From an old blog post of March 21, 2013. Sometime after that I also read most of Christopher Hitchens' "god is Not Great", which was a load of crap and not worth the effort to review, especially after Daniel C. Peterson already did.
Review of Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation"
By C. Randall Nicholson
Last night, after studying intensely for my mission and feeling all spiritually supercharged, I felt that my testimony was strong enough for me to read Sam Harris's atheist tome "Letter to a Christian Nation". I wanted to grow and mature by exposing myself to other viewpoints. So I went to the bookstore and read through it in an hour. In conclusion, it was a waste of paper and ink. Reading it drove the Spirit away but didn't actually disturb my religious convictions one iota.
To begin with, Harris shoots himself in the foot by being an arrogant, condescending jerk. On page 2 he essentially says "You should be alarmed that someone as smart as me doesn't find your beliefs convincing" (I'm paraphrasing, but that's exactly what the actual sentence meant). This attitude continues throughout the book despite the fact that he admits to being vastly outnumbered by believers. I am reminded of Daniel C. Peterson's First Rule for the Study of Other Religions [or just religion, as the case may be]: "If a substantial number of sane and intelligent people believe something that seems to you utterly without sense, the problem probably lies with you, for not grasping what it is about that belief that a lucid and reasonable person might find plausible and satisfying." Now, the author being a jerk obviously doesn't invalidate his message, but it ruins his chances of most Christians actually listening to it. It also provides yet another example of why most Americans hate atheists.
Harris's agenda is obviously political, as he takes issue with the conservative movement and the problems he blames it for, such as preventing the establishment of a global community. Last time I checked, the United Nations was a major step toward a global community and it sucked. But no matter, I tried not to let my own bias prevent me from giving him a fair hearing. Anyway, to support this thesis that religion ruins the world he cites several statistics and the atrocities that have been committed in many countries, in many ages, because of people's beliefs. I'm inclined to believe that very few people have ever actually committed atrocities because of their beliefs, but that their beliefs have often provided a convenient rationalization, especially during the ages when those beliefs (or similar ones) were shared by virtually everyone around them. All I can say firsthand about religion and messing up the world is that my religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, makes the world a better place on a daily basis and improves millions of lives. It also happens to be a global community.
On that note, a lot of his criticisms of mainstream Christianity simply don't apply to Mormons. We don't believe that the Bible is inerrant or infallible. We acknowledge that there is good and truth in all religions, and that God answers the prayers of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. because He loves them just as much as us. We don't believe that any good person of another faith will be damned for never having heard of Jesus. We believe that this life is a test, and that all suffering gives us experience and growth and will be made up to us a thousandfold in the next life. We don't have a doctrine against evolution or the antiquity of the Earth, and I for one accept both wholeheartedly, so his anti-creationist section (which I agreed with one hundred percent) didn't faze me in the slightest.
That second-to-last item demonstrates once again that militant atheists really don't understand the worldview of their target audience. When was the last time a Christian (or any other believer, for that matter) said "Oh my goodness, you mean to tell me there's suffering in the world? Death, even? Wow, that totally disproves my beliefs, because I always thought the world was all sunshine and roses. Thanks for enlightening me." Don't they ever stop to wonder why people in third world countries are more religious, or why people turn to God in times of crisis? When was the last time an AIDS victim in sub-Saharan Africa woke up and said "Oh my goodness, I just realize that my own suffering totally disproves my own beliefs in God!" Maybe Harris thinks they're just too stupid to make the connection. Racist!
And again, when an atheist dismisses spiritual experience or personal revelation as some kind of mild psychological phenomenon, the only thing he demonstrates is that he's never experienced it for himself. I have communed with God and felt His love and guidance as surely as I feel these computer keys beneath my fingers. If it's nothing more than a "good feeling" that comes naturally from being among a community of believers, then I'm Howard Hughes. And as I said, believers of all traditions can feel this same influence when they are striving to serve God as well as they know how, so its being a universal phenomenon doesn't phase me in the slightest.
Harris claims that religion is unnecessary for morality. This may be so, but I find his rationale less than convincing. He claims that morality can be determined by what allows people to find the most happiness, i.e. making people happy without detracting from the happiness of other people. This makes sense, because God's rules are designed to bring happiness, but how does he reach that conclusion? Elsewhere in the book he insists that science and empirical evidence are the only way to look at the world, ever. If there is no scientific basis for his views on morality and happiness, then I see no reason to grant them any more validity than he grants religion. (But they're a vast improvement over one atheist I met who claimed that morality is determined by what best serves society as a whole, until I reminded him that killing all elderly and handicapped people would best serve society as a whole.)
On that note, too, I have to wonder why he thinks we should care about human suffering if there is no God and no afterlife. Let's see, I'm living on a microscopic speck in the vastness of the universe, which will someday be obliterated by its own sun. Why should I care about the temporary suffering of my neighbor who, like me, will live for a few more decades at most before ceasing to exist? If atheists can find fulfillment and joy in life despite this, good for them, but I don't see how they can pretend there's anything "rational" about it.
His understanding of the Atonement leaves much to be desired and leaves him arguing against a straw man. He sees it as cruel and ridiculous for God to send His Son to be scapegoated, flayed and killed. Perhaps Harris is the only person who missed the memo that it was a voluntary sacrifice on Christ's part. Of course it wasn't fair. Of course He didn't deserve it. But the Father sent Him, and He agreed to be sent, because They love us more deeply than we can comprehend. And Christ wasn't just some guy being punished for what other people did. He was the only one who could alleviate the consequences of sin, because He was the only one who had never sinned Himself, and the only one with infinite power who could voluntarily give up His immortality and then take it back again. Harris could just mock this like he does everything else in religion, but he chooses to ignore it and distort Christian beliefs instead.
Harris believes that religion will someday, not within his lifetime but someday, cease to exist and be looked back on as a dark and horrifying chapter of human history. It's not going to happen. Even supposing that God weren't real, and no religion were true, books like this only serve to anger and galvanize the very people he's attacking. As long as militant atheists continue to be arrogant, condescending jerks, millions of people will be unwilling to join their ranks. But why is this attitude necessary? Why can't they just share their lack of beliefs, and their reasoning behind it, in a civil and respectful manner? Maybe they're not really as happy as they pretend about the futility of life. But at least if we go along with them we can have, for a little while before it gets obliterated by its own sun, a global community.
This was not intended to rebut every point raised in the book, nor do I claim to be a scholar or philosopher or even particularly intelligent. But in nutshell this is why I found "Letter to a Christian Nation" to be a waste of paper and ink. Reading it wasn't a waste of time, though, as it strengthened my testimony almost as much as the actual studying I've done. Thank you, Sam Harris.
To begin with, Harris shoots himself in the foot by being an arrogant, condescending jerk. On page 2 he essentially says "You should be alarmed that someone as smart as me doesn't find your beliefs convincing" (I'm paraphrasing, but that's exactly what the actual sentence meant). This attitude continues throughout the book despite the fact that he admits to being vastly outnumbered by believers. I am reminded of Daniel C. Peterson's First Rule for the Study of Other Religions [or just religion, as the case may be]: "If a substantial number of sane and intelligent people believe something that seems to you utterly without sense, the problem probably lies with you, for not grasping what it is about that belief that a lucid and reasonable person might find plausible and satisfying." Now, the author being a jerk obviously doesn't invalidate his message, but it ruins his chances of most Christians actually listening to it. It also provides yet another example of why most Americans hate atheists.
Harris's agenda is obviously political, as he takes issue with the conservative movement and the problems he blames it for, such as preventing the establishment of a global community. Last time I checked, the United Nations was a major step toward a global community and it sucked. But no matter, I tried not to let my own bias prevent me from giving him a fair hearing. Anyway, to support this thesis that religion ruins the world he cites several statistics and the atrocities that have been committed in many countries, in many ages, because of people's beliefs. I'm inclined to believe that very few people have ever actually committed atrocities because of their beliefs, but that their beliefs have often provided a convenient rationalization, especially during the ages when those beliefs (or similar ones) were shared by virtually everyone around them. All I can say firsthand about religion and messing up the world is that my religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, makes the world a better place on a daily basis and improves millions of lives. It also happens to be a global community.
On that note, a lot of his criticisms of mainstream Christianity simply don't apply to Mormons. We don't believe that the Bible is inerrant or infallible. We acknowledge that there is good and truth in all religions, and that God answers the prayers of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. because He loves them just as much as us. We don't believe that any good person of another faith will be damned for never having heard of Jesus. We believe that this life is a test, and that all suffering gives us experience and growth and will be made up to us a thousandfold in the next life. We don't have a doctrine against evolution or the antiquity of the Earth, and I for one accept both wholeheartedly, so his anti-creationist section (which I agreed with one hundred percent) didn't faze me in the slightest.
That second-to-last item demonstrates once again that militant atheists really don't understand the worldview of their target audience. When was the last time a Christian (or any other believer, for that matter) said "Oh my goodness, you mean to tell me there's suffering in the world? Death, even? Wow, that totally disproves my beliefs, because I always thought the world was all sunshine and roses. Thanks for enlightening me." Don't they ever stop to wonder why people in third world countries are more religious, or why people turn to God in times of crisis? When was the last time an AIDS victim in sub-Saharan Africa woke up and said "Oh my goodness, I just realize that my own suffering totally disproves my own beliefs in God!" Maybe Harris thinks they're just too stupid to make the connection. Racist!
And again, when an atheist dismisses spiritual experience or personal revelation as some kind of mild psychological phenomenon, the only thing he demonstrates is that he's never experienced it for himself. I have communed with God and felt His love and guidance as surely as I feel these computer keys beneath my fingers. If it's nothing more than a "good feeling" that comes naturally from being among a community of believers, then I'm Howard Hughes. And as I said, believers of all traditions can feel this same influence when they are striving to serve God as well as they know how, so its being a universal phenomenon doesn't phase me in the slightest.
Harris claims that religion is unnecessary for morality. This may be so, but I find his rationale less than convincing. He claims that morality can be determined by what allows people to find the most happiness, i.e. making people happy without detracting from the happiness of other people. This makes sense, because God's rules are designed to bring happiness, but how does he reach that conclusion? Elsewhere in the book he insists that science and empirical evidence are the only way to look at the world, ever. If there is no scientific basis for his views on morality and happiness, then I see no reason to grant them any more validity than he grants religion. (But they're a vast improvement over one atheist I met who claimed that morality is determined by what best serves society as a whole, until I reminded him that killing all elderly and handicapped people would best serve society as a whole.)
On that note, too, I have to wonder why he thinks we should care about human suffering if there is no God and no afterlife. Let's see, I'm living on a microscopic speck in the vastness of the universe, which will someday be obliterated by its own sun. Why should I care about the temporary suffering of my neighbor who, like me, will live for a few more decades at most before ceasing to exist? If atheists can find fulfillment and joy in life despite this, good for them, but I don't see how they can pretend there's anything "rational" about it.
His understanding of the Atonement leaves much to be desired and leaves him arguing against a straw man. He sees it as cruel and ridiculous for God to send His Son to be scapegoated, flayed and killed. Perhaps Harris is the only person who missed the memo that it was a voluntary sacrifice on Christ's part. Of course it wasn't fair. Of course He didn't deserve it. But the Father sent Him, and He agreed to be sent, because They love us more deeply than we can comprehend. And Christ wasn't just some guy being punished for what other people did. He was the only one who could alleviate the consequences of sin, because He was the only one who had never sinned Himself, and the only one with infinite power who could voluntarily give up His immortality and then take it back again. Harris could just mock this like he does everything else in religion, but he chooses to ignore it and distort Christian beliefs instead.
Harris believes that religion will someday, not within his lifetime but someday, cease to exist and be looked back on as a dark and horrifying chapter of human history. It's not going to happen. Even supposing that God weren't real, and no religion were true, books like this only serve to anger and galvanize the very people he's attacking. As long as militant atheists continue to be arrogant, condescending jerks, millions of people will be unwilling to join their ranks. But why is this attitude necessary? Why can't they just share their lack of beliefs, and their reasoning behind it, in a civil and respectful manner? Maybe they're not really as happy as they pretend about the futility of life. But at least if we go along with them we can have, for a little while before it gets obliterated by its own sun, a global community.
This was not intended to rebut every point raised in the book, nor do I claim to be a scholar or philosopher or even particularly intelligent. But in nutshell this is why I found "Letter to a Christian Nation" to be a waste of paper and ink. Reading it wasn't a waste of time, though, as it strengthened my testimony almost as much as the actual studying I've done. Thank you, Sam Harris.
