The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris

Apr 15, 2007 Pete rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: All serious thinkers

Shelves: philosophy

There are several currents running through The End of Faith, many of which I agree with enthusiastically, some of which I regard with caution, and one or two that I find so strange as to wonder whether Harris wrote the last few chapters while in too.. contemplative a state, as he might say.

First, some easy floating down the river. Where does your support for the following graded series fall off? (1) Religious scriptures shouldn't be taken literally. (2) No one knows if there's a god or not. (3)...more There are several currents running through The End of Faith, many of which I agree with enthusiastically, some of which I regard with caution, and one or two that I find so strange as to wonder whether Harris wrote the last few chapters while in too.. contemplative a state, as he might say.

First, some easy floating down the river. Where does your support for the following graded series fall off? (1) Religious scriptures shouldn't be taken literally. (2) No one knows if there's a god or not. (3) No reasonable person could believe in anything supernatural. (4) Religious beliefs should not be accorded "respect".

If you are still nodding after (4), you agree with Harris (and incidentally, me) on the main thesis of his book. It has been pointed out for a long time now that religious ideas uniquely get a free pass. Guests on a Sunday morning talk show may strenuously disagree with each other over taxes, who should be president, or which sports team is better, but to say "Bringing up that god of yours again, eh?" is just not done. You can get away with almost any behavior or opinion if you state that it's a matter of faith. Like many others before him, Harris points out the absurdity and arbitrariness of this situation, and argues that it should change. Religious beliefs should be attacked like other irrationalities; religious stories should not be talked about as if they were true by people who know they could not possibly be true; religion should not shield anyone from criticism. What is new in this book are two arguments that would raise the stakes. First, rather than patiently waiting for atheism to gain footing in the world, the ascendancy of Islamist power and the machinations of the Christian right make it an urgent matter. Second, religious moderates should be chastened as enablers of fundamentalism. Harris states "Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed". So far, so good.

We soon approach some rapids -- Harris sets out on some heavy philosophical terrain about free will and ethics in his trumping up of Islamist terrorism as a force that should command our greatest attention. I don't think he lacks the ability to engage with these subjects deeply, but he doesn't go deep enough in this book. In many places there is too much reliance on the readers' imaginations to fill in details (about surveys, what people would do with a "perfect weapon", what Muslims think about the 9/11 attacks) his research couldn't supply, and not enough exercise of the same imaginations to find flaws with his thesis that religious motives, rather than nationalist, ethnic, or political ones, are the most salient feature of modern terrorism.

And, at the end of the river, our little raft finds itself in a Shambhala bookstore. Somehow we have gone from demanding the End of Faith to claiming that medieval Tibetan mystics had very useful things to say about the human mind. Perhaps they do, but from what I've seen, it is very low signal to noise. After seeing the word "contemplative" used as a noun for the 10th or 11th time, seeing Padmasambhava trotted out as if he were chairing a neurobiology session, and watching the language melt from the hard-nosed "is" and "is not" to the mealymouthed "seems to" and "suggests that", I began to suspect I was dealing with a manifestation of a Žižekian fetish. The last 2 chapters of the book simply do not belong with the rest. Harris ought to have expanded his spiritual views in another volume and kept The End of Faith focused on arguments for ending faith.

Overall, however, the book is a bracing tonic for atheists, and as we have seen, represents a powerful challenge to the status quo. Its main accomplishment is to have revived this discussion in the public intellectuosphere.(less)

28 likes · like · see review

Mark Well, I know it's always dangerous to respond to a review of a book rather than the book itself, but as a religious person who abhors terrorism and re...more
Dec 20, 2007 08:55am

The Blind Reader "Somehow we have gone from demanding the End of Faith to claiming that medieval Tibetan mystics had very useful things to say about the human mind"

I t...more
updated Jan 09, 2010 09:25pm

Jim Peter--What an excellent review! And it still made me want to read the book despite some of the shortcomings you point out. Good job!
Jan 31, 2010 04:39pm

Jul 28, 2011 Folboteur rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: religion

I rate this a five in spite of some legitimate reservations, too well expressed by too many people to bear repeating here.

The things I liked:
1. Brilliant writing style. Incisive, funny, powerful. (His followup to this book, a 94 page tract called "Letter to a Christian Nation" displays this skill to even better advantage.)

2. Sam's recommended actions for the reader. Religion generally gets a free pass to make unsubstantiated truth claims. Stop allowing that. Start questioning, and pushing back...more I rate this a five in spite of some legitimate reservations, too well expressed by too many people to bear repeating here.

The things I liked:
1. Brilliant writing style. Incisive, funny, powerful. (His followup to this book, a 94 page tract called "Letter to a Christian Nation" displays this skill to even better advantage.)

2. Sam's recommended actions for the reader. Religion generally gets a free pass to make unsubstantiated truth claims. Stop allowing that. Start questioning, and pushing back publicly.

3. Who SAYS "Faith" is a virtue? Again, an unsubstantiated assertion that deserves some pushback.

4. Analogies: I love that Harris comes up with some new thinking in the atheist arena. Too many authors are trotting out Bertrand Russell gems, and as good as they may be, they're 90-some-odd years old. The best, IMHO, is when Sam asks the reader to distinguish between comforting religious truth claims and his (hypothetical) claim that he believes there is a diamond buried in his back yard, the size of a refrigerator, and that it gives him great comfort to know that at some point in his life he can choose to be very rich.

In the current climate, one would get him branded insane, and the other would get him branded a man of strong faith. Bollocks to both, I say.

5. Moderation supports extremism. It's not appealing, and those in the middle are looking for compromise and wiggle room, but it really DOES come down to some black and white, true/false determinations. Choosing to be moderate, as Sam says, betrays both one's faith and reason.

This may be the hardest pill for Sam to get readers to swallow, because it requires the most sacrifice of one's own foundations (if one is moderately religious, that is.) This proposition simultaneously asks the moderate believer to abandon thoughts that they have held to be sacrosanct from their youth, and then as a consequence, "disaffiliate" themselves from a tribe with which they have strong identification. (tribe/religion... whatever.)

A compelling read that I thoroughly enjoyed, and which I love to imagine moderates reading and squirming through all the uncomfortable passages. Which is precisely Sam's overall goal... to remove the "comfortability" of lolling around in one's unjustifiable faith propositions, at the expense of the rest of humanity.

(less)

17 likes · like · see review

Jul 01, 2007 Matthew rated it 3 of 5 stars

So near the mark, but just off of center. This book makes many laudable points, not the least of which is the critique that allowing faith/religion into the political sphere on equal footing with science and reason will doom us all. My primary complaint with this work, and the reason I knocked off a couple stars, is due to Mr. Harris's illogical and inconsistent privileging of America and fundamentalist Christianity over the more "violent" Islam.

For example, he argues that we can rest assured th...more So near the mark, but just off of center. This book makes many laudable points, not the least of which is the critique that allowing faith/religion into the political sphere on equal footing with science and reason will doom us all. My primary complaint with this work, and the reason I knocked off a couple stars, is due to Mr. Harris's illogical and inconsistent privileging of America and fundamentalist Christianity over the more "violent" Islam.

For example, he argues that we can rest assured that the intent of Bush in bombing Iraq was not, as in the case of Palestinian suicide bombings, an attempt to cause widespread civilian death. Mr. Harris was apparently asleep at the wheel when the initial incursion was labeled "Shock & Awe"... I'm sorry, but bombing suburban neighborhoods to cow an enemy is neither strategic (if you buy the liberation myth) nor morally just. The faith of radical clerics in America is treated as somehow less violent because it is Christian, yet he never supports this; I recommend Mr. Harris check out the new documentary, Jesus Camp. Much more logical to assume that with the most powerful military on the globe, Christian America doesn't need to do suicide bombings?

Next, we're assured that these non-Western nations, with their approaches toward death and suicide, could not possess nuclear weapons without annihilating innocent civilians with them. Apparently the possession of these weapons by Pakistan and India means little.... fundamentalist religiosity is extremely violent and politically popular in the governments of both nations, yet they've somehow abstained from blowing themselves, each other, or us up. There seems to be a lot of truth to Arundhati Roy's claim, which he quotes, that there is a racist element underlying some critiques. Mr. Harris appears to fully buy into this trap, while making pot shots at both Roy and Chomsky for presuming that factors aside from religion may also be important.

Finally, he makes a claim that Israeli treatment of Palestinians and their neighbors is of the highest ethical caliber. This is almost grotesque following the horrific loss of civilian lives in the recent conflict with Lebanon... as with American Christians, Mr. Harris frequently seems confused over whether or not Jewish fundamentalism is also as bad as the Muslim flavors.

This book makes a number of excellent points regarding the errors of living based on "faith," the violence resulting from those views, and the ability of science and reason to explain and support the best of human virtue. The argument that this is more concerning in the Islamic world, or that we need to look outside our own backyard (or White House, or Senate, or House of Representatives, or Supreme Court) to find religious zealots willing to militarily force their faith-based views upon others, regardless of civilian casualties, is where the book falls apart. I'm eager to see if this is remedied in his follow-up book.(less)

12 likes · like · see review

Aug 03, 2007 Rob rated it 1 of 5 stars Recommends it for: credulous misanthropes

Shelves: atheism

A greater mystery than human nature and its irrepressible theological imagination is how this book managed to impress so many people. After much consideration, I can only conclude its popularity (along with Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, and Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great) is because of the mass hysteria among secularists over religion after the 9/11 tragedy combined with increased politicalization of religion in government and education. This is...more

18 likes · like · see review

Aug 27, 2009 Jimmy rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

While religious belief is an incredibly complex subject with ages of history behind it, the motivation for such belief can be roughly summarized as a preoccupation with, and fear of, what happens to us when we, as mortal human beings, die. Let's face it, it is a frightening and dreary concept; to think that when our time comes, that that's it, nothing more, our bodies decompose, and our minds no longer function. Of course this is the case for people of the scientific, or materialist persuasion....more While religious belief is an incredibly complex subject with ages of history behind it, the motivation for such belief can be roughly summarized as a preoccupation with, and fear of, what happens to us when we, as mortal human beings, die. Let's face it, it is a frightening and dreary concept; to think that when our time comes, that that's it, nothing more, our bodies decompose, and our minds no longer function. Of course this is the case for people of the scientific, or materialist persuasion. As Joe Frazier once coarsely stated "Kill the body and the head will die". If our physical form dies and shuts down, along with it, goes our mind, the cognitive machine with which man ironically created the concept of religious belief itself. Of course, many of us have difficulty accepting this, and religious belief seems to toss this whole rationale out of the window. Inherent in most religious belief is the promise of a continuation of life after this mortal one. A celestial after-hours lounge for those of us who have lead a pious enough life, or those of us who have acted as martyrs on behalf of a certain religious doctrine. Surely it's a comforting idea, but also one that, irresponsibly interpreted (or responsibly interpreted as the case may be, depending on one's religious belief, it's dubious to think of martyrdom as a responsible act) can lead people to inflict horrible torments and seemingly unforgivable acts of violence upon each other in this mortal realm. This side-effect of religious belief sort of strips itself of any assumed nobility. For Sam Harris, this is more or less the sort of intolerable behavior and belief structure that has absolutely no business in our current political reality, even in our daily interactions with other human beings for that matter.

A significant aspect of this social and ethical hinderance is the way in which religious beliefs tend to deliberately factor out one another. As Harris describes it, religion is "one of the great limiters of moral identity, since most believers differentiate themselves, in moral terms, from those who do not share their faith". This essentially implies that "Once a person accepts the premises upon which most religious identities are built, the withdrawal of his moral concern from those who do not share these premises follows quite naturally". So then "Needless to say, the suffering of those who are destined for hell can never be as problematic as the suffering of the righteous". With all of this in mind, how can we honestly believe that non-violent, moral interaction can possibly exist in a world overrun with such exclusive dogmas?

It's upon this sort of reasoning that Harris builds the rest of his book. Mapping out well researched historical examples of violence motivated by religious intolerance, he naturally arrives at the subject of terrorist attacks and Muslim ideology. Many of Harris's slightly more intelligent critics tend to react to this aspect of the book. One difficult aspect of Harris's methodology here is that in calling for complete intolerance of religious faith, he might sound equally intolerant of religion. It seems to be a necessary paradox though because in the wake of extreme acts of terrorism, as well as the suffering of the innocent people living under these extremist, religiously inspired regimes are experiencing, we must realize the malignant role that faith plays in motivating political behavior. And more importantly, that the notion of religious moderation is an absurd compromise.

Because the nature of faith does not entail even a semblance of uncertainty about the belief in one omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent deity. What constitutes religious belief is an unwavering dedication and commitment to the ideals inherent in said belief, one that even entails a willingness to commit the pathological act of a suicide bombing just to appease the expectations of a god, one who's existence, no one has any substantial proof of.

The alternative solution to this approach to living a fulfilling and meaningful life is certainly a difficult one to establish. Harris proposes a sort of secular spirituality, one inspired to a degree by Eastern religion. He also stresses the importance of strong moral communities. The importance of his book seems to be found in its condemnation of religion and the gap that it creates between believers and non-believers. While an ultimate solution to the ills of faith may not be so easy to find, it's certainly about time that somebody stood up and so confidently suggested that we finally realize just how much damage religious faith has done to the human pursuit of happiness and prosperity in this single and unique, mortal existence that we all must share. (less)

11 likes · like · see review

Mar 08, 2008 Steve rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, atheism, favorites

I wouldn't start here if I were beginning to explore atheism. The book is rather ponderous, but it's worth reading as you make your way through the literature of the field. In places, I found it a little hard to follow, in terms of the progression and linkage of his ideas.

Many individual sentences are quotable gems of pithy insight, and often humor. Take, for example, the following: "The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside. The moderation we see among non-fund...more I wouldn't start here if I were beginning to explore atheism. The book is rather ponderous, but it's worth reading as you make your way through the literature of the field. In places, I found it a little hard to follow, in terms of the progression and linkage of his ideas.

Many individual sentences are quotable gems of pithy insight, and often humor. Take, for example, the following: "The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside. The moderation we see among non-fundamentalists is not some sign that faith, itself, has evolved. It is, rather, the product of many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt. Not the least among these developments has been the emergence of our tendency to value evidence, and to be convinced by a proposition to the degree that there is evidence for it."

Or, how about: "Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge, and scriptural ignorance-and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on a par with fundamentalism. The texts, themselves, are unequivocal. They are perfect in all their parts. By their light, religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God's law. By failing to live by the letter of the text, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question (that is, that we know that there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us), religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness."

This is wonderful, wonderful writing, at least for this reader. However, sometimes his complex sentence construction and word choice seem needlessly abstruse. In addition, taken as a whole, I thought the book wandered too far and wide, and lacked coherent direction.

His exploration into mysticism piqued my interest, contrary to the experience of many of his other atheistic readers, and I don't ordinarily have much patience with mysticism. He gave me some interesting new ways to consider it, particularly when contrasted with what we consider religion in mainstream western thought.

"Letter to a Christian Nation", also by Harris, is much more focused and fun. "The God Delusion" (by Richard Dawkins) lays out a more logically organized and readable look at a broad range of naturalist (as opposed to supernaturalist) arguments, and would be my recommended starting point for someone just beginning to read modern atheist literature.

A more lighthearted, and in fact, deliberately comedic, but wonderfully insightful introduction would be to listen to Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God". She raises just the same issues as the atheist "heavyweights", but does so in such a disarming, funny way that even your moderate Christian friends will be charmed. Look at her talk on TED. Who could help but love her?
(less)

5 likes · like · see review

Aug 01, 2007 C. rated it 1 of 5 stars

I was excited to read this book after seeing Sam Harris on the Colbert Report. It seemed like the Atheist argument that I had really been waiting for, and that finally I was going to find something that I wholeheartedly could get behind, without reservation.

Well, if I could give this book negative five stars I would. Sure, he cites all of the times that the Koran mentions death and destruction, which takes up 4 pages of the book, and also mentions how the Koran drives people to kill us, oh and y...more

9 likes · like · see review

Aug 30, 2008 David rated it 3 of 5 stars

In The End of Faith, Harris does what any number of enlightenment rationalists before him have done: attempt to undermine the authority of religion by showing how scientific rationality discredits the notion of a supernatural being. Harris seizes on the inherent contradictions that arise when a document composed of ancient texts and shaped by historical, political and institutional forces is said to be the inerrant word of a transcendent being. A number of lines of attack open up as a result:
-Go...more In The End of Faith, Harris does what any number of enlightenment rationalists before him have done: attempt to undermine the authority of religion by showing how scientific rationality discredits the notion of a supernatural being. Harris seizes on the inherent contradictions that arise when a document composed of ancient texts and shaped by historical, political and institutional forces is said to be the inerrant word of a transcendent being. A number of lines of attack open up as a result:
-God is kind of a jerk, at least in the Old Testament. He is capricious, cruel, vindictive, even murderous. Where does a God like this get any kind of moral authority and who would want to worship him anyway?
-Believers claim the bible to be the word of God, and hence a form of absolute truth, yet almost all are incredibly selective about what they choose to emphasize. The bible is an extremely contradictory book open to multiple interpretations, and in almost any situation the things determining the emphasis are historical and cultural, rather than textual. So believers are, on the one hand, claiming supernatural authority for their moral and ethical principles, when in fact what they are really doing is using the bible to rationalize and justify beliefs that they hold for other reasons. The bible is so ambiguous and self contradictory that it can’t be said to serve as a reliable guide to how to live, because justification can be found in it for almost any course of action one might want to take. A literal reading of the bible is impossible, because such a reading would be completely incoherent. Surely an infallible being could have done a better job of telling us his intentions.
-The various explanations of human existence in the bible are plainly contradicted by modern science. So it’s clear that the bible, in and of itself, is little more than a historical curiosity. The only reason it bulks so large in contemporary life and contemporary debate is because of the institutions that have grown up around it, and the political and cultural utility of reference to it.

Maybe it’s the ex-history grad student in me, but I do think there’s something problematic about the kind of critique waged by Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens et al. As Terry Eagleton argued in The London Review of Books, they make no attempt to uncover and examine “the structure of feeling” of religious belief. An historian writing a history of a church or denomination or community in which religion played a large part would have to write a thick description of the way in which religious belief functions in the community of believers etc. The same thing would apply if he were writing a biography of an historical figure. He’d certainly need to stand outside that figure or community, and could not take every (or any) religion-inspired claim or belief at face value. But he would have to describe, neutrally and empathetically, the functional role religion played in a given society or community, or the psychological role it played in the lives of believers.

Now I’m not against New Atheist polemics. I found Harris’ book quite cathartic, and heard myself saying “Right On!” far more than “now hold on…” but I couldn’t shake the nagging suspicion that there was something wrong with his approach. Despite all the historical references in the book it seemed far too driven by current social and political anxieties to stand as a fair account of religion (as if such a vast subject could be dispensed with in 300 pages anyway).

But of course the book is not a work of history, it’s a polemic, an attempt to refute a specific opinion or doctrine. Being a polemic, it’s not bound by the rules and norms of academic historical inquiry. And in fact, Harris’ goal is not to reconstruct the past, but to convince readers that religious belief and religious faith should not be living options for people in the twenty-first century. The ahistorical quality of his argument is almost necessary, given his aim. In fact his presentist, ahistorical approach to religion is probably closer to how people actually live religious faith (or aspire to live it) than the textual, historical approach of biblical scholars. Most believers don’t approach the bible the way scholars do. They see it as a living thing, a guide to how to live in the here and now.

Most believers don’t believe every word in the bible. Most use it selectively, emphasizing passages that coincide with the more modern moral outlook that they’ve acquired through socialization (of which the historical/cultural weight of Christianity or Islam or whatever is a part). And for the vast majority of believers in the liberal democratic West, I’m guessing, religious faith poses not the slightest obstacle to life in the modern world. Most are functional secularists. Harris doesn’t ignore this fact—he seizes on it and gives it a darker emphasis. Moderate religiosity, he argues, is dangerous because it aids and abets the more fundamentalist and radical tendencies in the world today. And this is especially dangerous given the rise of right-wing fundamentalist Christianity in the US, and radical Islam in the Muslim world. If it were just a question of religious moderates living with (or ignoring) certain fundamental contradictions, there would be no cause for alarm. The problem, according to Harris, is that religious moderates aid and abet religious extremists by insulating them from criticism. They enforce the idea that it’s impolite to question the fundamental assumptions behind religious faith. They help keep these issues out of public discourse. And this might not be such a big deal if fundamentalists in the US respected the separation of church and state, or if Islamic radicals in the Muslim world weren’t so busy blowing up their perceived opponents. But when conservative Christians in the US threaten the teaching of evolution in the schools, and when Islamic radicalism threatens the political stability of the middle east (as does, I should add, the US response to Islamic radicalism), and the physical existence of people everywhere, this becomes cause for alarm.

Here's an attempt sketch a less condescending model of the psychology of religious moderation:
a) The idea of God is the idea that there are forces beyond the self that rule and determine human existence. While these forces may, in principle, be knowable, for most human beings alive on the planet at any given moment they are effectively inscrutable. We can never know the truth of our existence in any ultimate or absolute sense. Nor, for that matter, do the truths of science offer us much insight into how we should treat our fellow human beings.
b) Church and religion is a place where the ethical implications of this insight are worked through, codified, and put into practice—it’s where we learn how to act toward our fellow man
c) The Bible is obviously an historical text, written and assembled by fallible human beings but it is useful for the following pragmatic reasons 1) the weight of tradition behind it gives it an authority that other, more straightforward, contemporary, intellectually rigorous and logically consistent books don’t possess—its useful in building and sustaining a community of the faithful, which is crucial to establishing a church and practicing a religion 2) It’s distance from the contemporary world is one of it’s virtues—its anachronistic nature means that its inherently critical of contemporary norms and values (often in reactionary ways) 3) While the book is riddled with incredible claims about the world, anachronistic values, and injunctions to outright despicable behavior, there are plenty of worthwhile passages in it as well.
d) Church is also a place where the mysteries of human existence, and human subjectivity are explored, through prayer, meditation and other forms of spiritual discipline. These are techniques for cultivating inwardness and building a soul.
e) Religion also offers solace from the harsher aspects of human existence—the anxiety and insecurity we experience while alive, and the finality of death.
f) Finally, it is possible to belong to a church, practice a religion, be a “believer”, and still live in the modern world. This may involve living with a number of logical contradictions, but people do that all the time.

So the upshot, I guess, is that New Atheist polemics like Harris' are good as far as they go, but they only go so far. They help you understand certain things about religious belief—mainly the logical and moral problems that arise when one tries to take an ancient text that’s origins are largely political and historical and treat it as a source of transcendent and inerrant wisdom. But they don't provide a fair description of contemporary religious belief, or provide an adequate description of how contemporary believers, especially religious moderates, live their faith.(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Feb 08, 2009 m rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: looking-for-clues

Wow, what an attack. When I picked up this book I knew I was going to be dealing with someone who blamed religion for pretty much everything from world war to salmonella in peanut butter, but what I didn't expect was how much of the blame he put on not the zealots, but the religious moderates as well. The title says "The End of Faith" and he means it -- the slightest bit of faith in anything is subject to withering attack.

In his writing, the author resorts to the kind of zealotry that he blames...more

4 likes · like · see review

Jan 04, 2009 Paul rated it 1 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Village Atheists

Shelves: the-new-atheism

Another yawner from the "New" atheists. This is another book by a pretentious atheist who just can't believe that there are still theists. "Arrrgh! Don't you know we've beaten you theists fair and square. It is just obvious that theism is false. If you won't give up your theistic beliefs by our obviously superior rational arguments, then I'll shame you in to giving them up."

Ho hum.

Harris trots out the usual dusty canards of the New Atheists: religion is evil, it's the cause of all the wars, it's...more

14 likes · like · see review

view all 21 comments

Tim Good God, people! All such a fuss about someone saying that we may be justified in killing someone else because their religious beliefs are about to h...more
May 20, 2013 03:00pm

Paul Hi Tim,

Much more was discussed here. Anyway, I have no clue what you mean by a "belief" that is "_about to_ harm another person." How did beliefs get...more
May 20, 2013 03:32pm

Jul 26, 2008 Jeanette rated it 3 of 5 stars Recommends it for: People with a serious interest in the topic

Shelves: nonfiction, philosophy-theology

The original purpose of the book,(as nearly as I can tell), was to show how all religions require belief in things that are basically insane, without providing one shred of evidence for these beliefs. He discusses various faiths: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and shows how all of their scriptures encourage violence and hatred/destruction of those who don't share their faith. Belief in an afterlife (NEVER provable) full of rewards leads people to irrational and dangerous behavior in THIS life---the...more

4 likes · like · see review

Oct 02, 2007 Obscuranta Hideypants added it Recommends it for: those who like surface arguments

Shelves: readanddisliked

Harris has been hailed as something of a rationalist savior. While on the surface his arguments against the current violent trends in fundamentalist religions seem something with which most people would agree, it does not take much examination to reveal an extremely backward and reactionary perspective underneath.

We do need a call to reason, but this call must itself be based on an objective, scientific outlook, particularly as regards the origins and nature of religion. It is not a question of...more Harris has been hailed as something of a rationalist savior. While on the surface his arguments against the current violent trends in fundamentalist religions seem something with which most people would agree, it does not take much examination to reveal an extremely backward and reactionary perspective underneath.

We do need a call to reason, but this call must itself be based on an objective, scientific outlook, particularly as regards the origins and nature of religion. It is not a question of denying the significance of ideas in history and politics, but of developing an explanation for where these ideas come from. Harris’ work fails completely in this. While ostensibly a call to oppose religious bigotry, Harris’ work serves the agenda of those right-wing forces seeking to inflame public opinion against Islam.

For example, Harris writes: “Given the vicissitudes of Muslim history, however, I suspect that the starting point I have chosen for this book—that of a single suicide bomber following the consequences of his religious beliefs—is bound to exasperate many readers, since it ignores the painful history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It ignores the collusion of the Western powers with corrupt dictatorships. It ignores the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world. But I will argue that we can ignore all of these things—or treat them only to put them safely on the shelf—because the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited people who do not commit acts of terrorism, indeed who would never commit acts of the sort which has become commonplace among Muslims; and the Muslim world has no shortage of educated and prosperous men and women, suffering little more than their infatuation with Koranic eschatology, who are eager to murder infidels for God’s sake.” (p. 109)

So: it is the Islamic faith that is responsible for terrorism. Throughout the book, Harris conflates Islam and “the Muslim World” with terror. Of course, if it is the “Muslim world” that is responsible for terrorism, repressive actions against this “Muslim world” are justified.

Thus we have Harris’ extraordinary declaration that in dealing with religious extremism, it may be necessary to employ military force, even extermination. He states on pages 52-53: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

Harris adds deliberately provocative turns of phrase- referring to the “twin terrors of Koranic literalism” (p. 34), an obvious reference to the bombing of the World Trade Center, and “Yes, the Koran seems to say something that can be construed as a prohibition against suicide—‘Do not destroy yourselves’ (4:29)—but it leaves many loopholes large enough to fly a 767 through...” (p. 33)

Harris’ anti-Islamic bent is the more insidious because it is framed as an argument in favor of reason and science.

He advances the idea that religion as a thing unto itself is to blame for the woes wrought by those wielding it. There is no serious attempt to analyze the factors that gave rise to religion and serve to maintain its grip over wide layers of the population. While it can generally be agreed that religion has played an important role historically, to view it as the prime motivating factor is wrong. (less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jul 29, 2007 Lena rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, skepticism

In this book, Harris makes the compelling argument that human beings can no longer afford the luxury of major religious belief systems. In a world in which we now have the capacity to kill millions of humans at one time, belief systems that are intolerant of non-believers and emphasize life in the hereafter over the present are simply too dangerous.

Harris claims that even moderate members of a religion are to blame for extreme acts committed in the name of their faith, because the moderates hel...more

7 likes · like · see review

May 16, 2007 Noah Stacy rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction

I am sympathetic, though perhaps not entirely convinced, of Harris's argument that faith--moderate or extreme--is always dangerous. However, religious beliefs should certainly be opened to criticism. As Harris suggests, religious beliefs should be made as open to criticism as any others, and people must become aware that the argument that "the Bible says so" is a non-argument. Would we accept someone's argument against, say, gay marriage, if they claimed that Zeus had told them so?

Harris goes a...more

3 likes · like · see review

Oct 08, 2009 Greg rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy-theory-and-other-their-i, religion

What follows is not a review. It's more like some notes and thoughts I had while reading the book... a review will soon be written....

This is from DFW's 2005 Kenyon Commencement Speech:

"Here's another didactic little story. There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist s...more What follows is not a review. It's more like some notes and thoughts I had while reading the book... a review will soon be written....

This is from DFW's 2005 Kenyon Commencement Speech:

"Here's another didactic little story. There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says: "Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in God. It's not like I haven't ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn't see a thing, and it was fifty below, and so I tried it: I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out 'Oh, God, if there is a God, I'm lost in this blizzard, and I'm gonna die if you don't help me.'" And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. "Well then you must believe now," he says, "After all, here you are, alive." The atheist just rolls his eyes. "No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp."

I have no doubt that Sam Harris is much smarter than I am. I have little doubt that any criticisms I make will be duly dealt with by persons probably smarter than myself too, or at least better informed than I am on these topics. I'm curious to read some of the religious critiques of this book, are any of them able to refute what he is saying without resorting to religious babble? I'm not really quite sure where you argue with him on the questions of religion, something about the way he posits a definition of belief I think is the weak link in the argument, but I can't put my finger on what it is. That's only based an unease I felt with his reasoning though. Is he harsh on Islam? No, I don't think so. Everyone who is Islam is not a bad person, as a group that can run out into the street waving AK-47's around cheering and celebrating the deaths of a few thousand innocent people, or who find it proper to behead people, or douse women in gasoline and light them on fire, or excitedly show pictures you took with your camera of dead-people on the ground around the WTC that are now housed on your laptop, and not understand how come everyone else around you doesn't think it's a great thing (ok, this guy might just be a sociopath who happened to be Muslim, but still Greg conspiracy number 3 of 9/11, why did he bring not one but two cameras to school with him that day, when he had never brought cameras to school any other day? Greg conspiracies #1 and 2 may be dealt with later). The way that liberals have defended their right to the diversity of their religion has stunk to me for quite awhile. If they are allowed to actively do anti-social things, then we should allow any religious group in our country to do them too, both books proscribe similar things. I don't think a bunch of women being forced outside of towns freezing their asses off and being shunned all because they are menstruating would be looked upon as a cultural difference worth appreciating some Leviticus inspired church decided to do this out in Wyoming.

Lots of words to say I agree.

What I had difficulty with was Harris' attempt at explaining a possible ethics. Maybe it was the appeal to a proto-utilitarianism and basing a possible universal moral code on the premise of love and happiness. I'm simplifying here. I actually agree with him, but I don't see it all holding water. Now, because of love we feel for others we want them to have the most happiness and suffer less. This love would radiate outward in our immediate social circle's (this is me talking now not Harris), our family (that we don't hate), significant others, friends, children we'd feel more of a bond with and be more invested in their happiness and suffering. Here is sort of my problem: If me and my very large family, my wife and our 12 children, whom I love very very much, but it pains me to see them go hungry all the time, not have shoes for their 24 little feet, and I can't just seem to provide for them all. I want them to be happy. I don't want them to suffer anymore. Now living next door is an old miser. He never talks to me, I don't like him, nor do I hate him. I know he has 10 million dollars stashed under the floorboards in his house. I know he has no friends, no family and that no one will miss him if he died. I also know that no one knows about the money, I just happen to know someway. Do I kill him? One the happiness and suffering scale the answer could be yes, but we'd still say he has a right to his happiness of life. What if I told you that a letter got accidently delivered to my house yesterday from his doctor, and the doctor told him that he has terminal cancer of the most painful kind, and he only has 6 months to live. Do I kill him now? What if I'm going to do it with a drug that he will never realize he has taken, he will feel nothing from, and he will just pass away in his sleep, with no terror, no violence, no awareness even of his death? Can I kill him now? The answer somewhere in this becomes yes, yes I can kill him. Especially if one doesn't believe in an afterlife, there becomes a point in this far-fetched hypothetical situation; happiness and suffering are at this point vague and unquantifiable, and are a slippery slope. What if I had these 12 kids, they are all on the brink of starvation, and the next door neighbor is a rich miser, no relations blah blah blah, who I know hates life because he walks around his yard all day muttering "I hate my life". Murder here is morally justified, but it shouldn't be--it's that reason why it shouldn't be justified that I think is missing in the framework of a system that Harris is building.

Harris isn't really offering up a final word on ethics though, he's just pointing towards ways that a future morality could be built that didn't rely on fairy tales, myths, or some of the problematic pragmatic approaches someone like Rorty might endorse. (On pragmatics, wow, was he a little harsh on Rorty and company. I've never been much of a fan of pragmatism, nor spent much time thinking about it, or reading it, but he really did a number on it. I do think that he missed an interesting point that he could have taken up and been in agreement with Habermas, and which I think is a central problem in any talk about religion and irrationality. Habermas has had many different sides to him in his long career as Adorno's successor who lost his balls, so to speak. Habermas' central idea is roughly that if open discourse could happen then it would easily resolve problems; but it's that communication is not possible, that problems continue without being able to find a solution. This brings me back to the DFW quote at the start, the problem between having a discourse on religion and the irrational aspects, and trying to bring someone who believes some really weird shit into congruence with the actual physical world we live in is that neither person are speaking the same language. This isn't relativism, it's not that both are right, or that you have your truth and I have mine in any kind of epistemological sense, it's that both sides could be wrong, but neither of them is speaking a language that the other one understands. Look at the creationist debate. The reason why scientists can't convince a biblical literalist about the validity of their findings is that the words a scientist uses are not even understood by the creationist. Yes they can give definitions of the words that both would agree on, but there is something in their language, in their way of using the language and expressing themselves both to themselves and to the outside world that is not the same as being used by the other person. The scientist can show figure after figure, show pictures, fossils showing every stage for transition from single-cell molecule to human and it would do nothing to the creationist, they would still hear every word as intelligent design, as biblical this or that. And this would be vice versa too. I'd suggest that one possible way to break down this barrier of communication is through something of a deconstruction (a text with no inherent truth can be broken apart any number of ways that are all legitimate, a text with a concealed truth can be broken open to expose that truth, in the first instance there is a case of relativism, but it's of no importance, their is no truth in the text to begin with, it's only making the inconsistencies more apparent by showing the absurdity of the new readings. The second is the more abused version of deconstruction, because it often falls into a relativistic whirlpool of competing 'truths', but in many cases I think it's the job of the reader to read these 'deconstructions' as added layers to the original, where this is going I'm not quite sure, I'll probably add something in the comment section at some point), and I think it's something that late Derrida was pointing to along with his focus on cosmopolitanism (which in reality is probably the only way to truly overcome the schisms of irrational belief, it's in all likelihood one of the major contributing factors of Ancient Greece putting their pantheon of Gods aside, but this is mentioned by Harris, although I don't think he uses the word cosmopolitan).

Now I should probably go finish the book. I still have a chapter left to read.
(less)

13 likes · like · see review

Feb 08, 2009 Eric_W rated it 4 of 5 stars

Finally, the a-theist (hyphen deliberate) crowd is responding to all the religious claptrap with a vengeance. I've read Dawkins, Dennett and now Harris (I think this book should also be read with Letter to a Christian Nation which was his response to all the hate mail he received.) Harris makes a very good case, perhaps less shrilly than Dawkins, for why religious belief perpetuates evil and hatred. I've seen him interviewed in debates on several occasions and find his responses to be quite well...more

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 29, 2011 Tory rated it 2 of 5 stars

After reading the first chapter of this book, my initial reaction was, "Who peed in this guy's cornflakes?" because the author introduced his subject matter with such intensity and anger.Then I read that Harris began writing this book on September 12, 2001. Ah, got it now. I liked the book for its plain language and directness regarding religion and its impact on our world. It was a very refreshing read in light of today's political correctness, which often leaves us all saying nothing about imp...more

3 likes · like · see review

Sep 17, 2008 Ty rated it 2 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Anyone intersted in the mind of a militant atheist

Shelves: commentary, religious, atheism

Insofar as man has created his own gods (and the practice has indeed been rampant) I find Harris' critique of faith accurate and interesting. I find militant religion as frightening as he does. It's therefore unfortunate that he's riddled his book with double talk, contradictions and absurdities. Presumably, there's a militant atheist out there who has or will endow the perspective with more credibility. I'll continue to search.

The following are notes I made during the read. I kinda fell in lik...more

2 likes · like · see review

Sep 18, 2008 Chad rated it 3 of 5 stars

The End Of Faith is a frustrating book, mixing important facts and keen insight with misinformation, appeals to fear, insults, and almost willful misunderstanding. Harris’s fundamental thesis is that faith by his definition — the willingness to believe something in spite of a lack of evidence or even an abundance of counter-evidence — is irrational, and that irrational people currently have the technology to cause wanton destruction if their beliefs inspire such actions (chapters 1-2). His secon...more
The End Of Faith is a frustrating book, mixing important facts and keen insight with misinformation, appeals to fear, insults, and almost willful misunderstanding. Harris’s fundamental thesis is that faith by his definition — the willingness to believe something in spite of a lack of evidence or even an abundance of counter-evidence — is irrational, and that irrational people currently have the technology to cause wanton destruction if their beliefs inspire such actions (chapters 1-2). His secondary theorem is that the major religions of the world can indeed inspire violence, that they have done so frequently in the past, and that they are continuing to do so in the present (chapters 3-5). The corollary is, of course, that the continued existence of the world as we know it depends on faith in these religions and anything else being abandoned. The remainder of the book sets forth a proposal that Buddhism and other spiritual practices that are not belief-based can provide the benefits of religions without their drawbacks.

The second part of the first claim is undeniable; there do indeed exist weapons with which a single moderately wealthy person can threaten the lives of billions, and enough of these weapons in existence to destroy all remnants of modern civilization. The first part is also fairly straightforward, although the lines between what is believed due to personal experience (acorns fall from oak trees), what is believed due to consensus among people who claim to have directly observed them (all matter is made of atoms), and what is believed because it has been passed down through many generations from those who claimed direct observation (a man named Noah, his extended family, and the livestock they took into their boat were the only land-borne survivors of an ancient flood) is quite fuzzy. Harris admits that most of what we “know” must be taken on faith in a sense, because no person can possibly experience everything (pages 73-77). However, he makes a reasonable distinction between those things that have been independently verified by large numbers of people and those that could not possibly be verified by anyone currently living. He also points out that beliefs not supported by evidence need not be religious in the usual sense, and also include everything from the superiority of Aryans to UFO sightings (pages 241-242).

My complaint is primarily with the second theorem, regarding the tendency of the major faith-based religions to inspire violence in their followers. At times Harris places the blame not on any specific belief but on the general concept of the supernatural, as in “Certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one.” (page 13) In other parts he looks at specific scriptural references, such as the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy (page 18), a text common to all of his favorite punching bags: Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Indeed, it is difficult to reconcile this commandment to put to death anyone who attempts to lead one from his religion with what claim to be religions of love and peace. What Harris and no doubt many others fail to do is to understand the passage within its proper context. If the early Israelites had not dealt so harshly with such people, it seems highly unlikely that they would exist today as an ethnicity, religion, or even footnote in a history book. Whether this cultural cohesion was worth the lives it likely cost is an interesting question, but the important point is that no one with authority in any mainstream religion interprets this passage as a practice that should be continued today.

In fact, Harris uses this to push the idea that religious moderation — which to him means holding religious beliefs without going on a murderous rampage — is a result of either ignorance of religion, or a lack of real faith. See page 17, “Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world.”, or page 21, “Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.”. Actually, religious moderation is the product of understanding religious texts rather than simply assuming an interpretation that furthers your own world view. In fact, Harris finds that our scriptures are almost entirely inflammatory, as seen on page 35: “God has given us far more reasons to kill one another than to turn the other cheek” and 78: “A close study of these books, and of history, demonstrates that there is no act of cruelty so appalling that it cannot be justified, or even mandated, by recourse to their pages. It is only by the most acrobatic avoidance of passages whose canonicity has never been in doubt that we can escape murdering one another outright for the glory of God.”

He then goes on to describe several specific instances of people behaving badly due to their faith. In chapter 3 he starts with the Inquisition of heretics and trials of suspected witches in Medieval Europe. The first is indeed a black mark on the history of the Catholic church, and a lesson we would do well to avoid forgetting. The second was, I believe, a largely secular phenomenon. It does require belief in the supernatural to believe that someone has put a curse on you or otherwise use supernatural powers in a way that is destructive to society. Based on the scientific understanding held by the common people at the time, however, I am not sure that their conclusions were not reasonable. One needs only to look as far back as McCarthyism to find a similar case of a fearful populace sacrificing some of their members for what they think will be the good of the whole, and the HUAC had no religious affiliation.

The second half of chapter 3 discusses anti-Semitism and, absurdly, lays the blame for the Holocaust at the feet of the Christian church (page 79). It is certainly true that followers of Christianity and Judaism have not always been charitable toward each other, and that the Christian church is largely at fault for that. Why has this been the case? On pages 92-93 Harris asserts that it is endemic to Christian doctrine: “Anti-Semitism is as integral to church doctrine as the flying buttress is to a Gothic cathedral … anti-semitism is intrinsic to both Christianity and Islam; both traditions consider the Jews to be bunglers of God’s initial revelation. Christians generally also believe that the Jews murdered Christ …”. The first part of this is at least partly true: Christians do believe that their religion is the continuation of Judaism, and that non-Messianic Jews are missing the most important thing to have ever happened in their religion. The second part, however, requires a complete and utter lack of understanding of theology. According to Christian doctrine, Christ chose to die so that He could mitigate the justice required by the sins of every man, woman, and child ever born. It happens that the people who had the authority to have Him arrested and who convinced the Roman authorities to execute Him were Jews, but that does not place blame for the act on every Jewish person ever born. Even if it did, it would only mean that all Jews are responsible for assisting in the greatest miracle of Christianity.

This is not the only case in which Harris’s understanding of the fundamentals of Christianity is severely flawed. On page 95 he mentions in passing that the doctrine that Jesus was born to the virgin Mary causes the church to view sexuality as sinful. There is a kernel of truth here: Christianity does generally hold that sexuality can be used in sinful ways, such as adultery. If Christian thought holds that sex itself is sinful, however, the continued growth of the population would demonstrate that the church takes its position rather lightly. In fact, this is far from the truth. More important, however, is the ridiculous assertion that any hostility toward sexuality would have arisen as a response to the virgin birth. The reason that Jesus was to be born of a virgin is quite clear, and it has nothing to do with sex being immoral. Rather, it was important to demonstrate the belief that Jesus was the offspring of both God and man.

On page 97 he continues to misinterpret, taking a quotation from John 8 in which Jesus was speaking to a group of Jews (being a Jewish person living in a Jewish land, this described pretty much any conversation He ever had), and acting as though it applies to all Jewish people throughout time and space. In any case, it is the portrayal of the Holocaust as a situation created by Christianity that is most galling. In general, his thesis rests on the proposition that the Nazis would not have been able to convince the general populace to support their murderous schemes if centuries of religious anti-Semitism had not conditioned them to already hate people of Jewish faith. I am not qualified to discuss the extent to which this may be accurate, but even if it is true Christianity is still neither the proximate nor the ultimate cause of the Holocaust. It is true that people around the world in general and Christians in specific were callously negligent in their unwillingness to held European Jews, and that may be the saddest part of the whole terrible affair.

Boo 10,000 char max. See http://sigaserver.dyndns.org:8765/~ch... for the full review.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Apr 07, 2008 Jason Hancock rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: aethism

Sam Harris blames all religios faith for all the atrocities that have haunted us over the centuries. He is particularly hard on the muslims of the world and he has many good reasons for this. He, however, runs the risk of preaching hate against the muslims and this did not sit well with me. 'Hate never yet dispelled hate, only love can dispel hate'-the Buddha. It is not that I do not agree with his arguments on why the muslim faith has rendered its people to have a mind set close to that of peop...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 26, 2008 Donald rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy-theology-culture

I found Sam Harris's book interesting and disturbing, but it should be classified as fiction. Nearly every argument he asserts is specious. Apparently, he reads only those who support his own position (philosophical suicide). He conveniently dismisses atheistic regimes as "religious" by assigning an ambiguous religious or mythological type of totalitarianism to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the rest of those who tortured and killed religious believers. He cites Northern Ireland and the Israel/Palesti...more

7 likes · like · see review

Jan 03, 2008 Eric rated it 2 of 5 stars

I've been reading this book forever now. I imagine I'll finish sometime.

I'm sympathetic to Harris' arguments: I've been an atheist since I was a teenager. But Harris' book is hypocritical, shallow, and unpleasant. Religion is bad--unless it's his own brand of Buddhism, apparently. And his defense of torture could not have been easy to write with his head shoved so far up his own asshole. And the sad truth is that however much his general case might apply to almost all religion (potentially even...more

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 20, 2007 Trevor rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, psychology, religion

Harris does much to prove that there is nothing one can say about religion that will not get you into trouble. In Letter to a Christian Nation he is criticised for not dealing with moderates, but that is done here. I find the religious tend to want it all ways. If you criticise those who actually believe the word of god as if it was real and meant, then you are being as dogmatic as they are. Here Harris argues that moderate believers are as dangerous as fundamentalists as by stopping debate on f...more

4 likes · like · see review

Nov 02, 2007 John rated it 5 of 5 stars

At its heart, the book is arguing against Faith. His starting point is Islamic terrorism, which he argues can only be understood in the context of faith--without the religious beliefs underpinning these people's lives, without the certainty they have in both the righteousness of their cause and the eternal reward they will earn, recruiting for suicide bombing missions would be awfully hard.

Part of his argument, though, is that contrary to what we typically say, the problem isn't just a few extre...more At its heart, the book is arguing against Faith. His starting point is Islamic terrorism, which he argues can only be understood in the context of faith--without the religious beliefs underpinning these people's lives, without the certainty they have in both the righteousness of their cause and the eternal reward they will earn, recruiting for suicide bombing missions would be awfully hard.

Part of his argument, though, is that contrary to what we typically say, the problem isn't just a few extremists. This plays out in two ways. In the first place, he looks squarely at Islam. While it may be true that it's not every Muslim who is lining up for suicide bombing missions, it's also true that there are a lot of passages in the Koran which enjoin hatred or at least disdain for the infidel and a lot of other passages that glorify armed conflict against said infidels. To provide weight to this argument, he not only quotes extensively from the Koran, but he also cites a worldwide poll of Muslims that seems to find is an awful lot of tacit support for the suicide bombers.

Harris does not only blame Islam, though. He also targets, in the West, the way that we treat religion in public discourse: that is, with kid gloves. If someone speaks of their religious faith in public, then that's it, end of discussion. There is not allowed to be any questioning or criticism of that faith. This kind of "respect" for faith gives cover to the extremists. Also, in a democracy, such "respect" has real, dangerous consequences. Look, for instance, at the results we've gotten with the Bush administration: policies and political appointments based on religion. Harris examines a number of ways that this has played out in the U.S. At its heart, religion is making claims about the world--about how it is and how it should be. These claims should be open to scrutiny and debate the same way that scientific claims are. If "God" may not be as easy to "prove" or "disprove" as many ideas of science, there is still evidence to be marshaled on either side, particularly when a particular faith is on the line. A claim for the existence of God is difficult to disprove, but a claim for a divine, inerrant Bible, for instance, is not.

Harris is not, in the end, dismissive of spirituality as such. He is quite respectful of the idea that there is something that is probably best called a "spiritual" side to life, even in the absence of God. Not only is there room for such a thing, Harris finds spiritual experiences and spiritual inquiry quite valuable.

Harris's discussion can get quite detailed, and he shunts at least some of the discussion of philosophy, neuroscience, and other deeper discussions into the endnotes. At times, these end notes can be quite lengthy, and this was probably a good choice--go deeper if you want (there's also a bibliography) or stick with the main points of the discussion.

There are certainly points that readers will find questionable or even objectionable, but this is an interesting, thought-provoking, well-argued book.(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Feb 09, 2008 David rated it 1 of 5 stars

This is an interesting, thought-provoking reading. I'll grant Mr. Harris that. I guess I would suggest a reading of it for that reason. But I think of Sam Harris as not much more than a provocateur, a much hotter version of Anne Coulter.

When I first set sail, the book was funny, shocking, audacious. As I read further, though, and the tone set in on me, I felt a little dirty for reading the book. The name calling, the degrading treatment of those who seek spirituality, and the unbalanced disdain...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 07, 2009 Mark rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, religion, spirituality

Perhaps the most vocal of the "new atheists", Sam Harris is bright, funny, and a riot to read. However, like Richard Dawkins he seems to be mostly useful for calling the tune for the choir. I have a hard time imagining anyone who sincerely believes to get far in his diatribe against believers and their beliefs. It's a shame because his ideas are powerful and he's probably right in his conclusions.

I especially like his courageous foray into areas where other "atheists" fear and loath to tread - t...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 29, 2013 Josepha rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: atheism

Let me first start by stating that I agree with the central premise of this book that religion is dangerous and that I find Harris a brilliant defender of atheism. However, I do have certain points of criticism.
Firstly, the idea that Harris promotes is that the israeli-palestine conflict is merely a conflict between jews and muslims (what about christian palestinians?) and that he tends to play the anti-semitism card.
Secondly, he is worried about pakistan having nuclear weapons because it is a...more

like · see review

Apr 09, 2013 Lorin Kinney rated it 3 of 5 stars

There are some terrific arguments about the dangers of fundamentalist religion in this text. I, too, am frightened by people who are thoroughly convinced that their suicide, so long as other people die in the process, will lead to nonstop rad sex in heaven. My question is, why should American foreign policy be to impose our political and economic system on EVERYONE? Sam Harris is the quintessential Neocon. He believes that the United States goes to war only when the motivation is noble. He and o...more

like · see review

Apr 02, 2013 Kaat V rated it 3 of 5 stars

Van god los
Een paar dagen geleden had ik een onverwacht gesprek met iemand over de schepping. Hij maakte zich zorgen over de discussie boven (want volgens mij niet in) het onderwijs of de evolutietheorie nu al dan niet nog gegeven moest worden of vervangen door intelligent design of simpelweg zelfs door de scheppingstheorie zoals die in de geschriften van joden, moslims en christenen staat.
Ik probeerde de man gerust te stellen : de discussie leeft niet binnen het onderwijs en ook niet bij de god...more

like · see review

Mar 31, 2013 Tessha rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: religon

Strong opening. Lots of good vocabulary sprinkled around for those stimulated by that. Some hard to follow arguments. I skimmed over parts. Can't buy everything Harris is selling but appreciated some content.

Pg 30 was probably the most helpful piece I read regarding Muslim extremism, simple insight into what is perhaps driving the current issues.

"Most Muslim extremists have far fewer grievances with Western imperialism than is the norm around the globe. Above all, they appear to be suffering f...more

like · see review

title link	preview: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
avg rating	preview: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason Goodreads rating: 3.93 (12065 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29501.The_End_of_Faith?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348719569l/29501.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29501.The_End_of_Faith?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris[/url]

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (22)

Videos About This Book

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Sam Harris

Books by Sam Harris

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The End of Faith:...

Quotes from The End of Faith: Reli...