 |
| [Pixabay] |
With Stephen Prothero's book God Is Not One still causing waves in religious writing online, I am going to put forward some thoughts that are probably completely unoriginal.
I haven't had a chance to properly read Prothero's book, but based on summaries, blurbs, and reviews, I get the feeling that while he acknowledges commonalities such as the Golden Rule and the similar experiences of mystics and contemplatives, he also worries that specific differences between theologies, dogmas, rituals, etc are being over-looked or minimized. Those who have used Prothero's book echo this sentiment as well as the belief that treating all religions more or less the same is both disrespectful and dangerous. Dangerous because it obscures differences that can fuel conflict.
Perhaps what I'm going to write here is something covered already in God Is Not One, but is that such a bad thing? Again, I am not writing in response to Prothero but to the conversations online his book has inspired.
First up, yes, there are difference in the narratives of different religions, and different versions, interpretations, and emphases on the dominant narrative within an individual narrative. Yes, such narratives include variation and ambiguity that allows for rituals and texts to be used for different purposes or to come to different conclusions about existential mysteries and daily life. Yes, glossing over these differences is problematic when they are important to particular practitioners or groups of practitioners. So no argument from me here on that score.
Second, there is more to religious commonalities and distinctions than this. Which is where I may disagree with both those who insist that God is one and those who insist God is not.
Let's proceed.
