Due to lack of time, I’ve seen only the first two hours of this three-hour (!) video of Sam Harris talking to Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks show, but it was pretty absorbing. Give it a try and see if you can last the whole three hours.
Cenk, who previously had both Reza Aslan and C. J. Werleman on the show, and was apparently sympathetic to them, gives Sam a remarkably hard time about his views, particularly (in the first hour) about the idea the Islam is inherently worse than other faiths. But Harris gives as good as he gets ,and the often rapid back-and-forth is instructive. If you have the time to watch it all, do report on the last hour in the comments.
Here you go: three hours of semi-antagonistic palaver:
Sam gives his take on the debate on his website:
I recently sat down with Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks to discuss my most controversial views about Islam, the war on terror, and related topics. It was, of necessity, a defensive performance on my part—more like a deposition than an ordinary conversation. Although it was a friendly exchange, there were times when Cenk appeared to be trying very hard to miss my point. Rather than rebut my actual views (or accept them), he often focused on how a misunderstanding of what I was saying could lead to bad outcomes—as though this were an argument against my views themselves. However, he did provide a forum in which we could have an unusually full discussion about difficult issues. I hope viewers find it useful.
Having now watched the full exchange, I feel the need to expand on a couple of points. . .
Sam then goes into the recent decline of journalistic ethics, as judged by deliberate misreprentation of Harris’s views, but, at the end, extends a note of charity by apologizing for misrepresenting Glenn Greenwald’s views on “collateral damage.” I’ve love to see Reza Aslan or C. J. Werleman tender such an apology.
The problem I have with Uygur in this piece (besides his constant interruption of Harris) is threefold. First, he seems bound to defend Islam as being no worse than any other religion (this may come from his familial roots in Islam, though he’s an atheist).
Second, Ugyar just won’t accept that religion itself can be the main reason for malevolent acts. Though he admits that religion can play a role in acts like suicide bombing, he just can’t bring himself to admit that it could be a major role. In the case of things like the death penalty for apostasy or the acts of ISIS, you’d have to be pretty Robert Pape-ish to deny religion as the overarching cause. After all, the death penalty for apostasy is in the Qur’an, and how can you even have a death penalty for apostasy without a religious dictate?
Finally, as Sam notes above, Uygur seems to hold Harris himself responsible for misrepresentation of his views, as if somehow Harris could predict how his words would be truncated or twisted in the service of Islamophilia or simple Harris-hatred. That’s just not fair.
~
I’ve made it through 2 of the 3 hours so far, but I do intend to finish it today or tomorrow.
This is less of an interview and more a debate with a rather defensive Cenk trying to tell Sam why character assassination and deliberate misrepresentation is totally the same as angrily rebutting character assassination; and why misrepresenting someone’s ideas is totally the same as arguing against someone’s ideas.
It bothers me a whole lot that someone like Cenk doesn’t appear to understand the difference.
I really thought Cenk was smarter than that. I give TYT credit for having an in depth discussion with Sam, but I am not really sure it is useful for doing much more than demonstrating that a lot of liberals basically turn into Tone Trolls when Sam opens his mouth.
A-yup. I commented on this in a previous post, pretty much dismayed at Cenk’s lack of self-awareness. I, too, thought he was way better than that.
Perhaps it is the familial background getting in the way — but I also cannot help but think that it wasn’t just Cenk sitting there, but also his immediate peer group egging him on: “fight, fight, fight… give no quarter”.
Never stopping long enough to concede any point Sam would make, as if that would be the gravest sin — he reminded me of Affleck in that regard. Compare to how easily-led and non-combative Cenk was by Werleman and Aslan, it’s pretty easy to see that petty tribalism trumps argument. Depressing.
At least Sam had a chance to go on the record (again), but I could not help but think that Cenk had not actually read any of Sam’s books. (I didn’t detect anything Sam said to be different or an expansion on anything he wrote).
I watched the whole thing. My observation is not particularly profound… Cenk went out of his way to miss the point over and over again. He is willing to acknowledge that there are differences between religious ideologies but is unwilling to admit that these differences might have real-world consequences. His tendency to interrupt and his rather “whiny” way of arguing made it difficult for me to sit through.
I second the observation of Cenk’s tendency to interrupt (whinely).
I encourage watching till the end. Sam gives a great account of how his philosophical style is open to malicious misinterpretation.
I’d go even further… This conversation seemed like an intellectual mismatch between a renowned expert and a journalist whose main contribution to the topic is a strong opinion and a loud voice. I sometimes got the impression that Sam had to keep the conversation going by lowering the overall intellectual and rhetorical level.
I would have had a hard time staying as poised as sam did
I gave up on Cenk a long time ago; I would not even bother to call him a “journalist,” since I don’t think he deserves to be elevated to that status.
In addition to not wanting to acknowledge the real-world consequences of various ideologies, his other main project was to defend Islam with a big, fat tu quoque.
“Sam, Sam. Why are you saying these things about Islam. Don’t you realize the Bible is also morally repugnant and xians have also been very violent?”
Unrelatedly, the exchange with Cook Sam describes on his blog is unbelievable. My jaw literally (in the sense of “literally”) dropped.
Yes, I’d recommend anyone following this whole debate to see that. It’s on Sam’s website. Cook’s instant ‘leap to irrational/unjustified conclusion’ pretty well encapsulates what has happened to Sam throughout.
It’s also awfully reminiscent of political debates in Orwell’s time, when anyone not following the party line became the pro-imperialist, fascist-sympathising other.
Read it and wonder. Oh, and catch your jaw before it hits the floor.
It was a great interview – but I strongly recommend the you watch the last 5 or so minutes of the video. Sam describes with remarkable clarity the reasons his style has led to the amount of misunderstanding and misrepresentation that it has. Make sure you watch it because I could never summarize it as well as he does.
Don’t get what I’m about to say wrong, I’m a fan of Sam Harris, I’ve read all his books and much of his shorter writings, and have followed his blog since its inception, but this interview highlights Sam’s greatest shortcomings quite well.
The worst is that Sam does have a tendency to say catchy but hyperbolic things, such as “Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas.” That was just a stupid statement.
More to the heart of Sam’s problem is that he has some unreasonable expectations of the conversation. Sam writes and speaks with great specificity, subtlety, and nuance. His shortcoming is that he expects his audience to listen equally carefully, to read all the footnotes, to check the reference material, to contemplate and understand all the caveats and asides. In a world full of philosophers and scientists, that might be a justifiable expectation, but in the world we live in, it is really quite naive. Part of presenting is to recognize one’s audience and tune one’s presentation to the audience. When Sam was presenting to intellectuals, he did just fine; his problems have come in the transition to a mass market, where people rarely listen with great precision and there are so many more people of ill will and dubious ethics to misrepresent a very subtle, nuanced argument in the interests of gathering a following. If he wants to talk in a mass market, he needs to tune his presentation skills to that mass market. That does not mean “dumb it down;” it means be aware of the reading/listening habits that most people bring to the conversation.
I watched this video over at Sam’s blog and am rewatching it here, and again and again I find myself wanting to scream out at him, “Simplify what you’re saying!”
Oops, Tumble, I thought I was entering a comment on the main thread. My comment was not intended to be a reply to yours. Sorry.
The last hour goes into Sam’s past writings on torture and nuclear first-strike (and maybe profiling but I can’t remember if that was in hour 2 or not) – so plenty of further absorbing content!
Cenk made some good points, but many boiled down to “You shouldn’t write that stuff because people will misinterpret it as permission to act”. Thankfully (and it was kind of sad that he had to) Sam explained that his writings on these subjects are always in the vein of philosophy – they are not policy prescriptions – they are simply trying to get at the root of questions like, “Why exactly was it ethical to kill Osama Bin Laden?” He explains that it’s perfectly acceptable in a philosophy seminar to ask absurd or taboo questions, like, “Why is eating babies wrong?” He tends not to write down to his readers, and so the challenge he’s now found himself running into is that his writings are being cut down via social media platforms, with people like Aslan and Greenwald either purposely eliminating or failing to understand the philosophical context, and then portraying him as a monster (or, per the famous tweet, a “genocidal fascist maniac”).
Anyway, very good discussion. I hope Ben Affleck takes the time to watch so he can see a better example of how to argue like an adult.
I guess I missed those.
In any case, I don’t think that “You shouldn’t write that stuff because people will misinterpret it as permission to act” should be considered an example of one.
I missed the good points, too. I saw nary a one coming from Cenk. Not one.
And I’m afraid that if Affleck was watching, he’d merely take all his cues from Cenk.
“Anyway, very good discussion. I hope Ben Affleck takes the time to watch so he can see a better example of how to argue like an adult.”
Yes I agree. Sam was very patient and composed throughout (remarkably so!), and in spite of Cenk’s whiny unwillingness to acknowledge the validity of points Sam made, Cenk was also a far better model for how to argue with someone than Ben is/was.
Funny how Cenk says Sam shouldn’t say some things because people will misunderstand. But it’s ok for Imams to tell their audiences to kill apostates because those are just harmless just ideas. This notion that Sam deserves to be libelled and slandered for what he says really bothers me because these journalists are not being held accountable for their unethical behaviour. Sam is right about journalism and that makes me really sad.
Sub and sorry about the double “just”
Bingo. Hadn’t thought of it quite like that, but of course you’re right. The double-standard about who can espouse what ideas and with what consequences is the glaring blind spot.
“Funny how Cenk says Sam shouldn’t say some things because people will misunderstand. But it’s ok for Imams to tell their audiences to kill apostates because those are just harmless just ideas.”
Are you listening, Cenk?
Cenk apparently believes that Sam’s words have more influence over people’s actions than “the perfect book” written by the creator of the universe.
+1
To be fair, I think Uygur was talking about the potential for people in positions of power in the West to take what Harris says about torture and nuclear first strikes at face value. I think they have done exactly that, and used it as cover for neocon policies like limitless detention, remission and torture of terror suspects.
How many in this forum think those policies are the right ones, regardless of whether Harris advocates them or just philosophically canoodles with them?
Since we’re being fair, don’t you think it would be reasonable to hold the neocons to account for their behavior and any misuse of other people’s ideas that they might make?
(Instead of the people who’s ideas they might misuse.)
In other words. hold the person, not the ideology to account?
No. Hold the misrepresenter, not the misrepresented, to account.
Is this hard?
Read what I wrote to Mike Paps. I don’t hold Harris responsible for neocon policies. I hold him responsible more for giving cover to those policies. He chose to canoodle in public as though the world were an advanced philosophy seminar. Now we know it isn’t, and his canoodling was misunderstood. We’ve known this for a long time. What is his response? To canoodle some more. “I think torture should be categorically illegal, but…” “I think nuclear first strikes are immoral, but…” “This is really fodder for a philosophy seminar, but…”
“I think Uygur was talking about the potential for people in positions of power in the West to take what Harris says about torture and nuclear first strikes at face value.”
While he (Uygur) argues that Muslims don’t take their religious texts at face value. Cenk seems to expect a more rational interpretation of ideas from poor under-educated citizens of third world theocracies, than from educated citizens of western mostly secular democracies. That’s not to say he should expect much from either.
That being said I don’t see why it’s any more Sam’s responsibility for how his philosophical ponderings are misused, than it is a scientists responsibility for how the fruits of his scientific discoveries are misused.
So it’s not the Qur’an’s responsibility if people misuse it? Is that what you’re saying? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people?
I think Ugyur was saying that Harris’s canoodling, no matter how he intended it, has been used to justify neocon policy in the Near East. I think that is probably true. Do I hold Harris responsible for neocon policy in Iraq, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? No. But I do believe he has given neocons intellectual cover. And I believe his writings have given some extreme Islamophobes and xenophobes cover for their anti-Arab racism. Just as the Qur’an has given extreme Islamists cover for extreme Islamism. Now you may correctly (or incorrectly) say Harris’s inadvertent influence on neocons and Western racists is on balance far less bad than the Qur’an’s on Islamists. But you still have to deal with the influence it did have. It’s not a zero sum game where ethics are concerned.
It’s worth it for atheists to think carefully about all this, because we’re not just dealing with “science good, religion bad” here. We’re dealing with complex history and politics. I don’t see evidence that Harris is really capable of getting that himself, but maybe I’m not looking in the right place. It’s certainly not in these three hours he shared with Uygur.
The problem for your position, christopierson, is that it puts the blame in exactly the wrong place.
Rather than saying “Hey, Mr. Xenophobe, you’re wrong and Harris doesn’t support xenophobia” you prefer to complain that Harris is wrong for having “provided cover” to xenophobes.
That’s a wrongheaded position, IMO, and amounts to little more than “Hey, Mr. Critic of Religion, STFU. Dick Cheney might misuse your argument.”
No thanks. I prefer discussions to be open and honest and unfiltered by fear of Mr. Cheney.
I am not blaming Harris or arguing that he should shut up. I am talking about the consequences of his words, which whether he intended them or not, are real consequences. I harp on the neocons because there is a direct line between their policies in the Near East and the Islamic extremism plaguing the world. I’d like to see Harris and the atheists who rally around him pay more attention to that. If truth really matters to them, that is, and not just abstract thought experiments and “the end of faith.”
But the so-called consequences are other people often deliberately missing what Sam is actually saying. Sam cannot be held responsible for this when he makes his position abundantly clear over and over and people choose to hear only what they would like to hear and then act on these misrepresentations. Sam should be held accountable for his actual ideas. Someone, like a radical Imam, who makes it clear that apostates should be beheaded should also be held accountable for his clear message.
Yes, the radical imam should be held accountable, somehow–although how is a question. (And what should we do with the Harris-misinterpreting radical neocon whose policies made the radicalism of the imam possible?)
People need to be held accountable to their words. Those who are clearly bigots need to be called out as such. Those who misrepresent another’s ideas, need to be corrected.
Of course, language is a funny thing. Very easy to be misinterpreted, now matter how carefully we try to speak. And as neither language nor humans are perfect, we often don’t even know the full implications of what we say. So I question the notion that there is such a thing as a correct interpretation of a given bit of language. Which is not to say we shouldn’t take care when attempting interpretation.
Really so when Sam says:
I should be clear; in criticizing all Muslims. There are Muslims who don’t take the doctrine very seriously, there are Muslims who don’t read the Quran with any attention, but Islam is at a very different moment in its history and its as though we are encountering the Christians of the 14th C armed with 21st C weapons….
Somehow, this is unclear? Sam says something similar in many of his interviews, including the notorious interview on Real Time. People choose not to listen to this part and that is not on Sam.
I’ve no complaint about you harping on the neocons, christofpierson. I have a complaint about the tendency to harp on Harris because of the crazed neocons.
The direct line you assert (between neocon policy and chaos in the Middle East) is partly true. But the line isn’t completely clear. There was much chaos before the Dick and George Show took place, and there is much in places where the show hasn’t been playing. There is a more common denominator than neocon policy. Religion.
This is one of those self-negating statements, similar to “Everything I say is false.”
I interpret your comment to mean that all statements mean all things. You should be able to get through live with nothing but a single sentence. Or even less.
Is my interpretation just as good as your intended meaning?
“So it’s not the Qur’an’s responsibility if people misuse it? Is that what you’re saying?”
The problem with your point is that Isis for example isn’t misusing the Qur’an. If neocons were as literal in their interpretation of Harris there wouldn’t be a problem.
Please read this and respond.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html
Not being a scholar of Islam, I can’t vouch for your interpretation or Juan Cole’s.
I’ll just respond to a couple of points in the article you referenced. I think you’ll get the point.
“… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land”
It’s very easy to say that western influence, or adultery, or apostasy, or homosexuality, or not strictly adhering to the faith are wreaking corruption in the land. Also murder by definition is unlawful killing. It’s not unlawful under sharia (Islamic law) to kill adulterers, apostates, etc.
“Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare”
How simple it is to claim what you’re doing is defensive. ISIS is defending Islam from corruption. They aren’t the aggressor.
I’m sure terrorists have much better justifications than I can come up with off the top of my head.
So it’s a matter of interpretation of the text, isn’t it? It’s not crystal clear unless you want to interpret it a certain way.
I don’t see how you can possibly make that statement in response to my post. There was no interpretation involved. The article you posted however, was making fanciful interpretations.
If you say so.
I think if you concede there’s always room to interpret any utterance of language–i.e., no such thing as one correct interpretation–then we can end our discussion on at least this one point of agreement between us.
I would say there is often room to interpret. I disagree there is no such thing as a correct, or by implication incorrect interpretation. The correct interpretation is the message the writer intended to convey.
And I should have added that all those justifications are supported within the framework of a literal reading of the Islamic holy books. In other words no cherry picking was required.
Literal readings of the Judeo-Christian books are equally prone to be interpreted as you interpreted the Qur’an, right? Harris called it the ugliest of the scriptures, even more so than the Qur’an, and I don’t think he was talking aesthetics.
My point is, there must be something other than the Qur’an itself that breeds such literalist readings.
Could you explain what I said about the Qur’an that was an interpretation? My statements were based on a literal reading. I assume by interpretation you mean something other than an unbiased reading of the literal text.
I mean sure everything can be “interpreted”. I could interpret murder to mean tickling.
Do not demand that readers respond to a biased article of your choosing (and yes, it is biased). You are coming close to trolling here.
I apologize if I’m treading close to trolling here. I think I understand where I stepped on or over a line.
My purpose in linking to Cole’s article is because it shares several quotes from the Qur’an that contradict Mike Paps’ statement that ISIS, for example, is taking the Qur’an literally when it murders noncombatants. It seemed like something someone who claims the Qur’an is unambiguously pro-terror would need to deal with.
My purpose is, further, not to argue that the Qur’an is an unambiguous book of peace. I agree with Harris and Uygur that it’s a mixed bag, and clearly, the ways Muslims read and misread it contribute to the state of Islam today.
But keeping the focus on Islam and Muslims and off the historico-political context of extreme Islamism is also a bias, especially among Western atheists, that probably needs correcting as well.
Thank you for correcting us by making sure you keep the focus on the historical and political aspects of the situation rather than the religious. (Of course the distinction between the political and religious is often nonexistent in Islamic lands.)
If we’re really interested in what’s going on here, don’t we need to understand the balance? At the extremes, if we put all the emphasis on the religious component, then it’s all on the Muslims to correct themselves. Does anyone think that’s a) really going to happen and b) actually just, considering the roles the West has played in shaping the modern Near East?
On the other side, of course, it isn’t all on the West to fix the Muslim world, either. Not that the West has ever demonstrated it has whatever it takes to do that, but that hasn’t stopped our leaders from trying anyway.
I think making ourselves feel good about how right our point of view is great to a point. What do we do beyond that point?
We stop commenting after we’ve made our point, that’s what we do.
“Funny how Cenk says Sam shouldn’t say some things because people will misunderstand. But it’s ok for Imams to tell their audiences to kill apostates because those are just harmless just ideas.”
Excellent point.
I watched about 2/3 of this discussion yesterday. Yes, it seemed Uygur was determined to misunderstand Harris.
Uygur: There is more involved than just religion.
Harris: Agreed. There are many factors. But religion is the main factor.
Uygur: But there is more involved than just religion.
This exchange happened several times in the portion I watched.
What a coincidence. I was just coming from a discussion elsewhere on the Net about this tendency to sidestep religion when it came to discussing atrocities committed in religion’s name. It’s like religion has this deflector forcefield around it that makes defendants suddenly go off on tangents.
For instance, I’ve found one warning flag is when someone (rebutting the idea that religion played a big role) suddenly veers off into discussing human psychology rather than confronting a religious position and its doctrines. Apparently, the easiest way to explain why homosexuality is a capital-offence abomination in the eyes of Islamists, but OK to most everyone else, has nothing to do with religious teachings and everything to do with our innate homophobia as naked apes. Or with America’s actions in the Middle East.
Yeah, and the atmosphere is a bigger arsonist than actual arsonists because oxygen feeds fires.
Haven’t watched the video in the OP, but I can’t say the comments here inspire much confidence.
The last 8 minutes are great. It’s a miracle, but Cenk actually shuts up.
Ah. Thanx for that info. I will go watch the end. I had given up on anything new being said after viewing 2/3 of the video.
It may be that Uygur didn’t hear Harris’s agreement, or his assertion that it’s the “main factor” rather than the only one (presumably in the makeup of ISIS and Islamist extremism). But Harris’s claim that it’s the “main factor” definitely should not be taken as granted.
The main weak point in Harris’s position is that he doesn’t adequately demonstrate that religion is more significant than the geopolitical factors, which he downplays the way many of his defenders claim his critics downplay the religious influences.
There is definitely a need for Harris and his critics (especially the ones who aren’t interested in demonizing him) to sit down and shed more light on this intersection of factors.
I don’t believe he ever says it’s the main factor period. He says there are cases when it’s the main factor, like when the terrorists say it’s why. Cenk doesn’t even want to concede that, because once he does it’s just a debate over which instances are caused by the religion.
The problem with Sam Harris is that he doesn’t talk in easily digestible sound bites. Many of his thoughts are complex and nuanced, and require more than six words to explain. This means that random people with short attention spans (you know who you are!) tune out after a few words. Clearly, it’s all his fault.
Yes, I think that has a lot to do with it. But it still doesn’t answer why the position of people like Aslan and Greenwald is that Sam advocates the opposite of what he actually advocates. Cenk says a couple of times that they are afraid that people will put Sam’s ideas into action, which has me scratching my head: because then it implies that they still haven’t actually read what Sam has written or they think that the feared mystery people who will put Sam’s ideas into practice will do the opposite of what Sam actually advocates. In other words, their arguments are incoherent and contradictory. He’s just a convenient whipping boy for the crime of having a conversation about controversial subjects.
Yes, people who deliberately and knowingly misrepresent Sam’s views in order to discredit him are whipping up an Internet tar-and-feather mob. I understand Cenk’s concerns about a general backlash against Muslims. We need to always make it clear that criticism of Islamic doctrine is necessary and must not be suppressed, but that does NOT equate to generalizations about the intentions of individual Muslims, outlawing of mosques, etc. History has examples of ideals that went badly wrong (I think the French Revolution is one).
You have to admit that, with most people’s ability to think, if it becomes generally agreed among Westerners that Islam is a terrible religion, the next natural step is for calls to ban it, and gaol its adherents. I think people like Ben Affleck instinctively understand that the unwashed masses (coughRepublicanscough) find it hard to go beyond “it’s a bad idea, let’s ban it and anathematise those who support it”. Like recreational drugs, a few people overdo things and suddenly you can’t use heroin for pain any more. Similarly the reaction to Communism was not to quietly point out its flaws, but to hysterically denounce and ruin the lives of everyone suspected of sympathy for the poor. There’s no reaction like over-reaction and with the historical tendency of religions to do their best to wipe each other out and oppress each other it is a logical assumption that this is what we’d do to Muslims if the call to discuss it rationally moved to fruition.
“generally agreed among Westerners that Islam is a terrible religion”
This is part of the problem with this whole line of thought. It has been generally agreed among Westerners since the Middle Ages that Islam is a “terrible religion.” So how do we know that our views about it now are any less biased by geography and culture than they were in the days of the Crusades?
Some of us are uncomfortable with–don’t see the point of–Westerners (even Western atheists) attacking Islam as the “main factor” in the Muslim world’s (for lack of a better term, though Middle East or Near East might be more apt terms) behavior with respect to the West. It seems to some of us like a hand-washing and denial of any responsibility at all. The problem isn’t us, Harris and anti-Islam atheists say; it’s all on them. If only they’d just be as enlightened as we are, everything would be fine.
I don’t think that’s a viable tack for change.
Ok, I just reread the context of that statement and I apologize if I lumped you in with those who “generally agree.”
I think there is call to discuss the problems with radical Islam rationally. I just think a necessary part of that discussion is the historic/geopolitical factor.
Nobody says this.
“But it still doesn’t answer why the position of people like Aslan and Greenwald is that Sam advocates the opposite of what he actually advocates.”
In the case of Aslan, I believe it’s simply (and intentionally) to perpetuate the narrative that Harris is Islamophobic, racist, and however else he’s currently being mischaracterized.
Also, Aslan understands the ideological line he needs to convey to appear on television and continue his rise to fame. This misrepresentation is another step up the ladder for him.
The same for Greenwald which is what really bothers me about all this because he is a journalist that should know better and no one seems to be holding him accountable to journalistic standards and ethics.
Cent is no better than Aslan or Werleman. He’s constantly mis-interpreting what Harris is saying.
I agree with you.
And I am not sure what exactly Cent Uygur wanted to prove by bringing up, for instance, the witch hunts during the discussion. These barbaric acts of violence were clearly the product of Catholic doctrine. He seems to have no problem recognizing the fact, yet can’t make the same connection between the beheadings of “enemies of Islam” and the Islamic doctrine.
I thought his point, in the way I took him to mean it, was that Sam was ignoring the horribleness of Christianity to single out the horribleness of Islam, which is, of course absurd. But it’s what the Turk was trying for in the 1.75 hours I watched. He completely ignored Sam’s intentions of pointing out how his views are being misrepresented, and instead seemed to want to castigate Sam for unfairly picking on Islam. At first it seemed bizarre to me, and then it began to concern me to the point where my concern is now at the dull edge of fear. If people like he, Werleman, Greenwald, are deliberately misleading the populous for the purpose of, what?, self promotion? then it is a truly fearful thing, is it not? I have to profess a complete ignorance to what Werleman’s goals truly are if they aren’t the same as Sam’s, and by association, the same as Professor Coyne’s, or Professor Dawkins’, or any of a number of atheists, both prominent and not so prominent. Why be an atheist if the eradication of religion for the purpose of bettering civilization isn’t the main goal?
Just to correct one thing in Jerry’s post, I don’t think that the penalty for apostasy being death is in the Qur’an, it’s in the Hadith.
Anyway. I happened to be about an hour into watching this when this post went live. I’ve yet to notice any good points from Cenk, maybe they’ll come later. Or not: at the moment he’s really getting on my tits.
The hadith are certainly more explicit than what can be found in the qu’ran.
Qur 8:12 and 9:29 would be my go to references for treatment of the apostate/non believers. It’s there, and the hand waving of those who would say “not my islam” still have to explain it IMO.
I’m not sure that those passages are explicitly about apostates, though they are absolutely disgusting. I think it was Sam Harris who said that you could pick a page from the Qur’an at random and just start reading and you’d pretty soon encounter abhorrent passages like those.
“Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas” was what set Batfleck off on “RealTime”. 🙂
I’m inclined to agree. The downside to this Uygur/Harris talk was that I’m fairly sure Sam came away feeling he might have wasted his time putting out brushfires and missed an opportunity to have a larger discussion of ideas. Cenk spent a great deal of time pooh poohing the notion of Harris being misrepresented on TYT and in social media. Harris should do an interview with Pat Condell. He’ll be the seemingly reasonable one perception-wise.
I just tried the experiment, picking #72 at random, confirming that it is indeed a proscription for ingroup-outgroup barbarism on top of a torture pron fantasy. Then widened to #71 and #73, which quickly devolved into everlasting torture pron.
The Quran pretty much reads like Deuteronomy and Leviticus, except on a baser level – and for shorter attention spans.
Islam is just Judaism for Arabs, so yeah.
Yep. Judaism, except with crackly, crispy everlasting torture bits. It’s like the worst of Judaism (identify the other, plunder, destroy, do as I say) plus the worst of Christianity (or else you’ll fry forever like the rest of the outgroup).
And no booze, oy vey!
Cenk was very defensive whenever criticism of Islam came up though he was quite willing to listen to Sam trash Christianity. He did not want to hear criticism of Islam, saying that arguing about differences between religions was like arguing about whether “2+2=5” is more wrong than “2+2=6”: they’re both wrong so no further discussion of differences has any value. But that’s just an attempt to avoid looking squarely at the consequences of Islamic doctrine in the modern world. It is absolutely true that back in the heyday of Christendom (aka The Dark Ages) saying the wrong thing about Catholic dogma could land you in a situation so horrible that death became a longed-for blessed event. Even today Christianity is dangerously retrograde in some cases, but if one focuses on the present day world in which we live there is no question that the doctrines of Islam produce some horrible behavior, which Sam was earnestly trying to point out and Cenk was resisting at every turn.
At the end of the video Cenk admitted that he had some problems with Aslan’s views but didn’t have much of a problem with Greenwald’s, revealing how much Greenwald and the PC Left has shaped his thinking (Cenk was a Republican at one point); perhaps his views will be further shaped by his lengthy discussion with Sam. The video was frustrating to watch at times, but a worthwhile exchange IMO and I give some credit to Cenk for allowing Sam to speak at length rather than simply jumping on the “Sam is a genocidal racist maniac” Twitter bandwagon.
Cenk has long been much enamored of anyone who had anything to do with either Assange or Snowden, to the point of being a little too uncritical of any of their other actions or motivations.
When Cenk addresses Christian fundamentalists or conservatives on his show, he comes across as angry and scornful. He frequently generalizes about Christians or Republicans and attributes malicious motives to them.
But when he addresses Muslims, his tone becomes paternalistic and pleading and he perceives them as merely ignorant.
Yeah I’ve found this more frustrating than not. Cenk is a good example of how some liberals are so blinded by certain ideas that they can’t even admit something under any conceivable instance.
Cenk really comes off very poorly in this, I think.
Is Cenk a blinded liberal? That depends on his ingroup/outgroup perceptions. Both Reza Aslan’s and Cenk’s behaviour makes a lot of sense, if you consider them to be secular or cultural muslims, who are allergic against criticism of their ingroup by perceived outsiders.
The main problem with both is that they don’t have a following among Muslims. Reza doesn’t convert Muslims into adopting a liberal form of Islam. His readers and supporters are western liberals, who wish to think that Islam is benign as it is.
Sub
While I agree with Harris about the causal link between beliefs and actions and its implications for Islam in particular, I think it lacks perspective. It’s not wrong, it just elides more fundamental issues.
Consider the following scenario. Suppose that 200 years from now the United States government has collapsed. The military is defunct. Local state governments are sort of running, but not really. China is the only superpower in the world, and by a long shot. Fossil fuels are relatively scarce. China needs uranium. China invades and occupies New Hampshire, which has a rich source of uranium. There is little the New Hampshire government, or the former United States, can do.
We should expect some resistance to the invasion and occupation of New Hampshire. We should expect that some in the resistance will use religious language. We should expect that some will be especially violent and cite passages in the Bible to justify the violence.
Now suppose Chinese academics start talking about this link between Christianity and violence. They are especially concerned about Bible passages that the resistance invokes, such as Matthew 10:34 where Jesus says, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” And so forth.
Here is my problem: it’s just too convenient for China to be all concerned about the link between Christianity and violence. It’s self-aggrandizing and self-justifying and self-rationalizing for the Chinese to focus on that instead of, you know, the fact that they invaded and occupied New Hampshire for uranium.
Great comment.
What I find myself wondering is what is the point of Harris telling the mulsim world that they harbor millions of people more evil than Dick Cheney (is he preaching to the millions of americans that already agree with him?).
What is the point of supporting torture in a crazy GOP type 5 minutes before a bomb blows scenario, where you would still not get valid intel anyway? What is the point of telling muslims at large that their religion is the issue (instead of looking at why it has stronger roots in these regions) and then whitewashing the atrocities in Gaza? Maybe Cent has pro-Islam biases but doesn’t Harris have equally obvious ones? Harris seems to also think he is constantly being misinterpreted even when it comes to articles he posts himself on his blog. When all your opponents do is provide links to your own writings maybe you might do some introspection and maybe start thinking that your message might not be as completely perfect and well thought out as you may believe it to be. Willingness to reconsider one’s views would be pretty refreshing from Harris on any subject, his pro-gun views in the context of a moral landscape might be as good a start as any.
Christ on a bike. Which part of Sam saying “I think torture should be illegal” translates into “supporting torture”?
When he says in the interview that it should be illegal but that we should torture people anyway. (2:47)
That again is an oversimplification of what he actually said. Again Harris’s choice of language—”making someone uncomfortable”—is unfortunate. His argument was that sometimes torture to extract information was less bad that the consequences of not having that information.
Clearly that’s a position that can be debated.
I’m sorry, but Cenk asked him straight out and he said yes. I am not “oversimplifying”. And I understand his argument, as I have for years. This is not about his argument. It is about what he thinks should actually be done in circumstances that actually exist. It is for Harris to clarify if thinks that people detained at Gitmo or elsewhere should in fact be tortured.
“When he says in the interview that it should be illegal but that we should torture people anyway.”
Holy misrepresentation Batfleck. One could argue that the under some circumstances the death penalty could be ethical or justifiable, I wouldn’t, but one could. While at the same time saying it should be illegal because you can’t implement it so it’s done fairly, and justly because of gender, and race biases, and the fact that the rich are able to avoid it by having better legal representation. So no, saying torture could be ethical under some circumstances does not mean “we should torture people anyway”.
Have you looked at those quotes with a critical eye? Just about every time Sam’s critics quote him, they take the quote out of context and for the complex ideas, Sam communicates, context is vital.
Sam does reconsider his views. He seems one of the most open people to criticism as he invites his readers to refute his arguments and he takes the time to read them and adjust his own views where he has been convinced.
The point of speaking honestly about the Mislim world is to have an open, honest dialogue free of cryptic sidestepping of the issues. Sam has said on more than one occasion that he supports Muslims who want to reform their faith and condemn violent actions and that we should help these people who do so. Sam’s detractors seem to close their ears whenever he says this because it contradicts their view of him as a genocidal maniac.
“Willingness to reconsider one’s views would be pretty refreshing from Harris on any subject”
Here you go, get refreshed: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-pleasure-of-changing-my-mind
Well yes, you propose a hypothetical case worth thinking about. But as Sam as pointed out more than once, we have this phenomenon of educated, well-off people leaving modern unoccupied democracies to join the ranks of ISIS. It seems hard to explain this without noticing the effect of Islam’s role in their beliefs.
Ok, but to complete your analogy, how would China’s invasion explain the atrocities committed by Catholic (say) New Hampshirites against Protestant Vermontonians?
Particularly potent methods for dehumanizing the Other, thereby making violence easy, need to be criticized. Hard. It doesn’t matter if a religion’s potential for dehumanizing the other is a matter of interpretation. So what if a religion could conceivably be instantiated peacefully? We need to look at the actual situation, which is that Islam is working very well for the purpose of dehumanizing the Other, whether that’s infidels or rival sects. That is simply an empirical matter.
In the context of these attacks on Sam, the constant invocation of other factors (which surely exist, as Sam acknowledges) do not mean Sam’s criticisms are wrong. Sam is focusing on one term in the equation. I don’t see why he shouldn’t.
+1
If China itself in a version of the scenario was responsible for (say) nuking DC and Wall Street, thus (say) imploding the US, then there may well be Christian-Christian violence in the US. (Prediction would be that there would be: the thesis about power vacua, and all.)
That’s a false analogy to the situation imo. It has a lot more in common with the situation in Northern Ireland.
As Grania, GB James, Diana McP, Stephen Q and others have said, Uygar basically blamed Harris for misrepresenting his views. He also refuses to accept that in Islam, religion is a main motivator, which is exactly Aslan’s position, although he insists he doesn’t support Aslan.
He also, imo, has a blind spot where Greenwald is concerned, and seems unable to disagree with him on anything because of his admiration for him.
Too many are constantly trying to simplify Harris’ s arguments, then blame him when they get it wrong. There’s a tendency in the US far left to excuse religion and that influence is spreading. I’ve certainly noticed the same thing happening in NZ and Australia. Here, it seems to be down to Greenwald – there’s some kind of assumption that if a high-profile journalist says it, it must be true.
Towards the end of the video, when religion wasn’t so much a part of the conversation, Uygar had less problem with the complexities of Harris’s arguments, but still seemed determined to blame Harris for them being misrepresented. I can’t help thinking this is because Greenwald was one of those who did it on Twitter.
I’m glad I watched it, but it was ultimately unsatisfying because of Uygar’s approach.
Let’s try a little harder with our analogies please!
After a long period of imperial expansion followed by decline the US enters a World War, engages in some serious ethnic cleansing, and is dissolved when it loses. The states have, (for some reason), little sense of a common national identity but they are overrun with fundamentalist Christianity. Things are bad for women, homosexuals, freethinkers etc. and barbaric practices endure, although it varies somewhat between states. There are loosely two factions, called North and South, but these are also now religious factions and a great deal of fighting and tribal conflict is the norm between the states. They are ruled by dictators, warlords, and theocrats.
China has some history of backing one state against another when they think it is to their advantage. A group of fanatical Christians, mostly from Texas, blow up the Shanghai World Financial Center. Their reason for doing so is the presence of Chinese in ‘Christendom’. China pursues their ringleader into the repressive pseudo-state of Mississippi, then invades New Hampshire, a Northern state ruled by an autocratic Southern minority. China believes New Hampshire possessed WMDs and points out that despite bad intelligence they overthrew a tyrant. They spend trillions trying to rebuild the country and install a democracy, but fight a prolonged campaign against guerrilla fighters aligned with the Southern religion. China does not seize uranium but possibly benefits from the NH government contracting with international corporations. Meanwhile, the entire region is unstable, violent and repressive with the unifying factor being Christianity. Christian fighters cross state borders to wage war. The most pressing problem in NH is a brutal group of fighters hoping to establish a Christian theocracy and selling women into slavery because the Bible approves of it.
The Chinese government is actually very careful to claim that they do not oppose Christianity and that anyone they are fighting is ‘perverting’ it. However, a handful of academics and activists, many of whom never supported the government’s invasion, insist that there are intrinsic problems with Christianity. At home they are more known for criticizing Buddhism.
I’m not sure what to make of this fantasy but I wouldn’t leave religion out of it.
My advice is skip to 2:53 in and watch until the end. This is Sam’s central defense and his strongest argument – he’s talking about ethics and writing as a philosopher, not as a politician or a policy maker.
This is why it’s so important to understand Harris’ arguments in the larger context of his writings on belief, consciousness, ethics, morality, free will etc… It all forms a framework for thinking about these issues that is a step removed from political journalism.
As he says, he’s paying a price for having this quasi-academic discussion, but I think to some degree it’s been self-inflicted. Making statements such as “Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas” is a sure way to alienate those that would agree with a more nuanced conversation. It’s the same when it comes to Israel/Palestine – his statement on how Hamas would, in Israel’s position, simply kill all the Jews is extremely naive, both strategically and also I think factually.
People seem to be giving Cenk a hard time. In my opinion he did a really good job by playing devil’s advocate. It certainly wasn’t a conventional interview by any means but that’s the whole reason it was so insightful. I’m sure both fans and critics of Harris enjoyed seeing him get put through the mill (sorry Sam).
Sam’s “central defense” as you call it made me uncomfortable: he might be seen to be resorting to an “I’m just an ivory tower philosopher” defense. He does think deeply about issues in search of clarity and sometimes this can lead to conclusions that don’t conform to popular opinion (many of the great theories of science seem to violate common sense at first). But his insights are valuable and I hate to see them dismissed as just so much academic mental masturbation, which I fear could happen. We need people who think deeply about issues.
They’re actually Cenk’s words, not mine, but when you look at the sort of tweets Sam receives, it’s obvious that it needs saying and is probably a valid response to 90%+ of the criticism against him.
You do make a good point about this defense – if Sam was to qualify his statements by saying that they’re actually quasi-academic nuanced philosophical discussions it makes it even easier for people like Reza to call him uninformed and out of touch with the realities of the Muslim world.
Also, when I said above to skip to the end I didn’t mean to suggest the rest is not worth watching. I think it should be watched in its entirely, but in those last few minutes Sam really nails the problem that blew up due to his appearance on Real Time.
Well yes, you propose a hypothetical case worth thinking about. But as Sam as pointed out more than once, we have this phenomenon of educated, well-off people leaving modern unoccupied democracies to join the ranks of ISIS. It seems hard to explain this without noticing the effect of Islam’s role in their beliefs.
Have no idea about the exact details of TYT, but is it now SUPPOSED to be the case that journalists are not to ask knowledgeable people their views, but to force their pre-conceived notions onto them?
TYT is a news aggregator. they read the news and then commentate on that news.
I’m about 2 hours through and my initial impression is, so this is what a cultural Muslim looks like.
And I don’t mean this in a negative way, despite the fact that Mr. Uygur felt compelled to constantly force his own opinions into the interview and interrupt Sam Harris, this is at the very least a person with whom you can have an exchange of ideas.
I’ve watched all three hours and came away even more impressed with Sam Harris, who kept his cool throughout. Uygur, on the other hand, came across as defensive and a bit belligerent at times, defending his rather weak reasons for not subscribing to better journalistic standards.
in the last hour, cynk seems to be making the point that if we call out fundamentalist islam, regular muslims will “feel humiliated,” perceiving a generalized attack against them. then it’s only natural, in a search for answers, “humiliated” muslims’ natural response is jihad. which is odd since he goes out of his way to separate the average muslim from the ideologies of fundamentalist islam. cenk says, “when you talk about those things…it creates an us-vs-them that drive the muslim world more towards fundamentalism…”
cenk’s arguments seem to equate islam with fight club, where the first rule of islam, is don’t talk about islam.
sam, of course, points out that that concern is real and “says something terrible…about the influence of religion [in the muslim world],” and he reasons that there must be a way to work with muslims to get past that.
the last 20min is a foreign policy debate regarding perceptions of us foreign policy goals from muslim eyes, and chiefly the prevalence of resource theft and justifications of torture.
the whole 3hrs seem to boil down to cenk doesn’t want to say bad things about islam, and sam tries to set cenk straight on the nuances of his arguments. i disagree with jerry. if you’ve read sam, and watched the occasional TYT vid, you won’t find anything instructive here.
People should try applying Uygar’s argument to Christianity, for example. If you criticize fundamentalist Christians, that will humiliate liberal Christians and make them join the fundamentalists. Doesn’t work does it?
Calling out a group for bad behaviour more often gives others the courage to stand up against them too.
Exposing bad behaviour also helps, such as the situation where criminal gangs are presented as good things because they are family substitutes. Many from the West who are joining DAESH (ISIL) are looking for purpose in their lives and genuinely aren’t aware of the extent of the bad stuff. That situation isn’t helped by apologists.
i agree with you about calling out bad behavior in religion.
i can’t get behind the notion that some people “genuinely aren’t aware” of the level of shit isis is pulling. their own recruiting videos show stoning, war and beheading as a plus. not a sleazy sales pitch like that crummy undercoat scam, but like hand stitched leather seats and self-dimming, review mirrors.
I watched the entire interview. It was the first time that I had watched either Cenk or Harris—and I haven’t *yet* read any of Harris’s books. I’ve only recently become interested in this whole area of atheism/religion/evolution…
Cenk’s performance set my bullshitometer pinging big time. I can only endorse the assessments of previous commenters: whiny, interruptive, deliberately obtuse, determined not to be persuaded on any points while repeatedly emphasising, to demonstrate lack of bias, that he did agree with Harris on many things.
Harris maintained a calmer demeanour throughout, but there were occasions when I cringed over his initial choice of words on some topics—just begging to be misinterpreted. Don’t ask me for examples—I didn’t take notes. 🙂
The conversation at times was rambling. The discussion on profiling was vapid. Clearly, neither man knew enough to talk sensibly in any depth. Harris’s initial point that the economics of security screening should be more of a consideration than treating everyone the same was not unreasonable, but then Cenk jumped on the PC bandwagon about racial profiling—a comment that I would not wish to be interpreted as either approval or disapproval of racial profiling.
The last 5 minutes that several commenters have justifiably lauded: frankly, it should have been the first 5 minutes.
On balance, I have to say Cenk 0:1 Harris.
As this is my first post: hello, everyone. I have been reading and enjoying both WEIT posts and associated comments for a few months now.
Welcome, Roger. Now go off and read one of Sam’s books! 😉
(The End of Faith is well worth the time.)
Letter To A Christian Nation is a short and excellent read.
Thanks DrDroid and GBJames for the recommendations.
Hi Roger. Your comments are excellent – keep ’em coming!
My own view is that, when people retreat into a critique based on people “putting into action” a mistaken understanding of your views, they are essentially admitting they were wrong.
At that point, they are reduced to criticizing a viewpoint that they KNOW you don’t hold, and so the only way they can do it is to insist that other people do… but it’s still all your fault.
This whole kerfuffle with Harris/Aslan/Affleck et al. has been thoroughly disappointing as someone who generally identifies as politically liberal. I’m being forced to view so many people I respect(ed) in a new, unfortunate light.
“At that point, they are reduced to criticizing a viewpoint that they KNOW you don’t hold, and so the only way they can do it is to insist that other people do… but it’s still all your fault.”
+1
I think we need to stop this tribal identity thing where we label others or ourselves as “liberal” or “conservative” or whatever and simply focus more clearly on the validity of ideas.
+1
I’ve been disappointed a lot by people I previously admired too over the last few weeks. There’s often too much ego and not enough focus on the discussion. That’s a big thing I admire about Harris – he never makes it personal but sticks to the issues. In situations where other interviewees would be climbing the walls in frustration, he remains calm.
+1
Yes, I like how Sam appears to genuinely want to convince the other person and tries to understand their point of view. In the famous debate along side Michael Shermer against Chopra, Sam was very collected and asked Chopra clarifying questions so he could better understand his opponents position (vs just yelling over him or thinking of what next to say instead of listening). Even when he asked Chopra to bring it down a notch (because Chopra was yelling and being unreasonable), Sam was polite and Chopra seemed to respond well to him.
One thing I enjoyed about the debate/discussion was how well informed both of them were. Both of them responded to each others points with concrete examples of political history to support their position that (a) the other was obviously familiar with, and (b) the average person probably wasn’t. Fortunately they usually gave a little background for the average viewer.
I wouldn’t want to be the average Republican politician having to defend their views with Cenk or Harris in a similar forum.
I believe nearly all the points to be made on this have already been made. Cenk Uygur may be an atheist now…use to be a Muslim but it is very hard to tell the difference. He is extremely apologetic for Islam at every turn and seems to use the dodge phase — “others will misunderstand you”. He is the one that misunderstands just about everything.
I got the overall sense that Cenk was trying to be the “Fifth Horseman” and failed miserably. He did a good take down of Palin’s finances and I would stick to those sort of vids if I were him.
My summary of Cenk’s misunderstanding of Sam (and Maher) is that where 2+2=5 gets you kicked out of the Catholic Church, 2+2=6 gets you stoned to death or your head cut off.
I thought Sam was restrained and frustrated at times and all i could think of was that Hitch would either have demanded a strong whiskey or fallen asleep after 20 mins.
I join others here in thinking that Sam’s philosophic defense at the end was the best moment in the interview. Maybe Sam should write a new blog post entitled “Let’s Eat Babies,” discuss it, make reference to Swift’s Modest Proposal, and wait for the internet to light up with the accusations of cannibalism that would surely come and provide further proof of the inanity of his slanderers.
I was thinking of making a video of nothing but Sam’s quips out of context, perhaps interspersed with the same from Dawkins & Dennett. (kind of like the crap done on late night talk shows for yucks). It could probably be stretched out to 15 or 20 minutes of material by a true anal compulsive editor.
Although Ugyur often didn’t listen to what Harris was saying, and seemed intent on responding with “But…” to whatever Harris said, I thought that the longer the discussion went on the better Uygur got at allowing Harris to present his arguments in full and making more intelligent challenges.
The last hour was well worth watching. Sam pretty much had me with him until torture. I take his point about balancing torture and collateral damage and very much appreciate his statement that we tend to under-appreciate the awful reality of collateral damage. However, I think he elides the collateral damage that comes as a result of the torture itself. There’s no doubt that our torture regime radicalized many in the Muslim world and has led to more deaths of innocents.
Further, I think the ticking bomb scenario is too often employed by torture apologists to rationalize torture generally. I think the ticking bomb scenarios are vanishingly rare but that when/if it’s confronted, those present then will be best able to deal with it on an ad hoc basis without there being a written policy that expressly allows for torture under this or that circumstance. I think the kind of reasoned approach Sam appears to want creates a slippery slope. This was demonstrated, imo, when Dershowitz seemed to ok it for exigent circumstances and, suddenly, water boarding is a regular thing. Our position on torture should be: we don’t do it.
I agree, generally.
First, to get this out of the way, anyone who thinks Sam advocates some easy, casual attitude toward torture isn’t listening to him. Sam has explained too many times how repugnant it is to him, how it ought to be illegal, how extreme any situation would be to justify it.
And yet!….the problem still seems to remain that Sam may not be giving enough weight to the slippery slope problem. Even with all the ticking bomb scenarios, or nuclear terrorism scenarios, the logic still seems to boil down to “what if torturing someone saved lives that otherwise would be lost?”
The problem is where exactly do you draw the line, since that could be and HAS BEEN the purported motivation behind lots of torture, including scenes of torture Sam would certainly disavow. There are just so many conceivable and real-world scenarios – not rare or extreme circumstances at all – in which a captured enemy would have knowledge that “could allow us to save lives” if we had it. Hence…the use of torture.
This is not, btw, to say that Sam can’t make his case for possible use of torture. I’m just not yet fully convinced he’s made it air tight enough.
Further, I am troubled by the popular perception that by even making a case for the possible use of torture, Sam is showing himself to be somehow less humane, less empathetic, less moral, less compassionate than other good people. No. Sam is deeply concerned about people’s welfare. It’s his position that possible use of torture MIGHT serve to be the best route to realizing our concern for the lives of others. He may well be right or wrong, but it’s a matter of whether he is right or wrong about the best moral path, not whether he is a monster lacking the empathy and compassion of his critics.
Sam’s patience throughout is commendable. It must have been extremely frustrating for him at times. Cenk characterizes the deliberate misrepresentation of Sam’s views (by Aslan and Werleman in earlier TYT vids) as merely “disagreement”. Nope, sorry Cenk. Those two things are not the same. If you describe an apple as “an orange colored citrus fruit”, you have not simply disagreed. You are, in fact, wrong.
Sam also makes a great point about the troubling rise of click-bait journalism.
“Bad ideas have consequences”…how difficult is this to comprehend? @*#%^!!!
Sub
I thought the interview was generally terrific. Yes Cenk did interrupt a lot, but ultimately it seems to me the approach of giving Sam the opportunity to clarify his views pervaded. I found both guys to be quite intelligent and informed. I don’t think Cenk’s arguments in general were as careful and tight as Sam’s – which is one reason I am such an admirer of Sam in the first place – but I certainly didn’t conclude Cenk is a dufus who had no place on the stage with Sam. I didn’t find that Cenk always misunderstood Sam’s position: sometimes he did seem to understand it, but disagreed with it. For instance, I felt Cenk brought up some reasonable points in their debating the logic of nuclear first strikes – e.g. Cenk raising the concern that if your religious opponents know you consider their beliefs so irrational and dangerous that you think it could justify a first strike against them, then it would seem to up the stakes more for your religious opponents to actually strike first. As Sam says, this seems to be a sort of game-theory debate which they didn’t get fully into, but Cenk’s point certainly seemed reasonable appeal to psychology one must at least rebut.
And I didn’t really see the justification for Sam’s claim that the logic of a first nuclear strike was “implicit” merely in having the weapons. In the cold war neither side had to have a policy, implicit or not, of first strike. You just had to say “look, we have built up a nuclear weapons system that makes any notion of your avoiding harm by wiping us out with a first strike a pipe dream. Even IF YOU strike first against us, we both know the scenario is more likely to end in our mutual destruction.
Another interesting moment is the end in which Sam appeals to the philosophical nature of his arguments. It’s a very insightful, beautifully articulated moment by Sam, as others have pointed out. And yet it acts not only as a defense of his own arguments but, as Sam also realizes, as an explanation for how it is his comments incite misunderstanding or revulsion in so many people. When Sam talks of first strikes, torture etc he says he’s trying to get at philosophical ethical bedrock via thought experiments, something many people just aren’t used to doing so they are confused by it. But he also acknowledges that those issues abut real world policy questions and discussions as to how to deal with one’s enemies. So the appeal to abstraction or thought experiment only goes so far, as the exercise is nonetheless supposed to have real world consequences for how we decide to treat our enemies. Further, Sam has made a career out of trying to shake the abstraction and wishful-thinking out of tolerant, liberals in regards to the consequences of religious belief. Sam has continually emphasized the “real world” effects of beliefs and that we have to deal with them.
So it’s not really that surprising if Sam is on one hand telling everyone we need real world policies to deal with people who believe in Islam (especially jihadist beliefs), and on the other when talking of Islam, nuclear strikes, torture etc, to be saying but the examples I’m giving are so extreme as to be in the realm of philosophical discourse. Given Sam’s continued flag raising about real world consequences of Islamic beliefs, people are trying to figure out what, if any, real world situations (e.g. past or existing) Sam would condone for torture or a first strike scenario.
The best example seems to be the fear of ISIS gaining long range nuclear weapons; that *seems* to fit the bill for Sam’s logic of considering a first nuclear strike.
I wonder how many here would be comfortable with a first nuclear strike should ISIS gain such power?
I certainly understand that as Sam says, the LOGIC game of chicken/MAD seems to break down when one side thinks death is desirable. And that has always given me the willies. But a first nuclear strike also gives me the ethical willies.
One nagging fear is one that Cenk actually raises, the uncertainty issue: the gap between theory and practice. People espouse all sorts of things that they don’t necessarily end up acting upon once they have the power to do so. Sam asks us to imagine a scenario in which there seems to be no reasonable doubt as to the belief and intent of the enemy to wipe us out. Well, that would be nice and tidy as a thought experiment. But the problem nonetheless is left messy in the real world. People in power will vary, as people always do, as to whether “it’s time now to take X action.” Along a continuum of actions and statements from the other side, some will think it earlier justified at “G” point on the continuum to launch a first strike, others will need it closer to the “Z” point, and if one has a first strike policy allowed, the fear is someone in power acting on it too rashly, given the horrendous consequences.
Such fears are, as I understand it, one reason behind the no-first-strike beliefs of many citizens, and the policies of some nations. Where one is so cautious as to adopt the policy “we simply will not use these weapons first.”
I don’t think it’s as much a question of how much any one of us would be comfortable with the notion of a first strike, given ISIS’ acquisition of such weapons —
The big question seems to me (and Sam, apparently) of how comfortable military strategists (and their masters) would be, once the “logic” of mutually-assured destruction has been turned on its ear. If your opponent couldn’t give a shit about being destroyed, the whole ball game goes out the window. The logic breaks down, and first strikes instantly are not only put on the table, but are enacted. And we are not only talking ISIS here – look at Pakistan and what could happen with their military.
And we are left with the “beliefs have consequences” canard, as a consolation prize as the pieces get picked up in this scenario.
I think you may have already covered what I said, in which case I apologize for being obtuse.
I doubt that America needs to worry about whether to engage in a first strike against the likes of the Islamic State should they obtain nuclear weapons, the Israelis would get there first. They don’t have the luxury of philosophical discussion, they’re at the pointy end of the reality that if ISIS could drop a nuclear bomb on Israel, they would do it.
Vaal, you make good points and I agree with your summary of the interview/discussion.
I see too many comments on here saying that Cenk is confused or purposely-misunderstanding Sam’s views, instead of realizing that all Cenk is doing is disagreeing with Sam on certain issues or points.
I’ve been watching TYT for about 4 years now and so I was somewhat bummed when I first heard Cenk’s initial take on the Maher/Affleck/Harris ordeal…since then I’ve gone back and forth between his and Sam’s take on the matter, and the 3 hour discussion helped a lot in clearing a few things up… (I must add, that I never bought into Reza’s arguments on the matter, the things he says just reek of deceptiveness)…. and while TYT botches its science news and occasionally focus their attention on stories which I think are unimportant, and have some co-hosts that are nowhere near talented/bright enough to be giving intelligent analysis of current events (worst offenders are Ana K. and J. Dore – and I actually like Dore)… I value the network’s honesty and openness to hear arguments from whatever side. And above all, I highly endorse their wolf-pac.com movement. Getting money out of politics is the single most important issue facing the U.S., every problem facing the world becomes doable once that obstacle to policy-making is removed.
Was the discussion perfect? Nope. But I think Cenk did a good job, and here’s to hoping they have another discussion but this time having a more focused one (perhaps limiting their discussion to 3 main topics — and doing their best not to digress or get sidetracked too often).
I don’t think it is true that Cenk was just disagreeing with Sam. If that were the case he would not have engaged in the incessant interruptions. It was like watching an episode of the Bill O’Reilly Show until the last ten or fifteen minutes when he allowed Sam to finish his sentences.
I agree with you about the wolfpack thing, but, their newscast is atrociously bad IMO. I’ll see you Ana Kasparian and Jimmy dore and raise you Brett Ehrlich.
Uygur is grating as well. He needs to understand that when your sitting at an anchor desk doing commentary, which is what TYT gives you, all commentary, no actual reporting, you have to dial the FM morning show DJ schtick back just a little bit.
I’ve only had time to watch the first hour of the talk (there’s a lot of exciting football on this weekend).
Yes, all the Abrahamic religions have violent books as the basis of their beliefs. Fortunately, the West had the Enlightenment which resulted in secular or semi-secular governments that protected (hopefully) its citizens from harm when they criticized religious institutions. Most muslim nations don’t separate mosque and state. This allows the violence from the texts to be applied IRL. The lack of criticism of islam has fostered a retention of beliefs that would have been buried had criticism been allowed.
By opposing criticism of islam today, people like Cenk and Batman are helping to keep islam from being modernized and reformed. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
” Finally, as Sam notes above, Uygur seems to hold Harris himself responsible for misrepresentation of his views, as if somehow Harris could predict how his words would be truncated or twisted in the service of Islamophilia or simple Harris-hatred. That’s just not fair. ”
I think that this is not quite right. Some of Sam’s less scrupulous critics have indeed twisted his arguments and selectively quoted him to make him look bad. But Sam has made this job a bit easier for them by making some of his points in an unnecessarily provocative way.
Russell Blackford pointed this out in a short comment here
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/04/russell-blackford-on-sam-harris/
Jason Rosenhouse over at Evolution Blogs also frequently has cogent, incisive commentary on events:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2014/10/08/that-thing-between-ben-affleck-and-bill-maher/
In his post Jason calls Sam’s “Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas” statement “inartful”. He goes on to paraphrase Sam’s statement into a whole paragraph that says the Sam thing Sam is saying in a way that isn’t quite so “sharp stick in your eye” inflammatory. But of course, as Jason points out, Bill Maher’s show is not exactly a forum for reasoned argumentation.
I watched the whole thing over the course of a few days. I found Cenk Uygur, whom I was not previously aware of, very irritating; constantly talking over Sam and moving the goal-posts when he didn’t hear what he wanted to hear. He settled down in the last hour, maybe he got too tired to shout over his guest. I also felt he made a bit more sense at the end, but how Sam sat in a studio for three hours with that second rate hack and didn’t lean over and deck him I don’t know. I shan’t be looking for any more of Uygur’s work.
It’s terrible that these hacks at TYT are somehow considered representatives of atheism. This TYT show is so amateurish it’s laughable. I got through an hour of this nonsense and switched on the world Series instead. BECAUSE BASEBALL IS MORE INTERESTING!
I hope this doesn’t deter Harris
The good thing about the debate is that for someone like me who has herd a lot about sam Harris but never read one of his book, I had the chance to clearly understand his views. And I’m more on his side than I thought.
I used to be a fan of TYT, until I slowly realized that they are just as lacking in credibility and just as willing to distort the facts to fit their pet causes as any employee of Fox News. A well evinced and factually sound argument against the perfidies of a particularly harmful belief system is a bridge too far for Uygur or Ana Kasparian. But, wow do they have absolutely no compunction propagating a brand of feminism built on dubious statistics and a warped view of masculinity.
I found it amusing that Cenk’s disingenuous, ill-informed, and often illogical rants had the unintended consequence of making Sam out to be something of an apologist for Judaism and Christianity.
Honestly, I think Cenk is more of a Muslim than he is willing to admit—certainly more of an Islamist. I came away from this discussion wondering how Cenk can even be taken seriously. He doesn’t belong in the same conversation with Sam, or anyone else that can form a coherent, supported, and defensible argument. He debates like a meathead in a pub, relying on the volume of his voice, unsupported and/or anecdotal premises, misrepresentation, and bad manners to make his points.
Sam is my favourite public speaker on all the issues I find important. Reasoned, rational, calm, usually correct and willing to change.
One thing that lets him down is an apparent naivety about the motives of the government and its agents and agencies.
I would suggest him (and anybody)checking out a film documentary “On Company Business” by Alan Francovich. Some of his other works may also be interesting.
Otherwise, go Sam.
Another thing. Sam perhaps could have emphasised his actual fundamental opposition to the the evils of the ideas in question. Or acknowledge that Christianity can be, has been as murderous an ideology.
People will latch on to the wrong idea otherwise.
Sam says at the end that the discussion should be like a philosophy seminar, so it should. However, in my experience you would need to be past first year, probably into third year before having dropped those who seem unable to detach sufficiently, to enable a conversation on the merits or otherwise, of a controversial topic.
Watched the 3hr video. Can’t help but feel Cenk is rather defensive when it comes to Islam . What Sam Harris said about Islam is not any worst then what I’ve hear Cenk talking about Christianity on TYT.
And comparing the violence and killing Buddhist monks in Myanmar did to islamnic killings thru out the Middle East and claiming all religions are just as bad is kind of absurd .
Three hours?! Any chance of a highlights reel of 20 minutes or less?
Just had to post this little gem:
http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/rise-of-atheism-in-egypt-sparks-concern-1.1406120#.VFI_gGArbFo.twitter
Egypt is concerned about the rise of atheism in the country, prompting this statement:
“The spread of atheism is linked to extremism,” said Amnah Nuseir, a professor of Islamic Creed at the Islamic Al Azhar University.
Unbelievable.
Why would you find it unbelievable? It’s quite clearly true. The more atheism spreads the more active religious extremists have to be to try and stop it.
The relationship is in the opposite direction. Religious extremism has clearly provoked people to think about the nature of religion and this in turn creates atheists.
I think you may have missed the humorous intent of my comment. I meant it in the same sense that a Christian might say that gay people are committing suicide because of the guilt they feel for being gay, when the fact is they are often committing suicide due to the fact that Christians are harassing them, and making them feel guilty for being gay.
Sigh, I did miss that intent.
Probably my fault. I should have been clearer, and said something like there is more extremism because the extremists have more atheists they have to kill. :p
I did imagine that you were making a joke, though perhaps a 😉 would have helped. Actually you raised a good question though: What exactly did Amnah Nuseir mean when he said “The spread of atheism is linked to extremism”? Did he mean that atheists are responsible for extreme acts of intolerance and violence (an absurdity by any normal standards)? Or that atheists offend Islamists so much that they resort to extreme violence?
When atheists start beheading infidels for disagreeing, then yes it is being spread by extremism.
For some reason, these religious fanatics think they get to call atheism extreme just because there have been atheist totalitarian regimes in the world. Freely choosing atheism is the opposite of that; for some reason this point seems to go in one ear and out the other, or maybe over their heads completely.
Ran across this video today of Cenk Uygur going off about Mormons baptising the dead. Interesting, he clearly seems to attribute this absurd practice to religion and seems more upset about it than he does when religion motivates truly malicious behavior.