-
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
speculawyer
Member
Awesome. I find both commentators interesting and agree/disagree with both of them in various areas.
However, Cenk did a real hatchet job on his Young Turks critique of the Maher/Harris kerfuffle so I hope Sam Harris takes him to task for that.
However, Cenk did a real hatchet job on his Young Turks critique of the Maher/Harris kerfuffle so I hope Sam Harris takes him to task for that.
Are we still equating all the problems caused in the middle east to strickly Islam?
finowns
Member
I am not. Don't know about you.
That's what happened in the last thread
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
12 minutes in and Cenk tries to counter Sam by saying, "Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean they're wrong", which totally misrepresents what Sam was trying to argue for the past 12 minutes. The ironing.
Sam rolls his eyes and says, "let's talk about the details because this isn't going anywhere". lol.
This is off to a great start.
Sam rolls his eyes and says, "let's talk about the details because this isn't going anywhere". lol.
This is off to a great start.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
38 minutes in and holy crap Cenk is not following Sam's line of thought at all...
boiled goose
good with gravy
Tyt is great.
News with actual opinions and a watchdog of the government.
I look forward to watching this. I kind of understand both sides, i do think reza aslan and cenk partially misrepresented Harris s views but did not agree with harris completely either.
News with actual opinions and a watchdog of the government.
I look forward to watching this. I kind of understand both sides, i do think reza aslan and cenk partially misrepresented Harris s views but did not agree with harris completely either.
speculawyer
Member
I've watched an hour plus and Cenk comes off pretty bad IMHO. He keeps trying to over generalize Sam ' s statements. When Cenk actually listens close, he agrees. And Cenk doesn't understand probability mathematics.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Whatever the outcome it is great to see them both sit down to have a real conversation
speculawyer
Member
Yes, it is.
Unfortunately Sam gets completely unreasonable regarding Palestine. He's surely aware of the more disturbing Israeli popular views on Palestine, and how many people would happily say "kill all Palestinians", even thought the situation for them is far more comfortable. He's also wilfully ignorant of the moderation of the Unity government in the years before the latest wave of bullshit.
If you acknowledge that a sense of injustice can drive people to extreme behaviour, coloured by culture or religion, then Sam's argument is pointless. He's become a professional wind-up merchant. Cenk is daft, but picked the right side of most arguments there.
If you acknowledge that a sense of injustice can drive people to extreme behaviour, coloured by culture or religion, then Sam's argument is pointless. He's become a professional wind-up merchant. Cenk is daft, but picked the right side of most arguments there.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
No one actually does this, except for a hardcore fringe. Could you point out where in the other thread (or any thread) this happened? I can think of maybe Hindle and one or two others. I'm not even sure about them.
Let me clarify the position that reasonable people often take:
Islam may cause some problems in the Middle East and elsewhere. It does not cause all problems. Islam may be one factor that increases the chance of people going crazy, holding crazy views, or doing crazy things. It is not the only factor.
sadceph2001
Member
Brilliant interview, however I feel as though Cenk is somewhat unsuitable to face Sam Harris.
Son of Sam
Banned
Are we going to ignore what just happened in Canada?
I really want to hear from the people in the previous thread about what they think of this.
Yes. What people fail to understand is Islam doesn't have the convenience of going through their dark ages gradually like Christianity and Judaism did. It's just not going to happen. We're too globalized and technology would allow radicals to do serious damage on a global scale. Liberal muslims must act swiftly to initiate change in the Middle East.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Finished the whole thing. A good conversation, and a decent one to have. I wish our presidential debates had at least one in this kind of format.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Sam Harris was a better debater/
Necromanti
Member
I mean, let's assume that Islam is the main source of the majority of problems in the Middle East. But how would something like that even be addressed? You can't force a mass deconversion of people or divorce a religion from many cultures abruptly; you'll only end up antagonizing people and push them further away from what you wanted. (Suggestions of committing genocide are even more laughable.) And combating fundamentalism without addressing the foundation of inequality, poverty, and political instability upon which it is built will only address a symptom of the issue. Any other ideology or religion could be propped up to serve the same purpose. Any beliefway could be twisted to serve an ideal. There are several underlying factors that are conducive to the problems we would like to see solved, but the approach some are taking is unhelpful at best. And usually, the Muslims that are not affected by such factors around the world are moderates or very strongly against extremism, fundamentalism, so I'm not convinced that it's a Muslim issue (or that characterizing it as such makes it easier to tackle). Otherwise, we would have never seen the historical, progressive changes in the Christian world if the problem was so simplifiable.
That's a much more reasonable position to take than the absolute nonsense that was "Islam is the only religion that acts like a Mafia" and "Islam is a motherlode of bad ideas" illogical bullshit that was being tossed around on Maher. But it's also such a weak position that it might as well not be a position at all.
Interesting interview. I think Cenk handled it pretty well after some early missteps. We need more of these types of extended conversations.
A side note. As someone who generally agrees with Sam, but likes to have my views challenged. I think it's a shame that some of his most prominent critics are hacks like Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald, and Salon writers like C.J. Werleman who refuse to engage in good faith. See some recent posts on Sam's blog:
On the Mechanics of Defamation
Just the Facts
Email Exchange Between Sam Harris and C.J. Werleman
I'm disappointed that in discussion about why he gave a fraud like CJ Werleman a platform Cenk used the same kind of fallacies the mainstream media uses when they give climate change deniers a platform. I'd be interested if anybody can point me to some interesting criticisms I can take seriously.
A side note. As someone who generally agrees with Sam, but likes to have my views challenged. I think it's a shame that some of his most prominent critics are hacks like Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald, and Salon writers like C.J. Werleman who refuse to engage in good faith. See some recent posts on Sam's blog:
On the Mechanics of Defamation
Just the Facts
Email Exchange Between Sam Harris and C.J. Werleman
I'm disappointed that in discussion about why he gave a fraud like CJ Werleman a platform Cenk used the same kind of fallacies the mainstream media uses when they give climate change deniers a platform. I'd be interested if anybody can point me to some interesting criticisms I can take seriously.
Buckethead
Banned
Yep, all of their criticisms have been emotionally charged and intellectually lazy.
Also the whole C.J. Werleman makes me laugh because he went HAM on Harris then got exposed for being a serial plagarist.
ReignofSparrows
Member
Harris didn't say the first quote, and Harris' second quote speaks specifically to the unwillingness of secular liberals to acknowledge the bad ideas in Islam as opposed to their freedom and eagerness to criticize the Christian ideas that form the bedrock for many conservative policies.
And since people, including yourself, continuously misrepresent the position, it's ironic that you think it's such a weak one that it warrants categorical dismissal.
Never said it was. Just pointing out that what's being said in this thread is far far far different from the crap spewed on the Maher segment that started this thing.
Bad ideas in Islam or bad ideas in some interpretations of Islam? Because I have no issues at all with the second. But the first is straight up simpliistic overly generalized nonsense and a very very different statement to make than the one Chairman Yang made.
Son of Sam
Banned
See this is just a lack of understanding what is prescribed in the doctrine of Islam. It is closer to the first testament (worse) than it is to the new testament.
Sam has pointed out with polls, and actual statistics that vast numbers of muslims in many countries that are considered "moderates" still believe you should be put to death or placed in prison for leaving the faith. Women are still considered second rate citizens and these are with the moderates!!!
So, yes Islam is a problem. Until there is serious reforms and reinterpretations of it's doctrines it will continue to be a problem even if all those social and economic issues are addressed.
I love TYT and have watched it pretty much daily for the past 5 years or so. Cenk is usually great at cutting right to point of an issue, and is very rational and fair minded (and also hilarious). I'd recommend their show to anyone.
But Cenk...bro, pick your battles. The last person on Earth you want to debate is Sam Harris on anything. That guy is probably the best debater I've seen since Hitchens, and is an unfair match for pretty much anyone.
I'm going to go watch now but I just know it's going to be rough.
But Cenk...bro, pick your battles. The last person on Earth you want to debate is Sam Harris on anything. That guy is probably the best debater I've seen since Hitchens, and is an unfair match for pretty much anyone.
I'm going to go watch now but I just know it's going to be rough.
Son of Sam
Banned
As much as i love Harris, he's a solid 10-15 years away from Hitch levels of finesse.
You or Harris really don't get to decide what is 'true Islam' and what isn't. And your aversion to making specific criticisms of some versions of Islam in favor of absurdly simple minded broad attacks on the whole of the faith is really mind blowing.
m_shortpants
Member
Not only that, but are we really going to blame everything on Islam and not:
access to education
tyrants and dictators in the 20th and 21st century
war
poverty
and so on. Correlation doesn't imply causation after all.
What about the people from the West that don't have to deal with those things and yet go join ISIS?
Trying to say Islam has nothing to do with some of the problems in the Middle East is as dumb as saying its the cause of all problems in the Middle East.
ReignofSparrows
Member
Both, but it's not overgeneralizing to say that a religion contains bad ideas. There are a number of ideas that polling data shows that Muslims believe, and you can't divorce that from the text that plausibly supports those ideas.
To counter that Islam contains good or neutral ideas as well (for instance, Harris mentions in the TYT video that Islam is a much less dangerous religion regarding abortion and stem cell research) does not undo that Islamic texts also contain those bad ideas.
To counter that those ideas are non-existent and just only a result of bad interpretations - well, I'm not interested in a deluge of contextualization. The fact is that you can plausibly read text that, for instance, condones beheading to mean exactly what it says. In fact, that is the most literal interpretation when it comes to a lot of these ideas. This is not unique to Islam; The same is true of Christianity, which condones slavery, subjugation of women, stoning of adulterers, and so on. The point is that regardless of what religion you are talking about, you have to strain to render the most literal interpretations of the religion's bad ideas as being the least plausible.
And as to the last point I just made - Harris and I and every atheist I know want those literal interpretations to be limited to a lunatic fringe. Every sane person should want contextualization and moderation to rule the day.
m_shortpants
Member
Tell me how many Muslims are in the US and how many have left to join ISIS?
I wouldn't even include places in Europe because due to lax immigration laws, typically those individuals aren't as educated as Muslims in the US.
ReignofSparrows
Member
Nobody is doing that.
Not that many, but once again that could be for a lot of different reasons. One example is that Muslims in the U.S are considerably more liberal then pretty much anywhere else in the world.
You still have educated people that go and join ISIS and other groups.
How is that Islam's fault? Islam isn't all like showing up to a dudes house and asking them to commit murder. If they are already messed up in the head, they are messed up in the head and are going to use any excuse to act those feelings out.
The Canadian terrorist dude wasn't some nice dude, he had a police record, and not ones that consists of parking and speeding tickets.
I like how if a "terrorist" commits murder - lets blame it on religion. Never "mental illness," no, that excuse is only reserved for white people who go on a murder rampage. But no, a religious dude - that guy was totally sane and just did it out of religion.
Islam like any other religion gives the person a divine reason to do it and if god is commanding you to do something and you are religious i don't think anything could change your mind about what you should do.
We don't know why the canadian guy did what he did yet.
Druz
Member
You've missed the plot completely. Harris addresses your accusations.
From my point of view it is Harris the one who is making the accusations.
speculawyer
Member
I wouldn't say "Islam is a problem", I'd say "Islam has a problem". And I think some of ideology holds it back to some degree. If you eliminate half your population from working out in public (for the Wahabis), that is bad for your economy.
But only after having to back away from initial dumb generalizations
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
RIP Hitchens. Whether or not you liked the guy, everyone's gotta admit that he had a mastery of words and the English language. Amazing debater.
speculawyer
Member
I think Reza Aslan is interesting and has insight but he does get a bit of knee-jerk reaction to anyone criticizing Islam. For example, if you look at his response to the Maher/Harris bit on CNN, he goes off on how FGM is practiced in Christian dominated countries in Africa (which is true) . . . but he then acted is if it is not done at all in Islamic countries and that is blatantly false and he knows it. It was profoundly disappointed to hear him be so deceptive.
Glenn Greenwald suffers from a really bad case of "blame America first" disease. It seems he can find a way to blame any problem in the world on American policy. I think he must have had issues with authority at some point and he now bashes government non-stop.
I don't know C.J. Werleman but he sounds like a jackass.
speculawyer
Member
The dumb generalizations come from people misrepresenting things he said.
ReignofSparrows
Member
I don't read that view from the posts in this thread, but I'll admit I'm not familiar with that poster's views. I'll just say that if anyone argues that geopolitical factors are not at all contributory, then I would completely disagree with that.
m_shortpants
Member
His point wasn't that it isn't done in Islamic countries, but that it's a part of African culture in those countries. That's what I think he was trying to express when he brought up the Christian countries.
- Status