I am a bit embarrassed to admit that I just started reading Sam Harris’ "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" and that I’m actually liking it so far. Firstly, it’s a little late to read it now, considering that all the hypes about the book have almost subsided completely. The book might be a bit outdated already. It’s like commenting on a book that is already out of print or a book that one commonly finds in the bargain sections of major bookstores. As a matter of fact, I just recently got a copy of it for 75 cents from a used bookstore of a public library. Secondly, I am not supposed to like this book, since I am an adherent of a religion. Most religionists who read and reacted to the book tried to figure out something degrading to say about the book. I don’t feel the urge to do the same. Don’t get me wrong here. Although I am sympathetic to the criticisms of religion, I am not a closet atheist or agnostic.
Although some philosophers (even nonreligious ones) consider the book as an amateurish critique of religion, I like the book, in spite of its verbosity. I don’t think that Harris intended to write a philosophical text. So, philosophers should not expect grueling and painstaking philosophical dissections of religion. Keep in mind that it is intended to be a popular book. Setting aside Harris’ tendency for poetic exaggerations, which I find to be intoxicatingly persuasive just like effectively executed rhetorical ploys, I commend his book for his courageous identification of what can be considered as the real problems with religion in general: irrationality, hypocrisy, credulity, proneness to violence, dogmatic, narrow-mindedness, naivety, gullibility, delusional, self-deceptiveness, manipulative, abusive of its power and authority, superstitious, lack of taste for evidence, ridiculousness, etc. It is courageous in a sense that he fearlessly and intentionally breaks the rules of political correctness and insults the sanctity of religious conventions. So, the book can be offensive to the coward liberals who tolerate any religious views, just as much as it is offensive to the reckless fundamentalists who cannot tolerate religious views other than their own. It takes a book of this kind to shockingly exorcise the demons of religion. As insulting as it sounds, it sometimes takes an outsider to effectively point out the specks in the eyes of religionists, who are naturally blinded by their religious biases.
Although some philosophers (even nonreligious ones) consider the book as an amateurish critique of religion, I like the book, in spite of its verbosity. I don’t think that Harris intended to write a philosophical text. So, philosophers should not expect grueling and painstaking philosophical dissections of religion. Keep in mind that it is intended to be a popular book. Setting aside Harris’ tendency for poetic exaggerations, which I find to be intoxicatingly persuasive just like effectively executed rhetorical ploys, I commend his book for his courageous identification of what can be considered as the real problems with religion in general: irrationality, hypocrisy, credulity, proneness to violence, dogmatic, narrow-mindedness, naivety, gullibility, delusional, self-deceptiveness, manipulative, abusive of its power and authority, superstitious, lack of taste for evidence, ridiculousness, etc. It is courageous in a sense that he fearlessly and intentionally breaks the rules of political correctness and insults the sanctity of religious conventions. So, the book can be offensive to the coward liberals who tolerate any religious views, just as much as it is offensive to the reckless fundamentalists who cannot tolerate religious views other than their own. It takes a book of this kind to shockingly exorcise the demons of religion. As insulting as it sounds, it sometimes takes an outsider to effectively point out the specks in the eyes of religionists, who are naturally blinded by their religious biases.
Comments