however. It's clear that the underlying text throughout *One True God* is the old Enlightenment assumption that religious monotheists are either incredibly irrational or selfish or frightened. And in an enlightened world in which everything is perfectly explicable in terms of social analysis, how can one take such religious worldviews seriously?

A sociologist who offers much more reflective accounts of religion is Peter Berger. Read Stark if you wish, but then turn to Berger.

The problem is that Stark seems to have begun with an assumption,'Religion thrives in a free-market, pluralistic society,' and then spent the rest of the book trying to support it, rather than letting the research take him to the its conclusion. Actually, I quite agree with him, and I say we should all thank God - literally - for two great oceans and forefathers of rather dicey faith. But there are no revelations here, like there were in "The Churching of America," and "The Early Christian Church." If there is anything you can take away with from this book, it is this: we as Americans really ARE different. I know that human nature is universally the same, but for whatever reason, we just don't see the world the way other poeples do. Whatever our warts are, and we sure do have them, they pale in comparison to Rhine residents roasting Jews alive, Crusaders reveling in infants impaled on their spears, Muslim warriors slaughtering whole towns of "infidels." There are a lot of pious people in Hell, wondering how they got there.