Talk:Sam Harris
There are quite a few red links in here, but I think they're articles worth covering, or perhaps they could be handled as sections in this article? --
Ask me about your mother 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just finished reading The End of Faith and wrote a section on it. I'll look into getting some consensus on the reviews, reactions, and criticisms to it. I'm picking up some of his newer books for reading soon. --ShadowofLords (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Anti-Islam position
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU I watched this entire interview. It was a marathon, and I believe Sam Harris's clarifications of his beliefs make some of the points in this article invalid. I have read the actual context of many of his quotes, and I believe that this article misrepresents his position. Many of his statements were partially inflammatory for shock effect and draw, and partially taken out of context. The passage below me on his racial profiling is completely false and watching this video will show you that. You believe that statistically or logically his argument may not hold up but his view is certainly not the umbrella deemed right-wing view of racial profiling. If you watch the entire video as I have most of Sam Harris's points are completely logical. I would love to debate with a user on Sam Harris's position on a preemptive strike which is discussed in detail in the interview and I believe presents a reasonable case that depends on your ethical values, which, many people have values very similar to Sam Harris. IN CONCLUSION: This article is not true slander toward Sam Harris but misrepresents his views and distorts them so much to call this article rational would be irrational.
I really think we need to look at his pretty radically (right wing, if you want to be honest) views about Islam and islamic people including his views on racial profiling, per-emptive stricks, etc. --
Godot 20:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- We should probably touch down on this somehow. At the same time, we need to mention he lampshades this by mentioning that other criticisms of Islam often come from the wrong place/for the wrong reasons (christian fundamentalism, racism, general right-wing tomfoolery, etc.). --ShadowofLords (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I put in some of the greatest hits to start off. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say that Harris's criticisms of Islam also stem from racism and right-wing tomfoolery, but that's just me being [ableist slur redacted]. Omar (gibber) 02:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Or it might involve that he read the Koran and the polls which showed extremely high support for targeting and killing civilians to defend Islam. --ShadowofLords (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just because Islamists have been continually engaging in violent attacks against non-Muslims for 1400 years doesn't mean they're a threat. — Unsigned, by: JRCHReason / talk / contribs 10:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Or it might involve that he read the Koran and the polls which showed extremely high support for targeting and killing civilians to defend Islam. --ShadowofLords (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say that Harris's criticisms of Islam also stem from racism and right-wing tomfoolery, but that's just me being [ableist slur redacted]. Omar (gibber) 02:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I put in some of the greatest hits to start off. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I put in the suggestion about his being the least recommendable for this reason. I find the most jargon-ey parts of Dawkins' or Dennett's books far more more readable than Harris'. He seems to mostly just geopolitically tendentious to be read by anyone other than the initiated.--Asklepius (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I took this out because it's completely subjective. Personally, I think Harris is the second best writer of the four. He's behind Hitchens, slightly better than Dennett, and much, much better than the snippy and humourless Dawkins. Of course, this is just my opinion, which is why I didn't make it part of the article.— Unsigned, by: 86.12.45.157 / talk / contribs 18:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
How silly of you to quote mining Sam Harris for being accused as racist. You should rename this site to WeLabelYouWiki. "The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists" was taken out of context. Here's original quote: "Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.
While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren’t.
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." http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/#views_on_islam— Unsigned, by: 5.197.3.125 / talk / contribs 15:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- What about monarchofascists?--Monarchofascist
С нами Бог! 20:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Harris' Views on pre-emptive strikes have been highly exaggerated and mischaracterized. Here is what he said in "The End of Faith" in context:
"It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side." --Naked Mongoose (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is also Netanyahu's view (that there's no cold wars with Jihadists). I believe it is partially exaggerated and partially true. There's a clear bias against Shiites in the western world and I'm not exactly sure where that arises from because it's not like the Sunnis love Jews any more than the Shiites do and Wahabbism is a Sunni derived ideology. The problem with many liberals is they don't know what it's like to be a religious zealot. If you've ever been one - you know exactly what it's like to relish the idea of the "sinners" being violently judged by God. Since that's quite prominent in Christian theology of the western world (e.g. The Left Behind Series is basically a religious genocide fantasy), I can't imagine how much more strongly that must be felt by many followers of Islam. Sam Harris is wiser than you may imagine. He understands that yes, there are people who still very strongly believe in religious genocide and that no rational argument is going to dissuade them any more than atheists have much luck convincing regular religious people that they're wrong. 800 people from Britain went to fight with ISIS, openly, to try to establish an Islamic Caliphate. For every one that went, there's probably another 100 or more that are strongly sympathetic and another 10000 that are mildly sympathetic. The ridiculous Islamic apologetics on the contemporary left are, for the most part, based in the naive proposition that everyone ultimately wants peace and diversity in the world. Nothing can be further from the truth. Sam Harris is racist because he suggests profiling foreign nationals who are from hostile and violent imperialist nations? Maybe that's racist - but it's also realist. I could spend a huge amount of time in the company of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but if I see a bunch of black guys in baggy clothes all wearing blue coming down the street towards me - I'm ducking into the nearest open store. Avoiding crips = common sense not racism. Being concerned about Wahhabi foreign nationals = common sense not racism. I'm also for profiling white skinheads with swastika tattoos. Common sense, not racism. JRCHReason (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] quote
Don't we want a quote that is more telling of Harris' positions, his actual views and ideas, and not just him quoting some ranodom pro atheism idea? We could quote his brilliant idea that A-rabs should be kept out of the US, or that the *best* way to find terrorists is to target people who look muslim! bunch here --
Godot 15:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- We could also try being intelligent and read why he puts forwards those ideas, rather than HURRR DURRRR reactions. Things like this where he puts forward a decent argument on special targeting individuals who appear to be Muslim (his opponent debates around the topic, admitting that it would be an efficient system but prohibitively expensive). --ShadowofLords (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd read that, when it first came out. Gotta say, those aren't "good arguments" they are biased grounded arguments that if Bush had said, would have been blasted by the left. There is no valid argument for profiling, given two primary counters: 1) statastically speaking, the average muslim is no more likely to be a terrorist than the average anyone else, since statistically speaking, no one is reasonably "likely" to be a terrorist with no other indicators. 2) Terrorists know we are looking for them. They are not going to put a bomb on an imam. the ARE going to put a bomb on a child. Harris says "don't frisk the kids and old ladys, frisk teh muslims. yeah....
- But really, i was meaning a quote more telling of his views about his world. Atheism perhaps, or the US and politicis, or his own works. putting up the fact that he has cited some stat is about as informative of his views on anything as me saying "the US claims 75% of abortions are done in the first 2 months". wheee!!! that says a lot about me. The page is filled with good quotes, just need someoen who knows Harris well, to choose one. --
Godot 17:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- 1) Sure, terrorism is a problem that is not unique to Islam or Muslims. Suicidal terrorism is, for all intents and purposes, however, is unique is Islam. I'm talking huge statistical significance. And, people who hijack planes are generally suicidal terrorists, unless there's some recent discovery that allows terrorists who hijack planes to survive crashing them into buildings. So, when we are looking to stop terrorists at an airport from getting onto planes, we are pretty much always looking for Islamic terrorists.
- 2) If you actually read the article you'd know he addressed this. He's not saying we completely ignore infants. He's not saying we only frisk brown people. Everyone goes through the scanners. Everyone gets their luggage checked. But, rather than purely random additional checks, we can use a combination of knowledge of what we know about suicidal terrorists and random checking (which is a standard effective decision making methodology used in AI and other decision making technologies). We can't pretend we don't know the profile of suicidal terrorists. --ShadowofLords (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Suicidal terrorism is, for all intents and purposes, however, is unique is Islam." Sure, if you don't count all the rest. This is some beautiful backpedaling, though. Keep digging, Sam!
Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your link doesn't in any way substantiate your contention. By far the vast, overwhelming preponderance of suicide attackers are Muslim.— Unsigned, by: 86.12.45.157 / talk / contribs 18:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- But that's exactly it, we DONT know the profile of susidal terrorists. No one has a good description of what a terrorist looks like, acts like, talks like. Unless you know something that's not been published. WE have profiles on particular individual terrorists, but not "the profile of what a generic susicidal terrorsit" looks like. Are they more likely to be women than men? younger rather than old? Will they wear traditional garb or modern garb? Will they have luggage or board without luggage? You know that Isreal does not profile. They aught to be listened to. It's useless to profile, they say, for the very reason that no one knows what a terrorist will look like.
Godot 19:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Suicidal terrorism is, for all intents and purposes, however, is unique is Islam." Sure, if you don't count all the rest. This is some beautiful backpedaling, though. Keep digging, Sam!
You have just proven that you have no idea what you are talking about. Israel profiles EXTENSIVELY, and they even admit it. We know both by statistics that terrorist acts are more likely to be performed by Muslims. We know that they're more likely to be young men. We know that they generally come from middle class families. --ShadowofLords (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Or, as Ann Coulter put it, "Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims – at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead."
ListenerXTalkerX 22:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok then, listen to Israel, do some profilin'. At least it won't be like the ghastly situation here in Canuckistan. Look at all those moslems! Look at them! Osaka Sun (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Again, we are talking about instances of suicidal terrorism. Specifically, suicidal terrorism at an airport. I mean, imagine if we were attempting to better protect abortion clinics, planned parenthood, and patients of either from domestic terrorists. Who would we want to pay attention to? Would we be more concerned about the young pregnant woman who is attempting to enter the building, or the middle-aged man with the cross around his neck screaming "Abortion is murder!" Even if he isn't screaming, which presents a more likely threat? Is admitting that white men are more likely to fire-bomb a planned parenthood somehow a terrible affront to human rights?
- On a side note, Ann Coulter is a vicious liar and bigot, one who's policies are all based in right-wing fear mongering. However, even a bigot like Ann Coulter can be right on a single topic (especially if she's right for all the wrong reasons). --ShadowofLords (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Who would we want to pay attention to? Presumably the creepy guys shouting prayers in the lobby instead of the man with the decidedly non-Arabic-sounding name.
ListenerXTalkerX 03:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think both of them would probably get flagged to be paid close attention to at a minimum in a realistic system. Especially in Israel, where the shoe bomber would have been questioned extensively due to his recent conversion to Islam and his time spent in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Muslims do certainly face racism and prejudice, including economic discrimination, and this can't be ignored. At the same time we can't pretend that we don't face a unique problem with suicidal terrorism and Islam. --ShadowofLords (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- According to the article about Israel's profiling, they grilled Donna Shalala — a Maronite Christian of Lebanese-American extraction with no Islamic connections, let alone terrorist connections — due to her dodgy last name.
- Muslims do certainly face racism and prejudice... Of which most profiling is a textbook example.
ListenerXTalkerX 04:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Which is why we need smarter profiling, or perhaps anti-profiling. We don't just profile based off the perceived race of an individual. We can look for behavioral cues and we can check a person's travelling history. We can have access to databases to see if an individual has ties to militant Islamic groups. But we need to acknowledge that taking the 83 year old grandma from Michigan who's never left the country for a cavity search because she was "randomly selected" is going to be a waste of time. We certainly don't want to be pulling over every person who looks "brown-ish", but we at the same time don't need to be feeling up a young seven year old black girl. Would anyone be at least willing to admit that we should probably be paying more attention to young/middle-aged men? --ShadowofLords (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- That reminds me of an article I read once about an incident at an Israeli checkpoint. A veiled woman was passing through and was taken to a private room for a pat-down search, as per her religious scruples; she promptly detonated herself, demolishing a good part of the checkpoint.
- Profiling people based on their known association with terrorist groups or travels to enemy countries is perfectly reasonable, but that is not the kind of profiling that Harris was stumping for.
ListenerXTalkerX 03:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Which is why we need smarter profiling, or perhaps anti-profiling. We don't just profile based off the perceived race of an individual. We can look for behavioral cues and we can check a person's travelling history. We can have access to databases to see if an individual has ties to militant Islamic groups. But we need to acknowledge that taking the 83 year old grandma from Michigan who's never left the country for a cavity search because she was "randomly selected" is going to be a waste of time. We certainly don't want to be pulling over every person who looks "brown-ish", but we at the same time don't need to be feeling up a young seven year old black girl. Would anyone be at least willing to admit that we should probably be paying more attention to young/middle-aged men? --ShadowofLords (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think both of them would probably get flagged to be paid close attention to at a minimum in a realistic system. Especially in Israel, where the shoe bomber would have been questioned extensively due to his recent conversion to Islam and his time spent in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Muslims do certainly face racism and prejudice, including economic discrimination, and this can't be ignored. At the same time we can't pretend that we don't face a unique problem with suicidal terrorism and Islam. --ShadowofLords (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Who would we want to pay attention to? Presumably the creepy guys shouting prayers in the lobby instead of the man with the decidedly non-Arabic-sounding name.
- Ok then, listen to Israel, do some profilin'. At least it won't be like the ghastly situation here in Canuckistan. Look at all those moslems! Look at them! Osaka Sun (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes part two
Since the discussion above migrated, as all good discussions do, I thought one of these two might be good to show something about Harris' views and style? “The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
tags: george-w-bush , god , religion
287 people liked it
like
“In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation — Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs 20:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] "Let's Play Harris or Malkin" - the hell?
I'd like it if people started taking this seriously and actually reading up on what they are supposed to criticize or satirise. I think it's become excessively clear that Harris' views on Islam are not inspired by religious fervor or xenophobia, let alone racism, and thus wrongly grouping him up with a wingnut is the product of ignorance.— Unsigned, by: 88.192.139.157 / talk / contribs 14:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I personally made the move to remove the section, While the inclusion of a criticism section with links or citations to his critics. Should be included on the page, as not representing the opposing views is no good. While comparing these views to those of a xenophobe is at best against the sentiment of this wiki.-RSumms — Unsigned, by: Ryansumms / talk / contribs 19:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] "Sam Harris isn't PC therefore....."
If one of Sam Harris' views is the same as Malkin's, therefore what? What is the point? You call this "reason"???
So comparing if comparing Sam Harris views with Malkin is a valid argument, then wouldn't be comparing Norm Chomsky's views of America to bin Laden's? Because they are often similar.
Sam Harris is a skeptic. A real one. — Unsigned, by: Wikiman / talk / contribs
- If some of bin Laden's criticisms of America were similar to Noam Chomsky's that might suggest that some of bin Laden's criticisms were valid (having valid criticisms of America isn't particularly difficult to be honest) and/or that some of Chomsky's criticisms are notably vile/invalid. Similarly, if Sam Harris is known to share the same view on a subject as a known nutcase, that would indicate that either the former is having an inverse stopped clock moment or that the latter is having a stopped clock moment. Do you think Malkin is right in demanding the mass internment of American Muslims? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that the "Harris or Malkin" section looks ridiculous. To clear up the history of that section: It was created by two bonbons and a user that edited no other pages. It was recently removed and replaced by someone whom never edited any other page. I have no opinion on the actual content at this moment. Narky Sawtooth
(Nyar~) 19:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Guys, the idea is that every statement in that section is bigoted and hateful. It's not just "These two share opinions" but "these two share classes of really bad bigotry opinions that are impossible to distinguish." Ikanreed (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, my issue with it is that it hurts my eyes. Is it alright if I make the links "smaller?" Also, sorry if I'm seeming blunt. I can't think of another way to word this at the moment, and I understand that the word choice I'm using may be considered hostile. Narky Sawtooth
(Nyar~) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, my issue with it is that it hurts my eyes. Is it alright if I make the links "smaller?" Also, sorry if I'm seeming blunt. I can't think of another way to word this at the moment, and I understand that the word choice I'm using may be considered hostile. Narky Sawtooth
- Guys, the idea is that every statement in that section is bigoted and hateful. It's not just "These two share opinions" but "these two share classes of really bad bigotry opinions that are impossible to distinguish." Ikanreed (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that the "Harris or Malkin" section looks ridiculous. To clear up the history of that section: It was created by two bonbons and a user that edited no other pages. It was recently removed and replaced by someone whom never edited any other page. I have no opinion on the actual content at this moment. Narky Sawtooth