Via The Colgate Twins, I discover that Jerry Coyne reviewed Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God and now Wright is complaining that Coyne misrepresented his views.

I had previously seen Wright’s book at a Borders, looked at it in part because I mistakenly thought I had read something else by him, and then realized the book looked pretty boring. Also, based on Wright’s response and the excerpts on his website, I think Coyne nailed the general nature of the book–an “intellectual feel-good book.” Wright insists he’s not saying anything that Peter Singer and Steven Pinker haven’t said already, and if that’s true then Wright’s main contribution seems to be dressing up those ideas in religious garb. Why do such a thing? Only so the book will appeal to the not-so-coveted Unitarian market, and the much-coveted market of “people who would be Unitarians if they weren’t so fond of sleeping in on Sundays.”

Also, in the case of the biggest misrepresentation, it’s clear the problem is Wright’s own damn fault: Wright says that the line Coyne quoted as a source for his views on God was just an explanation of what the Bible says, not Wright’s own beliefs, but in the excerpt it really isn’t clear. The style of writing–where flat statements and scriptural commentary blur together–is usually a sign that the writer assumes we have a duty to believe everything the text says, or at least as much of it as possible (if the writer is liberal).

In spite of all this, I’m still curious to know how justified the other things Coyne says in his review are. So I’m going to end up checking the book out from the Notre Dame library, which I am (un?)luckily sitting in as I type this post.

IN OTHER BOOK NEWS: I also read Karen Armstrong’s The Case for God recently. You can read Jerry Coyne’s dis here, but here’s my take: it’s basically a history of religion book with lots of claims that are beyond my ability to judge, but I do know that when Armstrong talks about Aquinas, she’s basically making stuff up.