The new god is evolution and, frankly, I'm an atheist. First step, I read Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker." That lead me to the works of Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker. It was Pinker that lead me to evolutionary psychology and Wright's well-written, thought provoking book does an excellent job with the subject. After some time to reflect on this book and evolutionary psychology, I'm still an atheist, but my conclusion is that evolutionary psychology (and this book) is MUCH too speculative. the territory is still largely uncharted.
This is not to say that Wrights explanations are not convincing. He does a fantastic job mapping the logic of his arguments- especially the argument for monogamy as an invention to ensure that more males get a chance to mate, leading to increasing diversification through generations. His hypotheses are sharp and well-backed through glimpses at other species and internal logic.
Therein lies two problems. First, untill we can actually witness the past much of the info presented will remain speculation. Even archeological data can only go so far where psychology is concerned. While helpful to biology, physical relics do little to give us a glimpse at pre-historic minds. Second, even when Wright argues a point by it's internal consistency, this does little in the way of expanding science. Science does not care for internal logic. The best evidence is always an theories correspondence to reality. Abstract reason doesn't help and I'm afraid that Wright relies on it a bit too much.
That said, I think that anyone wanting to ponder behavior (both rational and not) will definitely want to sit down with this one- and while the theories desperately need to be treated as tentative, Wrights postulations are certainly reasonable and some of the best I've seen.