Dear Rafi Aamer,
Your article on chowk.com
inspired me to read Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith. It was
one of the most provocative books I have ever read. Sam Harris has
shared his truth openly and honestly. In spite of my many disagreements
with him I enjoyed reading his challenges to traditional ideologies,
beliefs and blind faiths. He is very emotional, sentimental and
passionate about his logical and rational thinking.
If someone asked me, “What are the three most important ideas
presented in the book, I would have said, “ Sam Harris believes that for
the future evolution of humanity we need
…human beings motivated by love and compassion
…communities and cultures based on secular and humanistic values
and
…the abolition of organized religions and blind faiths which are major
obstacles to human growth and progress.
If someone asked me three shortcomings of Sam Harris as a
writer I would say,
…his thinking is over-inclusive. I felt as if there were 300 ideas in
300 pages. It reminded me of a Chinese Buffet with 100 items for dinner.
It was difficult to eat or even taste all the items. As a reader I felt
overwhelmed and bombarded with ideas.
…Sam Harris is very reactionary regarding the Sep 11th, 2001
tragedy. His political views about the world situation in the last four
years blur his insights into the struggles of humanity about the beliefs
of God and religions over the last four thousand years.
and
…Sam Harris sounds more anti-religion than pro-Humanism. His bias, even
prejudice, against Middle Eastern monotheistic religions—Judaism,
Christianity and especially Islam—is quite pronounced, compared to the
soft corner in his heart for Buddhism.
Sam Harris has tried to build a case against blind faith from two sides:
scientific and rational thinking from the outside and spiritual and
mystical experiences from the inside. His arguments seem philosophically
strong but psychologically weak. He starts his discourse as a left wing
philosopher but ends as a right wing political activist. By favoring war
and torture to promote peace he becomes his own worst enemy. His
arguments are least convincing when he attacks Mohandas Gandhi and Noam
Chomsky. Challenging Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussain is one thing but
to justify bombing Afghanistan and Iraq is another matter. From that
position he sounds like a more rationalizing than rational writer.
As a secular humanist I support his criticisms of organized
religions but as a peace loving person I cannot agree with his support
of torture and war.
It seems to me that Sam Harris as a writer has serious
unresolved conflicts, philosophically and psychologically. Since he
writes with passion he can provoke strong emotional reactions. You can
love or hate but cannot ignore such a writer. He seems to have a PhD in
controversy. Since he is young and energetic, maybe with the passage of
time he might realize that winning arguments is easier than winning
hearts, confrontation is easier than compassion and gaining knowledge is
easier than acquiring wisdom.
As a psychotherapist I realize that developing a humanistic
philosophy by reading hundreds of books is easier than developing a
humanistic personality, for which one needs to do some profound, painful
and complex emotional work. Some atheists have personalities as
extremist as those of their religious opponents. I feel that Sam Harris
has a long way to go to embrace inner and outer peace and develop
compassion for Easterners rather than promoting war as a Westerner.
Dear Rafi.
I would like to thank you and the editors of chowk.com who
inspired me to read The End of Faith. I do not have faith in
organized religions but I have faith in myself and the future of
humanity. I am hopeful that we as human beings will evolve to a stage
where we will rise above the man made dichotomies of East and West,
Muslim and Non-Muslim, First and Third World, Us and Them and realize
that our enemies are our distant cousins.
Sincerely,
Sohail
Feb 2006
