Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.87 AVERAGE
3.87 AVERAGE
This book gets a bonus star because I am delighted by the notion of a Marduk of Accounting. That said, I’m not sure there’s much new here, though it is certainly presented in an accessible way.
Write proposes that there is an arc to the western concept of the divine, from amoral and capricious creatures that could, from time to time, be persuaded to heal or hurt to a single divine being worthy of worship among many not so deserving, to a single divine being that required a certain level of ethical treatment within the tribe to a divine being that required a general level of ethical behavior. Which is pretty much what I learned in the liberal churches of my youth.
At it’s best, it seems to be a fusion of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion,” Joseph Campbell’s, “The Masks of God,” and Harold Bloom’s, “The Book of J,” though unlike any of those, Write seems to be veiling his own conclusion about the nature of god just a bit. At it’s worse, it’s a vaguely smug retelling of The Arc Of History Is Long But It Bends Towards Good Things. Which I want to believe, but to some extent, it seems like one of those books that says we’re the end product of history because the author and the readers want to feel good about themselves.
I liked reading the book when I was reading it. He does a nice systematic job of showing how the western monotheistic idea of god changed over time responding to the changes in the social order. I don’t think he proved his implicit thesis of “and it’s a good thing too.” But a good bus book and I learned from it something else about Marduk -- “His heart is a kettle-drum and his penis is a snake that yields sperm made of gold.” And why didn’t he tell Stephen Colbert that when he had the chance?
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/247057/august-18-2009/robert-wright
Write proposes that there is an arc to the western concept of the divine, from amoral and capricious creatures that could, from time to time, be persuaded to heal or hurt to a single divine being worthy of worship among many not so deserving, to a single divine being that required a certain level of ethical treatment within the tribe to a divine being that required a general level of ethical behavior. Which is pretty much what I learned in the liberal churches of my youth.
At it’s best, it seems to be a fusion of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion,” Joseph Campbell’s, “The Masks of God,” and Harold Bloom’s, “The Book of J,” though unlike any of those, Write seems to be veiling his own conclusion about the nature of god just a bit. At it’s worse, it’s a vaguely smug retelling of The Arc Of History Is Long But It Bends Towards Good Things. Which I want to believe, but to some extent, it seems like one of those books that says we’re the end product of history because the author and the readers want to feel good about themselves.
I liked reading the book when I was reading it. He does a nice systematic job of showing how the western monotheistic idea of god changed over time responding to the changes in the social order. I don’t think he proved his implicit thesis of “and it’s a good thing too.” But a good bus book and I learned from it something else about Marduk -- “His heart is a kettle-drum and his penis is a snake that yields sperm made of gold.” And why didn’t he tell Stephen Colbert that when he had the chance?
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/247057/august-18-2009/robert-wright
If your a religious scholar, there's probably not much here that would be news to you. However, the rest of us have plenty to learn from Wright's latest work. In many ways, Evolution of God fits in nicely was some of the recent work of Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted) in that Wright puts forth the context and scholarly interpretations of some of the better known parts of the Bible and the Koran (i.e. The exhortation to 'Love thy neighbor' is most likely a lot more provincial than we were taught in Sunday school).
Wright's aim is much more than just an attempt to get the record of some well-known religious ideas straight. Wright is really writing a response to the more strident anti-religious works of Dawkins and Hitchens. Wright is not a religious man, but he does try to make the argument that religion speaks to humanity's moral progress and the possibility that there is meaning in the universe. What exactly is that meaning? I'll let you read the book to find out, but it has very little to do with an avuncular guy wearing a white robe.
Wright works through his arguments with a sense of fairness and levity that makes this somewhat lengthy book seem much shorter.
Wright's aim is much more than just an attempt to get the record of some well-known religious ideas straight. Wright is really writing a response to the more strident anti-religious works of Dawkins and Hitchens. Wright is not a religious man, but he does try to make the argument that religion speaks to humanity's moral progress and the possibility that there is meaning in the universe. What exactly is that meaning? I'll let you read the book to find out, but it has very little to do with an avuncular guy wearing a white robe.
Wright works through his arguments with a sense of fairness and levity that makes this somewhat lengthy book seem much shorter.
It was a chore, but it is done. I like the premise, don't get me wrong. I just didn't bargain for the scholarly depth of this work. And not to sound soft, but a more digestible version of the same ideas would be more up my alley.
So what are these ideas? The author is essentially arguing that the same concept of god (which started out as gods) has evolved/morphed/manifested itself throughout history. The "God" many people think of today is simply a new reflection of the same animist gods people believed in millenia ago. I found this idea supremely fascinating, and I'm actually surprised I haven't considered this possibility prior to tackling this book. Regardless, the reasoning and evidence presented are sound.
So what are these ideas? The author is essentially arguing that the same concept of god (which started out as gods) has evolved/morphed/manifested itself throughout history. The "God" many people think of today is simply a new reflection of the same animist gods people believed in millenia ago. I found this idea supremely fascinating, and I'm actually surprised I haven't considered this possibility prior to tackling this book. Regardless, the reasoning and evidence presented are sound.
informative
reflective
A fascinating and provoking read if you are relatively new to the material, and a well-written, thoughtful book all around. Wright refreshingly combines scholarly research with his own musings, which at times can also get frustrating (wait, what is he saying? does he think God exists or not?! which he does clear up quite clearly if you stick with him).
Some of the ideas I had previously read in Karen Armstrong's "The Bible" and "A History of God," but I found Wright's style a bit easier to stick with. I especially appreciated his chapters on the origin(s) of religion, going as far back as possible, to the hunter-gatherer groups and moving onward from there to chiefdoms, city-states, etc. The evolution of god, it seems, takes place on the stage of humanity's own evolution- an evolution of consciousness, morality, awareness of our own needs, and our ability to meet them as best we can.
Some of the ideas I had previously read in Karen Armstrong's "The Bible" and "A History of God," but I found Wright's style a bit easier to stick with. I especially appreciated his chapters on the origin(s) of religion, going as far back as possible, to the hunter-gatherer groups and moving onward from there to chiefdoms, city-states, etc. The evolution of god, it seems, takes place on the stage of humanity's own evolution- an evolution of consciousness, morality, awareness of our own needs, and our ability to meet them as best we can.
From Robert Wright, author of The Moral Animal and Nonzero, comes a controversial book that is sure to set off the ire of most if not all religious groups. In The Evolution of God Wright gives readers a complete history of religion from our ancient prehistory when fire was something novel and new and ancestral people saw spirits within every rock and tree, to the modern day clash of faiths throughout the world.
Divided into five sections, Wright begins at the very beginning, exploring why people looked to create spirits and gods in objects and the ether to help give a reason behind phenomena like natural disasters, cataclysms, and what happens when a family member dies. He explores these ideas both at the scientific level and the psychological, reducing faith to its component parts. Wright then moves onto the advent of monotheism, Christianity, and Islam, providing a history lesson and analyzing these world-dominant faiths under the same parameters. In the last section, “God Goes Global,” he addresses the state of today’s religions and what it means to us on a global scale.
The Evolution of God doesn’t look to refute religion, or decide which is better or truer than the other; Wright is just telling a history of the evolution of religion and faith through our ancestry to our present. Whether you’re an atheist or are deeply religious, you will nevertheless find The Evolution of God an interesting read, whether you agree with it or not.
For more reviews, check out the BookBanter site.
Divided into five sections, Wright begins at the very beginning, exploring why people looked to create spirits and gods in objects and the ether to help give a reason behind phenomena like natural disasters, cataclysms, and what happens when a family member dies. He explores these ideas both at the scientific level and the psychological, reducing faith to its component parts. Wright then moves onto the advent of monotheism, Christianity, and Islam, providing a history lesson and analyzing these world-dominant faiths under the same parameters. In the last section, “God Goes Global,” he addresses the state of today’s religions and what it means to us on a global scale.
The Evolution of God doesn’t look to refute religion, or decide which is better or truer than the other; Wright is just telling a history of the evolution of religion and faith through our ancestry to our present. Whether you’re an atheist or are deeply religious, you will nevertheless find The Evolution of God an interesting read, whether you agree with it or not.
For more reviews, check out the BookBanter site.
I will start with a disclaimer. My main area of study for my B.A. was Religion and Philosophy, but I have never been particularly religious. My present interest in religion is from a psychological and political viewpoint., but I read a lot of books about religion and philosophy. This was probably the most enlightening of all that I have read. The author traces the manifestation of gods from the earliest hunter-gatherer groups up to the present. Because of the global implications of the conflict of the three western religions of "The People of the Book", he spends a lot of time comparing their co-development and their concept of god/God. Did you know that, until it was no longer politically expeditious, Mohammed faced Jerusalem when he prayed, and that he celebrated some of the Hebrew holidays? Me neither. The author compares scientific, atheistic, fundamental, and abstract concepts of God and how these have evolved. I have never read a more elegant argument for the idea that God might exist. After you read this book, read some fluff and then read Origin Story. Enlightenment awaits!
I give it a 3.2/5
Robert Wright does a decent job of examining cultural evolution from the hunter-gatherer dawn of human society to the complex, highly interdependent empires of the ancient world that were a precursor to modern globalization, as well as the psychological traits that developed in human beings as a result of natural selection that contributed to the development of religion across diverse human societies. Through this he argues that the "God" of the three Abrahamic Religions _ Judaism, Christianity & Islam evolved from a tribal "God" among the many gods of the polytheistic ancient Middle East, a "God" who only cared for his people & encouraged only intertribal brotherhood among the tribes of Israel to the universal, monotheistic "God" that existed since the Persian empire's imperial rule of Israel. He convincingly argues that "God's" evolution through time was as a result of the sociopolitical situation on the ground, by an integration of the characteristics & mythologies of other gods in the polytheistic ancient world, & that this evolution has on average been leading to a positive moral evolution of human society as we become more interconnected & interdependent.
At times it can be a bit dull & repetitive but on the whole it's quite thought provoking & an interesting intellectual exercise. I'd recommend this book to anyone who's interested in the possible origins of religion & the human conception of "God" or "divinity" & it's changing nature throughout time & across various parts of the world.
Robert Wright does a decent job of examining cultural evolution from the hunter-gatherer dawn of human society to the complex, highly interdependent empires of the ancient world that were a precursor to modern globalization, as well as the psychological traits that developed in human beings as a result of natural selection that contributed to the development of religion across diverse human societies. Through this he argues that the "God" of the three Abrahamic Religions _ Judaism, Christianity & Islam evolved from a tribal "God" among the many gods of the polytheistic ancient Middle East, a "God" who only cared for his people & encouraged only intertribal brotherhood among the tribes of Israel to the universal, monotheistic "God" that existed since the Persian empire's imperial rule of Israel. He convincingly argues that "God's" evolution through time was as a result of the sociopolitical situation on the ground, by an integration of the characteristics & mythologies of other gods in the polytheistic ancient world, & that this evolution has on average been leading to a positive moral evolution of human society as we become more interconnected & interdependent.
At times it can be a bit dull & repetitive but on the whole it's quite thought provoking & an interesting intellectual exercise. I'd recommend this book to anyone who's interested in the possible origins of religion & the human conception of "God" or "divinity" & it's changing nature throughout time & across various parts of the world.
If he'd just stuck to the evolution of the conception of God, this book would have actually been worthy of the prize it received. The half-ish about whether Christianity & Islam are doomed to fight never really got off the ground in any convincing way for me.
Robert Wright, in his latest book The Evolution of God, promises up front that he will make a plausible case for the existence of some force or intention behind the universe that could be called "divinity," and does so in the midst of making a different case altogether: that our notions of the illusory "one true god" (and Wright does call the idea of God an "illusion") adapt over time to the circumstances of the people believing in him.
On the second argument, he succeeds brilliantly. Not so much in that this is a revelation (is it a surprise to anyone that religious notions change to fit the times and situations of the humans inventing them?), but in the fluid, accessible, and vivid way in which he makes his case and educates the reader. 90 percent or so of The Evolution of God is utterly engrossing and fascinating in this way.
On the first argument, however, he fails, and it leaves one utterly puzzled.
To read the rest of this review, click here.
On the second argument, he succeeds brilliantly. Not so much in that this is a revelation (is it a surprise to anyone that religious notions change to fit the times and situations of the humans inventing them?), but in the fluid, accessible, and vivid way in which he makes his case and educates the reader. 90 percent or so of The Evolution of God is utterly engrossing and fascinating in this way.
On the first argument, however, he fails, and it leaves one utterly puzzled.
To read the rest of this review, click here.