> The nature of the book necessitates gross generalizations. It literally could not be anything else.
If you say so.
I don't think that's a shield against criticism. His treatment of humanism is asinine. In addition to engaging in gross generalizations on the topic, he is - to use your words - "really wrong." Getting the history of modern ideas right seems like it ought to be the easy part with a book like this, particularly if you're content with generalizations.
Although it's a serious enough error that it might be more than just a "gross generalization." I certainly think it is.