The End Of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
1 journaler for this copy...
Je suis dans ma période athéisme depuis la lecture du traité d'athéologie de Michel Onfray, je continue sur ma lancée.
As I said in the previous journal entry, I began this book just after having finished Michel Onfray's "Traité d'athéologie", so I'll have to make some comparisons.
In the beginning, the 2 books are pretty similar in the goal and in the arguments, and in the way of showing the rationnality of atheism and the dangers of religion in general (and monotheism in particular). Well, not exactly, I found Michel Onfray more philosophical and conceptual compared to the very prosaic Sam Harris (Meaning more concrete). This is certainly due to cultural differences, I feel that american love analogies and maybe europeans prefer speaking in terms of concepts (sorry for the deflection, this was just my point of view).
But then, Sam Harris continues his book speaking of terrorism and burning islam in particular. This really irritated me, OK, islam is very bad and particularly violent, but so are christianity and judaism. To me, saying that a religion is worse than the others is like preaching in favor of the 2 others. And I know terrorism is bad, I don't want to read about atheism to learn why terrorism is bad, I read a book about atheism to know why religion in general is bad and the solution is atheism.
After this chapter, I was quite angry, but I continued, and the following pleased me. It is all about constructing a world without religion, how to make the difference between good and evil without the religious principles. I also liked the idea that "victimless crimes" (like homosexuality for example) is a stupid concept. Very interesting lines indeed.
In the end, I have been very disappointed. To me, the last chapter looks like aan apology of buddhism, and new age mysticism. I personnaly think that any kind of mysticism has to be eradicated, because it is a way to manipulate people. But I've been very disappointed by this : "Mysticism is a rational enterprise". Because this is false, and this should not appear in an atheist book. Mysticism takes roots in myths (it's the definition of this word !), so it cannot be rational !
In the afterword, Sam Harris respond to this criticism, he says : "If there is a book that takes a harder swing at religion, I'm not aware of it". Mr Harris, if you can read french, then go read the "Traité d'athéologie". It's a shame it hasn't been translated in english...
Final feeling : mitigated, a load of good ideas, but also many things I don't agree with.
(Edit June 5th 2006) Breaking news : Michel Onfray's book has been translated ! The "Atheist manifesto" will be out in january 2007.
In the beginning, the 2 books are pretty similar in the goal and in the arguments, and in the way of showing the rationnality of atheism and the dangers of religion in general (and monotheism in particular). Well, not exactly, I found Michel Onfray more philosophical and conceptual compared to the very prosaic Sam Harris (Meaning more concrete). This is certainly due to cultural differences, I feel that american love analogies and maybe europeans prefer speaking in terms of concepts (sorry for the deflection, this was just my point of view).
But then, Sam Harris continues his book speaking of terrorism and burning islam in particular. This really irritated me, OK, islam is very bad and particularly violent, but so are christianity and judaism. To me, saying that a religion is worse than the others is like preaching in favor of the 2 others. And I know terrorism is bad, I don't want to read about atheism to learn why terrorism is bad, I read a book about atheism to know why religion in general is bad and the solution is atheism.
After this chapter, I was quite angry, but I continued, and the following pleased me. It is all about constructing a world without religion, how to make the difference between good and evil without the religious principles. I also liked the idea that "victimless crimes" (like homosexuality for example) is a stupid concept. Very interesting lines indeed.
In the end, I have been very disappointed. To me, the last chapter looks like aan apology of buddhism, and new age mysticism. I personnaly think that any kind of mysticism has to be eradicated, because it is a way to manipulate people. But I've been very disappointed by this : "Mysticism is a rational enterprise". Because this is false, and this should not appear in an atheist book. Mysticism takes roots in myths (it's the definition of this word !), so it cannot be rational !
In the afterword, Sam Harris respond to this criticism, he says : "If there is a book that takes a harder swing at religion, I'm not aware of it". Mr Harris, if you can read french, then go read the "Traité d'athéologie". It's a shame it hasn't been translated in english...
Final feeling : mitigated, a load of good ideas, but also many things I don't agree with.
(Edit June 5th 2006) Breaking news : Michel Onfray's book has been translated ! The "Atheist manifesto" will be out in january 2007.
