+John Thursday To me, it's always a spectrum. On one end there's the doctrine of Islam, and on the other end there's Western foreign policy. Each situation falls somewhere on that spectrum, it's just a question of weighting the various factors.
Right. Because somebody who hasn't read the quran and just reiterates Aslan and Greenwald lines can say with a straight face, that Sam has no knowledge of the issue (7:54). While Sam has actually read the quran and several hadiths. "Spot on"
Frederico Di Pace Is it possible for someone to 'read' something, not understand it and then foment a mis-interpretation that conforms to an agenda, cherry pick information, straw-man, and generalize? I guess we could go back and fourth about whether or not that person 'understands' what they have read, but I would argue that familiarity with a text does not guarantee understanding. The basis of Michael's critique is that Harris is an opportunistic, power-loving, manipulator. He certainly understands that.
John Thursday Why didn't Michael say that and instead claimed that Harris had *no knowledge*? Seems to me that you read a lot to what was being said in this video.. But ok.. let's say you're right. So what do you think is in it for Sam? Why does he go out of his way to "mis"interpret a religion that calls for murder on every other page, that idealizes a pedophile rapist warlord and whos adherents reliably form the most miserable countries that spawn the most heinous people on earth? Why does he keep facing the lying, mudslinging people like Aslan and the gang - thereby sacrificing his time and reputation for the "bad" cause? Do you think it's all the islamophobe-dollars (which is the position Omar failed to defend) or is it just generic racism and malevolence?
A big problem I have with Harris is what Michael points out. He says controversial things at a time where it makes no sense to do so. Worse, he argues against things people aren't talking about. He says since torture might be acceptable in certain scenarios, you can't give an in principle argument against torture. But so what? People weren't talking about these wet dream inducing hypothetical of Harris where a nuke is going to go off. They were outraged by the torture that did actually happen (Guantanomo, Abu Ghraib, etc.). Harris' dishonesty or stupidity here is akin to writing an article "In Defense of Concentration Camps" in the middle of World War 2, & giving an absurd & irrelevant hypothetical. It would be clearly an immoral thing to do at that time, for hopefully obvious reasons.
If you allow yourself freedom to come up with any thought experiment, you can't hold an in principle position against any heinous act. You just need to be a little creative with the scenario.
+Bob Indeed. But the point Harris doesn't seem to get is that a moral edge case (by virtue of being extreme) don't tell you much of anything about the relevant real-real-world instances. He's just philosophically inept, lol
+Mind-Forged Manacles I think you're missing the point that Harris' bit on torture was specifically aimed at the conversation regarding torture that came out of Guantanamo, etc. It was a response to people knee-jerk saying at that time that torture is never acceptable under any circumstance. He was pointing out its foolish to maintain that self-imposed rule by giving circumstances where torture could be a necessary evil. I might also point out that you're complaining about Sam Harris arguing against things people aren't talking about by dredging up topics from his books that are now over a decade old.
WorshipHumans Yes but the point of kine that you're missing is that a lot of those people weren't thinking of a scenario where a nuke is abut to go off, & you KNOW you have the guy who is responsible. Like, if I say "You shouldn't hurt people", most people aren't going to bring up self-defense, because they know that I'm talking about a particular class of actions, and that I'm not talking about every possible action. Harris bring up things that are irrelevant to what people are actually talking about. Sam Harris never stopped talking about torture, so claiming that such is only in his books from a decade ago is just incorrect. He brought it up in his interview on The Young Turks, his interview with Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk & on Dave Rubin's interview with him on "The Rubin Report".
Mind-Forged Manacles It is entirely relevant because at the time many people were literally saying we should NEVER EVER torture. To use your example if you were to say "You should never ever hurt people no matter what", many would rightly point out the foolishness of that by bringing up self-defense. You say "That's not what people were actually talking about", but I was alive at the time as well and and I remember full well people losing their shit and saying no one should ever be tortured no matter what. I'll let Sam Harris field your 2nd claim. From his blog: "It seems that every few weeks, someone discovers the relevant pages in The End of Faith, or notices what others have said about them, and publicly attacks me for being “pro-torture.” Journalists regularly steer interviews on any subject in this direction-not so that they can understand my position, or coherently argue against it, but so that readers can be shocked by whatever misleading gloss appears in their final copy. The spectacle of someone not being reflexively and categorically 'against torture' seems just too good to pass up."
+chessplayer You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into to begin with. They've had several years of people like AiU, LiveLife, SargonOfAkad, Tommy Sotomayor, Gad Saad and Milo Yiannopoulos calmly and collectively use what appears to be logic and reason to make bigotry okay while painting anyone who isn't a part of their group as an irrational and negative "other" represented by people you don't want to be like such as Melissa Click, Jenny McDermott and Ryan Wiley.
+MilitantAntiTheist I agree.I have proven them factually wrong multiple times but they never bothered to acknowledge that,instead they call you reggresive and move on saying the same excact factually wrong things,it is amazing how these people claim they are rational. If they bothered to research real scholars in this subjects,they would move on from Harris within hours.Even when you cite that entire academia considers Harris view wrong,they say academia is infested with Islamists and reggresive leftists.Amazing.You cant win. Unfortunatelly,you are right.We can not reason with them.It is too late.
@@chessplayer8798 I agree.I have proven them factually wrong multiple times but they never bothered to acknowledge that,instead they call you reggresive and move on saying the same excact factually wrong things. and i dont Think you understand what proving factually wrong means. uttering those Words doesnt make them come true like some fairy tale. give an exampple of whta you Think is factually wrong that ueve provben
Really? You call that spot on? The guy (that I'm 90% sure has never opened a quran) says Harris has no knowledge about the issues (7:54). While Harris has actually read the quran and several hadiths. The only public figure I know that makes a genuine effort to understand the issue, rather than just trying to win the argument..
I am an athiest and a Sam Harris fan, but since I understand fully that the US has had a systematic plan in place to overthrow the governments of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan since the 90's, his premise of intentions falls flat. He has no understanding of the issue. If he were correct about premise, his argument would be sound. Chomsky is correct about premise, and about empirical statistics. I am no fan of religion, but a religion, nation, any group will become radicalized when systematically exposed to creeping death tactics. Sam Harris has been let down by his failure to grasp this aspect. See my research at my blog www.dwahts.blogspot.com
Glenn Swart I also disagree with Sam about the role of the US as a supposedly benevolent force.. But is that really a matter of lack of knowledge, rather than just a difference of opinion? The premise is an *assumption* on both sides. So far I have only heard from hearsay about the pre-planned overthrow.. Is that a secured fact now? How? What facts does the moderator or Chomsky know that Sam is ignorant about? (In the Harris-Chomsky debate, it didn't feel like Noam was hitting Sam with new facts - they are just *assuming* different motives and intentions on the side of the US) I think both have the same knowledge about what's going on in the middle east.. They are just interpreting the facts differently. And again - I would rather go with Chomsky's interpretation. But when the dude says Sam has no knowledge about the issues - I disagree. Nice blog though. So what's your opinion about islam?
You are correct about Sams not having knowledge playing a role, perhaps that's why I write the blog. I understand his base point though if it were made outside of these circumstances and that's why I remain a fan of his. I think all religion is fantasy, The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, current extremism even etc is seldom a good thing, Islam is in a terrible state right now, but with all the promising secular nations destroyed by financial hit-men and the US Military/CIA in order to prop up brutal regimes, with all the funding of extremist rebels and destruction of working governments, it's little wonder. Those are not conditions that moderates and good governance flourish, those are the conditions of bitterness, power struggles, taking refuge in religious identity because many middle eastern muslims have been stripped of their identity etc. All religiouns are in essence briutal if you cherry pick, it just depends on how fertile the soil is that it falls. The feudalistic push that globalisation has on those society's will soon move to the West and you and I will start getting a taste of it soon. The financial system is an important part of the petrodollar war machine that fuels globalisation and it's about to canabilise it's own citizens. Perhaps you can find the time to read my latest post if you are open to it. dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2016/05/money-creation-for-dummies.html
@@kspace4700 any yield of tactical nuke is less tactical than an equivalent amount of conventional explosives, there's nothing particularly tactical about nuclear fallout in your backyard.
Sam Harris is a scholar wannabe who thinks that by using mental gymnastics that don't make sense in the real world gives him an equal statue to Naom Chomsky. Pfffffft!!!!!
+Feras Al Hati This guy says Harris is a neuroscientist and that he has too much confidence talking about topics he doesn't understand, but the hypocrisy is that no person fits that description more than Noam Chomsky. I admire both men, but be consistent with your logic!
@@masudawan8357 Chomsky might make a good encyclopedia but there’s no valuable conjugation that remotely skims the surface of reason coming out of dudes gullet
With the issue of Pakistan, the problem isn't that the current Pakistani government is going to use nukes, but that there will be a coup and Jihadists get their hands on nukes.
Hustler, you just have it wrong, typical regressive bullshit, you and your friends are fascinating though.Too busy to deal with all you ridiculous people echoing your nonsense, back and forth .
The caste system has its roots in Hinduism ALMOST ENTIRELY. Any serious student of the subject will tell you that. I am a westerner living in India for almost twenty years. I do believe that the system is corrupt in some ways -- economic, political, and simple human egos and prejudice. But at its root it came out of Hinduism. (PS: I have many big disagreements with Harris, but he is largely correct on this one.)
+MilitantAntiTheist Come on man. I'm a subscriber to the Majority Report too. And I'm a huge fan of both Michael Brooks and Sam Seder. But let's be honest, on an intellectual level, you can't compare Harris to a dude like Bush. For Christ's sake, Bush can't even speak full sentences. And at times, he seems to be unable to even read full sentences.
+12davetw Except he didn't do any experiment in his life or worked on his suposed field of study at any time at all. shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/
All I'd say on that front is that Harris hasn't really done neuroscience research. Even for his own Ph.D, he didn't do any of the experimental work according to the paper itself. But I'd take it as a slip up on Michael's part. His main point seemed to be that Harris doesn't do research on the topics he pontificate about. And Michael's right, Harris doesn't. See Harris' exchanges with Bruce Schneier, Dan Dennett, Scott Atran & Noam Chomsky. They're embarrassing on Harris' part, because he did no research.
Michael, the reason Harris acknowledges politics and history and then focuses on the problem of Islamism's ideological role is that everyone, their dog, and their Aunt Tilly goes over political issues, but pretends religious ideology has _nothing at all_ to do with the motives - which it does. That is the problem in our discourse. It's like having a conversation with a fellow liberal about the problems of the contemporary capitalist economy, and you bring up the monstrosity of mega-corporations. You expect the other person to acknowledge that yes, that's part of it, and factor it in so the discussion can move on. But instead they get this sour look on their face like they've just smelled a rotten egg, and the next thing you know they're accusing you of being narrow-minded and blaming everything on corporations, and that the real issue is the bond market, banks, and the Federal Reserve. And you say, yes, those things are part of it, but corporations have too much influence - and then you get cut off again as this person gets irate and declares there's nothing wrong with corporations, and you're just being bigoted towards every person who's ever gone incorporated. And there you are, stuck on the issue of corporations because there's some kind of thought disease going around which won't even acknowledge they're part of the problem. That's when you realize that the problem will never get solved until people stop refusing to consider that corporations are part of it. That's what's happened to Harris on this issue.
+Alexandra Pierce Well put! Sam is essentially being attacked because he is trying to make a fine point & is using rhetoric & as an educated Liberal I'm stunned to see other educated Liberals actually not understand his points.
”Sam harris does not understand....”. Well Michael, I heard your comments about the ”draconian” Swedish treatment of A$AP Rocky, and you did REALLY do not understand what has happened there. I’m no fanboy, but I follow both the Majority Report and Sam Harris and you’re wrong about Sam Harris. Some people on the left seems to think that Harris is conservative right-winger, but I’ve been listening to him for years and he voted for Hillary but Bernies platform seems to be inline with almost all of the political views of Harris. Progressive taxation, LGBT rights, climate change, wealth inequality, health care, etc. I’d like to see you debate Harris, on any topic, but he’ll walk all over you.
the guy who popularized the bullshit term 'islamophobia' has now thought better of it in light of a major new study in the UK: "The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West." www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/10/thought-europes-muslims-gradually-blend-britains-diverse-landscape-known-better/
+sausageman it's sad but typical that you people dismiss this because of the source. look it up elsewhere if you don't like the source. you'll discover the same facts.
+マスター禅 btw, this new study found that 52 percent of muslims in the UK think homosexuality should be illegal. it doesn't seem like something you should be celebrating.
The whole thing about michael and Sam harris' dislike is so weird. I will understand that you diagree with sam harris, what i don't understand is your obsession with agreeing with all those who disagree with Sam harris. By all means disagree with sam harris, but that should not automatically mean anyone who also disagrees with sam harris is right. The Omer Aziz interview with you is just so bizzarre. Did you guys listen to the podcast, did you read Omer Article?!? i guess we all have our blind spots.
+Oneki Isekpe All you guys should listen to Kyle Kulinski's episode about how Drone strikes deliberately target AMBULANCE workers after SIGNATURE STRIKES(Basically they GUESS someone is a terrorist and bomb them) and how former drone operators are saying they call kids killed "Terrorists in training" But wait, that's all okay according to Sam Harris, because good intentions! Well does that look like good intentions to you?
+Adam Cosper ISIS are such a world wide threat they dont even have planes let alone nukes - an exaggerated threat to keep govts in their lock-down mode of population and the war machines fed
Harris's example of a nuclear first strike is based upon the premise that greater harm than the strike, itself, is averted thereby (i.e. a utilitarian analysis). Harris is not supportive, in any general sense, of annihilating nations or peoples or cultures through violence; he is concerned to prevent active collectives of persons from visiting immense harm upon secularly governed, Western nations.
+Inannalu Yea, he wants to prevent active collectives of persons from visiting immense harm upon secularly governed western nations (which is currently an imagined threat for the US) by annihilating nations and/or peoples or cultures through a massive nuclear bombing campaign (aka violence). Of course, such a campaign would kill many millions of civilians, but hey, it is all for the greater good right?
He's a utilitarian, unless we begin talking about the violence "they" inflict on "us". At that point, he enters a magical cocoon and transforms into a virtue ethicist so that he can start to talk about intentions. In other words, he's a hypocrite who adjusts his moral standards in a way that conveniently paints a negative picture of Muslims in contrast to a positive image of the United States.
+Inannalu its irrelevant Harris just uses hypotheticals and "thought experiments" to veil his bigotry Imagine a thought experiment where I want to punch your face in...thats all he is doing its bullshit and not even clever which is why Chomsky and others are dismissive of this lightweight
+Inannalu So a lot of three dollar words to say: kill everyone who scares me before they can hurt me. The human race doesn't survive too long by that logic but I guess it makes sense to genocidal bigots.
Sam Harris does do some sloppy work and certainly appears to be rather uninformed about certain topics and people (Tommy Robinson being a prime example). I think his point on Islam is that a simple, literal reading of certain texts can be used to justify the likes of ISIS. Of course, most serious Islamic scholars would disagree with the ISIS interpretation but Sam Harris would ask why God made it so easy to interpret. His reading of Islam and Christianity is the least generous it could be (Richard Dawkins also does this) but so is that of ISIS.
Thought experiments brought us special relativity. Brought us understanding of black holes. They are absolutely necessary IF supported by evidence. Harris is a scientific thinker. Progressive commentators are simply too emotionally invested to think logically. And before you think I'm some sort of right-winger, I voted Bernie, follow Secular Talk, Rational National, Humanist Report, Democracy Now, RT, and Al Jazeera.
No, thought experiments are useful for general use not for specific situations. Harris thought experiments are used in place of actual established historical fact. He did this with Noam Chomsky, instead of talking about actual cases he thought of a thought experiment which had no bearing on established fact to present his case. If you don't have evidence, just don't make up a dream scenario that sounds plausible because at that point you are just work back from your biases.
It's about how ideas are framed. This should be framed as secularists against the magical thinkers. The caste system we see in India is an extreme manifestation of the hierarchy that we see in all religion. We saw religion used in the same way in antebellum US South. It's like the Voltaire quote; when you believe absurdities, you will commit atrocities. I tend to disagree with Michael where he and Sam Harris are closest in thinking. I think all magical thinking is bad. If you start an equation and make a mistake at the beginning, the further you get, the more you apply information based on that initial mistake, the further you get from a right answer. Sam Harris is wrong in singling out islam because all supernatural nonsense leads to the same atrocities the more you apply anything based on the initial mistake. Better to point out the real problem, which is religion itself.
And you are wrong about Harris singling out Islam. Try for even 5 minutes to see books he has published, debates he has been in, speeches he has given on Christianity.
WedgeMahalo I've read Harris. I read him in the mid-2000s when he was attacking relgiion instead of just islam. When is the last time he pointed out the dangers that the religious right pose to American democracy? He talks this Faux News caliphate silliness while theocrats vie for the Republican presidential nomination. I almost hope a Republican wins the presidency. Some of you _need_ to see homosexualtiy criminilized and women's right to determine what happens to their bodies taken away. You need to see the horror show that our religious right talks about in church basements and wants to inflict on the US. Harris said Ben Carson understood Mid-East foreign policy better than Noam Chomsky. Part of me really wants to hear Sam Harris' opinion when one of our Jesus nut jobs drops a nuke and starts WW III.
Sam has routinely spoke out about the problems of the religious right holding back science and advancement in the US. In fact he specifically cites how Islamic teachings are better on this than Christian doctrines. You think all he does is talk down Islam. His last big book (2014) was on Spirituality without religion and had nothing to do with Islam as a focus. Sam did not say Ben Carson understood Mid_East foreign policy better than Chomsky (how often can you regressives completely mis-quote one man???). He said on the issue of ISIS and threat of Islamic terror in the middle east, Carson is more right than Chomsky. That is a very different statement. And if you think the religious right in the US is the same threat as is Islamic terror worldwide - than you are a fool. The US is becoming more secular, granting/protecting more and more rights to groups that religious right would not protect - so what evidence do you ave of their influence growing - and in anyway threatening lives as does Islamic terror.
The projection is strong with this one. 8:30 Complaining that people mimic Harris.. Just secounds after: 7:54 Delivering a Reza Aslan. Almost verbatim.
Lol, you mean saying "Harris's understanding of Religion wouldn't pass academic muster" is a "Reza Aslan?" LMFAO That is a singular opinion that could be passed on anyone about anything. Michael obviously knows more than Harris. I know more about Islam than him, and I agree. Lol, keep dreemin' kid. (also, I'm an atheist, just so you know i'm not some vampire)
if you are just going to interrupt and never let the guy finish making a point, why did you bother letting him call in, and especially, why would you waste our time by posting such a go-nowhere conversation?
+Jon Anderson If people never posted go-nowhere conversations involving Sam Harris and his merry band of bigots then no one would have ever heard of them in the first place. By that, I mean that there is no conversation involving Sam Harris that isn't a go-nowhere conversation. (In case you don't understand what I meant by what I said.)
+Nethr It's like none of you listen to actual conversations with Harris. Can't say there's a person discussing the topics he does who has conversations that "go places" more than he does. You Regressives truly live in your own reality.
Shadow "You regressives truly live in your own reality." And you cultists live in YOUR own reality! See? Any conversation involving Harris or his harrisites is a go-nowhere conversation. Thank you for proving my point for me.
+Nethr you just proved his point about living in your own reality. Seriously what the hell is your definition of the word cult? Someone is really in a cult because they agree that someone else is right about something? It's so utterly ridiculous it's maddening to read. Do words even have meaning if that is how we use them?
+Maximilien Robespierre I suggest you read more and in particular ---www.amazon.com/The-New-Atheist-Threat-Extremists/dp/1908675349 The author Werleman pretty much hang and draws and quarters the famous atheists - Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins the short version of Werlemans argument is that simply Harris especially knows very little about Islam and geo politics claims to be "fair" yet can easily be seen as little more than a neo con with the typical biases - anti-Muslim pro Israel. Worse than not having any significant knowledge in the "field" he dismisses people that do have that experience and knowledge Open questions to Harris fans Has Harris even visited a Muslim dominated country? Has Harris even visited a mosque?
This guy loves starting sentences. His critique of Sam's "guru" cadence of speech was some obvious jealousy, maybe dont cut off your caller if you dont have a complete sentence ready.
Wow. You just made me a subscriber, and you didn't even have to resort to Chomsky's statement that Harris' religion is the State. Looking forward to further thoughtful explication as an example of the power of the internet. Well done.
Although all of Sam Harris' views aren't perfect, no one's is, I think what he's trying to do is create a space in the public forum where it's okay to openly criticize religions. Whereas before it was typically seen as taboo to do so openly because someone's religion was supposed to be sacred, something you should tolerate and not something to criticize in polite society. His first two books after 9/11, The End of Faith and Letters to a Christian Nation dealt a lot more with criticizing Christianity in the U.S. than just Islam. I think he's also trying to dispel the notion that there isn't any link between religious belief and terrorism, that it isn't all just caused by poverty, political or cultural structures or particular grievances against the West. Those are definitely factors in some cases but the connecting string is the religious extremism. As for the nuclear first strike "thought experiment", Pakistan right now is run by a relatively secular government but they do have an issue with extremists that they can't control, like in Waziristan which is basically run by the Taliban and their affiliates. If something like the Arab Spring were to happen in Pakistan and extremist forces take control of the government like we've seen unfortunately happen in many other countries after the Arab Spring it would definitely change things. The new extremist government may be more sympathetic to ISIS or Al-Queda in terms of giving them nukes and that is an issue. Even Obama, who receives top level intelligence briefings every day, when asked, "What is the one issue that keeps you up at night?" said "Pakistan." It doesn't mean we should do a nuclear first strike but is does mean we should do what we can to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of religious extremists who, unlike the Soviets during the Cold War have no fear of death but actually welcome it and for that reason the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) policy wouldn't work on them.
+CaptainHappen I would agree with you up untill a point but Sam Hrris is not the first of his kind. You had all kinds of people doing that before like Hitchens, Maher or Carlin and here in the UK we had guys like Stephen fry or John cleese doing that. What Sam Harris does is he puts this ridiculous focus on religion being the main reason for instability across the ME which is in direct conflict with what actual researchers, historians, sociologists and anthropologists say. Sam Harris has never lived in a muslim country, nor made an effort to understand these communities. He tried to say that the murder of a million Iraqis and the destruction of billions of dollars of infrastructure had no effect on the rise of ISIS...are you fucking kidding me?
+Sam S Sam Harris has never lived in a muslim country I would be surprised if he has even visited a mosque -Harris fans will tell me I am wrong and how he is clued up on Islam
+Sam S You are so wrong dude...There have been groups like ISIS that go back hundreds of years...As soon as ISIS is gone it will only be a matter of time before another Springs up...It's because there are so many who take the Quran literally....
sam harris is incredibly well spoken and logical in how he talks. I dont agree with him on everything but the animosity you have for him is just weird.
Lol he's just a faux intellectual who uses big words to confuse and fool his fanboys into worshipping him. And believe me, his dim fanboys aren't hard to fool.
+Fawkzzz You're not being convincing when you openly lie in this manner. I think the average IQ of a Harris fan is in the 120s, where as the average IQ of a Seder fan might barely scratch above 100. If you want to convince otherwise intelligent people to reconsider their views on Harris, start by making sense.
+Shadow How were you able to measure everyone's IQ's? I don't remember volunteering any such information. Huh, well that must mean that you just pulled that right out of the depths of your ass.
+LookForThetruth11 All you guys who are riding Sam Harris's dick should listen to Kyle Kulinski's episode about how Drone strikes deliberately target AMBULANCE workers after SIGNATURE STRIKES(Basically they GUESS someone is a terrorist and bomb them) and how former drone operators are saying they call kids killed "Terrorists in training" But wait, that's all okay according to Sam Harris, because good intentions! Well does that look like good intentions to you?
To distill Sam Harris down to one phrase is this "beliefs matter" Yes socio-economics, politics, history, and race are important, but one's religion is often the prism that one interprets and reacts to these forces. I consider myself a loud and proud liberal and it is depressing to see just how many of my own tribe who are supposed to stand for protecting minorities, women's rights, secular education, and cultural tolerance abandon these principles if it means criticizing Islam; a compulsion that they dont observe for Christianity. The fact is that while there are very few who are willing to pick up a gun and strap on a explosive vest and die for the glory of Islam; there are many who wish see its doctrines and practices codified, institutionalized, and pushed on to the rest of the world. Poll numbers for Muslims living in North Africa and the Middle East on issues such as apostasy punishment are alarming. Islam can very easily be the religion of peace that that it often purports to be, but for a great many who live where it is the dominant force is daily life, this simply is not the case. The key here is criticizing bad ideas, and Islam has plenty of those, just as Christianity did (and still does). This is all that Sam Harris does, and he receives far too much criticism from people who really should know better.
+Mind-Forged Manacles This is the typical well meaning but but very flawed response that I have come to expect from my liberal brothers/sisters in arms. It is a view where most religions are essentially benign, and that good people will be good, and bad people will be bad regardless of their religious affiliation, and that both sides will infuse their religion with their perspective rather than the religion having any major influence....and this is at least partly false. It ignores the ways in which religion shape the cultures and opinions. As an atheist I look at all religions as cultural man made institutions (as they are not divinely inspired) but are resistant (though not immune) to change. There is no doubt a distinct different between a child born to a Muslim family in the Unite States to that of one born in Pakistan in terms of the particulars of their beliefs; but this is true of any religion. However even Pew Poll data isn't encouraging. 8% of American Muslims still believed that suicide bombing can often be justified, with 12% unsure or undecided. While that is a much better result than worldwide figures, it is still unnerving. (but it is progress) At the very least it does show that a Muslim faith and Western Liberal ideals are not completely incompatible. As for ethnic profiling, I get where Sam Harris is coming from. It isn't profiling and targeting, its more about resource management. I am sure you have at least heard in passing about the relative ineffectiveness of the TSA in their ability to consistently and accurately prevent threats. This is due in part to poor resource allocation. If you are making an agent take the time to scrutinize everyone equally, you are effectively endangering everyone. Making the 80 year old grandma take her shoes of in the security line does nothing to enhance our security. Would you rather a TSA agent spend the time checking out Grandma or using that time to give a few extra seconds scrutinizing a white male in his late 20s traveling alone. If you answered the latter, than you are at least partially involved in this profiling process, the issue than becomes how heavily do you asses/assign risk to various age, sex, and racial groups. I will agree that if Sam is going to continue to talk about religion then he might want to consider running academic experiments rather than relying on the research of others. However, I find his sit down with Maajid Nawaz very encouraging and much more useful in terms of reforming the Islamic faith and moving forward than anything Chomsky as written in the last decade. (Sidenote: While I respect alot of Chomsky's earlier works on morality, I think its safe his best work is far, far behind him. I saw the email exchange between Chomsky and Harris, and if you look at the illogical, spiteful, and curmudgeonly way he argues his points and still think Harris should be embarrassed, then I am afraid we are on different wavelengths.
Jacob Prescott I'll be responding by the numbered paragraphs of yours to make it clear what I'm responding to in each instance. 1) And, not to be rude, this is the typical well-meaning but ignorant response offered by those who defend Harris, but like Harris, haven't done the basic research on the topic. I don't believe that most religions are benign (I'm an atheist), nor am I a liberal. I never said that religion didn't color one's view of anything. I said that social factors have a greater impact, and provided an example that backs that up. 2) I'd need to see the actual poll. Oftentimes I find that Harris has misrepresented/misreported the numbers of the polls he mentions, so i don't trust reporting of them by default. 3) This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Not only do you and Harris not know what you're talking about here, but Harris already got schooled on this by an actual security expert: www.samharris.org/blog/item/to-profile-or-not-to-profile Harris has explicitly supported ethnic profiling (in "Bombing Our Illusions"). More to the point, ethnic profiling is not a good way to manage resources, as it fundamentally misunderstands how security works. The reason we scrutinize everyone (with some security procedures) is that it is more efficient, as people know what to expect. This is why the TSA ended up changing their policy so that everyone removed their shoes after the Shoe Bomber, rather than just people with thick heels & such. The reason ethnic profiling is bad security, however, is that it necessarily makes a system less secure. It essentially breaks the system into an "easier path" for the non-profiled, and a "harder path" for the profiled. But such a system can easily be gamed by would-be terrorists. As Schneier points out in the above exchange, al-Qaeda was planning on deploying their hundreds of "Western-looking" (of all ethnicities, genders, ages, etc.) agents after 9/11, specifically because they anticipated us implementing an ethnic profile on "Muslim-looking" people. Yours and Harris' proposal completely fails this challenge because makes a path through security that can be exploited, and have been exploited by terrorists in other scenarios. This is why randomness is a powerful tool in this instance. It cannot be gamed by terrorists, because there is nothing to game, as there are no preferences (unlike with ethnic profiling). Lastly, it's not even clear that ethnic profiling would be any better than uniform screen, even in the most mathematically optimal circumstances: www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full?sid=3bc684ec-b593-41e9-b03e-2e3f32bc42b0 The reason we implement both uniform screening methods and add randomness in (including scanning people you & Harris think are obviously non-terrorists) isn't because we think they stand a good chance of being terrorists. It's because by using these measures, we have *better* security (inherently less vulnerable to gaming) & *greater* efficiency (travelers aren't slowed down by unexpected security measures based on a largely subjective & fuzzy set of criteria). Sorry this one was longer, but it was necessary to do. 4) I think Harris embarrassed himself in the Chomsky exchange. If the best you have is that Chomsky was curmudgeonly (and he was), then I think that speaks volumes. It's irrelevant to the points he made (which Harris failed to really address, much less rationally so). That aside, Harris sitting down with Nawaz doesn't mean much to me for 2 broad reasons. Firstly, did it cause Harris to make any real changes to his stated views? I've yet to see it; he seems to advocate for virtually all the same positions. Secondly, Nawaz isn't an expert on anything. While Nawaz is certainly more palatable than Harris, he hasn't (from the little I've seen anyway) put forth anything with the backing of substantial research (I could be wrong, but I doubt it).
+Mind-Forged Manacles At first I was more like you, but then I read the Qur'an. It's truly a terrible text, I didn't realize how bad it was. I don't blame religion as much as Harris when it comes to weighting these various factors that lead to Jihadism. I would say that it's very different for each situation. For instance, terrorist activities in a place like Israel are caused by very rational grievances; pre-9/11 al-Qaeda was almost all religious (motive was to get infidels out of Saudi Arabia); and ISIS is a combination with many privileged foreigners fighting for them, but also the Arab Spring and the Iraq War played massive roles.
Jack Stratif I don't know what you mean you were more like me. I agree that the Koran has truly terrible and awful things in it. The problem is that even the incidents you mention have little to do with religion. al-Qaeda was never an actual group before 9/11, it was just a list that the U.S. created. It coalesced into a group afterward.
Mind-Forged Manacles Western foreign policy has a nasty history, and continues right up to the present. I follow the news closely, and I am an avid reader of Chomsky; there's no way I would try and deny that America has done awful things (and great things like the Marshall Plan, etc). My number 1 complaint with Sam Harris is that he tries to absolve the Bush Administration because of the bad doctrine, something that I DO NOT do or think is justified.
The Persians implemented the caste system, it's not Hindu in it's origin. The Persians are light skinned and implemented one of the best forms of social control, cultural racism. On a side note Islam expunged Buddhism in India which is it's spiritual home.
I think one of the problems with Brooks argument is it never allows any progress of the discord. Take Islam, Sam makes a case that the religion itself is the at least one of if not these cause for the barbarism we see in Islamic countries, terrorism, etc. While guys like Brooks and Seder say "Sam doesn't know anything about Islam." The real reason is Western Colonialism and interference in the Middle East region. Even if Brooks and Seder and this lot are right and the root cause was interference from the West, that doesn't mean the solution to the world's problem with Radical islam lies in acknowledgment of that plausible fact. At least Sam is asking for reform within the religion an Islam 2.0 updated for the modern world, the kind of reform we have already seen in other religions. It's so daft to just say Sam singles out Islam... First of all, almost all religion has been under fire from Sam Harris. Secondly identifying historical crimes of other regions in no way solve the crimes religions are committing today. This is a bait and switch. Islam like any religion is up for criticism, if you don't think so then you have been duped.
There are many examples of Islam 2.0 throughout the whole world. Also, those who follow this Islam 2.0 do not deserve to be denied their human rights, as Harris believes
hmmm, i'm a huge harris fan, and yet I do believe this guy makes a valid point about the truisms and seductive intuitive appeal of harris' points overriding a full analysis of the situation. But you can also murky the waters when you constantly divert attention away from the basic truths. tough balance it seems
Never seen this channel before, but man you have convinced yourself that your on right side of facts even though your far from it. You say sam doesn't have any understanding of religion yet he has written a few books on it. Guess he must of really luck out doing zero research on the topic he wrote a book on. Then you make an argument that since he is a neurosurgeon he doesn't know about other topics. Guess it's hard to grasp that a really smart person can be well read in multiple subjects. The facts favour sam harris views. Some are wrong, but the way you disregard all his views and arguments make you a regressive sjw. A true liberal is open to all and new ideas.
Ok so here is what I think allot of people miss about Sam. He calls out bad ideas in the hopes that others will then see that those ideas are bad and then pressure people to abandon them. It is good for the world to give up bad ideas. People see others being pressured for what they believe and think they are being oppressed. And that leads them to thinking Sam is a bigot because he is inciting oppression. This is why it matters that their ideas is a large factor of the reason for conflict. If they don't have any backwards ideas and Sam is shaming them for what they think then yeah he looks bad. (Too bad they do)
+Eve Pigzy Harris is a "literalist" much like retards on the net they grab a few quotes from the Koran and extrapolate wrongly that every Muslim is following that quote. I guarantee Harris has never even been in a mosque let alone a Muslim dominated country - the guy is an asswipe - why people think a neuro scientist could be an expert about Islam and the middle east is beyond me
+Keith Parker there is a direct connection actually. He has written much on beliefs and how beliefs correspond to actions outside of his writing on Islam. It's typical of noisy critics that they're completely unfamiliar with his work and only have the remotest idea what he says.
+Keith Parker he doesn't say what you think he says. doesn't matter how much you repeat it. you make my point that noisy critics are too lazy to actually learn what he says.
sausageman then Harris is an appalling communicator IF someone has to "learn" - the guy is full of bullshit and uses any weird nonsense to bash Islam because thats the done thing as they are such a "threat to the world" - sarcasm
I’m no fan of Sam Harris, but these podcast identities like Michael Brooks, they’re not really doing a great job of critiquing the problems with Sam Harris. That was all very vague, Brooks had no killer blow arguments against Harris. It would be wonderful if Hitch was still around. He died before the podcast pandemic; he would make absolute mince meat out of these podcast groupies.
Hitchens would often fail to respond to criticism by instead responding to a similar criticism that wasn't made, very wittily. Being sassy doesn't make his point valid, though.
Jake Norris I think you’ve undersold Hitch. He was sassy and anecdotal, but his knowledge of the literature and historical examples was pretty impressive. And even if he was only half correct about a topic he would at least throw out some very specific, real life historical instances that would give his points weight and really make you think. He also was willing to be educated by his opponents, and do the one thing that so many people don’t do these days, which is change your mind. Harris doesn’t present like that. He cites statistics and the latest studies, as can Brooks, which is fine, nothing wrong with that. But they don’t put it across in a way that gets you excited about said idea. Rather, its just a tit for tat match in jerking off, that is only one or two steps higher than the Twitter sphere.
Harris has supported torture, profiling, nuclear preemptive attacks against Muslims and calls Islam a "cult of death" and that we aren't at war with terrorists but with "we are at war with Islam". Do these opinions strike you as sensible, liberal, mainstream or any bit academic or peer reviewed?
I wonder why people have such a hard time about thought experimental, it's almost like a fear of them. "You said what!? I know it follows..but we can't say that or even think it! Because of reasons."
No, the problem is that Harris' thought experiments are poor, because they are irrelevant to the state of affairs that people are objecting to, not the hypothetical which don't represent what people are actually rejecting .
+sausageman No. Harris creates the problem by ineptly creating thought experiments on controversial topics in ways that it makes no sense to do. If you're going to write "In Defense of Torture", but you're not "defending" torture that people were objecting to (Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, etc.), but instead argue for an extreme case no relevant to current circumstances, you're just avoiding what people are actually talking about.
+Mind-Forged Manacles I'll grant that he often uses provocative headlines, but when you read further his ideas become apparent. The people who reject it out of hand are ideologues. Every single time. Offering a fair criticism is one thing but that's rare from those who can't be honest about Islam because they think it will give the 'neo cons' an excuse to blow up the middle east.
sausageman It's not just the headlines. As I pointed out, he's defending extreme cases, which have no bearing on the actual, NOT extreme cases, that people were objecting to.
Interesting how they're always running out of time when the caller is speaking, but when the host talks they have plenty of time. Very weak tactic my man. Weak. Stick to your Jewy jew impressions and put Sam back on.
It is telling that Harris' defenders call up and defend the man, and NOT his opinions.
I'm just impressed Michael could understand what the guy was saying. It sounds like he called in on a soup can with a string attached to it.
Was the caller also Libertarian?
Rip to the king
RIP Micheal
Michael's critique of Harris is spot on.
+John Thursday To me, it's always a spectrum. On one end there's the doctrine of Islam, and on the other end there's Western foreign policy. Each situation falls somewhere on that spectrum, it's just a question of weighting the various factors.
"He writes about topic .. That he clearly has no understanding of" what?
Right. Because somebody who hasn't read the quran and just reiterates Aslan and Greenwald lines can say with a straight face, that Sam has no knowledge of the issue (7:54).
While Sam has actually read the quran and several hadiths.
"Spot on"
Frederico Di Pace Is it possible for someone to 'read' something, not understand it and then foment a mis-interpretation that conforms to an agenda, cherry pick information, straw-man, and generalize? I guess we could go back and fourth about whether or not that person 'understands' what they have read, but I would argue that familiarity with a text does not guarantee understanding. The basis of Michael's critique is that Harris is an opportunistic, power-loving, manipulator. He certainly understands that.
John Thursday
Why didn't Michael say that and instead claimed that Harris had *no knowledge*?
Seems to me that you read a lot to what was being said in this video..
But ok.. let's say you're right.
So what do you think is in it for Sam? Why does he go out of his way to "mis"interpret a religion that calls for murder on every other page, that idealizes a pedophile rapist warlord and whos adherents reliably form the most miserable countries that spawn the most heinous people on earth? Why does he keep facing the lying, mudslinging people like Aslan and the gang - thereby sacrificing his time and reputation for the "bad" cause? Do you think it's all the islamophobe-dollars (which is the position Omar failed to defend) or is it just generic racism and malevolence?
"in terms of reality" is one of my favorite Michael phrases, haha
A big problem I have with Harris is what Michael points out. He says controversial things at a time where it makes no sense to do so. Worse, he argues against things people aren't talking about.
He says since torture might be acceptable in certain scenarios, you can't give an in principle argument against torture. But so what? People weren't talking about these wet dream inducing hypothetical of Harris where a nuke is going to go off. They were outraged by the torture that did actually happen (Guantanomo, Abu Ghraib, etc.). Harris' dishonesty or stupidity here is akin to writing an article "In Defense of Concentration Camps" in the middle of World War 2, & giving an absurd & irrelevant hypothetical. It would be clearly an immoral thing to do at that time, for hopefully obvious reasons.
If you allow yourself freedom to come up with any thought experiment, you can't hold an in principle position against any heinous act. You just need to be a little creative with the scenario.
+Bob Indeed. But the point Harris doesn't seem to get is that a moral edge case (by virtue of being extreme) don't tell you much of anything about the relevant real-real-world instances. He's just philosophically inept, lol
+Mind-Forged Manacles I think you're missing the point that Harris' bit on torture was specifically aimed at the conversation regarding torture that came out of Guantanamo, etc. It was a response to people knee-jerk saying at that time that torture is never acceptable under any circumstance. He was pointing out its foolish to maintain that self-imposed rule by giving circumstances where torture could be a necessary evil.
I might also point out that you're complaining about Sam Harris arguing against things people aren't talking about by dredging up topics from his books that are now over a decade old.
WorshipHumans Yes but the point of kine that you're missing is that a lot of those people weren't thinking of a scenario where a nuke is abut to go off, & you KNOW you have the guy who is responsible. Like, if I say "You shouldn't hurt people", most people aren't going to bring up self-defense, because they know that I'm talking about a particular class of actions, and that I'm not talking about every possible action. Harris bring up things that are irrelevant to what people are actually talking about.
Sam Harris never stopped talking about torture, so claiming that such is only in his books from a decade ago is just incorrect. He brought it up in his interview on The Young Turks, his interview with Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk & on Dave Rubin's interview with him on "The Rubin Report".
Mind-Forged Manacles It is entirely relevant because at the time many people were literally saying we should NEVER EVER torture. To use your example if you were to say "You should never ever hurt people no matter what", many would rightly point out the foolishness of that by bringing up self-defense. You say "That's not what people were actually talking about", but I was alive at the time as well and and I remember full well people losing their shit and saying no one should ever be tortured no matter what.
I'll let Sam Harris field your 2nd claim. From his blog: "It seems that every few weeks, someone discovers the relevant pages in The End of Faith, or notices what others have said about them, and publicly attacks me for being “pro-torture.” Journalists regularly steer interviews on any subject in this direction-not so that they can understand my position, or coherently argue against it, but so that readers can be shocked by whatever misleading gloss appears in their final copy. The spectacle of someone not being reflexively and categorically 'against torture' seems just too good to pass up."
At 8:33: "What Harris says is true is obvious, and what he says is a problem is a real problem."
Hey cultists please understand 7:20 before you go full rage.Once you understand that,you will not be cultists anymore.
+chessplayer You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into to begin with. They've had several years of people like AiU, LiveLife, SargonOfAkad, Tommy Sotomayor, Gad Saad and Milo Yiannopoulos calmly and collectively use what appears to be logic and reason to make bigotry okay while painting anyone who isn't a part of their group as an irrational and negative "other" represented by people you don't want to be like such as Melissa Click, Jenny McDermott and Ryan Wiley.
+MilitantAntiTheist
I agree.I have proven them factually wrong multiple times but they never bothered to acknowledge that,instead they call you reggresive and move on saying the same excact factually wrong things,it is amazing how these people claim they are rational.
If they bothered to research real scholars in this subjects,they would move on from Harris within hours.Even when you cite that entire academia considers Harris view wrong,they say academia is infested with Islamists and reggresive leftists.Amazing.You cant win.
Unfortunatelly,you are right.We can not reason with them.It is too late.
+Shahbaz Ahmed you people are fucking insane.
@@chessplayer8798 I agree.I have proven them factually wrong multiple times but they never bothered to acknowledge that,instead they call you reggresive and move on saying the same excact factually wrong things.
and i dont Think you understand what proving factually wrong means. uttering those Words doesnt make them come true like some fairy tale. give an exampple of whta you Think is factually wrong that ueve provben
absolutely
Michael Brooks is spot on!
Really? You call that spot on?
The guy (that I'm 90% sure has never opened a quran) says Harris has no knowledge about the issues (7:54).
While Harris has actually read the quran and several hadiths.
The only public figure I know that makes a genuine effort to understand the issue, rather than just trying to win the argument..
I am an athiest and a Sam Harris fan, but since I understand fully that the US has had a systematic plan in place to overthrow the governments of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan since the 90's, his premise of intentions falls flat. He has no understanding of the issue. If he were correct about premise, his argument would be sound. Chomsky is correct about premise, and about empirical statistics. I am no fan of religion, but a religion, nation, any group will become radicalized when systematically exposed to creeping death tactics. Sam Harris has been let down by his failure to grasp this aspect. See my research at my blog www.dwahts.blogspot.com
Glenn Swart
I also disagree with Sam about the role of the US as a supposedly benevolent force..
But is that really a matter of lack of knowledge, rather than just a difference of opinion? The premise is an *assumption* on both sides.
So far I have only heard from hearsay about the pre-planned overthrow.. Is that a secured fact now? How?
What facts does the moderator or Chomsky know that Sam is ignorant about?
(In the Harris-Chomsky debate, it didn't feel like Noam was hitting Sam with new facts - they are just *assuming* different motives and intentions on the side of the US)
I think both have the same knowledge about what's going on in the middle east.. They are just interpreting the facts differently.
And again - I would rather go with Chomsky's interpretation. But when the dude says Sam has no knowledge about the issues - I disagree.
Nice blog though.
So what's your opinion about islam?
You are correct about Sams not having knowledge playing a role, perhaps that's why I write the blog. I understand his base point though if it were made outside of these circumstances and that's why I remain a fan of his. I think all religion is fantasy, The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, current extremism even etc is seldom a good thing, Islam is in a terrible state right now, but with all the promising secular nations destroyed by financial hit-men and the US Military/CIA in order to prop up brutal regimes, with all the funding of extremist rebels and destruction of working governments, it's little wonder. Those are not conditions that moderates and good governance flourish, those are the conditions of bitterness, power struggles, taking refuge in religious identity because many middle eastern muslims have been stripped of their identity etc. All religiouns are in essence briutal if you cherry pick, it just depends on how fertile the soil is that it falls. The feudalistic push that globalisation has on those society's will soon move to the West and you and I will start getting a taste of it soon. The financial system is an important part of the petrodollar war machine that fuels globalisation and it's about to canabilise it's own citizens. Perhaps you can find the time to read my latest post if you are open to it. dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2016/05/money-creation-for-dummies.html
"Tatical nukes" seems like an oxymoron.
Sounds like local hurricane
Gentle bomb
Sounds like the name of a political punk band. Tonight’s headliner is “Rage Against the Machine”, with “Tactical Nukes” as the opener. Sick.
It’s not. Read up on low yield nuclear weapons and counterforce.
@@kspace4700 any yield of tactical nuke is less tactical than an equivalent amount of conventional explosives, there's nothing particularly tactical about nuclear fallout in your backyard.
Sam Harris & Trump supporters are kinda similar ,they don't see any fault of their cult leader
Sam Harris is a scholar wannabe who thinks that by using mental gymnastics that don't make sense in the real world gives him an equal statue to Naom Chomsky. Pfffffft!!!!!
+Feras Al Hati This guy says Harris is a neuroscientist and that he has too much confidence talking about topics he doesn't understand, but the hypocrisy is that no person fits that description more than Noam Chomsky. I admire both men, but be consistent with your logic!
emmy lite
Chomsky understands the world’s affairs way better than Sam Harris. Most of Harris’s world views are populist.
Quasi intellectuals. The whole lot. Michael Brooks was the best pop intellectual.
@@masudawan8357 Chomsky might make a good encyclopedia but there’s no valuable conjugation that remotely skims the surface of reason coming out of dudes gullet
Somehow harrasites found this video and disliked it in a matter of seconds as well. What's the disease called again?
+Tekin Beyoglu Personal cult.
It's called being subscribed to a TH-cam channel.
How did the anti Harris people find it so quick? Same way.
+Seán O'Nilbud you're a master of irony.
+Tekin Beyoglu
Rationality.
+I'm A Liberal Not A Libtard I don't know if you're joking or not, but that is the funniest thing I've read today.
He’s describing thought experiments of bombing other countries and can’t see the subtext
This guy was a major lost for our society.
With the issue of Pakistan, the problem isn't that the current Pakistani government is going to use nukes, but that there will be a coup and Jihadists get their hands on nukes.
This man was the hero we needed, but not the one we deserved. RIP.
Sam Harris... his name just makes my IQ drop 10 level points...
From 50 to 40?
+I'm A Liberal Not A Libtard I am a Bernie supporter but not a Bernie Bagger.
+Shahbaz Ahmed I can tell why you don't like Sam Harris speaking facts just by your name. As for these other idiots?
+Joel Fisher
dude, eating lunch lowers your I.Q.
Hustler, you just have it wrong, typical regressive bullshit, you and your friends are fascinating though.Too busy to deal with all you ridiculous people echoing your nonsense, back and forth .
The title to this video does the caller a bit of a disservice, he seems fairly reasonable, despite being a Sam Harris supporter.
Brilliant way to unpack Sam, well done indeed.
YOU'RE TAKING HIM OUT OF CONTEXT MICHAEL! NEXT TIME YOU LISTEN TO HIS VIDEOS SLOW IT DOWN TO .75 SPEED AND PAY ATTENTION MORE
The caste system has its roots in Hinduism ALMOST ENTIRELY. Any serious student of the subject will tell you that. I am a westerner living in India for almost twenty years. I do believe that the system is corrupt in some ways -- economic, political, and simple human egos and prejudice. But at its root it came out of Hinduism. (PS: I have many big disagreements with Harris, but he is largely correct on this one.)
Come on Michael. He's "supposedly" a neuroscientist? Like he got his Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of California.
+MilitantAntiTheist Come on man. I'm a subscriber to the Majority Report too. And I'm a huge fan of both Michael Brooks and Sam Seder. But let's be honest, on an intellectual level, you can't compare Harris to a dude like Bush. For Christ's sake, Bush can't even speak full sentences. And at times, he seems to be unable to even read full sentences.
+12davetw Except he didn't do any experiment in his life or worked on his suposed field of study at any time at all. shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/
All I'd say on that front is that Harris hasn't really done neuroscience research. Even for his own Ph.D, he didn't do any of the experimental work according to the paper itself.
But I'd take it as a slip up on Michael's part. His main point seemed to be that Harris doesn't do research on the topics he pontificate about. And Michael's right, Harris doesn't. See Harris' exchanges with Bruce Schneier, Dan Dennett, Scott Atran & Noam Chomsky. They're embarrassing on Harris' part, because he did no research.
Michael, the reason Harris acknowledges politics and history and then focuses on the problem of Islamism's ideological role is that everyone, their dog, and their Aunt Tilly goes over political issues, but pretends religious ideology has _nothing at all_ to do with the motives - which it does. That is the problem in our discourse. It's like having a conversation with a fellow liberal about the problems of the contemporary capitalist economy, and you bring up the monstrosity of mega-corporations. You expect the other person to acknowledge that yes, that's part of it, and factor it in so the discussion can move on. But instead they get this sour look on their face like they've just smelled a rotten egg, and the next thing you know they're accusing you of being narrow-minded and blaming everything on corporations, and that the real issue is the bond market, banks, and the Federal Reserve. And you say, yes, those things are part of it, but corporations have too much influence - and then you get cut off again as this person gets irate and declares there's nothing wrong with corporations, and you're just being bigoted towards every person who's ever gone incorporated. And there you are, stuck on the issue of corporations because there's some kind of thought disease going around which won't even acknowledge they're part of the problem. That's when you realize that the problem will never get solved until people stop refusing to consider that corporations are part of it. That's what's happened to Harris on this issue.
+Alexandra Pierce
Well put! Sam is essentially being attacked because he is trying to make a fine point & is using rhetoric & as an educated Liberal I'm stunned to see other educated Liberals actually not understand his points.
caller- " bu,bu,bu......uh...uh..uh...bu..bu..bu..." FFS!
A 4 hour debate. This caller has stamina, anyway.
Oh, this is going to be spectacularly stupid. I'm getting popcorn.
+devourerofbabies It's the Regressive Report. What did u expect...
@John-Paul Hunt Was that comment meant to be coherent?
”Sam harris does not understand....”. Well Michael, I heard your comments about the ”draconian” Swedish treatment of A$AP Rocky, and you did REALLY do not understand what has happened there. I’m no fanboy, but I follow both the Majority Report and Sam Harris and you’re wrong about Sam Harris. Some people on the left seems to think that Harris is conservative right-winger, but I’ve been listening to him for years and he voted for Hillary but Bernies platform seems to be inline with almost all of the political views of Harris. Progressive taxation, LGBT rights, climate change, wealth inequality, health care, etc. I’d like to see you debate Harris, on any topic, but he’ll walk all over you.
Then why did he vote for Hillary over Bernie if he believed all those things.
@@treybaker5716 maybe he thought bernie was so unlikely to win that he didn't wanna waste his vote
the guy who popularized the bullshit term 'islamophobia' has now thought better of it in light of a major new study in the UK:
"The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West."
www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/10/thought-europes-muslims-gradually-blend-britains-diverse-landscape-known-better/
+sausageman It's interesting how "true liberals" who aren't "regressives" such as yourself are now regularly quoting Breitbart as a valid news source.
+sausageman it's sad but typical that you people dismiss this because of the source. look it up elsewhere if you don't like the source. you'll discover the same facts.
+マスター禅 btw, this new study found that 52 percent of muslims in the UK think homosexuality should be illegal.
it doesn't seem like something you should be celebrating.
+MilitantAntiTheist Hilarious, isn't it?
+MilitantAntiTheist Hilarious, isn't it?
The whole thing about michael and Sam harris' dislike is so weird. I will understand that you diagree with sam harris, what i don't understand is your obsession with agreeing with all those who disagree with Sam harris. By all means disagree with sam harris, but that should not automatically mean anyone who also disagrees with sam harris is right. The Omer Aziz interview with you is just so bizzarre. Did you guys listen to the podcast, did you read Omer Article?!? i guess we all have our blind spots.
Adam Cosper
said where? in the interveiw with michael, that with sam or in his article?
+Oneki Isekpe
All you guys should listen to Kyle Kulinski's episode about how Drone strikes deliberately target AMBULANCE workers after SIGNATURE STRIKES(Basically they GUESS someone is a terrorist and bomb them) and how former drone operators are saying they call kids killed "Terrorists in training"
But wait, that's all okay according to Sam Harris, because good intentions!
Well does that look like good intentions to you?
+Adam Cosper ISIS are such a world wide threat they dont even have planes let alone nukes - an exaggerated threat to keep govts in their lock-down mode of population and the war machines fed
U have to accuse all acts of terror, not just the brown faced ones.
Harris's example of a nuclear first strike is based upon the premise that greater harm than the strike, itself, is averted thereby (i.e. a utilitarian analysis). Harris is not supportive, in any general sense, of annihilating nations or peoples or cultures through violence; he is concerned to prevent active collectives of persons from visiting immense harm upon secularly governed, Western nations.
+Inannalu ...no duh
+Inannalu Yea, he wants to prevent active collectives of persons from visiting immense harm upon secularly governed western nations (which is currently an imagined threat for the US) by annihilating nations and/or peoples or cultures through a massive nuclear bombing campaign (aka violence).
Of course, such a campaign would kill many millions of civilians, but hey, it is all for the greater good right?
He's a utilitarian, unless we begin talking about the violence "they" inflict on "us". At that point, he enters a magical cocoon and transforms into a virtue ethicist so that he can start to talk about intentions.
In other words, he's a hypocrite who adjusts his moral standards in a way that conveniently paints a negative picture of Muslims in contrast to a positive image of the United States.
+Inannalu its irrelevant Harris just uses hypotheticals and "thought experiments" to veil his bigotry
Imagine a thought experiment where I want to punch your face in...thats all he is doing its bullshit and not even clever which is why Chomsky and others are dismissive of this lightweight
+Inannalu So a lot of three dollar words to say: kill everyone who scares me before they can hurt me. The human race doesn't survive too long by that logic but I guess it makes sense to genocidal bigots.
Sam Harris does do some sloppy work and certainly appears to be rather uninformed about certain topics and people (Tommy Robinson being a prime example). I think his point on Islam is that a simple, literal reading of certain texts can be used to justify the likes of ISIS. Of course, most serious Islamic scholars would disagree with the ISIS interpretation but Sam Harris would ask why God made it so easy to interpret. His reading of Islam and Christianity is the least generous it could be (Richard Dawkins also does this) but so is that of ISIS.
Thought experiments brought us special relativity. Brought us understanding of black holes. They are absolutely necessary IF supported by evidence. Harris is a scientific thinker. Progressive commentators are simply too emotionally invested to think logically. And before you think I'm some sort of right-winger, I voted Bernie, follow Secular Talk, Rational National, Humanist Report, Democracy Now, RT, and Al Jazeera.
No, thought experiments are useful for general use not for specific situations. Harris thought experiments are used in place of actual established historical fact. He did this with Noam Chomsky, instead of talking about actual cases he thought of a thought experiment which had no bearing on established fact to present his case. If you don't have evidence, just don't make up a dream scenario that sounds plausible because at that point you are just work back from your biases.
Ben, tell me I'm too emotional to be logical again. I love that shit!
@@floepiejane you're too emotional to think logically.
@@DescartesRenegade🙄
What science Harris has used for his preemptive Nuke thought experiment?
lmao first clip ive watched with this outro
It's about how ideas are framed. This should be framed as secularists against the magical thinkers. The caste system we see in India is an extreme manifestation of the hierarchy that we see in all religion. We saw religion used in the same way in antebellum US South. It's like the Voltaire quote; when you believe absurdities, you will commit atrocities. I tend to disagree with Michael where he and Sam Harris are closest in thinking. I think all magical thinking is bad. If you start an equation and make a mistake at the beginning, the further you get, the more you apply information based on that initial mistake, the further you get from a right answer. Sam Harris is wrong in singling out islam because all supernatural nonsense leads to the same atrocities the more you apply anything based on the initial mistake. Better to point out the real problem, which is religion itself.
you do not know Hinduism.
WedgeMahalo Not much. Not much needed to be known.
And you are wrong about Harris singling out Islam. Try for even 5 minutes to see books he has published, debates he has been in, speeches he has given on Christianity.
WedgeMahalo I've read Harris. I read him in the mid-2000s when he was attacking relgiion instead of just islam. When is the last time he pointed out the dangers that the religious right pose to American democracy? He talks this Faux News caliphate silliness while theocrats vie for the Republican presidential nomination. I almost hope a Republican wins the presidency. Some of you _need_ to see homosexualtiy criminilized and women's right to determine what happens to their bodies taken away. You need to see the horror show that our religious right talks about in church basements and wants to inflict on the US. Harris said Ben Carson understood Mid-East foreign policy better than Noam Chomsky. Part of me really wants to hear Sam Harris' opinion when one of our Jesus nut jobs drops a nuke and starts WW III.
Sam has routinely spoke out about the problems of the religious right holding back science and advancement in the US. In fact he specifically cites how Islamic teachings are better on this than Christian doctrines. You think all he does is talk down Islam. His last big book (2014) was on Spirituality without religion and had nothing to do with Islam as a focus.
Sam did not say Ben Carson understood Mid_East foreign policy better than Chomsky (how often can you regressives completely mis-quote one man???). He said on the issue of ISIS and threat of Islamic terror in the middle east, Carson is more right than Chomsky. That is a very different statement.
And if you think the religious right in the US is the same threat as is Islamic terror worldwide - than you are a fool. The US is becoming more secular, granting/protecting more and more rights to groups that religious right would not protect - so what evidence do you ave of their influence growing - and in anyway threatening lives as does Islamic terror.
I’m listening to these old clips. Have to admire the ability of Michael to parse things out in a calm, simple way - the exact opposite of Harris.
The projection is strong with this one.
8:30 Complaining that people mimic Harris..
Just secounds after:
7:54 Delivering a Reza Aslan. Almost verbatim.
Lol, you mean saying "Harris's understanding of Religion wouldn't pass academic muster" is a "Reza Aslan?" LMFAO That is a singular opinion that could be passed on anyone about anything. Michael obviously knows more than Harris. I know more about Islam than him, and I agree. Lol, keep dreemin' kid. (also, I'm an atheist, just so you know i'm not some vampire)
deconstructyouridols 🧛♂️
"Instrumental reasoning". Charles Taylor - Malaise of Modernity
if you are just going to interrupt and never let the guy finish making a point, why did you bother letting him call in, and especially, why would you waste our time by posting such a go-nowhere conversation?
+Jon Anderson If people never posted go-nowhere conversations involving Sam Harris and his merry band of bigots then no one would have ever heard of them in the first place.
By that, I mean that there is no conversation involving Sam Harris that isn't a go-nowhere conversation. (In case you don't understand what I meant by what I said.)
+Nethr
It's like none of you listen to actual conversations with Harris. Can't say there's a person discussing the topics he does who has conversations that "go places" more than he does.
You Regressives truly live in your own reality.
Shadow
"You regressives truly live in your own reality."
And you cultists live in YOUR own reality!
See? Any conversation involving Harris or his harrisites is a go-nowhere conversation.
Thank you for proving my point for me.
+Nethr you just proved his point about living in your own reality. Seriously what the hell is your definition of the word cult?
Someone is really in a cult because they agree that someone else is right about something? It's so utterly ridiculous it's maddening to read.
Do words even have meaning if that is how we use them?
Mason TerHorst
You missed the point of what I said entirely and I have no desire to jump down this rabbit hole again for the 1,000th time.
I have yet to hear a decent critique of Harris.
+Maximilien Robespierre I suggest you read more and in particular ---www.amazon.com/The-New-Atheist-Threat-Extremists/dp/1908675349
The author Werleman pretty much hang and draws and quarters the famous atheists - Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins
the short version of Werlemans argument is that simply Harris especially knows very little about Islam and geo politics claims to be "fair" yet can easily be seen as little more than a neo con with the typical biases - anti-Muslim pro Israel. Worse than not having any significant knowledge in the "field" he dismisses people that do have that experience and knowledge
Open questions to Harris fans
Has Harris even visited a Muslim dominated country?
Has Harris even visited a mosque?
+Keith Parker Thanks for the book recommend
I'm really not impressed with self-interrupting presentation of someone else's introduction.
This guy loves starting sentences. His critique of Sam's "guru" cadence of speech was some obvious jealousy, maybe dont cut off your caller if you dont have a complete sentence ready.
Wow. You just made me a subscriber, and you didn't even have to resort to Chomsky's statement that Harris' religion is the State. Looking forward to further thoughtful explication as an example of the power of the internet. Well done.
Really??
Sam Harris talks about subjects as a philosopher. Like the "why don't we eat babies" example. Its just philosophic discussion.
Although all of Sam Harris' views aren't perfect, no one's is, I think what he's trying to do is create a space in the public forum where it's okay to openly criticize religions. Whereas before it was typically seen as taboo to do so openly because someone's religion was supposed to be sacred, something you should tolerate and not something to criticize in polite society. His first two books after 9/11, The End of Faith and Letters to a Christian Nation dealt a lot more with criticizing Christianity in the U.S. than just Islam. I think he's also trying to dispel the notion that there isn't any link between religious belief and terrorism, that it isn't all just caused by poverty, political or cultural structures or particular grievances against the West. Those are definitely factors in some cases but the connecting string is the religious extremism.
As for the nuclear first strike "thought experiment", Pakistan right now is run by a relatively secular government but they do have an issue with extremists that they can't control, like in Waziristan which is basically run by the Taliban and their affiliates. If something like the Arab Spring were to happen in Pakistan and extremist forces take control of the government like we've seen unfortunately happen in many other countries after the Arab Spring it would definitely change things.
The new extremist government may be more sympathetic to ISIS or Al-Queda in terms of giving them nukes and that is an issue. Even Obama, who receives top level intelligence briefings every day, when asked, "What is the one issue that keeps you up at night?" said "Pakistan." It doesn't mean we should do a nuclear first strike but is does mean we should do what we can to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of religious extremists who, unlike the Soviets during the Cold War have no fear of death but actually welcome it and for that reason the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) policy wouldn't work on them.
+CaptainHappen I would agree with you up untill a point but Sam Hrris is not the first of his kind. You had all kinds of people doing that before like Hitchens, Maher or Carlin and here in the UK we had guys like Stephen fry or John cleese doing that. What Sam Harris does is he puts this ridiculous focus on religion being the main reason for instability across the ME which is in direct conflict with what actual researchers, historians, sociologists and anthropologists say. Sam Harris has never lived in a muslim country, nor made an effort to understand these communities. He tried to say that the murder of a million Iraqis and the destruction of billions of dollars of infrastructure had no effect on the rise of ISIS...are you fucking kidding me?
+Sam S Sam Harris has never lived in a muslim country
I would be surprised if he has even visited a mosque -Harris fans will tell me I am wrong and how he is clued up on Islam
+Sam S You are so wrong dude...There have been groups like ISIS that go back hundreds of years...As soon as ISIS is gone it will only be a matter of time before another Springs up...It's because there are so many who take the Quran literally....
jeffrey quinn or that the fact that they are resisting western forces in their land
Keith Parker By killing Yazidis, Shi'ites and Kurds?
Another person who is misrepresenting zSam Harris. Or is it possible this guy really just doesn't understand?
Fuckin Michael owned this dude's ass :x
Honestly, how can you think that? I am genuinely curious. I am also genuinely concerned.
sam harris is incredibly well spoken and logical in how he talks. I dont agree with him on everything but the animosity you have for him is just weird.
Lol he's just a faux intellectual who uses big words to confuse and fool his fanboys into worshipping him. And believe me, his dim fanboys aren't hard to fool.
+Fawkzzz
You're not being convincing when you openly lie in this manner. I think the average IQ of a Harris fan is in the 120s, where as the average IQ of a Seder fan might barely scratch above 100. If you want to convince otherwise intelligent people to reconsider their views on Harris, start by making sense.
+Shadow How were you able to measure everyone's IQ's? I don't remember volunteering any such information.
Huh, well that must mean that you just pulled that right out of the depths of your ass.
+LookForThetruth11
All you guys who are riding Sam Harris's dick should listen to Kyle Kulinski's episode about how Drone strikes deliberately target AMBULANCE workers after SIGNATURE STRIKES(Basically they GUESS someone is a terrorist and bomb them) and how former drone operators are saying they call kids killed "Terrorists in training"
But wait, that's all okay according to Sam Harris, because good intentions!
Well does that look like good intentions to you?
*****
Harris says America has good intentions. Deliberately targetting rescue workers is not good intentions.
We don't wanna spend too much time on Harris, b/c it exposes me as unable to distingush between a group of people and the insane beliefs they hold.
What a joke of a show..
To distill Sam Harris down to one phrase is this "beliefs matter" Yes socio-economics, politics, history, and race are important, but one's religion is often the prism that one interprets and reacts to these forces. I consider myself a loud and proud liberal and it is depressing to see just how many of my own tribe who are supposed to stand for protecting minorities, women's rights, secular education, and cultural tolerance abandon these principles if it means criticizing Islam; a compulsion that they dont observe for Christianity.
The fact is that while there are very few who are willing to pick up a gun and strap on a explosive vest and die for the glory of Islam; there are many who wish see its doctrines and practices codified, institutionalized, and pushed on to the rest of the world. Poll numbers for Muslims living in North Africa and the Middle East on issues such as apostasy punishment are alarming. Islam can very easily be the religion of peace that that it often purports to be, but for a great many who live where it is the dominant force is daily life, this simply is not the case. The key here is criticizing bad ideas, and Islam has plenty of those, just as Christianity did (and still does). This is all that Sam Harris does, and he receives far too much criticism from people who really should know better.
+Mind-Forged Manacles This is the typical well meaning but but very flawed response that I have come to expect from my liberal brothers/sisters in arms. It is a view where most religions are essentially benign, and that good people will be good, and bad people will be bad regardless of their religious affiliation, and that both sides will infuse their religion with their perspective rather than the religion having any major influence....and this is at least partly false. It ignores the ways in which religion shape the cultures and opinions. As an atheist I look at all religions as cultural man made institutions (as they are not divinely inspired) but are resistant (though not immune) to change.
There is no doubt a distinct different between a child born to a Muslim family in the Unite States to that of one born in Pakistan in terms of the particulars of their beliefs; but this is true of any religion. However even Pew Poll data isn't encouraging. 8% of American Muslims still believed that suicide bombing can often be justified, with 12% unsure or undecided. While that is a much better result than worldwide figures, it is still unnerving. (but it is progress) At the very least it does show that a Muslim faith and Western Liberal ideals are not completely incompatible.
As for ethnic profiling, I get where Sam Harris is coming from. It isn't profiling and targeting, its more about resource management. I am sure you have at least heard in passing about the relative ineffectiveness of the TSA in their ability to consistently and accurately prevent threats. This is due in part to poor resource allocation. If you are making an agent take the time to scrutinize everyone equally, you are effectively endangering everyone. Making the 80 year old grandma take her shoes of in the security line does nothing to enhance our security. Would you rather a TSA agent spend the time checking out Grandma or using that time to give a few extra seconds scrutinizing a white male in his late 20s traveling alone. If you answered the latter, than you are at least partially involved in this profiling process, the issue than becomes how heavily do you asses/assign risk to various age, sex, and racial groups.
I will agree that if Sam is going to continue to talk about religion then he might want to consider running academic experiments rather than relying on the research of others. However, I find his sit down with Maajid Nawaz very encouraging and much more useful in terms of reforming the Islamic faith and moving forward than anything Chomsky as written in the last decade. (Sidenote: While I respect alot of Chomsky's earlier works on morality, I think its safe his best work is far, far behind him. I saw the email exchange between Chomsky and Harris, and if you look at the illogical, spiteful, and curmudgeonly way he argues his points and still think Harris should be embarrassed, then I am afraid we are on different wavelengths.
Jacob Prescott I'll be responding by the numbered paragraphs of yours to make it clear what I'm responding to in each instance.
1) And, not to be rude, this is the typical well-meaning but ignorant response offered by those who defend Harris, but like Harris, haven't done the basic research on the topic. I don't believe that most religions are benign (I'm an atheist), nor am I a liberal. I never said that religion didn't color one's view of anything. I said that social factors have a greater impact, and provided an example that backs that up.
2) I'd need to see the actual poll. Oftentimes I find that Harris has misrepresented/misreported the numbers of the polls he mentions, so i don't trust reporting of them by default.
3) This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Not only do you and Harris not know what you're talking about here, but Harris already got schooled on this by an actual security expert:
www.samharris.org/blog/item/to-profile-or-not-to-profile
Harris has explicitly supported ethnic profiling (in "Bombing Our Illusions"). More to the point, ethnic profiling is not a good way to manage resources, as it fundamentally misunderstands how security works. The reason we scrutinize everyone (with some security procedures) is that it is more efficient, as people know what to expect. This is why the TSA ended up changing their policy so that everyone removed their shoes after the Shoe Bomber, rather than just people with thick heels & such.
The reason ethnic profiling is bad security, however, is that it necessarily makes a system less secure. It essentially breaks the system into an "easier path" for the non-profiled, and a "harder path" for the profiled. But such a system can easily be gamed by would-be terrorists. As Schneier points out in the above exchange, al-Qaeda was planning on deploying their hundreds of "Western-looking" (of all ethnicities, genders, ages, etc.) agents after 9/11, specifically because they anticipated us implementing an ethnic profile on "Muslim-looking" people. Yours and Harris' proposal completely fails this challenge because makes a path through security that can be exploited, and have been exploited by terrorists in other scenarios. This is why randomness is a powerful tool in this instance. It cannot be gamed by terrorists, because there is nothing to game, as there are no preferences (unlike with ethnic profiling).
Lastly, it's not even clear that ethnic profiling would be any better than uniform screen, even in the most mathematically optimal circumstances:
www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full?sid=3bc684ec-b593-41e9-b03e-2e3f32bc42b0
The reason we implement both uniform screening methods and add randomness in (including scanning people you & Harris think are obviously non-terrorists) isn't because we think they stand a good chance of being terrorists. It's because by using these measures, we have *better* security (inherently less vulnerable to gaming) & *greater* efficiency (travelers aren't slowed down by unexpected security measures based on a largely subjective & fuzzy set of criteria). Sorry this one was longer, but it was necessary to do.
4) I think Harris embarrassed himself in the Chomsky exchange. If the best you have is that Chomsky was curmudgeonly (and he was), then I think that speaks volumes. It's irrelevant to the points he made (which Harris failed to really address, much less rationally so). That aside, Harris sitting down with Nawaz doesn't mean much to me for 2 broad reasons. Firstly, did it cause Harris to make any real changes to his stated views? I've yet to see it; he seems to advocate for virtually all the same positions. Secondly, Nawaz isn't an expert on anything. While Nawaz is certainly more palatable than Harris, he hasn't (from the little I've seen anyway) put forth anything with the backing of substantial research (I could be wrong, but I doubt it).
+Mind-Forged Manacles At first I was more like you, but then I read the Qur'an. It's truly a terrible text, I didn't realize how bad it was. I don't blame religion as much as Harris when it comes to weighting these various factors that lead to Jihadism. I would say that it's very different for each situation. For instance, terrorist activities in a place like Israel are caused by very rational grievances; pre-9/11 al-Qaeda was almost all religious (motive was to get infidels out of Saudi Arabia); and ISIS is a combination with many privileged foreigners fighting for them, but also the Arab Spring and the Iraq War played massive roles.
Jack Stratif
I don't know what you mean you were more like me. I agree that the Koran has truly terrible and awful things in it. The problem is that even the incidents you mention have little to do with religion. al-Qaeda was never an actual group before 9/11, it was just a list that the U.S. created. It coalesced into a group afterward.
Mind-Forged Manacles Western foreign policy has a nasty history, and continues right up to the present. I follow the news closely, and I am an avid reader of Chomsky; there's no way I would try and deny that America has done awful things (and great things like the Marshall Plan, etc). My number 1 complaint with Sam Harris is that he tries to absolve the Bush Administration because of the bad doctrine, something that I DO NOT do or think is justified.
Did Michael Brooks work for Glenn Greenwald? That's a serious question, not a troll question.
Where can I get the Ann Cunter doll..?
Pretty good caller here. Patient, sharp.
The Persians implemented the caste system, it's not Hindu in it's origin. The Persians are light skinned and implemented one of the best forms of social control, cultural racism. On a side note Islam expunged Buddhism in India which is it's spiritual home.
Call in so Michael can filibuster, and then "have to run" due to time constraints. Thanks for the waste of time.
I think one of the problems with Brooks argument is it never allows any progress of the discord. Take Islam, Sam makes a case that the religion itself is the at least one of if not these cause for the barbarism we see in Islamic countries, terrorism, etc. While guys like Brooks and Seder say "Sam doesn't know anything about Islam." The real reason is Western Colonialism and interference in the Middle East region.
Even if Brooks and Seder and this lot are right and the root cause was interference from the West, that doesn't mean the solution to the world's problem with Radical islam lies in acknowledgment of that plausible fact. At least Sam is asking for reform within the religion an Islam 2.0 updated for the modern world, the kind of reform we have already seen in other religions.
It's so daft to just say Sam singles out Islam... First of all, almost all religion has been under fire from Sam Harris. Secondly identifying historical crimes of other regions in no way solve the crimes religions are committing today.
This is a bait and switch. Islam like any religion is up for criticism, if you don't think so then you have been duped.
There are many examples of Islam 2.0 throughout the whole world. Also, those who follow this Islam 2.0 do not deserve to be denied their human rights, as Harris believes
hmmm, i'm a huge harris fan, and yet I do believe this guy makes a valid point about the truisms and seductive intuitive appeal of harris' points overriding a full analysis of the situation. But you can also murky the waters when you constantly divert attention away from the basic truths. tough balance it seems
Never seen this channel before, but man you have convinced yourself that your on right side of facts even though your far from it. You say sam doesn't have any understanding of religion yet he has written a few books on it. Guess he must of really luck out doing zero research on the topic he wrote a book on. Then you make an argument that since he is a neurosurgeon he doesn't know about other topics. Guess it's hard to grasp that a really smart person can be well read in multiple subjects. The facts favour sam harris views. Some are wrong, but the way you disregard all his views and arguments make you a regressive sjw. A true liberal is open to all and new ideas.
Ok so here is what I think allot of people miss about Sam. He calls out bad ideas in the hopes that others will then see that those ideas are bad and then pressure people to abandon them. It is good for the world to give up bad ideas. People see others being pressured for what they believe and think they are being oppressed. And that leads them to thinking Sam is a bigot because he is inciting oppression.
This is why it matters that their ideas is a large factor of the reason for conflict. If they don't have any backwards ideas and Sam is shaming them for what they think then yeah he looks bad. (Too bad they do)
+Eve Pigzy Harris is a "literalist" much like retards on the net they grab a few quotes from the Koran and extrapolate wrongly that every Muslim is following that quote. I guarantee Harris has never even been in a mosque let alone a Muslim dominated country - the guy is an asswipe - why people think a neuro scientist could be an expert about Islam and the middle east is beyond me
+Keith Parker there is a direct connection actually. He has written much on beliefs and how beliefs correspond to actions outside of his writing on Islam. It's typical of noisy critics that they're completely unfamiliar with his work and only have the remotest idea what he says.
+Keith Parker he doesn't say what you think he says. doesn't matter how much you repeat it. you make my point that noisy critics are too lazy to actually learn what he says.
sausageman then Harris is an appalling communicator IF someone has to "learn" - the guy is full of bullshit and uses any weird nonsense to bash Islam because thats the done thing as they are such a "threat to the world" - sarcasm
+Keith Parker an IQ over 80 helps comprehension.
noobs
I’m no fan of Sam Harris, but these podcast identities like Michael Brooks, they’re not really doing a great job of critiquing the problems with Sam Harris. That was all very vague, Brooks had no killer blow arguments against Harris. It would be wonderful if Hitch was still around. He died before the podcast pandemic; he would make absolute mince meat out of these podcast groupies.
Hitchens would often fail to respond to criticism by instead responding to a similar criticism that wasn't made, very wittily.
Being sassy doesn't make his point valid, though.
Jake Norris I think you’ve undersold Hitch. He was sassy and anecdotal, but his knowledge of the literature and historical examples was pretty impressive. And even if he was only half correct about a topic he would at least throw out some very specific, real life historical instances that would give his points weight and really make you think. He also was willing to be educated by his opponents, and do the one thing that so many people don’t do these days, which is change your mind. Harris doesn’t present like that. He cites statistics and the latest studies, as can Brooks, which is fine, nothing wrong with that. But they don’t put it across in a way that gets you excited about said idea. Rather, its just a tit for tat match in jerking off, that is only one or two steps higher than the Twitter sphere.
Harris has supported torture, profiling, nuclear preemptive attacks against Muslims and calls Islam a "cult of death" and that we aren't at war with terrorists but with "we are at war with Islam".
Do these opinions strike you as sensible, liberal, mainstream or any bit academic or peer reviewed?
that smug face makes me angry already.
I wonder why people have such a hard time about thought experimental, it's almost like a fear of them.
"You said what!? I know it follows..but we can't say that or even think it! Because of reasons."
No, the problem is that Harris' thought experiments are poor, because they are irrelevant to the state of affairs that people are objecting to, not the hypothetical which don't represent what people are actually rejecting .
The complaints come from people steeped in ideology. They're intolerant of different ideas, even mere thought experiments.
+sausageman No. Harris creates the problem by ineptly creating thought experiments on controversial topics in ways that it makes no sense to do.
If you're going to write "In Defense of Torture", but you're not "defending" torture that people were objecting to (Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, etc.), but instead argue for an extreme case no relevant to current circumstances, you're just avoiding what people are actually talking about.
+Mind-Forged Manacles I'll grant that he often uses provocative headlines, but when you read further his ideas become apparent. The people who reject it out of hand are ideologues. Every single time.
Offering a fair criticism is one thing but that's rare from those who can't be honest about Islam because they think it will give the 'neo cons' an excuse to blow up the middle east.
sausageman
It's not just the headlines. As I pointed out, he's defending extreme cases, which have no bearing on the actual, NOT extreme cases, that people were objecting to.
I like you guys but you are delusional in regards to Harris.
Why don't you guys do everyone a favor and actually read the Quran?
because this would force them to acknowledge the facts.
very uninformative. waste of time watching
Anyone who sincerely thinks Sam Harris is a bad actor is delusional. Sam isn't infallible, but he's definitely one of the good guys.
Interesting how they're always running out of time when the caller is speaking, but when the host talks they have plenty of time. Very weak tactic my man. Weak. Stick to your Jewy jew impressions and put Sam back on.
Found the butt hurt Harris fanboy.
@@rickmolina2206 Ahhhh, looks like I found the butthurt Jewy Jew fanboy. ;-)
@@rickmolina2206 BTW, the Sam I was referring to was Seder, crybaby. He's the only one worth anything on this show.
RIP Michael