…and this is a 
Chris Hedges wastes everyone's time
Category: Godlessness • Kooks
Posted on: March 13, 2008 12:05 PM, by PZ Myers
Chris Hedges wrote a pretty good book on fundamentalism called American Fascists; at least, I thought it was pretty good, but now I have my doubts about his credibility. He has a new book, I Don't Believe in Atheists, and has an essay that summarizes his position. I could not believe how awful it is — it's basically a declaration that all atheists are exactly like Pat Robertson, and then it charges in with nothing but venom and accusations to defend his position.
Here's a perfect example.
These atheists share a naïve belief with these fundamentalists in our innate goodness and decency. They, like all religious fundamentalists, fail to grasp the dark reality of human nature, our own capacity for evil, and the morally neutral universe we inhabit. There is nothing in human nature or human history to support the idea that we are morally advancing as a species or that we will overcome the flaws of human nature. We progress technologically and scientifically, but not morally. We use the newest instruments of technological and scientific progress to create more efficient forms of killing, repression, and economic exploitation and to accelerate environmental degradation as well as to nurture and sustain life. There is a good and a bad side to human progress. We are not moving toward a glorious utopia. We are not moving anywhere.
Wait a minute — Christian fundamentalists believe we're victims of original sin, and will go on and on about what evil people we naturally are, and how it is only the grace of God that prevents us from running off raping and pillaging and killing. He's starting off with a very peculiar characterization of fundamentalists.
And what about the atheists? Are there utopian dreamers among us? Sure, but not many — it's hard to be too optimistic when you're a minority surrounded by glib believers in balderdash. I think we tend to be realists: humanity has done fairly well for itself, and has potential to do better, but human nature is not a perfect ideal, nor is it perfectable, and we're always going to have conflict and compromise. The question is whether we're going to resolve those conflicts with reason, or with tribalisms and superstition.
While I don't see much talk of a "glorious utopia" in atheist circles, I also don't see as much of the bleak nihilism of Hedges, in which aspiration is pointless because we're all doomed to futility. Hedges' black-and-white view seems terribly stark and unrealistic.
He's also prone to lumping all atheists together into one highly unrepresentative group.
Most of these atheists, like the Christian fundamentalists, support the imperialist projects and preemptive wars of the United States as a necessity. They see the war in Iraq and the greater conflict in the Middle East as an attack on irrational religion and a fight for the civilizing values of western culture. They too divide the world into superior and inferior races, those who are enlightened by reason and knowledge and those who are governed by irrational and dangerous religious beliefs. Hitchens and Harris -- who asks us to consider a nuclear first strike on the Arab world -- describe the Muslim world, where I spent seven years, most of them as the Middle East Bureau Chief for the New York Times, in language that is as racist, crude, and intolerant as that used by Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell. These authors are as culturally, historically, and linguistically illiterate as Christian fundamentalists, reducing one-fifth of the world's population to their cartoonish visions of what it means to be a Muslim. They are a secular version of the religious right.
"Most of these atheists"…who has he been talking to? Hitchens and Harris are most emphatically not representative of atheist views on war. When Hitchens spoke at FFRF on the need for strongarming the Muslims in Iraq and Iran into surrender, people walked out on him, and he was loudly decrying atheists as wimps who were weak on the war and were too pro-Democrat, too anti-war. Atheists are politically diverse, and if anything, tend to lean away from the views Hedges assigns to us.
But wait! Hedges is not done making himself look ridiculous!
The New Atheists misuse Darwin and evolutionary biology as egregiously as the Christian fundamentalists misuse the Bible. Darwinism, which pays homage to the final and complete mastery of our animal natures, never posits that human beings can transcend their natures and create a human paradise. It argues the opposite. The illusion of human progress, in the name of evolutionary biology, is actually anti-Darwinian. And in this the New Atheists are honest neither about science nor Darwin. Science is used by them to supplant religion, to provide meaning and hope. It is used to assuage these innate religious yearnings. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative, albeit morally neutral, it gives the illusion that human history and human progress is also cumulative. And in many ways science has simply replaced the faith our premodern ancestors had in God.
Uh, "Darwinism"? If you knew how much I detest that frequently misused term…
And then to follow it up with the weirdest definition of evolution I've heard yet — "which pays homage to the final and complete mastery of our animal natures" — I want to know where this guy is getting his information. We do not master our animal natures, we are animals, and our nature is us. It is quite true that a proper understanding of evolution demolishes the idea of an overall pattern of progress towards a single goal, replacing it with an expanding diversity of strategies and a dominance by chance variation, but selection does reveal that there are better strategies for survival, at least in the short term.
And face it, on a social level there are better ways of doing things. Equality is better for all people than racism and discrimination; tolerance is better than oppression; representation is better than tyranny. We don't sit around passive, saying that well, heck, an occasional lynching of a black man or the existence of gangs that beat up people walking out of gay bars is just as good as the absence of the same … we do have ideals to which we aspire, and we all work towards them. Atheists are people who believe that we can improve society with reason, and that yes, we can supplant the superstition and mythology of religion with better ways of making decisions. This is not wrong. This is how we achieve our goals.
But to see an author dismiss the idea of a betterment of the culture is hypocritical and absurd. Hedges writes books and has them published and sells them to people, I expect with the idea that readers will learn from them. Learning, however, is one of those utopian ideals that he seems to find so pointless.
But more ominously, the New Atheists ignore the wisdom of original sin, as well as studies in cognitive behavior that illustrate that human nature is often irrational and flawed. We are all governed, even in our moments of greatest lucidity, by unconscious forces. This understanding, whether achieved through Augustine or Freud, has been our most potent check on schemes of human perfectibility and utopian visions. But the New Atheists, like all believers in myth, refuse to listen. They peddle the alluring and enticing fantasy of inevitable moral and material progress. This vision is not based on science, history or reason. It is an act of faith. It is a form of the occult. It is no more scientifically legitimate than alchemy.
These "New Atheists" are bizarre products of Hedges' imagination. The real New Atheists are well aware of the flaws of human character, and have no illusions of inevitability.
But gosh, I'm wasting my time. Hedges is clearly enraptured by his own delusions, and there's no hope of educating him, or anyone else for that matter; we're all poor doomed slaves of our impoverished natures, and all attempts to acquire a better, more accurate understanding of the world are pointless, occult mysticisms. There isn't even any point to buying any of his books, or listening to his lectures, or reading his futile screeds.
Comments
We've seen this kind of thing before. Clearly Hedges wants to be a pioneer, saying the things that others are afraid to say, shining a light into the darkest corners to enlighten us all on what's really going on! Unfortunately for him, he's only shining a light on his exposed ass for everyone to see. He should make friends with "Vox Day". They can make stuff up together.
Posted by: tyaddow | March 13, 2008 12:20 PM
I notice also that in his Salon interview he perpetuates the "Harris defends torture" smear.
Posted by: Chet | March 13, 2008 12:22 PM
I am sad again :(....we atheists arent bad people!!! come on!
:(
Posted by: Andrew | March 13, 2008 12:22 PM
WTF? Did an atheist, excuse me, "New Atheist" run over his puppy the morning he wrote this?
Don't you worry, little Chrissy, we'll track down that mean atheist for you.
Put out an APB on a "New Atheist", average height, comfortable shoes, soul-patch and straw coming out of the seams in his clothes. Last seen in a car with a darwin fish sticker and puppy guts on the front fender.
Posted by: Schmeer | March 13, 2008 12:23 PM
The inanity is glaring. Since when does being religious guarantee (or even increase the odds) that the believer will act in a moral and ethical manner? This guy needs to read Hauser's Moral Minds.
Posted by: Randy | March 13, 2008 12:24 PM
Where, in this context, "peculiar" means "outright wrong."
Spot-on categorization, because this guy IS a kook.
Posted by: Stephen | March 13, 2008 12:24 PM
I looked forward to reading "American Fundamentalists" only to be very disappointed. He spent more time than I expected trying to differentiate moderate Christianity from the more extreme views. But beyond that book, I've found his columns at sites like TruthDig to be exactly what you described: a hopeless and very nihilistic view of our world and civilization. Honestly, I have to wonder how it is he hasn't committed suicide yet.
I wasn't aware of this most recent work (probably because I've been ignoring him), but it strikes me as both pathetic and bizarre that someone who is such a blatant apologist can turn right around and criticize others of buying into a "myth."
Posted by: Akitagod | March 13, 2008 12:24 PM
He is actually quite incoherent, and I suspect this is nothing more than a reaction to specific people he doesn't like (Hitchens or Harris perhaps?) who are famous as atheists -- maybe Hitchens slept with his wife or something. I hate trying to psychoanalyze people based on what they write, but what explanation could there be for such vehemence? He's not merely emotional, his hysterical. The excerpts read like paroxysms of pent-up anger. The sweeping generalizations covering all atheists are also very specific in their content: it's as if he's describing someone he hates, but concealing the person's identity by ascribing all his dastardly attributes to the entire class of atheists.
____________________________________________
Posted by: Aris | March 13, 2008 12:29 PM
Posted by: Dustin, OM | March 13, 2008 12:29 PM
pays homage to the final and complete mastery of our animal natures
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD | March 13, 2008 12:29 PM
I'm not sure how one can be so wrong (not PZ) on a subject. Hedge's comments are frighteningly devoid of any apparent research and are (and I'm being generous here) hugely generalized. Thinking of all the atheists I know moderately well, I'm not sure even one fits the mold Hedge's has set out as some kind of example. None of them have a sunshiney view of people or the world. Most begrudgingly support the war (we're there, gotta finish it). I don't know a single person who looks at science to provide meaning or hope. All the atheists I know are realists who see the world as it is. Often times that leaves them open to being categorized as overly negative rather than positive.
I'm really not sure how anyone could so horribly misunderstand a group of people (not that one can easily judge or understand a large group by a few members). I'm not sure I could manage to write something more inaccurate if I tried.
Posted by: Ben K | March 13, 2008 12:30 PM
Salon has an interview with him, so I'm guessing he's got a fair bit more exposure than Vox does. That said, the interview is no more coherent than his essay. Compare:
and
First off, it seems odd to say that New Atheists are these moralizing romantics, and at the same time say that the major proponent you identify has no morals. Second, it is completely bizarre to claim that there is some common fundamentalist creed shared among all New Atheists, and then say that Hitchens "doesn't believe anything". It just makes no sense, like most of Hedges' argument in general.
Posted by: Tulse | March 13, 2008 12:31 PM
His Salon interview basically boils down to his experience debating Hitchens and Harris, who mocked him and therefore all atheists are poo poo heads. I don't think he has ever tried to sit down and have normal conversation with someone who didn't agree with him.
Posted by: justawriter | March 13, 2008 12:31 PM
I see the same problem here I often see with people trying to define "humanism," and I suspect Hedges has gotten his philosophy terms mixed up.
During the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when both science and its underlying philosophy of "humanism" began to really take shape, there was a hybrid form of both which merged the new way of thinking about the world with the old way of thinking about God. This was the "Man is the pinnacle of creation" idea, the Great Chain of Being. The religious belief that God would save us morphed into the only slightly less religious belief that we would save ourselves -- progress was inevitable. Paradise on earth. Half reason, half religion.
You still see this "evolution towards Higher Levels" mindset around today in the liberal spiritual takes on humanism -- or in religious descriptions of humanism. But you don't see it in modern Secular Humanism (or scientific humanism). There are no "higher" and "lower" forms. There's no teleological drive behind things pulling everyone along. We've left that baggage behind.
And of course there's no assurances. As you point out, most scientific atheists are hard-nosed and realistic, and they know better than to believe in Utopia or easy solutions. If we want to improve our lives and our societies, there is no other way than through effort, good will, and reason. That's it. Magic will not work.
But this is a far cry from "we KNOW it WILL work." Hedges is either confused, or he wants an easy straw man target to make himself look good against.
Posted by: Sastra | March 13, 2008 12:35 PM
Hedges book looks as silly as the Doughy Pantload's. These guys are experts in the creation and demolition of straw men.
Posted by: idahogie | March 13, 2008 12:36 PM
He just transferred all of the standard complaints against communism's utopian tendencies (and it is true that it had such tendencies, even if not all communists were utopian) to the atheists.
Which is intensely stupid.
Let's see, Ambrose Bierce, Mencken, and Nietzsche (whether the first two were strictly atheist I don't know, but they were essentially godless), people whose cheery beliefs in the goodness of humanity spills over into their optimistic writings.
So I guess the mindless anti-atheists are alternating between a view of atheism as depressing and hopeless, and that it is over-optimistic.
I don't suppose they'd like to bother to get any evidence? Naw, that's just what those depressing/optimistic atheists do, why should a theist bother?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 13, 2008 12:39 PM
Quoting from the Powells.com summary:
"Most of these atheists, like the Christian fundamentalists, support the imperialist projects and preemptive wars of the United Statesas a necessity."
Just _where_ does he get that being an atheist means you're
stridently aligned with Dick Cheney's neo-con agenda??
This is completely at odds with the facts.
(On the other hand, if you're a Christian fundamentalist,
you _are_ going to buy into Bush's agenda: "he's one of
'us'; he's going to appoint all the Supreme Court nominees
we ask of him; therefore, we'll follow him to Hell (or
Iraq), if he so requires.")
This kind of nonsense reminds me of Jonah Goldberg's
recent screed/book associating liberalism with fascism.
Posted by: Petzl | March 13, 2008 12:39 PM
Those who believe in the possibility of this perfection often call for the silencing or eradication of human beings who are defined by them as impediments to human progress.
Yep, Hedges is full of complete bullshit. I would like him to point to one example where any of the "New Atheists" call for the silencing or eradication of anyone? Yep, a lot of us would like to see these ancient myths gradually disappear from society, but that's done through education and appeal to reason. Yet another person who can't separate criticism of ideas from attacks on people.
Posted by: Bruce | March 13, 2008 12:40 PM
This guy sounds like one of those moderate theists who perpetuates the fallacy of the false middle, also know as the Goldilocks fallacy. "See, fundies are crazy and atheists are crazy so us religious-but-not-too-religious folk must have it just right." But he has to completely mischaracterize the new atheist position to achieve this illusion. What a dishonest turd.
Posted by: H. Humbert | March 13, 2008 12:41 PM
I had long been a fan of Hedges -- his writing on war is insightful, informed, and truly powerful -- and appreciated the project of American Fascists (not Fundamentalists). But I saw him speak at a bookstore last summer and was appalled to hear him launch into his rant about Hitchens and Harris. The audience wasn't sure how to react: But we thought he was one of the good guys! I was hoping this book would never actually make it to print.
Posted by: MatthewB | March 13, 2008 12:41 PM
Why is Harris getting lumped with Hitchens on the war issue?
Posted by: Jon Merz | March 13, 2008 12:45 PM
And there's a whole *book* like this, you say? Oh dear.
Posted by: Silmarillion | March 13, 2008 12:45 PM
Hi, PZ. Longtime lurker here.
Well said. I just read an interview w/Hedges at Salon.com and he is absolutely using the "New Atheist" as a strawman for his own barely-coherent theology. Here's one of my favorite non-sequiturs: "Unlike the religious fundamentalists or the New Atheists, I'm not willing to draw these kind of clean, institutional lines."
I feel like this is another (hopefully unsuccessful) instance of theists moving the goalposts. If we adhere to our scientific method, we're fundamentalists. Ass backwards.
He's probably saying the right things to sell more copies, but I won't be one of those consumers.
Posted by: Andy | March 13, 2008 12:46 PM
Thom Hartmann interviewed him for his radio show and it was the only time I've ever had the urge to call in. Thom gave him a complete pass on his nonsense and even quoted his book approvingly. It just goes to show that anyone who opines negatively about atheists and is even vaguely complimentary of religion is going to get a nod from most people.
Posted by: jack* | March 13, 2008 12:46 PM
Well, it seems to be based on a straw man argument:
I Don't Believe in Atheists is a call to reject simplistic and Utopian visions.
What Utopian visions? Seriously. Who the hell is writing or professing Utopian visions? I've seen compelling arguments that things would better, but not Utopian, without religion poisoning everything. But I've not seen his strawman Utopian line of argumentation.
Nor has anyone, at least to my knowledge, who has any kind of "following" said that it would be simple. In fact, society (and making changes therein), with-or-without relgion, is extraordinarily complex and scientists (and the atheists he props up as "high priests") will tell you that. If anyone is "simple," it is the mind of the author who apparently wrote a book to the demons of his creation and not the reality on the ground.
Posted by: Moses | March 13, 2008 12:47 PM
I'm so sick of salon.com's constant attacks on atheism. Has there be a single Atoms and Eden interview in which atheism was not judged and dismissed by some sanctimonious sage? This whole series seems to be designed to keep flinging stones at "The New Atheists." I wonder what the editorial meeting that came up with that idea was like.
(Actually I don't. I don't want to think about the sad reality that a publication pretending to be intellectual would waste effort plotting an attack on disbelief. The state of the world is depressing enough without thinking about that.)
Posted by: Chris Pierson | March 13, 2008 12:48 PM
Hmmm, "wisdom" is not quite the word I would use to describe the doctrine of original sin, but never mind.
I just have one point to make - I was under the impression that the entire *point* of the scientific method was that humans can be irrational and flawed and that is why we look for external, verifiable evidence before jumping to conclusions.
That is the whole beauty of the scientific method, it is the only method of answering questions about the Universe that has acknowledged that it's practitioners are fallible and built that knowledge into it's very structure.
So why is he saying that atheists, who typically have a great deal of respect for the scientific method, do not believe in the reality of human imperfection? Or is he just making stuff up as he goes along?
Did Hitchens neck the last of his whiskey or something? Granted the man can be a loud-mouthed pain in the arse sometimes but "completely amoral"? Gimme a break.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 13, 2008 12:50 PM
I second the recommendation of his earlier book "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning"; it's tremendously depressing, but was a very useful antidote to the "War is totally awesome!" mentality that seized the nation a few years ago. I thought that book was also scattershot and not very coherent, but the force of his writing carried it through.
Based on what he's written, I'd be surprised if Hedges finds anything good in *anyone*. If he thinks that all human beings are basically horrible, of course he's going to see the actions of the "New Atheists" in that light. It's unfortunate, but I don't blame him too much; if I had spent a few decades reporting on civil wars, seeing the absolute worst people can do to each other, I'd probably be a nihilist too.
Posted by: Andrew Weinrich | March 13, 2008 12:50 PM
It would have been helpful if he attributed his claims to specific authors throughout the essay. A lot of it reads more like a disingenuous caricature of humanism, rather than criticisms. The rest applies mostly to Hitchens, who always manages to be a giant tool no matter which party he crashes.
Posted by: mwb | March 13, 2008 12:55 PM
Am I getting it all wrong, or is it the first time we can see someone actively defending the "bleak, dark, nihilistic" worldview that's supposed (by fundies) to be the atheists' one?
Not only that, but he chastises atheists because they insist on believing in such ideas as: if everybody was nicer to each other, the world would be a better place to live. To him, it's just too naive. Humans are bad, inherently so, let's deal with it.
Reminds me of the now forgotten kook that Engels eviscerates in his "Anti-Dühring".
Posted by: Christophe Thill | March 13, 2008 12:56 PM
Atheists think this... Atheists do that... on and on for an entire book. Here I thought an Atheist was just a person who doesn't believe in God.
Posted by: charley | March 13, 2008 12:56 PM
They, like all religious fundamentalists, fail to grasp the dark reality of human nature, our own capacity for evil, and the morally neutral universe we inhabit.
Dubya Tee Eff?
If there is anyone who grasps that we inhabit a morally neutral universe, it would be atheists. And clearly we grasp the human capacity for evil, we see it every day. A good deal of it comes from the pulpit, but it comes from infidels too. I think even the densest person could understand the atheist perspective on that after reading any generic atheist rebuttal to the "Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were atheists" chestnut. Hedges must have a density somewhat exceeding that of an average neutron star.
Wait, I'm on the wrong blog for that reference, aren't I?
Posted by: ShavenYak | March 13, 2008 12:57 PM
Hedges is one of the good guys, but he's really lost the script on atheism. Hedges is one of the most urgent and thoughtful voices today on issues of war and peace.
For someone who has written so eloquently about the suffering caused by religious conflict, it's very strange to see Hedges as a partisan in the atheism debates.
This is the first segment of his debate with Sam Harris:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnyMV4uGSts
Posted by: McLir | March 13, 2008 12:58 PM
One can only assume that through prolonged self reflection and some sort of ritualistic fasting that Hedges has finally reach the highest level of solipsism.
Posted by: Todd | March 13, 2008 12:58 PM
Lumping atheists together is silly. The only thing they have in common is that they don't believe in a sky-fairy.
He might as well start a tirade against people with red cars or people who enjoy cheese.
What is it with these people? Why aren't they happy to just believe what they want and let everyone else do the same.....
Posted by: Paul Phoenix | March 13, 2008 1:02 PM
I read the Salon interview last night, and I'm glad I'm not the only one taken aback by Hedges' comments. I was appalled at his cavalier extrapolation of two individuals (Hitchens and Harris, Dawkins somehow doesn't count because he's British) to a social movement like fundamentalism. There's just so very much wrong with what Hedges is saying.
I've been meaning to revisit "American Fascists." This may be the excuse I need.
Posted by: Aaron Golas | March 13, 2008 1:03 PM
Well, Hitchens calls for the extirpation (?) of the Jihadists. But then if you define the Jihadists as those who want to kill freedom loving people and impose Sharia law, I'm probably in favor of that. I don't think that it would be necessary to destroy them as people, but as Jihadists (which might be possible with education or reason). If you define the Jihadists as the oppressed people of Iraq who are fighting to expel a military force they see as occupying their country illegally, I'm less inclined to support their extirpation...
Posted by: Robert Thille | March 13, 2008 1:05 PM
That religious slime has the freaking gall to judge us on
all the matters that his isane religious has perpetrated
down through history! It infuriates me to have an insane
crud question our superior behavior and intellect on the
basis of what we don't believe in. I only wish that some
of us were there live when he ranted on; we could take
that deranged moron apart bit by bit and have him begging
for his god to help him!
Posted by: Holbach | March 13, 2008 1:15 PM
I skimmed over the last half of his essay, but from the first half and the overall gist, I mostly agree with him.
Atheism, Christianity, and Islam are not the cancers of the world. Extremism is. In any form. Period.
If you are unable to conceive that other people in the world view the same world differently, you are the problem. No matter who you are.
We're in an arms race though. Everyone says "But... the (others) are so extremist, we need to ramp up our efforts!"
Whether "others" is Muslims, Christians, Atheists, or Infidels, all groups use the exact same sentence.
How about some tolerance for a change?
Posted by: AJ Hawks | March 13, 2008 1:16 PM
i kinda like hitchens and harris, hitchens just makes me laugh, best person to watch an inteview of...whenever the interview starts he looks like he is pissed off to be there. brow slumped down, slouched over, probably hung over..and he just realy looks like he doesnt want to be there.
and he is never cut off, because he will talk over that person until he shuts up and lets him finish what he was saying...always funny.
i like some of what harris has to say too, irony though putting him into the "new atheists" dispite the fact that he has said on many occasions he doesnt like the term atheist...believe he states it "as though they have drawn a chalk outline on the ground and you have walked up and layed down" which always makes me laugh.
but there is no way to group atheists into one set of ideals, atheists are very much varied on the matter, because atheism is just a lack of a belief in a god. it doesnt entail the belief in anything else.
so maybe there are atheists that fit this little straw man, maybe not...but there is no point in trying to put every atheist into it.
this guy shows a notable lack of understanding of the topic of which he is speaking.
Posted by: tus | March 13, 2008 1:17 PM
These atheists share a naïve belief with these fundamentalists in our innate goodness and decency
He's referring to fundamentalist worshippers of Stuart Smalley, right? Because he can't be talking about fundamentalist worshippers of Jesus. Never thought I'd find myself defending Christian fundies, but whatever charges one can fairly lay at their door -- and there are many -- that is emphatically not one of them.
I mean, these are the people who believe evey word of the bible literally and infallibly true. Hedges's accusation is hard to square with a literal reading of Romans 3:10 ("There is none righteous, no, not one", for the few non bible-readers round here).
Posted by: Totally Depraved Mrs Tilton | March 13, 2008 1:18 PM
No tolerance for intolerance when it involves religion.
Posted by: Holbach | March 13, 2008 1:19 PM
So he's mad at the idea that science will move humanity into a technologically advanced utopia? That sounds like very few of the atheists I know. If anything, it kinda sounds like he just hates Star Trek and is blaming all atheists for it.
Posted by: Chris Blanchard | March 13, 2008 1:20 PM
So, in summary: humans are not perfectible in a godless universe, so we need religion to prevent people from doing evil things like bombing abortion clinics and flying planes into buildings.
Posted by: Moggie | March 13, 2008 1:21 PM
"We are not moving toward a glorious utopia. We are not moving anywhere."
Well not with bloody THAT attitude! Sheesh.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 13, 2008 1:23 PM
Let's be generous here. Perhaps he just needs glasses. When he sees the words New Ager, perhaps he reads it as New Athiest.
Enough generosity, there's too much venom & hatred to be a simple error.
I have never come across much Utopian thinking among Atheists, at least among adults. It is just another Fairy Belief. The Fairy of the "ultimate goodness" of mankind.
The idea that, because of the horrible historical record, the world would be a better place without organized religion is a logical conclusion rather than Utopian thinking. Better hardly implies Perfect.
As to the "wisdom of original sin", what utter rubbish. Sin, a code of conduct decreed by a divine entity, is a Fairy Belief as the source of it is the proclamations of a Fairy. Original Sin is the Belief that the Big Fairy has placed sin inside the little Fairy (or soul) animating humans. It is not only a foolish idea, but an actively destructive idea. If the Big Fairy did exist and did create Original Sin, then I would have to consider such an entity to be actively evil and worthy of contempt rather than worship.
Hedges demonstrates his nihlistic Belief in the Fairy of the "ultimate evilness" of mankind.
Posted by: Jaycubed | March 13, 2008 1:23 PM
I thought "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning" was an incredible book. When someone sent me a copy of one of his articles "I don't believe in atheists" I knew he'd spent too much time in DivSchool. His brain done melted.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 13, 2008 1:25 PM
I suspect the Hedges is just a religious apologist.
If he attacks what he sees as the extremes, fundamentalists and atheists, he makes the case for "moderate" godbots.
He just looks stupid now.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 13, 2008 1:26 PM
Sorry if this repeats the thoughts of another -- I have just a few seconds to compose this before I dash off.
and
Which is it? Are we innately good and decent, or are we bound by our animal natures? (I assume he sees an animal nature as de facto amoral.)
Posted by: xebecs | March 13, 2008 1:27 PM
Wait... if we are part of a morally neutral universe, how is human nature suddenly swung so far off the neutral to this "great capacity for evil" that he speaks of. If the universe is devoid of moral judgment, in what sense can a human be declared evil or good but by the opinion of another human? (which given Chris' declaration here, we can glean a bit of his attitude towards his fellow humans) If the universe has zero moral content doesn't that just give humans a great capacity for doing things that some human at some other time may call good or evil?
As an atheist I fully grasp that I don't believe in a god... wait... wasn't I supposed to grasp something about the universe being morally neutral? Cripes, what would the word for that be anyway? Acosmomoralist?
Posted by: HumanisticJones | March 13, 2008 1:28 PM
And no tolerance for atheists(so called) who insist on
quoting insanities from that insane screed, the bible.
We all know what is contained in that useless waste of
paper of abject superstitious crap, and to keep on quoting
from that garbage does not imbue our message that we do
not want to deal with anything that reeks of religion.
I never make reference to that piece of crap and threw
that shit out many years ago when it dawned on me that it
is a useless concoction of deranged minds and to have it
around only expresses the irrational need to quote it.
Posted by: Holbach | March 13, 2008 1:30 PM
So he is deliberately trying to marginalize atheists and fundamentalists by a technique know as "Being a Lying Sack of Shit". So who is his target audience for this? Moderate Christian conservatives? It would fit I would think; they would be a group feeling torn between fundamentalism or atheism and accept the argument that humans are inherently evil and looking for someone to justify their position.
Posted by: Bob L | March 13, 2008 1:41 PM
While this may be strictly true, up to a point, some people really would like to see more research in to whether basing much of your world view on completely untestable claims - particularly when it is considered as disrespectful to question those claims - is a good, bad, or indifferent, strategy for human progress, and whether extremism is more likely under those conditions. Is that too much to ask?
Sure, as long as they are not making claims that are demonstrably false and then influencing public policy based on those claims. There really, really are some right answers, you know? What those are and how we demonstrate them is always open to discussion. Nobody has said that it isn't. What we oppose is the shutting down of discussion, and the deference to 'faith'.
I heart you.
Posted by: Damian | March 13, 2008 1:42 PM
Uh, did you actually read any of those books Mr. Hedges?
Atheists arent looking for utopia, thats what religion attempts to fabricate. Atheists simply would like to able to think freely, and make the best decisions they can without being fetterd by someone else' invisible friend.
This book of his makes me suspect Chris Hedges credibility as a journalist.
Of course, I bet he expects to cash in on the Christians' love of paying for things that confirm their conceits.
Posted by: Andy James | March 13, 2008 1:43 PM
"Never underestimate the power of denial." -American Beauty
I think his rant is a symptom of some extreme cognitive dissonance on his part. He sees the benefits of rationalism and secular humanism, but can't reconcile that with his own moderate religious beliefs. So he unconsciously constructs these elaborate strawman versions of the atheist movement in order to preserve the comfort of his old beliefs and avoid any jarring transition in philosophy.
Furthermore, his nihilistic views on the universe indicate some form of depression - he talks of the "evil" within all of us as if that's an established fact. Sure, we're all capable of causing pain, but to focus on that while completely ignoring our species' propensity for good is a classic sign of depression.
Posted by: John | March 13, 2008 1:45 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: attempting to get atheist to agree on anything (outside of basic theology that is) is really very difficult. It's like herding cats. And there is a reason for it.
Many atheists have often overcome dogma and indoctrination. Many atheists seek answers from the world around them... through science, philosophy or whatever. But the one thing atheists don't do is march to the beat of a particular drum. There are too many skeptical, free-thinkers among us for this to happen.
As such you'll find total conservative atheists and hard-core leftists. Anarchists and liberterians. War-hawks and peacniks. Hitchens and PZ. Worlds apart of politcal and social issues (other than keeping religion from confusing the issue). The only binding glue is a rejection that a supernatural sky-fairy will send us all to Hades. This is part of why a unified, atheist political blok has been so difficult to organise.
As I said... herding cats. Hedges would do well to consider this before he makes stupid statements like "new" atheists supporting the war in Iraq.
Posted by: AmeliaP | March 13, 2008 1:48 PM
I have to disagree with you Holbach. Completely getting rid of the bible just because its the work of ancient crazies is not really solid reasoning. Should we toss out the paintings of Picasso just because he was a little off his nut?
Making a reference to it to try to prove a moral stance is wrong, I'll admit that, but nothing stops some parts from being a riveting good read. Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon are actually pretty good books taken as poetic works (hell, Song of Solomon is almost a Harlequin romance novel) and not the literal truth of Gawd. The bible is in so much western literature that being completely ignorant of the stories in it leaves you not getting the reference sometimes.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | March 13, 2008 1:48 PM
AJ Hawks,
Please define extremist atheism for me. By saying any form of extremism is the problem, are you equating the actions of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens with someone like Ted Haggert or Bin Laden.
I would tend to disagree with you. Hitchens ripping someone a new one in a debate is hardly comparable to blowing up 3,000 innocent people.
Posted by: Schmeer | March 13, 2008 1:53 PM
strange man.
he thinks atheists arent aware of their/our animal instincts?
luckily its perhaps us who are and try to keep them in check. Its often the religious who are blind when they are fully engaging in them. When I am reminded of those hideous muslim inflicted decapitations i am quite aware that what is happening there really isnt much different than when you see a troop of chimps ripping apart another from a different group, the dying man is reduced to a defacating, screeching primate with little to separate him from any other.
the difference here is that the religious mind imposing the action thinks its doing something right, something good, something deserved, when all its doing is acting out its most basic instincts, the type of thing that i hopefully will never have to do.
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 13, 2008 1:56 PM
So if I understand correctly Hedges is opposed to the strawman position that Atheists believe that if religion disappears then there will be a utopia. I don't know if anyone actually believes that but I'm certain without fundamentalism the world will be better off but not exactly a utopia since there are many other philosophies.
Perhaps he thinks those who think that if smallpox is eradicated from the planet the world will be a better place are just like Pat Robertson. Surely if some disease that affects humanity in a negative way is removed then that's a positive. Perhaps Chris is thinking that hope and progress is a thing to be fought against, kinda like McCain's campaign speeches rallying against Obama's message of hope and positive change.
It's a shame, with American Fundamentalists Chris Hedges actually appeared enlightened. But if you scratch a religious person enough you'll uncover the unthinking bigot underneath.
Posted by: Doug | March 13, 2008 1:58 PM
O M F G !
(...for those of you who believe in that sort of thing ;-)
Such a litany of malformed, fallacious, tendencious, illogical arguments, an unbelievable mound of misinformation and disinformation.
Almost(?) every sentence in this text contains a falsehood, or a premise that is highly debatable. Is Chris Hedges a pseudonym for Harun Yahya?
Posted by: trimtab | March 13, 2008 2:00 PM
I just knew PZ (& co.) would rip this apart in the best way possible. Thanks for an enjoyable afternoon's reading! Now to head over to Salon and trash Hedges some more.
Posted by: teacherninja | March 13, 2008 2:00 PM
WTF?
I am baffled.
Posted by: longsmith | March 13, 2008 2:02 PM
the Chewbacca defense? (or "offense"?)
Some better things to read than Hedges, in the new Nature: Armand Leroi reviews David Sedley's Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity, Frans de Waal reviews a book on animal language, and a mechanism that converts a racemic mixture of organic molecules to a single "handedness" is discussed.
Posted by: windy | March 13, 2008 2:02 PM
This guy is a piece of shit.
There's 'wisdom' in "original sin"? Huh?
And as for those 'studies' they supposedly 'ignore', I'm guessing he's glossed over the fact that Sam Harris is studying neuroscience and Dan Dennett (the 'overlooked' one of the "New Atheists") has written quite a bit about cognitive behavior and consciousness. And, from what I remember, both recognize that humans are quite often irrational...
Projection - SOMEONE is refusing to listen, that's for sure... (or 'read', as the case may be).
What a crock. Going by what I remember right now from reading all of the "Four Horsemen's" major books is that progress is possible, with more of a dedication to propagating rational worldviews and STUDYING human consciousness, scientifically, and using that knowledge to help us progress.
Now, I don't know what kind of deficient education this tool got, but from what I learned in school, looking at the real world for evidence and applying information gained from that evidence to attempted solutions sounds more like science than faith.
Posted by: Vic | March 13, 2008 2:07 PM
How does he label himself, I wonder? Ehyck, my brain just threw up on all that I just read from him.
Posted by: Zachary B. | March 13, 2008 2:14 PM
# 57 Your disagreeing with me does not change my opinion
one iota concerning that deranged book. Come now, Picasso
was a living person, and all his work could not be equated
with that insane book. His Blue Period for example. Perhaps
he found religion and the bible and went bonkers as he
expressed in his later paintings. I will never in my life
honor or equate what is in that deranged book as part of
Western literature, and think it deplorable to have it
even considered so. Good grief, look at all the great
stuff you should be reading that should supplant that book
of insanities: Astronomy, Geology, Geography, History,
Biography, Travel, Art, Literature, and so on through the
litany of worthwhile non-fiction. When I do read fiction,
it is the works of Dickens, Conrad, Edmund Wilson, Hugo,
and so many more who can plumb the depth of human pathos
and make me the wiser for it. But to spend one second with
that insane bible crap is anathema not only to my intellect but also to digestive system. 'Animal Farm" would be a more worthwhile and entertaining read.
I make it a point to throw that crud book into the waste
basket in my hotel room whenever I travel. My distaste for
that "book' is unequivocal and shall always remain so.
Posted by: Holbach | March 13, 2008 2:15 PM
Putting to one side for the moment the ridiculous sweeping generalisations about atheist beliefs, Hedges' point relating to an absence of evidence for moral progress in humans is completely wrong.
Steven Pinker, for example, has demonstrated that levels of violence have fallen dramatically since the Enlightenment. Even with the two world wars, the 20th century resulted in the lowest per capita rate of violent death in recorded history (I think the per capita number of violent deaths in the two world wars was about 1 / 20th of pre-Enlightenment levels). Pinker also notes that the phenomenon is fractal in nature; the trend can be seen over centuries, decades, and years. We undoubtedly have a long way to go in 'eliminating' violence, but we have made significant progress in recent times.
Posted by: Andy C | March 13, 2008 2:19 PM
@A.J. Hawks
While I agree that extremism is less palatable than moderism, it is faith that drives them both, and it is faith that is the cancer of the world; faith as a subset of dogma (see Stalin/Hitler/Mao et al). Wherever belief does not scale with evidence, danger lies.
The granny who goes to church every Sunday and prays for her children isn't likely to support the killing of non-believers, but the unquestioned (and often unquestionable) faith that she holds (and that we allow her to hold) provides all the justification the fundamentalists need; their actions (which are, in reality, no more than a more thorough reading of the same 'holy' books) are legitimized by the fact that our society has agreed to hold faith in the highest regard. Faith is the scourge of the Earth, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be.
We (rational people) are, in every sense, at war with Islam. But we are not simply at war with Islam. We are at war with faith. If Christians of the 14th century we're magically transported to the present time, we'd be at war with them in the same way.
This is not to say we are at war with all Muslims, in the same way as we're not at war with the aforementioned granny. We're merely (!!!) at war with the underlying ideology.
Posted by: Mike | March 13, 2008 2:21 PM
There's been a lot of talk about how books are organized in stores. Walking into one of my local Chapters stores (a large chain here in Canada), I found The God Delusion in the science section and then again in the "Chapters' Recommendations" shelf. All other books in the science section were science books (pop science, admittedly, but still science). Books such as the one you mention were being sold from a section called "Ideas and Opinions." I've never been so proud to be an Ottawan!
Posted by: Grimalkin | March 13, 2008 2:21 PM
Ironically, this original post and its comments seem to prove Hedges' point. When I read this blog, I often have to filter out all the anger, vitriol, and name-calling to get to the actual point or argument the author is trying to make. Sometimes there is no point: just venom. People like me actually want to read arguments and ideas without personal attacks and finger-pointing.
One of the greatest strengths of the scientific method is peer review and criticism. But calling someone an idiot is not reviewing their work; that makes for bad science and terrible philosophy. But this blog -- which purports to advocate good science -- is rife with such name-calling. So, why would a blog that argues tirelessly for adhereance to the scientific method willingly and deliberately skip over the crucial step in the method itself? Hedges' book may be able to provide an answer.
Posted by: Chris | March 13, 2008 2:24 PM
*stunned silence*
Pot, meet kettle.
Wow.
Posted by: dsmvwld | March 13, 2008 2:27 PM