If you know me, you know that I’ve been a long-time admirer of Whedon as a creator, thinker, and activist as well as a fan of his work, particularly Firefly/Serenity and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

He sees education as humanity’s greatest hope. Stay around for the final quote:

The enemy of humanism is not faith. The enemy of humanism is hate, is fear, is ignorance, is the darker part of man that is in every humanist, every person in the world. That is the thing we have to fight.

He also offers some insightful comments on gender in his Equality Now acceptance speech from 2006.

Here’s my diigo highlights and annotations.

The same is usually true on blogs and forums simply because it’s often hard to say much of substance in a comment box.

This is probably why I confine my attention to this topic almost exclusively to books. A book allows an author space to develop an argument, consider alternatives and counter-points, provide support, and (in theory) excise emotion-fueled hyperboles and categorical dismissals.

This might be why I’ve avoided posting anything of a religious nature on this blog until just recently (though I am glad to say that the comments running on the Harris/Prager post have been civil so far).

Nevertheless, I’m going to play the fool again (and I think Harris would encourage all of us to do so … keep reading). I received a request to give a response/review of Sam Harris‘ The End of Faith, and I’ll do my best.

I want to start by saying that the book is fairly dense, is very well-written, makes sound arguments and provides extensive support (in the main text, in the 30-page notes at the end of the main text, and in the 30-page bibliography). Nothing I can say here can adequately compare, so if you are interested in this topic, read the book. It is well worth the time, whatever your opinions on the topic may be.

As for my personal overall assessment: I consider it one of the more important books that I’ve read on the subject. This is not because I agree with everything Harris has to say, but because he does his job well (make a clear argument, address implications and objections, provide support, extend the discussion) and because he’s addressing issues that really matter, and matter right now.

So … my attempt to outline his major points (doomed to fail from the start):

Harris’ main contention is that, by making “belief” a topic that is “off limits” to public discussion in terms of reason and accountability, we allow these beliefs to drive us, globally, closer and closer to catastrophe.

I see no reason for us to expect to survive our religious differences indefinitely. (from his talk at Idea City 2005)

I want to be clear: Harris is calling for exactly what the title of his book suggests. He “believes” (and provides some compelling arguments along the way) that many of our religious beliefs are so dangerous that they will eventually lead to our mutual destruction.

He also condemns religious tolerance because it misses an important point: beliefs have actual consequences. The reason we cannot just “let others believe what they want to believe” is that many of these beliefs have political, social, and military consequences. If you literally believe that God has granted you a certain patch of land, for instance, that belief may very well lead to the deaths of children.

Therefore, Harris argues that we should focus on the reasons behind a person’s beliefs. If s/he can provide sound reasons to support a belief, fine. If not, then we should not respect that belief, and we certainly shouldn’t go to war over it.

Though his stance against religious doctrine is harsh, Harris is not discounting a spiritual dimension. In his words:

This is not to say that the deepest concerns of the faithful, whether moderate or extreme, are trivial or even misguided … There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life. (16)

How we come to terms with this dimension is desperately important, though, and what we come to believe about this dimension should be supported by (or at least not contradicted by) reason and observation.

As long as a person maintains that his beliefs represent an actual state of the world … he must believe that his beliefs are a consequence of the way the world is. This, by definition, leaves him vulnerable to new evidence. Indeed, if there were no conceivable change in the world that could get a person to question his religious beliefs, this would prove that his beliefs were not predicated upon his taking any state of the world into account. He could not claim, therefore, to be representing the world at all. (63)

Beyond this brief sketch, the reasoning behind his major assertions are quite involved and each worthy of further consideration. His chapters deal with the following:

• The nature of belief (one of the most interesting, and a chapter to which I will likely return to explore further … its implications go far beyond religion)
• The history of conflict grounded in religious differences
• A specific examination of Islam
• A specific examination of Judaism and Christianity
• Non-religious reasons for ethical behavior (grounded in “the happiness and suffering of sentient creatures” and in which he repudiates moral relativism and pacifism; another chapter worthy of further discussion)
• A brief consideration of the nature of consciousness (and in which the book takes a surprisingly mystic/Buddhist turn)

As for my personal opinion, I agree with at least this much: ideas and beliefs have consequences, some are more dangerous than others, and we should be vigilant in our consideration of the beliefs and ideas that we hold and that are held by others–they should not be given a free pass from reasonable discourse.

… the only thing that permits human beings to collaborate with one another in a truly open-ended way is their willingness to have their beliefs modified by new facts. (48)

If you’re looking for a quick glimpse into some of Harris’ thinking, this video is helpful. It’s not a replacement for his book, but it’s a start. Also see the resources at the end of the post.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM&rel=1]

Resources:

• Sam Harris website
• Sam Harris blog on Washingtonpost.com / Newsweek
• The End of Faith
• Letter to a Christian Nation
• His talk at Idea City 2005
• His talk on C-Span2’s Book TV: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
• Interview on TruthDig

My spiritual beliefs are fairly complex and still evolving (and are informed by a wide range of influences, as a glance at my growing LibraryThing tag cloud will reveal). In my constant search for understanding, I read and consider as many intelligent, informed viewpoints as I can find.

One voice that I’ve been particularly impressed with is Sam Harris and his work The End of Faith. While snooping around online to learn more about Harris, I found a fairly heated “open email exchange” between Harris and Dennis Prager in Jewcy’s “Big Questions” series.

If you’re looking for some lively religious debating, the exchange makes for interesting reading. Start here and follow the thread of entries at the bottom of each post.

In Jewcy’s words:

Why are atheists so angry? Sam Harris and Dennis Prager inaugurate Jewcy’s “Big Question” series by arguing this very question. In the Big Question, passionate thinkers will debate the weightiest, most contentious issues of the day via e-mail.

Author of the thundering anti-theist polemics The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Harris may just be the Thomas Paine of an emerging movement to wrench religion out of American life.

Prager is a nationally syndicated talk radio host who trumpets the virtues of the Judeo-Christian tradition. For the next four days, each of them will send us one e-mail per day.

Day 1 (Sam Harris): Why Are Atheists So Angry? | Jewcy.com