Chris Hedges and "Fundamentalism" of New Atheists

[_Trevor]

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.

No, I didn't attribute to Harris the advocacy of a secular dictatorship, only the use of force against people he views as intractable extremists. Unfortunately, our judgment in the application of force thus far has proven wanting.

[_Sethbag]

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.

I disagree. I think Dawkins is spot on. He doesn't think that eradicating religion will cure the human species of the underlying problems. He does believe that eschewing the notion that faith, without evidence, is a virtue, will avoid a particular class of problems afflicting humanity. Does this encompass all of humanity's problems? No, certainly not, but it does encompass a fairly broad swathe of problems which do in fact exist.

I think that comments by such people as referred to in the OP raise a lot of red herrings. Dawkins doesn't believe that humanity will inevitably progress toward some utopia if only we can ditch religion. He knows full well that there are plenty of other pits we can - and do - fall into. That doesn't mean that religion isn't one of them. It most certainly is, and there's nothing wrong with saying that.

And it's not as if the religion problem is harmless, either. As Sam Harris has said, it's entirely possible that the fate of all of humanity can, to some extent, come down to one piece of architecture in Jerusalem, ie: the Al Aqsa mosque. Some Christian fundamentalists believe that it has to go so that the Jews can rebuild their temple. They believe that this event will basically initiate the "final sequence" and lead to Armageddon, ushering with great destruction and devastation the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Some fundamentalists Jews agree that the Al Aqsa mosque has got to go because that one particular spot on Earth's crust is the only spot they could conceivably rebuild their temple, and that they ought to rebuild it asap. I saw a web page a few months ago where some Jewish foundation is actually spending a lot of money making temple paraphenalia out of solid gold and whatnot in anticipation of the temple's reconstruction. And, of course, if the Al Aqsa Mosque were in fact to be bulldozed or blown up or whatever, gazillions of Muslims around the world would go apesh*t and I think do their damndest to start World War 3.

And it's not just that one particular conflict. I think Dawkins, Harris, and the others are spot on in all of their criticisms of religion. And none of this implies that there aren't also plenty of problems that aren't caused by, or don't involve, religion. But the existence of these other problems does not negate the fact that religion is a very serious source of problems indeed.

I think attitudes like the one quoted above are akin to saying something like "you're wrong to tell me that my car won't run because it has no tires, because while that is true, in fact the alternator is dead too, and there are no spark plugs or fuel pump."

Dawkins is the tire salesman here, so he'll sell you the tires for your car, and you'll just have to go to someone else for the alternator, spark plugs, and fuel pump. And Dawkins would be the first to agree with this.

[_guy sajer]

Ok, I read Hedges short essay. While it has, I think, many good points, they are buried in excessive rhetoric and exaggerations.

The world may or may not be heading toward the kind of ecological disaster that Hedges posits, but he states it as fact, which it is not. Related to this, I have not read anything remotely by Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens even remotely suggesting that science will solve all our ecological issues, and I seriously doubt they would make such an argument. Outside of radical free market types, I'm not sure who makes this argument, but it isn't any of these guys. He's using a false dilemma to create an inaccurate strawman argument.

Also, I disagree strenuously that "sin" is necessary. Humility, yes. But sin is a religious concept and one used to manipulate humans throughout history by the powerful or power hungry. We can talk about moral virtues, such as humility, charity, kindness, etc. outside the religious framework of sin. Why load down our discourse on morality by attaching the religious concept of sin to it?

I have several other issues but no time to go into them. Suffice to say, it is an interesting polemic but is full of hyperbole and straw man arguments. I like some of the ideas, but they are lost in the rhetorical excess.

[_Trevor]

I disagree. I think Dawkins is spot on. He doesn't think that eradicating religion will cure the human species of the underlying problems. He does believe that eschewing the notion that faith, without evidence, is a virtue, will avoid a particular class of problems afflicting humanity. Does this encompass all of humanity's problems? No, certainly not, but it does encompass a fairly broad swathe of problems which do in fact exist.

In his better moments I think this is right. Yet, I have found an underlying utopianism in his rhetoric that is troubling. If you have seen any of his BBC documentaries, it is pretty clear that he imagines some kind of past, Golden Age of science that is now under attack. He does seem to think that the answer to this imagined imminent apocalypse is to disabuse people of their religious beliefs. The truth is that reason has always been under attack. There was no Golden Age of reason and science, and there will not be one in the near future, if ever.

His speculations about what religion is--a kind of toxic byproduct of other useful evolutionary adaptations--is unproven at best. Dennett is on much firmer ground when he advocates solid research into religious phenomena.

[_Chap]

Dennett is on much firmer ground when he advocates solid research into religious phenomena.

Could you give us some examples of 'religious phenomena' that are worth spending money to investigate?

I take it that you are not just referring to historical or anthropological studies of religion here.

[_Trevor]

Could you give us some examples of 'religious phenomena' that are worth spending money to investigate?

I take it that you are not just referring to historical or anthropological studies of religion here.

No, I am just referring to those aspects of religion that are susceptible to scientific inquiry.

[_Trevor]

Ok, I read Hedges short essay. While it has, I think, many good points, they are buried in excessive rhetoric and exaggerations.

I agree. I prefer to pick out the good stuff and leave the rest. I think his argument is aimed at the neocons who ally themselves with the New Atheists, or the New Atheists among the neocons, like Hitchens. So, what he says in this highly (overly) condensed essay is essentially the short version of his book (as is briefly mentioned in italics under the essay), but it leaves out much that is important. He is essentially a liberal protestant who has problems with his own heritage, but who nevertheless sees a baby not to be thrown out with the bath water. In this position he crams a lot into his argument that probably does not belong, and he muddies the waters.

Also, I disagree strenuously that "sin" is necessary. Humility, yes. But sin is a religious concept and one used to manipulate humans throughout history by the powerful or power hungry. We can talk about moral virtues, such as humility, charity, kindness, etc. outside the religious framework of sin. Why load down our discourse on morality by attaching the religious concept of sin to it?

I also think the choice of terms here is unfortunate. I see no reason to theologize the human condition in order to avoid the utopian atheologizing that he fears, but he does it. From his perspective, however, which is explicitly a liberal protestant perspective, the term still has some use. I still see something useful in his perspective regardless of his theological language.

[_Sethbag]

I disagree. I think Dawkins is spot on. He doesn't think that eradicating religion will cure the human species of the underlying problems. He does believe that eschewing the notion that faith, without evidence, is a virtue, will avoid a particular class of problems afflicting humanity. Does this encompass all of humanity's problems? No, certainly not, but it does encompass a fairly broad swathe of problems which do in fact exist.

In his better moments I think this is right. Yet, I have found an underlying utopianism in his rhetoric that is troubling. If you have seen any of his BBC documentaries, it is pretty clear that he imagines some kind of past, Golden Age of science that is now under attack. He does seem to think that the answer to this imagined imminent apocalypse is to disabuse people of their religious beliefs. The truth is that reason has always been under attack. There was no Golden Age of reason and science, and there will not be one in the near future, if ever.

I don't get the same impression, and I'm pretty sure I've watched all of the BBC documentaries from Dawkins. At least, I've watched all of the ones that have been available on Google Videos and Youtube. I never got a "there was this Golden Age of Science that's now under attack" vibe from him or what he said. Perhaps he could be suggesting a future golden age of science, but I don't think he's talking about one that we used to have and that is under siege.

His speculations about what religion is--a kind of toxic byproduct of other useful evolutionary adaptations--is unproven at best. Dennett is on much firmer ground when he advocates solid research into religious phenomena.

Dennett actually uses Dawkins' meme theory to explain religious ideas. And so does Dawkins. Dawkins explains the religious ideas using memes - the "misfiring" of evolved mental traits thing you're thinking of is how he explains what underlies the memes. That is, how is it that these memes "worked" on people and were able to survive? The religious memes were compatible with the misfiring of evolved attitudes and mental traits, and then the memes themselves compete with other memes, and those most able to get themselves reproduced in other minds stick around for a long time.

I heard Dennett say something about this in a talk I watched on the net. He said that many thousands of religions have been started over time, and new religions are being started every day, and those religions most able to get their ideas reproduced in other minds, and most able to fend off the challenges to their claims (apologetics anyone?) are the ones that are still around. Dawkins would fully agree with that. I'm not sure what you're disputing.

[_Trevor]

I don't get the same impression, and I'm pretty sure I've watched all of the BBC documentaries from Dawkins. At least, I've watched all of the ones that have been available on Google Videos and Youtube. I never got a "there was this Golden Age of Science that's now under attack" vibe from him or what he said. Perhaps he could be suggesting a future golden age of science, but I don't think he's talking about one that we used to have and that is under siege.

Well, what can I say? I thought he was pretty clear about this, but you didn't get the same thing from it. Both my wife and I reached the same conclusion after having read his book The God Delusion and having watched his documentaries. As something of a student of utopianism, it struck me rather forcefully.

Dennett actually uses Dawkins' meme theory to explain religious ideas. And so does Dawkins. Dawkins explains the religious ideas using memes - the "misfiring" of evolved mental traits thing you're thinking of is how he explains what underlies the memes. That is, how is it that these memes "worked" on people and were able to survive? The religious memes were compatible with the misfiring of evolved attitudes and mental traits, and then the memes themselves compete with other memes, and those most able to get themselves reproduced in other minds stick around for a long time.

My sense of the difference is that Dennett argues that there is a lot more work to be done to understand what it is that religion is actually doing. I don't get the same from emphasis from Dawkins. Dennett, in other words, seems to adopt more of a "wait and see" attitude. It is not that he does not use Dawkins or that he defends religion. His attitude, however, seems more open-ended and scientific in that he explicitly advocates researching religion to figure out what it is that it does do that we have not accounted for. I really don't get much of that from his other New Atheist peers.

[_Trevor]

By the way, it was the documentary "Enemies of Reason" where I thought his language was most mythological in the narrative of a march toward unreason from an age of science and discovery.

If I had a transcript, I would quote it, but here is an excerpt from the wikipedia entry on it:

"Dawkins points to some of science’s achievements and describes it as freeing “most of us” from superstition and dogma. Picking up from his superstition-reason distinction in The Root of All Evil? (while recycling some footage from it), he then says reason is facing an "epidemic of superstition" that "impoverishes our culture" and introduces gurus that persuade us "to run away from reality". He calls the present day "dangerous times". He returns to science’s achievements, including the fact that, by extending our lifespan, it helps us to better appreciate its other achievements."