Chris Hedges and "Fundamentalism" of New Atheists

[_beastie]

I'm actually rereading The End of Faith due to a recent conversation with Tal. I'm going to reserve more comment on him until I do. I want to make sure I understood his position correctly.

But as far as moral progress, I think an argument can be made for some moral progress. While we haven't eradicated things like slavery and genocide, societies, today, generally condemn these acts. In the past, that wasn't true.

I'm not so naïve to believe that human beings don't still have self interest at heart, even with these moral advances. Wright's argument hinges on this self-interest, in fact. The interconnectivity of the world, globally speaking, will mean that we need these other people to do well ourselves - we need them for trade and information. At least, that's how I understand his theory, but it's been a while since I read the book. TD can probably do a better job summarizing it.

[_Trevor]

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.

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the debate. In the edited version presented here, I did not see Chris Hedges failing miserably, but in the non-edited version, which I am guessing you witnessed, things may have been quite different.

[_Bond...James Bond]

It certainly appears that some atheists are just as extremist and unwilling to compromise on some matters as religious believers IMHO.

[_marg]

What do you think Tevor. I can only go by that short article, so were you impressed by it? Did you think he made some good points? If so what?

[_Some Schmo]

It certainly appears that some atheists are just as extremist and unwilling to compromise on some matters as religious believers IMHO.

Well, people are often that way no matter what they believe. It says more about their personality than it does about what they believe.

As for society making moral progress, I think a case can be made either way depending on what you choose to focus... like just about anything in life.

[_Some Schmo]

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.

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the debate. In the edited version presented here, I did not see Chris Hedges failing miserably, but in the non-edited version, which I am guessing you witnessed, things may have been quite different.

Yep, I just finished watching it too, and I thought Mr. Hedges made several good points, although I'm not sure he was specifically arguing against many of the points Harris was making. I also admit that I wasn't really down with much of what Hedges said in his opening comments. He, just like everybody else who does this, espoused faith without giving a solid reason to do so.

But I enjoyed listening to both of them, and I wouldn't exactly characterize Hedges' performance as having "failed miserably." I will say, however, that Harris was particularly brilliant as usual.

[_marg]

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.

Thanks GoodK for posting that. I"ve read Letter to a Christian Nation but not End of Faith which I will definitely get soon. I was extremely unimpressed with Hedges, particularly his opening remarks. There were many strawmen, redefinitions which made little sense, and it didn't appear he made much of an argument at all. He improved a little when talking about his personal experiences with Muslim individuals, I believe in part 3, but he didn't really address Sam's argument well.

I agree with you, in my opinion Hedges failed miserably.

[Guest]

In the case of Dawkins, and I think mostly in his case, there seems to be this pining for an Age of Reason that never really existed and a plea to return to this Golden Age so that we can overcome the limitations of outdated religion in order to realize our grand potential as a species. I think there is cause to doubt that either of these assumptions has a lot of merit. First, there have always been, even in the best of times, very few people who operated according to the ideals that Dawkins envisions as his Golden Age, and there is no reason to think that the world without religion that these fellows pine away after is either within reach or even desirable.

Sam Harris is a different case. And, I think it is a mistake to lump him in with Dawkins or Hitchens. Harris argues, and I think correctly, that religious ideas should not be beyond discussion and debate. After all, they do have consequences. Sometimes I think he is a little reductionist and imprecise when he talks about those consequences, but I think it is difficult to argue that there are no consequences to holding certain beliefs (there are those who do take them seriously and actually act on them).

Where I see Hedges' value, even in this "debate," is in the corrective he offers to the oversimplifications of Harris. Harris does advocate preemptive warfare against the intractable believers, yet he also shows a remarkably shallow understanding of who these people are. What he does do is go "by the numbers," i.e. he takes opinion polls pretty much at face value without digging deeper to find what motivates people's perspectives and responses. The failure of our preemptive war policy should be pretty clear by now. By invading Iraq, we gave a gift to all of the extremists out there. To imagine, as Harris seems to, that continued aggression of that kind will be useful is to ignore reality.

It takes someone with a real intimate understanding of the world of Islam to unpack what the simple numbers of an opinion poll actually mean. Harris places a great deal of misplaced confidence in his ability to decode what is really not a very simple situation without the requisite expertise. His willingness to rush to the most dire of conclusions with what amounts to a very limited understanding should be cause for concern, and it runs counter to the constructive insights about belief that he does offer. In short, I think that he completely underestimates the role that despair plays in triggering extremist actions.

Hedges underestimates the importance that differences of belief do make. I fall somewhere in between. I would not join Harris in placing my finger on the button to wipe Iran off the map simply because it is a nation hijacked by lunatic cretins, but at the same time I won't pretend that there is nothing in Islam that does facilitate a certain type of lunacy.

[_Trevor]

But I enjoyed listening to both of them, and I wouldn't exactly characterize Hedges' performance as having "failed miserably." I will say, however, that Harris was particularly brilliant as usual.

I think Harris makes some points that are almost self evident in their clarity and wisdom. On the other hand, he gets a lot of mileage from his ability to play the crowd. At times I think he says things that are amusing without being particularly deep or necessarily helpful. Still, the man says things that everyone should pay close attention to. I agree with him wholeheartedly when he says that religious ideas ought not to be beyond the realm of public discussion. The problem, of course, is in creating the kind of fora in which these discussions can take place. I personally don't believe that preemptive strikes against Muslim countries where extremists hold sway is the way to get there.

[_Some Schmo]

I agree with him wholeheartedly when he says that religious ideas ought not to be beyond the realm of public discussion. The problem, of course, is in creating the kind of fora in which these discussions can take place. I personally don't believe that preemptive strikes against Muslim countries where extremists hold sway is the way to get there.

Creating the venue for having the kinds of discussions he's talking about clearly is the challenge, but I think the bigger challenge is getting participants that are at all willing to listen to each other. If this board, for instance, has taught us anything, it's that many people who actually consider themselves "intellectuals" are the most close minded people around.

But there's little doubt that secular dictatorships are not the answer either. I'm not sure that Harris is really suggesting that, but this was an area where I appreciated what Hedges had to say.