An

Examination of Sam Harris: Reason in Exile

By: Daron Mark A summary

In his book The End of Faith Sam Harris contends for the removal of religion from modern day society. Writes Harris, As a man believes, so will he act1 and thus he argues that religious beliefs breed violence through intolerance, that they are irrational, and that a failure to remove religion soon will ultimately lead to the obliteration of our world. Harris begins his argument by considering how a person is affected based upon their beliefs. He writes, A belief is a lever that, once pulled, moves almost everything else in a persons lifeyour beliefs define your vision of the world; they dictate your behavior; they determine your emotional responses to other human beings2 simply explained Harris believes that any persons action is a direct result of the beliefs which are posited by that individual. A belief that gravity exists stops a man from leaping off of multi story buildings without a parachute, likewise a belief that a supreme being supernaturally implores one to pray five times a day causes a women to fall to her knees facing in a certain direction and carry out her religious duty. The point is that people do not act on things to which they do not hold dearly, rather it is those things which hold a place of conviction in a persons life that draw out action and behavioral tendencies.

1 2

Sam Harris, The End of Faith. (New York City, NY: Norton publishing, 2005)44. Ibid, 12.

With this clearly established Harris moves on to his main argument, that Religion is the main source of, and breeding ground for violence. He writes, ideas which divide one group of human beings from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion3 and, God has given us far many more reasons to kill one another than to turn the other cheek.4 The reason for which this point is argued is found within the issue of tolerance. Speaking of all religion Harris writes, the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error or, at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed.5 Each religious belief system has truth claims which it makes about itself to the exclusion of all other religious systems, in essence stating we are right and any contradiction to our belief is an error and should be refuted and labeled as heresy. This disagreement between belief systems then leads to violent action as a way of dealing with the problems of incompatibility, Harris writes,
believe that you are the member of a chosen people, always in the salacious exports of an evil culture that is turning your children away from God, believe that you will be rewarded with an eternity of unimaginable delights by dealing death to these infidelsand flying a plane into a building is scarcely more than a matter of being asked to do it. It follows then that certain beliefs are intrinsically dangerous6

The violent acts carried out by people of different religious backgrounds are to Harris the reason he argues for religious eradication. According to Harris because belief and behavior are so closely associated the beliefs which people hold must be rational, testable, and proven. This would eliminate any religious belief because religious belief systems are not rational; there is no valuable evidence to argue for

3 4

Ibid, 13. 35. 5 13. 6 44.

their plausible existence. Harris states, every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which it has no evidence. In fact, every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable.7 Harris makes numerous claims about the irrational nature of religious truth claims stating that they are not only unable to come up with conceivable evidence, but any evidence they do put forth is simply not testable. the point is that most of what we currently hold sacred is not sacred for any reason other than that is was thought sacred yesterday. Surely, if we could create the world aneworganizing our lives around untestable propositionswould be impossible to justify.8 The final point that Harris makes in his opening chapter speaks to the potential outworking of religious violence which he has so unabashedly argued for. He states, give people divergent, irreconcilable and untestable notionsand then obligate them to live together with limited resources. The result is just what we see: an unending cycle of murder and ceasefireadd weapons of mass destruction to this diabolical clockwork, and you have found a recipe for the fall of civilization.9 Harris even goes so far as to say that if this eradication of religion does not commence by the next generation of humanity that it may in fact already be too late.

Points of Agreement:
While I do not agree wholeheartedly with Harriss treatment of religion in this chapter there are a couple of areas with which I can agree. I agree with Harris on the first of his points, that a persons belief dictates the way in which they behave. This seems perfectly logical and the conclusion seems to follow the argument in a true and acceptable way. As a Christian I can attest to this point in that my actions flow
7 8

Ibid, 23. 24. 9 26.

sternly out of my beliefs in Jesus, the bible, and salvation. Harris has done a good job of clearly explaining the importance of this point, as one which I believe is often taken for granted. I also am in agreement with Harris in that I believe a great deal of unnecessary bloodshed has been caused by religious conviction. Undoubtedly the events which took place on September 11th in New York City will always stand as a reminder of the dangers of religious convictions and their outworking. Harris writes, religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years10 and to this point I think he is accurate. If you take into consideration the events that have transpired in the middle east, coupled with the events tied to Osama Bin Laden, and the numerous instances of Jihad which have occurred this point is well received.

Disagreement, Assumptions and a brief response:

I disagree with Harriss statement that intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed.11 To start by

way of definition it would seem as if Harris is taking the term intolerance to mean not accepting or endorsing a position instead of disagreement with a position I think that there is a large difference between the two. One constitutes (as requirement to escape his criticism) that we endorse anything which is put in front of us as dogma, or religious thought, while the other would allow us the freedom to be in disagreement with the teachings of another system without the need for its eradication. Within the context of this disagreement comes an underlying assumption which Harris seems to make, and that is that all religious creeds are basically the same. To this end I would say that when you are dealing with a broad spectrum of religious ideas, to paint with such a broad brush seems foolish. For example Christianity at its core is quite tolerant (in that it allows for the existence of other views without
10 11

Ibid, 26. 13.

endorsing them) of other world views. Though you will always have disagreement when it comes to different religious belief systems, there is not always intolerance, and only some of the religious systems could be labeled intolerant for good reason. I also disagree with Harriss point that religious beliefs are beyond the scope of rational discourse. Of any point Harris makes in this chapter none is more strongly emphasized than this point, though never once does he take time in his writing to engage, interact with, or even explain why religious ideas are so untestable, and irrational. It would seem to me that in any logical argument the burden of proof would fall upon the person who is making a truth claim. I see no reason why this should not be the case in this instance. If Harris is going to make a claim stating that religious belief is beyond the scope of rational discourse I feel he should be required to show beyond a shadow of a doubt why what he says is true. It seems to me that often Harris lashes out at religion, and follows his rant with a truth claim in a tone that makes you as the reader compelled to give an answer to his assertion, when really it should be him answering for his own claims, and you the reader demanding this of him. One last area of Harriss writing that I found to be a bit troubling as it pertains to this chapter. On page 31 Harris writes, people of faith tend to argue that it is not faith itself but mans baser nature that inspires such violence. But I take it to be self-evident that ordinary people cannot be moved to burn genial old scholars alive for blaspheming the Koran, or celebrate the violent deaths of their children, unless they believe some improbable things about the nature of the universe.12 In his bold proclamation that it is a mans religious conviction which drives him to violence, he seems to be smuggling in the assumption that left to his own, without religion man would be basically good. But if this is the case what are we to make of those, who, on the atheistic side of the argument also showed great displays of tragic violence? If religion is truly the reason in which one is driven to violence how do we explain the cases of violence in which there is no religious dogma present?

12

31.