Sam Harris perhaps represents the most dangerous form of atheism. It is inflammatory, irrational, hostile, and missionary. He is not content to “let the facts speak for themselves,” and let people come to their own conclusions. Harris feels he needs to tell you what to think and believe. If you don’t believe me, consider what he himself says: “Education is not enough” because even “educated men and women still cling to the blood-soaked heirlooms of a previous age” (224). Therefore, Harris sees himself on a crusade. For him, “is not merely a matter of reining in a minority of religious extremists; it is a matter of finding approaches to ethics and to spiritual experience that make no appeal to faith, and broadcasting this knowledge to everyone” (224).
Harris, the Marxist Missionary…Sort of…
Basically, Harris is a missionary with a two-pronged strategy: (A) “rein in the religious extremists” (which for Harris constitute ALL religious people), and (B) “broadcast this knowledge” (of his atheistic doctrine) to everyone. Hmmm…suppression of religion and indoctrination of atheism. That sounds strangely identical to the tactics of Stalin, Mao, and other Communist leaders of the 20th Century. I’m not saying Harris would actually advocate the mass murder of religious people—he says he objects to what Stalin and Mao did. But for that matter, both Stalin and Mao denied they would ever engage in such atrocities. But I wonder how Harris thinks “religious extremists” ought to be “reined in”? The point is simple: when it comes to his arguments, Harris is identical to the rhetoric of 20th century Communism. Those tactics are the logical extension of the very rhetoric Harris espouses.
If comparing Harris’ rhetoric to Communism seems over the top, consider what he says here: “…it is obvious that an utter revolution in our thinking could be accomplished in a single generation: if parents and teachers would merely give honest answers to the questions of every child” (224). If we could just make parents and teachers give “honest answers” to our children, atheism would rule the day within a generation. In the Soviet Union, adults were “free” to believe what they wanted and were “free” to practice their religion, but it was just a crime punishable by the Gulag to “force those religious beliefs and practices” on their own children—yes that’s right. Teach your own children about God and you’ll be starved and beaten in the Gulag.
That is just a step or two down the road in Harris’ thinking. After all, if it is deemed “true” that religion is not only false, but dangerous to human development, then to allow parents to teach their religion to their children isn’t just “stupid,” it is a crime against humanity. That’s what Harris obviously believes—if that is the case, what do you do with people who commit crimes against humanity? You execute them.
Therefore, given how such thinking has been taken to this very conclusion in the past, Harris’ propaganda should not just be laughed at, it should cause concern: “Religious violence is still with us because our religions are intrinsically hostile to one another. Where they appear otherwise, it is because secular knowledge and secular interests are restraining the most lethal improprieties of faith. It is time we acknowledged that no real foundation exists within the canons of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any of our other faiths for religious tolerance and religious diversity” (225). Harris is convinced that all religions are always bad, and that the only good that is in any of them really comes from secular knowledge and interests. He believes there is no foundation for religious tolerance and diversity among any of the Western faiths. Never mind the fact that such statements are demonstrably false, but if they were true, the logical conclusion would be to not only restrain religion, but to actively suppress it.
Out With a Flourish…
On the last two pages of his book, Harris gets caught up in a rhetorical flourish that would impress even Karl Marx: “When we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith!” Harris proclaims. Yet does Harris have valid reasons? I think these posts conclusively show he does not.
Harris declares, “There is nothing more sacred than the facts. No one, therefore, should win any points in our discourse for deluding himself. The litmus test for reasonableness should be obvious: anyone who wants to know how the world is, whether in physical or spiritual terms, will be open to new evidence” (225). I’m sorry, but despite claiming that facts are sacred, Harris clearly has no problem misrepresenting them throughout his book.
One simple example of this is when he talked about the Christian Emperor Justinian, who in the 6th century AD completely re-codified the old Roman law and established the Justinian Code. Harris said, “The Justinian Code, in the sixth century, essentially declared the legal status of the Jews null and void—outlawing the Mishnah (the codification of Jewish oral law) and making disbelief in the Resurrection and the Last Judgment as capital offense” (97).
When I read this, I was initially shocked. If that was true, that would be pretty damning evidence against the supposedly Christian emperor Justinian. Christianizing the Roman Empire should not include execution of Jews who don’t believe in the resurrection or the last judgment. And so, I got a copy of the Justinian Code and read every word of it. It is a legal document that deals with the structure of the legal system, and, surprise surprise, says absolutely nothing about the Mishnah, Jews, the resurrection, or the last judgment. Not only is there not any outlawing of Judaism in Justinian’s Code, Judaism is never even mentioned.
It seems for Harris, that facts aren’t sacred after all…they’re not even that important.
The very thing Harris accuses “religion” of is the very thing he indulges in on a consistent basis. Although he claims to want to know how the world truly is, the fact is he is not open to new evidence. In fact, oftentimes, he simply makes up evidence out of thin air, much like his young earth creationist doppleganger Ken Ham often does. No matter who does it, though, it is still deplorable. Closing one’s eyes to the light of truth is worse than blindness, for a blind man has no choice but the darkness. Closing one’s eyes to the light of truth is chosen ignorance—it is self-inflicted deception. Sam Harris is the very thing he accuses irrational religious extremists of being.
Harris triumphantly ends his atheist manifesto by announcing, “We are the final judges of what is good, just as we remain the final judges of what is logical” (226). What he fails to realize though is the problem that arises when two people—two atheists even—come to different conclusions as to what is good and logical. The sad history of humanity tells us that the one with the bigger gun will win out…and how logical or good is that? The long history of the Church, though far from perfect, nevertheless has given humanity a sense that a ruler is not absolute, that he is obligated to serve those under him, and that he too is under God’s law. Without that, we are reduced to a social Darwinism that was no more fully played out than in the Communist regimes of the 20th Century.
And so there it is…judge for yourself. Do Harris’ arguments hold water? Are they logical, reasonable, or rational? Or are they rather the embodiment of the very thing he falsely accuses “all religion” to be? No one is denying the black spots in human history where horrible things have been done in the name of God. But one simply cannot distort the facts and retain any shred of respectability.
