God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World

Nonbias book. Educational. Love it

Good book, needed for a class.

This is an enlightening and entertaining book. It would be a pleasure to be one of Professor Prothero's students. The thesis underlying the title, "God Is Not One", is spot on and conforms to my own experiences and observations as I've traveled around the world. Although some reviewers have taken exception with this thesis, it is one that is easily confirmed by simply asking people what they believe. In India, for example, I found many if not most Hindus believe in many gods and according to some as many as 330 million. In Hindu temples you often find Buddha and several of the Hindu gods worshipped side by side. In Indochina spirit houses abound alongside Buddhist temples. In Thailand, King Bhumibol is worshiped as a god. In Central Asia, Muslims pray to the sky god while warding off evil spirits through various rituals. Prothero aptly demonstrates how various gods are invoked throughout the major religions of the world. I found the chapter on the Yoruba religion, of which I knew very little, to be quite illustrative of his "God Is Not One" Hypothesis. Prothero is also spot on when he denies that differences among religions are likened to taking different paths up the same mountain. The Buddhist goal of nirvana, the Hindu goal of moksha, the Confucian goal of harmony, and the Christian goal of everlasting life are not the same. I agree with Prothero, that we are better off to recognize these differences so we can find ways to live in peace with one another. Prothero is also quick to point out, and I would agree, that in spite of the differences there is generally little to separate religions with respect to their ethical standards. The golden rule seems to apply across religious differences.So far so good, but to get to this point Prothero finds it necessary to reject the traditional definition of religion as the belief in a supernatural power and instead posits a four-step approach to defining religion: (1) a problem, (2) a solution, (3) a technique, and (4) exemplars. This allows him to include groups as diverse as Christians who believe in a god and a hereafter and the billion plus "Confucianists" who don't believe in a god, a hereafter, or wouldn't even think of calling themselves "Confucianists." He goes further to include also atheism as a religion although ironically, here he uses the term "religion" pejoratively, as some religious people are prone to do, to minimize and dismiss Atheism's contribution to the world's cultural and intellectual history. He alleges, "Atheisim is not a great religion. It has always been for elites rather than ordinary folk. And until the twentieth century, its influence on world history was nonexistent as Woody Allen's god." Wow, can he actually be serious. Where's the scholarship behind this outrageous statement. For those interested in some excellent scholarship in this area, I would recommend "Doubt - a History" by Jennifer Michael Hecht. If Prothero can define Confucianism and Atheism as religions, why not Capitalism, Communism, Maoism, Hedonism, American Elitism or any other -ism. They all identify a problem, a solution, a technique, and have exemplars up the yin yang. In fact, it's hard for me to imagine what human enterprise would fall outside his four-step definition of religion and, I guess, Prothero may be suggesting the same when he has his students create their own religions, supposedly following his criteria.It's not just that his definition of religion is too broad; it also leads to the wrong conclusions. By defining Confucianism and Atheism as religions, he's throwing a deaf ear to the billions of non-believers and doubters and the tremendous influence they have had throughout world history. He literally cuts this line of inquiry off when he states in his introduction, "...nine out of every ten Americans believe in God, and, with the notable exception of Western Europe, the rest of the world is furiously religious." Of course, the world is "furiously" religious if any definition of god or human activity can be assumed by his four-step criteria. I want to ask, are the nine out ten Americans surveyed referring to the god of Thomas Jefferson who as a professed Epicurean saw god as not having an active role in our lives or the god of crusading Evangelists who see God's handiwork everywhere? Having been brought up in a fundamentalist family, it often surprised me to encounter Christians who do not believe in miracles, Christ's resurrection, or his virgin birth. Like Jefferson, to us these were non-believers, deists, or in the technically correct parlance of today atheists. In China where the majority of people I met did not seem comfortable referring to themselves as atheists, they had no problem stating that they did not belong to a religion or believe in a god. Here, it should be pointed out, as Prothero himself acknowledges, not even the Chinese government considers Confucianism a religion. So then, why has he? One final example, in the former Central Asian soviet countries where about 80% of the population is Muslim I saw little evidence during the month of Ramadan of the Muslim faith in practice. "Muslim light" is what some called it. Are these non-practicing Muslims actually Muslims? Prothero has no qualms in assuming that they are although he acknowledges that each religion has its non-believers, but then fails to plumb the depth and breadth of this phenomenon and as a result ends up drawing the wrong conclusions. I submit that had he used the traditional definition of religion, he would have found that the world is largely non-religious and that this has had a positive moderating influence on the religious extremism that continues to threaten the world today. This criticism aside, I feel obligated to give the book four stars because it moves the discussion of world religions in the direction of understanding and self-examination. Professor Prothero should be applauded for that.

In God Not One, Prothero advocates for religious literacy and acknowledges how an understanding of the world’s rival religions allows one to become better citizens of the world as well as better human beings in the world. A very informative read.

Book arrived super fast and no flaws at all. My son needed this for a class so I haven’t read it but he said it’s an easy to read book!

The initial premise is intriguing: Prothero want to disabuse us from the notion that all great religions are essentially the same--i.e., that Allah/God/Yahweh are just different names for the same deity, and "believers" are simply ascending different sides of the same mountain, but with the same ultimate goal).The book does give a reasonably good overview of eight major religions, and I am thankful for some of his insights. For example, he discusses why a "Godless" religion (like Confucianism) deserves to be thought of as a religion and not just a systems of ethics. He also points out that someone can be deeply religious but in a quiet manner: A fire-and-brimstome evangelical preacher isn't necessarily *more* religious than, say, a quietly devoted Methodist.But the book feels superficial. It reads like a professor giving an overview of religions for college freshmen, and wanting to keep it fun and fast paced: hoping to become their favorite professor. After each chapter, I found myself needing to turn to the Internet to read up on each religion for more information on the basic beliefs and practices of each.Prothero writes in a chatty, "witty" tone which some may find charming, but I found annoying: as if he's worried the material will be too dry or too impenetrable for his audiences, so he funs-it-up and dumbs-it-down. Here are the first two sentences of the chapter on Buddhism:"Buddhism begins with a fairy tale. Unlike Cinderella or Rocky, however, this is no underdog fantasy of someone who has nothing and gains the whole world."Really? That's how we're going to begin an overview of Buddhism? And does he mean that Buddhism themselves think of the story of The Buddha as a fairy tale, or is that just his opinion?The final chapter on atheism seems dashed off and dismissive. Take this sample sentence:"After all, atheism is a religion of sorts, or can be. Many atheists are quite religious, holding their views about God with the conviction of zealots and evangelizing with verge."After writing in depth about three non-theistic religions (Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism), it's odd that he then writes a "coda" about atheism at all, and then jumbles up theism and religion as analogous concepts.He also tends to weigh the merits of each religion against his own personal experience, as if he's shopping for the best religion and trying to figure out which is the best fit. I feel like I know more about Stephen Prothero now than I do about the major religions.

Die Lieferung erfolgte aus New Jersey, US, innerhalb von 6 Tagen.Das Buch war ein Geschenk an meine Freundin, die sehr glücklich darüber ist.Ihrer Aussage nach hat das Buch so einiges zu bieten.Wer ein Buch sucht, welches sich kritisch mit den verschiedensten Religionen unserer Welt auseinandersetzt, um sich über jene zu bilden, der scheint hier an der richtigen Stelle.Auch optisch macht das Buch etwas her. Im Umschlag ist es ein wirklich schöner Blickfänger, den man gerne im Bücherregal präsentiert und im bloßen Hardcover-Einband kommt es elegant und unauffällig daher. Für den Stil eines jeden Bücherregals findet sich hier also das passende Gewand.

It's an amazing book; I use it as an aid to teach my world religion lessons in my high school.

A good book but very thick so hard to read all in one go. I have taken to reading just the sections I want at the time I need to and going from there.

Für das Thema interessieren sich viele Menschen. Deshalb ist dieses aufschlussreiche Buch so wichtig. Es bringt in verständlicher Sprache umfassende Einblicke in die Ausrichtung und Ziele aller Hauptreligionen. Es rückt jeden Kuschelkurs, jede naive Einstellung zurecht und gibt Ausblicke, auf das was möglich ist und realistischer Weise erwartet werden kann - oder eben auch nicht.

cover had been torn and shoddily repaired with tape; heavy markings inside