Dionne's polemic asserts it is drawing a conclusion from presented data, but I see no bridge between the data and the conclusion. Moral realism, and moral certainty, do not require the election of an external entity to be compelling. They DO require a commitment to ethics; and this requires a certains sense of spirituality, as opposed to the mode ofbeing self-serving meatballs.

Dawkins is as earnest and passionate as anyone, in the service of human rationality. Harris gets a bit into armwaving, but both of them are under the duress of bucking major trends in their times, so I cut them some slack on that score.

A