Without God, how can religion be divine?

I thought I'd just thrown twenty bucks down a non-fiction hole.

A few scant hours after buying Robert Wright's "The Evolution of God" (at 25% off!) my wife, who was reading the Sunday Oregonian, said: "You're not going to like this review of the book you just got." 

She was right. Thumbing through the first few pages of the book while considering whether to buy it, I'd focused on Wright's first hand.

On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion.

That elicited a right on from my churchless non-soul. So I paid less attention to Wright's other literary appendage.

On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the "illusion," in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusory.

I've only read a few chapters so far. I'm liking "The Evolution of God."

But I'm preparing myself to discount the validity of Wright's other hand, which, according to the critical review, lends an air of implausibility to the final chapter.

His assiduous labors into the origins of the idea of God have erected a colossal edifice. In the last 50 pages or so, Wright tosses an undersized and feeble theory over its parapets to justify all this effort. Though it's sure to stimulate a lot of discussion, this is a thoroughly wrongheaded book.

Here's a summary of the theory Wright offers. Human beings, he writes, "are 'designed' by natural selection to be good out of obligations to others, for fear of the disapproval of others, in pursuit of the esteem of others." Cultural evolution -- the passage of human groups from small bands of hunter-gatherers to chiefdoms and then on to states and empires -- builds on the ingredients of this "design" to create a moral economy, which leads to the discovery of "moral truths," which are sanctioned in religious organizations as the orders of gods, or, ultimately, of God, the all-knowing, law-giving, all-powerful Being.

"If history naturally pushes people toward moral improvement, toward moral truth, and their God, as they conceive their God, grows accordingly, becoming morally richer, then maybe the growth is evidence of some higher purpose, and maybe -- conceivably -- the source of that purpose is worthy of the name divinity."

There are a lot of assumptions in that sentence, but the most powerful one for Wright's argument is the assertion that "history naturally pushes people toward moral improvement." Is this the moral improvement that after 5,000 or so years of Western religion gave us Nazism? Wright's arguments are silent on this question, because they have already asserted the answer -- that as a species we're somehow morally superior now to our ancestors wandering out of Africa. How do we know? Because we have found the idea of God. This is tautology, not proof.

Makes sense. But, hey, I'll keep an open mind as I read the book, though I suspect that I'll have the same reaction of the reviewer when I get to the end of it.

Here's another skeptical perspective on Wright's "morality is divinity" thesis. Like most biologists, this guy doesn't see evidence of purpose in evolution.

Check out the comments to that "Morality doesn't equal God" post. They're pretty high quality. And numerous. I enjoyed the pithy one-sentence wisdom of #8.

Morality doesn't prove gods for much the same reason that Christmas presents don't prove Santa.

Comments

[Dixon Webb]

Brian . . . You write a thought provoking blog. I enjoy reading it although I do not always agree with your conclusions. My own take on this God idea is a good example. I suspect that human beings have an unexplainable essense called spirituality. I think they also have a natural instinct we label curiousity. As mankind evolved we realized there were unexplained things surrounding us. Human beings sought explanations (curiosity) and when they could find none they invented God (spirituality) and called he or she responsible. Like an onion, layers of truth and fact arrived with evolution. With each layer of learning, God gradually took on fuirther attributes of superiority, and curious thoughts were satisfied. As scientific facts were proven, curiosity was satisfied and new questions arose. In the end the spiritual side of man accepted that unexplained questions are properly attributed to God, and scientific discoveries of fact are attributed to science.

So maybe belief in God is necessary?

Dixon

[tucson]

Dixon wrote: "In the end the spiritual side of man accepted that unexplained questions are properly attributed to God,.." ...

--until they are understood and attributed to science.

".. and scientific discoveries of fact are attributed to science."

--until it is understood there is nothing but "God".

[Roger]

"So maybe belief in God is necessary?"

---I think God is interesting. However, I may "not" need to engage in belief or non-belief.

".. and scientific discoveries of fact are attributed to science."

---So, what discoveries of fact, not attributed to science, attributed to? All that non-knowable stuff, where is it coming from?

[rakesh bhasin]

God is not an entity like you or me. It is a name which has been attributed to a power that remains unexplained.

If it can be explained, it is described by another name.

God is presumed to have a large number of attributes also which a man feels unattainable like omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent etc.,

IN FACT, GOD IS GOD.

[Roger]

"IN FACT, GOD IS GOD."

---So, it's a fact, God is God? Sounds OK. However, again what is a fact?

What do I receive out of God being God? Even if it is a fact.

[rakesh bhasin]

Life is an illusion and death is a fact.

If one can rehearse the process of death while living, the illusion of life can be understood. Death can be rehearsed by connecting to all pervading power/force/ so called God.

Body can be compared with a TV set which exhibits everthing that is transmitted but without an electric current, the TV set is of no use and so is our body without oxygen supply.

Roger, you know everything.

[Roger]

"If one can rehearse the process of death while living, the illusion of life can be understood. Death can be rehearsed by connecting to all pervading power/force/ so called God."

---So, where can I take some rehearsal lessons? Rehearsing must be important. Seems like everyone is doing the same. So, I must do the same too. I'm guessing, I need to understand the illusion of life, this understanding is important to have. I've been told, I need to connect to God through rehearsing death. Well, ok, I like to be told what to do, seems to make life a bit easier. So, when do I begin my rehearsing lessons?

[Dogribb]

Brian how did Charan Singhs death in 89 effect you ?Were you begining to question things before or after?I see you mentioned being married in 1990.Without Charan on the scene did this loss impact your feeling and thoughts about RS ?

[Blogger Brian]

Dogribb, Charan Singh's death saddened me, a lot. Just as I remember exactly where I was when I heard about Kennedy's assassination, and the 9/11 attacks, so do I when I heard of his passing.

I wasn't seriously questioning Sant Mat at that time. it was another decade, at least, before that started. I did a lot of seva (volunteer work) after Gurinder Singh took over as guru -- including writing three books, which took an amazing amount of time, energy, and devotion.

It's hard to say whether, if Charan Singh had still been alive, things would have turned out the same. Maybe. Maybe not. Life only happens in one way. I don't think his death affected me, questioning-wise. In a way, Gurinder Singh was a better fit for me, since he had much more of a "Western" style. (Crisper, more logical, less devotional.)