Atheist Sam Harris: Affleck Was ‘Hostile,’ ‘Gunning for Me’ in Maher Debate

[rug]

by Josh Feldman | 1:32 pm, October 8th, 2014

When Bill Maher fought Ben Affleck over Islam last week, Maher was joined by atheist Sam Harris, who called Islam “the motherlode of bad ideas.” And in a follow-up blog post on that heated debate, Harris writes that he was “thrown a little by Affleck’s animosity.”

Yes, Harris found it odd that the acclaimed actor was “gunning for me from the start,” when they had never met before. He suspects that Affleck may have been coached by “a fan of Glenn Greenwald” who told him Harris was “a racist and a warmonger.” But for whatever reason, Harris writes, Affleck was rude and abrasive and “pretty hostile.”

And as for Affleck telling him his criticism of Islam is just racist and akin to calling Jews “shifty,” Harris has this rebuttal:

The most controversial thing I said was: “We have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” This statement has been met with countless charges of “bigotry” and “racism” online and in the media. But imagine that the year is 1970, and I said: “Communism is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” How reasonable would it be to attack me as a “racist” or as someone who harbors an irrational hatred of Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc. This is precisely the situation I am in. My criticism of Islam is a criticism of beliefs and their consequences—but my fellow liberals reflexively view it as an expression of intolerance toward people.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/atheist-sam-harris-affleck-was-hostile-gunning-for-me-in-maher-debate/

I wonder if he'll use this line, "my fellow liberals reflexively view it as an expression of intolerance toward people", on his next appearance on Fox.

He sounds persecuted. Here's his blog post.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself

Hmmm, "Can Liberalism Be Saved From Itself?". Who else asks questions like that?

[yeoman6987]

1. Wow! He is really taking it personally

It is a TV show that uses debate to make points on particular topics. I doubt Ben was "gunning after him". A bit over zealous maybe. I can't see why this story almost a week old doesn't start to settle.

[vlyons]

2. I thought Affleck was a jerk.

He kept interrupting and talking over everyone else. That's a pretty hostile way to have a discussion. Prevent the other person from getting a word in edge-wise.

[rug]

3. Poor Sam. Someone disrespected his views. Obnoxiously.

Imagine that.

[okasha]

7. Poor baby.

Got his widdle peelins hurt.

[Brettongarcia]

12. So Rug; are you defending Islam?

[rug]

15. From what?

Are you defending religious bigotry?

[Brettongarcia]

16. So in your opinion, opposing Isalm is religious bigotry?

[rug]

17. Not at all. Broadbrushing Muslims absolutely is.

Now, answer my questions.

[Brettongarcia]

18. 1) "From What": Are you defending Muslims from criticism?

You say you are not. Apparently you mean that some Islam - violent Islam say - deserves some criticism. But for some time on DU, we've noted some inherent problems in all religions. And in Islam; even in the Koran. Even in "moderate" and liberal versions of religions like Christianity - and Islam.

I lived in moderate Islamic countries for 5 years. And got along well. But as I note below, Mohammed himself was a warrior, given to military solutions. This plays up, all too well, to local tribal ethnocentrism. I enjoyed living there ... until foreign instigators started locals hijacking airplanes. And throwing bombs.

Even moderate liberal Islam has problems dealing with the fact that part of the very core of their religion, contains some very, very militant and antagonistic and violent themes.

It's not alone in that of course. Christians have it too.

Indeed, Atheism notes inherent problems with all religions; problems which are inherent in their very core nature.

Even "liberal" religion will inevitably in some ways, support the violent side.

[cbayer]

4. So, so thin skinned.

It's been interesting to watch this play out. It appears to me that there is pretty much equal support on both sides, both here on DU and in the general public.

What constitutes that support seems to have more to do with one's personal feelings about Harris and Maher than it does about the actual debate.

The opinion that both Harris and Maher are islamophobic is by no means new and has been voiced by many before this debate.

Whether they truly are or not remains unclear, but they certainly come across that way. Personally, I think it's all schtick with Maher. He would say anything for ratings, imo.

But Harris is a different matter. He doesn't like being taken to task by other liberals, and his response is then to attack liberalism.

[Leontius]

8. The problem I find is it the culture or the religious teaching ?

I'm just not sure where the lines are in this debate.

[cbayer]

9. I think that is exactly the point.

There are no clear lines. There is culture. There is religion. There is world politics. There is poverty and war and tribal warmongering.

There is no way to draw a black line and say it's religion.

Are those that do that just too lazy to really look at the complexity?

[okasha]

10. This is what happens to peoples and nations

after five and a half centuries of imperial exploitation.First it was the Ottomans, then the Brits, who deliberately divided Western Asia into artificial nations with little or no cultural or even linguistic continuity. Finally came the oil oligarchs, including the US, who shored up dictators instead of at least shakily democratic leaders. The results were perfectly predictable.

[Brettongarcia]

13. There are a few lines in 1) the Koran, supporting only defensive wars.

Mohammed, Our Sacred Messenger, was a warrior, after all.

There is rather more warlike language it seems, in the secondary texts of various Muslim sects. From 2) the Hadith or sayings. And then 3) even more in other texts credited to Mohammed's biological successors.

But the problem is probably not empires, but tribes. Well before any empires, likely ancient, simple tribal antagonisms were the major root of this. Recall for example that the (N) African tribes Israel, are the origins of Judaism. In fact I hypothesize that tribal provinciality and ethnocentrism/ tribal rivalries, are actually one main root of religion in general.

There are many causes for the religious-related wars we see. But curiously the problems that generate wars, seem to come to a head in, and be exemplified, by religions. Which in turn come from tribal provinciality. It all comes to a head in religion though. Tribes, in their insistence on just their own god or lord, and no other, seem designed to perfectly express ethnocentric xenophobic antagonism to all other cultures, outside your own tribe. And these tribal antagonisms, expressed in their conflicting religions, see perfectly designed to generate one war after another.

The Bible warned that there are many "false" things, even diabolical things, in religion. And that is what we see that here.

Ironically, the very institutions and religions that often claim to engender "peace," are in effect the focal point, the main instigator, for war. And particularly and typically, genocidal murders, of different peoples.

Allah ideally, would be "merciful," to the point of continually espousing peace; even with other religions and peoples. But in actual practice? Many of the religious texts head in the opposite direction to that. Even the "gentle prophet," Jesus.

[truebrit71]

5. That's actually a very good question....

Affleck was way off base, completely missed the point both Harris and Maher were making, and then he proved it for them by suggesting that they were being racist.

I actually think Affleck wasn't so much hostile, but rather half-potted...

[Brettongarcia]

14. I met Ben Affleck and Matt Damon in an Austin coffee house, c. 1996 and/or earlier.

They were both intellectual enough at the time to be above flagrant political correctness. But we were all in a coffee house after all.

We'd all lived in Boston too; where you see a pretty well-formed labor-union socialism.

Reasonably nice guys though.

Saw him in a recent Charlie Rose interview. To me Affleck just seems a little stressed lately; from all the movies he's acting in, and directing.

Sounds like he's done about a thousand interviews, in a thousand days. And to get through it he's resorting to a machinegun delivery of over-familiar lines.

Answers like bullets.

[Kalidurga]

6. I don't think Ben did very well with the debate...

He made some good points, but he was way too wound up. I don't think he was particularly attacky though, he was too ineffective for that and he didn't listen very well. Sam is being overly sensitive IMO.

[MisterP]

11. for someone who defends torture he's curiously thin-skinned