This book is short and to the point, and most people will either love it or hate it, depending on their religion (or lack of).

I used to be a fundamentalist Christian who has chosen to follow another path. Part of me agreed with much of what was said in this book, but there is a part of me that began to play the devil's advocate. For example, when Mr. Harris began discussing why those areas of the United States that tend to be the most religious also tend to have more crime, I was thinking back to my college psychology days about how correlations do not prove causation.

All in all, it's an interesting little book, but it could have been better. ( )

While agreeing with everything Sam Harris said in this book I kept thinking "He has to find a nicer way to say this stuff." I wouldn't say he's strident, just blunt. And the people who need to hear his message the most are the ones who will be offended right out of the gate and stick their fingers in their ears.

I would recommend that everyone in the US over the age of 16 read this book, but I'm sure (judging from how infrequently it's been checked out of my town library) that they won't. ( )

(posted on my blog: davenichols.net)

Having read Harris' more substantial work The End of Faith (and given it 4/5 stars despite having some signficant disagreements with some of his points), I finally picked up the much shorter (96 pages) Letter for a quick read. It reads mostly like a condensed, directed version of Faith and offers very little new material for the reader, Christian or atheist.

There really isn't much to discuss about the book. It is a one-sided conversation Harris is having with the anonymous Christian reader (though it is doubtful many actual Christians will read the book). Harris uses many of the same arguments he puts forward in Faith to support his thesis that religion is dangerous and that Christians in the US are no more correct or moral, and make no more positive contributions than any other group of people.

I've read other reviews which trash this book as 'preaching to the choir'. I do agree that, despite the fact that this letter is to a 'Christian', this is largely intended for atheistic audiences. However, 'preaching to the choir' is not really a legitimate knock on this or any work. Until the mid-2000s, most US atheists had no popular voices for their point of view. What Harris (and other vocal atheists) have done is provide a provacative (and antagonist) voice for those of us who have had almost no one speaking on our behalf. While I agree that Harris is confrontational, I argue that that is his point. Atheists have long needed a few loud-mouthed antagonizers to bring our issues into popular discussion, and we certainly could not have done so if Harris et. al. were polite reconcilators.

Overall, this book is just a condensed version of Faith and will largely serve as a booster for atheists who need to find arguments which speak to their own positions. Three and one-half stars. ( )

I love this little book. I want to make every close-minded Christian bigot I know read it. I want to hand out copies at the ultra-religious clinic I go to for my car accident injuries. It's really quite lovely. Short, written in easy-to-understand language, and very straightforward about why religion is a bad idea. Great stuff. ( )

Harris is just one more in the line of cardboard cut-out polemicists against religion. Reads like a pot-boiler: banalities abound, but luckily it ends no sooner than it should.What Harris, Dawkins et al don't quite seem to realize is that religion as a balm is a concomitant of the liberal capitalist order, one that they are signed up to unreservedly. There is little that is intrinsically 'rational' about this mode of living: it is destructive, chaotic, and indifferent to individuals. As Pope said: 'The proper study of mankind is man'. In other words, we are social beings, and to that extent will not be satisfied with purely 'scientific' answers, since scientific answers are not, demonstrably, the most rational option for humans to take, since the crucial stuff, as Buber pointed out, is between man and man, i.e., not between man and ideology, man and scientific method, or even, to that extent, man and dogma - yet 'religion' as a countervailing force will keep popping up just so long as the capitalist club is beating heads.We need as a species to get beyond these unhelpful dichotomies, which have us in thrall to an enervating round of 'yes/no', 'stand up/sit down', walk/don't walk' pseudo-problems. I for one would like to put Dawkins and Rowan Williams in a space capsule and jettison the pair of them, along with all their respective kin. let them gnaw at each other, and wear themselves out with endless bickering. We are not obliged in the 21st century to repeat the discussions of the 19th. ( )