Do you like Sam Harris?

[Narz]

I like him although I don't have the time to listen to the thousands of hours of him on YouTube. I believe if more liberals thought like him we wouldn't have Trump.

Link to video.

 

[abradley]

Am a Christian so disagree with much of what he posts. That said, like Maher, he's an equal opportunity religion basher. I agree with his views on Islam, don't agree with much of his anti Christian posts.

As for his style, imo, this sez it all

I Thought I Hated the New Atheists. Then I Read Sam Harris's New Book.
The new atheist trounce: Science, spirituality, and common sense bump heads
BY TREVOR QUIRK
September 11, 2014


I have never liked Sam Harris, neuroscientist, philosopher, prominent New Atheist. I don’t personally know him, so it would be more accurate to say I dislike his writings and persona. I find most of his “philosophy” exactly the sort that should be bracketed by cautionary punctuation, his geopolitics are some of the most hideously unreflective I’ve encountered, and he belongs to a group of naïve iconoclasts who laughably fancy themselves scientific dissidents in the tradition of Galileo and Copernicus. But after reading Harris’s new book, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion, I’ve decided the true reason I never liked Harris is that he makes me uncomfortable, profoundly.

Despair at a pointless existence is as ancient as our species. I think my discomfort comes from elsewhere. I’ve come to see the facile heresy of the New Atheists more as bourgeois theatre than legitimate intellectual debate. As with so many aspects of our culture, the entertainment value goes unquestioned. Maybe you’ve noticed the ways Harris et al. are frequently depicted in the galleria of Internet videos (all titles below are [sic]):

Sam Harris simply destroys catholicism
a Very Wise Christopher Hitchens Brutalizes Dishonest William Dembski in this debate
Sam Harris demolishes Christianity

Hitchslap 34 – Jerry Fawell deserves something worse than hell

Richard Dawkins espouses Militant Atheism: “Mock them, Ridicule them.”

I mean, is this not entertainment? Who wouldn’t rollick at seeing the demented paladins of fundamentalist religion shown just how outmatched they are? Nobody takes up debate with an implacable creationist for the purpose of converting them to reason. No, we do so to “destroy,” to “demolish,” to “brutalize.” How else are we to account for the ubiquity of a neologism like “hitchslap”? Not all spectacular violence happens just in the coliseum, you know. By debate criteria, most of the New Atheists’ opponents lose as surely as pinioned slaves lose the fight against hungry lions. But who cares. The outcome was predetermined; we want to watch.
https://newrepublic.com/article/119397/sam-harriss-waking-review

New athiests - don't like their style.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

New athiests - don't like their style.

What a coincidence: I doubt Dawkins would think much of yours (plural "yours" in reference to Christian fundamentalists), either.

 

[Patine]

I think more Christians who mindless deny evolution, the Big Bang, stellar development, and other science with a mountain of evidence behind it because of Genesis should read the Epistle of Barrabas, written by one of original Apostles, and not directly contradicted by Christ and the other 11 - if only it wasn't cut from the "official" list of New Testament books at the Nicene Council for political reasons and compromises between early Christian sects... :S

 

[abradley]

I think more Christians who mindless deny evolution, the Big Bang, stellar development, and other science with a mountain of evidence behind it because of Genesis should read the Epistle of Barrabas, written by one of original Apostles, and not directly contradicted by Christ and the other 11 - if only it wasn't cut from the "official" list of New Testament books at the Nicene Council for political reasons and compromises between early Christian sects... :S

The Catholic Church fells those examples of yours are very possible. in fact the Big Bang was first introduced to the scientific community by

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître Associate RAS[1] (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[2] He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[3][4] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[5][6][7][8] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

 

[Patine]

The Catholic Church fells those examples of yours are very possible. in fact the Big Bang was first introduced to the scientific community by

That is true. It seems to be moreso Protestants (especially Calvinist-derived groups) and fringe and newer sects (like the LDS Movements, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and such) who are always in stubborn denial, though, in the modern day.

 

[W|M]

Sam Harris is a terrible person and if you like him that reflects terribly on you

 

[Lexicus]

I agree with his views on Islam, don't agree with much of his anti Christian posts.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Lohrenswald]

I've never really heard of him :/

 

[EgonSpengler]

I haven't been able to watch the whole thing yet, but 3 minutes in, that 2nd video is illuminating of one thing I see from time to time. It seems to me that Affleck doesn't really disagree with Maher and Harris. In fact, some of the things he and the fourth guy are saying support what Maher and Harris are saying. Sometimes when this happens, I suspect the people involved just aren't listening to one another and only want to speak. Other times, it seems like they're trying to manufacture an argument for the sake of theatrics. I see it happen once in a while - not just with these guys - that people who mostly agree with each other get hung up on emphasis or details.

I'm unfamiliar with Harris, so I can't really comment on him, other than what's been posted here.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Harris, like Dawkins and his new atheist ilk, are guilty of fermenting Islamophobia amongst the "enlightened" left. Much like Fox News on the right, they rarely differentiate or give agency to Muslim individuals, and instead cast them all is irrational, backwards beings.

 

[warpus]

Isn't most religion technically irrational, as it's usually a contrast to the tenets of Rationalism?

It's fine if people are irrational, I'm irrational all the time. A lot of the stuff I feel inside, like love and hate, are irrational, and yet, I embrace these things. Maybe "irrational" gets a bad rep for sounding negative, but to me it's just a part of life.

i.e.

a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

Seems like religion is the exact opposite of this, usually, so it makes sense to call it irrational. Or is there a better word that works equally as well that can be used?

 

[Hygro]

Was he the guy who had the anti-social justice meltdown after the election?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Harris, like Dawkins and his new atheist ilk, are guilty of fermenting Islamophobia amongst the "enlightened" left. Much like Fox News on the right, they rarely differentiate or give agency to Muslim individuals, and instead cast them all is irrational, backwards beings.

I've seen quite a few Dawkins videos now (and several more in which he partners with Laurence Krauss), and while both of them are quite blunt at times, I have seen no evidence of anti-Arab/Middle Eastern bigotry. Their antipathy is toward any organized religion or religious person that denies science, the scientific method, evidence that has been found and is either being studied or is on display in museums, etc.

Dawkins is against religious indoctrination of children before they're old enough to understand what they're being indoctrinated with, and there was a time when Krauss gave a talk to a group of Muslim students and refused to begin until the audience had been de-segregated from men's seating and women's seating. He wanted everyone in mixed seating, and for women to be able to sit in front, if they wanted to.

 

[Kozmos]

I think he's good at what he does. Listen to his podcast, he has a lot of big guests from philosophy of mind and cognitive science.

 

[Cheetah]

Sam Harris is a terrible person and if you like him that reflects terribly on you

Sam Harris is awesome. I don't agree with everything he says, but he presents his views in well-reasoned and civil arguments, listens to valid criticism and has changed his views when he has been presented with new evidence and arguments.

In many ways the opposite of how you present yourself in your post, I suppose. But you already consider me to be a terrible person, so I guess you don't care for my analysis.

New athiests - don't like their style.

Harris, like Dawkins and his new atheist ilk, are guilty of fermenting Islamophobia amongst the "enlightened" left. Much like Fox News on the right, they rarely differentiate or give agency to Muslim individuals, and instead cast them all is irrational, backwards beings.

There is no such thing as "new" atheists. I wish you would stop using that word.

@GoodEnough: Accusing Harris of Islamophobia is ridiculous, and your criticism is completely unfounded.

I strongly assume that you haven't read any of Harris' works, and have only formed your opinion through hearsay and intentionally badly presented information about him? If you actually care to get some real insight into what you're commenting on, I would suggest you read Islam and the Future of Tolerance (10 min YouTube clip to MSNBC interview) , by Harris and Nawaz. It's not a big book either.

I haven't been able to watch the whole thing yet, but 3 minutes in, that 2nd video is illuminating of one thing I see from time to time. It seems to me that Affleck doesn't really disagree with Maher and Harris. In fact, some of the things he and the fourth guy are saying support what Maher and Harris are saying. Sometimes when this happens, I suspect the people involved just aren't listening to one another and only want to speak. Other times, it seems like they're trying to manufacture an argument for the sake of theatrics. I see it happen once in a while - not just with these guys - that people who mostly agree with each other get hung up on emphasis or details.

I'm unfamiliar with Harris, so I can't really comment on him, other than what's been posted here.

Interesting. How do you get the opinion that Affleck doesn't disagree with them? I've seen the clip multiple times, and I have never been able to not see it as Affleck refusing to listen to any arguments and just screaming "racism" to shut down the conversation.

 

[Berzerker]

Atheists and religious folk 'know' what is responsible for the universe, so whats the difference?

 

[Lexicus]

Atheists and religious folk 'know' what is responsible for the universe, so whats the difference?

As an atheist I would say that I don't know what is responsible for the universe. Indeed I would say that even framing the issue in those terms is an act of breathtaking intellectual arrogance.

 

[Berzerker]

then why are you an atheist if you dont know?

 

[Berzerker]

yes...thats how I knew he doesn't know what is responsible for the universe