Sam Harris vs. P.Z. Myers

[onager]

Don't know how many saw this little dust-up earlier this month.

I sort of hesitated to post it here. Since it might get dragged over into Religion...probably by someone so ecstatic that they will be trying to cut-and-paste it with one hand...

Anyway, looks like it started with that "5 Atheists who ruin it for everyone else" article in Salon. Both of the linked articles contain their own links to give you the whole backstory:

Sam Harris, 8/7/12, "Wrestling The Troll:"

However, I then hear that the article has been gleefully endorsed by that shepherd of Internet trolls PZ Myers, amplifying its effect. Soon thereafter it appears on Salon, under the slightly more restrained title “5 Atheists who ruin it for everyone else.”

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/wrestling-the-troll

Response from Myers later that afternoon:

Oh, gosh — I have cheesed off Sam Harris!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/07/oh-gosh-i-have-cheesed-off-sam-harris/

[dmallind]

1. Meh - never understood this cult of personality atheism

Myers has forgotten more about biology than I will ever know. Harris the same in neuroscience. Doubtless other subjects likewise. Both disciplines are very useful in addressing common religious lies. Does that make them more, or better as, atheistic people than you or I? What little I know on both topcs is enough to dismiss religious claims, and while their comparably educated believers like Behe could quickly expose my limited knowledge on the topic, nothing they could present would override the basic, and layman-level, knowledge that nothing in either discipline is evidence for a personal god. Obviously Myers is very useful at slapping down the Behes of the world because he can exceed their technical understanding and refute their obfuscations whereas you or I could not, but that does not make him an authority on atheism. It makes him an authority on combatting religious bullshit dressed in biology jargon. That's a fine trait for which I heartily applaud him (I can't think offhand of a fundamentalist neuroscientist, but I'm sure they exist and certainly give Harris the same plaudits for the same reason in his field).

Scientific knowledge and the facility it provides to counter gussied up creationism does not mean such people get to speak for or represent atheism as an intellectual position, as a sociopolitical movement, or as a philosophical construct. So any real or imaginary schism between them is no more a problem for or reflection on atheism than the fact that I find atheist fantasy writer Terry Pratchett to be wonderful and atheist fantasy writer Ursula LeGuin to be unreadable.

[onager]

2. I don't understand it either.

Which is one reason I posted this. Thanks a lot for the response.

I've also never understood why someone who's very good at defending atheism would be declared persona non grata because their other opinions don't meet some ideological purity test.

Yes, that's a reference to Hitchens. But in the current climate, it also applies to quite a few other people. I think - hope - it's temporary, but right now the "us against them" and Cult of Personality ideas seem to be spreading. Sort of like gangrene.

OTOH, I'm constantly seeing people touted as "voices of atheism/skepticism" who don't seem to do very much. No books or articles written (apart from blogs or Twitter accounts), no scientific or academic qualifications.

Anything else would just be my cranky personal opinions, so I'll stop right there...

[mr blur]

3. Priceless -

probably by someone so ecstatic that they will be trying to cut-and-paste it with one hand...

[cpwm17]

4. Some people think there are far more important things than not believing in a god that isn't there

like being a decent human being - which Sam Harris is not. His genocidal fantasies eliminated his membership.

[AlbertCat]

5. like being a decent human being

So, you know Sam Harris personally.

Exactly what are his "genocidal fantasies"? I know about his anxiety about some fundy Muslim state getting a nuke or something, but that doesn't seem exactly like a "genocidal fantasy" to me. But I've only read about him and 2 of his books.

[Tobin S.]

6. From what I can gather

Harris just seems to think that Islam is especially mean and nasty as far as world religions go. How you can extrapolate that to...uh, well, I don't think he wants to kill anyone.

It's kind of like saying, "Judaism is bullshit," and then getting branded an anti-Semite.

[cpwm17]

7. Here it is in his book 'The End of Faith':

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade.

He plays these same games to create scenarios where torture is justified. He supported the Iraq War and an aggressive foreign policy against Muslims. It is clear who is a danger to this world.

He has some similarities to William Bennett who has also written on morality, and who is also morally retarded. Here's William Bennett speaking to a radio caller:

But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

One fantasizes about racist abortions and the other fantasizes about genocide - two birds of a feather.

[AlbertCat]

8. I read that book

and remember that passage. I also remember the distinct feeling that this is not something he would want to happen. Even if he does "fantasize" about it he hardly is advocating such a thing. He's even horrified by the scenario in the quote you posted. Are screenwriters that write scifi fantasies about mass killings and genocide a danger to the world? Is anyone actively advocating these Sam Harris fantasies?

[cpwm17]

9. I don't think Sam Harris' writings are meant to be fiction

Sam Harris is a pro-war propagandist. He doesn't seem to know a war that is fought by the US or Israel against Muslims that he doesn't like. Part of his job is to dehumanize the victims of American or Israeli aggressions. If victims of US aggressions are not fully human, it isn't really a crime according to his logic. If they aren't human we can ignore who are the real aggressors.

War is the most evil act that man engages in, and the Iraq War that he supported is the World's worst crime of the century. I judge Sam Harris accordingly.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/18/opinion/oe-harris18

Fuck Sam Harris

[dmallind]

10. Basic grammar though renders these excerpts speculative

And basic English demonstrates his opinion of the possibilty. It is not a positive one.

[AlbertCat]

11. I don't think Sam Harris' writings are meant to be fiction

Predicting the future will always be fiction.