Stak Contra Sethbag: Sam Harris sucks!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

How can anyone hate this guy?

http://www.Facebook.com/pages/Sam-Harris/22457171014

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Chap]

I do not believe Sam Harris offers any new ideas (likewise Dawkins is similar but on a grander scale of regurgitation). I believe he does like to stir the pot and he loves the fame and money he has achieved by towing the atheist line in a provocative manner. That being said, I loved his interview on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. He is an interesting guy who does not discount as much as one would think in terms of possibilities. Also, Harris practices brazillian jui jitsu and is a huge fan of mma so it was interesting to hear about his other passions.

This Harris guy is a popular advocate of an atheist position on religious matters. He is not an academic philosopher, and does not claim to be. I don't have a problem with that.

Similarly, there are plenty (really plenty) of popular advocates of theist positions on religious matters. I don't have a problem with that either.

By the way, the phrase is 'toeing the line'. Not important, but interesting to know the origin of this expression:

Royal Navy

The most likely origin of the term goes back to the wooden decked ships of the Royal Navy during the late 17th or early 18th century. Barefooted seamen had to stand at attention for inspection and had to line up on deck along the seams of the wooden planks, hence to "toe the line".[2] The first mention of this use in literature stems from a story about navy life widely published in 1831 and written by Captain Basil Hall RN.[3] Hall served in the Royal Navy from 1802.

[_Chap]

Overheard in the confessional:

Chap: Bless me UberChap, for I have sinned. I have allowed my irritation with Mr. S's expletive-laden and superconfident posts to betray me into wrath. For these and all my other sins (etc.)

UberChap: Wrath is just as harmful to you as it is to others. For your penance, you must perform an act of self-mortification. Suggest one.

Chap: Do you think my karma would be repaired if I (gulp) expressed agreement with something that Mr S. has said?

UberChap: If you combine that with the intention to amend, the damage may be undone.

So: I would like to make it clear that whatever one may say about a religion in an environment where free and open debate is appropriate, when faced personally with actual religious believers who are just getting on living their lives with the resources they can gather to face a harsh world, the only decent and human response is to do what can be done to increase mutual kindness and understanding.

If they want a straight-up debate, and seem to have the mental and moral resources to sustain one, fine. But otherwise, the first rule is always to be kind if you can - which is in any case the best way to make theists wonder whether all atheists really do come with horns, a tail, and a whiff of sulfur.

(On the other hand, if someone really wants a fight - and there are plenty who do - I no longer belong to a religion that says I have to turn the other cheek.)

[_lulu]

This Harris guy is a popular advocate of an atheist position on religious matters. He is not an academic philosopher, and does not claim to be. I don't have a problem with that.

Similarly, there are plenty (really plenty) of popular advocates of theist positions on religious matters. I don't have a problem with that either.

For some reason I feel compelled to add:

"popular advocates of theist positions on religious matters," who are not academic philosophers or theologians.

[_Chap]

This Harris guy is a popular advocate of an atheist position on religious matters. He is not an academic philosopher, and does not claim to be. I don't have a problem with that.

Similarly, there are plenty (really plenty) of popular advocates of theist positions on religious matters. I don't have a problem with that either.

For some reason I feel compelled to add:

"popular advocates of theist positions on religious matters," who are not academic philosophers or theologians.

Amendment accepted with pleasure.

[_lostindc]

This Harris guy is a popular advocate of an atheist position on religious matters. He is not an academic philosopher, and does not claim to be. I don't have a problem with that.

Similarly, there are plenty (really plenty) of popular advocates of theist positions on religious matters. I don't have a problem with that either.

By the way, the phrase is 'toeing the line'. Not important, but interesting to know the origin of this expression:

agreed on Sam Harris. I have no problem with his provocative style and non-academic approach. Sometimes it is refreshing to not get stuck in the rigours of approaching phenomenon academically. I often find myself frustrated with numerous academics not just saying what they really think and instead approaching with to much caution, for instance, most recently listening to Jeffrey Kripal discuss conciousness. I am also not suggesting Harris is an academic in terms of philosophy, rather he is pop-atheist entertainer.

[_lulu]

This Harris guy is a popular advocate of an atheist position on religious matters. He is not an academic philosopher, and does not claim to be. I don't have a problem with that.

Similarly, there are plenty (really plenty) of popular advocates of theist positions on religious matters. I don't have a problem with that either.

For some reason I feel compelled to add:

"popular advocates of theist positions on religious matters," who are not academic philosophers or theologians.

Amendment accepted with pleasure.

I'm still not sure why I thought it was important.

Maybe, religion needs to be mass marketed.

Does atheism have to be mass marketed?

Is that what Harris is trying to do? Is he doing more harm than good in the process?

Is there a better way to mass market atheism than what Harris is doing?

I think what Stak is doing on campus is great.

Is going about it that way something that reaches a larger audience? (He's certainly creating more tolerance.)

I've often compared selling religion to selling different brands of soap.

Is there a best way to convince people they don't need soap?

Ok, Ok, maybe my analogy stinks.

[_Sethbag]

A bunch of 19 year old kids escape the clutches of their controlling parents and repressive religious indoctrination, go off to college, find themselves enjoying freedom on a scale they have never conceived of, and aren't prepared to enjoy responsibly, and explode like a coiled spring suddenly released. WHO KNEW?!?!

Bad Sam Harris! Bad! Bad!

That's pretty much what I took from Stak's beef with Harris. Apparently, Sam Harris is supposed to make sure that when college freshmen from repressive households read his stuff, they don't think they can dye their hair, get their nipples pierced, and draw Muhammed.

Is it just possible that these kids were going to go overboard with whatever they latched onto when they left their repressive families and went to college? My mom told me stories of Mormon kids she knew in college who left uberstrict Mormon households and suddenly were drinking and having sex and God-only-knows what other manner of evil once their parents weren't around to keep them under control.

You know, it's just possible that this is a college thing, not a Sam Harris thing.

I've read Letter to a Christian Nation and watched numerous Sam Harris debates and speeches, and I've never felt induced to draw Muhammed. Or dye my hair, or get my nuts pierced. But maybe I just didn't get it.

I have a question: what percentage of the population engages religion on an academic-level philosophical basis? Probably nobody can know this, but it's going to be really small, as in well under 1%. So in other words, over 99% of the population engages religion on a "popular" basis. What is wrong with Sam Harris and the others engaging this 99% on the same, popular basis?

Do you expect Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins to be spending their time in front of the masses attempting to dismantle Alvin Plantinga? Do you think "the masses" would appreciate such a debate? Would it move anyone?

Seth Payne: You really think Sam Harris should be spending his time at the lectern arguing with the First Cause? Tell me, how many religious folks order their lives and behavior because there must have been a First Cause? Do Mormons not drink coffee, tea, or alcohol because their must have been a First Cause? Are gays not supposed to get married to each other because there must have been a First Cause? How should we treat the poor and needy among us, in light of the fact that there must have been a First Cause? What does your assertion (or your support of the assertion) that there must have been a First Cause have to say about Just War?

The bottom line is that Sam Harris and these others look around at our world, and they see some serious problems that are caused by religion, and they seek to address those problems, and their proximate cause, and in a way that a large-enough percentage of the population can understand their arguments well enough to perhaps be influenced in their attitudes and behavior. That Stak has seen some college kids doing stupid things while also liking what Sam Harris has to say really doesn't impress me as an argument against Sam Harris and his works.

[_Sethbag]

I should address the Sam Harris pancake/host comparison.

Bullseye.

By the way, I have to give Notre Dame enough credit to assume they knew what they were getting when they invited Sam Harris to their campus. I doubt there was as much hand-wringing and cringing at his comments by his Catholic hosts as there seems to be out on the Internet by Harris' non-Catholic critics. Notre Dame is a "big boy" institution. I'm sure they've recovered from this severely traumatic experience by now.

But what was Sam Harris' point? Was it just a cheap shot intended to get a laugh? I don't think so. Harris was pointing out that we all have blind spots. We all see how ridiculous the religious assertions of others are, and fail to see how our own religious assertions look ridiculous to others. If a Catholic were listening to Harris' words and considering them carefully, they might ask themselves "hmm, so why is praying for a pancake to turn into Elvis inherently ridiculous, while praying over this bland wheat thin to turn into Jesus Christ is not?"

[_Sethbag]

Arg, I was probably too sarcastic in my next-to-previous post. My apologies. Seriously though, after reading Stak's write-up on why he thinks Sam Harris is a idiot, I still don't really understand what it is about Sam Harris that makes him a idiot. I know some naïve college kids doing some dumb things really annoy Stak, but blaming that on Sam Harris? I don't agree.

Having not studied philosophy in college, I can't engage most of Stak's arguments that are based on the academic writings of this or that philosopher of religion. What little exposure I have had to such writings, however, makes me believe they are quite severely disconnected from the everyday experience of religion by probably in excess of 99% of religious believers. In that context, when Harris or one of the other New Atheists address the belief systems of the 99%, I don't believe that a really cogent criticism of them is that they haven't addressed what Dr. So-and-so wrote in their book that like 4000 people in the world have ever read.

I humbly acknowledge that all of the above may just be what people who have never studied college-level philosophy of religion say.