I fail to see how Harris solves the Is/Ought dichotomy. If he does your review fails to reveal what his solution it might be. Previously he has grounded his morality in "intuition" which is subjective and cannot be made objective. I've never seen it done.
The truth is that there is no known solution. One cannot derive values from facts. Sam Harris is certainly never going to either.
Was it facts that lead Harris to advocate torture or a nuclear first strike against Iran? Sorry but I'll not be lectured on morality by yet another neo-con fascist.
In previous books Sam Harris has explicitly denied free will thereby rendering matters of moral choice moot. If we do not posses free will there can be no such thing as morality.
Sam Harris is a neo-Kantian and believes that our sense perceptions are so structured by our brains that "[no] human being has ever experienced an objective world, or even a world at all."
Such skepticism may be fashionable but that hardly makes it any more coherent.
For now (Has not read the book) I cannot see how science can tell us how we ought to live. I think a more defensible hypothesis is that science can assist us in answering our philosophical questions on how we ought to live, but not answer the question on its own.
Brenda, I think you are an bit quick with Hume's Guillotine, while it is precarious to draw these kind of connections, humans have only our input from the world to base decisions on, so too quick of a rejection is . . . less than pragmatic.
It's interesting that you start off by explaining an inductive logical fallacy then descend into name calling and ad hominems . . . very productive.
As far as science goes Ryan, you are correct: science only gives us information about the world, the choices we make based on those claims fall under the heading of ethics. ~Rhaco
To me, Harris is not dealing with the specifics of how we ought to live but what is demonstrably bad for our health or against our self-interests as a species. This way of thinking about moral problems probably will first apply to the large questions of cost-benefit analysis. We can speak of all the demonstrable harm of child abuse and what-not. The is/ought dichotomy only applies if morality is not objective or reducible to quantitative values, a view I understand. Harris will be a controversial figure in his ethics not just for questioning religions input on morality but for his naturalistic ethics. In my opinion, I cannot ignore the consequences of my actions and the guilt I feel when I do something that turns out to be significantly harmful. I too based a good portion of my morality in consequences but I also have cultural and personal baggage which function in place of rational ethics. I might read Harris's book if it had anything new to tell me. I seen him talk and I have studied his field of ethics before. I tend to be more of a Camus, and find ethics a very difficult task that may be Sisyphean in nature.
When I said Harris was not applying his method to specific things people do, I meant he was dealing with the big problems like genocide. I understand that his view can also be applied to individuals' lives to at least some extent. I personally am with John Stuart Mill's approach to individuality which will use utility on the grand scale but free the individual to act within her or his own impulses and desires because of some utility that may bring.
When I say quantitative values, I mean things like health, which could be determined with some wiggle room for deviation from "normal" health.
Rhacodactylus said... "It's interesting that you start off by explaining an inductive logical fallacy then descend into name calling and ad hominems"
It is very difficult for me to get past Sam Harris' previous advocacy for torture. Besides, it isn't an ad hom if he really did propose that we should torture people, which he did. I am not using it to discredit his argument, I have already done that, I was using it to discredit the man.
This idea that the new atheists are enthusiastic advocates of wholesale violence to protect -- or project -- their beliefs has been a subject of concern with me ever since I read "I Don't Believe in Atheists", by Chris Hedges (2008).
Hedges is quite vitriolic in his criticism of new atheists and he especially focuses on Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens. Until I read this book I respected Hedges, but he seems to categorize them all as apocalyptic prophets -- and even fascists, as Brenda has stated -- calling for the total annihilation of all religions (billions would have to die to achieve this!)and I fail to see this when I read works from these new atheist writers. I am open to anyone proving me wrong, but I think Hedges, and Brenda, are wrong.
Even when Hedges uses direct quotes from Harris, it is clear to me that Hedges is misunderstanding Harris' point for instance, about torture. Harris is not the advocate, he is stating a fact of human morality. The same goes for a nuclear first strike against Iran, or Islamic nations in general. Harris is not suggesting this, he is just pointing out the 'moral landscape' that is nurturing this idea, particularly in America.
Hedges main thrust of "I Don't Believe..." is the failure of moral advancement in the world -- and it is the only point of the book that I do agree with -- but he emphatically distrusts science and reason in promoting moral advancement, which would explain his hatred of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. Well, maybe not so much Hitchens.
Anyway, I have yet to read "The Moral Landscape" but I have been looking forward to Harris' new book because this topic is of great interest to me. Morality as a field of study in science makes perfect sense, and this conversation is just getting started.
d r melbie said... "it is clear to me that Hedges is misunderstanding Harris' point for instance, about torture"
Sam Harris "I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror. In the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, this is not a comfortable position to have publicly adopted."
[...]
"I will now present an argument for the use of torture in rare circumstances. While many people have objected, on emotional grounds, to my defense of torture, no one has pointed out a flaw in my argument."
My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (“torture” by another name) is essentially this: if you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to “ water-board” a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like Osama bin Laden). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of “water-boarding” high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms. And yet, many of us tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare, while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture. It is important to point out that my argument for the restricted use of torture does not make travesties like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. I considered our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders to occur in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
Some people believe that, while collateral damage may be worse than torture, these are independent evils, and one problem does not shed any light on the other. However, they are not independent in principle. In fact, it is easy to see how information gained through torture might mitigate the risk of collateral damage. If one found oneself in such a situation, with an apparent choice between torturing a known terrorist and bombing civilians, torturing the terrorist should seem like the more ethical option. And yet, most people’s intuitions seem to run the other way. In fact, very few critics of the collateral damage argument even acknowledge how strangely asymmetrical our worries about torture and collateral damage are. A conversation about the ethics of torture can scarcely be had, and yet collateral damage is often reported in the context of a “successful” military operation as though it posed no ethical problem whatsoever.
Brenda, once again, you have missed the point. The very next sentence after the quote you cite is this:
"I hope my case for torture is wrong, as I would be much happier standing side by side with all the good people who oppose torture categorically. I invite any reader who discovers a problem with my argument to point it out to me. . .I would be sincerely grateful to have my mind changed on this subject."
Prove him wrong, he's asking you to do so! As far as I can tell, no one has yet.
Or, better yet, the conclusion:
"Which way should the balance swing? Assuming that we want to maintain a coherent ethical position on these matters, this appears to be a circumstance of forced choice: if we are willing to drop bombs, or even risk that rifle rounds might go astray, we should be willing to torture a certain class of criminal suspects and military prisoners; if we are unwilling to torture, we should be unwilling to wage modern war."
Harris is presenting an argument, one that places morality on the table for a scientific dissection. He's attempting to show that the comparison is ludicrous!
So, does 1.8 million dead Iraqi citizens since the war began in 2003 constitute a better morality than torturing a few known terrorists? Again, the comparison falls flat.
Personally, I could never torture anyone and I certainly do not agree with killing citizens -- mostly women and children -- like we have been doing for years. And, I am not in the business of defending Harris, but he raises a very important question.
"Was it facts that lead Harris to advocate torture or a nuclear first strike against Iran? Sorry but I'll not be lectured on morality by yet another neo-con fascist."
It seems to me that you are literally saying he is less likely to be correct on these moral arguments because of previous ones, pretty much the definition of an Ad Hominem
You did realize I could still see that when you claimed to not be using that logical fallacy right? =) ~Rhaco
d r melbie said... "Prove him wrong, he's asking you to do so!"
It can't be done because proof is not something that applies to values. Value statements can neither be proven true or false. Harris' delusion that he can is what leads him into the abyss in the first place.
Rhacodactylus said... "It seems to me that you are literally saying he is less likely to be correct on these moral arguments because of previous ones"
No, what I'm saying is that when you stand up and advocate the deliberate torture of other human beings you are a monster and deserve no further consideration as a member of civilized people.
Hi d r melbie You are right on the money. Harris is breaking absolutely new ground with his research and I too am looking forward to his new book, The Moral Landscape. He has been able to articulate a finely crafted perspective in how science can indeed play a contributive role in advancing moral understanding.
Chris Hedges is a strong advocate for keeping science away from theology, and he is one of their foremost apologetical advocates seeking to keep the light of scientific scrutiny as far away from the christianities that he can. You have to ask, if the christianities are so self-evidently factual, historical and true, then it should be able to withstand the scrutiny of science. What is there to hide?
What ever Brenda and Hedges say about Harris is hysterical hyperbole. They are simply trying to prop a failing belief system that simply isn't producing the goods in meeting the challenges of a complex and diverse local community let alone international community. Religion only perpetuates parochial tribalism, isolationist 'them and 'us' relationships which are anathema to a multi-cultural and inclusive neighbourhood.
Papalington said "What ever Brenda and Hedges say about Harris is hysterical hyperbole."
Objecting to those who advocate torture is "hysteria"? Hedges is theologically liberal, I'm agnostic. Hedges is politically on the Left, I'm Liberal, which is why he and I object to Sam Harris who is a neocon crypto fascist like Christopher Hitchens.
"I Don't Believe in Atheists, is a critique of what Hedges perceives as a radical mindset that rages against religion and faith. Hedges states the book was motivated by debates he had with atheist authors Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens whom Hedges feels excessively demonize religion, particularly Islam, in ways that Hedges believed were eerily similar to the thinking of Christian fundamentalists."
He is right. I think one explanation is that many of today's atheists like those here on this site were formerly fundamentalist Christians. They lost their faith but retained their authoritarian absolutist view of truth and dogmatism regarding belief.
Brenda, You're making it sound like Harris defends torture in and of itself, whereas he is only saying that, since war is a greater evil than torture we should accept torture because we (seem to) accept war.
He's not saying that torture is absolutely an evil or a good; he's merely saying that, if we want to be consistent, we'd reject war before torture.
Paul Rinzler said... "Brenda, You're making it sound like Harris defends torture in and of itself, whereas he is only saying that, since war is a greater evil than torture we should accept torture because we (seem to) accept war."
To argue that we should torture because we accept war is to defend torture.
Andrew Brown "When I accuse him [Sam Harris] of advocating torture, I meant this as the literal interpretation of his actual words. Here are the relevant passages, from The End of Faith, with page numbers drawn from the British paperback."
[...]
"So Harris believes that there are scientific ("neurological") grounds for supposing that his moral reasoning is correct and that we ought to be torturing people."
[...]
"So I think it's fair to say that Harris thinks war with "Islam" is inevitable and in fact already under way; that in this war we must accept collateral damage, because that's the way wars are; and if we accept collateral damage, we must also accept, and practice torture."
[...]
"So, yes. I do rather think that Sam Harris can reasonably be described as a defender and advocate of torture as an instrument of policy."
I have not taken Harris out of context or misrepresented him.
Sam Harris' ethical dilemma is very similar to the trolley problem:
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
Now, lets say: As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
So, which is less ethical: torturing someone to keep them from killing innocents, or killing innocents through the collateral damage of bombing that person?
Brenda: if you consider collateral damage to be an unfortunate but unavoidable part of war, then you are just as much a monster as you accuse Harris of being.
@ Brenda To follow up, Brenda, while Hedges is somewhat god-thingy he is a mixed bag of humanitarian thinking and religious silliness. His view on war seems to be the obverse of Harris' suggestion. It may well suggest that morality and ethics may well have a universal underpinning and in some measure be relative, as per the 'runaway trolley-bus' analogy, it is clear that absolute, god-bestowed morality is simply bunkum.
It seems that any and all attempts to reason with Brenda is automatically a failed attempt. Not because she is unable to reason, but because of her passion (and perhaps pride). She is so angry at Harris that she can't stop her self.
I think there might be a little more going on with Brenda than just pride and passion. Just plain ignorance is probably playing a big part as well. Twenty years ago, I was just like Brenda. I called myself an agnostic, and I avoided the label atheist because I *thought* it was too strong of a statement of knowledge. I even used some of the very same wishy-washy arguments that she has posed within various threads on this website.
Twenty years ago, in my first forays into the online atheist communities on usenet, I was just as appalled as Brenda is at the tone and the (appearance of) authority that some atheists often took with believers, and I *thought* that they were overstepping their bounds, and I was critical of them in the very same way that Brenda is of us now. I even posed variations of the same 4 or 5 questions that Brenda posted in another thread last week. I thought that these atheists didn't really understand religion, and that these strong atheists were claiming to know more than they possibly could.
However, after twenty years of looking at what the religious really have to say, as well as twenty years of introspection and figuring out what it is that I really believe and why I believe it, I've found that I was the one that was wrong, and that I misunderstood what those atheists were saying twenty years ago. The biggest realization for me was that the authoritarian style that many atheists take isn't arrogance. They (we) really do know what we're talking about and the conclusions that we draw really are well justified, and are not nearly so shaky as I thought they were 20 years ago.
I don't know where Brenda will ultimately end up, she clearly has some theistic leanings right now that she probably hasn't really thought through yet, and she clearly hasn't thought through all the reasons she's an agnostic yet either. Someday, I hope she'll get it all figured out, but for now, the best that I think we can do for her, is too continue to point out where her thinking is unclear or flawed and hope that making these problems apparent to her will force her to think more deeply and critically about the positions she holds.
Steven, I agree with you. Brenda does the same thing over and over in her responses. She is what Coyne call's a "faitheist"-- she may have gotten rid of religion, but she still thinls faith is something worth defending-- that it can help one find something good or true and/or that theists have something that atheists lack.
But faith is not a way to know something good or true, and it's not noble to give lip service to the idea that it is. Many people believe in god because they've been indoctrinated to believe bad things will happen if they don't (like eternal damnation). We do such people no service when we defer to faith. Respecting faith leads people to think that faith is something worthy of respect.
27 comments:
I fail to see how Harris solves the Is/Ought dichotomy. If he does your review fails to reveal what his solution it might be. Previously he has grounded his morality in "intuition" which is subjective and cannot be made objective. I've never seen it done.
The truth is that there is no known solution. One cannot derive values from facts. Sam Harris is certainly never going to either.
Was it facts that lead Harris to advocate torture or a nuclear first strike against Iran? Sorry but I'll not be lectured on morality by yet another neo-con fascist.
In previous books Sam Harris has explicitly denied free will thereby rendering matters of moral choice moot. If we do not posses free will there can be no such thing as morality.
Sam Harris is a neo-Kantian and believes that our sense perceptions are so structured by our brains that "[no] human being has ever experienced an objective world, or even a world at all."
Such skepticism may be fashionable but that hardly makes it any more coherent.
For now (Has not read the book) I cannot see how science can tell us how we ought to live. I think a more defensible hypothesis is that science can assist us in answering our philosophical questions on how we ought to live, but not answer the question on its own.
Brenda, I think you are an bit quick with Hume's Guillotine, while it is precarious to draw these kind of connections, humans have only our input from the world to base decisions on, so too quick of a rejection is . . . less than pragmatic.
It's interesting that you start off by explaining an inductive logical fallacy then descend into name calling and ad hominems . . . very productive.
As far as science goes Ryan, you are correct: science only gives us information about the world, the choices we make based on those claims fall under the heading of ethics.
~Rhaco
To me, Harris is not dealing with the specifics of how we ought to live but what is demonstrably bad for our health or against our self-interests as a species. This way of thinking about moral problems probably will first apply to the large questions of cost-benefit analysis. We can speak of all the demonstrable harm of child abuse and what-not. The is/ought dichotomy only applies if morality is not objective or reducible to quantitative values, a view I understand. Harris will be a controversial figure in his ethics not just for questioning religions input on morality but for his naturalistic ethics. In my opinion, I cannot ignore the consequences of my actions and the guilt I feel when I do something that turns out to be significantly harmful. I too based a good portion of my morality in consequences but I also have cultural and personal baggage which function in place of rational ethics. I might read Harris's book if it had anything new to tell me. I seen him talk and I have studied his field of ethics before. I tend to be more of a Camus, and find ethics a very difficult task that may be Sisyphean in nature.
When I said Harris was not applying his method to specific things people do, I meant he was dealing with the big problems like genocide. I understand that his view can also be applied to individuals' lives to at least some extent. I personally am with John Stuart Mill's approach to individuality which will use utility on the grand scale but free the individual to act within her or his own impulses and desires because of some utility that may bring.
When I say quantitative values, I mean things like health, which could be determined with some wiggle room for deviation from "normal" health.
Rhacodactylus said...
"It's interesting that you start off by explaining an inductive logical fallacy then descend into name calling and ad hominems"
It is very difficult for me to get past Sam Harris' previous advocacy for torture. Besides, it isn't an ad hom if he really did propose that we should torture people, which he did. I am not using it to discredit his argument, I have already done that, I was using it to discredit the man.
This idea that the new atheists are enthusiastic advocates of wholesale violence to protect -- or project -- their beliefs has been a subject of concern with me ever since I read "I Don't Believe in Atheists", by Chris Hedges (2008).
Hedges is quite vitriolic in his criticism of new atheists and he especially focuses on Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens. Until I read this book I respected Hedges, but he seems to categorize them all as apocalyptic prophets -- and even fascists, as Brenda has stated -- calling for the total annihilation of all religions (billions would have to die to achieve this!)and I fail to see this when I read works from these new atheist writers. I am open to anyone proving me wrong, but I think Hedges, and Brenda, are wrong.
Even when Hedges uses direct quotes from Harris, it is clear to me that Hedges is misunderstanding Harris' point for instance, about torture. Harris is not the advocate, he is stating a fact of human morality. The same goes for a nuclear first strike against Iran, or Islamic nations in general. Harris is not suggesting this, he is just pointing out the 'moral landscape' that is nurturing this idea, particularly in America.
Hedges main thrust of "I Don't Believe..." is the failure of moral advancement in the world -- and it is the only point of the book that I do agree with -- but he emphatically distrusts science and reason in promoting moral advancement, which would explain his hatred of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. Well, maybe not so much Hitchens.
Anyway, I have yet to read "The Moral Landscape" but I have been looking forward to Harris' new book because this topic is of great interest to me. Morality as a field of study in science makes perfect sense, and this conversation is just getting started.
d r melbie said...
"it is clear to me that Hedges is misunderstanding Harris' point for instance, about torture"
Sam Harris
"I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror. In the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, this is not a comfortable position to have publicly adopted."
[...]
"I will now present an argument for the use of torture in rare circumstances. While many people have objected, on emotional grounds, to my defense of torture, no one has pointed out a flaw in my argument."
Yeah, real hard to understand that isn't it?
More Sam Harris:
My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (“torture” by another name) is essentially this: if you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to “ water-board” a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like Osama bin Laden). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of “water-boarding” high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms. And yet, many of us tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare, while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture. It is important to point out that my argument for the restricted use of torture does not make travesties like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. I considered our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders to occur in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
Some people believe that, while collateral damage may be worse than torture, these are independent evils, and one problem does not shed any light on the other. However, they are not independent in principle. In fact, it is easy to see how information gained through torture might mitigate the risk of collateral damage. If one found oneself in such a situation, with an apparent choice between torturing a known terrorist and bombing civilians, torturing the terrorist should seem like the more ethical option. And yet, most people’s intuitions seem to run the other way. In fact, very few critics of the collateral damage argument even acknowledge how strangely asymmetrical our worries about torture and collateral damage are. A conversation about the ethics of torture can scarcely be had, and yet collateral damage is often reported in the context of a “successful” military operation as though it posed no ethical problem whatsoever.
Brenda, once again, you have missed the point. The very next sentence after the quote you cite is this:
"I hope my case for torture is wrong, as I would be much happier standing side by side with all the good people who oppose torture categorically. I invite any reader who discovers a problem with my argument to point it out to me. . .I would be sincerely grateful to have my mind changed on this subject."
Prove him wrong, he's asking you to do so! As far as I can tell, no one has yet.
Or, better yet, the conclusion:
"Which way should the balance swing? Assuming that we want to maintain a coherent ethical position on these matters, this appears to be a circumstance of forced choice: if we are willing to drop bombs, or even risk that rifle rounds might go astray, we should be willing to torture a certain class of criminal suspects and military prisoners; if we are unwilling to torture, we should be unwilling to wage modern war."
Harris is presenting an argument, one that places morality on the table for a scientific dissection. He's attempting to show that the comparison is ludicrous!
So, does 1.8 million dead Iraqi citizens since the war began in 2003 constitute a better morality than torturing a few known terrorists? Again, the comparison falls flat.
Personally, I could never torture anyone and I certainly do not agree with killing citizens -- mostly women and children -- like we have been doing for years. And, I am not in the business of defending Harris, but he raises a very important question.
"Was it facts that lead Harris to advocate torture or a nuclear first strike against Iran? Sorry but I'll not be lectured on morality by yet another neo-con fascist."
It seems to me that you are literally saying he is less likely to be correct on these moral arguments because of previous ones, pretty much the definition of an Ad Hominem
You did realize I could still see that when you claimed to not be using that logical fallacy right?
=)
~Rhaco
d r melbie said...
"Prove him wrong, he's asking you to do so!"
It can't be done because proof is not something that applies to values. Value statements can neither be proven true or false. Harris' delusion that he can is what leads him into the abyss in the first place.
Rhacodactylus said...
"It seems to me that you are literally saying he is less likely to be correct on these moral arguments because of previous ones"
No, what I'm saying is that when you stand up and advocate the deliberate torture of other human beings you are a monster and deserve no further consideration as a member of civilized people.
Catch Harris on the Daily Show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-4-2010/sam-harris
John, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic but it seemed like something you would find interesting!
~Rhaco
Hi d r melbie
You are right on the money. Harris is breaking absolutely new ground with his research and I too am looking forward to his new book, The Moral Landscape. He has been able to articulate a finely crafted perspective in how science can indeed play a contributive role in advancing moral understanding.
Chris Hedges is a strong advocate for keeping science away from theology, and he is one of their foremost apologetical advocates seeking to keep the light of scientific scrutiny as far away from the christianities that he can. You have to ask, if the christianities are so self-evidently factual, historical and true, then it should be able to withstand the scrutiny of science. What is there to hide?
What ever Brenda and Hedges say about Harris is hysterical hyperbole. They are simply trying to prop a failing belief system that simply isn't producing the goods in meeting the challenges of a complex and diverse local community let alone international community. Religion only perpetuates parochial tribalism, isolationist 'them and 'us' relationships which are anathema to a multi-cultural and inclusive neighbourhood.
Cheers
Papalington said
"What ever Brenda and Hedges say about Harris is hysterical hyperbole."
Objecting to those who advocate torture is "hysteria"? Hedges is theologically liberal, I'm agnostic. Hedges is politically on the Left, I'm Liberal, which is why he and I object to Sam Harris who is a neocon crypto fascist like Christopher Hitchens.
"I Don't Believe in Atheists, is a critique of what Hedges perceives as a radical mindset that rages against religion and faith. Hedges states the book was motivated by debates he had with atheist authors Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens whom Hedges feels excessively demonize religion, particularly Islam, in ways that Hedges believed were eerily similar to the thinking of Christian fundamentalists."
He is right. I think one explanation is that many of today's atheists like those here on this site were formerly fundamentalist Christians. They lost their faith but retained their authoritarian absolutist view of truth and dogmatism regarding belief.
Brenda, You're making it sound like Harris defends torture in and of itself, whereas he is only saying that, since war is a greater evil than torture we should accept torture because we (seem to) accept war.
He's not saying that torture is absolutely an evil or a good; he's merely saying that, if we want to be consistent, we'd reject war before torture.
Hi Brenda
" I object to Sam Harris who is a neocon crypto fascist like Christopher Hitchens."
And this is not 'hysterical hyperbole'?
Are you confusing 'agnostic' with 'ignostic'?
Cheers
Paul Rinzler said...
"Brenda, You're making it sound like Harris defends torture in and of itself, whereas he is only saying that, since war is a greater evil than torture we should accept torture because we (seem to) accept war."
To argue that we should torture because we accept war is to defend torture.
Andrew Brown
"When I accuse him [Sam Harris] of advocating torture, I meant this as the literal interpretation of his actual words. Here are the relevant passages, from The End of Faith, with page numbers drawn from the British paperback."
[...]
"So Harris believes that there are scientific ("neurological") grounds for supposing that his moral reasoning is correct and that we ought to be torturing people."
[...]
"So I think it's fair to say that Harris thinks war with "Islam" is inevitable and in fact already under way; that in this war we must accept collateral damage, because that's the way wars are; and if we accept collateral damage, we must also accept, and practice torture."
[...]
"So, yes. I do rather think that Sam Harris can reasonably be described as a defender and advocate of torture as an instrument of policy."
I have not taken Harris out of context or misrepresented him.
Sam Harris is a monster.
Brenda,
So nice to see that you haven't lost your authoritarian absolutist view of truth and dogmatism regarding belief.
And the name-calling! Really!
And then you say,
To argue that we should torture because we accept war is to defend torture.
Again, you twist the argument into equating that one is less moral than the other. WTF?
Peace. That is, not in the Utopian sense, but as a genuine, from the bottom of my heart, gesture.
David \o/
Sam Harris' ethical dilemma is very similar to the trolley problem:
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
Now, lets say: As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
So, which is less ethical: torturing someone to keep them from killing innocents, or killing innocents through the collateral damage of bombing that person?
Brenda: if you consider collateral damage to be an unfortunate but unavoidable part of war, then you are just as much a monster as you accuse Harris of being.
@ Brenda
To follow up, Brenda, while Hedges is somewhat god-thingy he is a mixed bag of humanitarian thinking and religious silliness. His view on war seems to be the obverse of Harris' suggestion. It may well suggest that morality and ethics may well have a universal underpinning and in some measure be relative, as per the 'runaway trolley-bus' analogy, it is clear that absolute, god-bestowed morality is simply bunkum.
Cheers
It seems that any and all attempts to reason with Brenda is automatically a failed attempt. Not because she is unable to reason, but because of her passion (and perhaps pride).
She is so angry at Harris that she can't stop her self.
Bob,
I think there might be a little more going on with Brenda than just pride and passion. Just plain ignorance is probably playing a big part as well. Twenty years ago, I was just like Brenda. I called myself an agnostic, and I avoided the label atheist because I *thought* it was too strong of a statement of knowledge. I even used some of the very same wishy-washy arguments that she has posed within various threads on this website.
Twenty years ago, in my first forays into the online atheist communities on usenet, I was just as appalled as Brenda is at the tone and the (appearance of) authority that some atheists often took with believers, and I *thought* that they were overstepping their bounds, and I was critical of them in the very same way that Brenda is of us now. I even posed variations of the same 4 or 5 questions that Brenda posted in another thread last week. I thought that these atheists didn't really understand religion, and that these strong atheists were claiming to know more than they possibly could.
However, after twenty years of looking at what the religious really have to say, as well as twenty years of introspection and figuring out what it is that I really believe and why I believe it, I've found that I was the one that was wrong, and that I misunderstood what those atheists were saying twenty years ago. The biggest realization for me was that the authoritarian style that many atheists take isn't arrogance. They (we) really do know what we're talking about and the conclusions that we draw really are well justified, and are not nearly so shaky as I thought they were 20 years ago.
I don't know where Brenda will ultimately end up, she clearly has some theistic leanings right now that she probably hasn't really thought through yet, and she clearly hasn't thought through all the reasons she's an agnostic yet either. Someday, I hope she'll get it all figured out, but for now, the best that I think we can do for her, is too continue to point out where her thinking is unclear or flawed and hope that making these problems apparent to her will force her to think more deeply and critically about the positions she holds.
Steven, I agree with you. Brenda does the same thing over and over in her responses. She is what Coyne call's a "faitheist"-- she may have gotten rid of religion, but she still thinls faith is something worth defending-- that it can help one find something good or true and/or that theists have something that atheists lack.
But faith is not a way to know something good or true, and it's not noble to give lip service to the idea that it is. Many people believe in god because they've been indoctrinated to believe bad things will happen if they don't (like eternal damnation). We do such people no service when we defer to faith. Respecting faith leads people to think that faith is something worthy of respect.
For the record, I disagreed with Sam Harris about the Iraq war, but I thought his first two books were excellent.
He did much more to further reason than his critics ever have.
Here is a link for all the hysterical people claiming that Sam Harris advocates nuclear first strikes and torture:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/
Post a Comment