Reviews

User reviews

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

Excellent read. Harris has put forward a number of enticing and provocative arguments. Not all readers will like Harris' point of view, but will give everyone something to think about.

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

nm

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

"Interesting book about the responsibility of religion in general for everything bad. Well reasoned and understandable. Solution is a bit too simple.
Should be read by everybody interested in the thin line between reason and faith."

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

It's amazing, I agree with every word written in this book

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

A beacon of reason and logic. I just hope that it's message is not lost on the all to often closed minded religious community who need to hear it most.

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

One must read this book with an open and critical mind about the very topic of religion in order to come away with a clear understanding of what Sam Harris is arguing in this book. Also, keep a thesaurus handy...

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

My field of study is philosophy and psychology, and I write this review based on the knowledge that I have obtained from these fields. Harris claims his book is based on logic; it is a shame that he did not use logic to make his arguments, and his lack of knowledge of faith is astounding; a 10 year old possesses a better grasp. When he speaks as though he is informed on the subject of faith he gives us nothing more than straw man and red herring arguments. This book contains so many fallacies that it is hard to know where to start, a person with a simple grasp of logic can see right through his arguments. This book is a forgery of the truth, all of its arguments are based on some form of deception, which makes me wonder if he done this knowingly or in ignorance, but because they are so elaborate and deceptive I would say the former. Harris is not a philosopher but a sophist (obscurantist, “deceptionist”). It seems as though he is not concerned with the truthfulness of his conclusions but rather in hearing his own voice and making money. He talks of tolerance but yet he possesses none himself, and his tolerance only extends to those who think the same way he does, then by definition he is intolerant. Harris speaks of torture effortlessly and nonchalantly, and I get the sense that if he were to get his way, all who ascribe to faith would be in danger.
Harris likes to think of himself belonging to a class of academia (Dawkins and Hitchens etc.) and he exhibits in his writing elitism, the belief that they know better and the masses need to be guided by “intellectuals”, willingly and by force, which also comes out in his writing, whereas he seems to be offended by peoples freedom to believe what they want. I wonder if he realizes that it is these very beliefs that give him the privilege of writing disparagingly about these beliefs. We have read and seen Harris’s kind of tolerance and musings in the past and oddly enough these same men also belong to the same class and/or embraced ideological stance. To name a few: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. Etc. Harris’s writings sound eerily familiar to other so called philosophers and socialist thinkers of the past like Marx and Hegel. All of these men including Harris and Dawkins share one common ideology, a “Militant Atheism”, and an obsession that religion must be stamped out at any cost.
Harris is an opportunistic pusillanimous writer, he focuses in on Christianity more than the other religions because it is an easier target, and it is politically incorrect to write harshly of Judaism and dangerous to write disparagingly against Islam, even though the vast percentage of terrorism today belongs in the latter’s camp.
Harris squarely blames all of the atrocities inflicted upon the world squarely upon religion. But the documented fact is says differently. It is documented fact, that there were more people murdered and more atrocities committed in the 20th century by people who think the same way that Harris does (academia, elitists, and socialists) than in all of recorded history combined. Harris seems to shrug off recorded history as an irrelevant irritant.
He is unable to see beyond himself and his own wants. Militant atheism seems to be the new flavour of the day amongst academia for the past decade or so, if one would critically look at the writings of these new atheists they all have the same thing in common, deceptive arguments for their positions.
The terrible tragedy of those who think like Harris is that they are labouring to lay the groundwork for the very atrocities they think to permanently prevent in the name of Reason. Voltaire may have been correct to write that “those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,” but a more meaningfully rational statement would be to say: If you commit atrocities, then you believe absurdities.
And the undeniable fact is that the absurdity most often believed by those who have committed Man’s greatest atrocities is that there is no God. In that, if man thinks that he will not
 

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

Has the "Light Of Truth" by Swami Dayanand Saraswati been read by Mr. Harris? Secondaly what is the difference between Life and Death? I like to believe certain things logicaly and that is what I have learned from that book.

Review: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

User Review  - Vincent - Goodreads

What Sam Harris does brilliantly is convey his message eloquently and bluntly. His writing practically doesn't allow for you to get bored. He keeps you engaged in what he believes to be the main point ... Read full review

Review: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

User Review  - Brian Bohmueller - Goodreads

An interesting primer exploration of the underpinnings of Islam, the challenges of its extreme adherents, and how progressive reformers within the ideology are maneuvering. The conversational format was readable and enjoyable, but i think this would be more digestible in audio format. Read full review

User ratings

5 stars
568
4 stars
578
3 stars
321
2 stars
157
1 star
83

All reviews - 1799
5 stars - 556
4 stars - 577
3 stars - 321
2 stars - 157
1 star - 83
Unrated - 105

All reviews - 1799
Editorial reviews - 0

All reviews - 1799
Goodreads - 1784