Latest Activity

Lutz replied to Atheist Universe's discussion Introduce Yourself
8 minutes ago

Lutz just added their location.
(via Member Map)

24 minutes ago
Marianne Sommersted-Wolff joined Sydni Moser's group
6 hours ago
doone commented on Michel's group The Daily Cosmos
6 hours ago
Marianne Sommersted-Wolff is now a member of Atheist Universe
6 hours ago
Davy left a comment for Claes Himm
22 hours ago
Davy left a comment for Lutz
23 hours ago
Lutz commented on Stephen Brodie's blog post Islamic Extremists Now Crucifying
yesterday
Lutz commented on Stephen Brodie's blog post Islamic Extremists Now Crucifying
yesterday
Lutz left a comment for Stephen Brodie
yesterday
Stephen Brodie posted a discussion
yesterday
Stephen Brodie left a comment for Lutz
yesterday
Lutz is now a member of Atheist Universe
yesterday
Davy left a comment for Robyn Brown
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie replied to Sassan K.'s discussion How does one go from atheism to religion?
Tuesday
Hope replied to Sassan K.'s discussion How does one go from atheism to religion?
Tuesday

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

I do not know a lot about Chris Hedges, but he has always struck me as a very decent man who is genuinely concerned about the welfare of his fellow man. I’ve read several of his articles, but none of his books. However, I just finished listening to I Don’t Believe in Atheists, a critique of what he calls atheist fundamentalism.

 

As always, I prefer that you interpret this review as my take on (or understanding of) the book, and not as an authoritative retelling on what the author is trying to say. I could certainly get something wrong here, so please read his book first before drawing any final conclusions.

 

First and foremost, this is not a book about proof for the existence of god. Nor is it a tirade against atheists for not believing in a divine entity.

 

Rather, I Don’t Believe in Atheists is a critique of what Hedges (and others I suppose) call the New Atheists – nonbelievers that he claims are just as fundamentalist and unyielding in their beliefs as fundamentalist theists are—naming, in particular, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, E. O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins.

 

In my opinion, the book is rather poorly named because it doesn’t clearly convey what the book is about, and because Hedges doesn’t just take on the New Atheists within its pages. He also takes on fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, and draws parallels between these two and the New Atheists. (The paperback edition was subsequently retitled When Atheism Becomes Religion: America's New Fundamentalists.)

 

Fundamentalist Christians believe in creationism, angels and demons, prescriptive morality, and an idyllic utopia in which all of man is converted to the one true religion, and spends the rest of their time on earth serving and worshiping god. These people, Hedges says, are delusional. They believe in irrational things and cling to views of human nature that do not correspond with the historical behavior of the human race.

 

But the New Atheists, those who preach the gospel of science and reason, are equally delusional, he claims, because they too believe in utopian ideals about the betterment and perfection of humanity. They claim that if we can just eliminate irrational religion in society, teach science and reason, and dispense with superstition and magical thinking, that one day we can have a peaceful world based on mutual respect, tolerance, and understanding. Then and only then will true progress be made. But human history does not support this view, either.

 

Knowledge and science are morally neutral. They can be used by good people towards good ends, and by bad people towards bad ends. They cannot save humanity from itself. Evil is not a problem which can be solved. Rather, it is a mystery of human nature. A mystery we will never be rid of. A curse we cannot escape.

 

All we can hope to do is resist it. Shame it. Suppress it. Work against it. But we will never eliminate it. And those who preach either the gospel of a dogmatic religion as salvation or of science and reason as salvation are kidding both themselves and those who believe them.

 

Because we have a well-documented history, and because we see culture and technology as continually moving forward and building upon the past, we mistakenly believe that we are progressing morally at the same rate – that moral virtue evolves as quickly as our scientific understanding of the world around us.

 

But we’re not, and it doesn’t.  Neither the dogma of fanatical religion nor advances in science, reason, and technology have made us more humane. They have not influenced our moral instincts. We are just as capable and willing to prey upon our fellow man as we have always been (and Hedges provides many examples to prove his point). Both religion and secularism, he says, can rationalize horrendous acts of violence for a perceived benefit to human moral and social progress. If we can just eliminate the undesirables, the non-conformists, the ones who don’t share our views and won’t play along with our vision of the future, then, and only then, will we truly fulfill our human potential.

 

Hedges answer to all this is what I believe he believes to be authentic religion. To him, true religion is about community, compassion, and tolerance. It is about helping the needy and embracing the outcast. It is not about abortion rights, adultery, gay marriage, divine judgment, or an unyielding dogma.

 

This, we are to suppose, is the religion that Hedges practices. Well, perhaps it is. I don’t know him so I can’t say for sure, though I do get the impression that he is definitely the type of person who would strive for this ideal – who would make these values his own. But the flaw in this, or perhaps I should say the irony, is that he is advocating, on a basic level, what fundamentalist Christians and the New Atheists are advocating: that the world would be a much better place if the rest of us were like them. And it is hard not to wonder if he is not being a bit too idyllic, as well. I mean, how many people do you know who are like this?

 

I am tempted to say that he is wearing rose-colored glasses. But upon reflection, Hedges’s experiences as a war correspondent, as a man who’s seen the worst of human nature, does not allow one to accept that he is simply being naïve.

 

In many ways, I Don’t Believe in Atheists is both a cynical and sobering. I can certainly see some of myself in his criticisms, and for that, I’m glad. Things that challenge us are always so much more interesting than things that flatter us.

 

However, I do think the book had its share of flaws. In the first part of the book, he drones on and on about the New Atheists being this and that, and this and that, and this and that, to the point of tedium. It’s like, okay, I get it already! Can we move on?

 

I also think that he was a bit too forgiving of religiosity and I don’t think he was always being fair to Hitch, Dennett, et al, but as I have not read their entire collected writings, I cannot say with certainty how accurately he portrayed their views. (Though some of the Sam Harris quotes were quite troubling.)

 

Additionally, words like “sacred,” “transcendent,” and “reverence” appeared way too often for my comfort. Generally speaking I have no use for those kinds of words, because I don’t believe in any of them, and they lend themselves too readily to extremism, I think.

 

Well, I still have many more notes jotted down, so I could probably say a lot more about this book, but since this review is already pretty long, I’ll leave it with this:  While I don’t agree with everything Hedges said, and while I’m not yet convinced he was always fair and objective, I would definitely recommend I Don’t Believe in Atheists.

 

As for me, I’m still not quite prepared to issue a final judgment on the book. I cannot reconcile some of what I believe with his claims. And that’s fine. It is certainly worth revisiting in the future, and I hope to do just that. And while I would not consider it a masterpiece, it is an important book that asks you to reconsider your views instead of one that just placates them.

 

MORE LINKS
Wikipedia page for Chris Hedges
Interview with Chris Hedges
Book link at Amazon.com
Review and comments (vey mixed) at GoodReads.com

 

I am also attaching the first six tracks of CD one.

 

 

Tags: Chris Hedges, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, New Atheists, atheism, books, religion, theism

Views: 157

Attachments:

Replies to This Discussion

Tracks 4 - 6.

Attachments:

I have occasionally been impressed with some of Hedges's social and political commentary on TruthOut in other places.  He's something of a bomb-thrower, though.  As it happens, Hedges was born in St. Johnsbury, Vermont, the county seat about 9 miles from me.  He is the son of a Presbyterian minister and went to religious school.  In fact, after taking an English lit BA at Colgate he went on for a master's in Divinity at Harvard.  He's a little bent when it comes to religion.

  PZ Myers has had occasion to come down pretty hard on him, and for good reason, I think.

Thanks for the link. But I don't think it's fair for Myers to call him a lunatic. I think Hedges is far from that. He may be mistaken about some things, he may even fail to fully articulate his thoughts and feelings, but dismissing him as a lunatic is ridiculous. He's a thoughtful man. Even if we don't see eye to eye with him, the term "lunatic" is misapplied here.

But, DG, PZ doesn't call him a lunatic (at least I don't see where he does).  The "madness" he refers to is in explicit reference to his book.  With particular reference to Hedges's take on atheism, he says, "he's got this crazy irrational hysteria about atheists that makes him utterly unhinged whenever he writes about us." 

Correct. I did apparently pick up the word "lunatic" from the Harris link, not PZ's comments. However, PZ does say "Hedges has been totally nuts for the last few years: he's got this crazy irrational hysteria about atheists that makes him utterly unhinged whenever he writes about us," which is about the same thing.

 

IDK, maybe Hedges is totally nuts and I have yet to discover it. But as it stands now, I don't see that he's nuts. Wrong, over zealous maybe, but "totally nuts," "crazy irrational hysteria," and "utterly unhinged" is hyperbole.

Sure, but as I say, I think PZ means he's "totally nuts" with respect to his position toward atheists.

Yes, maybe so.

I like Hedges in his political commentary, and i think his heart is in the right place, but his critique of New Atheism is completely misplaced, in my opinion (as much as I'm not a great fan of all "New Atheists" all the time, I've disagreed with their positions in the past). He critiques them for putting all religious people on the same boat, yet that's exactly what he does. 

Hedges must live on another planet, his idea of religion is so "kumbayah" and full of the "spiritual" woo words I so dislike. Amazing how an intelligent guy like Hedges can be blindsided by religious "feel-good", sappy ideas...

He critiques them for putting all religious people on the same boat, yet that's exactly what he does. 

 

Yes, I thought the same thing. Of course, he makes a point to say that he doesn't view all atheists like this, but even still, when he talks about Hitch and the others he does use generalizations that I'm not absolutely sure are correct. Like I said, I don't think he was always being fair. Generalizations are not always bad, but they're only useful if they are correct. Nonetheless, I do think it is fair to question Harris's coment that we should premptively strike Muslim nations.

 

Hedges must live on another planet, his idea of religion is so "kumbayah" and full of the "spiritual" woo words I so dislike. Amazing how an intelligent guy like Hedges can be blindsided by religious "feel-good", sappy ideas...

 

I don't think his ideas about caring for the outcaset and helping the downtrodden are sappy ideas. But how many people are willing to live like that? That's not where religion leads most people. It's fine for him to say that fundamentalism isn't "real" religion, but to someone like me it is difficult not to see a guilt by association.

Oh, no, helping the downtrodden is not a sappy idea, it's the right idea, morally speaking. But that he thinks religion will achieve that or is necessary to achieve that, or that being an atheist means being against helping others, and that you need to use words such a "transcendence" to achieve that, that is the sappy part for me. He is using the True Scotsman fallacy though. The fundamentalists are religious, that's how they see themselves and their morality, and they believe in the same woo afterlife, Jesus is love crap that non-fundamentalists believe. Who ids Hedges to say this is not the "true" religion? Christians always do the same thing, as soon as Christian behaves in a way they don't like, well, it was not a "true" Christian. Well, if an atheist acts like an asshole, he still is an atheist, and it does not speak ill of every single atheist. 

You know how I feel about Harris...But it's irrelevant whether Harris is an atheist, Harris is hawkish in his political ideas and that's that. Of course it is OK to challenge Harris ideas on Muslim eradication, but not confuse his ideas with his atheism; his ideas do not stem from his atheism, I mean, or he should want to eradicate ALL religions. 

But that he thinks religion will achieve that or is necessary to achieve that..

 

Again, I totally agree with that. I was thinking the same thing. One need not be religious in order to be moral. And he agrees as well. He said there are many decent, moral atheists. His beef is with those who think we can achieve human perfection by eliminating religion, which he thinks is fallacious.

 

"transcendence" to achieve that, that is the sappy part for me.

 

Again, agreed. I hate that word.

 

Who ids Hedges to say this is not the "true" religion? Christians always do the same thing, as soon as Christian behaves in a way they don't like, well, it was not a "true" Christian.

 

Precisely. Even Satanists do this same thing. CoS satanists think ToS satanists aren't "real" satanists. Still, if I had to choose between what kind of theist I'd rather be around, I'd pick Hedges over Robertson any day.

 

Of course it is OK to challenge Harris ideas on Muslim eradication, but not confuse his ideas with his atheism; his ideas do not stem from his atheism, I mean, or he should want to eradicate ALL religions. 

 

Good point.

 

You know how I feel about Harris...

 

No, sorry, I don't quite remember any specific views, other than you really like him I guess.

Yes, I really like him, LOL. Him and all the other people who advocate the eradication of anything which is not parasites, pests, or horrible diseases, using torture if necessary :-)

(In the Atheist Morality group, we had a long discussion on The Moral Landscape, that I think is completely mistaken on the role of science in morality; I'm not going to revisit it but you can found that discussion there)

RSS

© 2014   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service