The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

"Those who maintain that being moral consists in being altruistic have no alternative but to base that belief on some form of mysticism"

It's like they haven't heard of the iterated prisoner's dilemma or something.

"These and similar statements show that Hitchens equates morality with altruism" (does not follow from given quotes, furthermore this is a setup for a straw man argument)

"... it is observationally false that humans possess an innate sense of right and wrong: Many people, and not just psychopaths, make horrifically bad choices that ruin their own lives, the lives of others, or both." (this argument is unsound; the author states that since some people make bad choices sometimes, then humans must not know right from wrong innately. It's like saying "It's observationally false that humans possess eyesight: many people, and not just the blind, fail to see the mayonnaise when they go to the refrigerator even when it's right in the door.")

"Ironically, the claim to innate knowledge—the claim to “just knowing” something—is precisely what Hitchens and the other New Atheists condemn when they condemn faith." (Other than the author's misuse of the term "irony", I have not heard the "new atheists" put forth such an argument and the author does not put forth a citation or quote to support this claim. As I see it, rather than condemning innate knowledge, the "new atheists" condemn what they see as baseless claims of fact.)

"Hitchens subscribes to the idea that man is mentally and thus morally hampered by innate irrationality." A slight bit later, "If man cannot choose his actions, then he cannot have a guide to choosing his actions." So the author takes a quote from Hitchens where Hitchens says humans are "only partly rational" (Hitchen's words as quoted by the author) and then concludes that Hitchens thinks that man "cannot choose his actions" (I know that the phrase appeared after the word "if", but you can parse the full three paragraphs or so yourself).

I stopped reading the article at this point due to the high density of illogical statements. Stylistically, I find it in poor taste to capitalize "new atheists", but there's no accounting for taste.

And even if such illustrations were more helpful, they wouldn't rise to the same level as an imperative moral code. Why not just view them as a challenge to be overcome?

A disappointing end to the argument, IMO. Not just because of my personal dislike for Ayn Rand, but because it seems like it's just sort of stuck on the end there without appropriate justification. It would be better either without that part at all, or with a complete argument as to why Ayn Rand's position is not subject to the same criticism.

Religious morality is mystical? That's a reasonable point to argue. Dawkins' morality is equally mystical? The author presents a decent argument for this. Ayn Rand's morality is not mystical? Kind of a bold thing to merely assert and then duck out of the room.