Chris Hedges and "Fundamentalism" of New Atheists

[_marg]

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

Sam Harris addresses your criticism on his web site at this link response to controversy. I actually would like to get into this discussion a little more, but I am going away on Wednesday and access to a computer I can't count on. Perhaps when I get back, at this point not sure how long that will be. I thought the majority of Hedges presentation was utter nonsense. Some of that nonsense, Sam Harris addresses here at this link Sam Harris fights back

But back to your criticism of Harris's position on killing people, he doesn't believe there are ethical reasons to kill based on religious beliefs but based on behaviors/potential behaviors of which some are fueled by religious beliefs...in some cases. It's a cold cruel world, in which the lesser of evils often must be chosen. It is sometimes a matter of kill or be killed and hence it can be considered ethical in some situations to kill.

Again the link

Same Harris writes:

My discussion of killing people “for what they believe” (pages 52-53 of The End of Faith):

The following passage seems to have been selectively quoted, and misconstrued, more than any I have written:

The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. Read in context, it should be clear that I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.

When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al Zawahiri, the answer cannot be, “because they have killed so many people in the past.” These men haven’t, to my knowledge, killed anyone personally. However, they are likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what they and their followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. As I argued in The End of Faith, a willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in most cases this is impossible.

[_marg]

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."

Yes some of sciences achievements has freed mankind from superstition and dogma. Briefly, except the irrational individuals, we no longer assume diseases and disasters are a form of punishment from God, nor do we blame entire groups of people for diseases i.e. Black Death, we don't think witches exist which can cast evil spells who should be burned at a stake. So yes, an argument can be made that understanding of phenomena enables man to make better decisions. This doesn't mean that science enables ethical decision making, however good reasoning supported with good evidence is in a better position to reason well, make better ethical decisions than good reasoning supported with poor evidence or lack of evidence.

[_marg]

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.

We are living in an age with the majority of people receiving greater years of education than ever previously One would think education of the masses would reduce superstitious thinking, that's doesn't appear to be happening.

Science is evolving progressing forward in understanding phenomenon of the universe. Science is under attack..take evolutionary theory as an example. And many religions and religious individuals look upon science as an enemy of religion. It is most definitely under attack. Your comment that he believes in a past Golden age of reason and science appears to be an attack on his position. Why would he believe in a past Golden age, if he as all scientist (I'm sure) appreciates, science progesses forward in understanding phenomena?

Regarding accusing Dawkins of promoting science as utopianism, you portray Dawkins as being stupid, which he isn't. The scientific method is a reasoning process, it tends to lead to better decision making options when one relies upon good evidence..that's not a claim to lead to a utopian anything. You are reading more into the position of those who argue for rational thinking/decision making in lieu of irrational thinking/decision making than is warranted by what they say.

[_beastie]

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.

He probably would be the first to agree with it, and yet his focus on religion as THE issue leads people to conclude otherwise.

To continue the car analogy, here's how I currently see it (although I am not firmly wedded to this opinion) - the spotlight on religion alone as the cause of many of our current social ills addresses only the symptom, and not the underlying cause. So if my car's tires keep wearing out because my alignment is off, Dawkins would be the mechanic who wants to sell me new tires without fixing the alignment.

The "alignment" in this case is the human tendency to sloppy, undisciplined thinking that is too easily influenced by complicating factors. Religion is the result of this alignment problem. Eradicating religion wouldn't resolve the underlying problem. Whatever "new tires" society put on the car would soon show the same problems that the old ones did, because the alignment is still off.

These extremely intelligent people who have a certain amount of spotlight, like Dawkins, could better address the real issue by addressing the structural weaknesses inherent in undisciplined human thought, in my opinion. But I still enjoy his books, and agree with many of his points. I just find myself wishing he would address the underlying cause of the religion "problem" in the first place. (and since I lost my God Delusion book, I can't skim through it again to make sure I'm not speaking out of my arse, he may have really addressed that and I just forgot. I will accept correction if someone can show he did emphasize that underlying issue. It irks me that my book is gone, and I can't check.)

by the way, thanks to marg for that link on Harris. I've been meaning to look up any rebuttals he had on this point. That's why I wanted to reread his book - my sense was that his words were being taken out of context, and that he really wasn't suggesting killing people just for what they believe. He's suggesting it may be necessary to kill people when their beliefs lead them to threaten others in an unacceptable fashion - a fashion that could, conceivable, destroy all humanity.

[_Trevor]

Regarding accusing Dawkins of promoting science as utopianism, you portray Dawkins as being stupid, which he isn't. The scientific method is a reasoning process, it tends to lead to better decision making options when one relies upon good evidence..that's not a claim to lead to a utopian anything. You are reading more into the position of those who argue for rational thinking/decision making in lieu of irrational thinking/decision making than is warranted by what they say.

marg, I don't have time for a full reply, but as a prelude to my full reply, let me ask this. Please try to back off of the rhetoric in which you attribute attitudes and beliefs to me that I do not hold ("you portray Dawkins as being stupid"), will you? Let me make something clear, in case you are not intending to attribute this to me. I revere Dawkins as one of the world's great thinkers. The last thing I think he is is stupid. And, by attributing to his rhetoric (in places) an implicit utopianism, I am hardly depicting him as stupid, except perhaps in your mind. It could be, actually, a very clever thing to do--to create a kind of narrative that is easy for others to follow so that he may better persuade them. I am trying to have a discussion. I am not personally attacking Dawkins or trying to misrepresent him as stupid.

[_marg]

Regarding accusing Dawkins of promoting science as utopianism, you portray Dawkins as being stupid, which he isn't. The scientific method is a reasoning process, it tends to lead to better decision making options when one relies upon good evidence..that's not a claim to lead to a utopian anything. You are reading more into the position of those who argue for rational thinking/decision making in lieu of irrational thinking/decision making than is warranted by what they say.

marg, I don't have time for a full reply, but as a prelude to my full reply, let me ask this. Please try to back off of the rhetoric in which you attribute attitudes and beliefs to me that I do not hold ("you portray Dawkins as being stupid"), will you? Let me make something clear, in case you are not intending to attribute this to me. I revere Dawkins as one of the world's great thinkers. The last thing I think he is is stupid. And, by attributing to his rhetoric (in places) an implicit utopianism, I am hardly depicting him as stupid, except perhaps in your mind. It could be, actually, a very clever thing to do--to create a kind of narrative that is easy for others to follow so that he may better persuade them. I am trying to have a discussion. I am not personally attacking Dawkins or trying to misrepresent him as stupid.

You may not be trying to personally attack Dawkins or trying to misrepresent him as stupid but it certainly is coming across to me that way. I'm glad to hear you point out you don't think Dawkins is stupid, but as I say when you attribute to him points of view he is not likely to think given that he is a scientist, it appears you give him much less credit for his training and intelligence than you should.

And by the way, Sam Harris was not the least bit pleased with Hedge, taking from his book quotes out of context. It appears you are supportive of Hedge and are arguing along the same lines as him, using his arguments, including this notion of "utopianism".

"While I stand by everything I have written in "The End of Faith", and I encourage readers to consult my "Response to Controvery" article on my website, I cannot be expected to parry every malicious sampling of my text. It is unfortunate that Truthdig has become a forum for attacks of this sort."


(I leave tomorrow and if I don't get a chance to respond I will when I get back, unless Sethbag continues to discuss this with you, as he does such an excellent job of it)

[_Trevor]

You may not be trying to personally attack Dawkins or trying to misrepresent him as stupid but it certainly is coming across to me that way. I'm glad to hear you point out you don't think Dawkins is stupid, but as I say when you attribute to him points of view he is not likely to think given that he is a scientist, it appears you give him much less credit for his training and intelligence than you should.

Lots of scientists believe things that you might not expect. After all, there are plenty of LDS scientists. I don't really get your point. How much credit should we give a scientist in his belief that the Book of Mormon is the word of God because he is a scientist? Methinks I smell an argument from authority.

And by the way, Sam Harris was not the least bit pleased with Hedge, taking from his book quotes out of context. It appears you are supportive of Hedge and are arguing along the same lines as him, using his arguments, including this notion of "utopianism".

I am not sure why Harris's being displeased with Hedges is in itself a problem. I did read his reply to Hedges, however, and I think that in some important ways Hedges has misrepresented him. Problems remain, however. In any case, I started the thread to discuss the issue, not because I am a huge fan of Hedges, or that I think he is necessarily right about everything. I think he makes some decent points. I think there is cause for concern in the way that Dawkins dismisses aspects of religion that still demand careful inquiry. I still believe that the underlying narrative he uses in some of his work, perhaps in the interest of making a point for the unwashed masses, is implicitly utopian. I think Hedges, on the other hand, is making the typical liberal defenses of religion, and that it was a mistake for him to lump Harris, Hitches, and Dawkins together.

[_marg]

You may not be trying to personally attack Dawkins or trying to misrepresent him as stupid but it certainly is coming across to me that way. I'm glad to hear you point out you don't think Dawkins is stupid, but as I say when you attribute to him points of view he is not likely to think given that he is a scientist, it appears you give him much less credit for his training and intelligence than you should.

Lots of scientists believe things that you might not expect. After all, there are plenty of LDS scientists. I don't really get your point. How much credit should we give a scientist in his belief that the Book of Mormon is the word of God because he is a scientist? Methinks I smell an argument from authority.

You appear to be going off on a tangent and not addressing my words and intent. I have not argued that a religious scientist who might hold some very irrational religious ideas does not or could not function rationally in his scientific field or that being religious entailed he/she was stupid. What I addressed is your assumption that Dawkins thinks science leads to a utopian society and your opinion that he views some Golden age of science in the past. Those are the “points of view” you are attributing to him which are an attack on him, on his perception of what science entails and even his intelligence.

Scientists are the ones who understand what science is about. They know what their work involves. They appreciate the limitations of science more so than the average unscientifically trained individuals in most cases. So the average scientist would appreciate science does not lead to a utopian society. Just because good reasoning and evidence generally leads to better decision making on any issue, than attempts at reasoning absent evidence or on faith, does not mean the likely more reliable conclusions based on rational reasoning and evidence etc is going to lead to a utopia. I tmight lead to better politician who make better decisions it might lead to curtailment of pollution etc etc. Knowledge is power. As well scientists appreciate science is progressive in working to find best fit theories of phenomena and that there is no golden age of science to get back to. Scientific knowledge is in a continuous state of evolution. So that’s why I am saying you must think he’s stupid if you attribute to him these 2 notions which deals with the concept of what science entails. But added to this is that Dawkins is not even your average scientist, his job is to educate the public on science, hence all the more reason he wouldn’t subscribe to the notions you attribute to him.

And by the way, Sam Harris was not the least bit pleased with Hedge, taking from his book quotes out of context. It appears you are supportive of Hedge and are arguing along the same lines as him, using his arguments, including this notion of "utopianism".

I am not sure why Harris's being displeased with Hedges is in itself a problem. I did read his reply to Hedges, however, and I think that in some important ways Hedges has misrepresented him. Problems remain, however. In any case, I started the thread to discuss the issue, not because I am a huge fan of Hedges, or that I think he is necessarily right about everything. I think he makes some decent points. I think there is cause for concern in the way that Dawkins dismisses aspects of religion that still demand careful inquiry. I still believe that the underlying narrative he uses in some of his work, perhaps in the interest of making a point for the unwashed masses, is implicitly utopian. I think Hedges, on the other hand, is making the typical liberal defenses of religion, and that it was a mistake for him to lump Harris, Hitches, and Dawkins together.

The reason that Harris being displeased with Hedges is in itself a problem - is that Hedges was misrepresenting Harris’s his position frequently, was arguing against strawmen positions attributed to him. This criticism of Dawkins which you are using, that he believes science leads to a utopian society or that there existed a Golden age of science to get back to…is doing the same. In order to criticize or argue against Dawkins view of science and what science entails, you really need to be sure you are arguing against his or even his likely position given his training.

I would like to pick apart Hedges’ argument, but at a later date. If you can point to anything good about Hedges' argument I'd be interested, because I couldn't see anything well reasoned in it. On a few occasions he takes the same position as Harris and Dawkins would, but seems to make it sound as if his position is different. That's just one complaint I have of him. So I'd like to know since I do respect your opinion how you were able to find anything commendable in Hedges' article or the debate which I watched (edited version).

[_Trevor]

Scientific knowledge is in a continuous state of evolution. So that’s why I am saying you must think he’s stupid if you attribute to him these 2 notions which deals with the concept of what science entails. But added to this is that Dawkins is not even your average scientist, his job is to educate the public on science, hence all the more reason he wouldn’t subscribe to the notions you attribute to him.

Good grief, marg. Are all scientists, Dawkins especially, so free from bias, misconceptions, and other errors of thought that they could not possibly ascribe to the beliefs or rhetorical strategies that I suggested Dawkins has used? Obviously not. Are they automatically stupid because they are prone to error and not above mythological language? No. Since you don't have anything except the assumed perfection and wisdom of scientists to offer as a rebuttal here, we can't have much of a discussion. Which is fine with me, because we never even got started on one.

The reason that Harris being displeased with Hedges is in itself a problem

No it is not. The fact that he misrepresented Harris's actual position is a problem in itself. There is a difference. If something is a problem in itself, it does not rely on another condition or fact to be a problem. That is obviously not the case here, or you would have stopped typing.

This criticism of Dawkins which you are using, that he believes science leads to a utopian society or that there existed a Golden age of science to get back to…is doing the same. In order to criticize or argue against Dawkins view of science and what science entails, you really need to be sure you are arguing against his or even his likely position given his training.

No it is not. Or, if it is, you have yet to make any kind of real argument to demonstrate that it is. I agree with you that I need to be sure that I am representing his views correctly, but you can't simply assume that I am not based on your faith in his training.

So I'd like to know since I do respect your opinion how you were able to find anything commendable in Hedges' article or the debate which I watched (edited version).

Hedges may be a complete wingnut, but I doubt it. He is certainly out of his element, which is painfully apparent. Still, it is the case that science has to employ narratives in order to get its message across. Much of the atheist message I see out there is carries the assumption that the world would be a much better place without that stupid religion crap. Having followed the Four Horsemen, I know that they express similar sentiments not infrequently. Problem is, no body can know that for certain. We don't know enough about what religion does to be so blithe about dismissing it. Religion may be a necessary shortcut heuristic for fast and dirty group action. Flawed? Yes. Messy? Yes. Sometimes leading to tragic results. Sometimes?!?!?! Anyway, there have been a number of cranky works recently that have decried the decline of science in the face of a new tide of superstition. Such a position is implicitly utopian and contrary to the facts. The idea that doing away with religion would make the world a better place, or technology without moral guidance will lead to an end to major world problems is also a leap of faith. We simply don't know and can't be sure.

Having said that, I am in agreement with most of what Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Shermer say most of the time. At the same time, I am not so sure that a world run according to their dictates would actually be better. I raised the whole discussion as one who agrees with sceptics most of the time, but who remains open to challenges. While most of Harris's rebuttal of Hedges was effective, it seems to me that he dodged on a few points. Like you, though, I am busy, and I find now that this thread pretty much flopped for me. I was not looking to argue vehemently with allies over things we mostly agree on anyway.

[_Sethbag]

Sorry I was away from the thread for a day or so. Anyhow, I've watched "enemies of reason", and I don't think he was pushing for a scientific utopia. I think it was targeted squarely at a set of irrational, magical-thinking based, nutjob movements out there, and discussing their drawbacks. And I think he was spot on with his criticisms. But the corollary does not follow, that if one convinced people to dump astrology, homeopathy, and the other things he discussed in that show, we'd suddenly be in a scientific utopia.

Ditching this superstitious nonsense is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.