PRINT-The End of Faith by Sam Harris

The End of Faith by Sam Harris is one of the books that came out recently that has sparked a more militant atheism. I am an atheist, so I agree with Sam Harris on that point. What Harris has done with Faith is condemn religion wholesale as a cancer on civilization and argues passionately that it needs to end. The detente between atheism and religion has led to accomodations that Harris says should never have been made. For instance, the religious reasons behind the 9/11 plot were glossed over by both Muslim moderates, Christian fundamentalists, and left leaning liberals. Harris condemns this accomodation.

I disagree with Harris on things such as his buddhist leanings which he tries to tackle from a scientific viewpoint, but I think is utter horseshit. Meditation may have certain beneficial aspects, but I think most people will find they get the same thing from taking a 30-minute nap. Then, there is Harris's call for one world government. I also detect the whiffs of a neocon foreign policy.

It doesn't take much to realize that Harris is a big government left leaning liberal. Where he differs from other liberals is that he refuses to tolerate religion. Somewhere, Harris and I diverge. I am an atheist, and I support stem cell research. I just oppose government funding of stem cell research. Harris supports government funding but argues that religious viewpoints should be expunged from public debate simply because they are ludicrous.

It is very difficult for me to go along with Harris on this stuff. I can appreciate the work of Richard Dawkins alot more because Dawkins downplays his political views to make the larger cultural point. Harris goes for the political jugular.

This is where I bring Nietzsche into the picture. Nietzsche argues that everything revolves around the will to power. Right and wrong are merely assertions of the will to power. Consequently, everything is justified for the sake of the cause. The political left has embraced this philosophy which is why you have groups like the NAACP, NOW, etc. pushing for their collective vision of narrowly defined rights. For instance, gay marriage is less about marriage than it is about rubbing people's noses in it. I think gays should have the right to marry, but I would argue that government should get out of the marriage business. I argue for freedom. The gay movement would rather keep the government control over it but direct it in a manner they see fit. By legalizing gay marriage, it forces everyone else--employers, insurance companies, etc.--to recognize homosexual unions. It is all about force.

Harris takes the same tack. Atheism should be brought about by force. Harris will probably disagree with my interpretation of his viewpoint, but that is because it is the right interpretation. Harris sees teaching evolution in public schools as being common sense. I see it as indoctrination. Though I believe in evolution, I prefer persuasion in the cultural arena as opposed to force in the political arena.

I am all for the cultural fight for atheism, but I am not for the political fight beyond opposing the religionist tyranny. The reason Christian fundamentalists became so militant in America was a direct result of the political actions of the left wing. They unwittingly adopted the Nietzschean worldview of the will to power in response to being forced to accept worldviews they disagree with.

As a libertarian, I reject the will to power. It doesn't take much to realize that this thinking is behind the current neo-conservative foreign policy of the Bush administration. This shit is utter madness. The Harris thesis is that the will to power should be wedded to atheism. Harris would disagree, but Sam Harris is not a libertarian.

I agree with Sam Harris on his cultural points. Christianity and Islam are fucked up no matter how benign they might be. I agree that the world would be a better place without religion, but it would only be slightly better. The fact is that dogma of all varieties whether it is the nationalism of Nazi Germany or the tyrannical impulse of communism and socialism or what have you ia the culprit.

Society depends upon a common definition of human rights and respect for those rights. Those rights are the rights to life, liberty, and property. That means that religious nutcases have the right to believe what they want and should be left alone to follow the dictates of their religion. Likewise, I am an atheist and a debauched hedonist who wants to be free to do as I please as well. Can the two coexist peacefully? I think they can.

Force applied to any ideology is tyranny. I don't think Sam Harris grasps that. But I recommend reading his book. He makes very good points about the madness and stupidity of religious thinking. I just can't go along with the will to power thing.

Posted in: