Review: Religion: Reality Behind the Myths
Religion: Reality Behind the Myths by Jonas Atlas
My rating: 2 of 5 stars
I am not sure what I was expecting here (this wasn’t it so this review probably reflects that). While I am not a relies scholar, I have a fair amount of experience with several different religious traditions, to the point of at least reading the scriptures that are generally believed to define them as well as engaging comparative studies of them (in fact I am a fan of Dr Campbell’s work). This is specifically true for the three (3) religions chosen by the author to make his point: Christianity, Islam and Hinduism (which are actually community cohorts and not specific cults or sects like the author seems to imply). This makes his seven (7) rants on how we just don’t understand religion (because there is not common definition that applies to all religions) really strange … especially given that he doesn’t seem to offer any positive representations of what religion is … only what it is not. And from my experience, he was almost entirely incorrect with his critiques that mostly rely on showing that specific sects within a religion don’t agree with each other therefore there is no common definition … additionally he seems to have no concept of what a credal religion actually is, since he confidently states no such thing exists (despite evoking this term later on in the book).
Then we get to myth 2 about hierarchies where, after a rather twisted and confused examination of the orthodox churches, declares that they are not hierarchical because they can’t force their interpretations and dogmas on each other (ignoring the hierarchies within each). To be fair, there ARE non hierarchical christian churches … organized by a congregational governance … but even they have a pastor and elders. Still … there were certainly better examples out there that could have been revealed with a little more extensive research (perhaps the reform tradition). Additional his critique of Myth #3 seems to be entirely ignorant of how acculturation/appropriation and syncretism actually work within a religious context. The main premise here appears to be that since many religions share certain elements, it is difficult to distinguish one religion from another (a completely untenable position for the examples provided). About the only concept I can agree with the author on is his comparison of religion to language (I would go further and say that religion IS a language). Regardless … in each of his attempts to debunk common myths about religion, the author basically fails to identify areas of commonality and thereby illustrates either a lack of understanding of the example religions, or is an intentionally misdirecting the argument based on multiple logical fallacies, common biases or misapplied tropes.
That is not to say that there are not any interesting facts here (which saves this book some being completely panned); only that they are selected and curated to support (or at least not undermine) generalized, and often rather dubious, opinions with regard to how we understand religion. I was especially entertained by the author’s attempt to use the etymology of the word religion to support the idea that the word has racist elements in its current usage. The chapter on contracting spiritualism and mysticism with religion was also quite strange to me … having engaged in all three at one time or another and being familiar with Venn Diagrams, I don’t struggle with this nearly as much as the author appears to do. There is also some decent information regarding the presumed conflict between religion and science … although this is primarily an issue in some sects of the abrahamic religions … so I would have used the term faith vs science instead; however, this is a position that I, and most folks around me, have held for quite some time.
The last two myths discussed actually represent ongoing debates that I have recently witnessed and the author does bring up some solid points with respect to what is uniquely an element of religion and what is simply human nature. Where previous support had a decided wag the dog approach, here the argument tries to look at the nature of humanity and illustrates how religion, or more appropriately religious elements, are appropriated to rationalize and justify abhorrent social behaviors targeting outsiders. The underlying theme here is that a secular society in not inherently better or worse than a religious society … which, while true is still an odd point since in most societies that I am aware of, there is an overlapping spectrum for both and the author just finished explaining why they are actually not opposed to each other (and can co-exist with each other).
Introduction
Myth #1 - Religions Are Determined by a Series of Dogmatic Beliefs and Well-defined Rules of Conduct That Adherents Must Follow
Myth #2 - Religions Are Structured Hierarchically
Myth #3 - Religions Can Be Clearly Distinguished, Based on Their Beliefs, Rules, and Structures
Interlude - On the Definition, Origin, and Racists Dimensions of the Word :Religion”
Myth #4 - Spirituality and Mysticism Contrast with Religion
Myth #5 - Science and Religion Are at Odds with Each Other
Myth #6 - Religions Are Dangerous Because Their Irrational Truth Claims Inevitably Provoke
Myth #7 - A Secular Society Is Completely Different (and Inherently Better) That a Religious Society
Conclusion
I was given this free advance reader copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
#Religion #NetGalley
View all my reviews
I am not sure what I was expecting here (this wasn’t it so this review probably reflects that). While I am not a relies scholar, I have a fair amount of experience with several different religious traditions, to the point of at least reading the scriptures that are generally believed to define them as well as engaging comparative studies of them (in fact I am a fan of Dr Campbell’s work). This is specifically true for the three (3) religions chosen by the author to make his point: Christianity, Islam and Hinduism (which are actually community cohorts and not specific cults or sects like the author seems to imply). This makes his seven (7) rants on how we just don’t understand religion (because there is not common definition that applies to all religions) really strange … especially given that he doesn’t seem to offer any positive representations of what religion is … only what it is not. And from my experience, he was almost entirely incorrect with his critiques that mostly rely on showing that specific sects within a religion don’t agree with each other therefore there is no common definition … additionally he seems to have no concept of what a credal religion actually is, since he confidently states no such thing exists (despite evoking this term later on in the book).
Then we get to myth 2 about hierarchies where, after a rather twisted and confused examination of the orthodox churches, declares that they are not hierarchical because they can’t force their interpretations and dogmas on each other (ignoring the hierarchies within each). To be fair, there ARE non hierarchical christian churches … organized by a congregational governance … but even they have a pastor and elders. Still … there were certainly better examples out there that could have been revealed with a little more extensive research (perhaps the reform tradition). Additional his critique of Myth #3 seems to be entirely ignorant of how acculturation/appropriation and syncretism actually work within a religious context. The main premise here appears to be that since many religions share certain elements, it is difficult to distinguish one religion from another (a completely untenable position for the examples provided). About the only concept I can agree with the author on is his comparison of religion to language (I would go further and say that religion IS a language). Regardless … in each of his attempts to debunk common myths about religion, the author basically fails to identify areas of commonality and thereby illustrates either a lack of understanding of the example religions, or is an intentionally misdirecting the argument based on multiple logical fallacies, common biases or misapplied tropes.
That is not to say that there are not any interesting facts here (which saves this book some being completely panned); only that they are selected and curated to support (or at least not undermine) generalized, and often rather dubious, opinions with regard to how we understand religion. I was especially entertained by the author’s attempt to use the etymology of the word religion to support the idea that the word has racist elements in its current usage. The chapter on contracting spiritualism and mysticism with religion was also quite strange to me … having engaged in all three at one time or another and being familiar with Venn Diagrams, I don’t struggle with this nearly as much as the author appears to do. There is also some decent information regarding the presumed conflict between religion and science … although this is primarily an issue in some sects of the abrahamic religions … so I would have used the term faith vs science instead; however, this is a position that I, and most folks around me, have held for quite some time.
The last two myths discussed actually represent ongoing debates that I have recently witnessed and the author does bring up some solid points with respect to what is uniquely an element of religion and what is simply human nature. Where previous support had a decided wag the dog approach, here the argument tries to look at the nature of humanity and illustrates how religion, or more appropriately religious elements, are appropriated to rationalize and justify abhorrent social behaviors targeting outsiders. The underlying theme here is that a secular society in not inherently better or worse than a religious society … which, while true is still an odd point since in most societies that I am aware of, there is an overlapping spectrum for both and the author just finished explaining why they are actually not opposed to each other (and can co-exist with each other).
Introduction
Myth #1 - Religions Are Determined by a Series of Dogmatic Beliefs and Well-defined Rules of Conduct That Adherents Must Follow
Myth #2 - Religions Are Structured Hierarchically
Myth #3 - Religions Can Be Clearly Distinguished, Based on Their Beliefs, Rules, and Structures
Interlude - On the Definition, Origin, and Racists Dimensions of the Word :Religion”
Myth #4 - Spirituality and Mysticism Contrast with Religion
Myth #5 - Science and Religion Are at Odds with Each Other
Myth #6 - Religions Are Dangerous Because Their Irrational Truth Claims Inevitably Provoke
Myth #7 - A Secular Society Is Completely Different (and Inherently Better) That a Religious Society
Conclusion
I was given this free advance reader copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
#Religion #NetGalley
View all my reviews
Popular posts from this blog
Dominican Inquirer
Technically speaking, this is really more of an independent, unstructured, investigation of a particular Lay Dominican Fraternity, where you can attend meetings as a guest with no particular commitment ... sort of a "try it before you buy it" approach to see if you and the fraternity members are even remotely compatible. Given some of the conflict within the American Church today ... this might not be a given. As might be expected, there can be strong personalities and intense beliefs about how to approach the faith within the fraternities that can reflect the same divisions that are seen in the Church at large. However, there are also some additional questions to contemplate to see if you might be a fit for the Dominican Family in general. Each of the Major Orders that have tertiaries (third orders) share their specific charisms (gifts) with their lay members, so in addition to a general desire for a deeper spiritual devotion to the faith, there are elem...
Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time (Cycle C)
The Pharisee and the Tax Collector Lectionary: 150 Reading 1 - Sirach 35:12-14, 16-18 [sic] Responsorial Psalm - Psalm 34:2-3, 17-18, 19, 23 Reading 2 - 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 16-18 Alleluia - 2 Corinthians 5:19 Gospel - Luke 18:9-14 '... for whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.' In today’s Gospel, Jesus presents us with the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. This story is closely connected to the one which comes just before it about the persistent widow who secures a just decision from a dishonest judge. While the first encourages us to pray and never give up. The second reminds us how, and in what manner, we ought to pray. However, to fully understand the example Jesus gives us, we should look more closely at first the century audience that He initially spoke to. A faithful Jew at that time would have assumed two things: That the Pharisee was a very holy and devout man. And that...
Third Sunday in Ordinary Time (Cycle A)
Word of God Sunday Lectionary: 67 Reading 1 - Isaiah 8:23—9:3 Responsorial Psalm - Psalm 27:1, 4, 13-14 Reading 2 - 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 17 Alleluia - Matthew 4:23 Gospel - Matthew 4:12-23 The Promise of Salvation Under a New Davidic King. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light … In the first act of creation, God created light and “saw that the light was good. God then separated the light from the darkness.” (Genesis 1:4) … However, light and darkness are more than just opposites; they are symbols, metaphors, and emotional currents that have shaped our understanding of the world around us for centuries. Within the stories we tell each other, we find a natural contrast between what is seen and what is hidden, between safety and the unknown, between clarity and mystery. This duality of light and dark exists because of one’s relationship to the other … and our experiences of the two. For those of us who have spent any time on the w...
Twenty-sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time (Cycle C)
Lazarus and the Rich Man (Dives) Lectionary: 138 Reading 1 - Amos 6:1a, 4-7 Responsorial Psalm - Psalm 146:7, 8-9, 9-10 Reading 2 - 1 Timothy 6:11-16 Alleluia - Cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9 Gospel - Luke 16:19-31 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.' Justice, both socially and spiritually, is at the heart of today’s readings. Social Justice is about seeing the “unseen”… remembering the “forgotten” in our society. It’s about the men, women and children who only want a better life in a world that God has given to all of us, just not a select few. In our first reading from the Hebrew Scriptures, we hear from Amos, the prophet of social justice. God called him to speak to the rich of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The country was about to be destroyed by the Assyrians while the wealthy “lie on beds of ivory” and “drink wine from bowls,” confident that “the ruin of Joseph” ...
Comments
Post a Comment