Religion, what's the point?

[NoLogo]

I'm not going to argue tht you can't argue that Islam or other religions are not good for society, have backward views, are not correct intellectually etc etc. The problem I have is that Harris said that Islam is the "mother lode" of bad ideas. Maher regularly hints at this as well quoting statistics. Look at how many people support the death penalty for apostates and uses that to argue that 25% of the globe's population is an existential threat, and the biggest one at that.

That is what I'm arguing, the notion that liberals are "afraid" of criticising Islam. You get pushback know on nonsense, and rightly so. I will vociferously challenge their islamophobic bullshit should I see it. Because Islamic fundamentalism is a problem, Muslims have some iffy views on things but to argue that we're a threat to society (Western or global) is hyperbolic bullshit.

Calling for me and my family to be profiled, to be put into intern camps (heard it on the lovely Fox News channel), this stuff isn't on the fringe far right or in the youtube comments section. Its mainstream. At its worst it's Anders Breivek style rhetoric, and then there's the political side of it. Banning of minarets in Switzerland for example.

And not to mention the rise in islamophobia in an academic sense and actual tangible sense with attacks on Sikhs (for "looking" Muslim) in the states and attacks on hijabs in the UK and elsewhere.

And still Sam Harris think Islam gets off easy. CNN had the headline "does islam condone violence?" they got some pushback on it from Reza Aslan who rightly pointed out that using terms like "Islamic world" is offensive because the realities of a woman in Saudi is miles away from what she'd have in say, Turkey. We absolutely have miles to go, but there are many Islamic countries with deeply religious people who have not brought into power Islamic groups

You would have thought jamaat-e-islamia would romp to victory in Pakistan, but they don't. Because its never as simple as "religious" + "believes in death for apostates" = danger to the planet.

A Daily Mail article once reported that 1 in 3 British muslims back killing in the name of Islam, read this on how nicely they manipulated the data on that for their headline
http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/dec/22/1



And then of course there's Gallup which nobody ever wants to mention because it challenges their caricatures of Muslims.

So no I don't think Islam or Muslims are the mother lode of bad ideas. I think people like Sam Harris who have a Dick Cheney like mentality and worldview and opinions on what to do with Muslims is that. I'm not a religious person but I do believe that it is imperative we challenge Bill Maher type of rhetoric in vociferous terms but it is not evidence-based as much as they like to posit their viewpoints coming from an atheistic and therefore rational position. Much of it ignores social science (the little that we do have) in terms of saying how much of an impact religion plays in terrorism/terrorist goals etc, and a lot of it is about a weird siege mentality that they feel under threat by challenging this supposably unchallengable religion that has got liberals quaking in their boots.

Islam being challenged is mainstream, plenty do it. If you do it responsibly (i.e. criticise the ideas, the cultural practices, the opinions) and you do so in a broad sense (i.e. religion is bad) and in a proportional way then you're not a bigot. If you do it like Sam Harris: torture them, profile them, they are the worst idea ever...worse than climate change deniers etc etc and the mentality of the Islamic population at large poses a threat to us all and you make a career out of pushing for a clash of civilisations then you are an illiberal, unscientific, polemicist and a bigot.

Malala Yousafzai today with her Nobel Prize was appropriated by Harris as fighting against an ideology that is oppressive but she explicitly says she did it because she feels she is commanded and encouraged to do so by that ideology. You all may disagree, and say Muslims are followers of a terrible set of ideas, but the vast majority who subscribe to that ideology believe in humanity, compassion, and taking care of their families and friends. As a society/culture they will progress with better education, less poverty, challenges/reformists having a voice to affect cultural change. ISIS and these groups are a problem. Are Muslims in general, the ones you all have as your neighbours, fellow Manchester United supports, teachers, scientists, doctors they are not an existential threat. Asking for nuance, proportionality, more understanding, less caricaturing is not cowardice, it is progressive, makes you less of a dick and whatever it is that is the opposite of a bigot.

First of I get your stance. You don't like being tossed in a pot with radicals and mad men just because you are a follower of Islam. Totally valid point. I also have to say I don't really know what Sam Harris wrote in his books and was only going by the arguments presented in the short clip in which Harris and Maher clearly stated that they are criticizing the concept of Islam and not all Muslims yet it may very well be that if Harris really advocates the interment, profiling and torture of all Muslims that he is a lying piece of shit and just wants to mask his islamophobia under the "honest debate" label. So I will probably have to educate myself further on Sam Harris before I can reply any further to your post.

Just be assured that there are indeed people out there who while criticizing ReligionsOfYourChoice they don't want people involved with this imprisoned, tortured or murdered. Still I have made the experience that pretty much every criticism, especially of Islam, leads to these exact accusations. Calling someone a racist that has a problem with Islam is about as helpful as calling someone a communist who calls for the regulation of banks.

 

[Wolverine]

Yeah it's a good response. The thing that worries me is that we're at a point now where Harris & his ilk have become such professional anti-theists that they're almost a liability to the ideology they've done a lot to promote. Him, Dawkins and Hitchens have been very important and very needed high profile trailblazers for a still pretty fledgling ideology (relative to worldwide religious entrenchment) but the very nature of their prominence sets them up as easy targets for retaliatory accusations of being 'prophets' for it. Which religious people love to think is some kind of hypocritical trump card.

Obviously the big falacy of that is that no one who agrees with their opinions on religion has any obligation to agree with them about anything else (or indeed every facet of their God-bashing) but the more they become the 'faces' of a thinking that by necessity needs no organising, no rules or no leaders, the more they become short hand equivalents for lazy neutrals. Dawkins is clearly the biggest offender, but Harris seems to be grooming himself as his replacement.

It doesn't help that he comes across like Ben Stiller playing a pedantic alien robot trying to ape human interaction.

I'm a believer in atheism, secularism, liberalism. What I take issue with is Sam Harris trying to advocate liberalism through illiberal means. Things seen through a dichotomy of good and evil. The dehumanisation of a quarter of the world's population as savages who pose a direct existential threat to us all. He makes money off it too with speeches, book deals, interviews. If he were to go and speak about how much of a fallacy Pascal's wager is would he really get as much coverage? But maybe that's a touch cynical of me.

Anybody who dares questions them on it is accused of misrepresenting their position or quote mining but having read his work (and I've read way too much of it) I can't come to any other conclusion about him and not surprised that many other liberals do to and want to dissociate themselves from that.

I think we need to go towards promoting evolution, anti-theism, secularism (freedom of religion as much as freedom from it is unfortunately a part of it too) and create an environment where attitudes (re: gay marriage, women's rights) can progress without asking for more Guantanamo Bays.

 

[Wolverine]

Just be assured that there are indeed people out there who while criticizing ReligionsOfYourChoice they don't want people involved with this imprisoned, tortured or murdered. Still I have made the experience that pretty much every criticism, especially of Islam, leads to these exact accusations. Calling someone a racist that has a problem with Islam is about as helpful as calling someone a communist who calls for the regulation of banks.

Sure I don't have anyone who calls for Islam to be reformed or openly criticised as an ideology or the impact is has sociopolitically should be automatically called a racist/bigot.

But what does concern me is they think Islamophobia is a few bad eggs as opposed to a systemic problem in western societies (which it is) and the role their rhetoric plays in lending an academic credibility to that hostility. People believe in bad ideas, Islam is a religion is a bad idea if you're an atheist. Now according to Sam Harris that makes Muslims not just believers in a bad idea but dangerous. And this ideology that many believe in, not much different in scriptural rhetoric to other Abrahamic faiths, should be defeated militarily. Not realising the role a hawkish foreign policy plays in exacerbating the problem radical Islam in many places.

Like I said though, the quotes I have mentioned are very much the theme of Harris' work. He believes fascists have it right about Islam. He writes in defence of torture and racial profiling. That is what separates him from other atheists who have a go at religion. I don't deny that religious dogma and the backwards cultural norms it offers protection to poses a problem, and that it can post a threat, but there is a way to be dangerously hyperbolic about that threat and that is what Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi are.

 

[NoLogo]

Sure I don't have anyone who calls for Islam to be reformed or openly criticised as an ideology or the impact is has sociopolitically should be automatically called a racist/bigot.

But what does concern me is they think Islamophobia is a few bad eggs as opposed to a systemic problem in western societies (which it is) and the role their rhetoric plays in lending an academic credibility to that hostility. People believe in bad ideas, Islam is a religion is a bad idea if you're an atheist. Now according to Sam Harris that makes Muslims not just believers in a bad idea but dangerous. And this ideology that many believe in, not much different in scriptural rhetoric to other Abrahamic faiths, should be defeated militarily. Not realising the role a hawkish foreign policy plays in exacerbating the problem radical Islam in many places.

Like I said though, the quotes I have mentioned are very much the theme of Harris' work. He believes fascists have it right about Islam. He writes in defence of torture and racial profiling. That is what separates him from other atheists who have a go at religion. I don't deny that religious dogma and the backwards cultural norms it offers protection to poses a problem, and that it can post a threat, but there is a way to be dangerously hyperbolic about that threat and that is what Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi are.

I have to say I agree after reading up a bit on Harris. Violence/War can only lead to further radicalization as the wars in Afghanistan and Irak have so vividly demonstrated. It's also quite amazing that Harris just stood there saying that he was only criticizing the idea of Islam and not Muslims when his work clearly shows that is not true so in that sense Affleck was totally right of not letting him get away with it. Not being familiar with Harris work at the time I viewed it first I thought his response was rather odd and pretty much showcasing what Harris had said would happen but now I think it was entirely justified and Harris has no right to hide under the protective cloak of "false accusations".

I mean I already had my problems with Hitchens being in favor of US military invasion of middle eastern countries but Harris is even worse in that regard and pretty much says not only the invasion was justified but every crime committed on the part of the western world was justified too.

 

[PedroMendez]

1) Harris argument about torture: If you are willing to fight a war, where you kill knowingly thousands of innocent people as collateral damage, torture shouldnt be automatically out of the window. Torture, especially those techniques that dont inflict permanent physical damage, is not worse than killing people. So if you are already willing to accept "collateral damange" (=the killing or innocents), it seems inconsistent to rule out categorically the use of torture for the purpose of gaining vital intel. Intelligence, that might enable you to reach you war goals faster, which might actually save people.
You might agree on this or not, but the argument has some reason behind it; at least from a moral point of view and thats what he is talking about.

2) Harris biggest problem is, that he explains violence in the ME exclusively with religion. Thats clearly a oversimplification. Almost all these conflicts have also other causes/other dimensions worth talking about. Focusing on just one is misleading.
If you argue that onesided, its easy to justify a very aggressive foreign policy, that itself is a essential part of the problem. Hitchens is way more guilty on that one, but Harris follows the same path.
Harris, Hitchens or Dawkins are clearly not worth listening to, if you want to understand the problems in the middle east or global terrorism. There are various other people, who have a far better understanding of these issues.

3) If you think that ideas/ideology influence behaviour, than surely not all ideas influence your behaviour equally. So it is worth talking about ideology itself and its worth acknowledging, that not all ideologies/religions are equal in what they promote. People like ben affleck oppose this point without giving an argument why they do it. Their only argument is, that its racist to say that. At this point Harris has something to contribute to the discussion.

 

[Mad Winger]

Random comment passing by.

 

[crappycraperson]

I thought Reza Aslan made a really fantastic argument here. Feel for him though, he's getting more and more frustrated as the hosts aren't getting his point but does well to stay composed!

I agree with half of the things there and disagree completely with other half.

Firstly, he is right to hold a mirror to western countries, especially US, to get them to confront their own misogyny. There simply can not be any logical answer as to why it still has not had a woman head of state. Western societies are not overly misogynistic anymore and way better than their third world counterparts but not the perfect paradise for women either.

He is right to pin point some issue as cultural specific than Islamic one but liberal Muslims get too defensive when it comes to the conservative nature of the religion. There are some serious questions that Muslims do need to confront themselves over regarding the state of women, homosexuals and minorities in many Muslim countries.

To give you an example, all 3 of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh share the same cultural traits, yet there is a stark contrast between the state of minorities in two Muslim majority nations and India, a Hindu majority one. Muslim minority in India has its own fair share of issues but since partition their percentage has only grown and a good part remain well integrated in Indian society. Here are the stats from wiki -

In 1951, Hindus constituted 22% of the Pakistani population (this includes East Pakistan, modern day Bangladesh);,[5][6] the West Pakistan, modern Pakistan, had 2% Hindu population,[5] today, the share of Hindus is down to 1.6% in Pakistan,[4] and 9.2% in Bangladesh.[7] (In 1951, Bangladesh alone had a 22% Hindu population.[8])

This article for example, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/pakistans-shrinking-minority-space/article6268754.ece covers well the state of minorities there.

Liberal Muslims must question as to why this happened in Islamic states and not a secular one like India when both supposedly share the same culture.

This is just one example, while likes of Indonesia are far removed from Saudi Arabia etc, they have their own set of problems when it comes to strict Islamic tenets being enforced on all populace. There is also simply no excuse for the reaction Danish cartoons provoked. In the age of internet, Muslims simply have to develop a thick skin when it comes to any satire. Satirical depictions of their prophet will become norm at some point like it has with Jesus.

I actually agree with Harris 3 layer description of problem facing the Muslim population in the world. The jIhadists and Islamists are easy to condemn but conservative Muslims who while peaceful resist any condemnation of Quran, make it harder to bring about any reform. A reform much needed.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

He is right to pin point some issue as cultural specific than Islamic one but liberal Muslims get too defensive when it comes to the conservative nature of the religion. There are some serious questions that Muslims do need to confront themselves over regarding the state of women, homosexuals and minorities in many Muslim countries.

This is probably what Muslims get irritated about. It isn't the conservative nature of Islam (the religion), it's the conservative nature of religion, certainly Abrahamic religion. Any nation where such a religion is allowed to dictate over governance and law has horribly mediaeval views towards women, homosexuals and minorities.

There happens to be a swath of nations with poor education and strong religious control in which Islam is the dominant religion. There are, and were, many nations where Christianity held a similar sway over the population, law and governing powers and they were and are just as bad for women, homosexuals and minorities. We're only just getting over that inertia in places like the UK and USA, laws are only relatively recently viewing homosexuals and women as more equal to the Biblically favoured straight male. We happen to live in a time where the most "powerful" religion in this sense is Islam, but we shouldn't make the mistake of criticising it as a purely Islamic trait.

That is to say, it is the conservative nature of Islamic countries that is the issue, not the conservative nature of any one religion.

 

[Wolverine]

1) Harris argument about torture: If you are willing to fight a war, where you kill knowingly thousands of innocent people as collateral damage, torture shouldnt be automatically out of the window. Torture, especially those techniques that dont inflict permanent physical damage, is not worse than killing people. So if you are already willing to accept "collateral damange" (=the killing or innocents), it seems inconsistent to rule out categorically the use of torture for the purpose of gaining vital intel. Intelligence, that might enable you to reach you war goals faster, which might actually save people.
You might agree on this or not, but the argument has some reason behind it; at least from a moral point of view and thats what he is talking about.

Regarding point 1 (points 2 and 3 I don't take disagree on much, if at all) there's the moral arguments against torture which I'm divided on, I can see both sides of the argument and aware that I'm not in the best position to argue about what the best decision is in combat settings etc.

What gets me is that is that there are a lot of people who say that it empirically doesn't work. There is weak evidence that it works, Sam Harris is a scientist. Scientists call for evidence. Not conjecture. The much awaited Senate Intelligence committee by Diane Feinstein (apparently out this month but has faced many delays) has been fought vigorously by the CIA and the Obama administration and be censored and contain many redactions but should be interesting nonetheless. But from what I've read
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/09/us-usa-cia-torture-idUSKBN0H400720140909

"In August, officials familiar with the report said it will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks yielded no critical intelligence on terrorist plots that could not have been obtained through non-coercive methods."

And many people have said this. Prior to this the kind of people who were saying torture works were polemicists like Harris, Alan Dershowitz. On the flip side you had many former interrogators (e.g. who worked for the FBI) who interrogated senior Al Qaeda operatives said they were objectively wrong in the sense that they did not yield results and explicitly outlined non-torture tactics and the demonstrable tangible efficacy of such tactics in yielding results from even the most dangerous of criminals, terrorists. In addition they mentioned the dangers of using torture tactics in yielding false information (e.g. the link between Saddam and Al-qaeda was from the torture of al-Libi, information which many in the CIA had doubts over yet the Bush administration repeated ad nauseum to bolster support for their imminent invasion of Iraq)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ust-doesnt-work-says-former-interrogator.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303_2.html

Researchers/psychologists have come to the same conclusion
http://www.livescience.com/9209-study-torture-techniques-unethical-ineffective.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...sts-enhanced-interrogation-not-effective.html

The US Army Fields manual on intelligence interrogation explicitly says it doesn't work.
http://lawofwar.org/interrogation_techniques.htm

Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

Sam Harris did not acknowledge any of that, not one single thing out of any of that.

I read the Sam Harris piece he wrote to defend himself
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

he said torture working is "well known" and provides two links to an article, one where they threatened some dude who was a german law student who knew where some wealthy banker's kid was and another is a link to an op-ed where a guy argues like Sam Harris in favour of torture which I also raid which again regurgitates the one German law student case and Harris' POV. The op-ed (written by a law professor) in question here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rter-torture-can-be-wrong-and-still-work.html

Its well writing but short of facts, short of evidence. And Sam Harris writes in his piece that its "well-known" torture does work. And he does that a lot. And its bullshit. Like I said, he writes well, but he is an unscientific polemicist. He ignores evidence, selectively cherry picks facts that suit him. And he's cited as a rationalist thinker or whatever and has a huge online fan base.

He does this a lot, he delivers ad hominems on liberals like Chris Hedges and Glenn Greenwald who disagree with him, and argues against social scientists like Robert Pape who have come to different conclusions about terrorism than he does. My beef with Harris is that he is a good writer, but his arguments lack substance and they are often very simple minded and through a selective prism. And he's given a considerable platform. More so than he deserves.

 

[Wolverine]

He is right to pin point some issue as cultural specific than Islamic one but liberal Muslims get too defensive when it comes to the conservative nature of the religion. There are some serious questions that Muslims do need to confront themselves over regarding the state of women, homosexuals and minorities in many Muslim countries.

I actually agree with Harris 3 layer description of problem facing the Muslim population in the world. The jIhadists and Islamists are easy to condemn but conservative Muslims who while peaceful resist any condemnation of Quran, make it harder to bring about any reform. A reform much needed.

I agree with these things, I think a lot of it is linked to poverty, lack of education as well but yes in many Muslim majority countries these things have to be tackled.

But they must be done via arguments, democratic/political movements for change within those communities. And not by militarism. Or the type of secular dictatorship we saw under the Shah in Iran. And certainly not by promoting fear of all Muslims. Certainly not the Muslims living in western societies (although Britain has a problem with radicalism more so than most mind you).

 

[NoLogo]

Aslan is comepltely right in what he is pointing out you can't just treat every Islamic country as if they were the same or if the problems of one country would equally apply to all other countries. It's like saying all christian nations are war mongers when in truth it's only the USA and maybe England who are happy to jump into any war they can find and even there it's only those in powers who are really in favor of it.

To act like this sort of differentiation doesn't apply to Islamic states is pretty dishonest and I can see why Aslan is so annoyed at the CNN hosts for not grasping this very easy to understand concept that generalization of a community consisting of over a billion people is a pretty stupid thing to do.

 

[PedroMendez]

@Wolverine
You dont have to convince me, that torture is nonsense. I am not in favour of it at all. I appreciate your afford and I´ll browse through these links.
I am not wasting my time and read every single word that Harris is writing/saying. If he states, that "torture is working", than I disagree. I always assumed, that he made primarily a moral argument, while being ignorant about the actual results of torture. The moral argument is interesting, because it outlines the bigotry of many people.

My beef with Harris is that he is a good writer, but his arguments lack substance and they are often very simple minded and through a selective prism.

I fully agree with this. Harris often doesnt do his research properly (or doesnt do it at all). I also liked the article from Greenwald on harris (link) even so I dont fully agree with everything. It definitely worth reading.


Reza Aslan has a better understanding on many things, but his personal religious views are weird. I specifically disagree with the idea that scripture, tradition and teachings of a religion dont matter at all.

 

[JohnDoe]

He does this a lot, he delivers ad hominems on liberals like Chris Hedges and Glenn Greenwald who disagree with him, and argues against social scientists like Robert Pape who have come to different conclusions about terrorism than he does. My beef with Harris is that he is a good writer, but his arguments lack substance and they are often very simple minded and through a selective prism. And he's given a considerable platform. More so than he deserves.

He doesn't' ad hominem them, he rightly points out that they are misrepresenting his positions. The Greenwald article is shockingly dishonest, and yet again conflates criticism of Islam with bigotry against Muslims.

Yeah, he argues that Robert Pape is wrong. That's what grown-ups do when they disagree. Pape actually agreed to a written debate with Harris, but never responded to his first email.

 

[Raoul]

Amazing how these guys including Harris and his detractors exaggerate one anothers positions. All things said, I think Harris is spot on with his position in that we should be able to criticize bad ideas (in this case Islam, but in others Christianity and others). The likes of Greenwald, Aslan, and Werleman have oddly enough only become more vocal since Hitchens passed away. He would've obliterated them.

 

[Shamwow]

Amazing how these guys including Harris and his detractors exaggerate one anothers positions. All things said, I think Harris is spot on with his position in that we should be able to criticize bad ideas (in this case Islam, but in others Christianity and others). The likes of Greenwald, Aslan, and Werleman have oddly enough only become more vocal since Hitchens passed away. He would've obliterated them.

The problem is, you're never going to convince Muslims that Islam is a bad idea or convince Christians that Christianity is a bad idea. It's their belief!

What is a bad idea is when when the separation of church and state is removed and you end up with theocracies like Iran in its current state. That is something you can debate on a logical level in my opinion.

I think energy would be better spent debating that in particular rather than the specific religions.

 

[Shamwow]

One other thing, I don't like it when people criticize a particular religion by saying it is primitive or needs to get with the time.

If you go back in history, you can see that Christianity has been the cause of many deaths (not as much nowadays but certainly in history). Same with pretty much any religion.

To me that shows that it isn't the religion that is causing these things - it's other factors.

It also shows to me that it isn't the religion stopping these things. Christianity didn't stop Bloody Mary from cutting off all those heads. Society evolved independently of religion and that's why we don't do things like that in the UK any more.

Look at all the other things that are causing these problems before you start blaming religion because I think it's too easy to ignore all those other factors - factors which are probably much easier for the world to fix!

 

[Wolverine]

He doesn't' ad hominem them, he rightly points out that they are misrepresenting his positions. The Greenwald article is shockingly dishonest, and yet again conflates criticism of Islam with bigotry against Muslims.

Yeah, he argues that Robert Pape is wrong. That's what grown-ups do when they disagree. Pape actually agreed to a written debate with Harris, but never responded to his first email.

Fair enough.I would like to see more of Harris in debates with people, he would be quite formidable because he is able to articulate his points of view very well. As much as I disagree with a lot of what he says.

And I disagree with you, I thought the Greenwald article was the first time somebody really challenged Harris. I always get that from Harris, he says "misrepresenting his positions", when the quotes are blatant for everyone to see. Greenwald specifically said you can criticise Islam without being a bigot, but he took exception to Harris continued insistence that Islam is the supreme threat. And not give enough consideration to other factors.

I do find it funny how Harris' online posts are so barbed, he once wrote an "open letter" to Chris Hedges which started with "Dear Lunatic" and yet he is so incredibly calm and zen-like in real life debates.

Its a shame about Robert Pape, academics don't necessarily always make real-time debaters and maybe he bottled it. Scott Atran who is of a similar disposition went up against Harris in a debate but you could tell Harris was the more comfortable and natural talker. Even though I believe Atran had the better arguments which stem from his background in actual fieldwork on terrorism and background in anthropology.

feck him though, Harris I mean. you can't talk your way out of things if you believe that torturing and racial profiling is right. And that we should be listening more to fascists to understand how much of a problem Islam his.

Amazing how these guys including Harris and his detractors exaggerate one anothers positions. All things said, I think Harris is spot on with his position in that we should be able to criticize bad ideas (in this case Islam, but in others Christianity and others). The likes of Greenwald, Aslan, and Werleman have oddly enough only become more vocal since Hitchens passed away. He would've obliterated them.

Not sure about the other two but Greenwald is exceptional at being able to hold his own in a debate. I did like him for not letting Bill Maher get away with being all...Bill Maher.

 

[Raoul]

The problem is, you're never going to convince Muslims that Islam is a bad idea or convince Christians that Christianity is a bad idea. It's their belief!

What is a bad idea is when when the separation of church and state is removed and you end up with theocracies like Iran in its current state. That is something you can debate on a logical level in my opinion.

I think energy would be better spent debating that in particular rather than the specific religions.

That's one problem. Another is that people who don't believe shouldn't be restricted from speaking out against a particular belief or idea. This is one area where religions (here Islam) shouldn't be given a free pass out of fear of threat or retribution. Harris said it best on Maher's show. If they were to burn a Koran or something of the like, they would have to go in hiding, hire bodyguards, and effectively hide from society for the rest of their lives. That's a problem and it should've be swept under the carpet to avoid offending anyone.

 

[Raoul]

Fair enough.I would like to see more of Harris in debates with people, he would be quite formidable because he is able to articulate his points of view very well. As much as I disagree with a lot of what he says.

And I disagree with you, I thought the Greenwald article was the first time somebody really challenged Harris. I always get that from Harris, he says "misrepresenting his positions", when the quotes are blatant for everyone to see. Greenwald specifically said you can criticise Islam without being a bigot, but he took exception to Harris continued insistence that Islam is the supreme threat. And not give enough consideration to other factors.

I do find it funny how Harris' online posts are so barbed, he once wrote an "open letter" to Chris Hedges which started with "Dear Lunatic" and yet he is so incredibly calm and zen-like in real life debates.

Its a shame about Robert Pape, academics don't necessarily always make real-time debaters and maybe he bottled it. Scott Atran who is of a similar disposition went up against Harris in a debate but you could tell Harris was the more comfortable and natural talker. Even though I believe Atran had the better arguments which stem from his background in actual fieldwork on terrorism and background in anthropology.

feck him though, Harris I mean. you can't talk your way out of things if you believe that torturing and racial profiling is right. And that we should be listening more to fascists to understand how much of a problem Islam his.



Not sure about the other two but Greenwald is exceptional at being able to hold his own in a debate. I did like him for not letting Bill Maher get away with being all...Bill Maher.

Can't really disagree with any of Greenwald's points here. He was obviously better prepared than Maher and his tedious cocktail party one liners. Would love to see Greenwald and Harris go at it.

 

[Shamwow]

That's one problem. Another is that people who don't believe shouldn't be restricted from speaking out against a particular belief or idea. This is one area where religions (here Islam) shouldn't be given a free pass out of fear of threat or retribution. Harris said it best on Maher's show. If they were to burn a Koran or something of the like, they would have to go in hiding, hire bodyguards, and effectively hide from society for the rest of their lives. That's a problem and it should'nt be swept under the carpet to avoid offending anyone.

Agreed.

(Is that pastor who burned the Qurans a couple of years back still alive and well?

 

[Raoul]

Terry Jones - he is still alive and kicking, although he's obviously since been exposed as an attention seeking fraud.

 

[JohnDoe]

Fair enough.I would like to see more of Harris in debates with people, he would be quite formidable because he is able to articulate his points of view very well. As much as I disagree with a lot of what he says.

And I disagree with you, I thought the Greenwald article was the first time somebody really challenged Harris. I always get that from Harris, he says "misrepresenting his positions", when the quotes are blatant for everyone to see. Greenwald specifically said you can criticise Islam without being a bigot, but he took exception to Harris continued insistence that Islam is the supreme threat. And not give enough consideration to other factors.

I do find it funny how Harris' online posts are so barbed, he once wrote an "open letter" to Chris Hedges which started with "Dear Lunatic" and yet he is so incredibly calm and zen-like in real life debates.

Its a shame about Robert Pape, academics don't necessarily always make real-time debaters and maybe he bottled it. Scott Atran who is of a similar disposition went up against Harris in a debate but you could tell Harris was the more comfortable and natural talker. Even though I believe Atran had the better arguments which stem from his background in actual fieldwork on terrorism and background in anthropology.

feck him though, Harris I mean. you can't talk your way out of things if you believe that torturing and racial profiling is right. And that we should be listening more to fascists to understand how much of a problem Islam his.

It's trivially easy to strip that Greenwald article of all credibility. Here's the quote from Harris that Greenwald called "very revealing":

"the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."

Here's that quote in context:

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

The rest of his article consists of (deliberate?) misunderstandings of Harris' arguments on torture and profiling, and an infantile, borderline hysterical outrage at Harris for having the audacity to claim that Islam at this moment in history is simply more dangerous and violent than other faiths - a fact so glaringly obvious you'd think nobody could deny it with a straight face.

The fact that he refers to CAIR as "a Muslim advocacy group" tells you all you need to know about the limits of his understanding on this topic. CAIR is a fascist organization seeking to aggressively suppress all criticism of Islam and label everyone who dares to speak on this topic as "racists" and "Islamophobes". They're one of the biggest enemies of freedom of speech in the US.

Harris has certainly made himself an easier target than necessary at times with some of the rhetoric he's used (even if his points should still be relatively easy to grasp), but it's difficult to conjure up an ounce of intellectual respect for people who lazily latch on to a couple of quotes (which, within their context, are really not that controversial) in order to smear someone instead of actively engaging their arguments. But I guess when you don't have an actual argument of yourself that's the only way to go.

And Maher is hardly a great debater.

 

[Shamwow]

That's one problem. Another is that people who don't believe shouldn't be restricted from speaking out against a particular belief or idea. This is one area where religions (here Islam) shouldn't be given a free pass out of fear of threat or retribution. Harris said it best on Maher's show. If they were to burn a Koran or something of the like, they would have to go in hiding, hire bodyguards, and effectively hide from society for the rest of their lives. That's a problem and it should've be swept under the carpet to avoid offending anyone.

As an aide, I do find it funny that they say that they can't criticise Islam, while criticising Islam (and using this as a criticism of Islam).

 

[Raoul]

As an aide, I do find it funny that they say that they can't criticise Islam, while criticising Islam (and using this as a criticism of Islam).

Their point is they can't criticize it beyond a certain threshold in terms of mockery, polemics, and burning its symbols without fearing for their lives.

 

[Phurry]

Their point is they can't criticize it beyond a certain threshold in terms of mockery, polemics, and burning its symbols without fearing for their lives.

As Jimmy Carr has been known to mention, it's ok to take the piss out of the Catholic Church, what are they going to do, organise a fete?

 

[Shamwow]

As Jimmy Carr has been known to mention, it's ok to take the piss out of the Catholic Church, what are they going to do, organise a fete?

They've been known to bomb the odd person to be fair.

 

[crappycraperson]

I agree with these things, I think a lot of it is linked to poverty, lack of education as well but yes in many Muslim majority countries these things have to be tackled.

But they must be done via arguments, democratic/political movements for change within those communities. And not by militarism. Or the type of secular dictatorship we saw under the Shah in Iran. And certainly not by promoting fear of all Muslims. Certainly not the Muslims living in western societies (although Britain has a problem with radicalism more so than most mind you).

Poverty is an issue. But to give an example, muslims in India recently rejected calls by Al Qaeda and ISIS to join them. In comparison with British Muslims for example, fewer Indian Muslims have joined ISIS even though they are much more in numbers. This is very praiseworthy but at the same time, the Muslims who condemn ISIS are as vociferous in opposing any reform to Muslim Personal law in India.

Muslim organisations have made it impossible for any Govt to introduce uniform civil law or abolish polygamy for Muslims. Something which leads to a farcical situation where Hindus convert to Islam to escape conviction for bigamy. They are also hesitant to move away from Madrasas' to proper system of education, which is needed badly to bring a lot of Muslims mainstream and for economic gain of the entire community. There are Muslims organisations in India fighting for such things but are largely ineffective since majority of the Muslims remain happy with status quo for one reason or another.

This is where Maher's criticism of liberals is relevant. I have always maintained that liberals stance on uniform civil law code in India is baffling. They chose to ignore the badly needed reform in Muslim personal law, just so they can oppose the Hindu fundamentalists on this issue. Several woman organisations suffering due to such laws (divorce and alimony laws are an example) also get little support for this reason.

 

[PedroMendez]

Sam harris always argues only one angle, ignoring many other important points. If you ignore too much, your argument/position loses credibility (or just becomes blatantly wrong) without saying something precisely wrong. Oversimplification itself can be a problem and thats legitimate criticism towards harris if he speaks about terrorism, suicide bombers or the political and militar conflicts in the middle east.

If I explain the "Thirty Years' War" only by its religious angle, I dont necessarily say anything wrong, but I forgot to mention 90% of the story and you would have a complete false idea of what happened and why it happened.

There are also some examples where he is factually just wrong.

If you talk about social deficits it Muslim societies, Islam plays a major role and its important to publicly talk about it. In this context I completely agree with @crappy´s last post. In this context Harris raises important points, while many liberals tend to have annoying double moral standards.

 

[crappycraperson]

This is probably what Muslims get irritated about. It isn't the conservative nature of Islam (the religion), it's the conservative nature of religion, certainly Abrahamic religion. Any nation where such a religion is allowed to dictate over governance and law has horribly mediaeval views towards women, homosexuals and minorities.

There happens to be a swath of nations with poor education and strong religious control in which Islam is the dominant religion. There are, and were, many nations where Christianity held a similar sway over the population, law and governing powers and they were and are just as bad for women, homosexuals and minorities. We're only just getting over that inertia in places like the UK and USA, laws are only relatively recently viewing homosexuals and women as more equal to the Biblical favoured straight male. We happen to live in a time where the most "powerful" religion in this sense is Islam, but we shouldn't make the mistake of criticising it as a purely Islamic trait.

That is to say, it is the conservative nature of Islamic countries that is the issue, not the conservative nature of any one religion.

Religion very much is one of the main driving cause of such conservative nature in several countries, any religion for that matter. Christianity in US, is THE reason behind the discrimination faced by homosexuals. All arguments against it have now essentially boiled down to - "Well.. the Bible says it is wrong". Rate of execution in a state like Texas is also deeply influenced by the religious beliefs of people in the state. I have met many a Texan who say they believe in capital punishment because it is a biblical thing. Heck, part of US's support for Israel is driven by evangelicals belief in prophecies and stuff.

By same token, Quran IS used by several people and organisations to fight reform in almost all Muslim countries. Even Turkey, cited as the most secular Muslim country has it own share of conservative population, trying to assert itself over the liberal half.

Some people take issue with singling out Islam, but there are some issues that are exclusive to Islam right now so it is logical that it will be singled out. People tend to brush over the response Danish cartoons generated but the ferociousness of the protests in Muslims countries was telling and should have been ridiculed vehemently to drive home a point. If prophets or gods of all other religions can be mocked at, you simply can't give Islam a pass, by doing so you are actually condemning it is as more regressive than other religions. Then there is the issue of global jihad. Yes, other religions, almost all, have or are also being used as vehicle for violence but the scale is not comparable. You don't have British Hindus coming to India to join a riot but British Muslims, born in a different culture, are joining ISIS (whatever small the number may be). To give a final example, no author who has criticized any other religion needs/needed the security Salman Rushdie did because of one book that supposedly hurt Muslim sentiments. All that fatwa business was frankly ridiculous, and should be address by Muslim reformers. In this day and age you can't escape criticism with such non sense.

 

[bishblaize]

Religion very much is one of the main driving cause of such conservative nature in several countries, any religion for that matter. Christianity in US, is THE reason behind the discrimination faced by homosexuals. All arguments against it have now essentially boiled down to - "Well.. the Bible says it is wrong". Rate of execution in a state like Texas is also deeply influenced by the religious beliefs of people in the state. I have met many a Texan who say they believe in capital punishment because it is a biblical thing. Heck, part of US's support for Israel is driven by evangelicals belief in prophecies and stuff.

Are you able to say with certainty that christianity is causing those beliefs? Or is it just a justification for them? If christianity disappeared, would those beliefs disappear too?

 

[crappycraperson]

Are you able to say with certainty that christianity is causing those beliefs? Or is it just a justification for them? If christianity disappeared, would those beliefs disappear too?

Of course it won't disappear. After all KKK still exists so some form discrimination against any group will always be present. Christianity's opposition to homosexuality is very much the driving force behind the discrimination faced by homosexuals in US right now. It is self evident right now with mostly liberal states enacting homosexual friendly laws much earlier than conservative ones who are now struggling to find any logical/legal reason to deny them equal rights.

 

[crappycraperson]

A very good article on this issue -

http://www.newslaundry.com/2014/10/07/why-i-agree-with-bill-mahers-views-on-islam/

 

[Raoul]

As usual, good recap from Cenk.

 

[NoLogo]

Amazing how these guys including Harris and his detractors exaggerate one anothers positions. All things said, I think Harris is spot on with his position in that we should be able to criticize bad ideas (in this case Islam, but in others Christianity and others). The likes of Greenwald, Aslan, and Werleman have oddly enough only become more vocal since Hitchens passed away. He would've obliterated them.

I think Greenwald's criticism of Harris is very justified. Harris says he just want to debate "ideas" the problem is he doesn't do that. He takes example that happen in one Islamic state and than generalizes this onto all of Islam and that's what Greenwald is pointing out. He also criticizes that Harris makes all his arguments under the assumption that the West are the good guys and the Islmaic world are the bad guys and of course that's a problematic state if you don't have a problem with collateral damage from bombing but with terror attacks just because you think you can claim the moral high ground.

On top of that I would even challenge Harris and Maher's thesis that Islam is worse than any other religion as I don't think on a theological basis that there is much difference in terms of desirableness between all three Abrahamic religions and who could it be as they all sprung from the same source. It could be made a case that the less secular a country is the more negative influence a religion will have but even among all Islamic countries the rate of secularism or non-secularism isn't the same. So calling Islam the mother load of bad ideas is problematic stance to take in my view.

 

[bishblaize]

Of course it won't disappear. After all KKK still exists so some form discrimination against any group will always be present. Christianity's opposition to homosexuality is very much the driving force behind the discrimination faced by homosexuals in US right now. It is self evident right now with mostly liberal states enacting homosexual friendly laws much earlier than conservative ones who are now struggling to find any logical/legal reason to deny them equal rights.

Maybe it's a US thing, the heartland of Christian fundamentalism that it is, but I wouldn't say conservative=Christian and liberal=atheist from a European perspective.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

Religion very much is one of the main driving cause of such conservative nature in several countries, any religion for that matter. Christianity in US, is THE reason behind the discrimination faced by homosexuals. All arguments against it have now essentially boiled down to - "Well.. the Bible says it is wrong". Rate of execution in a state like Texas is also deeply influenced by the religious beliefs of people in the state. I have met many a Texan who say they believe in capital punishment because it is a biblical thing. Heck, part of US's support for Israel is driven by evangelicals belief in prophecies and stuff.

By same token, Quran IS used by several people and organisations to fight reform in almost all Muslim countries. Even Turkey, cited as the most secular Muslim country has it own share of conservative population, trying to assert itself over the liberal half.

Some people take issue with singling out Islam, but there are some issues that are exclusive to Islam right now so it is logical that it will be singled out. People tend to brush over the response Danish cartoons generated but the ferociousness of the protests in Muslims countries was telling and should have been ridiculed vehemently to drive home a point. If prophets or gods of all other religions can be mocked at, you simply can't give Islam a pass, by doing so you are actually condemning it is as more regressive than other religions. Then there is the issue of global jihad. Yes, other religions, almost all, have or are also being used as vehicle for violence but the scale is not comparable. You don't have British Hindus coming to India to join a riot but British Muslims, born in a different culture, are joining ISIS (whatever small the number may be). To give a final example, no author who has criticized any other religion needs/needed the security Salman Rushdie did because of one book that supposedly hurt Muslim sentiments. All that fatwa business was frankly ridiculous, and should be address by Muslim reformers. In this day and age you can't escape criticism with such non sense.

The power religion is entirely reliant on people allowing it power though. Only in countries where people are willing to allow religion to control things is it able to. Of course in the US Christianity is the reason, but since the nation has become more educated and secular and less people allow religion that power, the discrimination is marginalised. If Saudi was as secular as the UK, then Islam would have far less power there. If any nation stuck to the law as decreed in their religious book (Islam, Christianity or Judaism) then that country would be a awful place to live for most non-majority people. It so happens that today most nations where religion is allowed that power (by the conservative nature of its population) are Islamic but they're not all Islamic.

 

[Raoul]

O'Reilly sticking his beak in... (1:20 onwards)

 

[nimic]

Maybe it's a US thing, the heartland of Christian fundamentalism that it is, but I wouldn't say conservative=Christian and liberal=atheist from a European perspective.

There's definitely an element of that in Europe, it's just not as pronounced as in the US. You still have a larger degree of Christians conservatives than Christians socialists or social democrats. Of course, some Christian parties are more liberal, usually social-liberal, (not the American liberal) than conservative.

 

[Shamwow]

As usual, good recap from Cenk.

I love that guy, he's very good at taking a step back and considering both sides of the argument which is a surprisingly rare trait.

 

[Wolverine]

I do like his point about generalising about someone's entirety as a human being based on beliefs in a few stupid ideas. I have problems with many things Muslims believe. Conspiracy theories, backwards views on women, wanting to impose a strict interpretation of Sharia Law, views on apostasy, homosexuality etc. And I will challenge them on it. But to say that Muslims therefore are a uniquely supreme threat because of that in not true.

And this is because we view the guys in well tailored suits who carry out horrendous decisions in the name of realpolitik as being a million miles away from the headchoppers of ISIS. But when a bomb drops on an innocent civilian it isn't the sound of soothing jaaz music. It is just as horrendous, but we don't see it that way. The Iraq War many will talk about in terms like "strategic mistake" and a lot will still back the kind of militarism that leads to death of innocents, political instability and chaos. So yes we need to fight both things.

“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them." - Sam Harris

I take issue with Sam Harris being the moral arbiter of what is and isn't an ethical thing to kill people for when it comes to religion/politics. Its almost "precrime". The above sentence isn't "misrepresenting his position" you could give me an entire book following or prefacing that and say it lends that statement "context" (a tactic new atheists actually abhor when this is used by religious apologists) but there really isn't any other way to interpret that sentence.

We can sit pretty and believe in cultural supremacism and look at polls to make ourselves feel better but just because the West is forward in many ways does not mean it has a pernicious effect on the world with foreign policy but just as I wouldn't caricature people in the west who don't rage actively against that system in the way I feel would result in a change, I wouldn't do so for the vast majority of the Muslim population. I do agree though that I think labels like bigot/phobe aren't useful and in some cases not warranted because we need to be able to debate these ideas.

There's this clip of Jeremy Scahill who I'm a huge fan of suggesting how we're getting it wrong so far