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." :) ( )

Another one I'm officially abandoning due to lack of time...

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 had very high hopes for this book. Based on the title alone, I expected a strong sympathy with the central thesis, and I had long ago enjoyed author James Carse's previous book Finite and Infinite Games. So perhaps my expectations were overinflated. Still, I was rather disappointed.

The book is written in a loose, essayistic style. It gives evidence of long contemplation of deep issues, but its arguments are not as clear or tightly-organized as I would like. A few passages consist of long hodgepodges of declarative statements loosely linked by theme, with words italicized in each statement to emphasize the feature that Carse hopes to demonstrate. These masses of disparate detail did not have the persuasive effect for me that Carse clearly intended them to have. Also, many facts mentioned in the book are incorrect. Giordano Bruno was not a "great astronomer" (21). The word "heresy" is etymologically identifiable with "choice," not with "other" (82). And I had to guffaw when Carse characterized the biblical Apocalypse as having "so little connection to ... any other known literary or religious work that it is difficult to know how to weigh its importance" (114). (How about Daniel and Ezekiel, just for biblical angles?) Carse also hypostasizes the "historical Jesus" in a way that I found unhelpful, although it certainly caters to the biases of Christian readers. Even though Carse acknowledges the unknowability of "Jesus," he treats as unquestionable the actual existence of a single historical person behind the literature and legends regarding the Christian god-man.

My biggest problem with the book, though, was Carse's inadequate definition of "religion." Given that defining "religion" is a Sisyphean challenge, I should perhaps cut him some slack, but he offers two criteria, both of which are beset with serious failings. The first of these is what he calls "orality." He does not use the oral as a counterpart to the written; what he actually means could perhaps better be characterized as discursivity. That, however, would make obvious the problem that discursivity is a pervasive feature of all human thought and enterprise, as scholarship in recent decades has gone to great lengths to demonstrate. So how does it distinguish religion? His second criterion is "longevity." For Carse, "new religious movements" is a plain oxymoron -- he wants to relegate all newer manifestations of religious activity to the purview of the "belief systems" that he opposes to "religion" in sensu stricto. As an example, he insists that Mormonism is not a religion! Presumably, he considers it a "belief system" within Christian religion. In disclaiming any strict quantitative boundary to the "longevity" required of religion, he uses Mormonism as a counter-example, alleging that "It has not yet developed a distinctive culture of its own; there is no music, or architecture, or philosophy, or even theology, that is recognizable as a unique expression of the Mormon faith" (197). I will not present details of the case against Christianity or Islam's "unique expressions" if Mormonism can be said to have none, but suffice it to say that this categorical dismissal did not satisfy me.

This artificially narrow definition of "religion" may serve a philosophical purpose, but it has especially odious effects when paired with the "freedom of religion" postulated in US civic discourse. No, you don't have any protected right to your freely-chosen belief system, and your newfangled cult doesn't qualify as a religion. Shudder. Carse has a reasonably perspicacious take on the state of Christianity in the US, suggesting that it may be "losing its resonance" as it panders to divisive ideologies extrinsic to its traditional concerns (207), and yet he repeatedly calls atheist critics to task for the confusion of religion and belief that is advanced by those whom the atheists criticize.

Some of the best parts of the book are toward the end. I appreciated his discussion of death and evil. He proposes an intriguing musical metaphor to address the difference between religion and belief as he sees it. Also, he introduces the distinction between belief and doctrine, which in many ways is a more apples-to-apples contrast than the one between belief systems and religions. And in the coda (a consciously musical titling, no doubt) he disavows any interest in having presented a perfected picture of the dilemma he discusses. Instead, he wants to inspire, continue, and energize the discussion. And on that basis, I would recommend the book: not as one that gives optimal answers, but as one that asks some excellent questions.

Could be subtitled "Inquisitive wonder against ideology", or "poetry contra dogma", or even "Socratic ignorance over false assurance". But it's not, it is worded in the weird way that Carse does things, in an attempt to provoke or change the dialogue. In "Finite and Infinite Games" he is dynamic and interesting, as he mostly concerns himself with definitional play and an exploration of the roles we involve ourselves in. Here he delves rather extensively into history, and he blunders rather badly, especially in his early Christianity. Jesus was most likely illiterate? Hardly, he debated the Pharisees and his followers often called him Rabbi. He couldn't speak Greek and most likely didn't know the word "christ'? News to historians, from my reading. The earliest known New Testament work is from around 70CE, and none of the authors knew anyone that knew Jesus? Tell that to Paul, debating Peter in the 50s and writing about it. This is just what I can remember.
And note, this is just from the assumption that Jesus was a real person. He conflates or confuses a real person with the biblical entity numerous times, even though he makes much noise over the fact that multiple Jesus' are present in the Bible. And the notion that Jesus might not've existed is treated as a story for children; this is a minor point, however.

So, Belief is bad, as it's always antagonistic and provides answers where there aren't any. Religion is a poetic attentiveness to the mysteries of the world, especially the central mysteries of the revealed religions (the nature of Jesus, of the Quran, of Enlightenment), that seeks meaning without settling on a definitive answer. He frequently talks about "real religion", as opposed to a "belief system", and says all the things you would expect from someone who has over-intellectualized their religion: real religion does not talk about the world, does not tell believers what to think or believe, does not focus on the afterlife, is not in opposition to science, is deeply poetic and suffused with doubt and uncertainty, and in fact thrives on these things.

Thus, he attacks atheist critiques of religion as missing the mark, of merely dealing with "belief" which isn't real religion. Atheists should be grappling with the higher and more serious aspects of religion, its true core. In effect, he completely misses why the atheist critiques exist, namely to combat the religious belief systems that are overtaking our secular institutions, to get people to see that religion as it is practiced is largely hogwash, and often evil hogwash to boot. And Carse doesn't disagree with this, as he shows the close relation between Belief and Evil (one of the few interesting parts in the book). But in going after the atheists, however briefly, he has earned my ire. To take a parting shot, he calls Dennett a serious and accomplished Scientist! Showing that he doesn't know a thing about him or his philosophical concerns, which he would know if he had actually read the book he was attacking (Breaking the Spell, fyi).

So, I am thankful this book is brief, and easy to read. And he does cover some interesting ground and has some innovative things to say. But overall this book is a confused mess.
2.5 stars oc ( )