Dangerous Religious Ideas: The Deep Roots of Self-Critical Faith in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by Rachel S. Mikva
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
If you’ve only read this book’s title, it may not be the book you think it is, but I would argue that that’s a good thing. The first thing one might expect from the title is that it’s by an atheist or skeptical agnostic, someone in the vein of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, or Michael Shermer. Not that there is anything wrong with such books or authors, but there are a ton of books of that nature, and I’m not sure how much value-added is to be found in new ones. (And more importantly, if one is interested in what is dangerous about a thing, taking into account only views of outside critics presents substantial risk of misconstruing the insider’s perspective.) This book, however, is by someone “on the inside,” a Rabbi and scholar of the Abrahamic traditions (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.) [It’s worth noting that Mikva deals only with the Abrahamic traditions in this book. The degree to which the ideas discussed apply to other traditions varies greatly.]
One might be thinking that the book plays Nerf-ball, a religious individual explaining the faults in religion will surely be like “greed is good” Gordon Gekko explaining a market crash, making end-runs around reality to justify a point of view and to minimize the role of one’s belief system in the tragedy. However, when Mikva was elucidating the dangerous ideas of religion, I felt she was candid in her criticisms and that she carefully balanced criticism among the three Abrahamic traditions. The main difference between Mikva’s arguments and that of those mentioned above isn’t so much seen when she’s laying out the dangers, but rather when she discusses the theologians who’ve historically tried to mitigate said dangers.
A second mistake that one might reasonably make about this book is to think that is focuses on the usual suspects of outrage about religion — honor killings, sanctioning of slavery, misogyny, etc. I think Mikva made a wise move in focusing on a few ideas that are deeply engrained in a broad cross-section of religious followers. The central theme of this book is that the danger lies all around, not only, or even primarily, in the hateful ideas of a few extremists, those who misinterpret scripture or who hold onto interpretations that maybe accurate to authorial intent but that are still horrifying to our present-day notions of what is appropriate (e.g. treating all humans like human beings, which was not so much a thing in Biblical times.) Instead, Mikva proposes that dangers lie in ideas that are often not given a second thought, such as followers’ beliefs that they are part of the one and only true faith.
The book’s thirteen chapters can be thought of as taking on three major dangerous ideas. First, in chapters 2 through 6, the book considers the idea of scripture as the literal word of god. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if the scriptures of the Abrahamic religious were as vaguely benign as those in some Eastern religions, but the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Koran all have some cringeworthy ideas in them. Still, it’s hard for a large number of religious followers to accept that these are just books written by humans who may not have had as great of insight into the divine mind as they claimed. So, what to do? Does one accept that it’s alright for a man to sell his daughter into the sex slave trade if he’s cash-strapped?
The second major dangerous idea (Ch. 7 through 10) is that of “otherness.” This is described in different ways, depending on the nature of the religion (i.e. “chosenness” in Judaism or “election” in Christianity,) but it’s essentially the idea that one’s religion is the one and only true religion and everybody else is wrong and immoral. This is the kind of widespread idea that poisons human interaction. [It doesn’t really matter if you’re a smiling missionary or a Semtex-strapped suicide bomber, if you’re approaching other people from the perspective that they are inherently wrong, immoral, and inferior, then you don’t have any basis for a relationship of peace, respect, and understanding.]
The last idea, addressed in a much more compact space, is that there are pitfalls to religion being too fundamentally entwined in what we normally think of the sphere of governance – i.e. lawmaking, crime and punishment, etc. One issue is that ideas about justice were relatively draconian in Biblical times. However, a bigger problem may be that of foisting one’s beliefs on others in an underhanded way, using the State’s monopoly on force to do so.
It should be pointed out that this book is written in a scholarly fashion. This means that readability isn’t has high as it could be. It will send even well-read readers who aren’t theologians or experts in religious studies to the dictionary now and again to learn the jargon of religious philosophy.
If you are interested in the impact of religion on the societal landscape, this is a worthwhile book to check out. If one has read Dawkins, Hitchens, or the like, this book is worth rounding out one’s understanding by seeing how the problems of religion are seen by those on the inside, those who choose to reflect upon the problems, but who aren’t willing to throw it all out to get rid of said problems. I felt the book was balanced and it pointed out some important ideas that are not necessarily readily apparent to everybody.
View all my reviews
So hard to comment on this one without getting into a religious debate… well, discussion, and probably half of it over minutia, lol. 🙂 Interesting that the Rabbi says that a problem is the belief that God is the only God, etc… I’ve talked to a couple of Jewish scholars that say there are other ways to access some sort of heaven (awkwardly paraphrasing here), and it’s more a question of “this is the way we think is best”. That would explain the whole “No god before me” as opposed to it reading “no other god at all”. If true, it leaves me wondering how well she knows her own faith. We know it happens with many factions of the above “big 3” though.
Even allowing for that however, it sounds like a much better and more thoughtful read than the typical stuff put out by atheists.
I don’t think she’s saying that. I didn’t mean to suggest she is. She’s pointing out that these beliefs create problems and risks to human cooperation and interaction. She doesn’t talk as much about her own personal beliefs as offer explanations of how different theologians have addressed these ideas. She’s also doesn’t advocate shedding a belief to solve the problem. Meaning this is not a book that offers solutions to problems, it, at most, makes clear the nature of the problems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Makes sense. As I mentioned, that “only god” thing is something preached by alot of churches too, so she’d be right either way.
I get the last part also. My own thinking for a good while has been it’s usually not the belief (or scripture verse), it’s the interpretation.
Her take on some of the OLD rules would be interesting also. I wonder how many people consider than some rules were codified to protect young, primitive societies. Stoning a harlot for example. It might seem rational in an age where it was hard enough to survive and keep a village intact without factoring in STDs that were incurable at the time. Different situation nowadays.
OK, no more commentary. I did hint at not wanting to hijack your post and turn it into a theology discussion. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
No problem. That’s probably another reason she doesn’t get much into details on things like stoning. She’s pretty focused on the bigger picture but more underlying issues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And she does mention those who acknowledge alternative paths, and seems to have an affinity for that view, but it’s not like that is an undisputed consensus view. For every such theologian there is one who says it’s our way or the hell way, and most seem to occupy some territory between those ends of a spectrum.
Discussion of these debates, self-critical analysis as she calls it, is the heart of the book to a degree more than I probably suggested in the review.
LikeLiked by 1 person