Ben Affleck Versus Bill Maher and Sam Harris

[Denny Crane!]

That isn't what Sam Harris said at all.

[athanaric]

Ben affleck had directed the film Argo and its almost a certainty that he knows more things about Islam compared to most people.

It's almost a certainty that he doesn't. Using your logic, the directors of Lawrence of Arabia, or Kingdom of Heaven, or Syriana are also experts on Islam. Jesus.

I think he has a point because Sam Harris tries to claim that what ISIS does is what all muslims should do if they are devout muslims. Its the same tactic he uses when he bashes christianity:Some christians were fanatic therefore all christians should fanatic. Quite a naive logic

Or maybe Harris has actually read their "holy books".

[sumskilz]

religion and philosophy were his initial studies, and BoA, he then progressed on to a PhD in neuroscience but with a focus on studying the effects of religion on the mind, and after several years gap of studying meditation in the far east.

He does actually seem very knowledgeable regarding Eastern religions, but I am not in a great position to judge that, because I am not.

[Manco]

Razib Khan, who is more knowledgeable regarding Islam and the academic study of religion than any of these characters, has a nice blog post on the topic. If this first paragraph piques your interest, it's probably worth checking out:

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/isis-willing-executioners/

On that note, I'd like to add this "gross and racist" image:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That Razib Khan's argument, that liberals are quick to defend Muslims and quick to attack Christians, is something I hear a lot, but always unsubstantiated.
There's a huge difference between being confronted more with topics and discussions where one has to exhibit this tendency, and actually being so biased.
I'm pretty certain that Ben Affleck and most famous liberals, living in a country that's majority Protestant Christian with several fairly powerful fundamentalist Christian organisations or somehow pro that segment of the population (think the worst of Fox News's pundits, those radio shock jocks and so on), is confronted more often with situations where he feels he needs to argue against a broadly Christian viewpoint than with a similar one where Christians are actually being persecuted or otherwise disadvantaged. Vice versa for Muslims, especially considering the reality of the US going to war in several Muslim countries.
For all I know he'd be raving against Al Shabaab when Somalia is the topic and defending the local Christians. But nobody asked him, nor was it relevant to the discussion.

Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. Regardless of the initial wrong, or who's proclaiming the wrong thing.

Harris and Maher were describing Islam as a political force and institution, Affleck assumed they were discussing Muslims as a demographic. Hilarity ensues.

They used Islam and Muslims in a very generalist sense from the beginning of the discussion, were also expressly stating that those much vaunted fundamentalist forces and institutions coincide with the opinion of a much larger part of the Muslim populace, if not majority, than often claimed. You can't say you're speaking about the doctrine of Islam, not the people and then not even 5 minutes later imply that's the opinion of the majority of the people. That pretty much means you were speaking about the people.
Even if their numbers are true, it's still a smack in the face for all the Muslims who do not hold these viewpoints.

[Denny Crane!]

He does actually seem very knowledgeable regarding Eastern religions, but I am not in a great position to judge that, because I am not.

I followed a similar path to Sam and Stephen Batchelor ("buddhism without beliefs") in arriving somewhat to atheism but retaining an interest in spirituality and other pursuits without all the cooky stuff.

Just they are a hell of a lot more profound and adept at doing so, but when I've come across them, Sam Harris a few years ago and SB a few years before that I've explored there work with interest. They both seem to understand the subject far better than I have so take from that whatyou will.

[sumskilz]

That Razib Khan's argument, that liberals are quick to defend Muslims and quick to attack Christians, is something I hear a lot, but always unsubstantiated.

That has been my experience of "liberals" growing up and living most of my life in Seattle where Christianity has no major influence, it seems. So I relate to what he's saying, but I admit my subjective experience isn't data with which to substantiate the argument.

Although that was not all that I appreciated in his post (the highlighted section with some context)...

These data indicate that 36 percent of the these Muslims favor the death penalty for apostates. Much of the balance in terms of population is going to be in Africa and other Middle Eastern nations (e.g., Iran) and India. I don’t know how things will shake out, though Nigerian Muslims are not particularly liberal, and I am curious if Indian Muslims would be any more liberal than Bangladeshi Muslims. In any case, we are faced with a glass half empty and half full situation. The majority of Muslims certainly do reject the death penalty for apostates today. But the minority who accept it as normative represent hundreds of millions of individuals. I tend to see the half empty aspect because I really don’t care what peaceful Muslims who focus on their mystical inner life do. They’re free to practice their superstition in the privacy of their homes, or in public spaces which they own, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. The problem is that the hundreds of millions who have what I might say are “problematic” viewpoints, if I was a pretentious liberal who enjoyed equivocating, would quite likely break my leg. This is not an academic concern, I agree with Shadi Hamid that democracy and liberalism have not made their peace in much of the Arab world. To some extent the masses will always be suspicious of liberalism, because they are a dull and uncreative sort. The American populace supports banning flag burning, and often curtailment of various kinds of speech. Elites, whether on the Left or Right step in to block these sentiments through the courts. Elites in Muslim nations need to grow some balls in this area, though the pattern of assassination of those who speak against the barbarians in their midst from Tunisia to Pakistan illustrates how deadly serious these issues are.

[Sphere]

They used Islam and Muslims in a very generalist sense from the beginning of the discussion, were also expressly stating that those much vaunted fundamentalist forces and institutions coincide with the opinion of a much larger part of the Muslim populace, if not majority, than often claimed. You can't say you're speaking about the doctrine of Islam, not the people and then not even 5 minutes later imply that's the opinion of the majority of the people. That pretty much means you were speaking about the people.
Even if their numbers are true, it's still a smack in the face for all the Muslims who do not hold these viewpoints.

A main thesis of Harris is that militant Islam comes from a plausible interpretation of Islamic holy texts and teachings, and is not just a reaction to Western Imperialism. As such it should be expected to draw large numbers of devout Muslims to its cause from across the Islamic world irrespective of American policy.

I'd say the rise of the Sunni caliphate in Syria and Iraq is evidence in favor of this idea.

[Theo]

They used Islam and Muslims in a very generalist sense from the beginning of the discussion, were also expressly stating that those much vaunted fundamentalist forces and institutions coincide with the opinion of a much larger part of the Muslim populace, if not majority, than often claimed. You can't say you're speaking about the doctrine of Islam, not the people and then not even 5 minutes later imply that's the opinion of the majority of the people. That pretty much means you were speaking about the people.
Even if their numbers are true, it's still a smack in the face for all the Muslims who do not hold these viewpoints.

I can't speak to what Maher meant, but Sam Harris has articulated his views on the subject in numerous books and articles, so what he said on the show should be viewed within the context of what he has written on the subject before.

Harris is not saying that all Muslims are potential suicide bombers. He is saying that the cultures in numerous societies dominated by political Islam (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Western Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, etc) are more likely to produce and harbor fundamentalists hostile to secular and western governments. His case citing that 20% statistic wasn't that 20% of Muslims might become terrorists, but that those societies are more like the harbor individuals with dangerous religious views. That militant Islamic fundamentalists are far more numerous, organized, and potentially destructive (ex: Islamic State) at this time than fundamentalists from other religions (Hindu chauvinists persecuting minorities in India, the Burmese Buddhists placing the Muslim Rohingya in concentration camps, Anglican Christian militants/fundamentalists in the CAR, Uganda, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo). In other words, that fundamentalist Islam is one of the greatest social and political issues of our time. None of that is controversial.

As for whether whether the more extreme Salafist or Wahhabi movements are the "true" doctrine of Islam, atheists aren't interested in what the "true" doctrine of any religion is. We're only interested in what the most powerful, or the most numerous adherents believe.

[Manco]

But Sam Harris can't expect Ben Affleck, or a television audience, to know the broader context of what he said, or that he articulates it far more nuanced in his written works. If you appear on a popular TV show you should take your audience into account. Otherwise you get the standard leftwing/rightwing insults with a sprinkling of SJW memes on top while everyone's twisting the actual intended points into whatever enables them to entrench within their previously held views, like we're getting now. Just look at the Youtube comments, cliche rightwing mouthpieces are now lauding Maher, a guy they usually revile just because it fits their dogma.
And if I'm not mistaken, this topic isn't so much about Sam Harris' views which I tend to agree with or even Islam which I think is a fundamentally silly superstition, but Affleck's reaction. That reaction was not that overly dramatic based solely on what was actually said during the interview, and compared to a lot of rehashed " I wish there was peace in the world " hippy speeches his reaction was pretty sincere.

As for whether whether the more extreme Salafist or Wahhabi movements are the "true" doctrine of Islam, atheists aren't interested in what the "true" doctrine of any religion is. We're only interested in what the most powerful, or the most numerous adherents believe.

I can't speak for you, but I'm an atheist and I very much do care about the true doctrine of a religion. It's pretty important when debating the merits of a religion.

[Theo]

Well, on the subject of Affleck's explosive reaction, Sam Harris recently wrote about the exchange.

[Sir Adrian]

Harris is quite possibly one of the most ignorant humans alive. I never thought it possible for someone leaving in a country where religion is not banned to get so many things wrong about it and to blindly reinforce his original points after he was told he is factually wrong. He's the Donnie Reagan and Fred Phelps of atheism.

[sumskilz]

I can't speak for you, but I'm an atheist and I very much do care about the true doctrine of a religion. It's pretty important when debating the merits of a religion.

But there are many interpretations of Islam, as an atheist, do you believe one of them is the true doctrine?

Well, on the subject of Affleck's explosive reaction, Sam Harris recently wrote about the exchange.

Hmm...

One of the most depressing things in the aftermath of this exchange is the way Affleck is now being lauded for having exposed my and Maher’s “racism,” “bigotry,” and “hatred of Muslims.” This is yet another sign that simply accusing someone of these sins, however illogically, is sufficient to establish them as facts in the minds of many viewers.

[Hobbes]

May I just point out that the audience in that show are a bunch of retards? They cheer whatever anyone says, even if it contradicted something that they cheered for, before.

[sumskilz]

May I just point out that the audience in that show are a bunch of retards? They cheer whatever anyone says, even if it contradicted something that they cheered for, before.

Could be different retards cheering at different times though.

[jockmcplop]

Yeesh that Sam Harris response to the situation comes off as horrible reading.

He's just full of attacks for everyone. Reza Aslan gets the worst of it:

However, others in this debate are not so innocent. Our conversation on Real Time was provoked by an interview that Reza Aslan gave on CNN, in which he castigated Maher for the remarks he had made about Islam on the previous show. I have always considered Aslan a comical figure. His thoughts about religion in general are a jumble of pretentious nonsense—yet he speaks with an air of self-importance that would have been embarrassing in Genghis Khan at the height of his power. On the topic of Islam, however, Aslan has begun to seem more sinister. He cannot possibly believe what he says, because nearly everything he says is a lie or a half-truth calibrated to mislead a liberal audience. If he claims something isn’t in the Koran, it probably is. I don’t know what his agenda is, beyond riding a jet stream of white guilt from interview to interview, but he is manipulating liberal biases for the purpose of shutting down conversation on important topics. Given what he surely knows about the contents of the Koran and the hadith,the state of public opinion in the Muslim world, the suffering of women and other disempowered groups, and the real-world effects of deeply held religious beliefs, I find his deception on these issues unconscionable.

Its never going to look good getting embroiled in these kind of personal arguments when you are at the forefront of a serious debate.
Sorry Sam, i agree with your academic and intellectual points but this kind of nonsense needs to stop.

[athanaric]

Sorry Sam, i agree with your academic and intellectual points but this kind of nonsense needs to stop.

Why is that? Reza Aslan is a major douche who has nothing to say, and even though I've only known about this Harris guy since yesterday, I totally agree with his points here.
Also this Kristof guy comes across as a genuinely nasty person. Why was he invited?

[Knight of Heaven]

"your a racist your a racist" basically sums up Ben afflecks contribution to the discussion.

And he isnt that wrong, considering the oposition was making generalizations.
When you do generalizations, like that, it is no suprise, when people call on your BS.

[Ima Farmathar]

The tv show named after one of the most genocidal regimes in history seems reasonable enough.

[jockmcplop]

Why is that? Reza Aslan is a major douche who has nothing to say, and even though I've only known about this Harris guy since yesterday, I totally agree with his points here.

I'm not denying that what he says is true, but he has other, more important things to say. He has the right to defend himself against accusations of course but i just think this kind of thing will potentially turn people off to all the good stuff he has to say.

[Mangalore]

And he isnt that wrong, considering the oposition was making generalizations.
When you do generalizations, like that, it is no suprise, when people call on your BS.

Taking this cut piece however the generalizations are pointed at Islam with the added notion (Islam != Muslims) and then Afflek critizes Harris for insulting Muslims...

My impression is that Maher is getting Harris way though, making it worse by using poor words and preventing Harris to clarify his point.