Thousands of religious traditions have appeared over the course of human history but only a relative few have survived. Some speak of a myriad of gods, others of only one, and some recognize no gods at all. Volumes have been written attempting to prove the existence or non-existence of supernatural being(s). So, if religion is not about God, then what is it about? In this provocative book, Loyal Rue contends that religion, very basically, is about us. Successful religions are narrative (myth) traditions that influence human nature so that we might think, feel, and act in ways that are good for us, both individually and collectively. Through the use of images, symbols, and rituals, religion promotes reproductive fitness and survival through the facilitation of harmonious social relations. Drawing on examples from the major traditions-Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism-Rue shows how each religion, in its own way, has guided human behavior to advance the twin goals of personal fulfillment and social coherence. As all faiths are increasingly faced with a crisis of intellectual plausibility and moral relevance, this book presents a compelling and positive view of the centrality and meaning of religion. Loyal Rue, two-time Templeton Award winner, is a professor of philosophy and religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa.
| |||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
Loyal Rue has written a bold, scholarly, and gracefully composed discussion of the complex realtions between the concepts of God and religion. I learned a great deal from the rich tapestry of facts that filled the gaps in my understanding of the history of these ideas and believe that readers will enjoy a similar intellectual experience.
(Jerome Kagan research Professor of Psychology, Harvard University )
About the Author
Loyal Rue, two-time Templeton Award winner, is a professor of philosophy and religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
83 of 90 people found the following review helpful
By calmly
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
Almost half the book, a good part of Part 2, is devoted to explaining the gist of 5 major religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. For anyone interested in getting a good grasp of what any or all of these religions is about, I'd recommend this book for this benefit alone. Much of the chapter on Buddhism was superb: the difficult teaching of "no self" is explained as well as I've seen it presented anywhere. Similarly the heart of Islam seems well explained (in just a 27 page chapter): for anyone who doesn't appreciate the power of Islam, I'd strongly recommend this chapter. The other 3 religions are also presented with care and apparent respect.
I had, however, a number of problems with the book:
1. The presentation seems Pollyanna-ish, despite Rue's concerns at the end of book of the future of religion. For example, the chapter on Christianity doesn't mention early Christianity's persecution of Gnostic Christians and destruction of their literature, nor the Inquisition, nor the European wars between Protestants and Catholics, nor recent problems such as those in Northern Ireland. Rue's claim of "social coherence" as a key benefit of religions seems questionable, yet he seems not disposed to questioning it.
Rue claims the goals of "personal wholeness and social coherence" with only a brief warning that religious institutions might abuse their regulatory activity. B.F. Skinner devoted a chapter of "Science and Human Behavior" to the issues of religous control. Do Rue's appeals to human nature establish that a regard for "personal wholeness" is a key factor in religions? If it is a key factor, does he establish that the meaning of "personal wholeness" isn't often inappropriately manipulated by religious authorities, beyond what might be needed for adequate "social coherence"? Is Rue's depiction of religion realistic and has he demonstrated that by any comparison with other plausible depictions? Some people might stay with a religion for other reasons than "personal wholeness". Is "personal wholeness" well-defined enough : Rue says it is "maximizing satisfaction of motives" which seems rather vague and hard to measure. Is it clearly critical to religious participation? Just mostly it and social coherence?
2. Rue appears to have a favortism of theism. He calls his book "Religion Is Not About God" even though one of his major religions, Buddhism, isn't about God to begin with. Sure, some Buddhists treat Buddha as a god and some Buddhist branches acknowledge gods, but that's not the gist of Buddhism. Worse, Rue speaks of the extremes of "nihilsim and theism" when one opposite of theism, atheism, need not be nihilistic at all, and another opposite of theism, Buddhism, is one of the very major religions that Rue praises for providing meaningfulness.
3. In his chapter on Christianity, for example, Rue, focusing on capturing the myth, ignores historical concerns. There is no mention of other religons of the time (excepting Judaism) such as the mystery religons or philosophies such as Stoicism. There seems no consideration at all that a philosophy might provide personal wholeness and social coherence. Rue takes for granted the historicity of Jesus, even though that isn't necessary to establish the myth and even though the historicity of Jesus has long been open to serious question (e.g. "The Jesus Puzzle"). Rue seems to have oversimplified in his effort to demonstrate that a religion, such as Christianity, leads to personal wholeness and social coherence.
4. Rue seems to ignore whether there are non-religious ways to achieve personal wholeness and social coherence. By doing so, he seems in no position to assert that the contribution of religions to these goals exceeds that of other ways.
5. While it is intruiging to consider Consumerism as a religion, as Rue does, it's hard to see how Consumerism can offer "personal wholeness", at least when one considers our American society, which seems to have many lonely, alienated affluent individuals. In fact, Consumerism arguably makes "personal wholeness" harder to attain, perhaps by leaving individuals with too much time on their hands and often too little meaningful contact with others.
6. Here's Rue on human nature: "Human beings are star-born, earth-formed creatures endowed by evolutionary processes to seek reproductive fitness...Humans maximize their chances for reproductive fitness by managing the complexity of these systems in ways that are conducive to the simultaneous achievement of personal wholeness and social coherence." Star-born?
So where does Rue establish that we need a sense of personal wholeness in order to reproduce? When Rue says personal wholeness is "maximizing satisfaction of motives", why must it be "maximizing"? Can't I just get by, and be whole enough and reproductively fit enough? Won't it be stressful to have to maximize my personal wholeness and reproductive fitness? If I have a sex a lot, will that maximize my "satisfaction of motives" and, by itself, make me feel personally whole? Will satisfying my partner qualify as "maximizing conformity to shared standards of behavior".
7. Rue states that "Pinker is delivering the final, if not posthumous, deathblow to behaviorism". Perhaps Rue is unaware of a March 2004 article by Roddy Roediger, president of the American Psychological Society and himself a cognitive psychologist, in the APS's Observer entitled "What Happened to Behaviorism", in which Roediger emphasizes the debt the psychology owes to Skinner and Radical Behaviorism and the ongoing benefits of (Radical) Behaviorism. Perhaps Rue doesn't read "The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis" or 'The Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior" or recognize the compassionate, helpful work of Applied Behavior Analysts. Rue associates with Behaviorism (during its hegemony) a "dogmatic prohibition against all theories of the mind." He characterizes Behaviorism's position as "science should not traffic in concepts about unobservable events...". But Skinner and Radical Behaviorists acknowledge private events as natural events and hence addressable by the science of Behavior Analysis because science is concerned with natural events whether they are observable or not. What Skinner and Radical Behaviorists object to is the practice of populating mind with fictitious entities (mentalisms) inferred from our behavior.
8. Rue not only believes Pinker delivered a deathblow to Behaviorism, he also state the Pinker's "How the Mind Works" makes "a good stab at the subject". Rue should read William Baum's "Understanding Behaviorism", which should give him a strong appreciation of why no one should wish that Behaviorism be dead, but also teach him about the dubiousness of the kind of mentalisms that Pinker's book is drenched in. Rue's analyses of religion doesn't seem to depend on Pinker anyway.
9. Rue states that that there be sufficient realism in a religion's root metaphor for it to be accepted. For Christianity, he then notes that the return of Christ to earth at the appointed time for the final judgment would have to have such realism in order for the myth to be effective.
But for Islam, it isn't the root metaphor but the nature of who claimed it that he questions the realism of. He writes: "If you are a realist about Muhammed's epilepsy, then you are not likely to be a realist about his claims to be a messenger from God". Is it realism or ignorant discrimination that would reject Muhammed's claims on that basis? One of the most powerful depictions of God in human history and someone would discount it because it's believed to have been produced by someone suffering from epilepsy? To me it seems all the more marvelous if in fact someone could endure such an affliction and still produce a great work. William James even argued against dismissing the visions of epileptics. Rue seems to define what he means by realism very loosely and then use expand on it abitrarily.
10. There seems to be little or no reference to experimental support for Rue's claims: social psychology rather than cognitive science may be more apt for grounding his speculations experimentally.
"Religion Is Not About God" was a mixed blessing. The religous studies was helpful, much of the psychology of religion was unhelpful and the cognitive science seemed a liability. If you want to learn about the religions he covers, consider reading the less speculative parts of Part 2, which were well worth the value of book for me.
I had, however, a number of problems with the book:
1. The presentation seems Pollyanna-ish, despite Rue's concerns at the end of book of the future of religion. For example, the chapter on Christianity doesn't mention early Christianity's persecution of Gnostic Christians and destruction of their literature, nor the Inquisition, nor the European wars between Protestants and Catholics, nor recent problems such as those in Northern Ireland. Rue's claim of "social coherence" as a key benefit of religions seems questionable, yet he seems not disposed to questioning it.
Rue claims the goals of "personal wholeness and social coherence" with only a brief warning that religious institutions might abuse their regulatory activity. B.F. Skinner devoted a chapter of "Science and Human Behavior" to the issues of religous control. Do Rue's appeals to human nature establish that a regard for "personal wholeness" is a key factor in religions? If it is a key factor, does he establish that the meaning of "personal wholeness" isn't often inappropriately manipulated by religious authorities, beyond what might be needed for adequate "social coherence"? Is Rue's depiction of religion realistic and has he demonstrated that by any comparison with other plausible depictions? Some people might stay with a religion for other reasons than "personal wholeness". Is "personal wholeness" well-defined enough : Rue says it is "maximizing satisfaction of motives" which seems rather vague and hard to measure. Is it clearly critical to religious participation? Just mostly it and social coherence?
2. Rue appears to have a favortism of theism. He calls his book "Religion Is Not About God" even though one of his major religions, Buddhism, isn't about God to begin with. Sure, some Buddhists treat Buddha as a god and some Buddhist branches acknowledge gods, but that's not the gist of Buddhism. Worse, Rue speaks of the extremes of "nihilsim and theism" when one opposite of theism, atheism, need not be nihilistic at all, and another opposite of theism, Buddhism, is one of the very major religions that Rue praises for providing meaningfulness.
3. In his chapter on Christianity, for example, Rue, focusing on capturing the myth, ignores historical concerns. There is no mention of other religons of the time (excepting Judaism) such as the mystery religons or philosophies such as Stoicism. There seems no consideration at all that a philosophy might provide personal wholeness and social coherence. Rue takes for granted the historicity of Jesus, even though that isn't necessary to establish the myth and even though the historicity of Jesus has long been open to serious question (e.g. "The Jesus Puzzle"). Rue seems to have oversimplified in his effort to demonstrate that a religion, such as Christianity, leads to personal wholeness and social coherence.
4. Rue seems to ignore whether there are non-religious ways to achieve personal wholeness and social coherence. By doing so, he seems in no position to assert that the contribution of religions to these goals exceeds that of other ways.
5. While it is intruiging to consider Consumerism as a religion, as Rue does, it's hard to see how Consumerism can offer "personal wholeness", at least when one considers our American society, which seems to have many lonely, alienated affluent individuals. In fact, Consumerism arguably makes "personal wholeness" harder to attain, perhaps by leaving individuals with too much time on their hands and often too little meaningful contact with others.
6. Here's Rue on human nature: "Human beings are star-born, earth-formed creatures endowed by evolutionary processes to seek reproductive fitness...Humans maximize their chances for reproductive fitness by managing the complexity of these systems in ways that are conducive to the simultaneous achievement of personal wholeness and social coherence." Star-born?
So where does Rue establish that we need a sense of personal wholeness in order to reproduce? When Rue says personal wholeness is "maximizing satisfaction of motives", why must it be "maximizing"? Can't I just get by, and be whole enough and reproductively fit enough? Won't it be stressful to have to maximize my personal wholeness and reproductive fitness? If I have a sex a lot, will that maximize my "satisfaction of motives" and, by itself, make me feel personally whole? Will satisfying my partner qualify as "maximizing conformity to shared standards of behavior".
7. Rue states that "Pinker is delivering the final, if not posthumous, deathblow to behaviorism". Perhaps Rue is unaware of a March 2004 article by Roddy Roediger, president of the American Psychological Society and himself a cognitive psychologist, in the APS's Observer entitled "What Happened to Behaviorism", in which Roediger emphasizes the debt the psychology owes to Skinner and Radical Behaviorism and the ongoing benefits of (Radical) Behaviorism. Perhaps Rue doesn't read "The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis" or 'The Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior" or recognize the compassionate, helpful work of Applied Behavior Analysts. Rue associates with Behaviorism (during its hegemony) a "dogmatic prohibition against all theories of the mind." He characterizes Behaviorism's position as "science should not traffic in concepts about unobservable events...". But Skinner and Radical Behaviorists acknowledge private events as natural events and hence addressable by the science of Behavior Analysis because science is concerned with natural events whether they are observable or not. What Skinner and Radical Behaviorists object to is the practice of populating mind with fictitious entities (mentalisms) inferred from our behavior.
8. Rue not only believes Pinker delivered a deathblow to Behaviorism, he also state the Pinker's "How the Mind Works" makes "a good stab at the subject". Rue should read William Baum's "Understanding Behaviorism", which should give him a strong appreciation of why no one should wish that Behaviorism be dead, but also teach him about the dubiousness of the kind of mentalisms that Pinker's book is drenched in. Rue's analyses of religion doesn't seem to depend on Pinker anyway.
9. Rue states that that there be sufficient realism in a religion's root metaphor for it to be accepted. For Christianity, he then notes that the return of Christ to earth at the appointed time for the final judgment would have to have such realism in order for the myth to be effective.
But for Islam, it isn't the root metaphor but the nature of who claimed it that he questions the realism of. He writes: "If you are a realist about Muhammed's epilepsy, then you are not likely to be a realist about his claims to be a messenger from God". Is it realism or ignorant discrimination that would reject Muhammed's claims on that basis? One of the most powerful depictions of God in human history and someone would discount it because it's believed to have been produced by someone suffering from epilepsy? To me it seems all the more marvelous if in fact someone could endure such an affliction and still produce a great work. William James even argued against dismissing the visions of epileptics. Rue seems to define what he means by realism very loosely and then use expand on it abitrarily.
10. There seems to be little or no reference to experimental support for Rue's claims: social psychology rather than cognitive science may be more apt for grounding his speculations experimentally.
"Religion Is Not About God" was a mixed blessing. The religous studies was helpful, much of the psychology of religion was unhelpful and the cognitive science seemed a liability. If you want to learn about the religions he covers, consider reading the less speculative parts of Part 2, which were well worth the value of book for me.
33 of 39 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
I finished this book over a month ago, and it will not leave my mind. In fact I have decided to use it as the subject of my upcoming series of Sunday School lessons, and explaining my planned presentation will be the best way to convey the book to you. First I will make a HUGE spreadsheet filling one wall of the room. At the top I will put the title and Rue's opening question about whether there can even be such a thing as a "theory of religion" (in his persuasive opinion there can, largely because we humans are similar enough for many commonalities to find their way into our religions even despite the profound diversity our various cultures produce).
Then I will make 8 columns.
In the left column I will list the various characteristics of all Religions which Rue discusses (I won't list them all here because some explanation and subdivision is required for each, but to give a flavor of this column I will say here that Rue discusses 1) the education of the emotions; 2) the various strategies used by religion - intellectual, experiential, ritualistic, and aesthetic, both at the individual and institutional levels; and 3) two overriding religious functions, namely increasing personal wholeness and enhancing social cohesiveness.
The next 5 columns (2-6) will be for the classical traditions which Rue discusses (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism). In each case I will fill in how each tradition fulfills the theory as presented in Column One.
The next column (#7) will be for Consumerism as a Religion, and the last column (#8) will be for Religious Naturalism. Note that Rue is ambivalent about whether Consumerism actually qualifies as a Religion, but I found it a fascinating example to use in testing the rest of his theory, and I think it will make an awesome discussion for my class (made up of a nice cross-section of Americans, one Hindu, and one other person who grew up abroad).
Each week we will discuss a new column, showing how Rue's theory of religion plays out in a specific cultural and historical context. Although I am officially allotted 4 weeks (which would not be enough), the class is usually very willing to extend a unit, and I anticipate that this discussion will be especially lively. Nonetheless, I will try to save some time by only mentioning and not discussing the "doomsday scenario" with which Rue introduces his treatment of Religious Naturalism. That is because I do not entirely agree with his implication that the only way Religious Naturalism will ever get a foothold is if some sort of collapse occurs. And besides, while I agree with Rue that such a scenario could play out, our class has already been down that road. For most readers I think it is important to consider Rue's ideas on this point, especially since he uses it to think through how the all-important Religious Naturalism could arise. But the reader should not, in my opinion, let that part of the book distract him or her from the overall point, which is to explore the common wellsprings of all religions.
It is a book everyone interested in religion should read. In fact I think it is perhaps the only modern full-blown "theory of religion" which adequately accounts for what science has taught us about evolution, about the biological roots of our human nature, the psychology that grows out of those roots, and about the ways cultures intersect with that nature to produce local variants on the invariable tendency toward religious experience and practice.
Then I will make 8 columns.
In the left column I will list the various characteristics of all Religions which Rue discusses (I won't list them all here because some explanation and subdivision is required for each, but to give a flavor of this column I will say here that Rue discusses 1) the education of the emotions; 2) the various strategies used by religion - intellectual, experiential, ritualistic, and aesthetic, both at the individual and institutional levels; and 3) two overriding religious functions, namely increasing personal wholeness and enhancing social cohesiveness.
The next 5 columns (2-6) will be for the classical traditions which Rue discusses (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism). In each case I will fill in how each tradition fulfills the theory as presented in Column One.
The next column (#7) will be for Consumerism as a Religion, and the last column (#8) will be for Religious Naturalism. Note that Rue is ambivalent about whether Consumerism actually qualifies as a Religion, but I found it a fascinating example to use in testing the rest of his theory, and I think it will make an awesome discussion for my class (made up of a nice cross-section of Americans, one Hindu, and one other person who grew up abroad).
Each week we will discuss a new column, showing how Rue's theory of religion plays out in a specific cultural and historical context. Although I am officially allotted 4 weeks (which would not be enough), the class is usually very willing to extend a unit, and I anticipate that this discussion will be especially lively. Nonetheless, I will try to save some time by only mentioning and not discussing the "doomsday scenario" with which Rue introduces his treatment of Religious Naturalism. That is because I do not entirely agree with his implication that the only way Religious Naturalism will ever get a foothold is if some sort of collapse occurs. And besides, while I agree with Rue that such a scenario could play out, our class has already been down that road. For most readers I think it is important to consider Rue's ideas on this point, especially since he uses it to think through how the all-important Religious Naturalism could arise. But the reader should not, in my opinion, let that part of the book distract him or her from the overall point, which is to explore the common wellsprings of all religions.
It is a book everyone interested in religion should read. In fact I think it is perhaps the only modern full-blown "theory of religion" which adequately accounts for what science has taught us about evolution, about the biological roots of our human nature, the psychology that grows out of those roots, and about the ways cultures intersect with that nature to produce local variants on the invariable tendency toward religious experience and practice.
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
By Michael Dowd
Format:Paperback
This is a fabulous book that deserves a wide readership. In a world torn by inter-religious strife and the seeming never-ending battle between faith and reason, few things are more important than helping religious and nonreligious people alike celebrate the mythic/religious impulse of humanity from a science-based, naturalistic perspective. I simply cannot recommend this book too highly. Also see his earlier masterpiece, "Everybody's Story".
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
A review of Rue
This was the third and best book I have read written by Loyal Rue. He develops here a general theory of religion in this book. Read more
Published 12 months ago by Douglas T. Hawes
1.0 out of 5 stars
Religion according to Graceful Guile
By the Grace of Guile: The Role of Deception in Natural History and Human Affairs
First, do not let my "one-star" rating dismay you or retard your interest in reading... Read more
First, do not let my "one-star" rating dismay you or retard your interest in reading... Read more
Published on July 8, 2009 by Homunculus
Front Cover | Front Flap | Table of Contents | First Pages | Index | Back Flap | Back Cover | Surprise Me!
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
