Sam Harris Drives His Critics Insane

Well said Jason – Harris needs a little defence from illegitimate retro-left critics. From my previous posts you may think I’m an unconditional Harris acolyte, but not so – there are several areas where I don’t actually agree with him. However, I really can’t abide the way in which he is so often misrepresented and misquoted. This can only have the effect of closing down rational discourse and opens up the ground for the loony right. Sullivan is by no means the worst of Harris’s detractors in this regard, but even so, his nonsense needed highlighting. Shame that PZ, for whom I also generally have considerable respect, does not seem to have considered these issue too carefully.

realize you're essentially referencing folks here (critics) who are close enough to insanity that it doesn't require much to drive them over the edge... ;-)

I must be thinking of these contradictions differently from you. The dialogue I imagine goes like this:
1. Sam Harris writes that the Iraq war at least has good intentions. Presumably he thinks this is a plus, where I do not.
2. Somebody criticizes Harris for arguing in favor of the war
3. Harris responds by saying he has never supported the war.

To me, Harris is nitpicking, and trying to get off on technicalities. If Harris has written about the good intentions of the war, that's already more supportive than the war deserves. Whether that technically counts as "speaking in support" of the war, well...

I don't particularly care what Harris thinks. I don't like wasting time arguing about whether Harris thinks this or that. And the bottom line is that, according to Harris, reading Sam Harris *doesn't even* give me the correct impression of what Harris thinks. So why bother reading him at all? Time's better spent reading internet comments left by randos.

P.Z. Myers is on the crazy left. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that fact. He seemed largely reasonable up to maybe five years ago, but he's gone further and further off the deep end since Elevatorgate.

And there are far more crazy leftists in the Democratic party than you seem willing to admit. They've also largely taken over large parts of the mainstream media, both print and television. For example, try to understand what "Gamergate" is through only mainstream media, and you'll think it's some kind of racist and misogynistic hate mob, but in fact it's a diverse group (though mostly liberal) fighting against the infestation of online games media by crazy leftists (who are also corrupt in the standard journalistic sense).

You've also had some crazy leftist comments here on your own blog.

#3 – Hmmm. How interesting that someone who doesn’t “particularly care what Harris thinks”, and doesn’t “like wasting time arguing about whether Harris thinks this or that”, nevertheless takes several lines and writes with some degree of feeling, just to let us all know what his views are on “what Harris thinks”.
Anyway, if you’re interested, or even if you’re not, here are Harris’s views on the Iraq war:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041201-090801-2582r.htm
(The Washington Times - Wednesday, December 1, 2004)

Actually, they turn out to be somewhat equivocal – but I don’t suppose that interests you

Thanny - thanks for that info, I'd suspected that PZ had gone a bit off the rails, though most of what I know about him relates to his contributions to the evo/creo fight which seems to plague the US scene so regularly - in which battle he has always, at least to me, seemed to be fighting quite valiantly.
As for crazy leftists, I suspect you're right - they may be rather more common than Jason might like to think, and they give some cause for real concern.

If Harris has written about the good intentions of the war, that’s already more supportive than the war deserves.

But it is Harris who is nitpicking.

Jason,

I think you're way off the mark here. You're completely throwing out the meaning of words to claim that Harris is not contradictory.

Look at his comments about Israel. He doesn't say, as you claim,that "we shouldn’t have states organized around religion, but the Jews have a stronger case for such a state than do other religions." What he actually claims is that states based on religion are unjustifiable, but that there's an obvious justification for Israel.

Can Israel be justified or not? Harris doesn't explain that Israel is an exception to his general rule (which, would obviously be special pleading). No, he flatly says that it is unjustifiable and obviously justifiable. His words are contradictory. Your interpretation of his words is an attempt to make his contradiction non-contradictory, but that's exactly the point Sullivan makes.

Harris writes in such a way that he (and his defenders) can hide behind his contradictions. If I say that Harris is anti-Jewish state, defenders would have a fit. Clearly, Harris says Israel is justified. If I say Harris is for a religious state, I'd be similarly skewered. Harris, and his critics, get to have it both ways.

Thanny,

Any evidence that Myers is a "crazy leftist", or is that a smear?

Your summation of gamergate suggests that you're not exactly a fair judge of motives. While there was a questionable relationship at the start of gamergate, the movement doesn't really care about that. They care that "crazy leftists", i.e., people who think women should be main characters sometimes, and that games shouldn't treat women simply as playthings, are "infesting" their pure world. They show up to attack any feminist women, no matter if they have no connection to games journalism at all. For instance, planning to heckle Rebecca Watson and one of her appearances. How does she have anything to do with corruption in games journalism?

Gamergate is, at it's heart, anti-equality. It is people who feel threatened by changes to a male dominated, sexist status quo. There are two sides to this story, but only in the way that there are two sides to the science of climate change. One's right; one's B.S. to cover an agenda.

To any third party who may be reading this: Thanny's summary of GamerGate is mostly correct, whereas Tgt's is propaganda. Nothing he says about it has any basis in reality.

@#8 -- Where in this statement from Harris:
"So, if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state."
-- does he say that a religious state is 'justifiable'?

@11 Tysonkoska,

It's not in that statement. It's this statement: "Though I just said that I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state, the justification for such a state is rather easy to find."

If the justification is easy to find, it's justifiable. Or, do you think he's suggesting that this easy to find "justification" is wrong? I don't see statement to that affect.

I don't know if PZ is a crazy lefty, but I think he is being a leftwing extremist. He is a major social justice warrior, and has used his internet popularity in attacking not-fully-pure progressives. It is not enough that you are left of center, you must be a social justice warrior to the extend PZ is or he will sic his fans to attack you.

I remember when PZ was proud to be a "sabot" for getting Richard Dawkins into an Intelligent Design movie while he (PZ) was denied entry. Then, it turns out, Dawkins is an old englishman whose leftist sensibilities are still wedded in the 1970s. Dawkins, unlike the SJWs, is very critical of islam and islamic societies. Plus, while not sexist, Dawkins is not a 21st century feminist. Therefore, PZ has turned his back on his colleague and regularly attack Dawkins for being a bumbling, foot-in-mouth bigot.

His passive-aggressive approach has not only bitten Dawkins. He has done the same to Carl Zimmer, a leading science journalist and major supporter of evolution.

And while PZ is a militant atheist, he is also the first to attack fellow militant atheists if they unduly criticize Islam, which is why he has hated Sam Harris from the get-go.

@Dan,

"It is not enough that you are left of center, you must be a social justice warrior to the [extent] PZ is or he will sic his fans to attack you."

Sic his fans to attack people? He criticizes people and positions he disagrees with. Are you suggesting that PZ should ignore positions he finds wrong because the people are generally allies?

"Dawkins, unlike the SJWs, is very critical of islam and islamic societies."

Uh, what? Aren't FTB and Skepchick the epitome of SJWs? They attack Islam and Islamic society pretty throughly.

"Plus, while not sexist, Dawkins is not a 21st century feminist."

Uh... what? His attacks on Rebecca Watson were not sexist?

@Phil B,
I care about what Sam Harris thinks to the extent that he is an undeniably influential figure. I don't care about what he thinks as a way of determining what is true.

We often talk about celebrities and their opinions because they provide common topics for the public. But unless those celebrities actually have expertise (in the broad sense), what does it matter what they personally think?

Siggy at #20 - can you please give me an example of someone ("celebrity" or otherwise) who has "expertise (in the broad sense)" with respect to whether or not a Jewish state should exist?

It's all about choosing sides. If Sam Harris is a good witch, whatever he says must be OK. If he's a bad witch, it must be full of contradiction. Actually reading and analyzing is too hard.

John #22 - you're probably right.

tgt - surely there can exist a spectrum of justifiability with respect to whether or not a Jewish state should exist, and why can't Harris (or anyone else for that matter) qualify a view or two with the occasional "if" or "but" without being subject to accusations of self-contradiction - all witthin a concept of varying degrees of justifiability?

Why do you insist on inhabiting such a narrow binary world?

It's a lot easier to default to the binary, it means you don't have to think about whether you disagree with a particular thing someone you generally disagree with has said. Of course this does mean you then have to do some interesting mental gymnastics to justify that disagreement when they do say something you would otherwise agree with. Some of the commenters here are clearly expert at this sort of gymnastics and would argue that an apple pie was really a pecan pie if it was Sam Harris (or any other commentator they disagree with) who had asserted it was apple pie. I find it a lot simpler to agree with what I agree and to disagree with what I disagree with.

Really? Justifiable derives from the noun "justice". Justice is not a naturally occurring phenomenon, it is a man-made concept. This would distinguish it from, for instance truth, which admittedly arguably, might have some sort of objective meaning. At any rate, the fact that we can discuss whether or not truth is objectively definable, in itself distinguishes truth as being qualitatively different than justice. Justice means many different things to different people at different times in different places. For instance, what a Sharia court might mete out to a defendant is probably likely to be very different to that which an American court might offer the same defendant in similar circumstances. Justice, in the end, is whatever you want it to be – or are you (a philosopher, no less) really prepared to argue for the existence of natural justice? Surely, what is or is not justifiable depends on making value judgements in what may be highly nuanced circumstances – in the end, it’s a moral choice.
Having established that justice is an arbitrarily defined concept, it follows that its derivation – “justifiability” – must also exhibit similar properties. Given that this is the case, it must necessarily follow that justifiability can exist in part, or in full, or not at all, or on any point anywhere between these positions according to circumstances – because we can choose to define it so. That sounds rather like a spectrum to me.

You might, I suppose, also argue that truth could occupy a similar position, but that would be rather more difficult, and in any case would not produce the conclusion you need – namely that even the establishment or the defeat of an “absolute truth” will not guide you as to the nature of the concept of justice. So, not a good comparison.

This means that Harris can use the term as he wishes, and even if his usage in the one case is marginally different to his usage in the other case (which I doubt anyway), this is not sufficient to convict him of self-contradiction in the course of making nuanced statements which are quite compatible. So Jason is right to call Sullivan on this, and Harris is vindicated.

"Can Israel be justified or not? Harris doesn’t explain that Israel is an exception to his general rule (which, would obviously be special pleading). No, he flatly says that it is unjustifiable and obviously justifiable. His words are contradictory"

The problem with your argument is that Israel is NOT a Jewish state. It is a state for Jews, the people. But not for Judaism, because it is a secular democracy, not a theocracy.

@Phil b,

1) "Justifiable" is not derived from "Justice". That's flat out false. Both words have a common root element of "Just", but they differentiate in meaning. Justifiable is the logic to get to something that is Just. Justice has multiple meanings, but tends to be a moral judgement, as you say.

2) Even if Justifiable had been taken from Justice, that does not mean that Justifiable is the same conceptually as Justice. Language changes over times and concepts are not tied to their roots like children have the dna of their parents.

Your argument fails due to invalid premises.

tgt at #29
Not at all.

1)Neither Harris, nor anyone posting at this blog (except, perhaps you) is constructing an argument using the terminology of formal logic, and we are not bound thereby. I have treated Harris’s use of the term “justifiable” in the sense of common parlance, reasonably assuming that he meant it in a similar vein.

2)Now you’ve switched – suddenly talking about how language changes over time, which must surely refer to common parlance, and not the vernacular of strict logic.

My (and Harris’s) decision to use language as we choose is entirely reasonable, and my premises remain valid. Not only that, but your bold and unqualified statement at #25 “Justifiable has a spectrum like true has a spectrum. This term IS binary”, is simply an assertion, and is itself unpremised. So, even if my premises are false (which I deny) you don’t get to win by default from an unsupported position.

“Where’s the contradiction in saying that we shouldn’t have states organized around religion, but the Jews have a stronger case for such a state than do other religions?” –

This is Jason’s fair summary of Harris’s position. They’re both right. Harris’s meaning is quite clear in both his comments, he is allowed to imply degrees of justifiability, adding “if” and ”but” type qualifications along the way, and Jason’s statement that he is not self-contradicting stands.

In the end, you’re just playing word games, objecting if people use words in ways that you don’t quite like – but that’s not enough to claim contradiction. Frankly, I’ve had enough of these word games, and I think it’s time to put this one to bed.
All the Best,
Phil.

tgt, I see you're a PZ/SJW groupie. Sorry, I don't engage with your kind anymore.

What tgt said.

I will grant that there is one big issue where Sam Harris' critics are often guilty of black and white thinking, and that is when he is harping on the fact that beliefs have consequences. It is possible to say that certain religious beliefs increase the likelihood of somebody doing X without saying that everybody who holds those beliefs will necessarily do X.

However, when he discusses very specific political decisions, it is not about complex human psychology any more but about (a) in favour or (b) against. Not rocket science.

So maybe Sam Harris is against torture, against racial profiling, against discriminating against groups of refugees based on their religion, and so on. But if that is the case, why doesn't he just say "I am against torture, against racial profiling, and against discriminating against groups of refugees based on their religion"?

Somebody who goes out of their way to say that one needs to have a discussion about whether to do these things, and that all those who don't want to do them are just not thinking clearly, should at least not be surprised if some people draw the obvious conclusion.

The problem with your argument is that Israel is NOT a Jewish state. It is a state for Jews, the people. But not for Judaism, because it is a secular democracy, not a theocracy.

Apparently enough of Harris's critics thought this was ambiguously implied in his argument that he added a note to the text to clarify. It now reads in full:

"I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible. [Note: Read this paragraph again.]

Though I just said that I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state, the justification for such a state is rather easy to find. We need look no further than the fact that the rest of the world has shown itself eager to murder the Jews at almost every opportunity. So, if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state. Now, friends of Israel might consider this a rather tepid defense, but it’s the strongest one I’ve got. I think the idea of a religious state is ultimately untenable. [Note: It is worth observing, however, that Israel isn’t “Jewish” in the sense that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are “Muslim.” As my friend Jerry Coyne points out, Israel is actually less religious than the U.S., and it guarantees freedom of religion to its citizens. Israel is not a theocracy, and one could easily argue that its Jewish identity is more cultural than religious. However, if we ask why the Jews wouldn’t move to British Columbia if offered a home there, we can see the role that religion still plays in their thinking.]"

The final point is important.

I do think the original has another nontrivial ambiguity, which is either due to sloppy writing or deliberate obfuscation. He could have written the second paragraph in the following two ways:

1) "Though I just said that I don't think Israel should exist as a Jewish state, suppose for the sake of argument that a religious state is justifiable in some cases. In this counterfactual, we would need look no further than the fact that the rest of the world has shown itself eager to murder the Jews at almost every opportunity. So, if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state. Now, friends of Israel might consider this a rather tepid defense, but it’s the strongest one I’ve got. I think the idea of a religious state is ultimately untenable full stop. Israel has a right to exist, but not as a Jewish state."

2) "Though I just said that I don't think Israel should exist as a Jewish state, maybe there is a justification worth taking seriously after all, given the geopolitical context Israel finds itself in. We need look no further than the fact that the rest of the world has shown itself eager to murder the Jews at almost every opportunity. So, if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state. Now, friends of Israel might consider this a rather tepid defense, but it’s the strongest one I’ve got. I think the idea of a religious state is ultimately untenable, but reasonable people may disagree and an exception for Israel may turn out to be the least bad of all the ultimately untenable options."

Each interpretation has important implications for what a possible solution would look like.

The biggest criticism I have of the piece is that he spends almost no time on what it means to be an occupied territory. If Mexico were to occupy El Paso-Las Cruces, it's easy to imagine "patriots going out in a blaze of glory" and taking out civilians and any other member of the enemy tribe with them, even notwithstanding the sizable military response from the US government. Such actions would be barbaric, but they'd be understandable. Considerable personal and cultural empathy is needed to understand actions like these, though. This was evidently nearly missing entirely in planning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: nobody but the critics seemed to consider the full range of Iraqi responses to being occupied.

Though it's something nobody would ever get to the bottom of, what I missed in Harris's piece was any analysis of how much of Palestinian behavior is attributable to being Muslim and how much to being a desperate occupied people, or how those two states of being interact. He spends considerable time discussing what each party in the conflict would do if they could enact their will. This is an interesting question, and I think he's right in his conclusions. A question he never gets to, which is equally important, is how things would be playing out if the demographics of the region were reversed: if the only Muslim state in a region dominated by Judaism were occupying a predominantly Jewish territory, and had the support of major world powers in doing so, how would the two sides behave?

Ha Ha so Harris can't be called contradictory , but his critics can be driven insane ?

I have also read enough of his writing and have seen enough of his public appearances to feel confident that he is in no way motivated by bigotry or Islamophobia.

I won't call Harris Islamophobic (yet) - but support for racial profiling , expression of support for policies like "prefer Christians to Muslims" , stating that he'd vote for Ben Carson over Noam Chomsky because of Carson's command of foreign policy does mean he's well on the road of getting there.

Actually, no, that doesn’t sound at all like support for the war

Actually it does. It doesn't sound like the chicken hawk support of war that you might get from a Bush or Cheney. Lets leave aside that Harris is saying that Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld had good intentions (ha ha)or he is trying to absolve the American public at large for getting taken in (you know because the American public has such a great track record in the wars they support) - It sounds exactly what someone would say if they were trying to make excuses for why America got into the war. Someone who opposed the war would be pointing out the innumerable occasions in which America has interfered , on false pretenses and made matters worse in a conflict - indeed how some of the conflicts were even engineered by America. Someone who supported the war but didn't want to tie themselves to whats happening on the ground ? Thats exactly what they would argue - That their intentions were good , that a dictator got rid off , blah blah.

Where’s the contradiction in saying that we shouldn’t have states organized around religion, but the Jews have a stronger case for such a state than do other religions?

Superficially not a contradiction. But its sort of saying Evolution is true - but Intelligent design has a better case than YEC's. No one who supports thinks Evolution is true makes such a statement. People who want to make excuses for ID will.

Harris doesn't support torture and then makes up wild hypotheticals designed to get you to say yes I will torture in that scenario. Now think of the context (America had just passed policy allowing "enhanced interrogation) - If you wanted to oppose this policy - what sort of article would you write? If you wanted to support this policy - what sort of article would you write (given that you are smart , and not evil ) - Does it look very much like what Harris wrote? There's no direct contradiction between not supporting torture and designing hypotheticals to make the reader think they would torture but doing it in context(i.e. while your country is having a controversy about whether to torture or not) - well - we all can draw conclusions about his motives.

Sullivan is being charitable to Harris when he says Harris is being contradictory. Most of us , who are critical of Harris just see this as a pattern in his writing.
a) Provide reasonable disclaimers at start
b) In main body , argue as if you are arguing the exact opposite case
c) Point critics to a) , accuse them of not seeing the nuance in his arguments.
d) Declare himself the winner. (It's still amazing to me that Harris thought he came off well when his hypotheticals went up against Chomsky's real world examples - so much for non - believers preferring real world evidence)
e) Rinse and repeat