I have yet to read his book, but I've heard that Sam Harris, in Letter To A Christian Nation, makes an argument against tolerance of religion. He believes that tolerating moderate religious views is dangerous because those views are ultimately irrational and thus pave the road to tolerating even more extreme and dangerous views. For instance: If we start by tolerating the notion that wine and bread can turn into blood and flesh, we will end by tolerating the notion that flying planes into the Twin Towers is a legitimate defense of our religion. According to Harris, once we have decided to tolerate irrationality in the name of religion, there is no end to the irrationality that we must tolerate.
Has Harris committed a slippery slope fallacy of logic here? If so, why? If not, why not?
Has Harris committed a slippery slope fallacy of logic here? If so, why? If not, why not?