Via Jonah Goldberg, a comment from Theodore Dalrymple (an atheist whom I admire much):

This sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple, with the assumption of certainty where there is none, combined with adolescent shrillness and intolerance, reach an apogee in Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith. It is not easy to do justice to the book’s nastiness; it makes Dawkins’s claim that religious education constitutes child abuse look sane and moderate.

Harris tells us, for example, that “we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.” I am glad that I am old enough that I shall not see the future of reason as laid down by Harris; but I am puzzled by the status of the compulsion in the first sentence that I have quoted. Is Harris writing of a historical inevitability? Of a categorical imperative? Or is he merely making a legislative proposal? This is who-will-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-priest language, ambiguous no doubt, but not open to a generous interpretation.

It becomes even more sinister when considered in conjunction with the following sentences, quite possibly the most disgraceful that I have read in a book by a man posing as a rationalist: “The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

Let us leave aside the metaphysical problems that these three sentences raise. For Harris, the most important question about genocide would seem to be: “Who is genociding whom?”

I agree with Harris that there is a link between belief and behavior. But Harris hasn't studied his history: in contemporary times, those who murdered the most innocent people said and believed precisely what Harris believes. By the logic of his own argument (logic I heartily reject, mind you), he should thus be preemptively killed.

I work in a very small company -- less than a dozen employees -- and have heard the same sentiment expressed, verbatim, by two employees: that religion is "the whole problem" with the world -- and know two others think likewise, but have not yet said it quite that way. "The whole problem?" Thus, presumably, if we eliminate religion -- meaning we remove from society the people who cling tenaciously to it -- our largest problems will all disappear. Once you accept that proposition, the logic seems temptingly inexorable. (Who wouldn't love utopia?) First comes the thinking and talking, later comes the organized killing.

I cannot fathom the idiotic, astoundingly ahistorical bubble these otherwise intelligent people occupy. How dense do you have to be not to have noticed Communism or the copious bloodshed of the quite-so-secular French Revolution? How astoundingly ignorant of human nature do you have to be to believe that religion is the primary or only cause of friction between people, rather than greed, jealousy, pride, envy, lust, desire for power -- and a whole host of other motives -- motives which sometimes even conscript ethical systems (such as religions) for cover?

No, no. It's only, or mainly, religion.

It must be pathetic to go through life with John Lennon as your main source for "deep" philosophical insight.

I know Harris's objection too well: "Well, Communism was really also a lot like a religion." Why, yes, Harris, it was. Which should tell you, o bright one, that atheists are succeptable (and even prone!) to far more dangerous religions than those who believe in something more benign and fixed, such as love your neighbor.

To any who are worried by this particular set of atheists: don't be. Not yet. They're not making traction, and our society (even many of our atheists) are largely immunized to their particular siren song. The next major murderous meme will not be that religion is the whole problem, but rather than intolerant, exclusive interpretations of religions are the whole problem. More in a future post, perhaps.

Until then: Best to you all! Including those of you who think as Harris does -- I wish you no harm.