All Comments for: Atheist Apostle | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > March

Christianity Today, March, 2007 |

Atheist Apostle

Sam Harris has little patience for theists of any sort.

Review by David Aikman | posted 3/05/2007 08:59AM

In the tradition of Voltaire, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University, has been battering at the walls of religious faith, especially Christianity ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

sb	Posted: March 09, 2007 4:13 PM

Harris has always cherry-picked his data, and misrepresented his opponents. But where he really fails is in making a positive case for his own position. Harris’ atheism assumes a universe governed by blind, unthinking, uncaring forces, which have created the world and everything in it, including us. We’re glorified (albeit unlikely) collections of chemicals, and nothing more. What does "ethical," "moral," or "sacred” even mean to such a collection? Harris not only cannot explain why such values should matter to any of us, he can’t even explain their existence in a purely naturalistic universe. And yet, he repeatedly appeals to such qualities when making his argument. In the end, the case for his world view depends on the existence of a real, external moral standard which his own presuppositions expressly deny. But still, credit to him for pressing on through the cognitive dissonance; his tenacity is to be admired, even if his intellectual credibility is not.

Sandrine

Posted: March 07, 2007 2:28 AM


It is absolutely wrong to say that Edward Said was a cultural relativist. Some of his disciples in Asia are cultural relativists, but he always insisted that he was opposed to relativism.

dipaolor@yahoo.com

Posted: March 06, 2007 6:15 PM

Generally, I wouldn’t respond to a response to my comment, but DiverCity must have misread my comment. So in an effort to clarify for the sake of clarification, note that my comment had nothing to do with “moderate” or “nominal” Christians. In fact, I don’t know what DriverCity means by such terms of “primary potency” seemingly intended to disparage such belief. My point was simply that the version of Christianity critiqued by Harris and the collective trinity of atheists isn’t that of Christianity as described in the biblical text, but rather a caricature thereof as manifest in the USA. Dobson and company are about as far from biblical Christianity as is the atheism of Harris, making it, at best a caricature of biblical faith, and thus Harris’s et al.’s critique a caricature (which is what his critique is) of a caricature, ie, a version of Christianity which bears little resemblance to that describe in the NT text. Clarifying further would be casting peals . .

dipaolor@yahoo.com

Posted: March 06, 2007 6:03 PM

Generally, I wouldn’t respond to a response to my response, but DiverCity must have misread my comment. So in an effort to clarify for the sake of clarification, note that my comment had nothing to do with “moderate” or “nominal” Christians. In fact, I don’t know what DriverCity means by such terms or “primary potency” seemingly intended to disparage such faith. My point was simply that version of Christianity critiqued by Harris and the collective trinity of atheists isn’t that of biblical Christianity as described in the biblical text, but rather a caricature thereof as manifest in the USA. Dobson & Co. are about as far from biblical Christianity as is the atheism of Harris & Co., making it, at best a caricature or biblical faith, and thus Harris’s et al.’s critique a caricature (which is what his critique is) of a caricature, ie, a version of Christianity which bears little resemblance to that describe in the NT text. Clarifying further would be casting peals . . .

Anonymous

Posted: March 06, 2007 10:59 AM

David Aikman is right! I came to US from a communist country where I grow up. I deal with the ateism and atheists all those years, and it's truth that some of them are good people, but few ... few and that voice doesn't mean anything. Those who really believe in that philosophy are instruments of the most evil system the last century knew. There is not repect of any human rigths when atheism get the power of goverment and rules a nation. There is not progress of any kind, but only slavery and poverty. So, it doesn't matter if Aikman's definitions are exactly or not, the reality of the world without cristianity if hell on earth! If you don't know that, you don't know nothing yet!

Steve Wells

Posted: March 06, 2007 7:32 AM

I think it should be made clear that religion and the atheistic regimes mentioned have a more fundamental element in common. That element is an historicism, a pre-figurative content. These commonalities are the true culprit vis a vis the ill-effects Mr. Harris laments. In that sense, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Al-Quaeda and the Inquisition are intimately related. Mr. Harris is correct as far as he goes, he simply doesn't go sufficiently to the fundamentals of the issue. Anyone interested should look into Karl Popper's excellent two volumes of The Open Society and It's Enemies and his The Poverty of Historicism.

Dante V

Posted: March 06, 2007 4:37 AM

Sounds like a man reacting out of fear. It is terrible that FEAR is used to manipulate those who believe in religion and secular people alike. I think it is the one thing that humanity reacts most actively, and in some cases for good reason. I believe that "evil" (for lack of a better word) uses the guise of both religious and secular society to play out its' destructive nature. Whether it be Christian against Muslim, Atheist against Christian, etc. Fear,deception,greed,pride,anger,lust, and an assortment of other emotions are part of human nature. I think they can all drive humans to do terrible things and play into the enemy hand. Sam Harris, for all his work in study and writing, must realize ever person has a choice for what he/she believes/does. His book is written out of a fear of religion. Although it is good to express emotion, perhaps some self control. He should be remind that not everyone is an extremist in this polarizing world. Beat fear with knowledge & vigilance Sam.

FVThinker

Posted: March 05, 2007 9:42 PM

After 9/11, I figured the problem was radical islam. But how does one segregate the radicals from the moderates? We have to look at the core faith. It would be unfair to single out islam, so I looked at religion as a whole. Like many believers that have the epiphany of "Truth", I had the epiphany of "truth" (actual, empirical truth) and saw that religion WAS the problem in many instances. When humankind base decisions on flawed ancient texts instead of reason and logic, all manner of societal ills come to pass. It has been demonstrated that the LEAST religions nations have the least societal ills by measures such as teen pregnancies, violent crime, teen abortions, sexually transmitted disease, etc. Please consider for a moment that the net upside of religion may not make up for the net downside. I am sure you buy tires and toasters using reason and logic. Shouldn't you run your life the same way?

david

Posted: March 05, 2007 6:52 PM


The Voltaire story seems to be untrue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#Views_on_Christianity

Rob Rumfelt

Posted: March 05, 2007 6:45 PM


Aikman's comment on Harris's use of moral categories is spot on. I just wish those defending Communism would get a clue. Communist regimes brutally suppressed ANY religion because the state was god. Distinguishing between philosophical atheism and political atheism is lame. Distinctions with little difference. Some atheists obviously prefer red Kool-Aid.

Mark Plus

Posted: March 05, 2007 5:51 PM


For some reason it still escapes notice that theistic creationists who believed in strict moral absolutes, a final judgment and an afterlife attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

jerseyguy

Posted: March 05, 2007 5:15 PM

Harris is correct. Atheism is not a philosophy. Simply it is the rejection in a belief in God. There is no dogma or belief system. Because religious people think and act in groups and share a common set of beliefs, they are trying to make atheists in their image. Group them into something they can put their arms around so they can define them and then knock them down. But grouping athiests is like herding cats. There are good atheists and bad atehists. Some are freethinkers, some are human secularists, some are Buddhists, some have no opinion and some just do evil, like Stalin. They are just individuals. There is no group. This argument over who committed atrocities and what they believed is silly. Christians have more than they share of atrocities so they should not throw stones. I think Dawkins summed it up best in the God Delusion. "Without religion good people will do good an dbad people will do bad. But for good people to do bad, that takes religion.

Justin Esposito

Posted: March 05, 2007 3:15 PM

The problem is that when someone is an atheist, we can pretty much take their word for it 100% of the time, but in the case of Christianity, we might have 2-10% actual followers of Christ among those who profess Christianity to be their "religion." This is why people like President Bush become the poster boys for everything wrong in Christendom, when in fact they know not God in the slightest way. The good name of Christ is hijacked for evil means and the blind atheists see us all as the same thing, not knowing that there is a huge difference between having a relationship with God and simply saying you do for the power's sake. Harris is completely in the dark, poor fellow, but his logic doesn't even add up to anything special anyways, so this book is a non-essential piece of toilet paper really.

DiverCity

Posted: March 05, 2007 2:41 PM

dipaolor you OBVIOUSLY have NOT read much Harris. He reserves some of his harshest criticism for so-called moderate or nominal christians (his adjectives, not mine). There is absolutely no middle ground for him, except perhaps for eastern mysticism. So he is a fundamentalist -- read his online debate with Andrew Sullivan if you doubt me. Marco, "at best" you're being disingenuous. Communism might not have murdered to "foster" atheism, but it sure did murder. Religions murdered/murder for the same reasons -- power, control, fear. It's the human condition.

Marco

Posted: March 05, 2007 1:55 PM

Stating that communist regimes killed millions of people under the aegis of scientific Atheism is at best misleading. Indeed, unlike Christianity and Islam, under no circumstance did Communism kill to foster Atheism. This trite claim is nothing but the umpteenth pathetic attempt to find an ideological "balance" to the horrors and atrocities committed by Christianity and the other mainstream religions. Although the christian pseudohistorical propaganda keeps trying to hide the truth in this respect, philosophical atheism never supported or committed any major crime against mankind. The equivalent cannot certainly be said for Christianity or Islam.

Tom	Posted: March 05, 2007 1:06 PM


Let's remember that the greatest killing fields in the 20th century were done by "reasonable" atheists trying to get rid of religion and bad thinking. On the other hand if there is no God, then it does not matter that any group is killing any other. This leads us back to getting rid of those we do not like. Atheism is a no-winner.

Polycarp

Posted: March 05, 2007 11:52 AM


Much of the rhetoric that Harris uses is reminiscent of that used by fundamentalists which leads me to believe that fundamentalism is more about 'how' one ones believes as opposed to 'what' one believes. This specifically applies to his disdain for religious moderates who are also disdained by religious fundamentalists.

mike rucker

Posted: March 05, 2007 11:30 AM

harris and the increasingly vocal athiestic front are simply the natural response to an evangelical right that is just as entrenched and unwilling to admit that there are points of compromise. clinging to a literal reading of genesis, being unapologetically pro-war, pro-tax relief, and pro-capitalist, and insisting that all non-Christians will burn in hell eternally forces opposing viewpoints to be just as unthinkingly rigid. and having a president that feels he is on a mission from God to remake the world in America's image with a callous disregard for history and an willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints makes every voice in the discussion take the "my way or the highway" approach.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment