Well, at least in this small field:
Before there are any reviews, I will now predict the two most common tactics the faithful (and faitheists) will use to go after it (both of which are discussed and dismissed in the book, but the petulant won’t notice).
1. “Coyne attacks a caricature of religion, one that nobody believes in. It’s typical New Atheist strawmanning.” This is what I call the Eagleton/Armstrong Gambit. People who use it need to get out more.
2. “Coyne assumes that religion is largely based on factual propositions: beliefs about what is true. That’s an old-fashioned and obsolete version of religion. Religion isn’t about truths; it’s about community and morality and feeling.” Sadly, the data show that while religion does have these other functions, it’s simply not the case that truth is irrelevant. Even theologians (the honest ones) admit that without an underpinning of beliefs about what’s really true about the universe, religion crumbles. Where would Christianity be if adherents thought that Jesus’s divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection were just a fictitious but convenient framework on which to hang their emotions? Would Mormons wear their sacred underwear if they knew Joseph Smith was really a con man who fabricated those plates? Do the Sophisticated Critics really believe that if Muslims knew for certain that Muhammed didn’t get the Qur’an from the mouth of God, via an angel, but made it up himself, that Islam would have the sway it does? Get serious.
Bring ’em on (but take a number)!
And feel free to add your own predictions. After all, the reactions to books that criticize religion are almost 100% predictable.