God is not One, and neither are the religions

Thank you so much for stating the obvious. The statement of it couldn't have come at a better time. As France is embarking on limiting French woman's right to choose how they demonstrate what they feel is pleasing to Allah, the danger of believing that Islam is just another form of Christianity, Buddism, Judiasm or the Daoism could not more markedly been drawn out.
Not recognizing that one can't bring Christianity's understanding to deciding whether or not Islam both allows and supports a woman's choice to share her face only with her family and friends leads to the most unfortunate situation that is happening in France. By the way there is absolutely no difference of opinion among the ulema that women have this right to wear a niqab. There just a difference as to whether it is merely preferred or recommended. A non believer isn't expected by anyone to understand or even appreciate the argumments regarding this issue, yet these same people arrogantly are commenting and legislating about that which they know not. A horrible example of just the dangers your piece warns us all against. Again thanks.

"Perhaps I am missing something, but I have yet to find a view of interreligious unity that does not reek of colonialism and empire."

Stopping religious conflict reeks of establishing a status quo in which entrenched interests dominate. However, the opposite is eternal conflict, and given the current ability for human beings to inflict ruin on the other, spells doom. Got any ideas, Dr. Prothero?

'All of these divine entities are essentially the same. They are illusions.'

Illusion is the essence of all religions - the myths, metaphors, personalities, and symbology vary greatly, but all emerge from a very fertile human imagination.

The ordinary mind of man is the apex of the mystery.....

Prothro wrote: ...Perhaps I am missing something, but I have yet to find a view of interreligious unity that does not reek of colonialism and empire.
____________________________________________________________

Many psychologists, psychiatrists, evolutionary biologists, social scientists and atheists have "a view of interreligious unity that does not reek of colonialism and empire."

Are all religions the same?

No.

Religions are different. Their manifestation and revelation is different. The Source is One. Please all read the next blog by Mr Ken Bowers. He explains the Baha'i theology on this topic very well. I am disappointed Dr. Prothero has not read/did not care to reference the coherent Baha'i viewpoint on this topic. Surely he has studied it. Or has he not? It's so simple a child can understand it.

robertajkaufman3 | July 9, 2010 6:45 PM

That was very beautiful. A bit of purest, coolest silver shining midst all the hot, whirling sandstorms of atheists. I am going to repost it with some phrasing. Hope you don't mind.

We all climb mountains, life is a journey a river of opionions we all have to swim thru.

We reach for the ones that we think will help us stay afloat that sound right that allow us the lifestyle we choose, afford us what we endeavor.

We choose what we are taught by our leaders or peoples who most influence us in this living

but then some have been awakened by a god who sits on the heart and begins to untangle the great knot of all we have accumulated that left us yearning for more

and then we fall into a king, a kingdom, a land so pure that we hunger in our spirit to be there.

this holy comunion if continued will ultimately place you on the mountain and where regardless what we have gathered regardless every knee shall bow and we shall see him as he is beautiful,Christ redeemed or not.

He is a risen lord and a very present help in times of trouble

I agree with Navin1. There can only be one God. We choose to embrace him in the way we best understand. In most instances influenced by our early childhood experiences and teachings or in later life as a result of becoming despondent with our ex religion. As long as we are, in all of this, seeking God with respect, fear and trembling we should not concern ourselves so much with who is right and who is wrong but rather let our behaviours toward each other influence the path or direction we would like others to follow.

i,m so surprised at professors and academics of religion,

instead of saying the scripture said so and so,they say dalai lama said so,armstrong said so,smith said so,as a matter of fact aunty said so,mama,s culture said so,dad as a culture artist said so.

nothing fail nations like human said so,and nothing double fail nations like delusional academics and profs who because they said so naive people take it to bank .

hallelujah !!!!

To supplement the previous comment:
Bio evolution is nothing but cosmic play of DNA molecules in young mind of consciousness which gives him the power of a beam to focus on the DNA particle and there is a cosmic dance which creates music and connects the body, mind, and soul in ‘One’! Even the Higgs Boson (God particle) is making music in twelve dimensions in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) near Geneva in Switzerland. Dancing of this molecule in the sub consciousness of human mind is the expression of his music which melts at one point that gives him the power to travel on cosmoses at will as the Transcendental meditation tells us. Is that not great thing to inherit the DNA from your parent? Jumping genes in DNA molecule in the mind take its path to better evolution good or bad, happy or unhappy. Nobody can check the impulses (Chitta). You may report it early, late or it may vanish unreported or remain near neutral. Is that not interesting from evolution point of view? Imagination is mother of science and its soul is colorless, its spirit is a very powerful truth!
An inner life is not that any photograph can depicts but it is a dark hot, vibrant, churning like wheel as that of galaxies. And in a fraction of time what you imbibe is net result of Godly expression which may be beautiful or dirty in spiritual senses for perpetuating the very Life which origins from circle or dot (Bindu)!
Sun’s Rays created organic evolution and evolution multiplied by DNA recombination. So the cosmic dance of DNA in human consciousness has created Atomic Smasher in Hydron collision. DNA cosmic dance in human mind and body, God’s dance in Atomic Smasher and Cosmic dance of Galaxies in multiple of twelve dimensions in the space is same phenomenon that only he who knows the secrets the visible (evolution), the science of creation, May glimpse the invisible, the Creator behind the creation without which evolution cannot proceed! Is that not God? Supreme Power!

• It is nothing but play of DNA molecules in young mind which gives him the power of a beam to focus on the DNA particle and there is a cosmic dance which creates music and connects the body, mind, and soul in One! Dancing of this molecule is the expression of His musical thought which melts at one point that gives him the power to Transcend (travel) on cosmoses at will. Is that not great thing to inherit the DNA from your parent? DNA molecule in the mind takes its path to better evolution good or bad, happy or unhappy. Nobody can check the impulses. You may report it early, late or it may vanish unreported. Is that not interesting? An inner life is not that photograph depicts but it is a dark hot, vibrant, churning like wheel. And in a fraction of time what you imbibe is net result of Godly expression which may be beautiful or dirty in spiritual senses for perpetuating the very Life!! So there is One God with Many paths.

The Dalai Lama has given you, not his own view, but a piece of Buddhist doctrine. Gods exist, but it is very unfortunate for them. Their godhead prevents them from achieving enlightenment. They are bound to the wheel forever. Buddhism has consumed entire panoplies, Hindu and Tibetan. All of these divine entities are essentially the same. They are illusions.

Buddhism defined [wrong faith] and [right faith]. Wrong faith is to place faith on other/s.
Right faith is to place faith on oneself and oneself only, of course with skillful knowledge as well.

Can you show us some pictures of those many Gods you say exist?

and to make this claim, you have to acknowledge the real idea that there is not one god, as several Judeo-Christian religions INSIST upon - then I remind them on occasions, the Christians bent on disrespecting other religions are also calling on the "Dominae, Filiae, et the Spiritua Sanctus".

In ignoring it's very tenets of father son, and holy spirit, they will turn around and simultaneously put down the notion of the Hindus, who have a wide selection of dieties to choose from.

So I agree basically that there is more than one "version" of God.

Let's see how Christians and other "so-called-monotheistic" religious folk deal with this assertion.

It has been my experience that they tend to gulp, try frantically to incant some scripture - often badly - and then quit evangelizing about one God in heaven versus "pagans", you know, the ones that Moses spoke of in the Commandments.

What sets some of these religions apart is the thirst for power.

I've never encountered a Buddhist or Hindu that insisted, or made it their life's work to convince anyone that their religion, or Dharma, is something that they so urgently need to impart on another.

Therein lies some real truth, as well.

As the organized power struggle is simply not a part of the Dharma. I'm thinking Holy Roman empire and all its re-iterations of itself and the force of political, religious, and military might against the rest of the world; a power-seeking governmental force of politics, religion, and might.

So if you don't believe in the 'One', then you may be asked to leave some of these organizations if you argue with them long enough...I was.

And haven't regretted on second of it.
It is considered a huge upgrade, to me, leaving the myopic space of Christianity.

Not missing it.

And hoping that westerners start to wake up to the way things have been done since the dawn of time.

Because westerners really are xenophobic when it comes to religions.

They could care less that in the Indus Valley, thousands of years prior to Christianity, there was the beginnings of Dharma - something that this article kind of mangles.

The "oneness" the Dalai Lama speaks about goes to "duality" or the lack of it, and not the "oneness" of God.

Clues for you would surely be enriching in my humble opinion.

Opium is the religion of the people.

God is not one. God may in fact be less than one, zero to be exact. There's no conclusive evidence that God exists. There is just belief. As Mark Twain pointed out, "faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Religions are not one. If they were, then there'd be no reason for people of different faiths to kill each other.

One problem with religions is that their respective believers tend to be convinced that their religion is all good and any idea differing from their religion is misguided at best and evil and dangerous at worst.

The net effect of religions has frequently been spectacularly negative as a result of this belief, but everyone blames it on the other guy's wrongheaded, misguided, evil religion. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in particular, have been doing this for centuries. 9/11 and, in large part, the American reaction to it, was driven by this

There are certainly also positive effects of religion, but those are harder to capture on the news. They tend to affect individual lives.

For Buddhism, which does not propose a central creator god (the various deities in some Buddhists sects are methaphors), all theisms are incorrect. The Buddha was not a god but a man who, having examined all the religions and philosophies available to him at the time, found all religions and philosophies powerless in the face of human suffering. He sought to find an answer to that.

Theisms generally begin with the fundamental predicate that "God exists." Buddhism begins with the fact of suffering: life is suffering, death is suffering, old age and sickness are suffering. This difference in the fundamental conception leads Buddhism to a very different place than theisms. For one thing, the existence of suffering can be directly demonstrated; the existence of a god cannot. For another, Buddhism is not reliant on the whims of divine intervention- it relies on human action to alleviate suffering. For a third, there is no eternal heaven to reward to faithful or hell to punish unbelievers. Buddhism doesn't scare it's adherents into believing them, it demonstrates through practical experience and logic.

Buddhism teaches the cessation of suffering here and now. Other religions are far too often the cause of suffering.

all religions are one big lie

the bigger the better

we all climb mountains life is a journey a river of opionions we all have to swim thru.we reach for the ones that we think will help us stay afloat that sound right that allow us the lifestyle we choose afford us what we endeavor. we choose what we are taught by our leaders or peoples who most influence us in this living but then some have been awakened by a god who sits on the heart and begins to untangle the great knot of all we have accumulated that left us yearning for more and then we fall into a king a kingdom a land so pure that we hunger in our spirit to be there this holy comunion if continued will ultimately place you on the mountain and where regardless what we have gathered regardless every knee shall bow and we shall see him as he is beautifulchrist redeemed or not. he is a risen lord and a very present help in times of trouble

Brother PROTHERO, A Nice & Candid Essay.

MAN-MADE G-D/ALLAH/ISHVARA lalala "Institution"s (Tax Exempt entities treated as Persons) are human made SYSTEMs Competing for a name for "MY MAN-MADE RELIGION" (organized) instead of "MY NATURAL-iNNATE RELIGION" (iNdividual). Competing for Minds, like cows or mops, is Big Business. In America or elsewhere.

Weather POLY-Theo, Mono-Theo or Between, Weak Minded or Board Adults have nothing else better to do but to dabble in Childish Tau{tology entertained as if for Mature-Audiences!?

BEiNG BORN is a Miracle. Not a Sin nor any Curse'th Story. Our SKIN-Organ is like a Book Cover. WE art each Naturally-pr-written & Naturally pre-Printed (Created in Mint Condition like but in immaculate real-conception) by "IT" {aka Father PHOTONs & Mother TEMPERATURE if ye will) So

Within each body there are 23 + 23 Holyi Chromosomal Pages embedded. 1 set from Gonads (Dad) & other set from Uterus (Mom). Yet Each BODY today via 6 Billion Individuals as walking Books or GAM{ETE of the Creator, our Cosmic-Publisher or Cosmic-Author, of such Bio-Finite & Carbon based Photons/Life forms, [US], who innately must Follows IT"s Script (Re-G-Dless). Both from a Microscopic story (DNA/Protein Replicating US) to a Macro story (our Senses & Knowledge/Experience) awareness/Consciousness. Eurika; Morality!

Each iNdividual Mind, (remember Ye art What Ye Remember) via the Holyi Frontal-Lobe of Brain has IT's own innate Holy Cosmic ISBN # embedded therein so to spaketh. i.e. i (Mr. #"JJ") or like YO (Mr. #S.P.) Note: Like Any Religion via their, NOt our Chumash/Bibles, Geeta/Gita, Kangyur/Tangyurs, Quran/Koran THAT

Each Unique HUUMATE or Persons Social Security #'s Or National I.D. (Not I.ntelli D.esign either) are also Man-Made Systems.
1 of 2

continued

POiNT: Each iNdividual Has [Nameless] "RELiGION". And Man-Made Religion SYSTEM(s) or even if claimed other(un)wise via paper Books & or Symbolic Rituals, is all "Inferior-Religio-Preoccupation" with "GROUP-TAUTOLOGY" or self! But

but IF there's TRUE (opposite MYTH) Religion Awareness outside of Our Collective (i)-Selves Then it is being Conscious That the-UNiVERSE, as We (i) Learn & See & Experience IT, is Our [Real] CONSTITUTION (Holy Holy Holy) and that The CLAUSES therefrom is our O.U.R. (One Universal Religion) Natural LAWS simply For US TO: Magnify IT, Uphold IT & Make (IT) Honorable, As Is! In Order To Know, in order To Predict & in order Control is NOt good enough!

As a Barometer For discovering Apocalyptarianity (Superiority) in People or find for Pre-Apocalyptarianity (inferiority) in Any Group or person that Uses such Man-Made Book to Project their G-D, in Unison to selves or others; Tells US How many SUPERSTUPIDSTITIOUS Folks there are on S.pace S.hip (NEBULA-BUiLT) Earth or in One's own Nabe/Ummah or Country.

Remember: Stupid People are Dangerous to Selves, others & This Planet. This is what WE Apocalyptarians [HUUMATEs] are up against (Them Pre-Apocalyptarians [Humans]). THEREFORE:

A Man-Made-Religion-FREE Earth is slowly but surely evolving. Even if Billions of more People Must justifiably Kill or get unjustifiably Killed over such Thinking. And it Begins with One Person at a Time. SO

There's still about 1.144444 Billion Years Left To Go for them HUmans, NOt Us HUUMATES, to Wake-Up or catch-up or both. Note: Being Left Behind Technologically is Every Religionist Fear. Hence JEALOUSY O Secularism.

TRUE Religion Does NOt need any kind of 'Tolerence'! Only Man-Made Religions need to be Tolerated? G-D Made or Makes HUMAN's; Not Bibles/Chumash, Koran/Qurans, Geeta/Gita's, Kangyurs/Tangyurs.. It's Invisible to Any Heart & Mind. Only Felt. Not written; NOt read.

"US-conscience" said, at 4:20 PM:

There are only two fundamental types of Religions.

1. works righteousness types - ( this includes ALL religions except Christianity - Hinduism, Islam, Budhism, Catholicism, Jehova Witnesses, Mormons etc. etc. etc. ) This type says : Work, act, purge, yourself ( do good works, get rid of desires, meditate, do yoga ....) until you are "good enough" to go to the next level or become one with the oneness or go to paradise. Its up to you to better yourself and attain for yourself that next level or whatever.

2. Christianity - This says that you are not good and can do nothing to attain or earn or merit your way to communion with God. God came to Earth in the form of Jesus Christ and paid the ransom for your unrighteousness completely. It is a free gift that has already been accomplished and is freely given to all who will repent and put their faith in Jesus.

summerize:

1. works righteousness, self earned.

2. Christ's righteousnes, free gift.

Posted by: US-conscience | July 9, 2010 4:20 PM

==========================================

You tried to slip a fast one past me, but I caught it. You claim that Christianity is a "free gift" and I don't have to, indeed I can't, do anything to earn it. But then at the end, you reveal your true colors when you say that I have to "put [my] faith in Jesus." In other words, I have to join your silly little club, don't I? God isn't about to give me any free gift or show me any unconditional love after all, is he? If I don't bow down and submit to your priests, I burn in hell forever, don't I? That's really what Christianity is all about. "Join my club or else"--that sounds like a threat to me, not a "free gift".

They ARE all the same: they are based on faith.

They ARE all the same. They all are based on lies and fairy tales. They are all weapons used by the elite class to keep the peasants in their place.

Dear Professor Prothero.

Thank you for your interesting thoughts.

They seem to come around full circle, however.

If all religions are different, then you must have established certain distinguishing criteria (in this case, one is theological -- the trinity, while one is based on praxis -- the hajj). Are these the distinguishing factors that a Christian would present when pointing out the difference between Christianity and Islam? Or is it the difference that a Muslim would point out? The distinguishing markers between Christianity and Islam are different for a Christian and likewise for a Muslim.

Indeed, the fact that Islam incorporates (and supercedes) Christianity by re-envisioning it as the Islamic message that has been warped in the hands of Christians suggests that Christianity is a part of the universalized Muslim world-view just as all universalizing world-views (including your own) must find a proper place for everything.

To take your analogy of the mountain, I would ask in reply: Where do you stand and see these differences? Is it from the mountain where you see the clear dividing lines between Christianity, Islam, Buddhism? If so, how do you distinguish your mountain from which you see difference from the condescension and colonialism that takes place on the mountain where the "perennials" see oneness? Does not your mountain equally suggest colonialism?

Finally, and on a related note, contrast requires comparison. Difference requires (and assumes) similarity. Your contrast of opinions on God means that you have found some degree of similarity that renders contrast a useful tool.

Respectfully yours

Thanks for your intellectual courage. It's an encouraging surprise to read this in an American mainstream newspaper.

So you are saying there are different Gods for different people or religions or for different time zones or whatever. Now that is what I call illumination.

Well the dogmas (assumed facts) are all different. But really, who cares about a bunch of niggling nabobs arguing about specifics they are only pretending to know anyway. Nobody knows what happens after death, nobody knows if there a god/godette/gods and nobody knows why we are here.

What appears to be the same is that all religions try to come up with pretend answers to these unknowns that makes people feel better. It's the what makes people feel better part that is interesting. This is where you can actually learn something about human nature, rather than just argue about specifics. Just generally a more useful thing to focus on, which is why Armstrong and the Lama are pointing us in that direction. Fair play, justice, kindness to your fellow man, an optimistic and hopeful belief in the future, the importance of being part of a community, a sense of awe and amazement, generally cool stuff which makes people happier and more pleasant to be around. I guess you could play around with studying the differences as a way of gaining infomation about different ways that geography and culture affect the strategies that religions people go about creating these positive emotions. But generally, it stikes me that all the differences really amount to listening to somebody from New York arguing with somebody from San Francisco about the route you should take to get to Kansas City. But you're the theologian and you've got to come up with something to do with your time.

Professor Prothero,

Do I understand you correctly? You say that, because different religions have different beliefs and practices, they are inherently different and therefore must be understood to worship different Gods. Do you accept, then, that Catholics and Protestants worship different Gods?

The fact is, within every religion (and not just Christianity), there are denominations that believe and practice differently, but the adherents of the different denominations (fundamentalists aside) don't consider their differences to outweigh their similarities. And (fundamentalists aside) they certainly don't believe those in other denominations worship a different God.

Most educated people who have learned about the beliefs and practices of the various religions recognize the differences, but also are amazed at the underlying commonalities.

It is a matter of perspective. While some would focus on the similarities, you (and others) only focus on the differences. That is, of course, your prerogative. But it is thinking like that that creates the ignorance and fear that results in religious bigotry, religious harassment, religious discrimination, and religious persecution.

Those who truly embrace religious pluralism not only recognize the similarities in other religions, they accept and embrace the differences. They don't just tolerate the differences. They value the differences.

You yourself mentioned mystics. In all religions, at all times, there have been those who recognize that Deity is Mystery, that Deity is undefinable by us because our capacity to understand is limited.

While fundamentalists of all kinds insist that they have the capacity to completely understand what Deity is, mystics accept that humans lack that capacity.

Mystics have always understood that what particular beliefs one has, and what particular practices one does, cannot change or limit Deity. Whether the worshipper defines Deity as male or female, anthropormorphic or abstract, transcendent or immanent, personal or cosmic, it cannot change or limit the Mystery.

Mystics recognize that any image or definition of Deity is really an attempt to understand the Mystery, and therefore is legitimate. Mystics recognize that any image or definition that provides inspiration or comfort to the believer should be respected.

Thus, from a mystic's point of view, whether someone has different religious beliefs or practices is irrelevant.

There are only two fundamental types of Religions.

1. works righteousness types - ( this includes ALL religions except Christianity - Hinduism, Islam, Budhism, Catholicism, Jehova Witnesses, Mormons etc. etc. etc. ) This type says : Work, act, purge, yourself ( do good works, get rid of desires, meditate, do yoga ....) until you are "good enough" to go to the next level or become one with the oneness or go to paradise. Its up to you to better yourself and attain for yourself that next level or whatever.

2. Christianity - This says that you are not good and can do nothing to attain or earn or merit your way to communion with God. God came to Earth in the form of Jesus Christ and paid the ransom for your unrighteousness completely. It is a free gift that has already been accomplished and is freely given to all who will repent and put their faith in Jesus.

summerize:

1. works righteousness, self earned.

2. Christ's righteousnes, free gift.

You're right. I used to think that all religions were equally stupid, but I now believe that the Muslims are the worst and the Buddhists the best. That's because the Muslin religion treats women bad and the Buddhists don't have a creator god. Actually Christian Catholics treat women pretty poorly, too, so maybe I was right in the beginning.

Religions are similar in that they attempt to reach that which is transcendent. Whether you address that as a single God or multiple gods makes no difference. Archetypes are similar also. The methods are different because they are local expressions of these universal archetypes. There are similarities in stories, such as, great floods, perfect gardens, virgin births and fallen angels, to name a few. So, I have to say I disagree.

Religion can be either good or bad but what all religion has in common is it is all superstition based on the fear of our own insignificance in face of a unfathomable and uncaring universe.
If you can rid your ego of your exaggerated sense of importance you can control your fear and then you will find that religion is just another crutch.

Religion: Mankind's Bane!

Religion is a reflection of what lies within, what is held to be important, what is wanted, what is needed. As this is necisarilly different for each person, so there are an infinate number of religions. The major religions that are defined and passed down through generations form the main framework for how this is expressed. The holy books provide the language, the traditions provide the canvas of expression. While they use the same mediums there are no two christians, or two muslums, or two buddhists who truly believe the same thing. Every person's religion is unique. Every person defines who, what, and where God is, and what role He or She or they play in their lives.

As culture plays an obvious role in the development of a particular person's needs, expectations, desires, and ideas the same major religions are often passed down through families. In this country this has become less definate, as other influences such as television and the internet are broadening the influences on a person. But in countries such as Iraq or Iran tv and internet play less of a role still today, and the familial views tend to be passed. This allows a single religion to dominate an area and persist for centuries. The overlying attitudes change, but the underlying framework remains.

This said, there are some universal human attitudes that play a major role in almost every religion. The buddhist idea of enlightenment and the christian concept of getting to know God on a personal level both represent the need for understanding. That most every religion teaches the same kinds of things is hardly surprising then.

In the end the answer to the question "are religions the same?" is a definate no. Every person has different ideas and needs, so every person's religion is different. Groups of people with similar religious ideas form around a leader who provides them with a framework that they like, which forms churches, and groups of similar churches form the major religions. The prevelance of such proves that because people are similar, their religions tend to be similar, but they are still unique. So, yes, the different religions share some basic teachings, but the cultures and individuals make each unique.

All religions differ in terms of religous ritual, customs, language, theology and practices.

Where they are all ONE is that all hold to the same fundamental truths and the Dalai Lama and numerous others here have noted.

"Fundamentalists" though are the first to deny these fundamental truths.

The trinity is not very important to Christians, unless you are a Christian theologian, whose job it is to tell all the Christians how important the trinity is; and the haj isn't very important to Muslims, unless you are a Muslim theologian whose job it is to tell all the Muslims how imporant the haj is.

Orangized religions have in common, committess of theologians whose job it is to tell everyone else what God is and what God wants, and whose job it is to figure out how to get everyone to believe them. And these theological rules and legalities are invented for all kinds of reasons that run far afield from anyone's interest in God.

Of course religions differ tremendously, and in most cases the competition between religions turns into mass murder and invidious discrimination. Ask the Jews, Shiites, Sunni, Bahaii, endless Catholic v Protestant wars and etc. Can you name a religion which does not claim to be the one True Religion? Can you name a religion which accepts the odd customs of another religion as having religious validity? The idea that all "are the same" comes from the fear that religion will otherwise be vividly seen as a murder machine which far outweighs its generic claims of goodness. What is the point of being part of religion A if B, C and D have equal validity; it makes no sense and the idea is belied by the action of the religious. The competition of ideas and members in religion has historically led to mass murder and continues apace today.

God is One and God is Three Divine Persons in One God - He has confirmed this truth by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And God has now blessed you by permitting you to read this comment and to have this truth communicated to you.

That there are differences between the religious practices and creeds is too obvious to need restatement. No one, not even Armstrong, Smith, or the Dalai Lama, disagrees with that. There are two deeper questions, and they need to be kept distinct. First, do all religions say the same thing? Second, are all religions about the same thing?

The best answer to the first question is yes and no. At the general level at which the perennialists speak, yes. The religions share a belief that the world of ordinary experience is not ultimate, that there are values higher than the satisfaction of worldly desires, and that religion allows us to transcend this world and the desires that bind us to it.
But the religions articulate these understandings differently. The nature of the transcendent is sometimes considered personal, sometimes impersonal and, in the Buddhist case, more an unreality than a reality. Religions offer different analyses of the human condition and how our relation to reality or non-reality saves or liberates us from it.

While some aspects of these issues are primarily matters of faith, and not readily available for argument, other aspects pertain to our common humanity and the world we all share. Jewish and Christian concepts of sin are similar to Hindu and Buddhist notions of ignorance, but they illuminate the human condition differently, and we can readily debate about which is truer to human experience. It may well be that both are enlightening, just as different philosophies – romantic and classic, realist and idealist, universalist and particularist – illuminate life and the world in different ways, with their own pluses and minuses.

Instead of simplifying these questions into a simple either/or, it would be fruitful to explore what each tradition illuminates and what it obscures, to adapt insights from other traditions into our own, to note possible blind spots in other traditions and to learn from the blind spots they detect in our own tradition.

Our secular friends think they stand firmly in the truth and against all religions, but theirs is just another world-view that illuminates some things and obscures others. They could benefit from the same spirit of exploration, of sincerely giving criticism and graciously accepting it, that informs religious dialogue.

Stephen Prothero tries to develop another argument over the same old thing -- religion. This is so he can sell books and worship the one universal god -- money.

I know! Why don't we have a series of wars and see which religion can honestly claim to have the "one true god." Or would that be proving the new atheists' point about religion once again?

But what the Abrahamic religions do share is the belief that God is an angry old man with a beard in the sky who created homosexuals in his image for the pleasure of his followers who find sick pleasure in tormenting them.

I think you are asking/discussing the wrong question. The question distills down to "who is God?" and "what is the nature/character of God?" Our view of who God is, or who we've been told God is, very much determines what religion we choose and how we treat others. There may be overlap among religions as to what is valued, but the God "at the top of the mountain" differs depending on what sect/denomination you talk to. I believe that there is only one true God and He said that following Him was the only route to salvation, but the choice to follow or not to follow is purely a free will option.

You're right, not one god, just one big heterogeneous superstitious way of dealing with the cosmos, the little bit we understand and the majority of which we do not.

There are as many gods as there are people. Everyone creates his own notioin of god. But in general god is the explanation of somethings that we can't understand. While everyone has a personal god, everyone also dislikes another person's god. That is, every person who is a theist is at the same time an atheist - his god is better than someone else's. Many descriptions of god are "captured" by some persons who develop followers who want to "believe" in that particular notion of god. Some gods are mean, some are nice, some like men, some like women, some are "old men upstairs," some reflect various aspects of nature, and so on and on. There are people who think that the 72 books of the bible are the"word of God," I think that the bible is the "word about God." And so on and on. Some people even go to war to defend their notion of god. One of the worse images of God is that she is a right wing conservative. Anyway, I could go on and on as we trained theologians do, but we should simply respect another's persons view of God unless it is racist, punitive or someone who can change nature through "prayer" and various rituals. For many people, their God is too small.

Actually Stephen, all religions ARE the same. Their common, fundamental postulates are the beleif in something greater than us, and that there are basic rules for living in accordance with that something.

The differences are in what that something is, and what the rules are.

So the Dalai Lama is actually correct by refering to the "'oneness' of all religions and the idea that all religions preach the same message of love, tolerance and compassion."

You mistake the lack of universality of love, tolerance, and compassion for all people for the absence of a univeral beleif; when in fact, by the basic rules common to all religions, those defined to be deserving of love tolerance and compassion as where the differences start.

I still prefer the story of the six men and the elephant. I think it's a perfect description of the different ways people perceive truth.

The writer noted that there is a certain amount of condescension involved whenever we ascribe similarities to religions that just aren't there.

That is true. I would also gently add that claiming to know what god isn't can be just as condescending as claiming to know what god is.

Hazmat77 says "God is purely in the minds of the believers".

I'd rather say that God is purely in the Psyche (Soul) of the believer.

Their are some 6 billion humans.
I suggest there are 6 billion Gods.
Each of us has a unique Psyche, soul, belief, God in us. My narrow experience of the several thousand humans to whom I have related personnally over my 60 years has lead me to believe that the God in each of us is a connection to One God, who is infinitely larger than we can imagine.

They say, birds of a feather flock together. And that is how we end up with millions of people seemingly adhering to a single belief. The flock is defined culturally, economically, ethnically, etc. But even each of those individual birds in that flock has a unique Psyche. Same for bee hives. Same for ant hills. Same for humans. Each of these creatures has two things in common. They each have a unique connection to God through their Psyche, and they each physically die, at which time they will find out the truth. Meanwhile, most of us humans try to live together using these things we call love, compassion, hope, service, faith, etc. Some small minority of us use the opposites of those words, hate, greed, etc. Sometimes a member of that minority rises to the top, Hitler, Stalin, etc. They all have, and we all will, learn the truth at our physical deaths.
Given this paradigm through my life's experience, I at least can try to act and react in this World in a way that respects and honors the God in each person I encounter, as opposed to condemn and dismiss. I consider myself a Christian. I see Jesus living in this way through the scant history we have about him. I see other faith leaders of human history follow the same paradigm, to a large extent.

Dr. Prothero's premise is false, in my view. Indeed, religions are not one. Religions' definition of God may differ, but God at the core is One, and no religion I see has God defined perfectly correctly. As I say, you'll find out when your body dies!

Stephen Prothero said "Perhaps I am missing something, but I have yet to find a view of interreligious unity that does not reek of colonialism and empire. . ."

Yep. You are missing something.

Ever hear of Joseph Campbell? If acceptance and respect -- reverence even -- for other cultures and beliefs is colonialism, then I guess your premise is correct. Otherwise, as you suggested, you certainly are missing something.

And then there are the animistic religions of Africa and the pre-Columbian Americas.

O Dana, your argument, «that the world's religions differ, and differ fundamentally», this is a good argument, but the title of your book, this is a bad title. Many people, they do not know that the Creator is one, they do not even know He exists, but atheistic ignorance and Trinitarian polytheistic mumbo-jumbo, they are not evidence that He is not one, just that He is not yet recognized as one, His name is not yet recognized as one, just wait until the Mahdi comes!

Motorist Rodney King, he had the right idea, ¿can we not all get along? Can we not all get along, our religions, our gods, our goddesses, can we not all get along and not try to force others that they must bow down, prostrate themselves and worship our gods and behave as we think our gods and goddesses have told us to behave?

Ahmadiyya Muslims, Pakistan persecutes Ahmadiyya Muslims, Pakistani police, they break up Ahmadiyya Muslim weddings, they tell the groom, «you are not Muslims!». Iraqi Muslims, secular-feminist Americans conquer Muslim Iraq, American Zionist law professor draws up a constitution to impose on Iraqi Muslims, there must be a «quota» for women Iraqis in Parliament, Americans try to impose their secular feminist «goddess of gender equality» on Afghani Muslims, on Iraqi Muslims. «Main stream» Protestant Christians, they say, «you must accept invert ministers, invert priests, even invert Suffragan bishops», men marry men, ladies marry ladies, but let an innocent Muslim try to marry an extra wife or two, «¡oh, no! Only one to a customer, our Christian Bible says so, we make it Federal law».

O Dana, you are right, there are many religions, many deluded people bow down to emptiness and vanity, they worship a god who cannot save, they worship a «bloomin' idol made o' mud», they worship a bitter goddess who seeks to break up peaceful traditional patriarchal societies and families. The End Times, the Mahdi comes, the Bible predicts, «in summer and in winter shall it be, And the Lord shall be King over all the earth, In that day shall the Lord be One, and His name one», but until that day comes, the idolators, Trinitarians and secular feminists, we cannot force them to recognize His name (they will recognize it in the End Times!), but neither can we let them force us to practice idolatry, son-and-holy-ghost-worship, or gender equality.

Yes, Steven, you are missing something.

Religions are all the same in that their "story" of god is different and their practices, dogmas, and beliefs about their god are different.

Religions are the same in that you will never find god in a religion or it's text or it's dogma or belief. All religions are the same in that they can inspire contemplation of a god, only.

God and religion do not necessarily go hand in hand. Folks can practice a religion all their days and only end up knowing their religion while never understanding god.

There is a belief that man is created in the image and likeness of god and all religions have created a god in the image and likeness of themselves.

What does it mean that we are created in the image and likeness of god? Since god is beyond image it stands to reason that our true Nature is also beyond image. What kind of religion can be created that is beyond image. Certainly, there is not one availiable at this time.

To say that it is dangerous to claim all religions are one and god is one is absurd, unnecessarily fearful. There is nothing dangerous in seeing the oneness of mans copycat religions and beiiefs about their god.

There are as many different religions as there are nationalities of peoples but we do not claim that each nationality had it's own creator, it is understood that we are the "brotherhood or sisterhood of mankind."

Religions are all the same in that they are trying to get to or understand the spiitual source of their Being and their are many different ways to approach the goal of godhood.

There is intelligence and absurdity in all religious beliefs. And, all religions are created in the image and likeness of man rather then the other way around because man cannot comprehend of a Self with no image to cling to when it comes to the truth of his Beingness.

All religions are the same in that there is very little "truth" but expansive fiction about the god of their belief.

Protero's argument reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. Each grabbed a different part of the animal and came to different conclusions about its nature. For fundamentalist believers in any religion, the differences will be starker. However, many believers, and they are usually better educated as a group, see the tenets of their religion as metaphor for universal truths about the nature of life. For those believers, all religions come together. The multiple gods of Hinduism are all aspects of the same unity, as are the three aspects of the Trinity, for such believers. The self-surrender of Islam and the enlightenment of Buddhism have little difference from that viewpoint. So, which part of the elephant do you choose to touch?

Oh, and for you Abrahamics: could not Jehovah/Father/Allah take 15 minutes out of eternity to show up in "person" or at least write his/her/its truth on a Mountain or maybe on the moon; instead of "inspiring" these devoted supplicants to write his/her/its "holy" words in Hebrew/Aramaic/Arabic for future generations to argue endlessly over?? That alone is demonstrable proof that so such God exists!!

"Those new atheists (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins) who say all religions are the same and bad are wrong."

I think the general argument from the three above is that all religions are fantasy and in that way, most religions really are the same. They all define themselves by unverifiable beliefs --the fact that that their beliefs may be dissimilar is inconsequential. Most people's religious beliefs are rooted in their cultural heritage and/or place of birth. Few seem to examine how their beliefs might be completely different, yet no less sincere if they were born on a different continent.

..."The Living created all! He is as real as these words. I know I've seen him hear him and pray to him, he is the "Great I am!

..."He is the God of Israel/America whom he founded, he is the beginning and end!

..."Take a leap of faith and your find him, he already knows who you are, he created you, he's just waiting for you to find him, and the only way you can find him is by taking a "LEAP OF FAITH!

..."You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink! The Truth is YOU are "NOT/ALONE, what must I say to have you believe what I say, what must I do, to get you to believe me, I can only take you to the truth, and it is up to you to take that drink/leap of faith, I can't do it for you, no more than you can make a horse drink, so now you see my fellow American's why it's called a "LEAP OF FAITH" that's what it takes and I can't make you do it!

..."Call unto me; "And I will answer thee, and show thee "Great and Mighty Things."
---(Jeremiah 33:3)

..."When you take that "Leap of Faith" be sure you ask the Living God when he sits you down, in peace/love/hope to "Bless Bless him for this gift, and for this Great/Country/America whom he founded.

..."And thank him that we are....

..."One Nation Under God."

Sincerely, Tom Birchfield, Voter/Vet USAF,
Graduate Student, Masters Program,
Professional Studies,
East Tennessee State University/Class/2010

Well, in many ways I would agree with you, probably! But in fact all religions that do not have a conclave of Gods in theory, at least by definition, see God as a one single entity one without a second, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., etc. .... and therefore in fact this God has to be the same God! However, the big, big difference between the Abrahamic cults of the "west" and the religious philosophies of the "east" is the Abrahamists claim God is one thing and they are something different, separate, and created by their God! While the East sees reality as God or some projection of the Consciousness of God. The Goal of the Abrahamic cults is to be in the presence of their God for eternity in some blissful state of adoration and obeisance; the the East seeks to "reunite" the individuated consciousness with the supreme consciousness! Frankly, religion is relatively pointless and there is no evidence of the Abrahamic cults aspirations having any validity or merit; and the East's merger will happen or not! As one of my favorite Buddhists phrases asserts; "Before enlightenment, chop wood, haul water; after enlightenment, chop wood, haul water.”

Well, in many ways I would agree with you, probably! But in fact all religions that do not have a conclave of Gods in theory, at least by definition, see God as a one single entity one without a second, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., etc. .... and therefore in fact this God has to be the same God! However, the big, big difference bewteen the Abrahamic cults of the "west" and the religious philosophies of the "east" is the Abrahamists claim God is one thing and they are something different, seperate, and created by their God! While the East sees reality as God or some projection of the Consciousness of God. The Goal of the Abrahamic cults is to be in the presence of their God for eternity in some blishful state of aduration and obesiance; the the East seeks to "reunite" the individuated conscuiousness with the supreme consciousness! Frankly, religion is relatively pointless and there is no evidence of the Abrahamic cults asperations having any validity or merit; and the East's merger will happen or not! As one of my favorite Buddhists pharses asserts; "Before enlightenment, chop wood, haul water; after enlightenment, chop wood, haul water.”

Protero's argument reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. Each grabbed a different part of the animal and came to different conclusions about its nature. For fundamentalist believers in any religion, the differences will be starker. However, many believers, and they are usually better educated as a group, see the tenets of their religion as metaphor for universal truths about the nature of life. For those believers, all religions come together. The multiple gods of Hinduism are all aspects of the same unity, as are the three aspects of the Trinity, for such believers. The self-surrender of Islam and the enlightenment of Buddhism have little difference from that viewpoint. So, which part of the elephant do you choose to touch?

Mr. Prothero, thank you for being an honest, rational scholar that recognizes difference and does not approach religions with a preconceived notion of oneness or shoe-horned unity. Heidegger once wrote that our current civilization would reach a point where it only sees reflections of itself in everything it approaches, the manifestations of Being, that we would reach a point where we would never meet a stranger or be surprised by difference. He considered this a sad state of human development and thinking, not one to be elevated as a great achievement, because what truly is--difference and Being--would be lost in a false imposition of unity. Sadly, we've reached this point, much to the dimunition of human intellect and cultures.

Wow! Prothero, you need to go back to school and get that degree again. This is monumental ignorance and generally childish generalizations. After all, you have a "degree" in religion, but I doubt you have studied much about other religions and their basic truths.

This is an incredibly simplistic analysis of the situation. Most people of any faith, when exposed to other faiths, see shared tenets, values, and ideals. They also obviously see the differences in rituals, views of the form and nature of god, etc.

Suggesting that one can't see the shared values/beliefs without acknowledging the key differences is a bit arrogant. Joseph Campbell made a career out of it.

In any healthy discussion or relationship, an attempt to find common ground is a constructive way to establish a foundation of trust and respect. From there, you move on to explore and discuss the differences. In America, this process is key to any discussion or debate of substance.

@santaregina

Religion seeks to answer questions about humanity, the world, and being. Humankind has long believed in the existence of non-human spirits , not necessarily personal gods, for thousands of years.

But anwering the question "Why am I here?" does not require positing the existence of the Creator. For example, Buddhists have a belief structure that excludes creation and a personal God entirely.

PS: Your name in Latin means Saint Queen, you know that don't you? In the Litany of the Blessed Virgin she is referred to many times as Regina --of angels, especially--but Santa is almost never combined with Regina .

In your very first sentence, you give it all away, when you say you're going to 'stick to your guns' on this one. As a male, reminded by my female friends many times of my patriarchal privilege, Mr. Prothero must know quite well the legacy of his male dominance, at least in the reminders he's likely ignored along the way.
To suggest that one or another religious leader has gotten God wrong and somehow not also all the others is pure hubris, which only an egoically or ethnocentrically blinded individual could promote.
Assuming God is Reality, He/She/It must be Immanent/Transcendent/Active In/With/Under and Through All That Is and that must include all religions, and all secular enterprises as well.
To be having a discussion about whose is better is to carry on a dispute as old as civilization.
It's part of why our media and our politics are still trying to grow up...

All religions are the same in that they foster divisions between people, provide a justification for bigotry and hatred, and enable their followers to feel morally superior to others. From there, oppressing and killing those viewed as inferior is a small step.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

I don’t want to be cynical but I would suspect Mr Prothero might have promotion of his book as the reason behind the article. And, why not? I’m sure it’s an excellent book, but somehow, IMHO there’s too much sound and fury—signifying nothing—swirling around the ‘question’ of comparative religions.

I agree with the post below (topperale) and wrote the following twice. Bears repetition nonetheless.

Religious instinct universal and necessary

As a whole mankind can never get rid of the need for some kind of religious self-identification: who am I, where did I come from, why am I responsible, what does my life mean, how will I face death?

Religion is about the meaning of Being, about the meaning of the universe and our place in it.

But although the questions are universal but the answers are not.

Thus religions--although answering a universal need-- cannot be the same. The answers of, well, at least one IMHO, makes more sense than others. One that is the most coherent. It would be a universal faith that also calls itself holy and apostolic and one. I will let you guess.

I guess there may be one or more extra-terrestrial, omnipotent, entities that know, recognize, and control each individual organism in the universe. I just haven't seen, heard, or read any evidence to support their existence. There is ample evidence however that the most vocal proponents of the existence of such super beings (gods) are those that somehow make a living convincing people that those extra-terrestrial, omnipotent, entities actually exist.

I can't understand why the author wasted so much time and effort on this editorial. It is completely useless. All religions seek to explain the fundamental reason behind life as we know it and our "purpose" for being here. So what if the Christians believe in the Trinity and Muslims go on the hajj to Mecca. These are incidental issues. Since the beginning of human comprehension, we have tried to understand why we are here and why we have self-awareness. Some people attribute it to a supreme being (call it Gid if you want to). Some attribute it to "the human spirit" (whatever that entails). But simply listing a bunch of differences among the various faiths and pronouncing that religions are somehow fundamentally different is a useless exercise and a waste of time. I would have expected better from this writer.

"What we need today is an approach to the world's religions that recognizes the good and the bad in each, and the differences as well as the similarities. Only then can we hope to make sense of a world in which these rival religions play such a powerful role."

Work on that will you and post an article letting us know your progress. Good Luck!

There is no god. Grow up kiddies.

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.

A creed is also a defense of the founder's path. The New Testament defends why Jesus suffered and died and rose from the dead. It defends why Christ's followers believe Him to be the Son of God, and possess two natures a Divine nature which is the cause of His sacred human nature - His sacred humanity.

The Quran is a defense of Mohammad's choices in life. A creed is meant to show how the founder lived out his life with integrity and offers a path to eternal bliss.

Now its true there are profound differences between Islam and Christianity. While Mohammad recognized the unique humanity of Mary the Mother of Jesus he failed to grasp that Jesus was the Messiah. Jews and Muslims recognize that God is one and conjecture that God is only one person. That is the default position and the most reasonable in lieu of evidence to the contrary.

Christians however throughout the centuries have come to believe and some know that while God is one He is also three persons. His unity proceeds His diversity. And each person is fully and completely God. Yet there is and can only be one God. As Pseudo Dionysius once said for anything to be it must be one.

Now the objection of Islam is two-fold - if Jesus was the Messiah why was He crucified and how can a man be God?

And the answer is three-fold. God wanted a fair fight between Himself and the devil to win humanity back. For things to be fair God would have to have a handicap - the handicap - He came to battle in the lower form of humanity against a higher form being an angel. Yet He was still God so things were fair. Once beaten the devil proved to be a lousy loser and decided to kill his adversary. But Satan did not realize that Jesus was God only that Jesus was the Messiah, God's chosen one.

Second while it would be impossible for a man to be become God it is not impossible for God to become man - God can do all things - so it is written. For He is all powerful.

Third, on the last day - judgment day - it is only fitting that a man judge men and only God would have perfect judgment so it it is fitting that the judge be both God and man.

Way to miss the point entirely, Mr. Prothero. They said the MESSAGE of all religions is the same, and you even said it here:

"...all religions preach the same message of love, tolerance and compassion."

That, my friend, is what we consider to be the "fundamental" aspect of religions. Everything else is nit picking.

Steve Prothro wrote: ...Perhaps I am missing something, but I have yet to find a view of interreligious unity that does not reek of colonialism and empire.
____________________________________________________________

Many psychologists, psychiatrists, evolutionary biologists, social scientists and atheists have "a view of interreligious unity that does not reek of colonialism and empire."

The religion of mortal man was created by man to express faith. Format and expressions differ as to climate, language, the availability of methods to disburse information and unfortunately those who would manipulate faith to control populations through fear. But do all paths lead to one God. Probably, because despite the sometimes significant dirrerences of expression, they all came to recognize the Spirit that they cannot see, but believe.

This sort of article may serve someone's purpose, but in reality it doesn't advance the basic question, which is: Is there a God?

Until someone produces actual probative evidence to support all the glorified fables, it remains that God is purely in the minds of the believers.

Gods have been critical for the survival of humanity. They have filled a human need to try to make sense of the seemingly incomprehensible. We need explanations especially when we are afraid.

Ever so slowly we have pushed back ignorance and as we have, the Gods have fallen by one by one. The most popular "Sky Gods" of today as Gore Vidal calls them were designed by their bronze age (iron age in the case of Christianity) founders to be as immune as possible to becoming irrelevant. Modern science and the Age of Reason however has been and will be their undoing just as they undid the very personal Gods they replaced.

This is part of the evolution of humankind which is still in its infancy as far as a species goes. Indeed our survival I believe partially depends on whether we can jettison these old outdated faiths--taking the best of them and getting rid of the bad--there is a great deal of both.

It's all moot. There is no god.

"Atheists are just practicing their own brand of religion"
------------------------
The definition of "religion": –noun
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Atheism is be a religion as the term religion specifically involve a belief in the supernatural, which also by definition, atheists do not.

And so this op-ed summarizes the very nature of conflict among humans. My god is better than your god and I'm willing to kill you to prove it.

Humans are the product of millions of years of an evolutionary process on a planet in which animals prey on each other for survival. In effect, we are just the most recent brutalistic carnivore to rule the roost. How long we survive is debatable considering that we still are brutal, still predatory, still animalistic, still violent, etc. Our fascination with some mystic deity or deities that might somehow allow us to better kill our fellow humans is just another fantasy conjured up by the animal in us, struggling to understand the universe around us.

tbarksdl said: "I knew that some rational, intelligent voice would someday eviscerate the incredible idea that all religions are created equal. At last, Stephen Prothero has provided that voice. I can only say, right on, and hope to hear more.
One of many specific points come to mind. If all religions are created equal, why is it that Islam in its native soil has never produced a single democracy or a society that recognizes basic human rights like freedom of expression and religion? Why is it that on this planet, only Islamic countries are still ruled by royal families, kings, queens, princes, etc., without even a semblance of democracy?
The idea expressed by one reader that all religions are based on the principle, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," is pure bunkum. Tell that to a female in a Muslim society, especially those in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Or to a Christian trying to practice his faith in a Muslim country.
Atheists are just practicing their own brand of religion? Wow. People whose approach is the use of reason and empirical facts are no different than those whose brains are full of religious-created cobwebs. Richard Dawkins is no different than the Pope who put Galileo under house arrest. Wish I had more time to chew on that."
---------------------------------------

tbarksdl, you're post contradicts itself. First, you say you agree with the article's rejection of the notion that all religions are basically alike. Then, you claim that atheists are just like people of other religions who "have cobwebs" filling their brains. Atheists are fundamentally different than those who believe in theistic religions.

To the poster who said that atheists all put down people who believe in God: you are stereotyping atheists. Many atheists respect the religious beliefs of others. You should give them credit for that and stop lumping all of them together with the haters.

Religion and belief are human culture. All human cultures have them. And more than any other species we are our culture and a challenge to our beliefs or way of life is read as a physical threat. What other species will die for their beliefs after all? Culture both unites and divides us.

So are you saying there is more than one God in the universe? That seems pretty difficult (eh, impossible) to me.

I think one can appreciate the diversity of religions like one can appreciate different cultures, food, languages, physical appearances, etc. Judging someone based on their religious beliefs is like trying to judge someone based on the food they like. How arrogant must one be to believe that ONLY their religion is the way to God.

Who's right?

Seriously? We're talking here about unknowables, right? So, arguing who's right about God or gods (or whether they're just figments of imagination) is silly at best. Who's going to decide?

To say that religions and their relevant Gods are different is to maintain the special status, tradition and privilage of those who are in charge. Otherwise they are all the same.

I knew that some rational, intelligent voice would someday eviscerate the incredible idea that all religions are created equal. At last, Stephen Prothero has provided that voice. I can only say, right on, and hope to hear more.

One of many specific points come to mind. If all religions are created equal, why is it that Islam in its native soil has never produced a single democracy or a society that recognizes basic human rights like freedom of expression and religion? Why is it that on this planet, only Islamic countries are still ruled by royal families, kings, queens, princes, etc., without even a semblance of democracy?

The idea expressed by one reader that all religions are based on the principle, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," is pure bunkum. Tell that to a female in a Muslim society, especially those in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Or to a Christian trying to practice his faith in a Muslim country.

Atheists are just practicing their own brand of religion? Wow. People whose approach is the use of reason and empirical facts are no different than those whose brains are full of religious-created cobwebs. Richard Dawkins is no different than the Pope who put Galileo under house arrest. Wish I had more time to chew on that.

its a total scam a major fraud, religion poisons everything it touches. total hokus/pokus.

Religions exist to control people, by giving them something to believe in that is outside themselves. People like them, I think, because the uncertainty of the unknowable is hard to wrap the mind around. The atheist "religion" can be just as bad as the others, since atheists like to bad-mouth theists as much as theists like to bad-mouth atheists. The word "god" takes quite a few semantic turns depending on your perspective. I like to think of it as the unknowable, it allows me to move in many circles without getting annoyed and having people get annoyed with me.

The Dalai Lama must renounce violence like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

The one primary message that I see that exists across all Religions, idependent of the number of Gods which drive those Religions is this: Do unto others as you would have them do to you. And those are words I strive to live by, every minute of every day.

The author makes his first mistake in the title of the article, where he states, "God is...."

"God is", says who? All these people with anecdotal "evidence"? If that's the case, hey God, grow back an amputated limb on a Christian (tm) soldier!

Editor: There are 6 unneeded words in the title. It should read, "God is not."

The author makes some good points but he misses on the main one. God is ONE, God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.
It is because of our limited faculties that we cannot perceive this reality. The word "religion" comes from the Latin root meaning "to connect". It's really very simple, there is one God with many different perceptions of deity. It's like time, time is an arbitrary limit imposed by our ignorance upon the duration of deity.

As far as the deist religions go, they worship the creator. And since they agree there is only one...

If I were the creator and they were muttering requests to me, I'd know who they were talking to. However, since I would have created a perfect universe in the first place, I would have no reason to listen to anyone's plea to change a thing.

Man invented God, not the other way around.

The Author, Mr. Prothero conflates the outer "face " of religions with their inner meaning. Does he suggest that different religions offer different paths up different mountains? The question is still the same for him (as for everyone) what would be at the top of the mountain(s). I'm not really sure if Mr. Prothero is actually saying anything at all.

I just finished Marvin Vining's Jesus the Wicked Priest. Thorough scholarship that indicates how very particular is the history of Christianity.

"God" is a human-invented word for the divine One whose name is neither known nor pronounceable. The sound given to Moses at the burning bush is the sound of breath-- life itself. Being, whom we name "God," "Allah," "Lord," etc., is one. Our ways of knowing and describing Being are many. Only when we come together, with our different stories and understandings, and enter into holy silence together, letting all names and language fall away, do we know that Being is one. I know--I've been there.

We start to have a meaningful discussion, only to have SWFANG shut it down with his/her dogmatic, sanctimonious, uni-faith scolding.

I am a Christian who knows WITHOUT DOUBT that the Old and New Testaments are problematic at best and full of "a thousand lies" (Mark Twain) at worst. I suggest you read Dr. Prothero's "American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon" (2004) or any book by Israel Finkelstein, Neil Silberman or Donald B. Redford, all eminent modern archaeologists.

In spite of all the ambiguities, mistakes and outright falsehoods that imperfect, well-intentioned or cunning scribes placed into these testaments, I know that Jesus Christ actually lived and that his teachings represent the only sure salvation of mankind.

Can your faith stand up to criticism without resorting to knee-jerk dogmatic denial? Try THAT with your KJV.

There is a way to find the truth. Do you have a book that is perfect and without proven error? Do you have a book that has prophecy that comes true every time in 4000 years? Do you have a book that describes things in the universe 2000 years before any man discovered them? The KJV does all of that and much more. No other so-called sacred text does anything close or even attempts to do so. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ or deny Him, He said He is the only way to the Father and Heaven and ALL other ways lead to destruction. Keep reading past John 3:16 and you'll see that God isn't a big kiss.

""God is Not One"?...Well, let's see what God Himself has to say about it:..."

Well, that settles that.

You've told us the obvious - that all religions are different. You have not stated any conviction as to whether one or more has discerned the Truth. Or is it your idea that while all religions are different in essence, they are in reality united in that they're ALL frauds.

The reason religious people love to pretend that all religions are essentially the same is because it excuses them from having to explain why theirs is any better than the others. It excuses them from having to explain why they're atheist regarding all the other gods besides their own. It excuses them from having to explain why someone who lived a good life, but was raised in another religion, won't go to heaven.

These are uncomfortable questions for the religious, and if they can manage to ignore these complications, it's much easier to live within the delusion they have built for themselves.

It's sad that so many intelligent people waste so much time on so much nonsense. What a better world this would be if we all just focused on our shared humanity.

It might take a thousand years to turn this train around, but let's start now.

Quote:As I argued in God is Not One, Christians do not go on the hajj to Mecca and Muslims do not profess their faith in the Trinity. Anyone who says otherwise is not paying attention, and anyone who says such differences do not matter is condescending. The hajj may not matter to philosophers of religious unity, but it matters to ordinary Muslims. In fact, it is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. And the Trinity matters to ordinary Christians. In fact, it provides the outline for the all-important Nicene Creed.

Yes, but the Nicene Creed differs between the Orthodox and Catholic/Protestant strains. Would you argue that Coptic, Greek, and Russian Orthodox aren't Christian when their Trinitarianism differs so widely?

The "mistaking Kali for Christ" idea is also specious. Now if you wanted to compare Christ to Dionysus whose cult involved some similar rituals, you might have a point.

The Dalai Lama, Karen Armstrong, and Huston Smith are, I believe, emphasizing the link that religions have to the idea that there is something more than this existence -- a possibility for transcendence.

Practitioners have experienced this: we find commonality across our various practices. We then cultivate respect and a deeper understanding of all. In contrast, when we "study" religions, we found chasms between the closest branches.
Therefore, both are there: differences, and commonality. They enrich each other. When practitioners come together, then we discover a way of peace for the future world.

Deep in the human psyche, there may be some universal itch that all religions scratch. But the wise and sweet Dalai Lama is incorrect. Where’s the love, tolerance and compassion in “Thou shall hold no other gods before me”? The Dalai Lama is prone to a lot of gooey, up-with-people Oprah-think that aches to be non-judgmental about all beliefs. And the brilliant Armstrong speaks only in the broadest terms. Every major faith is marked by a great schism: ancient Israel vs. Judah, Roman Catholic vs. Orthodox, Catholic vs. Protestant, Sunni vs. Shiite, even within the Baptist sect. If all religions were the same, we’d only have one religion. The fact that there are 36,000 sects of Christianity alone says a lot about the myth of religious agreement—after all, each new sect is the result of a disagreement within an existing church. Religion is based on belief, not fact, so there are as many concepts of religion as there are believers. And since no sect can prove the others wrong, they all stay in business. http://bit.ly/aTtOhZ

"God is Not One"?...Well, let's see what God Himself has to say about it:

Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

Isaiah 45:6 "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else."

Isaiah 45:21: "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me."

1 Corinthians 8:6: "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Ephesians 4:5,6: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

I think that, way way back, when proto-humans started asking why things happened on a regular basis - but couldn't explain them - that we first developed the concept of a Deity. It was a way of explaining the unexplainable, or ensuring that a particular phenomenon would repeat itself if it were good, or not if it were bad. If you go out of your cave to hunt for meat, wouldn't it make sense to have someone dress up like a deer, dance around, and "call" the herd to you? Or to guarantee good weather, you would do a dance to keep the rain away? So, yes, you might say that all Human religions stem from a particular source.
In the Pagan community, there is a saying that "all Gods are one God, and all Goddesses are one Goddess." While all are aspects of the Unknowable Divine can be construed as one, the pathways to finding the Divine differ greatly. But, if you boil religions down to their ultimate roots, we're still out there trying to call the deer to us, keep away the predators, and make sure that the sun comes up the next morning.

I am not aware of any New Atheists who maintain "that all religions are the same and bad."

They generally seem well aware of the differences, and that these involve different degrees and sorts of badness.

I doubt even people within the same religion worship the same god. I've talked with many Christians who don't believe in hell at all, Catholics who don't believe in angels but do believe in saints, and Jews that love some bacon. I think the Dalai Lama is a nice man, but in many ways he seems the inverse of the paranoid person who sees conspiracies everywhere. Not all religions are about compassion and decency (cough, Scientology, cough). Not even his own, considering that Tibet was a pretty brutally feudal state not 100 years ago.

What I do think is that every religion *should* have some core of humanist values to it, especially if it expects to be around in another thousand years. Bible and Koran thumpers need to throw less stones over bronze age morals and look at how they can apply their faiths to making things better for people, and they will find that they make it better for the religions themselves.

thanks for the thoughtful blog. But thinking is only half of religion. The emotional even the spiritrual side is shared by those who expirience it. And that sharing of expirience unites individuals from everywhere. God was generous enough to give us many paths up the mountain. I'm crippled and walk with a cane and God has provided even me with a path. You can't know sweetness until you taste it.

I will have to get Mr. Stephen Prothero's book for elaboration of, among other things, what he meant exactly when he said, he has "yet to find a view of interreligious unity that does not reek of colonialism and empire".

The "empire" part I can understand of faith groups seeking more adherents for expansion of membership and revenue. It that is what is meant by Mr. Prothero.

The "colonialism" part I am not too sure. Mental and attidunal colonialism of converts to a faith? If so, it would be interesting reading.

I am not so sure if democracy, as we understand and practice now in various permutations and levels, which don't originate in some socieities and imported by them as per democratic institutions and practices, is also a form of "colonisation".

The same way Islam, say, in Indonesia, is a "colonisation" of religion and related attitudes and values among the population as it is a non-indigenous faith originating from Saudi Arabia.

"Those new atheists who say all religions are the same and bad are wrong."

How about those new atheists who say all religions are the same and good?

Or, those new atheists who say all religions are different and good?

Or, those old atheists who say all religions are the same and bad?

Or, those old atheists who say all religions are different and bad?

Or, those old atheists who say all religions are different and good?

Or,...

Finally a voice of reason. You are absolutely correct, Prof. Prothero - all religions are not the same. And in particular, I never understood how people found similarities between the Dharmic traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism and the Abrahamic traditions. They are vastly different philosophies and to call them the same, is absurd.
Bravo on this one!

Stephen Prothero

An excellent piece. Right on target.

But how about this: All (or most) religions are alike in that they serve as a focus for solace, hope, escape, etc for the practitioners. They all serve about the same purpose for humans.

There is confusion in the language and intent.

I think we agree. But perhaps I can rephrase.

The vedic injunction is that God is one men call it by many names. The vedic god is that material and immaterial Brahman that underlies reality that is - Tat Sat. If we understand what ever exists (despite our phenomenological limitations in understanding It), and religions say they worship the real truth (as opposed to maya, the shadows on the cave, etc) then God is one - the worshiped Truth that underlies our experience of reality.

But men call it by different names. As we call it, we interject our egos onto it. As such, we create human cognitive limits onto whatever that Being is. Our cognitive limits are reflected in religion - man made. Thus religions reflect our diversity of experience to that underlying reality. Before the split of science and religion, largely one of western construct (due to the challenge that science gives to a single dogma), religion was the method of choice for seeking truth. Thus, the onset of science resulted in the exile of christian thought into dogma (to save their creeds). But, religion has always been, right or wrong, trying to help people perceive a greater reality.

Thus God is one.
Men call it (religion) by many names (is diverse).

Perhaps the confusion of religion and God allows arguments between two languages based on misinterpretations (one that says I need to be right the other that says we must somehow both be right) of what we are talking about. I could, of course, be wrong.

hariaum