On Stark’s For the Glory of God
In For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch hunts, and the End of Slavery, Rodney Stark embarks on a socio-historical reckoning with normative perspectives regarding the role of monotheism (Christian belief) has played in shaping western history and many of the “givens” functioning in common thought. Admitting himself that he is not a historian, Stark brilliantly utilizes the work of imminent scholars in that field, to inform his own investigation. His text elucidates a perspective that critically challenges assertions surrounding the European reformation process, relationships between science and the church, the church’s role in witch hunts, and abolitionist movements. In exploring “How ideas about God have shaped the history and culture of the West, and therefore of the world— including both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ consequences” the text asserts and defends the vital role of monotheism in progressing and influencing phenomena beyond mere socio-cultural functions (Stark, 2).
Stark’s mission begins with a bold assertion that “monotheism may well have been the single most significant innovation in history” which underlines the entirety of the exploration that he proceeds to support with an intricate methodology and variable data sets (Stark, 1). Certainly, a well-grounded methodical approach is appropriate to counteract the prevailing dismissal of religion within the common practice of social science. Four major historical episodes are explored that are representative of human action. First, an examination of the processes of reformation puts forward a new hypothesis as to why Protestantism succeeded in some places and failed in others. Next, a response to claims that the scientific revolution triumphed out of an age of religious darkness. Third, we explore factors behind the witch hunts of Europe. Finally, linkages are made between the motivations of the witchhunts and the efforts to end slavery. Suffice to say the text makes a compelling case for the place of religious belief (rather than mere ritual or social effects of religion) in promulgating the course of western history.
Stark’s new theoretical dimensions approach the subject matter not only as critical case studies but also with a view cognizant of the variation in regional aspects wherein these events transpired and variation between monotheist religions themselves. The book draws insight by inclusion of Jewish and Islamic perspectives, rather than focusing on Christianity as an independently construct. Surely, influences of Islam are relevent to any analysis that, for example, includes the history of events transpiring in Spain whether from a geopolitical, religious, scientific, or cultural discourse. This attention to nuance excels Stark’s vision for this book. Insight as to the attributions of heretical movements function to bring new light to the “way things happened” within protestant reformations that are not commonly explored when tracing what often becomes a binary view of the history between the Catholic Church and Protestantism. The historical approach of the reformation section serves as a pivotal launching point for the inquiries that follow and put forward the strongest hypothesis made in the text. These assertions posit that three variables can contribute to the success of reformation efforts: 1) local catholic weakness, 2) responsive governance, and 3) royal self interest. These factors become thematic in comparison between territorial regions in later chapters. Another key insight of arising from Stark’s analysis of the reformation suggests a characterization of two churches within Catholicism, a “Church of Piety” and a “Church of Power” who both add authority and validity to the Catholic endeavor but pose challenges that catalyze reformation efforts and can lead to some of the sectarian divisions depicted herein.
While depicting an inclusive view of monotheism, it is important to note that the study is not ultimately inclusive of alternative religious perspectives. Certainly wherein one makes a claim that monotheism and theological aspects thereof are singularly influential beyond those of polytheistic traditions, polytheistic survey or comparative case study would provide the most important measure of that variance. Despite the many strengths of this text, it’s my opinion that Stark fails to provide adequate consideration of alternative beliefs to support his earlier mentioned assertion. A significant and more achievable assertion based on the path explored would perhaps be “monotheism is a significant, though often overlooked, innovation in history”. This shouldn’t be taken to imply that Stark does not give mention to Norse Paganism that influenced reformation efforts or the Roman pantheon proliferating during the emergence of Christianity, just that any assertion of singular impact should be matched with investigation of equal rigor to that of the group prioritized.
In the second chapter, Stark attempts to unsettle prevailing views that religious beliefs, often depicted as moulding Europe’s dark ages, suppressed or acted as an obstacle to the scientific progress of the Enlightenment. His case positions Christian roots as instrumental in the growth of science, a condition necessary for the Enlightenment due to unique religious factors. Stark seeks to prove that Christian belief asserted that science should be done and these conditions gave way to the singular emergence of science which was unique to seventeenth century Europe. Within one example, we encounter Galileo and are asked to consider alternative perspectives on conflict between Galileo’s own personal belief system and his science. Despite political interference this is a well posited point to support the assertion that religious belief is not the stumbling block to science that it is commonly regarded to be. In fact, the explorations of scholasticism and University inquiry give light to the neglected roots of “natural theology” from whence knowledge of the cosmos and science as we know it originated.
However, I caution reflection on the validity of historical causal-effect assertions that seem to position knowledge in a linear progressive model. The making of history is an uneven, contradictory, and messy business wherein social institutions often intersect to influence the production of outcomes ensuring that one particular occurrence can never be guaranteed or reproduced. Thus, we may be able to trace a line from our current position within history (which is not without its own bias) to depict science emerging within monotheist formations but that does not really confirm that this formation is the only formation within which this could have (or did) occur.
It is within the exploration of science that I will offer a criticism of Stark’s neutrality, as it becomes clear from the text that intends to take up defense for positions of creationism. This is, no doubt, in line with the critical challenges to prevailing thought existent throughout the text; however, this occurrence seems to veer off course from Stark’s original thesis. The argumentation mischaracterizes some of the assertions of natural selection and neglects to address alternative confirmation of processes that may occur outside of a fossil record. One might ask: “Why does a section supporting assertions that science emerged from within Christianity needs to rail against the scientific validity of evolutionary research in the first place?”. Does this section not characterize the very point that is being argued against, that religion is a challenge to science? This chapter strays towards personal attacks and logical fallacy that do not serve the greater narrative.
Stark's arguments lie in contrast to antireligious sentiments prioritizing ritual and community that are abundant in social science research and the beliefs that are dismissed in historical accounts. He seeks to elucidate the true impact of Christian doctrine for better or for worse. In furthering this exploration he draws on the historical base that he’s built in reformation and the scientific progress of the enlightenment to investigate and paradoxically link two events: witch hunts and persecution and the end of slavery, which he suggests have a common origin. In keeping with goals to dispel common myths, Stark approaches the misconception that witch hunts proliferated in the middle ages outside of scientific rationalism. In contrast, he informs that the rise of science was influential to these persecutions and suggests that, common to characteristics of reformation, weak territorial governance and religious saturation contributed to this situation particular to the area north of the Rhine.
The Christian factors contributing to witch hunts ironically where the same factors Stark elucidates as pivotal in spurring the movement for the abolition of slavery. In fact, he demonstrates how the same radical witch hunters became formidable opponents to the practice of slavery, dispelling assumptions we may have of dark age ignorance and malevolence. Herein we see that it was distinctly within the spheres of Christian thought and Christian ideas that the groundwork for this particular freedom began to take shape. Stark comes back to his thesis that religious aspects are oft overlooked in favor of more “sound” social science, however, it is worth mentioning that his approaches tend to have the same dismissive nature when ruling out factors, such as economic interests, that may have had formative influence towards the occurrences he seeks to explain. This leads to a somewhat contentious claim that free market economics did not contribute to the dissolution of slavery.
This section does consider variable aspects of comparative cultures with Greek, Roman, Arabic, etc. background information. However, assertions are not endeavored to reconcile extensive belief/theology in these cultures to those suggested as motivating Christian abolition. Confronted within another monotheist perspective, Stark does consider the moral conditions that may have lent themselves to proliferating anti-slavery throughout the Islamic world and suggests a barrier to that actualization. Value can certainly be found in comparative monotheist to monotheist exploration, however, I again find a lack of diversity capable of supporting a privilege of monotheism over polytheism. Certainly one could assert that polytheism is less prevalent within the “western” context that Stark is exploring, though “western” has not been sufficiently been made distinct nor is the reality of the “west” something that has been developed in a vacuum outside of eastern or other influence.
While controversial, this text is timely in it’s consideration of the role that religious belief has played in the making of western culture. In a time wherein factions are developing in the U.S. challenging science on ideological grounds it is important to review the myths that widen the chasm between two ideas that, for better or worse, are inextricably linked. This text functions primarily as a defense against some of the charges taken up against religion in scholarly work and in common assumption, though the investigation puts forth assertions about the formative influence of monotheism, it may be more appropriate to narrow that scope to Christianity. At times, the text skews towards an argumentative approach with aspirations of “debunking” opinions that neglect a broad scope consideration of alternative theorists, social occurrences, theories, and full multifaceted interpretations thereof. David Hume, Charles Darwin, and for the most part, Greek Philosophy each are problematically depicted by incomplete characterizations for the achievement of the author’s point.
This text is far reaching and readable to a non-scholarly audience. The clear methodology and empirical representations allow this work to stand out from other religious histories fostering similar “apologetic” content. Despite shortcomings (which may have been addressed more adequately in the first volume), elements of this text are of immense value. Specifically, the contributions of religion belief should not be dismissed or limited in scholarly works. This trend towards a secular “slant”, undermines elucidations of knowledge to privilege only positions that fit within a given narrative (such is Stark’s underlying conflict with Richard Dawkins). By ignoring or underselling the powers of religious belief, scholars run the risk of shaping a religiously illiterate community that doesn’t have the appropriate tools to fully realize religious issues that seek to destabilize our current world. Investigating and appropriately considering the “better or worse” aspects of religious motivation is the only way that we can face the challenges of the future. Critically challenging the assumptions of history allows for a deeper understanding of the broad interplay of sociological processes and shines a light on marginalized groups that may have had a significant impact in history.
Stark, R. (2003). For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery. PRINCETON; OXFORD: Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1287k58
