Stephen Prothero

Not very far in, but already frustrated with the presentation. Examples are provided to illustrate religious ignorance via the wrong answers given by students on quizzes. The frustrating part is the author’s failure to state the correct response.

From other reviews, this information is apparently provided in the second half of the book. In theory, I will get there, eventually.

Withholding rating until I’m a bit further along.
——-
I ended up skipping the first half of the book where the author tlks about how dumb we all are. I went to the second half where the information is. The educational stuff saved the rating, as it was worthwhile.

I recommend starting there, if your goal is to learn something without being made to feel bad for not already knowing it.… (mer)

This is a tough review, because I agree with the basic idea of what Prothero is writing, that we should learn and acknowledge the different ideas and practices of religious people around the world. But he too often sets up a strawman in defense of his argument, and then tears that down instead of really engaging with the ideas he is discussing. An example: "The New Atheists see all religions (except their own “anti-religious religion”) as the same idiocy, the same poison. The perennial philosophers see all religions as the same truth, the same compassion. What both camps fail to see is religious diversity." Perennial philosophers, in my understanding, believe that religions point to the same truth, not that they are the same truth. And his attack on atheists in the final chapter was just strange, frankly.

He also creates these strange silos within American Christianity, separating Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism in ways that just don't really travel well outside of a classroom or a textbook, because the practices of these groups are much more fluid than his rigid definitions.

Finally, he uses subjective words when perhaps he should tone it down a bit. "One of the lies of the so-called New Atheists...." and "Evangelicals are both more friendly to modernity and less shrill [than Fundamentalists]." It feels like he has an axe or two to grind, and it makes me not trust his interpretations of the religions he discusses.… (mer)