Who Says All Religions Are the Same?

In his new book, God Is Not One, Boston University scholar Stephen Prothero attacks the naïve notion that all religions are essentially the same. "This is a seductive sentiment in a world in which religious violence can seem as present and potent as God," Prothero wrote in a well-circulated op-ed piece. "But it is dangerous, disrespectful and untrue" -- dangerous because the idea is perpetrated by some well-meaning idealists to promote peace, reconciliation and tolerance, and Prothero thinks those worthy goals are better served by understanding the real and potent differences among religions.

It's a message that needed to be stated, and the attention Prothero's book has garnered adds something useful to the dialogue. But some of his statements have been erroneous, and it would be a shame if the misconceptions were to spread. (Note: I have not read Prothero's book; my comments are based on his essays and interviews.)

As Prothero notes, religions "diverge sharply on doctrine, ritual, mythology, experience and law." Nothing could be more obvious. With the possible exception of some stubborn or ill-informed individuals, those who promote the idea that religions are essentially one are not blind to their differences; they just choose to focus on their similarities, usually pointing to universal ethical principles. As mentioned, Prothero considers their method of fostering inter-religious harmony to be wishful thinking.

But he also singles out for approbation some highly influential thinkers associated with the so-called perennial philosophy, chiefly Aldous Huxley, Joseph Campbell and Huston Smith. Here he does a disservice by attributing to those public intellectuals positions that they never actually advocated.

The crux of perennialism is that the mystical offshoots of all the religions share striking similarities. Huxley, who had no use for ordinary religion at all, made that perspective famous in his classic 1944 anthology, The Perennial Philosophy, in which he compiled writings from mystics of various traditions around common themes. He did not give a hoot about religious dogma, everyday observances, or claims about history; his sole concern was the direct encounter with the divine. Scholars have found fault with Huxley's methods, but the book has inspired generations of spiritual seekers in their quest for higher states of consciousness. And the perennial perspective has even more currency these days, since much of what used to be called mysticism has become common practice, especially among those who have been influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism.

Unlike their friend Huxley, Campbell and Smith studied ordinary religion as scholars and recognized that it could have value for its followers. But they, too, made clear a distinction between normative religion and the domain of the mystics. Campbell, the great popularizer of comparative mythology, and Smith, the author of the best-read text on comparative religion, would be the last people on earth to say that all religions are the same. What they would say, and did say repeatedly, is that the mystics declared the universe to be one, or that God (depending on how you define it) is One, or that the individual soul and the ground of being are one. For over 50 years (including in the Foreword to my own upcoming book) Smith has distinguished between what he calls the exoteric (outer) aspects of religion and the esoteric (inner). In the former, he has said repeatedly, diversity reigns, while in the latter we find a striking unity of experience.

It should be noted that Huxley, Campbell and Smith were all mentored in their formative years by swamis of the Vedanta Society (in Los Angeles, New York and St. Louis respectively). They heard early on, and quoted frequently, the verse in the Rig Veda that is commonly translated as "Truth is one, the wise call it by many names." By now, having been promulgated by various gurus, Yoga masters and scholars of Hinduism, the phrase is well known in the United States. But it does not mean that all religions are the same. It means that all legitimate religious practices, if taken to their deepest levels (an historic rarity, to be sure) eventually transcend their own dogmas, narratives and rituals to converge at the oneness of existence.

In short, the perennialists (and the Vedantists and yogis) contend that religion as such is gloriously diverse, but religious experience is not. You can see this in the mystical literature (as William James and others did, even before Huxley, Campbell and Smith). And you can find it by talking to spiritual practitioners of different stripes about their deepest inner experiences. If you do (as I have), you'll hear tradition-specific language diminish in favor of universal terms such as "vastness" and "oneness" and "emptiness" and "bliss."

So, Prothero is right to point out the dangers of an all-religions-are-the-same attitude. But he's wrong to dismiss perennialism, which has never been more relevant, or to blame perennialists because their nuanced perspective has been misconstrued by starry-eyed New Agers. The same thing, of course, happens to the perspective he champions. Because there are intractable differences among religions, people conclude that they are irreconcilable and will invariably come into conflict. (I've heard people say, because of his book's title, that Prothero believes there is more than one god.) Never underestimate the tragic human tendency to oversimplify the complex.

The truth is, religions are both different and alike, depending on where one looks. And we need to look at the whole picture, because when we lean too far in either direction we lose our balance.

 

 

 

Comments

[Tefanie Osias]

10:01 PM on 08/17/2010

Although there is only one God, people tends to create a belief base on his personal understanding Thus different religions came out. It cannot be the same, one way or another. But one thing good, is we are serving and worhipping only one God, iregardless of what's the name of your God...

Job Center Plus
http://www.workonline.asia

[Debbie338]

12:15 PM on 08/17/2010

Religions share one common theme: no matter how nobly they may have begun, the major religions are all fundamentally crowd control--fit in or be banished.

[elhaglund]

04:51 PM on 08/15/2010

Notably, no less a Christian apologist than C.S. Lewis wrote in "The Abolition of Man" (I believe that is the work) that all religions are, in many respects, the same. His argument was specifically rejecting the concept of moral relativity, noting that virtually all religions, when actually examined at their true foundations, shared a common set of values and core moral requirements. His contention (which I am probably butchering in this short post) that most religions were seeking a common good (even if otherwise bastardized by alleged followers), makes for an interesting read.

[Lennon Stravato]

12:16 AM on 08/15/2010

I am so thankful for this article. I was intrigued by Prothero's book at first glance. After reeding a little I quickly realized he either had almost no understanding of perennial philosophy, or was willing to ignore the actual theories involved as a sort of device to add significance to his book. I was deeply disappointed that a scholar from a highly respected institution would either comment in such depth about something which he demonstrated almost no understanding of, or worse yet, intentionally misuse and critique a significant school and thought.

A study of the differences in religion is certainly worthwhile, and it is deeply disappoitning that an author of such a work would so miss the importance of his own work that he would feel the need to create a strawman enemy out of the perennialists.

[rudieboy]

07:55 PM on 08/14/2010

All humans and all animals for that matter. Want the same things and reject the same things. I'd imagine most religions point this out.
But no all religions are not the same. Some religions preach a soul, some say there is no soul. Some say there is one god, some say all is god and on and on.............

[an]

07:17 PM on 08/14/2010

it depends on what you mean by religion. many people i think confuse religion and myth. religion i think is the societal organization that builds up around a myth. a myth is usually an epic legend, or poem about the birth of the cosmos, the world, the god/god's who run it, and the heroes and prophets who connect with them. the myths, i think are virtually the same in their mystical aspect but differ in their societal function, reflecting the time and place that they were formed.

[Living Hour]

09:48 AM on 08/14/2010

The fact that all religions are not the same deep down is an important point and one not discussed enough. This doesn't mean that one faith is necessarily better than another but a recognition that every religion is a psychological reflection of a certain group of people in a certain time in history. By understanding that in greater depth religious leaders in different cultures around the world can better hope to fulfill the spiritual needs of their populations.

U. Tapila
http://www.livinghour.org

[timm553]

11:58 PM on 08/14/2010

Yes, religion is regional. It's differences depend, mostly, on geography.

[dubbleplusgood]

08:38 AM on 08/14/2010

are dogs different? yes. are dogmas different? yes. but in the end they're still dogmas no matter what breed. woof.

[Edward Standley]

02:18 AM on 08/14/2010

If even one single person has been murdered because of your religion, I don't want it.

[Word]

12:30 PM on 08/14/2010

Why stop at religion? Money, food, spreading democracy, music.......people have been murdered for these as well.

[jonk81]

05:56 PM on 08/13/2010

There are three types of standards. 1 is when sectarianists accept some external signs. Examples of this are bodily markings, religious head wear, colored robes, and ceremonies like baptism. 2. The different activities practiced in the process of worship. Examples are sacrifices, austerities, vows, studying scriptures, deity worship, constructing temples, respecting the purity of various trees and rivers, dressing like monks, acting like saints, dressing like religious students or priests, respecting particular types of books, rules and regulations in eating, and respecting the purity of particular times and places. The examples of number 3. are: attributing personalism or impersonalism to the Supreme Lord, installing deities, speculating on heaven and hell, and describing the future destination of the soul. The different forms of these spiritual activities create divisions of sectarianism. (continued in next post)

[jonk81]

05:55 PM on 08/13/2010

Sectarianism is a natural byproduct of the Absolute Truth. When great saints first ascertain and instruct the Truth, it is not polluted with sectarianism. But the rules and regulations received through them regarding the goal and the method of achieving it are changed in due course of time according to the mentality and locale of the people. A rule that is followed by one society is not necessarily accepted in another society. That is why one community is different from another. As a community gradually develops more respect for its own standards, it develops hatred towards other communities and considers their standards inferior. These sectarian symptoms are seen in all countries since time immemorial. This is prominent amongst neophytes and found to some extent amongst more advanced practitioners. Amongst the most advanced, however, there is no trace of sectarianism. Adherence to a particular standard is the prominent symptom of a society. (continued in next post)

[Michael Schiavo]

08:49 PM on 08/12/2010

Ralph Waldo Emerson.

[Dan Snellenbarger]

11:39 AM on 08/12/2010

If they are the same, then why do we have over 33,000 different types of Christianity, most of which cannot agree on much?

[Wendy1844]

10:37 PM on 08/12/2010

Well, those disagreements are mostly from people's interpretations, but I think it could be said there are some pretty basic (and imho, the most important) teachings that are the same and in fact match up with other religions, too, like the belief in one God, love your neighbor, the Golden Rule, do what is good, pray, have faith, be steadfast, things like that. There are two sides to everything in this world. Religions are the same, but they're also different. :)

[Candide33]

10:20 AM on 08/12/2010

One of the first quests of archaeologists in Palestine was the search for the remains of Solomon’s Temple and the great empire of David. It would be tedious to go through all the descriptions of the many excavations, the results, the assumptions, the wild claims of “I’ve found something that proves it!” which were then followed by sober science demonstrating that it wasn’t so. The reader who is interested in deeper knowledge in this area can certainly read both sides of the argument, and then look at the scientific evidence and come to the same conclusion we have: The Kingdom of David and the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem never existed as described by the Bible.

[Candide33]

10:20 AM on 08/12/2010

Even though there were remains of some sort of “kingdom” found at Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor, it was later determined that this “empire” was actually something altogether different than might initially be supposed as we shall soon see.[1] What is important, however, is the fact that the area that was specifically claimed as the “homeland” of David and Solomon - Judah - was “conspicuously undeveloped” during the time of the purported empire of Solomon. The facts are that the culture of this region was extremely simple. Based on the evidence of the spade, the land was rural - with no trace of written documents, inscriptions, or even any signs of the kind of widespread literacy that would be necessary for a functioning monarchy. What is more, the area was not even homogeneous. There is no evidence of any kind of unified culture, nor of any sort of central administration. The area from Jerusalem to the north was densely settled, and the area from Jerusalem to the south, the land “in question,” was very sparsely settled in the time that David and Solomon were supposed to have lived. In fact, Jerusalem itself was little more than a typical highland village. Archaeologically, nothing can be said about David and Solomon. Yet the legend endured. Why?

[Vlady]

10:45 PM on 08/12/2010

"Yet the legend endured. Why?"

Because people like you are not as powerful as they want to be.

[Candide33]

04:54 PM on 08/16/2010

Wrong, it is because stupidity is easy and the stupid are easier to control so it behooves the upper echelon of religion to keep as many people as stupid as possible.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

~Voltaire