Sam Harris Uncovered

[cynicles]

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered.html

I thought this was a good take down of Harris' muslim islamophobia and revealing of his crypto-fascist tendencies.

[blake 3:17]

You might be interested in Chris Hedge's I Don't Believe in Atheists. He takes Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens to task for their fundamentalist atheism, which has been happy to prop up US imperial adventurism.

[Book O'Dead]

You might be interested in Chris Hedge's I Don't Believe in Atheists. He takes Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens to task for their fundamentalist atheism, which has been happy to prop up US imperial adventurism.

I would only disagree with the label "fundamentalist atheism" to describe Dawkins, et al.

More like militant, bourgeois atheism. It describes better people who question the authority of religion and the existence of God but hardly ever challenge the present institutions of wealth, privilege and power.

If you're going to be an atheist you have to go the whole nine yards: Attack all living gods, not just the dead ones.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I would only disagree with the label "fundamentalist atheism" to describe Dawkins, et al.

More like militant, bourgeois atheism. It describes better people who question the authority of religion and the existence of God but hardly ever challenge the present institutions of wealth, privilege and power.

If you're going to be an atheist you have to go the whole nine yards: Attack all living gods, not just the dead ones.
I agree, but their (Primarily Dawkin) disdain for 'God' isn't based on power, wealth, etc., rather lack of Science. Christopher Hitchens did a great job attacking Mother Teresa for getting rich off her title, though.

[Book O'Dead]

I agree, but their (Primarily Dawkin) disdain for 'God' isn't based on power, wealth, etc., rather lack of Science. Christopher Hitchens did a great job attacking Mother Teresa for getting rich off her title, though.

You're right. What was it Marx said about the Church of England in his intro to Capital? That they would gladly tolerate an attack on 9 of their 10 cannons before allowing an attack on a tenth of their wealth.

IOWs, already in Marx's time atheism and agnosticism had run their course.

[Ocean Seal]

I also have a problem with the description of them as fundamentalist atheists. They are just run of the mill imperialists who use secularism as their reason for war, much like bourgeois feminists and ironically anti-feminists use women's rights as an idea for bombing the Middle East.

[Book O'Dead]

I also have a problem with the description of them as fundamentalist atheists. They are just run of the mill imperialists who use secularism as their reason for war, much like bourgeois feminists and ironically anti-feminists use women's rights as an idea for bombing the Middle East.

Well, look at how the Nazis in Germany did it: They attacked religious institutions, weakened and silenced them, and took over some of them so that by the time real Christians were called upon to defend the Jews the churches were empty of them.

I think a more reasoned and ecumenical approach toward genuine people of faith is warranted on the part of many leftists so that we don't repeat the crimes of the past.

[Luís Henrique]

It is difficult to understand the fascination of some in the left with these arrogant class enemies.

But they aren't actually "fundamentalist atheists", which is a contradiction in terms. What they are, they are religious preachers who preach the inexistence of god. Bigoted and fanatic as any religious preachers, and completely blind to the reality in which most of mankind toils and suffers.

Luís Henrique

[shinjuku dori]

I'll take noble bourgeois revolution of France or workers revolution of Spain which hung priests over reactionary counterrevolution of Mullahs in Afghanistan or phony communists who slogan "We are all Hezbollah" or support genital torture of children in the name of "defending religious."

[Luís Henrique]

I'll take noble bourgeois revolution of France or workers revolution of Spain which hung priests over reactionary counterrevolution of Mullahs in Afghanistan or phony communists who slogan "We are all Hezbollah" or support genital torture of children in the name of "defending religious."

You completely miss the point of the killing of priests during the French or Spanish revolutions. They weren't killed because of the absurd ideas they entertained about the Otherworld, but for their very material support for the enemies of the people in This World.

The same applies to reactionaries such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris: the problem is not in their beliefs about the (in)existence of a supernatural realm, but in their militant support for the existing order. Which they cannot even understand is a religious order after all, only based on the worship of a god whose temples are banks and shopping centers.

Luís Henrique

[Yazman]

It is difficult to understand the fascination of some in the left with these arrogant class enemies.

Yeah, sure it's absurd if you have a black & white, binary view of the world - they're either with us or against us! Those of us who do not have such a world view can see the inherent value in the principle that a man like Dawkins advocates - scientific thought. It's one that has always been at the core of Marxism and always should be - as communists, regardless of our tendency, we should all be advocating this. Sure, they aren't revolutionary leftists, but they don't need to be for us to appreciate aspects of what they say.


But they aren't actually "fundamentalist atheists", which is a contradiction in terms. What they are, they are religious preachers who preach the inexistence of god. Bigoted and fanatic as any religious preachers, and completely blind to the reality in which most of mankind toils and suffers.

Luís Henrique

It is utterly absurd to describe them as "religious preachers". They are speaking out against irrational ideas and faith. There is nothing religious about it. For it to be religious there would need to be a faith-based mentality, and there isn't - they simply advocate, especially on the part of Dawkins, a scientific approach.

For somebody on a revolutionary leftist website to describe the advocacy of scientific thought to be "religious" is just, well.. bizarre.

It's also worthwhile to point out that they shouldn't all be lumped together. Dawkins is a scientist first and foremost and rarely talks about politics or gets involved therein, whereas if you're more looking for politics commentary or discourse a guy like Hitchens is what you want (and where you'll find very bourgeois defenses of capitalist power structures).

Overall, what I'm saying here is that, let's take Hitchens for example as he actually has defended imperialism before. We shouldn't take a black & white view of these things. There is a lot of value in Hitchens anti-religious activism and critiques of religion, and we might disagree harshly and strongly on his political views but that's ok, that's firstly not what they are primarily interested in, and secondly we do not need to agree with every single thing to appreciate specific things. I see value in some of what Lenin says for example even though I would never describe myself as a Marxist-Leninist, and that's ok.

We shouldn't throw out everything just because of some aspect. Such a black and white, exclusive mentality is dangerous, imo.

[Deicide]

I hate religion sympathising leftists. I can't wait to put them all in gulags.

[Book O'Dead]

I hate religion sympathising leftists. I can't wait to put them all in gulags.

I hope you're just trying to be funny.

Otherwise read this:

I have known true socialists who were practicing Catholics, Baptists, Unitarians, Quakers and Jews. One of them, even, was a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars who would periodically go to his nearest VA hospital to visit ailing veterans he had never met before.

I asked him why he did that and he told me that in the Bible it said we should visit the sick, the infirm and the elderly. I was impressed.

It seems human compassion and solidarity is not something we necessarily develop from contemplation of political or philosophical dialectics, but that it is something that springs forth from within us: a basic human instinct.

If anyone ever came against my comrades that privately and humbly worship their god, and tried to harm them, I would build a barricade and I would defend them with my life.

[shinjuku dori]

God is dead.

[Luís Henrique]

God is dead.

Good.

Now what do we do with the very alive cult of capital?

Luís Henrique

[shinjuku dori]

Circumcise it.

[Luís Henrique]

Yeah, sure it's absurd if you have a black & white, binary view of the world - they're either with us or against us!

On the contrary, it seems that a black and white view of the world is what informs support for these capitalist ideologues. Since they agree with us in one thing - that god does not exist - we consider them fellow travelers, and suspend our exercise of criticism regarding them.


Those of us who do not have such a world view can see the inherent value in the principle that a man like Dawkins advocates - scientific thought.

Dawkins advocates much more than "scientific thought": he advocates the market as something inbuilt into the nature of things. He also advocates much less than "scientific thought": he advocates the undue expansion of the methodology of a particular branch of science - evolutionary biology - to all sciences, which is, to put it shortly and charitably, completely anti-scientific.


It's one that has always been at the core of Marxism and always should be - as communists, regardless of our tendency, we should all be advocating this.

And at the core of Marxism there is more than that; there is the comprehension that social science needs a different methodology regarding natural science, which is what allows a scientist in the field of biology, such as Dawkins, to be an ignoramus and a spreader of pseudoscience in the field of sociology.


Sure, they aren't revolutionary leftists, but they don't need to be for us to appreciate aspects of what they say.

And sure, they don't believe in god - not, at least, in the Abrahamic god - but this should never be enough for us to be acritical of what they have to say.


It is utterly absurd to describe them as "religious preachers". They are speaking out against irrational ideas and faith. There is nothing religious about it.

On behalf of another set of irrational ideas.


For it to be religious there would need to be a faith-based mentality, and there isn't - they simply advocate, especially on the part of Dawkins, a scientific approach.

This is not true. What they call "scientific approach" is, as stated above, completely anti-scientific. They ignore the causes and circumstances of religions, they ignore its history. Their approach to religion - and to politics, and to society in general - is thoroughly anti-scientific, and when they do muse about such subject in some depth - like Dawkins in the Selfish Gene - they become actually pseudo-scientific.


For somebody on a revolutionary leftist website to describe the advocacy of scientific thought to be "religious" is just, well.. bizarre.

If I conflated those people's irrational defence of "Western civilisation" with "scientific thought", maybe, but I reject such conflation. Those are guys who believe the Labour Theory of Value to be mystic or metaphysical; they reject science exactly where it is more important to us.


It's also worthwhile to point out that they shouldn't all be lumped together. Dawkins is a scientist first and foremost and rarely talks about politics or gets involved therein, whereas if you're more looking for politics commentary or discourse a guy like Hitchens is what you want (and where you'll find very bourgeois defenses of capitalist power structures).

Yes, they are not necessarily the same; Hitchens is much more openly prejudiced and reactionary, Dawkins is much more subtle (and frankly, often seems too ignorant to realise the reactionary nature of the things he says and believes). But the general trust is the same: science and rationality support Western imperialism and the rule of markets, and those who oppose it are, in Popper's terms, enemies of the open society.


Overall, what I'm saying here is that, let's take Hitchens for example as he actually has defended imperialism before. We shouldn't take a black & white view of these things. There is a lot of value in Hitchens anti-religious activism and critiques of religion, and we might disagree harshly and strongly on his political views but that's ok,

I am much interested in politics, and only marginally in religion. Their attitude to religion is politically reactionary; indeed, it cannot be separated from their political reactionarism, because in fact the former is central to the latter.


that's firstly not what they are primarily interested in, and secondly we do not need to agree with every single thing to appreciate specific things. I see value in some of what Lenin says for example even though I would never describe myself as a Marxist-Leninist, and that's ok.

Sure. I don't think I disagree with everything these men say or thinks and I may eventually see value in some of what they say - particularly if it is taken out of context.

On the other hand, if we see value in whatever Lenin said, we should never describe ourselves as "Marxist-Leninist", for being a "Marxist-Leninist" implies actually rejecting the bulk of Lenin's (or Marx's, even more) contributions.


We shouldn't throw out everything just because of some aspect. Such a black and white, exclusive mentality is dangerous, imo.

I don't reject those reactionaries because of "some aspect". I reject them because of their core reactionarism. They may or may have some interesting contributions in one or other secondary aspect, but their main trust when they talk about politics and society in general is to support capitalism and imperialism.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Circumcise it.

That would be a very bad idea.

We don't want kosher capitalism.

Luís Henrique

[shinjuku dori]

Is that anti-semitic joke?

[ed miliband]

structural antisemitism once again rears its ugly head :(

[eric922]

I hate religion sympathising leftists. I can't wait to put them all in gulags.
Sure just turn the majority of the working class against you, that will work well. When will leftists learn that most of the working class is religious and you can go around saying shit like "I can't wait to put egregious sympathizers in gulags" and expect to gain any support from the working class. I swear, it sometimes seems like a lot of so called "leftist" are more interested in representing themselves and their views on how society should be than the representing the working class.

[Luís Henrique]

Is that anti-semitic joke?

No, it only means that we reject capitalism in any form. The cult of capital has to be eradicated, and not merely in a symbolic way.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I swear, it sometimes seems like a lot of so called "leftist" are more interested in representing themselves and their views on how society should be than the representing the working class.

It sometimes sure seems like some of so called "leftists" hate the working class, and can't wait to put them all into gulags.

They can, for all I care, go try and make their "socialism" with their fellow "atheist" market worshipers.

Luís Henrique

[Veovis]

It sometimes sure seems like of so called "leftists" hate the working class, and can't wait to put them all into gulags.

I'd stop short of throwing everyone in gulags (despite how much I like to joke about it), but we do have to acknoledge that the working class at this point holds a lot of reactionary ideas; religion among them. Other examples are the paradigm of 'individual responsibility' and the so-called American Dream. Minds will need to change for progress to be made. The good news is, if we organize and keep up the struggle, minds will change.

[Luís Henrique]

they simply advocate, especially on the part of Dawkins, a scientific approach.

Here is an example of Sam Harris' "scientific approach":


Given the vicissitudes of Muslim history, however, I suspect that the starting point I have chosen for this book—that of a single suicide bomber following the consequences of his religious beliefs—is bound to exasperate many readers, since it ignores the painful history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It ignores the collusion of the Western powers with corrupt dictatorships. It ignores the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world. But I will argue that we can ignore all of these things—or treat them only to put them safely on the shelf—because the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited people who do not commit acts of terrorism, indeed who would never commit acts of the sort which has become commonplace among Muslims; and the Muslim world has no shortage of educated and prosperous men and women, suffering little more than their infatuation with Koranic eschatology, who are eager to murder infidels for God’s sake.

In fewer words, ignore all relevant variables, except the ones we have previously - and with prejudice - decided to take into account, and pose as a stalwart of science, logic, and enlightenment.

Quite scientific indeed.

Or consider this wonderful piece of logic here:


The mantra, especially in the letters to this newspaper, was: 'Afghanistan, where the world's richest country rains bombs on the world's poorest country.'

Poor fools. They should never have tried to beat me at this game. What about, 'Afghanistan, where the world's most open society confronts the world's most closed one'? 'Where American women pilots kill the men who enslave women.' 'Where the world's most indiscriminate bombers are bombed by the world's most accurate ones.' 'Where the largest number of poor people applaud the bombing of their own regime.'

Apparently, the role of the "world's most open society" in turning "world's most closest society" the most closed one, by supporting the worst kind of society closers while branding them "freedom fighters" is beneath Hitchens "scientific" methodology.

And here is the scientific scientist Richard Dawkins defending a "scientific approach" to the issue of terrorism:


The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris (Free Press) is a genuinely frightening book about terrorism, and the central role played by religion in justifying and rewarding it. Others blame "extremists" who "distort" the "true" message of religion. Harris goes to the root of the problem: religion itself. Even moderate religion is a menace, because it leads us to respect and "cherish the idea that certain fantastic propositions can be believed without evidence". Why do men like Bin Laden commit their hideous cruelties? The answer is that they "actually believe what they say they believe". Read Sam Harris and wake up.

Again, ignore all variables (without, of course, isolating them) except one, by coincidence the one we have previously decided explains the phenomenon, and presto! we have a "scientific" description of terrorism: it has only one cause, it has nothing to do with anything else - not with poverty, not with oil, not with the repeated, repeated, repeated antidemocratic interventions of Western democracies on behalf of tyrants, dictators, terrorists, landlords, priests, and every kind of reactionaries one can imagine. No; it has to do with a text written 13 centuries ago and nothing, absolutely nothing, else.

Some science.

Dawkins should keep himself to biology, which he arguably understands, and the other two should simply shut up. They are all a shame for the name of science.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I'd stop short of throwing everyone in gulags (despite how much I like to joke about it), but we do have to acknoledge that the working class at this point holds a lot of reactionary ideas; religion among them.

Sure. It is still the only social actor that can overthrow capitalism. Idiotic scientists spouting garbage out of their field of knowledge certainly can't. Much less if their idiocy includes a-historical praise for capitalism and markets.


Other examples are the paradigm of 'individual responsibility' and the so-called American Dream.

These are like baseball; only Americans care about that.


Minds will need to change for progress to be made. The good news is, if we organize and keep up the struggle, minds will change.

Yeah. And if we keep repeating and acritically praising pseudoscientific and reactionary burbles by the likes of Harris and Dawkins, it is quite certain minds won't change. These being the bad news.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

LH is basically right. For people who seem to enjoy tapping themselves on the back for being so much more "rational" than the next man, Dawkins and Co. don't half talk a lot of twaddle most of the time.

Marx said that religion is "only the illusory sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself." In the God Delusion, Dawkins endorses the wildly idiotic and anti-human views of Peter Singer. Go figure that one out.

[A Marxist Historian]

Well, look at how the Nazis in Germany did it: They attacked religious institutions, weakened and silenced them, and took over some of them so that by the time real Christians were called upon to defend the Jews the churches were empty of them.

I think a more reasoned and ecumenical approach toward genuine people of faith is warranted on the part of many leftists so that we don't repeat the crimes of the past.

Eh? It's true that the Nazis wanted to control the churches, they wanted to control everything. But the Protestant and Catholic churches were highly cooperative, as the German Protestants were all German superpatriots and the Catholics, from the Pope on down, had no real problem with killing all the "Christ-killing" Jews, after all the Catholic Church practically invented anti-Semitism.

Granted Catholics preferred to convent Jews rather than exterminating them, and kidnapped Jewish children for Catholic homes in the guise of "saving" them. But the Pope certainly had no problem with fascism overall, indeed the Catholics were downright enthusiastic for Mussolini and played a major role in bringing him to power.

And they couldn't really be too critical of Nazi atrocities, as that would be hypocritical. The Croatian Ustasha regime, established with the full backing of the Catholic Church, committed atrocities against Serbs that were so grisly than the Nazi ambassador to Ustasha Croatia, a full colonel in the SS, resigned his position in protest.

-M.H.-

[~Spectre]

Rather than Harris being a "fundamentalist atheist", the article points out that he's either a fake, or a mystical fool.

He peddles "reincarnation" saying there is good evidence for it, along with "non-physical consciousness after death", and "repitilean aliens", oh and "esp".

[Luís Henrique]

Rather than Harris being a "fundamentalist atheist", the article points out that he's either a fake, or a mystical fool.

He peddles "reincarnation" saying there is good evidence for it, along with "non-physical consciousness after death", and "repitilean aliens", oh and "esp".

As Chesterton says, when you stop believing one thing you may start believing many things.

I don't think his being a fake, or a mystical fool, is really different from him being a "fundamentalist atheist". The latter phrase is an oxymoron, and essentially boils down to one not being an atheist at all.

I think he is really a deist who believes some mysterious force that he dares not name has made the universe easily comprehensible for us, without need for excessive thinking.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

From Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/483599-the-terrifying-brilliance-of-islam):


HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED why millions of Muslim men are dedicated to killing Americans?

Again, some science! A blatant lie is promoted as "scientific truth". The website states that the mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is
to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.

Yet an article in that same website starts with the completely unscientific, uncritical, and contrary to every evidence, assertion that "millions of Muslism men are dedicated to killing Americans" (who? where? when? how?) How is such kind of stupid and hateful speech supposed to "overcome fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering"?

Frankly.

Luís Henrique

[Robocommie]

Eh? It's true that the Nazis wanted to control the churches, they wanted to control everything. But the Protestant and Catholic churches were highly cooperative, as the German Protestants were all German superpatriots and the Catholics, from the Pope on down, had no real problem with killing all the "Christ-killing" Jews, after all the Catholic Church practically invented anti-Semitism.

Granted Catholics preferred to convent Jews rather than exterminating them, and kidnapped Jewish children for Catholic homes in the guise of "saving" them. But the Pope certainly had no problem with fascism overall, indeed the Catholics were downright enthusiastic for Mussolini and played a major role in bringing him to power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_Brennender_Sorge

[DasFapital]

The only of the "new atheists" I have ever actually read was Hitchens. He was the only one I felt had any intellectual substance even though I disagreed with him strongly on Iraq.

[Book O'Dead]

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered.html

I thought this was a good take down of Harris' muslim islamophobia and revealing of his crypto-fascist tendencies.

can I ask you a simple question?

Why is it okay to be an atheist but bad to be an islamophobe?

[Conscript]

can I ask you a simple question?

Why is it okay to be an atheist but bad to be an islamophobe?

One implies chauvinism towards a culture, perhaps for 'atheistic' reasons (if you can call it that), the other is a lack of belief in god.

You can draw parallels to the anti-communists that are also russophobes. It's no surprise we get atheists who adopt chauvinistic, and as luis henrique said, unscientific ideas.

[Book O'Dead]

Eh? It's true that the Nazis wanted to control the churches, they wanted to control everything. But the Protestant and Catholic churches were highly cooperative, as the German Protestants were all German superpatriots and the Catholics, from the Pope on down, had no real problem with killing all the "Christ-killing" Jews, after all the Catholic Church practically invented anti-Semitism.

Granted Catholics preferred to convent Jews rather than exterminating them, and kidnapped Jewish children for Catholic homes in the guise of "saving" them. But the Pope certainly had no problem with fascism overall, indeed the Catholics were downright enthusiastic for Mussolini and played a major role in bringing him to power.

And they couldn't really be too critical of Nazi atrocities, as that would be hypocritical. The Croatian Ustasha regime, established with the full backing of the Catholic Church, committed atrocities against Serbs that were so grisly than the Nazi ambassador to Ustasha Croatia, a full colonel in the SS, resigned his position in protest.

-M.H.-

Don't be too quick to exculpate an indignant Nazi. Nazis are no good. And if there is anything I can unabashedly say it's that I hate Nazis.

The Catholic church and the various major protestant sects in Germany and throughout Europe either turned a blind eye to the horrors of that regime or outright lent a helping hand to expedite them.

It's been like that ever since the Middle Ages. Also, you are wrong to assert that the Catholic church practically invented Antisemitism. That is just plain false. As a recovering Catholic with enough catechism behind him to last a lifetime, i can assure you that Catholic schools in France and Holland served to protect Jewish children from the Holocaust.

The Romans were responsible for antisemitism. They murdered Christ and scattered the Jews throughout Asia and Europe by banishing them from Palestine.

The Romans started the Diaspora that gave rise to antisemitism; Jew-hating with an imperial seal.

[cynicles]

can I ask you a simple question?

Why is it okay to be an atheist but bad to be an islamophobe?

Why is it ok to be a man but not a misogynist?

[Rottenfruit]

It is difficult to understand the fascination of some in the left with these arrogant class enemies.

But they aren't actually "fundamentalist atheists", which is a contradiction in terms. What they are, they are religious preachers who preach the inexistence of god. Bigoted and fanatic as any religious preachers, and completely blind to the reality in which most of mankind toils and suffers.

Luís Henrique

I call it douchebag atheism