Chapter Six (Amanda Brawner)

A Science of Good and Evil
"Sam Harris hits on some topics that I've thought much about myself in Chapter Six: A Science of Good and Evil. Having read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, among other philosophical works that touch upon the notion of good and evil and write versus wrong, and being an anthropology major myself, I've never really been able to find a logical conclusion myself. Harris makes a good point when he says, "truth seems to be one of the principal shortcomings of secularism". He goes on to mention that the idea that murder is wrong, for example, is pretty uncontroversial between atheists, monotheists, and polytheists alike, though there is no "reason" behind our mutual conclusions. He goes on to site an example of what we might call "ethics" in another primate. On page 172, Harris says, "Even monkeys will undergo extraordinary privations to avoid causing harm to another member of their species". This is interesting to me, as we've studied behaviors of non-human primates in relation to culture and found that certain species seem surprisingly human-like in their interactions with one another. This is just another example of how culture (and, as in this case, morals and ethics) may be just as much a part of our biology as our brown hair or long legs. I agree with Harris that we feel more ethical obligations towards things/people who seem most "conscious" like us (page 174). His example of page 176 about the Nazi who murders Jews and then returns home that evening to be a loving father and husband makes sense to me as well; the Nazi in the story held beliefs that "inured him to the natural human sympathies that might have otherwise prevented such behavior". In later pages, Harris hits upon the subject of love as it pertains to honor and the context of "tribal" practices (honor killings). He then surprises me with his claim that violence is sometimes an ethical necessity (page 199). He does, however, site Ghandi as the most influential pacifist and praises his work against Britain. However, he calls Ghandi's solution to the Holocaust (mass suicide) immoral. I do agree with him on these points, but Ghandi believed that the Jews would be reincarnated and that this current life was expendable. A mass suicide would have drawn attention to the Nazis. From Ghandi's point of view, I can see why this might have worked. I guess maybe this is exactly what Sam Harris is trying to point out; that our beliefs can destroy even those with the "best" of intentions and that "best" (or even right and wrong) may be relative.

Chapter Five

Harris starts off the chapter by criticizing proponents of a Jewish state, citing that they only want it because they believe it is one of the requirements for the second coming of Christ. Harris then launches a stark criticism over the ten commandment controversy in Alabama, which while I agree should not be in the courthouse; I think the whole controversy has been blown way out of proportion. Harris then goes on to quote Leviticus and Exodus, which say if you take the Lords name in vain or work on the Sabbath you will die; but once again I will remind Harris that these rules of the Old Testament cannot be applied to modern day Christians. He then goes on to speculate on what George Bush and is “secretive” Christian pressure group talk about behind the closed doors of their quarterly meetings. Then he criticizes Bush for appointing a pro-life to the food and drug administration providing no evidence that he has instated any change based on this stance, just the fact that that is his personal stance must be wrong? He then claims we are so close to living in a theocracy because a devout Catholic Supreme Court Justice made a speech to his disliking at Divinity School, its not as if she made it during a Supreme Court hearing or even at a public speech, is next he going to tell me Bush is breaking the establishment clause because he speaks at his church? Then he goes on to criticize Scalia some more on his speech and views on the death penalty, and then attacks the author of Leviticus calling him barbarous at the end; not really paying attention to the fact that it was written a few thousand years ago when standards, even Gods, were different, which is why we have a New and an Old testament now.
Next he talks about the war on sin, in which he categorizes drug use, prostitution, sodomy, and viewing of absence materials as “victimless crimes”. I was relieved however when he did cite how this can not be so in some cases, yet once again he blamed our laws against these on the fact that Christians think they are sins. Christians do, and this country was founded by them, so that is probably the core reason why we have laws against these things, but there are many other reasons to uphold these laws. Prostitution increases the spreading of STD’s, drugs pose major health risks to their users and can impose danger on those who are close to the user personally or even in the vicinity in general, and according to the CDC sodomy is the easiest sexual way to spread AIDS. As far as drugs go though, I will have to agree with Harris’ view on Marijuana because I don’t see the harm if used in controlled settings, especially when compared to alcohol.
Matthew Grabiak

Chapter Two

In this chapter Sam Harris basically tells me that most people believe in religion because others told them to, and also that religion uses fear to govern humanity, the fear of hell or whatever they believe the ultimate punishment is ( see the following).
"Religion is based... mainly on fear... fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand,” Sam Harris
Based on the previous quote and other statements Harris believes religion leads directly to cruelty, I simply ask what exactly his definition of cruelty is. Obviously one of his major criticisms of religion is this chapter is this cruelty it creates yet in a later chapter he has an entire section on reasons he advocates torture in certain judiciary cases. That is jumping ahead a bit, but I believe that in this case a broad look at his case shows a bit of hypocrisy in this section.
Harris also adds to his case on faith in Holy documents with no backing but faith. Once again noting that fear comes into play, I don’t totally discount the fact that I am afraid to go to Hell, but its only one of a vast amount of reasons I consider myself a Christian. Also, whether they believe it is possible I would love to find one person that would not be afraid of the notion of burning for all eternity.
Matthew Grabiak

Chapter One

The End of Faith begins with a speculative story on how a suicide bomber’s last day might go, and how his family might celebrate in response to their son having killed himself and dozens of others. He uses this opening to stress the dangers of blind faith in religion, and states that our beliefs, “are leading us, inexorably, to kill one another.” I can partially agree with him in that extremist Muslims believe that killing themselves and taking the lives of no Muslims will send them to heaven, yet other religions and other sections of Islam do not preach anything of the kind. Harris does begin to focus on the dangers posed by extremist groups but he then equally attacks moderation of religion by basically saying that religious violence can not be opposed through the use of religious moderation.

In his critique on religious moderation, Harris quotes two passages from the book of Deuteronomy
"...you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 7-11)
“Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away”(Deuteronomy 13:1)
he uses them to say that basically all the bible is not know by the general masses, and that, “only by ignoring such barbarisms that the Good Book can be reconciled with life in the modern world.” However, Harris doesn’t take into account the fact that Christians don’t hold to Old Testament standards like this one, as Christ revised them in the New Testament, therefore this claim of having to ignore certain passages to make the Bible apply to the modern world is truly unsupported.
Harris also goes on to call for an end to acceptance and respect for other belief systems of a competing nature, all of which he believes are equally improvable based on lack of evidence. To me it seems that the idea of belief in something based on faith and not empirical evidence just blows Harris’ mind. To use the numbers he presents against him, that 35% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God and another 45% believe it was inspired by him, is a testament that faith exists in extremely high numbers and that the small number representing radical factions of religion or the small number representing complete critics of all religions is simply not enough to overturn the enduring believers.
Matthew Grabiak