I seldom read books of the moment. I often read notices in Book World or the NYTBR that whet my appetite for a book, but I can almost always wait until it is out in paper – or at least until I can buy a used copy for less than list. This was precisely the case with Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation until I received a copy as a gift. It was small enough for me to tackle in a single night, so I did. And, since this is a recent release, I decided to write my little review before the book sinks into obscurity.
Harris begins his letter with an acknowledgement that the authority of Scripture, the exclusivity of Christ, and eternal damnation are either reality or not. He recognizes that Christianity and atheism are mutually exclusive. It was this admission that first interested me in what Harris had to say. I appreciated the intellectual honesty of this admission, and it paved the way for me to consider the rest of his letter.
Unfortunately, the remainder of the letter is a disappointment. Harris makes a fundamental error early in his letter; he incorrectly defines morality and then uses this erroneous definition as the basis for his argument. By misunderstanding the foundations of Christianity, Harris fails to interact with Christianity in his letter.
In fairness, the diversity of views labeled as Christianity makes an open letter to all who self-identify as Christians a doomed project. Still, I think it will be helpful to walk through the sections of Harris’s letter and point out a few places he failed to engage me - I will resist the urge to answer the letter line by line.
The Wisdom of the Bible – Here Harris asserts that “[q]uestions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering.” This then serves as the basis for his primary theme that God, Christians, and the Bible do not maximize happiness and minimize suffering but increase suffering and decrease happiness. We’ll cover some of those negative examples later, but from the outset it is important to note that Christianity is not primarily concerned with morality – so defined or properly defined.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that morality can be used “descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society, or some other group such as a religion . . . .” In the context of Christianity, then, I would assert a definition much closer to the center of Christianity. Perhaps “that system of conduct demanded by God.” While this definition would be useless in Harris’s world of philosophy, his letter fails to engage Christians by attempting to use a more normative definition of morality.
Harris uses the balance of this section to attack the Bible as unoriginal and small minded. He uses some of the more astringent passages of the Old Testament law to argue that the Bible does not consistently provide moral wisdom. In doing so, Harris demonstrates a misunderstanding of the purpose and present application of Old Testament law and of Christ’s teaching on that law.
Real Morality – Harris focuses here on general Christian opposition to HPV vaccination, stem cell research, and abortion as illustrative of the fact that religion divorces morality from human suffering. Harris does not speak directly to me on some of these points, because I do not believe Scripture necessitates the positions on some of these issues that many Christians take.
Regardless the specifics, Harris’s primary error again goes to his insistence that morality be linked to suffering. While, all else being equal, a Christian should try to reduce suffering, alleviating suffering is not a Christian’s highest calling.
Doing Good for God – Continuing the same theme, Harris objects to acts of compassion by Christians (such as medical missions work) because, in his view, they fail to mitigate suffering as much as they are able. Instead, he says, they waste time evangelizing. Any Christian will recognize that the error here is the assumption that medical services are more valuable than the Gospel – that relieving temporal suffering is of greater value than offering salve to the soul. Harris should, if he knows the example of Christ as recorded in the Gospels, not think this an approach likely to persuade Christians.
Are Atheists Evil? – Harris switches his line of reasoning to ask why atheists are not utterly immoral if morality is based in faith. Using a more scripturally accurate definition of morality, I believe we can reach the conclusion that atheists, and all of us but for God’s grace, are utterly immoral.
Harris also suggests in this section that religion is on its way out. He offers as evidence the lack of religion in most developed countries and their correspondingly lower rates of crime. Harris does admit that correlation does not establish causation, but asserts that the facts demonstrate ”atheism is compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society” and “that widespread belief in God does not ensure a society’s health.” I happily concede these points, but assert in turn that “belief in God” is a weak measure and that a civil society is not a primary goal of Christianity.
Who Puts the Good in the “Good Book”? – Harris appears here to say that Christians claim not to be able to judge the morality of the Bible, but that they do in fact rely on their “moral intuitions” in their application of the Bible. Again, I think that the conclusions stem from misinterpretation of Scripture.
The Goodness of God – In this section, Harris attempts to undermine God’s goodness by detailing just some of the misery that God has failed to prevent. Harris is unable to reconcile the ideas of God’s omnipotence and omniscience with human suffering. He then assumes that the Christian reader’s response is that “God cannot be judged by human standards of morality” and responds that these are exactly the standards we use to establish God’s goodness.
This, of course, cannot be reconciled. Without believing that mankind is created in the image of God, how can you conclude that we find admirable in each other those attributes possessed perfectly by God? If you do not believe that God and his perfections preexist all else, how can you conclude other than that the measure is human standards of morality? As at so many other points in the letter, Harris speaks around, but not to, Christian faith.
The Power of Prophecy – Here Harris asks why there are no specific prophecies in the Bible related to a cure for cancer or the internet. Such musings are foolish and greatly overemphasize the importance of our time and our frustrations. They also deny that Scripture is redemptive history and reimagine it as a toy for the curious.
The Clash of Science and Religion – Harris insists that there is an unavoidable conflict between science and religion. He claims that intellectual honesty is absent from religion – that religion is incapable of “honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments.” There are skilled apologists who can marshal archeological and textual evidence to support the veracity of Scripture. I am not one of these people. However, I am content to admit that regardless the level of intellectual rigor applied to religion (and intellectual rigor should be applied to religion), ultimately true religion rests on faith.
The Fact of Life – Harris here argues that evolution is the only possible source of humanity and the natural world around us. He finds support in the enormous numbers of beetles and viruses, in vestigial anatomy, and in the development of the human fetus. But the objection he offers that is most in line with the entirety of the letter is that creation would mean less suffering than we know now. We would have easier birthing and fewer deaths due to choking. As with other parts of this letter, I am not ideally suited to respond to the specifics, but I can recognize that Harris’s fundamental objection is that the world around us is incompatible with his definition of morality.
Religion, Violence, and the Future of Civilization – Harris addresses in this section the many instances of religiously generated violence. However, almost the entire section discusses the ascendancy of Islam and the future conflict that this ascendancy ensures. Harris seems to think that the only hope for peace then is the absence of all religion. In this, I think that Harris is overly optimistic. There is sufficient historical evidence to support the belief that, even were there no religion, we will always know war in this world.
Conclusion - Harris concludes that what we need is open discourse and that respect for religion is the primary obstacle to such discourse. He tells us that we need to learn to meet our emotional needs without the crutch of religion.
Intellectually, I understand Harris’s objections to Christianity. I understand also that he cannot understand Christianity. “The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” I Corinthians 2:14 (ESV)
In short, I think that Sam Harris succeeds in demonstrating that religious belief, even Christianity, does not deliver those things on which he places primary importance. The flaw though is that Christianity never professes to.
Posted by JAI 
Posted by JAI 
Posted by JAI 
