Philosophical Vegan Forum

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can- ... rom-itself

What are you guys' thoughts on this?

I feel like Ben Affleck really doesn't understand the distinction between religion and race, but I see where he's coming from knowing Geert Wilders. The line between a religion and its believers can be very thin and one should be careful. I do not think Harris is going to far though, and I think Affleck doesn't understand the subject well enough to participate in such a discussion.

Also, thoughts on Ben Affleck as batman?

Seemed like Affleck came on with hatred for Sam right off the bat. I think he doesn't understands the issues Sam was bringing up.

I was thinking about making a topic about Sam Harris recent encounters myself. It's sad he's being misunderstood and especially misrepresented so much lately. Reza Aslan probably being the worse of them all; he's denying any influence of Islamic doctrine on the middle-east situations, and is portraying Harris like a racist and genocide supporter.

It is a real problem that some people really feel irrational hatred towards Arabic people, and much of the critics of Islam are coming from this corner (mostly right-wing nationalistic people). When liberal people speak up—and it's a problem that there aren't many of them—they instantly get associated with these people. Harris explicitly states that it's about ideas and it's consequences, and that when he's talking about the Islamic world, it includes white converted Muslims as well.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:Seemed like Affleck come on with hatred for Sam right off the bat. I think he understands the issues Sam was bringing up.

Yes, you can see Affleck waiting to open his attack on Harris with his prepared doctrine-question. I'm not sure how well educated Affleck really is on the topic though, and whether he is rejecting absolutely crucial nuance on purpose or not.

It's a semantic disagreement, and neither of them understand that.

What is Islam? Who defines Islam?

Affleck chooses to define Islam as a religion of peace and equality, accepting the definitions of the liberal muslims (who are in the vast minority). It's a definition based in part on wishful thinking, but it may also be held with the knowledge that sometimes words carry more weight than their meanings, and it's not always impossible to change how these things are interpreted with the right voice. I think Affleck probably finds it more useful to define Islam the way he wishes it was, because if enough people do that the conservatives will be considered aberrant and Islam will be able to liberalize without losing its identity.

Harris chooses to allow the majority of Muslims, and conservative tradition, define what Islam is. To him, Islam is what the Hadith says it is. And Islam is what the majority of Muslims say it is- those Muslims who don't agree with that are only nominally Muslim, and don't really believe in their own faith. This is both very descriptive and technically correct in a lot of ways, but I'm not sure if he considers how useful it is, since it threatens the identity of those nominal Muslims and grants the extremists the cherished recognition of being Muslims.

Sam Harris wrote:And they do not realize that these doctrines are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity.

And not all people who identify as Christians believe that. The problem is that these terms are not owned or even very clearly defined, but are matters of identity for a lot of people regardless of what they believe.

It's just as prescriptively accurate, and maybe more useful, to say that anybody who believes in the resurrection superstition isn't a Christian, but a Paulist.

Why? Because most Christians are going around and saying their small group are the only Christians anyway.

Conflating personal identity with ideology, and belief, and politics... it makes a big mess. And much of the argument over the matter comes down to how you define the groups, and make sense of these words - do you do it based on the majority, marginalizing exceptions, or do you just define them however you want and see who can shout louder?

Sam Harris is a very patient man. I had no idea Affleck is such an idiot. He seems like he has already made up his mind that he is speaking with bigots and does not listen to a word Maher and Harris are saying.

@brimstoneSalad
Definitely a good point you're making about it being a semantic problem, but I really doubt there is no/less disagreement beyond that. It's a bit too short to get a good impression of Affleck's position though.

Jebus wrote:Sam Harris is a very patient man.

I really think this does him good. Always love debaters that can make very solid points without the need of raising their voice.

Volenta wrote:@brimstoneSalad
Definitely a good point you're making about it being a semantic problem, but I really doubt there is no/less disagreement beyond that. It's a bit too short to get a good impression of Affleck's position though.

I think there was a pretty good sense that they both agree on the basic facts at hand. Affleck's main gripe was that Harris was representing the doctrines of all Islam as X, where he seems to define it differently.

There might be some other disagreement beyond the semantic one, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. It's hard to see past the huge disagreement which is core to the very definition of Islam, and I think that's all it would really take.

The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg. Dew may have also accumulated on its upper decks weighing it down slightly and contributing a few grams to its negative buoyancy too, but does that matter in perspective?

What do you guys think of the arguments of Reza Aslan in the following video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ibKWVTFSak

He basically names a lot of countries like Indonesia and Turkey where problems Bill Maher (and I suppose Sam Harris too) point out seem to be very small or nonexistent.

miniboes wrote:What do you guys think of the arguments of Reza Aslan in the following video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ibKWVTFSak

He basically names a lot of countries like Indonesia and Turkey where problems Bill Maher (and I suppose Sam Harris too) point out seem to be very small or nonexistent.

It's another definition issue. What's a Muslim country?

Turkey is a secular country, with a MORE secular government than the U.S. Political parties running on religious platforms are banned there (how's that for awesome?).

Are we talking about countries in which a large portion of the population happen to be Muslim, or are we talking about Islamic states which are guided by Sharia law?

It is the fiercely secular state in Turkey which protects its people. Indonesia handles things a little differently, but they've found systems that work too.

Definitions definitions. I don't think any of these people really disagree on facts. It's all quibbling over semantics and who owns the rhetoric.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I think there was a pretty good sense that they both agree on the basic facts at hand. Affleck's main gripe was that Harris was representing the doctrines of all Islam as X, where he seems to define it differently.

There might be some other disagreement beyond the semantic one, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. It's hard to see past the huge disagreement which is core to the very definition of Islam, and I think that's all it would really take.

Well, you already kind of pointed to one. Affleck seem to think that the group of fundamentalist Muslims is lower than Harris thinks it is (although he could have changed his position on this throughout the discussion after Harris gave him some facts).