In response to Erik:

I do not mean to be disrespectful at all Erik, but you seem to have missed the point of a few of Chris Hedges’ arguments. 

First off, he is not defending suicide bombers.  He is not trying to rationalize their actions.  I know, from reading his writing, that he does not support terrorism or anything of this sort.  What he is doing by illustrating their disparity is he is giving them a voice.  Let us remember that suicide bombers are people as well.  I am not defending their actions, but let us at least try to understand their motives.  Christopher Hitchens was wrong for saying “You’re rationalizing murder. Shame on you”.  I think it was disrespectful, and ignorant.  Hedges is only trying to put some light on the situation, and to approach the issue on a more human level.  During times of war, the enemy is always turned into a monster; and Christopher Hitchens has unfortunately bought into this propaganda.  While Hitchens is well read and witty, he does not have as strong a conscience as Chris Hedges. 

Second, about Hitchens asking “if anyone could name a moral stand taken by a religious person that couldn’t be equaled by a person who does not believe in the existence of God"- this challenge proves nothing because Hedges is not saying that religious people have more morals than non-religious people.  Hitchens missed his argument completely.  What Hedges is trying to say, and I know this from reading his piece “I don’t believe in atheists”, is that the capacity for evil has nothing to do with our religion.  The capacity for evil is innate.  It is a human instinct.  Religious institutions often times become vehicles for this corruption and evil, but if it did not exist other motives would be taken.  Just look at the Cambodian genocide, the Red Scare, and so on.  These incidents contained some religion but were not the main alleged motives of the government (the Cambodian Genocide was a communist take over that killed intellectuals to preserve farmers, and the Red Scare was an attack on a particular political group.)

I understand what you mean to say, but you need to read a little more in depth about these two authors.  Read Chris Hedges’ piece on “I don’t believe in atheists”.  It is actually quite touching and it will open your eyes to his more complex argument.

Hello all.  I was personally in attendance the other night as Chris Hedges and Christopher Hitchens debated about God at some middle school in Berkeley, CA.  I couldn’t help but wonder to myself as I watched Chris Hedges bring up his view that “God is not a noun but a verb, a commitment to transcendence.” I wish I could of been sitting next to him(not that I could do any better than Christopher Hitchens)and asked Chris why he predicated this view of blasphemy(he is a Christian) to the likes of a chameleon and contradicted the very ‘personal’ god of the Bible who is a jealous god?  It is no surprise that people like Chris Hedges who grow up in and are educated in a sectarian world view are than forced by facts to establish this sort of dip-and-dab spirituality.  When believers or those who are now cornered by facts resort to these statements to defend their awe and reverence, I often wonder why still claim to interpret this ‘verb’s’ desires for humanity at all?  He also proclaimed that he belives that suicide bombers are people whose despair has driven them into violent acts.  I wonder if he ever questions himself that perhaps the despair of his argument towards his understanding of God drives him and his ego to such watered down hybrid beliefs.  Christopher Hitchens responded to Mr. Hedges’ comments about how despair drives people into violent acts by saying(quite correctly)"You’re rationalizing murder. Shame on you.” I’m sure Chris Hedges is a decent guy, however he was no match for Christopher Hitchens wit and responses.  Hitchens offered the audience a challenge. He asked if anyone could name a moral stand taken by a religious person that couldn’t be equaled by a person who does not believe in the existence of God.  Case closed.....unless one can prove to of performed a modern day miracle, and I don’t mean healing the sick from some type of illness that the body could have healed itself from.  Just once I’d like to witness someone help an amputee regrow a severed leg.  Call me a doubting Thomas, but with that kind of convincing, one need not defend their god by proclaiming him or her, or whatever as a verb...your god would have already have been a verb, ‘exist’.

At the end of the day, we all have to live with the revealed truths of our times. For the young Iraqi woman, she chose a path not yet paved for her. The wheels of revealed religions grind slowly. (See Galileo) Natural sciences (although reluctantly due to the human egos involved) grind faster and have proven over time to tend toward self correction. Faith(s) is/are threatened by science. It is rarely the other way around and when it is, it is due to ignorance and denial rather than open minded observation.

Do you really believe that people are attacking christians ? I don’t think that’s the case at all although I sometimes wonder if they don’t like being portrayed that way. You’d think that by now they’d have taken a good long look at evolutionary theory if not for any other reason than to develop a clearer understanding of the product . They are so entrenched in their own philosophy of religion that they’ve slammed the doors shut to all of the other possibilities( they are brainwashed ) The very christians that implied that could never happen to them have fallen hostage to an unrelenting evangelical brotherhood that will stop at nothing to get what they want . They are indeed the american taliban. They can’t understand how all of it connects together because they refuse to dabble in the sacriligious, fearing reprisals from up above and being called an atheist down below and that is just so utterly tragic. They don’t suffer it’s the kids under there command that suffer . Over and over again you try to explain the significance of theoretical thought and over and over again they focus on wanting to prove it’s just a theory when the fact is it’s been a working model since its inception and they would realize this if they just took the time to read and ahhhhhhhh do they do this on purpose to antagonize you . Are they that naive’cause it’s not that complicated and when you’ve read enough it all comes together in a neat little package that you can either accept at a basic level and /or continue to educate yourself till you reach the pinnacle of satisfaction which is never if you like it as much as I do. Anyway that’s my take on the subject.....

I’m not espousing some pseudo liberalism for the sake of sounding cool or hip.  Proselytizing anyone is not my game plan.  Just the same, an Atheist should, figuratively speaking, resist the temptation to stick the knife in to a theist and twist it.  (Yes even if it’s L Ron Hubbard, as tempting as that may feel.)

And why would I council such a thing?  Apart from the fact that a condescending attitude is getting close to how bigots operate, there is so much we don’t yet know of the universe.  Imagine a force we can neither see, hear, taste, smell or feel and yet we live our lives emmersed in it’s presence.  Radio.  About One hundred years ago it would have been a hard thing to explain.  Not until Marconi, I believe, invented instruments to detect such a radiation, did we know it existed.

I don’t think God is some white bearded man on a cloud top and I don’t think we are going to hear a booming voice any time soon.  I no more believe the earth was created in six day than I do there are 72 virgins waiting for suicide bombers.

I just don’t think it helpful or constructive to be deliberately disrespectful to a theist due to a lack of physical evidence. 
The miracle of the known universe is just as profound for atheists as it is for theists.  Just imagine all that we haven’t discovered yet. 

(Incase anyone is interested the new Mount Graham Twin mirrored telescope is under construction in Arizona. Ten times more powerful than the Hubble telescope.  They think they may be able to see Planets outside our solar system with it.)

As some Sheriff once said in the Pentagon: “There are known unknowns; and there an unknown knowns; but there are no known unknown knowns...known.”
What ever the hell he meant by that I still haven’t figured out.  I’ll leave that to someone with more brains than I have to interpret.

respectfully
Frankie Five Angels

“My but it’s perfectly ok to believe in the Adam Smiths’ invisible hand and the fundamentalism of markets!?” - Max Shields

Sorry Max, but who the f*** brought up Smith’s musings on mathematics and said they worshipped them?

“Much of this still suffers from seeing life as hierarchical; for many theists, man is separate from and thus superior to all other living things (with the exception of God) for atheists, the same is true minus the deity. For me this is narrow thinking. It removes the natural order that is central to all living things; and in the end has begun our environmental destruction.” - Max Shields

Who is to say that man is not inherently destructive and that the natural course for mankind is to self-destruct? You know “go out in a blaze of glory” or “die young and leave a good looking corpse”. Not my feeling but valid nonetheless in the court of “let’s treat all beliefs as valid”. One could say why waste a minute saving the environment when a wayward comet could end it all in seconds? I’ve seen the photos of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 colliding with the planet Jupiter. If you want to call it a fastball from God, that’s just fine, I just can’t see the mound from my seat.

One of the positive aspects of eliminating “beliefs” in the public forum is so that waiting for or encouraging “Armageddon” or a “rapture” or whatever “invisible friend” solution one can imagine is not the solution of choice for the “environmental destruction” you’ve mentioned. Humans have become somewhat separated from natural systems in that we have the capacity to affect global change in a condensed time. It’s worthless to ignore that fact. Ignoring it leads to more “go forth and multiply” and that seems to be working wouldn’t you say?

Harris will once again bring up the point that religious moderates provide the base for the fundamentalists. The moderates never shout bullshit when needed and wind up in the “your either with us or against us fundamentalist camp” when push comes to shove. You’ve perhaps seen the clip of the Iraqis stoning the young woman to death here on TruthDig. How many of those fundamentalist thugs are actually “religious moderates” but join in so that they are not the next victim?

You’re concerned with environmental degradation. When push comes to shove, do the religious moderates vote for short-term human needs or long term environmental stewardship? “Why worry about saving the whales, I’ll vote to save people from inconvenience. After all, Jesus is coming to take me home and he said nothing about the whales. Oh and he’s bringing lower gas prices too, goody!”

“Judging from the post received, we are all getting our wires crossed a bit.” - Frank Pentangeli

Frank, you’ve summarized that regardless of ones mindset as a theist or atheist, humans are capable of atrocious behavior. The mental status of a Stalin or Hitler can be agreed upon by all as sociopathic. The crossed wires you speak of comes into play when the actions of a sociopath are justified with guises such as “I’m following God’s plan”, “the Bible (Koran, Hieroglyphs, Simon) says so” or a recent favorite, “God came to me in a dream”. It’s hard to believe the world wouldn’t be better if everyone simply screamed bullshit every time anyone uttered one of these childish one liners and ignored the premise. How many heroic Biblical accounts would be looked upon as sociopathic rages if “God told me to” were removed from the story?

For a modern example, I have seen recent television news/entertainment shows featuring video interviews of the “new, God fearing, David Berkowitz” known to most as the “Son of Sam” killer. He is being shown to the audience portraying a rehabilitated and in general “changed” man. Lots of confusion can arise from such a portrayal. Has the man “changed”? We can only guess. A forgiving person might say that Berkowitz has spent decades in jail, been introduced to religion and repented for what he did. But now he is asking for a second chance. Some might be prone to grant him a release from prison based on “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy”.

The Beatitudes are very agreeable philosophical teachings. I grew up on these and all of the “nicer” Biblical teachings. (We didn’t stone fornicators in my family, we didn’t think that was “nice” and it would have made our family much smaller.) In fact “Blessed are the merciful” is a very nice thought when dealing with a child who took a cookiewithout recieving permission. It’s a very nice thought when dealing with a man who stole bread to feed his family. It is a ludicrous thought when applied to allowing a proven serial killer to plead to a mass audience for a more lenient sentence having “found God” in his jail cell. How is it these people never find God before jail? I think we all know the answer. God does not put you in jail he only gets you out. You would think the almighty could do anything but apparently not. If on the other hand Berkowitz came on screen and said “I have been thinking about what I did and I now realize it’s not nice to shoot other people and I lied about my dog telling me to do it, I was demented then but I’m better now”, without placing an invisible deity into the equation, I guarantee every member of the viewing audience would exclaim “BULLSHIT”! (Or some polite facsimile thereof.) Then we could all sleep sound knowing there was no religious bleeding heart considering how to lobby for the release of Berkowitz so as to put brownie points on his or her own heavenly scorecard. The likes of Berkowitz never say “I found Jesus and he told me to serve my sentence resolutely and be a lesson to others of my former bad behavior”. “Jesus said not to fear prison for you will be free in the next life.” Never hear that, do we?

I can’t help but think of how much time, energy and other precious resources we waste appeasing non vocal, non present, non existent deities in our world. How different would the world be if only rational arguments were accepted in the public forum? This wouldn’t remove humanity from the equation, it would give it more weight than it has now.

I ask the same question halhiker does from the other side of the debate . Christian faith, so they say, is enough to sustain them so why do they give a rats behind what the atheist says , unless of course they actually feel threatened by the simple words of a few . I know why that is, it’s because of the truth in the discoveries of science . Any rational, reasonable thinker deduces what is logical and has to at least consider the facts. To the christian it’s scary . They realize,but try to ignore the obvious by creating smoke screens. They do try to discredit academia on every level but there efforts are fruitless because they don’t wish to participate in the process like all other legitimate scientists . That is why they failed at York and will continue to fail in the future . If there version of the bible is so awe inspired why doesnt it tell them what rock everything is under so that they can tell the rest of the world .It’s nothing but nonsense and “MAN” inspired philosophy . There God is myth inspired by fables and fairy tales

“Personally, I can’t be an atheist because I believe raping a small child is wrong.  I believe the Iraq War is wrong.  I believe love is good and life has value.  An atheist can believe these things but why?” – halhiker

Come on, you equate not believing in fairy tales with raping children? Are you nuts? Without being told by the “bearded guy in the sky”, you would think raping children is acceptable? You also needed the “bearded guy in the sky” to tell you love and life could be pleasant?

Belief in love and the “good” or pleasant aspects of life is a no brainer. Since the first primitives agreed to not club each other to death in their sleep, the concepts of goodness, love, caring, companionship et al. have been realistic goals for thinking humans. The promise of having those pleasant experiences in a “next life” is for those brainwashed and condemned not to have those experiences in this, their one and only life.

Judgeing from the post recieved, we are all getting our wires crossed a bit.

Some religious people tends to Assume Atheists have no Moral center, ergo no better than animals. Likewise some Atheists assume religious individuals are pious used car salesmen.

I’m pretty certain Chris Hedges, who is no fool, has a good Socio-Political/Philosopical/Historical argument to make on the lack of religion, if I read him right.  So long as it remains in that paradigm, he can make a worthy case for Theists and Atheists alike to consider. 

I suspect he will cite Hitler and Stalin as the prime atheists.  The de-throwning of God resulting in the rise of the calous Uber Mench? (My Yiddish is not very strong).  A Superman mindset superceding any notions of humility and a casual disregard for humane values. 

However, it can also be said of cruelty commited under the banner of God:  Sunni/Shia in Iraq, Iran/Iraq war, Catholic/Protestant Northern Ireland, Nixon in Vietnam (Delaying the peace talks in order to get elected in ‘68), The First World War, the mass slavery of Africans transported to a “new” life in north America, The Europeans decimating native Americans, The Spanish Inquisition, Cortez in the new world, The Crusader Armies waring with Muslims, Vikings, ROME, Kingdom of Israel waring with the Kingdom of Judea, Ancient Egypt....This list could go on and on.

I don’t think it will descend into a infantile Televangical “Surge” of denying Darwin or DNA or gravity.

Frankie

“Personally, I can’t be an atheist because I believe raping a small child is wrong.”

Thanks for the laugh, pal. For a brief moment I took you as rational…

I don’t know if Chris Hedges would agree with this observation, but I’ll give it a bash.

The corporations of America are run on Darwinian lines, ie. The survival of the fittest, smartest, most able to adapt to changing circumstances.  And yet they are the very institutions bank rolling and mobilizing the Christian Zionists every four years.

The very Christian Zionists who believe the earth was created in Six days, on September the 22nd 4004 BC. The earth is flat and the center of the universe.  Darwin is the work of the Devil.  Televangelists are your friends and conduits to the Almighty. 

I don’t think one should confuse what the Bible or any other religion says, which are points of Philosophy, with physical science.  To view the Bible as some kind of one stop shop for explaining the Physical Universe will always make one come unstuck, at best, and make you look a fool, at worst.

Which comes back to what is acceptable in this day and age of Newton, Einstein, Gandhi etc,.  If Rational Thought is thrown out of the windowreplaced by False Prophets and demigogs, on TV or in the pulpit, who do our thinking for us, whose fault is that? 

As someone once said, “Why bother with a good education, when you can have ignorance”.  That seems a bit cruel but the point is taken.  Independent Thinking and Rationality takes some effort, and it may well be easier to just surrender this “Option” to others.  Could it be that a Poor education and Illiteracy is a matter of government poilicy?  For an Illiterate person is a docile “lumpen” voter, and FAR easier to manipulate.

Frankie Five Angels

Referring to demon as in “demonize” doesn’t go toward convincing a skeptic like me. There’s no god, no demons, no pixies..that’s my set of mind.

But I do see Hedges’s point where he says, “It allows those who place exclusive faith in their own powers of deduction and thought to ignore or deny the darkness that lurks in all human hearts—including their own. “ I’ve played around on a lot of atheist web sites and message boards for the last few years, and I have read on these sites how atheists refute the need for basic moral behavior. I don’t mean breaking of biblical morals like homosexuality or adultery, I mean that some atheists deduce that activities like stealing and engaging in prostitution with 9 year old children are justifiable, because they think somehow that as god doesn’t exist, morals don’t need to exist somehow.

If I were Hedges in this debate, I’d quote early and often Harris’s blog essay that justified torture. Though we know that religions have justified torture and a many other cruel things historically, Harris’s secular thoughts on torture seems no less horrible than the Grand Inquisitor’s.

The real problem with Hedges’ poorly thought out comments is that they damage his overall credibility.  If he condemns atheism but shows little understanding of their position, how can we rely on his reporting on the religious right?

Not for true-believing atheists:

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/2007/05/twin-passions.html

Someone get Mr. Hedges a copy of Wilhelm Reich’s THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM.

Saying that you don’t believe in Atheists, or atheism is sort of like saying you don’t believe in evidence.  Atheists like Harris and Dawkins never claim to know all the answers, what they do claim is that evidence matters.  It’s as simple as that.  Religious ideology is faith-based, not evidence based, that’s why it’s called a “faith.” Hedges clearly loses his objectivity with this issue.  In his book, “War is a force that gives us reason” Hedges gives us great insight into war.  He cites what he sees as the causes of war and conflict and of course goes out of his way to say that religion is not one of them.  He simply can’t come to terms with the idea that religion is not only a cause of conflict, but a primary cause of it.  Embracing reason as we know it would shatter his myth.

The bottom line here is that Harris comes armed with facts and science; Hedges has only faith and suppositions.  The former will convince the intelligent; the latter will convince the ignorant.

Hasn’t this topic been ground to a nub here on TruthDig? For what reason would Harris bother with this after the Andrew Sullivan massacre? Couldn’t you wake up Gore Vidal to debate Hedges? At least if Gore fell asleep, Chris could get a few quips in.

In the mean time, I’ve got to get in on this crap. Hey everybody, I’m God but you can call me Hemi. I’m a very personable if not personal God. Tomorrow’s a feast day, the drinks are on Chris Hedges. He’s the designated driver also. So say I.

Until I come up with some permanent rules, commandments or what have you to live by, I leave you with this: Don’t sweat the petty things and don’t pet the sweaty things!

Not bad for my first day, eh?

Ha, “I don’t believe in atheists” is my favo, brainless assertion of the god squad. No need for disbelief, chum, as I’m right here in the flesh, unlike your fantastical god.

The reason believers have such a hard time with nonbelievers is because we put them on the offensive; our disbelief spits right in the face of their various fables. A person truly comfortable in their ideaology would not find atheist and/or agnostics intimidating.

“This demonization is the back door into self-exaltation and self-worship—what the Bible condemns as idolatry.” This comes from a person who believes he will live forever, given that he achieves “heaven.” The ego is no better upheld and worshipped than by people of religion.

“It places a blind faith in the irrational belief that human beings can lead lives of pure rationality.” Therefore, religion places a blind faith in the rational belief that human beings can lead lives of pure irrationality.

Not believing in gods doesn’t, of course, have anything to do with asserting that human beings are (or are capable of being) purely rational. 

Some atheists may believe that, but I don’t think most do, and I don’t get the idea that Sam Harris does from my reading of him.  (I certainly don’t get the idea that he’s a worshipper of humanity!  There’s a deeply pessimistic streak in his books in that regard, no?)

I think it’s fair to argue that we need inspiration, emotion, and community in our lives--things which religions (though not just religions) have historically cultivated (sometimes in good ways, sometimes in bad).

But it’s obviously fallacious--not to mention insulting--to claim that if someone doesn’t believe in gods then that person doesn’t value those things and must therefore be an emotionless drone.  It seems just as fallacious to claim that society as a whole must believe in gods, or we’ll all become emotionless drones.

The implications of this line of argument are even more absurd: because we humans value inspiration, emotion, and community, therefore gods must exist?  Or is Hedges avoiding that question?  And just trying to make the case that we should pretend they do--regardless of what we honestly believe to be the truth?

P.S. Freud--of said undercurrents which mock human reason--was an atheist, remember?

When will audio/video/transcriptof the debate be available?

Oh dear. Mr. Hedges just lost me with his surprising limited generalizations regarding atheists and seemingly inane support of religion. I will not waste my time ...

Ahh man, I didn’t know that I had Freudian undercurrents. Can it be measured? Is it contagious?

To use metaphor of the “Darkness that Lurks” in each man’s heart and assume it will be unchallenged is sheer idiocy. As an atheist I object to this nonsensical idea. There is nothing “Lurking” in my heart. Evil does not have it’s own volition and is not a seperate entity that possesses people. It is not real. We can all come to an agreement of what evil is by practical understanding but to say it “Lurks” or has consciousness all it’s own is just downright lying or maybe stupid and ill informed.

Only superstitious people will use that metaphor to gain control of others and in doing so perhaps become the evil they so desperately try to avoid. I have also noticed that using the “Possessed by Evil” ruse is a very childish way of neglecting any personal responsibility. But then again isn’t that the real debate? Responsibility to reality vs denial of reality.

“what the Bible condemns as idolatry”

The Bible, is a compilation of writings by many people, edited by many people, primarily for the purpose of creating and maintaining a power structure. Using it as an authority is simply more idolatry. And it’s a damn poor idol at that.

Demonize religion? A tree is known by its fruits. While religion as a social support mechanism can be effective, a too rigid dogma paints the believer into a corner where they find themselves drinking purple cool-aid in Guyana, are murdering their neighbors.

The dogma of all religions is contradictory, transparently false and some is quite silly, when not absolutely dangerous. The Christian belief come in two forms, self-communication with God and communication with God thru a priest. Now if God wanted to talk to me, because he felt it absolutely necessary that I behave one way or another he would not do it thru intermediaries who are clearly false, if not actually crazy. Until that time I will remain un affected by Religion and if I do feel a need to be religious I will become a Buddist. They seem to have less blood on their hands than the rest.

“It places a blind faith in the irrational belief that human beings can lead lives of pure rationality....”

I wish that I had Mr. Hitchen’s book in print form rather than the audiobook right now so that I could better refute at least his effort as espousing this.  I specifically did not read Mr. Dawkin’s, despite my great admiration of his more scientific works, for exactly this point.

It is not the case that all atheists believe that we can become Vulcans.  But, as Marx said, the opium of the people doesn’t help us deal with our own irrationalities (nor with a mostly indifferent universe) it only codifies them within further irrationalities, while simultaneously stunting our efforts at dealing with the world as we perceive it to be.

Yo!  Hedges

Don’t think that will get yew off the hook.  His Holiness Pat “Lear Jet” Robertson has a gold bullet with your name on it next to his black satin sheet bed. (In fact he’s thinkin of changin his name to Scaramanga, which I don’t git.)
Yew either get in line with all those trailer park, Kojak watching, Ri-ghteous Tele-Savangelist Saved who make con-tri-Bu...tions; or you are a heathen, false gu-ods worshipping, Comm-ie Liberal atheist.  Yew’re either with us.... or A...Gainst Us.  Ahh have authorificated FBI wire taps on yew, buddy.  We know where yew live.

Do Ahh hear an A-Men????

Rancho Honcho

sigh.. and i thought hedges just might be a rational being… he’s proved that assumtion false, with this preachy blurb.

organized worshipful religion is inherently evil, it is tyranny of the mind.  and as a deist, i find it abhorrent.

i also find abhorrent, hedges supposition that atheism denies/ignores the dark capabilities of the human heart/mind.  this is just idiotic.

men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  d. diderot

Hedges believes atheism leads to self-exaltation and self-worship? That sounds suspiciously like the primary characteristics of Robertson, Dobson, Falwell and ilk.
They very well may be dishonorable atheists, playing their charade of religiousity and pompous piety for personal gain in money and power.

But honest atheists do not have ‘faith’ in atheism, they use their reason and rationality to determine truth based on facts. And facts contradict the premises and stated ‘revelations’ of the Bible, for example. While it is impossible to prove a negative, and thus that there is no ‘god’, there is certainly no evidence that there is one, no more evidence than that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the ‘earth and the heavens’ and watches over everyone’s shoulder while they’re having sex.

If the argument for religion includes the observation that ‘so many people have believed it for so long, it must be true’, consider that if it had not been for men of reason, scientists (who were fought at every step, persecuted, even murdered, by the various ‘churches’), ‘so many people’ would still be afraid to go for long walks, certain that they would eventually fall off the edge of the flat earth and crack their heads on the shell of the turtle holding it up.

As a final conundrum, consider that if there were a ‘god’, he/she/it would be responsible for giving man the ability to reason. Don’t you think that the folks who choose to disregard reason, i.e., the religious, would thus be guilty of a form of blasphemy, disrespect for ‘god’, in addition to stupidity?

As usual, there is a rational explanation for this apparent irrationality. Hedges must be planning to enter the group-grope for the ‘08 republican nomination for president, and is practicing his campaign rhetoric for planned speeches at Liberty and Regent ‘Universities’ and the like, and must eliminate all reason from his discourse to have a hope of succeeding.