Review of End of Faith
Review of End of Faith
+
] wwwSite > SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index / #1 /
] Forum > Specific Comments on The End of Faith /
] Topic > A Very Brief Review / 27 March 2007 /
.
Now some books are important, and some books are interesting, and some
books are simply a good read; but 'The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the
Future of Reason' (2004), by Sam Harris, is notable for being all three at once.
In fact, one could even go so far as to say that this book is (and will remain)
perhaps the most important work of the entire 21st century, as it directly
addresses the single greatest source of evil, death, and moral and mental
corruption in the world today; namely, organized religion.
.
Harris is not merely a good writer with an engaging and readable writing style,
but also a professional philosopher who dares to tackle the 'problem of faith'.
He marshals a ton of evidence showing that organized religions are little more
than a cult of violence, death, and irrationality that directly threatens the survival
of global civilization. In this regard, Christianity and Islam are both equally guilty
of crimes against reason, liberty, and civil society.
.
This may be a good point at which to insert a couple of my favorite snippets
from the book: "And yet, religious faith obscures uncertainty where uncertainty
manifestly exists, allowing the unknown, the implausible, and the patently false
to achieve primacy over the facts" (p.165). ... "Faith is rather like a rhinoceros,
in fact: it won't do much in the way of real work for you, and yet at close
quarters it will make spectacular claims upon your attention" (p.215).
How true!
.
At first, I thought that the last two chapters of the book - '6. A Science of Good
and Evil' (on ethics), and '7. Experiments in Consciousness' (on spirituality) -
were somewhat off topic, not to mention unduly philosophical in nature, but only
a little reflection was required to show the error of this judgment: Religion loves
to claim that without faith in things stupid and irrational, ethics and spirituality
must both necessarily suffer; but in these last two chapters Harris shows up this
claim for the bald-faced lie that it is, and then demonstrates how reason is the
only valid and secure foundation upon which these prime areas of human
experience can rest. And this is a remarkable achievement in itself, quite apart
from the merits of the core of the book (ie. chapter four on 'The Problem with
Islam').
.
In sum, this book is a wake-up call to all those who foolishly believe that
tolerance of the religious beliefs and practices of others is a good and virtuous
thing. Religion, in fact, is nothing more than a source and cesspool of ignorance,
bigotry, hatred, stupidity, intolerance, and fascism. Wake up and smell the sewer-
stink of bronze-age faith. Wake up and realize that the only war that really
matters anymore is the war against irrationality and unreason: the war against
religion (in all its idiotic forms)!
.
For who is going to harm you if you are devoted to what is sensible and good?
But in fact, if you happen to suffer for doing what is right, you are still rational.
And do not be terrified of Believers, or be shaken by them; but set Reason apart
as lord in your hearts. And always be ready to give an answer to anyone who
asks about the hope for sanity which you possess. Yet do it with strength and
passion, keeping a good conscience, so that those Pious Believers who slander
your good conduct in Reason may be put to shame when they accuse you of
atheism and blasphemy. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if Fortune wills
it, than for doing evil. [No apologies to Silvanus; cf. 1Peter 3:13-17]
.
- the zealously anti-religious one - texxtman ;>
x
+
] SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index > Specific Comments on The End of Faith
] Topic > Re: The Only Way Out! / 31 March 2007
.
> On 27Mar MDBeach say: I agree, but it is also extremely dangerous
> because it points us in no direction.
.
textman replies: Hi fellas, thx to all for responding.
I'll have more to say later, but for now I'd like to start here.
Well, mdb, I totally agree that having no direction is "extremely dangerous",
not to mention a serious problem for us all.
.
> Sam says that is our job ... [snip]
.
And I also agree with Sam that it's our job to figure out a new direction that
steers us away from skepticism on this side, and religious faith on the other.
In fact, this is just the problem that has been very much occupying my attention
of late. I've found that most of the experts seem to think that most people can't
do without religion, and so advocate some new form of "universal" religion for
the masses.
.
Even historians such as Toynbee favor such a solution. I myself don't think
it's much of a solution. This is because most people see the problem as a simple
one of 'either/or'. Either you opt for K's 'leap of faith' ... Or you opt for
skepticism and/or atheism (or both). But I'm beginning to think that maybe there
is a third solution, a third way, if you will, that avoids both of these extremes.
.
Moreover, I think that this third way is actually a viable solution. I'm still
working on it (hence the delays), but I'll surely keep you guys posted on my
progress ... IF you're interested
.
General Hints Department:
Mr Harris' interest in Buddhism mirrors my own. As a major world religion it
merits serious attention, but its unique features are what makes it so curious
(eg. from the perspective of comparative religions). I'm particularly interested
in Japan's affair with the Zen forms of Buddhism. The Japanese are nothing if not
a practical people. In any case, its not faith itself that is the major problem
here, it's *irrational-faith*. Thus it seems to me that the answer to our global
woes is not 'no-faith' but rather a 'rational-faith'. Accordingly, this proposed
'Third-Way' would have to involve some sort of "conversion" to Sophia (which is
to say, to philosophy)!
.
- the one with almost-solutions - textmaan ;>
.
P.S. Nhoj Morley say "Rationality is bound to prevail. Keep the faith!"
Hey dude, eye couldn't agree more!
x
+
] SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index > Specific Comments on The End of Faith
] Topic > Re: A Very Brief Review #3 / 1 April 2007
.
. . . On Puny-Little-Animals
.
> On 28March MDBeach say: [snip] The book destroys all justifications for all
> gods. It also destroys justifications for any known philosophical theory that
> could have taken the place of a persons religion. That is my point. Once you
> strip the mystical powers of religion away, you are left with a philosophy on
> life. Sam actually destroyed these philosophies.
.
Sam does not and cannot *destroy* Cosmic-Mystery & Cosmic-Complexity.
Nor should he; nor should he even attempt to do such a silly and outrageous
thing. Therefore since 'End of Faith' does NOT remove mystery and complexity
from out of the world, how can you possibly assert that philosophy and her
justifications have been destroyed? There are no such ramifications in 'End of
Faith'. Philosophically speaking, this book is a rather simple and straightforward
prophetic document. It has no hidden agenda, and is certainly not intended
to undermine the philosophic enterprise (or its justifications), but rather to
encourage us to just those efforts. That's the way I read EoF; and I ought
to know (ie. I know a thing or three about the most important branch of
philosophy: hermeneutics). To make these statements that you make here is
to entirely misconstrue the nature of EoF and of Sam's "mission". Insofar as Mr
Harris has a spark of the ol prophetic spirit in him, he is (and will remain) a loyal
son of Sophia (check the back cover for details).
.
> Sam wrote his next book detailing the need to remove christian philosophy
> from the United States Government. However, he does not give a philosophy
> to fill that void. This is why I maintain that his books, when not applied to the
> specific mission articulated by Sam like changing politics and removing a
> religion from power, these books become very dangerous.
.
In one sense, it is hard to disagree, mdb. History itself tends to back up your
claims. Such warnings were often heard in France (and elsewhere) both before
and after the Revolution. In the same way, current events only confirm that
History often repeats itself. I trust that none of you have forgotten Sinead
O'Conner's brave and outrageous protest on SNL. And just a few minutes ago
I heard some nonsense about Sir Elton John torching some church at a
concert. WTF? ... Well, whatever!
.
Such dramatic displays of anti-religious sentiments are a good and healthy thing
overall, and in the long run. It certainly draws people's attention to the fact that
there's a war going on here that reaches all across the planet such that no
corner of the globe is safe or uninvolved in this war on religion. The major faiths
not only struggle against other religions for the hearts and minds of the people,
but also against the rising tide of radical-skepticism (which is a direct product of
an "uninvolved in the dispute" Science & Philosophy). There's something big in
the winds. Something's coming soon. Can't you smell it? Hey, don't kid yourself;
we are all very much still living within the millennia-old Age of Religions. All these
religions are legacies of the Bronze Age (for the most part), and are very hard
to just shake off over-night.
.
These things take time, dude; seeing as how most human beings are stubborn
and conservative creatures of habit who dislike new ideas out of instinct
and impulse, and sheer cussedness to boot! Consider India as proof of my
observations; here is an entire nation and people with their feet steadfastly
planted in the cultures and traditions of its Bronze Age glory days. A hard habit
to break if its roots go straight past consciousness and reasoning and down
into the smaller reptilian-brain that is the oldest part of our silly noggins. Thus
the Enlightenment was a bit premature, I'd say. Fortunately, there are only a
handful of religions that are still major players on the global scene: Islam &
Christianity (the sons of Judaism), and Buddhism top the list. And that should
be more than enough; seeing as how each of these big-three comes in a wide
variety of shades and forms. Listing all of these ... WBP (ie. would be pointless).
.
> As an example, atheists are now using these books as a Bible to find
> arguments concerning everything. Much like Christians have done with their
> own bible, and Muslims with the Koran. Yet, atheists apparently do not see
> the hypocritical nature of what they are doing, because when inside atheist
> circles, there is no one to challenge them. They cling to other people's ideas,
> and what some person who they deem to be an expert says. Instead of using
> another person's ideas and expanding on them, they are quoted as if scripture.
.
This is neither surprising nor offensive, mdb. Scripture only becomes scripture
when there are people around to treat the texts as sacred. The texts have no
power of their own to declare themselves sacred. You mentioned the Bible &
Koran. Both these texts were deemed to be scripture by this or that religious
authority; but what about Buddhism? Christianity and Judaism both have a
closed and complete set of books. Islam gets by on just one book (more or
less). But Buddhism has literally hundreds of sacred texts! And far from being
a weakness, this flexibility and diversity within the texts (as in the fundamental
nature of Buddhism itself as a spiritual and philosophical enterprise) is one of
its greatest strengths. Where Judaism, Christianity, and Islam generally prefer
to fossilize themselves, Buddhism survives and grows by adapting to, and
embracing, new challenges and ideas; hence the abundance of Buddhist texts.
.
So some people will treat 'End of Faith' as scripture, eh? Well and Good! They
are surely right to do so. And you know why? Because 'End of Faith' is a prime
example of a modern document that can be easily classified as a work of
prophetic literature. If you set it along side the entire range of prophetic literature
from OT & NT to Koran, to the writings of the Radical Reformers, to individual
artists and writers (such as Blake and Kafka and Emerson etc), to philosophers
like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, and to all the many and various works that fit in
between, and lo and behold that 'End of Faith' fits right in! You want people to
take the book seriously, right? Well this is one - legitimate - way of doing that.
And why not? Anyone who can't recognize 'End of Faith' as prophetic literature
is either misguided or ignorant. There's no "as if" about it!
.
> How many times have someone on this board said something like, I'm not
> sure about this, but so and so says this, so that must be right. They loose
> sight of the fact that even Sam calls on each of us to display our own reason
> and our own logic.
.
This is not unique to Sam. Immanuel Kant said this a long time ago. "Dare to
Reason!" It is the battle cry of the Enlightenment. And it is *still* the battle cry
of ALL true philosophers. Russell was not much impressed with Existentialism
as a part of the philosophic enterprise. He considered it a waste of time, more or
less. Why study puny-little-animal when the Great Cosmic Mystery beckons for
our complete and undivided attention? This is the grounds and justification for
the detached and impersonal ways of both science and philosophy; the reason
why most scientists and philosophers refuse to get involved with the ongoing
battle for the hearts and minds of the People. Even Science must have its
comforting illusions I suppose, and this is surely one of them. But there is
plenty enough mystery in these "puny-little-animals" to keep philosophers
busy for quite a spell, I expect.
.
> Yet, many of us rely on other people's works to back up our own logic. HUH?
.
What's the problem, dude? I am perfectly happy and proud to get a better view
of things by standing on the shoulders of the giants of the past. Where would
Philosophy be without Plato and Aristotle? Nowhere, man. So Lighten Up! :)
.
> Especially on this site, the atheists have a majority.
.
They don't scare me, kiddo.
.
> When a counter opinion arises, the majority is quick to point out the
> minorities flaws, WHILE QUOTING THEIR VERSION OF THE CHRISTIAN
> BIBLE. Am I the only person who sees this?
.
Criticism and doubt, you say? Here? Among the atheists you say? Good Lord
Almighty! Circle the wagons at once. Start the fires, and pass the buckshot! ...
:D ... No, really, mdb. Doubt and criticism is what atheists do best. Hells bells
man, doubt and criticism is all that atheists *can* do. That's why God made
them, dude. To get your goat by pulling your beard. Chill out, son. Like my
granpappy used to say: 'Don't sweat the small stuff'.
.
- one who doesn't sweat much - textman ;;>
.
P.S. Not all faith is irrational-faith. We believe the sun will rise tomorrow,
not because we know all about the stars, but because we have a rational
faith in the constancy and consistency of the cosmos in general. Nuff said.
x