Some Thoughts on  “The Evolution of God” by Robert Wright

I am a fan of Karen Armstrong’s books and her lectures on religion. Her book ‘History of God’ is especially illuminating and assists in understanding the evolution of religions in general. Robert Wright’s book “The Evolution of God” is in the same vein and a pleasure to read. Starting from the earliest human societies, he discusses how and why religions evolved, with special focus on Abrahamic religions.

While the gamut of the book is much wider, I’ll focus mainly on a key takeaway from Wright’s book, which is that religions have evolved in response to what he calls the “facts on the ground”. By these facts he means the socio-political conditions prevalent at the time. For example, a religious group is amenable to tolerance and symbiotic living with another religious group, if they see a possibility of a win-win relation with them; else they will more likely be belligerent with each other. Wright employs the term of a non-zero-sum game for the first scenario, and correspondingly a zero-sum game for the later. He provides a number of examples especially from Abrahamic religions to support that the direction a religion takes depends largely on the prevailing conditions.

Wright employs the term “moral imagination” to refer to the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes and feel empathy for them. Employing this term, one can say that moral imagination expands if there is a possibility of non-zero-sum game between two religious groups; else, this imagination contracts.

Let us look at some of the author’s examples from hunter-gatherer society which show how religions morph according to the social requirements. The religions in those times had little or no moral element, as none was needed; in such societies, everyone knew everyone else and there was little private property, so the concept of theft was nearly unknown. When societies evolved into chiefdoms, people began to own properties such as fruit trees and gardens; with that change, the need for moral policing started. With the evolution of states, the policing began to include the power to punish people as well. In all cases, religion wanted one to behave towards more social cohesion.

Similarly, as the political units enlarged i.e. tribes morphed into cities which combined into states, gods of these smaller units coalesced into bigger gods. The fusion of gods was in fact a natural outcome or need of the coalition of states. Divine sanction of the political alliance favored everyone.  This was observed most noticeably for the first time in Mesopotamia. Near the end of the third millennium B.C. (around 2200 BC), the Akkadian king Sargon  sought the divine sanction on Sumerian-Akkadian empires, and declared their respective goddesses, i.e. Inanna and Ishtar, as the same goddess. Alexander extended similar courtesy to gods of the lands he conquered. In Rome, Aphrodite’s name changed to Venus and Zeus became Jupiter. Such fusion of gods eventually culminated into monotheism. Marduk of Mesopotamia was the closest this society had to a monotheistic god. In Egypt, Akhenaten introduced Aten as the one powerful god of all mankind. Although, this universalism did not last long, it had profound impact on the global theology. For example, Sigmund Freud argued in his book ‘Moses and Monotheism’ that Moses borrowed this idea of monotheism from Aten and carried it to Canaan where it eventually became an integral part of the Abrahamic religions.

As human civilizations evolved, gods also changed in their attributes. The Hebrew Bible tells the tale of a god, Yahweh, which changed its character over time. For example, in the time of the prophet Elijah, Yahweh was not a kind god, sanctioning the killing of everyone who worshipped Baal, the pagan deity of Bible.  As we know, the same Yahweh became a kind and loving one in the course of several centuries. The earlier Yahweh was less of a creator – creation of the universe was not attributed to him – and more of a warrior.

Wright also casts doubts on some Biblical stories, such as the one about influx of Israelites in Canaan. Historical evidence is more inclined towards no such mass exodus from Egypt, he argues. In fact, Wright says, the Canaanites were the Israelites. In her book ‘The History of God’, Armstrong also mentions lack of historical evidence supporting the famous parting of the Red sea by Moses. This epic incident may be a myth which has roots in Baal mythology. Some Biblical historians doubt that Moses even existed.

Returning to Yahweh, the earlier ‘form’ of him in Bible was more mythical in the sense that he performed legendary feats such as crushing the heads of dragons and encountering sea and river gods. He was also attributed to possess sexual traits and even had a wife named Asherah. The earlier Yahweh is actually depicted as having an enemy who is Baal. Elijah, the Israelite prophet who lived in the 9^th century BC, opposed Baal and the king Ahab who introduced this god. This was because at that time the king married Jezebial, the Phoenician princess with whose country Ahab wanted alliance. But this alliance favored Phoenician  traders at the cost of Israelite merchants. Hence, Wright argues, the reason for Elijah’s opposition to Ahab and Baal could have been more economical than theological. After Baal has been vanquished, Yahweh ceases to have mythological traits and becomes less intrusive. That was probably because he did not need those attributes. The transformation of Yahweh to monotheism was in fact gradual. Before monotheism, there was another concept called monolatry: the worship of one god without the denial of the existence of other gods.

In general, foreign policy, domestic politics, and economic factors were major reasons behind Israelite prophets’ alliance or friendship with one god and rejection of another. Monotheism was truly established after the Babylonian rampage of Israelites, which happened in about 597 BC, followed by 70 years of captivity of Israelites. The upper class of Israel was also exiled to Babylon. These events are considered to constitute one of the biggest disasters in Israel’s history. Following this, Jeremiah and later the Second Isaiah stressed the concept of monotheism asserting that Israelites’ miseries resulted from their worship of other gods than Yahweh. Monotheistic salvation seemed to have been vindicated when Persian king Cyrus conquered Babylon and allowed the Israelites to return to their home.

Interestingly, till this time Yahweh was an aggressive God. Much of how tolerance and love appeared in Jewish theology owes it to Philo’s interpretation of the old Testament. Philo of Alexandria, also called Philo Judaeus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher (born circa 25 BC) who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt. Philo deployed allegory to harmonize Jewish scripture, mainly the Torah, with the Greek philosophy. He also introduced the concept of logos meaning a set of cosmic laws through which God ran the universe. A tolerant theology which advocated love and brotherhood was the need of the hour at that time, else Jews would have suffered at the hand of Roman emperors. It is also interesting to note why the first century BC was an age of inclusivity and brotherhood. Some reasons could be the expanded economic engagements among empires facilitated by the advent of coins, construction of roads that eased travel, and freedom of trade. Such engagement was a catalyst of tolerance and exchange of ideas.

In the new testament too, some information in the gospels is dubious. For example, St. Luke says Jesus’ parents lived in Nazareth and travelled to Bethlehem for a census, when Jesus was born. In Matthew’s version, the parents lived in Bethlehem. Similarly, in Mark’s version, Jesus does not perform miracles ostentatiously, but in John’s version, Jesus’s miracles are spectacular. In two gospels, there is account of a woman who comes to Jesus to exorcise a demon from her daughter; but Jesus is reluctant because the woman is not from Israel, thus indicating a bias against non-Israelis and absence of universality of Christianity. In fact, the concept of brotherly love was promoted by Paul much later. Though Paul was aggressive towards the followers of Jesus in the beginning, later he became the champion of Christian love. It can be argued that this change was a product of his time, as the century after crucifixion was a challenging time for the subjects of the Roman empire; people stormed to cities and felt dislocated. At such time, Paul knew the Christian church could provide much needed solace and kinship. Churches were attractive places in the time of urbanization. Paul established a network of contacts by writing letters to distant churches and businessmen, seeking support for travelers and job-seekers. He also promoted the use of a language that common men understood, as against the difficult religious text. He even eased much of the Jewish dietary restrictions and the circumcision rule. Paul’s attempt to rope in businessmen in Christianity paid rich dividends as it tethered church to economy.   Most importantly, Paul extended the boundaries of Christianity opening it to more and more ethnicities.

However, Christians were at odds with the Roman emperors because the former refused to worship the state gods. A major boost for Christianity came in the early fourth century AD, when Constantine converted to Christianity. Thus state protection proved vital for the growth of this religion. Conversely, a religion with a potentially global mass appeal such as Christianity was beneficial for Constantine as it allowed him to consolidate a multiethnic empire. Thus politics and religion went hand in hand. This idea is not new as Asoka in the third century BC also embraced Buddhism to consolidate his empire in India.

Islam was also heavily influenced by the geographical and economic milieu of the period. It is said that Muhammad’s wife Khadijah had a Christian cousin who used to tutor him in the history of this religion. As a boy, Muhammad travelled to Syria which was heavily Christian. The word Allah may have come from a Syrian word Allah or Allaha.

The Koranic verses also seem to have themes that are period-specific. The Meccan verses are more peaceful as they preach tolerance, because in Mecca survival was a primary concern and making friends was important. In Medina, the verses are more belligerent and politically inclined because Muhammad was able to establish  a state in Medina. At times, Muhammad expressed solidarity with the Jews and even urged Muslims to celebrate a Yom Kippur-like day of fasting; the Muslim ban on eating pork may also have been motivated by a similar Jewish ban. Though he rejected the Christian concept of Trinity, he wanted to link the roots of Islam with the Abrahamic religion by asserting that Islam originated from Ismael who was the second son of Abraham from his slave Hagar (Hajira in Arabic). However, when political exigencies required, Muhammad even ordered the expulsion and even massacre of Jewish tribes. While strictly speaking Islam offers special treatment of the people of Books (Jews and Christian), special clemency was also offered to Zoroastrians, tolerance to whom suited Muslims. Similarly, economic factors dictated that all non-Muslims including Buddhists and Hindus were taxed rather than treated as enemies. The episode of the infamous Satanic Verses indicate that at times Muhammad was tolerant of polytheism even.

Wright declares Muhammad as a more modern prophet than those of the past. For one, he did not rely on any magical powers to impress his followers. The Koran and Muhammad present nature and how the ecosystem fits in the scheme of nature as evidence of Allah, which makes Koran akin to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Also, Islam has been more accommodative of other religions than Christianity and Judaism.

To his fellow countrymen, Wright suggests that since all religious interpretations are based on the facts on the ground, they should try to understand the factors that led to the perpetrators of 9/11 to do what they did. The problem must be with that interpretation and not with Islam per se. Antipathy towards Islam or Muslims will not get the West anywhere. Wright does not say it but a similar sort of tolerance and teleological approach by the Muslims is needed. Similarly, the author suggests, the sooner Israelis and Palestinians realize that they are part of a non-zero-sum game – neither party can expel the other from the region and mutual peace benefits both parties – the better it would be for both. Wright also suggests that Abrahamic religions might benefit if they stop thinking themselves as special. Maybe the concept that all gods emanated from the same Godhead (whether someone chooses to call it monotheism or polytheism is up to them) can work as a binding agent. Indeed, some scholars suggest that the Biblical word Elohim  is used to mean that all gods were the same god. Moving forward, the evolving nature of god – evolution towards a more tolerant and accommodating god – is the key for modern religions to find relevance in the future and to achieve what religions seek to do: that is, to provide solace to their followers by finding meaning and hope in life.