Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
W. W. Norton (2005), Edition: Reprint, 348 pages
Description
A startling analysis of the clash of faith and reason in today's world, this historical tour of mankind's willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs, even when those beliefs are used to justify atrocities, asserts that in the shadow of weapons of mass destruction, we can not expect to survive our religious differences indefinitely. Most controversially, argues that moderate lip service to religion only blinds us to the real perils of fundamentalism. Harris also draws on new evidence from neuroscience and insights from philosophy to explore spirituality as a biological, brain-based need, and invokes that need in taking a secular humanistic approach to solving the problems of this world.
Media reviews
Sam Harris könyve egészen kis alakú, és mindössze 134 oldal, e szempontból tehát találó az alcíme: levél egy keresztény nemzethez. Más tekintetben az alcím kevésbé találó, hiszen ahogy a szerző maga is bevallja, a könyv valójában nem a keresztényeket, sokkal inkább a
Show More
szekuláris társadalom híveit kívánja megcélozni, felvértezve őket keresztény ellenfeleikkel szemben. És valóban ez az, amire alkalmasabbnak mutatkozik.
A könyv sok gondolata ismerős lehet a Richard Dawkins Isteni téveszme c. könyve olvasóinak. Sam Harris is felhozza a "minden hívő ateista a többi vallással szemben" érvet, példákkal mutatja be a Biblia erőszakosságát, amellett érvel, hogy az erkölcs nem a vallásból származik, hosszasan sorolja a kereszténység által okozott károkat, és így tovább. Rövid jellegéből adódóan mindezt azonban Dawkinsnál jóval kevésbé részletesen, olykor már-már kinyilatkoztatásszerűen, és nem ritkán arrogánsan is teszi, ami könnyen elijesztheti a vallásos lelkületű olvasókat.
A hasonló gondolatok ellenére az érdeklődő ateistáknak (vagy kevésbé sértődékeny hívőknek) mégis érdemes lehet kézbe venni a könyvet, a szerző ugyanis több aktuális kérdést is feszeget, hatásos érvekkel vértezve fel olvasóit elsősorban a vallásnak az abortuszhoz, az őssejtkutatáshoz, valamint a tudományhoz fűződő viszonyának kérdéséről. Több helyen kikel például az itthon MTA-s körökben is népszerű érvvel szemben, mely szerint a tudomány és a vallás másról szól, és ezért megférnek egymás mellett. A szerző egyes érvelési módszerei is érdekesek lehetnek az olvasók számára. A kereszténység abszurditásának bemutatásához rendszeresen megjelennek például már kihalt vallásokkal kapcsolatos gondolatkísérletek, illetve más vallások abszurd tanításainak ismertetései.
Összességében véve a könyvre sajnos erőteljesen rányomta a bélyegét a rövidsége. A szerző túl sokat akart mondani túl kicsiny helyen, ezért sokszor csak nagyon érintőlegesen említ dolgokat, illetve olykor csak ismereteket közöl, az érveket elhagyva. Bár nem találtam a könyvben olyan gondolatot, amivel ne tudnék egyetérteni, így a téma iránt érdeklődőknek ajánlani tudom, de ha valaki csak egyetlen könyvet akar elolvasni a témában, annak inkább az Isteni téveszmét nyomnám a kezébe.
Varga Gábor
2009. október 1. Show Less
It's not often that I see my florid strain of atheism expressed in any document this side of the Seine, but ''The End of Faith'' articulates the dangers and absurdities of organized religion so fiercely and so fearlessly that I felt relieved as I read it, vindicated, almost personally understood.
Show More
Sam Harris presents major religious systems like Judaism, Christianity and Islam as forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental tenets and rituals irrational, archaic and, important when it comes to matters of humanity's long-term survival, mutually incompatible. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member LovingLit
Wow. This book does not hold back on making its stance blindingly obvious. Its whole premise is that religious faith, even of a moderate nature, is an antiquated and baseless notion that must be challenged to see reason. Until this happens, the author says, the world is headed for not only
Islam is presently seen to be the biggest threat to world peace. This, he says, is because it's book advocates for either contempt towards or conversion of non-Muslims. That it promises a place in heaven for those who die in the act of either is the deal-breaker. Many are willing to die a 'martyr' for their belief that they are enacting the literal word of god. The author stresses that Muslim extremists are extreme in their religious faith in these situations. He refutes the oft-quoted 'Islam is a religion of peace' statement by arguing that there is just too much in the holy books that proves otherwise. Judaism and Christianity are also critiqued for relying heavily on a book of fiction that has no bearing on or relevance to modern life. Each faith's superiority in its claim to know the truth, he says, is as meaningless as a school yard squabble. He states unequivocally that people of faith are delusional and that it is a travesty that so much weight is given to religion in political decision-making that affects all our lives.
What I liked about this book is that the author is unafraid to make bold statements about what is essentially a taboo subject. He challenges the notion that religion or faith is not to be questioned. He looks past religion to ethics, morals and the larger philosophy of human interaction which gives a broader framework within which to assess how we all might just get along. Although I agree wholeheartedly with the Hitchens quote he endorses: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" (p176), this author took me to a place that was too far from my comfort zone in terms of respect for other people and their way of living. And this, I think, was his intention.
Show More
increased political and social instability, but death by our own making through religious-based war. Islam is presently seen to be the biggest threat to world peace. This, he says, is because it's book advocates for either contempt towards or conversion of non-Muslims. That it promises a place in heaven for those who die in the act of either is the deal-breaker. Many are willing to die a 'martyr' for their belief that they are enacting the literal word of god. The author stresses that Muslim extremists are extreme in their religious faith in these situations. He refutes the oft-quoted 'Islam is a religion of peace' statement by arguing that there is just too much in the holy books that proves otherwise. Judaism and Christianity are also critiqued for relying heavily on a book of fiction that has no bearing on or relevance to modern life. Each faith's superiority in its claim to know the truth, he says, is as meaningless as a school yard squabble. He states unequivocally that people of faith are delusional and that it is a travesty that so much weight is given to religion in political decision-making that affects all our lives.
What I liked about this book is that the author is unafraid to make bold statements about what is essentially a taboo subject. He challenges the notion that religion or faith is not to be questioned. He looks past religion to ethics, morals and the larger philosophy of human interaction which gives a broader framework within which to assess how we all might just get along. Although I agree wholeheartedly with the Hitchens quote he endorses: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" (p176), this author took me to a place that was too far from my comfort zone in terms of respect for other people and their way of living. And this, I think, was his intention.
Show Less
LibraryThing member deusvitae
Harris' first and more grand treatise against religion in general and Islam in particular.
One could quickly review this book by declaring that Harris has deleted "God," replaced it with "Reason," and then goes after anything in the name of "God" with great vitriol while apologizing for "Reason."
It must be said that Harris, while normally lumped in with the New Atheists and understandably so, is not a carbon copy of the Dawkins type. Harris does not believe in a God but he does recognize some level of spirituality/mysticism, falling over himself in his praise for theoretical Buddhism (and Gnosticism, and a bunch of other "mystical" types of "heresy"). He is also not an apologist for Atheism for atheism's sake but really more of an apologist for what he deems "Reason."
This "Reason" is as chimerical as the "faith" against which he argues. No one really entirely acts according to "Reason," and, according to Harris, "Reason" must never be charged with the 'sins' or "irrationality" of those who claim the mantle of Reason (vide: Nazis). Yet, in the end, Reason is the emperor without clothes-- Reason is taken to be self-evident, and there's never a justification given for why we should accept reason as understood by many in the twenty-first century as the standard for everything. It's assumed to be self-evident. Harris would do well to remember that it was not more than 150 years ago that the truth of God in Jesus Christ was similarly assumed to be self-evident by the majority of the population of America-- that, and that black people were inferior to white people (something confessed both theists and atheists/agnostics of the day, to their shame, and all justified on the basis of "rational thinking" and "science").
As usual, Harris' understanding of Christianity is quite distorted. This casts doubt on his understanding of Islam, Judaism, and a bunch of other belief systems, also. Also present is this pervasive myth circulating around the circles of the New Atheists that it is religion that is the source of all sorts of conflict, as if removing religion will somehow make everyone more rational or less tribal. All evidence against this myth is dismissed as still showing irrationality, but such is beside the point. Human beings, having religion or not, will still be irrational. Get rid of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and people will still be irrational. Therefore, the entire thesis of the book really falls miserably flat. Sure, militant Islamism is the scourge of the world today-- but there's nothing saying that a group of irrationally tribalistic atheists won't be the next scourge.
There is much to be gained from what is written here, though. Harris is at least willing to admit the limitations of science and the reality that science cannot really explain origin and purpose of our existence, of consciousness, etc. It is valid to demand some kind of evidence for what one believes. The problem, of course, is that Harris denies the existence or ability of existence of anything beyond the natural realm, and demands that all evidence be "empirical." The demand is made only for his opponents, and he will quite often fail to provide such evidence for his own claims, both in his attacks and in his ideology.
This book tells you a lot more about Harris than about anything else-- smug arrogance about the supremacy of modern ideology and modern perspectives and a brutishly cavalier attitude toward the competence and understanding of those before him. Harris may be different from other New Atheists in many ways, but not in his complete acceptance of the Enlightenment ideology of triumphalistic rationalism, something that should have been laid to rest with all the bodies in the Holocaust of which Harris speaks.
One could quickly review this book by declaring that Harris has deleted "God," replaced it with "Reason," and then goes after anything in the name of "God" with great vitriol while apologizing for "Reason."
Show More
"Reason" and those who are "reasonable" are presented in the best light; "faith" and "religion" always in its worst light. And, as usual, there is no doubting of doubts.It must be said that Harris, while normally lumped in with the New Atheists and understandably so, is not a carbon copy of the Dawkins type. Harris does not believe in a God but he does recognize some level of spirituality/mysticism, falling over himself in his praise for theoretical Buddhism (and Gnosticism, and a bunch of other "mystical" types of "heresy"). He is also not an apologist for Atheism for atheism's sake but really more of an apologist for what he deems "Reason."
This "Reason" is as chimerical as the "faith" against which he argues. No one really entirely acts according to "Reason," and, according to Harris, "Reason" must never be charged with the 'sins' or "irrationality" of those who claim the mantle of Reason (vide: Nazis). Yet, in the end, Reason is the emperor without clothes-- Reason is taken to be self-evident, and there's never a justification given for why we should accept reason as understood by many in the twenty-first century as the standard for everything. It's assumed to be self-evident. Harris would do well to remember that it was not more than 150 years ago that the truth of God in Jesus Christ was similarly assumed to be self-evident by the majority of the population of America-- that, and that black people were inferior to white people (something confessed both theists and atheists/agnostics of the day, to their shame, and all justified on the basis of "rational thinking" and "science").
As usual, Harris' understanding of Christianity is quite distorted. This casts doubt on his understanding of Islam, Judaism, and a bunch of other belief systems, also. Also present is this pervasive myth circulating around the circles of the New Atheists that it is religion that is the source of all sorts of conflict, as if removing religion will somehow make everyone more rational or less tribal. All evidence against this myth is dismissed as still showing irrationality, but such is beside the point. Human beings, having religion or not, will still be irrational. Get rid of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and people will still be irrational. Therefore, the entire thesis of the book really falls miserably flat. Sure, militant Islamism is the scourge of the world today-- but there's nothing saying that a group of irrationally tribalistic atheists won't be the next scourge.
There is much to be gained from what is written here, though. Harris is at least willing to admit the limitations of science and the reality that science cannot really explain origin and purpose of our existence, of consciousness, etc. It is valid to demand some kind of evidence for what one believes. The problem, of course, is that Harris denies the existence or ability of existence of anything beyond the natural realm, and demands that all evidence be "empirical." The demand is made only for his opponents, and he will quite often fail to provide such evidence for his own claims, both in his attacks and in his ideology.
This book tells you a lot more about Harris than about anything else-- smug arrogance about the supremacy of modern ideology and modern perspectives and a brutishly cavalier attitude toward the competence and understanding of those before him. Harris may be different from other New Atheists in many ways, but not in his complete acceptance of the Enlightenment ideology of triumphalistic rationalism, something that should have been laid to rest with all the bodies in the Holocaust of which Harris speaks.
Show Less
LibraryThing member EowynA
I found the book rich in quotable sentences, and this review is peppered with them. Perhaps a quarter of the book is devoted to end notes, so the author supports his assertions well, and another quarter is bibliography. The author is militant in tone, which is off-putting, but rich in ideas, which
The first chapter, “Reason in Exile,” is about how beliefs shape one’s vision of the world. As he puts it, “There seems to be a problem with some of our beliefs – they are inexorably leading us to kill one another, because most of the people of the world believe that the Creator of the Universe wrote a book.” There are several versions of this book, each making an exclusive claim to infallibility. And a central tenet of the religions based on these versions, is that all other religions are repositories of error and must be wiped out.
Chapter 2 is “The Nature of Belief”, in which the author explores faith in the absence of evidence, reasonableness, internal coherence, civility, and candor.
Chapter 3, “In the Shadow of God” has vivid accounts of the physical misery perpetrated upon individuals throughout history in the name of Christianity. He brings the witch trials to life, and sets them in the context of religious-based beliefs in a vast, organized conspiracy of witches throughout Europe. His indictment of this Christian mindset, which also led to the Jewish Holocaust of WWII, is very easy to agree with.
Chapter 4, “The Problem with Islam,” does something similar for the Muslim faith, quoting every Koran verse that can be used to justify violence against non-Muslims.
Chapter 5, “West of Eden”, discusses the role of fundamentalist Christian thought in the West, especially America. This chapter particularly spoke to me, and clarified some of my thoughts about the fundamental importance of the separation of Church and State in our country. Since the book was written, we have seen even more of this legislative war on sin. As it says, “The idea of a victimless crime is nothing more than a judicial reprise of the Christian notion of sin…. Because we are a people of faith, taught to concern ourselves with the sinfulness of our neighbors, we have grown tolerant of irrational uses of state power.” Here I found where I agree with the conservative mantra of “Less Government” – but this chapter explained very clearly why the laws restricting homosexuals, drugs, prostitution, and other “victimless crimes” should be repealed, which I don’t think are the government rules that conservatives want less of.
Chapter 6, “A Science of Good and Evil” then goes on to explore a rational code of ethics, one based not on prohibitions against blasphemy or honoring false gods, but rather one based on the “the happiness and suffering of sentient creatures.” I found this chapter also captivating. In his repudiation of religion-based ethics, the author spends some time exploring a Muslim practice that makes me shiver. As he puts it, “Given the requisite beliefs about ‘honor,’ a man will be desperate to kill his daughter upon learning she was raped.”
Chapter 7, “Experiments in Consciousness” brings the author to consideration of spirituality, which he does not reject. He ends the book with, “Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns. It would also be the end of faith.”
This is a fascinating book, hard to read, slow to read, and dogmatic in its own way. But well worth reading, and I particularly recommend the last three chapters.
Show More
kept me reading. Much of what he said spoke clearly and directly to me, about the place of reason, about belief in how the world works based on evidence, and about ethics in society. It was slow reading, partly because I had to “chew” it carefully before going on. There are only 7 chapters. The first chapter, “Reason in Exile,” is about how beliefs shape one’s vision of the world. As he puts it, “There seems to be a problem with some of our beliefs – they are inexorably leading us to kill one another, because most of the people of the world believe that the Creator of the Universe wrote a book.” There are several versions of this book, each making an exclusive claim to infallibility. And a central tenet of the religions based on these versions, is that all other religions are repositories of error and must be wiped out.
Chapter 2 is “The Nature of Belief”, in which the author explores faith in the absence of evidence, reasonableness, internal coherence, civility, and candor.
Chapter 3, “In the Shadow of God” has vivid accounts of the physical misery perpetrated upon individuals throughout history in the name of Christianity. He brings the witch trials to life, and sets them in the context of religious-based beliefs in a vast, organized conspiracy of witches throughout Europe. His indictment of this Christian mindset, which also led to the Jewish Holocaust of WWII, is very easy to agree with.
Chapter 4, “The Problem with Islam,” does something similar for the Muslim faith, quoting every Koran verse that can be used to justify violence against non-Muslims.
Chapter 5, “West of Eden”, discusses the role of fundamentalist Christian thought in the West, especially America. This chapter particularly spoke to me, and clarified some of my thoughts about the fundamental importance of the separation of Church and State in our country. Since the book was written, we have seen even more of this legislative war on sin. As it says, “The idea of a victimless crime is nothing more than a judicial reprise of the Christian notion of sin…. Because we are a people of faith, taught to concern ourselves with the sinfulness of our neighbors, we have grown tolerant of irrational uses of state power.” Here I found where I agree with the conservative mantra of “Less Government” – but this chapter explained very clearly why the laws restricting homosexuals, drugs, prostitution, and other “victimless crimes” should be repealed, which I don’t think are the government rules that conservatives want less of.
Chapter 6, “A Science of Good and Evil” then goes on to explore a rational code of ethics, one based not on prohibitions against blasphemy or honoring false gods, but rather one based on the “the happiness and suffering of sentient creatures.” I found this chapter also captivating. In his repudiation of religion-based ethics, the author spends some time exploring a Muslim practice that makes me shiver. As he puts it, “Given the requisite beliefs about ‘honor,’ a man will be desperate to kill his daughter upon learning she was raped.”
Chapter 7, “Experiments in Consciousness” brings the author to consideration of spirituality, which he does not reject. He ends the book with, “Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns. It would also be the end of faith.”
This is a fascinating book, hard to read, slow to read, and dogmatic in its own way. But well worth reading, and I particularly recommend the last three chapters.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bruneau
With arguably no topic in America more contentious and hotly debated than religion (oddly enough), it is important to ponder the rationality of stated and unstated religious wars (or just one-on-one killings for the same purposes). In absence of a compulsory high-school course on “comparative
Show More
world religion and philosophy,” this book, as a minimum, provides a few interesting observations. Overall, an entertaining read, sure to fuel endless passionate debates (in which I have absolutely no intention to partake). Show Less
LibraryThing member La-Plume
Although I have some reserves regarding some passages about the US' foreign policy, this book is definitely a keeper. His demonstration on torture was extremely disturbing, not to my taste since I ended up with the very same conclusion as his... while trying to find another solution which I
You may not agree with everything, but as a believer here's an author you'll have a hard time contradict without absurd reasoning. We certainly need more people like him out there.
Show More
couldn't, but overall this is a book to read for anybody who believes he/she's got enough neurons to think and reason.You may not agree with everything, but as a believer here's an author you'll have a hard time contradict without absurd reasoning. We certainly need more people like him out there.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sien
I'm an atheist and I've read a number of other books on atheism and have enjoyed them and learned things. In this book you learn that atheism, just like religions, can be used to justify invasions, wars and torture. This book is atheism for neo-conservatives.
The book is largely a prejudiced rant
Then to make things worse, the books goes into praise for mysticism.
The whole point of atheism is to believe in as few things as possible and avoid things that cannot be proven. Mr Harris will presumably find some religion in the next few years and renounce atheism and then go on to write a book about it.
The book is largely a prejudiced rant
Show More
against Islam. Sam Harris is closer to Ann Coulter than Richard Dawkins. The historical ignorance of Mr Harris is alarming. If, as he believes, muslims are so keen to attack non-muslim countries why don't they attack Sweden rather than those countries that drew borders in the Middle East for their own imperial designs rather than the interests of the locals, those people who decided land that their forefathers lived in 2000 years ago was theirs, and those who invade countries on the other side of the world based on lies?Then to make things worse, the books goes into praise for mysticism.
The whole point of atheism is to believe in as few things as possible and avoid things that cannot be proven. Mr Harris will presumably find some religion in the next few years and renounce atheism and then go on to write a book about it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Alfonso809
We are at war with Islam. Sam Harris.
There are no atheists in foxholes. William J. Clear.
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Vegetius.
Screw you guys I'm going home. Eric Cartman.
There are no atheists in foxholes. William J. Clear.
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Vegetius.
Screw you guys I'm going home. Eric Cartman.
LibraryThing member Atomicmutant
The subtitle for this book could be "wherin Sam Harris gets very, very mad, then goes all squishy". Harris pulls no punches, indeed, the first section of this book reads like a socio-political rhetorical Normandy beach. This is a strange book that reads well, but seems more like a collection of
Show More
mini-essays rather than a coherent whole. Working from a polemic about behavior as it relates to faith, and veering wildly into a discussion of torture, he pulls the handbrake and skid-spins into a new agey plea for meditation. I'd call him provocative to say the least, and enjoyable to read, if you have the stomach for it. As a gadfly against politically correct treatment of extremism and fundamentalism, he's smart-bomb effective. As a purveyor of alternative ethics and solutions, not so much. One thing I will say, the book makes you think in different ways about some of the moral and ethical situations we face geopolitically today, and in my book, that makes it worth opening your wallet for. Not for the faint of the heart or the weak of faith, though; and be careful at cocktail parties after reading this one. Show Less
LibraryThing member apartmentcarpet
Pretty much everything Sam Harris says is true, but it's hard to see why he takes so long to say it. Also, the constant harping on Islam gets tiresome and weakens his message.
LibraryThing member stillatim
Yikes- this may actually be the worst book I've ever finished. It's not totally crap: he's got a perfect argument against people who think torture is somehow a transcendent evil, while backing war in general. But other than that, it's preaching to the choir of the worst kind. To take just two
Show More
obviously bad arguments: * he rejects the idea that religion can cause good things by saying that since everyone throughout history has been religious, it's a truism to say that religion has caused some good things. But that argument is equally applicable to his own claim that religion is the cause of almost everything bad: it's not religion. It's people who claim to be religious that are behind the evil.
* he cites a survey which shows that support for suicide bombing varies significantly across a number of Islamic nations. His conclusion is that since none of these countries has *no* support for suicide bombing, the cause of suicide bombing must be Islam. But that's obviously not the message of the survey. Rather, the survey shows that a person's reaction to violence is likely to correlate with her *nationality* and culture more than with her religion.
Anyway, this is a great read if you're non-religious and want to find a way to blame all the problems in the world on people other than yourself. Stay turned for my upcoming polemic "The End of Yoghurt: Cultured dairy products, terror and the future of the West." It turns out that the dairy industry is responsible for all the evils perpetrated by Westerners since the 18th century, since Hitler drank milk. A guaranteed best-seller among the intolerant lactose-intolerant.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bingereader
Altough an interesting, the work is quite disjointed and reads more like each chapter were a collection of essays than a coherent work. For example, the chapter "Science of Good and Evil" seemed to be an argument for morality without religion and God, but Harris seems to get the point muddled in
Although an interesting book, the main tenets can be gathered from the first couple of chapters. Beyond that, the book loses coherence. Overall, there are better works on the topic, such as God is not Great and Harris' own Letter to a Christian Nation.
Show More
confusing philosophical arguments. Although an interesting book, the main tenets can be gathered from the first couple of chapters. Beyond that, the book loses coherence. Overall, there are better works on the topic, such as God is not Great and Harris' own Letter to a Christian Nation.
Show Less
LibraryThing member cdogzilla
Please, please read this book. Doesn't matter if you hate the premise or not, this book is important. One way or the other, as a species, we're either going to grow out of 'revealed religion' or we're not ... and it really matters for our continued survival on this planet.
LibraryThing member Peppuzzo
An effective philosophical account on why religions are intrinsically bad. Here explained lucidly, clearly and effectively.
LibraryThing member waitingtoderail
Yes, Sam, religion is bad for modern-day society. I agree. Do you have to be such a complete jerk about it though? Really, your style isn't going to win you any converts among the "faithful" now, is it? Generally if you openly call people stupid and evil, they aren't going to openly accept your
Show More
overall thesis. Oh, and read some more Noam Chomsky before you spend several pages attacking him in your book, not one 118 page pamphlet. And if you think America's intentions in their foreign policies are nothing but good for everyone, you're incredibly naive. You're a good writer, I'll give you that, and you have some important points to make, but seriously, they're awash in such vitriol that they are basically moot. Show Less
LibraryThing member dougwood57
Sam Harris is angry. Righteously angry. He powerfully states the case (obvious to atheists, i.e., rational thinkers) that organized religion is just so much nonsense, especially the Western variety with the personal god-figure. More importantly, he demonstrates how dangerous religious beliefs can
Harris' book is hampered in part by his too tenditious style. He comes across as a zealot. He does a fine job with description, but not so hot on his presecription. What are we, rationalists, supposed to do? It's not entirely clear that freedom of conscience would be safe in the hands of Sam Harris. The last chapter is a weak attempt to explore meditation and non-religous approaches to spirtuality.
With these reservations, I do recommend reading this book.
Show More
be when acted upon seriously and literally. The expectation that Eternal Life awaits the deserving or chosen is comforting to the beleivers, but threatening when the true believer seeks to impose his beliefs on the rest of us, especially but not exclusively through martydom. Today, the world is confronted by a species of Islam that is fundamentally medieval. Harris' book is hampered in part by his too tenditious style. He comes across as a zealot. He does a fine job with description, but not so hot on his presecription. What are we, rationalists, supposed to do? It's not entirely clear that freedom of conscience would be safe in the hands of Sam Harris. The last chapter is a weak attempt to explore meditation and non-religous approaches to spirtuality.
With these reservations, I do recommend reading this book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member fieldri1
Sam Harris is one of the select band who are often collectivelydescribed as the 'New Atheists'. Along with Richard Dawkins, DanielDennet and PZ Myers he has put his head above the pulpit and asked that he be counted.This book starts off as a powerful essay against religion. Importantlyhe isn't
Show More
reserving his ire for any particular religion. But he isaiming his criticism at all religions.The reason is simple. By their very nature religions don't countenancethe fact that any one other religion can be right. In one Ann Coultervideo for instance, she parroted one party line where Jews are 'just'unperfected Christians. The problem is that this attitude, whencombined with teachings which instruct the believer to kill those ofother religions and with weapons that make instantaneous genocide apossibility is a very dangerous attitude. In fact the dangers dwarf allprevious dangers from warfare. Simply put, in the Cold War erastability was maintained by the tasteless acronym 'MAD' (mutuallyassured destruction), but in the modern era MAD no longer holds sway.After all, if your people are wiped out on mass following a strikeagainst the infidels then everyone in your country would be a matyr!After this powerful start Sam Harris moves on to the subject ofSpirituality. This might sound like a bit of an odd direction for sucha book to go in, but the thesis is that humans are spiritual and can beso quite separately from any given religion. There follows a longtreatise upon the nature of reality, and how much of what we experienceis filtered by our conciousness. This was of less interest to me,though the conclusions drawn are incisive and interesting.Unfortunately this part of the book for me dragged horribly, especiallysome of the notes which included long asides on the dual nature ofexperience and philisophical attempts to prove which is more 'real' -pragmatism or realism. By the end of the end note, I had to admit Ididn't really care...So over all the book was interesting and an enjoyable read. However,the first half of the book is much more to my liking than the second.One point that I did disagree with strongly seemed to me (as anon-American) to be written with a very distorted view. At one point,when discussing the immorality of terrorist acts Harris takes exceptionto what he describes as the Chomsky school of apologists. His argumentis that when engaged in wars like the Gulf Wars (I and II) and theirequivalents the US is trying not to cause 'collateral damage', and thatthis intent to minimise non-combatant casualities marks the Americansout from terrorists as being on the 'moral high ground'.This is, of course utter poppycock. The US military machine may havetechnological weapons which lower the collateral damage, but bothAmerican foreign policy and the use of military technology repeatedlycauses massive civilian deaths. From the use of cluster bombs (the UScurrently refuses to ratify any treaty to stop deployment) to support todirty proxy wars, to claim a moral high ground is laughable, ifunderstandable given the blinkered American view of the world... But this is, in the context of the book a small point (it just irked me at the time!) Show Less
LibraryThing member RobinReardon
I wanted to like this book, because I do agree with Harris' point that it's unreasonable to hold that a religion is not to be criticized even when it seeks your death. However, there are two aspects to Harris' position, both evident very early on, that make me not recommend this book.
The first is
The second aspect that ruined this book for me is fundamentalism. I see fundamentalism of any stamp -- any religion, any philosophy, any political position -- as misguided at best and detrimental to humanity at worst. Fundamentalism insists on black and white only. It takes the position, "I am right and you are wrong and there's nothing to talk about." Harris opens the book by castigating Islamic fundamentalism. But in justifying his condemnation, he demonstrates that he is as fundamentally atheistic as bin Laden is fundamentally Islamic. I do not suffer fundamentalists willingly. And I do not recommend this book.
The first is
Show More
that in writing this book (and others), Harris puts himself forth as an expert in the area of comparative religion. But he seems unable or unwilling to distinguish religion from faith. In fact, he uses these terms interchangeably, and they are not the same thing at all. Faith is what we use to bridge the gap between what we can prove and what we believe; it neither defines nor is defined by religion. A religion is a system for applying faith. Many people who have faith in spades don't subscribe to any existing institutionalized religion. So Harris can end all the religions he pleases; that won't touch faith. And anyone who speaks of these concepts as if they were the same doesn't have my respect as someone who understands -- let alone is an expert in -- either of them.The second aspect that ruined this book for me is fundamentalism. I see fundamentalism of any stamp -- any religion, any philosophy, any political position -- as misguided at best and detrimental to humanity at worst. Fundamentalism insists on black and white only. It takes the position, "I am right and you are wrong and there's nothing to talk about." Harris opens the book by castigating Islamic fundamentalism. But in justifying his condemnation, he demonstrates that he is as fundamentally atheistic as bin Laden is fundamentally Islamic. I do not suffer fundamentalists willingly. And I do not recommend this book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bduguid
To call this book provocative is something of an understatement - it's an attack on ideals held very dear by many, from the sanctity of religious faith through to the desirability of religious tolerance. It's also highly persuasive, and a timely wake-up call to anyone who dislikes religion but
Harris's key concern is pragmatic: there are religious fundamentalists happy to kill both themselves and others on the basis of their faith in particular holy books, and we must find the best way of stopping them. Harris's view is that the way to do so is to undermine all religion, not just that of the fundamentalists.
He notes that "religious tolerance", the liberal consensus which minimises conflict between believers and non-believers, and between moderates and radicals, allows fundamentalism to flourish because it creates a climate where only actions can be challenged, not the beliefs that cause them. Harris (with some tendency to exaggeration) downplays the political causes of terrorism which other writers focus on, and concentrates on the central absurdity that makes acts like suicide bombing possible - belief in reward in the afterlife.
Harris rarely minces words. The book is filled with quotable invective, which depending on your perspective you'll either find inspiring or apalling. As a rant, it's highly articulate and very well-argued.
Harris pours scorn particularly on Islam and Christianity, enumerating the false beliefs to be found in their holy books and devoting a chapter each to their flaws. Judaism gets off more lightly, and he clearly has more sympathy for Israel than its neighbours. Eastern mysticism such as Buddhism gets off most lightly of all, on the grounds that it is to some extent a tradition of empirical investigation, not just a compendium of antiquated superstitions.
There are very interesting chapters that discuss the philosophical arguments against faith - one on the nature of belief and another on ethics. Many of his arguments (e.g. in favour of torture under certain circumstances) are initially repellent, and some of his ideas are unfairly contradictory (particularly a support for Western bombing of civilians while criticising Islamic support for the same - although his grounds are reasonable, if you accept his argument that the West would avoid "collateral damage" if it could, while Islamic terrorists actively seek it out, he remains far from even-handed).
The flaws are hardly relevant, as there's no need to agree with everything here to get the main point - that only by challenging all irrational religious views can we hope to create a future free from murderous extremists.
Show More
believes that private beliefs should go unchallenged.Harris's key concern is pragmatic: there are religious fundamentalists happy to kill both themselves and others on the basis of their faith in particular holy books, and we must find the best way of stopping them. Harris's view is that the way to do so is to undermine all religion, not just that of the fundamentalists.
He notes that "religious tolerance", the liberal consensus which minimises conflict between believers and non-believers, and between moderates and radicals, allows fundamentalism to flourish because it creates a climate where only actions can be challenged, not the beliefs that cause them. Harris (with some tendency to exaggeration) downplays the political causes of terrorism which other writers focus on, and concentrates on the central absurdity that makes acts like suicide bombing possible - belief in reward in the afterlife.
Harris rarely minces words. The book is filled with quotable invective, which depending on your perspective you'll either find inspiring or apalling. As a rant, it's highly articulate and very well-argued.
Harris pours scorn particularly on Islam and Christianity, enumerating the false beliefs to be found in their holy books and devoting a chapter each to their flaws. Judaism gets off more lightly, and he clearly has more sympathy for Israel than its neighbours. Eastern mysticism such as Buddhism gets off most lightly of all, on the grounds that it is to some extent a tradition of empirical investigation, not just a compendium of antiquated superstitions.
There are very interesting chapters that discuss the philosophical arguments against faith - one on the nature of belief and another on ethics. Many of his arguments (e.g. in favour of torture under certain circumstances) are initially repellent, and some of his ideas are unfairly contradictory (particularly a support for Western bombing of civilians while criticising Islamic support for the same - although his grounds are reasonable, if you accept his argument that the West would avoid "collateral damage" if it could, while Islamic terrorists actively seek it out, he remains far from even-handed).
The flaws are hardly relevant, as there's no need to agree with everything here to get the main point - that only by challenging all irrational religious views can we hope to create a future free from murderous extremists.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jengel
This should get high stars for the diatribe nature but low stars for clear philosophically acceptable arguments. Mostly a lot of blowhard rhetoric and usual strawman arguments. Not the best from the "brights"
LibraryThing member Sovranty
Sam Harris argues that without ending dogmatic religions and actions/beliefs created thereby the future of reason, logic, and civilization will come to a negative end. While there are plenty of examples for why specific dogmas are dangerous as a whole, Harris examples, in detail, why the
Show More
individualized internalization of these beliefs can be detrimental to society/cultures/world as a whole. If you are atheist, this book is wonderfully resourced. If you have a personal God, this book will example why it is truly important to question your beliefs and resulting actions. Show Less
LibraryThing member GlennBell
He states the facts that we know but generally would rather ignore or are afraid to say since it is politically incorrect and offensive to most of our population. Excellent analysis. Personally, to be outspoken on this is to be asking for fanatical criticism and potential harm. He is correct. I
I have also read God is Not Great, which is another excellent book on this topic. There are definitely some commonality between the books.
Show More
would strongly recommend this book.I have also read God is Not Great, which is another excellent book on this topic. There are definitely some commonality between the books.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Daniel.Estes
The End of Faith is the book that put Sam Harris on the map as one of the premiere critics of religion and its bulwark of fallacious thinking. It also earned him an infamous reputation from many who do not agree with this trend of 'new atheism.'
LibraryThing member CarlaR
This book is basically a call for people to reject religion and begin to think and live rationally and reasonably. Harris makes good points about how the dogma of religion (all religion) is not good for individuals or humanity as a whole. I did enjoy this book as a whole, but I also found that
Show More
Harris tends to make things too simple. It has a tone of 'get rid of religion and everything else will be dandy'. Although on the face it sounds good, in reality not all of society's ills will be cured by getting rid of religion. Although I enjoy Harris, I must admit that I enjoy Dawkins a lot more. One day I will get around to reading Letter to a Christian Nation. Show Less
LibraryThing member Kendall41
Everything religion has done wrong and nothing it has done right; nor for that matter, any serious consideration of the consequences of non-belief. Utterly misunderstands and misrepresents what he disdainfully calls 'religious moderates.' Why is this book so popular?
LibraryThing member robertg69
bludgeoning of reasons to follow a faith based life and believe in a peronal God
Subjects
Awards
Independent Publisher Book Awards (Finalist — Religion — 2005)
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2004
Physical description
348 p.; 8.3 inches
ISBN
0393327655 / 9780393327656