The Fourth Horseman
I am a somewhat militant atheist. I say that with my tongue firmly in my cheek. Whilst I hold very strong views on the harm religion causes, people should be able to believe in whatever they want to believe in. I don’t feel the need to threaten someone with flagellation, jail or death if they disagree with me.
Whilst I make consistent efforts to seek out views which conflict with my own I of course still listen to those whose views are closer to mine. It is for this reason that I’m familiar with Sam Harris (1).
Harris is predominantly a philosopher although he holds a PHD in cognitive neuroscience. He is perhaps most recognised as one of the ‘four horsemen’ of New Atheism. Harris is a fairly prolific author writing primarily about religion, spirituality and ethics.
Over the last few years he has started podcasting. These works contain some truly clever insights about a whole range of topics. I find him particularly reasonable in the face of what is often strong criticism.
The only criticism I could make of his podcasts is that the delivery by Harris can seem a little beige. By Beige what I really mean is that in the future, when someone wants to describe a voice that’s devoid of emotion, instead of using the phrase ‘deadpan’ people might actually use ‘Harris’.
Having said that Harris justifies his delivery by explaining that he doesn’t like to use emotion in his voice to make his argument. Rather he would prefer the facts to speak for themselves.
Harris is self-depreciating when speaking about his skills as an interviewer. I’ve said on this blog before that the very best interviewers know that sometimes, just letting someone speak more effectively lampoon’s their argument than asking the ‘gotcha’ questions. Harris’s has made an art form of remaining very calm, whilst his opponents twist themselves around an axle that’s of their own making, as they avoid answering reasonable questions by employing unreasonable logic.
An example of this is one of his recent podcast’s entitled ‘Throw Open the Gates: A conversation with Maryam Namazie’ (2). Harris wasn’t trying to be combative. He made it very clear that he supported much of what Namazie had done and that they shared many views. They disagreed about profiling and open borders policy and the podcast was an effort to discuss their differences.
What followed was later described by Harris as “one of the worst if not the worst podcast ever”. I’m paraphrasing a little there I think. After listening to the podcast I’m inclined to agree. It was just incredibly frustrating. The very last few minutes of the podcast however were enlightening. Namazie, after being asked the same simple question by Harris about four times and failing to answer it, started on an impassioned rant.
She spoke about how ridiculous it was for people to associate radical Islam with Persia or much of North Africa. She spoke about how prior to the revolution in Iran (Persia) there was none of the oppression of women that there is now and that radical Islam was not a part of their culture. The Niqab was not a part of their culture. She spoke about what an absolute shame it was that many of the colourful head dresses that used to be worn by women in Africa were being phased out as radical Islamists enforced the wearing of Niqab and the Burka.
It was powerful stuff. All of it accurate. The overwhelming majority of people living in these countries are much like us. They just want to go on about their lives as we do. Raise a family, find some joy. But they can’t. Because of a regime which is part theocracy, part totalitarian.
I found one aspect of Namazie’s contribution particularly poignant. She is an advocate of international open borders. She has seen what has happened to her country when just a few people, with a harmful belief system, gain control of a country. Yet she cannot seem to understand why people in ‘the west’ are so afraid of an open borders policy.
An open borders policy which all but guarantees that some people, who hold the same radical and harmful beliefs as the people who have harmed her country, will come to ours. When they are here, they will try to instil their harmful beliefs here. They will try to harm our countries. Is it any wonder so many people in the west are so against an open borders policy?
After hearing her speak I can’t imagine a better example to use when debunking the utter silliness that is an open borders policy. It’s truly a triumph of delusion that Namazie cannot see it. She riles against what she believes is the collective blame of refugee’s whilst expecting the rest of the world to accept collective responsibility for it. It’s obviously incongruent. Truly a bizarre stance from someone who is reasonable and sensible about so many other issues.
Harris for his part made some very reasonable comments in the podcast which followed. He accepted some responsibility for what he admitted was a frustrating discussion. He stated that his interviewing technique could improve. He urged people to avoid ‘torching’ Namazie. He didn’t have to do any of that and it reflects well on him that he did.
Harris seems to be genuinely interested in resolving the points of difference between his views and those who criticise him. It’s refreshing to see. Whether you’re a hard core atheist or a the most ardent of believers, investigating Harris’s work is a worthy use of your time.