{"id":388,"date":"2007-05-18T19:41:41","date_gmt":"2007-05-19T00:41:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.consider.org\/blog\/?p=7"},"modified":"2007-05-18T19:41:41","modified_gmt":"2007-05-19T00:41:41","slug":"a-review-of-sam-harris-the-end-of-faith-part-iv","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/2007\/05\/a-review-of-sam-harris-the-end-of-faith-part-iv\/","title":{"rendered":"A Review of Sam Harris' The End of Faith Part IV"},"content":{"rendered":"

Listen to the MP3<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

May 18, 2007<\/span>, Wausau, Wi<\/span><\/strong>\u2014\u00a0<\/span>So far, in our review (I<\/a>, II<\/a>, III<\/a>) \u00a0<\/span>Sam Harris\u2019 The End Of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason<\/a>, we have seen how Harris\u2019s irrational view of religion has lead him to many false conclusions and beliefs.\u00a0 <\/span>Harris attempts to back up some of his claims by pointing to scripture. Not too surprisingly his use of scriptures is just as uncritical as the claims he is trying to support.<\/p>\n

For example, Harris writes, \u201cAnyone who imagines that no justification for the Inquisition can be found in scripture need only consult the Bible to have his view of the matter clarified.\u201d (p 82)He then goes on to cite Deuteronomy 13:12-16 which calls for the total destruction of any town that turns to worship other Gods.\u00a0 <\/span>For Harris, this is evidence enough that the Church was following the \u201cGood Book.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>For Harris, there are no questions of historical setting or context.\u00a0 <\/span>That these were instructions to the Jewish nation, given before they entered Israel, and thus, might not be applicable Christians in the Middle Ages seem to be irrelevant. The Bible said it, and that is good enough for Harris to use for his attack.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

Not too surprisingly Harris not only ignores questions about context, he also ignores all the passages that conflict with his views.\u00a0 <\/span>Passages such as 1 Peter 3:15-16 which says we should treat unbelievers with \u201cGentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience\u201d because \u201cChrist died once for all.\u201d Romans 12:14 which says we are to \u201cBless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse\u201d or 1 Corinthians 6:12 where Paul asks \u201cWhat business is it of mine to judge those outside\u2026 God will judge those outside\u201d and of judging those inside the church Paul said \u201cExpel the wicked man from among you.\u201d Based on this it is far more likely that it was Pope Leo the IX who was following the teaching of the Bible, when he said the maximum penalty for heresy should be excommunication, while later Popes took the inquisition, not from the Bible, but from a revival of Roman law, as mentioned in Part I<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While this scriptural error completely undermines one of Harris\u2019 key claims, it is hardly the only one he makes.\u00a0 <\/span>In his attempt to discredit the virgin birth, Harris incorrectly claims that the Greek word parthenos (virgin) was an \u201cerroneous translation\u201d of the Hebrews word alma which simply means \u201c\u2018young woman\u2019, without any implications of virginity.\u201d (pg 95) While it may be in today\u2019s culture that there is no connection to being a young woman and a virgin, that is hardly the case of the time of Isaiah, and in fact every use of alma in the Old Testament refers to a woman who was a virgin. Nor was it Matthew and Luke who were first to translate this as parthenos, as this is how the Septuagint, a Greek translation made several hundred years before Christ,\u00a0 <\/span>translates Isaiah 7:14.<\/p>\n

Harris\u2019 further compounds his error by claiming that Mark and John \u201cseem to know nothing about [the virgin birth]\u201d because they do not mention it. Yet just because they do not mentioned it \u00a0<\/span>hardly means they don\u2019t know about it. To claim that it does, commits the logic fallacy called argumentum ad silentio or an argument from silence. Then Harris finishes with yet two more errors. First he cites Romans 1:3 \u201cborn of the seed of David\u201d and tries to claim that Paul meant by this that Joseph was Jesus\u2019 father.\u00a0 <\/span>The problem with this is that Joseph is not even mentioned in the passage, David is. Thus the two options would be that Paul was attempting to say that David was the father, or that Jesus was a descendant of David. Given the context, and the fact that David had been dead for about 1000 years, it is pretty easy to conclude that the latter was Paul\u2019s point.<\/p>\n

Harris concludes this comedy of errors with the truly bizarre claim that Paul\u2019s statement in Galatians 4:4 and its reference to \u201cborn of a woman\u201d also shows that Paul knows nothing of the virgin birth because he does not mention Mary\u2019s virginity, which is again the irrational argument from silence.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

Much the same could be said for his discussion of the verses that are supposed to teach anti-Semitism, though sadly here he can cite many examples of Christians throughout European history to support him.\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0<\/span>It is significant however, the many Popes taught against anti-Semitism, and the papal states were one of the safest places for Jews during this period.\u00a0 <\/span>Nor is it insignificant that American Christianity looks to the Bible to justify their support of the Jews, in particular the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:2-3 to \u201cbless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.\u201d<\/p>\n

Harris is correct, that Christians have during their history done great evil.\u00a0 <\/span>But I would argue that it was not caused by following the Bible but was more from disobedience to God and his word.\u00a0 <\/span>If Harris wants us to use reason over religion, perhaps he should start by taking a more rational approach to understanding what the Bible actually teaches.<\/p>\n

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity<\/a>: a Faith Based on Fact. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>Part\u00a0I<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Part II<\/a> \u00a0 <\/span><\/em>\u00a0Part III<\/a> <\/span><\/em><\/span><\/em><\/span><\/em>\u00a0Part V<\/a> \u00a0 <\/span><\/em>\u00a0Part VI<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Listen to the MP3 May 18, 2007, Wausau, Wi\u2014\u00a0So far, in our review (I, II, III) \u00a0Sam Harris\u2019 The End Of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, we have seen how Harris\u2019s irrational view of religion has lead him to many false conclusions and beliefs.\u00a0 Harris attempts to back up some of his […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3,6],"tags":[46,59,70,1072,1074,159,191,284,456,477,482],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=388"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}