In a recent Newsweek article, devout atheist Sam Harris laments religion’s influence in American politics and in shaping public policy. While we might expect such arguments to assert the seperation of church and state, Harris’ main objection is that religions are fundamentally immoral and unethical.1
The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable and incompatible with genuine morality. One of the worst things about religion is that it tends to separate questions of right and wrong from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people will devote immense energy to so-called moral problems – such as gay marriage – where no real suffering is at issue, and they will happily contribute to the surplus of human misery if it serves their religious beliefs.[Emphasis added]
Harris cites the stem-cell research debate as an example where the “morality” of the religious opposition ignores the actual suffering of people who may benefit from medical advancement. This of course is part of a larger problem that religions value their own belief system more than they value human life.
Given the most common interpretation of Biblical prophecy, it is not an exaggeration to say that nearly half the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. It should be clear that this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization – economically, environmentally or geopolitically.
We are living in a world in which millions of Muslims believe that there is nothing better than to be killed in defense of Islam. We are living in a world in which millions of Christians hope to soon be raptured into the stratosphere by Jesus so that they can safely enjoy a sacred genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history.
Presumably, Harris’ secularism would always produce more ethical and moral opinions than the irrational religions; secularists would naturally value human life more than religious zealots. This is of course, not necessarily the case as Peter Singer has demonstrated that one possible conclusion of secularism is dispelling the sanctity of human life – in the sense that it is not superior to animal life. And of course there is the Holocaust, a genocide perpetuated by an advanced secular society, but one for which Harris still blames religion:
While the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, its roots were undoubtedly religious – and the explicitly religious demonization of the Jews of Europe continued throughout the period. Auschwitz, the Gulag, and the killing fields are not examples of what happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs; on the contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of not thinking critically enough about specific secular ideologies.
In the most abstract sense, morality defines a particular way of living based on one’s assumptions about how the world works. Harris rejects all of religion because it is not based on what he considers to be rational thinking. But should secularism result in immorality, then the fault is not with the concept of secularism, but with its particular implementation. Harris’ own vision of “genuine morality” appears to be a form of utilitarianism with the aim being to “maximize happiness in this world,” but Harris dismisses faith-based happiness as being invalid.
This of course does not mean Harris lacks faith entirely. Rather than outsourcing his beliefs to a metaphysical entity, Harris’ “genuine morality” is to believe that there are objective truths of universal happiness.
…questions of morality are really questions about happiness and suffering. If there are objectively better and worse ways to live so as to maximize happiness in this world, these would be objective moral truths worth knowing. Whether we will ever be in a position to discover these truths and agree about them cannot be known in advance (and this is the case for all questions of scientific fact). But if there are psychophysical laws that underwrite human well-being – and why wouldn’t there be? – then these laws are potentially discoverable. Knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality. In the meantime, everything about human experience suggests that love is better than hate for the purposes of living happily in this world. This is an objective claim about the human mind, the dynamics of social relations, and the moral order of our world.
Following Harris’ logic, true secularism can do no wrong and religion can do no right. Secularism is they key to happiness while religion is an anathema to society and must be “destroyed”. Belief in a God is bad, and must be eradicated in favor of the one true morality of secular humanism. In a nutshell, Harris believes that the world would be a much better place if people gave up their irrational faiths and would simply believe like he does.
In which case, I suppose Mr. Harris is a fairly religious person after all.
1. Following many secularists, Harris argues elsewhere that the general problem with religion is that it necessitates the suppression of rational thinking. This article specifically focuses on the apparent and paradoxical disregard for human life.
I actually read the whole book and liked it. I agree with your assement, and actually have many of your excepts highlighted in my own edition. Though I disagree with roughly 70% of the conclusions in the book I never the less enjoyed his reasoning and his writting.
Another place where he is amazingly incorrect is where he insists all Biblical statements must be taken absolutely literally. First, there is the problem of translation. Second, he completely ignores instances where the Torah clearly is not intended to be taken literally. He then goes on to show how if something is not taken literally one can read anything into anything. By way of example he cites a simple recipe from a standard recipe book and by going through the ingredients he makes an interesting allegory about human spirituality. His argument basically, is that just as the cook book was meant to be taken literally, and you can go ahead and “learn stuff into it” then “learning things” into other writtings should also be wrong elsewhere. Clearly though that can’t be true. Many people (and maybe even the occasional diety) use non-literal imagery to make points more vivid.
He also seems to suffer from a secularized/christianized view of Judaism. For instance he says that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism beleive that you will go to Hell if you don’t accept thier version of G-d. Yet I know that Jews don’t beleive that. I think eleswhere he has written (although I’ll have to look it up) that all major religions (Judaism included) beleive that unbeleivers have to be killed. Once again, completely untrue of Judaism. It’s just plain sloppy scholarship.
Morover, he assumes the reader has never read tanach and revels in citing scholars who point out internal contradictions in the bible. He seems to have missed the truly enourmous and inherently religious commentarys on these same subjects. He says that he finds it curious that religious people have not read thier own sacred works. I suppose his fundamental assumption is that were we to notice an apparent contradition we would immediatly drop our faith. Frankly, I find that set of bizare assumptions far more puzzling.
He also proposes a different path to spirituality, one that is more based on eastern philosophy. He speaks of all the new age crap, you know, meditation and yoga and sniffing his own farts. In this regard I find he would benefit from reading the Rav. In specific, the idea of objectifying communication with G-d (via the mitzvot) to ensure that one is actually communicating beyond oneself and not merely within oneself. He seems to define spirituality as just that–which is internally consistent with his position ie, no G-d, but then his spirituality has now become meaningless.
The part I enojyed the most was his articulation of the obvious problems with Noam Chomsky’s villification of the united states forign policy, by making the obvious but increasingly necessary point that troops who accidentally kill a group of innocent civillians because a terrorist has used them as human shields are in no way morally equivalent to the terroists who deliberatly target innocent civillians. His pointing out the perverse immorality behind Chomsky’s reasoning was greatly appreciated and frankly, long over due.
I think it is a worthwhile read for 2 reasons: 1) Like a more edgy John Stewart Mill, he is an entetaining writter-even while disagreeing with him I still found what he was saying pretty funny. 2)It is good to see for one’s self the depth of the arrogance and hypocryisy of a true secularist.
Wow – thanks for the commentary. I haven’t read his book, only the articles I found online, but you’re right I’m sure it makes for a interesting read.