Chris Hedges on the New Atheists

I can definitely see this guy's point. I've been around other atheists I just wanted to smack through a wall. On the other hand, I can totally understand why Richard Dawkins is so pissy. But I can still love him, can't I? He's so cute! And British! And droll!

Edited at 2008-03-13 09:55 pm (UTC)

Yeah, I love his cute, droll British ass, too. BECAUSE he's pissy! :-)

I disagree with Hedges that the counterpart to fundamentalist Christianity is uncritical atheism.

The counterpart is uncritical leftism, which has not been in power for a long time. It was exemplified previously in Western support for the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

Today, it only has a hold on some portions of the environmental and anarchist movement - the ones who seek these philosophies to epater le bourgeois, as well as the tiny amount of Marxists selling newspapers at events.

The hallmark of these fundamentalists is not that everything is being perfected, though; it's that society is Skipping towards Gomorrah through sin brought about by progress, and a reflexive attack on anything that will make life easier or more enjoyable.

Each extremist wants to create its own bubble society for its members to protect it from "contamination" from the outside world.

It sounds to me like you're getting a wide range of philosophies either mashed up together or confused with one another.

Either way, they are all aspects of fundamentalism, which is the uncritical application of religious, political, or social source documents with a striving for purity of thought.

Actually, a frequent criticism I've read of Marx is that he either didn't anticipate the full impact of technology or that he thought technology itself would be an easy tool with which the working class could seize the means of production for itself.

I love ya' and all, Baby. But on this I call B.S.

Though I doubt you both have laptops, I still picture the two of you sitting side-by-side on the couch arguing silently with each other via my blog. It's cute, really. :-)

Yeah, you think that now. Wait'll he shows up at your house at 4 AM someday, asking if he can sleep on your couch. :/

What? No doghouse? Oh, that's right. You're cat people. Making him sleep in the litter box would be cruel and unusual. :-)

Actually the litter box is nice and clean. The floor right next to it is where Callie the Calico prefers to leave her, uh, night deposits. :D

As someone who has read all the "new atheist" books and enjoyed them immensely I'd have to say Chris is off the mark claiming that they are fundamentalist. There is a simple matter of what's true. Religion isn't so therefore shouldn't decide how we live our lives or make decisions. This doesn't mean every decision we make outside of that is moral...but you cannot equate the idea of marching towards progress with religious fundamentalism. Don't most secularists and leftists want a better world?

So Hitchens is a neo con. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Paul Kurtz, Peter Singer and the vast majority of secular humanist thinkers aren't. They don't believe in torture or bombing the Middle East. Attaching those ideas to the athesit "movement" is just wrong. Just because Hitchens is loud doesn't mean he even remotely represents the world most atheists would like.


Matt Bors

Word.

Also, are you appalled that somebody would suggest that science itself is not inherently more moral then religion ? If so, why ?

In the interview, he makes a distinction between science and what he terms "the cult of science." I think I get that, that there can be this unquestioning faith in scientific progress to improve the lot of humanity, when really the scientific method is a tool - a great tool, and one we should use intelligently and with care - to help us achieve our aims. But the aims themselves are up for debate.

But I don't think I would put a "moral" character on science any more than I would put one on literature, art or my toaster.

Well, GE toaster ovens are sacred to me, but that's because I have this weird fondness for burnt English muffins with freshly vaporized cheese on them.

...because he just advocates spirituality and drugs as a means of mind control over the Abrahamic religion.

Fine - replace a delusion from outside with self-delusion and chemicals. It still doesn't make Harris's beliefs rational, unless one knows exactly what that self-delusion or chemical will do and its side effects.

I also believe his discounting of Christian fanaticism vs. Islamic fanaticism is because of his temporal relativism; Islam is just in a stage similar to Christianity 700 years ago, where the fanatics have sway over sections of the populace. In short, Islam needs, and is likely to get, a Renaissance, but not in my lifetime or even our great-great grandchildrens' lifetimes.

Wrong word. "Reformation", not "Renaissance".

Well, either way, Western Europe would have had neither Renaissance nor Reformation without the influences of Islamic theological scholarship, science and preservation of works by ancient Greek philosophers. And I wouldn't endorse a cyclical view of historical development. Rather, the reactionary forces in Islam should be vigorously opposed by voices more in tune with the religion's roots in social equality and justice, and reclaim its rich intellectual tradition, albeit with more modern adaptations of science.

And BTW, Hitchens 13, Mormons 0.

jihadwatch.org

These particular jihadists no more represent Islam than crusaders did Christianity.

The reason science is bad is because it hasn't evolved. It is far from the "cutting edge". We have too many people happy with what we have and too lazy to move foward. If science was used to create alternative fuels and better cars/engines as well as the television or computer areas have been progressing, we would already have flying cars. Or at least something that was economical and environmentally sound.

The world is immoral. Science funding goes where it is donated and where people choose. We aren't making good moral science because people are content with keeping their pockets lined.

The delusion of science is that humans actually care about progression.