The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

Courageous to write in this current atmosphere with rise of social conservatives based on "American Christian Values". If you are a Christian or Muslim. You will find this book difficult to stomach. In your face writing. Very direct and Blunt "Theology is an extension of human Ignorance", articulate and easy to read. States his position clearly and argues his point well. This is an attack on Monotheistic Religions - primarily Judeo-Christian religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) throughout the world. He makes a compelling case that we cannot grow into a more civilized society unless we shed our primitive and illogical believe systems. Highly recommended reading. I thought his analysis of our illogical religious views and related actions were right on, although I did not agree completely with him on all his points, it stimulated me to think and rethink some of my positions. If you have strong liberal or conservative views, your position will be challenged. He is an independent thinker and he is not going to feed you what you want to hear. This is what a good book should do. Important and relevant book and we need more books like this. Thus the five stars. Loaded with memorable quotes. I found myself re-reading sections and sentences and then close the book and stare in space as I comprehend a new idea. Some of the criticism here in Amazon review is fair. He does come across as an "atheist fundamentalist" as one reviewer wrote. Sam Harris rightly criticizes needless wars in the name of promoting religion, but he seems to promote wars in the name of fighting religion. I find this a bit hypocritical. I am not sure he is any better than the religious zealots he criticizes. Where I take exception and I feel his argument is the weakest, is his that He is too forgiving on the nature of "intent" and war itself as being justified to fight ignorance. In his view, we (the US) at war are more humane than Islam at war because of our "intent". We do not intend to kill innocents (they are collateral), where as Islamic people at war do. I think this is a narrow definition of intent and too forgiving. War by its nature is inhumane regardless of intent. And whether your loved one was killed intentionally or not, it doesn't make it any easier to accept or any more justifiable or make you more rightous. In addition, collateral damage is acceptable as long as it is the other side that is experiencing it. If for example, the Iraqi resistance was able to reach our shores and retaliate, and caused collateral damage of US citizens, then our view of the war and our interest in ending it sooner will rise. So what is the morality of the war? Also, if collateral damage is more humane than targeting civilians intentionally, then no civilian deaths is more humane than collateral damage. We should be rising to the occasion (or evolving) where wars are no longer legitimate. When the US is able to keep its citizenry detached from the reality of the war, it causes prolonged suffering of the other side. Also Harris does not address "cause and effect" and "ends justify the means" foreign policy. Don't we need to be held accountable for our actions? But the US has more at its disposal than military. It is the intent of the US to use its economic might to keep nations in poverty. He does not address this...Recommended reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" He leaves the impression that he only reason Islamic terrorists are attacking us is for religious reasons only and they are stuck in the 14th century beyond any sense of reasoning. The Koran is rooted in violence and justifies them attacking us - The infidels. As a result, the only remedy is to wage a war (with justifiable collateral damage) against Islam. I think he goes too far here. The Koran explains their hideous actions, but not their real motives. I think he underestimates there is a real war against the west based on what we do, not what we believe. After all, there are no terrorist attacks in South America, Canada, Japan, Eastern Europe or Australia. Yet they are all Infidels. The US and Western Europe have a long history in the Middle East of occupation, puppet governments, support for Israel, military intervention and oil interests that cannot be discounted as the reason. Now the war in Iraq has given the terrorist more reason to hate us. He gives the impression that the war on terror can only be won militarily through war. I agree the military has a role to play, but it is not enough. He does not adequately address other factors in combination with the military action; cultural change in the Middle East and a change in US foreign policy. Recommended Reading; Imperial Hubris Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror. In place of religion, Harris proposes a Buddhist view of life. He does not go into detail on Buddhism but touches briefly on some of its tenets with regard to reason, logic, our thoughts and consciousness. For the intellectually curious, he may inspire you to learn more about this relatively unknown religion.

I sincerely enjoyed this book, and to a great degree, not only because of the quality of the writing, but because of what it is doing. I got this book as an early atheist and I consider it important in that transition from not-so-sure to "I'm an atheist, without a doubt." Harris' book is fairly comprehensive in many of the things atheists question and criticize about any one religion, especially religiously justified but morally questionable choices. It asked many of the same things I had wondered myself, which made it so appealing to me. It took a lot of my own thoughts and elaborated on them, and it gave me a better understanding, and rationale, for what I thought about God, life, the universe, and everything. You'll see in Harris', Hitchens', or Dawkins' writing that there are many appeals to logic, but Harris places a lot of emphasis on how the brain operates in his arguments. He focuses on how and why people form beliefs, and then uses that to show why religious faith is illogical. Logic plays a central role in his writing, and because of that, his arguments feel much more solid. That is, of course, totally subjective. However, I found it to be that way and is a primary reason I recommend Harris before both Hitchens and Dawkins, though honestly all three are superb. My one criticism is that Harris' writing can appear a bit dreary at times. Hitchens seems more anecdotal, resulting in something a bit more entertaining. Harris' writing sometimes feels like an academic article in a scholarly journal; serious in tone, analytical, etc. He does pepper his writing with various quips and sarcastic statements, which does offer a good chuckle from time to time. I should note that I did not find the book boring. Harris' arguments are strong, well-supported, and substantial in value to any atheist; the critique he makes of faith should be entertainment value enough. This book will focus primarily on Christianity and Islam, and does not stray too far out from those two. If you want a book that focuses on Christianity alone, you'll want to look at Harris' companion to this book, "Letter to a Christian Nation." I have and will continue to recommend this book to anyone looking for good atheist literature. Should anyone read this who is questioning if they are an atheist or not, I would strongly suggest reading this book. It will answer many questions and pose plenty of new ones.

Al mio aviso dobbiamo tutti leggere questo libro. Il signore Harris offre una spiegazione del problema il più grave del nostro mondo e della nostra sopravivenza - anzi del rischio di non sopravivere. Sam Harris goes beyond the liberation of previous text which discuss why we should all liberate ourselves from religion. It is not an easy read, but he using a clear, wonderfully logical, and also enteretaining style explains the grave risks that we face from groups with faith based views of the world comparable to the frightenting mentality of the Middle ages but with access to even more frightening armaments of the twentieth century. We are just starting the descent from a politcally based atomic standoff only to face an even more frightening religiously based beligerence. I think everyone should read this book.

Sam Harris is one of the leading proponents of what has been dubbed the 'New Atheist Movement', in good company with the likes of Richard Dawkins, Penn Teller, Lawrence Krauss and the late Christopher Hitchens--not even a movement, per say, but rather a like-minded bunch of non-believers who just happen to feel the same about religion, whether it be through their intellectual reason, their scientific backgrounds, or quite often both. Like his atheist friends he has written and spoken extensively on the topic, to much acclaim from people like myself--once too afraid to 'come out' about our atheism. For The End of Faith, Harris tries something quite refreshing and bold. Many before him have argued that morality is not the exclusive domain of the believer, but here the author dares to suggest that, along with our right to claim a religion-free morality, perhaps spirituality is not really a bad word at all. Nor is it, like the moral codes of societies, the property of churches, mosques, synagogues, shamen, priests, and mullahs. By first overcoming the shackles of irrational faith, the individual can employ reason to reach a clarity of mind and self. Essentially, it’s a kind of spirituality that can be found beyond the barriers of centuries old beliefs and impositions that merely hinder mental freedom. Of course, the task Sam Harris achieves with this book is to carefully, and necessarily at great length, mine the sources of the very hindrances that have battled to enslave the voices of reason. These sources are of course the holy books that have inspired both compassion and irrational passion, The Holy Bible and The Quran. We have been constantly assured, Harris reminds us, of how these are religions of peace, despite the centuries of bloodshed spilled in their names. And yet the evidence of the horrors, the 'god'-sanctioned violence, the injustices and the enslavement of the free--physically and mentally, are all there in these holy books. No matter than much of the contents of these powerful scriptures has been twisted and interpreted, and reinterpreted to a great fault, resulting in the endless suffering of millions upon millions of innocents. It's bad enough that the pious cherry-pick the good bits in their favour; but then they simply go and ignore the ugliness, or use it to support their acts of violence on others. One of the points that Harris raises is how liberals, people much like himself, like me as well, have failed by granting religion its very own raison d''tat, all because of a comfy multiculturalism--however well-meaning, and not necessarily failed, but abused by the very individuals we have sought to protect from persecution. A bit of biting the hand that feeds. We liberals, Harris asserts, have misguidedly felt that the good folks among the religious can reign in the bad. Unfortunately it has not usually worked out this way, and perhaps reducing it all down to religion as a cultural right, a custom, is where the left has failed. All it takes is a young boy to strap on some explosives, walk into a market full of innocents, children naturally included, and blow himself up with the promise of greater things in the afterlife. So his elders, his religious leaders, his holy book, tell him so. In an instant scores of lives are destroyed in this single act. Sam Harris, like anyone on the left or right, calls this terrorism, which it is. However, he insists that the sole drive of the modern-day terrorist is his faith. Where I partly disagree with his criticism of people like Noam Chomsky, who have long-argued that foreign policy is at least in part responsible for many acts of terrorism, I do find his argument that religion is a potent force that drives people to commit terrorist acts. Harris provides faith driven examples of terror from the Inquisition through to and including what is commonly perpetrated by those of the Muslim faith. The evidence of the required punishment for straying from or offending faith litters both the Bible and the Quran, but it would seem that Islam's holy book is likely the nastier in terms of the sheer volume of calls to death to the infidel. To be fair, he raises a very good point, with citation after citation from the Quran, which do nothing to back the claim that Islam is a religion of peace. Another thought-provoking point Harris addresses, and perhaps cleverly avoids taking sides, is how torture against alleged terrorists is surely no different from the horror we politely label collateral damage in times of conflict and war. It's hard not to come away with a feeling that Harris thinks torture, long considered precisely not what civilized nations ought to be engaged in, might at times be acceptable--especially when comparing it to the usually unintended civilian losses of war. How can we not call both horrors, when lives are damaged or lost all in the name of a good fight? I personally fall on the no-torture side, but his examples give good cause to think deeply about the end results of both collateral damage and pain-inflicting interrogation. The conclusion is really up to you, the reader, to decide. Sam Harris has a very lucid style of writing, and a tireless attention to detail, leaving no stone unturned in his effort to champion reason over faith. The at times lengthy footnotes are excellent proof of this. The End of Faith is built upon extensive research, and the very tool he champions, which is at our disposal from the moment we are aware of our thoughts. Refined, reason is a powerful foe to the centuries-old burdens of sin, promises of paradise beyond death, the miracles that never seem to take place in the modern era, but remain the stories of old, stories that increasingly have lost their weight. Up against the mighty tripartite of world religions, Harris also proves, Buddhism is virtually free of the calls to death, the enslavement of other, the vengeful, wrathful sky-god. Here is where he suggests spirituality can be a reachable goal. You don't have to be a Buddhist, but you do have to be aware, in tune with your inner self. There, you will find the building blocks of a faith-free existence. Morality, well, we get that already. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason is a compelling read, particularly but not exclusively to the atheist. For the believer, it presents a challenge that is still surmountable; for the atheist, it is both comforting and enlightening. This book is a powerful and necessary argument for reason over faith

Ouch! I thought I'd read it all in the science/religion fracas and then I picked up Harris's book. I've never seen an opinion quite like this, it is truly unique-- as some other reviewers note, it's hard to classify. It's just pure Sam. There are few things one cannot really deny about this book: 1. Just about anyone will find something here they are shocked by. [The Buddhist stuff at the end came out of left field, although I kinda liked it still, and I was amazed that he could support the Iraq War] 2. You'll disagree with at least one point in the book, and get angry at some points (even atheists will!), but that will vary depending on your personal bias. [I'm amazed Harris managed to pull off his argument without contradicting himself; he has reasoned himself into a unique niche.] 3. It is incredibly well written and passionate; almost every page has a well-crafted quotable phrase or two. Swift reading too. A roller coaster ride through Harris's personal views, fears, and his quest to find solutions. [A few phrases left me in fits of giggles, a few others I wished I could commit to memory to use later, and a few others had my jaw drop in amazement that he dared to say them in today's volatile political climate-- I suppose he's not on the radar of the fundies quite enough yet for death fatwas and such] 4. People should read this regardless of how they feel about the state of the world today. It's an crucial book that raises important questions, and to deny the importance of debate about these issues would show more about your own bias and dogmatism than anything else. Fiery and clad in the armor of reason, yet not afraid to be very human and even flawed, this book in some ways is better than anything Dawkins, Dennett, or Wolpert have put out recently. Massively original, very personal and honest, and a real page-turner. I had a hard time putting it down. I rarely give books a second read but now, a few weeks later, I'm thinking of diving back in.

Sam Harris diskutiert und belegt ausführlich, daß der Islam eine totalitäre Gefahr für die moderne Welt darstellt und einer toleranten Uminterpretation größere Schwierigkeiten im Weg stehen als bei anderen Religionen. Als Kernproblem des islamischen Terrorismus wird die lebensverachtende Jenseitsorientierung unnachgiebig bloßgestellt, denn nur sie erklärt, warum auch gut ausgebildete und sozial gut situierte junge Menschen zu fanatischen Selbstmordattentätern werden können. So weit,' so wenig ungewöhnlich, wenn auch hier besonders überzeugend dargestellt. Aber Harris geht in erfrischender Weise weiter: Er attackiert das religiöse Denken als solches. Die religiös Moderaten tragen eine Mitschuld daran, daß wir der Expansivität des Islam nicht überzeugender entgegentreten, denn ihr Denken ist von der gleichen Art: Glauben an den Orientierungswert alter Bücher, Annahme von Überzeugungen ohne oder gar entgegen guter Gründe. Ich sehe das genauso. Die Appeasement-Politik gegenüber der Religion à la Habermas ist nur zeitgeistige political correctness. Aber was erhofft sich Harris? Glaubt er wirklich, unter der Bedrohung durch einen expansiven Islam werde sich die Menschheit in kurzer Zeit von ihrer evolutionär und kulturell so tief verankerten tribalistischen Religiosität abwenden? Radikale Religionskritik ist richtig. Harris geizt auch nicht mit Beispielen für negative Auswirkungen religiösen Denkens in unseren westlichen Gesellschaften. Aber er verkennt, daß die religiös Moderaten trotzdem unsere Verbündeten bei der Erhaltung und Ausbreitung freiheitlich-pluralistischer Gesellschaften sind. Ein wenig illusionär ist auch sein ethischer Objektivismus, der uns Ethik und Moral als Wissenschaften präsentiert, die schließlich Erkenntnisse liefern werden, deren Überzeugungskraft naturwissenschaftlichen Fakten vergleichbar sei. Harris Attacke gegen einen indifferentistisch getönten ethischen Relativismus ist sympathisch und verdienstvoll. Und zweifellos kann die Vernunft eine auf ideologischen Vorurteilen basierende Moral unterminieren. Aber wir dürfen das Element von Entscheidung nicht unterschätzen, ohne das auch der unvoreingenommen Urteilende nicht auskommt. Unser evolutionäres und kulturelles Erbe besteht nun einmal leider nicht nur aus Mitmenschlichkeit. Harris Überlegungen zur Rechtfertigung der Folter von Gefangenen in extremen Fällen sind logisch konsequent, aber sie greifen zu kurz. Gerade die amerikanische Ambivalenz in diesem Punkt im Gefolge von 9/11 lehrt uns, daß die Aufweichung des Folterverbots die leider in jeden Militärapparat zu findenden Sadisten ermutigt, die Demokratie diskreditiert und die Menschen und Bürgerrechte einer Vielzahl von Gefangenen längerfristig beschädigt, ohne die gewünschten Erfolge zu erzielen. Trotz solcher Schwächen: ein unbedingt lesenswertes Buch, das nach allen Seiten austeilt, je nachdem wie die Konsequenz des Denkens es verlangt und dennoch keineswegs bei der Kritik stehen bleibt, sondern dem religiösen Denken einen positiven säkularen Lebensentwurf gegenüberstellt.

Un peu trop dans la vindicte par moment, ce livre reste néanmoins clair et bien mené. Certaines idées se retrouvent notamment de par chez R. Dawkins. Finalement optimiste.