thoughts on sam harris

[justin]

I like alot of his stuff like the end of faith and debates (pretty much all of them). But reading i just started reading his moral landscape and am having a hard time with understanding alot of his positions or meanings. I really want to read his free will book but wanna get some opinions from people who have read the books. Just tell me what you think of some of his work and why?

Me myself i like and agree with alot of his work. Except what i haven't read obviously.

[paulpablo]

I just downloaded one audio book by him and this one audio book wasnt very deep, it was just recitations of several quran and hadith verses that seem to be politically incorrect. This is good because it exposes how a lot of muslims do see things, but if you argue with most muslims about these verses they will just say its a faulty translation, out of context and so on.
Without having read much else he has done, from viewing debates by him and doing a bit of research on this guy i think hes very brave and admirable to be saying these things about islam

[mralstoner]

On the topic of ethics, even highly intelligent people can write strange/biased things. Such is the case with The Moral Landscape (TML), even though the book has made an overall positive contribution to debate.

On the plus side, TML is a welcome advance on the scope of atheist/humanist topics i.e. finally we can talk about something other than rationality v. religion. Amen to that!

Harris starts off with the wonderful metaphor of the peaks and valleys of moral values. He states the obvious, that human values are all about happiness v. suffering, pleasure v. pain. A good start.

But on the negative side, just when you think a highly rational person like Harris is going to give a clear and precise account of the source of human ethics/values (like Hume or Bentham), alas he dissolves into a puff of ambiguity by offering the vague term "well-being".

God dammit! It's so freakin obvious that human values can only come from the realm of our feelings/desires/emotions. Why can't Harris just say so? Why be so vague? Who knows, but I think Harris is probably afraid of unleashing a wave of unbridled hedonism, so he opts for a vague term.

So, on the whole, even though Harris talks incessantly about happiness v. suffering (and implicitly/practically agreeing with Hume and Bentham), alas he is too vague in the end.

(Mind you, I haven't read the book thoroughly, just skimmed it and watched his videos. And I have not read his free will book.)

BTW, everything Sam Harris says about Islam is 100% correct: "Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest".

[Justtristo]

I like alot of his stuff like the end of faith and debates (pretty much all of them). But reading i just started reading his moral landscape and am having a hard time with understanding alot of his positions or meanings. I really want to read his free will book but wanna get some opinions from people who have read the books. Just tell me what you think of some of his work and why?

Me myself i like and agree with alot of his work. Except what i haven't read obviously.

Ah the devout Buddhist.

[naimless]

He "gets it" a lot more than Dawkins for me. I disagree with him when it comes to some of his positions on Islam. He justifies the ongoing wars this way, similar to Hitchens.

I just think a more compassionate view is needed. To be fair at least he recognises this and says if he found evidence that what he did created more fundamentalism it would give him pause for thought about what he does.

I think the term the CIA use is "blowback". I get on better with people who understand blowback.

[Angrboda]

Harris reminds me of the Mae West quip about how when she is good, she's good, but when she's bad, she is oh so very bad. I like Harris a lot, and he's definitely worth reading and listening to, but not always. A comment from one of the reviewers of The Moral Landscape is that Harris joins a long line of people who believe they've transcended philosophy when in reality they are simply doing it very badly. The Moral Landscape is probably worth reading, and most of the people I know who've read it (an atheist book club and a philosophy group) liked it very much. I personally hated the argument and general conclusions he was making, though the book itself is an enjoyable read.

I found two main flaws with The Moral Landscape. First, a lot of it is devoted to criticism of religion, apart from any relevance to his main thesis; he could have cut two whole chapters without affecting his argument any. Second is that the philosophical underpinnings of his thesis are flawed and inadequate. Philosophers have been considering some of these questions for centuries without resolution, and Harris, for his part, doesn't resolve the questions so much as simply dogmatically assert that his answer is the correct one, ignoring all the potential flaws with it. I guess a third point is that "the science" he presents is just window dressing for the philosophical argument. The science presented doesn't justify the philosophical answer or really add to it in any way. I think the reason a lot of people liked the book is that it provides a very conventional reply to the questions, and gives people the impression that their pre-existing biases toward the convention are being rigorously demonstrated to be true. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I suspect the affinity expressed is largely because Harris is saying things that these people already, uncritically, believe to be true.

As to his free will book, it's probably worth reading. It gives a solid introduction to the hard determinist position on free will, and while it does include persuasive support for the various points of the position, it doesn't put a lot of meat on those bones. His explanations and support are rather threadbare and perfunctory, which likely results in little more than preaching to the choir. The arguments are definitely there. However, if you either do not understand the hard determinist position, or fundamentally disagree with it, I don't think this book will address either of those difficulties. It's not a book which "teaches," so much as gives you a "Hard Determinism in 7 Days and 7 Nights" whirlwind tour. If you're looking for something to help you understand the position and the debate itself, I don't think the book goes nearly far enough. Still, at $10 and 60 pages, it's a worthwhile start.

In the same breath I would recommend Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. It's a rather short book, but it's rather densely argued and therefore not an easy read (it's been over 10 years, so I'm going from memory). In it, Dennett goes through a philosophical analysis of what we might "mean" by free will, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the various understandings. Less technical and perhaps more complete and accessible would be something like The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. I've only glanced at the table of contents, but it's well reviewed. (Though I was somewhat taken aback to note that the first essay on Determinist Incompatibilism was written by a compatibilist criticizing the position. Though again, I haven't read the book yet, so that's just a surface reaction.)

Oh, I should probably address Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves while I'm here. This book is a defense of the compatibilist position. I would avoid it if I were you. I recommended it to one of my atheist book clubs and they hated it. (Though they loved the discussion, no doubt due to my sparkling and evanescent personality.... I'm sure!) I disliked the book because I felt there were major errors in Dennett's argument. However the primary complaint I had from most people was that it was confusing and difficult to understand, and frustrated most people trying to understand it. I didn't have any difficulty with it, but many complained that they had to struggle and read very slowly, sometimes rereading whole chapters, just to feel that they had some idea of what he was saying. In short, if you don't understand the free will debate and the compatibilist position already, then Freedom Evolves likely won't help you.

[mralstoner]

Just to clarify: I agree with everything Sam Harris says about Islamic doctrine. But I'm not familiar with his politics or foreign policy regarding Muslim countries.

[Zone]

He makes some good points against religion though I think he could be just a little bit crackers.

“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”

People should be free to believe what they like in their own heads it's what they actually do that matters. Otherwise you're in thought crime territory.

[justin]

Harris reminds me of the Mae West quip about how when she is good, she's good, but when she's bad, she is oh so very bad. I like Harris a lot, and he's definitely worth reading and listening to, but not always. A comment from one of the reviewers of The Moral Landscape is that Harris joins a long line of people who believe they've transcended philosophy when in reality they are simply doing it very badly. The Moral Landscape is probably worth reading, and most of the people I know who've read it (an atheist book club and a philosophy group) liked it very much. I personally hated the argument and general conclusions he was making, though the book itself is an enjoyable read.


I found two main flaws with The Moral Landscape. First, a lot of it is devoted to criticism of religion, apart from any relevance to his main thesis; he could have cut two whole chapters without affecting his argument any. Second is that the philosophical underpinnings of his thesis are flawed and inadequate. Philosophers have been considering some of these questions for centuries without resolution, and Harris, for his part, doesn't resolve the questions so much as simply dogmatically assert that his answer is the correct one, ignoring all the potential flaws with it. I guess a third point is that "the science" he presents is just window dressing for the philosophical argument. The science presented doesn't justify the philosophical answer or really add to it in any way. I think the reason a lot of people liked the book is that it provides a very conventional reply to the questions, and gives people the impression that their pre-existing biases toward the convention are being rigorously demonstrated to be true. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I suspect the affinity expressed is largely because Harris is saying things that these people already, uncritically, believe to be true.

As to his free will book, it's probably worth reading. It gives a solid introduction to the hard determinist position on free will, and while it does include persuasive support for the various points of the position, it doesn't put a lot of meat on those bones. His explanations and support are rather threadbare and perfunctory, which likely results in little more than preaching to the choir. The arguments are definitely there. However, if you either do not understand the hard determinist position, or fundamentally disagree with it, I don't think this book will address either of those difficulties. It's not a book which "teaches," so much as gives you a "Hard Determinism in 7 Days and 7 Nights" whirlwind tour. If you're looking for something to help you understand the position and the debate itself, I don't think the book goes nearly far enough. Still, at $10 and 60 pages, it's a worthwhile start.

thanks free will is a current intrest of mine so i am definitley gonna check it out.

In the same breath I would recommend Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. It's a rather short book, but it's rather densely argued and therefore not an easy read (it's been over 10 years, so I'm going from memory). In it, Dennett goes through a philosophical analysis of what we might "mean" by free will, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the various understandings. Less technical and perhaps more complete and accessible would be something like The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. I've only glanced at the table of contents, but it's well reviewed. (Though I was somewhat taken aback to note that the first essay on Determinist Incompatibilism was written by a compatibilist criticizing the position. Though again, I haven't read the book yet, so that's just a surface reaction.)

do you read alot of daniel dennett? i have heard some of his stuff is pretty good so i`ll look into it thanks.

Oh, I should probably address Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves while I'm here. This book is a defense of the compatibilist position. I would avoid it if I were you. I recommended it to one of my atheist book clubs and they hated it. (Though they loved the discussion, no doubt due to my sparkling and evanescent personality.... I'm sure!) I disliked the book because I felt there were major errors in Dennett's argument. However the primary complaint I had from most people was that it was confusing and difficult to understand, and frustrated most people trying to understand it. I didn't have any difficulty with it, but many complained that they had to struggle and read very slowly, sometimes rereading whole chapters, just to feel that they had some idea of what he was saying. In short, if you don't understand the free will debate and the compatibilist position already, then Freedom Evolves likely won't help you.