my recent return to Princeton University to present a seminar to Robert Wright's, "Science and Buddhism" class, serendipitously led to reading Wright's ground-breaking book, "The Evolution of God". Robert has written several "important" books; including the other best-sellers, "The Moral Animal" and "NonZero: The Logic of Human Destiny" and "Three Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information". we met last year when Robert interviewed me for his blogginheads.tv, following which he invited me to speak to his class.
How do(es) God(s), or rather our perception of what God(s) is, evolve? What are the reasons for those changes, and what types of changes occur? Wright does an exhaustive analysis of the Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Well, how and why do we have God(s)? Wright introduces his book w/an anecdote of the Siberian Chukchee people, who deal w/the strong West Wind god by "dropping their drawers" and exposing bare buttocks to the west wind and chanting "West Wind, look here! Look down on my buttocks...Cease blowing!" and clapping their hands w/every word.
In general, the gods of our species were/are created to somehow make "sense" of our world, "explaining" phenomena for which we (currently) have no explanation. One origin theory is that as we had no way to explain what happened in our dreams, we created the concept of a "soul", which was then extended to other species, objects and natural phenomena and on to death and ultimately to an "afterlife".
"Animism" is attributing life to "inanimate" objects, which affect us in different ways like rivers, winds, volcanoes, oceans, thunder, mountains, tornadoes, etc. we created gods that "explained" these phenomena; Muash, the south wind, was trying to kill the moon, Karei produced thunder if folk combed their hair during a storm, and Biliku produced a storm if someone melted beeswax.
As described in "When God Was a Woman", many societies believe(d) that god is/was a woman (an anthropormophization i subscribe to). Allegedly, that arose as we did not understand that sex leads to babies, which led us to believe that women were the true gods as they manifested babies "on their own" (they still do the hard stuff).
The Paleolithic Venus of Willendorf, dated to about 28,000 BCE, one of the earliest carved figures, is likely from a "great mother goddess" religion/cult (if it's mine, it's a religion; if it's yours, it's a cult).
There were many, many women gods and matriarchal societies, from 10,000 BCE to 4500 to 2000 BCE depending on the region. BTW, from 40,000 to 14,000 BCE there was more than one human species (w/a total European population of only 4,000 to 6,000 individuals) - by 10,000 BCE there was only one.
Ultimately, as scientific understanding developed, a "battle" began with religious perceptions of our gods which has continued. As Wright points out, traditional religious believers expected "that an ancient theology which took shape millennia before science started revealing the nature of the world, should survive modern critical reflection unscathed." However, as Wright also points out, the battle is more complex than that; it also involves power, politics and economics.
Wright also looks for evidence of the existence of "god" in how things have evolved; he sees a "moral direction in history" as evidence of a higher purpose. His "Nonzero", and widely-viewed TEDx talk "Progress is not a zero-sum game", show how "non-zero-sum" games/relationships in which "we both win (or lose) together", underlies our moral improvement over time. "Zero-sum"
games/relationships are "I win - you lose", which produces no net gain.
Technology, manufacturing, agriculture, IT, societal organization, etc. are "non-zero-sum" games on a global scale. Arguably, over several millenia, our species generally treats others more humanely and with enlightened self-interest. It's not perfect, but it's improving, generally. Similarly, our perceptions of "god" have evolved.
The interesting question is "Why are there "non-zero-sum" games?", i.e., Who/how were they created? Wright invokes the Greek, Jewish philosopher Philo and his use of "Logos" as the "reasoning principle in the universe", "the Divine algorithm", "the breath of God" and "such a Bond of the Universe as nothing can break".
Philo argued that "God", the master programmer, installed the Logos to allow the Universe to tangibly unfold and evolve. Philo saw evidence of the Logos in both the Torah and the Bible.
As examples of the evolution of "god", in Israel and Judah in 12th - 11th century BCE, El was the head god of the polytheistic Canaanite Pantheon consisting of more than 27 other lesser gods including Baalat, the female counterpart of Baal, the ultimate "pagan" deity.
Yahweh (YHWH) soon replaced El as head god, and grew in prominence. However, by the 6th century BCE, Yahweh took over, all other gods lost their jobs, and Abrahmic monotheism manifested. This was announced to the prophet Elijah as "...not in the wind...not in the earthquake,...not in the fire, and after the fire a sound of sheer silence", demonstrating that Yahweh not in any of the forces of nature as in primitive polytheism, but stood alone.
However, other factors affected which gods were in power, also driven by "non-zero-sum" activities, including changes in the economic, military and political situations, which Wright exhaustively describes.
In general, a dominant population had the powerful god(s) w/other gods subordinate. These subordinate gods might also include those of the subordinate population to allow them to live more harmoniously in their role. However, if the dominant population was much more powerful, often the gods and religion of the subordinate population were banned.
If a subordinate population got to keep its gods/religion, it adapted by focusing on loving others, being peaceful, accepting, "turning the other cheek", etc. However, the problem that arose for these subordinate populations was how were they to keep believing in their god(s), when decades passed with their being tortured and perhaps killed in large numbers?
The "work around" for subordinate religions was to develop the concept of an "afterlife" for eternity with great pleasures as a reward for them, and terrible "get even" torments and tortures for their oppressors. This ushered in the phenomena of dueling religions competing for members, and "one upmanship" in afterlife scenarios w/yet more fantastic good deals for their religion and much worse arrangements for their oppressors.
This pattern played out, as Wright points out w/many examples, over the history of these three Abrahamic religions as their fortunes rose and fell and rose again...
All three Abrahamic religions also spoke of annihilating "pagans". The Hebrew Bible for example, in Deuteronomy, calls for "...the towns of these peoples...you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them...". Wright speaks of the grim prospects for our species if all three of these religions carry out their worst-case scenarios for "pagans".
One fascinating concept that Wright and i discussed was his "historical inevitability" tenet. Under the heading "Was Jesus Really Necessary?", Wright states "...even if Jesus had never been born, or had died in obscurity, some other vehicle for the meme...might well have surfaced." He extends this reasoning to Paul, Constantine, Ashoka, and Bill Gates. In all these cases, the historical pressures and opportunities were such that someone would have arguably come forward and done the inevitable.
Do we really believe that small personal computers would not have developed but for one person's emergence? If you can recall the time, there were many, many offerings competing in both software and hardware. The product might not have been identical, but it would have been very similar. This was certainly the case in the history of science.
my own concept of "god" has evolved to fit "what i don't understand". As my ongoing experiencing is "All is One", seeing the "world" as an apparent illusion and w/many apparently inexplicable serendipities and precognitions daily, and now w/some certainty of there being an "all pervasive field", i have come to the Atman/Brahman concept. An all-pervasive field that is conscious and self-aware, and evolving through us, seems to fit and it apparently answers many phenomena in contemporary physics. i have anthropomorphized is as Her/She, just because it feels "right".
 |
| Robert Wright |
How do(es) God(s), or rather our perception of what God(s) is, evolve? What are the reasons for those changes, and what types of changes occur? Wright does an exhaustive analysis of the Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Well, how and why do we have God(s)? Wright introduces his book w/an anecdote of the Siberian Chukchee people, who deal w/the strong West Wind god by "dropping their drawers" and exposing bare buttocks to the west wind and chanting "West Wind, look here! Look down on my buttocks...Cease blowing!" and clapping their hands w/every word.
In general, the gods of our species were/are created to somehow make "sense" of our world, "explaining" phenomena for which we (currently) have no explanation. One origin theory is that as we had no way to explain what happened in our dreams, we created the concept of a "soul", which was then extended to other species, objects and natural phenomena and on to death and ultimately to an "afterlife".
"Animism" is attributing life to "inanimate" objects, which affect us in different ways like rivers, winds, volcanoes, oceans, thunder, mountains, tornadoes, etc. we created gods that "explained" these phenomena; Muash, the south wind, was trying to kill the moon, Karei produced thunder if folk combed their hair during a storm, and Biliku produced a storm if someone melted beeswax.
 |
| Venus of Willendorf |
The Paleolithic Venus of Willendorf, dated to about 28,000 BCE, one of the earliest carved figures, is likely from a "great mother goddess" religion/cult (if it's mine, it's a religion; if it's yours, it's a cult).
There were many, many women gods and matriarchal societies, from 10,000 BCE to 4500 to 2000 BCE depending on the region. BTW, from 40,000 to 14,000 BCE there was more than one human species (w/a total European population of only 4,000 to 6,000 individuals) - by 10,000 BCE there was only one.
Ultimately, as scientific understanding developed, a "battle" began with religious perceptions of our gods which has continued. As Wright points out, traditional religious believers expected "that an ancient theology which took shape millennia before science started revealing the nature of the world, should survive modern critical reflection unscathed." However, as Wright also points out, the battle is more complex than that; it also involves power, politics and economics.
Wright also looks for evidence of the existence of "god" in how things have evolved; he sees a "moral direction in history" as evidence of a higher purpose. His "Nonzero", and widely-viewed TEDx talk "Progress is not a zero-sum game", show how "non-zero-sum" games/relationships in which "we both win (or lose) together", underlies our moral improvement over time. "Zero-sum"
games/relationships are "I win - you lose", which produces no net gain.
 |
| Torah |
 |
| Philo |
Philo argued that "God", the master programmer, installed the Logos to allow the Universe to tangibly unfold and evolve. Philo saw evidence of the Logos in both the Torah and the Bible.
As examples of the evolution of "god", in Israel and Judah in 12th - 11th century BCE, El was the head god of the polytheistic Canaanite Pantheon consisting of more than 27 other lesser gods including Baalat, the female counterpart of Baal, the ultimate "pagan" deity.
Yahweh (YHWH) soon replaced El as head god, and grew in prominence. However, by the 6th century BCE, Yahweh took over, all other gods lost their jobs, and Abrahmic monotheism manifested. This was announced to the prophet Elijah as "...not in the wind...not in the earthquake,...not in the fire, and after the fire a sound of sheer silence", demonstrating that Yahweh not in any of the forces of nature as in primitive polytheism, but stood alone.
However, other factors affected which gods were in power, also driven by "non-zero-sum" activities, including changes in the economic, military and political situations, which Wright exhaustively describes.
In general, a dominant population had the powerful god(s) w/other gods subordinate. These subordinate gods might also include those of the subordinate population to allow them to live more harmoniously in their role. However, if the dominant population was much more powerful, often the gods and religion of the subordinate population were banned.
If a subordinate population got to keep its gods/religion, it adapted by focusing on loving others, being peaceful, accepting, "turning the other cheek", etc. However, the problem that arose for these subordinate populations was how were they to keep believing in their god(s), when decades passed with their being tortured and perhaps killed in large numbers?
 |
| "Get even" afterlife |
 |
| "Reward" afterlife |
This pattern played out, as Wright points out w/many examples, over the history of these three Abrahamic religions as their fortunes rose and fell and rose again...
All three Abrahamic religions also spoke of annihilating "pagans". The Hebrew Bible for example, in Deuteronomy, calls for "...the towns of these peoples...you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them...". Wright speaks of the grim prospects for our species if all three of these religions carry out their worst-case scenarios for "pagans".
 |
| Ashoka |
 |
| Constantine the Great |
Do we really believe that small personal computers would not have developed but for one person's emergence? If you can recall the time, there were many, many offerings competing in both software and hardware. The product might not have been identical, but it would have been very similar. This was certainly the case in the history of science.
my own concept of "god" has evolved to fit "what i don't understand". As my ongoing experiencing is "All is One", seeing the "world" as an apparent illusion and w/many apparently inexplicable serendipities and precognitions daily, and now w/some certainty of there being an "all pervasive field", i have come to the Atman/Brahman concept. An all-pervasive field that is conscious and self-aware, and evolving through us, seems to fit and it apparently answers many phenomena in contemporary physics. i have anthropomorphized is as Her/She, just because it feels "right".
Very interesting and very appreciated. Through years of formal education and studies, as well as writing a dissertation that involved a cross-national analysis of social cohesion, some of this literature that relates to Wright’s work has crossed my path. Many of the points in this post are supported by research (and by my experience!). Here is a brief list of highlights that is not exhaustive: Klaus Koch’s work on ancient prophets (that overlaps well with ideas in the Bhagavad Gita); Albert Schweitzer’s esoteric and dense work on “moral” and “ethical” evolution (which influenced a very interesting book called, Honest to Jesus); comparisons of the Zohar to Eastern “religion” (e.g., The Jew in the Lotus); contemporary research on “globalization” (e.g., Ronald Inglehart’s work on post-modernism); research on the evolution of “norms of cooperation.” Interestingly, there too was a coalescing of sorts for me when the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali most recently crossed my path, and after having studied them at KYM in India. It seems like a common thread is the “higher Self,” and its manifestation (individually and universally, which inevitably are the same).
ReplyDeleteHearing more about findings in physics would be fascinating (the previous post on the Higgs stuff was very interesting). Any thoughts on findings such as “the constantly expanding universe” or “dark energy”?
Hi Michael,
DeleteAs you are so deeply educated, and experienced in this realm, i would strongly recommend you read "The Evolution of God". It has about 350 references and 570 "densely researched", well-crafted pages. It was really not possible to do justice to the book, or to "NonZero" in a blogpost.
Have also spent weeks @ KYM in Chennai w/Gary Kraftsow and w/T.K.V. Desikachar; Gary and i spent a great deal of time together on Maui, in India and around the US. That lineage was enormously important to my understanding.
Re Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, you might check out "Enlightened Living: a new interpretative translation of the Yoga Sutra of Maharshi Patanjali" by Swami Venkatesananda. Richard Miller put me on to it. It is strongly advaita-based, which is unusual for the Yoga Sutras, but it was more useful for me than T.K.V.'s version.
you might find my recent book "Dancing Beyond Thought: Bhagavad Gita Verses and Dialogues on Awakening" interesting. (There is a blogpost by the same title). It is a free download at prev iew.tin yurl.co m/k2usf7z w/o the spaces. There is a companion youTube video w/my chanting the verses. i strongly resisted the Gita, Sanskrit, and chanting, until i found "myself" engrossed in them.
re physics, the recent possible confirmation of "Big Bang" gravity waves leads to some fascinating understandings on consciousness as the fundamental basis of "everything". Unfortunately, the video i was sent, and the background papers require a lot of mathematics (not a strong suit) and it's hard to see how to make it into an understandable blogpost. There is also some nice work on quantum microtubules from Hameroff that might lead to some understanding on consciousness.
Trust this is useful.
stillness
Hi Gary,
DeleteThanks for the information. The "Evolution of God" will definitely be on my list. I will check out the "Enlightened Living" as well. I really enjoyed reading your first book, so I will also check out the "Dancing Beyond Thought." I have also read the copy of "Who Am I" that you gave me quite a few times now, so thanks for the copy. This type of literature/research has always inspired me, so it was exciting to read your post.
Physics is not something I have been formally taught, but it is fascinating. It might be tough for me to read up on the literature, but I enjoyed your previous post on it (i.e., Higgs material).
Thanks again, and take care.
Hi Gary -- Very interesting topic and discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe 3 Abrahamic religions originating in the Middle East have been playing a zero-sum, ultimately apocalyptic game for a long time. I hope they step back from the brink before they do us all irreparable harm.
That's my major, general comment about this discussion. More narrowly, from my personal perspective, the most interesting things were what you wrote at the very end. You said:
"my own concept of "god" has evolved to fit "what i don't understand". As my ongoing experiencing is "All is One", seeing the "world" as an apparent illusion and w/many apparently inexplicable serendipities and precognitions daily, and now w/some certainty of there being an "all pervasive field", i have come to the Atman/Brahman concept. An all-pervasive field that is conscious and self-aware, and evolving through us, seems to fit and it apparently answers many phenomena in contemporary physics. i have anthropomorphized is as Her/She, just because it feels "right"."
Wow! So much in so few words. First, yes, the unity ("All is One") of the world becomes blatantly obvious at some point in one's developmental course. So too does the illusory nature of appearances; that is to say, "things" are not as they seem. Second, the "inexplicable serendipities and precognitions" are so intriguing because (it seems to me) they are only noticeable when the incessant stream of inner words--the thoughts of the apparent individual--have ceased (or at least diminished to a negligible level of distraction). Third, the "all pervasive field" (which feels both ubiquitous and somehow flowing) for some reason seems to fit better with the "Atman/Brahman concept" as it is usually defined (e.g. "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world") than it does with the Buddha-nature concept which has too many competing definitions. Thus, we have advanced practitioners who start out in Zen Buddhism but take on a Hindu-Sanskrit approach and name, as did Steven Gray who now calls himself Adyashanti. Finally, your felt necessity to anthropomorphize the energetic field as "Her/She" also fits with both the ancient, shamanic goddess notion and the more sophisticated Hindu description of the Goddess Shakti in her many manifestations. She is the matter/energy of all the worlds, dancing on the recumbent formless form of Shiva, the "consciousness-without-an-object" (to borrow a term from Franklin Merrell-Wolff).
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts and intimating the happiness beyond them.
Hi Michael.
DeleteGreat that you found the post useful. Re your comments on the last para, the second point on the "inexplicable serendipities and precognitions" is a good one. "my" days are virtually continuous low probability, but highly symbiotic and fortuitous serendipities and w/many precogs.
The "precogs" are not of the event itself, but of something very unexpected that needs to be done w/o knowing "why". i wrote a post on this, "how do you make your decisions w/no "I"?"
As it isn't possible to run a "control-based, double-blind" experiment, it is not clear whether they were there but just not noticed or if there are more of them. Rich Doyle, a frequent collaborator w/whom i spend hours on a weekly basis, has noted the same effect re serendipities. It has gotten to the point that it is almost a joke at how often, and how unexpectedly, and fortuitously, it happens.
The experience of several "late stage" folk i work with is also that "life works better" the more we are in some sense of "alignment" w/ the Universal field, by having less of the "I" arguing or resisting the Dance, and the more one is surrendered.
i have not "scripted" this in as i don't mention it until someone brings it up. There are several verses in the Bhagavad Gita which talk about this, but i had written it off to spiritual hyperbole, until one sees it in action. The more one is surrendered, the more one is "held".
It was a surprise that i ended up w/"Atman/Brahman" as i knew nothing of advaita Vedanta when the page turned, but, as you point out, nothing else came even close to fitting.
Similarly w/the Goddess, to which i was strongly drawn the last trip to India. i subsequently found that Richard Feynman, the Nobel Laureate, also uses "Her/She".
It is all a strange, wonderful, mystical Dance.
stillness
"Do we really believe that small personal computers would not have developed but for one person's emergence? If you can recall the time, there were many, many offerings competing in both software and hardware. The product might not have been identical, but it would have been very similar. "
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has been "in the thick of it" since the beginning not only would it have happened but it would have happened much more smoothly, efficiently, and far more beneficially for most people had Bill Gates and Microsoft NOT been involved in the early development and subsequent rise of "Personal Computing".
Amazing and thank you Gary!
ReplyDeleteNamaste