A Dissent: The Case Against Faith ( A response Part 1)

Sam Harris is the author of the New York Times best sellers, “Letter to a Christian Nation” and “The End of Faith.”  He also recently wrote an article that was published in Newsweek, A Dissent: The Case Against Faith.

When I first read the article in Newsweek, I initially thought ‘here is a guy that is not only bitter – he is either uneducated or ignorant on Faith’. And to be honest, I didn’t think this article would cause much stir. Well, as the weeks have gone by, I have heard more than a few people discussing Sam Harris and his writing. So, I thought, why not take a trip or two down memory lane and see what Sammy is talking about…

Sam’s first point: A Full Century of Scientific Insight
To say this is an uneducated statement would be kind.  If you have searched the Internet, or attended a local university, it is easy to see the immense reemergence of creation science.   It is becoming obvious that as science develops, there is a greater recognition of the signature of a Creator.

Sam’s second point: a 6000-Year-Old Universe – Light Created En-Route
I can only think that Sam was just trying to bring as much criticism as possible to Creation theories.  The age of the earth is a mystery to most and age isn’t as important as its origin.  There are some fantastic creation scientists, as well as theologians, who indicate a broad potential range for the age of the earth.  I am personally a believer of the 10 –12k year range, which has a tremendous amount of scientific evidence behind it.

Sam’s third point: The First Members of our Species were Fashioned out of Dirt and Divine Breath
Here is the funny part: take away the divine breath and Sam Harris would have no problems with the theory.  Sam, is it really easier to believe that we happened by chance out of nothing without causation?  Or, maybe you believe that aliens brought us here?

The foundation for the belief or faith, as Sam Harris ascribes, is not science – but an unfounded belief that no God exists.  It is from here, this faith in ‘self’, that Humanism seeks to develop a foundation against God’s creation. Here is a Question: does anyone really think we would really be any better without the existence of faith — even theistic faith?  Many noted philosophers and theologians have espoused the idea that faith is the basis of all knowledge.  One example is St. Augustine of Hippo.  Known as one of his key contributions to philosophy, the idea of “faith seeking understanding” was set forth by St. Augustine in his statement “Crede, ut intelligas” (“Believe in order that you may understand”). This statement extends beyond the sphere of religion to encompass the totality of knowledge.  In essence, faith must be present in order to know anything.  In other words, one must assume, believe, or have faith in the credibility of a person, place, thing, or idea in order to have a basis for knowledge.  Check out some of the following links:

Answers in Genesis

Institute For Creation Research


One thought on “A Dissent: The Case Against Faith ( A response Part 1)

  1. Sam Harris, and his peers and followers are an interetsing group.

    I obtained a copy of the second book and read portions of the first one. His criticisms and underlying assumptions only tackle faith tennants I do not hold to so his arguments are ultimately irrelevant to my view. His arrogance to broadly apply his criticsim doesn’t impress me as I can readilly point out how his attacks on traditional Christian, Jewish, and other Relgious traditions, simply don’t stick to mine.

    I’d like an audience with the man to discuss his failure to touch on my faith in any depth. The most I’ve heard him say didn’t go beyond an unsupported remark.

    I did find a good article touching on the oddly inept nature of the present militant secularist movement in the flavor of Mr. Harris.

    I found it on my daily rummage for ‘mormon’ containing articles on google’s news site. The first part is on Romney and Weisenberg but it latter gets into, what I feel to be, a very apt and well worded apraisal of the present atheistic movement, if such can be called that. If religous movements are revivals, are atheistic repeats simply new advents of agrandized death throws.

    Anywho. Here it is–


    Hope you enjoy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s