The End of Faith (Sam Harris, 2005)

[madali]

The End of Faith (Sam Harris, 2005)

My life started as doubting certain aspects of my religion, then it became teenage atheism, and that turned to being an agnostic, and finally back to atheism. I’m set in this role now, and while I will continue keeping an open mind, I do not take religion or its Gods at face value.

Reading “The End of Faith” started well for me. I put my hand on the shoulder of the author and kept going, “hehe, those morons. Me and you, buddy, we’re better than those fools!”. I specially liked his attacks on moderates. It’s easy to find fault with fanatics, but we all have to be polite when faced with moderates. Because, really, why should we have any issue with them?

Yet, moderation in religion is hypocrisy. At least, the extremists do what they believe in, but what do moderates do? They select parts of their beliefs to meet their needs.

I also liked Sam Harris’ claims that we should not tolerate people’s beliefs, because it is not private. People act as per their beliefs, and actions affect everyone.

I agree with Sam Harris’ calls for end of toleration, but at the same time, I do not agree with his highly exaggerated fault-findings with religion. He writes as if religion is the root of all evil, as if man without religion is good. He puts up examples of recent conflicts, and puts religion at the centre of it. This is true, and Harris is either being ignorant or purposely leading the reader, to strengthen his own arguments. Which is a bit priesty of him.

Wars happen not due to religion, but due to many other reasons, and religion, such as race, is used as an easy pretext. Israel-Palestine is not a religious war, it is a territorial war. It did not start because Muslims and Jews hate each other, but because Europeans immigrated to an Arab land. Pakistan did not get separated from India because Muslims and Hindus hate each other, but because after the British left, a power void suddenly existed, and suddenly everyone wanted a part. Did the Muslims and the Hindus not live together before? If religion was the cause of the conflict, then conflict would have occurred when they both were in the same land. But conflict arose, when a new variable came into the picture, and that was the British leaving.

We can see the same all around the world. Many sectarian conflicts started in African countries when the Europeans left. In some of them the line was drawn by religion and in others by tribe. World War Two engulfed the world in a devastating war, and it had nothing to do with religion. Neither Stalin nor Hitler were religious. Iran’s pre-Islamic government was extremely secular, and yet, many of the population suffered under it.

Sam Harris makes some good points, but he makes me angry, because by putting too much fault on religion, it sounded dishonest. And if we had more people like Sam Harris, then the next war would be Atheism Vs Religion, and I don’t want a world that replaces one close minded ideology with another.

2/5

[kaytee]

Excellent review Mad, I have not read the book but the review gave me glimpses of what to expect. Great stuff.

[X.]

Sam Harris attacks religion because he believes in the idea that religion is the *root* cause of conflict. Religion, in and of itself, cannot and should not be considered evil. The problem is when religion and politics fuse together, which is always the case as a society becomes more sophisticated and perpetuates towards individualism but via group dynamics.

Harris wrote this book in the context of rising extremism in the name of faith, and in "End of Faith" he attacks the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. He draws parallels between geopolitical and social problems -- past and present -- by tugging at their fundamental connection with religion. Harris makes it clear that religion provides the *context* (if not the ratification) for acts that do not conform to modern thinking or progressiveness. His beef is with religion, and he makes that very clear. That's what his book is about.

I'm glad you've read it, and found some good arguments. I wouldn't expect anyone to agree 100% with Harris' personal (and professional) opinion, because that's -- statistically -- unlikely.

[madali]

You're line, "Sam Harris attacks religion because he believes in the idea that religion is the *root* cause of conflict." is were I think lies the biggest fault with Sam Harris' arguments.

Religion is RARELY the root cause of conflicts. It is a weapon and an excuse, and it allows leaders to better rally their followers, and when all other variables are constant, it allows people to better move in different subgroups. But it is very rare if a conflict arises only because of religion. Behind religion, there always lies another cause.

[X.]

Religion is not the *only* reason for conflict. It is used, as you rightly said, as a weapon of influence; a tool to sway mass opinion by those that desire power, control and/or wealth. I will be the first to say that, as does Harris if one pays careful attention to his book.

That said, because religion provides (has in the past, and continues to do so presently) the lubrication, the context, the raison d’être for conflict, it is -- by its very association to, among other things, acts of extremism -- guilty. And by its very involvement in the suppression of the quest for absolute truth and unflinching human inquiry -- not to mention its inherent role in encouraging separatism -- religion does more harm than good.

I'm going to agree with you on not confusing skepticism with hatred for religion -- I believe in the harmoniousness of spirituality, a belief system. But religion as a dogma is not only antiquated, but dangerous. By saying religion can be redeemed (and, thus, forgiven) for being but one variable in Man's pursuit of self-destruction is not practical. (Infact, that's exactly the kind of conflicted rhetoric moderates have become infamous for.)

In summary, I'm not calling for banning religion. What I am advocating is having the courage and clarity of thought to place blame on objects such as religion, which are granted an inexplicably and supremely unreasonable level of protection from criticism.

We must understand that except the preservation of human life and human development, nothing else is sacred. Nothing else.

[fizz]

While I have not read the book, and I agree that people following a religion should have the courage to explore the facets of their religion that seem questionable or illogical, until they are satisfied with an answer or an alternative, I personally think no religion has ever suppressed the quest for absolute truth, in fact if anything, they permeate this very fact. Also, I think labeling religion guilty by association (to 'acts of extremism') is being unfair, since a large of part of religion hinges on personal interpretation. The presence of religion (or any belief system) does more good than harm. Perhaps what I am writing is gibberish because it is not in context of the contents of the book, but I just thought i should defend this POV.

[X.]

I do appreciate Fizz' comments. There are points I would like to address, however, ideally, this discussion should occur on a different platform (face-to-face, over dinner, in the company of friends), and preferably after a couple of us have read the book, which I recommend, regardless of persuasion.

[theoddball]

...ideally, this discussion should occur on a different platform (face-to-face, over dinner, in the company of friends), ...

Are you suggesting that we hold an over-dinner video conference call, with you in Denny's and the rest of us in Tony Roma's, to discuss the book?

[fizz]

Ak...agreed..

Guys who have read the book...is it available here in Dubai (I would assume it would not be considering the content...). If it is, can you mention where I can pick it up? If not, would anyone be generous enough to allow me to borrow?

[theoddball]

Fizz,

Based on my own hunting expedition a while back, I can tell you that this book is not available on the shelf. This is funny because there are several similar "sensitive" books that I did manage to find at Magrudy's and Virgin - I guess only because their titles were not so obvious.

I personally ordered mine from Amazon. However, I've already lent it to a coworker.

[X.]

...ideally, this discussion should occur on a different platform (face-to-face, over dinner, in the company of friends), ...

Are you suggesting that we hold an over-dinner video conference call, with you in Denny's and the rest of us in Tony Roma's, to discuss the book?

Ha ha! You know, I love Denny's -- it's probably the best value-for-money diner I've had the pleasure of visiting here. And about the video conference, we'll do this in the flesh...soon!

[fizz]

Oddy, thanks...I'll try to wait for your co-worker to finish

In the meantime, Mad....

[theoddball]

And about the video conference, we'll do this in the flesh...soon!

What, you're a webcam stripper now?

[madali]

Fizz, sorry, man, I only have the ebook. I'm ahead of the rest of you by 50 years, and I have more or less stopped reading paperbacks. I put then in my Imate, and read it like that.

I dont mind passing you the ebook though

[theoddball]

I hate ebooks with a passion. Call me prehistoric - I don't care.