Sam Harris’ Net Worth And A Rebuttal To His Argument Against Free Will

How much is Sam Harris worth?

Net Worth:$2 Million
Profession:Professional Author
Date of Birth:April 9, 1967 (age 55)
Country:United States of America
5 ft 9 in (1.77 m)

About Sam Harris

Sam Harris is an American philosopher, neuroscientist, author, and podcast host who has posited a number of theories in his books and talks. He is a strong advocate of meditation having spent time in India and Nepal studying Hinduism, Buddhism and other Indian insight training practices and theologies. He studied at Stanford University and is known for having experimented with psychoactive compounds which he considers may be helpful in achieving spiritual insights. Harris has stirred some controversy with his views and arguments relating to Islam and free will.

American philosopher, neuroscientist, author, and podcast host Sam Harris has an estimated net worth of $2 million dollars, as of 2023. Harris publishes on topics of spirituality without religion and how free will may not exist.


In 2004, Sam Harris published The End of Faith which made The New York Times Best Seller list and stayed there for over 7 months. In 2006, he published Letter to a Christian Nation. In 2010, The Moral Landscape. In 2011, Lying. In 2012, Free Will. In 2014, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. In 2015, Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue.

I was rather taken by Sam’s work a number of years ago but then I stumbled across some remarks about Muslim women and “cloth bags” and was a little put off.  I disagreed with what was being said. However, I have listened to some of what he has said about awareness and different states of consciousness that I found clear.

Free will Rebuttal

To be completely out I do not actually know precisely Sam’s argument against free will only that he has one. I also don’t want to dig too much into that tonight either because things are clear now and I would sooner write.

I would like to address free will in one piece, penned just tonight as it did arise and making it more fair there will be no edits that I don’t highlight.

I hope this will help my usual readers at home as much as it may help those going through some kind of meta level infinity battle into cognition.

As per Wikipedia, Sam’s view is that the idea of free will cannot be mapped on to any conceivable reality” and is incoherent. Harris writes in Free Will that neuroscience “reveals you to be a biochemical puppet.”

Okay so released at 2:38am in the morning, April 15, 2022, and with no edits unless they have been highlighted here we go:

As noted I am not that familiar with Sam’s work although he has been an influence. I do not know exactly where he stands on the auxiliary points or why free will seems so inconceivable to him. It may be stemming from what seems to me somewhat of a provocative side to his nature. Free will and lack there of has also been apparent to me for many years. However I consider I have good evidence for its existence.

Sam’s opposing approach to free will I feel buckles conventional thinking on what many consider “obvious”. However it is not obvious. If one considers why they do something there are many meta levels of cognition they must go through as well as arising emotions, cognitive biases and confabulations.

The fact that continually breaking meta level after meta level always leaves the practitioner with another possible meta level to break does not prove that we cannot get clear insight into free will’s existence. The problem is the exercise itself. One can always pop out of doing it and consider where the free will was to begin the exercise in the first place.

I assume Sam’s argument is that there are underlying patterns that determine choices despite what reason a person may give for why they chose to do what they did. That everything is chained leaving only the illusion of free will decisions made by individuals.

If it is true that Sam asserts free will may simply be an illusion because there are deeper levels, perhaps another level of cognition that is already predetermined. Or that our biochemistry is in total control. Then I disagree with this. I consider that choices made in life cause outcomes that are later experienced and that, for example, making the choice of standing up for another can cause a dramatic shift in where that brave entity will end up in this existence. I am also fully aware that one must have built skills and fortitude and courage to do these things. But of course also consider the building of those attributes choice-driven and not predetermined.

Not only do I consider choices in life to exist and there being a certain amount of available free will for making them. I consider choices, which are actions, to direct an entities’ entire experience in this space. I also note that there is certainly more free will in general for the lone solo practitioner than there is for someone who must also get others’ approval for whatever the reason may be.

I consider small choices are made along the way that may guide us into pleasant circumstances.
When we come to make a choice we may feel compelled in a certain direction or even moving or acting automatically. However I also have experienced the opposite where a choice may be gone back and forth on for many years. One may argue the result of this practice is already predetermined however I would point to karma and consider that only in practiced and upheld rightful actions done so by one’s own free will does one arrive at pleasant abode.

I suspect that Sam Harris’ first assumption is that we must follow cognition down through many meta levels to rule out whether free will exists. However in doing so one realizes the entire process seems infinite and already predetermined. If that is his process I consider it incorrect. 

If one follows meta levels of cognition down one cannot prove free will exists.

If we consider free will from a different view however, I consider we can gain quite some insight into it.

If we were to create such a space as ours for beings who feel. I consider it clear that we would need three things. The entity-space. Objective rules. Free will.

The entities are also the space. They would be, in all cases, as they are made of ‘space stuff’ and what’s more, they can then realize this; and in doing so liberate themselves from the suffering caused by false beliefs, including death.

We can also view free will by comparing it to other trends that are observable. Including observations made about those who are rightful in their choices and actions and those who are wrongful in their choices and actions. If this were just a ride with an illusion of control it would point to an unethical or incompetent creator of this space we call universe.

Plus. If we did have no free will. It would seem like a pretty funny thing to predetermine that people like Sam Harris would spend decades of their life looking into it. If this space was predetermined and there was no free will I think it would be a lot more baller than that.


Sam Harris has posited theories that have helped many see, think and feel differently. He has explored ideas including consciousness and how the mind is working as a means of helping people and also while earning a great living doing it. He earns through the sales of his books as well as a meditation app that can be found on his website, Waking Up.

wee man net worth

Wee Man Net Worth

6ix9ine net worth

6ix9ine Net Worth