In defense of Sam Harris

In defense of Sam Harris

Jonathan Patrick Haynes, Staff Writer

In the mid-2000s, the New Atheist movement propelled previously taboo critiques of religion into the national discussion at the mainstream level. Spearheaded by the Four Horsemen writers — Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett — this movement has been met with both significant acclaim and immense controversy. While nearly everyone involved with the movement has faced criticism, there has been a particularly large amount of animus directed toward Sam Harris. Over the past few years, Glenn Greenwald, Murtaza Hussain and Reza Aslan have been the prominent leaders of what can only be called a reprehensible campaign of defamation. As Harris sets out on a new Australian book tour, it is important that criticisms do not become downright dishonest.

In a 2013 article,Scientific Racism, Militarism and the New Atheists,” Murtaza Hussain decried Harris as “the most illustrative demonstration of the new brand of scientific racism.” He proceeded to assert that Harris supports torture and fascism. This is an egregious misrepresentation of Harris’ views. From labeling him a fascist to claiming that he supported the Iraq War and the use of torture, Harris’ critics have made libelous statements about both his views and his character. Some of these criticisms are deliberate misinterpretations of his writings, while others are outright fabrications.

To Hussain’s point about torture, Harris did write an article titledIn Defense of Torture” and he did write about it in one of his books, “The End of Faith.” Though, upon a closer look, it is clear that he did not support the legality of torture, but rather the ethical justification of it in certain situations. In both his book and his article, Harris explores scenarios where collateral damage would be discernibly worse than the use of torture but maintains the confines of these scenarios.

With regard to fascism, Hussain referenced an article Harris wrote in 2006, saying Harris “has stated that the correct policy with regard to Western Muslim populations is in fact that which is currently being pursued by contemporary fascist movements today.” Taken out of context, this statement was originally made in an attempt to portray how liberals have become afraid to attack political Islam, leaving the job to right-wing extremists. In Harris’s own words, “Such fanatics are, as I thought I made clear, the wrong people to do this, being nearly as bad as jihadists themselves. I was not praising fascists: I was arguing that liberal confusion and cowardice was empowering them.”

Glenn Greenwald suggested that Harris supported the Iraq War in his 2013 article,Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim Animus.” It is a fact that Sam Harris has never written or spoken in support of the Iraq War. In direct response to these claims, Harris has explained, “I have never known what to think about this war, apart from the obvious: 1) prospectively, it seemed like a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan; 2) retrospectively, it was a disaster.”

Greenwald, along with Reza Aslan, has also fanned the flames of this libelous crusade through the medium of Twitter. When a user tagged Aslan in a post containing a meme of a picture of Harris with a quote from him, “Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them,” both Aslan and Greenwald retweeted it. Writing this in “The End of Faith,” his intention was not to imply that we should convict people for thought crimes, but to draw the link between belief and behavior. Applying his reasoning to a real world issue, Harris later elaborated “Why would it be ethical to drop a bomb on the leaders of ISIS at this moment? Because of all the harm they’ve caused? No. Killing them will do nothing to alleviate that harm. It would be ethical to kill these men — once again, only if we couldn’t capture them — because of all the death and suffering they intend to cause in the future.”

It’s easy build up a straw man and tear it down from the weak spots that you gave it, but this type of defamation has no place in public discourse. Going after sacrosanct topics such as religion is bound to garner colossal opposition. However, those on the other side must remain honest in their criticisms.

Opinions expressed on the editorial pages are not necessarily those of WSN, and our publication of opinions is not an endorsement of them.

Email Jonathan Patrick Haynes at [email protected].