Religions are like different maps whose routes all lead to the collective good of society. (page 31)
But where is this end point? What is this "collective good of society"? If they are for the same end then shouldn't Muslim, Hindu and Christian nations all be on the same page with the good of society in mind? But how is having a cow that you are not allowed to move in the middle of a main road helpful for society? How is persecuting women helpful for society? How is saying that God hates your country because there are gay people in it helpful? The list could go on and on... Maybe these are really unfair comments to make as there are always extremist who take things too far and only focus on one part and not the whole.
In the last chapter it was already established that religions are different. Shouldn't it then be assumed that religions that start from different world views would then end at a different point for society?
The problem I have is when religion is reduced to just being a moral code. That is not a religion, well is not Christianity. There are many moral and non-religious people out there who are "good for society" (whatever that really means). Sure some religions might overlap in some sense of morality, but I don't think they do at every point. I think Dawkins argues that you don't need a religion to be moral.
Mark Driscoll says in a book that I am currently reading:
... Jesus stands against religion and morality as enemies of the gospel because, as Martin Luther said, religion and morality are the default mechanisms of the human heart to pursue righteousness apart from him.
And I think I have to agree.