Sam Harris is best known as one of the hardest of the hard-core “new atheists” or “militant atheists.” He was so committed–so militant–that he advocated violence toward people whose religious views he considered very dangerous in achieving the sought-for objective of “ending” religion.

But in this new book, his views seem to have mellowed somewhat: Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue (Harvard University Press), by Harris and Maajid Nawaz.

“In this short book, Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz invite you to join an urgently needed conversation: Is Islam a religion of peace or war? Is it amenable to reform? Why do so many Muslims seem drawn to extremism? What do words like Islamism, jihadism, and fundamentalism mean in today’s world?

Remarkable for the breadth and depth of its analysis, this dialogue between a famous atheist and a former radical is all the more startling for its decorum. Harris and Nawaz have produced something genuinely new: they engage one of the most polarizing issues of our time—fearlessly and fully—and actually make progress.

Islam and the Future of Tolerance has been published with the explicit goal of inspiring a wider public discussion by way of example. In a world riven by misunderstanding and violence, Harris and Nawaz demonstrate how two people with very different views can find common ground.”

There are many philosophers who have written critically about the relatively common modern tendency to derive moral principles from science–to move from science to a reductively naturalistic morality of scientism. From Elizabeth Anscombe and Philippa Foot to Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor, omitting many others before, in between, and after.

Here is a relatively new book that appears to advance a critique of scientism broadly in this line but updated to address new challenges and targets: Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (Yale University Press), by James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky.

“In this illuminating book, James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky trace the origins and development of the centuries-long, passionate, but ultimately failed quest to discover a scientific foundation for morality. The “new moral science” led by such figures as E. O. Wilson, Patricia Churchland, Sam Harris, Jonathan Haidt, and Joshua Greene is only the newest manifestation of that quest. Though claims for its accomplishments are often wildly exaggerated, this new iteration has been no more successful than its predecessors. But rather than giving up in the face of this failure, the new moral science has taken a surprising turn. Whereas earlier efforts sought to demonstrate what is right and wrong, the new moral scientists have concluded, ironically, that right and wrong don’t actually exist. Their (perhaps unwitting) moral nihilism turns the science of morality into a social engineering project. If there is nothing moral for science to discover, the science of morality becomes, at best, a feeble program to achieve arbitrary societal goals. Concise and rigorously argued, Science and the Good is a definitive critique of a would-be science that has gained extraordinary influence in public discourse today and an exposé of that project’s darker turn.”

Here is an interesting new book on the ways in which Protestantism and American conservatism have been brought together from the Puritan period through the 21st century: Protestants and American Conservatism: A Short History (Oxford University Press), by Gillis J. Harp.

“The rise of the modern Christian Right, starting with the 1976 Presidential election and culminating in the overwhelming white evangelical support for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, has been one of the most consequential political developments of the last half-century of American history. And while there has been a flowering of scholarship on the history of American conservatism, almost all of it has focused on the emergence of a conservative movement after World War II. Likewise, while much has been written about the role of Protestants in American politics, such studies generally begin in the 1970s, and almost none look further back than 1945. 

In this sweeping history, Gillis Harp traces the relationship between Protestantism and conservative politics in America from the Puritans to Palin. Christian belief long shaped American conservatism by bolstering its critical view of human nature and robust skepticism of human perfectibility. At times, Christian conservatives have attempted to enlist the state as an essential ally in the quest for moral reform. Yet, Harp argues, while conservative voters and activists have often professed to be motivated by their religious faith, in fact the connection between Christian principle and conservative politics has generally been remarkably thin. Indeed, with the exception of the seventeenth-century Puritans and some nineteenth-century Protestants, few American conservatives have constructed a well-reasoned theological foundation for their political beliefs. American conservatives have instead adopted a utilitarian view of religious belief that is embedded within essentially secular assumptions about society and politics. Ultimately, Harp claims, there is very little that is distinctly Christian about the modern Christian Right.”

Rusty Reno, the editor at First Things Magazine, had an interesting piece two years ago concerning what he termed the “strong gods“–populism, nationalism, a notion of the sacred in public life, and others–and their resurgence in the wake of various problems experienced by the liberal political order. Reno predicted that the conflict between these “strong gods” and the existing order would intensify in the coming decades, as each would strive for dominance. In this new book, he expands on that thesis: Return of the Strong Gods (Regnery/Gateway).

“To understand the nationalist populism that has upended politics in America and Europe we have to understand the spiritual issues at stake. The postwar consensus that sought to weaken men’s oldest and strongest attachments is breaking down as the “strong gods” — nationalism and religion among them — reassert themselves. R. R. Reno considers the new form of conservatism that this historical moment requires.”

The particular history and cultural fortunes of Catholicism in the United States may itself be some small proof of American exceptionalism–surely the U.S. is the only nation that has anything like it. Here is a new, second edition of an important study on the subject, American Catholicism in America (Columbia University Press), by Chester Gillis.

“Who are American Catholics and what do they believe and practice? How has American Catholicism influenced and been influenced by American culture and society? This book examines the history of American Catholics from the colonial era to the present, with an emphasis on changes and challenges in the contemporary church.

Chester Gillis chronicles American Catholics: where they have come from, how they have integrated into American society, and how the church has influenced their lives. He highlights key events and people, examines data on Catholics and their relationship to the church, and considers the church’s positions and actions on politics, education, and gender and sexuality in the context of its history and doctrines.

This second edition of Roman Catholicism in America pays particular attention to the tumultuous past twenty years and points toward the future of the faith in the United States. It examines the unprecedented crisis of sexual abuse by priests—the legal, moral, financial, and institutional repercussions of which continue to this day—and the bishops’ role in it. Gillis also discusses the election of Pope Francis and the controversial role Catholic leadership has played in American politics.”

Here’s an interesting new book by star litigator of religious liberty at the Becket Fund, Luke Goodrich, which approaches several of the contemporary conflicts in church-state law in light of what the Bible has to say. The book is Free to Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty in America (Multnomah).

“Many Americans are concerned about rising threats to religious freedom. They feel the culture changing around them, and they fear that their beliefs will soon be marginalized as a form of bigotry. Others, younger Christians in particular, are tired of the culture wars, and they wonder whether courtroom battles are truly worthwhile, or even in line with the teachings of Jesus. Luke Goodrich offers a reasoned, balanced, gospel-centered approach to religious freedom. He applies biblical understanding to a number of the most hot-button cultural issues of our day. He also offers practical steps Christians can take to respond to religious freedom conflicts in an informed, responsible, and graceful way.”

A very interesting looking new book concerning the Siege of Acre and the semi-official end of the Crusades: The Accursed Tower: The Fall of Acre and the End of the Crusades (Basic Books), by Roger Crowley.

“The 1291 siege of Acre was the Alamo of the Christian Crusades — the final bloody battle for the Holy Land. After a desperate six weeks, the beleaguered citadel surrendered to the Mamluks, bringing an end to Christendom’s two-hundred year adventure in the Middle East.

In The Accursed Tower, Roger Crowley delivers a lively narrative of the lead-up to the siege and a vivid, blow-by-blow account of the climactic battle. Drawing on extant Arabic sources as well as untranslated Latin documents, he argues that Acre is notable for technical advances in military planning and siege warfare, and extraordinary for its individual heroism and savage slaughter. A gripping depiction of the crusader era told through its dramatic last moments, The Accursed Tower offers an essential new view on a crucial turning point in world history.”

It surely must count as a feature of the polarized political times that people on different sides of the partisan spectrum perceive increasing threats to fundamental rights and interests coming from their political adversaries. This is certainly true for the First Amendment. Many conservatives, for example, believed that their First Amendment interests were threatened by the Obama Administration and voted for Donald Trump because they believed that their speech and religious freedoms would fare even worse under a Clinton presidency. They believed, as the book blurb below puts it, that “fundamental First Amendment norms and principles” were being threatened by the other side. In this new book, by contrast, law professor Timothy Zick makes exactly the opposite case: that First Amendment threats have escalated during the Trump Administration and as a consequence of President Trump himself. The book is The First Amendment in the Trump Era (Oxford University Press).

“Regardless of how the presidency of Donald J. Trump ultimately concludes, a significant part of its legacy will relate to the First Amendment. The president has publicly attacked the institutional press and individual reporters, calling them the “enemy of the people.” He has proposed that flag burners be jailed and denaturalized, blocked critics from his Twitter page, communicated hateful and derogatory ideas, and defended the speech of white nationalists. More than any other modern president, Trump has openly challenged fundamental First Amendment norms and principles relating to free speech and free press. These challenges have come at a time when the institutional press faces economic and other pressures that negatively affect their functions and legitimacy; political and other forms of polarization are on the rise; and protesters face diminished space and opportunities for exercising free speech rights. This book catalogues and analyzes the various First Amendment conflicts that have occurred during the Trump presidency. It places these conflicts in historical context–as part of our current digitized and polarized era but also as part of a broader narrative concerning attacks on free speech and the press. We must understand both what is familiar in terms of the First Amendment concerns of the present era, but also what is distinctive about these concerns. The Trump Era has once again reminded us of the need for a free and independent press, the need to protect robust and sometimes caustic criticism of public officials, and the importance of protest and dissent to effective self-government.”