Jeffrey Small’s “5 Insights From the World’s Religions" are at best dubious claims based on misattributions and oversimplifications. This is not to say that the study of the various religions cannot lead to insights. I have no doubt that they can. However, the five points laid out by small are laughable in the shallowness the represent.
I’ll take them point by point as presented by Small.
“1.Judaism’s monotheism”
For the sake of argument I’ll set aside whether a single God is that much of an insight to begin with. It is rather debatable that Judaism is the first monotheistic faith. I’m sure many are aware that the Egyptians dabbled somewhat unsuccessfully with monotheism. That is not the only culture to do so. It can be argued that Hinduism is actually a form of monotheism. All the various “gods” are considered incarnations of three specific gods who are themselves incarnation of one god. It is also possible to argue that if all sects/denominations of Christianity are automatically considered monotheist than Zoroastrianism should also be considered a monotheistic faith. As I have commented in previous posts ( ) the views of many fundamentalist/evangelic denominations regarding Satan should place them as dualists not monotheists. If that is not the case then the comparison to the Parsi system of positive forces represented by Ahura Mazda (Ohrmazd) and negative forces represented by Angra Mainya (Ahriman) with the similar division between God and Satan is by no means a stretch. Basically, there is no reason to give full credit for the development let alone any possible insights of monotheism to Judaism. Depending on how you define God there are a wide number of other cultures that could easily lay claim to the concept. Researching the actual history of the various world religions just might lead to far more substantial insights than the superficial regurgitation of commonly accepted beliefs. This all, of course, assumes that monotheism is in itself something to be impressed by.
“2.Hinduism’s view of the soul”
In terms of the theological concept I have to give Small this one mainly because he is careful to throw in a few qualifiers. He points out that as the “oldest surviving religion” its views on what we commonly call the soul is unique. However, there is no way to know that such concepts did not occur in even older forms of religion. Some of the elements that go into this concept are not, strictly speaking, religious in origin. Questioning what it is that makes each individual unique is one of those big questions that seems to go back to the earliest days of our species. It is only when you insist that this essential “you” is immaterial and/or eternal that you cross into theological territory. I question whether any real insights can be found over that line since it is by its nature completely subjective and often vague and contradictory to the point that it causes far more confusion than clarity.
“3.Buddhism’s nature of human suffering”
The idea of human suffering being the result of human nature rather than being supernatural in origin is not unique to Buddhism. There is plenty of reason to believe that atheists have existed as long as theists. Atheist by definition do not tend to subscribe to supernatural sources for anything. So, why should religion get credit for these insights? It is also notable that Buddhism contains it own contradiction when it comes to suffering and most of its basic tenets. Elimination of all desires is viewed as the way to achieve enlightenment and nirvana. The problem being that you cannot pursue any goal, even selflessness, without having some basic level of desire and selfishness. So if desire is suffering we are all pretty well fucked. Even throwing in some supernatural mumbo jumbo can’t dodge this problem. Small also points out the notion that Buddhism favors the idea that change is universal and constant. I actually do agree. However, this causes another contradiction within Buddhism. Nirvana tends to be viewed as the ultimate reality. It is perfection. If something is perfect how can it change? What can it change to without becoming imperfect?
“4.Islam’s peace through surrender”
This and the 5th point made by Small are the worst. They both lead to horrible consequences. The idea of “surrendering” to God is vague to the point of being useless. Unfortunately plenty of groups have put the concept to uses that have generally not turned out well. It is these individuals and groups who have decided not only who/what God is but what “surrender” means. Even if you genuinely wanted to find peace through Allah how do go about doing that? If God is our creator and the source of all things aren’t we already part of God? Logic would say you shouldn’t have to do anything further. So, does that mean we should do nothing? I do mean literally nothing. We, of course, would dehydrate, starve, and die. After all anything you do would be your own choice not God’s since you would have no way of knowing what God’s will is (this assumes there is no problem with the concept of Freewill). The point may be extreme but the premise is sound if you accept the basic definition of surrender. How is any of this insightful when it is so reliant on subjective individual interpretation? Why is it seen as good?
“5.Christianity’s love”
Small starts this section by pointing out what Jesus said was among the greatest commandments of the scriptures. This is manipulative and dishonest since in most of the passages he is not, in fact asked about commandments but rather the greatest commandment. He alters it apparently to dodge the fact that the Christ figure of the New Testament is frequently inconsistent and contradictory. Where are the insights? People didn’t love before the advent of Christianity? As for his general characterization of Jesus and Christianity being about “unselfish love”, I say Bullshit. There are multiple passages where Jesus acts like a spoiled selfish brat and worse. I have referenced a number of these in various other posts. Jesus notions of “love” include dividing families from each other, instilling an us-versus-them mentality, and even hating and killing entire groups of people. I can do without “Christianity’s love”, thank you very much.
