What do you think?
Rate this book
لماذا الدين ضرورة حتمية؟ مصير الروح الإنسانية في عصر الإلحاد
في هذه الدراسة النقدية يناقش البروفيسور الأمريكي الصوفي المشرب والدكتور في الفلسفة ((هوستن سميث)) - أستاذ الفلسفة وعلم الأديان في عدة جامعات أمريكية وصاحب كتاب ((أديان العالم))الرائع والأكثر رواجًا - الأزمة الروحية الحاضرة لإنسان عصر الحداثة وما بعدها، ويقدّم لنا دراسة نقدية فلسفية واجتماعية وعلم - نفسية وتاريخية تشرح ملامح تلك الأزمة وما أنتجته من تصور مادي للعالم يقلص وجود الإنسان ويحرمه من كل أبعاده الروحية وما يتبع ذلك من اختناق روحي وفقدان للأمل وسيطرة للمادية والفردية والاستهلاكية والعُلمَويّة والأنظمة القانونية المتنكرة للقيم الدينية والسياسات الحكومية المجردة من المبادئ الأخلاقية (خاصة في وطنه الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية زعيمة الحضارة الغربية) مشبهًا ذلك "بنفق مظلم" حُبِسَ فيه إنسان الحداثة الفاقد للإيمان.
للتحميل
http://www.archive.org/download/98732...
للتحميل
http://www.archive.org/download/98732...
365 pages, Paperback
First published December 26, 2000
83 people are currently reading
1031 people want to read
About the author
Huston Smith
125 books319 followersSmith was born in Suzhou, China to Methodist missionaries and spent his first 17 years there. He taught at the Universities of Colorado and Denver from 1944–1947, moving to Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri for the next ten years, and then Professor of Philosophy at MIT from 1958–1973. While at MIT he participated in some of the experiments with entheogens that professor Timothy Leary conducted at Harvard University. He then moved to Syracuse University where he was Thomas J. Watson Professor of Religion and Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Philosophy until his retirement in 1983 and current emeritus status. He now lives in the Berkeley, CA area where he is Visiting Professor of Religious Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
During his career, Smith not only studied, but practiced Vedanta Hinduism, Zen Buddhism (studying under Goto Zuigan), and Sufism for over ten years each. He is a notable autodidact.
As a young man, Smith, of his own volition, after suddenly turning to mysticism, set out to meet with then-famous author Gerald Heard. Heard responded to Smith's letter, invited him to his Trabuco College (later donated as the Ramakrishna Monastery) in Southern California, and then sent him off to meet the legendary Aldous Huxley. So began Smith's experimentation with meditation, and association with the Vedanta Society in Saint Louis under the auspices of Swami Satprakashananda of the Ramakrishna order.
Via the connection with Heard and Huxley, Smith eventually experimented with Timothy Leary and others at the Center for Personality Research, of which Leary was Research Professor. The experience and history of the era are captured somewhat in Smith's book Cleansing the Doors of Perception. In this period, Smith joined in on the Harvard Project as well, an attempt to raise spiritual awareness through entheogenic plants.
He has been a friend of the XIVth Dalai Lama for more than forty years, and met and talked to some of the great figures of the century, from Eleanor Roosevelt to Thomas Merton.
He developed an interest in the Traditionalist School formulated by Rene Guenon and Ananda Coomaraswamy. This interest has become a continuing thread in all his writings.
In 1996, Bill Moyers devoted a 5-part PBS special to Smith's life and work, "The Wisdom of Faith with Huston Smith." Smith has produced three series for public television: "The Religions of Man," "The Search for America," and (with Arthur Compton) "Science and Human Responsibility." His films on Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Sufism have all won awards at international film festivals.
His latest DVD release is The Roots of Fundamentalism - A Conversation with Huston Smith and Phil Cousineau.
During his career, Smith not only studied, but practiced Vedanta Hinduism, Zen Buddhism (studying under Goto Zuigan), and Sufism for over ten years each. He is a notable autodidact.
As a young man, Smith, of his own volition, after suddenly turning to mysticism, set out to meet with then-famous author Gerald Heard. Heard responded to Smith's letter, invited him to his Trabuco College (later donated as the Ramakrishna Monastery) in Southern California, and then sent him off to meet the legendary Aldous Huxley. So began Smith's experimentation with meditation, and association with the Vedanta Society in Saint Louis under the auspices of Swami Satprakashananda of the Ramakrishna order.
Via the connection with Heard and Huxley, Smith eventually experimented with Timothy Leary and others at the Center for Personality Research, of which Leary was Research Professor. The experience and history of the era are captured somewhat in Smith's book Cleansing the Doors of Perception. In this period, Smith joined in on the Harvard Project as well, an attempt to raise spiritual awareness through entheogenic plants.
He has been a friend of the XIVth Dalai Lama for more than forty years, and met and talked to some of the great figures of the century, from Eleanor Roosevelt to Thomas Merton.
He developed an interest in the Traditionalist School formulated by Rene Guenon and Ananda Coomaraswamy. This interest has become a continuing thread in all his writings.
In 1996, Bill Moyers devoted a 5-part PBS special to Smith's life and work, "The Wisdom of Faith with Huston Smith." Smith has produced three series for public television: "The Religions of Man," "The Search for America," and (with Arthur Compton) "Science and Human Responsibility." His films on Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Sufism have all won awards at international film festivals.
His latest DVD release is The Roots of Fundamentalism - A Conversation with Huston Smith and Phil Cousineau.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
June 23, 2010
I picked this up off my uncle's shelf thinking that it would be some kind of fundamentalist Christian argument for why people should be Christian. But upon seeing that it was written by Huston Smith, I decided to check it out - and it's amazing! It's more about why what we commonly think of as spirituality matters - and it addressed some fundamental conflicts that I'd been dealing with in myself. For instance, the fundamental disbelief in anything "more" than what can be proven by an empirical experiment, which our modern culture in this country imposes upon us. That has been a conflict for me because I feel much more interested in life when I believe that what has been proven is only the tip of one of all of the icebergs in all the oceans; when I believe that anything is possible; when I meet reports of supernatural phenomena with interest and curiosity, instead of the assumption that that can't be true; but a big part of me is afraid of being foolish and unrealistic, and always hoping for something that will never be. This report doesn't really do the book justice - perhaps I'll write more on it when I read the book again, which I wanted to do as soon as I finished it.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who's interested in spirituality, religion, the nature of reality, and philosophy.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who's interested in spirituality, religion, the nature of reality, and philosophy.
August 23, 2011
As I was reading Why Religion Matters I thought about The Case for God by Karen Armstrong. To me both authors make a strong case that God is not dead. While Karen Armstrong refers to mostly Judeo-Christian religious artifacts and texts in history to make her case, Huston Smith tackles the issue of "Big Picture" mostly by referring to the works of various thinkers, philosophers, and scientists throughout western history.
The tone of writing in Why Religion Matters may seem abrasive and dense. However, considering the dominant presence of "scientism" and "disbelief" in 2001, the year of its publication, it's understandable since Huston Smith also seems charged by his passion for the subject matter. On the other hand I recall that The Case for God was very readable in a somewhat detached scholarly tone. It was published in 2009.
Despite these differences I find these two books equally valuable because they provide different tools and resources for me to better understand the issue of spirituality in the context of other human issues as well as in the context of human history. Why Religion Matters in particular has opened a door to roomful of books by philosophers and scientists that I now want to read.
The tone of writing in Why Religion Matters may seem abrasive and dense. However, considering the dominant presence of "scientism" and "disbelief" in 2001, the year of its publication, it's understandable since Huston Smith also seems charged by his passion for the subject matter. On the other hand I recall that The Case for God was very readable in a somewhat detached scholarly tone. It was published in 2009.
Despite these differences I find these two books equally valuable because they provide different tools and resources for me to better understand the issue of spirituality in the context of other human issues as well as in the context of human history. Why Religion Matters in particular has opened a door to roomful of books by philosophers and scientists that I now want to read.
September 1, 2019
Interesting reading but I wasn't totally convinced by Huston Smith's arguments.
As a former scientist and current Buddhist I consider myself at the meeting point of science and religion but am not sure I want to go back to a time when religious belief had a lot of power over society. Personal religious belief can be very transformative and encourage us to be kinder and more ethical people. Religious organisations, however, often seem to produce division and conservatism.
As a former scientist and current Buddhist I consider myself at the meeting point of science and religion but am not sure I want to go back to a time when religious belief had a lot of power over society. Personal religious belief can be very transformative and encourage us to be kinder and more ethical people. Religious organisations, however, often seem to produce division and conservatism.
July 13, 2018
No one would question how influential Huston Smith was (he died in December, 2016) in the study of world religions. His book on the subject has sold over 2 million copies since it was first published in 1958. In 2000 he wrote his apologia for religion in the face of the growing post-modern position that faith is no longer necessary in the age of enlightenment. He is a skilled writer, and his prose is certainly accessible, even entertaining. In Why Religion Matters, Smith lays out his case for why religion exists, why it has survived for tens of thousands of years, and why it will continue in spite of opposition from the agnostic and atheistic sector of the scientific community. I think he makes some good arguments, and I tend to agree with him that there is evolutionary evidence for the necessity of religious faith for humans. Where I question Smith is on the broad assumptions and emphatic stands he takes along the way, which is exactly the same criticism I launch against the imperious atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. I also take issue when Smith seems to resort to tired religious cliches and platitudes. As an example, Smith writes: "Scientists would give their eye-teeth to know what the non-material component of photons is. For religionists, it is Spirit." With this type of dismissive assumption, Smith is falling into the "god of the gaps" trap that atheists so often describe. He also spends much time discussing the personal deity and the bond between humanity and the creator. But, then he provides this analogy for our inability as finite humans to see the big picture: "If a two-year-old drops her ice cream cone, that tragedy is the end of the world for her. Her mother knows that this is not the case. Can there be an understanding of life so staggering in its immensity that, in comparison to it, even gulags and the Holocaust seem like dropped ice-cream cones?" My answer would have to be, "I certainly hope not." Either God doesn't really care about individual lives on earth very much or God is not in control and is as helpless as we are to prevent tragedy. Wouldn't the mother have prevented the ice-cream cone from falling if she could have? This metaphor grossly trivializes human life and paints a picture of God that hearkens back to the Book of Job, where human beings are reduced to bargaining chips in the wager of good against evil. Perhaps it is more of a Deist perspective than anything else. I'm not sure. Smith seems to be falling back on the old Biblical adage "Lean not unto thine own understanding." That may be fine for many people of faith, but I don't consider it a very good argument for why religion matters. I recommend this book for anyone interested in the subject of science and religion.
April 4, 2009
This review was originally posted on my blog.
This is perhaps one of the most enlightening books I've ever read, and yet I feel like I've only grasped a small bit of its meaning. It is with that warning that I attempt this review.
I should add at the outset that this is one of those books where no matter what you expect it to be, after reading it, you will find that it wasn't what you expected.
I heartily recommend it to everyone, from the devoutly religious to the devoutly atheistic.
Science and Scientism
Smith begins with a discussion of science and scientism. He is a forceful defender of science and of the work of scientists in general. But he is careful to separate science from scientism. Paraphrased, he defines scientism as the belief that science is the only (or the best) route to truth about everything. He points out that, through no explicit fault of scientists, scientism has become so ingrained in our modern psyche that even theologians have started thinking in terms of it.
Yet there are some pretty glaring flaws in scientism, particularly where it comes to matters of philosophy, conscience, meaning, and religion. Smith argues that the foundation of science is the controlled experiment and logical inferences derived from it. He then proceeds to make strong case that it is not possible for humans to set up a controlled experiment to either prove or disprove the existence of something "more" than our material world -- a transcendence, a metaphysical reality, a spirit, a God. We, with our existence trapped in this finite world, cannot possibly hope to capture and control something so much more than us in every way: intelligence, versatility, and "finiteness". Thus science can't even address the question.
That hasn't stopped people from claiming that religion is just a helpful delusion, for instance, despite not being able to prove whether it is in fact a delusion or reality.
Worldviews
Smith then asks us to indulge a moment in considering two different worldviews: one the "science-only" worldview so common these days, and the other a more traditional religious worldview with a rightful place for science. He defers supporting evidence for each for later chapters.
The science-only worldview is pretty familiar to many, and I have even heard parts of it articulated in comments left on this blog. It goes roughly like this: The universe is x billions of years old. It is, so far as we presently know, a vast expanse with mostly dead matter. Earth is the only exception, which contains some living organisms and even sentient beings, though these make up a small fraction of even the earth. This life arrived by accident through physical and biological processes, some of which are well-understood and some aren't. In the end, the universe will again become entirely dead, as our planet will be incinerated when our sun goes nova. Or, in any case, the entire universe will eventually expire in one of various ways. This worldview suggests that it is an accident that we are here and that we have consciousness, and that our actions have no ultimate meaning because the earth will eventually be incinerated anyhow.
The traditional worldview holds the opposite: that instead of having our origins in the tiniest and simplest of building blocks, and eventually improving over time, we should more properly think of ourselves as being derived from something greater than ourselves. That greater something is part of our world, but something much bigger than it too. It does not rule out science, but neither is it something that science can ever explain. It suggests that our lives have a purpose, that our work has meaning, and that there are ultimate ends to seek.
Smith is a scholar of world religions, and draws on his considerable experience to point out that virtually all world religions, before the Enlightenment, drew essentially the same picture of our world and the "more". He reminds us -- though perhaps less effectively than Marcus Borg -- that there are other ways of knowing truth besides science, and suggests that we pay attention to what the vast majority of humanity had to say about the nature of existence before a human invention started to squelch the story.
The Stories
The book is filled with personal stories (Smith spent at least a decade each researching and practicing at least four different religions), quotes, and insights. I consider it the most enlightening book on religion I have yet read. Smith has more than a passing familiarity with physics, and the physicists in the crowd will probably be delighted at his discussions of quantum mechanics and the claim that "nonlocality provides us with the first level platform since modern science arose on which scientists and theologians can continue their discussions."
One passage reads like this:
He says that quantum theory of course can't prove that there is a God, but that recent research seems to disprove the old notion that, given enough time, all questions will be answerable by science.
Even if you disagree with every one of Smith's conclusions, you'll be along for a fascinating ride through physics, biology, philosophy, and innumerable religions. One of my favorite anecdotes concerns noted physicist David Bohm (who studied under Oppenheimer and worked with Einstein, among others). He gave a lecture at one point, apparently touching on his hidden variable theories to a great extent. At its conclusion, a senior physics professor asked derivisely, "What does all this philosophy have to do with physics?" Bohm replied, "I do not make that distinction."
How's that for something to ponder?
The Writing
The book is fun to read, and the stories make it all the moreso.
However, it is not a light read. Houston Smith wrote this near the beginning, without any hint of irony:
I can think of a few simpler ways to express that thought. In any case, it isn't light reading, but it is accessible even if you, like me, have little formal training in philosophy, theology, or quantum physics.
Conclusion
I would do such a poor job trying to paraphrase Smith's main points that I haven't even really attempted to do so here. Get the book -- you'll be in for a treat.
Incidentally, I had been thinking of buying the book for awhile. What finally made me do so was an NPR story about how he helped preserve the sound of the Gyuto Monks Tantric Choir back in 1964, when he (of course) was sleeping in a monastery in the Himalayas and awoke to investigate "something transcendent" -- the "holiest sound I have ever heard."
I pressed the Buy button for the Kindle edition a few minutes later.
Most of the book deals with things we already know yet never learn.
-- Huston Smith
This is perhaps one of the most enlightening books I've ever read, and yet I feel like I've only grasped a small bit of its meaning. It is with that warning that I attempt this review.
I should add at the outset that this is one of those books where no matter what you expect it to be, after reading it, you will find that it wasn't what you expected.
I heartily recommend it to everyone, from the devoutly religious to the devoutly atheistic.
Science and Scientism
Smith begins with a discussion of science and scientism. He is a forceful defender of science and of the work of scientists in general. But he is careful to separate science from scientism. Paraphrased, he defines scientism as the belief that science is the only (or the best) route to truth about everything. He points out that, through no explicit fault of scientists, scientism has become so ingrained in our modern psyche that even theologians have started thinking in terms of it.
Yet there are some pretty glaring flaws in scientism, particularly where it comes to matters of philosophy, conscience, meaning, and religion. Smith argues that the foundation of science is the controlled experiment and logical inferences derived from it. He then proceeds to make strong case that it is not possible for humans to set up a controlled experiment to either prove or disprove the existence of something "more" than our material world -- a transcendence, a metaphysical reality, a spirit, a God. We, with our existence trapped in this finite world, cannot possibly hope to capture and control something so much more than us in every way: intelligence, versatility, and "finiteness". Thus science can't even address the question.
That hasn't stopped people from claiming that religion is just a helpful delusion, for instance, despite not being able to prove whether it is in fact a delusion or reality.
Worldviews
Smith then asks us to indulge a moment in considering two different worldviews: one the "science-only" worldview so common these days, and the other a more traditional religious worldview with a rightful place for science. He defers supporting evidence for each for later chapters.
The science-only worldview is pretty familiar to many, and I have even heard parts of it articulated in comments left on this blog. It goes roughly like this: The universe is x billions of years old. It is, so far as we presently know, a vast expanse with mostly dead matter. Earth is the only exception, which contains some living organisms and even sentient beings, though these make up a small fraction of even the earth. This life arrived by accident through physical and biological processes, some of which are well-understood and some aren't. In the end, the universe will again become entirely dead, as our planet will be incinerated when our sun goes nova. Or, in any case, the entire universe will eventually expire in one of various ways. This worldview suggests that it is an accident that we are here and that we have consciousness, and that our actions have no ultimate meaning because the earth will eventually be incinerated anyhow.
The traditional worldview holds the opposite: that instead of having our origins in the tiniest and simplest of building blocks, and eventually improving over time, we should more properly think of ourselves as being derived from something greater than ourselves. That greater something is part of our world, but something much bigger than it too. It does not rule out science, but neither is it something that science can ever explain. It suggests that our lives have a purpose, that our work has meaning, and that there are ultimate ends to seek.
Smith is a scholar of world religions, and draws on his considerable experience to point out that virtually all world religions, before the Enlightenment, drew essentially the same picture of our world and the "more". He reminds us -- though perhaps less effectively than Marcus Borg -- that there are other ways of knowing truth besides science, and suggests that we pay attention to what the vast majority of humanity had to say about the nature of existence before a human invention started to squelch the story.
The Stories
The book is filled with personal stories (Smith spent at least a decade each researching and practicing at least four different religions), quotes, and insights. I consider it the most enlightening book on religion I have yet read. Smith has more than a passing familiarity with physics, and the physicists in the crowd will probably be delighted at his discussions of quantum mechanics and the claim that "nonlocality provides us with the first level platform since modern science arose on which scientists and theologians can continue their discussions."
One passage reads like this:
Again I will let Henry Stapp say it: “Everything we [now:] know about Nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time, but generates events that can be located in space-time.” Stapp does not mention matter, but his phrase “space-time” implies it, for physics locks the three together.
He says that quantum theory of course can't prove that there is a God, but that recent research seems to disprove the old notion that, given enough time, all questions will be answerable by science.
Even if you disagree with every one of Smith's conclusions, you'll be along for a fascinating ride through physics, biology, philosophy, and innumerable religions. One of my favorite anecdotes concerns noted physicist David Bohm (who studied under Oppenheimer and worked with Einstein, among others). He gave a lecture at one point, apparently touching on his hidden variable theories to a great extent. At its conclusion, a senior physics professor asked derivisely, "What does all this philosophy have to do with physics?" Bohm replied, "I do not make that distinction."
How's that for something to ponder?
The Writing
The book is fun to read, and the stories make it all the moreso.
However, it is not a light read. Houston Smith wrote this near the beginning, without any hint of irony:
The first of these differences is that Gass’s is an aristocratic book, written for the literary elite, whereas mine is as plebeian as I can render its not always simple arguments.
I can think of a few simpler ways to express that thought. In any case, it isn't light reading, but it is accessible even if you, like me, have little formal training in philosophy, theology, or quantum physics.
Conclusion
I would do such a poor job trying to paraphrase Smith's main points that I haven't even really attempted to do so here. Get the book -- you'll be in for a treat.
Incidentally, I had been thinking of buying the book for awhile. What finally made me do so was an NPR story about how he helped preserve the sound of the Gyuto Monks Tantric Choir back in 1964, when he (of course) was sleeping in a monastery in the Himalayas and awoke to investigate "something transcendent" -- the "holiest sound I have ever heard."
I pressed the Buy button for the Kindle edition a few minutes later.
May 30, 2017
I think Huston Smith is both a smart and wise man. His research, training, and experience make him uniquely qualified to write a book about why religion (and not just "spirituality," as he qualifies it,) still matters in our society.
This isn't that book.
This book's biggest problem is one of tactics.
Smith's stated intention with his book is to simultaneously demonstrate the blind spots in a strictly scientific worldview and to demonstrate how religion can add value and insight. To that end, he makes a lot of broad generalizations that could rankle scientific types.
Now, there's all kinds of evidence Smith could offer to validate his points: scientific studies that document the effect of prayer/faith in healing; statistics on charities supported by religions and missionaries; even emphasizing the role that religions have played in science and literature.
But Smith doesn't do that. Instead, he leans on anecdotes and name checks other books that he says also make his point. The book comes across as a reading list peppered with a few, personal stories
Here's the thing. His anecdotes—often conversations he's had or quotes from other writers—will be persuasive to people who are already inclined to agree with him. But to convince those who prefer facts more than feelings—the very people he's criticizing and trying to sway—his anecdotes don't hold weight.
This isn't that book.
This book's biggest problem is one of tactics.
Smith's stated intention with his book is to simultaneously demonstrate the blind spots in a strictly scientific worldview and to demonstrate how religion can add value and insight. To that end, he makes a lot of broad generalizations that could rankle scientific types.
Now, there's all kinds of evidence Smith could offer to validate his points: scientific studies that document the effect of prayer/faith in healing; statistics on charities supported by religions and missionaries; even emphasizing the role that religions have played in science and literature.
But Smith doesn't do that. Instead, he leans on anecdotes and name checks other books that he says also make his point. The book comes across as a reading list peppered with a few, personal stories
Here's the thing. His anecdotes—often conversations he's had or quotes from other writers—will be persuasive to people who are already inclined to agree with him. But to convince those who prefer facts more than feelings—the very people he's criticizing and trying to sway—his anecdotes don't hold weight.
June 27, 2008
I believe there may have been a time when the world changed at a much slower pace -- when information was something that could be consumed slowly --- savored --- mulled over ---(maybe in the middle ages) but now the world changes in exponential ways and it is helpful to have someone of Smith's stature offer insight into how our post modern world organizes data.
His approach is very mid-century in its reliance on analytical thought, but at the same time he doesn't deny the mystical glimpses of a world unseen.
What is surprising is that in our media culture which suggests that faith is a critical ingredient in all decisions in our culture --- Smith suggests quite rightly that we live in an age of disbelief.....where people identify as faithful (and Smith might as to what)!
He covers the isms of our time from consumer to relative in a way that lets us think -- no encourages us to think more deeply --- Long live Huston Smith...
His approach is very mid-century in its reliance on analytical thought, but at the same time he doesn't deny the mystical glimpses of a world unseen.
What is surprising is that in our media culture which suggests that faith is a critical ingredient in all decisions in our culture --- Smith suggests quite rightly that we live in an age of disbelief.....where people identify as faithful (and Smith might as to what)!
He covers the isms of our time from consumer to relative in a way that lets us think -- no encourages us to think more deeply --- Long live Huston Smith...
April 23, 2019
For the most part, Why Religion Matters seemed to be a response to the western scientific worldview. Smith reveals the cracks in what he calls "Scientism"; the naturalistic notion that all things can be explained using science. Smith's argument seems to be well summarized in his quotation of Jacques Monod: "No society before ours was ever rent by contradictions so agonizing. in both primitive and classical cultures the animistic tradition saw knowledge and values stemming from the same source. for the first time in history a civilization is trying to shape itself while clinging desperately to the animistic tradition to justify its values, and at the same time abandoning it as the source of knowledge"
June 20, 2022
While sadly little known today, Huston Smith was the 20th century's preeminent authority on the world's religions in the anglosphere. His aptly titled the World's Religions is to this day used in comparative religious studies in spite of the fact that it is now a whopping 66 years old. Having read that book myself, however, it's easy to see why. Smith is among the few to advance the thesis that all religions are, at base, the same without doing disservice to the unique content and cultural baggage of each tradition. A lifelong Christian himself, Smith nevertheless is capable of grasping well what each tradition offers and what connection it has to what Smith regards as the ultimate wisdom, the Perennial Philosophy. Having grown up in China on mission, this cultural sensitivity is perhaps unsurprising.
Smith's thesis is two-fold: firstly, Smith feels as though modernity has straightjacketed the Western mind and confined our knowledge base to only that which science can reveal. What science can reveal, Smith argues, has no bearing on the larger questions of life and so a restriction of knowledge to scientific knowledge is to foreclose ourselves to knowledge of ultimate Truths a priori. Not only can science not answer these questions, it does not trade in the correct category of information to pose them in the first place. This is all to say, of course, that modernity has rendered us incapable of addressing those questions which sit most closely to the human condition, and so rendered us incapable of being fully human. Secondly, Smith holds that this straightjacket is coming undone and can (as well as ought) to be encouraged. Twenty years on, it must sadly be reported that Smith's talent for analysis outstripped his talent for prediction. But as they say, "[p]rediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future!"
What makes Smith's book uniquely valuable, in my opinion, is the emphasis is places on the value of religion as a universal phenomenon. Smith is not interested in pushing the value of revelation, of submitting oneself to the authority of the God of Smith's choosing, or even subscribing to any given faith tradition. For Smith, the value of religion can be found primarily in its metaphysical disposition. Smith, and I am borrowing these definitions from another of his books titled Beyond the Post-Modern Mind, sees metaphysics primarily about orienting oneself to the fundamental structure of reality and sees this orientation as an antidote to postmodernity's crippling nihilism, which he understands to be primarily the phenomenon whereby people see no meaningful distinctions between possibilities in life. Merely by providing us with an orientation, by making us aware of the metaphysical realities of our existence, religion offers us a categorical value that secular worldviews are not able to provide.
Quoting Oliver Wendel Holmes, Smith notes that where science offers major answers to minor questions, religion offers minor answers to major ones. I imagine the scientists among us would balk at the suggestion that the questions science attempts to answer are minor, given that advancements science (so it is said) are responsible for doubling our lifespan in just the last century. To this, I would simply retort that the average lifespan could have quintupled and it would change nothing fundamental: death comes for us all. The finite goods of science, no matter how large, cannot match the infinite goods of religion, no matter how small.
In spite of how it might sound to some, however, this is hardly intended as an attack on science. To say that the infinite goods of religion outstrip the finite goods of science is the same as saying that the infinite good of Absolutes outstrips the finite good of particularities. It's not wrong, but Absolutes would themselves not have much good were there not a collection of particulars manifesting them. While it is true that All is One, it is also true that All are All. By which I mean to say that while it is true that there is a connective tissue which binds us, it would be absurd to suggest this connective tissue is all that we are. One might be reminded of Shinji's monologue during the TV ending of Neon Genesis Evangelion where upon he realizes that he needs the existence of others to define himself. Blue would not be opposite of red were they not both colors: it is only through our similarities that our differences have meaning, and it is only through our differences that our similarities have meaning either. Differentiation and particularization is what gives the Ultimate meaning, because meaning is relational. Religion makes us aware of this relationship, and so provides meaning.
Science, so far as it goes, is wonderful. A greater understanding of the natural world is one way we can come to have a greater understanding of God, since the natural world is God's creation. If one wishes to learn about a painter, it would be foolish if not outright absurd to ignore what their art itself can tell us about them. The problem simply emerges when science goes further than it goes, if you will. When science's truth claims outstrip its epistemological warrant. That the average scientist is an utter philosophical incompetent (one may turn to Richard Dawkin's the God Delusion and the reception thereof in scientific communities for proof of that claim) has not only led to the scientific community not knowing where that epistemological warrant ends, it has led to the scientific community not knowing what an epistemological warrant is in the first place.
While science may say little in its own terms about philosophy, philosophy can and must say much about science. Raw facts cannot tell us much about qualitative values, but qualitative values ultimately guide our investigations into raw facts. This being kept in mind, that scientists are unequipped with a reasonable degree of philosophical understanding makes not only for the lot to be poor philosophers, which is of course forgivable, but makes them poor scientists. It is appalling, and telling, that William James could produce more insightful and coherent ideas on human psychology than can Steven Pinker, in spite of the full century's worth of scientific advancement Pinker has at his disposal over poor James.
Smith is, first and foremost, a philosopher, but another of this book's virtues is that Smith does not limit himself to such a role. Smith here plays social critic as well, and while it is no surprise that a philosopher proves to have a stronger grasp of philosophy than he does social critique, Smith furnishes a number of worthy insights. Most interestingly, Smith draws attention to the ways in which American law is not merely secular, as it ought to be, but secular humanist, which is to say ideologically secular. Where public education perhaps ought to have little to say about matters concerning ultimate reality that can be considered definitive, we are instead teaching our children that science has somehow definitively done away with the matter entirely. This is not merely absurd, it is dangerous.
Put more simply, physics cannot explain metaphysics, and even a cursory understanding of philosophy (an understanding of etymology alone would here suffice) makes clear why. Since science cannot possibly explain metaphysics, it is perfectly right for scientists to set the matter aside. Scientists err, however, when they believe that their setting aside of metaphysics for methodological reasons amounts to a proof that metaphysics does not exist. It does exist, it logically must. That it cannot be subjected to controlled experiment does not prove or even suggest that it does not exist, it simply shows where science's epistemic warrant ends. Scientists rightly mock the creationist rallying cry of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but the religious among us are well within our rights to mock them back if they're so foolish as to mistake a lack of empirical evidence for a lack of logical necessity. In this way, we discern the existence of God in much the same way scientists were able to discern the existence of dark energy.
It's worth belaboring this last point somewhat. While Smith titles his book Why Religion Matters, he might have more accurately titled it Why Wisdom Traditions Matter. Wisdom tradition is his preferred phrase to religion, primarily because Smith considers the truth of revelation to be secondary to its Truth. That is to say, Smith approaches religious texts more as art than historical record. That is not to say that Smith is closed off to the possibility that these records are accurate, he actually wrote an entire book taking his famed student Marcus J. Borg to task for having gutted Christianity of its supernatural qualities, but that the accuracy of any given account is secondary to the metaphysical truth it intends to impart. Myself an admirer of Borg, I nevertheless agree fully with Smith's criticisms: while it's true that any given account of events in the Bible may be inaccurate or skewed, even falsified, it remains that for the metaphysical truths intended to be contained in these texts to be understood one must remain radically open to the possibility. Borg comes dangerously close to being Nietzsche's Christian, an atheist who simply did not realize he was one.
As the example of Borg shows, even the religious often need to be reminded why our belief matters. Daniel Dennett once brilliantly opined that the average believer today believes not in God but rather in believing in God. We've lost sight of what religion is really about, and in the process our religion really has stopped mattering. Nietzsche's conviction that God was dead had nothing to do with the reality of God's existence and little to do with the nominal belief that people would profess in society. God's death came when we lost sight of His metaphysical substance, when we lost sight of how our belief in God was supposed to color our outlook of the world. This has less to do with any particular opinion we hold about the world, but rather what we're able to see in it and what we're able to feel about these sights in response.
This is the essential character of the religious outlook, regardless of the historically specific traditions in which this outlook is manifested. It trains us to focus on the more behind the less, rather than the less behind the more. In one of my favorite passages, a short bit right near the end, Smith explains that the difference between the traditional worldview for which he advocates and the scientific worldview which he opposes is that the former can be compared to the intent to build a better mousetrap and the latter to building a worse one. The former project may, of course, prove a failure; but it is intelligible. The same cannot be said of the latter, whose intentions are at base life-denying. That the scientific worldview is cause for such dispair ought to be a warning sign to us that there is something missing from it, even if we are not ourselves religious. It would be rather odd indeed for there to have evolved a being whose psychology finds the nature of its own existence unbearable. Moreover, the psychological revelations brought about by authentic religious experience are difficult to explain without in some way suggesting they are at least partially true. The scientific materialist explanation of mystical experiences as mere "malfunctions of the brain" here breaks down.
If Smith can be faulted for anything, it would be that he does not take seriously the reasons for why the scientific worldview has overtaken the traditional. He makes a strong, pragmatic case for the coherence and viability of the traditional worldview: simply put, it is a worldview so ubiquitous that were it in error it would amount to nothing short of the greatest and most widespread intellectual error in human history, bar none. That this worldview was come to through unscientific means is not an argument against it, but rather for it: despite a lack of methodological coherence, traditional peoples independently managed to come to fundamentally identical worldviews. This cannot be explained away by suggesting that it is a conclusion inherent in the premises, for the only premises shared by all traditional peoples are the human existential condition. This, however, in turn suggests that an equally powerful explanation is required to show why so many peoples around the globe have abandoned this older view.
Like so many religious people, Smith says little about this beyond the suggestion that science's "success" in its own field have fooled us into thinking that its field is the only one there is. To me, this is utterly unpersuasive. Smith argues that the scientific method can be wholly integrated into the traditional worldview with no inherent contradictions existing, but Smith's hostility towards evolution gives the game away. As Smith rightly recognizes, the real "danger" posed by evolution has nothing to do with how it contradicts the specifics of any given creation narrative and instead the danger is to be found in what evolution suggests about the nature of creation at all. If higher lifeforms evolved from lower forms, and the lower forms from inanimate matter, then the world cannot be said to be "made" for life.
The solution to this conundrum, however, is contained in some of Smith's own ideas. As he writes when discussing the nature of the degrees of reality, it is difficult to say which is superior in the relationship between the mind and body. This would seem to scream property dualism, but Smith is seemingly wedded to substance dualism. Since Smith is committed to separating the mind from the body, sentience from matter, Smith cannot accept that life evolved naturally and so is forced to adopt absurd, anti-scientific positions that he tries in vain to find support for within respected scientific institutions. He goes so far as to suggest that evolution has actually been abandoned by biologists "in practice" but is still held onto in theory for purely ideological reasons. It's not a compelling argument in the least. While Smith's critiques of his student Marcus J. Borg are warranted, Smith himself could have learned a thing or two from Borg's panentheism. By imbuing matter with spirit, Borg's view allows for there to be a fully naturalistic account of life which nevertheless reserves a spot for the divine. Indeed, by reserving a spot for the divine which is synonymous with the natural, the panentheist opens up a possible answer to the question of life that is unavailable to science. While to the scientific materialist the mind seems to have emerged from nowhere, the panentheist can provide an evolutionary account.
This, moreover, would have helped Smith come to a more mature outlook with regards to the intersection we find ourselves in between conservative and liberal outlooks on religion. The strength of the liberal view, of course, is that is avoids the danger of fanaticism and zealotry. The weakness, however, is that it roots this tolerance in a perspective which ultimately devalues religion. The liberal is able to deal with differences in belief because, ultimately, they don't really matter. The strength and weakness of the conservative worldview are the exact opposite. The conservative is unable to tolerate religious differences, by its nature tending to fanaticism and zealotry. The value here, however, is that it is unable to tolerate these differences because it does understand the importance of the matters at hand. In one of my favorite phrases of the book, Smith says that "[l]iberals do not recognize the spiritual wholeness that can come from the sense of certainty." From this, Smith goes on to conclude that, while both views are flawed, the conservative view is superior because the value it recognizes, that of the importance of divinity, is of greater importance than the value the liberal recognizes, co-existence with others.
This division, however, is a product of the very dualism that Smith himself has fallen prey too. And while Smith nominally advocates for a middle ground between liberalism and conservativism, his emphasis on conservativism's greater value is in fact a capitulation to the logic of conservatism, a logic which terminates in zealotry. It is only in a panentheistic (or pantheistic, panpsychic, or animist - the chosen terminology matters little) worldview that the relationship between ourselves and the divine becomes inseparable from the relationship we have with the rest of creation. To fully connect with the divine, we must fully connect with one another. Smith once describes the religious project as that project which seeks to "make people more real", which is a beautiful phrase. That Smith thinks becoming "more real" is an essentially atomistic project rather than a social one is an error of modern thinking. Smith at one point critiques Hegel and Marx, but it would have been on this very point that learning from those two men would have helped Smith come to a more, not less, spiritual conclusion.
Returning now to the beginning of his long-winded line of critique, Smith's failure to take seriously the reasons the traditional worldview has been replaced by the scientific worldview is due in no small part to Smith's under-theorization of the relationship between the two. The scientific worldview has not replaced the traditional worldview simply because it has proven more successful in the manipulation of the material world, but because the traditional worldview implies things about the material world we now know to not be true. The mystic worldview for which Smith himself powerfully advocates can provide a resolution to this contradiction, but Smith seems to have been unwilling to take his ideas the small step forward into full-blown panentheism. By failing to do this, Smith's advocacy for the traditional worldview may fall on deaf ears. If we are to change the minds of anyone, we first must understand why those minds think as they do. Smith, helpful as he is elsewhere, is seemingly out of his depth on this matter.
These critiques do little to diminish the ultimate value of the work. It is unlikely that Richard Dawkins ever read this book, and if he had he would have almost certainly been unimpressed; Smith is simply speaking a different language than one someone like Dawkins is capable of understanding. But to those of us who do speak that language, Smith here provides a veritable manifesto not only on the truth of our convictions but the value those convictions hold. Smith may not be well remembered today, but he ought to be. If nothing else, he will be well remembered by me for a long time to come.
Smith's thesis is two-fold: firstly, Smith feels as though modernity has straightjacketed the Western mind and confined our knowledge base to only that which science can reveal. What science can reveal, Smith argues, has no bearing on the larger questions of life and so a restriction of knowledge to scientific knowledge is to foreclose ourselves to knowledge of ultimate Truths a priori. Not only can science not answer these questions, it does not trade in the correct category of information to pose them in the first place. This is all to say, of course, that modernity has rendered us incapable of addressing those questions which sit most closely to the human condition, and so rendered us incapable of being fully human. Secondly, Smith holds that this straightjacket is coming undone and can (as well as ought) to be encouraged. Twenty years on, it must sadly be reported that Smith's talent for analysis outstripped his talent for prediction. But as they say, "[p]rediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future!"
What makes Smith's book uniquely valuable, in my opinion, is the emphasis is places on the value of religion as a universal phenomenon. Smith is not interested in pushing the value of revelation, of submitting oneself to the authority of the God of Smith's choosing, or even subscribing to any given faith tradition. For Smith, the value of religion can be found primarily in its metaphysical disposition. Smith, and I am borrowing these definitions from another of his books titled Beyond the Post-Modern Mind, sees metaphysics primarily about orienting oneself to the fundamental structure of reality and sees this orientation as an antidote to postmodernity's crippling nihilism, which he understands to be primarily the phenomenon whereby people see no meaningful distinctions between possibilities in life. Merely by providing us with an orientation, by making us aware of the metaphysical realities of our existence, religion offers us a categorical value that secular worldviews are not able to provide.
Quoting Oliver Wendel Holmes, Smith notes that where science offers major answers to minor questions, religion offers minor answers to major ones. I imagine the scientists among us would balk at the suggestion that the questions science attempts to answer are minor, given that advancements science (so it is said) are responsible for doubling our lifespan in just the last century. To this, I would simply retort that the average lifespan could have quintupled and it would change nothing fundamental: death comes for us all. The finite goods of science, no matter how large, cannot match the infinite goods of religion, no matter how small.
In spite of how it might sound to some, however, this is hardly intended as an attack on science. To say that the infinite goods of religion outstrip the finite goods of science is the same as saying that the infinite good of Absolutes outstrips the finite good of particularities. It's not wrong, but Absolutes would themselves not have much good were there not a collection of particulars manifesting them. While it is true that All is One, it is also true that All are All. By which I mean to say that while it is true that there is a connective tissue which binds us, it would be absurd to suggest this connective tissue is all that we are. One might be reminded of Shinji's monologue during the TV ending of Neon Genesis Evangelion where upon he realizes that he needs the existence of others to define himself. Blue would not be opposite of red were they not both colors: it is only through our similarities that our differences have meaning, and it is only through our differences that our similarities have meaning either. Differentiation and particularization is what gives the Ultimate meaning, because meaning is relational. Religion makes us aware of this relationship, and so provides meaning.
Science, so far as it goes, is wonderful. A greater understanding of the natural world is one way we can come to have a greater understanding of God, since the natural world is God's creation. If one wishes to learn about a painter, it would be foolish if not outright absurd to ignore what their art itself can tell us about them. The problem simply emerges when science goes further than it goes, if you will. When science's truth claims outstrip its epistemological warrant. That the average scientist is an utter philosophical incompetent (one may turn to Richard Dawkin's the God Delusion and the reception thereof in scientific communities for proof of that claim) has not only led to the scientific community not knowing where that epistemological warrant ends, it has led to the scientific community not knowing what an epistemological warrant is in the first place.
While science may say little in its own terms about philosophy, philosophy can and must say much about science. Raw facts cannot tell us much about qualitative values, but qualitative values ultimately guide our investigations into raw facts. This being kept in mind, that scientists are unequipped with a reasonable degree of philosophical understanding makes not only for the lot to be poor philosophers, which is of course forgivable, but makes them poor scientists. It is appalling, and telling, that William James could produce more insightful and coherent ideas on human psychology than can Steven Pinker, in spite of the full century's worth of scientific advancement Pinker has at his disposal over poor James.
Smith is, first and foremost, a philosopher, but another of this book's virtues is that Smith does not limit himself to such a role. Smith here plays social critic as well, and while it is no surprise that a philosopher proves to have a stronger grasp of philosophy than he does social critique, Smith furnishes a number of worthy insights. Most interestingly, Smith draws attention to the ways in which American law is not merely secular, as it ought to be, but secular humanist, which is to say ideologically secular. Where public education perhaps ought to have little to say about matters concerning ultimate reality that can be considered definitive, we are instead teaching our children that science has somehow definitively done away with the matter entirely. This is not merely absurd, it is dangerous.
Put more simply, physics cannot explain metaphysics, and even a cursory understanding of philosophy (an understanding of etymology alone would here suffice) makes clear why. Since science cannot possibly explain metaphysics, it is perfectly right for scientists to set the matter aside. Scientists err, however, when they believe that their setting aside of metaphysics for methodological reasons amounts to a proof that metaphysics does not exist. It does exist, it logically must. That it cannot be subjected to controlled experiment does not prove or even suggest that it does not exist, it simply shows where science's epistemic warrant ends. Scientists rightly mock the creationist rallying cry of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but the religious among us are well within our rights to mock them back if they're so foolish as to mistake a lack of empirical evidence for a lack of logical necessity. In this way, we discern the existence of God in much the same way scientists were able to discern the existence of dark energy.
It's worth belaboring this last point somewhat. While Smith titles his book Why Religion Matters, he might have more accurately titled it Why Wisdom Traditions Matter. Wisdom tradition is his preferred phrase to religion, primarily because Smith considers the truth of revelation to be secondary to its Truth. That is to say, Smith approaches religious texts more as art than historical record. That is not to say that Smith is closed off to the possibility that these records are accurate, he actually wrote an entire book taking his famed student Marcus J. Borg to task for having gutted Christianity of its supernatural qualities, but that the accuracy of any given account is secondary to the metaphysical truth it intends to impart. Myself an admirer of Borg, I nevertheless agree fully with Smith's criticisms: while it's true that any given account of events in the Bible may be inaccurate or skewed, even falsified, it remains that for the metaphysical truths intended to be contained in these texts to be understood one must remain radically open to the possibility. Borg comes dangerously close to being Nietzsche's Christian, an atheist who simply did not realize he was one.
As the example of Borg shows, even the religious often need to be reminded why our belief matters. Daniel Dennett once brilliantly opined that the average believer today believes not in God but rather in believing in God. We've lost sight of what religion is really about, and in the process our religion really has stopped mattering. Nietzsche's conviction that God was dead had nothing to do with the reality of God's existence and little to do with the nominal belief that people would profess in society. God's death came when we lost sight of His metaphysical substance, when we lost sight of how our belief in God was supposed to color our outlook of the world. This has less to do with any particular opinion we hold about the world, but rather what we're able to see in it and what we're able to feel about these sights in response.
This is the essential character of the religious outlook, regardless of the historically specific traditions in which this outlook is manifested. It trains us to focus on the more behind the less, rather than the less behind the more. In one of my favorite passages, a short bit right near the end, Smith explains that the difference between the traditional worldview for which he advocates and the scientific worldview which he opposes is that the former can be compared to the intent to build a better mousetrap and the latter to building a worse one. The former project may, of course, prove a failure; but it is intelligible. The same cannot be said of the latter, whose intentions are at base life-denying. That the scientific worldview is cause for such dispair ought to be a warning sign to us that there is something missing from it, even if we are not ourselves religious. It would be rather odd indeed for there to have evolved a being whose psychology finds the nature of its own existence unbearable. Moreover, the psychological revelations brought about by authentic religious experience are difficult to explain without in some way suggesting they are at least partially true. The scientific materialist explanation of mystical experiences as mere "malfunctions of the brain" here breaks down.
If Smith can be faulted for anything, it would be that he does not take seriously the reasons for why the scientific worldview has overtaken the traditional. He makes a strong, pragmatic case for the coherence and viability of the traditional worldview: simply put, it is a worldview so ubiquitous that were it in error it would amount to nothing short of the greatest and most widespread intellectual error in human history, bar none. That this worldview was come to through unscientific means is not an argument against it, but rather for it: despite a lack of methodological coherence, traditional peoples independently managed to come to fundamentally identical worldviews. This cannot be explained away by suggesting that it is a conclusion inherent in the premises, for the only premises shared by all traditional peoples are the human existential condition. This, however, in turn suggests that an equally powerful explanation is required to show why so many peoples around the globe have abandoned this older view.
Like so many religious people, Smith says little about this beyond the suggestion that science's "success" in its own field have fooled us into thinking that its field is the only one there is. To me, this is utterly unpersuasive. Smith argues that the scientific method can be wholly integrated into the traditional worldview with no inherent contradictions existing, but Smith's hostility towards evolution gives the game away. As Smith rightly recognizes, the real "danger" posed by evolution has nothing to do with how it contradicts the specifics of any given creation narrative and instead the danger is to be found in what evolution suggests about the nature of creation at all. If higher lifeforms evolved from lower forms, and the lower forms from inanimate matter, then the world cannot be said to be "made" for life.
The solution to this conundrum, however, is contained in some of Smith's own ideas. As he writes when discussing the nature of the degrees of reality, it is difficult to say which is superior in the relationship between the mind and body. This would seem to scream property dualism, but Smith is seemingly wedded to substance dualism. Since Smith is committed to separating the mind from the body, sentience from matter, Smith cannot accept that life evolved naturally and so is forced to adopt absurd, anti-scientific positions that he tries in vain to find support for within respected scientific institutions. He goes so far as to suggest that evolution has actually been abandoned by biologists "in practice" but is still held onto in theory for purely ideological reasons. It's not a compelling argument in the least. While Smith's critiques of his student Marcus J. Borg are warranted, Smith himself could have learned a thing or two from Borg's panentheism. By imbuing matter with spirit, Borg's view allows for there to be a fully naturalistic account of life which nevertheless reserves a spot for the divine. Indeed, by reserving a spot for the divine which is synonymous with the natural, the panentheist opens up a possible answer to the question of life that is unavailable to science. While to the scientific materialist the mind seems to have emerged from nowhere, the panentheist can provide an evolutionary account.
This, moreover, would have helped Smith come to a more mature outlook with regards to the intersection we find ourselves in between conservative and liberal outlooks on religion. The strength of the liberal view, of course, is that is avoids the danger of fanaticism and zealotry. The weakness, however, is that it roots this tolerance in a perspective which ultimately devalues religion. The liberal is able to deal with differences in belief because, ultimately, they don't really matter. The strength and weakness of the conservative worldview are the exact opposite. The conservative is unable to tolerate religious differences, by its nature tending to fanaticism and zealotry. The value here, however, is that it is unable to tolerate these differences because it does understand the importance of the matters at hand. In one of my favorite phrases of the book, Smith says that "[l]iberals do not recognize the spiritual wholeness that can come from the sense of certainty." From this, Smith goes on to conclude that, while both views are flawed, the conservative view is superior because the value it recognizes, that of the importance of divinity, is of greater importance than the value the liberal recognizes, co-existence with others.
This division, however, is a product of the very dualism that Smith himself has fallen prey too. And while Smith nominally advocates for a middle ground between liberalism and conservativism, his emphasis on conservativism's greater value is in fact a capitulation to the logic of conservatism, a logic which terminates in zealotry. It is only in a panentheistic (or pantheistic, panpsychic, or animist - the chosen terminology matters little) worldview that the relationship between ourselves and the divine becomes inseparable from the relationship we have with the rest of creation. To fully connect with the divine, we must fully connect with one another. Smith once describes the religious project as that project which seeks to "make people more real", which is a beautiful phrase. That Smith thinks becoming "more real" is an essentially atomistic project rather than a social one is an error of modern thinking. Smith at one point critiques Hegel and Marx, but it would have been on this very point that learning from those two men would have helped Smith come to a more, not less, spiritual conclusion.
Returning now to the beginning of his long-winded line of critique, Smith's failure to take seriously the reasons the traditional worldview has been replaced by the scientific worldview is due in no small part to Smith's under-theorization of the relationship between the two. The scientific worldview has not replaced the traditional worldview simply because it has proven more successful in the manipulation of the material world, but because the traditional worldview implies things about the material world we now know to not be true. The mystic worldview for which Smith himself powerfully advocates can provide a resolution to this contradiction, but Smith seems to have been unwilling to take his ideas the small step forward into full-blown panentheism. By failing to do this, Smith's advocacy for the traditional worldview may fall on deaf ears. If we are to change the minds of anyone, we first must understand why those minds think as they do. Smith, helpful as he is elsewhere, is seemingly out of his depth on this matter.
These critiques do little to diminish the ultimate value of the work. It is unlikely that Richard Dawkins ever read this book, and if he had he would have almost certainly been unimpressed; Smith is simply speaking a different language than one someone like Dawkins is capable of understanding. But to those of us who do speak that language, Smith here provides a veritable manifesto not only on the truth of our convictions but the value those convictions hold. Smith may not be well remembered today, but he ought to be. If nothing else, he will be well remembered by me for a long time to come.
January 20, 2013
With Why Religion Matters Huston Smith, a lifelong eminent scholar of religion issues a manifesto for the continuing relevance of traditional religious beliefs, arguing that the broad outlines of traditional religious worldviews are superior to the worldview of scientism, which has become modernity's reigning dogma. Both confirmed secular humanists and and religious fundamentalists especially should read this book, as it harbors surprises for both. Smith punctures the shibboleths of each of these types, while showing that the latest scientific findings in physics tend to support traditional spiritual beliefs more than the obsolete worldview of scientism.
Smith is not anti-science. He believes science can exist compatibly with religion. But he eschews scientism, which is the belief that science is the most reliable way to determine the ultimate truth of things. He defines scientism as follows: the belief that "the scientific method is, if not the only reliable method of getting at truth, then at least the most reliable method; and second, that the things science deals with--material entities--are the most fundamental things that exist."
Smith's problem is not with science but with our collectively having turned it into a pseudo-sacred Idol, and the lamentable consequences of that transformation. His concern is with scientism's effect on our collective psyche; and he shares Bryan Appleyard's position, delineated in Understanding the Present: Science and the Soul of Modern Man, that scientism is "spiritually corrosive," due to its "separating our values from our knowledge of the world." But lest we fall into the facile stereotype that the issue between religion and science is between facts and values, and that the "mature" thing to do would be to leave factual matters to science and value questions to religion, Smith asserts authoritatively that while the "facts vs. values" optic does arise, "the fundamental issue is about facts, period---the entire panoply of facts as gestalted by worldviews. Specifically, . . . it is about the standing of values in the objective world, the world that is there whether human beings exist or not. Are values as deeply ingrained in that world as are its natural laws, or are they added to it as epiphenomenal gloss when life enters the picture?"
Among the books's more interesting aspects is Smith's account of the famous Scopes Trial in Tennessee in the 1920s, involving the legality of the teaching of evolution vs. teaching creationism in public schools. The ACLU had taken on the case of the biology teacher, Scopes, to challenge the teaching of creationism in school. Smith discusses the infamous film, Inherit the Wind, which was about this trial, and highlights its numerous distortions of truth. He writes that at every turn the film caricatures defenders of the religious view, casting them as bigoted ignorant throwbacks, against the heroic Clarence Darrow, representing Enlightened Science, coming to the rescue of civilization. The truth, writes Smith, was quite different from the cartoon version depicted in the film.
The film presents the attorney for the state, William Jennings Bryan, as a dyed-in-the-wool biblical literalist who believes in the six-day creation, despite the fact that he was a passionate humanitarian who read the six-day creation allegorically. He was an irrepressible evangelist for social reform during a time when social Darwinism was in its heyday. He had seen the survival-of-the-fittest dogma used to defend America's Robber Barons as well as the brutal militarism in Germany that led to WW I. The film presents Darrow arriving in town to a hostile citizenry lining the sidewalks, with a girl who screams at him, "Fiend!" and mobs chanting "We'll hang John Scopes...." In contrast to the oppressive bigoted atmosphere of the town presented in the film, in reality it was a friendly, tolerant town.
Smith then goes on to deconstruct the Darwinian theory of evolution. He argues essentially that it is perhaps more a myth than science, since it is a long way from being proven. None of the fossils of the so-called "missing links" that would prove, for example, how dinosaurs evolved into birds, have been discovered; so what we have is an interesting theory that has plausibility in terms of microevolution, but then leaps from that to macroevolution, without having any evidence to back the latter up. We know, for example, that species that adapt to changes in their environments are more adaptable and advantageous to survival than those that do not. However, it is Darwin's thesis that such traits happen through random mutation. This emphasis on randomness is pure speculation and has become essentially sanctioned dogma within the scientific community. Further, we cannot extrapolate from the findings that support microevolution to the belief in macroevolution.
The discussion of Darwinism and the media's coverage of the issue is some of the most astonishing information in the book, for what it reveals about the media's reflexive anti-religious bias. He cites the case of the Kansas Board of Education's 1999 decision regarding evolution, which the SF Chronicle editorialized was "A Vote for Ignorance." In contrast to the impression given by the media, the Kansas decision actually increased the public schools' emphasis on evolution by increasing the textbook material from 70 words to 390. The board adopted verbatim the Kansas Science Education Standards writing Committee. Indeed, the Board adopted verbatim the committee's summary of Darwin's theory, as well as mandating that students be tested on it.
So what was so bad about Kansas? What made its Board of Education so "ignorant"? They refused to adopt two of the proposals that its science committee would have liked to have included, including requiring students to understand that microevolution leads to macroevolution--the origin of new structures and new groups of organisms. Secondly, the Board did not require students to elevate biological evolution into a "unifying concept" of science, on a par with such concepts as "evidence" and "form and function." But, as Smith correctly observes, it is hard to regard these refusals as signs of ignorance when professional biologists do not even agree on these points. (Cf Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells).
Smith's book is a thorough examination of the marginalization of religion in America. Liberals and secularists especially should read it, for it challenges their stereotypical views of religious people in the U.S. as basically a bunch of superstitious evangelicals determined to thwart rational progress by teaching creationism in the schools, banning abortion and birth control, and having state-sanctioned prayers and other religious observances. There is some truth in this stereotype; however, there is a larger truth, elucidated by Smith, and it involves the hostility toward religion expressed in the media and academia, and the marginalization of religion due to the unexamined adoption of Scientism as the defacto "religion" in America.
Evangelicals who claim that God and religion are being shut out of every aspect of contemporary public life are generally correct in this observation. I might disagree with many of the proposals I have heard coming from them to redress this (e.g., public displays of the Ten Commandments, school-sanctioned prayer meetings, etc.) situation, but the situation does merit acknowledgment and attention as to its consequences for society. It is to this issue that Smith's book is addressed.
Smith is not anti-science. He believes science can exist compatibly with religion. But he eschews scientism, which is the belief that science is the most reliable way to determine the ultimate truth of things. He defines scientism as follows: the belief that "the scientific method is, if not the only reliable method of getting at truth, then at least the most reliable method; and second, that the things science deals with--material entities--are the most fundamental things that exist."
Smith's problem is not with science but with our collectively having turned it into a pseudo-sacred Idol, and the lamentable consequences of that transformation. His concern is with scientism's effect on our collective psyche; and he shares Bryan Appleyard's position, delineated in Understanding the Present: Science and the Soul of Modern Man, that scientism is "spiritually corrosive," due to its "separating our values from our knowledge of the world." But lest we fall into the facile stereotype that the issue between religion and science is between facts and values, and that the "mature" thing to do would be to leave factual matters to science and value questions to religion, Smith asserts authoritatively that while the "facts vs. values" optic does arise, "the fundamental issue is about facts, period---the entire panoply of facts as gestalted by worldviews. Specifically, . . . it is about the standing of values in the objective world, the world that is there whether human beings exist or not. Are values as deeply ingrained in that world as are its natural laws, or are they added to it as epiphenomenal gloss when life enters the picture?"
Among the books's more interesting aspects is Smith's account of the famous Scopes Trial in Tennessee in the 1920s, involving the legality of the teaching of evolution vs. teaching creationism in public schools. The ACLU had taken on the case of the biology teacher, Scopes, to challenge the teaching of creationism in school. Smith discusses the infamous film, Inherit the Wind, which was about this trial, and highlights its numerous distortions of truth. He writes that at every turn the film caricatures defenders of the religious view, casting them as bigoted ignorant throwbacks, against the heroic Clarence Darrow, representing Enlightened Science, coming to the rescue of civilization. The truth, writes Smith, was quite different from the cartoon version depicted in the film.
The film presents the attorney for the state, William Jennings Bryan, as a dyed-in-the-wool biblical literalist who believes in the six-day creation, despite the fact that he was a passionate humanitarian who read the six-day creation allegorically. He was an irrepressible evangelist for social reform during a time when social Darwinism was in its heyday. He had seen the survival-of-the-fittest dogma used to defend America's Robber Barons as well as the brutal militarism in Germany that led to WW I. The film presents Darrow arriving in town to a hostile citizenry lining the sidewalks, with a girl who screams at him, "Fiend!" and mobs chanting "We'll hang John Scopes...." In contrast to the oppressive bigoted atmosphere of the town presented in the film, in reality it was a friendly, tolerant town.
Smith then goes on to deconstruct the Darwinian theory of evolution. He argues essentially that it is perhaps more a myth than science, since it is a long way from being proven. None of the fossils of the so-called "missing links" that would prove, for example, how dinosaurs evolved into birds, have been discovered; so what we have is an interesting theory that has plausibility in terms of microevolution, but then leaps from that to macroevolution, without having any evidence to back the latter up. We know, for example, that species that adapt to changes in their environments are more adaptable and advantageous to survival than those that do not. However, it is Darwin's thesis that such traits happen through random mutation. This emphasis on randomness is pure speculation and has become essentially sanctioned dogma within the scientific community. Further, we cannot extrapolate from the findings that support microevolution to the belief in macroevolution.
The discussion of Darwinism and the media's coverage of the issue is some of the most astonishing information in the book, for what it reveals about the media's reflexive anti-religious bias. He cites the case of the Kansas Board of Education's 1999 decision regarding evolution, which the SF Chronicle editorialized was "A Vote for Ignorance." In contrast to the impression given by the media, the Kansas decision actually increased the public schools' emphasis on evolution by increasing the textbook material from 70 words to 390. The board adopted verbatim the Kansas Science Education Standards writing Committee. Indeed, the Board adopted verbatim the committee's summary of Darwin's theory, as well as mandating that students be tested on it.
So what was so bad about Kansas? What made its Board of Education so "ignorant"? They refused to adopt two of the proposals that its science committee would have liked to have included, including requiring students to understand that microevolution leads to macroevolution--the origin of new structures and new groups of organisms. Secondly, the Board did not require students to elevate biological evolution into a "unifying concept" of science, on a par with such concepts as "evidence" and "form and function." But, as Smith correctly observes, it is hard to regard these refusals as signs of ignorance when professional biologists do not even agree on these points. (Cf Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells).
Smith's book is a thorough examination of the marginalization of religion in America. Liberals and secularists especially should read it, for it challenges their stereotypical views of religious people in the U.S. as basically a bunch of superstitious evangelicals determined to thwart rational progress by teaching creationism in the schools, banning abortion and birth control, and having state-sanctioned prayers and other religious observances. There is some truth in this stereotype; however, there is a larger truth, elucidated by Smith, and it involves the hostility toward religion expressed in the media and academia, and the marginalization of religion due to the unexamined adoption of Scientism as the defacto "religion" in America.
Evangelicals who claim that God and religion are being shut out of every aspect of contemporary public life are generally correct in this observation. I might disagree with many of the proposals I have heard coming from them to redress this (e.g., public displays of the Ten Commandments, school-sanctioned prayer meetings, etc.) situation, but the situation does merit acknowledgment and attention as to its consequences for society. It is to this issue that Smith's book is addressed.
May 11, 2018
Ok...maybe I should not write a review since I couldn't finish. It was awful...plodding, discombobulated...very poorly written...
I was asked to review this for the library cart at the local detention center....The "Christian" library cart. If someone with a master's degree has difficulty having any interest on any level with this very poorly written book, I would never think that an inmate who is looking for inspiration , information or even escape find anything of interest.
He is basically saying that there is more to the world than what can be proven by science. He could have said it a lot better....anyone could say it better. I just did.
I can't recommend this to anyone much less someone who is trying to change their life in a positive way.
He just lumps all religions together and doesn't point out that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion.
I was asked to review this for the library cart at the local detention center....The "Christian" library cart. If someone with a master's degree has difficulty having any interest on any level with this very poorly written book, I would never think that an inmate who is looking for inspiration , information or even escape find anything of interest.
He is basically saying that there is more to the world than what can be proven by science. He could have said it a lot better....anyone could say it better. I just did.
I can't recommend this to anyone much less someone who is trying to change their life in a positive way.
He just lumps all religions together and doesn't point out that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion.
December 13, 2021
Huston Smith was a brilliant thinker on religious topics. His honesty and piercing insights help you see that what has become a tired topic for many deserves not only a second look but a central place in our collective psyche.
I left Evangelical Christianity over a decade ago because of the peer pressure to conform in behavior and political belief. While I haven't missed going to church, I have missed the feeling of a close connection to the transcendent. Smith helped me understand what I had lost in turning my back on religion.
While I am unlikely to ever return to a specific church, he provided ample evidence that there is room for me at the table of Mystery, Truth, and the Spirit as I comprehend it. I'd recommend this book to anyone who feels their life is without meaning. As Smith points out, religious fanaticism has its dangers, but so does relativistic nihilism.
I left Evangelical Christianity over a decade ago because of the peer pressure to conform in behavior and political belief. While I haven't missed going to church, I have missed the feeling of a close connection to the transcendent. Smith helped me understand what I had lost in turning my back on religion.
While I am unlikely to ever return to a specific church, he provided ample evidence that there is room for me at the table of Mystery, Truth, and the Spirit as I comprehend it. I'd recommend this book to anyone who feels their life is without meaning. As Smith points out, religious fanaticism has its dangers, but so does relativistic nihilism.
quit-before-finishing
May 21, 2021This book joins my very short list of books I "Quit-Before-Finishing." I got to about 40%. It's very dry and academic, not at all the type of pop science or pop culture books that I favor. Smith's writing style also turned me off. Full of digressions and asides, and so many "I" statements, "I'll get to that later," "I've defined this as such-and-such." I'd prefer to just learn about something without having his constant opinions injected (though I realize this is part of what many readers like about him) it's just not my thing.
Add to that the fact that it seems he spends an inordinate amount of time bashing academia, bashing science, bashing the media.....
I just couldn't get anything out if it to justify more hours of my time.
Add to that the fact that it seems he spends an inordinate amount of time bashing academia, bashing science, bashing the media.....
I just couldn't get anything out if it to justify more hours of my time.
March 17, 2022
Smith is an interesting fellow to read, and this book is no exception. Included are:
1. How the media, academia, scientism, and the law have given modern society tunnel vision when it comes to what really matters and what gives our lives meaning
2. How liberal values like tolerance and justice are important, but modernity is too quick to forget that it is conservative values like truth and righteousness before God that get drunkards out of ditches and infuse the mundane everyday with meaning. Liberal approaches to religion can devolve into nihilism; if it doesn’t matter which religion you choose, none of it matters
3. A review of the Scopes trial and why the story is much deeper than Inherit the Wind (does this date the book? Yes, but still interesting)
4. The dangers of scientism (Smith, if only you knew where we’d end up) and the failure of secular religions like progressivism (nazi germany) and Marxism (Stalinist Russia)
5. Smiths own pluralistic take on religion, with his personal theology (which I disagree with) connecting Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu scriptures and practices (why does autocorrect capitalize all but Christian lol)
1. How the media, academia, scientism, and the law have given modern society tunnel vision when it comes to what really matters and what gives our lives meaning
2. How liberal values like tolerance and justice are important, but modernity is too quick to forget that it is conservative values like truth and righteousness before God that get drunkards out of ditches and infuse the mundane everyday with meaning. Liberal approaches to religion can devolve into nihilism; if it doesn’t matter which religion you choose, none of it matters
3. A review of the Scopes trial and why the story is much deeper than Inherit the Wind (does this date the book? Yes, but still interesting)
4. The dangers of scientism (Smith, if only you knew where we’d end up) and the failure of secular religions like progressivism (nazi germany) and Marxism (Stalinist Russia)
5. Smiths own pluralistic take on religion, with his personal theology (which I disagree with) connecting Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu scriptures and practices (why does autocorrect capitalize all but Christian lol)
July 12, 2019
This book discusses how the status of religion has changed throughout the history, focusing on three main periods: traditional (premodern), modern, and post modern times. Smith successfully presented his argument supported with evidence. However, for me, I feel that the book explained the second part of the title which is “the fate of human spirit in the age of disbelief” pretty well but did not answer the first part which was more important to me “why religions matter”. All in all, the book was educative, enjoyable and easy to read.
September 23, 2019
Some very interesting points about the importance of religion or, at least, transcendence. True to its title, the book tries to explain why religion is relevant particularly in the current materialistic age. However, some of the claims about the science are dubious. Nevertheless the point seems quite clear, which isn't, in my opinion, a attack on science etc... rather a reminder that rationality and its product, science, cannot alone serve as a reason for us to exist.
January 27, 2020
Huston Smith's 2001 book still addresses with relevance the question of "why religion matters." Identifying valuable aspects to religious, scientific, and postmodern worldviews, he notes also deficiencies and defines what he thinks the salient difference is that makes religion indispensable. Huston believed that science also mattered, and discusses how its value must be recognized while not being overstated.
January 3, 2019
Well written, certainly covers every aspect of the subject one might consider, but I would have preferred 150 pages. Some chapters I will find useful; others might serve as reference material. Lots of literary references and interesting stories but, as Franklin said, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
January 16, 2020
Provides an excellent summary of the current climate of Scientism by using the analogy of a tunnel - it’s roof, floor and two sides to represent the scientific hierarchy, law, higher education and media. The second part is more of a mixed bag and the attempt at a perennial viewpoint is far from convincing but he comes at it with the right spirit.
March 14, 2017
This was a difficult book for me to get through as philosophy is not my strong suit. But, I learned a tremendous amount from this book and it definitely left me with lessons that I will not soon forget. It is a book I am sure I will reference back to many times in the future.
May 9, 2018
Smith's Christian convictions were evident throughout though he treated the major religions more respectably than most Christian writers do.
January 7, 2019
I would recommend this book one very simple reason; it will make you aware of other points of view. I don't agree surg everything the author is saying, but I do agree with what he is trying to do.
December 6, 2020
Definitely an interesting perspective
April 7, 2021
Excellent book. I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in religion and how it relates to science and modernity.
February 9, 2022
This was a horrible book. Huston Smith's bias against science and for religion is so clear that reading this book was a torture. I would not recommend this book to anyone.
Read
August 21, 2025Me reading this book comes pretty darn close to the proverbial case of the clergyman preaching to the choir, so I'm not sure how useful my review will be. . . But I'll offer my two cents anyway.
I've been tired of and disturbed by the steady drumbeat of science and technology for some time now. I admit this distaste comes from a very subjective and self-serving position of someone coming, both as a student and a teacher, from the now thoroughly unprivileged academic field of the humanities. The worldview and rhetoric of our society has shifted towards the fetishization of "STEM" fields so much that humanities are struggling to justify their existence and are failing in this effort. Only quantifiable things deserve a funded place in institutions of higher learning, it almost seems; the humanities apparently now fall to YouTubers. But I digress. . .
This prioritization of the scientific method over any other possible methods of knowing and understanding is even more problematic philosophically, but has become curiously widespread in our popular discourse, perhaps especially in academics. While individuals may be invested in the metaphysical privately, typically our public conversations are carried out within a framework of exclusive rationalism and philosophical materialism.
Huston Smith takes exception to this, and in case you couldn't already tell, so do I. Smith is quick to clarify that he's not critiquing science, but rather what he calls scient-ISM, the position that the universe as described by science is ALL THERE IS.
Smith is particularly disturbed that religious practice is increasingly and inappropriately scrutinized through this scientistic lens, like a poor college student being told he just failed a class he didn't even sign up for.
His goal in this book is to show the limits of the worldview of scientism and to show what religion has to offer in helping fill out the significant empty spaces that a narrow science-exclusive perspective on things would leave us with. For me he succeeds brilliantly in the first task. But again, I was quite ready to hear someone discuss the limits of almighty science for a change. That's a big reason I picked up this book. But my personal bias doesn't mean Smith is wrong. He's not.
Think about it: in all the progress we've seen over the past few hundreds of years, science and it's PR department, technology, have improved our lifeSTYLES numerous times and even lengthened our lifeSPANS. That second bit is certainly not insignificant. But. Have science and technology really made our actual LIVES better? Don't listen to what the commercial is telling you. Are our lives really better? The human heart still struggles with, yearns for, and gratefully, rejoices in the same things it always has. The scientific method has nothing to offer to help, resolve, or take away from any of this. Does not this suggest there is more to our existence than what science can describe?
If I haven't convinced you, I challenge you to pick up Smith's book and see if he does a better job. I'm pretty sure he can. And for my money, his is much needed voice in a contemporary society where health advise promises to longer lives, where we're constantly presented with new gadgets to revolutionize our routine or provide infinite entertainment or distraction and where crusades for justice and equality and fairness leave no stone unturned, and yet our very souls have somehow gotten lost in the shuffle.
If this book has a shortcoming for me it is in Smith's attempt to show what religion has to offer. He does a good job a describing how religion helps equip people to deal with the ageless questions and struggles and joys of human experience, but to my view his pantheistic background leads him to eventually champion a mystic religious worldview that is more specific than it needs to be for the purposes of this book. He wants to encourage readers to turn to God, but in so doing he gets a little overly descriptive or prescriptive based on his specific understanding of God rather than letting individuals work that relationship out for themselves. (Privately, as practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("the Mormons"), I'm really curious to know how Smith would respond to some of our doctrines that don't quite exactly square with the vision of the Divine he describes, particularly our concept of an embodied God. But Smith (Huston), for all his vast knowledge of world religions, never seems to pay any attention at all to Smith (Joseph). A lost opportunity, I say. And sadly, Huston Smith is no longer with us. Perhaps the two of us can meet and sit down together at some cosmic table in some future plane of existence. He'll drink tea and I'll drink root beer and we'll have a nice long chat. But I'm digressing again. . .)
In the end, my complaint about Smith's over-specifying as he delivers his argument for the virtues of religious practice is really a small complaint. In identifying the problem, Smith hits the nail right on the head. I wish he weren't right, but he is.
I've been tired of and disturbed by the steady drumbeat of science and technology for some time now. I admit this distaste comes from a very subjective and self-serving position of someone coming, both as a student and a teacher, from the now thoroughly unprivileged academic field of the humanities. The worldview and rhetoric of our society has shifted towards the fetishization of "STEM" fields so much that humanities are struggling to justify their existence and are failing in this effort. Only quantifiable things deserve a funded place in institutions of higher learning, it almost seems; the humanities apparently now fall to YouTubers. But I digress. . .
This prioritization of the scientific method over any other possible methods of knowing and understanding is even more problematic philosophically, but has become curiously widespread in our popular discourse, perhaps especially in academics. While individuals may be invested in the metaphysical privately, typically our public conversations are carried out within a framework of exclusive rationalism and philosophical materialism.
Huston Smith takes exception to this, and in case you couldn't already tell, so do I. Smith is quick to clarify that he's not critiquing science, but rather what he calls scient-ISM, the position that the universe as described by science is ALL THERE IS.
Smith is particularly disturbed that religious practice is increasingly and inappropriately scrutinized through this scientistic lens, like a poor college student being told he just failed a class he didn't even sign up for.
His goal in this book is to show the limits of the worldview of scientism and to show what religion has to offer in helping fill out the significant empty spaces that a narrow science-exclusive perspective on things would leave us with. For me he succeeds brilliantly in the first task. But again, I was quite ready to hear someone discuss the limits of almighty science for a change. That's a big reason I picked up this book. But my personal bias doesn't mean Smith is wrong. He's not.
Think about it: in all the progress we've seen over the past few hundreds of years, science and it's PR department, technology, have improved our lifeSTYLES numerous times and even lengthened our lifeSPANS. That second bit is certainly not insignificant. But. Have science and technology really made our actual LIVES better? Don't listen to what the commercial is telling you. Are our lives really better? The human heart still struggles with, yearns for, and gratefully, rejoices in the same things it always has. The scientific method has nothing to offer to help, resolve, or take away from any of this. Does not this suggest there is more to our existence than what science can describe?
If I haven't convinced you, I challenge you to pick up Smith's book and see if he does a better job. I'm pretty sure he can. And for my money, his is much needed voice in a contemporary society where health advise promises to longer lives, where we're constantly presented with new gadgets to revolutionize our routine or provide infinite entertainment or distraction and where crusades for justice and equality and fairness leave no stone unturned, and yet our very souls have somehow gotten lost in the shuffle.
If this book has a shortcoming for me it is in Smith's attempt to show what religion has to offer. He does a good job a describing how religion helps equip people to deal with the ageless questions and struggles and joys of human experience, but to my view his pantheistic background leads him to eventually champion a mystic religious worldview that is more specific than it needs to be for the purposes of this book. He wants to encourage readers to turn to God, but in so doing he gets a little overly descriptive or prescriptive based on his specific understanding of God rather than letting individuals work that relationship out for themselves. (Privately, as practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("the Mormons"), I'm really curious to know how Smith would respond to some of our doctrines that don't quite exactly square with the vision of the Divine he describes, particularly our concept of an embodied God. But Smith (Huston), for all his vast knowledge of world religions, never seems to pay any attention at all to Smith (Joseph). A lost opportunity, I say. And sadly, Huston Smith is no longer with us. Perhaps the two of us can meet and sit down together at some cosmic table in some future plane of existence. He'll drink tea and I'll drink root beer and we'll have a nice long chat. But I'm digressing again. . .)
In the end, my complaint about Smith's over-specifying as he delivers his argument for the virtues of religious practice is really a small complaint. In identifying the problem, Smith hits the nail right on the head. I wish he weren't right, but he is.
July 18, 2022
I don't think it necessarily answers the question of WHY religion matters, but rather WHY science should not be considered acceptable as a worldview/religion.
August 3, 2024
Too much time spent writing about what this book intends to achieve.
February 11, 2025
The most interesting parts of the book were those where he was quoting others.
August 4, 2025
Una revisió històrica, però també personal del que s'entén com a religió. Una posició clara de defensa, però amb algunes idees que són interessants per comprendre d'on prové el seu posicionament.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews