|
|
Whistle Stopper - The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
|
List Price: $13.95
Our Price: $5.97
Your Save: $ 7.98 ( 57% )
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: W. W. Norton
|
Average Customer Rating:  
|
|
Binding: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 200
EAN: 9780393327656
ISBN: 0393327655
Label: W. W. Norton
Manufacturer: W. W. Norton
Number Of Items: 1
Number Of Pages: 224
Publication Date: 2005-10-10
Publisher: W. W. Norton
Studio: W. W. Norton
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: Ultimately falls a little short.
Comment: I agree with most of Harris' thesis and was sympathetic to those views of which I am not in agreement up until Harris' argument regarding moral equivalency. Of course a moral equivalency between the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan during the Clinton administration and the events of 9/11 is an atrocious argument to make, but I think Harris betrays the intellectual justification for his entire thesis by glossing over and discounting the discussion here.
As enlightened as contemporary Christian nations may be when compared to their predecessors in centuries past, it is impossible to ignore, as it appears Harris does, the clout the idea of heaven has for American Christians. Harris implores his critics to simply take Muslims at their word and look at the motivations they espouse as justification for their actions, but then when it comes to Christianity and the West he ignores those same motivations. The implicit understanding in Christian cultures is not far off from that of the Muslims.
With the same degree of certainty as the Muslims, American Christians feel that they are justified in their transgressions against humanity so long as they can hide behind a thin veil of rationalization regarding their intentions. "We weren't trying to kill thousands of people, so killing thousands of people is ok." You see this argument repeatedly advocated by our President, the one who thinks he talks to god, and other Christian politicians and pundits. They tend to think that since our crimes are crimes of the heart rather than crimes of the mind, that we had good intentions but the result turned out bad, we should be absolved of moral responsibility. Harris makes the same argument in this book.
This arrogance and ethnocentrism leads us to pursue policies that we know will result in innocent death while providing our minds with a supposed moral disconnect from reality that allows us to believe that our crimes are not really crimes at all since we were well intentioned. All of your objections to the contrary notwithstanding, it makes no difference to the mother of a child who was killed in an air raid whether or not you intended to drop the guided bomb unit on her child's school. And then when, rather than accepting responsibility for it, you as a nation attempt to rationalize and justify this reprehensible act, you breed the hatred and contempt that is felt for the West, the United States in particular, in the Muslim world.
Although a moral equivalency does not exist, we must realize that we cannot simultaneously preach the tenants of modern liberalism/libertarianism while arrogantly spreading that ideology through force and ignoring the negative consequences of that policy simply because we are not as morally reprehensible as the other guy.
As much as I agree with most of Harris' arguments so far, his errors with respect to this topic have biased me against his subsequent contentions.
Having read Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Russell, Harris' conclusion regarding mysticism and spirituality devoid of dogmatic religious faith is what makes him stand out among the crowd. What I find most frustrating about End of Faith, even more so than the problems I mention above, is that Harris concludes with that remarkable argument, but does not do it justice. Having established that dogmatic religious faith is a detriment to human happiness, his proposal of an understanding of our existence based on empirical evidence, rather than ignorant superstition, is the most valuable contribution of this book. Compared to the extended lengths to which he goes to establish his argument against Islam, he merely glosses over the concept of Eastern mysticism and a legitimate connection to our existence that transcends petty terrestrial bickering. He sells himself short on this front. Hopefully once Mr. Harris completes his doctoral work on neuroscience he will release a follow-on title elaborating on this topic.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Interesting Ideas...a Worthwhile Read
Comment: I wanted to like this book, and while I did agree with some of what Harris has to day, it seems superficial in many ways, particularly where he says:
"It seems that if our species ever eradicates itself through war, it will not be because it was written in the stars but because it was written in our books; it is what we do with words like 'God' and 'paradise' and 'sin' in the present that will determine our future"
In the not too distant past, I can cite the Vietnam War as one that had nothing to do with religion or god...and there are other examples to be had...perhaps if he had phrased this to mean it this has been the case in the past (but not exclusively) and will likely be the case in the future, especially given they myriad of conflict we are now enmeshed in. I think Harris book would have been much more effective had he stuck to the negative effect that religion can have/is having on our government (or any democratic government for that matter), which was, I feel founded on reason and logic. I also can't get 100% behind the idea that if we just got rid of those particular books and God that there would be no more terrorism or war in the world, I think it's in human nature (religion aside) to be warlike, selfish and cruel at times. I agree with him that it seems unbelievably foolish to think that any book contains the literal word of God, but that has been written by men. The idea that after 2000+ years they are in no way in need of updating and revising to take into account advances in knowledge and human understanding, is simply ridiculous. Overall it was an interesting read, but I don't think I'd recommend this or want it for my permanent library. I give it 3 stars.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Everyone should read this book!!
Comment: I don't normally write book reviews, even for books I enjoy. However, after having read "The End of Faith", as well as many of the reviews of it, I just HAD to recommend it. Apart from being an excellent writer, Mr. Harris' logic is so sharp and compelling, so utterly brilliant that I read most of it in absolute awe.
None of the more negative reviews that have questioned his arguments have been in the least bit convincing, in fact, most seem to miss the point entirely. One reviewer mentioned all the good that is done by religious organizations and all the evil committed by atheists as though Mr. Harris doesn't even address these issues (which he does).
The End of Faith is not just an argument against religion. It is an argument against FAITH. Blind, unverifiable, faith, in anything. This is why he mentions The Holocaust and other atrocities committed by "atheists". These people may not have believed in religion, but they're evil acts were committed as a result of unverifiable, illogical beliefs, that have a firm background in religious premises none-the-less. Furthermore, while many religious organizations do help others, public service and helping others would still occur even without faith, and for better reasons.
In the end, this book makes so much sense that it's scary. This is probably why so many people of faith have found it so threatening. If you have even the slightest interest in the future of our species, please do yourself of a favor and read this book.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Good but Flawed
Comment: My sister (an atheist) gave me (a practicing Catholic) this book and asked me to read it. She said someone at a bookstore thrust it upon her, practically begging her to read it and write a review of it. "No one reads this book," he said, "but everyone should!" My sister doesn't have time to write reviews so she gave it to me. (That's her story and she's sticking to it.)
I have to admit, it's a lot better read than "The God Delusion," which I just finished struggling through. Harris is not as angry as Dawkins, and he has a solid background in philosophy, which is conspicuously absent in Dawkins' works. (In their own ways, they're both very good writers, actually, but Dawkins' anger really turned me off.) Harris is erudite, often open-minded, humorous and has a gift for language. He also addresses many of the counterarguments to atheism.
That said, this book has glaring lapses in rationality. Harris is a good thinker on relatively small-scale matters but comes to bizarre conclusions on the big stuff. He's very good transmitting what he's learned about philosophy and neurobiology, but in regards to human history, either his knowledge is spotty, or he wears blinders when he reads. He asserts religion is an almost-altogether evil influence and must be abolished if the human race is to survive. He provides lots of evidence of the evils of religion: the Spanish Inquisition, of course, and the Holocaust (which, though Hitler called Christianity a religion of weaklings was, according to Harris, Christianity's fault because it encouraged Antisemitism). He spends a lot of time on Islamic terrorism. But for every example he raises, another one clearly could be found of religion's good effects: the brokering of peace (the Pope, Jimmy Carter, etc.); the protection of the defenseless (the Jesuits in the New World, etc.); the grass-roots works done by religion in inner-city schools, soup kitchens, hospitals, clinics, leper colonies....
Harris argues that the few good things religious people do is not due to religion's effect on them: that they would still do good if religion didn't exist. So religion gets full credit for its failures and no credit for its successes? Not exactly rational or fair.
The religionist's reply to the Spanish Inquisition example has always been that, in the 20th century, far more innocent people were murdered by atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini) than by religionists. I give credit to Harris for naming this objection, but his reply is inadequate, to my mind. He says that Stalin and Mao created movements that were religion-like. In other words, these atheist movements were capable of evil because they were really religious movements. But isn't that argument fallacious? Couldn't he, using this method, label anything that weakened his argument "religion"?
And what about other examples of atheist violence? Marat, who perpetrated the September Massacre during the French Revolution? the Hebertists during the same? These men clearly had little creed other than, perhaps, anarchy. And what about the Bolshevik terrorists? Wasn't the word "terrorism" first used during the French Revolution and then coined during the Russian?
Do we now have to relabel the international worker's movement a "religion"? Maybe we should just condemn all gatherings of people (other than at universities, of course).
I remain entirely unconvinced that the world would be a better place without religion. Being religious is an aspect of being human. It's a tool for good or evil, depending on how we exercise our (God-given) free will. You could just as easily argue that art should be abolished because of what the Manson family got out of the song "Helter Skelter"; or the human family because of child and spousal abuse; or even science, because of global warming, Bhopal and Chernobyl, the ozone layer, antibiotic-resistent germs, the dangers of cloning,...
Harris also seems to have some quite odd ideas on other matters. On page 52 - 53, he seems to say that it is okay to kill someone for having dangerous ideas. Could it be that I misread that? But what about pages 192 - 199, where he argues for the morality of torture? or pages 199 - 203, where he writes that pacifism, on the other hand, is immoral? and the long section (pp. 158 - 164) in which he shows complete disdain for opponents to the legalization of drugs - surely a debatable issue? - and blames drugs'illegality on, irrationally but not surprisingly, religion's influence on our society.
At the end of the book, Harris offers his substitution for religion and his cure for the evils of the world: mindfulness meditation. He praises Eastern religions for having invented it and suggests that, if we adopt it, we'll find happiness and become more empathetic and, therefore, more moral. (He seems to see no problem, by the way, in reaching these states by using hallucnogens. Ever study the Mayan and Aztecan civilizations, Harris? They took a lot of hallucinogens, too, and were really into human sacrifice. A connection there? Possibly?)
I myself meditate in the yogic sense as well as pray in the old-fashioned, Christian sense. But if meditation works so well, and the East has had access to it for thousands of years, why isn't the East a happier place? How did Mao, Pol Pot, the Japanese Empire, etc., rise to power? And there are many reports that life in some monasteries and ashrams is often no more admirable than in some of their western counterparts.
I have a lot more to say but, alas, no room. I would recommend this book to others, as long as they're capable of questioning what they read.
Okay, Sis, I've written my review. And I've got a few books to send your friend in reply: William James' "The Will to Believe" and "The Varieties of Religious Experience": Stephen Jay Gould's "Rock of Ages"; Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamasov"; and a historical movie: Anchor Bay's "Amazing Grace." I wonder if your friend will read (and watch) them?
Customer Rating:
Summary: A Must Read Book For Those Who Stand-Up For Religion (Islam in particular)
Comment: This book is a must read. I encourage everybody who apologizes for every religion (especially Islam) to read Sam Harris. I found Chapter 3 to be most entertaining; it's called, "The problem with Islam." Harris provides a long list of quotes from the "religion of peace."
I encourage everybody to buy this book, read it, and then pass it to a friend or family member. If you've got any questions, please email me at the below email address. Thanks!
Zach Watkins
zachw2007@gmail.com
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
|
Sam Harris cranks out blunt, hard-hitting chapters to make his case for why faith itself is the most dangerous element of modern life. And if the devil's in the details, then you'll find Satan waiting at the back of the book in the very substantial notes section where Harris saves his more esoteric discussions to avoid sidetracking the urgency of his message. Interestingly, Harris is not just focused on debunking religious faith, though he makes his compelling arguments with verve and intellectual clarity. The End of Faith is also a bit of a philosophical Swiss Army knife. Once he has presented his arguments on why, in an age of Weapons of Mass Destruction, belief is now a hazard of great proportions, he focuses on proposing alternate approaches to the mysteries of life. Harris recognizes the truth of the human condition, that we fear death, and we often crave "something more" we cannot easily define, and which is not met by accumulating more material possessions. But by attempting to provide the cure for the ills it defines, the book bites off a bit more than it can comfortably chew in its modest page count (however the rich Bibliography provides more than enough background for an intrigued reader to follow up for months on any particular strand of the author' musings.) Harris' heart is not as much in the latter chapters, though, but in presenting his main premise. Simply stated, any belief system that speaks with assurance about the hereafter has the potential to place far less value on the here and now. And thus the corollary -- when death is simply a door translating us from one existence to another, it loses its sting and finality. Harris pointedly asks us to consider that those who do not fear death for themselves, and who also revere ancient scriptures instructing them to mete it out generously to others, may soon have these weapons in their own hands. If thoughts along the same line haunt you, this is your book.--Ed Dobeas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
