Maybe some of you have seen this already, but I’d like to post a really wonderful debate between authors Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe. It’s pretty long, about 2 hours, but the length allows the arguments to evolve between the soundbytes you often see.
Okay, has anyone watched these videos? You may recognize Rabbi Wolpe- he’s made numerous TV appearances for networks like TLC, Discover & the History Channel. His knowledge of history, theology and philosophy is formidable. So often when one of “The Four Horseman” appear for a debate they end going head to head against a chump, a patsy. Not so in Wolpe- he’s a worthy opponent. The lamest arguments are both sides are largely dispensed with, leaving a lot more wheat and less chaff.
I realize the series is long (about 2 hours) but well worth the time. A fascinating debate, IMO.
I really appreciate that you posted these, although I admit to cussing you a bit when I stayed up until nearly midnight last night watching them and still didn’t finish. I thought I’d seen just about every YouTube video on Sam Harris, but had missed this one. It’s a marvelous format, just the two guys sitting down and having a civilized back-and-forth, with the moderator doing very little to interfere. I get tired of the ones that are so regimented in terms of how many minutes for making the argument and countering and all that. I saw one with Dan Barker and Dinesh D’Souza recently and it drove me crazy how often they were cut off mid-sentence. Wolpe and Harris are two guys that obviously respected one another enough to engage as equals. I think the format really suits Harris, because his answers can start slow and he isn’t as aggressive or biting in the manner of, say, Dawkins and Hitchens. Even though Wolpe is at a natural disadvantage considering the subject, I thought he was more impressive than the theologians that usually debate the Four Horsemen. Such a refreshing break from the likes of D’Souza or Shmuley Boteach. I could see him taking in what Harris was saying, mulling it over and knowing exactly where he had no strong argument to make. I also like Harris because he’s not dogmatic and doesn’t identify as an atheist, for some very good reasons. He’s also, IMO, the most philosophical of the Horsemen (even somewhat more so than Dennett, I think) and admirably precise in making and responding to arguments.
I was impressed by Wolpe. He made a number of strong arguments. Really smart theists always amaze me, just because you see so much silly religion in the US (it’s a numbers game: lots of silly people + most people religious = lots of silly religious people).
It really took him getting a little agitated to start hitting back at Harris. Harris’ demeanor was much calmer, more composed, and more thoughtful-seeming, even though his points were well matched. This might have been due in part to the crowd, which seemed to favor Harris, but Harris has always struck me as somewhat zen.
I don’t think there was a clear winner, and both made good points, a few of which gave me pause. Worth the watch, thanks Phaedrus.
To me Harris loses the debate on an ethical basis from the moment he claims some kind of spirituality. At that point, if he wants tolerance for his fuzzy spirituality however he conceptualizes it, he ought to give tolerance to other’s spirituality however they conceptualize it. The things that supposedly motivate his anti-religious stance like suicide bombers can all be addressed on an ethical basis without attacking the spirituality of others as he likes to do.
Well, I haven’t watched the debates yet, so I’ll limit my comments.
To Carleas & Ingenium: Harris ALWAYS seems like he is completely calm. Even with Bill O’Reilly and other Fox interviewers, he remains surprisingly peaceful. He must be doing something right with Buddhism, meditation, etc.
Also, he probably seems the most philosophical because he graduated with a degree in philosophy from Stanford!
To Felix- You said:
Why should he tolerate others’ spirituality however they conceptualize it? Wouldn’t you agree that there are some conceptualizations of spirituality that shouldn’t be tolerated?
Harris claims a kind of spirtuality. Under the ethical principle of religious tolerance one gives and gets religious tolerance in a quid quo pro. Without such, one claims for one’s own religion a preferential status that it denies to others. That’s what fundamentalist exclusionists do. That’s what Harris does for his own spirituality that he then denies to Wolpe and others who don’t think like he does. In a pluralistic society, one accespts that others do not think alike. Harris is anti-pluralism. One thinks like him or one is an irrational, deceiving dullard.
Wouldn’t you agree that there are some conceptualizations of spirituality that shouldn’t be tolerated?
I disagree, and I think Harris would disagree. Simply because he thinks certain beliefs are irrational doesn’t mean he assumes anybody who doesn’t think like him is irrational. I think you’re being a bit unfair.
I think you’re misunderstanding Harris’ idea of spirituality, Felix. The point he’s making is that what is nebulously defined as “spirituality” has been inappropriately hijacked by religion; the feeling is innate to man, not something that can only be experienced within a religious context. I’m also a spiritual atheist, viewed from Harris’ perspective. When he speaks of feeling transcendental, transformational feelings like love he’s engaging himself emotionally and intellectually on the highest level a human can. One can acknowledge the universality of those feelings without there being any sort of supernatural agent behind it. It’s in our biology and our psychology.
Look at it this way, does it make sense that simply believing in a supernatural being could alter your brain structure or cognitive processes in ways that would enable you to have feelings that an atheist could not?
Tolerance involves valuing the right of other people to freely hold world views different from your own. There may be conceptualizations which cannot be tolerated because they threaten civilzation or something like that. But in general the goal of liberal progressivism is to extend toleration as far as possible.
I am basing may opinion of Harris on the video which you apparently have not seen.
Felix, Harris’ position is that people should arrive at their beliefs based on reason, and that their beliefs should constantly be open to rational crticism. If someone disagrees with him about that, and I think that Wolpe’s argument shows that some do, then they are irrational by definition. It has nothing to do with toleration. There’s some cliche, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. That’s tolerance. It doesn’t mean that you have to consider every form of ‘spirituality’* as equal, or that you can’t criticize others’ beliefs. You just have to support not killing people who disagree with you, which Harris clearly does. People have the right, and people being right, are two very different things, and one must only hold the former to be true to be tolerant.
*I put ‘spirituality’ in scare quotes to reflect the way Harris himself uses the term, as Phaedrus indicated. His spiritualism isn’t all that similar to religious spirituality, if only for the glaring difference that he doesn’t believe in spirits. Just because we call the two things ‘spirituality’ doesn’t mean that they are both equally religious, or equally rational.
Harris’ stated goal is not for religions to be open to crticism. It is for them to come to an end, i.e. “the end of faith.” World views that are different than his should be terminated. He also argues that the tolerance of moderates toward fundamentalism should also end. That is not an argument for the kind of tolerance espoused by the U.S. constitution. He argues for preemptive nuclear war against nation-states nuclear capability if the nation is Islamic. This is not what I call tolerance of others beliefs. He is intolerant of people who don’t think like him–an atheist fundamentalist.
I don’t care if Harris is equally religious, more religious, more spiritual or less. I support his constitutional right go on believing as he wants without interference just like I do for the Southern Baptists. Would that he would grant me the same good will.
This is a straw man. He’s not arguing that world views different than his should be terminated. Perhaps certain world views, but that’s kind of an important word to leave out.
You’re right. This is raising an important philosophical question that I’d like to use an analogy for. Suppose a man is working on getting a working gun. The man has already stated his hatred and disgust for a certain group of people. He has stated his intention to annihilate that group of people when he gets the gun. Do you wait to see if he’s going to follow through on his word before you take action against him?
Also, I hardly consider him “intolerant” when he is willing to sit down and discuss these issues with somebody who doesn’t believe what he does.
You are speaking as if Harris wants some kind of law enacted to ban religious thinking. He has already stated very clearly that he doesn’t want to “force” anybody to change their mind, by any means. So he is granting you the same “good will.”
No Harris isn’t saying what you are. He said "Given the link between belief and action, it is clear that we can no more tolerate a diversity of religious beliefs than a diversity of beliefs about epidemiology and basic hygiene.
I get the analogy. Unfortunately it is one that is used over and over to justify killing innocent people as collateral damage as when the U.S. attacks middle eastern nations because of a small number of “Islamic” terrorists.
Read the quote above. Harris explicitly advocates intolerance.
No he isn’t. His atheist fundamentalism is absolutist in the same way as Chrisitan or Islamic fundamentalism is. If any of these fundamentalists procure the reigns of power their goal is to eliminate other POVs.
I would need the context in which the statement was made to accurately form an opinion around what he’s saying.
That is unfortunate, but it doesn’t offer any answers to the question.
I’d need not only a definition of the word “tolerate” in the way Harris uses it, but also the context in which it was used. If he is simply stating we shouldn’t accept everybody’s beliefs because some of them can be dangerous, then I think we can discuss that as a separate issue.
If you’re saying Harris is just as close minded as a religious fundamentalist, I’d disagree. I’m sure he could list a variety of things that would convert him to a believer. He doesn’t seem opposed to listening to varying world views. Often times it seems to me Christian or Islamic fundamentalists don’t like listening to opposing worldviews. Ask them what would make them rebuke their beliefs, and they most likely would answer “nothing.”
I’m not asking him to change his thinking or convert. He should be free to think the way he wishes as long as he isn’t hurting anyone else. Most people just want to be free to think as they choose without being assailed by persons trying to persuade them to think the way they do.
Felix, I don’t think the word ‘tolerate’ is used in, for lack of a better word, the touchy-feely way you’re taking it. I don’t mean to put-down touchy-feely tolerance, just to distinguish what he’s saying from the tolerance we would ascribe to someone who is, for instance, accepting of other cultures.
When Harris says “we can no more tolerate a diversity of religious beliefs than a diversity of beliefs about epidemiology and basic hygiene”, he is comparing one statement of supposed fact to another. We don’t tolerate there being multiple beliefs about what causes disease, because a statement of the cause of disease is a statement of testable fact. We tolerate hypotheses, but not unfounded belief, and there’s no sense of discompassion implied. The reason we are less tolerant of unfounded beliefs about hygiene is because there are real risks with believing that it is bad mojo, and not raw chicken, that is implicated in salmonellosis.
Harris’ comparrison makes sense in these terms, and is hardly as damning as claiming that we shouldn’t touchy-feely tolerate people who think differently. He sees religion as being beliefs that are unfounded, and ones that cause as much damage as the facetious one I mentioned above. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t just tolerate them for tolerance’ sake.
Indeed, we should question the reasonable limits of tolerance. I don’t tolerate, and I doubt you do, the murder of innocents. That is in a sense intolerant. It isn’t bad intolerance, though. It is intolerant of people who really, deeply believe that these innocents should die, but tolerance of that sort would come at a price. One could take a more benign belief, people who still believe that the imbalance of humors cause disease. If you met one in passing, you might smile politely as you listened to his beliefs. But if such people were running the country, would you really say that we should just tolerantly accept their plans for putting laxitives in the drinking supply for the good of society?
To summerize: The ‘intolerance’ that Harris is advocating is an intolerance of falsity. It is not violent or oppressive intolerance, but “conversational intolerance”, which simply advocates pointing out the flaws in other people’s beliefs (just as you might point out to someone motioning to leave in a tee-shirt and shorts that it’s snowing outside, because they clearly have a false belief). He is intolerant insofar as religion makes factual claims that have serious negative repercussions. Simply saying that his views fit the bill for intolerance isn’t enough to reject them, because you certainly accept other forms of intolerance.
It seems a large part of Harris’ ideas are dedicated to just this point: religion has no special status that enables it to hide behind tolerance. If religion consists of testable statements of fact, then they must be tested, and if they fail, abandonned. Harris is highly criticle of the way that religion is treated differently from other beliefs, and his advocacy of ‘intolerance’ is, in his eyes, identical to his presumed advocacy of ‘intolerance’ of ether-threory in physics, or lamarkian evolution in biology. It’s only because we consider religion differently from other sorts of belief that it is generally given it’s special place, and Harris thinks it is underserved and as costly as any sheltering of false belief.
Many of the more secular leaning folks in the U.S. are concerned about what would happen to them and their way of life if Christian fundamentalists were to put enough of their representatives in the White House, in Congress and in the Supreme Court to take control of the country. In the same way religious people in America should be concerned about what would happen if people who think like Harris were to take control in Washington. It would be a sad day for religious freedom in America.