Letter to a Christian Nation
Author:
Sam Harris
Publisher:
Knopf
Date of Publication:
2006
ISBN:
0307265773
Rating:
8
Summary:
Letters to a Christian Nation is Sam Harris’s generic response to the many fundamentalist Christians who wrote to him about his earlier book, The End of Faith. It is short (about 80 pages is all) and to the point and touches on a variety of topics, ranging from: why the Bible is not a good source of morals and is not authoritative to why it is inaccurate to think atheists don’t have morals to arguments as to why religion is detrimental to society. The book is broken up into sections, but there is no apparent order to the sections. Harris explains at the beginning of the book that he hopes many will read it but that it is written specifically to and for Christian fundamentalists and that perspective carries throughout the book as he uses phrases like, “you believe this,†and “you believe that.†It is occasionally odd to read, but it is an effective approach.
Review:
Harris makes many good points in this short book, but it is not perfect. In fact, Harris occasionally falls victim to a particular logical fallacy - cum hoc ergo propter hoc or implying causation from correlation. Let me give some examples to illustrate where his logic goes awry.
For instance, Harris argues that the Bible advocates slavery (which it does) and that Christianity was used to justify the practice of slavery in the U.S. (which it was). But then he makes a statement that is not entirely true, “The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness, he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and treat them like farm equipment. It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this epiphany – and yet, it had to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the Confederate South, among the most pious Christians this country has ever known†(p. 22). Where is the problem in this assertion? While Christianity was a justification for slavery, it was not the primary motivation. The primary motivation for slavery was economic. Taking away plantation owners’ slaves was the equivalent in their minds of taking away the tractors from today’s farmer (not that slaves are the equivalent of tractors; come on people, follow the logic). Slaves were a huge economic asset to the plantation owners. Taking them away was a huge blow to their earning potential, just like taking away tractors would be to farmers today. So, while Christianity was used to defend the practice on a moral level, it was the economic motivation that was probably mostly to blame for the Civil War. Keep in mind that Northerners had slaves up until just before the Civil War, but economic developments that accompanied the industrial revolution of the early 1800s made slave-holding less economically beneficial. As a result, slave-holding became less and less common. And, while not true of all abolitionists, it was true of many that they used the self-same Bible and Christian religion to argue against slavery (though, based on any objective reading of the Bible, they had no leg to stand on). Thus, for Harris to assert that Southerners fought over slavery because of their religious beliefs and not because of the economic benefit is to imply cause when in fact there is just a correlation.
Another example where Harris does this is in his discussion of Islam in Europe. “Seventy percent of the inmates of France’s jails, for instance, are Muslim†(p. 39). Again, this is a correlation but not causation. A clear way of illustrating this is to compare France’s jails with those in the U.S. Which minority group is disproportionately represented in jails in the U.S.? Blacks! Why? Would Harris argue, using his own logic, that blacks are somehow inferior to whites or more likely to commit crimes than whites? I sure hope not, because it has nothing to do with it. Blacks are more likely to prosecuted for the crimes they do commit. They are also poorer, on average, than are whites, which can increase crime rates and, according to some sociologists, they have a culture that is can be conducive toward committing crimes (see Elijah Anderson’s book Streetwise). Finally, racism still exists in the U.S. - there is discrimination by police, the justice system and courts, and the prison system. In short, are there proportionately more blacks in U.S. jails because there is something wrong with blacks or because of other factors that happened to be correlated with being black? It is the other factors. The same is true for Muslims in France. There are not more Muslims in jail in France than their corresponding percentages in the general population because they are Muslim but because they are recent immigrants and tend to be poorer than French natives. They probably also experience discrimination at the hands of the police and criminal justice system. It has little to nothing to do with their religious views. Correlation is not causation!!!
Harris does this again in the very next sentence on page 39, “Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest in terms of the United Nations’ human development index are unwaveringly religious.†There are two significant problems with this assertion. First, it is again arguing that religion is a causal factor here when, in fact, there is evidence to indicate that modernization often results in declines in religiosity and increasing secularism. In short, the lack of modernization may be keeping the levels of religion high in these countries and not the other way around. Harris is implying cause when it cannot be asserted with certainty. Additionally, many of these countries are no more religious than their close neighbors that are not in the bottom 50. Honduras, for instance, is about as religious (in terms of percentage who affiliate) as is Costa Rica, yet Costa Rica ranks higher on the Human Development Index. How does Harris explain that? He doesn’t. He is committing a logical fallacy here.
So as not to give the impression that Harris does this only to criticize religion let me give an example where he uses this fallacy to claim that atheism is better than religiosity, “Countries with high levels of atheism are also the most charitable both in terms of the percentage of their wealth they devote to social welfare programs and the percentage they give in aid to the developing world†(p. 41). This argument is really no different than the modernization one I detailed above. There is no reason to believe that the causal relationship is not the exact opposite of that claimed by Harris – modernization leads to religious decline. The most modernized, therefore, are the least religious. And the most modernized also have the ability to give more money. Are the charitable donations of these countries the direct result of atheism? Harris can’t claim that without very clear evidence of such a relationship. I doubt such a relationship exists.
At one point Harris does recognize that he is treading in dangerous water with these arguments (though I think he actually submerges a few times) when he admits that he may not be able to illustrate cause and effect. At least he notes that. Even so, I think it is valid to criticize him for using logical fallacies when there is no reason to do so – his arguments are stronger without them. What he does illustrate with his correlations, however, is that “atheism is compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society†and “that widespread belief in God does not ensure a society’s health†(p. 40). I’ll give him that – that is a valid argument from a correlation. But correlation is not cause, and, unfortunately, Harris falls in this trap several times.
Another serious problem with this book is that it goes almost entirely unreferenced in a professional manner. I think there are a total of 5 documented footnotes. And the references in the back of the book are very poorly formated. As he doesn’t provide references in most of the text, the references he includes at the back are scattered about and it is not clear which reference corresponds to which fact assertion. I don’t think it would be too much trouble to simply use footnotes throughout the text to clearly connect his fact claims with the references. He doesn’t need to include in-text references APA style if he doesn’t want to, but at least connect the thoughts with the references! This point really, really bugged me as he often asserted things that may be true, but without references I didn’t know if I should trust him or not.
There are a couple more assertions in the book I found less than compelling. For instance, on page 47 Harris says, “One wonders just how vast and gratuitous a catastrophe would have to be to shake the world’s faith. The Holocaust did not do it…†Some sociologists (see Steve Bruce’s 2002 book God is Dead) would argue that The Holocaust and the depravity of World War I did lead people to reconsider their belief in god – just not in the U.S. (at least, not to a great extent in the U.S.). If you track the decline of religiosity in Western Europe, it started about the time of the industrial revolution but dropped sharply after the World Wars – people did ask how a loving god could allow such atrocities. Asking that question gave fuel to the fire of those who were on their way out to begin with.
Harris also argues that Muslims in Europe do not assimilate and actually use the tolerance of the secular culture to demand tolerance for “their misogyny, their anti-Semitism, and the religious hatred that is regularly preached in their mosques†(p. 68). While first generation immigrants don’t readily assimilate, there is evidence that it takes just two or three generations before immigrants are almost fully assimilated into their new societies (again, see Bruce 2002). I’m not defending the atrocities committed by some first generation immigrants in Europe (e.g., the killing of VanGogh in Holland), I’m simply saying that Harris is asserting something that isn’t quite true.
Finally, as far as criticisms of the book go, I think Harris missed a great opportunity to explain how atheists can have morals and clearly defined morality without god, scripture, or religion. Harris asserts, without explication, that the basis of his moral system is the reduction of suffering. That’s not a bad basis for morality, but I’d like a justification for it. Harris does not provide one. And, I still think that valuing life is a better basis for morals.
Anyone who regularly reads my blog or my book reviews will know that I, personally, am an atheist. Why, then, would I go to such lengths to criticize a book espousing atheism? Simply put, I’m a skeptic first. I hold atheists to the same standards that I hold theists or deists. Harris slipped up here and there and it is my duty to point that out. Hopefully he’ll learn from his mistakes and not commit them in the future.
That said, there are some genuinely brilliant thoughts in the book. For instance, I particularly liked this quote from page 45, “Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, “atheism†is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer†or a “non-alchemist.†We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.†Agreed! Harris is strongest when he focuses on the philosophical arguments for atheism and criticizes religious belief (but not the behaviors that he claims result from those beliefs).
Harris makes another great point in this quote, “It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one isn’t. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies†(p. 55). Yep, he hit that one right on. I still have a very hard time understanding how top notch scientists who are probably more skeptically minded than I am when it comes to their research in biology or chemistry or physics are able and willing to turn off their skepticism when it comes to their religious beliefs. Admittedly, science can’t answer all questions, but if you recognize the importance of empiricism generally, why not apply it liberally? I wish I knew the answer to that question…
Finally, I cheered when I read this thought, “Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists. Scientists, of course, readily admit their ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not. One, of the monumental ironies of religious discourse, can be appreciated in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility while condemning scientists and other nonbelievers for their intellectual arrogance. There is, in fact, no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer: the creator of the universe takes an interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death; my current beliefs, drawn from scripture will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell… An average Christian, in an average church, listening to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse – and there have been some extraordinarily arrogant scientists†(p. 61). I’m reminded of the scene in The God Delusion video where Richard Dawkins questions Ted Haggard about evolution and Ted Haggard calls Dawkins arrogant for claiming to know that evolution has occurred. Haggard has no evidence in his favor, yet he arrogantly assumes that he knows more than one of the leading scholars of evolution. That is arrogance!! Dawkins was simply declaring what he knew was true and had evidence to support. If I had a nickel for every time a religious family member of mine called me arrogant for not believing in Mormonism, I’d be wealthy. And yet, they are the ones claiming to have “the truth†- an unassailable truth that is not subject to the same standards of empirical investigation as are other “truths.†Who is the arrogant one here?
Overall, I enjoyed this short book (read it in just over an hour). Harris makes some great points. But, unfortunately, he also commits a number of logical fallacies in the process. It could potentially be a good book to give your fundamentalist relative or friend, if you can get them to read it. It may get them to deeply ponder their beliefs… Maybe!
The Blind Watchmaker
Author:
Richard Dawkins
Publisher:
W. W. Norton
Date of Publication:
1996
ISBN:
0393315703
Rating:
10
Summary:
The goal of The Blind Watchmaker is to illustrate that evolution is an unguided process, “All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker” (p. 5). To accomplish this goal, Dawkins details the elements of evolution then describes all of the alternatives that have been proposed, from Creationism to Mutationism to Lamarckism. As he introduces the “alternatives,†he proceeds to illustrate just how ridiculous they are, one by one, until the only explanation for life on Earth is evolutionary theory.
Dawkins admits up front that he is not trying to present a completely objective, non-biased treatment of evolution, “This book is not a dispassionate scientific treatise. Other books on Darwinism are, and many of them are excellent and informative and should be read in conjunction with this one. Far from being dispassionate, it has to be confessed that in parts this book is written with a passion which, in a professional scientific journal, might excite comment. Certainly it seeks to inform, but it also seeks to persuade and even… to inspire” (p. xiv). In short, Dawkins wrote this to persuade people that evolution has occurred, is occurring and is the explanation for life on earth. He is particularly concerned about the high rate of adherence to Creationism in the U.S. (and other countries) and hopes that his book will reduce that rate.
I have often looked for a succinct definition of evolution, one that rolls off the tongue. I finally found one in this book, “Variation and selection work together to produce evolution” (p. 308). Variation refers to chance mutations in DNA – chance in the sense that the mutations are equally likely to favor or hurt the organism that bears the DNA. Selection refers to natural processes of competition (between species) and the fight for survival of living creatures in their environments. Traits are selected for or against based upon whether they increase the odds of reproduction in a species. As climates and environments change and as random mutations occur, species are forced, through selection pressures, to adapt or to die. Those selection pressures have resulted in the natural evolution of all living things on the planet today from a common ancestor that lived billions of years ago. That, in a nutshell, is evolution.
But what about some of the issues raised by non-evolutionists, like Creationists? One criticism of evolution is that it is very improbable that humans could suddenly come into existence. Of course, this criticism belies a serious misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution does not argue that “complex†or “complicated†life forms sprang into being from virtually nothing. It argues for cumulative adaptation, “A complicated thing is one whose existence we do not feel inclined to take for granted, because it is too ‘improbable’. It could not have come into existence in a single act of chance. We shall explain its coming into existence as a consequence of gradual, cumulative, step-by-step transformations from simpler things, from primordial objects sufficiently simple to have come into being by chance” (p. 14). Given the proper time frame (billions of years), and a guiding force (natural selection), the existence of humans is anything but improbable.
Another criticism of evolution is that some characteristics of living things only work when they are in their current state and would not work at all if they were only partially developed. The idea behind this criticism is that it makes no sense for a characteristic to develop through non-beneficial stages just to get to a beneficial stage; that could only occur through “guided†evolution. As Dawkins points out, an integral part of the theory of evolution addresses this issue, “Wherever we have an X in a real live animal, where X is some organ too complex to have arisen by chance in a single step, then according to the theory of evolution by natural selection it must be the case that a fraction of an X is better than no X at all, and two fractions of an X must be better than one, and a whole X must be better than nine-tenths of an X” (p. 91). In other words, an eye doesn’t develop through stages that are not beneficial to the animal – each progressive stage of development provides specific benefits to the animal (or, at the least, does not cause the animal harm). Through cumulative adaptation, an organ as complex as the human eye develops, benefiting the bearer of that organ at every step along the way.
While Dawkins addressed many more criticisms of the theory of evolution, I will share just one more in this summary. Some critics of evolution argue that it makes sense that a complex entity can create other complex entities. But, what is missing, is an explanation of the first complex entity, “This is a transparently feeble argument, indeed it is obviously self-defeating… [A]ny God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself. Far more so if we suppose him additionally capable of such advanced functions as listening to prayers and forgiving sins. To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like ‘God was always there’, and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say ‘DNA was always there’, or ‘Life was always there’, and be done with it” (p. 141).
Finally, Dawkins points out the major difference between Creationism/Intelligent Design and evolutionary theory – evolutionary theory is falsifiable, “If a single, well-verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year-old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed” (p. 225). There are numerous other ways in which evolution could be falsified (e.g., observing an incredibly complex living creature spontaneously appear); the same cannot be said of Creationism or Intelligent Design. There is no way to prove the existence of god nor to rule it out. These “alternatives†to evolution are not, therefore, scientific theories.
Review:
I’m in no position to critique Dawkins’s treatment of evolution. In fact, I read Dawkins’s books precisely because I am interested in learning more about evolution. As a result, I cannot criticize the book on that front. And, in fact, I don’t think there is anything about this book that I can criticize. I just want to point a few additional positives about this book.
For instance, I think Dawkins makes a good point when it comes to atheism and evolution, “I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (p. 6). The point Dawkins is making here is one I recently observed while reading The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Paine was a deist, but only because he could not, living in the late 1700s, provide an explanation for life other than divine intervention. Had Paine lived during or after the time of Darwin, he very likely would have been an atheist as the only issue remaining for atheists prior to Darwin would have been an understanding of the origins of human life. In short, evolution is a serious threat to religion precisely because it provides an alternative explanation of the origin of human life.
I’m also amazed at the sense of awe and wonder that washes over me when I read scientific research that peels open nature. For some reason this line from the book left me with goosebumps, “About 5,000 DNA letters degenerate per day in every human cell, and are immediately replaced by repair mechanisms” (p. 126). Dawkins points this out to illustrate that, despite being necessary for evolution, DNA does what it contain to prevent mutation. Dawkins explains how precise DNA is at replicating itself and, when understood in its complexity (that is, at the level at which I can understand it), I was amazed. We really are wondrous creatures! Isn’t nature remarkable?
Finally, one more quote that I thought was particularly inspiring, “Incidentally, it is worth quoting J. B. S. Haldane’s characteristic piece of lateral thinking in combating the same source of incredulity. Something like the transition from Amoeba to man, he pointed out, goes on in every mother’s womb in a mere nine months. Development is admittedly a very different process from evolution but, nevertheless, anyone sceptical of the very possibility of a transition from single cell to man has only to contemplate his own foetal beginnings to have his doubts allayed” (p. 249). I had never considered this idea before, that humans develop from single-celled organisms to extremely complex beings with specialized components in a very short period of time, in relation to evolution. Despite such insights, so many continue arguing that evolution has not occurred. Really, you must have your head stuck in the stand to not accept evolution.
Overall, I have nothing but positive things to say about this book. It is engaging reading and it is extremely informative. Dawkins thoroughly destroys the “alternatives†to evolution, including Creationism and Intelligent Design. And, in the process, he teaches people the awesome wonder that is evolution. I highly recommend this book for anyone wanting to learn more about evolution!
