I just finished reading “End of Faith”, and I’m ready to begin a discussion of his ideas. How many of you have read the book and are interested in looking at the issues he has raised?
JT
well first answer your question, do you think he is a tool of satan or a prophet? you should read my fundamentalist religion post.
Well, i guess i’m out of this conversation because i haven’t read the book. But it must have been a pretty easy one to read given how quickly you (all) read it. (hee hee)
scythekain,
I see both a prophet and a ‘tool of Satan’. Harris is prophetic in that, if the current trend of not challenging the irrationality of religion continues, the result must be continued violent conflict. Given the ever increasing availability of lethal weaponry, the spiral of greater and greater violence seem’s inevitable.
For the devoutly religious, Harris is anthema. That anyone could suggest that “God’s word” is dangerous to the welfare of mankind is blaphemy of the worst sort. The Christian response will be absolute denial, or in ‘civilized’ sects, an attempt to marginalize his conclusions. Islamists will certainly see him as the archetype of the ‘evils’ there are supposed to destroy.
So, he is both.
JT
my real name,
Actually is was a fairly easy read. Harris isn’t describing anything that hard to understand. His statements and examples are fairly straightforward, as well as his lengthy documentation. Of course, it could be that I had already come to many of the same conclusions even though I didn’t apply the organization of thought he has conveniently supplied.
As an easy read, I’m sure you’ll find time to give it a quick once-over.
JT
I am just fully blown away. The library has him. He wrote the book back in 1967. I thought this was some kind of recent vanity press publication. All the library’s copies have been checked-out though.
From the chapter headings (the last two of which sound especially interesting), it looks like he is again going to first treat of Islam, then in West of Eden, I suppose he will deal with christainity as if it were just a geographical replacement of Islam in the West. Please tell me again that this is not what he is doing. (Which is what his first chapter online seemed to do.)
tentative: “For the devoutly religious, Harris is anthema. That anyone could suggest that “God’s word” is dangerous to the welfare of mankind is blaphemy of the worst sort. The Christian response will be absolute denial, or in ‘civilized’ sects, an attempt to marginalize his conclusion.”
I think that’s a pretty good intrepetation – even if you are seeing it from your side of things – of how some religious thinkers would react.
But, enough of writing about books i haven’t read.
mrn
Hi JT,
“Most controversially, he argues that we cannot afford moderate lip service to religion—an accommodation that only blinds us to the real perils of fundamentalism.”
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de … vi=reviews
This controversy is especially questionable if you view the arguments of Karen Armstrong (‘Battle For God’) who has written extensively on the development of Fundamentalism. I believe that Sam Haris’s book does a lot to gloss over the real causes of violence in our world, of whch there is ample historical proof, since many documents have been released from the secrecy act to support the claim.
It does have a lot to do with the imperialism of western states and history does seem to repeat itself. In the days of Rome, Roman citizens thought of themselves as ‘religious’, having had their religion integrated into their social network. The main requirement of Religion was that it was ancient and had expressions of piety that were open and honest. Judaism was just able to squeeze in, but Christians were accused of being ‘atheists’ because they maintained that God was ‘invisible’. With such atheists a very short process had them punished severely or even executed for ‘disturbing the peace’.
If you look at Iraq, the American Empire came to the rescue of the majority of Iraqi’s, bringing freedom and democracy. The majority of them are Shiites who had been scandalously betrayed by ‘Daddy’ Bush, when he told them to ‘rise up’ against Saddam and then withdrew and let them be slaughtered. Those were the mass graves that were found during the occupation. But with Bush junior, freedom had come. Now we are fighting those Shiites we had come to free - because their religion isn’t acceptable. People are shot in the streets for ‘disturbing the peace’ - it seems familiar, don’t you think?
TIME Europe asked in 2003_ "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? " Of the total 706,842 votes cast, the following results came to light:
North Korea 6.7 %
Iraq 6.3 %
The United States 86.9 %
Why do you think this is? Are these all fanatical religious america-haters? We have to get away from ‘comfortable’ answers and really start asking ourselves whether our view of the world is being somehow distorted. Harris may confront the evangelicals in America and blast the Moslems, but he choses to blast moderates, especially if they say that there other reasons for terrorism other than simple hatred.
I had always assumed that capitalism wasn’t as bad as it’s reputation, until I read articles on how the people in the former soviet union experienced the onslaught of capitalism in their country. There was a broad insurgency of McDonalds, Pornography and organised crime - thngs that they were told previously were the evils of capitalism. One man said that he had never believed the communists - until he saw these things with his own eyes.
Reading the book by Mark Curtis (Web of Deceit), I was forced to see my own country in a completely different light. He is an historian and currently Director of the World Development Movement, a campaigning organisation that tackles the root causes of poverty and works alongside people in the developing world who are standing up to injustice.
"In his … new book, Mark Curtis reveals a new picture of Britain’s role in the world since 1945 and in the “war against terrorism” by offering a comprehensive critique of the Blair government’s foreign policy. Curtis argues that Britain is an “outlaw state”, often a violator of international law and ally of many repressive regimes. He reasons not only that Britain’s foreign policies are generally unethical but that they are also making the world more dangerous and unequal.
Web of Deceit describes the staggering gulf that exists between New Labour’s public claims to uphold ethical values and the reality of current policies. It outlines the new phase in British global intervention, the immorality of its policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Indonesia and support for repressive governments in Israel, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Curtis also reveals Britain’s acquiescence in the Rwanda genocide and economic policies in the World Trade Organisation that are increasing poverty and inequality around the world.
Drawing on formerly secret government files, the book also shows British complicity in the slaughter of a million people in Indonesia in 1965; the depopulation of the island of Diego Garcia; the overthrow of governments in Iran and British Guiana; repressive colonial policies in Kenya, Malaya and Oman; and much more."
Therefore I think that Sam Harris oversimplifies the cause of conflicts and is out to sell a book by simply making Religion the sole cause of all of our problems, smugly leaving out the fact that our prosperity is kept up by the extortion of poorer countries.
Shalom
Bob
Hi Bob,
I guess I just don’t see where Harris tries to make “Religion the sole cause of all of our problems”. It is true that there is as much left out as there was put in, but the topic could be in a volume set given the scope of the issues involved. I didn’t see it as “glossing over”.
I think that Harris is saying that the state of world affairs is a mess because the majority of the world’s population respond to, or acquiese to absurdity because of their irrational (non-rational) religious beliefs. He doesn’t take the evils of secularism off the hook. Rather, I thought he made a fair case that the duplicity of government and the rapaciousness of the multinational corporations is made possible by the vacuum caused by a world-wide lack of ethics grounded in rational understanding. The vast majority of the world is religious, and if religion fail’s to provide a system of inclusive ethics, then it is a major part of the problem. That the cynical and selfish use this failure to their own ends is nothing new.
I thought that Harris was asking and arguing for the establishment of a shared system of ethics grounded in rationality that all peoples could use in conducting their affairs because religion had failed to do so.
And yes, I’m sure he hoped to sell a few books.
JT
Hi JT,
I think I will trust your opinion, since I am going from interviews and reviews and have not been able to get the book yet. I suppose I am a little prejudiced by the comments made about the book.
What has influenced me greatly however is the fact that there seems to be a lot of ‘pseudo-science’ out there and clichè-history which is has yet to be overcome. Historical references often only touch the surface and fail to ask what was going on in other walks of life. This was something that I observed being investigated in the eighties in Britain, when ‘Living History’ groups sprouted up and ‘new’ history books came out, asking what the consequences of historical anecdotes were.
Peace
Bob
Hi Bob,
I was getting ready to write an epistle but managed to get control of myself.
I think that Harris’ real concern is that too much of the world’s activities are seen and governed by irrationality. If you look at the title of the book he is asking for an end of faith-guidance - not an end of religion per se. Religion become’s the target on because it is the dominant contributor to irrational (non rational) thinking and behavior in the world. That secular evil persists by hiding behind religion is also part of the problem.
Harris asks for the development of a world-wide common base of ethics that all people of all persuasions could accept in cooperatively working together. Without putting words in his mouth, it seems that he would see an ethics environment that says, rational - do this. not rational - don’t do this. metaphysical questions - I don’t know.
He goe’s further in his analysis to say that religion is intrinsically incapable of escaping its’ irrational outcomes because its’ ‘holy scriptures’ both affirm, and at the same time, denies tolerance.
I remain unsure that religion can’t reform itself, but I have to agree with Harris that it doesn’t seem likely. The fundamentalists are holding sway.
If religion is to survive as a force, then the moderates in all religions need to clean up their holy books and purge the extremists from their ranks.
Bob, I think you have a realistic appraisal of the bible. Perhaps we should make you the Pope, because that is what it’s going to take. Religion need’s someone(s) to get them back on the path.
JT
Bob, i have a question for you… My Ethics Proffesor hates God like really hates God this would never bother me except for the fact he’s JEWISH… Is that something in Judaism or is he nuts? Cuz he believes in evolution says God doesn’t determine whats right or wrong… then goes on to say that there is no proof that God exists?
Like i really thought jews believed in God but he hates God i have no idea whats with him…?
Hi JT,
- I don’t know what my wife would make of that -
If you don’t tell anyone, I also have doubts that mainstream religion will be able to overcome the extremists. But I am more and more certain every day that the approach of the Mystic is wise and finds an echo in all religions - and most of all I find my own experiences and requirements best spoken to in this way.
Hi CyruxMafia,
That is because there are secular Jews, just as there are secular Arabs, Chinese, Eurasians, Negroes, Caucasians, etc. etc. Being a Jew doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is religious. After the Shoah, many Jews gave up their faith and became Humanists.
Shalom
Bob
What isn’t that against your religion…? Like why is he a jew if he dennies God?
I have often heard jews say their religion is a Godless faith, what does that mean? I thought you worshiped the God of Abraham and Moses…? Do you still believe Adam is the first human being?
Hmm you know the Protocols of Zion do some jews take that seriously>? Cuz I swear my Proff does…
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm
The Protocols of The elders of Zion!!! Does anybody still believe that this text ISN’T a fake?
bob, I realize this was a few posts ago:
Is it the united states or it’s leader?
and I think that we live in an age where world peace is not possible due in part to fundamentalists. It’s hard to be a pacifist when someone is throwing rocks at you.
Hi Bob,
Bob, I’m sure she wouldn’t mind. After all, how many women can say they’re married to a Pope? 
Yes, the role of the mystic - the person capable of accepting not knowing. Still, I keep hoping that there is an answer that will allow fundamentalism to be shown for what it is.
To be frank, I’m less concerned with the fundamentalists we have at the moment than I am with the two and three year olds who will have their heads filled with irrational garbage that perpetuate’s the misery. This is one time when an old truism is actually true. “The sins of the fathers…”
JT
It doesn’t matter if it is fake or not its whether my professor believes it or not…? Cuz like if i had to guess there is a 90% chance he does… You should hear him rant its like he quotes the book line for line…