You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.87 AVERAGE
3.87 AVERAGE
Pretty educational on both the Christian and Muslim traditions. Insightful to read about how the traditions evolved in context of their times and to address specific social needs. The author brings it together in chapter 20 and wraps it up with a defintion for religion that even I could believe in. All in all a good read, although there were several pretty dry chapters in the middle.
informative
slow-paced
The scope of this book is ambitious as it attempts to follow the history of God all the way from hunter-gatherer society to "civilization". As a student of ancient history, much of this book was familiar to me, but I was still fascinated and interested. I was disappointed that the sole focus of this book was the Abrahamic God. I realize that inclusion of Eastern religions would have made this book bulkier, but I would have been interested.
SPOILERS
The last chapter of this book left me with a poor lasting impression. I vehemently disagree with the author's premise that religion has tended to evolve towards a greater moral truth. Since he never fully convinced me of this, every other argument was pointless. I particularly found the "conversation" between the believer and the scientist to be overly simplistic and stereotypical. I probably would have rated this book higher if it weren't for the last chapter.
SPOILERS
The last chapter of this book left me with a poor lasting impression. I vehemently disagree with the author's premise that religion has tended to evolve towards a greater moral truth. Since he never fully convinced me of this, every other argument was pointless. I particularly found the "conversation" between the believer and the scientist to be overly simplistic and stereotypical. I probably would have rated this book higher if it weren't for the last chapter.
In one sense Evolution is a good term for Religion and cultural evolution; evolution has splits and divergences, just like religion. A split or divergence if successful has proven to be advantageous for that time and place. That does NOT mean that the new species or change is better in all sense of the word. I think that applies to both cases of genetic and cultural evolution.
Where I don’t think this title is apt, is that it somewhat implies that all religious can and should follow the path that the abrahamic religions took. The changes the abrahamic faiths made were advantageous for the spread of those ideas for that given time and place. I would be naive to assume that that same progression would or will take place for eastern religions or indigenous religions given the right amount of time and conditions. Our sample size is simply too small, and the use case is too specific, we have next to no idea how other religions will change and progress. All we know is how religions have progressed and a pretty reasonable explanation for all of those changes.
The cultural context for changes in the abrahamic faiths over time was done well. The reasoning makes sense, I would just caution readers to not think that this is the natural progression all faiths will follow. As many have pointed out, almost 90% of the focus is on abrahamic faiths as well, so to extrapolate all these conclusions to other religions would not be wise.
The author focused a lot on Non-Zero-Sum games, and how cultural evolution follows that pattern. I think this is largely true, but also maybe over stated to follow a narrative the author wanted to spin.
Some interesting ideas that I walked away with include:
Chiefdoms and other forms of religion often replace the role of government and business, but often in a better way, they fill the same roll but often have the advantage of having a higher authority and leading to less conflict. I think this is an important idea that should emphasize that there really isn’t better or worse, and that in some ways “evolution” is not the right word.
The context on the ground is almost always more important than the actual text when It comes to how people act out and intemperate their religious text. That was proven time and time again, context matters so much, and these texts can be used almost however one wants depending on the context, and that is exactly what people will do given the chance.
Overall a good book with some interesting ideas, it has it’s flaw but I liked it a lot (3.5/5)
Where I don’t think this title is apt, is that it somewhat implies that all religious can and should follow the path that the abrahamic religions took. The changes the abrahamic faiths made were advantageous for the spread of those ideas for that given time and place. I would be naive to assume that that same progression would or will take place for eastern religions or indigenous religions given the right amount of time and conditions. Our sample size is simply too small, and the use case is too specific, we have next to no idea how other religions will change and progress. All we know is how religions have progressed and a pretty reasonable explanation for all of those changes.
The cultural context for changes in the abrahamic faiths over time was done well. The reasoning makes sense, I would just caution readers to not think that this is the natural progression all faiths will follow. As many have pointed out, almost 90% of the focus is on abrahamic faiths as well, so to extrapolate all these conclusions to other religions would not be wise.
The author focused a lot on Non-Zero-Sum games, and how cultural evolution follows that pattern. I think this is largely true, but also maybe over stated to follow a narrative the author wanted to spin.
Some interesting ideas that I walked away with include:
Chiefdoms and other forms of religion often replace the role of government and business, but often in a better way, they fill the same roll but often have the advantage of having a higher authority and leading to less conflict. I think this is an important idea that should emphasize that there really isn’t better or worse, and that in some ways “evolution” is not the right word.
The context on the ground is almost always more important than the actual text when It comes to how people act out and intemperate their religious text. That was proven time and time again, context matters so much, and these texts can be used almost however one wants depending on the context, and that is exactly what people will do given the chance.
Overall a good book with some interesting ideas, it has it’s flaw but I liked it a lot (3.5/5)
challenging
hopeful
informative
slow-paced
The scope of this book is expansive. Some of it does tend to get a little repetitive but regardless it is very educational read.
I loved this book. Wait, let's start from the beginning. What the author is really attempting to do here is further demonstrate his nonzero-sum principle, which he first introduced in a previous book. The long and short of it is that groups who find themselves in a non zero-sum relationship, that is one where a win-win outcome is possible, tend to find ways to work out mutually beneficial endings. It's obviously Wright's chosen lens for history, and here, the author is applying it to the emergence of the monotheistic Abraham religions. The final third of this book will make this case explicitly and is interesting enough if you're looking for a new theory of history.
But, the most interesting point of this text is the detailed examination of how the three great Abrahamic religions evolved over time. As you'd expect, there were facts on the ground that affected how the tribes of Israel, Jesus or Mohammed interacted with neighbors, kin and enemies. The bulk of this book looks at how political alliances, war, cultural empire and other factors impacted the move from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism to modern religious "histories".
In the end, the author makes the case that by learning to work with others and inside of the political/cultural systems of the time, the Abrahmic religions slowly became more inclusive, allowing Yahweh to emerge as a universal god.
The author's final point is that all of this movement towards inclusion and universality is representative of a deeper moral trend that has "led" the development of humanity as a whole. As a philosopher, the author makes the case that a transcendent God could actually manifest as relatively benign trends in human nature, leading us to become more and more moral as time progresses. It's an interesting premise, although not necessarily new, and I think the author does a good job of grounding his case in his non zero-sum theory of history.
In the end, this book is very readable for being about such heavy subjects, and while long, the author takes only the time he needs to make his case. There is little rehashing, and each chapter does indeed introduce a new topic. If you're interested in history, religion, philosophy or morality, I'd definitely suggest giving this book a look.
But, the most interesting point of this text is the detailed examination of how the three great Abrahamic religions evolved over time. As you'd expect, there were facts on the ground that affected how the tribes of Israel, Jesus or Mohammed interacted with neighbors, kin and enemies. The bulk of this book looks at how political alliances, war, cultural empire and other factors impacted the move from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism to modern religious "histories".
In the end, the author makes the case that by learning to work with others and inside of the political/cultural systems of the time, the Abrahmic religions slowly became more inclusive, allowing Yahweh to emerge as a universal god.
The author's final point is that all of this movement towards inclusion and universality is representative of a deeper moral trend that has "led" the development of humanity as a whole. As a philosopher, the author makes the case that a transcendent God could actually manifest as relatively benign trends in human nature, leading us to become more and more moral as time progresses. It's an interesting premise, although not necessarily new, and I think the author does a good job of grounding his case in his non zero-sum theory of history.
In the end, this book is very readable for being about such heavy subjects, and while long, the author takes only the time he needs to make his case. There is little rehashing, and each chapter does indeed introduce a new topic. If you're interested in history, religion, philosophy or morality, I'd definitely suggest giving this book a look.
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)
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)
I added the Evolution of God to my book list many months, maybe a couple of years ago.
If anyone has seen my 'to-read' list has probably rolled there eyes and said, yeah, that's ambitious. But if anyone has seen my 'read' list has seen that I take my reading very seriously.
The disadvantage of reading some books before others is that sometimes topics lack context.
With time I've learned what to read first, which books require prerequisites, and which books are out of my league, and probably always will be.
I'm glad I read this book now. After I've had time to read up on the Documentary Hypothesis. After I've listened to lectures by Christina Hayes on scripture. After I've watched a series of videos about evolution by Richard Dawkins. After reading Guns, Germs and Steel. After I've done some rudimentary reading on the early days of Christianity. (I'm severely lacking in my background on Islam. Any suggestions?)
Robert Wright takes the reader on a journey that covers all of those topics, and more. Archaeology and Game Theory. Religion and Politics . Philosophy and Psychology . It's a lot to absorb but he feeds it lightly. He builds up his thesis slowly, painstakingly, and, aside from being a little preachy at the end, convincingly.
Can the Jews, Christians and Muslims ever learn to live in harmony? Or at least an existence of truce? A universe ironically reminiscent of John Lennon's Imagine?
...Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
According to Wright, the key is to find non-zero sumness for us all.
The question is, can we?
If anyone has seen my 'to-read' list has probably rolled there eyes and said, yeah, that's ambitious. But if anyone has seen my 'read' list has seen that I take my reading very seriously.
The disadvantage of reading some books before others is that sometimes topics lack context.
With time I've learned what to read first, which books require prerequisites, and which books are out of my league, and probably always will be.
I'm glad I read this book now. After I've had time to read up on the Documentary Hypothesis. After I've listened to lectures by Christina Hayes on scripture. After I've watched a series of videos about evolution by Richard Dawkins. After reading Guns, Germs and Steel. After I've done some rudimentary reading on the early days of Christianity. (I'm severely lacking in my background on Islam. Any suggestions?)
Robert Wright takes the reader on a journey that covers all of those topics, and more. Archaeology and Game Theory. Religion and Politics . Philosophy and Psychology . It's a lot to absorb but he feeds it lightly. He builds up his thesis slowly, painstakingly, and, aside from being a little preachy at the end, convincingly.
Can the Jews, Christians and Muslims ever learn to live in harmony? Or at least an existence of truce? A universe ironically reminiscent of John Lennon's Imagine?
...Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
According to Wright, the key is to find non-zero sumness for us all.
The question is, can we?
Interesting. Slow going at some points and very hilarious at others.
I don't usually read such scholarly non-fiction, and I walked away a few times to pick it up again.
Very interesting over all, and gave me things to think about. Not light reading to breeze through, though.
I don't usually read such scholarly non-fiction, and I walked away a few times to pick it up again.
Very interesting over all, and gave me things to think about. Not light reading to breeze through, though.