The End of Faith

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reasonis a 2004 book bySam Harris,concerningorganized religion,the clash between religiousfaithand rational thought, and the problem of intolerance that correlates with religiousfundamentalism.

The End of Faith

Cover of the first edition
Author	Sam Harris
Language	English
Subject	Criticism of religion
Publisher	W. W. Norton
Publication date	August 11, 2004
Publication place	United States
Media type	Print (hardcoverandpaperback)
Pages	349 (paperback) 336 (hardcover)
ISBN	0-7432-6809-1
OCLC	62265386
Followed by	Letter to a Christian Nation

Harris began writing the book during what he described as a period of "collective grief and stupefaction" following theSeptember 11, 2001 attacks.The book comprises a general critique of allreligiousbelief.

The book was published August 11, 2004,and it was awarded thePEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction the following year.The paperback edition was published in October 2005. In the same month it enteredThe New York TimesBest Seller listat number four, and remained on the list for a total of 33 weeks.

In response to criticism and feedback regardingThe End of Faith,Harris wroteLetter to a Christian Nationtwo years later.

Synopsis

The End of Faithopens with a literary account of a day in the life of asuicide bomber– his last day. In an introductory chapter, Harris calls for an end to respect and tolerance for the competing belief systems of religion, which he describes as being "all equally uncontaminated by evidence". While focusing on the dangers posed by religious extremist groups armed withweapons of mass destruction,Harris is equally critical of religious moderation, which he describes as "the context in which religious violence can never be adequately opposed."

Harris continues by examining the nature of belief itself, challenging the notion that we can in any sense enjoyfreedomof belief, and arguing that "belief is a fount of actionin potentia."Instead he posits that in order to be useful, beliefs must be both logically coherent, and truly representative of the real world. Insofar asreligiousbelief fails to ground itself inempiricalevidence, Harris likens religion to a form ofmental illnesswhich, he says, "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider themholy."He argues that there may be" sanity in numbers ", but that it is" merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your prayers, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. "

Harris follows this with a brief survey ofChristianitydown the ages, examining theInquisitionandpersecutions of witchesandJews.He contends that, far from being an aberration, thetortureofhereticswas a logical expression of Christian doctrine – one which, he says, was clearly justified by men such asSaint Augustine.Going still further, Harris sees theHolocaustas essentially drawing its inspiration from historical Christiananti-Semitism."Knowingly or not," he says, "theNaziswere agents of religion. "

Among the controversial aspects ofThe End of Faithis an uncompromising assessment and criticism ofIslamism,which Harris describes as being a "cult of death." He infers a clear link between Islamic teaching and terrorist atrocities such as9/11,a notion he supports with quotations from theKoranthat call for the use of violence.

He also presents data from thePew Research Center,purporting to show thatsignificant percentages of Muslims worldwidewould justifysuicide bombingas a legitimate tactic.In an attack on what he terms "leftist unreason," Harris criticisesNoam Chomskyamong others for, in his view, displaying an illogical willingness to lay the entire blame for such attitudes uponU.S. foreign policy.

Harris also critiques the role of theChristian rightin the United States, in influencing such areas asdrugpolicies,embryonic stem cellresearch, andAIDSprevention in thedeveloping world.In what he sees as a steady drift towardstheocracy,Harris strongly criticises leading figures from both thelegislatureand thejudiciaryfor what he perceives as an unabashedfailuretoseparate church and statein their various domains. "Not only do we still eat the offal of the ancient world," he asserts, "we are positively smug about it."

Next, Harris goes on to outline what he terms a "science of good and evil" – a rational approach toethics,which he claims must necessarily be predicated upon questions of humanhappinessand suffering. He talks about the need to sustain "moral communities," a venture in which he feels that the separate religious moral identities of the "saved" and the "damned" can play no part. But Harris is critical of the stance ofmoral relativism,and also of what he calls "the false choice ofpacifism."In another controversial passage, he compares the ethical questions raised bycollateral damageand judicialtortureduring war. He concludes that collateral damage is more ethically troublesome. "If we are unwilling to torture, we should be unwilling to wage modern war," Harris concludes.

Finally, Harris turns tospirituality,where he especially takes his inspiration from the practices ofEastern religion.He writes that there have been mystics in the west and calls some of these "extraordinary men and women", such asMeister Eckhart,Saint John of the Cross,Saint Teresa of Avila,Saint Seraphim of Sarov,but that, as far asWesternspirituality is concerned, "we appear to have been standing on the shoulders of dwarfs." He discusses the nature ofconsciousness,and how our sense of "self" can be made to vanish by employing the techniques ofmeditation.Harris quotes from Eastern mystics such asPadmasambhavaandNisargadatta Maharaj,but he does not admit anysupernaturalelement into his argument – "mysticismis a rational enterprise, "he contends," religion is not. "He later elaborates:" The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. "He states that it is possible for one's experience of the world to be" radically transformed ", but that we must speak about the possibility in" rational terms ".

The onlyangels we need invokeare those of our better nature:reason,honesty,andlove.The only demons we must fear are those that lurk inside every human mind:ignorance,hatred,greed,andfaith,which is surely the devil's masterpiece.

Reception

Positive

Writing forThe Independent,Johann Hariwas largely positive, describing the book as "a brave, pugilistic attempt to demolish the walls that currently insulate religious people from criticism."

Other broadly positive reviews have come fromNatalie Angier,Daniel Blue,andStephanie Merritt.

Richard Dawkinshas also endorsed the book.

Negative

In a review forFree Inquiry,the editorThomas W. Flynnalleged that Harris had allowed his argument to become clouded by his personal politics and by his use of spiritual language.Harris later described Flynn's review as "mixed, misleading, and ultimately exasperating."

Another review by David Boulton forNew Humanistdescribed the book as containing "startling oversimplifications, exaggerations and elisions."

Critical reviews fromChristianshave included those byR. Albert Mohler, Jr.forThe Christian Post,and Matthew Simpson forChristianity Today.Madeleine Bunting,writing inThe Guardian,quotes Harris as saying "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." Bunting comments, "[t]his sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition."

Quoting the same passage,theologianCatherine Kellerasks, "[c]ould there be a more dangerous proposition thanthat?"and argues that the" anti-tolerance "it represents would" dismantle "the Jeffersonian wall between church and state.

Response

The paperback edition ofThe End of Faith,published in 2005, contained a new afterword in which Harris responded to some of the more popular criticisms he has received since publication. His essay "Response to Controversy" also clarified the context of an apparently troubling passage, which was that he was referring to very specific cases like that of the religiously motivated terrorist, where the attempt to kill a murderous terrorist would essentially constitute killing someone for a belief they hold, namely the belief that unbelievers of their particular faith should be killed.

See also

• Criticism of religion
• New Atheism