Opinion of Sam Harris

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Whenever I ask a poll question, I try to leave out my opinion initially to see what (if anything develops) but I have an opinion here to express.

Sam Harris is one of these that could be described as 'public intellectuals.' He is best known as an atheist who has debated a number of other 'public intellectuals' on religion and the existence of God. After that, he expressed further views that basically place him as an 'anti woke liberal.'

I tend to ignore people like Sam Harris who engage in these more abstract philosophical debates because I'm more interested in practical concrete things. However, Sam Harris seems to also be one of these 'public intellectuals' who seems to think he's an expert on everything.

However, Harris was recently on the David Pakman show and I figured 'why not listen' they might get into a debate about the value of 'woke' ideas. My only reaction in the end was one of surprise. I can't understand why anybody cares about the views of Sam Harris. Have people really been this dumbed down that Sam Harris is considered an intellectual? The only word I have to describe Sam Harris' thinking is 'banal' (which also fits his monotone voice, although he was more animated when discussing A.I.)

As 'banal' means, I thought he was unoriginal and obvious, but even more than that, he argued by assertion offering no facts or evidence but only making broad statements that he obviously believes are true, presumably simply because he believes them.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Tiresome edgelord

[Neocon Dem]

I voted FF just because this forum seems to dislike all prominent atheists.

[Mine the Strait]

Atheist "intellectuals" face a unique challenge, in that they are always going to sound "obvious" because atheism itself is so obvious. Yes, modern atheists just repeat the same critiques of religion that have been repeated for the past several centuries. This is because theists have never come up with any credible response to these critiques, and therefore they bear repeating.

As for Harris specifically, I don't feel strongly about him in either direction and I've never consumed much of his output.

[DaleCooper]

Never really understood the hate for him. Most of what he says seems fairly reasonable, if not completely unremarkable, and damn near all of the mainstream liberal criticisms of him seem overblown, if not outright fake news. The only thing he's done that I would describe as completely unacceptable is palling around with mentally challenged sycophants like Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin and the rest of that crowd, but he seems to have realized the error of his ways on that.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Even when I was a more militant atheist, I never really cared for him.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Never really understood the hate for him. Most of what he says seems fairly reasonable, if not completely unremarkable, and damn near all of the mainstream liberal criticisms of him seem overblown, if not outright fake news. The only thing he's done that I would describe as completely unacceptable is palling around with mentally challenged sycophants like Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin and the rest of that crowd, but he seems to have realized the error of his ways on that.

He's said some deeply unfortunate things about racial profiling, and he does the usual special pleading with Buddhism where he treats it as uniquely exempt from his broader anti-religious critique based purely on how it's practiced among white liberals in the West.

I didn't vote because I've never paid a ton of attention to him, but I doubt I'd find much to like if I were to take an interest.

[RINO Tom]

Atheist "intellectuals" face a unique challenge, in that they are always going to sound "obvious" because atheism itself is so obvious. Yes, modern atheists just repeat the same critiques of religion that have been repeated for the past several centuries. This is because theists have never come up with any credible response to these critiques, and therefore they bear repeating.

As for Harris specifically, I don't feel strongly about him in either direction and I've never consumed much of his output.

This is delusional, but it actually does show why many atheist (or at least blind followers of scientism like Harris) “intellectuals” are so cringe.  They don’t appreciate that science and philosophy are fundamentally separate.  If you think it’s “obvious” there is no God presumably because you think there’s no scientific evidence of it, that’s not exactly an intelligent way to look at that subject.  There will never be scientific evidence for or against, as science studies the natural world - something a God would have created.  You proudly give up trying to play the philosophical game and then comically claim you won.

[Mine the Strait]

Atheist "intellectuals" face a unique challenge, in that they are always going to sound "obvious" because atheism itself is so obvious. Yes, modern atheists just repeat the same critiques of religion that have been repeated for the past several centuries. This is because theists have never come up with any credible response to these critiques, and therefore they bear repeating.

As for Harris specifically, I don't feel strongly about him in either direction and I've never consumed much of his output.

This is delusional, but it actually does show why many atheist (or at least blind followers of scientism like Harris) “intellectuals” are so cringe.  They don’t appreciate that science and philosophy are fundamentally separate.  If you think it’s “obvious” there is no God presumably because you think there’s no scientific evidence of it, that’s not exactly an intelligent way to look at that subject.  There will never be scientific evidence for or against, as science studies the natural world - something a God would have created.  You proudly give up trying to play the philosophical game and then comically claim you won.

Who said anything about science? God does not make any sense from a philosophical perspective either.

[TheTide]

I feel as though the death of Christopher Hitchens was a blow to the other three Horsemen in terms of ability to capture publicity etc. Which is ironic as Hitchens was vastly more charismatic than the other three. Maybe there was some kind of coattail effect.

Actually, talking of coattails, there were quite a few 'poor man' versions of the Four Horsemen when they were at their peak (mid-2000s to Hitchens' death in 2011). I'm thinking of YouTube 'celebrities' such as Pat Condell and Thunderf00t.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Atheist "intellectuals" face a unique challenge, in that they are always going to sound "obvious" because atheism itself is so obvious. Yes, modern atheists just repeat the same critiques of religion that have been repeated for the past several centuries. This is because theists have never come up with any credible response to these critiques, and therefore they bear repeating.

As for Harris specifically, I don't feel strongly about him in either direction and I've never consumed much of his output.

This is delusional, but it actually does show why many atheist (or at least blind followers of scientism like Harris) “intellectuals” are so cringe.  They don’t appreciate that science and philosophy are fundamentally separate.  If you think it’s “obvious” there is no God presumably because you think there’s no scientific evidence of it, that’s not exactly an intelligent way to look at that subject.  There will never be scientific evidence for or against, as science studies the natural world - something a God would have created.  You proudly give up trying to play the philosophical game and then comically claim you won.

Who said anything about science? God does not make any sense from a philosophical perspective either.

Are you arguing the concept of God is analytically incoherent? If so, do you specifically mean the God of orthodox Christianity, or any God that would match the core properties typically ascribed to minimalistic theism?

[SnowLabrador]

FF I guess. Haven't followed him much lately.

[Mine the Strait]

Atheist "intellectuals" face a unique challenge, in that they are always going to sound "obvious" because atheism itself is so obvious. Yes, modern atheists just repeat the same critiques of religion that have been repeated for the past several centuries. This is because theists have never come up with any credible response to these critiques, and therefore they bear repeating.

As for Harris specifically, I don't feel strongly about him in either direction and I've never consumed much of his output.

This is delusional, but it actually does show why many atheist (or at least blind followers of scientism like Harris) “intellectuals” are so cringe.  They don’t appreciate that science and philosophy are fundamentally separate.  If you think it’s “obvious” there is no God presumably because you think there’s no scientific evidence of it, that’s not exactly an intelligent way to look at that subject.  There will never be scientific evidence for or against, as science studies the natural world - something a God would have created.  You proudly give up trying to play the philosophical game and then comically claim you won.

Who said anything about science? God does not make any sense from a philosophical perspective either.

Are you arguing the concept of God is analytically incoherent? If so, do you specifically mean the God of orthodox Christianity, or any God that would match the core properties typically ascribed to minimalistic theism?

The Christian god specifically is incoherent from both scientific and philosophical perspectives. However, I'm not arguing anything with people who use the word "scientism." The claim that scientific knowledge hasn't provided us with any evidence against the Christian god is too obscenely stupid to waste my time on.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Atheist "intellectuals" face a unique challenge, in that they are always going to sound "obvious" because atheism itself is so obvious. Yes, modern atheists just repeat the same critiques of religion that have been repeated for the past several centuries. This is because theists have never come up with any credible response to these critiques, and therefore they bear repeating.

As for Harris specifically, I don't feel strongly about him in either direction and I've never consumed much of his output.

This is delusional, but it actually does show why many atheist (or at least blind followers of scientism like Harris) “intellectuals” are so cringe.  They don’t appreciate that science and philosophy are fundamentally separate.  If you think it’s “obvious” there is no God presumably because you think there’s no scientific evidence of it, that’s not exactly an intelligent way to look at that subject.  There will never be scientific evidence for or against, as science studies the natural world - something a God would have created.  You proudly give up trying to play the philosophical game and then comically claim you won.

Who said anything about science? God does not make any sense from a philosophical perspective either.

Are you arguing the concept of God is analytically incoherent? If so, do you specifically mean the God of orthodox Christianity, or any God that would match the core properties typically ascribed to minimalistic theism?

The Christian god specifically is incoherent from both scientific and philosophical perspectives. However, I'm not arguing anything with people who use the word "scientism." The claim that scientific knowledge hasn't provided us with any evidence against the Christian god is too obscenely stupid to waste my time on.

If you're talking about a Biblical literalist understanding of Christianity, sure, there are many aspects of it that are incompatible with scientific observations unless you twist yourself into a pretzel to retroactively make it make sense. Most serious Christians are not Biblical literalists, though, and they're willing to read most of the events of the Bible that don't mesh with modern scientific theories as metaphorical (miracles like the Resurrection are in a somewhat different place in that scientific induction makes them implausible but can't rule them out in the same way it can rule out geocentrism).

It's also the case that elements of Christian dogma defy conventional logic, but do remember that conventional logic is not universally accepted even among secular philosophers.

Anyway feel free to go Reddit Atheist if you're so inclined but I wish you were a bit more willing to examine these issues dispassionately.

[MyLifeIsYours 🇵🇸 🇨🇩 🇸🇩]

A genuine pseudo-intellectual who is a mouthpiece for the imperialistic policies of the West, an view shared with the Christian right he opposes on sociological grounds. His blatant Arab-phobia and his cozy relationship with white nationalist Douglas Murray are why I don't value his takes outside his Neuroscience speciality.  Gives the secular community a bad reputation along with many other outspoken New Atheist spokespeople.

[Alcibiades]

I would also point out that his attempted forays into philosophy have been laughably bad, most notably his claim to have disproven free will by simply asserting that compatibilism is plainly wrong (and not bothering to engage whatsoever with the vast philosophical literature that exists in support of compatibilism). I have no idea why anyone would feel the need to pay him and his ilk much attention when the vast majority of actual philosophers are atheists anyway (note that even Daniel Dennett, whatever else you may think of him, harshly criticised Harris' book on free will).

[Mine the Strait]

The Christian god specifically is incoherent from both scientific and philosophical perspectives. However, I'm not arguing anything with people who use the word "scientism." The claim that scientific knowledge hasn't provided us with any evidence against the Christian god is too obscenely stupid to waste my time on.

If you're talking about a Biblical literalist understanding of Christianity, sure, there are many aspects of it that are incompatible with scientific observations unless you twist yourself into a pretzel to retroactively make it make sense. Most serious Christians are not Biblical literalists, though, and they're willing to read most of the events of the Bible that don't mesh with modern scientific theories as metaphorical (miracles like the Resurrection are in a somewhat different place in that scientific induction makes them implausible but can't rule them out in the same way it can rule out geocentrism).

It's also the case that elements of Christian dogma defy conventional logic, but do remember that conventional logic is not universally accepted even among secular philosophers.

Anyway feel free to go Reddit Atheist if you're so inclined but I wish you were a bit more willing to examine these issues dispassionately.

"Most" Christians do not need to be biblical literalists in order for arguments like Harris' to have merit. Something like 30-40% of American Christians are literalists. How exactly are we supposed to engage with their moronic arguments if not on a literal level? Would you rather we just ignore them? Because that will not make them go away.

There's a pervasive attitude on this site that criticizing literalist arguments is just going after low-hanging fruit. This perspective is willfully ignorant to the reality of American Christians' faith. Biblical literalism is a widely-held, popular belief that influences the personal and political decisions made by millions of people in this country every day. I'm not going to pretend that all Christians are like Nathan or Scott when you have people making replicas of Noah's Ark and indoctrinating children into believing mankind lived next to the dinosaurs. These types of Christians are absolutely representing their superstitions as scientifically substantiated; they are dangerous fundamentalists and they need to be confronted. And I appreciate Harris (and anyone else who does this) because it's a useful public service. Handwaving these arguments away as "scientism" does not advance the debate at all. It is merely doing Ken Ham's work for him, and with a veneer of pseudointellectual bullsh*t to boot.

Lastly, I know I have a reputation as a "Reddit Atheist" on this site, but it's worth noting that I almost never bring this topic up unprompted. On nearly every occasion I discuss religion, it's because someone on this site said something demonstrably idiotic and I felt the need to correct them. In this case, it was the claim that Sam Harris' arguments have no merit because "science and philosophy are fundamentally separate." Guess what? So long as there are tens of millions of Christians in the real world who do not make this distinction, disproving Christian dogma with scientific evidence will always be worthwhile.

[Alcibiades]

I guess I'll play the moderate hero here. On the one hand, I agree that scientism is a very real tendency that ought to be resisted, and one that is exemplified by Harris, and, to pick a more philosophically serious proponent, Dennett (who for instance thinks that conscious experience is an illusion). That said, Dule is right that 'science and philosophy are fundamentally separate' is a patently absurd claim when one of modern philosophy's central preoccupations has been trying to reconcile the scientific worldview, given its enormously successful track record, with various other of our beliefs which may come into conflict with it.

[Mine the Strait]

I guess I'll play the moderate hero here. On the one hand, I agree that scientism is a very real tendency that ought to be resisted, and one that is exemplified by Harris, and, to pick a more philosophically serious proponent, Dennett (who for instance thinks that conscious experience is an illusion). That said, Dule is right that 'science and philosophy are fundamentally separate' is a patently absurd claim when one of modern philosophy's central preoccupations has been trying to reconcile the scientific worldview, given its enormously successful track record, with various other of our beliefs which may come into conflict with it.

... Not to mention the fact that so many religious beliefs and traditions got their start as primitive attempts to explain natural occurrences.

Again, I am not a Harris fan. The only times I've been exposed to his ideas is through other people (for example, when he was on Bill Maher's show). But even if he personally believes that science is the end-all be-all of human experience and should trump philosophy, that does not devalue the merit in his individual arguments against the scientific basis for Christian doctrine, because those arguments are absolutely relevant in a world where science and religion are so blended in the minds of millions.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The only prominent two atheists I know who are FFs are Ayn Rand and John Dule.

[Mine the Strait]

The only prominent two atheists I know who are FFs are Ayn Rand and John Dule.

Did you see those articles today saying that Trump accidentally referred to Melania as "Mercedes?" Very appropriate given your username.

[Drop Billionaires, Not Bombs]

I think we can also extend the "scientism" critique to other ideas that aren't necessarily religious. For example, I remember when Sam Harris released a book a little over a decade ago that essentially claimed that the notion of free will is disprovable by neuroscience. It didn't really say anything new for that debate but it did fall into the trap of scientific chauvinism. Neuroscience, a field that hasn't even cracked the code of understanding consciousness, is not an authority on something as abstract - and often poorly understood - as free will. And I would even venture to say that it's something we may never understand through a materialistic lens.

I wrote most of this post before I saw that Alcibiades wrote a similar criticism, but this is another example of the sciences making a statement on things it cannot objectively analyze.

[SWE]

I remember when I discovered the subreddit r/bad philosophy in high school, he was a common punching bag there, except they never called him Sam Harris, but Ben Stiller, because that's who he looked like. I was completely baffled as to why pretentious philosophy redditors would be so bothered by the guy from Night at the Museum

[All Along The Watchtower]

I remember when I discovered the subreddit r/bad philosophy in high school, he was a common punching bag there, except they never called him Sam Harris, but Ben Stiller, because that's who he looked like. I was completely baffled as to why pretentious philosophy redditors would be so bothered by the guy from Night at the Museum

Who can forget the epic argument Ben Stiller had with Ben Affleck about Islam? All-timer.

[Vosem]

I like him a great deal, and used to listen to him a lot back when his podcast was free, but he's a predictable enough thinker that he really isn't worth paying for. I'm kind of odd in thinking that both New Atheism and evangelical Christianity are really positive influences on American discourse, and I'd love to see both grow in respect and importance even if they regard each other with some hostility.