I also did find the irony that he “prayed”. He obviously has faith in someone or something other than himself.

You got some kind of daughter to have THAT book on her Christmas list. That’s a heck of a read…

Sounds like you raised her quite well…or should that honor go to Sonya? :-D

Interestingly, Smith’s book is on my daughter’s Christmas list. I’ll borrow it from her.

It is at this point that some of the thought found in postmodernism is actually a friend of the church. The postmodern critique of scientific rationalism pulls the rug out from under what they perceive as the great controlling verifiers of truth: rationalism and science. When we engage them by their own rules we end up with Ray Comfort holding a banana declaring it to be the atheist’s worst nightmare. When we undermine their rules we open up an opportunity to subvert their claims with an equally profound (and even greater) argument. For balance read James K A Smith’s Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church.

I’m not convinced that these authors are able to be more careful. After reading two of them, it’s as if there is not even the remotest possibility that “religion” might contain truth. Science and secular morality rule the day. To hold any opinion not confirmed in the lab is irrational. Hitchens says, “Any assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” The problem is that they ignore ALL evidence that supports the integrity of scripture thereby “predismissing” any evidence that is in opposition to their worldview.

Thanks again for taking the time to review these books.

While these two statements are chilling enough on their own, read together they are even worse: “We need a world government…Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.” I guess we should assume that this future world government would help to police those governments and world leaders who would proffer religious faith or encourage others to do the same? It seems that what we have here is the proposal of a worldwide, rationalistic, secular fundamentalism, a prospect no less frightening to me than a world operated on the basis of Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, etc.

Regarding his misunderstanding of Christianity: Rarely do I get worked up over the way secularists treat Christianity because I am certain that the Gospel will always be a source of derision among unbelievers. And, what you have presented from Sam Harris is no different. But, when an author publishes blatantly oversimplified and exaggerated claims about any belief system, not the least of which Christianity, it speaks ill not only of the author, but the publisher as well. You’d think a professional writer and philosopher would seek to be more careful. It is very sad when philosophy or theology becomes pure ideology and prevents truly rational discussion.

Grace and peace,

Emily