I completely agree with Rich Deem's review at God and Science for 'The Evolution of God' shared for your edification:
"Introduction Has God Evolved? Robert Wright, as an atheist naturalist, must find natural explanations for humanity's nearly universal belief in the existence of God. As with everything else in the universe, it must have evolved!
Robert Wright, a former "Christian," and author of The Moral Animal, has written a new book, in which he purports to show that the concept of God has evolved along with mankind. Wright believes that the concept of God will continue to evolve until He becomes a complete patsy and all humankind will live together in harmony. Yes, it is the classic "religion is bad" and "atheism will save humanity" story. For having been a "Christian," Wright's handling of the scriptures is actually worse than that of either the LDS or Watchtower faiths, as we shall see.
Evolution summary. The first three chapters of The Evolution of God discuss the origin of gods based primarily upon speculation, based upon modern hunter-gatherer societies, Shamans, and chiefdoms. There are few hard facts about what actual ancients believed prior to the establishment of civilizations. The fourth chapter examines the religions of the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, China, and Egypt, with their myriad of Gods.
The second section of the book examines the purported evolution of God from plurality to singularity, specifically, the establishment of Abrahamic monotheism out of polytheism. We shall examine some of these claims in more detail below.
The third section is entitled, "The invention of Christianity" with its usual claims that the Jesus of the New Testament was primarily invented. Interestingly, chapter 11 is entitled, "The Apostle of Love," although it is not about the apostle John, as the average Christian would expect. Instead, Wright seems to think that Paul is the apostle of love, probably based upon 1 Corinthians 13 (which is actually in the context of the members of the church). This is the first time I have heard of anybody describing Paul as the apostle of love, as opposed to the apostle of theology. It makes one wonder exactly how much theology Wright studied when he was a "Christian." We have a page addressing the claim that Paul invented Christianity.
The fourth section is entitled, "The Triumph of Islam." Before all you Moslems get your hopes up, like the rest of the book, Wright is not being kind to Islam. However, according to Wright, Muhammad was an ecumenicist - something I have never heard anyone else claim.
The fifth section is entitled, "God Goes Global." Wright contends that religions are successful when they produce social "salvation" as opposed to personal salvation. He even contends that the Abrahamic scriptures were really about social salvation, and that the "historical" Jesus may have been "more concerned with social salvation." Accordingly, the next evolution of religion is toward globalization, so that we can all get along together. Wright suggests that "westerners can employ their moral imaginations to appreciate the perspectives of Muslims" since "there probably aren't many people in Indonesia or Saudi Arabia reading this book." In other words, it is "American arrogance" that accounts for Muslim terrorism (probably because of all the religious fundamentalists in the U.S.). Wright says the road to social salvation is through "moral imagination" - "our capacity to put ourselves in the shoes of another person." The problem with such a concept is that if the other person has no "moral imagination" he is apt to blow us out of our shoes!
Ultimately, Wright concludes that none of the gods "invented" by human societies really exist. Instead, Wright concedes that some kind of "god" exists that encompasses the ideals of love and truth. He seems genuinely bothered by the existence of love, but hasn't come to the point of dismissing it merely as brain biochemistry, as other atheists have done. Finally Wright authored in an appendix entitled, "How Human Nature Gave Birth to Religion." Although there is a definite association between human nature and religion, Wright seems unaware that there is a question here of cause and effect. Wright assumes human nature gave rise to religion, when, in fact, it could be that religion (i.e., God) gave rise to human nature.
Evolution of Abrahamic monotheism?I would like to deal with the central tenet of Wright's book in more detail, especially the claim that Abrahamic monotheism arose out of polytheism. It is in this section, that Wright shows his willingness to use any and all techniques, especially quoting out of context, to support his hypothesis.
Robert Wright claims that the original God of Abraham was just one of many Canaanite gods, which one can get from "decoding" the biblical texts. Wright claims that God was not originally transcendent, but was a "hands-on deity" and cites as evidence that He planted the garden of Eden, made garments to clothe Adam and Eve, and could be heard walking in the garden. Wright seems to fail to understand that God often took on human form in order to interact with human beings, including His incarnation as Jesus Christ.
Wright says that God was not omniscient at that time, since He had to ask Adam and Eve where they were hiding. In reality, God was using a technique most parents have used on their children (maybe Wright never had any kids?). Many times, I have asked our three boys a question to which I knew the answer, just to see if they would tell the truth. In fact, God's response indicates that He knew exactly what Adam and Eve had done.1 Of course, Wright doesn't quote from those verses!
Wright indicates that the Old Testament actually supports the existence of other Gods. For example he says that the command "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3), implies that there are other gods. However, just 20 verses below, the text clarifies the command:
'You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves. (Exodus 20:23)
So, the text makes it clear that these "gods" are made merely of silver or gold. Does Wright believe that this text is trying to tell us that these gods of silver or gold were real, living deities? I don't think so! The entire point of the commandment is that God wants our loyalty to Him to come before our loyalty to things that we place value on. Jesus confirmed this commandment in saying that loving God was the "great and foremost commandment."2
Wright goes on to say that the scriptures imply the existence of other gods when God uses the plural "Let Us make man in Our image"3 and "let Us go down and there confuse their language,"4 among others.5 However, instead of the "Us" being a plethora of gods, Christianity interprets the "Us" as representing the trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is one God.6 Among the Jews, the "Us" refers to God and His angels. The Old Testament is replete with instances of angels appearing before men and instructing them what God wants them to do.7 The text indicates pretty clearly that God had communicated with the angels who were being used as His instruments - hence the reference to "Us."
Wright claims that in "the poems that most scholars consider the oldest pieces of the Bible, there's no mention of God creating anything" (emphasis in the original). The statement is blatantly false, since, according to scholars, the consensus oldest book of the Bible, Job, contains the longest creation account in the entire Bible (Job 38-41, 129 verses, compared to only 56 in Genesis 1-2). Wright's claim that "Yahweh was not yet the cosmic creator" is laughable, since God clearly describes to Job the founding of the earth, complete with it being originally shrouded in a blanket of clouds and "thick darkness,"8 which is what science tells us. If this is not cosmic creation, then what is?
Wright also quotes Psalm 82 as evidence for a divine council of gods:
A Psalm of Asaph. God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: (Psalms 82:1, ESV)
Wright had to quote from an obscure translation (ESV) to support the interpretation he was after. However, if he had quoted from any other translation, the meaning would have been clear that it was no reference to a divine council, but merely a reference to a ruling body.
*A psalm of Asaph. God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the "gods": (Psalms 82:1)
*"How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? Selah (Psalms 82:2)
*Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. (Psalms 82:3)
*Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. (Psalms 82:4)
*They know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. (Psalms 82:5)
*I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' (Psalms 82:6)
*But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." (Psalms 82:7)
The context makes it clear that these "gods" are merely mortal men who are acting as unrighteous judges in Israel. This example is certainly not a reference to some divine council of gods.
In contrast to Wright's interpretations, the Bible makes it clear that the gods of the other peoples are not real, but manmade.9 The Bible also makes it clear that some of these "gods" are demons - fallen angels.10 Other passages make it clear that there is but one God and no others.11 Although Wright claims that those verses were added later, he provides no evidence to support such an assertion, and his verses out-of-context certainly do nothing to add to his argument. If the Bible were truly edited from the original writings, certainly there would be evidence of these changes in the nearly 1,000 years between the copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text. The complete book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls is a prime example of monotheistic theology and yet remained virtually unchanged over the centuries. The atheistic claims of extensive editing of the Bible remain unsupported speculation based upon extreme bias toward materialistic naturalism.
Wright asserts that another God, named Elyon, was the father of Yahweh, who was given the people of Israel to rule over, citing Deuteronomy 32:
"When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the sons of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance." (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)
Contrary to Wright's assertion, Yahweh is the name of God and Elyon (Most High) is one of His many titles. Many passages make it clear that Yahweh is Elyon.12 Wright continues with his assertions that Yahweh was a minor god of the Canaanites who had a consort name Asherah. In fact archeologists have found a couple inscriptions to "Yahweh and his Asherah." Does this discovery prove that the God of the Bible evolved from Canaanite polytheism? The reality is that the grammatical structure of the inscription suggests that "his Asherah" should probably be "his asherah" and doesn't really refer to any kind of goddess at all. Even if it did, I would find it extremely unlikely if archeologists did not find evidence of polytheism in ancient Israel. The Bible very clearly states that the kings, the common people and even the priests went after other gods, including Asherah. So, it would be expected to find such evidence somewhere in Israel. In fact, I would expect to find much more than just a couple examples of polytheism, since about half of the kings of Israel are described as having lead the people astray. If the Bible were trying to hide the existence of polytheism in Israel, why is it so prominently mentioned?
The book continues for nearly 500 pages of this nonsense. The Evolution of God contains many other atheistic myths that are extensively covered on this website. For more information, see Related Pages, below.
Conclusion The Evolution of God is a prime example of what is wrong with common atheistic scholarship. Robert Wright uses logical fallacies and extensive quoting out-of-context in order to support his hypothesis that God is a made up myth. The book attempts to demonstrate the evolution of God, but merely shows the evolution of Robert Wright to the point that he must believe every atheistic denigration of God in order to prop up his atheistic worldview."
Reference: [...]
Get more detail about
The Evolution of God (Back Bay Readers' Pick).
