Support NeoGAF

[twobear]

It's a shame the New Atheist movement of intellectuals consists of morally dubious who lament the immorality of religion. We can do better.

this part of david albert's review of lawrence krauss' 'a universe from nothing' has resonated with me a lot since i read it

And I guess it ought to be mentioned, quite apart from the question of whether anything Krauss says turns out to be true or false, that the whole business of approaching the struggle with religion as if it were a card game, or a horse race, or some kind of battle of wits, just feels all wrong — or it does, at any rate, to me. When I was growing up, where I was growing up, there was a critique of religion according to which religion was cruel, and a lie, and a mechanism of enslavement, and something full of loathing and contempt for every­thing essentially human. Maybe that was true and maybe it wasn’t, but it had to do with important things — it had to do, that is, with history, and with suffering, and with the hope of a better world — and it seems like a pity, and more than a pity, and worse than a pity, with all that in the back of one’s head, to think that all that gets offered to us now, by guys like these, in books like this, is the pale, small, silly, nerdy accusation that religion is, I don’t know, dumb.

 

[Shai-Tan]

I think Jonathan Haidt in the latest Sam Harris podcast (which is prefaced by discussion about this) puts his finger on some of what is defective with what Sam has been saying on religion (parsimony to doctrine as if that explained a multiple caused phenomenon) that in turn applies to what he is saying about Islam. Further if you go back and listen to the podcast with Jocko Willink which has discussion of "collateral damage" that completely refutes the interpretation of Omer Azziz (which is a caricature seen through an ideological lens), Jocko does make a point about how small a minority is engaged in political violence which I think Sam doesn't sufficiently grapple with as he applies generalizations to a broad group of Muslims (many millions) through opinion poll evidence as if the reasons for those sympathies wasn't a complex phenomena in its own right influenced by media, current events, active wars, and so on.

Regarding Omer Azziz from what I've read he subscribes to a progressive political leftism aligned with Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald that (in my opinion) over-interprets American imperialism, colonialism into social and political explanations. Not that there isn't truth to that perspective but to hear his criticisms reveals more about his ideology than it does about Sam. This can be cast in a broader ideological debate between left liberals and left progressives, as some left progressives think left liberals give insufficient weight to those causes and the importance of non judgemental tolerance while left liberals think left progressives give insufficient weight to the importance of western values and freedoms and believe progressive thinking about tolerance in multiculturalism has regressed into using language of tolerance to advance a particular theory laden interpretation of social harm which is at the very least tendentious and at worst not sufficiently concerned with plural values.

So a lot of the discourse on these topics is arguing against caricatures about how bad the other is, reinforcing ideology with an inward facing perspective. Sam has the right idea that it's important to engage people with ideological differences but he unfortunately has some problems with his thinking and character that makes it a difficult prospect for him to have a productive engagement. Sam in particular is a little bit too in love with his own intelligence to the point that it's difficult to get through to him as he always has a reason which reinforces his perspective. You have to give a little to not block the path of inquiry. Civility in the ethics of discourse requires some restraint from reflexive responses and charity in interpretation to build understanding, to establish a common ground for further understanding. What Sam does is focus on points he thinks he is misunderstood which is fine but where he goes off the rails is in making everything discussed about his perspective which is counter productive. He and his ego are always standing in judgement, colliding with his point of view. He's insufficiently engaged in what is called perspective taking.

One of the issues is that there is an emotional feedback loop where it feels good to have self regarded ideas reinforced which makes cognitive dissonance a bit painful due to the feeling of ownership. So what happens is situations like this where no one is actually listening to what the other person is saying because there is a barrier which each group is shoring up by demonizing (often small) differences which might feel good but leads to political polarization.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

I just find it strange that people are so willing to abandon the scientific method.

Some will not listen to the 25 minutes Sam put up.

Some are satisfied to have the podcast characterised as boring without wanting to hear it for themselves. Even though Harris goes onto contradict that.

For shame, what happened to verifying?

edit: why did you write it as Moslems? ^

 

[Thaedolus]

I continually run up against people who think Harris is a blood thirsty genocidal maniac when all of his points are really just against absolutists and whataboutists. My cousin was calling him an Iraq war apologist when he was against the war before and after it happened....like what? Harris points out Bush and Cheney aren't genocidal, and somehow that makes him for a war he has always been against?

I'm pretty liberal, and I think Harris is as well, but you have to be pragmatic about living in a world where extremist thugs exist and what to cut your head off simply because you don't pray toward Mecca five times a day. Having a nuanced opinion about the matter where you don't fall on either extreme (I.e. "Criticizing Islam = racist!!!" or "ban all the Muslims!! ") makes sense. He's right about Islam: it's the biggest net negative religion in the world today. Yes, you can find Buddhist or Christian extremists that are violent fucks too, but in terms of raw numbers they're dwarfed by Muslims who either agree with or engage in violence against infidels and apostates. That doesn't mean we ban Islam in our country. That doesn't mean we go to war against all Muslims.

It hasn't always been that way. In the 1930's you could make the case the Catholic Church was the worst. But today, now, at this point in history, Islam is the worst. Not all Muslims. Not all variants of Islam. But taken as a whole.

But there exists a whole band of regressive left wing absolutists who won't even entertain the idea that someone could have a point of view toward the middle of the spectrum: not accepting Islam's ideas as harmless outright, but also not calling for fascism or genocide to combat it. It's a false dichotomy being proposed by critics of Harris.

And even on issues I've disagreed with him on (Apple v FBI), he's let his opinion evolve over the past few weeks when someone pointed out the weaknesses in his analogies to try to reason out why a backdoor is ok. I respect that he puts his views out there and is man enough to let them shift in front of a huge audience.

The guy isn't perfect but man he catches a lot of undue flak.

 

[Maxim726X]

I will say that his reluctance to put up the entire debate seems intellectually dishonest.

He should release it in it's entirety, and let us decide how absurd the entire exchange is.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

I continually run up against people who think Harris is a blood thirsty genocidal maniac when all of his points are really just against absolutists and whataboutists. My cousin was calling him an Iraq war apologist when he was against the war before and after it happened....like what? Harris points out Bush and Cheney aren't genocidal, and somehow that makes him for a war he has always been against?

I'm pretty liberal, and I think Harris is as well, but you have to be pragmatic about living in a world where extremist thugs exist and what to cut your head off simply because you don't pray toward Mecca five times a day. Having a nuanced opinion about the matter where you don't fall on either extreme (I.e. "Criticizing Islam = racist!!!" or "ban all the Muslims!! ") makes sense. He's right about Islam: it's the biggest net negative religion in the world today. Yes, you can find Buddhist or Christian extremists that are violent fucks too, but in terms of raw numbers they're dwarfed by Muslims who either agree with or engage in violence against infidels and apostates. That doesn't mean we ban Islam in our country. That doesn't mean we go to war against all Muslims.

It hasn't always been that way. In the 1930's you could make the case the Catholic Church was the worst. But today, now, at this point in history, Islam is the worst. Not all Muslims. Not all variants of Islam. But taken as a whole.

But there exists a whole band of regressive left wing absolutists who won't even entertain the idea that someone could have a point of view toward the middle of the spectrum: not accepting Islam's ideas as harmless outright, but also not calling for fascism or genocide to combat it. It's a false dichotomy being proposed by critics of Harris.

And even on issues I've disagreed with him on (Apple v FBI), he's let his opinion evolve over the past few weeks when someone pointed out the weaknesses in his analogies to try to reason out why a backdoor is ok. I respect that he puts his views out there and is man enough to let them shift in front of a huge audience.

The guy isn't perfect but man he catches a lot of undue flak.

I think you eloquently represented Harris' audience there. I appreciate your work.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

I listened to last weeks debate and it was pretty painful.

Harris seems to have a bone to pick with Salon. I dont read the site at all so I am curious.

Also I hear the Young Turks dont like him. For someone who is liberal, other liberals really dont like him at all. I have been seeing that a lot lately. I can understand Bill Maher since he is a bit crude and not for everyone with his "I went there" humor. But Harris baffles me.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Might be due to his "thought experiments" justify republican foreign policy.

 

[Oppo]

I think Jonathan Haidt in the latest Sam Harris podcast (which is prefaced by discussion about this) puts his finger on some of what is defective with what Sam has been saying on religion (parsimony to doctrine as if that explained a multiple caused phenomenon) that in turn applies to what he is saying about Islam. Further if you go back and listen to the podcast with Jocko Willink which has discussion of "collateral damage" that completely refutes the interpretation of Omer Azziz (which is a caricature seen through an ideological lens), Jocko does make a point about how small a minority is engaged in political violence which I think Sam doesn't sufficiently grapple with as he applies generalizations to a broad group of Moslems (many millions) through opinion poll evidence as if the reasons for those sympathies wasn't a complex phenomena in its own right influenced by media, current events, active wars, and so on.

Regarding Omer Azziz from what I've read he subscribes to a progressive political leftism aligned with Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald that (in my opinion) over-interprets American imperialism, colonialism into social and political explanations. Not that there isn't truth to that perspective but to hear his criticisms reveals more about his ideology than it does about Sam. This can be cast in a broader ideological debate between left liberals and left progressives, as some left progressives think left liberals give insufficient weight to those causes and the importance of non judgemental tolerance while left liberals think left progressives give insufficient weight to the importance of western values and freedoms and believe progressive thinking about tolerance in multiculturalism has regressed into using language of tolerance to advance a particular theory laden interpretation of social harm which is at the very least tendentious and at worst not sufficiently concerned with plural values.

So a lot of the discourse on these topics is arguing against caricatures about how bad the other is, reinforcing ideology with an inward facing perspective. Sam has the right idea that it's important to engage people with ideological differences but he unfortunately has some problems with his thinking and character that makes it a difficult prospect for him to have a productive engagement. Sam in particular is a little bit too in love with his own intelligence to the point that it's difficult to get through to him as he always has a reason which reinforces his perspective. You have to give a little to not block the path of inquiry. Civility in the ethics of discourse requires some restraint from reflexive responses and charity in interpretation to build understanding, to establish a common ground for further understanding. What Sam does is focus on points he thinks he is misunderstood which is fine but where he goes off the rails is in making everything discussed about his perspective which is counter productive. He and his ego are always standing in judgement, colliding with his point of view. He's insufficiently engaged in what is called perspective taking.

One of the issues is that there is an emotional feedback loop where it feels good to have self regarded ideas reinforced which makes cognitive dissonance a bit painful due to the feeling of ownership. So what happens is situations like this where no one is actually listening to what the other person is saying because there is a barrier which each group is shoring up by demonizing (often small) differences which might feel good but leads to political polarization.

What a great post, thanks for this. I would agree on Harris. I know that 'leap' you are referring to.

I also think he has a personality that tends to drive certain segments of the population crazy; i.e. those who respond strongly to tone of language. He's like a robot dog, almost monotone sometimes, but he simply will not let go until he is done with a point. I find myself saying that Lebowski quote sometimes – "you're not wrong, Walter... you're just an asshole". That's not the right word for him, he's exasperating sometimes, but I usually agree with the core point, just not always the extrapolation. And his answers on Israel are just confusing. But I find the knee-jerk detractors to be worse. Even when they are well-intentioned. They just throw Harris in a box with Dawkins and "The New Atheism" (who else is int his club?) and wipe their hands on their pants, content that their point doesn't require support, because it's Harris.

 

[Shai-Tan]

edit: why did you write it as Moslems? ^

Auto complete from swipe I guess (wrote on a phone)

 

[aeolist]

I continually run up against people who think Harris is a blood thirsty genocidal maniac when all of his points are really just against absolutists and whataboutists. My cousin was calling him an Iraq war apologist when he was against the war before and after it happened....like what? Harris points out Bush and Cheney aren't genocidal, and somehow that makes him for a war he has always been against?

as i pointed out earlier in the thread, he is a staunch defender of israel's military actions against occupied palestine, despite the fact that the civilian death toll is far, far higher on the "terrorist" side

Harris backed the 2006 carpet bombing of Lebanon and Gaza by Israel on the dubious premise that “there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise”.

he has also defended bill clinton's bombing of a civilian chemical plant in sudan

What did the U.S. government think it was doing when it sent cruise missiles into Sudan? Destroying a chemical weapons site used by Al Qaeda.

the new york times says

American officials have acknowledged over the years that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980's.

the observer says

President Bill Clinton knew he was bombing a civilian target when he ordered the United States attack on a Sudan chemical plant. Tests ordered by him showed that no nerve gas was on the site and two British professionals who recently worked at the factory said it clearly had no military purpose.

these facts came out long before harris's defense

here's what he thinks of collateral damage

Chomsky might object that to knowingly place the life of a child in jeopardy is unacceptable in any case, but clearly this is not a principle we can follow. The makers of roller coasters know, for instance, that despite rigorous safety precautions, sometime, somewhere, a child will be killed by one of their contraptions.

in which he compares the deaths of innocent civilians in a warzone to the miniscule death toll of people who choose to ride roller coasters

the man is a hawk

 

[Thaedolus]

as i pointed out earlier in the thread, he is a staunch defender of israel's military actions against occupied palestine, despite the fact that the civilian death toll is far, far higher on the "terrorist" side



he has also defended bill clinton's bombing of a civilian chemical plant in sudan



the new york times says



the observer says



these facts came out long before harris's defense

here's what he thinks of collateral damage



in which he compares the deaths of innocent civilians in a warzone to the miniscule death toll of people who choose to ride roller coasters

the man is a hawk

You're totally misrepresenting or misunderstanding what he's saying. He isn't defending the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant or comparing the impact of roller coaster safety to casualties of children. He's pointing out that these are all decisions based on the math of risk vs reward, and that having an absolutist aversion to risk is akin to living in a world where we can't even have a roller coaster. He's not providing a whole cloth defense of US military and foreign policy fuck ups, he's trying to create an analogy of how we all do this risk vs reward calculation in our own daily lives. Every time I step on an airplane, I've accepted the risk that it might crash and I'll die a fiery death. That's offset by the fact the odds of it happening are minuscule and I can get somewhere really fast. Ergo, I get on the airplane. The risk that 100 civilians might die if we bomb a chemical weapons plant is likely offset by the risk chemicals weapons pose to possibly hundreds of thousands more, ergo you bomb the plant. It ended up being the wrong target and a tragedy, but the logic behind the decision was sound (though obviously the intel informing the logic was not). He's not saying bombing a pharmaceutical plant was a good thing, and to characterize it that way is disingenuous

 

[aeolist]

You're totally misrepresenting or misunderstanding what he's saying. He isn't defending the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant or comparing the impact of roller coaster safety to casualties of children. He's pointing out that these are all decisions based on the math of risk vs reward, and that having an absolutist aversion to risk is akin to living in a world where we can't even have a roller coaster. He's not providing a whole cloth defense of US military and foreign policy fuck ups, he's trying to create an analogy of how we all do this risk vs reward calculation in our own daily lives. Every time I step on an airplane, I've accepted the risk that it might crash and I'll die a fiery death. That's offset by the fact the odds of it happening are minuscule and I can get somewhere really fast. Ergo, I get on the airplane. The risk that 100 civilians might die if we bomb a chemical weapons plant is likely offset by the risk chemicals weapons pose to possibly hundreds of thousands more, ergo you bomb the plant. It ended up being the wrong target and a tragedy, but the logic behind the decision was sound (though obviously the intel informing the logic was not). He's not saying bombing a pharmaceutical plant was a good thing, and to characterize it that way is disingenuous

1. he's misrepresenting the positions of opponents. nobody is saying that any amount of risk is unacceptable, just that some specific acts of aggression are unjustifiable. he seems to think that intent is all that matters, though in the case of israel i'd say that the intent isn't good either.

2. again, his defense of the sudanese bombing came well after the facts came out. hell, we knew at the time that it wasn't a military or terrorist target. this is the wrong hill for him to die on but he doesn't care because someone put the veneer of counter-terrorism on it.

 

[Aureon]

You're right, in that reasonable example torture is permissible.

What about the times when aliens aren't about?

Not in any ordinary circumstance. Hence, extraordinary.
It's going to be calls between two horrible alternatives, and i'm not about to entertain any. But i'm not ruling out extremely time-sensitive situations where information or collaboration from individuals who may be susceptible to it may be critically needed to prevent immediate loss of life.
It's obviously a lot of mays. Hence, extraordinary.

in which he compares the deaths of innocent civilians in a warzone to the miniscule death toll of people who choose to ride roller coasters
the man is a hawk

One of Harris' main shticks is reminding people that absolutes hardly ever exist, and dogmatic thinking is a bad habit.
Then again, i'm absolutely condemning the bombing in south sudan - i'm just explaining the general point.

 

[aeolist]

One of Harris' main shticks is reminding people that absolutes hardly ever exist, and dogmatic thinking is a bad habit.
Then again, i'm absolutely condemning the bombing in south sudan - i'm just explaining the general point.

there's pointing out dogma and then there's assuming that people who disagree with you are dogmatic

it's part of why people get so mad at him, they dislike having him explain their underlying motivations when he's wrong and doesn't try to understand why

 

[aeolist]

similarly, he fails to understand the real objection to torture. obviously if there were an unlikely situation when we knew something bad was about to happen and were certain that we had someone in custody who could help us prevent it but didn't want to give up information, most people wouldn't have a problem with extracting answers under physical duress.

the problem is that making exceptions like that is the kind of thing wherein government will take a mile when given an inch. we as a society have come to the agreement that certain rights and liberties are not worth giving up even though we know it will sometimes lead to bad outcomes, allowing torture in extreme circumstances goes entirely against that.

and them sam harris comes along to play devil's advocate with ridiculous and implausible situations to make an ironically absolutist point: "if we're ok with collateral damage at all then we should allow torture"

e. of course this is all thrown out the window when you consider the scientific studies which tell us that torture doesn't work and produces unreliable information

 

[Henkka]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

!??!?

?!

He's not really singing the praises of torture there... He's basically saying that if we're morally okay with bombing ISIS, we should also be okay with torturing ISIS members, because there's really not much of a difference. Bombing ISIS will inevitably lead to innocent lives lost, but as a society the US has decided that it's an acceptable risk to take. He's saying there's something hypocritical about being okay with bombing in some circumstances while decrying the use of torture in any circumstance.

similarly, he fails to understand the real objection to torture. obviously if there were an unlikely situation when we knew something bad was about to happen and were certain that we had someone in custody who could help us prevent it but didn't want to give up information, most people wouldn't have a problem with extracting answers under physical duress.

the problem is that making exceptions like that is the kind of thing wherein government will take a mile when given an inch. we as a society have come to the agreement that certain rights and liberties are not worth giving up even though we know it will sometimes lead to bad outcomes, allowing torture in extreme circumstances goes entirely against that.

Case in point. Wouldn't this argument also be applicable to bombing ISIS? Give the government an inch, and they'll take mile. If we let them bomb that known terrorist stronghold, next they'll carpet bomb Baghdad!

 

[adamYUKI]

I've been active in this thread as a wait-n-see defender of Harris on this debate, so I don't expect that I'll come across as unbiased.....

But it really does seem like this Omer Aziz is an uncharitable pundit with an axe to grind - And very crudely so. He seems like an arrogant kid with tribalistic debate tactics. A person sharpening their half-witted knives to debate their hated enemy... which is a stance that shouldn't be taken in any mature discourse.

In fairness, he sounds young.. but even so I'm wondering if that's an excuse. A young pundit with ugly debate tactics, in training. I wouldn't have been so uncharitable at whatever age he is.

If you really believe the narrative of this Salon article or its follow up, you simply don't have the facts. This was a crude hit piece and the aftermath of a person (Harris) naively trying to reason with their attacker.

And again, this has little to do with how good Harris' views are. They remain half-and-half with me. But Harris at least aspires to fair and open debate, and Aziz, by contrast, is an irrational child.....

I feel that Omer Aziz has something in common with Reza Aslan. They are both western liberals from a Muslim background, who seem to cling to the hope that all religions are equal and potentialy liberal and all equally at home with Western society.... but if the specific doctrines of Islam are ever critiqued as problematic by liberal standards, than that short circuits the egalitarian co-existence that they are clinging to in hope that they can resolve their dual identities.

This explains why they attack. And in such a dishonest fashion, too. Why they are forced to find some way to make liberal critics of Islam into somehow "bad people" who are overreaching or bigoted or otherwise doing something fundamentally wrong. Liberal criticism of Islamic doctrine makes perfect liberal/Muslim congruency into question, and that's an identity issue for some people that they can't let stand.

Well said Boco. I couldn't have expressed this better myself.

What a great post, thanks for this. I would agree on Harris. I know that 'leap' you are referring to.

I also think he has a personality that tends to drive certain segments of the population crazy; i.e. those who respond strongly to tone of language. He's like a robot dog, almost monotone sometimes, but he simply will not let go until he is done with a point. I find myself saying that Lebowski quote sometimes – "you're not wrong, Walter... you're just an asshole". That's not the right word for him, he's exasperating sometimes, but I usually agree with the core point, just not always the extrapolation. And his answers on Israel are just confusing. But I find the knee-jerk detractors to be worse. Even when they are well-intentioned. They just throw Harris in a box with Dawkins and "The New Atheism" (who else is int his club?) and wipe their hands on their pants, content that their point doesn't require support, because it's Harris.

Great points by Shai-Tan, and the highlighted is a huge problem for Harris and his message. Many people (progressives especially, it seems) are very sensitive / thin-skinned with regards to tone.

 

[aeolist]

if you seriously can't see any kind of moral difference between killing an enemy combatant under arms in a warzone and deliberately inflicting physical pain on a helpless captive who may or may not have information you want even though you'd be more likely to get answers with nonviolent interrogation techniques then i don't think we can have a discussion.

yes, collateral damage happens in war and it should be minimized. lots of people are against things like the drone program because we don't do enough to ensure that we're targeting the right people with enough precision. but there really isn't a comparison to be made here, because torture doesn't accomplish anything good to offset the bad, and the bad is a deliberate crime as opposed to an accidental one.

 

[aeolist]

also if the argument is "well sometimes we do bad things in order to achieve good results" then you can propose just about anything

it's an asinine point, and as i said it's amusingly absolutist

 

[Henkka]

if you seriously can't see any kind of moral difference between killing an enemy combatant under arms in a warzone and deliberately inflicting physical pain on a helpless captive who may or may not have information you want even though you'd be more likely to get answers with nonviolent interrogation techniques then i don't think we can have a discussion.

yes, collateral damage happens in war and it should be minimized. lots of people are against things like the drone program because we don't do enough to ensure that we're targeting the right people with enough precision. but there really isn't a comparison to be made here, because torture doesn't accomplish anything good to offset the bad, and the bad is a deliberate crime as opposed to an accidental one.

Sure, I can see a difference. But this thread isn't about the ethics of torture really... I guess it's generally about Sam Harris now. My point is he's often accused of being a bloodthirsty bigot who wants nothing more than to torture brown people. Then you read his own words, and what you get is actually a pretty interesting and thoughtful argument where he uses the reader's own biases to argue his point. Thinking about the difference between dropping a bomb that might kill and maim innocents and torturing a known ISIS operative makes me uncomfortable, but that's what I like about his writing.

 

[aeolist]

Sure, I can see a difference. But this thread isn't about the ethics of torture really... I guess it's generally about Sam Harris now. My point is he's often accused of being a bloodthirsty bigot who wants nothing more than to torture brown people. Then you read his own words, and what you get is actually a pretty interesting and thoughtful argument where he uses the reader's own biases to argue his point. Thinking about the difference between dropping a bomb that might kill and maim innocents and torturing a known ISIS operative makes me uncomfortable, but that's what I like about his writing.

i guess it's good that someone can get something out of it but it strikes me as something an asshole teenager would write just to get a rise out of people

and the reason people call him a bigot is because his vast array of fallacious and ethically dubious arguments always seem to end up with him justifying violence against muslims

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

like i said, his "thought experiments" actually justify republican policy.

"I'd vote for Ben Carson over Noam Chomsky."

 

[aeolist]

like i said, his "thought experiments" actually justify republican policy.

"I'd vote for Ben Carson over Noam Chomsky."

that too

if going to war with middle eastern countries is so important to you that it overrides basically every other political priority you hold then it says something about you as a person

 

[RustyNails]

He's not really singing the praises of torture there... He's basically saying that if we're morally okay with bombing ISIS, we should also be okay with torturing ISIS members, because there's really not much of a difference. Bombing ISIS will inevitably lead to innocent lives lost, but as a society the US has decided that it's an acceptable risk to take. He's saying there's something hypocritical about being okay with bombing in some circumstances while decrying the use of torture in any circumstance.

Torturing is banned from every human rights convention and for a good reason. It yields faulty intel and its barbaric and inhumane. There's a big difference between outright killing a threat versus inserting an electric wire inside someone's dick and turning it on for answers. Classic tunnel vision from Harris at display where he objectively quantifies being dead as being worse than being alive, therefore if we deemed someone to be kill-able, that someone is also torure-able.

 

[BarringGaffner]

I honestly can't believe that Salon article in the OP was posted as if it was a knock out of Harris.

Salon and their writers, particularly when it comes to Harris, have been proven time and again to be intentionally twisting the truth.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

I don't really know who Sam Harris is and what he does, but everytime I hear about him or from him its something stupid.
He is one of the people who through around the term "regressive left" because people on the left don't share his xenophobic views.

I think "pseudo liberal" describes him very well.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

I don't really know who Sam Harris is and what he does, but everytime I hear about him or from him its something stupid.
He is one of the people who through around the term "regressive left" because people on the left don't share his xenophobic views.

I think "pseudo liberal" describes him very well.

Insightful.

 

[cackhyena]

I honestly can't believe that Salon article in the OP was posted as if it was a knock out of Harris.

Salon and their writers, particularly when it comes to Harris, have been proven time and again to be intentionally twisting the truth.

Basically. Salon is pure garbage.

 

[Henkka]

I don't really know who Sam Harris is and what he does, but everytime I hear about him or from him its something stupid.
He is one of the people who through around the term "regressive left" because people on the left don't share his xenophobic views.

I think "pseudo liberal" describes him very well.

You know that term was invented by a muslim, right? A muslim who co-authored a book with Harris?

Torturing is banned from every human rights convention and for a good reason. It yields faulty intel and its barbaric and inhumane. There's a big difference between outright killing a threat versus inserting an electric wire inside someone's dick and turning it on for answers. Classic tunnel vision from Harris at display where he objectively quantifies being dead as being worse than being alive, therefore if we deemed someone to be kill-able, that someone is also torure-able.

I'm not interested in arguing the ethics of torture or defend Harris' views. He can do that himself. Just saying, his thoughts on torture are more nuanced and interesting than Trump's or someone like that.

 

[thelatestmodel]

I don't really know who Sam Harris is and what he does, but everytime I hear about him or from him its something stupid.
He is one of the people who through around the term "regressive left" because people on the left don't share his xenophobic views.

I think "pseudo liberal" describes him very well.

Sam Harris is not stupid or xenophobic in the slightest. Maybe if you don't know who he is, you should go and watch some of his talks?

All he does is ask that we have a sensible, factual debate. And yet that's "xenophobic" because someone's going to get upset by it.

 

[Erevador]

I honestly can't believe that Salon article in the OP was posted as if it was a knock out of Harris.

Salon and their writers, particularly when it comes to Harris, have been proven time and again to be intentionally twisting the truth.

Salon is at war with Harris. They write some incredibly hyperbolic attack on him more or less every month. Whether you agree with him or not, Salon's obsession is excessive. If anything they're only drawing more attention to his point of view by being so consistently threatened by a guy who writes some books and occasionally talks about religion on talk shows.

 

[DrGonzo615]

I listened to last weeks debate and it was pretty painful.

Harris seems to have a bone to pick with Salon. I dont read the site at all so I am curious.

Also I hear the Young Turks dont like him. For someone who is liberal, other liberals really dont like him at all. I have been seeing that a lot lately. I can understand Bill Maher since he is a bit crude and not for everyone with his "I went there" humor. But Harris baffles me.

Harris's podcast had enough of the podcast with the Salon writer to show that the Salon writer was being disingenuous about the discussion between the two. I do wish that he would release the entire podcast though.

The Young Turks have repeatedly mischaracterized what Harris has said in regards to the hypothetical idea of a war with a middle eastern country run by Jihadists.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

he did also do a 3 hour interview with Cenk, where he tried to contextualise the genocide in the old testament.

There are simple questions no one actually asks him:

1. Can you read/speak arabic fluently?
2. Have you read the Qur'an from start to finish?
3. What are your general qualifications?

 

[Audioboxer]

Harris's podcast had enough of the podcast with the Salon writer to show that the Salon writer was being disingenuous about the discussion between the two. I do wish that he would release the entire podcast though.

The Young Turks have repeatedly mischaracterized what Harris has said in regards to the hypothetical idea of a war with a middle eastern country run by Jihadists.

I used to like watching TYT stuff, but after Rubin split from them he among others had some pretty scathing things to say about Cenk. Cenk's podcast with Harris was also quite hard to get through.

he did also do a 3 hour interview with Cenk, where he tried to contextualise the genocide in the old testament.

There are simple questions no one actually asks him:

1. Can you read/speak arabic fluently?
2. Have you read the Qur'an from start to finish?
3. What are your general qualifications?

Not really sure what point 1 and 2 achieve. Half of the religious followers around the globe haven't even read their given texts from start to finish. Even reading from start to finish as a religious person doesn't really achieve much, the big problems facing religion is how easy it is for everyone to interpret passages in their own ways and say others within their faith are wrong. Nearly everyone is an expert on what given God states is to simply show a message, and what is literal. Shame said Gods can't be questioned directly, eh?

 

[Erevador]

There are simple questions no one actually asks him:

1. Can you read/speak arabic fluently?
2. Have you read the Qur'an from start to finish?
3. What are your general qualifications?

Absurd. Must we all be able to read Latin to criticize the doctrine and real world impacts of the bible?

Sam is clear about his specific criticisms of Islamic doctrine and where he derives them. Maajid Nawaz disagrees with him on some of those points, and they talk it out in the book they wrote together Islam and The Future of Tolerance

 

[tiredheadcrab]

I used to like watching TYT stuff, but after Rubin split from them he among others had some pretty scathing things to say about Cenk. Cenk's podcast with Harris was also quite hard to get through.



Not really sure what point 1 and 2 achieve. Half of the religious followers around the globe haven't even read their given texts from start to finish. Even reading from start to finish as a religious person doesn't really achieve much, the big problems facing religion is how easy it is for everyone to interpret passages in their own ways and say others within their faith are wrong. Nearly everyone is an expert on what given God states is to simply show a message, and what is literal. Shame said Gods can't be questioned directly, eh?

What did Rubin say against Cenk? I feel like I am late to this party.

 

[DrGonzo615]

What did Rubin say against Cenk? I feel like I am late to this party.

Audioboxer might be referring to something else but I did watch the Rubin Report with Sam Harris and they breakdown the misrepresentation of Harris's supposed nuclear first strike standpoint by Cenk and TYT.

 

[nynt9]

he did also do a 3 hour interview with Cenk, where he tried to contextualise the genocide in the old testament.

There are simple questions no one actually asks him:

1. Can you read/speak arabic fluently?
2. Have you read the Qur'an from start to finish?
3. What are your general qualifications?

1 is irrelevant.

2, yes, he certainly has.

3, he has a BA in philosophy from Stanford and a PhD in cognitive neuroscience from UCLA. He has actually done work examining what brains of believers look like in fMRI. He is the founder of Project Reason, and is on the board of Secular Coalition for America, a humanist advocacy group that lobbies for separation of church and state. He is the author of several award winning books (including NYT bestseller) on science, faith, spirituality and tolerance. He is frequently invited to give talks and participate in debates.

He is pretty qualified. That doesn't make him correct on every issue, but you asked for qualifications specifically.

 

[Audioboxer]

What did Rubin say against Cenk? I feel like I am late to this party.

Not so much a one liner on the guy, Dave usually is quite respectful. Just tidbits here and there over all of his Rubin Report YT videos (and appearances with Joe Rogan/Gad Saad) if the topic has come up. Most of it was defending Harris and misrepresentation, and on a personal level how they used to meetup to play basketball but this has stopped. Obviously whatever friendship they have has broken down to some degree since Dave left and started doing his own thing.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

Not so much a one liner on the guy, Dave usually is quite respectful. Just tidbits here and there over all of his Rubin Report YT videos (and appearances with Joe Rogan/Gad Saad) if the topic has come up. Most of it was defending Harris and misrepresentation, and on a personal level how they used to meetup to play basketball but this has stopped. Obviously whatever friendship they have has broken down to some degree since Dave left and started doing his own thing.

I did hear that Cenk is an Ex Muslim. So from what I can gather whenever the topic of Islam comes up and what Extremists did, he counters that with something like, "The Christians were also...." Perhaps he does have it out for Christianity and maybe his faith or bias is still with him to some degree.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

You know that term was invented by a muslim, right? A muslim who co-authored a book with Harris?

Doesn't change the fact that its bullshit.

Sam Harris is not stupid or xenophobic in the slightest. Maybe if you don't know who he is, you should go and watch some of his talks?

What I know about him is from his talks. I just know the guy from Youtube vids and Twitter.

All he does is ask that we have a sensible, factual debate. And yet that's "xenophobic" because someone's going to get upset by it.

No he doesn't. He doesn't want to have a debate. He wants people to blame Islam, just like he does. A debate would imply that he would be willing to change his position if provided with sufficient evidence against his position, but thats not the case with Harris.
He made out Islam as the root cause of a very complex problem, with that position he is very alone in the academic world, which is probably why he took this BS to the internet.

He is basically hiding a borderline fascist, arrogant ideology behind a pseudoscientific and pseudorational spiel.

People like him give atheism and science a bad name.

 

[Erevador]

Liberals are going to have to get comfortable with the skeptical critique of Islam if they want to be on solid ground in fighting the genuinely bigoted attacks on Muslims that Trump and the far right figures in Europe are espousing.

People aren't stupid. They can see that there are problems in the world. If certain conversations are walled off, they'll find the people who are willing to have those conversations. People like Trump get to look brave because they will talk about things that the left is terrified to touch. The problem is that people like that are dangerous demagogues who seek the loyalty of bigots and legitimate racists. They have no answers, but they are canny enough to recognize an opening and latch onto it. An honest conversation would deny them that advantage.

It is a real failure on the part of some of the liberal press (Salon, Green Greenwald, and The Young Turks) that they can't seem to distinguish the incredibly real difference between liberal intellectuals like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and genuinely dangerous forces like Trump and Le Pen.

 

[cackhyena]

Doesn't change the fact that its bullshit.




What I know about him is from his talks. I just know the guy from Youtube vids and Twitter.





No he doesn't. He doesn't want to have a debate. He wants people to blame Islam, just like he does. A debate would imply that he would be willing to change his position if provided with sufficient evidence against his position, but thats not the case with Harris.
He made out Islam as the root cause of a very complex problem, with that position he is very alone in the academic world, which is probably why he took this BS to the internet.

He is basically hiding a borderline fascist, arrogant ideology behind a pseudoscientific and pseudorational spiel.

People like him give atheism and science a bad name.

Nah

 

[Shai-Tan]

Well said Boco. I couldn't have expressed this better myself.





Great points by Shai-Tan, and the highlighted is a huge problem for Harris and his message. Many people (progressives especially, it seems) are very sensitive / thin-skinned with regards to tone.

My criticism of him was more about his intellectual habits and approach to disagreement. Tone does matter but concern with it seems to me to be a selectively employed tactic which suggests it's a proxy for more fundamental disagreement. There are real legitimate political differences there - the concern was with how we approach those differences.

 

[Audioboxer]

I did hear that Cenk is an Ex Muslim. So from what I can gather whenever the topic of Islam comes up and what Extremists did, he counters that with something like, "The Christians were also...." Perhaps he does have it out for Christianity and maybe his faith or bias is still with him to some degree.

There's a little snippet here from earlier last year (mostly about Harris) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlmjguwRCMM

 

[haxamin]

he did also do a 3 hour interview with Cenk, where he tried to contextualise the genocide in the old testament.

There are simple questions no one actually asks him:

1. Can you read/speak arabic fluently?
2. Have you read the Qur'an from start to finish?
3. What are your general qualifications?

You must have read every single holy book in existence in order to come to your conclusion of which is true?

 

[haxamin]

Doesn't change the fact that its bullshit.




What I know about him is from his talks. I just know the guy from Youtube vids and Twitter.





No he doesn't. He doesn't want to have a debate. He wants people to blame Islam, just like he does. A debate would imply that he would be willing to change his position if provided with sufficient evidence against his position, but thats not the case with Harris.
He made out Islam as the root cause of a very complex problem, with that position he is very alone in the academic world, which is probably why he took this BS to the internet.

He is basically hiding a borderline fascist, arrogant ideology behind a pseudoscientific and pseudorational spiel.

People like him give atheism and science a bad name.

Tooo <cough> much -keughr- stra-awaw! <thud>

 

[Jonm1010]

Liberals are going to have to get comfortable with the skeptical critique of Islam if they want to be on solid ground in fighting the genuinely bigoted attacks on Muslims that Trump and the far right figures in Europe are espousing.

People aren't stupid. They can see that there are problems in the world. If certain conversations are walled off, they'll find the people who are willing to have those conversations. People like Trump get to look brave because they will talk about things that the left is terrified to touch. The problem is that people like that are dangerous demagogues who seek the loyalty of bigots and legitimate racists. They have no answers, but they are canny enough to recognize an opening and latch onto it. An honest conversation would deny them that advantage.

It is a real failure on the part of some of the liberal press (Salon, Green Greenwald, and The Young Turks) that they can't seem to distinguish the incredibly real difference between liberal intellectuals like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and genuinely dangerous forces like Trump and Le Pen.

And Harris-ites need to get more comfortable with the fact their dogmatic assumptions about the root causes of problems stemming from the Middle East have a right to be challenged and questioned without resorting to ad hominems and more assumptions to hand wave away all criticism.

My problems with Harris stem not from his tone or tactics but that he is just as guilty of many of the things he charges his opponents to be, and that is building arguments on faulty or shaky premises, cherry picking narratives and the same sort of logical biases he decries in others.

Harris is one voice, one opinion in a world with countless experts more qualified to speak on the Middle East. He has earned his spot because of good marketing and personal branding stemming from the atheist movement but if I am trying to understand the complexities of the cultural, political, economic, psychological and military components of the Middle East, Harris is not really worth visiting. If I want a critique of the Koran or Bible, he would be my guy.

 

[Henkka]

Doesn't change the fact that its bullshit.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're obviously more educated on Islam than a former radical Islamist who runs a counter-extremist think tank. We should all just listen to you instead.