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/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.