Sam Harris, The End of Faith, and An Absence of Reason

Spiritual Health Learning Community Center Exploring Life's Horizons

» About Islam Menu

Sam Harris, The End of Faith, & Absence of Reason - Part 4

On page 25 of The End of Faith, Mr. Harris states:

“Our past is not sacred for being past, and there is much that is behind us that we are struggling to keep behind us, and to which, it is to be hoped, we could never return with a clear conscience: the divine right of kings, feudalism, the caste system, slavery, political execution, forced castration, vivisection, bearbaiting, honorable duels, chastity belts, trial by ordeal, child labor, human and animal sacrifice, the stoning of heretics, cannibalism, sodomy laws, taboos against contraception, human radiation experiments – the list is nearly endless, and if it were extended indefinitely, the proportion of abuses for which religion could be found directly responsible is likely to remain undiminished.”

One might agree with most of the topics which Mr. Harris itemizes in the foregoing quotation without necessarily feeling compelled to agree with his contention that a considerable proportion of the abuses that have been listed – as well as all those which could have been listed but were not -- can be placed at the door of religion. There are problems which are inherent in Mr. Harris' position in this regard.

For instance, consider the following. Mr. Harris does not believe that there are any authentic spiritual traditions which have arisen as a result of contact between humanity and a Being Who transcends humanity. Consequently, he is of the opinion that all religious perspectives are equally delusional.

He cannot prove that what he is asserting is true. However, he does have faith that what he claims is correct.

Let's, for the moment, accept Mr. Harris' claim. In other words, let us accept the idea that all religious ideas about Divinity and Divine communications are false, and let us further accept the idea that anyone who espouses religious ideas is fully delusional about that in which she or he has faith.

If one were to stipulate to the truth of such a perspective, then, in effect, one would be agreeing with the idea that all of the abuses which appear on the foregoing dirty laundry list cited by Mr. Harris, along with many others which have not been listed, are all due to human beings. God did not do these things because God does not exist. Human beings committed those abuses, and human beings, being human, tried to disown responsibility for those abuses by claiming that they were commanded by, and under obligation to, God concerning the performance of those actions.

So, in reality, what Mr. Harris seems to have a problem with are those individuals who invent theologies which they seek to use as justification for abusing other human beings. It may come as a surprise to Mr. Harris -- and I am sure there are other individuals from other spiritual traditions who might agree with me on this point – but I don't have a problem with the spirit of the perspective being put forth by Mr. Harris at this juncture since I, too, have a problem with those individuals who invent theologies through which they seek to justify their abuse, control, exploitation, manipulation, killing of, or cruelty toward, other human beings or the rest of Being.

One of the areas where Mr. Harris and I differ concerns the issue of whether, or not, there is any Divine Being and whether, or not, there has been any form of contact between that Divine Being and humankind. Mr. Harris has faith that there is no such Being and, therefore, there could not have been any contact between such an imaginary Being and humankind. I have faith that not only does such a Being exist but there has been, and continues to be, contact between that Being and humankind.

Given the foregoing, I take exception with Mr. Harris' tendency to lump together all species of spiritual discourse. Despite the fact that Mr. Harris does not have faith in such a Being or in such contact, he should at least be cognizant of the fact that, even when looked at from his perspective, my 'delusion' concerning such a Being and such contact entails an approach that might be devoid of many of the sorts of abuses with which he wishes to take issue in the aforementioned quoted list.

Furthermore, even though Mr. Harris is likely to consider the following to be but another aspect of my spiritual delusion, I believe a distinction must be made between what is expressed as Divine communication and people's interpretation of that communication. For example, let's suppose that there is a form of communication – which is referred to as the Qur'an – and let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that some human wrote that book and that it was not communicated to human beings from a Divine Being. Even stipulating to all of this, I could still argue that one needs to draw a distinction between what the author of the communication may have meant or intended with respect to that text and what other individuals are seeking to impose on that text by using this or that mode of hermeneutical engagement.

Naturally, trying to get to the “truth” of things in relation to the foregoing scenario is a difficult struggle that is fraught with a variety of problems even if one were to consider the matter only from a perspective of human to human communications. However, even though Mr. Harris considers all religious communications to be purely human inventions and constructions, he still needs to address the following issue: My engagement of the Qur'an tends to involve significant differences from the views of those whom he wishes to lump together as people of religious faith, and I feel confident in saying that there are other individuals who engage their holy books or sacred communications in ways that also involve significant differences from the kind of perspective which Mr. Harris is criticizing.

Some individuals from among the latter proponents of religious faith might wish to argue that the aforementioned quote from Mr. Harris concerning the laundry list of abuses were, in fact, Divine commandments and religious obligations that one was duty-bound to observe. I, on the other hand, would disagree with such a perspective and am of the opinion that irrespective of what one believed to be the ultimate source of that communication – human or Divine – the individuals who were, and are, trying to justify such abuses have got things wrong in relation to the Qur'an.

Unfortunately, Mr. Harris' position in this respect lacks discernment, as well as lacks a capacity to differentiate among various species of spiritual faith. Apparently, he fails to understand that not all modalities of religious and spiritual faith are the same, and, as a result, fails to make some very important distinctions that are of central relevance to the sorts of issues and topics that are being addressed in his book.

Thus, when Mr. Harris says on page 26 that: “Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past,” and, then, he proceeds to list a plethora of geographical locations where violence has erupted, followed by the charge that: “In these places religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years”, Mr. Harris is distorting the actual character of what has, and is, transpiring. In all the places which Mr. Harris cites, it is not religion, per se, but people and their self-serving theologies which have explicitly caused the deaths of millions of people.

The term “religion” is ambiguous. It is capable of referring to many possible understandings. Academicians even have trouble defining what the term means and whether, or not, one needs to believe in a Deity in order for one to be said to be a proponent of some religion or other. If a person considers himself or herself religious or spiritual, believes in pacifism and/or non-violence, and puts that belief into action, then, just how has religion in this sense caused the slaughter and genocide in the places listed by Mr. Harris? Unfortunately, Mr. Harris' position seems to require that all religion be labeled as 'evil' if he is to have any hope of being successful with respect to convincing readers that 'faith' must end – which, after all, is one of the central premises of his book.

On page 28 of The End of Faith, Mr. Harris stipulates:

“I will argue that insofar as a person is observant of the doctrine of Islam – that is, insofar as he really believes – he will pose a problem for us. Indeed, it has grown rather obvious that the liabilities of the Muslim faith are by no means confined to the beliefs of Muslim extremists.”

A short while later he follows up on the foregoing with:

“To see that our problem is with Islam itself, and not merely with “terrorism”, we need only ask ourselves why Muslim terrorists do what they do. Why would someone as conspicuously devoid of personal grievances or psychological dysfunction as Osama bin Laden – who is neither poor, uneducated, delusional, nor a poor victim of Western aggression – devote himself to cave-dwelling machinations with the intention of killing innumerable men, women, and children he has never met? The answer is that men like bin Laden actually believe what they say they believe. They believe in the literal truth of the Koran.”

Mr. Harris skews his discussion in a self-serving manner through the way in which he wishes to frame the nature of that discussion. More specifically, Mr. Harris insists on dictating to Muslims not only in relation to how he insists that Islam be understood but, as well, in relation to how Muslims, according to Mr. Harris, must go about believing in the sort of Islam which he wishes to foist upon them.

What does it mean to be observant of Islam? This consists of a number of simple practices and beliefs, none of which serve as evidence for that which Mr. Harris is trying to argue.

To be an observant Muslim, one needs to give attestation to the idea that there is no reality but Divinity and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is one of the messengers of God (that is, he has been given one of the books of revelation). In addition, one must seek to pray five times a day, fast during the month of Ramazan, give charity if one satisfies certain conditions of material and financial wherewithal, and, if physically and financially able to do so, perform the rites of Hajj at the appointed time at least once in one's lifetime. In addition, one is required: to believe in God's oneness and in the Prophetic mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him); to believe in the angels; to believe in all of the Prophets who have been sent; to believe in all of the books of revelation which have been sent [including that which has been sent to Jesus (peace be upon him), Moses (peace be upon him), David (peace be upon him), and Abraham (peace be upon him)]; to believe in a Day of Judgment during which everyone will be held accountable for their deeds or misdeeds which took place while on Earth, and, finally, to believe that God is the sole determiner of good and evil.

Mr. Harris may find all of the foregoing ideas, practices, values, principles, and beliefs to be nothing more than fanciful, delusional myths, but there is nothing in any of it which serves as evidence for what he is claiming. In other words, there is nothing in any of the foregoing practices and beliefs which requires a Muslim to kill other human being, or to terrorize other human beings, or to oppress other human beings, or to behave cruelly toward other human beings, or to control other human beings.

To be sure, there have been innumerable Muslim theologians down through the ages who have sought to try to convince people that in order to truly believe in, and act upon, any of the foregoing basic practices and beliefs that one must do as such theologians say or one cannot really consider oneself to be a Muslim. However, there is nothing in any of the basic beliefs and practices of Islam outlined earlier which indicates that a Muslim must pay attention to theologians who make such claims.

A Muslim's responsibility is in relation to God. A Muslim's responsibility is not a function of what this or that theologian may say.

According to Mr. Harris, the reason why individuals such as bin Laden are willing to terrorize and kill innocent people is because the former really believe in what they say they believe – namely, the literal truth of the Qur'an. What requires a Muslim to engage the Qur'an in a literal way, and what does one even mean by the literal truth of the Qur'an?

The Qur'an consists of over 6000 verses. These verses touch upon many topics, issues, problems, and questions. Among other things, those verses explore themes of: patience, equitability, honesty, integrity, humility, love, compassion, forgiveness, charitableness, knowledge, balance, peace, harmony, tolerance, courage, truth, gratitude, remembrance, sincerity, faith, certainty, doubt, purification, awareness, contemplation, observation, reflection, piety, and steadfastness. What would it mean to speak of the literal truth of such themes?

The foregoing themes all give expression to principles, not rules. Consequently, there is no one way and there is no literal way, per se, for an individual to be patient, or equitable, or loving, or compassionate, or tolerant.

People come in differently shaped packages of: ability, strengths, weakness, intelligence, talent, history, temperament, interests, motivation, purpose, and understanding. One individual's manner of exhibiting, say, charitableness or forgiveness may not be the same as another individual's approach to the same issue even as what both of these individuals do may be recognizable by others as instances of being charitable or forgiving.

There are some 500-plus verses in the Qur'an which specify certain courses of action when it comes to issues such as: dietary restrictions, marriage, divorce, zakat (charity), fasting, prayer, contracts, punishment, and war. Oftentimes, some people (whether theologians or individuals such as Mr. Harris) like to fasten on to these specific verses and give them priority over everything else which is in the Qur'an.

These individuals seem to be of the opinion that the specific and concrete should trump or take precedence over the general and universal. Indeed, this predilection for the specific over the general has been a persistent cornerstone of many theological approaches to engaging the Qur'an.

However, this mode of engaging the Qur'an through a lens of specificity gives expression to a certain kind of hermeneutical orientation with respect to the Qur'an. That is, such a perspective constitutes a theory about how some given individual believes the Qur'an should be understood, and, unfortunately, all too many people seem to confuse their own ideas about things in this regard … as if the latter were Divine edict that could be imposed on everyone else.

As such, one cannot necessarily say that the Qur'an is commanding people to adhere to the specific and forget about the general or to marginalize the general and assign to it a lesser status than the specific and concrete. When someone seeks to argue that one must give priority to the specific over the general, that person cannot point to any verse of the Qur'an which says this must be the case – that is, one must give priority to the specific over the general, and, therefore, this is how one must proceed in any and all instances with respect to understanding the Qur'an.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Qur'an which stipulates that whenever something specific is said, then this should become a universal principle of guidance for all times, circumstances, and peoples no matter what differences may exist between the context during which revelation originally occurred and subsequent contexts. People are making an assumption when they seek to extrapolate from some instance of specific guidance which is given through the Qur'an to subsequent history, and the assumption which such individuals are supposing is true is that God intended such specific guidance to be applied in relation to all later times and peoples.

General Quranic principles of guidance concerning qualities such as love, tolerance, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, humility, gratitude, charitableness, and so on always have relevance to the human condition and the problems in which the human condition are entangled. Specific, concrete guidance may have relevance only to the context for which it was given and intended.

When general principles rub up against specific injunctions, perhaps in a manner that appears to be contradictory or conflicting with each other, should one follow the general guidance or the specific guidance and why? To say that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did certain, specific things in a concrete set of circumstance, and cited a Quranic verse which was specific in nature as justification for his decision is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify later generations seeking to do something of a similar nature. Later leaders and authorities – irrespective of whether they have arrived at that position of leadership through legitimate or illegitimate means -- are not the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). They do not have his understanding and knowledge. Later leaders and authorities do not share precisely the same kind of relationship with Divinity as did the Prophet. Later leaders and authorities do not necessarily know what the nature of the Prophet's understanding or intention was in any given set of concrete circumstances or why he decided a case in the way he did or what his insight into the particular verse was which he may have cited.

One is enjoined in the Qur'an to obey those who have been placed in authority over one, but the literal meaning of this injunction is somewhat ambiguous. It doesn't specify what is meant by the idea of someone 'being placed in authority over one'. In addition, the injunction in question doesn't discuss the difference between usurped authority and legitimate authority or whether the injunction would still stand if someone had gained authority over others through impermissible or problematic means.

The Qur'an also enjoins individuals to obey their parents. However, even here, if one's parents seek to lead one away from Islam, one is not required to obey them although one is still required to accomplish this parting of the ways in as artful a manner as possible because such conflict does not give one license to treat one's parents with disrespect, contempt, or hatred.

Consequently, even if someone were to arrive at a position of authority over others through legitimate means and, yet, such an individual pursued policies which sought to lead people away from Islam, then, the people are no more obligated to obey such individuals than is one obligated to obey one's parents if the latter were to counsel one to pursue a course of action which might lead one to abandon Islam. This principle extends to the pronouncements of jurists, theologians and so-called religious scholars.

Thus, once again, one needs to ask the following questions. What does Mr. Harris mean by the literal truth of the Qur'an, and even if one were able to ascertain what this means, why should anyone be obligated to follow or be forced to follow that literal meaning rather than, perhaps, a more nuanced understanding of things which arose out of permitting the entire guidance of the Qur'an to inform and modulate one's actions in any given instance rather than just this or that verse?

Mr. Harris wants to place Muslims in a straightjacket of his own special construction. He wants to insist that Muslims must adhere to what Mr. Harris considers Islam to be, and if and when Muslims do not do this, then, he charges them with failing to adhere to what the Qur'an requires in the way of his self-serving manner of construing the guidance of the Qur'an.

In other words, and this is rather ironic, Mr. Harris is demanding of Muslims precisely what people like bin Laden are demanding of Muslims. Each of these individuals seeks to argue that Muslims must act in concert with what Mr. Harris and bin Laden claim Islam to be – a simplistic, literalist, skewed, presumptuous, limited and limiting rendering of sacred texts – or, according to people such as Mr. Harris and bin Laden, such people have no right to consider themselves Muslim.

On page 29 of The End of Faith, Mr. Harris asks and answers the following question: “Why did nineteen well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed they would go straight to paradise for doing so.”

The 19 individuals to whom Mr. Harris is alluding are, of course, the individuals who allegedly were at the heart of the September 11, 2001 tragedies. There are several points to be made in this regard.

First of all, nowhere in the Qur'an does it stipulate that the reward for killing anyone – innocent or otherwise – is paradise. Martyrdom is not about killing others but is, rather, about one's willingness to sacrifice one's life for the sake of Islam.

Murder is murder. There is no way to rationalize the killing of innocent people, and it is a travesty to the idea of martyrdom for anyone to suggest that the intention of sacrificing one's own life serves to justify murdering other individuals.

Well-educated, middle class individuals – whether from Saudi Arabia or America -- are induced to murder other human beings on behalf of vested authorities through tactics of propaganda, manipulation, deception, prevarication, exploitation, disinformation, coercion, and/or undue influence. In some circles within the Muslim world there are those who seek to justify – untenably -- such officially sanctioned murder of innocents through the concepts of martyrdom and jihad. In some circles within the West, there are those who seek to justify – untenably – the officially sanctioned murder of innocents through the concepts of democracy, progress, or a 'war on terror'.

The other point that needs to be made in conjunction with the 19 individuals to whom Mr. Harris alludes must be juxtaposed next to the subtitle to his book The End of Faith – namely, 'Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.' Throughout his book, Mr. Harris praises the idea of reason and the importance of reason and the value of reason, and, yet, he completely fails to apply reason or evidence or rigor to the issue of 9/11.

I have already commented extensively about the issue of 9/11 elsewhere, and, therefore, I am not going to go into a great deal of detail with respect to the following observations. Nonetheless, certain challenges need to be raised with respect to Mr. Harris' take on 9/11.

I would like Mr. Harris to explain in rigorous (and by this term I mean documented evidence), reasoned detail why relevant testimony from: William Rodriguez, Colleen Rowley, Kenneth Williams, Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh, Robert Wright, David Schippers, April Gallop, many of the first-responders in New York City on 9/11, and the participants in Able Danger were not included in The 9/11 Commission Report? I would like Mr. Harris to explain in rigorous, reasoned detail what entitles NIST [the National Institute of Standards and Technology] to ignore laws of physics such as the laws for the conservation of momentum and for the conservation of angular momentum with respect to its explanation concerning what supposedly led to the collapse of either Building 7 or Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade complex on 9/11. I would like Mr. Harris to explain in rigorous, reasoned detail how Flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on the first floor, was able to overcome both ground effect forces as well as wing vortex issues when, normally speaking, a plane the size of Flight 77 which The Pentagon Performance Report claimed was flying at 500-plus miles an hour could not have gotten within 65 feet of the ground due to the aforementioned aerodynamic forces? I would like Mr. Harris to explain in rigorous, reasoned detail why the considerable forensic and eye-witness evidence in support of the possibility of controlled demolition and/or some other set of non-natural forces -- other than crashed airplanes and ensuing fires – was not explored in relation to the collapse of the World Trade buildings either by The 9/11 Commission Report, the FEMA report, or the NIST report. I would like Mr. Harris to explain in rigorous, reasoned detail how the two trade towers collapsed when the central premise of their explanation – namely, that the failure of the floor assemblies pulled in the perimeter columns, leading to structural instabilities, which, in turn led to collapse – has been proven to be false by Underwriters Laboratories which tested floor assembly units comparable to those in the trade towers and determined they would not have failed under conditions existing on 9/11. I would like Mr. Harris to explain in rigorous, reasoned detail how Pentagon personnel who were seasoned veterans said that they smelled cordite [an indication of the presence of munitions] and not jet fuel following the explosions at the Pentagon. I would like Mr. Harris to explain in rigorous, reasoned detail why none of the names of the alleged hijackers appeared on any of the flight manifests for the planes supposedly involved in the events of 9/11 and, as well, why none of the names of the alleged hijackers appeared on the official autopsy report for the bodies allegedly recovered at the Pentagon even though remains from all of the other passengers who supposedly were on Flight 77 were recorded, and, yet, the FBI was able to come up with names and pictures of the alleged 19 within a very short time after 9/11? I would like Mr. Harris to explain in rigorous, reasoned detail why the damage done to the Ring-C wall of the Pentagon is not at all consistent with the sort of damage which would have been caused by a commercial jet plane along with ensuing fires. I would like Mr. Harris to explain in rigorous, reasoned detail how the people who perpetrated 9/11 were able to gain access to the security codes – which are changed daily -- for not only Air Force One, but other facets of government security as well. I would like Mr. Harris to explain in rigorous, reasoned detail why none of the flight recorder units for any of the four commercial airplanes involved in the events of 9/11 have been made public, or why – with one possible exception -- none of the videotapes from any of the business or Pentagon security cameras have been released to the public. I would like Mr. Harris to explain in rigorous, reasoned detail why one should not accept the fact that the sole videotape which has been released and supposedly depicts a jet plane crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11 and which has been analyzed by Pierre Bunel, a French military explosives expert, suggests the fact that the videotape depicts a munitions explosion of some kind (probably delivered in conjunction with a missile of one kind or another) and does not depict what would result from the crash of a commercial jet that involved a jet fuel fire.

I go could on in the foregoing manner for hundreds of pages – and I have in other venues. However, there is no point in doing so since I do not believe Mr. Harris is capable of answering any of the foregoing challenges, let alone new ones, in a rigorous and reasoned manner that will be capable of vindicating the 'official story' concerning 9/1l. In fact, I believe – and let Mr. Harris write his own book on this matter to prove me wrong -- that Mr. Harris has the opinion he does with respect to the events of 9/11 because he hasn't closely looked at the available evidence, and because he has not exercised much critical reflection with respect to those events, and because he has not employed much in the way of rational thought in relation to any aspect of the events leading up to, during, and following 9/11.

Somebody sought to terrorize America and the rest of the world on September 11, 2001. Given the mass of available evidence, I do not believe that either Mr. Harris or anyone else can plausibly demonstrate that even if the 19 alleged hijackers could be proven to have been involved in those tragic events [and I do not consider the unexamined testimony of several alleged co-conspirators who were water-boarded by the U.S. government in order to obtain such testimony to constitute very reliable or credible data], there is too much in the way of outstanding problems, unanswered questions, inconsistencies, as well as a diverse array of testimony and forensic evidence which indicates that even if one could prove that the 19 indicated individuals were somehow involved with 9/11, nevertheless, they were being aided and abetted by others within the United States – others who continue to remain at large.

Mr. Harris seems quite willing to condemn the whole Muslim world for the actions of what is, at most, a very, very small number of individuals. Moreover, he is willing to do this on the basis not of reasoned arguments but, apparently, on the basis of what he has been led to believe by others concerning the events of 9/11 – whether these 'others' are journalists and news commentators who themselves have not exercised due diligence with respect to 9/11, or whether these 'others' are so-called scientists who have issued reports concerning 9/11 that are based on little more than junk science, or whether these 'others' are government appointed individuals almost all of whom have conflicts of interest concerning the events of 9/11 when considered in the context of the task of providing an objective, unbiased, impartial, and thorough analysis with respect to the issues surrounding 9/11.

In short, Mr. Harris wishes to lecture others about their alleged failures to apply reason according to the manner in which he defines and uses it. However, when it comes to the need for him to apply the same standards of reason to his own life with respect to so many issues – including Islam and 9/11 – his position appears to be one of 'do as I say, not as I do'.

| Return to Menu | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Next | Part 6 | Part 7 |