Heavy's Sandvich
Member
I'm just coming to the end.
I've been in a philosophy seminar.
In fact, my degree is in it. Sam Harris pls.
I've been in a philosophy seminar.
In fact, my degree is in it. Sam Harris pls.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cenk Uygur (The Young Turks) interviews Sam Harris for 3 hours (Religion & Islam)
- Thread starter Duji
- Start date
- Status
Been watching this for a half hour and surprisingly I was with Sam, until around the 33:00 mark where he debates that the Old Testament isn't as bad as the Quran. His interpretation is of the end game of both texts if quite inaccurate. It's like he entirely forget about the crusades, baptism by the sword, or early Christianity in the Roman empire.
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
Not to mention the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.
Or the Christian groups acting in Nigeria.
Or anti-abortion sentiment in Ireland.
Or the bomb attacks and "assassinations" of abortion doctors in the US.
Edit: my point isn't to denigrate Christianity by bringing these up. Just examples to make him reconsider the pacifying nature of Christ's message.
I need to be clearer. I don't agree with his formulation. But say if I did, those would serve as an example his formulation is, at best, undercooked.
Or the Christian groups acting in Nigeria.
Or anti-abortion sentiment in Ireland.
Or the bomb attacks and "assassinations" of abortion doctors in the US.
Edit: my point isn't to denigrate Christianity by bringing these up. Just examples to make him reconsider the pacifying nature of Christ's message.
I need to be clearer. I don't agree with his formulation. But say if I did, those would serve as an example his formulation is, at best, undercooked.
Maninthemirror
Banned
why is it ironic. because I like to keep things in context and not 'hate' something I dont agree with or try to branch out multitudes of possible outcomes without agreeing that the most simplest of moderate of outcomes could be the right one ?
There is a pretty simple reasoning for this. Muslims, generally are more religious than Christians. Most christians are ok to mocking their own religious founder for the sake of doing it while Muslims almost always revere Jesus more than more Christians themselves. Muslims in the majority are more adherent to their faith and Sam Harris sees adherence as a threat to his view of how the world should work because he knows Christians are too casual to argue with.
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
That doesn't address the point whatsoever.
We're talking about adherence. Those are examples of adherence. And it wasn't acknowledged to the same extent.
His desert island thought experiment doesn't compute.
We're talking about adherence. Those are examples of adherence. And it wasn't acknowledged to the same extent.
His desert island thought experiment doesn't compute.
speculawyer
Member
Is criticism 'punishment' now?
Son of Sam
Banned
What? He definitely does not say the Old Testament isn't as bad. I think there's a point where he contends the Old Testament is actually worse.
Maninthemirror
Banned
you are hiding behind the veil of criticism. there is something called criticism and something call hatred. yours is not criticism, yours is hate for a belief and a criticism of those who are moderates as why are they even following it when they have done nothing to you. The fact that you are not joining forces with these moderates to fight those that the moderates hate too shows you don't really care about moderates and will often as shown in this discussion throw them under the bus while making the point.
That is not criticism, that is being ignorant to whole situation
its the old adage that collateral damage is a necessity to kill 2 people in a home of 10 people with the faith being the home.
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
Speculawyer, are you a practising lawyer? Can I ask which area of law you do practice in? This is purely motivated by curiosity.
Son of Sam
Banned
Criticism is a ploy now? Come on.
Did you even watch the debate linked in the OP?
Don'tBeWeird
Member
Yeah, this is where he lost me too. He was struggling to come up with valid reasons to explain why Islam, and the Quran, is worse than its Abrahamic counterparts. And any explanations he gave to justify his claims were easily and firmly rebutted by Cenk Uygur.
Muffdraul
Member
Please confirm that you kept watching at least up to the point where, more than once, Harris openly and emphatically states that the OT is worse than the Quran. I think he specifically said "more barbaric." And he doesn't forget the Crusades, he mentions them... reminding us that they were actually in response to Islamic conquest and expansionism.
He says it's more barbaric, but he makes this little caveat that insinuates he thinks the Old Testament is more redeemable than the Quran on the basis of the encouragement of the martyrdom in the Quran and how each rewards believers in the end. However, Yahweh was the warrior God of the early Canaanites in the Old Testament and there are plenty of verses alluding to how HE will lead them and spread his name by sheer force.
I feel as though the social and economical situation that Christians now find themselves in today affects how they go about their religious conquests more so than the texts itself. Throughout history there are countless examples of religious violence and crusades conducted in the name of the Christian God, so much in fact that it's why many Christian majority nations find themselves in such good economic states today.
Muslims haven't been so lucky. They weren't quite as successful in their conquests or in sustaining good economic situations and thus Muslims in the more moribund states tend to have more violent fundamentalists.
kame-sennin
Member
You shouldn't be. If he acknowledged those things, there would be no excuse for his anti-muslim bigotry. Anyone who understands that poor, oppressed, brutalized people adopt brutal behavior - that it is the oppressor who radicalizes the oppressed - would waste no time isolating a specific marginalized group for their unique flavor of brutality. Especially a group that has some of the most powerful nations on Earth constantly "bombing them back to the stone age".
But here's my problem with Sam Harris:
Let's say that everything he says about Islam is true. The fact that he refuses to acknowlege that it is Muslims who are in a uniquely vulnerable position, and not the rest of the world, highlights his extrame racism and irresponsibility.
Look at the facts of the current geopolitical situation. The United States has an unmatched nuclear arsenal with the ability to annihilate all life on the planet 17 times over. The U.S. has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, giving it the unimpeded ability to strike any nation with a coastline. It's got more tonnage of more advanced bombs than any other nation. And it is backed by a coalition of semi-willing former empires in Western Europe with their own formidable powers, and a client state in Israel that is eager for any opportunity to unleash devastation on nearby Muslim populations.
That coalition of nations is responsible for more death over the previous century than any every other nation, kingdom, and empire in human history combined. Moreover, the U.S., UK, and Israel have killed at least one million Muslims in just the last fifteen years. Is Sam Harris really going to look straight into a camera and say ISIS is the bigger threat? When you talk about Islam and barbarism, the only honest and rational point you can make is that the followers of Islam have been on the receiving end of more barbarism in the form of cluster bombs, shock and awe, night raids, targeted assassinations, and starvation by sanction than any other peoples over the last fifteen years. That's not debatable, all you have to do is count the bodies.
So yea, Sam, Islam sucks. It's a shitty religion and if we're trying to write a comprehensive list, it might be the shittiest. But when you live in the most powerful empire the world has ever seen - an empire that has already demonstrated an impressive hardon for killing all things brown-skinned - maybe it's a bad fucking idea to talk about one group being a special problem. Maybe you're adding ideas to an already bigoted culture that Muslims are a special class that deserve the extra wariness they've received. Maybe people will start debating if more aggressive solutions are required to deal with the 'Muslim problem'. That's an ugly place to go, and Sam Harris is already way to far down that road.
Harris has no grounds to complain about Salon calling him a "douchebag".
RustyNails
Member
I am sorry, but why are you so snoopy about my beliefs? Is the discussion related to me? It does not matter what I individually believe in, and you have not proven how its related at all to the discussion at all. You do not have knowledge of anything you have spoken so far.
boiled goose
good with gravy
broad criticism that generalalizes diverse groups and promotes hatred? Yes that is punishment.
every time someone makes a generalizing and stereotyping comment about say black people that might even be true for a certain fraction of the group we are punishing those that it doesn't apply to.
I am complete atheist and I despise religion but to say that it is other Muslims who have a responsibility to criticize bad actions by other Muslims it's simply stupid. It might make sense as a PR move given that There are bigots out there making the argument that they should and criticize them when they wont and make them complicit by association.
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
Wilful blindness goes further though. Not only have they been denounced by a broad range of members of the community and fatwas written to utterly reject it - the people on the front line combating this are fellow Muslims.
Yes.
boiled goose
good with gravy
yep. why don't others condemn it is the most asinine argumentthat regularly comes up in this topic not only is it senseless it is also false.
boiled goose
good with gravy
what I don't understand is how he ignores because the consequences of such an action. a nuclear first strike on any Muslim countrywould be disastrous. peace on earth? Gone.
an argument that was not brought up in the conversation was the factthat a large source off the power of extremist comes from the weapons that they have. Now we made these weapons. A society that represses science and kills its citizens could not independently develop the technology to make such destructive weapons. Not even a f****** gun.
by arming the whole world we have completely destabilized the planet. We have entrenched those in powerand selected for the most ruthless
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
What I didn't understand how being the good guys wouldn't be transformed when committing such acts.
Like intention alone appears to be enough to exonerate one from their actions.
Like intention alone appears to be enough to exonerate one from their actions.
boiled goose
good with gravy
and even the intentions are not even completely good.
man time is increasingly showing how much of a mistake going into Iraq was.
speculawyer
Member
Hatred? Yeah . . . I hate persecution of homosexuals. I hate the subjugation of women. I hate the attacks on the Yazidi people. I hate the fighting between Sunni & Shia. I hate the land grabs by the Israelis. I hate the beheading of aid workers by ISIS.
And I will always speak out against them.
And I hope you hate these things too. But instead of speaking out against them, you direct your anger at me! Why?
I appreciate your efforts to push a moderate interpretation of Islam and I hope you have great success with them. However, I cannot join you in that effort as I am not a Muslim and to me it is all a bunch of fairy tales. (No offense intended . . . and you basically believe the same thing of all religions other than Islam.) So I can't help propagate that moderate view. And if I did, that would probably do more harm than good . . . what Muslim is going to believe the atheist that is trying to get them to change their view on Islam?
I also think that effort is doomed to failure. I bring this up all the time and get no response so I presume you agree with it somewhat . . . . The Koran is supposed to be the perfect word of god and completely true/right/just. Yet, it has a lot of hateful stuff in it that causes problems. This creates a logical problem because you either have to admit it is not perfect, follow the hateful stuff, or ignore the logical problem with cognitive dissonance (I'm guessing that is your approach). I just don't think a solution that relies on cognitive dissonance is a good one that will work with everyone. It has been more than a decade since the stupid act of 9/11 yet every day new Muslims join the jihad over at ISIS (yes, it is a small percentage but they are still very dangerous).
So I provide an alternative path that others can adopt. A path of science, logic, pragmatism, enlightenment, and freedom. It is alternative path that people can take instead of getting trapped into believing dogmas that may push a person toward violence and persecution of others. It is my way of fighting against the things I hate listed in the first paragraph.
Now just as I appreciate your efforts of trying to guide people away from those things, I hope you can appreciate my efforts in trying to provide another path to guide people away from those hateful things. So instead of attacking me . . . attack those terrible things.
ReignofSparrows
Member
This thinking is the most maddening part of all of this. I don't even agree with Harris on many issues, but the guy is continuously misrepresented. There are clear examples of him being misrepresented by writers at Salon, Aslan, and most recently, Cenk. And the worst part is that now those misrepresentations are being used as evidence that he isn't clear enough. It's absolutely the worst aspect of the recent discussions involving Harris.
I could give so many examples of the misrepresentations in the media or in the recent threads on this board. He explicitly doesn't support racist profiling despite the drive by posts claiming that he does, he doesn't consider fundamentalism the only real or true form of Islam, and so on. But I will just point now at the recent implications in this thread that he supports a nuclear first strike against against a Muslim country and that he is ignorant of the ramifications. All he said was that we have to contemplate it if a group like ISIS gets long range nuclear weaponry. And he said a nuclear first strike would be an unthinkable crime that would have the repercussions that everyone says he doesn't get. It's perfectly clear from what he wrote. You don't need to talk about nuance to see the only plain text he has written on the subject.
Either way, I am growing tired of pointing out where people misrepresent the guy. He brings up points I disagree with, but there is no discussion to be had when one side routinely spreads misinformation. So I'm sure this trend will continue, and whenever someone has the guts to call that out, that will just be evidence he isn't clear enough. Again, it's just maddening and stifles discourse.
The only problem I see with Muslims in western countries is the radical clerics in the UK insighting murder and they should be promptly deported or jailed, using existing laws (as they have been, but likely, not quick enough). These clerics would never try openly preaching this part of the Quran in the US as they know they wouldn't last five minutes. This is a real, 21st century difference between the leaders in the Christian and Islamic faiths, but is that just because Christians are not being oppressed (you'll note I said this century as you don't have to go back far at all to find a parallel - Northern Ireland).
njean777
Member
While I agree that religion can be bad. Humans are inherently greedy, rude, angry, etc. Even if we were to take the path you preach there would be massive problems like we see today. Getting rid of religion will not solve racism, tribalism, etc.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Well said.
He explicitly does:
You should read the entire thing, but that specific part is an addendum to the original piece, where he tries to defend himself. I don't give a fuck how he chooses to dress it up -- if he advocates for ethnicity to be used as an indicator for terrorism, that's racial profiling by definition. Unless you can point me to an article or passage from his books where he clearly defines what the fuck "someone that looks like a muslim" is supposed to mean, and he explicitly excludes "has brown skin" as an indicator -- I'm going to continue treating him the same way on this issue I treat a fox news host talking about "thugs".
i mean fuck:
look at that. look at that shit.
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
Bonercop, treat it like its a philosophy seminar.
I wish Cenk actually asked about stop and search instead in NY.
I wish Cenk actually asked about stop and search instead in NY.
ReignofSparrows
Member
I don't even know what your qualification means when white skin would also be an indicator. I mean, this is probably the one issue where I think Harris is the most unequivocally wrong because there is no good proxy based on the factors he is articulating. But calling it racial profiling is just disingenuous.
The way he is describing it, white skin simply would not get you disqualified. That is not remotely the same thing as using it as an indicator.
The onus is on him to explain what "looks like a muslim " means. When he starts talking about "people who look like bollywood villains" being left untouched while a poor old
Maninthemirror
Banned
You 'HOPE' I hate these things too? What a disingenuous remark that hopefully I am against hate as if there is doubt.
My anger is directed at both sides but we don't see any fundamentalists here in this forum do we? right in this forum there are only people for moderate muslims or against Islam altogether as a whole. the incorrect notion in your argument is that by somehow using the ISIS ideology as a legitimate ideology, you are trying to create a doubt that a moderate ideology in Islam exists, its the same strategy Sam Harris uses, disavow Moderates as not relevant in the grand scheme of things and the minority of fundamentalists is a greater idea than the moderate idea. By portraying the radical view as the primary view of Islam in your argument you immediately say Islam says this, thus by proxy, Moderates who don't agree with this don't have any idea what they are talking about.
Again, this is the umpteenth time this has been asked. If the moderates present their view, why is the response well ISIS believes this, why do you care what ISIS believes in when the purpose is overcome ISIS fundamentalism with moderate views among ALL Muslims. Why do you care what the fundamentalists view, that care is what Muslims who are moderates are countering, if anything you should be saying the best way to resolve this is for the radicalist ideas to be overcome by moderate ideas as a whole but instead the moderate view is nowhere in the argument presented by you. Its non-existent. I think that is the case because if you give my view the validity that it should be the view of Islam as a whole, the whole argument collapses. You are skewing your view because of your hate for religion by not giving Moderates the validity. People like Sam harris invalidate the view of Moderates because they only seem to showcase the extremist view because only that seems to present their case. They wouldn't be famous or sell books or be on tv if they presented moderate views as legitimate.
How many times has Sam Harris said that the moderate view should be the majority view, I am not refering to the left liberal view who are casual muslims like Irshad Manji I am refering to the view held by Majority of Muslims who are adherent to their faith, he has never done it. Why? Because that collapses his argument against Islam whiich includes the removal of the idea of Moderatism in Islam out of the equation so that people hate the religion itself, not reform it. The only reform he views is to eradicate it, thats it. he doesn't want it to exist for it to not exist he has to negate the view of moderates as unknown or illegitimate.
Again bringing up Quran says hateful stuff and when verses are presented and retorted with context the answer is well context shouldnt matter. why shouldnt it matter. every relative knowledge is understood with context. If a professor says 'This is why I am giving you a C' no one in their right mind will say ok the professor sucks because he only said this is why I am failing you. every student looks at what was said before or after or the history of the conversation. Picking and Chosing is usually a losing argument for an assumption so that an argument can be manufactured around nothing. "Because there is nothing wrong here in context, I need to create something out of nothing" is the kind of thinking being applied here.
The argument of the Quran is pretty simple
it is a perfect book of guidance for muslims who do good deeds.
As a result it means nothing to those who do not do good deeds like members of the ISIS or fundamentalists.
ISIS doesn't even follow the fundamental rule of Islam 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion" how can anyone claim they are following Quran as it says.
ReignofSparrows
Member
He said he would qualify, and he said (I think in the TYT interview as well, but I may be mistaken as to where I heard it) that we wouldn't be able to let white skinned people off the hook (my wording was poor here, I meant as a defensive response, not like he is the security or logic czar of the world) since there have been white fundamentalists.
If that logic sounds like it renders a lot of what he is advocating meaningless regarding the efficacy of profiling, I would completely agree, but it's still wholly different from 'brown people in this line and then everyone else.'
Related to some of the points you're making, Freddie DeBoer's post on The United States and the "moderate Muslim" is great.
He talks about that later...
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
But it might help.
ReignofSparrows
Member
I think that's a fantastic paragraph distilling another perspective. Harris wants reformation and moderation to win the war of ideas in Islam, but the US actively contributes to the other side by its actions, some of which Harris has supported. That's a problem I don't see him address, instead he often does this 'let's just suppose we are the good guys here' thing.
Maninthemirror
Banned
He actually doesn't want moderates to win. In Islam Moderates are those who are adherent to their faith and dont harm anyone. he wants people like Irshad manji to win who are casual Muslims and are not adherent to their faith. In fact he has in many occasions called people like Irshad Manji as a moderate while anyone in their right mind would call her a liberal muslim. Plain and simple he does not want Adherents to Islam to control Islam, he wants it to be like Christianity where majority are casuals so that they can be slowly chipped away into atheism. It is quite an extensive strategy. Get majority of Muslims to be casual. Label the current Moderates as conservatives when that happens and label them fundamentalists vs majority casual muslims. If however people realise that the majority of Muslims are moderate then the whole conversation falls apart on the part of Sam harris
You are not addressing the point I made. He allows for the possibility that white skinned terrorists exist, yes, and he does say they should be searched as well. But nowhere in that piece does he imply that whiteness can be used as an indication for anything. He does imply the opposite when he talks about the "bollywood villain" standing behind him or when he cries about "political correctness" getting in the way of ~*reason*~(btw, he quite clearly lists ethnicity as an example here, so i'm not sure why we're even having this conversation. )
If having brown skin or looking middle-eastern gets you a +1 on the terrorist score sheath, that's racial profiling. It doesn't need to involve a line for brown people only.
ReignofSparrows
Member
Hah, you can PM me if you want to have that discussion again. We've aired it out on the board enough, I think.
I don't think you implied it here. But it should be mentioned that getting rid of religion not solving x, y, and z is not an argument for the contrary.
New problems would certainly crop up, or existing problems may now be seen with unencumbered clarity. People will still draw non sequiturs to justify there actions, essentially bastardizing a belief. But that already happens with all beliefs. One thing seems clear is that religions hold attrocious beliefs that need to be bastardized just to convince yourself that the religion is intrinsically entirely moral and objectively good.
m_shortpants
Member
Excellent point. And it's not exclusive to the Middle East, it's happened in Latin America as well, often times in both cases by subterfuge and deception.
speculawyer
Member
I can't make sense of this. Try again.
For the upteenth time, I am no judge as to whether it is a 'legitimate ideology' nor are you. And whether it is 'legitimate' or not is completely irrelevant . . . what matters is that it exists and that it continues to exist.
The endless parade of strawmen continues . . . ugh. Create doubt that a moderate ideology in Islam exists? I just thanked you for your efforts that I'm saying does not exist? I find it increasingly difficult to talk to you because you make wildly illogical assertions.
Of course what I said is:
Oh forget it. You are not interested in an honest discussion. This is a complete waste of my time.
You are are apparently unable to read words, comprehend them, and react to them as if you understood them. It is just mischaracterization followed by mischaracterization followed by mischaracterization followed by distortion followed illogical nonsense.
Can't parse this. You may want to slow down and gather your thoughts. You seem to be melting down.
I just explained to you why I cannot make the moderate argument. What part of that did you fail to understand?
Neither of us "invalidate the view of Moderates" and in fact we both explicitly say we want to support them. However, neither Sam or I are Muslims. We both think Islam (and all other religions) are all nonsense. You have to accept that. You think the same of all other religions. Get over it already.
Why? I think there is are a couple different eminently logical answers:
1) Because we are not Muslims. Duh. Why don't you say that everyone should be Jewish? That would certainly eliminate all Muslim issues if you could get everyone to become Jewish! That is just a stupid question.
2) But if you are asking why that 'casual Muslim' (I take it you view him as an apostate of some sort) instead of more mainstream Islam, probably because the more mainstream Islam still has views that we view as wrong . . . condemnation of homosexuals, viewing women as lessers, etc.
You really are impossible to communicate with. You just contradicted YOURSELF wherein you admitted that he is working with Irshad Manji.
No more this pointlessness. Enjoy your irrationality and illogic.
That's an excellent piece.
curlyfriski
Banned
Again, this argument is a great oversimplification of the divide between the two peopleand betrays an ignorance of history. Israel/Palestine is about much more than religion. If everyone in the region became an atheist, they wouldn't suddenly live in piece. Palestinians would still be angry over being forced off their ancestral homeland. Israelis would still distrust Palestinians. A one state solution would have the exact same barriers without religion. This is not a conflict over thousand year old religions, it's about a far more recent example of colonialism. What's preventing the Israelis and Palestinians from cohabiting peacefully in a single state is not their religion, it's recent history. I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding important issues about the role of religion in the Israeli state and what it means to be a Jewish state.
If the shoe fits...but actually my intention is to get a straight argument from you. All you seem to be doing is making poor attempts to push back against people that are disagreeing with Harris. While dropping some cherry picked info to try and broad brush Islam.
ReignofSparrows
Member
This will sound pedantic but brown skin is not a non-indicator, same with white skin. I believe that's the proper way to read what he is saying, and again, I think it's a pretty awful take on the whole issue.
That said, I reread your objections, and I will say you are right when looking at what I said. Obviously he is saying ethnicity should be a factor. Again, ethnicity doesn't mean brown people. But if the objection is to anything but blindness to ethnicity, then it stands.
What I meant was that he clearly does not support racial profiling as it's often presented when he comes up. But that's not an excuse for being that imprecise with my language, and it doesn't really further my point since it's too much of a mess to be a clear misrepresentation. I do appreciate you resisting that aspect of my post.
vas_a_morir
Banned
And I'm not saying I could do his job nearly as well as he is doing it... but I think Cenk may not have the chops for these kinds of discussions. He may be very smart and it may be apparent in other media, but I think he's a bit too dim or at best unprepared to handle this. He keeps trying to deflect criticism to other religions as a way of avoiding critical discussion of the actual topic at hand, which is specifically about the problems Islam causes for the secular world. I think it's just as annoying and academically disingenuous as a person deflecting Christian problems with 'well, at least they aren't blowing up civilian buildings in the name of God!' He lost me completely when he said that WW1 and WW2 were started by 'Christians,' when they most clearly were started over disputes regarding the political autonomy of Serbia and later the fanatical reclamation of German territory lost in the wake of WW1. That's like child's play; a rebellious Freshman poly sci 101 Fall semester argument. I think that's his target audience, though. So, why not?
njean777
Member
I don't know Buddhism in its original form was a peaceful and a heavily psychological religion, they dont have anything in their belief structure that warrants killing, robbing, greed, etc. Then again Buddhism in its original form had no god either. Myanmar and any of the violent buddhists are not following their own faith correctly. I would argue every single person could learn from Buddhism, even atheists.
But back to Islam, the first step we should be preaching is the view of following moderate islam. Saying "lets get rid of religion" will not suffice in this instance and will not have any effect until way later in humanities timeline. It takes a long time to strip away an identity (which is how these people use Islam).
- Status