The End of Faith, Sam Harris

the first chapter was very promising. but it seems like the level of engagement was not going to last throughout the book.

Sam harris talks about how religion is crazy and how things are getting dangerous with modern technology. his main problem is with islam which he identifies as a kind of death-cult. why? because of the bountiful phrases in the koran which he cites that talk about killing non-believers and taking over the world. islam as peaceful? no, he says. there is little in it toward peace but phrases or verses can always be found (just like in the bible) to justify a certain point of view. Harris claims that Islam is definitely much more inclined toward war if one follows the koran. assumedly, more verses in one direction would mean that the religion is more inclined in that direction. he disagrees with liberals that claim the problem in the middle east is not religious but political and the likes. this is one of his original points in the book as he argues against chomsky and like-minded views. this may be a little premature. Harris believes that the literal interpretation of the koran (and he shows some relevant verses that can hardly be taken metaphorically) calls for deeds like conversion of the world and the victory of islam over non-believers, killing non-believers, and because of this literal interpretation, a strong muslim state or world will be still be violent. unfortunately, what he doesn't realize is that the interpretation of these "holy books" are often subjective according to the environment. If the middle east was the great super-power of the world, religion may not need to be leaned upon for identity or security, or as an reaction toward the outside. As it is, nationalism and religion often arises as a response to threats from outside or are used (and possibly with the users honestly believing in it as an ends and not a means) to resist these outside forces. Saudi arabia is rich and powerful and they are secular.

Harris' worries are not to be taken lightly however. George bush had prayer meetings in his white house and had many advisers who based their worldview on christianity. belief, as harris takes an entire chapter to illustrate, perhaps excessively, affects the decisions we make. these major monotheistic religions have a strong focus on the "end times" and especially in christianity, the end is enthusiastically looked forward to. A war in the middle east is seen by the fundamentalists as bringing the return of Christ and the end of the world closer - a good thing to them. America did not fall to a fundamentalist theocracy under Christianity, at least not completely and not yet. However, if a strong country like Saudi Arabia develop nuclear weapons while secular, and then fall into the government of a fanatical Islamic group that genuinely believe in doing the will of Allah by killing unbelievers and such, then a real danger arises. People of the major monotheistic religions think that everything is working according to the way their religion predicts the end and they make sense of everything in that light. but take a step away from religion and one sees a world bringing itself to destruction, of civilization being undone with no afterlife as a consolation.

Is Islam basically the problem? I think we should not try to answer the question in hypothetical worlds. The current situation is deadly and what is the problem. Surely not religion alone. Religion may have been the tool used and it may be a tool that never stops, leading to the destruction of the world. But Harris attempts to tackle the international situation too trivially. Definitely there are other causes. Definitely nonetheless, should religion be removed from society because it is such a deadly tool when used in this manner. Now, of courses believers will resist the destruction of their truth. But non-believers don't see any truth and any heresy or inherent satanic crime in destroying the religion. It is a danger to be gotten rid of. Of course there is the "utility" argument of religion - religion is useful, it gives people hope, lets society get along, has probably played positive roles in the advancement of civilization...etc. But utility is not truth and religion claims truth, not utility. Not just truth, but absolute truth. Religion has become dangerous and outlived its usefulness, or it should and a better substitute, if necessary, should be found and used.

Yes, religion demands absolute truth. Religion is not tolerant, not by nature. It is very much intolerant. The seeming tolerance comes from religious moderates which Harris calls a very immoral position. He says moderates are why religion is not being razed down in society. Moderates make concessions and really cannot be said to be "true believers". True believers unfortunately are the dangerous manifestations of religion and without moderates, religion would be seen in its full glory and deadly claws, and civilization would fight for its survival and tear it apart. Moderates interpret their religion to fit the zeitgeist, which is the argument for morality rather than religion, and distort the dangers of religion. Ok, not all religions are dangerous. Harris talks about Janism. But the discussion is largely limited to the 3 major monotheistic religions of our time.

The overall message is that religion is dangerous madness. I would edit that to say the current manifestations of major and influential religions is madness and has potential for more danger. It must be destroyed. Harris writes pessimistically about the future of our existence without immediate attention to this, and I do not think he is being overly dramatic. The truth is as he writes it. Fanatics with weapons of mass destruction for the concoction of self-destruction. As Hitchens touched upon, religion is at the core of many conflicts. Shia and Sunni? News forgot to talk about the Catholics. Hinduism and Islam in Asia. As long as respective conflicting religious views are adhered to, conflicts are bound to exist and it only takes a moment and a few decisions of a few men to herald the demise of hopefully only a portion of our global civilization. Harris also believes in science opening new doors in the near future with regards to how we think and what constitutes morality. This is important and is also discussed by Dennett.

While dawkins is concerned with education and religion's impediment of it, and hitchens is restless blazing brit blasting away at the evil deeds of religions, harris is the most concerned about the future. The truth is simple. Wake up. See the world outside eyes of religion. Where are we headed? The end of the world? This is NOT a good thing. Remember Pascal's wager? Well, what is religion is wrong? What if there IS NO afterlife? What if this is all we have got? And we are going to blast ourselves out of qualification into the Drake equation. Will the only message an alien civilization pick up from our solar system be an enormous smoldering collapse of a planet, its civilization and its millions of variants of life?