• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Sam Harris discussion thread

Mvika

New member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
180
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Haidt's very Fe take on Sam's "Aggressive Rationalism"

Open to debate: Here, Haidt seems to agree with Sam on most issues but, nevertheless, seems to take objection to how Sam is intellectually bulldozing his way though the opposition with little sensitivity. I am reminded of Edmund Burke's scathing condemnation of the "men of letters" whom he accused of having "conspired" to bring about the French Revolution--Something he referred to as the "digest of anarchy."

What brought on Burke's vitriolic contempt, who was a liberal himself, was what he saw as the thoughtlessness and irresponsibility of men who ought to have known better than to have encouraged the overthrow of traditional French institutions and traditions to create an unstable, experimental social system from scratch. It appears to me, Haidt seems to have similar concerns about the Neo-atheists, whom he sees as polarizing and radical in their approach to bring about social change.

This to me seems like a very Fe perspective versus Fi perspective conflict. Thoughts? :)

Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind | The Evolution Institute
 
Last edited:

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
I'm not sure I understand the question above, about the distribution of moral authority, but I'm moderately certain he'd say people should learn to trust themselves and their own moral judgment. I could be mistaken, but I think that's the general Atheist viewpoint.

Well, you have to have the moral authority to coerce people and I don't think he or most atheists are anarchists.
So my question is whence does that moral authority come from and is it singular or distributed?


(And if anyone wants to find a clip of Sam Harris talking about this to post in this thread for discussion, that's fine. But any grievances about the distribution of moral authority in Atheism in general, it'd be appreciated if it were put in another thread.)

That's fair enough.

I suppose I can tie it in more by asking if he thinks science can be an authority on moral issues how does that actually work out in society?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
We became civilised when we disarmed the militias and enforced the law with State power.

The USA has never disarmed the militias and never become civilised.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not contain the Right to Bear Arms. Yet the USA does not see the contradiction between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of the USA.

Every day we read about counties with armed militias, and although it's not politically correct to say so, we regard them as uncivilised. And it is not only politically incorrect to say, for the same reason, that the USA is uncivilised, it is also unwise and in some circumstances, dangerous.

Sam Harris is perhaps the most formidable critic of religion active today, but through and through he is as American as apple pie.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, you have to have the moral authority to coerce people and I don't think he or most atheists are anarchists.
So my question is whence does that moral authority come from and is it singular or distributed?

I'm still not sure I understand what you mean by "moral authority", but I believe he would say that it's far better for someone to have an internal moral authority (relying on one's own sensibilities) than to have an external moral authority (religion being the primary disciplinarian/moral compass). Any individual who feels they have the moral authority to coerce others (the 1% of psychopaths among us notwithstanding) isn't going to have a particularly rewarding life*- that's the reason for not doing harm to others from an internal moral authority standpoint.

*Unless they're doing it in the name of some external moral authority and have lots of support from others in their belief system for doing so- but the reward in this case isn't directly from coercing others so much as it is from the consequent connection to others in that belief system. And I'm not just talking about religion here.


That's fair enough.

I suppose I can tie it in more by asking if he thinks science can be an authority on moral issues how does that actually work out in society?

I don't think he does say that science can be an authority on moral issues. I think he'd say that believing in what can be scientifically proven allows a person to ultimately have the most sound internal 'moral authority' (again, if I understand 'moral authority' as what you mean it to be), but I don't think he'd say science is any kind of authority on moral issues.

****

[MENTION=29233]Mvika[/MENTION], thanks for posting the Haidt thing- I've listened to about half his podcast with Haidt, and they referenced a previous disagreement between them a lot but I never looked it up. (I haven't read the link yet, but I plan to.....just like I 'plan to' catch up with the rest of this thread...)
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
I don't know as much about Harris as I should, but the little I have seen of him sort of makes me go :huh:. I agree with him on most of what I've seen him talk about, but he's just too focused on end goals, and doesn't care about process.

It's not really a secret, but I really don't like religion and spirituality at all. Makes my stomach turn. The former I have felt since I was very little. However I understand for the vast majority of people, religion brings them richness to their world and it doesn't do any harm. It's cruel to try and take that away from them en masse. Religion does cause a lot of political problems because it tries to intersect into it, and I think that's what Harris and a lot of vocal atheists care about most. They see those problems and want to aggressively nip it in the bud. You just can't do that. It's the opposite side of the coin of trying to force religion into other peoples lives and the ways in which they live. And, would cause the same sort of problems.

The goal of atheists should be to remind people of all religions that it's a personal practice that should be contained within the social groups that are part of it. You can't pass it beyond that, and you certainly can't merge it into politics and law that requires individuals who don't subscribe to it to do so.
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I didn't know who he was, so I looked him up on wikipedia.

I'm not familiar with all his positions simply by looking him up though, but for example I do disagree with views regarding free will. He views will as simply a result of biomechanical porcesses, which I disagree with. Yes, we have biological reasons for wanting what we want, but we also have will (the capacity to choose and go beyond our environement). What I mean by "go beyond our environment" is basically that we can will something based on anticipating our future states, and work towards those future states at the detriment of the present. Children and adolescents (who don't have many experience of past states) cannot thus anticipate future states as much as older people can, since they have les knowledge of how goals are developped over time. The older you get, the better you are at anticipating future states and projecting yourself into the future, however, you have less time ahead of you as well. To say then, that we are purely biomechanical beings with no free will sounds like we have no capacity for future-building or future-orientedness since it implies that we cannot go beyond the biological wants of the present moment.

I mean I understand where he's coming from, but I think certain elements of our consciousness cannot be explained by science only.

Harris says the idea of free will is incoherent and "cannot be mapped on to any conceivable reality." Humans are not free and no sense can be given to the concept that we might be According to Harris, science "reveals you to be a biochemical puppet." People's thoughts and intentions, Harris says, "emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control." Every choice we make is made as a result of preceding causes. These choices we make are determined by those causes, and are therefore not really choices at all. Harris also draws a distinction between conscious and unconscious reactions to the world. Even without free will, consciousness has an important role to play in the choices we make. Harris argues that this realization about the human mind does not undermine morality or diminish the importance of social and political freedom, but it can and should change the way we think about some of the most important questions in life.

Sam Harris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Mvika

New member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
180
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't know as much about Harris as I should, but the little I have seen of him sort of makes me go :huh:. I agree with him on most of what I've seen him talk about, but he's just too focused on end goals, and doesn't care about process.

It's not really a secret, but I really don't like religion and spirituality at all. Makes my stomach turn. The former I have felt since I was very little. However I understand for the vast majority of people, religion brings them richness to their world and it doesn't do any harm. It's cruel to try and take that away from them en masse. Religion does cause a lot of political problems because it tries to intersect into it, and I think that's what Harris and a lot of vocal atheists care about most. They see those problems and want to aggressively nip it in the bud. You just can't do that. It's the opposite side of the coin of trying to force religion into other peoples lives and the ways in which they live. And, would cause the same sort of problems.

The goal of atheists should be to remind people of all religions that it's a personal practice that should be contained within the social groups that are part of it. You can't pass it beyond that, and you certainly can't merge it into politics and law that requires individuals who don't subscribe to it to do so.

Haidt (above) says exactly what you say! That is why I thought that it was a Fe Versis Fi clash. Sam is very strong on Fi and very weak on Fe. This makes him come across as heartless and pushy, while in his mind, he is uncompromisingly providing "tough love" to the society he loves so much. He receives death threats and is hated so much, but goes on with his truth, which he feels is like a bitter medicine that will eventually save all of us.

Lot of Fe/Fi clashes are not on substance but on style.

Fe: Why do you have to rock the boat and make people uncomfortable. They have so little comfort anyway.
Fi: They will never get better if I don't push them into deep waters and make them learn to swim. This boat has a hole in it and it won't last long. Give up this comfort and see the ugly truth. That is the only way we will all survive.

Now the Fi's "truth" may not be perfect, but it very very sincere; as sincere as Fe's concern for harmony and sparing people discomfort. In the end both are concerned about people, but go about it in a diametrically opposite manner. At least, that is my take on this. :)
 

Mvika

New member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
180
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I didn't know who he was, so I looked him up on wikipedia.

I'm not familiar with all his positions simply by looking him up though, but for example I do disagree with views regarding free will. He views will as simply a result of biomechanical porcesses, which I disagree with. Yes, we have biological reasons for wanting what we want, but we also have will (the capacity to choose and go beyond our environement). What I mean by "go beyond our environment" is basically that we can will something based on anticipating our future states, and work towards those future states at the detriment of the present. Children and adolescents (who don't have many experience of past states) cannot thus anticipate future states as much as older people can, since they have les knowledge of how goals are developped over time. The older you get, the better you are at anticipating future states and projecting yourself into the future, however, you have less time ahead of you as well. To say then, that we are purely biomechanical beings with no free will sounds like we have no capacity for future-building or future-orientedness since it implies that we cannot go beyond the biological wants of the present moment.

I mean I understand where he's coming from, but I think certain elements of our consciousness cannot be explained by science only.



Sam Harris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the wiki article was written by a hater! This is not his view AT ALL! I will look up passages from his books! But he definitely doesn't think of people as biochemical puppets! If he did, his whole work "The moral landscape" would be moot for people who have no free will have no obligation to morality at all. Morality is always a choice! This is why animals are amoral. They cannot be immoral. They are hardwired by instincts that make the decision circumventing the rational processes.

I will definitely come up with a properly researched answer here! Thanks for pointing out the gross misrepresentation on Wiki. I will contact his representatives through his website and find out what is going on.

Thanks for reading and sharing your views! :)
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Haidt (above) says exactly what you say! That is why I thought that it was a Fe Versis Fi clash. Sam is very strong on Fi and very weak on Fe. This makes him come across as heartless and pushy, while in his mind, he is uncompromisingly providing "tough love" to the society he loves so much. He receives death threats and is hated so much, but goes on with his truth, which he feels is like a bitter medicine that will eventually save all of us.

Lot of Fe/Fi clashes are not on substance but on style.

Fe: Why do you have to rock the boat and make people uncomfortable. They have so little comfort anyway.
Fi: They will never get better if I don't push them into deep waters and make them learn to swim. This boat has a hole in it and it won't last long. Give up this comfort and see the ugly truth. That is the only way we will all survive.

Now the Fi's "truth" may not be perfect, but it very very sincere; as sincere as Fe's concern for harmony and sparing people discomfort. In the end both are concerned about people, but go about it in a diametrically opposite manner. At least, that is my take on this. :)

The great debate between Fi and Fe (particular Fi doms and Fe doms) is internal consistency vs. external consistenty. I am STRONGLY Je dominant (when I measure my functions it's always Fe and Te at the top), so I focus so much more on external consistency, and often view the internal as something that can be very convoluted so long as the output is consistent and fair. Which, drives Fi crazy, because it's the complete opposite of what they do and value.

In the case of atheism vs. religion, I recognize it as a completely unsolveable problem. Which does drive me crazy. If I had a button in front of me that would wipe the wirings in humans to hinge on religion I would press it with no hesitation. I'd like to see it gone. The problem is human nature will always latch onto ideals, which religions fill. If we didn't have religions, we'd have the same sort of mentalities with philosophies and politics. Most would be fair, but you'd get the minority of crazies that take it too far.

Because of this unsolveable problem due to human nature, I can't condone trying to convert people. All I care about is preventing the problems that religion can impose when it's taken too far. It's the best anyone can do. That's not internally consistent though, and I do see that, but I have to break that consistency to acheive the best ends I can.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Sam Harris is probably the single greatest danger to religion. He is intelligent with integrity, he is well educated, he is self controlled, and he is an experienced meditator.

His weaknesses are twofold: he naively accepts some of the worst American values, and he really does expect be loved by those he criticises.

Like all great men it looks like he will be brought down by his flaws.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's possible I haven't read/listened to enough Harris, but I don't think I've seen him trying to convert anyone? He has a slightly more aggressive approach to dialogue than I'm comfortable with, and I think that leads people to insert intentions 'between the lines' (because he doesn't insert "and it's not that I think ___" sorts of disclaimers), but I've never heard him actually say he thinks people should convert. He's actually gone on about how beautiful he thinks certain religious works are. He's demonstrated awe at the beauty religion can create. His only problem with religion, that I know of, is when it leads good people to do bad things (I don't know how to expound on that last phrase except to say that good people cause harm believing they are doing the 'right' thing).

I mean, I'd actually like to see it if anyone has seem him claim that no one should be religious.
 

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,711
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Interesting

The Sun Magazine | The Temple Of Reason

Saltman: Your analogy between organized religion and rape is pretty inflammatory. Is that intentional?

Harris: I can be even more inflammatory than that. If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.

Fascinating.

Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and “New Atheists” aren’t new, aren’t even atheists - Salon.com

What Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are preaching is a polemic that has been around since the 18th century – one properly termed, anti-theism.

The earliest known English record of the term “anti-theist” dates back to 1788, but the first citation of the word can be found in the 1833 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as “one opposed to belief in the existence of a god” (italics mine). In other words, while an atheist believes there is no god and so follows no religion, an anti-theist opposes the very idea of religious belief, often viewing religion as an insidious force that must be rooted from society – forcibly if necessary.

The late Christopher Hitchens, one of the icons of the New Atheist movement, understood this difference well. “I’m not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist,”he wrote in his “Letters to a Young Contrarian.” “I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.”

......

For a great many atheists, atheism does not merely signify “lack of belief” but is itself a kind of positive worldview, one that “includes numerous beliefs about the world and what is in it,” to quote the atheist philosopher Julian Baggini. Baggini cautions against viewing atheism as a “parasitic rival to theism.” Rather, he agrees with the historian of religions James Thrower, who considers modern atheism to be “a self-contained belief system” – one predicated on a series of propositions about the nature of reality, the source of human morality, the foundation of societal ethics, the question of free will, and so on.

.....

Atheists often respond that atheism should not be held responsible for the actions of these authoritarian regimes, and they are absolutely right. It wasn’t atheism that motivated Stalin and Mao to demolish or expropriate houses of worship, to slaughter tens of thousands of priests, nuns and monks, and to prohibit the publication and dissemination of religious material. It was anti-theism that motivated them to do so. After all, if you truly believe that religion is “one of the world’s great evils” –as bad as smallpox and worse than rape; if you believe religion is a form of child abuse; that it is “violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children” – if you honestly believed this about religion, then what lengths would you not go through to rid society of it?

....

The appeal of New Atheism is that it offered non-believers a muscular and dogmatic form of atheism specifically designed to push back against muscular and dogmatic religious belief. Yet that is also, in my opinion, the main problem with New Atheism. In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.

.....

Like religious fundamentalism, New Atheism is primarily a reactionary phenomenon, one that responds to religion with the same venomous ire with which religious fundamentalists respond to atheism. What one finds in the writings of anti-theist ideologues like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is the same sense ofblessutter certainty, the same claim to a monopoly on truth, the same close-mindedness that views one’s own position as unequivocally good and one’s opponent’s views as not just wrong but irrational and even stupid, the same intolerance for alternative explanations, the same rabid adherents(as anyone who has dared criticize Dawkins or Harris on social media can attest), and, most shockingly, the same proselytizing fervor that one sees in any fundamentalist community.

....

There is, of course, nothing wrong with an anti-theistic worldview, though I personally find it to be rooted in a naive and, dare I say, unscientific understanding of religion – one thoroughly disconnected from the history of religious thought. Every major religion has, at one time or another, been guilty of the crimes that these anti-theists accuse religion of. But do not confuse the dogmatic, polemical, militant anti-theism of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and their ilk with atheism. The former rejects religious claims; the latter is“actively, diametrically and categorically opposed to them.”

I don't think much of the New Atheism movement and I am not a big fan of Harris. The rape vs. religion statement alone is disgusting.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I don't think much of the New Atheism movement and I am not a big fan of Harris.

It really is a question of which is true, theology or astronomy, natural selection, relativity, quantum mechanics, the periodic table, modern economics, evidence based medicine, or the limitation of power through liberal democracy.

We only have to ask the question to know the answer. Yet theologians twist themselves out of shape defending the indefensible, or worse, the theologians use force to establish theocratic States.
 

Mvika

New member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
180
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I didn't know who he was, so I looked him up on wikipedia.

I'm not familiar with all his positions simply by looking him up though, but for example I do disagree with views regarding free will. He views will as simply a result of biomechanical porcesses, which I disagree with. Yes, we have biological reasons for wanting what we want, but we also have will (the capacity to choose and go beyond our environement). What I mean by "go beyond our environment" is basically that we can will something based on anticipating our future states, and work towards those future states at the detriment of the present. Children and adolescents (who don't have many experience of past states) cannot thus anticipate future states as much as older people can, since they have les knowledge of how goals are developped over time. The older you get, the better you are at anticipating future states and projecting yourself into the future, however, you have less time ahead of you as well. To say then, that we are purely biomechanical beings with no free will sounds like we have no capacity for future-building or future-orientedness since it implies that we cannot go beyond the biological wants of the present moment.

I mean I understand where he's coming from, but I think certain elements of our consciousness cannot be explained by science only.



Sam Harris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Finally, I have some more information to share!

Sam's explanation of illusion of free will is based on path-dependance. What he argues is that, for everything we see as a choice, we can regress back to events, experiences, genetic make up, culture and conditioning as the precursors of these choices. This leads to an endless regression and it is hard to see where or when we were absolutely "free" to choose. His belief in this kind of determinism is not so much science based (physical brain) as from subjective reflections and objective examination of how we make our decisions. He does not say that determinism is fatalism. Far from it, he says that there is little room for pride or shame because so much is not in out hands. He also pushes for moral responsibility in "choosing" to the extent that we can given our self as it is at the moment, to improve ourselves and help others as well. His argument is that we are an open system of our natural make up, our experiences,chance and the universe itself. Instead of seeing the world from a self-centered point of view, he encourages us to see the interdependence --- both linear/longitudinal in terms of who we were a minute ago to who we are now, and cross-sectional--as in how everything around us is interacting with us and shaping us. Here is his explanation and another video with Q&A. The best part of watching this video was that it made me feel so much compassion for people and question my need to place blame or ask for retribution.




Q&A


Thank you for asking this question: I wasn't aware of this part of his philosophy, hence my previous reply to you. I stand corrected!:)
 

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Finally, a non-annoying thread tag! I don't agree with everything he says, but I love how eminently reasonable he is, and how he strives for intellectual clarity and ethical coherence.

I don't think much of the New Atheist movement and I am not a big fan of Harris. The rape vs. religion statement alone is disgusting.

Try to see it from his POV for a second:

That quote actually makes sense in the context of the interview, even if it sounds bold. The juxtaposition occurs because the Harris is addressing the argument of "but isn't religion a naturally human thing and therefore good?". And Sam Harris says lots of things are natural, even bad things like rape of genocide. But we certainly don't think the naturalness of these things makes them good.

That little phrase you spliced out, exists within a larger paragraph in which Harris explains:
Saltman: Your analogy between organized religion and rape is pretty inflammatory. Is that intentional?

Harris: I can be even more inflammatory than that. If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology. I would not say that all human conflict is born of religion or religious differences, but for the human community to be fractured on the basis of religious doctrines that are fundamentally incompatible, in an age when nuclear weapons are proliferating, is a terrifying scenario. I think we do the world a disservice when we suggest that religions are generally benign and not fundamentally divisive.

I'm not saying I would make that same choice that Harris did, but if someone truly believed that religious myths are causing more deaths than just about anything else in the world, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of that before you got rid of rape?

His POV is perfectly justifiable within the framework he thinks in. The critics of Sam Harris are either suffering from their empathetic brain shutting down due to outrage or are just being deliberately uncharitable and intellectually dishonest in my opinion. He usually explains his own POV VERY CLEARLY, and I can usually trace his reasoning very well, even when I disagree with him very strongly.

Harris is coming from the place of someone deeply interested in spiritual matters and used to think that even if religious people were deluded, it was mostly benign. But then after 9/11 happened he reeavluated that stance and began to look at the ways religious beliefs, had potentially devastating consequences. Their sacred stature leaves them unchecked by reason or new information.

By the same token, he realizes the world will never just shrug off their religion, and so he has turned his interests more towards finding ways to reform Religious doctrine so it's more compatible with modern values (in the same way most progressive Christians are more about the Jesus/Mercy thing, than the Yahweh/Smiting thing). I believe that's the topic of most recent book/dialogue with a former Islamist turned Muslim reformer. I believe it is entitled: The Future of Tolerance, or something like that. So I don't think Harris imagines he can rid the world of religion, I just thinks he imagines the world would be a much better place without it (rightly or wrongly).

Again, not saying I agree, but I "GET IT".

His weaknesses are twofold: he naively accepts some of the worst American values, and he really does expect be loved by those he criticises.

Yes, especially the latter thing. He really is super confused why the people he criticises don't thank him for his honest criticism of their most cherished beliefs.
 

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,711
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Finally, a non-annoying thread tag!



Try to see it from his POV for a second:

That quote actually makes sense in the context of the interview, even if it sounds bold. The juxtaposition occurs because the Harris is addressing the argument of "but isn't religion a naturally human thing and therefore good?". And Sam Harris says lots of things are natural, even bad things like rape of genocide. But we certainly don't think the naturalness of these things makes them good.

That little phrase you spliced out, exists within a larger paragraph in which Harris explains:


I'm not saying I would make that same choice that Harris did, but if someone truly believed that religious myths are causing more deaths than just about anything else in the world, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of that before you got rid of rape?

Given the death totals of the last 100 years, atheists win by that standard. And painting all religions as the same really shows poor logic and reason.

Harris is vehemetly anti-Muslim and casually describes innocents killed by Western bombs and meddling as "collateral damage". He also believes that some people should be killed for their beliefs, if those beliefs are "too dangerous."

Harris is just as much a believer as any religious person, he just has a belief that religion is bad. He isn't acting less emotionally than the reigious people he criticizes.

It takes leaps from rational thought to even equate the billions of peaceful religious people to the lifelong trauma from rape. His emotionally driven fear of religion, due to 9/11 you stated, prevents him from reasonably looking at religion.

His POV is perfectly justifiable within the framework he thinks in. The critics of Sam Harris are either suffering from their empathetic brain shutting down due to outrage or are just being deliberately uncharitable and intellectually dishonest in my opinion. He usually explains his own POV VERY CLEARLY, and I can usually trace his reasoning very well, even when I disagree with him very strongly.

Harris is coming from the place of someone deeply interested in spiritual matters and used to think that even if religious people were deluded, it was mostly benign. But then after 9/11 happened he reeavluated that stance and began to look at the ways religious beliefs, had potentially devastating consequences. Their sacred stature leaves them unchecked by reason or new information.

By the same token, he realizes the world will never just shrug off their religion, and so he has turned his interests more towards finding ways to reform Religious doctrine so it's more compatible with modern values (in the same way most progressive Christians are more about the Jesus/Mercy thing, than the Yahweh/Smiting thing).

Again, not saying I agree, but I "GET IT".

Oh, it is easy to see where he comes from. I certainly don't shut down at considering his POV. And epic labelling of his critics, btw.

His paradigm requires as much dogma and emotionality as any religion. It is simplistic in the extreme, wrapped up in psuedo-intellectualism. Harris appears to be one who arrived at his worldview and then attempts to browbeat others into submission with the pretence of science.

Just because a person can remain inside their own framework and be consistent does not mean that their framework is reasonable in the least.

In stark contrast to Haidt, who also started out as a Jewish atheist, Harris shows that he is agenda driven, not looking for understanding. Reading Haidt allows one to see that Haidt keeps getting surprised by his research and changes his theories accordingly.

Here is an interesting article about Harris dealing with a critic, My secret debate with Sam Harris: A revealing 4-hour dialogue on Islam, racism & free-speech hypocrisy - Salon.com I found it pretty interesting and demonstrative of the type of person Harris is.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Try to see it from his POV for a second:

That quote actually makes sense in the context of the interview, even if it sounds bold.

Yeah, I've been very slowly formulating a response- which keeps coming back to this^, but I'm trying to fully convey the extent to which I realize how wildly offensive his choice of phrasing can be.

I personally think he's ENTP, and he just gets carried away ENTP style. I think he's ENTP, and sx instict variant dominant (which is relevant because it gives a very strong discourse style). I don't know how to expound on that, which is why a response is taking so long. (My focus isn't on the "ENTP discourse", but.....okay it kinda is. All I know is this topic is exhausting.)

***

And I really should have phrased my above post more carefully- of course it will be relatively easy to find him claim that no one should be religious. The whole thing I'm trying to put into words is that he's so far on the 'theoretical' end of the spectrum that I think he makes statements like that as a result of hyperfocusing on the harm religion can cause. What I'm wondering is- what would he say if someone asked him if the Dalai Lama should be 'converted' to Atheism? If he knew someone whose judgment he grew to respect- someone who relied first and foremost on an internal moral compass, but who also happened to practice religion- would he still say he thinks they should be converted?

I'm fairly confident I remember reading that he's pulled quite a bit of useful direction about meditation from Eastern religion. I know I've read he admires a few very religious pieces of work (one of his podcasts, can't remember which one....I'm actually thinking it might be the Haidt one).

Anyway, I think my next responses here will probably need to be to some of [MENTION=29233]Mvika[/MENTION]'s posts about his work instead of defending his character. (Sorry it's taking me so long, Mvika! I just don't have a whole lot of extra time for this.)
 

Riva

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
2,371
Enneagram
7w8
Oooooo subscribe.

------------

^ Woah Z buck there is NO WAY he is an ENTP. He keeps his emotions/enthusiasm to himself, doesn't skip a beat, doesn't change the subject to go on tangents.

And he does that too well for too long.

There is NO WAY he is an EXXP.

---

Okay he does get carried away a bit, but does so without hinting extreme excitement seen in ExxPs (esp ENPs) when going off on a tangent.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't want to get into thing about his type, because I don't give a proper rat's ass. I will only say:

^ Woah Z buck there is NO WAY he is an ENTP. He keeps his emotions/enthusiasm to himself,

IMO, using hyperbolic tangents (like comparing organized religion to rape, for example) is something NTPs do all the time to vent negative emotional charge. The effect runs the gamut from being funny as hell to being emotionally abusive (particularly in ENTPs).


doesn't skip a beat, doesn't change the subject to go on tangents.

And he does that too well for too long.

There is NO WAY he is an EXXP.
---

Okay he does get carried away a bit, but does so without hinting extreme excitement seen in ExxPs (esp ENPs) when going off on a tangent.

I'm not sure this is an accurate stereotype, or at least I'm not sure it's fair to say it's a bona fide requirement.


***

I think he's ENTP. It's totally available and okay for others to not agree with me. (And it's totally available for others to discuss. I just doubt I'll participate.)
 
Top