“Why are we keeping this asshole around…
that's my question that lies at the heart
of this little trip through the Sam Harris
being a shitty person neighbourhood of memory
lane. Why is there still a significant portion
of the atheist, skeptical community that seems
determined to protect this bigoted asshole
at all costs? Why is this self impressed know-it-all
who compulsively demonizes Muslims while claiming
that's not what he's doing, who disrespects
women while insisting he actually respects
them more, who proudly aligns himself with
racists and anti feminists and xenophobes
while insisting that he actually super disagrees
with their views, still treated like one of
the leading intellectual lights of modern
atheism and scepticism?” One week ago, the
YouTuber Steve Shives published a video titled
Waking Up to Sam Harris Not Making Sense,
and within it he expressed numerous reasons
as to why he believes Harris is an arsehole
(“I believe all of that… and I believe
Sam Harris is an asshole”). The video is,
in my opinion, a character assassination of
Harris, predicated on a misinformed (or PERHAPS
deliberate) interpretation of his views, a
lack of sense of humour, and a seeming desire
to just be offended. Now I’ve had to pick
and choose my battles with this one, as if
I was to respond to all of Shives’ criticisms
then this reply would take eons, and as much
I’d like to do just that, I actually want
to get back to some of my ongoing series,
as I’ve got a bit of house cleaning to do
of them. Given this, I recommend that you
watch the whole of Shives’ video before
watching this response. This is Shives' Assassination - Debunked.
Let’s start with context… a 
thing that most of Harris’ critics are not
very fond of. Steve Shives was inspired to
make his video as a result of witnessing a
heated Twitter exchange between Mehdi Hasan
and Sam Harris. Long story short, Hasan, in
reference to the Christchurch mosque shooting,
published an article in which accused Harris
(among others) of playing a role due to his
(and their) “anti-Muslim rhetoric”, and
Harris responded by sharing a dated article
in which he addresses such accusations at
length. I’ve left a link to Hasan’s article,
Harris’ article, and the Twitter exchange
below, in case you’d like to know more.
And so, there’s the context – you’re
up to date! Now the first reason Shives gives
as to why he believes Harris is an arsehole
is because Harris treats religions unequally,
and (according to Shives) he does so without
good reason. “The first controversy to which
he responds in his response to controversy
peace is his tendency to say repugnant things
about Islam and the people who practice it.
In the first paragraph of that section he
writes, ‘Because I am concerned about the
logical and behavioural consequences of specific
beliefs, I do not treat all religions the
same.” Now Shives skips the next sentence
(presumably because he believes it’s not
needed), but I want to emphasize it as I believe
it’s actually the crux of Harris’ sentiment:
he continues “Not all religious doctrines
are mistaken to the same degree, intellectually
or ethically, and it is dishonest and ultimately
dangerous to pretend otherwise. People in
every tradition can be seen making the same
errors, of course—e.g. relying on faith
instead of evidence in matters of great personal
and public concern—but the doctrines and
authorities in which they place their faith
run the gamut from the quaint to the psychopathic.”
Now in my opinion, that, right there (which
Shives skipped) is a VERY good reason to focus
more on Islam than, say, Jainism. Anyhow,
onward: “For instance, a dogmatic belief
in the spiritual and ethical necessity of
complete non-violence lies at the very core
of Jainism, whereas an equally dogmatic commitment
to using violence to defend one's faith both
from within and without is similarly central
to the doctrine of Islam. If you will not
concede this point you will not understand
anything I say about Islam.” Again, Shives
skipped a sentence here (and in this case
it’s a sentence that’s followed by the
words “If you will not concede this point
you will not understand anything I say about
Islam.” Given this, let me read it: “These
beliefs, though held for identical reasons
(faith) and in varying degrees by individual
practitioners of these religions, could not
be more different. And this difference has
consequences in the real world.” And finally,
here’s Shives’ criticism: “Here's the
problem, many Muslims living in majority Muslim
countries and also here in the West do not
believe their faith contains the doctrine
Harris declares to be central to Islam. Harris
is taking his reading of the Quran as the
only legitimate reading. He interprets it
as calling upon the faithful to use violence
to defend the faith, and he assumes that those
who argue otherwise, including sincere practicing
Muslims, are being either dishonest or wilfully
ignorant about what their religion says. I
think that's not only arrogant on Harris's
part – why should his reading of the Quran
be treated as the authentic one, especially
when it seems to align so closely with that
of extremists? It’s also unfair to the millions
of Muslims who don’t find a call to violence
in their faith.” Okay, so first off, given
the sentences that Shives left out, I hope
it’s clear why Harris doesn’t treat all
religions the same. Jains and Muslims, for
example, both employ faith to substantiate
their beliefs (as opposed to evidence), but
to outsiders, the beliefs of Jains are benign
compared to the beliefs of Muslims. For example,
Jains practice, ON FAITH, not hurting any
entity whatsoever – and no matter how “fanatic”,
how “extreme” or how “fundamental”
they become, they ain’t guna hurt anyone…
literally! On the other hand, Muslims practice,
ON FAITH, Sharia Law, which results in egregious
violations of human rights. Talking of which,
when Shives says “Harris is taking his reading
of the Quran as the only legitimate reading”
he is demonstrably wrong. Harris bases most
of his criticisms of Islam on what “moderate”
Muslims actually purport to believe. In 2013,
the Pew Research Centre published a survey
of over 38,000 moderate Muslims from over
39 different countries, and found, to name
just a few of their findings, that there is
MASSIVE support for executing apostates (we’re
talking from as “low” as 12% in Southern-Eastern
Europe to as high as 76% in South Asia); likewise,
there’s MASSIVE support for stoning adulterers
(from 21% in Bosnia to 89% in Pakistan); what’s
more, a significant amount of those polled
believe that wives must ALWAYS obey their
husbands (from 34% to 94%); and there’s
MASSIVE support for making Sharia law (which
is law based on the Quran and hadith) the
law of the land (ranging from 12% in Albania
to 99% in Afghanistan) – which, to be clear,
would mean Muslims claiming jurisdiction over
non-Muslims. These are the facts that constitute
Harris’ view of Islam, and these are the
facts that people like Shives brush under
the carpet… “Many Muslims living in majority
Muslim countries and also here in the West
do not believe their faith contains the doctrine
Harris declares to be central to Islam.”
Again, Harris’ point is that a significant
proportion of Muslims support egregious things
EXPLICTLY because their faith in Islam. Now
the fact that these Muslims don’t see their
beliefs as egregious, but actually as “good,
kind and loving”, doesn’t somehow make
them less egregious. Put it this way: whether
those throwing homosexual from rooftops believe
they’re good or not, it has no bearing on
the innocent who hit the floor. Moving on,
a second (and related) comment that Shives
gives that I’d like to respond to is that,
“There’s no true interpretation of Islam,
and so (he implies) you can’t really criticise
it”. “Religions are social constructs.
They don't exist solely in the pages of their
holy books, they exist through the beliefs
and practices of religious people. When Sam
Harris says using violence to defend one's
faith is a central doctrine of Islam, that
is true for some Muslims, but it's also not
true for some Muslims. And here's the key
point, as I see it, neither of those groups
is right or wrong. There's no such thing as
a more authentic form of a religion because
it's all open to interpretation.” Religions
are social constructs, of course, and while
one interpretation of a text might be more
literal than another, neither can really be
proven right or wrong… this is true (though,
it’s worth noting, that when taken to its
logical conclusion this produces absolutely
absurd results, as one person could interpret
the sentence “Know thyself” to mean “Know
yourself” while another person could interpret
it to mean “Lick all pigs over the age of
three” and yet neither can be proven right
or wrong). However, more to the point, when
a significant proportion of a religion’s
adherents want, for example, homosexuals to
be severely punished, and do so explicitly
because of their interpretation of their faith,
you can’t just hand-wave that away! Doing
so helps no one! But, you know what? For the
sake of argument, let’s do that – let’s
hand wave it away, just for Shives. What we’re
left with is a significant amount of people
who want to severely punish homosexuals, and
Harris is simply pointing out that such beliefs
are not compatible with, and a threat to,
Western civilization… The point being, of
course, is that even with all interpretations
aside, the fact that there’s a significant
population calling for such atrocities is
a serious problem that must be addressed,
and if the earnest reason they give for their
positions is Islam, then that is what must
be addressed. Now there’s many more accusations
and comments on the topic of Islam that I’d
like to respond to (and perhaps will do upon
another time), but for now I’ll move on
Shives’ claim that Harris is disrespectful
to women, and has a ‘history of sexism.’
“One controversy Harris doesn't address
in his response to controversy is his history
of sexism, but that's because he gave that
subject an article all to itself. What happened
was, back in 2014, Harris was interviewed
in front of a live audience at George Washington
University. The interview was conducted by
Washington post reporter Michelle Borstein.
At one point Borstein asked Harris why the
Atheist community in general, and his own
audience in particular, seemed so overwhelmingly
male. Harris initially answered with a joke
saying the problem must be his own lack of
sex appeal […] According to Harris, he was
approached by a woman at a book signing after
the interview who pointed out to him how sexist
his answer to that question was. Harris' response
to that woman, according to his own account
it (found in the aforementioned article about
the event he published in his blog) was even
more sexist and blockheaded than what he said
on stage. The woman told Harris that what
he said was sexist and damaging and warranted
an apology, and Harris said to her ‘You
really are determined to be offended, aren't
you?’ And then she said ‘no, you're just
totally unaware of how sexist you are’…
which is accurate.” Of all the reasons that
Shives gives for calling Harris an arsehole,
this is, in my opinion, the weakest (and that’s
saying something). Making a joke that is predicated
on an assumption that is largely true, does
not make Harris sexist… honestly, I’m
flabbergasted – Shives, and people like
him, give a free pass to people you are actually
sexist (for example, the massive percentage
of Muslims that believe wives must ALWAYS
obey their husbands, or that a women’s testimony
is worth only half that of a man’s) but
he calls Harris sexist and says that he has
a “history of sexism” (“history of sexism”)
because he once told a women who got offended
by a light joke that she’s being a snowflake.
I honestly don’t get it… how can people
have such a double standards? I can only assume
that it’s for the sake of identity politics…
Sexism is a very serious charge, and to insist
that Harris is sexist over this joke is to
be a fucking arsehole. Shives, I have to say
it, you really are just trying to be offended,
aren’t you? You’ve decided Harris is a
bad guy, and now you’re clutching at straws.
And last but not least, another reason Shives
believes Harris is an arsehole is because
he quit Patreon, according Shives, because
he supports far-right activists. “Last year
Harris even went so far as to announce he
was quitting patreon because it had recently
banned the likes of Milo Yinnopolis and professional
misogynist and racist troll Carl Benjamin
from its platform. Harris insisted that he
doesn't share their politics, he just thinks
they should be able to earn thousands of dollars
a month, ranting about how feminists and immigrants
are destroying Western civilization, and pointing
out when a mass-shooter makes some good points
in his manifesto.” In a podcast subsequent
to his departure from Patreon, Harris gave
a very good reason as to why he pulled the
plug. In short, he looked into the case of
Sargon of Akkad, and found that 1) he was
taken out of context, and 2) (and most importantly)
he was banned for using offensive language.
In light of this, Harris said “While I don't
share the politics of the banned members,
I consider it no longer tenable to expose
any part of my podcast funding to the whims
of Patreon's Trust and Safety committee.”
He continued "Giving that I frequently touch
controversial topics, and that I am making
a considerable effort to create a space where
I can do that, it just seems prudent for me
to secure 100% of my funding through my own
website.” Add to this the fact that Harris
is FOREVER having his words twisted and misrepresented
by people, such as Shives (“… which is
accurate”), and given that Patreon’s “Trust
and Safety committee” have failed to account
for context before, I think his departure
from the platform was as a wise decision.
And even if I didn’t, I wouldn’t insist
that he must share the views of those who
were banned… sometimes a principle is just
a principle… no strings attached. Anyhow,
there’s many more comments that I’d like
to respond to, but for now, I’ll leave it
here. To conclude, even if we ignore the vast
majority of what’s just been covered, the
fact that Shives calls Harris “sexist”
for simply making a light joke which was predicated
on a fair assumption, makes Shives an arsehole!
(“… which is accurate”). Now don’t
get me wrong, Harris is no saint – he is,
like all of us, a pattern-seeking mammalian
ape, and as such he mistakes here and there
and doesn’t always do himself favours – but
he certainly isn’t this shitty, sexist,
racist, Islamophobic arsehole that Shives
claims him to be. “Why are we keeping this
asshole around?” We, the significant proportion
of the atheist / sceptical community, are
keeping Harris around because he’s a decent
and intelligent human being who actually acknowledges
the facts (no matter how inconvenient) and
is actively trying to discuss and interact
with them. While many “intellectuals”
are playing identity politics, Harris is actually
having serious and difficult conversations
with both allies and opponents alike. While
most are shutting down conversations by absolutely
demonising ANYONE who disagrees with them
(by calling them Nazis, or fascists, or racists,
of sexists), Harris is calmly having conversations
– and people like me deeply appreciate that.
That’s why Harris is still around, and that’s
why he isn’t going anywhere. Stay used to
him Shives, because Harris is here to stay.
Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the
view, and (talking of Patreon) an extra special
thank you to my wonderful patrons and those
of you who’ve supported the channel via
merchandise and PayPal. Until next time my
fellow ape, until next time.
