Aquest lloc utilitza galetes per a oferir els nostres serveis, millorar el desenvolupament, per a anàlisis i (si no has iniciat la sessió) per a publicitat. Utilitzant LibraryThing acceptes que has llegit i entès els nostres Termes de servei i política de privacitat. L'ús que facis del lloc i dels seus serveis està subjecte a aquestes polítiques i termes.
Why do we pretend that the world's religious traditions are different paths to the same God? Scholar Stephen Prothero argues that it is time to replace naïve hopes of interreligious unity with deeper knowledge of religious differences. He maintains that each religion attempts to solve a different human problem, and examines each of these traditions on its own terms to create an indispensable guide for anyone who wants to better understand the big questions.… (més)
This is a tough review, because I agree with the basic idea of what Prothero is writing, that we should learn and acknowledge the different ideas and practices of religious people around the world. But he too often sets up a strawman in defense of his argument, and then tears that down instead of really engaging with the ideas he is discussing. An example: "The New Atheists see all religions (except their own “anti-religious religion”) as the same idiocy, the same poison. The perennial philosophers see all religions as the same truth, the same compassion. What both camps fail to see is religious diversity." Perennial philosophers, in my understanding, believe that religions point to the same truth, not that they are the same truth. And his attack on atheists in the final chapter was just strange, frankly.
He also creates these strange silos within American Christianity, separating Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism in ways that just don't really travel well outside of a classroom or a textbook, because the practices of these groups are much more fluid than his rigid definitions.
Finally, he uses subjective words when perhaps he should tone it down a bit. "One of the lies of the so-called New Atheists...." and "Evangelicals are both more friendly to modernity and less shrill [than Fundamentalists]." It feels like he has an axe or two to grind, and it makes me not trust his interpretations of the religions he discusses. ( )
If you are looking for a book that gives an honest review of Islam, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Yoruba, Judaism, Daoism/Taoism, and Atheism this is your book. I was assigned this as a textbook in a religion class and was bowled over. ( )
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès.Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
Human goals are many, not all of them commensurable, and in perpetual rivalry with one another.
—Isaiah Berlin
Dedicatòria
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès.Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
To my students
Primeres paraules
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès.Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
At least since the first petals of the counterculture bloomed across Europe and the United States in the 1960s, it has been fashionable to affirm that all religions are beautiful and all are true.
Citacions
Darreres paraules
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès.Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
Far more powerful is the reminder that any genuine belief in what we call God should humble us, remind us that, if there really is a god or goddess worthy of the name, He, She or It must surely know more than we do about the things that matter most. This much, at least, is heard across the great religions.
Why do we pretend that the world's religious traditions are different paths to the same God? Scholar Stephen Prothero argues that it is time to replace naïve hopes of interreligious unity with deeper knowledge of religious differences. He maintains that each religion attempts to solve a different human problem, and examines each of these traditions on its own terms to create an indispensable guide for anyone who wants to better understand the big questions.
)
Google Books — S'està carregant…
(3.78)
1
He also creates these strange silos within American Christianity, separating Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism in ways that just don't really travel well outside of a classroom or a textbook, because the practices of these groups are much more fluid than his rigid definitions.
Finally, he uses subjective words when perhaps he should tone it down a bit. "One of the lies of the so-called New Atheists...." and "Evangelicals are both more friendly to modernity and less shrill [than Fundamentalists]." It feels like he has an axe or two to grind, and it makes me not trust his interpretations of the religions he discusses. (