1. Comment #50486 by Rtambree on June 18, 2007 at 12:13 pm

This will be fun.

Sam Harris uses a good phrase here - "This mass grave [of deities] called mythology".

That should get some mileage.



Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #50505 by konquererz on June 18, 2007 at 1:33 pm

I actually didn't think Hedges did that bad of a job. He did a fabulously job of putting torture into perspective, and in that point, I really agree with him and not Sam Harris. But Harris as usual put the plain painful truth of it out there. Religion is only as dangerous as its most dangerous link, fundamentalism. Good debate, worth taking the time to watch.

Other Comments by konquererz

3. Comment #50518 by BrettS on June 18, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Wow, this was tough for me to watch. Much of the debate had Sam vs. Hedges and the moderator (I'm assuming he was a moderator?) ;)

Other Comments by BrettS

4. Comment #50520 by Diplo on June 18, 2007 at 2:24 pm

A good debate, though in truth it was less about religion and more about politics. Hedges completely avoided defending the core concepts of religion because he implicitly acknowledges that it is irrational. He seems to be one of those Christians who doesn't believe in anything apart from a wishy-washy version of God who is "love" (and how can you argue against that redefinition of God?).

There was absolutely nothing he could say to counter Harris's devastating opening volley and so he opted for changing the subject. His main tactic was to work on Harris's Achilles heal, which was his glib defence of torture in 'The End Of Faith' (which in reality is a few badly thought through pages of an otherwise great book). Hedges then adopted the standard Western leftist approach to all the failing of the Middle East - that is, it's nothing to do with Islam and is all our fault. This seems to be a common failing of liberal Christian intellectuals - because their faith is so wish-washy and metaphorical they don't seem to be able to understand that other people are actually totally sincere in their beliefs and take what is written in ancient texts deadly seriously. The example of the Danish cartoon controversy was a good point in hand.

The fact is Hedges did nothing to address Harris's main criticisms of religion and instead made rather mawkish appeals to the audiences' obvious liberal-left leanings by appealing to their political emotions. He may be right about torture but he totally failed to make any case for the veracity or usefulness of religion, whilst studiously ignoring the damage it is undeniably causing in the Middle East (and the wider world)

Other Comments by Diplo

5. Comment #50522 by Munger on June 18, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Another frustrating debate where the so-called "moderator" can't just sit back and shut up. Harris did an excellent job, especially considering that it was two against one. And one of those two was supposed to represent a neutral party.

Other Comments by Munger

6. Comment #50531 by tieInterceptor on June 18, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Amazing debate, I found myself clapping for Harris at the end.

I really admire Harris ability to convey complicated ideas with crystal clarity and with the most easy to understand examples,

His final explanation of how he feels like being 500 years ago in medieval witch-hunt times with a an insight to all the folly that no one else sees, or dares to admit seeing, is really powerful.

he also made me laugh with the cracker eating behaviour 'joke',
it really illustrated so well the pains and lengths that some religious people will go trying to justify suicide bombers as 'really' non-faith based attacks, even if the bombers themselves cry "god is great" before blowing themselves up.

excellent, even thought he seemed to be in the minority due to lack of public support, he clearly surfaced as the most intelligent and reasonable person in the table to me.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

7. Comment #50535 by etny on June 18, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Endless debates.
Because faith is... faith-based (vs. objective evidence-based), and that the key axiom of faith is that… if you lose (or even challenge) your faith, you lose the most precious thing in the world, a believer will defend his faith at all cost, without any regard for the validity of the opposing party's most challenging "reasoned" arguments.
Consequently, there can be no fruitful dialogue between faith and reason. Nothing new, I'm afraid.

Other Comments by etny

8. Comment #50536 by carnitine on June 18, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Harris does a bang up job here, but I'm extremely disappointed with Hedges. Most of his time in spent attacking positions which Harris has never taken, or working to obscure, and thereby immunize, his own positions from attack.

Hedges does make a few points and does a decent job of exposing some of Harris' biases, but not better than other people have before him.

Harris' opening statement is pure gold.

Other Comments by carnitine

9. Comment #50537 by LeeLeeOne on June 18, 2007 at 4:55 pm

My impressions to the first 2 video portions of the debate:

Mr. Harris opened, without a doubt, with clarity and rationality for part 1 of this debate. Mr. Hedges portion, part 2, also is (quite surprisingly) extremely good.

However, with Mr. Hedges, if this is what truly any of our modern day religions actually practiced, I have no doubt that the anger and discourse between anti-theists and fundamentalists would dissolve into nothing more than an educated discussion. (What Mr. Hedges wishes for in his monotheistic ideals is not what is reality in our current situation.)

However, with this said, religion prescribes doctrines, dogmas, that are basically interpretations of an ancient idea, which are for the most part, irrelevant to our current, modern day society. As these dogmas are not evolutionary, (the further society progresses) from ancient civilizations, the less useful they become (and with much relief I might add, most of these dogmas are anti-humanistic, blech!).

Perhaps if religion simply threw away the bible, the quaran, the tablets, etc., never referring to them as justification, they could instead focus on more of their supernatural deity that is humanistic.

Ahhhh, an almost perfect marriage theism/atheism.... (pop goes the delusion!)

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

10. Comment #50538 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 18, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Just watching Sam's intro. Wow! Is he on form!

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

11. Comment #50540 by TheHardProblem on June 18, 2007 at 5:08 pm

I just had to write this down:

Sam Harris (about the dismissal of religious belief influencing human behaviour):
"This kind of analysis is like seeing people lined up to receive the eucharists and asking them why they're doing this. And they tell you about the transsubstantiation and their love for jesus. To discount all of that, that we cant trust what they're saying, actually, 'this is just cracker eating behaviour', and 'it is witnessed by the fact (audience laughing) that it happens in other contexts'. I mean 'people eat crackers in other contexts', and 'there's a general love of crackers'. You can't say that people aren't motivated by their religion. (sheer interrupts)"

also,

Sam Harris (after chris hedges' strawman attacks and 'expert' opinion on the measure of he muslim world):
"Happily we do not asses public opinion by having New York Times journalists go out and live in the muslim world and make friends and get a vibe."

For me, Sam has yet again taken the number 1 spot in public debates, closely followed by Hitchens.

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

12. Comment #50542 by jamesstephenbrown on June 18, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Chris Hedges seems to have taken the approach, regarding this debate, that if he bombards Sam with so many flawed arguments Sam will not know what to address first.

I'm glad Sam pulled Chris up on the fact that one man's personal testimony is statistically irrelevant. It was however frustrating Chris' complete misunderstanding of Sam's cherry picking comment in defense of secular morality - replying with something to the effect that we are not all literalists, which is what Sam was saying - that we don't need to be literalists infact we don't need to be adherents at all to have morality.

I was happy though that Chris was consistent in logically implying that Nazi Germany was not inherently a flawed system, it was simply bad because it was instigated during a depression. In essence, Nazism might be a worthwhile system to try out on our more affluent societies... Who's first? Any takers?

I was also happy to hear Chris point out that the less educated, and scientifically minded a society the more tribal it will be. Which logically implies that religion, a system opposed to the scientific method, is a force that increases tribalism by stifling the education of the society in question.

I really think people in support of religion who are only in support of social ritual, humble appreciation greater than oneself and consolation, who believe that the bible is allegorical and that miracles are not possible and that the beginnings of the universe are simply mysterious, should start to be honest with themselves and admit that they are therefore not religious! At least not of the religion that Sam Harris persecutes. They are defending a "religion" that is not under attack

Other Comments by jamesstephenbrown

13. Comment #50543 by mjwemdee on June 18, 2007 at 5:19 pm

I really got annoyed by the way Hedges seemed to expect extra brownie points by constantly saying 'I was there on the streets of the Middle East' 'I was there in Egypt/Cairo/Tunisia/Beirut' etc ad nauseam. This does not guarantee any intellectual superiority.

Par contre, Sam was a joy to listen to.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

14. Comment #50548 by krogercomplete on June 18, 2007 at 5:53 pm

I wanted to stand up and cheer when Sam bitch slapped Hedges about not using NY Times correspondents to gauge public opinion in the middle east by moving in and "getting a vibe."

Also, Hedges' accusation that Sam was racist because he wrote about Muslim mothers celebrating suicide bombers was totally uncalled for.

Other Comments by krogercomplete

15. Comment #50553 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 18, 2007 at 6:14 pm

The one challenge that I think Harris did not deal with clearly (though the proper response was implicit in a lot of what he said) was why has religious violence arisen now, in place of deprivation and injustice, rather than other times and in less benighted places.

One response, which Sam made well, was that it's not just arising in benighted places - the 19 hijackers from the Arab upper middle class with MAs and PhDs living in Europe and America, etc.

But the deeper point is to admit that yes, deprivation does have something to do with it - but that how people *respond* to deprivation is determined by what they believe. Harris has said this before - it's a lot harder to motivate a Tibettan Buddhist to suicidal religious violence against their Chinese oppressors than it is to motivate Muslim Palestinians to suicide bombings against *their* oppressors. That's the only point I think he needed to make more clearly in this debate.

But given he was being tag teamed by the most biased "moderator" I've ever seen means that it's hardly a major criticism to say that Harris was a little unclear on one of his many points while taking fire from two directions.

Where I think I might disagree with Harris is that I do see the alleviation of poverty and economic development as part of the solution.

Facts persuade. One of the most effective arguments for secular liberal democracy and against theocracy (or fascism or communism) is the experience of seeing it work as a way of supporting people's survival and happiness.

I think the best thing that ever happened to the Islamic fundamentalists (who prior to the 1950s were marginalised in middle eastern politics) was the failure of secular Arab politics - just as the best thing that ever happened for Nazism was the failure of the Weimar republic. When Weimar failed, and the German people were desperate, they listened to appeals to the darkest of their pre-existing beliefs - anti-Semitism, Teutonic superiority, anti-Slav racism, authoritarianism, etc (much of it coming from Christianity, as Christopher Hitchens points out). Similarly, when Arab secularism failed, the Arabs turned to the darkest of their pre-existing beliefs.

I think this is what Hitchens means when he says that religion is the bacillus, the rats in the sewers, always waiting to rise up and infect when the resistance of the population's intellectual immune system is weak.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

16. Comment #50555 by Sancus on June 18, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Hedges opens with the claim that Christianity was responsible for the rise of individualism in the West and giving us our concept of self. This claim is so outrageous that I find it weird and disturbing people don't automatically reject it. Then, I suppose it is somewhat fortunate the Enlightenment was so effective that people cannot imagine how different things were before it.

I wonder if Hedges ever considered that the rise of individualism might be tied to the rise of literacy rates. Perhaps, when people learn how to read and write, they don't have to rely on community leaders for all their information? Maybe!

Other Comments by Sancus

17. Comment #50556 by Rtambree on June 18, 2007 at 6:20 pm

16. Comment #50555 by Sancus

>Hedges opens with the claim that Christianity was responsible for the rise of individualism in the West and giving us our concept of self.

I scoffed at this too - it was the exact opposite. When Christianity was at its strongest, about 1,000 years ago, Europe was in its most regressive primitive state, and only when the power of the Christian Church started to fragment and wane, and with the onset of the Renaissance and the Enlightment, that's when individualism and other progressive ideas began to take hold. The church resisted these for hundreds of years. Enlightenment ideas arose IN SPITE of Christianity, not because of it.

Other Comments by Rtambree

18. Comment #50558 by Rtambree on June 18, 2007 at 6:32 pm

>15. Comment #50553 by Atticus_of_Amber

Some good points. That western inventions in the MIddle East have undermined secular forces and bolstered religious forces is a hot topic charged with controversy.

Hitchens rightly rails against the "Parties of God", but seems to ignore any context- as if it all happened in a vacuum. That's not to say it's ENTIRELY one side's fault. Too often, these political debates become polarised into either/or camps. There are genuine grievances, compounded by Abrahamic factions, and apportioning blame to all parties and disentangling legitimate from illegitimate, proportionate from disproportionate, resistance from terrorism, economics from politics from nationalism from religion, is fraught with difficulty.

But yes, you reinforce a good point - religion is always there in the background and will resurface if economic, social or political upheaval occurs. Even in the secular countries of Scandinavia - if they had some environmental catastrophe or economic meltdown, religion would gain traction again.

Other Comments by Rtambree

19. Comment #50570 by NormanDoering on June 18, 2007 at 8:01 pm

If anyone is interested:

The debate over here, between Hedges and Harris fans, is a bit more heated and aside from me, who isn't giving it much time and I'm feeling overwhelmed, the atheist representation is minor and poor -- some kid who just insults and doesn't read other's posts:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070523_chris_hedges_i_dont_believe_in_atheists/

And I've got a blog post here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/chris-hedges-new-face-of-anti-atheism.html

Sample:
"...with enemies like Chris Hedges you don't need friends."

Other Comments by NormanDoering

20. Comment #50573 by greg_m on June 18, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Hedges poetic definiton of religion is best (and rather crudely) refuted by Jack Nicholson's character Melvin in the film As Good as it Gets:

"People who talk in metaphors should shampoo my crotch."

Hedges completely personal and metaphoric definiton ("Sam gets it wrong; religion really is...") is irrelevant to the debate about genuine truth-claims made by religions.

Other Comments by greg_m

21. Comment #50577 by Enlightenme.. on June 18, 2007 at 9:35 pm

Another a-humanist throws up a courtier's reply then takes out a bunch of strawmen - sheesh.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

22. Comment #50580 by 82abhilash on June 18, 2007 at 11:20 pm

Moderators like Robert Scheer, fan the flames of irrationality that trap and choke the greatest rationalists of our time. May his actions be remembered by history as shameful along with that of Chris Hedges - who proved to me that you can use intelligent words and still be a moron. Two men sat in front of hundreds of people and justified a grotesque act of terrorism, without fear of reprisal, the Americans cannot be more tolerant if they tried!!

Reminds me of some lines from 'If' by Rudyard Kipling 'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools'.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WHO CAN THINK SENSIBLY, IF YOU FIND PEOPLE LIKE THIS SPEAK IN PUBLIC, DECLARE YOUR DISGUST FOR THEM OPENLY AND SHAMELESSLY, WITH STRONG RESOLVE SO THE WORLD MAY HEAR IT!! MORE THAN THE SUICIDE BOMBERS, IT IS MEN LIKE THESE THAT YOU SHOULD FEAR ABOUT. THEY ARE SWEEPING THE STREETS AND PAVING THE FOOTPATH OVER WHICH THE SUICIDE BOMBERS PLAN TO WALK OVER.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

23. Comment #50584 by jackdavis on June 18, 2007 at 11:50 pm

Hedges and his ilk really scare me. To believe, contra the evidence, that poverty is the cause of Muslim terrorism, is to put one's head in the sand. We cannot confront Islamic terrorism if we cannot identify his root cause- religious irrationality. Sam did a great job, considering how biased the "moderator" was. It seemed like a two-on-one debate. I suggest everyone read Sam's article "Head in the Sand Liberals," available at his website.

Other Comments by jackdavis

24. Comment #50587 by roach on June 19, 2007 at 12:11 am

Sam's the man. He is so calm under pressure and I've seen a number of debates (like this one) turn essentially into 2-on-1. His composure under such unfair circumstances is truly impressive. He probably is the most calm and collected public intellectual I have ever witnessed.

I was pretty disappointed with Hedges. He kept talking about politics and social concerns as if people's religious beliefs have little or no effect on their political/social lives. I was also irritated with his "I lived in Cairo, etc" argument. So what? So you lived in the Middle East and found it to be a pleasurable experience. This is kinda like me moving to the drug and crime infested slums of DC and concluding that "the US is a hotbed for criminals and drug pushers". Why am I not surprised that an affluent (compared to the bulk of the middle east population) and well regarded journalist/writer was able to find and live in peaceful areas in the region?

Something that I really liked out of Sam this time was his humor. He always slips in a couple funny lines but this time he kinda let himself get carried away. Some people may find this to be a weakness and maybe it is. But I don't care. I found myself laughing often.

"This is just cracker eating behavior. And we know this because crackers are eaten in other contexts...there's a general love for crackers" hahahahah

Other Comments by roach

25. Comment #50589 by Broshiesq on June 19, 2007 at 1:46 am

Of course Sam is much more thoughtful and reasoned but he was way too polite. I wanted to reach through my monitor and throttle Scheer, though, totally unprofessional and rude. I was picturing Hitchens sitting there instead of Harris, as Scheer "moderates" :

"Excuse me, Sir, are you asking me or telling me?" In his perfectly condescending tone, of course.

After listening, early on, to Hedges say this: "The question is not whether god exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence." I was wondering why Harris was wasting his time with this guy.

Some other good lines from Hedges (and my response):

CH: I think god is better understood as a verb, rather than a noun.
Me: God off?

CH: God is inescapable. It is the life force that sustains, transforms and defines all existence.
Me: Ben? Ben Kenobi?

Other Comments by Broshiesq

26. Comment #50590 by ImagineAZ on June 19, 2007 at 2:00 am

I'm a bit surprised that some of you were impressed by Hedges at all. I've only heard his opening so far, but he seems like he's defending religion and attacking religion at the same time.

He totally contradicts his previous argument in order to present his current argument. He claims that Christianity isn't violent, because Stalin was violent. (Of course, Stalin merely usurped the role of God; he became the intolerant god himself.) Then he defends Islam by saying that much of the violence blamed on Muslims was actually perpetrated by Christians and Catholic priests. (Sorry, I didn't take notes, so I'm just going off hazy memory.)

I was really listening, and I never heard any coherent actual defense of religion or of faith.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

27. Comment #50592 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 19, 2007 at 2:15 am

Another quick thought. More a vicarious l'esprit d'escallier really.

When Sam called Hedges on his personal knowledge of the Middle East vs what scientific polling showed, Schere broke in with something like "the guy's lived there for fifteen years!".

A cute response from Sam might have been: "I've lived in the US for thrity-[x] years and I never would have dreamed a majority of Americans would vote for George W Bush." Gioven the liberal nature of the audience, it would have both gotten a great laugh and made the point that Hedges's middle eastern friends will be as a biased sample of the Middle East as Sam Harris' quasi-Buddhist or atheist and/or scientist or philosopher friends are likely to be of the USA.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

28. Comment #50593 by ImagineAZ on June 19, 2007 at 2:27 am

After hearing more than half of the whole thing now, I'm wishing Sam would say the obvious: "Suicide bombers and inquisitors are people following the doctrines of their holy books. The books instruct us to torture and kill. I'm not claiming that 100% of religious people will kill for their god, but the ones who believe in their god and DON'T kill are the ones who are NOT following the doctrines. In other words, religion gets better as people believe it and follow it less. And this tendency will carry through all the way to the end of religion."

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

29. Comment #50600 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 19, 2007 at 4:09 am

Just watched it again and I have to say how much I continue to be impressed with Sam Harris. Indeed, I'm actually much more impressed with him as a speaker and debater than I am impressed with him as a writer.

His calm, Zen-like, dare I say Mr-Spock-like manner is a model of rationality. For example, when called a racist the most annoyed he gets is to say a little emphatically "I really have to deal with this charge or racism."

As so many people have said, his response to being ganged up upon by Hedges and the so-called moderator was to just calmly lay out his view, point out where he had been misrepresented and deal with the points that did attack what he had actually said. In the end, to my (admittedly biased) mind, he came off looking so much better than the increasingly deranged sounding hedges and (especially) the moderator.

You know what I want to see? An Australian-style three-speakers-a-side debate between Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens on one side and three theists on the other. Dawkins can do "religion is highly unlikely to be true", Harris can do "by making it ok to believe things without good evidence or good reasons, religion is dangerous to global civilization", and Hitchens can pour shit on, ahem, I mean rebut the other side in typical swashbuckling form.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

30. Comment #50621 by howtoplayalone on June 19, 2007 at 5:42 am

"Mr-Spock-like manner"

Ha. That's a keeper.

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

31. Comment #50623 by Rtambree on June 19, 2007 at 6:03 am

This debate was essentially a political one, not a religious one.

The single question was "To what extent can western interventions in the Middle East explain the variation in extremism among Muslims"

Does a map of Mulsim extremism correlate with an overlayed map of western intervention?

Sam Harris seems to discount it - perhaps only 10% correlation, while Hedges seems to favour a 90% correlation. Another way to look at it is the Sam reverses cause and effect.

Sam never succesfully answered the question as to why some regions are highly violent and some were not. The Koran is just as equally pervasive throughout the Muslim world, but some Muslims take it more literally than others. What drives the variation in literalness?

I think the answer is that Islam amplifies any existing political, economic and social grievances and distorts them out of all proportion. It's like a lens. This multivariate analysis defies easy dissection. The different positions are along a spectrum, while debates encourage the either/or dichotomy.

Sam's archilles heel in this political debate seems to be advocating more western military intervetion which history has shown, only perpetuates the cycle of violence.

btw, I'm glad Sam has recanted (or clarified) his alleged soft spot for Buddhist mysticism. That was "illogical" Captain.

29. Comment #50600 by Atticus_of_Amber

That's not an Australian debating style - it originated in Oxford. The Aussies copied it just like the Westminster parliamentary system. In any case, such a three-per-side debate HAS been done a few months ago - An Intelligence Square debate from London - there was Dawkins, Hitchens and Grayling on one side with some wishy-washy religious apologists on the other side. The topic was "We'd be better off without religion". The atheists won. It was linked to on this site.

Other Comments by Rtambree

32. Comment #50626 by aznxscorpion517 on June 19, 2007 at 6:22 am

I'm also getting pretty annoyed with Chris Hedges position. I haven't even heard the whole thing yet and it's already getting to me. It's because it's very clear that he is defending HIS OWN version of god and religion. HIS view is not the WORLD view which is where the problem lies. AND HEDGES, who seems to believe he knows what Christianity really is, he must be asked if he is a TRUE Christian. Why? Because like what someone else said, he doesn't follow the scriptures literally. Aren't the people who follow the scriptures to the bone the REAL Christians? So are you Mr. Hedges, a Christian at all? Are you cherry picking like many others?

I say the Biblical literalists are probably the TRUE Christians because the Bible is either true or it's not. There can't be a middle ground. God, if he exists is supposed to be omnipotent and perfect. That means he can't make a mistake in the Bible. Therefore, it has to be all correct. He can't make a mistake and say "Oops, sorry about the homosexual thing". Because he can't make a mistake in the first place. And if Hedges claims to follow what he says are the true form of Christianity, aka his view of Christianity. We must ask, who is he to know what true Christianity is when he is disregarding the Biblical text which he only sometimes follows.

You may ask me well, who am I to judge that literalists are the TRUE Christians too. Well, the Bible is the ONLY real evidence that supports Christianity and horribly BAD evidence I might add. So is that not what you should follow to the bone? Again, is God not perfect? The book is either true or not. Either you follow it or you don't. Why are you cherry picking? Does that mean you don't think God is perfect like he says he is in the book that is HIS WORD? I think that is a good enough reason to think those who take the Bible literally are the TRUE Christians.

If Mr. Hedges isn't following all of God's commands why does he believe in Christianity at all? Must you cherry pick the Bible to be a good person? Doesn't that make you not a Christian if you don't follow everything God says? Is there a good reason you believe in a god, Mr. Hedges? And again, are you really a Christian?

Other Comments by aznxscorpion517

33. Comment #50628 by howtoplayalone on June 19, 2007 at 6:31 am

The worst part was when Scheer slams his hand on the table and shouts "WRONG, WRONG, WRONG," at Harris. Some impartiality - it would have been childish enough (especially in contrast with Harris' Zen-like Mr. Spockness) if Hedges had done it, but he's the moderator.

Is the statement "A well done Pew poll is worth 1,000 man hours of you wandering around the Middle East" simply wrong? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and certainly not worth that outburst from Scheer.

I'm ready to write him off. He always bugged me on Left, Right and Center (radio debate show) and disappointed in that he couldn't get the left's (and my) side across without sounding like a grumpy old man who wanted to be somewhere other than in a debate with those center and right fools who were wrong, wrong, wrong.

So much for Scheer.

As for Rtambree, my old friend, where does Harris "advocate more western military intervetion"? I haven't heard the whole thing, but does he suggest that?

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

34. Comment #50630 by aznxscorpion517 on June 19, 2007 at 6:38 am

Mr. Hedges talked about how it's tribalism and not religion that cause these acts of violence. What he ignores is that it's religion that justifies these actions. He thinks religion is not the problem but tribalism is. If you ask me, religion is a form of tribalism, is it not? Apparently his view of religion isn't, which I talked about earlier. He says that the Quran isn't a violent text and is tolerant. I hear people say it's horrible and he says it's not. Either way, whether or not it says those things people are killing each other because they believe something their book says. They kill in the name of their god for their belief of something whether it is in the book or not. Is that not a problem with the book? Their religion when they use it to justify their violence?

This is a great quote from Steven Weinberg.
"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
-- Steven Weinberg

Other Comments by aznxscorpion517

35. Comment #50631 by Riley on June 19, 2007 at 6:39 am

Chris Hedges - "Religion is a good thing for good people and a bad thing for bad people. You can find anything you want in the Bible."

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y.

Other Comments by Riley

36. Comment #50632 by Lagomort on June 19, 2007 at 6:41 am

I really thought I liked Hedges before this. I thought he was good guy, but all of his strawmen racism comments and such, that had nothing to do with what Sam Harris was saying at all, pissed me the hell off.

And, as asked above, was the guy in the middle really the Moderator? He seemed to be sent there as a left-wing promo guy thats has the singular job of blaming all things, bad and worse, on Western intervention.

What gets me, is I am very liberal and proud of it, and I thought their liberal stances was silly and shallow. I simply cannot believe Sam's ability not to lose it and just start slapping those people...

Other Comments by Lagomort

37. Comment #50639 by Riley on June 19, 2007 at 7:20 am

I think Sam's argument that poverty is not a factor leading to suicide bombing is overly simplistic.

It's not uncommon for people to act out in response to a perceived injustice even when the injustice is to a person other than themselves. Would Sam argue that slavery was not an important factor motivating men to voluntarily take-up arms during the American Civil War because a dis-proportionate number of the Northern volunteer soldiers were not themselves slaves?

In cases where there is a strong sense of group identity (weather that identity be Islam or some other religion, or a nationality, or an ethnicity) it's even easier to account for why educated members of a group would dis-proportionally be the responders to a perceived injustice (i.e. impoverishment).

Other Comments by Riley

38. Comment #50648 by MrEmpirical on June 19, 2007 at 7:56 am

Wow, Sam owned Hedges in Part 4 of the debate. I cheered when Sam said that a well-conducted poll would be more informative than if Hedges wandered the Middle East for 1,000 years! Reminds me of the good old saying "The plural of anecdote is NOT data".

Indeed, I've never seen Harris step up to the plate like he did in this debate. Normally Harris is a bit too tranquil for his own good. But in this debate he stayed cool but still managed to slam Hedges with some great comments. I loved his analogies to Nazism and witch burning. "There are good Nazis, there are good witches" LOL.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

39. Comment #50649 by MrEmpirical on June 19, 2007 at 8:02 am

Riley,

Sam didn't deny that poverty and despair are important variables. But Sam also pointed out that it matters what people believe in the midst of despair and poverty. For example, a despairing, impoverished Jain would not lash out violently, whereas a despairing, impoverished Muslim would.

And sure, the Northern soldiers in the Civil War were not slaves, but it's kinda hard to fight a war when you're enslaved... Whereas it is easy to participate in suicide bombing even if you're impoverished. Presumably the prospect of eternal bliss is even more attractive to those who are most disadvantaged, and yet the more educated, literate, and prosperous Muslims are more likely to engage in jihad.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

40. Comment #50650 by MorituriMax on June 19, 2007 at 8:02 am

Hedges is the penultimate poster child for "Ivory Tower Intellectual." Most of his lines opened with, "Well I was there for x months/years/etc so I know exactly what is going on there."

Other Comments by MorituriMax

41. Comment #50652 by aznxscorpion517 on June 19, 2007 at 8:14 am

Yeah, Chris Hedges kept saying he was there and saw and stuff like that. He only needed to say it a few times but he said it so much that it made it seem as if that automatically makes him more credible than research polls without question.

The moderator--or at least he supposed to be a moderator--did seem a little biased. It did seem like a two on one. I think he almost spoke as much as Hedges did in the later parts if not more.

Hedges still fails to realize what Sam Harris said about how people act in violence out of despair and poverty but it matters what they believe along with the despair they have. Sam Harris said something along the lines of a despairing, impoverished Jain would not lash out violently, whereas a despairing, impoverished Muslim would.

Other Comments by aznxscorpion517

42. Comment #50653 by Donald on June 19, 2007 at 8:20 am

Sam is very impressive as usual. Great opening speech.

I found Hedges hard to listen to. Hedges started with:
"...[Sam] fails to grasp the supreme importance of the monothestic traditions in creating the concept of the individual. This individualism, the belief that we can exist as distinct beings from the tribe or the crowd, and that we are called on as individuals to make moral decisions that at times defy the clamour of the tribe or the nation, is a gift of the Abrahamic faiths."

My jaw dropped. So individuals before Abraham did not think they were distinct beings? They did not make moral decisions? All moral decisions were collective decisions of the tribe or nation? The claims of the religites seem to grow ever stronger and more bizarre.

I have never heard this claim before, and it is out of line with what I believed about Greek civilisation, Roman civilisation, the early history of religions, and human nature.

However, in case Hedges is quoting a mainstream view that I had not heard before, where should I look for the historical or philosophical underpinnings for this opinion from Hedges? Or is Hedges talking nonsense that he made up himself?

Other Comments by Donald

43. Comment #50654 by aznxscorpion517 on June 19, 2007 at 8:39 am

I'm prety sure he made it up himself. He seems to defend religion because he is defending HIS version of Christianity. It would make sense that he would make up his own claims for this position.

His claim doesn't give any truth to the idea of religion. This debate was more about politics and ideas like someone said earlier.

Other Comments by aznxscorpion517

44. Comment #50658 by Dax on June 19, 2007 at 9:01 am

Hedges uses the "that is not my God" argument. In other words he uses semantics to defend what he calls "faith", never actually stating what faith exactly is.
Hedges is a fringe lunatic and just listening to his bovine excrement makes my blood pressure reach deadly levels.
What a !

Sam Harris on the other hand, is clear, concise and intellectually stronger.

Other Comments by Dax

45. Comment #50666 by Michelle on June 19, 2007 at 10:22 am

Harris does two very important things in most of his debates, but in this one in particular. Primarily, he steadfastly makes the assertion that beliefs, (specifically belief in stories that are untrue) are the root of religion and of the conflicts we're facing. Secondly, he effectively uses humor to point up the absurdities of some of these untrue beliefs, for example, the "normal cracker-eating behaviors" bit. Harris' effectiveness is evidenced in part by the moderators uncomfortable dismissal of some of Harris' later humorous examples, with a statement, something like "well this is all in good fun, and you're getting some laughs, but..." Yes. Exactly.

Other Comments by Michelle

46. Comment #50670 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 10:48 am

What a load of intellectually vacuous nonsense this idiot Hedges came out with. 'I will be what I will be'. Oh, oh, oh, I think I am comeeeeng! God is a verb. I am going godding tonight. Fancy a quick zues on the table? How about we go out tonight and allah a few christians, but in an individualistic sort of way. Indeed, that was a masterful display of total fuckwittery. Harris was amusing and interesting to listen to, Hedges was just pure slapstick. And who the fuck was that complete moron, looking like a jethro tull reject, sitting in between them?

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

47. Comment #50677 by Donald on June 19, 2007 at 11:51 am

Following on from 50653, I took another small dose of Hedges. The next sentence from Hedges opening speech was:
"...This individualism is the central doctrine and most important contribution of monotheism - we are enjoined after all to love our neighbour, not our tribe."

The manoeuvre becomes clear. He is attempting to blame the hostility between social groups on "tribalism" , and thus free religions from blame. He intends to completely the ignore the enormous contribution religion makes to define people into separate groups in the first place, and then ignore the doctrines in religions that create hostility between religious groups.

Some of those doctrines are:
Sect A says sect B has got the story wrong, and therefore do not believe in the real god.
Only believers in the real god go to heaven, all others go to hell. (belief throughout xianity and islam)
Allah hates unbelievers. (repeated many time in Koran)
Unbelievers will go to hell, whereas believers will go to heaven. (sentiment repeated many times in Koran)
Allah says "don't take unbelievers as friends". (explicit in the Koran, e.g. 60:13)
If you take unbelievers as friends allah will punish you. (explicit in Koran, e.g. 58:14-15)
Allah wants the whole world to submit to Islam.
And the worst of all: in the Koran, careful reading, in context, shows that all the injunctions to be kind and help neighbours, to not kill etc, are intended as rules for muslims to follow in regard to fellow muslims. Non-muslims (i.e. unbelievers) are hated by god, are not to be taken as friends, and are to be fought (and killed) if they oppose Islam. That's what it says.

Now, if you believe there is a supreme being rewards you for following him, and sends you to hell if you don't, and you also believe that the supreme being hates the "others" enough to send them to everlasting hell, then doesn't that create a divide deeper and more destructive than tribal rivalry? The evidence from history is that religious divisions are indeed worse than tribal rivalry.

And this guy spent many years in the middle east? He didn't read the Koran to see what it actually says???

Hedges goes on:
"This empowerment of individual consciousness is the starting point of the great ethical systems of our civilisation. The prophets ... helped institutionalise dissent and criticism."

That's enough for me. I can't bear to listen to Hedges in more than very very small doses (about 60 seconds at a time). Judging from the other comments here, I think I would do serious damage to my blood pressure if I listened to all of Hedges nonsense.

My admiration for Sam's ability to remain patient and produce calm responses is enormous.

[edit: correction to length of time Hedges spent in middle east]

Other Comments by Donald

48. Comment #50679 by nerdfiles on June 19, 2007 at 12:08 pm

How can they allow for Hedges to get away with espousing and spreading such blatantly FALSE claims?! The happenings or teachings or what have you of Christianity laid the FOUNDATIONS for ethics?

Are you kidding me?!

Are you seriously kidding me?!

He should be skewed and roasted on the spot for obviously LYING! He's completely denying the existence of the exact civilised thought the Romans had to conquer and thrash in order to propagate Christian ethics and morality! The ancient Greek philosophers were tackling issues of ethics and morality, justice, love, solidarity, the human condition, relationships and so many other topics which permeate through our apparent "Christian values system" hundreds of years before the supposed happenings of the bible; hundreds of years before the supposed HISTORICAL happenings of the bible.

I am SO angry! This is no SMALL lie. To lie to this magnitude and to be dignified with an audience should be INSULTING to ANYONE with a college-level education. Merely bringing up Plato or Aristotle resonates with a huge majority of the population, yet do people even REALISE they were existing and THINKING 300 to 400 years BEFORE the advent of Christian doctrine?

COME ON, PEOPLE!

Anyway, this Hedges guy dodges the true points, focuses on religious antagonisms BETWEEN religions, which is HARDLY useful, and describes a wishy-washy, amorphous, irrelevant and worthless god that could easily be equated to our capacity to imagine a better life, ethical system and morality for ourselves. In no way is he talking about the Abrahamic god. He's just correlating his lovey-lovey, personal feelings with his Postmodern, worthless definition of the deity--and not even the Christian deity at that. Then he goes on to PRESUME that all religions are actually aiming for the ill-defined deity he's barely described.

And this whole NON-rational, not irrational claim.

Again, are you kidding me?

This is EXACTLY what Harris is debating against. This presumptuous claim to knowledge. How EVER do you know what is or is outside the scope of reason and evidence? What better argument do these faith-heads postulate but "my god tells me so?" PROVE IT. Burden of proof. Prove this deity exists, and MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, you'll have a chance at proving he cares enough about us to let us KNOW what we can NEVER know. If not that, they invoke the stance of intellectual cowardice, deeming things too difficult to understand are not worth understanding. RUBBISH. This sort of cowardly stance they PRESUME as humility, but they fail to realise it is trespassing on more fields of science than they can shake a stick at. You're presupposing a) that scientists are even making truth-claims and b) presupposing that there is something outside the scope of reason without using reason or evidence to prove such a claim. And even still, how can you claim there is nothing outside the scope of reason without using reason itself to judge as such? Do you use your FAITH to tell scientists what they will and will not accomplish?

LEAVE SCIENTISTS ALONE. LEAVE PHILOSOPHERS ALONE. You faith-heads do not have exclusive rights to the unexplored.

These people only feel "violated" because the status quo is being shifted out of their favour.

And I'm done ranting. This Hedges chap infuriates me, especially with his sermon-like speech. Granted this may be irrelevant, but at least Harris can be laid back and casual. Does Hedges really need to invoke the pastor character to share his thoughts?

Other Comments by nerdfiles

49. Comment #50689 by Riley on June 19, 2007 at 12:52 pm

MrEmpirical wrote: "Sam didn't deny that poverty and despair are important variables."

MrEmpirical, I could be wrong, but when Sam says:

"... [moderates] seem to believe that [the cause of suicide bombing]it is poverty and economic desperation and lack of education. The reason why we know that can't be true is that everything we find out about these people is that they are dis-proportionally well off ... It would be nice if it were [a movement of the poor and uneducated] then the remedy is just spread the money around ..."
from around 13:10 in part 3 of the debate

It really does seem like Sam's arguing here that because we observe that there is a disproportionate number of "well off" suicide bombers, that we can conclude (that "we know") that poverty is not a factor in these attacks. It might in fact be true that poverty is not a factor in these attacks, but he is making a poor argument. The American Civil War provides us at least one example of non-Muslim people sacrificing their lives to correct a perceived injustice even when they themselves are not the ones suffering from nor even threatened by the injustice they are fighting to correct.

"And sure, the Northern soldiers in the Civil War were not slaves, but it's kinda hard to fight a war when you're enslaved ... it is easy to participate in suicide bombing even if you're impoverished."

Similarly, it's very hard for someone who can't read or write to be trained to make bombs, fly airplanes, get passports, operate effectively in a decentralized organization, function socially among other educated people in order to gain access to targets and resources, etc.

Overall, I don't find it very surprising at all to see that a disproportionate number of the attackers are people selected from the well educated, resourceful, technically skilled population of Muslims. The very nature of these organizations and their activities necessitates it, and it's natural that the suicide volunteers are then disproportionately selected from within those organizations of people.

I certainly agree that religious texts provide an added personal justification in the minds of suicide attackers and that belief in an after life serves to lower the emotional barriers to suicide; both are important additional factors worthy of note. I could even accept the possibility that poverty may not be a factor (although I think it is). But to argue that we know poverty is not a factor because a disproportionate number of attackers are not themselves impoverished is a fatally flawed argument.

Other Comments by Riley

50. Comment #50695 by krogercomplete on June 19, 2007 at 1:32 pm

It really does seem like Sam's arguing here that because we observe a disproportionate number of "well off" suicide bombers we "know" that poverty is not a factor in these attacks. It might in fact be true that poverty is not a factor in these attacks, but he is making a poor argument. The American Civil War provides us at least one example of non-Muslim people sacrificing their lives to correct a perceived injustice even when they themselves are not the ones suffering from nor even threatened by the injustice they are fighting to correct.

Is the suggestion here that suicide bombers are benevolent freedom fighters, giving their lives to correct social injustices that they themselves do not experience but rather perceive to be affecting others? Also, I think the civil war analogy is going to need some fleshing out.

Other Comments by krogercomplete