What do you think?
Beliefs That Changed the World: The History and Ideas of the Great Religions
Does the Quran demand Jihad? What has the synagogue meant for the survival of the Jewish people? Where can we find Nirvana? And how are religious convictions fuelling today's conflicts in the Middle East? Beliefs taht Changed the World answers these & other fundamental questions in this compelling introduction to the great religions. From the Jewish exodis over 3,000 years ago to the importance of Shinto in modern Japan, the histories of the world's prominent religions are brought to light, & the central tenets behind eacha re revealed This is not only an enligtening exploration of how faiths have evolved throughout history, but a timely reflection on the way religious beliefs continue to shape our world. The religions covered include Judaism, Christianity, Islan, Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianims, Sikhism, Biddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, & Shinto.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published May 24, 2000
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
November 25, 2008
This is the first year that I created a world leaders project. I am going to use this book as a supplemental resource to support this activity.
May 14, 2017
This book is a 2015 re-issue of its 2007 edition. Bowker’s concerns, therefore, can be understood as being a reaction to the increasing instances of religious terrorist activities worldwide over the last ten years or so. But Bowker has a soft-spot for religions in general, and he complains that people, and especially politicians, do not fully appreciate them — so as a result they attribute such terrorist activities to a simple “bad/evil” concept, and then extend this to any and all adherents of their “parent” religion regardless.
Bowker is right in his criticism, of course, and he hopes that his book will help people gain a wider and better understanding of the beliefs, histories and ideas of the great religions, so that such simplistic condemnations do not become commonplace. I concur with that hope. So far, however, that hope has not yet been fully realised, and sadly I suspect it never will.
The main text of the book is presented in seven sections, in order: Judaism; Christianity; Islam; India; Buddhism; China; and Japan. In general, the religions included in those seven sections constitute the “great religions” Bowker is dealing with. In his introduction, the author does point out that not all religions are or could be fully represented (he specifically mentions “influential” beliefs still common today which he admits he does not deal with: Totem; Taboo; Voodoo; Zombies; and beliefs in shamans and witches). While his limitations are understandable, he could also have included in his listings: Celtic; Nordic; African (including Egyptian); Persian; Babylonian; Greek; Roman; Islander (including Polynesian, Micronesian, New Guinean); Australian Aboriginal; or any of the original American Indian religions of the Northern, Central or Southern Americas.
All the religions Bowker does cover are presented within 285 pages — so it is obvious that the coverage must still be relatively sketchy (but at least the information provided will be much more than most people will be aware of regarding them). As a result, the main text is a pared-down, rather cleansed version of the main concepts of each religion, together with histories of the development from the original conceptions to the current multiplicities of the various offshoots of each. The message here, presumably, is that all religions are much more than just the beliefs and/or actions of just one branch of the many available branches — that’s why we cannot in all honesty attribute the actions of any one sub-group as being necessarily representative of the rest. This is basically the point Bowker is arguing for. Another aspect is that, from the various branches, many ideas and beliefs are promulgated which (from the title of the book) “changed the world”.
Dealing with the latter first, I have problems with the statement “changed the world”. Bowker tends to use the unqualified phrase more frequently for the first two sections of his work, and less frequently for the remainder, where there is more of a tendency to qualify it as something which “changed their world”. The difference might be subtle, but it does reveal a bias towards the beliefs of the Judaeo-Christian world rather than anything else. But more significant is the suggestion that the world literally changes — a fallacy if ever there was one! Surely what is meant is that our beliefs change, not the world, but the way we perceive the world and how we react with it; and it is only the enforcement of the latter (through military, political, social, cultural, tribal, and/or family “rules”) that changes the way we interact with the world.
There is also a corollary that should not be side-stepped: religions (rich as they might be in the presentation of such ideas) also include many ideas and beliefs which perhaps should have had a wider acceptance, but didn’t get it, as well as some ideas which perhaps would have been better never having been raised or promulgated. They are also not the only source of such ideas and beliefs: literature, poetry, essays, dissertations have them as well; as do the sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, biology, etc.) especially over the last couple of centuries. Ideas, and beliefs about them, abound. Both can last long times; but can also change and/or die off. The world, however, abides.
The other point I would like to make relates to the reality of the histories as presented by Bowker. They are presented in a way which attempts to emphasise their longevity and complex variability which eschews any simplistic evaluation of any of them. Fair enough. But they also reveal something which is unavoidable to miss. Every single one of all the religions he writes about exhibit what seems to be an inevitable quality: they all relatively quickly, and rather consistently and increasingly, split apart into sects, groups, cults, etc. right throughout their history. Bowker would like us to see this as development and refinement, and ultimately as some kind of proof that multiplicity and complexity are inherent to them. I see it differently.
Every one of the often dozens of variations each religion has spawned has done so because each believes that it has a “better” or “truer” or “more authentic” interpretation of the original. From this it is obvious that the original was not very clear about what it was talking about in the first place, otherwise there would be no need for the “variations” in the first place. And that goes for all of them. For me, that means all the different ideas and beliefs that went into the creation of the religions must be deficient in one way or another, and that this deficiency merely multiplies itself with each and every iteration perpetrated by the many sub-groups. But Bowker does not question the basis of their varying beliefs. He seems to indicate that somehow we must accept all the different versions of, say, Religion X, both as being different to each other, but also as being the same as, or at least a valid version of the original. This problem also relates across religions, e.g. to the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam): all are different; yet all three derive from the same origin, yet each claims to be the true authentic faith.
This sort of slippery logic is typical of all believers in religion. It all leads to complexity and difficulty, of course, but I am more inclined to suggest instead that it leads to confusion, contradiction, hypocrisy, and ultimately becomes delusional and dangerous.
Bowker prepares his readers to accept this form of slippery logic in his Introduction. Here is an excerpt from page xx:
“Here is a fundamental reason why religions are involved in so many seemingly intransigent conflicts. Beliefs matter. For many people their beliefs are so vital and life-giving that they will always be prepared to die and if necessary to kill in order to defend them and sometimes impose them on others. Religious beliefs are not here today and gone tomorrow, even though many of them have changed greatly through the course of time and have even disappeared. Far more seriously, religious beliefs have been tested and winnowed through time and have been found by countless people to be trustworthy and true. Of course there are others who believe them to be untrustworthy and false. But that too is a belief.”
Pages xxii–xxiii also provides some similar slippery argumentation in relation to the beliefs and practices in regards to “sacrifice” (which have “completely changed the world”) and which appear to be a common element of all religions. Bowker provides a general definition of the word; then lists eleven possible alternative interpretations of how the word can be used; then takes one of those meanings, asserts it value, and follows with a superb non-sequitur re science as follows: “… sacrifice helps us to recognise and affirm that death is a necessary condition of life. That perception lies at the heart of the scientific understanding of the universe: from the death of stars to the succession of generations death is not simply ‘end’ but also opportunity.”
All the above is preamble to what is really missing from the main text of the book — there is no mention whatsoever for any of the religions discussed, of what the penalties might be for individuals who transgress the relevant “rules” within any religion, within or between each of its sub-groups, or how it might or might not react to non-believers (whether internally or externally with other religions). It is here, surely, that the basis of antagonistic behaviour originates. Referring to my earlier quote, it is here that “seemingly intransigent conflicts” become absolutely intransigent ones; that those whose beliefs are so “vital and life-giving” that they are prepared “to die and if necessary to kill” to defend them! Yet they are excised completely from this book, which proclaims the need not to be selective and misinterpret others’ beliefs. From this perspective, I would suggest the main theme of the book is undermined.
An aside: every one of the religions dealt with, and every sub-group, sect, cult, etc. of each of them — all the originators of each original and every variation, are all men. Could this be part of the problem between all of them? Something to ponder about, perhaps.
I would venture to say that many Conservatives, and almost certainly all Fundamentalists would probably hate and detest this book.
Atheists, on the other hand, might find the work amusing, in that a critical reading of it would only serve to provide them with the comfort of realising that their position in all of this is only reinforced.
It is interesting that all religions speak of improving life if only we all followed the correct spiritual imperatives. The only problem with this is that the only way the “spiritual” can be seen to have improved our life is by very material manifestations that this is so. From this perspective, it must follow that, over the millennia, the overall result of the success or failure of religions in the long run can only be seen as one of failure. Sadly, those who cherish their understanding of their religion and their beliefs will continue to persist in their beliefs, regardless of what one says or does — so religions will continue unabated; and this means that so will the differences between all of them, and the variations of the punishments associated with them (whether in this life or, for those who believe in a life thereafter, in the next) so for the most part failure is the only possible resolution. It will not do even for any one religion to close off its books, as it were, sell all they own and give to the poor. That will not stop the others from fighting over the vacated space. They will all have to do the same thing at the same time — something this book intimates indirectly will never happen. And so it goes on.
There is a solution, of course, and it starts with each individual. Accept that there are no gods or spirits. If one expresses fear regarding such a stance, realise that this is but a remnant of the many threatened punishments religions have foisted into our minds over the millennia. Then reassert your stance: there are no gods or spirits. It gets easier every time you say it.
Bowker is right in his criticism, of course, and he hopes that his book will help people gain a wider and better understanding of the beliefs, histories and ideas of the great religions, so that such simplistic condemnations do not become commonplace. I concur with that hope. So far, however, that hope has not yet been fully realised, and sadly I suspect it never will.
The main text of the book is presented in seven sections, in order: Judaism; Christianity; Islam; India; Buddhism; China; and Japan. In general, the religions included in those seven sections constitute the “great religions” Bowker is dealing with. In his introduction, the author does point out that not all religions are or could be fully represented (he specifically mentions “influential” beliefs still common today which he admits he does not deal with: Totem; Taboo; Voodoo; Zombies; and beliefs in shamans and witches). While his limitations are understandable, he could also have included in his listings: Celtic; Nordic; African (including Egyptian); Persian; Babylonian; Greek; Roman; Islander (including Polynesian, Micronesian, New Guinean); Australian Aboriginal; or any of the original American Indian religions of the Northern, Central or Southern Americas.
All the religions Bowker does cover are presented within 285 pages — so it is obvious that the coverage must still be relatively sketchy (but at least the information provided will be much more than most people will be aware of regarding them). As a result, the main text is a pared-down, rather cleansed version of the main concepts of each religion, together with histories of the development from the original conceptions to the current multiplicities of the various offshoots of each. The message here, presumably, is that all religions are much more than just the beliefs and/or actions of just one branch of the many available branches — that’s why we cannot in all honesty attribute the actions of any one sub-group as being necessarily representative of the rest. This is basically the point Bowker is arguing for. Another aspect is that, from the various branches, many ideas and beliefs are promulgated which (from the title of the book) “changed the world”.
Dealing with the latter first, I have problems with the statement “changed the world”. Bowker tends to use the unqualified phrase more frequently for the first two sections of his work, and less frequently for the remainder, where there is more of a tendency to qualify it as something which “changed their world”. The difference might be subtle, but it does reveal a bias towards the beliefs of the Judaeo-Christian world rather than anything else. But more significant is the suggestion that the world literally changes — a fallacy if ever there was one! Surely what is meant is that our beliefs change, not the world, but the way we perceive the world and how we react with it; and it is only the enforcement of the latter (through military, political, social, cultural, tribal, and/or family “rules”) that changes the way we interact with the world.
There is also a corollary that should not be side-stepped: religions (rich as they might be in the presentation of such ideas) also include many ideas and beliefs which perhaps should have had a wider acceptance, but didn’t get it, as well as some ideas which perhaps would have been better never having been raised or promulgated. They are also not the only source of such ideas and beliefs: literature, poetry, essays, dissertations have them as well; as do the sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, biology, etc.) especially over the last couple of centuries. Ideas, and beliefs about them, abound. Both can last long times; but can also change and/or die off. The world, however, abides.
The other point I would like to make relates to the reality of the histories as presented by Bowker. They are presented in a way which attempts to emphasise their longevity and complex variability which eschews any simplistic evaluation of any of them. Fair enough. But they also reveal something which is unavoidable to miss. Every single one of all the religions he writes about exhibit what seems to be an inevitable quality: they all relatively quickly, and rather consistently and increasingly, split apart into sects, groups, cults, etc. right throughout their history. Bowker would like us to see this as development and refinement, and ultimately as some kind of proof that multiplicity and complexity are inherent to them. I see it differently.
Every one of the often dozens of variations each religion has spawned has done so because each believes that it has a “better” or “truer” or “more authentic” interpretation of the original. From this it is obvious that the original was not very clear about what it was talking about in the first place, otherwise there would be no need for the “variations” in the first place. And that goes for all of them. For me, that means all the different ideas and beliefs that went into the creation of the religions must be deficient in one way or another, and that this deficiency merely multiplies itself with each and every iteration perpetrated by the many sub-groups. But Bowker does not question the basis of their varying beliefs. He seems to indicate that somehow we must accept all the different versions of, say, Religion X, both as being different to each other, but also as being the same as, or at least a valid version of the original. This problem also relates across religions, e.g. to the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam): all are different; yet all three derive from the same origin, yet each claims to be the true authentic faith.
This sort of slippery logic is typical of all believers in religion. It all leads to complexity and difficulty, of course, but I am more inclined to suggest instead that it leads to confusion, contradiction, hypocrisy, and ultimately becomes delusional and dangerous.
Bowker prepares his readers to accept this form of slippery logic in his Introduction. Here is an excerpt from page xx:
“Here is a fundamental reason why religions are involved in so many seemingly intransigent conflicts. Beliefs matter. For many people their beliefs are so vital and life-giving that they will always be prepared to die and if necessary to kill in order to defend them and sometimes impose them on others. Religious beliefs are not here today and gone tomorrow, even though many of them have changed greatly through the course of time and have even disappeared. Far more seriously, religious beliefs have been tested and winnowed through time and have been found by countless people to be trustworthy and true. Of course there are others who believe them to be untrustworthy and false. But that too is a belief.”
Pages xxii–xxiii also provides some similar slippery argumentation in relation to the beliefs and practices in regards to “sacrifice” (which have “completely changed the world”) and which appear to be a common element of all religions. Bowker provides a general definition of the word; then lists eleven possible alternative interpretations of how the word can be used; then takes one of those meanings, asserts it value, and follows with a superb non-sequitur re science as follows: “… sacrifice helps us to recognise and affirm that death is a necessary condition of life. That perception lies at the heart of the scientific understanding of the universe: from the death of stars to the succession of generations death is not simply ‘end’ but also opportunity.”
All the above is preamble to what is really missing from the main text of the book — there is no mention whatsoever for any of the religions discussed, of what the penalties might be for individuals who transgress the relevant “rules” within any religion, within or between each of its sub-groups, or how it might or might not react to non-believers (whether internally or externally with other religions). It is here, surely, that the basis of antagonistic behaviour originates. Referring to my earlier quote, it is here that “seemingly intransigent conflicts” become absolutely intransigent ones; that those whose beliefs are so “vital and life-giving” that they are prepared “to die and if necessary to kill” to defend them! Yet they are excised completely from this book, which proclaims the need not to be selective and misinterpret others’ beliefs. From this perspective, I would suggest the main theme of the book is undermined.
An aside: every one of the religions dealt with, and every sub-group, sect, cult, etc. of each of them — all the originators of each original and every variation, are all men. Could this be part of the problem between all of them? Something to ponder about, perhaps.
I would venture to say that many Conservatives, and almost certainly all Fundamentalists would probably hate and detest this book.
Atheists, on the other hand, might find the work amusing, in that a critical reading of it would only serve to provide them with the comfort of realising that their position in all of this is only reinforced.
It is interesting that all religions speak of improving life if only we all followed the correct spiritual imperatives. The only problem with this is that the only way the “spiritual” can be seen to have improved our life is by very material manifestations that this is so. From this perspective, it must follow that, over the millennia, the overall result of the success or failure of religions in the long run can only be seen as one of failure. Sadly, those who cherish their understanding of their religion and their beliefs will continue to persist in their beliefs, regardless of what one says or does — so religions will continue unabated; and this means that so will the differences between all of them, and the variations of the punishments associated with them (whether in this life or, for those who believe in a life thereafter, in the next) so for the most part failure is the only possible resolution. It will not do even for any one religion to close off its books, as it were, sell all they own and give to the poor. That will not stop the others from fighting over the vacated space. They will all have to do the same thing at the same time — something this book intimates indirectly will never happen. And so it goes on.
There is a solution, of course, and it starts with each individual. Accept that there are no gods or spirits. If one expresses fear regarding such a stance, realise that this is but a remnant of the many threatened punishments religions have foisted into our minds over the millennia. Then reassert your stance: there are no gods or spirits. It gets easier every time you say it.
November 16, 2020
Our religious beliefs, such as they are, can affect our lifestyle, our perceptions, and the manner in which we relate to fellow human beings.
Is there a higher power (or powers) that governs the universe and judges all of us?
The answers to such questions differ widely across different religions and how these variegated belief systems have changed the world also varies greatly.
Most importantly, religion is far too polymorphic a category to make blanket answers of such questions possible. It would be safe to assume that religion has indeed shaped your daily life in some way - because religion in a broad sense is both culturally ubiquitous and historically important in the generation of the categories of modern living.
In the book, Beliefs that Change the World: The History and Ideas of the Great Religions Prof John Bowker attempts to chatter this vast body of religion waters in explaining the history and basic tenets of world religions in less than 300 pages. As is expected, that is a Herculean task. It is tantamount to fitting an ocean in a thimble.
Nonetheless, Prof John has done great justice to the historical account of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islamic) which are primarily predominant in the Western world and the Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, China and Japan) and the offshoots.
Imagine this.
Three hundred thirty million gods and goddesses- give or take. Hinduism! It is one religion whose ideologies and belief schema I found fascinating in all aspects.
Briefly, Hinduism is like a universal charger; you can plug it anywhere, and that's beautiful- religious pluralism. That's why there are no conversion rituals in Hinduism. To be a Hindu you must be born a Hindu, which means you have to reborn (not physically, it means your conscious, thoughts, way of life, actions) into Hindu system. It's a multipath system for the same destination = Moksha (Liberation/Nirvana).
Be that as it may, I guess my disappointment with the book is because I expected something different. I believe in an attempt to try and capture everything; the author was spread so thin that he missed a particularly critical aspect that I expected a comprehensive exploration in answering the question. How did religions change the world? How does belief in something greater than oneself lead one to see another nation as an enemy, change the relationship between parent and child, neighbour and living and dead?
Is there a higher power (or powers) that governs the universe and judges all of us?
The answers to such questions differ widely across different religions and how these variegated belief systems have changed the world also varies greatly.
Most importantly, religion is far too polymorphic a category to make blanket answers of such questions possible. It would be safe to assume that religion has indeed shaped your daily life in some way - because religion in a broad sense is both culturally ubiquitous and historically important in the generation of the categories of modern living.
In the book, Beliefs that Change the World: The History and Ideas of the Great Religions Prof John Bowker attempts to chatter this vast body of religion waters in explaining the history and basic tenets of world religions in less than 300 pages. As is expected, that is a Herculean task. It is tantamount to fitting an ocean in a thimble.
Nonetheless, Prof John has done great justice to the historical account of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islamic) which are primarily predominant in the Western world and the Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, China and Japan) and the offshoots.
Imagine this.
Three hundred thirty million gods and goddesses- give or take. Hinduism! It is one religion whose ideologies and belief schema I found fascinating in all aspects.
Briefly, Hinduism is like a universal charger; you can plug it anywhere, and that's beautiful- religious pluralism. That's why there are no conversion rituals in Hinduism. To be a Hindu you must be born a Hindu, which means you have to reborn (not physically, it means your conscious, thoughts, way of life, actions) into Hindu system. It's a multipath system for the same destination = Moksha (Liberation/Nirvana).
Be that as it may, I guess my disappointment with the book is because I expected something different. I believe in an attempt to try and capture everything; the author was spread so thin that he missed a particularly critical aspect that I expected a comprehensive exploration in answering the question. How did religions change the world? How does belief in something greater than oneself lead one to see another nation as an enemy, change the relationship between parent and child, neighbour and living and dead?
March 12, 2025
The political history of religion
This is an important book about religion from the perspective of its political history.
It is written by John Bowker, an English Anglican priest who is also a pioneering scholar on religious studies. He is a former director of studies and dean of chapel at Corpus Christi and Trinity College, Cambridge, who is credited with introducing the discipline of religious studies to University of Cambridge. He has also been a Professor of religious studies at universities of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina State. Outside academia, he is a consultant for UNESCO, a BBC broadcaster, and author and editor of more than 40 books. And his depth of expertise in religious studies is immediately apparent from the very first paragraph.
In the introduction, Bowker set the gripping tone of the book by addressing the big misunderstandings for inter-religion conflicts, using the risky examples of religious POV of Israel-Palestine problem and the rise of ISIS. The brief highlight of these cases, in an impressively non-partisan tone, illustrates "the fact that the conflict between different religions cannot possibly be understood unless one realizes that there are also profound conflicts within each religion."
Bowker then further remarks, "It is simply not possible for diplomats and politicians (or for that matter anybody else) to unravel the complexities of the conflicts listed at the beginning of this Introduction unless they understand the ways in which those conflicts are rooted, not only in religious beliefs, but also in different interpretations and applications of those beliefs."
And this is what the book is addressing, the big picture with its intricate details. It provides the most concise and crystal clear history of the major religions, how they came into being, why they matter to those who believe, and how they have evolved into the shape they are now today. It discusses the following religions:
- Judaism: From Ancient Judea to Qabbalah to Zionism and the State of Israel.
- Christianity: The story of Jesus Christ, Council of Nicaea, the Orthodox Church, the Western Church (and its consolidation), the Reformation, Council of Trent, the ecumenical movement, the many different breakaway Churches (especially in the New World, United States).
- Islam: The life of the Prophet Muhammad, on Hadiths, schools of interpretation (Madhab), on war, the dynasty period, the golden age of Islam that excelled science and philosophy, on Caliphate, and the many different types of interpretations: Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Ahmadiyya, Babis, and Bahais.
- India: the religions of the Hindus (Vedic development, Brahmanism, Hare Krishna, the caste system, the dynasties, the multi-deities worship), Jainism, Parsi (or Zoroastrianism), Sikhism, Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan (Vajrayana), the life of the Buddha, the distinctions between Buddhism and other Indian religions).
- China: Confucius, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Daoism, Moism, Zou Yang (school of Yin Yang and the Five Agents), and of course Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam.
- Japan: Shinto, many forms of Buddhism (from Zen to the controversial Buddhist sect Soka Gakkai), neo-Confucianism, Christianity.
Among other things, within the context of each respective religions, the book describes the establishment of a community, the customs and traditions (and the reasoning behind them), the making of the holy texts, the political events happening around them (and their adaptation afterwards), the power struggles between state and religion, the changing of powers at the top leadership, the schisms within a religion, the assimilation with local religion and customs, the many sects, the rejection, the persecution, the enforcement of a new religion, all the way to false messiahs and the many inter-religion conflicts.
Now, I've read more than 60 books so far about religion. But it is only after reading this one that I become fully understand about the political side of religion and its implication towards the shape of the community.
Because, as Bowker explains, "religions emerged as organized systems to code, protect and transmit information that successive generations of people have come to regard as particularly important. That information is not confined to words. Much of it is expressed non-verbally in actions, gestures, signs, symbols, music, dance, rituals and the like." And although the words came directly from God, every single one of these other elements are changeable by humans.
Furthermore, religions are also "organized systems in which some particular beliefs and behaviours are endorsed and encouraged, while others are discouraged and forbidden. Religions are protected circles in which people are likely to hold and share beliefs and practices." This is where the political environment of a religion come to play.
For example, not everyone will agree with the status quo of how religion being run or organized. In fact, "sometimes they disagree so profoundly that some people will form a smaller group insisting on its own interpretations and practices. They form a kind of inner circle within the larger circle of shared assumptions." This explains the many different school of thoughts, or sects, or breakaway new religions, or reforms within the original religions over the past centuries.
It is only after we understand all the political occurrences that prompted the changes, that we get to truly understand how religion really function today. And this is why this book should be the go-to book to understand about the big picture on religion, and to some extend to understand about the world as a whole.
Bowker perfectly capture this essence when he said "[t]he philologist Max Müller famously said that those who understand one religion understand none. I would simply add that those who try to understand the world without understanding any religions understand nothing."
This is an important book about religion from the perspective of its political history.
It is written by John Bowker, an English Anglican priest who is also a pioneering scholar on religious studies. He is a former director of studies and dean of chapel at Corpus Christi and Trinity College, Cambridge, who is credited with introducing the discipline of religious studies to University of Cambridge. He has also been a Professor of religious studies at universities of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina State. Outside academia, he is a consultant for UNESCO, a BBC broadcaster, and author and editor of more than 40 books. And his depth of expertise in religious studies is immediately apparent from the very first paragraph.
In the introduction, Bowker set the gripping tone of the book by addressing the big misunderstandings for inter-religion conflicts, using the risky examples of religious POV of Israel-Palestine problem and the rise of ISIS. The brief highlight of these cases, in an impressively non-partisan tone, illustrates "the fact that the conflict between different religions cannot possibly be understood unless one realizes that there are also profound conflicts within each religion."
Bowker then further remarks, "It is simply not possible for diplomats and politicians (or for that matter anybody else) to unravel the complexities of the conflicts listed at the beginning of this Introduction unless they understand the ways in which those conflicts are rooted, not only in religious beliefs, but also in different interpretations and applications of those beliefs."
And this is what the book is addressing, the big picture with its intricate details. It provides the most concise and crystal clear history of the major religions, how they came into being, why they matter to those who believe, and how they have evolved into the shape they are now today. It discusses the following religions:
- Judaism: From Ancient Judea to Qabbalah to Zionism and the State of Israel.
- Christianity: The story of Jesus Christ, Council of Nicaea, the Orthodox Church, the Western Church (and its consolidation), the Reformation, Council of Trent, the ecumenical movement, the many different breakaway Churches (especially in the New World, United States).
- Islam: The life of the Prophet Muhammad, on Hadiths, schools of interpretation (Madhab), on war, the dynasty period, the golden age of Islam that excelled science and philosophy, on Caliphate, and the many different types of interpretations: Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Ahmadiyya, Babis, and Bahais.
- India: the religions of the Hindus (Vedic development, Brahmanism, Hare Krishna, the caste system, the dynasties, the multi-deities worship), Jainism, Parsi (or Zoroastrianism), Sikhism, Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan (Vajrayana), the life of the Buddha, the distinctions between Buddhism and other Indian religions).
- China: Confucius, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Daoism, Moism, Zou Yang (school of Yin Yang and the Five Agents), and of course Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam.
- Japan: Shinto, many forms of Buddhism (from Zen to the controversial Buddhist sect Soka Gakkai), neo-Confucianism, Christianity.
Among other things, within the context of each respective religions, the book describes the establishment of a community, the customs and traditions (and the reasoning behind them), the making of the holy texts, the political events happening around them (and their adaptation afterwards), the power struggles between state and religion, the changing of powers at the top leadership, the schisms within a religion, the assimilation with local religion and customs, the many sects, the rejection, the persecution, the enforcement of a new religion, all the way to false messiahs and the many inter-religion conflicts.
Now, I've read more than 60 books so far about religion. But it is only after reading this one that I become fully understand about the political side of religion and its implication towards the shape of the community.
Because, as Bowker explains, "religions emerged as organized systems to code, protect and transmit information that successive generations of people have come to regard as particularly important. That information is not confined to words. Much of it is expressed non-verbally in actions, gestures, signs, symbols, music, dance, rituals and the like." And although the words came directly from God, every single one of these other elements are changeable by humans.
Furthermore, religions are also "organized systems in which some particular beliefs and behaviours are endorsed and encouraged, while others are discouraged and forbidden. Religions are protected circles in which people are likely to hold and share beliefs and practices." This is where the political environment of a religion come to play.
For example, not everyone will agree with the status quo of how religion being run or organized. In fact, "sometimes they disagree so profoundly that some people will form a smaller group insisting on its own interpretations and practices. They form a kind of inner circle within the larger circle of shared assumptions." This explains the many different school of thoughts, or sects, or breakaway new religions, or reforms within the original religions over the past centuries.
It is only after we understand all the political occurrences that prompted the changes, that we get to truly understand how religion really function today. And this is why this book should be the go-to book to understand about the big picture on religion, and to some extend to understand about the world as a whole.
Bowker perfectly capture this essence when he said "[t]he philologist Max Müller famously said that those who understand one religion understand none. I would simply add that those who try to understand the world without understanding any religions understand nothing."
January 18, 2022
Good overview of major religious beliefs - in particular the first few sections on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were mind blowing. Its definitely an academic book and by the end I got a little burnt out on dates and names and wanted more detail on beliefs and ideas.
July 26, 2020
Quite boring reading. The book is just a chronological history of major religions with few summarizing sentences. Very much disappointed.
June 24, 2024
I didn't enjoy this book as an overview, but I thought I'd complete it... until I saw this:
"Originally these rulers [the Ottomans] gave themselves the title of Sultan, but with increasing European and Russian involvement in the Mediterranean, they claimed the title of Caliph in the 18th century in order to unify the Muslim response to the new threat." page 69
This is one of the 4.5 sentences on the Ottoman Empire. Scratching my head because this is COMPLETELY false. How could the author get such easily verifiable historical facts wrong is beyond me.
The title of Caliph was surrendered to the Ottomans because they conquered Mamluk Egypt 𝐢𝐧 𝟏𝟓𝟏𝟕.
What the book refers to is probably the Ottoman attempt to use the Caliphate as a political tool to counter Russians in 18th century, which is... not what the quote above asserts but also, why choose *this* if you're allocating 4 sentences in total to the Ottomans?
Also, the titles Sultan and Caliph are not mutually exclusive. The whole sentence is put in such an obnoxious way that it is outright misinformation.
Factual mistakes aside, this is not a well written book... Not recommended.
"Originally these rulers [the Ottomans] gave themselves the title of Sultan, but with increasing European and Russian involvement in the Mediterranean, they claimed the title of Caliph in the 18th century in order to unify the Muslim response to the new threat." page 69
This is one of the 4.5 sentences on the Ottoman Empire. Scratching my head because this is COMPLETELY false. How could the author get such easily verifiable historical facts wrong is beyond me.
The title of Caliph was surrendered to the Ottomans because they conquered Mamluk Egypt 𝐢𝐧 𝟏𝟓𝟏𝟕.
What the book refers to is probably the Ottoman attempt to use the Caliphate as a political tool to counter Russians in 18th century, which is... not what the quote above asserts but also, why choose *this* if you're allocating 4 sentences in total to the Ottomans?
Also, the titles Sultan and Caliph are not mutually exclusive. The whole sentence is put in such an obnoxious way that it is outright misinformation.
Factual mistakes aside, this is not a well written book... Not recommended.
April 22, 2024
It is very good introduction to the religions Judaism, Christianity ,Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism…and more.
After reading this book, I watched a few films on Christianity or based during the time- Ben hur, monty pythons life of Brian, the passion of the Christ, the greatest story ever told. It helped me understand the art in churches.
Judaism and Islam beliefs and customs are also well explained, although I think the sequence could have been better. It could have been better organised. It was a little bit confusing. Some etymology is also very interesting and explained well. I think I would now understand a little bit more about the conflicts.
The section on sikhism was brief and to the point, very well written, easy to understand.
All in all, it was a very productive read. I have learnt a lot from it, that I will definitely use in my thought process, discussions and interpretation of the happenings in the world.
After reading this book, I watched a few films on Christianity or based during the time- Ben hur, monty pythons life of Brian, the passion of the Christ, the greatest story ever told. It helped me understand the art in churches.
Judaism and Islam beliefs and customs are also well explained, although I think the sequence could have been better. It could have been better organised. It was a little bit confusing. Some etymology is also very interesting and explained well. I think I would now understand a little bit more about the conflicts.
The section on sikhism was brief and to the point, very well written, easy to understand.
All in all, it was a very productive read. I have learnt a lot from it, that I will definitely use in my thought process, discussions and interpretation of the happenings in the world.
February 1, 2026
This appeared as an informative book. However, it included more of the author's opinion. There was also some incorrect information in some sections of the book. For example, in the section on 'Islam', the author states that Prophet Muhammad was an idol worshipper prior to Islam and attempted to commit suicide. Both statements are false. Good readers would question this book.
Did Not Finish
September 5, 2024Boooooooring - dnf
January 22, 2022
Eriliseks teeb raamatu pealkirjas lubatu - mitte ei keskenduta tavalisele religiooni ajaloole, vaid mõttemustri suurematele muutustele, mis mõjutasid inimeste maailmapilti ja arusaama maailmast.
March 3, 2017
Sometimes it is good to remind myself of the differences that in reality do not exist. This book confirms what most people, hopefully, feel about all the major “Beliefs that changed the world”.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews