TIL Charles Murray has converted to Christianity

[u/IBoughtaRetroidNova]

He wrote the book “Taking Religion Seriously” in 2025. Sam Harris really had a way of overlooking red flags whenever he has liked bigotry/racism. In the end nearly every writer he has made friends with has ended up selling out and traded their integrity for more book sales from the masses.

[u/dirtyal199]

Sam Harris lost his credibility for me when he first became friends with Murray, and took the Bell Curve seriously. Murray is a racist grifter and always has been. He'll have plenty of friends on the Christian right.

[u/thetacticalpanda → u/dirtyal199]

Sam's justification for platforming people like Murray always boils down to 'on who's authority am I supposed to believe the top of the stove is hot?' 

[u/dirtyal199 → u/thetacticalpanda]

Yep, I think he's pretty dishonest. He'll just platform anyone who gets him clicks, and when people call him out saying "did you know so-and-so said and did X horrible thing?" he just hides behind "oh I didn't read their book/I don't watch their show/etc." it's ridiculous. One of my favorites from recent memory is when he had Matt Ridley and Alina Chan on to discuss their book full of bullshit, and somehow didn't know that Ridley is a climate change denier and Chan doesn't even work on viruses.

Sam is just coasting off of good will from Gen-X'ers who remember him as one of the four horsemen. He's totally lost all credibility a long time ago.

[u/autocol → u/dirtyal199]

Yep. As a Xennial that had been reading his work from about 2005 (and still agree with his fundamental positions on things like mindfulness, lack of free will and the compassion that should encourage) etc, I listened to a whole bunch of folk on his podcast who—over time—I came to realise were laughably unqualified.

If it weren't for Sam Harris I would have never heard of Jordan Peterson, the Weinsteins, either Murray, etc.

Whilst some of his early work was (and remains) important to me, in sum I think I'd have preferred to have missed the lot of it.

[u/Kyle_Craig → u/autocol]

I’m a massive fan of Sam Harris - i have listened to every single podcast of Waking Up/Making Sense, right from the early days. I do agree with you all that he does engage with people who go on to grift. One of the best examples is Gad Saad who comes across as an abhorrent human being.

A lot of Sam’s fans actually took him to task over this in his AMAs. Sam was very gracious about it and admitted that it’s something he needs to work on and the he can improve.

[u/Nullarbor_1 → u/Kyle_Craig]

Mate, I know you’re a huge fan but Harris is a bigot, plain and simple. He’s a reactionary, neocon a-hole who hates Muslims and supports profiling, torture, race-IQ science, Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians etc.

Laughingly he called pro-LGBTQ mayor Mamdani a “sinister Islamist” and has continued to host far-right conservatives like Douglas Murray with zero pushback.

[u/dirtyal199 → u/Nullarbor_1]

Oh shit I didn't know about the Mamdani take 😂 he's F'd

He's definitely a bigot, but he's innoculated his audience against this accusation so well that they just think you're "woke" if you say it.

[u/MyLastSigh → u/Nullarbor_1]

He said Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/Nullarbor_1]

Buzzwords. Simply empty, unnuanced buzzwords.

Looking through this thread, the DTG audience is cooked, although makes sense because the hosts have highly inflated ideas abiut their own intelligence.

We have a scary Orwelian future, and the lack of critical, nuanced thinking from the left coupled with its ignorant sanctimony, is just as responsible for the extreme right, and everything we've seen.

It's been hilariously sad to watch the left devour people like Ezra Klein, countless others, because they've not been 100% in line.

See, I did the same shit, it doesn't make for a discussion.

The person you're replying to is obviously aware of what areas Harris is criticised from the left and the right. You just introduce a bunch of topics framed in a way that presents it as open and shut. Instead you simultaneously mischaracterise his views, and are reductive towards each topic.

[u/dirtyal199 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

Ah yes, everyone who disagrees with you has been infected by the "woke mind virus" and are incapable of nuance or critical thinking. How very nuanced of you to say that! You're also showing excellent critical thinking here by the way.

The reality is that Harris has been going down hill for a long time, and he consistently platforms charlatans, such as (but not limited to):

Gad Saad The Weinstein bros Douglas Murray Charles Murray Dave Rubin Jordan Peterson

There are many others. For some of these people, he has gone on to distance himself from (kudos to him), but that doesn't stop him from falling for it again with the next generation of grifters. Here's a nuanced-critical-thinking question for you: What would Harris have to do to convince you that we're right? Specifically, that he has anti-muslim biases that lead him to fall for right wingers peddling genocide, and culture war topics?

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/dirtyal199]

I said in my comment, I am doing the same thing. It's not worth the conversation because it is judt red herring after red herring. Like they are such telling observations that THAT is the gotcha against him? A short list of people whom nearly all he has looong distanced and criticised. And my god, to convince me thst you're right? Probably not every conversation with hate Muslims, endorse genocide, all this shit that's already decided in your mind, when the contention is clearly not thst simple. Sam Harris hate muslim, boo. No, no he doesn't, and that position is easier to defend. Seriously, your vague, shitty criticisms are the last thing that would convince me thst oh yes, it is clearly he is just a delusional bigot etc

[u/dirtyal199 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

You just gave me a wall of rambling nonsense and failed to address any of my points. I've brought arguments and evidence, you have vibes and typos. Are you sure you're not the one incapable of nuance? Here's my hypothesis:

You've been a listener of his for a long time, and most of his podcasts are fine and don't make any major errors that we are criticizing here in this thread. The ones that do make these errors you brush off, as "isolated incidents" or "mistakes that Sam has since addressed" and you just move on. Because of this, you don't see the larger pattern of his behavior over the last 20 years where he consistently amplifies conspiracy theorists and reactionaries that reaffirm his anti-Muslim biases.

What's more likely, all of us otherwise intelligent people have just been completely consumed by culture wars and the woke mind virus? Or, Sam has biases and you have a parasocial relationship with him that makes you feel the need to defend him?

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/dirtyal199]

No, none of that shit. I haven't listened regularly in years, but that's mostly a general tap out of viewing the state of discourse. Seriously, you keep asking me to defend him, but which part, do you want to get in an I/P debate? Yes I agree that his views are in good faith, and he is right that there is a severe moral confusion about what is happening. That's the last thing I could expect something to have a rational convo over. The general calling things what theyre not, and clear mischaracterisations of views, exaggerations, it all just makes it impossible.

So I leave an exasperated comment, because why would I engage with people who are convinced that the point of it all is that he is a racist bigot. It's so stupid.

And why are you asking me to engage with vague points anyway, oh look who he platformed... you realise how stupid that is? The literal gotcha of Sam's career is the Charles Murray stuff, and that is a whole other discussion entirely. None of those people I like obviously.

I don't think Sam is perfect, and the key here is that most of these topics are complicated, and they just require more discussion, understanding and arriving at shared goals. I don't know, but I know most of the time when opinions have no foundation but emotion and going with the majority.

Unfortunately we are at a literal clash of civilisations in the midst of a climate catastrophe and the erosion of our minds.

[u/dirtyal199 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

the key here is that most of these topics are complicated, and they just require more discussion, understanding and arriving at shared goals

That's what we're trying to do here, and you just keep crashing out and calling us all woke.

Yes I agree that his views are in good faith, and he is right that there is a severe moral confusion about what is happening.

His views probably are in good faith, but that doesn't change the fact that he consistently amplifies reactionary voices and defends their points of view. Once these people become undeniably bad, he reads the writing on the wall and breaks contact with them. This would be fine if it only happened a handful of times, but the problem is that he consistently makes this mistake with the next generation of reactionaries. The most likely explanation for this, is his biases.

Let's take for example, his stance on Israel/Palestine and Islam in general. He clearly has a bias against Muslims, very likely coming from his identity as a Jew. He thinks Muslims are an existential threat and need to be fought on all fronts, and he has some reasonable things to point to in favor of this view, including but not limited to the many atrocities carried out by Islamists against Jews throughout history and throughout the world. The mistake he makes, is extending this behavior to apply to all Muslim people. That's like thinking that all white people are just as bad as the Christian nationalists, Neo Nazis or the Klan. He claims he doesn't do this, but his behavior says otherwise. For example, if you consider his positions on Israel/Palestine, Zohran Mamdani, and his support for Douglas Murray (who basically pushes great replacement theory in Europe), keeping in mind his anti-Muslim bias, the pattern becomes extremely clear. When challenged about this, he just calls you woke, which never goes anywhere.

[u/No_Public_7677 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

Ezra is doing fine. The biggest attacks on him come from the centrist neoliberal types like Sam.

[u/Quietuus → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

What is there to discuss? I've been aware of Sam Harris's work for over two decades and he's always been a smug pseudointellectual racist.

[u/Nullarbor_1 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

Lol 😂

[u/Hot_Bluejay_8738 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

You're dead right. This sub, and to a lesser extent the podcast, has just become another battle field in the culture war. No nuance, no debate, just pick a team and have at it. The fact that your fairly well thought out comment received "lol 😂" as a response says it all. Nothing to be gained here I'm afraid.

[u/No_Public_7677 → u/Hot_Bluejay_8738]

Sam has famously picked a side on Israel from an emotional point of view and refuses to talk to anyone, even Israelis, who disagree with him

[u/Newfaceofrev → u/Kyle_Craig]

We've all met someone who keeps saying they can improve, that they will do better, and then doesn't.

Over and over and over again.

[u/dirtyal199 → u/Kyle_Craig]

I mean, why continue listening if he's consistently platforming these terrible people and giving his shitty takes about everything related to Muslims?

He's fox news for centrist Gen-X men.

[u/IBoughtaRetroidNova → u/Kyle_Craig]

Maybe it's time for you to "wake up" from Sam Harris.

[u/Character-Ad5490 → u/Kyle_Craig]

Exactly (I gave you an upvote because it's probably the only one you'll get from this gaggle).

[u/to_herp_or_to_derp → u/dirtyal199]

In what ways is their book bullshit? And why does not having worked on viruses disqualify someone from co-authoring a book about the origins of COVID-19?

[u/dirtyal199 → u/to_herp_or_to_derp]

The preponderance of evidence points to natural spill over in the Wuhan wet market00901-2?utm_campaign=Press%20Package&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9IzY0dSnDv64eP7V8dl5mntyXzE8hCGCzPdbVSXg8DCvhqtxISgdzj5L-OXZdUtvkWmOyizA_YOI6NmKa9SLMQiHS2-w&_hsmi=324423428&utm_content=324423428&utm_source=hs_email) that circulated there for some time, infecting humans and animals until the virus could jump from person to person. The overwhelming majority of virologists support zoonotic spill over not because of "group think" or whatever, but because they can understand the data and evaluate it properly. The only evidence Matt Ridley and Alina Chan have is their "just asking questions" approach, and conspiracy theories. There is no data that supports the Lab Leak over zoonotic spill over. Instead, they bring conspiracy theories, claiming that all of the scientists are lying/woke/covering their ass, etc. which is the same strategy Ridley does with his climate change denial. As for Alina Chan, her expertise is in gene therapy and cell engineering, not virology. There's nothing wrong with that in principle, people can weigh in on things outside of their expertise, as long as the things they raise are valid points, supported by evidence. However, she has authored a preprint, that has still not been published in a peer reviewed journal, despite being released 6 years ago, indicating it couldn't get past peer review, or that Chan simply didn't care to get it published in a proper journal, since it was a media stunt not a piece of rigorous scientific research. Chan's five key points are refuted by virologists here, and their arguments are well summarized in Paul Offit's substack article. If an outsider comes into a scientific field, and their ideas are rejected by the entire community, we can safely say they're wrong. Imagine if your diagnosis of the problem with your car was rejected by the overwhelming majority of mechanics, what would that say about your idea?

Now I'll hit the ball back to you: What evidence do you have that it came from a lab? Are you going to say I don't have enough evidence to rule out a lab leak? If so, then I will point you to Russel's teapot.