An open letter to Sam Harris

Perhaps I’m not the best person to offer advice on how to deal with trolls. My site gets relatively light traffic, and the people who visit tend to be way too polite, nice, or otherwise supportive. My lack of popularity in a sense has shielded me from the kind of criticism you’re regularly subjected to. Still, I feel I understand why your positions have been so vilified, and why you often find yourself outside of what the ‘atheist mainstream’ believes.

First, while I think you’re a great writer and I endlessly enjoy your prose, you don’t exactly speak the way regular people do online. Your style is more reminiscent of newspaper editorials than blogs, and in a sense, it lacks a feeling of genuineness. It almost makes one feel as though you’ve been too careful with your words. A little candidness goes a long way online, especially when you’re trying to express frustration.

Second, your controversial position on things is so nuanced, it’s difficult to actually represent it well, especially when one considers the short attention span of the Internet (I bet only a fraction of my readers will even bother to read this entire article). Even when you provide resources to properly analyze your belief, (like the link you said justifying torture that I’m still wrestling with) you’re asking what is essentially the laziest generation in the history of the planet to studiously research your position. That ain’t gonna happen.

Third, you must chose your battles. While you are undoubtedly more recognized than PZ Myers, the man has established a large online following; one that I wouldn’t dare anger. This is not a place I normally expect civil debate (and I don’t actually think it’s the intent of the site anyways). Holding PZ responsible for the things his fans say suggests the solution would be either censorship or policing, neither of which I think is a good idea.

Fourth, your experiences with a psychedelic drugs will always make you an outsider. America is so afraid of drugs, it would rather jail a huge segment of its population than allow adults to make their own decisions about their bodies. You and I both know a prohibitionist attitude is religious in nature, but it has been ingrained long enough in American culture that the default stance on recreational drugs is “drugs are bad, m’kay?”, regardless of religious affiliation.

Last but not least, your criticism of Islam will always be mistaken for racism. I know, because I get the same look from people when I say something. This vile religion has managed to convince everyone that belonging to their group somehow makes one part of a ‘race’, and criticism of this misogynist, violent culture amounts to being a modern day bigot. That’s not a label anyone enjoys, and people are willing to ignore reality if it means they won’t look bad, even at their own detriment.

I know the Internet can be a harsh place, and it lobs criticism far more than praise. Just remember that so much of the Internet is the raw, unfiltered thoughts of people who have no responsibility for the words they say. Take it with a grain of salt, man.

The Good Atheist Podcast: EP 216

We answer a letter from a fan discussing if any ‘proof’ of God would satisfy us, discuss how Sam Harris lost fans for having economic opinions and expose Seven Mountain Dominionism.

The Good Atheist
The Good Atheist
The Good Atheist Podcast: EP 216
Loading
/

Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig is perhaps one of the few powerful debaters left on the side of zombie Jesus, so I strongly recommend you listen to what he has to say and determine for yourself how wrong he is about the concept of God being the superior objective moral standard.

My 2 cents? Is something good only because God determines it to be good? If there is a definite moral objectivity, how is unquestioning authority a solution to this? If he admits morality changes over time, then how does this reflect the image of a never changing God?

Sam Harris on the Afterlife

I still have lots of people who visit the site and comment on an old article I wrote about Dr. Jeffrey Long, and his book claiming the afterlife is real. He based this on thousands of web interviews he conducted over the span of a decade, and he decided, rather unscientifically, the commonality of their experiences somehow proved there was life after death. The comments normally range from someone calling me close-minded for not accepting his pathetic “research”, to accusing me of being ignorant on the subject since I don’t have a PhD.

Well, here’s someone with a formal education who has something lucid to say on the afterlife. Hopefully it’ll shut up these morons that keep showing up on the site.

Sam Harris vs Deepak Chopra

Sam Harris does his best to spank Deepak and his pathetic attempt to understand concepts he either fails to grasp or twists them for his own purpose. I actually think it’s the former; Deepak strikes me as more of a dummy than a scam artist. Watching him try to defend his knowledge was a great little fail moment I’ll be basking about all day.

“I want to address the human question” is another way of saying “I’m about to spew a bunch of rambling thoughts that sounds, to my ears at least, highly credible.” Jean Houston will make you want to pull the hair out of your head. Luckily for me it’s already mostly in my hairbrush.

Sam Harris doesn’t want you to identify yourself as an atheist

What’s the solution to not accepting the label of atheist, Sam? What does “fly under the radar” mean exactly? I assume it’s not something anyone gets paid massive lecturing fees to do, quite honestly.

I’d love it if we could all somehow agree non-belief isn’t a “thing” either, but so long as we’re clearly identified as atheists simply for refusing to believe in the norm, the name has a purpose. We don’t get to choose what we call ourselves, since the religious have already decided we should have an identification label.

Prince tried the whole “I’m a name but not a name” shit and everyone realized it was ridiculous.

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

Here is Sam Harris’ talk he gave at TED very recently. I realized most of you have already seen it, but for the uninitiated, it’s a great presentation that deserves your attention. Because there are such great time constraints at these events, we unfortunately don’t get to hear everything about Sam’s ideas (why are you so harsh on time, TED!), but I’m looking forward to see how they develop, and I’m eager to read more in the coming future.

Sam Harris spanks Karen Armstrong

Religious apologists have a powerful ally in Karen Armstrong. If you recall some of the articles I’ve written about her, Karen is the founder of Charter for Compassion, a rather naïve attempt to create a dialog between people of various faiths.

The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves.

Karen is a smart woman, but this statement is both false and misleading; compassion may occasionally be part of a religious institution, but it certainly is not its heart. If it was, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and the modern Jihadist movement would never have been possible. How can a religion be based on compassion when it’s so violently opposed to any foreign system of belief?

Karen has often accused the “new atheist” of not knowing enough about religion, a statement I find both insulting and ludicrous (I would wager Christopher Hitchens knows more about Christianity than most Bishops). Sam Harris agrees with me, and he’s written a short article deriding Karen’s foolish opinion that all atheists need is to do is study a little bit more religion to see how compassionate it is. Here’s an excerpt:

And how could we have been so foolish as to connect the apparently inexhaustible supply of martyrs in the Muslim world to the Islamic doctrine of martyrdom? In my own defense, let me say that I do get spooked whenever Western Muslims advocate the murder of apostates (as 36 percent of Muslim young adults do in Britain). But I now know that these freedom-loving people just “want to see God reflected more clearly in public life.”

Sam Harris lambasts liberals for excusing fundamentalists

You’ve got to love Sam Harris. He’s not afraid to speak his mind. On his radar screen these days are the liberal apologists who try and excuse Islamic fundamentalism on economic and social disparity. Is it so hard to believe a religion can entice its followers to hate others for very little cause? I love how he mentions the religious nutbags in America are better suited to understand the danger of Fundamentalist Islam; takes one to know one, I guess.

Hitchens, Harris & Dennett Vs Boteach, D’Souza, Wright & Taleb

I personally find it pretty painful and embarrassing to listen to D’Souza talk. At least Wright takes the stance it could be some mysterious force out there in the Universe that directs evolution (it’s stupid, but lots of really smart people believe in this bullshit). D’Souza, on the other hand, tries to make the claim that Christianity is the most scientific of all faiths, despite the obvious fact his system of belief discourages skepticism and relies on a rigid and nonsensical dogma. I guess he’s got to defend what he believes, but it doesn’t stop his ramblings from being painful to hear. Luckily, he gets spanked by the Horsemen.

Sam Harris: Faith vs Reason

Sam is a great speaker, and it’s very hard to argue with his logic. He’s the main reason I do this atheist thing (his book, The End of Faith, was like getting hit in the face with a brick. Once you read it, you change). My favorite quote from the videos is “Rationalizing the barbarism we find in the Old Testament merely renders it irrelevant, it doesn’t render these books morally wise. It is faint praise indeed if the best that can be said of scirpture is that it can be now safely ignored” You’re goddamn right, Sam.

Harris and Warren debate on Newsweek

No, contrary to what you may believe, this isn’t Sam Harris day, although I will admit the man has been on a bit of a tear lately. Here’s his debate with Rick Warren on Newsweek. Warren does what most religious people do in debates: create an intangible metaphysical entity that defies both explanation and reason, and most notably, scrutiny.

Here’s an interesting back and forth that shows you the level of understanding that Warren has for the term debate:

(when asked if he’s open to the idea that Jesus was real)

WARREN: And what are you doing to study that?

HARRIS: I consider it such a low-probability event that I—

WARREN: A low probability? When there are 96 percent believers in the world? So is everybody else an idiot?

HARRIS: It is quite possible for most people to be wrong—as are most Americans who think that evolution didn’t occur.

WARREN: That’s an arrogant statement.

HARRIS: It’s an honest statement.

I love how some people think telling someone they are wrong is arrogant. If you believe the earth is flat, you are making a statement about the natural world which can be verified. That’s the danger about making claims about the universe; someone will test out your theories, and if they are proven wrong, don’t be surprised if everyone else considers you a fool for your continued belief.

The real meat of the argument is when both men begin discussing slavery. Here, Warren would have benefited from reading a history book or two:

WARREN: You’d much rather have somebody—an atheist—feeding the hungry than a person who believes in God? All of the great movements forward in Western civilization were by believers. It was pastors who led the abolition of slavery. It was pastors who led the woman’s right to vote. It was pastors who led the civil-rights movement. Not atheists.

HARRIS: You bring up slavery—I think it’s quite ironic. Slavery, on balance, is supported by the Bible, not condemned by it. It’s supported with exquisite precision in the Old Testament, as you know, and Paul in First Timothy and Ephesians and Colossians supports it, and Peter—

WARREN: No, he doesn’t. He allows it. He doesn’t support it.

HARRIS: OK, he allows it. I would argue that we got rid of slavery not because we read the Bible more closely. We got rid of slavery despite the profound inadequacies of the Bible. We got rid of slavery because we realized it was manifestly evil to treat human beings as farm equipment. As it is.

Honestly Rick, he allows it but doesn’t support it? What the fuck does that mean?