I think Collins was influenced by C.S.Lewis's Mere Christianity in coming to religious faith from atheism. But I didn't read that part.

And which is constantly misunderstood and/or misrepresented … including by Gerard Harbison. (as, for instance: "… you are shrugging off a man being shown the instruments of tiorture by the Inquisition.")

I do not want to gloss over anything but would note that when the incident is brought up it generally is meant to convey implications that are alleged to be valid about the present and they are rarely unchallenged facts.

Harris is undoubtedly given to hyperbole;

Harris has very hostile convictions. Since I have not read Collin's book I'm not in a position to evaluate your comments. I should read an awful book huh? That explains your smile?

Harris is undoubtedly given to hyperbole; it is, unfortunately, the spirit of the times to embrace tendentiousness. Nonetheless, I find his criticism of Collins' book for the most part sound. Collins quote-mines and misrepresents people; he paints a distorted picture of, for example, the evolutionary biology of altruism, in order to try to pretend that altruism must have a supernatural explanation. It's really an awful book. You should read it

The overly emotional reactions can be traced to Harris as evidenced by his remarks. The comments about them in this blog have been calm, reasoned and humorous by comparison. What is it that you would have us do or say about a historic event that took place centuries ago?

I find it amusing that at a time when many Christians react to any minor criticism of their religion as akin to persecution, you are shrugging off a man being shown the instruments of tiorture by the Inquisition.

Harris is not ruling out all evidence for religion; he is simply saying that every religion contains some beliefs for which there can be no conceivable evidence. Quite an important difference.

When it comes to talk about evidence, why would anyone care what Harris thinks? His emotion-based perspective to the topic of religion tells us it is not about "evidence" for him. The guy can't even get some basic history correct. I like this one:

"and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life by steely-eyed religious maniacs."

We'll overlook the "maniac" outburst and instead focused on the adjective "steely-eyed." What is Harris' "evidence" that those eyes were steely? His imagination? A movie he watched? Stereotypes?

This is the guy who wants to preach to Francis Collins about "evidence" and a "reality-based" approach? LOL

Harris is not ruling out all evidence for religion; he is simply saying that every religion contains some beliefs for which there can be no conceivable evidence.

That's not just true of religion, but of any belief system whatsoever. The failure, after all, of the verifiability criterion to satisfy its own standards is what sank the positivists. Harris is making a pretty pedestrian point, and it certainly doesn't get anywhere near entailing the "end of faith."

For starters: "God IS."

Of course, this is a "proposition[] for which no evidence is even conceivable" only because it denies the proposition that "there is no god."

Also, remember that when 'materialists' get going like this, "evidence" can never mean the result of logical/rational reasoning; rather "evidence" can be only some physical fact (i.e. a 'brute fact') which "speaks for itself."

Ironically, the thing about "brutes" is that they do not speak.

Sam Harris: In fact, every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable.

I didn't know that. Of what "propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable" does Christianity preach the truth?