Chris Hedges and "Fundamentalism" of New Atheists

[Guest]

In "Enemies of Reason," Dawkins's voice over repeatedly refers to the rising tide of superstitions set against a past in which science and reason had much higher currency in the world. This is what I see as the implicit utopianism of his position, i.e. the narrative strategy of positing something like a Golden Age that is now corrupted by negative influences and in decline. The myth of decline is a powerful theme in western historiography and popular culture. One can read about it in Livy, to name one of many examples. Implicit in the notion of decline is the hope or belief in the possibility of a return to the Golden Age. If only one can strip away the bad influences--i.e. the morally bad, the intellectually bankrupt, etc.--then one can return to that Golden Age.

Obviously, Dawkins does not come out and call the past a Golden Age for science. He also does not explicitly opine that he is seeking that Golden Age again. If asked whether he believes as much, I don't think he would be unsophisticated enough to admit to it. But the evidence is there, in my opinion. He uses the rhetoric of utopia vs. decline in order to sell his message emotionally. It is a powerful myth, and the ploy works. Whether he consistently does this in other places is the question for me. I really have no doubt that in that documentary series he did do so.

I can respect that you don't see that. I admit that he doesn't hit you over the head with it, and I think that the trope is common enough that we often overlook its influence on us even when it is present. Since, however, I am alone in this (at least here), I am happy to let this thread die now. Thanks for looking into it all the same.

[_Sethbag]

When I watched it the way I saw it was more like "Why are so many people believing this crap? We may not have known better in the distant past, but we certainly ought to know better now."

[_Chap]

In "Enemies of Reason," Dawkins's voice over repeatedly refers to the rising tide of superstitions set against a past in which science and reason had much higher currency in the world. This is what I see as the implicit utopianism of his position, I.e. the narrative strategy of positing something like a Golden Age that is now corrupted by negative influences and in decline.

To have said that certain things were once better in certain ways than they are now is not sufficient in itself to qualify one as a creator of utopias, is it?

Surely one would want to keep that term for people who believe in a state in the past or possible future that is so much of an unrealistically 'good place' (eutopos) that it is a 'no-place' (outopos)? Dawkins may be right or wrong in saying that at certain times and places in the past of some Western countries scientific rationality had a more privileged position over faith-based belief than it does today. But I think that calling him 'utopian' because one happens to disagree with him on this point may be just an unnecessary rhetorical flourish.

[_Trevor]

When I watched it the way I saw it was more like "Why are so many people believing this crap? We may not have known better in the distant past, but we certainly ought to know better now."

That's cool. Thanks again, Sethbag.

[_Trevor]

To have said that certain things were once better in certain ways than they are now is not sufficient in itself to qualify one as a creator of utopias, is it?

I think it goes beyond that, but c'est la vie. I know what utopianism is about. Thanks for your time, though. I don't mean to put you off, but I have an article due and I am moving to another city next week. I hope you all understand. Thanks.

[_Trevor]

I actually purchased Hedges book and started to read it. Yikes. It is even worse than the short version in the article. I have finally seen enough. Hedges has very little of value to offer. I thought I could get something from his utopia argument, or maybe his criticism of the belief in human perfectibility, and there may be some kind of point there, but it really does not apply well at all to the so-called "New Atheists." I have to admit that I was reaching to see it in Dawkins, but I think a television documentary is really not the place to look for Dawkins's thought in all of its complexity.

In short, I retract my arguments in favor of Hedges. He seems to have written the book version of Ben Stein's movie, but I need to refrain from making the same mistake twice--weighing in on something before I digested it sufficiently. Since I have not actually seen Ben Stein's movie, I will wait on that.

[_GoodK]

I actually purchased Hedges book and started to read it. Yikes. It is even worse than the short version in the article. I have finally seen enough. Hedges has very little of value to offer. I thought I could get something from his utopia argument, or maybe his criticism of the belief in human perfectibility, and there may be some kind of point there, but it really does not apply well at all to the so-called "New Atheists." I have to admit that I was reaching to see it in Dawkins, but I think a television documentary is really not the place to look for Dawkins's thought in all of its complexity.

In short, I retract my arguments in favor of Hedges. He seems to have written the book version of Ben Stein's movie, but I need to refrain from making the same mistake twice--weighing in on something before I digested it sufficiently. Since I have not actually seen Ben Stein's movie, I will wait on that.

I am glad to see that. Hedges should stay doing what he does best, journalism. I admire him in that field, but he is just not qualified to take on atheism.

[_dartagnan]

I am glad to see that. Hedges should stay doing what he does best, journalism. I admire him in that field, but he is just not qualified to take on atheism.

What's to take on?

[_GoodK]

He could start here.

[_dartagnan]

That wasn't an answer.

Incidentally, I picked up this book "The Irrational Atheist" a few weeks ago. Even though it was written by an amateur who has plenty of ad hominem to dish out, he did make some good points about how Sam Harris has misused statistical information for his own agenda.

Has anyone read Berlinski's new book that came out last month?