In his Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris is absolutely certain about one thing: religion must be rejected from all aspects of public and private life. In his atheistic absolutism, Harris is more like his opposition than he realizes.

Like the faithful that he despises, he proves himself an absolutist with no room for debate. He is certain of that which he cannot “prove” – the complete and utter absence of God. He can no more “prove” this than a theist can “prove” the existence of God, but with unrelenting zeal and absolute commitment (the kind that can only be described as “religious”), Harris defends the undefendable and damns all those who disagree.

Like the most outspoken pulpiteer, Harris pulls no punches. He desires to see religion eradicated from all aspects of public and personal life. In direct conflict with the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”), Harris laments “the failure of our schools to announce the death of God in a way that each generation can understand” (91). This is not the role of public schools! Like many statements in this book, one could turn it around and hear the echoes of the religious radicals that Harris despises – radicals who lament “the failure of our schools to announce God in a way that each generation can understand.” Harris is as dangerous as those on the Right that he ridicules. He is hardly an advocate for freedom from or for religion.

Harris’ argument is not simply to keep religion out of public policy but also from personal lives (viii). Twice in the book, he argues that raising children within the context of any faith is illegitimate (ix). He longs to see the day that “the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish be widely recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is” (88). This is a slam on personal freedom – shouldn’t parents have the right to raise their children according to their values?

Like the most passionate exclusivist preacher, his criticism extends to all who disagree with his dogma. Though written primarily to Christians, Harris’ book is intended for “people of all faiths” (vii – viii). In his introduction, he attempts to nuance what he means by “Christian”: “the ‘Christian’ I address throughout is a Christian in a narrow sense of the term” (viii). Unfortunately, his definition of the “narrow sense” of Christian – those who believe in inspiration of the Bible and accept the divinity and lordship of Jesus, or “Christianity in its most committed forms” (ix) – is unhelpful. Christians across the theological spectrum hold to these beliefs. Obviously, Harris is against commitment to religion at any level. Though he claims to focus his critique on conservative Christians, he reprimands moderate and liberal Christians as well as people of all faiths (except Jainism, which appears to receive a passing grade from Harris).

Clearly, faith of any kind and of any religion is under attack. Harris goes as far as blaming moderates and liberals for the sins of religious extremism: “It is my hope… that they [moderate and liberal Christians] will also begin to see that the respect they demand for their own religious beliefs gives shelter to extremists of all faiths” (ix). In other words, all believers are responsible for the extremes of some believers. Merely having faith associates an individual with faith’s worst expressions. I wonder if Harris realizes that this “guilt-by-association” theory echoes fundamentalist philosophy. Even more, I wonder why he fails to see that his criticism can also be true for his own perspective. Reverse his statement and you have: “the respect atheists demand for their own anti-religious beliefs gives shelter to atheistic extremists of all types.” But Harris refuses to apply his own logic to his position.

Surprisingly – but not inconsistent with his arguments - atheists like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim Il Sung get off easy in Harris’ book (40). He goes out of his way to argue that there is absolutely no connection between their atheism and their immorality. Instead, he states that their atrocities stem from their irrationality: “While it is true that such men are sometimes enemies of organized religion, they are never especially rational. In fact, their public pronouncements are often delusional” (40). This is convenient, and it gets his atheism off the hot seat. But he allows these men grace he does not offer religious folk. Isn’t it possible that their “delusion” could stem from their atheism? Harris certainly believes that deadly “delusions” stem from theism. Sadly, his bias blinds him to the possibility that atheism can be just as deadly as theism! And if this is the case, his call for the eradication of religion is no better than his opponent’s solution of worldwide revival. His selective reading is most apparent when he states that religiously-motivated anti-Semitism contributed to the Holocaust (41). Certainly this is true. But so did social Darwinism!

This bias continues in his treatment of religiously-motivated good deeds. Every time Harris refers to any good motivated by religion, he never fails to offer criticism. No matter what good faith brings, “ignorance and death” always follow (34). Again, this reflects fundamentalist dogma – something is truly good only if it is absolutely “pure”. Any strain of impurity defiles the whole endeavor. This is obvious in Harris’ discussion of human suffering: “An atheist is a person who believes that the murder of a single little girl – even once in a million years – casts doubt upon the idea of a benevolent God” (52). The world must be all good – absolutely perfect – or God does not exist. Harris allows no room for any middle ground. It is all-or-nothing. The specter of fundamentalist haunts his atheism.

This continues in his views of God. He assumes that most “consistent” believers believe that the 2004 tsunami was directly caused by God and evidence of God’s wrath. “While I consider this interpretation of events to be utterly repellent, it at least has the virtue of being reasonable, given a certain set of assumptions. Liberals and moderates, on the other hand, refuse to draw any conclusions whatsoever about God from his works” (47-48). What “set of assumptions” is Harris working with? And why is he so certain of how liberals and moderates understand these events?

His simplistic absolutisms color his discussion of morality. After defending the current “list” of politically correct concerns for those on the Left, he ridicules people who are concerned about abortion, stem-cell research, and sexual purity. The following is typical: “If you are worried about human suffering, abortion should rank very low on your list of concerns” (37). Why must our concerns be either/or? Why can’t an individual be concerned for a wide range of issues? Isn’t it possible to be concerned about abortion and genocide? Isn’t it possible to desire progress in scientific research while questioning the long-term implications of the accepted use of embryonic stem cells? Couldn’t an individual present the ideal of abstinence while simultaneously doing everything possible to prevent STD’s? Again, Harris’ either/or mentality sounds more like a fundamentalist pastor than an educated philosopher.

Like the most fanatical fundamentalist preacher, Harris will allow no grey areas. The world is black and white. Religion is bad. Atheism is good. Faith is irrational. Science is rational. One is either completely for or against God. Those who fail to completely buy into one position are compromisers – not truly committed to the truth with a capital “T”.

Ultimately, any accommodation “to faith-based irrationality” is foolish (31). Only an absolutely eradication of religion, faith, and God can save our world from complete destruction. What we have is the apocalyptic imagery and proselytizing zeal of Left Behind – only in reverse! Harris is the mirror-image of the enemy he seeks to eradicate.

It is tragic that Harris does not recognize his likeness to his enemy. Few would argue that religion can be toxic. In one of his most astute criticisms, Harris writes, “Indeed, religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are highly immoral – that is, when pressing these concerns inflicts unnecessary and appalling suffering on innocent human beings” (25). The French philosopher and mathematician, Blaise Pascal, recognized this: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” Likewise, Jesus’ tirades against the Pharisees were attempts to address this distortion of religion.

Yes, I can certainly understand Harris’ concern. The agenda of the religious right can certainly seem intimidating to those who do not share their faith. I admit that Rod Parsley’s massive team of “Patriot Pastors” in Ohio, the widespread broadcast of “Justice Sundays” in evangelical churches, and James Dobson’s political support of all-things Bush (including a recent interview with Ann Coulter) leaves me with nothing but distaste for this movement. But the errors of one extreme do not justify another. At the end of the day, one may whole-heartedly disagree with right-wing, religiously-fueled politics, but life in a democracy allows it freedom of expression. The solution is not eradication of religion.

Harris’ purpose in writing this book “is to arm secularists in our society, who believe that religion should be kept out of public policy” (viii). Certainly, religion must not control public policy – the First Amendment guarantees this – but there is nothing wrong with one’s religious beliefs influencing public policy. Religion is personal, but not private. Religion that does not impact one’s morals, beliefs, and policy is hardly worth a passing commitment.

One must ask Harris: Should your atheism – which, as much as he wishes to deny this, is a religious view – be kept out of public policy as well? Harris skirts this by stating that his atheism is not a worldview or philosophy: “Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious” (51). Not only is this a bad argument – it is just obvious!? – but it once again echoes fundamentalist commitment. One can hear believers saying the opposite, “The existence of God is just ‘an admission of the obvious’.” Harris would not stand still for this. So he should not expect believers to rest content with it either.

What Harris fails to recognize is that it is quite possible that atheism is the delusion and theism the reality. Just as believers may derive comfort from a blind belief in God, so may atheists derive comfort from a rejection of God. Since neither belief nor unbelief can be adequately and ultimately “confirmed” or “denied”, either one could be a delusion. Like the fundamentalist preachers that he rejects, Harris is blind to the possibility that his belief in the complete absence of God may be a self-perpetuated delusion.

With this in mind, the following quote could be turned on Harris:

While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in our society. Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about. (67)

One can reverse the sentiment:

While disbelieving strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, atheism still holds immense prestige in our society. Atheism is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about – in this case, the absence of God!

Like the most passionate preacher speaking of a perfect future in heaven, Harris yearns for a civil society completely eradicated of religion: “One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns – about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering – in ways that are not flagrantly irrational” (87). Unfortunately, for Harris, this means speaking about these things without any religious referent whatsoever.

Harris wants meaning without religion. This may be the ultimate delusion, for if God exists and one gives his or her whole life to disproving this, then it is impossible to find meaning when ultimate reality is denied. Of course, Harris can reverse this argument and apply it to the religious. But he does not “prove” his point by simply declaring that the opposition is irrational.

Harris apparently does not realize that he is using the misguided tactics of the fundamentalist pastors he despises. Even worse, like them, he fails to recognize that the way he presents his argument limits his audience. In other words, he’s preaching to the choir!

Quotes excerpted from Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris
© Richard J. Vincent, 2006