What do you think?
Rate this book
The Religious Case Against Belief
A provocative, insightful explanation for why it is that belief—not religion—keeps us in a perilous state of willful ignorance
In The Religious Case Against Belief, James Carse identifies the twenty-first century’s most forbidding villain: belief. In distinguishing religions from belief systems, Carse works to reveal how belief—with its restriction on thought and encouragement of hostility—has corrupted religion and spawned violence the world over.
Galileo, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, and Jesus Christ—using their stories Carse creates his own brand of parable and establishes a new vocabulary with which to study conflict in the modern world. The Religious Case Against Belief introduces three kinds of ignorance: ordinary ignorance (a mundane lack of knowledge, such as ignorance of tomorrow’s weather or the reason why your stove is malfunctioning), willful ignorance (an intentional avoidance of accessible knowledge), and finally higher ignorance (a learned understanding that no matter how many truths we may accumulate, our knowledge falls infinitely short of the truth).
While ordinary ignorance is common to all people, Carse associates the strongest manifestation of willful ignorance with the most fervent (and dangerous) of believers. He points to the historic conflict between Martin Luther and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V both to reveal this seemingly religious collision as a clash of belief and to identify belief ’s inherently destructive characteristics. From Luther to the contemporary Christian right, we learn that believers construct identity by erecting boundaries and by fostering aggression between the believer and the other. This is why belief systems choose—at great cost—to remain locked in bloody conflict rather than to engage in dialogue, recognizing the great deal they have in common. This is willful ignorance.
In fierce contrast to willful ignorance, higher ignorance is an acquired state enhanced by religion. Those traveling the path to higher ignorance recognize faith teachings (such as the Bible) as poetry intended to promote contemplation, interpretation, and a sense of wonder. For evidence of religion’s deeply embedded rejection of singular truth and its acceptance of diverse dialogue, Carse looks to the many faces of Jesus presented in the books of the Bible and elsewhere. Uncontaminated by belief systems, religion rejects the imagined boundaries that falsely divide people and ideas, working to expand horizons.
The Religious Case Against Belief exposes a world in which religion and belief have become erroneously (and terrifyingly) conflated. In strengthening their association with powerful belief systems, religions have departed from their essential purpose as agencies of higher ignorance. Carse uses his wideranging understanding of religion to find a viable and vital path away from what he calls the Age of Faith II and toward open-ended global dialogue. Far from abstract philosophical musing, The Religious Case Against Belief is required reading for our age.
In The Religious Case Against Belief, James Carse identifies the twenty-first century’s most forbidding villain: belief. In distinguishing religions from belief systems, Carse works to reveal how belief—with its restriction on thought and encouragement of hostility—has corrupted religion and spawned violence the world over.
Galileo, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, and Jesus Christ—using their stories Carse creates his own brand of parable and establishes a new vocabulary with which to study conflict in the modern world. The Religious Case Against Belief introduces three kinds of ignorance: ordinary ignorance (a mundane lack of knowledge, such as ignorance of tomorrow’s weather or the reason why your stove is malfunctioning), willful ignorance (an intentional avoidance of accessible knowledge), and finally higher ignorance (a learned understanding that no matter how many truths we may accumulate, our knowledge falls infinitely short of the truth).
While ordinary ignorance is common to all people, Carse associates the strongest manifestation of willful ignorance with the most fervent (and dangerous) of believers. He points to the historic conflict between Martin Luther and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V both to reveal this seemingly religious collision as a clash of belief and to identify belief ’s inherently destructive characteristics. From Luther to the contemporary Christian right, we learn that believers construct identity by erecting boundaries and by fostering aggression between the believer and the other. This is why belief systems choose—at great cost—to remain locked in bloody conflict rather than to engage in dialogue, recognizing the great deal they have in common. This is willful ignorance.
In fierce contrast to willful ignorance, higher ignorance is an acquired state enhanced by religion. Those traveling the path to higher ignorance recognize faith teachings (such as the Bible) as poetry intended to promote contemplation, interpretation, and a sense of wonder. For evidence of religion’s deeply embedded rejection of singular truth and its acceptance of diverse dialogue, Carse looks to the many faces of Jesus presented in the books of the Bible and elsewhere. Uncontaminated by belief systems, religion rejects the imagined boundaries that falsely divide people and ideas, working to expand horizons.
The Religious Case Against Belief exposes a world in which religion and belief have become erroneously (and terrifyingly) conflated. In strengthening their association with powerful belief systems, religions have departed from their essential purpose as agencies of higher ignorance. Carse uses his wideranging understanding of religion to find a viable and vital path away from what he calls the Age of Faith II and toward open-ended global dialogue. Far from abstract philosophical musing, The Religious Case Against Belief is required reading for our age.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
39 people are currently reading
580 people want to read
About the author
James P. Carse
14 books158 followersJames P. Carse taught at New York University for thirty years as the Professor of the History and Literature of Religion, and Director of the Religious Studies Program. He retired from the University in 1996. He is a writer and an artist, and lives in New York City and Massachusetts.
James Carse was the Director of Religious Studies at New York University for thirty years. He was a member of the Department of Middle Eastern Studies, and the recipient of numerous teaching awards. He is retired and living in New York City.
James Carse was the Director of Religious Studies at New York University for thirty years. He was a member of the Department of Middle Eastern Studies, and the recipient of numerous teaching awards. He is retired and living in New York City.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews
August 6, 2008
I have a soft spot for James Carse. I discovered his "The Silence of God" on my own, and then a friend told me how much she enjoyed his "Finite and Infinite Games," which I read next. Later, I enjoyed his "Breakfast at the Victory." So when I saw this book in the bookstore, I snapped it up. And I did enjoy it, almost to the end. I do recommend it, but would understand if someone quit reading it about halfway through.
The first chapter - 100 pages long, about half the book - is an engaging and thought-provoking treatment of belief and how a system of belief is a different thing from religion. The Table of Contents seems to promise that the subsequent chapters will add to or build upon the initial exposition - Chapter One: Belief; Chapter Two: Religion; Chapter Three: Religion Beyond Belief. The second chapter sustains a good beginning for about twenty pages, and then bogs down in the matter of "defining religion," which it fails to do - leaving the third chapter nowhere to go. The book is dedicated to Tom Driver - from whom I took a memorable course (at Union Theological Seminary in New York) on ritual and the human activity of ritualizing. Carse notes in his acknowledgments: "Tom Driver was unrestrained in his critical review of the book's intellectual content, and relentless in his repeated demands for greater clarity and accuracy. It was a high challenge I fear was not fully met." I can testify that Driver has been on the receiving end of similar demands, so I'm sure he asked Carse the right questions. I'm left wondering what stopped Carse from rising to the challenge.
What he says about belief is an apt answer to the latest wave of atheist complaints about religion - from Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens and the rest. And what he says throughout the book is a lot like what he said in "Finite and Infinite Games" : "A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play." In effect he argues that attachment to a system of beliefs is a finite game, whereas religion is an infinite game. Passionate believers take power as a sign of authority, whereas the religious take poetry. Believers seek certainty, religious seek a "higher ignorance" - not ordinary ignorance (just not knowing something) or willful ignorance (the refusal of knowledge), but acceptance of the limits of human knowledge and an accompanying willingness to engage in open-ended dialogue that is not aimed at coercion or persuasion. Thus he aligns himself with the atheists' critique of believers, but from a religious perspective.
What he had a missed opportunity to address is what motivates people to affiliate with a religion. He defines religion as a community which "has no identity that the world can recognize" [p. 151] and is at its core "an active conversation concerning how it is to understand itself and ... present itself to the world" [p. 147], whose "vast discourses [go] on because there is something at stake, something that matters to those engaged in it, that is critically important to them, something that they already find perplexing and in need of understanding, even if the understanding is only preliminary." [p. 159] The closest he comes to anyone's motivation to join such a community is: "we join ... when the questions being asked there become our questions." [p. 159] Now, observing some of the churches to be found in America, it might indeed seem that a church is a collection of people who, in the absence of deep commitment to anything beyond themselves, spend their time crafting their worldly appearance while indulging their shared (perhaps petty) obsessions. But a faith community that understands its traditions and teachings develops a core of committed members who actively strive to live the values contained in them (not beliefs, but values: lessons from experience passed on from generation to generation). And others join to be exposed to and inspired by people with that level of commitment, or to expose their children to it. It's more than questions, it's hope that draws and keeps folks in the fold. I wish Carse had addressed that aspect of religion beyond belief, and how it is an ever-unfolding infinite game.
The first chapter - 100 pages long, about half the book - is an engaging and thought-provoking treatment of belief and how a system of belief is a different thing from religion. The Table of Contents seems to promise that the subsequent chapters will add to or build upon the initial exposition - Chapter One: Belief; Chapter Two: Religion; Chapter Three: Religion Beyond Belief. The second chapter sustains a good beginning for about twenty pages, and then bogs down in the matter of "defining religion," which it fails to do - leaving the third chapter nowhere to go. The book is dedicated to Tom Driver - from whom I took a memorable course (at Union Theological Seminary in New York) on ritual and the human activity of ritualizing. Carse notes in his acknowledgments: "Tom Driver was unrestrained in his critical review of the book's intellectual content, and relentless in his repeated demands for greater clarity and accuracy. It was a high challenge I fear was not fully met." I can testify that Driver has been on the receiving end of similar demands, so I'm sure he asked Carse the right questions. I'm left wondering what stopped Carse from rising to the challenge.
What he says about belief is an apt answer to the latest wave of atheist complaints about religion - from Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens and the rest. And what he says throughout the book is a lot like what he said in "Finite and Infinite Games" : "A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play." In effect he argues that attachment to a system of beliefs is a finite game, whereas religion is an infinite game. Passionate believers take power as a sign of authority, whereas the religious take poetry. Believers seek certainty, religious seek a "higher ignorance" - not ordinary ignorance (just not knowing something) or willful ignorance (the refusal of knowledge), but acceptance of the limits of human knowledge and an accompanying willingness to engage in open-ended dialogue that is not aimed at coercion or persuasion. Thus he aligns himself with the atheists' critique of believers, but from a religious perspective.
What he had a missed opportunity to address is what motivates people to affiliate with a religion. He defines religion as a community which "has no identity that the world can recognize" [p. 151] and is at its core "an active conversation concerning how it is to understand itself and ... present itself to the world" [p. 147], whose "vast discourses [go] on because there is something at stake, something that matters to those engaged in it, that is critically important to them, something that they already find perplexing and in need of understanding, even if the understanding is only preliminary." [p. 159] The closest he comes to anyone's motivation to join such a community is: "we join ... when the questions being asked there become our questions." [p. 159] Now, observing some of the churches to be found in America, it might indeed seem that a church is a collection of people who, in the absence of deep commitment to anything beyond themselves, spend their time crafting their worldly appearance while indulging their shared (perhaps petty) obsessions. But a faith community that understands its traditions and teachings develops a core of committed members who actively strive to live the values contained in them (not beliefs, but values: lessons from experience passed on from generation to generation). And others join to be exposed to and inspired by people with that level of commitment, or to expose their children to it. It's more than questions, it's hope that draws and keeps folks in the fold. I wish Carse had addressed that aspect of religion beyond belief, and how it is an ever-unfolding infinite game.
March 9, 2009
It is a philosophical book. The author has long section on Belief. He notes belief 1)while it has its content, it is directed both inward at its faithful and outward at its opponents. 2) its vitality depends on that opposition; the content of belief is shaped in conflict with others. 3) because belief depends on hostile others it is necessary for us as believers not to think what the others are thinking. There is a close association between belief and war.
Believers love their authorities even when they are severe.
There is a shorter section on religion wherein the author notes that there are many Jesuses and they vary according to interpretation of gthe various 'Christian' sects. Evil finds its perfect home in our own belief system and the moral certainty that goes with it. Evil is nearly always an attempt to eliminate evil, as it appears in those who oppose us. It therefore thrives in belief systems inasmuch as it is easily ascribed to their enemies.
It is the shared assumption that we have the truth that is so devastating in every form of 'communitas.'
Believers love their authorities even when they are severe.
There is a shorter section on religion wherein the author notes that there are many Jesuses and they vary according to interpretation of gthe various 'Christian' sects. Evil finds its perfect home in our own belief system and the moral certainty that goes with it. Evil is nearly always an attempt to eliminate evil, as it appears in those who oppose us. It therefore thrives in belief systems inasmuch as it is easily ascribed to their enemies.
It is the shared assumption that we have the truth that is so devastating in every form of 'communitas.'
July 15, 2019
In this book, Carse resolves the apparent oxymoron of the title by distinguishing between "religion" and "belief". Religion is about asking such cosmic questions as "Why are we here?" "How do we know?" Belief is all about having answers. Religion, the ineffable, meditation, and transcendence go together. Belief is deeply suspicious of meditation and doesn't want anything to do with mystery. Religion is all about what's beyond the horizon. Belief has boundaries and is hostile to anything that threatens them.
Wish I could find my notes from the book! I had a great summary that I wanted to share, but the above paragraph, though inadequate, will give you some idea of the book.
"Learned ignorance" the good kind of ignorance, ignorance that knows it doesn't know and can hang out with not-knowing. Carse refers to Nicholas of Cusa as the originator of this idea, but in fact it recurs in Jewish rabbinical thought and is very similar (though emphatically not the same as) the attitude cultivated in several strains of Buddhism.
Another wonderful aspect of this book is Carse's declaration that all religions are not about the same thing. Christians have been squabbling about what exactly Christianity is since the word was coined, but they all recognize another Christian. Similarly, there are multiple schools, lineages, and practices in Buddhism, but we recognize one another as Buddhists. There's been a vogue among Christians for various aspects of Buddhism and Buddhist meditation, but that doesn't make Thomas Merton a Buddhist. Thich Nhat Hanh likes a lot of what Jesus said, but he's never going to be a Christian.
It's a book I'm going to have to re-read. I recommend it to anyone who has a spiritual bent.
Wish I could find my notes from the book! I had a great summary that I wanted to share, but the above paragraph, though inadequate, will give you some idea of the book.
"Learned ignorance" the good kind of ignorance, ignorance that knows it doesn't know and can hang out with not-knowing. Carse refers to Nicholas of Cusa as the originator of this idea, but in fact it recurs in Jewish rabbinical thought and is very similar (though emphatically not the same as) the attitude cultivated in several strains of Buddhism.
Another wonderful aspect of this book is Carse's declaration that all religions are not about the same thing. Christians have been squabbling about what exactly Christianity is since the word was coined, but they all recognize another Christian. Similarly, there are multiple schools, lineages, and practices in Buddhism, but we recognize one another as Buddhists. There's been a vogue among Christians for various aspects of Buddhism and Buddhist meditation, but that doesn't make Thomas Merton a Buddhist. Thich Nhat Hanh likes a lot of what Jesus said, but he's never going to be a Christian.
It's a book I'm going to have to re-read. I recommend it to anyone who has a spiritual bent.
February 17, 2010
Very interesting, and very challenging to read. I especially have enjoyed mulling over the concepts of 3 forms of ignorance:
1. Ordinary - you just don't know something (someones phone number for example)
2. Willful - an assuming of ignorance when there is no ignorance (Creationists who refuse to believe carbon dating or fossil evidence of human existence before the time of the Bible, or a fighter pilot who refuses to acknowledge that his bombs are killing people)= AN IGNORANCE MOST DANGEROUS!
3. Higher - Knowing that there is always more to know, to learn. that manifested by many inspirational leaders - Budda for example, or Galileo Galilei.
And then there is an extended discussion (most of the book actually) around the concept of "Belief Systems" = comprehensive networks of tenets that reach into every area of thought and action" (pp33)- Many religions, for example but also Fascism, Marxism and the Nazi's. And how pervasive they are. and how potentially dangerous.
It will take much deliberation to fully understand this. what fun!
1. Ordinary - you just don't know something (someones phone number for example)
2. Willful - an assuming of ignorance when there is no ignorance (Creationists who refuse to believe carbon dating or fossil evidence of human existence before the time of the Bible, or a fighter pilot who refuses to acknowledge that his bombs are killing people)= AN IGNORANCE MOST DANGEROUS!
3. Higher - Knowing that there is always more to know, to learn. that manifested by many inspirational leaders - Budda for example, or Galileo Galilei.
And then there is an extended discussion (most of the book actually) around the concept of "Belief Systems" = comprehensive networks of tenets that reach into every area of thought and action" (pp33)- Many religions, for example but also Fascism, Marxism and the Nazi's. And how pervasive they are. and how potentially dangerous.
It will take much deliberation to fully understand this. what fun!
April 1, 2023
Brilliant, full of linkages that feel authentic to the author, but really, really difficult to read.
June 10, 2009
You start reading this existential crap and you'll be as crazy as me, I warn you. That said, I can recommend skipping this one for the additional reason that it, in my opinion, sucks. Contemporary bestsellers which are fashionable these days sell books by bashing traditional religions and point out their obvious incongruities and misuses (Dawkins, Harris, et al). Other authors, failing to have jumped in time on that specific bandwagon, publish a text that can be seen(& thus purchased) as expanding on or arguing for or against the validity of these bestsellers.
Most strong atheist writers put out a polemic text for the layperson, but Carse is a professor of religion, and thus, produces an academic treatise which is dry, dull, and difficult. And to top it off, I would include pointless, since his argument (as best I could discern it) is that we shouldn't jettison "religions", just "belief systems" (which include deities and scriptures and such). He spends a lot of time outlining what constitutes a "belief system" vs. a "religion", and it's all a house of cards, as far as I'm concerned.
I am of the opinion he just wanted to publish something to ride on the coattails of successful anti-religion authors by appearing to be doing something novel: "Hey, look at me! I'm an atheist, but I am going to argue for *keeping* religion! Isn't that nifty?"
Most strong atheist writers put out a polemic text for the layperson, but Carse is a professor of religion, and thus, produces an academic treatise which is dry, dull, and difficult. And to top it off, I would include pointless, since his argument (as best I could discern it) is that we shouldn't jettison "religions", just "belief systems" (which include deities and scriptures and such). He spends a lot of time outlining what constitutes a "belief system" vs. a "religion", and it's all a house of cards, as far as I'm concerned.
I am of the opinion he just wanted to publish something to ride on the coattails of successful anti-religion authors by appearing to be doing something novel: "Hey, look at me! I'm an atheist, but I am going to argue for *keeping* religion! Isn't that nifty?"
March 11, 2009
One of the most interesting books I have read on religious belief, at least since Gauchet's work. It is, rightly an aesthetic view: religion as poetry NOT as truth or falsehood.
August 11, 2010
No professional jargon here. In clear, precise, brillant yet scholarly prose, this author makes us aware that most of us are under the enthrallment of belief systems of one kind or another, whether or not we are part of any "organized religion"--and further, he even recommends more--not less--real "religion," because real religion makes no ultimate truth claims to divide folks-- rather it lays bare the mystery in which we all live , and allows us to reopen the search for truth. Most of us are willfully ignorant--because we avoid knowledge that might undermine the authority of our chosen belief systems... Now after all, is there not good precedent for this tradition? Socrates, for instance, went about trying to get his listeners to make the confession of ignorance, so that real learning could resume. And how about Jesus, for that matter--especially in the Gospel of Thomas? In the end Carse proposes a "higher ignorance" (!!) which informs us that we can never know the Total Truth. Those on the path to higher ignorance recognize the Bible (for instance) as poetry intended to expand our horizons, to arrive at a sense of wonder--uncontaminated by belief systems, which shut down the mind and make unnecessary enemies. A wise and provocative read.
April 11, 2016
" if I am a knower, I am open to correction; if I am a believer, I resist it. The one says, This is what I am thinking; I will Wait for your response to see if it is the truth. The other says, This is what I think; I will wait for you to see it as the truth." p 60
Some good insights at times, he tackles perhaps an awkward idea that is already poorly defined and framed. The title itself is the subject matter for the book yet it has a feel of tilting at windmills. Reads like a good intellect with his mind manacled to religion / belief. Seems like he is a few steps away from atheism yet wants to throw away his cake and eat it too. three stars, a worthwhile read If you read critically and struggle through it. Seems his personal view is , yay the bible is wonderful poetry. So yes, goodbye to literalist nonsense but no, while some poetry in the bible is good stuff, resonates with deepest human wants, desires and big questions , alas way too much is awful , vengeful , downright evil nonsense that I can't buy his papering over it.
Some good insights at times, he tackles perhaps an awkward idea that is already poorly defined and framed. The title itself is the subject matter for the book yet it has a feel of tilting at windmills. Reads like a good intellect with his mind manacled to religion / belief. Seems like he is a few steps away from atheism yet wants to throw away his cake and eat it too. three stars, a worthwhile read If you read critically and struggle through it. Seems his personal view is , yay the bible is wonderful poetry. So yes, goodbye to literalist nonsense but no, while some poetry in the bible is good stuff, resonates with deepest human wants, desires and big questions , alas way too much is awful , vengeful , downright evil nonsense that I can't buy his papering over it.
October 23, 2008
Really interesting and challenging. I need to read this at least a second time to fully digest the author's argument, but the first reading helped me to integrate my spiritual experiences and commitments with my commitment to reason and empiricism just a little further. I was especially impressed with his discussions of evil and of death.
November 1, 2010
Very provocative. Carse does a good job differentiating belief systems and religions finding the potential for evil in the former and poetry in the latter. Not as eloquently written as Breakfast at the Victory, but worth the read.
October 19, 2012
The book does a good job of explaining belief systems and the complications of defining what really constitutes a religion, but it doesn't really make any "religious case" against belief.
June 29, 2018
I found this book very interesting and helpful. Carse is professor emeritus and previous director of religious studies at NYU. In this book, he basically sets up a framework of Religion vs. Belief Systems, where Religion is a long, complex, open discussion between members of a unified community pertaining to the deepest mysteries and paradoxes within our human experience as a whole and within that specific community - they encourage questioning, exploration, and dialogue. Belief Systems, on the other hand, are precise constructs designed to systematically answer unknowns, delineate boundaries, and end discussion. Belief systems can and do arise out of religions in great numbers, but despite their efforts, no one belief system conclusively defines the whole. In fact, the multiplicity of belief systems reinforces the unknowability and mystery at the core of each religion.
I found this way of viewing these ideas very helpful. As someone who grew up in a relatively rigid faith environment, I found these two ideas butting up against one another. Within evangelical Christianity, one is encouraged to read and study the Bible. In doing so, you inevitably run into the rich and varied discussion running throughout christian history, and you deal with the complex and varied paradoxes and mysteries of the universe. On the other hand, many in the evangelical community have developed extremely rigid belief systems that seek to shut down all conversation, eliminate all discussion. I found this particularly off-putting - however, as I grew older, I also found a multitude of people outside Christianity who have constructed belief systems of their own, just as rigid. It seemed that the problem is not a case of secular science vs religion, but rather open and curious thought vs rigid and combative thought.
Carse's discussion helps bring this distinction into focus. I think this is a thoughtful reflection on the concept and if you are interested in these types of ideas, it will give you some good food for thought. You can read this book from the point of view of any religion or no religion - he is not making a case for any one specific religion, nor does he try to make the case that all religions are essentially the same. He is simply encouraging people of any persuasion to engage the world with more openness, curiosity, and wonder.
I found this way of viewing these ideas very helpful. As someone who grew up in a relatively rigid faith environment, I found these two ideas butting up against one another. Within evangelical Christianity, one is encouraged to read and study the Bible. In doing so, you inevitably run into the rich and varied discussion running throughout christian history, and you deal with the complex and varied paradoxes and mysteries of the universe. On the other hand, many in the evangelical community have developed extremely rigid belief systems that seek to shut down all conversation, eliminate all discussion. I found this particularly off-putting - however, as I grew older, I also found a multitude of people outside Christianity who have constructed belief systems of their own, just as rigid. It seemed that the problem is not a case of secular science vs religion, but rather open and curious thought vs rigid and combative thought.
Carse's discussion helps bring this distinction into focus. I think this is a thoughtful reflection on the concept and if you are interested in these types of ideas, it will give you some good food for thought. You can read this book from the point of view of any religion or no religion - he is not making a case for any one specific religion, nor does he try to make the case that all religions are essentially the same. He is simply encouraging people of any persuasion to engage the world with more openness, curiosity, and wonder.
January 11, 2019
I really enjoyed this book and found it very thought provoking. Like his other book finite and infinite games, the author writes in a very clear style and examines different sides of his claims in a way I do not regularly encounter. The gist of the book from what I could tell was the claim that religions are distinct from belief systems and in fact tend to focus on mystery and create doubt (and can be religions because of this) rather then encourage certainty. It also explore different types of ignorance and how religious communities differ from civic communities. Another concept is the idea that disagreement is a kind of engine within true religion that allows it to keep rejuvenating itself throughout the ages while still being identifiable as itself. It also talks about how religions die. And also how religious texts are interpreted. Reading a religious text literally being itself an interpretation, but usually one the reader is not aware of making. In short, it talks about a lot of things.
He ends with wonderful humility and humor, after bringing up the fact that his ideas could itself be thought of as a belief system: "There is only one defense for the apparent contradiction of dismissing belief systems by way of another belief system, as I have done: the argument presented in these pages must provide the basis for its own rejection. Indeed, by citing the importance of disagreement to a vital and ongoing conversation is all but to beg for a critique of this critique. I am not initiating a conversation but joining one, in this case one that has been dazzlingly under way for millennia. Any thought that I might bring it all to an end satisfactory to myself, or anyone else, is hilarious at best. My aim is the opposite: to add a voice that, if it is effective at all, will only raise other voices. And the more clamorous the response the better."
He ends with wonderful humility and humor, after bringing up the fact that his ideas could itself be thought of as a belief system: "There is only one defense for the apparent contradiction of dismissing belief systems by way of another belief system, as I have done: the argument presented in these pages must provide the basis for its own rejection. Indeed, by citing the importance of disagreement to a vital and ongoing conversation is all but to beg for a critique of this critique. I am not initiating a conversation but joining one, in this case one that has been dazzlingly under way for millennia. Any thought that I might bring it all to an end satisfactory to myself, or anyone else, is hilarious at best. My aim is the opposite: to add a voice that, if it is effective at all, will only raise other voices. And the more clamorous the response the better."
November 16, 2019
From a footnote: "Readers familiar with my Finite and Infinite Games will note that I have interpreted religion as a form of infinite game -- though an imperfect form, each religion imperfect in its own way. A finite game is defined there as a game ones plays to win; an infinite as a game played to keep playing. The imperfections of each religion are understood as the entrance of finite players into the infinite game, bringing with them the intention of winning their conflicts instead of keeping them alive, thereby ending the game to their presumed gain. The burden on infinite players is to find a way of integrating what is interpretive into what is ongoing. Although ultimately there can only be one infinite game, it is all but unthinkable that it will ever be achieved. Until it is achieved, even long-enduring institutions like the great religions will remain opaque to each other, and are doomed to fail, eventually slipping back into belief systems (that is, finite games)."
March 11, 2019
A fascinating look at religion through it's juxtaposition against belief. I give a very brief and completely inadequate summary of my understanding of the central concept as follows. By it's nature, religion puts a horizon in our sight, which tells us there is something beyond that we don't know and that we don't understand. Religion thereby encourages us to ask questions, to seek to understand, to discuss, and, by not answering the questions, it drives curiosity and creativity. Belief systems pretend to have the answers, and by supposedly having the answers, tend to be or become rigid and prevent the asking of questions and critical discourse, hence sealing their adherents in behind walls that block their ability to see the horizon and to know that there is much beyond their vision that they do not know.
A book well worth reading, if not for a challenge to ones own "beliefs", for the joy of running across some beautifully profound passages.
A book well worth reading, if not for a challenge to ones own "beliefs", for the joy of running across some beautifully profound passages.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 19, 2017
James P. Carse tries to explain the difference between Belief and Religion and totally loses my attention about 50 pages into this short book. Using famous examples of faith gone mad, Carse tells us that these particular instances are times when the opposing sides just dug their heels into the ground and refused to see things from another perspective.
I have heard of this idea from a Psychology book, but I do not remember what it was called. The idea that you devoted your life to a lie so you do all that is in your power to avoid seeing the truth in front of your face. In that sense, this book was illuminating since it demonstrates how even the most intelligent among us can be bamboozled into belief.
That said, I did not think the book to be particularly good, although I did find it tolerable.
I have heard of this idea from a Psychology book, but I do not remember what it was called. The idea that you devoted your life to a lie so you do all that is in your power to avoid seeing the truth in front of your face. In that sense, this book was illuminating since it demonstrates how even the most intelligent among us can be bamboozled into belief.
That said, I did not think the book to be particularly good, although I did find it tolerable.
December 14, 2020
This is an intriguing presentation of “belief” and “religion.” By separating the two, the author is able to clearly explain the problem with belief and why it causes conflict, and how religion - as opposed to a belief system - is open to interpretation, debate, and answers questions with more unknowns. Unlike a belief system, religion is, using Carse’s words, a “communitas” that has “an open and frank exchange of divergent views.”
I was engrossed with the author’s comments regarding President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. He explained how with this speech Lincoln shifted from belief to religious, speaking as a “poet” pushing the nation’s vision.
I think the author writes with clarity, precisely defines his terms, and provides adequate examples in support of his theme. He challenges the reader. This is a book one can return to many times.
I was engrossed with the author’s comments regarding President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. He explained how with this speech Lincoln shifted from belief to religious, speaking as a “poet” pushing the nation’s vision.
I think the author writes with clarity, precisely defines his terms, and provides adequate examples in support of his theme. He challenges the reader. This is a book one can return to many times.
August 29, 2013
Book in one sentence ...
Belief is the antitheses of Religion which is closer to poetry and people conflate knowledge with belief to the detriment of all mankind.
Here he means Belief to be "Belief Systems" and religion is defined by him as an open inquiring look at existence, much like poetry. And Religion is a process of learning ignorance that prompts us to strive ever harder toward higher aspiration. Or something like that.
For me the most intriguing part is his example of Galileo before the pope when he is asked to deny the truth of his scientific conclusions.
“When the pope assumed that belief (for him knowledge) represented the end of ignorance, Galileo saw it as the beginning of ignorance, Galileo was not a convert. The truth was not revealed to him. He came to it after a lifetime of study. He knew, as any critical thinker would, that knowledge is corrigible, and that belief is rarely so. Open to correction himself, he had not inclination and no reason to take an immovable stand. He could not perform an heroic act like Luther’s not because of cowardice but because there was nothing to stand on. Belief systems are already complete. No new knowledge can reverse their finality. Knowledge, in other words, is never knowledge against….” Pg 60
I feel this touches on so much, so much that is tantalizing and appealing for me. But it somehow misses the mark. The books comes close to showing how "higher ignorance" actually fuels knowledge AND religion but never quite gets there.
In my hackneyed and often inebriated explanation of Religion I have tried to use the poetry analogy but it never really makes an impression. People who "believe" don't need it and unbelievers don't care.
All in all I think he highlights an important and true but hard to pin down intersection of belief and knowledge AND how faith and ignorance are tied to them.
The problem is that, I think, that for the majority of people Religion IS a belief system, and various religions are simply an accumulation of enumerated beliefs. This is so for non-believers as well as "believers".
Looking at the way conservative Christians view the world it is easy to see the confusing of Belief with Knowledge. Then again the non believer's view of the world can be just as rigid as the fundamentalist. They both thrive on anger and disdain of the other view.
I once watched "Flock of Dodos:" on Netflix and the amazing thing was the scientists were just as angry and dismissive of the fundamentalist as the Creationists were of the scientists. The manner and rhetoric was the same. Don't be confused, teaching science via the Bible is crazy, but still...maybe what bothered me was the fundamentalist were trying to use their religion as a belief system to explain science and the scientists acted like the creationists where attacking their religion, an everybody reacted emotionally. To be sure the fundamentalists ignored obvious evidence ("willful ignorance") but in one scene the anthropologists were almost apoplectic in their denunciation of their opposites and would never accept there might be a spiritual motivation for the other side. So the question is, should scientists even try to understand with compassion this alien point of view?
Perhaps related, decades ago I read a book that pointed out fundamentalists want to take the spiritual and turn it into the material in a perverse and flawed mimicry of science. That way you can prove that which truthfully can never be "proved".
The author struggles to define Religion, as poetry, comomunitas, longevity of existence, and more. But really I find the Dali Lama's definition more convincing, with religion as that which engenders "compassion". Simple and inspiring. (I have no attribution for this but I heard it somewhere). But compassion is something missing from this book and may explain why I find it lacking.
In fact there seems to be a gaping hole in this book; for me there is never a real feel of why people are religious at all. He mentions Jesus and Islam and Buddhism throughout, but never really indicates why one should bother. He is pretty good pointing out that the Religion as belief system is rigid and really the heart of all the bad press in any religion. But aside from this yearning for Religion as a poetic expression of a spiritual truth (although I don't think he ever used the word spiritual, which is odd to me)he is pretty unconvincing on why people should go down that road at all.
All in all the audience for this books strikes me as limited since if you think Religion is all bollocks anyway you see no point to entertaining these ideas. And those who are into some sort of religion seem to be pretty well set, why bother thinking about it any more.
Here are some quotes I like...
“Belief systems are stunningly resistant to such correction, for the simple reason that deeply held committed believers are not offering a variety of debatable proposals about the nature of the world. They see the world through their beliefs, not their beliefs from a worldly perspective” pg 28
“…belief marks the line at which our thinking stops…” pg 44
"Believers and warriors tend to merge into one another: the military sees itself in religious terms, while believers take one the images of warfare." Pg 77
"Religion in its purest form is a vast work of poetry." Pg 111
"Belief systems offer a rational and consistent view of everything...” pg 145
sacred texts...”They must be interpreted. That is they do not come to life until there is a living response to them.” pg 189
Belief is the antitheses of Religion which is closer to poetry and people conflate knowledge with belief to the detriment of all mankind.
Here he means Belief to be "Belief Systems" and religion is defined by him as an open inquiring look at existence, much like poetry. And Religion is a process of learning ignorance that prompts us to strive ever harder toward higher aspiration. Or something like that.
For me the most intriguing part is his example of Galileo before the pope when he is asked to deny the truth of his scientific conclusions.
“When the pope assumed that belief (for him knowledge) represented the end of ignorance, Galileo saw it as the beginning of ignorance, Galileo was not a convert. The truth was not revealed to him. He came to it after a lifetime of study. He knew, as any critical thinker would, that knowledge is corrigible, and that belief is rarely so. Open to correction himself, he had not inclination and no reason to take an immovable stand. He could not perform an heroic act like Luther’s not because of cowardice but because there was nothing to stand on. Belief systems are already complete. No new knowledge can reverse their finality. Knowledge, in other words, is never knowledge against….” Pg 60
I feel this touches on so much, so much that is tantalizing and appealing for me. But it somehow misses the mark. The books comes close to showing how "higher ignorance" actually fuels knowledge AND religion but never quite gets there.
In my hackneyed and often inebriated explanation of Religion I have tried to use the poetry analogy but it never really makes an impression. People who "believe" don't need it and unbelievers don't care.
All in all I think he highlights an important and true but hard to pin down intersection of belief and knowledge AND how faith and ignorance are tied to them.
The problem is that, I think, that for the majority of people Religion IS a belief system, and various religions are simply an accumulation of enumerated beliefs. This is so for non-believers as well as "believers".
Looking at the way conservative Christians view the world it is easy to see the confusing of Belief with Knowledge. Then again the non believer's view of the world can be just as rigid as the fundamentalist. They both thrive on anger and disdain of the other view.
I once watched "Flock of Dodos:" on Netflix and the amazing thing was the scientists were just as angry and dismissive of the fundamentalist as the Creationists were of the scientists. The manner and rhetoric was the same. Don't be confused, teaching science via the Bible is crazy, but still...maybe what bothered me was the fundamentalist were trying to use their religion as a belief system to explain science and the scientists acted like the creationists where attacking their religion, an everybody reacted emotionally. To be sure the fundamentalists ignored obvious evidence ("willful ignorance") but in one scene the anthropologists were almost apoplectic in their denunciation of their opposites and would never accept there might be a spiritual motivation for the other side. So the question is, should scientists even try to understand with compassion this alien point of view?
Perhaps related, decades ago I read a book that pointed out fundamentalists want to take the spiritual and turn it into the material in a perverse and flawed mimicry of science. That way you can prove that which truthfully can never be "proved".
The author struggles to define Religion, as poetry, comomunitas, longevity of existence, and more. But really I find the Dali Lama's definition more convincing, with religion as that which engenders "compassion". Simple and inspiring. (I have no attribution for this but I heard it somewhere). But compassion is something missing from this book and may explain why I find it lacking.
In fact there seems to be a gaping hole in this book; for me there is never a real feel of why people are religious at all. He mentions Jesus and Islam and Buddhism throughout, but never really indicates why one should bother. He is pretty good pointing out that the Religion as belief system is rigid and really the heart of all the bad press in any religion. But aside from this yearning for Religion as a poetic expression of a spiritual truth (although I don't think he ever used the word spiritual, which is odd to me)he is pretty unconvincing on why people should go down that road at all.
All in all the audience for this books strikes me as limited since if you think Religion is all bollocks anyway you see no point to entertaining these ideas. And those who are into some sort of religion seem to be pretty well set, why bother thinking about it any more.
Here are some quotes I like...
“Belief systems are stunningly resistant to such correction, for the simple reason that deeply held committed believers are not offering a variety of debatable proposals about the nature of the world. They see the world through their beliefs, not their beliefs from a worldly perspective” pg 28
“…belief marks the line at which our thinking stops…” pg 44
"Believers and warriors tend to merge into one another: the military sees itself in religious terms, while believers take one the images of warfare." Pg 77
"Religion in its purest form is a vast work of poetry." Pg 111
"Belief systems offer a rational and consistent view of everything...” pg 145
sacred texts...”They must be interpreted. That is they do not come to life until there is a living response to them.” pg 189
March 19, 2022
Outstanding.
Carse's intention in this book, in his own words, is to "... present a coherent argument against what I consider to be a distorted understanding of the nature of religion" - and he does just that and then some. This book gave me an entirely new perspective and shed light on several (what I now realize were) misdirected criticisms of religion I had. I'll need to read this a few more times to form a firmer interpretation of Carse's ideas, but I can already say with certainty that reading this book gave me several new points of view from which to engage in discussions about religion.
Carse's intention in this book, in his own words, is to "... present a coherent argument against what I consider to be a distorted understanding of the nature of religion" - and he does just that and then some. This book gave me an entirely new perspective and shed light on several (what I now realize were) misdirected criticisms of religion I had. I'll need to read this a few more times to form a firmer interpretation of Carse's ideas, but I can already say with certainty that reading this book gave me several new points of view from which to engage in discussions about religion.
February 13, 2021
Dense and slow moving, but appreciably methodical; at one point Carse dedicates nearly two full pages to a run-on sentence punctuated with semicolons, listing known/accepted versions of Jesus, each annotated with a reference. At first I was irritated how long it takes for to premise to bear out but I've come to appreciate it. Picking up the book and reading the title, one knows what to expect and won't be disappointed.
September 15, 2017
I mean, absolutely fantastic book
August 18, 2019
The third book I’ve ever bailed on in my life.
December 11, 2020
Whew, that was a dense 200 pages. Interesting and challenging in all the right ways, but dense.
March 27, 2021
“The bible was silent on the velocity of falling objects.”
July 10, 2021
Couldn’t even finish.
September 13, 2021
Interesting
This is a book which makes you think. Many things he mentions are thoughts that I've had while on my spiritual journey and I found his perspective very interesting.
This is a book which makes you think. Many things he mentions are thoughts that I've had while on my spiritual journey and I found his perspective very interesting.
June 30, 2024
Some abstract ideas on belief vs religion. Some ideas possibly too deep, liked how he utilized poems/poets as a corollary to scripture/priests
October 20, 2015
Carse argues that one should not conflate systems of belief and religion: the former is concerned with power, is dogmatic and even self-defeating at times, whereas the latter is more akin to poetry- seemingly offering us answers to life, but only giving us cryptic hints. For these reasons, equating the two is at best arbitrary and at worst leads to things like extremism.
This book therefore is concerned with differentiating the two and show how religion may in fact oppose belief systems (as suggested in the book), but the enormous scale of systems it tries to tackle, utilizing major religious systems and at the same time taking examples and anecdotes from all across history means it at best attempts to offer us a grand theory of the two. While I have no inherent problems with such books as a whole, this often results in simplification of real-world examples, or even reductionism in an attempt to pigeonhole examples into 'religion' or 'belief'. Does this happen? I am not well versed in theology, and will defer to Carse, who nonetheless concedes that there cannot be a proper definition of such systems that is through and exhaustive. The first two chapters, which talk about systems of belief and religion separately, are thus still convincing in portraying how each system operates, sustains itself and how he comes to his conclusions about each system. I will encourage everyone at least read these two sections, for they challenge conventional wisdom about how belief = faith, how we should not take the current state of religion to represent the concept of religion as a whole, and illustrates how self-perpetuating systems of belief are.
However, the third part of the book is more problematic. When Carse attempts to move beyond defining and describing such systems, and starts to try and draw meaning, the conclusions are a little unsatisfactory: something as big as the concept is evil is merely handwaved by saying that examples suffice, and that family resemblances will have to be used instead of giving a proper definition- we therefore implicitly conclude that there are objectively evil acts, although we cannot really define them. (However, this book isn't one on moral objectivism- so this should not be a red herring.) Furthermore, this book seems to favor large-scale system of belief, and less legitimacy seems to be accorded to personal systems of belief. This has the implication that the text itself is at best a system of belief, and should not be taken seriously. While the author does acknowledge this fact, and points it out in the Coda, I still find that the conclusions this book draws are somewhat lacking towards the end. Still, a decent, easy-ish read.
This book therefore is concerned with differentiating the two and show how religion may in fact oppose belief systems (as suggested in the book), but the enormous scale of systems it tries to tackle, utilizing major religious systems and at the same time taking examples and anecdotes from all across history means it at best attempts to offer us a grand theory of the two. While I have no inherent problems with such books as a whole, this often results in simplification of real-world examples, or even reductionism in an attempt to pigeonhole examples into 'religion' or 'belief'. Does this happen? I am not well versed in theology, and will defer to Carse, who nonetheless concedes that there cannot be a proper definition of such systems that is through and exhaustive. The first two chapters, which talk about systems of belief and religion separately, are thus still convincing in portraying how each system operates, sustains itself and how he comes to his conclusions about each system. I will encourage everyone at least read these two sections, for they challenge conventional wisdom about how belief = faith, how we should not take the current state of religion to represent the concept of religion as a whole, and illustrates how self-perpetuating systems of belief are.
However, the third part of the book is more problematic. When Carse attempts to move beyond defining and describing such systems, and starts to try and draw meaning, the conclusions are a little unsatisfactory: something as big as the concept is evil is merely handwaved by saying that examples suffice, and that family resemblances will have to be used instead of giving a proper definition- we therefore implicitly conclude that there are objectively evil acts, although we cannot really define them. (However, this book isn't one on moral objectivism- so this should not be a red herring.) Furthermore, this book seems to favor large-scale system of belief, and less legitimacy seems to be accorded to personal systems of belief. This has the implication that the text itself is at best a system of belief, and should not be taken seriously. While the author does acknowledge this fact, and points it out in the Coda, I still find that the conclusions this book draws are somewhat lacking towards the end. Still, a decent, easy-ish read.
August 31, 2016
This is an interesting book for quite a few reasons.
First off, it presents a couple of redefinitions of commonly used (or, as argued, misused) terms, namely 'religion' and 'belief'. As defined here, most of e.g. America is not religious, but merely --and Carse means *merely*-- partisans of any number of beliefs. What is religion? Well... it is a long-lived and living set of... traditions and thoughts (almost said 'beliefs') embodied in a communitas (community, but without the baggage of ethnicity, political unity, geographical continuity, etc.) There is a lot here, and I'm doing the barest of bare jobs of describing it.
This leads to (for me) the second most interesting move here: people who blame religion for crimes, social ills, suffering, close mindedness, etc. are actually angry/etc. with 'belief'. This is is in several ways clever, one such way being that the most strident e.g. New Atheists are themselves partisans, themselves *merely* 'believers.'
Lest you think 'religion' is reserved only for some ineffable thing that no one actually experiences... well, this might be the biggest weakness here. It sort of is. I'm not convinced that Carse hasn't excluded 99% of the professed religious. While the poor, struggling, 'believing' mother of 4 is not guilty of the crimes of 'belief', she certainly doesn't partake in the 'higher ignorance' that defines 'religion' here. So the mass of the worlds 'religious' (including the purposefully sympathetic example I just gave) are mere believers; by defining away the 'problems of religion' (seemingly as much due to e.g. disgust at creationists' hijinks as due to e.g. the misplaced critiques of 'New Atheists') Carse seems to have reduced the population of communitas to academics, theologians, artists, and philosophers.
But I'm giving 5 stars. Because this is not a "religion is poison," or "religion is great," or even "religion has problems, but look at how it has contributed to culture" argument. This is the first serious 'new' take I've see on the place of, reason for, and meaning of religion in... a long time.
And I like new ideas. "My horizon has been moved." :)
First off, it presents a couple of redefinitions of commonly used (or, as argued, misused) terms, namely 'religion' and 'belief'. As defined here, most of e.g. America is not religious, but merely --and Carse means *merely*-- partisans of any number of beliefs. What is religion? Well... it is a long-lived and living set of... traditions and thoughts (almost said 'beliefs') embodied in a communitas (community, but without the baggage of ethnicity, political unity, geographical continuity, etc.) There is a lot here, and I'm doing the barest of bare jobs of describing it.
This leads to (for me) the second most interesting move here: people who blame religion for crimes, social ills, suffering, close mindedness, etc. are actually angry/etc. with 'belief'. This is is in several ways clever, one such way being that the most strident e.g. New Atheists are themselves partisans, themselves *merely* 'believers.'
Lest you think 'religion' is reserved only for some ineffable thing that no one actually experiences... well, this might be the biggest weakness here. It sort of is. I'm not convinced that Carse hasn't excluded 99% of the professed religious. While the poor, struggling, 'believing' mother of 4 is not guilty of the crimes of 'belief', she certainly doesn't partake in the 'higher ignorance' that defines 'religion' here. So the mass of the worlds 'religious' (including the purposefully sympathetic example I just gave) are mere believers; by defining away the 'problems of religion' (seemingly as much due to e.g. disgust at creationists' hijinks as due to e.g. the misplaced critiques of 'New Atheists') Carse seems to have reduced the population of communitas to academics, theologians, artists, and philosophers.
But I'm giving 5 stars. Because this is not a "religion is poison," or "religion is great," or even "religion has problems, but look at how it has contributed to culture" argument. This is the first serious 'new' take I've see on the place of, reason for, and meaning of religion in... a long time.
And I like new ideas. "My horizon has been moved." :)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews