This book is a bore; chapter one was off to a great start and it was there the book died. I really expected more, but at the onset of chapter two Sam Harris unfortunately does not tell us (anyone with a clue) anything we did not already know and obsessively rambles on in many places on common knowledge as seen through neuroscience. Chapter seven ventures way out into left field; I waited for him to say that we're all just part of the Matrix. The Epilogue and Afterword do however get right back on topic and even readdress readers complaints made about certain parts of the book. ( )

This should get high stars for the diatribe nature but low stars for clear philosophically acceptable arguments. Mostly a lot of blowhard rhetoric and usual strawman arguments. Not the best from the "brights" ( )

With arguably no topic in America more contentious and hotly debated than religion (oddly enough), it is important to ponder the rationality of stated and unstated religious wars (or just one-on-one killings for the same purposes). In absence of a compulsory high-school course on “comparative world religion and philosophy,” this book, as a minimum, provides a few interesting observations. Overall, an entertaining read, sure to fuel endless passionate debates (in which I have absolutely no intention to partake). ( )

Harris and Hitchens take advantage of Christians being 'out' during the Bush years. I just wanted the singing circles outside the Student Union to go away. ( )

Although I have some reserves regarding some passages about the US' foreign policy, this book is definitely a keeper. His demonstration on torture was extremely disturbing, not to my taste since I ended up with the very same conclusion as his... while trying to find another solution which I couldn't, but overall this is a book to read for anybody who believes he/she's got enough neurons to think and reason.
You may not agree with everything, but as a believer here's an author you'll have a hard time contradict without absurd reasoning. We certainly need more people like him out there. ( )

In The End of Faith, Sam Harris hits directly at the heart of religion. Harris uses logic, science, reasoning, and philosophy to disprove religion, just as he did in Letter to a Christian Nation. ( )

Sam Harris is one of the select band who are often collectivelydescribed as the 'New Atheists'. Along with Richard Dawkins, DanielDennet and PZ Myers he has put his head above the pulpit and asked that he be counted.This book starts off as a powerful essay against religion. Importantlyhe isn't reserving his ire for any particular religion. But he isaiming his criticism at all religions.The reason is simple. By their very nature religions don't countenancethe fact that any one other religion can be right. In one Ann Coultervideo for instance, she parroted one party line where Jews are 'just'unperfected Christians. The problem is that this attitude, whencombined with teachings which instruct the believer to kill those ofother religions and with weapons that make instantaneous genocide apossibility is a very dangerous attitude. In fact the dangers dwarf allprevious dangers from warfare. Simply put, in the Cold War erastability was maintained by the tasteless acronym 'MAD' (mutuallyassured destruction), but in the modern era MAD no longer holds sway.After all, if your people are wiped out on mass following a strikeagainst the infidels then everyone in your country would be a matyr!After this powerful start Sam Harris moves on to the subject ofSpirituality. This might sound like a bit of an odd direction for sucha book to go in, but the thesis is that humans are spiritual and can beso quite separately from any given religion. There follows a longtreatise upon the nature of reality, and how much of what we experienceis filtered by our conciousness. This was of less interest to me,though the conclusions drawn are incisive and interesting.Unfortunately this part of the book for me dragged horribly, especiallysome of the notes which included long asides on the dual nature ofexperience and philisophical attempts to prove which is more 'real' -pragmatism or realism. By the end of the end note, I had to admit Ididn't really care...So over all the book was interesting and an enjoyable read. However,the first half of the book is much more to my liking than the second.One point that I did disagree with strongly seemed to me (as anon-American) to be written with a very distorted view. At one point,when discussing the immorality of terrorist acts Harris takes exceptionto what he describes as the Chomsky school of apologists. His argumentis that when engaged in wars like the Gulf Wars (I and II) and theirequivalents the US is trying not to cause 'collateral damage', and thatthis intent to minimise non-combatant casualities marks the Americansout from terrorists as being on the 'moral high ground'.This is, of course utter poppycock. The US military machine may havetechnological weapons which lower the collateral damage, but bothAmerican foreign policy and the use of military technology repeatedlycauses massive civilian deaths. From the use of cluster bombs (the UScurrently refuses to ratify any treaty to stop deployment) to support todirty proxy wars, to claim a moral high ground is laughable, ifunderstandable given the blinkered American view of the world... But this is, in the context of the book a small point (it just irked me at the time!) ( )

(posted on my blog: http://davenichols.net/end-faith-sam-...)

Sam Harris has long been a speaker and thinker whose ideas I enjoy hearing, especially in regards to some of his base-level anti-religious arguments. The End of Faith is a fine first effort which offers some fundamentally strong arguments against religion in general, and more precisely, against the irrationality of faith without evidence. The book loses its way at times, and the last chapter should never have been included.

Other reviewers comment on how strongly Harris singles out Islam in this book, specifically condemning numerous passages (at one point he even offers 3-4 pages of non-stop quotes from the Koran espousing violence and hatred for non-muslims). It is clear that Harris believes Islam is the primary threat to our safety in these modern times, and his argument is backed up by ample evidence that this is the case. I'll respond with three thoughts (*) on this at the end of the review so as not to derail anyone wanting me to get to the point here. Harris does hammer Christians and Jews hard as well, though certainly not with the focus directed at Muslims.

EoF offers a view similar to that which Bill Maher advocates at the end of his film Religilous, that non-religious people need to stand up strongly and be accounted. The era when religion can cause the end of civilization is upon us, and the ability of religion to move masses to murder and mayhem, not to mention nuclear war, is a primary concern for all of human civilization. In other words, dissent loudly or die from the irrationality and violent tendencies of religions. I've subscribed to his view before reading this book, and find Harris' arguments provide compelling testimony (not evidence as such) that there is some reason to be very concerned.

This book loses some points in the way it wraps up, especially Chapter 7, which involves an odd inclusion of discussion of self and mysticism. While I'm inclined to agree with Harris that mysticism is not necessarily religious, I feel he was trying to justify himself one last time and the result is a muddled conclusion to an otherwise solid effort. I very much enjoy philosophy of mind and egoism discussions, and while those subjects certainly apply to how we view and value religion, Harris' narrative of edgy concern followed through most of the book slides strangely into a fuzzy discussion out of place in the book. He cites Dennett and other mind-matter thinkers, so he does appear to have an empirical interest in such things, but I don't feel that he needed to (nor should have) included chapter 7 justifying his views that mysticism is available to non-religious. It just didn't jive with mood established previously.

My edition of EoF included an update at the end written by Harris, responding to several key criticisms leveled since the book's original publishing. I thought this section was a neat summary of Harris' responses and if you have watched or read any of Harris' talks, you've likely seen him perfect these responses over time.

I enjoyed Eof for the most part, minus the unnecessary chapter 7, and would recommend it to anyone concerned about the desires and actions of religious people everywhere, especially moderates, for whom Harris shows no sympathy nor gratitude. Four stars.

* In response to Harris' focus on Islam in this book, I'd like to elaborate a bit. Harris hammers Islam hard, and explicitly defines it as the primary source of concern in religion to day. Three points.

First, in support of Harris, I believe that he acknowleges quite clearly that viewing Islam as the key enemy of reason is not simply due to the fact that believers believe horrible things and are willing to do things just as horrible, it is a matter of social progress elsewhere that tends to make Judeo-Christian societies, perhaps, more tolerant and less likely to use literal interpretations of holy books as a basis for violent actions (however, I acknowlege that this is up for strong debate and depends greatly on how you define terms like 'violent actions' and 'tolerant'). In other words, it is important to note that the Crusades and especially the Inquisition showed how irrational violence can be encouraged through literal readings of the Bible. The difference, in the end, is temporal.

Second, I believe Harris somewhat misses the point of the suicide bombers he uses to convey his vision of Islam. He views Islam as more terroristic, more likely to kill civilians without mercy, less likely to listen to reason, and certainly more likely to be dangerous to us than any other religious fanatic, all due to his belief (which seems accurate) that the Koran is unequivocally in favor of violence against non-Muslims.

He singles out Islam because of their use of weapons and tactics, attributing such behavior to direct quotes from scripture, but Harris ignores the fact that most Muslim countries are in highly aggitated states, especially in places most likely fall victim to suicide bombers, and the available arsenal to such Muslim believers is very limited. They cannot raise armies of tanks, Apaches, and B2s to enforce their worldview. They can't even organize 'normal' militias as a means to gain or hold power (this is especially true in suicide bombing targets Iraq and Israel). They instill terror on the only level they know how to: blowing something up (which does not always include suicide bombing). I would postulate that organized Islamic states with a more 'sophisticated' terroristic arsenal would not need to rely so heavily on randomly bombing civilians. Torture prisons, embargos, invasion forces and occupation can create enormous states of panic and terror and all have much longer-lasting effects. Harris here either ignores or refuses to recognize such actions as implicitly terroristic, and by extension, does not equate such Judeo-Christian inspired terror as on the same plane as that created by Islam. I utterly disagree and given the information which has become public since Faith was publish concerning Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and waterboarding, have the advantage of understanding how our Christian nation can cheerlead such devestating and horrific behavior.

Finally, third, Harris takes the position that torture is justified under the Dershowitz proposition of the 'ticking time-bomb' even knowing the information is almost certainly going to be worthless, assuming that we would also be willing to bomb an area knowing we would kill innocent civilians. Where to begin on this one... The Dershowitz argument is quite the straw man because it never happens yet we always assume it does. Anyone with knowledge of an imminent threat is highly unlikely to give up the details if he is as blinded by his religious beliefs as Harris spends several chapters assuring us he is (in the case of a Muslim). KSM was tortured 6 times a day over a month's time, and the actual information recovered from this was almost certainly not timely, even if in the end it turned out to be accurate. If it takes 30 days of near-continuously drowning a man in order to get him to talk, there never was a ticking time-bomb to justify the torture in the first place.

In the ethical considerations of torturing a person who is more likely to be innocent than have useful knowledge, Harris compares the choice to whether to bomb a target knowing innocent civilians will be killed. He throws up this bit of a red herring, and I cannot believe he didn't remove this and pick a clearer example. Torturing innocent people is not in any way the same as attempting to neutralize a military target. Yes, in both cases innocents are harmed (Harris rightly calls both torture), but only in the second case is the effort made to specifically damage the enemy's ability to perform the same action against our side. Torturing many people in hopes that one might tell us where the ticking time-bomb is located is such a fruitless pursuit that we are almost certainly more ethical to carpet bomb a location full of civilians and military targets than we are to specificially target individuals knowing they are likely to be innocent. Again, if there is a ticking time-bomb, the odds that you will capture and torture the person with just the right knowledge in time to defuse the bomb is incredibly small, enough to define anyone behind the action as evil under any rubric you choose to follow. The odds of destroying the fighting capability of a military unit with the precise (relative to previous methods) munitions available today is very high, to the point where we can often avoid civilian casualties (though by no means always). Straw man: remove thy self from this discussion.

I hope to find out Harris has backed off this proposition given that it is entirely disingenuous and dangerous. (I emphasize here that Harris IS NOT advocating torture, this was a thought exercise in the middle of a discussion of ethics). ( )

Taking on our sacred cows, Harris shows how the three "religions of the book" (Abrahamic faiths) are the cause of most wars. Now that ever-smaller and more radical states have nuclear weapons, these faiths may cause the deadliest wars of all. Harris is not opposed to fundamentalists of any stripe; he says the storehouse of religious thought is the moderates, whom he accuses of not having read their own holy books. Fundamentalists have read and are following their god's orders. These imaginary beings and their followers need to be exposed, not catered to. Sentiment here is inappropriate. Richly footnoted, authoritative and well written. ( )

interesting viewpoint

fantastic book easy reading with a big issue

I know some (Christians) who have enjoyed reading this book because it articulates a scathing criticism of the Islamic faith. The book also criticizes Christianity, but in milder tones that can be glossed over in most minds of Christians. The author criticizes moderate and liberal Christians with providing cover for religious extremist. In response to this I conjecture that removal of the moderate option could result in the unintended consequence in increasing the number of religious extremest....more I know some (Christians) who have enjoyed reading this book because it articulates a scathing criticism of the Islamic faith. The book also criticizes Christianity, but in milder tones that can be glossed over in most minds of Christians. The author criticizes moderate and liberal Christians with providing cover for religious extremist. In response to this I conjecture that removal of the moderate option could result in the unintended consequence in increasing the number of religious extremest. The more moderate religious groups can provide a refuge for the extremest who grow weary of their positions. I elaborate more on my beliefs in my review of Dawkin's The God Delusion.

Read in July, 2007 ( )

Excellent analysis of religious faith. For some insight on irrational belief, read most of the other reviews by LT users. ( )

Pretty much everything Sam Harris says is true, but it's hard to see why he takes so long to say it. Also, the constant harping on Islam gets tiresome and weakens his message. ( )

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. ( )

Sam Harris is angry. Righteously angry. He powerfully states the case (obvious to atheists, i.e., rational thinkers) that organized religion is just so much nonsense, especially the Western variety with the personal god-figure. More importantly, he demonstrates how dangerous religious beliefs can be when acted upon seriously and literally. The expectation that Eternal Life awaits the deserving or chosen is comforting to the beleivers, but threatening when the true believer seeks to impose his beliefs on the rest of us, especially but not exclusively through martydom. Today, the world is confronted by a species of Islam that is fundamentally medieval.

Harris' book is hampered in part by his too tenditious style. He comes across as a zealot. He does a fine job with description, but not so hot on his presecription. What are we, rationalists, supposed to do? It's not entirely clear that freedom of conscience would be safe in the hands of Sam Harris. The last chapter is a weak attempt to explore meditation and non-religous approaches to spirtuality.

With these reservations, I do recommend reading this book. ( )

Well-organized, and really gets at the crux of the problem with faith (and does not flinch at taking the conclusion where it naturally leads--faith is not just silly, but dangerous). That said, the bit at the end about Eastern spirituality seemed a bit off and not in following with the rest of the book. ( )

It's a cliche, but this book changed my life, or at least clarified my thinking. For one thing, it convinced me to look into Buddhism, which may not have been the author's intention! But mostly, this book left me with no excuse to keep making excuses for the Bible, and that was a real gift.

Yes, Sam, religion is bad for modern-day society. I agree. Do you have to be such a complete jerk about it though? Really, your style isn't going to win you any converts among the "faithful" now, is it? Generally if you openly call people stupid and evil, they aren't going to openly accept your overall thesis. Oh, and read some more Noam Chomsky before you spend several pages attacking him in your book, not one 118 page pamphlet. And if you think America's intentions in their foreign policies are nothing but good for everyone, you're incredibly naive. You're a good writer, I'll give you that, and you have some important points to make, but seriously, they're awash in such vitriol that they are basically moot. ( )

I didn't care for Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation, finding it simplistic and needlessly pugnacious. Well, this full-length work is considerably more sophisticated, of course. The primary argument is that religious faith -- and that includes religious moderates -- is a force for evil in the world. His most frightening scenarios involve Islam, but he certainly slams the predominantly Christian culture of the west, as well. I won't rehash the arguments here; I'm convinced, and the faithful will probably not be. Most interesting to me were the later chapters outlining the case for ethics without faith and even spirituality without faith. He presents the atheistic spirituality of Buddhism as something that is not predicated on faith and could be a valuable way for human beings to connect with something larger than themselves. ( )

Very well written and argued book. ( )

BTRIPP's review of Sam Harris' "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" ( )

Please, please read this book. Doesn't matter if you hate the premise or not, this book is important. One way or the other, as a species, we're either going to grow out of 'revealed religion' or we're not ... and it really matters for our continued survival on this planet. ( )