Now we come to the conclusion of my critique of Sam Harris’s book, The End of Faith. What I have attempted to show in this detailed analysis is the following:
- Harris holds to a false dichotomy that “faith” and “reason” are polar opposites.
- Harris’ portrayal of “religion” is grossly biased. He cherry-picks isolated events and actions that are clearly horrible, but completely neglects to even acknowledge the countless good things that have come about through religious faith.
- Harris displays a surprising ignorance of history and basic biblical theology.
- Some of Harris’ accusations are blatantly dishonest .
- Harris contradicts himself when he tries to argue for a “scientific approach to spirituality.”
The Unreasonableness of Harris’ Faith in Human Reason at the Expense of Faith
Harris’ faith—and yes it is faith—in “science and reason” is fundamentally unreasonable and irrational because it fails to fully take into account the full range of human existence. By arguing for a “spiritual” aspect to humanity, Harris knows this to be true, but at the same time he denies that there is any “spiritual” aspect within religion and faith. Thus one is left scratching one’s head when reading how Harris argues for certain reasonable “spiritual practices” that have been born out of religion and faith, but then and the same time attacks religion and faith for being unreasonable and unspiritual. He literally has cut off the branch on which he sits. He is declaring, “The tree doesn’t bear fruit, but we should enjoy the fruit that is on this branch of the tree!”
This is not to say that occasionally Harris offers up an accusation that rings true on a limited scale. It is true that many religious people hold on to a very irrational and superstitious faith that they have never thought through. So when Harris says the following, to a certain extent he is correct:
“…people of faith tend to argue that it is not faith itself but man’s baser nature that inspires such violence. But I take it to be self-evident that ordinary people cannot be moved to burn genial old scholars alive for blaspheming the Koran, or celebrate the violent deaths of their children, unless they believe some improbable things about the nature of the universe. Because most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors” (31).
He is wrong, though, when he claims that most religions never test or revise their beliefs. A brief look at Church history shows that the Church is always wrestling with how their beliefs relate to the world around them, and this inevitably requires adaptation and revision. I would further argue that Christianity’s core beliefs—the history of Israel, the ministry of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the early teachings of the apostles—can be tested and verified just as much as any ancient historical account can be verified. No, we cannot “conclusively prove” that the resurrection happened, but for that matter we cannot “conclusively prove” that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or that Alexander the Great conquered Persia—all we have is written historical testimony that we put our faith in. The historical facts point to the truth of certain events, but no one can “go back in time” to “know for certain.”
And it is this precise point where Harris reveals his own brand of irrational fundamentalism. He accuses “religious people” of claiming certainty of truth with no conclusive evidence, but then turns around and claims certainty of truth…with no conclusive evidence of his own. He has faith that science will one day answer questions regarding love, hate, beauty, ugliness, etc., but it hasn’t yet. Harris nevertheless believes that it one day will—this is the very definition of the humanistic-scientific-Enlightenment religion. A religious fundamentalist who says, “I don’t care what the facts say, I’m going to believe what I believe anyway,” is on the exact same footing as an Enlightenment fundamentalist who says, “I don’t care what the facts say, I’m going to believe what I believe anyway.”
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, “New Atheists” like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, and Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham and Al Mohler are all cut from the same cloth of irrational fundamentalism.
Romans 12: The Rationality of Spirituality
What is so perplexing about Harris, though, is how he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand he says “faith” and “reason” can never mix, and that science and reason will answer all, but then he turns around and says the following:
“We cannot live by reason alone. … It is nowhere written…that human beings must be irrational, or live in a perpetual state of siege, to enjoy an abiding sense of the sacred. On the contrary, I hope to show that spirituality can be—indeed, must be—deeply rational, even as it elucidates the limits of reason” (43).
Now, this statement is completely and utterly TRUE! The apostle Paul would agree…Jesus would agree! Spirituality is deeply rational and it does elucidate reason.
In Romans 12:1, Paul speaks about “presenting your bodies” as a living sacrifice, “holy and acceptable to God, which is your ‘spiritual’ act of worship.” This word, “spiritual” is also sometimes translated as “sensible.” The word in Greek is logikhn, which carries with it the concept of rationality and reason—we get the word “logic” from it. Therefore it is no surprise that in Romans 12:2 Paul then says, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God — what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Paul’s point? To be truly “Spiritual” is to be continually “transforming your mind” so you can become more rational and reasonable.
Harris has just confirmed Paul’s basic definition of true Spirituality. Harris’ problem is that he does not realize that true Spirituality and true reason can only be found when one puts his faith in Christ, the resurrected Lord of Creation, so that the Holy Spirit could effect this transformation within our minds as we continually walk in faith. By failing to acknowledge the true God, Harris’ “reasoning” falls to the level of the pagans Paul describes in Romans 1: darkened understanding that approves of things that are harmful and dangerous—remember when Harris said he thought sodomy, prostitution, illicit drugs, and pornography were “victimless crimes”? If that is not darkened understanding, I don’t know what is.
Darkened Understanding: Part 1
In fact, Harris’ darkened understanding envelopes his entire book. What is his take on the atheistic and murderous Communist regimes of the 20th Century? He says,
“Consider the millions of people who were killed by Stalin and Mao; although these tyrants paid lip service to rationality, communism was little more than a political religion. At the heart of its apparatus of repress and terror lurked a rigid ideology, to which generations of men and women were sacrificed” (79).
That’s right. Harris thinks the atheism of Stalin and Mao was just “political religion”! Even though they claimed atheistic rationality and a scientific approach to life, (the very things Harris espouses), they weren’t really rational scientific atheists! Does that make sense? In Harris’ thinking, when people kill in the name of rationality, science, and atheism, it’s really “religion,” and when people kill in the name of religion, then yes, it’s really “religion.” It’s amazing what one can rationalize away when one’s working definition of “religion” is “murder and torture.”
One second thought, maybe Harris is right. After all, he infuses all his talk about science and rationality with religious jargon as well. He speaks of science as a faith himself, although he denies it…just as Stalin and Mao couched their atheist/Communist ideology with an air of religious sacredness, but all the while denied and condemned “religion.” What does this say about human beings, other than the fact that we are religious creatures after all? We can never divorce ourselves from what is part of our very nature.
That is why “atheism” really isn’t atheism at all—true atheism doesn’t exist, because it does not deal with reality. The atheism of Harris and his ilk is nothing more than a modern form of idolatry, where one worships things created in man’s fallen image. So yes, you can say Stalin and Mao promoted “political/scientific religion.” Harris promotes the same thing, and if he objected to Stalin and Mao’s killings, Harris would find himself murdered as well. Stalin and Mao were not idealists—they used naked power to manipulate and kill anyone who didn’t agree with them at all times. Harris is an idealist. He is a naïve fundamentalist. He is a true believer whose understanding is so darkened that he cannot see that Stalin and Mao were simply the logical and rational conclusion of the very “modern idolatry” that Harris espouses.
Darkened Understanding: Part 2
Harris’ darkened understanding is also self-evident when he makes the following astounding claim: “It is a truism to say that people of faith have created almost everything of value in our world, because nearly every person who has ever swung a hammer or trimmed a sail has been a devout member of one or another religious culture. There has been simply no one else to do the job. We can also say that every human achievement prior to the twentieth century was accomplished by men and women who were perfectly ignorant of the molecular basis of life. Does this suggest that a nineteenth-century view of biology would have been worth maintaining? There is no telling what our world would now be like had some great kingdom of Reason emerged at the time of the Crusades and pacified the credulous multitudes of Europe and the Middle East. We might have had modern democracy and the Internet by the year 1600. The fact that religious faith has left its mark on every aspect of our civilization is not an argument in its favor, nor can any particular faith be exonerated simply because certain of its adherents made foundational contributions to human culture” (109).
First, Harris is ready to discount everything good that has come about from people of faith, simply because “everyone was a person of faith back then.” But then when it comes to the bad things in history, Harris “blames it all on religion.” You cannot be a logical and reasonable person and hold on to both of those claims at once without becoming a walking contradiction.
Second, this darkened understanding is on full display in the second part of the quote. “Some great kingdom of Reason”? Does Harris really think that if people had just “been reasonable” back in the 11th century that we would have had the internet by 1600? Reason and logic were on full display throughout the Middle Ages—the engineering that gave us Gothic Cathedrals, the herbal medicine of Medieval hospitals, even the war machines of the Crusades. It was that technology that moved humanity forward to where it could eventually harness the electricity that would lead to the advancements of the 20th century. “Religious faith” was not an obstacle to the internet during the times of Aquinas, Erasmus, and Luther. Indeed, this might be one of the most nonsensical statements in Harris’ entire book.
Darkened Understanding: Part 3
Harris’ darkened understanding is further on display in his many attempts to differentiate between “faith” and “reason.” As we have pointed out before, Harris harbors the illusion that “faith” does not allow for rational discussion. When it comes to the “virtues” of reason, or more properly, Harris’ atheistic reason, Harris says the following: “There may yet be good reasons to believe in psychic phenomena, alien life, the doctrine of rebirth, the healing power of prayer, or anything else—but our credulity must scale with the evidence. The doctrine of faith denies this. From the perspective of faith, it is better to ape the behavior of one’s ancestors than to find creative ways to uncover truths in the present” (165).
Harris thinks there might be “good reasons” to believe in psychic phenomena…aliens…rebirth… and THE HEALING POWER OF PRAYER? WHAT??? Harris rejects the idea of Jesus’ resurrection, but he is open to the possibility of reincarnation? He attacks Christianity for its claim that Jesus miraculously healed people, but then he turns around and is open to the possibility that “prayer” might hold a power to heal people?
It’s pretty clear that Harris’ rejection of “religion” in general and Christianity in particular does not stem from his avowed “scientific rationality and reason”—it stems from his irrational hatred and hostility toward any form of organized religion, and even the possibility that there might be a personal God. He is simply parroting the same Enlightenment propaganda of Voltaire, Rousseau, Marx, and Freud…and he’s not even doing a good job of it.
Next Post: the Final Wrap Up of Harris.
