Stephen “God is not One” Prothero to Speak at Arizona State University

Simplifying a four-part
 schema employed by Stephen Prothero in his God Is Not One (Harper,
2010, p. 14), I propose, in agreement with Prothero, that each religion can be
usefully seen as addressing itself to a problem; offering a
solution to the problem, a solution that also constitutes the
religion's goal; and proposing a technique for solving the problem and
achieving the goal.

This post will consider five
religions and how the simplified Prothero schema applies to them. 

For Christianity, the problem
is sin, the solution or goal is salvation, and the technique is some combination
of faith and good works. (14)  For Buddhism, the problem is suffering, the
solution or goal is nirvana, and the technique for achieving nirvana is the
Noble Eightfold Path. (14)  Prothero's main purpose in his book is to stress the
differences between religions.  That is the point of the silly title, "God is
Not One."  Obviously, God is one by definition; it is the conceptions of God
that are various.  It is also a bad title because Prothero's topic is religion,
not theism.  Buddhism, after all, is not a theistic religion.  But let that
pass.  I can't fault the man for wanting to attract buyers with a catchy title,
one reminiscent of Hitchens' God Is Not Great.  The schema makes clear
the differences between these two great religions:

Are Buddhists trying to
achieve salvation?  Of course not, since they do not even believe in sin.  Are
Christians trying to achieve nirvana?  No, since for them suffering isn't
something that must be overcome. (15)

If salvation is
salvation from sin, then of course Prothero is right.  Sin is an offence against
God, and in a religion with no God there can be no sin.  Nevertheless, I am a
bit uneasy with the starkness of Prothero's contrast.  The Buddhist too aims at
a sort of salvation, salvation from all-pervasive suffering.  To use 'salvation'
so narrowly that it applies only to the Christian's religious goal obscures the
commonality between the two great religions.  I should think that some
soteriology or other is essential to every religion.   A religion must show a
way out of our unsatisfactory predicament, and one is not religious unless one
perceives our life in this world as indeed a predicament, and one that is deeply
and fundamentally unsatisfactory, whatever the exact nature of the
satisfactoriness.

Read it all.

I also quote Prothero in On Religious Pluralism and Religious Tolerance wherein I land some hard blows on Sam Harris.