Book: The End of Faith

[Hogeye]

Anyone want to discuss "The End of Faith," the book so generously distributed at a recent Freethinkers meeting?

I thought most of the book was very good. It would be a wonderful book to promote freethinking if it had only the first three chapters and chapter five. The other chapters have provocative ideas, to be sure, but IMO may give a neophyte some grossly mistaken ideas about what a freethinker is. In particular, a newbie would likely get the impression that freethinkers are warmongers. Sam Harris says a lot of things that would make the most rabid neoconservative blush. E.g. He opines that, if the Muslims don't change, a preemptive nuclear attack on the Middle East is justified. He claims (rather inconsistently considering his previous chapter on Xtians and the Inquisition) that Muslims are probably incapable of evolving to a secular society. If Xtians can change from 14th century attitudes, and are able to compartmentalize their faith to function in modern society, why are not Muslims also able to do so? Why don't American Muslims strap on suicide bombs? So although he makes some good points (e.g. that Islam judged by its scripture seems more intolerant than other major religions), he comes off as grossly prejudiced against Muslims, like he'd be perfectly at home on one of those pro-war anti-Islamo-fasist rant sites.

A second controverial opinion is Harris' support for torturing prisoners in his chapter on ethics. Basically, his argument is: If collateral damage - killing innocents by e.g. aerial bombing and shooting rockets into neighborhoods, and using depleted uranium, etc. is okay, which kills many people, then torturing suspected terrorists is certainly okay, as it harms fewer people, and with much greater probability of the victim really being a bad guy. Now I would conclude that both murdering innocents and torturing suspects are bad. Harris concludes that, since collateral damage is permissible, torturing suspects is even more obviously permissible. Anyway, this pro-torture argument is not what I'd want to introduce someone to freethinking with.

The last chapter is mainly anti-mind mystic bullshit. Harris makes the absurd claim that introspection is empirical. Again, not good for an intro to freethinking.

I wish that Harris had divided his material into two separate books, with chapters 1,2,3, and 5 an explanation of freethinking, and the rest as thought-provoking, challenging, controversial essays (largely unrelated to freethinking.) As it is, I would be reluctant to give this to someone as an introduction to freethinking. For someone interested in freethinking, I'd prefer to recommend some online Ingersoll essays or something.