Letter to Sam Harris

I recently purchased the atheist Sam Harris’ audio book: Letter to a Christian Nation, and I am glad I did. Let me first say that I am enjoying listening to Mr. Harris’ arguments which are interesting, mostly compelling, and in some cases bitingly true. Mr. Harris’ arguments concerning the violence, and misogyny of the Bible, and the non-uniqueness of its moral teaching are excellent. His comparison of the compassion of Jesus and Jainism is also interesting, and I wish he took this topic further . I am about half way through, and I can say it was well worth the 12 dollars I spent from the I tunes gift card I received for Christmas.

What the book lacks, and to be fair Mr. Harris may have left some things out because of the format of the book, is a quite a lot. If Mr. Harris is summarizing the very best of what atheism has to offer as arguments against religion, then I am afraid atheism will not last as a viable philosophy for very much longer.

To begin, I would like to point out where Mr. Harris’ arguments are strong. He points out that the Bible says quite clearly, and in the manner of direct divine commands from Yahweh himself, that we should stone adulterers, homosexuals, idolaters, etc. Harris rightly points out that the Old Testament supports and endorses the practice of slavery, and the practice of selling one’s daughters into slavery. And lest you think that this only appears in the Old Testament, he points out that Jesus stated, in Matthew’s Gospel, that every letter of the ancient Mosiac Law is endorsed and fulfilled in him. Harris also shows how St. Paul in no way opposed the practice of slavery, but in fact encouraged Christian slaves to remain faithful t their masters. This seems to show that Jesus, and the early church, supported the violent, oppressive, and misogynistic tendencies of the Old Testament. And in his strongest argument, he points out that Christians are rightly atheistic when it comes to acceptance of the bizarre doctrines of Islam. How can we be so sure our bizarre doctrines are the Word of God? He then makes what I think is his strongest argument, that compassion, love, and non-violence are often more honestly expressed in other religions, specifically Jainism. After all, he explains, Martin Luther King learned non-violence from Gandhi, a Hindu, not Christ.

Harris also makes great arguments showing how Christianity has, throughout the ages, used literal interpretation of the Bible to justify all sorts of cruelty and oppression, and is doing the same thing today. He then calls out Christian Liberals and Progressives, and asks them whether their insistence on the loving aspects of Christianity are just the opposite practice of those who use the more violent aspects to justify their interpretation. Harris contends that the Christian Bible is full of both, and you cannot “cherry pick.” The Bible, according to Harris, stands or falls on everything it contains. Either it is the Word of God, or not. Either Jesus is the Son of God, or he is not. Either he is right, or they are. There can be no compromise.

And this is where his argument falls apart, because by presenting the issue in this manner, he sets himself up for failure. Most atheists argue from the following position, which is a position of strength: “it is the religious person who must prove to me, reasonably and rationally, that their religion and their god are real.” However, Harris has now put atheism to the same test. And from what I can see, according to Harris’ best arguments, it does not stand the test of reason or rationality.

To start, Harris asserts that the pursuit of happiness, and compassion towards one’s fellow man characterized by the alleviation of suffering, is an innate human instinct that would exist whether religion taught it or not. He makes a passing comment about chimpanzee social behavior to attempt to prove his point. I imagine he would admit that this is not his strongest argument, after all there is a huge difference between chimpanzee and human social behavior in terms of complexity, and I am certain he knows this. However, his argument is clear: human decency and morality is not divine, it is innate, a product or evolution, and as a result we do not need a god or gods to tell us what we already know. If anything, these gods get in the way and replace real human decency with barbarity in the name of faith, religion, church, and god.

Fair enough. However here is the problem with his line of reasoning. Remember, we cannot cherry pick, according to Harris. If humans are simply evolved primates, according to reason, the desire to kill, to destroy rivals, to forcefully procreate with a weaker female, to exert influence and power directly and by force, and for males to dominate their territory are as innate and instinctual as the pursuit of happiness, compassion, the alleviation of suffering, etc. If we are the product of purely natural forces, and Harris contends as self-evident that there is more evidence for this truth than divine creation, then there can be no value judgments here. There is no good and bad, only taste and personal opinion. Evolution created us this way, and we can in no way judge one set of behaviors as better or worse. All of these traits make up the human person, just as they make up the chimpanzee. Like Harris’ criticism of Liberal Christians, we must take what we call the good of primate and human behavior with what we call the bad. In fact, they are both the same, they are simply evolutionary traits which influence behavior. Humans are simply smarter and more complex chimps, who behave as they behave. Good and bad have nothing to do with it, what they reflect is personal taste.

Harris makes another passing comment about how primate and human evolutionary social behavior has managed to balance or suppress our darker traits, and encourage compassion, alleviation of suffering, etc. He in no way tries to prove this statement, he simply asserts it as self-evident. What Harris fails to address is what evolutionary benefit is there for compassionate, decent behavior to the exclusion of dominant, aggressive, violent behavior? From an evolutionary standpoint, if a new species wishes to survive, and to pass on its genes successfully to the next generation, then it must be aggressive, violent, territorial, exclusive, intolerant of rivals, etc. In fact, assuming Judeo-Christianity is as violent, exclusive, and oppressive as he claims, isn’t this exactly what we would expect to see from evolved, highly intelligent primates? This aggressive behavior would ensure social cohesion, that the new ideas would be passed on to the next generation, and would give the group the ability to dominate their environment. What is ironic is that Harris, in expressing moral outrage and in pointing out the hypocrisy of organized Judaism and Christianity, is exposing that the religion of the Bible appears to have been created by atheists. Harris, by taking a moral position regarding human behavior, is more in line with those liberal religious believers who claim that religion as we know it has been corrupted in order to dominate and exploit. Ironic.

The fact is, if the behaviors that Harris likes are actually good, and the other behaviors, while instinctual, should be controlled because they are bad, then we are in the realm of something beyond the natural. Harris claims there is very little evidence for the divine in creation, however he fails to see what is right in front of his nose. If humans can judge between behaviors, and call some of them good and some of them bad, then they must be using a universal standard as a source, something beyond themselves which enlightens the mind, otherwise we re simply fooling ourselves. Because if atheism is true, then there is no good or bad, and it should be equally acceptable for me to use good and bad behavior to achieve happiness, and pass on my traits to the next generation successfully. If I wish to be an honest atheist, I must admit that societal conventions of human compassion and kindness are recipes for the demise and failure of the further survival of the human species, specifically my race,culture,religion, and country. It is unreasonable to expect me to love my neighbor if it gets in the way of passing on my genes to the next generation. And this goes for countries and philosophies, and religions. In order to succeed and survive, all rival ideas and gods must be dealt with and crushed. That is the truth of evolution.

If I insist on calling some things good and bad, I am admitting that there exists a universal knowledge, sourced outside of myself which I can access. Harris has managed to prove that there is more to existence than what can be observed in natural phenomenon. He has managed to prove the existence of something beyond human nature, an idea of good and bad behavior. In attempting to prove Christianity false he has proven Atheism false.