Its funny how much Harris and I agree on the fundamental issues -- we are both spiritual atheists and we both believe that religion can and has done great harm -- yet I found little of value in this work of atheist apologetics. Scott Atran in his latest book, Talking to the Enemy, dedicates an entire section to responding to and debunking Harris claims about suicide bombing. In contrast to Harris armchair speculation, Atran brings empirical fieldwork and statistics to bear on the issue and demonstrates quite the opposite of what Harris asserts. Religious education is actually a negative predictor in suicide bombing and those that carry out these operations often have high levels of scientific and technical training, very useful when you have resources for little more than a shoestring operation. Robert Pape is also recommended for a reality-based view of terrorism and suicide bombing, see his book, Dying to Win. Certainly fundamentalism of the Islamic stripe is a danger, but foreign policy cant be based on a fundamental misconception of religion and geopolitics. The same type of distortions are found in much of Harris treatment of history in general.To mark them all would be an exhausting task There are all sorts of other nonsensical arguments peppered throughout. He argues that only secularism has contested literalism and fundamentalism, an ahistorical claim. Explicitly secular challenges to religious power in Europe did not become prominent until the early modern era. In fact, St. Augustine, John Calvin, and John Wesley rejected literal interpretations of the Bible. Another amusing trick is Harris redefinition of communism as a political religion. Sure, if you beg the question and redefine all bad things to be religion, religion certainly does look like the ultimate bogeyman. I believe the word he was looking for is ideology. When Harris isnt rewriting history, he spends a number of other chapters laying out a philosophy of materialism or philosophical naturalism. On much of this, I am in complete agreement with him, though the ideas arent particularly new nor does the presentation seem to add much to what much clearer thinkers have said before. However, even on this, he clearly goes off the rails on a number of points. He also whitewashes the history of Buddhism, presenting the Westernized warm-and-fuzzy version of it. I found Sam Harriss book interesting, but it should be classified as fiction. Nearly every argument he asserts is specious. Apparently, he reads only those who support his own position (philosophical suicide). He conveniently dismisses atheistic regimes as religious by assigning an ambiguous religious or mythological type of totalitarianism to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the rest of those who tortured and killed religious believers. He cites Northern Ireland and the Israel/Palestinian conflict as religious at its base; the fact is that these are tribal, geographical, and political. Hitler exterminated Jews from a Racist-Darwinian belief, not a religious conviction. He argues from no philosophic framework that hasnt been cogently discredited in the past fifty years. Essentially, THE END OF FAITH is a diatribe based upon his prejudicial dismissal of belief, not on sound philosophical argumentation or factual presentation. Like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett, each has an a priori commitment to materialism. I don’t think Harris is a racist, but he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism.---3 Star Amazon reviewers who like Harris
Posted on: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:34:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015