Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1194 in Books
• Published on: 2006-02-06
• Binding: Paperback
• 336 pages

Observer
'An eminently sensible rallying cry for a more ruthless secularisation of society'

Independent
'A bold and exhilarating thesis . . . A brave, pugilistic attempt to demolish the walls that currently insulate religious people from criticism'

Richard Dawkins, Guardian
'A genuinely frightening book about terrorism, and the central role played by religion in justifying and rewarding it'

Customer Reviews

Hard hitting religious polemic
Incredibly 120 Million Americans (who claim to be Biblical literalists) believe creation was 2,500 years after the Babylonians and Sumerians learned to brew beer. In this book, Harris argues daftness has a dark side; unquestioned religious faith causes some major problems.

A quick glance of the globe and one can easily correlate two competiting religions co-located and needless bloodshed:
Palestine: Jews v. Muslims
Balkans: Orthodox v. Catholics v. Muslims
Northern Ireland: Protestant v. Catholic
Kashmir: Muslims v. Hindus
Sudan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Muslims v. Christians

Harris also points out that religious faith, by taking dogmatic and unquestionable moral positions can block Scientific progress. For example, stem cell research - the candle of hope for those afflicted with insufferable conditions. It really isn't fair that someone can spend their life in a wheelchair or suffer Alzheimer's when a breakthrough in stem cell research could change their life.

However, some of his analysis is a bit one-eyed. For example in his analysis of Islam, he produces a range of statistics and surveys of Islamic countries which show them following a common thread of inhumane values. The problem is that he leaves out some of the more liberal Islamic countries, such as the U.A.E. and Malaysia. That said most of his points are well made, for example the insularity of the Arabic world is evident by the very low number of books translated into Arabic. In 2002 Spain was translating about the same number of books into Spanish in a single year as the entire Arabic world had translated into Arabic since the 9th century!

His writing style is methodical, surgical and logical. He coats that with the occasional dabble of dry, sardonic humour. For example, if the Bible is the word of God, how come Shakespear's writing is of a higher literacy standard? Or why did God creates 250,000 species of bettles?

It's a good book, but the hard line atheist angle won't win over most theists. There is the odd compliment to Religion. He does point out that the Muslim conquest of Spain meant that classical Greek texts were translated into Latin which eventually helped them find their way into the Renaissance. But overall, the standard theist will just feel they are being misrepresented and misunderstood. It's a hard hitting religious polemic, but it will more than likely just be read by those who already feel that a religious aversion.

Absorbing book, but lacks objectivity and realism
I found both of Harris's books on atheism, 'The End of Faith' and 'Letter To A Christian Nation' fascinating reading - I was enthralled - particularly the latter book. And it's that one that I have most in mind in my review below (for some reason I am unable to place it in the review section of 'Letter To A Christian Nation' - the system keeps telling me I've already got a review there - but I absolutely don't. So, so as not to waste a lengthy review, I give it here. Thanks.

Harris does make some good points in his 'Letter'. Christians aren't nearly critical enough about their beliefs, and they need to be challenged every now and then about their rigid beliefs, how their views affect others, etc. So, to the extent that this is a challengling little read, then I welcome it. Further, Harris's section on stem-cell research I found wonderfully illuminating, and I believe it has even helped to change my thoughts on the subject. There are other sections which I personally found helpful.

But often, like Dawkins, Harris doesn't seem to attempt to hide his detestation of monotheistic religions, and Christianity in particular. He is too angry for his own good, thus clouding his judgement and weakening his arguments.

Clearly Harris is an atheist fundamentalist of incomparable proportions. He quite openly, and repeatedly (especially in 'The End of Faith', but also in this book) calls out for eradication of religion! In this he sounds frighteningly like the autocratic and intolerant ranting of someone like Stalin, Pol Pot or Hitler.

The book is written in the first person, directly to the Christian believer. Thus Harris tells the reader (who he assumes to be a Christain) what he or she believes. This can be rather presumptous and sometimes simply wrong. At a number of places, I found myself saying - 'No, I don't believe that'. He can tell me what he believes, but Not what every Christain believes.

For example, he spends consideralbe time talking about 'criminal' attitudes of 'Christians', such as their shunning of birth control, etc. Here, he completely fails to mention that the majority of the world's Christian believers (hundreds of millions of evangelicals and and many, many Catholics, too) have no aversion to the use of condoms etc. It is simply not an issue to them.

One very notable aspect of the book is that, numerous times when Harris seeks to provide evidence of religion being intolerant, or violent, etc - he gives NO examples from Christianity, but instead makes reference to Islamic thought and Islamic terrorist activities! These are referred to again and again. Yet this is a book supposedly aimed at 'a Christian Nation'. In these instances, Harris is completely unable to find Any parallels in Christianity. To say that this weakens his overall argument is an understatement! It becomes rather farcical. His book might better be called 'Letter to an Islamic Nation'.

In any case, even when Harris does succeed in pinpointing a less than honourable incident from 'Christian' history - e.g. the Crusades of a Millennium ago - this simply goes to show how Un-Christian such an act was - contrary to the teaching and spirit of Christ. To show that Christians - assuming they were Christians, because calling yourself a Christian doesn't, in itself, make you one - have done wrong - in no way proves that Christianity itself is wrong. It only shows that mankind is prone to wrongdoing, which is precisely a root teaching of Christianity (which also teaches that it is solely through dying to self in Christ that we can conquer that fleshly nature). In no way, unfortunately, does being a Christian, of itself make believers immune to wrongdoing.

There are many good points in this book, and I'm glad I read it. But Harris's overt bias and lack of sound reasoning make this little book impossible to take on board. Far worse, the author seems completely unaware that a world with no-one but atheists would by no means be a peaceful one (how naive to even think it!). Man is greedy and power-lusting and, despite his intelligence, often foolish. Atheism is unable to quench these base natures. The teachings and Spirit of Christ, on the other hand, speak directly and constantly to these human failings. A world with a universal atheistic worldview - full of fundamentalist ahteists like Dawkins or Harris - would surely be hell on earth. Besides, it is absurd to think that it will ever happen. Man is a spiritual being with a natural propensity to believe in 'something out there'. Always has been, and, I believe, always will be.

Most important book written in the last fifty years
The title says what I think. I have just been through the dozens of reviews above and I am absolutely astounded at how some people can "think". If you had not read the book, but only the reviews, you would think that Harris was not able to philosophise or think things through, or take account of the "spiritual" needs of mankind. It is quite distressing how often people will use emotive terms to oppose him - "rant", "narrow", "intolerant", etc, without actually coolly justifying their position, or facing how he REALLY writes about openness to reason and evidence and justification, or how he is just as opposed to the thought processes of any other religion as he is to those of Islam.

The other really depressing thing about this is how people simply do not understand that "atheism" is just not "another faith"! Listen to me. There is a race of intelligent chocolate biscuits living on the planet Neptune. They have been communicating with me and I am going to start my own spiritual movement based on their guidance. You don't believe me, do you. So that means that you "have faith" that "intelligent chocolate biscuits" don't live on Neptune? Your rejection of my current lack of objective scientific proof for this proposition is not "another form of faith", is it? Is it? Please, just think about it for about five seconds! If you're an atheist about Father Christmas and the Great Pumpkin, but you don't see your disbelief as an "alternative faith" (I'm an "asantaclausist", just because there is a word for it now!) - why is disbelief in gods any different? They're just another concept, handed down from primitive desert-dwelling tribes. You're only an "aNeptuneBiscuisist", which is "just another form of faith".

If you don't like Sam Harris's personal style or some other aspects of his thinking, but you still think you have the guts to confront thinking about religion and atheism and agnosticism - along with an awful lot of other things - try looking up Stephen Law on the net, author of "The Philosophy Gym", and THEN confront the arguments without letting them have anything to do with your perceptions of Mr Harris's "shortcomings". Try dismantling the arguments about how there is an evil God and we have to deal with the "problem of Good", and then start being an agnostic about an evil god as well as a good one.

The world needs the intellectual input of Mr Harris and his like. And yes, it is perfectly possible to use intellectual processes and reason to discuss and legislate about - rather than blow up or excommunicate - animal experimentation, and hunting or looking after endangered species, and the supporters and opponents of such experiments, and those ethically deficient types who would support the use of torture in places like Guantanamo Bay, and whether we should reasonably discuss reasons for the use of abortion rather than killing doctors who may have a well-thought through position for working in abortion clinics. And don't jump on that as if I'm saying "all religious people blow up abortion clinics", of course I'm not. But the ones who DO, ARE religious. And they will not discuss evidence for and against reincarnation before arriving at a position on it which is STILL open to further discussion in the light of possible future evidence - unlike people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.