Good Debate between Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur

[jpahmad]

[Jamiroquai]

 

I saw this and also enjoyed the debate. The comments are disappointing, though...everybody wants to talk about how Sam Harris "owned" Cenk, or launch insults at his intelligence, but I think Cenk did a good job, and I'm glad they actually got together after having the disagreement.

 

As for the actual subject matter, I'm inclined to agree with Sam Harris in that Islam is causing more harm and suffering to people in today's world than the other religions are. Still, I think Sam makes a mistake in saying that violence is more ingrained in Islam than the other religions, because in the past, the Inquisition and other horrible religious atrocities have occurred, and at those times, Islam was actually much less violent in comparison. 

 

I think the violence by current Muslims is more a reflection of the ultra-conservative theocratic governments than Islam itself.

[Wuzzums]

"You see, Cpt. Picard is a far worse captain of the Enterprise because his fans are usually neckbeards."

"But, Sam, I know a Cpt. Picard fan that isn't a neckbeard so you're being insensitive to the people that don't fall in your narrow view of the fanbase. And what are you implying with that anyway? That Cpt. Kirk is better because his hipster fans are better?"

"I'm not saying that they're better but if I had to choose I'd go with hipsters. If someone declares themselves as a Picard fan I'll consider them a neckbeard till evidence to the contrary."

"But anyway, good thing we're both Star Wars fans and couldn't care less about Star Trek, huh?"

"Hahahahaha, indeed!"

 

That's pretty much what I heard for 3h.

[jpahmad]

"You see, Cpt. Picard is a far worse captain of the Enterprise because his fans are usually neckbeards."

"But, Sam, I know a Cpt. Picard fan that isn't a neckbeard so you're being insensitive to the people that don't fall in your narrow view of the fanbase. And what are you implying with that anyway? That Cpt. Kirk is better because his hipster fans are better?"

"I'm not saying that they're better but if I had to choose I'd go with hipsters. If someone declares themselves as a Picard fan I'll consider them a neckbeard till evidence to the contrary."

"But anyway, good thing we're both Star Wars fans and couldn't care less about Star Trek, huh?"

"Hahahahaha, indeed!"

 

That's pretty much what I heard for 3h.

 

No, Wuzzums, couldn't you see the clear distinction between Sam's basic premiss and Cenks?  The whole debate could be boiled down to this:  Do ideas matter?

 

Cenk, as a typical progressive liberal tries to convey at every turn that people's ideas/philosophies, have no effect on their behavior.  He even goes so far as to say that we shouldn't take someone's word for something because they have no conscious control over their principles.  On the other hand, Sam gives human beings basic dignity by claiming that one's principles do direct their behavior.  Why should we not give the Palestinians this basic dignity?

 

 

 

I think the violence by current Muslims is more a reflection of the ultra-conservative theocratic governments than Islam itself.

 

Well, if you make this claim, then you also have to claim that these very same Muslims (the subjects of the ultra-conservative theocratic government) have no principles.

 

[bootoo]

Was hard to watch, but i liked it - Though Cenk was too busy trying to compare what harris was saying to his pre-determined arguments and when he found a close enough match he would talk about it, miss the original point and then change the subject, rather than actually listen to what harris was actually saying and responding

 

and i dont like the 'people might think you mean' argument, what people, who cares, what do you think?

 

But overall it was nice of Cenk to give Harris so much time to answer his questions and to make his points and responses

[jpahmad]

I disagree with Sam Harris about torture though

[Josh F]

The most dangerous religion in the world is Statism, and these gentleman are both fundamentalists.  Nonetheless I'm gunna watch this.

[Wuzzums]

 

No, Wuzzums, couldn't you see the clear distinction between Sam's basic premiss and Cenks?  The whole debate could be boiled down to this:  Do ideas matter?

 

 

I agree that ideas do matter, but facts and reason matter more. When ideas are put forth people segregate depending on how they feel about them, or if it's in their own best interest, etc. It is often the case that people mistake preference for reason and/or fact. Only the people that value truth above all can truly recognize bad ideas from good ideas, and only they are the people that truly matter.

 

Cenk's view: the fact that people prescribe to a bad idea it does not mean that they're bad.

Sam's view: People that prescribe to a bad idea might become bad.

 

Do bad people follow bad ideas or do bad ideas make people bad? It's a chicken and egg debate. Point is the bad idea of religion is here and it's a bad idea no matter how you look at it. The real question is why the bad idea is still not recognized as such by the vast majority of people.

[jpahmad]

 

 Point is the bad idea of religion is here and it's a bad idea no matter how you look at it. The real question is why the bad idea is still not recognized as such by the vast majority of people.

 

This is basically what Sam Harris says right?  With the added point that Islam is an even worse idea.

[Josh F]

This was actually a very good debate, and I was surprised to find myself on rare moments agreeing with these guys.

[Pepin]

I think it is valid to say that Islam is a religion which is currently more dangerous than others. Certainly in the past other religions were far worse, but that is a completely different topic.

[Josh F]

I'm actually of the mindset naturally that Sam criticizes coming from the secular left.  As an atheist I truly do struggle to believe that people are actually religious.  Just the other day I was in a small town that had a church.  My girlfriend said we should go inside and check it out.  I was prepared to make a bunch of Jesus jokes, but when I got inside there was these two men praying sincerely.  I was oddly shocked.  This wasn't Sunday Mass, these guys actually sought the comfort of religion and prayer and Jesus.  It weirded me out.  I was going to take a funny picture with this statue of the pope, but I realized then I'd be offending these two guys, who both seemed to be going through something deep.  

 

I think Sam is right, there is something about secular people who struggle to comprehend how sincerely people believe in their religion.  I'm guilty of the feeling, even though I know its wrong. 

[m.j.]

It was a very interesting debate and it was very useful to openly hear again Harris' bad ideas on pre-emptive nuking and torture and the repeated use of 'We Americans' that are helping the world becoming a better place by engaging in 'humanitarian' interventions possibly in North Korea etc...

Harris' religion is called: morality from the pragmatism. So, he continues with the arguments he repeated elsewhere

 

1. Benevolent dictator to be put in charge of North Korea, after killing their president to transition it to the democracy. Why is this bad? Because

    a.) there can not exist a thing called benevolent dictator

    b.) democracy is a problematic system based on the tyranny of the minority masked by the perception it is a majority

 

2. Nuke first the others in case of a possession of the 'sure' information about others wanting to nuke you first. Why is this bad? Because

a.) 'sure' information of this magnitude is never really sure until the last moment and in case of misjudgment the consequences are global and b.) if the spies really had so sure information, they would have enough time to react in many different ways to prevent this strike. One of them is by presenting to the entire world publicly the proves about the intentions of the potential nuker. Especially to the people of the nation of the potential nuker. Only the small minority of the Jihadists in the government would really send the nukes to USA. But if their own people knew that and even the rest of the world, even the Jihadist lunatics would have serious reservations. This is the part where Cenk is right and Harris is wrong. Even though bad ideas are the propulsion for the bad actions, only sometimes they are enough, the context matters a lot. And the ostracism of the people in that nation and the rest of the world would be so high that even the religious madness would not be enough to launch the bombs. Once disclosed their plans globally, they would become paralyzed. This scenario is so difficult for Harris to grasp, because he always sees 'Us against them' paradigm, where the rest the world and other, non crazy Muslims had no role in this world. 

 

3. The torture concept is very similar. It is another very evident example of his ethics from pragmatism instead of the universal ethics. He claims that torturing people is more useful than the collateral damage in the war. First of all it is a false dichotomy, because USA is not in war with most of the countries where Jihadists live, therefore the alternative to torture is not a war in most of the cases, but simply nothing. Second, he defends very eloquently (but incorrectly) that what matters is the intention. If someone judges that the subsequent action of the Jihadist would damage USA, he is entitled to intervene, and the torture is one of those interventions. Let us try to make this universal. The intention of many US soldiers in the bases around the world, especially around the Islamic countries is to control many aspects of their lives, topple their rulers occasionally, help the US governments help the Multinational companies make the insane profits with the arm sales etc... so it would be perfectly moral for Jihadists to torture american soldiers there. 

 

4. Harris' other problem is that he can not realize how much he stretches the concept of the self-defense. He claimed he was against the war in Iraq, but he supports the war in Afganistan, and he said that even in this debate. Why? Because of the same flow in his thinking, of the ethics from pragmatism. For him, it is much less blood if the terrorists (plus many other innocent people as the collateral) are killed where their bases are, than to defend the territory of USA, once (and if) they are attacked on their soil. It is true, pragmatically, but it is not the universal ethics, and i could reverse the situation, with the attempt to make it universal for the Talebans like i did in the point 3. 

[Triumph]

...

 

1. Benevolent dictator to be put in charge of North Korea, after killing their president to transition it to the democracy. Why is this bad? Because

    a.) there can not exist a thing called benevolent dictator

    b.) democracy is a problematic system based on the tyranny of the minority masked by the perception it is a majority

...

I wish to touch base on the benevolent dictator point, because it is simply not historically true.  As hard as it is to not look emotionally at dictatorship as a complete negative, it is not true.

 

USA military generals were given dictatorial powers in Japan and West Germany following WWII and in the South after the civil war.  They literally had the power to murder people under martial law, with no questions asked.  They are prime examples of benevolent dictatorships.

 

If you compare that to America's attempt to set up benevolent Democracies in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan you really have to question what is the  better way of dealing with a nation immediately after an invasion or revolution.

[Josh F]

Liberty has made odd strides under dictatorships.  King John of England was a dictator (king) that signed the Magna Carta, the first real constitution in the world.  George Washington had an opportunity to take complete power.  Cromwell also comes to mind.  Franco.  These aren't truly benevolent human beings, thats for certain, they all have a death count.  They did however serve historically to unite and liberate people.  

 

I think George Tenet had a better grasp on how to deal with Afghanistan than anyone who subsequently became responsible.  I read the army's manual on counter-terrorism and it contains some very brilliant and insightful military strategy about how to combat insurgencies.  Afghanistan, in its early months, was conquered with less than 20,000 feet on the ground and limited military engagement.  But... they weren't running up high enough bills for the private contractors and that had to go.  

 

Some gems out of the field manual include 'Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction' and 'Sometimes, the more force is used, the less effective it is.'  So ignorance isn't an excuse.  The application in Iraq was especially poor, but even in Afghanistan the adopted strategy of the insurgents became going dormant and waiting, knowing eventually the Americans would leave behind a poorly funded under resourced puppet government, and they could seize control again.  Now that America has withdrawn the combat troops the Afghan interpretors who worked with them are being hunted down and slaughtered.  

[jpahmad]

In Sam Harris's defence regarding torture, I have to admit that it doesn't makes sense to be pro-war and therefore "pro-collateral damage" and also vehemently against torture.  I am against torture, but I am also against war. 

[Jamiroquai]

 

Well, if you make this claim, then you also have to claim that these very same Muslims (the subjects of the ultra-conservative theocratic government) have no principles.

 

 

 

The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. The Muslim citizens of the ultra-conservative theocratic government can be principled and moral, all the while being unwittingly subjected to the immoral theocracy.

 

It would be akin to saying that Stefan has no principles just because he lives and pays taxes in a country that uses the initiation of force to achieve its immoral purposes. Stefan can't be blamed for the state's immorality.

 

Similarly, the citizens living under a theocracy can't be labeled unprincipled based on the government's actions. In both examples, there is a decent majority of people who conform to the ideas of their government, (statists and Muslims), but this majority does not mean we can paint the entire population with these broad brush strokes.

[jpahmad]

Similarly, the citizens living under a theocracy can't be labeled unprincipled based on the government's actions. In both examples, there is a decent majority of people who conform to the ideas of their government, (statists and Muslims), but this majority does not mean we can paint the entire population with these broad brush strokes.

 

Yeah, but Sam Harris claims that, according to poll data, the majority of Muslims (not only government) support these "bad ideas."  This translates to "they have principles, and they're bad."

 

Cenk responds to Harris's argument by saying that the citizens have these principles because of their geo-political disposition.  So therefore, the culprit is "geo-political situation" and not the principles of the people.  

 

By definition though, principles must be universal and exist apart from geo-political situation.  If the people change their principles every time the economic/political wind blows, then they aren't actual principles to begin with.

 

Cenk patronizes these people and doesn't even give them the decency to have their principles whether they are good or bad.  He doesn't even think we should take their word for what they say!  How dehumanizing is that.

[m.j.]

I was thinking during the last couple of days, after this debate i realized it is very improbable there will ever be a debate between Sam Harris and Stefan Molyneux. I think Harris believes Molyneux is too far away in his vision compared to what is doable in the following years or decades, even if he agreed with his ideas. This is quite true, Molyneux agreed it could take even 1000 years to implement the free society.

 

Therefore in Harris' agenda, this would be a waste of energy. He already has too many opponents even without a huge one he would have acquired in case he engaged in a debate with Molyneux. And actually Sam has a lot of work to do with all the crazy religious lunatics around the world at the point that he does not have time to notice his own religiousity that i call, the ethics from pragmatism, instead from the first principles.

 

And this, unfortunately, is a bitter lesson for Molyneux, that probably no one with the high visibility is willing to engage in debate with him. Only some small guys that have nothing to lose actually are willing to debate him. This lesson is unfortunately without a solution, these are simple facts of life. There's nothing Molyneux can do to change their mind. 

 

I was wondering for a long time, how come it never happens that really important people debate Molyneux. At first i was thinking they are snobs with him, because they consider him a far fetched crazy guy, but actually i concluded they are afraid of him and they want to keep their social position intact.

 

The only exception to this is Chomsky, he is famous but only outside of the mainstream, and he is very old, so there's nothing he can lose too, but probably he is too old to debate anybody seriously now. When he was young, his debates were very interesting, but now, .... probably the best he can do is to engage in presentations of his ideas. And i say this with the maximum possible respect for Dr. Chomsky. 

[PatrickC]

Yes, I was surprised by how much I disagreed with Sam and to what degree he is a pragmatist. That said compared to Cenk who is just a dyed in the wool leftist (relativist), he's still by far the more interesting.

 

I agree with m.j. it's unlikely we will ever see a debate between SM and Sam. Perhaps a discussion in the farther future, much like the recent Chomsky ones. Although at this point I am left wondering what they could even discuss that would be of any real interest to an FDR audience, other than perhaps appropriate some of Sams crowd.

[Ken Cotton]

The debate had some pretty depressing moments. Cenk trying to explain how he'd never engage in torture or do a first-strike was particularly pitiful. There's no way that he'd ever be placed in that position of power and authority if he had such an unwillingness to do necessary evil. It's really just the prattling of a self-absorbed idealogue mired in their own theories about how the world works. As usual Harris easily demonstrated how pragmatic use of force can be beneficial to the greater good, a concept understood by virtually all leadership.

 

Perhaps the most frustrating element of the "debate" was the disregard for context. Cenk kept cherry picking from history examples that suited his argument instead of dealing with the here and now. In the context of a physical war with ISSI and fundamental extremism the violence done by those followers is more pronounced. Similarly in the greater worldwide culture war between Western values and Middle Eastern values the scrutiny of the enemy belief systems is more important. Any adherent of basic freedoms should regard oppressive religious mandates as tools of the enemy. When a person says that a man or woman can't show their hair because of supernatural or superstitious reasons that aren't based in reality, then that person needs to either adjust their worldview or stop propagating it. The convert or kill strategy is completely acceptable and the default modus operandi of virtually all living creatures. Those creatures who form symbiotic or mutually beneficial arrangements can be loosely regarded as having successfully "converted" the other group to their core cause. ( the continued prosperity of the lifeform and its kind ) The fact that Cenk has tricked himself into thinking this is no longer true speaks volumes of his ignorance about the real world.

 

Ultimately this conversation serves to illustrate how certain elements of the Left are completely out of control. Cenk's ideal society is a complete nightmare with no foundation in the real world. Listening to him talk at length about complex socio-political subjects outside of his speciality is frustrating at best. Within the context of American Politics his thoughts are usually much more concise, accurate, and informative. I wish the same could be said for his understanding of violence and its practical applications.

[st434u]

So this is a 3-hour debate between two religious socialists who worship the State above all else arguing over whether Islam is better or worse than Christianity? Hmmm...

[bootoo]

So this is a 3-hour debate between two religious socialists who worship the State above all else arguing over whether Islam is better or worse than Christianity? Hmmm...

 

No it is 3 hours of Cenk telling Sam Harris what people might think he means, while Sam Harris clarifies what he actually means. Nothing about the state.

[Josh F]

I've been pondering one of Sam's points in this debate a lot, when asked how to reform islam he talked about an approach to do so from within the doctrine.  He compared it to Christians being able to finally end their own internal warfare because of the biblical passage Render unto Ceasar, which biblically justified the separation of church and state.  Its inspired me to think about how to introduce ideas about peaceful parenting and anarchy to people with different philosophical world views.

[shirgall]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/05/Poll-Finds-Athiests-Thought-of-as-More-Moral-as-Britain-Drifts-Away-From-Religious-Values

 

POLL FINDS ATHIESTS [sic] THOUGHT OF AS MORE MORAL, AS BRITAIN DRIFTS AWAY FROM RELIGIOUS VALUES

 

More than half of British people believe that religion does more harm than good a recent poll has found. Twenty percent of people describing themselves as “very religious” also agreed with that statement. Less than a quarter of those surveyed believe that faith is a force for good.

 

The poll, by Survation for the Huffington Post, found that just eight percent of Britons describe themselves as very religious, whereas more than 60 percent said they were not at all religious. The results suggest that millions of people in the UK who describe themselves as belonging to a faith do not practice it. The last census of England and Wales, taken in 2011, found that 59.3 percent of the population described themselves as Christian, 4.8 percent Muslim, and 0.5 percent Jewish.

 

One quarter reported to the census that they were of no religion, up from 14.8 percent in 2001; conversely the number of self-proclaimed Christians dropped over the decade from 71.7 percent in 2001.

 

The results support the well documented secularisation of British society. What is perhaps less expected is the tendency to think of atheists as more moral than theists. One in eight people thought that atheists tend to be more moral, compared with less half that number who thought that atheists were less moral. Fifty-five percent said that atheists are just as likely as theists to be moral people.

 

“This confirms something I’ve found in my own surveys and which leads me to conclude that religion has become a ‘toxic brand’ in the UK,” said Linda Woodhead, professor of the sociology of religion at Lancaster University. “What we are seeing is not a complete rejection of faith, belief in the divine, or spirituality, though there is some to that, but of institutional religion in the historic forms which are familiar to people.”

 

She also ascertained a pattern of religion failing to reflect the liberal society, based on tenets of "equality and diversity", which Britain has become. Whilst placing some of the blame with sex scandals involving religious figures and religious conflict in the middle east, “I’d add religious leaderships’ drift away from the liberal values, equality, tolerance, diversity,” she said, which are “embraced by many of their own followers and often championed by non-religious and atheist people more forcefully.”

In this light, the polls findings can be seen as further evidence of the increasing entrenchment of left wing thought in the minds of the British public and the concurrent abandonment of conservative values.

 

Edmund Burke, the great 18th Century British statesman commonly thought of as the father of conservatism, was staunch in his belief in religion as a moral force for good.

William F. Byrne, Associate Professor of Government and Politics at St. John’s University (NY) has written of Burke “For Burke, religion was the “first prejudice.”  That is, religious presumptions are foundational to virtue, morality, and a good society. Most notably, he emerged as a defender of England’s church establishment, believing that this discouraged “fraud and violence and injustice and tyranny” in government.

 

“Burke had a deep sense of the sacred, and he understood that it is vital that we recognize that our whims—experienced either singly or collectively—do not set the standards of right and wrong.”

 

However, the trend may not be set to continue indefinitely. Younger people were more likely to say that they were very religious, with 14.9 percent of those aged 25-34 identifying with that description, against just 3.9 percent of those aged 55-64. And just over half of those aged 25-34 counted themselves as not religious, compared to more than two thirds of 55-64 year olds.

 

Opinions were more split amongst younger people on whether religion was a force for good or not, with 29.1 percent of 18-24 year olds saying it was, whilst 33.8 percent said it did more harm. 37.1 percent were not sure.

 

The data was collected between 31st October and 1st November, with a sample size of 2,004 people.

[st434u]

For anyone who still has any doubts about Sam Harris's hardcore religious beliefs (statism), here's an article he wrote in 2011 on taxation, wealth inequality, unemployment and "voluntaryism"

 

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-rich-is-too-rich/

[bootoo]

For anyone who still has any doubts about Sam Harris's hardcore religious beliefs (statism), here's an article he wrote in 2011 on taxation, wealth inequality, unemployment and "voluntaryism"

 

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-rich-is-too-rich/

 

Nothing hardcore or religious here. Seems he is just talking about the system as it is and how it could be.

 

Not sure if you are aware, but most people in the world havent ever considered Anarchy and have no reason to. Its fun for us to talk about on the FDR forum and explore the idea of anarchy philosophically but there is no reason to hate on anyone who chooses not to.

 

We are only here for fun - you are missing out on a ton of good information from people if you disregard and demonize anyone not playing our game.  

[st434u]

And you keep making excuses for evil bootoo.

 

Sam Harris is someone who preaches about morality every chance he gets, and what's more, he claims that his views on morality can be "derived scientifically". As far as I could tell from comments in this thread, this debate was about whether Islam is more or less immoral than other religions, while his own religion is the most immoral of all, and yes it is hardcore.

 

His views on moral issues and his own moral character are absolutely fair game here.

[jpahmad]

Nothing hardcore or religious here. Seems he is just talking about the system as it is and how it could be.

 

 

Bootoo, all you have to do is read the first paragraph and you can clearly see that Sam is in favor of using violence to get what he wants.

[bootoo]

Bootoo, all you have to do is read the first paragraph and you can clearly see that Sam is in favor of using violence to get what he wants.

 

The good news is, guy is an author and neuroscientist. He has about the same access to state violence that you do. I'm not concerned. 

[SigmaTau]

"The Young Turks" is a strange name for a liberal talkshow

 I dont think Cenk would take well with a show called  "The Young Germans"

 

He was also awfully silent during the Armenian holocaust centennial remembrance on the subject. (1915-2015)

(Discussing the holocaust will get you jail-time in Turkey)
I find his silence and selectivity on this issue hypocritical , especially for a social justice warrior like Cenk.

 

The only ME Arab countries that had some form of secular government were Syria and Iraque, brutal dictatorships. You can only keep this religion under control through sheer force. Basically its who  has the biggest gun.

 

Boko Haram (Northern Nigerea) is not the result of a theocracy. Its just how the religion is these days.

 

I am not sure about how much more civilized Islam was  during the dark ages, when Saladin conquered Jerusalem and muslimified it, he sold all the christian women into slavery and killed all the males. Doesnt really sound "more enlightened" to me.

 

Also note the inquisition originated from a country (Spain) that was suffered under  1000 year Muslim rule. Maybe its a coincidence , who knows.

 

Although a lot of people would propagandize it was actually Spain's most enlightened age.) 

[hannahbanana]

"The Young Turks" is a strange name for a liberal talkshow

 I dont think Cenk would take well with a show called  "The Young Germans"

 

He was also awfully silent during the Armenian holocaust centennial remembrance on the subject. (1915-2015)

(Discussing the holocaust will get you jail-time in Turkey)

I find his silence and selectivity on this issue hypocritical , especially for a social justice warrior like Cenk.

 

Yeah, I always wondered why he chose to use the name of the group of people responsible for the Armenian genocide. Not exactly in the best taste, imo

[GregMerwe]

I thought this was an interesting discussion. I rarely watch rogan but I actually sat through the entire interview. They cover foreign policy in this discussion and Sam Harris views on islam, it challenged some of my views.

[SigmaTau]

Yeah, I always wondered why he chose to use the name of the group of people responsible for the Armenian genocide. Not exactly in the best taste, imo

I didnt know that about the name "young turks"

So its even worse, its like having a "liberal" talk show called "Die hitler jugend"

He is NOT ignorant about Armenian genocide.

Cenk is just a Turkish nationalist, we see that even with 3rd generation from immigrants (grandchildren of the Turkish immigrants in EU from 1960's).  

--

--

Cenk is playing into the identity politics and race-fetish of the liberals,  by pimping his ethnicity.

He is supposedly making millions......