Sam Harris The End of Faith

Schuhart

I can’t remember if there’s been a Sam Harris thread before. IMHO more coherent that Dawkins justifies a couple of threads, why not this guy? I think he’s produced a better account in a shorter book.

On negative points, I think he does include a couple of tenuous ‘religion is bad for you’ arguments. One is assigning responsibility for criminalisation of drugs at the foot of religion, and verging on saying that if you could get properly stoned you’d see no need for God. While this (probably unconsciously) echoes the economist Thorstein Veblen asking a class of theology students to put a value on God in terms of barrels of beer, it does seem to strain credibility more than a bit.

I think he’s also a little OTT when it comes to Islam, concentrating too much on the whole ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ terrorist theme rather than (IMHO) the more relevant criticism that the emphasis on the inerrancy of the Quran raises similar issues to Bible literalists.

Where I think he scores ahead of Dawkins is in acknowledging that religion is filling some human need and that reason needs to address that space. This is a thought that has been on my own mind for a while, so I suppose it’s only human to feel when you read someone else saying it that the author must be uncommonly clever to agree with your outlook. At the same time, I do think this is an issue that won’t go away.

All in all, if someone was asking me for a good book on the atheist outlook, I’d recommend Sam Harris ahead of Dawkins. It still has some flaws, but in the detail rather than in the overall argument. And he ends, I think, with a relevant call for where enquiry might take us next.

A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion, because spiritual experience, ethical behaviour and strong communities are essential for human happiness. …… Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality and ethics together in our thinking about the world.

There’s a Sam Harris video here, for anyone interested in a flavour.

5uspect

I bought The End of Faith when I ordered The God Delusion and I have to say you're right that Harris goes give religion, in general, a much better criticism than Dawkins. But I think Dawkins doesn't really go for religion as a whole, he aims firmly at what he sees as God the imaginary friend. This is probably aimed for those people who don't subscribe to any particular organised faith but still believe in a God.

Harris' criticism of Islam is particularly strong. His discussion of Muslim sensitivities to Western society and paradoxical Islamic Imperialism is interesting but he does definitely milk the suicide bomber thing. Also, I wonder how Muslims react to having their faith compared to 14th century Christianity?

aidan24326

Haven't read Harris' book yet but I would hope to give it a bash after I finish the Dawkins one. I have read some of Harris' writings on the internet and he impressed me as a pretty concise writer, though he seems to be singing from the same hymn sheet as Dawkins on alot of things.

I think excessive criticism of either's work might be harsh, as it's a very complex issue and no easy task to tackle it in one book. I say fair play to both of them for giving it a go.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

On negative points, I think he does include a couple of tenuous ‘religion is bad for you’ arguments.

I think this is sometimes played up to much by atheists such as Dawkins, and the message is sometimes misunderstood by theists.

Ultimately the question of if religion is bad for you is a bit irrelivent. If you don't believe in religion there is no reason to follow it either way. If you do believe in it then not following it just because it is bad for you is not an option, though if you do believe in it you probably don't feel this way about it.

Theists sometimes interpret the argument as if atheists are saying you should abandon faith just because sometimes religion can do bad things. But the predictable theist response is that humans do bad things, but that isn't a reason to abandon my God. God exists, you must worship him. What other humans do is irrelivent. The "religion is bad" argument just doesn't work, because theists don't view religion as a human invention, they view it as a message from God. Not only does it not work but it also makes atheists look like we just don't get religion, which I imagine some don't, but it isn't going to convince a theists.

Zillah

5uspect wrote:

Also, I wonder how Muslims react to having their faith compared to 14th century Christianity?

Not well, I'd imagine. Just like anything else other than fawning subservience.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

I think this is sometimes played up to much by atheists such as Dawkins, and the message is sometimes misunderstood by theists.

Ultimately the question of if religion is bad for you is a bit irrelivent. If you don't believe in religion there is no reason to follow it either way. If you do believe in it then not following it just because it is bad for you is not an option, though if you do believe in it you probably don't feel this way about it.

Theists sometimes interpret the argument as if atheists are saying you should abandon faith just because sometimes religion can do bad things. But the predictable theist response is that humans do bad things, but that isn't a reason to abandon my God. God exists, you must worship him. What other humans do is irrelivent. The "religion is bad" argument just doesn't work, because theists don't view religion as a human invention, they view it as a message from God. Not only does it not work but it also makes atheists look like we just don't get religion, which I imagine some don't, but it isn't going to convince a theists.

I would agree with that.
Dawkins and Harris should say learning religions or faiths comparatively and then picking your favourite one or a mixture is much better than just learning one.
I know Dawkins does say this, but it's only when he elaborates on his "religion is bad for you" argument. By this time he has already lost the theists.

aidan24326

I would agree also. Dawkins has overplayed that whole 'religion causes war and makes people blow each other up' card. It often does pour fuel on the flames of war (even when it's not necessarily the root cause) but the link isn't always easy to prove (though there is unquestionably a connection between religion and the problems in the middle east).

How about the fact that much of religious dogma is just plain wrong?

That there isn't a shred of evidence for one single bit of it? That alot of what passes for fact in the bible and qu'ran is evidently nonsense?

That the catholic church is really a big multi-billion-dollar industry with leaders that are as far out of touch with their members as this supposed god is?

That theology, the learned subject of the men in the frocks, is a load of hogwash which has not contributed an iota to human knowledge? Ever.

That this Jesus guy you all pray to was an unremarkable philosopher with a ragged band of followers who claimed to be the son of god and was thus either a hoaxer like modern cult leaders or may even have been mentally deranged?

That for christians the symbol of your religion is a torturous execution device? Wtf? I love the comment by the American comedian who said 'If Jesus had been around in the 20th century and got executed all christians would be wearing little electric chairs round their neck!'

That religion is the shelter-house for intelectual cowardice?

That ultimately, for all this stuff you 'believe', you can't produce any evidence at all. Absolutely minus zero. Would a belief in anything else remain without any evidence at all? If it's real, why is there absolutely no evidence at all?

Why would a caring interventionist god totally conceal himself? Throw the flock a few crumbs there big man...

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

I would agree also. Dawkins has overplayed that whole 'religion causes war and makes people blow each other up' card. It often does pour fuel on the flames of war (even when it's not necessarily the root cause) but the link isn't always easy to prove (though there is unquestionably a connection between religion and the problems in the middle east).

I'm still not sure about that. The US has a long history of interference in the Middle East for purely geopolitical ends, as the British and French did before them. The only available rallying point for those who wish to resist is Islam, and I don't consider Zionism and Judaism interchangeable. It's fundamentally an imperial conflict, not a religious one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Flamed Diving

Just started to read this book, I find it very light on facts, especially when compared to Hitchens book. I think he is certainly writing this for an American audience, who would be less likely to know/understand the event which he is describing. For an example close to home, he lays the entire blame for the conflict up North on religious differences, when anyone with a Leaving Cert knowledge of Irish history would know that this does not tell the full story. Maybe he fills he suppositions out a bit more, as the book progresses, but I am unimpressed so far.

5uspect

I'm just about through Hitchens myself. I was put off by him for awhile but he's an excellent writer.

Unlike the Dawkins and Hitchens (or the strawman Ditchkins), Harris makes a stronger case against the moderate religious.

Tim Robbins

I read Harris's 'End of Faith' and 'Letter to a Christian Nation'.
Both enjoyable reads.

Anyone else freaked out that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens all end with an s? Isn't Satan obvious?

bluefinger

For me Harris' book is a better polemic on religion than God Delusion. Particularly enjoyed his ideas on meditation in buddhism and how it's compatible with atheism.

5uspect

bluefinger wrote: »

For me Harris' book is a better polemic on religion than God Delusion. Particularly enjoyed his ideas on meditation in buddhism and how it's compatible with atheism.

The Hitch is better on Buddhism tho!

Salvelinus

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm still not sure about that. The US has a long history of interference in the Middle East for purely geopolitical ends, as the British and French did before them. The only available rallying point for those who wish to resist is Islam, and I don't consider Zionism and Judaism interchangeable. It's fundamentally an imperial conflict, not a religious one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Religion is just something that's hid behind because saying you're religous somehow gives you more respect and importance.

Dades

Salvelinus wrote: »

saying you're religous somehow gives you more respect and importance.

I haven't noticed that here, tbh. :P

dvpower

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I read Harris's 'End of Faith' and 'Letter to a Christian Nation'.
Both enjoyable

'Letter to a Christian Nation' is a good short and snappy read; an ideal christmas stocking filler.

nozzferrahhtoo

5uspect wrote: »

Unlike the Dawkins and Hitchens (or the strawman Ditchkins), Harris makes a stronger case against the moderate religious.

I think this is an important comment and it highlights something that always comes to me when people on threads like this compare the 4 main atheist writers of our time.

It is very important to realise that they are 4 very distinct voices with 4 very different tracts. Dawkins focuses mainly on the likelyhood of the proposition being true, Dennett focuses very heavily on the idea that religion needs to be studied a lot more closely than it is, Hitchens directly attack the morality of religion more than anything else.

Harris directs his energies mostly at the moderate, suggesting that they provide the medium for the dangerous extremists, but also calling on their help against extremists by pointing out that their religiosity gives them both the ability and the onus to speak to these people.

All that said, I never find it useful to compare the 4. They have 4 very different messages with 4 very different styles and they are all important. The pure vitriol of PZ Myers even has an important place. The differences between the 5 writers is as important in itself as what it is each of them writes. As Dawkins once said to Harris when he talked about Spirituality "I do not have to agree with you Sam, to say how important I think it is you are saying that".

nozzferrahhtoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I read Harris's 'End of Faith' and 'Letter to a Christian Nation'.
Both enjoyable reads.

Anyone else freaked out that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens all end with an s? Isn't Satan obvious?

Dont forget PZ Myers.

Dan Dennett breaks the chain though.

nozzferrahhtoo

5uspect wrote: »

The Hitch is better on Buddhism tho!

bluefinger wrote: »

For me Harris' book is a better polemic on religion than God Delusion. Particularly enjoyed his ideas on meditation in buddhism and how it's compatible with atheism.

Harris studied Buddhism under some "masters" for some time. I do think what he says about it is important. Probably the most important thing he says, and perversely the aspect of his books that gets attacked the most by atheists.

His message mainly is that there is an area of human conciousness for which we have a lot of data but no real science. Clearly the conscious mind is more labile than we give it credit for and it is an area of discovery that we owe it to ourselves as a species to explore.

None of it however requires that we "believe anything on insufficient evidence" in order to interpret. The Christian on his knees in front of a statue of Jesus, and the Muslim sitting in a cave wishing he had learned to read when he was younger, clearly have some very moving experiences, and likely very similar if not identical experiences.

They go on to interpret the experiences in the light of their religion and even as confirmation to them that their religion is true. However just like it is obvious in science that an experiment done by a Christian and one done by a Muslim have the same Scientific outcomes, and so crosses all religious barriers, so too do the vagaries of the human mind.

Handsome Bob

Harris is the one that feels violence towards certain religious people and the beliefs that they harbour can be justified, right?

nozzferrahhtoo

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Harris is the one that feels violence towards certain religious people and the beliefs that they harbour can be justified, right?

Yes and no. He said something similar to this in a quote that people oft quote mine, which is probably where you got this idea from. I imagine you are a victim of someone hitting you with a quote mining.

The quote in question, which is lifted from a very large section reads: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”

Firstly this statement is not directed at religious people specifically. Secondly it is important to read on as he defines EXACTLY what he means by this.Firstly it is lifted from a whole section that speaks of how we need to clean discourse so as to avoid ever needing violence. Secondly he clarifies what he means by "Some proposition" where he says:

1) The person in question has to have a belief that puts them beyond rational discourse
2) The person in question has to be presenting a fatal threat to the innocent
3) The person in question must be in some way unstoppable or unrestrainable from causing such harm by non fatal means.

That is an incredibly specific list of criteria and one that never seems to get lifted with the quote above to show exactly what it means.

Third and finally, he very clearly says "may" in the quote. HE is right, it MAY be, and that is what we as a species have to discuss. It often happens that someone who explores uncomfortable territory to its conclusion is oft accused of being FOR that conclusion. However this "may" is one that we have to discuss as a society and not brush it away.

robindch

Harris has a new book out, this time on Lying.

The article here, on kids and dishonesty, is an interesting read:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-high-cost-of-tiny-lies

[-0-]

I read it a while ago. It's a short read. Not his best work but it's thought provoking.

Gbear

I quite enjoyed the Moral Landscape.

Not bulletproof and I wouldn't take everything in it as, err, gospel, but it had gave plenty of mental cud to chew over.

Kivaro

wretcheddomain

That image above is a total failure, how could anyone spell Elvis incorrectly? Heresy at best...

And as for Dennett's name not ending in 's'...oops...it just has...spooky.

Now I'd better get back to those pancakes...

Nodin

From what of his thoughts I've read he overdoes the muslims, nor am I gone on his politics.

wretcheddomain

Nodin wrote: »

From what of his thoughts I've read he overdoes the muslims, nor am I gone on his politics.

Agreed - Harris also comes across as a bit smug as well and I find his monotonous dull voice increasingly vexatious.

equivariant

Nodin wrote: »

From what of his thoughts I've read he overdoes the muslims,.

Agreed, I like my Muslims rare

Dave!

Nodin wrote: »

From what of his thoughts I've read he overdoes the muslims, nor am I gone on his politics.

He would argue that it is only right that Muslims are "overdone" because of the propensity of their militant minority toward violence and martyrdom, and the proliferation of weapons capable of killing huge numbers of people. Islam is at a pretty volatile point in its history, and it happens to coincide with a period where unstable or hostile states are trying to develop nuclear weapons. Pretending all religions are the same is pretty much putting one's head in the sand.

Anyway, he did write an entire book criticising Christianity, to be fair!

Dave!

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Agreed - Harris also comes across as a bit smug as well and I find his monotonous dull voice increasingly vexatious.

Can't say I agree there. I've never found him smug at all, and indeed can't help but be impressed with his patience when dealing with incorrigible and disingenuous goons like Deepak Chopra! I'd have thrown something at him after 5 minutes, but Sam is extremely logical and accurate in his arguments.

I find him much more interesting to listen to than the likes of Richard Dawkins or even Christopher Hitchens.

Nodin

Dave! wrote: »

He would argue that it is only right that Muslims are "overdone" because of the propensity of their militant minority toward violence and martyrdom, and the proliferation of weapons capable of killing huge numbers of people. Islam is at a pretty volatile point in its history, and it happens to coincide with a period where unstable or hostile states are trying to develop nuclear weapons. Pretending all religions are the same is pretty much putting one's head in the sand.

Anyway, he did write an entire book criticising Christianity, to be fair!

...and I'd argue he should look a bit closer at the colonies of nutters in the West Bank and stop conflating nationalist motives with sectarian.