What do you think?
Rate this book
Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief
Winner of the 2008 Christianity Today Award of Merit in Theology/Ethics The History of God In Discovering God , award-winning sociologist Rodney Stark presents a monumental history of the origins of the great religions from the Stone Age to the Modern Age and wrestles with the central questions of religion and belief.
496 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2007
100 people are currently reading
564 people want to read
About the author
Rodney Stark
70 books302 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 50 reviews
May 7, 2023
A Whiggish Sociology of Religion
What does it mean to say that one religion is better than another? Or that religion has evolved as an optimal cultural artefact? Rodney Stark thinks he knows the answers. But he does make a few presumptions that make his answers somewhat less than useless.
The first presumption is that he knows what constitutes successful cultural adaptation. For Stark success is measured in terms of longevity (and some other equally arbitrary metrics). The longer a religion persists, the better adapted it is to the conditions of the relevant culture. And for him, the apex of religious evolution is monotheism, just like the apex of physical evolution is Homo Sapiens. Isn’t that the obvious cultural destination to which several thousand years of recorded history (and genetic development) has led?
Well perhaps, if one excludes the religions of the East like Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and dozens of others which do not posses a divine figure at all. Or discount the tribal religions of Africa, North and South America, the Pacific, and the Arctic which persist still without the concept of a single all-powerful creator and may be longer lived than Christianity (and like the cockroach, will probably outlive Homo Sapiens). Stark eliminates these as irrelevant because they are not constituted by divine revelation but some kind of spiritual hearsay. That is, they do not claim that God has disclosed himself to their founders. The circularity as well as cultural arrogance of this reasoning is overwhelming.
The second presumption is that divine revelation, in addition to being necessary for true religion, is also able to evolve through human reason. This explains the development of monotheism (or its original dualistic forms) in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. His claim is that as the implications of monotheism have been worked out by theologians, it has become more coherent and intellectually compelling, as if religion were a scientific theory having certain rational characteristics.
Such ‘religious method’ is obviously bunk. To make such a claim, Stark must first of all ignore the contradictions of monotheistic religion acknowledged by its own adherents. The testimony of St. Paul that divine logic is simply inaccessible by human beings and the proclamation of Tertullian regarding Christian faith that “It is certain, because impossible” disprove Stark’s claim that there is a growing rationality to monotheism, or indeed rationality at all. And Reason, as St. Augustine insisted, is corrupt so cannot be trusted to reach sound conclusions, particularly when it comes to identifying or elaborating revelation. And this quite apart from the obviously varied, frequently contradictory, revelatory claims made historically by innumerable sects.*
Quite apart from his tendentious reading of both Scripture and history, Stark seems unaware of the only truly authentic Christian invention: faith. Thanks to the triumph of Pauline Christianity, faith, unconditional belief not ethical or ritual practice, has become a synonym for religion. And this is why Stark purposely makes the error of equating religion with revelation. It is only the ‘religions of the book,’ - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - which claim divine revelation. And it is only Christianity which defines its adherents solely as those attesting to its formal creeds (to be a Jew is a genetic fact; to be a Muslim is to submit to Allah and follow the other four behavioural ‘pillars’ of Islam).
Faith is the ultimate religious conquest by language. Faith is language worshipping itself in the most idolatrous manner possible. Stark’s pseudo-erudition is a paean to the power of language to distort and degrade what is not language. His is an academic’s religiosity proclaiming the best of all possible worlds because it is a world composed entirely of language which he uses to exert power.
Like scientists or philosophers who claim to know the criteria for ‘true science,’ Stark claims he knows the marks of true religion. His presentation of the history of religion progressing from a dark and terrible past to a glorious present is ludicrous, a wonderful example of Whig historiography. His final statement contradicts the entirety of the rest of his book: “I find it far more rational to regard the universe itself as the ultimate revelation of God.” So Stark is in direct communication with the Almighty. How enlightening. And he apparently wants to start his own religion. The world shudders in anticipation of further divine news.
* As an aside, the most important theologian of the 20th century, Karl Barth, would be horrified at Stark’s claim that revelation is a linguistic phenomenon. For Barth, a very conservative evangelical Protestant, revelation is the “grabbing of one’s spirit by the throat.” As he put it, “God’s Word is not man’s word,” and even scripture is man’s word. Barth was aware, as Stark is not, of the terrible human consequences of burying religion in the credal tomb of language. See: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
What does it mean to say that one religion is better than another? Or that religion has evolved as an optimal cultural artefact? Rodney Stark thinks he knows the answers. But he does make a few presumptions that make his answers somewhat less than useless.
The first presumption is that he knows what constitutes successful cultural adaptation. For Stark success is measured in terms of longevity (and some other equally arbitrary metrics). The longer a religion persists, the better adapted it is to the conditions of the relevant culture. And for him, the apex of religious evolution is monotheism, just like the apex of physical evolution is Homo Sapiens. Isn’t that the obvious cultural destination to which several thousand years of recorded history (and genetic development) has led?
Well perhaps, if one excludes the religions of the East like Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and dozens of others which do not posses a divine figure at all. Or discount the tribal religions of Africa, North and South America, the Pacific, and the Arctic which persist still without the concept of a single all-powerful creator and may be longer lived than Christianity (and like the cockroach, will probably outlive Homo Sapiens). Stark eliminates these as irrelevant because they are not constituted by divine revelation but some kind of spiritual hearsay. That is, they do not claim that God has disclosed himself to their founders. The circularity as well as cultural arrogance of this reasoning is overwhelming.
The second presumption is that divine revelation, in addition to being necessary for true religion, is also able to evolve through human reason. This explains the development of monotheism (or its original dualistic forms) in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. His claim is that as the implications of monotheism have been worked out by theologians, it has become more coherent and intellectually compelling, as if religion were a scientific theory having certain rational characteristics.
Such ‘religious method’ is obviously bunk. To make such a claim, Stark must first of all ignore the contradictions of monotheistic religion acknowledged by its own adherents. The testimony of St. Paul that divine logic is simply inaccessible by human beings and the proclamation of Tertullian regarding Christian faith that “It is certain, because impossible” disprove Stark’s claim that there is a growing rationality to monotheism, or indeed rationality at all. And Reason, as St. Augustine insisted, is corrupt so cannot be trusted to reach sound conclusions, particularly when it comes to identifying or elaborating revelation. And this quite apart from the obviously varied, frequently contradictory, revelatory claims made historically by innumerable sects.*
Quite apart from his tendentious reading of both Scripture and history, Stark seems unaware of the only truly authentic Christian invention: faith. Thanks to the triumph of Pauline Christianity, faith, unconditional belief not ethical or ritual practice, has become a synonym for religion. And this is why Stark purposely makes the error of equating religion with revelation. It is only the ‘religions of the book,’ - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - which claim divine revelation. And it is only Christianity which defines its adherents solely as those attesting to its formal creeds (to be a Jew is a genetic fact; to be a Muslim is to submit to Allah and follow the other four behavioural ‘pillars’ of Islam).
Faith is the ultimate religious conquest by language. Faith is language worshipping itself in the most idolatrous manner possible. Stark’s pseudo-erudition is a paean to the power of language to distort and degrade what is not language. His is an academic’s religiosity proclaiming the best of all possible worlds because it is a world composed entirely of language which he uses to exert power.
Like scientists or philosophers who claim to know the criteria for ‘true science,’ Stark claims he knows the marks of true religion. His presentation of the history of religion progressing from a dark and terrible past to a glorious present is ludicrous, a wonderful example of Whig historiography. His final statement contradicts the entirety of the rest of his book: “I find it far more rational to regard the universe itself as the ultimate revelation of God.” So Stark is in direct communication with the Almighty. How enlightening. And he apparently wants to start his own religion. The world shudders in anticipation of further divine news.
* As an aside, the most important theologian of the 20th century, Karl Barth, would be horrified at Stark’s claim that revelation is a linguistic phenomenon. For Barth, a very conservative evangelical Protestant, revelation is the “grabbing of one’s spirit by the throat.” As he put it, “God’s Word is not man’s word,” and even scripture is man’s word. Barth was aware, as Stark is not, of the terrible human consequences of burying religion in the credal tomb of language. See: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
December 28, 2009
As an introductory overview of the development of the world’s major religions since the Axial Age, Stark’s four hundred-some page book is a remarkably readable work next to Karen Armstrong’s A History of God; the latter being, of course, a detailed treatise on the development of a monotheistic God, but long-winded and discursive at the same time. Stark, however, not only effortlessly covers the historical connection between the Big Three – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – but also ventures East by devoting time to Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. And let’s not forget the myriad polytheistic religions of Antiquity, from the likes of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans that he also touches upon.
Although Stark is even-handed throughout most of his book, he firmly establishes his singular bias in favor of the divine revelations provided by Christianity in the last chapter. Thus, my trust in him as an intellectual scholar waned a bit there at the end. That is, he presupposes what he sets out to prove in that Christianity is the truest and superior religion. Which is a very poor, if not invalid, form of arguing. It is as if in making his argument, he conveniently forgets the Hundred Year’s War, the Reformation and the subsequent Counter-Reformation, and the bizarre Second Awakening here in the United States, the latter of which gave rise to Mormonism -- which started as a radical, patriarchal polygamous sect.
Would that he ditched his poorly reasoned and defended “Conclusion: Discovering God?,” this would have been an much better book.
Although Stark is even-handed throughout most of his book, he firmly establishes his singular bias in favor of the divine revelations provided by Christianity in the last chapter. Thus, my trust in him as an intellectual scholar waned a bit there at the end. That is, he presupposes what he sets out to prove in that Christianity is the truest and superior religion. Which is a very poor, if not invalid, form of arguing. It is as if in making his argument, he conveniently forgets the Hundred Year’s War, the Reformation and the subsequent Counter-Reformation, and the bizarre Second Awakening here in the United States, the latter of which gave rise to Mormonism -- which started as a radical, patriarchal polygamous sect.
Would that he ditched his poorly reasoned and defended “Conclusion: Discovering God?,” this would have been an much better book.
August 7, 2011
Stark's survey of the evolution of world religions is interesting and thought-provoking. He combines his curmudgeonly criticisms of many of the agenda-driven social science and comparative religion scholars and their assumptions with clear explanations of his interpretations of the facts in scholarly work that is apt to make everyone who reads it a bit uncomfortable. I think this is a work that would be useful to persons of all religious persuasions.
July 5, 2008
"I have tried to write everything in plain English. I do not concede that this in any way compromises sophistication. What it does do is prevent me from hiding incomprehension behind a screen of academic jargon."
Stark had me hooked from page viii of the preface (where this quote is from). His writing style was not only easy to follow, it was a sheer delight to read. This book was so good that it was my "fun book" to read at bedtime each night (which ALWAYS - except in this case - is fiction).
Stark (not, I think, a Christian) is a sociologist of religion at Baylor University. In this book, he is addressing the question: have we discovered God, or have we invented him? And if we have discovered him, then which of the world's religions can be considered a part of the "inspired core" of God's revelation. In my own words, Stark is looking at world religions to see which ones could potentially be legitimate or authentic in their claims to know God. You'll have to read the book if you want to know which religion(s) Stark includes in his concept of the "inspired core"!
Although there is much in this book I would disagree with, I also learned much from it about world religions. I also had great fun reading an author who is pretty fair towards the sociological and scientific data. This book really made me want to read The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success; The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal, Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force; and For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery; all also by Stark. I've moved them to the top of my Amazon wishlist.
This review is already pretty long, but if you care to continue, following are some of my favorite quotes.
"As for Greece, subsidization of the temple offered everyone a 'free' religion, thereby setting the norm for religious commitment at a very low level of intensity - when little is asked, little is given" (p.122).
"No one competent now doubts that most of Paul's letters are authentic" (p.284).
"To make miracles plausible, all that is needed is to postulate the existence of a God who created the universe, nothing more" (p. 285).
"Frankly, the search for the 'Historic Jesus' is in many ways a fool's errand since scripture is the only direct source and it tells us so very little about his life. It is his death and resurrection that dominate Christian thought" (p.289).
"It should be noted that this skeptical activity [seeking to discredit the Bible] began when New Testament scholarship became primarily an academic field. In order to enjoy academic success one must innovate; novelty at almost any cost is the key to a big reputation. This rule holds across the board and has often inflicted remarkably foolish new approaches on many fields [footnote by Stark: consider the damage done to the social sciences recently by Postmodernism or to physics by String Theory]. This academic thirst for novelty has disfigured much modern writing about the New Testament. But even greater damage has been done by the very large number of Bible 'scholars' who are motivated by angry atheism. Many of those participating in the Jesus Seminar, for example, were once very committed Christians, many having been clergy, who have lost their faith and are now bitter about ever having believed" (pp.294-295).
"There are no compelling reasons to believe that 'problems' of transmission distorted the Gospels. They may have been written by actual participants in the events in question, and if not, the Gospels certainly met the approval of such eyewitnesses" (p.302).
"At the very least, the New Testament provides a truthful and reliable account of what the first generation of Christians believed to have taken place" (p.305).
"European claims to religious freedom are false. For one thing, the governments and especially the bureaucrats work hard at impeding religious competition....The Grim and Finke favoritism scale varies from 0 (absolute lack of favoritism) to 10 (total favoritism) and is based on objective measures. The United States, Australia, and Taiwan score 0, meaning there is no government bias in favor of any particular religious group. In contrast, Afghanistan, where anyone who converts from Islam to Christianity risks execution, has a score of 7.8 on this scale. Now consider this: Iceland and Spain also score 7.8, Belgium and Greece score 7.5, Denmark gets a 6.7, and Finland 7.5. In fact, every Western European nation scores well above the score achieved by Syria. And that's that!" (p.331).
"Change has been the singular constant in Christian history. Who among the apostles could possibly have anticipated the Roman Catholic Church? What medieval pope could have foretold the Southern Baptist Convention? And what Baptist preacher could have imagined that early in the twenty-first century, formal ties would be sustained between Baylor University and the University of Beijing?" (pp.335-336).
"Although traditional Muslims contend that Yahweh and Jehovah are simply other names for Allah, they also believe that Jews and Christians have so corrupted their understanding of God, that in effect they worship different Gods" (p.365).
"Nothing may be assumed about Allah, not even that he loves us, as that, too, might be a limiting factor. Whereas Christians assume that Jehovah is the epitome of rationality, Muslims deny that Allah is rational or even virtuous, these being human judgments entirely - some Muslim thinkers even have denied the existence of 'causality altogether,' even in earthly matters, on grounds that it is contrary to God's unlimited freedom to act" (p.367).
"Real science arose only once: in Europe, not in China, Islam, India, Ancient Greece, or Rome. All of these societies had a highly developed alchemy, but only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology based on excellent observations of the stars, but only in Europe did astrology lead to scientific astronomy. Why? Again, the answer has to do with images of God" (p.396).
"Let us assume that the militant 'scientific' materialists are right and that eventually we can identify sets of scientific rules sufficient to explain everything in the universe. These questions would still persist: Where did the rules come from? Why is the universe rational and orderly? It seems to me the most remarkable 'retreat' from reason is to cling to the belief that the principles that underlie the universe came out of nowhere, that everything is one big, meaningless accident.
"I am no longer sufficiently arrogant or gullible to make that leap of faith. Instead, I find it far more rational to regard the universe itself as the ultimate revelation of God and to agree with Kepler that in the most fundamental sense, science is theology and thereby serves as another method for the discovery of God" (p.399).
Stark had me hooked from page viii of the preface (where this quote is from). His writing style was not only easy to follow, it was a sheer delight to read. This book was so good that it was my "fun book" to read at bedtime each night (which ALWAYS - except in this case - is fiction).
Stark (not, I think, a Christian) is a sociologist of religion at Baylor University. In this book, he is addressing the question: have we discovered God, or have we invented him? And if we have discovered him, then which of the world's religions can be considered a part of the "inspired core" of God's revelation. In my own words, Stark is looking at world religions to see which ones could potentially be legitimate or authentic in their claims to know God. You'll have to read the book if you want to know which religion(s) Stark includes in his concept of the "inspired core"!
Although there is much in this book I would disagree with, I also learned much from it about world religions. I also had great fun reading an author who is pretty fair towards the sociological and scientific data. This book really made me want to read The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success; The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal, Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force; and For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery; all also by Stark. I've moved them to the top of my Amazon wishlist.
This review is already pretty long, but if you care to continue, following are some of my favorite quotes.
"As for Greece, subsidization of the temple offered everyone a 'free' religion, thereby setting the norm for religious commitment at a very low level of intensity - when little is asked, little is given" (p.122).
"No one competent now doubts that most of Paul's letters are authentic" (p.284).
"To make miracles plausible, all that is needed is to postulate the existence of a God who created the universe, nothing more" (p. 285).
"Frankly, the search for the 'Historic Jesus' is in many ways a fool's errand since scripture is the only direct source and it tells us so very little about his life. It is his death and resurrection that dominate Christian thought" (p.289).
"It should be noted that this skeptical activity [seeking to discredit the Bible] began when New Testament scholarship became primarily an academic field. In order to enjoy academic success one must innovate; novelty at almost any cost is the key to a big reputation. This rule holds across the board and has often inflicted remarkably foolish new approaches on many fields [footnote by Stark: consider the damage done to the social sciences recently by Postmodernism or to physics by String Theory]. This academic thirst for novelty has disfigured much modern writing about the New Testament. But even greater damage has been done by the very large number of Bible 'scholars' who are motivated by angry atheism. Many of those participating in the Jesus Seminar, for example, were once very committed Christians, many having been clergy, who have lost their faith and are now bitter about ever having believed" (pp.294-295).
"There are no compelling reasons to believe that 'problems' of transmission distorted the Gospels. They may have been written by actual participants in the events in question, and if not, the Gospels certainly met the approval of such eyewitnesses" (p.302).
"At the very least, the New Testament provides a truthful and reliable account of what the first generation of Christians believed to have taken place" (p.305).
"European claims to religious freedom are false. For one thing, the governments and especially the bureaucrats work hard at impeding religious competition....The Grim and Finke favoritism scale varies from 0 (absolute lack of favoritism) to 10 (total favoritism) and is based on objective measures. The United States, Australia, and Taiwan score 0, meaning there is no government bias in favor of any particular religious group. In contrast, Afghanistan, where anyone who converts from Islam to Christianity risks execution, has a score of 7.8 on this scale. Now consider this: Iceland and Spain also score 7.8, Belgium and Greece score 7.5, Denmark gets a 6.7, and Finland 7.5. In fact, every Western European nation scores well above the score achieved by Syria. And that's that!" (p.331).
"Change has been the singular constant in Christian history. Who among the apostles could possibly have anticipated the Roman Catholic Church? What medieval pope could have foretold the Southern Baptist Convention? And what Baptist preacher could have imagined that early in the twenty-first century, formal ties would be sustained between Baylor University and the University of Beijing?" (pp.335-336).
"Although traditional Muslims contend that Yahweh and Jehovah are simply other names for Allah, they also believe that Jews and Christians have so corrupted their understanding of God, that in effect they worship different Gods" (p.365).
"Nothing may be assumed about Allah, not even that he loves us, as that, too, might be a limiting factor. Whereas Christians assume that Jehovah is the epitome of rationality, Muslims deny that Allah is rational or even virtuous, these being human judgments entirely - some Muslim thinkers even have denied the existence of 'causality altogether,' even in earthly matters, on grounds that it is contrary to God's unlimited freedom to act" (p.367).
"Real science arose only once: in Europe, not in China, Islam, India, Ancient Greece, or Rome. All of these societies had a highly developed alchemy, but only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology based on excellent observations of the stars, but only in Europe did astrology lead to scientific astronomy. Why? Again, the answer has to do with images of God" (p.396).
"Let us assume that the militant 'scientific' materialists are right and that eventually we can identify sets of scientific rules sufficient to explain everything in the universe. These questions would still persist: Where did the rules come from? Why is the universe rational and orderly? It seems to me the most remarkable 'retreat' from reason is to cling to the belief that the principles that underlie the universe came out of nowhere, that everything is one big, meaningless accident.
"I am no longer sufficiently arrogant or gullible to make that leap of faith. Instead, I find it far more rational to regard the universe itself as the ultimate revelation of God and to agree with Kepler that in the most fundamental sense, science is theology and thereby serves as another method for the discovery of God" (p.399).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 23, 2013
Rarely have I been so disappointed by a book - even 'Evolving God' was less disappointing. I am just under halfway through and I can't stand it any more. Stark totally dismisses Ancient Egyptian religion as a polytheistic 'temple faith' that gave nothing to its people. The only thing he deems of any worth is Akhenaten's heresy because it is somehow obvious that monotheism is much better than polytheism. For Stark, the only worthwhile discoveries of God are those of a capricious deity who deems his creations to have no value whatsoever and who consigns the overwhelming majority to eternal damnation for the edification of the infinitesimal elect. Oh, I forgot, the other acceptable and valid discovery is of a deity who takes one very insignificant group of human beings as his 'chosen people' - the rest of humanity being completely unworthy of the attention of the supreme being and who should furthermore be subject to periodic genocides because of (among other terribly important factors) their inability to say shiboleth. Greek religion is also dismissed as degenerate as that of the Egyptians. A tradition that gave us philosophy, science, math, ethics, and democracy is summarily judged to be worthless superstition. (I wonder if one could even find an Athenian of the 5th century BCE who actually believed in the their creation myths as literal truth. But, suppose one could; how is that any different from the belief of many 21st century Americans that an apple and snake determined the fate of humanity?)
The faith of the Egyptians led to a civilization that lasted for 3,000 years and that left for all humanity some of its most meaningful monuments and symbols. Even the cross as a symbol of divinely granted life is something we owe as much to the Egyptians as to the Romans. The Egyptians were also the first (as far as we know) to develop the archetype of the godman whose death and resurrection redeems creation. As for their 'temple faith that had nothing to do with the common man', the Egyptians enthusiastically participated in every celebration of every 'god.' They knew that they formed a valued part of the order of creation and that the pharaoh and priests carried out rituals necessary to maintain that order just as they carried out similar rituals that were also essential to that same divinely mandated order. Religion was an integral part of their lives - so integral that they would not understand the question; 'What is your religion?' The Egyptians also understood the need for dualism in creation. They understood that it was not possible for Horus to destroy Seth because they knew that chaos was just as necessary to creation as order. If chaos seemingly gained the upper hand, Egyptians knew that that was the way of creation. They did not assume that they were worthless worms in the sight of God and that any setback or illness was because they had angered their 'god.' They also knew that what we take as their 'gods' were nothing more than attributes of God and that their myths were just ways of finding some understanding of that which is essentially unknowable. Before you decide to jump on me, I should point out that I know that Egypt was not a paradise and that there were many priests who encouraged every superstition so that they could benefit from it. What I am referring to are their ideas - I understand that a lot was lost in their application. However, one should always keep in mind that, of all the peoples and religious systems in the world, the Egyptians were unique in one way. When they thought of paradise, they saw it as being just like Egypt, only a little better. I suppose that is of no importance to Stark. Just as it is of no importance that almost everyone who was privileged enough to experience Ancient Egypt said that the Egyptians were the 'happiest and most satisfied people in the world.'
I regret buying the electronic version of the book. I just don't think that returning it in an email to the publishers would have the same effect as sending back the book itself. I do not think that I should agree with the author of every book I buy, to the contrary. However, an author who publishes a book with a title such as this one should give the religions of the Greeks and Egyptians an honest review. Otherwise he should make it clear on the cover of the book that he believes that the only great religions are those that are monotheistic and that engender things like pogroms, inquisitions, jihads, and genocide.
All this aside, I should be grateful to Mr. Stark. I had been debating whether I should leave my Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs completely behind and embrace Perennial Philosophy or not. Mr. Stark made me see the choice in the starkest of terms and, because of him, there is no longer any debate within me. He made me see that I want nothing to do with certainties of this kind of monotheism as they are false certainties that have given the human beings little in exchange for all that they have cost us.
The faith of the Egyptians led to a civilization that lasted for 3,000 years and that left for all humanity some of its most meaningful monuments and symbols. Even the cross as a symbol of divinely granted life is something we owe as much to the Egyptians as to the Romans. The Egyptians were also the first (as far as we know) to develop the archetype of the godman whose death and resurrection redeems creation. As for their 'temple faith that had nothing to do with the common man', the Egyptians enthusiastically participated in every celebration of every 'god.' They knew that they formed a valued part of the order of creation and that the pharaoh and priests carried out rituals necessary to maintain that order just as they carried out similar rituals that were also essential to that same divinely mandated order. Religion was an integral part of their lives - so integral that they would not understand the question; 'What is your religion?' The Egyptians also understood the need for dualism in creation. They understood that it was not possible for Horus to destroy Seth because they knew that chaos was just as necessary to creation as order. If chaos seemingly gained the upper hand, Egyptians knew that that was the way of creation. They did not assume that they were worthless worms in the sight of God and that any setback or illness was because they had angered their 'god.' They also knew that what we take as their 'gods' were nothing more than attributes of God and that their myths were just ways of finding some understanding of that which is essentially unknowable. Before you decide to jump on me, I should point out that I know that Egypt was not a paradise and that there were many priests who encouraged every superstition so that they could benefit from it. What I am referring to are their ideas - I understand that a lot was lost in their application. However, one should always keep in mind that, of all the peoples and religious systems in the world, the Egyptians were unique in one way. When they thought of paradise, they saw it as being just like Egypt, only a little better. I suppose that is of no importance to Stark. Just as it is of no importance that almost everyone who was privileged enough to experience Ancient Egypt said that the Egyptians were the 'happiest and most satisfied people in the world.'
I regret buying the electronic version of the book. I just don't think that returning it in an email to the publishers would have the same effect as sending back the book itself. I do not think that I should agree with the author of every book I buy, to the contrary. However, an author who publishes a book with a title such as this one should give the religions of the Greeks and Egyptians an honest review. Otherwise he should make it clear on the cover of the book that he believes that the only great religions are those that are monotheistic and that engender things like pogroms, inquisitions, jihads, and genocide.
All this aside, I should be grateful to Mr. Stark. I had been debating whether I should leave my Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs completely behind and embrace Perennial Philosophy or not. Mr. Stark made me see the choice in the starkest of terms and, because of him, there is no longer any debate within me. He made me see that I want nothing to do with certainties of this kind of monotheism as they are false certainties that have given the human beings little in exchange for all that they have cost us.
Read
May 24, 2015Author approaches his subject from an Intelligent Design/Christian Apologetics standpoint, which makes this book useless to me from a scholarly standpoint, since it very obviously colors his writing and his "facts" and makes it impossible to even call this a good history of religion. He is utterly and snidely dismissive of any sociological, socio-religious, and certainly any evolutionary reasoning that doesn't match his own biases. Disappointing read.
August 11, 2011
I enjoy learning about early religious and social history and this book is rich in detail. I was especially intrigued by the brief biography of Mohammad given in Chapter 8; it is a fascinating and eye-opening chapter. The information on Zoroastrianism was equally interesting. Finally, I appreciated the detailed timeline, glossary,notes, bibliography, and index sections.
January 29, 2018
this is an overview of religions but I don't agree with many observations and certain events weren't accurate .
April 3, 2008
Rodney Stark's Discovering God is wide ranging work that attempts to explain the emergence of "revealed" and/or "moralistic" religions beginning in the Axial Age of the 6th and 7th centuries BC, when many of the great religious figures and movements arose.
I really enjoyed his earlier book, On the Rise of Christianity, where he applied sociological techniques to explain the appeal and success of Christianity. Above and beyond that, his description of life in an ancient city (in this case Antioch) was breathtaking and horrifying. It's amazing the conditions in which human beings will consent to live.
Lately, alas, his books have tended to be Christian apologias that detract from the force of his objective arguments regarding why religions appeal to people and how they effect conversion, diluting the power of his insights.
This is true of the last third or so of Discovering God. The first two-thirds, where he deals with non-Christian/non-Islamic religions, argues persuasively for his theory that a "free market" of religious ideas creates a population that is more intensely religious and committed to "discovering God," however that concept may be defined since many East Asian traditions can dispense with god figures entirely, and that such situations occurred during the Axial Age, under Roman rule before Constantine, and in America. The last hundred pages of the book, focusing on Christ and Mohammad, clearly show his pro-Christian bias and are the weakest part of the book. In the conclusion, he drops all pretense of neutrality and asserts that what he's been chronicling is a "discovery" of God, not an "evolution" of the concept of deity. He even has the gall to dismiss all East Asian religions because they don't "reveal" god, and Islam is inferior because it's a regression from the Christian advances made in understanding God.
I'm with Stark when he argues that the concepts of "sin" and "salvation" successfully helped instill a superior form of social control during a violent era in world history (Karen Armstrong makes much the same argument in The Great Transformation, highly recommended) . I also agree that these concepts arose on the peripheries of the ancient civilizations (Egypt and Sumer) because all transformative movements start at the margins, in relatively "chaotic" environments. He makes the point nicely when he writes: "[b]ecause these once-great civilizations [Egypt and Sumer] took no part in this historical turning point, `we are infinitely closer [culturally and religiously] to the Chinese and Indians' than to Egyptians and Mesopotamian..." (p. 389)
On the other hand, Stark's cavalier dismissal of the Buddha's, Laozi's and Confucius' spiritual insights two pages later is insulting and uncalled for. Simply because Gautama, the Old Master and Master Kung may have dismissed the questions Stark considers important and appropriate doesn't render them irrelevant.
In the introduction, Stark says that his argument can be used by believers and nonbelievers alike since it "works" whether God actually exists and humans are simply discovering his nature or whether the idea of "God" is a human attempt to make sense of our world. This pretense is dropped when he argues that only a religion that can claim to be "inspired" has any claim to legitimacy. Thus, "truer" religions must satisfy three criteria:
1. They must be revelations
2. They must be logically compatible
3. They must be progressively complex
As to the first, there is no need for a conscious divinity to construct a morality. It appears to help immensely in getting people to accept it (after all, it's easier to believe "God" has more insight into what constitutes moral behavior than Joe Schmo, your neighbor) but from my perspective that's about all it does. My attraction to the more intellectually rigorous forms of Buddhism (i.e., Zen) arises from that severance of dependence upon an external source to enforce "right action."
The second criterion simply baffles me. If religions arise in response to perceived spiritual needs that are not being satisfied (which is what Stark argues for earlier in the book), then whether God or gods is invoked is irrelevant. Monotheism may ultimately be the most logical/rational explanation of any divine existence/plan for the universe but why is the "golden rule" any less legitimate if promulgated by an Olympian Council, Taoist Immortals, the Son of God or Islamic mullahs?
The third criterion also seems nonsensical. Islam may have begun as a relatively uncomplex revelation geared to the understanding of Bedouin tribesmen but many, many imams and philosophers have elaborated upon it in the interim. And the same is true of Christianity. The early Church Fathers turned somersaults developing Christian theology from the sketchy sayings of the Jewish carpenter. The first three centuries of the Christian era were a "Wild West" of competing and increasingly complex theologies. Even after it became Rome's state religion, the educated elites continued to dispute (viz., the controversy over "homoousias" vs. "homoiousias").
And, let's face it, only a small minority of any religious faith really get deeply involved in such disputes (at least on their merits, plenty can be convinced to spill blood if their leaders tell them to). Which is not to detract from the worth of nonacademic/nonelite spirituality -- just that it's not as well thought out and coherent as your typical Jesuit's or imam's or lama's. (Actually, one of Stark's strengths is his insistence that humans have always been intensely spiritual; it's just that, for much of history, that religious fervor has been private and unrecorded.)
Stark goes off the deep end starting on p. 394, where he asserts, with no proof (of course, since it's a matter of faith) that "Christianity epitomizes revealed religion and offers a substantially more complex and nuanced vision of God...." He condemns Islam for its support of theocracies, repression of innovation, and belief in an ultimately irrational and unpredictable God. Examples with which Christianity also abounds. But the faults he lays at Islam's feet seem to be endemic to the "human condition." Anytime a faith, or a polity or a corporation gets a monopoly or near-monopoly it then goes about stifling the competition. Democracy developed in the West despite Christianity, not because of it; we have the utterly pagan Athenians to thank for the seeds that eventually grew into the Western democracies.
As an afterthought (or so it seems to this reader), Stark tacks on a final argument for the existence of God by invoking the specious arguments of the Intelligent Design movement, whose theories about the irreducible complexity of organisms like the eye or wings have been demolished time after time in the scientific literature.
In sum, Dr. Stark reaches some very convincing insights in the development and propagation of religious ideas but his otherwise worthy effort is undermined by his obvious bias toward Christianity as the definitive answer to man's search for meaning in the universe.
I really enjoyed his earlier book, On the Rise of Christianity, where he applied sociological techniques to explain the appeal and success of Christianity. Above and beyond that, his description of life in an ancient city (in this case Antioch) was breathtaking and horrifying. It's amazing the conditions in which human beings will consent to live.
Lately, alas, his books have tended to be Christian apologias that detract from the force of his objective arguments regarding why religions appeal to people and how they effect conversion, diluting the power of his insights.
This is true of the last third or so of Discovering God. The first two-thirds, where he deals with non-Christian/non-Islamic religions, argues persuasively for his theory that a "free market" of religious ideas creates a population that is more intensely religious and committed to "discovering God," however that concept may be defined since many East Asian traditions can dispense with god figures entirely, and that such situations occurred during the Axial Age, under Roman rule before Constantine, and in America. The last hundred pages of the book, focusing on Christ and Mohammad, clearly show his pro-Christian bias and are the weakest part of the book. In the conclusion, he drops all pretense of neutrality and asserts that what he's been chronicling is a "discovery" of God, not an "evolution" of the concept of deity. He even has the gall to dismiss all East Asian religions because they don't "reveal" god, and Islam is inferior because it's a regression from the Christian advances made in understanding God.
I'm with Stark when he argues that the concepts of "sin" and "salvation" successfully helped instill a superior form of social control during a violent era in world history (Karen Armstrong makes much the same argument in The Great Transformation, highly recommended) . I also agree that these concepts arose on the peripheries of the ancient civilizations (Egypt and Sumer) because all transformative movements start at the margins, in relatively "chaotic" environments. He makes the point nicely when he writes: "[b]ecause these once-great civilizations [Egypt and Sumer] took no part in this historical turning point, `we are infinitely closer [culturally and religiously] to the Chinese and Indians' than to Egyptians and Mesopotamian..." (p. 389)
On the other hand, Stark's cavalier dismissal of the Buddha's, Laozi's and Confucius' spiritual insights two pages later is insulting and uncalled for. Simply because Gautama, the Old Master and Master Kung may have dismissed the questions Stark considers important and appropriate doesn't render them irrelevant.
In the introduction, Stark says that his argument can be used by believers and nonbelievers alike since it "works" whether God actually exists and humans are simply discovering his nature or whether the idea of "God" is a human attempt to make sense of our world. This pretense is dropped when he argues that only a religion that can claim to be "inspired" has any claim to legitimacy. Thus, "truer" religions must satisfy three criteria:
1. They must be revelations
2. They must be logically compatible
3. They must be progressively complex
As to the first, there is no need for a conscious divinity to construct a morality. It appears to help immensely in getting people to accept it (after all, it's easier to believe "God" has more insight into what constitutes moral behavior than Joe Schmo, your neighbor) but from my perspective that's about all it does. My attraction to the more intellectually rigorous forms of Buddhism (i.e., Zen) arises from that severance of dependence upon an external source to enforce "right action."
The second criterion simply baffles me. If religions arise in response to perceived spiritual needs that are not being satisfied (which is what Stark argues for earlier in the book), then whether God or gods is invoked is irrelevant. Monotheism may ultimately be the most logical/rational explanation of any divine existence/plan for the universe but why is the "golden rule" any less legitimate if promulgated by an Olympian Council, Taoist Immortals, the Son of God or Islamic mullahs?
The third criterion also seems nonsensical. Islam may have begun as a relatively uncomplex revelation geared to the understanding of Bedouin tribesmen but many, many imams and philosophers have elaborated upon it in the interim. And the same is true of Christianity. The early Church Fathers turned somersaults developing Christian theology from the sketchy sayings of the Jewish carpenter. The first three centuries of the Christian era were a "Wild West" of competing and increasingly complex theologies. Even after it became Rome's state religion, the educated elites continued to dispute (viz., the controversy over "homoousias" vs. "homoiousias").
And, let's face it, only a small minority of any religious faith really get deeply involved in such disputes (at least on their merits, plenty can be convinced to spill blood if their leaders tell them to). Which is not to detract from the worth of nonacademic/nonelite spirituality -- just that it's not as well thought out and coherent as your typical Jesuit's or imam's or lama's. (Actually, one of Stark's strengths is his insistence that humans have always been intensely spiritual; it's just that, for much of history, that religious fervor has been private and unrecorded.)
Stark goes off the deep end starting on p. 394, where he asserts, with no proof (of course, since it's a matter of faith) that "Christianity epitomizes revealed religion and offers a substantially more complex and nuanced vision of God...." He condemns Islam for its support of theocracies, repression of innovation, and belief in an ultimately irrational and unpredictable God. Examples with which Christianity also abounds. But the faults he lays at Islam's feet seem to be endemic to the "human condition." Anytime a faith, or a polity or a corporation gets a monopoly or near-monopoly it then goes about stifling the competition. Democracy developed in the West despite Christianity, not because of it; we have the utterly pagan Athenians to thank for the seeds that eventually grew into the Western democracies.
As an afterthought (or so it seems to this reader), Stark tacks on a final argument for the existence of God by invoking the specious arguments of the Intelligent Design movement, whose theories about the irreducible complexity of organisms like the eye or wings have been demolished time after time in the scientific literature.
In sum, Dr. Stark reaches some very convincing insights in the development and propagation of religious ideas but his otherwise worthy effort is undermined by his obvious bias toward Christianity as the definitive answer to man's search for meaning in the universe.
April 10, 2015
"Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief" by Rodney Stark is the first book I've ever read on comparative religions. It's quite comprehensive in its coverage of the ancient religions of Sumer, Egypt, Greece and Rome, along with the five major religions around still today - Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.
This is an intriguing book, but, at times, it can be an incredibly frustrating read. Stark holds a Christian bias throughout, and yet, it would have been better if he were more overt and didn't try to appear neutral. Despite this Christian bias, he clearly disbelieves the early chapters of Genesis (chapters 1-11), which provide answers to many of his questions eg. most gods and goddesses having been sophisticated and not so sophisticated forms of ancestor worship, combined with a corrupted understanding of God and nature, the similarities between religions in Sumer, Egypt, Greece etc. being there because all people dispersed from the tower of Babel and took what they knew with them.
On top of this, he doesn't seem to have a problem with miracles, but divine revelation (prophecies etc.) must be retconned prophecies (they couldn't possibly have been written prior to the event! and he arrives at strange conclusions that Babylonian Jews must have written the Torah and the rest of the OT. Stark doesn't believe that the biblical patriarchs even existed, or if they did, that they were nothing special and the books were purposefully attributed to them to give them gravitas. He has many problems with the Old Testament and not so many with the New Testament, with some big reservations (eg. Stark seems to have a complete lack of comprehension of Christ's atonement).
Stark does acknowledge that the worship of a High God - creator of universe and lesser gods and ruler of lesser gods, later led to the worship of these lesser gods and even spirits, but he doesn't seem to equate this original worship with the worship of the one true God, found in the Bible. In his discussion about China, there is no talk about Shang Di being the one true God of ancient China for much of its history.
In short, this is a good book - thought-provoking, yes, but also comprehensive. I did learn many things, especially about Islam, but there was much I disagreed with in regards to many of Stark's presuppositions and conclusions (because he writes from a theistic evolutionist perspective).
Yes, I believe it's important to read books with which you don't always agree, but I can't help wondering what it would be like to read a comparative religions book from a biblical creation perspective. Now, that would be refreshing.
8/10
This is an intriguing book, but, at times, it can be an incredibly frustrating read. Stark holds a Christian bias throughout, and yet, it would have been better if he were more overt and didn't try to appear neutral. Despite this Christian bias, he clearly disbelieves the early chapters of Genesis (chapters 1-11), which provide answers to many of his questions eg. most gods and goddesses having been sophisticated and not so sophisticated forms of ancestor worship, combined with a corrupted understanding of God and nature, the similarities between religions in Sumer, Egypt, Greece etc. being there because all people dispersed from the tower of Babel and took what they knew with them.
On top of this, he doesn't seem to have a problem with miracles, but divine revelation (prophecies etc.) must be retconned prophecies (they couldn't possibly have been written prior to the event! and he arrives at strange conclusions that Babylonian Jews must have written the Torah and the rest of the OT. Stark doesn't believe that the biblical patriarchs even existed, or if they did, that they were nothing special and the books were purposefully attributed to them to give them gravitas. He has many problems with the Old Testament and not so many with the New Testament, with some big reservations (eg. Stark seems to have a complete lack of comprehension of Christ's atonement).
Stark does acknowledge that the worship of a High God - creator of universe and lesser gods and ruler of lesser gods, later led to the worship of these lesser gods and even spirits, but he doesn't seem to equate this original worship with the worship of the one true God, found in the Bible. In his discussion about China, there is no talk about Shang Di being the one true God of ancient China for much of its history.
In short, this is a good book - thought-provoking, yes, but also comprehensive. I did learn many things, especially about Islam, but there was much I disagreed with in regards to many of Stark's presuppositions and conclusions (because he writes from a theistic evolutionist perspective).
Yes, I believe it's important to read books with which you don't always agree, but I can't help wondering what it would be like to read a comparative religions book from a biblical creation perspective. Now, that would be refreshing.
8/10
June 11, 2012
Most of the book consists of an interesting overview of the history and teachings of the world's major religions. The conclusion, however, seems to be heavily biased in favor of the superiority of Christianity, which was not well supported and not what I look for in scholarly works. The author's rails occasionally against "political correctness" and postmodernism, apparently to justify his biases against Islam, textual criticism of the Bible, and Christian "heresies". In short, while the historical information is interesting, it has an obvious agenda outside of applying sociology to the development of religion.
September 8, 2022
A good summary of major world religions, but the emphasis is placed religions started by prophets who were the recipients of divine revelations, making a clear distinction between religions that discover God through direct communication, ie, God "revealing" himself to man, versus religions that are based on practices which are supernatural/magical. This author was primarily concerned with responding to the popularity of atheist writers in vogue at the time.
August 26, 2019
I could not agree with every author conclusion but I found a lot of useful information in this book.
April 27, 2025
This book is a work of comparative religion in which the late Dr. Stark surveys the history of religion from primitive societies up to the great monotheisms: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Two points stand out in particular from this book. First, the standard view of the evolution of religious belief was a progression from primitive forms such as animism to polytheism to monotheism to atheism. Dr. Stark challenges this concept head-on by pointing on that all indications are that primitive religions tend toward monotheism or henotheism (multiple gods but only one who is master of all) and that polytheism is actually a degradation of monotheism. Because the gods of a pantheon are more like humanity on account of their flaws, make no moral demands and can be bought off by gifts and offerings, they are more attractive to a worshipping public who are into no promises, no demands, in the words of the great philosopher Pat Benatar.
Second, Dr. Stark's work with comparative religion made him a proponent of Intelligent Design:
"Let us assume that the militant 'scientific' materialists are right and that eventually we can identify sets of scientific rules sufficient to explain everything in the universe. These questions would still persist: Where did the rules come from? Why is the universe rational and orderly? It seems to me that the most remarkable 'retreat' from reason is to cling to the belief that the principles that underlie the universe came out of nowhere, that everything is one big meaningless accident.
"I am no longer sufficiently arrogant or gullible to make that leap of faith. Instead, I find it far more rational to regard the universe itself as the ultimate revelation of God and to agree with Kepler that in the most fundamental sense, science is theology and thereby serves as another method for the discovery of God."
I think Paul and at least one unknown psalmist would agree with Stark:
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20 (NASB)
"The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." Psalm 19:1 (NASB)
While the above points tend to appeal to Christians such as myself, Dr. Stark addresses other issues that would tend to make us uncomfortable. For example, the 6th century BC featured significant religious ferment such as great Old Testament prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, but it also featured the foundation of Buddhism and Jainism. Was there something going on that was bigger than just God's involvement with the Jews? Furthermore, the first mention of any afterlife featuring reward and punishment in the Tanach (Hebrew Old Testament) is associated with Jewish captivity in Babylon and exposure to ideas associated with Zoroastrianism or proto-Zoroastrianism. So, did those ideas come from God or were they the product of syncretism with pagan religion? Dr. Stark doesn't attempt to answer these uncomfortable questions although no doubt theologians have taken a swing at them.
Aside from his ability to ask the hard questions, I like the way Dr. Stark thought. For example, I love his hard-nosed devil's advocate way of thinking. He challenges a historical view of how conversion works, that it resulted from doctrinal appeal, that people were drawn to teaching that solved serious problems or addressed dissatisfaction. As he notes, "the method of correlating doctrinal appeals with a target population remained popular so long as no one ventured out of a library to watch people actually undergo conversions in order to discover what really was involved. Then someone did." Apparently, people tend to convert when their social ties to members outweigh their social ties to outsiders. Furthermore, the converts often have very limited knowledge of group beliefs and practices and then have to learn them. While I am probably a bit of an outlier in that doctrine matters more to me than social ties, I think it is safe to say that I have seen this in practice even if my own predilections would tend to cause me not to take it seriously in the past.
At any rate, I appreciate Dr. Stark's thought process and his ability to make me think even when he makes me uncomfortable or I disagree with his conclusions. His book is worth your time.
Second, Dr. Stark's work with comparative religion made him a proponent of Intelligent Design:
"Let us assume that the militant 'scientific' materialists are right and that eventually we can identify sets of scientific rules sufficient to explain everything in the universe. These questions would still persist: Where did the rules come from? Why is the universe rational and orderly? It seems to me that the most remarkable 'retreat' from reason is to cling to the belief that the principles that underlie the universe came out of nowhere, that everything is one big meaningless accident.
"I am no longer sufficiently arrogant or gullible to make that leap of faith. Instead, I find it far more rational to regard the universe itself as the ultimate revelation of God and to agree with Kepler that in the most fundamental sense, science is theology and thereby serves as another method for the discovery of God."
I think Paul and at least one unknown psalmist would agree with Stark:
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20 (NASB)
"The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." Psalm 19:1 (NASB)
While the above points tend to appeal to Christians such as myself, Dr. Stark addresses other issues that would tend to make us uncomfortable. For example, the 6th century BC featured significant religious ferment such as great Old Testament prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, but it also featured the foundation of Buddhism and Jainism. Was there something going on that was bigger than just God's involvement with the Jews? Furthermore, the first mention of any afterlife featuring reward and punishment in the Tanach (Hebrew Old Testament) is associated with Jewish captivity in Babylon and exposure to ideas associated with Zoroastrianism or proto-Zoroastrianism. So, did those ideas come from God or were they the product of syncretism with pagan religion? Dr. Stark doesn't attempt to answer these uncomfortable questions although no doubt theologians have taken a swing at them.
Aside from his ability to ask the hard questions, I like the way Dr. Stark thought. For example, I love his hard-nosed devil's advocate way of thinking. He challenges a historical view of how conversion works, that it resulted from doctrinal appeal, that people were drawn to teaching that solved serious problems or addressed dissatisfaction. As he notes, "the method of correlating doctrinal appeals with a target population remained popular so long as no one ventured out of a library to watch people actually undergo conversions in order to discover what really was involved. Then someone did." Apparently, people tend to convert when their social ties to members outweigh their social ties to outsiders. Furthermore, the converts often have very limited knowledge of group beliefs and practices and then have to learn them. While I am probably a bit of an outlier in that doctrine matters more to me than social ties, I think it is safe to say that I have seen this in practice even if my own predilections would tend to cause me not to take it seriously in the past.
At any rate, I appreciate Dr. Stark's thought process and his ability to make me think even when he makes me uncomfortable or I disagree with his conclusions. His book is worth your time.
September 9, 2024
This is a scholarly work, 400 pages of text and 80 pages of a time line, a glossary, notes, a bibliography and an index. Clearly Mr. Stark has done his homework, and the reader is the beneficiary. His writing is well organized and written in layman’s terms, so it is understandable, easily readable, and interesting as well as informative. His introduction lays out his methodology and outline of the book. Each chapter begins with a paragraph describing what will be covered in the chapter, and it ends with a brief summary conclusion.
The book is like a mini course in comparative religions. He begins with primitive societies and admits we know little of substance about what sort of faiths those people practiced. Ancient civilizations like Sumer, Egypt, and the Aztecs are next with the emphasis on their temple worship. Rome and its multiple gods comes next followed by what he calls the “rebirth” of monotheism. India gets a chapter as does China, then the rise of Christianity and finally Islam are discussed. The chapter on Islam is very informative, particularly about the military aspect and the formation of the Arab state based on religion and not on tribal loyalties.
The author posits the claim that monotheism degenerates into polytheism over time. The reason he gives is an abstract god who requires strict obedience and is unapproachable is too distant whereas local, man-made gods that can be swayed or at least placated by sacrifices are more acceptable to people because they can hopefully influence that god.
The book is rich in detail and history. I’d not heard of the Deuteronomists, a Jewish sect who were Yahweh-only types. It was new to me that Buddhism began in India but was transported to China where it flourished. Stark says that the concept of sin was not tied to religion and morality until around 600 BC and also that a positive existence after death was introduced about that time. That period of 600-500 BCE, he uses common era dating, is noted as the Axial Age and is the start of many religions: Zoroastrism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. It was also time of the rise of the Mayan civilization in Mesoamerica, the return of the Jews from Babylon, and the establishment of the Roman republic. It was a pretty dramatic century.
Stark is obviously not a new earth type. His timeline begins about 200,000 BC. He says God reveals Himself progressively; as men become able to better handle complex ideas, God shows more of Himself. I wonder about that since God walked and talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, but of course Jesus came and gave men a better understanding of God. Overall, I liked the book a lot.
The book is like a mini course in comparative religions. He begins with primitive societies and admits we know little of substance about what sort of faiths those people practiced. Ancient civilizations like Sumer, Egypt, and the Aztecs are next with the emphasis on their temple worship. Rome and its multiple gods comes next followed by what he calls the “rebirth” of monotheism. India gets a chapter as does China, then the rise of Christianity and finally Islam are discussed. The chapter on Islam is very informative, particularly about the military aspect and the formation of the Arab state based on religion and not on tribal loyalties.
The author posits the claim that monotheism degenerates into polytheism over time. The reason he gives is an abstract god who requires strict obedience and is unapproachable is too distant whereas local, man-made gods that can be swayed or at least placated by sacrifices are more acceptable to people because they can hopefully influence that god.
The book is rich in detail and history. I’d not heard of the Deuteronomists, a Jewish sect who were Yahweh-only types. It was new to me that Buddhism began in India but was transported to China where it flourished. Stark says that the concept of sin was not tied to religion and morality until around 600 BC and also that a positive existence after death was introduced about that time. That period of 600-500 BCE, he uses common era dating, is noted as the Axial Age and is the start of many religions: Zoroastrism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. It was also time of the rise of the Mayan civilization in Mesoamerica, the return of the Jews from Babylon, and the establishment of the Roman republic. It was a pretty dramatic century.
Stark is obviously not a new earth type. His timeline begins about 200,000 BC. He says God reveals Himself progressively; as men become able to better handle complex ideas, God shows more of Himself. I wonder about that since God walked and talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, but of course Jesus came and gave men a better understanding of God. Overall, I liked the book a lot.
May 17, 2025
This started out so great. It was one of the best books I have ever read about religion but then there was that last chapter. And that last chapter really soured it for me. That last chapter was enough to give it a one star review but everything that came before it really resonated with me in a way that I really feel, so I give it a 3 overall. Everything before that last chapter is 5 stars even though I do not recall the author ever acknowledging the Baha'i Faith.
I found the lead up to the last chapter to be intriguing, thought-provoking, logical, and in some cases empathetic. However, it is all ruined when in the last chapter the author decides that Christianity is true and real and all the others are made up, and it contradicts the spirit of what was said before. The basis given of stating Christianity is true and the others are not does not hold up to the evidence given before hand in the very same book! I was very confused and disappointed by that last chapter. As how it is better to ignore the last episode of Xena Warrior Princess, I find this book palatable when I ignore that last chapter.
I found the lead up to the last chapter to be intriguing, thought-provoking, logical, and in some cases empathetic. However, it is all ruined when in the last chapter the author decides that Christianity is true and real and all the others are made up, and it contradicts the spirit of what was said before. The basis given of stating Christianity is true and the others are not does not hold up to the evidence given before hand in the very same book! I was very confused and disappointed by that last chapter. As how it is better to ignore the last episode of Xena Warrior Princess, I find this book palatable when I ignore that last chapter.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 12, 2020
I read this book for my Religions of the East class along with many other books on the same subject. Discovering God follows religions from the primitive societies, to the great temple religions, to the religions we are familiar with in the present day. It hits all of them and explains them all in a simple but intriguing fashion. I personally especially liked the fact that Mr. Stark talked about God in the context that He does exist from whatever religious perspective was being discussed. It made me want to read the book more than other books that talk about religion as if God doesn't exist. I would definitely recommend this to anyone who wants to learn more about the religions of the world.
March 26, 2017
Most entertaining sociology book I've ever read. I found Stark's personal journey of growing faith in the God of the Christians quite compelling. His commitment to rationality (genuinely examining all sides, not just the one he prefers) speaks of integrity, and his close reading of religion fascinating. I appreciated his upfront acknowledgement of his personal faith; I wish more non-fiction authors who are presenting something in an apparently objective way would acknowledge their bias this way. To me, that makes the man and his research a whole lot more credible. And I appreciate the way this book does not simply run with the religion narrative of the twenty-first century English-speaking world, which is increasingly polarised and far from objective.
August 31, 2017
I love this writer's breadth of historical understanding, alongside his unapologetic commitment to a Biblically informed worldview. He says in his intro in regard to militant atheism that "contempt is not a scholarly virtue." The data is clear that "when given a choice, humans prefer gods over divine essences like nature or lady luck." If the gods are crazy, religion is futile but if the gods are rational the possibilities are immense. He covers the broad span of human time, and the major religious developments with dignity and depth. I used this as a valuable resource when teaching Art History at the University level.
December 13, 2018
I liked this book because it did cover many religions worldwide and was rather very informative. However, stark is biased toward Christianity (which I knew before I even read the book merely by reading his biography and titles of other works). I tried to remember while reading any part of the book that mentioned Christianity (bias comes out in its own chapter and in the conclusion). Keeping that in mind was simple- there are other books that are more critical of Christianity that I can read. This book is still very valuable for its wide base of information. Stark is also rather easy to read - dense but not convoluted.
March 5, 2025
The author’s detached and, for the most part, historical approach provides great insight into the development of religions and their conceptions as they spread. Its rational approach while still restraining from extreme intellectualism and empiricism allows for a very cohesive and engaging narrative. However, it remains more an introductory book to theology rather than more intricate claims of truth; as there is just as too much information to uncover. Because of its obscure topics it occasionally covers, it is a great start for those seeking truth.
June 5, 2025
Provides good summaries of the major religions, but is obviously biased towards Christianity. For example, he frequently makes the point that some dismiss the historical prophets. When talking about Christianity, he makes a long argument about why Christ truly existed. For the other religions, it kinda seems that he just goes they can't prove that and the religion had to come from somewhere. Learned a lot from this book, but did not gain much outside perspective (being a born-Christian in a predominantly Christian area)
Stark loves the word "vis-a-vis".
Stark loves the word "vis-a-vis".
June 4, 2017
I learned a lot from this book but it was longer than it needed to be. The author spent too much time citing other author's interpretations of belief systems and then refuting them. I wish he had described the history and beliefs of the various religions and left it at that. That said, there is enough great content that it is worth a read. I will need to read it again as it is quite dense and detailed at parts.
November 20, 2021
A book of comparative religions. I enjoyed the maps and touching on lesser known religions like Taoism & Confucianism, etc. I prefer a more outline style though with more illustrations, graphics, etc. to undeerstand all the complexities and major tenets of each religion.
April 30, 2020
Excellent and erudite. Avoids needless complexity and is written in an approachable style.
June 17, 2021
Very interesting overview of the world's religions. Worth reading.
September 3, 2025
An informative and interesting read.
January 8, 2016
Rodney Stark raises various issues about the beliefs in God while he maintains a clear but concise picture of the evolution of such a belief with the passage of time. Discovering God: The origins of the great religions and the evolution of belief is a book that has been written after thorough and arduous research was done on many subject matters evolving around the theme of the origins and nature of great religions on our planet. Having examined various religious beliefs and all the several origins of the beliefs surrounding the idea of the presence of a divine being, Stark is very admirable as he masters many aspects of this subject with true conviction. He is an author whose insights and aspirations about such a topic is far from being underestimated. His research and profound studies on this theme gives rise to a perfect intuition about how the idea of Discovering God can be very illuminating and truly enlightening. He perceives religious beliefs and the evolution of religions as a ideal which surpasses the very touch which we, humans, can always rely upon while we can always depend on possessing such a perception which is only truly adapted to the glory of this divine presence’s omnipotence. Stark has a theoretical model which is setup in such a way that it will address the evolution of human cultures from its biological roots to its mechanical and social perceptions.
Stark adopts a frank and structured emphasis on the plausible evidences of a divine being. This has been instated and well-framed by human beings. Mr. Stark examines many stages that are initiated by the primitive societies of the ancient times, he focuses on the idea of our becoming accustomed to cultures that have evolved from extensive accounts on how creation came into being, the author even emphasizes on the universal features of human societies; and, he explores contemporary approaches to the biological, cultural and theological implantation of religions on our planet.
While he fetches for many thematic solutions that are always pervasive in the minds of humans, he handles the idea of How to Discover God with such enthusiasm that his book does not escape from the readers’ mind without any boundaries. The writer has a very socio-theological way of handling the many appointed religions on our planet.
While being adapted to the idea of “Credibility”, and by accepting such a theme as the basis and source to the acceptance of a divine being, Rodney Stark states: “It is one thing to possess a religious culture, but it is something else to convince others to accept it.” (p. 51) Stark also feels that mysticism and mystical experiences have revealed parallels to the paranoid darkness in which many humans identify themselves with the supernatural and unbalanced forces. Thus, as he even states that in every society, people differ in their religious tastes, he mentions that the intensity of our faiths and beliefs depend upon our religious preferences.
As he frontiers the many areas which encompass religions and religious beliefs, the writer of Discovering God: The origins of the great religions and the evolution of belief attacks many key themes that evolve around many extensive accounts of how creation came into being; these are namely: many cultural evolutions, inventions of God, Ghost Theories, Fairy Tales, Revelations, Catholic Saints, Epic of Gilgamesh; Aztec, Mayan & Inca religious practices, tribal practices in Tigris-Euphrates Valley, Greco-Roman Cybelene narratives, Greek Gods, Cults and Mithraic faiths; The Pharaoh God, Monotheism, Rulers and Priests, Sacrifices and its several origins and purposes; Roman religions, Moses, Polytheism, Missionizing, Religions in the Indus Valley, Vedic Gods, The Vedas, Sin and Salvation, Upanishads and Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Chinese Gods, Religion in ancient China, Gods and ancestors, Priest and Rituals, Taoism, Confucianism, Folk religion, The Rise of Christianity, The historical Jesus, The theological Christ, the Christian Doctrines, Sacraments, The Pagan intellectuals, Mecca and its admirable traditions, The Prophet Muhammad, The Medina, The Qur’an, Allah, Building an Arab State, Muslim Sectarianism, Social Control of religions and Divine Inspiration.
With such themes and main topics well-addressed in this book of his, Rodney Stark provides a concise and thorough study of many profound religious beliefs of our planet. This book analyzes many various religious roots and many religious faiths all with a melodiously honest approach. Stark’s broad study and in-depth analysis of the subject matter undertaken in his masterpiece does not leave his readers without any further doubts. The latter is able to maintain a perfect discipline while going through each and every chapter of this writer’s esteemed book.
Stark adopts a frank and structured emphasis on the plausible evidences of a divine being. This has been instated and well-framed by human beings. Mr. Stark examines many stages that are initiated by the primitive societies of the ancient times, he focuses on the idea of our becoming accustomed to cultures that have evolved from extensive accounts on how creation came into being, the author even emphasizes on the universal features of human societies; and, he explores contemporary approaches to the biological, cultural and theological implantation of religions on our planet.
While he fetches for many thematic solutions that are always pervasive in the minds of humans, he handles the idea of How to Discover God with such enthusiasm that his book does not escape from the readers’ mind without any boundaries. The writer has a very socio-theological way of handling the many appointed religions on our planet.
While being adapted to the idea of “Credibility”, and by accepting such a theme as the basis and source to the acceptance of a divine being, Rodney Stark states: “It is one thing to possess a religious culture, but it is something else to convince others to accept it.” (p. 51) Stark also feels that mysticism and mystical experiences have revealed parallels to the paranoid darkness in which many humans identify themselves with the supernatural and unbalanced forces. Thus, as he even states that in every society, people differ in their religious tastes, he mentions that the intensity of our faiths and beliefs depend upon our religious preferences.
As he frontiers the many areas which encompass religions and religious beliefs, the writer of Discovering God: The origins of the great religions and the evolution of belief attacks many key themes that evolve around many extensive accounts of how creation came into being; these are namely: many cultural evolutions, inventions of God, Ghost Theories, Fairy Tales, Revelations, Catholic Saints, Epic of Gilgamesh; Aztec, Mayan & Inca religious practices, tribal practices in Tigris-Euphrates Valley, Greco-Roman Cybelene narratives, Greek Gods, Cults and Mithraic faiths; The Pharaoh God, Monotheism, Rulers and Priests, Sacrifices and its several origins and purposes; Roman religions, Moses, Polytheism, Missionizing, Religions in the Indus Valley, Vedic Gods, The Vedas, Sin and Salvation, Upanishads and Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Chinese Gods, Religion in ancient China, Gods and ancestors, Priest and Rituals, Taoism, Confucianism, Folk religion, The Rise of Christianity, The historical Jesus, The theological Christ, the Christian Doctrines, Sacraments, The Pagan intellectuals, Mecca and its admirable traditions, The Prophet Muhammad, The Medina, The Qur’an, Allah, Building an Arab State, Muslim Sectarianism, Social Control of religions and Divine Inspiration.
With such themes and main topics well-addressed in this book of his, Rodney Stark provides a concise and thorough study of many profound religious beliefs of our planet. This book analyzes many various religious roots and many religious faiths all with a melodiously honest approach. Stark’s broad study and in-depth analysis of the subject matter undertaken in his masterpiece does not leave his readers without any further doubts. The latter is able to maintain a perfect discipline while going through each and every chapter of this writer’s esteemed book.
February 24, 2013
This is a study in comparative religion, but it's more than that. The author presents (in depth) what we know of mankind's religious activity from earliest times, and he comes to some surprising conclusions about the cause and effect of various practices. If God exists, Stark says, then it is likely that "God's revelations are always limited to the current capacity of humans to comprehend" and that man's discovery of God has come about through consistent and gradually more
sophisticated revelation. (Divine Accommodation)
He denies the claim that the idea of God first came from early man fearing the forces of nature, giving them names, and sacrificing to them as a means of exerting control over them. He shows that primitive tribes generally affirmed a belief in a chief Creator god above all the other gods. He claims these early glimpses of divine truth were obscured by government-supported "temple" religions, and slowed by occasional regressions into polytheism when certain factors were present. He maintains that "under unimpeded conditions the best religions will thrive and survive."
He then identifies favorable conditions in which new discoveries about God arise.
He demonstrates that religious plurality in a society always increases overall religious participation and intensity, because people are more engaged in the search for God when
there are many options in the religious marketplace. Also, state-sponsored religions have never stimulated religious inquiry and activity; they have no need to proselytize or focus on the needs of the people because they already have a monopoly. He gives a scholarly defense for the presence of divine inspiration in the history of religions, and the way that free-market processes have encouraged discovery of authentic truth about God.
Rodney Stark's fine scholarship and excellent writing has contributed immensely to my understanding of the cause and effects on society of religion in general but Christianity in particular. This is not my favorite of his many books, but it is well worth the read.
Here's link to an interview with the author:
http://www.jknirp.com/stark.htm
sophisticated revelation. (Divine Accommodation)
He denies the claim that the idea of God first came from early man fearing the forces of nature, giving them names, and sacrificing to them as a means of exerting control over them. He shows that primitive tribes generally affirmed a belief in a chief Creator god above all the other gods. He claims these early glimpses of divine truth were obscured by government-supported "temple" religions, and slowed by occasional regressions into polytheism when certain factors were present. He maintains that "under unimpeded conditions the best religions will thrive and survive."
He then identifies favorable conditions in which new discoveries about God arise.
He demonstrates that religious plurality in a society always increases overall religious participation and intensity, because people are more engaged in the search for God when
there are many options in the religious marketplace. Also, state-sponsored religions have never stimulated religious inquiry and activity; they have no need to proselytize or focus on the needs of the people because they already have a monopoly. He gives a scholarly defense for the presence of divine inspiration in the history of religions, and the way that free-market processes have encouraged discovery of authentic truth about God.
Rodney Stark's fine scholarship and excellent writing has contributed immensely to my understanding of the cause and effects on society of religion in general but Christianity in particular. This is not my favorite of his many books, but it is well worth the read.
Here's link to an interview with the author:
http://www.jknirp.com/stark.htm
April 15, 2016
This was a pretty good book but nothing out of the ordinary for Christian apologists. As a history of religion it is definitely slanted, and heavily, toward the Christian view of the world. Which would not be bad if it was just a history of Christianity. However, Discovery God, is primarily a history of religion so I felt the other religions, though fairly represented, were there simply to help define Christianity [especially the Latin Church]as the apogee of Faith and Revelation.
With the above, rather large, caveat it is still very much worth a read especially for its theory of religious economy or the market theory of religion. Stark's definition:
"A religious economy consists of all the religious activity going on in a society: a 'market' of current and potential adherents, a set of one or more organizations seeking to attract or maintain adherents, and the religious culture offered by the organisation(s)."
Wikipedia defines it as follows:
"The idea of religious economy frames religion as a product and as those who practice or identify with any particular religion as a consumer. But when the idea of belief is brought into the equation, this definition expands, and ideology affects the "product" and who "consumes" it. When examining depictions of religious identity in a global world, it is easy to see how ideology affects religious economy."
It is interesting to define religion in the frame of an economy...perhaps a little odd as well, but well worth the read for those interested in religious history and religion as an example of cultural/sociological history too.
Ultimately, I was unconvinced by Discovering God as a history of religion and by its economic theory of religion. At one level it reads as one more Neo-Con perversion of history. Because of this I have given the book 3 out of 5 stars.
Still, as said above, well worth a read by those interested in the history of religion.
With the above, rather large, caveat it is still very much worth a read especially for its theory of religious economy or the market theory of religion. Stark's definition:
"A religious economy consists of all the religious activity going on in a society: a 'market' of current and potential adherents, a set of one or more organizations seeking to attract or maintain adherents, and the religious culture offered by the organisation(s)."
Wikipedia defines it as follows:
"The idea of religious economy frames religion as a product and as those who practice or identify with any particular religion as a consumer. But when the idea of belief is brought into the equation, this definition expands, and ideology affects the "product" and who "consumes" it. When examining depictions of religious identity in a global world, it is easy to see how ideology affects religious economy."
It is interesting to define religion in the frame of an economy...perhaps a little odd as well, but well worth the read for those interested in religious history and religion as an example of cultural/sociological history too.
Ultimately, I was unconvinced by Discovering God as a history of religion and by its economic theory of religion. At one level it reads as one more Neo-Con perversion of history. Because of this I have given the book 3 out of 5 stars.
Still, as said above, well worth a read by those interested in the history of religion.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews