There are a number of problems with this essay still, but I think the central ideas are sound. What I was most impressed with when I first began studying various tribal religions was the immediacy and all-pervasiveness of “the sacred.” This was a sharp contrast to the distant Southern Baptist Christianity I had grown up with. Looking back at this essay, I can see myself trying to impress the reader with the same sense of powerful difference I found in a worldview that “reified” the sacred.

For what it’s worth, here it is …

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.

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