Every once in a while Sam Harris, who must be overwhelmed with his writing on Substack, his podcast, and his complex meditation site, gets back to what brought him public notice: criticism of religion. And even if you know his views from The End of Faith or Letter to a Christian Nation, you’ll benefit if you’re able to read the two pieces below. (These two Substack essays have titles clearly drawn from the latter book.)
Apparently some high-handed Christian, just called “X,” wrote to Sam chewing him out for dissing Christianity, saying that atheism didn’t disprove God’s existence, claiming that Sam didn’t understand modern religion or sophisticated theology, asserting that religion makes people behave better, and arguing that Sam’s criticism of religion—Christianity in particularly—showed that he was intolerant.
Well, this is all meat for Sam’s grinder, and the poor “X” got it ten ways from Sunday, in two posts on Sam’s site. You won’t be able to access them all unless you’re a member of his Substack, but I’ve linked to them anyway and will give some of the delicious quotes I found. And, in case you haven’t read Sam’s first two books and can read these essays, they’re a decent substitute. (But you should read the books.) Click on the headlines to go to the site.
First, a response to X’s claim that Sam was arguing against religious extremists, not moderates (this in fact was taken up in The End of Faith). I’ve indented Sam’s comments.
So let me address my longstanding frustration with religious moderates, to which you alluded. It is true that their “sophisticated” theology has generally taught me to appreciate the candor of religious fanatics. Whenever someone like me or Richard Dawkins criticizes Christians for believing in the imminent return of Christ, or Muslims for believing in martyrdom, moderates like yourself claim that we have caricatured Christianity and Islam, taken extremists to be the sole representatives of these great faiths, or otherwise overlooked a shimmering ocean of nuance. We are invariably told that a mature understanding of the historical and literary contexts of scripture renders faith perfectly compatible with reason and contemporary ethics, and that our attack upon religion is, therefore, “simplistic,” “dogmatic,” or even “fundamentalist.” Needless to say, such casuistry generally comes moistened by great sighs of condescension.
. . . . The problem, as I see it, is that religious moderates don’t tend to know what it is like to be truly convinced that death is an illusion and that an eternity of happiness awaits the faithful beyond the grave. They have, as you say, “integrated doubt” into their faith. Another way of putting this is that they just have less faith—and for good reason. The result, however, is that your fellow moderates tend to doubt that anybody is ever motivated to sacrifice his life, or the lives of others, on the basis of religion. Moderate doubt—which I agree is an improvement over fundamentalist certainty in most respects—often blinds a person to the reality of full-tilt religious lunacy. Such blindness is now especially unhelpful, given the hideous collision between modern doubt and Islamic certainty that we are witnessing across the globe.
Second, many religious moderates imagine, as you do, that there is some clear line of separation between their faith and extremism. But there isn’t. Scripture itself remains a perpetual engine of extremism: because, while He may be many things, the God of the Bible and the Qur’an is not a moderate. Read scripture as closely as you like, you will not find reasons for religious moderation. On the contrary, you will find reasons to live like a maniac from the 14th century—to fear the fires of hell, to despise nonbelievers, to persecute homosexuals, and to hunt witches (good luck). Of course, you can cherry-pick scripture and find inspiration to love your neighbor and turn the other cheek, but the truth is, the pickings are slim, and the more fully one grants credence to these books, the more fully one will be committed to the view that infidels, heretics, and apostates are fit only to be crushed in God’s loving machinery of justice.
Part 2 of the evisceration of X:
Here, Sam argues why religion is not a net good.
-To be clear, I do not “disdain” religious moderates. I do, however, disdain bad ideas and bad arguments—which, I’m afraid, religious moderates tend to produce in great quantities. I’d like to point out that you didn’t rebut any of the substantial challenges I made in my last volley. Rather, you went on to make other points, most of which I find irrelevant to the case I made against religious faith. For instance, you remind me that many people find religion—both its doctrines and its institutions—important sources of comfort and inspiration. You also insist that many devoutly religious people do good things on the basis of their religious beliefs. I do not doubt either of these propositions. But you could gather such facts until the end of time, and they wouldn’t begin to suggest that the God of Abraham actually exists, or that the Bible is his Word, or that he came to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ to redeem our sins.
I have no doubt that there are millions of nice Mormons who imagine themselves to be dependent upon their church for a sense of purpose and community, and who do good things wherever their missionary work takes them. Does this, in your view, even slightly increase the probability that the Book of Mormon was delivered on golden plates to Joseph Smith Jr.—that a very randy and unscrupulous dowser—by the angel Moroni? Do all the good Muslims in the world lend credence to the claim that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse? And what of the Scientologist next door, who appears to be living his best possible life? Does his success in Hollywood increase your admiration for that patent charlatan, L. Ron Hubbard?
Something that often gets neglected in these discussions is that if one religion is absolutely true, all the others are wrong. And Sam, like the other New Atheists, is absolutely concerned with religious truth, for at bottom most religious behavior is based on the conviction that the tenets of one’s faith are true. If you believe that Christ wasn’t resurrected, you can hardly call yourself a Christian. One important reason for seeing if a religion is “true” is given below: you need good reasons for behaving as you do. But first this:
If Christianity is right, all other religions are wrong:
- Jesus Christ was the Messiah—so the Jews are wrong.
- Jesus was divine and resurrected—so the Muslims are wrong (“Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger—they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them.” Qur’an, 4:157).
- There is only one God—so the Hindus are wrong.
But, of course, the Christians have no better reason to think they’re right than Jews, Muslims, or Hindus do.
And here’s my favorite bit, which tells you why the truth of one’s religion is crucial:
As I have argued elsewhere, the alleged usefulness of religion—the fact that people find it consoling or that it sometimes gets them to do good things—is not an argument for its truth.
And, of course, the utility of religious faith can also be disputed. Wherever religion makes people feel better, or gets them to do good things, it does so for bad reasons—when good reasons are available. Which strikes you as more moral, helping people out of a sincere concern for their suffering, or helping them because you believe God wants you to do it? Personally, I’d prefer that my children acquire the former attitude.
And religion often inspires people to do bad things that they would not otherwise do. For instance, at this very moment in Syria and Iraq, perfectly ordinary Shia and Sunni Muslims can be found drilling holes into each other’s skulls with power tools. What are the chances they would be doing this without the “benefit” of their incompatible religious beliefs and identities?
As the late Steven Weinberg said, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion.”
On to “sophisticated philosophy” and exegesis:
The Bible, as you suggest, “defies easy synthesis” and “can be hard to understand.” But it is worse than that. No, I haven’t argued that the book “is principally about owning slaves”—just that it gets the ethics of slavery wrong, which is a terrible flaw in a book that is widely imagined to be perfect.
The truth is that even with Jesus holding forth in defense of the poor, the meek, and the persecuted, the Bible basically condones slavery. As I argued in Letter to a Christian Nation, the slaveholders of the South were on the winning side of a theological argument—and they knew it. And they made a hell of a lot of noise about it. We got rid of slavery despite the moral inadequacy of the Bible, not because it is the greatest repository of wisdom we have.
Below is the only part of the essays that confuses me. Sam thinks we have no free will (he has a book called Free Will that’s well worth reading). If that’s the case, how can he say this?
It is true that many atheists are convinced that they know what this relationship is, and that it is one of absolute dependence of the one upon the other. Those who have read the last chapters of The End of Faith or Waking Up know that I am not convinced of this. While I have spent a fair amount of time thinking about the brain, I do not think that the reducibility of consciousness to unconscious information processing has been established. It may be that the very concepts of mind and matter are fundamentally misleading us. But this doesn’t justify crazy ideas about miraculous books, virgin births, and saviors ushering in the end of the world.
It sounds to me that he is separating mind and matter, not a stand that comports with determinism. It’s always seemed to me palpably unscientific to say, knowing that the brain is made of matter and that our thoughts and behaviors stem almost entirely from the brain, that consciousness (a brain product) must also come from matter and its physical behavior. In fact, this is the point that Sam seems to make repeatedly on his meditation website. But maybe I’m not understanding something,
In the end, Sam gives “X” a final drubbing after “X” calls Sam intolerant for criticizing Christianity. Sam’s superb writing and thinking make it sting all the harder:
What if I told you that I am confident that I have an even number of cells in my body? Would it be intolerant of you to doubt me? What are the chances that I am in a position to have counted my cells and counted them correctly? Note that, unlike claims about virgin births and resurrections, my claim has a 50% chance of being true—and yet it is clearly ridiculous.
Forgive me for stating the obvious: No Christian has ever been in a position to be confident (much less certain) that Jesus was born of a virgin or that he will one day return to Earth wielding magic powers. Observing this fact is not a form of intolerance.
You seem to have taken special offense at my imputing self-deception and/or dishonesty to the faithful. I make no apologies for this. One of the greatest problems with religion is that it is built, to a remarkable degree, upon lies. Mommy claims to know that Granny went straight to heaven after she died. But Mommy doesn’t actually know this. The truth is that, while Mommy may be honest on every other topic, in this instance, she doesn’t want to distinguish what she really knows (i.e. what she has good reasons to believe) from (1) what she wants to be true or (2) what will keep her children from being too sad in Granny’s absence. So Mommy is lying—either to herself or to her kids—and we’ve all agreed not to talk about it. Rather than learn how to grieve, we learn to lie to ourselves, or to those we love.
You can complain about the intolerance of atheists all you want, but that won’t make unjustified claims to knowledge appear more reasonable; it won’t differentiate your religious beliefs from the beliefs of others which you consider illegitimate; and it won’t constitute an adequate response to anything I have written here, or am likely to write in the future.
Harris is a gifted man, and I’m baffled at the number of people who seem to intensely dislike him.
With you on the one confusing point. I think you are interpreting Sam correctly there. Either that or he’s expressing himself poorly, which happens only very rarely.
I think he’s saying that the identity of human consciousness and brain states hasn’t yet been proved by science. Which is distinct (or can be) from believing it to be true.
At least that’s how I read that sentence. I had to read it a couple of times, so my reaction was similar to yours.
I too think the same.
That was also my interpretation. And is consistent with things I’ve heard him verbalize in the past. (It’s actually the way I read the sentence, probably based on past utterings, so had to back track for the alternative.)
In reference to how many people dislike him: He refuses to be in a tribe, politically or otherwise, so he pisses off both (or the many) political tribes. And he’s very adept and public with slaughtering sacred cows.
I like him (and have listened to him a lot) though half the time I disagree with him.
[As I see it he is: right on religion, especially right on Islam, right in rejecting contra-causal free will, wrong on rejecting compatibilistic free will (sorry Jerry!), totally wrong on morality being objective, and wrong on Musk & Twitter.]
Could you please expand on “Musk & Twitter”? Not sure what you mean there.
As I read Sam, he is lamenting how Musk’s addiction to Twitter/X has warped his behavior in troubling ways. I don’t go on Twitter/X (or BlueSky) except when someone I respect (PCCE our host, for instance) links to them, so I can’t really comment on what X has become under Musk (and I didn’t know what it was like, really, before that).
Excellent piece, thanks for evading SH’s paywall on my behalf. His arguments albeit well reasoned are riven with category error. Try saying “Do you believe in painting? Is music true? What’s the evidence for art? Can you prove the existence of free will?”
Please provide quotes from the articles that demonstrate your assertion of category errors.
Hi Jim. Sam Harris seeks evidence of the existence of God while derogating faith in the existence of god. That existence is no more accessible to reason than cutting edge science. Proof of quantum mechanics or string theory is unavailable. These sciences derive from imaginative genius. Try to devise an experiment that can reveal that the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. How do you prove the existence of sub-atomic particles? This is not a criticism of science or scientific method or of reasoning. Such theorising has always been a feature of scientific advance – illumination coming not from reasoning but from superlative observation enhanced by constant reasoning. Example: innumerable people had seen the water level rising when they got in the bath. Only Archimedes who’d been thinking about how to calculate the SG of uneven objects saw the significance of so banal an event. Sam Harris and other new atheists and of course the very excellent Jerry Coyne persist in avoiding the part played by revelation in human enquiry – scientific and theological. I am not making a case for either by the way, simply pointing up flaws that seem obvious. If they were obvious to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, you, and Jerry Coyne my comment would be wholly irrelevant.
No, quantum mechanics is abundantly proved (in a “beyond reasonable doubt” sense) by many experiments and by its use in technology, that amply verifies that it works.
String theory, agreed, is indeed speculative and unproven.
By experiment and observation and verifying the predictions of theories about sub-atomic particles. Yes, the ideas often do “derive from imaginative genius”, but then one tests them experimentally.
I’ve studied Chad Orzel’s clever explanation of empirical evidence on the behaviour of sub-atomic particles ‘How to Teach Physics to Your Dog’ & _ and ‘How to teach Relativity to Your Dog’ as well as Breakfast With Einstein: The Exotic Physics of Everyday Objects in which he attempts to explain how quantum phenomena manifest in the course of an ordinary morning. Do you understand this. I don’t. That’s not saying he’s not as near as dammit right and correct, but that we are still far from a the common-sense (lay people’s) understanding of quantum theory. If you can explain the key experiments in ways that I can grasp I’ll be enormously grateful – as my curiosity is insatiable. I long to learn how real objects are both particles and waves or a third category that shares some properties of waves and some properties of particles. Glad you take my point about string theory (that’s not conceding. We arenot arguing!)
Quantum phenomena have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. These phenomena tend to fit the Schrodinger equation remarkably well.
Quantum mechanics on the other hand has some major problems.
Simon Baddeley:
Do you understand this. I don’t.
and
…we are still far from a the common-sense (lay people’s) understanding of quantum theory.
Premise: lay people cannot understand quantum phenomena.
Premise: people need faith to believe in God.
Conclusion: accepting quantum phenomena requires as much faith as believing in God.
The premises are correct but the argument is not valid.
Thomas Young’s double slit experiment showed beyond any reasonable doubt (the closest that science gets to “proof”) that light behaves as waves. Quantum theory predicted that single electrons would do the same, and in actual experiments they do. How on earth is this an example of …illumination coming not from reasoning…: perhaps from some sort of imaginative revelation?
I think you are the one making category errors. Subatomic particles like protons and electrons are pretty easy to demonstrate. Their description and the subsequent discoveries are made in a consistent and coherent way such that anyone with mastery of the required tools can understand. String theory is irrelevant as no one ‘s claiming any certainty in that regard.
As for the revelation you mention, so what, that is not the type of revelation religious types indulge in but even if it were such supposed revelations are not then subject to critical scrutiny and experimental confirmation.
The supposed flaw has been noted and dealt with properly by all those you mention and more.
I think one significant difference between quantum mechanics/string theory and God is that you’re unlikely to see physicists justifying their theories by arguing that well, it’s no more unreasonable than believing in God.
As Jerry has often pointed out, in religion faith is a virtue — and in science it’s a vice.
Thanks Sastra. It’s a wise sounding maxim, deriving from theological arteries hardened by centuries of linkage with institutionalised religion. State and corporate directed science has a way of inducing atherosclerosis in the aims and culture of science.
Actually, Simon, it is you who commit the category error. Of course nobody disbelieves the existence of religion as a practice; even more, SH and other critics acknowledge its existence by their very acts of critiquing it. They reject the ideological basis of such practices. In contrast, there is no ideological basis for painting or art to disbelieve in. There have been, of course, ideologies of individual art schools — and it is completely legitimate and commendable to critique them and even ridicule them. However, when you start to critique and ridicule religious ideology, all hell breaks loose (no pun intended!)…
Religion is not restricted to theology-based orthodox religion – i.e. obviously religious holy-book-funny cape-and-Sunday-school religions – which Sam restricts the evaluation to, in order to be effective. Indeed this is why atheist thought has been successful these past decades – the laser sharp focus.
Left out of this is the vast, unfamiliar literature of gnostic and Hermetic cult religions, which are theosophical – intent on creating Heaven on Earth, and saving one’s soul here in this life as we know it – independent of “the Church”.
These cult religions go back to such literature as from Joachim or Fiore, Gospel of John, Corpus Hermeticum, and literature from the Nag Hammadi, and so on.
It is not dead. It twists itself into existing institutions to stay alive. It’s perpetual Hermetic transformation of thought is on Oprah, in Queer Theory, Freemasonry, The Secret (2006), and in Critical Race Theory – to name some silly examples – making Gods of humans and their society since ca. 1200 and possibly earlier. It gets much worse.
My bumper sticker might be:
Keep Atheism Away from Theosophy!
Typo
Joachim of Fiore
I was under the impression that the sceptic community and the atheist activists have a fairly large overlap, and the sceptics are the ones who concern themselves with the “woo” – the manifestations of esoteric thinking that often draws from hermeticism, such as astrology, alternative medicine etc. Actually, a few months ago there was a big discussion in the largest German sceptic organization, the GWUP, whether postmodern schools of thought should be legitimate targets of sceptical inquiry. It threatened to tear apart the organization, but apparently the faction that was in favor of a broader interpretation of scepticism won!
Mark Twain:”Faith is believing what you know ain’t so…Go to heaven for the climate and hell for the company.” Twains essays on religion are superb! As well as Sam Harris book: Lying. Highly recommended: On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt. Bullshit is worse than lying: In Eric Ambler’s novel Dirty Story, a character named Arthur Abdel Simpson recalls advice that he received as a child from his father: Although I was only seven when my father was killed, I still remember him very well and some of the things he used to say….One of the first things he taught me was, “Never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way through.” Recommended inquiry: ffrf.org
I 100% concur.
A friend recently commented that I refer to Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne very often ( I try to give credit where due) and asked ” who are they?”
She will be gifted 4 books this XXXmas. Thanks!
Love it.
I am another admirer of Sam Harris. I was immensely appreciative of The End of Faith when it first appeared and I have followed his career ever since. I may not always agree 100% with everything he says (it might be rather disturbing if I did), but I find myself in his corner the vast majority of the time.
He is indeed a brilliant writer, and he is not shy about taking strong positions, some of which certain people will view as provocative. So much the better.
Sam is always articulate. Great response.
Sam is 100% intolerant (rejects all religions) but X is only 99% intolerant (rejects all but his own).
Rejecting a religion (refusing to believe a religion and criticising it) is not at all “intolerant”.
Intolerance would be trying to prevent that religion from existing or trying to prevent (not just disuade) other people from believing and practicing it, or punishing them for doing so.
Yes, it’s just a funny way to look at it, a “by that logic” argument.
Does SH argue that religions should be banned? Nope.
Does SH argue that religious people should not be able to practice their religion at home, or in their church? Nope.
Does SH argue that religious people should not display religious paraphernalia in public? Nope.
Does SH argue that certain religious people be exiled because of their religion? Nope.
So just how the heck is SH “intolerant” of religion?
And how about just saying?:“Stop being dramatic. This is a disagreement not intolerance.”
And risk calling you “dramatic”? No, thanks. You seem to take umbrage by four “nopes” and one “heck”.
Thank you for these references to recent work of Sam Harris. I am indebted to him for the early books on religion and atheism which are clear, well-focused, and unerringly on target.
It is clear that every twenty years there will be a new generation that would benefit from these “classic” works.
Explaining the problem with “moderate religion” in a clear way that does not get side-tracked is hard. I like the way Sam returns to the topic of “truth”.
People dislike Sam Harris because he is relentless in applying reason to problems and he demands the same discipline in his audience. The calm way in which he makes his arguments—seemingly with no effort—also probably pi**es a lot of people off.
I’m reminded of the earlier writings about religion, “The Top Ten Reasons I Don’t Believe in God”, by Greta Christina.
I think I know what Sam is getting at with his mind/matter point. Yes, consciousness comes from the brain and as PCC says:
“It’s always seemed to me palpably unscientific to say, knowing that the brain is made of matter and that our thoughts and behaviors stem almost entirely from the brain, that consciousness (a brain product) must also come from matter and its physical behavior.”
Sure but if the brain is only processing information out of which arises consciousness, then you must believe that a computer of sufficient size and complexity can also become truly conscious. Not just an effective emulator of humans like an AI trained on the behaviors of a billion people such that it might pass the Turing test (albeit with the lights off) but a really, truly conscious human-like, self aware mind (with the lights on). So, do you? Can a machine become conscious such that human-level mind comes not just from brain matter but also from semiconductor matter? My extensive reading of Harris suggests that he’s agnostic as to whether that’s true and leaves open the possibility that it might not be for reasons or misconceptions that we’re currently ignorant of.
“with the lights off”
Nice. 👍
If you could design a computer that absolutely mimics the neuronal contents of the brain, then I don’t see why it wouldn’t be conscious? If brain matter can do it, why not computer matter (of course it may be impossible to design such a computer given the complexity of the brain).
I have followed Sam for long time and appreciate greatly what I have learned and listened too.
Thx for promoting this, Jerry. Sam is so good on religious gumpf and a talented wordsmith. I really enjoy his metaphors and hypotheticals. I also agree w your consternation regarding Sam on consciousness and sprituality.
Maybe I don’t understand what Sam is saying on the subject of spirituality and consciousness, but it seems to me that what he is arguing is that when one goes inside their own mind by way of meditation and takes a look around, what they’ll find is that there is nobody there, no “you” or “self.” There is only “experience and its contents.” To my ears this means a spirit-less spirituality. It’s an epiphany on mental life–all the benefits of contemplative life without the baggage of superstition.
What’s to consternate over? I’ve never run the experiment myself, so I may not be in a position to judge, but the idea that the self is not even an illusion, but a misinterpretation of experience seems plausible, given how bad humans are at interpreting experience.
And consider that the experiences of experiencing could also be an illusion (which is my current view, but not my current experience 🙂 ).
Interesting. Thanks for your comment.
If human-created AI processes billions of human experiences and from that becomes conscious, then god exists and it is US.
Perhaps we have always been the gods we have searched for; without humans what is the point of god.
Do other animals care? Sand and rocks, certainly not. It seems that god is a sole human need because we are a curious lot who want explanations.
Finally, with science, we require confirmation. Yet our confirmations get updated frequently.
Will AI be curious? Without curiosity there is no consciousness.
Why is religion ‘bad’? Not because there is no God, but because existing religion, in paticularly all forms of Christology, has nothing to do with God! It has always been and remains an all too human theological constuct. And theology only exists because nothing has been revealed. Whatever Christ revealed two thousand years ago was lost through disobedience. That is the purpose of the second coming, offering mankind for the last time, the only testable proof for faith ever to exist and by doing so, expose just how far ‘reasoned’ ingnorance can carry the step of man bound by the Stain of original sin and without the anchor of absolute proof.
Another neglected thing is that religion, for the vast majority of people, is just a lottery: You believe that there is only one god because you were born in a Muslim family, but you would believe in multiple gods if you were born in a Hindu family. I can’t see why believing that your religion is the true one, is more rational than believing than the earth is flat.