Nicholas Wade's "The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved & Why It Endures"

This is a good read. It takes a serious look at an scientific explanation of the religious phenomenon as well as a review of the historical development of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It treads an interesting line between those who would repudiate religion and those who are in thrall to a specific religious viewpoint. It tries very hard to be accurate and fair. And of course this book will be attacked on all sides. It is a tough subject and the partisans on every side are fierce and nobody wants to compromise. Consequently, I enjoyed it.

I felt the book did a modest but not compelling look at evolutionary psychology and the genetic basis of religion. But I'm willing to admit there hasn't been a lot of solid research, so it is understandable that the author reports less than what I would like to hear.

I was pleasantly surprised in the section where he looked at the historical development of the religions. He was stronger in pointing out the myth-making behind all three religions than you normally encounter. I was especially interested in his discussion of Islam because he presented a viewpoint that was new to me: that Mohammed was not a historical person but a concoction after the fact based on a misreading of slogans used by the Jewish/Christian sects that gave rise to Islam. His discussions of the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock and the claim that Abd al-Malik and a radical interpretation of the ruler Abd al-Malik:

In defining a unitary creed for Arab Christianity, 'Abd al-Malik seems to have reached back to this early Syriac tradition of Jesus as a plain human prophet and used it to oppose the Trinitarian approach of Hellenistic Christianity. In the "Praise Jesus" motto he put on his coins and in his great building, the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem, he referred to Jesus, the revisionists say, as the "messenger of God."

Thus in Arabic, 'Abd al-Malik's unifying motto about Jesus was rendered as muhammadun rasul allah -- 'The messenger of God is to be praised." Muhammadun is a gerundive, meaning "one who should be praised." rasul is "messenger" and allah is "God."

To anyone with a passing knowledge of Islam, this is a central phrase of the faith and has an entirely different meaning -- "Muhammad is the messenger of God."

What proof is there that 'Abd al-Malik meant rasul allah to refer to Jesus? The proof, say the revisionists, is unambiguous and is provided by the inscriptions that 'Abd al-Malik had written inside the Dome of the Rock, "Allahum salli ala rasulika wa 'abdika isa ibn maryam -- God bless your messenger and servant, Jesus son of Mary" states the text on the inner northwest-north face of the octogaonal arcade. The inner, east-southeast face includes the words, "Inma I-masih isa ibn maryam rasulu llah -- For the Messaiah Jesus, son of Mary, is the messenger of God."

This was all new to me. Wade admits this is a radical and very much a minority viewpoint, but it is extremely interesting. My guess is that since studies in this area have been repressed this interpretation will gain strength as more scholars investigate it.

The book is thought-provoking and well worth reading. For me, the following snippet wraps up the position Wade takes:

A central problem facing the three monotheisms has arisen from their claims to historicity. These helped recruit believers when the religions were starting to grow. But the price began to be paid when the textual analysis of the nineteenth century uncovered the composite nature of the sacred texts and when Darwin's theory undermined most of what religion had to say about the nature of life. Scholars like Wellhausen showed that the Old and New Testaments were the works of many human hands, and so seemed less likely to have been divinely inspired. Modern archaeology has provided substantial evidence that there was no exodus from Egypt and no conquest of the promised land: the Israelites had always lived in Canaan. The great patriarchs of Israel belonged to legend, not to history. Jesus was a historical figure, but an orthodox Jew who probably sought to reformulate Judaism, not found a new religion; Christianity was developed by his followers from an artful blend of Judaism and the mystery cults that had penetrated the Roman world. As for Muhammad, there is a strange paucity of independent historical evidence about his life; some scholars doubt whether he lived in the Hijaz, where Islamic texts locate him, and a few wonder if he lived at all.

Does it matter that each of the three monotheisms asserts a historical basis not wholly in accordance with the textual and archaeological facts? In many ways it does not matter. Religion is about symbolic communication. The sacred texts of the three monotheisms include themes that symbolize the values and traditions of each religion. Their longevity is a testament to their emotional truth and their enduring value for the civilization constructed around them.

The book is well worth your time. Give it a read!

Here is a NY Times Book Review by Judith Shulevitz.

Here is an very thorough review by Razib Khan on ScienceBlogs.