The thesis of Sam Harris's book is that, once any group of people believe that they have a monopoly on moral truth, they are capable of perpetrating the most enormous crimes against humanity in the firm conviction that they have a duty to stamp out evil (Satan) in the name of good (God). His book illustrates this with numerous examples of the intolerance of Judaism, Christianity and Islam not only towards each other but towards heretics and unbelievers - those who do not cloak their ideas of good and evil in the guise of supernatural personae.
Unfortunately, Sam Harris falls into two traps. First, he fails to see the huge irony of his own moral position - he castigates mediaeval Christians for torturing and extorting confessions from heretics and witches, who were seen as agents of Satan, yet creates his own Satan in the form of `terrorists' who apparently, for no reason other than their blind obedience to Islamic teaching, would choose to die just for the sake of killing people who do not share their world-view (pages 28-29). He thus argues (page 199): "Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism, the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible but necessary". Substitute the word `Satan' for `terrorism' and Sam Harris is in the same moral position as the Pope who sanctioned the Holy Inquisition.
Second, like many atheist writers, Harris fails to understand that people do not necessarily come to believe in a particular brand of moral teaching merely because they are told it is the word of some supernatural entity. They do so because the messages of these great religions chime with something within their humanity that addresses their deeply-held sense of injustice and suffering. Such messages provide hope. Secular political and moral philosophies can be attractive for just the same reasons, albeit that they are more firmly rooted in achieving change in this world rather than the next. Politics has therefore frequently hijacked religion, and vice-versa, to serve a common purpose: that of helping people to fight oppression, and to counter threats they perceive to their morally superior (as they see it) way of life.
By failing to understand this, Harris significantly underplays the extent to which the perceived intolerance of one moral framework for another is rooted in, and can be fomented by appeal to, political grievances (page 109). Unless these are tackled, the threat of Islam to Western secular moral values (which is his main concern) would not disappear even if every Moslem gave up their belief in Allah and the Prophet tomorrow. His attack on religious faith and belief is therefore misguided. Furthermore, his Crusade of intolerance against infidels who do not share his particular moral stance knows no bounds in the evils it might unleash against humanity. On pages 52-53 he argues: "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them... This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan and is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas".
In my view, the answer to the problems Harris identifies is not to demonise all believers, but to recognise and support all those people of all professed faiths (and none) who already subscribe to moderate beliefs and who already understand the dangers of accepting ancient teachings as ossified absolutist moral frameworks. The enemy is not faith per se, but a heady mixture of fundamentalist beliefs that are impervious to reason with a wide sense of global social injustice which oppressed peoples are now learning to address through suicide bombings or the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. To win this war, we need to tackle social injustice and to reach out to others in a way which shows that we occupy a moral position that is truly worthy of universal respect. It is by no means apparent that we occupy such a position nor yet fully understand what it might look like, but it first requires us to understand how others perceive us. Sadly, Harris seems to lack this insight.
We also need to do more to educate people and promote a greater understanding of what people believe and why, including the atheist standpoint. We should teach young people more about the role of religion in history. Although we should not declare war on faith, it seems to me not unreasonable to insist that children are not indoctrinated into any particular religion, any more than that they should be indoctrinated into any particular political philosophy. Moral teaching should be based on principles of mutual respect - the rules of behaviour that are expected if society is to operate fairly and efficiently in the interests of all its members.
Yet there remains a moral dilemma here that Harris is right to flag up (page 129): "what will we do if an Islamist regime... ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?" His answer is again revealing: "...the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first-strike of our own... it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day but it may be the only course of action open to us, given what Islamists believe". To be fair, Harris struggles with the morality of such an action, but the fact that he can entertain such ideas at all undermines much of his argument against the world-view of his perceived enemies. A better answer might be that if we ever find we need to use violent means to prevent an even worse evil, let us be first cast-iron in our certainty that the evil we fear is a real one and not a symptom of our paranoia, that all other methods have been tried and failed, and that our actions are targeted only at the perpetrators of the evil, and not at the innocent. And let us not kid ourselves that, if we ever commit violence that does not meet these standards, yet believe we were justified, we may be acting the way our ancestors did in the name of their God. It may be hypocritical to blame them.
All this said, Harris does a masterful job of rallying the arguments and pointing up the dangers that the West now faces from one ingredient in the potentially explosive mixture mentioned above. His diagnosis is incomplete and his prescription may be flawed, but his book provides ample food for thought. I would recommend it.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer – no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Frequently bought together
Popular titles by this author
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
