Review of "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris

Mysticism is a rational experience. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial—at once full of hope and full of fear—of the vastitude of human ignorance.

A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion, because spiritual experience, ethical behavior, and strong communities are essential for human happiness. And yet our religious traditions are intellectually defunct and politically ruinous. While spiritual experience is clearly a natural propensity of the human mind, we need not believe anything on insufficient evidence to actualize it. Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns. It would also be the end of faith.

That was the end of the penultimate chapter of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris. The final chapter is the Epilogue, which in all honesty reads like an extended summary. I think the book truly ends with the above.

I find myself in a curious position relative to this book. Harris seems to oscillate between the roles of the angry atheist and the modern mystic, almost without pattern, while speaking chiefly in the style of the objective observer. He is entirely contemptuous of the modern idea of religious tolerance – he seems to believe that religious beliefs (while protected the same as any other beliefs) should be accorded the same degree of respect (or even a lesser degree) as alien abduction beliefs. On the other hand, as is evident above, he believes spirituality and mysticism (neither of which, he states, are accurate terms for what he speaks of, as they do not connote the "reasonableness and profundity of the possibility [...] that there is a form of well-being that supersedes all others, [...] that transcends the vagaries of experience itself") are not only rational, but necessary.

I am being unfair.

I can say honestly that the book is not badly written – in fact, though dry in parts, I daresay it is well-written. Harris makes arrogant claims, but defends them with facts, logic, and references (not all of which I find convincing – for example, a book titled "The Case for Israel" does not sound to me in my state of ignorance like an objective source). His claims include many which I agree with, mostly about the flaws of religion (for I am an atheist myself, and occasionally prone to anger), and many claims which I consider absurd (for I am an atheist myself, and as dismissive of mystical claims as religious ones). He makes heavy use of endnotes (my count is 63 pages out of 281) for both citations and for extended side arguments, and provides an extensive bibliography and useful index.

However, I don't like the book. I think his conclusions are too strong for the academic tone he seems to be trying to maintain, and I think some of his basic premises – well, specifically his premise that spirituality in some form is a necessity – are far from obvious. (I, being uncharitable, attribute his shortage of skepticism towards psychic phenomena to his mystic stance as well, and condemn him in my mind for it.) My greatest objection is that I cannot imagine his book will be useful; he speaks at times as if all religious tenets are obviously risible, which would seem to be turnoff to most theists, and at other times as if his mystical beliefs are obviously reasonable, which would seem to be a turnoff to most atheists.

Again, I am being unfair.

Bah! I am a useless reviewer. I would not recommend reading the book – I think the good fellows of the Internet Infidels (who have on their site their review of the book, which is far more positive (and heavily cited) than mine) and the members of their forum would be a better resource for those curious about the arguments against religion. If you are interested in atheistic ethics and spirituality, Chapters 6 and 7 respectively might be of interest, but he does not go into great depth. If you are interested in arguments against confidence in religious pluralism and against supporting religious moderates, the remainder of the book might be of interest. Otherwise, I do not believe it will be of great interest.

I think that's all I have to say about the book. Sam Harris has a website he cites in the dust jacket. It links many positive reviews of the book (giving somewhat the lie to my idea that most readers would reject it), and has some info on related topics as well as an apparently large forum community.

"The Man Who Was Thursday" NotReview

Don't you love turn-of-the-century* prose? In just the first chapter of The Man Who Was Thursday (copyright 1908), even if I restrict myself to mere praise of vocabulary, there's "empyrean" (refering to the heavens, more prosaically named the sky), "navvies" (an antiquidated slang term chiefly referring to construction workers), and greatest of all "flâneur" (that unique term of Baudelaire's† describing the detached gentleman observer who walks about the city). And, of course, Colney Hatch‡ (that metonymic term for a mental asylum which is so much more colorful than the standard phrase).

I'm going to enjoy this one. I can tell.

* By which I mean turn-of-the-20th-century. This latest turn was of the millenium.
† Wikipedia, I admit.
‡ Wikipedia again.

Also At the Dentists...

I finally got my question answered! It had been vexing me for some time, and finally at my appointment a couple days ago I worked up the courage to ask.

The answer is: Floss first, because the brushing will clear away the dislodged matter. However, it doesn't really matter, because you'll be rinsing out your mouth anyway.

Packbat ... out!

Edit: chanlemur reports that his dentist recommended the opposite, on the grounds that the floss may carry fluoridated residue from the brushing into the gaps between the teeth. Please, ask your dentist that we may clear up this controversy!