2023 Book Review

A rousing call to action against organized religion by one of the so-called “four horsemen” of the new atheism movement, Sam Harris. My introduction to Harris was through the Making Sense podcast which I would highly recommend. After a year or two of listening, I thought it practical to give his books a shot to better understand the topics often brought up during his episodes. I did not always agree with the logic behind his talking points, and my take on The End of Faith was no different; eloquently reasoned, not always bulletproof.

The heart of Harris’ argument posits that religion is, at its core, inherently unreasonable- one cannot reason their way into believing in the resurrection, or the providential origins of the Quran. Allowing such poor reasoning to form the bedrock of ones belief system is dangerous on an individual level, and potentially apocalyptic on a societal scale. In an age of nuclear launch codes where entire civilizations can be erased from the map with a button, scientific reason must be the ballast stabilizing our world. With religious beliefs still framing the world view for the majority of the world, such shared beliefs are impossible and increasing violent conflict inevitable.

This argument does not assume religions are inherently bad, simply that they lead to bad ends, and at a time of increasingly high stakes for global conflict, maintaining religious institutions is not worth the risk. Harris makes a point to include examples of inherently religious thought from apolitical organizations as well, most notably the Third Reich. As Rudolf Hess argued, “We believe that the Fuhrer is obeying a higher call to fashion German history. There can be no criticism of this belief.”

In his attempt to include religious rhetoric from nonreligious institutions as part of his argument, Harris exposes the easiest criticism of his work. Why would a godless society be any more ethical, or any more prepared to rationally tackle challenges? In modern American politics the rhetoric of the right is rooted in religion- and yet, on the left, the rhetoric is equally if not more so religious. Acceptance into certain circles demands adherence to a strict belief system that cannot be questioned. Even the concept of original sin has found a home on the left.

Clearly the psychological roots of religious belief extend far deeper than we currently understand. While it could be argued that this unknown territory is still a safer option compared to a world discourse ruled by religion, I find that a bit of a stretch. A deeper understanding of human morality and decision making is needed before such a judgment could be made. I can’t help but think of Jonathan Haidt’s assertion that reason and emotion are intertwined; most people have an emotional response that is then justified by reason to support it.

One very compelling argument Harris posited was the complicity of religious moderates in empowering religious fundamentalism. This is true across religions, but most important- and dangerous- in Christianity and Islam. While a literalist interpretation of holy books would lead one to the conclusion that horrible crimes against nonbelievers are justifiable- and thus hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, currently hold this belief- there are enough religious moderates that interpret their texts loosely to defend the dangerous minority. A smaller scale example of this would be Mormon fundamentalism in rural Texarkana. Despite having a cultural norm of horrific sexual abuse against children, authorities were lambasted every time they tried to intervene. Public outcry, intensified by media coverage of “loving families” being broken up by a cruel, unfeeling government, allowed horrible crimes against children to continue unpunished for decades. Jon Krakauer covers this in his incredible book Under the Banner of Heaven, which is very much worth a read.