2 of 3

Wright proceeds with several chapters on Muhammad and Islam, and here, too, is his narrative distinguished by its lack of distinction. There are so many interesting things to say about Islam, but Wright seems content to argue that Muhammad's political pragmatism shows that he was not a religious zealot. Wright's conclusion may be correct, but his argument confuses means and ends. Showing Muhammad's pragmatism in operational practice, as Wright does, tells you nothing about how strongly or fanatically Muhammad held his beliefs. In other words, it is quite possible for a religious or political leader to be a zealot in ideology while being ruthlessly pragmatic in promoting that ideology.

Admittedly, Wright's section on Islam is well intentioned. He seeks to demonstrate that there is no straight line that connects Muhammad to bin Laden, and that Islamic radicals have seized upon a few verses in the Qur'an in order to justify their bloodthirsty rampages. I agree with Wright on this. But Wright promptly moves to more dubious ground. Regretting the "problem" passages that seem to justify violence in the Qur'an and also in the Bible, Wright speculates that "if we could magically replace the Qur'an with a book of our choosing, or could magically replace the Bible with a book of our choosing, we could probably make Muslims, Jews, and Christians better people." But would people actually be improved if they stopped reading these holy books and took up, say, Darwin's On the Origin of Species or Wright's own works? I would love to hear Wright answer this question.

If Wright's book has a single redeeming virtue, it is that he shows throughout that the findings of modern science support and corroborate the main claims of religion. For example, Wright recognizes that the grim Darwinian picture of man's evolution fits pretty well with the Christian idea of fallen humanity, even if problems remain in reconciling evolutionary biology with the Genesis account of human origins. Wright also notes that evolutionary accounts of morality affirm traditional religious precepts such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But you could have found these things out by reading The Moral Animal.

The Evolution of God ends abruptly with a suggestion for religious reform. Wright insists that the major religions of the world have evolved—but not enough. They have failed to "align individual salvation with social salvation." No less than the "salvation of the planet," according to Wright, depends on this. And further, "Any religion whose prerequisites for individual salvation don't conduce to the salvation of the world is a religion whose time has passed."

To show this, Wright needs to make the case that the conflicts jeopardizing the planet today are caused primarily by religious differences. This he just assumes. Moreover, Wright must demonstrate some plausible route by which religions can modify their precepts from what believers hold to be true into what Wright holds to be useful. No such route is offered. Finally, Wright's argument requires some proof that religions that refuse to evolve in his recommended direction are doomed to decay. He offers no evidence whatsoever for this. It is Wright's failure to provide good answers to important questions that makes The Evolution of God, in the end, a disappointing book.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

July 2009, Vol. 53, No. 7