I think that’s incorrect. While I’d disagree with someone with an opposing view, I think it’s a mistake to assume they are unserious or bad faith. I think people can weight different concerns in different ways, some people are genuinely confused or have bad information. A conversation with someone like that would be very instructive.
And Haviv Rettig Gur is just the person to educate that person minus the shaming, ridicule and sarcasm. Haviv teaches with facts and heart-felt civility.
Good question - I've seen a number of pro-Palestinian advocates - including some I like and respect like Glenn Loury - they seem ignorant about the history or openly dishonest (not Glenn). Sam is so prolific now, I can't recall exactly, but he has talked with these people in the past I think.
Marc Lamont Hill might be the best conversation. It also might be a disaster. That’s the risk with this particular terrain. Perhaps even Dave Smith since he seems to be on every other show doing two on ones. I don’t think either are bad faith or stupid, I think they’ve just weighted material facts wrong.
Because finding ways to reach people who are wrong is useful for those of us that struggle to do it. Even failing is useful, it shows us a way not to do it.
What about someone like Tamler Sommers? He and Sam appear to get along well in general, but seem to disagree on a couple of key areas, free will and Israel/Palestine.
I seriously can’t listen to Sam talking about Israel anymore. He sounds like a fkn neocon these days, with regards to the Middle East. He has lost his way badly.
This is desperately needed. Sam used to bring clarity and nuance to an overly simplistic information sphere. However, on this topic he is constantly amplifying only one point of view (granted, he believes it is the morally and logically correct one), basically implying that anyone who does not agree with 100% of the Israeli government choices is either a moron or a pro-jihadist or an anti-semite (or all of them together). Is it so hard to believe that not everyone agrees with the collateral damage of killing tens of thousands of innocent children, even if that is unintentional and due to the worthy goals of destroying a terrorist organisation? I don’t think it is, but Sam and his stream of pro-Israel-only guests make it seem as if Netanyahu’s biggest problem is not having a proper PR department…
Agree wholeheartedly with this. I've been waiting to see/hear Sam and/or his guests address the needless starvation and murder of innocent people. Sadly, all I keep getting is pro-Israel propaganda.
Not that I'm not disappointed as well by the echo-chamber nature of the guests Sam invites on. Covid pretty much broke Sam as that was the time period when he would cancel and "unfriend" his former friends for the sin of disagreeing with him. Bret Weinstein is at the top of that list.
I have no reason to believe that in itself is not propaganda, hence my comment. I thought that if anyone would be willing, and be in a position to provide a balanced picture of what is actually happening it would be Sam Harris.
"I have no reason to believe that in itself is not propaganda,..."
But, it sounded ad if you stated it as fact. Isn't that how you'd read, "I've been waiting to see/hear Sam and/or his guests address the needless starvation and murder of innocent people."
That sentence sounds to me as if the starvation and murder of innocent people was a fait accompli.
Completely agree! It's silly not possible to have an honest discussion ( and by honest I mean one where ideas are challenge) rather than just an agreement fest. And it's not even that I disagree with Sam or Haviv who I actually really like and articulated his points well but NO ONE is above their blind spots.
There are so many credible people who could challenge Sam's views—for example, academics like Dr. Trita Parsi or John Mearsheimer; analysts such as Mouin Rabbani; or journalists such as Aaron Maté, Jeremy Scahill, or Ryan Grim.
There is no democracy other than Israel that uses its armed troops (and bulldozers) to displace one ethnic group (typically Palestinian farmers) so as to replace them with its own people. The way Sam and guest downplay this abject cruelty and inhumanity as a mere sideshow is chilling. Expansion of settlements has been a key factor in European and US moderates doubting everything Israel say and do. The level of cognitive dissonance required to disregard this is astonishing. So no, it’s not just bad PR by Israelis, it’s simply that expansion of settlements is indefensible.
What moral clarity? That he is totally blinded by his criticism of jihadism and totally ignores the obvious fact of settler colonialism that’s going on?
Get guests who dont simply agree with everything on. You used to have a motto something along the lines " Conversation is all we have" You simply can't have a conversation that does anything but confirm your own opinion with someone who almost entirely agrees with you. Its not convincing to anyone except those that already agree with you and if anything just proves to those that don't your arguments can't hold up to scrutiny.
There was on point where Sam said "the clear differences between Islam and Christianity" 2:04:10 at which point even Haviv said "Christianity lately" and the Sam proceeded to interrupt and steamroll over him for 2 minutes and not let him make his point. Since Haviv is a gracious guest and mostly philosophical ally he didn't really push the issue. That's not a convincing and I would say "honest" discussion. It's just an agreement fest.
I loved how Europe showed support for Israel in the Eurovision song contest (Yeah, weird, but that is where many people felled like they had “anonymous votes” and didn’t risk being called out for being genocide-lovers or racists for supporting an open and free society). The “information war” seems lost for Israel but mostly because maniacs takes up too must space online and kill any debate with nonsense attacks - IRL there is so much (more silent) support, appreciation and fingers crossed for Israel 💙 Thank you, Sam, for insisting on truth and sanity.
Sam, go volunteer in a Gaza hospital for 2 weeks. Or go visit the West Bank and Gaza and spend the week with Palestinians - Christians or Muslims. See for yourself. Then maybe you'll have the moral standing to venture an opinion on this issue.
Would it improve on your suggestion to compare Gaza now with Gaza on Oct. 6, 2023? Don't you see the least value in asking why Hamas brought this on Gaza?
Hello Bill Reid. I am sorry I do not understand your question, so I don't know exactly how to respond to it.
I suggest Sam Harris go to the West Bank, and Gaza if possible. He could talk and visit with Palestinians there and have earnest discussions regarding the conflict, and learn their thoughts on it. Just as important, he would be able to see and interpret the "Facts on the Ground" in Gaza and the West Bank. I suggest that spending several weeks there would give him sufficient information to give him a basis for criticism of other peoples opinions and thoughts from a moral standpoint.
Many years ago, I spent many months there. In Jerusalem, with Israelis, in the West Bank with Christian and Muslim Palestinians and in Gaza. I gained a limited but important understanding of the conflict. I would strongly suggest that anyone venturing a moral judgement of the Palestinian People, or of the Israeli People, and there are many different stripes of both, should go to Israel/Palestine to understand it for themselves. I have not put forward my opinion on the conflict, as it was then or as it is now. I do have a strong opinion, but I have not been there in a long long time, and there is a lot I do not or cannot know.
What I do know is this: If you haven't ever been there, if you haven't been face to face with Palestinians for an adequate period of time, you have no basis for making an intellectual much less a moral judgement of the conflict. You have no basis for judging the people there, their thoughts, feelings and beliefs. It is my opinion one has absolutely no basis for forming a moral opinion about what amounts to millions of people with the kind of very limited understanding that Sam has. You have no way of seeing through the substantial amount of disinformation and information put forward by various parties on what is happening there. I also believe that going to Israel/Palestine gives one the opportunity to understand that the conflict has a long and complex history that is difficult to grasp.
I did reply then I deleted my reply. I find myself doing that often because it's so easy to go off the rails in these online back and forths.
I have seen clips of the Joe Rogan/Smith/Murray interview. I have seen each of them make good points in the clips, but I don't have the context of the full discussion. I don't know anything about Smith. Rogan seems to earnestly want to understand the issues, even while often getting things wrong. I have listened to several full interviews with Murray - he's very talented and very bright - he sometimes makes great points, I also think he has a particular deep seated bias on several issues, especially regarding Israel and Gaza.
That was very informative. I was not expecting much, as I find Sam's position on this topic often rather undercomplex - may I say confused? -, one-sided and repetitive, as he seems to have mostly people on who hold the same views, and ignores opinions and facts other guest who disagree with him hold (Yuval Noah Harari comes to mind).
But I learned a lot here. Haviv was a great guest. I'd love to listen to a discussion between Haviv and Yuval about this topic, and especially ab out the points they hold different opinions about when they spoke with Sam, that being the problem of settlements in the West Bank and the influence of far right politicians and movements on the politics and political culture in Israel.
That being said, I find it interesting that one the one hand one of Sam's central moral arguments is that only one side is happy to sacrifice their own people for the 'greater cause', and on the other hand in the end agrees that for Israel sacrificing the hostages to draw a line in the sand is the best path to follow.
I still believe that Ezra Klein has the way better because more nuanced view and discussions on this topic, but again, this was more interesting than I'd have thought.
I find Klein really disappointing. His take after Oct. 7th was Israel could easily prevent further incursions with a better wall. Israel spent decades and hundreds of millions creating that wall, and Hamas' point was that they would always find a way. I find something maddening about it, as I do with the progressive take that Hamas would accept a negotiated peace with good terms. Hamas has always said they would not negotiate and not accept any settlement and how does one see an attack like that and continue to believe this group is reachable? Sam seems to me to be providing a necessary corrective to a progressive bias that saturates most media. And for all progressives handwringing about fascism are they willing to take the steps to fight it or not? I don't get it. I am with them on Ukraine.
Looking forward to Sam's analysis of his conversation with this incredibly knowledgeable eloquent and persuasive religion and right government advocate. My bad, he actually critised Netanjahu for not being decisive enough at sacrificing the entire Gaza population earlier. Answering Sam's question about the West Bank settlements with "It's not about god... but you know the whole bible takes place in the West bank". Fun times of political, moral and intellectual ambiguity we live in!
the mechanics of the hostage metagame is a pretty straightforward trolley problem variant. it's important to remember that the trolley problem's purpose is to distinguish between the reflexive psychological intuition, vs what most accurately achieves your moral goals, when those goals' principles are extrapolated. one of the most fundamental sociological problems is a general inability to weight abstract principles more heavily than proximate intuitions. in general, i think sam should focus more on the underpinning mechanics of psychosocial knowledge processing, rather than proximate issues-- or proximate issues through the lens of these principles-- because they are the fundamental elements which perpetuate the whack-a-moles of bad thinking.
All the money spent by Hamas to build the tunnels to ensure that their own citizens were positioned to be the presenting obstacle for any invasion. An invasion they cynically invited by Oct 7. Even knowing this already, it still repulses me.
Haviv has my respect for facing head-on the results of the polls of Palestinians and their expressions of vulnerability. He’s not blind to to the nuances.
So difficult to have a black or white opinion here! One must intimately understand the history both ancient and recent, cultural east-west clashes, and of course religion. My one firm bias is that Iran as it exists currently, is an evil for the world.
There are a lot of moments where Sam glosses over fundamental points that would be extremely educational for his audience. One example that comes to mind is that one time he mentions the concept of epistemology, but then says he’s afraid of making people bored. Whether or not something like epistemology is boring is an interesting and useful discussion, but whether or not it’s boring, it’s necessary. Either people will continue to semi-blindly use their gut-level intuition on these important topics, or they’ll start being exposed to specific concepts and learn how to apply them in a systematic way. I would like to see Sam citing and explaining specific principles of reason, rather than just applying examples without giving pointers to those concepts. Concepts attach to the psychological substrate much more effectively if they’re given a label.
Nicely crafted statement of the issue. Not only the hard problem in Jerusalem, but probably DC and everywhere else people need to organize as States. How to meet the needs of many as well as the individual.
How to reconcile individual needs with societal health. Maybe the kernel of the original sin. The basis for our historical need (addiction?) of religions?
What do you mean by the kernel of the original sin?
I also think Sam’s reckoning with the utility of religion is insufficient. In the recent casual conversation, he didn’t do a good job in acknowledging a big tradeoff of atheism— the cold hard truth that atheists lack the engrained social infrastructure of religious communities. I would like to see things like international benchmarking— researching what solutions more atheistic countries have devised. Also more mechanistic extrapolation and novel thinking; a broader survey of the causes of social alienation relating to religion. For example, my personal experience was social alienation from my religious community as a precursor to developing atheistic beliefs. Aspects of that include bad social skills as a cause of alienation, which was the precursor to atheistic belief development— and good social skills as generally maintaining the preexisting religious social structure. Another example is the idea that as a religious person, the more conscientious and logical you are about theological analysis, the further towards fundamentalism you’re likely to go.
Being a stoical skeptic, and unpious, that sentiment snuck in with my little conjecture of the kernel of the Sin. It was my attempt at correlating all of the problems of the world and religions. So including a premise for what what religions are trying to solve in the first place.
I realize we're talking about a war here, but if we recall the adage that there's a woman behind every war, and look at what the sages in history were really trying to address with all of their scripture, my sense is that mankind's tendency to follow our dicks around must be buried in there somewhere.
After all morality by its nature is a group thing whereas "reflexive psychological intuition..." seems more individualistic motivation.
Since we are strangers I'm probably being too gauche here. But at least now you know me better.
Would love to see Sam speak with someone who holds opposing views to him on this issue
anyone who has an opposing view to fighting jihadism and stopping Iran from getting the bomb is not a serious enough person to talk to
I think that’s incorrect. While I’d disagree with someone with an opposing view, I think it’s a mistake to assume they are unserious or bad faith. I think people can weight different concerns in different ways, some people are genuinely confused or have bad information. A conversation with someone like that would be very instructive.
And Haviv Rettig Gur is just the person to educate that person minus the shaming, ridicule and sarcasm. Haviv teaches with facts and heart-felt civility.
Who do you have in mind?
Good question - I've seen a number of pro-Palestinian advocates - including some I like and respect like Glenn Loury - they seem ignorant about the history or openly dishonest (not Glenn). Sam is so prolific now, I can't recall exactly, but he has talked with these people in the past I think.
Marc Lamont Hill might be the best conversation. It also might be a disaster. That’s the risk with this particular terrain. Perhaps even Dave Smith since he seems to be on every other show doing two on ones. I don’t think either are bad faith or stupid, I think they’ve just weighted material facts wrong.
Why interview an ignoramus?
Because finding ways to reach people who are wrong is useful for those of us that struggle to do it. Even failing is useful, it shows us a way not to do it.
Perhaps you’re right, I haven’t seen enough to know. Do you have suggestions?
What about someone like Tamler Sommers? He and Sam appear to get along well in general, but seem to disagree on a couple of key areas, free will and Israel/Palestine.
I seriously can’t listen to Sam talking about Israel anymore. He sounds like a fkn neocon these days, with regards to the Middle East. He has lost his way badly.
Anyone who frames the entire Palestinian position like this is not serious
Maybe the opposing view would consist of thoughts that Smotrich and Ben Giver are more significant than Haviv implies.
Then you have a problem.
This is desperately needed. Sam used to bring clarity and nuance to an overly simplistic information sphere. However, on this topic he is constantly amplifying only one point of view (granted, he believes it is the morally and logically correct one), basically implying that anyone who does not agree with 100% of the Israeli government choices is either a moron or a pro-jihadist or an anti-semite (or all of them together). Is it so hard to believe that not everyone agrees with the collateral damage of killing tens of thousands of innocent children, even if that is unintentional and due to the worthy goals of destroying a terrorist organisation? I don’t think it is, but Sam and his stream of pro-Israel-only guests make it seem as if Netanyahu’s biggest problem is not having a proper PR department…
Agree wholeheartedly with this. I've been waiting to see/hear Sam and/or his guests address the needless starvation and murder of innocent people. Sadly, all I keep getting is pro-Israel propaganda.
Not that I'm not disappointed as well by the echo-chamber nature of the guests Sam invites on. Covid pretty much broke Sam as that was the time period when he would cancel and "unfriend" his former friends for the sin of disagreeing with him. Bret Weinstein is at the top of that list.
"the needless starvation and murder of innocent people."
What reason do you have to believe that that itself in not propaganda?
I have no reason to believe that in itself is not propaganda, hence my comment. I thought that if anyone would be willing, and be in a position to provide a balanced picture of what is actually happening it would be Sam Harris.
"I have no reason to believe that in itself is not propaganda,..."
But, it sounded ad if you stated it as fact. Isn't that how you'd read, "I've been waiting to see/hear Sam and/or his guests address the needless starvation and murder of innocent people."
That sentence sounds to me as if the starvation and murder of innocent people was a fait accompli.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll be sure to forward all comments for editing before posting in future.
Completely agree! It's silly not possible to have an honest discussion ( and by honest I mean one where ideas are challenge) rather than just an agreement fest. And it's not even that I disagree with Sam or Haviv who I actually really like and articulated his points well but NO ONE is above their blind spots.
There are so many credible people who could challenge Sam's views—for example, academics like Dr. Trita Parsi or John Mearsheimer; analysts such as Mouin Rabbani; or journalists such as Aaron Maté, Jeremy Scahill, or Ryan Grim.
I would be interested to hear Sam engage with this article by David French: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/03/opinion/israel-famine-hamas-netanyahu-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bU8.t1EG.0a6KtwhbQ8W9&smid=url-share
I agree
I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
Haviv is extremely well reasoned on this subject. Whether you agree with him or not, he is full of facts and less of opinions.
Agreed.
Great that you finally got Haviv on. Thank you for bringing us this conversation.
The Goldberg spy joke was pretty good.
🤣
There is no democracy other than Israel that uses its armed troops (and bulldozers) to displace one ethnic group (typically Palestinian farmers) so as to replace them with its own people. The way Sam and guest downplay this abject cruelty and inhumanity as a mere sideshow is chilling. Expansion of settlements has been a key factor in European and US moderates doubting everything Israel say and do. The level of cognitive dissonance required to disregard this is astonishing. So no, it’s not just bad PR by Israelis, it’s simply that expansion of settlements is indefensible.
You said what’s on my mind, thank you.
Here's another thing that's on my mind Abdul.
https://mcnallysmiscellany.substack.com/p/pick-a-side-radical-islam-vs-civilisation
My first experience of Haviv Rettig Gur. He’s incredible.
Haviv is one of the few people I’ve listened to that is more intellectually soothing than Sam.
Agreed! Whereas I normally can’t get enough of him, there were times when I actually wanted Sam to do less talking in this episode.
Wow. I really learned a lot.
Thank you Sam Harris. Your moral clarity is giving hope for humanity.
What moral clarity? That he is totally blinded by his criticism of jihadism and totally ignores the obvious fact of settler colonialism that’s going on?
Get guests who dont simply agree with everything on. You used to have a motto something along the lines " Conversation is all we have" You simply can't have a conversation that does anything but confirm your own opinion with someone who almost entirely agrees with you. Its not convincing to anyone except those that already agree with you and if anything just proves to those that don't your arguments can't hold up to scrutiny.
There was on point where Sam said "the clear differences between Islam and Christianity" 2:04:10 at which point even Haviv said "Christianity lately" and the Sam proceeded to interrupt and steamroll over him for 2 minutes and not let him make his point. Since Haviv is a gracious guest and mostly philosophical ally he didn't really push the issue. That's not a convincing and I would say "honest" discussion. It's just an agreement fest.
I loved how Europe showed support for Israel in the Eurovision song contest (Yeah, weird, but that is where many people felled like they had “anonymous votes” and didn’t risk being called out for being genocide-lovers or racists for supporting an open and free society). The “information war” seems lost for Israel but mostly because maniacs takes up too must space online and kill any debate with nonsense attacks - IRL there is so much (more silent) support, appreciation and fingers crossed for Israel 💙 Thank you, Sam, for insisting on truth and sanity.
This was wonderful. Thank you.
Sam, go volunteer in a Gaza hospital for 2 weeks. Or go visit the West Bank and Gaza and spend the week with Palestinians - Christians or Muslims. See for yourself. Then maybe you'll have the moral standing to venture an opinion on this issue.
Would it improve on your suggestion to compare Gaza now with Gaza on Oct. 6, 2023? Don't you see the least value in asking why Hamas brought this on Gaza?
Hello Bill Reid. I am sorry I do not understand your question, so I don't know exactly how to respond to it.
I suggest Sam Harris go to the West Bank, and Gaza if possible. He could talk and visit with Palestinians there and have earnest discussions regarding the conflict, and learn their thoughts on it. Just as important, he would be able to see and interpret the "Facts on the Ground" in Gaza and the West Bank. I suggest that spending several weeks there would give him sufficient information to give him a basis for criticism of other peoples opinions and thoughts from a moral standpoint.
Many years ago, I spent many months there. In Jerusalem, with Israelis, in the West Bank with Christian and Muslim Palestinians and in Gaza. I gained a limited but important understanding of the conflict. I would strongly suggest that anyone venturing a moral judgement of the Palestinian People, or of the Israeli People, and there are many different stripes of both, should go to Israel/Palestine to understand it for themselves. I have not put forward my opinion on the conflict, as it was then or as it is now. I do have a strong opinion, but I have not been there in a long long time, and there is a lot I do not or cannot know.
What I do know is this: If you haven't ever been there, if you haven't been face to face with Palestinians for an adequate period of time, you have no basis for making an intellectual much less a moral judgement of the conflict. You have no basis for judging the people there, their thoughts, feelings and beliefs. It is my opinion one has absolutely no basis for forming a moral opinion about what amounts to millions of people with the kind of very limited understanding that Sam has. You have no way of seeing through the substantial amount of disinformation and information put forward by various parties on what is happening there. I also believe that going to Israel/Palestine gives one the opportunity to understand that the conflict has a long and complex history that is difficult to grasp.
Did you not reply to my comment below. I thought you did but now I don't see it.
I did reply then I deleted my reply. I find myself doing that often because it's so easy to go off the rails in these online back and forths.
I have seen clips of the Joe Rogan/Smith/Murray interview. I have seen each of them make good points in the clips, but I don't have the context of the full discussion. I don't know anything about Smith. Rogan seems to earnestly want to understand the issues, even while often getting things wrong. I have listened to several full interviews with Murray - he's very talented and very bright - he sometimes makes great points, I also think he has a particular deep seated bias on several issues, especially regarding Israel and Gaza.
Did you listen to the Joe Rogan episode with Dave Smith and Douglas Murray?
Ok so now we are dialing back. How about to the date when there was no Israel occupying the land?
Go for it.
That was very informative. I was not expecting much, as I find Sam's position on this topic often rather undercomplex - may I say confused? -, one-sided and repetitive, as he seems to have mostly people on who hold the same views, and ignores opinions and facts other guest who disagree with him hold (Yuval Noah Harari comes to mind).
But I learned a lot here. Haviv was a great guest. I'd love to listen to a discussion between Haviv and Yuval about this topic, and especially ab out the points they hold different opinions about when they spoke with Sam, that being the problem of settlements in the West Bank and the influence of far right politicians and movements on the politics and political culture in Israel.
That being said, I find it interesting that one the one hand one of Sam's central moral arguments is that only one side is happy to sacrifice their own people for the 'greater cause', and on the other hand in the end agrees that for Israel sacrificing the hostages to draw a line in the sand is the best path to follow.
I still believe that Ezra Klein has the way better because more nuanced view and discussions on this topic, but again, this was more interesting than I'd have thought.
I find Klein really disappointing. His take after Oct. 7th was Israel could easily prevent further incursions with a better wall. Israel spent decades and hundreds of millions creating that wall, and Hamas' point was that they would always find a way. I find something maddening about it, as I do with the progressive take that Hamas would accept a negotiated peace with good terms. Hamas has always said they would not negotiate and not accept any settlement and how does one see an attack like that and continue to believe this group is reachable? Sam seems to me to be providing a necessary corrective to a progressive bias that saturates most media. And for all progressives handwringing about fascism are they willing to take the steps to fight it or not? I don't get it. I am with them on Ukraine.
Looking forward to Sam's analysis of his conversation with this incredibly knowledgeable eloquent and persuasive religion and right government advocate. My bad, he actually critised Netanjahu for not being decisive enough at sacrificing the entire Gaza population earlier. Answering Sam's question about the West Bank settlements with "It's not about god... but you know the whole bible takes place in the West bank". Fun times of political, moral and intellectual ambiguity we live in!
the mechanics of the hostage metagame is a pretty straightforward trolley problem variant. it's important to remember that the trolley problem's purpose is to distinguish between the reflexive psychological intuition, vs what most accurately achieves your moral goals, when those goals' principles are extrapolated. one of the most fundamental sociological problems is a general inability to weight abstract principles more heavily than proximate intuitions. in general, i think sam should focus more on the underpinning mechanics of psychosocial knowledge processing, rather than proximate issues-- or proximate issues through the lens of these principles-- because they are the fundamental elements which perpetuate the whack-a-moles of bad thinking.
All the money spent by Hamas to build the tunnels to ensure that their own citizens were positioned to be the presenting obstacle for any invasion. An invasion they cynically invited by Oct 7. Even knowing this already, it still repulses me.
Haviv has my respect for facing head-on the results of the polls of Palestinians and their expressions of vulnerability. He’s not blind to to the nuances.
So difficult to have a black or white opinion here! One must intimately understand the history both ancient and recent, cultural east-west clashes, and of course religion. My one firm bias is that Iran as it exists currently, is an evil for the world.
There are a lot of moments where Sam glosses over fundamental points that would be extremely educational for his audience. One example that comes to mind is that one time he mentions the concept of epistemology, but then says he’s afraid of making people bored. Whether or not something like epistemology is boring is an interesting and useful discussion, but whether or not it’s boring, it’s necessary. Either people will continue to semi-blindly use their gut-level intuition on these important topics, or they’ll start being exposed to specific concepts and learn how to apply them in a systematic way. I would like to see Sam citing and explaining specific principles of reason, rather than just applying examples without giving pointers to those concepts. Concepts attach to the psychological substrate much more effectively if they’re given a label.
Nicely crafted statement of the issue. Not only the hard problem in Jerusalem, but probably DC and everywhere else people need to organize as States. How to meet the needs of many as well as the individual.
How to reconcile individual needs with societal health. Maybe the kernel of the original sin. The basis for our historical need (addiction?) of religions?
What do you mean by the kernel of the original sin?
I also think Sam’s reckoning with the utility of religion is insufficient. In the recent casual conversation, he didn’t do a good job in acknowledging a big tradeoff of atheism— the cold hard truth that atheists lack the engrained social infrastructure of religious communities. I would like to see things like international benchmarking— researching what solutions more atheistic countries have devised. Also more mechanistic extrapolation and novel thinking; a broader survey of the causes of social alienation relating to religion. For example, my personal experience was social alienation from my religious community as a precursor to developing atheistic beliefs. Aspects of that include bad social skills as a cause of alienation, which was the precursor to atheistic belief development— and good social skills as generally maintaining the preexisting religious social structure. Another example is the idea that as a religious person, the more conscientious and logical you are about theological analysis, the further towards fundamentalism you’re likely to go.
Being a stoical skeptic, and unpious, that sentiment snuck in with my little conjecture of the kernel of the Sin. It was my attempt at correlating all of the problems of the world and religions. So including a premise for what what religions are trying to solve in the first place.
I realize we're talking about a war here, but if we recall the adage that there's a woman behind every war, and look at what the sages in history were really trying to address with all of their scripture, my sense is that mankind's tendency to follow our dicks around must be buried in there somewhere.
After all morality by its nature is a group thing whereas "reflexive psychological intuition..." seems more individualistic motivation.
Since we are strangers I'm probably being too gauche here. But at least now you know me better.