Democratic Conversation

Are on-line book reviews the worst sort of book report, emblematic of the neo-Western education system combined with the Internet’s come one/come all open forum? Or is it a mixed bag of well-meaning, passionate readers versus the cranks who have an agenda? For controversial books, a site visitor to Barnes & Noble or Amazon can easily determine who gave a book lots of stars as opposed to just one.

One example is Sam Harris’s The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason. My own take on this book, just to be part of the crowd for the moment, is that it asks many more questions than wants to answer about faith, religious following, and the future of respectful, democratic societies. That, of course, was his goal: who can rightly say what should be done anymore than decrying what can be done? Naturally, Harris expresses his opinions, which is to say he has views on what should be done in the case of Faith vs. Rationalism: it is time for people of the 21st century to put aside superstitions (and religious dogma) of the 1st Century. He argues against an established tide of religious sociability and, in many instances, fervency. Such people and groups are not about to change because of some scientific, historical, and anecdotal evidence suggesting we all would be better off without religion. So here we are, a book that offers evidence, suggestions, and argument for a position. What else is new? Actually, since 9-11 attacks and attacks throughout Europe, it can be said this book and its arguments are new in the face of political correctness, an unwillingness to challenge religions from the outside, and an even greater unwillingness to challenge religions from within.

Readers, it should be said, come to a text with their own preconceived notions: this is not good reading habits, but it exists; few of us can truly step around what we already believe. And the reviewers’ varied understanding (and misunderstanding) of Harris’s book show this very fact. Often enough, however, so-called website reviewers forget that Harris has but one opinion, which he essays to back up with evidence, taken from history, psychology, consciousness studies, religious texts, and numerous other areas that would shed light on his thesis. But for so many, there seems more room to question their ability to read and review a book, more than a question of the book’s merits.

For example, some reviewers try to understand what it means to review a book, and they look at Harris’s thesis and (more or less) judge it against the evidence presented, but then allow their personal views to bleed out, and sully the entire reviewing intent:

Other reviewers clearly have an agenda of their own, and offer no evidence behind their words or ad hominem attacks:

And then there are the partisans who have merely found an outlet for their proselytizing, and have no notion of (nor ability for) what a review requires:

I have a question for this type of blatantly dogmatic “reviewer”: why did you give the book even a single star, if you thought it so wrong?

Some people don’t seem as if they’ve ever read a book before:

And finally—but there never is finality to reviews or reviewers—we find this back and forth between reviewers who entered a posting discussion about “The End of Faith”:

……………

We see here, anyway, people arguing expansively on all points in Harris’s book. But is this the discussion we are looking for? And are these actual book reviews? Oddly, little has been said of Harris’ book in the halls of congresses around the world. We hear little said in churches, mosques, or synagogs. Lines have been drawn, and few of the important groups are willing to discuss doing away with religion. Of course, this is their right—at least it is in a free society. Politicians aren’t going to touch this subject. They have power to hang onto. Religions won’t go near this subject. Do you think they want to give up their faith (or power over people)? So the arguing, mostly, comes from the average person on the street.

I don’t disparage this argument one bit, even if I cannot rightly call “reviews” their nit picking single sentences from within an overall treatise that asks, ultimately, for a higher rational “system” to replace the “fantasy legends”, and “hysterical”, “violent dogmatism” found in all religions (all Harris’s terms). I don’t disparage people’s talking about this subject because it is ultimately the people on the street who will someday turn—for better or worse—the political and ecumenical opinions that do shape history, often enough. After all, this is how Judaism abolished sacrifices to their fickle God, and how women were finally allowed to become rabbis. It is also how Christians were able to expel the blood-lusting Inquisition masters after hundreds of years of torture and murder of “infidels”: those who believed otherwise than the church. It is also how, someday, Muslims will, too, quell their own brand of violence, misogyny, and outright hate of any religion not their own. Since Islam has come a little late to the monotheism game, I’m not surprised it needs a couple hundred more years to percolate, and understand how it needs to act to fold itself into societies of reason.

Given this convergence between the specter of modern religion and diarrhetic free flow of information and opinion (I do not exempt myself from this second area), there still leaves us with a mass of people drawing lines. Given their upbringing, thoughts on varied subjects, or research and then thought, or drift toward religious belief and obedience, we all often stand in our respective corners. Unlimited corners do not exist, but enough do exist that polarize people on several fronts. The fact remains, Harris has presented us with an essay, an attempt at presenting a position based on prior study, life experience, research, much thought, and finally a reason to put it down on paper for all to read, think about (in all forms and functions), and then begin to discuss the merits of his reasoning. He says himself near the end of the book that he has no hold on truth. He does not proclaim himself a prophet, like those who helped begin the religions we find wielding power today.

Now, we can all pick it apart, rationally or irrationally, as the case may be. Arbiters of truth are many in this free-speech world, as public opinion makes cases for war, peace, religious dogma (or change) [witness Vatican II; the Enlightenment; the Inquisition; Westernized Islam that eliminates the hate speech plentifully found in the Q’uran], politics, and a host of other plans brought from the realm of idea to physical acts.

And people do pick apart books, expecting that any essayist not only prove beyond any possible doubt his position (or else fuck off), but expect essayists also to cover every possible issue (or else shut up). This is the position that societies have always enjoined upon thinkers willing to put themselves (sometimes literally) on the line. Two things, however: 1) humanistic ideas cannot be proved to all’s satisfaction, but ideas can be exposed, and thus create a discussion, especially if reasonable, rational (but never expecting ALL) parties to participate; 2) covering every issue of an idea to satisfaction of every reader is obviously an impossible task (and some will still argue “that answer isn’t good enough!”), but even to try would take up several volumes of pages, and likely obscure the heart of not only the issue but the author’s essay.

So Harris’ book has flaws. What book doesn’t? His argument has flaws. Which argument doesn’t? He does, however, and ultimately, create a foundation for discussion. Many books refuse even that, particularly the three religious texts of monotheism in our never-ending troubled times … each compounding the troubles we find in an ever-shrinking global society (not to mention marketplace). Now then, what can we do? What are we supposed to do? Align ourselves with Bibles that refuse open thought, discussion, argument, and the possibility to enlighten an ever-darkening world? That’s one way to look at the world, and its problems. It’s been the way for thousands of years. Isn’t it time we look for alternatives, however “flawed” they might seem to people living in closed societies and groups?