Is There a Universal Grammar of Religion?

by Henry Rosemont Jr., Huston Smith

In this provocative volume two important scholars of religion, Huston Smith and Henry Rosemont, Jr., put forth their viewpoints and share a probing conversation. Though the two diverge considerably in their accounts of religious faith and practice, they also agree on fundamental points. Huston Smith, author of the important work The World’s Religions, has long argued for the fundamental equality of the world’s religions. Describing a “universal grammar of religion,” he argues that fourteen points of similarity exist among all of the major religious traditions and that these similarities indicate an innate psychological affinity for religion within the human spirit. As Noam Chomsky has argued that humans are hardwired to use language, Smith similarly argues that humans are hardwired for religious experience. In response, Rosemont explicates his humanistic vision of the world, in which the “homoversal” tendency to contemplate the infinite is part of our co-humanity that endures across time, space, language, and culture. Rosemont also elaborates upon Noam Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar and its relevance to Smith’s ideas about the similarities among religions. This insightful exploration of the most essential basis of religion provides a new direction for comparative-religion scholars everywhere.

128 pages, Paperback

First published May 28, 2008

Reviews

[Talbot Hook]

This is more an invitation to ponder the topic than a comprehensive argument for a universal grammar of religion. Smith's lecture is intriguing and human and appreciative, of course; and Rosemont's counter-examination and the conversation that follows are both illuminating in certain ways. Yet, the whole thing comes across more like an interesting dinner conversation between highly intellectual friends than a profound exploration. I suppose that is what the aim is, given that it was a lecture? I think it is valuable to have this in book form, so perhaps just treat this as an amuse-bouche before the dinner which you must yourself prepare.

[Joel Mongeon]

It's not as good as you want it to be, but it's short enough that it's worth at least a quick skim. Both authors raise very interesting points and if you're into theology on a cross-cultural level, you'll want to get in on the discussion they're having. Be warned, though: Some pretty clinical language lies within.