What do you think?
Rate this book
America's Four Gods: What We Say about God--and What That Says about Us
Despite all the hype surrounding the "New Atheism," the United States remains one of the most religious nations on Earth. In fact, 95% of Americans believe in God--a level of agreement rarely seen in American life. The greatest divisions in America are not between atheists and believers, or
even between people of different faiths. What divides us, this groundbreaking book shows, is how we conceive of God and the role He plays in our daily lives.
America's Four Gods draws on the most wide-ranging, comprehensive, and illuminating survey of American's religious beliefs ever conducted to offer a systematic exploration of how Americans view God. Paul Froese and Christopher Bader argue that many of America's most intractable social and political
divisions emerge from religious convictions that are deeply held but rarely openly discussed. Drawing upon original survey data from thousands of Americans and a wealth of in-depth interviews from all parts of the country, Froese and Bader trace America's cultural and political diversity to its
ultimate source--differing opinions about God. They show that regardless of our religious tradition (or lack thereof), Americans worship four distinct types of The Authoritative God--who is both engaged in the world and judgmental; The Benevolent God--who loves and helps us in spite of our
failings; The Critical God--who catalogs our sins but does not punish them (at least not in this life); and The Distant God--who stands apart from the world He created. The authors show that these four conceptions of God form the basis of our worldviews and are among the most powerful predictors of
how we feel about the most contentious issues in American life.
Accessible, insightful, and filled with the voices of ordinary Americans discussing their most personal religious beliefs, America's Four Gods provides an invaluable portrait of how we view God and therefore how we view virtually everything else.
even between people of different faiths. What divides us, this groundbreaking book shows, is how we conceive of God and the role He plays in our daily lives.
America's Four Gods draws on the most wide-ranging, comprehensive, and illuminating survey of American's religious beliefs ever conducted to offer a systematic exploration of how Americans view God. Paul Froese and Christopher Bader argue that many of America's most intractable social and political
divisions emerge from religious convictions that are deeply held but rarely openly discussed. Drawing upon original survey data from thousands of Americans and a wealth of in-depth interviews from all parts of the country, Froese and Bader trace America's cultural and political diversity to its
ultimate source--differing opinions about God. They show that regardless of our religious tradition (or lack thereof), Americans worship four distinct types of The Authoritative God--who is both engaged in the world and judgmental; The Benevolent God--who loves and helps us in spite of our
failings; The Critical God--who catalogs our sins but does not punish them (at least not in this life); and The Distant God--who stands apart from the world He created. The authors show that these four conceptions of God form the basis of our worldviews and are among the most powerful predictors of
how we feel about the most contentious issues in American life.
Accessible, insightful, and filled with the voices of ordinary Americans discussing their most personal religious beliefs, America's Four Gods provides an invaluable portrait of how we view God and therefore how we view virtually everything else.
258 pages, Hardcover
First published September 3, 2010
22 people are currently reading
210 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
October 19, 2023
One of my favorite books ever, even if like me you're no professional sociologist!
Among innumerable reasons to educate yourself through this book: It should be required reading if you are participating in any of the Goodreads Lists of books about religion, spirituality, ethics, morality, or even Enlightenment.
At first glance this book from Oxford University Press might appear to be a dry tome of sociological research. To me, however the findings are wet, juicy, and flavorful. As if one same stick of chewing gum could still be intensely flavorful... five years after the first time you popped that gum into your mouth.
Paul Froese and Christopher Bader opened my eyes to practical implications of affiliating around particular religious beliefs. Personally, I'd say this book is of interest to you if you subscribe to ANY of the five versions of God in this book. (And yes, this book really surveys five versions, not four, imo.)
1* The Authoritative God, both engaged in the world and judgmental
2* The Benevolent God, who loves and aids us (despite our failings)
3* The Critical God, who catalogs our sins but does not punish them (at least in this life)
4* The Distant God, standing apart from the world
Which is the last version? (Apparently insignificant to the editor who had final say over naming this book. Grrrrr.)
5* version: The Atheist's No-God.
What Makes this Book Sooooo Important?
You can learn so much about yourself, about others, and about current politics.
For instance, see Figure 3.1. In my hardcover edition, that's on Page 67.
At a glance you'll learn about different views of "relative morality of hot-button issues."
What is considered ALWAYS RIGHT, ALWAYS WRONG, and every view in between?
Oh yes, there are correlations. So many correlations. For instance, strong connection between one's version of God and... whether or not parents believe in hitting their children.
Initially I was shocked to see all the correlations exposed by this brilliant, far-ranging research. But of course it rings true, every bit of it, at least for me.
Why Does this Book Belong on All Goodreads Lists about Religion, Spirituality, Enlightenment, Spiritual Awakening?
Simply put, beliefs have consequences.
Learning about various consequences can clarify what people are really choosing when they affiliate with one religion rather than another. It ain't just theology, folks.
Maybe this sociological study will open up what I call "Your heart of compassion."
In addition, what if you consider yourself religious, or spiritual but not religious, agnostic or atheist?
Then this magnificent book can prove especially helpful for evaluating your current path, because you learn in specific detail how any religious path does bring you consequences: not only consequences related to some faraway Heaven but consequences in your neighborhood, on your block, at your family dinner table.
"America's Four Gods" is one of my most-recommended books ever! Only you can decide if I'm recommending it for you, too.
Among innumerable reasons to educate yourself through this book: It should be required reading if you are participating in any of the Goodreads Lists of books about religion, spirituality, ethics, morality, or even Enlightenment.
At first glance this book from Oxford University Press might appear to be a dry tome of sociological research. To me, however the findings are wet, juicy, and flavorful. As if one same stick of chewing gum could still be intensely flavorful... five years after the first time you popped that gum into your mouth.
Paul Froese and Christopher Bader opened my eyes to practical implications of affiliating around particular religious beliefs. Personally, I'd say this book is of interest to you if you subscribe to ANY of the five versions of God in this book. (And yes, this book really surveys five versions, not four, imo.)
1* The Authoritative God, both engaged in the world and judgmental
2* The Benevolent God, who loves and aids us (despite our failings)
3* The Critical God, who catalogs our sins but does not punish them (at least in this life)
4* The Distant God, standing apart from the world
Which is the last version? (Apparently insignificant to the editor who had final say over naming this book. Grrrrr.)
5* version: The Atheist's No-God.
What Makes this Book Sooooo Important?
You can learn so much about yourself, about others, and about current politics.
For instance, see Figure 3.1. In my hardcover edition, that's on Page 67.
At a glance you'll learn about different views of "relative morality of hot-button issues."
What is considered ALWAYS RIGHT, ALWAYS WRONG, and every view in between?
Oh yes, there are correlations. So many correlations. For instance, strong connection between one's version of God and... whether or not parents believe in hitting their children.
Initially I was shocked to see all the correlations exposed by this brilliant, far-ranging research. But of course it rings true, every bit of it, at least for me.
Why Does this Book Belong on All Goodreads Lists about Religion, Spirituality, Enlightenment, Spiritual Awakening?
Simply put, beliefs have consequences.
Learning about various consequences can clarify what people are really choosing when they affiliate with one religion rather than another. It ain't just theology, folks.
Maybe this sociological study will open up what I call "Your heart of compassion."
In addition, what if you consider yourself religious, or spiritual but not religious, agnostic or atheist?
Then this magnificent book can prove especially helpful for evaluating your current path, because you learn in specific detail how any religious path does bring you consequences: not only consequences related to some faraway Heaven but consequences in your neighborhood, on your block, at your family dinner table.
"America's Four Gods" is one of my most-recommended books ever! Only you can decide if I'm recommending it for you, too.
February 25, 2023
I'm really grateful that Froese and Bader wrote this book, and have dedicated so much of their lives to doing this kind of research.
This book helped me understand the people around me better, and really, be less afraid of them. Personally, I have been afraid of the weird things that other people think of God and do in God's name.
Reading about the "Authoritative God" concept especially helped me understand many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, etc., and the truly awful things some believers in an "Authoritative God" do, and in the name of God! (Froese and Bader don't make judgment calls like this, which is good. But I will.)
Presented in this academic, non-judgmental, mostly fact-based way (I only say "mostly", because as they point on themselves, the "Four Gods" construct is somewhat artificial, though very useful and necessary) I can understand better that the people around me do care, even if in their own, sometimes very weird, ways.
The book itself reads like a very long research paper - in the best possible way. It's a deceptively quick read which was nonetheless powerful. The concepts presented will stick with me and help me to understand life better. Thanks to the authors.
This book helped me understand the people around me better, and really, be less afraid of them. Personally, I have been afraid of the weird things that other people think of God and do in God's name.
Reading about the "Authoritative God" concept especially helped me understand many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, etc., and the truly awful things some believers in an "Authoritative God" do, and in the name of God! (Froese and Bader don't make judgment calls like this, which is good. But I will.)
Presented in this academic, non-judgmental, mostly fact-based way (I only say "mostly", because as they point on themselves, the "Four Gods" construct is somewhat artificial, though very useful and necessary) I can understand better that the people around me do care, even if in their own, sometimes very weird, ways.
The book itself reads like a very long research paper - in the best possible way. It's a deceptively quick read which was nonetheless powerful. The concepts presented will stick with me and help me to understand life better. Thanks to the authors.
March 28, 2011
America's Four Gods is a fascinating and unique look at how Americans perceive God. When the right questions are asked, we find that people claiming the same religion, and even worshipping within the same church, believe in different versions of the same God. These beliefs color much of each person's views on life, from personal morals to politics.
While this book is well researched, documented and detailed, it is also easy to read and entertaining. A great read for anyone interested in religion and/or human behavior.
While this book is well researched, documented and detailed, it is also easy to read and entertaining. A great read for anyone interested in religion and/or human behavior.
February 17, 2024
This shouldn't have taken as long as it did to finish; really, a day's committed perusal of America's Four Gods should have sufficed. This is more like a very long essay than it is a book; indeed, it was this that made it so hard to finish. This could have--possibly should have--been restructured into a long essay with better organization, because much of it was extremely tedious and repetitive. The ideas are great, and I'm also not a psychologist or sociologist, nor am I an academic, so perhaps the structure simply wasn't for me. In any case, unless you're terribly interested in the breakdown and demographics of different perceptions of God, then you will probably share my opinion. Moreover, this book is largely pretty descriptive and doesn't spend as much time talking about the implications of their discovery as I think they should have, but perhaps that was outside the purview of what the authors were trying to achieve.
What is fairly innovative is the breakdown of four types of God, and how these differing perceptions of God's interaction with and view of humanity affect our political and social values. Most of the book details who holds what belief.
Why I think this is fairly important is that it might help us reframe the way we discuss political and social issues with each other. Understanding that someone believes in an "Authoritative" God might significantly impact the way you're willing to engage in a conversation about abortion or LGBTQAI+ rights. Of course, you don't have to use religion as that framework; I believe the number of people in the US who are now willing to call themselves atheists or agnostics has risen substantially since this was published, and that will undoubtedly have an effect on the way we discuss religion and politics. Still, if you're talking to your Catholic friend about abortion, knowing they believe God will punish the collective nation if we're lax about abortion law may change the way you approach the conversation. As it should.
The conclusion had some interesting bits in it, too:
"Liberation theology has never taken deep root in American soil. This religious tradition, mainly associated with the Roman Catholic Church, combines a Christian ethic with a Marxist focus on political activism and economic equality." This is less of a conclusion or discussion point and more of an interesting moment in which my own thoughts dovetailed with the authors'. I'm not a Marxist, but I've spent some time in Marxist spaces and one area in which Americans sympathetic to Marxism are extremely weak is in their lack of knowledge about liberation theology. If someone claims to be a Marxist and thinks it incompatible with religion, run very far away. They don't know their Marx, nor their Marxist history, very well. A propos, if you're flirting with Marxism, I highly recommend "The Regrettable Century" podcast, which does very well both with the history and philosophy of Marxism.
"We need to keep a close eye on changing images of God to maintain a sense of where moral and policy disagreements will be most intense and how we might ease them." Totally agree; this is one of the most important conclusions of the book. It continues: "We expect that our disagreements over God's engagement will most likely increase. Currently, most Americans feel that God is very active in our lives, but trends toward a more Distant God would indicate a growing chasm in public belief. This may lead some believers to become more averse to arguments for intelligent design and to political references to God and less sympathetic to the moral absolutism of traditional religious doctrine. In turn, those with an engaged God will feel more embattled and potentially more vigorous in their demands to see God referenced in the public square."
"The religious and moral grounding of our social, economic, and policy disputes makes pragmatic and conciliatory discussions about policies difficult and rare. Rather than debate policy, we debate the morality of individuals. And if their image of God does not match our own, we conclude that they are either godless or fanatical." Yes, definitely. This speaks to the importance of being conscious of these differences when approaching conversations with others.
"That said, we also sense that images of a very judgmental God are most likely on the decline. If this turns out to be the case, political rhetoric premised on our collective fight against evil will become less potent. But if larger portions of the American public begin to envision a more judgmental God, the time is ripe for political and religious leaders to exploit growing tendencies to lash out at evil in our midst. Warmongering and hard-line attacks against hated minorities and immigrants could become more acceptable." Also a very apt point.
In the end, I think this was important work; it should be discussed more in public, and the discussion should start in churches, frankly. My pastor recently articulated something I've long thought but haven't put succinctly into words: "Pray for clarity, not for outcomes." I know this may seem like nothing more than an indicator of where I fall on the spectrum of the Four Gods, but if all the faithful of every religion were collectively praying for clarity, we might achieve a better proximity to the peace most of us ostensibly desire.
What is fairly innovative is the breakdown of four types of God, and how these differing perceptions of God's interaction with and view of humanity affect our political and social values. Most of the book details who holds what belief.
Why I think this is fairly important is that it might help us reframe the way we discuss political and social issues with each other. Understanding that someone believes in an "Authoritative" God might significantly impact the way you're willing to engage in a conversation about abortion or LGBTQAI+ rights. Of course, you don't have to use religion as that framework; I believe the number of people in the US who are now willing to call themselves atheists or agnostics has risen substantially since this was published, and that will undoubtedly have an effect on the way we discuss religion and politics. Still, if you're talking to your Catholic friend about abortion, knowing they believe God will punish the collective nation if we're lax about abortion law may change the way you approach the conversation. As it should.
The conclusion had some interesting bits in it, too:
"Liberation theology has never taken deep root in American soil. This religious tradition, mainly associated with the Roman Catholic Church, combines a Christian ethic with a Marxist focus on political activism and economic equality." This is less of a conclusion or discussion point and more of an interesting moment in which my own thoughts dovetailed with the authors'. I'm not a Marxist, but I've spent some time in Marxist spaces and one area in which Americans sympathetic to Marxism are extremely weak is in their lack of knowledge about liberation theology. If someone claims to be a Marxist and thinks it incompatible with religion, run very far away. They don't know their Marx, nor their Marxist history, very well. A propos, if you're flirting with Marxism, I highly recommend "The Regrettable Century" podcast, which does very well both with the history and philosophy of Marxism.
"We need to keep a close eye on changing images of God to maintain a sense of where moral and policy disagreements will be most intense and how we might ease them." Totally agree; this is one of the most important conclusions of the book. It continues: "We expect that our disagreements over God's engagement will most likely increase. Currently, most Americans feel that God is very active in our lives, but trends toward a more Distant God would indicate a growing chasm in public belief. This may lead some believers to become more averse to arguments for intelligent design and to political references to God and less sympathetic to the moral absolutism of traditional religious doctrine. In turn, those with an engaged God will feel more embattled and potentially more vigorous in their demands to see God referenced in the public square."
"The religious and moral grounding of our social, economic, and policy disputes makes pragmatic and conciliatory discussions about policies difficult and rare. Rather than debate policy, we debate the morality of individuals. And if their image of God does not match our own, we conclude that they are either godless or fanatical." Yes, definitely. This speaks to the importance of being conscious of these differences when approaching conversations with others.
"That said, we also sense that images of a very judgmental God are most likely on the decline. If this turns out to be the case, political rhetoric premised on our collective fight against evil will become less potent. But if larger portions of the American public begin to envision a more judgmental God, the time is ripe for political and religious leaders to exploit growing tendencies to lash out at evil in our midst. Warmongering and hard-line attacks against hated minorities and immigrants could become more acceptable." Also a very apt point.
In the end, I think this was important work; it should be discussed more in public, and the discussion should start in churches, frankly. My pastor recently articulated something I've long thought but haven't put succinctly into words: "Pray for clarity, not for outcomes." I know this may seem like nothing more than an indicator of where I fall on the spectrum of the Four Gods, but if all the faithful of every religion were collectively praying for clarity, we might achieve a better proximity to the peace most of us ostensibly desire.
September 4, 2018
America’s Four Gods seeks to provide a snapshot of how the American public perceives of God in regard to His characteristics and engagement with the country and wider world. This is accomplished with surveys and interviews with the end goal of determining how the perceived notions of God contribute to and interrelate with perceptions of moral and political world views.
The American public, of course, has as many views of God as there are people as the results are actually going to be on a continua with no two survey participants feeling exactly the same way about any given characteristic or quality of God. For ease of statistics, the authors decided to divide these beliefs into four separate categories, acknowledging the variations in opinion within any given category. These four categories include the Authoritative God who is judgmental and engaged with the world, the Benevolent God who is nonjudgmental but still engaged with the world, the Critical God who is judgmental but not engaged with the cosmos, and the Distant God who is both nonjudgmental and not engaged with the world.
I found this approach to be helpful in generalizing trends and how beliefs inform the way people expect the Lord to operate in the world and how the individual might support or argue for moral and/or political beliefs to which they adhere. As might be expected, the tendency of the categories is from more conservative to more liberal, and these tendencies display themselves in the associated statistics.
Negatively, I think the book is too simplistic to be of any lasting value, and I am not persuaded it is really worthwhile for the present. As is often the case with sociological texts at the introductory level, the information presented seems to be common sense, and, aside from specific terminology, I feel that I was already aware of everything the authors presented. Further, the authors are too liberal in their assessment for belief in God to skew the figures so that it appears that Christians represent a larger percentage of the population than is accurate. A related issue is their apparent belief in the two branches of Christianity, thereby tremendously skewing the statistics in an invalid manner. Moreover, the copy I read was an e-book, and the graphs that make up the spine of the text were all partially missing, so that I had to infer what the charts were. Overall, I do not recommend this book as it is too sophomoric nd inaccurate for all but readers particularly interested in a sociological introduction to what they know before beginning the text. I sincerely think the book deserves 1.5 stars, but, since half stars are not allowed, I have rounded up to two.
The American public, of course, has as many views of God as there are people as the results are actually going to be on a continua with no two survey participants feeling exactly the same way about any given characteristic or quality of God. For ease of statistics, the authors decided to divide these beliefs into four separate categories, acknowledging the variations in opinion within any given category. These four categories include the Authoritative God who is judgmental and engaged with the world, the Benevolent God who is nonjudgmental but still engaged with the world, the Critical God who is judgmental but not engaged with the cosmos, and the Distant God who is both nonjudgmental and not engaged with the world.
I found this approach to be helpful in generalizing trends and how beliefs inform the way people expect the Lord to operate in the world and how the individual might support or argue for moral and/or political beliefs to which they adhere. As might be expected, the tendency of the categories is from more conservative to more liberal, and these tendencies display themselves in the associated statistics.
Negatively, I think the book is too simplistic to be of any lasting value, and I am not persuaded it is really worthwhile for the present. As is often the case with sociological texts at the introductory level, the information presented seems to be common sense, and, aside from specific terminology, I feel that I was already aware of everything the authors presented. Further, the authors are too liberal in their assessment for belief in God to skew the figures so that it appears that Christians represent a larger percentage of the population than is accurate. A related issue is their apparent belief in the two branches of Christianity, thereby tremendously skewing the statistics in an invalid manner. Moreover, the copy I read was an e-book, and the graphs that make up the spine of the text were all partially missing, so that I had to infer what the charts were. Overall, I do not recommend this book as it is too sophomoric nd inaccurate for all but readers particularly interested in a sociological introduction to what they know before beginning the text. I sincerely think the book deserves 1.5 stars, but, since half stars are not allowed, I have rounded up to two.
June 3, 2024
Paul Froese uses "America's Four Gods" to report the results from his team's analysis of the Baylor Religion Survey (about 3200 people) and individual interviews (106). He categorizes each response according to God's judgment of the world and God's interaction with the world. Based on these categories, he develops four archetypes of American views of God: the authoritative God, the benevolent God, the critical God, and the distant God. Froese spends much of the book evaluating the implications of holding these viewpoints.
This volume is interesting for its theological implications as well as its political implications. Froese includes the "God Questionnaire" for those interested, which represents pertinent parts of the Survey utilized for this project.
This book will appeal to academic readers of various disciplines but could be attractive to data-inclined others.
This volume is interesting for its theological implications as well as its political implications. Froese includes the "God Questionnaire" for those interested, which represents pertinent parts of the Survey utilized for this project.
This book will appeal to academic readers of various disciplines but could be attractive to data-inclined others.
January 28, 2018
This books tries to provide an explanation for the different versions of the same religion. It does this through surveys and anecdotes. The problem is that the anecdotes could be made up. The anecdotes leave you saying so? The book seeks to answer why we have so many different understandings about the nature of God. Thats where the survey comes in. These people say this. They also claim to believe this. Walking away from this book is easy. Sticking till the end is difficult, even if there is not much space between covers
January 25, 2019
This book places people in 4 categories dependent on how they view God: the Authoritative God, the Benevolent God, the Critical God and the Distant God. There are degrees within each one, of course. Numerous hot topic issues are looked at from the POV of each group, including politics. This book was assigned reading in one of my classes but it was a book I couldn't just scan ... it was very intriguing and interesting!! I read every word! I have been recommending it to friends.
January 12, 2022
Reading this as a Christian and a pastor is very eye opening. Froese and Bader give a wealth of information based on survey and interview. They have uncovered some truths about God and culture that are both shocking and affirming. This is definitely a helpful tool for someone in ministry. At one point they applaud Christian discipleship and confirm that making disciples works - even if they didn’t say it so explicitly.
September 1, 2021
How do you view God
A very Informative book that discusses the various views Americans have concerning God. The authors offer competing views and discuss how these views effect ones worldview.
A very Informative book that discusses the various views Americans have concerning God. The authors offer competing views and discuss how these views effect ones worldview.
March 22, 2025
Thought-provoking. I enjoyed the research and interviews and kind of the outsider looking in perspective.
So many books on God and religion are very personal. The authors tried to keep themselves out of it.
Their findings were fascinating, although I want a completely updated version.
So many books on God and religion are very personal. The authors tried to keep themselves out of it.
Their findings were fascinating, although I want a completely updated version.
April 1, 2011
A sociological investigation into the extent that various conceptions of God influence political and ethical thinking. It is based primarily on a statistical analysis of a survey questionnaire. This is of rather limited interest. More valuable is the field research interviews - the interrogation of people about their views on the nature of God. These are often quite interesting - especially those with the member of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. One can only guess how the choice of this particularly odd group to interview may have affected the study.
The study does provide statistical evidence there there is some correlation between one's conception of God and one's politics and ethics. A relationship is found primarily in those who view God as a stern, authoritarian judge, one who is highly active in the world punishing sin. These two factors, God's active presence in the world and the severity of his judgments, are the significant parameters - display the most correlation - are the most predictive - of political activity and ethical judgments - more so than, for example, denominational affiliation, or church attendance. The authors use these two factors to divide the study's population (a representative sampling of Americans - mostly Christians but with a tiny few of the Jewish faith or no faith at all) into four permutations, into four groups each with a different God conception: a stern, judgmental father active in the world punishing sin; a God of justice, distant from the world, displeased, but biding his time; a loving God active in the world, working miracles and blessing his people; or an inactive, distant God, one "not that 'in' to us", more a spiritual force than a personality. The authors do an exhaustive statistical analysis of all four groups - but the only group showing a significant relationship between the conception of God and political and ethical thought, is the group that believes that God is actively punishing sin in the here and now. This is not exactly surprising, nor does it take much research to conclude that religion is likely to influence the political activity, the moral judgments, of this particular group. After all, these are the folks who believe that God send a hurricane to show his displeasure with the New Orleans' Mardi Gras, that he crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center to signal his opposition to gay rights, who believe that he has no qualms about afflicting biblical devastation on entire nations, including the innocent, just to the punish the sins. Seems quite natural, self-evident, that these folks would take an active, ardent role in politics, especially right wing politics - that they would try to purify the nation of gays, and abortion clinics, and secular humanists, if only to protect themselves from being caught up in the inevitable, fast approaching, divine wrath.
The value of the book lies in the interviews, not the statistical tables. They vividly demonstrate how much of right wing, Christian conservatism, is motivated by the fear of an angry, punishing God. This conception explains much of their fanatical ardor. They think of themselves as modern day Lots trying to clean up Sodom before God is forced to destroy it, and time is running out. This motivation of theirs is clarifying. It is fear not love that fuels their political activity. It is not only spiritual self-interest, but the self-interest to preserve their well-being here on earth that is so compelling - that so influences their moral judgments, their politics. For example, in their anti-abortion activism, their motivating concern is not only, or primarily, for the fetus in the womb but for their own safety, the safety of their families, their material well-being - and what might happen to them should God decide to punish abortion, and believing that his punishment is inevitable. To save themselves, they must save the unborn. Seems incredible that people could have such a conception of God, but I found this insight into their thinking explanatory of much of the current political scene.
The research for this book has been funded by the John Templeton Foundation, a richly endowed institution that supports such research in the conviction that it increases spiritual understanding and faith while remaining scientific and ecumenical. Some of what is supported is valuable - however, much seems grant-driven "busy work". This book seems to fall somewhere in between.
The study does provide statistical evidence there there is some correlation between one's conception of God and one's politics and ethics. A relationship is found primarily in those who view God as a stern, authoritarian judge, one who is highly active in the world punishing sin. These two factors, God's active presence in the world and the severity of his judgments, are the significant parameters - display the most correlation - are the most predictive - of political activity and ethical judgments - more so than, for example, denominational affiliation, or church attendance. The authors use these two factors to divide the study's population (a representative sampling of Americans - mostly Christians but with a tiny few of the Jewish faith or no faith at all) into four permutations, into four groups each with a different God conception: a stern, judgmental father active in the world punishing sin; a God of justice, distant from the world, displeased, but biding his time; a loving God active in the world, working miracles and blessing his people; or an inactive, distant God, one "not that 'in' to us", more a spiritual force than a personality. The authors do an exhaustive statistical analysis of all four groups - but the only group showing a significant relationship between the conception of God and political and ethical thought, is the group that believes that God is actively punishing sin in the here and now. This is not exactly surprising, nor does it take much research to conclude that religion is likely to influence the political activity, the moral judgments, of this particular group. After all, these are the folks who believe that God send a hurricane to show his displeasure with the New Orleans' Mardi Gras, that he crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center to signal his opposition to gay rights, who believe that he has no qualms about afflicting biblical devastation on entire nations, including the innocent, just to the punish the sins. Seems quite natural, self-evident, that these folks would take an active, ardent role in politics, especially right wing politics - that they would try to purify the nation of gays, and abortion clinics, and secular humanists, if only to protect themselves from being caught up in the inevitable, fast approaching, divine wrath.
The value of the book lies in the interviews, not the statistical tables. They vividly demonstrate how much of right wing, Christian conservatism, is motivated by the fear of an angry, punishing God. This conception explains much of their fanatical ardor. They think of themselves as modern day Lots trying to clean up Sodom before God is forced to destroy it, and time is running out. This motivation of theirs is clarifying. It is fear not love that fuels their political activity. It is not only spiritual self-interest, but the self-interest to preserve their well-being here on earth that is so compelling - that so influences their moral judgments, their politics. For example, in their anti-abortion activism, their motivating concern is not only, or primarily, for the fetus in the womb but for their own safety, the safety of their families, their material well-being - and what might happen to them should God decide to punish abortion, and believing that his punishment is inevitable. To save themselves, they must save the unborn. Seems incredible that people could have such a conception of God, but I found this insight into their thinking explanatory of much of the current political scene.
The research for this book has been funded by the John Templeton Foundation, a richly endowed institution that supports such research in the conviction that it increases spiritual understanding and faith while remaining scientific and ecumenical. Some of what is supported is valuable - however, much seems grant-driven "busy work". This book seems to fall somewhere in between.
June 9, 2011
This book was the last selection for the season of our breakfast discussion group. The authors surveyed people across a wide spectrum of demographics with both a questionnaire about their perception of God and political and social beliefs. They categorized the belief in God in four broad areas.
1. Authoritarian God who is actively involved in our lives and also exerts wrathful judgement
2. Benevolent God who is actively involved, but forgiving and nurturing
3. Critical God who is not particularly involved-avoids direct interaction, but is displeased with evil and will harshly judge sinners at the final judgment
4. Distant God who set the universe in motion and then retreated to watch it unfold, and is not concerned with the judgment of mankind.
Note: A fifth category of those who considered themselves atheists was included
Several remarkable patterns were revealed by this study. One was that the belief in these four Gods was included in all of the religions and cultures they studied. For example they interviewed people in a small rural and isolated Baptist church with a pastor who was very much a "1" in the above categories and was certain that all of his congregation was there, but belief in the other 3 categories showed up in the surveys!
Most remarkable to our group, however, was that attitudes toward moral,social and political issues much more strongly paralleled how God was perceived than it did culture, economic position or even educational level!
The authors did an excellent job in sharing an objective presentation and explanation of the data, without sharing any personal bias toward any one perception of God.
1. Authoritarian God who is actively involved in our lives and also exerts wrathful judgement
2. Benevolent God who is actively involved, but forgiving and nurturing
3. Critical God who is not particularly involved-avoids direct interaction, but is displeased with evil and will harshly judge sinners at the final judgment
4. Distant God who set the universe in motion and then retreated to watch it unfold, and is not concerned with the judgment of mankind.
Note: A fifth category of those who considered themselves atheists was included
Several remarkable patterns were revealed by this study. One was that the belief in these four Gods was included in all of the religions and cultures they studied. For example they interviewed people in a small rural and isolated Baptist church with a pastor who was very much a "1" in the above categories and was certain that all of his congregation was there, but belief in the other 3 categories showed up in the surveys!
Most remarkable to our group, however, was that attitudes toward moral,social and political issues much more strongly paralleled how God was perceived than it did culture, economic position or even educational level!
The authors did an excellent job in sharing an objective presentation and explanation of the data, without sharing any personal bias toward any one perception of God.
May 27, 2014
America's Four Gods: What We Say About God - & What That Says About Us provides an interesting, comprehensive, & disappointing survey of American religious beliefs especially as to how Americans view God. People's belief in God is assessed according to two criteria: To what extent is God believed to interact with the world, & to what extent is God believed to judge the world. These two criteria produce five very different descriptions of God: An authoritative God who is both engaged & judgmental; a benevolent God who is engaged but nonjudgmental; a critical God who is judgmental & disengaged; a distant God who is nonjudgmental & disengaged; & the Un-God -- the belief held by Atheists that no God exists, or that they have no concept of God. Many people select one of the five concepts of God as a result of their childhood experience with religion, as modified by later life experiences.
If the message of this book were to be summed up in one phrase, it would be that the primary characteristic of modern religion is incoherency, a condition in which one will create their own concept of what should be worshipped or rejected.
The author in one place states, “While Americans tend to be religiously devout, we paradoxically tend to know very little about religion, our own or others.” Personally I would like to know how Christians, those who regularly attend church (at least 3 times a month) would have answered this survey.
The book gives great insight into what people think about God, this would be helpful for Christians seeking to share the Gospel with family, friends & co-workers. The book is a short, easy, & quick read.
If the message of this book were to be summed up in one phrase, it would be that the primary characteristic of modern religion is incoherency, a condition in which one will create their own concept of what should be worshipped or rejected.
The author in one place states, “While Americans tend to be religiously devout, we paradoxically tend to know very little about religion, our own or others.” Personally I would like to know how Christians, those who regularly attend church (at least 3 times a month) would have answered this survey.
The book gives great insight into what people think about God, this would be helpful for Christians seeking to share the Gospel with family, friends & co-workers. The book is a short, easy, & quick read.
September 5, 2011
America’s Four Gods is so seamless. It accounts for the beliefs of a majority of Americans.
The Authoritative God is engaged and judgmental
The Benevolent God is engaged but not judgmental
The Critical God is not engaged but judgmental
The Distant God is not engaged or judgmental
I read trying to find exceptions to their rules, but from the monotheistic perspective, they pretty much hold up across the board. I knew which Gods I wavered between and reading the first person accounts from other believers helped me to understand why. The authors are decidedly nonjudgmental in their reporting of people’s beliefs. The charts were incredibly helpful. Their larger project argues that Americans are not as extreme right conservative religious and left liberal atheist as both sides want each other to believe. That middle of the road-ism allows most Americans to be religious, and turns down the volume on the culture wars. They argue that belief in God is a better indicator of values and moralism than other religious measures like church attendance or sacred text engagement. How people talk about God might sound the same, but have the potential to reflect vastly divergent approaches to “moral absolutism, understandings of science, reactions to inequality, and responses to evil.” My strongest critique is that the book was better represented as its original Baylor Religious Survey results. There really was no need to drag it out as long as the book does.
The Authoritative God is engaged and judgmental
The Benevolent God is engaged but not judgmental
The Critical God is not engaged but judgmental
The Distant God is not engaged or judgmental
I read trying to find exceptions to their rules, but from the monotheistic perspective, they pretty much hold up across the board. I knew which Gods I wavered between and reading the first person accounts from other believers helped me to understand why. The authors are decidedly nonjudgmental in their reporting of people’s beliefs. The charts were incredibly helpful. Their larger project argues that Americans are not as extreme right conservative religious and left liberal atheist as both sides want each other to believe. That middle of the road-ism allows most Americans to be religious, and turns down the volume on the culture wars. They argue that belief in God is a better indicator of values and moralism than other religious measures like church attendance or sacred text engagement. How people talk about God might sound the same, but have the potential to reflect vastly divergent approaches to “moral absolutism, understandings of science, reactions to inequality, and responses to evil.” My strongest critique is that the book was better represented as its original Baylor Religious Survey results. There really was no need to drag it out as long as the book does.
November 17, 2010
Despite the sociological talk (and what would you expect from sociologists), Froese and Bader have written a book that explains a lot about America as a product of the Baylor Religion Survey. In short, Americans believe in four gods: the Authorititative God (who is engaged with the world and judgmental); the Benevolent God (who loves us and helps us in spite of our failings); the Critical God (who keeps track of our sins without punishing us--yet); and the distant God (who stands apart from the world). To understand which God an American believes in is to be able to predict his/her stance on a whole range of issues, both theological and social. The hope that they present is that all four visions posit a God who loves us, which opens the way for dialogue. It's worth the hard slog through the social science language.
December 23, 2013
We often assume there is some connection between religious belief and our social commitments. America’s Four Gods makes a powerful and clear case about how those relate. What people think about God’s interaction with and God’s judgment of the world apparently can tell us quite a lot about what they think about politics, morality, science & money, certainly more than those sorts of demographic facts can tell us about how people believe about God. Froese & Bader explain their research clearly, without bias. Some results are expected, but categorizing our senses of God helps very much to understand how and why Americans disagree so much.
March 19, 2014
In their book America’s Four God’s: What We Say About God & What That Says About Us, Paul Froese and Christopher Bader examine the different ways in which American’s view God and how said views determine their subsequent opinions on science, war, politics, economics, and morals. They claim that America is “not engaged in a battle between the secular and religious” (145) because, according to their data, ninety-five percent of Americans say that they believe in God.
I'm not sure I buy this conclusion, but the data is presented very well. I feel like the book could have been a presented in fewer pages, as there was a lot of repetitive content. However, it was helpful.
I'm not sure I buy this conclusion, but the data is presented very well. I feel like the book could have been a presented in fewer pages, as there was a lot of repetitive content. However, it was helpful.
February 24, 2014
An interesting premise and research but a bit overwritten. No huge surprises but a different way of understanding the "Culture Wars" and other points of disagreements among Americans over religion. It would be interesting to take the research deeper and compare to religious folk (particularly monotheists) in other countries. Some of the biases that crossed the authors' four categories seemed uniquely American to me.
July 2, 2014
Very intetesting book regarding how Americans perceive God. The author has four categories: Authoritative,Benevolent,Critical and Distant. While God is complex,as well as one's overall beliefs,I think the authors do a good job of summarizing people's basic premise of God. The book helps one to think about their own beliefs and even helps one to understand why others perceive things differently. At the end is a questionnaire to access your own beliefs.
March 29, 2015
Sociologists, ever fond of graphs and charts, show us some very interesting things about human behavior. In this insightful little book, Froese and Bader provide ample evidence that Americans do not mean the same thing when they refer to "God." They posit four distinct thoughts about God's nature and personality. I say more about the book on my blog: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World.
February 18, 2011
I always wondered why people vote against their best interests. This book shed some light on that for me. Because when you have a certain ideology, the facts really don't matter because your belief overrides anything rational.
This book also got me to think about my own views on God and what I believe so I definitely enjoyed it.
This book also got me to think about my own views on God and what I believe so I definitely enjoyed it.
May 23, 2011
I liked the concepts presented in the book. Looking at different people's conception of God to see how that influences their morals, ethics and politics is interesting. It's a tool that should certainly be utilized more in American social and political discourse. However, I think the book should've been condensed to an article. It became really repetitive towards the middle of the book.
May 18, 2013
This book had some interesting insights to it. It established some basic categories to understand the different ways Americans view God, and it offered some interesting reasons for why one American might view God differently than another. Then it said those rules don't always apply. Pretty interesting, nonetheless.
August 23, 2014
America's Four Gods present four ways Americans view God. One will find that none of the views of God are adequate. Perhaps no one except Christ has a complete view of God anyhow. However, one will find that how a person views God influences how the person views everything else in life. "America's Four Gods" is a must-read.
April 16, 2011
Interesting take on relationship between how Americans view God and how they position themselves politically. A dry read, but was a selection of our book club and author joined us by teleconference. Made for lively evening of discussion.
May 13, 2014
Sweeping generalizations and philosophical assumptions characterize this sociological book about Americans and their belief in 'God.' Drawn out; ideally there was not enough information in this to write a complete book. Not worth the read.
November 18, 2014
I give this a three stars because it was a little boring to me, not because it wasn't written well, but because it didn't really present anything that you can't figure out on your own. A good book for atheists to check out.
Want to read
October 8, 2010Heard about this last night on the news. Fascinating stuff--and the little bit I heard confirmed a lot of my assumptions about people and the way they think about God.
November 16, 2010
Baylor sociologists examines how our view of God impacts our decisions and our politics. Very academic but well-written and highly informative.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews