You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.87 AVERAGE
3.87 AVERAGE
This is one of those odd books that is dry but is also hard to put down. It provides an outstanding overview of the movement of religion from animism to shamanism to religion in chiefdoms to polytheism to monolatry to monotheism. Also, early Judaism, Christianity and Islam are covered too. Wright points out a few important translation issues in the bible. For example, Mary isn't a virgin before translation, but is a maiden. He also points out how the god of the bible picks up mythological attributes/stories from the competing gods (of the time) Baal and El (stories which are still in the bible, but obfuscated by translation and editing). A wonderfully interesting, but quick point in the book is that there were two competing versions of early Christianity: the version called Marcionism (which eventually lost out) that rejected the wrathful god of the Hebrew bible and the version called Pauline (which eventually won out). As Wright points out, "In other words, Christianity replace one kind of particularism with another." Wright moves on to Jesus to note that the message of the historical Jesus was that of an apocalyptic preacher without the "love thy neighbor" message (which came from Paul - the "Bill Gates" of his day according to Wright). Wright also talks about the misguided jihads of modern Islam and looks the original concept of jihad (which is still violent, but far less broadly defined). The Mohammad is also examined.
A couple phrases that Wright uses throughout the book are "zero-sum" and "non-zero-sum" which gets a little tedious after a while. A non-zero sum situation tends to bring people together or, at least, it creates a scenario where others are not viewed as the enemy. Zero sum situations cause people to see others as a threat. Wright points out that in polytheistic cases, in the cases of monolatry, and for monotheism when lacking political power, religions and the religious tend to get along since they're not trying to convert everyone to their religion. Monotheistic religions with political power view religion as a zero sum situation (you're either with us or against us) and tend to persecute. A fact that Wright wishes the modern Abrahamic religions would understand is that they are not really special in their beliefs or achievements. For example, weighing someone's moral life upon death is something that happened well before Jesus. In fact, part of the ancient religion worshiping Osiris was a day of reckoning (there are other concrete examples in book). In an effort to promote a non-zero sum approach, the Abrahamic religions need to relax their sense of being special to achieve harmony with other non-Abrahamic peoples.
The Afterword and the Appendix are the tedious parts of the book (and mostly why I didn't rate this book a 5). The afterward is a hypothetical discussion between a non-believer and a believer. Somehow the lack of any evidence for a god is equated with scientists never having seen an electron. Kind of a weird and mostly inaccurate foundation (specifically on the side of the electron) for a discussion. The book came out in June 2009, however, a 30 second Google search turns up a few articles from 2008 talking about videos of electrons. For example, from Science Daily on 02/25/2008, "A new video shows how an electron rides on a light wave after just having been pulled away from an atom". That seems like fairly good proof that electrons do, in fact, exist. Luckily, these two parts of the book come at the end and only take up minor space in the book.
Wright ends with a great point which sums up a large sections of his book and the Arbahamic religions in general, "that scripture is, for practical purposes, malleable."
A couple phrases that Wright uses throughout the book are "zero-sum" and "non-zero-sum" which gets a little tedious after a while. A non-zero sum situation tends to bring people together or, at least, it creates a scenario where others are not viewed as the enemy. Zero sum situations cause people to see others as a threat. Wright points out that in polytheistic cases, in the cases of monolatry, and for monotheism when lacking political power, religions and the religious tend to get along since they're not trying to convert everyone to their religion. Monotheistic religions with political power view religion as a zero sum situation (you're either with us or against us) and tend to persecute. A fact that Wright wishes the modern Abrahamic religions would understand is that they are not really special in their beliefs or achievements. For example, weighing someone's moral life upon death is something that happened well before Jesus. In fact, part of the ancient religion worshiping Osiris was a day of reckoning (there are other concrete examples in book). In an effort to promote a non-zero sum approach, the Abrahamic religions need to relax their sense of being special to achieve harmony with other non-Abrahamic peoples.
The Afterword and the Appendix are the tedious parts of the book (and mostly why I didn't rate this book a 5). The afterward is a hypothetical discussion between a non-believer and a believer. Somehow the lack of any evidence for a god is equated with scientists never having seen an electron. Kind of a weird and mostly inaccurate foundation (specifically on the side of the electron) for a discussion. The book came out in June 2009, however, a 30 second Google search turns up a few articles from 2008 talking about videos of electrons. For example, from Science Daily on 02/25/2008, "A new video shows how an electron rides on a light wave after just having been pulled away from an atom". That seems like fairly good proof that electrons do, in fact, exist. Luckily, these two parts of the book come at the end and only take up minor space in the book.
Wright ends with a great point which sums up a large sections of his book and the Arbahamic religions in general, "that scripture is, for practical purposes, malleable."
Terrific history of religion, based on the idea that religion serves people and culture based on “facts on the ground.”
This is a very interesting read. Wright's scholarship is impressive. He traces the leading concepts of God or gods from the stone age to the present in an engaging and literary work. I was surprised to learn many of the facts and anecdotes about where some of the modern conceptions of God came from. Also, and perhaps most importantly, Wright does not devolve into belittling faith and the faithful. Rather he reinforces the reasons behind faith and insinuated that God is not so different from what's commonly concieved.
Excellent read. Finally an intelligent and analytical book about religion and the concept of God that isn't disrespectful of religious people.
Excellent anthropological study of religion from its prehistoric origins through the Abrahamic trio set in their historical contexts. Some stuff I knew; a lot I didn't. Clear and carefully worded, Wright offers an interesting alternative to the anthropomorphic, personal, interventionist, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God (clearly a bunch of hooey in a modern world where we should know better), namely a conceptual force for moral direction that has been behind the gradual improvement in human society since the dawn of civilization (the trend described in great and persuading detail in Steven Pinker's Better Angels). The proposal is that "God" in this sense of a moral direction is, if anything, an emergent property of the collective interactions among a huge number of genetically-wired, hunter-gatherer human brains. Although the analysis of Judaism/Christianity/Islam sufficed for making his points, I wouldn't have minded gaining some insight into the Eastern religions, while he was at it - something I know a lot less about. But I get why he limited the scope; the result was a book of manageable size.
This is one of those books that shifted my perspective in a way that will last. The basic premise of the book is that religions -- especially the major monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- have grown in universality over the years. Although the growth has not been monotonic, it has been persistent.
The underlying reason, in Wright's view, is that as human society becomes more complex, there is a need for the definition of "us" to broaden and include people who were formerly "them". Increasing complexity makes society increasingly non-zero sum. The positive consequences of cooperation multiple, and even more importantly, the negative consequences of animosity multiply. (One of the side comments I really appreciated was that lose-lose is just as much a non-zero sum state as win-win.) Before society operated by the acknowledged rule of law, religion was a primary source of the bond that expanded "us" beyond kin groups. As that need increased, religion continued to take on that role.
The cornerstone of Wright's case for that view is his analysis of the Bible. He shows that how in both Judaism and Christianity, the biblical text reaches out beyond the current conception of "us" when Jews and later Christians were in a non-zero sum relationship with those around them. Just as predictably, when the situation was seen as more zero sum -- often when the group was in power or was being exploited -- the biblical text reflects that by become more critical of those in the out-group.
The chapters on Islam were weaker, but still insightful. I would appreciate the same framework applied to non-monotheist religions (although I don't think it would make sense as a part of the same book). But all-in-all, this was an excellent book.
The underlying reason, in Wright's view, is that as human society becomes more complex, there is a need for the definition of "us" to broaden and include people who were formerly "them". Increasing complexity makes society increasingly non-zero sum. The positive consequences of cooperation multiple, and even more importantly, the negative consequences of animosity multiply. (One of the side comments I really appreciated was that lose-lose is just as much a non-zero sum state as win-win.) Before society operated by the acknowledged rule of law, religion was a primary source of the bond that expanded "us" beyond kin groups. As that need increased, religion continued to take on that role.
The cornerstone of Wright's case for that view is his analysis of the Bible. He shows that how in both Judaism and Christianity, the biblical text reaches out beyond the current conception of "us" when Jews and later Christians were in a non-zero sum relationship with those around them. Just as predictably, when the situation was seen as more zero sum -- often when the group was in power or was being exploited -- the biblical text reflects that by become more critical of those in the out-group.
The chapters on Islam were weaker, but still insightful. I would appreciate the same framework applied to non-monotheist religions (although I don't think it would make sense as a part of the same book). But all-in-all, this was an excellent book.
Pretty good. It might deserve 4 stars. It's a nice overview of religious history and the development of religion from the hunter-gatherer stage of humanity until the present.
He writes cleanly, but some section really droned on, and I got particularly tired of the reiterations of non-zero-sum-ness...
He writes cleanly, but some section really droned on, and I got particularly tired of the reiterations of non-zero-sum-ness...
challenging
funny
informative
slow-paced
All around informative, with a good touch of the authors humor. This is a book that discusses Islam written shortly after 9/11 so it suffers from the attitudes of that age. Never gets into disrespectful territory but unduly focuses on the concept of "Jihad".
Content Warnings
Moderate: Islamophobia
Slight Islanophobia due cultural understanding of Islam at the time
The Evolution of God has an interesting thesis, and sets forth along an interesting path to present it. Ultimately a stronger editorial hand was probably needed, because the reader quickly recognizes the thesis and must acknowledge the strong evidence for it. Much of the middle section of the 576-page book is therefore somewhat redundant and tedious. Finally, the author attempts to draw a conclusion that is not at all backed by the large body of evidence previously presented (or one that perhaps is irrelevant to the evidence presented).
Thank the lord this over. Don’t read this unless you’re writing a dissertation on religion. That’s what this was. It was presented in a way that left me feeling hoodwinked by the reviewers. This isn’t a Malcolm Gladwell pop-religion book.
Read the introduction, the first part, the appendix and author’s note. If that was the book then I would feel differently. But I had to read the tedious 300 pages in between that were not enjoyable.
It is finished. Months later, it is finished.
Read the introduction, the first part, the appendix and author’s note. If that was the book then I would feel differently. But I had to read the tedious 300 pages in between that were not enjoyable.
It is finished. Months later, it is finished.