Letter to a Christian Nation

I recommend reading this book, but doing so critically.My impression is that the author attempted to make his points using a rapid pace and inflammatory speech, such that it’s easy to get swept away by emotions without taking a step back to critically think of each of the quite numerous thoughts the author puts forth.The logic of arguments is particularly bad. A good argument has three components: (a) well defined clear terms, (b) premises that are true as one can prove anything from false premises, and (c) tight logic that the conclusions naturally result from the premises. This work has a large number or quite vague terms (“many” or “scientists” or “never”). If you took a drink every time an ambiguous term was used, you’d be under the table well before finishing a third of the book. Second, many premises are not proved or at least suspect. There are many Christian works that state they believe in the resurrection of Jesus because of evidence, not just on faith. Mr. Harris states Christians believe in the resurrection by faith. That’s just not true for all Christians. They may be incorrect in their historical accuracy, but the premise that they are taking the resurrection on faith is not correct. Finally, important conclusions were drawn without being proven. Candidly, this was frustrating, as I wanted to understand Mr. Harris’ points, but the logic was so muddled, it was a frustrating read. He shared much authentically felt opinions and emotions, but there are other explanations to his assertions and he really proved concretely very little.I wished or was surprised a few things were not addressed or not discussed in greater detail in this bookFor example, the Design argument against atheism simply states where there is design, there is a designer, and there is much design in the universe, hence there is likely a designer. That doesn’t prove what type of God exists, but does make a strong case for some sort of designing god. Mr. Harris talks about the design not making sense or not being intelligent ... but that would just indicate a poor designing type of God exists . If I go to a museum and see a Picasso, I may think it’s a horribly painted painting, but not for a second – because the painting to me doesn’t make sense – do I conclude that there’s not a painter. Mr. Harris seems to indicate that since design is not intelligent based on his definition of intelligent, a god does not exist. That conclusion does not follow the premises.I also had the impression that Mr. Harris does not like the type of god that exists. This is his right to believe and feel this way ... but he really didn’t prove that god didn’t exist.He did do a very heartfelt and excellent review of the argument against god because of the existence of evil and suffering. CS Lewis’ The problem of Pain is the best intellectual discussion on this topic, but Mr. Harris did an excellent job of stating the argument exceedingly strongly. I would read Lewis’ work on this as well to review both sides and choose which makes more sense for yourself, as well as Peter Kreeft’s work on the existence of God. Again, read both and draw your own conclusions.Finally, and this really was missing, is that the lynch pin of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. Disprove the resurrection and Christianity is completely devastated. The resurrection got a few sentences in this book but nothing near the focus that should have received if one is arguing against Christianity.My wish list would be for Mr. Harris to address a few points : (a) did a historical Jesus did exist .... it's interesting that 10 non-christian historians mention Jesus, which is odd that the same number of historians would mention a small town Jewish day laborer (Jesus) as did the number of historians who mentioned Tiberius Caesar. (b) there’s historical references Jesus was crucified and there’s no evidence of anyone ever surviving a crucifixion – a good read is the Mayo clinic’s medical overview of the impact of scourging and crucifixion on a human being. It appears the historical Jesus was really executed and was dead (c) why would at least 11 of Jesus closest followers be killed because they refused to renounce that Jesus rose from the dead – and they would have known if this was true or not, (d) how James (the brother of Jesus) and Paul went from anti Christian to dying for their belief in the resurrection, and (e) the tomb of Jesus was empty or at least it makes no sense that if the tomb had a body, the enemies of Chrisianity would have tossed his body in the street.Again, Christianity rises and falls on the resurrection and I was very surprised that none of these five areas were addressed, as invalidating all of them would be devastating to Christianity.

Any critical thinking believer looking to gain a fuller understanding of the atheistic point of view and acknowlege honestly where our religious dogmas fall short should read this. As a Christian, I have been hesitant to read Sam Harris works. I feel one of the crippling attributes of the modern atheist is their perceived intolerance and often hostile tone towards religious believers. Especially since these are the same attributes they claim to despise amongst religious practicioners. The same tone is present here, but at least it is channeled and supported with strong facts and unsettling examples. Ironically, no solution is presented except for the same solution most religions also profess to their followers. Alas, we must all adopt the atheist ideology in order to progress and succeed as a civilization. I was left feeling that regardless of our beliefs relgious or otherwise, we all need to learn to live together. I'm left wondering if this is ever possible.As a side note, I was also oddly dumbstruck that Sam's vision and end goal is for a global civilization, the very thing the Christian bible regards in Revelation as the prerequisite for Armageddon.

`Letter to a Christian Nation' is a polemical essay by Sam Harris. It advocates atheism by pointing out the many failings of the monotheistic religions, singling out Christianity, for its most pointed attacks.There are useful observations in this book, and I agree with many of them, in spite of the fact that I'm a committed, go to church every Sunday and teach Sunday adult Bible Study classes Lutheran. In fact, when our man Sam started out by saying he was really addressing the attitudes of the more fundamentalist American Christian sects and not liberal, middle of the road believers, he almost had me hooked! But then, Sam, being the sly fellow he is, slid his argument over to his main stance of criticizing all monotheisms in general, regardless of doctrinal shading.Harris' argument attracts people of liberal inclinations because he attacks several targets that deserve attack. These are opposition to areas of medical practice and research based on religious belief. At the top of the list is opposition to birth control (especially in HIV ridden Africa), abortion, stem cell research, and teaching any scientific theory that happens to be contrary to a religious doctrine. At the top of the list for this issue or course is the teaching of the well-verified theory of evolution. Sam, I am with you 100% on these particular issues, and I suspect the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) with over 10,000 congregations would probably have no problems with these positions either.But Sam is greedy, and in spite of his list of sources and scholarly looking notes at the back of his book, he goes off into arguments whose factual basis is weak and whose logic is even weaker. Let me lead off with my strongest argument. Harris is simply advocating something that is counter to our constitution! Remember kiddies, that the government can neither set up a state religion, nor PREVENT THE FREE EXERCIZE of any individual religion! Harris is advocating just that, the abolition of the free exercise of our believing anything we darn well want to believe, no matter how dumb! If I happen to want to deify and worship Gandalf the Gray and talk to trees, well by golly, I'm entitled. What I CAN'T do is stand in the way of my neighbor's cutting down his aging mulberry tree or plant an azalea in its place (we Gandalfians don't abide bushes).Harris spends much time beating up on Christianity for its once upon a time advocacy of slavery. This is what we call beating a dead horse. This battle was put behind us over a century ago. Harris also constructs his share of straw men, as when he quotes Matthew 5:18-20 as a refutation of the notion that Christ's sacrifice leads to a new covenant, discarding the Old Testament covenant and its elaborate practices, most famously male circumcision. His argument is based on Jesus quote regarding `righteousness', which, if he had any sensitivity to Christian doctrine at all, especially Paul's letter to the Romans, he would realize the quote in no way supports his argument. Well, so Harris isn't a Bible scholar. Few are, but there's more!I'm annoyed at Harris' characterization of the Bible as the infallible word of God. As far back as Luther (and probably further), churchmen fully realized the frailty behind the 300,000 pieces of writing which make up the canon texts and treated it as the human (fallible) witness to God's inspiration.Early in the essay, Harris makes a doubtful characterization of fundamentalist Christians behaving in practical situations as if the book of Genesis was as true as Newton's three laws of motion or the three laws of Thermodynamics. This is a nice fiction, and it would probably make a neat premise to a science fiction novel, but I'm sorry to say that fundamentalist physics professionals follow Newton and Einstein, fundamentalist geologists work on the basis of the 500 million year old fossil record, fundamentalist geneticists follow Darwin and Mendel's theories, and fundamentalist weathermen use the very latest computerized models of weather patterns. And it they don't, the wouldn't stay employed as professionals in their fields for very long.I sort of let this slide until I got to the part where Harris said this fictitious behavior, leading to attributing hurricanes, tsunamis, and disease epidemics to the wrath of God was more honest than we liberals' panty-waist co-belief in the Bible and in modern science. Here, you lost me Sam. Here it becomes clear that Harris is not aguing against extreme positions, but all Christian faith in whatever flavor it comes!Some of Harris' most convincing sounding arguments are directed at Christianity as the basis of morality, and his showing that there are far better bases of morality. And, while I suspect some other Christians may not go along with me on this one, I state that Harris has expended many words on a non-issue. The Christian Bible is full of excellent statements of religious values, some of which are a model for some moral thought, but neither Christianity nor any other religious belief is the basis of moral rules! The simplest demonstration of this is the fact that while a religious value is binding on only witnesses to that religion, moral rules are binding on EVERYONE! The issue is a bit muddy because historically much moral theory can be traced to some statements in the Bible. I'm thinking primarily of Immanual Kant's categorical imperative, which has a family resemblence to `the golden rule', but with some important differences.Harris brings up the old simile comparing religion to a placebo. I prefer to compare religions to drugs which really work, but which have side effects. Aspirin relieves pain, but it makes our ears ring and burns holes in our stomachs.A better answer to Harris' issues is to deny any special license to political positions based on religious values, and to invalidate policy position if their recommendations are contrary to established science.

I believe in the Judo-Christian God. Some days it is easier than others, as life has a habit of throwing things up in your face that makes you question why you believe what you believe. A close friend recently got told they have 6-12 months left to live. The cancer they have is going to lead to their death. A chapter will close.I can't escape the feeling that we are meant for so much more than we manage. Sure, some will claim these feelings are just personal fabrications, as I try to make sense of the world I find myself. I still can't shake the feeling that there is something behind the veil. That there is something more than a strictly atheist or naturalist viewpoint.Books like 'Letter to a Christian Nation' help to collate all the often recited arguments that should (right?) knock down someone's Chrisitan beliefs. But they don't, they question blind belief, which I also think should be questioned.I feel like the real arguments against Christianity, at least in the 21st century, are to be found in suffering, and evolution. We all experience pain and we can all recite awful stories of suffering. Evolution tells us that we are not special, that we come about from a mindless process. There are answers to these, but there is also a lot of work to be done in regards to these topics within Christian apologetics.Books like 'Sapiens' and 'Why Evolution is True' do not have good responses and therefore, in my opinion, are at the forefront of Athiest apologetics.I enjoy reading from both sides of the battle lines, and I will continue to do just that.

Detailed and thorough, open minded evaluation of what nonsense man has been peddling for millennia.Wake up and realise all of these stories are fantasy and wishful thinking. Just make the most of the fact that you exist briefly now - it is actually all the you will ever have. Do good for its own sake, not to buy your way to a heaven that never existed and some imaginary God. Very well written with direct reference to scientific knowledge and the evolution of our species. Common sense really, but then, that is actually so rare.

I bought a second hand copy of this book but it turned out to be in almost mint condition; just a couple of tiny marks on the dust jacket and the book itself perfect.As to the contents, I had already read the book and it summarised so well my own views on religion, which have been put together over a lifetime, and which have arrived at the same conclusion as Sam Harris. So I bought the book to send to my very distant cousins in the US of A who are descended from some of the early Mormon settlers in Utah and who are still practicing Mormons. I hope it will make them think.but I am not really sure of it!It is a short book. Could be read in an evening but every page is a hard hitting logically based argument highlighting the enormous dangers we face from tolerating religious influence in the government of many 'developed' countries.

We are, for the most part, Christians or Muslims or (name your Faith) purely through accident of birth and upbringing. It passes from generation to generation and so our "Faith" is something we grow up with and by adulthood it is so ingrained in our minds that to challenge some of our beliefs takes us right out of our comfort zone. That is what our Faith is .. a comfort zone.Sam Harris - like Professor Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens - forces us to confront the weight of our faith-based beliefs with the weight of rational argument. Unlike Dawkins and Hitchens, though, he does it in a more straightforward and readable way. It is compelling reading, though disturbing because it is stretching our personal ties with blind adherence to Faith to breaking point. But, the crux of the matter is this: once you have gone through the trauma of the break it is strangely liberating.The potency of Harris's book is the fact that it is addressed to probably the most pious (Christian) nation on the planet, i.e., the USA. In this respect it is an act of some bravery in a land where a large percentage of the population believe the literal truth of the Bible in every respect, from the Creation as described in Genesis, to the acceptability of killing people in defence of "God" with his blessing.Read this excellent little book and start using the brain you were born with.

I first encountered Sam Harris through his promotion of eastern spirituality though a secular context. In his book 'Waking Up' he offers a sympathetic and balenced view of religious faith and seeks with honesty to separate the valulable elements of spirituality from religious dogma. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' cannot have been written by the same man. This book is an unnecessarily agressive attack on american Christianity at it's worst. I find it extremely unlikely that anyone with have their faith shaken by this text; all it will do is enrage its opponent and tip them further away from a secular perspective.