Stuart A

The first 50 pages are filled with absolute language and grand common sense statements about what we "should do" and it isn't really only until 150 pages in that Harris finds his feet in consistent language that is more synonymous with "science" and shifts his language to X, Y, Z "seems" to be the case. This left me wondering if Harris was attempting to promote a science that overlooked correlation and was far more concerned with ascribing causation. My biggest gripe with this book is that it Harris consistently provides an analogy and then moves on. The several passing comments on malaria within the book for example. I found from the first page of his book there is a disingenuous implicit bias towards the Islamic faith (Blood feud not explicitly explained as being related to Islam). Harris 'seems' to be unwilling to write exactly what it is he is intending through examples and the reader is left confused as to why he is bringing up blood feuds for example. Instead of launching into 'Islam Bad' he warms the viewer up with Blood Feuds (implicit) before later moving on to the Burqa (explicit).