Cenk Uygur interviews Sam Harris on Religious Violence and Islam

[Axulus]

Thought this was an excellent interview of Sam Harris by Cenk Uygur. I would say that Sam Harris made his points really well and that his position is far more nuanced than his critics make it out to be, but Cenk did point out some good criticisms of Harris (how Sam seems to too heavily weight the influence of religion, Islam in particular, on behavior, than seems to be warrented. On the other hand, Sam's critics discount the influence of religion on behavior far too much). I had to cringe a bit toward the end when Sam Harris equated torture of Sheikh Muhammad to "making him uncomfortable", I thought that really weakened his position and am not sure why he had to downplay the seriousness of it. However, Sam is right on when he says that anyone who is in principle OK with an action that could lead to collateral damage (in a war situation, for example, or in a drone attack, or with the current airstrikes against ISIS), which causes far more pain and suffering on individuals who are completely innocent than did the torture methods employed at Guantanamo Bay on likely terrorists, seems to be a bit morally inconsistent when they are also 100% opposed to torture under any conceivable real world circumstance since the former is in fact quite a bit worse.


[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It is three hours people. I know. I listened to it for the hours today. I don't think either man was at the top of his game but the two did clear the air about a lot of things. I will listen to it again. It's very info dense stuff.

 

[untermensche]

About the first 10 minutes is Harris complaining he has been treated unfairly. As if he should be the one human who is in this chaotic world.

To demonstrate this he points out he didn't support the invasion of Iraq like many people believe, IMO this is believed because he was closely associated with Christopher Hitchens who did support the invasion.

Of course what he fails to mention is he didn't oppose the invasion either.

And still doesn't oppose it on moral grounds but only says it ended badly.

This moral blindness is astonishing from somebody so eager to point out every moral failing of Islam. But when his moral compass points to the US and an unproved attack of millions that terrified millions it suddenly malfunctions.

We must remember terrorism is only terrorism when non-Muslims are terrified. If you terrify Islamic children, it isn't terrorism.

Harris then goes on at length about his real concern is what people believe and what are they willing to do based on those beliefs.

It seems reasonable but his real underlying assumption is that levels of belief and willingness to act on beliefs are some immutable unchangeable attribute in people.

I just counter this by saying they are only historical contingencies and can easily be changed.

What Harris fails to see is that the Muslim world has been under attack from the West for quite a while. He sees the victim of Western encroachment and interference as the aggressor because it's reactions are violent.

The US has been killing Muslims non-stop in several countries for the last 13 years. No ceasefire. No time out. Constant unrelenting killing of the "terrorists" and whatever collateral damage may occur.

Attitudes in the Muslim world reflect this constant attack of Muslims from the West and presently have hardened along fundamentalist lines. When you can't fight something because it is too powerful you cling harder to your superstitions to help you.

All Harris sees in Muslim attitudes about things like killing people who leave the faith are present day historical contingencies, not immutable characteristics of believers in Islam.

 

[Axulus]

About the first 10 minutes is Harris complaining he has been treated unfairly. As if he should be the one human who is in this chaotic world.

To demonstrate this he points out he didn't support the invasion of Iraq like many people believe, IMO this is believed because he was closely associated with Christopher Hitchens who did support the invasion.

Of course what he fails to mention is he didn't oppose the invasion either.

And still doesn't oppose it on moral grounds but only says it ended badly.

This moral blindness is astonishing from somebody so eager to point out every moral failing of Islam. But when his moral compass points to the US and an unproved attack of millions that terrified millions it suddenly malfunctions.

We must remember terrorism is only terrorism when non-Muslims are terrified. If you terrify Islamic children, it isn't terrorism.

Harris then goes on at length about his real concern is what people believe and what are they willing to do based on those beliefs.

It seems reasonable but his real underlying assumption is that levels of belief and willingness to act on beliefs are some immutable unchangeable attribute in people.

I just counter this by saying they are only historical contingencies and can easily be changed.

What Harris fails to see is that the Muslim world has been under attack from the West for quite a while. He sees the victim of Western encroachment and interference as the aggressor because it's reactions are violent.

The US has been killing Muslims non-stop in several countries for the last 13 years. No ceasefire. No time out. Constant unrelenting killing of the "terrorists" and whatever collateral damage may occur.

Attitudes in the Muslim world reflect this constant attack of Muslims from the West and presently have hardened along fundamentalist lines. When you can't fight something because it is too powerful you cling harder to your superstitions to help you.

All Harris sees in Muslim attitudes about things like killing people who leave the faith are present day historical contingencies, not immutable characteristics of believers in Islam.

Where does Harris say or imply that the beliefs are immutable or unchangeable? He's talking about the beliefs held by the people at the present, not what beliefs they might hold at some future date and how likely or unlikely it is to change the current beliefs. He even talks a bit about how the beliefs need to be reformed and moderated (and how Muslim scholars need to work hard to find interpretations of Islam consistent with secular liberal values) and how civil 21st century conversation is the primary method he endorses combat/change the beliefs and deal with Islamism in general.

 

[untermensche]

Where does Harris say or imply that the beliefs are immutable or unchangeable? He's talking about the beliefs held by the people at the present, not what beliefs they might hold at some future date and how likely or unlikely it is to change the current beliefs. He even talks a bit about how the beliefs need to be reformed and moderated (and how Muslim scholars need to work hard to find interpretations of Islam consistent with secular liberal values) and how civil 21st century conversation is the primary method he endorses combat/change the beliefs and deal with Islamism in general.

He says that if you gave people on an island, who couldn't leave, the Koran and waited a thousand years it wouldn't be surprising if something like ISIS arose.

ISIS exists because of countless contingencies in history, none of them likely to be repeated on this imaginary island.

It is not likely at all that something like ISIS would arise.

It is impossible to say what would arise. That is the way the contingencies of history work. Nobody knows what will happen in the future. Even with Muslims.

Harris is saying Islam somehow forces people to takes it's claims seriously. I say this is nonsense.

The reason anybody takes Islam seriously is the result of countless contingencies. It is not simply because Islam exists.

 

[Togo]

My understanding is that he is pushing the concept of 'infectious ideas' - that is that some ideas are just inherently dangerous and can only lead to pain and suffering. It's not hard to point to the problems with this approach.

If you put people on an island and waited 1000 years, nothing like ISIS would arise, because ISIS only makes sense as a reaction to an outside threat.

I'm more familiar with his ideas on philosophy than with his politics, but in that arena he strikes as someone who doesn't think his position through.

 

[Axulus]

Where does Harris say or imply that the beliefs are immutable or unchangeable? He's talking about the beliefs held by the people at the present, not what beliefs they might hold at some future date and how likely or unlikely it is to change the current beliefs. He even talks a bit about how the beliefs need to be reformed and moderated (and how Muslim scholars need to work hard to find interpretations of Islam consistent with secular liberal values) and how civil 21st century conversation is the primary method he endorses combat/change the beliefs and deal with Islamism in general.

He says that if you gave people on an island, who couldn't leave, the Koran and waited a thousand years it wouldn't be surprising if something like ISIS arose.

ISIS exists because of countless contingencies in history, none of them likely to be repeated on this imaginary island.

It is not likely at all that something like ISIS would arise.

It is impossible to say what would arise. That is the way the contingencies of history work. Nobody knows what will happen in the future. Even with Muslims.

Harris is saying Islam somehow forces people to takes it's claims seriously. I say this is nonsense.

The reason anybody takes Islam seriously is the result of countless contingencies. It is not simply because Islam exists.

The example of coming back in 1,000 years was to contrast the likelihood of ISIS arising if the inhabitants are indoctrinated with Islam vs. a begin form of Buddhism. I don't think he meant to say that it is probable or even likely that ISIS would arise in the Islam scenario. Rather, it would just be far more probable compared to the Buddhism scenario. Probable enough that it wouldn't be all that shocking given the much stronger link to the doctrines in Islam and the central messages of the Koran and Hadith vs. Buddhism.

 

[Axulus]

My understanding is that he is pushing the concept of 'infectious ideas' - that is that some ideas are just inherently dangerous and can only lead to pain and suffering. It's not hard to point to the problems with this approach.

If you put people on an island and waited 1000 years, nothing like ISIS would arise, because ISIS only makes sense as a reaction to an outside threat.

I'm more familiar with his ideas on philosophy than with his politics, but in that arena he strikes as someone who doesn't think his position through.

How can you state conclusively that the ideal society envisioned by ISIS would not arise on the island where the inhabitants are indoctrinated with the tenants of Islam?

 

[untermensche]

The example of coming back in 1,000 years was to contrast the likelihood of ISIS arising if the inhabitants are indoctrinated with Islam vs. a begin form if Buddhism. I don't think he meant to say that it is probable or even likely that ISIS would arise in the Islam scenario. Rather, it would just be far more probable compared to the Buddhism scenario. Probable enough that it wouldn't be all that shocking given the much stronger link to the doctrines in Islam and the central messages of the Koran and Hadith vs. Buddhism.

The claim is still nonsense.

Put people on an island and I don't care what you give them. They can invent things for themselves.

There is no possible way to say what is more likely to arise in 1000 years.

He is making the claim that somehow the words in the Koran reach out and force people to believe them.

When the truth is people believe them based on personal contingencies far beyond the words themselves.

 

[Togo]

My understanding is that he is pushing the concept of 'infectious ideas' - that is that some ideas are just inherently dangerous and can only lead to pain and suffering. It's not hard to point to the problems with this approach.

If you put people on an island and waited 1000 years, nothing like ISIS would arise, because ISIS only makes sense as a reaction to an outside threat.

I'm more familiar with his ideas on philosophy than with his politics, but in that arena he strikes as someone who doesn't think his position through.

How can you state conclusively that the ideal society envisioned by ISIS would not arise on the island where the inhabitants are indoctrinated with the tenants of Islam?

Because the salient characteristics of ISIS are an attempt to recast society into a form that deals better with cultural contamination, cast out foreign or alien influences, and maintain a cohesive identity in the face of divisive forces. It wouldn't arise on an isolated island, in the same way that the French Revolution wouldn't arise in the absence of an aristocracy.

 

[Axulus]

The example of coming back in 1,000 years was to contrast the likelihood of ISIS arising if the inhabitants are indoctrinated with Islam vs. a begin form if Buddhism. I don't think he meant to say that it is probable or even likely that ISIS would arise in the Islam scenario. Rather, it would just be far more probable compared to the Buddhism scenario. Probable enough that it wouldn't be all that shocking given the much stronger link to the doctrines in Islam and the central messages of the Koran and Hadith vs. Buddhism.

The claim is still nonsense.

Put people on an island and I don't care what you give them. They can invent things for themselves.

There is no possible way to say what is more likely to arise in 1000 years.

He is making the claim that somehow the words in the Koran reach out and force people to believe them.

When the truth is people believe them based on personal contingencies far beyond the words themselves.

Sam Harris made the strongest point when he talked about how editing the contents of the Koran and the Hadith could make Islam better or worse. If on every page of the Koran it reminded believers to execute the homosexuals because they were such an abomination, do you think this would have zero effect on the treatment of homosexuals in the Muslim world? The specific contents of the Koran and Hadith really do matter and have an effect on the behavior of the adherents of these two texts, which is the point Sam was trying to emphasize. Do you disagree?

 

[untermensche]

Sam Harris made the strongest point when he talked about how editing the contents of the Koran and the Hadith could make Islam better or worse. If on every page of the Koran it reminded believers to execute the homosexuals because they were such an abomination, do you think this would have zero effect on the treatment of homosexuals in the Muslim world? The specific contents of the Koran and Hadith really do matter and have an effect on the adherents to these two texts, which is the point Sam was trying to emphasize. Do you disagree?

I am saying it that under different historical contingencies you could have a vast majority of Muslims who just ignore the passages about homosexuals like Jews ignore the passages about stoning adulterers.

 

[Axulus]

Sam Harris made the strongest point when he talked about how editing the contents of the Koran and the Hadith could make Islam better or worse. If on every page of the Koran it reminded believers to execute the homosexuals because they were such an abomination, do you think this would have zero effect on the treatment of homosexuals in the Muslim world? The specific contents of the Koran and Hadith really do matter and have an effect on the adherents to these two texts, which is the point Sam was trying to emphasize. Do you disagree?

I am saying it that under different historical contingencies you could have a vast majority of Muslims who just ignore the passages about homosexuals like Jews ignore the passages about stoning adulterers.

But the specific contents of the texts can make it harder or easier to ignore such passages, by providing (or lacking) plausible interpretations that would justify ignoring (or not) such passages, for example, no?

 

[untermensche]

I am saying it that under different historical contingencies you could have a vast majority of Muslims who just ignore the passages about homosexuals like Jews ignore the passages about stoning adulterers.

But the specific contents of the texts can make it harder or easier to ignore such passages, by providing (or lacking) plausible interpretations that would justify ignoring (or not) such passages, for example, no?

The Jews have no reason for not stoning adulterers.

They simply ignore that part of the text.

Any part of any text can equally be ignored. It all depends on contingencies.

No words in a book can force people to take those words seriously. Whenever a person takes words in a book seriously there are many contingent reasons why they do so. Usually they have been carefully and repeatedly taught to take the words seriously.

 

[Axulus]

But the specific contents of the texts can make it harder or easier to ignore such passages, by providing (or lacking) plausible interpretations that would justify ignoring (or not) such passages, for example, no?

The Jews have no reason for not stoning adulterers.

They simply ignore that part of the text.

Any part of any text can equally be ignored. It all depends on contingencies.

No words in a book can force people to take those words seriously. Whenever a person takes words in a book seriously there are many contingent reasons why they do so. Usually they have been carefully and repeatedly taught to take the words seriously.

But the higher proportion of people you have taking the texts seriously and the more lacking an intrepretation in the present that allows one to ignore the nasty bits, the more of a problem those nasty bits become, and the more of a problem the quantity of nasty bits that there are in the texts becomes. The key is to find ways to get adherents to ignore the nasty bits and honestly talk about the problem of fundamentalism having a relation to the fundamentals of the partucular religion we are talking about. Sam is hopeful that beliefs can be changed as he discusses in the video. As am I. Doesn't mean we need to sugar coat the current state of affairs and honestly discuss the impact that the bad ideas contained within the fundamentals of Islam have on societies.

 

[Togo]

The claim is still nonsense.

Put people on an island and I don't care what you give them. They can invent things for themselves.

There is no possible way to say what is more likely to arise in 1000 years.

He is making the claim that somehow the words in the Koran reach out and force people to believe them.

When the truth is people believe them based on personal contingencies far beyond the words themselves.

Sam Harris made the strongest point when he talked about how editing the contents of the Koran and the Hadith could make Islam better or worse. If on every page of the Koran it reminded believers to execute the homosexuals because they were such an abomination, do you think this would have zero effect on the treatment of homosexuals in the Muslim world?

No, I think it would improve their treatment, because they would have stopped paying attention to the literal text.

A religion is not just blind adherence to words on a page, even if we like to class the kinds of ignorant fanatics who visit boards like this in such terms. It's a coherent statement of values. If you replace the Koran with an edition of Barney the Dinosaur, the result is not a religion based on a cartoon character, it's a religion that doesn't closely adhere to the words on a page. The Koran is not followed because it's a holy book, it's followed because it's a holy book that summarises and records the principles of a religious movement. And those principles are decided on by people, not by a printed page. The Koran does not create Islam, Islam created the Koran.

Sam is letting his religious bias show. He's treating the wording as entirely arbitrary because he doesn't value the religion.

Let's say on this island that we replace the Koran with a book that encourages the avoidance of conflict with other cultures, praises using trickery to avoid fighting, and exhorts people to encourage trade above warfare. You'd probably end up with something similar to Zoroastrianism. Which historically, was replaced with Islam.

 

[PyramidHead]

This is what I meant in the other thread about the fundamentals of fundamentalism being of some importance here. We can treat people who claim to follow a book full of violent things nicely and hope they ignore the parts we don't like, but it would be better if they followed a book that wasn't full of violent things. The fact that they follow such a book is a real factor in the violence they may eventually commit. I don't think we can ignore that, just as we can't ignore the influence of Western imperialism on stoking the flames.

 

[untermensche]

This is what I meant in the other thread about the fundamentals of fundamentalism being of some importance here. We can treat people who claim to follow a book full of violent things nicely and hope they ignore the parts we don't like, but it would be better if they followed a book that wasn't full of violent things. The fact that they follow such a book is a real factor in the violence they may eventually commit. I don't think we can ignore that, just as we can't ignore the influence of Western imperialism on stoking the flames.

Violence against Muslims over the past decades is one of the reasons fundamentalists have so much power.

Real defense against any violence is allowed.

But massive acts of aggression labeled as acts of defense are not.

We have ISIS because we labeled a massive act of aggression (the invasion of Iraq) as an act of defense.

But we must remember, Sam didn't support this massive act of aggression. Unfortunately he wasn't opposed to it either.