<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Provocative and Interesting, but typically flawed
Review: Like most of Stark's contributions, this book is down-right fun to read: engaging, polemical, clear, provocative, etc..
But the flaws are there, as always. First off, the whole reduction of religious belief and involvement to some sort of abstract "economic man" theory is not only annoying, but more importantly, void of empirical data. Costs, benefits, exchange relations, limited supplies, compensators....please. Give it a rest. Sure, some people may choose gods in the same manner they choose laundry detergent -- but most people are religious because of good old fashion processes of socialization. They believe in God because grandma and grandpa do. They worship Buddha because everyone in their village does. They pray to Jesus because that's what mom said to do. For Stark to cling to this rational choice silliness is bizarre -- and strange, coming from someone supposedly affiliated with the discipline sociology. Oh well. I at least appreciate the alternative way of looking at and theorizing about people, flawed though it is.
Finally -- and this is nit-picky I know, but check out this quote in the introduction (p.5):
"It is entirely impossible for science to discover the existence or nonexistence of Gods."
Hm. Really? What if for "Gods" we substituted other possibilities:
"It is entirely impossible for science to discover the existence or nonexistence of Fairies....
of Thor...
of leprechauns....
of floating purple dragons in outer space..."
Those who assert there is a God out there shoulder the burden of proof. Baring convincing evidence, we must remain skeptical. I don't understand why Stark -- who hates "postmodernism and other opponents of reason" (p.14) -- becomes quite post-modern himself by allowing for the existence of Gods without empirical evidence.
Rating: 
Summary: continuing to work through his writings
Review: One True God: Historical consequences of Monotheism
Rodney StarkOftentimes 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.
Rating:
Summary: Provoking, refreshingly honest
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Why (some) sociologists ought not to do theology
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Provocative and Interesting, but typically flawed
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: How faith made our world.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: How faith made our world.
Review: 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.
<< 1 >>
|
