(“Misrepresenting”) Sam Harris On Progressivism, Torture, Religion & Foreign Policy

56 thoughts on “(“Misrepresenting”) Sam Harris On Progressivism, Torture, Religion & Foreign Policy”

1. I’m just curious, Neil. Has Sam Harris ever said anything that you even remotely agree with, or could allow to have some legitimacy? It seems this whole anti-new atheism stance that many atheists have adopted (certainly not just you) is bordering on paranoia. I’m not sure I can understand it. When Harris protests (as he constantly does) that he is being at least to some degree misrepresented, why don’t his critics examine the claim with some degree of objectivity? Or is it preferable to simply Satanize him? (He seems to be put on a par with Jihadi John.)

   Reply

   1. Incidentally, I caught Sam Harris on Bill Maher’s show (the latter has long been one of my heroes) recently, and what he said made a lot of sense and was to a great extent research-based. A couple of other guests at the time challenged him in a reasonable tone on a couple of points, and that’s OK, but another guest was Ben Affleck, who reacted to Harris as though he were evil incarnate, scowling and sputtering and burying his head in his hands and offering very little in the way of considered counter-argument. Really, what is it with this kind of reaction? Is anything really accomplished by it? (It has a curious parallel with the Palestinian vs. Israeli response by many.)

      Reply

      1. Is this the show you saw? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

         Reply

      2. Earl, I don’t know if you follow up these later comments but the reason I was wondering if that video is of the interview you saw I’d like to make some comments, because I can tell you that in that particular interview there were some remarks by Sam Harris that were spot on and other remarks by one of his critics, Affleck?, that I considered naive and ill informed. But there were other major concerns over the entire discussion that deserve analysis — if that is the program in question.

         Reply

      3. Surely the best way to have confidence that we are being more reliably informed and gaining a more evidence based understanding of terrorism, Islam, Islamism is to consult experts and specialist researchers. I don’t see Bill Maher or Sam Harris as having any qualifications in these areas. I would think that should worry us a little when we find them appealing so strongly to popular feelings. I think it curious that we seek out the scholarly research in something like the Bible but bypass it when we are talking about life and death and human rights.

         Reply

   2. Certainly. Recall my post, Sam Harris modifies . . . encouraging step forward. Sam Harris’s words here really encouraged me so I ordered asap the book he co-authored with Maajid Nawaz: Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz in Discordant Dialogue. Nawaz expressed a “like” for that latter post on Facebook, for what that’s worth.

      As for me being on some anti-New Atheist kick, recall that I initially welcomed the books of Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, and I also devoured the works of Dan Dennett and others. How can anyone not love Dawkins’ delicious description of the God of the Bible? And I loved those bus ads that came out promoting atheism as a viable alternative for public consideration and as an answer to the all too common ads for religion.

      But at the same time I did have some uneasy feelings at times at some of the statements by Dawkins and Hitchens about religion that appeared at some level to misunderstand how religion really “works” and that seemed too harsh on some believers. But I was prepared to overlook those as coming from people who had not had any deep experience with or knowledge of religion — on the basis of the positives that they were arguing. Besides, there was always some solid core of sense and truth even in areas where I felt they could have had a little more nuance.

      Hector Avalos has expressed some similar thoughts.

      But it was when I read Sam Harris’s polemic against Muslims that I was really disappointed. Harris demonstrated a complete lack of understanding history or even the Middle East, and sometimes flatly misrepresented the works of serious researchers as badly as McGrath misrepresents the works of mythicists. Harris really does demonstrate a near total ignorance of the actual research and published arguments of Scott Atran, (and even Robert Pape who was writing about terrorism at an earlier stage of development from where it’s at today) and others.

      Harris more particularly, and by this time I was seeing more of the same from Dawkins, and then Jerry Coyne, demonstrating that they have never studied the actual psychology of religion or the research on human violence, beliefs, etc. but that they were actually mocking complete (and dishonest or ignorant) distortions of what they were actually finding.

      If Harris sounds like what he is saying in relation to Muslims and Islamism is well researched I’d be interested in knowing exactly what he said and who he referenced and following it up.

      On ethics, Sam Harris is a consequentialist while I am a utilitarian. Harris has even said (The Moral Landscape, pp. 210-211) that if destroying the entire human race would result in the greater total happiness of a superior race of beings such that any loss to humanity would be outweighed by their increase in total happiness, then that would be justified.

      I have read quite a lot on not only Islam and Islamism (and of course terrorism) but also on religion more generally and the nature and psychology of belief, etc. and have posted some of it here. I have sought out the leading scholars in the field on these topics.

      It is because of that informed reading as my background that I am deeply disappointed to find the likes of Harris, Coyne and even Dawkins abusing their public intellectual status to fan public ignorance and bigotry. They evidently have not done their homework. They even — can I say “lie”? — about the works of those scholars and researchers.

      “Lie” is probably too strong since I cannot believe they even read much of what they attack — any more than Ehrman could possibly have read some of the mythicist books he claimed to have read in his critique.

      Reply

2. Because Sam Harris is one of the biggest liars out there.

   He accused Glenn of waging war against free speech, when NOTHING can be further from the truth. Glenn is a free-speech fascist, what I mean by this is that if you try and ban ANY speech by saying it is hate speech, Glenn will attack you as if he was a fascist.

   Glenn’s position is clear – you should NEVER be able to ban speech because it might constiute hate speech. Glenn defended Neo-Nazis even though he found thm objectionable. Glenn criticised an MP in the UK who tried to get a journalist who was being racist towards Pakistanis, saying even though the journalist’s views are abhorrent, you should never criminalise speech.

   Harris and Maajid also talk nonsense with their regressive liberals rubbish – liberals don’t excuse Muslims denying other Muslims the right to free speech and expression. I am yet to hear a liberal say that anyone who speaks out against Muslims committing human rights abuses is a racist or an Islamophobe or any of the other nonsense that Harris and Maajid claim. These are just plain lies that these idiots push for their own agendas.

   Reply

   1. Harris and Maajid also talk nonsense with their regressive liberals rubbish – liberals don’t excuse Muslims denying other Muslims the right to free speech and expression. I am yet to hear a liberal say that anyone who speaks out against Muslims committing human rights abuses is a racist or an Islamophobe or any of the other nonsense that Harris and Maajid claim.

      So theres no regressive left involved in cases like these?
      http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2015/12/01/goldsmith-isoc/

      These are just plain lies that these idiots push for their own agendas.

      Pretty sure statements like these are part of the problem.

      Reply

      1. So theres no regressive left involved in cases like these?

         Your post makes no sense.

         First of all, no one denied her her right to free speech. The Student Union just tried to block her from speaking at a university because they found some of her views to be objectionable.
         Trying to get people whose views you find objectionable from speaking at a campus isn’t blocking free speech, and it isn’t confined to the “regressive left” – I am sure gays will not want a homophobic individual to speak at their university, and women will not want a misogynist to speak at their university, and blacks will not want someone from KKK to speak at their university. Similarly, I am sure some Muslims didn’t want her to speak at their university because of her tendency to try and paint Islam as the cause of this and that, instead of looking at other factors.
         Now of course I abhor anyone trying to ban anyone else from speaking at a university because even though I am on the left, I am a free speech fanatic, and I think racists and homophobes and Islamophobes and all sorts of people should be allowed to speak at universities. The point however is that the overwhelming majority of people, including those who talk about the regressive left, will actually be happy to ban certain people from speaking at university – just look at Dawkins delight when a Creationist had his honourary degree withdrawn.

         Secondly, the Student Union actually apologised and reversed it’s decision. So she was allowed to speak at the university. So much for them being “regressive left”.

         DS had a good take on this:
         http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/01/university-of-warwick-maryam-namazie-activist

         “Regressive left” is basically a term coined by those who aren’t really on the left, like Dawkins, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaaz to deflect away from their right-wing rhetoric when it comes to Islam.

         Reply

   2. I would like to know what names along with what words are being identified as the “regressive left/liberals”. I understand that this debate is especially focused in the UK and less so elsewhere. Is that correct?

      Also for those who make the accusations: who are the persons they name and what is being said, exactly?

      Reply

3. It seems the religion is peaceable enough for most Muslims most of the time. But since there will always be some grievance for disadvantaged minorities to focus on it seems obvious that this religion provides the basis for a Jihadist response. We should do what we can to lessen the case for grievances and also show the fundamental errors of the religion. It seems to me that Sam Harris provides a platform for the latter. One would hope that he can appropriately acknowledge the former without attenuating his attention to the latter.

   Reply

   1. It’s a difficult issue that too often seems to confuse two separate problems: conservative Islam and Islamism. The former needs the work of reformers — and often the conservative abusive practices really are tied to specific national/cultural/ethnic regions — and the latter needs range of strategies far more complex and that are more political and ideological and military than religious/cultural.

      Unfortunately Sam Harris, despite his brief acknowledgement of an understanding that these are two quite distinct problems, continues in his subsequent statements to conflate them. That conflation in the minds of so many of us is far from helpful and seems almost guaranteed to ensure those addressing the serious issue of conservative Islam are doing so with major handicaps.

      Reply

4. I am not a fan of SH. But the YT that you show of TYT is atypical and therefore very dishonest. Sam is very often taken out of context on this program and then ridiculed for what he did not in fact say. It would not take long to watch a few of these programs to see TYT in action against what they don’t like. Honesty is not their strong suit. I have long since stopped watching TYT regularly because of the distortion that they hand out as liberal thinking. Your coverage of SH is also rather selective

   Reply

   1. I would appreciate a specific instance of dishonesty or misrepresentation or non-typical slant in anything said about Sam Harris in this post.

      I posted the entirety of SH’s response to a program in which he was criticized by Glenn Greenwald so both programs can be read here — I would be surprised if anyone could seriously say I have been “selective” in doing this.

      As for SH’s regular accusation that he is misunderstood by his critics, we have discussed this before with specific examples.

      Reply

      1. I said your comments were selective, dishonest because of what it leaves out, and what is left out distorts the picture. You start with the TYT video, and then give a good synopsis of ther SH video.

         What I find selective here is that the TYT program has a proven track record of misquoting SH and a host of others that they do not agree with. Sam has said enough dumb things and wrong things that need to be criticised. The TYT video does this. But it leaves out all of the other times when they were not only unfair to Sam but deliberately misstate his views. Not just misundersanding but flat out misstating.

         When Sam was on TYT his comments were followed by a long analysis. When Greenwald was on there were no such analysis. When you agree with TYT’s Uygur you get a free ride. When you disagree it is not so pretty. This is why I do not form an opinion based on TYT but still watch it occasionally. ( Sometimes its good for a laugh.

         As I see it, Sam’s basic contention is that people do things (act out, behave) in agreement with their beliefs. Religion plays a major role in belief systems. ( It certainly did in my life). He further contends that the belief system of Islam is opposed to the western values of the enlightenment. He further contends that many Christian ideas are opposed to basic westen values. ( He spends far more words in TEOF criticising Christianity) He then often distorts Islam and Christianity.

         The Neo-liberals contend that beliefs have little to do with actions and the some one else, or some policy makes them do it. I have heard so many times that the Paris terrorist did not act out of a religious motive. This flies in the face of common sense and contradicts the statements given by the terrorists themselves. Yes they did say things before pulling the trigger and IS has also weighed in on the motives. (Political policies of France made them do it. We really do need a moral code of self-responsibility.)

         These are the ideas that need to be debated. Instead, on both sides we get a lot of name calling without facts to back it up. This is what the second video is about. Why has Grenwald and Co. chosen a name-calling strategy which has been backed up by TY? ( and why has JC added to this nonsens?) Why has SH countered with his own name calling?

         The TYT video is an example of selective information. If we just watch it, it seems a fair statement and should be food for thought. But by leaving out the fact that TYT has been the platform for a lot of unproven ad hominum attacts is a bit less than transparent.

         Jerry Coyne is a different problem.

         Please continue to blog about controversial topics. It helps us think but should take us back to the source and pose questions about what is said and what is not said. Thanks.

         Reply

         1. Really enjoyed your fair and insightful comments in the blog Origins of Islamic Militancy.

            Reply

         2. I am sure SH’s argument is not so much that people act in agreement with their beliefs but that beliefs are sufficient (even if not the only factor) to explain behaviour. He sees a direct link of responsibility between Islam as a religion and every evil carried out in the name of Islam.

            I don’t know who the “neo-liberals” are but my smattering of reading of serious research in human behaviour (as well as the studies of terrorism themselves) tells me that the relationship between beliefs and behaviour is not always so simple.

            If one of the most pressing questions we want resolved is how to prevent terrorist attacks then it is imperative to understand the factors that are responsible for and that can predict terrorism. This is where SH is unhelpful and worse: he misrepresents and mocks the informed specialist research and substitutes ignorance.

            I do appreciate the positive comments.

            Reply

         3. You don’t seem to know what a “neoliberal” is because what you describe as neoliberal has nothing to do with neoliberalism or neoliberals.

            Reply

            1. Semantic arguments are like blind men fighting over a painting. We have to agree on what we mean as best we can before we can debate in detail. To be avoided: “neoliberal”, “fascist”, “racist”, “cisgender”….

               I can imagine that, in a century from now, when some Chinese historian writes a history of the world and comments on the decline of religious, i.e. supernatural, belief in the “western” world, he might say, for example, that the dispute between its New Atheists and the Old Atheists resembled the ancient quarrel between the Sunni and Shia sects.

               Reply

               1. David,

                  Neoliberalism is well defined. There is no room for “semantic arguments” unless you allow somebody to sloppily and/or randomly apply the word “neoliberal” to anything that strikes them as some new frontier for “liberals” generally, as Ronald appears to do. At the very least, you need to at least ask yourself when applying the term to something: “would Hayek, Mises and Freidman have agreed with this statement?” The answer here is no, and Ronald is really just replacing the term “bleeding heart liberal” with “Neo-liberal.”

                  Historians will have no difficulty at all in understanding what Neoliberalism was, as its creators spent a great deal of time explaining what it is and how it differs from Classical Liberalism. In fact, there’s already a good history of the subject in Philip Mirowski’s The Road from Mont Pelerin.

                  Reply

                  1. Since I didn’t know precisely what Neoliberalism meant I went to Wikipedia:

                     The meaning of neoliberalism has changed over time and come to mean different things to different groups. As a result, it is very hard to define. This is seen by the fact that authoritative sources on neoliberalism, such as Friedrich Hayek,[87] Milton Friedman, David Harvey[88] and Noam Chomsky[89] do not agree about the meaning of neoliberalism. This lack of agreement creates major problems in creating an unbiased and unambiguous definition of neoliberalism. This section aims to define neoliberalism more accurately and to show how its evolution has influenced the different uses of the word.

                     One of the first problems with the meaning of neoliberalism is that liberalism, on which it is based, is also very hard to describe.[90] The uncertainty over the meaning of liberalism is commonly reflected in neoliberalism itself, and is the first serious point of confusion.

                     The second major problem with the meaning of neoliberalism is that neoliberalism went from being a purely theoretical ideology to become a practical and applied one. The 1970s onwards saw a surge in the acceptability of neoliberalism, and neoliberal governments swept in across the world, promising neoliberal reforms. However, governments did not always carry out their promised reforms, either through design or circumstances. This leads to the second serious point of confusion; namely, that most neoliberalism after this point isn’t always ideologically neoliberal.

                  2. The December 2015 issue of the “Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute”, vol.21, pp.911-923, has an interesting Debate on whether the “concept” of “neoliberalism” has become an obstacle to anthropological understanding of the 21st century. See
                     http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9655.12294/abstract

                  3. Sadly the affirmative team (that the concept of neoliberalism HAS become an obstacle….) lost the debate: http://jonathanmair.com/gdat-2012-the-concept-of-neoliberalism-has-become-an-obstacle-to-the-anthropological-understanding-of-the-twenty-first-century/ 😉

                     The audio of the debate: http://www.talkinganthropology.com/2013/01/18/ta45-gdat1-neoliberalism/#t=0:09.441

            2. Context is always key. I am sure Ronald was referring to the complaint one hears from the supporters of SH and Jerry Coyne and co about those on the “regressive left” and “liberals” who are said to be apologists for Islam. Liberal is a highly ambiguous term with a range of meanings — even in the political sphere — depending very much on the context. It was clear to me that in the comment Neoliberalism as used in the contemporary economic sense was meant and that was made doubly clear by the use of quotation marks. I interpreted the expression as used here to mean those who like to think of themselves as liberals and revisionist heirs to the old liberals and who have emerged to be extremist type critics of the views of the likes of SH. I said I was not aware who Ronald had in mind because the potential field of those critics is so diverse.

               Reply

               1. Maybe the term “neoliberal” was not the best term but I was trying to avoid the word “regressive.”
                  There is really no good word for the political direction of the 20th century where individuals and groups using the word Liberal actually followed policies that were the opposite of clasisical Liberalism. (Truman, LBJ, Catholic church,Soviet Union, Clinton, Blair,etc).
                  I use the term often to define those who, claiming to be Liberal, advocate and use policies that are directed towards authoritarin principals and away from personal freedom. I also use it to describe the preachers and pundits expecially in the internet who call themselves Liberals but, lacking a philosophy, often advocating rather inconsistent things. Their main tactic is name calling.
                  Liberalism is complicated and diverse but not ambiguous. Neither is Conservativism. A good grounding in Locke, Hume, Pain, Jefferson, et al will produce a set a principals. In the Dec. of Indep. Jefferson did a good summarizing it. Indeed the application depends on context but the principals don’t.
                  I appreciate Neil that when you criticize SH or others you give concrete examples. Not everyone does this.
                  Maybe we need a new word for make-believe Liberals. Neo-con is such a good word, especially the “con” part. Maybe we could call the Lib-cons. They certainly are trying to con us.

                  Reply

                  1. There has been a drift in political philosophy and practice under the “liberalism” rubric, notably in the UK as well as US, from libertarian minimal-state positions (Mill, Spencer &c) to welfare-state or partially “socialist”-state positions. In the history of ideas, one can often trace connections between this or that, or a synthesis of apparent oppositions.

                     But precision in definition, accuracy of fact and reduction of “propaganda” is required by all concerned, even by those with an unusual angle, like (say) James Martin on WW2 revisionism or Jonah Goldberg on “liberal fascism”.

                     Perhaps only Ezra Pound could see a link between Confucius, Jefferson, C. H. Douglas and Benito Mussolini, but one may be permitted, at least, to agree with Ole Ez that “Every man is entitled to have his ideas examined – ONE AT TIME”.

5. I’m about 2/3 through and wouldn’t recommend anybody listen to it. Half because Kulinski isn’t up to the task of interviewing Harris and the other Harris’ tendentiousness. While perhaps Harris doesn’t only argue ad hominem, he definitely does frequently. And while he claims he always states GG’s positions accurately, I haven’t found one instance yet in this interview. Lots of projection going on.

   Reply

6. And yet, Neil, who are these experts we should be relying on, to the exclusion of supposed non-experts like Sam Harris? As you well know, in the case of the Jesus Mythicism issue, it is the New Testament experts who cannot automatically be trusted, and the non-experts often bringing their own research and fresh insights to the question who have opened up different points of view which can have their own validity. I’m not necessarily setting up a similar black-and-white situation in regard to, let’s say, Scott Atran and Sam Harris specifically, but we all know in general that so-called non-experts are quite capable of doing their own research and arriving at other points of view that can be quite legitimate. Certainly, I fail to see the basis on which Sam Harris can be dismissed as completely “without qualifications.”

   I am no expert in the field under discussion, but even I can seriously doubt the validity of the position that religion in no way, let alone an important one, has an influence upon creating Islamist extremists and their often barbarous behavior. If something is non-intuitive or goes against common sense I am not liable to readily embrace it unless the arguments and evidence are very strong, with no counter-case on the other side. And for me, the position that religious belief plays no significant part in Islamic terrorism doesn’t come close to winning me over.

   Take one thing as an example, as mundane as it might be, which even a non-expert like myself can grasp and come to some conclusions regarding (even allowing for some degree of naivete). What has the average terrorist or suicide bomber traditionally cried at the moment of his act, mowing down innocents with his AK47, or setting himself off as a sacrificial death device? For all his alleged grievances or political/social background, it certainly ain’t “I need a job!” or “I don’t get no respect!” No, it’s “Allahu Akbar!” “God is great!” I don’t need a volume of research into the minds and backgrounds of these misguided souls to realize that this tells us much of what we need to know and legitimizes the claim that religion is a primary factor involved.

   What, after all, does “Allahu Akbar” imply? It’s hardly just a throw-away line. It signals that the speaker regards Allah as supporting his actions, that those actions are performed on the Deity’s behalf and even at his behest. It’s a claim of legitimacy for those acts based on the religious beliefs of the speaker. It implies a faith that for those acts the perpetrator will be rewarded, if not in this life then in the next, especially if he becomes a martyr. I use the word “imply,” but in my books it’s more than an implication, it’s spelled out. I am not a complete idiot either, and thus I dismiss any stance that downplays if not dismisses religion as a major cause of the curse of Islamic terrorism in our times.

   Sam Harris may have made a couple of extreme or even unacceptable comments along the way. I’ve done the same myself a couple of times in my writings, when I’ve made too strong or broad a statement that others have caught me up on. I may not have intended to be that broad, but that was how it came across, and I’ve usually corrected or explained myself. Harris’ notorious statement that people who hold certain beliefs might deserve to be killed may not have been intended to advocate an action against one’s local imam, but to groups like ISIS or the Taliban, or captured terrorists guilty of inhuman acts (I’d cheerfully have executed Jihadi John, myself), I don’t know. But if he is willing to qualify or explain such statements when called on them, why not accept that? If the statement that as one believes so does one act (or words to that effect, I don’t have it in front of me) is too sweeping and is meant only as saying that one’s actions will usually reflect one’s beliefs, why continue to beat the guy over the head with it? That sort of thing, too, I have personally experienced.

   I confess that I cannot get into any nitty-gritty discussion of how Sam Harris uses (or possibly distorts) some of his sources or opponents, but that is a minor question in the face of the fact that he is a major atheist writer and researcher, and deserves a hearing, even if one doesn’t agree with everything he says. He has produced a lot of valuable work, not just on the subject of Islam. I would like to think that I myself, whatever the flaws or limitations in regard to Jesus mythicism I might suffer from, might similarly be accorded a hearing. Demonization is never a productive route to follow.

   Reply

   1. I have been busy elsewhere and just catching up now, Earl, and have just come across this: “I am no expert in the field under discussion, but even I can seriously doubt the validity of the position that religion in no way, let alone an important one, has an influence upon creating Islamist extremists and their often barbarous behavior.”

      How you can possibly think that any serious researcher, let alone myself, thinks otherwise, I really don’t know. I can only assume you have been listening to no-one but Sam Harris and similar voices and are completely ignorant (and surely misinformed) of what the serious research itself demonstrates. (It appears you have not read my posts or earlier comments in response to your previous comments either.) Such a statement completely flabbergasts me and leaves me thinking it pointless even trying to discuss this with you if after all this time and our previous exchanges you can possibly think anyone seriously says religion is not a major factor in Islamist terrorism. Yet. . . .

      “If every time we mentioned women to a friend he started talking about their breasts, we’d be entitled to think that this was all he was interested in when it comes to women. The same goes for Coyne (and Harris’s) almost exclusive focus on religious beliefs in the context of Islamist terrorism.” — Dan Jones

      Sam Harris’s research? What sources of relevance to Islamic terrorism has Sam cited, ever? He has referred to Scott Atran and others and one might even say flatly lied about their findings — so completely misrepresented them that one might even think they deny that religion is an important factor in terrorism even though they say the exact opposite.

      That’s not comparable to a lay mythicist doing research. It’s comparable to the lies of McGrath.

      The real world is not so black and white and simplistic and just jumping on the anti-religion bandwagon every time we see or hear something bad associated with religion is not doing anyone any favours.

      Sam Harris has no idea at all about how religious belief works or of what researchers, anthropologists and psychologists and others have learned about it. Yes he’s a neuroscientist. He knows how to analyse the DVD that carries the software but has never to my knowledge demonstrated any knowledge of research into the “software” of how religious concepts are processed vis a vis other systems and behaviour.

      You complain about unfairly treating Sam Harris for over-statements but I have completely “transcribed” his statement in full without comment. We have had discussions in the past here on Sam Harris’s qualifications of his statements and why even those are problematic. Note his double-back-flip on those statements he said he regretted when in discussion with Maajid Nawaz. Against some other reader’s suspicions I had given Sam the benefit of the doubt.

      But forget Sam Harris. He’s not important.

      What is important is understanding terrorism. And if you have never read any serious research but only listened to anti-theists who have never read any of them either (but who lie about them) then that tells me serious give and take discussion where the parties actually invest a little in understanding the other point of view is not on your agenda.

      Of course religion is a significant factor. But it does not work in the way the likes of Sam Harris say it does. And making the sort of mistake Sam Harris is making is doing exactly what Islamic State and the terrorists want — they want the society polarized. They have said that repeatedly in their literature and speeches. That is playing right into their hands and feeding the problem. It is actually responding in a way that is going to make terrorism even harder to defeat.

      Who are these experts you ask — as if ….. I have listed them here several times. Some of them actually go out into the field and risk their lives meeting with their subjects. I have discussed their books. I have listed bibliographies. You can check their qualifications. More than that, you can consult the many, many reviews of their works in the scholarly journals.

      (Coyne seems to have done that — checked the reviews — with Robert Pape who wrote before the current mutation of terrorism and found, he claimed, about 3 critical reviews: I checked and saw over 20 positive reviews, and two of the reviews were not critical in the way Coyne implied, and one, just one, complained that Pape did not support his political agenda — despite the fact that Pape actually offers advice on how the US can maintain its power in the Middle East! I only mention that because it’s another example where Sam and Jerry lie about those who actually do the research. As I said, Pape’s book is about an earlier generation of terrorists anyway, but even he discusses the role of religion.)

      Reply

      1. Once a daily visitor, I still pass by Vridar on occasion, but the long and tiresome discussions of “how to be an atheist” mean I’m just skimming for real content. I miss the once-informative Virdar. I did find the Lataster book description, which reminded me that there used to be interesting content here.

         Reply

         1. Can’t please everyone. 🙂 But actually I don’t see the issue of the post having anything to do with “atheism”. That Sam Harris is an atheist in this post/topic is, to me, quite beside the point.

            Reply

   2. Earl, you wrote:

      Sam Harris may have made a couple of extreme or even unacceptable comments along the way. I’ve done the same myself a couple of times in my writings, when I’ve made too strong or broad a statement that others have caught me up on. I may not have intended to be that broad, but that was how it came across, and I’ve usually corrected or explained myself. Harris’ notorious statement that people who hold certain beliefs might deserve to be killed may not have been intended to advocate an action against one’s local imam, but to groups like ISIS or the Taliban, or captured terrorists guilty of inhuman acts (I’d cheerfully have executed Jihadi John, myself), I don’t know. But if he is willing to qualify or explain such statements when called on them, why not accept that?

      I find it odd that so often we read of people trying to defend Sam Harris for things he never said. If you read the post or listened to the interview you would know that Sam Harris explicitly denies ever making “extreme or unacceptable comments” and that he insists that never at any time did he say anything he did not intend. That’s what he makes very clear in this interview.

      Yet you are the third person who just recently has tried to excuse Harris to me by saying he didn’t mean it come out the way it did and that he explained what he meant afterwards and there’s no problem. But Sam Harris himself disowns any such apologetics.

      I don’t understand why Coyne and Coel and others try to defend Harris by saying he meant something he explicitly denies — as you can see in this post/video interview.

      What upsets Harris is when others quote him word for word and repeat exactly what he said, in full context. When he hears his words like this in all their ugliness he cries “Foul!” and that he has been misrepresented. So he then says something he did not at first say and we think, “Okay — if that’s what mean now then I wish you said that at first, but I’m glad you’re saying something more sane now.” But he never withdraws the first comments and regularly refers us to them.

      And then he does an interview like this and denies ever sounding ugly at the beginning — only his jealous enemies think he sounded ugly — and he meant every word he said at the very first!

      No other speaker or writer I know so consistently and so often tries to say two different things at the same time.

      Reply

   3. One more — I am taking this opportunity to clarify some of my own thoughts before further discussion in the near future. . . .

      Earl, you wrote:

      What, after all, does “Allahu Akbar” imply? It’s hardly just a throw-away line. It signals that the speaker regards Allah as supporting his actions, that those actions are performed on the Deity’s behalf and even at his behest. It’s a claim of legitimacy for those acts based on the religious beliefs of the speaker. It implies a faith that for those acts the perpetrator will be rewarded, if not in this life then in the next, especially if he becomes a martyr. I use the word “imply,” but in my books it’s more than an implication, it’s spelled out. I am not a complete idiot either, and thus I dismiss any stance that downplays if not dismisses religion as a major cause of the curse of Islamic terrorism in our times.

      As pointed out in my earlier comment, such a remark does dismay me because I cannot understand how anyone who has read my own posts and comments or who has read any of the scholarly and other serious research into terrorism (the stuff that Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne scoff at though clearly they have not read it) could think that the vital role of religion is denied in the terrorism we are witnessing today.

      What such critics usually mean, it seems to me, is that they insist that religion must be a sufficient factor (though not always the only one) to “cause” terrorist acts. The problem with this is surely self-evident. Many people have the “same religion” (according to these critics) yet they publicly condemn violence and terror.

      Nor can political grievance be a “cause”, because even though the terrorists more often than not make their political grievances very, very clear (they don’t only say “allahu akbar”), many others have the same grievances but again abhor terrorism.

      Surely it stands to reason that if religion were a sufficient cause then we would see many more terrorist acts.

      The response to this point often seems to be that Islam is potentially the cause and that those individuals who take their religion “seriously”, meaning they read the Koran literally and believe it totally, will act on their beliefs that they should kill infidels.

      But this argument again leaves us wondering why we don’t see so many more terrorist acts. Besides, the argument carries a number of baseless assumptions — assumptions relating to interpretations, and relating to the link between beliefs and actions, and the nature of religious belief vis a vis other types of beliefs.

      The argument also has serious social consequences since it leads us to hold all Muslims under suspicion of being a potential terrorist or potential supporter or facilitator of terrorism. At best, it leaves us unimpressed with reform and deradicalisation efforts of so-called “moderate Muslims”.

      Of course we cannot let the fear of undesirable consequences determine the truth or otherwise of any particular argument, but surely just a little knowledge of history, of Islam and Islamic culture, and knowledge of mainstream (non Wahhabist/Salafist strain) Muslims in a Western country casts major doubts on the idea. It is a simple fact that we never heard of Islamist terrorism when we were growing up or in our early and mid adult years. Something has happened since the 1980s/90s.

      Such “somethings” usually have a build up of some years, so there was something going on that we were oblivious to in the decades prior to the 80s and 90s.

      We are talking about very extreme and rare acts (I’m not diminishing their seriousness by saying they are fortunately relatively rare in Western countries) that defy all we have come to expect of any fellow human except for the literally deranged or sick. What we find is that these violent extremists are part of an ideology, a sub-culture, that is not Islam but is political Islamism. The two are quite distinct, and the latter especially needs to be well understood, along with the reasons some people, usually among the youth, in Western societies are attracted to it.

      If we don’t do this (acquire an understanding of this violent ideology — comparable to/worse than some ideologies in the late nineteenth century and again in the 1930s) but just blame all of Islam then we are blaming the wrong party and missing the guilty. Worse, we are reacing in a way that that Islamist ideology believes and expects and wants to us to react. Polarization and social division is what the ideology is seeking to create in the West. That environment is the perfect condition for the growth of those extremist groups.

      Reply

   4. What, after all, does “Allahu Akbar” imply? It’s hardly just a throw-away line. It signals that the speaker regards Allah as supporting his actions, that those actions are performed on the Deity’s behalf and even at his behest. It’s a claim of legitimacy for those acts based on the religious beliefs of the speaker. . . . . I am not a complete idiot either, and thus I dismiss any stance that downplays if not dismisses religion as a major cause of the curse of Islamic terrorism in our times.

      Earl, you taught me years ago to be on the lookout or logical errors yet here you are less careful with a principle you are careful to apply rigorously in other areas. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

      One of the most fundamental and common of observations throughout history and contemporary society is that a professing religious person is not always motivated purely by their religious ideals despite their self-belief that their motives truly are pure and godly.

      And to pre-empt a commonly cited related come-back: it is just as true that grievance over perceived political wrongs is not cogent explanation for terrorism given that millions who have the same grievances also abhor terrorism.

      But at the same time none of the above means that neither religion nor grievance play no causal role in individual cases or terrorism.

      Simplistic answers to human behaviour are rarely adequate.

      Reply

7. Earl Doherty’s comments are a breathe of fresh air here among these anti-Sam Harris/Islam vridar blogs. I absolutely cannot agree with Neil Godfrey’s demonization of Sam Harris at all. Neil’s demoinization of Sam Harris reminds me of his demonization of Acharya S too. It would be great if Earl expressed his thoughts on that too because I know he doesn’t agree with that either.

   Here are a few things to consider about Islam, Neil.

   If you ever read the Koran for yourself (as I have) you would learn that the book was written mostly to create jihadi terrorists to spread Islam. The Sira (the life of Mohammed) has about 75% of its material devoted to jihad. I do not trust the ideology of Islam because there exists no credible reason that I should.

   “About 61% of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. About 75% of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers.”
   – Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy

   It is reckless, irresponsible and dangerous to pretend muslims (many in positions of authority) are not making these types of comments regularly in the quotes below, and if you don’t know that then, you are not paying attention or not being honest or just out to confirm ones own biases or dhimmitude.

   Quotes from Muslims:

   “We are not here to adopt Western values, we are here to colonize the U.S. (and Canada) and spread Islamic sharia law… Canada has one of the easiest legal systems to penetrate and advance sharia from within … but if that doesn’t work, we won’t hesitate to use violent jihad.” “It should be us, with our understanding of Islam, our principles, colonizing positively the United States of America.”
   – Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Islamic Studies at Oxford University

   “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
   – Omar M. Ahmad, founder of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

   “I want to see the U.S. become an Islamic nation.”
   – Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR Spokesperson

   “Ultimately, we (Muslims) can never be full citizens of this country … because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country”
   – Ihsan Bagby, CAIR

   “No we don’t want to democratize Islam, we want to Islamize democracy” “We love you, America – and we want your children for Islam”
   – Islam on Capitol Hill. com

   “The 9/11 hijackers should be honored as martyrs.”
   – Warith Deen Umar, Former Muslim Chaplain, New York Prisons

   “Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the secular system in the United States, for it “is against the orders and ordainments of Allah”
   – Imam Zaid Shakir, Former Muslim Chaplain at Yale University

   “Greater integration between Islam and the West depends on incorporation of Sharia law into the legal systems of Europe and the U.S.”
   – Ground Zero Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf

   “Should I act violently in defense of my religion, ABSOLUTELY” “Nothing can stop the spread of Islam”
   – Reza Aslan, the so-called “moderate” Muslim

   “I am a traitor to America because my religion requires me to be. We pledge to wage jihad for the rest of our lives until either we implant Islam all over the world or meet our Lord as bearers of Islam.”
   – Samir Khan

   If anybody has any problem with these quotes from muslims then, you need to take it up with the muslims who made those comments and the sources are easily found. Attacking me for providing a few quotes and facts only serves Islam. Now, watch these videos:

   Why did they hate us in 1783?
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUuH2G7dPFk

   History of Hitler and Muslim Waffen SS
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3pq1KIUZb4

   Three Things About Islam
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY

   I am sick and tired of Dhimwits defending the heinous ideology of Islam:

   Dhimwit: “A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity.”
   http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Dhimwits.htm

   ; )

   Reply

   1. Freddy,

      I think those quotes carry little value if their source of origin is not stated.
      When the source of origin is known then their context can be established.

      Let me be clear that this observation is in no way taking sides in this current discussion but for such discussions to take place these basics must be adhered to (imho).

      Taking a random example from the many quotes you provided:

      “Should I act violently in defense of my religion, ABSOLUTELY” “Nothing can stop the spread of Islam” – Reza Aslan, the so-called “moderate” Muslim

      I traced down the source for this to(Google query – reza aslan intelligence squared transcript):

      intelligencesquaredus .. Transcripts/IslamDominatedByRadicals-041508

      http://www.google.com.jm/url?q=http://intelligencesquaredus.org/images/debates/past/transcripts/IslamDominatedByRadicals-041508.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwik8va26sLJAhWKXB4KHXLLDFMQFggTMAA&usg=AFQjCNGUuLBtgOamfGWSiby2E4m3wYdy6A

      What the source for the quote actually says (within the context of a spoken debate mine you)

      “REZA ASLAN

      Should I act violently in defense of my religion, absolutely. If
      the—if what that means is, that it’s my identity, that people are
      on the ground attacking me—”

      So your original quote is vastly misleading.

      Reply

   2. When you demonstrate that you have actually read my own comments and posts and when you actually engage with what I have said then perhaps we can have a serious discussion. My impression so far is that those who disagree strongly with me have not appeared to have done more than merely skim a few sections of some of my comments and posts.

      I like to cite sources for all of my quotations and to engage in some serious research — something that involves a bit more serious effort than going to Islamophobic sites and copying and pasting meaningless and decontextualized quotations.

      Ditto for your nonsense about Acharya S.

      P.S. Do learn the meaning of the word “demonization” and try just a wee bit to see if there is a difference between honest, informed criticism and “demonization”.

      Reply

8. Without wishing to be drawn into a quotation scrap, I still think it fair to state that the Qur’an is not like a poem about sunshine or a newspaper report about a train delay. It contains some explicit or implicit instructions, more like the Ten Commandments or a fire-drill notice or a cookery book, more like Mao’s Little Red Book than even Mein Kampf. To be sure, it needs to be “interpreted” before it can lead to actions, and maybe parts should be re-interpreted or ignored in the present century, but it is not just some totally inert text.

   Reply

   1. Happily millions of Muslims claim to draw their peaceful beliefs from the Quran and use the Quran to oppose the extremists who shame them.

      Reply

   2. The more I learn about Islamist extremists the more I see Westerners bracketing all Muslims together — Islamists with other Muslims — as all being part of the “same religion”, the “same ideas” and united in their belief in the Quran as their common scriptures and authority, the more I realise that this Westerner perception is falling into line with what the Islamists themselves seek to achieve.

      They Islamist program is to eliminate “the grey zone”, the space of free exchange of ideas and co-existence, and to replace it with their own polarized view of the world — a clash of civilisations, the world versus the victimised Muslims.

      By embracing the extremists’ understanding and reading of the Quran, we are in fact giving legitimacy to the Islamists as the real authorities and true interpreters of their religion. This is exactly what the Islamists want us to think. Thus the vast majority of Muslims are relegated to the same place the Islamists relegate them — to those who are only lukewarm or not as truly committed or as understanding of their religion as are the Islamists.

      This attitude or perception actually robs the majority of Muslims of any outside support for reform efforts in their midst. It relegates the majority of Muslims to being part of the problem, the detritus giving some sort of cover to the extremists.

      Whatever you think of the Quran, that is quite irrelevant to any real progress towards a solution. What is needed is a human understanding of the people, and to accept the different groups of people for what they themselves believe and practice. They are the ones who get to define their own religious beliefs, not us.

      We ought to be robbing the Islamists of the satisfaction of falling in with their own way of interpreting their scriptures and acknowledging their being the true representatives of their religion.

      Reply

9. Peace = submission to Allah.

   Reply

   1. The peace I was speaking of was the peace between Muslims and non-Muslims in much of the world. Peace also means I have had and continue to have peaceful and tolerant and accepting relations with many Muslims.

      Maryam Namazie hits the nail on the head when she says we need to relate to people as people, to Muslims and non-Muslims as people, and not to subsume them under “ideas”. That latter approach dehumanizes them.

      Reply

10. Agreed. Whatever the reasons for warfare in history, most ordinary people do not want it, and support it only if they feel seriously threatened by others. Oh, for a world in which diverse peoples co-existence in universal abhorrence of mass-murder and dehumanizing ideologies. But this is not quite what is on offer from Islam and sharia legislation, although its (albeit themselves often warring) adherents think it must be so because authorized by Allah Himself through his Prophet Muhammad PBUH. Western “liberal” interventionism, like Marxism-Stalinism, has caused enormous strife, while and global problems – like overpopulation, runaway technology and climate change – need solutions, which do not exist in the Qur’an or Hadith. But our best starting-point all round, is surely: Live and let live. I shall now shut up

    Reply

11. This article is on the same theme.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/09/sam-harriss-quantum-universe-or-how-to-say-one-thing-while-meaning-another/

    Reply

    1. I am constantly surprised at the number of people who at one moment apologize for Sam Harris but then in the next say he didn’t mean what he said and we all say things we don’t mean sometimes and we should go easy on him and take him at his “intended” meaning and not what he actually said the first time — once or twice, yes — but I have now come across at least four different people making the same apology. Yet of course SH himself regularly insists that his first words really were what he meant and we were all being bad for understanding them that way and finding fault.

       Reply

12. What is truly sad about the recent defamations of character towards the new atheists by progressive is that Sam Harris solution to the the problem of Islam is, more than likely, exactly the same as the progressive’s patriarch, Noam Chomsky.. I can also categorically guarantee he is the patriarch of the individual who wrote this article. Noam Chomsky started his demonization of the Western Powers in Viet Nam, when its arguable that he actually had a point.. ipso facto maybe a decade or two beyond that point as well.. However, this has, as of late, gone far enough. The United states is not a terrorist state. They cannot be indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Court as their interventions in the middle east cannot be legally defined as genocide. They were humanitarian interventions of the classical nro-conservative variety, and were intended to defend the kurds, and bring democratic capitalism to an oppressed part of the world. What happened afterwards was a a very confused and batter people erupting into sectarian violence. The Untied States did not create Isis. Saddam Hussein may have been put into power by the united states, but this was not for the purpose of being a theocratic fascist. They truly believed it was the most even handed solution to a 1300 year old problem. When Huessein began to go off the rails, the bush’s decided that it was a mistake putting him in power, and they ousted him. What came out of that was pro-saddam loyalists creating ISIS.. and this has been misrepresented by people like the writer of this critique as “we created isis.” This is a lie.. and not only is it a lie, it is a destructively dangerous manifestation of confirmation bias.. the very same confirmation bias that believes that 911 was an inside job.. the same confirmation bias that Alex Jones shameless spouts every second of his life. This is disgraceful, it is a thankless display of lack of gratitude for a society that provided you a quality of life that is incomparable to any other time in recorded human history, and it is a display of intellectual dishonesty that makes the people who spout it a danger to everything that western society has come to stand for. The west did not make a virtue of martyrdom. He did not put oil beneath the palaces of saudi princes. We did not force women to live in bags. We do not cut the heads off of journalists and aid workers. We are not attempting to take freedom of speech and expression away from writers and artists alike. We are not subjugating women, gays, and free thinkers in foxhole countries. Where ever you hear people saying what the writer of this critque is writing, they are holding onto the Influence of people like noam chomsky with all of their might, and they are finally starting to see that their brilliant linguist, philosophy, and foreign policy critic is more and more every day being revealed to be a hysterical, senile geriatric that is leading them to certain disaster, and they’ve become such lazy socio-political critics in the meantime, they don’t even have counter arguments to reference, so they just lie, demonize, and purposely misrepresent people who dissent against them. If the ICC, the UN, the Human Rights Council, and the security council were allowed to properly function in the absense of US marriages of necessity with countries that directly oppose these organizations, Sam Harris would support them. This is the exact same argument as chomsky. The only difference is that sam harris is honest about the effect that theocracy can have on modern society, and chomsky almost refuses to comment on the subject entirely other than acknowledging that these dangerous and destructive governments exist. As a member of global civil society, I’d like to go on the record.. people willing to kill themselves and others simultaneously, willing to enslave the opposite sex, willing to indoctrinate children into martyrdom, willing to kill people for leaving their religion, willing to torture little girls at birth with genital mutilation for an iron-aged war god, and willing to do all of these things while simultaneously championing an opposition to a government, or a network of governments, that have simply tried to give them a voice and a place in our global economy where they would rather .. I do not support those people. In fact, I might go as far as to say they are my enemy.. and until people start being honest about this growing portion of the population, violence will continue to be inflicted on innocent people.

    Reply

    1. I quote Sam Harris at length and someone responds to accuse me of demonising him!

       Why does quoting nearly 7,700 of Sam Harris’s own words with no comment* and supplying access to the entire interview with Sam Harris speaking in his own words elicit such vitriolic hostility among some readers?

       * — Apart from the brief introduction in which I address Sam Harris’s regular complaint that his critics consistently misrepresent him. (I thought he could not be misrepresented at all if I quoted him for approx 7700 words without comment!)

       Why do some people appear to be so quick to attack anyone who appears to disagree with Sam Harris and to be so reluctant to engage in a calm discussion of the ideas themselves?

       Clearly such Sam Harris defenders are engaged in something more than a mere intellectual debate.

       Reply

       1. Because most of SH’s critics do two things. They engage in name calling (see Greenwald, TYT et al) and then throw out everything that Sam says on other subjects. I’m glad that you have not done this. But you did start this thread with a video made by Cent who has told us outrageous woppers about Sam and has been one of his greatest critics without criticizing the others.
          I don’t listen to one thing that SH has to say about Islam. But he has a very interesting take on morality that is worth examining. He has some very good insightsb on spirituality and the practice ogf meditation. He has some good thoughts on the necessity of atheism that can be debated.
          But in some circles Sam is imediately branded as a bigot and other are not discussed.

          Reply

          1. “But he has a very interesting take on morality that is worth examining.”

             Please explain because I don’t see it. The man is as immoral a character as I’ve ever seen.

             Thanks.

             Reply

             1. 1. Read his book on morality.
                2. Have you actually seen Sam Harris? Has he done something immoral that you have seem him do? Maybe he holds ideas that you do not like. Maybe he has statements that you would consider immoral if they were acted out. But is Sam immoral? You do not know that and to use an ad hominem remark about him is exactly what I was complaining about.

                Reply

                1. Within the context of asking you to explain what you think Harris has to say about morality, remarking that Harris is an immoral character is not an ad hominem remark, it is merely an explanation as to why I need more information from you. I am not going to waste my time reading anything more from Harris unless somebody gives me a good reason to do so.

                   Have I actually seen Harris? You mean, like, have I sat down and had a cup of coffee with him? No. I have read much of what Harris has written, though. Do I need to actually see him to understand what he meant to say?

                   Has he done something immoral that I have seen him do? Again, do you mean, like, in person? I have seen his writings and what he advocates. While I suppose my objection could only be that his writings are immoral, but that does not seem right because it is what he advocates that is immoral, and I should be safe in assuming that he believes in what he advocates, particularly when he is consistent in his advocacy. One who advocates immoral acts and policies is immoral in my eyes, even if he is the nicest guy in person and otherwise means well.

                   Reply

13. Oh and by the way.. who attacked who in tripoli?

    Reply

14. Another ‘dialogue’ occured involving Sam Harris and a Muslim, and I’m sure he is being misrepresented here too. (Ha)

    http://www.salon.com/2016/03/07/my_secret_debate_with_sam_harris_a_revealing_4_hour_dialogue_on_islam_racism_free_speech_hypocrisy/

    Reply

    1. Interesting. This line stood out as totally in sync with what I have learned:

       He has passed himself off as a learned thinker despite being both ignorant of and incurious about the very issues on which he opines.

       Unfortunately his supporters in my experience remain just as ignorant and incurious of the issues they love him for. It has been called betrayal of the public by public intellectuals. (Though I’m not really sure why or how Sam Harris came by his public status.)

       It’s a murky world. I’ve learned that his prized torches Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are also liars.

       Reply

15. Thought this was quite an interesting read.
    http://www.e-ir.info/2016/03/22/the-new-anti-secularism/

    Reply

    1. Brilliant. Wish supporters of the anti-theistic and anti-Islamic New Atheists would read it.

       Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.