As if atheists weren’t crazy enough, we now have some that are even crazier. According to Alternet’s recent article, Sam Harris’s Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture, atheists can “believe” (haha) any number of unprovable and wacky things.
I’ve always thought that atheism and theism were two beliefs that were equally illogical and equally closed-minded when it comes to rejecting or accepting other viewpoints. I believe that no one can prove or disprove God, so if you choose either end of the spectrum, you’re just going on faith.
Sam Harris goes on to show just how many strange things are “believable” to a skeptical disbeliever. ESP, reincarnation, torture and yes… killing. Not just killing, but killing in the name of his own beliefs.
His first strange belief: reincarnation is real. Amazingly, he gathered this belief after reading a book, he has no first-hand experience with it. (Sound like something familiar, Sam?)
Harris admits to being won over by accounts of “xenoglossy,” in which people abruptly begin speaking languages they don’t know. Remember the girl in “The Exorcist”? “When a kid starts speaking Bengali, we have no idea scientifically what’s going on.”
My first question (speaking as a fellow skeptic) would be, how did the researchers know that the kid was speaking Bengali? Is it a little unlikely that a (random?) child (under hypnosis?) began speaking Bengali and coincidentally, there just happened to be a Bangladeshi researcher in the room? If, as a later description tells, this particular case involved Ravi Shankar, I wonder if he was the one doing the translating? If so, why was he allowed near the “evidence”? Gotta read the book myself, I suppose.
Second strange belief, that torture is acceptable and it works!
“We know [torture] works. It has worked. It’s just a lie to say that it has never worked,” he says. “Accidentally torturing a few innocent people” is no big deal next to bombing them, he continues. Why sweat it?
His logic fails on this one. Saying “it’s a lie to say it has never worked” belies his presumed rationality. If we go by that standard, we may well say it’s a lie that domestic violence has never “worked”, it’s a lie that genocide never “worked”… etc. What level of “working” do we need to convince a skeptic like Harris? Due to the moral problems with research on torture, I don’t know if there exists any unbiased data on which we could base a “scientific” opinion. Simply, either you’re morally against it, or you’re immoral. :-) And you’ll see below that he actually doesn’t even mind if we bomb some of those innocent people.
Further, if we assume all enemies are lying, which ones do we torture? I know from my own experience that torturing my brother (hitting him or pinning him uncomfortably) never worked. He would either tell me a lie so I’d let him go, whereupon he laughed and ran away or he would yell for our parents in an attempt to scare me away.
I must quote of the great comments on that article:
Let’s put his claim that torture works to the test. In 1690 several people were tortured in Salem, and gave all kinds of evidence that people around them were witches. Maybe Harris’ belief in psychic phenomena will explain how people who had never mentioned this before were suddenly seeing the light, but I gues they were all in on the witch conspiracy. But the people tortured testified that women flew through the air and sickened cows. I guess somewhere between now and 1690 we lost that particular technology.
Yes, torture works. It lets the interrogator hear what he wants to hear, and forces the tortured to tell them what they want to hear. That what the torturer wants to hear might diverge from reality Harris doesn’t seem to understand.
Just because I believe that someone planted a bomb in the Empire State Building doesn’t make it true-especially if I am tearing out his fingernails.
A third, among many irrational and offensive beliefs Harris holds… it’s okay to kill people who don’t agree with him. On reaching such a high level of enlightenment, he has reached a conclusion that some people (namely those with what he determines to be dangerous positions) can be killed. Whether he, himself would do the killing or would rather it be taken care of by an army of rationalists or atheist crusaders, he doesn’t say.
[T]he logic he lays out — that Islam itself is our enemy — invites the reader to feel comfort at the deaths of its believers. He writes: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”
Another commenter asks, “is this proposition meant to be one of them?”
I agree, holding such a belief that people who hold another belief are (or may) be ethically killed is a DANGEROUS belief. That’s likely why he’s against Muslims in the first place - they (to him) believe in killing those who disagree. What’s the difference???