Reddit Reddit reviews Talking to the Enemy: Religion, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists

We found 4 Reddit comments about Talking to the Enemy: Religion, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
World History
Religious History
History of Religion & Politics
Talking to the Enemy: Religion, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists
Used Book in Good Condition
Check price on Amazon

4 Reddit comments about Talking to the Enemy: Religion, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists:

u/crazythrowa · 32 pointsr/SubredditDrama

Scott Atran's work is a good place to start, I'd recommend [Talking to the Enemy: Religion, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists] (http://www.amazon.com/Talking-Enemy-Religion-Brotherhood-Terrorists/dp/0061344915). He's spent years with the very groups he writes about and earned their trusts. He's very good.

If you want a quicker read, here is a good [overview] (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10683169808401747) of the situation and here is a good [self observation] (http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=randy_borum&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dpsychopathy%2Bterrorism%26btnG%3D%26as_sdt%3D1%252C10%26as_sdtp%3D#search=%22psychopathy%20terrorism%22) of the research itself.

u/TheGrammarBolshevik · 28 pointsr/samharris

> You answered my question with three spokes comprising a wheel that is one
> non-answer, because you could not provide any material outside of reddit the
> philosophy community, that details Harris' faults as a philosopher. This is
> obviously of monumental significance.

It's not obviously significant, and on the contrary I've given an argument
supporting its insignificance, whereas the only thing supporting its
significance is your say-so.

That being said, there are plenty of criticisms of Harris's work that have been
published outside of Reddit. For example:

u/mavnorman · 2 pointsr/atheism

Indeed. When Harris writes:

> Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations.

any skeptic should wonder how it's possible that only Harris manages to see the Truth while all others fail. Are they really biased by wishful thinking? Do they have no evidence to support their conclusions?

Atheists often claim to follow a rational and scientific method, willing to follow the evidence whereever it may lead.

Well, then. What sort of evidence does Harris provide? All I have ever seen is anecdotes, counter-factuals, and an appeal to intution. This is hardly good evidence. He never managed to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal about the topic, as far as I know.

What about the so called "pseudo-scholars" in the humanities and social science departments? What sort of evidence do they have? It seems they do take terrorists by their word. They do in-depth interviews with former terrorists. They do statistical analysis where terrorists come from. They do a careful comparison of the available data.

What's more: Their explanation is consistent with what we know about motivations for violence, in general, and what we know about the relative impotence of religious doctrines for getting people to do good.

There's hardly any doubt who's closer to the truth, here.

u/the_str · 1 pointr/news

Downvote if you'd like, but here you go. Good reading: https://www.amazon.com/Talking-Enemy-Religion-Brotherhood-Terrorists/dp/0061344915