I was wrong about new atheism, Sam Harris, and Islam

[beam me up scottie]

I was wrong about new atheism, Sam Harris, and Islam
October 19, 2005 by: Dan Arel

I have recently come under attack by Sam Harris fans for my critiques of Harris’ work on Islam, mainly one piece I wrote over a year ago called Is new atheism dead or even a term worth saving? In which I heavily critiqued Harris, Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher for what I saw at the time as wrongly blaming Islam for the problems caused by American politics.

In many follow up pieces, I have corrected my position but it seems some people still come across an old post and come after me for it. So here it is, the piece that explains why I was wrong. I have changed my mind after discussing these issues with countless others, re-reading the works of Harris, etc.

Let this be the piece that clears it up.

...

Alright, putting aside the argument some will make that Dawkins recent tweets do harm atheism (this is very debatable), Dawkins and Harris are not so endless in this battle. Dawkins is often misunderstood or too brash for some, and Harris has actually made great strides to defend atheism, especially in the face of the mass shootings that some wish to blame on non-belief.

But on Islam, I was wrong. Yes, I still believe that politics plays a massive role in Islamic extremism, to the extent that it is an incredible recruiting tool and also does drive their targets, but that ignores just how much religion is used as the motivator and justification for such extremism.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/10/i-was-wrong-about-new-atheism-sam-harris-and-Islam

[AlbertCat]

1. First, his racial profiling in which he sadly has had to re-explain too many times.

Islam is not a race to begin with. "Profiling" is indeed a thing, but doesn't always involve race.


And ANYTHING one says that criticizes any religion has to eventually be explained, because religious apologists and enthusiast read too much between the lines, ignore the "bad" directives that religion often champions and take everything personally.

"I do believe there would be opposition to American politics in the Middle East even if Islam did not exist, but I do now believe that the reaction would be much different"

Exactly.

[beam me up scottie]

2. I'm glad he realized he was wrong.

And he may be right about embracing the 'new atheist' label.

The best way to render a slur impotent imo.

[Yorktown]

3. Nice to see someone ready to admit idealism isn't a magic wand

I suspect many defenders of Islam do it based on the faulty equation:

empathy/defend the downtrodden + many Arab coutries are poor = Islam is OK/innocuous.

While Arabs/Indonesians/Persians can be (and most often are) incredibly nice,

the religion mist of them espouse (Islam) is violent nonsense.


To be fair, the Torah/Old Testament also is nonsensical violent crap.

But nobody takes the T/OT as seriously as Muslims take the Quran. Hence the problem.

[mr blur]

4. Actually, I think that many DO!

etc, etc . . .

[beam me up scottie]

5. There are a lot of people (myself included) who defend Muslims irl.

But we're not among right wing Islamophobes here, we should be able to criticize any and every religion without being called bigots.