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.
- Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
Introduction
For the past two months, I have met with a small group of "pub intellectuals" for a book discussion on Tim Keller's The Reason for God. We began over beers and fries though as a young Muslim couple joined the group, soda replaced suds but the discussions were not hampered. SpeakEasy, the name for our eclectic group, coincided with this course on apologetics. Putting into practice the transcendental method was both the most intellectually challenging and rewarding endeavor I've pursued in seminary thus far. In part, this was due to the company of my roommate, Allison. Her thorough thoughtfulness and sharp inquiries have helped refine my intellectual commitments to Christianity, as well as highlight the true significance of apologetics.
This response paper examines the brief book by Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation.[1] Allison recommended this book and SpeakEasy will pick this up as our next study come January. This paper will examine Harris' critique of Christianity using the presuppositional method outlined in William Edgar's Reasons of the Heart: Recovering Christian Persuasion. Edgar's title hints at what I've learned over the past few months: apologetics, while persuasive and often methodical, is about the heart in as much as it is about the mind. Paradigms, worldviews and bias collide when reason is put to faith, and only through uncovering ultimate heart commitments can we effectively communicate the Gospel message of Christ.
Harris' Heart
Letter, written in response to reactions by the faithful to Harris' first tome, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, outlines much of what drives Harris to conclude that organized religion is not only irrationally but evil.[2] Prior to deconstructing Harris' arguments against religion, we must understand his adherence to secular humanism. What drives Sam Harris? Harris values religious systems that are more philosophical in nature, like Jainism and Buddhism. He also values spiritual experiences, himself having been transformed by an encounter with Ecstasy.[3] He values morality, criticizing Christianity and the Bible on moral issues, sometimes rightly so.
He never provides a basis for humanist morality, yet he evidently needs morality to make sense of his world. He is highly concerned with what he labels "real morality." He states,
"For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in the world… Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is."[4] Harris asserts this in an objective claim. Clearly it isn't.[5] Happiness is relatively defined and relatively experienced, and while it sounds rational that love be more desirable than hate, not every human experience supports this fact-claim.[6] Regardless, this statement illustrates Harris' need for objective moral reality, and his desire to reconcile human experience with his belief system.
Like many secular humanists and new atheists, Harris holds fast to reason. This is his primary concern with the morality of the Bible: it doesn't rationally make sense to him. Discrepancies cannot be plausible in the very word of God. Harris takes his disapproval of the scientific fallacies of the Bible a step further than most critics, arguing that not only is the science flawed, but that if this were the very word of God, why does it not include inarguable mathematical proofs as evidence of its divine origin?[7]
Harris' ultimate objection to religion is that it "divorce[s] morality from the reality of human and animal suffering."[8] Critics of Letter have said that Harris is essentially calling Christians, Jews and Muslims hypocrites but that is not actually where his objection lies. His argument against the morality of the Bible is twofold: one, if Christians (and Jews) actually practiced the law of the Old Testament, it would be morally reprehensible; and two, organized Christianity has incorrectly made moral issues about actions, not consequences.
He gives multiple examples of this divorce, two of which are worth noting. The first is that of slavery. Harris argues that the Abolitionists, while morally right, were biblically wrong.[9] For Harris, the biblical acceptance (and Old Testament approval) of slavery indicates that the Bible is morally flawed – and that it is not necessary to derive the basic principle of human dignity. "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 won them and treat them like farm equipment."[10] Epistemologically, it's unclear how one comes to recognize this from Harris' view.
His second example relates to the impact of Christian attitudes about sex to health policies. He cites abortion, embryonic stem cell research, honor killings and AIDS prevention in sub-Saharan
This is a compelling and convicting critique. If anything, it illustrates that Christians have done a poor job of creating redemptive culture and have often (incorrectly) associated suffering with punishment. However, Harris does the opposite: he doesn't see outcomes as consequences (i.e., teen pregnancy) – only as "suffering."[12] But these examples show the underling concern for Harris that "the link between religion and "morality" – so regularly proclaimed and so seldom demonstrated – is fully belied here, as it is wherever religious dogma supersedes moral reasoning and genuine compassion."[13]
In order to fully understand Harris' heart commitments, we have to look outside the Letter.[14] As previously mentioned, Harris accepts spiritualism as a viable – rational – option. While the Letter focuses more on his adherence to evolutionism, elsewhere Harris makes similar claims about the plausibility of spiritualism. And we've seen above his commitment to rationalism as well. How does he reconcile all of these views? The search for concrete facts and objective morality seems counter to Harris' own opinion of spiritual experiences. His approval of spiritualism is captured in the telling statement that spiritual experiences are "not just emotional but cognitive and conceptual."[15] Evidently Harris feels that there are cognitive and conceptual flaws in Christianity which do not appear in spiritualism. He cannot get past the intellectual hurdle of Christianity, yet he offers no argument for the cognitive and conceptual validity of spiritualism.
Making Contact
Where is Sam Harris' God-consciousness? At some point, every non-Christian presupposition fails; the foundation will not hold up under scrutiny. Because we are all created in God's image and part of the same creation, we share in the same metaphysical experience as non-believers. We all carry a certain sense of deity, which informs us of the dignity of human beings.[16] We believe that dignity stems from being God's image bearers. How does Sam Harris explain the value humans?
He doesn't. Granted, that is not the intent of the Letter. Yet, he has a need to explain moral behavior. He also recognizes a need for moral guidance. His critique against Christianity is that "anyone who believes that the Bible offers the best guidance we have on questions of morality has some very strange ideas about either guidance or morality."[17] He offers Jainism as an (the only?) example of a livable, ethical, non-theist system. Again, Harris fails to offer his own method of determining the validity of guidance or a moral system.
He offers spiritualism as a means, much to the chagrin of his cohorts. Aside from being a terrible argument against organized religion, spiritualism reveals Harris' need to use a questionably rational filter for his own reality – exactly the same critical assessment he lobbies at monotheism. Even his own fellow thinkers critique Harris' reasoning on this, saying "the problem is that rather than subjecting this mystical realm to the same rigorous analysis as that of religion, the new atheism seems convinced by it's pseudo-scientific claims, and even acts as a cheerleader for this spurious way of thinking."[18]
Foundation Failure
Where does Harris' line of reasoning fall apart? Where does his argument ultimately lead? Harris clearly falls into the rationalist camp: everything in the universe is rational. However, there is no solid way to prove that trusting in your own reason is rational; it's actually irrational because it cannot be proven rationally. Harris' strong moral compass offers a glimpse into his thinking, and his need to find meaning in his world. But, when pushed to live out his philosophy, he can't.
The significant flaws in Harris' argument are twofold: he attacks Christianity with the very hate of which he argues religion is the generator, and he does not live out his own philosophy. David Segal relates from an interview with Harris that "because Christians and Jews cling to their "delusions," they are in no position to criticize Muslims for theirs."[19] And Harris is in no position to cling to his. He is fundamentalist in his treatment of religions, and commits the same errors of those he critiques – being a literalist,[20] cherry-picking, ignoring context and culture, etc. He dogmatically holds to his convictions of atheism, rationalism, evolutionism and spiritualism, while exhorting that "it is time Christians like yourself stop pretending that a rational rejection of your faith entails the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma."[21] He systematically ignores social, cultural and political factors, choosing to blame all failures of humanity on religions.[22] Wouldn't a more rational and consistent argument be that we are simply still evolving and have not achieved the height of social, cultural or political superiority? I suspect Harris would say that until religions fall by the wayside, these advancements are not possible. Yet, that seems to limit the achievements of rational, evolving man by ideologies which clearly (to Harris) are inferior and should be abandoned immediately.
Second, Harris' irrational approval of spiritual encounters as vehicles for genuine truths is internally inconsistent with his rationalism. Humanists point out that "[t]he problem is not that Harris holds these beliefs, but that he wants to convince us that they are the very height of rationality."[23] Rationally and logically, Harris cannot hold religions up to one standard and his own beliefs to another. He argues, "human standards of morality are precisely what you use to establish God's goodness,"[24] yet he offers no rational standards to establish his own morality. Harris proposes, "Everyone recognizes that to rely upon 'faith' to decide specific questions of historical fact is ridiculous," nonetheless he offers no evidence of his "facts" supporting spiritualism.[25]
He calls upon humans to "meet our emotional needs without embracing the preposterous."[26] What is more preposterous: that I believe in a historical document, with historical, literary and cultural evidence that can be studied by all, and that provides a solution to the world's present state, or that I can ascertain genuine truths – indiscernible and unverifiable to others – during the height of an illicit drug-educed spiritual encounter? Harris even admits that while "there is no question that it is possible for people to have profoundly transformative experiences," it is equally plausible "for them to misinterpret these experiences, and to further delude themselves about the nature of reality."[27] One has to wonder if Harris has ever considered the possibility that his Ecstasy encounter, which launched his quest to uncover the meaning of life, has ever been self-evaluated as a potential delusional experience.
The Invitation
Harris grasps the "scandalously particular" nature of the Christian story.[28] He recognizes the arrogance of the Christian claim that "the creator of the universe takes an interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death."[29] Much of this stems from his dogmatic desire for the Creator of the universe to reveal himself in the Bible through scientific examples. He is troubled that "a single sentence" of Scripture "could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century."[30] For someone who wants a historically reliable source document, this is an odd thing to be troubled by. But Harris would prefer the Bible to "make perfectly accurate predictions about human events" or "contain a chapter on mathematics."[31] Obviously, Harris is not concerned with literary genre.
But, what good would it do for God to deliver us a book of cures for cancer, scientific instructions for electricity and precise mathematical equations? Does this provide a better basis for morality? Harris accuses Christians of detaching morality from reality, which ignores the relational nature of the Bible's ethical guidelines. The Bible's prescripts for morality do not exist outside time and space; it is precisely because God enters into the story of humanity that makes the moral code relevant to reality. Christianity accurately describes human reality, including the dignity and depravity of man. It also offers a solution that relates specifically to the problem in the person of Christ, whom Harris largely ignores.[32]
Harris' ethical obstacle to Christianity is summarized as such: "If you are right to believe that religious faith offers the only real basis for morality, then atheists should be less moral than believers."[33] Because this is not indicative of reality, Harris makes the false assumption that since atheists are not less moral, religion cannot be the basis for morality. Not only is this a non sequitur, it misreads the Christian message. If we are all created in God's image, reason is available to all, thus we are all capable of making moral decisions regardless of our basis for morality. It comes as no surprise to me that my roommate Allison is a profoundly moral and trustworthy person – my basis for morality informs me that she is competent of this.
Harris holds that there is at least one quasi-religious system extant that provides a moral compass – Jainism. Adhering to the principles of Jainism, it is impossible for anyone to behave immorally.[34] Yet this too makes morality about actions, not intentions or state of being, a criticism he lobbies about Christianity. Theoretically, one could be an outwardly perfect Jain, all the while driven by prideful or sardonic motivations. The point being is that no human being can perfectly adhere to any moral code; we are deficient in our morality regardless of our individual belief system. Christianity recognizes this as the ailment of humanity, and offers a genuine solution: you can't be perfect but God will be on your behalf.
Ironically, Harris shows hints that he "gets" this. He knows that if we are to take the Bible seriously, both the moral standard (perfection) and the punishment for failure (death) cannot be changed.[35] He also recognizes the profound impact of self-sacrifice in achieving good. He states: "While feeling love for others is surely one of the greatest sources of our own happiness, it entails a very deep concern for the happiness and suffering of those we love. Our own search for happiness, therefore, provides a rationale for self-sacrifice and self denial."[36] Since Harris equates happiness with moral goodness, let's say then that because God loves us – and is morally good – his goodness (happiness) "entails a deep concern for the happiness… of those [he] love[s]." According to Harris, this then offers the rationale for self-sacrifice. How then, does the Cross not make rational sense to Harris? If God knows that our happiness cannot be achieved through man's adherence to a moral standard, and that he can solve that dilemma with self-sacrifice, doesn't that make the Christian story at least rationally plausible?
It's possible that Sam Harris could have a spiritual encounter that will someday lead him to consider the rational probability of Christianity again. And my concern for Harris' heart commitments is genuine. However, my more pressing concern is for Allison's heart commitments. Understanding Harris has helped me understand her (although she doesn't make the same logical flaws he does!). It is not just because eternal consequences are at stake. My moral system informs me that Allison is created in God's image, fallen like me, deserving of dignity, and in need of a relational, rational morality to make sense of her world. When she proof-read my paper, she remarked that the strongest argument against Harris is his lack of explanation for his moral system. I wonder what Harris would think to know that an intelligent, reasonable Christian and an intelligent, reasonable atheist can, in fact, have a "discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty."[37]
[1] Harris is focused primarily on Christianity but includes Judaism and Islam. He argues against liberals, moderates and fundamentalists alike.
[2] Harris, 47.
[3] David Segal, "Atheist Evangelist: In His Bully Pulpit, Sam Harris Devoutly Believes That Religion Is the Root of All Evil,"
[4] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation. Vintage Books (
[5] At least, it is impossible to prove.
[6] Specifically, I am thinking of individual security which, to some, may be more valuable than love.
[7] Harris, 60.
[8] Harris, 25.
[9] Harris, 17.
[10] Harris, 18.
[11] Harris, 28.
[12] Harris, 28.
[13] Harris, 32.
[14] This is due in part to the purpose and scope of the Letter.
[15] Meera Nanda, "Spirited Away: Some atheists start to believe anything after they give up believing in God," New Humanist.
[16] Edgar, class notes.
[17] Harris, 14.
[18] Nanda, "Spirited Away."
[19] Segal, "Atheist Evangelist."
[20] Segal, "Atheist Evangelist."
[21] Harris, 42-43, emphasis original.
[22] Harris, 44.
[23] Nanda, "Spirited Away."
[24] Harris, 55
[25] Harris, 67. He does offer evidence for evolutionism, and elsewhere relies heavily on Richard Dawkins for explaining the links between evolution and human morality. cf. p. 73. No where (that I've found) does he offer a rational explanation for spiritual experiences.
[26] Harris, 88.
[27] Harris, 89.
[28] Edgars, class notes.
[29] Harris, 74, emphasis original.
[30] Harris, 60.
[31] Harris, 60.
[32] My arguments for Christianity mentioned here are borrowed from my pastor, Scott Seaton. He laid out his reasons for Christianity during the SpeakEasy book study.
[33] Harris, 38.
[34] Harris, 23.
[35] Harris, 22.
[36] Harris, 24.
[37] Harris 87.
No comments:
Post a Comment