At the very beginning of his book, Sam Harris makes this very true statement: “Your beliefs define your vision of the world; they dictate your behavior; they determine your emotional responses to other human beings” (12). He is completely correct here—one’s beliefs do indeed define one’s vision of the world. Francis Schaeffer calls this “presuppositional apologetics”—namely, one has a fundamental worldview that is presupposed, and that worldview then acts as the lens through which one evaluates the world.
For example, Americans presuppose that certain truths like “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are “self-evident.” It is a “truth” that we don’t even question. Yet there are other cultures throughout history that do not view one’s individual pursuit of happiness as absolute—for them it is more “self-evident” that one uphold the honor of one’s family, and that the functioning of the group takes precedence over one’s individual preferences. Most people’s bedrock “beliefs” therefore often go unexamined to a certain extent; they are simply taken for granted. Harris singles out “religious belief” as “bad” because there have been admittedly many religious people who do not fully examine their beliefs and who have abused other human beings based on a tortured belief system.
And although Harris’ criticisms do, in fact, ring true when it comes to some religious people, his main flaw is that he then over-generalizes his criticisms to apply to all religious people for all time. By doing so Harris proves himself to be ignorant of not only history, but of Christian theology and biblical studies as well. His over-generalizing tendencies take on the persona of a sophomoric teenager who, because he has had his heart broken by one particular girl, then declares, “All girls are cruel and untrustworthy!”
Harris’ Supernatural Science
In any case, Harris does, in fact, have his own beliefs—he doesn’t just spend his time criticizing religious belief. He actually advocates for his own belief system: that of humanistic reason and science. He might object to having it called his “belief system,” but that is what it is nonetheless. The very fact that he offers his declaration of faith in science and reason as a cure for all humanity’s ills in the form of a “prayer” pretty much seals the deal on this fact.
If that was not enough, though, certainly this quote does: “There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life” (16). Believe it or not, Harris fully admits that there is a “sacred dimension” to life—he just thinks the way to tap into that dimension comes through….that’s right, science and reason. In this post we will look at what Harris believes is the answer to this world’s problems. We will look at his take on the sacred wonders of science and reason.
Early on, Harris makes quite an astounding claim about science. When it comes to the ultimate questions in life, questions regarding happiness, love, beauty, ugliness, smiling, laughing, ego as illusion, life after death, Harris says this: “These are ultimately questions for a mature science of the mind. If we ever develop such a science, most of our religious texts will be no more useful to mystics than they now are to astronomers” (20). Apparently, Harris thinks that “science of the mind” will be able to provide a conclusive, scientific, and definitive answer as to whether or not Van Gogh’s painting are either beautiful or ugly, what specific things makes one smile or laugh, and the question Haddaway has been asking for 20 years: “What is love? Baby don’t hurt me! Don’t hurt me no more!”
It mystifies me that Harris believes “science” will be able to quantify unscientific aspects of human existence. How can one scientifically prove things like beauty, love, and ugliness? It certainly seems that Harris is trying to invest science with ‘supernatural’ properties that cannot be scientifically proven or verified. So, in quite the ironic twist, not only has Harris redefined “religious faith” to mean “violent, extremist, and irrational,” he has also redefined “science and reason” to mean…“supernatural religion.”
I supposed Harris was talking about his own “faith” in the religion of science when he said, “…every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which it has no evidence” (23).
The Death Penalty
In any case, Harris spends the last few chapters of his book discussing certain contemporary issues and providing what he feels are “reasonable” answers to them. One such issue he tackles is that of the death penalty. He apparently disagrees with Justice Scalia, who supports the death penalty. Harris says, “We know, for instance, that no human being creates his own genes or his early life experiences, and yet most of us believe that these factors determine his character throughout life. It seems true enough to say that the men and women on death row either have bad genes, bad parents, bad ideas, or bad luck. Which of these quantities are they responsible for?” (157).
For Harris, the “reasonableness” of whether or not the death penalty should be allowed rests on things like one’s genes, one’s parents, one’s ideas, or just bad luck. But Harris seems to miss the entire point when it comes to this issue. The essential argument against the death penalty, as far as I can tell, is fundamentally theological: human beings are made in God’s image. No matter how bad they might be, we should hold out hope that that image can be redeemed. Therefore, punishment for murder is necessary, but the ultimate punishment of death forever deprives that murderer of a chance at redemption. I do not necessarily agree with this, but I can see the reasoning in it.
For someone who holds that there is no God, and therefore no absolute moral law, I cannot imagine a “reasonable” argument against the death penalty. If we are only the product of blind evolution, and therefore have no inherent nobility, dignity, or uniqueness, then the extermination of a certain cluster of cells that threaten and kill other clusters of cells seems, well, logical. By the same token, it is also logical and reasonable to argue that because we are made in God’s image, someone who has chosen to take the life of one who possesses nobility and dignity has forfeited his/her own right to his/her own life.
But Harris makes none of these arguments. His argument is simply, “Well, what if a murderer had a tough relationship with his parents? What if he had a hot-headed father and therefore inherited that ‘anger-gene’?” Harris, therefore, misses the fundamental point of human choice. To murder someone in cold blood is a choice that a person makes. Unless that person is truly insane, that is a choice he is in full control of making. The punishment, whatever that might be, should fit the crime, not a person’s genetic make-up. No one was sentenced to death because his parents mistreated him—people get sentenced to death because they committed murder. To answer Harris question in that quote: the person is responsible for the choice he made to murder someone.
Using Harris’ “logic,” we wouldn’t be able to enforce any laws, let alone the death penalty—a man rapes a woman, but how can you punish him? After all, his father had stacks of pornography lying around the house, so the man was taught at a young age that women are just sex objects. The answer is that, despite the fact that exposure to pornography at a young age is bad, that still is no excuse for going out and choosing to rape a woman. The man is going to be punished based on the actions he has chosen to do, not his particular life’s circumstances. If you dismiss the death penalty on the grounds of a person’s less than perfect childhood, then by the same token you must dismiss all penalties.
Drugs…Legalize Them All!
Another issue that Harris spends a considerable amount of time on is the use of drugs—simply put, Harris thinks all drugs should be legal, and that the reason many of them are illegal stems from irrational religious convictions that want to prevent people from experiencing fun and pleasure. I’m not kidding. Consider these quotes:
“Behaviors like drug use, prostitution, sodomy, and the viewing of obscene materials have been categorized as ‘victimless crimes.’ [Therefore]…we must ask ourselves, why would anyone want to punish people for engaging in behavior that brings no significant risk of harm to anyone?” (159).
I certainly would not categorize drug use, prostitution, sodomy, and pornography as “victimless crimes.” Harris is naïve and foolish to think that the use of hard drugs threatens the well-being of not only their users, but of families and society as a whole. And how can he not see that prostitution oftentimes is nothing more that sexual slavery—women are abducted and forced into being sex slaves, and many prostitutes get into prostitution because they need money to pay for…their drug addiction. As for sodomy, let’s take morality out of the picture for the sake of argument for a moment, and just state the obvious: anal sex, regardless whom it is with, causes severe physical damage and opens the door wide open for the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. And as for pornography, try telling the men and women who now suffer from AIDS and other STD’s and who have to deal with severe emotional and psychological trauma because of their involvement in the porn industry that it is a “victimless crime.” The fact is that these behaviors and actions cause considerable harm to those who engage in them—I am amazed at Harris’ blindness to this fact. His rationale really seems to be nothing more than, “If religious people think it’s bad, then I’m going to argue it should be legalized.”
[Drugs]: “Of course, pleasure is precisely the problem with these substances, since pleasure and piety have always had an uneasy relationship” (160). “Under our current laws, it is safe to say, if a drug were invented that posed no risk of physical harm or addiction to its users but produced a brief feeling of spiritual bliss and epiphany in 100 percent of those who tried it, this drug would be illegal, and people would be punished mercilessly for its use. Only anxiety about the biblical crime of idolatry would appear to make sense of this retributive impulse. Because we are a people of faith, taught to concern ourselves with the sinfulness of our neighbors, we have grown tolerant of irrational uses of state power” (162).
I find is astounding that Harris claims the reason things like drugs are illegal are not because they are dangerous, but because they’re so incredibly awesome “religious” people want to spoil their fun! “Pleasure and piety have always had an uneasy relationship”? Really? Apparently Harris thinks all Christians for all time are like the self-flagellating albino monk from The DaVinci Code. The vast majority of Christians throughout history have lived life fully and have taken pleasure in the goodness of God’s creation.
Let’s be clear, certain drugs are illegal because they are scientifically proven to be addictive, harmful, and destructive to both the individual and to society. One can debate these on a case by case basis, but to blame “people of faith” as the culprits behind this scheme to make sure no one has any fun is just rather sophomoric.
Terrorism and Drugs
Harris makes one other astounding claim that the United States should be focusing on the war on terror, and not on things like drugs. For the last 15 years our country has been consumed with fighting wars both in Afghanistan and Iraq, all in the name of the war on terror. Apparently Harris has missed this. Furthermore, he apparently doesn’t know that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were funded by their heavy involvement in the opium trade. Simply put, the war on terror and the war on drugs often go hand in hand. What is the cause of the brutality and violence on the Mexican border? The drug lords. Drugs fund the brutality and terrorism of both the Taliban and the Mexican drug lords. Yet Harris is seemingly oblivious to this, and actually continues to say that drugs are a victimless crime.
As should be obvious, Harris’ attempts to address the moral issues of our day using only “science and reason” don’t really seem to reasonable, or even concerned with reality.
