Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris
After reading this book, it seems to me that Catholicism, the fullness of Christianity, has the answers to the objections Sam Harris poses. There have been 2000 years of Christian history where many objections have arisen and been answered along the way. Some being posed by atheists but most posed by believers themselves, looking to answer or address questions that should be asked and looked at with much scrutiny so that faith is not taken as an unintelligent act but instead as a combination of faith and reason.
I myself have placed and continue to place Christianity under the microscope because it is our duty as Christians to always be mindful of what we believe and what we act upon because we are responsible for how we live our lives and how our lives affect those around us. As humans, we depend on each other and if my beliefs are going to affect others, I owe it to them as well to try my best to make proper judgments so that others are not negatively affected.
Perhaps Sam has not previously heard the answers to the objections that he presents or perhaps he just doesn’t find the answers that he’s heard convincing, either way, the following are just some of my thoughts on his book.
Although his book is in part directed towards Catholics per Sam’s own statement, I really didn’t feel like it was directed towards me, even though I read it multiple times. I guess I’m okay with that as Sam stated that some may feel that way. I did feel like his book was directed towards a particular Christian though, a Christian that perhaps didn’t have reasons for believing what they believe other than maybe that’s just how they were raised so they took it for granted, or perhaps a Christian that hasn’t thought much about the opposing perspectives. Many of those Christians that fall into these categories happen to be Catholics. Nominal Catholics. To them, this book I would think could have the effect that Sam seems to want to have, which is to give their faith a jolt. If not to jolt their faith, then to at least, as he stated, to give secularists ammunition to combat Christians whom he deems as opponents. I propose that those Catholics that feel a sense of insecurity (and perhaps protestants and other Christians) after reading this book, pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church where we see the Church's stance on just about all topics related to living life as Christian. While it is not meant to be an apologetic book, it is a book designed to help people learn and better understand what the Catholic Church teaches which may be helpful for those who are not familiar with Church teaching. For a work of apologetics, I would suggest maybe to start The Godless Delusion A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley which was a response to a book by Richard Dawkins titled The God Delusion.
https://www.amazon.com/Godless-Delusion-Catholic-Challenge-Atheism/dp/1592767877
Sam started off his letter in a very agreeable way stating... "we agree ... that if one of us is right, the other is wrong". I think this is an appropriate place to start, to start with an absolute truth. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Truth is not relative, it does not depend on whether an individual person believes it or not. It just is true or it isn’t. Similarly, morality itself is also not relative, It’s objective. Although, if Sam is right in saying there is no God then morality would be relative to each individual whereas if Sam is wrong about the existence of a God, then morality is objective and is not shaped by individuals but by God. In essence, each individual would be their own God if a supreme being did not exist and we’d have each individual acting in their best interest as they each best see fit. Perhaps a survival of the fittest scenario. Moral relativism is probably what we can spend most of our time talking about here but I’ll move on.
Sam continues, "the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions." So each religion believes they have it right and that others don’t and Sam believes he has it right and all other religions don't.
Sam then goes on to state his own religious view: “Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering... to the degree that our actions can affect the experiences of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply." I just ask myself, who made Sam the authoritative voice of what “questions of morality” are? Happiness and suffering don’t determine what is good or bad. Some people feel happiness in killing others while other people suffer for the benefit of their health. There are countless of examples where we can see good and bad are not equal to happiness and suffering, but if Sam is correct in saying there is no God then, he can have his own version of morality and others can have their own version of morality and both versions of morality would be equal because there would be no objective morality. It’s a free for all. Why is Sam’s version of morality better than others? It seems that he is somewhat violating his own atheistic point of view in declaring an objective morality or moral absolute?
While doing this, Sam is talking about the Bible and his view on why it is not a perfect guide to morality. As a Catholic, I paused here thinking, well Catholics don't see the Bible alone as a perfect guide to morality. The book came from an existing Church. An existing people that discerned its content, its canon. The collection of books didn’t just fall out of the sky. It was the Church that found itself as the perfect guide to morality, not claiming to be a perfect example of it but claiming to be the perfect guide to morality through its official teachings. In essence, the Church claimed to have a special authority given to it by God, Jesus Christ. So as Sam discusses the problems he sees with the Bible and giving us his interpretation of those passages he quotes, Sam should instead be talking about why the Church placed those books in the Bible and how the church sees those passages as fitting with its reasons for including them. Sam describes passages in the Bible that he sees as "obscene celebrations of violence that we find throughout the Old and New Testaments." Why not take the next step and ask “why are they included and what purpose do they serve?” as apposed to making assumptions and then attacking the assumptions he himself has made? He’s not really attacking the Bible but his own assumptions of what he believes the Bible to be meant for.
Sam then goes on to compare those passages with references from other religions in reference to nonviolence. He states how the Bible can be interpreted to mean just about anything to anyone (as he proved to us by doing just that). Well it could be used for that if it is taken out of context. What I mean is, if someone goes and picks up the Bible and begins to read it without understanding why it was put together in the first place and what its intent is meant for, then people will undoubtably use it as they wish. Sam names Augustine and Aquinas, two Catholics, as examples of using the Bible to justify torture or even the death of heretics. Again, why not take it to the next step? Look at these examples under the microscope and investigate them critically from all angles. Ask the proper questions. Are Augustine and Aquinas to be seen as inspired scripture? Is everything they do or write suppose to be followed and believed 100% without question? Sure they are very important figures in the church for good reasons but let’s not make them Gods.
Sam then goes on to talk about Jesus and how others have expressed the Golden rule better than the Bible has. Not sure if I can change Sam’s mind here within the confines of this blog but Sam seems to believe that Jesus is confined by what is in the book. If he believes all of Christianity is found within this Book that he’s trying to understand as its sole proper interpreter, he’s robbed himself of a fair critique of the other side. Jesus never wrote anything himself while on earth that he left for anyone on paper. I don’t think Jesus so much cared about trying to be the most eloquent in expressing the golden rule not that I can know either way but that’s just my humble opinion. The Bible also is not meant to be what I think Sam thinks it’s suppose to be. It’s a collection of different writings placed within the canon each for different reasons.
Sam goes on to talk about violence in the Old and New Testaments and sees them as blemishes of the Bible and ultimately of Christianity. Also goes on to talk about violence that happened during Christian history and compared it to that of the beliefs of Jainism. Now I don’t know anything about Jainism so I can’t really comment on it but Christianity has held some form of the just war doctrine where it states that violence in some cases is just (as the name insinuates). Can we say that the instances in the Bible where violence is described is acceptable? I think not always but that’s part of the reason why it’s included, there are illustrations of historical events and spiritual meanings. Each added for different reasons, all should be asked how they relate ultimately to Christ as the fulfillment of the old covenant.
Sam seems to suggest that violence is never acceptable or at least posses the concept as being superior to Christianity. The Just War Doctrine itself I believe refutes any argument Sam could pose. Perhaps Sam just brought up Jainism as an example in contrast to Christianity. Either way we have to understand the violence found within the Bible in its proper context.
Same with when Sam brings up the issue of slavery. Comparing slavery of the nineteenth century to the concepts of slavery mentioned in the Bible without differentiation is not very good scholarship. Sure some have used the Bible to promote slavery but that’s why the Bible alone doctrine or position fails. As Sam stated “People have been cherry-picking the Bible for millennia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise” and I would argue Sam is doing the very same thing in his book and interpreting as he so desires to try and make conclusions that fit his need. Again, the Bible was put together for a certain purpose which is not even given one line in his book, unless I missed it. The Canon was discerned by the Church, it didn’t just fall out of the sky and it wasn’t just a book that Jesus just gave the Church. These are separate writings all included for a purpose. What that purpose is, Sam neglects to address or simply doesn’t care.
Sam then writes about the Ten Commandments and says that the first four have nothing to do with morality. Not sure how much to say about this other than the fact that they have everything to do with morality if there is a God. Sam has his own definition of morality as we already stated so perhaps in his own mind they don’t apply to his definition of morality. Again, it comes down to subjective vs objective morality. Sam’s subjective morality, his personal definition vs that of Christianity’s, which is not even self defined but revealed by God. For example the Ten Commandments (as Sam gave as an example) or Christ’s revelation through his ministry (claiming to be God). If Christ was God then Christ defined morality objectively because he’s God making everyone subject to it. If Christ wasn’t God then Sam is within his rights to declare his own personal subjective morality as every person would be within their rights to have their own equal personal subjective morality. No one’s would be greater than another’s except for ones ability to impose it on another through force or persuasion but either way it doesn’t make it any less subjective and would only be binding on others if freely accepted or forced upon.
Sam goes on to state that moral emotions precede any exposure to scripture. Again, Christianity is not a faith of a book. The book is in reference to Christianity, and not all inclusive, it’s not meant to be.
Sam then speaks about primates and how they seem to not like murder or theft “generally”. Well “generally” speaking humans don’t either, that doesn’t make it right or wrong. People’s attitudes toward something doesn’t make it objectively right or wrong. But since Sam brought up chimpanzees, I do want to point out that the natural moral law (which is also God’s law) is also found or revealed in nature. Does nature always directly correlate to human morality, no. Humans are special. We are held to a different standard than spiders, lions, etc. but I guess that would be, according to Sam, my own subjective opinion. Let’s say everyone thought killing babies was okay, would that make it okay? Of course not. Maybe Sam would disagree.
Sam says that in order for God to be taken seriously, that God should give us freedom to follow the commandments we like and reject those we don’t like. Well, actually God does give us freedom to do so. I guess Sam should take God seriously? Free will is given to each person to either accept or decline God’, to either live in communion or live separately. If a person refuses, he freely chooses to accept the results or outcomes of such a decision as like with all other decisions made.
Sam goes on to speak again about the Jains stating that one single sentence surpasses all the Bible contains. First off that’s another subjective opinion and secondly does Sam even believe it, would he or does he live according to that one sentence he gave as an example from the Jains or does he have an even more superior morality than that of the Jains example? Not to kill any creature or living being? To me that’s an interesting statement. On the face of it, it sounds good, after thinking about it, it places any living creature and humans on the same level of superiority. Should people eat any type of meat? Should we kill insects? The list can go on and on. Is Sam a vegetarian and if so what stopping someone from saying we shouldn’t eat plants because they are also living organisms? Organisms are living things too. On what basis is one person’s morality better than another’s if there is no God?
If God created all things then he subjects all creation to his morality and rightly so. If there is no God, then it’s a free for all and rightly so and logically speaking. Everyone turns into their own “God”.
Sam again goes back to his definition of morality, happiness and suffering and calls it objective. Is he talking about short term or long term happiness/suffering, happiness/suffering relative to each individual or happiness/suffering as Sam sees happiness/suffering? Stealing makes some people happy. Slavery made some people happy. Killing makes some people happy. Sex with children makes some people happy. Killing children makes some people happy. We can go on and on. We could do the same for suffering and how suffering isn’t alway a “bad” thing.
Sam goes on to say that we can state things are wrong without reference to scripture. Again, Christianity is not based on scripture. Scripture is a book of Christianity. Not everything is found in scripture. Maybe this argument would work against some Protestants who hold to the Bible alone doctrine as stated previously.
There is much more that Sam mentions but for the most part I believe that there are answers that have been given by others in much more eloquent ways than I could do.
I think that I would enjoy it if Sam wrote a book specifically addressed to Catholics and actual Catholic teachings and beliefs and not make it so general that perhaps no one sees themselves being addressed completely. I would definitely read that book and write another blog with my thoughts on it. I found it difficult to decide on how to address Sam’s book precisely because I didn’t find it necessarily addressed to me as one the Christians he meant to address. The Bible alone doctrine is not held by Catholics and I think that Sam formed the majority of his arguments to attack those Christians that do hold to such a belief. I definitely will keep a close eye on Sam and his publications so as to keep up with his work. I always enjoy listening to others perspectives and thinking critically about them.
I do want to end with adding a link to a blog that is of a Facebook friend of mine, Aileen, who first introduced me to this book by Sam Harris through a conversation we were having. The link leads to her thoughts on a book that I recommended to her which was G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy, hence the picture above. Both books were close to one hundred pages, hence the title of this blog post. I really enjoyed my conversations with her and I look forward to more in the future.
https://aileensoprano.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/the-morbid-logician-on-the-poetical-fairyman/
No comments:
Post a Comment