The Case Against Christianity

Inside Catholic ^ | 2/2/2010 | Benjamin D. Wiker

[markomalley]

Letter to a Christian Nation

Sam Harris, Knopf, $16.95, 112 pages

 

For those unaware of Sam Harris, his bestseller The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason established him as the American atheist laureate, the Yankee counterpart of the Brits' Richard Dawkins. Now comes the inevitable follow-up: Harris has composed a Letter to a Christian Nation for our edification.

Harris is no H. L. Mencken. He is not even in Dawkins's league. But, I confess, I like him anyway. Unlike many of our culture's atheists who pretend to be friendly to religion -- and speak to believers in soothing, patronizing, avuncular tones -- Harris is brash and honest. Bless his heart, he will have none of half-heartedness, especially from his own side.

 

A stunning example: Harris chastises "most nonbelievers, liberals, and moderates" precisely because "they don't know what it is like to really believe in God." As a result, they dismiss the reality that Islamic "jihadist violence" comes from Islam itself, from religious beliefs, and instead put it down to other causes, so that 9/11 and other atrocities can be boiled down to "a matter of education, poverty, or politics." Quips Harris, "It is worth remembering that the September 11 hijackers were college-educated, middle-class people who had no discernible experience of political oppression."

 

As the title makes clear, however, Harris is not aiming his barbs at Islam in this book, but at the Christians of his own nation -- not the mushy ones, the amorphous silt swirling in mainstream denominations, but those who actually believe. His challenge is simple and accurate and hence refreshing: "If one of us is right, the other is wrong. The Bible is either the word of God, or it isn't. Either Jesus offers humanity the one, true path to salvation (John 14:6), or he does not . . . . If Christianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I should expect to suffer the torments of hell."

 

Ah!, a breath of fresh air indeed. Harris is eminently disagreeable, and that is a true virtue. Here is a person with whom it is worth disagreeing, someone who takes Christianity more seriously than most Christians. Far better to spar with a clear-headed atheist who agrees that we disagree than a muddle-headed Neville Chamberlain type who declares sharp disagreements impossible because sharpness itself is an illusion. On to battle!

 

A battle needs a battleground, and that must be common ground. All too many Christians who pick up Harris's book will make the tactical error of trying to defend everything he attacks, especially his continual jabs at the Bible. But as St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Christian jouster of all time, rightly stated, it is a foolish waste of time and effort to argue about the Bible with someone who does not believe that it is indeed revealed truth. To be effective, the Christian apologist must move from supernatural ground to common, natural ground, and engage his adversary in regard to things that he holds as true. The best argument to pit against Harris is his own.

 

Harris's complaint against Christianity is not only that it is false, but that it is morally pernicious. Thus, for Harris, it is quite possible (and indeed, far more likely) for an atheist to be moral; or to put it with a sharper edge, Christianity leads to immorality rather than away from it. To what view of morality, then, does Harris's confident atheism lead?

 

Claims Harris, "We can easily think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a lawgiving God." But what Harris offers up is a very vaguely defined rehash of Benthamite utilitarian hedonism, served on rather brittle platitudes. To have "objective moral truths worth knowing," Harris confidently intones, "there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in the world." For example, "Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is. This is an objective claim about the human mind, about the dynamics of social relations, and about the moral order of our world."

 

That is, to say the least, not very concrete. It is the kind of statement that is rightly shredded in freshman philosophy because "love" is a door so wide that any truck can drive through it. To have moral tread, it must be defined in terms of definite acts and goals. Love undefined is a flag any side can fly.

 

So as not to be accused of vagueness myself, let me be very exact in my criticism of Harris's allegedly objective account of morality. First of all, Harris's assertion that his atheistic version of morality is objective is based on the future discovery of psychological laws: "If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality." That is a big and questionable "if." That iffiness is supposed to ground his "objective claim" that love is conducive to happiness.

 

But what if we find no such "psychological laws"? Or what if we do, and in conformity with Harris's own scientific creed, they confirm that happiness consists (as Darwinism would suggest) in victory in the struggle for self-preservation or the preservation of one's immediate kin?

 

That's no small gibe. Since Harris rejects the need for a supernatural basis for morality, he must embrace a merely natural one -- i.e., one according to his view of nature, that of an atheist who believes that evolution displaces the need for a Creator. But this view creates unpleasant contradictions that Harris seems to miss.

 

Early in the book, for example, he argues that "while we do not have anything like a final, scientific understanding of human morality" because we do not, as yet, know the "psychological laws" of human happiness, "it seems safe to say that raping and killing our neighbors is not one of its primary constituents." Yet, later on, he informs us that "there is, after all, nothing more natural than rape." Why? Because it paid benefits in the Darwinian struggle for survival. But, he avers, "No one would argue that rape is good, or compatible with a civil society, because it may have had evolutionary advantages for our ancestors."

 

The obvious retort: Why not? If rape conferred an evolutionary advantage under certain conditions, then whenever and wherever those conditions pertain, the advantage pertains, and rape is good. According to Darwinism, "good" can only mean "whatever allows me or my near kin to survive and spread our genes against our neighbors."

 

And so the dominoes start to fall. On Harris's account, "love" and the desire for "happiness" can only mean (at its widest circle) some kind of passionate concern for my tribe and our well-being, and the alleged "psychological laws" are then revealed as merely strong feelings of concern and kinship that have themselves been naturally selected. They aren't laws at all; they are evolved "brain states" linking particular behavior (which has proved beneficial in the struggle for survival) with feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. As with all things evolutionary, they have no permanent status. The ground for morality is continually shifting as the conditions change, and when new traits and hence new brain states prove beneficial for survival, old traits and brain states are mercilessly culled by natural selection.

 

This failure of Harris's moral account is indicative of a more comprehensive failure on his part. To use his own words against him: Sam, my friend, you don't know what it is like to really dis-believe in God. A sure sign of this is his painfully glib treatment of the obvious counterexamples of 20th-century atheists who have, in their combined efforts, killed more human beings in the name of godlessness, and with more elaborate brutality, than have been slain by all religions in all centuries combined.

 

The problem with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the rest, Harris informs the reader, was not that they were atheists but -- prepare yourself -- that they were dogmatic atheists. That is, such folk "are never especially rational." What Harris means here he never explains. But one thing should now be clear: Harris's case against Christianity is in great part only as strong as his case for atheism, and that is, for all his boldness, not very strong at all.

[markomalley]

Look for Harris' attitude to become more and more in vogue. Christians will be branded as mentally ill (I understand, for example, that "homophobia" is going to be classed as a disorder in the forthcoming DSM-V, while that same reference will remove the majority of "paraphilias" from being listed)

[TruthHound]

[Woebama]

I understand, for example, that “homophobia” is going to be classed as a disorder in the forthcoming DSM-V
___________________________________________________________

Ironic since homosexuality was once categorized as a mental illness. They’ve reversed it.

[Woebama]

while that same reference will remove the majority of “paraphilias” from being listed
___________________________________________________

Heh, wonder what the minority are that they can’t take out yet?

[newfreep]

How about “Christianphobia”?

[zorro8987]

////quoting //// that they were dogmatic atheists. That is, such folk “are never especially rational.” ///end quote///

INteresting. Here’s what that translates to, seemingly - The ones who are closer to belief in God, because they aren’t nearly so dogmatic, are more rational, wiser, and smarter. The ones who are most adamant and defiant against the very idea that there could be a God, the dead-set atheists - (1) Cannot defend their position rationally and/or (2) Are just generally not as rational, smart, or wise. -— Well? That’s what it sounds like! -— The less-dogmatic ones are open to certain possibilities. It then follows (one would think) that the ones who are closer to religion - the closer they are, the wiser they are; the further away they are, the closer they are to insanity and being barbaric. -— Hm, it’s interesting that an outspoken atheist would say such a thing, anyway. *chuckle*

[Julia H.]

If having a negative thought about homosexuality is a mental illness, let’s start a Crazy Pride Week, complete with parades.

[Getready]

At best, Harris seems to be a “scoffer” as referred to men in days
past....How does he as an evolutionary product think he can
decide what is “moral”, or “conducive to survival”, how can
he even explain why such ideas even exist? His own view may
change as he “evolves” so does that mean his past ideas were
incorrect? and if incorrect then, could they also be
incorrect now? Why does he even assume he can decipher/manipulate
and correlate knowledge any better than a monkey, cow,
parrot, or even a true believer in Christ?

He obviously doesn’t know the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Well, he probably thinks it is a myth anyway...So be it. I
give him credit for being loud and proud and at least in a
public way probably honest about his beliefs, but God(it says)
resists the proud.

I suppose if he could speak to Paul the Apostle, a once
fervent persecuter of those scandalous early Christians,
he might “see the light” also.

.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

I guess this Harris guy wants to return to the tribe? What he really believes in is the infallibility of reason. But reason and love are verbs not nouns thus they cannot be arrived at. Funny, but it seems that Harris is unaware that a person can learn to love the wrong things; i.e., pedophiles love little boys. I guess a reasonable person could not conclude that this is wrong? If this Harris guys wants to deconstruct a religion, I think it encumbent upon him to at least provide a model of a better way. Its easy to throw stones, much harder to build with them.

[markomalley]

Nothing "barf" about the article...

...now, about the book the article is reviewing....welll....

[Belteshazzar]

Yes, look for this attitude to become more and more in vogue.

The Roman historian Tacitus said this regarding the persecution of Christians by Nero in A.D. 64 (the first imperially sanctioned persecution):

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

Take note of Tacitus’ observation regarding the real reason: “not so much of the crime of firing the city (which of course was a bogus charge), AS OF HATRED OF HUMANITY.” In other words, those dastardly Christians had the gall to talk about sin.

Well, history does have a way of repeating itself. Brace yourselves, it is coming.

[GunRunner]

I like Harris, but he more often than not uses his well drafted arguments to argue for things like embryonic stem cell research, which we know now was just a shell game to begin with.

Disappointing that the author resorts to the "secularism leads to Mao and Stalin" argument at the end. It's so lazy; all of those cult of personality regimes require a religious and quasi-supernatural devotion.

I don't know of any societies built on the ideas of Einstein, Paine, and Spinoza that have fallen into murder and totalitarianism.

[Rippin]

But Harris is not willing to allow people the freedom to believe, as einstein, paine, spinoza did. Harris view can only end up leading to thought crimes defined and enforced.

[stuartcr]

I disagree. If anti-Christianity or atheism were so popular, we’d have politicians running on that platform.

[GunRunner]

I don't think so. Harris has never advocated religious oppression.

Repressing religious belief is different from having an open and honest discussion about the consequences of belief.

[Louis Foxwell]

Harris argues for moral relativism. He posits the possibility of absolute morals on the belief that science will yet discern some unchangeable character in nature. All such arguments, however, lead back to a discussion of God.
Try as he might, Harris cannot escape belief in God. What he refers to as dogmatic atheism is in reality, atheism, the complete abdignation of God and therefor, of all universal values. By his own admission he cannot abide a pure form of atheism.

[Rippin]

O.K., well I’ve seen some of his youtube talks but not read much. From my limited exposure, my concern is that either these objective moral laws stemming from rational inquiry will affirm the value of faith in what we can’t prove (some religous impusle), in which case he has to dump his worldview, or they will show that it is socially and publicly destructive to have such beliefs in which case we’ll need to control them for the good of all.

[GunRunner]

That hasn't been my impression in reading and listening to him.

It basically boils down to holding faith accountable as we hold other things accountable. If I designed a plane for you without testing and blueprints, I doubt you'd fly it based that fact that I "have faith" that it will.

If an elected official holds a firm and unshakable belief that Jesus will descend out of the clouds in the next 50 years and bring about his new kingdom, and that the government should start planning accordingly, then that belief has consequences. That official's faith shouldn't be immune from review, challenge, and criticism simply because he believes them to be true.

[Rippin]

People of faith have always tried hold each other accountable. Which is what atheists call holy war. When atheists try to hold people of faith accountable they call it reason.

If I lump all atheists into the Stalinist bucket many atheists claim foul. But when Harris or Hitchens et al try to treat Islam and Christianity as birds of a feather they think they are being objective and rational.

If faith in God is dangerous to innocent civilians it isn’t a stretch to regulate it. Treating faith in God as the formal cause of 9/11 is so ridiculous you’d think you don’t need to respond but I really think the new atheist mind is blind in this respect.

If you are telling me you have objective evidence that Harris political philosophy incorporates his willingness to fight for my right to folly (as mine clearly does for me and his) then fine. That’s not the tone he projects.

[GunRunner]

Faith in God is not dangerous. Claiming that your faith is 100% off limits to question and criticism is, at least if you make decisions based on faith that affect other people.

I can't prove a negative, so I think the burden of proof should be on you to provide evidence that Harris has somewhere stated that the power of government should be used to outlaw religious belief. I've never seen him communicate anything of the sort, nor would I defend him if he had. That would make him a totalitarian statist.