Richard Smoley

This is a casual stroll through some profound territory. Smoley never dives into the real depths. But this is a pleasant enough stroll - a good introduction for anyone not familiar with the basics of Samkhya philosophy, and a gentle spur for further reflection even for an experienced explorer.

The biggest disappointment for me was right at the end. Smoley provides a quick review of the scientific study of consciousness. He sees that as the gateway for science to find the way to love etc. I think he is exactly wrong about this. No doubt neuroscience and its siblings will generate fascinating results. But this direction really just amplifies the ignorance of science. Consciousness is not out there. This book repeats that message again and again, so the stumble at the end was a surprise as well as a disappointment.

If science can wake up, it will happen through philosophy of science. Science needs to look at itself, needs to understand itself as being a player in the world, rather than some separate observer/controller outside the game.

Anyway, at least Smoley brings up the relationship between science and religion. It is surely a conflict that needs to be worked through if we are to avoid total self-destruction!… (plus d'informations)

I've been avoiding "rating" books since LT instituted this practice, but this book was such a disappointment, I"ll try to give a warning to any other would be readers.

I was excited to hear about this book and that Smoley was very versed in philosophy and both Eastern and Western religions. Perhaps he is better versed in philosophy than I, so I will not criticize his comments on various philosophers.

When it comes to religion, however, he is not the expert he sets himself up to be (if nothing else, writing a book such as this one is, in effect, de facto setting oneself as some type of authority).

In the beginning chapters I was buying into his comments, but towards the end of the book he began such a rant against Christianity that I (an avowed Universalist Quaker) feel I have to take a stand.

I will grant that Smoley is probably more familiar with Christianity than other religions--after all, those of us raised in the United States or Britain should be able to admit that it is almost a part of our civil religion. But _ad hominem_ arguments do not add to the authority or truthfulness of one's claims.

To site a few examples, Smoley writes on page 136:
"To speak of faith is to invoke Christianity, because no other religion in the world has placed such emphasis on faith or made so many demands on it. However post-Christian our civilization may be at this point, if we bring our thoughts to bear on faith, we will probably do so in terms of Christian concepts and categories."

Surely this is only true if we are, or I will concede, were raised, as Christians?

I am not a Muslim, but I do believe that _faith_ is certainly a key component of their religion (I daren't quite say faith!): The 5 Pillars of the Islamic Faith are
1. Shahada (confession of faith)
2. Salat (prayer)
3. zakat (almsgiving)
4. sawm (fasting, especially during Ramadan) and
5. The Hadjj (pilgrimage to Mecca)

The Jewish religion, in its many sects, also relies on faith. Abram, because of his great FAITH, was renamed Abraham; his wife Serai was renamed Sarah and gave birth at an advanced age.

There are many sages/sadhus in India who go on pilgrimages, or perform ascetic austeries because of their faith that this is was their concept of the Divine wants.

Buddhists of many different types believe in a myriad of heavens and hells because of their faith that their holy writings from down the centuries are true.

on pages 159-60 Smoley takes on the Bible:
"Consider this verse: 'The kingdom of God is within you' (Luke 17:21). So reads the King James Version, which, for all its faults, in many ways remains the most intellectually honest of all biblical translations: the translators did their best to render what they thought the text actually said rather than what they thought it ought to say."

Hmmm. The KJV actually is NOT a translation, but is a "version" comprised of the poetry of, translation, and what the populace wanted from several older poor translations. I don't go so far as to call it a paraphrase, but it did not have rigorous scholarship behind it.

Smoley goes on to write:
"Most modern versions are more disingenuous, and this verse is a cas in point. The Revised Standard Version reads, 'The kingdom of God is in the midst of you.' I don't have an RSV to check, but the NEW Revised Standard Version reads:
"...the kingdom of God is among you." with a note after "among" that reads "Or _within._" A guess would be that the Revised Standard Version has a similar notation. In any case, why choose a version that has long since been updated by the National Council of Churches. I do not own an NIV, but my guess is that it also shows alternative translating choices.… (plus d'informations)