• In total there are 12 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 12 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Introduction and First Thoughts

#88: Sept. - Oct. 2010 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Introduction and First Thoughts

Unread post

I am almost finished with Part I and so far my impression is that it has been a waste of time. Most of what has been covered could have been covered in a 10 page chapter. I agree with the comments by Saffron and Oblivion. I would find a discussion of Stonehenge and the origins of the monolithic religions and goddess worhip origins preferable to the interminable recitation of polynesian animism.

It also seems like Wright is just spinning a yarn, well preparing to spin one at least since it still seems like reading an introduction.

And why all the mentions of Marx? Is Wright a closet Marxist?
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Saffron

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I can has reading?
Posts: 2954
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:37 pm
15
Location: Randolph, VT
Has thanked: 474 times
Been thanked: 399 times
United States of America

Re: Introduction and First Thoughts

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:
And why all the mentions of Marx? Is Wright a closet Marxist?
I'm not there in the book yet, but I suppect a little idea called Materialism.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Introduction and First Thoughts

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:I am almost finished with Part I and so far my impression is that it has been a waste of time. Most of what has been covered could have been covered in a 10 page chapter. I agree with the comments by Saffron and Oblivion. I would find a discussion of Stonehenge and the origins of the monolithic religions and goddess worhip origins preferable to the interminable recitation of polynesian animism.

It also seems like Wright is just spinning a yarn, well preparing to spin one at least since it still seems like reading an introduction.

And why all the mentions of Marx? Is Wright a closet Marxist?
Robert mentioned Marx in the Chapter 2 thread, and I responded with what I thought was clarification. Each reference I've seen in Part 1 is actually to "Marxist," the quotation marks meaning that the cynical view of religion is attributed to a statement of Marx, but is a misinterpretation. So there aren't in fact any real references to Marx.

The points of these early chapters seem clear enough to me: 1.) In h-g religion, the gods did not reward and punish people for their actions towards the fellow humans. Morality was not of divine concern, and people took care themselves
of the rewarding and punishing. The gods had to be worked only in order for people to avoid calamity. 2.) In the next level of organization, the chiefdom, rewarding and (especially) punishing moved up to the heavens as a more efficient and socially acceptable way of providing needed social controls.

There is more than this. At the end of Chapter 3, for example (p. 66), Wright introduces what is perhaps the key mechanism in the evolution of god: that as peoples' earthly circumstances change, so do their concepts of god.
Last edited by DWill on Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Saffron

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I can has reading?
Posts: 2954
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:37 pm
15
Location: Randolph, VT
Has thanked: 474 times
Been thanked: 399 times
United States of America

Re: Introduction and First Thoughts

Unread post

DWill wrote:It seems what Saffron is implying is that Wright may not be starting "in the beginning" after all. Did the very earliest religion have a different character than what Wright presents as religion at its origin, or was there at least more diversity in the picture? It wouldn't matter to his argument, of course, whether fertility worship was prominent in areas other than those that he is able to survey, unless it affected the perceived relationship of the human to the divine. We'd have to know the difference god-gender makes when it comes to early morality. I'd like to know more about this because I sense I'm missing something.

Wright can only give us information from first-hand accounts of Europeans who contacted indigenous peoples in the new world. He assumes that h-g societies would have the same social and religious structure at this time as they always had. There isn't a way to know one way or the other.
I've got fireworks in my brain! One reason I am getting behind with Wright is I've picked up Riane Eisler's The Chalice & The Blade as a refence for the posts I've made about the goddess and now am reading it as a companion to The Evolution of God. I am trying to work out an answer to your implied question of whether the goddess piece is important in relation to Wright's book. I promise to drop it right away if I can't make an adequate case for myself soon. Hang with me just a bit longer.
User avatar
Saffron

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I can has reading?
Posts: 2954
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:37 pm
15
Location: Randolph, VT
Has thanked: 474 times
Been thanked: 399 times
United States of America

Re: Introduction and First Thoughts

Unread post

DWill wrote:
There is more than this. At the end of Chapter 3, for example (p. 66), Wright introduces what is perhaps the key mechanism is the evolution of god: that as peoples' earthly circumstances change, so do their concepts of god.
Yes! And I think he is right (oh, what an opportunity to make bad jokes). This is in fact one of the key ideas in Riane Eisler's book too. She is trying to make the case that Western patriarchal colored eyes looked upon the oldest human artifacts and archaeological remains and interpreted based on the current conditions on the ground, rather than looking at the artifacts and asking what these artifacts might imply about life during the Neolithic period. I have not read all of Eisler's book, but I think she would say that artifacts and specifically the images a culture chooses to create correlate to some aspect of the conditions of everyday life.

Edit in: I just re-read my post and boy, am I off topic. Sorry.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Introduction and First Thoughts

Unread post

DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote:I am almost finished with Part I and so far my impression is that it has been a waste of time. Most of what has been covered could have been covered in a 10 page chapter. I agree with the comments by Saffron and Oblivion. I would find a discussion of Stonehenge and the origins of the monolithic religions and goddess worhip origins preferable to the interminable recitation of polynesian animism.

It also seems like Wright is just spinning a yarn, well preparing to spin one at least since it still seems like reading an introduction.

And why all the mentions of Marx? Is Wright a closet Marxist?
Robert mentioned Marx in the Chapter 2 thread, and I responded with what I thought was clarification. Each reference I've seen in Part 1 is actually to "Marxist," the quotation marks meaning that the cynical view of religion is attributed to a statement of Marx, but is a misinterpretation. So there aren't in fact any real references to Marx.

The points of these early chapters seem clear enough to me: 1.) In h-g religion, the gods did not reward and punish people for their actions towards the fellow humans. Morality was not of divine concern, and people took care themselves
of the rewarding and punishing. The gods had to be worked only in order for people to avoid calamity. 2.) In the next level of organization, the chiefdom, rewarding and (especially) punishing moved up to the heavens as a more efficient and socially acceptable way of providing needed social controls.

There is more than this. At the end of Chapter 3, for example (p. 66), Wright introduces what is perhaps the key mechanism in the evolution of god: that as peoples' earthly circumstances change, so do their concepts of god.
The index entry on page 562 reads: Marx, Karl and Marxism.

I don't have in issue with the discussion of animism and the origin of relgions but it's one mention after another of the same kind of thing. When one writes a novel one removes material which does not advance the story. When one writes a theoretical book the same principles apply unless one is trying to pad the page count.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Introduction and First Thoughts

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:
The index entry on page 562 reads: Marx, Karl and Marxism.

I don't have in issue with the discussion of animism and the origin of relgions but it's one mention after another of the same kind of thing. When one writes a novel one removes material which does not advance the story. When one writes a theoretical book the same principles apply unless one is trying to pad the page count.
But do you see why Wright chooses to label one pole "Marxist" and the other "functionalist"? His explanation of the choice tells you that Marxist philosophy had nothing to do with it.

You're free to have the opinion about overkill, of course. Other readers may think that documentation needs justify all the examples. I can't find any examples of a "pointless" citation.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Introduction and First Thoughts

Unread post

DWill wrote:I'm frustrated, too. I can't find the place where Wright says that he doesn't claim any direct line from the Chukchee or Polynesians to the Jews or Christians, that their religions didn't grow out of those religions (even though they did grow out of the religions of people neighboring the Jews).
On page 11 of Chapter One (I'm just getting started!) Wright says:
This doesn't mean there's a line of cultural descent between the "primitive" religions on the anthropological record and the "modern" religions. It's not as if three or four millenia ago, people who had been talking to the wind while pulling their pants down started talking to God while kneeling.
Is this what you're referring to?
Please consider supporting BookTalk.org by donating today!
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Introduction and First Thoughts

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:
DWill wrote:I'm frustrated, too. I can't find the place where Wright says that he doesn't claim any direct line from the Chukchee or Polynesians to the Jews or Christians, that their religions didn't grow out of those religions (even though they did grow out of the religions of people neighboring the Jews).
On page 11 of Chapter One (I'm just getting started!) Wright says:
This doesn't mean there's a line of cultural descent between the "primitive" religions on the anthropological record and the "modern" religions. It's not as if three or four millenia ago, people who had been talking to the wind while pulling their pants down started talking to God while kneeling.
Is this what you're referring to?
Right, that's it. Thanks.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Introduction and First Thoughts

Unread post

Wright ends Chapter 1 with a few words about the eventual emergence of a global religion.

But what would this global religion look like?

Unless I'm reading Wright wrong (that sounded funny) I bet he is saying (or will come to say in later chapters) that this future worldwide religion will arise after a slow gradual evolution of the existing world religions. The eventual world religion will no longer resemble Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

The global religion will one day ONLY address morality and will not attempt to give answers to how the universe and life came to be. After all religion has failed completely to answer these questions, as Wright explained when he went over the primitive animistic religions. And still today Christianity, Islam and Judaism clearly have it all wrong with regards to the origins of the cosmos and life. This is obvious to anyone with an elementary education in the sciences.

The realm of God is shrinking as man continues to understand more and more about how the universe behaves and operates. (The God of the gaps) I think Wright will eventually argue that there will one day be a gap left that science cannot and will not close. This gap is morality or how we should behave and treat one another. Maybe Wright feels this will be the last stand for religion.
Please consider supporting BookTalk.org by donating today!
Post Reply

Return to “The Evolution of God - by Robert Wright”