Front Matter
If God held all truth in his right hand and in his left the everlasting striving after truth, so that I could always and everlastingly be mistaken, and said to me, “Choose,” with humility I would pick the left hand and say, “Father, grant me that. Absolute truth is for thee alone.”
To believe is to know that one believes, and to know that one believes is no longer to believe.
God said it. I believe it. End of discussion.
Unauthorized Second Edition
Motivation
James Carse’s The Religious Case Against Belief, published in 2008, was a groundbreaking work. I was awestruck when I discovered it. The opening chapters contain a marvelously crafted narrative. In my view, this wasn’t merely an academic book about religion but a genuine religious text. But the book was difficult to read. Its complex language, likely with a Flesch-Kincaid score above 15, made it inaccessible to many readers. Sadly, Carse passed away in 2020. I missed any chance to encourage him to write a second edition. I was galvanized by the thought that this profound work was in danger of being forgotten.
The first 148 pages struck me most powerfully. I was less captivated by Religion Beyond Belief and later chapters. This doesn’t diminish Carse’s achievement. The book remains a visionary work of art, if imperfect. We can’t know how Carse viewed his own work. Which parts did he consider most praiseworthy? What parts did he feel needed improvement? In the acknowledgments, he admits his colleague’s demand for greater clarity "was not fully met." I formed my own opinions. Spreading sacred knowledge is a religious duty. I resolved to prepare a new edition with simplified phrasing.
I don’t consider myself an exceptional writer. I wouldn’t have attempted this project without help. Fortunately, large language models were available. Some writers exploit LLMs to generate low-quality books or rip-offs for a fast profit. That wasn’t my goal. I didn’t use the LLM to "rephrase this passage at a high school reading level" and blindly collate the results. LLMs are remarkable but can make errors. I had heard about lawyers who submitted LLM-generated court briefs with fake citations—actions that rightfully infuriate judges.
I looked at each sentence Carse wrote. I weighed whether the simpler wording stayed true to the original. I often went through many drafts with manual adjustments and corrections. I used various LLM prompts to refine the text: apply editing skills, reorder arguments, improve flow, clarify specific aspects, develop outlines into essays, expand context, suggest examples, analyze coherence, identify weak transitions, and examine omissions or weaknesses. Without an LLM, this task would have far exceeded my abilities.
Would Carse have approved of my choices? We can never know, but I believe he would have supported the project. In the world of publishing, second editions typically appear with the author’s consent or posthumous approval from their estate. On 2025 Feb 07, I contacted Penguin Random House for permission to create a derivative work. I felt disappointed when Sherri Marmon summarily denied my request. Though I cannot distribute this simplified version publicly, under the Fair Use exception, I can share it privately. I’m grateful that I can share this version. I believe it vastly simplifies Carse’s core message. Examine the change in word count to appreciate the extent of simplification:
| Chapter | 1st edition | 2nd edition |
|---|---|---|
intro | 1282 | 810 (-36%) |
ignorance | - | 3370 |
belief | 29666 | 18902 (-36%) |
religion | 13157 | 9479 (-27%) |
religion-beyond | 14893 | 0 (-100%) |
conclusion | 3065 | 944 (-69%) |
coda | 349 | 0 (-100%) |
total | 62412 | 33505 (-46%) |
I believe I have succeeded in my goal. At the same time, I acknowledge that this second edition cannot fully capture the nuance, depth, and distinctive voice of the original work. Serious scholars can still consult the original text.
Joshua N. Pritikin
Mar 2025
Legal Theory
Overview
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) preempts copyright restrictions when applied to the non-commercial distribution of religiously significant derivative works. RFRA mandates that the government "shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion" unless it demonstrates that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest through the least restrictive means. When a person creates and distributes a significantly transformed, more accessible version of a religious text as an exercise of their sincerely held religious beliefs, copyright enforcement against this activity constitutes a substantial burden on religious exercise.
While copyright protection serves important governmental interests, these interests primarily focus on economic incentives and commercial exploitation. In this case, the derivative work is distributed without profit, provides proper attribution, and serves religious purposes by making spiritual content more accessible, the government’s interest in strict copyright enforcement is diminished. Furthermore, completely prohibiting distribution of such works is unlikely to represent the "least restrictive means" required by RFRA, particularly when Penguin Random House (the copyright holder) has demonstrated no interest in creating accessible versions or licensing such derivatives.
Courts have recognized that RFRA can provide exemptions from generally applicable laws when religious exercise is substantially burdened. The transformation of religious texts to increase accessibility and understanding could be considered core religious activity, directly tied to religious practice, teaching, and proselytization. The inability to identify discrete religious communities for limited distribution strengthens this argument, as religious expression often transcends formal community boundaries.
Sacred Texts in Contemporary Context
Traditional legal frameworks often distinguish between sacred texts, commentaries, and academic works about religion. But this taxonomy fails to capture how religious revelation manifests in contemporary spiritual life. Compelling arguments exist for viewing Carse’s The Religious Case Against Belief as genuinely sacred in nature:
Transformative Religious Experience: In the author’s own words, he was awestruck upon discovering Carse’s work. It transformed his understanding of religion. This personal revelation mirrors how traditional sacred texts have historically affected believers.
Post-Denominational Spirituality: Modern religious experience increasingly transcends traditional institutional boundaries. Sacred texts need not be ancient or traditionally canonized to serve as spiritual foundations for contemporary religious practice.
Religious Nature of the Text Itself: The author notes that Carse’s work is "not merely an academic book about religion but a genuine religious text." This distinction shows that the text serves as a "vehicle for approaching what lies beyond" and is not only an analysis.
Accessibility as a Religious Imperative
The creation of the second edition represents a deeply religious act comparable to traditional religious activities protected under RFRA:
Evangelical Imperative: Many religious traditions consider spreading sacred knowledge a core religious duty. The author’s desire to make Carse’s profound spiritual insights accessible to a wider audience represents an evangelical imperative. This is a form of religious practice historically protected under First Amendment jurisprudence.
Democratization of Religious Knowledge: The act of simplifying complex religious wisdom has deep roots in religious traditions. Luther translated the Bible into vernacular German. Modern efforts like The Chosen streaming TV series make religious teachings accessible. The author’s work continues this sacred tradition. He aims to make divine wisdom available to all, regardless of educational background.
Sincerity of Belief: The extraordinary effort undertaken—studying "each sentence Carse wrote" and going through "many drafts with manual adjustments"—demonstrates the profound sincerity of the religious commitment. This level of care indicates a religious exercise rather than mere convenience or preference.
Copyright as a Substantial Burden
The complete prohibition on distributing this derivative work constitutes a substantial burden on religious exercise for several compelling reasons:
Barrier to Religious Community: The original text is complex, which keeps many potential students from accessing its spiritual truths. When only educated people understand a religious text, it limits the whole religious community. This is a substantial burden on religious practice that has historically been recognized.
Failed Commercial Alternative: The author attempted the "less restrictive" approach by seeking permission from Penguin Random House, which was denied. This demonstrates that commercial pathways are closed, leaving religious exercise substantially burdened.
Essential Structure: The second edition uses simpler language but keeps Carse’s main arguments, ideas, and spiritual insights. These elements constitute the religious revelation. Creating a completely new work would erase the unique pattern that gives Carse’s work its importance. This preservation of core structure places the adaptation in a gray zone. It is not merely paraphrasing. It also isn’t a completely different work, which would lose the spiritual essence. This careful balance required the extensive effort described. He studied "each sentence," made "manual adjustments," and ensured the "simpler wording stayed true to the original."
Inadequacy of Fair Use: The transformative religious experience requires engagement with the complete work, not merely excerpts. As religious communities need complete sacred texts, not only selected verses, the full adaptive transformation is necessary for the religious purpose.
Balancing Interests: Religious Freedom vs. Copyright
While copyright protection serves legitimate governmental interests, these interests are significantly diminished in this specific religious context:
Non-Commercial Religious Use: The government’s interest in protecting economic rights is minimal where, as here, the derivative work is "distributed without profit" and "provides proper attribution." The author acknowledges the original work’s value and directs "serious scholars" to "consult the original text."
Author’s Legacy and Intent: The author believes Carse "would have supported the project," suggesting this adaptation honors rather than undermines the author’s intent. Since Carse passed away in 2020, this adaptation helps share his spiritual insights with new audiences.
Religious Precedent: Religious traditions often adapt sacred texts for easier understanding. This includes children’s Bibles and simplified Dhammapada translations. These adaptations coexist with original texts without undermining their integrity.
Addressing Slippery Slope Concerns
The RFRA exemption sought here would not create an unmanageable precedent because:
High Threshold of Effort: The extensive effort documented (studying "each sentence," many drafts, careful preservation of meaning) sets a high bar that casual infringers could not meet.
Non-Commercial Requirement: Limiting the exemption to non-commercial uses with proper attribution would prevent exploitation for profit.
Genuine Religious Significance: Courts already test the sincerity and nature of religious beliefs in various contexts. Applying similar standards to test whether a text has genuine religious significance for a claimant is well within judicial competence.
RFRA as Appropriate Protection
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was specifically designed to protect sincere religious exercise from substantial government burdens except where narrower alternatives exist. In this case:
The author demonstrates a sincere religious connection to Carse’s work as a source of spiritual revelation.
Copyright enforcement creates a substantial burden by preventing the sharing of religious insight with those who cannot access the complex original.
Non-commercial distribution with attribution represents the least restrictive means of balancing religious freedom with copyright interests.
When a person experiences a work as genuinely sacred—not merely intellectually stimulating but spiritually transformative—and seeks only to share that revelation with others who might otherwise be excluded, RFRA provides a solid legal foundation for protecting this fundamentally religious activity.
Other Formats
How to Cite this Work
Carse, J. P. (2025). The religious case against belief (J. N. Pritikin, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Ethswarm.org (Original work published 2008)
Acknowledgments (1st Edition)
The first public exposure of the ideas in the book was to a puzzled lay audience at a memorial colloquium for the theologian and college president Harry Smith, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The modified argument then received a clamorous professional reception at a meeting of the New Haven Theological Group. Carol Mack caught crucial errors in an early version. My agent, Lynn Nesbit, as always, displayed her noted skill at protecting art from commercial compromise. Ann Godoff and Lindsay Whalen were the very models of editorial scrutiny and advice. The book is substantially different and much improved from the manuscript they first read. Tom Driver was unrestrained in his critical review of the book’s intellectual content, and relentless in his repeated demands for greater clarity and accuracy. It was a high challenge I fear was not fully met.
About the Author
James P. Carse was Professor Emeritus of Religion at New York University, where for thirty years he directed the Religious Studies Program. His previous books include The Silence of God, Finite and Infinite Games, and Breakfast at the Victory. He passed away in his home in Rowe, Massachusetts, on September 25th, 2020.[1]