A reader addresses one central point of contention between Sam Harris and me - by supporting my position from a more agnostic perspective:
Moderation vs. Fundamentalism. How much doubt is too much? Why not doubt the whole shebang?
The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a "certainty" that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a "tolerant" religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or of any theism. In such a case, it is worth keeping an open mind that there may, indeed, be larger forces in the universe than our human minds can rationally be aware of. Given what science has revealed to us in the past decades about the nature, force and cause of the universe, I’d wager the likelihood of there being more to the universe than what we can perceive is much greater than the likelihood there is not. One can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But all scientific evidence suggests the physical limitations of the human consciousness separate us from the true nature of the universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an expression of the whole.