Robert Wright taught philosophy at Princeton and religion at the U. of Pennsylvania. He is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a contributing editor at The New Republic, and has written for Time, Slate, The Atlantic, and The New Yorker magazines.

The NYT chose Robert Wright’s The Moral Animal (1994) as one of the ten best books of the year and selected his Nonzero (2000) and Three Scientists and Their Gods (1988) as notable books of the year. For an idea of Wright’s topics, I give brief excerpts from Publishers Weekly (PW) of the above four books in time order. For Three Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information, PW said: “What is the meaning of life? Award-winning essayist Wright addresses this daring question in an engaging and accessible look at the work and beliefs of three leading American scientists: Edward Fredkin, Edward O. Wilson and Kenneth Boulding. This is a wonderful, thought-provoking book.” For The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, PW said “The new field of evolutionary psychology – which seeks to explain human behavior, thought and emotions in terms of Darwinian evolution – finds its most articulate exponent in Wright.” For Nonzero: the Logic of Human Destiny, PW said: “Evolution meets game theory in this upbeat follow-up to Wright's much-praised The Moral Animal. Arguing against intellectual heavyweights such as Isaiah Berlin, Karl Popper and Franz Boas, Wright contends optimistically that history progresses in a predictable direction and points toward a certain end: a world of increasing human cooperation where greed and hatred have outlived their usefulness.” For The Evolution of God, PW said “In his illuminating book, The Moral Animal, Wright introduced evolutionary psychology and examined the ways that the morality of individuals might be hard-wired by nature rather than influenced by culture. With this book, he expands upon that work, turning now to explore how religion came to define larger and larger groups of people as part of the circle of moral consideration.”

I’ve read only The Evolution of God, but the PW excerpts are very useful in telling us how Wright’s evolutionary psychology has moved onward toward the evolution of religion via discussing the history of human group psychology (or spiritual anthropology?). His Introduction has important admissions and questions. “I had argued that the most ethereal, uplifting parts of human existence (love, sacrifice, our very sense of moral truth) were products of natural selection.” …”But I don’t think that a “materialist” account of religion’s origin, history, and future – like the one I’m giving here – precludes the validity of a religious worldview. In fact, I contend that the history of religions presented in this book, materialist though it is, actually affirms the validity of a religious worldview; not a traditional religious worldview, but a worldview that is in some meaningful sense religious.” …”…I think gods rose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god, is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion.”…”The illusion, in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility.” He raises important questions: “How will religions adapt to science and to one another? What would a religion well suited to an age of advanced science and rapid globalization look like? What kind of purpose would it point to, what kind of orientation would it provide? Is there an intellectually honest worldview that truly qualifies as religious and can, amid the chaos of the current world, provide personal guidance and comfort – and maybe even make the world less chaotic? I don’t claim to have the answers, but clear clues emerge naturally in the course of telling the story of God.”

This book is very well referenced – its 50 pages of Notes use the great idea of underlining any reference number to a detailed discussion. In The Evolution of God he focuses on the Abrahamic religions, but he begins with primordial times. The organized manner in which he discusses religious growth is evident in his Table of Contents. Part I (Ch 1-4) is THE BIRTH AND GROWTH OF GODS: The Primordial Faith; The Shaman; Religion in the Age of Chiefdoms; Gods of the Ancient States. Part II (Ch 5-9) is THE EMERGENCE OF ABRAHAMIC MONOTHEISM: Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel; From Polytheism to Monolatry; From Monolatry to Monotheism; Philo Story; Logos: The Divine Algorithm. Part III (Ch 10-13) is THE INVENTION OF CHRISTIANITY: What Did Jesus Do? The Apostle of Love; Survival of the Fittest Christianity; How Jesus Became Savior. Part IV (Ch 14-18) is THE TRIUMPH OF ISLAM: The Koran; Mecca; Medina; Jihad; Muhammad. Part V (Ch 19-20) is GOD GOES GLOBAL (OR DOESN’T): The Moral Imagination; Well, Aren’t We Special?

Some clarifications are needed: Monolatry here means “Yahweh-Alone” – other gods exist but only Yahweh deserves worship and allegiance; Wright says that, if the traditional interpretation is right, it was Elijah’s coalition who first clearly articulated this idea. The Philo above is Philo of Alexandra, born near the end of the first century BCE. Wright says “Philo believed in Yahweh with all his heart and soul – believed that he was the one true god – and didn’t believe he was a god of intolerance and vengeance. To the extent that this view spread, God could grow – become more morally inclusive, even more spiritually deep.” Philo equates the Logos with wisdom. After discussing Logos in depth, Wright says “in any event, Logos is humankind’s point of contact with the divine.” He believes to know the Logos is “to sense divine intention, even to know a part of God.” …”And what direction does God want us to move in? Toward greater harmony with other peoples, said Philo.” Wright agrees strongly.

‘Moral imagination’ is a crucial concept for Robert Wright. “The expansion and contraction of the moral imagination lies behind the pattern that has pervaded the history of religion: when a religious group senses an auspicious non-zero-sum relationship with another group; it is more likely to create tolerant scriptures or to find tolerance in existing scriptures; and when it senses no prospect of a win-win outcome, it is more likely to summon intolerance or even belligerence.” … Moral progress “in the history of the Abrahamic faiths – and in the evolution of God – have consisted of expanding the moral imagination, carrying it to a place it doesn’t go unabetted. This is religion at its best.” …”History has driven us closer to moral truth, and now our moving still closer to moral truth is the only path to salvation – ‘salvation’ in the original Abrahamic sense of the term: salvation of the social structure.” …”The God of the Abrahamic scriptures – real or not – does have a tendency to grow morally. This growth, though at times cryptic and superficially haphazard, is the ‘revelation’ of the moral order underlying history: as the scope of social organization grows, God tends to eventually catch up, drawing a larger expanse of humanity under his protection, or at least a larger expanse of humanity under his toleration.” …”Of course, God’s character is a product of the way Muslims, Christians, and Jews think of him.” …”They need to starting to think of themselves as a bit less special.” …”Glimmers of the notion of the Godhead are visible in ancient names for divinity in all three Abrahamic faiths. Maybe these three faiths can together use that notion to find harmony with non-Abrahamic faiths, should they ever evince an enduring ability to get along with another.”

After the four parts are an Afterword and an Appendix. The Appendix – How Human Nature Gave Birth to Religion – discusses how religion got built from the ground up from an evolutionary psychology perspective, giving in one place the concepts he had applied in writing this book. The Afterword – By the Way, What Is God? – considers the idea of God in a debate between an atheist and a believer, both scientifically literate. He uses physics (my field) to compare scientific and religious ideas. “It’s a bedrock idea of modern physics that, even if you define ‘ultimate reality’ as ultimate scientific reality – the most fundamental truths of physics – ultimate reality isn’t something you can clearly conceive.” …”Physicists sometimes find it useful to think of electrons as particles, but sometimes it’s more useful to think of them as waves. Conceiving of them as either is incomplete, yet conceiving of them as both is inconceivable. (Try it!)” ...”The good news is that the hopelessness of figuring out exactly what something is doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.” The book ends with: “Though we can no more conceive of God than we can conceive of an electron, believers can ascribe properties to God, somewhat as physicists can describe properties of electrons. One of the more plausible of such properties is love. And maybe, in this light, the argument for God is strengthened by love’s organic association with truth – by the fact, indeed, that at times these two properties almost blend into one. You might say that love and truth are the two primary manifestations of divinity in which we can partake, and that by partaking in them we become truer manifestations of the divine. Then again, you might not say that. The point is just that you wouldn’t have to be crazy to say it.”

I found many ideas that made sense as to how religions develop and grow. I share his hope that someday religious toleration will exist between all faiths. But my hope goes further, as I can imagine all faiths as being just different cultural paths to the same mountaintop, the goal of all faith journeys. As we strive up the mountain I feel we will learn that tolerance isn’t enough, as the spirituality of each faith will turn tolerance into acceptance. I highly recommend this book – I rate it at five stars.