I agree with most of Harris' thesis and was sympathetic to those views of which I am not in agreement up until Harris' argument regarding moral equivalency. Of course a moral equivalency between the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan during the Clinton administration and the events of 9/11 is an atrocious argument to make, but I think Harris betrays the intellectual justification for his entire thesis by glossing over and discounting the discussion here.

As enlightened as contemporary Christian nations may be when compared to their predecessors in centuries past, it is impossible to ignore, as it appears Harris does, the clout the idea of heaven has for American Christians. Harris implores his critics to simply take Muslims at their word and look at the motivations they espouse as justification for their actions, but then when it comes to Christianity and the West he ignores those same motivations. The implicit understanding in Christian cultures is not far off from that of the Muslims.

With the same degree of certainty as the Muslims, American Christians feel that they are justified in their transgressions against humanity so long as they can hide behind a thin veil of rationalization regarding their intentions. "We weren't trying to kill thousands of people, so killing thousands of people is ok." You see this argument repeatedly advocated by our President, the one who thinks he talks to god, and other Christian politicians and pundits. They tend to think that since our crimes are crimes of the heart rather than crimes of the mind, that we had good intentions but the result turned out bad, we should be absolved of moral responsibility. Harris makes the same argument in this book.

This arrogance and ethnocentrism leads us to pursue policies that we know will result in innocent death while providing our minds with a supposed moral disconnect from reality that allows us to believe that our crimes are not really crimes at all since we were well intentioned. All of your objections to the contrary notwithstanding, it makes no difference to the mother of a child who was killed in an air raid whether or not you intended to drop the guided bomb unit on her child's school. And then when, rather than accepting responsibility for it, you as a nation attempt to rationalize and justify this reprehensible act, you breed the hatred and contempt that is felt for the West, the United States in particular, in the Muslim world.

Although a moral equivalency does not exist, we must realize that we cannot simultaneously preach the tenants of modern liberalism/libertarianism while arrogantly spreading that ideology through force and ignoring the negative consequences of that policy simply because we are not as morally reprehensible as the other guy.

As much as I agree with most of Harris' arguments so far, his errors with respect to this topic have biased me against his subsequent contentions.

Having read Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Russell, Harris' conclusion regarding mysticism and spirituality devoid of dogmatic religious faith is what makes him stand out among the crowd. What I find most frustrating about End of Faith, even more so than the problems I mention above, is that Harris concludes with that remarkable argument, but does not do it justice. Having established that dogmatic religious faith is a detriment to human happiness, his proposal of an understanding of our existence based on empirical evidence, rather than ignorant superstition, is the most valuable contribution of this book. Compared to the extended lengths to which he goes to establish his argument against Islam, he merely glosses over the concept of Eastern mysticism and a legitimate connection to our existence that transcends petty terrestrial bickering. He sells himself short on this front. Hopefully once Mr. Harris completes his doctoral work on neuroscience he will release a follow-on title elaborating on this topic.

I wanted to like this book, and while I did agree with some of what Harris has to day, it seems superficial in many ways, particularly where he says:

"It seems that if our species ever eradicates itself through war, it will not be because it was written in the stars but because it was written in our books; it is what we do with words like 'God' and 'paradise' and 'sin' in the present that will determine our future"

In the not too distant past, I can cite the Vietnam War as one that had nothing to do with religion or god...and there are other examples to be had...perhaps if he had phrased this to mean it this has been the case in the past (but not exclusively) and will likely be the case in the future, especially given they myriad of conflict we are now enmeshed in. I think Harris book would have been much more effective had he stuck to the negative effect that religion can have/is having on our government (or any democratic government for that matter), which was, I feel founded on reason and logic. I also can't get 100% behind the idea that if we just got rid of those particular books and God that there would be no more terrorism or war in the world, I think it's in human nature (religion aside) to be warlike, selfish and cruel at times. I agree with him that it seems unbelievably foolish to think that any book contains the literal word of God, but that has been written by men. The idea that after 2000+ years they are in no way in need of updating and revising to take into account advances in knowledge and human understanding, is simply ridiculous. Overall it was an interesting read, but I don't think I'd recommend this or want it for my permanent library. I give it 3 stars.

This book is a must read. I encourage everybody who apologizes for every religion (especially Islam) to read Sam Harris. I found Chapter 3 to be most entertaining; it's called, "The problem with Islam." Harris provides a long list of quotes from the "religion of peace."

I encourage everybody to buy this book, read it, and then pass it to a friend or family member. If you've got any questions, please email me at the below email address. Thanks!

Zach Watkins
zachw2007@gmail.com

This book is very well written and critically analyzed, containing mountains of information and direct quotes from the bible and koran. For all that have written negative reviews to this book, and those were the only reviews I read after finishing this book, you are the people of the belief systems this book warns against. This is a great book for those that aspire to be free thinking people.

The issues and questions raised by Harris in this excellent book are significant and need to be studied with an open mind and in a spirit of dialogue. Defensiveness and outrage has too frequently been the response from religious readers who find his book disturbing because his arguments are so cogent, urgent and deeply challenging.

Disturbing as many religious readers may find Harris's book, it is a book that they need to read over and over again for the following reasons: Believers accept religious beliefs with little question or thought, many religious beliefs are abusive, and God is more often than not depicted in sacred texts as a temperamental, genocidal tyrant. Harris does a first class job of documenting his points from Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Qur'an and Hindu scriptures. Religious beliefs are not beyond the scope of rational discourse, in spite of the fact that many liberals and conservatives seem to believe that they are. Whenever religious leaders make statements like "if God does not exist, there is no basis for moral or ethical standards," a claim that is easily refuted, they only prove the point.

Harris has other points to make about religion in general and monotheism in particular that religious people need to pay very close attention to. Monotheism, by definition, sets up angry disagreements between people that often end in violence that is sanctioned by sacred texts and promoted by religious and political leaders. To prove his point, Harris makes reference to over one thousand references in Jewish and Christian scriptures that promote religiously sanctioned violence. People who are not associated with our God are called infidels, unbelievers who can be and are frequently killed. Blaise Pascal said way back in the Seventeenth Century that "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Sadly this is still all too true, and is all too often promoted by religious and political leaders who appear happy to lead their followers and citizens into the violence of war. And with the weapons available today, this is more dangerous than it has been for a very, very long time.

Religious beliefs must be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as any other beliefs, and if they make no sense or are abusive, they need to be changed or eliminated. If they make sense, then believers need to show how they make sense, how they are helpful and useful, and how are they practiced.

On the subject of deity, Harris sees the concept as unnecessary, and I agree with him, at least insofar as that concept has been defined and described in much of scripture. As he so aptly puts it on page 226 in the paperback edition of his book, "we know enough at this moment to say that the God of Abraham is not only unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man." As blasphemous as this may sound to most religious believers, the statement is true. Think about it, a person described in the terms used to describe God in Jewish scripture, and in the Book of Revelation in Christian scripture would likely be adjudicated as a violent psychopath and jailed or committed to a hospital for the criminally insane.

Sam Harris is a very lucid and compassionate man. I think we need to listen carefully to what he has to say.

If you knew nothing about either Christianity or modern Judaism you might be susceptible to the glib argument in this book. It is only because most Jews and Christians have not read the Old Testament that is the foundation of their faith, says Harris, that they are able to continue to believe in sanitized versions of God and the law that they learned as children, which are the only versions of the book that could continue to appeal to 21st century moderns. If we would just read the book, its true awfulness and ridiculousness would become apparent to us. Harris quotes lengthy sections of Leviticus and Deuteronomy to make us aware of just how horrible the book is. As to Judaism, Harris seems unaware of the fact that the tiny, fringe strand of Judaism that believed in the literal word of the Old Testament unmitigated by any rabbinic interpretation - Karaism - has almost entirely died out. Mainstream Judaism is rabbinic Judaism, dependent much more heavily on the rabbis' evolving oral interpretation of the law than on the literal word of the Bible. No one practices the religion of Leviticus. As to Christians, the Old Testament law is essentially irrelevant, having been superseded by the new covenant. The fact that Harris is way out of his depth not only theologically but morally and historically is made clear in his discussion of anti-Semitism, where he states that it is the "truth" that Jews "have brought their troubles upon themselves" because of their "unreasonable beliefs," including their "refusal to assimilate," their "insularity" and the "professed superiority of their religious culture." Judaism, he says, is "intrinsically divisive," as well as "ridiculous in its literalism," and "at odds with the civilizing insights of modernity." (pp. 93-94). These are strange assertions in a book that strongly urges us not to bow the "demon of relativism" (p. 178) and to impose an objective ethical standard on the beliefs of others. The true depth of Harris' banality becomes apparent in his breathless description of Eastern religion as the source of all wisdom. He presents as a "rigorously empirical document" that "cannot" be matched by "even the contemporary literature on consciousness" (p. 217) this 7th century Eastern tome: "when your mind remains in its own condition without constructing anything... only a naked manifest awareness is present... without any duality of clarity and emptiness. It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything. However, it is not a mere nothingness... because it is lucid and present." Etc., etc. "Rigorously empirical"? Harris' judgment is off on so much in this book that I am not allowing myself to accept his other arguments, no matter how lucidly presented.

There is much reason in Harris' book and I agree with many of his points. Do I pray when my loved ones are sick or dying, you bet I do?! But you have to read the book to understand the fears Harris discusses about religious zealotry, especially religions that use condemnation, damnation or hellfire to isolate and humiliate their congregations. A very intelligent book. I admire the author for his bravery in putting it forth and discussing it on talk-shows.
TEACH TOLERANCE.

I like to consider myself an athiest/agnostic. I bought this book thinking that I would be an interesting read. I did not like it- though he is correct that religion has caused many of the great conflicts in Western civilization and prior civilizations. I did not like his analysis of Islam- it used the typical fearmongering techniques that you see in the mainstream press. Most Muslims are normal people with ordinary lives and although he mentions this, he creates the idea that it is up to Western Civilization to rid of Islam due to association with terrorism. Does this author even understand why there is terrorism in the first place? It has little to do with the Islamic faith but everything to do with lack of opportunity, resources, and exploitation by western powers. Yet, Mr. Harris fails to take this into consideration. He considers Islam a very dangerous faith and that this world needs to fear Muslims. Moreover, he shows little compassion and sympathy for others who have been innocently victimized or killed by the War on Terror and attempts to reason his way through it- arguing that innocent people die everyday and if someone gets killed by a bombing from US forces then it is only an accident. B.S.! Thumbs down in my opinion. This book just feeds into the fear created by the mainstream media complex and the administration's justification for war. Do yourself a favor- read the 'God Delusion'. You are much better off for it. Not recommended at all.

Sam Harris has the enormous talent and knowledge to clearly write what atheists and agnostics think and feel. He makes a strong case as to the strong link among intolerance and religion, perhaps even pointing at a new way to understand history, and particularly war and murder. Another venue of his clear presentation is the lack of evidence of the existence of god, any god. Our societies have built enormours superstructures of thought based on no evidence whatsoever. The consecuences are dire, limiting our abilities to create better more equal societies, and certainly less intolerant to others beliefs. I think this book is a breakthough.

I've now read this book by Sam Harris and also The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins -- both excellent pieces of work. Both very eye-opening and enlightening. For those of us who are tired of living under the oppression of the evangelicals of every religion; both Muslim and Christian specifically, this is a a wake-up call about how society itself needs to change before essentially opposing forces draw us all into a war that will ensure mutual destruction. Please recommend this book to anyone who needs to wake up from their religious delusions.

I am a huge Sam Harris fan and I really hope everyone will give this book a chance, despite any personal thoughts you have on whether or not God is real. This book is a fascinating examination of why religion is so prevalent in our world and why it seems to be a growing force in modern day politics. Also, I found the most interesting aspect of the book is not it's concern with religious fundamentalists but rather, the high number or religious moderates that essentially allow fundamentalists to say and do whatever they want under the protection of their "faith". Sam Harris is a great writer and keeps the book moving and definitely will make you question what you think about religion and your own beliefs!

While I truly enjoyed The End of Faith, it pales in intellectual clarity compared to David Eller's Natural Atheism. While Mr. Eller's book isn't as easy to read, it is infinitely more relevant for our time. Read Natural Atheism and you won't need to spend (waste) any more time discussing childish religions such as Christianity and Islam.

This book is an excellent take on the absurdity of religion and its power to render a dull, mind-numbing, irrational, and uninspiring view of the universe. Even for an atheist and an aspiring physicist as me, the last chapter was truly interesting on the mystery of consciousness. The man is clear-thinking and smart as can be.

I am an ex-Christian. While I think religious belief is ludicrous, I personally have no problem with believers if they are tolerant and accepting of people who hold different views. I read this book because I was curious as to why Sam Harris believes that ALL religion, even the liberal, socially progressive and tolerant varieties, is problematic. Despite all his talk about reason, Harris' book is anything but reason based.

The book starts out with a scenario of a suicide bomber on a bus. Harris claims we can easily know the religion of the bomber. I guess he thought that most of his readers would have no knowledge of the Black Tiger wing of the Marxist Tamil Tigers terrorist group. The Black Tigers are the most prolific of all suicidal terrorist groups. They are also completely secular.

Harris goes into great detail about the horrors of the Inquisition and witch hunts. However, a religious person would respond that secular leaders like Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong-il have been responsible for far more death and human misery than religion. Harris says that Communism is basically like religion, so "religion" is the problem. But this is a weak argument. While ideologies like Communism and Nazism are religion-like, the fact still remains that secular-minded people who reject God(s) and/or religion are just as capable of committing atrocities as religious people are. Even if everyone abandoned religion tomorrow rabid nationalism, racism, ethnocentrism, inequality and all the other factors than can drive humans to violence would still remain. The idea that an end to faith would lead to an end to violent fanaticism is naïve.

The chapter on Islam is the worst and most inaccurate in the book. Harris has a strong anti-Islam bias. He goes into great detail listing verses from the Koran that encourage the killing of non-Muslims. The problem is most of these verses don't refer to non-Muslims in general. They refer to non-Muslims who at that time were trying to destroy the fledgling Muslim community. Not even Osama Bin Laden interprets the Koran as giving him an automatic right to kill all nonbelievers. He has to justify his atrocities by claiming that they are purely defensive.

Harris insists that poverty and economic despair are not the main driving factors behind modern Islamist terror. He mentions that the 9/11 hijackers and many Hamas members were/are well educated and came from well off families. But unemployment and underemployment are major problems in many Muslim countries. Large numbers of educated young people vie for the few good jobs available. Despite their advanced degrees and middle class backgrounds few young men will be able to come anywhere close to the living standards of their parents. While economic despair is not the only factor that drives people into Islamist terror groups, it definitely makes recruitment easier. This is also true for white supremacist groups, black separatist groups, antigovernment groups, Marxist groups and so on.

According to Harris, Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is basically benign. This way he can argue that Palestinian violence is simply Koranic inspired irrationalism. However, religious based opposition to Israel only goes back to the 1980s. Prior to that Palestinian terror groups were largely secular. The Marxist PFLP was actually founded by a Christian, George Habash. Harris unfortunately did not address the violent fanaticism of the Jewish settlers or address how the Torah and Bible are responsible for the existence of this conflict to begin with. Considering that this conflict is responsible for so much of the hostility between Islam and the West it should have been dealt with in great detail.

Harris says that democracy in the Muslim world is a bad idea because Muslims will inevitably elect fundamentalists. He mentions Hezbollah and Hamas winning elections. He ignores the fact that democratic elections in the three most populous Muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) have never brought Muslim radicals to power. Radicals have won small numbers of seats in parliament and that is all. The average Muslim is far more moderate than Harris claims. Only a tiny fraction of Muslims will ever kill anyone. Islam like Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism has believers that run the spectrum from liberal to ultraconservative.

Harris's book would have been far better if he had dealt less with violence and dealt more with things like abortion, birth control, stem cell research, gay marriage, abstinence-only education, the teaching of evolution in schools and money hungry evangelists. I find it frustrating that we can't have intelligent discussions on many social issues because the "views" of a being whose existence cannot be proven dominate the conversation. Harris only devotes a few pages to these issues, while devoting whole chapters to the weaker issue of religion and violence.

This book is pointless because it only preaches to the converted. To be useful Harris would need to convince believers that the world would be a better place without faith. Believers will find so many distortions and inaccuracies in his book they will simply dismiss his arguments entirely. And open-minded nonbelievers looking for rational arguments against faith will dismiss them as well.

This is a deeply engaging book; one that I wasn't able to quit reading until the last page. Harris argues coherently, logically and -- unlike many recent books that are critical of western religion --'compassionately.' The author takes on conservative, fundamentalist forms of religion, and argues that we are at a cross-roads; that we have allowed so many malignant forms of religion to flourish in our midst -- under the guise of protecting religion from criticism -- that we are now in danger of losing our freedom.

While many writers critical of religion argue from a solely intellectual and logical standpoint, often seeming detached from religion and cerebral, Harris engages the reader ethically, emotionally and -- dare I say it -- 'spiritually' -- without muddying his train of thought or the stringency of his arguments. Harris' line of thought takes him into some hard places -- some of which will be easily misconstrued by some readers -- and while being thoroughly reasonable and logical, shows a degree of compassionate consideration of the issues that other writers simply don't evince.

The implied critique of the three monotheistic western religions in this book is devastating; in human terms. Complementing his razor-sharp negative assessment of religion, however, is a positive rhetoric about "spirituality." Unlike many of his fellow atheists, Harris seems to understand that there is something to the experiences human beings have had while practicing certain spiritual disciplines such as meditation. He allows for what I have long called a "naturalistic" mysticism; an experience of the mystery of the universe, within us and beyond us. He makes a plea for love and the whole of ethics being grounded in our biological nature, as an outgrowth of our evolutionary development, and seems to urge that while we need to outgrow religion, our sense of meaning, our ethical nature and our sense of wonder must be attended to and given a ground in science and human experience, without all of the supernatural and metaphysical rigmarole.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to come to terms with the dangers of religion (the kind that has been for too long left to its own devices in this country and has thus been allowed to mutate into forms that endanger the rest of us and that diminish the value of religion overall). Such a person might also need to be open to spirituality and mysticism without the need for a veil of superstition, in order not to be irked by certain passages. The author poses some hard questions, strikes out toward some equally hard answers; his positions are not always easily swallowed, and some of his opinions may need critiqued -- from one vantage or another -- yet this book is not one that you will walk away from without deep reflection and some hard thinking; i.e., it will be a spiritually as well as an ethically and intellectually rewarding read.

Sam Harris' book is a sobering and well-written discussion which basically outlines the evils that have been committed historically by religious people, and sets forth the threat that religion poses to our modern world. My copy of the book is heavily underlined and highlighted, and contains my hand-written comments, both in the text and in the extensive footnotes. I found myself saying "Yes!" frequently while reading it. The text is amazingly literate (although occasionally obtuse), but horrifying at the same time. I agree with Mr. Harris on almost every point he makes with regard to the ignorance, intolerance and even pure hatred that is fostered within the religions of this world. Harris makes the point that we should love one another, not because we fear the wrath of some god, but because we simply should get along, for the sake of our own survival. His arguments can sometimes be lost in philosophical discussions regarding perception, mysticism and the like, but the bottom line is clear. Although he is sharp in his criticism of both the extremists and the moderates alike, he calls for us all to work together to save ourselves. He does not think this is possible as long as we hold onto our religious beliefs, which by their nature make us enemies of one another. He effectively makes the point that, no matter what faith you adhere to, if you are true to the tenets of that faith, you MUST believe that all non-believers are doomed, and that no religion accepts acceptance, even moderate, of any other tenets. He firmly believes that, unless we make an end to faith, we are doomed to destroy ourselves. This, more than anything else, makes this book a sobering and frightening piece of work. I did get a little bogged down at the end, when he goes off into a discussion of meditation and mysticism apart from religion, but I believe that what he wanted to say was thatwe can find ways to achieve inner peace that don't require a belief in a supreme being that has control over us. I think that Mr. Harris wants us to assume responsibility for our own peace, both within and without. A fine piece of work, even with its weaknesses. A brave and thought-provoking effort on behalf of reason in a world gone mad.

From the first page of this book I was drawn in; and I wasn't ready to quit reading until the last page! Harris argues coherently, logically and -- unlike many recent books that are critical of western religion -- compassionately. I felt as if I were reading the prose of someone so devoted to truth, justice and wisdom, that any hatred the writer may feel toward religion is not directed at religious people, necessarily; though Harris' position makes it clear that he thinks our world would a lot better -- though by no means perfect -- wthout religion in it.

While many writers critical of religion argue solely on the basis of reason and logic, defeating old arguments long outdated (even if they are still invoked by believers) and railing against the inhumanities and other injustices committed by the religious, Harris -- while being thoroughly reasonable and logical, shows a degree of compassionate consideration of the issues that other writers simply don't evince.

His critique of the three monotheistic western religions is devastating; in human terms. Complementing his razor-sharp negative assessment of religion, however, is a positive rhetoric about "spirituality." Unlike his fellow atheists, Harris seems to understand that there is something to the experiences human beings have had while practicing certain spiritual disciplines such as meditation. He allows for what I have long called a "naturalistic" mysticism; an experience of the mystery of the universe, within us and beyond us. He makes a plea for love and the whole of ethics being grounded in our biological nature, as an outgrowth of our evolutionary development, and seems to urge that while we need to outgrow religion, our sense of meaning, our ethical nature and our sense of wonder must be attended to and given a ground in science and human experience, without all of the supernatural and metaphysical rigmarole.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to come to terms with both the history of religion as a history of atrocities and who is also open to spirituality and mysticism without the veil of superstition.

I recommend reading "Letter to a Christian Nation" as well. It is a quick one day read and really highlights the inconsistencies and hatred brought about as part of organized religions.

As a non-believer, I share most of the arguments made by Harris in this book. But having been brought up a catholic, the first thing that strikes me in this book is Harris' lack of knowledge about the subject he's attacking. If you wish to attack the catholic faith, you can ask a catholic about what is it they believe. For this reason, I can't take his assertions about Islam seriously either. His direct attacks on particular faiths seem more a matter of zealotry, and an indication that Mr. Harris seems to take atheism as a faith in itself. Will we be seeing a Church of Universal Atheism or the like sometime soon?

The book also shows a very ugly side of Atheism in Mr. Harris' justification of the Bush Doctrine, especially the "War on Terror". He seems to have drunk the Kool-aid: War on a tactic?. How can a rational thinker as Mr. Harris likes to present himself buy this propaganda, not much different from the religious irrationality he so fervently attacks in the book? Are we supposed to replace one faith with another one?

He twists a naturalist argument to oppose pacifism and to justify and at some moments, even applaud the use of torture. Certainly, Harris is preaching a new faith, just as intolerant as the other ones.

If you are a non-believer looking for great thinkers on the subject, you'll do better avoiding the likes of Harris and of Christopher Hitchens. Atheism does not ned to be a faith, and much less, a unified one.

The author presents good points of argument to look at and determine where we stand on the issues. My only criticism of this book is that the NOTES section of this book is 1/3 of the entire book!

This is a fantastic read. I am buying more copies as gifts for those I know will appreciate the quality of writing and focus. I applaud the author for having the guts to make such needed arguments against brainless following. I also love his use of English in such eloquent writing.

The best-written and most tightly-argued of the recent spate of atheist polemics. The main thrust of Harris's argument is the surely incontrovertible point that "faith" makes a virtue of believing something to be true without having demonstrable evidence - and we don't find belief without evidence acceptable in, say, physics or history, so why do we find it not only acceptable but uncriticizable in polite society when it comes to matters of religion? As Harris puts it: "Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that all others must, civilisation is still beseiged by armies of the preposterous. We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who would have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible?"

Harris argues, counter-intuitively but convincingly, that we should be no more accepting of religious moderates than we should of fundamentalist extremists. To be a religious moderate is merely to interpret loosely or ignore altogether the parts of scripture that are inconvenient for modern daily existence. Therefore, as Harris points out, moderate religion offers no firm ground from which to criticise fundamentalists for taking the same scripts literally: "Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed."

One feature of Harris's book that makes me value it more than other similar efforts - most noticeably The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, for whom any suggestion of tolerating spirituality is anathema - is Harris's readiness to concede that there is "clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life". There follows a fascinating discussion of Buddhism and what seems to be a suggestive correlation between spirituality, ethics and positive emotions. Harris argues that a rational approach to exploring spirituality will pay dividends in creating a mature science of the mind, which will one day have more precise things to say about these matters.

The book has one great flaw, in that Harris thinks himself into justifying torture through an analogy with the collateral damage we reluctantly accept during warfare. I believe this analogy breaks down because we accept collateral damage only because, and to the extent that, our most sophisticated weapons are imperfect. That is, every time someone invents more accurate weapons, we tolerate less collateral damage as a result. The logical conclusion of Harris's position, then, is that the acceptability of torture must somehow depend on the sophistication of our current weapons technology. This can't be right, can it?

Anyone who doesn't read this book is missing out. The End of Faith won the PEN award for nonfiction and deserved it. This is a devastating indictment of religion and the harm it causes. Just the chapter on Islam was worth the price of the book.

Harris ranges far and wide, from the Inquistion's horrors to honor killings in the Arab/ Muslim world. He mercilessly attacks dogmatism, from the moral equivalence of the pacifist left to the insane attacks on birth control on the right. The book isn't perfect; Harris endorses unscientific paranormal beliefs (e.g. reincarnation and ESP). But that's a quibble. It's still well worth reading and buying.

Sam Harris, the spiritual anti-theist, doesn't know where human perception ends and reality begins, or vice versa. A shame, too, for I had gotten this book after reading his Letter, which is a much more concise and agreeable work.

I bought this at the airport on a whim and read it before I returned home. Most of the book is an intelligent argument about the dangers of faith, how it can lead people to do unspeakable things. For example, if you have total faith that if you blow yourself up killing infidels you and your entire family will go to heaven, then to do so would be completely rational. Obviously, Islam isn't the only religion subject to this critique. The end of the book gets a little mystical for me though. While the author is still grounded (sort of) in science, he just goes on and on about a few twinkle ding dong ideas that end up as a boring digression.

This was one of the first books I read on religious fundamentalism and I enjoyed it. A lot. This is a good starting point before tackling some of the harder stuff like Breaking the Spell or God is Not Great. Those books are aimed at an already secular audience, while End of Faith is a little bit friendlier. Still I don't like all the crazy meditation stuff at the end. Otherwise it is great.

Despite the appalling wrongness of this book, there is something rather appealing about Sam Harris. He is so sincere and full of good - well, good faith. It is surely a bizarre irony that his most attractive quality is the one thing he is trying to attack. But that is, apparently, the kind of guy Harris is: blisteringly sincere, surprisingly honest, and totally confused. Despite disagreeing totally with most of what he says, I feel that I would like him if I met him.

The problem he has set himself is to try to make sense of current events, particularly 9/11 and the terrorist problem generally. Unfortunately, his solution is no solution at all. And I'm sure that he has inklings of how wrongheaded it all is, despite his determination to see it through to the end.

He is clear in his own mind about what he believes: he thinks the greatest problem in the world is "unjustified belief", which leads people to do terrible things. But this only leads to the problem of defining what is unjustified, and ultimately all he can do is fall back on the usual non-explanation: that anyone who believes anything different from what he believes is unjustified. What he believes, of course, is what he has grown up with: the typical grab bag of "liberal" attitudes and misunderstandings we have all seen a thousand times before. It is the same belief system that has been kicking around for the last 40 years, except that the liberals of that age would never have condemned Communism the way he does. At least he is honest enough to see that the problem with the Communists (and the Nazis) was that they passionately believed that what everyone else believed was wrong. His one blind spot is that he can't see how passionately he himself believes the same thing.

Of course he has no solution, other than the "end of faith" that he announces in his title. The way out of our current mess is for us all to stop believing, or at least to stop believing strongly; but since he can't even practice that himself, how can he expect everyone else to do it?

It is simply in the nature of us humans to believe, and to act on our beliefs. The challenge for all of us is to make sure that our beliefs are true. Sam Harris obviously realizes this, but having made his stand on the "end of faith", he can only get himself into a mess.

Most of the details of this book are pretty forgettable. It is the same litany of accusation, without bothering to analyze the issues seriously, that characterizes the current wave of atheist literature. Except that Harris does not appear to suffer from the arrogance that characterizes the rest of the movement.

And that honesty of his keeps getting him into trouble. While the rest of the unbelievers are content to hold contradictory attitudes, he has a disturbing habit of looking a little more deeply into things and seeing at least some of the contradictions. His criticisms of relativism, pragmatism and pacifism are in fact excellent - well thought-out and completely logical. And I could scarcely believe it when I found him justifying George Bush! If he only keeps on with this habit of logical examination, he will probably work himself out of his confusion. He may even find himself becoming a Christian.

This book is about the dangers of religion and "faith" in the modern world. It does a bangup job of pointing out glaring problems not just with religious fundamentalism, but with religious beliefs of all persuasions and degrees. It might be difficult to get a religious person to read this all the way through, but they should. It raises questions that every religious person should be forced to reckon with. And if their "faith" can't survive close examination, well then it seems to me that it ain't really all they make it out to be, eh?

If I were to start up another book group, this would be the first one to read.

Some gems from the book thusfar:

"To be ruled by ideas for which you have no evidence (and which therefore cannot be justified in conversation with other human beings) is generally a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind. Clearly, there is sanity in numbers."

"Should Muslims really be free to believe that the Creator of the universe is concerned about hemlines?"

"Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed."

"There is, of course, much that is wise and consoling and beautiful in our religious books. But words of wisdom and consolation and beauty abound in the pages of Shakespeare, Virgil, and Homer as well, and no one ever murdered strangers by the thousands because of the inspiration he found there. The belief that certain books were written by God (who, for reasons difficult to fathom, made Shakespeare a far better writer than himself) leaves us powerless to address the most potent source of human conflict, past and present."

I give this book only 4stars and for good reason. Yes these monotheistic religions do pose a threat to the future of humanity. However, the specific threat of Islam is blown a bit out of proportion. While Muslims scholars did not issue a sufficient number of edicts and sermons against terrorisms at the time of the writing of "End of faith," they did it and using strong language in the most recent Arafat sermon during the 2007 pilgrimage.

Additionally, as someone who lives in Jordan and spent a good amount of time in Lebanon I can say with a good amount of confidence that what he writes about honor killings in Jordan and Lebanon is 30-50% blown out of proportion. I would greatly advise Mr.Harris to come and visit these two countries to get a more up close view.

I knew what to expect but was taken aback by what seems
a rather vitriolic way of making the author's point.
The examples of the horrors of what faith can do are extreme and they leave no space for the reader to recall that faith has also done a lot of good things over the centuries.
Still, it is a good review of what tends to be forgotten,namely how much religion has held back progress, and how difficult it is for a religious person to reconcile dogma with objective reality.
This book fills a crying need, but it takes a strong stomach to read it. Without the authors intention it could come across as another way of being dogmatic.

I agree with much of what was written in this book, although I hope I am wrong about my belief that people are taking the words of Mr. Harris, Richard Dawkins, and other atheist writers too fundamentally (sorry to apply that label, but I believe it is accurate).

I fully believe that humanity can benefit from approaching the world and problems more rationally. I fully believe that religion is unnecessary in terms of creating a "moral" and just society. But, when I read other reviews where people say that "we must challenge religion" and "religion does more harm than good" it makes me think we need to be more specific.

It is FUNDAMENTALIST religion that is the real problem. When you speak of war, martyrdom, terror, and social conservatism, you are speaking of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is present in all religions, and describes a good percentage of Christians in the United States. The problem is, we as non-believers are becoming fundamentalists about our beliefs that religion and faith are bad. We're ignoring the details and intricacies of different systems and levels of spiritual belief. That type of thinking is too black-and-white...dare I say, irrational.

It seems to me that we need to focus more on complexity than on rationality. If you think being rational can give you the one right answer, you aren't very rational. We need to pay more attention to the nearly infinite number of shades of gray that color every single issue we encounter. This is the mindset that will help us eliminate fundamentalist thought, whether based in religion, politics, emotion, or science. We need to be more complex before we can attempt to be more rational.

We literally tore it apart. It was that good! We were a chapter apart and tore off sections reading each one separately. If you are an atheist, it's a great book because you won't feel so alone after reading it. If you are an agnostic, it may help clear things up for you. I would also recommend A History of God and the God Delusion if you are thinking about reading around the subject.

"The End of Faith" is not so much that as it is "Harris Wishes It Was The End Of The Faithful." Lest you think me an alarmist, Harris states in his own words, "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." Big Brother and Minority Report have come full circle...and then some.

Harris is actually a fairly interesting writer, with an occasional humorous barb where I found myself laughing. This tome was started on September 12, 2001 and is, primarily, a rebuttal to the belief system that led to the terror attacks on America. As with the other major anti-theistic writers of today, he is convinced that our problem isn't merely Islam, but any expression of faith itself. His views on Christianity are somewhat more moderated than Hitchens...at least Harris does not take the extreme position of doubting the historicity of Jesus.

The book slowed for me in the last two chapters as Harris took a philosophical turn that reminded me a lot of Buddhism. Apparently, I was not alone; the Afterward reveals that he took some flack from his fellow atheists for embracing too much Buddhism. I guess a little faith is even good for the faithless.

As seems normal, unfortunately, for this genre, Harris exhibits an almost infantile understanding of biblical Christianity. Whether he intends to do so or not, he responds only to stereotypes rather than genuine theological constructs. This serves only to weaken his overall case.

Ever wonder why people kill in the name of religion? This book is very clear about the why. The first chapter is a bit difficult to read as he is a bit defensive educated snob but that changes as he sites their passages that makes it clear that if you are a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, you should kill anyone who is not of your religion. And you should also kill anyone if they are of your religion but they say something nice about any of the other religions. Religion is based on fear and hate. Most will quickly deny this and say it is based on love. But this "love" is killing people in the name of "their" god. Bullies learned centuries ago that you manipulate the masses with fear, lies, and intimidation. This can be physically or with abstract ideas. I am for peace inside me and in the world.

"This little light of mine I'm gonna let it shine. Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine. Hide it under a bushel? No! I'm gonna let it shine." Do you remember the ditty?

In "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason," Sam Harris doesn't sing that little song. But he would take that bushel and kick it plumb out into the middle of the cornfield. He'd like to do the same thing with religion.

Don't tell him he can't talk about religion. Whether you're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, he'll tell you straight out that you're irrational, delusional, benighted. Whatever your faith or religion, you are against reason and foster terror and destruction.

Time is running out. Civilization as we know it is done for, unless we kick faith and religion also out into the middle of the cornfield and be done with them.

Your sacred book, whether Torah, Bible, or Koran, is a fraud. Yahweh, God, Allah did not write any of them. Men cobbled them together for their own purposes of power and control.

Every week, if not every day, brainwashed young people and adults who have never thought for themselves continue parroting metaphysical nonsense from antiquated worldviews that were necessarily bereft of modern science. All of them fear death, because clerical elders have convinced them they are full of sin, doomed to spend forever and ever in unending hellish suffering unless they believe. Believe without evidence.

Believe in a wrathful Almighty, Satan, angels, virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, bodily ascent into heaven, and final judgment. Especially that Islamists are commanded to convert and dominate the world, to kill all unbelievers as infidels. Suicide bombers, looking for immediate access to paradise, are helping. That Christians counter Muslim faith with war that cannot avoid killing innocents.

In harrowing detail, Harris recounts the long history of faith and religion, from the Inquisition, to witch burning, to the Holocaust, to the present.

Warning.

It would be a tremendous waste of cognitive effort to explain why people who believe Harris is either a god-hating waste-of-time infidel who will roast in the fires of hell for his intolerance or a wishy-washy mystical soothsayer who only marginally opposes dogmatism are sorely misguided. This is a book that deserves deep contemplation and does not read like many others. Treat it as a very long conference, as a very learned man conferring upon his listeners some very important bits of wisdom. Harris approaches this topic in a manner that makes the reader thirst for more information and question some deeply held beliefs about one's own faith, morality, and happiness.

It's easy to write a good review of a book whose premises you agree with. I must say that I found little in this book that did not accord with either my intuition or biases. Still, this is an excellent book, a masterpiece, and should be required reading for all in the West.

Harris offers us four very interesting assertions in this book. The book is structured around these 4 concepts which are not equally supported or defended.

The first assertion is that religious dogma and ideological practice has lead to terrible acts of murder and cruelty of one group against another for many years. He supports this assertion with lengthy discussions of the witchcraft hunts during the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and the recent clash between Islamic and western cultures. Most of the book is devoted to this assertion.

The second assertion is that religious moderates provide coverage and implicit support for religious fundamentalist extremists. Most religions are not self correcting in that they rarely allow moderates to exert pressure on extremists to bring them back into line with more tolerable moderate levels of belief and action.

The third assertion is that morality and ethical behavior need not be based on religion but can be based on philosophical ground.

The fourth assertion is that spirituality need not be based on ancient scripts and dogma but may be an internal state of being independent of organized religion and ideology.

These are all very interesting and Harris' first assertion is clearly supported by the historic record. His last two assertions are clearly supported by contemporary secular existence, particularly in the educated, the industrialized, and the middle classes of Europe and North America. It is his second assertion that moderates provide political and conceptual coverage for extremist that needed much more expansion and discussion and did not receive the expanded treatment that Sam Harris gave his other points.

At times I felt that Harris overstated or understated points. I particular, if mankind was not killing each other in the name of God, then mankind would probably be killing each other for a range of other racial, ethnic, linguistic, or resource allocation reasons.

The belief in a "father god" sitting in heaven, watching over us, and waiting to save us, is indeed infantile. But so is the view that life sprang forth from an accidental combination of gases and an electron spark. Materialism is every bit as dogmatic, prejudicial and corrupt as any religion ever was. Ivan Illich already wrote in detail about the "religion of science" some 30 years ago.

It is quite irrelevant which beliefs the author upholds. His attitude is as fascist and totalitarian as any historical nazi. My personal opinion (sorry, I am still allowed to have one Mr. Harris), is that he is a reincarnated Inquisitor, ready to burn all heretics, who do not believe in the religions of materialistic, reductionistic scientism. It is indeed frightening that Harris finds so many supporters, when in fact, his views are identical to any bigot, racist or fundamental ideologue.

There are direct answers and ways to discover truths and meanings about life, mind and even the nature of love and hate. But you wont find human depth or wisdom in Harris' writings. Only a bitter old man despising his own Shadow.

If you want to read only one book related to faith and atheism, read this one. There is no other book that I have read which so clearly and eloquently illustrates the fundamental nature and problems with faith as an instrument for enforcing ignorance, bigotry and clan mentality. Religious faith is the most pernicious kind, but Harris nails the bizarre nature of all kinds of dogmatic faith that makes especially religious people believe in things they otherwise would never believe without evidence. Religious faith causes a strange and instant mental severing from reality that has been approved in society. Harris also talks about why "religious tolerance" is a utopian myth and how religion by its very nature cannot really be "tolerant" in the true sense of the word; on the other hand, Harris also makes it clear that some religions are more rigid than others and needless to say he focuses on Islam as one of the most rigid ones. In future chapters, Harris also distinguishes between religion and spirituality, the latter being open-minded while the former is essentially close-minded faith without evidence and further questioning. Harris is trained in neuroscience and explores psychological aspects of faith not found in other volumes. This is a fantastic book, one which is astonishingly insightful and revealing about the basic nature of faith.

No, not that of the Jihadis or the Christian fundamentalists. I mean Sam Harris' extremism.

I do not mean anybody who doesn't believe in God is ipso facto an "radical atheist". I am speaking specifically of Harris. Take, for example, quotes like this from the book:

"We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting."

So, not only is the religious-despising future preferred, it is the *only* future worth wanting. This is Stalin's "secular utopia", where "the masses" (i.e., everybody who disagrees with Sam Harris' insights) are shamed and disgraced into believing as he does.

How different from Christopher Hitchens, for example, who repeatedly says that--as much as he hates religion--he wouldn't want to ban it if he could, for such an attempt goes against human nature and is bound to end in genocidal prosecution, as did all other attempts to "elevate" man from his "fallen" state into some utopia on earth.

So, our only worthwhile goal is the creation of a religion-disgracing utopia. And what if some annoying people disagree? Well, says Harris:

"The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live."

Yes, yes, yes--Harris is only talking about killing people for thought crimes if they Jihadis or the like. But anybody who can support genociding those who merely *think* differently as "ethical" will soon enough support genociding those who think in only a *little bit* differently that his preferred orthodoxy, and then anybody who thinks of opposing him at any way. One can't reach the utopia of disgraced religion without some sacrifices (of other people's lives), after all.

Harris is no different in his views (though, of course, he is very different in his *actions*) than Hitler, Stalin, or the Iranian Mullahs. The difference is merely in the details of the promised utopia--which is impossible to reach in any case, going against human nature. That it is OK to genocide people to reach their perspective utopias is something they all agree on.

I've read, if you wish the Big Four authors, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. They have recently been called the New Atheists, I've read them because I also want to have a widest and most informed possible view, and it is really interesting to see the twist that each of these authors bring to the table.

I have found the three first authors to be exceptional, and I would highly recommend their books.

But the review is on this book, "The End of Faith". Whereas general view of the book is rather good, most of the arguments are quite sound, but to be honest after reading other books related to this subject I have found this the most untidy. It is untidy in that I did not really appreciate or see a straight forward thought structure in the book.



I might not be very bright, although there might be others that differ, but I could not find any apparent single thread to be followed simply through the book. One might say that the subject is not simple.



Before reading the book I had listened to Mr. Harris for many hours in his speeches, it is amazing how his written narrative reflects his style of speech. You are often kept aloof waiting for natural flow of speech which suddenly interrupts itself while he gathers his thoughts or drinks some water.

The book is however apparently very well researched, the amount of notes and references is impressive, and he must be commended on that topic, contrasting to Mr. Hitchens, who in his book "God is no Great", does not include references apart from a general, albeit seemingly thorough, bibliography.

Mr. Harris brings to the table interesting insights from his studies in neuroscience, which I believe are invaluable, they will no doubt be even more valid once he obtains his Doctor's degree in the subject, for which I humbly encourage him do to do so.

I feel though however that his written style could be more interesting if it were more self-sustaining. The amount of notes is so extensive as to account for almost a quarter if not a third of the book.

The other interesting themes that are also boarded, which are not dealt with in depth by the other mentioned authors, are the subjects of illegal drugs and narcotics as well as spiritual experience as in the situations he describes in oriental meditation. Things which I believe, especially concerning drugs are higher on his personal agenda, that what I think has to do with faith.

The book is good, but I would read the books of other authors first.

the history of religions History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)may look as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the XI century and JC), Bacchic Christianity (XI-XII century, before and after JC), JC Christianity (XII-XVI century) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, the Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on.

Let us hope that this book is read and understood by millions. The dangers posed by fundamentalist cults of all kinds are as clear and present as global warming, and potentially just as destructive.

Do we choose to pursue the great and noble opportunities that now lie within our grasp? The medical breakthroughs offered by our new understanding of the human genome, the exploration of space, the chance to achieve sustainable prosperity for all countries. Or do we choose to slide into a new dark age?

The Enlightenment brought the abuses of religious tyranny into focus three centuries ago, and it has brought civilisation huge benefits in terms of individual freedoms, rights, security, knowledge, and comforts. We have never been better placed to apply our knowledge to solving the difficult problems of the world.

Ignorance and superstition, the blind enslavement to fairytales that should have expired centuries ago, are intolerant of dissent or difference. When the very act of questioning the patently absurd can be severely punished, the struggle toward reason can be daunting. But it will take an effort from every reasonable person to educate the younger generations that there is a better alternative, that reality is more wonderful that the most indulgent fantasy.

Best of all, the author does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is no need to reject spirituality in order to escape the cults of unreason. There are tried and proven methods of gaining real spiritual experience without the pathological side effects that we commonly see in belief-bound religion.

Full marks to Harris. Now it is up to the rest of us to secure a sane world for our children to inhabit.

After nearly 800 reviews, there's just not much more that can be said about the content of this book. I personally found it thought-provoking and refreshing. I'd like to review it from another point of view, that of readability.

Of course, the book is readable in the vocabulary and sentence structure sense. It is an academically rigorous book, so the demands on the reader are quite high. However, any moderately educated person should be able to get through it and understand the argument it presents.

Unfortunately, the book is a perfect example of a trend I've noticed recently. Part of its academic seriousness derives from its structure. The 237 pages of text are followed by 62 pages of notes and 28 pages of bibliography. The bibliography is very welcome, because it allows any interested reader not only to check the author's facts, but to trace his argument back through the sources. The bibliography suggests many months of reading on this subject.

It's the notes that bother me. They total more than 25% of the length of the text, and they are not really "notes" in the sense that most of us were taught research-based writing. That is, they don't specify the page numbers of quotations and the like. Rather, they are mostly just added text. The question is, why didn't Harris simply add the paragraph or two in each note into the body of the text? As it is, reading the book is a process of reading a paragraph, flipping back to the notes to read the extra text that belongs with the paragraph, returning to the text, and so on. I found it increasingly annoying as I read on. Harris is certainly not alone in structuring his book this way, and it's a trend that I wish no one were following.

In summary, I thought the book was very valuable and well worth reading. Agree or disagree with Harris, the reader will have much to consider after reading his argument. However, I found reading the book to be an annoying chore due to its structure.

Morally speaking, are Bronze-Age myths as good as it gets?

Sam Harris doesn't think so and he argues brilliantly for a
new religious paradigm to shepherd us through the 21st Century.

Like a Spanish Inquisitor Harris ruthlessly examines the shaky philosophical justification for Abrahamic theism and finds it wanting.

But Harris doesn't just convince us that there really is no Santa Claus, he offers us a new way forward. He proves conclusively that science and reason do not necessarily have to be divorced from spiritual inquiry and revelation.

Some of his detractors have said that Harris is angry at God, but
that of course assumes a fact not in evidence (the existence of God).

After hearing him speak at Aspen Colorado,
'angry' is not quite the adjective that comes to mind.
http://svayam8.blogspot.com/2007/07/sam-harris-at-aspen-ideas-festival.html

As hard as it may be for theists to accept, many disbelievers really are being intellectually honest.

Sam Harris is one of those. He isn't angry, he's just right.
Thank you Sam for being a beacon of reason in a dangerously
darkened world.

Letter to a Christian Nation