Robert Wright’s new book, The Evolution of God, has been well-received by critics and I’m looking forward to reading it. It argues that “however mistaken our traditional ideas about God or gods, their evolution points to a transcendent prospect: that the religious quest is valid, and that a modern, scientific worldview leaves room for something that can meaningfully be called divine.”
Mr. Wright has graciously agreed to give away 10 copies of his book to Unreasonable Faith readers.
To win, follow these steps:
- Let me know you’re a reader (new or old) through this form [update: now closed].
- Pray to Mithra that you’re the winner and everyone else is a big fat loser and should spend eternity in hell.
- If you’re not already a subscriber, consider subscribing via RSS or email.
The winners will be announced on Sunday (Jun 28), so spread the word!
(If you don’t know much about RSS, find out the advantages of using it.)
Here’s a video of Robert Wright talking about the book:
“It argues that “however mistaken our traditional ideas about God or gods, their evolution points to a transcendent prospect: that the religious quest is valid…”
Not at all clear.
“… a modern, scientific worldview leaves room for something that can meaningfully be called divine.”
For some definition of meaningfully.
I’d love to read it… wonder if it will be available on my Kindle…
Is the argument that any question we can make up must have an ultimate answer that corresponds to reality? Oh my.
Ok, it gets more clear when viewing the video. Apparently it’s an application of game theory to evolution of religion, with a teleology cautiously hinted at or speculated about. I hope it’s worth reading.
Uh… I wasn’t aware that H.G.Wells was running this blog. ;)
I just traveled back in time and fixed the typo. So it never happened now.
See, there are things Ray Comfort can teach us about.
~ 01:40 – 01:45 “… on balance, religion adapts to that, proving moral growth of God”
What a load of BS. You can’t prove any property of God until you establish that He actually exists. It looks to me like a typical case of someone using a metaphor, then forgetting that it is just a metaphor; or perhaps confusing “belief in God” with “existence of God.”
I think he does mean the concept of God described by the respectively contemporary religion, reflecting the human moral growth he talks about. Actually God as a literary character accompanying human society over a very long time is an interesting subject. I think that Wright generally regards God as created in the human image, just that he gets a little dreamy thinking about what or if this all might point somewhere. I’d have to read the book to know what he thinks about that ‘somewhere’.
I have no clue what this guy is talking about. A lot of impressive sentences but no sensible meaning.
He’s on about how the figure of God develops different characteristics and morals alongside a changing human society. Apparently he likes to view the development of more and more efficiency in global communication and growth of knowledge as a development towards a global human consciousness, sort of a Gaia hypothesis with humanity instead of Earth. I wouldn’t expect to get all of it into a four minute video.
It still does not make any sense. LOL
We were discussing the Greek and Nordic pantheons when I was in sixth grade. I remember my teacher smugly saying that the ancient people believed in many gods, and that our beliefs had evolved (love that word) until we (put on supercilious smile) had arrived at the ultimate truth of having just one true god. I wondered if she wasn’t mistaken, and that there might be one more step to go in the evolution belief. Here I am now, believing in no god.
I bought this book and read it already! I recommend to anyone who is interested in religion; however, there were a few things in it which did disappoint me.
The parts about the development of the individual religions were fantastic, but in my opinion, he really whiffed when trying to tie all of the loose ends together.
So there’s evidence that the authority of all of these religions is called into doubt? Doesn’t matter: the religious still deserve a pat on the back because at least they’re not Steven Weinberg. At least the religious believe in a higher purpose. But what’s the evidence of a higher purpose? Our understanding of God has evolved – undergone a cultural evolution. But why should we believe that such an evolution is directed? Why should it be evidence of a higher mechanism or entity at work? It is slightly aggravating because Wright repeatedly presents evidence which seems to indicate that the evolution of religion stems from human struggles. So why should any other entity receive credit for this evolution? That is the perplexing question.
Wright compared cultural evolution to biological evolution, and seemed to infer that there could be a higher purpose to both. Of course, since all the evidence we have indicates that biological evolution is not directed, why should we believe that cultural evolution is also directed? If anything, it is directed by us: Wright relates the monumental struggles of human societies to define their relationship with the divine, but he still insists that there must be a higher purpose to our existence. He gives us evidence of all the hard work that humanity has done and then says to the religious, well, cheer up, there could still be some kind of god behind the curtain.
As I said, I found the sections about the histories of the individual religions to be insightful and fascinating. However, I feel like Wright ignored many of his own conclusions from the book. If he’s able to demonstrate how human societies have developed human religion, then why doesn’t humanity get the credit, and why Wright keep trying to give the credit away to a deity or to a deity-like “higher purpose”? That is mind-boggling.
I’m excited to get my hands on this new book. At the end of the video it almost sounds like he’s trying to say that there may be a spiritual goal overall for the human race … some kind of spiritual awareness we should be (or unconciously are) aiming for through the progressive evolution of religion and morals effecting the laymen. Interesting indeed.
It’s odd. The last thirty seconds or so seems tacked on. For the bulk of it, he’s talking about God as a cultural construct that shifts and changes with the culture that it’s tied to. He recognizes that evolution is not progressive.
Then he’s off about how the progress of the human race points towards there being a God. I don’t see a connection to his earlier thesis.
Did anyone notice the quote of the day from howstuffworks.com?
“The knowledge that makes us cherish innocence makes innocence unattainable.”
– Irving Howe
How appropriate, ironic given our many past discussions on the topic, ha.
Is this just another example of you not reading the post and wanting to babble and witness despite that?
I found a review and interview about this book on the Salon page:
http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2009/06/24/evolution_of_god/
I think that clears up most of the questions. I for one am really interested in winning a copy now. Daniel Dennett writes about thie topic in ‘Breaking the Spell’, and Wright appears to be of a similar spirit as Sam Harris with the meditative approach to consciousness.
A very informative interview. I found his take on Jesus and Paul interesting:
“-So later Christians, Paul among others, really institutionalized Christianity. What about the historical Jesus? What do we know about him?
It’s popular to say he said the good stuff and not the less good stuff. I think it’s the opposite.
-He’s typically seen as the great prophet of peace and love.
Yeah. But the fact is, the Sermon on the Mount, which is a beautiful thing, does not appear in Mark, which was the first written gospel. And these views are not attributed to Jesus in the letters of Paul, which are the earliest post-crucifixion documents we have. You see Paul develop a doctrine of universal love, but he’s not, by and large, attributing this stuff to Jesus. So, too, with “love your enemies.” Paul says something like love your enemies, but he doesn’t say Jesus said it. It’s only in later gospels that this stuff gets attributed to Jesus. “
Pfft, Mithra. I’ll pray to Loki instead. He’s more likely to cheat for me.
You’ve got to respect someone who faces all gods, sleeps with everybody’s wives, insults everyone and gets away with it, gives birth/fathers some awesome monsters, kills the world’s beloved, tricks everyone so the world’s beloved stays dead, is horribly punished for it (crucifixion, pah, that’s for wusses. Try being bound by your son’s entrails and have poison dripping on your eyes ’til come Ragnarök…) and then ushers the end of the world and the death of all gods when he gets freed.
I’m about half-way through the book right now. I’m reading it on my Kindle, so every time Wright has one of his teleological knee-jerks I bookmark it. There’s ben about a dozen do far. If you strip all of that crap out, however, you’re left with a pretty decent account of how ideas about god and religion have been shaped by social, economic, political, and other forces.
Those of us who remember how Wright tried to twist Dan Dennett’s words in that infamous Beliefnet interview – see my blog piece here will not be surprised by Wright’s attempt to derive intention from the normal workings of natural selection. Good tricks, once evolved, tend to stick. Nothing mystical about that. Using Wright’s logic, the progress of bird flight from archaeopteryx to the condor is evidence of a transcendent flight-purpose. (Angels, obviously! Quick, call Templeton!!) I can’t decide if he really means it or just doesn’t want to get classified as a New Atheist.
Looking forward to winning a copy.
Seems that God doesn’t evolve, but the belief in Him/Her/It does with time.
I’ll prey to Thor…
“And lo, his holiness raised Mjolnir towards Valhalla and spoketh, ‘Please Hammer, don’t hurt’em’”
I would love to win a copy of this book. I have long discussed with my sisters (both atheist) the possibility that “god” is perhaps the sum of all that is, and that the consciousness of this “god” evolves with us. It’s a fascinating idea, even though I have absolutely no belief in god as an entity separate from the physical world.
Sorry, which god was I supposed to pray to for this book? I don’t want to take a chance on my prayer not being answered, talking to the wrong god, or this god saying “no” to my prayer request. Hate it when that happens.
Sorry but I don’t see any ‘evolution of high morals in gOd’ over time.
As I looked thru history in school and research, I see the ‘religious’ acting like assholes (old testament) and continuing to do so (witch burning – Islam) with the ‘holy writings’ changing to excuse their actions (there is no such line ‘Thou shall not suffer a witch to live’ in the original hebrew text). Only when VERY small groups (i.e. Jefferson-Franklin) stepped away from the religions did real change in law and morals occur. i.e. the bill of rights and US constitution, and many of the changes in modern Europe.
The gOds people have invented still acts like spoiled 5yr old in a temper tantrum.