To celebrate Easter, I thought I'd take a moment to criticize this post by Sam Harris. Generally I avoid any debates about religious beliefs in America (or really, anywhere), since I have friends from all sorts of religions, and of no religion whatsoever, and am basically a live-along, get-along kind of guy. But occasionally, a post on religion is so worthy of mockery, that I simply cannot resist. I fear this is such a post. Not the most Christian thing to do on Easter, I realize, but I don't claim to be a particularly good Christian, as evidenced by the fact that I'm posting on TPMCafe instead of, say, sitting in church contemplating the Resurrection.

I could, of course, simply mock Harris for his assumption, without giving any evidence, that Barack Obama is a closet atheist who only professes to have Christian beliefs in order to get elected. But instead, I'll just take at face value the assertion that he has somehow gleaned insight into Obama's motives that the rest of us lack. Maybe Harris has telepathic powers. Maybe Obama gave him the secret atheist handshake. What do I know?

Instead, I am going to take issue with Harris' depiction of the members of Trinity as "people who could surely
find
better ways of advancing their interests in this world, if only they
could
banish the fiction of a world to come". The truth of the matter is that the church, in this case, is an empowering institution that allows for collective activism. While the "prosperity gospel" of which Harris speaks is a truly sickening tale---the world still has plenty of Elmer Gantrys---this is not the theology of Trinity. Instead, Trinity emphasizes liberation theology, which focuses on the plight of the poor and upon collective action to create change in this world. Far from praying and hoping for a better life after death, the members of Trinity are working hard to create a better world today. Harris' attempt to link Trinity to "prosperity gospel" is either willfully misleading, or demonstrates that he did not learn very much from those "thousands of books on religion" he is supposed to have read. Perhaps Obama does not separate himself from Trinity not because he is afraid to reveal his true beliefs, but because Trinity embodies the very core of his message, that "we are the ones we have been waiting for".

Harris does state that it is "good to know that people like
Reverend
Wright occasionally do help the poor, feed the hungry, and care for the
sick", but asks "wouldn't it be better to do these things for reasons that are not
manifestly delusional?" Frankly, I don't care what people's motivations are for helping the poor, feeding the hungry, or caring for the sick, as long as they are doing those things. However, studies have consistently shown a strong positive correlation between religious practice and volunteerism. Whether this is due to religious belief, or simply because churches are institutions that focus peoples energies in these directions, and allow for collective action to solve problems, is an open question, but it's one that Harris does not bother to even acknowledge the correlation, much less address it.

Ironically, while Wright does not believe that his congregants simply have to believe in order to create a better world, there is someone who does: Sam Harris. Harris is the perfect embodiment of the very attitude he is mocking: he seems to believe that if everyone would abandon religion, and instead "get science", the world would be hunky-dory; the religious are sheep for him to save. In the meantime, the Harris faithful can shell out for his books, which tell them exactly what they want to hear. While I can understand the motivation of the Harris faithful---it can be frustrating to be an atheist in a religious country, although for what it's worth folks, we believers have to listen to the same pitches from other believers that you do---instead, why not just send that money to Doctors Without Borders instead? I mean, you already know you agree with Harris, so you may as well do him a favor by proving that it really doesn't take religious beliefs to help people.

While Harris clearly believes that religion ought to replaced by science, ignored by Harris is how this belief in science would necessarily lead to a better world, or for that matter, how it is possible for science to simply replace religion. Harris sees religion as nothing more than an alternative to science---two approaches to Truth---but religion's primary function is as a social institution. Harris will, of course, point out that Scandinavian countries manage to get by without religious institutions, and he's right; but even in these countries, those who attend church regularly are significantly more likely to volunteer than those who do not. Harris is too dismissive of this point, assuming he is even aware of it. Perhaps there is an atheist alternative to Trinity, but Harris has not yet presented it. Instead, his is the somewhat naive claim that simply by believing what Harris says to believe, the world can be made a better place. One half expects him to start the "First Church of Sam Harris". Although if that led him to help people with aids or to educate people about housing instead of, say, starting a foundation to promote his already-well-known beliefs, I'd call it an improvement.

Alright, that's it for my Easter pick-on-Harris post. If you're Christian, enjoy your Easter. If you're not, enjoy your weekend. If you're a huge Sam Harris fan, flame away.