Remarks about something else Andrew Sullivan posted here. The link points to an opinion piece at The Washington Post.

Andrew pulls a quote that suggests that similar religious phenomena among different cultures is evidence for the truth of the phenomena, and also suggests that this notion is similar to scientific theories.

What Andrew doesn't pull out of the piece are the fallacies that abound in the 'logic'. The whole opinion is rife with assertions that really have no basis in reality, but are made simply because others have made the same claims. For instance, Aslan talks extensively of the "new atheists" movement, and suggests that simply because some have cooperated in making public statements recently, this sets said groups firmly in a category populated exclusively with religious zealots, and that there is something 'new' about it. "It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism--an atheist fundamentalism. The parallels with religious fundamentalism are obvious and startling:"

No, the parallels are not obvious.

It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism

Yes, it is an exaggeration. Simply because the four people mentioned above have been more outspoken than most does not make them leaders as Aslan implies. Sam Harris has gone so far as to denounce the 'atheist' label. They are not giving weekly sermons to crowds of atheists, they do not denounce the actions of others based on their interpretation of mythical books. They are not imploring 'followers' to support lavish lifestyles with offerings.

Aslan claims atheists are of the "conviction that they are in sole possession of the truth." Of course, any atheist that claims they know for a fact there is no 'god' has no concept of fundamental reasoning, but certainly most atheists do not make this claim. He also claims the four listed above spearhead an intolerance of religious people and views. The four above have debated countless religious apologists, and never make statements with the same vigor religious leaders spout their 'sisdom', of which many examples exist on the Internet. They are usually reasoned and soft spoken, and if not - usually Hitchens is passionate in this respect - they are pointing out injustices carried out in the name of religion; people that are brutal to others, in many instances fatally so.

The principle error of the new atheists lies in their inability to understand religion outside of its simplistic, exoteric, and absolutist connotations.

The problem with those outspoken about religion is their knowledge of religions, all religions, not a lack of knowledge. Aslan is ignoring Bart Ehrman, an author with many books in which he explains his understanding of religion and their doctrines, and how that understanding forced ever deeper criticism of religion. Christopher Hitchens cites religion classes early in life, and the inspiration of a specific teacher, as the catalyst for his rejection of religious notions. So, Aslan's assertions that there is an "utter lack of literacy in the subject" simply is not true. His suggested relief for this non-existent problem is the stock response; immersion in religious doctrine of all kinds.

He insists people should "at the very least have a sense of what the term "God" means." This of course is counter to the notion toward the end of the piece that nobody can really know.

What the new atheists do not do, and what makes them so much like the religious fundamentalists they abhor, is admit that all metaphysical claims--be they about the possibility of a transcendent presence in the universe or the birth of the incarnate God on earth--are ultimately unknowable and, perhaps, beyond the purview of science. That may not be a slogan easily pasted on the side of a bus. But it is the hallmark of the scientific intellect.

He implies, in the same sentence, that he 'knows', but that these claims are "ultimately unknowable". The twisted reasoning is truly amazing to behold.