Here's a really nice reading list from philosopher Mary Warnock on godless morality.
Simon Rippon finds fault with the metaethics in The Moral Landscape, meticulously showing where Harris goes wrong. Harris effectively performs a magic trick, like making a rabbit disappear into a hat. Only he makes ethics disappear into science. Rippon exposes the trick. I also complained about that here and here. Harris's likely response is apparent in the last chapter of his book--he says science encompasses all rational thinking. There are no lines to be drawn. So if ethics really disappears into philosophy, well, that's to say it disappears into science. I don't think any philosophers are going to buy this.
Brian Leiter says it sounds like a silly book. I think the goal of the book is non-silly: it's good to try to convince the public that ethics does not rest upon the foundation of religion. The silly part is saying that, instead, ethics is science. See above.
Here's Jason Rosenhouse (of local fame) defending new atheist outrageousness. It's like with advertising, he says-- atheists need to be ubiquitous. OK, but do they need to be insulting? Where's the research that shows you can sell Colgate by saying that Crest is vile rubbish? I don't see it. Then he switches models--Richard Dawkins is Martin Luther King, not Proctor and Gamble. Not because of the moral equivalence of the two causes, he hastens to add. King is just proof that activism has to be bold. OK again, but there are a lot of ways to be bold. PETA-style animal activism is bold. I think it's good for animals. But it makes the public think animal people are nuts. Do you want the same thing for atheism--a style of activism that makes people think atheists are nuts? I would think not--because part of the new atheist agenda is winning respectability and acceptance for atheists.
Want to see that Mooney-Myers showdown? It's here.