Letter to a Christian Nation Part III

Or

"Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

Notes from the last 11 pages of Harris's Book.

Religion, Violence, and the Future of Civilization:

79-83) Hard to find a usable quote here. Harris explains that most societies are aligned along religious lines, then lists a series of wars which he claims are being fought because of religion.

84-85) "Political correctness and the fear of racism have made many Europeans reluctant to oppose the terrifying religious commitments of the extremists in their midst." Two points; In 2005 (I think) France outlawed the wearing of religious paraphernalia in public places. This was to limit the dress of Muslim women, but it also included crosses. Second, This seems more a fault of political correctness and "fear of racism."

85) "The idea that Islam is a 'peaceful religion hijacked by extremists' is a fantasy, and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge." This proceeds a paragraph in which Harris states the danger of Islam. I think I see where he is going here and my answer is this: Christianity is not Islam. I know Harris attempted to liken Christianity to Islam earlier, but he was not successful. He concludes this section by claiming that religious dialogue and "tolerance" are not the answer, that one faith will not be reconciled to another. For once we are in agreement. He has not claimed here that Christianity is violent like Islam, but he is leading us there.

Conclusion:

89) "You may even experience feelings of bliss while praying." Talk about patronizing. Clearly this man has never prayed.

89) "I would point out however, that billions of other human beings, in every time and place, have had similar experiences--but they had them while thinking about Krishna, or Allah, or the Buddha, while making art or music, or while contemplating nature." More evidence that humans have an internal need to cry out to, and imitate our creator. Not all people know His name, but every one wants to be near Him. What about the cosmos instilled this instinct? If we evolved by means of pure chance, where did this desire come from? Wouldn't this have been naturally selected away eons ago? If evolution constantly making things better, (Contrary to the second law), and Belief in anything greater than me is bad, then why isn't religion extinct?

89) "You are, of coarse, right to believe that there is more to life than simply understanding the structure and contents of the universe. But this does not make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about it's structure or contents any more respectable." OK Harris has been very careful to point out that science cannot answer questions about the reasons behind the universe, with this statement he indicates that it is OK to believe something about the meaning of life. But he's written this whole letter attempting to convince me that there is no meaning of life. He wants to have his cake and to eat it too.

90) Next Harris claims that religion must have served some evolutionary purpose, but that purpose is over, and we must move on. If this is true why doesn't evolution take care of it? He concludes with this comment: "There is, after all, nothing more natural than rape." Only an Atheist could say something like that. To suggest that rape is anything but sin requires a level of moral depravity one could only find by turning his back on God.

91) "This letter has been an expression of that amazement [that you believe in a living God] and perhaps a little hope." What hope does Mr. Harris have? By abandoning God he has abandoned hope, and he is encouraging us to do the same.

Letter to a Christian Nation Part II

or

You and me baby ain't nothin but mammals

Here are my notes on pages 46-79. Please feel free to comment, but keep in mind that they are just notes and thus very rough.

Who Puts the Good in the Good Book:

46) "Even if a belief in God had a reliable positive effect on human behavior, this would not offer a reason to believe in God." But we don't believe in God because it is "Good for society," We believe in God because He is there. Christianity's faith in God is not out of necessity for a harmonious society, it is because we are expressing our need to cry out to our Creator. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Faith in God is not bad for society, but it wouldn't matter if it was. Is Harris suggesting that I think that if I just believe in God every one will be happy? That's preposterous.

47-48) Here Harris describes the Tsunami in 2004 that killed thousands of people. This time he quotes liberal Christians who think that belief in God makes them feel good. He shoots this down with ease and I agree that if we based our beliefs on our feelings, we won't believe in a benevolent God for very long. He then quotes the Christians who believe that the Tsunami was a consequence of God's wrath. He says this makes sense, but then, how is God good? This is a question that has been asked for a very long time. I trust that what God knows is good, is superior to what I (or any other person) think is good. I don't understand why God allows bad things to happen, but if God is God, and I am His creation then I don't need to understand. God is not dependent on my approval to exist. Here Harris displays his relativistic definition of good.

49) "You are using your own moral intuitions to decide that the Bible is the appropriate guarantor of your moral intuitions. You intuitions are still primary, and your reasoning is circular." Where does he get the idea that I believe in God and the Deity of Christ because I agree with Him. I believe in the Deity of Christ because it is reasonable. If I believe that Christ is God, then I must follow His commandments, and make His "moral intuitions" my own. First comes reasonable belief, then comes disciple hood. That is not circular. Here someone like Earlman makes a much better argument against Christianity.

50) "We decide what is good in the Good Book. We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another distillation of morality:...[paraphrases Deut 22:13-21] If we are civilized we will reject this as the vilest lunacy imaginable." Christians don't pick and choose the passages they like from the Bible, at least they ought not. I don't decide what is good in the good book, I trust God that it is all good. Deut 22:13-21 sounds heinous, but it is there to demonstrate extent of God's love and grace. See the book of Hosea.

50) "The choice is simple, we can either have a twenty first century conversation about morality and human well-being--a conversation in which we avail ourselves of all the scientific insights and philosophic arguments that have accumulated in the last two thousand years..."

"You and me baby aren't nothin but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel."----The Bloodhound Gang 1998

The Goodness of God:

50-54) Here Harris describes several tragedies, hurricane Katrina is the central theme. His point is dramatically put, that a benevolent God could not do such heinous things. Again, God's existence is no dependant on any one's approval. Many terrible things happen that we do not understand.

54) "Once you stop swaddling the reality of the world's suffering in religious fantasies, you will feel in your bones just how precious life is--and, indeed how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all." Is this supposed to be comforting? If there is no God, then there is no reason. A place with no reason is...well it's hell. I would rather there be a reason that I don't understand, or even don't agree with, than complete randomness.

55) "But we have seen that human standards of morality are precisely what you use to establish God's goodness in the first place." No God is not good because I agree with Him. Here Harris shows the heart of his fallacy. Goodness is not defined by humans. Goodness is defined by God. Things happen that I don't understand, things happen that I don't like, but God is not seeking my approval. Funny that so many points in his book seem to be well thought out and carefully explained, but he leaves us to glean out the most fundamental assumption that is made; The question of what is Good, and what is not.

The Power of Prophecy:

57) Here he makes the claim that the writers of the New Testament simply looked back to the books of the Old and wrote their fiction based on the prophesies they saw. But the "Old Testament" as we know it did not exist until well after most of the New Testament was written. The books of the old testament were put together based on the scriptures that were most often quoted by Christ. In many cases the writers of the New Testament had little access to the books of the Old.

58) There is a discussion about the Gospel writers disagreeing on the virgin birth. Must do more research.

58-59) Apparent contradictions between Mark and Matthew as to when exactly Christ was crucified, Matt 27:9-10 attributes a saying to Jeremiah which appears in Zacharia 11:12-13

60) "The Bible contains nothing like this [specific prophecy] in fact it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century. This should trouble you." This does not trouble me. The Bible was written by men living in the first century (NT). No where does the Bible claim to be the actual words of God. The word's are the authors (Paul, John etc). It is the ideas that are God's. The Canon keeps coming up in these arguments.

60-62) Now Harris laments the Bible for not giving us specific mathematics and the cure for cancer. God created the capacity for science and reason, the Bible God's answer key. It seems like Harris wants God to be like himself. He has measured his idea of God, and found it lacking. Harris therefore decided that God could not exist. God wants me to be like Himself. He measured my inmost character and found me lacking. So he sent His son to die, so that I could be made Holy.

The clash of Science and Religion:

First of all, there should be no clash between science and religion. Science is a tool that God has given us to better understand His creation and thereby Him.

65) "Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies."

Maybe so, but this is the fault of believers, not of God. I agree with him to an extent about religion. We Christians ought not to separate our lives into different areas. Rather we ought to go about our whole lives seeking the glory of God.

67) "It is time that we admitted that 'Faith' is nothing more than the licence religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail." Wrong again. My faith in God does not come into play when I question if He exists. I need only marvel at the beauty of my wife, or the Grand Canyon to answer those questions. My faith is used when I question weather or not God will keep His promises to me. That faith is based on the fact that He has kept all of His promises in the past, and that He will continue to do so.

The Fact of Life:

This section talks about the "irrefutable evidence" supporting evolution, yet no specific examples are given. Harris just states that I would be a fool to question them. So in the previous section he scolds me for believing in God despite lack of evidence, then in the next he tells me that I am foolish for not accepting evolution, yet offers no evidence of support for evolution. Make up your mind. I won't defend creationism here, but may comeback to it later.

He further laments the ideas of intelligent design. Well I have a lot of problems with those theories myself and I will therefore take a pass here.

75) "Over 99 percent of the species that ever walked, flew or slithered upon this earth are now extinct. This fact alone appears to rule out intelligent design." Again he does not understand God so he therefore dismisses Him. Fortunately God is not dependent on our understanding of Him, or our acceptance of Him in order to exist. He follows with the idea that since things have gone extinct and "regressed," an intelligent being could not have been behind the design of the cosmos. But the second law of thermo is in perfect conjunction with scripture. Things were perfect when God created the earth, and they have become less so over time (as a result of sin.) Eventually the whole system will revert to chaos, at which time, or before, Christ will return and set things right.

78) Harris then concludes this discussion by describing a few "design flaws" in humans. These "Flaws" cause people to suffer. Thus, according to Harris, they are bad, and could not have come from anything intelligent. He has again confused his inability to understand God with the existence thereof. Also check out whydoesgodhateamputees.com

Religion, Violence and the Future of Civilisation:

It is late, and I am getting lazy, yet here comes the rub of the argument. I will defer to fresh eyes and mind. Tune in tomorrow.

Letter to a Christian Nation

Here are some notes I made whilst reading Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation." I am reading this in preparation for a series of lectures I will be making to high school students about Christian apologetics. I wanted to do something a little more current than Evidence That Demands a Verdict, and Know Why You Believe. So I am trying to take some of the most recent affronts to Christianity and work on some defences from them. This book was published in 2007 and represents a very prevalent idea; that Christianity like, Islam is dangerous because it breeds fanatics who depart from reason, and kill in the name of God.

My notes follow. Please be kind. They are just notes, and I'm sure they are rife with all manner of errors. This is over the first 45 pages, tomorrow I will work on the last 45. Wednesday I will gather my thoughts into some coherency and put up something respectable.

Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris

samharris.org

Note to the Reader:
vii) "The most hostile of these communications always comes from Christians."
Guilty.
viii) "Such a person believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that only those who accept

the divinity of Christ will experience salvation after death."
Who else is a Christian?
ix) "...and that the first members of our species was fashioned out of dirt and divine breath."
Is it less fantastic to believe that we came spontaneously from an ape like creature?
He finishes the note with a discussion of what he believes that Christians believe about Christ's return.

He equates the belief that the world will end with the idea that America will regress from power and ability. It

is mystifying that while I cling to the idea that a departure of faith has led to our recent demise, there is a

very popular idea that renewed faith is the true cause of the same.

No Heading:
3-5) Here Harris introduces himself by flatly stating that he is not a relativist. This is very

important, and it sets this attack apart from the majority of attacks on Christianity today.
7) "Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way Muslims view Christianity. And that this

is the way I view all religions." MOHAMED WAS DOCUMENTED SINNER, HE WAS, HIS PROPHECIES AND TEACHINGS CONTRADICT

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. HE THEREFORE CANNOT BE FROM GOD.

The Wisdom of the Bible:
8) "Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering." WRONG. QUESTIONS OF MORALITY

ARE ABOUT WHAT IS PLEASING TO GOD, AND WHAT IS NOT. HUMAN HAPPINESS AND SUFFERING (ON EARTH) HAVE LITTLE TO DO

WITH MORALITY. He continues to quote Duet 13:6, 8-15. Next he quotes Christ, that the law will stand until it is

fulfilled (Matt 5:18-19)
11) "The problem, however, is that the teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self contradictory that

it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five centuries."
13) Quotes 2 Thess 1:6-9 and John 15:6 These passages describe the vengeance of God on the non believer.

But if God is God, then vengeance is His prerogative. He is holding God up to what he believes to be good, not what

God defines as good.
15-19) He concludes this section with examples of how the Bible "condones" slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46,

Exodus 21:7-11, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Tim 6:1-4). "The moment that one 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 and treat them like farm equipment." PRECISELY. BUT MY DOGS EXPERIENCE HAPPINESS AND SUFFERING AS WELL. IS

IT PATENTLY EVIL FOR ME TO OWN THEM, AND USE WATSON TO HELP ME FIND BIRDS? THE REASON SLAVERY IS WRONG IS BECAUSE

MAN IS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. HARRIS KNOWS THIS BUT DOESN'T REALIZE IT. IF THE BIBLE IS NOT TRUE, THEN HOW

COULD WE ARGUE AGAINST SLAVERY SHORT OF BECOMING HINDU?

The Ten Commandments:
19) "The first four have nothing whatsoever to do with morality." WHOSE MORALITY? HARRIS HAS YET TO GIVE

A SOLID DEFINITION OF MORALITY OTHER THAN "WHATEVER MAKES PEOPLE HAPPY IS GOOD" IF WE DEFINE MORALITY AS "THAT

WHICH IS PLEASING TO GOD" THEN THE FIRST FOUR COMMANDMENTS ARE ABSOLUTELY MORAL.

Real Morality:
24-25)OK, NOW HE IS GOING TO DEFINE MORALITY...WELL MAYBE NOT. HE MENTIONS SOMETHING ABOUT LOVE...AND

"better and worse ways to seek happiness." He spends these pages summarizing (I think) that Humans can find a

"guide" (my word, not Harris's) to morality programed into them. He even says that chimpanzees display a loose

idea of what is "right" and what is not. But how did this get in us? Did the Cosmos in their timeless randomness

program these ideas into the world? MANY QUESTIONS HERE LEFT UNANSWERED.
25) "One of the most pernicious effects of religion is that it tends to divorce morality from the reality

of human and animal suffering." HE CONTINUES TO PAGE 29 WITH A DISCUSSION OF BAD POLICY ABOUT AIDS AND HPV, AND

ATTRIBUTES IT TO CHRISTIANITY. THIS MAY BE TRUE. BUT LETS REMEMBER THAT THE REASON THERE IS SUFFERING IS BECAUSE

THERE IS SIN. WHAT CHRISTIANS DO POLITICALLY IS OFTEN MISGUIDED, AND ALWAYS CONTROVERSIAL. BUT CHRISTIANS KNOW

THAT THE ONLY WAY TO EXTERMINATE SUFFERING IS TO EXTERMINATE SIN.
29-32) IS A DISCUSSION OF STEM CELL RESEARCH. I NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE DETAILS, BUT HE IS GOING AT

THIS WITH THE IDEA THAT WHATEVER CAUSES THE LEAST AMOUNT OF SUFFERING IS MORAL. IF THIS IS TRUE THEN HE IS

PROBABLY RIGHT. BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MORAL.

Doing Good for God:
35) Here he quotes Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great) in saying that Mother Teresa furthered poverty

by apposing the empowerment of women. But Ghandi too furthered poverty by pushing India into a textile industry

and helping Sukarno into power. He goes on to extol Mother Teresa for proclaiming that abortion is the greatest

evil we face as a society. Then he argues against this by declaring that the suffering of a fetus is less than

the suffering of others. Here he demonstrates that what is moral, is what causes the least amount of suffering.

Are Atheists Evil:
35-46) First he attempts to refute the idea that the greatest genocides of recent history happened in

atheist societies. He attempts to explain that it was the leader (Hitler, Stalin eg.) who caused the genocide,

not the atheists. But what society allowed the maniac to take power. He goes so far as to say that these

societies actually had a "cult of personality" attached to their leader. THIS CULT OF PERSONALITY COULD ONLY ARISE

IN A PLACE WHERE GOD IS ABSENT.