Robert Wright responds:
The title of my book refers not to biological evolution but to the evolution of the human conception of God. So it's odd that The New Republic chose a biologist, Jerry A. Coyne, to review the book ("Creationism for Liberals," August 12). But it turns out that Coyne's misplaced expertise wasn't the main problem. Of his many serious misrepresentations of my book, most seem rooted in a simple failure to read it--or read it attentively, at least. Here is a small sample of Coyne's errors. A longer list can be found at www.evolutionofgod.net/coyne.
Misrepresentation #1:The evolution of monotheism. Coyne says I posit a "relentlessly progressive evolution of religion" and depict "theology's linear march toward goodness and light." (He doesn't provide any quotes from my book that would support this characterization, and there's a reason for that.) He then writes, "One can in fact make a good case that, contrary to Wright's claim, ethics went downhill as religion evolved--specifically, that it declined in the transition from polytheism to monotheism."
An ethical decline in the transition from polytheism to monotheism is contrary to my view? I encourage Professor Coyne to dip into Chapters 6 and 7, "From Polytheism to Monolatry" and "From Monolatry to Monotheism." The core argument is that ancient Israel moved from a polytheism that reflected a tolerant cosmopolitanism (sponsored by kings with internationalist foreign policies) to a monotheism that was, at its birth during the Babylonian exile, belligerently intolerant (and whose emergence had been abetted by highly nationalist kings, notably the brutally authoritarian Josiah). I expressly dismiss the common view that monotheism was "morally universalistic from its birth" and characterize the mood that motivated this birth as "closer to hatred than to love, closer to retribution than to compassion." Immediately after the Babylonian exile, I argue, Israel's religion did make moral progress, becoming more tolerant of, even compassionate toward, non-Israelites in neighboring lands. But this isn't a function of monotheism; it reflects the fact that many of Israel's erstwhile enemies were now fellow members of the Persian Empire and so no longer threats. I would have expected the same moral progress had Israel remained polytheistic. (In general, the fitful moral progress I do see in religion over the millennia is driven by this sort of expansion of the scope of social organization.)
Misrepresentation #2: Christian inclusiveness.Coyne says that I cast the Apostle Paul's teachings as "a momentous change in Christian theology: an extension of love to non-Christian foreigners." Wrong again. What I say is that Paul extended love across ethnic and national bounds, not religious bounds. In fact, I emphasize that if you read Paul's fine print, you see that "brotherly love" is meant to apply to Christians of the various ethnicities and nationalities. I underscore the distinction in such Pauline passages as, "Let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith." I write, "This is the kind of love Paul usually preaches--love directed first and foremost toward other Christians." And I note that, once Christianity became the official Roman church, the line drawn by Paul between Christian and non-Christian became even starker; there was now government-backed "intolerance of non-Christians. So, in moral terms, it isn't clear that Paul's mission culminated in progress." So, when Coyne spends a paragraph triumphantly establishing that "Paul is not promoting love among those of different faiths," and says that this fact calls into question my "sunny view of the progress of theology," it isn't clear whom he's arguing with. Not me.
Misrepresentation #3: Belligerence and tolerance in the Koran. The rhetorical technique shown above--attributing to me views I don't in fact hold, then attacking those views with arguments I myself make--is a favorite of Coyne's. As if in refutation of me, he writes: "Moreover, there is no evidence for an increase in morality in the Qur'an over the years of its composition between 610 and 632 C.E. On the contrary: As Islamic scholars recognize, the later chapters, written after Muhammad's famous flight from Mecca to Medina, display decidedly less tolerance than the earlier ones." No kidding! I guess that would explain why I write that "the earlier suras, revealed in Mecca, tended to be more tolerant." It would also explain why Chapter 15 is titled "Mecca" and features tolerant verses--and ends with the ominous sentence, "Muhammad was about to acquire real power, and things were about to change"--whereas the subsequent two chapters ("Medina" and "Jihad") feature belligerent verses. That my book acknowledges any belligerence in the Koran may surprise readers of Coyne's review. Coyne says I find "tolerance of Christians and Jews" in the Koran by using a "needle-in-the-haystack" approach, and he then sets out to enlighten me about the many intolerant Koranic passages. His first example is this: "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other."
As it happens, the same passage can be found in my book. Why didn't Coyne know this? Maybe he was confused by the fact that I used a different translation. ("O Believers! take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another's friends.") Or, maybe, his eyes never fell on that particular page--or on the pages where I quote numerous other belligerent Koranic passages. (I argue that some of these verses, when read in context, are less indiscriminately belligerent than they may sound. Coyne probably disagrees, judging by his attitude toward Islam generally, and I'd be interested in hearing his counterarguments.)
Print
COMMENTS (4)
There's too much here, and I will admit not having read the book, but even Coyne's replies here betray a tendency to see what he wants to see in Wright's work -- that is to say, only what he dislikes. In his reply to point 1, I cannot see how that quotation from Wright "unequivocally" states anything of the sort. Saying that Abrahamic monotheism was flexible enough that it "could be," in the right circumstances, a source of tolerance hardly claims that it was critical to some kind of moral progress.
As for Paul's preaching love of non-Christians, I am not convinced that Wright claims this even once, if the quotation Coyne chooses to prove it is the best one available. So Paul tended to ... view full comment
There's too much here, and I will admit not having read the book, but even Coyne's replies here betray a tendency to see what he wants to see in Wright's work -- that is to say, only what he dislikes. In his reply to point 1, I cannot see how that quotation from Wright "unequivocally" states anything of the sort. Saying that Abrahamic monotheism was flexible enough that it "could be," in the right circumstances, a source of tolerance hardly claims that it was critical to some kind of moral progress.
As for Paul's preaching love of non-Christians, I am not convinced that Wright claims this even once, if the quotation Coyne chooses to prove it is the best one available. So Paul tended towards a "love your enemies" view -- does that necessarily have anything to do with non-Christians? It is not incompatible with what Wright says he actually meant.
The most charitable compromise view for a third party is that Wright has written a complicated, messy book, in the face of which Coyne's biases lead him to imagine that he can't agree with any of it.
I have to admit, I lost a great deal of respect for Dr. Coyne in the course of the review and this exchange. I am honestly not sure what motivates his agressive and insistent misreading of Wright's book, but his review was a real low for TNR.
Much of what Coyne said in the review was a perfectly reasonable refutation of some silly ideas. But none of the ideas appear in Wright's book, except in the same way that a ransom note appears in the New York Times.
I find it hard to see how an honest reader could come away from Wright's book with the impressions that Coyne conveys.
I can only assume that either:
1) Coyne is so overwrought about either the title of the book (Evolution and God in the sam ... view full comment
I have to admit, I lost a great deal of respect for Dr. Coyne in the course of the review and this exchange. I am honestly not sure what motivates his agressive and insistent misreading of Wright's book, but his review was a real low for TNR.
Much of what Coyne said in the review was a perfectly reasonable refutation of some silly ideas. But none of the ideas appear in Wright's book, except in the same way that a ransom note appears in the New York Times.
I find it hard to see how an honest reader could come away from Wright's book with the impressions that Coyne conveys.
I can only assume that either:
1) Coyne is so overwrought about either the title of the book (Evolution and God in the same sentence?) that he didn't bother to read it before he drafted the review.
or
2) there's something personal in his drive to refute a Wright that doesn't exist.
Not sure which option makes Coyne better, but this is an amazing exchange for a scientist to participate in.
We, the readers of the magazine, need the Editors to step in on this one and review the original essay by Jerry Coyne. The author provides some strong evidence that his book was either misunderstood or not actually read by the reviewer. The giveaway that worries me is Mr. Coyne's first sentence in his response. Such misdirection of "well, he never disputed my main point" is often how people who didn't do their homework try to defend themselves. It's not hard proof, but something is fishy here. The integrity of the magazine's reviews is central to the integrity of the magazine. It's happened before, and TNR would be as much a victim as the reader.This dispute needs some adults to step i ... view full comment
We, the readers of the magazine, need the Editors to step in on this one and review the original essay by Jerry Coyne. The author provides some strong evidence that his book was either misunderstood or not actually read by the reviewer. The giveaway that worries me is Mr. Coyne's first sentence in his response. Such misdirection of "well, he never disputed my main point" is often how people who didn't do their homework try to defend themselves. It's not hard proof, but something is fishy here. The integrity of the magazine's reviews is central to the integrity of the magazine. It's happened before, and TNR would be as much a victim as the reader.This dispute needs some adults to step in and fact check this.
Well, I haven't read the book either, nor am I inclined to as it sounds dreadful -- in Coyne's review, other reviews, various quotes, the dust jacket, a little time at the bookstore -- but the comments here seem too quick to judge Coyne harshly. I'll ask miceelf, if he has read the book, to tell us what he thinks the *point* of Wright's book is. It is ostensibly making arguments. It is not merely a dispassionate account of selected items of religious and theological history. Coyne is attacking those arguments, while highlighting what Coyne sees as an irritating habit on Wright's part of stepping back from them. For Coyne, the result is that Wright is either wrong or not saying anything. ... view full comment
Well, I haven't read the book either, nor am I inclined to as it sounds dreadful -- in Coyne's review, other reviews, various quotes, the dust jacket, a little time at the bookstore -- but the comments here seem too quick to judge Coyne harshly. I'll ask miceelf, if he has read the book, to tell us what he thinks the *point* of Wright's book is. It is ostensibly making arguments. It is not merely a dispassionate account of selected items of religious and theological history. Coyne is attacking those arguments, while highlighting what Coyne sees as an irritating habit on Wright's part of stepping back from them. For Coyne, the result is that Wright is either wrong or not saying anything. (I'd recommend reading Coyne's full-length response at his website -- and Wright's too, although Wright does a better job of summarizing his main points here than does Coyne.)
Borenstein, not having read the book either I gather, does the sensible thing of focusing on the back-and-forth in order to gain clues as to substance. (As in, does Wright have an answer for x? Does Coyne respond to y? Etc.) He finds suspicious Coyne's opening emphasis on the main thrust of his criticism, which, Coyne says, Wright doesn't refute. I would have thought that Wright's failure to address Coyne's main points is more revealing than Coyne's highlighting of that failure.
From what I can gather from the back-and-forth, Wright's thesis is that religion has become more inclusive over time, that this amounts to long-term moral progress in the area of religion, which is consistent with long-term moral progress generally, and that this moral progress is plausible evidence of the existence of a higher purpose and, possibly, God. I also gather that Wright is coy about the last part, putting it forward as a possibility and using a lot of questions marks and so on, as in the following:
"If 'God' indeed grows, and grows with stubborn persistence, does this mean that we can start thinking about taking the quotation marks off? That is: If the human conception of god features moral growth, and if this reflects corresponding moral growth on the part of humanity itself, and if humanity's moral growth flows from basic dynamics underlying history, and if we conclude that this growth is therefore evidence of 'higher purpose,' does this amount to evidence of an actual god?"
This is very silly, and is probably the sort of thing that irritates the crap out of Coyne. (The fact that Coyne is annoyed by the book doesn't mean that he's got some sort of personal grudge. He's actually annoyed by the book, as far as I can tell.) Yes, Wright doesn't formally *conclude* that this notion is true. But he makes the argument nonetheless, giving it weight it and legitimacy, portraying it as a possibly *rational* conclusion based on the evidence. This is the point at which Coyne's head explodes, and mine too, to be honest. The above quote was cited by Coyne in his review, and Wright never argued that it was taken out of context. Indeed, Wright suggested that the closing paragraphs of Coyne's review, which contain the quote, did fairly represent his view. If so, that's pretty devestating, and Coyne's overall take is confirmed.
As for monotheism, Paul, and Islam, I think Coyne's points are these: Wright seeks to, at least, fit monotheism within the long-term progression he is describing, but it's hardly clear that monotheism has anything to do with it. Wright, in talking about it, in ascribing to monotheism a malleability necessary to meet the supposed progression toward greater morality, seems to say a little more. We're then faced with Coyne's problem with Wright: If he's *not* saying more, then what *is* he saying, and why? Regarding Paul, Coyne points to passages that likewise seem to want to fit Paul within the overall narrative but perhaps don't get the job done. So, once again, what's your point, Wright? Coyne's most potent arguments concern Islam, which, in numerous ways, seems to buck the supposed long-term positive trend that is the backbone of Wright's book. And that's all before we get to Wright's infuriating nods in the direction of mystical forces at work.
My impression is that Wright's book is not very serious and will serve largely as a phony comfort to religious moderates who seek to have their creation and their evolution too, who will now have an ostensibly secular, respectable, rational evaluation of the evidence to support that belief. Coyne doesn't like that, because the evidence simply will not take you there.