The Evolution of God - Wikipedia
The patterns which link Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and the ways in which they have changed their concepts over time are explored as one of the central themes.
One of the conclusions of the book that Wright tries to make is a reconciliation between science and religion. He also speculates on the future of the concept of God.
Contents
1Evolutionary biology
2Reviews
3Promotional appearances
4See also
5References
6External links
Evolutionary biology[edit]
Among other things, Wright discusses the role of evolutionary biology in the development of religion. Geneticist Dean Hamer hypothesized that some people have a specific gene that makes them prone to religious belief, which he calls the God gene, and that over time natural selection has favored these people because their spirituality leads to optimism. Wright, however, thinks the tendency towards religious belief is not an adaptive trait influenced by natural selection, but rather a spandrel - a trait that happens to be supported by adaptations originally selected for other purposes. Wright states that the human brain approaches religious belief based on how it adapted to survive and reproduce in early hunter-gatherer societies.
He points out four key traits of religion that align with the human brain's survival adaptations:
Its claims can be surprising, strange, and even counterintuitive.
It claims to show what causes good and bad things to happen.
It tells people that they can control these causes and increase the ratio of good to bad results.
It is hard to falsify or disprove.
Humans have adapted to pay attention to surprising and confusing information, because it could make the difference between life and death. (For instance, if a person left the campsite and mysteriously never returned, it would be wise for the others to be on guard for a predator or some other danger.) Understanding and controlling cause and effect also takes top priority in the human brain, since humans live in complex social groups where predicting and influencing the actions and thoughts of others gains them allies, status, and access to resources. As human cognitive abilities and curiosity expanded over the centuries, their investigation of cause and effect expanded from the strictly social context out into the world at large, opening the doors for religions to explain things like weather and disease.
Though some of these explanations were strange and perhaps dubious, the fact that they could not be completely disproven lent them credibility; it was better to be cautious than dead. Wright uses an example from the Haida people, indigenous to the northwest coast of North America, who would try to appease killer whale deities to calm storms out at sea; they would pour fresh water into the ocean or tie tobacco or deer tallow to the end of a paddle. While some people certainly died despite these offerings, those who survived were a testament to the ritual's possible efficacy.
Mysterious and unproven beliefs can also persist in a culture because human brains have adapted to agree with the group consensus even if it goes against one's better judgment or personal beliefs, since a person alienated from the group loses protection, food, and mates. Wright cites the Asch conformity experiments and even posits that Stockholm syndrome is not so much a syndrome as a natural product of evolution, the brain's way of ensuring that a person accepts and is accepted by his or her new social group. In addition, beliefs can persist because once a person publicly announces a belief, social psychologists have found that he or she is inclined to focus on evidence supporting that belief while conveniently ignoring evidence contradicting it, a logical fallacy known as cherry picking.
Reviews[edit]
Journalist and political commentator Andrew Sullivan gave the book a positive review in The Atlantic, saying that the book "...gave me hope that we can avoid both the barrenness of a world without God and the horrible fusion of fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction." [1][2]
Newsweek religion editor, Lisa Miller, described The Evolution of God as a reframing of the faith vs. reason debate. Drawing a contrast to such authors as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, Miller gives an overall positive review of the book's approach to the examination of the concept of God.[3]
In a review for The New York Times, Yale professor of psychology Paul Bloom said, "In his brilliant new book, “The Evolution of God,” Robert Wright tells the story of how God grew up."[4] Bloom sums up Wright's controversial stance as, "Wright’s tone is reasoned and careful, even hesitant, throughout, and it is nice to read about issues like the morality of Christ and the meaning of jihad without getting the feeling that you are being shouted at. His views, though, are provocative and controversial. There is something here to annoy almost everyone."
However, in a New York Times review that included a reply from Wright, Nicholas Wade, a writer for the "Science Times" section, notes the book is "a disappointment from the Darwinian perspective", because evolution "provides a simpler explanation for moral progression than the deity Wright half invokes."[5] Wright replied to Wade's comments, saying Wade had misunderstood Wright's argument and that "The deity (if there is one–and I’m agnostic on that point) would be realizing moral progress through evolution’s creation of the human moral sense (and through the subsequent development of that moral sense via cultural evolution, particularly technological evolution)."[6] Wade replied that "evolution seems to me a sufficient explanation for the moral progress that Mr. Wright correctly discerns in the human condition, so there seemed no compelling need to invoke a deity."[6]
==
Want to Read
Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Preview
The Evolution of God
by
Robert Wright
3.93 · Rating details · 6,252 ratings · 564 reviews
In this sweeping narrative that takes us from the Stone Age to the Information Age, Robert Wright unveils an astonishing discovery: there is a hidden pattern that the great monotheistic faiths have followed as they have evolved. Through the prisms of archaeology, theology, and evolutionary psychology, Wright's findings overturn basic assumptions about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and are sure to cause controversy. He explains why spirituality has a role today, and why science, contrary to conventional wisdom, affirms the validity of the religious quest. And this previously unrecognized evolutionary logic points not toward continued religious extremism, but future harmony.
Nearly a decade in the making, The Evolution of God is a breathtaking re-examination of the past, and a visionary look forward. (less)
Hardcover, 567 pages
Published June 8th 2009 by Little, Brown and Company
Original Title
The Evolution of God
ISBN
0316734918 (ISBN13: 9780316734912)
Edition Language
English
Literary Awards
Pulitzer Prize Nominee for General Nonfiction (2010)
467 books — 941 voters
More lists with this book...
Nov 29, 2012Socraticgadfly rated it did not like it
Shelves: religious-study-theology
A one-trick pony from Wright
This book could, and should, have one of two alternative titles.
It's either "Nonzero: The Religion Primer" or "The Evolution of Western Religious Thought."
Why would either one of those be better?
First, what I recommend instead of this book. People looking for good scholarly insight into the evolution of human religious thought, from a well-grounded (and not overblown) evolutionary psychology perspective, should head to Scott Atran's "In Gods We Trust." He covers the ground on evolution of human thought in greater depth than does Wright.
On the first alternative title, in my opinion, Wright is a one-trick pony. He attempts to apply the idea of non-zero-sum game theory, as articulated in Nonzero, to every book he writes. First, it's debatable whether game theory at all, whether non-zero-sum or zero-sum, is even applicable to religion.
Second, even if it is applicable to some aspects of, say, psychology of religion, psychology of religion is NOT the same as religion from an evolutionary psychology perspective.
Third, behavioral psychology undercuts the alleged rationality of much human behavior upon which game theory is based.
Fourth, Wright once claims "interdependence" equals "non-zero-sumness." Not necessarily, first of all, and secondly, he offers no proof for that.
The second alternative title?
This book is about the evolution of the three Western monotheisms. Because they are monotheisms, and emerged either from a polytheistic milieu (Islam) or from an earlier polytheistic stage (Judaism, and hence Christianity), the evolution of god within these religions is part and parcel of the evolution of the religion.
But, Wright never touches polytheistic Hinduism, still vibrant today, except for an offhand aside or two. Ditto on either the atheistic or nonatheistic sides of Buddhism. (Having now read his book on Buddhism, I know why. Adding to his stupidity here, he claims Buddhism is not a religion and generally is not metaphysical. Please.)
So, in a more serious way than my comments on him as a one-trick pony, the book simply doesn't live up to its title.
Beyond what I said above, there's a couple of other issues. More below the jump link.
Wright says:
**However, after the (Israelite exile to Babylon), monotheism evolves into something much more laudable and inclusive. Now the exiles have returned to Jerusalem and Israel is in a secure neighborhood. It's part of the Persian empire and so are its neighbors. So you see a much sunnier side of God, with expressions of tolerance and compassion toward other nations. **
Really? So that was Ezra, servant of the "sunnier side of God," telling Jews to, tolerantly and compassionately, divorce their non-Jewish wives? And, let's not forget the split in the middle of the Maccabean war against those who just wanted religious freedom and those who wanted a nation, and internecine fighting.
That, in turn, relates to a larger issue.
Wright appears to see "progress" as part and parcel of evolution, whether neo-Darwinian biological evolution, or the evolution of religion/god. He even goes so far as to accept Dan Dennett's claim (tremendously overstates, wholly unsubstantiated as of this time) that evolution is algorithmic. I suggest some Steve Gould and the word "contingency" for both Wright and Dennett.
This is clear in the biblical record, namely the revolt of the Maccabees? What if they don't get lucky in their early battles against the Seleucids? Then NONE of the three western monotheisms is likely to exist today.
However, Wright makes comments about the inevitability of religious progress on 201 and the moral growth of god on 206. Everybody in Sheol, or people who can't accept twaddle in eternal hellfire? That's "moral growth"? I think not. Of course, that's another unproven claim from the one-trick pony of non-zero-sumness, first claimed in Nonzero.
The capper? He's a materialist who won't rule out a "higher purpose."
I was originally going to two-star this book. It doesn't deserve that.
I especially do not get AT ALL why many secularists fawn over this book in particular or Wright in general.
If you want a serious read on the evolution of the religious mindset among Homo sapiens, incorporating evolutionary psychology in a better and more in-depth way than does Wright, read Scott Atran's "In Gods We Trust." Not this. (less)
flag36 likes · Like · 8 comments · see review
Sep 13, 2009David rated it really liked it
This is a most impressive book.
Robert Wright's earlier book "Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny" explored the notion that much of the advance of human civilization (including religion) has been driven by a fundamental principle of game theory (and also of economics), namely that a cooperative strategy benefits both parties. The development of trade rather than war, first between tribes, then among larger groups, then between nations, can be seen as manifestations of this principle.
Wright's latest book, "The Evolution of God", is a wide-ranging analysis of religious belief, starting from the earliest shamanistic gods, to the emergence of Abrahamic monotheism, to the rise of Christianity and Islam, and to the present-day religions that are being challenged by modern science.
Wright's thesis is that at each juncture, religion has advanced by expanding its realm of universality. For example, originally the Judaic religion, while emphasizing love and cooperation among the "chosen people", expressed only disdain and anathema for other peoples. Persons descendants from Moabites, for instance, were banned forever from the Hebrew congregation (Deu 23:3), and the Jewish people were taught not to even associate with, much less intermarry with, persons outside the faith. Eventually these restrictions were not taken quite so seriously, and then, with the emergence of Christianity, especially as taught by Paul, the distinctions between Jewish and Gentile, circumcised and non-circumcised, were completely discarded.
In the end, Wright concludes that it is this principle of inclusion, of love and cooperation rather than animosity and war, that has been the principal guiding light behind the advance of religion.
Wright relies on the latest in biblical scholarship, both Old Testament and New, and in this regard he will likely offend or at least disturb many of fundamental religious backgrounds. Indeed, the whole idea that our notion of God has evolved through the ages will disturb many, not to mention the numerous examples of internal contradictions and other difficulties in the Bible. On the other hand, Wright makes it clear that such difficulties and contradictions must be faced, one way or the other, and he does not flinch in dealing with them.
Wright has obviously done an enormous amount of research in writing this book, and is careful at every step not to overstate or overdramatize his subject material. Whether or not one agrees with him, this book is a major work that deserves serious attention. (less)
flag20 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
Jul 24, 2011Jan Rice rated it really liked it
Shelves: history, religion
When you get over your snit about what you think Robert Wright is saying about your particular religious tradition, you may decide we should all listen to what he has to say. He may under-emphasize or minimize too much at certain points, but his hypothesis has the ring of truth. He has a viable argument against the new atheism. He is pointing us in a direction other than polarization. We should not be at each others' throats! I hope a lot of us read this book.
flag19 likes · Like · 82 comments · see review
Aug 01, 2012Becky rated it it was amazing
Shelves: myth-religion
The Evolution of God is an absolutely great read. I personally feel that it paints a very hopeful picture for the further evolution of religion in our massively interconnected world. I felt that at all times he was respectful towards people of various levels of faith, while being an agnostic himself. You’d think from some of the vitriol in the one-star reviews that Bill Maher had written the book and proceeded to shit on people’s doorsteps. At all times this book was professional, scholarly, and genuine… if you have a problem with the message, that’s a different story, but Mr. Wright is compassionate and sympathetic with his audience.
Now on to actually reviewing the book. It is a great introduction into the evolution of Western religions, mainly the pagan religions in Israel and the later Abrahamic faiths. If you’ve had any previous introduction to these concepts then some of this book (or a lot) is going to be review for you. As a Classics major it was a lot of review to me, but new was the concept of the expanding moral imagination. I also hadn’t known much previously about the Islamic faith, so I really enjoyed those chapters. I’ve read excerpts of the Koran, I have a few Muslim friends, but I’d ever studied it as I have other religions. I think I will make it my goal to read the Koran this year. Regardless, even if you’ve had no previous introduction to evolution of religion/society you’ll be easily able to follow the book, the author is excellent at communicating his ideas in a way that is easy to grasp if you are paying attention.
Furthermore the book challenged me. I heard once in a Jewish studies class that “you can be a Jew with God, you can be a Jew against God, you just can’t be a Jew without God.” I always found that fascinating. I fervently believe in God, but no longer subscribe to religions whatsoever, I was, however, raised as an Evangelical Christian and later converted to Catholicism for marriage. I always felt after reading the Old Testament that Christians had lost some of their Jewish heritage, we/they had lost the ability to argue with God. People were CONSTANTLY arguing with God in the Old Testament, for starters he was much more anthropomorphic, but even if the debate didn’t go well for the mortal, it was important to note that he had a rational discussion with God. Christians, it always seemed to me, lost the ability to have a rational discussion with God, to even question God, and this translated in our inability to question or have a rational discussion about all things in the Christian hierarchy- church leaders, martyrs, the Bible etc. This is not healthy. All people should be actively engaged in the pursuit of Truth, (for I am the way, the Truth, and the light…), sometimes that means taking a critical and rational look at our faith and asking whether or not our actions and beliefs are actually detracting from the overall message. Does Evolution matter in a spiritual context? No. Just like it didn’t matter to God’s power that the Earth ended up revolving around the sun, and not the Universe around the Earth. Religion is for your spirit, for your morality, and you only bruise it when you use Religion to dogmatically reject science, other people, and other religions. That’s not the message.
I think everyone should be encouraged to read this book for the sheer fact that it will help them to critically look at their personal faith, and see how it can be expanded.
(less)
flag12 likes · Like · 6 comments · see review
Jan 09, 2012Karen rated it liked it
Long Story Short: This book has a lot of interesting close-ish reading of the big three Abrahamic religious texts (Torah, Bible, Koran), interspersed with a lot of philosophy and splaining I wasn’t that crazy about.
The Book’s Strengths: First of all, I like Wright’s writing style. He explains his points well, and he intersperses his texts with just enough humor that it’s a pleasant surprise every time. True, writing style is not a very important part of a book’s message, but it makes it easier to engage with the text, particularly during the slower parts of the book.
I thought the book did a pretty good job of covering the structural evolution of the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It starts with exploring religion from pre-literate societies, and it’s very clear on where the limitations are on how much we can deduce about prehistoric religions, and how we know what we know now about the religions of hunter-gatherer communities. For example, we know what the members and/or descendants of these hunter-gatherer societies say, and we have some historical documents from literate people who encountered these groups during the age of exploration and onward, but we can’t say that this is the way prehistoric religions looked because every culture evolves, and Wright points out frequently what aspects he discusses comes from documented sources (and which ones) and what aspects are supposition or speculation.
By and large the strongest parts of the books were the sections–the bulk of the book–about the Abrahamic religions and their major texts. He attempted to demonstrate how Yahweh/God/Allah evolved as a character from a polytheistic entity to the solitary supreme creator He is known as today. I call it close-ish reading because the passages he analyzed from the major texts (Torah, Bible, Koran) were all discussed in English, which, as we know, is not the language they were written in and which have discussions that fill books just on who and how and why they were translated in the way they were translated. When there are major word choice alternatives, Wright would mention it, but for the most part he focused on the story the words were telling. He’d find lines from chapters and books that seemed to refer to immense amounts of backstory regarding the figure of God that were left out of the canonized versions, and seem similar to stories from other non-religious texts, or the way other gods were mentioned in the Bible that suggested they used to have a place in the heavens, too. He brought in information from recorded history and archaeological finds, and slight variances in vocabulary between languages where two groups of people lived as neighbors, and built what I thought was a very strong case for the idea that the God that everyone thinks of in the Abrahamic religions today represents a logical (almost predictable) evolution from a polytheistic character to a monotheistic one.
Note: I am using the word “character” because Wright’s book emphasizes stories from the different religions and the way he discusses Yahweh/God/Allah is as the protagonist of the stories. It’s rather literary, and “figure” doesn’t quite feel right.
Of the three sections on the holy books, I was most interested in the stuff about Jesus and the New Testament of the Bible. It probably has to do with the fact that there is a lot more written work from that era, and because the hard part of building the case for a monotheistic character was in the previous section. I found the information about the Koran very good to learn, but it wasn’t very exciting to read. Wright acknowledges that the Koran itself is a very business-like, heavy-on-government text and lacks the poetry and mythic scale of the Bible and Torah, and presents it as the culmination of the long argument he’s been making, and there’s just not that much to it to catch one’s fancy.
The Book’s Weaknesses: The book really ebbs and flows. The beginning section on the polytheistic religions of pre-history started strong but then just went on and on and on and on. A lot of it seemed like a rehash of the themes of Nonzero, which is bad for me because I’ve read that book but perhaps were necessary for people who hadn’t to understand his large arguments about the world that appear at the end of the book. (More on that in a minute.) It was also a lot of didja know, I know! I told you! now you know. Without original texts to look at–which is a problem there’s no way to solve–it became tedious. I don’t know that quite so many details are required to understand the textual analysis of the next few parts of the book.
By the time we hit the part about the Koran I was very, very tired of the harping about non-zero-sum interactions. It’s a lightbulb moment in the book that’s actually about non-zero-sum interactions shaping history, but in this book you kind of get it the first time, and simple reminders of it would have kept you on track. By the very end I just started flipping pages, and then actively started rolling my eyes when Wright began to surmise that maybe there’s some biological reason from human evolution that made people inclined to seek non-zero-sum relationships and be good to each other and let’s call that “god” shall we? And the epilogues and afterwords that address the god question from various points of view (what would atheists think? what would believers say?) were either silly or else I was just fed up and couldn’t take them in the seriousness they were intended. After a few sentences for each I stopped reading. The book is probably a hundred pages longer than I care about.
For Purposes of Full Disclosure: Right in the middle of the book, within the New Testament Jesus stuff, there is a very long divergence on the philosophical evolution of a concept of Logos, as developed by Philo of Alexandria. Philosophy is my kryptonite, and I followed it for a while and then just gave up. It almost put me off the book, and then it kicked back in with the text analysis and I forgot about it, and then that section concluded with some very wonderful explanation of how Logos fit right in with the Jesus business and if I’d read it I’d probably appreciate it even more. Someone on Amazon.com even raved about the Logos section, but I just couldn’t deal with it. It’s a negative part of the book to me, but I think that it’s my hang-ups making me say that. If you love philosophy, your experienced will be enriched. If you hate it, skip it. Don’t let it bog you down; the rest of that section of the book is worth reading.
What Should Have Happened: I think there could be far less non-zero-sum narrative in the book. I also think that leaving the realm of how God evolved as a character in His story to explore evo-psych/conciliatory?/grand human drama reasons why people believe and the biological “purpose” of the book was a mistake. I’ll concede that maybe it’s a framing device for the text analysis to give people a reason to read this book instead of one written by religious scholars, or else maybe the publisher wanted it to not seem atheist, or maybe it’s just ideas that are in the author’s mind and what he’s really interested in exploring. But the two very distinct parts–the splaining and the close reading–just didn’t really mesh.
Short Story Shorter: I would definitely recommend this book, with permission to skip all the parts that you find annoying. You won’t miss them. (less)
flag11 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
Dec 28, 2010Sarah rated it really liked it
I grew up trying to read the Bible, copiously; first as an exercise in divining God's will, then as a desperate attempt to demonstrate that I was among the saved, then as an act of refutation, then later in an attempt to contain the whole thing in my head and come to some sort of coherent "once and for all, dammit" understanding of the thing. It was this last attempt that really brought home what a patched together, boggling document it is- style, tone, characters, thesis- all a jumble that shift across chapters, with the will of God bafflingly flexible and arbitrary. It was this most recent attempt, in my mid twenties, which made me realize if I was ever going to make headway into understanding this foundational document of Western culture, I'd have to turn to outside sources.
The Evolution of God is one of the more recent books I've read on the subject of "understanding religion". While it is not primarily concerned with the Bible, the Bible is the foundation of this work, which purports to explore the evolution of the concept of a monothesistic God. This book relies heavily on Bible stories to both introduce various aspects of ancient conceptions of divinity, and then uses those stories as the basis of research into what is hidden beneath the text (the context of the stories, various interpretations, etc).
I'm not a biblical scholar by any means, but I was familiar enough with both the biblical stories and with at least some of the general research and interpretations to find that some of the writing was a bit redundant for me- not within the text, but more that it was a repetition of work I've read elsewhere. Also, Wright's thesis- that we use the idea of God to promote a vision of goodness that is just on the edge of unobtainable- and when we obtain that goodness, we create a slightly "better", more good and just vision of God- is one that is close enough to my own suspicions that I felt Wright was both preaching to the choir with me, without tackling some of the larger problems with that (very Western history based) thesis. These are all however more of a problem with me as the reader than with what Wright has done, which I think is an astute, accessible and plausible scholarly research into and explanation of the role that the idea of a monotheistic God has played in the evolution of our culture.
Which is not to say that this is for everyone. While Wright describes himself as an Atheist, I had to wonder if he actually means it- and I suspect that average atheist reader would have his or her doubts as well. (Perhaps it is more accurate to call Wright a very reluctant Atheist- he really seems sad that God probably does not exist). As a believer in God, I find this sort of sweet- I feel however, that this attitude may not endear all people, atheist or believers. Also, his thesis- that we are evolving into better people- is one seriously challenged by things like the constant implosion of the middle east, and I don't think Wright goes far enough in dealing with current human-made horrors. And of course people who do believe in a deity of a more specific and personal nature will probably find the whole thesis and book extremely specious and non-convincing, though perhaps interesting in an "alternative universe" kind of way.
For people who, like me, feel there have been some serious gaps in their religious education regarding the genesis of our foundational faiths, and who are unsatisfied with the "believers are delusional people who refuse to outgrow childish myths" explanation which is popular in some circles, this book is a thoughtful and invaluable resource. (less)
flag7 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Dec 27, 2011Mark rated it really liked it
Peruse scripture a little, and you can find license for whatever deed you contemplate. That's the bad news.
A closer study shows god to be the ductile creation of Man, alternately vengeful or loving, jingoistic or welcoming, as He finds expedient for the time. I feel Wright easily makes this basic point, that religion has evolved to fit "the facts on the ground" and by the time he's done, it feels like a layup. I had thought it contradictory that people could both espouse a Church and hold their individualized personal beliefs as Truth, but in fact religion seems never to have offered immutable truth in the first place. Notwithstanding its definition, only a superficial understanding assumes dogma is carved in stone. TEoG explodes that myth & will let you recognize the next encyclical for what it is, just the latest audible from Rome.
Study the history more carefully still, and it reveals god in Man's evolved epiphenomenal godly spandrel: love. These are Wright's words, and though he tries immediately to soften them, TEoG offers the religious only cold comfort of Spinoza's natural God. This is a last small patch of turf where one can safely ensconce God in a world where the secular territory just keeps expanding. In that sense TEoG is like the dual to Novak's No One Sees Godwhere an olive branch is purportedly offered across the aisle. Unlike Novak's offering, Wright's seems a genuine one; it's just that it's not much of one for deists.
Wright doesn't see it that way though; he's asking you to be happy with this resolution. Wright makes great headway with me at least in his discussion of Philo, an expatriate working in Alexandria on dangerously thin theological ice who makes long stretches to reconcile the Old Testament with his non Jewish masters, who're rightfully suspicious of all the fire and brimstone old Yahweh promised them. So Philo invents a new name, (Elohim) and abstracts a more friendly and universalist God to go along with it. This is an example of the expedient makeovers I mentioned earlier. A great moment was his reinterpreting the parting of the Red Sea and concomitant apocryphal extinction of the Egyptian army as just a scholarly metaphor: it's God's exhortation to transcend the craven bonds of the flesh. Hmm, I wonder how THAT played in Alexandria? It was a bold gambit, at least! Better yet, he (Philo) introduces Logos, Hawking's God with a match.* This is the ultimate retrenchment, and I found it exciting that the buzz of our age, Science vs God, is just rehashing Philo's ancient conundrum of Athens vs Jerusalem. where, like the Moon worshipers who had some hard rationalization to do when eclipses became predictable, theologians are penned into an ever more philosophical and abstract magesterium. Apparently there's nothing new under the sun: this has been going on forever! ...and indeed, perhaps Logos is a satisfying answer.
Wright takes a final step to find it hopeful that we'll rise to the challenge in these troubled times that look like a rekindling of the crusades. A less optimistic review of the arc of history is that religions evolution's just been been selfishly expediency all along. Maybe circumstances have happened to encourage a win-win outcome, or maybe it's the Deus ex Machina. One way or another, it's time for a hail Mary.
* As a footnote, I originally MISused "Deus ex Machina" here: a term worth looking up!
(less)
flag6 likes · Like · comment · see review
Nov 28, 2009David rated it it was amazing
Shelves: history, religion, audiobook
This is a very well-written book. I enjoyed reading about the evolution of prehistoric religions, and the early stages of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The "evolution" is basic a growth in morality. The book shows that all three religions manifested a morality that changed with the times and circumstances. When your group is politically or militarily weak compared to your environment, "getting along" with your neighbors is of paramount importance. But when your group is strong, you can afford to be belligerent, and destroy the non-believers. In this sense, all these religions have tended to be opportunistic, or expedient. (less)
flag6 likes · Like · comment · see review
Apr 08, 2011Hadrian rated it really liked it
Shelves: nonfiction, society-culture-anthropology-etc, religion-theology, history
Social history of religion, how it affects society for better or worse, from being a necessary component of tribal societies to more inclusive (and sometimes exclusive) monotheistic religions. Very interesting stuff!
flag6 likes · Like · see review
Apr 17, 2018Masoud rated it really liked it
Shelves: my-library, religion
It may be said that nearly all the great social institutions have been born in religion.
flag7 likes · Like · comment · see review
Apr 18, 2017Moshe Mikanovsky rated it really liked it
Shelves: audio-book, religion
4 stars for the importance of this book. For the actual presentation and pace, the book was a tad tedious and slow. It is though the first book I've read which lays out the actual evolution of religions, mainly from shaman/tribal/pagan to the monotheist/Abrahamic religions. Some great insights into the reasoning of people to believe in a set of gods or a god, into the progress of societies and with that progress also came the progress in what type of deity was needed, the zero-sum and non-zero-sum games which affected the players in each step of the evolutionary process, and much more.
Wright does not try to convince the reader that there is no god. On the contrary, he believes there is a reason to believe in a god. But he also does a great job laying down the human reasons to believe in a god and what caused their changes throughout the generations. So the readers can make their own conclusion. (less)
flag5 likes · Like · comment · see review
Jun 01, 2012Robert Delikat rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: nonfiction, religion
I am challenged by Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God in many of the same ways I was by Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature. The subject of the evolution of how humans think about a god is such a sweeping subject, and this book appears to be such a scholarly work, that it is difficult for me, a mere mortal, to know what is fact and what is fiction. I will take a couple of examples. Wright makes the point in the book that the Jews were actually the Canaanites, worshipers of Baal, for whom they purportedly annihilated in the bible. What? And, did we know that the el in Israel actually comes from this same Bull God, Baal? This is some pretty heady stuff. I do not doubt for a second that many of what seem to be incredible, and seemingly contrary stories about the past are indeed true. But their veracity is quite beyond my background and study to judge. Did that diminish my enjoyment of the book? Not for a second.
The Evolution of God is an incredible title in and of itself. The concept of such a thing is for at least believers, unfathomable. What does the evolution of God even mean? Firstly, while I do not normally, I am going to capitalize the word God because that is how it is to be understood within the context of this book. God may or may not exist. That is not the point of the book. The book is about how humans have perceived or understood their God, gods or goddesses throughout history. Some of this must be speculative at best and some probably incorrect at worst. How can we know? While we cannot know for sure, that does not detract from a very interesting question and the very nature of this book.
From ancient times of why and when polytheism evolved to monotheism to modernity when, like Pinker’s belief, we are moving toward a more universal concept of God for all religions, I believe Wright makes arguments that sometimes seem esoteric but for the most part are not too terribly difficult to follow. Wright like Pinker sometimes seems (maybe only my own perception) to pick and choose anecdotes from times, places and peoples to make a case for how God evolved. This is possibly unavoidable. How long would a book have to be to be all inclusive.
In parts, the narrative is extremely detailed and it is easy to get lost. The ancient and biblical histories are difficult to follow for one unschooled in such things but maybe this can serve as an introduction into such study. Eventually, however, that which is arcane seems to either be dispelled or the story advances to arcs more ordinary and easily understood.
I have difficulty rating books such as this because while one might seem scholarly, it not always is. In this case, I want to give the author the benefit of the doubt just based on my enjoyment of it. Lastly, I think the narrator was quite good. It would be easy to diminish a book of this nature by a less than excellent narrator. In fact, the narrator was not just quite good, the narrator was excellent. With changes in modulation, as is [too] often the case with Audible, the production was adequate but less than stellar. (less)
flag4 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
==========
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07172009/profile.html
Robert Wright on the Evolution of God
July 17, 2009
Robert Wright's new book, THE EVOLUTION OF GOD, has performed an unusual feat — it is a book about religion with the capacity to make both believers and non-believers uncomfortable.
Robert Wright believes that "God," the human concept, can evolve — indeed that it already has. And though Wright personally believes this concept is an illusion, he thinks that the illusion might just be evolving in a way that reveals some underlying truth, that comes ever-closer to describing the divine. He unfolds his argument while charting thousands of years of the history of belief, from the stone age to the modern era.
Wright hopes this complex argument can partially bridge the gap between believers of different faiths and non-believers alike. And it's necessary, Wright tells Bill Moyers on the JOURNAL, because, "Religion will be the medium by which people express their values for a long time to come, so it's important to understand what brings out the best and the worst in it."
Wright argues that humans create gods that speak to their circumstances. As human civilizations have changed — and Wright believes progressed — humanity's concept of God has changed: "The God that I show evolving is undergoing a process very analogous to natural selection. You know? New traits arise, and if they succeed in enhancing the power of the God, by, for example, attracting new believers, then they remain. And if they don't work for one reason or another, they fall by the wayside. So, God has evolved very much the way you know, human organism evolved through natural selection."
Getting better all the time?
For Wright, the evolution of God reveals net progress in human morality. He argues that the gods that have been the most successful — that have attracted the most believers around the world — are the gods that can shed their early, vengeful incarnations and adapt into a more global, more tolerant form as societies mingle and become interdependent. Wright tells Bill Moyers:
"The good news is that when people find themselves in a kind of interdependent relationship, when they see that they can gain through collaboration or that they don't need to be threatened, then doctrines of tolerance tend to emerge. So, A) we at least have an idea of how you would need to arrange the world to bring out the best in religion. And B) to some extent, it seems to happen naturally. There is this growth in kind of the scope of social organization that draws people together."
For all its optimism, its an argument challenging to believers and non-believers alike.
Writing in CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Dinesh D'Souza takes issue with Wright's basic premise that God is an illusion that needs to be "reconciled with modern secular liberalism." D'Souza concludes that Wright fails to map "some plausible route by which religions can modify their precepts from what believers hold to be true into what Wright holds to be useful."
And on the other end of the spectrum, non-believers question Wright's conclusion that the rise of more tolerant religions reveal any divine force. In THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW, Paul Bloom says, "I share Wright's wonder at how nicely everything has turned out. But I don't see how this constitutes an argument for a divine being."
>>Read excerpts from THE EVOLUTION OF GOD
Robert Wright
Robert Wright is editor in chief of Bloggingheads.tv and the author of THE MORAL ANIMAL (Pantheon, 1994), NONZERO (Pantheon, 2000), and THE EVOLUTION OF GOD (Little, Brown, 2009). He is a contributing editor for THE NEW REPUBLIC and a contributor to TIME and SLATE. He has also written for THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, THE NEW YORKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, FOREIGN POLICY, and the op-ed pages of THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, and THE FINANCIAL TIMES, among other publications. His books have been translated into more than a dozen languages, and his awards include the National Magazine Award for Essay and Criticism.
As a Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, Mr. Wright writes on a wide range of issues related to technology, religion, and foreign policy, particularly the war on terrorism. His 1994 cover story for THE NEW REPUBLIC, "Be Very Afraid," warned about the dangers of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. In 2000, in NONZERO, he noted how the evolution of information technology could exacerbate this problem, facilitating the translation of intense hatred into massive lethality. His most recent book, THE EVOLUTION OF GOD, touches on a number of contemporary issues, including how to foster interfaith tolerance amid globalization. Mr. Wright is now focusing on how to shape a foreign policy that reckons with such trends, paying particular attention to issues of global governance.
Photo by Robin Holland.
