Talk:Sam Harris/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 30 January 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

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)

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." ListenerX^TalkerX 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

Irony

While I would attribute this to clock or inverse clock, I'm still too amused to not say this: his moral wealth remarks are actually worse than could be expected of a well-learned, well-read Christian, who would tell you we have all inherited the same knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Harris&Dawkins: The New Blues Brothers: Electric Boogaloo.

I think that this article needs to acknowledge that Harris has a history of sexist and bigoted comments, even if he himself says that they aren't sexist or bigoted. I understand some people here really like the man, and that's okay, but he isn't perfect. I know that there's already been a spate or five about keeping the Harris or Malkin section. I mean, we do have an extensive shitlist of criticism against Dawkins, so why not Harris too? Hollow (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I cannot abide Sam Harris. At all. I must have tweeted that "Let's play Harris or Malkin" thing to a couple hundred people by now. In my strong view, he's a dangerous bigot who wraps anti-Muslim and neocon extremism in an intellectual patina. But I do not see him as especially sexist. That's my honest opinion.---Mona- (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

“I think it may have to do with my personal slant as an author, being very critical of bad ideas. This can sound very angry to people..People just don’t like to have their ideas criticized. There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree instrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women,” he said. “The atheist variable just has this – it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.” —

Inform me, Mona, how this comment is not sexist. Hollow (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. Aggressive argumentation is far more common in men than in women. As an extremely assertive female I've been told nearly all of my life that I "think like a man." These people noting this are not sexist; they are replying to a phenomenon seen across time and geography. Women have been minorities in atheist-related sectors, including organized atheism, science fiction fandom, and also those political parts of atheism that are more political, like libertarianism. If we could determine the gender of all the active editors here at this wiki, I guarantee you I'd be in a minority.---Mona- (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

mona i think you are confusing cultural norms w/ biological "truths". in some societies women are far more outspoken & assertive and arguing is seen as a "woman thing"

Either way, in the Western world, women are less assertive, less pugnacious, in general, than men are. You see it on the Internet where gender is known.---Mona- (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona, with all due respect, have you considered the fact that historically the science fiction fandom (and publishing houses) have been extremely unfriendly to women? That atheism has had a strong "white boys club" vibe in it for a long time? In studies on interactions, where gender is not known, women are known to act far more assertively? Or that when women do act assertively, it's seen as a transgression of a social norm? It's a culture perpetuated thing, one that people like Dawkins or Sam Harris accidentally perpetuate? I mean, I guess we could apply Harris's argument on why there aren't many female atheists to why there aren't as many black or latino or First Nations atheists... but then it takes on a real different and unacceptable tone now, doesn't it? Hollow (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I came of age in the midwest in the 70s and 80s. Women scifi fans and atheists were exceedingly rare. We are less rare now, but those genres don't attract as many of us as they do attract males. Black people in the U.S are more religious than whites, and this is just a fact. At any rate, his comment about an "estrogen vibe" was clearly not serious. Women, in general, do relate to people differently than men do. We are, in general, more relationship-oriented.---Mona- (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

So, try to resolve this difference in approach, I thought we should let more of subject's own words speak for him.---Mona- (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

So because his comment not being serious, it isn't sexist? Especially after he reiterated the comment later as a defense of himself on his own blog? Holy shit Mona, you have an exceedingly narrow definition of what sexism looks like, don't you? Have you spent most of your life going "look, I'm not like the other girls! I'm like you! So please don't give me special treatment or anything!" Look, you're clearly on the younger side of the 50s coin, I'll tell you that when my mother was reading scifi books in the early 70s she was politely told those books weren't meant for her and asked if she'd prefer a nice romance book instead. Her father was an atheist, and told her it wasn't something for girls to be into. Yeah, I know it's just anecdotal, and that you were probably embraced with open arms. The trouble with women getting to publishers has been well known since prior to the 50s. The fact that black people are more religious has nothing to do with it, are you implying black people are inherently unable to become atheists? Atheism has been, for a sadly long time, a white dude thing and still is unfortunately. Sure, they might bring out Hirsi as a token to show "hey, we're not racist or sexist!", but it doesn't change things. But yeah, whatever. Hollow (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hollow, I and my gal pals have been known to joke about "testosterone poisoning," or the air getting thick with testosterone. That's as offensive as a quip about "estrogen vibe." Things like that are snarky allusions to the Mars/Venus differences and are not offensives to anyone not looking to be offended. Moreover, this isn't the 1950s. Or even the 1980s. If I wanted to join a formal atheism club I'd do so and I could; I don't. Many women seem uninterested. (Especially anti-theism somewhat repulses me, as it strikes me as fundamentally misanthropic.) Like women in general, I have far, far less interest in promoting atheism, much less anti-theism, than I do in social justice and peaceful resolution to disputes, avoiding war, and that sort of thing. Even in science fiction, I have a soft spot for what the humans or sentients are doing among one another in terms of relationships. Men, you know -- including gay men -- like their pr0n straightforward and hardcore, naked and fucking; women, by contrast, support a multi-$billion a year soft pr0n, bodice-ripper industry that's all about relationships. Even the newer generation of erotic literature for women is relationship-themed. All of which is to say, Harris isn't wrong that the genders, in general, differ emotionally and psychologically in non-trivial ways.---Mona- (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mona Sing it, sister! The more I hear from you, the more sense you make. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona, you and your "gal-pals" are not the whole of women, nor are your cutesy bullshit anecdotes going to convince me that atheism as it is right now is fundamentally unwelcoming to women or people who aren't white simply because they don't really want women or non-white people in their neat little clubhouse where they can giggle like children and feel righteously enlightened. Just because you're okay with upholding a toxic status quo doesn't mean it isn't an issue, it just means you're part of the problem. Hollow (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hollow, I stated what I am persuaded, based on reading as well as life experience, is true about the general differences between men and women. If your reply can't be anything more than snarling and hissing then there is no basis for further interaction on this topic. But as it happens, I agree Harris's rape commentary should be included in the article and was pondering whether or not to challenge Carpetsmoker on that, but I tend to otherwise agree with him. ---Mona- (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"Let's play Harris or Malkin"

The conceit of the quiz may seem silly, but it actually works quite well to make the point. I know I've linked to it on many occasions and some recipients have found it enlightening, while Harris worshipers find it [fill in the blanks with all kinds of negative emotions]. So, I like the rhetorical device. But, the section needs to stay uniform. Please keep that in mind when editing it. Also, it just cannot be of unmanageable length. No one will read it if it is. Recently, several editors, myself included, determined to cut out a great deal of the list -- yet it remains pretty endless.

So, when considering edits for the list, please bear in mind: 1. It should be a direct quote of Sam Harris without identifying him internally. The reader should technically not learn the words are Harris's until s/he clicks the "answer" link you will have inserted at the end of the quote --- just like all the rest are formatted; and 2. The lengthy list isn't screaming for additions. Consider just how choice your addition really is.---Mona- (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to fill in that there is no binary division between critics of Harris who like that section universally and adoring fans of Harris who hate that section universally. There are non-sectarian and fully lucid discussions to be held on most aspects of that section without love or hate of the man or his ideas being a factor of absolute necessity. Keep this in mind while discussing this topic with sincerity. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty of binary division. There are plenty of Sam Harris fanboys who act like that section is only taken out of context and that Sam Harris isn't a bigot but we totally should profile Muslims and restrict their rights because you never know when they'll stab the glorious western civilization in the back. We tend to call these people "newbies in Atheism". That or some people just really do not like, and refuse to see, that Harris can ever be wrong about anything. There's plenty of people who think Sam Harris should just make a living off of his Ben Stiller-like looks and step out of the talk circuit, or that he should just fall off the edge of the world. We need to recognize that. You cannot make everyone happy. You cannot act like everyone is rational and that some edits are not knee-jerk responses to protect or defile Harris's reputation. Yes, there's plenty of rational discussions to be had, but don't pretend nobody's coming in with a dog in the fight. Hollow (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You completely spun off into the woods there, champ. There is no binary division between perfect lovers of Harris' every word and perfect haters of the perfect storm of hate crimes that is the entire body of his work. There is also no binary division, relating to those groups or in general, who either fully oppose or fully lament the presence of the quiz segment. Were some to say that, then that statement pretty much makes them an idiot as that means that there literally can be no nuance - and the half-life of that idea among people of even sub-average intelligence has to be, what, half a second long? Keep this in mind. Now, of course we have to be on our guard from fanboys of his ideas and of hating his ideas alike - and no type of fanboy need define the entire article. An article which is currently very poorly written, and will need to recieve a gargantuan strictly sourced expansion and rewrite to the benefit of all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This conversation is pointless. No one said the Harris audience is binary in any Manichean sense. I merely referenced the reactions I've received from those who like the section, and from fans who hated it. Why more was read into that is hard to fathom, and the whole ensuing digression makes no real sense. That said, Harris is an exceptionally polarizing figure; people are more apt to love him or hate him than with a guy like, say, Daniel Dennett. To understand that is simply to grasp reality.---Mona- (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep; and furthermore, as I've stated (clearly? I think?) on your talkpage, the one issue we need not trivialize is the comprehensiveness, nuance, formatting and general style of this entire article. Atheism is ranked as a HIGH priority article on RW, and Harris is one of the four hoursemen of the New Atheist movement. Go figure. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We should probably restrict this section to, say, 10 questions. Way back when, all the examples were too long. Now we have too many. This sort of format, if we should have it all, should be punchy and brief. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 20:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that whole segment needs to be made intelligible. When it's not a quote mine, it's a shitter version of WikiQuote. This whole article, ay ay ay, no matter where one stands on Harris... This is just a nightmare of poor edits right now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "quote-mine." This has been discussed here before, rather extensively, and we have rejected that this list constituted quote-mining -- the favorite and disingenuous defense of Harris and his acolytes. In any event, I just took out four more of the longer, not as egregious quotes and I think it's a respectable length now. This article, including the list (which was shortish then), is one of two that caused me to finally decide to join. I very much like it.---Mona- (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A defense I know you're knowledgeable enough to not accuse me of playing any kind of part in, I'm sure. Speaking of quotes, I'm going to quote back to you what I've already said to you, above on this very talk page - and which is still true;

"And for the record, I'd like to point out to you that I never said there was quote mining currently present on the page. And besides, the term "quote mining" doesn't warrant quotation marks either - it's an established term (especially at RW) and it is also a fully valid accusation to present - as I did, specifically, against previous revisions to this page. For the record, the sections of text in italics even on the current quote page? Those were all added to complete the various statements that were indeed literally quote mined."

...So there you have it. The page has historically been a quote mine, and the supports that were installed to make it not a literal quote mine (which it isn't now) are still in italic. The quiz began as a literal quote mine, as the italics reveal. This is not some kind of "wild defense". This is about not confusing scribblings on a toilet stall wall with any type of (even rudimentary) RW article in terms of style, analysis, sources and comprehensiveness. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The rhetorical device of a quiz in which the reader is to choose between Sam Harris or Michelle Malkin makes a very good point about Sam Harris and his views. I really like it and it impressed me enough to join this site.---Mona- (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona, on Sam Harris page

I was thinking we can include more quotes by Sam Harris but without crowding the page if we make them shorter. For instance, one of his most infamous controversies is his view on racial profiling. But the media usually brings up his writings from only a few articles. Yet in an unrelated article he clearly expresses support for ethnic profiling when he says that Muslims must advocate for it. However, the full quote was originally to long for the page, so we added it back shorter.

Another is the Taqqiya conspiracy. What usually distinguishes someone like Sam Harris from Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer is the types of arguments. Alot of Sam's supporters claim to not support Pam Geller and Robert Spencer. Yet, again in a lesser known interview, Sam used an argument that is rooted from them. I think people should know just how far Sam Harris goes. But some of these are cut from the page.

So why don't we slowly add in ALL the SOURCES of his bad quotes, but NOT all the quotes, or shorten the hell out of them so we can add more when he says more crazy shit in the future or when we discover more 'gems' from the past of Sam as we find more crazy shit he said in lesser known articles and interviews of his from before.

The reason i say this is because, Rational wiki does a good job of collecting his statements, but they removed alot of juicy shit to make room.

But hey, why not find a way to make it user friendly yet let it ALL be there?

Also i find when he uses the word "Muslims over the term "Islam" it is more worthy of controversy than saying "Islam" --Wan Abi Sufi

All I can tell you is that I and other users strongly support keeping the list short. To that end, I and others have removed huge chunks of text in that section. This is both editorially sound as to form as well as necessary not to dilute the list. ---Mona- (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What Mona said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Harris and women"

Firstly, I don't think the section accurately represents Harris' post, but more importantly, we should stop throwing around "sexist" around every time someone says something someone doesn't like (the section didn't use the word, but it didn't need to. the implication was clear). Being wrong on a topic related to sex doesn't make you a sexist (and I'm not even convinced he is completely wrong). Besides, we have more important content to put on our articles, like, maybe, refutations on some of Harris' writings (like Free will). Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, except the rape/religion bullshit should be included. Believe me, many reasonable people were disgusted by that, including me.---Mona- (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ADDING: Maybe for some there's nothing wrong with being rightwing, but that has not historically been what most atheists are. Moreover, the text does not say there is anything wrong with it; a rightwing atheist reading it could just shrug her shoulders and say: "And?" Finally, as I understand it this wiki was founded to mock Conservapedia and even considered calling itself Liberalpedia or something with the word "liberal" involved, but it just sounded clumsy. Certainly most people here are left of center.---Mona- (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought the fact that a prominent speaker and figure saying sexist bullshit (and just because you say it isn't sexist doesn't make it not sexist, even other atheists think he's said sexist bullshit) would be some some importance. People wonder why women don't feel welcome in atheism, yet they can only ever blame women. Why is that? Is Sam Harris just without fault on this matter? Of course not, so we should skewer him on this just as much as we would skewer Pat Robertson or Cruz. Sam Harris does not get a free pass because he's an Atheist, and if you want us to focus so much on his writings then I advise we get rid of everything besides his sections on his books. The fact that he prefers Ted Cruz or has said bigoted bullshit does not matter if we are focusing on his writing only, Carpetsmoker. Hollow (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"Welcome to atheism"? You pretend, as if atheism is anything like a club of some sorts, which is only a hair's breadth away from the fundamentalist claim, that atheism is a religion. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And neither is it sexist just because you state it to be so. Only a fool would deny that men and woman are different in both physiology and psychology. I don't know if Haris' observation is correct, but it's not sexist just for stating that woman in general are perhaps attracted to different writing styles than men. He also doesn't "blame woman", at least, that's not how I see it. He merely makes an observation. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Those are impressive gymnastics you are pulling, Carpetsmoker. I'm sorry, but here's some information from other people that might help you realize that yes his comments are sexist. In fact, one woman even addresses how it's sexist even if you do believe in the idea that there are innate and irreconcilable differences in psychology between men and women. http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/09/29/why-both-of-sam-harriss-recent-comments-were-sexist-even-if-you-accept-some-degree-of-innate-gendered-behavior/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/is-sam-harris-sexist.html http://www.rawstory.com/2014/09/another-week-another-atheist-demands-we-call-his-sexism-not-sexism-this-time-sam-harris/ Hollow (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Greta Christina's hand-waving doesn't change what she's forced to concede: "the experiences of transgender people, many of whom feel they were born as a gender other than the one corresponding to the genitals they were born with, does suggest that some degree of gender identity and gendered psychology might be innate." You can lay indictments at Carpetsmoker, me, or whomever, but that's reality.---Mona- (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hollow, how do you explain that romance novels brought in $1.4 billion in sales in 2010, outperforming religious books, mysteries and science fiction? This is true: "Romance novels have always been a big sellers. They have a large, devoted following, even among highly educated women." Why is that?---Mona- (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona you're honestly really blind and outright ignorant of how culture influences the sort of person you become. Can you tell me, Mona, who romance novels are marketed to? Is it men or women? Girls grow up with shows that place a large amount of importance on boys and love. If girls show interest in another kind of show, say the fate of Young Justice, they'll pull the plug (because girls don't buy MANLY ACTION FIGURES, they buy... my little pony toys or something idk) There are cues put in advertising to tell you if it's supposed to be for dudes or things-with-boobs, even totally gender neutral stuff like shaving cream. Is shaving cream inherently masculine, Mona? Will you only buy shaving cream in a pink bottle because your lady bits shrivel up if you touch a MAN CAN? Will a man's dick invert if he touches something that isn't Old Spice or Axe? There's tons of little cues in society, most we don't even think twice about! Did you know in the original Battleship box, the mom and daughter are in the back washing dishes? When you read a science fiction novel, did your puny lady brain get confused because it wasn't about a woman trying to muddle out her feelings for a man? If a little girl goes to a toy store, her parent will direct her to the girl's aisle. Not because of any preference by the little girl, but because this is what the mother grew up with and this is what she thinks her daughter will like. After a while, the girl might go to the girl's aisle on her own, because it's what she was raised to enjoy (or maybe she might sneak to the boy's aisle, who knows! Also see: 'getting boys to put down the Barbie' for the genderflip version) I was poor, I didn't get to go to the toy store often, my mother bought me the toys she thought I'd like. What I was supposed to like. Also, is reading an inherently female thing? Since less men read than women, obviously it can be concluded that biologically speaking, women are hardwired to read! Right? You would honestly benefit from a sociology class, Mona! So, my question for you is... where do tomboys, and butch lesbians, fit in your binary worldview? Are they inherently not women? Are you inherently not a female because you betray your fragile ladylike low intelligence biology? Hollow (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

May be a cultural thing and not a question of biology.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful. Lesbian culture and norms are quite different from gay male culture. Largely in the ways you'd expect from the gender differences seen in the straight population.---Mona- (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Because dem Lezbos are not affected by cultural expectations and the way people grow up? Interesting take, to put it that way... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As a lvl 98 bisexual I can confirm that lesbians are hatched in special incubation tubes pre-programmed to love lipstick and to adhere strictly to western femininity standards. Hollow (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The sub-culture of separationist lesbians is generally different from gay males. Well-educated, highly intelligent women are among the consumers of the multi-billion $$ romance-novel industry. And again, trans people are not merely changing physical parts.---Mona- (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Worthwhile tweet

https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/672460083796799488 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

16. Islamic imperialism (whether the 7th century Arab kind or the Ottoman kind) has done just as much harm (if not more) to the world than Western imperialism.

Holy shit no it hasn't, that's some fucking mental olympics silver medal crap and denial of history right there. I don't know how the hell this man can argue that Islamic imperialism is worse than European imperialism/colonialism, especially after he admits that a large flame to the jihadi fire comes from grievances with the west and western Imperialism. No wonder Sam Harris likes this dude's statements, it makes sure to keep Muslims firmly in the 'monster' camp while offering a half-assed 'oh, but like I guess we may have had something to do with it, I guess... maybe, but it's mostly their fault'. Hollow (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That's basically just whataboutery. Moreover, even if true way back when, it certainly isn't the case any longer. Nor does it excuse Western imperialism or redeem legitimate Muslim grievances with the West. He's just hand-waving -- "Look at that over there!"

TIL Long dead empires justify treating the Middle East and Muslims in general like shit. Hollow (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting Juxtaposition

It's utterly hilarious just how fawning the Christopher Hitchens page on this Wiki is while this one amounts to little more than unabated character assassination. If Hitch were here and had the opportunity to read this characterization of Sam, whose side do you think he would rally to? ^{— Unsigned, by: Slingtacular / talk / contribs}

Just because this page rightfully points out that Sam Harris is a hawkish dickhole doesn't mean it's a character assassination. He's a big boy and an educated man, he should be able to handle people pointing out his flaws and logical inconsistencies like a good philosopher/scientist would. If you wanted to join your fellow enlightened people, I would suggest finding some New Atheist forums or just sticking around on reddit. I'll be sure to 'assassinate' Hitchens' page soon enough. Also remember to use four tildes to sign your name on things. Hollow (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The Hitches page hasn't necessarily gotten the same amount of attention from the same people. Yet. As a former Hitches fan, knowing that he was good pals with Harris only reinforces my assessment of Harris.---Mona- (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris is NOT an authoritarian wingnut!!!

You guys can stop painting Harris as a right-wing extremist now. Again, watch this damn interview. Sam Harris and Dave Rubin Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech (Full Interview) 108.16.6.88 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Well supporting torture and racial profiling is fairly authoritarian. You keep putting him under the label of "liberal moonbattery", but I usually associate that with dismissing the proles or holding anti-scientific views.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not just that, but he supported "benign dictatorships" to supposedly ease the transition for Muslims who he alleges would vote to rip their freedoms out if afforded democracy. This is despite the fact that even among critics of Islam who cite Pew polls on Muslim views, the majority of Muslims would prefer democracy even in the most authoritarian of countries. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did the Arab Spring fail then?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 23:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So I guess the question is, is he authoritarian just in these instances, or authoritarian overall? IE, does he support liberties in general with these as exceptions or as the rule? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there a difference between authoritarian as a matter of exception or overall? If you endorse authoritarianism in one case, then it'd be fair to call that person authoritarian overall. I don't think it's a matter of degrees here. If you support restricting liberties for one group of people, then you cannot call yourself liberal even if thou protest that he or she is one. ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Person X supports personal liberties in every case except freedom of assembly. Are they authoritarian? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 12:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. How can one support freedom of speech, for example, when they don't support the right to join a group where they can express that speech? How can someone support freedom of expression if they don't believe one has a right to privacy?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Sam Harris supports torture, racial profiling, and benign dictatorships! He's an authoritarian wingnut!" Where are you all getting this information from? Salon.com? The left-wing version of Breitbart.com? Seriously, you guys are losing credibility with this article. Islam is a religion, not a race. Here, listen to this interview. Sam Harris On Progressivism, Torture, Religion & Foreign Policy 108.16.6.88 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

His own quotes. If Sam Harris wants people to stop criticizing him, he should reconsider approving of insane, batshit policies with his own words. And I'm comforted to know Islam is not a race. The extermination of Jews in Europe for instance couldn't possibly be racist because Jews are a religious people, or that the massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Bosnian wasn't racist. Deporting 11 million Mexicans as Trump has suggested couldn't possibly be racist either because Mexicans aren't a race. The fact is, when you endorse extremely right-wing policies that target a particular group, that racializes the issue. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You apparently didn't hear of liberals being Islamophobic. In Europe this is much more frequent than in the US, but they exist there, too.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 23:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Addendum (5/1/12):

Many readers found this blog post stunning for its lack of sensitivity. The article has been called “racist,” “dreadful,” “sickening,” “appalling,” “frighteningly ignorant,” etc. by (former) fans who profess to have loved everything I’ve written until this moment. I find this reaction difficult to understand. Of course, anyone who imagines that there is no link between Islam and suicidal terrorism might object to what I’ve written here, but I say far more offensive things about Islam in The End of Faith and in many of my essays and lectures.

In any case, it is simply a fact that, in the year 2012, suicidal terrorism is overwhelmingly a Muslim phenomenon. If you grant this, it follows that applying equal scrutiny to Mennonites would be a dangerous waste of time.

I suspect that it will surprise neither my fans nor my critics that I view the furor over this article to be symptomatic of the very political correctness that I decry in it. However, it seems that when one speaks candidly about the problem of Islam misunderstandings easily multiply. So I’d like to clarify a couple of points here:

1. When I speak of profiling “Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim,” I am not narrowly focused on people with dark skin. In fact, I included myself in the description of the type of person I think should be profiled (twice). To say that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, dress, traveling companions, behavior in the terminal, and other outward appearances offer no indication of a person’s beliefs or terrorist potential is either quite crazy or totally dishonest. It is the charm of political correctness that it blends these sins against reasonableness so seamlessly. We are paying a very high price for this obscurantism—and the price could grow much higher in an instant. We have limited resources, and every moment spent searching a woman like the one pictured above, or the children seen in the linked videos, is a moment in which someone or something else goes unobserved.

2. There is no conflict between what I have written here and “behavioral profiling” or other forms of threat detection. And if we can catch terrorists before they reach the airport, I am all for it. But the methods we use to do this tend to be even more focused and invasive (and, therefore, offensive) than profiling done by the TSA. Many readers who were horrified by my article seem to believe that there is nothing wrong with “gathering intelligence.” One wonders just how they think that is done.

There may be interesting arguments against profiling (or anti-profiling of the sort I recommend here), but I haven’t noticed any amid the torrents of criticism I’ve received thus far. If there is an expert on airline security who wants to set me straight, I am happy to offer this page as a forum." — In Defense of Profiling 108.16.6.88 (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Red links

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)

The article is total horse shit and smacks of wing-nut ideology.(Drink!).Ariel31459 (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

What is a "strick"?Jackinthebox (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2016 (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)

That's great use of language. It really refrigeraters the conversation. I love using household objects for tropes, don't you?Jackinthebox (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2016 (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)

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?--MonarchofascistС 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)

"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)

The Harris entry in general, and this section in particular, are one of two entries that pushed me to join this site. (The other is the Gamergate tutorial that explains an online war I found incomprehensible until I read about it here.) The combination of anti-woo while not abandoning progressive principles seems to prevail here and that floats my boat. I am entirely able to defend the publication of those Harris quotes from the "quote-mining" and "out of context" mantras Harris and his acolytes continually spew. For now I'll just say it's bullshit, unless one disbelieves that words -- and words strung together in sentences and paragraphs -- have meaning.-Mona- (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does it not surprise me that you dislike Harris and try to smear him? 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

He probably made some critical remarks about, say, the Hamas or Hezbollah sometime?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, as my small edit reflects, PZ Myers "smears" poor Sam Harris the way I and all morally sensible people do.---Mona- (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your point being? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This ridiculous exercise reminded me of those bible decoders finding lines in the bible like"Wheaties are good for you."Ariel31459 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"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)

We can do that. Ikanreed (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now we did that. Ikanreed (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

When did Harris call for Muslim internment? Is there any reliable primary source? Preferably audio or video of him actually saying so in context? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I am still waiting... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You are literally the worst example of a Sam Harris fanboy. He can do no wrong, say no wrong, according to you. You shall bend yourself backwards in order to justify just about everything he says. Nobody needs to entertain you with proof you will repeatedly deny and claim are "quotes being taken out of context".^{— Unsigned, by: 140.198.74.116 / talk / contribs}

Getting mad, 'cause not enough mud slung at Harris sticks?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Another Harris fanboy who believes he can do no wrong. 140.198.74.101 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Much of what Harris says is debatable. None of it is racist. The article on him is embarrassingly puerile.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobe?! Moonbat?!

Thank you all so much for misrepresenting Sam Harris and painting him as an Islamophobic moonbat. The "Let's Play Harris or Malkin" section of this article is completely lazy and disingenuous. I highly recommend you watch Harris's latest interview with Dave Rubin and reconsider putting him in the "Islamophobic moonbat" category. Sam Harris and Dave Rubin Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech (Full Interview)

And watch this video as well. Bill Maher, Ben Affleck, Sam Harris HEATED Debate on Islam 108.52.57.150 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No one has misrepresented Harris. His words say what they say and links to the full articles are provided. ---Mona- (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me guess... A noted leading civil libertarian told you he's a moonbat? Also: moonbat is left wing. He is in favor of Israel existing... Didn't you once say my supporting Israel disqualifies me from leftism for ever? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Calling for the ethnic profiling of Muslims is a red flag (Pamela Geller would be proud). Not even George Bush went that far, as right wing as he was. And Harris is a bit of a moonbat for his views on the paranormal. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record he clarified his stance on "profiling" in that there are people who are obviously not terrorists and they should not be searched because that would be a complete waste of time and money. That would include an eighty year old woman from Okinawa. That would however notably not include him, as middle aged white dudes have often been involved in terrorist activity. If anybody besides me had made the effort to watch the above mentioned interview, you'd know that. That being said, he is a bit too enthusiastic about meditation for my taste... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Racial profiling, huh? Reminds me of how my uncle (the brother of my mom) still living in Leningrad St Petersburg had to shave off his awesome mustache, because the cops (it was during the time of Chechen terrorist attacks) mistook him for a Chechen.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I am all in favor of profiling twenty to thirty year old white males. They are the most likely to be violent and aggressive. That's a scientific fact. But the political correct news media are too afraid to say that. Furthermore, every person with no hair who is younger thaen thirty should be given intense scrutiny. Baldness correlates positively with testosterone and said hormone is known to make people aggressive... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That's still profiling people on the basis of superficial features, and frankly it's stupid brcause terrorists try to elude profiling by not having a predictable appearance (9/11 hijackers made themselves appear more Western). It unfairly stigmatizes a certtain group as being more predisposed to violence because of how they look and is likely to aggravate/radicalize them more than make things secure. He didn't back off from his assertion of profiling anyone who looks like a Muslim, and that is troubling from a liberal perspective because we should not be giving in so easily to xenophobia. ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, then you must be right. Go ahead and get blown up if that suits you. Don't think about the young people sitting next to you on the plane, worry about the right of some Sephardic gentleman not to be held up for a few minutes.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ariel, what do you mean with that? Avenger, strange, that's clearly politically incorrect to go to the length of failed Lombrosian theories to serve the prejudice against young bald people and reinforcing a bad rap, at the same time it's too mysandric for being politically correct (see conservative correctness) for the right and Mra pandering to protect the oppressed white cis hetero male, as it correlates testosterone with baldness hence with violence, while actually on top of being unjust it's incorrect as balding people hair is just more sensitive to the same amount of testosterone and its metabolite Dht, ok if one is more sensitive to testosterone it effects one more, but the sensitivity varies depending on receptors, hence other body receptors might be less receptive (examples, bald but skinny and quiet, lots of hair but, hunk and aggressive or different combinations), but even if it was, profiling is a hateful road made of confirmation bias, gotchas, self fulfilling prophecies, heigthened tension due to institutionalized discrimination.^{— Unsigned, by: [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] / [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]}

Why are you responding to year-old threads?

And sign your name. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I should have, but when I read such drivel, sometimes I feel like responding. The last reply from Ariel was less than 2 months ago, I planned responding just to her, at first :).--78.15.246.30 (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Should we remove borderline / benign quotations?

If you look at the recent edits, it appears that several editors have inserted quotations that appear rather benign or at best borderline (the latest one where he compares Judaism and Islam and lists ways in which the former is "better"). Should we also list them, if need be in their own section? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the list is to show why many strongly criticize Harris. Including benign comments undermines the "Let's play Harris or Malkin" snark. What would be the purpose of a section including a list of unremarkable comments?---Mona- (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Right now the list border character assassination as nearly the only things we quote the man on is where he said cringeworthy or borderline stuff. What would you say about an article on Richard Dawkins that only ever mentions his antisemitic dog whistles and the elevator thing? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Quoting the man and providing links to the full text does not constitute "character assassination." He says what he says. The article also includes uncontroversial stuff (among atheists) he's known for.---Mona- (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that anything that's not outright quote mined (which has been the case on the page in the past) can certainly stay. Though, the page itself isn't very balanced at this moment in time. I'm in the process of reading most of Sam Harris' works right now, and they actually align a lot less with the phobic argument than one would expect. No doubt, the man is capable of making completely lucid and even humanitarian points (regardless of the current quote section), and that very real aspect of his perspective hasn't been given the attention it deserves yet. I'll hopefully be able to add some to it at some later point, but don't count on it. Anyways, carry on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see that. I for one have not yet had the time and energy to read much of Harris, but have heard him speak on a few youtube videos and while I don't agree with everything he says, he does make a lot of valid points Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Rev, I also have read a great deal of Harris. I agree with the assessment from PZ Myer which is at the very end of the article. And whatever has been the case before, there is no "quote-mining" on that page.---Mona- (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Avenger The pieces where he participates alongside one or several of the other Horsemen are, in my opinion, easily his best (perhaps because the others "balance him out"?). And he does do an amazing job at schooling people like Deepak Chopra. An open door to kick in, sure, but Harris does it well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mona I don't know if that was intentional of you, but you did come off as rather condescending right there. I don't think I've earned that tone from you, if it was meant to be present at all (and not just an artifact of how I read your statement). If it wasn't, my sincere apologies. If it was, I expect yours. Regardless; it's not at all unlikely that you've read more Harris than I have (yet). I also agree with PZ Myer's statement - of whom I am a great fan - especially regarding the "acolytes of Harris". And for the record, I'd like to point out to you that I never said there was quote mining currently present on the page. And besides, the term "quote mining" doesn't warrant quotation marks either - it's an established term (especially at RW) and it is also a fully valid accusation to present - as I did, specifically, against previous revisions to this page. For the record, the sections of text in italics even on the current quote page? Those were all added to complete the various statements that were indeed literally quote mined. My point was, and is, simply that his page at RW stands to be improved - e.g. to Gold quality standard - and that isn't where it is today. Thus, we should all absorb more Harris and edit the page in accordance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Rev, I meant no condescension. I'm sometimes terse but I certainly didn't mean to offend you. As for "quote-mining," I'm well familiar with the term and spent many years smacking creationists around, who pioneered the practice and took it to perfection. But it is common -- as our article notes -- for both Harris and his acolytes to shriek about "quote-mining" when one is merely quoting the man. Hence, my inclination to employ the scare quotes in the Harris context. Anyway, I support improving the article and will be interested to see what you add after you've completed your reading. ---Mona- (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! So let me reiterate; my sincerest apologies, then. So much nuance is lost in text (which is, naturally, why it's so important to always read the posts of others with the assumption of good intention). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to raise a stink or anything, but Mona has perfected condescension and name-calling to an art form, so it is not entirely out of line to assume it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bah, humbug, she's an amateur compared to many others on the net!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You saying Bah, Humbug convinced me... ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"If you meet Sam Harris on the road, Kill him." It is certain Mr. Harris would agree with that statement as intended by Linji. Rationalwiki writers seem ignorant of Rinzai, such ignorance being an aspect of Westernism found everywhere on this wiki. Perhaps it is the Dunning Kruger effect run amuck. One can not conscientiously act based upon the interpretation of one short sentence, not without a long period of reflection.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Harris is not a "practicing philosopher" in Mona's view, RBP disagrees

Any more than I am a scholar in religious studies because that's my undergrad degree.---Mona- (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Sam Harris is a philosopher by all consensus. He has held a TED talk entirely on the philosophy of ethics. The book "Free Will" barely mentions religion; it's about the philosophy of mind. His podcasts include identity theory, the metaphysics of a multiverse and epistemologics in relation to morals. You are arguing with a current student of the history of ideas and learning, of theoretical philosophy and of theology. It's absolute nonsense to not agree that he is a philosopher. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I did goolge, and his Free Will book draws on the SCIENCE of neuroscience. I disagree with you, but am not going to continue to revert or argue about it. I'll just let Glenn know he's now a philosopher, and me, I'm an expert in the sociology of religion in America.---Mona- (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've read that book two times now; it's one of several books on the topic that normally hang out in my bookshelf. It's certainly not about "the science of neuroscience" (lol - which is to say, about neuroscience). It's about compabilitism and determinism. You've clearly not ever read this book. Not even once. Don't claim you have; it's in my hand right now. You're free to define what philosophy is and how it's done, by the way. Is it Socrates' philosophy, where the idea is not to write anything down but to only have a process of ethical conversation? Is it Feuerabend or even Wittgenstein's modes of thought including the impossibility of anything put into text even making sense and having ultimate meaning? Even falling back onto the ontological uncertainty of Heraclitus' panta rei? Please define this for me, I'll be glad to hear from you on how this and that is not philosophy. Essentially you'd solve the classical pre-venn diagram problem of heaps while doing so (that is, by defining a universal disqualifier for this process). You need to admit that this is just you being difficult. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

His TED talk was on: "Science can answer moral questions" It's bunch of claims that learning answers from science determine the right choice. He is making a philosophical choice, but he is not "practicing philosophy." You are just wrong, but I'm not going to go to that mat over this particular issue because I suspect I'll have other, more serious points to defend.---Mona- (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not read the book, but it't about neuroscience destroying the concept of free will. The reason I have not read it is because I am already convinced that neuroscience has eviscerated free will. I agree with Harris on that, and I am no philosopher; neither is he. He's another neuroscientist who destroys the concept of free will with science.---Mona- (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This, Rev, explains how the book is SCIENCE:

Harris prosecutes his orderly case by explaining what he sees as the illogic of our belief in free will, and the recent findings that have undermined that belief. Probably the most influential among these discoveries were the results of the famous EEG experiments conducted by the physiologist Benjamin Libet and others in the early 1980s. They showed that the brain makes decisions before consciousness becomes aware of them. As Harris puts it, “activity in the brain’s motor cortex can be detected some 300 milliseconds” — almost enough time for LeBron James to get off a shot ahead of the buzzer — “before a person feels that he has decided to move.” As Harris’s text and impressive citations substantiate, these experiments and others like them have chiseled away much of the rock of free will upon which religion, jurisprudence and moral judgments have traditionally rested.

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist destroying free will with science. He's not a philosopher.---Mona- (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The neuroscience of free will... Hmm, free will, free will - what school of academia does that terminology belong in, again? I'd like you to seriously answer.

Is Camus a philosopher, by your standards? What about Diogenes? Socrates, if we separate him from the writings of Plato? What about Thomas Paine? Chomsky? Do any of these people count as philosophers to you?

I'd literally like to hear: what is your definition of philosophy?

And why go for a TED talk when we have his book right in front of us. What do you think about his epistemological considerations of compabilitism? What do you think of his approach to Hume's problem of induction? Please explain how he participates in these subjects in written form and how that relates to your definition of philosophy?

I have to say I take offense that you say you have "more serious points to defend". I'm sure nothing is more serious than preventing obvious nonsense from tainting our articles. There's no dignified perpetuation of your current position that is even plausible. The obvious retreat beckons; it's never to late to say, "oops, I was wrong". It's not like you weren't, owning up to it is free PR at this point. You are performing the oddest hair splitting right now - what do you think even pondering the concept of free will is? You obviously have access to a verb definition of doing philosophy; let's hear it. I'm sure that definition will also include that every student who is told they are a philosopher when they try to philosophize are in fact to be considered some sort of a priori amateur assholes. That's a shattering harshness, Mona. That source you gave there is beyond weak, by the way. You're really scraping the bottom of the cherrypick barrel here.

Let's look at english wikipedia's summary definition of philosophy;

Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2][3] The Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophia) was probably coined by Pythagoras[4] and literally means "love of wisdom" or "friend of wisdom".[5][6][7][8][9] Philosophy has been divided into many sub-fields. It has been divided chronologically (e.g., ancient and modern); by topic (the major topics being epistemology, logic, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics); and by style (e.g., analytic philosophy).

As a method, philosophy is often distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its questioning, critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[10] As a noun, the term "philosophy" can refer to any body of knowledge.[11] Historically, these bodies of knowledge were commonly divided into natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy.[9] In casual speech, the term can refer to any of "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group," (e.g., "Dr. Smith's philosophy of parenting").[12]

Here's from PhilosophyNow on what makes someone a philosopher;

When I was an undergraduate I was told that philosophy was concerned with Truth, Beauty and the Good. This now strikes me as absurdly unhelpful. It’s too constricting. There are very few intellectual endeavours into which the philosopher cannot productively stick her nose. All the natural and social sciences provide fertile ground for philosophy; as do the arts, literature, politics, history and current affairs. Here is a somewhat eclectic list drawn from my own somewhat eclectic recent reading: Kim Sterelny interacts fruitfully with evolutionary biology and cognitive science in his Thought in a Hostile World; Susan Hurley says some important things about the origins of violent behaviour in her paper ‘Imitation, Media Violence, and Freedom of Speech’; Martha Nussbaum draws attention to the normative function of literature in her Poetic Justice; and Jonathan Glover has written Humanity, a remarkable moral history of the twentieth century.

There's just no way around it - except for conceding your point like the adult I know you are. The man is a philosopher to the fullest extent of the word. I myself ponder the philosophy behind you apparently staging some kind of childish protest here, of the same kind that a sophomore who would refuse to capitalize the "g" in "God" insists on doing does. It's just a let-down to observe you doing these acrobatics, really. I never woke up and thought "Mona will seriously pose a NY Times article against multiple encyclopedic and literally academic sources". I just never thought that would happen. Abrasive windmill jousting of the highest degree. It's time for you to do a 180 degree turn, and not just pretend that you decided to leave the discussion. You got rekt this one time, admit it and we move on already. Jeez. It's not rocket science, though there most likely is some philosophy of ethics involved in how you decide to handle this. It's not like I'm going anywhere; let's not lower ourselves to pretending we don't see the error you've commited in your reasoning, clear as day. Talk about an insulting idea, no?; even the suggestion that you would cowardly withdraw the admission of guilt just because it's time to own up to it? Now that would be self-inflicted character assassination if I ever saw it. Here's a definition of what philosophy is, from the The University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Here's another from the Department of Philosophy at Florida State University. Let's see where Harris' work on the metaphysics of compabilitism stand in this exact context, shall we? Your sources that refute this point need to be this level of university academic or better. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Look, you are wrong. Harris is not a philosopher; he's a neuroscientist. That doesn't mean he cannot discuss philosophical concepts as any liberally educated person can. But he destroys free will with SCIENCE. He culls from the results of neuroSCIENCE to destroy free will. Emphasis mine:

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, popular author, and public intellectual who defends scientific skepticism, especially with respect to religious ideas, which he correctly finds have no basis in empirical science....While other neuroscientists ask the question whether our neurons may be in complete charge (e.g., Michael Gazzaniga), Harris has absolutely no doubt about it.

Harris joins the chorus of scientists who think that the causal laws of nature can explain everything, leaving no room for human freedom and creativity, no place in the universe for purposeful enterprise, nothing new under the sun. Although he is deeply anti-religious, Harris' world picture fits better the absolute world-view of an all-controlling law-governed mechanical system than the anarchical and relativistic biological world view of struggling individuals in their cultural communities. His science becomes omniscient. His causes become omnipotent. His world model, empty of both good and evil, does little to help us understand our place in it.

If you wish to proclaim that you are some sort of winner in this argument, I do not care. The fact is, I am not insisting on my view in this case because the issue is not sufficiently important to me compared with the many other controversies related to Harris about which I absolutely will fight tooth and nail. Declare victory if that rather juvenile need is important to you, but I am simply choosing my battles.---Mona- (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that any accusations of the juvenility of "winning" implicates you rather powerfully, and I quote;

"You are just wrong"

Uttering that statement, combined with a nonsensical attempt to argue for a pseudoacademic definition of a word that has a clear academic consensus already established, is plenty of motivation for anyone with a sense of academic prudency to take a stand. It's really the combination of two extremes - being dead wrong and making final judgement on the opposing position. It's near the top of the bell curve of how much solipsism and cognitive bias a person is able to muster, all at once. First of all, you seem to be under the impression that a scientist, or science, isn't philosophy. The philosophy of science is the field that even determines what the hell science is. Further, you claim that Free Will is a work of science. Again, a hundred bucks says you haven't read this book. And you still draw these conclusions... jeez mona, what is going on with you today?

The book is not science. It's not peer reviewed. It doesn't have empirical observation, it doesn't have a hypothesis or a set methodology. It isn't on Google Scholar. The book is a work of philosophy - pure and simple - and it is arguing with reason for various positions on the fundamentals of nature, reality, science, conciousness and information. It leads the reader through a reasoned discussion in order to establish premises from which to do more philosophy, and examines the implications of those premises. This is the textbook definition of philosophy.

Even the summary snippet you took from NY Times (and - give me a break - literally put up against .edu sources?) describes something that is not a scientific study or even a work of popularizing science. Free Will is a syncretic philosophical discourse on the main subjects of philosophy, such as free will. It's in the title, and I know you've read the title (though, just not any of the actual book, as I have). Worst of all - which is almost becoming an issue of intellect here - is that you try to argue with your emphasis that even one reviewer's opinion that it is bad philosophy would somehow make it not philosophy. That is an absolute kindergarden suggestion. You cannot seriously be arguing that?

And what's best is when you call me juvenile for demanding that you atleast have the integrity to admit when you're at fault. I refuse to believe that you are twelve years old, and I hold you to that. And what's even better, this has NOTHING to do with the quality of Harris' work. I pride myself in not even taking a stance on it here. I'm just saying that - a person who can't tell what philosophy is, even when it's this obvious, and is identified by academic consensus, while evading all questions on definition in order to further rehash a stillborn point appears, to me, indicative of someone who could plausibly be unable to figure out how to rotate a common door knob. There's just no way that you're not brave enough to admit fault here, from behind a keyboard. There's just no way that you lack that basic flexibility - you, who I always agree with on the nature of being professional. There's not even anyone around to see that you were wrong, physically. It's just the internet here. So it's really just your choice to not grant that you were wrong that sticks out here. And that's a truly disturbing thing, that you won't do that. Like literally, watch me the next time I'm wrong (and I will be, I guarantee it) I won't hesitate to agree when I am. I'm brave enough to do that, nevermind smart enough to not think myself able to argue that the emperor literally is not naked when he is. If a person is never wrong, you start giving zero fucks when they're right. Honestly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Rev, your comments are almost always so incredibly long and full of scattershot I can't begin to unpack it all. Yes, I am aware of the "philosophy of science," and studied it as a special project undergrad. Moreover, I understand science to be not a collection of facts, but rather, a method. Harris uses that method to reach his conclusions about free will; he cites scientific studies about how the human brain works. That he deploys philosophical terms when making that argument does not render him a philosopher, any more than the political scientists -- who use legal terminology and case law to argue within their discipline -- are lawyers. Finally, if I were wrong I would, as I always do, admit it. But, I'm not wrong. You may (and likely will) draft multiple extraordinarily dense comments packed with...stuff. Here you go: You won. Better now? If not, I leave this last word to you, at least as between the two of us.---Mona- (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You've made your decision on how willing you are to play a constructive role in this discussion. You've skipped all definitional questions at your leisure. You've attempted to trump two encyclopedic references, two .edu references and one philosopher's text with a New York Times article and another philosopher's text. I submit to you that were these two positions to be stood onto scales, your side would be catapulted into orbit as if weighless. Someone who has studied the philosophy of science should know better, I must insist. Harris uses the method of science when he does science, e.g. as he does here. That is what Harris doing science looks like. Free Will - which you have not read - is a book that does not perform any science whatsoever. It isn't even a work to popularize science, it is entirely Harris' own philosophical discussion that is presented in a reasoned fashion, consulting sources and drawing up thought experiments and examples as all good philosophy does, and arguing that in the context of the future of the compabilitist position on free will (approached precisely as defined here by The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), specifically within the field of philosophy. There's remarkably little neuroscience that is even brought up with specificity in the book (not that the inclusion of such would necessarily count against him in this context); the vast majority of his philosophy of will and reason builds around intuition pumps, what if-scenarios and a Kantian nod. Hume features, as in most modern philosophy, strongly around his explorations of cause and effect. This philosophical work touches upon legality and crime, on politics, on the nervous system, and on cognitive psychology, on the starting point of thoughts and experience, on cause and effect, on the epistemological reality of sense impressions, on primacy of thought and on the effects of all this on reality, nature and the ethics of human understanding. Doing this in a reasoned discussion (as he does), in the pursuit of truth or beauty, for the sake of argument, and for the sake of exploring these topics logically and through reasoned philosophical inqury - it's philosophy. For all your mental gymnastics, that's still the bottom line of the whole situation. This is philosophy. And Harris is doing it. There is no way around this fact. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that this wiki is frequently weakened by this sort conflation of categorical judgments with qualitative judgments. Consider Mr. Harris' book on Free Will. Free will is a standard topic in moral philosophy. Philosophy is an activity, like poetry or contemplation of abstractions. I can say "he is a bad philosopher," although that places me very high on the bench of philosophical jurisdiction, a position to which I may not be entitled. I may not correctly say "he is not a philosopher." Jackinthebox (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

He has a BA in Philosophy from Stanford. He went to Asia to study eastern religious teachings for years. He has published philopshy books. He is generally listed as a philosopher. He added a degree in cognitive neuroscience. But the RationalWiki doesn't like him, so let's find some random commentator who provides the astonishing opinion that he "is among the vast majority of New Atheists who do not 'study psychology, history, the sociology of religion, or any other discipline which might cast light on the objects of their execration'". It's as laughable as it is typical here. ~ Aneris ✻ 14:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

tl/dr

A "Ted Talk", Goat help us, is not evidence of someone being a professional philosopher. Peer-reviewed publications in the appropriate journals/or on respected/academic presses and perhaps an appointment to a university philosophy department would count. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Not that his TED Talk is at all the focus of the above discussion. And not that "professional" is even the term we're debating; never mind that undertaking philosophical research is not a defining trait in any sense of philosophy. I wanted it to say "philosopher", as english wikipedia states it, and Mona wanted "amateur philosopher". So that's a tangent entirely. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

But what about the rest of the article which is almost entirely comprised of horse shit?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Harris isn't an active neuroscientist

He's just a dude with a PhD and a few shoddy papers who doesn't bother actively participating in the field anymore since he has his philosophy/new atheist spokesman groove thing to go to. He uses the neuroscience thing as a crutch for his credibility. Fight me. Hollow (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I read that as an admission that he is a philosopher. I'll let myself out. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

He's a pop philosopher. But as I said, I don't care enough about this characterization of Harris to fight it. There are other issues I will stand my ground on. This isn't one of them.---Mona- (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

*Has already let himself out* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

He's a showman, that's what he is in the end. Hollow (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

He has a Ph.D. in neuroscience, which is more than most of us can say, and still makes him an (albeit inexperienced) expert. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)