Review of "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris

[packbat]

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.

Comments

[forwrathandruin.livejournal.com]

It seems that your biggest disagreement with The End of Faith is Harris's willingness to throw in with 'mysticism.'

Read again those chapters which deal specifically with his studies in eastern religious mysticism. Read the words he uses, read his thoughts specifically on 'not accepting claims without evidence.' Further, in his articles elsewhere (and which I don't expect you to have read, and which he should have included in the book, but which I cite here for the purpose of defending his thesis) he describes the notion that if there is anything to be learned from meditative and contemplative traditions - and he maintains that there is - then it is not going to create a 'Buddhist science' or a 'Buddhist neurology.' He would be specifically undertaking these meditations so as to take from Buddhism what he might, and emphatically discard the rest.

Regarding psychic phenomena, he makes a passing hand-wave at it at best, simply stating the truth - there have been no conclusive scientific studies. The fact that the scientific community tacitly calls them frauds for their unwillingness to come forward and subject themselves to actual skeptical scrutiny does not constitute a conclusive body of evidence against psychic phenomena. It certainly hurts their case, since psychics and other nonsense-mongers seem very sure of their beliefs when in the presence of the gullible, but the fact remains that since no large-scale scientific investigations have been done on the matter, there is correspondingly no large-scale scientific finding in disfavor of psychic phenomena. Intellectual honesty says that we have to remain open minded until we can reliably throw away this nonsense, but until then, it's dishonest to do so. That seems to be all he's saying, and he readily admits the theories' flaws.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Got it in one. More specifically, that reading his thoughts on mysticism, I got no sense of a reasonable stance. In a book that is so widely lauded as a tour de force of atheist argument, I did not expect the muddiness I observed there.

Read again those chapters which deal specifically with his studies in eastern religious mysticism. Read the words he uses, read his thoughts specifically on 'not accepting claims without evidence.'

I read those chapters pretty carefully the first time, and the best I can say is, if his position was as you have stated, he expressed it poorly enough to be misleading. I promise to read them carefully again next time I look at the book (which might be a while – I was reviewing a copy my dad got from the library at his job).

Regarding psychic phenomena, he makes a passing hand-wave at it at best, simply stating the truth - there have been no conclusive scientific studies.

What definition of 'conclusive scientific study' is this? I haven't been taking notes, but the scientific studies I've heard of have either been roundly criticized for flaws in their protocols or shown no effect – and I get the impression there have been quite a few. Absent some theoretical justification, I don't think there's much reason to leave the question open.

I am glad to hear that he doesn't explicitly believe that psychic phenomena occur, however. I will be careful not to criticize him for that in the future.

[forwrathandruin.livejournal.com]

I read those chapters pretty carefully the first time, and the best I can say is, if his position was as you have stated, he expressed it poorly enough to be misleading. I promise to read them carefully again next time I look at the book (which might be a while â“ I was reviewing a copy my dad got from the library at his job).

I'm not saying you 'didn't read it' or something, just so we're clear. But I came away from my reading of the book and had that pretty firmly in mind, so it might have more to do with the difference between the way you and I read. I thought he was pretty unequivocal about the fact that there is no 'Buddhist neurology,' just as there is no 'Christian Physics' or 'Muslim algebra.'

What definition of 'conclusive scientific study' is this? I haven't been taking notes, but the scientific studies I've heard of have either been roundly criticized for flaws in their protocols or shown no effect â“ and I get the impression there have been quite a few. Absent some theoretical justification, I don't think there's much reason to leave the question open.

Conclusive, world-wide testing, extensive peer-review and re-experimentation. The few studies that 'psychics' have stepped up for have been in environments so hostile to the possibility of the existence of such phenomena that they might as well be said to have been closed minded.

That said, in order to defend myself, I find psychic phenomena to be a load of hogwash and I'm rather curious as to why Harris defends it as he does. All I'm doing is presenting his case, I'm not actually arguing for it. So my capacity for devil's-advocation is rather slim.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Mmm, I came away with a strong impression that he was working on a 'scientific mysticism', akin to neurology and anthropology and so forth, which would include some of the insights of the Buddhist boddhittsivas. And I'm not saying you didn't read it either. But apparently we got different things from it.

Oh, and I apologize for assuming you were arguing for Harris's stance. If I'm fully honest, I must admit that I don't know why Harris defends it either, though I have my dark suspicions (obviously). (I also have memories of stronger claims than just 'this isn't being fairly investigated', though all disclaimers do apply.)

[forwrathandruin.livejournal.com]

Mmm, I came away with a strong impression that he was working on a 'scientific mysticism', akin to neurology and anthropology and so forth, which would include some of the insights of the Buddhist boddhittsivas. And I'm not saying you didn't read it either. But apparently we got different things from it.

He's more suggesting that spirituality has a place in human life, which I agree with. But it's 'spirituality' in a useful, rational sense. No divinity, no supernaturality. But at the same time, very few people would deny that they'd ever felt a stirring experience - seeing the ocean for the first time from a high cliff, for example, or sitting in contemplation while looking down from an airplane window. There's something to that, something neurological, something that science can study and understand. Discounting it only hamstrings us.

That being said, the Buddhists have something of a leg up on the idea of meditation and contemplation. This is why Harris argues like he does - they actually have something here. They don't have CAT scans and neurological studies, but they have meditation theory and that's worth studying.

[(Anonymous)]

See, I don't believe that humans need spirituality. And the parts I can remember where he talks about reasons for it are some of the most muddled and nonsensical, speaking of 'oneness with the universe' and so forth – claims that people habitually think are nonempirical, but which probably are. I've even had a spiritual experience for my own part – or, at least, what felt like the description of spiritual experiences I always see – and it didn't even change my life particularly.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Sorry – that was me.

[forwrathandruin.livejournal.com]

No, they don't necessarily 'need' spirituality. But it's a valid setting of human inquiry, as it has detectable effect on neurology and behavior.

Further, I don't think he's describing the actual truth regarding anyone's 'oneness with the universe,' although I don't specifically remember the passage you're referring to.

Lastly, if it didn't change your life any, then that's fine. I haven't had any life-altering psychological experiences either. But we can't discount that some people certainly have.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

I'll grant you that. But I do suspect that Harris was more fuzzy-headed about meditation than you remembered.

[forwrathandruin.livejournal.com]

Perhaps.

But it doesn't change the worthiness of his stance on religion, or it's correctness. If he's a little muzzy about other stuff, then that's fine, but his strident atheism, particularly (in my opinion) with regards to Islam, is still valid.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

I know – I'm just bemused that no-one talks about the rest (which is at least a third of the book) when they recommend The End of Faith.

[forwrathandruin.livejournal.com]

I recommend it as a primer on atheism, and so when I recommend it, I recommend the relevant parts implicitly.

Mostly because the people I'm recommending to (the customers at Barnes & Noble) are rarely savvy enough to pick up Dawkins' The God Delusion and make heads-or-tails of it.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

See, I think it'd be a poor primer on atheism: first, because of the endorsement of mysticism and parapsychology (positions that are anything but universal among atheists), and second, because it's not about atheism, it's about religion – about replacing religion with something more rational. Which ties back to the first point – his replacement ain't exactly the consensus view.

Dang, that's a good question, though. What books should we be recommending to give people a fair impression of atheism? I think I'll go make a post back on convert_me.