Sam Harris

Extract from an interview with Noam Chompsky by Matt Kennard:

MK: So what do you think of the current atheist revival. The books out by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris. They all think it’s a very important war to fight.

NC: Dawkins is serious. The others are frauds. I mean what’s the debate about. Do people like us have to debate about whether God exists? I mean, yeah, we know it doesn’t. In fact, take the religious people. Go to most of the religious faiths, they don’t literally believe in the Bible.
I mean there’s a sector that believes literally in the Bible, but first of all we don’t have to argue about that because nobody who’s going to read one word you are writing believes it, so you are talking to an audience that’s already convinced. And those who believe in the literal word of the Bible you are not going to convince them, so what’s the point?

I wonder if Chomsky didn’t like what Sam Harris wrote about him in The End of Faith? As for Chomsky saying most religious people don’t actually literally believe the bible.. I mean has he been living under a rock? When was the last time he talked to a Christian or a Muslim about what they believe? In The End of Faith it says “According to Gallup, 35% of Americans believe that the bible is the literal and inerrant word of the Creator of the universe.” p17. Chomsky must not have heard of this statistic. Nor am I guessing has he heard that Four out of every 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country.

And I believe that it is false to say, “those who believe in the literal word of the Bible you are not going to convince them, so what’s the point?” Personally, I know several people who have changed their minds over what they believe after reading the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.

nimbus - 03 June 2010 10:31 PM

I wonder if Chomsky didn’t like what Sam Harris wrote about him in The End of Faith?

Chomsky’s often pretty much the most brilliant possible idiot. He’s obviously extremely intelligent, but he also seems to lack intellectual self-discipline—way too prone toward allowing his passions to hijack his most formidable intellect, unfortunately.

I have to admit that my knowledge of Chomsky only extends to a documentary I watched about him. But I’ve heard similar statements that he is a very intelligent man but simultaneously an idiot. I have been meaning to get one of his books out from the library but haven’t got around to it. Though I have a feeling it will be the usual mix of academic far-left drivel - anti free trade, anti capitalist and anti-science.

His ‘What’s the point?’ view of the current reason vs religious faith debate is sad to see as well as also being a commonplace sentiment among secular people. For instance, I recently read an article in my local newspaper where a journalist was writing about the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne said, An atheist convention does seem a bit pointless, a bit like holding a convention for meat-eaters. I’m bored with hearing non-believers blame religion for everything. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/religion-and-beliefs/news/article.cfm?c_id=301&objectid=10633665).

nimbus - 03 June 2010 10:31 PM

Extract from an interview with Noam Chompsky by Matt Kennard:

NC: Dawkins is serious. The others are frauds.

What do you think, in Chomsky’s mind, distinguishes Dawkins from the other authors?

I don’t know why Chomsky distinguishes Dawkins from the other authors. I searched on the internet for his opinion of Dawkins but could not find much. To take a guess, maybe he has an academic respect for Dawkins which he does not extend to the other authors. Dawkins has introduced the concept of memes and also the concept that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism’s body, but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms (last part from wikipedia). He also has more of a reputation as being an ‘educator’ of the life sciences and theory of evolution to the public than Harris or Hitchens.

nimbus - 04 June 2010 06:33 PM

I’ve heard similar statements that he is a very intelligent man but simultaneously an idiot.

In some ways. I’m hesitant to actually call him an idiot, but it does seem to fit in some cases.

Maybe he’s some kind of savant?

mpbrockman - 07 June 2010 04:21 AM

nimbus - 03 June 2010 10:31 PM

Extract from an interview with Noam Chompsky by Matt Kennard:

NC: Dawkins is serious. The others are frauds.

What do you think, in Chomsky’s mind, distinguishes Dawkins from the other authors?

If I were to venture a guess, I would say that it is Dawkins’ credentials.  He certainly cannot discredit this man.  And Harris has written badly of him.

I had forgotten that Sam Harris critiqued Noam Chomsky (it’s “Chomsky”, by the way, not “Chompsky”). Thanks for reminding me.

Chomsky, besides being the originator of the “langauge instinct” idea (just finished Steven Pinker’s book of that title; it was good), is also known as something of a radical leftist (an anarchist, or more specifically, “anarcho-syndicalist” or “libertarian socialist”) and strong critic of US foreign policy.

I read Chomsky on Anarchism during the summer, which is a collection of essays and interviews from 1975 to 2005. I am grateful in that it crystallized and articulated some of my nascent political ideas but I am as yet agnostic on the plausibly of anarchism. Anyone interested in his political and economic views should instead read his short pamphlet Government in the Future, which I read in an hour or two at the public library.

After reading Chomsky I picked up God and the State, a pamphlet by the Russian anarchist Michael Bakunin. Turned out it was more about atheism than anarchism, or at least it seemed that way to my already godless eyes. One passage of his stood out to me as being imminently quotable:

“If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him.”

A delightful paraphrasing of Voltaire, and in the “Heaven is a celestial North Korea” style of God Is Not Great.

Prof. Chompsky does have certain style - a Jesuit approved/used style.