All Comments for: Divine Devolution | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > July

Christianity Today, July, 2009 |

Divine Devolution

Robert Wright thinks God is okay, as long as he behaves like a secular humanist.

Dinesh D'Souza | posted 7/07/2009 09:01AM

There are three kinds of people: those who believe in God, those who don't, and those who believe in belief. Robert Wright is a member of the third group. He calls himself an unbeliever who holds that ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

http://ketch22.wordpress.com

Posted: July 10, 2009 2:29 PM


I agree totally with Gary G. Saves me some time writing!

Tom Tomshany

Posted: July 10, 2009 7:55 AM

As a teacher, whatever situation I encounter, even those things that might be embarrassing or challenging or threatening to me, I ask, "Can we learn something from this? Can we make it an opportunity to learn?" The challenge in Wright's book, as described by D'Souza, is "going back" and looking at the radical and revolutionary ideas of Love introduced to the Middle East by Jesus of Nazareth. Not only was Jesus a Model of Compassion, he was deceptively clever. His insistence upon individual salvation through loving others as ourselves, of forgiving others as we hope God will forgive us, of personal sacrifice to help those in need offers not only salvation for us, but a radical transformation of society. Sadly, Christendom has often ignored Jesus's admonitions. Wright and D'Souza need to distinguish Core beliefs from Core believers. Our Friend Kiekegaard warned us that "disciples distort." Science and scholarship are critical tools in our evolution, but Jesus's radical Love is essential.

SteveA

Posted: July 09, 2009 10:36 AM

I think it is interesting how the word "evolution" gets used in various contexts. Wright's use of it to talk about the change of over time of views of various groups of people about something (God/religion/faith) has NOTHING to do with the idea of biological, Darwinian evolution driven by natural selection and random mutation. But, no doubt, it was used to evoke the idea of Darwinian evolution and the common conflict between proponents of Darwinian evolution and various believers, and to imply some synthesis to overcome (or render irrelevant) that conflict. It seems fundamentally dishonest to me.

Gary G

Posted: July 09, 2009 6:48 AM

A Disciple commented.."Only three kinds of people? What about a fourth, viz.: those who have seen, know personally and believe for keeps in the final, open-vision of a self-revealing God as promised in the Scriptures and presented in the gospel of Jesus Christ?" Does anyone see the problem here? I could find lots of people from Islam, Buddism, Taoism, and dozens and dozens who could honestly say the same statement about their religious experience. They can't all be right! But, they can all be wrong. Early man needed something to explain why things, terrible things, happened in their lives. It was evolutionarily benificial. As society developed, so did religious expression. This occured in all the religious traditions, whatever they may be. All the world's religions basically deal with the same needs of man to have some control over his environment. But due to each religion's exclusivity, only they have the "truth." Again, they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Sorry.

Christianity

Posted: July 08, 2009 3:21 PM

Dinesh D'Souza concludes that the book is disappointing because of Wright's failure to provide good answers to important questions such as proof that religions that refuse to evolve in his recommended direction are doomed to decay. This conclusion implies that D'Souza thinks that in heaven and on God's earth such proofs are even possible. Such an article by such a writer does not belong on a Christian forum. Quite clearly we need solid teaching to encourage our faith; such as the truth that even if the heavens fell in and the earth was burned up and every nation broke out into warfare with its neighbors and earthquakes and floods and pandemics and economic crises broke out, God would still be enthroned and holy and supreme and justified and magnified by his apostles and disciples and his faithful few.

A Disciple

Posted: July 08, 2009 4:31 AM

Only three kinds of people? What about a fourth, viz.: those who have seen, know personally and believe for keeps in the final, open-vision of a self-revealing God as promised in the Scriptures and presented in the gospel of Jesus Christ? As far as Jesus is concerned, his divine essence or being is dependant not on what he may or may not have said but on his conclusive works at his death on the cross --the place of the "living" from where he still reveals himself in great glory and speaks loud and clear. This is the exclusive but neglected common forum present in the Scriptures of the Jews, Christians and Muslims that deserves the highest priority in prayer, research and study!

Robert M

Posted: July 07, 2009 9:29 PM

While I agree, in the main, with D'Souza, his dismissal of what this well-written book says because of its manifest bias toward globalized humanism, the deeper thesis of the book is left unaddressed here. That is: facts on the ground seem, historically, to change theological ideas as much, or more so than the other way around. "As below, so above." Even if one dismisses this with regard to scripture, it is clearly true of many aspects of classical and conservative theology throughout Christian history. The times shape even the most conservative theology. Roman theology sees this as the 'living voice' of the Spirit in the Church. I'd be interested to see a conservative evangelical account of the same.

Basil

Posted: July 07, 2009 6:17 PM


Quote from Article "There are three kinds of people: those who believe in God, those who don't, and those who believe in belief" The last on the list sounds like most Evangelicals of the more very traditional, Calvinish get your eschatology just right type of folk.

Bob D.

Posted: July 07, 2009 6:01 PM

According to the evolutionistl life evolved because of the big bang, but before the big bang there was matter out there in the heavens boiling up waiting to explode and form our galaxy, I would just like to ask the athiest how this matter came about,they will probably tell you it has always been there, but I would like to know how it got there, if they tell me that it was alway there I will tell them that a greater power than their minds can persieve created that matter , and He is called God, and for all the athiest out there, when you die and you will, all your questions will be answered. One of will be right and one of us will be wrong, I for one am betting on God.

Tyler P

Posted: July 07, 2009 5:50 PM

Compare to comments Tony Blair made about religion being secondary to global trade on Fareed Zakaria's first Global Public Square on CNN: http://cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/01/fzgps.01.html He makes the comments in relationship to Islam, but he uses the looser language of "religion." Essentially, he says if your faith makes you act contrary to globalization, it's negative. Otherwise, it's a positive force. Very similar, utilitarian perspective that has become quite pervasive, presented from a very political position.

John	Posted: July 07, 2009 4:48 PM


Dinesh D'Souza? I don't think god needs this partisan hack to defend him...

Patrick Gann

Posted: July 07, 2009 2:24 PM

meh. Seems like a rather fruitless book. Moral Animals is probably Wright's superior work (as the reviewer suggests). --- I also tire of people using "God" as a buzzword in their book/article titles when all they're really talkign about is man-made religion. There is no real theology in this book, particularly since the author sees no reason to acknowledge a divinity other than utilitarianism (and what are the poor, god-deprived intellectuals to do in the face of the truth that God doesn't really exist?). To be frank, I loathe arguments like the one Wright appears to be making. I don't want a helpful illusion. If my options were "believe in fairytales" or "despair that there is no God and no justice in the universe," I'll take the latter. Fortunately, the option "believe in a very real, living God" seems to be a good alternative. How Wright performs enough mental gymnastics to say "believing in God is good, even though there is no God" baffles me.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment