Letter to a Christian Nation, summary

'I Voted' is the sticker that I stuck to the cover of this tiny book. Reading it on the day of the mid-term elections, I ran across this quote: "The primary purpose of the book is to arm secularists in our society, who believe religion should be kept out of public policy, against their opponents on the Christian right". I found myself at times impressed with Harris, while at the same time, surprisingly frustrated by the poor reasoning he uses. All in all, I walked away with some insight for my ministry context.

I was impressed with Harris' understanding of truth. He makes statements like the following: "We agree, for instance, that if one of us is right, the other is wrong." "We agree that to be a true Christian is to believe that all other faiths are mistaken, and profoundly so." In a post-modern, relative culture, these statements were refreshing, even from an atheist. Acknowledging this allows us to cut through the BS of most pseudo-intellectual discussions and get to the heart of the issues.

Where I was frustrated by Harris is all of the sweeping generalities and mistaken definitions and assumptions he makes about Christians. He assumes a particular definition of love and the purpose of Christianity, and then uses his misunderstanding as a straw man to knock down in his arguments. While convincing for some, it was frustrating to see this poor line of argumentation.

I was not terribly surprised to see Harris make a case for natural moral order without the existence of God. To claim "objective moral truths" on the foundation of human happiness is not only weak, but ultimately unsuccessful. He then turns around the moral argument against "pro-choice" Christians using 'the cell' as his foundation. Ridiculous and giving only a trite treatment of the soul, he again sets up a straw man to knock down.

Harris attacks God by claiming he is the ultimate abortionist and impotent or evil. The underlying assumptions of right/wrong, good/evil, progress, optimal, inefficient are claims to standards for which Harris has no foundation. The very means he uses to discredit God are lacking in his own worldview. What is more, he tries to argue against religion using extreme cases of atrocity (similar to Bill Maher's Religiosity). However, malpractice does not negate proper practice of religion. While Harris has good points and challenges, his arguments are little more than sound bites (as evidenced by the size of the book) couched in clever and cute wording. While handy cannon fodder for the already convinced, as a solid intellectual treatment of Christianity, it is found wanting.

My take away for this book is two-fold. One, I understand where this particular atheist is concerned about religion and that will be helpful in understanding those who agree. Second, I totally agree with Harris' conclusion (though not his analysis of religion's role in it) when he says, "one of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. We desperately need a public discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty." While he uses this statement as his reason for why religion should not be allowed at the table, I agree with this sentiment and believe that he is on the right track. I do believe that is what our society needs, but religion MUST be at the table.