Be Skeptical of the Skeptics

In today's Statesman, Eileen Flynn introduces readers to Robert Wright's book, The Evolution of God. Eileen and I correspond, I enjoy her biweekly Statesman column, and I follow her blog (The Grand Scheme).

Wright's book caught her eye because "there's nothing worse for a journalist trying to gain a better understanding of religion than to read a sugar-coated monument to a faith" and "sugar-coated Wright's tome is not."

In fact, Flynn points out that Wright manages to annoy nearly everyone at some point throughout his book--"Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists and perhaps New Age spiritual types." So much so that he wonders (probably in jest) where he might be invited to speak or hold book-signing events outside of certain theologically liberal synagogues and churches.

No doubt, Wright's book has to be both intelligent and engaging for it to catch the attention of someone as intelligent and engaging as Eileen. However, as I wote in reply to the article online:

You contrast Wright's "historically honest" review of these ancient faiths with the "sugar-coated" renditions put forth by advocates of these faiths. No doubt we should take the view of every advocate with a grain of salt, but I reserve a few grains of salt for the view of every skeptic as well. Everyone has an axe to grind. Everyone. So, what's Wright's?

Be skeptical of the skeptics and doubt the doubters. There's only acknowledged bias and unacknowledged bias--there's no such thing as unbiased. No one is neutral with the way they handle historical details, and those with an acknowledged bias can still handle historical details reliably. Larry Hurtado and N.T. Wright come to mind, for starters--two historians Robert Wright should engage if he wants to test his belief that the New Testament reveals an "evolution" of Jesus from an itinerant Judean teacher to Son of God.