In defense of Sam Harris
November 17, 2015
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 titled “In 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 Taken out of context, this statement was originally made in an attempt to portray how liberals have become afraid to attack political Islam, leaving the job to right-wing extremists.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].
Andrew • Dec 10, 2015 at 11:22 pm
Well done.
Andrew • Dec 2, 2015 at 9:12 am
I’d like to congratulate the author of this piece and those who have taken the time to comment on it for their civility and fair mindedness. I have felt a bit disappointed by Greenwald for what I can’t help think is dirty pool. I have admired Harris’s writing but also wondered where he gets off summarily dismissing a voice so nuanced as Chomsky’s. Far easier to see his issue with Cenk who is pretty inept at his job.
With all the mass murders carried out by gunmen who aren’t Muslim these days I’m not convinced a certain fraction of the population – minute as it may be – isn’t simply predisposed to carry out psychotic acts of violence regardless of what beliefs they may or may not have been raised with. And I think if western media was inundated with footage from the aftermath of drone strikes – which recent studies suggest are off target 90% of the time – I’m not sure we wouldn’t be more aware of our own barbarism. It’s dismaying to feel there’s not only no easy solution but no solution at all but I fear that’s close to the truth at the moment. So it’s nice to find a thread where people are actually listening to each other.
https://www.facebook.com/mzeyara/videos/vb.118863654899331/408318702620490/?type=2&theater
Stefan • Nov 25, 2015 at 5:17 pm
Con, you ask me to reconcile the two statements of mine that you quote above. Reviewing them, it appears that in the second one I was less clear in my intention than I might have been. I now see that it can be read as indicating that Harris is in favour of the US “targeted” bombing campaign which, I agree, would render it contradictory with my other statement that you quote. However, my intent there was not to comment on Harris’s view of the American bombing strategy, but rather to point out why that argument in support of torture was unconvincing to me. In Harris’s formulation, those who endorse the US bombing campaign while simultaneously disapproving of torture are guilty of logical inconsistency. I do not approve of the US “targeted” bombing campaign, so this is not a contradiction that can be leveled at me, at you or, I contend, at Harris.
I have not read everything Sam Harris has written, but in the material that I have, I’ve been unable to find any instance in which Harris expresses support for the present US targeted bombing campaign (this may seem confounding, given your interpretation of his views; you may also be surprised to learn that Harris did not support the US invasion of Iraq). So while he handily exposes the ethical inconsistency on the part of those who disavow torture even while supporting the bombing campaign, he never himself expresses approval of it. This is not to suggest that Harris is a pacifist, obviously. While he does recognize pacifism as an effective strategy under certain conditions, he’s quick to condemn its use in what he considers unsuitable circumstances as “flagrantly immoral,” to the extent that if it were adopted uncritically in every instance, “the thugs would inherit the earth.”
It’s no mystery who Harris means by “thugs” these days, of course. But it’s illustrative – not to mention in direct contradiction of your contention that Harris “has a culturally embedded viewpoint in which the lives of non-Americans are treated as of little account” – that he repeatedly points out that the most wretched victims of the jihadists rampaging through Iraq and Syria these days are non-jihadist Muslims. Harris has time and again lamented the woeful price paid by women, gays, apostates, free thinkers and others in parts of the Muslim world who do not conform to the strict and narrow dictates of Sharia law. He further argues that their sorry condition is tragically abetted by liberals, hyper-sensitive to charges of harbouring western chauvinist views, who leave these sorriest victims of jihadist tyranny to twist in the wind.
Con • Nov 25, 2015 at 4:13 am
Stefan can you reconcile the contradiction between these two statements of yours?
“I willingly grant that Harris carries a culturally embedded viewpoint, and so does he, but what you call “American supremacist” I see as western secular liberalist. Rather than US hegemony, I see his positions reflecting an admitted bias favouring rationalism, secularism and logical inquiry. ”
and
“Harris seeks to justify his measured acceptance of torture, in part, by comparing it favourably to the dropping of bombs on civilian targets. This argument is only convincing to the extent that one accepts the US bombing campaign and its inevitable collateral damage as morally defensible. I, like you, find it reprehensible and am thus not persuaded. ”
On the one hand he has a culturally embedded viewpoint in which the lives of non-Americans are treated as of little account. In this viewpoint it’s OK to blow people up or kidnap and torture them if you an American government agent and they are foreigners, but for foreigners to blow up or torture Americans would be pure barbarity. Where is the rationality in that? Where are the liberal values of equality and freedom? Harris likes to label himself a liberal, but remember Hitler called himself a Christian, and Nixon said he was “not a crook”. If you pay attention to the policies he actually justifies, they are not liberal but rather crypto-fascist.
Con • Nov 25, 2015 at 3:51 am
Harris (like many people with a strongly individualist outlook) is certainly non-plussed by people who aren’t afraid to die for a cause. I suspect it even seems basically irrational to his limited outlook.
Incidentally, self-sacrifice is not primarily caused by Islamic scripture. Suicide bombs have been used e.g. by Tamil Tigers, and in Palestine by Christian ands atheists (Marxists). The reason people adopt such tactics is for military reasons having to do with asymmetries in the balance of military force. Naturally religious people will express their zeal through religious concepts and language, but they are not mindless puppets of scripture; they are people driven to radical and extreme tactics by extreme circumstances.
I have read Harris’s “musings” on whether it would be ethical to nuke Iran because (he asserts, baselessly) of their scripturally-defined death wish. What is this but another example of his own imperial mindset? I’m certainly glad that extremists like Harris aren’t in control of nuclear weapons; how many countries would he pre-emptively destroy in his righteous xenophobia?
Stefan • Nov 24, 2015 at 6:25 pm
Where I align with Harris is with his discombobulation (for lack of a less goofy-sounding term) at facing a foe who is evidently unafraid to die; who, in fact, evidently welcomes death during battle in defense of the faith, for the obvious reason that this kind of belief removes this otherwise powerful deterrent.
In fact this conundrum was the motivation for Harris’s effort in The End of Faith to express the extent of the jihadist challenge facing the west. When your holy scripture compels you to kill all apostates and infidels, and happily die in the process, then the “normal” deterrent governing nuclear war of Mutually Assured Destruction is made meaningless.
If your enemy is happy to literally blow up the whole world and everything in it, including themselves (paradise awaits!), the only strategy open to you is to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. Ask yourself what will happen if people who sincerely hold these views get hold of a few nuclear warheads and the means of delivering them to a major centre.
Beirut, Tunis, Paris, the Twin Towers? They’ll scarcely warrant footnotes. If Harris addresses issues or takes positions that strike some as uncomfortable, uncivilized or absurd, it’s because he’s been persuaded by the literally civilization-ending potential of the threat we now face.
Mathieu • Nov 24, 2015 at 12:07 pm
” He proceeded to assert that Harris supports torture and fascism. This is an egregious misrepresentation of Harris’ views.”
Except that it’s not. Harris does defend the use of torture. That he claims that it should be illegal is nothing but a weak escape that he throws out there so that he can resort to it when he gets accused of defending torture. That’s typical to Harris’ narrative. He leaves some quotes out there that he can point to so that he can say “see? they’re wrong! I do recognize that there are plenty of factors that cause terrorism! I did say that US foreign policy played a role. Now let me ignore all of these factors in my entire argument as I keep repeating that the actual causes of it are religious scriptures.”
How does that even work in your mind exactly. How can someone consistently argue that something is ethical all while arguing that it should be illegal? What’s even the point of arguing for the ethicality of something if you think it should be illegal anyway. That makes absolutely no sense. “So… as I just demonstrated I think it’s entirely ethicaly justifiable but for some unexplained reason I think the status quo is what we need so let’s keep it illegal… it’s ethical but should be illegal, period.”
His argument for torture is done in the context of the “war on terror”, a context he has also used to argue for the profiling of muslims on the basis that it’s practical and more efficient.
This article is just a typical shameless apology of Harris’ anti human rights narrative that he keeps presenting as a shield for human rights. “Yes, we NEED to violate human rights because that is the only way we can defend them from these barbaric monsters half a world away”. To Harris, human rights just seem to be a hinderance to… what? something like their own preservation.
The hypocrisy of blaming a religion for violating human rights all while repeatedly making arguments to ignore human rights in the pursuit of spreading them isn’t lost on me. Not one bit. But it seems lost on you, and on Harris, and every single one of his “pragmatic” supporters.
Stefan • Nov 22, 2015 at 6:17 pm
Con, you and I agree that Harris seeks to justify his measured acceptance of torture, in part, by comparing it favourably to the dropping of bombs on civilian targets. This argument is only convincing to the extent that one accepts the US bombing campaign and its inevitable collateral damage as morally defensible. I, like you, find it reprehensible and am thus not persuaded.
Harris’s second line of argument I find harder to set aside. You summarily reject it as “so contrived and unrealistic as to be for all practical purposes worthless,” but you must grant that the use of hypothetical scenarios to explore moral questions is a method well-established in philosophical inquiry. I can’t help but see your prima facie dismissal of Harris’s use of this approach reflective of your determination to keep the discussion framed by the War on Terror. This is understandable, given your aim of exposing what you see as Harris’s hegemonic motives. But released from this context, can you not agree that one can easily imagine a set of circumstances sufficiently confounding that torture MAY be the least bad option? I confess that this larger philosophical question, rather than any applications it may have as cover for morally dubious conduct on the part of the yanks, is where my interest lies.
You complain that Harris’s positions are “fatally undermined by (their) lack of sound premises,” but of course we all start from a premise (or three); the challenge is to ensure that our premises are logically justified which, on the topic of Harris, is where you and I part company. I willingly grant that Harris carries a culturally embedded viewpoint, and so does he, but what you call “American supremacist” I see as western secular liberalist. Rather than US hegemony, I see his positions reflecting an admitted bias favouring rationalism, secularism and logical inquiry.
I pay attention to Harris because of his admirable penchant for routinely taking on difficult issues that very few commentators seem willing to address. To that extent I find his work stimulating and worthy of attention.
Con • Nov 22, 2015 at 12:32 am
Stefan the point about the “context” of Harris’s justification of torture is precisely that his justification was a political act mounted with the clear intention to defend, as a general principle, the right of the CIA or others to commit such crimes (in particular circumstances), and to counter at least some of the very many criticism of those crimes that have been made both in the US and around the world. I think you will agree with me on that point at least.
I think where our disagreement lies is in whether there is validity in his arguments in which he purports to justify torture, and in those in which he attempts to combine those theoretical justifications as backing for the political purpose of justifying actual US government-approved torture.
I don’t find either of those sets of arguments convincing, actually. I think the idealized scenarios are so contrived and unrealistic as to be for all practical purposes worthless.
The key error in his argument, though, is where he attempts to combine this hypothetical justification with another idea which is even more problematic, to produce a justification for torture which appears to apply to the real world of CIA activities.
He’s prepared to concede for the sake of argument that torture may well be highly ineffective and yield bogus results, because for him, even if its “success” rate is extremely low, it’s still preferable to the alternative of relatively indiscriminate bombing. The chain of reasoning here is that torture is ethically justified because it is more ethical than relatively indiscriminate bombing, but the second premise of the argument, that these bombing campaigns are themselves justifiable on moral grounds, is left without any support other than the reader’s “common sense” or prejudice. In the USA, this basic political prejudice (or “value’ if you want to put a positive spin on it) may well prop up the argument effectively, but to people living in, say, Pakistan’s North West Frontier province, to whom the premise would appear absurd, the lack of rational basis for the argument is pretty clear. The form of the argument is: it’s ethical for me to punch you in the face, because it saves me from having to shoot you.
To me this is the most fascinating part of Harris’s writings on torture, because it provides an insight into the workings of the “American supremacist” mentality which is the intellectual framework within which his political ideas are embedded. It’s true that much of what Harris writes has a very rationalist flavor (and that’s certainly how he and his supporters see it), but from a rational perspective, it’s fatally undermined by its lack of sound premises. Instead, the basic theorems on which his moral calculus is based are a bunch of deep-seated, unconscious, unexamined, and uncritical assumptions of US hegemony. If you look at other public political disputes he’s had, such as with Chomsky, you’ll see again and again that Harris is mystified by his opponents’ views. He can’t even see why people are so vehemently in disagreement with him. This is because he is effectively blind to his own national-chauvinism.
And this is why Harris’s thinking, despite its rationalist and utilitarian overlay, has noted similarities with European neo-fascist thought (which expresses those same supremacist ideas in more explicitly racialist terms), and with the ideology of some other American “hawks” who share the imperial conceit but mix it with religious fanaticism.
Stefan • Nov 21, 2015 at 6:34 pm
Con, I stand uncomfortably revealed as one who, having chided you for not having read Harris regarding his views on torture, must now admit to being unaware of – and thus not having read – his Huff Post article to which you refer. While my understanding of Harris’ position on torture developed through reading and listening to other of his articles and statements on the subject, my take on his view remains unaltered by my reading of this piece.
In any case thank you, Con, for pointing me to “In Defense of Torture,” which renders unequivocal your claim that Harris is indeed making his case in the context of “The War on Terror.”
This is, however, a painless point to concede. As long as you’re willing to give credence to Harris’ contention that morality is (or should be) predicated on the well-being of conscious creatures, the context in which the condition arises has no influence on the logic of Harris’ claim that there are circumstances under which torture may be justified.
As you know, Harris contrasts the admitted ethical problems of torture with the blithely accepted practice of dropping bombs on targeted enemies, a strategy that is well understood to routinely kill and maim innocent people. I contend that Harris persuasively argues that the latter may be a more ethically questionable policy than the former.
Where I continue to take issue with you, Con, is in your contention that Harris seeks to justify or otherwise provide ethical cover for the systematic torture conducted under the auspices of the US “War on Terror.” While laying out a convincing case for the ethical necessity of torture in certain circumstances, you must concede that in the very article you cite Harris acknowledges and laments the abuses perpetrated at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
Con • Nov 21, 2015 at 12:48 am
Stefan I have in fact read Harris’ defense of torture. That’s why I felt qualified to comment on it.
His defense of torture was absolutely made in the context of the so-called War on Terror. Why did he even bring up the topic of torture in order to find tortured justifications for it? Pure coincidence? Of course not; the topic was on the public agenda because of the actual documented use of torture by agents of the US government. This should surely be obvious to you. The fact that Harris invoked various unlikely scenarios (or thought experiments) as illustrations for his point is neither here nor there.
The point is not even arguable. If you had read his work more carefully yourself, you might have recalled the bit where he wrote “I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”
Stefan • Nov 20, 2015 at 7:11 pm
To Con:
No, you can’t get off that easily. It’s clear from your comment that you haven’t read Harris on torture. In his discussion surrounding the ethics of torture, Harris does not argue in support of it in the context of “the War on Terror.” And contrary to your criticism of his position, Harris does demonstrate moral and legal consistency when he lays out his case.
If you’d read him, you would know that he talks about its suitability in the context of only very narrow sets of constraints. For instance, he cites a case in which a man steals a car on a very hot and sunny summer day that happens to have an infant in the back seat. The thief ditches the car shortly after the heist, leaving the child locked inside. The police are fortunate to apprehend the perpetrator shortly thereafter, but not soon enough to be able to immediately locate the abandoned car.
The police know they’ve got the perpetrator (they have video of this very distinctive-looking person and are 100% confident that he is their man) but this guy’s not talking, even when they inform him that there’s a baby inside that has maybe 30 minutes before dying a horrible death.
Harris characterizes this as an instance in which one would have to be a monster NOT to approve of finding a way of making this man “uncomfortable” enough to give up the location of the car in order to save the life of an innocent child.
Would you not agree, Con, that In cases of this kind, if you’re not willing to consider torture, YOU are the unconscionable one?
Tim Pacific • Nov 20, 2015 at 5:46 am
This is a very convincing defense. Consice much like Sam’s writing. Intellectually honest to a very fine point. Great work.
Con • Nov 20, 2015 at 2:26 am
Not a very convincing defense, I’m afraid.
On the one hand, it’s supposedly “egregious misrepesentation” to say that Harris supports torture. On the other hand, it’s admitted that he wrote an article entitled “In Defense of Torture” in which he produced ethical justifications for torture.
The business about the legality of torture vs it merely being ethically justified is a bit of an equivocation. Providing public justifications for torture, in the context of the “War on Terror”, in which people were actually being kidnapped and tortured in secret prisons, without due legal process, is a despicable act and fully deserves to be criticized.
I think if anything his hypocrisy makes it (slightly) worse. If he were a more consistent thinker, Harris could have gone beyond justifying illegal torture, and actually called for the repeal of the 8th amendment to the US constitution, and for the US to repudiate the UN Convention against Torture, and whatever else makes it a crime in the US. That would have been no less vile, but at least morally consistent.
STAN • Nov 19, 2015 at 7:04 pm
Clear and concise. Well written. What a refreshing voice of critical thinking.
Charles • Nov 19, 2015 at 2:03 pm
Great job, Jonathan! Liberals, of which I count myself a member, need to come around to the idea that universal human rights do not stop at the borders of North America and Europe. They are universal. As it is currently practiced in many Muslim majority countries, Islam (and more specifically, Political Islam or “Islamism”) is standing against these rights. Liberals need to wake up to this fact. As the Dalai Lama so eloquently stated, “Resistance to reality is the source of all suffering.”
Colin • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:20 am
Fantastic article. Sam has always been my “favorite” of the four horseman authors and the attacks on him are ridiculous. Anyone who has read a book of his, or even seen a lecture of Harris speak would know that these attacks are vacuous. Great stuff!
Lee • Nov 19, 2015 at 5:18 am
Good article – well composed and thought through.
I think that there needs to be an acknowledgement by the left that there is a problem in the first place before we can begin to address it. Unfortunately in the UK the only politicians acknowledging the facts of the problem are right wing evangelicals. it is a classic case of “i agree with their conclusion but disagree entirely with how they got there”.
Joe • Nov 19, 2015 at 12:57 am
Wonderful article. However, the only problem I have with it is the title. Because, quite frankly, Sam Harris doesn’t need a defense. And yet, I can’t help but think that you couldn’t actually present this article in any other way than as a defense given the forum/medium.
This is not to criticize you Jon, or ye olde liberal media bias alarm bell. I just find it bothersome and exacerbating that your fellow students/peers couldn’t even entertain the notion that his views are at least able to be stomached if given rational thought. I can’t help but feel that you’re far too uncommon a presence to be found in this website. Which is a shame, but I’m glad you wrote this, and it was enjoyable to read.
Joy Wilson • Nov 18, 2015 at 11:47 pm
Well said Jonathan! I consider Sam Harris one of the most brilliant people on this planet, if not the most brilliant, and I am happy to see you using your platform to speak up as you have here. Sam first caught my attention with his book “The End of Faith,” and he helped me so much in my personal struggle after having been so brain washed in an extremely dogmatic church throughout my childhood, so much so that I was literally afraid to think for myself. Sam Harris is actually a hero, in my opinion, and an extremely brave man. I would not have the life that I have now if not for his bravery in speaking out and writing as he has.
Tom • Nov 18, 2015 at 10:12 pm
Well done and much needed. I also enjoyed the lack of hyperbolic rhetoric. Short and to the point. Good work.
Jet • Nov 18, 2015 at 9:58 pm
As the first hit when I googled Sam’s name, I’m ecstatic to see someone wrote something reasonable about Sam with the background facts. I think that may be a first on google.
Thank you Jonathan
John Wilson • Nov 18, 2015 at 4:18 pm
What’s most frustrating about Aslan’s defamation of sam harris is that it is so clumsy and obvious. All you have to do is apply some basic critical thinking skills and listen to both of them. Really listen to what both are actually saying. Alsan espouses an utterly vacuous almost new age definition of religion upon which he bases all his conjectures – while harris just states the facts and provides evidence and polls, and numbers and such. Just listen to both of them people! Or better yet – read their books. Don’t just post the most convenient meme that seems to support your views without doing your due diligence .
josh • Nov 18, 2015 at 3:20 pm
Nice article. Keep up the good work. I’ve been following this story for 25 years and it seems people are finally starting to pay attention. Though unfortunately it’s taken tens of thousands of lives and we’re as yet barely scratching the surface. The reason, as you well know, is that people are generally lazy and apathetic, and it’s easier to sling shit and blame everything on western imperialism (sure, partially responsible) than it is to actually read or research information, which is there in plain sight for all to see–if only they would open their eyes.
http://chersonandmolschky.com/?s=islam+hasn%27t+changed
Arafat • Nov 18, 2015 at 9:36 am
Nice article.
The Muslim apologists – Greenwald, Aslan, and their ilk – have shown time after time that they will say and write anything regardless of its veracity to criticize anyone who dares speak out against Islam.
It is the latest form of apostasy where non-Muslims are all but crucified for speaking honestly about that barbaric religion.