This actually makes me think better of Harris. I think it indicates more openness to dialogue than I would have suspected. As for torture, let's say I favor forceful interrogation. Can't say I favor flat-out torture, though. Not only is the very thought of it repellent, but I seriously doubt if it works, because I think eventually the victim will say anything he thinks his tormeneter wants to hear.
Just to be clear, I am no fan of Sam Harris. I do, however, feel as you do: at least he seems to want to keep an open mind on several topics.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that the writer of this AlterNet article about Harris is pretty biased, and is trying to do something of a covert hatchet job. In no way do I agree with Harris about torture, except to say that he is correct in that our government IS hypocritical on the issue; but at the same time, the AlterNet writer is trying to make us throw out the baby with the bathwater. "Because this guy is a kook on these side-topics, we should ignore him on this central topic, too!" That's the underlying implication.
It's the rhetorical stance of dismissal, without actual intellectual engagement. It's just plain sloppy.
I quite agree about the AlterNet piece. From what I can tell Harris does seem to be grappling with issues in an authentic way. Like you, I'm no big fan of his, but I do respect that.
ReplyDelete