good counterpoint to the economist's adulatory review, posted here previously.
my perspective is as follows: i don't agree with his arguments that posit that blind faith is a peculiarly religious phenomenon, as i see blind faith about 'science' and 'atheism' as well. also, i don't agree with his arguments that religion is necessarily bad. it's only that the semitic religions and gods that he's familiar with are bad and brutal. indic religions and gods -- and indeed the old religions of the world before the advent of the early semites like zoroastrians and jews -- are/were generally good and positive.