Misrepresentation #4: Muhammad's God. In addition to misunderstanding me, Coyne misunderstands the Koran. He writes: "It is nice of Wright to remark [in reference to a particular Koranic passage] that Jews and Christians will gain salvation so long as they believe in God, but he fails to mention that this saving God is the Islamic god, Allah." Coyne's assumption that Muhammad thought of Allah as different from the God of Christians and Jews is popular among laypeople (especially on the right), but it's not very popular among scholars of Islamic history. In the Koran, Muhammad explicitly sayshe's talking about the God of Christians and Jews, and he repeatedly grounds the history of that God in the Torah and the Gospels. In the theological arguments Muhammad had with Jews or Christians, there's no evident disagreement over the identity of God himself. In fact, contrary to the popular accounts of Islamic history with which Coyne may be familiar, chances are good that Arab Christians and Jews referred to God as Allah.
Coyne will now be given a chance to reply to this. In the likely event that I find his reply in need of corrective comment, I'll post my comment at www.evolutionofgod.net/coyne--where, again, readers can find a fuller list of Coyne's misrepresentations of my book. Together, these misrepresentations form the foundation of most of his criticism of the book. If Coyne wants to write a devastating review of The Evolution of God--and he sure seems to want to--he'll have to start over.
Robert Wright is Editor in Chief of Bloggingheads.tv and the author of The Moral Animal (Pantheon, 1994), Nonzero (Pantheon, 2000), and The Evolution of God (Little, Brown, 2009). He is a contributing editor for The New Republic and a contributor to Time and Slate.
Jerry A. Coyne responds:
Robert Wright fails to respond to my main criticism: that there is no "scientific" evidence for a transcendent force which, by coupling social interaction to theological change, pulls humanity toward ever greater morality. Instead, his defense rests on selectively quoting his own book. (I've posted a longer response at http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/response-to-robert-wright/.)
I'll take up Wright's four points in order.
1. While Wright asserts that the origin of monotheism was attended by belligerence, his book states unequivocally that the adoption of monotheism was critical in our march toward moral progress: "To the extent that we can tell, the one true God--the God of Jews, then of Christians, and then of Muslims--was originally a god of vengeance. Fortunately, the previous sentence has a hidden asterisk: But it doesn't matter. The salvation of the world in the twenty-first century may well hinge on how peaceful and tolerant Abrahamic monotheism is. But it doesn't hinge on whether these attributes were built in at monotheism's birth. That's because monotheism turns out to be, morally speaking, a very malleable thing, something that, when circumstances are auspicious, can be a fount of tolerance and compassion. As we'll see in later chapters, this fact is manifest in the subsequent history of Jews, Christians, and Muslims."
2. Although Wright denies claiming that Paul extended Christian love to those of other faiths, his book states this several times. One example: "Actually, though Paul doesn't say ‘Love your enemies,' he comes pretty close. So close, in fact, as to suggest that he did sense the logic behind it--that, in fact, he may be the one who injected the idea into Christian literature."
3 & 4. Wright seems not to recognize that Islam--which ultimately gave precedence to divisive over amiable theology and sanctified the decidedly belligerent post-Koranic hadith-- violates his own thesis of long-term theological progress. And, while he recognizes some antipathy in the Koran, Wright downplays it. For example, he cherry-picks a Koranic verse in which Muhammad considers Islam's god identical to that of Christians and Jews. But he fails to mention verses insisting that salvation is attainable only by worshipping God in an Islamic way. Twice, for example, it specifies that anyone who considers Jesus as the son of God will roast in the fires of hell.
Wright can selectively quote himself like this, because his book repeatedly hedges on some pretty fundamental points. Although claiming to reject mystical forces, Wright constantly reassures us that biology and history exude scientific evidence for a "larger purpose" and "a special creative explanation." This pervasive waffling makes it easy for him to claim that any interpretation of his book is wrong.
Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and the author most recently of Why Evolution Is True (Viking).
.jpg)
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.