The more I consider The End of Faith, the more ashamed I become of my own field of clinical psychology. Consider this - if someone walks into my office with a certain belief that they will eventually be abducted by aliens who will perform experiments on them, they would be assigned a rather heavy duty diagnosis and be referred for antipsychotic medications. On the other hand, if someone comes into my office with a certain belief that eventually Jesus Christ will return to the earth and lift them, and everyone else who believes precisely as they do into eternal salvation (pearly gates and all), they are given a free pass. My license would be on the line if I questioned their beliefs. I would be considered to have a lack of respect for diversity.
Actually, this probably makes more sense in the field of psychology, which is a pseudo-science to begin with, than in truly scientific fields. A parallel can be drawn between psychology and religion. There are several different "sects" of psycholgy that each purport to have a monopoly on truth. And the trouble begins when any one of the theories to take itself too literally. Yet, it seems to me that psychology ought to have something to offer to advancing the cause of rationality over "faith". I'm just not sure how this can be accomplished.