|
tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/29/2011 6:05:46 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: eihwaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: eihwaz
Harris denies that he is advocating preemptive nuclear war against Muslims in this passage. Others may disagree, but in my opinion a careful reading of the text shows that Harris is being disingenuous and that, contrary to his denial, this is exactly what he advocates.
Despite reading the linked quote 3 times, I found no reason to impute any meaning other than its ordinary meaning in everyday English. I found nothing to suggest he was being disingenuous.
For mine, Harris set up a "plausible scenario", then discussed how it might play out as part of a general polemic. For mine, he disassociated himself from the scenario in sweepingly unambiguous terms at least 4 times. His horror of the scenario is, for mine, indisputable.
So I am unclear as to how you arrived at the conclusion you did. ... So I'd appreciate it if you outline the process and offer supporting evidence for the conclusion you found.
Mr. Harris uses a rhetorical trick to appear that he's not advocating that which he in fact is, or at least to make it ambiguous. Following is a heavily redacted version of Mr. Harris's discussion, which I hope adequately summarizes his thesis:
quote:
ORIGINAL SamHarris.org
There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over [this] logic... [W]e will not be able to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy [long range nuclear weapons in the possession of an Islamist regime]. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.
[...]
I have just a described a plausible scenario in which much of the world's population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher's stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen.
[M]en who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world... must find some way to prevent [this possibility]. t is safe to say that time is not on our side.
Mr. Harris intersperses his discussion with expressions of dismay and horror at the possibility of a preemptive nuclear strike:
quote:
ORIGINAL SamHarris.org
t would be a horrible absurdity
[T]his would be an unthinkable crime.
an unconscionable act of self-defense
All of this is perfectly insane...
Mr. Harris most certainly does dissociate himself from the absurdity, unthinkability, unconscionability, and insanity of a nuclear first strike against the "Muslim world" but, reading carefully, not at all from the notion of a preemptive nuclear posture itself. He assigns full moral responsibility to "the Muslim world" for forcing us to assume such a posture. Moreover, by not expressly repudiating a first strike posture or even seriously exploring alternatives, Mr. Harris implies that the preemptive approach he posits is the only reasonable or sensible one.
That's my reading, at any rate.
(Also, what kind of joker is it who disses Batman. [;)])
Thank you for responding fully to my request.
A number of criticisms of Harris' text were advanced.
I find myself persuaded on one. His assigning full moral responsibility to the Muslim world in his scenario is unjustifiable. It takes two to tango.
I note that your position has changed somewhat. Initially the suggestion was Harris "advocates" a pre-emptive nuclear strike. This is reduced somewhat to Harris "implying" by omission a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The relevant sections are in bold above for clarity.
As I understand it, the reasons given to support criticism of Harris are his failure to "dissociate himself [from] a pre-emptive nuclear strike" and to " repudiating a first strike posture or even seriously exploring alternatives".
In my view, Harris is not under any obligation to do any of the things he is being criticised for not doing. His goal is simply to outline a "plausible scenario" where religious beliefs could plunge the world into nuclear warfare. It is purely rhetorical. It is not polemical at all (though I can understand why religions' defenders might take exception to that scenario).
It may be the case that this particular excerpt forms part of a broader anti-religion polemic. But that is an entirely different, and for our purposes, irrelevant issue.
If Harris were engaged in a polemic, your criticisms could be, IMHO, possibly justified. However, in my reading, the entire excerpt is clearly hypothetical. He makes no claim whatsoever to be discussing reality, simply a "plausible scenario", a hypothetical possibility. Sorry but I feel the argument against Harris here is laboured and contrived.
Further, the categorical language which it is agreed by all he uses to condemn a strike against the Muslin world ("absurdity... unthinkability.... unconscionability..... insanity") is robust, even extreme. IMHO, to mount a case that he is advocating or implying such a strike against such extreme condemnation, far more concrete and substantial evidence and argument than implication by omission is required. A direct quote unambiguously advocating or implying a strike would be the minimum required IMHO. Such a quote or evidence is absent. An argument relying entirely on implication by omission is IMHO manifestly inadequate.
You are of course entitled to interpret Harris any way you please. Having considered the reasons offered to support your interpretation I'm sorry but I find myself quite unable to share it.
Edited without reading glasses [:D]
|
|
|
|
