3quarksdaily

« Why Hasn't AIDS Led to a Political Crisis in Africa? | Main | Here and gone: 21st century anonymous portraits »

February 29, 2008

Chris Hedges Contra The New Atheism

At Video Nation:

Posted by Robin Varghese at 02:17 PM | Permalink

Comments

Hear, hear.

Posted by: Damien | Feb 29, 2008 5:11:17 PM

They're the same because they speak equally loud?

Posted by: phish | Feb 29, 2008 5:48:29 PM

No, no. The "New Atheists" might be slightly boring, but at least they're reasonable. "Secular fundamentalist"? What does that even mean?

"Some people are worthy of moral consideration, some are not"? Gimme a break. Nothing of the kind is said by any of the "New Atheists", and this fraud knows it.

(And I thoroughly disagree with Hitchens as far as the Iraq war goes, for what it's worth.)

But when you present Harris as someone who wants to throw nuclear bombs on the Arab world, you are taking him so out of context that it boggles the mind.

Yes, Harris made a sort of ticking-bomb argument for possibly allowing torture in a situation so unlikely as to be negligible, or attacking a destructive regime first if it posed a real danger to our society. I thought he was wrong to do so, at least in the first case. But if this qualifies as some kind og ideological/religious fundamentalism, I can't imagine what wouldn't.

What it boils down to for me is: What is probably true and what is probably not true.

Posted by: frodo | Feb 29, 2008 6:04:44 PM

Thank you, Frodo. The mischaracterization of the New Atheists in this video is absolutely ridiculous. From what I've read, they make a very clear distinction between Islam as practiced by the majority of adherents and the perversion of Islam practiced by some terrorists. That they use it as an example of the horrible extremes of religion is no worse than Chris saying that the religious right could push for the persecution of Muslims. I have never heard the New Atheists endorse violence as a "cleansing agent",and they don't believe in a technological utopia- those are the transhumanists. Also, since when is promoting "collective moral progress" a bad thing? History has shown a pretty clear pattern of human progress- unless Chris would prefer to go back to feudalism. This video is a nonsensical collection of slander, lies and pablum, with a few good and reasonable points hidden in the otherwise moronic rhetoric.

Posted by: Jack | Feb 29, 2008 6:13:44 PM

I get the sense that he hasn't really read any of the works he's reviewing.

Posted by: Nathaniel Frentz | Feb 29, 2008 7:47:22 PM

I agree that people like Hitchens and Dawkins represent extreme point of views, but I think Chris Hedges is making a mistake by comparing them to the religious right. The "New Atheists" make their judgments based on reason and fact, whereas the religious right do so on irrational dogma. Would it be fair to compare a judge sentencing a man to death for mass murder to a judge sentencing a man to death for heresy (arguments about the death penalty aside)?

And Secular Fundamentalism? I'm gonna have to go with Mr. Baggins on this one.

Posted by: Davy Crockett | Feb 29, 2008 8:09:55 PM

Hedges is a very smart, nay brilliant, person who has taken very valuable positions on the Iraq war and war in general, and other questions. He also seems to have a very deep religious faith that seems vitally important to him. It is apparently so important to his inner self that he uncharacteristically seems driven to say very stupid things about atheists. I have not seen anything he has said that explains why his great intelligence deserts him on this one particular subject; if he has not explained it publicly, I hope he does one day.

Posted by: JonJ | Feb 29, 2008 9:47:13 PM

What a wishy-washy load of trollop. The least Chris could do is honour the code of any decent critic/commentator and READ the books he is criticizing. It is abundantly clear from this post that he has not the slightest inclination to seriously engage with what these reasoned writers are getting at. If he did, he would be embarrassed to see that they neatly deal with such accusations as are raised in this short piece. Labelling someone as "atheistic fundementalist" or "secular fundementalist", besides being essentially meaningless, is just a version of saying, "look, your lot are just as silly as ours" so is hardly a strong stance.

"secular fundamentalist"!! WTF! As Sam says, I can't ever envisage a civilization or empire whose downfall was a direct consequence of its citizenry becoming too clear-thinking and dangerously rational.

If Hedges bothered to read these authors properly or mentally engage with what they are saying instead of having his knee-jerk reaction ready, he might actually see they are quite gentle, well-reasoned individuals who, instead of advocating violence against those with whom they disagree are actually able to give you explanations of where these tendencies come from, why they are best subverted and how this might start to be done on a wider scale. Knowledge is power Chris and you don't move smoothly into the future by employing agonizing contortions of outdated and plainly false representations from the past.

Pop quiz Chris - "Is it true?" No. Then don't teach it to children.

Posted by: MattInOz | Feb 29, 2008 9:51:25 PM

The claims of Hedges and others like him are nothing more than knee-jerk reactions against rationalism. They complain that their faith is being misunderstood when it seems that they themselves are the ones who are misrepresenting what they actually believe. How the Hedges, a man who by his own admission believes in all the core teachings of the Christian faith, can claim that atheist critiques avoid the so-called 'real arguments' is beyond me. The fact is, there are no 'real arguments'. Theology is at bottom a matter of faith, not genuine intellectual argument. Theologians can continue to write endless books and articles using dense and 'learned' tones, but there really is no need for atheists to read them as they all boil down to the same ultimate beliefs, beliefs that atheists, quite rightly in my view, reject on the basis that they do not have intellectual or moral credibility.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 29, 2008 10:14:16 PM

Let's take a quick look at the basic biblical narrative:

There is an indescribably powerful and intelligent being called God who is in existence prior to the dawn of time. For whatever reason, he decides to create the universe and pays particular attention to planet Earth. Having created the universe, Earth and all the species on it (through 'creating' the Big Bang and 'guiding' evolution in the Hedges style of interpretation), he decides to focus all his attention on a collection of tribal groupings in the Middle East, in particular the Israelites who are his 'chosen people' and who he obsesses over, while apparently ignoring the rest of the world's population. He lays down numerous often primitive and arbitrary moral and ceremonial laws, then gets involved in inner tribal politics and land disputes, inciting acts of brutality, war crimes, genocide, and rape along the way. Fast forward to the Middle East under Roman occupation and God decides it's time to put in an appearance. By mystical means he comes to earth in human form, being born of a virgin. He becomes incarnate as a Jewish male and wanders around what is today Israel-Palestine, imparting pithy social commentary (but never giving any systematic explanation of how such ideas might be made politically useful), engaging in faith healing (removing 'demons' from people), magic tricks (such as walking on water and raising a dead man), and ranting on and on about sin, eternal punishment for the majority of the world's population, and the impending end of the world. He gets himself crucified, in order that he can sacrifice himself to himself for our good. A few days later he walks out of his tomb and wanders round with some of his followers (noticeably not bothering to make himself known to anyone but those who already believed in him), before 'ascending' into 'Heaven', to wait for the time when he will return to raise every human who has ever lived in bodily form for judgement, then cast most of us into a pit of fire and take a select few into his 'kingdom' for eternity where they will live happily ever after.

These are the basic building blocks upon which all Christian theology is constructed. Hedges and others can protest that of course they don't really see things in such a simplistic and manifestly implausible way, but this narrative underpins the Bible, the Church creeds, liturgies, and centuries of theological speculation.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 29, 2008 10:19:42 PM

Well said Dave.

It is beyond me how certain people like this can even fool themselves into thinking they have given any sort of "response" to the arguments that have been put to them, or at least one that has any thread of intellectual rigour. I have a strong feeling they will look back one day and cringe at what they have said - although maybe that might be a bit much to expect.

I did not realise Hedges even bought into Christianity that strongly (I'm out of the loop over here ;-), which makes it all the more astounding to me that one can so readily disqualify others' religions as piffle, and with a straight face make special pleas for their own brand of nonsense. Truly astounding.

Posted by: MattInOz | Feb 29, 2008 10:30:33 PM

MattinOz--
I work with peace an justice groups, and Hedges, being against the Iraq occupation, has credibility with the "Left".
I was astounded at his religious, superstition based view of reality.
It is quite scary.
Ar regular "Cabbage For Christ"

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 29, 2008 10:39:46 PM

Dave

What IS it with this Jesus crap? I cannot for the life of me see how anyone who does even a hint of research into history cannot see how "the Golden Rule" and other such pronouncements are not the special province of Christianity. For goodness sake, such rules are CLEARLY demonstrable in ape communities and certainly don't need a divine explanation. Just because JC successfully hijacked it as his propoganda vehicle doesn't mean it's a bad idea though, I just wish they did some reading about its epistemiology.

I have abundant knowledge (having been sold the Catholic crap as a child and done my hard time as an altar boy for Christ) of what's needed to break away from this thinking and it's not that difficult. It only requires the mildest infection with a curiosity for truth to bring it tumbling into dust.

Good luck to Hedges in that regard I say. I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: MattInOz | Feb 29, 2008 11:16:05 PM

It seems useful to note that Hedges debated Hitchens recently, and that according to this account, at least, lost.

Posted by: D | Mar 1, 2008 12:35:26 AM

Besides all the comments above, Hedges makes the same mistake that Christians complain about every time I bring up some extreme religious fundamentalist behavior: "We're not all like that!"

"New Atheists" is a term I despise, while I am a life-long atheist, because it does the same thing - lump all atheists into Hedge's narrow and misinformed reading/debating of Harris, Hitchens, et al.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones ...Hedges is throwing stones. I'm not impressed by his arguments because he clearly did not read Hitchens's book, at the very least.

Posted by: Anon | Mar 1, 2008 1:19:23 AM

Religion is the justification of morality. Atheism as well is being used to justify moral positions. It's not the actual source of morality. That's why you often find that the same religion (or athiesm) is used to justify totally opposing views.

Morality is the result of biological programming, and enviornment. A balance between our two opposing instincts: the group mentality and the competion between individuals in that group. This is what leads to hiarchy, which you find in all social animals. Colonies of monkeys have royalty as well.
Extreme idiologies usually pick one of these two instincts, and completely ignore the other. They try to eliminate hiarchy by either extreme individualism, or extreme group mentality.

The mistake that the new atheists (and their religieus counterparts) make is that they think their morality is a universal truth. It's not. It's just a set of rules that work for them, in their situation.

Marriage, for instance, is an ancient feminist institution that pretents to ensure the females' sexual loyalty, in return for the mans' life long dedication. If the man believes the children of his wife are actually his own, then he is more likely to stick around. Feminism is all about increasing the cost of sex, which is also a big part of most religions.

Gay marriage might be logical in our western society, were a mans' contribution is forced by law (in some countries, even if he is not the biological father), and were a woman can make her own living in the service economy. But in an African tribe for instance, the loyalty of a man is essential to the lifelyhood of the woman, especially when handicapped by pregnancy. Gay marriage would undermine the value of sex in that society, and thus undermine the society itself.

So when a religious group opposes same sex marriage, it has nothing to do with what the bible says, but everything with the value of sex. You will also see a lot of other sexual restrictions in those groups. They are acting on an instinct that has worn off in the liberal mind.

Liberals think that their acceptance of homosexuality is a universal morality. In all their "rational thinking", they fail to think about why most of the world, for most of the earths' history, has opposed homosexuality. In their experience, homosexuality is harmless. But in the ancient mind, it is not.

The instinct to increase the value of sex is part of the group mentality. Expensive sex is not benificial to the male, but it is to the spieces as a whole.

As a conclusion, trying to come up with a universal morality is futile, if you ignore the enviornment of said morality. And the rational athiests are dead wrong in thinking that there even is a universal morality.
And in the same vain, Chris Hedges is wrong in his conclusion that the position of the new athiests is wrong.
New athiesm is reaction to certain events that threatened their position in society. The individualists were attacked as group, by another group, so they called upon their group mentalitiy as a defense mechanism. They use atheism to justify it, but it might as well have been any other -ism.

The real problem is the megalomania of countries trying to create societies of millions. You can't have a natural balance between individualism and group mentality, when you have so many individuals.

Posted by: PeterJohn | Mar 1, 2008 9:39:01 AM

It really IS a great point. Read the material before you reject it. Understand your opponent's argument in his own context before you presume to pass judgement on it. Is that about it?

I can give you a reading list which may give you a richer perspective of the debate from the opposing point of view (if you have any sense that you may wish to be informed about it beyond the level of Ranning's dust-jacket synopsis from a Child's Garden of Atheism): The Cloud of Unknowing, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Aquinas' Summa Theologica, Augustine's Apology, and finally Eusibius' History of the Church. Once you are done with those, you can probably be confidant that you grasp the salient issues enough to re-read the Bible with a new perspective and then evaluate it on its own merits rather than its more commonly addressed Straw Man.

Start the whole thing off, though, by working through Lebniz' Primordial Existential Question to its logical conclusion of not just why, which is perhaps too glibly dismissed by some, but how? It's a reasonable question and allows no dodge into higher math or alternate universes, since without causation, complete nothingness must once have been, and nothing can only beget nothing. At the very least, the exercise might soften a rigid certainty that mechanistics holds all the answers.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents of a Saturday when I should be groking Eigenfaces and working on my project proposal. Have fun reading, I have more when you have finished those.

Posted by: Carlos | Mar 1, 2008 10:12:09 AM

Carlos--
It comes dow to this, and it really is not thay complicated:
What is the core of Dawkins' and my "radical" message?

Well, it goes something like this: If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.

That's it. That's the whole, crazy, fanatical package.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Mar 1, 2008 11:08:00 AM

Knee-jerk reactions to knee-jerk reactions to knee-jerk reactions.

I have to wonder how many of us have read the best the "opposing" material has to offer, or if we've just read Other People who may have...

I know I haven't read them all, myself. Not all of the best, anyway, or even a large portion of it.

Have you made up your mind that the other side is completely wrong, and that approval only by your methods will do? Because that seems rather short-sighted. Narrow-minded.

Be those methods scientific or belief-based, something isn't going to fit in your model. Something that someone finds vitally important to the continuance of life and the pursuit of its goods and greats is going to be left out.

And someone is always, ALWAYS going to think that your methods and beliefs are absolutely, 100% fucking evil. Or, shall we say, "socially harmful."

If we cannot recognise this, if we cannot learn to approach things from their perspective, openly, rationally, believingly, or by whatever adverb for which the thing calls, then we get the same thing we Always get, here on 3QD, when religion comes into the field.

Snide, arrogant, "Why-You're-Just-An-Ignorant-And-Ill-Informed-Dirt-Farmer" remarks, from Both sides.

I've come to hope for a certain level of discernment and honest discussion, from this page's comment section. Instead, there's that wall, where everyone froths and foams and prickles, but they do it in the high-handed pseudo-intellectualism;l a back and forth of what basically boils down to "S/He Started it!"

And, frankly, I'm sick of it.

Posted by: Damien | Mar 1, 2008 12:18:47 PM

It's even simpler than that, Dave.

In truth, you are no more interested in examining the evidence presented in the book list above than I am in challenging you to demonstrate your evidence that there is no mystery and no God. Since the one gauntlet you have to throw down is evidentiary, your thesis fails by its own standard, but you'd be a fool to both hold onto your supposition and at the same time entertain the possibility that my side may actually be holding some cards to your empty hand. No. Better just wave any such notion away.

Posted by: Carlos | Mar 1, 2008 12:42:48 PM

You're right, Damien, teach the controversy!

Posted by: Barkley | Mar 1, 2008 12:51:15 PM

Carlos, there's no need to keep your cards hidden. If you, or any religious person, has some killer argument up their sleeve, put it on the table.

Posted by: Barkley | Mar 1, 2008 12:53:11 PM

Ah yes---
Playing tennis with no net---
It's fun, and easy, but when the net goes up and the real game starts, it is time to leave.

Carlos, show me the cards, I call you.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Mar 1, 2008 12:54:53 PM

Damien, how can one have an honest discussion when Hedges (the point of this article) is not willing to be honest. Mischaracterizing an atheist's position from the get-go does not engender respect nor honest discussion.

Much of the literature that Carlos speaks of has been read throughout our atheist lives, and yet those like Hedges embrace inflammatory language and have knee-jerk reactions to the new atheist literature (not the lowercase). One such notable knee-jerk reaction is cherry-picking at Richard Dawkins's mention of religion as child abuse, despite his being clear about what that means.

I have found that no matter what aspects of religion I accept, understand and have experienced, those like Hedges rush out to battle strawmen.

"If we cannot recognise this, if we cannot learn to approach things from their perspective, openly, rationally, believingly,..."

Atheists have been understanding those like Hedges for years. It is time for them to be open-minded.

Posted by: Anon | Mar 1, 2008 12:56:06 PM

I don't know that atheists understand "those like Hedges," any better than they would say that he understands them. And that's precisely the point.

The investiture of time, belief, "rationality," or whatever else into a position means that when something comes along to challenge it, or "attack" it, then that something is not going to be gently approached. It's a perceived attack, and if that attack is on rationality, then the retaliation is going to be all the more vicious.

Rationality is that sacrosanct principle by which we make sense of and operate in the world, so when it comes under attack, the accusation of "harmful irrationality" is leveled like a self-referential gun. But that's not the point.

The point is that if someone mischaracterizes your position, then correct them, put it into words they can understand. And that's not Dumbing Down, that's being willing to know a system of thought and/or belief well enough to approach it from within its own boundaries. Regardless of how those within it approach you.

Come to the table willing to learn and be wrong, or don't come to the table.

Posted by: Damien | Mar 1, 2008 1:51:52 PM

There is nothing new in this attack. It is as empty and foolish as any that have come before.

Apparently, if all of us poor, ignorant atheists become sincere students of theology, spend our lives honestly pondering moldy old tomes, and crusty old thoughts, of the most sincere (often deluded) primitive minds, we too will finally understand that we are being awfully mean to the fairy tales of others. And opinions, if they are critical of religion, should be suspended. It is not fair. Because there is always some point, somewhere, that we have not scrupulously considered. Until all this is completed we should not think, we should not discuss, we should not argue, we must not say aloud what we think is true. It is pure arrogance. Sarcasm is right out! So is contempt for beliefs that are truly awful and violent. All is relative. Everything may be right for someone. We should respect that.

Well, I'm off. There is a pillar in the desert that I plan to sit on for a while, until I have fully absorbed the wisdom of the ages.

Posted by: Christopher | Mar 1, 2008 2:07:47 PM

And Christopher goes a long way toward exemplifying my point. Consideration is not the same as relativism, and the relativism of beliefs should only be excluded when you've explored the options and understood the motivations.

Yes, taking a position is important, and the only way to operate a world of non-wishy-washy hand-wringers, but there is a difference between holding a belief and a position-- considered, carefully crafted, and researched-- and simply lashing out at that which threatens or upsets you.

Yes, certain acts are deplorable, disgusting things. But recognise that there is a reason for their existing, there is a story that leads to the instantiation of these acts as morally accepted or required. When you seek to truly understand what brought a people to this place, your efforts at change will be more effective, because they will be more respectful.

'If your god is a living god, a loving god, and a caring god, then wouldn't it have foreseen a time when these laws would have to change, when the "old ways" would have to make way for the new?'

Take a position, yes. Realise that's all anyone does. Discuss, yes, but discuss from a position of knowledge, rather than vitriol.Otherwise you perpetuate your problem, because no one wants to listen to someone who thinks their an idiot.

Unless all you're looking to do is hear the sound of your own voice (something I often enjoy), and keep yourself in business.

Posted by: Damien | Mar 1, 2008 3:31:18 PM

Damien: I think you're an idiot.

Posted by: frodo | Mar 1, 2008 4:49:33 PM

Frodo, it'll be okay.

Posted by: Damien | Mar 1, 2008 5:21:08 PM

Will it?

Posted by: frodo | Mar 1, 2008 5:27:54 PM

"I call you"

Excellent. You may proceed to present your evidence for no God and a purely mechanistic universe starting with a complete and coherent answer to Lebniz' P.E.Q.. My cards? Already laid down. Those books I already listed, in that order.

Posted by: Carlos | Mar 1, 2008 6:32:36 PM

"The Cloud of Unknowing, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Aquinas' Summa Theologica, Augustine's Apology, and finally Eusibius' History of the Church."

I vaguely remember reading those when I was studying philosophy for three years at my local university.

Should they have convinced me of God's existence?

Posted by: frodo | Mar 1, 2008 7:20:37 PM

I am so sick and tired of this debate. Reading comments whenever the "religion v. atheism" topic comes up, makes me ashamed to be human. Lets just bomb each other and be done with it.

Posted by: Anon | Mar 1, 2008 7:23:44 PM

"I am so sick and tired of this debate. Reading comments whenever the "religion v. atheism" topic comes up, makes me ashamed to be human."

Sure. Nevertheless you actually bother to read the comments, and then go on to post a comment about how reading the comments and posting comments about the comments makes you ashamed of being human.

Well, I kind of agree with you, actually. Cheers!

Posted by: frodo | Mar 1, 2008 7:42:03 PM

So we got one guy who thinks the burden of evidence rests on unbelievers to disprove god, and another who makes the sweeping generalization that no one on either side understands the other well enough to say anything (or he simply wants to condescendingly remind us and chastise us on an obvious point), and a few people (myself included) who are exasperated by the whole spectacle and yet somehow drawn in to see how it develops.

I personally think that no one is ever going to convince the other side of anything here, but I nonetheless don't think that makes it futile. Much is gained by the exercise, not the least of which is a better understanding of the other side which facilitates better coexistence.

Though I by no means believe that progress is inevitable (only change is), I do think old-time religions like the Bible characterization above and perhaps all of Christianity, are on their way out. If you feel the need to help this process along, I think the best thing, the most effective thing to do, is not to attack religion, but to be a kind, generous and flawlessly reasonable and rational example of the alternative, of the possibility of life outside the cult. Disprove their characterizations of atheists. Show the possibility of life without god to be admirable and beautiful and full of meaning. Be more Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman than Richard Dawkins.

The Carloses can continue to challenge us to prove that the invisible dragons in their garages don't exist, we can hope their happiness isn't disturbed by the (conveniently) inaudible din of these dragons and get on with trying to make the world a better place already.

Posted by: Barkley | Mar 1, 2008 8:23:03 PM

Did you now? My compliments to your curriculum. What local university did you attend?

Posted by: Carlos | Mar 1, 2008 9:10:41 PM

A pretty crappy one by international standards. The Norwegian University of Science and Technology. (No, it's not that crappy, actually, but it's no Harvard or MIT.)

So if my comments seemed a bit incoherent and weird, well... English is not my language.

Posted by: frodo | Mar 1, 2008 9:19:06 PM

Has this thread petered out yet? Because, if it has -- good. Without wanting to juice the corpse, I want to observe that it looks like nobody's mind got changed here, and worse: nobody's mind even got expanded. Perhaps Chris Hedges, making his point cogently but unexcitingly that there are atheist fundies, too, would not be surprised.

Richard Dawkins himself has said that it's not logically tenable to be more than an agnostic, so all of our atheists need to recognize an element of unreason in their logic, just that tiny element that compels them to attempt proving a negative when such proof is absolutely unnecessary to a coherent world view that posits no supreme being. Heaping scorn on people who claim only to believe differently, who are out to exact no social price from you for your non-belief, hardly defeats them, or even messes with their minds. If you somehow lost interest in criticizing them so derisively, it would not be a sign that you respected their beliefs and hewed to the hypocrisy of tip-toeing around them, only that you respected their right to a point of view greatly different from your own, even opposed to your own. Tolerating clap-trap in others without attacking them for it, without attempting to undercut their rights to believe as they choose, is good for you. It keeps you liberal-minded, and it serves the seldom-discussed function of keeping you open to the possibility, ever present, that you too believe things that are not true, and have the right to believe such things. If all this took more sensitivity than living in society demanded of averagely intelligent people, then we'd all be on Ruby Ridge.

While I am aware there is no compromise position, that the question whether God exists cannot have two answers, I always feel a bit of a minority following and sometimes participating in threads about the subject, because I don't agree with anyone on either side of the question as it has been framed. The terms of the debate seem on the one hand utterly to trivialize and reduce human endeavor, on the other to exalt and even mandate superstition. It's kind of sickening to make fun of someone's holy book, it's also kind of sickening to suppose you accomplish much by dumping holy books on someone's derision. And it's about as much fun as watching orthodocts and heretics tilting at one another -- they only think they're on opposite sides in this quaint medieval tournament, but they're not, because they are, alike, fighting with outdated weapons over settled questions.

Next time it comes up -- and it will -- take it to a different level, okay?

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Mar 1, 2008 9:29:03 PM

The Carloses can continue to challenge us to prove that the invisible dragons in their garages don't exist

You are missing my point. The standards of evidence amateur Atheists occasionally call upon Theists to provide are equally unavailable to them. The challenge came from Dave, not me. I don't think he is capable of meeting the standard he himself set, but it's not my requirement, it's his.

All you should be willing to do, even if just for yourself, is be satisfied with a material world which cannot rationally exist, rationally explain how it could have ever sprung from pure nothingness, or confess that your position is no more rational than mine.

Posted by: Carlos | Mar 1, 2008 9:37:00 PM

it's also kind of sickening to suppose you accomplish much by dumping holy books on someone's derision

Is that directed at me? My suggestion was merely a response to a complaint against people who criticize other's positions without properly informing themselves. If you were sickened, you missed the lighthearted irony. I think these are valuable additions to anyone's personal library, but I don't for a second imagine that any derisive person would read them or benefit from them anymore than I imagine any dissenter from the atheist orthodoxy is likely to find any value in the New Atheist Canon (or even the non-dissenters for that matter).

On a lighthearted note. I was back in California last week and on the tailgate of a pickup truck was the following bumper-sticker: "Party on, Sinners."

Posted by: Carlos | Mar 1, 2008 10:30:14 PM

Thanks, Elatia. I needed that. ;)

As for bumper stickers, here's my favorite:

"Jesus would signal.'

Posted by: JanieM | Mar 1, 2008 10:46:54 PM

Carlos,

Please forgive my lack of direct familiarity with the texts you’ve mentioned, other than the Bible, but isn’t your Leibnizian defense breached with the good old “if something can’t come out of nothing then who created God" argument? I assume you must be familiar with that response, so if there is a deeper subtlety to your defense of theism from this angle, do share it.

bumpersticker:
667 neighbor of the beast

Posted by: Jesse | Mar 1, 2008 11:25:22 PM

Elatia: Heaping scorn on people who claim only to believe differently, who are out to exact no social price from you for your non-belief, hardly defeats them, or even messes with their minds...Tolerating clap-trap in others without attacking them for it, without attempting to undercut their rights to believe as they choose, is good for you

I'm sorry, Elatia, but there are many believers who are trying to "exact" a social price from atheists and society. Saying otherwise is simply dishonest. The academic arguments are of cursory value; the day-to-day society arguments are very much a part of what and why the "New Atheists'" argue at all.

If the religious were to stop pushing their beliefs on others, tolerance would work just fine. That's the simple nature of the beast. Everything else is academic. That (some) religious feel it is necessary to attack these "New Atheists" is born out of fear - I have heard theologians say so themselves in so many words. They are not really interested in atheists' worldviews.Prove me otherwise.

It has become a tiresome debate in the public arena, however, we soldier on....because we have to.

*There's a third Anon comment that's not mine.

Posted by: Anon1&2 | Mar 1, 2008 11:37:59 PM

For what it's worth, Elatia, I don't personally see the main point of these arguments as being to change the other person's mind - that will only come in THEIR own time and certainly not through being exposed to the vitriol of a directly counter viewpoint.

The real value of these arguments, as I see it (and why I think it's important to address these issues at each instance they arise) is that far, far more people read these pages than post on them. Those who are honestly open to exploring such an important question as whether a goddess exists will get to see the weak arguments from the likes of Carlos repeatedly and systematically demolished before their eyes. For it is only the closed mind that doesn't see that that is exactly what is happening. Someone who is really open to the question, a truly inquisitive fence-sitter, will be able to source, on these pages, important reinforcement of their doubts. So if even one person a week is able to have that Aha! moment where the shackles of indoctrination give way to those first heady days of independent thought, I think we can consider the posting of these arguments to be meritorious.

I find it singularly instructive that a good portion of Carlos' defence readings, his supposed best ammo, was written prior to the publication of a pesky fellow by the name of Charles Darwin. Says something, doesn't it?

Posted by: MattInOz | Mar 2, 2008 12:21:44 AM

Carlos---
I'm not the one who woke up believing in a Psychopathic Space Daddy--
That is something you added to your world, a cultural replicator that has colonized your poor addled brain.
That is a extraordinary statement of fact. As Carl Sagen said "Extraordinary propositions need extraordinary evidence"--
When evidence is dismissed from the discourse, ignorance and superstition rules, like the impoverished intellectual position of our poor friend Carlos.
He things imaginary works of fiction are real arguments and a basis for reality.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Mar 2, 2008 1:00:25 AM

Anon 1 & 2, Matt and Carlos,

Way back in dynastic Egypt, before the time of the Bible, the afterlife was given the most complete consideration imaginable, and, as is well known, even material goods were stored up to supply it. Less well known is that the Egyptians had a care as to whether their souls might suffer death in the afterlife; that they should die of this earthly life was natural and right to them, that once in The Silent Land their souls should die was intolerably frightening. The most intelligent thing that was ever said -- that has ever been said in the 4500 years since -- in the face of the massive cult of the dead mounted by the Egyptians (and by subsequent civilizations) was written into The Harper's Song, an extremely short and seldom quoted verse that asks: What befalls us beyond the grave? And answers: No one knows, no one knows.

Those words are going to be true for all time, unless you think the subject will simply lose the interest of humans. If it ever does, then that will be the day, to quote Franz Wright, that "the stars once again have no name." The rest is about how to live a better life that includes a sense of purpose and a consciousness of meaning. And people find different answers to this dilemma. I would be very sorry if anyone laid aside their religion because of something they read here, and I wouldn't like to think we're minting believers, either. If reason overcomes you, and you start to think about God as if, "Nah, it couldn't be," then that's a trashy epiphany along the lines of looking out the window one Christmas Eve and realizing Santa has too much to do, too fast, to even remotely exist. It's as bad as winning the lottery and therefore being convinced of God's goodness. A sense of the sacred, and a recognition of God's presence -- however one might like to define that -- go deeper than a superstition acquired or inbred, and people who have it are not really up for reclamation by reason.

We like to talk about these things here not because we might convince someone on the thread or someone lurking, but because -- demonstrably -- whether we believe in God or not, we believe in the question. If we did not...we would not be here. It would be a matter of Zero Interest.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Mar 2, 2008 1:28:15 AM

Elatia

Try as I might (and I AM making an honest attempt to see what you are getting at), I am having difficulty differentiating statements such as "we believe in the question" from wishy washy proclamations of the cultural relativists. Surely if everybody recognizes that there cannot be multiple correct answers to the question of "what does two plus two equal?", then they must also realise that there is a correct answer to the VERY simple question "does god exist or not?" It's really not too hard a question to understand UNLESS, under the resolute pressure of an ever-widening explanatory base provided by science, the believer is forced to constantly revise their definition of god (ie move the goal posts) It really is a straight forward question. Wallowing in protestations of "each person can find their own answer to this question" with the implication that they can all be correct is in fact insidiously harmful. We no longer have too many people arguing for the literal truth of the Egytian's sun gods and thus it should EXACTLY be with the Abrahamic varieties. The purely accidental fortune of their recency should not confer on them any extra claim to credulity.

To address the way you put it above, I don't think the subject will lose the interest of humans, I think the bulk of humans will one day come to see the fallacious nature of the question.

Though I agree with so much of what you post on here, I for one would, in direct contrast to you, would feel not the slightest bit sorry if someone laid aside their religion because of something they read on here. In fact, with each person that achieved that little step of emancipation from the medieval, I would feel a little flutter of hope inside for humanity's continuence, hopefully in a manner more in balance with it's cradle planet.

Posted by: MattInOz | Mar 2, 2008 3:35:08 AM

Carlos,

You said:

"All you should be willing to do, even if just for yourself, is be satisfied with a material world which cannot rationally exist, rationally explain how it could have ever sprung from pure nothingness, or confess that your position is no more rational than mine."

No one knows that there was once nothingness, and I'm fairly sure the "rational world" only exists in our heads, a series of models that predict with usually adequate accuracy what happens at levels high enough that quantum randomness averages out, at speeds slow enough to avoid the weirdness of relativity, in the three dimensions we find useful, etc.

We can't know the answer, and we have to be OK with that. The difference between agnostics (often called atheists here for convenience, I think), is not that they have taken unprovable position B, but that they reject A. Hypocritical as it may sound, I need postulate no alternative to disprove god. That adds an asymmetry to the situation I don't think everyone recognizes. Admitting that you don't know is not just as irrational as putting forth an answer that must be wrong.

I agree with Elatia on many counts, and perhaps the "next level" could be reached by differentiating religion from spirituality. It's beliefs like "the world is 6000 years old" that I think (hope) will disappear. Searches for meaning will persist (and should persist because I think we have to come up with meaning ourselves as I don't think they exist outside our heads, much less in a god's).

Posted by: Barkley | Mar 2, 2008 4:59:10 AM

Elatia,

I too share an admiration for the writing I’ve seen you exhibit here, but “trashy epiphany”? I think one is left at a rather profound beginning in the abandonment of religion and often included in that beginning is the opening of admiration for many of the other mythological systems that our fellow human ancestors have devised. Yes it has been our parents and not Santa, in the sense of a received cosmic fiction, but this doesn’t shut down mystery, it opens it up. They have brought the poetry, but not the presents, so for now things have branched. We can accept this or fall back in reaction, or perhaps all hold our breath for eventual reunification- the "coming God" of that Black Forest Mandarin.

Posted by: Jesse | Mar 2, 2008 5:46:39 AM

I find it singularly instructive that a good portion of Carlos' defence readings, his supposed best ammo, was written prior to the publication of a pesky fellow by the name of Charles Darwin

All of them, really (the Catechism having merely been contemporized), although I find Darwin to be more visionary genius than pesky. Darwin's thesis, by the way, is fully embraced by more Christians than the total population of Atheists (some number of which may well reject Darwin). Liebniz' little challenge to rational materialism also predates Darwin, still unanswered, or uncomprehended, after all this time. Somehow it never gets any takers.

Posted by: Carlos | Mar 2, 2008 10:09:49 AM

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

February 29, 2008

Chris Hedges Contra The New Atheism

Comments

Post a comment

3QD Science Prize

Iran Twitter News

Andrew Covers Iran

The Lede on Iran

HuffPo Liveblogging

Help 3 Quarks Daily

3QD on Twitter

Search Using Lijit

Bookmark This Page

3QD FEED FOR GOOGLE

3QD ADVERTISING

Compare prices

Recent Comments

Acclaim For 3QD