Wordful Wednesday Night: Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation can hardly be described as anything but a rant. Well, a screed might be a more accurate label for it. He’s very angry/depressed/just generally emo about the whole problem that lots of people believe in God. And since he’s so much smarter than all us poor theistic souls, he’s written us a letter.
From the “Advance Praise” section on the back cover, I expected something a bit more hard-hitting. Instead it’s the same old, tired, atheistic claptrap we’ve seen since, well, ever.
I’m not saying that there aren’t logical and intelligent objections to Christianity. This book just doesn’t contain many of them. I don’t say it doesn’t contain any, just not many.
I’m sure there’s a point-by-point response out there somewhere (I don’t say “rebuttal,” because in spite of his best efforts, Mr. Harris actually makes some sense in a couple of places). I won’t even attempt to do a detailed response. Rather, I’ll just point out a few of his more blatant missteps, and emphasize a couple of things I agreed with.
(Oh, and J.P. Holding of Tektonics.org has provided that point-by-point response I mentioned.)
The tone of the book is that of a pointed letter, addressed to The Christian, referred to throughout as “you.” So it feels personal. In fact, the first sentence goes like this:
You believe that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the Son of Go, and that only those who place their faith in Jesus will find salvation after death.
I guess he’s not looking for the Christian Universalist crowd here. In fact, he acknowledges that he’s writing to the most conservative/fundamentalist types of Christians. I’m not really one of those, but I press on. I also don’t seem to fit his definition of “moderate,” so I guess he’s unaware of any nuance to Christian beliefs beyond the broadest categories.
But Mr. Harris doesn’t really apply much in the way of logic even when discussing issues that should be easy to clarify. For instance, in his discussion of Eternal Destines, he writes this:
If the basic tenets of Christianity are true, then there are some very grim surprises in store for nonbelievers like myself. You understand this. At least half of the American population understands this. So let us be honest with ourselves: in the fullness of time, one side is really going to win this argument, and the other side is really going to lose.
I’m not sure what, exactly, he feels Christians have to lose here. I’m sure he must, as a learned man of philosophy, be familiar with Pascal’s Wager (Nutshell: it’s a no-lose-proposition to serve God, even if He doesn’t exist). What do I really stand to lose? Some years of life I couldn’t keep anyway? Money? Some other fleeting carnal frivolity?
He moves on from this initial “clarification” to discuss how morally bankrupt Scripture is, focusing largely on the Old Testament Law, then pointing out the famous (famously used by lazy atheists) quote from Jesus about how the Law will never pass away. He neglects to analyze the key “until all is accomplished” clause. Shocker.
And of course he wrenches passages from context, painting them in the worst possible light. And of course, parts of the Law seem pretty brutal by today’s standards. But he fails to demonstrate that Jesus fully approved the Law. I’m not sure what he’d say about the fact that David wasn’t stoned for his adultery and murder, or how Jesus got around stoning the woman taken in adultery.
Of course, the Church’s morality can be rightly questioned, especially given its scarred past of persecutions and power-mongering. Nobody really disputes this, least of all modern Christians. Most of us are fairly embarrassed by it.
In general, I don’t believe Mr. Harris can really be expected to intelligently discuss Biblical issues, since he’s apparently almost entirely ignorant of it. As evidenced by his ridiculous insistence that the Bible Condones Slavery!!!
Sigh. It doesn’t take more than a cursory read of the regulations for dealing with servants under the Old Covenant to realize that what is termed “slavery” there is nothing other than indentured servitude. Not the same as what we saw in America and Europe and Africa. I won’t go into depth here about this, because the link to the Tektonics article should suffice for anyone curious.
What I really admired about Mr. Harris’s understanding of morality was his attempt to prove that there could be objective standards of morality apart from Scripture. While I don’t necessarily disagree with him on the point, he used absolutely subjective reasoning in his attempt to prove it.
But, again in spite of his best efforts, he manages to make a point I agree with, and that is that Christians tend to spend an awful lot of time worrying more about what people do with their clothes off than actually attempting to relieve human suffering. We do need to do better on this.
Of course, no discussion of morality would be complete without a little bit of “Christians are immoral for opposing stem-cell research.” Of course, the whole argument presupposes that embryonic-stem-cell research is actually promising. (This is a side issue, but if it was so promising, it would get funding from the private sector. The mere fact that this research is so desperate for federal funding is eloquent proof of its lack of promise.)
(Oh, and read more here if you like.)
The Talented Mr. Harris concluded his “thoughts” on this subject with a paragraph I noted was “just crapola” in the margin of the book. To be fair, I’ll print his own words (warning: you may suffer loss of intelligence by reading it). He’s arguing against the common statement that a fertilized egg is a potential human being, which really cannot be challenged in any meaningful way. But he keeps flapping his gums with this gem:
But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell’s potential gets you absolutely nowhere.
(A sentence was removed here because my mom doesn’t approve of bathroom humor, and she might read this. And I already used the word “crapola.”)
And did he really claim to be spewing “fact” there? It’s seriously one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. And I read Ladies and Gentlemen: The Bible! just this year! Are we really going to equate the potentials of genetic engineering to the potential of the natural development of human beings?
I realize I’m beginning to ramble. But I have to point out one more thing. Mr. Harris actually expressed that he’d be more likely to accept the Truth of the Bible if it contained more Math. Seriously. Or Science. If the Bible commented more on Physics or Chemistry or Calculus, he’d give it a chance. I don’t really know what to say about this. I am sitting here beside myself. (Yes, that was a modified movie quote. I need the humor.)
I realize I set out to present a couple of things I agreed with, but I’ve changed my mind. I just don’t have it in me right now. Flipping back through this sea of fail in order to pull out a couple of places where the stopped-clock that is Mr. Harris’s writing was right just isn’t going to happen.
As a way of familiarizing oneself with the current state of anti-Theist rhetoric, this book has some value. As a serious critique of Christianity, it’s rather lacking. In fact, I guess I’ve just realized that the book isn’t so much objecting to Christianity as it’s objecting to Christians.
And I found it fairly objectionable.
I’m sure Mr. Harris wouldn’t be impressed with my opinions. But as the feeling is mutual, I’m okay with that.
Wordful Wednesday: Health Care
Like most people, I’m concerned about Health Care. Not for myself, though, or for my family, because I’m covered through my employer with a fantastic health plan (High-Deductible, Health Savings Account).
But I am concerned about the move toward nationalized health care, and concerned that the current system doesn’t do everything it can to help those who really need coverage.
So I agree that reform is needed, but I can’t imagine any rational person believing that a government-sponsored plan would be anything but bad coverage at a worse price.
The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, by Sally Pipes, is a great discussion of much of the misinformation politicians fob off on us. The book succeeds quite well just on the basis of the myth-busting. But where it really excels is in the concluding chapter, making recommendations for improving the current system without making it a government takeover.
I suppose it’d be helpful to list the myths:
Myth #1: Government Health Care is More Efficient
I’m not sure who exactly believes this, because we’ve got the examples of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA to beat the snot out of this myth.
Myth #2: We’re Spending Too Much on Health Care
This one’s interesting, because it has a grain of truth in it. We do spend more, as a percentage of GDP, on Health Care these days. But the author points out that we also receive more value for our spending.
Myth #3: Forty-Six Million Americans Can’t Get Health Care
This is probably the most-quoted myth in the bunch. And it’s true there are a bunch of truly needy folks out there, but it isn’t anything like forty million. Lots of people either don’t want coverage or don’t avail themselves of coverage that’s provided for them.
Myth #4: High Drug Prices Drive Up Health Care Costs
Another interesting one, since drug prices have been steadily dropping (free market and all that). But we use more drugs now than we ever have before, mostly due to the greater availability of them, thanks to the market-driven system that makes new drugs possible.
Myth #5: Importing Drugs Would Reduce Health Care Costs
Just wrong on so many levels. It’s possible, even now, to buy drugs from Canada. The result of this kind of thing? Higher prices for the rest of us. Because Canada puts price controls on drugs, so the pharmaceutical companies can’t make any money selling to them. The Research and Development budgets of such companies are enormous, and they have to cover that overhead. So prices go up in the U.S.
If we expand importation of drugs, we’ll see both higher prices and limited innovation (read: fewer products). Which is pretty much what always happens when you take the free market away. Duh!
Myth #6: Universal Coverage Can Be Achieved by Forcing Everyone to Buy Insurance
It’s been tried at the state level (Massachusetts, for instance). Hasn’t worked.
Myth #7: Government Prevention Programs Reduce Health Care Costs
Sounds good, but wrong. Costs go up, because more people use the system when they might not need to. I’m not suggesting, and neither is the author, that prevention is a bad idea. It’s a good idea. Just don’t think it’s going to drive costs down.
Myth #8: We Need More Government to Insure Poor Americans
Problem is, we already have programs that just aren’t being used. And people game the systems that are already there (think Medicare-fraud). Doctors don’t like working with patients with this care, because they lose money on the treatment. Sounds like a recipe for success, right?
Private insurers could do the job if the government would remove some of the mandates from insurance coverage. Less expensive, less expansive coverage could work if the government would allow it. Instead, insurers have to cover Breast Reduction Surgery and Acupuncture, and the prices stay high.
Myth #9: Health Information Technology is a Silver Bullet for Reducing Costs
Again, sounds good. But what about the huge expenditures required to move to HIT? What about small practices? Require expensive IT conversions, and you drive some practices out of business.
Myth #10: Government-Run Health Care Systems in Other Countries are Better and Cheaper than America’s.
Unfortunately, this myth is generally based on inaccurate and problematic factors like life expectancy and infant mortality rates.
Life expectancy includes non-medical things like traffic fatalities and murder rates. Problems in themselves, but hardly a measure of America’s Faulty Health Care System.
Infant mortality is reported differently by different countries. For instance, the U.S. goes with the WHO’s standard for a live birth, which means the baby came out of its mom and showed some sign of life. In France, a baby born at 26 weeks or earlier is automatically listed as dead. One wonders what their infant resurrection rate is with standards like that.
Apart from those issues, those other “great” health care systems suffer from rationing and loooong waits for treatment. Let’s not emulate them.
One thing I learned while reading this book was that the Free Market can work in medicine. For instance, consider the case of Lasik eye surgery. Know why it’s decreased in cost dramatically over the last decade or so? It’s because it’s not covered by most insurance, so people have to actually pay for it. If it was covered, more people would get it and would be able to easily afford it, so the price would go up.
As I mentioned, the final chapter discussed ways to reform the current system. Some of them included these:
Change the Tax Code
This one boils down to making it fair for self-employed folks, who can’t currently purchase insurance with pre-tax dollars the way corporations can.
Reduce Costly Government Mandates
Mandated minimum coverage is just a horrible idea, even though it sounds good. If insurers could offer cheaper, no-frills coverage (say, with a high deductible for Major Medical), they would. But the government forces insurers to cover some ridiculous stuff (hair-transplant, anyone?), driving costs up.
Allow Purchase of Insurance Across State Lines
This one goes back to competition. If a plan in Nevada is cheaper and better, why shouldn’t folks in Wyoming be able to buy it?
Expand Health Savings Accounts
I can attest this one personally. I love that I get to set aside funds for our major medical. If we use it, fine. If not, we keep it! I used to spend thousands per year on my low-deductible plan for services we didn’t really use. Now we spend less and get better coverage.
Support Retail Health Clinics
This is something I hadn’t really though about much. It’s a non-hospital hospital. You come in, get treatment, and pay (with or without insurance). No long waits, because it’s basically a store, and stores can’t afford to keep people waiting.
Tort Reform
At this point, I think every reasonable person who isn’t a lawyer wants tort reform. Reduce the need for costly malpractice insurance, and doctors don’t need to charge so much for treatment.
Health Care Vouchers
I’m for school vouchers, but Health Care Vouchers are a great idea. This would allow the truly needy to purchase coverage.
I loved the quote at the end of the final chapter, from P.J. O’Rourke. “If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it’s free.”
I imagine some well-meaning but overly convoluted plan will get passed before too long. I also expect to pay more for it than I do now. And I expect the quality of care in the U.S. to go down as a result of the more-expensive coverage. Yes, I’m a bit pessimistic about this. I just hope I’m wrong.
(Book Review Etiquette question here: Is it wrong to read a book for the sole purpose of relieving it of its viscera in a book review? Because I’ve got one that seems to be made to be eviscerated.)
Next up, perhaps tonight, is Sam Harris’s woeful Letter to a Christian Nation. Speaking of gutless books…