Sam Harris
Sam Harris
Born	1967 (age 57–58)
Occupation	Author
Genre	Non Fiction
Website
SamHarris.org

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American non-fiction writer. He is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award,^[1] and Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to the criticism his first book attracted.

After coming under intense criticism in response to his attacks on religious belief, Harris is cautious about revealing details of his personal life and history.^[2] He has said that he was raised by a Jewish mother and a Quaker father,^[3][2] and he told Newsweek that as a child, he "declined to be bar mitzvahed."^[4] He attended Stanford University as an English major, but dropped out of school following a life-altering experience with MDMA (commonly known as "ecstasy").^[2] During this period he studied Buddhism and meditation, and claims to have read hundreds of books on religion.

After 11 years he returned to Stanford and completed a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy. He is currently pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience,^[2] using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.^[5]

Harris's basic theme is that the time has come to speak openly and clearly about what he sees as the dangers posed to society by religious belief. While highlighting what he regards as a particular problem posed by Islam at this moment with respect to international terrorism, Harris makes a direct criticism of religion of all styles and persuasions, as both dangerous and impeding progress toward what he considers more enlightened approaches to spirituality and ethics.

Harris recounts that he sat down to write The End of Faith — a book that Richard Dawkins, professor of public understanding of science at Oxford University, argues should "replace the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in the land"^[6] — on September 12, 2001, the day after the 9/11 attacks.^[7] As he states:

To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world — to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish — is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance.^[8]

Harris acknowledges that he advocates a form of intolerance, distinguishing it from historic religious persecution. He promotes instead a conversational intolerance, in which personal convictions are scaled against evidence, and where intellectual honesty is demanded equally with religious and non-religious views. Harris argues for the need to counter popular notions which, in his view, prevent the open critique of religious ideas, beliefs, and practices.^[9]

Harris argues that these are essential rules which underpin progress in every other field of knowledge. As one example, he suggests that few would require respect for views on physics or history; instead, we both demand reasons and expect evidence, while those who do the contrary are quickly marginalized on those topics. Thus, Harris suggests that the routine deference accorded to religious ideologies comprises a double standard which, following the events of September 11, have become too great a risk.^[9]

Harris focuses much of his critique on the state of contemporary religious affairs in the United States. Harris notes various statistics, such as the number of Americans who believe that Jesus will probably return within the next fifty years, those who think that creationism should be taught in schools, or that God has literally promised the land of Israel to the modern-day Jews, each of which he cites at 44%.^[10]

Arguing that these views cannot be viewed in isolation, Harris describes them as maladaptive to planning a sustainable future for humanity on this planet. He points out that, by the light of biblical prophecy, general Armageddon is regarded as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming, or the Rapture as some call it. Harris suggests that a significant proportion of the American population may see a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East as a welcome portent of the End times.

Harris further notes that the same individuals who hold these views both elect and are elected as presidents and congressmen, rendering it essentially impossible for someone who does not express such faith to run for office. When President George W. Bush publicly invokes God in speeches regarding either domestic or foreign affairs, Harris invites us to consider how we might react if the President were to mention Zeus or Apollo in a similar vein.^[10]

Harris argues that the taboo against criticizing religion obscures what he sees as the greatest present threat to civilization, namely that from the Muslim world. Harris criticizes the general response in the West to terrorist atrocities such as 9/11, to pronounce Islam a "religion of peace", while simultaneously declaring a "war on terror". Harris sees the first sentiment as demonstrably false, and the second as meaningless.^{[citation needed]}

Instead, he says, we should plainly acknowledge that Western civilization is at war with Islam which, he maintains, preaches a doctrine of religious and political subjugation, not a message of peace. The Koran and the hadith, he notes, are packed full of unambiguous incitements to kill infidels – acts which, according to the texts, are duly rewarded with an eternity of celestial delights. It is specifically this metaphysics of martyrdom, or jihad, which, in taking the sting out of death, Harris sees as the source of greatest peril. That such notions might be merely the product of a more extreme form of Islam is an argument Harris considers to be especially untenable in the light of the worldwide violence which erupted in 2006, as a consequence of the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

Harris has called upon Muslim communities to practise open criticism of their faith, and to offer assistance to Western governments in locating the religious extremists among them. He has argued that Muslims must be prepared to accept ethnic profiling as a tool in the fight against terrorism, if it can be shown that adherence to Islam is a statistical predictor of terrorist behavior.^[11]

Though he accepts that replacing religious extremism with moderation would be a positive step, Harris has reserved some of his strongest fire for religious moderates themselves.

The first problem, Harris argues, is that religious moderation gives cover to religious fundamentalism. Under the banner of moderation, respect and tolerance are sacred, thus preventing credible assaults upon extremism. Moderate religion therefore provides the context in which religious fundamentalism cannot be adequately opposed.

Second, Harris argues that it is absurd to continue to expect equal respect for all conflicting religious beliefs, as the claim to absolute truth is inherent in nearly all belief systems at some level. Moreover, any religion that claims that all other belief systems are false and heretical cannot foster genuine acceptance or tolerance of religious diversity. Thus religious moderation stands on weak intellectual ground.

Third, moderation is bad theology because the extremists are, in a sense, right: God really does want to put homosexuals to death or destroy infidels, if one reads the texts literally. Harris further notes that religious moderates (and indeed some secularists) appear to be blinded to the reality of what fundamentalists truly believe. Instead, moderates tend to argue that suicide attacks can more readily be attributed to a range of social, political, and economic factors.

In regard to morality and ethics, Harris considers the time long overdue to reclaim these concepts for rational secular humanism, where he feels they have always properly belonged. Harris describes the link between faith and morality as a myth, unsupported by current statistical evidence. He notes, for instance, that the highly secular Scandinavian countries are among the most generous in helping the developing world.

Harris goes further and posits that, far from being the source of our moral intuition, religion is a travesty of good ethical behavior, something he attributes to the tendency of religion to decouple the concept of morality from issues of actual human suffering. He cites two examples: the impact of the Catholic prohibition against condom use on the global AIDS epidemic and the attempts made by the US religious lobby to impede funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

More controversially, Harris has made an ethical argument in favor of the use of judicial torture under certain conditions. He reasons that we should reluctantly accept the use of torture in much the same way that we accept collateral damage in war. Indeed Harris argues that the latter, inevitably involving the killing of innocent civilians, should be much more troubling to us than the torture of, for instance, a terrorist suspect, and that it is merely a function of our biological intuitions that suffering appears disproportionately unimportant when enacted impersonally.^[12]

Finally, Harris wishes to recapture spirituality for the domain of human reason. He draws inspiration from the practices (but not metaphysical beliefs) of Eastern religion, in particular that of meditation. By paying close attention to the empirical phenomena of moment-to-moment conscious experience, as described principally by Hindu and Buddhist practitioners, Harris suggests that it is possible to make our sense of "self" vanish and thereby uncover a new state of personal well-being. Moreover, Harris argues that such states of mind should be made subject to formal scientific investigation, without incorporating the myth and superstition often accompanying meditational practice in the religious context.

See also The End of Faith article for further criticism

Harris has been criticized by some of his fellow contributors at The Huffington Post. In particular, RJ Eskow has accused him of fostering an intolerance towards faith, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism which he opposes.^[13][14] Margaret Wertheim also weighed in, contending that liberals should view Harris's account of religious faith "with considerable skepticism."^[15] On the other hand, Harris has received backing from Nina Burleigh^[16] and Richard Dawkins.^[6] In May 2006, Harris came under sustained attack in a featured article by Meera Nanda for New Humanist, in which she claimed that his analysis of religious extremism was flawed, and suggested that he was criticizing religion "for what seems to be his real goal: a defense, nay, a celebration of Harris' own Dzogchen Buddhist and Advaita Vedantic Hindu spirituality." Furthermore, Nanda claimed that his proposal for a critical analysis of spirituality was a recipe for authoritarianism.^[17]

Scott Atran has criticized Harris for using what he considers to be an unscientific approach towards highlighting the role of belief in the psychology of suicide bombers. In the 2006 conference Beyond Belief, Atran confronted Harris for portraying a "caricature of Islam." He later followed up his comments in an online discussion for Edge.org in which he criticized Harris and others for using methods of combating religious dogmatism and faith which he believes are "scientifically baseless, psychologically uninformed, politically naïve, and counterproductive for goals we share."^[18]

In January 2007, Harris received further criticism from John Gorenfeld writing for AlterNet.^[19] Gorenfeld took Harris to task for defending some of the findings of paranormal investigations into areas such as reincarnation and xenoglossy. He also strongly criticized Harris for his defense of the use of judicial torture. Gorenfeld's critique was subsequently reflected by Robert Todd Carroll writing in the Skeptic's Dictionary.^[20] In response, Harris clarified his stance on his own website, denying that he had ever defended these views to the extent which Gorenfeld suggested.^[21] Shortly afterwards, Harris engaged in a lengthy debate with Andrew Sullivan on the internet forum Beliefnet.^[22] Then in April 2007, Harris debated with the evangelical pastor Rick Warren for Newsweek magazine.^[23] In May 2007, Harris participated in a debate with former New York Times Middle East correspondent Chris Hedges at UCLA's Royce Hall.

Harris's writing focuses on neuroscience; philosophy, particularly philosophy of mind; and criticism of religion, for which he is best known. He blogs for the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, and Truthdig, and his articles have appeared in such publications as Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, and British national newspaper, The Times.^[24]

Harris has made numerous TV and radio appearances, including on The O'Reilly Factor, Tucker, Book TV, Day to Day, and The Colbert Report. In 2005, Harris appeared in the documentary film The God Who Wasn't There, directed by Brian Flemming. He speaks at various points in the movie, and then in a separate thirteen minute interview with the director. Harris was a featured speaker at the 2006 conference Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival. He made two presentations and participated in the ensuing panel discussions. Harris has also appeared a number of times on the Point of Inquiry radio podcast.

• The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (2004) ISBN 0-393-03515-8
• Letter to a Christian Nation (2006) ISBN 0-307-26577-3

• Official website
• The God Who Wasn't There
• On Faith articles
• Huffington Post articles
• Truthdig articles and interview
• Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan at NYPL (2007)
• Speaking at the 2007 Aspen Ideas Festival video
• Point of Inquiry audio interviews
• Free Inquiry articles:
  • Rational Mysticism
  • Selling Out Science
  • The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos
  • Reply to a Christian
  • Beyond the Believers