What do you think?
Rate this book
For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery
Rodney Stark's provocative new book argues that, whether we like it or not, people acting for the glory of God have formed our modern culture. Continuing his project of identifying the widespread consequences of monotheism, Stark shows that the Christian conception of God resulted--almost inevitably and for the same reasons--in the Protestant Reformation, the rise of modern science, the European witch-hunts, and the Western abolition of slavery. In the process, he explains why Christian and Islamic images of God yielded such different cultural results, leading Christians but not Muslims to foster science, burn witches, and denounce slavery.
With his usual clarity and skepticism toward the received wisdom, Stark finds the origins of these disparate phenomena within monotheistic religious organizations. Endemic in such organizations are pressures to maintain religious intensity, which lead to intense conflicts and schisms that have far-reaching social results.
Along the way, Stark debunks many commonly accepted ideas. He interprets the sixteenth-century flowering of science not as a sudden revolution that burst religious barriers, but as the normal, gradual, and direct outgrowth of medieval theology. He also shows that the very ideas about God that sustained the rise of science led also to intense witch-hunting by otherwise clear-headed Europeans, including some celebrated scientists. This conception of God likewise yielded the Christian denunciation of slavery as an abomination--and some of the fiercest witch-hunters were devoted participants in successful abolitionist movements on both sides of the Atlantic.
For the Glory of God is an engrossing narrative that accounts for the very different histories of the Christian and Muslim worlds. It fundamentally changes our understanding of religion's role in history and the forces behind much of what we point to as secular progress.
With his usual clarity and skepticism toward the received wisdom, Stark finds the origins of these disparate phenomena within monotheistic religious organizations. Endemic in such organizations are pressures to maintain religious intensity, which lead to intense conflicts and schisms that have far-reaching social results.
Along the way, Stark debunks many commonly accepted ideas. He interprets the sixteenth-century flowering of science not as a sudden revolution that burst religious barriers, but as the normal, gradual, and direct outgrowth of medieval theology. He also shows that the very ideas about God that sustained the rise of science led also to intense witch-hunting by otherwise clear-headed Europeans, including some celebrated scientists. This conception of God likewise yielded the Christian denunciation of slavery as an abomination--and some of the fiercest witch-hunters were devoted participants in successful abolitionist movements on both sides of the Atlantic.
For the Glory of God is an engrossing narrative that accounts for the very different histories of the Christian and Muslim worlds. It fundamentally changes our understanding of religion's role in history and the forces behind much of what we point to as secular progress.
504 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
39 people are currently reading
612 people want to read
About the author
Rodney Stark
70 books300 followersRodney Stark grew up in Jamestown, North Dakota, and began his career as a newspaper reporter. Following a tour of duty in the U.S. Army, he received his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, where he held appointments as a research sociologist at the Survey Research Center and at the Center for the Study of Law and Society. He left Berkeley to become Professor of Sociology and of Comparative Religion at the University of Washington. In 2004 he joined the faculty of Baylor University. He has published 30 books and more than 140 scholarly articles on subjects as diverse as prejudice, crime, suicide, and city life in ancient Rome. However, the greater part of his work has been on religion. He is past president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and of the Association for the Sociology of Religion. He also has won a number of national and international awards for distinguished scholarship. Many of his books and articles have been translated and published in foreign languages, including Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, Slovene, and Turkish.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
December 18, 2012
Probably Stark's worst book, and that's saying a lot
I'm going to name the two historical religious myths that Stark printed as Gospel truth (pun intended) right off the bat, since as an ex-Lutheran, I caught them immediately standing out like a sore thumb.
1. Luther NEVER said "Here I stand" at the Diet of Worms.
2. Luther quite likely NEVER nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. (He never mentions doing such a thing in his own lifetime, and that story was first told after his death.)
For a professor of religion at a major university (a major Christian university now, even more sadly) to uncritically print these two legends as fact puts the whole book "on notice," so to speak. (In fact, it puts ALL of his books "on notice" that careful reading and a high dose of skepticism will likely be needed.)
=====
Second, chapter 2 of this book, where it works to provide a corrective to old ideas about the "Dark Ages," has multiple problems.
First of all, Stark is tilting at windmills here. It's been two decades or more since just about any serious scholar has held to his straw man that the "Dark Ages" were real and horrible, and three decades or so since a majority of scholars has held more enlightened positions.
Next, and much worse, in his windmill-tilting, Stark AGAIN makes clear historical mistakes, under talking about the Middle Ages as a font of Christian European technological advance. In short, Chapter 2 becomes a chapter of Christian Apologetics and NOT medieval Christian history.
I look at three instruments whose Christian European invention or development is overplayed by Starks.
1. Stirrup. Although he never directly says "The stirrup is a Christian European invention," he certainly implies that. Fact: the Central Asian Alans brought stirrup-equipped cavalry to Europe in 5th-6th century invasions. Fact 2: The first Europeans to adopt use of the stirrup were the pagan Swedes, it appears. Fact 3: And, contrary to his assessment of the value of the stirrup in Charles Martel repelling the Saracens at Tours, modern research says that the stirrup mainly allowed left/right tilting; its value in shock lance assaults has been overestimated.
2. Cannon. Wiki notes that a Chinese Buddhist mural pictures a cannon in 1128, two centuries before the battle of Metz, where cannon were supposedly first used. Now, that's not to deny that much of cannon's development happened in Europe, but, let's not oversell the case. Beyond that, we know that within a somewhat more Western area, the Ottomans, as much as any Christians, contributed much to cannon development.
3. Compass. Stark claims that the compass was likely invented separately in Europe and China, rather than coming to Europe from the east, and that China never used it for navigation. Well, the Arabs did so use it, a century before Europeans. That would indicate the assimilation theory of European discovery, not invention of the compass is correct.
=======
The book gets worse from here.
Stark blames 1860s religious opposition to Darwinism by Bishop "Soapy" Wilberforce and others as only being a purely defensive reaction to a "virtual Who's Who of Socialism ... the earliest and most militant proponents of Darwinism."
Excuse me, Mr. Stark, now who's guilty of historical revisionism, with a generous side course of mudslinging thrown in for good measure?
====
Plus, Stark operates with the same blinkers as to a definition of "Christianity" as he claims historians do who only attribute good things to post-1500 Protestant Christianity.
From reading this and other books, you would never even know that the Eastern Orthodox tradition of Christianity even exists. This is SHAMEFUL for someone who holds himself out to be as scholarly as Stark does.
Now, if he had put "Western" before the word "Christianity" throughout his book, it would be different. But he doesn't, and instead must again be seen as practicing some form of willful deception.
====
That said, up to that point, I did learn a couple of things -- how good a case the Donatists had, and the Spanish Muslims' 1418 proscription of Jews. However, I have no doubt that I could learn either of those from another religious history book written within the last decade.
That said, I found many of his definitions in his introduction to be somewhat idiosyncratic.
Magic, for example, will be defined by other scholars of religion in such a way that does not exclude the divine. In fact, things such as incantations are based explicitly on the idea of summoning a divinity while constraining it, by the power of the incantation, to do your will. And this divinity need not be seen as an "impersonal power," as he claims.
Defining religion as supernaturalist means he is ruling out Confucianism and Buddhism in forms that don't have a god at all, not just a god as "essence" vs. one as "person."
Also, his medieval dichotomy of the "Church of Power" vs. the "Church of Piety" cuts way too neatly. First, who says they're exclusive? Certainly, a reformist pope like Hildebrand (Gregory VII) wanted to advance both.
Anyway, there are surely nuggets of new historical fact to be gleamed besides the two I already did. And there may be in his other books as well. But, if they contain any whoppers like this, I'll look to other history/psychology of religions books besides Stark's.
=====
In short, unless you want your religious history book to have a generous dollop of "anti-PC" Christian apologetics at the top, or, if you're a conservative Christian seeking academic confirmation for an "us vs. them" mindset, feel free to skip this book, and thank me for the warning.
=====
Finally, fundamentalist Christians, read Wiki to learn more about Stark. He's actually NOT "one of you," or so he says. That said, his promulgation of extremely conservative Xn beliefs, and his move to Baylor, seem odder yet.
I'm going to name the two historical religious myths that Stark printed as Gospel truth (pun intended) right off the bat, since as an ex-Lutheran, I caught them immediately standing out like a sore thumb.
1. Luther NEVER said "Here I stand" at the Diet of Worms.
2. Luther quite likely NEVER nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. (He never mentions doing such a thing in his own lifetime, and that story was first told after his death.)
For a professor of religion at a major university (a major Christian university now, even more sadly) to uncritically print these two legends as fact puts the whole book "on notice," so to speak. (In fact, it puts ALL of his books "on notice" that careful reading and a high dose of skepticism will likely be needed.)
=====
Second, chapter 2 of this book, where it works to provide a corrective to old ideas about the "Dark Ages," has multiple problems.
First of all, Stark is tilting at windmills here. It's been two decades or more since just about any serious scholar has held to his straw man that the "Dark Ages" were real and horrible, and three decades or so since a majority of scholars has held more enlightened positions.
Next, and much worse, in his windmill-tilting, Stark AGAIN makes clear historical mistakes, under talking about the Middle Ages as a font of Christian European technological advance. In short, Chapter 2 becomes a chapter of Christian Apologetics and NOT medieval Christian history.
I look at three instruments whose Christian European invention or development is overplayed by Starks.
1. Stirrup. Although he never directly says "The stirrup is a Christian European invention," he certainly implies that. Fact: the Central Asian Alans brought stirrup-equipped cavalry to Europe in 5th-6th century invasions. Fact 2: The first Europeans to adopt use of the stirrup were the pagan Swedes, it appears. Fact 3: And, contrary to his assessment of the value of the stirrup in Charles Martel repelling the Saracens at Tours, modern research says that the stirrup mainly allowed left/right tilting; its value in shock lance assaults has been overestimated.
2. Cannon. Wiki notes that a Chinese Buddhist mural pictures a cannon in 1128, two centuries before the battle of Metz, where cannon were supposedly first used. Now, that's not to deny that much of cannon's development happened in Europe, but, let's not oversell the case. Beyond that, we know that within a somewhat more Western area, the Ottomans, as much as any Christians, contributed much to cannon development.
3. Compass. Stark claims that the compass was likely invented separately in Europe and China, rather than coming to Europe from the east, and that China never used it for navigation. Well, the Arabs did so use it, a century before Europeans. That would indicate the assimilation theory of European discovery, not invention of the compass is correct.
=======
The book gets worse from here.
Stark blames 1860s religious opposition to Darwinism by Bishop "Soapy" Wilberforce and others as only being a purely defensive reaction to a "virtual Who's Who of Socialism ... the earliest and most militant proponents of Darwinism."
Excuse me, Mr. Stark, now who's guilty of historical revisionism, with a generous side course of mudslinging thrown in for good measure?
====
Plus, Stark operates with the same blinkers as to a definition of "Christianity" as he claims historians do who only attribute good things to post-1500 Protestant Christianity.
From reading this and other books, you would never even know that the Eastern Orthodox tradition of Christianity even exists. This is SHAMEFUL for someone who holds himself out to be as scholarly as Stark does.
Now, if he had put "Western" before the word "Christianity" throughout his book, it would be different. But he doesn't, and instead must again be seen as practicing some form of willful deception.
====
That said, up to that point, I did learn a couple of things -- how good a case the Donatists had, and the Spanish Muslims' 1418 proscription of Jews. However, I have no doubt that I could learn either of those from another religious history book written within the last decade.
That said, I found many of his definitions in his introduction to be somewhat idiosyncratic.
Magic, for example, will be defined by other scholars of religion in such a way that does not exclude the divine. In fact, things such as incantations are based explicitly on the idea of summoning a divinity while constraining it, by the power of the incantation, to do your will. And this divinity need not be seen as an "impersonal power," as he claims.
Defining religion as supernaturalist means he is ruling out Confucianism and Buddhism in forms that don't have a god at all, not just a god as "essence" vs. one as "person."
Also, his medieval dichotomy of the "Church of Power" vs. the "Church of Piety" cuts way too neatly. First, who says they're exclusive? Certainly, a reformist pope like Hildebrand (Gregory VII) wanted to advance both.
Anyway, there are surely nuggets of new historical fact to be gleamed besides the two I already did. And there may be in his other books as well. But, if they contain any whoppers like this, I'll look to other history/psychology of religions books besides Stark's.
=====
In short, unless you want your religious history book to have a generous dollop of "anti-PC" Christian apologetics at the top, or, if you're a conservative Christian seeking academic confirmation for an "us vs. them" mindset, feel free to skip this book, and thank me for the warning.
=====
Finally, fundamentalist Christians, read Wiki to learn more about Stark. He's actually NOT "one of you," or so he says. That said, his promulgation of extremely conservative Xn beliefs, and his move to Baylor, seem odder yet.
October 28, 2008
Stark traces the positive influence of Christianity on civilization and particularly science, effectively debunking the myth that science and religion are incompatible. While Stark has entirely too much admiration for the protestant "reformers," he also has a healthy respect for the Church, founded upon a HISTORICAL examination of its influence.
February 18, 2010
Stark sets out to show how ideas about God have shaped Western culture in both good (rise of science, abolition of slavery) and bad (witch-hunts) ways. The first chapter is an overview of reformations in Christianity. Stark argues that the Reformation of the 1500s did not just come out of the blue, but was the latest, and most successful, of many attempts at Reformations throughout church history. This first chapter really just serves as background for the rest of the book. While most time is spent on reformations in Christianity, Stark does not claim this is unique to Christianity and he mentions reforms in both Judaism and Islam.
The real meat of the book comes in the next three chapters. In chapter two Stark shows that the rise of modern science was the direct result of the progression of medieval Christian thought. Stark shows that the common view in which ancient Greeks and Romans were enlightened only to be interrupted by 1000 years of ignorant Christians before enlightenment in reason and science could rise again is completely false. Instead, ancient Greco-Roman pagan thought did not have the tools for modern science. It was Christian thought that uniquely led to the rise of science in Europe rather than in ancient Greece or Rome, or China or Islam.
Ironically, the same Christian thought that led to modern science also led to the hunting and burning of witches. This is the subject of chapter three. Stark cuts through much misinformation in examining the witch-hunts. For example, most tend to think it was the middle ages during which people were constantly hunting and burning witches. But the truth is witch-hunting did not happen often until after the Protestant Reformation and into the time when modern science was taking hold. Stark argues that for witch-hunting to occur there had to be a combination of religious conflict which threatened people's security as well as weak governance. Thus, most with-hunting occurred around the Rhine where communities shifted from Protestant to Catholic and there was not a strong central government. Conversely, in Spain the government was strong enough to prevent most excesses. Witch hunting finally ended when the Peace of Westphalia was signed in 1648, ending Europe's religious wars.
Another irony leads into chapter four: many of the same people who called for witches to be burned were the strongest voices condemning slavery. Here Stark argues that it was distinctly Christian people working with Christian ideas that began and motivated the abolition movement in America, Britain and France. Most interesting are quotes from some historians who are baffled at British abolitionists fighting against slavery when they appeared to get nothing out of it. Stark shows that the obvious answer is they did not desire to get anything out of it for themselves because they were working based on Christian ideals that slavery was wrong.
I enjoy Stark's writing, though I found this book a little wordy. The first chapter, though interesting, seemed unnecessary for the purpose of the rest of the book. I guess it fits in with his postscript where he argues that religion is not just about rituals, as many anthropologists and sociologists have argues, but about Gods. It was not mere rituals that led to these things, but people's ideas about God. But again, that point could have been made without the first chapter. Overall then this is a good book for those interested in history, especially for those misinformed to believe that Christianity and science are and always have been in conflict, that Christianity is violent and always has looked for witches to kill, and that Christianity did not care much about slavery. Stark shows the historical revisionism in each of these points.
The real meat of the book comes in the next three chapters. In chapter two Stark shows that the rise of modern science was the direct result of the progression of medieval Christian thought. Stark shows that the common view in which ancient Greeks and Romans were enlightened only to be interrupted by 1000 years of ignorant Christians before enlightenment in reason and science could rise again is completely false. Instead, ancient Greco-Roman pagan thought did not have the tools for modern science. It was Christian thought that uniquely led to the rise of science in Europe rather than in ancient Greece or Rome, or China or Islam.
Ironically, the same Christian thought that led to modern science also led to the hunting and burning of witches. This is the subject of chapter three. Stark cuts through much misinformation in examining the witch-hunts. For example, most tend to think it was the middle ages during which people were constantly hunting and burning witches. But the truth is witch-hunting did not happen often until after the Protestant Reformation and into the time when modern science was taking hold. Stark argues that for witch-hunting to occur there had to be a combination of religious conflict which threatened people's security as well as weak governance. Thus, most with-hunting occurred around the Rhine where communities shifted from Protestant to Catholic and there was not a strong central government. Conversely, in Spain the government was strong enough to prevent most excesses. Witch hunting finally ended when the Peace of Westphalia was signed in 1648, ending Europe's religious wars.
Another irony leads into chapter four: many of the same people who called for witches to be burned were the strongest voices condemning slavery. Here Stark argues that it was distinctly Christian people working with Christian ideas that began and motivated the abolition movement in America, Britain and France. Most interesting are quotes from some historians who are baffled at British abolitionists fighting against slavery when they appeared to get nothing out of it. Stark shows that the obvious answer is they did not desire to get anything out of it for themselves because they were working based on Christian ideals that slavery was wrong.
I enjoy Stark's writing, though I found this book a little wordy. The first chapter, though interesting, seemed unnecessary for the purpose of the rest of the book. I guess it fits in with his postscript where he argues that religion is not just about rituals, as many anthropologists and sociologists have argues, but about Gods. It was not mere rituals that led to these things, but people's ideas about God. But again, that point could have been made without the first chapter. Overall then this is a good book for those interested in history, especially for those misinformed to believe that Christianity and science are and always have been in conflict, that Christianity is violent and always has looked for witches to kill, and that Christianity did not care much about slavery. Stark shows the historical revisionism in each of these points.
October 9, 2015
Rodney Stark’s stated purpose for writing For the Glory of God is “to show how ideas about God have shaped the history and culture of the West” (2). But this task requires him to slash down a forest of popular misconceptions events and movements in history (12). Towering among this forest of misconceptions is a mammoth falsehood that Stark is determined to bring down: that religion has always been primarily a cause of evil throughout history, and not a cause of good. While he writes as a sociologist, and considers this book to be “a work of social science” (13), the materials for Stark’s arguments are historical data. In particular, he focuses on four “episodes”: the Protestant Reformation, the rise of science, the witch-hunts, and the abolishment of slavery (2-3). Each of these episodes serve to reinforce a network of ideas that can be summarized by this proposition: Western culture has been shaped, whether for good or bad, by people who believed they were acting for the glory of the one true God. As Stark makes clear in his postscript, For the Glory of God may also be seen as an rebuttal to the view held by many social scientists: that religion is primarily a matter of social rituals, and that the adherents’ conception of god is practically irrelevant. Not so, argues Stark, for people’s conception of God radically impacts their outlook and action, as may be seen in the historical impact of Christian monotheism.
Stark has attempted an ambitious undertaking—not only in that he is a sociologist writing history, but also in that he has set about to demonstrate several broad and controversial theses, marshalling evidence from several broad and controversial episodes in history. All the while, he takes shots at dozens of commonly-cherished historical myths.
For the most part, Stark’s theses and arguments resonate with common sense and with what appears to be the historical data. It is clearly demonstrable, for example, that the myth about medieval people believing in a flat earth has been perpetrated by those who wish to pit science against religion, specifically Christianity. It is also demonstrable that Christian theology provided the womb from which modern science would emerge. And it seems foolish to dispute the central role of Christians and their morals in ending slavery in the Western world. In these major areas, I believe readers who are interested in a proper interpretation of the historical data can benefit from Stark’s analysis and his correction of historical falsifications. Further, the fact that Stark is a sociologist and a serious student of history means that he brings insights that historians might lack.
But it is Stark’s historical work that leaves him open most open to criticism. Of the critical reviews I checked, few complaints were registered about his sociological analysis, but historians took him to task for issues related to his historical research. Perhaps these flaws could have been avoided if Stark had chosen advance the same theses, yet with the added measure of authority and accuracy that would come with a historian coauthor.
While I agreed with most of Stark’s ideas throughout the book, I was surprised to find myself disagreeing with one of Stark’s most passionately-argued theses near the end. The thesis came in the context of his contending against “functional” sociologists who “dismissed Gods [sic] as unimportant window dressing, emphasizing instead that rites and rituals are the fundamental stuff of religion” (368). I sympathize with Stark’s contention with these sociologists, that people’s conception of God does radically impact their outlook and actions. But Stark seems to swing too far the opposite direction, claiming that “God matters; ritual doesn’t”—that whether people engage in religious rituals plays a practically negligible effect on their morals. It seems that Stark could have taken a mediating position by affirming the importance of both ritual and G/god.
Yet these flaws do not undermine the overall merits of the book. For the Glory of God challenges readers to be sensitive to how historical revisionists and sociologists of religion can use history to weave myths. Further, it ably demonstrates that theology is not a trivial product of human culture; instead culture—in ways often unrecognized—is powerfully shaped by theology.
Stark has attempted an ambitious undertaking—not only in that he is a sociologist writing history, but also in that he has set about to demonstrate several broad and controversial theses, marshalling evidence from several broad and controversial episodes in history. All the while, he takes shots at dozens of commonly-cherished historical myths.
For the most part, Stark’s theses and arguments resonate with common sense and with what appears to be the historical data. It is clearly demonstrable, for example, that the myth about medieval people believing in a flat earth has been perpetrated by those who wish to pit science against religion, specifically Christianity. It is also demonstrable that Christian theology provided the womb from which modern science would emerge. And it seems foolish to dispute the central role of Christians and their morals in ending slavery in the Western world. In these major areas, I believe readers who are interested in a proper interpretation of the historical data can benefit from Stark’s analysis and his correction of historical falsifications. Further, the fact that Stark is a sociologist and a serious student of history means that he brings insights that historians might lack.
But it is Stark’s historical work that leaves him open most open to criticism. Of the critical reviews I checked, few complaints were registered about his sociological analysis, but historians took him to task for issues related to his historical research. Perhaps these flaws could have been avoided if Stark had chosen advance the same theses, yet with the added measure of authority and accuracy that would come with a historian coauthor.
While I agreed with most of Stark’s ideas throughout the book, I was surprised to find myself disagreeing with one of Stark’s most passionately-argued theses near the end. The thesis came in the context of his contending against “functional” sociologists who “dismissed Gods [sic] as unimportant window dressing, emphasizing instead that rites and rituals are the fundamental stuff of religion” (368). I sympathize with Stark’s contention with these sociologists, that people’s conception of God does radically impact their outlook and actions. But Stark seems to swing too far the opposite direction, claiming that “God matters; ritual doesn’t”—that whether people engage in religious rituals plays a practically negligible effect on their morals. It seems that Stark could have taken a mediating position by affirming the importance of both ritual and G/god.
Yet these flaws do not undermine the overall merits of the book. For the Glory of God challenges readers to be sensitive to how historical revisionists and sociologists of religion can use history to weave myths. Further, it ably demonstrates that theology is not a trivial product of human culture; instead culture—in ways often unrecognized—is powerfully shaped by theology.
March 24, 2019
I warn potential readers that, although I still recommend this book for its historiography, it was not nearly as good as it could have been, due to multiple empirical errors he Stark makes. The empirical errors are particularly disappointing, because on the whole, Rodney Stark's sociology and historiography of religion -- particularly of Abrahamic religion -- *in general* deserve vastly more recognition and applause than they appear to have ever received as far as I can discern.
Nevertheless, Stark succeeds in this book in demonstrating that monotheism creates an ethos quite different from that found in polytheistic paganism, one that sees the cosmos as a more integrated, holistic system operating by laws and constants, constants man can discover through rational and empirical inquiry and which result in advancements pagan polytheism could never have cultivated. Different monotheisms will, of course, produce variance in particular outcomes based on doctrinal qualifications, and through inference from these doctrinal qualifications, Stark illustrates how Islam, despite being monotheistic and even Abrahamic, failed to excel in ways attained by its rival: Christianity.
Having satisfactorily, I feel, summarized the book's positive points without spoiling any of its content, I feel it necessary to progress in discussing the less favorable aspects of the book. I will begin with the embarrassing, inexcusable errors first, then proceed to the more nuanced errors.
Perhaps the three worst aspects of this book are the following three claims he makes: (1) The falsehood that Martin Luther *ever* posted his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg. In overwhelming likelihood, he never did. It's fine for non-scholars to believe this myth, but there is no excuse for professional historians of Christianity to believe it. It has been common knowledge for many decades in the field that this event was never mentioned until after Luther's death (as far as we know), not even by Luther himself. (2) That Luther *ever* said "Here I stand," at the Diet of Worms. This cliché is as false as (1). Luther never said this. (3) Rejecting evolution and defending creationism. Discovering that Stark was a creationist in this book greatly lowered my respect for him.
As far as more nuanced, excusable errors, the general principle underlying such errors owes to Stark's seeming failure to distinguish between the *true* claim that Christian monotheism produced great progress for the world, and in particular for the excellence of Western Civilization, with the *false* claim that science and religion are therefore compatible methods of inquiry. Certainly not at the same time they aren't. He neglects to grasp that Christianity established the initial impetus for the gradual separation of revealed theology and natural theology -- a separation incapable of cultivation from within any polytheistic society. Scholastics, and so on, indeed spoke of the "two books" from which God's creation was revealed -- the Bible and the cosmos. The pious man sought God's truth in inquiry into both "books." This gradually developed into a schism between revealed theology (biblical theology) and natural theology (inquiry into the nature of God's cosmos), and out of this schism, natural theology progressed to such an extent that it was no longer theology except in the deist sense. From there, the intellectual progeny of the natural theologians produced secular progress in reason, science, rationalism, empiricism, atheism/deism, free markets, and the scientific method of inquiry, building on the foundations laid by its laudatory predecessors in the Medieval university system first launched by Charlemagne and Alcuin and by the scholastics.
In other words, one may view Christianity as an irrational system that produced rational outcomes. The most pronounced manifestation of Stark's failure or refusal to recognize this occurs in the last third of his chapter on the Christian origins of science, when, as previously noted, he makes an unapologetic defense of creationism and unleashes a merciless polemic against Darwinism rooted in irrelevancies, misrepresentations of what Darwinism actually asserts, false claims about the alleged inadequacy of the fossil record (as though even if the fossil record were completely empty, science still does not abound with overwhelming evidence of the correctness of natural selection nevertheless), personal attacks, and so on. Given the topic of the book and chapter, it might not prove so significant had he not digressed completely from elaborating upon his thesis: that Christianity led to science. Of course, out of fairness, it's a bit difficult to defend the origins of science when one adopts a belief system about biology which long ago lost all tenability.
One moderately important point Stark missed which I consider of some importance is how Christian monotheism's positive effects were enhanced by the early synthesis of Platonist metaphysics and Stoic cosmology into Christian thought. Both these features strengthened Christianity's holistic view of the material world as a harmonious entity which the Lord operated according to fixed laws and constants. To repeat, since the discovery of laws and constants is a very large part of the scientific enterprise, this strengthened the drive to science.
In a list of much more minor, almost pedantic, errors, one may include the following: Stark misrepresents David Hume as having been a deist and then an atheist, when in fact, the nature of Hume's skepticism and empiricism led him to an ambiguous agnosticism. He somewhat misunderstands the Enlightenment as a secularist movement, when in fact, it was far more multifaceted and included both defenders and opponents of religion. The soundness of his definition of science, while on the whole correct, strikes one as somewhat dubious with regard to particularities. I find somewhat questionable his view on the dynamics between individuals and institutions in some parts, though not in any particularly destructive or misleading way. And although he very soundly proves that Christianity led to the abolition of slavery, he falsely claimed that free market economic development played no role in its disappearance. In fact, when capital accumulation rises sufficiently, slaves as capital goods become unsustainable -- though not as consumer goods (e.g., sex slaves, entertainers, _et cetera_), unfortunately.
As long as one takes the aforementioned critique into account, the book is worth reading on theoretical grounds. However, as noted, it could have been far better had it not been so empirically defective.
Nevertheless, Stark succeeds in this book in demonstrating that monotheism creates an ethos quite different from that found in polytheistic paganism, one that sees the cosmos as a more integrated, holistic system operating by laws and constants, constants man can discover through rational and empirical inquiry and which result in advancements pagan polytheism could never have cultivated. Different monotheisms will, of course, produce variance in particular outcomes based on doctrinal qualifications, and through inference from these doctrinal qualifications, Stark illustrates how Islam, despite being monotheistic and even Abrahamic, failed to excel in ways attained by its rival: Christianity.
Having satisfactorily, I feel, summarized the book's positive points without spoiling any of its content, I feel it necessary to progress in discussing the less favorable aspects of the book. I will begin with the embarrassing, inexcusable errors first, then proceed to the more nuanced errors.
Perhaps the three worst aspects of this book are the following three claims he makes: (1) The falsehood that Martin Luther *ever* posted his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg. In overwhelming likelihood, he never did. It's fine for non-scholars to believe this myth, but there is no excuse for professional historians of Christianity to believe it. It has been common knowledge for many decades in the field that this event was never mentioned until after Luther's death (as far as we know), not even by Luther himself. (2) That Luther *ever* said "Here I stand," at the Diet of Worms. This cliché is as false as (1). Luther never said this. (3) Rejecting evolution and defending creationism. Discovering that Stark was a creationist in this book greatly lowered my respect for him.
As far as more nuanced, excusable errors, the general principle underlying such errors owes to Stark's seeming failure to distinguish between the *true* claim that Christian monotheism produced great progress for the world, and in particular for the excellence of Western Civilization, with the *false* claim that science and religion are therefore compatible methods of inquiry. Certainly not at the same time they aren't. He neglects to grasp that Christianity established the initial impetus for the gradual separation of revealed theology and natural theology -- a separation incapable of cultivation from within any polytheistic society. Scholastics, and so on, indeed spoke of the "two books" from which God's creation was revealed -- the Bible and the cosmos. The pious man sought God's truth in inquiry into both "books." This gradually developed into a schism between revealed theology (biblical theology) and natural theology (inquiry into the nature of God's cosmos), and out of this schism, natural theology progressed to such an extent that it was no longer theology except in the deist sense. From there, the intellectual progeny of the natural theologians produced secular progress in reason, science, rationalism, empiricism, atheism/deism, free markets, and the scientific method of inquiry, building on the foundations laid by its laudatory predecessors in the Medieval university system first launched by Charlemagne and Alcuin and by the scholastics.
In other words, one may view Christianity as an irrational system that produced rational outcomes. The most pronounced manifestation of Stark's failure or refusal to recognize this occurs in the last third of his chapter on the Christian origins of science, when, as previously noted, he makes an unapologetic defense of creationism and unleashes a merciless polemic against Darwinism rooted in irrelevancies, misrepresentations of what Darwinism actually asserts, false claims about the alleged inadequacy of the fossil record (as though even if the fossil record were completely empty, science still does not abound with overwhelming evidence of the correctness of natural selection nevertheless), personal attacks, and so on. Given the topic of the book and chapter, it might not prove so significant had he not digressed completely from elaborating upon his thesis: that Christianity led to science. Of course, out of fairness, it's a bit difficult to defend the origins of science when one adopts a belief system about biology which long ago lost all tenability.
One moderately important point Stark missed which I consider of some importance is how Christian monotheism's positive effects were enhanced by the early synthesis of Platonist metaphysics and Stoic cosmology into Christian thought. Both these features strengthened Christianity's holistic view of the material world as a harmonious entity which the Lord operated according to fixed laws and constants. To repeat, since the discovery of laws and constants is a very large part of the scientific enterprise, this strengthened the drive to science.
In a list of much more minor, almost pedantic, errors, one may include the following: Stark misrepresents David Hume as having been a deist and then an atheist, when in fact, the nature of Hume's skepticism and empiricism led him to an ambiguous agnosticism. He somewhat misunderstands the Enlightenment as a secularist movement, when in fact, it was far more multifaceted and included both defenders and opponents of religion. The soundness of his definition of science, while on the whole correct, strikes one as somewhat dubious with regard to particularities. I find somewhat questionable his view on the dynamics between individuals and institutions in some parts, though not in any particularly destructive or misleading way. And although he very soundly proves that Christianity led to the abolition of slavery, he falsely claimed that free market economic development played no role in its disappearance. In fact, when capital accumulation rises sufficiently, slaves as capital goods become unsustainable -- though not as consumer goods (e.g., sex slaves, entertainers, _et cetera_), unfortunately.
As long as one takes the aforementioned critique into account, the book is worth reading on theoretical grounds. However, as noted, it could have been far better had it not been so empirically defective.
January 16, 2021
An interesting argument is made by Stark for the development of civilisation being owed to the pursuit’s glory of god but it presents nothing new. This is old ground covered thoroughly by Weber in his seminal work ‘The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism’. Stark further demonstrates his poor scholarship when he promotes the role of native Africans, the French, Spanish, and the Dutch were the primary movers responsible for the Transatlantic slave trade. He even goes further to suggest that Islam had a long tradition of slavery which dwarfed the role of the British Empire. In contrast he suggests that while the British Empire did indulge in small acts of slavery it was the British Empire built upon its driving core, Christianity.
July 1, 2019
A fascinating read. Stark's thesis is fairly straightforward: in contrast to those who claim that religion in general (and Christianity in particular) has been a hindrance to progress in Western culture (and often been downright harmful), religion/Christianity has in fact been the source of the best elements of Western culture, and some of the events that are commonly labeled as being negative effects of religion can actually be attributed to political, economic, and cultural factors in play at that time. While the subtitle (which is a bit misleading) indicates that "monotheism" is the author's subject, he really spends most of his time discussing/defending Christianity (both Catholicism and Protestantism) against the charges brought against it. The author keeps his own religious beliefs to himself, though if I had to venture a guess I would say that he probably falls somewhere in the "liberal Protestant" category. Because of this, I inevitably disagreed with some of his conclusions regarding the early church (he views Marcion and Arius as some of the first church reformers who were sadly suppressed by the orthodox elite). It is also worth mentioning that ruling out any actual influence of the supernatural in one's analysis of history is not a "neutral" position, so Stark's perspective might be deemed "overly secular." Nevertheless, the bulk of his analysis is extremely thoughtful, well-documented, and (mostly) persuasive. Chapters 2 and 4, which credit Christianity as the cause of both modern science and the abolition of slavery, are particularly well done. It also helps that Stark is also a very interesting writer, carefully forming his historical narrative while deconstructing opposing (and too often assumed) narratives. Highly recommended with some discernment.
May 6, 2023
This book was a sociological study on the influence of monotheism in four distinct areas: reformations, science, witch hunts and abolition. There was significant overlap in the logic of how the Christian form of monotheism led to reformations and witch hunts. The author covers the multiple attempts at reform that took place within Christianity and did that well. His analysis of the witch hunts can be summarised as: there were much less than we have been told, and the political or ecclesiastical authorities largely tried to suppress them. The Christian underpinning of science is something that is well documented (even if it is being denied for philosophical reasons by anti-theists) and the authors summary was entertaining. For these first three topics, the author explains what was particular (special?) about Christianity such that the other monotheistic religions did not have the same results. The final part on slavery was highly enlightening, mostly because of the evidence that the English were by far the most evil in the way they dealt with slaves (i.e. treating them as sub-human). This was in contrast with the Spanish authorities (too many slave owners were also evil like the English) who made it clear that the slaves were also made in God’s image. He also points out why Islam was pro-slavery until very, very recently – largely because Mohamad was a slave owner and slaver, which justifies slavery in Islamic thought (and unfortunately still does).
January 2, 2023
While I am sympathetic to many of Stark’s arguments, this book is a mess. His premise is that modern historical/sociological analysis discounts the character of the Gods people worship (instead focusing on economic, political, and social concerns). This leads to a hodgepodge of completely unrelated topics (Reformation, science, witch hunts, and abolition of slavery) all united by the basic idea that “only monotheism could have produced this.” To which I say, so what?
On reformations, he never explains why only monotheism produces such intense desire to restore original forms/purity or why it matters (why should we care?). His pet topics seem to be science (only Christianity could produce science, and I find his case convincing) and abolition (only moral concerns explain the historical record, which is also true). The witch hunt section was completely disconnected. It’s like he did research projects on four completely unrelated topics and they somehow ended up in the same book.
On reformations, he never explains why only monotheism produces such intense desire to restore original forms/purity or why it matters (why should we care?). His pet topics seem to be science (only Christianity could produce science, and I find his case convincing) and abolition (only moral concerns explain the historical record, which is also true). The witch hunt section was completely disconnected. It’s like he did research projects on four completely unrelated topics and they somehow ended up in the same book.
April 17, 2024
A rather lengthy book that contains a lot of facts related to the history of Christianity with Judaism and Islam being minor topics with some Paganism and Eastern Religions thrown in. The author posits that science did not begin until modern monotheism occurred. It is likely a matter of definition, inasmuch as the study of nature has likely happened from prehistoric time. He does add facts that people do not want to recognize as occurring. Noting that authors have biases and have left out or slanted their coverage of history he does in his own way. His chapter on witchcraft is perhaps the best coverage of the witch hunts by noting that it happened in specific areas and not all over. Like most books on religion one has to keep his own counsel as to how to interpret history.
December 31, 2023
An interesting overview- the title implies more of a focus on monotheism in general but speaks primarily of the history Christianity and various sects. We spend a lot of time on the Protestant Reformation. Some good info, although at times the book feels unfocused, addressing heretical sects, the “Enlightenment”, historical witchcraft and magic, and slavery. Were I to recommend this book I would certainly recommend further research and study into the topics addressed as this book feels like a jumping off point. “The Book that Made Your World” made more of impact on me personally in a similar vein to this one.
August 29, 2024
A fascinating look into the history of monotheistic religions, with a particular interest in Christianity, that highlights why some civilizations have thrived morally over time while others seem to have dwindled out both physically and spiritually. What makes it more impressive is the time of the original publication of this book as Stark is writing during the heyday of the New Atheist movement, and it seems much more like a book that would have been written in the last three to five years. Stark is thorough in his study of history and is a next level thinker when it comes to deriving root causes from the perplexity of variables that exist within every society at any given time.
December 14, 2022
This is a well researched study of history from the point of view of what Christianity has actually accomplished in it's history. Although Christians so not come off as one solitary mass and the reasons and reasoning of groups of them explain a lot that happened. It is also interesting how public opinion was turned by a few who were very anti-Christian to deflect the glory that belongs to the inspiration of many of the good things that Christians accomplished.
December 30, 2021
A very instructive and provocative read.
I am not a historian, so I cannot vouch for the academic worth of Mr. Stark’s claims. But as a christian I am positively impressed by his arguments. I don’t need all of them to be true (although they seem sound to me). His way of thinking gave me better reflexes to use on future studies and discussions.
I am not a historian, so I cannot vouch for the academic worth of Mr. Stark’s claims. But as a christian I am positively impressed by his arguments. I don’t need all of them to be true (although they seem sound to me). His way of thinking gave me better reflexes to use on future studies and discussions.
October 8, 2017
I really enjoyed this book! Parts of it were a bit long, but I love the story of how he gave up the fame and money that can come with being a gold athlete.....all for God! He even gave up his family. That is conversion!
October 17, 2018
Je donnerais plus un 3 1/2 au niveau des étoiles, puisque le livre est génial, mais se trompe lorsqu’il parle d’évolution. Ce sont les mêmes vieilles erreurs des sceptiques concernant l’évolution. Sinon le reste est bien.
November 21, 2020
Stark writes engagingly and with quite a lot of humour - really enjoyed reading this! He takes us along the history of Western civilization from antiquity up until early anthropology and dissembles a number of (what he regards are) misconceptions in the field of religion and morality.
January 21, 2023
Sections on science and slavery especially interesting. Fresh observations from historical data demonstrating the civilizational strength of monotheisms, but particularly Christianity in unique contributions to end slavery and promote science, and far earlier than common views of the Dark Ages.
February 18, 2018
Excellent. Well written, evidence based, overall a fascinating read.
March 1, 2018
Excellent book.
January 4, 2021
Fascinating history! Big book!
January 20, 2024
Thought provoking on Protestant Reformation , Science, Witch-hunts and Slavery. Long winded and academic at times.
August 23, 2025
Only read the slavery chapter. It was decent. Good to see some critical interaction with David Brion Davis.
January 13, 2017
The book has four main elements.
In the first (which acts as more of a background) Stark examines sects and reformations – and argues that these are an inevitable result of monotheism as the concept of only one True God inevitably leads to that of one True Church. Critically for later chapters he argues that churches drift towards both laxity and toleration over time unless there is some form of external religious threat (eg Islam) when both sects and suppression of heresies become more common. He also examines where Protestantism was successful and argues it is due to a combination of catholic church weakness, responsive or populist local government and royal self interest.
The second is based around science – Stark sets out in lengthy detail his argument that science (verifiable theories of the world) could only emerge in a society that believed in a conscious rational all-powerful creator – and that this occurred only once in history, medieval Christendom and that Christians did and continue to play if anything a disproportionate part in science. He is particularly scathing about evolutionists as simply atheist fundamentalists.
The third examines why witch-hunts flourished in Europe and argues that they occurred in a society where magic (in the form of folk-healing, folk-lore, curses) was common, often worked as well as church-blessed “magic” and that the only logical conclusion for religious authorities was that another power (but an evil) one must be responsible for its success – it was when magic was conflated with Satanism that executions became inevitable. He also argues strongly that the outbreak of witch-hunts (both temporally and geographically) co-incided with religious persecution and anti-Jewish outbreaks, all due to intense religious conflicts causing (as set out in the first section) tolerance to become persecution and that further that these occurred where central authority was weak (so for example were much stronger in the Rhine region of mini-states than in Inquisition Spain).
The fourth examines slavery – setting out clearly the view that slavery has been a constant across both time and different societies and that the most notable feature of Christian states was non-self-interested campaigns to abolish it, almost always lead by Christians.
The writing style is reminiscent of Jared Diamond – Stark sets out his arguments logically, first of all introducing an hypothesis, then justifying it, then testing it empirically against lots of countries or situations and then summarising it. In addition he regularly defines terms such as magic or religion in very precise language and also clearly enjoys rubbishing the work of other writers (or in some cases all other writers) especially when he seems them as guilty of being anti-religious.
A worthwhile read.
August 18, 2010
Stark demolishes many of the historical myths concerning Christianity. For example, millions of witches were not killed during the witch hunts. As best we can tell the number was more around 60,000-90,0000 over 250 years. 30-40 percent were men. He also reveals significant history about slavery in other parts of the world that is usually never discussed. He shows how Christian beliefs of many influential figures, both Protestant and Catholic, lead to the abolition of slavery in Europe and the US.
Stark's prose is excellent. He avoids too much technical language. I enjoy all of his work.
Stark's prose is excellent. He avoids too much technical language. I enjoy all of his work.
January 24, 2012
Contemporary history and politically correct thought tends to paint the rise of Western Christianity that shackled and impeded the progress of humanity - a Dark Age only broken by the un-looked for dawn of the Renaissance and full day of the Enlightenment.
Rodney Stark, a sociologist, offers a well-written and compelling alternate analysis: Christianity was the driving force behind many of the peculiarities of Western civilization. He traces the good and the bad, from science to the Protestant Reformation to the witch-hunting phenomenon, to the unique qualities of the Christian religion.
Rodney Stark, a sociologist, offers a well-written and compelling alternate analysis: Christianity was the driving force behind many of the peculiarities of Western civilization. He traces the good and the bad, from science to the Protestant Reformation to the witch-hunting phenomenon, to the unique qualities of the Christian religion.
September 23, 2013
Stark challenges many of the received ideas about religion (and especially Christianity).
If you think religion is the source of all (or most) evil in the world, this book will give you something to think about!
He effectively argues that Christianity is a necessary condition for the rise of modern science and the abolition of slavery. His point about witch-hunting challenges many of the standard preconceptions.
Roman Catholics might not like his take on the state of the Medieval Church.
If you think religion is the source of all (or most) evil in the world, this book will give you something to think about!
He effectively argues that Christianity is a necessary condition for the rise of modern science and the abolition of slavery. His point about witch-hunting challenges many of the standard preconceptions.
Roman Catholics might not like his take on the state of the Medieval Church.
September 30, 2015
A good work largely due to its readability (Stark is not boring!), reasoning, and subject matter. Stark might strike one as a Catholic apologist (despite his blunt words to the contrary in the intro) but he tackles a wide range of phenomena both bad (witch hunts) and good (rise of science and the abolition of slavery). I largely enjoyed the last three chapters, the first chapter was a historical review and seems important if one is not familiar with the time period (if you are you can totally skip it after reading his thoughts on sects, reformation, and competition/tolerance).
March 19, 2015
Stark's writing is very interesting; his book is very educational, and I learned a lot. However, his dismissal of everything non-Christian, despite his claim that he focuses on 'monotheism', ruined the overall message of the book for me. Instead of a clear explanation of how monotheistic religions led to certain historical developments, Stark's book reads as a defense of Catholicism and of the theological and moral superiority of Christianity.
January 22, 2017
Maybe the most helpful element of this book was the apologetic value. If you have ever heard (or argued if you are a non-Christian) that Christianity is anti-science and was pro-slavery, Stark shows how that this isn't really true when one looks at the whole of the data we have. Check it out, it would be worth the time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews