Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

By AlterNet Staff, AlterNet. Posted January 10, 2007.


AlterNet readers give their views about the bestselling author of "End of Faith" and the meaning behind some of his more controversial ideas.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by AlterNet Staff

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Last week, John Gorenfeld's piece, "Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture," drew quite a response from our readers.

Many readers felt that the article did not fairly represent Harris's views and Harris himself encouraged his fans to send us their feedback. On his website, Harris defended his positions.

One of the disputed topics was Harris's thoughts on torture. Harris explains:

In one section of the book [End of Faith] (pp. 192-199), I briefly discuss the ethics of torture and collateral damage in times of war, arguing that collateral damage is worse than torture across the board. Rather than appreciate just how bad I think collateral damage is in ethical terms, some readers have mistakenly concluded that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not. Nevertheless, there are certain extreme circumstances in which I believe that torture may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary.

Another area of controversy was Harris's beliefs about Eastern religions and mysticism. He writes:

My views on "mystical" or "spiritual" experience are extensively described in "The End of Faith" and do not entail the acceptance of anything on faith. There is simply no question that people have transformative experiences as a result of engaging contemplative disciplines like meditation, and there is no question that these experiences shed some light on the nature of the human mind (any experience does, for that matter). What is highly questionable are the metaphysical claims that people tend to make on the basis of such experiences. I do not make any such claims. Nor do I support the metaphysical claims of others.

A letter by Sam Harris to his mailing list was posted on the website of prominent atheist Richard Dawkins, which said that Gorenfeld had taken his writings out of context. The full text of the article was reprinted on the website and drew a number of comments, including some that supported Gorenfeld's article.

"Given what Harris has written in his book I think he is trying to downplay what he has previously written," one commenter said. "Go read his quotes from the book and you'll see -- the writer of this article is correct here, and points out the same thing."

Another person wrote, "Though I think the article inappropriately misrepresents what Harris says, it's not entirely off. I read 'End of Faith,' and while some of it was good, there were several parts that made me do a double-take. His opinions on psychics, Buddhism, torture and war seem very misguided and misinformed."

After Harris's prompt, many of his fans wrote to AlterNet to express their dissatisfaction with the article. One wrote, "...I have carefully read Sam's books and many of the writings that call Sam to task for his books. I do not agree with everything in Harris's books but I think that this interview is the worst case I have seen against Harris's writings. Harris is taken out of context throughout, his quotations are used in a very slanted context, and it appears to me that there is more to this interview than just a straight review of Harris..."

Another wrote, "I found the article by Mr. Gorenfeld very unhelpful for anyone who wants to know the thinking of Mr. Harris, and, moreover, a complete distortion of this author thinking."

Many of the comments we received were from Harris supporters who have read most of his work and who visited our site for the first time to respond to the article. However, some comments also came from loyal readers.

"I visit AlterNet regularly and appreciate the different perspectives that are presented on so many issues. That said, I must express great disappointment in Gorenfeld's article about Sam Harris," wrote one reader. He continues:

I am not a gung-ho Sam Harris supporter, I have read his work and heard him speak and I believe he makes some valid points. Just as some religious leaders, mystics, and spiritual texts have all made valid points within limits and taken in the correct context. Unfortunately Gorenfeld compromises the validity and integrity of his article by grossly misquoting Harris and presenting topics completely out of context. I am surprised that you would present what is so obviously not just an analyzation or critique but a personal tirade. Shame on you.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: religion, torture, sam harris, atheism, spirituality

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlertNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What's with the he-said-she-said "articles"?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 10, 2007 3:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we want to read people's comments on the original article, we can go read them. Why do we need another article about what people said about the original article? Are we running out of fresh articles?

I admit that it's kind of fun once in a while, eg. "Feminists who hate Feminists who warn young girls about bar gimmicks, and the readers who hate them". But is this becoming just another gimmick to fill up space and stretch every argument beyond its useful life?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Atheist Debate
Posted by: oldgringo on Jan 10, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being born a "rational" human being, if not a particularly "BRIGHT" one, the tender mercies of a "fundy" family dedicated to the "OLD TIME RELIGION" as practiced in the antebellum SOUTH, the subsequent "larnin' up" literally beat me into my current state of NON-THEISTIC, NON-BELIEF long before I ever saw the word "atheist" in print or even heard it spoken.
Perhaps being thus free of any extra-personal influence in this area has allowed me to escape the intellectual Patty-cake that so many people seem to be driven to in order to somehow justify their own lack of "theism" to themselves, a condition that I find baffling in and of itself.
My "non-belief in those things that are non-existent" precludes the examination of "that which DOES NOT EXIST" as being a study not only in the impossible but in the self-inflicted stupidity of attempting the logically impossible, by way of saying that this allows me to be free of the necessity of endlessly defending that which requires no defence in the first place....(My point being that there is no point in worrying about how many non-existant angles can dance on the head of a non-existant pin, or other such "important theological considerations"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not shrill enough
Posted by: lamar on Jan 10, 2007 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't find Gorenfeld's piece to be wrong about Harris. Gorenfeld was making a case that Harris shouldn't be so high on the atheist royalty chart. I didn't find Gorenfeld's case very persuasive, perhaps because I agree with Harris that there are things that are real that are neither tangible nor explanable. Gorenfeld is like a whiny misfit atheist whose voice cracks whenever his unimaginative world view gets crowded out. As far as I can tell, Gorenfeld hates Harris because Harris isn't shrill enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not shrill enough Posted by: tweedster
MAKE UPYOUR MIND, ALTERNET!!!
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 10, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is he an atheist or is he not??? Joshua Holland seems to think not. Yet you keep labeling him an "atheist".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» He resents the term "atheist" Posted by: fanny666
» And ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: And ... Posted by: Jimsabis
» That don't wash, son. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Wow ... what got up YOUR snoot ??? Posted by: AdamSelene40
Harris explanations contradict his published work
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 10, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sam Harris has repeatedly justified torture and characterized Arab Muslims as particularly undeserving of concern for their human rights. Racism and ethnocentrism and ahistorical views on culture and religion pervade his writings, both in print and online.

He ironically provides ample support for one of the main rebuttals offered to his sweeping condemnations of religion: that is, he exemplifies the sad fact that fundamentalist religion is not required for a person to hold hateful, irrational, mean-spirited views. In fact, what many of us are saying is precisely that hatred and violence are human attributes which cut across cultural and religious lines. In other words, there are many examples of all ideological systems being used to justify violence and racism (eugenics, anyone?), and no meaningful correlation between any particular cosmology and the prevalence of violence and racism.

The man simply doesn't deserve the attention he's getting, there are far more thoughtful atheist writers, and vast numbers of writers on the history of religion who are critical of the church but much better informed. Try Paul Johnson's classic work The History of Christianity. It reveals the complexity of the problem, and makes it clear that religion can't be wished or condemned or banned away. Dare I say it... a little grace and mercy and forgiveness and openheartedness might come in handy for leftists right now.

Peace all

Ken Hymes

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Atheist Fanatic
Posted by: Benjamin on Jan 10, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This guy is an atheist fanatic. There's nothing wrong with being open-minded about paranormal claims, as long as one comes to no firm conclusions before sufficient evidence is in. As for his claim that Harris promotes 'religious job discrimination', wouldn't you want to know if a certain Muslim sympathizes with Jihad and Al Qaeda before hiring? I could go on and on, but this guy is unsophisticated and uneducated, with very simple ideas in his head. For example, he has no idea that Buddhism and Vedanta (Shankara/Advaita) can be taken in an intellectual and nontheistic way and is not just avatar worship. Very juvenile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Atheist Fanatic: Benjamin Posted by: drricklippin
Oh Boo-Hoo, Gorenfeld
Posted by: CrystalD on Jan 10, 2007 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Gorenfeld, it's YOUR responsibility to "set us all straight" because you are so very Bright, know what I mean? Come on now, don't you think that there is room in the atheist tent for different varieties of atheists?

I surmise that Gorenfeld is very young; his self-righteousness and fanaticism are the marks of a larval idealist - or else a religious fanatic. What is next, atheist Chick tracts? A godless One True Way under Supreme High Priest Richard Dawkins?

Really, Gorenfed, you are as intolerant as some of the more mouth-frothing Christian fundies I've met. Grow up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh Boo-Hoo, Gorenfeld Posted by: Stayne
» RE: Oh Boo-Hoo, Gorenfeld Posted by: CrystalD
"good torture"
Posted by: irwin wingo on Jan 10, 2007 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot take seriously any moral statement from the mouth of one who advocates modern war. If one supports the slaughter or torture of humans for any reason, by design or by mistake, I am not really interested in what she or he might have to say about corporeal sins like theft, adultery or the removal of tags from mattresses. Mr. Harris falls into this category with his defense of "good" torture and "good" war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AS A MORMON CHRISTIAN, IT IS INTERESTING TO SEE THAT IT IS HARD TO DEFINE WHO IS AN ATHIEST!
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jan 10, 2007 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be honest, I have NOt read the Harris book or any of his other works. Given my limited time, I am NOT likely to spend the time reading and anlyzing his book. Why? I am serving a full-time Mormon Mission at my own expense. Yes, I am a believer in Christ.

BUT, I do find the discussion about who is or is NOT a REAL athiest very fasinating. I had no idea that there was a pecking order in athiesm. I guess the athiestic world is just as "screwed up" as is orthodox Christian world? (grin)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very easy to define ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Very easy to define ...YES BUT! Posted by: drricklippin
» Yes, but ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Very easy to define ... Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Mormon Mississippi crossing... Posted by: poppop_schell
Sam Harris and His Invented Gods
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 10, 2007 3:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Harris is typical of a certain kind of scientist who when he cannot find God, has to re-invent him anyway, to his own specifications. Perhaps he cannot tolerate the "vacuum in his soul" that presumably an absence of God would signify or he has to look at the "magic of DNA" to feel better about life and the world. To a degree it does not matter, I really do not like however the Muslim bashing and the mixed-up theorizing about Buddhism and Indian philosophy. Worst of all, is any type of justification of torture, as though now that "it is cool to be an atheist," we can act however we please and the "ends always justify the means."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Atheism
Posted by: powerofbelief on Jan 10, 2007 4:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being an Atheist does not mean all your beliefs need to be rational. It is entirely possible for an atheist to belief in ghosts, aliens abducting cows, and even the concept of a soul. Atheism is just the disbelief in a deity, or absence of theistic beliefs. I feel this should be addressed first to stop this "isnt a real atheist" tirade I see going on.

I have read both A Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith. They are fantastic books which I would highly recommend. Gorenfelds interpretation of Sam Harris writings are misleading. This ad hominem attack of "bogus atheist" shows how desperate his criticism of Sam Harris is. Some atheists dont like Sam Harris because he uses phrases like "spiritual experiences" or praises Buddhism for their practices. I understand when Sam Harris says this it is begging for misinterpretation by those who dont like him to begin with. To my knowledge Sam Harris does not mean this metaphysically at all. By spiritual he means an experience of enlightenment or selflessness through a state of the mind. In The End of Faith Sam Harris talks about how he wants this to be a science. Just as there is good and bad Physics, there is good and bad ways of ethics and enlightenment. Sam Harris praises Buddhism for their ways of enlightenment (Meditation). This in no way makes him a Buddhist any moreso than we use Muslim algebra or Christian physics. If experiments show the Buddhist techniques for spiritual enlightenment work best, chances are no longer will we call it buddhist. Instead it will become a science for how meditation works best. Indeed this is what Sam Harris makes his case for in his article called "Killing Buddha".

I do not know Sam's Views of Reincarnation, psychics, ESP etc.. Nothing I read has told me Sam has the slightest interest in any of this. I suggest those who disagree with me to read or reread his book The End of Faith.. Toward the end of this book he says we can learn alot from Buddhism and we should always be open to new experiences being put under scientific scrutiny. I realize how some could be disappointed to see Sam Harris not as critical to ESP, psychics, or Reincarnation as he is to religious faith. Maybe he just doesn't find those things worth criticizing, after all Religious faith was his main target, and without a doubt has greater negative affect on todays society. It is even more disappointing for me to see so many people criticize Sam Harris for such benign things, while ignoring the main point of his book. That is a shame because we as a society could learn a lot from it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sam Harris on Torture.
Posted by: powerofbelief on Jan 10, 2007 4:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The way some of you bash Sam Harris's views on torture as if he wants it as standard practice is horrible. Sam Harris main argument was during war we allow Collateral damage of INNOCENT people as if it's no big deal, but if it's a suspected terrorist we are torturing it is inhumane. We are willing to sacrifice hundreds maybe thousands of innocent lives for collateral damage in war, but not torturing suspected terrorists? This makes no sense ethically. The only argument I hear against this is "well it isnt personal" or "we dont know we are killing civilians when the bombs drop". This is a spin from the main argument. Unless you actually believe that in war no collateral damage will happen, you accept that it is inevitable.

If we found out Osama Bin Laden may be in a hospital controlled by his fellow Al Queda terrorists. I think everyone would agree we should bomb the hospital, even if we werent 100% sure. If we didnt he would be gone by the time we sent troops there. We accept innocent people will die in the hospital. Now lets flip this into a torture scenario. We have a high ranking Al Queda operative. Obviously he knows important stuff. THis includes potential terrorist attacks or Osama's where abouts. We could potentially save hundreds, even thousands of innocent lives. Why is it we are so reluctant to torture a known terrorist during war, but easily jump on board to killing a terrorist along with tens or hundreds of innocent civilians with a bomb? There is no doubt in my mind this is the losing side of an ethical argument.

Some say torturing is unreliable the victim will give any answer needed. The terrorist would give an unreliable answer anyway. Torturing punishes him for misleading, and it has worked on many occasions. Torture and collateral damage are horrible causes. Just as war is a horrible act. Even so, when War is justified I think so is torture and collateral damage. When War, torture, or collateral damage is not justified the government needs to be held accountable. I think this is where the real problem is. (abu ghraib)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

powerofbelief: you prove the need for moral boundaries
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 10, 2007 6:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In practice, in the field, people enter the occupation of torture because they enjoy it, it's that simple. And people argue in public for torture because they get a vicarious thrill out of the idea of intense suffering and the power it implies. All this talk of hypothetical needs to torture someone is just a cover for deep-seated emotional problems engendering various degrees of sadism.

I'm sick and tired of having to defend due process and the rule of law as if there was even a question that it is the basis of reasoned civil discourse. This is exactly where Sam Harris loses all credibility. He claims religion undermines and corrodes and compromises civil society, and leads inevitably to fanaticism and irrational violence. But Harris has used many words, many public appearances, to argue precisely FOR fanatical hatred of religious people (particularly Muslims), and FOR the irrational violence that torture is one facet of. He has no problem with cold-blooded killing of civilians, because they are guilty by association with the most extreme in their countries.

Harris and his supporters (who either say YES we should torture, or carefully avoid discussion of his pronouncements on this topic) are showing us all that morality does matter, that boundaries based on conscience and ethics (which are inherently beyond immediate self-interest, and really arise from irrational emotional and spiritual concepts, or 'conceits' in the eyes of Harris and Dawkins) are necessary not only for fairness and the rule of law, but in fact for the survival of civil society. Want to replace religion as one source of these boundaries? Okay, fine, but you'll have to do better than the half-baked ignorant notions of these two attention-seeking bullshitters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All violence is immoral. Period.
Posted by: sasha40 on Jan 10, 2007 6:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that because we're willing to tolerate collateral damage in war makes that damage and/or torture ethically defensible is plain nonsense. Just because we are afraid to take the truly moral position of refusing to return violence with violence doesn't change the truth of that ideal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are we still on this?
Posted by: jaby on Jan 10, 2007 10:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OMG! I can't even believe that we are still on this! Jesus H Christ! Alternet, how many times do you think you can run this shoddy high school student newspaper style nonsense and keep readers interested, engaged and coming back?

People who think he is a nut: So what? He has no decision making power.

People who think he is fantastic: Good, great, phenomenal, glad you like it.

People who think he is dangerous: Don't we have more dangerous people to take to task than Sam Harris? See "People who think he is a nut" above.

Alternet writers and editors: This is seriously lazy, if you can't hack 6 decent articles per day 5 days per week, cut it to five or four or three or whatever it takes to weed out the nonsense!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More viewpoints
Posted by: Hirnlego on Jan 11, 2007 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here:
www. huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/ dear-cenk-uygur-dont-le_b_38063.html

Note the two spaces in the link.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gross Misrepresentation
Posted by: Quill on Jan 12, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone familiar with Hinduism will know that it makes the Bible look like a children's book with huge letters and giant illustrations on every page. Eastern religious philosophers DO put Western religious philosophers in the shade, not because they're actually correct, but because their works are a thousand times as complicated - some might say ridiculously overcomplicated. And you DO become aware of facts while in meditation, not because spiritual forces reveal them to you, but because you attempt to clear your mind of distractions.

Shame on this author for trying to mischaracterize Harris like this. The last thing nonreligious people should be doing is attacking each other based on ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Risk Cosmic Impiety
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Jan 12, 2007 10:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure it's wise to reject what David Hume calls 'Natural Religion’; that is, a certain humility with respect to Laws of the World. Of course these are not laws in the scientific sense, but moral laws -- laws that humans are as far as anyone can tell universally subject to (not unlike the law of gravity; a law that for all practical purposes is inescapable whatever quantum physics may say). Nietzsche found Christianity oppressive deriding it as a "slave morality." It is the case that Church has functioned as an agent of oppression and that early (Gnostic) texts that reject human any human authority on religions matters were destroyed as much as possible (cf. Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels), but I think a complete rejection of Christian humility (or its equivalent) for the purpose of enhancing one's sense of power (with respect to others and to nature) is a much worse alternative. I would argue that Hitler and Stalin represent the ultimate embodiment of this philosophy -- it is not necessary that either Hitler or Stalin were influenced directly by Nietzsche or not, only that such is the consequence of such a profound sense of power.

***

It is a complete delusion to believe that calling one's self an atheist any more assures rational thinking than does calling oneself a Christian insure virtuous behavior. In every case -- as every drama student knows -- it is ACTION that matters not RHETORIC. Marx, e.g., considered himself an atheist -- even somewhere described religion as the “opium of the people", but in this he was mistaken -- he was in fact the founder of one of the most modern (if short lived) religions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sam Harris book is liberating
Posted by: Risha on Jan 15, 2007 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am glad Sam Harris has written a book that shines a light on the need for a review of religious strongholds on nations of the world. Religion has caused far more harm than good in history. Wars are constantly being waged over religious dogma and intolerance is widespread. To me these beliefs are all primitive superstition and would be laughable if not so dangerous. I have often been on the receiving end of religious hostility for the simple reason that I meditate, read Buddhist literature to help train and evolve my mind, and do not attend a Christian church. I was grateful to find "End of Faith" and discover that I am not alone in my reasoning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]