Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

Hi, DJ-

Great interview, and I hope you have more contrary subjects on the podcast. We are all contrarians, after all.

I was a little taken aback at Chris Hedges’ narcissism, insisting that he knows everything because of his reporting career, that his experience of violence has educated him in the lack of moral progress we all have made. I would have liked to hear whether he knew that the overall rate of violence per capita has been going steadily down for millennia (Steven Pinker’s recent article in TNR), and that the huge growth in human population is itself a testament to our ability to get along better, which is after all the point of morals. It is not human nature that is capable of improvement, but social structures, habits, and training which can create peace and tolerance out of what is given by biology. And that, of course, is what the Enlightenment was all about.

At any rate, Hedges’ ultimate thoughts on peace in the world, humility, tolerance, and introspection were all well and fine, and indeed far more in tune with the atheists he derides than he appears to know. Making straw men of all the evil atheists who want to drop nuclear bombs on everyone else was not the most scintillating part of the discussion, though I’ll grant that religion does not poison absolutely everything, and that Harris can work himself into atrocious positions.

I appreciate that Hedges believes that comity and tolerance are higher goods than truth (seeing as he appears to be an atheist as well, in a wishy washy way), and that is surely the mark of a humane (rather than utopian) social order, but there is a real barrier to mutual respect if one’s interlocutor believes in fairies. His challenge to see the humanity/humanism through the screen of psychological projections and delusions of others is in the end quite correct, but he himself could have chosen a less intolerant way of making his case.

Woops- I made an error. Hedges is apparently a Harvard seminary graduate and personally religious. That would help explain the over-the-top vitriol and self-righteousness. But still, it is odd that he can advocate the most reasonable and positive philosophy while dehumanizing his opponents and misconstruing their arguments. Indeed he makes his own case by example. One more point- it is not the new atheists at large who are allied with the neocons- that would be Christopher Hitchens, all by himself, standing out in a field. The rest of us, from Dawkins to Hirsi Ali, are not only for reductions in religious delusions, but also for reductions in political and military delusions.

Just listened to the podcast. DJ, great job as always. Chris Hedges, not impressed. Sounded a little like Pator Ted before the fall. “If you know what I know, you’d be agreeing with me” sorta what I heard then in the next part claiming that the “New Atheiss” were the ones taking on airs of superiority. DJ did a good job in giving Chris all the rope he needed to auto-invalidate his position…

First time poster, just to retaliate against Hedges. =)

What a pompous ass.

I have seen him debate Hitchens (I happen to agree with Hitchens - as an Atheist), and this is my fanatical take on it: he’s an apologist for terrorists. There’s no other way around it. He has covered those areas and has insight into their culture and has, unfortunately, gone completely native.

He’s also an idiot. 95% of suicide bombers are inspired by the Koran. I know the Tamil Tigers are also suicide bombers, but they are an exception to the rule. Most of suicide bombers are Muslim. Despair, poverty, occupation, war, lack of food and education do not make a suicide bomber. If that were so, the Congo would have more suicide bombers in the world per capita than anywhere else.

No, what makes a suicide bomber are the justifications in the Koran and Hadiths. That’s why there are no Shaheedi in the Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Tibet, or pretty much anywhere else outside of the Muslim world. His stance is completely moronic.

I’m not saying the Koran is the only book which has inspired it, but it’s the best known for a bloody good reason. Hedges is a fool and an apologist for the other side. He apologizes for the worst atrocities perpetrated by the terrorists and it is clear why in his statements: he thinks they have good reasons for it. Well, they don’t.

He thinks the West is Imperialist. Fine. We’re just as “Imperialist” as the other side. He’s chosen his side, I’ve chosen mine. He makes it utterly clear in this interview and his other writings exactly which side he is on.

I hope he reads this: Chris Hedges, you’re an utter tool. You say you hate Islamic extremism, but you go down on all fours for them. You pimp your brand of “moderation” and “understanding” for the worst dregs of humanity. I hate people like you. You’re the sort who call Hirsi Ayaan Ali a “fundamentalist” and mean it. You hem and haw when you’re asked about the left, and you never answer the question. It’s painfully obvious why you don’t answer the question: because you can’t answer the question. There’s a damned good reason that question was asked about why the neocons are the ones sheltering her - because the neocons, by and large with few exceptions, have been the ones to stand up for secular liberalism abroad. If it were for the likes of you, Hirsi would be dead, you’d point your finger and say “she did it to herself”, and for that I can’t help but virtually spit in your face.

Yeah, I’m an atheist, I’m a feminist, I’m a war hawk, and I will always defend these values to the death. Does that make me a fundamentalist? Well at least, unlike your friends, I’m not going to blow myself up in a cafeteria to justify my claims under any circumstances.

So take your righteous, pallid, subservient, tepid god to Allah and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. It’s the place that stinks as much as your apologetics in the face of Islamic atrocity.

Summer Seal, I agree that Hedges doesn’t seem to be the nicest of fellows; however, he made for an interesting interview.

I believe you missed a point he made repeatedly; that religion and secular values aside, humans aren’t perfect, and we will perform acts of evil.  If the Koran, the Bible, or some other religious text suddenly ceased to exits, radicalism would continue.  His point was that we shouldn’t just be cautious of the religious and political radicals, but of all radicals, and that includes the “new atheists”.  He’s saying that they are all of the same breed.   

It seemed to me that his tactic was to push DJ into giving specific examples of evidence for his argument, but Hedges himself was fine with painting broad strokes.

I think Hedges overarching argument was correct, though; irrespective of his religious background.  I would love to see him debate Dawkins.

While I’m here: To DJ, Hedges was a tough interview, and although it’s not clear to me whether or not he got to you, I think you held your calm well if he did.  While listen to the podcast, If it wasn’t for the love of my MacBook, I would have thrown it across the room.

Yea, I know what he’s saying. I did understand his argument.

I still think he’s an apologist.

And he wouldn’t answer the questions. His sophistry was amazing. He kept pressing DJ to answer what societies he meant, as if he didn’t know. And he never did answer the question about Hirsi either - because he knows there isn’t a good one. I’m an atheist who left the left because I’m infuriated that the left, by and large, will now defend the veil, oppression of women, and mad idiots in the street going on about cartoons of “The Prophet”.

I’ll be totally blunt and honest: I hate Islam. I loathe it. I don’t think all religions are equal. I’m not a fan of the Bible or the New Testament, but nobody is going to cut off my head from that camp. On the other hand, a few million peaceful and loving “oppressed” Muslims would if I walked down the street and blasphemed their stinking pedophile of a prophet. That’s the effing difference. And “liberals” like Hedges are so open-minded that their brains fell out if they can’t understand this.

The day I can stand up in Mecca - or any other Jew or Christian by birth - without getting beaten to death for it will be the day that I start saying that Islam is starting on the way to reform. Until then, I can’t give a piss about their sensibilities, what they want, what they feel slighted by, what their aspirations are, or what they care about. Watching Hedges justify his position is like watching a contortionist with a bad attitude. I’m not willing to wait hundreds of years for reform. I don’t care if it took hundreds of years in the West - we didn’t have the luxury of another model to go by. It’s not as if the Muslim world doesn’t have an example of knowledge and enlightenment to follow. They don’t have to learn from scratch like we did. But they’re too “proud” to take our knowledge and use it, so they sit there stuck in their mire they call Islam and they have nothing but the most disgusting acts to show for it.

That Hedges gets up and defends them for it totally sickens me.

Oh yea, and one more thing:

Hedges really showed he’s a complete idiot when he claimed several times that being against Islam is “racist”. Islam isn’t a frigging race. It’s a religion. It’s an ideology. This has nothing to do with racism. This isn’t like saying somebody is against Jews, as Jews are regarded, by and large, as a people. Muslims aren’t “a people”. Anyone who says that being against Islam is “racist” is a total and complete moron and should be taken to task.

So, Hedges: you’re a moron for that too. Honestly, I’d love to spit in your face, only I wouldn’t want to dirty my spit.

So much for a moderated forum with intelligent discussion!

It is surprising that Hedges agreed to the interview, but it is in his own interest to promote his book.

The words of Robert G. Ingersoll (from the CFI CD!) are opportune to this discussion, unfortunately it appears to me that a majority of the participants in this Forum are Zionists or sympathizers, I will never understand the idea of being an Atheist and defending religious entitlement.

I will suggest that participants become acquainted with journalist from Alternative Radio http://www.alternativeradio.org/index.shtml, Professor Juan Cole http://www.juancole.com/, Professor Scott Atran http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/home and his presentations and discussions in the “Beyond Belief” conferences.

Seems to me that when scholars go to direct Arabic and Persian sources the perception of “Islamofascism” changes.

Society can only hope that Social and Political Scientists apply the true Scientific Method to the American International Policy, rather than the Zionist and Fundamentalist Christian propaganda.

The thing that I love about Point of Inquiry is that it tells me things that I don’t want to hear along with telling me so much of what I do want to hear.

Chris Hedges is a leftist idealogue.

He is linking Hicthens and Harris’s positions on foreign policy with the arguments for the non-existence of God.

He is flatly lying when he accuses Hitchens and Harris of advocating rabid violence.

Harris never advocates a nuclear First Strike, he doesn’t advocate any specific action, he merely goes on a tirade intended to make us aware that the existence of Iran as a theocracy is really, really, alarming.

To call Hitchens historically illiterate is like calling Einstein illiterate on physics.

This guy goes home and looks at pictures of the Democratic donkey and weeps tears of joy. He’s angry that atheist are no longer giving a free pass to the left wing religious moderates, and this new book sounds like his tantrum.

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks I’m a right wing idealogue, I vote Green Party or Democratic in every election.

If I am a right winger, I seem to forget it at the polls.

Isn’t Hitchens a supporter of the War in Iraq (or more accurately, the military aggression)?

OhioDoc,

You are correct. But of the 5 major authors, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, and Stenger only Harris is an outspoken supporter of the Iraq war. Maybe Harris is a supporter, but I follow Harris like I was a teeny girl with a crush, and I have never heard him endorse the Iraq war.

Dawkins is outspoken against it.

Hitchens, also, does not endorse the Iraq war in his book God Is Not Great.

He endorses it in other works of his.

OhioDoc,

You are correct. But of the 5 major authors, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, and Stenger only Harris is an outspoken supporter of the Iraq war. Maybe Harris is a supporter, but I follow Harris like I was a teeny girl with a crush, and I have never heard him endorse the Iraq war.

Dawkins is outspoken against it.

Hitchens, also, does not endorse the Iraq war in his book God Is Not Great.

He endorses it in other works of his.

Sorry, I meant to say only Hitchens, not only Harris

You can edit your own posts in this Forum, I am not sure what is your position/statement.

my position is:
unless you are saying Hitchens supports the war for fun and no reason, you must be trying to say that Chris Hedges is right?

Or were you just saying random facts about Hicthens as they came to your mind?

If you are using this as support for Hedges argument my above statement debunks it.

Hedges comments were so ham-fisted that I think he serves as his own worst enemy in getting his point across.

Here’s my interpretation of his comments:

1. To ascribe human foibles to religion is to forget those foibles are common to all humans and that we all therefore have the capacity to mess up in a huge way and still find a way to justify it.
2. To idolize atheism as an escape from human foibles thus deviates from logic.
3. The use of the word “Islam” or “Islamic” to describe a culture or nation is so inaccurate as to render such phrasing meaningless. We need to find a better way to describe the cultures & nations that we mean.
4. The idea that secularism necessarily promotes improved human rights is too idealistic, and thus taints a secularists view of the evidence in the same way that fundamentalist religious believers are tainted in their view of the evidence.
5. Some of the Atheists in the news are promoting the same policies as Neo-Con politicians, and to use an atheistic world view to justify those ideas is every bit as emblematic of dogmatism and intolerance as are the other justifications for Neo-Con military policies.

Many of these things I can agree with out of principle; I’ve often made the same points in other forums. However, when Hedges adopted an attack style drawing from his own personal credentials rather than the rationality of his argument, he left behind his opportunity to educate the public. Even if he didn’t like DJ’s questions, he should remember that DJ is not his audience. Again, he has been his own worst enemy.

(I’m new to the forum. And DJ: Good Interview.)

Let’s count the number of times Chris Hedges told us that we should believe what he says because he lived in the middle east for twenty years and “knows it intimately.”  I was just waiting for this man to say that the presentation of reasons in discussion didn’t matter, and that we should all just shut up and respect his authority.  Typical, I think, of a human animal who believes that he acts on behalf of a god.

Let’s count the number of ad hominem attacks against “new atheists.”  Does he not need to qualify his criticisms?  He even links atheists with neo-con ideology.    Last I checked it was an obvious fact that the neo-cons were overwhelmingly, if not rather exclusively, christian.

Chris Hedges’ ability to think and speak reasonably is clouded by his grudge against “atheism.”  And, frankly, he needs to take a deep look in the mirror when he makes accusations of cultural insensitivity about atheists.  He is the bigot.  He is the one who is intolerant.

DJ, you were quite a gentleman with this guy.

I say this as an atheist, borrowing the word from it’s bigoted usage on the title of his book.  But also as a person who agrees with virtually all of his views about what is wrong with the Iraq war.

Hedges comments were so ham-fisted that I think he serves as his own worst enemy in getting his point across.

Here’s my interpretation of his comments:

1. To ascribe human foibles to religion is to forget those foibles are common to all humans and that we all therefore have the capacity to mess up in a huge way and still find a way to justify it.
2. To idolize atheism as an escape from human foibles thus deviates from logic.
3. The use of the word “Islam” or “Islamic” to describe a culture or nation is so inaccurate as to render such phrasing meaningless. We need to find a better way to describe the cultures & nations that we mean.
4. The idea that secularism necessarily promotes improved human rights is too idealistic, and thus taints a secularists view of the evidence in the same way that fundamentalist religious believers are tainted in their view of the evidence.
5. Some of the Atheists in the news are promoting the same policies as Neo-Con politicians, and to use an atheistic world view to justify those ideas is every bit as emblematic of dogmatism and intolerance as are the other justifications for Neo-Con military policies.

Many of these things I can agree with out of principle; I’ve often made the same points in other forums. However, when Hedges adopted an attack style drawing from his own personal credentials rather than the rationality of his argument, he left behind his opportunity to educate the public. Even if he didn’t like DJ’s questions, he should remember that DJ is not his audience. Again, he has been his own worst enemy.

(I’m new to the forum. And DJ: Good Interview.)

That was extremely well put.

My impression, as it relates to Hedges podcast, is that Hitchens supports the Iraq War as a Crusade against Islamofascism.

That would be consistent with labeling Hitchens et al as “Fundamentalist Pseudo-religious-Atheist fanatics”.

My impression, as it relates to Hedges podcast, is that Hitchens supports the Iraq War as a Crusade against Islamofascism.

That would be consistent with labeling Hitchens et al as “Fundamentalist Pseudo-religious-Atheist fanatics”.

The thing though, is that Hicthens does not relate this to his atheism.

He relates this to his larger political philosophy.

I would argue that for him to be a fundamentalist atheist in this regard, his atheism would have to motivate his support for the war, he does not link his atheism to his support for the war.

If someone who supports the war for reasons independent of their atheism is an atheist fundamentalist, then that would somehow make atheism something its not.

Why does he support the war, for Oil?

My impression, as it relates to Hedges podcast, is that Hitchens supports the Iraq War as a Crusade against Islamofascism.

I am against the war and have been from the beginning.  But is it really appropriate to label an attack on islamofascism as a crusade when it is not religiously fueled?  And are you denying that there is such a thing as islamofascism, or a fascism that is directly fueled by islamic belief?

That would be consistent with labeling Hitchens et al as “Fundamentalist Pseudo-religious-Atheist fanatics”.

Who is “et al?”

Why does he support the war, for Oil?

Who cares why.  What does this have to do with the topic?

Why does he support the war, for Oil?

I would hope not.

From what little I’ve heard of Hitchens war support, he feels that Hussein was Despot who needed to be overthrown.

I don’t agree, but I do recognize that he does not use his atheism as an argument for the support of the war.

I protested the war before its start.

I protested it in its first few years.

And I vote for candidates who promise to work for it to end.

But this has nothing to do with my atheism, and I accept that among freethinkers there will be differences of opinion on things like foreign policy.

Hitchens may be a neo-con, this is possible. But not as a result, or in relationship, to his atheism or atheist book.

Just as I am a liberal, which is not a result or in relationship to my atheist work. If so I would have a real hard time with all the Ron Paul people who are atheist activists.

Hedges comments were so ham-fisted that I think he serves as his own worst enemy in getting his point across.

Here’s my interpretation of his comments:

1. To ascribe human foibles to religion is to forget those foibles are common to all humans and that we all therefore have the capacity to mess up in a huge way and still find a way to justify it.
2. To idolize atheism as an escape from human foibles thus deviates from logic.
3. The use of the word “Islam” or “Islamic” to describe a culture or nation is so inaccurate as to render such phrasing meaningless. We need to find a better way to describe the cultures & nations that we mean.
4. The idea that secularism necessarily promotes improved human rights is too idealistic, and thus taints a secularists view of the evidence in the same way that fundamentalist religious believers are tainted in their view of the evidence.
5. Some of the Atheists in the news are promoting the same policies as Neo-Con politicians, and to use an atheistic world view to justify those ideas is every bit as emblematic of dogmatism and intolerance as are the other justifications for Neo-Con military policies.

Many of these things I can agree with out of principle; I’ve often made the same points in other forums. However, when Hedges adopted an attack style drawing from his own personal credentials rather than the rationality of his argument, he left behind his opportunity to educate the public. Even if he didn’t like DJ’s questions, he should remember that DJ is not his audience. Again, he has been his own worst enemy.

(I’m new to the forum. And DJ: Good Interview.)

That was extremely well put.

Thank you!

Sorry, but I had to turn off the interview about 10 minutes into it.  It was obvious that Hedges was being difficult and insulting and didn’t really wish to have an honest discussion.  So he is able to write-off Ayaan Hirsi Ali because he was a reporter for seven years in Middle Eastern countries?  And it’s funny how he insisted that DJ be so very specific about which Middle Eastern country he wanted to consider and he just couldn’t grapple with the concept of the “secular left” yet he has no problem lumping all these “New Atheist” authors into one category.  And the notion that “New Atheism” is pushing a neo-con agenda is just ridiculous.  My guess is that vast majority of atheists, including the “New Atheists” sit on the Liberal side of the political continuum and probably opposed Bush’s illegal invasion from the start.  Iraq wasn’t about religion, it was about control of resources.  If Hedges can’t even see this distinction, the why should I believe his new book is any better?

Note: I knew nothing of Hedges prior to this interview.

My notes from the interview are similar to those listed by NHB above. And like NHB, I agree with many of Hedges’ points. Unlike NHB, I don’t necessarily have a problem with someone drawing upon personal experiences if those experiences are as relevant as Hedges’ and they don’t insult my sense of reason or clash too badly with my own experiences.

Quite frankly, the responses thus far tend to support Hedges’ claim that atheists have adopted a fundamentalist attitude. I’m somewhat surprised by the emotion. Once I know more, then perhaps I’ll understand it. (Honestly, I’m here to learn - not force an opinion.)

Are there points made by Hedges that are particularly disagreeable? I see where some have issues regarding his debating style - or lack thereof - but that’s not what I’m after. IOW, where was Hedges wrong???

Just asking…

I don’t believe in Chris Hedges.

I don’t believe in Chris Hedges.

I nearly fell of my chair on this one. That was great.

I was disappointed by this interview. Hedges was evasive and annoying at times and it seemed like little substantive exchange took place. It seems to me that he has a very distorted view of what Harris was actually claiming in The End of Faith. Though I think that Harris does paint a somewhat black and white cartoon caricature of religion, I would not go so far as to draw a parallel with racism. I tend to agree with people like Scott Atran that Islam is not as large a factor as one might suspect in the violence. Nonetheless, one cannot ignore the utterly violent and intolerant rhetoric in scriptures.

While Hedges points to the use of dehumanization as the main characteristic of fundamentalism, Harris would point to dogma.  Did Harris really advocate bombing the middle east? He did label pacifism as “flagrantly immoral.” I’ll have to skim back through my copy and look at the actual context of those statements.

The difference between the New Atheists and fundamentalists are that I fully expect the New Atheists to be able to change their mind based on evidence ... and I actually think Harris has softened and refined his view of religion a bit since writing that first book. I get the strong sense that Hedges has a postmodernist point of view in which there is no real progress moral or otherwise and that one system of belief is as good as any other. That’s not surprising given someone with a literary background having lived in one of the more violent and hopeless parts of the world. 

I’m glad DJ had him on the show. I only wish there are been more substance to the discussion.

Richard

I was disappointed by this interview. Hedges was evasive and annoying at times and it seemed like little substantive exchange took place. It seems to me that he has a very distorted view of what Harris was actually claiming in The End of Faith. Though I think that Harris does paint a somewhat black and white cartoon caricature of religion, I would not go so far as to draw a parallel with racism. I tend to agree with people like Scott Atran that Islam is not as large a factor as one might suspect in the violence. Nonetheless, one cannot ignore the utterly violent and intolerant rhetoric in scriptures.

While Hedges points to the use of dehumanization as the main characteristic of fundamentalism, Harris would point to dogma.  Did Harris really advocate bombing the middle east? He did label pacifism as “flagrantly immoral.” I’ll have to skim back through my copy and look at the actual context of those statements.

The difference between the New Atheists and fundamentalists are that I fully expect the New Atheists to be able to change their mind based on evidence ... and I actually think Harris has softened and refined his view of religion a bit since writing that first book. I get the strong sense that Hedges has a postmodernist point of view in which there is no real progress moral or otherwise and that one system of belief is as good as any other. That’s not surprising given someone with a literary background having lived in one of the more violent and hopeless parts of the world. 

I’m glad DJ had him on the show. I only wish there are been more substance to the discussion.

Richard

Personally, the fact that he did not discuss Scott Atran at all, who provides empirical evidence for Islam not being the hinge factor in Islamic fundamentalist, discredited him in of itself.

He doesn’t want us to know about Atran’s research, he wants us to think Islam is not involved AT ALL in Islamic terrorism.

Atran’s research reveals it may not be central, but it is an ingredient.

relevant links:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/harris.php

http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/contentviewer.php?content_id=1665

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/watch.php?Video=Session 7

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/watch.php?Video=Session 8

We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

I am Agnostic/Atheist, I trust facts, not opinions.

Professor Atran has facts, Mr. Hedges has opinions based on his real life experience and ability to read Arabic himself.

Just like Bart Ehrman who converted to Agnosticism from Christian Fundamentalism once he read the original scripture documents, most scholars that obtain first hand knowledge of the “Other Abrahamic People”, untainted by Zionism, have a different perception of the Arabic and Persian cultures.

Atran has real data, his findings have to be taken seriously.  But he is not the only one. I will try to find you a link for this other scientist who studies this who gave a talk at the AAI conference. I will try to find that.

You make a great point, Doc.

Here you go Ohio Doc, here is a dissenting opinion on Atran based in empirical research.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1710,We-Few-We-Happy-Few-We-Band-of-Brothers,Andy-Thomson-Richard-Dawkins-Foundation

Now, this is just science. It doesn’t mean either guy is right.

And like NHB, I agree with many of Hedges’ points. Unlike NHB, I don’t necessarily have a problem with someone drawing upon personal experiences if those experiences are as relevant as Hedges’ and they don’t insult my sense of reason or clash too badly with my own experiences.

Point of clarification: I wasn’t suggesting that personal experience is irrelevant. If that experience provides useful information, it can indeed be among the best sources for evidence.

My point was rather that Hedges used his self-credentialing to make thinly veiled ad-hominem attacks toward those who both lack his experience and coincidentally hold a different opinion. Think it over: There are obviously others who speak Arabic and who are familiar with Middle-Eastern cultures who nonetheless still promote Neo-Con policies. (Israel contains many of them.)

Hedges thought he could “wow” DJ with his history of intimate involvement. Instead, the effrontery of touting himself over his own argument buried the argument itself.

The Point of Inquiry format is just like a theatrical trailer, a teaser if you will.

There was not enough time to go into any depths.

I felt Hedges was a little Passive-Aggressive when he asked which Nation/Society was Islamofascist, DJ could not answer, Hedges should have provided a factual answer instead of something like “I know because I was there…”

Mindcore, thanks for the link!

.

Here you go Ohio Doc, here is a dissenting opinion on Atran based in empirical research.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1710,We-Few-We-Happy-Few-We-Band-of-Brothers,Andy-Thomson-Richard-Dawkins-Foundation

Now, this is just science. It doesn’t mean either guy is right.

I’ve gone ahead and watched the address by Andy Thompson. Where is he dissenting from Scott Atran, and what is that empirical evidence? I don’t see much of a departure from much of the literature that is already out there. Much of what he says has been published by Atran.

All of Thompson’s stuff is based on empirical research. Isn’t it?

.

.

I’m a little skeptical that Hedges has even read Harris and Hitchens, but perhaps I shouldn’t underestimate cognitive dissonance. I suspect Hitchens was right to call Hedges a “mediocre pseudo-intellectual” in their debate, as his “racist” charge against Harris and Hitchens is incredibly sloppy thinking. One can easily distinguish between hating Islamic religion and hating Islamic people. If an impoverished African has a seething vitriol against American consumer culture, that doesn’t make him a racist. If Hitchens or Harris were morally against living in the desert or turbans or speaking Arabic, then Hedges might have a case, but they don’t, nor do either of them think the best course of action is to glass the whole Middle East.

I remember during their debate, Sam Harris chided Hedges for trying to override extensive polling data on the feelings of Muslims with his personal anecdotes from his time as a foreign correspondent, and I think that sentiment is especially relevant in how Hedges argued his position in this interview.

I suppose I may eventually read his book because it is mercifully short (just as I may read McGrath’s and John Haught’s anti-New Atheist books), but I gathered from what is said in the book’s preface that Hedges left his wits and his cool at the door before settling in to write this pompous essay. Hedges (as well as all the other mainstream critics of Dawkins, Hitchens et al) in his rush to show how Hitchens and Harris are just as fundamentalist, close-minded, intolerant, and out of touch as those they criticize, himself becomes as close-minded and out of touch as the caricatures he attacks. Oh, the irony!

His thoughts on progress are damn near close to moral relativism in my estimation. Does he think the only way “progress” could be real is if anti-racism and feminism and liberalism were genetically inherited? Because he states the obvious when he says modern moral sentiment vanishes and is replaced by something medieval or primeval in the absence of society. His distinction between progressing as an individual and progressing as a society reminds me of the creationist insistence on a qualitative difference between “micro” and “macro”-evolution; progress as a society (even if slower and more haphazard) follows from the singular progressions of the individuals that make up that society. It comes as no surprise that his years as a war correspondent and overall observer of the dark side of human nature have made him a dour cynic in this regard. Once again his anecdotes trump objective data (like Pinker’s data on the decrease of per capita deaths).

I see similarities in treating “the great dictatorships of the 20th century” as the falsifier of moral progress and in treating America as the falsifier of secularization. What it seems like is that Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia are anomalies within a general trend of societies to morally progress, just like all the data warrants treating religious America as an anomaly among the general imperfect trend toward secularization. Yes, it’s easy to debunk the Enlightenment notion of progress as a rhythmically steady pace (a la the quintessential test of sobriety), but that does not debunk progress altogether, as it could just be a swerving, drunken walk toward progress with frequent missteps. Unfortunately Hedges and others like him seem happy to dismiss the notions of moral progress and secularization on the basis of anomalies. Stalin disproves progress like metabolism disproves entropy.

BTW, Harris does in fact speak against pacifism in his book. In fact he has a section devoted to it. Needless to say, however, criticizing pacifism as naive does not amount to a defense of militarism, and Harris’s digression against pacifism is not discussed in the context of deconversion by force.

And like NHB, I agree with many of Hedges’ points. Unlike NHB, I don’t necessarily have a problem with someone drawing upon personal experiences if those experiences are as relevant as Hedges’ and they don’t insult my sense of reason or clash too badly with my own experiences.

Point of clarification: I wasn’t suggesting that personal experience is irrelevant. If that experience provides useful information, it can indeed be among the best sources for evidence.

My point was rather that Hedges used his self-credentialing to make thinly veiled ad-hominem attacks toward those who both lack his experience and coincidentally hold a different opinion. Think it over: There are obviously others who speak Arabic and who are familiar with Middle-Eastern cultures who nonetheless still promote Neo-Con policies. (Israel contains many of them.)

Hedges thought he could “wow” DJ with his history of intimate involvement. Instead, the effrontery of touting himself over his own argument buried the argument itself.

Thanks NHB,
I see what you are saying - and I have no problem with it. It seems clear that Hedges has a reputation with which I am unfamiliar. I’m just trying to discover the interview points people disagree with. I guess I’ll just have to poke through all the links that have been posted and filter through it myself. That’s ok, I’m not lazy.

I was pleasantly surprised the PoI invited Hedges on, and have listened to this a couple of times now.

Knowing Hedges through hearing other debates (i.e. with Harris) rather than through his writings, I found the interview revealing more of his weaknesses than his strengths.

Right up front, I think the one thing he gets spot on is the raw imperial racism truly animating people like Harris and Hitchens. If anything Hedges is too polite in understating the severity of this aspect. He seems to accept at face value DJ’s repeated suggestion that that these ‘New Atheists’ are really seriously interested (any more than Bush, Cheney or the Likudniks) in bringing ‘secular values’ to the Muslim world. Again, their ‘secularism’ is the thinnest of pretexts, a kind of renaiscent “white man’s burden” mythology—it remains a lie even if some secular idiots really believe this is what their cluster-bomb cluster-f**k wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and their nuclear threats against Iran are really about.

That said, I find many of the criticisms that people have made above about Hedges are also useful.

He certainly expresses a special kind of arrogance througout the interview. I don’t think, though, that it’s really as he would have us believe, about his profound life experience or the ‘values’ he has supposedly learned to cherish from first-hand knowledge of human ‘evil’. Not only do his philosphical/literary musings come straight from the dictionary of received ideas (‘Heart of Darkness’? give me a freaking break!), but his politics do not rise above the self-serving bromides of Clintonite ‘human-rights’ imperialism. 

What really comes accross in Hedges self-important, pompous manner is the attitude one would expect from a celebrated imperial journalist who ‘knows’ the empire’s subject peoples, and has nothing but contempt about commentators who have not bothered to learn their language and cultures with intimacy.  And 99 times out of a hundred he can count on his experience trumping the insular, racist ignorance on the part of the people he is arguing with about the broader world. This time the stand-in for predictable American parochialism was DJ, who was rendered speechless as soon as Hedges b-slapped him a few times with his ‘name a country, any country - which theocracy? They’re all different’!

Others have commented above on Hedges’ cultural relativism, even post-modernist tilt ... What is ‘cultural relativism’ of the pc liberal left, but imperialist racism inverted on itself - in the form of blanket patronizing and pandering toward all forms of social backwardness? ‘Who are WE to judge?’ asks the guilt riddled liberal, still clinging to the imperial ‘we’ (the operative concept). His dismissive sneering against ‘utopia’ - by which he means Marxism, is actually a straight out rejection that there is any such thing as class solidarity across national and cultural boundaries established by the rulers (who he never mentions), and nothing in our common humanity worth struggling for. This is where his reactionary shit about ‘evil’ comes in. What is that supposed to mean? It’s nothing but primitive supernaturalism dressed up as cliched ‘moral’ profundity.

Interesting that Hedges idolizes none other than the utterly impotent Socialist Party of Norman Thomas. So much of the same sanctimonious liberal nonsense on display in this interview was already pretty long in the tooth when Trotsky polemicised against John Dewey in the delightful pamphlet ‘Their Morals and Ours’ (1938).

Moralists of the Anglo-Saxon type, in so far as they do not confine themselves to rationalist utilitarianism, the ethics of bourgeois bookkeeping, appear conscious or unconscious students of Viscount Shaftesbury, who at the beginning of the 18th century(!) deduced moral judgments from a special “moral sense” supposedly once and for all given to man. Supra-class morality inevitably leads to the acknowledgment of a special substance, of a ’’moral sense’’, ’’conscience’’, some kind of absolute which is nothing more than the philosophic-cowardly pseudonym for god. Independent of “ends”, that is, of society, morality, whether we deduce it from eternal truths or from the “nature of man”, proves in the end to be a form of “natural theology”. Heaven remains the only fortified position for military operations against dialectical materialism.

Chris Hedges continually accused the “new atheist” superstars of racism and of attacking Muslims and Christians etc.  He seems to overlook the point that what they are by and large critiquing is Islam and Christianity, not Muslims and Christians.  If there is a logical inconsistency in a belief or philosophy and that is brought to light, it does not necessitate that those who ascribe to that point of view are being attacked does it?  I mean, I don’t like most TV, but if I complain about the vacuity of “American Idol” it doesn’t mean I’m racist toward those who watch it.
Harris et all do have their faults, but I find it dubious listening to Mr. Hedges that he has a clear unbiased grasp of them.  I’ll reserve judgement till I read his book.

I also think its interesting that he talks about them being racist but never offers a race as the victim of their racism. Muslims are prominent among arabs, persians, western chinese (I’m not sure of the ethnic groups), blacks, slavic peoples, etc.

I think Ibn Warraq who, I think, is an Arab, might find the notion that these guys are racist totally silly since he’s cited in nearly all their books.

His book is called “Why I’m Not a Muslim” and it is echoed in the works of the 4 horsemen.

Just thought I should add, Ibn Warraq has an awesome employer, CFI.

I have watched and read a fair amount of Hedges before. The parts of American Fascists I’ve read are well-researched and reasoned. But he has a problem dealing with the New Atheists by calling “them” fundamentalists and he also has a bit of an evidence problem in this interview.

The New Atheists, though lumped together for the purposes of their public disavowal of religion and its supernatural tenets, do not represent an ethical or political monoculture. For him to claim that they are is nearly as stupid as saying that all Muslims are Islamofascists. It’s a false conclusion from bad analysis. Hedges is a really smart guy, but he’s got a big problem here because he tries to lump the espousal of rationality, logic, evidence, and scientific reasoning with Harris’ equivocations about nukes and torture.That’s dumb.

I haven’t listened to the interview yet but I read the dang book, for my sins, and I was shocked at how bad it is. Really bad. It says things, over and over and over again, that are not true. They are obviously not true. Any decent journalist ought to be able to figure out that they’re not true. Yet Hedges says them not once not twice but ten or twenty times. He’s a nasty piece of work.

There’s this for instance, from pp 6-7:

[the new atheists] do engage in the same chauvinism and call for the same violent utopianism. They sell this under secular banners. They believe, like the Christian Right, that we are moving forward to a paradise, a state of human perfection, this time made possible by human reason.

Complete bullshit. Christopher Hitchens believes we are moving forward to a paradise, a state of human perfection? Richard Dawkins believes that? Dan Dennett believes that? Give me a break.

The book pissed me off so much that I wrote no fewer than three comments on the subject at Butterflies and Wheels - Good journalism, Bad book revisited, and Hedges on sin.

From the last named:

Pp 13-14:

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. The concept of sin is a stark acknowledgement that we can never be omnipotent, that we are bound and limited by human flaws and self-interest.

Stark, staring bullshit. Could hardly be more wrong. Obviously there is no need whatever to believe in ‘sin’ to be aware that we can never be omnipotent and that we are bound and limited by human flaws and self-interest. Really it’s mostly non-theists who are aware of that in the most thorough way, because theists mostly believe that we will ultimately be ‘redeemed’ or ‘atoned’ in some way. The rest of us just think we are deeply flawed animals and that’s all there is to it.

The concept of sin is a check on the utopian dreams of a perfect world. It prevents us from believing in our own perfectibility.

But the ‘new’ atheists Hedges is railing at dream no dreams of a perfect world, nor do they believe in human perfectibility - so clearly they don’t need the ‘concept of sin’ as a check on their non-existent dreams and beliefs.

To turn away from God is harmless…To turn away from sin is catastrophic…The secular utopians of the twenty-first century have also forgotten they are human.

And Hedges provides quotations to back up this assertion where? Nowhere. Because there are none, because the assertion is false.

We discard the wisdom of sin at our peril. Sin reminds us that all human beings are flawed…Studies in cognitive behavior illustrate the accuracy and wisdom of this Biblical concept.

Wait - what? It’s catastrophic to turn away from sin because without the concept of sin we don’t realize that humans are flawed, but on the other hand, studies in cognitive behavior (not to mention mere experience of life and humans and ourselves) offer evidence that we are flawed, so we don’t need the concept of sin after all. The man blows his own argument (or rather his baseless claim) without even noticing he’s done it. Where was his editor while all this was going on? Where was Hedges’s brain?

The problem I have with Hedges is that he criticizes these popularizing atheists for positions that are not directly related to their atheism.  He seems to want to harbour a critique of radical Islam without allowing it to spread to a critique of less radical Islam or religion in general.  To accuse these atheist authors of knowing nothing about Islam is just stupid.  He also seems to sink into a relativist point of view that allows anything to be true, so that he can call intractable opposition to a position that is demonstrably false and wrong a kind of “fundamentalism”, which is pretty stupid as well.  I don’t think that he would agree that the KKK has every right to their world view, and that any opposition to them is “fundamentalist” or “dehumanizing”.  He makes the mistake of criticizing a critique of Islam (and religion in general) that is addressed to the extremes, and not to the middle.  The danger of religion, according to the authors he mentions, is not in the flabby middle, it is at the radical, violent edge.  That is why Dawkins sought out Ted Haggard, who is a lunatic and/or fraud, rather than you local, neighbourhood Unitarian minister.  And he seems to allow a religious basis for all that secularism has produced in the moral sphere.  He seems to agree that radical religion is bad, but doesn’t really say how or why - he seems only to want to defend religion from attack.  His denial of perfectibility is misguided - atheism and humanism and so on are not utopian, but progressive, and there is a big difference between those.  His critique of positivism would have been more timely in 1908 than in 2008.

But blaming science for destroying the ecosystem?  Moronic.  That is what pegs it for me: hostility to science as science is a truly stupid (self-servingly unthinking) position.

Chris Hedges is a leftist idealogue. (mindcore)

Nonsense.  Or - define “leftist”.

The words of Robert G. Ingersoll (from the CFI CD!) are opportune to this discussion, unfortunately it appears to me that a majority of the participants in this Forum are Zionists or sympathizers, I will never understand the idea of being an Atheist and defending religious entitlement.  (OhioDoc)

I think you make a mistake there that many people make when discussing Islam and Jews, and some other things which seem like religion but aren’t.  As Sunmmer Seale says, Islam is not a race - but “racism” does not only refer to race any more, but to intolerance generally, especially of people different from yourself.  Islam (religion) and white (race) (along with Western, a culture) are pretty much mutually exclusive, statistically speaking, so it is easy to slip “racist” into a critique of a critique of Islam by a white Westerner.  We tend to use terms fairly loosely, but when we define them more strictly we see that they apply to fewer and fewer examples.

Anyway, my point is that it is an error to paint religion onto non-religious things like states and movements that use religion as a tool, rather than really base themselves in it.  Israel is one example that is inherently vague and ambiguous, and so is the phenomenon of “fundamentalism” in Islam in some circumstances (where it is more a political movement with political and military goals that uses religion than a religious movement that uses politics and violence).  When Constantine had his vision, it wasn’t about saving souls, or doing good, or spreading the gospel, or any such pastoral or evangelical thing: it was to conquer.  That was not religion, it was geopolitics finding a powerful new weapon, and committing to it.  Israel may have religion built into it, much like most other countries, but its religious purpose is secondary to the purpose of protecting a religious minority - that security is what Zionism is about in the first instance, not religion.  That the people who seek protection are religiously defined is incidental.

Hi There

This is my first post and was inspired by listening to the last Point of Enquiry interview with Chris Hedges( by the way has anyone noticed his name comes up as ‘Christ’ Hedges on the main point of enquiry page!). I find the weekly interviews generally stimulating if a little cosy but Chris’s contribution pushed the discussion in a direction that made me sit up and question my own position as an atheist. Let me make it clear that he didn’t ‘convert’ me but I think his point about a the new atheists a new utopianism is right on the ball and in line with thinkers like John Gray who have offered a similarly different take on the reasons for global terrorism see ‘Al-Queda - and what it means to be Modern”. Gray often makes the point that the neo-enlightemment and secular humanist thinkers are just pushing another idealist ‘salvation’ philosophy that takes the illusion of mankind’s moral and technological progress as it’s central tenet. He urges a post- humanist and less idealist approach to human affairs, very much in line with current ecological thinking. It may sound crazy but in some ways we have to see ourselves as less important than we actually think we are and to stop reading history in such a linear manner. Science and reason may not always lead us in an ever upward path to perfection - one could even argue at this point that science has made human survival more perilous than it ever has been in the past.
I think something else revealed by the interview is the terrible habit of generalising when it come to islam/terrorism/middle east - these are not homogenous subjects and Hedges was quite right to pull DJ up on this - it must be very frustrating for someone who lives in Turkey for example to be lumped in with countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran when these debates are being made. As someone who grew up in Ireland at a time when religious and political ideologies were causing death and destruction it was crucial to remain informed and clear about the distinctions between the groups involved and cringe inducing to hear the simplifications and misinformation of foreign commentators on the subject. I think a little more rigour and clarity is needed in this area.
Having made the above points I still believe that a Natural view of the world is the best way of achieving both clarity of thought and of purpose - however I think we need to find a broader term than ‘Religion’ to attack and replace it with a more general intolerance of dogmatic ideologies and insupportable Utopianism. Atheists are in danger of seeing themselves as part of some sort of vanguard for humanity and there is a flaw in this thinking - which should be at least one good lesson learnt from history.
Hedges strikes me( and it’s only from this interview) as a good old fashioned contrarian, Robert Fisk being another example. It’s great to have them around but they can be a little self-centered in their thinking - arrogant might be a better way to put it. In fact, it would be interesting to hear Robert Fisk on the program - his knowledge of the middle-east political and religious situation is impecable and having heard him speak numerous times he might be more willing to flesh out his own position than Hedges was.
All in all, a great show - more like the Hedges one would be great. I’d love to hear John Gray or James Lovelock or how about some people from the Arts - Will Self comes to mind, his novel ‘The Book of Dave’ being a brilliant and insightful deconstruction of religion…

many thanks

Jay

Hi There
Science and reason may not always lead us in an ever upward path to perfection - one could even argue at this point that science has made human survival more perilous than it ever has been in the past.

And ignorance is better? I think that few here will deny that science and technology make progress. This is a consequence of methodological naturalism. It seems to me that what science and reason do for the world is simply provide an increasingly better understanding of cause and effect. One view is that technology doesn’t change the underlying motives people have, except maybe indirectly by allowing them to realize more fully the consequences of their choices (issues of free will aside). Hedges seems to be claiming that there will always be the same old violence etc (no moral progress) because people’s base animal instincts just don’t change. I think that the picture is actually much more hopeful and more complex than that. What people know and what they think about reality does change how they feel and how they react. The big question is whether or not increased knowledge of cause and effect will reduce human suffering on the whole. Certainly there are examples on both sides of this question: weapons vs cures for disease, for example, but can anyone really credibly argue that the world is no better off today than 100 years ago (in terms of human suffering and human behavior)? I think it’s a hard case to make, though I can understand why Hedges may feel that way after living so long in such a troubled part of the world.

As I see it, what Harris, Dawkins and others are promoting is not atheism so much as rational thinking (scientific naturalism) and the abandonment of dogma. Atheism is, in their eyes, a result of rational, objective thinking. 

- however I think we need to find a broader term than ‘Religion’ to attack and replace it with a more general intolerance of dogmatic ideologies and insupportable Utopianism. Atheists are in danger of seeing themselves as part of some sort of vanguard for humanity and there is a flaw in this thinking - which should be at least one

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Clearly, the problem is understanding dogmatism and irrationality in social groups of all kinds, not just religion.

Richard

I do not think I learned much of value from Chris Hedges.
This guy misuses the word racism.  He is overly pessimistic.  He also puts pressure on DJ to offer concrete examples for discussion, but lobs “New Atheists” into a group.  I think he is forcing the Fundamentalist mold.

I could not agree with Geodesic more.  I had several huge problems with this talk.

1.  At one point Hedges says, “when you look at what goes into making a suicide bomber, it has nothing to do with the Koran.”  This to me seems so patently wrong as to need no further discussion.

2.  He does misuse the word racism.  The New Atheists are hardly racist.  Take Hitchens as an example, he hates with justified fury those Muslim fundamentalists who are into the practice of female genital mutilation.  To say that “most of those people are Arab and therefore Hitchens has racist feelings toward Arabs” is just silly. 

3.  His case for the New Atheists being fundamentalists is weak.  This whole idea that both religious fundamentalists and the NAs are linear thinkers is a) not very revealing about their individual philosophy and b) not a strong case that their worldviews are similar.  I’m not even sure I understand his other point about the externalization of evil.

I have heard otherwise intelligent people make a similar case—that atheism is really just another religion with its own rigid dogma.  Uhhh, no.  A belief system shared by a group of people is a necessary but not sufficient part of the definition of relgion.

what Chris Hedges says makes sense. I did not like the way the host conducted the interview. He was basically repeating the same questions without trying to understand what Hedges was saying. This was somewhat like listening to Sean Hannity trying to prove the other guy wrong no matter what and maybe showed a glimmer of the new militant athiesm Chris was talking about. Please uphold the secular values you profess and keep open minds. Don’t make this fox news. Thanks

I don’t think the interview was confrontational at all.  The think that DJ was asking clarifying questions to get an understanding of what Mr. Hedge’s views are.  It seems to me that they are forced.
Racism is misused—even if he was arguing that there is prejudice against believers of Islam, this is not racism; many “new atheists” do not make stereotypes, but recognize the role that religion plays in extremes of thought.  So even if he was arguing that new atheists are prejudice against believers, he still didn’t do a good job of presenting an argument.  The views of some atheists are misrepesented.  He fails to make a straightforward argument for his claims.

Some random thoughts from listening a second time:

Flaunting of credentials is an argument from authority, which is what many fundamentalists are good at.  Dark forces in human nature?  Isn’t that an abstraction?

The only aspect of his views that I found informative were on the links between economic and political conflict that lead to extremism.  Listening a second time, none of the authors discussed blanket believers of Islam as suicide bombers.  Hedges discusses some of the factors that lead to it.  I think what “new athiests’ argue is that without an afterlife, people would not be so willing to blow themselves up.  According to Hedges, you are racist if you think that people are more willing to blow themselves up if they believe that they are going to paradise for doing so.

There were some previous posters with incendary rhetoric—I don’t think that is cool.

I just get the impression that Hedges didn’t research the “new atheists” a lot because I don’t remember much advocation of violence.  What is this from?  Some Harris book?

People do not need the idea of an afterlife to help them blow themselves up. In the case of Islamic terrorists the imagery of a heaven with virgins helps but if it wasn’t that it would be something else which helps them rationalize that behavior. The Japanese Kamikaze pilots did not read Koran. The root causes of their behavior are bad foreign policy, repressive governments and poverty more then anything else. 

I think Chris makes an excellent point where he points out
1. an idea of superiority
2. dehumanization and stereotyping of others
3. working towards a utopian world
as the basic elements of all fundamentalist ideologies because they all end up rationalizing the eradication of dehumanized people with different ideologies to achieve that utopian world they set as their goal.

The idea of dropping an atomic bomb on people the majority of which have nothing to do with terrorism shows that a part of atheism
has all the above 3 elements.

Militant atheism if it develops will hurt atheism itself more then anything else

I think Chris makes an excellent point where he points out
1. an idea of superiority
2. dehumanization and stereotyping of others
3. working towards a utopian world
as the basic elements of all fundamentalist ideologies because they all end up rationalizing the eradication of dehumanized people with different ideologies to achieve that utopian world they set as their goal.

The idea of dropping an atomic bomb on people the majority of which have nothing to do with terrorism shows that a part of atheism
has all the above 3 elements.

 

Maybe I’m looking at this through rose colored glasses.  Do you mind fleshing these points out with examples?

take for example the opposition from atheist community to the idea that students should be able to choose which theory of creation they want to believe in for themselves in the classroom. I believe in evolution but I wouldn’t want it to be force fed to my kids like it was to me where I knew any questioning from me would result in ridicule or hostility. maybe there is another perfectly explainable theory of how we arrived on Earth other then evolution or the religious theories.

evolution has some gaps which most atheists prefer to jump with a leap of faith. It just annoys me how darwin has become a prophet with blind , rigid followers just like other religious institutions trying to prove their point even if it means joining humans skulls with monkey jawbones. and there is this undeniable superiority complex I detect when talking to atheists who are so sure they belong to a higher IQ level of humanity and it’s their job to save humanity from religious savages.

I didn’t allow religion to tell me how to think why should I let atheism do that

Ok, for the record, here is what Sam Harris actually said about bombing the Middle East. This is from p129 of The End of Faith under the section heading Jihad and the Power of the Atom:

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. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns.
...
The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it.

Seems to me that Hedges clearly did not read Harris’ book carefully, or is intentionally distorting the actual text, or is relying upon what someone else “said” Harris wrote. You be the judge.

Richard

Nagasaki and Hiroshima…

Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

If we have different labels and reasons, does it make the final action different?

Point is, that Harris does not advocate bombing the Middle East. He calls it “an unthinkable crime.” He’s merely worrying that the Western world may be forced into that situation.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima…

Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

If we have different labels and reasons, does it make the final action different?

I’m with you, Ohio. Now, I understand that Harris does not want bombing, but he does say things that might lead those, like the current abministration (sic), to believe it is the right thing to do - and I’m sure god will lead his bush into temptation.
BUT I DIGRESS - as many here have done.

Regarding the interview - just the interview, was there anything that was said that is objectively wrong?

Ohio - I did watch all of the videos you were kind enough to list. I enjoyed them very much and I appreciate your listing them, but I did not see how they related to Hedges. Even the speach by Hedges was largely just a b-slap of the current abministration, and I tend to agree with people doing that.

I’m fairly sure that I am of like mind of those posting here - but can someone catch me up to objective reasons why Hedges is so bad?

Still trying to learn.

take for example the opposition from atheist community to the idea that students should be able to choose which theory of creation they want to believe in for themselves in the classroom. I believe in evolution but I wouldn’t want it to be force fed to my kids like it was to me where I knew any questioning from me would result in ridicule or hostility. maybe there is another perfectly explainable theory of how we arrived on Earth other then evolution or the religious theories.

evolution has some gaps which most atheists prefer to jump with a leap of faith. It just annoys me how darwin has become a prophet with blind , rigid followers just like other religious institutions trying to prove their point even if it means joining humans skulls with monkey jawbones. and there is this undeniable superiority complex I detect when talking to atheists who are so sure they belong to a higher IQ level of humanity and it’s their job to save humanity from religious savages.

I didn’t allow religion to tell me how to think why should I let atheism do that

Hi Hasheesh. I think that very often one person’s ridicule and hostility is another person’s “telling it like it is.”  Whether another person is rude or not does not say anything about the truth claims he or she is making. It may only indicate naivete about how to best get people to listen to one’s point of view ... or it may be an intentional strategy to motivate people.

For someone who believes in evolution, you bring up points that more often I hear from creationists ... but that’s off topic for this thread.

take for example the opposition from atheist community to the idea that students should be able to choose which theory of creation they want to believe in for themselves in the classroom. I believe in evolution but I wouldn’t want it to be force fed to my kids like it was to me where I knew any questioning from me would result in ridicule or hostility. maybe there is another perfectly explainable theory of how we arrived on Earth other then evolution or the religious theories.

evolution has some gaps which most atheists prefer to jump with a leap of faith. It just annoys me how darwin has become a prophet with blind , rigid followers just like other religious institutions trying to prove their point even if it means joining humans skulls with monkey jawbones. and there is this undeniable superiority complex I detect when talking to atheists who are so sure they belong to a higher IQ level of humanity and it’s their job to save humanity from religious savages.

I didn’t allow religion to tell me how to think why should I let atheism do that

1.  Not that it would justify a blatant superiority complex, but Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and Dennet do belong to a higher IQ level than the vast majority of humanity.  I think that is obvious.

2.  I don’t see that evolutionists (including myself) jump gaps in the theory at all.  Evolutionists admit that the theory is not 100% perfect as it is but they know that the proper way to deal with that is continued study and inquiry.  Religious/creationist folk tend to seize upon any gap in E. theory and gleefully paper it over with God.

3.  Atheism is not going to tell you how to think man, not like religion tries to.  If you deny religion your punishment is clear: hell.  You can argue with an atheist until the cows come home and he’s never going to condemn you to a lake of fire for all eternity.

the fact that Sam Harris thinks that a muslim nation upon acquiring long range missiles will not be able to resist firing them at a western nation tells me that he does not have any idea of public opinion and politics of muslim nations or their history. I cannot write anything to change this black and white view. just visit a muslim country if you get a chance.

about evolution.. I accept it as the theory most likely to be right one but until the gaps are filled I can’t close my mind to other possibilities.

the fact that Sam Harris thinks that a muslim nation upon acquiring long range missiles will not be able to resist firing them at a western nation tells me that he does not have any idea of public opinion and politics of muslim nations or their history. I cannot write anything to change this black and white view. just visit a muslim country if you get a chance.

I agree with you on that. I do think that Harris is not very well informed about the Muslim world compared to scholars like Scott Atran.

about evolution.. I accept it as the theory most likely to be right one but until the gaps are filled I can’t close my mind to other possibilities.

I feel the same way, though we might differ on the degree of confidence which we have in the theory.

Richard

Point is, that Harris does not advocate bombing the Middle East. He calls it “an unthinkable crime.” He’s merely worrying that the Western world may be forced into that situation.

I believe this is an accurate summary of Harris’ view (but not only his)... and captures the profound and even genocidal dimension to neo-con “clash of civilizations” racism.

The Western world might be ‘forced,’ you see, as Hillary Clinton argued this week, to ‘obliterate’ Iran in defense of Israel(!).

Why? It’s all the fault of Islam, which makes its adherents go ‘dewy eyed’ at the prospect of paradise. The poor Western imperialists will have ‘no choice’ but to ‘obliterate’ them preemptively!

How can any decent person fail to gag at the rancid, stinking imperialist racism that animates Harris, Hitchens and their supporters? Whatever else you can say of Hedges, he nails them dead to rights on this. It is very disturbing to see how much traction the neocon world-view has obtained among ‘secular humanists’. 

A couple of weeks ago I heard a podcast interview with one Andrew Thompson, an academic, holding forth on the ‘psychology of Muslim suicide bombers’... that really made me wonder to what extent government agencies like the CIA are actively targetting the secular/atheist/humanist community with pro-war disinformation/propaganda campaigns.

Something to keep in mind.

I thought DJ Grothe did an excellent job in this interview, especially with Hedges continuous smugness and pomposity. It is one thing to disagree with the interviewer and challenge him quite another to cut off dialogue with his dismissals and unwillingness to follow the questions and develope an answer.
DJ, I thought had more than enough patience and showed a very professional side, which is a great deal more than I could say about Hedges.
I am interested in other viewpoints,but after that interview I’m hesitant to buy a Hedges book, maybe check it out at the library, but not willing to fill Hedges coffers.

Regarding the interview - just the interview, was there anything that was said that is objectively wrong? [...] I’m fairly sure that I am of like mind of those posting here - but can someone catch me up to objective reasons why Hedges is so bad?

For starters:  His assertion that the “new atheists” are racists is indefensible (he certainly provides no coherent defense of the slander) and the claim that Sam Harris advocates that we nuke the Middle East is flat-out wrong. Besides slander and misrepresentation. Another reason I would consider him to be “so bad”, is that he is hypocritical.

Hedges inaccurately lumps together all of the “new atheists” into one ideology.  Not only is such a lumping together wildly inaccurate (about the only ideological common ground that Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens share is that they are both secularists) but it’s also hypocritical given his stance that the lumping together of all Islam by “new atheists” is disdainful. Moreover, Hedges arguments rely on hyperbola. More often than not, he ignores important distinctions in the arguments of those he would slander in favor of characterizing their positions in the most cartoonish fashion ... and once again, this is exactly the type of behavior that he condemns the “new atheists” for with regard to their attacks on Islam.

I listen to Sam Harris a lot. Here is one of the most important distinctions that Hedges misses;  it’s the distinction between dogma and religion. What Harris argues is that believing in things that are not true is a dangerous liability. Moreover, Harris argues that Religions in particular both encourage people to believe things on insufficient evidence and to assert those beliefs as fact (i.e. dogma). Dogma is at the crux of what Sam Harris is criticizing - “religion” is just one particularly problematic carrier and promoter of dogma. Harris would be among the first to say that dogma is not unique to religion:  Stalinism, Maoism, and Nazi-Fascism all relied on powerful ideological dogmas, but religious dogma, in Sam’s view, deserves special attention because in our liberal society, we insolate religious dogma from public criticism in a way that we do not protect others type of dogma (such as political dogma).

It’d be nice to know whether or not Hedges disagrees with THE ACTUAL arguments made by Sam Harris and on the issues what basis he disagrees. Dismissing Sam’s arguments as “utopian” does not even begin to address the issues.  Throughout this interview Hedges instead resorts to evasive hyperbola and scary-sounding polarizing characterizations.

Point is, that Harris does not advocate bombing the Middle East. He calls it “an unthinkable crime.” He’s merely worrying that the Western world may be forced into that situation.

I believe this is an accurate summary of Harris’ view (but not only his)... and captures the profound and even genocidal dimension to neo-con “clash of civilizations” racism.

The Western world might be ‘forced,’ you see, as Hillary Clinton argued this week, to ‘obliterate’ Iran in defense of Israel(!).

Why? It’s all the fault of Islam, which makes its adherents go ‘dewy eyed’ at the prospect of paradise. The poor Western imperialists will have ‘no choice’ but to ‘obliterate’ them preemptively!

How can any decent person fail to gag at the rancid, stinking imperialist racism that animates Harris, Hitchens and their supporters? Whatever else you can say of Hedges, he nails them dead to rights on this. It is very disturbing to see how much traction the neocon world-view has obtained among ‘secular humanists’. 

A couple of weeks ago I heard a podcast interview with one Andrew Thompson, an academic, holding forth on the ‘psychology of Muslim suicide bombers’... that really made me wonder to what extent government agencies like the CIA are actively targetting the secular/atheist/humanist community with pro-war disinformation/propaganda campaigns.

Something to keep in mind.

I still don’t see Harris making any moral justification for a Western nation bombing the Middle East. I also don’t see his statements as imperialist or racist. He’s just stating a likely scenario based on the present political climate. I have faulted Harris in the past for using the very same moral calculus in justifying the possibility of torture as Muslims (in the survey he cites) probably use for justifying the possibility of suicide bombing. If you ask someone if they can think of ANY scenario in which such behavior would be justified, most people can come up with some wildly improbable situation and so they answer yes on the survey (to either torture or suicide bombing). His point though was that people have a hard time thinking rationally about such options.

I do think that Harris’ rhetoric is certainly appealing to neocons, but I’m not so sure about placing him in that camp. I’m less familiar with Hitchens, but I suspect he falls squarely in that camp.  Dennett certainly not. Dennett is a outspoken liberal.

I’m a big fan of the podcast, but I thought DJ stepped on it in this one. Hedges seemed very reasonable. DJ attempted to erect one straw man after another and ignored Hedges’ specific points that justified his calling Hitches, Dawkins et al. as “fundamentalists”.

This was one of the first of the POI podcasts I’ve heard where the conventional POI wisdom was challenged. Judging by DJ’s (and some of the posters here), it sure looks like people don’t like their “articles of faith”—whether secular or religious—challenged.

I’ve listened to a lot of Dawkins in particular. I just don’t see how he justifies the leap from “science knows of no god” to “there (very probably) is no god”. I know a good many theists. Very few of them have problems with following science wherever it leads, and these people have no expectation that a god should be discoverable by science. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: they argue that the kind of transcendent god of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is, by nature, outside of creation.

Naturally this man Chris Hedges will attack the new atheists and call them fundamental,  because he is a moderate christian, he believes in the bible, what, a moderate version that has been cherry picked? and that is the issue that all the atheist authors have, that these texts need to be removed as being used as a guide and way of life and placed in the libraries, because they contain the parisite that lies in wait in the hands and minds of all moderates and can be ignited at anytime. This is the problem. As to the subject of sin, Chris Hedges says that freethinkers don’t acknowledge sin, this is strictly scriptural terminology and if he wanted to talk about sin, then how come he didn’t quote the bible, the wages of sin is death, eternal torture, so he believes in torture. I don’t care how much travelling he has done and seen all that he has at first hand, all the more reason why he should be dispensing with his mild moderate christian belief. And when DJ asked him what he thought the 10% american atheist/agnostic/freethinkers should do or how they should act, his answer was, introspection, not self elevation that he accuses atheist authors of, he is a hypocrite, if he is a christian likes he says he is, then he believes in the bible which is the most arrogant book ever written. He kept saying I should know, I’ve been everywhere and for decades, aren’t I wonderful, I should know, you don’t, he is very arrogant.  He is a fool.

HH: I’m a big fan of the podcast, but I thought DJ stepped on it in this one. Hedges seemed very reasonable. DJ attempted to erect one straw man after another and ignored Hedges’ specific points that justified his calling Hitches, Dawkins et al. as “fundamentalists”.

This was one of the first of the POI podcasts I’ve heard where the conventional POI wisdom was challenged. Judging by DJ’s (and some of the posters here), it sure looks like people don’t like their “articles of faith”—whether secular or religious—challenged.

As one example, DJ several times returned to asking: ‘So anyone who disagrees with you is a fundamentalist?’ as if Hedges had not already answered it.

I agree, POI is to be comended for taking on Hedges, even at the expense of exposing some of the weak points of its own general approach.

Note how DJ was again left with nothing to say, when Hedges called out the anti-scientific nonsense of ‘memetics’. This essentially religious/idealist hobby horse not only dovetails with the pro-imperialist ‘clash of civilizations’ garbage, but has largely been given a free ride by skeptics for decades, without the slightest theoretical development or evidentiary support.

This also recalls Hedges’ distinction between respect for science as opposed to a ‘cult of science’ mentality, a topic I think could easily justify a whole interview of its own.

I’m all for skeptical mop-up operations against the post-modernism pushed by the muddle-headed academic remnants of the New Left. But let’s be materialist minded about this: the big money is surely finding its way into that wing of the Imperialist War Party that smuggles its racist contraband under the camouflage of secular humanism, democratic values and human rights. This is where the real fight for the heritage of Enlightenment rationalism needs to be waged.

I’ve listened to a lot of Dawkins in particular. I just don’t see how he justifies the leap from “science knows of no god” to “there (very probably) is no god”. ...  [theists] have no expectation that a god should be discoverable by science. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: they argue that the kind of transcendent god of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is, by nature, outside of creation.

Here’s your error: The god of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is not a transcendent god that exists outside of creation. The “God of the Bible” is a god that is (as described in the Bible) intricately involved and continually manipulating the mechanisms of the “creation” ...  this god answers prayers, sends messages, and delivers punishments in the form of floods. plagues, etc.  As such, it’s not just that the “God of the Bible” is not shown to exist by science, it’s that the “God of the Bible”  is at direct odds with science; i.e. it is at direct odds with the facts of the universe as revealed by science.

Here’s your error: The god of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is not a transcendent god that exists outside of creation. The “God of the Bible” is a god that is (as described in the Bible) intricately involved and continually manipulating the mechanisms of the “creation” ...  this god answers prayers, sends messages, and delivers punishments in the form of floods. plagues, etc.  As such, it’s not just that the “God of the Bible” is not shown to exist by science, it’s that the “God of the Bible”  is at direct odds with science; i.e. it is at direct odds with the facts of the universe as revealed by science.

I’m not seeing my error, I’m afraid. Christian dogma, at least, posits a god who exists outside of nature but who acts in time and space without inhabiting that time-space. If (BIG if!) that’s true, then

a. how is this god at direct odds with science?...and
b. how would we ever use the tools for probing the physical world to investigate this mysterious god?

Every time I hear one of the Big Atheists railing that God is antithetical to science, I scratch my head. I’m not arguing FOR a god—just that there can be no possibility of disproving something that exists outside of the only system we have. Not only can we neither prove nor disprove such a god’s existence, science itself has nothing to say on this subject.

As one example, DJ several times returned to asking: ‘So anyone who disagrees with you is a fundamentalist?’ as if Hedges had not already answered it.

As a listener, I don’t think that Hedge gave a clear definition of fudamentalist and how that applies to “new atheists”.  Unless, of course, you lob them all together and force their views into a fundamentalist mold.  Maybe he is more clear in this book, but when asked for clarification, it looks like he doesn’t have a solid argument for atheist fundamentalism.

Keep in mind, this is a Secular Humanist podcast.  As I understand it, DJ is asking questions and interviewing on behalf of that community.

On memetics, it could be bunk.  Maybe it has less substance than string theory, but I don’t think it has been a big enough deal for anyone to pay attention to it.

It’s almost impossible to keep up with the sheer volume of unsubstantiated claims and accusations that spews forth out of Hedges mouth… one after another after another. It’s too bad D.J couldn’t slow down the interview to address each.

Nearly right off the bat Hedges accuses the “New Atheists” of: “a complete corruption and misuse of science”. How so!?! That accusation needs to be defended with specific examples.

Here’s the basic claim: Hedges claims that the “New Atheists” entails a “fundamentalists mindset”, based on his below definition of “fundamentalism”:
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1) A binary world-view of “us” and “them”.
Not only is edges wrong on this point, but just the opposite is true. “Atheism” is a term that has no more meaning than the term: “a-astrologer”. There is no “us” and “them”. There are just varying degrees of credulity across all of humanity.

2) Elevating ourselves to higher moral plane and others to moral inferiority.
Nowhere in the writings and speeches of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet have I ever read anything that would suggest that the see themselves as morally superior. In fact they’re more likely to be accused of moral relativism.

-3) Embracing catastrophic, if not apocalyptic violence to remove human impediments to a more perfect world.
No where is this claim born out in any way by the writings of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet.

4) The externalization of evil. The belief that evil is not something within us that we must battle against.
This is *exactly* the opposite of what the “New Atheists” argue in fact.

Later Hedges later claims:
————————————————————————————————————————
The “New Atheists” replicate the belief systems of the radical Islamists ... they believe in the language of violence, they believe that the way to solve the problem is through violence.
What basis does he have for making this claim? nothing by Dawkins, Dennett or Harris that I have ever read or listened to ever promotes violence as a viable solution to the problems caused by radical religion. If Hedges misunderstood the end of Sam Harris’s book, he has plenty of examples from Harris himself, speaking for himself, correcting any confusion. In fact, Harris has responded directly to Hedges to clarify the confusion ... so we can only assume that Hedges in this regard is being willfully dishonest in his misrepresentation of Harris’s opinion.

Hedges frequently talks about “their belief” ...  but never bothers to define what he thinks that “New Atheist” belief is.
How can you be critical of another claim, without accurately representing what that claim is? Hedges doesn’t seem to care. So for his sake, I’ll make an attempt. If I had to boil down the thrust of the “New Atheists”  message/belief it would be this:

- “Belief in things on insufficient evidence is dangerous”
- “institutionalizing beliefs that are based on insufficient evidence is especially dangerous.”

I’m not seeing my error, I’m afraid. Christian dogma, at least, posits a god who exists outside of nature but who acts in time and space without inhabiting that time-space.

Yup uh huh sure. A god who exists outside of nature but can meddle with it any old which way but it still exists outside of nature because that way believers always get to say (and say and say and say) that science can’t inquire into this god because this god (so conveniently) exists outside of nature. That’s called having it both ways. Or in the vernacular, cheating. God is magic and special and Outside so science can’t investigate it, no no, go away; but on the other hand god answers prayers, sends hurricanes to punish the wicked, loves us all, hates the sin (but not the sinner), etc etc etc.

If (BIG if!) that’s true, then

a. how is this god at direct odds with science?...and
b. how would we ever use the tools for probing the physical world to investigate this mysterious god?

Big if indeed. Why should anyone think that is true? And notice how very convenient ‘b’ is. Doesn’t that convenience make you a little suspicious? If not it ought to.

Every time I hear one of the Big Atheists railing that God is antithetical to science, I scratch my head. I’m not arguing FOR a god—just that there can be no possibility of disproving something that exists outside of the only system we have. Not only can we neither prove nor disprove such a god’s existence, science itself has nothing to say on this subject.

Well there’s no possibility of disproving anything; disproof is much too high a standard - and the ‘Big Atheists’ of course know that perfectly well. ‘Antithetical to science’ doesn’t mean ‘capable of being disproven.’ Of course we can neither prove nor disprove such a god’s existence (and, again, the ‘Big Atheists’ know that). But as for science having nothing to say on the subject - well that depends on your acceptance of the bizarre and (as I said) suspiciously convenient idea that god is outside nature but active inside it. I would say that that’s just plain impossible, frankly. Either you are outside nature or you’re not; you can’t be both. If god is outside nature we know absolutely nothing about ‘it’ - whatever it is. We certainly don’t know that it’s called ‘god’ or whether or not it created the universe. We know nothing, so there’s little point in talking about it. There’s especially little point in talking about it in a dogmatic way. Christian ‘dogma’ about an inside-outside god that disappears when science is in the room and comes back when it’s time to frighten sinners - is a pathetic evasive joke.

Yup uh huh sure. A god who exists outside of nature but can meddle with it any old which way but it still exists outside of nature because that way believers always get to say (and say and say and say) that science can’t inquire into this god because this god (so conveniently) exists outside of nature. That’s called having it both ways. Or in the vernacular, cheating. God is magic and special and Outside so science can’t investigate it, no no, go away; but on the other hand god answers prayers, sends hurricanes to punish the wicked, loves us all, hates the sin (but not the sinner), etc etc etc.

Big if indeed. Why should anyone think that is true? And notice how very convenient ‘b’ is. Doesn’t that convenience make you a little suspicious? If not it ought to.

Suspicious? Absolutely. I’m not saying that because something is possible, it is therefore true. The claim is and should be met with the greatest skepticism. But Dawkins, particularly, seems far too sure of his atheism than can be justified. If his is a rational argument, then it has to meet certain standards—whether or not his opponents do. (That’s their problem, I’m afraid.) And here, it seems to me, it fails. Because that is exactly what Christians do say about god and it’s no use disparaging it on the basis that it’s highly unlikely. Of course it’s highly unlikely! But using the conclusion as your argument (“It’s highly unlikely because it’s highly unlikely”) just isn’t permitted in logic.

That’s my problem with Dawkins: he just isn’t logical. If he wants to say, “Look this whole thing strikes me as so much whistling in the dark”, well, that’s fine. But if you’re going to claim that a correct understanding of science leads you to reject religion (as he does), then you must provide more of a bulwark for that claim. Otherwise, you’re arguing just as the Christian fundamentalists do: Believe it because I say it.

Wittgenstein once wrote something to the effect that “Whereof we are ignorant, therein must we remain quiet.” If Dawkins is going to use science to argue against a belief in a god, he needs to explain how, exactly, science traverses from the realm of the created to that of the creator. I fail to see how it can do so. And that inability leads to name-calling: “pathetic”, “foolish”, “delusional”, etc. Now, all those MAY be true, but that’s not an argument.

I’m not seeing my error, I’m afraid. Christian dogma, at least, posits a god who exists outside of nature but who acts in time and space without inhabiting that time-space. If (BIG if!) that’s true, then

a. how is this god at direct odds with science?...and
b. how would we ever use the tools for probing the physical world to investigate this mysterious god?

Every time I hear one of the Big Atheists railing that God is antithetical to science, I scratch my head. I’m not arguing FOR a god—just that there can be no possibility of disproving something that exists outside of the only system we have. Not only can we neither prove nor disprove such a god’s existence, science itself has nothing to say on this subject.

If you are talking about a god that truly exists outside “creation” and never interacts within the “creation” then you are right, but that’s not the god described in the Bible.

The “God of the Bible” takes actions that alter “nature” (e.g. answers prayers, sends floods upon the earth, etc.). So.for example, if the “God of the Bible” flooded the earth with water, this impact upon nature should be measurable (geological record, fossil record, etc). We have technology sufficient enough to detect the remnants had such a flood occurred, but there are no remnants. So this is one bit of positive scientific evidence against the existence of the “god of the bible”. Many such pieces of positive scientific evidence exist. The fact that there is no evidence to support *any* of the deeds of the “God of the Bible” is itself enormous evidence suggesting that the “God of the Bible” does not exist.

——————————————————
——————————————————
Also, there is logical evidence that we can use to determine what types of gods might exist, for example:

If there existed a god that:
1) cares about the welfare of humanity
2) has a message vitally important to the welfare of humanity, and
3) is capability of delivering that message unambiguously to all of humanity
we should have received that message. The fact that we haven’t received such a message is positive evidence (logical evidence) that such a god does not exists.

EXPLANATION: in a world full of incompatible claims, false-prophets and deceit, a message purporting to be of “God” that exists in form susceptible to counterfeit and mimicry (e.g. a “holy book”, an “experience”, and any other form where the <u>mere possibility</u> exists of other explanation), provides reason enough to know that the message is not of “God”. The ability to reliably authenticate the source of a message is as important as the message itself.

I have finally got round to listening to this episode.

I simply cannot relate how Chris Hedges speaks about (new) atheists to my experience of (new) atheists.  He makes all sorts of claims which are completely unfounded, misrepresenting what atheists have said. He calls new atheists extremists but i suggest he takes a look at his own language toward atheists.

Ski.

The “God of the Bible” takes actions that alter “nature” (e.g. answers prayers, sends floods upon the earth, etc.). So, for example, if the “God of the Bible” flooded the earth with water, this impact upon nature should be measurable (geological record, fossil record, etc). We have technology sufficient enough to detect the remnants had such a flood occurred, but there are no remnants. So this is one bit of positive scientific evidence against the existence of the “god of the bible”. Many such pieces of positive scientific evidence exist.

Absolutely agree with you. Science can validate specific predictions. And a world-wide flood is a specific prediction. Since there is no evidence (where there absolutely would be), one is left with two possibilities:

a. such a flood never existed.
b. this god decided to make it appear as though there never were a flood

The lack of scientific evidence isn’t, perhaps, absolute proof no such flood existed, but it’s good enough for me and, I suspect, many others.

If there existed a god that:
1) cares about the welfare of humanity
2) has a message vitally important to the welfare of humanity, and
3) is capability of delivering that message unambiguously to all of humanity
we should have received that message. The fact that we haven’t received such a message is positive evidence (logical evidence) that such a god does not exists.

First, I’m sure a lot of Christian believers hold to all of these, but I suspect that’s coincident to their belief in a god and not a necessary outcome. One could posit, for example, a deity who cares about human beings but sees them as desperately wicked. In that case, no message may be able to help them: they may be too wicked to receive it or so wicked they would pervert it. It may be that such a deity would take other measures to persuade humans to repent.

This is just one plausible scenario for faith that doesn’t fall to the syllogism above. So, the critique you’ve constructed may well be valid against such a naive theology, but doesn’t say much to the existence of a god. That’s to be understood if, as I argue, science has nothing to say about such a question. Why Dawkins insists that it does is a mystery to me.

I don’t think that Hedge gave a clear definition of fudamentalist and how that applies to “new atheists”.  Unless, of course, you lob them all together and force their views into a fundamentalist mold.

You don’t have to agree with Hedges to see how disingenuous it was for the interviewer to repeat the question: “So anyone who disagrees with you is a fundamentalist?”  What is ‘fundamentalist’ is not, as Hedges pointed out, having a different opinion, but excluding, dehumanizing and demonizing the ‘other’ (in this case Islamic cultures about which Harris, Hitchens & Co. flaunt their ignorance), in a way that justifies in advance criminal violence against them.

In this way the neocons and other Western imperialists (liberal, secular, evangelical or zionist) are the perfect mutually reenforcing counterpart to the Islamic reactionaries. Both base their criminal acts on the essential doctrine of ‘collective guilt’ and ‘collective punishment’ that does not distinguish between the rulers and the ruled, the guilty and the innocent of the ‘enemy’ population.

The racist neo-cons rely upon and feed a widespread fear and ignorance of the Islamic world as a whole in order to create a scenario in which the ‘obliteration’ of one or another Islamic country by the West might be an ‘unfortunate necessity’.

Let’s be clear: the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran would be a very wise thing for its rulers to pursue, considering the nuclear armed powers who surround (Pakistan, Israel, Russia, U.S.) and actively threaten them (U.S., Israel).  The Iranians claim that nuclear weapons are contrary to Islamic law and deny they have any intention of building them. But if they are serious about forswearing their self-defense on religious grounds,... well, there’s unarguable proof for the claim that religious dogma lowers your IQ!

For Iran to acquire such weapons would not (except in the fevered imagination of racists) in any way justify the genocidal slaughter of its population by the U.S. and Israel. Yet this is exactly the rationale, repeated by Clinton this week, which Harris provides in his ‘hypothetical’ scenario. 

The racism here (for those who still claim not to get it) is the depiction of the ‘enemy’ country’s rulers as uniquely fanatical, irrational, evil, and unconcerned with human suffering, when there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that this is the case. In fact, Iran - in stark contrast to the U.S. and Israel - has not waged a single offensive war against a neighbor over the last milennium or more (at least).

[quote author=“Riley”]
If there existed a god that:
1) cares about the welfare of humanity
2) has a message vitally important to the welfare of humanity, and
3) is capability of delivering that message unambiguously to all of humanity
we should have received that message. The fact that we haven’t received such a message is positive evidence (logical evidence) that such a god does not exists.

First, I’m sure a lot of Christian believers hold to all of these, but I suspect that’s coincident to their belief in a god and not a necessary outcome.

The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish faiths are defined by messages and messengers purported to be of “God”;  the specifics of those messages define the differences among those faiths—- they completely rely on a concept of a god that sends messages for them to follow. Regardless of whether you accept this or not,  the distinction you make here is not particularly significant to the point that I’m making with my examples. I’m simply demonstrating here that science provides positive evidence that “God”, as I defined here (and as commonly believed to exist), does not exist. As such, science, is relevant to the debate about the existence of “God”.
. .

One could posit, for example, a deity who cares about human beings but sees them as desperately wicked.

...  and science has something to say about the process used to posit that theory of god too, of course.
. .

the critique you’ve constructed may well be valid against such a naive theology, but doesn’t say much to the existence of a god.

One person’s “naive theology” is another persons faith. But that’s not the point.

At a very minimum the examples I’ve constructed here serve to demonstrate that religious claims are not outside the realm of science. In my examples, I have demonstrated how science could be used both to reduce the possible types of gods that might exist and also to test for the existence of specific claims about the existence of gods of the type that take action in the natural world.

If a god never interacts or interferes with “creation”, does it really deserve the term “god” ... I don’t think so.

—

The racism here (for those who still claim not to get it) is the depiction of the ‘enemy’ country’s rulers as uniquely fanatical, irrational, evil, and unconcerned with human suffering, when there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that this is the case. In fact, Iran - in stark contrast to the U.S. and Israel - has not waged a single offensive war against a neighbor over the last milennium or more (at least).

I think there is probably a better word for it than racism.

I don’t think that racism is accurate here.  I’d have to see some specific quote or example for these claims, because I have not made note of them. 
I’ve read criticism that relates scriptural interpretations to acts of violence.  I see nothing racist with asserting that there are scriptures that lead to acts of violence when they become dogma.  I don’t see any blanket statements against “all Arabs” or “all Muslims”.  I don’t even see the ‘new atheists’ advocating much violence.  Dawkins, for example, promotes education as a solution to the problem.

I haven’t read any calls for genocide from the authors discussed.

By the way, the ‘new atheists’ don’t make excuses for religion in America either.

HARRIS: “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.”

“Racist garbage” is exactly right.

The key for the racist is to make “the other” not simply different but “given what they believe” inherently subhuman - less rational, thoughtful, concerned for human welfare than “us” (who are magically exempt from similar scrutiny), in order to justify their extermination.

The evidence for this uniquely evil Islamist government (which apparently operates outside the framework of all other human governments and ruling classes in history) is not offered (because it is non-existent); Harris and his ilk simply reiterate the orientalist stereotype with the expectation that their fellow racists will not find it questionable.

Sad and even “unthinkable” as it surely is, killing tens of millions of innocent civilians “may be the only course of action available [?!!] to us”.

Poisonous neocon “master-race” filth.

Regardless of whether you accept this or not,  the distinction you make here is not particularly significant to the point that I’m making with my examples. I’m simply demonstrating here that science provides positive evidence that “God”, as I defined here (and as commonly believed to exist), does not exist. As such, science, is relevant to the debate about the existence of “God”.

I agree with you about science being able to inform questions about the universe, including those posed by religious claims such as…

1. Was there a world-wide flood?
2. Did dinosaurs co-exist with humans?
3. About how old is the earth?
4. Did an “exodus” occur?

But it seems reckless to say that science provides positive evidence that “God” does not exist. It’s just this illegitimate use of science that provides fodder to the fundamentalists who want to tell their flock that science is evil. We don’t need to do this. We don’t need our own version of televangelists willing to shade the truth and slip pseudo-arguments into the mix. At least, I don’t.

Hi! First time poster here!

I just listened to the Hedges interview and I MUST comment.

First, I have to commend DJ Grothe for keeping the interview civil. IMO Hedges was a difficult guest. He wasn’t very specific as to what a fundamentalist was, and he seemed to be a “yeah, but” -er. He couldn’t seem to agree w/ anything DJ said; not that DJ was so wrong, but that Hedges didn’t want to concede anything. He kept saying “well what muslim society are you talking about?”, or “what is secularism?”; it seemed like he was just trying to be a smarta*s and not adding anything to the conversation.

I was open to hearing what Hedges had to say but the way he presented himself turned me off. I agreed w/ some of what he was trying to say but he had such an attitude! And with all that arguing he did he didn’t say much of substance.

Plus, I don’t want to get into what’s wrong with that title “I don’t believe in Atheists.” He could’ve chosen something a lot more accurate and a lot less…fundamentalist.

is not offered (because it is non-existent)

I’d have to read the whole book or chapter to get the premise.  To me, it reads like a hypothetical scenario.

There was an “us” and “them” during WWII.  I still think it is a stretch. 

Harris’ closing is sloppy there.  But it does look like he is making a generalization.

it seems reckless to say that science provides positive evidence that “God” does not exist.

It’s not reckless if you are actually being scientific.

If someone makes the claim that “God” sent a flood upon the earth and you can use science to show that there was no flood, then that is positive proof that “God” (as defined) does not exist. It’s not certain proof (science doesn’t provide 100% certainty about anything), but it is scientific evidence. And you’re right, one could argue that “God” makes things to happen, tells messengers to record their occurrance, but then decides to make it impossible for anyone else to verify for themselves that such an occurance did in fact happen. Sure. That’s possible. But that doesn’t mean that science has nothing to say about the likelihood of that alternate scenario. That’s exactly how science works ... by assigning probabilities and error-bars.

You seem to be arguing that science should be silent about such matters, and that seems to me very narrow minded.

For anybody that has some spare time to contribute:

SAMHARRIS.ORG
Research Volunteers Needed

We are preparing to run another fMRI study of belief and disbelief, and we need volunteers to help us refine our experimental stimuli. This promises to be the first study of religious faith at the level of the brain. By responding to the four surveys I have posted online, you can make an enormous contribution to this work.

You’ll find links to these surveys on my home page.

Please answer as many of the surveys as you can. If you only have time to answer one, please choose at random (otherwise, we will have many more responses to the first than to the others).

Feel free to post this message to your blog or to forward the relevant links to your friends. I especially need Christians to respond, as one of the goals of these surveys is to design stimuli that a majority of Christians will find doctrinally sound.

I will, of course, pass along the results of this work the moment I have something to report.

Many thanks for your help.

All the best,

Sam

http://www.samharris.org

Somethings make give me the creeps and raise my skin hairs:

http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/smalloy/atomic_tragedy/photos.html

I just see some similarities between the American decision to nuke the Japs and force Japanese-Americans into detention camps (decisions made with little religious influence?) and the vilification and dehumanization of Muslims-Arabs-Persians.

But it seems reckless to say that science provides positive evidence that “God” does not exist. It’s just this illegitimate use of science that provides fodder to the fundamentalists who want to tell their flock that science is evil. We don’t need to do this. We don’t need our own version of televangelists willing to shade the truth and slip pseudo-arguments into the mix. At least, I don’t.

Taking the entire paragraph, rather than stripping a single sentence from Hal’s comments, it becomes clear that Hal is justified in his concerns. Science cannot prove god does not exist - that’s Hal’s point (and mine). Scientists that even hint that science has proven god does not exist are lying and making scientists appear irrational. That image can do more damage than some might think. I’m an atheist and a scientist, but I have seen emotion get the better of even the brightest of scientists - that is not a good thing.

Science asks, where is the proof. Keep it simple.

EDITED because: I originally missed a quote format - and I’m usually so good at writing code.

Science cannot prove god does not exist - that’s Hal’s point (and mine). Scientists that even hint that science has proven god does not exist are lying and making scientists appear irrational.

But it’s a point that’s not worth making because it’s a straw man - scientists know better than the vast majority of people that science can’t prove god does not exist: scienctists don’t talk about proof in that silly journalistic way because scientists know better than the vast majority of people that science can’t prove anything. Hedges makes the mistake of wildly mischaracterizing what Dawkins (in particular) says, and his book is startlingly lacking in direct quotation. Don’t allow Hedges to influence you. His version of Dawkins (and by extension science) is a giant straw man.

Of course science can’t prove god doesn’t exist. But that’s not the issue.

But it seems reckless to say that science provides positive evidence that “God” does not exist. It’s just this illegitimate use of science that provides fodder to the fundamentalists who want to tell their flock that science is evil. We don’t need to do this. We don’t need our own version of televangelists willing to shade the truth and slip pseudo-arguments into the mix. At least, I don’t.

Taking the entire paragraph, rather than stripping a single sentence from Hal’s comments, it becomes clear that Hal is justified in his concerns. Science cannot prove god does not exist - that’s Hal’s point (and mine).

Reading the entire thread, instead of just that one post, you can see that Hal’s objection was more than what you claim it to be:

[...]Not only can we neither prove nor disprove such a god’s existence, science itself has nothing to say on this subject.

If Dawkins is going to use science to argue against a belief in a god, he needs to explain how, exactly, science traverses from the realm of the created to that of the creator. I fail to see how it can do so.

Hal appears to me to be objecting to the very idea that science could be used at all to argue against a belief in “God”, and this is what I take difference with. Of course, no one (not Dawkins, nor any of the other “new atheists”) has claimed that science has proven that “god” does not exist. Science can’t prove anything (thank you Ophelia). But science can speak to the likelihood of claims, and that’s what Dawkins does. Read Dawkins book, or re-read it more carefully; Dawkins presents the case in terms of probability and does so with regard to a “personal god” (i.e. the type that interacts with “creation”).

If “God” interacts with “creation” (i.e. interacts with the natural world), then “God” can be subjected to scientific testing. If the god you believe in is a god that answers prayers, sends messages, send messengers, and/or sends floods, etc., then qualified scientists have an obligation to subject those god-claims to scientific rigor, just as they do in every other field of human endeavor.

  The racism here (for those who still claim not to get it) is the depiction of the ‘enemy’ country’s rulers as uniquely fanatical, irrational, evil, and unconcerned with human suffering, when there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that this is the case. In fact, Iran - in stark contrast to the U.S. and Israel - has not waged a single offensive war against a neighbor over the last milennium or more (at least).

Who doesn’t get it?

Ever hear of Human Rights Watch?

Take a look at this sick list of human rights abuses perpetrated by Iran:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran

Did you say “there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that this is the case”?

Have a look at this headline from Reuters today: “Iran women activist gets suspended jail sentence.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSDAH51857220080505

I’ll agree that these women’s rights activists are not “fanatical, irrational, evil, and unconcerned with human suffering.”  But they are being jailed, intimidated, tortured, and silenced by those who you are defending.

The key for the racist is to make “the other” not simply different but “given what they believe” inherently subhuman - less rational, thoughtful, concerned for human welfare than “us” (who are magically exempt from similar scrutiny), in order to justify their extermination.

Sure, it’s us humanists who are the dehumanizers?

Religious fundamentalists who indoctrinate their children and teach them to hate and live with blind faith are not dehumanizing anyone, right?  It’s Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins?  It’s them, not the religious fanatics that are “less rational, thoughtful, concerned for human welfare than ‘us’,” right? 

This is the same nonsense that Hedges trotted out.

Hedges is an apologist, propagandist, and moral relativist.  Let’s shout that nonsense down for the good of humanity.

I don’t believe in Chris Hedges.

Well I couldn’t believe that he could present himself as an expert on Islamic issues and then glibly say something to the effect that he hadn’t read anything by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and that he didn’t need to read the works of others. I forget exactly how this went—I was waiting for Ibn Warraq to come up but he didn’t.

I thought D.J. did a good job—this is one for him to replay for notes on how to interview a hostile witness. The guy wanted to debate D.J. not give an interview.

I was also bothered by his redefining “New Atheist” to mean something that didn’t seem to have anything to do with atheism (which he didn’t really discuss, did he?)

   

Well I couldn’t believe that he could present himself as an expert on Islamic issues and then glibly say something to the effect that he hadn’t read anything by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and that he didn’t need to read the works of others. I forget exactly how this went—I was waiting for Ibn Warraq to come up but he didn’t.

Exactly!  Hedges claims to be an authority (and to minimize and belittle EVERYONE else) because he says he’s an arabic speaker and was a Middle East beauro cheif?!?  The audacity of this guy is heroic!  (Excuse me, I’m choking back a dry-heave.) 

And, how about the part where D.J. finally settles on a muslim society to talk about (after Hedges refuses to talk about Islamic theocracy in general)?  Hah, it’s Saudi Arabia, and Hedges has to admit that he was banned from Saudi Arabia!  That makes the very point itself.  These are nasty, human rights-abusing, repressive societies.  But Hedges then just brushes it aside and tries to minimize it.  D.J. should have pounced there; but you could sort of sense that Hedges was ready to bolt and end it at the sign of any serious resitance—kind of like when Rush Limbaugh cuts off a caller if they challenge anything he says—D.J. probably just wanted to finish the interview. 

And then D.J. asks if 9/11 would have happened without the religious extremeism and dogmatism, and Hedges says no, its these “other” institutionalized factors.  As if this religious extremism hasn’t been the key polarizing factor that’s been institutionalized in this scary mix of politics and religious ideology?  At any rate, it was probably the most exciting POI episode I’ve ever heard, even though it was also the most exasperating.

Always like your input J.

 
I was also bothered by his redefining “New Atheist” to mean something that didn’t seem to have anything to do with atheism (which he didn’t really discuss, did he?)

Yes, yes.  Great point.  I have been reading George Lakoff on metaphor and framing and how it is used to acheive politcal and ideological agendas.  We need to be very careful about this.  Calling (“redefining” as you say) atheists fundamentalists (as Hedges has the audacity to do) is so, so, so, false and misleading, but it can nonetheless be used as a tactic by the theists and anti-reason-crowd to try to demonize their opposition.  Very scary stuff.  That is why I called Hedges a “propagandist” earlier.  He is manipulating language to suit his ideological Will To Power (to mention a Philosopher, Nietzsche, who Hedges is obviously familiar with).

it seems reckless to say that science provides positive evidence that “God” does not exist.

It’s not reckless if you are actually being scientific.

If someone makes the claim that “God” sent a flood upon the earth and you can use science to show that there was no flood, then that is positive proof that “God” (as defined) does not exist. It’s not certain proof (science doesn’t provide 100% certainty about anything), but it is scientific evidence. And you’re right, one could argue that “God” makes things to happen, tells messengers to record their occurrance, but then decides to make it impossible for anyone else to verify for themselves that such an occurance did in fact happen. Sure. That’s possible. But that doesn’t mean that science has nothing to say about the likelihood of that alternate scenario. That’s exactly how science works ... by assigning probabilities and error-bars.

You seem to be arguing that science should be silent about such matters, and that seems to me very narrow minded.

Actually, it doesn’t provide positive proof that God doesn’t exist at all. It may well give positive proof that the person making the claims has a faulty understanding of such a deity. Perhaps I can give an example:

I believe that Richard Dawkins exists. Further, I assert that Professor Dawkins is an expert at Vogon poetry, having been versed in all seventeen forms, and has written a marvelous book, “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts”. I tell you I just bought this from amazon.com and that it has changed forever the way I think about Vogon poetry.

You, the astute skeptic you are, head over to Amazon, only to discover that no such book exists—either by Dawkins or anyone else. You do more checking: no such book. You may well say, “That Hal guy has no idea what he’s talking about on this subject.” That’s a legitimate conclusion. But if you conclude, “That Hal guy has no idea what he’s talking about. There is no such person as Richard Dawkins”—well, that’s not legitimate.

Now, you may say, “But I can verify to a high degree of certainty that, in fact, Richard Dawkins does exist!” Again, you would be right, but suppose I exchange the name “Richard Dawkins” for “Rudwell Sweedy”. All your searching is in vain: there seems to be no evidence that Rudwell exists. Are you then justified in thinking that no such person exists? No, that’s not legit.

In the case of a god who is outside the universe, we have no possible scientific tools or methods to determine if such a deity exists. We can be pretty sure that some of the people that claim to speak for God are mistaken (where’s the evidence of a universal flood?), but there our conclusions based on good science must end.

I don’t think this is narrow-minded at all. Nor is it a knock against science. Science is doing just what it’s supposed to do. Any problem we may have comes from asking it to do something it was not designed nor can do.

Hi Hal,

Testimony is one way to reach knowledge, but not a very good way.  For, if something seems out of whack with the testifier then one can check it for oneself and verify.  We don’t believe everything we hear, hopefully.  I’ll demonstrate. 

But first, I want to let you in on a little secret of mine that I do not tell very many people.  But I’ll tell you because I think you would understand.

(Whisper): “I’m telling you right now, straight up, God’s honest truth: an invisible pink dragon lives under my house.”

Shhh!!!

Just listen, I can defend this claim:

And, to do so, I’ll just re-insert my name—i.e. “PN”—for “Hal,” and “invisible pink dragon” for your “Richard Dawkins.”  See what you think?

“Trust me, Hal, I really do have an invisible pink dragon under my house.”

You, Hal, the astute thinker you are, head over to my house, only to discover that no such invisible pink dragon exists. You, Hal, do more checking: no such dragon. You, Hal, may well say, “That PN guy has no idea what he’s talking about on this subject.” That’s a legitimate conclusion. But if you conclude, “That PN guy has no idea what he’s talking about. There is no such thing as an invisible pink dragon”—well, that’s not legitimate.

Believe me now?

The question was asked “Where was Hedges wrong” and I’d like to address that.

Lets take his position that we are not marching towards a better future, morally. He thinks that cruelty and violent death have not decreased in the west over the centuries. He is simply wrong.

First, the 20th century was not particularly special in terms of the size or carnage of its wars. If you look at the actual facts, the number of people dying from violence has steadily declined throughout human history. What makes the 20th century seem so bloody is two things: the relative rarity of war and the enormous population boom. Per Capita deaths in Stalinist Russia and Maoist china were not high by the standards of previous centuries, especially if stacked up against per capita deaths among Native Americans in the 19th or the Irish under Cromwell.

An exception to this is the wildly successful pogrom undertaken by German Christians. This explicitly religious massacre had a kill rate of 1 in 2, which was historically significant. So it was religion, not science, that was responsible for the only historically outsized state murder of the twentieth century.

So he’s wrong there. And he shows a lack of understanding of history and statistics that is frankly appalling.

He thinks that modern evolutionary biologists need to get in touch with Freud. Freud had 12 case studies, total, and his theories are not validated by modern science nor followed in modern psychology. Hedges is wrong about that, too.

He thinks that evolutionary psychology, and the study of primate morality, is a misuse of science. Apparently, he thinks this is so because one scientist, 150 years ago, didn’t actually discuss that topic or do that research.

This misunderstanding of science and history is so absurd as to render anything he says on the subject meaningless and trite.

Shall I go on? Do I need to?

Hedges thinks that there is no absolute right or wrong (so he says) and that we are not moving towards something better (so he says) and yet he comes out and says that he hates radical islam. By what measure? For what acts? What could they possibly be doing that is wrong? He is incredibly inconsistent and sloppy in his thinking about morality, as a moral relativist must be.

Now as to whether he is correct that violence is not the optimum response to the situation we find ourselves in vis-a-vis radical Islam, I don’t know. I sympathize with his point. But I’m unsure of its practical application.

Hi Hal,

Testimony is one way to reach knowledge, but not a very good way.  For, if something seems out of whack with the testifier then one can check it for oneself and verify.  We don’t believe everything we hear, hopefully.  I’ll demonstrate. 

But first, I want to let you in on a little secret of mine that I do not tell very many people.  But I’ll tell you because I think you would understand.

(Whisper): “I’m telling you right now, straight up, God’s honest truth: an invisible pink dragon lives under my house.”

Shhh!!!

Just listen, I can defend this claim:

And, to do so, I’ll just re-insert my name—i.e. “PN”—for “Hal,” and “invisible pink dragon” for your “Richard Dawkins.”  See what you think?

“Trust me, Hal, I really do have an invisible pink dragon under my house.”

You, Hal, the astute thinker you are, head over to my house, only to discover that no such invisible pink dragon exists. You, Hal, do more checking: no such dragon. You, Hal, may well say, “That PN guy has no idea what he’s talking about on this subject.” That’s a legitimate conclusion. But if you conclude, “That PN guy has no idea what he’s talking about. There is no such thing as an invisible pink dragon”—well, that’s not legitimate.

Believe me now?

LOL. After a few bouts of…uh…adult libations, I did think I saw a pink something (perhaps an elephant or a dragon, I wasn’t sure) but I can believe the acuity of my observations might have been dulled somewhat.

What you say (besides being witty!) is absolutely true—if we’re talking about something that can (at least in theory) be to a high degree of certainty falsified. But is this the case with a god—at least the kind of god Christians believe in?

That’s my problem: I don’t see what tests one could do to either verify or falsify his existence.

I’m certainly under no intellectual obligation to conclude that, since I have no counter-evidence, he must (or probably does) exist. And, in fact, I strongly suspect that people don’t use science to arrive at this conclusion. From talking with many people (some believers, some not), I find that the belief or lack of belief in a god is part of a larger view of reality—and how commensurable the idea of a god is with their understanding of reality.

Hal, PN, if I may jump in.

Hal, if you claim that Dawkins is the author of a bestselling book on Vogon Poetry, as well as the author of “Modern Knitting for the Incontinent” and “My Journey’s with a Space Unicorn”, we cannot then conclude that Dawkins does not exist. We can, however, conclude that you don’t know jack about Richard Dawkins.

Every testable claim about the existence of god holds up about as well as my Richard Dawkins’ book list. While the existence or non-existence of some sort of deity cannot be tested by examining such claims, we can conclude with great certainty that the claimants don’t know jack about god.

Is this a reason to conclude that there is no god? Who cares? You’re asking the wrong question. The question is, is there any reason whatsoever to believe in God?

Given that 100% of the evidence that god exists comes from claims that clearly demonstrate the claimants lack of knowledge about god, I would have to say “no.”

And that is why science and skeptical reasoning demonstrate that God does not exist. Not by proving the negative, but by revealing that the positive claim is without merit.

Science cannot prove god does not exist - that’s Hal’s point (and mine). Scientists that even hint that science has proven god does not exist are lying and making scientists appear irrational.

But it’s a point that’s not worth making because it’s a straw man - scientists know better than the vast majority of people that science can’t prove god does not exist: scienctists don’t talk about proof in that silly journalistic way because scientists know better than the vast majority of people that science can’t prove anything. Hedges makes the mistake of wildly mischaracterizing what Dawkins (in particular) says, and his book is startlingly lacking in direct quotation. Don’t allow Hedges to influence you. His version of Dawkins (and by extension science) is a giant straw man.

Of course science can’t prove god doesn’t exist. But that’s not the issue.

I’m not setting up a straw man. I’m not suggesting Dawkins asserts that science disproves the existence of a god. My assertion is that science is not in the business (nor should it be) of determining either the existence or non-existence of a deity; that, further, science has nothing whatsoever to say about the possibility of the existence of such a being. But Dawkins does insist that religion and science are antithetical and that a proper understanding of science virtually precludes one from believing in a god. That simply is not good logic.

If “God” interacts with “creation” (i.e. interacts with the natural world), then “God” can be subjected to scientific testing. If the god you believe in is a god that answers prayers, sends messages, send messengers, and/or sends floods, etc., then qualified scientists have an obligation to subject those god-claims to scientific rigor, just as they do in every other field of human endeavor.

Riley, help me out here. If a god whispers in my ear to do X (assuming for the sake of this argument that I’m not just completely bonkers) and I do X, how could we test for the existence of this god? I was the agent of the action, but that neither proves nor disproves anything about a god “inspiring” me.

Dawkins (and others) argue that the mechanism of evolution shows that no omnipotent god is required. All well and good. But that says nothing about whether such a god exists for if he does, he may well use the mechanisms of the natural world to accomplish his purposes since, according to that set of beliefs, he actually created those mechanisms.

Again, I agree that predictions and claims in regards to the natural world (I only use the term “creation” as a shorthand) can and should be tested. But while these tests may lead us to conclude that certain people who claim to speak for this god are almost surely wrong, how can we say anything about whether this god actually exists? It seems to me, as Gould said, that science and religion are two separate enterprises.

Just as it’s foolish for science to be guided by faith, it seems to me equally foolish for faith to be guided by science.

My assertion is that science is not in the business (nor should it be) of determining either the existence or non-existence of a deity; that, further, science has nothing whatsoever to say about the possibility of the existence of such a being. But Dawkins does insist that religion and science are antithetical and that a proper understanding of science virtually precludes one from believing in a god. That simply is not good logic.

But Hal, science is in the business of determining the accuracy of particular definitions of deities. For example, Christian Creationists claim that a deity exists who caused a worldwide flood sometime in the last 5000 years.

The science of geology determines whether or not such a flood occurred by examining what did happen in that time, regardless of whether geologists intend to or not. And in doing so, they prove that no such act occurred. The Creationists are therefore wrong, no deity exists who caused a worldwide flood 5000 years ago or so. This is an obvious example, but the site “godhatesamputees” has many more less obvious ones.

Hal, what I think you are missing is that any sufficiently clever person can create a mythology. For example, I might argue that the universe is a giant simulation, run inside a massive supercomputer in another universe. I could say we need to learn to hack it with our minds to get the stuff we want (ala “The Secret”) and add some other garbage about our destiny and being “saved” and so on. And you couldn’t prove that the supercomputer wasn’t there, on the other side of some unfathomable dimensional wall.

You wouldn’t bother. You would ask “How the hell do YOU know?” and when I told you I heard voices, you would rightly conclude that I’m a madman.

So why isn’t god the same?

And that is why science and skeptical reasoning demonstrate that God does not exist. Not by proving the negative, but by revealing that the positive claim is without merit.

Very well said Mr. Seth!!!  I would only suggest that we say that the best “philosophical” arguments (rather than “skeptical” or “scientific”) we can give suggest that there is no merit to theistic claims. 

Of course I am biased because I am a professional philosopher, but I nonetheless really would defend the idea that the existence of God is a philosophic rather than a scientific problem.  Of course many, like Dawkins, want to put the God-question into the ring of science—so it can knock it out.  Part of the reason for that is that science’s findings are—unless muddied by political or ideological misinformation—quite authoritative and convincing; whereas the findings of philosophy are thought to be on the level of mere opinion (everyone is a philosopher, right?).  Of course, as a practicing philosopher, I find reason, logic, abduction, induction, and general common sense to be weapons that pin a pretty good locus on where the truth is at.  All weapons suggest there is no such thing as god; that is what philosophy points to.  Just as common sense points to a worldview in which there is no such thing as invisible pink dragons, or faries, or Santa Clauses’, or Leprechauns, or Thors or Zeus’ or Poseidens or Allahs or Odins or Appollos or Shivas or Yahweh’s or Flying Spaghetti Monsters. 

Oh wait…  It is definitely true—as it has been revealed to me (personally, you wouldn’t know!)—that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does in fact Exist!!!

Exault!

Praise Be!!

Lo, and Behold!!!

It cannot be proven false.

Therefore, it exists!!!

RAmen

Of course many, like Dawkins, want to put the God-question into the ring of science—so it can knock it out.  Part of the reason for that is that science’s findings are—unless muddied by political or ideological misinformation—quite authoritative and convincing; whereas the findings of philosophy are thought to be on the level of mere opinion (everyone is a philosopher, right?).  Of course, as a practicing philosopher, I find reason, logic, abduction, induction, and general common sense to be weapons that pin a pretty good locus on where the truth is at.

I’m in complete agreement with you, PN: the question of the existence of god is not a scientific one, but a philosophical/theological one. That’s my entire point.

 
I’m in complete agreement with you, PN: the question of the existence of god is not a scientific one, but a philosophical/theological one. That’s my entire point.

Yes, we agree, I do not see how it can be a valid scientific inquiry.

Best,

PN

 
I’m in complete agreement with you, PN: the question of the existence of god is not a scientific one, but a philosophical/theological one. That’s my entire point.

Yes, we agree, I do not see how it can be a valid scientific inquiry.

Best,

PN

Because, first, there are scientific claims made about particular deities that can be tested. Second, science is a method, not a field of knowledge. The philosophy of skepticism is, in large part, dedicated to bringing scientific methods of inquiry to everyday questions. Third, if the universe has different properties if a god exists than it would if no such god exists, these properties should be testable. If the universe does not have different properties dependent on the existence of said god, scientifically this god can be dismissed as utterly meaningless.

To magically take some field of inquiry and say “Here, science may not go” is to build a house of sticks.

Because, first, there are scientific claims made about particular deities that can be tested. Second, science is a method, not a field of knowledge. The philosophy of skepticism is, in large part, dedicated to bringing scientific methods of inquiry to everyday questions. Third, if the universe has different properties if a god exists than it would if no such god exists, these properties should be testable. If the universe does not have different properties dependent on the existence of said god, scientifically this god can be dismissed as utterly meaningless.

To magically take some field of inquiry and say “Here, science may not go” is to build a house of sticks.

Seth, please explain how we can test for the existence of a god. I agree that science is a method; I’m just completely unaware of any tests that could be used to get us closer to the truth. I can see how certain deities could be tested, but a transcendental god that leaves no fingerprints—that’s a tough nut to crack, no?

A pro-Hedges poster or two here is throwing around words like “racist”, “imperialist”, and “orientalist”, and the definition is draining from them with each bland repetition. “Islam” is not a race. I don’t give a damn what their skin tone is; crazy comes in all colors. Islam has had its fair share of imperialism in its past (I name Algeria as just one example), and significant segments of it have imperialist dreams for the future (and not just the terrorists). To blame the West for all the evils of the world is one of the dogmas that the New Atheists fight against. Lastly, there has been a long tradition among Western intellectuals (Voltaire was one of them) of romanticizing foreign cultures such as Islam and the East in order to use them as a criticism against Western Christianity.

There is a clear connection between Islam and suicide bombing that Hedges ignores. For, as Harris and Hitchens have argued, if poverty and politics are the sole cause of things, then why do you not see people of different religions living in the same region under the same conditions not committing the same heinous acts? Why? Hedges also dodged a bullet by saying that people in the Middle East are “frustrated”, but some of this frustration stems from Islam itself: it is the frustration of all-around seeing infidels running the show and advancing in science and technology while the true believers have been left behind. Of course their grievances are not entirely theological, but it would be even less accurate to say that they are entirely economical. Witness, in one recent story, the positively medieval obsession of Islamic scholars asserting that it is “scientifically proven” that Mecca is (or should be) the location of the zero latitude line, not Greenwich (as if “the West” could foist any meaningful imperialism on them through something so subjective and trivial).

A bit of advice to the pro-Hedges posters out there: if you’re going to call out Harris and Hitchens for making over-broad generalizations about Muslims and Muslim sentiments, then throw a bone to consistency and acknowledge that Harris and Hitchens are a bit more nuanced than the Fox News pundits. You are simplifying them like you think they are simplifying Islam.

Oh, and complaining about dogma among Harris and Hitchens supporters and then turning around and calling Andy Thompson a neocon propagandist in what I can only say looked a lot like a political knee-jerk won’t help either.

Seth, please explain how we can test for the existence of a god. I agree that science is a method; I’m just completely unaware of any tests that could be used to get us closer to the truth. I can see how certain deities could be tested, but a transcendental god that leaves no fingerprints—that’s a tough nut to crack, no?

Well, since you are making a claim that there exists something that has absolutely no effect on anything else, I guess you’re right. In that limit case, science can’t help you. But since you can’t—by definition—present any logic or reason to support the existence of something that has no effect on anything else, philosophy, theology, and language are similarly useless tools to dig towards this supposed truth.

But this nut, while tough to crack, is easy to dismiss. Scientifically speaking, something that has no effect on anything else can’t be said to exist. So your god doesn’t exist simply definition of “exist.”

In other words, your trump card is this: “Oh yeah? Well my god doesn’t exist at ALL! Prove that THAT god doesn’t exist!”

Hi, DJ-

Great interview, and I hope you have more contrary subjects on the podcast. We are all contrarians, after all.

I was a little taken aback at Chris Hedges’ narcissism, insisting that he knows everything because of his reporting career, that his experience of violence has educated him in the lack of moral progress we all have made. I would have liked to hear whether he knew that the overall rate of violence per capita has been going steadily down for millennia (Steven Pinker’s recent article in TNR), and that the huge growth in human population is itself a testament to our ability to get along better, which is after all the point of morals. It is not human nature that is capable of improvement, but social structures, habits, and training which can create peace and tolerance out of what is given by biology. And that, of course, is what the Enlightenment was all about.

At any rate, Hedges’ ultimate thoughts on peace in the world, humility, tolerance, and introspection were all well and fine, and indeed far more in tune with the atheists he derides than he appears to know. Making straw men of all the evil atheists who want to drop nuclear bombs on everyone else was not the most scintillating part of the discussion, though I’ll grant that religion does not poison absolutely everything, and that Harris can work himself into atrocious positions.

I appreciate that Hedges believes that comity and tolerance are higher goods than truth (seeing as he appears to be an atheist as well, in a wishy washy way), and that is surely the mark of a humane (rather than utopian) social order, but there is a real barrier to mutual respect if one’s interlocutor believes in fairies. His challenge to see the humanity/humanism through the screen of psychological projections and delusions of others is in the end quite correct, but he himself could have chosen a less intolerant way of making his case.

I got the sense that he has seen a lot of misery in his day and that he felt a bit attacked. But yes, a bit horn tooting. That being said, I think his point was: I have been there, I know more. His greater experience in the mid-east compared to some of those he is criticizing does boost his opinion’s credibility. Though he was really skirting the line of “arguing from authority”.

In the end, I think he made some very good points and it was nice to have someone rock DJ back on his heels a bit. I think he points out a real danger in atheistic rhetoric that can undermine what the “skeptical movement”, if that truly exists, intends to accomplish.

Great interview, DJ.

-a country boy from NC

In other words, your trump card is this: “Oh yeah? Well my god doesn’t exist at ALL! Prove that THAT god doesn’t exist!”

Ha! Well said.

What’s all this nonsense about the god the Christians believe in being a god that is outside the universe? The god the Christians believe in is very active in this world right here, and the Christians make all sorts of factual claims about it. It’s just not true that Christians believe in a god that is entirely ‘transcendent’ and outside of nature and beyond our ken. That stuff about being beyond and outside and transcendent is a mere dodge to use when talking to skeptics and unbelievers. It’s also completely beside the point when talking about Dawkins, for instance, because he says very clearly that he is talking about the usual god, the familiar god, the god everyone means when they use the word, the god of ‘God bless America,’ the god that is Jesus’s daddy, the god that gave us the ten commandments.

Hal Helms hasn’t once admitted the tension here, he just keeps insisting that a god of that kind can’t be tested. Of course it can’t, but that’s not the issue.

I’m not setting up a straw man. I’m not suggesting Dawkins asserts that science disproves the existence of a god. My assertion is that science is not in the business (nor should it be) of determining either the existence or non-existence of a deity; that, further, science has nothing whatsoever to say about the possibility of the existence of such a being. But Dawkins does insist that religion and science are antithetical and that a proper understanding of science virtually precludes one from believing in a god. That simply is not good logic.

No. You’re playing bait and switch here. Your ‘such a being’ is the wrong example to be talking about, because it’s not the one that Dawkins and the rest of the ‘New Atheists’ are talking about. It’s not true that ‘science has nothing whatsoever to say about the possibility of the existence of’ that being, because that being is busy and active in the non-transcendent world, and that is the one that the ‘New Atheists’ are interested in.

This is an annoying game, and it’s one that pseudo-skeptics just love to play. They never seem to tire of it, and they never admit the basic fraudulence of it. That’s what makes it so annoying, of course.

[quote author=“Hal Helms” date=“1210068818]
Seth, please explain how we can test for the existence of a god. I agree that science is a method; I’m just completely unaware of any tests that could be used to get us closer to the truth. I can see how certain deities could be tested, but a transcendental god that leaves no fingerprints—that’s a tough nut to crack, no?

Hal, you are creating a fair amount of tension here. Call me crazy, but I still think you are trying (poorly) to make reasonable statements. As others have said, OF COURSE science cannot prove nonexistence. You ask if a god that leaves no fingerprints is a tough nut to crack. NO, that’s not a tough nut to crack - it’s an impossible, nonexistent nut to crack and SO WHAT.

This comes down to burden. Hal, if you put the burden of PROOF of a god in the hands of those claiming a god, then I’m with you. But if you put the burden of proof that a god exists (or doesn’t exist!) in the hands of science, then I’m staying away!

.

There are two possibilities for theists here.

1) There is a god who is transcendent, outside of nature, outside of the universe.

2) There is a god who is descendent, inside nature, inside the universe, who makes things happen in our world.

There are different things to say about each. About 1, nearly everyone would agree that it’s not possible to offer evidence that such a god does not exist. But theists fail to draw the rest of the obvious conclusion: for the same reason that it’s not possible to offer evidence that such a god does not exist, it’s not possible to know anything at all about such a deity, therefore there is literally nothing to say about it. If it’s outside, it has nothing to do with us, and we have nothing to do with it, and there’s just nothing to say. There’s fantasy, of course, but fantasy can be about anything and everything, and most theists don’t consider theism to be fantasy.

About 2, agreement is much less likely - but that’s mostly because theists smuggle in aspects of 1 in order to defend their belief system. They hang on to 2 by claiming (literally nonsensically) that 2 has the attributes of 1 but is still the god of 2. Well, that’s a cheat. You can have 1, or you can have 2, but you can’t have both in one. You can’t combine them. It’s not like blending carrots and ginger to make soup. Your god has to be either 1, or 2; it can’t be both.

Once that is realized (and that of course is the snag, because theists and pretend-skeptics simply refuse to realize it), then it becomes clear that 2) is in fact entirely subject to all sorts of empirical inquiry. It’s also subject to common or garden skepticism, in which one declines to believe every blagger who claims there is an invisible magical being up in the sky answering prayers and punishing sinners.

First off, we all agree that Dawkins does not assert that science disproves the existence of a god, he asserts that science proves that there is an extremely low probability for the existence of “God”. Second, “God” in Dawkins’ analysis, is not just any concept of a supernatural being that you might dream-up. “God” is a personal God that among other things interacts with nature. This is essential, because that interaction with nature makes “God”, by definition, directly subject to scientific inquiry.

To carry on from Ophelia’s well made points, even if a person were to make a claim about something completely outside the realm of scientific inquiry (case 1), a claim like: there exists a pink elephant outside our realm of existence,  science could still be used (appropriately) to examine the reasons and basis for that claim. Because that person’s testimony and reasoning is the ONLY source anyone has to go-on to support the claim, discrediting that testimony and reasoning would be positive proof to discredit the claim. Let me be clear, when I say “positive evidence”  or “positive proof” or I don’t mean 100% certain proof, I mean that science offers a positive case against the likelihood that the claims being made are factually true. 

So, even if the claim involves something completely from another realm, science is not simply limited to presenting negative arguments (e.g. there is no evidence to support the claim that there exists an other-realm-ly god or pink-elephant), science can still be used (appropriately) to make positive arguments against such claims. (e.g. how do you know this other-realm-ly thing exists? You feel it? Maybe we can replicate that feeling and show how that feeling originates from another natural source ... etc.)

But this nut, while tough to crack, is easy to dismiss. Scientifically speaking, something that has no effect on anything else can’t be said to exist. So your god doesn’t exist simply definition of “exist.”

In other words, your trump card is this: “Oh yeah? Well my god doesn’t exist at ALL! Prove that THAT god doesn’t exist!”

LOL. I’m actually making no assertion at all about the existence of a god. It just bugs me that Dawkins et al. use science for something it’s not meant for and thereby empower the fundies. Not that the fundies are persuadable, but their arguments can infect young minds, something I’d like to see avoided.

Hal Helms hasn’t once admitted the tension here, he just keeps insisting that a god of that kind can’t be tested. Of course it can’t, but that’s not the issue.

Ophelia, I’m not sure what tension you’re referring to. Do you mean the notion of a god who is both transcendent and active in the universe? If so, I certainly acknowledge that. But that is what some Christians aver. I think it completely fair to take them on with philosophical tools. Science is just the wrong tool.

BTW, as much as I dislike Dawkins et al. (IMHO) misusing science for their own ends, I utterly detest it when the Christian fundies do that—and to a far greater degree than Dawkins would even be tempted to. Maybe I’m too much like the ancient Greek who was looking for an honest man to hold his lamp—it seems that too often winning trumps radical honesty.

[...]I dislike Dawkins et al. (IMHO) misusing science [...]

You keep claiming that Dawkins misuses science, but not once have you presented an actual example of Dawkin’s work to demonstrate that claim. I’d be satisfied with a passage from his book.

No. You’re playing bait and switch here. Your ‘such a being’ is the wrong example to be talking about, because it’s not the one that Dawkins and the rest of the ‘New Atheists’ are talking about. It’s not true that ‘science has nothing whatsoever to say about the possibility of the existence of’ that being, because that being is busy and active in the non-transcendent world, and that is the one that the ‘New Atheists’ are interested in.

This is an annoying game, and it’s one that pseudo-skeptics just love to play. They never seem to tire of it, and they never admit the basic fraudulence of it. That’s what makes it so annoying, of course.

You seem to have made your mind up about me, Ophelia. Any protestation that I’m being genuine will probably only serve to further convince you of my disingenuousness, so I’ll only suggest that someone else (not the wicked me that’s being fraudulent) might, actually, have the same concerns I raise and that it would be helpful to be able to consider them.

I am not saying there is any proof or reason to believe the god I’ve described exists—only that science is no more an appropriate tool for determining the truth value of the assertion than would be a poll.

LOL. I’m actually making no assertion at all about the existence of a god. It just bugs me that Dawkins et al. use science for something it’s not meant for and thereby empower the fundies. Not that the fundies are persuadable, but their arguments can infect young minds, something I’d like to see avoided.

You make two claims, first, that science is not “meant” to inquire into the existence of deities, and second, that to do so empowers fundamentalists.

Your first claim is simply not true. Science is a way of learning about the world. Religions make claims about the nature of god that have implications. When science shows that the claims of religion are not reflected in reality, it casts doubt on the existence of god.

Why? Because as I said earlier, it clearly shows that the people making god claims are absolutely ignrorant about the nature of god, and these ignorant claims constitute 100% of the evidence that such a being exists. So science shows that there is no credible reason to believe in any gods, regardless of whether we want it to or not.

Your second claim is more interesting. Do you have evidence that Dawkins has empowered fundamentalists? What is the nature of this evidence, what do you mean by empower?

Hal, you are creating a fair amount of tension here. Call me crazy, but I still think you are trying (poorly) to make reasonable statements.

This comes down to burden. Hal, if you put the burden of PROOF of a god in the hands of those claiming a god, then I’m with you. But if you put the burden of proof that a god exists (or doesn’t exist!) in the hands of science, then I’m staying away!

Thank you for helping me out. I obviously have done a poor job of making my point. With you, I absolutely reject the idea that science (or anything else) has to shoulder the burden of proof that a god does not exist. People making extraordinary claims (and the idea of a god is pretty extraordinary!) are the ones required to argue for their position. Otherwise, we could make no progress. I’m further saying that neither proof nor disproof is possible. I thought that issue had been settled a long time ago, which is why I’m surprised that bright people like Dawkins would want to revisit it.

I think if you go back to my early posts, you’ll see that my only point that I did an apparently bad job making was that atheists are wrong to use the tool of science to argue against religion. There may be other, effective tools—psychology and philosophy come to mind—but not science.

As for the tension, that does fascinate me. Why would someone disagreeing with the (possibly) majority view cause others consternation, sometimes leading to an attack on the person? It’s obvious that such a dynamic exists in virtually every community, but why? This is where I think Hedges had it exactly right: there’s nothing to fear from atheists, but a great deal to fear from people who aren’t aware of these very human impulses. We’ve rightly learned to be skeptical about many things. Perhaps we should extend that skepticism to our own emotions.

I am not saying there is any proof or reason to believe the god I’ve described exists—only that science is no more an appropriate tool for determining the truth value of the assertion than would be a poll.

Hal, Here is the flaw in your argument in a nut-shell:
You assert that science is necessarily mis-used when applied to the topic of “God”. But you (apparently) completely miss the fact that the god being evaluated by science is not the god that you define when you claim that science is being misused. The god that is subject to positive scientific inquiry is not a god that exists completely outside the realm of the “created”.

.

There are two possibilities for theists here.

1) There is a god who is transcendent, outside of nature, outside of the universe.

2) There is a god who is descendent, inside nature, inside the universe, who makes things happen in our world.

You can have 1, or you can have 2, but you can’t have both in one. You can’t combine them. It’s not like blending carrots and ginger to make soup. Your god has to be either 1, or 2; it can’t be both.

But that’s just what many Christians do claim: that their god is outside the universe yet able to act upon it. It may be outrageously unlikely, but I don’t see any logical contradiction in what they claim. But all this, I think, is a bit moot since few people admit proofs (or disproofs) into their theological calculus. The determination of truth occurs at another level—at least that’s been my observation.

First off, we all agree that Dawkins does not assert that science disproves the existence of a god, he asserts that science proves that there is an extremely low probability for the existence of “God”. Second, “God” in Dawkins’ analysis, is not just any concept of a supernatural being that you might dream-up. “God” is a personal God that among other things interacts with nature. This is essential, because that interaction with nature makes “God”, by definition, directly subject to scientific inquiry.

I agree with 90% of what you said, Riley. The only thing I’m having trouble with is seeing how “God” is “directly subject to scientific inquiry.” I think that’s not right, but the rest of your post I’m in complete agreement with.

Ophelia, I’m not sure what tension you’re referring to. Do you mean the notion of a god who is both transcendent and active in the universe? If so, I certainly acknowledge that. But that is what some Christians aver. I think it completely fair to take them on with philosophical tools. Science is just the wrong tool.

Once the claim is made that a god is active in the universe, that god ceases to be wholly transcendant and become empirically testable. That is, some claim is being made about the sorts of activities that god engages in. If these claims are true, there should be some evidence of this activity. Science is one correct tool to search for this evidence with.

You seem to have made your mind up about me, Ophelia. Any protestation that I’m being genuine will probably only serve to further convince you of my disingenuousness

Hal, no no, I saw your direct answer above, and I don’t think it was disingenuous.

Now to answer it.

Do you mean the notion of a god who is both transcendent and active in the universe? If so, I certainly acknowledge that. But that is what some Christians aver. I think it completely fair to take them on with philosophical tools. Science is just the wrong tool.

Science is the wrong tool for 1, but why is it the wrong tool for 2? I don’t think it is. Christians aver a lot of things, but some of the things they aver are open to scientific examination of various kinds.

Hal, how can a god be outside the universe yet still be able to act upon it and within it? Christians, after all, also claim that Jesus is God, and he rather conspicuously was not outside the universe. How can one be outside the universe and inside it? Why don’t you see any logical contradiction in that? It looks like just P and not-P, to me.

Science is the wrong tool for 1, but why is it the wrong tool for 2? I don’t think it is. Christians aver a lot of things, but some of the things they aver are open to scientific examination of various kinds.

Absolutely agree, Ophelia. If anyone makes a testable claim about the universe (based on a book, a belief, a hypothesis—whatever) it can be tested and to the degree the results are substantial, the matter should be settled. If a Christian fundie says “the earth is 6000 years old”, well, that can certainly be falsified. If a Latter Day Saint claims one of the tribes of Israel came to America, that, too can be falsified.

If PN states that there is an invisible pink dragon that leaves no trace evidence of his existence, then that can’t be falsified—and we’re free to disregard it on other than scientific grounds, namely that we wish for a bit more convincing than PN’s word for it (though I totally believe you, PN!)

[...]I dislike Dawkins et al. (IMHO) misusing science [...]

You keep claiming that Dawkins misuses science, but not once have you presented an actual example of Dawkin’s work to demonstrate that claim. I’d be satisfied with a passage from his book.

Fair enough. I’ve watched and listened to Dawkins on videos and podcasts, so I’ll need a little time, but that’s a perfectly legit requirement.

jholt (thanks for the compliment on the previous page, by the way!),

I realize that ‘Being outside nature and acting within nature is a long held belief’ - but that doesn’t mean it’s coherent. It seems to me to be completely incoherent. It also seems to me to be mostly a ploy rather than a belief. It’s a ploy to protect the beliefs that believers really want: that the universe is basically moral (as I heard Desmond Tutu say on the radio recently), that humans have purpose and meaning, that God cares about us, that everything is ultimately okay, that things happen for a reason, and so on. Those beliefs are supported by belief in god, and so belief in god is defended when non-believers express doubts or ask troublesome questions, and that’s where the ploy comes in. It seems to me that saying ‘God is outside nature’ is mostly used to repel difficult questions; it’s not a treasured belief like the belief that God cares about us.

Hal, well there you go, we don’t disagree all that much after all.

Hal, well there you go, we don’t disagree all that much after all.

I can feel the love.

And is it just “coincidental” that this harmony began when His Noodliness, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, was introduced? Ha! I think not! Proof positive both that the FSN exists and that He spreads peace and love wherever He is acknowledged…

 

If PN states that there is an invisible pink dragon that leaves no trace evidence of his existence, then that can’t be falsified—and we’re free to disregard it on other than scientific grounds, namely that we wish for a bit more convincing than PN’s word for it (though I totally believe you, PN!)

Well that was satisfying. 

I get to keep my invisible pink dragon!

(Although one doubt has been creeping into my mind: How can something be both pink and invisible?)

Well that was satisfying. 

I get to keep my invisible pink dragon!

(Although one doubt has been creeping into my mind: How can something be both pink and invisible?)

Fight those doubts, PN! That’s just the evil invisible chartreuse dragon who’s trying to darken your mind.

I missed the FSM introduction - but of course she works her magic whether one is aware of her or not, presumably.

About why discussions can spark tension (question asked several comments ago) - in my case at least (and I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one) it very often has to do with, to be blunt, dishonesty. I’ve read Hedges’s book, and it does irritate me, and it’s the dishonesty that irritates me most. He makes wild and inaccurate claims about Dawkins and others, and there are no quotations to back them up. Any decent teacher would have ‘Evidence for this?’ multiple times on every page. That does piss me off. But then it would, wouldn’t it - when DJ interviewed me for Point of Inquiry, the subject was truth!

Oh, and complaining about dogma among Harris and Hitchens supporters and then turning around and calling Andy Thompson a neocon propagandist in what I can only say looked a lot like a political knee-jerk won’t help either.

I did not call Mr. Thompson a neocon propagandist. Mr. Thompson goes around offering himself as an ‘expert’ on the psychology of Islamic suicide bombers. Having listened to an extensive - and extremely creepy - interview with him on a prominent ‘Humanist’ (!) website, I speculated as to whether the CIA or other government agencies might not be involved in targeting the secular humanist community within the U.S for pro-war psychological operations.

The recent story on how the Pentagon was covertly fielding ‘independent military experts’ (retired officers) to promote the criminal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan through mainstream media outets underlines the degree to which the racist ‘war on terror’ has morphed into a psychological warfare campaign directed at the U.S. population itself. 

Promoting fear and specifically anti-Islamic hysteria throughout the population (particularly among the intelligentsia) has been key to the War Party’s strategy since well before 9/11. They pursued exactly the same techniques in their earlier incarnations/forbears in groups like the “Committee on the Present Danger” during the anti-Soviet cold-war, though I believe that various ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation has given government agencies much greater powers to help ‘shape political opinion’ and public perceptions domestically. Another problem that I have with Hedges is that he largely ignores the larger political question of who benefits from broadcasting the cartoonish, childlike depictions of ‘the enemy’ he so accurately describes.

I suppose if some secularists are going to serve, like Harris and Hitchens, as domestic mouthpieces for the War Party, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be paid for it. But the rest of us should also be aware that some of our ‘information’ could be reaching us through tainted channels.

it seems reckless to say that science provides positive evidence that “God” does not exist.

It’s not reckless if you are actually being scientific.

If someone makes the claim that “God” sent a flood upon the earth and you can use science to show that there was no flood, then that is positive proof that “God” (as defined) does not exist. It’s not certain proof (science doesn’t provide 100% certainty about anything), but it is scientific evidence. And you’re right, one could argue that “God” makes things to happen, tells messengers to record their occurrance, but then decides to make it impossible for anyone else to verify for themselves that such an occurance did in fact happen. Sure. That’s possible. But that doesn’t mean that science has nothing to say about the likelihood of that alternate scenario. That’s exactly how science works ... by assigning probabilities and error-bars.

You seem to be arguing that science should be silent about such matters, and that seems to me very narrow minded.

I agree with Riley.

If PN states that there is an invisible pink dragon that leaves no trace evidence of his existence, then that can’t be falsified—and we’re free to disregard it on other than scientific grounds, namely that we wish for a bit more convincing than PN’s word for it (though I totally believe you, PN!)

But we are also free to dismiss it on skeptical grounds using the tools of science, viz, things exist to exactly the extent that they interact with other things. the pink dragon does not interact, therefore, it does not exist.

The argument must then be made that existence can occur in some sort of transcendental state, and that, to borrow a phrase, is a tough nut to crack.

The argument must then be made that existence can occur in some sort of transcendental state, and that, to borrow a phrase, is a tough nut to crack.

Yes, exactly, Seth. I think the term used for such a transcendental dimension is “spiritual”. Another of those non-testable things.

If PN states that there is an invisible pink dragon that leaves no trace evidence of his existence, then that can’t be falsified—and we’re free to disregard it on other than scientific grounds, namely that we wish for a bit more convincing than PN’s word for it (though I totally believe you, PN!)

But we are also free to dismiss it on skeptical grounds using the tools of science, viz, things exist to exactly the extent that they interact with other things. the pink dragon does not interact, therefore, it does not exist.

The argument must then be made that existence can occur in some sort of transcendental state, and that, to borrow a phrase, is a tough nut to crack.

Right, but as skeptics we do a diservice to the community to act like its a 50/50 chance.

The same argument can be made for homeopathy. Maybe homeopathy is real in some transcendent realm, and we just cant see it with science.

So does that mean we let homeopaths claim to be as effective as scientific medicine?

Likewise, if religious claims are unlikely it is in the consumer protection tradition of skepticism to say so.

I missed the FSM introduction - but of course she works her magic whether one is aware of her or not, presumably.

An Absolute Truth that should be held by all people in all places at all times.

About why discussions can spark tension (question asked several comments ago) - in my case at least (and I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one) it very often has to do with, to be blunt, dishonesty. I’ve read Hedges’s book, and it does irritate me, and it’s the dishonesty that irritates me most. He makes wild and inaccurate claims about Dawkins and others, and there are no quotations to back them up. Any decent teacher would have ‘Evidence for this?’ multiple times on every page. That does piss me off. But then it would, wouldn’t it - when DJ interviewed me for Point of Inquiry, the subject was truth!

That’s just what bugs me about Dawkins! I feel like saying, “C’mon: you don’t need to resort to such stuff.”

Ophelia, I had no idea you were a celebrity! I’ll have to start dropping your name in casual conversation…“As OPHELIA BENSON and I were discussing the other day…”

The argument must then be made that existence can occur in some sort of transcendental state, and that, to borrow a phrase, is a tough nut to crack.

Yes, exactly, Seth. I think the term used for such a transcendental dimension is “spiritual”. Another of those non-testable things.

You mean, things that don’t exist in any meaningful sense of the term “exist”? What is this dimension? If it has no point of contact with this one, in what sense can you claim it exists?

 
Fight those doubts, PN! That’s just the evil invisible chartreuse dragon who’s trying to darken your mind.

You’re right, it is just that evil anti-pink dragon trying to deceive me.

And I think I can overcome that deception (although Ophelia is probably not going to like it); for if something can exist both outside of space and time (i.e. it’s supernatural and therefore undetectable—a.k.a. “invisible”) and it can also exist inside space and time (i.e. it’s natural and therefore can do stuff—like be “pink”), then my dragon can indeed be both pink and invisible.

And I think I can overcome that deception (although Ophelia is probably not going to like it); for if something can exist both outside of space and time (i.e. it’s supernatural and therefore undetectable—a.k.a. “invisible”) and it can also exist inside space and time (i.e. it’s natural and therefore can do stuff—like be “pink”), then my dragon can indeed be both pink and invisible.

Scientifically, however, we can disprove the existence of a pink dragon at a particular locale, regardless of whether it is transcendent or not. “Pink” has a scientific meaning, it refers to a range of radiation. To be “pink” is to reflect certain wavelengths. You can call an object that doesn’t do this “pink”, but that doesn’t make it pink. It just means that you can attach meaningless labels to imaginary things.

The reason that scientific thinking is appropriate for this kind of conversation is that, among other things, it prevents the meaningless use of words.

If anyone makes a testable claim about the universe (based on a book, a belief, a hypothesis—whatever) it can be tested and to the degree the results are substantial, the matter should be settled. If a Christian fundie says “the earth is 6000 years old”, well, that can certainly be falsified. If a Latter Day Saint claims one of the tribes of Israel came to America, that, too can be falsified.

Likewise, if someone claims that there exists a god who created the earth 6000 years ago, that’s a testable claim and science *can* be used to disprove the existence of that god.

Hal, you presented an example in an earlier post where you claim for sake of argument that Richard Dawkins is the author of “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts” (a book that doesn’t exist). You then use that hypothetical to make the point that evidence used to demonstrate that the Vogon poetry book does not exist is not evidence that Richard Dawkins himself does not exist. Here is where you go wrong - it’s a matter of defining your terms:
If you were to define “Richard Dawkins” as a popular author of “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts”, and I were to check all the worlds known publishers for Vogon poetry books authored by “Richard Dawkins” and found none, then YES!, that would be positive evidence that “Richard Dawkins”, as defined by you, does not exist. Some other “Richard Dawkins” might exist, but not the one you believe to exist.

Here’s another more relevant example:
If someone defines “God” as an extra-ordinary being who sends messages to guide humanity, that’s a testable claim.  It would be a perfectly valid scientific approach to sample the population to determine whether or not any messages of extra-ordinary origin have been received by humanity. The results of such a scientific inquiry could determine the likelihood that there exists a god who is sending us guidance in messages. We might determine as a result of this scientific inquiry that such a god didn’t exist (with error bars and probabilities attached as part of that determination of course), such a determination would not rule out the possibility of some other god existing, it would only be relevant to belief in the existence of “God” as defined.

 
Scientifically, however, we can disprove the existence of a pink dragon at a particular locale, regardless of whether it is transcendent or not. “Pink” has a scientific meaning, it refers to a range of radiation. To be “pink” is to reflect certain wavelengths. You can call an object that doesn’t do this “pink”, but that doesn’t make it pink. It just means that you can attach meaningless labels to imaginary things.

The reason that scientific thinking is appropriate for this kind of conversation is that, among other things, it prevents the meaningless use of words.

True, but this pink dragon is special: it exists both in time and space and outside of time and space, therefore it can be both pink and invisible.  It is invisible when it is in time and space and pink when it is outside of time and space.  Did I mention it lives under my house?

great posts seth and Ophelia.

Wow, I just go out to play 18 holes of golf and everything changes.
I knew there was something in what Hal was saying that would get some agreement!
Glad I didn’t give up on ya Hal.

Peace is good.

Here is where you go wrong - it’s a matter of defining your terms:
If you were to define “Richard Dawkins” as a popular author of “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts”, and I were to check all the worlds known publishers for Vogon poetry books authored by “Richard Dawkins” and found none, then YES!, that would be positive evidence that “Richard Dawkins”, as defined by you, does not exist. Some other “Richard Dawkins” might exist, but not the one you believe to exist.

Wow, that’s some tortured logic! But, no, I mean the same Richard Dawkins that you mean—I just happen to be wrong about what he wrote. Or perhaps I was lying. But there’s no need (or justification) for invoking multiple “Richard Dawkins”‘s.

 
Scientifically, however, we can disprove the existence of a pink dragon at a particular locale, regardless of whether it is transcendent or not. “Pink” has a scientific meaning, it refers to a range of radiation. To be “pink” is to reflect certain wavelengths. You can call an object that doesn’t do this “pink”, but that doesn’t make it pink. It just means that you can attach meaningless labels to imaginary things.

The reason that scientific thinking is appropriate for this kind of conversation is that, among other things, it prevents the meaningless use of words.

True, but this pink dragon is special: it exists both in time and space and outside of time and space, therefore it can be both pink and invisible.  It is invisible when it is in time and space and pink when it is outside of time and space.  Did I mention it lives under my house?

No, it can be either pink or invisible. One, or the other. But not both. In which case we can demonstrate its state of pinkness at any given place and time. If it is pink, it is not (currently) invisible or transcendent in some way, and therefore its existence is a question that science can address.

I’m sure we can play this game all day. Eventually, you’ll get here “My dragon doesn’t exist at ALL! Hah! Address THAT with your ‘science’!”

Just like Hal, you’ll hit the limit case.

Wow, that’s some tortured logic! But, no, I mean the same Richard Dawkins that you mean—I just happen to be wrong about what he wrote. Or perhaps I was lying. But there’s no need (or justification) for invoking multiple “Richard Dawkins”‘s.

And as I said, this reveals that you are not an authority on Richard Dawkins. Since all god claims are of equal value to the claim that Richard Dawkins is a noted critic of Vogon poetry, all god claims reveal that the claimant is shockingly ignorant of the nature of god. As all evidence for gods consists of such ignorant claims, there is no reason to accept them as having any validity. Therefore there is no reason to believe that there is a god.

And as I said, this reveals that you are not an authority on Richard Dawkins. Since all god claims are of equal value to the claim that Richard Dawkins is a noted critic of Vogon poetry, all god claims reveal that the claimant is shockingly ignorant of the nature of god. As all evidence for gods consists of such ignorant claims, there is no reason to accept them as having any validity. Therefore there is no reason to believe that there is a god.

Whoa! How did we establish that “all god claims are of equal value to the claim that Richard Dawkins is a noted critic of Vogon poetry”? That’s an assertion, not anything established. Perhaps some god claims are, in fact, true in an objective sense. Or not. But you can’t assume this as a given.

[Added]
Ah, wait, I think I see your point (possibly?) It may be true that some god claim is objectively true—but we would have no standard by which to establish it as such and therefore would have to leave all such claims out of the belief calculus. Do I have that right?

And as I said, this reveals that you are not an authority on Richard Dawkins. Since all god claims are of equal value to the claim that Richard Dawkins is a noted critic of Vogon poetry, all god claims reveal that the claimant is shockingly ignorant of the nature of god. As all evidence for gods consists of such ignorant claims, there is no reason to accept them as having any validity. Therefore there is no reason to believe that there is a god.

Whoa! How did we establish that “all god claims are of equal value to the claim that Richard Dawkins is a noted critic of Vogon poetry”? That’s an assertion, not anything established. Perhaps some god claims are, in fact, true in an objective sense. Or not. But you can’t assume this as a given.

No. I mean that I maintain that no claim of any god existing has ever stood up to any empirical scrutiny. All tested god claims reveal that the claimant has no idea what the nature of god is, because the things that they claim are simply not backed up by the nature of the universe. At best, people can define god down to the point where a universe with a god and a universe without a god are identical, but that’s as good as it gets for theistic claims.

I welcome new god claims, of course, that have not been tested, but so far the record is pretty bad.

So what I mean is: there are no known legitimate claims to knowledge about the nature of god.

Your edit is actually close to the mark, The analogy stacks like this: you might argue that Dawkins wrote the VPB, but hasn’t published it, burned the manuscript, and won’t reveal that he did it. This is about the quality of a transcendental god claim. Any claim that the book (or god) is extant is vulnerable to scientific scrutiny and all such claims have so far failed to show any truth.

How soon they forget The Invisible Pink Unicorn (May her Holy Hooves Never be Shod).

  The racism here (for those who still claim not to get it) is the depiction of the ‘enemy’ country’s rulers as uniquely fanatical, irrational, evil, and unconcerned with human suffering, when there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that this is the case. In fact, Iran - in stark contrast to the U.S. and Israel - has not waged a single offensive war against a neighbor over the last milennium or more (at least).

Who doesn’t get it?

Ever hear of Human Rights Watch?
Take a look at this sick list of human rights abuses perpetrated by Iran:
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran

Did you say “there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that this is the case”?
Have a look at this headline from Reuters today: “Iran women activist gets suspended jail sentence.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSDAH51857220080505

I’ll agree that these women’s rights activists are not “fanatical, irrational, evil, and unconcerned with human suffering.”  But they are being jailed, intimidated, tortured, and silenced by those who you are defending.

And Harris & Co. would nuke these women right alongside their theocratic tormentors!

The U.S. rulers have a vastly higher proportion of their citizens imprisoned than any other country in the world—a large majority of those tortured in US prison hell-holes being black and hispanic. It is the only ruling class in world history ever, as OhioDoc pointed out, to use nuclear weapons—twice conscously and deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians at that. These same criminals have launched dozens of aggressive wars around the world, killing millions, for the purpose of enhancing their own power and wealth.

Yet I know of no-one, despite these gargantuan crimes, who would advocate ‘obliterating’ the U.S. itself.  Trials for the ruling-class criminals in international courts of their victims? Absolutely! But that is a far cry from the racist genocide advocated by Harris & Co. for Muslims.

I also look forward to the day when the women, workers and minorities of Iran will put the reactionary mullahs and other oppressors in the prisoners dock. The difference here exposes the racist essence of the War Party’s blanket anti-Islamic crusade.

The key for the racist is to make “the other” not simply different but “given what they believe” inherently subhuman - less rational, thoughtful, concerned for human welfare than “us” (who are magically exempt from similar scrutiny), in order to justify their extermination.

Sure, it’s us humanists who are the dehumanizers?

Speak for yourself!

Yet I know of no-one, despite these gargantuan crimes, who would advocate ‘obliterating’ the U.S. itself.

Osama bin Laden, for one. Explicitly. Tens of thousands of Palestinians who chanted “Death to America” on September 11th and 12th. Lots of people, really.

No one is advocating a nuclear first strike against Iran. Chill.

Yet I know of no-one, despite these gargantuan crimes, who would advocate ‘obliterating’ the U.S. itself.

Osama bin Laden, for one. Explicitly. Tens of thousands of Palestinians who chanted “Death to America” on September 11th and 12th. Lots of people, really.

Do you have any documentation for these claims?

Wow, peace is sure volatile.
I hope nobody anywhere is advocating a nuclear first strike against anyone. Rather than keeping other countries from gaining nuclear weapons, I’d like to see all the existing nuclear weapons dismantled. But alas, it is impossible to put the damned genie back in the bottle. That’s one bad genie! It’s one thing for hate to exist in a world with rocks and knives, but what we have now - oh me.

Here is where you go wrong - it’s a matter of defining your terms:
If you were to define “Richard Dawkins” as a popular author of “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts”, and I were to check all the worlds known publishers for Vogon poetry books authored by “Richard Dawkins” and found none, then YES!, that would be positive evidence that “Richard Dawkins”, as defined by you, does not exist. Some other “Richard Dawkins” might exist, but not the one you believe to exist.

Wow, that’s some tortured logic! But, no, I mean the same Richard Dawkins that you mean—I just happen to be wrong about what he wrote. Or perhaps I was lying. But there’s no need (or justification) for invoking multiple “Richard Dawkins”‘s.

1)So are you saying that scientific reasoning and evidence has nothing to say about the likelihood that there exists a “Richard Dawkins” that wrote the book “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts”, or not ? You’re evading.

2)I haven’t invoked any need for there to be more than one “Richard Dawkins”. Without evidence to the contrary, I can accept that there may not exist a “Richard Dawkins” at all.

3)Compare: “I mean the same ‘Richard Dawkins’ that you mean” to “I mean the same ‘God’ that you mean” ... and maybe the point I’m trying to make will sink in.

Sincerely hopeful.

McCain and Lieberman have both called for nuclear first strikes against Iran to ‘prevent’ it from aquiring nuclear weapons. Both Clinton and Obama have categorically refused to ‘take any option off the table’ (!). Clinton threatened this week to ‘obliterate’ Iran.

McCain and Lieberman have both called for nuclear first strikes against Iran to ‘prevent’ it from aquiring nuclear weapons. Both Clinton and Obama have categorically refused to ‘take any option off the table’ (!). Clinton threatened this week to ‘obliterate’ Iran.

In the event that Iran used a nuke on Israel, yes. That isn’t a first strike.

 
No, it can be either pink or invisible. One, or the other. But not both. In which case we can demonstrate its state of pinkness at any given place and time. If it is pink, it is not (currently) invisible or transcendent in some way, and therefore its existence is a question that science can address.

I know, I just wanted to see you trounce it, which you did with vigor.  Well done.

How soon they forget The Invisible Pink Unicorn (May her Holy Hooves Never be Shod).

Here’s one for ya: can the The Invisible Pink Unicorn be both shod and unshod at the same time?

Do you have any documentation for these claims?

Yes. Osama bin Laden declared a fatwah in 1998 on America. Video footage abounds of Palestinians carrying signs and chanting “Death to America” after the world trade center attacks. Here is a news story about the slogan reappearing this year. The slogan of the Ayatollah Khomeni was “Death to America”. The Iranian government forces Iranian citizens to chant “Death to America” at every friday prayer.

A top hamas official recently called for the murder of every single american and israelite in a prayer. The world islamic front fatwa asks that all muslims, everywhere, kill any americans “civilian or military” in any country where they can.

The idea that NO ONE is calling for our destruction is fatuous and easily debunked.

The key for the racist is to make “the other” not simply different but “given what they believe” inherently subhuman - less rational, thoughtful, concerned for human welfare than “us” (who are magically exempt from similar scrutiny), in order to justify their extermination.

 
Sure, it’s us humanists who are the dehumanizers?

Speak for yourself!

Are you insinuating that humanists would use un-humanistic means to achieve humanistic ends?

Do you have any documentation for these claims?

Yes. Osama bin Laden declared a fatwah in 1998 on America. In 2001, he was clear that all of America was responsible for crimes against Islam and ripe for killing. Video footage abounds of Palestinians carrying signs and chanting “Death to America” after the world trade center attacks. Here is a news story about the slogan reappearing this year. The slogan of the Ayatollah Khomeni was “Death to America”. The Iranian government forces Iranian citizens to chant “Death to America” at every friday prayer.

A top hamas official recently called for the murder of every single american and israelite in a prayer. The world islamic front fatwa asks that all muslims, everywhere, kill any americans “civilian or military” in any country where they can.

The idea that NO ONE is calling for our destruction is fatuous and easily debunked.

Every ten seconds, I find more documentation. You want to admit you’re wrong now, or later?

Here’s one for ya: can the The Invisible Pink Unicorn be both shod and unshod at the same time?

I am not aware of the definitive Word on this, but it is my belief that if any of Her Holy Hooves are ever shod, the universe will end, so I suppose the point is moot.

 
No, it can be either pink or invisible. One, or the other. But not both. In which case we can demonstrate its state of pinkness at any given place and time. If it is pink, it is not (currently) invisible or transcendent in some way, and therefore its existence is a question that science can address.

Actually, its front half could be pink while its hindquarters are invisible, thus making it both pink and invisible.

Like this:

http://www.infidels.org/images/ipu.gif

1)So are you saying that scientific reasoning and evidence has nothing to say about the likelihood that there exists a “Richard Dawkins” that wrote the book “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts”, or not ? You’re evading.

No, of course not. I think the problem we’re running into is that my initial analogy has run into the limit of its usefulness. As for the charge that I’m evading, I sincerely don’t know what I’m accused of evading: that was not my intention. Hmmm…so far on this board, I’ve been accused of being a pseudo-skeptic and an evader. There must be some name for that line of argumentation…

2)I haven’t invoked any need for there to be more than one “Richard Dawkins”. Without evidence to the contrary, I can accept that there may not exist a “Richard Dawkins” at all.

3)Compare: “I mean the same ‘Richard Dawkins’ that you mean” to “I mean the same ‘God’ that you mean” ... and maybe the point I’m trying to make will sink in.

Sincerely hopeful.

What I’m trying to say—quite poorly, no doubt—is that however vile or fumbling the claimant for a god may be, this tells us nothing about the actual existence of a real God, should s/he exist. If I say a certain town exists, I may have many/most of my facts wrong about it. I may have confused the language the natives speak, but that doesn’t mean that “the town I define” doesn’t exist: it just means I’m wrong.

Towns are not mythologies; they’re actual places that we can verify with scientific methods. All that science can tell us is whether a claim about the natural world is likely to be true or not. If there is a “supernatural” world, science would know nothing of it. Confusing the two is just what Christian fundamentalists wish to do when they press to have creationism—whoops, I mean “intelligent design”—taught in schools. They want science and faith to occupy the same space. And I argue that it’s just as illegitimate for skeptics to do that as believers.

I think Gould had it just right: two separate magisteria.

They want science and faith to occupy the same space. And I argue that it’s just as illegitimate for skeptics to do that as believers.

I think Gould had it just right: two separate magisteria.

And here is where we part company. I disagree.

Any meaningful claim about the existence of God is empirically testable. Any claim that exists outside of what can be measured or known by any method (such as statistical sampling) simply has not meaning, its just words, as true as any other piece of fantasy. So science and religion are not separate magisteria. Science is a way of learning about the world, and religion is something different, not a way of knowing or learning but instead a way of maintaining social cohesion.

1)So are you saying that scientific reasoning and evidence has nothing to say about the likelihood that there exists a “Richard Dawkins” that wrote the book “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts”, or not ? You’re evading.

No, of course not.

These curt responses without explanation is part of what I’m refering to when I say you are evading. I’d really love to hear your explanation for why it is that you do not believe that scientific reasoning and evidence has anything to say about the likelihood that there exists a “Richard Dawkins” that wrote the book “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts”.

I think the problem we’re running into is that my initial analogy has run into the limit of its usefulness.

To me it’s spot on target. It gets right at the heart of the issue of what you consider to be the purview of science, and it also seems like it might be enlightening to hear why you think my argument requires the existence of more than one “Richard Dawkins”.

As for the charge that I’m evading, I sincerely don’t know what I’m accused of evading: that was not my intention. Hmmm…so far on this board, I’ve been accused of being a pseudo-skeptic and an evader. There must be some name for that line of argumentation…

I’m glad to hear that it wasn’t your intention, nevertheless, you responded to my argument with a “that’s some tortured logic!” instead of dealing with the argument itself; that’s evading the argument. Sorry. I’m not attacking your person by saying so, and I’m certainly not in any way using a personal attack (if that’s what you were implying) to support my line of argumentation.

What I’m trying to say—quite poorly, no doubt—is that however vile or fumbling the claimant for a god may be, this tells us nothing about the actual existence of a real God

In no way does the argument FOR science being applicable rely on the nature of the claimant.  All there needs to be is a claim - it doesn’t matter where the source of the claim originates.

If I say a certain town exists, I may have many/most of my facts wrong about it. I may have confused the language the natives speak, but that doesn’t mean that “the town I define” doesn’t exist: it just means I’m wrong.

Yes it does. It really does. I know this is hard to follow, but release yourself of the fixation that a town (or a deity or a person) is defined more by one defining trait (such as its location or name),  than it is by any of its other defining traits. If you claim that there exists a town that has traits x, y, and z ... and it can be shown that a town with x, y, and z traits does not exist, then that town does not exist! case closed.

A town that has x and y traits or y and z traits or some completely different set of traits might still exist, but not a town that has x, y, and z traits. In this same manner that science can be used to weigh-in on the existence of a certain town, you can use science to weigh-in on the existence of a certain deity.

Towns are not mythologies; they’re actual places that we can verify with scientific methods.

And I argue that a message received by an actual person is similarly verifiable with scientific methods.  Do you claim that the scientific method can not be used to investigate whether or not there exists a god who has the trait of sending messages to people? If not, on what basis? If so, then don’t you have to concede that science is relevant to such issues?

All that science can tell us is whether a claim about the natural world is likely to be true or not. If there is a “supernatural” world, science would know nothing of it.

True, but if someone claims that the “supernatural world” is interfering with the course of the “natural world”, then we are now talking about a claim that involves the “natural world” to which science can be applied.

Your concern about blurring the line between the “natural world” and the “supernatural world” is misplaced. The distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” is a creation of religion. It serves religious arguments, not scientific ones. There is no real line between “natural” and “supernatural” to be blurred. There is only what we know and can test and what we don’t know and cannot test. If someone wants to postulate the existence of something that does not in any way manifest itself in the testible world, then you’re right,  such a thing by definition is not testable and science has nothing to say about it. Neither Dawkins nor anybody else here that I’m ware of has argued otherwise.

Well, after what I regarded as a disappointing podcast with the otherwise excellent Michael Shermer, DJ proved his superiority as an interviewer with the otherwise excellent Chris Hedges. The tone got testy at times (mostly from CH’s side) and DJ did an utterly superb job of maintaining his calm—even as he was repeatedly and rudely cut off in mid-sentence—and keeping the interview on track. Well done, DJ.

As to the interview itself, I’ve seen Mr. Hedges speak (on his book “War is a Force that Gives us Meaning”) and I’ve read his “American Fascists” book. In both venues, he was excellent: thoughtful, informed, articulate, and generally spot-on in his analysis. So what’s happened? Why has he gone off the rails?

His straw-man argumentation was risible. I did not recognize the so-called New Atheists’ positions from his caricature of them. They are anything but “Utopians” calling for human perfectability. Rather, they call on us to take responsibility for our own situation here on earth, not to expect help from an imaginary sky wizard or to defer rewards and punishments until after death, and to strive to improve the lot of our fellows in the here and now. I would make the obvious point that there is rather a difference between “improvement” and “perfection.” To say they call for “perfectability” is just a lame attempt to lump them in with the likes of Mao or Pol Pot or Stalin as hopelessly deluded.

To call atheist “fundamentalist” is nothing more than a rhetorical game to tar them with the same brush as their opponents. He completely failed to justify the label in any coherent way, and had to resort to the most baseless mischaracterizations of their positions to do so.

To deny human moral progress—and, yes, it has been driven primarily by secular values and stridently opposed by most established churches—is sheer silliness.

To blame “science and technology” for the climate crisis (as oppose to politics and economics) is sheer stupidity, and startlingly ignorant.

To deny that morality comes from our psychology is pure silliness too: why didn’t DJ ask CH where he thinks our morality comes from, if not from a broad and shifting social consensus, as Richard Dawkins admirably documents and Marc Hauser argued so cleverly in an earlier PoI?  Does it come from god? If so, which god? And which moral code promulgated by which god is the basis for all human morality? CH accuses the atheists of naivety and simplification, but he is more guilty of if than any of them.

I can recommend Youtubing the Sam Harris-Chris Hedges debate (moderated by Robert Scheer). Harris (whose views on, say, torture, I reject 100%) wipes the floor with the CH who does, I am afraid, come across as self-righteous and pompous ass.

So CH was very, very disappoint

Any meaningful claim about the existence of God is empirically testable. Any claim that exists outside of what can be measured or known by any method (such as statistical sampling) simply has not meaning, its just words, as true as any other piece of fantasy. So science and religion are not separate magisteria. Science is a way of learning about the world, and religion is something different, not a way of knowing or learning but instead a way of maintaining social cohesion.

I agree with you, Seth: science is a way of learning about the world. But when you say “any meaningful claim about the existence of God is empirically testable”, I disagree. I know a person who, in mid-life, changed radically. He had been a highly successful attorney, had argued before the Supreme Court several times, made lots of money—and gave it up one day. I asked him why. “I had an experience of God. He told me that he loved me.” I won’t bore you with the rest. The point is he felt he had been touched by a deity in a very real, very personal way. As a result of this belief, he gave up what he came to see as his formerly extravagant lifestyle (11,000 sq ft home on the ocean, etc.) and lives much more simply. He has opened a counseling service and those that can’t pay aren’t asked to.

His claim is a simple one: “God exists and he touched me”. I asked him about if this experience had led him a specific theology. He said it had not—that he simply knew there was a god and that he was loved.

Is this claim true? Of course we can suggest alternate explanations involving psychology, brain chemistry, etc, but what empirical test could be done to determine the truth value of his claim? But perhaps you’ll say that this is no claim at all, but a mere (if touching) anecdote. But doesn’t this strike you as a bit tautological? “What’s meaningful is what can be tested. Only what can be tested is meaningful.” But, I suspect for many people, it’s just such claims as these that figure significantly into their decisions on the existence of a deity.

The key for the racist is to make “the other” not simply different but “given what they believe” inherently subhuman - less rational, thoughtful, concerned for human welfare than “us” (who are magically exempt from similar scrutiny), in order to justify their extermination.

 
Sure, it’s us humanists who are the dehumanizers?

Speak for yourself!

Are you insinuating that humanists would use un-humanistic means to achieve humanistic ends?

Surely the racist ‘War on Terror’ is being carried out with the purest of ‘humanist’ motives. Humanist extraordinary rendition, humanist waterboarding, humanist depleted uranium ordnance…

Haven’t the imperialists always justified their wars against 3rd World peoples with the argument that they are bringing enlightenment, democracy, and all that is good and decent? Haven’t there always been those ready to accept and repeat these lies?

What was Clinton’s ‘human rights’ imperialism in Kosovo? How about the ‘rescue’ of the Branch Davidian children from ‘abuse’ (by incinerating them alive with their parents)?

What terms are being used to justify brutal devastation, torture and mass murder in by ‘coalition forces’ in Iraq and Afghanistan?

There is clearly no magic power in the word ‘humanism’ that renders it unusable to the imperialist power structure and the service of capital. How is it different from the christianity that ‘saved’ the souls of witches, heretics and freethinkers by torturing them to death?

The notion of mimetics - that words and ideas (including religion) wield power independently from the material and social world which conditions them - itself represents an anti-materialist, religious worldview. But this is the essence of the argument that ‘the Koran leads to suicide bombing’, and Harris’ argument that the West may be ‘forced’ to drop nuclear weapons on an Islamic country ‘because of the way they think.’

But unlike the religious savages, you see, these ‘humanists’ find such necessities all quite regrettable!

Is this claim true? Of course we can suggest alternate explanations involving psychology, brain chemistry, etc, but what empirical test could be done to determine the truth value of his claim? But perhaps you’ll say that this is no claim at all, but a mere (if touching) anecdote. But doesn’t this strike you as a bit tautological? “What’s meaningful is what can be tested. Only what can be tested is meaningful.” But, I suspect for many people, it’s just such claims as these that figure significantly into their decisions on the existence of a deity.

Now, your friend is making an interesting and testable claim: there exists a “being” who communicates telepathically with people. We could test this claim, I suppose, by checking statistics and studying brain chemistry and finding out what happens when people have these experiences, whether we can induce them by other means, and so forth. And in fact, we’ve done this and have a reasonable understanding of what happens, and can induce the experience. And we know that there are physical causes that explain these events.

Given that, the empirical claim fails… unless we presuppose the existence of the being, the experiences of people add no extra evidence for the existence of the being.

And of course, a revelation is only meaningful to the reciever. Thom Paine covered this over 200 years ago.

I’m using meaningful as in “substantial”, so maybe we should be clear about terms.

Now, I’m aware that people are swayed by bad evidence all the time. But that fact doesn’t lend any credence to the evidence or the belief.

Do you have any documentation for these claims?

Yes. Osama bin Laden declared a fatwah in 1998 on America. Video footage abounds of Palestinians carrying signs and chanting “Death to America” after the world trade center attacks. Here is a news story about the slogan reappearing this year. The slogan of the Ayatollah Khomeni was “Death to America”. The Iranian government forces Iranian citizens to chant “Death to America” at every friday prayer.

A top hamas official recently called for the murder of every single american and israelite in a prayer. The world islamic front fatwa asks that all muslims, everywhere, kill any americans “civilian or military” in any country where they can.

The idea that NO ONE is calling for our destruction is fatuous and easily debunked.

Just for the record, Seth, not one of the links you provide meets the minimum requirement for ‘documentation’ (i.e. a primary source), and most are dubious at best. I would no sooner accept a pro-zionist website as a source for representations about Palestinian statements than I would accept a pro-al Qaeda site for representations about Israeli statements. Nor does simply reasserting the claim that ‘video footage abounds’ etc constiute firmer evidence. These would be good rules of thumb to keep in mind if you plan to do any research in future.

That said, I agree it is fatuous to insist that NO ONE ever called for the destruction of the U.S. I made the point earlier that the reactionary Islamist cults mirror the U.S. imperialists/zionists’ worldview - including the principle ‘collective guilt’ and collective punishment.  Unlike the U.S. imperialists and zionists threats against the Muslim world, however, their capacity to carry out such a criminal program is minimal to say the least.

What was Clinton’s ‘human rights’ imperialism in Kosovo?

You really need to learn to discriminate between events. Stopping the civil war in Yugoslavia and preventing an ongoing genocide, followed by a peaceful withdrawal with international support doesn’t really qualify as “imperialism.” Its kind of like how you demanded that I present evidence that there are people who want all Americans dead… it reveals that all you know is propaganda.

Some of your points may be good ones but unless you learn to filter propaganda more carefully they may get lost in the noise.

Just for the record, Seth, not one of the links you provide meets the minimum requirement for ‘documentation’ (i.e. a primary source), and most are dubious at best.

Actually, two of them are primary sources—the translation of the fatwah declaration. The newspaper article citing the practice of chanting “Death to America” in friday prayers is also a primary source, since it involves interviews and eyewitness accounts of this. Further secondary sources are acceptable documentation in many circumstances, especially where primary is hard to come by. Primary is preferred, not minimum. And you should know things like that, and understand primary and secondary sources, before you shoot off your mouth about my research qualifications.

I don’t have time to search video archives in order to please you. I saw the news footage at the time, and so did others. Do some research for yourself. However, I presented more than enough evidence to put the lie to your original claim, and that will just have to do.

Your claim, by the way was that “I know of no-one, despite these gargantuan crimes, who would advocate ‘obliterating’ the U.S. itself.” So don’t try to spin it like you didn’t make that claim.

Well, now you know of them. The fact that they exist should give you pause in your thinking.

Balak,

There is a discussion of the Sam Harris comment here:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=41745

Also, labeling everyone racist isn’t helping your case.  If there is an irrational fear, there has to be a better way of calming people down.

“I had an experience of God. He told me that he loved me.” I won’t bore you with the rest. The point is he felt he had been touched by a deity in a very real, very personal way…His claim is a simple one: “God exists and he touched me”. I asked him about if this experience had led him a specific theology. He said it had not—that he simply knew there was a god and that he was loved.

So, Hal, doesn’t that bear out exactly the claim that you think Dawkins shouldn’t be making? Doesn’t it bear out the claim that science and religion are antithetical? What you report is indeed antithetical to science in several glaring ways. ‘Feeling’ something is just that, and it’s susceptible to many interpretations; it’s not a reliable source of knowledge. This is not to say it’s of no value. It may produce feelings of hope, universal love, benevolence, all sorts of good things that are good for the owner and good for others, as in the case of your friend. (Other feelings can be productive of nasty things, though, so we can’t just say that mystical feelings always make people nicer; they don’t.) But it is to say that taking feelings to be a reliable source of knowledge is indeed antithetical to science. That is, basically, Dawkins’s point. He’s talking about epistemology. Your friend didn’t know there was a god, he merely thought he did. (A good scientist, and a good rational person [good in the sense of functioning properly], would remain aware that feelings are just feelings. Many people don’t manage that, of course.)

Is this claim true? Of course we can suggest alternate explanations involving psychology, brain chemistry, etc, but what empirical test could be done to determine the truth value of his claim? But perhaps you’ll say that this is no claim at all, but a mere (if touching) anecdote. But doesn’t this strike you as a bit tautological? “What’s meaningful is what can be tested. Only what can be tested is meaningful.”

No. It’s not a matter of what’s meaningful but of what’s reliable. Feelings aren’t reliable sources of genuine knowledge. They are subject to known distortions and errors, so they just can’t be trusted in the absence of corroboration.

Notice that you don’t offer an example of someone telling you “I had an experience of God. He told me that he hated me,” who then proceeded to rob people of their life savings with fraudulent investment offers. Would you find that equally persuasive? If not, would you agree that it’s possible that these feelings are shaped by both desires and expectations? We don’t expect the devil to talk to us, and we don’t expect a malevolent ‘God’ to talk to us - we have a ‘feeling’ and the feeling fits into a cultural pattern. That’s suspicious, don’t you think?

Anyway, I think your example just illustrates Dawkins’s point for him.

Balak,

There is a discussion of the Sam Harris comment here:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=41745
Also, labeling everyone racist isn’t helping your case.  If there is an irrational fear, there has to be a better way of calming people down.

Thanks for the link, Geo, but I haven’t ‘labeled’ anyone a racist.

Racism is simply a necessary component of imperialism, and is essential for mobilizing the populations in imperialist countries for war. In the form of Islamophobia, it’s a defining feature of the current political climate promoted by the U.S. ruling class and those of its junior partners in Europe.

To combat it effectively you have to know what it is.

Racism is simply a necessary component of imperialism, and is essential for mobilizing the populations in imperialist countries for war. In the form of Islamophobia, it’s a defining feature of the current political climate promoted by the U.S. ruling class and those of its junior partners in Europe.

Actually, any form of demonization will do, not just racism. For example, you might use propaganda to prejudice people against a RELIGION, like ISLAM, rather that any particular RACE. Even if the phenomena you are describing exists, you are deliberately using the wrong words to describe in order to play on the liberal distaste for racism. Shame on you.

Racism is simply a necessary component of imperialism, and is essential for mobilizing the populations in imperialist countries for war. In the form of Islamophobia, it’s a defining feature of the current political climate promoted by the U.S. ruling class and those of its junior partners in Europe.

‘Islamophobia’ is not racism because Islam is neither a race nor a set of people. Hatred of a set of ideas can’t possibly be a form of racism. ‘Muslimophobia’ would of course be hatred of a set of people, but it still wouldn’t be racism, because ‘Muslim’ isn’t a race. (Please don’t respond by saying that ‘most Muslims are brown’ or some such.) ‘Islamophobia’ is doubly not racism because it doesn’t even mean hatred of Muslims, it means hatred of Islam. Hatred of any particular religion, or all religions, is not racism, or a form of racism. Sloppy language is no way to make a case.

I can’t stand hearing the guy’s voice.  He is a jerk.  He’s a liar regarding Sam Harris’s book.  Nowhere does Sam endore nuclear strikes against any country. 

I don’t beleive in Chris Hedges.  I hate the idea of him.  As Christopher Hitchens says…to paraphrase: “no need to accentuate this man’s remarks, just underline them.

Racism is simply a necessary component of imperialism, and is essential for mobilizing the populations in imperialist countries for war. In the form of Islamophobia, it’s a defining feature of the current political climate promoted by the U.S. ruling class and those of its junior partners in Europe.

Actually, any form of demonization will do, not just racism. For example, you might use propaganda to prejudice people against a RELIGION, like ISLAM, rather that any particular RACE. Even if the phenomena you are describing exists, you are deliberately using the wrong words to describe in order to play on the liberal distaste for racism. Shame on you.

Ophelia B.: ‘Islamophobia’ is not racism because Islam is neither a race nor a set of people. Hatred of a set of ideas can’t possibly be a form of racism.

I’m sure these fine distinctions are of great significance(!) to the teenagers from West Virginia who are out there smashing down doors in the middle of the night in Iraq, spraying densely populated neighborhoods with machine gun fire, and scattering children’s playgrounds with cluster munitions. In fact they are encouraged to use the term ‘hadji’ in exactly the same way an earlier generation used ‘gook’...

Mobilizing the populace behind any imperialist war requires that the rulers thoroughtly dehumanise the target country’s population.

The liberal intelligentsia is easily lined up with a few phrases about battling ‘religious extremists,’ ‘communist totalitarians’ or what have you. But such abstractions are of little use when it comes to inspiring high-school kids to engage in unspeakable crimes against people on the other side of the world who have done them no harm. For this purpose the imperialist military must prime their recruits with raw, unadulterated racism against the target population as a whole.

The civil rights movement and the overturning of Jim Crow in the 1960s helped create the conditions for the historic defeat of the U.S. military by the Vietnamese. For many years after 1975, the rulers looked for ways to overcome what they called the ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ (i.e. the disinclination of the citizenry to support colonial wars). This is the real significance behind the struggle against ‘political correctness’ that continues to this day… not only by the neocons, christian zionists etc. but also their reliable ‘secular humanist’ auxiliaries.

When I wsa growing up, i believed journalism to be an honourable profession. As I have got older, I have realised that this is not the case.  They are only after whatever will get them ratings, or sell newspapers. 

Having said that, I still fall for their ploys time and again. Dressing opinion up as fact, misrepresenting the facts and statistics, outright lying…

That is the case with this chris hedges.  All he is after is getting a reaction, selling books and earning money. I am sure he doesn’t even believe what he is saying. If it causes a fuss, gets publicity, it is free advertising.

I was wound up about what he was saying for a while, until i relised I had been decieved again. I now simply feel sad that people feel it is ok to earn their money publishing crap like his, knowing that it will cause harm and hurt.

I suggest he is best recognised as the embarrasment to journalistic integrity that he is and subsequently ignored.

Ski.

Judging from the number of strong reactions to the Hedges interview, which is somewhat out of the ordinary for PoI, this was one of its more successful podcasts. 

I certainly hope that this will encourage CFI to invite more guests who pose questions that challenge its worldview (and I don’t mean creationists, bible thumpers etc)... thus avoiding a tendency to lapse into smugness.

I’m sure these fine distinctions are of great significance(!) to the teenagers from West Virginia who are out there smashing down doors in the middle of the night in Iraq, spraying densely populated

And you’re not demonizing soldiers at all, or the left. Whatever.

These fine distinctions aren’t important to soldiers, but they are important here, because it is here that you are using the words, to this audience, and you are using racism incorrectly. Get over yourself and learn to admit when you’re wrong.

Your posts are pure propaganda, filled with loaded words and absurd imagery, overblown claims and falsely authoritive statements. Your understanding of Vietnam and Vietnam era politics is pathetic in its shallowness. And the fact that governments use propaganda to demonize the enemy in a wartime situation is news to a few preteens, perhaps, but certainly not to the members of this board.

What you fail to understand is that even if you are largely correct about tactics and the work of Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens, which I submit you are not, even if you are correct about the need to demonize in order to mobilize, you haven’t addressed the point of whether or not jihadist islam is a force that we should be concerned about.

Indeed, you first claimed that no one wanted to obliterate america, a statement that is simply untrue. Next you’ll be claiming that American government policy somehow justified the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, which were carried out against a civilian, multinational, multicultural target.

Here’s one for Hedges and Balak:

http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/321.gif

I’m sure these fine distinctions are of great significance(!) to the teenagers from West Virginia who are out there smashing down doors in the middle of the night in Iraq, spraying densely populated

And you’re not demonizing soldiers at all, or the left. Whatever.

Not sure of your point here. Are you denying that this is what is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you deny that this type of atrocity is typical of all colonial wars? As to ‘demonizing’ soldiers, it is the rulers who are the criminals, not the poor kids tricked and brutalized into waging the wars of the rich.

These fine distinctions aren’t important to soldiers, but they are important here, because it is here that you are using the words, to this audience, and you are using racism incorrectly.

I am using the word racism in its most precise meaning, i.e. as it expresses itself in deeds against innocents abroad, not meaningless abstractions for the comfort of liberal muddle-heads at a safe distance from the scene of the crime.

What you fail to understand is that even if you are largely correct about tactics and the work of Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens, which I submit you are not, even if you are correct about the need to demonize in order to mobilize, you haven’t addressed the point of whether or not jihadist islam is a force that we should be concerned about.

Who’s ‘we’? I take no responsibility for the crimes of U.S. imperialism, which armed, trained and politically supported the reactionary Islamist cults as a weapon against secular nationalist, social democratic and communist movements throughout the Muslim world for decades before 9/11. All my concern is focussed on the imperialists, and what can be done to stop their current and future crimes against humanity.

Next you’ll be claiming that American government policy somehow justified the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, which were carried out against a civilian, multinational, multicultural target.

Nothing justified the criminal attacks against civilian targets (the Pentagon, which you omit, was a military target). But many informed observers have pointed out how disingenuous it was for the U.S. ruling class to pursue the policies they have for decades in the Middle East and then feign such astonishment and outrage when the ‘blowback’ finally reached home.

I just listened to the podcast and was so enraged that I immediately wrote a blog post about it and had to come here to discuss it.  Good job DJ, it’s too bad he dodged or mischaracterized so many of your questions. 

I’m angered by Hedges’ redefinition of words, like “fundamentalist” “atheist” “new atheist” and “sin.”  What I said (on my blog, sorry, don’t feel like rewording it) about “sin” is this:

Now let’s talk about sin. Hedges defines sin rather creatively, referring to people who don’t believe in it as “people who don’t understand their own flaws and their own moral corruption.” Sin, then, is the innate capacity of humans to do ill. To understand sin is to recognize your capacity to do harm and (assumedly) to try to overcome it. Sin is a religiously loaded concept, however, usually meaning things like “estrangement from god.” To sin is to act against God’s will. Thus, by necessity, someone who does not believe in a god cannot believe that any act is against its will. If we remove God out of the definition, what we are left with is Hedge’s definition of sin, which anyone else would call human nature. A secular understanding of it could be called a moral code or an ethical system. Atheists assuredly can be ethical. So what we have here is Hedges claiming that atheists do not believe in sin, a religious concept, but giving sin a secular definition. He is saying that lack of belief in God isn’t the problem, lack of ethical value is. I could agree with him on that, but by using a word like “sin” to mean ethics, he is claiming (again, without explicitly saying), that lack of ethics is an atheist trait.

Judging from the number of strong reactions to the Hedges interview, which is somewhat out of the ordinary for PoI, this was one of its more successful podcasts. 

I certainly hope that this will encourage CFI to invite more guests who pose questions that challenge its worldview (and I don’t mean creationists, bible thumpers etc)... thus avoiding a tendency to lapse into smugness.

I totally agree!  You can learn more by disagreeing with someone than you ever can by agreeing with them.

So, Hal, doesn’t that bear out exactly the claim that you think Dawkins shouldn’t be making? Doesn’t it bear out the claim that science and religion are antithetical? What you report is indeed antithetical to science in several glaring ways.
No. It’s not a matter of what’s meaningful but of what’s reliable. Feelings aren’t reliable sources of genuine knowledge. They are subject to known distortions and errors, so they just can’t be trusted in the absence of corroboration.

Notice that you don’t offer an example of someone telling you “I had an experience of God. He told me that he hated me,” who then proceeded to rob people of their life savings with fraudulent investment offers. Would you find that equally persuasive? If not, would you agree that it’s possible that these feelings are shaped by both desires and expectations? We don’t expect the devil to talk to us, and we don’t expect a malevolent ‘God’ to talk to us - we have a ‘feeling’ and the feeling fits into a cultural pattern. That’s suspicious, don’t you think?

Anyway, I think your example just illustrates Dawkins’s point for him.

Ophelia, I’m not arguing that his feelings are a reliable guide to knowledge. Perhaps there is a god who spoke to him; perhaps not. But the scientific method won’t help us discover the truth. There may be no guide to help us here, but asking science to shoulder this load can’t help us.

You may be quite convinced that there is no god, and so no need to delve deeply into the question. I really have no problem with that at all. My problem is where Dawkins et al. tell us that science can answer the question to a high degree of certainty: it simply can’t. The only way to use science is to assume the answer (“no god”) and then look into what factors might have contributed to the feelings my friend had. But to answer the question, “Is there a god?”, we must look elsewhere—or not at all. Some things really are beyond the human capacity for knowledge. Really, really wanting science to resolve this not-knowing (perhaps out of justifiable concern over what believers may do with their “certainty”) is very understandable, but it still won’t work.

You mentioned in an earlier post that what bugs you is dishonesty. This is exactly what bugs me about Dawkins. I have a great deal of respect for him—right up to the point where he (IMHO) goes off the rails and says that science can once and for all lay aside this messiness. It can’t. Not if we’re to be intellectually honest.

Hedges defines sin rather creatively, referring to people who don’t believe in it as “people who don’t understand their own flaws and their own moral corruption.” Sin, then, is the innate capacity of humans to do ill. To understand sin is to recognize your capacity to do harm and (assumedly) to try to overcome it.

Atheists assuredly can be ethical. So what we have here is Hedges claiming that atheists do not believe in sin, a religious concept, but giving sin a secular definition. He is saying that lack of belief in God isn’t the problem, lack of ethical value is. I could agree with him on that, but by using a word like “sin” to mean ethics, he is claiming (again, without explicitly saying), that lack of ethics is an atheist trait.

I think you’re missing his point. I don’t believe he said or implied that atheists cannot be highly ethical people—that there’s nothing special about belief in a god that inclines one to any particular behavior. Rather, he said, “We have nothing to fear from people who don’t believe in God, but a good deal to fear from those that don’t believe in sin.” That certainly resonated with me and it has nothing to do with believing in a god or the lack thereof, but in whether we believe everything we think. That unjustified certainty, coupled with a strong utopian bent, can lead to enormous evil. One could argue that our current president has combined those two traits to produce a disaster in Iraq.

Ophelia, I’m not arguing that his feelings are a reliable guide to knowledge. Perhaps there is a god who spoke to him; perhaps not. But the scientific method won’t help us discover the truth. There may be no guide to help us here, but asking science to shoulder this load can’t help us.

But we CAN determine the likelihood of his being talked to telepathically (very low) and that DOES help us discover the truth. Saying this isn’t so, or pretending that there is some other dimension to be explored just based on some subjective experience, isn’t moving closer to the truth at all.

But we CAN determine the likelihood of his being talked to telepathically (very low) and that DOES help us discover the truth. Saying this isn’t so, or pretending that there is some other dimension to be explored just based on some subjective experience, isn’t moving closer to the truth at all.

How would you determine this?

I am using the word racism in its most precise meaning, i.e. as it expresses itself in deeds against innocents abroad, not meaningless abstractions for the comfort of liberal muddle-heads at a safe distance from the scene of the crime.

Actually, racism is a term that means something. Its about race. Not war. Not culture. Not religion. RACE. So you are using it opportunistically because you are a propagandist.

Glad you were so fast to blame America for the attack on New York (the third or fourth such). Saved me the trouble of teasing it out of you. I think that any time you have a group that is willing to kill, not in self defense, but for ideological reasons, there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

The dominant PR problem for the US (until the Iraq war) was our position of support for Israel. I believe that it is this support that was the primary reason for the September 11 attacks, and I think the fatwah from bin Laden supports that case. It is difficult to find support in the middle east for the concept that Israel has a right to exist at all. Do you think that Israel does or does not have a right to exist?

But we CAN determine the likelihood of his being talked to telepathically (very low) and that DOES help us discover the truth. Saying this isn’t so, or pretending that there is some other dimension to be explored just based on some subjective experience, isn’t moving closer to the truth at all.

How would you determine this?

I explained this in a previous post.

Now, your friend is making an interesting and testable claim: there exists a “being” who communicates telepathically with people. We could test this claim, I suppose, by checking statistics and studying brain chemistry and finding out what happens when people have these experiences, whether we can induce them by other means, and so forth. And in fact, we’ve done this and have a reasonable understanding of what happens, and can induce the experience. And we know that there are physical causes that explain these events.

I guess this is the post you mean?

1. On the statistics side of things, we have a pretty long account of humans believing that they’ve had encounters with a god. If there were such a being, it would not be surprising that (a)people had some vague impression of him/her/it and (b)the details of it would be pretty muddled and be highly culturally influenced as Ophelia pointed out in a post. Or it could just be an unfortunate by-product of our evolution. So, I’m not sure how this resolves anything.

2. On the inducing experiences, yes, we can do this. We can also induce other sensations—the taste of a tomato, for example. So that doesn’t help us much either—unless we are willing to declare the non-existence of tomatoes!

Science is so good at what it does—why ask it to do something that it’s just not meant to do?

.

Judging from the number of strong reactions to the Hedges interview, which is somewhat out of the ordinary for PoI, this was one of its more successful podcasts. 

I certainly hope that this will encourage CFI to invite more guests who pose questions that challenge its worldview (and I don’t mean creationists, bible thumpers etc)... thus avoiding a tendency to lapse into smugness.

I totally agree!  You can learn more by disagreeing with someone than you ever can by agreeing with them.

You MIGHT learn more.  Some people are just disagreeable.

2. On the inducing experiences, yes, we can do this. We can also induce other sensations—the taste of a tomato, for example. So that doesn’t help us much either—unless we are willing to declare the non-existence of tomatoes!

But we have other evidence for the existence of tomatoes, but not for telepathic presences, so your parallel breaks down completely.

I’m not asking science to do anything it wasn’t designed to do. Your friend makes an empirical claim: There exists a telepathic being that communicated with him. This claim can be investigated by science.

Logically, lets not even get into the fact that this is no evidence about the nature of said being. Assuming telepathy, the being could be a competing broker who wanted to blow your friends mind in order to get him out of the game. The existence of some other dimensional being isn’t even approached by your friends claim. Assuming it was, the extradimensional being could be in cahoots with the competing broker, etc. The claim is quite meaningless to anyone but him, and he is being pretty gullible in creating so much meaning around it.

But that aside, the important thing is that we know enough to have a fair idea of the sort of events that can, physiologically, create such sensations. And we can induce them in the lab. So we would look for distinguishing factors betwen the lab induced experience and the experiences people have out in the world. Is there some reason why we should be disatisified with the phsyiological explanation? Is there something it is failing to explain?

No. There is nothing in the experience that is not explained by a physiological explanation. There is no reason to add the caveat “and the telepathic being exists outside of this fantasy” to your friends experience.

I’m at a total loss to understand what it is about this experience that you think is somehow beyond science. Science is not a body of knowledge, its simply a way of asking questions that allows us to find out what is true.

This supposed other way of asking questions, where you simply allow any assumption to have equal value, regardless of whether it adds explanatory power or has any supporting evidence, doesn’t have any hope at all of arriving at the truth or a truth or any truth, or of verifying that it has truth.

Hedges defines sin rather creatively, referring to people who don’t believe in it as “people who don’t understand their own flaws and their own moral corruption.” Sin, then, is the innate capacity of humans to do ill. To understand sin is to recognize your capacity to do harm and (assumedly) to try to overcome it.

Atheists assuredly can be ethical. So what we have here is Hedges claiming that atheists do not believe in sin, a religious concept, but giving sin a secular definition. He is saying that lack of belief in God isn’t the problem, lack of ethical value is. I could agree with him on that, but by using a word like “sin” to mean ethics, he is claiming (again, without explicitly saying), that lack of ethics is an atheist trait.

I think you’re missing his point. I don’t believe he said or implied that atheists cannot be highly ethical people—that there’s nothing special about belief in a god that inclines one to any particular behavior. Rather, he said, “We have nothing to fear from people who don’t believe in God, but a good deal to fear from those that don’t believe in sin.” That certainly resonated with me and it has nothing to do with believing in a god or the lack thereof, but in whether we believe everything we think. That unjustified certainty, coupled with a strong utopian bent, can lead to enormous evil. One could argue that our current president has combined those two traits to produce a disaster in Iraq.

You could argue that, but you would miss the point. Both Bush and the Jihadi believe in sin. They both believe in god. They both believe in evil. But, like Hedges himself, they place themselves squarely on the side of the angels.

If they don’t believe in gods and angels, what is the justification of the ‘secular’ Crusaders like Harris and Hitchens who line up behind the War Party?

“I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.”
Lt. Gen. William G. ‘Jerry’ Boykin, speaking about battle with a Muslim warlord

Hedges has said many times that he does not believe any of the kooky things the Bible claims like Moses parting the Red Sea, talking snakes, whales vomiting men they’ve swallowed and the like. DJ Grothie was ill-prepared for this interview and it showed. He thought because Hedges is a lefty that it was going to be a cakewalk. Grothie and the new atheists, as Hedges was quick to point out, know nothing about the Middle East except the Western propaganda they’ve heard in the mainstream media. They lump all Muslims into the same category much like whites lumping blacks into the same category vis a vis the Black Monolith. Every human on this planet deserves to be individuated and not stereotyped. This leads to exactly what happened during slavery and exactly what is happening in Iraq and about to happen in Iran. Notice how we never attack Europe for their oil. It’s always a group of nonwhites.

Atheism is very much akin to fundamentalist Christianity because they both claim to know what is unknowable for humans at this stage of evolution. In fact we may never get there because there is no guarantee that evolution will take us to higher levels of existence. Sometimes species remain where they are and sometimes they regress. Either way humans are ill-equipped to speculate on any afterlife other than conjecture that one of human consciousness is not likely. Even Dawkins himself has said that he isn’t 100% atheist. Any reasonable man has to leave room for what humans lack in intellect. Dennett is pretty much the same but Hitchens and Harris are not out and out racists against all non-whites. When you say Islam is a religion of hatred you are saying that Arabs are a race of terrorists. It’s sleight of hand with the words. European johnny-come-lately Jews are the ones that are not a race. Judaism is a religion and nothing else. They just converted recently. The originals Jews come from Africa. Read “We the black Jews” by Yosef A. A. ben-Jochannan for the historical truth instead of lies spread by ahistorical, revisionist education. I am an agnostic and will remain so because it is the only logical position for a man to take. We don’t know….plain and simple. Dogmatic, theistic gods are all false. We all share the same reality and that dictates that the laws of physics are not violated for some and enforced for others.

Whil I do not see the point in practicing any religion it makes even less sense to practice a religion in which you disagree with the majority of the dogmatic text. Practicing the moral aspects of Christianity in daily life require no adherence to Christianity at all so I believe that Hedges is wasting his time there. Religion obviously helps people deal with their fears and insecurities about our purpose and ultimate destiny in the universe. There is nothing wrong with that but religious people take it a step further. They develop an “my way or the highway” mentality that pits them against people of other faiths and those of no faith like myself. It is typical human groupthink behavior but it doesn’t make it right. Many religious people allow politicians, who are representatives of the elite and their corporations, to use religion to divide us which keeps us from recognizing them for what they are and unifying against them. They are strict Malthusians who want to exterminate most of humanity so that this way of life can be prolonged long enough to find other inhabitable planets. These people think they are God so they require no religion. They worship Lucifer which is basically every baser human instinct, not some red devil with a tail and a pitchfork. Their plan is almost complete and still the world, including and especially America, is asleep at the wheel. I pity future generations because they have no future except suffering and misery.

I am an agnostic and will remain so because it is the only logical position for a man to take. We don’t know….plain and simple.

It is also logical to assume that we might be a bunch of Whos living on a speck of dust. We don’t know….plain and simple.

Hal,

My problem is where Dawkins et al. tell us that science can answer the question to a high degree of certainty: it simply can’t.

But Dawkins doesn’t say that. A high degree of probability yes, but certainty, no.

Much of your case seems to depend on overstating what Dawkins says. You really should read The God Delusion if you want to make your case - because he doesn’t say what you claim he says. You’re fighting a straw man.

You mentioned in an earlier post that what bugs you is dishonesty. This is exactly what bugs me about Dawkins. I have a great deal of respect for him—right up to the point where he (IMHO) goes off the rails and says that science can once and for all lay aside this messiness.

But he doesn’t say that either. Really - read the book. All this straw man stuff is pointless, because you’re disputing something that doesn’t exist.

I have read the book. I own it including Hitchens, Dennett, Harris and others. I guess it’s a matter of interpretation. You are quite right though. Dawkins does believe that one day science will be able to answer all of these questions if humans do not destroy each other over religion first. His theme is almost a plea to give brilliant people and evolution enough time to unravel some of these mysteries. They may not be as mysterious and complicated as we all are assuming it is.

I am an agnostic and will remain so because it is the only logical position for a man to take. We don’t know….plain and simple.

Can you think of anything that you know for certain? How do you know that your body is not hooked-up to the “Matrix”? ... are you “agnostic” about that too?  For practicality sake, the term “agnostic” should be reserved for hypotheticals for which there exists at least some bit of evidence or a known mechanism... otherwise the word “agnostic” is a meaningless term; it would describe both Mother Teresa and Carl Sagan equally at the same time.

To paraphrase Sam Harris:
The terms “Atheist” and “Agnostic” make about as much sense as the terms:  “a-astologist” and “astrolo-gnostic”.

—-

Personal god claims are no different in kind than Astrology claims
Try this little exercise out:
Re-write the arguments and statements from this thread with “Astrology” in place of “God”:

“I am an astrolo-gnostic and will remain so because we don’t know….plain and simple.”

“I say that science and Astrology exist in two non-overlapping magisteria, as such, science has nothing to say about Astrology.”

“If an astrologer claims that Astrology is real, and science shows that one of his claims about Astrology is wrong, that doesn’t mean that Astrology is not real, it just means that the person making the claim about Astrology is wrong, mistaken, or maybe lying.”

“Dawkins tells us that science can answer the question of Astrology to a high degree of certainty: it simply can’t.”

“Dawkins is misusing science by claiming so strongly that Astrology is a delusion.”

Who here would respect the reasoning used to defend these above positions about Astrology?

HERE is a fine example of why the War Party needs the likes of Harris/Hitchens to market their racist filth to imperialism’s liberal intelligentsia.

It’s exactly the same ‘clash of civilizations’ garbage, but Harris & Co. have a special talent for wrapping it in the appropriate ‘secular humanist’ camouflage.

Agnostic simply means that a person has not chosen a side because there is insufficient evidence to make a logical decision. I understand that we may all be in the Matrix. In fact I believe we are in the a figurative Matrix but that is not the point. Humans are limited by our senses. It is pointless to have a discussion whereby we discount what we can see, hear, taste, touch and smell (although smell and taste are basically one sense), just because we are unsure if we are experiencing actual reality due to our primitiveness. We have to go with what we know. The alternative is to become religious and know nothing.

The real perversion of terminology is atheist. “A” means not so atheist should be what is called non-theist. The proper term for what is called atheism should be a-deist, someone who doesn’t believe in any creator, regardless of any theism. Nonbelievers is the proper term to group all of these together but religious people are not nearly as nuanced in their view of us as we are in our appropriate, but possible overly respectful, view of them. How many times have we all heard “Have a blessed day!” or “Thank God”? Some will argue this is making a mountain out of a molehill but these are the cues that helped to drive nonbelievers into hiding in the first place. Now that we’re out I suggest we do everything to stay out because there are over a billion of us worldwide and our numbers are growing. See for yourself.

http://www.adherents.com/

HERE is a fine example of why the War Party needs the likes of Harris/Hitchens to market their racist filth to imperialism’s liberal intelligentsia.

It’s exactly the same ‘clash of civilizations’ garbage, but Harris & Co. have a special talent for wrapping it in the appropriate ‘secular humanist’ camouflage.

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Agnostic simply means that a person has not chosen a side because there is insufficient evidence to make a logical decision.

Technically you are right, but in the practical use of the term you’re wrong. The “atheist” term is improperly burdened with the notion of 100% certainty in a way that the “theist” term is not.

When a person says: “I believe in the existence of a god”, we label that person a “theist”. Simple as that.
We don’t interrogate them about whether or not they are 100% certain that a god exists, we simply call them a “theist”.
When a person says: “I do not believe in the existence of a god”, we should similarly label that person an “atheist” (if anything at all). They should not have to endure some special interrogation about whether or not they are 100% certain, and if not 100% certain, be labeled “agnostic” instead of “atheist”.

If interrogated, wouldn’t a great number of “theists” also acknowledge some degree of uncertainty about their belief? Should they all then be labeled “agnostic” as well? That might make more sense technically, but for practical sake, it can be assumed that no one knows one way or the other.

Atheism is very much akin to fundamentalist Christianity because they both claim to know what is unknowable for humans at this stage of evolution. In fact we may never get there because there is no guarantee that evolution will take us to higher levels of existence. Sometimes species remain where they are and sometimes they regress. Either way humans are ill-equipped to speculate on any afterlife other than conjecture that one of human consciousness is not likely.

There is so much wrong here, I don’t know where to start. First off, atheism does not require, and very few atheists profess, certainty. Dawkins is an atheist and he discusses this in terms of probability, which is exactly what you do in that quote.

I really don’t get why people have this need to push positive atheism into some sort of bad place, especially people who are themselves a-theists, people with no god. Positive atheism, new atheism, isn’t about god or no god. Its about human knowledge, and the fact that there is no evidence to suggest, no rational argument to even hint, no logical construction to support the possibility that a god exists.

Hedges, by insisting that god claims are somehow beyond science and that morality is somehow beyond evolutionary psychology and that the twentieth century was somehow filled with more carnage than the 19th, is simply making unsupported statements that sound comforting, but don’t stand up under scrutiny.

Grothie and the new atheists, as Hedges was quick to point out, know nothing about the Middle East except the Western propaganda they’ve heard in the mainstream media.

Hedges may have been quick to point it out, but since Hitchens has traveled extensively in the middle east and reported on it, Hedges would be flat wrong.

I haven’t read this whole thread, so this may have been brought up already.

I waited in vain for your guest to explain exactly what he meant by the term “fundamentalist.”  According to him, it seems to be equivalent to “divisiveness” and “dehumanization.”

That’s all fine, in the sense that we should be against those things.  But I’m bewildered as to what it has to do with fundamentalism.  Wikipedia links to a definition of fundamentalism that says: “Fundamentalism, in religion, refers to a belief in the infallibility, and literal interpretation, of a doctrine or holy book.”  That’s pretty much in line with how I’ve always understood the term.

If Harris and Hitchens are fundamentalists, exactly which written works are they fundamentalist about?  I’m not aware of some sacred text that they both work off of.  While their philosophies are similar to one another, as far as I can tell, they developed them independently; and they likely have wildly different opinions from each other about several individual topics.  Even more so from Dawkins and Dennett, who I’m pretty sure are opposed to the Iraq war.  Surely this is a complete mischaracterization of what makes a position “fundamentalist.”

Also, WTF does Hedges mean to include as part of the term “new atheists” (which I think is kind of a stupid concept to begin with)?  Is it only the five guys who have written bestselling books?  Whom are they supposed to lead or represent?  Do I get to be a “new atheist” by doing a podcast and a cable show?  Are you one (DJ)?  From my vantage point, it looks like a lot more atheists are against “holy war” than for it, so how did we get stuck being grouped in automatically with everything that those two guys, Harris and Hitchens, believe politically?  Harris also has some fairly wacky opinions on meditation and Buddhism, but that doesn’t mean it’s a built in trait of “new atheism.”

Notice how we never attack Europe for their oil. It’s always a group of nonwhites.

Always? We haven’t attacked anybody “for their oil” at least not noticeably. You are aware that gas prices have more than tripled in the last 7 years, right? If we went to war for oil, where’s the oil?

You may have noticed that there are non-white oil producing nations with whom we are NOT at war. And white, non-oil producing nations where we have troops stationed. We may not have noticed that Vietnam doesn’t have much oil, Korea doesn’t have any, Germany is bereft of petroleum reserves, Serbia is an oil free zone and yet we’ve been at war in all of these places in the last century, and we’ve demonized many of those people whether they were white or not.

No one can deny that there is a lot of racism in America. No one can deny that American politics is frequently racist. But its asinine to suggest that we’re “always” attacking some poor group of non-whites to get at their oil, as if that’s the cornerstone of most, or even ANY, American military action.

European johnny-come-lately Jews are the ones that are not a race. Judaism is a religion and nothing else. They just converted recently. The originals Jews come from Africa. Read “We the black Jews” by Yosef A. A. ben-Jochannan for the historical truth instead of lies spread by ahistorical, revisionist education.

This from someone schooling the rest of us on racism. Just ridiculous. I mean, if by “lately” you mean sometime in the last 4 thousand years, I guess you might have a leg to stand on. But your one source is a total wing nut who thinks that Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare, Mozart, and Beethoven were black.

Sell crazy somewhere else.

Personal god claims are no different in kind than Astrology claims
Try this little exercise out:
Re-write the arguments and statements from this thread with “Astrology” in place of “God”:

“I am an astrolo-gnostic and will remain so because we don’t know….plain and simple.”

“I say that science and Astrology exist in two non-overlapping magisteria, as such, science has nothing to say about Astrology.”

“If an astrologer claims that Astrology is real, and science shows that one of his claims about Astrology is wrong, that doesn’t mean that Astrology is not real, it just means that the person making the claim about Astrology is wrong, mistaken, or maybe lying.”

“Dawkins tells us that science can answer the question of Astrology to a high degree of certainty: it simply can’t.”

“Dawkins is misusing science by claiming so strongly that Astrology is a delusion.”

Who here would respect the reasoning used to defend these above positions about Astrology?

That’s a neat trick—putting words in your opponent’s mouth and then destroying “his” argument. It’s almost like you made up an opponent out of some nearby material—straw, perhaps.

That’s a neat trick—putting words in your opponent’s mouth and then destroying “his” argument. It’s almost like you made up an opponent out of some nearby material—straw, perhaps.

Actually, Hal, your using “strawman” incorrectly here. If it were a strawman argument, Riley would be claiming that you had made the argument about astrology. He doesn’t.

First, he draws an equivalence between astrology and other religions, then he sustitutes astrology for religion in the arguments that you and others have made. He’s clear that this is what he’s doing, and he doesn’t try to claim that you or anyone else actually made that case for astrology. The argument is that either you must accept the same arguments when applied to astrology, or that you must demonstrate that religion somehow has superior standing to astrology.

This will prove to be, if I may borrow a phrase, “a tough nut to crack”.

By eschewing physical evidence, you’ve given up any hope of presenting an empirical case for the superiority of goddism over astrology. If its all about belief, well, people believe a lot of weird things. If their all equally true…

Well, you get the idea.

First, he draws an equivalence between astrology and other religions, then he sustitutes astrology for religion in the arguments that you and others have made. He’s clear that this is what he’s doing, and he doesn’t try to claim that you or anyone else actually made that case for astrology. The argument is that either you must accept the same arguments when applied to astrology, or that you must demonstrate that religion somehow has superior standing to astrology.

This will prove to be, if I may borrow a phrase, “a tough nut to crack”.

By eschewing physical evidence, you’ve given up any hope of presenting an empirical case for the superiority of goddism over astrology. If its all about belief, well, people believe a lot of weird things. If their all equally true…

Well, you get the idea.

Gee, maybe I should trademark that phrase!

I do get the idea, Seth. But I’ve not made any claim for religion or for the existence of a god. What I’ve said, consistently, is that a being outside the universe is outside the realm of science. I think I could say the same thing for universes outside of our universe. They may exist or they may not, but we won’t know.

Astrology is not outside the universe. Its claims are testable—and prove to be false. The analogy between astrology and a transcendent god is a false one. Equating the two appeals to the emotions:“If you believe that, you have to believe this—and this, we all agree, is crazy! So don’t believe that either!” It seems to me a version of the Hitler card.

When I asked how one might test for the existence of such a being as a transcendent god, you suggested we might use statistics and finding whether religious experiences were replicatable. I countered that statistics seem to be on the side of believers and that replicating an experience does not thereby invalidate the reality of the experience.

I still have heard no convincing arguments against the “non overlapping magisteria argument”.

I “get” that you, Riley, Ophelia, and others are very concerned that religion not poke its nose under the tent of truth. Based on the history of religion and science, that’s a very wise stance to take.

I’ve made the argument (ad nauseum) that, praiseworthy though your goal may be, you risk a great deal by forwarding the scientific method as capable of answering the question of whether a transcendent god exists.

I’ve agreed with you that religious claims about the world should be subject to scientific scrutiny—that this is the legitimate purview of science. So if you want to continue to disprove that a god created our world six thousand years ago, by all means, have at it. It seems a bit like shooting fish in a barrel to me.

Where we continue to disagree is the issue of NOMA. It’s clear to me that there are statements claiming to be true that aren’t resolvable by the scientific method. That was the important lesson behind Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle—that there are fundamental limits on what science can tell us, even about our world.

The new atheism and the old fundamentalism share this trait in common: they both hold that their world view can answer all questions. I remain unconvinced on both counts.

The new atheism and the old fundamentalism share this trait in common: they both hold that their world view can answer all questions. I remain unconvinced on both counts.

I don’t think they are equivalent. I don’t think that’s what the “new atheism” means—it probably means something different to everyone.  To me the “New Atheism” means confronting the question of whether God exists from a perspective based on reason, experience, and science.  And recognizing that just wanting there to be a God doesn’t mean there is one.

To me the “New Atheism” doesn’t have anything to do with the war in Iraq, questions about U.S. imperialism, or even “secular humanism”—to me it is the uncompromsing statement that there is not sufficent evidence to warrant belief.  I actually found Chris Hedges off-topic since (as a number of us have noted)  because he didn’t actually address “atheism”—he addressed the political causes he thought atheists were supporting.

I’m interested in what “New Atheism” means to the rest of you…

There is so much to discuss with this podcast that had I not being doing some chores around the garage and house I would have written them down.  All I knew of Hedges before this interview was when I picked up what appears to be this recent book, in the bookstore the other day and flimmed through a few pages and realized this guy was making generalizations about other atheists that I had not seen or known to be true, in their writings, and the other points, I agreed with (like Hitchens take on war).  I’m a libertarian/atheist who believes in using force against force.

I found it completely shocking and then disingenuous when Hedges claimed that he really didn’t know of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Now, this guy is an “expert” and he doesn’t know of one of the biggest, most credible and high profile critics of islam and the muslim culture?  Huh?  It gives the appearance of the same old liberal bent, which is, if you find an XYZ who disagrees with all the other poor downtrodden XYZs, he or she really doesn’t know what she is talking about (or has “self-hate”), or is delusional, or in this case, you haven’t heard of her.  Right.

He also made the bizarre, and completely refuted claim, that islam isn’t a direct link to suicide bombers and that particular world-view.  IT IS.  And studies done, including profiles completed on the high profile suicide bombers, indicates that poverty and “oppression” have nothing to do with it.  Many of the 911 hijackers were educated, many had “normal” lives (as did those in Spain and the UK), and came from families that were less militant.  The Koran, hatred and psychotic belief in their own religion IS linked to suicide and homicidal terrorism.

He also made the politically correct claim that each nation under islam was “different”.  While true in many superficial ways, this is like someone from Vermont claiming in 1861 that indeed, the people of Virginia were “just so really different than the people of South Carolina, and most don’t own slaves”, which was true (I am a Southerner and descendent of Confederates, mind you).  While it is true that only 3 percent of Southerners had slaves (roughly), MANY millions would have gladly lent a tree for a lynching, or captured a runaway, and get this: SUPPORTED A WAR THROUGH THEIR FINANCES AND OWN CHILDREN TO FIGHT FOR SLAVERY. (we know this, as it is an objective fact of the very Civil War itself).

The muslim world is similar.  Does EVERY muslim want their son to don a suicide vest and go into a crowded market (of either Jews, Americans, or yes, Browns-skinned South Asian/Pacificers like Bali, take your pick) ?  Of course not.  But while their actual, literal views may run the gamut, that spectrum is very small, and very homogenous on the things that matter.  Most muslims have a pathological hatred of Jews, and a pathological repression of their own sexuality and a pathological hatred of women’s freedoms and the freedom of “man”, to speak his mind or to offer constructive criticism.

We don’t have to prove that every muslim wishes death to any particular American (read: Westerner, atheist, gay, woman, child, anyone who disagrees with them), any more than we have to prove that every single Southerner supported South Carolina in 1861, only that it is the PREVAILING opinion and it is NOT abated by any actions (albeit supported) of the very peers that Hedges claims are so diverse in their culture.  They are not.  And if you, as a “non expert” have ever been around muslims or gotten to know them personally, what is remarkable is how similar they actually all are in their thoughts on religion, jews, Americans, life, death, objectivity, etc.  The list goes on. 

They are a backwards people, in a forward-thinking world (including China and India), and they should be called out and yes, punished with force, for their beliefs when those beliefs SPECIFICALLY attack our way of life.  They are not oppressed by the world any more than they HAVE oppressed the world (arguably less, historically), they are a bunch of crybabies that are jealous that jews (and largely, the world) got on with life and have been successful while they live hand-to-mouth and cheer in the streets like mind-numb pigs, unaware that their “religion” and world view has been what has cost them so dearly.

Hmm…

They are just animals, lets round them up, put them in trains, other forms of mass transportation and deliver them to industrial camps for a final solution…

Wait, it’s been tried before?!!

We can certainly use Science and Technology to make it work this time…

Hmm…

They are just animals, lets round them up, put them in trains, other forms of mass transportation and deliver them to industrial camps for a final solution…

Wait, it’s been tried before?!!

We can certainly use Science and Technology to make it work this time…

Hal, just as a side note, this is an example of the Hitler card.

Also, this is a use of strawman argument: suggesting that the “final solution” has been suggested by someone when in reality, it hasn’t even been hinted at, suggested, and there’s no reason to believe that Hitchens or Harris would support it. No one is supporting camps or anything like that.

He attacks science and technology as well, when in reality if we hadn’t had strong science and technology in America, and been willing to use force against Hitler (the person he’s equating us to) Hitler’s government would probably have succeeded in killing a lot more European Jews than it actually did. I’m not sure if that’s a logical fallacy or just stupid.

Congratulations, OhioDoc. You’ve made us all just a little bit dumber.

Hal, just as a side note, this is an example of the Hitler card.

Also, this is a use of strawman argument: suggesting that the “final solution” has been suggested by someone when in reality, it hasn’t even been hinted at, suggested, and there’s no reason to believe that Hitchens or Harris would support it. No one is supporting camps or anything like that.

I think OhioDoc reacted (as did I) to the characterization of Musims as “pigs”. That is the very definition of dehumanizing and we do well to remember the ultimate end of such thinking.

As such, I don’t think it was so much a strawman as an appeal not to give in to such human (but wrong) tendencies. People aren’t pigs—or any other animals and using such rhetoric only serves to dehumanize us all.

I do get the idea, Seth. But I’ve not made any claim for religion or for the existence of a god. What I’ve said, consistently, is that a being outside the universe is outside the realm of science. I think I could say the same thing for universes outside of our universe. They may exist or they may not, but we won’t know.

Astrology is not outside the universe. Its claims are testable—and prove to be false.

I still have heard no convincing arguments against the “non overlapping magisteria argument”.

I’ve made the argument (ad nauseum) that, praiseworthy though your goal may be, you risk a great deal by forwarding the scientific method as capable of answering the question of whether a transcendent god exists.

But no one is trying. What we’ve said is this: EITHER YOUR GOD HAS EFFECTS INSIDE THE UNIVERSE OR IT DOESN’T.

If it doesn’t, you’re right. That’s outside science. We’ve all accepted that a long, long, long time ago. It also can’t be said to exist in any meaningful fashion. Because, after all, any effect that this “transcendent” being would have would make a part of it “descendant” and once that happens, its playing in my court.

I want to stay with your example, this guy who went nuts because he heard voices and sold all his stuff. Now, lets say that he had interpreted an astrological reading to mean essentially that, and had sold all his stuff and now felt more content. Clearly, this would be an equivalent argument, whether the stars or god meant it to be, he took the same action and we see the same result.

Well, plenty of people do things based on the stars, and some of them have good results. So who are you to say that the stars don’t influence human events in some subtle way? You can’t prove it. Even if you can, you can only prove it for fundamentalist astrologers who are bound by classic horoscope reading. Modern astrology is more subtle than that, so you’re really only attacking a parody of real astrology.

See the parallels, there? The fact is, astrology and theology are exact equivalents.

When I asked how one might test for the existence of such a being as a transcendent god, you suggested we might use statistics and finding whether religious experiences were replicatable. I countered that statistics seem to be on the side of believers and that replicating an experience does not thereby invalidate the reality of the experience.

Its important to point out that this is not a transcendant claim. You have claimed that a human being may have been contacted telepathically, and further that we cannot get closer to the truth of whether or not he was using science. This is an empirical claim.

Statistics are not on the side of the believers. What we see instead is that physiological explanations make sense. People have transcendent experiences when certain things happen to their brains. We can replicate those things and get those experiences. People have the experiences within their own cultural context. We do not see people recieiving revelations of things that they have no other way of knowing, or any other evidence that would suggest contact with a transcendent, extra-dimensional being.

Replicating an experience (the taste of a tomato was your example) does not prove that there was never a physical tomato. That’s true. Its also true that the taste of a tomato is no evidence for the existence of a tomato. That’s what inducement proves, that the mind can be fooled about the reality of a situation. If people have transcendent experiences in response to phsyiological factors, that proves that physiological factors ALONE can explain the phenomena of transcendent experiences.

And in doing so, we’ve used science to investigate the claim of telepathic contact. We’ve found that the experience of telepathic contact has a physiological explanation. We can show that the supposed contact does not impart new information, or differ in any significant way from an induced contact experience. Can we prove that the contact did not take place, that perhaps this was the first and only true case of contact? No. But we’ve provided a much more likely scenario.

Of your friend, you said:

Ophelia, I’m not arguing that his feelings are a reliable guide to knowledge. Perhaps there is a god who spoke to him; perhaps not. But the scientific method won’t help us discover the truth. There may be no guide to help us here, but asking science to shoulder this load can’t help us.

What the scientific method has shown is that there is absolutely no need to invoke a god in order to explain his experience. It shows that his experience is unlikely to be a reliable guide towards discovering the truth. And since the ENTIRETY of the evidence for telepathic contact consists of his experience, there is absolutely no reason to think that a telepathic event occured.

You know, you’ve used the idea of non-overlapping magisteria a lot. And I agree. Theology can discuss things that aren’t real, don’t exist, and don’t matter. Science gets things that do exist, that do matter. Theology is useless as a guide to ethics, behavior, morality, finance, physics, love, human events, observable events, and the human heart. But it can have the existence of non-descendent, non-interacting, non-existent gods all day long.

.

As such, I don’t think it was so much a strawman as an appeal not to give in to such human (but wrong) tendencies. People aren’t pigs—or any other animals and using such rhetoric only serves to dehumanize us all.

No… it was a strawman. Because the suggestion was that they should be “punished with force” under very specific circumstances, not exterminated. Strawman and Hitler card, sorry.

I’m not supporting the characterization of muslims as pigs. They are, like all humans including myself, apes. We are all animals and would do well to remember it.

And when we see people—any people—in large numbers in the streets, holding signs and chanting and screaming for blood, we should be reminded, forcibly, or the activities of the common chimpanzee, our close ancestor. Bluff, bluster, attack. The willingness to exterminate opposing sides. These things are part of our genetic makeup and we should remember it.

There is no question that we have here a conflict of civilizations. It is the conflict between Athens and its decendents, and Persia and its descendants. It has been being waged for as long as history has been recorded, I think. The war has been waged in ideas and weapons and religions and money, and it has never shown any sign of stopping.

Each civilization has its worst elements. Both are absurdly complex and difficult to understand. We’ve traded so much memetic matierial that elements of each culture are infused through the other.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, can we make peace with the worst elements of Persian civilization? And the answer that Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens come to is no. But it is a mistake, and Hedges makes this mistake, as did OhioDoc, to think that this entails destroying the civilization itself, or every member of it.

Personal god claims are no different in kind than Astrology claims
Try this little exercise out:
Re-write the arguments and statements from this thread with “Astrology” in place of “God”:

“I am an astrolo-gnostic and will remain so because we don’t know….plain and simple.”

“I say that science and Astrology exist in two non-overlapping magisteria, as such, science has nothing to say about Astrology.”

“If an astrologer claims that Astrology is real, and science shows that one of his claims about Astrology is wrong, that doesn’t mean that Astrology is not real, it just means that the person making the claim about Astrology is wrong, mistaken, or maybe lying.”

“Dawkins tells us that science can answer the question of Astrology to a high degree of certainty: it simply can’t.”

“Dawkins is misusing science by claiming so strongly that Astrology is a delusion.”

Who here would respect the reasoning used to defend these above positions about Astrology?

That’s a neat trick—putting words in your opponent’s mouth and then destroying “his” argument. It’s almost like you made up an opponent out of some nearby material—straw, perhaps.

Hal, you’re absolutely correct. It fits the very definition of a straw-man argument, and is I would surmise done do to not understanding the argument presented.

Sigh. No it doesn’t. Not at all. A strawman is when you build up a false argument that your opponent didn’t make and then tear it down. This is an analogy and Riley is very clear that it is. He says: A is the same as B. Substitue B for A in your statements. Do you still agree with them?

That’s NOT a strawman argument. It doesn’t come anywhere close to fitting the definition in any way whatsoever. It isn’t even similar. It could be a false analogy between B and A, but that isn’t the same thing at all.

Sheesh.

.

Hal,

What I’ve said, consistently, is that a being outside the universe is outside the realm of science.

Yes, but what we (those of us who’ve been disputing you) have consistently pointed out is that that is not the God that Dawkins is talking about. He makes that quite clear. So what you’ve said consistently has been consistently beside the point.

You’ve also said that you haven’t read The God Delusion - so it’s perhaps not surprising that your consistent claim is true but beside the point. But it would be nice if after 16 pages, you could manage to register the fact.

We’re not talking about a god outside the universe that has no effect inside the universe. We’re talking about the usual god of the usual theists: the one that loves us and watches over us and answers prayers and has opinions about homosexuality and abortion. That god. The Christian god. The god of the Nicene creed. The god of the Catechism. The god of the Koran. That god.

Just 2 words and an URL: Pangea Day http://pangeaday.org/

Hal,

What I’ve said, consistently, is that a being outside the universe is outside the realm of science.

Yes, but what we (those of us who’ve been disputing you) have consistently pointed out is that that is not the God that Dawkins is talking about. He makes that quite clear. So what you’ve said consistently has been consistently beside the point.

You’ve also said that you haven’t read The God Delusion - so it’s perhaps not surprising that your consistent claim is true but beside the point. But it would be nice if after 16 pages, you could manage to register the fact.

We’re not talking about a god outside the universe that has no effect inside the universe. We’re talking about the usual god of the usual theists: the one that loves us and watches over us and answers prayers and has opinions about homosexuality and abortion. That god. The Christian god. The god of the Nicene creed. The god of the Catechism. The god of the Koran. That god.

Dang, Ophelia: I acknowledged that I hadn’t read The God Delusion, but that I had heard Dawkins on numerous pod and videocasts. I ordered the book; it will be here on Monday.

But let me make a prediction: I’m going to find exactly what I think I will (having heard Dawkins extensively) and I’ll quote him and then be told, “Yes, but you’re taking him out of context.”

I’m making that prediction based on a theory garnered from the evidence of talking with you, Riley, and Seth. That theory is this: Certain “strong” atheists have an absolute need that a god not exist—every bit as much as certain “strong” Christians have a need he/she/it does. To that end, they will not concede so much as a single point and will enlist every weapon—legitimate or not—to ensure that even the possibility of a god cannot be taken seriously. They will marginalize, demonize, or ignore anyone who differs in their view.

They will use false analogies, ad hominem arguments, condescension: all is fair game when the stakes are so high. So far, I think I have a fair amount of evidence in support of this theory. Let’s see if quoting the man himself will change all this. Being the good skeptic I am, I doubt it…

I understand that Dawkins is talking about the god of monotheists such as Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Early on I stated that at least some Christians maintain that God is both outside the universe and able to act upon it. You objected that such a thing is impossible. That, of course, is something we can’t determine.

There are limits to human knowledge gained through science. That is, I hope, indisputable. Again, I refer to he uncertainty principle that shows us that even about things in our own world, we cannot have full knowledge. How much more so is that true if there is some other realm than the natural world?

Now, just before you flame me, I am not stating such a realm exists or such a god exists. If my theory is right, though, the possibility of such a thing is so deeply repugnant that it cannot be tolerated. So, in the immortal words of The Human Torch, “flame on!”

Sheesh. First, it does misrepresent the argument (and here I do not wish to speak for Hal - so I will be careful - then state my thoughts). Simply replacing God with Astrology is meaningless. It gives the appearance the analogy fits with the argument. Second, the argument is about what science can tell us.

Assertion: Astrology and Theology are equivalently supported, extremely similar claims.

Question: If we replace Theological ideas (religion or God) with Astrological ideas in these sentences, do we still agree with them?

That is not a strawman argument. It does not misrepresent the case that Hal makes. For one thing, Hal makes NO claims about the reach of science vis-a-vis god that do not apply to astrology equally well. For another, those are real quotes and substantive ones, that (if the substitution were reversed) represent Hal’s argument well. Third, a strawman argument does not involve explicitly revealing the creation of the strawman, as in this case.

You could argue that the analogy is false, but that is a DIFFERENT logical fallacy.

.

I’m making that prediction based on a theory garnered from the evidence of talking with you, Riley, and Seth. That theory is this: Certain “strong” atheists have an absolute need that a god not exist—every bit as much as certain “strong” Christians have a need he/she/it does. To that end, they will not concede so much as a single point and will enlist every weapon—legitimate or not—to ensure that even the possibility of a god cannot be taken seriously. They will marginalize, demonize, or ignore anyone who differs in their view.

Hal, you don’t have any evidence that a strong atheist will do anything like this. This discussion has been quite courteous and straightforward, and you have no call whatsoever to accuse me, Riley, or Ophelia of demonizing or marginalizing you.

Further, we have conceded the point that we cannot prove absolutely that a descendent god cannot possibly exist. We have conceded the point that science cannot demonstrate that a wholly transcendent god does not exist. We simply have not conceded the point that you wish us to concede, which is that science has nothing to say about the possibility that there is a descendent god, as described by some claimant.

It is strange to me that you think it is intolerant of me, or anyone else, not to take the possibility of a god seriously, or agree that such a possibility should be taken seriously. Generally speaking, if someone makes a claim, it is only taken seriously if it is a reasonable claim. If I make the claim that a politician is a liar, people might accept that as well supported. But if I make the claim that that same politician is lying about being human, and is actually a demon from the 13th level of hell, I might have some explaining to do. People will want me to substantiate my claim before I am taken seriously.

I think that you would agree with me: the claim “John Kerry is an alien pretending to be human”, while it does explain John Kerry’s behavior, does not need to be taken seriously without some additional evidence or a reasoned argument. In other words, the burden is on me to provide some reason for you to take my statement seriously.

I feel the same way about god claims. I would like for someone to provide some sort of reason for me to take their claim seriously. Something beyond the range of “because I said so”.

As I’ve mentioned several times, a wholly transcendant god, as a claim, cannot be taken seriously simply because it is a meaningless claim. A fully transcendent being would not interact with or affect events on the earth, so the claim would have no evidence or purpose regardless of its truth.

A descendent being would leave evidence. I have insisted, as have others, that things which can be observed to occur are in the purview of science. They can be examined. The mere fact that some observable phenomena, say, a person hearing voices or Hurrican Katrina, can be attributed to god does not automatically remove it from consideration by science. So if the thing, the phenomena, whatever, is examined, and a non-god explanation is found… why should we take god seriously as an explanation? What reason do you have for us to take the god hypothesis seriously?

As far as I can tell, there isn’t one. There is no reason at all for me to accept your friends word that god touched him and loves him. I believe he experienced that, but that in and of itself is no reason at all to think that a telepathic being communicated with him. And that’s all the evidence that he brings, just that he experienced it inside his head.

So why should anyone take this claim seriously? Why should anyone take the possibility of god seriously?

.

The distinction is a God outside of space and time and what science can tell us about such a God. I think your full answer was added in my post. The only reason to draw the analogy is an attempt to show Hal’s argument as absurd, but the analogy still does not refute the argument (or pertain to it). It is a straw-man . Again, why the analogy fails and is a straw-man is shown in my post. If you would like to debate what I have said in my post, fine. You asserting I’ve now committed a logical fallacy tells me that you may be up to disputing what I’ve said, instead of trying to hold onto analogies that are meaningless to the argument.

No, I asserted that if Riley committed a logical fallacy, it is a different one than a strawman.

Hal does not actually argue for a god that is entirely outside of space and time. If he did, we’d be done, as everyone agrees that such a god cannot be addressed by science. Hal is making the arguement that science cannot discuss a god who effects things inside of space and time, one that has real effects. And in doing so, he allows the analogy to be drawn to astrology, which also employs powers outside of the natural world to effect things inside the natural world.

As I pointed out, a strawman argument has a specific meaning, and an argument of the form:

a is equivalent to b.
if we substitute a for b in proposition p, is proposition p still reasonable?

Is NOT a strawman. It could be an error of equivalence, a false analogy, or something, but it is NOT a strawman argument.

.

Hal, you don’t have any evidence that a strong atheist will do anything like this. This discussion has been quite courteous and straightforward, and you have no call whatsoever to accuse me, Riley, or Ophelia of demonizing or marginalizing you.

 

I have to ask, who do you think Ophelia was aiming the “pseudo-skeptic” claim at?

I had to go back 10 pages to find it. Ophelia described an argument and then said that that game (the one she said Hal was playing) was one much loved by psuedo-skeptics. She did not say that Hal was a psuedo-skeptic. I would agree that is dangerously close to playing the Hitler card, but the argument itself is the one being used by Hal and it is a lousy one, and it is one that is constantly in use by people who want to maintain this “non-overlapping magisteria” nonsense as applies to a supposedly transcendent deity who none-the-less is interactive.

The distinction is with a God outside of space and time and what science can tell us about such a God. The answer is absolutely nothing.

That point has also been conceded by myself, Ophelia, and Riley. This has so far not been enough for Hal. He wants us to also grant the possibility of a god who communicates telepathically with people, which would NOT be such a God. And it is his argument about THAT sort of god that Riley compared to arguments for Astrology.

I would agree that is dangerously close to playing the Hitler card, but the argument itself is the one being used by Hal and it is a lousy one, and it is one that is constantly in use by people who want to maintain this “non-overlapping magisteria” nonsense as applies to a supposedly transcendent deity who none-the-less is interactive.

Someone less enlightened than moi might view your designation of NOMA as “nonsense” as dismissive and marginalizing.

I’d be curious to know if Hal thinks that claims of ‘proofs of God’ , such as you can’t be moral without God or since the Bible somehow shows the earth is 6,000, evidence to say otherwise is off the table of discussion. The arguments against such claims is solid, but we can not go from there to saying it’s highly improbable God does not exist scientifically. We would not want God injected into a scientific equation (which is attempted in many areas, in many ways) and we would not want science to answer for something it simply can’t.

I think such claims can be easily refuted on the grounds of both philosophy and science. But I agree with you that while such claims can be refuted, the question of a god cannot be. But I’m retreading ground here. For now, I’m sticking with my hypothesis about new atheists.

I think such claims can be easily refuted on the grounds of both philosophy and science. But I agree with you that while such claims can be refuted, the question of a god cannot be. But I’m retreading ground here. For now, I’m sticking with my hypothesis about new atheists.

Again, you are sticking to that hypothesis in the face of the evidence. Disagreeing with you or calling your argument nonsense is not demonization or marginalization. Have you considered the possibility that you are presenting a nonsensical argument?

So far, you haven’t conceded a single point yourself. Everyone here has agreed that a wholly transcendant god is beyond the reach of science. EVERYONE. You are the only person who is insisting that anyone doesn’t agree on that, and you’ve projecting that position on “new atheists”. That’s a strawman, in case anyone is curious.

You have yet to present a single reason why anyone should take seriously this “question of a god.” You have not shown why we should take a transcedent god seriously (since by definition, this has no effect on the observable universe) and you have not shown why we should accept, in any measure, the concept of a telepathic, non-material god.

But you HAVE insisted that we take this position seriously. Again: why should we? Because people think its true? That isn’t evidence that it is true. Do you have any reason, any reason at all, why we should give any serious consideration to this “god question.” Why can’t the existence of a god simply be dismissed? What gives this claim substance?

You accuse me of having an absolute need to have god NOT exist. This is not true. If there were the slightest, barest, most tenuous evidence to suggest that some god claim was a valid one, I would want to know about it. If there was a moderately reasonable argument that supported the possibility of an afterlife, I would be greatly relieved. If there was some indication, however minor, that there was a vast intelligence that operated in the universe and changed things, I would want to know how to contact it.

There is no such evidence, there is no such argument. There exists no indication that a vast super-intelligence is anywhere. There is no reason to care about non-interacting, extradimensional beings, and no evidence that extra-dimensional beings are interacting.

I don’t have a need for this to be true. What I have is the humility to let the universe tell me what’s real, instead of trying to make it conform to my ideas of what should be real, what I want to be real.

I’m making that prediction based on a theory garnered from the evidence of talking with you, Riley, and Seth. That theory is this: Certain “strong” atheists have an absolute need that a god not exist—every bit as much as certain “strong” Christians have a need he/she/it does. To that end, they will not concede so much as a single point and will enlist every weapon—legitimate or not—to ensure that even the possibility of a god cannot be taken seriously. They will marginalize, demonize, or ignore anyone who differs in their view.

They will use false analogies, ad hominem arguments, condescension: all is fair game when the stakes are so high. So far, I think I have a fair amount of evidence in support of this theory. Let’s see if quoting the man himself will change all this. Being the good skeptic I am, I doubt it…

Boy, Hal - that takes some gall. As seth points out, we have conceded points - or not so much conceded as agreed without breaking a sweat. We agree with you that science can’t say anything about the transcendent god. We just don’t agree that that inability extends to the other god, the everyday god, the god of the various creeds. And as seth also points out, you haven’t conceded a damn thing - you just ignore arguments and jump over questions and keep on repeating your formula.

Don’t do a Hedges here. How has anyone marginalized you? How has anyone demonized you? And as for ignoring you - ! You call this ignoring?

What false analogies? What ad hominem arguments? What condescension? (And what high stakes? The stakes could hardly be lower. Your refusal to answer serious questions is not going to make god exist.)

Being the good skeptic you are? You think it’s being a good skeptic to think you know what Dawkins says in the book despite having been told by people who’ve actually read it that you have it wrong? If that’s skepticism, what would credulity be?

.

Hal, here’s a bit of the book for you, so that you can get started on confirming your prediction.

Pages 54-5

Summarizing: the theologian Alister McGrath offers “the undeniable but ignominiously weak point that you cannot disprove the existence of God.” Dawkins says McGrath quotes Gould on NOMA; Dawkins quotes Gould himself: “We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.” Dawkins comments on this, “Despite the confident, almost bullying tone of Gould’s assertion, what, actually, is the justification for it?” Then he notes that “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without. Why is that not a scientific matter?”

Page 58

[W]hatever else they may say, those scientists who subscribe to the ‘separate magisteria’ school of thought should concede that a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without…The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unquivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice - or not yet - a decided one. So also is the truth or falsehood of every one of the miracle stories that religions rely upon to impress multitudes of the faithful.

The subject is the god who is in the universe, not the one who is outside it.

You still - if I understand you correctly - want us to accept that god can both be outside the universe and be active inside it. In other words you want us to accept a flat contradiction. You have yet to make one even slightly convincing argument to support the idea of a god that is a contradiction. You could just as well insist that we accept a god that is P and not-P.

I understand that Dawkins is talking about the god of monotheists such as Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Early on I stated that at least some Christians maintain that God is both outside the universe and able to act upon it. You objected that such a thing is impossible. That, of course, is something we can’t determine.

There are limits to human knowledge gained through science. That is, I hope, indisputable. Again, I refer to he uncertainty principle that shows us that even about things in our own world, we cannot have full knowledge. How much more so is that true if there is some other realm than the natural world?

This is also a straw man. No one has suggested that it is impossible for a god who is outside the universe to act upon it. What we have said is that such a god is not transcendant, but descendent by definition, it descends from the transcendental realm to interact with ours, either personally or through an agent (such as an angel). A god that acts upon the universe is a god whose actions can be examined by science. So it is perfectly legitimate to question whether such a god is acting upon the universe.

Since there isn’t any evidence that a god has acted, there is no reason to believe that such a being exists. Since there is no reason to believe that such a god exists, there is no reason why we should treat the claim that such a being exists with any seriousness. We are justified in thinking that such a being probably does not exist, and the more specific the claim of existence, the less likely it becomes.

No one has suggested that it is impossible for a god who is outside the universe to act upon it. What we have said is that such a god is not transcendant, but descendent by definition, it descends from the transcendental realm to interact with ours, either personally or through an agent (such as an angel). A god that acts upon the universe is a god whose actions can be examined by science. So it is perfectly legitimate to question whether such a god is acting upon the universe.

seth, I suggested - indeed claimed - that it is impossible for a god who is outside the universe to act upon it. I meant what you go on to say, but I did claim it is impossible for a god to be both outside the universe and inside it. I take the claim that god is outside the universe to mean that it is outside and beyond and entirely separate - not that it is outside the way one may be outside a house but still able to throw rocks at it. I assume the former is what Hal means by outside the universe, because if he meant god is outside the universe but nearby and able to do the equivalent of throwing rocks at it - then (as you say) it would no longer be true that such a god is beyond detection by science. My claim is that it’s impossible for god to be radically separate from the universe and thus beyond any possible scientific inquiry, and still able to act on it.

One joker who commented on my website said that there could be a miracle, but I think that’s not a valid escape from the contradiction.

I would agree that is dangerously close to playing the Hitler card, but the argument itself is the one being used by Hal and it is a lousy one, and it is one that is constantly in use by people who want to maintain this “non-overlapping magisteria” nonsense as applies to a supposedly transcendent deity who none-the-less is interactive.

What I don’t accept is the idea is simply nonsense. The loud mouths and violent wacko that can be found on the side of unreason don’t dictate to me when and how I will confront them.

I didn’t say that it was. I said that it was nonsense in the context of the existence of a deity that interacts with the real world. Now what Gould said was this:

The net of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value.

Is this nonsense? Of course it is. No justification exists for the arbitrary assignment of moral meaning and value to religion. Skepticism and science have as much to say about ethical questions as does any other way of knowing. And I would argue that religion has little of value to say on the topic of morals. Religions have held every position possible on every moral question known to man, and has never been shown, empirically, to act as any sort of safeguard on human behavior.

seth, I suggested - indeed claimed - that it is impossible for a god who is outside the universe to act upon it. I meant what you go on to say, but I did claim it is impossible for a god to be both outside the universe and inside it.

Outside and inside are imprecise terms here, I agree. I took you to mean outside of as in entirely separated from, whereas the Christians mean more like at a distance from.

That’s a reasonable point… god can’t be both outside and inside. Sort of like the invisible pink unicorn, it can be either invisible <or> pink, but not both at the same time.

I thought that we were through this before.  The unicorn’s butt could be invisible while its head is pink.  Likewise, God’s butt could be outside of the universe while his head is inside.  And he says “peek-a-boo” to the theists but not to me and you.

The last post could be inside the universe and then “poof”, it’s outside.  But I got evidence!

.

The net of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value.

Is this nonsense? Of course it is. No justification exists for the arbitrary assignment of moral meaning and value to religion. Skepticism and science have as much to say about ethical questions as does any other way of knowing. And I would argue that religion has little of value to say on the topic of morals. Religions have held every position possible on every moral question known to man, and has never been shown, empirically, to act as any sort of safeguard on human behavior.

That’s the short version, but it will do. First, the net of religion is assigned to moral meaning and value, that’s it, they don’t get to play in science’s yard. This does not say a scientist can not be religious (should go without saying). This does not say they get it right or a free ride, they can take what is learned through science with regards to morals, but they can’t claim it, even as they try.  Second, That is the whole of science, this does not mean we do not glean from science useful information to inform our moral discourse and behaviors. We are not giving morals and meaning to the religionist, only forcing them to accept that’s as far as the domain goes (this also does not speak to utility of history). We all get to use what is learned from science. We are going to disagree on moral questions, as my quote of Gould from NOMA shows, and so far the evidence is we can be moral without religion or a belief in a God and we can argue them to the mat on almost any issue. Ours is the grandeur view of life.

Ha, I did put this in a short form.

But why should religion even get moral meaning or value? What have they done to earn it? What religion has shown that it has something substantive to contribute to our understanding in those areas?

.

Since Hal and others keep misunderstanding what the position is of what Hal has labeled: the “strong atheists”, I’ll try once more to sum it up in the most succinct fashion possible:

Science is the study of detectable phenomena in our cosmos.

If something is believed to impact our cosmos, then it is within the purview of science to study that claim and weigh in on the probability of that something existing.

Therefore, a claim that there is something (e.g. “God” or a god) interrupting the normal mechanics of nature (for example, by communicating with people) is a claim within the purview of science.

If someone claims that there exists something that DOES NOT impact our cosmos, then that something is NOT within the purview of science to study.

Does this sum it up?

Yes.

It’s either outside in the sense of having no effect - or it’s not.

1) Way way way outside; no effect. Nobody knows. No interest; nothing to say.

2) Outside but nearby and able to pop in at will. Detectable (at least in principle if not in practice) to science. A scientific question, not some fancy other kind that only theologians can touch.

Outside and inside are imprecise terms here, I agree. I took you to mean outside of as in entirely separated from, whereas the Christians mean more like at a distance from.

See, this is interesting (even with the pink unicorn gazing fondly over our shoulders) because I thought Hal meant outside of as in entirely separated from; I thought that was the whole point. If Christians do mean more like at a distance from - then where do they get off saying science can’t touch it? Is it all just a brazen con game? I knew it was a con game, but I didn’t realize it was as brazen as that.

Yeah right. God is a trillion miles away from the cosmos, so science can’t investigate it - but it just so happens that god is able to make things happen to the cosmos from a trillion miles away - but the trillion miles is just a few miles too far for science to be able to detect god. Uh huh.

Hal, here’s a bit of the book for you, so that you can get started on confirming your prediction.

Pages 54-5

Summarizing: the theologian Alister McGrath offers “the undeniable but ignominiously weak point that you cannot disprove the existence of God.” Dawkins says McGrath quotes Gould on NOMA; Dawkins quotes Gould himself: “We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.” Dawkins comments on this, “Despite the confident, almost bullying tone of Gould’s assertion, what, actually, is the justification for it?” Then he notes that “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without. Why is that not a scientific matter?”

So Hawkins says that a universe with a god would be a very different kind of universe from one without a god. How would he know? Whence does this knowledge arise? It seems to me a matter of opinion supported by neither science nor logic. But I thought Dawkins was here to deliver us from the dark ages of faith. But perhaps he answers these obvious objections?

Okay, let me see if I get this straight (and I support everyone who had something negative to say about this guy’s “superior beliefs.”)

So assuming there is a God who could make a flood, then erase all evidence he did it.  This includes getting a guy to build a big boat and save all the animals (and dinosaurs.. snicker).

Hmmmm…

If he really didn’t want anyone to be able to prove later that it happened, why not just use his godly powers to kill all the evildoers, ie: smite them all, since smiting is always brought up as a way for God to punish bad people.

Oh, oops.. then he would of course have eliminated free will.  Which doesn’t make any sense since I am sure that drowning them en-masse is as good at robbing them of free will as ACCURATELY KILLING ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO WERE REALLY BAD!

So back to the question… if he can just erase any evidence that it happened so those bad ol’ scientists can’t “prove” it did or did not happen, why not just magically “recreate” the world instantly with all the bad people removed?  If we’re going to do magical stuff, let’s just kill all the intermediate steps and cut to the chase.

Besides, isn’t “free will” kind of an oxymoron if you kill everyone who uses it before they actually die and go to God for his judgement on their life?  Was he in a hurry or something?

See, I don’t even need terrorists and Islam to show me that God is a crockload of heebee juice mixed up by lots of different people with personal axes to grind and children to frighten into being good.  When you break down the stories (cough holy scripture cough) you realize just how ignorant the people at the time it was written were about how the world works.

Personally, if I were an all-powerful God who wanted to create an interesting universe, I would implement these rules wherever intelligent life “evolved.”

Note: “People” refers to any self-conscious creature capable of reasoning that it exists seperate from its environment.
1) Any violence directed toward another person with malicious intent rebounds at the originator with twice the energy.

2) People do not die of anything but old age, which is determined by the person repeating hourly for an entire decade that they are tired and want to die.  It must be voluntary.

3) Plants and fish are not intelligent and cannot feel pain (so there PETA).

4) Animals fall into rule 1.

5) To take care of (4) making everyone vegetarians, there are Plants which grow any meat desired all year long.

So there Chris Hedges, take that and stick it in your religious doctrine!  I don’t even HAVE to live where you were for years to realize that doing bad things to others is… well… bad.

People who evoke NOMA don’t seem to realize the complete consequences of that position. If in fact science has nothing to say whatsoever about religious claims, then:

1) If there were scientific confirmation that prayer worked, theologians must reject that evidence as having any consequence to religion.

2) If there were scientific confirmation that the dead did in fact communicate with the living, theologians must reject that evidence as unconsequential to religion. different magisteria!

3) It is theologically irrelevant to argue that the universe is fine-tuned for life.  The argument has no bearing whatsoever on the possible existence of “God”.

Gould’s formulation of NOMA does more to restrict the popular notion of religion than it does restrict science.  Religion in this formulation is reduced to no more (or no less)  than a moral and ethical philosophical framework. Religion in the NOMA sense, makes no claims about reality whatsoever, including the reality of a god.

So Hawkins says that a universe with a god would be a very different kind of universe from one without a god. How would he know? Whence does this knowledge arise? It seems to me a matter of opinion supported by neither science nor logic.

No, that’s not what he said. You can’t quote accurately even when the quotation is right in front of you? No wonder it’s so difficult to get you to acknowledge any points or answer direct questions. (You did answer one, which helped. But answering more would have helped more.) Dawkins didn’t say a universe with a god would be a very different kind of universe from one without a god in the passage I quoted. He said “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without.” Do you really think that is “supported by neither science nor logic”?

So Hawkins says that a universe with a god would be a very different kind of universe from one without a god. How would he know? Whence does this knowledge arise? It seems to me a matter of opinion supported by neither science nor logic. But I thought Dawkins was here to deliver us from the dark ages of faith. But perhaps he answers these obvious objections?

A universe with obvious or convincing evidence of God would be a different place.  There is no evidence that God is listening to our thoughts and that we can spend eternity in Heaven or Hell depending on what this God thinks is fair. 

The fact that there are 10,000 religions is evidence that none are convincing.

The burden is not on Dawkins to disprove the existence of a God for which there is no evidence—the burden is for the convincing evidence to be presented.

An example of convincing evidence would be to occasionally smite bad people in a way which is convincing.  Like those bad people collecting wood on the Sabbath…

So Hawkins says that a universe with a god would be a very different kind of universe from one without a god. How would he know? Whence does this knowledge arise? It seems to me a matter of opinion supported by neither science nor logic.

No, that’s not what he said. You can’t quote accurately even when the quotation is right in front of you? No wonder it’s so difficult to get you to acknowledge any points or answer direct questions. (You did answer one, which helped. But answering more would have helped more.) Dawkins didn’t say a universe with a god would be a very different kind of universe from one without a god in the passage I quoted. He said “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without.” Do you really think that is “supported by neither science nor logic”?

Well it wasn’t a quote so much as a paraphrase, but my apologies if you thought I was misrepresenting Hawkins. I assumed, given the subject of the book, that he was speaking of “God”, but given the congenial, tolerant atmosphere of our discussions, I shouldn’t take such liberties.

No wonder it’s so difficult to get you to acknowledge any points or answer direct questions.

.

Nice. I can feel the tolerance. It’s funny, but I get the same sort of “tolerance” when attempting to engage fundies about their sacred oxen as well. Now, it may be that I’m too stupid to answer these points, or too evil (and thus cherry-pick ones I think easy to refute), or it may be that when arguing with half a dozen people simultaneously, some points are bound to be lost.

But to your question, yes, I do think it supported neither by science nor logic. But if you’d care to explain either (a) how Hawkins answers these obvious objections (if he does) or (b) how one might know such a thing as this, I promise to marshall my limited mental resources and strive to keep my wickedness in check at least long enough to discuss this.

A universe with obvious or convincing evidence of God would be a different place.  There is no evidence that God is listening to our thoughts and that we can spend eternity in Heaven or Hell depending on what this God thinks is fair. 
.

Careful, Jackson, the quotation police are out in force.

Is this what you take Dawkins to mean? It seemed clear to me (both from the quote Ophelia supplied and other writings of Dawkins I’ve read) that his claim is even stronger: the mere existence of a god would give us a universe different from one without such a god.

I really would like to know how he could possibly know this. Or what chain of logic leads him to this conclusion—because it’s not at all obvious to me that it is. Is that simply Dawkins’ opinion? That’s certainly fine—but it’s not much to base an argument on.

The burden is not on Dawkins to disprove the existence of a God for which there is no evidence—the burden is for the convincing evidence to be presented.

I agree with you. People who want us to believe there is a god need to present evidence. Without that evidence, we should have to say (like good skeptics) “I doubt that.” And as advocates of science, “Science knows nothing of God.”

But Dawkins asserts a positive claim of his own: belief in God is a delusion and the chance such a God might exist is exceedingly small. For that, he needs to present his own evidence. Or at least a well-reasoned argument.

You still - if I understand you correctly - want us to accept that god can both be outside the universe and be active inside it. In other words you want us to accept a flat contradiction. You have yet to make one even slightly convincing argument to support the idea of a god that is a contradiction. You could just as well insist that we accept a god that is P and not-P.

I’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments. We know that even in the natural world, there are some very curious things that we still don’t fully understand. Is light a particle or a wave? That certainly sounds like a P or ~P situation which can’t possibly be—except that it certainly seems that it is. Science differs from logic in that we ask questions of nature rather than inferring “facts” from general principles held to be universally true.

Oh, come on, Hal, don’t start with the victim whine. Nobody’s done anything to you, nobody’s been mean to you, nobody’s bullied you.

What kind of “tolerance” do you want? You want me to go along with your changing the terms? Well I can’t, because Dawkins’s claim (his name is Dawkins, by the way, Dawkins with a D) is different from the one you objected to. Differences in wording do make a difference. Paraphrase won’t do when the result is to change the wording of exactly the claim that is in dispute. I could have refrained from pointing out that you do that a lot, but the fact is that you do do that a lot; you keep shifting your ground and evading questions and objections, and I think if you were more consistent and if you did answer questions, you would see some merit in what other people are saying. It’s not “intolerant” to point that out. I don’t think you’re evil - but I do think you’re not listening.

Okay, you think “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without” is supported neither by science nor logic. Very well; just for one thing, there is an immense amount of redundancy in nature, along with a lot of bad “design.” This is consistent with an evolution that is a blind process of variation, selection, and reproduction; it’s not consistent with a creative superintendent (unless you think the creative superintendent deliberately wasted time, material, and effort, and produced a lot of systems that don’t work well, that break down easily, etc etc).

Suppose you were going to be dropped from a helicopter in some remote part of the earth. You have two choices. You can just drop somewhere at random, or you can drop near a house built for you by a team of engineers and designers, with every possible comfort provided. You see the difference between the two choices, right? So it’s fair to say that “a drop point with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of drop point from one without,” isn’t it? The two universes would be different because design is different from no design. Detectably different.

I’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments.

Straw man fallacy argument. We’re not talking about something we know nothing about. We’re talking about “God”.

We know that even in the natural world, there are some very curious things that we still don’t fully understand. Is light a particle or a wave?

How does this relate to your claim that there can be something that alters nature, and yet not even in principle be detectable by natural means?

Are you willing to acknowledge as a consequence of your position (i.e. that science has nothing to say on such matters), that if there were scientific confirmation that the dead did in fact communicate with the living, such evidence would have no bearing on the question of supernatural existence?

I’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments. We know that even in the natural world, there are some very curious things that we still don’t fully understand. Is light a particle or a wave? That certainly sounds like a P or ~P situation which can’t possibly be—except that it certainly seems that it is. Science differs from logic in that we ask questions of nature rather than inferring “facts” from general principles held to be universally true.

Let me get this straight. We’ve all agreed that we know nothing about the god that’s way way outside the universe with no point of contact with the universe who doesn’t do anything to it. You want us to agree that we know nothing about a god that is way way outside the universe but does do things to it, and that that is now not a matter of logic but one of science. You want us to agree that it’s an empirical question whether or not there is a transcendent god way way outside the universe with no point of contact with the universe that can nevertheless do things to it - but it’s an empirical question that we know nothing about - so we shouldn’t make premature judgments about it, including the judgment that it’s very damn improbable (and a contradiction in logic but that’s beside the point because you’ve now decided that it’s not a matter of logic). That’s some flexible reasoning - also pretty much the opposite of what you were saying on page 1. Whatever.

Well I can’t, because Dawkins’s claim (his name is Dawkins, by the way, Dawkins with a D) is different from the one you objected to. Differences in wording do make a difference. Paraphrase won’t do when the result is to change the wording of exactly the claim that is in dispute. I could have refrained from pointing out that you do that a lot, but the fact is that you do do that a lot; you keep shifting your ground and evading questions and objections, and I think if you were more consistent and if you did answer questions, you would see some merit in what other people are saying. It’s not “intolerant” to point that out. I don’t think you’re evil - but I do think you’re not listening.

Re: Dawkins v. “Hawkins”, my bad. I stand corrected.

In your same post from which I paraphrased is this other quote from Dawkins:

“[W]hatever else they may say, those scientists who subscribe to the ‘separate magisteria’ school of thought should concede that a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without..”

Now, is Dawkins still not speaking of “God”? Another “supernaturally intelligent creator”, perhaps? To me, the insistence on such a distinction without a difference is, literally, nonsense. But I await enlightenment.

Okay, you think “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without” is supported neither by science nor logic. Very well; just for one thing, there is an immense amount of redundancy in nature, along with a lot of bad “design.” This is consistent with an evolution that is a blind process of variation, selection, and reproduction; it’s not consistent with a creative superintendent (unless you think the creative superintendent deliberately wasted time, material, and effort, and produced a lot of systems that don’t work well, that break down easily, etc etc).

It seems to me that such a statement only makes sense if you believe, as the Christian fundies do, that God was busy in the six days of creation, rolling up his sleeves and individually making things. But many Christians (and other monotheists) think that the process by which the world came into being is a scientific question, not a philosophical or theological one. That “God” created a universe by means of evolution is entirely consistent with much of Christian and Jewish theology which does not intrude itself on legitimate scientific ground.

I’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments.

Straw man fallacy argument. We’re not talking about something we know nothing about. We’re talking about “God”.

Well, Riley, you apparently know a great deal more than I do about “God”. Sheesh, this constant sniping is getting quite tiresome. Is that, perhaps, the point?

“[W]hatever else they may say, those scientists who subscribe to the ‘separate magisteria’ school of thought should concede that a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without..”

  If the universe were designed by an intelligence, then we would expect to see evidence of design. It does not show any signs of being designed, instead everywhere we look, the universe shows all the signs of being evolved from simplest elements. So yes, it’s different than we would expect.  Is it possible that is was designed to look like it was not designed? Sure, it’s possible, but again, scientific evidence has a role to play in the question.

I’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments.

Straw man fallacy argument. We’re not talking about something we know nothing about. We’re talking about “God”.

Well, Riley, you apparently know a great deal more than I do about “God”.

The “God” claim is a claim to knowledge about something.

I’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments. We know that even in the natural world, there are some very curious things that we still don’t fully understand. Is light a particle or a wave? That certainly sounds like a P or ~P situation which can’t possibly be—except that it certainly seems that it is. Science differs from logic in that we ask questions of nature rather than inferring “facts” from general principles held to be universally true.

Let me get this straight. We’ve all agreed that we know nothing about the god that’s way way outside the universe with no point of contact with the universe who doesn’t do anything to it. You want us to agree that we know nothing about a god that is way way outside the universe but does do things to it, and that that is now not a matter of logic but one of science. You want us to agree that it’s an empirical question whether or not there is a transcendent god way way outside the universe with no point of contact with the universe that can nevertheless do things to it - but it’s an empirical question that we know nothing about - so we shouldn’t make premature judgments about it, including the judgment that it’s very damn improbable (and a contradiction in logic but that’s beside the point because you’ve now decided that it’s not a matter of logic). That’s some flexible reasoning - also pretty much the opposite of what you were saying on page 1. Whatever.

No, Ophelia, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that even in matters of legitimate scientific inquiry (such as the nature of light), deducing facts from general principles has been shown repeatedly to provide us with false answers. Now, Dawkins says that science can lead us out of the darkness of belief. If you agree with him, you need to present scientific arguments, not philosophical ones.

A universe with obvious or convincing evidence of God would be a different place.  There is no evidence that God is listening to our thoughts and that we can spend eternity in Heaven or Hell depending on what this God thinks is fair. 
.

Is this what you take Dawkins to mean? It seemed clear to me (both from the quote Ophelia supplied and other writings of Dawkins I’ve read) that his claim is even stronger: the mere existence of a god would give us a universe different from one without such a god.

I really would like to know how he could possibly know this. Or what chain of logic leads him to this conclusion—because it’s not at all obvious to me that it is. Is that simply Dawkins’ opinion? That’s certainly fine—but it’s not much to base an argument on.

The book is out in paperback now and I would suggest buying a copy (there is always the library too).  I’m commenting from memory—I got an audio CD last year (highly recommended) and haven’t got a book yet.  Dawkins is talking primarily about the Hebrew-Christian God who has a lot of commandments [Deuteronomy, Leviticus] and cares about everyone and everything in creation.  Dawkins is not talking philosophically—he is not talking about a God who exists but by choice has no interaction with the physical world.  He means that if there were an actual God affecting the universe (like the Hebrew-Christian God)  then we could study the effects of this God like other things in this natural world.    I wouldn’t get hung up on the literalness of “mere existence”.  If God “merely existed” it woud be a big deal.

Basically the point is that there is not any incontrovertible evidence that God exists.  If there were—that would be really important.

A universe with obvious or convincing evidence of God would be a different place.  There is no evidence that God is listening to our thoughts and that we can spend eternity in Heaven or Hell depending on what this God thinks is fair. 
.

Is this what you take Dawkins to mean? It seemed clear to me (both from the quote Ophelia supplied and other writings of Dawkins I’ve read) that his claim is even stronger: the mere existence of a god would give us a universe different from one without such a god.

I really would like to know how he could possibly know this. Or what chain of logic leads him to this conclusion—because it’s not at all obvious to me that it is. Is that simply Dawkins’ opinion? That’s certainly fine—but it’s not much to base an argument on.

The book is out in paperback now and I would suggest buying a copy (there is always the library too).  I’m commenting from memory—I got an audio CD last year (highly recommended) and haven’t got a book yet.  Dawkins is talking primarily about the Hebrew-Christian God who has a lot of commandments [Deuteronomy, Leviticus] and cares about everyone and everything in creation.  Dawkins is not talking philosophically—he is not talking about a God who exists but by choice has no interaction with the physical world.  He means that if there were an actual God affecting the universe (like the Hebrew-Christian God)  then we could study the effects of this God like other things in this natural world.    I wouldn’t get hung up on the literalness of “mere existence”.  If God “merely existed” it woud be a big deal.

Basically the point is that there is not any incontrovertible evidence that God exists.  If there were—that would be really important.

I absolutely agree with you: there is not any incontrovertible evidence that God exists.

And it’s so strange that there isn’t any evidence of God’s existence when one of the most important things to God is that everyone praise him all the time.

Wow.. Ego or no Ego?  Sounds like a new Howie Mandel show.

The other one I love is that Free Will is the most precious gift God gave humanity and yet that is the first thing he wants you to give up.  Indian Giver as well as misogynist?

The burden is not on Dawkins to disprove the existence of a God for which there is no evidence—the burden is for the convincing evidence to be presented.

I agree with you. People who want us to believe there is a god need to present evidence. Without that evidence, we should have to say (like good skeptics) “I doubt that.” And as advocates of science, “Science knows nothing of God.”

But Dawkins asserts a positive claim of his own: belief in God is a delusion and the chance such a God might exist is exceedingly small. For that, he needs to present his own evidence. Or at least a well-reasoned argument.

The main “evidence” which is convincing to people is that other people also believe in God.  Dawkins spends some time on historical ‘proofs’ of God’s existence, and then spends time on the topic of why would people believe in something for which there is no evidence.  Dennett goes into this in his books as well. 

There are a lot of examples of superstition, and we are able to make fun in a tolerant sort of way of many of them.  Do we REALLY think the number 13 is unlucky? In China they think the number 08 is lucky and during the Olympics on 8/8/08 there will be a lot of marriages. 

Do you think that I need to present EVIDENCE that the number 13 is not unlucky, to make a well-reasoned argument?  I can turn Dawkins statement around—if it were actually true that the number 13 was unlucky, this would be a different universe than the one we assume we are living in.  Same kind of thing—as far as I can see—-

In your same post from which I paraphrased is this other quote from Dawkins:

“[W]hatever else they may say, those scientists who subscribe to the ‘separate magisteria’ school of thought should concede that a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without..”

Now, is Dawkins still not speaking of “God”? Another “supernaturally intelligent creator”, perhaps? To me, the insistence on such a distinction without a difference is, literally, nonsense. But I await enlightenment.

No the point is not that he’s talking about something different, the point is that the ‘creative superintendent’ spells out what is at issue and so makes the argument clearer. That’s especially true because ‘God’ means approximately six million different things; it’s a hopelessly confused term. Dawkins was being careful to narrow the focus and specify what is at stake, and I wanted the discussion to follow suit rather than to revert to the vague means-anything-you-like and emotive word ‘God.’ I’m sorry but it does make a difference what language is used. You’re simply wrong to say it’s a distinction without a difference.

This may shed some light on Hedges:

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/index.html

the term provocateur is appropriate…

I am not sure exactly what Hedges is, he may be a plain Deist.

The real points we seem to miss dovetails with the previous podcast, John Shook’s on Naturalism; is there something else besides matter/energy, is ethics and morality an independent entity/force, why are we here at all?

Please excuse my limited formal education in Philosophy, but if ethics, morality and religious beliefs are all human inventions, then the conclusions of every human are relative and equally valid as far as the individual is concerned.

The individual actions are to be judged by the Society of which the person is part of, as Zimbardo showed the capacity for evil is in all of us.

I’m saying that even in matters of legitimate scientific inquiry (such as the nature of light), deducing facts from general principles has been shown repeatedly to provide us with false answers. Now, Dawkins says that science can lead us out of the darkness of belief. If you agree with him, you need to present scientific arguments, not philosophical ones.

You’re shifting your ground again. We’ve all agreed that the god that is way way outside the universe and has no effect on it is an unknown and unknowable. Now you’re saying that’s a scientific question. Arguing with you is like wrestling an octopus. I really ought to give it up and get some work done.

I have to say, though, you’ve convinced me all over again that you’re just playing at skepticism. I think you have your mind made up beyond possibility of change.

That “God” created a universe by means of evolution is entirely consistent with much of Christian and Jewish theology which does not intrude itself on legitimate scientific ground.

Evolution is made “entirely consistent” with their theologies only after reformed Christians and Jews bastardize the theory. “Theistic evolution” (as it is termed), holds that the mechanics of evolution are designed in order to direct the development of the universe toward the goal of creating us. Again, science can’t prove this claim to be false, but science has something to say about the probability that this religious claim may be true. The claim that evolution is directional (among other things) is in conflict with the facts as revealed by modern day evolutionary theory.

In your same post from which I paraphrased is this other quote from Dawkins:

“[W]hatever else they may say, those scientists who subscribe to the ‘separate magisteria’ school of thought should concede that a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without..”

Now, is Dawkins still not speaking of “God”? Another “supernaturally intelligent creator”, perhaps? To me, the insistence on such a distinction without a difference is, literally, nonsense. But I await enlightenment.

No the point is not that he’s talking about something different, the point is that the ‘creative superintendent’ spells out what is at issue and so makes the argument clearer. That’s especially true because ‘God’ means approximately six million different things; it’s a hopelessly confused term. Dawkins was being careful to narrow the focus and specify what is at stake, and I wanted the discussion to follow suit rather than to revert to the vague means-anything-you-like and emotive word ‘God.’ I’m sorry but it does make a difference what language is used. You’re simply wrong to say it’s a distinction without a difference.

Right, of course: so supernaturally intelligent creator (Dawkins’ words) is so obviously different from “God” that I was trying to change Dawkins’ argument. Don’t be coy, Ophelia. We both know what Dawkins is referring to.

I’m saying that even in matters of legitimate scientific inquiry (such as the nature of light), deducing facts from general principles has been shown repeatedly to provide us with false answers. Now, Dawkins says that science can lead us out of the darkness of belief. If you agree with him, you need to present scientific arguments, not philosophical ones.

You’re shifting your ground again. We’ve all agreed that the god that is way way outside the universe and has no effect on it is an unknown and unknowable. Now you’re saying that’s a scientific question. Arguing with you is like wrestling an octopus. I really ought to give it up and get some work done.

I have to say, though, you’ve convinced me all over again that you’re just playing at skepticism. I think you have your mind made up beyond possibility of change.

Ah yes, the ultimate rejoinder: “you’re not a true Scotsman.” More good scientific reasoning? I can only wait to hear how Seth or Riley spins this into something positive.

Please do try to follow the conversation, though: I am not the one “saying that’s a scientific question”. I began this discussion arguing that Dawkins’ attempt to assert science as a basis for discrediting belief in God was illegitimate. I repeat: that’s Dawkins’ claim, not mine. You have agreed with him. But your P or ~P “argument” is not scientific. At best, it’s a philosophical argument. So which is it: can science (not sophomoric arguments) show us the extreme unlikeliness of the Christian god or not? Can we ask questions of nature that will lead us to this conclusion? If it’s so obviously true, why can’t you speak in scientific terms?

Right, of course: so supernaturally intelligent creator (Dawkins’ words) is so obviously different from “God” that I was trying to change Dawkins’ argument. Don’t be coy, Ophelia. We both know what Dawkins is referring to.

I’m not being coy. Don’t be dishonest, Hal. I explained what I meant. It’s not a matter of coyness or of not knowing, it’s a matter of making clear what is at stake in a particular claim. Saying ‘God’ instead of ‘creative superintendent’ simply obscures things for no good reason. I didn’t say you were trying to change Dawkins’s argument, and I didn’t think so, either; I assumed it was simply careless. You’re all over the place. Octopus. Work to do.

So which is it: can science (not sophomoric arguments) show us the extreme unlikeliness of the Christian god or not? Can we ask questions of nature that will lead us to this conclusion?

Yes, of course. I thought we’d agreed on that on about page 7. The Christian god is the subject of a whole raft of empirical claims, which science can investigate.

Hal’s claim that science has nothing to say on the question of theism hinges on the possibility that there could exist something that alters nature without being detectable, even in principle, by natural means.

Until Hal or someone else provides evidence to support in principle that it could be possible for something to alter nature without being detectable by nature, there’s no point in arguing about this any further.

No one here has ever questioned the possibility that our scientific understanding of the world could be wrong. It’s possible that Hal could be right, but there’s no evidence to support that he is right, and because what his argument requires something that is logically incompatible with itself, there is good reason to say he’s probably wrong.

That “God” created a universe by means of evolution is entirely consistent with much of Christian and Jewish theology which does not intrude itself on legitimate scientific ground.

Evolution is made “entirely consistent” with their theologies only after reformed Christians and Jews bastardize the theory. “Theistic evolution” (as it is termed), holds that the mechanics of evolution are designed in order to direct the development of the universe toward the goal of creating us. Again, science can’t prove this claim to be false, but science has something to say about the probability that this religious claim may be true. The claim that evolution is directional (among other things) is in conflict with the facts as revealed by modern day evolutionary theory.

I’ve been thinking about how we can be at such odds. (By we, I mean Riley, Seth, Ophelia, etc. v. me). Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that we are all dealing in good faith. How can we see the situation so entirely differently? Riley, your post made me wonder if a large part of the problem is that you folks are dealing with various claims from religions. So, “testing” for God, so to speak, means testing these various claims. If the claims prove to be false (or are extremely unlikely to be true), the claim can be fairly safely dismissed. If all (or almost all) such claims can be thus dismissed, the question of God is, to a large extent, settled. Is that a fair statement of how you approach this issue of whether science can shed insight into the existence of God?

I agree that most claims are highly likely to be wrong, but for me the question isn’t about claims about God, but a question of whether there is a God at all, about which claims (mostly false, I would imagine) are made. So, while I’m sure you’re right about most theologians holding that God employs evolution in order to bring about humans, I don’t much care about what they think. I agree with you that evolution does not seem to be “directed”. But that, in my mind, still leaves open the question of a God about whom/which very little if anything is known.

If this is true about the different ways we approach the issue, it would explain why we both feel that “the other side” is evading issues. It’s not that we’re so much evading them as it is that we don’t see these particular issues as central to our concerns. Do you see any likelihood that this may be true?

Are you willing to acknowledge as a consequence of your position (i.e. that science has nothing to say on such matters), that if there were scientific confirmation that the dead did in fact communicate with the living, such evidence would have no bearing on the question of supernatural existence?

I’ve been giving this a good deal of thought. I think such confirmation would indicate only that there is something that we don’t understand at all. I very much suspect that inferring some supernatural existence, though, would be an illegitimate conclusion. If A asserts there’s a very low probability that the dead communicate with the living and B asserts that they most certainly do—and that they live on clouds playing harps, evidence that A is wrong does not mean that we have to—or should—accept B in toto.

I think we see something like that very mistake being played out by the New Agers who skim something like quantum mechanics for the admittedly weird aspects of it, then claim that this somehow lends credence to their other weird beliefs. Your being wrong does not make me right.

...
So, while I’m sure you’re right about most theologians holding that God employs evolution in order to bring about humans, I don’t much care about what they think. I agree with you that evolution does not seem to be “directed”. But that, in my mind, still leaves open the question of a God about whom/which very little if anything is known.

Hal,
I like your peaceful approach and you may be onto something. If I may, your last sentence leaves me wondering - you write, “still leaves open the question of a God about whom/which very little if anything is known.” My question is, what does NOT leave open the question of God?. And if the answer is nothing, then why is the question manufactured??? Mysteries are wisely answered with, “I don’t know,” rather than, “because of a God I’ll call ...”

...
So, while I’m sure you’re right about most theologians holding that God employs evolution in order to bring about humans, I don’t much care about what they think. I agree with you that evolution does not seem to be “directed”. But that, in my mind, still leaves open the question of a God about whom/which very little if anything is known.

Hal,
I like your peaceful approach and you may be onto something. If I may, your last sentence leaves me wondering - you write, “still leaves open the question of a God about whom/which very little if anything is known.” My question is, what does NOT leave open the question of God?. And if the answer is nothing, then why is the question manufactured??? Mysteries are wisely answered with, “I don’t know,” rather than, “because of a God I’ll call ...”

I think the question exists in almost everyone even when science shows there’s no need for a divine magician. “OK, so he’s not the guy who created the world in six days, but when we say ‘God’, are we referring to anything outside our own fevered desires and imaginations?” I think your answer, “I don’t know” is exactly the right rational, scientific response. If there are to be any answers for individuals, they have to come from a different place than naive myth-making about an angry alpha male in the sky.

Riley, your post made me wonder if a large part of the problem is that you folks are dealing with various claims from religions. So, “testing” for God, so to speak, means testing these various claims. If the claims prove to be false (or are extremely unlikely to be true), the claim can be fairly safely dismissed. If all (or almost all) such claims can be thus dismissed, the question of God is, to a large extent, settled. Is that a fair statement of how you approach this issue of whether science can shed insight into the existence of God?

Pretty much, but I’m uneasy about your use of the phrase ’ “testing” for God’ . I hope you’ll understand why from reading my following comments.

the question isn’t about claims about God, but a question of whether there is a God at all [...].

You’re right to identify this is a point of confusion between us. I consider this “question of whether there is a God at all” line of argumentation to be evasive because it’s a line that, even in principle, can’t ever be resolved.

For example: I could claim that there exists a “woohaha”. You might ask, what’s a “woohaha”? I could tell you that a “woohaha” has the following traits (x, y, z,).  If you were to demonstrate to me that it’s all but impossible for something with such traits (x, y, z,) to exist, I could reply: “Oh I must be mistaken about the traits of the woohaha ... but just because I’m mistaken about the traits doesn’t mean that the woohaha doesn’t exists. You haven’t addressed the question of whether there exists a Woohaha at all”! I could take this tact forever. It’s nonsense.

The term “woohaha” is no different than the term “God” - as being used, they are both empty container terms. In theology, someone makes up the term “God” and then uses that empty container term to defend whatever flavor-of-the-month claim about “God” they want. You shoot down that claim, and they (or someone) says .. oh but they were just mistaken about “God”. It’s endless and circular. It’s a meaningless and evasive line of argumentation that could be applied to ANY made-up term and claim. I hope that you can see this.

BUT, this line of reasoning isn’t the main point of difference I have with your position ... it’s your position that science has nothing to say about theology that I take difference with.

Even for the most esoteric sounding claims, science has something to say if the claim involves our cosmos.

For instance, your example of a friend that claims that there is something outside our cosmos that loves him. I don’t question the possibility that there might exist something outside of our cosmos, nor that something outside our cosmos might be capable of love, but in order for there to exists something outside of our cosmos that is capable of loving your friend who is inside our cosmos, there must be (at a bare minimum) a mechanism for information to be transfered from within our cosmos to someplace outside our cosmos. Science has something to say about the possibility that there might exists a mechanism for information to be transfered out of our cosmos and so this is at least one way that science would have something to say about the likelihood that there exists an extra-cosmic entity that might even be aware of your friend, much less love him. 

Anything that involves our cosmos is, at least in principle, testable and as such science has something to say about it.

Are you willing to acknowledge as a consequence of your position (i.e. that science has nothing to say on such matters), that if there were scientific confirmation that the dead did in fact communicate with the living, such evidence would have no bearing on the question of supernatural existence?

I’ve been giving this a good deal of thought. I think such confirmation would indicate only that there is something that we don’t understand at all. I very much suspect that inferring some supernatural existence, though, would be an illegitimate conclusion.

It may be illegitimate to conclude “supernatural” existence, but science would have bearing on the argument, wouldn’t it? That’s my point of contention with you ... your claim that science has nothing to say on the matter.

I would guess that if you don’t think so, we probably have a definitional problem with what is meant by the term: “supernatural”, since the concept of the dead having consciousness (much less being able to communicate thought) pretty much by definition meets what I think is the standard definition of “supernatural” in common use. However, I don’t want to get into a debate over semantics.  Personally, I don’t consider the term “supernatural” to be a useful term in any case.  Like the term “God” it seems to have no real meaning and at a minimum, using the term in an argument tends to presupposes the existence of the thing that is itself in question.

Pretty much, but I’m uneasy about your use of the phrase ’ “testing” for God’ . I hope you’ll understand why from reading my following comments.

The term “woohaha” is no different than the term “God” - as being used, they are both empty container terms. In theology, someone makes up the term “God” and then uses that empty container term to defend whatever flavor-of-the-month claim about “God” they want. You shoot down that claim, and they (or someone) says .. oh but they were just mistaken about “God”. It’s endless and circular. It’s a meaningless and evasive line of argumentation that could be applied to ANY made-up term and claim. I hope that you can see this.

Yes, I can definitely see this. And so I’m doing a little special pleading for the concept of “God”. I absolutely understand why anyone might feel this concept should get no more consideration that woohahas do.

Even for the most esoteric sounding claims, science has something to say if the claim involves our cosmos.

Anything that involves our cosmos is, at least in principle, testable and as such science has something to say about it.

I think I agree with you here. Not being an expert on what a God could do, if there were to be such a being, I’d say that your idea is, at the very least, a very good starting point.

I think your answer, “I don’t know” is exactly the right rational, scientific response.

Likewise the right, rational, and scientific response to the question: “Will the sun rise tomorrow?” is “I don’t know”. That doesn’t mean it’s not right, rational, and scientific to use evidence and reason to calculate what’s probable.

I think your answer, “I don’t know” is exactly the right rational, scientific response.

Likewise the right, rational, and scientific response to the question: “Will the sun rise tomorrow?” is “I don’t know”. That doesn’t mean it’s not right, rational, and scientific to use evidence and reason to calculate what’s probable.

Likewise? The two are nothing alike and cannot be termed likewise. A model correctly predicts that the sun rises because the earth rotates. What model likewise predicts a single thing about woohaha???

.

Likewise? The two are nothing alike and cannot be termed likewise. A model correctly predicts that the sun rises because the earth rotates. What model likewise predicts a single thing about woohaha???

You miss the point of my statement completely. The fact that “I don’t know” is the right and scientific response to even something as straight forward as the question of the sun rising, is the point. You and Hal aren’t saying anything consequential when you say that “I don’t know” is the appropriate scientific response to the question of “God”; “I don’t know” is the appropriate scientific response to just about everything! Science, however, is not limited to “I don’t know”. Science can be used to place limits and probabilities on the various possibilities about things that we don’t know.

Define what you mean by woohaha, and if woohaha has anything to do with the cosmos, science (at least in principle) will be able to say something more than “I don’t know” about it. “Woohaha”, like “God”, is a meaningless container term until you choose to define it. For the sake of clearing up confusion, we should really stop using such terms. Instead of “god” or “woohaha”, we should just use the term: “something”: an honest and straightforward empty container term that appropriately as such, is not accepted without explanation.

.

“I don’t know” is the appropriate scientific response to just about everything!

Say what? Are you confusing a tentative answer with “I don’t know”?

No, I understand the difference between PAP and TAP. Are you claiming that “I Don’t know” is not the proper scientific answer to the question of whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow?

.

Likewise? The two are nothing alike and cannot be termed likewise. A model correctly predicts that the sun rises because the earth rotates. What model likewise predicts a single thing about woohaha???

You miss the point of my statement completely. The fact that “I don’t know” is the right and scientific response to even something as straight forward as the question of the sun rising, is the point.

But, “I don’t know” is NOT the right SCIENTIFIC response to whether the sun will rise tomorrow. Yes, it will.

You and Hal aren’t saying anything consequential when you say that “I don’t know” is the appropriate scientific response to the question of “God”;

Well, I am saying that is indeed the appropriate response to THAT question. (but not the sun rising - that was your comment entirely)

“I don’t know” is the appropriate scientific response to just about everything!

No, it is not. UNLESS you really want to split hairs (please don’t) and say argue that “know” implies 100% positivity. I can only go 99.999999% or so.

Science, however, is not limited to “I don’t know”. Science can be used to place limits and probabilities on the various possibilities about things that we don’t know.

YES, exactly.

Define what you mean by woohaha, and if woohaha has anything to do with the cosmos, science (at least in principle) will be able to say something more than “I don’t know” about it. “Woohaha”, like “God”, is a meaningless container term until you choose to define it. For the sake of clearing up confusion, we should really stop using such terms. Instead of “god” or “woohaha”, we should just use the term: “something”: an honest and straightforward empty container term that appropriately as such, is not accepted without explanation.

Fine, I didn’t start woohaha - I saw it in YOUR post. I thought its meaning was clear, but I guess it’s not. I would rather say lets use the word “NOTHING” rather than “something” since you yourself say it is an EMPTY container. Ok???

It’s funny because I think the way you just phrased the question is partly why so many people answer incorrectly the question on surveys such as; “does the earth rotate around the sun?”.

I wasn’t aware that “I don’t know” was one of the available answers available in such surveys.

In case you think I’m playing with semantics, I’ll be more general: the proper scientific response to any prediction about the future is: “I don’t know”. Science can never be certain about the future, the most it can do is calculate the probability of future events.

.

It’s funny because I think the way you just phrased the question is partly why so many people answer incorrectly the question on surveys such as; “does the earth rotate around the sun?”.

I wasn’t aware that “I don’t know” was one of the available answers available in such surveys.

“I don’t know” is an available answer, but that has nothing to do with my point.

What is your point?

My only point is to say that science can never be certain about the future, the most it can do is calculate the probability of future events.

The probability that a moon sized rock might hurtle into the earth between now and tomorrow, or some other cataclysmic event that might destroy the earth (thus in effect making it so that the sun didn’t rise tomorrow - in the metaphorical sense), is no less improbable than the likelihood that there exists a god as commonly defined by theology (e.g. 99.9999% improbable, in both cases).

.

The probability that a moon sized rock might hurtle into the earth between now and tomorrow, or some other cataclysmic event that might destroy the earth (thus in effect making it so that the sun didn’t rise tomorrow), is no less probable than the likelihood that there exists a god as commonly defined by theology (about 99.9999% probably not, in both cases).

Well, not exactly. If a moon sized “rock” were close enough to hit earth tomorrow, we’d know about it 100% today.

Well, not exactly. If a moon sized “rock” were close enough to hit earth tomorrow, we’d know about it 100% today.

Really? 100%?  You certainly have more confidence in the abilities of science and technology and human institutions than I do.

I have a reason to have such certainty in this particular ability of science. Matter much smaller than the moon has been found, its trajectory projected, and then observed to miss our little ball by the amount predicted. All many months ahead of time.

I have a reason to have such certainty in this particular ability of science. Matter much smaller than the moon has been found, its trajectory projected, and then observed to miss our little ball by the amount predicted. All many months ahead of time.

And I’m pretty sure there are a lot more objects still out there that have yet to be found or tracked. You can’t prove with 100% certainty the non-existence of those other objects, all you can do is place a number on the likelihood that they exist. It might be absurdly improbable that something the size of the moon could exists and we not know about it. yes, but you don’t know that it doesn’t exist. 

My point in bringing this up however is this, it’s a two fold point:
1) “I don’t know” is the proper science response to any “something”  for which we don’t yet have direct recorded knowledge. A future event is an example of something for which we don’t yet have direct recorded knowledge.

2) Not having direct recorded knowledge of something does not limit you to just saying “I don’t know”. There is still a lot you can say about the probable existence and/or likely occurance of “something”.

Riley,
Are you really not sure that the earth will continue to spin for the next few days? Your argument that science cannot 100% predict the future is moot since science does not claim to have ANYTHING correct to 100%. The scientific model for our earth spinning and the sun rising tomorrow is so profound and has been correct so often that I am saying with 100% certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow.

What does this have to do with Hedges????? Or anything?

Riley,
Are you really not sure that the earth will continue to spin for the next few days? Your argument that science cannot 100% predict the future is moot since science does not claim to have ANYTHING correct to 100%. The scientific model for our earth spinning and the sun rising tomorrow is so profound and has been correct so often that I am saying with 100% certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow.

So we agree. Science does not know anything with 100% certainty. My point here is that the argument made that science should only answer “I don’t know” to the question of “God”, is not different than the argument that science should only answer “I don’t know” to other questions that we are uncertain about. 

What does this have to do with Hedges????? Or anything?

What this has to do with Hedges is this:
Hedges is accusing Dawkins and others of being a fundamentalist because Dawkins reaches the conclusion that “God” (not a god, but “God” as defined by most theologians) almost certainly does not exist. Hedges misrepresents Dawkins as being certain that “God” does not exist. Dawkins, like most people when they speak informally, state as a matter of fact that “God” is a delusion, without quibbling about the fact that he is only 99.99% sure “God” is a delusion.

Some here have also accused Dawkins of being a fundamentalist in his views (or at least, they have accused Dawkins of misapplying science) and recently someone suggested that the only right and scientific thing you can say about the possibility that “God” exists,  is that we “don’t know”. I am pointing out that, technically, that’s the right and scientific response to most things. But like most things, a scientific response is not limited to saying “I don’t know” we can also assign probabilities. Science has something to say about the probabilities concerning “God’s” existence, as it does about the probable existence of many other types of “something”.

First part:
Yes, we agree.

Second part:
Oh, well that’s easy. I heard it straight from the horses mouth (Dawkins) on The Daily Show. Dawkins said that he was 99.9999% sure there is no god. And that’s enough for him to call himself an atheist.

This works both ways, however. The only correct scientific response from the Pope, Jerry Fallwell, Jimmy Swaggart, and other religious types should also be, “I don’t know.” They are the ones who really have a problem with this - not most of us here.

Maybe, but a substantial number of the posts on this thread have been dedicated to the assertion that any comment on the likelihood that “God” exists is a misuse of science, that the most a scientist can say on the matter is “I don’t know”,  and that Dawkins is a “fundamentalist” for saying anything more than “I don’t know”. 
... go back and read where it starts: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3985/P75/#37673.

Hedges describes several characteristics of what he calls a fundamentalist mindset.  His first one is:

It is a binary world view of us and them.  It is elevating ourselves to a higher moral plane and relegating others to a position of moral inferiority.

Evolutionary biologists and cognitive psychologists tell us that a binary, us and them, worldview is inherent in human nature and is exhibited by most (if not all) other animal species as well.  It is manifested as suspicion and hostility towards those who are “different” in any way from our own group, and is likely rooted in group competition for territory and resources.  I am amazed at the diversity and creativity of the criteria we as human beings use to elevate ourselves and our groups in our own minds above all others.  Although I do believe this self-elevation bias is inherent and that it is not possible to rid ourselves of it, I believe we can ameliorate its effects on both ourselves and others by being aware of it within ourselves and consciously compensating for it.  This innate bias is why it is so important that the culture teaches tolerance and teaches how to recognize the many forms of intolerance.  Hedges’ criticism of fundamentalists is not only that they are intolerant but that they are “true believers” in their own superiority.  My own sketchy reading of these authors tends to support this accusation.
Hedges:

[Fundamentalism] is an embrace of catastrophic, even apocalyptic violence as a cleansing agent to remove human impediments…..” to a better world. “For instance, the externalization of evil—the belief that evil is not something within us that we must battle against, but is embodied in human abstractions, people who no longer have human qualities but have been abstracted into visions or products of hate and violence that must be eradicated.

I have not read all of authors Hedges calls the “new atheists,” but so far I have not encountered this theme.  However, I do see a common tendency to blame religion for the evils of the world.  I tend to see religion not as the cause, but as an excuse for dehumanization and hatred of others.  There are many other prominent excuses for aggression and warfare that could be pointed to as well, from race to tribal affiliation to language.  I do not believe that group aggression and dehumanization would end if everyone in the world held the same religious (or non-religious) views.  I believe the best way to combat group violence is building a strong, liberal, diverse society that places a high value on diversity and tolerance.
Hedges:

Fundamentalism does not have to be a religious phenomenon.  It is a way of viewing the world.  It is a form of self-exaltation.  It is utopian in that it believes that human history is linear, that there is such a thing as collective moral progress, which I don’t think either human history or human nature bears out….

I disagree with this.  I believe cultures evolve, just as species do.  If we define moral progress as the ability to live together and cooperate productively in larger numbers and closer proximity than in the past, there is evidence of collective moral progress.
Hedges: 

the dehumanization of others is very much part of the fundamentalist vision…”  “we have nothing to fear from people who don’t believe in God; we have everything to fear from people who don’t believe in sin, and by that I mean people who don’t understand their own flaws and their own moral corruption, and these people do not.”  “the genocides of the 20th century weren’t carried out by religious fanatics.”  “I spent 20 years as a war correspondent in societies that disintegrated and broke down, and I watched, when there is no structure, what human beings do to other human beings, and it’s appalling.  So, as long as you live within an ordered structure, that veneer of civilization….is a kind of illusion.  If our society were to break down we would react in the same Hobbsian manner….Any society is very fragile.

 
While I agree that any society is fragile, I do see evidence of “collective moral progress,”  for surely we have today some, at least, more elaborate and resilient social structures than are characteristic of societies in which every transfer of power devolves into civil war. 
Hedges:

I think the question is being in touch with your own capacity for atrocity, for our own myopia and forms of self-delusion….whether you are an atheist or not an atheist, the secret I think is deep introspection and self-criticism rather than self-exaltation, and I think that’s the problem with these new atheists, that what they’ve done is elevate themselves above others….

I concur with this.

Trish: I have not read all of authors Hedges calls the “new atheists,” but so far I have not encountered this theme.  However, I do see a common tendency to blame religion for the evils of the world.  I tend to see religion not as the cause, but as an excuse for dehumanization and hatred of others.  There are many other prominent excuses for aggression and warfare that could be pointed to as well, from race to tribal affiliation to language.  I do not believe that group aggression and dehumanization would end if everyone in the world held the same religious (or non-religious) views.  I believe the best way to combat group violence is building a strong, liberal, diverse society that places a high value on diversity and tolerance.

I agree, and think it is a very important point to stress, that religion (in isolation) is not a cause for anything. You are also right to point out that it is an excuse, i.e. that it provides a ready justification or rationale for all kinds of actions, including unspeakable crimes (as the long histories of both Christianity and Islam have shown).

But if religion is merely a cover, what is the real driving force? I would argue - along with Marx and Engels - that these are found ultimately at the level of economic interests, i.e. ruling classes use religion, nation, race, or various other forms of ‘false consciousness’ in order to maintain their own property and wealth, including for the purpose of waging both class wars against their subjects at home, or wars against ruling classes in other parts of the world whom they wish to subject and expropriate.

From my perspective ‘liberalism’ ‘humanism’ etc. when divorced from a materialist class analysis, are simply other forms of false consciousness, and no different from religion to the degree that they can serve equally well (especially among the secular intelligentsia) to accommodate and conceal the real economic interests of the rulers. Hedges’ sanctimonious liberal Christianity, which conceals the material realities of decaying U.S. imperialism behind mystical concepts like ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ are not one bit more useful in this respect.

Balak,
I agree that there must be a real driving force for violence and atrocities.  However, I look for it in the evolutionary drives that are deeply embedded in the human psyche, specifically the drives for survival and status.  It appears to me that wealth accumulation is motivated by a drive for power (which is a way of gaining status in the hierarchy).  I see evidence for this first in the fact that being “rich” never satisfies this drive—it’s WHO you are richer than and WHO is richer than you that really counts—money is just a way of keeping score.  I also see evidence in that power holders often risk or sacrifice wealth to gain or hold on to power.  I believe the basic drive for status is a part of human nature, and that the existence and behavior of any ruling class is determined by the structure and rules of their society, not by anything unique to them.

From my perspective ‘liberalism’ ‘humanism’ etc. when divorced from a materialist class analysis, are simply other forms of false consciousness, and no different from religion to the degree that they can serve equally well (especially among the secular intelligentsia) to accommodate and conceal the real economic interests of the rulers. Hedges’ sanctimonious liberal Christianity, which conceals the material realities of decaying U.S. imperialism behind mystical concepts like ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ are not one bit more useful in this respect.

What an interesting perspective. You’ve added a completely meaningless phrase to my vocabulary (false consciousness), endorsed a completely bankrupt ethical and economic system, and failed entirely to appreciate the very real gains in overall wealth for even the poorest members that liberalism has brought.

Ah, communist propaganda. I had forgotten how vast your power to decieve.

I do not believe that group aggression and dehumanization would end if everyone in the world held the same religious (or non-religious) views.  I believe the best way to combat group violence is building a strong, liberal, diverse society that places a high value on diversity and tolerance.

So, if everyone held the same views, it wouldn’t end group aggression and dehumanization, but the best way to combat group violence is for everyone to adopt your non-religious views on diversity and tolerance? You don’t see a contradiction here?

Essentially, you’ve just restated what Harris and Hitchens and Dawkins and humanists everywhere have been saying for centuries: the best way to combat out group violence is to make everyone a member of the in group. This is obvious. The problem with radical Islam, as a point of view, is that it absolutely refuses to become part of the in group. The problem isn’t that we haven’t made the offer, the US has a large muslim population. It is that that offer has been rejected.

The same is true of Jerry Falwell style Christianity, of course. They’ve been offered a seat at the table of human fellowship, and they’ve declined.

And the reason for this, as the “new atheists” keep trying to point out, is that some philosophies are conducive to joining with others in human solidarity, with fostering tolerance, and some just aren’t. Some cultures are better than others at building a strong, liberal, diverse society. Which means that if you have a goal of lower group violence, some cultures are objectively better at reaching that goal.

Thank you for having Chris Hedges, author of I Don’t Believe in Atheists, on Point of Inquiry.  It’s good to see a critic of the New Atheists on your show.  While I’m not a big fan of Dawkins and the Four Horsemen, I have mixed feelings about what Hedges says, too, and I think he may be exaggerating their views a little.  Anyway, it’s good to hear a diversity of viewpoints, not just “Religion is the root of all evil!”  (I know they don’t quite say that.)

seth manapio, you said:

So, if everyone held the same views, it wouldn’t end group aggression and dehumanization, but the best way to combat group violence is for everyone to adopt your non-religious views on diversity and tolerance? You don’t see a contradiction here?

I believe that group aggression and dehumanization are rooted in basic human drives which once were advantageous to human survival, but now have become counter to it.  Our culture must help us ameliorate and channel these instincts in less destructive ways.  I believe that the dehumanization that enables atrocities is stimulated by any difference between groups, not just religious differences.  If religious differences could be eliminated (which is probably not possible, given the tendency to schism in any large congregation), the group hatreds would still be triggered by tribal, national, racial, etc., differences.  Therefore, I think society needs to focus on recognizing and discouraging incitements to us-them thinking and dehumanization.  Those incitements include hate talk of all kinds, not just religious.

You went on to say

Essentially, you’ve just restated what Harris and Hitchens and Dawkins and humanists everywhere have been saying for centuries: the best way to combat out group violence is to make everyone a member of the in group. This is obvious. The problem with radical Islam, as a point of view, is that it absolutely refuses to become part of the in group. The problem isn’t that we haven’t made the offer, the US has a large muslim population. It is that that offer has been rejected.
The same is true of Jerry Falwell style Christianity, of course. They’ve been offered a seat at the table of human fellowship, and they’ve declined.

I do not believe it is possible to make everyone a member of the in group.  I think the best we can hope for is to get all groups to respect the rights of other groups to coexist peacefully.  There are radicals in every group who insist on taking an aggressive stance towards others.  My observation has been, however, that the large majority of Muslims in western countries, like the vast majority of all people everywhere, want to live in peace and to have their human rights respected.  Most people, even those in fundamentalist sects,  are only motivated to wage violence when they have become convinced that they are being deliberately mistreated by another group. 
You continued:

And the reason for this, as the “new atheists” keep trying to point out, is that some philosophies are conducive to joining with others in human solidarity, with fostering tolerance, and some just aren’t. Some cultures are better than others at building a strong, liberal, diverse society. Which means that if you have a goal of lower group violence, some cultures are objectively better at reaching that goal.

Agreed, but I’m not convinced this is because of religion.  While there are a lot of passages inciting dehumanization and violence against others in the Koran, there are also such passages in the Old Testament, and both books also contain contradictory injunctions.  I believe that most Muslims, like most Christians and Jews, manage to overlook the most egregious hate talk.  I also note that Muslims who live in oil-rich countries are pretty satisfied with their lives and unwarlike despite their philosophy.  The fact that some cultures are better at creating an open, diverse society than others does not justify violating the basic human rights of the others.  That would be to be a contradiction of its own premise.  And the freedom from oppression because of what you believe is a basic human right.  I believe our sanctions should be directed towards behaviors (eg. abuse of human rights or incitement to violence) not towards beliefs.

...  I also note that Muslims who live in oil-rich countries are pretty satisfied with their lives and unwarlike despite their philosophy. 

Honestly? Unwarlike?

Science has something to say about the probabilities concerning “God’s” existence, as it does about the probable existence of many other types of “something”.

Riley thanks for this summary clarifying your point.

I think one problem is the philosophical detour into what it means to “know” something, which gets the theological discussion off in a corner.  In the courtroom they use “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than absolute certainty—otherwise a lot of juries would be stuck in this same quandary.

Like you say, Dawkins is certain beyound a reasonable doubt that folks are mistaken about the existence of God—he has examined the evidence, and finds it unconvincing.

duplicate post

Science has something to say about the probabilities concerning “God’s” existence, as it does about the probable existence of many other types of “something”.

Riley thanks for this summary clarifying your point.

I think one problem is the philosophical detour into what it means to “know” something, which gets the theological discussion off in a corner.  In the courtroom they use “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than absolute certainty—otherwise a lot of juries would be stuck in this same quandary.

Like you say, Dawkins is certain beyound a reasonable doubt that folks are mistaken about the existence of God—he has examined the evidence, and finds it unconvincing.

Yes, and whether you agree with Dawkins’ conclusion or not, there are definitely claims and arguments being made that can be examined by science and scientific reasoning; so it is right and scientific for people to be examining those claims and arguments.

Here’s another analogous example to the NOMA issue:
The question of “God” is like the question of extra dimensions. 

100 years ago, one might well have argued that science should have nothing to say about the question of extra dimensions, not even in principle, because by definition, extra dimensions are outside of our realm of detectable existence—- (i.e. they are in different magisteria). Today however, using the scientific evidence, we can say with a great degree of confidence that in fact a fourth dimension of space exists. In another decade (assuming the Large Hadron Collider lives up to speculated potential) we might even get to the point where a 10th dimension of space can be reasonably inferred from scientific evidence—- something entirely inconceivable just a century ago. <u>Moreover</u>, in doing so, science would have something to say about the likelihood that there might exist an 11th dimension of space—- like the “God” hypothesis, it might be concluded that an 11th dimension of space is highly highly improbable.

At least one of the lessons to be learned I think is this: if there is a something that has an impact on our universe, no matter how indirectly it might impact our universe,  you can’t rule out the possibility that science might have something to say about it. To argue now that science should have nothing to say about the question of “God” is not unlike the argument that science should have nothing to say about the question of extra spatial dimensions -  both arguments are “arguments from ignorance”.

... if there is a something that has an impact on our universe, no matter how indirectly it might impact our universe,  you can’t rule out the possibility that science might have something to say about it. To argue now that science should have nothing to say about the question of “God” is not unlike the argument that science should have nothing to say about the question of extra spatial dimensions -  both arguments are “arguments from ignorance”.

Anything with an “impact on our universe” can and should be brought into the scientific method. I like the analogy of dimension. Certainly science has produced many things through discovery that someone 500 years earlier would not consider possible (unless God willed it ). The beauty and complexity of organic chemistry - which has now melded with biology - is another example of how much fascination nature has in store for the inquiring mind.

Coming back to Hedges:

http://fora.tv/2008/04/03/Chris_Hedges_on_New_Atheism_the_Christian_Right

Thanks for the link.
I did not see his debate with Hitchens, but based on all of the links provided throughout this thread I still don’t see where all of the emotion against this guy comes from.

burkbraun,

I like your comments, but I don’t understand the following sentence:

I appreciate that Hedges believes that comity and tolerance are higher goods than truth (seeing as he appears to be an atheist as well, in a wishy washy way), and that is surely the mark of a humane (rather than utopian) social order, but there is a real barrier to mutual respect if one’s interlocutor believes in fairies.

I think of comity and tolerance as being consequences of seeing the truth of our common humanity with all its built-in irrationalities and contradictions, in combination with any moral goals that aim to lessen human misery.  Surely belief in any purely rational utopian social order is the delusion.  How can we achieve any given Good without understanding the reality we are dealing with?

I do not believe it is possible to make everyone a member of the in group.  I think the best we can hope for is to get all groups to respect the rights of other groups to coexist peacefully.

That would make us all members of the same in group. That’s sort of what “in group” means, as opposed to “out group”. When a group of people agree to play nice together, they’re an in group.

Some philosophies, such as jihadism or radical Islam or apocalyptic Christianity or stalinism, preclude playing nice with others. Pluralism is great, but it is a point of view, and not everyone respects your right to be a pluralist. The new atheists are on your team, not the jihadi team.

seth manapio,

Agreed, under your definition of “in group.”  As to whether the “New Atheists” are willing to “play well together” with religious believers who also believe in tolerance and are willing to accept (even be friends with) those of us who are not religious, I will go back and read their books more closely.  My first, admittedly patchy, reading left me with the distinct impression that they are not.  Thanks for your comments.

Some philosophies, such as jihadism or radical Islam or apocalyptic Christianity or stalinism, preclude playing nice with others. Pluralism is great, but it is a point of view, and not everyone respects your right to be a pluralist. The new atheists are on your team, not the jihadi team.

This is more of the same old neocon ‘they hate us for our freedoms’ bullshit.

In the absence of British/French/US imperialist interventions over in the Muslim world over the past century, there would be no ‘jihadism’, in this sense, nor would ‘political Islam’ as a movement ever have found a significant social base.

Some philosophies, such as jihadism or radical Islam or apocalyptic Christianity or stalinism, preclude playing nice with others. Pluralism is great, but it is a point of view, and not everyone respects your right to be a pluralist. The new atheists are on your team, not the jihadi team.

This is more of the same old neocon ‘they hate us for our freedoms’ bullshit.

In the absence of British/French/US imperialist interventions over in the Muslim world over the past century, there would be no ‘jihadism’, in this sense, nor would ‘political Islam’ as a movement ever have found a significant social base.

Again, your propaganda is ludicrous. First of all, you believe, as I do, that some philosophies play well with others and other philosophies don’t. For example, you seem to believe that humanism doesn’t play well with others. That’s a point of view that declares that some philosophies are objectivly better than others.

Secondly, I never claimed that anyone hated us for our freedoms. That’s an obvious strawman. What I said was that the new atheists (who are not philosophically committed to this “imperialism” that you keep ragging on about) are different from Jihadists. The origin of jihadism is not an issue, merely its behavior and philosophy.

Third, Islam has never had separation of church and state. For its entire history, it has been a political religion, with political and relgious power tightly bound together. There is no historical tendency of Islamic countries to become secular, or for Islam to become secular. Jihadist activity has been a constant for 1400 years, with or without imperialism.

So even if you were right, which you aren’t, you wouldn’t be making a relevant point; and even if your point was on target, which it isn’t, it would apply equally to both of us. That is to say, you are a neocon to exactly the extent that I am, if my statement is representative of the neocon point of view.

Bu the real story with the middle east is a story of cultural conflict. Imperialism, military victory, does not inevitably lead to the situation we see in the middle east. The Japanese have been able—even after being nuked—to surpass the west in several technological areas (robotics comes to mind) as well as cultural ones (Yoyo Ma comes to mind). How is it that they were able to shift gears so easily from Dictatorship to Democracy, and the Arab world has not?

seth manapio,

Agreed, under your definition of “in group.”  As to whether the “New Atheists” are willing to “play well together” with religious believers who also believe in tolerance and are willing to accept (even be friends with) those of us who are not religious, I will go back and read their books more closely.  My first, admittedly patchy, reading left me with the distinct impression that they are not.  Thanks for your comments.

As far as I know, no new atheist has suggested curtailing any behavior that doesn’t involve coercing people into participating in religious activities against their will. All of them have, at some time, worked with relgious people on some common cause. So I’m not sure where you get your idea that Dawkins, for example, isn’t willing to live in a pluralistic society where people are free to believe in religion if they desire to do so.

seth manapio, you said:

As far as I know, no new atheist has suggested curtailing any behavior that doesn’t involve coercing people into participating in religious activities against their will. All of them have, at some time, worked with relgious people on some common cause. So I’m not sure where you get your idea that Dawkins, for example, isn’t willing to live in a pluralistic society where people are free to believe in religion if they desire to do so.

Part of the problem with this discussion is lumping these guys together under one label, implying that they all think the same thing.  Actually, I was thinking of Sam Harris’s THE END OF FAITH, in which we find passages like these:

I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.
.........
We are at war with Islam.  It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so.  It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been “hijacked” by extremists.  We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith, which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet.  A future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their canon, just as most Christians have learned to do.  Such a transformation is by no means guaranteed to occur, however, given the tenets of Islam.
........
It appears that one of the most urgent tasks we now face in the developed world is to find some way of facilitating the emergence of civil societies everywhere else.  Whether such societies have to be democratic is not at all clear.  Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accompanied by plebiscite.  It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap.  But benignity is the key—and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without.  The means of such imposition are necessarily crude:  they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.

HARRIS: It appears that one of the most urgent tasks we now face in the developed world is to find some way of facilitating the emergence of civil societies everywhere else.  Whether such societies have to be democratic is not at all clear.  Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accompanied by plebiscite.  It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap.  But benignity is the key—and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without.  The means of such imposition are necessarily crude:  they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.

Thank you for posting these quotations, Trish. This one in particular really says it all. With ‘friends’ like Harris the cause of rationalism and humanism hardly needs enemies.

HARRIS: “We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith, which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet.  A future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their canon, just as most Christians have learned to do.  Such a transformation is by no means guaranteed to occur, however, given the tenets of Islam. “

Yes, Harris is definitely advocating the need for forceful intervention, but I would say this intervention is of the type that we expect our police to impose in order to combat ANY sufficiently entrenched anti-liberal institution: as was the case of “Jim Crow”  and segregated schools in the Southern U.S.. Would anyone here argue that the forceable action of the U.S. federal government against select Southern States was imperialistic or bigoted? ... there are/were certainly those in the South that thought so.

HARRIS:“Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accompanied by plebiscite.  It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap”

Harris is not advocating hatred for “other” and he certainly isn’t advocating imperialism.  Turkey provides I think an example of the type of action that Harris sees as lamentable but necessary. Turkey stands out among Middle Eastern Islamic states because of a “benign dictator” ( Attaturk ) acted forcefully to create a secular government. It’s hard to see how Attaturk could have succeeded without the use force (both the threat and reality). Islam was a powerful anti-liberal anti-secular power that stood squarely in the way of progress toward Turkey’s successful transition into what is now a relatively liberal democracy. 

Islam is traditionally structured to be an all pervasive part of the community. One small but significant example of this are the prayers that are broadcast on loud speakers 3-5 times a day - Mosques are situated in communities such that no matter where you are, you can hear the prayers .. even in the privacy of your house.  Many Islamic practices perpetuate child indoctrination by isolating children and forcing them to bare public markings of membership, for instance: boys are circumsized at a late age in highly public ceremonies (they are typically paraded down the street in a gown as conspicuous as a wedding gown, and for weeks after the circumcision they wear a dress of sorts (because they can’t wear pants)) and girls of course are forced to cover themselves. Islam is designed to be intense. It is a sufficating experience for those who would resist submission.

You can disagree with Harris of course. You can put forth your own arguments as to why you think he is wrong, but it is entirely unfair and unreasonable to attack him as immoral and/or bigoted and/or a “fundamentalist” because he makes this argument. His arguments are not personal attacks against a people, they are attacks against a philosophy (Islam).

.

seth manapio, you said:

As far as I know, no new atheist has suggested curtailing any behavior that doesn’t involve coercing people into participating in religious activities against their will.

Part of the problem with this discussion is lumping these guys together under one label, implying that they all think the same thing.  Actually, I was thinking of Sam Harris’s THE END OF FAITH, in which we find passages like these:

I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.
.........
We are at war with Islam.  It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so.  It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been “hijacked” by extremists.  We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith, which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet.  A future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their canon, just as most Christians have learned to do.  Such a transformation is by no means guaranteed to occur, however, given the tenets of Islam.
........
It appears that one of the most urgent tasks we now face in the developed world is to find some way of facilitating the emergence of civil societies everywhere else.  Whether such societies have to be democratic is not at all clear.  Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accompanied by plebiscite.  It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap.  But benignity is the key—and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without.  The means of such imposition are necessarily crude:  they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.

Quote one, never mentions any sort of legal or structrual impediments to belief. Quote two, states explicitly that if Islam will learn to get along with us and allow us to not be Muslims, we can all get along. Quote three, Harris again is talking about creating states in which people are not forced to participate in particular religious activities against their will.

As I stated, Harris does not imply or state that anyone should be curtailed from any behavior: EXCEPT forcing other people to participate in religious activities against their will.

Thank you for posting these quotations, Trish. This one in particular really says it all. With ‘friends’ like Harris the cause of rationalism and humanism hardly needs enemies.

I believe that Harris is wrong in that military force is a lousy way to facilitate the emergence of civil societies, and so is economic isolation. But it is a neccessary goal. As a species, we have to all be sort of grow out of our superstitions and prejudice in order to share the planet.

You probably think you share that goal, too.

Balak:

HARRIS: It appears that one of the most urgent tasks we now face in the developed world is to find some way of facilitating the emergence of civil societies everywhere else. Whether such societies have to be democratic is not at all clear. Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accompanied by plebiscite. It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap. But benignity is the key—and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without. The means of such imposition are necessarily crude: they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.

Thank you for posting these quotations, Trish. This one in particular really says it all.  With ‘friends’ like Harris the cause of rationalism and humanism hardly needs enemies.

Yes, your reaction is exactly why I was alarmed when I read this.  Harris presents a rationale for a preemptive strike against Islamic nations.  In Harris’s defense, he goes on to say that it be must done by a world government, and not by the U.S. alone.  However, given that the U.S. government has already declared its intention to maintain its military supremacy over the world, and given its unwarranted invasion of Iraq, it is easy to see how Harris’s subsequent qualification can easily be dismissed.  While I do not agree with Harris, I also do not agree that Jihad (however it is defined) is justified by history.  We are all the heirs of atrocities and violence.  Imperialism, tribal warfare, genocide, and wars are not unique to any people or culture or race or religion.  They are our common heritage, and every human being that exists today is the descendant of both victims and predators in these constant atrocities that have gone on for thousands of years.  The population of our planet has grown to the point that it now demands that we either learn how to live together or we exterminate each other trying to prove that “we” were right and “they” were wrong (whoever “we” and “they” may be).  Learning to live together cannot be accomplished by force or violence.  Force and violence always generate misery, anger, and retaliation.  While I can understand the anger of both sides, I cannot excuse either side for the infliction of still more human suffering in this so-called war on terror.

Riley:

Yes, Harris is definitely advocating the need for forceful intervention, but I would say this intervention is of the type that we expect our police to impose in order to combat ANY sufficiently entrenched anti-liberal institution: as was the case of “Jim Crow” and segregated schools and in the Southern U.S.. Or are you saying that you think that such actions were imperialistic and motivated by bigotry? ... there are/were certainly those in the South that thought so.

I see several distinctions here to the comparison with the overthrow of “Jim Crow” laws and school integration.  First of all the those actions targeted the behavior, and not the beliefs, of the perpetrators.  And in those cases the actions were imposed, with discretion, by duly elected representatives of the people who were subject to the sanctions.  And finally, any punishment handed out as a result targeted the people who actually commited crimes, not at people who approved of their reasons.

Riley:

Harris is not advocating hatred for “other” and he certainly isn’t advocating imperialism. I would imagine that Turkey provides an example of the type of action that Harris sees as lamentable but necessary. Turkey needed a “benign dictator” ( Attaturk ) in order to combat the anti-liberal power of Islam and make the transition into what is now a relatively liberal democracy, needed to crack down against certain Islamic practices which indoctrinated children and pressured politicians.

Compare this to the intervention in Iran to put the Shah on the throne, another intervention seen as lamentable but necessary, and look at the long term results.  The problem I see with this is that arrogantly deciding what is “necessary” for another culture is always colored by self-interest, just as the intervention in Iraq was.  It’s never really for the good of the other society, no matter what rationalization is propounded.  If surveys are to believed, most of the young people in Islamic countries are attracted by western values and life styles, despite all their culture’s propaganda, and they are the force that will liberalize their cultures.  The surest way to turn them against liberalization is to use aggression against them. 

Riley:

You can disagree with Harris of course. You can put forth your own arguments as to why you think he is wrong, but it is entirely unfair and unreasonable to attack him as immoral and/or bigoted and/or a “fundamentalist” because he makes this argument. His arguments are not personal attacks against a people, they are attacks against a philosophy (Islam).

I do not attack Harris as being immoral or bigoted or a fundamentalist.  My argument is that he is intolerant.  And my reason for that accusation is not that he attacks a philosophy; debate about ideas is the way we advance.  My concern is that he seems to use his opposition to a philosophy as a reason to justify aggression (economic and military) against real people.  Freedom of belief has long been considered a fundamental human right.  Our concept of justice normally advocates punishing behavior, not belief.  While there are fanatics (Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers” ) who cling to every dogma, and, indeed, Islam encourages and produces more than its share, the vast majority of the human race care a lot more about day-to-day life than they do about any dogma or religion.  While this majority may get out their prayer rugs three times a day, or bow their heads over their food, or float little boats for their ancestors, they are no great threat to world peace.  They go along and get along with whatever dogma is least controversial in their culture, and beyond that want to be left in peace themselves.  My experience traveling in Islamic countries is that the people there are good-hearted and generous.  That seems to be verified by most non-political travel writers (the current NY Times bestseller “Three Cups of Tea” is a case in point).  To declare these people our enemy because they submit to a culture that is intolerant would be a grave mistake.  Harris avoids this by declaring them hostages in need of rescue.  All we need to do is read the reports of civilians in Iraq to see what befalls the hostages in these “rescues.”  Invading their country is a very good way to turn hostages into fanatics.

There is no need to try to change how Muslims feel, or change their culture.  I see it as analogous to a group of families in a neighborhood.  I have neither the time nor inclination (nor perhaps, arguably), the right, to go into my neighbor’s home and tell them how NOT to indoctrinate their children, how to stop hating women, children, gays, how to consider, for a change, critical self-analysis (something almost completely absent from the Muslim world).

What I do have the time for, is that if you come over to my yard, or send your child to my yard, to kill my child or me, is to take you out completely.  You don’t get to say that is it due to your belief system, or that Allah told you, or that I’m an “infidel”, and conversely, I don’t have to tell you how to change, why you should change, or where you are wrong.  I get revenge in this multiple-move iron game, which teaches you, and/or your relatives that this is what you can expect in the future. 

Primitive cultures, of which Islam is, beyond any doubt, only respond to power, precisely BECAUSE they lack the cultural intellectual capacity to be reasoned with.  It isn’t just a functional matter, that one can only use force ultimately to end their aggression against you, it is that in their manner of thinking, force is the only thing they respond to, or respect.

I am not advocating anything proactive (necessarily, although there may be a time for that, and Iraq, according to the UN was, how about we get out of the UN then we don’t HAVE to care about toothless “inspections” and “resolutions).  However, I am advocating a muscular response to any group that seeks to impose their belief system on me (us), or seeks to kill me.

And by the way, if that isn’t moral, then what would be?  If responding to Afghanistan after 911 by devastating at least the ORIGINAL Taliban was immoral, then what would ever be moral, as far as a response?  Then why don’t you (whomever disagrees), give up your life as a sacrifice to those who would kill and satisfy their need so that the rest of us can live, and avoid the ‘wars’ you think are too immoral?

Overall Trish, I think your comments are sensible and thoughtful, but I don’t see how they apply particularly to Sam Harris.

Based on my reading of Sam Harris and listening to him speak, he has not advocated any forceful intervention in particular, rather he has simply made the argument that:

1) Forceful intervention can be moral
2) Forceful intervention is sometimes necessary
3) The stakes are high (read: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/)

Sam’s arguments have been made in response to those who claim that force is NEVER an option in such matters, both because (as you have argued) that forceful interventions are either immoral and/or can never be effective. This is an essential context in which to understand the thrust of Sam’s comments. —and it’s an important context! He is arguing that forceful intervention (whether they originate internally or externally) CAN BE the morally right course of action.

To state flatly, as you have, that forceful intervention is “never really for the good of the other society” is not an argument. It’s your statement of opinion and that statement begs a defense in the face of counter evidence. I can cite many examples where force was effectively used to change behavior, and I can cite many examples where the use of force appeared to be the only available resolution. The American civil war is an example of both. To support your position, maybe you can explain how slavery in the United States might have been ended without the forceful intervention of the North imposing itself on the South? 

TRISH:

I see several distinctions here to the comparison with the overthrow of “Jim Crow” laws and school integration.  First of all the those actions targeted the behavior, and not the beliefs, of the perpetrators.

Distinctions compared to what? What has Sam harris advocated that is not consistent with the idea that (at least where force is concerned) only *behaviors* should be targeted? Sam Harris does not advocate the use of force to change anyones beliefs. He advocates outspoken activism in calling a spade a spade (i.e.  publicly vetted religious claims) but he *definitely* does not advocate a “thought police” to clamp down on belief.

TRISH:

And in those cases the actions were imposed, with discretion, by duly elected representatives of the people who were subject to the sanctions.

  I’m not sure why this matters. It was the actions of “duly elected representatives of the people” who were imposing segregating on “the people” in the first place. If the issue is simply one of soveriegnty and representational government, then Arkansas should have been given the right and option to secede from the union and continue the practice of segregation as its people saw fit.  In the case of Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal) and Turkey, Ataturk was not duly elected (at least not at first - at first it was a single party system which he controlled completely); Ataturk was a dictator. He happened to be acting (in most cases) in a way that was consistent with promoting a liberal society, most significantly he established equal rights for women (today the proportion of Turish born women with PhDs is among the highest per capita in the world). It’s highly unlikely that this could have been achieved in a country that was 90% Muslim without the government imposing an integrated school system for women by force.  As his government was not initially a government of representatives duly elected by the people, would you argue that his use of force was immoral or wrong?

TRISH:

And finally, any punishment handed out as a result targeted the people who actually commited crimes, not at people who approved of their reasons.

But in the case of the American Civil war, everybody suffered, not just those who were guilty of being slave owners.

TRISH:

deciding what is “necessary” for another culture is always colored by self-interest, just as the intervention in Iraq was.

This might be true, but I don’t see where it is particularly relevant as a criticism of anything Sam Harris has said. Your statement supplements what Sam Harris has said; it doesn’t contradict anything that he has advocated. 

TRISH:

It’s never really for the good of the other society, no matter what rationalization is propounded.

This is a dogmatic statement. Of course power-grabs often get wrapped in a patina of “doing good of the other society”, but on what basis do you claim that they’re NEVER for the sake of the good of another people? Do you really not see any evidence of people fighting for the good of others? or that the good of others is never ultimately served by such fighting?  Again, the slaves in the United States were freed. Force appeared to be the only solution, and a substantial number of people fighting in that war were by all accounts primarily motivated to fight for the cause of freeing the slaves (i.e. fighting for their “good”). 

And again, if the sovereignty of a people is a basis for distinction, why shouldn’t it have been the right of every one of the slave-owning states to secede from the union, if a majority of the voters in those states chose to do so (and in doing so expect to be left alone by the Northern states)? The Southern states believed that owning slaves was moral and a right - many considered the right sanctioned in the The Bible. This is very similar I think to the situation we have with Islam and people who would justify government sanctioned oppression based on religious beliefs.

TRISH:

If surveys are to believed, most of the young people in Islamic countries are attracted by western values and life styles, despite all their culture’s propaganda, and they are the force that will liberalize their cultures.  The surest way to turn them against liberalization is to use aggression against them.

This is a relevant argument for a non-forceful approach. Yes. But just as the argument for force should not be accepted simply on its face, the argument for non-forceful change should not be accepted on its face. Given that, left to themselves, things often do not get better, you need to defend this position with evidence and good reason. I think such surveys of public opinion are probably unreliable, extremely difficult to interpret, and at a minimum limited in scope.

TRISH:

I do not attack Harris as being immoral or bigoted or a fundamentalist.

But there are those on this thread that do, and Hedges definitely has accused Harris of being a fundamentalist.

TRISH:

My argument is that he is intolerant.  And my reason for that accusation is not that he attacks a philosophy; debate about ideas is the way we advance.  My concern is that he seems to use his opposition to a philosophy as a reason to justify aggression (economic and military) against real people.

I think you’ve overly simplified his position. He attacks a specific philosophy.  That philosophy is one that has advocated killing “apostates” . Harris as such is being intolerant of intolerance. And what’s wrong with that?

SAM HARRIS:

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a “war on terror.” We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.
source:http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/

TRISH:

Freedom of belief has long been considered a fundamental human right.  Our concept of justice normally advocates punishing behavior, not belief.

Sam Harris advocates verbally attacking belief, and acting with force if necessary (applying a utilitarian moral consideration) to protect human rights. 

TRISH:

My experience traveling in Islamic countries is that the people there are good-hearted and generous.

Mine too. But isn’t that part of the point that Harris is making? These are good people. The extremists (i.e. militant jjihadists) think that they are especially good people, doing good.

TRISH:

To declare these people our enemy because they submit to a culture that is intolerant would be a grave mistake.  Harris avoids this by declaring them hostages in need of rescue.

Never have I ever heard Harris declare Muslims in general as our enemy.  He often in fact goes out of his way to make the distinction between Muslims in general and ” those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good”. He does condemn those who would be apologists for Islam however.

Here is Sam Harris statement on this:
SAM HARRIS:

As I regularly point out when attacking Islam, no one is suffering under the doctrine of Islam more than Muslims are—particularly Muslim women. Those who object to any attack upon the religion of Islam as “racist” or as a symptom of “Islamophobia” display a nauseating insensitivity to the subjugation of women throughout the Muslim world. At this moment, millions of women and girls have been abandoned to illiteracy, forced marriage, and lives of slavery and abuse under the guise of “multiculturalism” and “religious sensitivity.” This is a crime to which every apologist for Islam is now an accomplice.

TRISH:

All we need to do is read the reports of civilians in Iraq to see what befalls the hostages in these “rescues.”  Invading their country is a very good way to turn hostages into fanatics.

What does Iraq have to do with Sam Harris?  Sam Harris has never written or spoken in support of the war in Iraq. Iraq was a secular country at the time of invasion.

It is true that the use of force must be chosen carefully, yes. And it’s limitations taken into account.  Pointing out this case, as you have, of a military invasion and occupation that has been a disaster (for the most part because post-occupation planing was practically non-existent and the invasion occurred without support from the United Nations) does not contradict Harris’s position.

UlsterScots432:

I have neither the time nor inclination (nor perhaps, arguably), the right, to go into my neighbor’s home and tell them how NOT to indoctrinate their children, how to stop hating women, children, gays, how to consider, for a change, critical self-analysis (something almost completely absent from the Muslim world). What I do have the time for, is that if you come over to my yard, or send your child to my yard, to kill my child or me, is to take you out completely.

I would argue that all children have the right to access of the world’s knowledge. If a parent is isolating a child or otherwise preventing them from access to knowledge,  then I think neighbors have an obligation to step-in to protect the child’s rights n that regard. It’s not the rights of the parents, it’s the rights of the children.

UlsterScots432:

Primitive cultures, of which Islam is, beyond any doubt, only respond to power, precisely BECAUSE they lack the cultural intellectual capacity to be reasoned with.

This I would call a biggotted characterization. People are people. The teachings of Islam deserve attack (as do the teachings of any religion - some more than others) but there is no reason to believe that the people who affiliate with islam have any less intellectual capacity than any other people (in fact, my personal experience has been that they have more). Most members of any ideologically based belief system tend to pick and choose among the teachings and beliefs of the system they belong; Muslims appear to me to be no different in this regard.

Riley,

Wow!  You made a lot of points—some of which I agree with, some I disagree with, and some in which I believe we are simply talking past each other.  Rather than going line by line, I’m going to attempt to consolidate and summarize our discussion so far, and to clear up what may be some misapprehensions:

As to my position vis-à-vis the “New Atheists:”  I am not agreeing with nor defending Chris Hedges or any of the other contributors to this discussion.  I admire the “New Atheist” authors for challenging the religious ethic that is taken for granted across most of the American Continent.  I agree with almost everything they say.  Where I disagree with Sam Harris is on two points:
1)  His condemnation of religious moderates, and
2)  His aggressive position towards the religion of Islam.
Given the natural human inclination towards us-them thinking, I think it is extremely important that we attempt to moderate rather that inflame those sentiments.

As to my position vis-à-vis the use of force:  I agree with you that force is sometimes justified.  But I am more conservative about what constitutes justification.  Specifically,
I think force is only justified to counter force.  (Examples:  Force was justified, in my opinion, to free people being held by force in slavery.  Force is always justified to prevent genocide.)  When force must be used, I think it should be limited as much as possible to the actual perpetrators of violence against others and not allowed to generalized to characterizing an entire population as “the enemy.”  Secondly, I don’t believe it is ever justified to escalate the level of force.  I don’t believe force is justified on the basis of what we think someone might do, what they say they advocate doing, or any other general saber-rattling.  As long as people are waging a war of words and ideas, I believe the only justifiable response is with words and ideas.

UlsterScots432,

I completely agree with Riley’s comments.

I agree with almost everything they say.  Where I disagree with Sam Harris is on two points:
1)  His condemnation of religious moderates, and
2)  His aggressive position towards the religion of Islam.

I think it’s important to note that Harris does not condemn religious moderates as people, rather he condemns the practice of honoring/respecting the beliefs of religious moderates as a matter of practice and a cultural norm. Harris argues that the beliefs of “moderates”  and the impact such beliefs have on the problem of “extremism” should not be spared from criticism -  as many have argued that they should. Most significantly however, Harris has an argument for this stance with regard to “religious moderates” and I think it’s wrong for people to focus their criticism on Harris specifically or on his stance in general, rather than addressing his argument itself.

It’s the responsibility of someone who disagrees with Harris to not simply assert that Harris is wrong, but to point out where his argument is wrong.

The Harris Argument: Those who act in accordance with the teachings of a “holy” book, receive tacit support from those who uphold the book as “holy” and act to shelter the book and its teachings from public criticism.

So, if Deuteronomy 22:13-21 dictates that a woman should be stoned to death on her father’s doorstep if she is discovered not to be a virgin on her wedding night (as it does), and a man or a community of people act in accordance with the dictates of that book, we should hold all people who promote that book as being a “holy” at least partly responsible, if not for any one act in particular, than for the pattern of such horrible acts. Those who assert that their book contains commandments and moral teachings of the highest authority (i.e. “God”) and demand respect for that belief are providing a foundational basis (and arguable a logical justification) for the acts of religious “extremists”.

As far as Islam goes, doesn’t Islam deserve our special attention? As substantially practiced throughout the world, what other ideology is as intolerant of criticism (leaders encouraging followers to kill those who are critical of belief-system), more demanding of universal conformity (it’s not enough that a woman who chooses to follow Islam be covered, all women in an Islamic country are expected to be covered), or more responsible for the widespread suppression of women’s rights? Certainly Islam as practiced world-wide is among the world’s worst in each of these categories.

It’s worthy to note that a significant number of Muslims practice what might be termed a “reformed” version of Islam (official and unofficial), but nonetheless, the vast majority of these “moderates” still choose to worship the exact same “holy” book as the “extremists” and they leave that same “holy” book and all it’s misogynistic laws wholly intact, and worse, they still insist that this “holy” book be held universally above reproach.

We don’t need to stop being friends with these people to point out to them that: “Hey, this book of yours promotes horrible things.”

Given the natural human inclination towards us-them thinking, I think it is extremely important that we attempt to moderate rather that inflame those sentiments.

I agree that great care should be taken. But still, we should not be reluctant to to criticize an idea, any idea, even if the idea is essential to a group’s identification. The fact that people are inclined to take criticism of an idea personally is their problem. Rather than kowtow to those who cry-out “bigotry” when the ideas of their group get criticized, I think we need to heighten awareness to the fact that such criticism should be expected.

As to my position vis-à-vis the use of force:  I agree with you that force is sometimes justified.  But I am more conservative about what constitutes justification.  Specifically, I think force is only justified to counter force.  (Examples:  Force was justified, in my opinion, to free people being held by force in slavery.  Force is always justified to prevent genocide.)  When force must be used, I think it should be limited as much as possible to the actual perpetrators of violence against others and not allowed to generalized to characterizing an entire population as “the enemy.”  Secondly, I don’t believe it is ever justified to escalate the level of force.  I don’t believe force is justified on the basis of what we think someone might do, what they say they advocate doing, or any other general saber-rattling.  As long as people are waging a war of words and ideas, I believe the only justifiable response is with words and ideas.

I agree with you on these points. definitely.

UlsterScots432:

I have neither the time nor inclination (nor perhaps, arguably), the right, to go into my neighbor’s home and tell them how NOT to indoctrinate their children, how to stop hating women, children, gays, how to consider, for a change, critical self-analysis (something almost completely absent from the Muslim world). What I do have the time for, is that if you come over to my yard, or send your child to my yard, to kill my child or me, is to take you out completely.

I would argue that all children have the right to access of the world’s knowledge. If a parent is isolating a child or otherwise preventing them from access to knowledge,  then I think neighbors have an obligation to step-in to protect the child’s rights n that regard. It’s not the rights of the parents, it’s the rights of the children.

UlsterScots432:

Primitive cultures, of which Islam is, beyond any doubt, only respond to power, precisely BECAUSE they lack the cultural intellectual capacity to be reasoned with.

This I would call a biggotted characterization. People are people. The teachings of Islam deserve attack (as do the teachings of any religion - some more than others) but there is no reason to believe that the people who affiliate with islam have any less intellectual capacity than any other people (in fact, my personal experience has been that they have more). Most members of any ideologically based belief system tend to pick and choose among the teachings and beliefs of the system they belong; Muslims appear to me to be no different in this regard.

Islam is a primitive culture.  The teachings of Islam ARE Islam.  Confused on what your disagreement is.  Although everyone loves to talk of those obscure “moderates”, the reality is that Islam is a highly ignorant, highly intolerant religion (which has produced a “culture” as much as early Christianity produced much of European culture).  Islam prevents the expression of free thought, free inquiry and any form of skeptical or critical thinking.  This is why the majority of nations and people within the grip of Islam lack the intellectual capacity to be reasoned with.  Their culture does not allow for even basic reason within the family unit.  While I have not traveled nor lived there as much as Hedges, having been to the Middle East and having been in a relationship with a Muslim Infidel (if you ever want the truth talk to someone who left Islam), it is pretty clear that their culture is incapable as an aggregate of using reason as a guide for nearly anything.

This is why our “culture” (the “Western Culture” for lack of a better descriptor) has produced everything from Mozart, to Adam Smith, to Jefferson, to the Beatles, to the Human Genome project to laptops to putting a man on the moon, and to, (gasp) the heavy use of cartoons to express a thought or idea cleverly.  Theirs is the culture of hanging gays by construction booms, throwing acid in the face of women, placing bombs on children, honor killings and lest we forget, killing people over cartoons.

How dare you call my point bigoted in the face of a culture which has been MORE bigoted, hateful and destructive than Christianity could ever hope to have been, as bad as it was during the Dark Ages.  The word for a black person in Arabic is, to this day “Abid” (slave).  You are exactly the problem.  Instead of calling out the class bully, you call out the kids in class that call out the class bully.  Islam is a destructive belief system, as much as ‘old time’ Catholicism (which suppressed human freedom and thought), and MORE ignorant than backwoods Protestant Christianity (which regularly feeds fairy tales to children and adults alike). 

Islam and it’s followers, culturally incapable of reason as they are, have a right to do or be whatever they want, but when they bring it to my doorstep, I am with Harris—get the bombers in the air.  One wonders, at the risk of generalizing your response, what action you would EVER find reasonable in the face of true hatred and murder?  You do realize, Muslims murder muslims, brown-skinned people, straights, gays, women, children, whomever. 

They cannot be reasoned with, and they have shown that, and that is why their culture looks today, like what you would EXPECT of a culture that lacks reason, versus our culture (although we are not perfect, nor shall I argue that).  Our culture looks and acts like a culture, as one would expect, where skepticism and free thought, inquiry, critical thinking, etc, allow us to continually challenge each other and ideals…even on places like this internet board. 

The glorious western culture- castrati, slavery, Nazis, The Inquisition, others..

While Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Muslims were developing Medicine, algebra and Astronomy, they were also the victims of religious zealotry that squelched knowledge ( watch Neil deGrasse Tyson on Beyond Belief 1)

Some of these threads stink of prejudice and racial/ethnic discrimination.

Personally, I believe most of us are the same overall, until we develop true Humanitarian Universality, we are doomed to repeat catastrophe.

A first step is to accept all other Humans as brothers and sisters deserving of equal respect.

The glorious western culture- castrati, slavery, Nazis, The Inquisition, others..

While Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Muslims were developing Medicine, algebra and Astronomy, they were also the victims of religious zealotry that squelched knowledge ( watch Neil deGrasse Tyson on Beyond Belief 1)

Some of these threads stink of prejudice and racial/ethnic discrimination.

Personally, I believe most of us are the same overall, until we develop true Humanitarian Universality, we are doomed to repeat catastrophe.

A first step is to accept all other Humans as brothers and sisters deserving of equal respect.

Right, except that the Crusades and Inquisition were hundreds of years ago and Nazism was one country, DEFEATED BY OTHER WESTERN nations.  It’s the same old thing.

As I said, a society based on critical self-analysis, critical thinking, skepticism, free inquiry, dialogue, etc, produces exactly what you see in the “Western World” (particularly the US as other “Western Countries” have become even more politically correct).  A culture which is incapable of reason, incapable of skepticism, free inquiry, critical thinking, produces exactly what you see in the Arab/Muslim world.  To equate statistical outliers of long ago in the Western Culture (of which I do not claim is perfect), with Islam which as some, including Bernard Lewis, claim did not have a “Golden Age” as claimed, is ridiculous. 

Has ANY Islamic country embraced critical thinking? Well, two cultures/nations/people identified with Islam today were successful, neither of which were Muslim/Arab..Turkey was turned around by the secular Attaturk.  Iran was a successful nation (Persian) until roughly 1979.  They were building things, had women doctors, etc, and they did a near 180 after the grip of Islam found its way around their necks.

Islam is a primitive culture/religion, which suppresses human freedom, freedom of the mind, thought and expression.  To argue otherwise is to suspend disbelief in the face of massive evidence.

The fundies in the U.S. are trying to tear down the wall of separation between church and State.

Our “fellow americans” would be happy to teach creationism and KJB in public schools, sound familiar to the islamists doesn’t it?

[...]Confused on what your disagreement is.[...] This is why the majority of nations and people within the grip of Islam lack the intellectual capacity to be reasoned with. [...]  it is pretty clear that their culture is incapable as an aggregate of using reason as a guide for nearly anything

This is our point of disagreement. Your assertion about the lack of intellectual capacity among the majority of people who practice the religion of Islam (i.e. people “within the grip of Islam”). I’m married to a Muslim. I travel to the Middle East almost every year now and my wife’s family stays for lengthy visits at a time for several months a year. I love them; they’re great. I don’t even mind making sure that grandma’s copy of her holy book (already tucked away in her dedicated carry-on bag) is kept safely off the floor at all times. I don’t respect that silly practice of course, but I have a great deal of respect for her otherwise considerable intellectual capacity and ability reason, and that coupled with her embarrasingly generous and compassionate demeanor makes her someone that I hold in great regard. That culture also produces such a person as my grandma.

How dare you call my point bigoted in the face of a culture which has been MORE bigoted, hateful and destructive than Christianity could ever hope to have been,

Don’t you think that these Christianity vs. Islam “cultural” generalizations constitute bigoted rhetoric? If not this, then what if anything would qualify as bogotry?

Islam and it’s followers, culturally incapable of reason as they are, have a right to do or be whatever they want, but when they bring it to my doorstep, I am with Harris—get the bombers in the air. [...] They cannot be reasoned with, and they have shown that

Yes, more bigotry. “they” .. who are “they”? If “they” come to our shores, then all of “them” deserve to be bombed?  ... just round “them” up and shoot “them” all?  is this your example of an expressed superior intellectual ability and capacity to be reasoned with?

Seriously, take some time and re-examine what you’re saying. Think it through, you’re not making much sense.

Has ANY Islamic country embraced critical thinking? Well, two cultures/nations/people identified with Islam today were successful, neither of which were Muslim/Arab..Turkey was turned around by the secular Attaturk.  Iran was a successful nation (Persian) until roughly 1979. 

So is it Muslims in general that your claim to be incapable of reason or is it just the Arab/Muslims?

Successful up until 1979? You are betraying your religious-obsessed world-view. Iran was already a failing government at least two decades before the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the early 1950s when Iran’s elected prime minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh had the audacity in the face of Western objections to nationalize Iranian oil, the Western powers conspired to remove Mossadegh from power. The man elected by the people of Iran was replaced with a new corrupt government which held onto political power by violently suppressing all political opposition—up until 1979.

This case of British and American interference in the development of a democratic Iran is not much better than the case of European and American slave trading in the mid 18th century or the case of the British forcing Opium upon the Chinese in the mid 19th. There has been a pattern of intrusive and corrupting “Western” influence in governments throughout the world.

For centuries, the British, and French, and Dutch aggressively engaged in the hijacking of governments, the rape of other people’s natural resources and treasures and the frequent exploitation of people (especially in the Middle East, India and Northern Africa). After World War II the United States primarily took over the job of corrupting governments and propping-up dictators for the sake of controlling resources and exploiting labor for the benefit of the oil and fruit companies.

For another point of view: http://fora.tv/2008/04/21/America_and_Islam_After_Iraq_with_Michael_Scheuer

Has ANY Islamic country embraced critical thinking? Well, two cultures/nations/people identified with Islam today were successful, neither of which were Muslim/Arab..Turkey was turned around by the secular Attaturk.  Iran was a successful nation (Persian) until roughly 1979. 

So is it Muslims in general that your claim to be incapable of reason or is it just the Arab/Muslims?

Successful up until 1979? You are betraying your religious-obsessed world-view. Iran was already a failing government at least two decades before the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the early 1950s when Iran’s elected prime minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh had the audacity in the face of Western objections to nationalize Iranian oil, the Western powers conspired to remove Mossadegh from power. The man elected by the people of Iran was replaced with a new corrupt government which held onto political power by violently suppressing all political opposition—up until 1979.

This case of British and American interference in the development of a democratic Iran is not much better than the case of European and American slave trading in the mid 18th century or the case of the British forcing Opium upon the Chinese in the mid 19th. There has been a pattern of intrusive and corrupting “Western” influence in governments throughout the world.

For centuries, the British, and French, and Dutch aggressively engaged in the hijacking of governments, the rape of other people’s natural resources and treasures and the frequent exploitation of people (especially in the Middle East, India and Northern Africa). After World War II the United States primarily took over the job of corrupting governments and propping-up dictators for the sake of controlling resources and exploiting labor for the benefit of the oil and fruit companies.

Riley, I think I would attribute most of the anti-intellectualism within the Muslim world, to the Arab culture specifically.  I don’t agree with the whole “rape of other people’s natural resources” argument either, sorry, the “West” is the culture that produced the very science and scientists that learned (and taught) how to pull and process oil from the ground. 

I know it’s politically correct and liberal to blame the West for everything (or more specifically the US), but the fact is, Israel in the Middle East, and India in Asia and plenty of other countries (Ireland, Poland) have been “colonized”, raided, invaded and otherwise “interfered” with by other cultures, yet have found a way to progress.  For some reason, when we get to cultures as base as the Muslim/Arab culture ,we have to find excuses for their behavior and society in general.  Not ONE DAY goes by that you don’t read another “crazy” story about Islam (today’s is the annulment of a marriage in France because the Muslim bride wasn’t a virgin). 

Again, as stated before, the Muslim culture (particularly as manifested in the Middle East, versus Indonesia), lacks the cultural capacity for critical thinking, self-analysis and progress for the most part.  THAT IS WHY their culture is one in which people kill others over cartoons, strap bombs on children, and wish to drive another, PROGRESSIVE culture, “into the sea”.  All the cultural relativism in the world cannot explain away or justify the modern (contemporary is a better world) Muslim/Arab world.  No matter how many few religious Christian Zealots you find today, or no matter how far you have to go back to find similar conduct in the “Western” world (of which the Dark Ages qualify), the reality is, a very wealthy, resource-rich Middle East, largely remains primitive in belief and action based on Islam.  The nations that will succeed the most, will be the ones that LIMIT Islam’s influence in daily life (as Iran did pre-1979, and UAE does today).  If Islam is pushed to the margins of society, as Christianity is largely here in the US (but even more so in Europe), their culture can change, but Islam itself does not create an atmosphere where disagreement and free inquiry can flourish. 

Western thought came OUT of the Dark Ages, defeated competing ideals and remains a driving force in our ability to progress (we can disagree without killing each other, or forcing our beliefs on others, although we are not perfect at that).  Islam remains in their own Dark Ages.  That’s fine, to a degree, they get to do that, but they DON’T get to force their dark view of the world (their “Death Cult” as I believe IS appropriate to call it) on me, any more than the Nazis had the right to do.

Nothing I am saying has not been said by a small minority voice within the Arab world (all of which are scholars and/or intellectuals that LEFT Islam), like Wafan Sultan and Nonnie Darwish (spelling?).  There are others, all of which have lived in the Muslim/Arab world longer than you, me, or Hedges and who are ethnically Arab/Muslim etc (for lack of a better way to put it).

Riley, I think I would attribute most of the anti-intellectualism within the Muslim world, to the Arab culture specifically.  I don’t agree with the whole “rape of other people’s natural resources” argument either, sorry, the “West” is the culture that produced the very science and scientists that learned (and taught) how to pull and process oil from the ground.

This is a non-sequitur. Having the invented the technology to use and pull a resource from the ground does not justify the sabotage of democratic governments and social institutions in order to take that resource from someone else’s land.

I know it’s politically correct and liberal to blame the West for everything (or more specifically the US), [...]

Transcribing my arguments into hyperbole is not a valid way to a counter the substance of my arguments. I don’t blame the “West” for everything, I blame individuals and governments for the specific actions they take.

[...]but the fact is, Israel in the Middle East, and India in Asia and plenty of other countries (Ireland, Poland) have been “colonized”, raided, invaded and otherwise “interfered” with by other cultures, yet have found a way to progress.

Of course each situation is unique. Not every country has a leader like Gandhi, for example. Maybe more importantly, the Middle-East oil states have endured persistent unfriendly external interference of an intensity and kind which set them apart from the rest of the world, perhaps the rest of history. In 1948 the U.S. State Department called the oil of the Middle East the “greatest strategic prize in history” ... and the rest of the world has acted as you would expect.

The level of intensity and persistence of interference in the Middle East over the past one hundred years, continuing to this day, is unparalleled. Furthermore, this mischief is done for no other reason than to exploit the resources of those countries - there’s little if any interest in the long-term infrastructures and productivity of those countries in general ... all they want to do is maximize the rate of extraction. You’d be right of course to point out that the source of this mischief is not limited to “Western” powers, but that fact does not exonerate those “Western” powers from the mischief they have wreaked and continue to wreak, and this fact certainly doesn’t counter my argument that foreign interference is a decisive factor.

For some reason, when we get to cultures as base as the Muslim/Arab culture ,we have to find excuses for their behavior and society in general.  Not ONE DAY goes by that you don’t read another “crazy” story about Islam (today’s is the annulment of a marriage in France because the Muslim bride wasn’t a virgin).

Just to be clear, I don’t make excuses for these acts. I would just like some perspective on them. Your blanket generalizations are not justified.

Again, as stated before, the Muslim culture (particularly as manifested in the Middle East, versus Indonesia), lacks the cultural capacity for critical thinking, self-analysis and progress for the most part.  THAT IS WHY their culture is one in which people kill others over cartoons, strap bombs on children, and wish to drive another, PROGRESSIVE culture, “into the sea”.  All the cultural relativism in the world cannot explain away or justify the modern (contemporary is a better world) Muslim/Arab world.

By pointing out that the same kind of rhetoric which you use to characterize Muslim culture as incapable of “critical thinking, self-analysis and progress” is also present in Christian culture, I counter your argument that Muslim culture is exceptional. Furthermore, any sufficiently large sample of Muslim culture engaged in critical thinking, self-analysis and progress serves to undermine your argument entirely. Your labeling of these counter-arguments as “cultural relativism”, does nothing to support your position.

No matter how many few religious Christian Zealots you find today, or no matter how far you have to go back to find similar conduct in the “Western” world (of which the Dark Ages qualify), the reality is, a very wealthy, resource-rich Middle East, largely remains primitive in belief and action based on Islam.

First of all, we don’t have to go back at all to find militant Christian zealotry; it is alive and thriving today. And Christian zealots as a group are more wealthy than the Muslim zealots. And yes, I could easily find for you a “crazy” story about some militant Christian group calling for the nuking/bombing/“wiping off the map” of some sovereign nation or people ... it happens every day. And while perhaps this Christian culture does not pose as great a threat as Muslim culture, the Christians are already here.  While you worry about the Muslim threat eventually “coming to our shores”, Christians are already here actively sabotaging science and education. Should we send out the bombers to combat Christian culture? bomb all of Kansas? Do you think that would solve the problem?

The nations that will succeed the most, will be the ones that LIMIT Islam’s influence in daily life (as Iran did pre-1979, and UAE does today).  If Islam is pushed to the margins of society, as Christianity is largely here in the US (but even more so in Europe), their culture can change,.

TOTALLY AGREE!!! ... So again, why do you believe that bombing Muslim nations is going to help bring about that change for the better?

FYI:

“Ibn al-Haytham developed rigorous experimental methods of controlled scientific testing in order to verify theoretical hypotheses and substantiate inductive conjectures.[32] Ibn al-Haytham’s scientific method was similar to the modern scientific method in that it consisted of the following procedures:[33]

  1. Observation
  2. Statement of problem
  3. Formulation of hypothesis
  4. Testing of hypothesis using experimentation
  5. Analysis of experimental results
  6. Interpretation of data and formulation of conclusion
  7. Publication of findings

The development of the scientific method is considered to be fundamental to modern science and some — especially philosophers of science and practicing scientists — consider earlier inquiries into nature to be pre-scientific. Some consider Ibn al-Haytham to be the “first scientist” for this reason.”

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science#Scientific_method

ample reputable references are included in the article.

It was interesting, reading some of the new books that have come out (besides Hirsi-Ali and Darwish), that discuss the polls and surveys that show just HOW irrational and death-worshiping Muslims are in the Middle East.  I recall one poll that asked about suicide bombers and the numbers of supporters was astonishingly high, even in “moderate” countries like Jordan.  Back to my Confederacy analogy (and I am a Southerner)...while it is true that MOST Southerners did not own slaves (which so many of my “cousins” love to point out), the fact is, an entire culture of people armed and supported hundreds of thousands of men to fight to, among other things, maintain slavery.  While it is true their were dissenters,  and those on the “margins” of that belief system (as there is in the Middle East today), as a culture, most of the South was bigoted and ignorant or human rights.  Sherman and Sheridan were right, as sad as it was (to have to destroy much of the South).  The South had to be defeated decisively and shown that there was no alternative but to modernize.  (and some forget the South attacked the North first and many of the arguments used to support that attack were similar to what we’ve heard to justify Peal Harbor and 9-11…the old “they provoked us in other ways”).

Now, I bring that up, because I would bet my LIFE, that in ANY OTHER CONTEXT you would agreed that the South lacked the intellectual capacity (OBVIOUSLY BY THEIR VOTE TO SUCEED AND SUPPORT SLAVERY) to have legitimate, ongoing and fruitful debates about the merits of freedom for all men. Given what you have wrote, and perhaps I generalize, but I would not doubt you are liberal and would be the first in line to bash “white Christian bigots”, but when it comes to Muslims, like many liberal-leaning Americans/Westerners, all the sudden, the hateful, bigoted, death-cult known as Islam is forgiven of it’s wrong-doings and we instead have to discuss how we are big bad imperialist Americans, who like the Dutch, and English have stolen their precious resources (because we all know how much they do with it, like in Saudi Arabia…those riches are of course used for their own people…), and how we are to blame, and how the Crusades were horrible (and occurred hundreds of years ago) and how we are no one to judge, etc.

Why does Islam, which manifests itself much like radical (and rare) Christianity,only worse (how many beheadings have Christians carried out the last 100 years, against people simply because they wouldn’t convert?), get such a pass ?  Islam is MUCH more like David Koresh, and MUCH less like Billy Graham if you want to compare false belief systems. 

While there are dissenters and some intellectuals within the Muslim world, they are few and far between, and because of the very nature of Islam (as any Muslim intellectual will tell you), they cannot have a SAFE intellectual discussion with other Muslims.  In fact, read the NEW YORKER this week.  The main feature is about one such Muslim, who upon making arguments against radicalism was scolded by Zawariri because if what he was saying were true, or could be true, Muslims could not longer beat their wives and they would have to strike sections of the Koran that appear to apply to Jews.  Guess who represents modern-day Islam?

My only claim is that AS A CULTURE, ISLAM, the religion (particularly in the Arab world) does not lend itself, does not have the CAPACITY as a culture, to support intellectual debate, free inquiry, critical thinking, etc.  That is as true as claiming radical Christians (of which are a minority in the world) cannot have a scientific debate about the creation of the Universe, because they take something to be on “faith” rather than reason (they are already conceding they could never engage in a rational debate at that point).  What is the difference?  a) Most Europeans are not active Christians, b) Christianity in the US, while more popular, is also full of a LOT of people who are not true believers (Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcapalian), who also tend to choose science over myth when it gets to the brass tacks, and c) Our SECULAR government provides more protections against the nutjobs that want to teach ID or put the 10 commandments in the courthouse. (please do not compare the few times that has happened, even before being slapped down, with the countless times Muslim countries have supported the STONING, MURDER and HONOR killings of women, suicide bombings by children, etc…please please do not rebut with something that ridiculous…relativism usually rears its ugly head at this point).  Are there Christian whackjobs? YEP…are they ANYWHERE NEAR as dangerous as Muslims? Nope…are they ANYWHERE NEAR the kinds of numbers? Nope, are they anywhere NEAR the type of support?  Nope. 

The funny thing is, the irony, I’m the bigot to you, because I reject a culture (which revolves around a “faith”) that is bigoted, but you don’t seem to hold that culture to the same standard.  The culture that hates women, hangs gays from construction booms in the public square (simply for being gay), and straps bombs on children, gets a pass.

[...] I would not doubt you are liberal and would be the first in line to bash “white Christian bigots”, but when it comes to Muslims, like many liberal-leaning Americans/Westerners, all the sudden, the hateful, bigoted, death-cult known as Islam is forgiven of it’s wrong-doings [...]

Yes, you express no doubt about a lot of things for which you appear to have little or no evidence for, and worse, seem to think such matters are relevant. What possible difference could it make to the merits of an arguments whether or not the source of that argument is “Liberal” ? This type of deduction by generalization is a pattern in your thinking as expressed on this thread.

You are also confused on another point. Making the argument (as I have) that Muslim culture is not particularly exceptional in its hateful and bigoted rhetoric (at least not when compared to Christian culture), is not a defense of Muslim bigotry - as you seem to think it is. 

My point of difference with you does not have to do with a lack of recognition that Islam is a threat. What I take difference with is your gross generalizations of Muslim culture in general, your apparent lack of historical knowledge, and the general lack of perspective in your arguments (and lack of tolerance for the perspective in general) when diagnosing the problem of Islam.  I also take difference with your assertion that a blanket-style military response against Islam (characterized by you as sending out the bombers) would fix the problem. Wat is the mechanism in this type of response for positive change? It’s not that I don’t see a moral justification for military intervention for the sake of others (as in the case of the American civil war - I brought up this example myself in an early post).

Like the governments of the American Confederacy which ruled according to unjust laws, there are specific governments within Muslim culture which rule according to to unjust laws (e.g. sharia in Saudia Arabia and Iran), In these specific cases I agree that there is moral justification for military intervention in principle in order to protect the human rights of oppressed people (specifically women in this case), but even when there is a moral justification in principle, there still needs to be a practical reason to believe that violent intervention will do more good than harm.

The main feature is about one such Muslim, who upon making arguments against radicalism was scolded by Zawariri because if what he was saying were true, or could be true, Muslims could not longer beat their wives and they would have to strike sections of the Koran that appear to apply to Jews.  Guess who represents modern-day Islam?

So you think such “scolding” is an exceptional feature of Islam and that Zawariri is representative of modern-day Islam?

Are there Christian whackjobs? YEP…are they ANYWHERE NEAR as dangerous as Muslims? Nope…are they ANYWHERE NEAR the kinds of numbers? Nope, are they anywhere NEAR the type of support?  Nope. 

When it comes to damage caused and threat posed to America, yes, yes, yes,  and yes. It’s true that our secular government insulates us from the threats of Christian culture to some extent. Same is true of Muslim culture in America.

[...] I would not doubt you are liberal and would be the first in line to bash “white Christian bigots”, but when it comes to Muslims, like many liberal-leaning Americans/Westerners, all the sudden, the hateful, bigoted, death-cult known as Islam is forgiven of it’s wrong-doings [...]

Yes, you express no doubt about a lot of things for which you appear to have little or no evidence for, and worse, seem to think such matters are relevant. What possible difference could it make to the merits of an arguments whether or not the source of that argument is “Liberal” ? This type of deduction by generalization is a pattern in your thinking as expressed on this thread.

You are also confused on another point. Making the argument (as I have) that Muslim culture is not particularly exceptional in its hateful and bigoted rhetoric (at least not when compared to Christian culture), is not a defense of Muslim bigotry - as you seem to think it is. 

My point of difference with you does not have to do with a lack of recognition that Islam is a threat. What I take difference with is your gross generalizations of Muslim culture in general, your apparent lack of historical knowledge, and the general lack of perspective in your arguments (and lack of tolerance for the perspective in general) when diagnosing the problem of Islam.  I also take difference with your assertion that a blanket-style military response against Islam (characterized by you as sending out the bombers) would fix the problem. Wat is the mechanism in this type of response for positive change? It’s not that I don’t see a moral justification for military intervention for the sake of others (as in the case of the American civil war - I brought up this example myself in an early post).

Like the governments of the American Confederacy which ruled according to unjust laws, there are specific governments within Muslim culture which rule according to to unjust laws (e.g. sharia in Saudia Arabia and Iran), In these specific cases I agree that there is moral justification for military intervention in principle in order to protect the human rights of oppressed people (specifically women in this case), but even when there is a moral justification in principle, there still needs to be a practical reason to believe that violent intervention will do more good than harm.

The main feature is about one such Muslim, who upon making arguments against radicalism was scolded by Zawariri because if what he was saying were true, or could be true, Muslims could not longer beat their wives and they would have to strike sections of the Koran that appear to apply to Jews.  Guess who represents modern-day Islam?

So you think such “scolding” is an exceptional feature of Islam and that Zawariri is representative of modern-day Islam?

Are there Christian whackjobs? YEP…are they ANYWHERE NEAR as dangerous as Muslims? Nope…are they ANYWHERE NEAR the kinds of numbers? Nope, are they anywhere NEAR the type of support?  Nope. 

When it comes to damage caused and threat posed to America, yes, yes, yes,  and yes. It’s true that our secular government insulates us from the threats of Christian culture to some extent. Same is true of Muslim culture in America.

You no doubt find “little evidence” in the overwhelming evidence that Islam is a religion that lends itself, particularly, to terrorism, the murder of innocent civilians, and the general hatred and contempt for: women, gays, children, those who disagree, any other religion. 

The number one requirement for a pluralist society, is BELIEF in the concept of a pluralist society.  That largely does not exist within the muslim world.  Apparently you missed the last 30 years, specifically, of hateful terroristic attacks on those who happen to disagree with their religion, and their attacks on various people, including other muslims and even those in countries that have traditionally been “Friendly” to Islam (like Spain). 

I have no doubt that you fail to see plenty of evidence of the horrors Islam but see much of that everywhere within Christianity.  For every 100 beheadings or hangings, or stonings, of people whose only crime was to have premarital sex, or be gay, or fail to convert to Islam, I am sure you see those awful Christian radical abortion doctor murderers.  No amount of evidence would ever be enough, and you would go back a 1,000 years in order to find Christians (whom were guilty of atrocities themselves) to find the equal to today’s Islam. 

There is nothing bigoted about saying that Islam, as a culture/belief system is not an open culture, that it does not lend itself to free inquiry or skeptical/critical thinking.  Certainly that is the view of an obscure, albeit small cadre of former Muslims who have experienced both the West and Islam from an intellectual experience. 

Me thinks if groups of White Christians were doing what Muslims routinely do in the Middle East, somewhere in some obscure part of backwoods Kentucky, you would be all over this.  Islam makes radical Christianity look like a walk in the park.  They aren’t kidding around.  If they could murder every single homosexual in San Francisco, they would.  if they could “drive Israel into the sea” they would (and have thrice tried, or was not not “evidence” to you?).  If they could make every Western women wear covering, head to toe, they would. 

We live in two different worlds you and I, thankfully.  It will be interesting to watch and read your further justifications of such a hateful, irrational religion.

It will be interesting to watch and read your further justifications of such a hateful, irrational religion.

yes, you do have a tendency to shift the playing field of an argument in order to suit your ranting. “Further justification”? Can you even cite what you think to be my first justification ?

Having just finished Hedge’s book, I think that his point is on target. 

I think it can be paraphrased as follows:
It is a mistake to ignore the reality of the natural human capacity for evil (via harm/cruelty to other humans), and further, this natural capacity has and will always exist.  Attempts to change this nature through science, reason, religion, mysticism or any other method are exercises in futility.

Hedges does make some statements about “The New Atheists” that I don’t agree with, but I’m willing to put them aside to focus on the above point.

It reminds me of the South Park episode about Dawkins and atheism that illustrates that, even without religion, there will be turmoil among atheist factions based on differeing interpretations about the “right” way to be an atheist or lead a secular nation.

Bottom line: utopic visions are bunk.

Thoughts?

Bottom line: utopic visions are bunk.

Thoughts?

Two thoughts:

1) Hedges misrepresents the views of Dawkins, Dennet, and most dramatically those of Harris.

2) Hedges relies on false hyperbola to make his arguments. The “new atheists” argue that the world would be a better place ... NOT ...  that the world would be a utopia, just that it would be better. Recognizing the natural human capacity for evil,  the argument is that we should build institutions to mitigate the harmful effects of those natural human tendencies. No one has claimed that we will eliminate this natural human capacity, just that we can mitigate its impact.

My two thoughts:

1) It may be a mistake to ignore that there is a deeply rooted capacity for misdeeds in the human psyche, but it a graver mistake to dismiss such acts “se la vi.”  If we are prepared to do this, then what is the point in even talking about it?

There is also a capacity in humans for kindness and decency and it is not so that all humans will always cause harm and act cruelly toward others.  Some do and some don’t, and some will and some won’t.  The constructive way to approach human misdeeds is to consider what feelings are behind them (in the cases Chris discusses, for example- greed, anger over perceived economic injustice, etc.) and what thought systems lead toward such inappropriate actions (ding, ding, ding… PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGIES).  In the case of human animals we can not separate such thought systems from actions.  They are integral motivators for human behavior.  And if we are to be constructive about finding solutions to global problems, we must be critical of the way that people who perform misdeeds think.

2) Chris Hedges book is titled “I Don’t Believe in Atheists.”  Whatever good stuff he may be say otherwise rests along the side of his heathen bash.  Titles generally reflect central themes.  This was also the central theme of the podcast.  His book is not titled “The Socio-economic Basis for Violence in The Middle East.”

I have tended to agree with Chris Hedges about many points over the years.  But it seems rather clear to me that, at this stage in his career, he is just axe grinding over blasphemers.  It’s not very nice what he is saying about people who are not religious.  Unfortunately and despite a very constructive career with The Nation magazine, his current obsession with absurd emotivism drastically lessens his intellectual credibility.  And more importantly, it lessens his moral credibility.

It will be interesting to watch and read your further justifications of such a hateful, irrational religion.

yes, you do have a tendency to shift the playing field of an argument in order to suit your ranting. “Further justification”? Can you even cite what you think to be my first justification ?

No, Riley, actually I’ve remained consistent in my premise, which is that Islam, as a culture/religion, does not lend itself to free thought, inquiry, critical thinking, etc.  As I noted, a pluralist society can only be held by a culture that BELIEVES in the concept of such.  Islam doesn’t.  And the few academic/intellectual standouts (like Wafa or Salmon Rushdie) have had to live OUTSIDE of the Muslim culture in order to express their beliefs. 

As to your justifications, making comments about how the Dutch and English/US, etc, used or ‘exploited’ the Muslims’ resources gives the appearance that you believe they have some right to be justified in their murderous adventures. 

By the way, do you believe that the Muslim culture DOES indeed support free inquiry?  Critical thinking?  (looks like there was another bombing based on the anger over cartoons again yesterday).  So the current (and frankly, last few hundred years of) Muslim culture and Arab world is what you would expect of a culture that nurtures free thought? really?  Wow.  That the culture of Islam has the intellectual capacity to do so?  (as it has been said, if it is tolerance that they seek, it will not be found in the Koran, there is no doctrinal support for it). 

I stand by my premise, Islam does not have the cultural intellectual capacity to allow for free thought, or critical thinking.  It is not supported,  not only by the government, but by the people, nor by the Koran.  They are trapped in the Dark Ages and anyone who DOES come out in support of free thought has to typically leave their home country and seek asylum. 

You have remarkable knack for dismissing the obvious and demonstrably true, Riley.  But perhaps you know better than Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Salman Rushdie.

From Wafa Sultan:

“I have decided to fight Islam; please pay attention to my statement; to fight Islam, not the political Islam, not the militant Islam, not the radical Islam, not the Wahhabi Islam, but Islam itself…Islam has never been misunderstood, Islam is the problem….(Muslims) have to realize that they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed.”

But moreover, from this very site, something that I brought up early on, which is that no criticism is allowed, on even the most basic level (family level).  It was astonishing to hear the stories of my Lebanese friend and what she endured under Islam (women have absolutely NO SAY in anything in most of the Muslim world, 50 percent of the population is immediately discounted):

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis/islamic_viewpoints/islam_and_secularization/

“At least in the Arabic speaking Islamic world, the key to understanding Muslim society is, as David Pryce Jones in a brilliant analysis put it, “acquisition of honour, pride, dignity, respect, and the converse avoidance of shame, disgrace, and humiliation … ”  The powerful codes of shame and honour, which are a legacy of the tribal society from which Muslim Arab society is descended, enforce identity and conformity of behaviour. Everything is permitted in order to safeguard the family or tribal honour, lying, cheating, and even murder. Honour makes life worth living whereas shame is a living death. Shame and honour involve publicity ; success involves bragging, and shames means public humiliation; now we can see that the Western penchant for self-criticism is impossible in a Muslim society, for to criticize is to bring humiliation however just the criticism, and thus self-criticism is doubly incomprehensible in such a society. To allow another religion, for example, a fair hearing is also unthinkable, because this risks humiliation for one’s own ; pluralism is hence also impossible. Such a society imposes strict codes of social behaviour, and requires absolute obedience. For example, on the domestic level, it is impossible for a son to to grow up and “assert his own individuality without upsetting, insulting, or otherwise calling into question his father’s honour as head of the household and probably his mother’s as well.” On the political level it means absolute obedience to the ruler.”

The problem with your line of reasoning is that the only solutions have been tried before, did not work and/or are unacceptable as ethical humans (Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust, other atrocities)

The problem with your line of reasoning is that the only solutions have been tried before, did not work and/or are unacceptable as ethical humans (Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust, other atrocities)

My only “solution” is that we defend ourselves, as stated in my original analogy.  I am not on any crusade to change Muslims, they have a right to believe whatever they wish, just as Southern Baptists do (of which I was unfortunately raised).  However, when they attempt to kill me, or others like me, simply for the crime of not agreeing with them, then I am for the use of force.  To refuse to consider or even use such means of defense is a refusal to care for one’s own life. 

Islam is the Borg, and everywhere they exist in any numbers, and are NOT restrained by a strong secular government (like the US) they spread their hateful belief system.  No one should give them a free pass, any more than you would a radical Confederate general seeking to impose slavery on an entire group of people and/or kill anyone who disagrees (obviously, one could argue Southerners weren’t even really attempting the latter). 

From strapping bombs to children (and sharing “cute” photos of their children in mock-ups), to throwing acid in the face of women who wear make-up or refuse to “properly cover” themselves, to hanging gays, to shooting their daughter/sister because she had sex before marriage, to clitorectomies, to beheadings, to the bombing of innocents, to the stabbing Theo van Gogh, who made a film about violence against women in Islamic societies, and was murdered in Amsterdam, Islam spreads hate and destruction everywhere it exists.  It is an intolerant, bigoted, hateful belief system akin to fascism.

No excuses, no qualifiers, no discussions about the Crusades of a thousand years ago, no apologies that we don’t understand them, or have invaded their lands and “taken” their resources (and what exactly were the Muslims doing in Portugal and Spain?), no cultural or moral relativism, nothing.  Free thinkers should stop with all the “yes, but…” conversations that earn us the reputation as being soft on other cultures about matters in which we would be very harsh with Christians or otherwise “westerners”.  This is why free inqury, secularism, etc, is so strongly identified with liberalism, because discussions almost always include a counter-argument of the the same kind of “root causes” “you just don’t understand what they really mean” type dialogue that has plagued the politically correct quarters of secularism for years.

As a libertarian, I am SO TIRED of the excuses made by the “Left” (like Hedges) who simply cannot bring themselves to admit that today’s Islam (primarily in the Arab world) is a world full of David Koreshes (worse).  They mean what they say, they say what they mean, and we do not have to “interpret” it, or seek to make it out to be something it isn’t.  They are a culture of death, hatred and destruction, not of reason.  Therefore, we have an affirmative duty to protect ourselves from them unapologetically.

As the “hippie” lyrics say, “let’s give Peace a chance”.

Bigotry is not the exclusive realm of Muslims, any of us can succumb to the “dark” side. Zimbardo and other experimental psychologist have proven that any of us could become sadistic monster, some in the name of religion, others obeying “Authority”. There are too few documentaries showing a history of Islamic tolerance: http://www.pbs.org/citiesoflight/ We are also quick to forget Western Culture atrocities against their own: Giordano Bruno among others. Christian acceptance and tolerance of Jews is a fairly recent phenomenon, and perhaps a more twisted perversion of zealotry (listen to http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michelle_goldberg_kingdom_coming/ )

Maybe we all are trying to rise above our base primate instincts, find some way to modulate our greed, religion has been one the cultural adaptations/inventions to accomplish that. Until we can truly provide a compelling method of practicing Secular Universalism, we are at the mercy/scourge of cultural religious constructs.

As the “hippie” lyrics say, “let’s give Peace a chance”.

Bigotry is not the exclusive realm of Muslims, any of us can succumb to the “dark” side. Zimbardo and other experimental psychologist have proven that any of us could become sadistic monster, some in the name of religion, others obeying “Authority”. There are too few documentaries showing a history of Islamic tolerance: http://www.pbs.org/citiesoflight/ We are also quick to forget Western Culture atrocities against their own: Giordano Bruno among others. Christian acceptance and tolerance of Jews is a fairly recent phenomenon, and perhaps a more twisted perversion of zealotry (listen to http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michelle_goldberg_kingdom_coming/ )

Maybe we all are trying to rise above our base primate instincts, find some way to modulate our greed, religion has been one the cultural adaptations/inventions to accomplish that. Until we can truly provide a compelling method of practicing Secular Universalism, we are at the mercy/scourge of cultural religious constructs.

Bigotry certainly is NOT the exclusive realm of Muslims but unfortunately, they have become the favored child of political correctness (if you can even call it that), and are not forced to come into the 21st Century by other cultures through Non-aggressive means (as South Africa was, for example).  Islam has many more apologist than its doctrine, government, history, or yes, culture, deserve. 

I think greed is fine, but in a truly objective Secular system (of which ours is probably one of the closest), people can’t force their ideals on you or others.  That ideal isn’t going to be compelling to any culture, or within any culture in which “spoils” are more virtuous than hard physical and intellectual labor (a topic of which Nonnie Darwish addresses in her book).  The spoils start in the family unit and extend to the tribe, at the cost of reason, unfortunately.

It will be interesting to watch and read your further justifications of such a hateful, irrational religion.

yes, you do have a tendency to shift the playing field of an argument in order to suit your ranting. “Further justification”? Can you even cite what you think to be my first justification ?

No, Riley, actually I’ve remained consistent in my premise, which is that Islam, as a culture/religion, does not lend itself to free thought, inquiry, critical thinking, etc.  [...]

You’re all over the map on just about everything else. You make a claim, I respond to your claim, you re-frame my response to be a justification for crimes (e.g. honor killings) or dismiss it as “America bashing” or ignore it completely and move on to your next unsubstantiated/indefensible claim before rejoining back into your chorus of ranting about “Liberals” and Musims.

It’s not that there is any justification for the crimes committed in the name of Islam, it’s that your words are bigoted, your thinking tribal (“us” vs “them” liberal, libertarian, conservative ideologically based arguments), and most importantly, your proposed solutions remain unsupported:

What is the mechanism for making your call to violent action work?!?!
We have no real great disagreement about the fact that Islam is a problem and that the practice of honor killing and that the oppression of women must stop —- and yet you keep insisting on returning to that rant.

As to your justifications, making comments about how the Dutch and English/US, etc, used or ‘exploited’ the Muslims’ resources gives the appearance that you believe they have some right to be justified in their murderous adventures.

My direct response to your rhetorical claim: “Has ANY Islamic country embraced critical thinking? Well, two cultures/nations/people identified within Islam today were successful, neither of which were Muslim/Arab”
—How you take my response to your claim about the cause of failed Muslim/Arab nations and get from it an argument in defense for honor killings and such; I’d like to know.  This is not an idle request. I’d seriously like you to demonstrate your line of reasoning, from one step to the next. It would be helpful to better understand what you consider “critical thinking”.

By the way, do you believe that the Muslim culture DOES indeed support free inquiry?  Critical thinking?

Religions in general, including of course Islam, are by their nature in conflict with free inquiry and critical thinking.  Predictably, when a religion is given the authority of government, free inquiry gets suppressed and decision-making more dogmatic (note: more dogmatic, not void of the capacity for critical thought). The people and nations which subscribe to a religious ideology are rarely if ever single minded in their dedication ... they are mixed. Most of Islam contains people of mixed ideological dedication.

I stand by my premise, Islam does not have the cultural intellectual capacity to allow for free thought, or critical thinking.

I accept the challenge to prove your premise wrong.

Based on the conditions of your claim, all I should need to do is demonstrate a population of Muslims practicing free-thought (at least as much as a Christian population does I assume), and/or critical thinking. Right?

If I can’t find any evidence to counter your premise, I’m certainly willing to admit being wrong and adjust my position accordingly. Are you prepared to admit being wrong and to adjust your position if I present the evidence that does counter your premise?

What do you mean my “solution”, you mean, the temerity of a “free thinker” to believe in self-defense?  Huh?  Explain what you mean? And how my words were bigoted- you mean, in that I claim (and provide examples) that Islam is a hateful, bigoted belief system ?  What exactly is your counter-contention, because I’ve read (to use your favorite term) your “rants” and I still don’t see what you are arguing, or arguing against per se, and it seems you are arguing with yourself.  Did you even read any of the above authors ? Or the cut and paste from this website about this very issue?

Riley, it seems that you consider yourself a real intellect, but really you haven’t said much to dispute my assertion, and you ramble about other issues instead of focusing on my assertion and even the above quotes (one from this very website).  My claim is of Islam as a culture/religion.  That doesn’t mean that there is not one person, or portion of a population (and Lebanon was probably the greatest example, until recently), or anyone ever in the history of Islam that never expressed a critical thought, but that as a “culture” they do not value critical thinking, or free inquiry.  If you want to dispute that, fine, but that is not demonstrated in the world we live in, today, nor by the words of the very few “dissidents” out there that have to run and hide in other countries to express some criticism of Islam. 

Oddly, I cut and pasted such an assertion from this very website, and yet you still don’t address that. I’ve mentioned the authors who have basically said the same thing (and live in fear for their lives for the same reasons as the original assertion), yet you seem immune to the evidence.  If you believe I have been “all over the map” you are welcome to, as the more I read from you, the less I think your opinion is of much concern. 

You’ve patronized me, repeatedly, which I’ve ignored until now, and attempted to play the intellectual giant , but you still haven’t appeared to have convinced anyone that my assertion is incorrect, or that all the above noted authors are incorrect, or that the SAME information/assertion from this very website is incorrect.

So..(drum roll, since you like the drama) ARE YOU, RILEY,... “prepared to admit” you are wrong, when you contend that people are wrong when they assert that Islam is a culture of intolerance that does not lend itself to critical thought and analysis (however you want to word it?). 

Reading some of your other posts, I see you are a bit tedious, generally.  And I am not certain that any amount of evidence would cause you to agree that Islam is intolerant and does not support a culture of free thought. But maybe I am wrong. 

Seriously, and this is no idle request, I would still like to see your response to the above authors and their claims about Islam that are no different than mine (except much broader and more detailed based on their own personal experience).  I’d also like to see you address the lack of response in the Muslim world to things like: Murder over cartoons.  I assume, perhaps wrongly, that you are contending Islam DOES support critical thinking.  Please provide examples of where Islam is an open culture, for example, where people like any number of the above authors, live and write freely in a Muslim country, without fear of retribution.

Please provide examples. Also, why did all these “dissenters” have to leave Muslim nations/cultures, in order to express themselves?  Why are they hiding in the WEST (western culture) ?

Thought this might be interesting to post: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/242050.htm

One of the questions I have pondered is, why is it that the cultures that Islam is the prevailing religion in, are so backward compared to cultures of Christianity.  I believe one reason, as we have seen in Europe and I believe is happening more and more in the US is, most “Christians” really don’t believe much of Christianity and are able to maintain a sort of cognitive-dissonance between what they read and what they do in their daily lives.

The Old Testament is similar to the Koran in it’s intractable tenants to murder, rape and destroy.  The only thing I can figure is, the New Testament, which seems to contradict the OT, allowed an intellectual loophole which got the whole Reformation and Age of Enlightenment going. 

Much more played a part, many things were already culturally different between Europeans and Arabs, and the nature of their organization and resources, but it is interesting to discuss, particularly with this argument. 

Daniel Pipes and others (I believe Waraq had said the same thing), have said that there isn’t going to BE any “Reformation” within Islam because there is nothing scripturally based to allow for it.  Which means, we would do better, if one was inclined to actively try to persuade someone or a people that I think are highly irrational (as I have stated), to go for a wholesale attack on the mysticism and myth aspect of religion as a PRACTICE, versus trying to water down a particular religious belief system, such as Islam in this case.

It would seem the only well to lead this horse to water at, is one of atheism and 100 percent secularism, which I support.

I am under the impression that historical “Conversions” always involved force.

How could a secular society ever force (lead to water [remember you can lead the horse, but you cannot force the horse to drink])
anybody into dis or non belief ?

I agree, I don’t think it can, and I am only interested in self-defense, not forcing them to do anything (nor creating laws to prevent or force them to do or not do anything intellectual, with their children).  Aside from the obvious, that we are a different nation, or NATIONS, from Muslim nations, with different laws, I am not sure what you could do, except continue to defend our own culture and continue to let the rest of the world go about it’s business (China/India).

We know that having them educated here has not always mattered, nor has education in general.  As the actual research showed, many of the so-called “radicals” were highly educated, if not educated HERE.  Which creates an interesting set of facts:  Muslims who lived in the US for YEARS and were educated here, still turned out irrational and hate-filled.  This has been noted in the UK and Holland as well (the second generation being much more “radical” than their parents).  The whole “root causes” explanation doesn’t work, because other minorities similarly situated don’t respond to the prevailing culture like Muslims do (like the riots in France).

As a libertarian, I am SO TIRED of the excuses made by the “Left” (like Hedges) who simply cannot bring themselves to admit that today’s Islam (primarily in the Arab world) is a world full of David Koreshes (worse).  They mean what they say, they say what they mean, and we do not have to “interpret” it, or seek to make it out to be something it isn’t.  They are a culture of death, hatred and destruction, not of reason.  Therefore, we have an affirmative duty to protect ourselves from them unapologetically.

Odd that Ultser the ‘libertarian’ refers to Koresh in this context. Koresh and his followers in the racially integrated Branch Davidian religious commune near Waco committed no crime, but were targetted for mass murder by the Clinton/Reno justice department as a signature example of what will happen to citizens for exercising the constitutional right to engage in armed self defense.

By the twisted logic of such state-worshipping ‘anarchists’, however, the U.S. is ‘defending itself’ by waging aggressive, racist wars of occupation against Islamic countries.

As a libertarian, I am SO TIRED of the excuses made by the “Left” (like Hedges) who simply cannot bring themselves to admit that today’s Islam (primarily in the Arab world) is a world full of David Koreshes (worse).  They mean what they say, they say what they mean, and we do not have to “interpret” it, or seek to make it out to be something it isn’t.  They are a culture of death, hatred and destruction, not of reason.  Therefore, we have an affirmative duty to protect ourselves from them unapologetically.

Odd that Ultser the ‘libertarian’ refers to Koresh in this context. Koresh and his followers in the racially integrated Branch Davidian religious commune near Waco committed no crime, but were targetted for mass murder by the Clinton/Reno justice department as a signature example of what will happen to citizens for exercising the constitutional right to engage in armed self defense.

By the twisted logic of such state-worshipping ‘anarchists’, however, the U.S. is ‘defending itself’ by waging aggressive, racist wars of occupation against Islamic countries.

I meant it in the terms of his “wacky” religious beliefs, not his dispute with the government. One is political in nature and would be true regardless of his religious beliefs, and one is religious and should be addressed in terms of his delusional madness (that he was a messiah figure, etc).

He would be considered the “extreme” of Christianity (if you could even categorize him as such).  Not all libertarians are of the same view about Koresh.  I’m with those that thought he should have turned himself in when he knew there was a warrant out for him, and he realized they were coming after the entire compound (to “get him out” supposedly).  I think that probably would have been the moral thing to do.  I could have chosen a better example, like say, the Spanish Inquisition being more on par with today’s Islam and it’s intolerance of those who disagree. 

I haven’t seen any evidence that Koresh was “targeted” for mass murder.  I think it was a situation in which Reno basically had no clue what she was doing and wanted to show how big and tough her DOJ was.

Btw, what does it matter if they were racially integrated? What if they were 100 percent black?  It wouldn’t make their arguments, if they actually chose to articulate them, any more or less valid.  Jim Jones’ compound was racially integrated. 

I see the Randy Weaver case as a situation where someone was, as the evidence at least appeared to show, “targeted”.  Not for murder, but for arrest, when all he was doing was minding his own business carrying out his beliefs.

I could have chosen a better example, like say, the Spanish Inquisition being more on par with today’s Islam and it’s intolerance of those who disagree. 

Rationalizing the mass slaughter of the Branch Davidians - men, women, children and infants - by the FBI because they didn’t think the ‘right’ thoughts as determined by the state is the correct analogy for the Harris/Hitchens program of enlisting secular humanism to justify imperialist wars of aggression/occupation against Muslim countries.

This is how ‘democracies’ defend themselves from ‘the forces of intolerance.’

[this] is the correct analogy for the Harris/Hitchens program of enlisting secular humanism to justify imperialist wars of aggression/occupation against Muslim countries.

I don’t think it’s fair to lump Hitchens and Harris together. Their views on these things are distinctly different.

I could have chosen a better example, like say, the Spanish Inquisition being more on par with today’s Islam and it’s intolerance of those who disagree. 

Rationalizing the mass slaughter of the Branch Davidians - men, women, children and infants - by the FBI because they didn’t think the ‘right’ thoughts as determined by the state is the correct analogy for the Harris/Hitchens program of enlisting secular humanism to justify imperialist wars of aggression/occupation against Muslim countries.

This is how ‘democracies’ defend themselves from ‘the forces of intolerance.’

I certainly wouldn’t rationalize mass suicide, which what appeared to have happened.  Folks can argue over whether a raid precipitates individuals deciding to commit suicide (or homicide, as it appears some inside the compound took the lives of others and we will never know how voluntary it was), or whether an individual like Koresh has a duty to give himself up once he REALIZES (if you are to take the view the FBI wanted to “murder” them), that they really are going to have a violent confrontation.  One could argue, knowing that, regardless of the FBI’s motive, he had a duty to turn himself in and thwart a mass confrontation likely to end in the death of everyone inside.

Where is the evidence that it was premeditated mass murder by the FBI?  I’ve never seen that.  Most agents are regular people, albeit overzealous at times, who if anything, are guilty of flawed policy.  But they don’t wake up every day planning to kill someone. 

As to the analogy of war against Islamic countries:

I am not sure what imperialist war of aggression we have against the Muslim “countries”.  Islamists attacked sovereign US soil in 1979 and continued to do so with various attacks throughout the 90s and beyond.  Iraq to me, is a natural outcome of the UN (which I am opposed to).  You get yourself involved in a body that goes around telling countries what they can and can’t do, and broadcasts what they find (the appearance of nukes was important to Hussein), and this body starts issuing “resolutions”, someone at some point is going to try to enforce them.  The entire world community believed he had WMDs and as we know, he WANTED everyone to believe that. 

The whole beginning of the war has been discussed for years, and I am not justifying it, just saying that in my view, all those people (*yes, they tend to be liberals) who just LOVE the UN, are now angry that someone (this admin) took the resolutions seriously.  We also know that Hussein was supporting some terrorism (paying the families of suicide bombers, etc). 

Islamic countries have attacked Israel three times (and lost each time)...maybe they should look in the mirror when they talk about the US.

What do you mean my “solution”, you mean, the temerity of a “free thinker” to believe in self-defense?

No, I mean your assertion that force is the only solution.
EXAMPLE: UlsterScots432:  Islam lacks “the cultural intellectual capacity to be reasoned with. [...] force is the only thing they respond to, or respect”.

Explain what you mean? And how my words were bigoted

—————————————
EXAMPLES OF BIGOTED STATEMENTS:
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
EXAMPLE 1: UlsterScots432: “Primitive cultures, of which Islam is, beyond any doubt, only respond to power, precisely BECAUSE they lack the cultural intellectual capacity to be reasoned with.” ... admittedly this is more dogmatic than bigoted.  Dogmatic because it is an opinion asserted “beyond any doubt” as a fact. Bigoted because it’s a homogenized characterization of a diverse culture.

EXAMPLE 2:  UlsterScots432: “Islam and it’s followers, culturally incapable of reason as they are ...” is a bigoted comment again because it generalizes an entire group of people based on (if anything) a subset of that people.

EXAMPLE 3:  UlsterScots432: “They cannot be reasoned with, and they have shown that, and that is why their culture looks today, like what you would EXPECT of a culture that lacks reason” is a bigoted comment again because it generalizes an entire group of people (“They” cannot be reasoned with). It’s worse because it’s also loaded with assumptions based on simple-minded claims about why their culture looks the way it does today. 

—————————————
EXAMPLES OF LOADED (AND FALSE) ASSUMPTIONS:
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
EXAMPLE 1: UlsterScots432: “[the reason why Muslim culture (particularly Arab/Muslim culture) looks the way it looks today is because] they cannot be reasoned with”.

EXAMPLE 2: UlsterScots432: “I stand by my premise, Islam does not have the cultural intellectual capacity to allow for free thought, or critical thinking.”

EXAMPLE 3: UlsterScots432:  “Islam does not have the cultural intellectual capacity to allow for free thought, or critical thinking.  It is not supported, not only by the government, but by the people, nor by the Koran. “

EXAMPLE 4:UlsterScots432: “it is pretty clear that [Muslim] culture is incapable as an aggregate of using reason as a guide for nearly anything”
Seven centuries of innovations in math and science within Muslim culture prove your claims in this regard wrong.  (note: this historical context is provided in response to your specific claim with regard to the capacity of Muslim culture to engage in critical thinking. Nothing more. )

Also, why did all these “dissenters” have to leave Muslim nations/cultures, in order to express themselves?

  Because there are Muslims trying to kill them. 
. .
I don’t address the quotes of people you have posted, because I don’t particularly disagree with them. I’m not sure what controversial claim it is that you are attempting to support with those quotes.  I agree that there are very large, well organized, and murderous Muslim groups using Islam as motivation/ justification for violence and suppression of people, and I’ve already said as much. What I disagree with are your blanket generalizations about Muslim culture, your unsupported claims, and bigoted comments. Yes, Islam, like most all other religions, tends to suppress critical thinking, but that doesn’t by a long stretch mean that those people who are part of Muslim culture (or any other religious culture) are incapable of critical thinking.

Two thoughts:

1) Hedges misrepresents the views of Dawkins, Dennet, and most dramatically those of Harris.

2) Hedges relies on false hyperbola to make his arguments. The “new atheists” argue that the world would be a better place ... NOT ...  that the world would be a utopia, just that it would be better. Recognizing the natural human capacity for evil,  the argument is that we should build institutions to mitigate the harmful effects of those natural human tendencies. No one has claimed that we will eliminate this natural human capacity, just that we can mitigate its impact.

1) There are indeed some leaps of logic that Hedges make that I can’t rectify having read most of the books by the authors he mentions.  I’m with you on that.

2) Since I interpret his main argument as stated in my last post, I’m a little more forgiving of Hedges exagerrating to make that point.  Even though I agree mostly w/ the new atheists, I don’t hold them up as the final word on anything so I don’t feel particularly obligated to defend them.  They are much better at it than I.  Further, arguing details obfuscates the take-home message, which you seem to agree with.

Also, I find the argument that “the world would be better (w/o religion I’m assuming)” as a slippery slope towards utopianism.

Some questions: How can science, reason or atheism mitigate emotions?  Can we change nature?  For me these are the questions at the heart of Hedges book regardless of how ham-handed he is in getting to it.  And they are very important questions for secular humanists to ponder.

I look forward to your response Riley.

My two thoughts:

1) It may be a mistake to ignore that there is a deeply rooted capacity for misdeeds in the human psyche, but it a graver mistake to dismiss such acts “se la vi.”  If we are prepared to do this, then what is the point in even talking about it?

There is also a capacity in humans for kindness and decency and it is not so that all humans will always cause harm and act cruelly toward others.  Some do and some don’t, and some will and some won’t.  The constructive way to approach human misdeeds is to consider what feelings are behind them (in the cases Chris discusses, for example- greed, anger over perceived economic injustice, etc.) and what thought systems lead toward such inappropriate actions (ding, ding, ding… PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGIES).  In the case of human animals we can not separate such thought systems from actions.  They are integral motivators for human behavior.  And if we are to be constructive about finding solutions to global problems, we must be critical of the way that people who perform misdeeds think.

2) Chris Hedges book is titled “I Don’t Believe in Atheists.”  Whatever good stuff he may be say otherwise rests along the side of his heathen bash.  Titles generally reflect central themes.  This was also the central theme of the podcast.  His book is not titled “The Socio-economic Basis for Violence in The Middle East.”

I have tended to agree with Chris Hedges about many points over the years.  But it seems rather clear to me that, at this stage in his career, he is just axe grinding over blasphemers.  It’s not very nice what he is saying about people who are not religious.  Unfortunately and despite a very constructive career with The Nation magazine, his current obsession with absurd emotivism drastically lessens his intellectual credibility.  And more importantly, it lessens his moral credibility.

Erasmus, thanks for contributing your thoughts.  Could you explain a bit about the dismissing of misdeeds?  Who’s doing the dismissing and how?

I like your thought systems>>>emotions>>>actions model, it’s very well accepted in Emotion Psychology literature, especially structrual appraisal models (Richard Lazarus, Ira Roseman, etc.), but I’m reluctant to plug religion into the thought variable and accept that inappropriate actions are the logical result.  Maybe that’s what you meant by PARTICULAR religious ideologies, the fundamentalist kind of religion.  But why constrain it to religion?  Wouldn’t any fundamentalist ideology produce inappropriate actions?  Even, dare I say, fundamentalist atheism?  I think that’s what Hedges is going for.

On your second point, I’ll have to fall back on ‘you can’t judge a book by it’s cover.’  If you haven’t, please read Hedges book, if you have, please take to heart the last chapter.  DJ did a great job on the interview, but Hedges was merely answering questions posed to him, so the flavor of the interview was more determined by the questions being asked than anything.

I think it’s very healthy to have someone who is fighting against fundamentalists to put the atheist movement under the microscope.  I’m intrigued by provocateurs and Hedges is doing a great job.

I find the argument that “the world would be better (w/o religion I’m assuming)” as a slippery slope towards utopianism.

I suppose that promoting reason and science as a central means to improve society could lead some people down that slippery slope (as promoting Darwininsm lead some people down the slippery slope toward eugenics), but that’s not the fault of the argument. It’s a classic logical fallacy (e.g. The Slippery-slope Logical Fallacy) to argue that because the argument could lead eventually down the slippery slope toward a “utopian vision” that the argument itself is a “utopic vision”. Hedges, apparently,  doesn’t even see the need to make the case for the slippery-slope argument, he just leaps to the conclusion that it is in fact a “utopic vision”.

Some questions: How can science, reason or atheism mitigate emotions?  Can we change nature?  For me these are the questions at the heart of Hedges book regardless of how ham-handed he is in getting to it.  And they are very important questions for secular humanists to ponder.

The claim is not that we can change nature. The claim is that we can encourage our positive natural tendencies, and discourage our negative natural tendencies. We already do this! It’s our “civilization”! We do this by building institutions of law and education and government and commerce. Science and reason give us the ability to diagnose and improve the designs of our civil institutions in order to further encourage the best aspects of our nature, and discourage the negative aspects of our human nature.

Atheism is simply the state of not accepting the claims of theism it’s not an ideology or a philosophy. Sam Harris has argued that it doesn’t even deserve to be a word (for the same reason we don’t have a word for someone who doesn’t accept the claims of astrology). Dogmas in general, but especially the institutionalization of dogma (e.g. religion) promote the exercise of unreason and discourages the exercise of critical thinking. Dogma is probably an unavoidable part of human nature, but the institutionalization of dogma (e.g. religion) should be something that we can make a less intrusive part of our daily lives, and by doing so we have reason to expect that our lives a little better (our institutions better designed). Maybe a little bit of religion in our lives would be a good thing however; heroic fantasies can be entertaining if not inspiring.

I suppose that promoting reason and science as a central means to improve society could lead some people down that slippery slope (as promoting Darwininsm lead some people down the slippery slope toward eugenics), but that’s not the fault of the argument. It’s a classic logical fallacy (e.g. The Slippery-slope Logical Fallacy) to argue that because the argument could lead eventually down the slippery slope toward a “utopian vision” that the argument itself is a “utopic vision”. Hedges, apparently,  doesn’t even see the need to make the case for the slippery-slope argument, he just leaps to the conclusion that it is in fact a “utopic vision”.

Nice clarification, let me point out that we’re dancing around the difference between an idea proper (or argument) and the individuals who interpret and act on that idea.  Example: I work in a lab and many a newbie spout the “numbers don’t lie” argument about the stats of certain studies they hold dear.  While there’s a kernel of truth in that statement, numbers don’t exist in a vacuum, they need individuals to interpret them and people misinterpret stats all . . . the . . . time.  If we apply this anaolgy to the topic at hand, ideas don’t exist in a vacuum and people twist ideas to their own myopic vision all the time, eugenics being a perfect example (Damn you Galton!).  So I don’t see Hedges arguing against the idea of atheism as much as he’s arguing against certain atheists who he views as upholding a utopic vision specifically b/c they call for the end of religion.  Substitute “feebleminded” for “religion” and you have Goddard’s version of Utopia via eugenics.  I hope this makes sense.

The claim is not that we can change nature. The claim is that we can encourage our positive natural tendencies, and discourage our negative natural tendencies. We already do this. It’s called “civilization”. We do this by building institutions of law and education and government and commerce. Science and reason give us the ability to diagnose and improve the designs of our civil institutions in order to further encourage the best aspects of our nature, and discourage the negative aspects of our nature.

It is called civilization, but it’s also called religion.  Katrina is a case in point of how charity, the most positive natural tendency, through religious organizations, triumphed over secular attempts.  So to place it in context, getting rid of religion would be detrimental to encouraging positive natural tendencies b/c, dislike it as we may, they excel in an area of charity and altruism that secular government fails.  Science and reason didn’t get supplies to New Orleans, religious charities did, and that furthers civilization.

This example aside, the claim IS about changing nature, b/c the new atheists make a direct correlation between rationalism and improvement.  And emotions, the core of human nature in my opinion, are just not as succeptible to reason and rationality as we may be lead to believe.  We may be able to come up with rational ‘reasons’ post hoc of an emotional episode, but that doesn’t mean that those reasons represent reality at all.  Why do people drink alcohol? B/c I’m stressed, b/c I’m depressed, b/c it’s Cinco de Mayo, b/c it’s Friday, b/c my life is overwhelming. BS! You drink b/c it FEELS good.  All those other reasons are justifications and, while they may be true, they can be experience sans alcohol so they do not logically lead to drinking.  Our emotions do.  I could give you a million logical reasons why strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate, but if you prefer chocolate, my logic is no match for your emotions.  The point: rational thinking is no match for emotion, and emotion is nature, so it is folly to think that substituting reason for religion will make anything better b/c religious beliefs and magical thinking just resonate for some people.  BTW, sorry for all the food references I work in a lab that studies taste and smell.

Atheism is simply the state of not accepting the claims of theism it’s not an ideology or a philosophy. Sam Harris has argued that it doesn’t even deserve to be a word (for the same reason we don’t have a word for someone who doesn’t accept the claims of astrology). Dogmas in general, but especially the institutionalization of dogma (e.g. religion) promotes the exercise of unreason and discourages the exercise of critical thinking. Dogma is probably an unavoidable part of human nature, but the institutionalization of dogma (e.g. religion) should be something that we can make a less intrusive part of our daily lives, and that doing so would ultimately make our lives a little better.

But religion is not the only instituationalized dogma and I think if you talked to students of seminary you would be disabused of the notion that they, as a whole, lack reason or do not think critically.  Hedges is shining the spotlight on atheists as fundamentists spreading dogma, and CFI may be guilty of institutionalizing such dogma.  Of course I do NOT agree with it, but I am open to his take and find it valuable to engage in that thought experiment.  Maybe his book is just what we need to PREVENT such an institutionalization of that dogma.

Maybe a little bit of religion in our lives would be nice; heroic fantasies can be entertaining if not inspiring.

That was sincere Riley.  Really nice.  You gave me something to think about.

While most religious people are just fine and only a few make the horrors, I would like to see no religion as I would like to see no other superstition as with the paranormal [unlike other schizotypals!]. I find all that just invincible irrational ism.
  There is, for the sake of fallibilism, probably no god.There is no need for one to explain matters and no need for divine love and purposes. The presumption of naturalism and the ignostic-Ockham and the problem of Heaven attest to that.

So I don’t see Hedges arguing against the idea of atheism as much as he’s arguing against certain atheists who he views as upholding a utopic vision specifically b/c they call for the end of religion.  Substitute “feebleminded” for “religion” and you have Goddard’s version of Utopia via eugenics.  I hope this makes sense.

It makes sense, but it’s still not i think fair minded. Here’s a problem I see:  Hedges inflicts “atheism” with the label of being a philosophy. Only after you define it as such can you be against “it”. But atheism is not a philosophy; it’s not anything that you can be against. Sam Harris deals with this topic so well. As i said before: the term “athesim” makes no more sense than the term “a-astrologer”  - it makes no sense to talk about the philosophy of “a-astrology”, same for atheism. Evoking a conflict between the philosophies of “theism” vs “atheism” as Hedges does is a misleading distraction.

If we clean-up our language and just get down to the basics, what do we have? The question: do we have any good reason to believe a claim (any claim) is true? and that’s all this boils down to: good arguments and bad arguments. Why do we make a special exception for the sake of claims made with the label “religious”? What’s wrong with imagining a world that honors good arguments, and openly ridicules bad arguments regardless of their source? Reading Harris and Dennet, at least, this is all I hear them promoting.

It is called civilization, but it’s also called religion.  Katrina is a case in point of how charity, the most positive natural tendency, through religious organizations, triumphed over secular attempts. So to place it in context, getting rid of religion would be detrimental to encouraging positive natural tendencies b/c, dislike it as we may, they excel in an area of charity and altruism that secular government fails.

This I think is a very poor argument. I don’t want to debate this though ,except to say that I think you need to look at the mechanisms of the institutions at work and make a case from that perspective if you want to argue that religious institutions are necessarily better suited to charity than secular institutions.

But I do totally agree with you on the point that religions are institutions that can and have encouraged the positive natural tendencies of people. I think for the most part, that religions have been designed with just that goal in mind. Unfortunately, religions contain are also designed to be dogmatic and inflexible. If an ideology gets planted in a religious institution, it doesn’t easily get removed (e.g. justification for slavery and genocide). This I think is an intrinsic problem in the mechanics of how religious institutions work. Why can’t we look at the ten commandments and say: we can do better than that ... let’s do so. We can do better than the Koran and the Bible ... let’s do so!

It should be noted too, that secular institutions are not immune from being co-opted by religious dogma, and of course, even non-religious dogma.

Less dogma, more reason and critical thought - that’s the drive. Religion happens to be a haven of highly entrenched dogma in need of special attention.

Science and reason didn’t get supplies to New Orleans, religious charities did [...]

1) Just because a government is secular, doesn’t mean that it embraces science and reason—the Bush Administration is certainly an example of that. 

2) Science and reason are used to better design the technologies and and institutions that are used by people to respond to situations like the hurricane Katrina disaster. To the extent that anybody was able to help at all in that disaster, they have benefited from the fruits of science and reason. Science had been used to diagnose the danger of disaster in New Orleans long before the hurricane ever hit, but people chose to ignore it. Had there been more science and reason used, we would have had far far less suffering.

The point: rational thinking is no match for emotion, and emotion is nature, so it is folly to think that substituting reason for religion will make anything better b/c religious beliefs and magical thinking just resonate for some people.

But that’s just it! The great innovation of science is that it gives us a process to follow. It’s a technology that enables us to better separate our emotional judgements of reality (that cause us to rationalize) from a more accurate and complete measurement of reality.  Understanding the way the world works also gives us perspective which helps us to better train our emotional/intuitive decision-making. If you are operating under a false model of the way the world works, you’re more likely to make bad decisions.

But religion is not the only instituationalized dogma and I think if you talked to students of seminary you would be disabused of the notion that they, as a whole, lack reason or do not think critically.

1) I choose to make a distinction between “dogma” and “religion” because I think that when most people talk about religion, they are speaking about institutional religion (i.e. institutional dogma), not just personal dogma.

2) I don’t for a second hold the view that religious people aren’t capable critical thinkers.  What I would say is that such people abandon critical thought in a significant aspect of their life proportional to how seriously they take their religion. All of us are are guilty of non-critical thinking, and probably every day. But religion tends to actively shield people from recognizing their blind-spots in this regard, while at the same time encouraging them to take action based on that blind-spot.

Hedges is shining the spotlight on atheists as fundamentists spreading dogma, and CFI may be guilty of institutionalizing such dogma.

Can you define what dogma it is that is being spread? And what philosophy is it that they are “fundamentalist” about? I think it’s very important to be specific about such things.

What do you mean my “solution”, you mean, the temerity of a “free thinker” to believe in self-defense?

No, I mean your assertion that force is the only solution.

A right to use force to protect oneself needs no explanation other than natural law.

EXAMPLE: UlsterScots432:  Islam lacks “the cultural intellectual capacity to be reasoned with. [...] force is the only thing they respond to, or respect”.

We can look merely to the last 50 years, and see how Islam, unable to argue a point, has attacked/invaded Israel three times,  and only responded, when beaten back and defeated.  Islam views a failure to take forceful action as a weakness, this has specifically been stated by Muslim leaders, including the former Ayatollah and Bin Laden (who, contrary to some opinion, are greatly admired in the Muslim culture).

Decades of “peace talks” and “negotiations” have failed to bring about the end of terrorism brought by Hamas, Hezballah and similar groups.  They do not believe Israel has a right to exist, therefore they seek to destroy a sovereign nation (and people) no differently than Hitler did. 

What happens when someone actually tries to commit to peace and uses reason?  He is murdered by other Muslims shortly after (Sadat)

Explain what you mean? And how my words were bigoted

—————————————
EXAMPLES OF BIGOTED STATEMENTS:
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
EXAMPLE 1: UlsterScots432: “Primitive cultures, of which Islam is, beyond any doubt, only respond to power, precisely BECAUSE they lack the cultural intellectual capacity to be reasoned with.” ... admittedly this is more dogmatic than bigoted.  Dogmatic because it is an opinion asserted “beyond any doubt” as a fact. Bigoted because it’s a homogenized characterization of a diverse culture.

Beyond any doubt is an opinion, I should have said the evidence has shown that.  For all their “diversity”, Muslims are rather homogenous in many areas of conduct, including their treatment of women for example.  I would contend only a primitive culture seeks to dominate women (their own wives) by BEATING THEM.  This view is held by their culture as acceptable.  This is not the minority speaking, it is individuals on national TV shows (do you think this would go on in a culture that is “tolerant”?):

Beating your wife in Saudi Arabia (an entire nation where women are banned from driving): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9qsLZyJP0E

Beating your wife in Bahrain (a more “moderate” Muslim nation): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58&feature=related

Beating your wife in Qatar (another “moderate” Muslim nation): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr-vt2DTCFw&feature=related

Some video of a nice muslim guy beating his wife (in our country you go to jail for this, especially if you took a video of it): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6YitNSQuoI&feature=related

At least they debate “light” beating (would you count this as critical thinking?):  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8g8S6F3do&feature=related

EXAMPLE 3: UlsterScots432: “They cannot be reasoned with, and they have shown that, and that is why their culture looks today, like what you would EXPECT of a culture that lacks reason” is a bigoted comment again because it generalizes an entire group of people (“They” cannot be reasoned with). It’s worse because it’s also loaded with assumptions based on simple-minded claims about why their culture looks the way it does today.

Does this look like a culture that supports free thought and expression, and employs critical thinking?  Remember, this is not some backwoods tribal leader, this is the public prosecutor of Jordan (usually considered more “moderate”):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363182,00.html

Instead of debating (and then granting) gay marriage, gays are hanged in some Muslim countries (and killed in others): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzFS6msSo80&feature=related

Would you expect a tolerant nation that cares about dialogue over human rights to conduct female genital mutilation/cutting (clitorectomy) ?  In the Sudan it is prevalent (more than 90 percent), and thankfully, it was outlawed in Egypt….last year. 

or as Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish Secretary General of the Jeddah-based Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said of the Danish Cartoons “By reprinting these cartoons we are heading toward a bigger conflict and that shows that both sides will be hostages of their radicals.”  So those who draw cartoons to express satire are on par with “radicals” within Islam (and we all know what that means).  By the way, the OIC is a pan-Islamic political body, comprised of 57 members, including “secular” Turkey.

A culture that lacks reason puts out death warrants on the heads of those who write against their religion (their precious culture).  Not some uppity chieftan in the back woods, but Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, , the leader of a large, technologically advanced “state” against Sir Salman Rushdie.  Why does Wafa Sultan, Nonnie Darwish, and Hirsin Ali have to fear for their lives, if their culture is so tolerant? 

You only say it is loaded with assumptions because you are afraid to answer the question.  Are these the things, aside from the regular “atrocities” (which you appear to dismiss) that you would expect in a tolerant culture?  Is this where you would set up camp and a website like Free Inquiry to discuss the hatefulness and violence of female genital mutilation, or wife beating?  Is this where you would want to live as a gay, not because your neighbors may not like you, or someone calls you a “fag”, but because they will come to your door, arrest you and hang you in the public square?

So answer the question, from Iraq (where athletes had their arms and legs broken for losing an event), to Saudi, where women can’t drive, to the Sudan, where a young girl can expect her clit to be cut off, to Palestine, where parents praise their teen sons for becoming “martyrs” by strapping bombs to their chests and killing innocent Jews, and refer to black people as “abid” (slave)...is this a culture that appears tolerant, non-bigoted and advanced (at least more than moderately primitive)?

as usual, Ulster, shifting the playing field, introducing straw-men, drifting off into additional unsupported claims and relying on generalizations.  But at least you did make two meaningful (if loaded) challenges in your post from yesterday. Here are your challenges and my responses to them:

YOUR CHALLENGE: “I’d also like to see you address the lack of response in the Muslim world to things like: Murder over cartoons.”:
I can’t address this directly because you make accusations (or ask questions) based on false premises. I reject your premise that there is a lack of response in the Muslim community.
see: “The Bayan [Fatwa] on the Cartoons” —- http://silvers.progressiveislam.org/The_Bayan_on_the_Cartoons
see: “More Muslim Condemnation of Terrorism & Violence” -  http://facts-not-fear.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-muslim-condemnation-of-terrorism.html
see: “Fatwas By Muslim Scholars” - http://liftingtheveils.com/?page_id=56

al-Sistani, Grand Ayatollah Ali issues fatwa to Muslims in Western nations, urging them to obey the laws of the countries in which they live. 6/06

Indian Muslims in North America official press release (February 19, 2006) : “we categorically condemn Mr Haji Yaqoob Quraishi, the said Muslim politician, for this most reprehensible and criminal action.” [...] “Islam categorically condemns all acts of violence against anyone. The efforts of Mr Haji Yaqoob Quraishi and a few others to incite the Muslim population to violence by exploiting the name of Prophet Mohammad, is a most despicable act worthy of condemnation by all including Muslims.”

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) deplored Sunday the attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus [...] OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu “expresses his disapproval over these regrettable and deplorable incidents,” the pan-Islamic body said in a statement. “Overreactions surpassing the limits of peaceful democratic acts [...] are dangerous and detrimental to the efforts to defend the legitimate case of the Muslim world and portray the true image of Islam,”.

YOUR CHALLENGE:  “Please provide examples of where Islam is an open culture, for example, where people like any number of the above authors, live and write freely in a Muslim country, without fear of retribution. Please provide examples.”:
Again, your statements/accusatins/questions are based on false premises. I reject the premise that ANY country could be “open” when ruled by religious dictatorship, whether that government be ruled by Islamic or Christian-based laws. I agree that the more secular a government is, the more open it’s society will be, but again, this is an issue related to religion in general, not Islam specifically. In addition to that, only 18% of the world’s population live in “open” societies (according to Freedom House). “open” is not common. That being said, there are numerous examples of practicing Muslims who have built or act in support of an open culture, where authors like those above can freely walk among Muslims in Muslim communities without fear of personal retribution.
EXAMPLE: Mali
EXAMPLE: Senegal
EXAMPLE: Kosovo-Serbia (in recent years)
EXAMPLE: Bulgaria
EXAMPLE: Sierra Leone
EXAMPLE: Indonesia

Add to that numerous and very large population centers of Muslim communities throughout North America and Western Europe, tens of millions of people.
again: as I said before, more than once: “I agree that there are very large, well organized, and murderous Muslim groups using Islam as motivation/ justification for violence and suppression of people. What I disagree with are your blanket generalizations about Muslim culture, your unsupported claims, and bigoted comments. Yes, Islam, like most all other religions, tends to suppress critical thinking, but that doesn’t by a long stretch mean that those people who are part of Muslim culture (or any other religious culture) are incapable of critical thinking.”

Riley wrote:
.

No, you don’t address them because they specifically support my assertions, in one way or another (often to varying degrees).  Wafa Sultan makes it clear, the problem is ISLAM…not moderate Islam, or militant Islam, etc.  The others say similar things in various ways on a variety of topics (to lengthy to rehash, particularly as you don’t “particularly disagree” with them, even as they say that Islam is a bigoted religion that does not support free thinking.  (see the previous post with quotes from this very website).

You casually dismiss atrocities of Islam like someone saying, “Yes, of course Mrs. Lincoln, but other than that, how was the play?”  The atrocities are a function of the intolerance and hateful nature of Islam.  A culture that, as the Taliban showed, targets anyone that disagrees with them, violently: (from Wiki)
The worst attack on civilians came in summer of 1998 when the Taliban swept north from Herat to the predominantly Hazara and Uzbek city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the largest city in the north. Entering at 10 am on 8 August 1998, for the next two days the Taliban drove their pickup trucks “up and down the narrow streets of Mazar-i-Sharif shooting to the left and right and killing everything that moved — shop owners, cart pullers, women and children shoppers and even goats and donkeys.”[54] More than 8000 noncombatants were reported killed in Mazar-i-Sharif and later in Bamiyan.[55]

This is the same culture that banned music, flying kites and forced women to wear Burqas (and they risked beatings and acid if they failed to adhere to the law).  They were also banned from riding bikes, being on TV or radio. 

At least they can listen to prayers, which in most Muslim countries, go on over loudspeakers, all day. 

At least women in Egypt (arguably more tolerant, and remember they banned female circumcision long ago in 2007), can be on TV to discuss the issue, check out minute 1:45:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs7PX_BulmA&feature=related

One could argue that some of these crazy things are found in various religions, or have been, to some degree, throughout time.  As an atheist, I am aware of this, but as an objectivist, I have no problem stating that Islam is an intolerant religion (culture), is bigoted, violent, and as a whole (which is what a culture always is) it is incapable of being appealed to with reason, or logic.  If it CAN be, please show me where that has worked, long-term (even short-term). 

Riley, if everything of the above, was going on in the State of Kentucky, in the United States, where kids were offered up as sacrifices for suicide missions (homicide is more correct), women were beaten regularly, artists and authors had death warrants on their heads, people tried to covert others by way of the sword, sawed off the clits of young women, banned women from driving, hanged gays, said Jews have no right to even EXIST, and demanded the death of all “infidels”, and did not respond to attempts to reason with them, and on and on and on, I have no doubt that you would believe the people in that state, of that culture, were intolerant bigots that could not be reasoned with. 

Can any single Muslim be reasoned with? Sure. Ever in history? Sure.  But as a culture, their religion, the Koran, their culture, is not one of critical thinking or self-analysis (see the previous quote from the Center for Inquiry, back to my argument that it starts at home).  They are a HYPER-sensitive people in which people are not safe to stand up and disagree without fear of retribution.  That shows they are not a civil society. 

That is why the Muslim world, which has not been invaded or “raped” or taken advantage of any more than any other culture (see Ireland, Poland, Macedonia, Armenia, China, Peru, Mexico, etc), looks the way it looks, while another middle eastern culture, adjacent to the Arab/Muslim world (Israel) looks the way it does, and produces the culture that we see them produce (something like over 150 Nobel Prizes).

No Riley, I haven’t shifted the argument at all.  I specifically responded to your comments about my claims. 

Do you believe that Islam is a tolerant culture?  The Muslim countries and cultures that you see (and I provide by no means an exhaustive list of their intolerance and hatred), do they appear to be based on reason, logic, critical thinking? Tolerance?

You can call me a bigot all you want, btw.  I will continue to call the people who call black people “slaves” the bigots.  You can say I make blanket statements.  I make them based on what I see, hear and read.  When more muslims stand up and change their cultures, I will believe reason has prevailed. 

You of course are free to believe as you wish (the beauty of a culture based on reason and critical thinking).

Some redirection is necessary.  Hedges is using atheism in an appropriate way for his reading audience to understand the point he makes, and in my reading, he uses it as a general term so infrequently that it’s benign.  Discussing the dismerits of using the term ‘atheism’ doesn’t take away from his prerogative to critique specific atheists. His use of direct quotes from said atheists and critiquing those points specifically pretty satisfying that he’s levelling arguments against individuals, not general ideas.

The points you bring up: “a-astrology”, religion’s exception from the good/bad arguments,  the inadequacy of W Bush and his adminstration, dogma/religion, are fun and I’ll bet we mostly agree on them, but they’re a bit played-out and off-topic.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Hedges is doing a great job as a provacateur by going against the current grain of lapping up everything the “Four Horsemen” put out.  Trust me, I AM that guy that has all the books and has YouTubed every tidbit about them I could find b/c; while I like reading Hedges, I LOVE watching these guys talk/debate/engage.  Maybe I didn’t make that clear from the get-go.  I could listen to Hitchens use the word “piffle” all day long!

But they’re being lumped together and are lumping themselves together by agreeing to be filemed as “The Four Horsemen” which doesn’t take much abstraction to determine upon which worldview they will wreak apocolypse.  They want to end religion, they want to eliminate the “weak” worldview.  This is utopic. 

Have you seen the South Park episode about Dawkins and a future with no religion?  It was an amazingly clever realization of the idea that people will fight even if they substitute reason and science for religion and superstition.  The political/social/philosophical landscape will shift but we will still be dealing with people disagreeing and the consequences thereof.

If science is a “technology that enables us to better separate our emotional judgements of reality (that cause us to rationalize) from a more accurate and complete measurement of reality” then therapists would have a 100% success rate.  Utopic.

This is a discussion about being critical and skeptical to even those from whom we receive our information and Hedges should be applauded for doing so b/c it allows us to look at ourselves and reflect.  And that is exactly what we are asking religious/superstitous people to do.

Hedges book raises the important point of acceptance of diversity.  I’m a student in CFI’s “Science and the Public” program and I want to work toward promoting secular humanism as much as anyone, but only in an open market of ideas.  I don’t want to eliminate the worldviews I disagree with, it’s barbaric.

This is just a thought experiment Riley; you don’t have to believe your opponent’s view, but can you look at your own view throught their eyes?  That’s what’s up.  That’s why I liked Hedge’s book and interview.

Riley wrote:

I don’t address the quotes of people you have posted, because I don’t particularly disagree with them. I’m not sure what controversial claim it is that you are attempting to support with those quotes.  I agree that there are very large, well organized, and murderous Muslim groups using Islam as motivation/ justification for violence and suppression of people, and I’ve already said as much. What I disagree with are your blanket generalizations about Muslim culture, your unsupported claims, and bigoted comments. Yes, Islam, like most all other religions, tends to suppress critical thinking, but that doesn’t by a long stretch mean that those people who are part of Muslim culture (or any other religious culture) are incapable of critical thinking.

No, you don’t address them because they specifically support my assertions, in one way or another (often to varying degrees).

GREAT! ... put together a line of reasoning using one of your quotes that proves the Muslim culture is incapable of critical thought, and then I’ll address one of your quotes.

If you don’t claim that, if you instead are claiming that there are Muslims states and Muslim groups that at this time in history not capable of critical thought, then say that instead.

No Riley, I haven’t shifted the argument at all.  I specifically responded to your comments about my claims. 

  ...  you talk about Islam in absolute terms, but then as soon as I present Islam critical thought throughout history as an example, you switch your claim to “contemporary Islam” ... as soon as I bring up an example of critical thought (and even openness) in contemporary non-Arab Muslim states, you switch your argument to “mostly Arab / Muslim” .. I present examples of communities of millions of Muslims and your response? “Can any single Muslim be reasoned with? Sure.” ??? no.. sorry, logical fallacy writ large.

If Muslim culture were truly “incapable of critical thinking” as you claim, then there should not any tradition of critical thinking in any Muslim culture from anytime or anyplace.

Mauteman: Have you seen the South Park episode about Dawkins and a future with no religion?  It was an amazingly clever realization of the idea that people will fight even if they substitute reason and science for religion and superstition.  The political/social/philosophical landscape will shift but we will still be dealing with people disagreeing and the consequences thereof.

I think that Hedges gets much closer to the truth in this respect than Dawkins. Religion, as a set of ideas, is never the central issue - it has always served, like nationalism, racism, or ‘humanism’ as a pretext, cover, or wrapping which conceals the conflicting social and economic interests in question (which usually involve the defense of one or another ruling class or property form against another).

The fact that religious conceptions (or patriotic fervor or whatever other notion) might be foremost in the minds of the combattants in a given conflict does not lend these conceptions greater reality, any more than gods are made more real by the degree of intensity with which they are believed in by the faithful.

What the ‘new atheists’ end up having in common with the religious crazies is not ‘fundamentalism’ - as Hedges insists - but the shared belief that ‘ideas’ have an independent reality outside the material world, social relations etc. from which they are derived. This, paradoxically, drives the racist bloodlust of the Hitchens/Harris types, who look to combat their cartoonish conception of ‘Islamism’ with a willingness to bomb, occupy certain Arab or Muslim countries - or if necessary shower them with nukes.

I have to disagree with most of the people that posted here. 

I’m an Athiest and LOVE Point of Inquiry, but this interview was terrible.  I disagree with much (but not all) of what Hedges says, but I could not believe how obvious it was that DJ could not move past his current beliefs and bias’s to question, rather than attack. 

I must say that any writer (and I didn’t know Harris had suggested this) that proposes a first strike (military) is completely an Fanatic.  I am thankful that the vast majority of Athiests do not have that position. 

I was supprised that it appeared that DJ could not appriciate that any philosophy could be turned into a Fanatical position, and that there are of course people that hold Athiesm in this light.  Dawkins said that raising a child in a religion is a form of Child Abuse,  and if he believes this, he could rightfully say from his moral position it should be illegal. 

I will continue to listen to the podcast, since most of the time I enjoy it, but I think its clear that DJ is just like the rest of us Humans (religious and Secular), when someone tells us that we are wrong, the cognitive dissonance sets in and you just get slightly combative.

Also, Hedges did a good job pointing out how often (I am noticing it now) DJ uses terms for groups that over-simplifies them.  He asked Hedges about the what the Left things, and Hedges called him out rightfully on that…  There is no Left, Right or other.. there are shades, and you need to get more specific..  Christian Right is not the same as Right, thats why the qualifier is there!

A final point, Hedges did come off a little too full of himself about his knowledge of Islamic culture, but He knows more of it than me, or apparently DJ, so lets give him some credit for living there and studying/working with them.

Summary:  I’m not buying his book, but i’m tempted too to find out what in it made DJ so rough, since what Hedges was saying is no more than so many ethical philosophers have admitted to some degree.  AND I realized today that Secularists are Primates too, and have the same reaction to people that say they may be wrong as christians or muslims that do the same (yes, most muslims and christions wont kill you).

If science is a “technology that enables us to better separate our emotional judgements of reality (that cause us to rationalize) from a more accurate and complete measurement of reality” then therapists would have a 100% success rate.  Utopic.

The operative words were “better” and “more accurate” ... not “perfect” and “infallible”. In other words, better than the alternative methods of religion and dogma.

We can’t fundamentally redesign people to work better, but we do have the technology to design our governments to work better (not perfect).  Individuals will always have their dogmas (or religions if you prefer), but it’s not unreasonable I think to believe that our institutions could be insulated from these dogmas/religions. The writing of a secular constitution was a great first step.  If this is a utopic vision, then I suppose the idea of a secular democracy is (was) a utopic vision too.

This is a discussion about being critical and skeptical to even those from whom we receive our information and Hedges should be applauded for doing so b/c it allows us to look at ourselves and reflect.  And that is exactly what we are asking religious/superstitous people to do.
[...]
This is just a thought experiment Riley; you don’t have to believe your opponent’s view, but can you look at your own view throught their eyes?  That’s what’s up.  That’s why I liked Hedge’s book and interview.

Sure. I do make a point of trying to look at things from another’s point of view, but I like to be careful when I do so. I would totally agree with you if Hedges started his polemic by accurately introducing the views of those he was criticizing. Since the foundation of his arguments are based on mis-representation (at least they were in this interview), his emergent points are suspect - but maybe he’s more thoughtful and accurate in the arguments of his book.

I must say that any writer (and I didn’t know Harris had suggested this) that proposes a first strike (military) is completely an Fanatic.  I am thankful that the vast majority of Athiests do not have that position. 

Thanos, read Harris’ response to Hedges: 
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070529_sam_harris_fights_back/
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

From Riley’s link provided above, I found Harris defending himself as follows, using the example of his support for torture:

HARRIS: Here is an example of such selective quotation, so that readers can appreciate how the trick is done. A reader going by the name of “Tentaculata” has posted the following passage from “The End of Faith” (p. 194):

What is the difference between pursuing a course of action where we run the risk of inadvertently subjecting some innocent men to torture, and pursuing one in which we will inadvertently kill far greater numbers of men, women, and children?  Rather, it seems obvious that the misapplication of torture should be far less troubling to us than collateral damage: there are, after all, no infants interned at Guantanamo Bay, just rather scrofulous young men, many of whom were caught in the very act of trying to kill our soldiers.  Torture need not even impose a significant risk of death or permanent injury; while the collaterally damaged are, almost by definition, crippled or killed.  The ethical divide that seems to be opening up here suggests that those who are willing to drop bombs might want to abduct the nearest and dearest of suspected terrorists - their wives, mothers, and daughters - and torture them as well, assuming anything profitable to our side might come of it.

Readers are thereby encouraged to believe that I support the torture of the innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. But the very next sentence in my book reads: “Admittedly, this would be a ghastly result to have reached by logical argument, and we will want to find some way of escaping it.” And the endnote to this sentence reads: “It seems to me that we can stop this inquisitorial slide by recourse to the ‘perfect weapon’ argument presented in chapter 4. There is a difference, after all, between intending to inflict suffering on an innocent person and inflicting it by accident. To include a suspected terrorist’s family among the instruments of torture would be a flagrant violation of this principle.”

I find it hard to imagine how Harris believes he has effectively defended himself against critics, like Hedges, who point to his cartoonish, racist view of the world - particularly when it comes to Islam. In advocating torture as an instrument of U.S. imperialism, with which he wholeheartedly identifies (and assumes his readers do as well), Harris’ sneering racist indifference to human suffering among ‘enemy’ innocents is breathtaking. He even pretends, contrary to the U.S. miltiary’s own admissions, that the hundreds of the illegally held Guantanamo detainees were actually guilty of ‘trying to kill US troops’, when the vast majority have been released uncharged after years of detention.

But, hey, at least Harris isn’t - necessarily - for torturing their wives and children as well! Three cheers for ‘Humanism’!

I look forward to the day when the terrorists in Washington, London etc. are brought before justice, but when that day comes, I will certainly argue against torturing them and for the application of proper legal safeguards and standards that Harris & Co. are so ready to spit upon when it comes to Muslims.

BALAK: “I find it hard to imagine how Harris believes he has effectively defended himself against critics, like Hedges [...]

HARRIS: “Readers are thereby encouraged to believe that I support the torture of the innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. But the very next sentence in my book reads: “Admittedly, this would be a ghastly result to have reached by logical argument, and we will want to find some way of escaping it.” ‘

Why doesn’t this qualify as a direct defense from Harris in response to Hedges claim? Harris denounces as “ghastly” the idea of subjecting the innocent relatives of terrorists to torture. Not only does Harris denounce the use of torture as “ghastly” with regard to innocent relatives, but groups merely “suspected terrorists” in that category along with “innocent relatives”. A point that you miss entirely.

If you read and listen to Harris, you know that on the topic of torture, Harris is proposing a hypothetical for the sake of an academic exercise. IF torture worked, why wouldn’t it be a moral course of action? Why shouldn’t we consider it to be an even more morally acceptable course of action than other alternatives for which the morality is not generally questioned? For example, in retaliation against the Taliban/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, many innocent people were unintentionally subjected to sleep-deprivation, starvation, permanent organ failure, and death. Harris asks: isn’t this is a far worse outcome than the torture of a few known terrorists (assuming that torture worked)? and yet the suffering and death of thousands of innocents is considered a morally acceptable trade-off by most people.

Again, in his book, Harris presents an exercise based on the hypothetical precondition that torture has been shown to work.

Riley: Again, in his book, Harris presents an exercise based on the hypothetical precondition that torture has been shown to work.

News flash from the ‘reality-based community’, Riley: people are being kidnapped, renditioned, tortured and killed in an illegal network of U.S. facilities around the world as I write this… and this has been going on for the last several years at least. There’s nothing ‘hypothetical’ about it. In this light Harris’ words are not idle speculation, but provide a rationale for these crimes.

And what does ‘shown to work’ mean to you? The torture lawyers and acolytes in the White house and the memo-writers at the Justice Department were ostensibly inspired by the ‘ticking time-bomb’ scenarios in popular action thrillers like “24-Hours” (scenarios the likes of which have never been documented in real life).

Do you suppose that Sam Harris has something more sophisticated in mind? I see no reason from his writings to think so.

Riley: Again, in his book, Harris presents an exercise based on the hypothetical precondition that torture has been shown to work.

News flash from the ‘reality-based community’, Riley: people are being kidnapped, renditioned, tortured and killed in an illegal network of U.S. facilities around the world as I write this… and this has been going on for the last several years at least. There’s nothing ‘hypothetical’ about it. In this light Harris’ words are not idle speculation, but provide a rationale for these crimes.

Yes, there is nothing hypothetical about the fact that people are being tortured, but no one claimed that to be hypothetical.

There is a heated public debate going on right now over the question of whether or not torture “works” and part of that debate includes people who are arguing (I paraphrase): ” it doesn’t even matter whether or not torture ‘works’, torture is always immoral and should never be used”.  It’s in that context that Harris is speaking about torture. It’s perfectly reasonable that someone wishing to examine the question:“could torture ever be morally justified? ” would set-up a hypothetical straw-man scenario where torture is assumed to work.  That’s what Harris is doing in his book. He’s answering the challenge of those who claim that torture, even if it ‘worked’, would still be immoral.

And what does ‘shown to work’ mean to you? The torture lawyers and acolytes in the White house and the memo-writers at the Justice Department were ostensibly inspired by the ‘ticking time-bomb’ scenarios in popular action thrillers like “24-Hours” (scenarios the likes of which have never been documented in real life).

Do you suppose that Sam Harris has something more sophisticated in mind? I see no reason from his writings to think so.

It’s hard to find a sentence that comes out of Sam’s mouth that isn’t advocating for more evidence-based discipline and application of critical inquiry, so I would find it hard to believe that Sam has anything else in mind other than scientific evidence and reasoning when it comes to resolving the the question: “does torture work”.

I must say that any writer (and I didn’t know Harris had suggested this) that proposes a first strike (military) is completely an Fanatic.  I am thankful that the vast majority of Athiests do not have that position. 

Thanos, read Harris’ response to Hedges: 
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070529_sam_harris_fights_back/
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

Interesting, and makes me feel a little better… If Harris was that extreme, I would hope the “Left” (Hedges, excuse my generalization) would have made a bigger deal about those statements.

It doesnt change my overall position tho.  Having not read either book myself, I just feel the quality of the interview was low, which I am happy to say is an Exception on this show, rather than a rule.  And Athiests can be extreme, since fanaticism is not linked to belief, but to personality.  Religion does not make a person a fanatic, the combination of their education and personality do.  Just like gambling does not make you a compulsive gambler, it is a combination of personality traits and maybe your lack of support to keep you from falling into that track.

I guess I’ll read both book to get a better idea of what Hedges was saying, and Harris as well.

[...] fanaticism is not linked to belief, but to personality [...]

I agree in general, but I would add that if a personality prone to fanaticism latches onto a belief in something that is immune to evidence, that person is more susceptible to becoming fanatical. Religion promotes strong and dedicated belief in things immune to evidence, in this way I think religion actively encourages fanaticism ...  like taking a sex-addict to a strip club.

Odd that Ultser the ‘libertarian’ refers to Koresh in this context. Koresh and his followers in the racially integrated Branch Davidian religious commune near Waco committed no crime, but were targetted for mass murder by the Clinton/Reno justice department as a signature example of what will happen to citizens for exercising the constitutional right to engage in armed self defense.

As I recall, there were allegations of child abuse and weapons violations with respect to Koresh and legal action was warranted. Unfortunately Reno was at the helm so there would be no repercussions from use of excessive force, entrapment, etc. (cf. Ruby Ridge, Reno’s role in the Liberty City riots.) Reno and Clinton were far from being of one mind and while Clinton may have been a prevaricating, poll-watching triangulator, I have a hard time believing he authorized the massacre as a message to the NRA.

Waco is a yet another blot on the reputation of the US Justice Department, but moreso from execution than intent. Painting Koresh as being a sweet and innocent victim of (US) State oppression is naive at best and disingenuous at worst. I despise the actions of the Reno “Justice” Department but that doesn’t change the fact that Koresh was a dangerous nutjob. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

arclight—

My first post on this CFI site——more to say to that later——but as yours is the last one and 22 days ago—-this thread may be inactive—-so maybe you will never see this.

You are right re:Waco—- while not physically there, I was civilian consultant in support of the investigation and the eventual “go” group.  The issue that brought the whole thing to US govt level was not the group or its religious, social, political, or operating philosophies——but that investigations found the group was in posession of Class III firearms (fully automatic) without the requisite Class III license(s)—-a Federal crime(s). The possible child abuse allegations came later (after the isolation of the compound) after various types of listening devices had ben placed—-this was definitely a later and not prima facia reason. As I recall, there were several attempts to meet and speak with Koresh or any spokesperson—-these were repeatedly rebuffed——so , just as in a city police situation, forcible entry in pusuit of alleged felons was initiated.  While it ended in tragedy for both real and Murphy’s Law reasons—-smoke/irritant munitions that burn——dry grass and wood—-open flame (or at least flammable sources used for compound illumination after electricity was cut off—-a level of armed resistance from inside the compound—-a windy day—-et al), I saw no joy or celebration from those that were there——indeed many suffered then from shock and later on (and knowing some of those agents—-to this day) from PTSD. As a strong athesitc humanistic secular libertarian (SAHSL) and born with a conspiracy theory gene—-in this instance my well developed, long held,  trusty, and mostly eventually right Federal BS/conspiracy buzzer did not go off—-and about this incident has not——even after reading many sides account of the tragedy.

Re: this site————-  Have been a long reader and follower of the Dawkins site——came to this one just 1 or 2 days ago on a link from a post on Dawkins——and found a good place.  The Dawkins site has lately had to put up with more frequent and sooner posters that have not kept the level of debate as high as the 28 pages on this thread I have just completed. Name calling and non-useful provocative language and words have begun far sooner from 4 or 5 of the long time and prolific (avg 12+ POSTS PER DAY since their entry date !!!——how many do they post a day over the many years they have been registered and had 0 or 1 post days???)——-if some of the objections I have read here of people complaining that they have been called (or are calling) others bigotted, evasive, poor logicians, etc—-they better stay off the Dawkins site with such thin skins. What has bothered me the most is the few that consistently do this no matter what the thread or topic——have been in the past—-some of the most logical, well “spoken” , debating from fact and authority posters that are pro-site——like Opehlia (?) but there is another difference that maybe explains it—-the anti-site folks seem to have a high proportion or ill informed, ill-read, unable to debate, even spell or construct sentences——etc etc types of dolts—-so maybe I should just be more charitable to those who have been on it for years and just are experiencing high frustration——but still, I have seen it stifle a good viable and informative thread long before it got old and repetitive and should have died a natural death.

Anyway—-I think I will continue on this site——and appreciate the resoned posts that people use here—even when there is basic disagreement on fundamental principles or positions.

I think I will continue on this site——and appreciate the resoned posts that people use here—even when there is basic disagreement on fundamental principles or positions.

The quality of posts on the CFI Forums have come a long way over the past few years, and the “Point of Inquiry” podcast is second to none in its genre in my opinion.

One point that Chris Hedges makes is that the New Atheists put themselves on a higher moral plane when they criticise religion.  He says that religion is not the cause of evil.  Rather it is human nature that is the cause of evil and even if religion were vanquished the evil would very likely remain.  Finally he adds that secular rationalists are just as capable of evil.  Moreover the idea that you can eliminate evil by vanquishing religion is a utopian vision which combined with the use of violence is dangerous. 

Now consider an example of evil that I would like to prevent: the stoning of a woman for adultery.  The way I might go about it is to try and persuade those who want to stone a woman for adultery not to do so.  But when I do this the response I get is that the action is justified by God and they know this by their faith.  So then I target the idea of faith.  I try to promote the idea that it is not a good idea to rely on faith, because otherwise you could justify all kinds of evil such as the stoning of this woman.  But then I am campaigning against faith and therefore religion which according to Hedges is a Utopian vision and is basically a no no.  It is especially dangerous if I use violence to campaign against faith, although that is not my personal position.  Rather I would seek to persuade that faith is not a good idea.  But this still seems to be not the done thing.  So it seems to me we can never persuade people not to commit evil actions.  They can always bring up an excuse related to faith.  They could say: my religion tells me this is right and I have faith in my religion.  Now it may be that if we manage to persuade people that faith is not a good idea, people would still commit evil.  Then they would come up with a different excuse.  But then we would cross that bridge when we come to it.  For now the excuse that we are dealing with is faith. 

At the end of the interview D J Grothe asks what Hedges would advise atheists to do to create a better world.  The response seemed to be that atheists should be self-critical and look at preventing themselves from committing evil actions.  Yes this could be done.  But is it the only thing that could be done?  After all, if we follow Hedge’s advice, this woman I am talking about is going to die a cruel death.  Can’t we do anything to prevent that?  Moreover it seems to me that atheists like me do not particularly want to be seen to be on a high moral plane.  We just want things like for example this woman not to be stoned to death.  So if we must respect people’s faith how can we campaign against the violation of human rights that is said to be justified by faith?  It seems to me that the arguments against the New Atheists are designed to induce paralysis and inaction.

It seems to me that the arguments against the New Atheists are designed to induce paralysis and inaction.

I totally agree, qwistrod.  It seems to me that Hedges is engaged in an attempt to frame atheists as dangerous fundamentalists, just as conservative talk-show hosts try to frame liberals as “environmentalist whackos,” “femanazis,” and “tax-and-spenders.”  Essentially it boils down to ad hominem; but it is strategic in the way that language is used to manipulate the way people think without having to engage substantive reasons—a short-cut to thought. 

If you listen to Hedges positive proposals, it sounds like he advocates a form of moral relativism.  That view, I think, is one that leads to the sort of “paralysis and inaction” that you mention.

Dacey’s interviews as well as his recent book are informative here.  Dacey suggests that the atheist/secularist movement has been handcuffed (in part by itself) by a sort of political correctness run amok—creating a taboo on critiquing one another’s reasons regarding religious and spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) and their consequences.  It seems to me that Hedges is playing up this taboo.  Suggesting things like: “How dare you atheists try to tell others how to live.”  “It’s not the religious factor that plays the role in violent actions—it’s simply human nature.”  “It’s a dangerous utopian fantasy to think that combating irrational faith traditions will lead to a more peaceful society.”

Hogwash!  The atheist/secularist moral philosophy is simple.  It is a form of humanism: placing value on the here-and-now rather than the here-after.  It seems to me that the only form of moral belief that could possibly justify stoning an adulterer to death is one that is the reverse of humanism, one that places more value on the next life than on this life here and now.  Hedges totally misses this point, or he dishonestly attempts to muddy it by taking some of the most extreme comments by “new atheists” out of context and attempting to stoke fear with them.  In essence though, he is just justifying the status quo—a state of the world which permits inhuman atrocities in the name of a god.  For shame!

That is an excellent point, qwistrod. I was confused about why “new” atheists were fighting religion until I got to the last part of The God Delusion. People say that many religious wars are not based on religion (which is sometimes true). But it is the religious labels that are used in these wars to decide who lives and dies.

BTW, PN - I see a cross in the middle of your avatar. 

BTW, PN - I see a cross in the middle of your avatar. 

Great!  Thanks!  That ruins it for me.  Now I’ve got to change my avatar.

I am an anti-theist: I hope that religion goes into the garbage can of history in a few centuries. It is the rationalist fallacy to suppose that with better education ,others would give up that and other superstitions: people use education to further their superstitions. I go further as a rationalist/naturalist in opposing the paranormal. I oppose religion as I support the truth [ provisional] as my chief goal but I also oppose it when others use it to harm others.
In my   posts and threads here and else where , I attempt to give philosophical arguments against natural theology. Some theists allege that why do that as they ignore natural theology in their faith, so such attempts are for naught; however, philosopers put forth new ways of the old arguments and some new arguments to justify natural theology and readers buy their books.
  Hedges is one of those sillly people who think that his religion is the Golden Mean between atheism and fundamentalism. Quite silly! We new atheists use reason ,not faith, for our arguments and we do not want to use the power of the state to infringe on liberty as so many fundamentalists do.
  Where is the beef for Hedges’s faith?  None, as all religion rests on faith, the we just say so of credulity! Science is acquired knowledge while , as the great naturallist Sydney Hook, points out, religion begs the question of being knowledge.
  Hedges, haughty John Haught and Alister McGrath are so shallow and on the level of Pat Robertson in their thinking!

BTW, PN - I see a cross in the middle of your avatar. 

Great!  Thanks!  That ruins it for me.  Now I’ve got to change my avatar.

Sorry about that! I do like your new avatar!

On the other hand while reading reviews of ‘The Trouble with Atheism’ argument, I came across this argument. 

If you argue against religion, then it creates a vaccuum for possibly much worse ideologies.  So it is a case of better the devil you know. 

The solution might be to argue that faith should be restricted to the private sphere and that decisions in the public sphere should not be based on faith.  Hence executions based on ‘God’s law’ would not be justified. 

But then parents could still tell their children that if they do not become Christians they will burn in hell forever.  So what about arguing that faith (and irrationality) should not be used to justify causing unnecessary suffering.

But then parents could still tell their children that if they do not become Christians they will burn in hell forever.  So what about arguing that faith (and irrationality) should not be used to justify causing unnecessary suffering.

That would be great, but theistic religion is based on burning in hell if you don’t do what I say. I’d like to see more concrete, definable measures. Allowing churches to thrive tax-free seems stupid. If a church has a charity function, then that function should be tax free and monitored like any other charitable organization - otherwise, they are a for profit organization!

Of course this is the false choice of “faith-based” support by the government. “Oh we are just supporting their secular aims, not their religious ones” Except the moneys that would go to these secular causes from the religious side are now available to provide more religious support.

Unfortunately, this clause in the constitution is no longer true if you put “test” in quotes.
“...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”

Hello.  I am Kenneth.  As I did not hear any argument re Hedges, I cannot quote from it.  However, I would like to make an observation about your own post.  This is the way I see the history of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions.  In the days of my youth when I was forced to read the Old Testament, I considered then, and I am still of the sme opinion, that it was nothing more than a war chronicle to inspire a nomadic people to rob; rape and murder their way across a continent, in the belief that some ruthless god was the Commanding Officer and they did as commanded or they too, could be penalised.  To my mind, the Bible is a ruthless document which has inspired much cruelty and murder—-and still does.

Then along came the myth of Christianity which was a concoction of stories from many pre-existing myths—-Jewish and Pagan.  The Old Testament had to be revered, even though it was only applicable to a foreign group of nomads, the Israeli tribes—-because the Christian farce was entirely dependent on a the mythical god producing a Messia for Isral.  The Jesus farce is born.  So Christianity had a ready made excuse to produce that Messia.  A little later, Islam came onto the scene, and that too, was modelled on The Old Testament, so the ruhless god of the Israel tribes, found its way into Islam, so it might appear.  I assume the latter from what people say, as I have never read their holy book.  I have only read the Old and New Testaments (under duress), and there is no doubt about the type of character that god portrays.

I believe we can assume, that the Old Testament has produced a very arrogant attitude in people who readily use the excuse of their Biblical God, to plunder any source they wish.  Of the three religions that were spawned by the Old Testament, I see Islam being the least warlike.  We must also remember that Christianity brought progress to a halt, whereby Islam brought a wide variety of enlightenment to the West.  History also shows that Islam was far more tolerant of other religions in the lands they ruled. 

How do we fit suicide bombers into this picture?  Before answering that question, I would appreciate your answer to this question.  Are you against Islam because you perceive them as lawless killers—-more so than the Christian or Israli groups, or is it because you believe they are inspired to commit suicide and western soldiers are not?  I would also ask you to consider that we cannot judge Islam by any fanatics that exist, as they too, are to be found in every religion and political group.  Thank you.  Kenneth.

First time poster, just to retaliate against Hedges. =)

What a pompous ass.

I have seen him debate Hitchens (I happen to agree with Hitchens - as an Atheist), and this is my fanatical take on it: he’s an apologist for terrorists. There’s no other way around it. He has covered those areas and has insight into their culture and has, unfortunately, gone completely native.

He’s also an idiot. 95% of suicide bombers are inspired by the Koran. I know the Tamil Tigers are also suicide bombers, but they are an exception to the rule. Most of suicide bombers are Muslim. Despair, poverty, occupation, war, lack of food and education do not make a suicide bomber. If that were so, the Congo would have more suicide bombers in the world per capita than anywhere else.

No, what makes a suicide bomber are the justifications in the Koran and Hadiths. That’s why there are no Shaheedi in the Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Tibet, or pretty much anywhere else outside of the Muslim world. His stance is completely moronic.

I’m not saying the Koran is the only book which has inspired it, but it’s the best known for a bloody good reason. Hedges is a fool and an apologist for the other side. He apologizes for the worst atrocities perpetrated by the terrorists and it is clear why in his statements: he thinks they have good reasons for it. Well, they don’t.

He thinks the West is Imperialist. Fine. We’re just as “Imperialist” as the other side. He’s chosen his side, I’ve chosen mine. He makes it utterly clear in this interview and his other writings exactly which side he is on.

I hope he reads this: Chris Hedges, you’re an utter tool. You say you hate Islamic extremism, but you go down on all fours for them. You pimp your brand of “moderation” and “understanding” for the worst dregs of humanity. I hate people like you. You’re the sort who call Hirsi Ayaan Ali a “fundamentalist” and mean it. You hem and haw when you’re asked about the left, and you never answer the question. It’s painfully obvious why you don’t answer the question: because you can’t answer the question. There’s a damned good reason that question was asked about why the neocons are the ones sheltering her - because the neocons, by and large with few exceptions, have been the ones to stand up for secular liberalism abroad. If it were for the likes of you, Hirsi would be dead, you’d point your finger and say “she did it to herself”, and for that I can’t help but virtually spit in your face.

Yeah, I’m an atheist, I’m a feminist, I’m a war hawk, and I will always defend these values to the death. Does that make me a fundamentalist? Well at least, unlike your friends, I’m not going to blow myself up in a cafeteria to justify my claims under any circumstances.

So take your righteous, pallid, subservient, tepid god to Allah and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. It’s the place that stinks as much as your apologetics in the face of Islamic atrocity.

A very logical post—-nice to see.  However, I would make the following observations.

I am not sure what Hedges means by “New Atheist”.  It implies that a a group, or organiation exists, to which an atheist belongs.  I know of no such organisation.  I am atheist—-I reject the notion of gods or supernatural entities.  I do not need to join a Club, to reinforce my views.  I am of the opinion that the reason so many atheists have become so vocal is, that extremist Christians have challenged the right of people to have no belief in their mythical gods and it has been seen a necessity to stop their overbearing attitudes.  If we did not make a stand against their weird ideas, they would return to imdoctrinating young minds again with the terrible consequeces of closed minds being available for the use by any unscrupulous person who may wish to take advantage of a naive mind.

Religion is not the cause of wars.  However, some religions, Christianity primarily, requires that their odd beliefs are propagated through missionaries.  Where this has been resisted, rightly so, war has erupted.  Christian societies have never baulked at spilling blood, in order to force their ideas on other people, and, of course, avail ourselves of the mineral wealth of the conquered countries, which, no doubt, they justify (per the Bible) that their God gave them the right to do so.

No rational person can condone the stoning of a woman, nor the severing of limbs.  Neither can we condone the incineration of innocent families or whole communities by Napalm or phosphor bombs—-but the Christian nations have been doing it ever since the end of WW2, under one pretext or another.  Some have even suggested that modern bombs be used to wipe out civilisations, in order to persue their ambitions.  We are also aware that over-population is contributing to the early demise of civilisation, as we currently know it.  Is there any rationale behind a religion that forbids its followers to use methods to reduce populations?  This ban has also led to the horribl slow deaths of numerous people through HIV/AIDS, but this does not stop the stupid ban.  Is that any more logical than stoning a person?  Let us not forget the utter cruelty of cutting the throat of a concious animal, as required by certain religious laws—-Jerwish Kosher meat and the meat for a Muslim, all in the name of religious beliefs.  Can we condone the killing of any animal just to satisfy our lust for carrion?  Kenneth.

 

One point that Chris Hedges makes is that the New Atheists put themselves on a higher moral plane when they criticise religion.  He says that religion is not the cause of evil.  Rather it is human nature that is the cause of evil and even if religion were vanquished the evil would very likely remain.  Finally he adds that secular rationalists are just as capable of evil.  Moreover the idea that you can eliminate evil by vanquishing religion is a utopian vision which combined with the use of violence is dangerous. 

Now consider an example of evil that I would like to prevent: the stoning of a woman for adultery.  The way I might go about it is to try and persuade those who want to stone a woman for adultery not to do so.  But when I do this the response I get is that the action is justified by God and they know this by their faith.  So then I target the idea of faith.  I try to promote the idea that it is not a good idea to rely on faith, because otherwise you could justify all kinds of evil such as the stoning of this woman.  But then I am campaigning against faith and therefore religion which according to Hedges is a Utopian vision and is basically a no no.  It is especially dangerous if I use violence to campaign against faith, although that is not my personal position.  Rather I would seek to persuade that faith is not a good idea.  But this still seems to be not the done thing.  So it seems to me we can never persuade people not to commit evil actions.  They can always bring up an excuse related to faith.  They could say: my religion tells me this is right and I have faith in my religion.  Now it may be that if we manage to persuade people that faith is not a good idea, people would still commit evil.  Then they would come up with a different excuse.  But then we would cross that bridge when we come to it.  For now the excuse that we are dealing with is faith. 

At the end of the interview D J Grothe asks what Hedges would advise atheists to do to create a better world.  The response seemed to be that atheists should be self-critical and look at preventing themselves from committing evil actions.  Yes this could be done.  But is it the only thing that could be done?  After all, if we follow Hedge’s advice, this woman I am talking about is going to die a cruel death.  Can’t we do anything to prevent that?  Moreover it seems to me that atheists like me do not particularly want to be seen to be on a high moral plane.  We just want things like for example this woman not to be stoned to death.  So if we must respect people’s faith how can we campaign against the violation of human rights that is said to be justified by faith?  It seems to me that the arguments against the New Atheists are designed to induce paralysis and inaction.

Hi Kenneth

I think the term ‘New Atheists’ refers to atheists who have recently published books that are outspokenly vocal against religion starting with Richard Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’ and including Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett.  It does not refer to any organisation.

You mentioned further problems associated with religion such as discouraging birth control to keep the population down and I do find such things just as irrational and immoral as stoning a woman.  The rituals associated with making meat halal seem unnecessary cruelty to animals.  My point is that it is easy enough to argue against secular evils such as police torture or battery hens but religious evils seem to be protected by faith.  For example, to argue against the halal rituals or the Catholic birth control ban, one comes up against the response that God says these things are right and this is a matter of faith.  And you are not supposed to argue someone out of their faith.  So thus people of faith cannot be persuaded to give up their beliefs and hence activities relating for instance to halal rituals or birth control bans. 

Chris Hedges does not believe in the idea of moral progress but I think that holding such a position could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If people take such a position then they are not motivated to try and encourage moral progress.  But I am not sure how we can encourage moral progress in religious matters if we are not allowed to criticise the idea of faith.

Oh yea, and one more thing:

Hedges really showed he’s a complete idiot when he claimed several times that being against Islam is “racist”. Islam isn’t a frigging race. It’s a religion. It’s an ideology. This has nothing to do with racism. This isn’t like saying somebody is against Jews, as Jews are regarded, by and large, as a people. Muslims aren’t “a people”. Anyone who says that being against Islam is “racist” is a total and complete moron and should be taken to task.

So, Hedges: you’re a moron for that too. Honestly, I’d love to spit in your face, only I wouldn’t want to dirty my spit.

==================================

Gosh, you sure do like spitting into people’s faces.
You know, you sound just like those fanatics you hate so much.
Bet, if you were in their shoes you’d be acting just like them.

...........an eye for an eye until the whole world is blind

Completely unimpressed with Hedges, from beginning to end of this interview, he was a constant stream of logical fallacy and self contradiction.

That is an excellent point, qwistrod. I was confused about why “new” atheists were fighting religion until I got to the last part of The God Delusion. People say that many religious wars are not based on religion (which is sometimes true). But it is the religious labels that are used in these wars to decide who lives and dies.

BTW, PN - I see a cross in the middle of your avatar. 

I think it’s always them and us, what ever the labels happen to be.

I think the aim needs to be an all inclusive we. (don’t know if this is just a pipe dream)

Stephen

I’ve just had the dubious pleasure of listening to DJ interviewing that bumptious Chis Hedges, and I have to say I truly admire DJ’s self-restraint and professionalism.  There were quite a number of times I felt like throwing something at (my own) computer, because of the tosh Hedges was spewing!

His arguments (such as they were) were typical examples of where the left and liberals have gone wrong, and why the field has been left wide open to the so-called neo-cons. 

Hedges kept saying he lived in a Muslism country for seven number of years and he spoke Arabic fluently (and made repeated references to his years of reporting from the ‘war zones’ - no doubt from the safety of some 5-star hotel paid for by NYT).  Anyway, so what?

I was born into a Muslim family, lived in Iran for the first 16 years of my life, and speak Persian fluently…and I still think Chris Hedges is full of sh*t!  Why don’t you just go and live in one of those wonderfully tolerant Muslim countries for the rest of your wretched life?

I hope nobody buys his awful book.

Did you grow up Muslim or Baha’i?

Did you grow up Muslim or Baha’i?

Muslim, unfortunately….but in a very loose sense of the word, fortunately

Can you expand a little more on your dislike of Hedges?

He is wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.  His criticisms of prominent atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al. are misguided.  They are not ‘fundamentalists’ or even utopians.  They just want religion - all religion - to get out of our face.  Far from being bigoted firebrands, they are all experts in their own fields are very articulate and eloquent advocates for the end of medieval barbarism of religion that has somehow managed to survive into the 21st century.  (I find it absolutely astonishing that we’re having to re-invent the wheel, and still having discussions about whether or not not there is a god.  No there isn’t.  Get over it.)

On another level I find his empathy with the Muslims really patronising and misplaced.  His position is typical of the guilt-ridden Western liberals who have traditionally blamed every problem in the developing world on big, bad imperialists, whilst excusing every wrong doing of the hapless ‘victims’.

It’s the same rubbish today; Cheney, Bush and Big Oil have replaced the imperialists of yore, and the ‘third world’ has been replaced by Islamic countries.  I find the relentless apologia of the likes of Hedges, and Robert Fisk incredibly infuriating.  They are the Islamists’ Useful Idiots.

Finally I found his whole attitude in the interview really arrogant.  He came across as an obnoxious little sh*t.  Yet you listen to any number of interviews that Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins have given over the years, and you’ll find plenty of warmth, humanity and even self-deprecating humour in them.[/color]

On another level I find his empathy with the Muslims really patronising and misplaced.  His position is typical of the guilt-ridden Western liberals who have traditionally blamed every problem in the developing world on big, bad imperialists, whilst excusing every wrong doing of the hapless ‘victims’.

It’s the same rubbish today; Cheney, Bush and Big Oil have replaced the imperialists of yore, and the ‘third world’ has been replaced by Islamic countries.  I find the relentless apologia of the likes of Hedges, and Robert Fisk incredibly infuriating.  They are the Islamists’ Useful Idiots.

Once, Islam saved the science developed by the Greeks and Romans from barbarism. But, frozen in time, they are now a dangerous anachronism, made powerful only by the lucky accident of oil. They deserve no special treatment for this.

Some theists are ever so arrtogant in their denunciation of us like haughty John Haught: he has the temerity to suggest that we are so out of touch with theism that we only recognize the scientific approach at the expense of other venues of knowledge. but he begs the question in affirming them: he does not show them!
As PZ Myers notes @ Pharyngula notes, those theists are like the courtier who slams others for not perusing the erudite tomes on the emperor’s new attire. Dawkins demolishes forms of natural theology that most people would come across. Why would he bother with the more recondite that they would not fathom.
Also some critics bray that we only try to demolish natural theology when there are those more recondite conpepts, glossing over that other theists so further natural theology as does Richard Swinburne.
In the end, even the most fervent defender of natural theology bathes in faith, the we just say so of credulity. Faith begs the question of its subject in order to avoid gving evidence thereof. Science is acqquired knowledge as Sydney Hooks notes while faith begs the question of being knowledge.
  I find that end the end Hedges, Haught and Alister McGrath make no more sense than Pat Robertson - just a non-fundamentalist form of superstition!
  Skeptic Society will have a conference amongst new atheists and some of their critics. 
  Blessed are we with Paul Kurtz!

Mehran: It’s the same rubbish today; Cheney, Bush and Big Oil have replaced the imperialists of yore, and the ‘third world’ has been replaced by Islamic countries.

Not quite sure what you’re trying to say here. Do you consider it false to claim that the U.S. is “imperialist” in an economic, political and military sense?

Should CFI hitch its cart to the various U.S. wars of conquest and occupation as a preferred tool of bringing ‘enlightenment values’ to the Islamic world and other neo-colonial regions of the planet?

I think Hedges and Fisk are correct at least in arguing that such a perspective will produce anything but the (ostensibly) desired result.

I stand with Obama-Biden on this wrong war and most everything else.
    What do we do to overcome Hedge’s nonsense about us new atheists? How can we strengthen naturalism and humanism?
    Sarah Palin makes as much sense as Paul Tillich, Alister McGrath, Alvin Platinga and haughtyJohn Haught! Prof. Irwin Corey makes more sense!
    Hitchings knows the scam that is religion!
    Thankfully we have Paul Kurtz and Michael Sherman and James Randi and their groups!

Another anti-atheist blast from Chris Hedges!  I’ll have copies of this for forum members when it’s published.

The cost of the new atheism

Barney Zwartz
December 27, 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/books/book-reviews/the-cost-of-the-new-atheism/2008/12/24/1229998583768.html

[...]

This brilliant book highlights what is obvious to most reasonable observers: that these fundamentalist atheists, with their vapid, complacent self-righteousness and their facile and unjustifiable certainties, are the precise mirror image of the fundamentalist Christians, Muslims etc they so despise.

Hedges himself is not easy to typecast. He has been just as scathing about religious fundamentalism in American Fascists, his bestseller attacking the religious right. He presciently predicted two weeks after George Bush’s “mission accomplished” speech how damaging the Iraqi occupation would be. He spent decades as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times and other publications, studied at Harvard Divinity School and now lectures at Princeton. His own religious position is obscure: he has little time for fundamentalists or liberals.

Like Christian radicals, the new atheists have built squalid little belief systems that serve themselves and their own power, that seek to scare people about what they do not understand, and to use this fear to justify cruelty and war. “They ask us to kneel before little idols that look and act like them, telling us that one day, if we trust enough in God or reason, we will have everything we desire.”

The battle is not between religion and science but religious and secular fundamentalism. And Hedges finds the agenda of the new atheists - Hitchens, Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others - equally intolerant and dangerous.

It is intolerant because it is based on a closed worldview that dismisses all other views without even examining them. . . .

Another one? Oh christ…I don’t think I can stand it.

Anyone in the U.S. want a free copy of this book?  I’ve got a stack of ‘em.  PM me with your address.

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/i-dont-believe-in-atheists-chris-hedges-unabridged-compact-discs-highbridge-audio-books.jpg&usg=AFQjCNHgy7cTeT5Gngh2okQsAjGblJqKLg

Hedges kept saying he lived in a Muslism country for seven number of years and he spoke Arabic fluently (and made repeated references to his years of reporting from the ‘war zones’ - no doubt from the safety of some 5-star hotel paid for by NYT).  Anyway, so what?

You pretty much pinpointed the most ridiculous thing possible to criticize Chris Hedges for.  Without any bias or preference, one can factually say that Hedges has seen more harsh combat than almost any reporter in the last 100 years.  He has come close to death multiple times, seen death, been tortured.  If he has authority to speak on anything, it is the brutality of war, and the reality of a decaying and fully collapsed society, as he saw it firsthand for 20 years, in over 50 countries.  He was the NY Times foreign correspondent until he resigned due to how the paper was handling the Iraq War in the run up to the invasion. 

You don’t have to be an expert on Hedges to have an opinion, but at least learn when it’s pointed out, like now.  The reason he keeps mentioning the dark impulses in the human heart is because he saw the murder, torture, and sadism first hand.  The reason he questions moral progress is because it can only really be claimed if you ignore huge atrocities that take place around the world every single day.  The structure of society is what keeps us from killing each other for resources.  Look at what happened to New Orleans as society disintegrated in a matter of weeks.  You had people that were courageous, moral, and rescuing, that kind of thing, but you also saw the worst of the worst.  A better example of the moral decay that challenges the idea of moral progress is the entirety of his new book, Empire of Illusions.  I strongly recommend it, and it has nothing to do with attacking a small group of prominent atheists.  It’s a brutal, and uncompromising sociological analysis of American society, and it will make you think.  The moral decay of society is equally relevant to atheists and people of religion, and this book will alter your opinion on morality.

As far as Harris, that is the definition of a man who is criticizing war torn regions from a 5 star hotel.  But the hotel isn’t even in the middle east, it’s in America.  Harris is great at pointing out the irrationality of superstitious belief.  He has a way of breaking it down into it’s simplest form, almost insultingly simple and condescending, but that is his style and it’s effective.  Hitchens is a great writer, and I will always be able to appreciate his attitude, and his nuanced debates on a wide range of topics, including atheism.  But Hedges hits them both hard on the issue of racism, endorsement for war and violence, and their general ignorance of the middle east (and Harris is infinitely worse than Hitchens in this area), and Hedges is dead right.  I can easily see that he’s right on this issue and still appreciate Harris and Hitchens.  After all, they aren’t infallible, they aren’t flawless, and if they are truly scientific and rational instead of dogmatic, they should not be resistant to change and the evolution of their ideas.  Frankly, they were hit on a few points, legitimately, and they should evolve their positions to reflect that, or else prove their dogmatism.

Once, Islam saved the science developed by the Greeks and Romans from barbarism. But, frozen in time, they are now a dangerous anachronism, made powerful only by the lucky accident of oil. They deserve no special treatment for this.

This is blatant racism.

On another level I find his empathy with the Muslims really patronising and misplaced.  His position is typical of the guilt-ridden Western liberals who have traditionally blamed every problem in the developing world on big, bad imperialists, whilst excusing every wrong doing of the hapless ‘victims’.

It’s the same rubbish today; Cheney, Bush and Big Oil have replaced the imperialists of yore, and the ‘third world’ has been replaced by Islamic countries.  I find the relentless apologia of the likes of Hedges, and Robert Fisk incredibly infuriating.  They are the Islamists’ Useful Idiots.

It seems like you’re actually trying to deny the facts of history, just looking for some clarification here.  So do you think that being upset about being bombed is whining?  I’m seriously asking.  Do you think that overthrowing a democratically elected government, and then using military and economic aid to keep oppressive dictators in power that siphon wealth from the people and move it to the 1st world is problematic?  If not, do you think China should do that to us now?  How about foreign occupation, is this a good thing to you? 

Finally I found his whole attitude in the interview really arrogant.  He came across as an obnoxious little sh*t.  Yet you listen to any number of interviews that Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins have given over the years, and you’ll find plenty of warmth, humanity and even self-deprecating humour in them.[/color][/color]

Hitchens’ entire career is based on his attitude, arrogance and thinly veiled verbal attacks.  I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing, it happens to be one of my favorite things about him.  Harris has blatantly said racist and extremely incendiary things about the Middle East, so that’s kind of difficult to categorize as warm and full of humanity.  Hedges was definitely confrontational in the interview, but if you condemned everyone who was confrontational, it would be impossible to be a fan of Hitchens.  Not to mention, your argument about manners is completely irrelevant.  It’s like saying religion is true because it makes me feel good.  The truth doesn’t always make you feel good, sometimes it’s difficult and challenging to hear, I would say it usually is.

I agree, Shinta, but would put it more strongly.

When it comes to Hitchens and Harris, secularism and atheism are merely camouflage for their real agenda, which is promoting full-throated liberal support for U.S. imperialist goals in the Middle East.  They don’t criticize Western policies of conquest, plunder, occupation and the imposition of ‘friendly’ governtments on Middle Eastern countries, because they don’t see these as any kind of crime. On the contrary, the only ‘criminals’ and ‘terrorists’, by their lights, are those resisting U.S. policy.

In my opinion such ‘secularism’ is not only discredited by Hitchens’ disgusting Islamophobic diatribes (the thinnest camouflage for pure racism), or Harris’s blood-chilling appeals for the nuclear immolation of Iran, but above all by the fact that they are willing to make common cause with the most extreme right-wing Christian crusaders and ultra-zionists to advance their cause.

CFI’s openness toward these ‘cruise-missile secularists’ is the counterpart of the bristling hostility you find toward Hedges - not for his hand-wringing liberal moralism - but for his (unthinkable) hostility to the sacred imperial mission.

I agree, Shinta, but would put it more strongly.

When it comes to Hitchens and Harris, secularism and atheism are merely camouflage for their real agenda, which is promoting full-throated liberal support for U.S. imperialist goals in the Middle East.  They don’t criticize Western policies of conquest, plunder, occupation and the imposition of ‘friendly’ governtments on Middle Eastern countries, because they don’t see these as any kind of crime. On the contrary, the only ‘criminals’ and ‘terrorists’, by their lights, are those resisting U.S. policy.

In my opinion such ‘secularism’ is not only discredited by Hitchens’ disgusting Islamophobic diatribes (the thinnest camouflage for pure racism), or Harris’s blood-chilling appeals for the nuclear immolation of Iran, but above all by the fact that they are willing to make common cause with the most extreme right-wing Christian crusaders and ultra-zionists to advance their cause.

CFI’s openness toward these ‘cruise-missile secularists’ is the counterpart of the bristling hostility you find toward Hedges - not for his hand-wringing liberal moralism - but for his (unthinkable) hostility to the sacred imperial mission.

I agree, but I don’t think that is the only reason people are upset and resistant, or that it applies to everyone who is upset. 

I think that a lot of people are just unsure of how to process a real debate on a different area of their work.  It’s fun to watch debates with Harris and Hitchens as they debate religious figures on the existence of god, but it’s also a bit ridiculous at the same time.  We know there is no argument to prove the existence of god, or the validity of superstitious scripture, so we are basically completely unchallenged, it is the illusion of challenge and debate.  I think that a lot of people are just not sure how to handle a serious debate.  Are any of you actually willing to be challenged and concede anything?  It’s a question worth asking.