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 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.
Really? If I ever read the words 'non-zero-sum game' or 'zero-sum' or 'carrot and stick (what does this even mean?),' I will hunt down every copy of this book and send it through a shredder. Vague, limp, no true explanation, even of the big three monotheisms (forget about other religions, except for brief, brief references, even though he being the book discussing various polytheistic belief systems). I found this difficult to read only because I was getting bored and entirely sick of reading about zero-sum games. Honestly, he spends most of the book lecturing about zero-sumness, more than any actual evolution of religious though. And, frankly, dude needs an editor like none other. Bleah.
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.
-
-
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.
-
I tried but like other books I have attempted about theological history, it was just too dry and not focused. The Evolution of God includes too much cultural context and I got lost. I think this is an interesting topic but not done well here. I did not finish and barely got halfway before setting this aside. Is there an author out there who doesn’t make theology boring?
informative
medium-paced
Not quite at the level of, and somewhat derivative of, Wright's earlier Non-Zero: the Logic of Human Destiny (which Bill Clinton made all his White House staffers read), but still a fascinating argument. Wright turns walking the fence between belief and non-belief into a high-wire act. You may not agree with what he concludes -- in fact you may have a hard time deciding what it is he does conclude (I did) -- but you won't be bored.
If a person who believed in the literal truth of the Bible were to read this, it would blow their mind. I'm far from that state, but I still found it thought-provoking. Although, I'm not going to lie, I skimmed a lot.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
A close reading of the Abrahamic religions and cultures to show the development of the concept of God through Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I’m not well scripted in my scripture so I don’t feel qualified to comment on the strength of his argument when dealing with them but he does put forth a compelling argument. However, I feel that the book loses its strength by only focusing on the monotheistic faiths as the elephant in the room is that there are still prominent polytheistic faiths today in Buddhism and Hinduism. The stuff at the beginning of the book which documents the anthropology of religion in hunter gather societies is interesting.