|
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason :: 0393327655
Description
| Product Description |
|
| Sam Harris cranks out blunt, hard-hitting chapters to make his case for why faith itself is the most dangerous element of modern life. And if the devil's in the details, then you'll find Satan waiting at the back of the book in the very substantial notes section where Harris saves his more esoteric discussions to avoid sidetracking the urgency of his message. Interestingly, Harris is not just focused on debunking religious faith, though he makes his compelling arguments with verve and intellectual clarity. The End of Faith is also a bit of a philosophical Swiss Army knife. Once he has presented his arguments on why, in an age of Weapons of Mass Destruction, belief is now a hazard of great proportions, he focuses on proposing alternate approaches to the mysteries of life. Harris recognizes the truth of the human condition, that we fear death, and we often crave "something more" we cannot easily define, and which is not met by accumulating more material possessions. But by attempting to provide the cure for the ills it defines, the book bites off a bit more than it can comfortably chew in its modest page count (however the rich Bibliography provides more than enough background for an intrigued reader to follow up for months on any particular strand of the author' musings.) Harris' heart is not as much in the latter chapters, though, but in presenting his main premise. Simply stated, any belief system that speaks with assurance about the hereafter has the potential to place far less value on the here and now. And thus the corollary -- when death is simply a door translating us from one existence to another, it loses its sting and finality. Harris pointedly asks us to consider that those who do not fear death for themselves, and who also revere ancient scriptures instructing them to mete it out generously to others, may soon have these weapons in their own hands. If thoughts along the same line haunt you, this is your book.--Ed Dobeas Editorial Descriptions are usually submitted by the manufacturers, publishers and authors. Contact us if you are one of them, and wish to change the above description. |
Reviews
Customer feedback
|
|
Voting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Guest
This book should be read not only by every American, but everyone able to read. It is so enlightening and realistic relative to what we're all up against, that it should be given away free by the governments of every country in the world.
|
Author: Guest
People like to discredit religion. It makes them feel good. It is too bad that so many really intelligent people in the world fall for such stupid ideas, one of which is the idea that religion is the cause of all wars, and if we could just get rid of religion the world would be a peaceful place.
Remember communism? It is not actually ancient history that a whole system (based on reason) attempted to create an athiestic society and killed millions in the process.
If you want to find a cause for war look to conflicts over land and natural resources for a more likely cause. Or look within the soul of humankind.
I would future suggest that if it were possible to make athiests out of the Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, the conflict in Israel would continue. There's that land thing again. Many of the personalities involved in the foundation of the modern State of Israel were agnostic Marxists anyway and were drawn to the Kibbutz movement.
Those who profess some ascent of humankind through technological progress cannot offer a good explanation as to why pornography has taken over the internet.
If you ask and athiest to state a moral or ethical code, in my experience, you get back almost an exact copy of the Ten Commandments. Go figure?!
Come on really? Did little slimey things really grow up to be humans? Even with millions of years? Now that takes faith!
No longer a hunter-gatherer society? Been to a shopping mall lately?
Read this book if it makes you feel good, but it takes a little faith to believe it.
|
Author: Guest
Harris' book is yet another variation of the standard line preached by most apologists for modern atheism. He frames the discussion by defining his world view as being about "rationality," "facts," and "science;" all others are non-rational "belief." Never mind that his own naturalism is a belief as well, but like so many other issues in his book, he either doesn't understand this, chooses to ignore it, or assumes it uncritically. And from this initial premise, he goes on to enumerate all the well-known extreme stereotypes (the radical Muslim blowing up a bus, for example) and then wraps it all up by restating his presupposition as a conclusion: All "faith" is bad.
And the details aren't any better than the broad conclusion; here are just a few:
He spends a fair amount of time harping on the "intolerance" of religious believers. I found myself wondering if Harris has ever read the likes of Richard Dawkins, one of the great high priests of modern atheism, who has famously labeled anyone who doesn't see things his way as "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked." Hmmm... The more accurate statement is that radical ideologues of any stripe tend to be intolerant, but that broader idea doesn't fit into Harris' thesis so he is free to ignore the inconvenient examples of intolerance as it is manifested by atheists.
But Dawkins and his ilk are a minor irritation compared to the Great Atheists of the 20th century: Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong among them, whom Harris also fails to discuss. Which faith inspired in these men the murder of millions, and the misery of countless millions more? Which faith motivated their ghastly atrocities? The answer, of course, is Harris' own atheism. But, well, these examples don't fit with the thesis either.
On the other side of the coin, he ignores the mountains of good that have been done by people with spiritual--and particularly Judeo-Christian--motivations. History is replete with individuals whose courage, sacrifice and humanitarian efforts have arisen from the rich soil of their faith: Lincoln, King, Wilberforce, Solzhenitsyn, Tutu, Bonhoffer, Ten Boom, Carter, and Mother Theresa come to mind. All of these--and many, many more--did what they did specifically because they were believers. But like the negative counter-examples discussed above, such examples of faith inspiring positive good don't support his argument, so he leaves them out too.
Finally, the largest of the omissions is an explanation of his basis for identifying anything as "good" or "bad" in the first place. Naturalism tells us explicitly that we are molecules in motion and nothing more. Our existence is accidental, and we are undesigned. If morality can be said to exist at all, it has been selected for by an unthinking, uncaring natural force--quite the incongruity, if you think about it, that such a force can be the genesis of right and wrong, particularly if we expect right and wrong to be binding in any way. Thus, a naturalist has no more basis to argue that we should act according to a certain moral code than he does to argue that we should have blue eyes, because everything that we are is the accumulation of random mutations that happened to have made it past Natural Selection's arbitrary filter. And so, Harris is like a man enthusiastically hacking away at the branch that his ladder is leaning against; he is advocating the abandonment of the theism whose moral framework is the only basis for his argument in the first place. And this is more than a little ironic.
In the end, you can argue for any point of view if you're free to leave out those inconvenient facts that don't fit with your opinion, and right down the line, Harris does this is a way that would make most Southern Baptists squirm in their seat. His book will play well with the self-proclaimed "intellectual rationalist" crowd, those who come to the table with a commitment to shelter their a-priori naturalism from the ravages of careful examination. For anyone whose mind is still open, however, the rich irony is that The End of Faith is nothing more than a statement of Harris' own faith dressed up in a quasi-intellectual suit.
|
Author: Guest
THere are more detailed books which examine the same subject but this is one that the average reader can actually read, understand and use as a starting point for further research and conversation. For that reason alone, I think the book is well worth reading.
While it may seem obvious that religion can do harm as well as good, Mr. Harris has a knack of showing how and why we can wear "blinders" and become biased about how OUR OWN personal religious beliefs can do harm to others. We all have our biases and our blind spots and he provides insight about this.
I particularly like the section of the book which shows how religion can be a substitute for other addictions and when used in this way can be particularly dangerous.
This does not mean, of course, that religion is always a bad thing. Spirituality and religious beliefs can be very, very helpful to many people. But like any other thing which has potential for good, lack of moderation can lead to harm. There is a fine line between helping and being judgmental, being compassionate and being sanctimonious.
I hope this book does not get used as a way of trying to rid society of all reglious and spiritual beliefs. I hope it does get those who think there is only "one right way" to believe to stop and reconsider their viewpoint.
|
Author: Guest
I was intrigued by the premise of the book but quickly noticed that the author's view of religion is too one sided to be persuasive. Reason is good, religion is bad-that is pretty much as sophisticated as it gets. Harris also has no historical sense. Why has the period since the enlightenment been the most bloody in history? Can we blame WW I or II on religion? Would the Civil Rights Movements of our time have been as powerful without religious motivations behind many participants? Yes, religion often produces horrors, but so did the "best and brightest" with their reason applied to Vietnam. Beware anyone who tells you they say what others don't dare to say. In this case, Harris says what many commentators say about Islam. He is not willing to say what far fewer are willing to say about Israel and Judaism. (No, I am not antisemitic). He argues that the world is better off when Bush and Blair have the bomb rather than Saddam and Bin Laden. That is true but does not mean that "we" must change the way Muslims think to survive on this planet. It is fine to be an atheist, but blaming the worlds problems on religion is intellectually and empirically foolish.
|
Send to Friend
Send to friend
|
|
