Book Review - The End of Faith

Introduction:

End of faith is a book by Sam Harris. Going by the title, I had assumed it to be a treatise on atheism like- say- The God Delusion of Richard Dawkins. But to my surprise it didn’t turn out to be one. But instead it was a work which diagnosed the phenomenon called faith (or belief) and its various manifestations from various dimensions and its impact on the world. Having proficiency in neurology and allied sciences, Sam Harris does a good job in it.

Synopsis:

First of all, the concept of belief is examined with all its psychological clutches that hold us.

“A BELIEF is a lever that, once pulled, moves almost everything else in a person's life. Are you a scientist? A liberal? A racist? These are merely species of belief in action. Your beliefs define your vision of the world; they dictate your behavior; they determine your emotional responses to other human beings.”

Then the focus shifts from belief to the next obvious territory: the territory of religion. Sam Harris warns about the religious bigotry and its effects.

“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”

The primary focus is on the Abrahamic religions which have a common root: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three have many similarities and all have exclusive truth claims. Sam Harris goes to the roots of ‘holy’ scriptures of these religions and examines them. He rebukes the truth monopolies the religions claim to have.

“The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained—as the beliefs, rituals, and iconography of each of our religions attests to centuries of cross- pollination among them.”

While examining these original texts (Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, Sunnah etc), he shows how they are inherently intolerant and inspires violence against the non-believers. The episodes of medieval Christianity: the never ending witch-hunts, inquisition, burning heretics at the stake make for a nauseating reading and makes one wonder how much blood have spilled for the sake of belief.

Then his gaze turns towards east. He observes, in the east, non-sectarian spiritual traditions have developed which never developed in the west in a full scale and ponders on the reason. In his own words: 

“If there is an equally arresting image that accounts for why nondualistic, empirical mysticism seems to have arisen only in Asia, I have yet to find it. But I suspect that the culprit has been the Christian, Jewish,and Muslim emphasis on faith itself. Faith is rather like a rhinoceros, in fact: it won't do much in the way of real work for you, and yet at close quarters it will make spectacular claims upon your attention.”

He then dwells on the issue of conscious mind, the functioning and the intricacies and all the exhortations of western philosophers like Descartes, Pascal, and Sartre et al. Then he makes an arresting conclusion:

“ Nevertheless, when the great philosopher mystics of the East are weighed against the patriarchs of the Western philosophical and theological traditions, the difference is unmistakable: Buddha, Shankara, Padmasambhava, Nagarjuna, Longchenpa, and countless others down to the present have no equivalents in the West. In spiritual terms, we appear to have been standing on the shoulders of dwarfs.”

Then the focus is shifted to Buddhism and the long tradition of Buddhists to focus on the mind and its functioning. He posits Buddhism in the high pedestal among religions which is rational and most of the claims can be empirically verified. He mocks the difference in understanding of the universe and its functioning between Eastern and western tradition thus:

“It is no exaggeration to say that meetings between the Dalai Lama and Christian ecclesiastics to mutually honor their religious traditions are like meetings between physicists from Cambridge and the Bushmen of the Kalahari to mutually honor their respective understandings of the physical universe.”

He makes a very important distinction which most miss: The difference between mysticism and religious tradition. To paraphrase him –

“MYSTICISM is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized 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. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial—at once full of hope and full of fear—of the vastitude of human ignorance.”  

He nails the coffin called faith thus :

“Faith is simply the license they give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail When rational inquiry supports the creed it is championed; when it poses a threat, it is derided; sometimes in the same sentence. Faith is the mortar that fills the cracks in the evidence and the gaps in the logic, and thus it is faith that keeps the whole terrible edifice of religious certainty still looming dangerously over our world.”

Conclusion:

This is one of the few books written in the spirit of free enquiry. Usually the books which take critical position on religion take the side of atheism, and eventually end up advocating it. But this book is an exception. While looking the faith, religion and the dangers which loom from it, it also looks at the possibility of expansion of human consciousness through non-sectarian spiritual traditions and methods. It’s a strong, scholarly work rooted in reason, science and rationality.