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%207

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/watch.php?Video=Session%208

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, when it comes to the research on terrorism.

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?

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?

Where is he departing from Scott Atran, and what is that empirical evidence?

Edit: I should add that I edited my previous post that didn’t make it into your quote. Just wanted to mention that so it doesn’t look like I’m trying anything here.

I would say just about everything Andy goes over is offered in Scott Atran’s articles on terrorism. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/relevant_articles_on_terrorism

The most relevant, to the history, terrorism today, the reasons for young males becoming terrorist, religions role and the religiosity of terrorist (all of which pretty much are consistent with Andy):

“Who Becomes a Terrorist Today” - “Genesis of suicide terrorism,” - “The Jihadist Mutation” (where he says: “Last year witnessed ninety-eight suicide attacks, more than any year in contemporary history, the overwhelming majority for religious reasons.” - “Radical madrassas in Southeast Asia” - and “Sacred Barriers to Conflict Resolution,”

I would add to this, Scott’s appearances at the Beyond Belief Conferences, though they are far to short to cover his research.

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 them