A reader butts in:
I agree with you that the views in Sam Harris's book(s) are important because they are on people's minds and must be said without bullshit, but we also must ask whether his extreme views of the world's major religions are truly representative of those religions before we can argue with him about why faith isn't null. If all he wants to say is that religion is unnecessary because we have science, and that religion cannot co-exist with science (which is an odd claim considering that many of the great scientists of the West were passionately religious) then please proceed with the discussion, I'm interested in the debate.
If he wants to argue that religion is dangerous because religions like Islam are inherently violent and isolating, well then he'd have to at least answer to the facts that the Quran makes clear that one must not be the aggressor, but rather one must only fight those who attack or oppress one; and that Islam accepts Jews and Christians as people of the book – that the Quran is said not to be the one true word of God, but the Final Revelation from God to mankind – including Jewish texts, Christian texts, and their Prophets, as earlier Revelations from God.
On my current reading list are Vali Nasr's "The Shia Revival," and Reza Aslan's "No god but God." I am convinced there is a future for a humble Christianity; but in all truth, I do not know enough to make a serious, similar argument about Islam. Hence my attempt to understand more.
The Dish 