“Why are we keeping this asshole around… that's my question that lies at the heart

of this little trip through the Sam Harris being a shitty person neighbourhood of memory

lane. Why is there still a significant portion of the atheist, skeptical community that seems

determined to protect this bigoted asshole at all costs? Why is this self impressed know-it-all

who compulsively demonizes Muslims while claiming that's not what he's doing, who disrespects

women while insisting he actually respects them more, who proudly aligns himself with

racists and anti feminists and xenophobes while insisting that he actually super disagrees

with their views, still treated like one of the leading intellectual lights of modern

atheism and scepticism?” One week ago, the YouTuber Steve Shives published a video titled

Waking Up to Sam Harris Not Making Sense, and within it he expressed numerous reasons

as to why he believes Harris is an arsehole (“I believe all of that… and I believe

Sam Harris is an asshole”). The video is, in my opinion, a character assassination of

Harris, predicated on a misinformed (or PERHAPS deliberate) interpretation of his views, a

lack of sense of humour, and a seeming desire to just be offended. Now I’ve had to pick

and choose my battles with this one, as if I was to respond to all of Shives’ criticisms

then this reply would take eons, and as much I’d like to do just that, I actually want

to get back to some of my ongoing series, as I’ve got a bit of house cleaning to do

of them. Given this, I recommend that you watch the whole of Shives’ video before

watching this response. This is Shives' Assassination - Debunked.

Let’s start with context… a thing that most of Harris’ critics are not

very fond of. Steve Shives was inspired to make his video as a result of witnessing a

heated Twitter exchange between Mehdi Hasan and Sam Harris. Long story short, Hasan, in

reference to the Christchurch mosque shooting, published an article in which accused Harris

(among others) of playing a role due to his (and their) “anti-Muslim rhetoric”, and

Harris responded by sharing a dated article in which he addresses such accusations at

length. I’ve left a link to Hasan’s article, Harris’ article, and the Twitter exchange

below, in case you’d like to know more. And so, there’s the context – you’re

up to date! Now the first reason Shives gives as to why he believes Harris is an arsehole

is because Harris treats religions unequally, and (according to Shives) he does so without

good reason. “The first controversy to which he responds in his response to controversy

peace is his tendency to say repugnant things about Islam and the people who practice it.

In the first paragraph of that section he writes, ‘Because I am concerned about the

logical and behavioural consequences of specific beliefs, I do not treat all religions the

same.” Now Shives skips the next sentence (presumably because he believes it’s not

needed), but I want to emphasize it as I believe it’s actually the crux of Harris’ sentiment:

he continues “Not all religious doctrines are mistaken to the same degree, intellectually

or ethically, and it is dishonest and ultimately dangerous to pretend otherwise. People in

every tradition can be seen making the same errors, of course—e.g. relying on faith

instead of evidence in matters of great personal and public concern—but the doctrines and

authorities in which they place their faith run the gamut from the quaint to the psychopathic.”

Now in my opinion, that, right there (which Shives skipped) is a VERY good reason to focus

more on Islam than, say, Jainism. Anyhow, onward: “For instance, a dogmatic belief

in the spiritual and ethical necessity of complete non-violence lies at the very core

of Jainism, whereas an equally dogmatic commitment to using violence to defend one's faith both

from within and without is similarly central to the doctrine of Islam. If you will not

concede this point you will not understand anything I say about Islam.” Again, Shives

skipped a sentence here (and in this case it’s a sentence that’s followed by the

words “If you will not concede this point you will not understand anything I say about

Islam.” Given this, let me read it: “These beliefs, though held for identical reasons

(faith) and in varying degrees by individual practitioners of these religions, could not

be more different. And this difference has consequences in the real world.” And finally,

here’s Shives’ criticism: “Here's the problem, many Muslims living in majority Muslim

countries and also here in the West do not believe their faith contains the doctrine

Harris declares to be central to Islam. Harris is taking his reading of the Quran as the

only legitimate reading. He interprets it as calling upon the faithful to use violence

to defend the faith, and he assumes that those who argue otherwise, including sincere practicing

Muslims, are being either dishonest or wilfully ignorant about what their religion says. I

think that's not only arrogant on Harris's part – why should his reading of the Quran

be treated as the authentic one, especially when it seems to align so closely with that

of extremists? It’s also unfair to the millions of Muslims who don’t find a call to violence

in their faith.” Okay, so first off, given the sentences that Shives left out, I hope

it’s clear why Harris doesn’t treat all religions the same. Jains and Muslims, for

example, both employ faith to substantiate their beliefs (as opposed to evidence), but

to outsiders, the beliefs of Jains are benign compared to the beliefs of Muslims. For example,

Jains practice, ON FAITH, not hurting any entity whatsoever – and no matter how “fanatic”,

how “extreme” or how “fundamental” they become, they ain’t guna hurt anyone…

literally! On the other hand, Muslims practice, ON FAITH, Sharia Law, which results in egregious

violations of human rights. Talking of which, when Shives says “Harris is taking his reading

of the Quran as the only legitimate reading” he is demonstrably wrong. Harris bases most

of his criticisms of Islam on what “moderate” Muslims actually purport to believe. In 2013,

the Pew Research Centre published a survey of over 38,000 moderate Muslims from over

39 different countries, and found, to name just a few of their findings, that there is

MASSIVE support for executing apostates (we’re talking from as “low” as 12% in Southern-Eastern

Europe to as high as 76% in South Asia); likewise, there’s MASSIVE support for stoning adulterers

(from 21% in Bosnia to 89% in Pakistan); what’s more, a significant amount of those polled

believe that wives must ALWAYS obey their husbands (from 34% to 94%); and there’s

MASSIVE support for making Sharia law (which is law based on the Quran and hadith) the

law of the land (ranging from 12% in Albania to 99% in Afghanistan) – which, to be clear,

would mean Muslims claiming jurisdiction over non-Muslims. These are the facts that constitute

Harris’ view of Islam, and these are the facts that people like Shives brush under

the carpet… “Many Muslims living in majority Muslim countries and also here in the West

do not believe their faith contains the doctrine Harris declares to be central to Islam.”

Again, Harris’ point is that a significant proportion of Muslims support egregious things

EXPLICTLY because their faith in Islam. Now the fact that these Muslims don’t see their

beliefs as egregious, but actually as “good, kind and loving”, doesn’t somehow make

them less egregious. Put it this way: whether those throwing homosexual from rooftops believe

they’re good or not, it has no bearing on the innocent who hit the floor. Moving on,

a second (and related) comment that Shives gives that I’d like to respond to is that,

“There’s no true interpretation of Islam, and so (he implies) you can’t really criticise

it”. “Religions are social constructs. They don't exist solely in the pages of their

holy books, they exist through the beliefs and practices of religious people. When Sam

Harris says using violence to defend one's faith is a central doctrine of Islam, that

is true for some Muslims, but it's also not true for some Muslims. And here's the key

point, as I see it, neither of those groups is right or wrong. There's no such thing as

a more authentic form of a religion because it's all open to interpretation.” Religions

are social constructs, of course, and while one interpretation of a text might be more

literal than another, neither can really be proven right or wrong… this is true (though,

it’s worth noting, that when taken to its logical conclusion this produces absolutely

absurd results, as one person could interpret the sentence “Know thyself” to mean “Know

yourself” while another person could interpret it to mean “Lick all pigs over the age of

three” and yet neither can be proven right or wrong). However, more to the point, when

a significant proportion of a religion’s adherents want, for example, homosexuals to

be severely punished, and do so explicitly because of their interpretation of their faith,

you can’t just hand-wave that away! Doing so helps no one! But, you know what? For the

sake of argument, let’s do that – let’s hand wave it away, just for Shives. What we’re

left with is a significant amount of people who want to severely punish homosexuals, and

Harris is simply pointing out that such beliefs are not compatible with, and a threat to,

Western civilization… The point being, of course, is that even with all interpretations

aside, the fact that there’s a significant population calling for such atrocities is

a serious problem that must be addressed, and if the earnest reason they give for their

positions is Islam, then that is what must be addressed. Now there’s many more accusations

and comments on the topic of Islam that I’d like to respond to (and perhaps will do upon

another time), but for now I’ll move on Shives’ claim that Harris is disrespectful

to women, and has a ‘history of sexism.’ “One controversy Harris doesn't address

in his response to controversy is his history of sexism, but that's because he gave that

subject an article all to itself. What happened was, back in 2014, Harris was interviewed

in front of a live audience at George Washington University. The interview was conducted by

Washington post reporter Michelle Borstein. At one point Borstein asked Harris why the

Atheist community in general, and his own audience in particular, seemed so overwhelmingly

male. Harris initially answered with a joke saying the problem must be his own lack of

sex appeal […] According to Harris, he was approached by a woman at a book signing after

the interview who pointed out to him how sexist his answer to that question was. Harris' response

to that woman, according to his own account it (found in the aforementioned article about

the event he published in his blog) was even more sexist and blockheaded than what he said

on stage. The woman told Harris that what he said was sexist and damaging and warranted

an apology, and Harris said to her ‘You really are determined to be offended, aren't

you?’ And then she said ‘no, you're just totally unaware of how sexist you are’…

which is accurate.” Of all the reasons that Shives gives for calling Harris an arsehole,

this is, in my opinion, the weakest (and that’s saying something). Making a joke that is predicated

on an assumption that is largely true, does not make Harris sexist… honestly, I’m

flabbergasted – Shives, and people like him, give a free pass to people you are actually

sexist (for example, the massive percentage of Muslims that believe wives must ALWAYS

obey their husbands, or that a women’s testimony is worth only half that of a man’s) but

he calls Harris sexist and says that he has a “history of sexism” (“history of sexism”)

because he once told a women who got offended by a light joke that she’s being a snowflake.

I honestly don’t get it… how can people have such a double standards? I can only assume

that it’s for the sake of identity politics… Sexism is a very serious charge, and to insist

that Harris is sexist over this joke is to be a fucking arsehole. Shives, I have to say

it, you really are just trying to be offended, aren’t you? You’ve decided Harris is a

bad guy, and now you’re clutching at straws. And last but not least, another reason Shives

believes Harris is an arsehole is because he quit Patreon, according Shives, because

he supports far-right activists. “Last year Harris even went so far as to announce he

was quitting patreon because it had recently banned the likes of Milo Yinnopolis and professional

misogynist and racist troll Carl Benjamin from its platform. Harris insisted that he

doesn't share their politics, he just thinks they should be able to earn thousands of dollars

a month, ranting about how feminists and immigrants are destroying Western civilization, and pointing

out when a mass-shooter makes some good points in his manifesto.” In a podcast subsequent

to his departure from Patreon, Harris gave a very good reason as to why he pulled the

plug. In short, he looked into the case of Sargon of Akkad, and found that 1) he was

taken out of context, and 2) (and most importantly) he was banned for using offensive language.

In light of this, Harris said “While I don't share the politics of the banned members,

I consider it no longer tenable to expose any part of my podcast funding to the whims

of Patreon's Trust and Safety committee.” He continued "Giving that I frequently touch

controversial topics, and that I am making a considerable effort to create a space where

I can do that, it just seems prudent for me to secure 100% of my funding through my own

website.” Add to this the fact that Harris is FOREVER having his words twisted and misrepresented

by people, such as Shives (“… which is accurate”), and given that Patreon’s “Trust

and Safety committee” have failed to account for context before, I think his departure

from the platform was as a wise decision. And even if I didn’t, I wouldn’t insist

that he must share the views of those who were banned… sometimes a principle is just

a principle… no strings attached. Anyhow, there’s many more comments that I’d like

to respond to, but for now, I’ll leave it here. To conclude, even if we ignore the vast

majority of what’s just been covered, the fact that Shives calls Harris “sexist”

for simply making a light joke which was predicated on a fair assumption, makes Shives an arsehole!

(“… which is accurate”). Now don’t get me wrong, Harris is no saint – he is,

like all of us, a pattern-seeking mammalian ape, and as such he mistakes here and there

and doesn’t always do himself favours – but he certainly isn’t this shitty, sexist,

racist, Islamophobic arsehole that Shives claims him to be. “Why are we keeping this

asshole around?” We, the significant proportion of the atheist / sceptical community, are

keeping Harris around because he’s a decent and intelligent human being who actually acknowledges

the facts (no matter how inconvenient) and is actively trying to discuss and interact

with them. While many “intellectuals” are playing identity politics, Harris is actually

having serious and difficult conversations with both allies and opponents alike. While

most are shutting down conversations by absolutely demonising ANYONE who disagrees with them

(by calling them Nazis, or fascists, or racists, of sexists), Harris is calmly having conversations

– and people like me deeply appreciate that. That’s why Harris is still around, and that’s

why he isn’t going anywhere. Stay used to him Shives, because Harris is here to stay.

Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, and (talking of Patreon) an extra special

thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve supported the channel via

merchandise and PayPal. Until next time my fellow ape, until next time.