DiscussMormonism.com

Like many here, I have learned a lot from and greatly enjoyed some of the writings of Richard Dawkins and Samuel Harris. Personally, I can't say I have gotten much from Hitchens, who strikes me as a creature of the quasi-journalistic rant patrol (spanning both sides of the political spectrum).

Chris Hedges, a foreign correspondent who has spent over two decades in the Middle East, has written a book I Don't Believe in Atheists in which he criticizes what he calls the fundamentalism of the New Atheists. I thought this was quite interesting as I, after consuming a number of Dawkins works, came to the conclusion that one of his great flaws is his utopianism. Hedges finds this troubling too.

Anyway, have any of you encountered Hedges' book? What did you think?

Here is a shorter piece he wrote, "Secular Fundamentalism":

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/07/8139/

What do you think of what he says here?:

"We live in an age of faith. We are assured we are advancing as a species toward a world that will be made perfect by reason, technology, science or the second coming of Jesus Christ. Evil can be eradicated. War has been declared on nebulous forces or cultures that stand as impediments to progress. Religion, if you are secular, is blamed for genocide, injustice, persecution, backwardness and intellectual and sexual repression. Secular humanism, if you are born again, is branded as a tool of Satan.

The folly of humankind, however, is pervasive. It infects all human endeavors. It has not exempted itself from institutional religion or the cult of science and reason. The greatest danger that besets us does not come from believers or atheists. It comes from those who, under the guise of religion, science or reason, imagine that we can free ourselves from the limitations of human nature and perfect the human species.

Those who insist we are morally advancing as a species are deluding themselves. There is nothing in science or human history or human nature to support this idea. Human individuals can make moral advances, as can human societies, but they also make moral reverses. Our personal and collective histories are not linear. We alternate between periods of light and periods of darkness. We can move forward materially, but we do not move forward morally. The belief in collective moral advancement ignores the endemic flaws in human nature as well as the tragic reality of human history. This belief in inevitable moral progress, whether it comes in secular or religious form, is magical thinking. The secular version of this myth peddles fables no less fantastic, and no less delusional, than those preached from many church pulpits."

I haven't read the link yet but will. I can already say that I think Dawkins is a bit naïve and idealistic, as well. He seems to imagine that eradicating religion will cure the human species of the underlying problems that resulted in the creation of religion in the first place. Kind of a horse and cart problem.

In regards to moral progress, Robert Wright does propose that, as human beings rely on each other (through communication and trade) globally, that our notion of "tribe" may also expand to include all other human beings. (paraphrasing roughly) While I hope he is correct, I remain unconvinced.

beastie wrote:I haven't read the link yet but will. I can already say that I think Dawkins is a bit naïve and idealistic, as well. He seems to imagine that eradicating religion will cure the human species of the underlying problems that resulted in the creation of religion in the first place. Kind of a horse and cart problem.

Harris's proposal that certain people cannot be reasoned with, and therefore are justifiably, preemptively done away with is a little more troubling.

beastie wrote:In regards to moral progress, Robert Wright does propose that, as human beings rely on each other (through communication and trade) globally, that our notion of "tribe" may also expand to include all other human beings. (paraphrasing roughly) While I hope he is correct, I remain unconvinced.

This is the really sticky point, and the one I am most concerned about. Is moral progress possible? Has it already arguably occurred? What arguments are there in favor of morality having improved or not?

In regards to moral progress, Robert Wright does propose that, as human beings rely on each other (through communication and trade) globally, that our notion of "tribe" may also expand to include all other human beings. (paraphrasing roughly) While I hope he is correct, I remain unconvinced.

As you know, I'm a fan of Wright's (smile) and HOPE he is correct.

The way I see it, embracing an expanded tribal sense to that of a global family is one possibility of how a greater depth of awareness may come to pass. The thing is, while I think the universe will bring forth much, much more brilliance in the second half of its existence, (greater intimacy, care, compassion, etc being a part of this), I don't hold to the idea that it must come forth in the human. We have billions of years left and who knows what may come forth... I just don't see the human as the end all of creation or even necessary for the furthering of the story.

While I am in awe of the creations the universe has brought forth so far, many of these in the human, there are those times when I think the human experiment is largely a mistake. :-( At the very least, I think we have millions of years to go before we overcome some of our not-so-lovely tendencies.

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:While I am in awe of the creations the universe has brought forth so far, many of these in the human, there are those times when I think the human experiment is largely a mistake. :-( At the very least, I think we have millions of years to go before we overcome some of our not-so-lovely tendencies.

~dancer~

Well, I don't adhere to the notion that anything in the universe is a mistake or a success. It just is. Having said that, I do hope that humankind can discover a kind of balance in this world. Lately I have been increasingly pessimistic, but I remain egoistically attached to it all and hope against hope.

Well, I don't adhere to the notion that anything in the universe is a mistake or a success. It just is.

I agree with you. "Mistake" is not the right word. Yeah, "it just is." :-)

I just am not convinced that the human is going to survive long enough to bring forth what is possible, or even overcome our tendencies to move beyond what we currently are.

In other words, while I think there is a definite tendency for the universe to continually bring forth more depth, diversity, awareness, etc. etc., I don't necessarily see it coming forth from the human, as much as I hold to the possibility.

Sort of like the dinosaur had to disappear before mammals could flourish, it may be that humans have to leave the earth in order for something new to emerge. It only took 65 million years for those small little shrew like creatures to evolve into all that a human is, so what could come forth in another 100 million years if humans were out of the picture?

:-)

~dancer~

Do you really think that global communication and the like will bring about a moral advance?

I saw Chris Hedges at this debate:

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20 ... the_world/

He failed miserably. At the book signing, everyone lined up to see Harris. I saw maybe five people get Hedges book signed.

GoodK wrote:He failed miserably. At the book signing, everyone lined up to see Harris. I saw maybe five people get Hedges book signed.

OK, so he lost the debate. But do you think he has a point about the utopian strain of New Atheist thought? Or not? And why?

By the way, I think he did quite well on "Point of Inquiry," one of my favorite podcasts.