One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism Paperback – April 13, 2003

Rodney Stark is a sociologist of religion with a special emphasis on Christianity. He claims not to be a historian, although he has done a tremendous amount of historical research to back up his theories. He represents a refreshing new perspective. In his introduction he points out that most modern sociologists approach the study of religion with a very antagonistic mindset. They ignore, minimize, or consign the religious aspect of human life to delusions. He points out this anti-religious bias has led to many errors and mischaracterizations. They are unfortunate because they prevent us from understanding the actual impact of religion on the development of culture, particularly our own Western culture.

He says, with regard to sociologists of religion that "Even if they abide by the agnostic assumption, social scientists are unlikely to grasp the human side of phenomena for which they have no empathy" (p.5). He quotes Emile Durkheim, a "free thinker" and personally an unbeliever to say, "What I ask of the free thinker is that he should confront religion in the same mental state as the believer... He who does not bring to the study of religion a sort of religious sentiment cannot speak about it! He is like a blind man trying to talk about color."

Stark represents a different breed. He claims to be agnostic when it comes to the truth or falsity of religion but he is sympathetic. That allows him to be more neutral--as he claims all scientific work should be. Therefore, in this book he is able to offer some fresh and fascinating insights into the role of religion on human society in general and monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) in particular.

Chapter 1 presents what he calls a "theory of the gods." Here he addresses the question about why human beings are so interested in a supernatural being or beings in the first place. He proposes that it is because worldly resources are limited; therefore we are looking for what he calls an "exchange partner" who can give us things we desire, in return for devotion to that partner. These things can be specific material blessings or else a sense of meaning, or fulfillment, or the hope of eternal life. The things we are looking for may be tangible or intangible, present or in the future.

Furthermore, pagan pantheons have given way to monotheistic religions for very specific reasons. We prefer fewer gods of greater scope than many of limited power. More powerful deities are more apt to be responsive to us and more apt to be able to give us the things we value most. This eventually leads to what he calls dualistic monotheism. By dualistic he means that because monotheistic religions, with a God of high moral character, need an explanation for the evil in the world, they therefore believe in an evil creature, not as powerful as their True God, but powerful enough to cause the pain and havoc in our world.

He points out that this theory neither proves that such a God exists, nor disproves it. The arguments can be made either way. Atheists would claim that this proves that we have invented our gods or God in order to try to meet certain needs, but the whole thing is actually a delusion based on our own wish fulfillment. Believers would say the opposite. Having these desires and the instinct that our deities can fulfill them points to the fact that they are real. Our deity gives us these instincts to motivate our religious seeking because He desires a relationship with us.

I find this perspective very helpful. It helps expose atheistic claims as not based on scientific findings but on previously held philosophical commitments. On the other hand, it is a good caution for believers. Longings and prayer do not by themselves prove that anyone is really out there. Believers also have a previous philosophical commitment. That is not to say that believers don't legitimately seek evidences for their faith. But the evidences have to be sought elsewhere than in our own longings and instincts.

Chapter 2 deals with the missionizing effect of dualistic monotheism. Stark points out that such religions are the only ones that aim to convert the world. Godless religions, like Buddhism, don't and that is why it actually died out in India, its country of origin. When you really believe in One True God, you want to win others to that faith.

Chapter 3 "shifts the focus from conversion to repression." Just as monotheists want to convert people to their cause, there is a dark side to it as well. They may also instigate intolerance and persecution against other religions. This is a complicated subject which he dissects masterfully. He points out that such conflicts tend to arise when there are only two or three religions competing for a following, He comes to the alternative in Chapter 5.

Chapter 4 deals with the tenacity of monotheistic religions even when they are a persecuted minority. Their deep commitment to one God is what supplies strength to hang on to their beliefs whereas such loyalty is not common in polytheistic societies.

Finally, Chapter 5 deals with the strange way in which a larger plurality of religious associations actually tends to increase civility between competing religious bodies. It also makes the competing religions groups more vigorous and long-lasting. Once there are many competing groups, such as in the USA, two things happen. First of all, people have a wider menu of religious choices and are more likely to find a religious affiliation that matches their tastes. That will tend to make them more loyal to their particular group and therefore keep their religious movement more vigorous. By way of contrast when there are only a few options there are more people whose religious tastes are not well met. The result is less loyalty and therefore less vigor. In addition, where there are multiple religious choices no religious group thinks it will be able to dominate the entire nation and they therefore come to believe that civility and cooperation are their best strategy. Religions only resort to bitter conflict and persecution when they think they have a chance to achieve monopoly status.

This book is a very worthwhile read for believer and unbeliever alike. This review only scratches the surface of its many profound insights. The kind of civility between religious groups we are experiencing in the US seems to be desirable. It is good to understand that our very religious diversity, which some well-meaning people deplore, may be exactly what keeps us civil

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.

Starks books are always good and this is no exception. Well written, thoroughly researched and it flows well. Worth reading.

I bought this based on the description and reviews saying that it traced developments of monotheism from Akhenaten in Egypt. What a disappointment. Weak on almost all aspects of that. The author spends most of one chapter cataloging violence against Jews and minimizing it in many ways because "it seems reasonable to assume that the lack of coverage reflects that little or no blood was shed"(136). There is little in the way of citations of other works, unless you can get past the fact the author likes to cite himself and his works as an authority for his theses. The extensive bibliography seems to be a worthless attachment to the back of this book.
There are many passages in this book that show the blatant bias of the author. The constant capitalization of The One True God or The One True Church only add to this reinforcement. Phrases like "It even turns out that religious people are rather superior in terms of their mental and physical health"(254). His disdain for Judaism in general "It is only the Jewish faith, not faith in general, that has eroded.."(213). "In fairness, it must be acknowledged that the Catholic Church probably demonstrated the highest degree to which a monopoly church can serve diverse demand"(220).
Pure apologetics. Very disappointing.

As with all of Stark's works, this is terrific.

Read it.

A+++++