https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/16/sam-harris-interview-new-atheism-four-horsemen-faith-science-religion-rationalism

Fascinating article on what became of the 4 horsemen in the #metoo era
Even though Harris rejects the label, "New Atheist".

Why would anyone be a follower of Sam Harris ?

He wrote the best response to 9-11 IMO.

Torture fan, eh?

Alright, then.

Human

https://samharris.org/in-defense-of-torture/

“Imagine that a known terrorist has planted a bomb in the heart of a nearby city. He now sits in your custody. Rather than conceal his guilt, he gloats about the forthcoming explosion and the magnitude of human suffering it will cause. Given this state of affairs—in particular, given that there is still time to prevent an imminent atrocity—it seems that subjecting this unpleasant fellow to torture may be justifiable. For those who make it their business to debate the ethics of torture this is known as the “ticking-bomb” case.”

This hypothetical is meant to argue that there are at least some cases where torture would be almost universally deemed morally appropriate. (Imagine the terrorist was a Christian fundamentalist and his intended victims were Muslims worshiping in a large Mosque. Imagine further that it was known that the subject was sensitive to a relatively minor form of torture, say a single instance of water boarding, and would likely reveal the location of the bomb if subjected to such treatment.)

In short, I think the "ticking-bomb" hypothetical, when fully filled out, succeeds in demonstrating that torture is not morally objectionable per se: Given a utilitarian moral commitment that is based on some calculation of human suffering, torture may well be morally required.

Of course, that does not mean that it is acceptable as a general social or military policy. The question is NOT whether torture may in some cases be justified. The question is whether torture is an acceptable general policy without constraints; or with constraints that are minimal, vague, or left unenforced. Moreover, in the context of any general guidelines, there is a line to be drawn in each individual case. Where is the line to be drawn, and who should draw it? Given such complexities, it seems to me that the moral social position should be that torture is outright banned absent very extenuating circumstances and rigid procedures.

Using pain to negotiate with people for whom suicide is a given seems strange to me.

It’s a great tribute to Kiefer Sutherland’s acting abilities.

The was no reference to #metoo in the article. Not only wasn't it the focus of the article, after a quick skim, I saw no connection at all. Did you see something in the article I didn't?

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The was no reference to #metoo in the article. Not
> only wasn't it the focus of the article, after a
> quick skim, I saw no connection at all. Did you
> see something in the article I didn't?

I guess you'd have to actually read the article.

"There is a growing divide between those who trumpet empirical evidence and those who question the cultural and social conditions to which empiricism remains blind. Harris is very definitely located at the forefront of the former group, and is widely loathed by those who are in the latter – a designation that would include many on the postmodern left. On internet chatrooms and in online debates, he is a ubiquitous reference point, a lightning conductor in many contemporary social and intellectual disagreements. He is often referred to as a racist, an Islamophobe and a prime example of white entitlement. He contests all the accusations, but they haven’t gone away.

Perhaps the moment that Harris became identified in the wider American public’s eye as a contentious figure was his run-in four years ago with Affleck on the satirical TV show Real Time With Bill Maher. During a debate on Islam, the Hollywood star accused Harris of Islamophobia and racism. The powerfully built Affleck was full of righteous passion and, although Harris remained calm and tried to get his point across, the smaller man appeared intimidated by the actor’s physical and celebrity presence. Harris says it wasn’t until they were walking off stage that he really found his voice.

“I said: ‘You know that if we decided to burn a Bible on live television tonight it would be controversial, but it wouldn’t ruin our lives. If we decided to burn a Qur’an on the show tonight, the rest of our lives would be spent dealing with the aftermath, and you know that and you’re lying about it.’”

It was a very Harris-like observation: a telling comparison, a vivid image and a stark moral challenge. These are his stock in trade methods, the kind of debating points that rally his fans and enrage his enemies."

"But having gone through his own monstering, after the Affleck incident, Harris decided to find out if Murray deserved his, and concluded that he didn’t. Klein disagreed, and, after Harris published their angry email exchange, they went at each other for two hours of unyielding debate on the podcast.

But Harris insists he’s concerned about social justice and says that if we want to converge on what’s fair we must “step outside of our identities”. He believes that it’s when identity forms the basis for political activism that society suffers. “That’s guaranteed to amplify almost everything we don’t want,” he says.

Identity, consciousness, faith, reason: they’re the capital-letter concepts that are at the centre of so many contemporary debates. And never far away, reliably dividing opinion, is the quietly spoken Harris, the fourth horseman riding confidently out on his own."

None of that has to do with #metoo.

So you’re saying that what is actually required, with regard to the #metoo assertion, is that the article be misread?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2020 02:48PM by elderolddog.

Hey, whatever it takes for kori to make the point kori wants made.

I liken it to how Mormon apologists insist that Joseph Smith didn't literally translate the funerary texts into the Book of Abraham, but that they served as a means to channel his "translation".

Here, you have to actually read,
" Its uniqueness is a selling point of the book, which is subtitled: The Discussion that Sparked an Atheist Revolution. That may be a little hyperbolic, but it’s true that the gathering has gained a certain historical significance, not to mention mythology. The four men – or should we, in the era of identity politics, say the four white, heterosexual men – have become heroes, less to an atheist movement than to an outspokenly rationalist one."
The "New Atheist" movement has a bit of a white Nationalism problem.

Is it because they are white or because they are heterosexuals?

Are you saying that because the author made a point of calling them "white, heterosexual men" that it's tied somehow to the #metoo movement?

That's a very big stretch. I have a feeling that you don't understand the #metoo movement.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you saying that because the author made a
> point of calling them "white, heterosexual men"
> that it's tied somehow to the #metoo movement?
>
> That's a very big stretch. I have a feeling that
> you don't understand the #metoo movement.

That wasn't my main point, but the article does point out the misogyny problem with New Atheism, and 4 old white guys sitting around excluding women and minorities.

https://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

Prominent and outspoken atheist, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/science/lawrence-krauss-retires-sexual-harassment.html
Prof. Krauss getting busted for sexually abusing women didn't help the reputation of the "New (more political) Atheists" and their platform.
Which is why Harris hates the term and never uses it, let alone self identifies with it.
He hates labels.
A man without a label is a man without allegiance to anything but reason.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2020 09:42PM by schrodingerscat.

>A man without a label is a man without allegiance to anything but reason.

Is this some sort of Zen thing, or just garden variety incomprehensible?

#thistoo

Because then he couldn't wear a boutonniere, which means no going to the Prom!

Exactly!

Labels and categories are used as part of language communication to facilitate understanding. They are not intended to provide detailed descriptions of either people or objects.

If someone does not believe in God, say, then such a person meets the general criteria of being an "atheist," regardless of whether he or she is comfortable with that term, and regardless of the nuances of their belief. I live in California, so I am a "Californian" whether I like it or not.

In short, no one can escape labels and categories, and it has nothing to do with "allegiance to reason." Of course, being subject to labels and categories is entirely different from personally choosing to affiliate with an organization or ideology, where belief structures are imposed on members or adherents. In that case, I may "choose" to be a Mormon, a Catholic, or a member of the Humanist Society, and thus accept the labels that apply to such an affiliation. But, choosing not to identify with any such organizations does not necessarily make me more rational, and certainly does not free me from being subject to labels generally, for example the label of a "non-joiner" or "independent thinker."

In short, as you said, SC's comment is either incoherent at best, and just false at worst.

"What is the definition of the word atheist? Its how people who identify as atheist behave, what they say. And I don't agree with them, or the way they behave, which is why I dont identify as an atheist." NdGT
https://youtu.be/T_XVxuu0SVs
I'm with NdGT.
Einstein, Sagan said the same thing.
I'm with them.