The End of Faith
I picked up The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris on Amazon about a week ago and was going to wait to FINISH it to post anything about it, but with the Wii and all I haven’t had much time for reading, and the book just makes too many good points to go unmentioned.
The book is basically an attack not so much on faith, but the tolerance of faith. It’s definitely going to rub some people the wrong way, since that’s normally an admirable trait, but it presents a very strong case for religious intolerance. Fortunately for me, I gave up the noble atheist’s “respect other people’s beliefs” concept long ago. I’ll be bluntly honest: If you believe in a god, no matter how passively, I think less of you. Sorry. The book explains how a world of religious moderates has created a society in which religious fanaticism has become, inadvertently, acceptable behavior.
Sam Harris is a graduate of philosophy, so at times we’re subjected to long passages of philosophy about the nature of belief itself, as well as descriptions of psycho/neurological processes in the brain, but he does a good job of tying it into the driving force behind a person’s actions. I was also a little turned off near the end of the first chapter when he declares, as part of a 4 page thesis statement, that:
In the chapters that follow, I will try to reconcile the bewildering juxtaposition of two facts: (1) our religious traditions attest to a range of spiritual experiences that are real and significant and entirely worthy of our investigation, both personally and scientifically; (2) many of the beliefs that have grown up around these experiences now threaten to destroy us.
While I most definitely agree with (2), I am neither religious NOR spiritual, and when I read the first sentence of the next paragraph (We cannot live by reason alone), I actually put the book down for two full days, never intending to read anything after the first chapter. While I don’t agree with everything he says, I’m glad I picked the book back up.
Whenever I get around to finishing it between sessions of Zelda, I’m sure I’ll post more about it, but until then, here are two of my favorite excerpts so far. These were tough to pick because I loved so many of his points, I had to talk myself out of going through my book with a highlighter.
It is time we admitted, from kings and presidents on down, that there is no evidence that any of our books was authored by the Creator of the universe. The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology. To rely on such a document as the basis for our worldview–however heroic the efforts of redactors–is to repudiate two thousand years of civilizing insights that the human mind has only just begun to inscribe upon itself through secular politics and scientific culture. We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism: rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself. Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.
Elsewhere:
We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them “religious”; otherwise, they are likely to be called “mad,” “psychotic,” or “delusional.” Most people of faith are perfectly sane, of course, even those who commit atrocities on account of their beliefs. But what is the difference between a man who believes that God will reward him with seventy-two virgins if he kills a score of Jewish teenagers, and one who believes that creatures from Alpha Centauri are beaming him messages of world peace through his hair dryer? There is a difference, to be sure, but it is not one that places religious faith in a flattering light.
It takes a certain kind of person to believe what no one else believes. To be ruled by ideas for which you have no evidence (and which therefore cannot be justified in conversation with other human beings) is generally a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind. Clearly, there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are. This is not surprising, since most religions have merely canonized a few products of ancient ignorance and derangement and passed them down to us as though they were primordial truths. This leaves billions of us believing what no sane person could believe on his own. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions. Consider one of the cornerstones of the Catholic faith:
[Description of transubstantiation]
Jesus Christ–who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens–can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad? Rather, is there any doubt that he would be mad? The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy. Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that all others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous. We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who would have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible?
November 29th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Those seem like some pretty simple point(s) -they almost seem to be the same point- but he loads them with words akin to something Herman Melville would write if he was a modern author. Aside from that he is absolutly correct with both of those, no war can not be considered to be religiously fueled.
But now for a personal question of you, Bill. Do you consider yourself atheist or agnostic? (and depending on the answer) Does agnosticism offend you also, even though it rejects the mere thought of searching for an answer to life, the universe, and everything and just accepts that anything is possible but knowing is not possible let alone necessary?
November 29th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
God bless you Bill
November 29th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
I used to consider myself agnostic, because atheism seemed arrogant to me (being predicated on the assertion that god absolutely does not exist), but abandoned the idea years ago. It’s a moot point, anyway. There is no conclusive evidence to positively state that bigfoot *does not* exist, yet I don’t believe in him. However, this is not the sort of belief that isn’t open to modification, like for example, if a live bigfoot were captured. This does not make me “bigfoot agnostic”, nor am I sitting on the fence on the subject. Hell, if you think about it, there’s MORE reasons to believe in bigfoot than there is god. I believe no proposition should be accepted as fact without evidence. Is that such a horrible worldview?
November 29th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
“Faith” - of course being acceptance of something without facts, is the foundation of religion. It’s difficult to argue with a deist when they’ve been indoctrinated since birth to believe that rational questions challenging their beliefs are just “a test of their faith”, and that faith is, in fact, an admirable trait. How do you argue with someone who sincerely thinks they are doing the right thing? You can’t, since any argument against “the right thing” looks like you’re coercing them into joining the Dark Side. So who is more likely to convince people to do the math and think it through logically, an atheist that rejects any god , higher power etc… or an agnostic who can accept all things being possible but can point out inconsistencies and flaws in organized religion? I mean, most times it seems like people use God as their conscience, or someone to be accountable to. Is that really such a horrible thing? To me, the worst part of deism is the organization and factioning of it, where people in Gaza go to war for 1000 years fighting over a disputed strip of land because of two marginally different translations in the bible. If those people hadn’t been carefully factioned apart and bred to hate each other, if they just used a general idea of being accountable to God and doing the right thing based on what they feel is logical, then they could see that there is no “holy land” and Amy friendam was just some guy with a few wives who changed his name to include a few extra letters. The bible is a fun little fairy tale with some good points and morals, but once everyone started having a dick-measuring contest over little differences in it, we should have burned every copy that exists in order to preserve world peace. On a side note, Agnosticism is not “fence sitting”. SOME people that claim agnostic just to be neutral, or because they’re too weak or stupid to have a strongly formed opinion give the rest of us a bad name. That being said, Atheists can come off as kind of snobby when they reject not just the conventional eastern and western gods but any kind of intelligent design whatsoever. Does that mean that I am “on the fence”? Absolutely not, I don’t believe in any God whatsoever, but, I don’t reject the idea outright that there may be some kind of intelligent design somewhere, maybe.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Let’s be honest though, Jesus was a pretty bitchin’ dude.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
That water into wine shit?! That was INSANE! Those were some good times kid…
November 30th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Whoo Chris!It was like I was reading a real theological debate and less of some random guy’s blog where he bitches about things that bother him on a personal level in a very humorous mannner.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
I agree with basically everything Chris said.
Then again, I was raised that way and realized once I started actually THINKING about it that everything I had been taught didn’t add up AT ALL.
I don’t really believe in God, but I claim agnosticism just because I can’t bring myself to completely rule out the possibility. Above all things I don’t believe in the Christian god.
Morgan and I actually had a three hour conversation about religion and politics and ended up breaking up over it. Fuck Christianity. It makes NO sense to me. I told her I couldn’t be with someone that was constantly thinking in the back of her mind that I was going to an imaginary place to burn for eternity if I died and that was the end of that. I thought she’d come around and actually THINK about what she’d been taught if I talked to her enough, but turns out I’m just on the “Dark Side” like Chris said. Religion instills SO much fear into it’s followers that even if that’s all they have that keeps them holding on, it’s enough. It’s ridiculous.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Who the hell is this Kyle guy anyway?
November 30th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Whoa, Caleb broke up with a schlaidy over religion? Whodathunk? Sorry to hear, man.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:44 am
I have met you a few times Bill. I lived with Chris, Chuck, and Will. At behest of Chris I watched the lemon-juice drinking contest and continued to read your blog for the entertainment it provides on a semi-regular schedule. You also hate me because I like The Darkness, which would explain why you never remember you I am.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Oh yes, you also enjoyed a short acting career in that commercial for the bus system.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Tragically yes, they lured me with free bus passes and at the time I rode the bus a lot, well everyday to work and home, which ended up being about $30 a month so I thought they would give me a bunch and they gave me a piddly four. In retrospect it was a bad idea, but I still do support public transit, so I guess I got that going for me.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:45 pm
That sure is a whole lot..
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:17 am
Plus, why would anyone listen to that guys “behest” Give me a fucking break. If anyone does anything at the behest of Chris, I have to wonder the intellectual integrity of the person in question. Especially when they start using words like behest. The last time I heard that used was about 1850. Start using your feet and listening to the word of Our Lord And Saviour, Jesus Christ. In His Name, Forever and Ever, Amen.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:42 am
Tolerance toward religion is almost forced though, because the older people get, the more they get locked into a certain set of beliefs. It’s easier to look at things objectively when you’re younger and more open-minded than when you’ve accepted something as fact for decades. It’s easier for people like me, (people raised without religion) to ask questions about it than it would be for people like Caleb who, from what I hear, has been raised strictly religious. But it’s easier for Caleb to question his faith than it would be for someone in their 30’s raised the same way. It’s also more difficult to sever the social ties for older people who’s only social interaction may be church related. (Although I don’t doubt that Caleb’s questioning his families’ faith makes for some tense dinner conversation.) I think that religion is like racism, in that it’s not something people can change someone else’s mind about, but something that slowly fades through the generations. The best way to fix things is through information dissemination ($2 word) and discourse ($1.50 word). Let people make up their own minds about things, but give them a fair chance to see both sides of the argument without judgement or persecution.
That and we should all dance more.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:43 am
Even the white people.
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:07 am
Spelling “judgment” wrong: -$7.25
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:11 am
Oh, and MY point is: When there is no evidence to the contrary, there IS no argument.
’sfine. I have plenty of Christian friends. Not to mention my *cough*girlfriend*cough*. I’m not completely intolerant, as long as you either drink beer with me (my friends) or give me smooches (my girlfriend). Or both (my friends).
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:27 am
Chris is a honkey.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment#Spelling, both ways are correct eat a bucket of dicks.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:04 pm
I like how I’m genuinely interested in what you have to say, and am nice enough to respond to it, and you act like my fourth grade teacher going through my paper with a red pen, searching not for a legitimate idea or concept, but a fucking grammar error. End of Friendship.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Friendship is not a proper noun, honkey.
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:10 am
My parents have no idea that I’m not religious, but I honestly think if they did those “awkward dinner conversations” wouldn’t even have the opportunity to exist since I imagine I might be disowned for my paganism. I can’t really decide whether or not I EVER want to tell them. Right now, they’re paying for my college so it’s a no brainer to NOT tell them lest I be cut-off. The more I think about it though, the more I realize that if they ever DID know it would absolutely crush them, which is really saddening. I don’t feel insecure in my decisions regarding religion in the tiniest bit and I feel like I can back up my reasoning quite adequately, but my parents have been following the same belief system for 50+ years. If I told them my points and somehow made them doubt, the only thing I would “succeed” in doing would be to make them wonder if they’ve wasted 50 years of their life, which isn’t a goal of mine.
So on the one hand, if they’re happy in their silly, illogical Christianity it doesn’t really effect me (it used to, but since I don’t actually live WITH them anymore, it’s not an issue). But at the same time, I couldn’t tell them what I think because then, like with Morgan, they would spend the rest of their days believing their son was going to hell. I don’t understand why ANYONE would choose to follow a religion where you have to believe 75% of everyone you ever meet is going to burn for eternity. That’s so dumb.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
I’m not sure I agree with Chris that it’s easier for young people to question religion. Indoctrination is VERY hard to overcome and in cases where basically everyone in your social circle is religious, rejecting religion means rejecting friends and family also. Now obviously, the longer you accept that indoctrination and don’t question it, the longer you’re subject to that indoctrination and so it is a vicious cycle. And when you’re near life’s end, the idea that there is a life beyond is obviously comforting to many people.
As for my son insisting that he’s not even spiritual–of course, that depends on how one is defining spiritual–but such a stand can cut one off from a lot of wonderful life experiences. I insist he go and read William Edelen’s piece this week on ’seeking the truth of truth this holiday season.’ (which can be found at Edelen’s website)
All that being said, I have to say I pretty much agree with what Bill has to say and I definitely agree with what Harris has to say about toleration. Tolerating religion in any way, shape or form legitimizes ALL shapes and forms of it and so those Christians and Muslims and Jews and whatever who want to disavow what they claim is just the “lunatic” fringe of their religions(which often is no more than simply fundamentalists who tend to take the religion to its most literal extremes) and so don’t represent their beliefs, are either being dishonest or completely blind about what their religions actually do teach. And that really is a lot of the problem, most people who tolerate religion and just as many who practice it, actually know nothing about the theology behind those religions. Evidence: go ask a run-of-the-mill Catholic to define transubstantiation or ask a Lutheran about Luther’s concept of consubstantiation. Ask any religious person you know to tell you what their particular church’s stand on free will versus predestination is (extremely important issues to true theologians). Too many Americans who claim to be Christians are wholly ignorant of the whole body of Christian doctrine; instead, they pick and choose what parts they want to believe in and have thus created a personal god in their own image that, of course, they fit into their lives in a way that requires very little of themselves except going to church on Sundays and telling everyone that yes, they do believe.
Ahhhhh, how I LOVE a good rant!
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:45 pm
While it may be true that any toleration could be seen as condoning and legitimizing like you said, it would be pretty time-consuming and pointless to call someone on their crap every time you heard it, unless you wanted to spend the majority of your life in a debate you can’t win. If everytime I saw a person eating meat I tried to convince them that it was wrong, I would be wasting my breath and distancing myself from friends who otherwise I have a lot in common with. But, I also sincerely believe that the way factory farming works is unnecessarily and sometimes intentionally cruel. So what do I do? Preach ’til I’m blue in the face to people who have already made up their minds, and most likely just succeed in pissing them and myself off? Or do I let it slide and risk validating their opinion by not challenging it? So while I don’t disagree that tolerating something can legitimize it, I can’t see how it would be practical or desirable to.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Yeah Chris, gotta pick your battles.
December 4th, 2006 at 1:58 am
I should have said “tolerance” before my teacher checks my paper though, I don’t think “toleration” is a word.