Letter to a Christian Nation
by Sam Harris
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.87 You Save: $6.08 (47%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $6.06 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Letter to a Christian Nation
Book Review: Sam Harris' "Little White Book"
Summary: 1 Stars
After reading this book I have gathered two conclusions pertaining to Sam Harris. One, he is a very good writer and should teach an English class on rhetoric. Two, while Harris is at Stanford it may do him some good to take a couple theological classes. Below are the reasons I came up with for my assertions. Because time is short I will only give a few of my reasons.
Harris begins the book declaring that Christians are atheists towards all other religions. Well this isn't exactly true. In fact if you would take Islam, Judaism, and Christianity what you would see is remarkable similarities, it is the atheist who is in fact the odd man out. When a Christian rejects Islam we are not rejecting everything about Islam. However when one asserts atheism they are rejecting all components of religion. Religions accept and understand why 93% of those around the world have some instinctive sense that God exists. Some atheists meanwhile fail to shrug of their childhood tendencies while calling each other "Brights".
Harris proceeds in addressing Old Testament Ethics. One thing is beyond clear is the idea that Harris believes the only approach to hermeneutics is a static approach. Yet from the time of Augustine through the Reformation there have been theologians who have questions this approach. My point is his entire argument on Old/New Testament Ethics is ill-relevant for those who do not take a static approach to scripture. For those who take a redemptive hermeneutics approach, such as William Webb who wrote, "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuality", would find Harris' argument a Strawman. Peter Enns and his book, "Inspiration and Incarnation" also allows for a different hermeneutic approach that deals with the Old Testament stories and the science behind them, Harris ignores this hermeneutic approach as well. These approaches are held by many Christians not simply because it allows them to escape Harris' static approach but quite frankly make the most sense if we consider who God is and how he speaks to those around him. If Harris wants to take on the task of addressing Old-Testament ethics he needs to not be lazy about it and address the hermeneutics of scripture.
Harris then attacks the leaders of Christianity suggesting that it is their faith that caused them to do such acts. Pertaining to Christianity it is beyond obvious that all followers of Christ are sinners, what Harris has to do is show how Luther, Calvin, and Augustine were not products of their culture but rather Christ taught the need for inquisitions to be done by people who follow him. Harris does no such thing. Then Harris goes on to suggest that Hitler may have been a Christian or sympathized with Christianity during one of his speeches in his early years. After reading up on Hitler this was more than obvious that this was not Hitler's true ideas but rather political rhetoric. Here is a private quote that show his true nature.
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, only to enslave them....The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the word of St. Paul."
He then makes the "Red State/Blue State" argument. Name any city with a high crime rate and you will quickly see that those cities aren't loaded with Republican mayors and Republican city councilmen. Can anyone say Detroit? However this is well besides the point. No Christian should say atheists, in general, are more dangerous than Christians. If they do they don't understand the grace associated with Christianity. And this lead me to my last point.
Harris spends a large amount of time claiming objective morality and the errors of morality in Christianity. However this is where he is weakest. No where does he give an ontological basis for his morality. Harris claims pleasure/pain creates a basis morality. Okay, who's pleasure and who's pain and on what basis am I obligated to concern myself with someone else's nerve endings? There is no basis and this is where his book stinks like rotten eggs. He brings up slavery so I will use slavery as my example. Given atheism where am I obligated to concern myself with the slave.
The point is beyond clear. And for those who were "shocked and awed" by Harris and are no longer "devout" Christians I truly wonder what your definition of devout is?
Book Review: Eye-opening and thought-provoking, though not infallible
Summary: 4 Stars
Sam Harris' "Letter To A Christian Nation" is a short, simple essay that took only about two hours to get through; yet those two hours provide a concise summary of the principles of atheism and why (according to Harris) a religion-oriented society is outdated and unnecessary in the modern civilized world of the 21st century. This little book, a followup to Harris' "The End Of Faith," became a New York Times best-seller...and if a better book was written especially to piss off the vast majority of mainstream Americans has been written in the past decade or so, I haven't heard of it. This is Harris' real objective in this book: to make you angry, to make you think about the principles of faith, and to question the absurdities built into religion in general. When taken as a generalized argument against religious faith, the book succeeds pretty darn well.
However, during my reading of the book, I found myself thinking of little ways that would probably be used by a critic of the book to oppose and disassemble some of the individual points Harris puts forth. For instance, one of the reasons why he disdains the Bible stems from the way that Biblical scholars casually toss aside the parts of the book that they don't like, especially the parts that contradict their own beliefs and philosophical points; then he does precisely the same thing near the beginning of the book when he points out that the most completely non-violent and altruistic religious dogma ever devised (at least in his eyes) is that of Jainism, a belief system from India that influenced Mahatma Ghandi. Harris briefly mentions that Jainism isn't perfect and it has its bad parts, too, but he casually puts that fact aside after bringing it up. If he were basing his entire book on Jainism, then he could be faulted for using this rationale; but that's not the major point of this essay, so I'll forgive him for it.
Less easy to take straight is the way he argues in favor of abortion by describing an embryo as a "blastocyst" - not because I disagree with him, but because he falls for one of the more common logical traps used in an emotional debate such as this one: invent a new name to call your opponent, so as to make it easier to see the opposition as less than human, and thus make the easier to dismiss. This is seen regularly in the abortion battles, as pro-lifers refer to pro-choicers as "baby-killing pro-choice yahoos." A seasoned anti-abortion veteran would no doubt ridicule Harris' use of the term "blastocyst," as it takes away from the overused pro-life tactic of using emotional buzzwords to describe the fetus ("baby," "innocent life").
These are not the only details in the book that can be countered; they're just two examples of many presented in the slim book (less than one hundred pages). I don't disagree with Harris on these points, either. I simply note his that his arguments are not infallible, and this is why "Letter To A Christian Nation" has upset so many people to the point that they feel they have to respond (often with threats and Bible quotes). But the flaws in Harris' arguments do not detract from the overall conclusion he reaches: that religious thinking is dangerous in a world where many, many people have access to modern-day technology, because it is standing as a major obstacle to the advancement of science - especially the development of scientific methods and treatments that can help many people worldwide.
As for the book's intended role as a new weapon in the ongoing war between religion and science (which is what many of the more idiotic controversies in modern-day Western society boil down to), Harris does make some logical fallacies at times. These fallacies, naturally, are what his critics seize upon in their published responses to the book...of which there have been at least five so far. The fact that so many people have taken the time to attack Harris and reply specifically to his book shows that he has certainly succeeded in forcing them to think. I consider that a point in his favor. What I consider even more amusing are the ways his self-appointed opponents attack his arguments - often using the very same flawed arguments Harris disproves. Go onto Amazon and read the responses to his book, especially the "one-star reviews" for the book, and count how many of them use quotes from the Bible to prove the Bible is true, and that God exists. I only wish I had the capability to outrage and troll so many readers in the logical and (mostly) cool-headed manner that Harris has done with this book.
Book Review: The following review is not an argument for/against atheism...
Summary: 3 Stars
Before you read this review, you should know two things. First, I will not spend my time and energy fighting for or against the position of the author. People have written hundreds of other reviews on this website in the endeavor to do that very thing. Most if not all of which are inadequate Second, I am a Christian. Namely, one who believes that this book (or better books like it) should be read by all Christians. That said, I want to evaluate the writing, not make an argument for or against the thesis of the book. No matter who you are, ask yourself the question honestly, "Did Sam Harris adequately defend his conclusion in this book?"
I believe the answer is most definitely no. The purpose of the writing, as I can gather, is to show that Christianity and all other religion is the single greatest threat to the advancement of our society. That is his primary argument here. No educated person would ever try to defend such a hot-button topic as to whether or not God exists in such a shorthanded manner. The fact that Harris believes God doesn't exist can be considered a premise for the conclusion that religion is a detriment to society.
Whether or not that conclusion is true (I believe it's not), the book is filled with gross misrepresentations and stereotypes of Christianity. The Bible verses are stripped from their literary and historical contexts. Harris stops short of calling all religious persons insane. If these are Harris's claims, then it is his duty as a critic to accurately portray the viewpoint of the one he is criticizing. If John McCain had spent millions of dollars on TV ads stating that Obama is a Nazi, McCain would have no place in political discourse whatsoever because his claim has no ground in reality at all. Harris is free to argue that Christianity is slowing society from advancing. However, he must first be sure that his assessment of that faith or worldview is accurate. To be fair, I do not think he did a terrible job, I am simply saying that it is not a well supported argument. Instead it comes off as yet another jaded-about-religion atheist ranting against his opponent. The only thing this book accomplishes (as is attested by the reviews) is the strengthening of positions on both sides. In short, there are much better books out there on the subject. The appeal of this book lies only in its edginess and boldness of claims.
At the top of this review, I stated that all Christians should read this book. The reason why? Because in all honesty, Harris highlights some points that Christians need to hear. Firstly, Christians must reevaluate our pseudo marriage to the republican party by way of Falwell's "moral majority." Too many Christians out there are willing to picket protest at an abortion clinic rather than help the struggling single moms in their midst. Too many Christians are quick to vote for their moral agenda rather than an honest evaluation of a candidate's ability to govern (George Bush anyone?). The fact that Christians are preventing Africans from being educated about contraception is a travesty and a great crime. The end goal of that, theoretically, is that Africans will abstain from sex. The Christian should ask themselves, "Why am I abstaining from sex outside of marriage?" The answer should be that you want to honor your Creator. You were given the choice whether or not to honor your creator. Withholding this information not only fails in preventing the disease, but those who submit to your agenda are only doing so to prevent the disease--not to honor their Creator. I could go on for pages and pages about things we can learn from this book. Harris is right in that there are sadly many Christians out there who believe absurd things. This does not mean that Christianity itself is absurd. It is clear that many need a good dope slap, and if it has to come from a fierce opponent of Christianity than so be it. For this reason, despite the fact that I feel his conclusion is ill-defended, I give the book 3 stars.
Book Review: Is tolerance and acceptance possible with the human species?
Summary: 2 Stars
There have been several points in my life where I might have been labeled a fundamentalist christian, so I've occasionally been the person this book was directed at. As I've grown older and have gotten to know people of different religious beliefs and lifestyles, I've changed and would label myself as the moderate christian this book occasionally mentions. Of course this book also singles people like me out as being enablers, I guess if someone doesn't agree with Mr. Harris's opinions then they're part of the problem. I can understand his frustration, there are some extreme religious people who think that everyone has to follow their views and will do whatever it takes to achieve it, but obviously this book takes the exact same no tolerance stance.
I guess some of my problems with the book are that the arguments are extremely one sided and are obviously there for rhetoric than actually discussions. Take for example the HPV vaccine controversy he mentions, he labels conservative Christians as the ones who prevent this from being a complete HPV eradicator because Christians are afraid that without the effects of an STI, more teenagers will have premarital intercourse. So here we are with a vaccine which can prevent the spread of these warts and the cancer it causes but the bad Christians won't allow them to continue a mass vaccination. Of course this isn't the entire story, just attempt to look at it from the Christian viewpoint, the vaccine is fairly new, there are complaints from some girls of side effects, and according to ABC news there are around 34 unconfirmed deaths from it. Now I realize (assuming that its true and not more sensationalist media garbage) that in the grand scheme of things the 34 deaths is far less than the quarter million cases of cervical cancer, but if I'm planning to be abstinent for personal or religious beliefs and don't want to get a vaccine shouldn't it be my choice? This isn't small pox, its spread by intercourse, furthermore there are risks all the time of other vaccinations such as the flu vaccine and I can make my own choice of if I get a shot or not.
Then he's mad that some Christians won't hand out condoms to Africans, should a Christian who is helping the African also be obliged to give out condoms? With the exception of the Roman Catholic Church most Christians aren't against the use of condoms, but at the same time if the Christian has a moral stance against premarital sex, then should they be required to condone it by giving out condoms? Couldn't the secularist do it instead? Or going onto Embryonic Stem Cell research, here I think you have a moral question which should be addressed regardless of religion, I mean you're fertilizing an egg and then 5 days later destroying the life. I think there are moral questions we have to discuss on this regardless of Christianity, it all goes back to the when is a human a life argument. I won't even get into the argument about if someone should pass on his beliefs on his child, I mean the some of the same people against this are sending their kids to atheist camps, so its okay for one to do it and not another?
I could go on but I'll stop here, one thing books like this don't mention are the good qualities of Christianity, I mean do we assume that all Atheists are hateful, intolerant and arrogant because of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris? I guess growing up in the south seeing all of the programs done by Christian groups and acceptance they often give to outsiders, I see a different more loving side. All of religion isn't bad, although the extreme forms can be, we should all work towards being more tolerant and loving of our fellow man regardless of religion or lack there of. To fellow Christians we should work more towards love, 'now these three remain, faith, hope and love. The greatest of these is love'.
Book Review: Asinine Consequentialist Moral Realism
Summary: 1 Stars
As an agnostic who values intellectual integrity, I have issues with the uninformed moral consequentialism of the so-called "new atheists."
Harris' consequentialism appears to be identical to that of Dawkins, the college freshman sort which belies ignorance of the theoretic fatal flaws of the theory.
Harris' consequentialism is first encountered on page 8, where he states as fact the very thing which consequentialists have yet to prove: "Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering."
At this point, I had no reason to assume that this consequentialism played anything more than a peripheral part in Harris' thesis.
As I progressed through the book, I became more and more aware that this consequentialism, which the idiot Harris has the nerve to assume to be scientific fact (page 21) and objectively true (page 23), is the very foundation of his thesis. It is on the basis of consequentialism that Harris attempts to condemn Christianity.
This is a grave mistake. Academic philosophers are all too aware of the problems of consequentialism. Consequentialism can never be implemented. All but the most blindly dogmatic know this. Consequentialism is intellectually untenable.
Think about it. A man nobody likes is killed. Let's say it was a Black man in a racist country full of racist Whites. He is brought before the judge. The judge, a consequentialist, asks, "How much pain and suffering did you cause to society?"
The defendant responds, "none, your honor! I killed him in his sleep. He didn't feel a thing. On the contrary, there was rejoicing in the streets when people learned he was dead."
"Very well then," the consequentialist judge says, "you are free to go with the sincere gratitude of the nation."
Why is it that even a child can see the flaws of this theory, but Sam Harris cannot? It's his intellect. It's got something I call partisan hack syndrome. Allow me to elaborate.
The intellect of an honest man is like a spotlight with a Gatling gun attached. It's set up so that when the spotlight hits a structure, if the structure has any cracks in its foundation, any inconsistencies in its articulation, or any untrue components, the Gatling gun goes off automatically. This prevents inconsistent, irrational or untrue propositions from entering the mind and taking hold.
The person, Sam Harris in this case, who suffers from partisan hack syndrome assumes a position and does not allow the spotlight to fall on his own beliefs. Those beliefs are uncritically held. That's the difference between somebody who is intellectually honest, and a partisan hack.
If you can say the first syllable of "consequentialism" without your Gatling gun going off, then the bulb in your spotlight is dim or it has never shone upon the premises from which consequentialism is derived.
Without dwelling on the many fatal flaws of consequentialism, I refer you to "Consequentialism and Its Critics," published by Oxford Press and edited by Samuel Scheffler.
It should be noted that Sam Harris has a BA in philosophy from Stanford. This is enough to indicate that he ought to be well aware of the widely recognized flaws of consequentialism. Notwithstanding this knowledge, he acts as if consequentialism was settled, "scientific fact."
That's dishonest. It would be like a young earth creationist who, while being made aware of the theoretical difficulties in his theories, decided that in order to avoid the academic process he would simply take the theory directly to the uneducated masses and present it as settled, scientific fact. That dishonesty permeates Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation.