The Evolution of God Paperback – 3 May 2010

As the title suggests, this book explores the history of how god(s) evolved, beginning with pre-historic hunter-gather societies who had many gods, through to the birth of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Wright is a clear and compelling writer, and researched his topic well. I thoroughly enjoyed the history. The description of Polynesian religion, in particular, was fascinating, as was the description of how Judaism moved from monolatry (the belief that many gods exist but only one is worth worshiping) to monotheism (the belief that there is only one god).Throughout the main portion of the book, Wright's main theme is that the kind of god people imagine depends on the way they view their neighbors. When people feel isolated, and that everyone is out to get them, they imagine a god who is intolerant of outsiders (non-believers). When people see their neighbors as friendly, and potential allies or trading partners, they imagine a god who is more tolerant and inclusive. Moreover, the scriptures of all three Abrahamic faiths contain portions that were written when the authors were feeling threatened, and other portions that were written when they were feeling friendly.So, today, people can find support in the scripture for declaring jihad (or crusade) on the infidel, or for loving thy neighbor. That fact has obvious implications for the world today. If we in the West make Muslims feel that we hate them, they will hate us and radical interpretations Islam of flourish. While that is an important point, with important implications, it is also rather obvious.The last portion of the book was, in my view, the weakest. Wright expressly states that he is agnostic; he is not sure whether God exists. Wright then attacks the new atheists -- Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens -- claiming that something Wright calls "moral truth" is evidence that a god of some description exists. "Moral truth" apparently means that: 1. We all had better learn to get along or we're all in trouble; and/or 2. "History" is moving in the direction of a larger and larger moral circle, i.e., as time goes by, we tend to accept larger and larger groups of people as morally relevant. I get that, generally speaking, the moral circle is increasing and that that is a good thing and to be encouraged. The rest of it, however, made little or no sense to me. Maybe that is my fault, but I suspect not.Personally, I was very disappointed by this book, but I still think it is worth a read. Wright's two previous books, Nonzero and The Moral Animal, are two of my all time favorites. Many reviewers, both amateur and professional, share that view. I had very high expectations for this book, so perhaps my expectations were too high. I would give almost anything to be able to write a book even one tenth as valuable and insightful as Nonzero. Perhaps Wright just set the bar too high for himself.

El análisis del tema desde un enfoque social y evolutivo me permitió aclarar muchas dudas.No soy creyente y el análisis ese muy respetuoso. El planteamiento final excelente.

I thank the author for his many unique insights into the origins of the Abrahamic faiths. I did not find his conclusion to be very compelling. He emphasizes how the Abrahamic faiths have (overall) demonstrated their ability to adapt, to meet the needs of the group that defends each faith. He is optimistic about how the non-zero sum game ( a term he uses so often that it becomes a bit annoying) of globalization will lead the Abrahamic religions to become more inclusive. Paradoxically, it is the very restrictive mindset of believers that will 1/ make his book go unread by those who should read it 2/ make it virtually impossible for any who actually do read it to be persuaded. I would have found it far more compelling to argue how necessary it has become to superceded Abramhic religions (all of which are exclusive) in favor of an inclusive spirituality. I got the impression that the author was writing his book for atheists and for theologians, hardly even aware that transcendance and divinity can exist without reference to God or gods. Instead of trying so desperately to maintain hope in the positive evolution of closed religions, why not emphasize how alternative ancient philosophical systems (Tao, Tantra, even Buddhism) are far more conducive to world peace.

Well written and a pleasure to read ..Robert Wright is able to present the scholar views in an interesting manner

This is the best book I have ever read on religion. The chapter that describes how the idea of a monotheistic religion made in the end its way from an original politheism is really superb. Robert Wright's book is not a plea neither in favour or against atheism. It just describes the origin of the Abrahamic religions and its evolution and how Christianity, Islam and Judaism came to be the most influential religions in the world. It's really a thought-loaded book that will make you see religion from a more lucid and comprehensive perspective.

Robert Wright zeigt auf der Grundlage umfassender wissenschaftlicher Recherchen auf, dass selbstverständlich auch die Gottesvorstellungen der Menschen siet jeher Ausdruck des jeweiligen Standes der kulturellen Evolution sind. Das aber bedeutet, dass nicht Gott den Menschen nach seinem Abbild geschaffen hat, sondern der Mensch hat sich seine Vorstellung von Gott nach seinen Bedürfnissen erdacht. Die Hinweise auf Ergebnisse der Spieltheorie sind sehr gut nachvollziehbar und auch die Schlussfolgerung einer moralisch im Schnitt laufend "wachsenden" (moralischer werdenden) Gottesvorstellung.Für meine Erfahrungen stellt der Autor den Islam allerdings zu positiv dar. Neben vielen friedlichen Suren finden sich in dieser Religion leider viel zu viele extrem aggressiv-grausame Aufforderungen an die Gläubigen, so dass sich jeder Extremist allzu leicht mit dem Hinweis auf den Islam rechtfertigen kann. Aber Wright bringt wenigstens Zitate derartiger Suren. Insgesamt ein sehr lesenswertes Sachbuch.Dr. Dieter Bedenig, Solothurn