The Aljazeera article does a slightly better job of exposing problems with Harris’ conclusions. Both it and this article do a horrible job of considering what he has to say about the failure of cultural relativism. How does bemoaning “the loss of liberal moral clarity” confirm that Harris is anti-Muslim? I would suggest clicking through to the direct words of Sam Harris for clarification.
And why not actually defend theology instead of dancing around that issue? If the values from the Iron Age are not (relative to ours) “madness”, then what are they? You don’t defend them, you only attack Harris’ words. Clearly Harris is addressing tribalism and honor killing, not the Golden Rule. In your claim of his 3 assumptions, can you refute 1 and 2? Harris would say the 3rd is inaccurate. I have heard him defend theological claims when they do give us accurate world views.
Harris is clearly on the side of less suffering. How you get from there to “belligerent”, I don’t know.
More information about text formats