Some of the criticisms of Harris's alleged views were already addressed by him in a blog post earlier this year (preemptively perhaps?).


He addresses the passage where he discusses beliefs and their relation to actions.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#killing

Here is his response to the preemptive war critique mentioned in a previous post.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#premptive_nuclear_war

You will notice that in both of these cases, only selective and tainted reading of the text can extract the views that Mr. Bachman and his predecessors are finding. In fact, the criticisms seem to work best when you pick out single sentences or even single phrases, and present these as the "view".

This is why I think we should analyze the source himself and not the paraphrasing of an rfm poster. There is plenty to be discussed, and I don't necessarily agree with SH on everything point, but can we at least give him a fair shot?

I provided a links for 2 different examples, but there are others in the same blog post. He actually brings up Mormonism in one of the sections which means this post is slightly on topic for once.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2014 10:05PM by archytas.

Nuking the Middle East is a terrible idea. Neutron bombs would be better. We need to be able to get uncontaminated oil.

Thanks to fracking, the US will become the world's largest exporter of oil in about five years. Maybe meddling in the middle east will no longer be necessary. Of course our drinking water will be flammable..

ladell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks to fracking, the US will become the world's
> largest exporter of oil in about five years. Maybe
> meddling in the middle east will no longer be
> necessary. Of course our drinking water will be
> flammable..


Cool! Water that can boil itself!

Sterling

The recent drop in oil prices makes fracking unprofitable. However if we destroy the Middle East's ability to produce then we'll be the big dog, but we'll pay through nose to drive.

Thanks, archytas.

You're welcome!

Voice - I await your explanation of how me quoting Sam Harris indicates that I'm emotionally unstable. I'm sure it will be very creative indeed.

Archytas - I referenced Harris's responses in my original post. I think I even posted links. The problem is that nothing that Harris says in this response mitigates his statement. Consider this statement from the page you link to:

"Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. To someone reading the passage in context, it should be clear that I am discussing the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous."

This "explanation" is a tautology, Archytas: Harris is merely re-stating what he's already said in his book. I have absolutely no idea how you, or Harris, could ever possibly think that this re-statement changes anything. No one has ever misunderstood or "taken out of context" his "reasoning" (that I've ever seen), so this whole defense argument of his is specious.

To summarize Harris's argument, he states as a "fact" (his word) that "belief determines behaviour"; and from that, proposes that it may be ethical to kill people for having certain beliefs.

The premise of this inference is dubious. People have many beliefs they don't act on, for all sorts of reasons. For example, Christians sincerely believe that the Sermon on the Mount teaches universal ethics, and yet not a one of them actually acts on that belief. They don't allow people to unjustly sue them without fighting back. They still swear oaths. They still protect themselves when physically attacked. It is easy to think of many examples which contradict Harris's crude and dubious premise.

And from that crude and dubious premise, Harris draws an objectionable inference: that some people should be killed only for what they believe (as opposed to arrested and tried after there is *evidence* that someone intends to commit harm on another).

In other words, Archytas, I am respectfully suggesting that your zeal in defending Harris is misguided.

Read Harris's words closely. They are only a re-statement of an already clear claim - and one which remains objectionable.

Tal, repeating it over and over won't make it true. Those behaving violently because they believe violent things may have to be killed if they can not be reasoned with or captured. Those are Harris' words that you keep butchering.

It doesn't even require a careful reading of the text, but it is annoying that your blatant obfuscation in your description of his original passage as found in the book gets a free ride without any issues in your mind.

People believing dangerous things will not require that someone reason with them to stop their violence. They won't require capture. They won't need to be stopped from further violence. Go read it again.

Nonomo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those behaving violently because they
> believe violent things may have to be killed if
> they can not be reasoned with or captured. Those
> are Harris' words that you keep butchering.


This is silly. It's as if some Harris acolytes like you believe most people can't read. Maybe it works, but I hope not.

Conflating "behaving violently" and "believ[ing] violent things" and pretending this is what Harris said makes it seem that you cannot read, Nonomo. Why do it? Obviously there wouldn't be any controversy if Harris actually said "Some [behaviours] are so [violent] that it may even be ethical to kill people for [doing] them." But that's not what he said, he said some *propositions* and so *dangerous* and *believing*. And pretending that somehow the rest of the paragraph provides some sort of nuance to that proposition is, well, silly. But I get the motivation to do so if you are a die-hard Harris fan. It's a frightening proposition to kill people based upon their beliefs, which is why it is so controversial.

Maybe you're confused by Harris's patently false (and I think extremely dangerous) non sequitur that belief determines behaviour, which Tal pointed out. You're confused about something, anyway.

Seriously? You think a link between belief and behaviour is an extremely dangerous idea? Did he ever say belief determines behavior? Or are you trying to make him sound a little scarier for Halloween, I guess implicating him as an instigator of genocide wasn't dramatic enough.

ladell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seriously? You think a link between belief and
> behaviour is an extremely dangerous idea?

Yes, seriously. In Harris's context, wondering if we 'may' or 'may' not kill people based upon their beliefs, it is an extremely dangerous idea.

How could you possibly disagree?

Harris believes belief and action are linked. That idea is neither dangerous nor controversial. He never said beliefs determine behavior, that was your dangerous idea.

Tal's lost his edge, so I suppose he's not going to address the glaringly obvious. When he's not vomiting out the thinking of other people, he's usually pretty balanced.

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

As for beliefs and behaviors; as a missionary, I wasn't knocking doors and selling Mormonism because I behave that way naturally. I believed it was what I was supposed to do.

If for one moment you can claim that violence has and will never happen based on a belief, I should only be so privileged to live in that reality with you.

This thread http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1402052,1402052#msg-1402052 repeats some misrepresentations that Harris corrects in the links I provided.

You claimed that he said: "5.) Even if there is no reason to believe that a particular 'Islamist' nation with nuclear weapons would ever act against the United States, the United States should launch a full-tilt nuclear strike against them anyway, *even though that would incinerate 'tens of millions of innocent civilians'*"

You didn't quote him directly, I noticed, because there is no such quote. What you have done is essentially revived a canard from Chris Hedges.

Harris responded to Hedges: "Clearly, I was describing a case in which a hostile regime that is avowedly suicidal acquires long-range nuclear weaponry (i.e. they can hit distant targets like Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles, etc.)"

If you want to critique his view, fine, but critique the view he actually holds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 10:07PM by archytas.

Please guys, fuckin' *read* for Christ's sake:

archytas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Harris responded to Hedges: "Clearly, I was
> describing a case in which a hostile regime that
> is avowedly suicidal acquires long-range nuclear
> weaponry (i.e. they can hit distant targets like
> Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles, etc.)"
>

Again, Harris and his back-tracking bulls.hit.

Here’s the direct quote from Sam Harris, p. 129 The End Of Faith, ch. “The Problem with Islam”:

“If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime —as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day —but it may be the only course of action available to us, give what Islamists believe.”

To repeat: "WE WILL NOT BE SURE ABOUT WHERE THE OFFENDING WARHEADS ARE OR WHAT THEIR STATE OF READINESS IS..." If we can't be sure of those two things, how are we sure they've acquired "long-range" nuclear weaponry (i.e. can hit distant targets like Paris etc..." He's bullshi.tting, why is this not obvious?

And let's keep the over-all context in place. Harris is writing this at the time the U.S. was still insisting that Iraq possessed non-existent WMDs and claiming that Saddam must prove a negative or else be 'shocked and awed'. Also, understand that the "avowedly suicidal" regime he envisions isn't a hypothetical but is Iran, whom almost suffered (and still may) from the same Iraq/WMD-styled bulls.hitting from the U.S. government. I don't think it a stretch that the larger purpose of Harris's book, within the context of the time, was to prepare the public for/or gain the support for an American first strike on Iran, which would potentially "kill tens of millions of innocent civilians," an "unthinkable crime" according to Harris, but, and let's not this carefully:

" but may be the only course of action available to us, give what Islamists believe.”

Note the the last clause, please.


I don't know how Harris could be clearer. He's saying that "given what Islamists believe," should we have good reason to think they have acquired a long-range nuclear weapon, even though we don't know "where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is," we should launch a nuclear first strike, so as to protect ourselves; even though it will kill tens of millions of innocent civilians, an "unthinkable crime."


archytas, why do you insist on carrying this bullish.itter's water?

(I noticed Harris used another "may". That seems to be enough for some of his readers, I guess.)

Human

I will tell you why I am not crapping my pants over a 10 year old line from a Sam Harris book, I respect the guy for having the nerve to look at a culture where honor killing, stonings, misogyny, and cultural supression are widespread. While Ben Affleck hides his toupee in the sand because he has to sell movie tickets around the world, Harris is putting it out there calling bullshit behavior bullshit. So let's all fan ourselves because he envisions worst case scenarios, because his mighty pen will start a holacaust. Give me a fucking break.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 04:04PM by ladell.

Tal wrote:
"To summarize Harris's argument, he states as a "fact" (his word) that "belief determines behaviour"; and from that, proposes that it may be ethical to kill people for having certain beliefs."

Correct. You seem to keep ignoring the "may" in his statement, so I feel the need to point it out to you once again. He didn't say, "It's ethical to kill people for having certain beliefs." He said it MAY be ethical to do so. In certain circumstances.

Tal wrote:
"People have many beliefs they don't act on, for all sorts of reasons."

That christians are hypocrites doesn't undermine the fact he stated. Do ALL beliefs lead to action? No. And Harris didn't say they did. Are ALL actions preceded by beliefs? No. And Harris didn't say they were. Is it a fact that we observe actions that are based on beliefs? Yes, it is. Like you ignored the "may" in the previous sentence, now you're adding "all" when it wasn't stated.

Squirm all you want; you're both cherry picking (by ignoring "may") and making unwarranted implications (by assuming "all"), and then using those tactics to claim we shouldn't listen to ANYTHING Harris says, and to justify calling him a "genocidal maniac."

Had you argued rationally and honestly against what he actually said, few people would be criticizing you. That's not what you did. You constructed a straw man, and then used it as justification for an ad-hominem attack. That's not at all reasonable.

Archytas - Purposely or not, you repeatedly toss off little accusations - of misrepresentation, plagiarism, etc. - and then, when I respond to them, explain the argument, cite chapter and verse, you don't actually acknowledge that you got anything wrong. You don't seem to consider it at all. You just move on to the next little barb.

In this case, you accuse me of copying something from Chris Hedges. Yet, I haven't read what you're talking about. You accuse me of misrepresenting Harris, when a number of the words I used in describing Harris's position are exact quotes. I am beginning to wonder how carefully you've actually read Harris's book, or what position - if any - he might ever take, that you could stomach disagreeing with, or how you are able to read plain English and still deny its meaning.

Here is the full passage from "The End of Faith":

"The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe".

That's on Page 129, in the unlikely event you'll bother to actually read that chapter again. Notice how he concedes in the same sentence that killing "tens of millions of innocent civilians" would be an "unthinkable crime" - yet he recommends it anyway. Do you defend that position? Yes or no?

And notice that this flirtation with genocide is justified not because of evidence of impending attack, but only "given what Islamists believe". So let me ask you straight up: do you really believe that it is not possible to be an "Islamist" without moving to commit genocide?

If an Islamist Indonesia got a nuclear bomb, but gave no indication of animosity toward America, would you really support incinerating "tens of millions of innocent" Indonesians in a nuclear attack? Instead of doing the Dan Peterson hit-and-run game, just answer those questions. They come *right* out of what Sam Harris wrote, and there is no way around that.

Lastly, I would be happy to concede I have gotten Harris all wrong if you can show me where any of my arguments are flawed. My basic contention is that Harris repeatedly conflates (A) attackers on the march, with (B) people with "dangerous" beliefs, and then argues for killing (B) as though they were necessarily (A), when they're not. That is a serious thinking error leading to a serious, morally questionable conclusion. It is augmented by another thinking error: the assumption that "belief inevitably leads to action". Not so. Most smokers believe they should quit, but don't. Most Christians believe they should turn the other cheek, but don't. Most spouses believe they should be faithful, but often aren't. Most people believe they should not lie, but do. The list is literally infinite of sincerely held beliefs which do not translate into actions. So Harris's claim is doubtful, and just cannot be seriously considered as a basis for genocide.

I can't even believe we're debating that.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 07:38PM by Tal Bachman.

Kolob:

1.) Answer the questions I put to Archytas. Be straight up;

2.) I don't discount the word "may". I know that Harris left himself a bit of wiggle room there. Let me retroactively insert the word "may" into my attempt at clarifying his argument for you.

But...the "may" doesn't really affect anything, because he's still spending page after page talking about how it "may" be "ethical" to *atomically incinerate "tens of millions of INNOCENT civilians" (his adjective) just because he thinks they're "Islamist", and they got some long range missiles, even though they haven't shown any antagonism. Do you really believe that that kind of "nuclear first strike" "may" be ethical in the absence of any sign of antagonism? Just say so if you do. You guys are constantly trying to pick apart the simplest criticisms of Harris, yet you never come right out and say whether you agree or disagree with the guy. Which is it?;

3.) Lastly, your own comment that "he doesn't say all beliefs lead to action, or that all actions are preceded by beliefs" actually damns Harris, because if you're right that this is his belief, it makes his claim for the possible ethicality of atomically incinerating "tens of millions" of people even *less* defensible - a feat I thought impossible.

Get it? Harris's primary basis for possibly ethical genocide is "what they believe". Now you're arguing that Harris might think that "what they believe" might not lead to action. If that's so, then he's arguing that it "may" be ethical to commit "an unthinkable crime" (genocide) even when Islamist beliefs might not actually lead to threatening action at all.

That's not a defense. That makes him look even worse.

Do you think pre-emptive military action is always unjustifiable?
No need for a thesaurus

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kolob:
>
> 1.) Answer the questions I put to Archytas. Be
> straight up;

I wish you would have repeated the question -- I see dozens of question marks there, so I haven't got a clue which question you're referring to.

> 2.) I don't discount the word "may". I know that
> Harris left himself a bit of wiggle room there.
> Let me retroactively insert the word "may" into my
> attempt at clarifying his argument for you.
>
> But...the "may" doesn't really affect anything,
> because he's still spending page after page
> talking about how it "may" be "ethical" to
> *atomically incinerate "tens of millions of
> INNOCENT civilians" (his adjective) just because
> he thinks they're "Islamist", and they got some
> long range missiles, even though they haven't
> shown any antagonism.

Why does how many pages he uses affect the argument?
I don't agree with him on this. I've pointed that out to you several times already. But Harris suggesting we think about this and whether or not it may be ethical to do so does NOT make him a "genocidal maniac," nor does it mean we should NOT consider any other arguments he makes. You've dodged my point *yet again.* And once again demonstrated hypocrisy -- you're condemning him for his "belief" while arguing that he's bad because he condemns people for their beliefs.


> Do you really believe that
> that kind of "nuclear first strike" "may" be
> ethical in the absence of any sign of antagonism?
> Just say so if you do.

No, I don't. I've pointed that out to you several times. I don't think it's ever ethical to kill anyone. Ever. Period. But once again, you're evading my point: just because I disagree (or you disagree) does not require me using ad-hominem fallacies against Harris, or you doing so.


> You guys are constantly
> trying to pick apart the simplest criticisms of
> Harris, yet you never come right out and say
> whether you agree or disagree with the guy. Which
> is it?;

I'm pointing out your fallacies, and I DID come right out and say I didn't agree. Several times. Whether I agree or not has nothing whatsoever to do with your use of fallacies.

> 3.) Lastly, your own comment that "he doesn't say
> all beliefs lead to action, or that all actions
> are preceded by beliefs" actually damns Harris,
> because if you're right that this is his belief,
> it makes his claim for the possible ethicality of
> atomically incinerating "tens of millions" of
> people even *less* defensible - a feat I thought
> impossible.
>
> Get it? Harris's primary basis for possibly
> ethical genocide is "what they believe". Now
> you're arguing that Harris might think that "what
> they believe" might not lead to action. If that's
> so, then he's arguing that it "may" be ethical to
> commit "an unthinkable crime" (genocide) even when
> Islamist beliefs might not actually lead to
> threatening action at all.

Right back to the straw-man. Sigh. I guess you didn't learn anything. That's a shame.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 08:10PM by Tal Bachman.

Tal wrote:
"Lastly, I would be happy to concede I have gotten Harris all wrong if you can show me where any of my arguments are flawed. My basic contention is that Harris repeatedly conflates (A) attackers on the march, with (B) people with "dangerous" beliefs, and then argues for killing (B) as though they were necessarily (A), when they're not. That is a serious thinking error..."

I just did above (show you where your arguments are flawed).
Please read it.
He doesn't "conflate" anything, he states a fact -- beliefs are observed to result in action. He doesn't say all beliefs lead to action, or that all actions are preceded by beliefs. He also doesn't argue for killing (B) -- he argues that in some circumstances that MAY be justifiable. If you don't think it's EVER justifiable, then say so and be done with it. Calling him a genocidal maniac and insisting on substituting your straw man for his words, and then insisting we should never ever listen to him because of it, is your "serious thinking error."

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems there is agreement on everything except What Sam Harris Said.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems there is
> agreement on everything except What Sam Harris
> Said.

Sort of.
Additionally, whether or not he's a "genocidal maniac," whether or not we should ignore everything he says, etc.

I've tried to point out to Tal that I *agree* that killing people for beliefs is never ethical -- but that he's been fallacious and dishonest in making his arguments. Seems it hasn't gotten through, he still thinks I'm an 'apologist' for Harris when I'm not, and that I agree with him. Sigh.

So, what's the worry here? Harris has clarified his stance, Tal refuses to listen and insists that Harris believes otherwise?

Why should we listen to Tal about Harris' views when we have Harris explaining exactly what those views are? And they aren't the "kill these people for believing" views that are ridiculous on the surface?

And considering we already DO kill people that join terrorists groups, regardless of whether they've done criminal acts before, it is absurd to claim this a "new" idea, or even that it is unjustifiable.

Other Than Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And considering we already DO kill people that
> join terrorists groups, regardless of whether
> they've done criminal acts before, it is absurd to
> claim this a "new" idea, or even that it is
> unjustifiable.


This is just getting more bizarre with each Harris defense. Now Other Than is claiming that since America is already doing something, then it is absurd to claim that it is unjustifiable. To.rtur.ing people? Since America does it (or did it, if you believe Obama), it is absurd to claim that it is unjustifiable. Murdering American-born children? Since America does it (Abdulrahman al-Awlaki), it is absurd to claim that it is unjustifiable. Secret surveillance, secret no fly lists, secret courts, secret drone programs, why, according to Other Than, since America is already doing it, it would be absurd to claim it is unjustifiable.

The Bush II derangement of America is complete, alas.

Wow.

Human

Other Than:

I have read Harris's response carefully. Maybe it is invincible stupidity, but I see nothing in it which "clarifies", or changes the meaning, of what he originally wrote, which was perfectly clear in the first place.

So, humour me. Let's say I'm really dumb. Please explain to me how Harris, in his response, shows how my characterization of his position (which basically is just me quoting him) is wrong. I'm very curious to see what I might have missed, and my mind is open.

Kolob:

1.) My apologies - I lost track of your own views on all these threads. I acknowledge that you think that killing people is not ethical;

2.) There is nothing "hypocritical" about pointing out the meaning and implications of a position statement. I don't begrudge Harris's right to express his beliefs. I'm only saying they're objectionable. Might it really be "ethical" to commit nuclear genocide against "tens of millions of innocent people", only because their country is "Islamist", and they have long range missiles, even when there is no sign they're hostile to us? I don't think so. Neither do you, apparently. So where is our "hypocrisy"?;

3.) I don't believe I have ever used an "ad hominem" argument against Sam Harris. Neither have I argued that we should not consider his other points based on the objectionability of the ones we're discussing here. I have simply tried to point out his beliefs to people who can't seem to believe their eyes when they read his plain words, as Human notes;

4.) There *is* no "straw man", Kolob. Can you just read what Harris actually says? Read his statement. I quoted it in my post. If you add two and two, you get four. And if you look at Harris's position, plus your unlikely "defense" of his remarks, you get just the position I described. If not, let me know what specifically I got wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 08:13PM by Tal Bachman.

Yeah really, Human. I mean, how does one argue with the inference that because something has been done before, it is justifiable to continue doing it?

And how does one argue with those who continue to insist that *direct quotes* constitute "misrepresentation"? Or who insist that "clarifications" which are merely re-statements of what was clear in the first place, answer the objections to a plain position statement?

That plain position, using Harris's own words, is this:

"It may be ethical" to commit the "unthinkable crime" of atomically incinerating "tens of millions of innocent people" in an "Islamist" country possessing long range missiles, even when that country demonstrates no aggressive intention.

That's Harris's position. I find it objectionable. Maybe others don't - but if they don't, that doesn't mean I am creating a "straw man", using an "ad hominem", or anything else. I'm *quoting* the guy, for Pete's sake. I just happen to think that we need some reason to believe that an attack is impending before we go commit the "unthinkable crime" of genocide.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 08:32PM by Tal Bachman.

You forgot Harris's "...given what Islamists believe" in your restatement.


Obviously there is no arguing with these posters on this subject.

Funny thing (not really funny at all actually), if there ever *was* a "proposition" so "dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them" it would be Harris's proposition that genocide on such flimsy grounds as he presents is somehow ethical. That's about as dangerous as it gets. Kinda funny how he calls genocide "unthinkable" and then goes on to think about it...

What's even funnier is that he went on to write a book called "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values".


I've always given Sam Harris credit for at least this much, he's obviously a very persuasive writer. I just wish his extremely manipulative style was better seen through, especially by those who prize themselves on their critical thinking skills. Alas.

Above meant to to under Tal Bachman post above.

Human

I am amazed that the only thing Sam Harris has to do to convince his more rabid fans (who, incredibly, claim to support "critical thinking") that his views are being misrepresented is to merely *announce that his view are being misrepresented*. That's it.

No one in the pack can explain how his "response" has changed anything. No one even thinks they have to. Mere exposure to Harris's thought-terminating cliche leaves them immediately certain that no valid objection can now ever exist. And they then move right into seeing "straw men" and "ad hominem" arguments where none exist, and which they can never positively identify.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 09:50PM by Tal Bachman.

Sam Harris does _not_ advocate genocide.

You can claim it all you want, but it isn't true.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 10:18PM by archytas.