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

Nov 24, 2007 Steve rated it really liked it

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 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?
...more

15 likes · Like · see review

Oct 02, 2007 Obscuranta Hideypants added it

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 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. ...more

4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 12, 2007 Krishan rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science-math-and-philosophy

I've read all of the books of the "new atheism" and I have to say that Harris' book is the only essential one. What he has to say (as far as the moral questions), even if unoriginal, is only echoed by the other authors. Dawkins nails the theists on the science, and Hitchens nails them on the politics and ethics, but it is Harris' broadside against faith that holds up the best. He forces his reason onto superstition like a blowtorch onto ice. And he does it with plain speech that is hard to forge ...more

3 likes · Like · see review

Feb 25, 2014 -uht! rated it liked it

Shelves: religion

Hmm. Well, okay. I learned a few things from this book. I started it as an atheist and I needed no convincing that faith causes much more damage than good and deserves no special reverence. So I suppose that makes me the choir that Sam was preaching to.

Even so, one of the major feelings I came away with is that Sam Harris is just kind of a douche. I can't place my finger on it. But I suppose it was his overall tone. I agreed with much of what he said...

I think I discovered why in his section on Hmm. Well, okay. I learned a few things from this book. I started it as an atheist and I needed no convincing that faith causes much more damage than good and deserves no special reverence. So I suppose that makes me the choir that Sam was preaching to.

Even so, one of the major feelings I came away with is that Sam Harris is just kind of a douche. I can't place my finger on it. But I suppose it was his overall tone. I agreed with much of what he said...

I think I discovered why in his section on relativism. That section presents the world in an almost autistically rigid way and I wondered if Sam's atheism and douchiness just comes from an inability to imagine things in a different way. I felt the same way after reading his essay on Lying and felt it even stronger in this book. I think that most of us would agree that there is some kind of "public" truth that exists outside of our perception of us. Most of us operate under the assumption that this public time and space is something that we are privy to but occurs outside of us. But... can anyone actually prove that? Nope. For all I know, I am the only thing that exists and all of this is in my mind. No philosopher has ever been able to prove this but somehow Sam is dogmatically certain that this is the case. Honestly, this inability to even consider the alternative seems like religion to me. And maybe this explains his inability to imagine the *why* behind religion. Without knowing why people believe, you can't appeal to them. And this book won't appeal to them in any way, shape or form. But I suppose that wasn't his goal.

That isn't to say the book doesn't present some great arguments and evoke a lot of thought. It does. For me, in particular, I came away with the notion that Islam is not just an average religion amplified by a marginalized people into violence. The violence is inherent in the religion. And Islam is just a more extreme version of the same set of problems all religions share.

And then there was this quote, which contains a beautiful and simple insight the encapsulates ethics: "Consider it: every person you have ever met, every person you will pass in the street today, is going to die. Living long enough, each will suffer the loss of his friends and family. All are going to lose everything they love in this world. Why would one want to be anything but kind to them in the meantime?"

Anyway, I suppose the insights outweigh the problems, but I think Dawkins does a much better job handling the subject in The God Delusion. I'd skip this one and read Dawkins. ...more

2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 30, 2007 Kitty rated it really liked it

Shelves: philosophy, scepticism, critical-thinking

Hard-hitting and well-reasoned. Clear ideas clearly presented. There are many good quotes to be found in this book, too. Here's one:

"Religious violence is still with us because our religions are intrinsically hostile to one another. Where they appear otherwise, it is because secular knowledge and secular interests are restraining the most lethal improprieties of faith. It is time we acknowledged that no real foundation exists within the canons of Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any of our other ...more

Like · see review

Aug 29, 2010 David rated it really liked it

Bold and smart-- this book lays bare the problems of religion and the promise of secularism. While it sometimes feels a bit heavy handed, and bit too narrow, it a refreshing take on the problems of the modern era.

Like · see review