Part 2
His attack on the theories of Dawkins, Dennett, et al, is grandstanding at its worst really; his arguments are weakly supported.  His accusation that they are proposing a “meme religion” is ridiculous at best.  If one were to actually read “The Selfish Gene,” chapter 11 to be exact, or Blackmore’s “The Meme Machine.” one with half a mind could see they are likening the transmission of “memeplexes” of religion as how cultural behaviors are exchanged.  It is no more a religion as Darwin’s theory of evolution.  There are no meme churches nor tithing plates to donate money to as do all the religions.  Uh, pardon me.  If it is wanted to call all scientists pastors of their theories then that is an insane stretch of defintion.

Religion has a definite connotation, as a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers as regarded as creator and governor of the universe.  There is no worship of meme theory just as there is no worship of gene theory.  The fact that there is no worship at all among a growing number of the population must be the classic Shakespearean rub.

Seems like Hedges would like the Dark Ages to return and send science to the hell he invented.

Since the other forum on Christopher Hedges’ article on Darwin has been closed down for some odd reason, it appears to me not to have been resolved and I am therefore using this somewhat related article to regenerate discussion since there are enough secular humanists in our society to warrant further exploration.  These are my sentiments.

In his good book, The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins begins chapter 2, The Replicators, pg. 13 paperback, with the sentence, “In the beginning was simplicity.”  It is the mantra of all good science whether we are talking about the nature of a benzene molecule, string theory, snakes eating their own tails, dark matter, a unified field theory, an uncertainty principle, Darwin’s theory of evolution, a theory of cultural transmission (memes), or the notion of an abstract idea such as Truth.  It would be a good idea to apply it also to any notion of god, which is what actually happened when the change from polytheism to monotheism occurred to the mind of mankind (using the term mankind because it is from the mental devices of men that the idea of god sprang much in the same way that Athena sprang from the mind of Zeus, whole and ready to take on the world, except of course Athena was hidden there by her mother! and it took an ax to let her out of Zeus’s head).  You must pardon this amusing digression.

Christopher Hedges in his usual habit of name dropping historical figures and their possible thinking, offers his usual bargain basement philosophy with a shopping bag full of examples in the Darwin article (and here as well) that cultural traditions are somehow transmitted through some non-rational means in opposition to Richard Dawkins’ completely rational idea of meme conveyance.  Except Hedges exaggerates with unholy exuberance in order to shine brighter than the actually dull thesis he offers.  Such as when he says dark matter can be seen!  See his 2nd paragraph.  He wants to make the case that science is as elusive in its knowledges as theology (we can let philosophy and. every other human endeavors go since we know he is really after exonerating theology).  He sort of takes the Berkeleyan view that if you don’t see it, you don’t know if it really exists.  The problem with Hedges’ comparison is that science knows its limitations and knows it works on inference and implication where as theology thinks is has a grasp of Truth.  Science always leave the door open to questions and evaluation, whereas religion demands faith its dogmas are true. 

Hedges says, with only derivative understanding “There are forces in the universe that will always lie beyond the capacity of the human mind.”  The really big problem is to say that science is no always directly empirical is a fact is incorrect and Hedges’ edifice falls flat on its face.  Nothing is every directly empirical since nothing is ever experienced directly.  Not even oneself!  There is always a “time” delay in cognition of the sense of oneself and all reflections of oneself is thereby delayed.  We are always viewing even the thoughts in our own minds in a historical perspective.  Because it takes “time” for thoughts to travel around the synapes and come to rest in the region of contemplation or if you prefer, reflection.  We never experience the world or ourselves directly except as sensations immediately occur without thought about them.  We are constantly and helplessly inferring ourselves and the world.  We imagine ourselves and the world in which we find ourselves.  Hedges’ eccentricity for religion is to criticize science and scientists imperfectly.  Do with it what you will.

I like Chris Hedges, I really do.  I find his arguments, even those with which I may disagree, extremely compelling.  Which is why I can’t believe he even authored this piece. Now we can all grant that he’s seen more of the dark side of humanity than anyone deserves, but it seems possible he’s covered a few too many wars up close and personal: he seems to see the next one in the making no matter where he looks.

Now the New Atheists may not have the gritty experience of the weary war correspondent, but I don’t think any serious observer could accuse them of overlooking the subtle insight of, well, the entire expanse of human history in highlighting the dark possibilities of the human heart. Heck, I bet even some of them have read Conrad and Golding. Even if you deny them the intelligence and circumspection afforded by a life split between divinity school and war zones, their minds are certainly free of the naivete—and probably even the optimism—that would allow them to ever entertain the notion of human perfectibility, the prerequisite for Utopian dreaming.

More importantly, Hedges gets in wrong in being right about their inflexible fundamentalism.  They would admit to it freely: in there minds there is no reason to be conciliatory or compromising in insisting the people stop sacrificing chickens and try to dictate universal policy based upon the blood spatters. To them religion is quite simply irrational in the intellectual environment of our day, and they’d like to see that changed.

History certainly bears witness to the short distance between ideological self-certainty and piles of dead bodies.  But if Hedges thinks anyone with the strength of their convictions over what progress means is akin to the great despots of history, he might want to take a break and let someone else cover the next global conflict.

So is it fair to say that you think hedges has “progressed” farther than us in our understanding of progress, which is bad, since moral progress is an illusion, but we do progress in technology, but thats bad, because in order to progress technologically, we need to progress morally, which we can’t do?  And then you end by saying we have to make sure we don’t regress in the name of progressing, but if we can’t progress, and we must not regress, we should all just stay the same way we are now?  So i guess you think that the way we are right now is perfect?  You know, kinda like a utopia?

Sure, you make sense.

Chris Hedges is writing from a perspective that few achieve and even fewer can grasp. First he’s arguing against the concept of utopianism, which in practice he correctly identifies as a form of self-idolatry. Wouldn’t the world be a keen, technicolor dream if only everybody was just like us? And don’t “they” hold pretty much the same opinion? Of course—it goes without saying.

Secondly, he’s arguing against one of the primary Western Gods: Progress, which is the bastard spawn of both historical and divine determinism. Moral progress is illusory; and technological progress without moral progress just puts infinitely more dangerous tools in the hands of Shakespeare’s Caliban, the Ape Man. What’s happening in the Middle East today is not Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations,” but, as Gilbert Achcar points out in his fine book of the same name, a “Clash of Barbarisms”—ours against theirs.

His broad argument is that secular utopians are absolutists every bit as dangerous as religious ones, and he’s trying to forewarn and forearm us against the blandishments of both as we head into troubled and turbulent times. The great threat we face—and indeed are experiencing—is a willing regression to an ultimate state of barbarity, all in the name of “progress.” Gawd save us from that.

this is now nowhere to be found on the front page, instead they list report articles that date back weeks.  Damage control by truthdig’s staff maybe?

” Niloroth says that moral progression is possible and that it has happened.  He cited women’s suffrage and the end to slavery.  First, Hedges isn’t saying that an individual cannot advance morally.  He is saying that a society/civilization as a whole cannot advance morally.”
Uh, what?  So the laws, that we as a society create, are not reflections of the moral outlook of the society as a whole?  Really, thats the argument you and hedges want to go with?  Cause i am rather sure that we now have laws against slavery, murder, and denying people the vote on race or gender.  These are at the same time societies moral choices, backed up by the moral choices of the people.  Simple concept, why can’t you grasp it?

“So, as he says, the country can still go through droughts of morality or lighten up, but we will never advance to the point where we can place our selves higher on the moral scale, like we can do with technology.”
What?  No really, this makes little sense.

“Second, niloroth says that today we live in a much more moral society than 1,000 years ago.  Say that to a mother and father in Iraq whose sons’ bodies have been riddled by machine gun bullets, or to any victims from the bomb in Hiroshima which killed 140,000 people (and was only 60 years ago), or to any victim of Stalin’s big brother dictatorship, or to the jews killed in the Holocaust, or to the genocide in Cambodia.”

The fact that we even find these things morally wrong and strive to work against them, is proof in itself, that we are as a species becoming more based in a positive moral code.  I can support all those things via religion, not so with science and psychology.

” All the same, you really have to hand it to Big Science.  An ideology that defines itself in opposition to all other ideologies.  How brilliant was that!”

Wow, that in itself just sums up how off target your entire post is.  You really think that all scientists do all day is sit around and think about what ideology they can disprove?  Sure, thats exactly what they do.

“For starters, if human nature has changed in any fundamental way over the last few millennia, why is it that we turn time and again to ancient texts for our moral instruction?”

You mean the ones that are rife with religiously justified rape, murder, slavery, sacrifice, hate, and delusion about the world around it?  Yeah, sure, lets all do that.  Once again, you are way way off target.  I suggest you go read some of those texts you talk about, they are horrifying in their evil.  don’t get me wrong, there is good as well, but you can’t take one side and ignore the other any more than i can claim the benefits of science and knowledge without facing the pitfalls of the same.  But while science and morality do progress, those old texts of yours stay the same, immutable, and filled with evil.

Chris,

Your article is enlightening but also somewhat disturbing.  There’s pessimism throughout your analysis.  “Evil can be eradicated,” you write with irony, but this should be taken seriously.  Evil truly can be eradicated, moral evil.  You admit that “human individuals can make moral advances,” but then you say “we alternate between periods of light and periods of darkness.”  That’s true.  But the most important section of the Gospels, the Sermon on the Mount, ends with this verse: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”  It’s not wrong for human beings to strive for moral perfection, nor is it “magical thinking.” 

There are “endemic flaws in human nature,” such as those which the Ten Commandments forbid, yet it’s not Utopian to fight against these flaws and believe one can win in the end, through faith.  “We want things to get better,” you write, as if this is a dream that will never come true.  But things do get better, for those who believe, for those who actually love God.

You made a mistake in this article.  You said, “We have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God. We have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin.”  Those who do not believe in God are those who do not believe in sin.  So we have everything to fear from those who do not believe in God.  They’re the ones who, in Christ’s words on the cross, “know not what they do.”

I am a sinner.  But I don’t feel I’m “bound and limited” by my flaws, because I can ask God for forgiveness and try to do better, try to make myself, morally, a better person.  You say it’s an “illusion” that the “human species” can better itself morally.  You’re speaking like a Utopian yourself here.  You’re speaking for the whole human race instead of for yourself as an individual within the human race.

“To turn away from God is harmless,” you write, adding that “saints have been trying to do it for centuries.”  That’s not true.  Look at Mother Teresa.  It was revealed that she spent decades in a spiritual darkness where she felt cut off from God, abandoned, even unable to pray.  Yet she kept trying to turn to God, not away from God.  She felt God had abandoned her.  It’s not the saint who turns away from God; it’s the sinner who turns away.  You can’t “turn away from sin” unless you’re facing God.  If you’re turned away from God, you’re facing sin; you’re in sin.  Sin is not something to be lauded, as a reminder of our humanity.  It’s something evil, and it can be eradicated in the soul.  That’s a moral advancement.  If people in the societies of the world are all facing God, turned away from sin, then there can be moral advancement all over the world.  “The kingdom of God is within you,” and yet the kingdom of God can be established on earth.  That’s the whole message of the Gospels.

Some religious people, who are not humble, believe they know the will of God and are free from sin, you write.  This is unfortunate but true.  The religious fundamentalists of today could be compared to the Pharisees, the priests who pray openly and for show, the ones who crucified a man of peace, as related in the story of Jesus.

“The belief that human nature can be improved and perfected . . . is malformed theology,” you say.  Human nature may not be able to be improved or perfected.  But what does it mean to be human?  It means having a soul, not just a body on this earth.  The soul lives through the moral advances it makes day by day, and the moral imperfections it conquers through love of God and one’s neighbor. 

There are “severe limitations” within us and without.  And I agree that we should “face reality.”  To me, reality is God.  If a person faces God, everything will get better, because when you face God, everything is already perfect.

Chris, your political pieces are expressly progressive, so it’s always surprising to me that on the subject of atheism, you sound as though you’re talking with your mouth full of freedom fries. This article has to be just about the butt-ugliest polemic you’ve ever brought to print on TD. Are you really sure you want to claim that because the world is not perfect and can never be perfect, that therefor all efforts at improvement are fruitless and vain? Maybe someone should have told that to Jonas Salk before he went out on a tear and cured polio. Now we got a bunch of smart asses walking around without their crutches and proclaiming that there might just be better way of doing things. A truly disastrous state of affairs.

Are you convinced that employing the straw man fallacy (ascribing beliefs and positions to your opponents that they don’t actually hold, then proceeding to attack those ideas and positions) is the best strategy to win the debate? In doing so, aren’t you engaging in the very same below-the-belt tactics you rail against in your political articles? Isn’t the term ‘radical atheist’ the same kind of thought-terminating phrase you otherwise detest? Phrases like ‘tree hugger’, ‘death tax’, or ‘war on terror’?

There’s a big difference between claiming that there’s only one way to salvation, and having strong convictions about how to better the lot of mankind. I know that you know what the difference is, Chris. Yet here you are insinuating that those who don’t subscribe to god worship represent some sort of wahhabism of the west. So shame on you for this piece. I can understand your frustrations that Harris’ arguments - arguments that shake the very foundations of your raison d’etre - are resonating with so many people. But do really want to stoop so low in opposing them?

Chris:

Thanks for yet another superb piece.  I suppose it’s a testament (no pun) to the depth of your analysis that the majority of responders here feel so threatened that they insist on viciously attacking you, while adding little of substance to the debate.  These people should be strapped to a chair, Clockwork Orange-like, and forced to watch Dr. Strangelove and The Fog of War until something clicks.  And if nothing ever does, well, I guess we can always call Sam Harris and see if he has any idea of what to do with those whose intransigence is surpassed only by their intolerance.

All the same, you really have to hand it to Big Science.  An ideology that defines itself in opposition to all other ideologies.  How brilliant was that!

I think your detractors owe themselves and the rest of us some explanations.  For starters, if human nature has changed in any fundamental way over the last few millennia, why is it that we turn time and again to ancient texts for our moral instruction?  And how is it that the plays of Shakespeare have anything of relevance to say to contemporary audiences, if not for the fact that the same impulses that drove Hamlet also largely predetermine our actions? 

The claim for moral advancement is mostly a hoax.  So what if child labor has been eradicated, when the champions of that cause lose not a wink’s worth of sleep over the million-plus children who have suffered and died as a consequence of U.S.’ actions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

How ironic that your detractors seem oblivious to the cautionary pleas of Albert Einstein, who never mistook technological advance for moral development, and on the contrary warned that we were on a catastrophic trajectory occasioned by our failure, or inherent inability, to evolve morally at the same time that our technology was advancing by leaps and bounds.

> Notice he doesn’t say some, or a few:
“Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith.”

You’re actually misquoting. To give you the context:

“The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a fantasy, and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world, but deluding ourselves with euphemisms is not the answer. It is now a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith. Muslims tend to view questions of public policy and global conflict in terms of their affiliation with Islam. And Muslims who don’t view the world in these terms risk being branded as apostates and killed by other Muslims.”

This, and not anything else, is what he means by “deranged”.

> His defense of killing people based on their beliefs

Again, please don’t take your cues from Hedges’ article. The idea you put forward is obviously ludicrous. What Harris actually says is that some people’s beliefs inspire them “to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others”. It is *acts*, not beliefs, that he says we might be justified in defending ourselves against.

> His intolerance of the Islamic religion:
“Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.”

This has nothing to do with intolerance, which is defined as “not to allow the existence of without interference”. You can say he is wrong on this point, maybe that what he says is offensive, but certainly not intolerant.

> His defense of a nuclear first strike

Which Harris calls “an unthinkable crime”. Hardly a defense. He says it *may* be the only option—again, a debatable point, but at least he *argues* for it.

> He says this isn’t racist but I find it to be clearly racist

Then, clearly, you don’t appreciate the definiton of racism, which is discrimination based on, surprisingly, race. Religios denomination does not equal race.

In any case, Harris makes a distinction based on facts in the real world, namely people’s convictions. If, as Harris maintains, war is still an accepted means of doing politics or of furthering a religious agenda, if women and children are denied basic human rights, if the penalty for apostasy is death—then that is an *argument* for saying that “many Muslims” lag behind in their moral development. You may think it is wrong, or you may not. The point is that it is reasonable, is reasonably presented, and can be reasonably discussed.

aelfinn,

I have provided all of the quotes to back up my argument:

Notice he doesn’t say some, or a few:
“Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith.”—Sam Harris, Letter To A Christian Nation, p. 85
His defense of killing people based on their beliefs:
“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 of innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world.  We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.”—Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p. 53
His intolerance of the Islamic religion:
“Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.”—Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p. 123
His defense of a nuclear first strike:
“What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?  If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them.  In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.  Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.”—Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p. 129
He says this isn’t racist but I find it to be clearly racist:
“Any systematic approach to ethics, or to understanding the necessary underpinnings of a civil society, will find many Muslims standing eye-deep in the red barbarity of the fourteenth century.  There are undoubtedly historical and cultural reasons for this, and enough blame to go around, but we should not ignore the fact that we must now confront whole societies whose moral and political development in their treatment of women and children, in their prosecution of war, in their approach to criminal justice, and in their very intuitions about what constitutes cruelty lags behind our own.  This may seem like an unscientific and potentially racist thing to say, but it is neither.  It is not in the least racist, since it is not at all likely that there are biological reasons for the disparities here, and it is unscientific only because science has not yet addressed the moral sphere in a systematic way.”—Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp. 145-146

- How do you explain his advocacy of a first nuclear strike on countries in the Middle-East?

Please don’t emulate Chris Hedges’ article. Could you give the book and page number or the page URL where Harris actually said this?

- How do you explain his description as us being the rational western nation that must quell and use force against the irrational forces in the Middle-East? Isn’t that a bit pretentious and, if you look at it closely, racist?

Again, that is your interpretation. Please give a quote from Harris.

- How do you explain his quote that proposes that we kill people on behalf of their beliefs?

By reading what he actually said. If you can’t be bothered to pick up “The End of Faith” to see for yourself, please see Harris’ comment on [www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2] .

To those of you who support Sam Harris:
-How do you explain his advocacy of a first nuclear strike on countries in the Middle-East?
-How do you explain his description as us being the rational western nation that must quell and use force against the irrational forces in the Middle-East?  Isn’t that a bit pretentious and, if you look at it closely, racist?
-How do you explain his quote that proposes that we kill people on behalf of their beliefs? 

Those of you who criticize Hedges for sinking himself so low in these atheist debates forget that Hedges isn’t after popularity points.  So please stop insulting him and saying that he is “full of shit”.  He isn’t.  He’s a very good author and a well-respected journalist who’s contributed a lot to our newspapers. 

Niloroth says that moral progression is possible and that it has happened.  He cited women’s suffrage and the end to slavery.  First, Hedges isn’t saying that an individual cannot advance morally.  He is saying that a society/civilization as a whole cannot advance morally.  So, as he says, the country can still go through droughts of morality or lighten up, but we will never advance to the point where we can place our selves higher on the moral scale, like we can do with technology.  Second, niloroth says that today we live in a much more moral society than 1,000 years ago.  Say that to a mother and father in Iraq whose sons’ bodies have been riddled by machine gun bullets, or to any victims from the bomb in Hiroshima which killed 140,000 people (and was only 60 years ago), or to any victim of Stalin’s big brother dictatorship, or to the jews killed in the Holocaust, or to the genocide in Cambodia. 

The point is that there will always be evil, and while we may advance in technology and medicine, we also advance in warfare weaponry.

> … We have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin.

Excuse me? Now you’re freaking me out.

> … The secular utopians from Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris to Daniel Dennett to Christopher Hitchens have also forgotten they are human. Both they and religious fundamentalists peddle absolutes.

Why am I not surprised that, again, you are unable to provide even one instance of any of the above-mentioned people even coming near “peddling absolutes”? I would challenge you to name even one place in e.g. “The God Delusion” or “Breaking the Spell” where the authors “peddle absolutes”. That is, if you have even read those books, which on the evidence presented here one should firmly doubt.

> Those who do not see as they see, speak as they speak and act as they act are worthy only of conversion or eradication.

Kool-aid, indeed. It’s hard to see how Dawkins et al. can be mistaken for Ann Coulter, but this is what must’ve happened here. Stranger things have … uh, come to think of it, they haven’t.

> … atheist writers … They too seek to destroy those who do not conform to their vision.

This is actually libellous. Also, making Ann Coulter seem to fall into the sane category is decidedly creepy.

> “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,” Sam Harris writes.

That certainly sounds bad. Care to explain the context in which Harris wrote this, Mr Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist? What a disgrace this text is to our profession. It’s acutally in the quote itself: “otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing … in self-defense”. Which part of self-defense did you not understand? As Harris has made abundantly clear (cf. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-co ntroversy2), “Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in most cases this is impossible.” That is certainly a debatable point, at least the second part. But your treatment of it is a joke.

> Harris and the other atheist authors mistake a tiny subset of criminals and terrorists for 1 billion Muslims. They justify the unjustifiable in the name of civilization.

Are you fucking kidding us? Dawkins et al. justify, as you say below, “suffering and death”? I suppose if you could produce even a shred of evidence for this moronic claim, you would have. (And here I am explicitly excepting Hitchens’ support for the Iraq war, which I suppose is pretty schizophrenic.)

> Religious fundamentalists pervert and distort religion … Atheists do the same with science and reason. … These atheists and Christian radicals have built squalid little belief systems that are in the service of themselves and their own power. They urge us forward into a nonreality-based world, one where force and violence, where self-exaltation and blind nationalism, are an unquestioned good.

Spot-on for Bush and his kleptocracy. As for atheists (all of them??), might I suggest you have your head examined? Alternatively, you could actually *read* Dawkins and Dennett. Again, on the evidence presented here, one must conclude you haven’t so far. They in fact say the exact opposite of what you allege they say. (Or, to quote Captain Edmund Blackadder: “Tell me, have you ever visited the planet Earth, sir?”)

> The atheists, in the end, offer us a new version of an old and dangerous faith. It is one we have seen before. It is one we must fight.

On the contrary. It is public idiocy that we must fight, for an open, democratic society depends on the prevailing of reason and rationality, not the twisted delusions of this or that fringe group.

> The desire for emancipation, universal happiness and prosperity has a seductive pull on the human imagination. It preoccupied the early church, which was infused with exclusivist, utopian sects. [yatta-yatta-yatta] Nearly two-thirds of the life-support services provided to us by nature are already in precipitous decline worldwide. The old wars of conquest, expansion and exploitation will be replaced by wars fought for the basic necessities of air, food, sustainable living conditions and water.

Is there a point to all this?

> And as we race toward this catastrophe scientists continue to make discoveries, set these discoveries upon us and walk away from the impact. The belief that science and reason will save us makes it possible to ignore or minimize these looming catastrophes. We drift toward disaster with the comforting thought that the god of science will intervene on our behalf.

“Disingenuous” is perhaps the most benign description for this … dare I say idea? If anyone alerted us to the imminent dangers in the first place, it was science and reason. In any case, what is the alternative to science and reason? Do you expect us to *pray* for climate change to go away? Good luck with that!

> It is dispiriting to live in a world where things are not moving forward and will most probably get worse. We prefer to believe that we are the culmination of a process, the end result of centuries of human advancement, rather than creatures trapped in the irrevocable limitations and blunders of human nature. The idea of inevitable progress gives us comfort in times of turmoil. It allows us to place ourselves at the center of creation, to exalt ourselves above others. It translates our narrow self-interest into a universal good. But it is morally irresponsible. It permits us to avert our eyes from reality and place our hopes in an absurdist faith.

If anybody believed such nonsense, you would certainly be correct. A psychologist would undoubtedly make much of the fact that Chris Hedges seems to take this drivel seriously.

> The belief that rational and quantifiable disciplines such as science can be used to perfect human society is no less absurd than a belief in magic, angels and divine intervention.

If we’re to suppose that this is at all to the point, then you’re apparently suggesting that rationalists and atheists have such a desire. I have to admit, Dawkins’s choice of the word “delusion” suddenly makes a hell of a lot of sense. What’s more, you recognised the absurdity of the thought but had no qualms about ascribing it to your opponents. Again, I should add, without any evidence whatever. If that isn’t intellectually bankrupt, I don’t know what is.

> Scientific methods, part of the process of changing the material world, are nearly useless in the nebulous world of politics, ideas, values and ethics.

Bollocks. If politics and ideas are subject to reality, then scientific thinking and rationality are the only proven tools at humans’ disposal for making informed choices. For those of us living in the real world, that is.

> … It is what has doomed populations in the past that have chased after impossible dreams, and it threatens to doom us again.

Tell that to the anti-slavery movements in America, democratic forces in pre-Enlightenment France, or to Gandhi shaking off the British Empire.

What an astonishingly sub-standard article. Any text like this would fail my writing classes for violating the most basic principles of argumentation, not to mention journalistic and scientific writing standards. Most egregiously, throughout the piece Hedges alleges that unnamed people or unspecified groups of people have said things he doesn’t even bother to specify; and when he actually deigns to give specific names, throwing around allegations of breathtaking inanity, there is just one single quote from Sam Harris to back them up. That this shoddy piece of writing was ever published leaves me speechless. Well, almost.

> The battle under way in America is not a battle between religion and science. It is a battle between religious and secular fundamentalists. It is a battle between two groups intoxicated with the utopian and magical belief that humankind can perfect itself and master its destiny.

In matters of faith, we’re supposed to take an elder’s word for whatever they say. Not so in discussion. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

> … We are assured we are advancing as a species toward a world that will be made perfect by reason, technology, science or the second coming of Jesus Christ. Evil can be eradicated. …

Mistakes have been made, I assume. If you cannot or will not say who you think said these things, you can’t be expected to be taken seriously in any rational discussion.

> Those who insist we are morally advancing as a species are deluding themselves. There is nothing in science or human history or human nature to support this idea.

Heaven forbid, because that would torpedo your argument, so it can’t be true.

> Human individuals can make moral advances, as can human societies, but they also make moral reverses. Our personal and collective histories are not linear. We alternate between periods of light and periods of darkness. We can move forward materially, but we do not move forward morally. The belief in collective moral advancement ignores the endemic flaws in human nature as well as the tragic reality of human history. This belief in inevitable moral progress, whether it comes in secular or religious form, is magical thinking.

Ten assertions without any evidence whatsoever. Respect!

> The secular version of this myth peddles fables no less fantastic, and no less delusional, than those preached from many church pulpits.

Where the “secular version of this myth” can certainly be considerd a myth itself — at least as long it is beneath Mr Hedges to even give a *reason* for believing what he says, let alone evidence.

> … The current “war on terror” by the United States is a utopian vision. It is being fought so that evil can be violently uprooted. Its proponents promise a world that will become “reasonable,” a “civil” world ruled by the “rational” forces of global capitalism.

Nicely done. This underhand conflation of rationality and its proponents with the propaganda war on terror would make any sleight-of-hand artist turn green with envy.

Part 2

Or maybe this is the most absurd line in this article:
“The belief that rational and quantifiable disciplines such as science can be used to perfect human society is no less absurd than a belief in magic…”
firstly, scientists have never made any claims about perfecting human society or reaching some perfect knowledge. scientific method exists to rationally pursue answers about things we arent sure of, and makes no claims of what we are trying to achieve when we find them out, so you are talking about a position here which scientists do not hold.
secondly, humanity’s increase in lifespan, productivity, happiness, and quality of life can all be attributed to science, not magic. hundreds of years of very hard work in questioning how nature works without presuppositions is what has revealed to us how to harness electricity and use microprocessors. 2000 years of prayer to jesus has done nothing.
if there is such a thing as moral progress in society (which science neither claims there is nor is not), it is going to be achieved through open-mindedness and rational thinking.
On the beginning of page 2, Hedges goes on to talk about sin as some legitimate concept, So it was really a struggle for me to keep the page open or read past that. so if you want to be taken seriously on that part, Chris, please define human sin for me.

“The belief that human nature can be improved and perfected, that we are moving throughout history toward a glorious culmination, is malformed theology”

i would like to believe that human nature can be improved. perhaps if everyone believed that, then it could be? no one is making claims about perfecting human nature except for the religiously deluded. how is my desire to make a better world a malformed theology, since no god is involved? it is about personal responsibility and compassion, not ‘the god of science’!

chalk up another straw-man:
“Any form of knowledge that claims to be absolute ceases to be knowledge. It is a form of faith.”
scientists and rational thinkers do not claim this position… they would agree with you! The very basis of what scientific theories are is that they are models to explain our world that are open to change based on new data! no one claims scientific knowledge to be ‘absolute’ in the philosophical sense! He is talking about a position which rational thinkers do not have.

“These two groups peddle the myth that we can conquer human nature, overcome our imperfections and build the perfect society.”
no, they don’t. scientific thinking makes no claims about the nature of humanity, period. it seeks relative answers for us rather than accepting made-up ones like religions or chris hedges provide.

I think this article is really deserving of a point-by-point obliteration, but this post is just the most obvious stuff off the top of my head. I gave Hedges every chance, but he has used them all up. I hope Sam Harris writes a reply to this article and it is a featured story.

PART 1

The irreverent arguments and ramblings Hedges writes herein are incredibly fallacious and tiring. I started reading Hedges’ articles and excerpts of his books about 2 years ago, and while i didn’t agree with a lot of his ideas, I kind of liked him. I liked that he was speaking out against religious ignorance in the christian right with an ‘inside voice’ that christians might be more likely to listen to than the other more blunt prominent atheist authors.
As time has gone on and I have watched him in a couple of interviews and ‘debates’ where he reads from pre-written speeches in his overly wordy language that does not even address issues raised at-hand and after the release of his ‘i do not believe in atheists’ pile of crap I have lost all respect for Hedges.
Come one, Chris, The problems in the world are THIS serious and you are going to spend all of your time and money writing articles of books against atheists because they embarrassed you at debates?
The straw man argument - setting up a position which you claim your opponent has so that you can defeat the position, when the assumed position is not what your opponent actually thinks. Chris Hedges starts right away with the straw-mans: the greatest danger comes from those who under the guise of science think that “we can free ourselves from the limitations of human nature and perfect the human species.” That is not the motivation of science. That is not why scientists study the world. Laughable! do you think we really think that, Chris? is that why Stephen Hawking studies space? to free us from the limitations of nature and become perfect? man, so off-base.
And then to say that the belief in inevitable moral advancement is just as false and harmful as beliefs taught from any church…. fallacious. the first belief is not a truth-claim about the way the world works, it is a social idea that we are aspiring towards. the beliefs preached from religions are blatantly false truth-claims about how the world and universe work, and if believed in can have drastically horrible consequences for society.

Next, Hedges’ funniest sentence of the article: “We drift toward disaster with the comforting thought that the god of science will intervene on our behalf.” [if we ‘believe’ in science’]. Straw-man. this is not the scientific approach in thinking. I do not know anyone who lives their lives scientifically and rationally who waits for the ‘god of science’ to intervene. someone please explain to me what the ‘god of science’ is. seriously, what the fuck?
This would be the very opposite of what the scientific method is. How can anyone suffer from having TOO MUCH rationality in their lives?

You have sunk yourself so low since the so-called Atheism debates, you should be ashamed of putting you name on your posts.

This post is based on a few obvious fallacies:

1. Secularism = Atheism. No, Mr. Hedges, although Religious Fanatics LOVE to claim this, Secularism is about limiting the religion to the private sphere, not eliminating it altogether. YOU can do whatever YOU want in the privacy of YOUR house; I don’t give a damn. But when religious zealots start claiming that the United States is a Christian nation, and that religion should inform our laws, you’ll forgive me if I base my views on a most sober examination of the history of religious states. Let me name a few:

- Christian Rome
- Catholic Spain (both under Isabella AND under Franco)
- Calvin’s Geneva
- The Massachussetts Bay Colony
- Mussolini’s Very Catholic Italy
- Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran
- Maurice Duplessis’ Quebec (1930s to the 1960s)

Since my parents were born and raised during the last one, I can say that I have a certain direct connection with these which makes me somewhat apprehensive at the thought of ANY relaxation of the separation between Church and State. But I STRONGLY resent the epithet of “fundamentalist” which is attached by the religious zealots to anyone who simply want them to keep their business to themselves.

2. Atheism = Sam Harris. I happen to share Sam Harris’ atheism. But that is the extent of what we have in common. I certainly do not share his Western (read: White) Racial Exceptionalism, or his Neo-conservative Faith.

The difference between me and those Christian, Jewish and Muslim zealots I decry is this:

I AM NOT CALLING FOR THEIR DEATH AND/OR ETERNAL DAMNATION.

That, I think, is a distinction worth highlighting, wouldn’t you say, Mr Hedges?

This is exactly the kind of argument I’ve come to expect from religious fundamentalists - accuse the other side of what you’re guilty of and then try to persuade them to back off, counting on the other side’s sense of sportsmanship and fair play.

It’s a flawed position and frankly tiresome.  There’s no reason why anybody should concede any thing to religious fundamentalists.

Symbolic, not always metaphorical.

I think the jury’s still out on the healing effects of religion and art.  I’m not ready to toss them out.
They affect the mind; the mind, the body. 

If there is a climate crisis—and the jury’s still out on that, too—it is the effect of human (scientific) activity.  This may be the one problem science caused that it can’t solve, except to stop the science, and if that’s so, so much for science.

Cures?  Some people are unlucky.  Wholesome living is probably the best defense against disease.  Living things die.  Some sooner than others.  Too often, the cure for a chronic disease is as bad, sometimes worse, than the disease and worse, too, than dying.  Transplant patients pay a very heavy price, physically, emotionally and psychologically for staying alive.  Do no harm?  Hmmm?

http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html

And to Blueshift, are you saying that the scientist working on curing aids, sounding the alarms on global warming while working on clean energy systems, and studying the wonders of the universe are all nothing but greedy nihilists? Wow, glad you warned me about that against all the available evidence.

Secular utopian fundamentalists? Are you kidding? Most of them would be nihilists, actually, and the exercise of greed is its result. I’m getting mine now, regardless of what’s better for all, because somewhere out there is a meteor (or rising global tide) with our names written thereupon.

Secular utopian fundamentalists? Are you kidding. Most of them would be nihilists, actually, and the exercise of greed is its result. I’m getting mine now, regardless of what’s better for all, because somewhere out there is a meteor (or rising global tide) with our names written thereupon.

Once again, Obama is using smoke and mirrors to bamboozle the
American public into believing what he says ... rather than who he
really is ... and rather than what he’s actually done. And, the scary thing is
that millions of Americans are actually believing it!  The faces of Obama’s audiences have that euphoric vacant look, like you find on the faces of religious
congregations who have totally relinquished reason for faith. If you look
at old newsreels of nazis listening to Hitler you can also see that same euphoric
mindless expression.

“What most of you miss is that Hedges isn’t saying that we shouldn’t accept reason and logic.  He is saying that moral advancement is an illusion, and that people like Harris, who advocate force and violence to protect logic a