i was trying to figure out which thread to post this debate in and i couldn't come to a conclusion, so i decided that it's about time i just made a thread to house all things related to sam harris, possibly my favorite author even in his limited work. here's a 9-part, roughly hour-and-a-half debate with chris hedges that i found well worth the watch, hitting in islam, religion as a whole, politics, etc:



















a few thoughts:

1 i think hedges actually hates harris. he got louder and seemingly angrier as the debate progressed.
2 this isn't that important, but though he does make some good points in the debate, hedges is actually a somewhat boring speaker during his speech.
3 hedges points on faith in that speech are credited partially to tillich (he actually quotes tillich), whose work on faith i've read. it's pretty much outdated.
4 hedges seems to use his own experiences as the new york times' mideast bureau chief for seven years and more as a barometer for what's going on there. i'm not exactly sure just how much credence we can give that, though.

it's almost as if you're worshiping him...

What tipped you off, the incredibly creepy avatar?

he does have a few views that i disagree with, or that would at least make me pause, like on torture.

also, to bart: i know you'll be in here so i'll let you know i reread LTACN this weekend and found harris' blue state-red state comparison to be a bit uneven. dawkins writes this into his own book, too. for those unaware, and correct me if i'm wrong bart, harris compares red and blue states to crime rates, and related stats on even stds and more, in individual cities within those states, with more moral rates correlating better with blue states and worse with red states. however, we are all aware that cities are not run by the state governments. perhaps harris was getting at the supposed population of right wingers in the big cities of red states, though i was under the impression bigger cities tend to be more liberal.

but, then again, that's only two examples i can find from a large range of issues. his full-length book end of faith had a profound influence on me, not even in just terms of religion and so forth: for instance, i was spurred to become a vegetarian after reading it.

You're pretty impressionable.

in which regard of that post? i have to leave for the next few hours so i'll get back to you when i return.

Just in general. You seem to latch onto things quickly. Not that there's anything wrong with that if you really like something, I've just noticed it.

Oi vey.

The way he ridicules Christians for their nutty beliefs and then prattles on about Eastern mysticism would be comical if it wasn't coupled with more dangerous hypocrisy regarding violence in the name of "freedom." Torture during the Inquisition? Another example of religion's terrible influence on society. Torture to obtain information from a suspect who hasn't been charged, let alone convicted of any crime? Well, that's ok I guess. As long as there's a chance we can get some info out of him.

He's also incredibly sloppy as a researcher and a debater. Whether you find his overall argument convincing is almost totally based on whether you were convinced of its correctness in the first place. His arguments are full of circular leaps in logic and non-sequiturs which have no other purpose but to incite outrage or chuckles, depending on your position on the issue at hand. Christians are dangerous lunatics because they believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and want to impose their will on the rest of society. What about Christians who don't do fit into this image? They aren't Christians. Why? Because they don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and do not wish to impose their will on society.

But it's not like I care about the guy or anything....

What Bort said.

Whenever I hear people's justifications for Harris' Islamophobia and how it's different than the average yokel ("his ideas come from reason and ratonality!"), I can't help but think of that Anton Chigurgh quote: "If the road you followed brought you to this, of what use was the road?"

how so?

Whenever I see people blow up a coffee shop, I can't help but think of that Anton Chigurgh quote: "If the road you followed brought you to this, of what use was the road?"

inb4 essentially "America/whoever brought them to that road, and not Islam," because violent response to that would itself be a road that brought them to a murderous, suicidal conclusion.

This is an intentional personal attack intent on provoking Corduroy Blazer. It offers nothing at all to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss whether you think C_B is intellectually honest or not, send him a PM instead.

Who are these people on the board going around saying its all America's fault, etc, etc? Did I put them on my ignore list and forget?

Well I've beaten the Red State/Blue State thing to death, but really it deserves it. It gives the impression that Harris doesn't have a firm grasp of 9th grade civics. He repeated the stupid "The Bible says Pi is 3.1!" myth without bothering to check it out. There are others but I don't have the book with me at the moment. Really I'm kind of sick of talking about the guy.

Actually, the bible says pi is 3, which is what Harris pointed out.

We talked about that in another thread. The book club one, I think.

you linked to this:

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

seriously, i visited that thread endless times and i still don't get it. i'm beyond terrible at math. i should have never mentioned pi in the first place ... unless it was apple, or coconut custard, of course.

It sounds just about right to me. Then again I am not remotely good at math either, so if someone could prove it wrong I would be glad to cede the point.