The Evolution of God

by Robert Wright

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.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Science, Psychology, Spirituality

567 pages, Hardcover

First published June 8, 2009

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

ROBERT WRIGHT is the author of The Moral Animal, Nonzero, and Three Scientists and Their Gods. The New York Times selected The Moral Animal as one of the ten best books of the year and the other two as notable books of the year.

Wright is a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Essay and Criticism and has been a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award. A contributing editor at The New Republic, he has also written for Time, Slate, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New Yorker.

Wright has taught in the philosophy department at Princeton and the psychology department at the University of Pennsylvania, and is now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and editor in chief of Bloggingheads.tv.

Reviews

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Jan Rice · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[David Rubenstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Becky · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Karen · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Brian Griffith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somewhat like Joseph Campbell did in his "Hero with a Thousand Faces," Wright focuses on one major theme of world mythology, and traces the evolution of that theme through history. He shows how the concept of God changed and expanded step by step from ancient Mesopotamia, through the ages described in the Bible, and the histories of Christianity and Islam. The book is long and detailed, but much of it is fascinating.

[Emiliya Bozhilova · Rating 3 out of 5]

Препрочит:
Типичният пример за книга, която е важна, но… е така адски досадна! Вторият прочит никак не по-добри впечатленията ми.

Човек има нужда от бог, и си го създава, а после богът започва да твори човека - и ето ти я на днешната ни объркана планета.

Райт не казва нищо особено ново за авраамическите религии (юдаизъм, християнство, ислям).

✔️ Юдаизмът е тръгнал от многобожието и е заплел в стария завет половината комшийски митологии на шумери, асирийци и прочие. На всичкото отгоре толкова много автори са го писали, че в него наистина има от всичко, и това “всичко” си противоречи едно с друго. За всеки има по нещо.

✔️ Християнството в сегашния си вид пък дължим на апостол Павел и неговия неуморен проект по граденето на църква. Той попренаписал посланието на Христос, а авторите на евангелията (или писателите в сянка, отговорни за финалния им вид) щедро довнаждали удобни случки и послания, които си противоречат една на друга, но мигат да се ползват за куп цели.

✔️ Мохамед е бил най-практичният и модерен от всички пророци, а Коранът стилистично е най-единен, и е поетичен. Поетът-пророк направил кариера и като владетел, а обраслите около корана често с неясен произход хадиси удобно вмъкнали каквото съответните силни на деня смятали за належащо за набиване в главите на вярващите.

Общо взето, Райт повтаря едни и същи мотиви, част от което са чиста спекулация, част - исторически валидни. Но можеше да се вмести в по-малко страници или поне да обогати тесните насоки. Четивото би могло да е къде по-интересно…

——-
Първоначално ревю:
Ерудирана, но скучно и разтеглено написана. Само големи ентусиасти ще я издържат. Иначе информативна и като цяло обоснована.

Тезата е, че Бог сме си го измислили във всяка от трите основни аврамически религии, доизмисляли сме го в течение на хилядолетия под въздействие на конкретните исторически нужди на различните епохи (свидетелство са разнородните книги на Стария Завет, писани по различно време и от различни автори, с разнородни и понякога разнопосочни послания), и продължаваме да си го измисляме и днес. Уникален конструкт на ума и нуждата от опора и вяра.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Nia · Rating 4 out of 5]

My take-away understanding of this book was that the author believes that as a religion encompasses greater population diversity, it perforce must, and hence does, become more tolerant and open or universalistic. Some kind of reward and punishment system (divine or spirit-based whether here and now or after death) also generally ramps up as again population encompassed by the religion increases.

This was a long but worthwhile read, starting with the earliest forms of religions and moving up through polytheism toward and via animism, how authority coalesces in chiefdoms and then states and kingdoms, and to monolatry, then finally to monotheism (by way of national calamities).

I most liked his comments on page 427 pointing out the the ancient religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt may have had a healthier point of view, in the long run. Both of these regions had empires early on, and had to deal with the problem of urban anonymity earlier than other places, so the religions adapted accordingly. On the other hand, early Judaism, church Christianity and earliest Islam all began from an insular us vs them mentality and eventually (more or less) opened up as they had contact with larger cultures or populations: modern Judaism, particularly the more progressive streams, like Renewal and the Chavurah Movement, tend to eliminate much of the older tribalism of Judaism with concepts like Arthur Green's "Eco-Kashrut" and universalist inclusion as the liturgy is changed to reflect the larger world. The Quakers, among other Christians, have done the same recently, and the Sufis have long long led Islam toward great openness.
Yet he criticises the Abrahamic religions for not opening up quickly enough, and for lacking a sort of moral empathy for 'the other' which religions like many Eastern religions seem to tend to emphasize far more.

I found his details on the evolutions of each of the sacred scriptures (the Abrahamic faiths) fascinating from an 'on the ground' perspective. It really does respond to logic, and much of what has been cherry-picked and read selectively for criticism, out of each of the three sets of sacred texts by each opposing side (Christians reading either the Torah/TNaCh or the Koran, especially) turns out to be extremely dependent on the historical context (or what was happening at the time that that particular verse was written) for a reasonable interpretation. He does an excellent job placing many such Koranic and Biblical verses into their historical contexts and showing that what is going on at the time really does matter, despite the transcendence of the overall texts (or the fact that we might like to view these texts as transcendant).

Whether you believe in the divinity or sacred status of the various texts, and whether you believe or don't belive in a personal diety, this book is well worth reading for the sake of advancing a shared belief and faith in the social salvation of Human society as a whole.

Planet Earth, Northern Hemisphere
6th of August, 12017 HE
(the Holocene Calendar)

[Salman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent and deeply interesting.
-
I was looking for a book with a take on evolution of religious beliefs from evolutionary psychology perspective, and picked it.

Although that wasn't the main thesis of the book, it was in imbued to main thesis, and in background, but still it was really helpful. I feel hopeful, optimistic about where we go as species as I did when I read Sapiens which had stated the same, arrow of history (net) seems to be moving toward global cooperation.
-
I could even provide an overview of thesis of book:

1. Religion as cultural evolution.

As H. sapiens evolved by natural selection in Africa, we looked for causalities of things around us, and we projected supposedly spirits, deities controlling , and evolution of brain by natural select sculpted in way that those deities, spirit always felt a lot like us. This was way to feel certain, to put order, to feel in control - as we have psychological need of some level of fraternity at any given time.

These beliefs evolved from animism to polytheism to monolatry to monotheism ultimately as H. sapiens moved from hunter gathering society to chieftains, to small cities to small empires to larger empires or countries.

In short words, every next stage of religious beliefs evolved from previous cultural material just like natural selection sculpts new forms of life from already existing biological material e.g. monotheism evolved from polytheism (through monolatry).

To quote the book: "But biological evolution isn’t the only great “designer” at work on this planet. There is also cultural evolution: the selective transmission of “memes”—beliefs, habits, rituals, songs, technologies, theories, and so forth—from person to person. And one criterion that shapes cultural evolution is social utility; memes that are conducive to smooth functioning at the group level often have an advantage over memes that aren’t. Cultural evolution is what gave us modern corporations, modern government, and modern religion."

2. Religious evolution is part of cultural evolution which happens more or less like evolution of life by natural selection. In case of cultural evolution, selection pressures are economical, technological, social, political etc. Religious beliefs or Gods sometimes merge as cultures merge and at other times they turn against each other as human believing in them face different realities.

When people played non-zero sum games (interdependence in some sense which benefits both groups), they embraced (sometimes their beliefs converged) gods of other people, and showed tolerance and vice versa when playing zero-games.

3. Tolerance.

Robert notes, net direction for humanity is increasing tolerance. As we get more and more globalised, we play more and more non-zero game, we might get more and more tolerant toward each other as we have in past.

And the book shows, as people played non-zero game or zero-sum game, character of deity of a particularity religion let's say Yahweh in Hebrew Bible or Allah in Scripture changes, as authors of these scriptures face different situations employing different approaches. Even when a scripture has been laid down, we find believers finding tolerant and progressive interpretations if they perceive they're playing non-zero game with the "other", or rest of people.

To quote from the book, as it talks about Abrahamic religions: "all three fluctuate between best and worst according to the same dynamic: scripture ranges from tolerant to belligerent, and the reason lies in the facts on the ground, in the perceived non-zero-sumness, or lack thereof, among human beings."


4. Argument for "God".

Wright argues for possible higher being, or higher purpose by noting that culture has evolved in certain direction, a moral truth of some sort as he writes: "Our conception of God has “grown”—that is, the moral compass of the gods we believe in has grown, and our moral imagination has thereby grown—as we’ve moved from hunter-gatherer societies to the brink of a unified global civilisation; and, if we make it over that final threshold, we’ll have gotten closer still to moral truth in the bargain."

But he's agnostic about it. This feels more like a position of being agnostic atheist (some who' convinced all theistic religions are man-made, but open to possibility of non-theistic deity but not certain about)


5. Possible explanation of religious.

In last, book goes onto explain how religious beliefs are spanderl which is defined as: "a spandrel is an incidental by-product of the organic “design” process, whereas an adaptation is a direct product. Religion seems to be a spandrel."

In simple products, traits in brain adapted (due to natural selection) for some other purpose could have ended up catalysing initiating and evolution of religious beliefs.
-

[Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

По един много лежерен, спокоен и логичен начин с тази книга Робърт Райт допринася за каузата на атеистите много повече от Ричард Докинс с неговото войнствено отричане и непримирима борба с религията. Ясно и просто Райт обяснява психологическите предпоставки за зараждане на религията и след това еволюцията й в зависимост от реалните факти в културното и социално развитие на обществата. Започва от ловците и събирачите с техните нравствени и духовни нужди, преминава през племена, вождества, държави и обяснява как конкретни исторически събития и тенденции са довели до тази или онази промяна в светите писания, вярвания и ритуали първо на големите политеистични религии, а след това и до трите най-разпространени монотеистични.
Тъй като не знам много факти, свързани с религиите, книгата ми беше полезна и като богат източник на информация. Например не знаех, че има наука, която изучава Библията, Евангелията и Корана и хора, които изследват тези книги, за да извлекат историческите факти от тях. Не знаех, че Библията на евреите е писана в продължение на столетия от различни автори и редът, по който са подредени отделните глави, не съответства на реда, в който са писани. Също така ми беше интересно да разбера, че Иисус е бил истински човек – един от многото еврейски пророци, които са обикаляли по неговото време, за да проповядват. Християнството, такова, каквото го познаваме днес, не е дело на Иисус, а на Павел, който е бил нещо като много, ама наистина много успешен мениджър на епохата. Успял е да вземе едно учение, не по-различно от други като него и да го превърне в един удивително успешен продукт. Иисус не е проповядвал всемирна любов – тази концепция се е зародила доста по-късно от неговото време и отново има реална предпоставка за това – огромната Римска империя, в кото хората трябва да живеят в мир, за да просперират. За целта трябва да са толерантни един към друг, да изпитват „братска любов”, а най-добре да вярват в едни и същи ценности.
Най-малко информация имам за мюсюлманството и Корана. Оказва се, че това не е по-войнствена религия от останалите две монотеистични. И отново хората избират кои сури да цитират и да спазват в зависимост от реални събития. Джихадът не винаги означава война срещу неверниците, имало е времена, в които е означавало вътрешната борба на всеки мюсюлманин с пороците му. Мохамед също е писал сурите от Корана в различни периоди от живота си, поради което има сури, проповядващи верска толерантност и такива, призоваващи към насилие. Кой какво ще чете и ще проповядва, зависи от реални културни и нравствени нужди към даден момент. Същото е с Библията и с Евангелията.
Цялата история на религиите ми беше много интересна, но в края на книгата получих още един бонус – отговор на мой стар въпрос – как може интелигентни и разумни възрастни хора през 21 век все още да вярват в Бог – в смисъла на антропоморфна фигура, която се грижи за ежедневните ни нужди и следи отблизо делата ни? Ще цитирам отговора на Робърт Райт:
„.....: дори ако е вярно, че представата за Бог ни е помогнала да стигнем до настоящия етап на нравствена еволюция, нима не можем да се откажем от тази идея – от тази илюзия – и да продължим оттук насетне сами? Не можем ли да се стремим към нравствената истина в името на нравствената истина? Действително ли се нуждаем от Бог, за да поддържаме нравствения прогрес, така, както физиците се нуждаят от електрона, за да поддържат научния прогрес?
Зависи какви сме. Някои хора могат да водят образцов в нравствено отношение живот и без представата за Бог. Други се нуждаят от Бог – не непременно защото могат да водят добродетелен живот само ако се страхуват от ада и копнеят за рая; те често се нуждаят от него, защото могат лесно да водят добродетелен живот, ако смятата, че нравствената истина има живо въплащение. Нужно им е да чувстват, че ако постъпват лошо, разочароват някого, а ако постъпват добре, радват някого – и този някой, когото, над всички останали, е добре да зарадваш и лошо да разочароваш.”
Едва ли би могъл да го каже по-добре – просто така работи човешкият мозък и за това също има еволюционно обяснение. На мен ми е достатъчно и вече разбирам по-добре. Разбира се, остават ми още въпроси, свързани с религията, но търсенето продължава. Най-важният отговор предстои да намерим – ще може ли човечеството да преодолее верските си различия, както е правило в миналото или ще има масови кръвопролития, свързани със състезанието чий Бог е по-велик – което също се е случвало нееднок��атно преди? Какъв ще е резултатът от играта – ненулева или нулева сума, ще може ли да се разшири нравственото въображение на хората, така че да видят чуждата гледна точка? Защото както казва Робърт Райт – наистина всички сме хора – с едни и същи добродетели, недостатъци и духовни потребности.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 God where 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!

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

They're are two different schools of thought about a book like this. One, there was something in this book to offend almost everyone from each of the three Abrahamic religions (Christian, Jew, and Muslim). Or, two, by understanding the historical context and development over time of the major ideas about man's image of God and morality helps the listener better develop his own spiritual growth. Put me down in the second school.

After listening to this book, I'll never look at the bible the same way again. For me, the bible has always been inaccessible since I didn't understand its proper historical context. This book has really motivated me to revisit the bible and subsequently I've started listening to "The Word of Promise", the bible read by actors and with dramatization and so far very listenable (and it only cost one credit!).

The author is gifted at explaining generalities by first looking at specific events. One way of further understanding man's image of God is by first understanding the historical events surrounding the times the religious documents were first written.

The author quotes one of the early religious founders as saying that "God loved man very much by giving him an earth that was suited for man". The author would say that man was suited for earth so well because he evolved into this environment. From that point of view, man's image of God has also changed over time.

One note about the reader. Arthur Morey (the reader) is one of my favorite readers and he's one of the few readers who I would buy the book just because he's the reader. As usual, he doesn't disappoint in his reading and he makes me feel like I'm listening to an old friend.

[Moshe Mikanovsky · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Mehrsa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating book--especially if you know your scriptures. I love the Karen Armstrong history of God books, but I felt like this went farther back and further out. It was very well-written and asked the right questions and answered them carefully.

[Clif · Rating 5 out of 5]

Robert Wright has written a book long overdue, one that examines the creation of god/s and the behavior of that god, or those gods, based on the needs of the tribe or culture or civilization that did the creating. It is a rational look at religion and a brilliant example of good, logical thinking.

People have always had questions about their environment, a need to support what is considered proper action and to oppose what is thought improper. Not to have an answer is psychologically unbearable because of the anxiety and sense of powerlessness it would bring. It is only very recently that we have had science to provide answers that can be tested. Before science, one had to do the best one could with appearances. If your concept of why things are is no better subject to proof than mine, then it's better to put up a god to prevail over both of us. The more some religious explanation was in accord with either a positive view of one's own culture or with a hopeful view of the future where justice would be done, the more likely it would take hold.

Would it be desirable to unite two cultures? Then why not take the god of the other into one's own pantheon? Is your nation a powerful one with an excellent chance of destroying another nation? Then where's the defect in making your god the all-powerful and the other nation a follower of the devil that must be brought to the truth?

We all know of cases where a person is driven by the idea that he or she has some special ability to do something. This can prevail when doubt arises and bring success that might not otherwise have been achieved. The point is that what is in a person's mind need have no basis in fact in order to produce results. Again and again the author makes this plain - that he is not making a case for or against the reality of god, only the reality of the psychology that says there is a god, that he has some plan that we should follow and that this conjured vision produces results.

Starting at the dawn of time with hunter/gatherer tribes, Wright gives us excellent explanations for why specific views of the divine might arise. It has been said that if there were not a god, it would have been necessary to invent him. Wright would agree that not only was it necessary, that is just what happened. He shows us how this invention has taken place in many times and places, is a characteristic of the human species, and follows through into the religions that we know today as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are briefly mentioned, but the emphasis is on the monotheistic Abrahamic big three.

God has evolved because of the needs of those who believe in him. Far from being all-powerful, God is completely subservient to the societal need of his followers, whether he is said to be wrathful and demanding or forgiving and loving. Indeed, the same god, as Wright shows, can be one thing at one time and the opposite at another because circumstances change. He follows the history of the Israelites to show how this works.

By closely examining the Bible as a historical item, Wright shows us how the historical Jesus departs from the Jesus as depicted in the gospels. We learn about the times in which various parts of the Bible were written and how appropriate it might have been for Jesus to say this at one time and something else (or additional) at another. We know from what we hear preachers say that Jesus' words are wide open to interpretation even when all agree on the actual words. Great study has gone into the context within which a saying occurs and much historical information has been teased out. Wright opens this bag of goodies for us.

He points out that the more some item stands out as disconnected from the theological narrative within which it appears, the greater the chance that it relates something that actually happened. This is because a factual item cannot be denied to those who experienced it or were informed of it. It needs to be recognized to give an aura of authenticity to everything else in a theological work that one wishes people to believe is entirely authentic, yet warping the fact to be theologically consistent but not outright falsified can be difficult.

The fact that the Bible was not written in chronological order, that it has many authors, that what was theologically acceptable at one time was not acceptable at another, that authors may easily have deleted or modified what others had written goes a long way in explaining why the Bible is so complex, contradictory, illogical and bewildering. Far from being the word of a deity, it is a collection of the voices of many men over many centuries. It is simply impossible to interpret it rationally from any one theological standpoint - but the strain to make it possible to do so has caused all kinds of theological contortions over the years that continue to this moment. The best policy is to pick and choose and ignore the majority of the work that doesn't back up what you want, or you want others, to believe. The only miraculous thing about the Bible is that people believe it to be a coherent whole with a single message from God.

But Wright isn't content to simply deconstruct religion using reason. He makes a claim for moral progress that can be seen through the historical analysis of religion. This progress specifically relates to the nature of the monotheistic religions over time. From early tribal preferences (with a chosen people) we've arrived at the present day with many viewing everyone as equally human. Wright sees this moral advance as evolutionary using Richard Dawkins' concept of memes; ideas that act like genes in the way they evolve and spread.

Wright makes an extensive case for his idea, using the analogy of the electron in physics. No one has ever seen an electron and at the quantum level where it is said to exist, it would be impossible to exactly locate its position and velocity at one time, nevertheless it has been a very productive concept that has allowed physicists to master electromagnetism and put it to work. Therefor, not being able to see something is no good reason to deny it exists, says Wright.

He presents much more on this topic, all of if fascinating to read and beguiling. Wright writes in such a friendly and casual way with no dogmatism, that you can't help but want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But his concept of moral progress through religion doesn't hold up in an evolutionary way similar to the biological. While ideas definitely evolve they do not do so in any lasting way as do, for example, our bodies.

If you woke up tomorrow as one of only 60 people on earth, you body would be the exact same biological thing it is right now, with your genome intact, but your thoughts would almost immediately be modified by the social situation in which you found yourself. Would the morality we hold today prevail in a changed world? What if a group of ten people found they could dominate the other 50 and get what they wanted by force? Would men, knowing they could likely escape to remote regions, refrain from kidnapping the woman they desired and running off? Might slavery return? Look at how easily the high culture of 20th century Germany collapsed into barbarity.

My point is that the moral views of the citizens of modern civilization could easily disintegrate and we could be right back to primitive fears and superstitions because the physical beings that we are have not materially changed since fear, superstition and religion were all there was. Actually, current religious practices by many people ARE examples of fear and superstition, still quite active even in the face of all that science has revealed.

It is modern wealth and technology that makes it possible to expand our moral regard to an ever wider group, not any alteration in our brain or "progress" in our thinking. If there is a cornucopia from which we all can draw to put on a big gut, why not share? We can easily afford an expansive moral vision, but it stands on a foundation of productive might with access to vast resources.

Moral progress is an illusion, an illusion of people who have come into a large gold mine and happily help each other enjoy all they've found. I think Robert Wright longs to find something to hang onto after his brilliant work of deconstruction. I don't think he's found it.

[Paul · Rating 2 out of 5]

There's a trick beginning academic writers learn to help them put together a solid paper: Say what you're about to say, then say it, then say what you just said.

Now, that's not a perfect formula, and obviously as someone gets used to writing, there are lots of ways in which you can – and should – disregard that formula, but it's a good way to begin the process of writing, especially if the writer tends to lose focus of their thesis.

But, as Robert Wright proves in The Evolution of God, it's not just beginning writers who need that sort of help. Wright manages to turn a 200- or 300-page thesis into a 500-page repetitive, bloated monstrosity, so enamored with his own voice that he – or his editor – apparently could not bear to cut the pages upon pages of discursions he entertains on his way to ... where?

Ultimately, it never became clear to me where Wright was going. He might have told me what he was going to say, but if he ever said it, I didn't notice it, and he might have told me what he just said, but that didn't seem to match what I thought he was supposed to have said. On top of that, whatever it was he said apparently wasn't enough, as he also added an afterword, an appendix and a link in the endnotes to additional comments on his website!

Perhaps the main source of confusion is the book's title. Although pithily called The Evolution of God, the book spends surprisingly little time talking about the evolution of God, especially in the second half. Ultimately, this book is half about the evolution of perceptions of the divine among the three Abrahamic religions – and half a seemingly endless repetition of the abhorrently clunky word "non-zero-sumness," shorthand for Wright's pet theory about the expansion of religious moral imagination in response to material and cultural interdependence.

Of course, that theory sounds very persuasive and fits all of the facts ... that Wright provides. But to get there, Wright must ignore entirely the history of any religion east of the Persian Gulf, and tell a remarkably modernistic (in the positivist sense) story about the human relationship to the divine. I'm a little bit of an optimist myself and am not totally opposed to teleological arguments, but Wright stretches it so much as to be transparently unconvincing.

I did enjoy the first half of the book much more; Wright seems to treat his sources with respect, and to the extent that I'm familiar with the scholarship he cites, Wright seems to do so fairly. That said, his modernism and positivism causes him to rely too strongly on the kind of slicing and dicing of biblical sources (e.g., Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis and the Quest for the Historical Jesus) that has rightly fallen out of favor with biblical scholars of late, in part because it provides a misleading veneer of certainty on the inherently speculative project of identifying dates and sources for centuries-old texts.

Even so, Wright's description of the shift from shamanistic polytheism to monolatry to monotheism is interesting and informative. But once we reach monotheism, the book derails into chapter after chapter of Wright's own musings over what another reviewer here has called his pet theory – which is exactly what it reads like, even if you didn't know Wright had a book called Nonzero.

On Page 425, the reader finds this truly remarkable admission: "This chapter marks the first appearance in this book of the term 'moral imagination.' But, actually, moral imagination is what much of the book has been about."

If "what much of the book has been about" appears as a succinct two-word phrase for the first time in the 19th chapter of a 20-chapter book. that's not an interesting curiosity, as Wright seems to believe. It's a major, even a fatal, flaw. In fact, those two sentences sum up better than I could everything that's wrong with The Evolution of God.

Sadly, that's about the only time in the book that Wright manages to express something so powerfully and concisely. Perhaps he should have focused more on telling us what he planned to say, then said it, then told us what he just said. Then, at least, I'd have a better idea which of the two or three books I just read he intended to write.

[Book Shark · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Evolution of God by Robert Wright

The Evolution of God by Robert Wright is a book about the evolution of the concept of God. The author makes use of archaeology, theology, and evolutionary psychology to explain how mainly the Abrahamic religions evolved. The book 576 pages worth is composed of twenty chapters within five major sections: I. The Birth and Growth of the Gods, II. The Emergence of Abrahamic Monotheism, III. The Invention of Christianity, IV. The Triumph of Islam, and V. God Goes Global (Or Doesn't).

Positives:
1. A very-well researched book.
2. The whole is better than its parts. In order to appreciate its true worth it must be read in its entirety.
3. It rewards the reader with a lot of knowledge. I finally feel I have a much better grasp on how the three Abrahamic religions evolved. The author doesn't cheat the reader either, there is plenty of solid supporting data to back his viewpoints.
4. Very respectful tone throughout. The author is very careful in being fair.
5. Where would we be without Darwin? Great use of Darwin's theory of evolution to explain the evolution itself of the concept of God.
6. Interesting tidbits throughout. Fascinating how polytheism streamlined into monotheism.
7. The author does a wonderful job of illustrating patterns in religious beliefs.
8. Religion is a fascinating topic. The author does a very good job of using scientific tools to explain the evolution of the concept of God.
9. Interesting how religious tolerance is embraced when the possibility of mutual gain exists. Many such concepts are well explained in this book.
10. Explains how the success of the three Abrahamic religions can be attributed to specific people.
11. Politicians and how they use religion to their advantage...
12. Overall great religious history from hunter-gatherer societies to now.
13. The author contends that there is also an evolution of morality. Moral progress.
14. Fascinating take of the afterlife.
15. This book is a must for those who want to understand the evolution of religion.

Negatives:
1. The overblown use of non-zero sum theory. It does a disservice to the reader to have to research this overused concept because it was never properly defined.
2. The book was tedious at times to read. I felt that the author took the scenic route too many times. In doing so, I felt that the book was probably 200 pages too long.
3. I agreed with a lot of his points but at times I felt he lacked conviction.
4. Near the end of the book the author baffles me with his very poor electron analogy.
5. Needed a summary chart or tables to break up the monotony.
6. Lacked great quotes or memorable phrases.
7. No use of summaries.


In summary, The Evolution of God by Robert Wright was a very difficult book for me to evaluate. The whole is better than its parts. There is a lot of good work here but the author many times belabors his points. I will reluctantly give the book four stars because of how well researched it is and ultimately it does reward the reader with very good information. However, the author ends the book with an electron analogy that baffles the mind. I can only recommend this book to those who really want to get well-researched information regarding the evolution of the concept of God. It's not a fun read but it may be a worthwhile one, you need to be the judge of that.

[Robert Delikat · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Pat · Rating 4 out of 5]

As the title suggests, this book explores the history of how god(s) evolved, beginning with pre-historic hunter-gather societies who had many gods, through to the birth of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Wright is a clear and compelling writer, and researched his topic well. I thoroughly enjoyed the history. The description of Polynesian religion, in particular, was fascinating, as was the description of how Judaism moved from monolatry (the belief that many gods exist but only one is worth worshiping) to monotheism (the belief that there is only one god).

Throughout the main portion of the book, Wright's main theme is that the kind of god people imagine depends on the way they view their neighbors. When people feel isolated, and that everyone is out to get them, they imagine a god who is intolerant of outsiders (non-believers). When people see their neighbors as friendly, and potential allies or trading partners, they imagine a god who is more tolerant and inclusive. Moreover, the scriptures of all three Abrahamic faiths contain portions that were written when the authors were feeling threatened, and other portions that were written when they were feeling friendly.

This book will likely offend the more fundamentalist folks out there, but I find that an unchallenged faith is a weak faith, and this book made me think about my beliefs and ultimately made my faith stronger as a result.

[mohammad firouzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wright draws the most important conclusion at the very last part of his book. he takes us to a journey which starts at the beginning of pre historic mankind beliefs to modern time. he rightly states that the purpose of invention of god was explaining the unexplainable events. in the middle chapters he looks at similarities and differences between Abrahamic religions. maybe its not a brand new theory but he is again on spot to highlight that all three of them changed according to their geography and timeline of their era. these changes sometimes were made by the prophet or followers or the whole nation. last two chapters are his predictions about the future of religion and this question that do we really need to believe in a superpower to have a moral system? the answer depends on readers!

[Jake · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The Evolution of God" is best seen as a continuation of "Non-Zero", Wright's review of history through the lens of evolution and game-theory. His basic idea there was that the arc of history bends towards justice and a better world. He posits that the driver of this moral development is the evolution of win-win relationships between people and cultures through interactions like trade and commerce (not just in goods, but also in ideas.) In "The Evolution of God", Wright extends this analysis to the history of Western religion, from its animistic roots through Judaism, Christianity, and finally, Islam. As you'd expect from reading the first book, Wright sees the idea of God evolving over time to be more just and inclusive— extending "the circle of moral consideration" not just to people in your family or tribe, but to an entire nation, and finally to all humanity. He explores this mainly through close reading of the Bible and Koran, but also includes some historical discussion where he finds it relevant. If you accept the premises of "Non-Zero", you'll probably find much of the argument here convincing.

The book is weakest in its discussion of current events, especially where it addresses cases where religion clearly makes people act less moral, and less considerate of others. Wright mainly sees things like 9-11 as backsliding– times when historical contingency put people into non-constructive "zero-sum" relationships where they were forced to fight over resources. But he doesn't spend much time on these episodes— the Crusades gets maybe a page in the entire book. Likewise, he leaves out the whole history of Eastern religion, which was puzzling, especially since Buddhism seems to be where he sees religion evolving towards: a more philosophical, abstract, inclusive set of ideas. The book hits its low point when Wright discusses his own religious ideas, which seem to be a kind of worship of the Form of the Good— he feels that the tendency towards moral progress that he sees in history could itself be baked into the Universe in some deep way that either witnesses the presence of a clockmaker-type God, or actually is God itself. That leads to some new-agey sounding philosophizing like this:

For all we know, universes evolve by a kind of cosmic natural selection; universes that spawn life that evolves toward a belief in moral truth and closer adherence to it do a better job of replicating themselves than universes that lack this sort of moral order and teleological drift.

But to fans of Wright's previous work this book will be well-received, and to anyone interested in learning more about the development of Western religion over time, I'd recommend it.

[Ty · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an incredible read; lucid and easily digestible. I continue to be fascinated by religion despite wanting nothing to do with it. I've always resented how (especially where I live) religion is seemingly first and foremost a political animal, a vehicle to ride through the crowd whilst collecting as many votes as possible on the way to high government positions. But now that I'm not trying to preserve a sense of purity and privacy of religion as a relationship between one person and their creator, I’m at peace to acknowledge religion for what it is: a tool of conquest, to wield power; over people, over nations, and at its most fundamental, over one's own self.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everything evolves, even the gods.

[Nei · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably the best non-fiction book of the year and one that I will for sure re-read one day. Review to follow.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

ღმერთი (ყოველშემთხვევაში ღმერთის წარმოდგენა ადამიანების გონებაში) არ იყო ყოველთვის ყოვლისმცოდნე, ყოვლისშემძლე და ყოვლად კეთილი, ის ასეთად განვითარდა პირველყოფილი რწმენებიდან სადაც ადამიანები, აღმერთებდნენ ბუნების მოვლენებს, ცხოველებს და ა.შ განვითარება მოხდა არა მხოლოდ ბუნების მოვლენებიდან და ცხოველების გაღმერთებიდან ადამიანის მსგავს ღმერთებამდე არამედ პოლითეიზმიდან მონოთეიზმამდე და ამ ყველაფრს თან ახლდა მორალური კოდექსის განვითარება. - ეს არის ამ წიგნის მთავარი მესიჯი.

წიგნი ეხება აბრაამისეულ რელიგიებს და მონოთეიზმის განვითარებას, დასაწყისში მცირე დრო ეთმობა პირველყოფილ რწმენებს და თანამედროვე მსოფლიოში შემორჩენილ პირველყოფილი წესით მცხოვრებთა რელიგიას.

შემდეგ მოდის იუდაიზმის განვითარება, იაჰვეს განვითარების გზა, რომელმაც ჩვეულებვირივი რიგითი, ბრძოლის ღმერთიდან თანდათან გადაინაცვლა მთავარი ღმერთის ტახტამდე, შთანთქა სხვა ღმერთები, მათი ლეგენდები და გადაიქცა ნაციონალურ ტირან ღმერთად, რომელიც თავის ხალხს სხვა ერების განადგურებას სთხოვს. ის არამარტო ყლაპავს სხვა ღმერთებს არამედ ხდება სამყაროს შემოქმედი. შემდეგი საფეხური ღმერთის განვითარებაში - ქრისტიანობაა.

რაიტის მიხედვით სავარაუდოდ ქრისტე, ჩვეულებვრივი ებრაელი მქადაგებელი იყო რომელს მისია კრახით დამთავრდა. მესია იმ დროინდელი გაგებით, იყო ღმერთის მიერ კურთხეული მეფე, ან წინასწარმეტყველი, რომელიც ისრაელს იხსნიდა მტრებისგან. ყველას მიუზღვავდა თავისას და მთელი ისრაელი გააგრძელებდა სიმშვიდეში და განცხრომაში ამქვეყნიურ ცხოვრებას. "ღმერთის სამეფოში" ღმერთის სამეფო განასახიერებდა ისრაელიანთა სანატრელ სახელმწიფო მდგომარეობას, ანუ მთლიანად მიწიერ, იაჰვეს მიერ კურთხეულ მდგომარეობას, (რაღაც ალბათ იბერიის გაბრწყინების მსგავსი) რაც შემდეგ ქრისტინებმა შეცვალეს როგორც "სასუფევლის სამეფო". ქრისტემ არა თუ ვერ შეასრულა თავისი მისია, ისრაელის გაბრწყინება, უარესი - ის ჯვარზე გააკრეს და მოკლეს. რასაც შემდგომ ქრისტიანებმა სხვაგვარი ახსნა მოუძებნეს. ნაციონალური რელიგიიდან, იუდაიზმისგან, ქრისტიანებმა შექმნეს ინტერნაციონალური რელიგია, რომელშიც ქრისტე ისრაელის ხალხს კი არ იხსნის ფიზიკური საფრთხეებისგან, არამედ ის უკვე ზებუნებრივ "ლვეველზე" მოქმედებს. მან კაცობრიობა თავისი მსხვერპლით იხსნა ჯოჯოხეთისგან და ყველას პირდება ხსნას ვინც მას იწამებს. თუმცა მხოლოდ ეს არაა ევოლუციური ნაბიჯი რაც ქრისტიანობამ მოიტანა, გარემოებებიდან გამომდინარე ქრისტიანები მეტ ყურადღებას უთმობენ სიყვარულის (მათ შორის მტრისაც) და კოლაბორაციის მნიშვნელობას. ანუ შეიმჩნევა მორალური პროგრესი.
შემდეგი ნაწილი ისლამის განვითარებას ეძღვნება, რამ განაპირობა კიდევ ერთი აბრაამისეული რელიგიის ჩამოყალიბება. საინტერესოა რაიტის აზრი რომ მუჰამედის ცხოვრების სხვადასხვა პერიოდები და შესაბამისად ყურანის სხვადასხვა ნაწილები შეესაბამება ბიბლიური წინასწარმეტყველების სხვადასხვა პერსონაჟთა მოქმედებებს და ხასიათს. ის ხან ქრისტეს მსგავსად მშვიდობას ქადაგებს, ხან მოსეს მსგავსად მიუძღვება თავის მიმდევრებს აღთქმული მიწისკენ და ხან მეფე იოსიას მსგავსად ძალადობას მიმართავს.
საერთო ჯამში საინტერესო წიგნია, თუმცა იმასაც გეტყვით რა არ მომეწონა
1. მგონია რომ ბევრ ადგილას წიგნი გაწელილია, უფრო მოკლედ შეიძლებოდა სათქმელის ფორმულირება. თუმცა შეიძლება ეს მხოლოდ ჩემი პირადი შთაბეჭდილებაა.
2. რაიტს აქვს საინტერესო მოსაზრება. ის ბუნებრივი გადარჩევის კულტურული ევოლუციის და ე.წ ნულოვანი/არანულოვანი დამოკიდებულებების (მომგებიანი/არამომგებიანი)საფუძველზე ხსნის ღმერთის განვითარებას. ეს ყველაფერი ძალიან კარგი, მაგრამ ზოგჯერ ერთიდაიგივეს ძალიან ხშირად იმეორებს. რაც მოსაბეზრებელია
3. წიგნიდან გამომდინარე რაიტი აგნოსტიკოსია რომელსაც აქვს ძლიერი სენტიმენტები ღმერთის რწმენის მიმართ. რაც ჩემი აზრით უაზროა და ევოლუციური პერსპექტივიდან სრულიად ზედმეტი. ევოლუცია ნატურალისტური მიდგომაა თუ ამ მიდგომას იზიარებ მორალური პროგრესის მიღმა ვიღაცის თუ რაღაცის დაწესებული მორალური კომპასის მიმართ სენტიმენტები ზედმეტია. მოვლენას ხსნი ან ნატურალიზმით ან ზებუნებრივით. მათი აღრევა პირადად ჩემთვის დიდი სისულელეა.

რაიტი ცდილობს ტრადიციული ღმერთის თუ არა, აბსტრაქტული ღმერთის იდეას მაინც დაუჭიროს მხარი. არა იმის მტკიცებით რომ ის არსებობს, არამედ იმ იდეის შემოტანით რომ მორალური განვითარების ევოლუციური ისტორია ღმერთის იდეას სულ მცირე ლეგიტიმურს მაინც ხდის.
ამისთვის ის ღმერთის თეორიას ადარებს ელექტრონების თეორიას. ერთიც და მეორეც იმისთვის მოიგონეს ადამიანებმა რომ ახსნან სამყაროში მიმდინარე მოვლენები. თუ ერთი შეხედვით ეს იდეა უცნაურია, რაიტს აქვს სახელოში დამალული კვანტური განუსაზღვრელობა, რომელსაც როგორც დავაკვირდი ყველა ისე იყენებს როგორც გაუხარდება. ის აღნიშავს რომ ელექტრონების ორმაგმა ბუნებამ ისეთი თავსატეხი გაუჩინა მეცნიერებს, რომ ზოგიერთი მათგანი, იმასაც კი აღნიშნავს რომ ელექტრონების არსებობა/არარსებობაც კი ტრადიციული კონტექსტით თავიდანაა გასააზრებელი. ელექტრონების არსებობა აიხსნება იმით რომ განსაზღვრულ მოვლენები აიხსნება მხოლოდ ამ ნაწილაკებით. ღმერთის თეორიაც ექვივალენტურია მისი აზრით. სიყვარულის არსებობა და მორალური ევოლ��ცია შეიძლება აიხსნება ღმერთით. სტივენ უაინბერგი და სხვა წამყვანი ათეისტი მეცნიერები ცდებიან როცა ამბობენ რომ - რაც მეტს ვაკვირდებით სამყაროს მით უფრო ვრწმუნდებით რომ მას მიზანი არ გააჩნიაო. აგერ მორალური პროგრესი. ღმერთი ჯერ იყო მეხი, ტყის სული, მერე ღმერთების მთელი პანთეონი, მერე ერთადერთი მაგრამ სასტიკი ღმერთი, მერე კეთილი მოკლედ აგერ მორალური პროგრესი. შეიძლება ამ ყველაფრის უკან მართლაც არის რაღაც. თუნდაც აბსტრაქტული არაპესონალური ღმერთი. ან სამყაროს მიზანი. ან უნივერსალური მორალური წესრიგი. (ამ ტერმინის ზებუნებრივი მნიშნელობით ალბათ)

ჩემი აზრით ამ მსჯელობაში ბევრი შეცდომაა. ელექტრონების თეორია და ღმერთის თეორია არც ისე მსგავსია. ელექტრონებს შეიძლება ექსპერიმენტზე დავაკვირდეთ, ღმერთს ექსპერიმენტი და დაკვირვება არ ექვემდებარება. ანუ ღმერთის თეორიას არ აქვს ემპირული საფუძველი. რასაც ვერ გადაამოწმებ იმას დიდი მნიშვნელობა არ აქვს რადგან განწირულია დარჩეს მხოლოდ იდეად, ჰიპოთეზად.

რაც შეეხება ყბადაღებულ კვანტურ განუსაზღვრელობას რომელსაც ყველა ორღობის ფილოსოფოსი ეპოტინება მთელ მსოფლიოში. ელექტრონების არსებობა არც ისეთი ბუნდოვანია როგორც რაიტი ხატავს. ელექტრონებს ექსპერიმენტებზე აღიქვამენ და აფიქსირებენ დეტექტორები. თანამედროვე მეცნიერებაში ორი აზრი არაა იმაზე არსებობენ თუ არა ელექტრონები. შეკითხვა არის ის რა სახით არსებობენ ელექტრონები და არა არსებობენ თუ არა საერთოდ. აქვთ მათ ნაწილაკური ბუნება თუ ტალღური? თუ ორივე? თუმცა ისიც ნათელია რომ ორივე ბუნება გააჩნიათ, უფრო სიღრმისეულად საკითავია რატომ გააჩნიათ ორივე?

და კიდევ თუ რაღაც ზებუნებრივი უნივერსალური წყარო გააჩნია მორალურ განვითარებას, მაშინ უფრო მოსალოდნელია ღმერთის იდეა თავიდანვე სრულყოფილთან მიახლოებული სახით დაბადებულიყო, ღმერთის იდეის კოევოლუცია კულტურასთან და სოციუმის განვითარებასთან იმას უფრო მიანიშნებს რომ როგორც ბიოლოგიური ევოლუცია ესეც ბრმა პროცესია.

[Kara Babcock · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Evolution of God comes close, in many ways, to my ideal Platonic conception of a "non-fiction book." It is thick and weighty (all the better to use against zombies, should the apocalypse happen while reading it). It is organized into a series of logical parts, which are in turn each organized into a series of logical chapters, providing convenient stopping points for a respite. Last, but not least, it has endnotes. Pages upon pages of endnotes. I loves me my endnotes.

And Robert Wright's endnotes aren't just about quantity; they have quality too (some might say too much). Wright's recounting of the genesis of Abrahamic religion is far from objective—and I didn't expect objectivity, since Wright makes it clear that he has a thesis, and therefore an agenda when it comes to interpreting the texts. Nevertheless, Wright mentions dissenting views, and he often has alternative interpretations in the endnotes, complete with page references to books that disagree with him. That is the kind of scholarship I appreciate in my non-fiction!

I quite enjoyed the historical parts of The Evolution of God. Wright makes a good case for development of religion going hand-in-hand with the transition from hunter-gatherer society to agrarianism. While religion-as-social-control is a motif that appears throughout philosophy, Wright offers up interesting historical anecdotes that help reinforce the point. Later, Wright connects this to his brainchild notion of "nonzero-sumness" and how human interaction can be best explained by game theory.

I don't quite buy into the entirety of Wright's nonzero-sum thesis, and I kind of which he didn't say "zero-sumness" and "nonzero-sumness" every second page. It got annoying! However, much of his thesis does make sense. For instance, if two neighbouring cities have a mutually-beneficial trade relationship (Wright's "nonzero-sumness"), then it makes sense that each would tolerate the other's god(s). Shouting, "Death to you infidels!" followed by, "Oh, may I please have some cabbage?" does not quite work in the marketplace.

Indeed, Wright's decision to look at the development of religion as a reaction to the sociopolitical situation at the time (the "facts on the ground," as he so repetitively puts it), is compelling. If we try to analyze the growth of, say, Christianity purely from a theological standpoint, it is easy to get confused. There is a lot of contradictory stuff in the Bible, and inventing a theological explanation for all those contradictions is precisely that: invention. Instead, the political climate at the time (we think) each book of the Bible was written gives us insight into why that book has a certain tone and takes a certain theological stance.

Although I've long been aware that the Bible is one of history's oldest mash-ups, The Evolution of God drove this point home. Wright draws attention to the differences between the Gospels, as well as the larger change in God's behaviour between Old and New Testaments. Whether one agrees with Wright's explanations for these differences, The Evolution of God presents them in historical context (rather than simply saying "oh look, these are contradictory!"), something I found helped me better understand how diverse the authorship and themes of the Bible are. Moreover, Wright definitely has an agenda when it comes to explaining these differences, but he's quick not to insinuate that the Bible's various editors have been manipulating the text for outright nefarious purposes.

While the title is somewhat worrying, it's rather obvious within the first few pages that Wright's goal is not to debunk religion as an anomaly of evolution. Quite the opposite: Wright sees the development of religion, its growth in a moral direction, as an indication that there is a "moral force" to the universe. And, if we like, we can call this moral force God.

I balk a bit at this argument, especially when Wright begins comparing God to an electron. Wright makes several good points, but the argument just rests on too many assumptions that are, in my opinion, unfounded. Even if one thinks that humanity is becoming "more moral" (which I don't), why does there need to be any mechanism beyond evolution? The afterword is called "By the Way, What Is God?", but the better question is "By the Way, What Is Morality." Then again, that question is worth another entire book, and I didn't expect Wright to tackle it here. So while Wright's argument is interesting, some of its premises seem dubious to me.

Fortunately, most of Wright's discussion of God as the universal moral force is confined to the last part of the book. It runs through The Evolution of God, as a thesis ought to do, but Wright's historical analysis, while influenced by it, is still useful without it. I loved reading about the origins of Yahweh, the networking of Paul, and the doctrine of Jihad. That's what I want to emphasize about this book: I found its history useful, and its philosophy interesting—stimulating, but not necessarily persuasive.

The Evolution of God is well-written, precise, and detailed. Even as he advances his own thesis about the moral growth of the Abrahamic religions, Wright shows us how conceptions of God (and Gods) have changed as the politics and economics of a region changed. Believers and non-believers (I belong to the latter category) might come away from this book with very different opinions, but it behoves both categories to read it. For I do think Wright correct in this: if we want to understand the religions of today, we must understand how they came to be. The development of religion is a large part of the history of human civilization; The Evolution of God addresses my ignorance in that area in an academic yet readable style.

[Erin Aslami]

start at your own risk, end with your own hope!!

[Joseph Adelizzi, Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Once upon a time I had conversion on the road to Chipotle. Well almost. I was actually IN Chipotle. Misreading The Life of Pi. Homesick at having been on the road for quite some time, away from family. Given how Chipotle has been in the news so often over the years, perhaps I was suffering from E. coli contamination (pardon the cheap shot - I actually enjoyed all my meals at Chipotle). There I was, in a corner table by myself, feeling forlorned and downtrodden, all but collapsing under the weight of work, depression, and my burrito, when seemingly out of nowhere I had a revelation. Now the sun was shining, strangers were less annoying, and the prospect of twenty more years of soul crushing work didn’t seem so daunting. Well, one out of three ain’t bad.

I guess I’ve always been a proponent of the adage “the shortest distance between two points is a meandering paragraph.” Apologies. What does my acid reflux have to do with Robert Wright’s excellent book The Evolution of God?

My conversion moment, my Damascus moment, was a realization very similar to what I feel Wright is espousing in his book. I had the realization (or “illusion” for you Doubting Thomases out there) that humanity is on the road to a more universal embrace of the transcendent. Beyond Judaic, beyond Muslim, beyond Christian, beyond Buddhist, beyond any organized religion, humanity always has looked and is continuing to look to or for the transcendent. That need, no matter what form it takes, appears based on millennia of evidence to be innate. And like all pursuits of humanity, it is evolving over time.

At that corner table, two hands full of burrito, I had hope. Was it horrendous that over those afore-mentioned millennia humanity had committed travesty after travesty, heinous deed after heinous deed, all in the name of one organized religion or another, one abominated conception of God or transcendence after another? Absolutely. However, at that moment I realized mingled in with those horrors were probably even more numerous occurrences of humanity, specific humans, committing good deed after good deed, charity after charity, all in the name of one organized religion or another, one immaculate conception of God or transcendence after another. The missteps along the way are more than awful, but the realization that something within will continuously push us towards something beyond is hope. Call it movement. Call it progress. Call it human nature. Or call it the Evolution of God. Whatever. But realizing it makes those strangers next to me a little less annoying.