2019/04/19

Robert Wright. The Evolution of God - Wikipedia Goodreads

The Evolution of God - Wikipedia

Book cover
Author Robert Wright
Country United States
Language English
Subject God
Publisher Little, Brown and Company
Publication date June 8, 2009


Dewey Decimal 200.9 22
LC Class BL473 .W75 2009
Preceded by Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny
Followed by Why Buddhism is True



The Evolution of God is a 2009 book by Robert Wright, in which the author explores the history of the concept of God in the three Abrahamic religions through a variety of means, including archeology, history, theology, and evolutionary psychology
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]


Promotional appearances[edit]

To promote the book, Wright did a variety of interviews, including with the New York Times,[7] Publishers Weekly,[8] and Bill Moyers Journal.[9] He also did a series of videos on Bloggingheads.tv, a website he co-founded with Mickey Kaus. Wright also appeared on The Colbert Report on August 18, 2009.[10]

See also[edit]
Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society by David Sloan Wilson, published in 2002.
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett, published in 2006.

--------------
References[edit]

  1. ^ Andrew Sullivan's blog post linking to his review, from The Atlantic
  2. ^ Sullivan's full review of the book from The Times
  3. ^ Let’s Talk About God from Newsweek
  4. ^ Review of The Evolution of God from The New York Times
  5. ^ The Non-Evolution of God, a July 2009 blog post from the New York Times website
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b Non-Evolution of God, Part 2, a July 2009 blog post from the New York Times website
  7. ^ Solomon, Deborah (2009-05-29). "Questions for Robert Wright: Evolutionary Theology". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-17.
  8. ^ Carrigan, Jr., Henry L. (2009-05-22). "Author Q&A: Robert Wright: 'God's Character Changes a Lot'". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2009-08-30. Retrieved 2009-07-17.
  9. ^ "Bill Moyers Journal, Episode number: 1314". Alabama Public Television. Retrieved 2009-07-17.
  10. ^ Wright on The Colbert Report

External links[edit]

EvolutionOfGod.net - Official website of the book, The Evolution of God.
MeaningOfLife.tv - Website in which Wright explores religious themes through interviews with famous religious personalities.
Video (and mp3) of talk by Wright on the subject of the book, "The Evolution of God"(57:59), at The New America Foundation
Audio of radio interview with Wright about "The Evolution of God" on KPCC 89.3 AirTalk with Larry Mantle
Audio of radio interview with Wright about the book on KCRW by Mickey Kaus



==

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
W.S. Merwin, photo by Robin Holland
Watch Video
Read Transcript
Comment
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.



















The Evolution of God - by Robert Wright

The Evolution of God - by Robert Wright


2019/04/18

Rational Spirituality and How I Got Here by Anastasia Somerville-Wong | Secular Liturgies Network and Forum

Rational Spirituality and How I Got Here by Anastasia



 Somerville-Wong | 



Secular Liturgies Network and Forum



Rational Spirituality and How I Got Here by Anastasia Somerville-Wong

CIMG1782 (Enhanced)
Photograph by A.E. Somerville-Wong: Coast line of St Mary’s, Isles of Scilly

Beginnings

We discussed everything at home, almost everything: philosophy, literature, religion and politics, no holds barred. We were free to develop our own views, however irreverent. I am thankful for that especially, since I was born irreverent. The question of God was the one that kept coming back. Why did so many of my school friends and their families believe in something they couldn’t see, hear, touch, smell or taste? Since I couldn’t write them off as insane, nor could I write off their God. However, during the disillusionment that comes with being a pre-teen, when one realises that adults are wrong about a whole lot of things, I finally did write him off. After all, those fairies who lived among the stems of bamboo at the bottom of our garden didn’t actually exist. There was no evidence for them. Why make an exception for God? Wasn’t he too, a work of the imagination? And why were people so desperate to conjure him up anyway? He seemed pretty troublesome to me. I didn’t like the term ‘atheist’ though. After all, I wasn’t an ‘afairiest’ was I? I didn’t want to be defined by something I wasn’t. I wanted to be defined by the things I was.

Faith and Disillusionment

Being self-reliant, however, was not wholly satisfactory either. Without a god, how do we cope when our own minds and bodies let us down? After a period of prolonged stress in my mid-teens, brought about by the dysfunctional nature of family relationships, I somehow became frightened of myself, of my own mind. It started playing tricks on me, making me feel afraid when there was nothing to fear. I no longer felt alive. No one I knew understood anxiety disorders in the 1990s. They could have told me my symptoms were of stress and not of madness (the first step towards recovery), but they didn’t, so I suffered. My symptoms fed from my fear of them like ravenous beasts. It felt as if I had been thrown into a cosmic battle with an encroaching darkness against which I had no real defence. I headed up to university feeling like someone else, not myself at all, and with no idea of how I was going to cope.
Staring through the window of my room in halls one morning, at the very edge of despair, the sun came out, and I was enveloped in what I can only describe as deep, unconditional, all-pervasive love, of a kind I had never known before. It gave me a hope and a future. It was a shield that would keep the darkness at bay, far more powerful than anything I possessed, or so I thought. I could find no explanation for this love. It did not seem human. Thus, I became convinced it was a supernatural presence, a divine one. I had further moments like these, of overwhelming love, of profound peace and of pure elation, which at the time, I perceived as coming from outside myself. These experiences became more frequent, and they began to break through the clouds of my anxiety, forcing the darkness into retreat.
For the first time in my life, I was open to religious belief. I came across the New Testament in my student halls and devoured it. Around that time, I discovered a rarity, a religious young person, older than me by only two years – an exchange student from Germany. Our conversations contrasted with the anti-intellectualism of wider British society and our friendship seemed far more meaningful than the superficial, alcohol-fuelled relationships of convenience that were prevalent among students. Ours was an alternative path of moral seriousness, intellectual inquiry and warm companionship. Unlike the rest of the world it seemed, we could enjoy an emotional and intellectual intimacy, without judgment, and without any chemical assistance. This was where I belonged, and it felt ‘holy’. Surprisingly, I picked up a few others of a similar sort in various places, and before long there was a rather motley crew of us, living an alternative lifestyle to the typical university student.
It wasn’t long before I believed Jesus was the divine presence that had apprehended me the day the sun came out. Eventually, somewhat to my own surprise, I found myself a devout Christian, albeit with a certain sense of having run ahead of myself, a sense I began to repress. I followed the other religiously inclined youth into the Evangelical Churches, and into what I hoped would be the heavenly body of Christ on earth. These churches resonated with the joy of communal singing, and their adherents were enthused by what seemed to be a genuine pursuit of truth.
My devotion to the ‘divinity’ to which I believed I owed my life, was so strong, that I suppressed my inner discomfort with some of the things being taught at those churches  – creationism, young earth theory, biblical literalism, female submission, male headship, the condemnation of homosexual lifestyles and so forth. Also, these things were often taught stealthily, so as not to frighten away any potential new converts, and events were deviously advertised in ways that hid their proselytising agenda! I openly disagreed with those things when the opportunity arose – and I aroused considerable suspicion and criticism for doing so – but to some degree I also ignored them, hanging out as I did, with internationals and intellectual types on the periphery of these congregations. When bigotry became impossible to ignore at one church, I moved to a church with a more diverse congregation (and consequently, less uniformity of belief), and then, when that proved too conservative, I moved to a church which was described as liberal evangelical, where there was still a good number of young people but where women were permitted to preach and a larger proportion of the congregation rejected six day creationism.
In truth, it hardly mattered where I went to church. My own spiritual life was centred elsewhere, in an ecumenical ‘faith group’ established by my German friend, where I would lose myself in song, in Taize chanting, in the strumming of guitars and ukuleles, and in the words of a Japanese friend who spoke in parables. Perhaps most of all, I would lose myself in an unprecedented freedom of creative expression, and in the joy of being appreciated for who I really was. It was only when my friends returned to their respective homelands, bringing an end to the faith group, that I became more involved in the core activities and communities of the churches, and began to feel deeply disturbed by what I saw. There had been glimpses of heavenly community among the eclectic ecumenists but there was certainly no heaven on earth in the churches.
Christians and their churches were, in spite of their claims to the contrary, just like every other group of humans and their institutions, and often a good deal worse. Indeed, they proved just as capable of cruelty as their heathen cousins, in spite of all their talk of love and forgiveness. All the pretence and hypocrisy they indulged in made them grotesque, and a feeling that I needed to escape grew increasingly urgent. The deeper a person’s involvement with these churches, the more they became like the religious authorities whom Jesus had spent his life rebelling against, and the further they strayed from the path he had chosen. Suddenly, the excessive drinking, promiscuity and other issues of wider society, which these churches so roundly condemned, seemed remarkably innocent in comparison to their moral vanity, bigotry and false spirituality. I watched my remaining friends become more established there, their hearts hardening by the day, while others lost their faith altogether and literally disappeared from my life with barely a ‘goodbye’.

Towards Naturalism

I felt able by then to question my faith more thoroughly, to go back in time to where I had gotten ahead of myself and reassess my decisions. I sought the truth about religion in general, the truth I had been studiously avoiding. I explored the history of the world’s religions and engaged in the historical criticism of their texts. I discovered the parallels between the stories and dogmas of different faiths, and the parallels between the varied expressions of these faiths – from the dogmatic, traditional and ritualistic to the mystical and charismatic. I explored the ways in which theology and religious practice had evolved to meet human psychological and social needs. Different types of religiosity and belief appealed to different personalities. Those more dogmatic, controlling, dominant and ruthless types who had established the traditional faiths, and whose personalities often stood in stark contrast to those of the founders and early enthusiasts, had exploited human psychological weaknesses to create complex power structures.
The elements of faith – the approved teaching, the scriptures, the dogmas, the rituals and the leadership structures – were all designed to control people, just as much as they were designed to provide people with a spiritual path. They had always been used by the few to control the many, and by the men of a society, to control the women. I had known this once. I had perceived it, even as a child. I remember as a seven-year-old, observing the obsequiousness of a nun before a priest, and instantly despising both cloth-bound creatures for their revolting display of pride (in his case), folly (in hers) and the underlying sexual motivations of which they were both in denial.  However, we humans can learn to ignore and even disbelieve the things that we would prefer weren’t true, and for a time in my own context, even if to a lesser extent, I had also been guilty of that. Likewise, we humans can believe just about anything if we desire it to be true. The gods themselves have been created in the image of those who have imagined and invented them because that is exactly what so many of us wish for – an external, ultimate and eternal validation of who we are. Some, however, want a good deal more, seeking external and divine legitimacy for their dominion over others, hence the divine right of kings, the papacy, and the king-maker priests.
By my mid-twenties, I had become a Progressive Christian but I had done so on my own, through my own doctoral research and personal studies. I was rather taken aback later to find there were others, including celebrated authors such as Borg, Armstrong and Spong and a movement called Progressive Christianity. I was a panentheist then, believing God to be in the world but also greater than the world, and therefore, in some sense beyond it. God was the good within and beyond. This meant that I could appreciate divinity in nature (including people) when I perceived it but that equally, when nature (including human nature) revealed itself as corrupt, or even rotten to the core, I could turn to the God beyond it, and stand in solidarity with that God against the evils of the world. I still believed there was something ‘out there’ that was divine in the supernatural sense, something essentially mysterious and indefinable, and therefore, something which could not be reduced to the traditional conception of God as a person, creator and lawgiver – the conception which had always inspired dogmatism, tribalism and bigotry. Mine, however, was not a ‘God of the gaps’, who grew smaller and smaller the more we learnt about the universe – a God defined by what it is not. Rather, mine was a God who grew larger the more we learnt because this was a God who contained but was also greater than the universe.
I continued my pilgrimage from church to church in search of something as progressive as I was. I wrote my book of progressive liturgies and led special services using those liturgies at local liberal churches. I joined a preaching rota at one local church and taught a progressive Christianity there until I became too radical for them and was consequently edged out. I even went through the Church of Scotland ‘enquiry’ process to become an ordained minister but was turfed out of that once they realised they could not mould me into a more traditional minister. Yes, they welcomed me as a progressive at first, claiming to be a broad church, and then later admitted that they had no intention of ordaining a minister as progressive as I was! They had hoped they could change me, rather than allow me to change the church! It was around this time that I read my first book  on Progressive Christianity, ‘The Heart of Christianity’, by Marcus Borg, and I also attended his conference in Edinburgh. His book and lectures reflected much of my own thinking, and gave me a great and comforting sense that I was part of a wider awakening. However, there was still something troubling me.
The problem was, that apart from not finding a sympathetic church community, there just did not seem to be any evidence for anything beyond the natural world. The God of panentheism, therefore, began to seem somewhat surplus to requirements, and even fanciful. Another problem was that the Progressive Christianity movement, which I was still discovering at that time, though vibrant, seemed largely to be a home for those recovering from the delusions and abuses of conservative religion. It was a valuable and necessary home but I still didn’t feel defined by what I wasn’t, and I still felt like I didn’t belong. After-all, I had not grown up in a Christian home, so in spite of the six or so years I spent as a devout Christian, my identity felt very different to the Progressive Christians I met who were unpicking a whole lifetime of indoctrination. I began to identify more as a humanist and secularist, though I still appreciated the Christian cultural inheritance I had gained, for some of its valuable insights and practices. And, having long admired elements of Secular Buddhism, as practiced by close relatives and family friends over many years, I identified with that heritage as well. Eventually, my journey around the churches led me to a Quaker Meeting, where the unassuming stillness and quiet offered considerable solace.
I tend not to speak of ‘God’ now, unless I am in the company of those who know I mean it in the literary sense, as a metaphor or personification of things that are in fact natural. However, while I do not believe in the God of any traditional religion, I do believe that we have profound emotional and psychological experiences of things like awe and wonder, love, self-transcendence and transformation, which we, being the social animals that we are, naturally personify, using words like God, YHWH or Allah, and which we experience as ‘divine’ in the sense of their ‘otherness’. These ‘spiritual’ moments seem a world away from our normal experience of reality but they are not supernatural, they are psychological and imaginative, and as such, they may still be true and meaningful to us at the subjective level.
We humans turn to words like ‘divine’ and ‘God’ as superlatives, when our ordinary words just don’t seem to do justice to the things we find awe-inspiring. We use our imaginations and our language to crown such things with greater meaning and importance when we communicate them, to show others that they are of great value, even if they are only really of great value to us, and even though they are, in truth, entirely natural things. One might survive a violent incident or illness against the odds, for example, and feel the only word that does justice to how much it means to us is the word ‘miraculous’. To others, however, and even to one’s own objective self, such events, though of immense human interest, are simply rare or unusual, like so many other events that take place in the world. Many things are, after-all, statistically unlikely but by no means impossible, and are therefore to be expected from time to time.
Eventually, I distanced myself from supernatural theism of any kind but I nonetheless embraced the fact that, at least for the time being, we humans, in spite of our rational capabilities, are largely driven by our irrational impulses. I acknowledge, with respect, the temptation for human beings (including myself) to invent beings and worlds of the imagination in order to ease our pain or enhance our joy. Even those of us who are committed to a rational approach to knowledge do this when we immerse ourselves in books and films of fiction and fantasy, when we talk to someone we love who has died, when we cry out to the God we don’t believe in because we are in crisis, or when we express gratitude to the universe for something that has worked out wonderfully in our favour. In those brief moments, alternative realities; gods, ghosts, a conscious universe – all these things are real to us, and sometimes more meaningful to us than anything else, even though they are not real in the literal sense.

Rational Spirituality

With or without God, we still need companionship and intimacy with other persons. We still need shared values and a purpose, and we still need words, symbols, places, buildings and rituals as reminders of these. We still need the free and creative expression that leads to self-actualisation. We still need love, forgiveness and hope. And for many of us, we still crave the experience of rapturous communal singing! I still don’t like the word atheist. I still define myself by what I am rather than what I am not.
I am confident that humanity can meet its psychological and social needs with a rational conception of spirituality, without the need for traditional faith. After all, a genuine spirituality is a rational one. It does not try to deny or escape from reality. Instead, it meets a messy reality head on, with compassion and positive action – demonstrating orthopraxy (right action), rather than imposing orthodoxy (right belief). Genuine spirituality does not set some people apart from others. Rather, it acknowledges our common humanity, its weaknesses and strengths, and brings us closer together. It embraces reason and pursues the truth, whether the truth is what we want it to be or not. It acts from kindness and refrains from doing harm, even when doing so runs counter to our feelings and impulses.
Genuine spirituality is the experience of wonder, of creativity, of love and self-transcendence, of connection to other living beings. It includes the cultivation of empathy and compassion for others through reflective exercises such as meditation and contemplation. Genuine spirituality demands honesty, freedom, tolerance and equality, values running counter to the religious power structures that have been dominant for so long. It is a process of rediscovering and having a renewed appreciation of our place in nature, an emphasis which contrasts with the efforts of traditional religion to set humanity apart from its natural origins and even to set us apart from the needs and pleasures of our own physical bodies.
And what about the problem of self-sufficiency? Well, I can still seek that which is outside myself to rely upon when my mind or body let me down – the good in others, modern therapies and the natural healing capacity of the body and brain. It was the modern medical understanding of my anxiety condition, after all, which saved me in the end, after a second bout of the condition, which actually came about because of the stress and inner conflict my faith and my involvement in the churches had caused me.
Awe and wonder are often the source of belief in a supernatural God but they need not be. We can worship instead in the sense of honouring (the original Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word) that which is good in reality, in nature, including in our human nature – though I do not recommend using the term ‘worship’ in general since it is far too widely associated with obeisance to a dictator of either the human or divine kind. This ‘honouring’ is not something strange and new-agey but something we actually do already when we celebrate one another at births, birthdays, milestones, marriages and funerals, when as a community or society we celebrate people who excel in their work and do a great deal of good for others, and when we celebrate the seasons and wonders of the natural world. We can, however, learn to do these things a whole lot better, with a whole lot more creativity, meaning, imagination and depth. Another look at what we count as success, and at who we choose to reward with our civil honours lists wouldn’t go amiss!
We can write secular liturgies and choreograph secular liturgical events, not only those that are morally or intellectually instructive but those which facilitate and create spaces for reflection and socialisation. We can create rituals that instil common secular values and goals, healthy habits, practical wisdom and critical thinking. We can create sustainable ‘sacred’ (special) spaces for liturgical events, events such as reflective ‘services’, which include readings, art-forms, meditations, rituals and so forth, and social events, such as community feasts.
A story, a poem, a dance, the process of painting a picture, a journey, a piece of music, a period of silence, and even the shipping forecast- these may all be described as liturgy. We can also explore the possibility of integrating liturgy, and what I call ‘liturgical moments’, into everyday life. Liturgies often define the values, goals and cultural identity of groups, from the tattoos and graffiti of youth subcultures, to the word-art one finds in the homes and workplaces of the aspirational classes. They are, therefore, even more than the writings and other liturgical expressions, which are read or take place at secular private or public gatherings. Secular liturgies explore, define, celebrate and convey the secular values of compassion, truth, freedom, equality, courage, tolerance and responsibility. They also seek to capture and communicate, in creative ways, the latest information and research that can help us to advance well-being and alleviate suffering. They have the potential to make secular cultures more resilient in difficult times, and inspire us to meet our global challenges.
The phrase ‘rational spirituality’ seems aptly to capture both a rational approach to knowledge and the general gist of what most people mean when they talk about spirituality – sincerity, love, empathy, compassion, respect, oneness, creativity, wisdom and reflective practices like meditation, contemplation, ritual and so on. It is this kind of spirituality to which I aspire at the end of a long, and at times painful, journey. It is the kind of spirituality I sought as a child. It is the kind of spirituality I try to nurture in my own children.
‘Is God a real or a nonsense thing?’ asks my son (aged five). ‘What would you like it to be?’ I reply. ‘Hmm, love, I think.’ he says. ‘Good choice’, I say, ‘then that is what ‘God’ is.’ After all, the literary sense, makes the most sense of all. He can believe in love and call it what he likes. He can also talk to it if he pleases. After all, children at his age talk to a lot of imaginary beings, which they don’t expect to actually encounter, indicating that most of the time, they do not really believe in their existence in the literal sense. Belief itself is a strange and transient thing. It cannot be pinned down, and many of us remain in a state of half-belief about a great many things. Belief is so very undeserving of the prominence that many religions have given it. One might believe in such a thing as ‘God’ (e.g. as love personified) when immersed in that other reality, within the mind, and yet act in the physical world with no reference to any supernatural agency at all – and many do, both the religious and nonreligious alike! There is only hypocrisy in this when a person insists their God is real in the literal sense, and that others should believe in it.
When children grow into young adults, many become deeply fearful or uncomfortable with the complex and ephemeral nature of real life, and they go in search of ideological and religious certainty – a very grave mistake! Sadly, just when so many of them need a little wisdom, love and reassurance from the those with more life experience, they are met instead with an adult world touting an array of erroneous and harmful ideologies, and with people who, out of their own delusion or for their own selfish ends, are more than willing to exploit the vulnerability of the young and the suffering.
I am, therefore, sometimes hopeful and sometimes despairing of our species – of its ability to overcome its cognitive biases, of its ability to change its behaviours in time to save the planet, and of its ability to develop a rational spirituality which will provide a healthy alternative to religious and political ideologies. However, putting aside those inevitable moments of despair, our efforts must take their strength from from our hope, rather than from any kind of certainty, and this precarious state of affairs is something we must make our peace with, while we do our best to bring about a better future for ourselves and our world.

Christian Devotional Classics: A Testament of Devotion | Emerging Scholars Blog

Christian Devotional Classics: A Testament of Devotion | Emerging Scholars Blog


Christian Devotional Classics: A Testament of Devotion
Oct 13, 2013
By Tom Grosh IV
1 comment
Posted in: Book Review/Discussion, Christ and the Academy
Tagged in: A Testament of Devotion, Christian Devotional Classics, Quaker, Thomas Raymond Kelly

Thomas Raymond Kelly and A Testament of Devotion


Thomas Raymond Kelly (1893 – 1941) author of A Testament of Devotion (1941). Source: livres-mystiques.com/partieTEXTES/Kelly/bio.html


“To read or not to read?” Ever have a book which has caught your attention a number of times over a period of years, but you have made the intentional decision not to read only to find it assigned for class? 

Thomas Raymond Kelly’s (1893 – 1941) A Testament of Devotion (1941) fits this category for me.

Kelly was a cradle to grave Quaker, i.e., Religious Society of Friends. Although born in America, he had a passion for international education, service, pacifism, and spirituality. Although he studied chemistry as an undergraduate, he pursued further education with a mystical bend in religion and philosophy through a number of avenues including self study and a Ph.D. at Hartford. Kelly’s memory loss during his oral defense for a Ph.D. in philosophy at Harvard crushed him (1937). But with the publication of Explanation and Reality in the Philosophy of Emile Meyerson (1937) . . .

No one knows exactly what happened, but a strained period in his life was over. He moved toward adequacy. A fissure in him seemed to close, cliffs caved in and filled up a chasm, and what was divided grew together within him. Science, scholarship, method remained good, but in a new setting. Now he could say with Isaac Pennington, ‘Reason is not sin, but a deviation from that from which reason came is a sin.

He went to to the Germantown Friends’ Meeting at Coulter Street to deliver three lectures in January 1938. He told me the lectures wrote themselves. At Germantown, people were deeply moved and said, “This is authentic.” His writing writings and spoken messages began to be marked by a note of experimental authority.” — Douglas V. Steere, “A Biographical Memoir.” In Thomas Raymond Kelly. A Testament of Devotion. Harper & Brothers, 1941, 118.

In Searching for an Adequate Life: The Devotional Theology of Thomas R. Kelly by Jerry R. Flora (Spirituality Today. Spring 1990, Vol.42 No. 1), we read another quote from Steere regarding the transformation:

out of it seemed to come a whole new life orientation. What took place no one will ever know; but old walls caved in, the fierce academic ambition receded, and a new abandoned kind of fulfillment made its appearance.

AND a dramatic description of the last day of his life:

ON the morning of January 17, 1941, a college professor in eastern Pennsylvania exclaimed to his wife, “Today will be the greatest day of my life.”(1) He had just written to the religion editor at Harper and Brothers, accepting an invitation to speak with him in New York about a small book, on devotional practice. The firm of Harper was definitely interested in the kind of fresh material this writer could produce. That evening, while drying the dinner dishes, he slumped to the floor with a massive coronary arrest and died almost instantly.

At Kelly’s passing, his friend and colleague Douglas V. Steere pulled together five of his essays and wrote a brief inspirational “biographical memoir” to accompany them in A Testament of Devotion (1941). Kelly’s academic life experience and insights go hand in hand, particularly relevant to Emerging Scholars — complementing some of what the Urban Resident shared with us in Writing a Christian Personal Statement (10/11/2013). Furthermore, reading Kelly’s material raises to me the question of how to interact with an inspirational “Christian” figure with whom one finds deep resonance, while at the same time strongly disagreeing with on several key theological points.

A timeline to provide a context for Kelly’s work

Thomas Raymond Kelly was born on June 4, 1893 on a farm near Chillicothe, OH. His parents were dedicated Quakers who reopened a long closed old meeting room to renew Quaker worship in their area. But his father died when he was four, forcing his mom to move to provide for the family (including his sister Mary). She chose Wilmington, OH, for educational purposes, i.e., to earn the money and enroll in good schools including Wilmington College.
1909 – 1912: Kelly studied Chemistry at Wilmington College (OH) but finished at Haverford College (PA), exposing him to a wider perspective. At the time, studying one’s final year at Haverford was a common way to polish off one’s Quaker “college education.”Question: If you are familiar with Wilmington and/or Haverford, I am very interested in how close to their Quaker roots these colleges continue to be in the 21st Century. Furthermore, as to whether this tradition of finishing studies at Haverford has been maintained in any manner.
1914 – 1918: World War I. America declared war on Germany in 1917.
1914 – 1916: Kelly taught at Pickering College, a Quaker preparatory school in Canada. During his time in Canada, the Quaker mission to Japan and the evangelization of the Far East became an even greater passion for Kelly than science education.
1915: Thomas Merton born in France (Prades, Pyrénées-Orientales), but his family quickly departed to live with his mother’s family in New York due to World War I.
1917 – 1918: As a pacifist (which is part of the Quaker tradition), Kelly served German Prisoners of War (POWs). This gave him not only only a strong connection with the German people, but also deepened his strong Quaker pacifism which would play an important role in his relationship to World War II.
1919: Kelly graduated Hartford Theological Seminary (CT), married Lael Macy, and received a position to teach Bible at Wilmington (1919-21) setting him up for the “Roaring 20’s.” But he appeared to be largely unaffected by this era or the Great Depression except in caring for those in need in Germany. His relationship with Germans led to his concern regarding Hitler’s rise to power. Kelly visited in 1938 to encourage Quaker friends touched by his 1924 – 1925 mission.
1924: Kelly received a Ph.D. in Philosophy at Hartford Seminary. Thomas and Lael reinvigorated the labors of Quakers in Germany (1924 – 1925).
1925: Kelly taught Philosophy at Earlham College, Richmond, IN.
1928: Daughter Lois was born.
1931 – 1932: Kelly pastored Fall River Congregational Church, attended Harvard for a second Ph.D., and taught at Wellesley College.
1932 – 1935: Kelly returned to Earlham to teach
1935: While holding a staff position at Pendle Hill, a Quaker Center for study and Contemplation in Wallingford, PA, Kelly was exposed to Zen meditation. Kelly moved to —Hawaii to teach Philosophy. He not only encountered Japanese and Chinese Professors, but also studied Buddhism.
1936: Son Richard was born in Hawaii. Kelly became sick and returned to teach Greek and Oriental Philosophy at Haverford.
1937 “Failed Oral Exam at Harvard” led to a re-examination.—
In January 1938 Germantown Friends Meeting, Kelly gives three lectures on “God can be found.”
—In April 1938, Kelly wrote to Rufus Jones, “The Reality of the presence has been very great at times recently. One knows at firsthand what the old inquiry meant, ‘Has truth been advancing among you?’”
Spiritual experience: Shared with his mother, “He was swept away by the presence . . . melted down by the love of God.”
—Over the course of the next 3 years, he received a series of messages and went from an academic to” a seeker of the experience within.”

—January 17, 1941: Received a call to publish works and within hours of that call he died of a heart attack. 
—Douglas V. Steere gathered Kelly’s material in order for A Testament of Devotion (1941) to be published.

American involvement in World War II (1940-1945) was followed by the Cold War (1947 to 1991)
1941: InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA was incorporated. For more of the ministry’s history click here.


What does A Testament of Devotion (1941) have to say to us today?

A Testament of Devotion by Thomas Raymond Kelly (1893 – 1941).

Daily Reflections for the course of the next several days from which you pick up this post. The material is drawn from drafts I posted on the Emerging Scholars Network Facebook Wall as part of a class on Christian Devotional Classics at Evangelical Seminary

Please email me know if you use the second section to stimulate campus discussion (e.g., brown bag lunch discussion group). I am particularly interested in suggestions on revisions for use in that context.

1. “By inner persuasions He draws us to a few definite tasks, our tasks, God’s burdened heart particularizing his burdens in us. And He gives us the royal blindness of faith, and the seeing eye of the sensitized soul, and the grace of unflinching obedience. Then we see that nothing matters and that everything matters and that this my task matters for me and for my fellow men and women for eternity. . . . Obedient as a shadow, sensitive as a shadow, selfless as a shadow . . . Holy obedience is the simplicity of the trusting child. . . . . which lies beyond complexity, naiveté which is the yonder side of sophistication. It is the beginning of spiritual maturity which comes after the awkward age of religious busyness for the Kingdom of God . . .”
 — Thomas Raymond Kelly. A Testament of Devotion. Harper & Brothers, 1941, 43ff.

For Deeper Reflection: Thank-you to my friend Nelson. As part of an excellent presentation on Kelly and A Testament of Devotion, he shared the above quote with this conversation starter well worth our consideration: 

“Kelly spent most of his life chasing the truth through academic means and went through a period of spiritual awakening / renewal and comes to the above conclusion: Simplicity and Humble obedience. How do we balance our time of study and our time of serving? Have we made it overly complicated? What if we ‘loved in humble service?’ Does scripture call us to both? . . .”

2. Thomas Raymond Kelly begins A Testament of Devotion with these words,

 “Meister Eckhart wrote, ‘As thou art in church or cell, that same frame of mind carry out into the world; into its turmoil and fitfulness.’ Deep within us all there is an amazing inner sanctuary of the soul, a holy place, a Divine Center, a speaking Voice, to which we may continuously return. Eternity is at our hearts, pressing upon our time-torn lives, warming us with intimations of an astounding destiny, calling us home unto Itself. Yielding to these persuasions, gladly committing ourselves in body and soul, utterly and completely, to the Light Within, is the beginning of true life. It is a dynamic center, a creative Life that presses to birth within us. It is a Light Within which illumines the face of God and casts new shadows and new glories upon the face of men. It is a seed stirring to life if we do not choke it. It is the Shekinah of the soul, the Presence in the midst. Here is the slumbering Christ, stirring to be awakened, to become the soul we clothe in earthly form and action. And he is within us all.”

For Deeper Reflection: As you have already discerned, I have great respect for Thomas Raymond Kelly’s wrestling with the relationship of faith and vocation as a Quaker. We have much to receive from his journey and his coming to an appreciation of living in the reality of ‘adequacy’ instead of trying to continually prove oneself in what I term ‘the academic chain of being.’ 

None-the-less it is hard for me to get past the first page, where I find myself in strong disagreement with his perspective on the Inner Light/Christ to be tapped inside of each human being.
Yes, we are all created in the image of God. But is there a Christ within each of us, accessible to “clothe in earthly form and action”? No, the seed of the Gospel is cast into broken/dark lives. Some receive and some even embrace the Gospel by the grace of God, but Christ is not already inside waiting to come out of a slumber. 

A subject to be unpacked further . . .

As an Emerging Scholar, how do you prayerfully consider and interact with material which you disagree with in your discipline, in particular when you have assignments ‘forcing’ you to engage the material? How do you prayerfully listen, ask good questions, enter dialogue, even sharpen your own  position/understanding?

3. “T.S. Eliot . . . ‘I cannot conceive of anybody agreeing with all of her [Simone Weil’s] views, or of not disagreeing violently with some of them. But agreement and rejection are secondary: what matters is to make contact with a great soul.’ — Scott McLemee. “Review of Julia Haslett, ‘An Encounter with Simone Weil.'” Inside Higher Ed. 8/14/2013.

For Deeper Reflection: Eliot’s quote is pertinent to my reading of Kelly’s A Testament of Devotion. Even though I disagree with his perspective on ‘The Inner Light,’ he has a great soul and much to teach.

4. I am surprised by the growing influence of “Evangelical” Quakers in Spiritual Formation, in particular Richard Foster of Renovare, Mary Kate Morse of George Fox Evangelical Seminary, and Dallas Willard of USC. 
Note: Willard was active member of Quaker Meeting House in which Foster served the 1970’s. For ESN Blog posts exploring the life, work, and legacy of Dallas Willard, click here. Have you read material by any of these authors? If so, how would you compare their material with what I have shared from Kelly’s work?

——-
Note: Due the press of completing the final project and the complexity of the questions I found myself raising, I left further consideration of interacting with Kelly’s theology for a future date. Several months later I find myself still mulling over a proper response. I am looking for a time away to wrestle with several topics fall posts have raised and/or someone with whom to dialogue. If you have insights to share, please comment and/or drop me a line

Consider this post “opening a can of worms”*, one to which I/we will return  Stay tuned . . .
*As I shared above, “reading Kelly’s material raises to me the question of how to interact with an inspirational “Christian” figure with whom one finds deep resonance, while at the same time strongly disagreeing with on several key theological points.”




Tom Grosh IV
Tom enjoys daily conversations regarding living out the Biblical Story with his wife Theresa and their four girls, around the block, at Elizabethtown Brethren in Christ Church (where he teaches adult electives and co-leads a small group), among healthcare professionals as the South Central PA Area Director for the Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA), and in higher ed as a volunteer with the Emerging Scholars Network (ESN). The Christian Medical Society / CMDA at Penn State College of Medicine is the hub of his ministry with CMDA. Note: Tom served with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship / USA for 20+ years, including 6+ years as the Associate Director of ESN. He has written for the ESN blog from its launch in August 2008. He has studied Biology (B.S.), Higher Education (M.A.), Spiritual Direction (Certificate), Spiritual Formation (M.A.R.), Ministry (D.Min., May 2019).

 To God be the glory!
More Posts - Website



One Comment

Roger commented on March 31, 2014 Reply
I have just finished for the second time Thomas Kelly’s book whilst language is very evangelical the sentiment has a truly mystical feel ie the essence of Buddhism Quakerism

Welcome to a budding Buddhist Quaker... | Quaker Universalist Voice



Welcome to a budding Buddhist Quaker... | Quaker Universalist Voice



Welcome to a budding Buddhist Quaker…
by Anthony Manousos

PUBLISHEDMonday, 21 Mar 2011TOPICS




By Anthony Manousos


I couldn’t resist this pun (and for those of you who are addicted to punning, I recommend John Pollock’s excellent new book, “The Pun Also Rises”). Paul Lockey, a Buddhist newcomer to Quakerism, just wrote about the affinities between Quakerism and Buddhism (see below). That Quakerism and Buddhism (especially Zen Buddhism) have much in common has become a truism among liberal and Universalist Friends. Sallie King, a longstanding member of QUF and CIRC, describes herself as a Buddhist Quaker, and so, I believe, does Steve Smith, who has written an outstanding Pendle Hill pamphlet on his experiences as a Zen Buddhist Friend. I myself have lived for nine months in a Zen Buddhist center in Providence, RI, when I first became a Friend and was deeply influenced by Joe and Teresina Havens, weighty Friends who were deeply Buddhist in outlook.


So I want to extend a warm welcome to the Paul Lockey, who writes:
As a Buddhist new to Quakers (just four Meetings for Worship under my belt!), I accept that I am coming into a religious organisation that is ‘rooted in Christianity and has always found inspiration in the life and teachings of Jesus.’ [A&Q4] However, my understanding is that ‘Quakerism’ (like ‘Buddhism’) is more a way of living rather than a set of beliefs. Moreover, an important part of the practice is to ‘work gladly with other religious groups in the pursuit of common goals…’ [A&Q6] and to ‘respect that of God in everyone though it may be expressed in unfamiliar ways or be difficult to discern…’ [A&Q17].



Jesus said, ‘The Kingdom of God comes not from observation… the Kingdom of God is within you.’ [Luke 17: 20-21] As a Buddhist I can relate to that. I see no reason why Quakers should abandon their Christian heritage, nor would I ever ask anyone to do so just to make non-Christians like me feel more welcome. However, speaking the language of Christ is one thing – it’s quite another to argue that Christianity is the one true religion, or that Jesus is somehow superior to the other historical figures who are revered by people of different faiths. If the RSoF requires me to believe that then I’ll just slope off quietly and never darken the door of my local Meeting House ever again…

Whatever we imagine our God to be, It almost certainly isn’t. The human experience of divinity is a continuum ranging from the mundane to miraculous and all are of equal importance – it’s only ego that judges these experiences as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘external’ or ‘internal’, ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’, ‘sacred’ or ‘profane’… etc. By walking the Buddha’s ‘Middle Way’ I hope to tread a fine line between asceticism and hedonism while avoiding the pitfalls of holding extreme views (atheist materialism or religious fundamentalism, for example).

So what brings me to Quakers? Basically – a need for silence, to meet others along the spiritual road, to experience in different ways the Ultimate Reality of ‘Oneness’ (or God, if you prefer).
CommentsI'll tell what branch of Buddhism seems ever closer to Quakerism: Pure Land. I belong to a Jodo Shinshu or Shin Buddhist Sangha. I have also attended a Quaker meeting for many years. It a nutshell, both traditions are at their essence preaching the Gospel of Universalism. In Shin all are saved through the compassionate workings of Amida Buddha. I believe readers will easily note the obvious Christian parallel.Mike L. · 21 Mar 2011 at 4:28 pmThank you for this. I have been making use of Buddhist meditation techniques for several years, although I feel too ignorant and imperfect to label myself a Buddhist. I was raised in a very secular, socialist household; while not spiritual, it was deeply ethical, and my parents transmitted to me their belief in social justice and peace, taking me on marches for equality and disarmament as a child.

I started attending my local Quaker Meeting through friends, and have been attending every Sunday for about three months. I am constantly running up against ideas and practices that I was first introduced to in meditation classes or my reading on Buddhism. Last week I went to a workshop for Quakers on deepening the experience of Worship, and was amused to be presented with suggestions such as focusing on the breath as a means of centring down, walking meditation as preparation for Meeting - the workshop was bringing me back round to where I started from!

Right now, I'm not sure I can call myself a Buddhist, or a Quaker, or a Buddhist Quaker. Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe learning to live through the uncertainty is part of the process/lesson.Charlotte Walker · 21 Mar 2011 at 5:12 pmI've functioned as one who practices Buddhism within my liberal Quaker meeting for many years and see no conflict. There is a lot of interest in Buddhism in my Quaker meeting, I would say. As a nontheist Buddhist, I have little difficulty drawing inspiration from the Gospel of Thomas, from Bernadette Roberts and other Christian contemplatives, and from Thomas R. Kelly, to cite a few examples.Phil Grove · 21 Mar 2011 at 11:21 pmI grew up in an unprogrammed meeting in a generally non-theistic setting. The emphasis was living the Gospel and a mystical communion with the Light of Christ. Christ was and is a living Guru. But he , I feel, encouraged me to continue to seek truth , to go further, and pursue U;timate Enlightenment/Buddhahood in order to really benefit others...............................so I feel he lead me to Lord Buddha who teaches methods of attaining Buddhahood. Then for me CHrist is my King and Buddha my Teacher.........or I consider them both my Gurus.....with my ultimate authority being the Buddha.Yeshe · 06 Sep 2011 at 5:42 pmI have had Buddhism, like a piece of grit, in the corner of my eye for about 55 years and since my retirement, about 10 years ago, I have taken it seriously - although I am trying to disentangle the teachings fromn their asian-culture background. I attend the local Quaker meeting (my wife is a Quaker) and consider that, although I follow the Buddha and the Dharma, the Quakers are my Sangha.
A piece that I read a couple of years ago had a profound effect on me (it "spoke to my condition" as the Quakers say).
A japanese Zen monk was appointed abbot of a monastary in New York state. In 1975, in one of his talks to the monks, he said:-
"It is time that we started cooking our own food and not just eating from asian take-aways....We are all Dharma pioneers"
To mix religeous metaphores - Go thou and do likewise!Geoff Whitehead · 29 Nov 2011 at 7:46 amHi Geoff, thanks for joining in! I am interested in more conversation from Buddhist Quakers/ Quaker Buddhists.
I agree with cooking our own (in my case American) food, but I have a slow appoach. I choose to belong and participate in a Buddhist Sangha, and with a Tibetan Guru, all of which as a strong dose of "foreign food". I can tolerate it to a fair degree, as long as I have other affilitaions that serve scumptuous Western fare. I am currently reaching out to Friends via internet to keep some of my Western sensibilities nourished. I am hoping that eventually our Sangha will move toward meeting the West half way..............I suppose the midway point between West and East is the Middle East!
Overall I consider myself more of a Quaker Buddhist than a Buddhist Quaker...........Peace ! YesheYeshe · 29 Nov 2011 at 7:41 pm« Previous Next »

The Second Mountain: The Quest for a Moral Life: David Brooks: 9780812993264: Amazon.com: Books



The Second Mountain: The Quest for a Moral Life: David Brooks: 9780812993264: Amazon.com: Books




Listen

Follow the Author

David Brooks
+ Follow


The Second Mountain: The Quest for a Moral Life Hardcover – April 16, 2019
by David Brooks (Author)
Be the first to review this item

Everybody tells you to live for a cause larger than yourself, but how exactly do you do it? The bestselling author of The Road to Character explores what it takes to lead a meaningful life in a self-centered world.

Every so often, you meet people who radiate joy—who seem to know why they were put on this earth, who glow with a kind of inner light. Life, for these people, has often followed what we might think of as a two-mountain shape. They get out of school, they start a career, and they begin climbing the mountain they thought they were meant to climb. Their goals on this first mountain are the ones our culture endorses: to be a success, to make your mark, to experience personal happiness. But when they get to the top of that mountain, something happens. They look around and find the view . . . unsatisfying. They realize: This wasn’t my mountain after all. There’s another, bigger mountain out there that is actually my mountain.

And so they embark on a new journey. On the second mountain, life moves from self-centered to other-centered. They want the things that are truly worth wanting, not the things other people tell them to want. They embrace a life of interdependence, not independence. They surrender to a life of commitment.

In The Second Mountain, David Brooks explores the four commitments that define a life of meaning and purpose: to a spouse and family, to a vocation, to a philosophy or faith, and to a community. Our personal fulfillment depends on how well we choose and execute these commitments. Brooks looks at a range of people who have lived joyous, committed lives, and who have embraced the necessity and beauty of dependence. He gathers their wisdom on how to choose a partner, how to pick a vocation, how to live out a philosophy, and how we can begin to integrate our commitments into one overriding purpose.

In short, this book is meant to help us all lead more meaningful lives. But it’s also a provocative social commentary. We live in a society, Brooks argues, that celebrates freedom, that tells us to be true to ourselves, at the expense of surrendering to a cause, rooting ourselves in a neighborhood, binding ourselves to others by social solidarity and love. We have taken individualism to the extreme—and in the process we have torn the social fabric in a thousand different ways. The path to repair is through making deeper commitments. In The Second Mountain, Brooks shows what can happen when we put commitment-making at the center of our lives.

#1 Best Sellerin Books


See all 4 formats and editions

Audible Audiobook
from $22.90
1 New from $22.90
Hardcover
$16.8020 Used from $18.4833 New from $16.80

=============

Editorial Reviews

Review


Praise for David Brooks’s The Road to Character

“A hyper-readable, lucid, often richly detailed human story.”—The New York Times Book Review

“This profound and eloquent book is written with moral urgency and philosophical elegance.”—Andrew Solomon, author of Far from the Tree and The Noonday Demon

“The voice of the book is calm, fair and humane. The highlight of the material is the quality of the author’s moral and spiritual judgments.”—The Washington Post

“A powerful, haunting book that works its way beneath your skin.”—The Guardian (U.K.)

The Social Animal

“Provocative . . . seeks to do nothing less than revolutionize our notions about how we function and conduct our lives.”—The Philadelphia Inquirer

“[A] fascinating study of the unconscious mind and its impact on our lives.”—The Economist

“Compulsively readable . . . Brooks’s considerable achievement comes in his ability to elevate the unseen aspects of private experience into a vigorous and challenging conversation about what we all share.”—San Francisco Chronicle

“Brooks surveys a stunning amount of research and cleverly connects it to everyday experience. . . . As in [Bobos in Paradise], he shows genius in sketching archetypes and coining phrases.”—The Wall Street Journal
Read less

About the Author


David Brooks is one of the nation’s leading writers and commentators. He is an op-ed columnist for The New York Times and appears regularly on PBS NewsHour and Meet the Press. He is the bestselling author of The Road to Character; The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement; Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There; and On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (and Always Have) in the Future Tense.See all Editorial Reviews


Product details

Hardcover: 384 pages
Publisher: Random House (April 16, 2019)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0812993268
ISBN-13: 978-0812993264
Product Dimensions: 6.3 x 1.2 x 9.5 inches

Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review: Be the first to review this item
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#1 in Sociology of Social Theory
#1 in Philosophy of Ethics & Morality
#1 in Happiness Self-Help

--------------------------
More about the author
Visit Amazon's David Brooks Page

Follow

Biography
David Brooks is an op-ed columnist for The New York Times and appears regularly on “PBS NewsHour,” NPR’s “All Things Considered” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He teaches at Yale University and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is the bestselling author of 

  • The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement; 
  • Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There; and On 
  • Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense. 

He has three children and lives in Maryland.