I am neither a theologian nor a philosopher. With that in mind, here are my thoughts on Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.
After purchasing the book this week at Pages, I decided to read the book from start to finish in one evening, and then post a short review. I will address some of Sam Harris' points directly in future posts.
Sam Harris does not like the Christian faith, or any belief in a deity. He is also very clear that he defines his position as an atheist based on what he does not believe (versus what he does believe), and is not dogmatic or ideological (hence distancing himself from Communism, for example). Notwithstanding his disbelief, he does not like God. Sam Harris argues that the time for faith and its influence on politics, economics, and society is over, as the Christian faith has largely blocked the development of a rational society. The belief in God is absurd, the belief in the Bible as a divinely inspired book is absurd, and I am irrational for my belief. Thank you, and that will be $22.95 plus applicable taxes.
At times I found Harris to be guilty of podsnappery, With one fell swoop of the arm, the entire thoughts of all humanity throughout the ages on the subject of morality are summed up in one sentence: morality is pursuing happiness while also alleviating human suffering . With another fell swoop of the arm, bioethics and medicine all find themselves neatly aligned with his opinions. Sam Harris appears to be an expert in medicine, ethics, morality, theology, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history. He makes very bold pronunciations on each of these subjects, without any mention of the debates that rage on these issues amongst his own (non-believing) peers. Many issues are portrayed as having just two opposing views: his and those of Christians.
At other times, I was very impressed with Harris' understanding of faith, and its implications in how we as Christians perceive ourselves and others. He leaves little room for compromise in our positions on morality and theology, and I found myself in agreement with many of his points. Sam Harris and I only disagree on some of the conclusions he draws regarding those implications.
As a side note, I had a good chuckle as Sam Harris discussed the conundrum of limbo.
The major weakness of the book is Sam Harris' discussion on real morality. He leaves many important questions unanswered: How does one measure happiness, a subjective emotion? At what lengths should we go to alleviate suffering (eugenics, euthanasia)? By what measure does a society dispense justice and mercy (for example, can someone languish in prison after being convicted of a crime, leaving the victim and the perpetrator both suffering and without happiness)? How is a secular society based on consumerism motivated to self-sacrifice and self-denial?
Oversimplification of topics of great importance is a trend that continues throughout the book. In general, his claims are unsubstantiated and poorly footnoted, although references to some statements are provided at the end. While recognizing that a short book on this topic could not use a lot of ink defending and qualifying each argument, it is the boldness with which Sam Harris makes his claims that leaves one wanting more evidence.
Sam Harris attempts to portray everything about faith and religion as absurd. Ironically enough, this is often the same tactic employed by opponents of the theory of evolution, and I find it interesting that Sam Harris would do the same. To rely on mockery belies a weakness in one's arguments, as if the facts are not convincing enough to stand on their own.
Sam Harris seems to confuse a dislike for the revelation of God, as found in the Bible, with proof that there is no God. Harris is clearly upset at the scale of human suffering and God's apparent unwillingness or inability to put a stop to it. For Harris, this is proof enough that God does not exist. These questions and accusations are viewed by atheists as something new and unique to bring to the debate over faith, but they pre-date the time of Christ. The Bible contains some of the same questions and accusations against God (read Job and Ecclesiastes, while additional verses can be found in Psalms, Jeremiah, and Lamentations). God and Sam Harris both share one thing in common: neither of them are particularly fond of the way the universe is currently operating.
Unfortunately, Sam Harris never broaches topics involving the role of sin in the world, the responsibility of humanity for its actions, the struggle between good and evil in the spiritual realm, and the chasm that exists between humanity in its fallen condition and God's holiness. Since Harris does not believe in the Christian spiritual realm, it comes as no surprise that he would not address these, yet he often provides Christian counter-arguments to his statements, followed by additional counter-arguments to those. In the end, he is strangely silent on the central theme of Christianity: that humanity, having turned its back on God, was in need of a Saviour.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's late but here are some initial reactions to you initial reaction. ;-)
The title...thanks to wikipedia I understand what you are referring to. I was surprised at the suggestion that this book was trying to "undermining faith and promoting sin". Well okay undermine faith sure but I honestly believe it is an attempt to bring more honesty to the world. Or perhaps you were just trying to be funny.
You say that SH doesn't like God. I'd say he doesn't like that so many people still believe in something for which we have no proof. Such beliefs are contrary to the very successful scientific worldview that there are no a priori unsolvable mysteryies. I think that atheists are outraged that these beliefs play a significant role in the politics of the most powerful nation on the planet. You've got to remember that SH is writing for the US Christian nation and is addressing beliefs that may not be very well thought out. This book is not really intended for broadly read religious philospophers it's for those who expect the rapture to not only occur but to occur in their lifetime! If you hold those beliefs then perhaps you are "irrational for my belief".
I suppose that the lack of discussion of how to deal with moral issues is a problem but as you say it's a short overlysimpilifying book. The End of Faith" is longer, more scholarly and deals with more issues in depth. I agree that SH's reliance on mockery and reductio ad absurdum are annoying but when presented with the things that some religions espouse, it's hard to deal with in any other way. I don't deny that there are more literate better educated atheist writers out there (
Daniel Dennett has been mentioned) but SH's book is short and too the point.
Evil proves that God is dead? I don't think so. Science has proven that it's very unlikely that God exists. As time and scientific knowledge march on it's likely that our level of confidence in the non existence of God will increase but will never reach complete certainty.
Most people are quite certain that Roman Gods, fairies and ghosts don't exist, God's next on the list.
Sin? The chasm between humanity and holiness? I'm not sure what to say other that to suggest that we are continually improving our understanding of the human brain and the reasons of certain behaviors. We will come to understand human behaviour thru the sciences of genetics, evolution and animal behaviour. How we will control it is a different question.
Do we need a Saviour? I don't think so.
Is it good that 2.1 billion people on the planet believe that there is an afterlife? I don't think so.
Do we need something to help us be more introspective and appreciative that we have one life to live and one earth live it on? You betcha! That's why I believe in the scientific method of understanding the world. I'm open to exploring religious points of view but those that are exclusionary and judgemental worry me. In one of his books SH suggests the buddhist tradition for those so inclinded.
By the way, if your church is fostering open discussions of morality based on a sckeptical scientific understanding of physics, neurology and evolution, sign me up! I certainly haven't experience that kind of environment outside of academic circles.
The title for this post, along with First and Second Things (sadly, it is out of print), are works of C. S. Lewis. The intent of using (and continuing to use) these titles are in reference to his life as a converted atheist. He was one of the most popular Christian apologists of the 20th century. Had I not recommended the books of Luke and Acts, I would have most likely selected one of his books. The title was a slight jab at Letter to a Christian Nation. I had also contemplated using the title Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold.
The atheist's reliance on science and human knowledge results in some disquieting conclusions. Much like Sam Harris leaves very little room for compromise when confronting a Christian with their own system of theology, I believe that an atheist is left with very little room for compromise when confronted with their reliance on the scientic method. I will provide further details in my next post.
In terms of fostering discussion on morality, may I recommend Mere Christianity.
Ben, interesting read. I decided some time ago I wasn't going to waste my time with these so-called 'new atheists'. Whether it's Harris, Dennett, or Dawkins, all their arguments have been around for centuries, if not since the dawn of Western philosophy. This undercuts any idea that there has been a steady progression towards secular atheism. And, on top of this, some of those whom they wish to see as their atheist ancestors are misunderstood (David Hume) or would not be recognized as kindred folk (Benedict Spinoza). But I digress.
Dennet's arguments are to my mind the best and most thorough (see analytical philosopher Alvin Plantinga for responses), as well as best written, whereas Harris and Dawkins are flamboyant and shallow. As Terry Eagleton noted in his review, these two are infected with the same zealotry that they find so despicable in those they detest. Irony?
We might also keep in mind that the idea that science provides a full explanation for and of human existence is hotly contested by the most prominent of philosophers and scientists today - most of whom are not religious. (Oh, and the head of the genome project, dang, he's an evangelical!)
What about recent work in the philosophy of science? Or recent philosophical developments in postmodern thought? Harris and Dawkins don't like these trends because they call into question the privileged view of science and its method, not to mention their strident version of rationalism. As I noted, they enjoy quoting David Hume, but fail to realize he explicitly rejected their dogmatic atheism for what he called 'mitigated skepticism'. (They have more in common with French philosophes Baron D'Holbach or La Mettrie.)
That we are somehow going to arrive at 'the truth' via the scientific method one day is nothing more than a progressive myth. One of the most forceful criticisms of what has come to be called 'scientism' - the belief that science is the exclusive domain of truth - is that of Thomas Khun, in his now classic *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions*. In it he argues that science is a 'paradigm', and contains characteristics like other systems of thought.
Another thinker worth consulting is the Catholic Canadian Charles Taylor (who was involved in forming the federal NDP). Recognized by his rivals as one of the most important living philosophers, he has been engaging what he calls 'exclusive naturalism' for over 50 years. He also did an interview recently on CBC Ideas (check their podcasts). He is a highly readable philosopher and well worth the time and money to become familiar with.
Something worth noting:
- Dawkins is on record as having conceded the impossibility of disproving God's existence. He did so in response to Oxford historian of theology Alisdair McGrath. To my mind this completely undermines the notion that people are delusional for believing in God.
- If Harris' book is written for the fundagelicals who believe the rapture is going to happen in their lifetime - remembering of course all Christian cultures have thought the same, and that this doesn't necessarily lead to anything scary or bad (for that is contingent) - wouldn't appealing to moderates be a better strategy? Oh wait, moderates are really delusional fanatics too. Damn!
- One last point. Lets recognize that Harris is not very familiar with the finer points of theology or its history. Has he read his Jurgen Moltmann? his Karl Rahner? or even his Duns Scotus? I seriously wonder.
Ben, you may be interested in the weblog of David Fitch, a theology professor at Northern Seminary. He's doing a class on Christianity and Pluralism, and, after peaking at his syllabus, is requiring his students to read Sam Harris's book and write a paper on it. His current post - http://www.reclaimingthemission.com - is well worth the read.
Post a Comment