Comments on "End of Faith"
Question:-
There is another attack on Islam
and religions in general contained in "The End of Faith" by Sam
Harris. But the book appears to have some important facts to say. How is one to
understand this?
Answer:-
Harris presents the same errors as
Dawkins and the same reply can be given to him. But he merits some additional
remarks.
(1) First Sam Harris examines the
nature of belief. He finds that the only valid beliefs, those that are true,
are those that are based on the data of experience in contact with the material
world which must be verifiable in the same way. He tells us that if the
question were asked "Why do you believe in God?", then answers must
be to be able to point to some object. According to this answers such as the
following would not be valid answers:- "Because it makes me feel
good." "Because it a beautiful and satisfying idea."
"Because it is useful to believe it." "Because a Prophet I trust
tells me that God exists." "Because it is written in a book that I
find true and inspiring." "Because many much wiser, more intelligent
and virtuous people than me affirm it." "Because it improves the
character of believers." "Because it explains the Universe."
"Because I have experienced God." But these could all be perfectly
reasonable answers. Certainly these things are not possible unless there is
something that causes them. If it makes you feel good perhaps it fulfils a
psychological need. People do rely on authorities and experts because they
cannot verify everything themselves. People also differ in their capacity for
sense experience, knowledge, intelligence, degree of consciousness, virtue and
the efforts they make to enhance these. And people do have to rely on guidance
from them. Research establishments and Educational Systems exist to do just
that. The Islamic attitude is that people have to seek knowledge and undertake
the discipline that will enhance their capacity for reception of Truth. He has not
understood the Islamic concept of God, that He is not an object in the
Universe, but that it refers to something much more fundamental, the origin of
all things, that which drives and describes the Universe, something by which it
is to be understood. He is known by a set of Attributes such as Justice,
Compassion, Truth and Power. As such, the concept of Allah is all comprehensive
and unifying, in each of the outer objective world, the inner psychological
world, the social world and all
together.
(2) He admits that people do have
unexplained spiritual experiences and even psychic ones, but nevertheless wishes
to dismiss the products of these when it comes to the revelations in
scriptures. But he is right when this leads to bizarre speculations and
additional rationalisations by the mundane mind. However, he is not reluctant
to promote his own speculations. All religions, apart from (a) the original
revelations, also have (b) commentaries by disciples, saints and scholars, but
also (c) doctrines and dogmas created by priests and religious organisations
such as churches and (d) a great number of popular culture based ideas and
practices often superstitious that have nothing whatever to do with the
original teaching.
(3) He has misunderstood the
notion of faith. He quotes the Bible where faith is defined as "confidence
in things unseen" and has mistaken it for "blind belief".
Whereas belief is an intellectual thing based on sense perceptions, faith, like
love and hope, are attributes of the Spirit. Faith refers to trust and
confidence such that life is based on it. It cannot be based on a falsehood -
that defines delusion. In fact faith creates facts. Religion is concerned with
expansion of the horizons of consciousness beyond the mundane material world.
It is concerned mostly with the spiritual world which is certainly unseen. But
even the Theories of Relativity and the Quantum world, that could be attributed
to inspiration, deal with things unseen. Faith is a matter of spiritual insight
and refers to the consciousness of the consistency of something with both outer
and inner experiences. It is connected with ones own inherent nature. According
to the Quran, people do not start off with faith because this faculty is
dormant. It develops after an appropriate discipline has been undertaken as do
other faculties (49:14). Educational and training systems have been devised
just for that reason.
(4) Harris seems to oppose
religion because his ideas about it are naively literalistic like that of a
child or an uneducated person. They are nothing like those of a reasonably
educated religious person. As his arguments are based on a previous disbelief
in Religious doctrines, his opinions can be dismissed by people who base their
ideas on religion. He falsely supposes that religious people do not have
evidence for their beliefs while everyone else does. In fact, many religious people
do think and base their beliefs on reason and the majority of non-religious
people do not. Nor does he know that reason is driven by motives. Harris, it
seems, wishes to impose his own beliefs on others.
(5) Yes, his book tells us about
the irrational thought processes and actions of people who have not undergone a
discipline under a modern educational system. Human beings are superstitious
and fear, fascination or self-interest combined with ignorance of causes,
undisciplined thinking and fantasy leads them to wild and fantastic
speculations and extreme cruelty and violence. Human beings are gullible and
they can be brain washed into doing and believing almost anything no matter how
unreasonable or evil. Hypnotists demonstrate this in public quite frequently.
Cultural, Political and Commercial interests take advantage of this quite
deliberately every day. So did the organised Churches. But it is obvious that
these are human characteristic. It does not have much to do with the teachings
of modern religion? The Quran certainly warns us against conjecture based on
prejudices and requires us to follow only that for which we have evidence.
(10:37, 17:36, 53:28, 2:78, 28:50 etc.).
(6) Religions do degenerate owing
to the operation of the above named human limitations. This is particularly so
when religion is organised and has a power structure. It becomes political
movement in which the priests wish to enhance and maintain their privileges of
power, wealth and prestige and control people. Muslims are also aware that the
Islamic civilisation has become stagnant and even degenerated. But owing to
this degeneration Religion needed to be renewed from time to time. There are,
as a result, cycles in human affairs and a slow upwards evolutionary
development. Sometimes there is an explosive revolutionary change followed by
flat areas of time that hardly change outwardly though there are gradual
changes in potentialities that suddenly actualise when they reach a threshold.
The same can be seen throughout nature even in the growth of plants. Harris has
ignored the fact that all the civilising influences came originally out of
religion, including learning and education, philosophy, science, civil
organisation, the Arts and crafts, charitable works and moral values and goals.
It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that, just as people like Harris realise,
that they are more reasonable than the people of the past whom they criticise,
so also might their thought processes be regarded as primitive and transcended
in future.
(7) His
arguments against religion are like the argument that science has created the
Nuclear Bomb and other weapons of mass destruction, therefore science is evil
and should be banned. He seems unable to differentiate between religion as a
teaching and people with limitations who may not understand or apply it, and to
whom religion comes as a cure. He does not understand religion, particularly
Islam and yet he makes pronouncements about it without having studied any
Theology. But he condemns others who also express opinions based on ignorance.
He dishonestly quotes verses of the Quran out of context selecting what he can
interpret in a negative manner to support his prejudices and ignores how
Islamic scholars understand them and most of the Quran. Not until I read his
account of the Quran did I come to the realisation that people could create
such a distorted view of it, that
made it almost totally unrecognisable for Muslims. He deliberately
misinterprets the term "Jihad". It most certainly does not mean
aggressive war but striving. Muslims are required to strive in the way of God,
against evil and for the establishment of good (53:39-42, 29:6, 4:95, 5:35,54,
9:19, 22:78 etc.) Nor is there any penalty for
apostasy but only for treachery. He wishes to diminish the Islamic Principle of
Tolerance that there is to be no compulsion in religion (2:256-257), in order
to support his belligerent thesis, instead of emphasising it to promote peace.
I presume he has not seen verses in the Quran that show the inclusiveness of Islam,
that all religions as originally taught by their founders are included. (2:62,
2:136, 2:213, 3:113-114, 5:48, 22:67 etc.) But, it is true, of course, that
Muslim communities are stagnant or have degenerated and many Muslims, do not
know or understand the Quran and misinterpret it, as happens in other religions
and also in all other departments of life. His bias can be seen from a survey
of Muslim opinions that he quotes. Muslims in several countries were asked
whether they thought suicide bombing was justified in defence of Islam. Then he
interprets the results as justification for terrorism. In fact, terrorism is
the opposite of defence. He suspends his intelligence without awareness or
conscience.
(8) He denounces
"fundamentalists" for extremism but also "moderates" as
hypocrites because his ignorant interpretation of their religion differs from
theirs. On the other hand Muslims are certainly required to adhere to the
fundamentals of their religion and some moderates are certainly hypocrites
because they do not know or adhere to their religion. There are two opposite
views of these terms. Certainly Muslims believe that Islam has a better system
of life than exists anywhere else. They would not be Muslims if they did not.
They need not and do not apologise for their values. They also know that there
are many psychological, social and environmental problems in the West that need
to be solved. But it is also an Islamic teaching that others will be left alone
by Muslims to live according to their lights as long as they leave Muslims
alone to do the same.
(9) Harris builds his attack on
the existence of terrorists among religious communities without considering
that they constitute a very small minority, that they are condemned by others.
Most conflicts are not between religions but between groups of people whose
actions are not based on doctrinal differences but on political or economic
matters. He falsely insists on his own speculation about their motive and
ignores the context and their own explanation for their action. We have had two
world wars and persecution and mass murders by Nazis and Communists which had
nothing to do with religion. (The anti-Jewish policy of the Nazis was not based
on the rejection of Christianity, as Harris supposes, but because they were
regarded as a different race, not Arians.) Terrorists are condemned for causing
indiscriminate death and destruction, but we have exactly the same going on now
to a much greater degree by so called "civilised" Western States.
However, it is true that these regimes are led by persons who are regarded as,
and consider themselves devout Christians. In fact, however, they are
hypocrites, as an examination of the teachings of Jesus would confirm.
(10) Having dealt with belief and
facts and having found Religion wanting in this respect, he turns his attention
to values and practices. He accuses religion of (a) rules that ban what he
considers to be harmless activities such as homosexuality, fornication,
apostasy etc. and persecution of those who indulge in these things; (b)
introducing many cruel practices such as that of the inquisition, trial by
torture, and burning of witches etc. So he wants to examine the foundations of
Ethics in order to establish it on a firmer basis. He dismisses relativism (that
there are different equally valid moralities depending on different cultures)
and pragmatism (that morality consists of what is useful in a situation) and
intuition (that it depends on the discernment of people). He wants some
absolute standards that will be valid for all. In fact, he takes the American
line that their values are universal truths that can be imposed on others.
Morality cannot be a question of social contract or consent which is not really
possible to establish. If moral rules are created by man then, of course, any
other person has the same right to produce them. But as there must be something
that is common to all human beings, he supposes that morality and ethics can be
studied like science and that such studies are sufficient to establish ethical
attitudes and behaviour. But science deals with facts as they are and ethics is
about what ought to be which is something quite different. He supposes that the
principles of ethics can be established by reason, but he is aware, as he has
shown in his book, how unreasonable and cruel people were in the past and still
are. The veneer of so called civilisation is very thin indeed and easily peels
of at the slightest disturbance. It is evident that even in the scientifically
and technological advanced nation, such as the USA, primitive and barbaric regime
has taken over the reigns of government and caused a reversal of development.
He considers the existence of a realm of reality containing moral facts just as
there is a realm of reality that contains mathematical facts. So, he almost
comes to admit a spiritual world. But he is certain that ethics has nothing to
do with religion, but concludes nevertheless that it has to do with love, as
Jesus taught. Love is an interest in the welfare of people and living things,
something that creates happiness.
He has
not understood the levels of religious ethics, that it is not concerned just
with behaviour and its effects, but more with motives and the state of being
which underlie them. It is not possible to function ethically without
overcoming the obstructions such as greed, lust, envy, laziness, anger, hate
and indolence that derive from the ego and cause self-centredness. They also
circumscribe perception. It is not merely a question
of being able to identify and differentiate between good and evil, but also of attempts
to create the ability to behave accordingly. There are no secular methods of
doing this, only religious ones. The fact is that morality is a question of
conscience and not of physiology or social conditioning and that like
consciousness and will, is an attribute of the spirit to which faith, love and
hope also belong. From the Islamic point of view it is dormant owing to
addictions to worldly things, owing to factors such as materialism, and needs
to be liberated from its prison of conditioning - to be brought from darkness
into the light of realisation (Quran 2:257). It is only human development
through an appropriate discipline properly applied that changes can be brought
about. Morality consists of thought, motivation and behaviour that is
consistent with the nature of a person (30:30, 91:7-8)). Immoral behaviour is
that which is not, and therefore causes inner contradictions, suffering and
damages the person. However, conditions arise where a choice has to be made
between a good and an evil or between two evils or between two good courses. It
is necessary to maximise the good and minimise the evil. To do so is good and
to do the reverse is evil. The fact is that to gain something G something must
be sacrificed S. Ethics requires the maximisation of the Profit P = G - S.
(11) Having established that love
is the basis of morality he justly criticises a number of practices such as
honour killings in the Muslim world and elsewhere. But he has not taken into
consideration the fact that some acts that seem apparently evil to him, may be
done to prevent a greater evil or to establish a greater good. It is for
instance a good thing to preserve the family by preventing adultery. Yet Harris
finds justification for torture on the same grounds, namely that a little evil
is done for a much greater good. By torturing a captive, valuable information
is extracted which could be used to prevent the enemy from killing and
destroying. But what of the torture of imprisoning many hundreds of people who
were merely defending their own country against invasion? What about the
opposite side? Was the torture of one of their number good for them? It enabled
their enemy to kill and destroy even more of them both directly and by saving
their enemies. Obviously, there can only be justification if the cause for
which the war is fought is good and the likelihood is that the outcome
establishes a greater good than the evil it does. Not only this but that there
is no alternative that might produce more good or less evil. The same
considerations apply to the punishment of criminals - punishing them is to do
them harm.
(12) The main ethical problem is
the fact that human beings have the tendency to form groups. Rivalry and
conflict arises between them and we get double standards and extremism mutually
provoked. That which is regarded as good or evil by one group when done to it
is thought to be the reverse when done to the other. This disintegration of humanity
does not only happen in Religions and their sects but also in the social,
political, cultural and economic fields. We get racialism and nationalism, but
also class distinctions, cultural groupings, commercial companies,
neighbourhoods, clubs, and gangs. From the Islamic point of view all humanity
is one having a single source and therefore, all human beings have something in
common though there are also differences. All religions are one, but
unjustified differences arose owing to partial knowledge, misinterpretation and
addiction to forms, the vessels that obscured the spirit. The same
disintegration of life into compartments is seen in the distinction between
religion and politics, and art and science. All these divisions can be regarded
as arising from a fundamental division in the mind between the "I"
and "not-I"
(13) Harris justifies US
terrorism by saying that the US Administration, unlike other terrorists, does
not intend to kill innocent people when it bombs and invades countries. That
surely is hypocrisy when they know full well that people will be killed not
only by the bombing but also through economic sanctions and by the destruction
of such things as the Chemical factories in Kenya that made the medicines
needed by the sick. He makes excuses for "Collateral deaths and
destruction." And speculates what barbarities other regimes would have
done as if that were an excuse for US barbarism and abuses of human
rights and dignity. He points to American Charities and Financial Aid but does
not mention the strings attached. Nor does he mention the Political and
Economic policies that have exploited, impoverished and destroyed large
populations, reducing them to ignorance, disease and chaos. He admits but
passes over American global support for terrorists and dictators and betrayals
of their allies. He naively supposes that those who control the US Government
and Corporations have "good intentions" and that their actions are
not self-seeking criminal actions at the expense of other nations. He wants to
excuse or deny US atrocities and barbarities, though these are obvious to
almost everyone else and that there is much less excuse for these in the USA
which enjoys more privileges than elsewhere.
(14) Harris believes he is in a
war against Islam. It seems he wishes to whip up fear and hatred and provoke
the same against Atheism. He advocates the invasion of countries to impose
Democracy and American values on them even if the people support their
government because "they have been so brain washed that they would fight
their would-be liberators to the death. They are held prisoners twice over - by
tyranny and by their own ignorance." Therein lie the causes of global
conflict. What if Muslims, if they were not divided, were to make it their
policy, to retaliate, invade and impose their own values on the USA?
Obviously that cannot possibly be regarded as a solution to the problem he
himself sees - that technology is providing terrible weapons to disgruntled
groups who feel oppressed and victims of injustice. Does it not occur to him
that the removal of injustice and oppression is the real solution? That mutual
tolerance should replace the desire to control and exploit other nations and
impose "Democracy", "Capitalism" and "Materialism"
on them? Efforts should be directed towards the cultivation of Justice,
Compassion and Truth through the educational and the cultural system, and
through political and economic policies. In so far as Religion has been the
cause of conflict and suffering, it has been misunderstood and the cure for
this is rectification of misunderstandings and correct religious education.
This is even more important than scientific and technological education because
it is concerned with human development and adjustment to Reality.
(15) At last Harris arrives at the
third ingredient of existence that also connects beliefs with ethics, facts
with values, namely consciousness. He is an admirer of Eastern Mysticism and
Spirituality, particularly Buddhism. He quotes the description of some
experiences during meditation by a Buddhist mystic, Padmasambhava, and then he
tells us "One could live an eon as a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew and
never encounter any teaching like this about he nature of consciousness."
He falsely supposes that there is an essential difference between Islam and
Buddhism. He has obviously not come across or looked for any such literature or
understood it. He has not heard of Sufis and does not know that a significant
percentage of Muslims belong to or regularly attend this Mystical or Spiritual
branch of Islam.
(16) He has managed to identify
some of the problems connected with consciousness. He knows that meditation is
an attempt at achieving pure consciousness and that thinking obstructs
consciousness - thinking is an activity whereas consciousness is receptive. He
speaks of the "I" which creates the distinction between observer and
object ad which disappears during meditation. But he has not understood that
this is the Ego which is a construct of the mind based on the common factor in
all experiences, namely one's body and name. It is this which creates all the
conflicts and suffering and is that which the religions try to oppose and get
rid of. Satan refers to this. There are, in fact, three basic factors to
consider, namely, (a) observer (b) object (c) observation which is the process
that separates and connects the other two. These three derive from a single
source that transcends them. It is that source, Absolute Reality, that
Religions want to get to. Religions as originally taught consist of methods to
achieve this final "surrender" to Absolute Reality. There are
correspondingly three methods of doing this and a fourth is a combination of
these. Meditation is not an end but a means of achieving this as is prayer and
ethical actions. These are represented in Islam by Zikr, Salat and Jihad.
(17) Harris is correct in
supposing that ethics is connected with spirituality. The Spirit, however, is
represented by three things:- consciousness, conscience and will which
correspond to Truth, Goodness and Power (Ableness). Spirituality leads to
ethical behaviour. But conversely Ethical behaviour leads to Spirituality. The
same two way relationship exists between Spirituality and Meditation and
Prayer. In fact, the religion brought by the Prophet Muhammad has three layers
known as the discipline, the faith and righteousness or the Shariat (Law), the
Tariqat (the Way or Method) and the Haqiqat (the Reality). Though each level
also has these aspects to different degrees, man is required to ascend this ladder
in the Straight Way,
which is another name for Islam. (1:5,
2:142, 84:19, 90:11, 5:16 etc.) That is, there is
another step after Mysticism which is the transformation of the person such
that he is in a state of Surrender or Unity with Absolute Reality. The Quran also
has these three levels and can be understood at these levels.
(18) Harris tells us that
"Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has
recognised something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought and this
recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for
what he believes and these reasons are empirical." This he supposes makes
mysticism available to scientific investigation. But no one can really
experience other peoples experiences. They can only be given descriptions of
it. But he also points out that mysticism is about experience of the world and
science is about concepts about the world. There is certainly a big difference
between these. Religion is not just about descriptions, and not even only about
experiences but about transformation about the state of being. It is necessary also to understand that
Islam is regarded as complete because it came to deal with the life as a whole
and this includes (a) Psychological (b) Social and (c) environmental aspects.
The Economic system has to be arranged in harmony with the environment to serve
the Social System which in turn is constructed to serves the Spiritual system.
It should not be expected that everything about Islam is at one level. It
requires balance. A kind of pyramid is formed such that energy should flow
upwards towards the peak from which also influences should descend downwards.
However, things appear to have gone wrong, as predicted, but remain
recoverable. Death and Resurrection, sleep and awakening are not just features
of nature but also of communities and individuals.
(19) He has not understood that
things can be seen from different angles, in different contexts and also at
different levels, each giving different views. Some are more comprehensive and
useful than others. He thinks that what others believe and are motivated by is
"preposterous" on the grounds that their beliefs contradict his own.
But it should be obvious that these other people would regard his beliefs just
as absurd on the same grounds. He supposes that his own country, the USA,
from which he derives his opinions and values is superior to others and has the
right to impose these on others. It is this arrogance that is the cause of
world problems. He seems quite unable to get it into his head that others do
not believe what he believes. Islam has its own values and Muslims do not think
that the USA
is civilised, free or democratic or that these terms have the same meaning for
them as they have.
(20) Harris appears to be
suffering from paranoia against religion, or someone who is a victim of mental
conditioning by political propaganda. This obstructs his vision. He has not
bothered to make the effort to understand what Religion is about. But people of
even moderate intelligence can probably see through his bias and he is unlikely
to deceive anyone except simpletons or those who are already prejudiced. It is
a common feature of human beings that they attack what they are unable to
understand because arrogance and fear prevents them from admitting that they
cannot. It seems, however, as is also usually the case with those who over
react, that he knows the limitations of the cause he supports but wishes to
repress this idea. He fears that change is coming and he is terrified. Faith is
unlikely to end. But if faith were to end as he wishes, then this would also
end science or every other belief, being replaced with cynicism. But none of
this is to deny that many of his criticisms of religion are valid and these
defects need to be addressed. His book can be regarded as a stimulus to this.
It seems, however, that Islam has
both Christian extremists in the West as well as Secular Atheist extremists to contend
with. These are not different in the nature of their ideas from the Muslim
extremists such as Osama bin Ladden and Al Queda, which, of course, gets an
increasing number of recruits because of these people.
----------<O>----------
Contents