The Evolution of God: Robert Wright’s Salon.com Interview

In today’s online issue of Salon.com there is an interesting interview with Robert Wright, a well-known American journalist. Wright is the author of a new book “The Evolution of God,” which approaches its subject from the logical standpoint that, more often than not, we have created our Gods to match our own evolving self-image and needs. Wright refers to himself as a materialist in that he thinks that the answers to religious questions, including the evolution of God, lie in the facts on the ground.

All good so far. But a problem arises in how Wright discerns what is fact, and what he chooses to include and not include in forming his opinions.

For example, when it comes to Jesus and what kind of person he was, Wright argues that Jesus probably wasn’t the great prophet of peace and love that we all think:

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. This will seem dispiriting to some people to hear that Jesus wasn’t the great guy we thought he was. But to me, it’s actually more inspiring to think that the doctrines of transnational, trans-ethnic love were products of a multinational, imperial platform.

Wright then goes on to tell the ugly story where Jesus initially refuses to heal the daughter of woman not from Israel, basically telling her that we don’t serve dogs here. Wright ultimately feels that Jesus was a typical messianic Jewish preacher who thought God was going to come down to Earth and straighten things out.

So, where to start? Well the doctrine of universal love was not left out of the Gospel of Mark. In Mark, Jesus says that whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother (3:35); he criticizes John for trying to stop someone from doing the work of God simply because the guy wasn’t one of their followers (9:38-40); and he states that loving our neighbor as ourselves is the second greatest commandment (12:30). That Jesus was a prophet without borders is clearly demonstrated when he laments, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own relations, and in his own home.” (6:4).

The anecdote where Jesus compares a mother and daughter to a dog appears as a distinct anomaly when viewed within the context of Mark’s entire Gospel, which is why its authenticity must be questioned. Considering the strong racist attitudes that Jesus had to overcome among his followers and how notoriously slow to learn they were (6:52, 8:17), it seems more reasonable to assume that this episode was made up.

As to the Kingdom of God, one would be hard pressed to say that Jesus thought this meant God was literally coming down to straightening things out here on Earth. If that were so, why do we find him using obscure parables and metaphors for the Kingdom of God, at one point likening it to a farmer who scatters seed but who doesn’t know how the seeds grows (Mark 4:26-27). Surely if God were coming down to sort us all out, he would know how he was going to do it.

While examining his “facts on the ground” on the evolution of God, Robert Wright ultimately stumbles for two reasons:

1) Wright does not always take into account the prejudices and weaknesses of the people who passed down the story of Jesus, and who by human nature would manipulate Jesus’s message to match their own self-image and needs, just as we’ve done (as Wright well notes) with our perceptions of God.

2) Wright undoubtedly held the personal belief that it is more inspiring to think that the doctrines of transnational, trans-ethnic love were products of a multinational, imperial platform prior to writing his book “The Evolution of God,” and consciously or unconsciously discerned “the facts” in a way to match that supposition.

——

Immortality & The Evolution of Christianity & Religion

Continuing with our theme of cultural evolution and the long arc of the moral universe, we turn to the subject of the evolution of Christianity, Religion, and Christian thought. For insight we go to another progressive figure who long has been forgotten by many: British historian Henry Thomas Buckle, who arguably was the first scientific analyzer of social evolution. Like the Unitarian minister Theodore Parker, Buckle is an individual who Progressive Christianity can look toward in re-discovering its heritage.

The following passage on immortality comes from The Essays of Henry Thomas Buckle circa 1863 (unlikely to be found at your local library, unfortunately). Here the SBNR (Spiritual But Not Religious) Buckle talks not just of immortality but the necessary evolution of religion and religious creeds.

One thing I would repeat, because I honestly believe it to be of the deepest importance. Most earnestly would I again urge upon those who cherish the doctrine of immortality, not to defend it by arguments which have a basis smaller than the doctrine itself. I long to see the glorious tenet rescued for the jurisdiction of the narrow and sectarian theology, which foolishly ascribing to a single religion the possession of all truth, proclaims other religions to be false, and debases the most magnificent topics by contracting them with the horizon of its own little vision.

Every creed which has existed long, and has played a great part in our history, contains a large amount of truth, or else it would not have retained its hold upon the human mind. To suppose, however, that any one of them contains the whole truth is to suppose that as soon as a creed was enunciated the limits of inspiration were reached, and the power of inspiration exhausted.

For such a supposition we have no warrant. On the contrary, the history of mankind, if compared in long periods, shows a very slow, but still a clearly marked, improvement in the character of successive creeds; so that if we reason from the analogy of the past, we have a right to hope that the improvement will continue, and that subsequent religious creeds will surpass ours.

Using the word religion in its ordinary sense, we find that religious opinions depend on an immense variety of circumstances which are constantly shifting. Hence it is that whatever rests merely upon these opinions has in it something transient and mutable. Those of us who take a distant and comprehensive view are thus filled with dismay when we see a doctrine like the immortality of the soul defended on such transient grounds.

These advocates imperil their own cause; they make the fundamental depend on the casual; they support what is permanent by what is ephemeral; and with their books, their dogmas, their traditions, their rituals, their records, and their other perishable contrivances, they seek to prove what was known to the world before it existed, and what, if these transient things were to die away, would still be known, and would remain the common heritage of the human species, and the consolation of myriads yet unborn.*

—

The Living Hour’s SBNR motivational series combines history, literature, philosophy, psychology, and religion to help bring about new perspectives on Progressive Christianity and spirituality. Sign up by entering your email address into the “Opening the Small Gate” box in the right corner of this web page.

*A few small edits were made to Buckle’s text to make it more easily read and understood by contemporary readers.

Evolution vs. Creationism

President Barak Obama has wisely suggested that it is time to take the heat out of the debate over abortion, and that people on both sides of the aisle (pro-life vs. pro-choice) need to stop demonizing each other and try to find some common ground that they can agree upon. Obama’s counsel might also be applied to the debate over “where we come from”.

Public debate is usually driven by the more strident supporters of both sides of an issue; this is especially true in the debate over the theory of evolution vs. creationism (or intelligent design). The result is that both sides come off badly. Creationists who see evolutionists as godless heathens, need to stop it. Evolutionists who think that all creationists are nutcases who believe that the earth was created by God literally in six days (after which he took a breather) need to quit it too.

The scientific community must regain their devout temper and agree that no subject nor discussion is ever off the table. They should also discontinue the practice of behaving like theories (no matter the alleged supporting evidence) are indisputable facts. Only facts are facts. Fully open minds, reasoned debate, and a spirit of inquiry should rule the roost. At the same time, it should be remembered, as Carl Jung once said, that science is but one tool to acquiring knowledge, it is not the only tool.

To achieve common ground today’s scientists might take the counsel of Alexander von Humboldt, a German naturalist who was among in the earliest explorers to adopt the modern scientific view. In his 5 volume master-work Kosmos (1845), Humboldt writes:

The thoughtful scientist’s most important achievement is this: to recognize the unity in diversity, to comprehend all that the discoveries of recent times tell us about the individual, to sift and scrutinize details without succumbing beneath their weight, and, mindful of humankind’s high destiny, to perceive the Spirit of Nature, which lies beneath a covering of external phenomenon. In this way, our endeavors will reach beyond the narrow confines of the external world and we shall succeed in mastering the raw material of empirical observation, as it were, by ideas.

—

The Living Hour’s SBNR motivational series combines history, literature, philosophy, psychology, and religion to help bring about new perspectives on Progressive Christianity and spirituality. Sign up by entering your email address into the “Opening the Small Gate” box in the right corner of this web page.