Guess who is going to be a guest on the contemptible Christian talk radio station in my area tomorrow, at 5pm Central time?
Chris Hedges. Expect lots of raving anti-atheist lunacy. Call in if you can.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Does it have a internet version ?
I would like to transcribe his stupid claims
and make fun of them in my blog.
The cafés must be abuzz!
Hedges is completely disconnected from reality.
It would be great and so appropo to call in with a big hog calling opener! The freaking swine!
Heh. No less than THREE of the upcoming programs are attacks on atheists. Apparently we’ve caught their attention. If they’re scared enough they feel they have to spend time defending themselves against freethought, that’s probably a good thing.
And funny, but the ads on the side when I clicked over were for Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Apparently that Aslan as Jesus thing is still resonating in the Mass Mind of Christianity.
Do not be so quick to assume that your average KKMS listener will be entirely comfortable with everything the author of “What Every Person Should Know About War” has to say. That book, at least, has a connection to reality so tight as to be painful. I think it would be possible for most of us to respect much of Hedges’s work while taking issue with him on questions of belief and non-belief. Of course, if we’re having a dull afternoon and just felt like calling someone a “freaking swine”, we may not care to examine the matter more deeply.
# 6 The matter need not be any more examined than it has for these many years. Neither should respect be extended to swinish and irrational beliefs.
The man’s work in totality should be examined before we start throwing around variations on the term “swine.” If his experiences have led him to seek comfort in beliefs we find absurd, that’s unfortunate. But that’s not all there is to him.
Anyone else weirded out by the poll that asks: what are you most concerned about in this election. . and “Judges” is tied with Iraq? What? Not getting enough homophobes in the courts?
*sigh* I used to go to sites like this for a good laugh, but after a while, it just gets to be too much.
# 8 Seeking comforts in absurd beliefs does not lessen the purpose and useless need for those beliefs, and only supports the reality that if we here on this site can cast off irrational beliefs, then why cannot others who are provided with the same sensate brain and blatant rational facts embody the same. Perhaps I do swine a disservice in belittling them in comparing them to humans; after all they are smart and engage in what evolution has designed them for and never reason or unreason otherwise.
I would like Hedges to explain what he actually believes, and to explain how those beliefs fit with Christianity. He has said things like (I paraphrase): Christianity is about injustices suffered by homosexuals. If he meant that Christianity is about causing these injustices, I’d agree. Christianity is certainly motivated by anti-gay bias. But he meant that Christianity is about preventing these injustices. Huh?
He has also expressed doubts about whether Jesus was a real person. Yet he sees himself as a Christian, not an atheist.
Did someone say Narnia?
This might help a little in elucidating the punchline.
I heard an interview with Hedges about his recent book I Don’t Believe in Atheists on a podcast (perhaps Point of Inquiry?). Superficially, he sounds articulate enough, but I couldn not even begin to make sense of his “reasoning.” He seems to be blind with anger for some reason, blaming all negative trends in Western society–real and imagined–on the “New Atheists.”
I think it’s important to note that Chris Hedges, who is more than a hop and a skip from your typical right wing loon, is probably not the only person who sees atheists in this negative light. What does that say about the way atheists are representing themselves to society at large?
Before you jump on me, the theme here is “proactive”.
Like someone above said: I like Hedges’s other work and think that he is generally a very rational when it comes to things such as nationalism and war (I like the fact that he does not succumb to that other irrationality, namely nationalism). OTOH I do agree that his justifications of religion are pure sophistry. On the other hand though, I agree with Sam Harris and Hitchens when it comes to religion, I despise their political views and find them contemptible. SO ceteris paribus I would always go with someone like Hedges than someone like the contemptible (in my opinion) Hitchens; but then that my preference.
By the way I wanted to add that people like Hitchens cause far more damage than Hedges ever could with his defense of some nebulous and convoluted (but utterly harmless and progressive) version of christianity. Also note a typo above, there should not have been a comma after “though” above.
What’s this all about?
Canada Free Press Columnist, Yomin Postelnik, Attacked by Atheist Group
In Europe atheism gets just as much publicity but doesn’t get a fraction of the vitriol that is evident in the US. That would suggest that its not the public atheists themselves that cause the reaction but something peculiar to the US situation. I am inclined to go along with Daniel Dennets interpretation that it is simply the act of atheists saying they find supernatural beliefs to be irrational that causes the anger in the minds of believers.
Unlike the situation in Europe where it is certainly nothing out of the ordinary to identify yourself as a non-believer, it appears that this is somehow shocking to a lot of the US public.
Hedges extremely hostile interview with DJ Grothe was full of strawman attacks and ad hominems. I’d expect more along that line in his interview. Considering the makeup of the radio audience for the show a better line of question to pose to him, if you manage to ring in, would be to ask him about Islam. His considerate moderate views of that religion will, to the stations listeners, sound like a party political broadcast for Satan.
I’ll add that the proof it talks about is full of fail. Still, no need to harass the guy.
I agree it’s not good to harass him, but I wouldn’t take Postelnik’s word on anything. Read here to learn how he slanders and libels those he doesn’t agree with. The man is a contemptible dog, and in Canada, if the word ‘free’ is thrown in something that’s not referring to the toy in a happy meal, you can safely bet it’s some neo-con “Won’t someone please think of the CHIL-drun?!” bullshit.
The guy’s a fucking clown.
I had suspicions that it was overreaction from the guy, but I’m not familiar with the source. Calling someone’s house is not cool, but there’s nothing wrong with receiving “…over 200 emails” and being the “…target of numerous forum posts”. Such harsh treatment. I’m not sure what he expected when he published an article on the internet. Thanks for the link and clarification.
#17
Yomin has been going around, making fake news reports. Here’s another one-
http://www.topix.com/city/pompano-beach-fl/2008/06/south-florida-columnist-yomin-postelnik-attacked-by-atheist-group
He has also started at least 4 blogs dedicated to trash talking the various members of the ACA and moderators of the atheist experience blog, all the while screaming and whining about why they wont leave him alone.
I’ll say that again- why THEY wont leave HIM alone.
What’s also really funny is the way he quotes himself in the news report.
Dennis N asks,
I’d say its about some jerk using a definition of “attack” that is so wide as to include mean words.
200 emails isn’t harassment, but I’d say the phone calls would be. Who would have organized the campaign, if at all?
Sounds like yet another person who needs “persecution” to function properly.
Dennis N@19 Is there any actual evidence this liar (he falsely claims that scientists increasingly accept that there’s a divine creator) has been harassed, apart from his say-so? If he has, then yes of course it’s wrong.
For a real ‘unbiased’ look at the journalistic integrity of the Canada Free Press, read this.
For those of you whose intestinal fortitude is less than average, here’s the leader and headline:
The rag’s written at a Kenny-grade level. So I wouldn’t worry about Yomin.
Oh, I see he popped up last Friday night. I don’t Pharyngulate much on the weekends, sorry I missed it.
Me neither. Weekends are when I go carousing, since I don’t believe in any higher power to be accountable to.
Hedges likes to claim himself as an authority on life in Islamic cultures and complains that Atheists argue from ignorance. Ayaan Hirsi Ali should call in and tell Hedges what life is really like and why Atheism is preferable.
Friday nights usually begin with the baby eating, Saturday is immoral sex, and Sunday I just go around picking up sticks as much as I can.
mmmmmm….babies
I’m rather lazy, so on Sunday I play Pick-up Sticks (or Kerplunk, for variety) while listening to Styx.
Dōmo arigatō, I’m going to hell.
I’m still trying to understand why a man who sharply criticized American Christian fundamentalists would agree to go on a program run by American Christian fundamentalists.
Must be because he hates us more….
See, you are just in denial of the power of Tyr, Woden and Thor who keep you from carousing the rest of the week. (Unlike Freya who’s very pro-carousing.)
I discussed this a bit last Thursday with the Atheist Community of Austin / Atheist Experience show folks at ACA happy hour. It’s pretty funny.
Basically, Martin called him names in a blog posting, and he think’s that’s slander and wanted to sue Martin and the ACA. It’s not slander, and certainly not by ACA—it was clearly Martin’s personal opinion.
Here’s Martin’s post: http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/06/yomin-postelnik-poster-boy-for-arrogant.html
Yomin seems to think he’s been libeled because Martin said “millions of people sadly think like this twat.”
Yomin called the president of the ACA with threats, and the prez set him straight—it’s not libel or slander, but some of what Postelnik has been saying about the affair and about Martin may be.
The story gets weirder from there. Shortly after that, Martin’s Wikipedia page was defaced with actual serious slander of several sorts, and the IP number shows it to have come from Postelnik or someone using his network.
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/06/holy-crap-is-he-really-this-stupid-is.html
There’s more, but I’m out of the loop. (And I don’t want to reveal certain things that might be very amusing in court, if I understand the chain of events correctly.)
I saw a debate between Hedges and Hitchens, sometime before his recent book “I Don’t Believe in Atheists”. Hitchens mopped the floor with him, making Hedges look rather foolish. I think Hedges is still smarting from that thrashing, and could be the main impetus for the book.
Is it really our highest priority to hassle an outspoken opponent of Bush/Cheney’s war crimes, while speaking to some of the regime’s dwindling supporters, for the sake of abstract metaphysical-theological point-scoring? (If the broadcast in question becomes an atheist-bashing session, obviously this question is moot.)
Meanwhile – Chris Hedges, “Introduction” to Collateral Damage: What It Really Means When America Goes to War:
I saw a debate between Hedges and Hitchens, sometime before his recent book “I Don’t Believe in Atheists”. Hitchens mopped the floor with him, making Hedges look rather foolish.
All that proves is that Hitchens is a better debater than Hedges. His atheism aside, I think that Christopher Hitchens is an obnoxious twit.
Chris Hedges was insanely obtuse in a podcast I subscribe to. He’s quite fond of repeating that he’s an expert on the middle-east and likes hiding in inconsequential details when asked pointed questions about the region and the countries there.
The other thing he likes to go on about is people who want to improve society into some ideal place. In his mind this has apparently never led to anything and it is not only a futile but also a misguided enterprise. Same goes for moral advances, to him, these never happened and whatever you like to throw out to counter that is just you misinterpreting reality now and in the past.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a troll who just happened to have access to the publishing business (he’s a former editor of some well known newsmag).
At least he is anti-war. Have to respect him for that.
““The War in Iraq Is Pure Murder“
I don’t believe in Chris Hedges.
Chris Hedges is one of the best American journalists writing today. He is a man of enormous courage and has covered wars in El Salvador, Bosnia, the Middle East, etc. on the frontlines, under fire, risking his life. His books recounting his experiences, “War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning” and “What Every Person Should Know About War”, should be required reading for every American. In 2003 when almost all America was hot for the blood of the people of Iraq, Mr. Hedges fearlessly dissented in an amazing commencement speech at Rockford College where, surrounded by an angry, threatening audience-turned-mob and abandoned by gutless college administrators and faculty, he unhesitatingly stood his ground and patiently explained why the Iraq war was the moral and national catastrophe that most Americans now believe it is—five years too late. You can see this speech on YouTube. His book “Losing Moses on the Freeway” is, despite the frivolous title, as profound a study of modern American morality as you can find. “American Fascists” details the corruption eating away the vitals not only of American religion but of America itself. And now in “I Don’t Believe in Atheists”, he describes atheists as fallible humans all too prone to the same faults and failings that they so easily spot in religious people they disparage. Well, how dare he, the rat bastard! How dare he look at atheists and see warts when everybody knows that when atheists look in the mirror they see paragons of virtue and reason smiling back at them!
Here’s another one ripe for vivisection!
I had an exchange in the Globe and Mail with Hedges (in the book review section)– it was a frustrating process, since he ignored everything I wrote and just repeated the (rather incoherent) claims he makes in I Don’t Believe in Atheists. I think it emerged from two main sources: he doesn’t like Hitchens’s or Harris’s politics (I’m sympathetic on this point) and he’s decided atheism is to blame (WTF?). What I really don’t get (since he seems to be smart enough to know better) is that a symmetrical attack on religion is far more convincing, if only because religious belief is so much more common and (given its authoritarian epistemology) in principle more divisive. Why attack your opponents with rhetorical devices that actually work better against your own position? I suspect it’s really about how thoroughly Hitchens clobbered him in their debate…
Depends. Is it really Chris Hedges’s highest priority to hassle atheists, writing a book calling them fundamentalist ideologues, etc.?
Well, given that he’s been touring behind a book bashing atheists, and bashing atheists to promote it, it seems likely that’s what it could be.
On the other hand, it could be interesting to hear him try to denigrate atheists as being awful “fundamentalists” on a Christian radio station. Anything could happen.
Before you condemn Hedges, recognize that he defends evolution from the Christian right. Read this quote from Hedges in “The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism”:
———–quote————
Creationism, or “intelligent design,” like Eugenics for the Nazis, must be introduced into the mainstream as a valid scientific discipline to destroy the discipline of science itself. This is why the Christian Right is working to bring test cases to ensure that school textbooks include “intelligent design” and condemn gay marriage.
The drive by the Christian Right to include crackpot theories in scientific or legal debate is part of the campaign to destroy dispassionate and honest intellectual inquiry. Facts become interchangeable with opinions. An understanding of reality is not to be based on the elaborate gathering of facts and evidence. The ideology alone is true. Facts that get in the way of the ideology can be altered. Lies, in this worldview, become true. Hannah Arendt called this effort “nihilistic relativism” although a better phrase might be collective insanity.
———–end quote———–
Much more on the subject here:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/ChristianRight_AmerFascism.html
Many of us are well aware of Hedges’s previous work, and profoundly disappointed in him.
He’s got a very broad brush loaded with a lot of tar and is jabbing it right at us.
I don’t think we should give him any quarter as long as he’s doing that.
Even if he does defend evolution, his views on atheism and atheists are ones of a rambling madman. Defending science != understanding atheism. The guy is a nub, and that won’t change even if he’s defending string theory.
Trueblue99: Well, that’s not quite right. Sure there are atheists whose politics is just as stupid or vicious (or both) as many religious people’s politics. The question is, why does Hedges think this is due to their atheism? As Hitchens and Harris (and Dawkins) carefully show with extensive quotations from various ‘holy’ books, many religions offer startlingly harsh and vindictive justifications for the persecution of heretics, infidels and unbelievers (not to mention the infamous abominable fancy). Sadly, these justifications are all too often seized on. By contrast, atheism lacks any sectarian/metaphysical doctrine, and so can’t be convicted of similar sins, though individual atheists (like all too many humans of all stripes throughout history) certainly have been guilty of similar acts. As Steven Weinberg put it, “(w)ith or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
@Doug,
From my understanding Chris Hedges is familiar with Hirsi’s book, but Hirsi’s book is a nightmarish portrayal that may be 100% accurate and still fail to represent the day to day reality of the Middle East because it covers the perspective of a single person. Families simply would not function if things were that consistently bad. You can’t get a big picture from an in-focus biographical work.
I encounter all sorts of people who think they know the Middle East because they read a book or visited, or lived there for a few years. If you want to claim special knowledge you have to do what Hedges has done and jump right into the culture and eat with the people you claim to understand.
Bryson Brown @ 49 Nice to see my friend Steven Weinberg quoted. Here is another by him with a little more emphasis on scientific reasoning: “One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.” Ah yes, no retreat, and I might add, no quarter or leeway.
Paul W: Depends. Is it really Chris Hedges’s highest priority to hassle atheists, writing a book calling them fundamentalist ideologues, etc.?
Good point. May I suggest it may be more productive (politically) and successful (tactically) for those who call in to this radio show to do their best to direct the conversation to the war, its victims, and its initiators?
… he’s been touring behind a book bashing atheists…
That, as we’ve all been taught to say, was then. Now, he’s on a book tour promoting Collateral Damage (co-authored by the daughter of Dr. Sami Al-Arian, a much-abused US political prisoner whose story should be better known), which reports on the atrocities endured by Iraqi civilians under Compassionate Conservatism(tm).
Encouraging Hedges to flog his current book should not be incredibly difficult. Having avowed atheists urging him to address basic issues of humanity (and crimes against same) should at the least de-fang prospective rhetoric about the heartlessness or mindlessness of the gawdless.
#51
I was not aware this is a zero-sum game.
trueblue99 @ 42 We can argue till we are blue in the face on whether your imaginary god does not exist(I hope you noticed the double negatives), but all it takes is to prove it. Make your non-existent god come down and prove that it is imaginary, or smite us with its ghostly power. You can not do this as so many of your demented kind have been unable to do since our brains evolved into rational and irrational entities. To reiterate so many times, that if I were a supreme being and one of my creations questioned my existence, I would be down in a flash and give it the might of my imaginary powers. Can you do this? will your imaginary ghost listen to your pathetic and useless prayer? It will never happen because it is all the fictional creation of unsound minds. You can demonstrate your willinginess to prove it by handing me an orange and saying, “here is an orange”. Don’t show me your empty hand and say “here is my god”. No good. Prove it, or put your brain to more rational uses. Let’s see your god.
The Chemist @ 54 This clash between reason and insanity has ceased to be a game. The sum will be a zero for the insane religionist as he will be the loser just as he has lost his reason.
…though I agree with Sam Harris and Hitchens when it comes to religion, I despise their political views and find them contemptible.
Hitchens, sure, but what’s so bad about Harris?
You despise Harris’ political views, but that shouldn’t take anything away from his contempt at irrational and credulous morons. We all respect Newton for his sound scientific principles, but that doesn’t mean we have to agree with him on his religious views. Atheists are all over the place, in terms of the political spectrum, and although we can utterly hate where they come from, the argument here is not about politics per say, but irrational turdlings. I’m no Hitchensian apologist mind you, because I do completely disagree with his politics, yet, his message and hostility towards the weak and feable minded should give us all one type of example to follow.
Here’s a debate between Hedges and Harris from last year (apologies if anyone linked to it above – I’m a bit out of it at the moment):
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070617_religion_politics_and_the_end_of_the_world/
If you want to claim special knowledge you have to do what Hedges has done and jump right into the culture and eat with the people you claim to understand.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali lived in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Ethopia and was raised a Muslim. Much different than Hedges who goes to the Middle East, gets put up in a nice hotel for a few years and lives the life of a rich foreigner with male privileges.
Hedges had this to say about Ayaan:
“I’m not familiar with her work. I reported from the Middle East for 20 years, so I don’t need to read someone else’s opinion of what it was like.”
Apparently the opinion of someone raised in the society and had her genitals mutilated as a part of the religion should have no voice on the subject. Hedges dismisses her as a fundamentalist Atheist, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
I think Hedges wrote his anti-atheist tirade of a book out of spite and prefers the role as Muslim apologist. The funny thing is that all the press he is getting from the book is merely riding on the coattails of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett.
#42, when have we atheists ever claimed to have cornered the market on virtue? What scares you is that we can actually use our minds to think. It’s religious and so called spiritual feeble minded individuals trapped in some type of illogical adhesive.
It all comes down to people turning a blind eye to truth. Some people just can’t accept the randomness of the universe, and therefore, their weak minds dispair at the thought of having no pre-emptive purpose. Well, if those assholes only knew how free atheists are to create their own purpose to life. Yes, the universe is apathetic to people’s needs, but so what? There is a whole planet full of sentient apes, with a decent fraction of those willing to expand their potential. Through happenstance and cosmic accidents, we have it within us to really explore the universe we live in. We’re the only creature in the roughtly 4 billion year history of the planet capable of expanding our horizons to these levels, and yet, most of our kind is trapped in their stupid childhood fantasy world. It’s hard to imagine how these sentient “adults” with all the tools and faculties for reasoning, waste their time discussing imaginary beings and concepts. When I hear these fucks talking about angels, deamons, heaven, hell, the afterlife, god, avoiding food for lent, kosher bullshit, whatever it may me, it just baffles the intellect. And yet, apologists for these credulous minds claim that we’re misguided for treating them so harshly. We’re labelled arrogant, vain, falsely virtuous, whatever it may be, but those are mere generalities that have no sense of basis in reality. I bet when a few progressive individuals came out against slavery back in the 1700’s, they were labelled as arrogant. Yet, in hindsight, it’s the progressive indivduals who can see ahead that help dictate the pace of the future. If this is arrogance, that so be it.
You make no grammatical sense here. Zero-sum game means either religion wins or atheism. To accept that it is a zero sum game is equal to saying that atheism must win at any price. Now if you want to clarify, please do.
Helioprogenus @ 57 My sentiments exactly. All those atheists I admire have something that I don’t agree with and may be reprehensible, but as long as they denigrate religious insanity these minor faults are easily overlooked. One characteristic should not in any way diminish the other. I am such an intransigent hater of religion, that no matter what surfaces in my like companion, I can disregard it for I know he is as steadfast in his hatred of religion as I am. He has nasty habits? True! He is unequivocal in his hatred of all religious nonsense? True, and more important!
I don’t want to be unfair to anyone, but I think that the probability is quite high (nearing certainty) that not one of you so affronted by Chris Hedges has actually read “I Don’t Believe in Atheists” (or any other book of his for that matter). Now, fess up, because if you had, you wouldn’t be writing the silly things you are. Allow me to quote from the book:
“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. The concept of sin is a check on the utopian dreams of a perfect world. It prevents us from believing in our own perfectibility or the illusion that the material advances of science and technology equal an intrinsic moral improvement in our species. To turn away from God is harmless. Saints have been trying to do it from centuries. To turn away from sin is catastrophic (pp 13-14).”
That doesn’t sound like atheist bashing to me. Rather, it is an ancient theme: beware people who don’t know their human limitations. The Greeks called this “hubris”. “Know yourself” and “nothing to excess” were words of wise advice inscribed at the Oracle of Delphi.
This was also inscribed there: “Read the book BEFORE you find fault with it and its author.”
@ Doug,
First of all, Chris Hedges did not win a Pulitzer as a war reporter for staying in cushy hotels. No one does unless it’s a story about cushy hotels. Still, that’s besides the point.
Hirsi, unfortunate as her story may be, is a poor example of what’s typical. This is especially true when you consider that she was born in Somalia, and FGM is a phenomenon that has its roots in African traditions, not Islamic.
It’s not that Hirsi has no voice, it’s that she talks about a population in a way that no knowledgeable person would consider accurate across a broad spectrum of 1.3-1.5 million people. Hedges is not so much an apologist as he is a person who acknowledges that large populations are not monolithic.
The Chemist @ 61 I consciously made no attempt at grammatical sense here, but expressed my blatant opinion that atheism will win no matter what, and that religion will be the total loser. There is no need to clarify my total contempt for religion and an equal regard that religion will be always the loser. That should have been 53 instead of 54.
I thought I had contempt for religious Holbach, but I gotta say, you’re definitely making it hard for me to say I hold the most contempt. Seriously though, one day, we’ll come out on top of this bullshit.
Helioprogenus, was your #57 a reply to me? It seems a bit confused… I was quoting protocol’s comment #15 above, and asking what’s so unpalatable about Harris’s politics(I tend to agree with what I know of his political positions; I do not despise them as you say). Not so for Hitchens–he is a very different political, ah, mammal. Since protocol and I agree on Hitchens, I was wondering what he finds do disagreeable about Harris. I did not imply anything about Harris’s or Hitchens’ political views diminishing their arguments against religion.
Perhaps my first post wasn’t clear as the comment was far up-thread, and I didn’t reference a name… when questioning protocol in the future, I shall be more prudent.
trueblue99 #42,
are you saying that because hedges is a good journalist and was capable of understanding how catastrophic this war would be, we should trust his judgement about atheism ?
BTW, weren’t all the french, german, chinese, russian diplomats (mostly atheists, poor them) all predicting exactly the catastrophic results of this war ? Doesn’t appear to me that hedges was particularly unique in that field.
And if he is the great journalist that you think he is, did he analyse atheism in those countries that already have a quasi majority of them, or did he just reach his conclusions on atheism by guess work ?
J Myers @ 56 & 67: Harris (whose books I haven’t read), judging from his articles at truthdig.com & elsewhere, takes a naively blatant anti-Muslim stand, seeming to derive from various Quranic quotes that all Muslims are flaming merciless jihadists.
Applying the same “logic” to the Old Testament, you would have to say that all Jews are genocidists.
Others may have more to contribute, but I say that Sam Harris thus far appears hopelessly deficient as a real-world thinker.
trueblue99,
don’t try to misrepresent things, it won’t work here.
From this article, it’s obvious that hedges is making factually incoherent claims about new atheists :
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/index.html
listen to just two :
“They adopt many of the foundational belief systems of fundamentalists. For example, they believe that the human species is marching forward, that there is an advancement toward some kind of collective moral progress — that we are moving towards, if not a Utopian, certainly a better, more perfected human society. That’s fundamental to the Christian right, and it’s also fundamental to the New Atheists.
“I mean, Sam Harris, at the end of his first book, asks us to consider a nuclear first strike on the Arab world. Both Hitchens and Harris defend the use of torture. Of course, they’re great supporters of preemptive war, and I don’t think this is accidental that their political agendas coalesce completely with the Christian right.”
So, this is what atheism means for hedges ? Or new atheism ? factually wrong.
[Irrational boosterism and OT alert]
CELTICS! w00t!
trueblue99 @ 63 I did not read that morons book and have no intention to do so. I forced myself to watch him rant his book on BookTV on CSpan as it was easier to visually puke at this cretin standing there and spewing his insanities. You seem to be pitching that the Tooth Fairy is unequivocally real as you quote from his deranged book:”We have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin.” What insane bullshit! We don’t believe in a god or gods, yet he hands us this insane line as if to tone down the first part of that crap sentence.! Sin? What the crap is sin but nothing made up by a deranged mind to fortify the need for transgressions engineered by an imaginary ghost to assure that there will be a cleansing and forgiveness! Hedges is batshit insane, and the only reason he is not commited to an insane asylum is that he is fortified by millions of equally insane cretins who give credence to this moronic crap. If he were to claim he talks to the easter bunny he would be locked up. But when he claims that he talks to his god he is regarded as normal and a pillar of society! Holy crap, this is not considered madness? You religious insane are not beyond claiming that religion in all its deranged manifestations is not only true, but should be embraced by everyone, sane or otherwise. Well, here is one and many other rational minds that do not ascribe to your brand of insanity and will be most vociferous in denouncing with blatant contempt your demented superstitions.
I might also note that Harris is way too credulous about the woo wooism coming out of the Eastern traditions. “I sat with my legs crossed for six hours so I know the TRUTH about REALITY man. I kinda lost interest in him after that. Nothing worng with meditating, but it is not supernatural.
Holbach has really taught me a lot.
The spiteful little thug serves as an example of what the rest of us must never allow ourselves to become.
Prior to his arrival here at Pharyngula, I hadn’t seen his brand of hate-worship outside of Stormfront and Free Republic.
Hedges missed the train of rationality at the Far Left Station . . . where he keeps good company with Dinesh D’Souza and the authors of The Secret. I’m fairly liberal, myself, but it still puzzles me, this bizarre need to keep a corner of one’s mind in shadow. I agree with some of what he says, much like there’s some (ok, very little) good that comes out of neo-con policies. I just know that if someone chooses to paint me as either intolerant or ignorant simply because I don’t find an interest in serving their deity, they can feck off.
Will this be available online? Can someone record this and post it?
I don’t understand your complaint, #70. I have read both Harris and Hitchens, and Chris Hedges relates their positions quite fairly. Do you think otherwise? You do understand, don’t you, that Chris Hedges is writing about that group called “The New Atheists”, meaning Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett? He isn’t writing about ALL atheists. He isn’t writing about you, or PZ Myers, or that gaggle of atheists in Boise, or that solitary atheist in a village near you. He is specifically responding to these four and their provocative views.
Also, why do you (and others) persist in thinking that Chris Hedges is religious or has a religious viewpoint or criticizes The New Atheists from a religious perspective? He is not religious and has no particular religious views. Bop on over to YouTube and listen to this interview with him on CBC radio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcTUxHU2ocA
Pehaps after listening to this interview, you might agree with me that Chris Hedges is, for all intents and purposes, an atheist.
RE: protocol #15
“On the other hand though, I agree with Sam Harris and Hitchens when it comes to religion, I despise their political views and find them contemptible”
More times than not when I see Harris speak he goes out of his way to say that he agree with specific points that Hitchens attempts to make about religion, but in no way does he agree with his overall political stance, especially concerning the war in Iraq.
What specific political views are you disagreeing with on Harris?
Note: as more than one person has mentioned this, anyone can feel free to chime in.
Views that many posters here, myself included, share and that do not, contrary to the excerpt you posted earlier, include any kind of belief that humans are infallible.
@ #71
wooot!
On topic: KKMS links to this website: http://www.therebelution.com
Apparently these people are trying to reach out to the (pre)college crowd more than ever. The blog on that site depicts a nice passion reenactment. Fear still sells.
Dawkins and Dennet are both pacifists. Harris and Hitchens are both promoters of war, particularly of the nuclear sort. To assume they have similar views on any issue other than atheism (even on atheism, Hitchens has little in common with either Dennet or Dawkins, other than a lack of belief) is deeply ignorant.
That’s the trouble with the phrase ‘new atheists’. It reveals the ignorance of its users.
“Dawkins and Dennet are both pacifists.”
Are they truly? As in the very definition of the word? From some of their writings (although I don’t recall them explicitly saying this) I get the feeling they aren’t opposed to unavoidable violence. It seems they would be rationalists in many regards. What are Dawkins’ opinions on WW2 interventions?
I think the difference should be clear. Harris gives some compelling arguments about the immorality of pacifism in End of Faith. I tend to agree with him, so labeling somebody a pacifist carries alot in my mind.
Sorry, I fumbled my last post badly. I meant to say that Hitchens promoted nuclear war, but Harris (who does not promote nuclear war) instead insists western civilization as a whole (not just America and the ‘coalition of the willing’) is already at war with Islam – prior to, and independent of, the action in Iraq.
I believe Dawkins and Dennet are both pacifists only the Bertrand Russell sense; they do not believe all violence is avoidable. But they clearly believe most wars are avoidable, and ought to be opposed.
I don’t think there would be many true pacifists around, I’d be surprised if Dawkins or Dennett were completely opposed to violence at all costs. I’m not sure about Dennett, but it seems that Dawkins pushes the idea of reciprocal altruism as his mantra of sorts.
So in order to make Hedges happy I can be an atheist, but I have to believe in “sin.” Define “sin,” asshole. The conventional definition of “sin” is that which is proscribed by God. No gods, no sins. I get the concept of “wrong,” but if he means “wrong” when he’s saying “sin,” he’s an incredibly sloppy thinker.
M Lee: Dipshit D’Sousaphone is “far left” in your world?! D’Sousa has been a right-wing wingnut-welfare recipient for as long as I’ve known of him, which dates back to an incredibly racist article he penned for Details magazine in the early 1990s…
Hitchens is a tough nut to crack. Preemption is a very real strategy known and employed by the US in the past century. I think Harris’ depiction of it in his book is a very scary (but real) situation. But I don’t think it is completely unreasonable given the circumstances he outlined in the book (fundamentalist state with nuclear bomb and overwhelming populace subscribing to the Land Of Islam/Land of War mentality).
It’s scary to think of the nearly 50 years of cold war, but preemption was the prevailing strategy (ok maybe not prevailing, but a primary one). It’s just the use of nuclear weapons was deterred by a reality that is just fine with some fundamentalists (MAD).
“but it seems that Dawkins pushes the idea of reciprocal altruism as his mantra of sorts.”
I agree with this statement. It’s really the only political currency I can see that is available at this point.
Bwahahaha, what’s wrong guys, can’t take a little criticism from a formidable opponent ?
The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism gave the fundies one HELL of a bloody nose in totally different circles than reached by the so-called “New Atheist” Movement.
If you want to know why yall got a backlash in his latest book, it’s 2 simple words Christopher Hitchens. If it were just Sam Harris’ misconceptions, I don’t think he would have bothered. Fourth horseman my ass, Hitchens is a shirt-tailing goat fucking Carnival Hawker whose world view is as violent as the Old Testament he whines about..
#29
Not true, Hedges sticks to Arabs, and he is an expert on the Middle East, although not on a par with Robert Fisk. He objects to such BS as Palestinians being equated to Saudi Arabians because they are both Islamotards. That’s like comparing Canada to Guatemala because they are both Christards.
#29
That would be an excellent conversation, however Hedges does not pretend to know anything about Islamic Africa south of Egypt, and would likely defer.
I agree with Hedges on many of his criticisms, but he seems to think of ‘New Atheism” as monolithic which is absurd.
One point I do share with hedges is that Nationalism will make you more stupid than Religion.
As far as his religious points, they are pretty difficult to determine since he doesn’t believe in anything recognizable as Christianity, but claims to be a Christian.
I’m going to try like hell to get him on the air and pin him down on that, but I have to read his last three books first, maybe in late July.
Do not confuse Hedges with the average Christard Athiest basher. He recommends reading the classic existential Atheists, it’s just the some of the de-humanizing, and war-mongering that is is rolling off the Decks of the latest boat from the Galagos.
I recommend listening carefully for some very perceptive insights between the rants.
Hedges has seen the worst of many dirty wars, as is committed to describing the entire phenomenon of war and every aspect to make people think twice. It’s a truly Noble endeavor, and he is VERY good at it.
However pissed off he is at certain Atheists, his anti-fundamentalist attacks are as savage as anything atheists say.
trueblue99,
I listened to the CBC interview. It doesn’t change my opinion of Hedges’s anti-atheism, given his other stuff I’ve read and listened to.
I think he’s full of shit.
Apparently, to him, anybody who believes there are some good ideas that might lead to some modest progress is a “utopian.” If they talk about it, and defend their points of view, they’re “fundamentalists.”
Basically, in his own terms, he’s an anti-progressive “fundamentalist.”
It’s ludicrous how he runs together the New Atheism with evolutionary psychology, and falsely contrasts it with Freudianism, of all things.
That’s especially funny given the way he dismisses the New Atheists’ understanding of religion, because they didn’t major in theology. But he’s the expert on human psychology because he mis-absorbed a little Freud and misunderstood evolutionary psychology in basic ways.
I’ve heard evolutionary psychology called lot of things, but “utopian” is not one of them. The idea that evolutionary psychologists don’t recognize social problems as arising from the “dark side” of human nature is ridiculous. The idea that they think human beings are perfectible is equally ridiculous.
In case you missed the memo, the most strident opposition to evolutionary psychology is from utopians, or more optimistic progressives, who don’t think that human nature is such a mixed bag with limited options.
I suspect my credentials in psychology and the New Atheism are way better than Hedges’s, so if you buy his argument from authority about theological expertise, you should take my word for it that he’s full of shit about everything else.
The New Atheists are not utopians or fundamentalists. They do not think that religion is the root of all evil, or even the root of most evil. They just think it’s a bad thing, on the whole, and one of the few sources of human misery that something can be done about. It doesn’t require a basic change to the mixed bag that is human nature. They are modestly ambitious progressives, and that is anathema to Hedges, so he exaggerates and calls them extreme names to make them look bad.
Fuck him.
@trueblue99. Re Dawkins’ views on war: I can only speak about his attitude to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. He was one of its foremost opponents in the UK, condemning it in the most forthright terms. So if Hedges is painting “The New Atheists” as supporters of the neocons, he’s either ignorant or lying. Most probably, he’s a victim of OWITUSAC syndrome, and hasn’t even bothered to find out about Dawkins’ views. Hedges’ line about sin is logically incoherent: sin is, specifically, an offence against God, so an atheist cannot consistently believe in sin. Atheists of course can, and the vast majority do, consider human beings imperfect (like all products of natural evolutionary processes), and specifically, liable to selfishness, greed, cruelty, wishful thinking and other grave faults. I admit I haven’t read Hedges. He’s evidently so full of shit it would be a waste of time.
Re: #17
Please write an email to the CFP complaining about this article, as I did:
“To whom it may concern,
As much as I am in favour of your Free Press site, and free speech in general, I am appalled by the partisan nature of this article. Did you think to get the other side of the story, or investigate the claims made against Mr. Postelnik?
Shame on you. You deserve to be subjected to the same ridicule that Mr Postelnik has suffered.”
no gods, no masters @ 74 Your comment is indictative of your mild and noncommital attitude to those of us who are combative against the irrational religionists. Verbal forcefulness is necessary impress upon these morons that their insanities are not embraced by everyone. You may have been commenting at this site longer than me, but I do not see your name or comments as often as mine, which leads me to believe you are just irresolute in your opinions and only comment when someone offends your idea of always being polite against the foe. I’ll accept the moniker of thug as this is the way I would behave against anything that smacks of irrationality. I may have taught you that I am intransigent in my assault against these morons, but you have never learned anything in the manner of not letting these cretins run roughshod over reason. You may have the company of others of your ilk on this site who feel as you do in decrying my methods, but there are others who are aligned with me and perhaps applaud my necessary forcefulness. There is no chance that you will ever allow yourself and others to become what you deigned me to be. You will never be counted among those who have conscientiously made an attempt to counter the irrational hordes who wish to return us to the dark ages. I think your moniker is disingenuous and should be changed to reflect your weak position on this important issue. How about “no gods, no masters, no committment, or anything else’.
Trueblue99 #77,
And you call that good journalism ?
Analysing “New Atheism”, what it represents, its motivations, etc… and concluding that, from a sample of two individuals, their political agenda coalesces completely with that of the Christian right ?
That New Atheists (and I think many people commenting on this blog would gladly carry that term) are great supporters of preemtive wars ?
Don’t you think he got it completely wrong ?
That’s not journalism, that’s propaganda and lies.
And that you are defending him, just means you are incapable of understanding what New Atheism means, and that like many people, you are incapable of thinking critically about what you are reading, it’s just flowing into your brain and you drink it like sweat milk.
@91: OWITUSAC -> OWHITUSAC. As the acronym’s inventor, you’d think I could get it right!
Well, how dare he, the rat bastard! How dare he look at atheists and see warts when everybody knows that when atheists look in the mirror they see paragons of virtue and reason smiling back at them!
Holy Strawman, Fallout boy!
Trueblue99 said:
So so long as we atheists are nice, quiet and don’t upset his comfy worldview we get little gold stars? Sorry, women have heard that before, as have homosexuals and just about anyone of a race or culture other than that of the person making the above claim. It’s bullshit.
It is also frankly contradicted by Chris Hedges’s own words:
Leaving aside the fact that not one atheist, New or otherwise, has ever claimed that people are perfect or godlike how is this criticism supposed to only reflect on Harris, Hitchens et al as opposed to being directed at all atheists?
Any atheist will reject the notion of original sin since it is an inherently religious concept based on the idea that humans have offended against God/s. If we don’t believe in God/s it follows we won’t believe that humanity has offended against such a mythical being and any ideas that follow on from this premise.
I have a couple of books dealing with the subject of the “New Atheists” as mentioned in their titles. One was published in the 60s, the other in the 90s. Now Hedges is tackling the new, new, new Atheists?
So what makes the Atheists new this time? Oh wait, they don’t believe in a god and they voice their opinion. Well, that’s kinda like Col. Ingersoll from the 19th century so that can’t be it.
Could it be that these new, new, new Atheists are conservative? Nah, so was Ayn Rand back in the 50s so that can’t be it.
So what does Hedges say about his new Atheists that makes them distinct from Atheists of the past. Well, what makes me new anyway? I’ve been an Atheist all my life but I don’t feel that anything has changed that makes me new.
I saw a few questions above about why I think Harris’s political opinions are contemptible. I do no want to go into too much detail here, But I was speaking in reference to the last chapter of Harris’s “End of Faith” where he tries his hand at geopolitical analysis. He has the same exact blind spot about American foreign policy that most american nationalist/statist liberals do: namely that since the U.S. is a democracy, its foreign policy acts are qualitatively different in motivation than other, non-democratic powers. I do not want to belabor the point, but this is unmitigated bullcrap. A state’s internal political system has little to do with its external behavior. Thus Harris’s quite irrational hatred of those like Chomsky who dare to apply consistent standards to state behavior. And also, as someone pointed out above, he is not very “even-handed” in his dislike of religions….
I must say, concluding that the New Atheists’ political agenda “coalesces completely with that of the Christian right” and that the New Atheists are “great supporters of preemtive wars”, must be amongst the most ridiculous conclusions I’ve heard for quite some time…
And trueblue99 drinks this like honeymead, just flows into his brain, and hop tralala “chris hedges is a great journalist”.
I must say, concluding that the New Atheists’ political agenda “coalesces completely with that of the Christian right” and that the New Atheists are “great supporters of preemtive wars”, must be amongst the most ridiculous conclusions I’ve heard for quite some time…
I tend to agree. I think Hedges lamentably misfires here; He should have written the book specifically in resposne to Hitchens/Harris, and not tarred all atheists with the same feather. As has been pointed out umpteen times before, atheists are a diverse bunch…
all that said I would take a progressive and antiwar christian type any day over the type that Hitchens exemplifies. I guess it boils down to what is more important for you; to me agreement on things like war, poverty, etc. are far more important than someone’s crazy metaphysical views (as opposed to logical metaphysical views’; there is always a role for metaphysics in science, as most philosophers will tell you)provided no one tries to impose these latter views on me.
False dichotomy, protocol.
It’s not one or the other. I don’t have to choose Hitchens over Hedges.
I can accept Hitchens when it comes to atheistic matters and reject his war views–and do. I can accept Hedges on his war views and reject his religious views–and do. Nobody is required to “prioritize” what is important to him/her–that’s a presumption you make. You can deal with the issues AS IS. Hedges doesn’t get an exemption from his ignorant remarks just because he’s smart about something else.
What I do find ironic in all of this is that Hedges believes in something of dubious existence (sky buddy), but disbelieves in something that does exist (atheists). That indicates some totally fucked up thinking. Doesn’t negate the other things he’s said/done. But his other experiences/ideas don’t make him right about this, either.
‘Utopian’ is certainly not how I’d describe either Hitchens or Harris, let alone the rest of the current crop of public atheists (and Hedges is wrong, too, when he claims–repeatedly–that the new atheists aim to eliminate religion). But the wild anti-progress stuff in Hedges’s book (noted above once or twice) is just plain bizarre. The claim that we’ve made no real progress at all is dead stupid when you think of the safety of our food system (a combination of regulation and refrigeration), the success of vaccination and antibiotics in eliminating or curing devastating illnesses, historically unprecedented levels of literacy and access to information, democratic governments that operate within the law (well, at least until recently in the U.S.)… For the first time in human history, the vast majority of children (in well-off countries, at least) live to adulthood. I think Hedges’s weird pessimism must be aimed at our ‘souls’ (thus his attachment to ‘sin’)–only that kind of narrow, moralistic focus could keep him from seeing just how much progress we really have made. The irony is that his tunnel-vision about progress exemplifies the narrow fanaticism he takes the ‘new atheists’ to task for.
Found a nicely apropos observation in our host’s “Random Quotes”:
Make a snarky comment about somebody else’s typing, make a typographic (HTML) error in the process.
Says who there is no observable data for the theory of karma?
My main criticism of Hedges is his attacks on speculative uses of natural selection like evolutionary psychology or economics. Dennett certainly isn’t dogmatic about memes. That said, we’d be a lot better off if he were the leading voice of theism. He’s pro-choice, pro-gay right and pro-peace.
Well, if the term “sin” gives an atheist the heebie-jeebies, I’m happy (as I indicated in a prior post) to replace it with the Greek term “hubris”. Either will do fine. Both refer to the ineradicable irrationality at the core of human life. Both mean what Jeremiah wrote: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Utopianism is just hubris in action. Both terms describe why human life is tragic and why ostensibly good, rational men are ready to do the most evil deeds as in this example I happened by the other day.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9347
The Greeks understood this truth about humanity. That’s why they invented the tragic drama. Chris Hedges writes in an ancient tradition.
Some posters might profit from reading Euripides’ play “The Bacchae”.
A recommendation of a small book from a female thug. ‘The Dark Side of Christian History’ by Helen Ellerbe, Morningstar and Lark, ISBN 0-9644873-4-9, 1995. The book is only 188 pages of text. Those that want to let religion slide, or wonder why some of us are so adamant against it should have a look. When Carl Sagan remarked on the murder of Hypatia he barely nicked the surface.
While I disagree with Hitchens politics, I hope he never changes his no holds barred debating style.
Patricia @ 108 I feel the same way as I expressed it in # 62. Give the morons no quarter or leeway and just keep hammering away at their demented brains. To reiterate; if they bring a knife to a fight, you bring a gun.
I am quite sure that is not true. They are opponents of the war in Iraq; that doesn’t make them pacifists.
So what? Hubris and utopianism have jack shit to do with atheism or the so-called “New Atheists”.
I have read some of Hedges’ work and while I think he is an “I am a believer because I can’t imagine not believing and it makes me feel like a better person” kind of guy, which I think is b.s., I am much closer to his view on the Middle East than to the view of Hitchens (who I generally just love) and Harris. He’s been there, he knows the people on the street, he’s put in the time and done the work in that area of the world, and you can’t take that away from him. They don’t hate us for our “freedom.” They hate us because we think that we own their lives and can always make them dance to our tune with impunity. Chickens do come home to roost.
Like all of us, Hedges is human, and entitled to be right on some things and wrong about others. Just like Hitchens, Harris, you, and me.
#109 – Holbach, I agree. They’ve had all the suffer in silence from me they’ll ever get. One of the things I find most attractive about PZ’s blog is the put up or shut up attitude that sometimes bubbles through. ;)
“Hubris and utopianism have jack shit to do with atheism or the so-called “New Atheists”.”
Oh, really? In “The End of Faith” Sam Harris writes, “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.” Evidently Sam Harris believes himself to be exempt from his own proposition and that no one would ever conclude that by proposing such a dangerous, loathsome idea Sam Harris should properly become a victim of his own logic. Now that’s hubris!
Christopher Hitchens is an avid advocate of a war in which one million Iraqi men, women, and children have died, millions more have been wounded and maimed, four million have been driven into exile, the nation’s infrastructure destroyed, the rule of law destroyed and replaced by anarchy and mayhem–all for the stated purpose of improving the quality of life of the Iraqi people. Now that’s utopianism in its looniest form!
Harris is searching for the biochemical basis of belief if my understanding is correct. His metaphysical hoo hoo is simply to show that the altered state of being that Christians (and other relignotards) feel is nothing but a biochemical process that can be easily mimicked.
As to the lack of Athiest sin. I get this ALL THE TIME. Try being an atheist in Mississippi. Standard rant…..If there is no God there is no standard for human life and everyone goes batshit crazy because they won’t have a standard by which to act. Pure dribble, but that appears to be what this Hedges guy is hanging his hat on.
If there is no religion is it suddenly ok to start murdering and stealing from people? Surely not, and it’s an easy argument to poke a hole in. The Christocrats have been busy substituting SINS as LAWS for far too long. I would quiz Hedges over the Bible’s stance on slavery. Not only is it not a sin in the bible, but there are chapter and verse on how to treat your slaves. Since we outlawed slavery, doesn’t that show a prima facie example of moral evolution well beyond (in spite of) the Bible? How does he handle that one?
Glad he’s antiwar. Wonder if we can get him on record as being opposed to war crimes like torture? Hitchens isn’t so bad. Merely appears to be a surly drunk with a really bad attitude towards the Mideast. I think it comes from being in Europe. They live the culture clash firsthand. Did you know that Muslim immigrants have been killing and eating the Queen’s Swans as they camp along the river? Female muslim docs refusing to roll up their sleeve to wash up properly for surgery. The Islamic issue is actually much more ‘in your face’ on a daily basis for Brits. We just had a really bad day of it on 9-11, courtesy of the son of one of the Preznit’s favorite mideast party buddies.
Enjoy.
Pat it’s not just about what he believes in spiritually but about the dumb shit he said about atheists.
He’s wrong. Beyond wrong. He’s insulting and demonizing of all atheists. Sure he may be right about something but that’s easy.
The easy thing for me is that I’ll never give a shit about his opinion because he’s so wrong.
trueblue99 @ 114 Why doesn’t your god intervene in Iraq and stop the bloody carnage? Why can’t it do it? Come on, answer the freaking question! Where is your god? That’s not hubris; that’s bullshit!
Okay, it’s less than two hours till showtime.
Are all y’all prospective phoners-in all prepped? Got yer one-two punches coordinated? Synchronize your watches!
Are the merciless NeoAtheos going to be seen as a howling mob of pitchfork-wielding peasants, or as the elite ninja-Navy Seal commando squad we all know is their greatest aspiration?
Who’s gonna live-comment the action here (or is Prof. M. going to open up a new thread for the ritual sacrifice to no-god?)?
A ritual sacrifice?… I’m keeping an eye on you Pierce R. Butler. Not one pullet for yaw-way.
But I’ll get my manure fork ready for the fray. ;)
The views of exactly two authors on issues completely unrelated to atheism have jack shit to do with atheism or the so-called “New Atheists”.
#114 – Can you tell me where in Harri’s ‘End of Faith’ that quote is? I’m searching my copy & can’t find it.
Pierce R Butler @ 118 We are ready to do battle with your hordes of insane demented cretins, the Rationalists against imaginary god-snorting morons. We will give you a big edge though: you can have your god appear with you to bolster your wacko craziness. We will bring a gun and you can bring a knife, how’s that? With your phony god you should need no material help; all will be well in your land of crazed bullshit!
#106
You are mistaken, Dawkins states clearly that he works toward the eradication of religion and superstition in all forms. A noble cause. However, Dawkins methodology is clearly education, compared to Hitchens, and to a lesser degree, Harris whom are willing to contemplate a violent clash between Western ‘Rationality’, and Desert pigfucking death cults. It is Hedges and and Dawkins who are in step on this point, with Hitchens the dissenter, and Harris simply not too bright.
Patricia @ 114 I cannot find that passage from “The End Of Faith” that trueblue99 is referring to. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling he is taking it out of context. I’ll keep searching.
I think the spread of enlightenment rather than just the eradication of religion may be the way Dawkins sees it.
Enlightenment leads to the shedding of superstition.
I got on the air with Hedges and the Christards, and was allowed to speak for awhile, but once Hedges responded I was cut off preventing any dialog.
I’m quoting from Chris Hedge’s book “I Don’t Believe in Atheists” page 20, where he quotes Harris (“The End of Faith”, pp. 52-53). In the library where I am writing, someone’s checked out the Harris book, but here’s the entire passage from Hedge’s book:
“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,” Sam Harris writes. “This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.”
Perhaps it’s just me, but considered in a fuller context, Sam Harris’s statement is even more disgusting than at first glance. In American constitutional law, the standard required to suppress speech is “clear and present danger.” With Sam Harris, it is mere belief–in other words, a thought crime. In “1984” thought crime got you sent to the Ministry of Love. In the world of Sam Harris, thought crime gets you executed.
And please note that the criminals are presumed to be Muslim, the victims Western. Disgusting and racist too. And why isn’t what’s good for the goose also good for the gander? Maybe some of Sam Harris’s propositions are so dangerous to Muslim people that it may even be ethical to kill him for believing them. Why not?
I’m still looking too…
And again, the writings of one author on a subject that has nothing to do with atheism have nothing to do with atheism or the so-called “New Atheists”.
From what trueblue99 has posted, it sounds like Hedges should have titled his book “I Don’t Believe in Sam Harris”.
Holbach & anyone else interested, it’s on page 52/53.
Now I’ll go back & reread the whole point. I see it got posted above – but I was on a mission. *grin*
As usual quote mining again. Hedges leaves out the entire first part of Harris’s statement.
I can do that too. How about this one:
Jesus said [The Teacher said]; There is no sin. Gospel of Mary Magdalene 7:15
Hedges is guilty of the same thing the christians howl about. Harris is as full of woo as a pitcher of kool-aid, but I’ll stand by him on his statement as printed in the book.
Patricia @ 131 I also found it and see you posted before me.
Thanks trueblue, for quoting Harris’s frankly fucked up and verging on racist political views (its almost as if he has not read a page of middle-eastern history; and his rationality seems to desert him when it comes to these and allied questions). O.K. I won’t defend Hedges’s muddle headed and stupid arguments against atheism, if others do not defend the political opinions of the kinds that Hitchens/Harris represent.
As usual quote mining again. Hedges leaves out the entire first part of Harris’s statement.
I neglected to see this. Can you quote the full passage so that I know if Hedges is misrepresenting him or not?
protocol @ 134 I won’t defend Hitchens and Harris’s political opinions, but will unequivocally defend and encourage their sane and unbiased opinions on freaking insane religion and to those whose demented brains harbor such illogical and useless crap. If this can be interpreted as my country right or wrong, my country, then so be it. Harris’s alleged controversial passage in his book does in no way diminish my regard for him in exposing the entrenched insanities of religion. If what he said was controversial to a lot of readers, I am sure it was done so to express a realistic viewpoint as extrapolated to the current Muslim regard to maintain their pernicious hold on it’s adherents. In time of war, killing was indiscriminate and blindly necessary to vanquish a foe bent on the same principles. As far as I’m concerned the forces of reason are at war with the forces of insane religion, and will more than likely degenerate into a no-holds barred stance.
protocol @ 134 I won’t defend Hitchens and Harris’s political opinions, but will unequivocally defend and encourage their sane and unbiased opinions on freaking insane religion and to those whose demented brains harbor such illogical and useless crap. If this can be interpreted as my country right or wrong, my country, then so be it. Harris’s alleged controversial passage in his book does in no way diminish my regard for him in exposing the entrenched insanities of religion. If what he said was controversial to a lot of readers, I am sure it was done so to express a realistic viewpoint as extrapolated to the current Muslim regard to maintain their pernicious hold on it’s adherents. In time of war, killing was indiscriminate and blindly necessary to vanquish a foe bent on the same principles. As far as I’m concerned the forces of reason are at war with the forces of insane religion, and will more than likely degenerate into a no-holds barred stance.
So let us bomb Alabama, and areas of Mississippi and Louisiana where religious nutcases have targeted abortion clinics. And Jim crow South should also have been fucking bombed since lots of whites justified racism using religion…while we are at it let us also fucking bomb Northern Ireland; and the British army should have definitely bombed the bejeesus out of the Catholics….shit man do you see how irrational and stupid that is?
Holbach didn’t say anything about bombing anybody. The dumbass religous freaks do the bombing.
But if you want to start with freaks here at home, how about this one on tonights news, in my state:
http://www.kgw.com/video/index.html?nvid=255637
Bombing Oregon wouldn’t help any of these poor children. Rational laws would.
I second the motion. If we’re going to obsess about Harris’s political views—and it appears we are—we should see the offending passage in context.
#135 – Protocol – I’ll do my two fingered typing best. :)
Line 18, page 52 – The power that belief has over our emotional lives appears to be total. For every emotion that you are capable of feeling, there is surely a belief that could invoke it in a matter of moments. Consider the following proposition:
Your daughter is being slowly tortured in an English jail.
What is it that stands between you and the absolute panic that such a proposition would loose in the mind and body of a person who believed it? Perhaps you do not have a daughter, or you know her to be safely at home, or you believe that English jailors are renowned for their congeniality. What ever the reason, the door to belief has not yet swung upon its hinges.
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. …
This is where Hedges comes in. This is on the third page of the chapter – The Nature of Belief.
Harris didn’t make himself explicitly clear in the book at times and dealt in hypotheticals, and when you do that it’s easy for someone to misinterpret you & use it against you. Dawkins on expelled with alien life anyone?
The only real problem I found when reading the end of faith was his condemnation of Islamic nations for saying suicide bombing is rarely justified then on the other hand advocating positions that could and would lead to the destruction of innocent citizens. Those ideas seemed a bit diametrically opposed, and I don’t feel that he properly resolved it when appealing to rational ethics.
protocol; How the hell did this degenerate into a bombing frenzy of which I made no allusion to? My usage of the indiscriminate term as applied to war was not meant to be applied in the action against religion. Perhaps I was too hasty and careless in my choice of words and should have toned it down so as not to be misinterpreted in the meaning of war with religion. My method may have been presented in a way that smacked of mass killing of religious slime, but in no way should be interpreted as one that would be willingly carried out. My stance on religious crap still stands unaltered.
thanks, patricia. Though this does not mitigate what follows (of Harris’s opinion). The argument is still stupid. The point he makes is rather trivial and applies to most humans who act on belief. If you take his argument seriously, any belief that could lead to “dangerous” action should be preempted. I’ll let you figure out the profound stupidity of that implication…
Holbach, you may mean it metaphorically, but I’m not sure that Harris does. But I agree that we cannot but condemn religious irrationality (yeah I know “irrationality” is redundant as a suffix to “religious”)
Holbach @ # 122: We will give you a big edge though: you can have your god appear with you to bolster your wacko craziness.
PRB: (sings “Alone Again, Naturally” – offkey. Other combatants flee en masse.)
You’re not allowed to bring guns to the fights any more, until you get that friendly-fire problem under better control.
Is Scooter @ # 126 the only Phightin’ Pharyngulista to have taken the KKMS field today?
Can anyone deliver a report, particularly as to whether Hedges fulfilled or contradicted the impressions of his attitude rendered here during the last 12 dozen comments?
Protocol, I’m not so sure that Sam isn’t writing for the general American reader that is just as big a dumbass as I am.
The religious issues in American need to be hit with a 2X4.
I fault Dawkins because he doesn’t see that Bubba doesn’t know what natural selection is. Thank goodness PZ does!
Harris is full of kool-aid on his woo, and I dislike Hitchens politics, but as long as they both take the stance that religion is bullshit – I’m in their corner.
For reference, here’s a link to the samples of The End of Faith on Google Books:
http://tinyurl.com/47ntgt
You may need to scroll to pages 52 & 53.
Here is I Don’t Believe in Atheists on Google Books, discussing it
http://tinyurl.com/4u4rhq
You may need to scroll to page 20.
I think a lot of people are misreading Harris, though that’s partly his fault. He should have made it explicit that when he says it it may be ethical to kill someone for their beliefs (1) that’s in light of the earlier passage about beliefs as propensities to action, (2) it’s not usually ethical—only in extreme circumstances, and (3) he’s talking about situations of clear and present danger.
He’s not saying anything as radical as it sounds. He does say that
That is certainly a dangerous sentiment to express without a lot of explanation, but consider the next two sentences:
He’s not talking about killing people just for being Muslims here. Or, IMO, even for being anti-Western extremists Muslims who think it would be a moral good to nuke Tel Aviv or New York city, but aren’t very likely to do it. He’s talking about far-gone people who are inspired to commit acts of extraordinary violence.
I think he’s just saying there are some people who are like mad dogs on a rampage, and you need to shoot them down like mad dogs.
It’s certainly a disturbing passage, which raises disturbing questions of who counts as beyond reason and sufficiently dangerous, but I don’t think you should assume that Harris doesn’t have reasonable answers about that. Not pacifistic ones, certainly, but not clearly warmongering ones, either.
I don’t think he’s talking about bombing people just because they’re Muslims, or even relatively extreme Muslims with very dangerous ideas. He’s talking about people like Osama, who (I for one agree) should be hunted down and captured, or killed if necessary, if that’s possible without a lot of collateral damage.
I don’t think he’s arguing that we should be more disposed to violence in self-defense than we already are. (Or even as disposed to it as we currently are.) He’s saying that whatever our thresholds are, it’s going to happen again in the future, because some people really do have some dangerous religious beliefs that dispose them toward violence.
And in light of the general thrust of the book, he’s saying that religion per se is an important root of the problem. We can no longer pretend that religion is a good thing. If we can’t successfully oppose religious ideas with better ideas, down the road we have to oppose religious violence with violence in self defense, in some cases.
This is not a call to atheist Jihad, to achieve an atheist utopia in which nobody will ever fight about anything. It’s an acknowledgement of the realities of the situation we’re already in. Respect for religion fosters religion, including bad religion, and bad religion is responsible for some bad shit that we have to cope with by means we don’t like.
I don’t think Hedges is really upset about this point of view because Harris has especially low thresholds for justifying violence in self defense.
I think that what sets Hedges off is that Harris dares to say what most people think, and then connect it to religion in ways that most people avoid:
1) there are some bad ideas that cause violence, and justify violence in self-defense, and
2) religious ideas are among those bad ideas.
Hedges things it’s hubris for atheists to think that #2 is true. I agree with Harris that it’s hubris for religious people to think that #2 is false.
By the way—before I get flamed to a cinder—I should probably say that in my previous comment I wasn’t defending Harris’s views on the current war, or war generally.
I was just saying that I don’t think the passage in question is convincing evidence that he’s that bad, or that atheism is bad in the way Hedges likes to make out.
Anybody wanting to check out Hedges’s point of view about atheism in more detail can have a look at the link I provided; there’s a lot there. I for one am not much impressed.
Paul W,
…and it’s quite obvious that there’s not much evidence that this is not going to cure the planet from home grown suicide terrorism is there ?
look, it’s quite obvious that harris hasn’t given much thought about all this, and there is no point in discussing this. He doesn’t represent the views of a majority of atheists, nor of new atheists, so what’s this ridiculous claim of hedges to make it sound as if he does ?
negentropyeater said:
Because saying that he doesn’t like atheists because he dislikes Sam Harris’s political opinions (as I do FWIW) might make him sound a little . . . dumb?
Pierce R Butler @ 144 Okay, no guns or knives. To have a debate you must bring your imaginary god with you. If you can’t do this, snicker, then there is no debate. Now if you counter with that I must have Charles Darwin with me and I say that this is impossible because he is dead, how will you account for the no-show of your second? Notice I said “second”, as I am giving you the priority of existence.
Lilly,
the only positive side effect I can think of from this hedges guy is that it provokes us, free thinkers, to think critically about those things and reject some of the notions vehiculated by people like harris and hitchens.
OK one last comment. Wrt paul w (#147)I am not convinced. I don’t know who Harris’s “we” is (is it atheists, americans,the u.s. state, “us westerners”?). Also I never implied that there is a connection between atheism per se and harris’s ill thought out and stupid (geo)political views (that is precisely the reason I think that hedges is utterly, lamentably, wrong). However I do think that Harris tries,for political reasons (hey “we” “civilized” rational westerners must stand together)to make a connection. This is clear not only from the passage you quoted by also from the final chapter where he takes issue with Chomsky; its been a long time since I skimmed the book, but I remember his arguments being especially retarded in this part. Who is Harris appealing to when he says “we”. “WE” atheists certainly do not have state power in this country. So the only way his argument could be seen is as an apology for U.S. military actions abroad. But again I still agree with his arguments for atheism, its just that in his pathetic attempt at justifying state-violence he has tried to make a connection where none exist. SO yes Hedges’s book should have been directly responding to Hitchens/Harris and not accepted Harris’s bad arguments when it comes to geopolitics (which he effectively does by lumping all atheists with some of the terrible arguments of two mediocre thinkers; I mean shit, when people thought of atheists they used to think of Russell; Thank your stars for Dawkins).
Oh I meant to say above that Hedges has accepted harris’s connection (i.e. between atheism and certain political actions on the part of the state), not his political arguments per se.
I suppose this link was posted earlier, but I’ll post it again. This is a very good debate between Hedges and Harris which presents their ideas and differences in crystal clarity.
Hedges and Harris debate
A final thought on Hedges motivation for writing “I don’t believe in Atheists”
A. Hedges, an anti militarist, writes a book destroying Christian Fundamentalists and their war-mongering anti-modern mideval mental illness.
B Hedges turns on the T^V, and there is Christopher Hitchens decrying the same fundamentalist retards, and that’s why we should bomb the shit out of the Middle East. The News interviewer thanks Hitchens and refers to him as one of the New Atheists.
C. Hedges googles “New Atheist” with predictable results and discovers Sam Harris, another neo-fascist. That’s two out of four ‘horseman’.
D. Hedges writes another book, which could have been entitled: I am not to be confused with these New Atheist dumbasses, and by the way, fundamentalist Christians are still fascists.
E. Unexpected advantage: The very same fundie Fasists invite Hedges on to badmouth Atheists, and he drops bombs on fundamentalists for an hour.
Conclusion: Hedges, a suspected deist, very clever guy.
BTW a Deist is two cups of coffee from a Unitarian, and three beers from an atheist.
Scooter @ # 155: … Hedges … drops bombs on fundamentalists for an hour.
Is that really what happened at KKMS from 5-6 pm (Central) yesterday?
Please tell us more (certain commenters here, and perhaps even Prof. Myers, could learn something from the details).
Holbach @ # 151: Possibly you just didn’t grasp the subtleties of my overwhelmingly sophisticated and erudite comment # 144 (okay, really, it was just gross).
You’re chewing on the wrong ankle! If I had any fewer gods, there would be such a negative metaphysical anti-manifestation that the whole universe would
Scooter @ 155 Just watched the Harris-Hedged debate again. Harris said everthing I agreed with and I thought he was just great. That freaking moron Hedges said everything I disagreed with and kept arguing as if religion is an established fact and therefore not to be defended with why it is so! Holy freaking crap! I cannot make up my mind if I hate this creep more than I do that other slime retard, D’sousa, D’crapa. Hedges said among other freaking maddening idiocies, that “the atheist movement is dangerous”, we are a secular religion, and that eventually atheists and muslims will come together and wreak havoc! It really pisses me off when they continually join that freaking word “religion” with secularism and atheism. This bullshit retard is no atheist and I wish they would quit applying that word to this cretin. I find it hard to sit and listen to these morons defending religion; I have given up reading that moronic shit a long time ago. I just want to read and listen to anybody trashing and shitting on religion in the worst way possible! I am an atheist: not an agnostic, secularist, free thinker, new ager, or any other descriptive bullshit that detracts from my true self and all that I espouse. I chose the moniker “Holbach” as described in the Encyclopedia Of Philosophy, because it described my true and entrenched position on religion and all irrationalities: As quoted: “HOLBACH, Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron D’ (1723-1789), the foremost exponent of atheistic materialism and the most intransigent polemicist against religion in the Enlightenment.” Heck, I couldn’t attach myself to a better description of my ideal. So when I sit and watch the likes of Hedges, D’Crapa, Wells, Hambone, Behe, and all the other insane religious slime puke their demented crap at their betters, you wonder why I am so strident in my denunciation of this irrational insanity.
I tuned in to the last 30 minutes. BTW I was starting my weekend and had a sixpack in me already. I’m kicking myself for not recording it.
Of course one tends to hear what one wants to hear, but indeed, Hedges basically split his time slamming creotards, and fundies, then switching to ‘New Atheists’ who according to him, don’t know ANYTHING about theology, or Paul Tillich or Kierkegard, and really arcane stuff.
It was OBVIOUS that the Christard hosts had NO FUCKING idea what he was talking about BWAHAHA, I was probably the only person listening who had read Tillich and Kierkegard, so that was the most amusing part for me.
The other irony is that when he eviscerated creotards and fundies, he went totally unchallenged, they let him get away with it.
I was the last phone call, and I thanked Hedges for his great service to anti-war literature, and that I was an atheist, and that the war apologists in the Atheist movement absolutly do not represent my views, nor the views of atheists I know, they were appointed by the media because they write books and get interviewed, and so on. I have to compliment the hosts for not cutting off my spiel, they let me go for a maybe three minutes or so and let me finish.
Hedges went right with it and totally agreed, and spoke to the great traditions of atheism, and went all Bertrand Russel and Paul Sartrye (sp?) then waundered into Hedges talking points land. Hedges basically promotes his books and even debates from about a dozen pre-prepared points, so if you’ve heard one Hedges book speech, you’ve heard them all, and this program was not terribly different than what he might have said on Democracy Now.
That was my perception for what it’s worth.
I’m really hoping to get him on the air here at KPFT, and see if I can’t get him to waunder off the trail a bit.
Workin on it.
I agree with you about Hedges babbling on. He uses the standard Theologian trick of going high-brow, so nobody knows what he’s talking about.
If I get him on KPFT, I’ll definitly try to nail him down, I am familiar with some of the material he references such as Tillich, and Popper, the neo Freudians and Christian Existentialists.
I already have the question prepared: “If Michio Kaku can explain string theory to a ninth grader clearly enough to get a grasp, surely you can explain the religious point of view from which you argue so the listeners can understand it”
His argument is that the CHRISTIAN RIGHT and the ‘New Atheists’ will come together and wreak havoc. That assumption is based on his perception of New Atheists as war-mongering shitheads like the Xian Right. A foul misconception, but thank Christopher Hitchins for that. Does anyone else imagine Stewie from Family Guy every time Hitchens opens his mouth?
obviously you are pissed off, there is a lot to be pissed off about, what specifically is getting you so riled up? It’s unhealthy to be pissed off at full speed all the time, and a waste of energy. I’m an atheist, too, but guys like Father Bourgeois, the Barrigan Brothers and Sister Helen Prejean are amazing human beings. My philosophical mentor in College was a retired Jesuit, a great thinker, and a very funny guy. I remember when Timothy Leary came to speak at our school, he invited me to go pick him up at the airport with him. Probably the weirdest hour of my life not counting heavy doses of acid.
Actually I don’t wonder at all, justified anger is a common emotional response in the Land of the Weird. However constant seething anger is not always rational, even when aimed at irrationality.
Paul W.:
Here is I Don’t Believe in Atheists on Google Books
A little further on from the Harris quote, he writes:
So great pain and despair “earns” you the right to not have your beliefs questioned. Blah. Is Hedges writing for the emo market? At least Hedges could apply the same criteria to theists – how many have “earned” their beliefs?
Hedges went right with it and totally agreed, and spoke to the great traditions of atheism, and went all Bertrand Russel and Paul Sartrye
Yeah Hedges does admire both Russell and Jean Paul Sartre (I think you mean the existentialist philosopher); but again, I vehemently disagree with him on drawing the logical connection between “new atheism” and militarism (those two mediocre thinkers, Hitchens/Harris are not the best or even the median or modal example of atheists).
Scooter @ 159 Good reply, and I may have heard wrong on the point that the christian right and the new atheists will come together, and not, as I wrote, the muslims. The New Atheists and the christian right join forces? Maybe, but long after I am dead.
Don’t misconstrue my anger as being irrational or unhealthy; actually, I feel damn good after a purge of ranting against religion. Life is too full of worthwhile pursuits to let this affect my health and outlook. As it is said, if it does not kill me, it makes me stronger. Did you read my comment at # 151? This sums up succinctly what my blatant intelligence tells me about religion. I thought it was funny and serious at the same time, but ever so realistic and from which I will never stray from.
I found this one was very holbach-like :
This is a pretty bizarre passage, and somewhat typical of Hedges convoluted word salad in defense of religion. On the one hand he says
Perhaps I am not clear on the definitions here, but isn’t a virulent belief by definition somewhat evangelical, as in trying to sway others?
Let me be clear that I consider Hedge’s apologetics complete nonsense, however his criticisms are to be taken seriously.
War is the ultimate irrational response to a conflict of interest and is ALMOST always avoidable, especially when you hold all the cards, like the US.
And I also agree that nationalism will make you more stupid than religion, and I think history bears that out.
Christards and Musturds did not go on conquering binges to spread their theology, they invaded lands and peoples to steal their shit, the conversion is obviously and transparently secondery.
The last honest conqueror was Genghis Kahn.
– virulent belief in the sense that he was convinced that there are no Gods (instead of just skeptikal).
– but he doesn’t feel that he needs to convince others or militate
a bit like Albert Camus, who says, “I do not believe in God, and I am not an Atheist”
The “virulent atheism” part is Hedges quoting that poet guy, not his own words. But yeah, it’s still funny that he would praise “virulent” atheism.
But “virulence” actually measures how pathogenic something is, not how infective it is: so I guess it’s ok to be an atheist, as long as you are miserable about it?
no windy, for him, it’s ok to be an atheist, as long as you don’t militate.
It always comes back to the same problem that if you do, you get accused by people like hime of fundamentalism, and if you don’t, nothing happens…
Obviously a Zen Buddhist.
#151: PWB talked about a sacrifice to “no god” in #118 – he isn’t professing any belief in a god, but the oppposite (hence the friendly fire comment in #144).
Please aim your (rhetorical) weapon more carefully.
I don’t think that’s all – he spends so much time railing against optimism. I thought atheists were supposed to be the nihilists…
Camus ? He rejected all religions, all categories, all frames, for him the only response that made sense was the revolt, so how could he have said “I am an Atheist” ?
If he talks about Sartre, the father of existentialism, as a model of atheism he clearly doesn’t think Atheism is equivallent to nihilism…
No, the issue is always the same, should militant atheism be criticized for fundamentalism ? Dawkins talks about passion, but are there cases where it’s not passion anymore ?
Scooter @ 158 & 159 – Damn, it sounds like you handled that well, in terms of steering the finale toward positive messages for both Hedges and the afternoon’s audience, without compromise or condescension to either. Bravo! (Nisbet, take notes!)
Best of luck on your follow-through. Fyi, here are a couple of (reworded) questions from me that he didn’t answer (not that he was under any obligation to do so) in responses to Hedges articles at TruthDig.com.
How could he say:, on 12/31/06, that among the hyperchristians “… two institutions … never came under attack — the military and law enforcement.” when that summer Operation Rescue’s month-long siege of the only abortion-providing clinic in Jackson, Mississippi had involved lots of widely-reported, OR-initiated, (ahem) friction with JPD?
For the record: no, the Jackson cops had not gone on a mace’n’taser spree – if anything, it was the clinic defenders who had the more substantial complaints. (More than a few earlier, & later, examples of accusations against cops can readily be found – even when the Phelpses are omitted.)
Hedges’s Truthdig article of 1/28/07 (link omitted in hope of bypassing moderation delays) described as “… the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups — the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council.” when at that time the first two named were (as they still are) hollow shells long superseded by others in the Darwinian jungle of Beltway Bible Beaters, and the third (more accurately known as the Family Research Council) is only one tentacle of the Dobson “Family ™” kraken.
Atheists are the not the only subject on which Hedges has shown a failure to do the contextual homework to back up his (quite respectable) field reportage.
Holbach – most rationalists admit their errors and correct them, don’t they? Isn’t there something to that effect in the Atheistic Gladiator Code?
Pierce R. Butler @ 173 What errors are you referring to? The error, in your mind, of thinking rationally and decrying, and showing contempt for those who cannot? I have no errors when it comes to making decisions of rational import, for that is what guides me to making wise decisions based on sound judgment and clear thinking, and makes me aware of the unsound errors on the part of those whose thoughts and lives are guided by irrational thinking. Or perhaps my error lies in not believing in a god or gods as you and so many others do, which leads me to state that error is on your part but you will not admit it. There is and never was a god; the idea of a god and gods originated in the thinking brain to account for all that is around us by primitive humans of ancient history and is still enmeshed in the current primitive brains. Yet, there were those few humans who had the integrity and audacity to question this irrational concept just on the basis of natural phenomena and simple observation of the absence of any supernatural power in the advance or regressing of human history. Prove to me, in visual and tactile evidence that your god exists and I will most assuredly admit my error in not believing in blind faith. Show me your god and I will admit my error. We don’t have a Atheistic Gladiator Code. We do have a rational code whose adherents are atheists and who make no errors when it comes to the exercise of rational thought. Come on, free yourself from that error stricken brain!. We did it, so can you, but do I err in this formidable task on your part?
Holbach @ # 174 – Possibly your error lies in not reading, or comprehending, my # 156 & Hap’s # 169.
Some people hallucinate gods; others, apparently, hallucinate hallucinators.
Hap – Sorry I missed your comment earlier, or I’d’ve thanked you for it in # 173. (Then I would have moaned and mewled that you somehow assigned me a middle initial of “W”, which is far more cruel a blow than any misguided invective from Baron H…)
# 173Pierce.
Point well taken. But the minimal mayhem by christards at abortion clinics pales in comparison to murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for …. I guess it’s now explained as enlightening them and privatizing oil resources in the name of democracy and the free market God.
If you believe that, then Jonah and the Whale is a documentery.
#174 skeptical ally
We’re on your side, the differences are minuscule, we’ve been beaten over the head by worse than you, relax.
If we ever get a chance to speak from a position of power, we’ll debate the shit out of everything
Who is “we” ? Atheists ? Freethinkers ? If there are warmongerers and fundamentalists amongst us, let’s make sure we debate the shit out of them first, before they take power.
negentropyeater said:
There is no “we” really when it comes to atheists and politics except about the broad-brush obvious stuff (if you’re an atheist you are unlikely to be impressed by bible-based arguments/legislation/pseudoscience e.t.c) so I don’t really see the issue here.
“We” don’t have one political program that we all subscribe to, beyond not wanting to be pushed around by the religious (although protecting that freedom is turning into a political battle all on it’s own). Once we’ve established that however our atheism is irrelevant to our politics – there is no peculiarly “atheist” way to run an economy for example, or to provide health care or deal with foreign powers.
Come on Lilly, don’t give me that bullshit argument, it makes no sense.
So what for all these endless discussions about the urgent need to get rid of all these religious delusions ?
that’s irrelevant to politics or economics ?
the hate of homosexuals
anti-abortion
conservative thinking and the rationalization of inequalities that blocks everything
american exceptionalism
isolationism, ignorance of other cultures
the need to increase investments in scientific research
denial of AGW
hyperconsumerism
I don’t know where to stop the list
When one starts to think critically about things and gets rid of those fucking idiotic religious delusions, that has no impact on politics ? give me a break. What for then ?
Camus and Sartre are useful cases to discuss in this context. Both existentialists, they each had some controversial political views (Camus on Algeria, Sartre on Communism) and heated battles with one another over these issues. Camus (also, ahem, an anarchosyndicalist :)) gave a talk in 1948 about dialogue with religious people, “The Unbeliever and Christians” (included in Resistance, Rebellion, and Death). I don’t agree with all of it, but I can appreciate how it emerges from his broader political philosophy and think it’s a worthwhile read.
Incidentally, I attended a panel discussion about Camus and Sartre at Harvard in December. (Take how pretentious you would expect such an event to be, and multiply that by ten. The Q&A was a pretension olympics – hilarious.) It was very interesting, but I thought the person who in the end came off the best was neither Sartre nor Camus, but Simone de Beauvoir, whose The Mandarins I’m now (finally) reading.
Yeah, the broad-brush obvious stuff… If you could spell it out.
You americans are so obsessed with freedom, protecting freedom, and that’s the only thing that matters.
Yep, that’s the problem, America still hasn’t had it’s Orwell, or it’s Camus or Sartre, it’s politically engaged atheist that inspires a whole new generation.
@ Neg,No 180 & 182 :
I dont think you got Lilly’s point about atheism and politics.
Yes there are obviously politically relevant issues that will be argued for and against from a religious perspective,you mentioned abortion,but I think her point was,there is no need to do so,furthermore,its wrong to argue political issues from a religious perspective !
The other examples you mentioned(research,isolationism,anti-homo etc)are matters of one’s political/social/cultural viewpoints,and really do not require any religious or non-religious stance to argue for or against.
negentropyeater,
Could you at least try not to begin some of your political analyses with phrases like “You americans” followed by sweeping generalizations about what we lack in comparison to the enlightened denizens of Fortress Europe? It’s not at all conducive to constructive political dialogue. It would be better if you stuck to the substance.
Respectfully,
SC
negentropyeater said:
I’m not American neg, but even if I was what difference would that make to my argument?
Your list of political points is extensive but my point is that my opinion on a lot of them (AGM, consumerism, american exceptionalism to name but a few) are influenced by a wide variety of issues but they are not automatically a logical follow-on from the fact that I am an atheist and I would not expect other people to agree with me on these issues purely because they are atheists (indeed I would be disturbed if they did so).
Do I think that the worldd would be a better place if religion kept it’s nose out of politics? Sure, on that atheists will mostly agree, and from that a range of political decisions become much easier to make rationally (discrimination against homosexuals for example become much harder, if not impossible to justify once you have taken out the biblical bullshit). But absence of religion does not mean that everyone is going to automatically agree that AGM happens, that hyper-consumerism is automatically a bad thing or any thing else you or I might agree on politically (America is not mentioned in the Bible and it has precious little to say about macro-economic policy for example).
SC, Lilly,
Sorry for the anger and the irrationality, had a tough morning.
But do you agree that all these things are linked, that somehow, if you get rid of these delusions, in the head of politicians and in a large proportion of the population, such as in Europe, people tend to converge to a common understanding, or worldview, or whatever you want to call it.
That’s why it’s so important, because I really think the world can only function better when both America and Europe are on a common understanding, which evidently they are not. And the divergence is greater than it has ever been.
No problem, neg.
I’m on my way out the door, but here’s a perspective from elsewhere in the Americas on the European common understanding of social issues:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/16/eu.immigration
@ Neg No 186:
Im a european living in Australia,so have a faily good idea of the European “worldview”.There is no such thing however,and while its true that religion gets in the way of straight thinking and in the case of the US,education and many other things,the problem is not religious delusions,but humans with animal brains and animal instincts running big corporations and governments.Europeans might have a firmer basis in secular humanism from the philosophical and cultural tradition of EUrope as Americans,but their governments act just as silly/emotional/shortsighted/for cheap effect than any other government.
So no,I dont think the world is going to function much better if the rapture came tomorrow and beamed all religionists off the planet,man would find himself another sky fairy,its just how his brain works.
Clinteas,
an atheist is someone who obviously doesn’t have a religious perspective, what for should I ask him to argue politics from a religious perspective ? Doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be politically engaged or at least that a clear majority of them shouldn’t be able to define what they want.
And the example I give matter, as long as religious delusions are so active, how can you get rid of them ?
No, my point is the following, give you a concrete example :
– who is writing to the Obama campaign and demanding that he promotes tolerance for non believers and freethinkers ?
Nobody. On another hand, they represent 15% of the population, and could well represent 20 to 25% of his electors, if they are not politically organised, they just mean nothing. And they’ll get nothing.
Hey neg, sorry about the tough morning, hope it gets better soon!
negentropyeater said:
In answer to this I think there is a great deal of fuzziness here and it depends upon what you mean by “linked”. The fact that we all do not believe in God means that obviously the vast majority of atheists will have no truck with ID in schools for instance, but beyond the obvious issues the link between atheism and politics will vary hugely depending on the issue at hand, it is wrong to assume that there will be an “atheist consensus” on all or even most political issues. To take the example on this thread, both of us (I’m judging by your previous posts – if my judgement is not right feel free to correct me!) seem to be of the opinion that Sam Harris’s views on the Middle East are belligerant at best and racist at worse. Fine, but he’s an atheist and so are we and there’s no danger (I hope) of either os us turning around and saying “but Sam Harris is not a true atheist”. Clearly he is, but one with whom we disagree on this particular issue.
It gets even worse when we get into issues that are less and less connected with religion generally – I’ve never heard of the atheist policy on healthcare for example (it would be lovely to say that at least it would be woo-free but Bill Maher is every bit as much an atheist as Sam Harris is and he’s so woo infested it’s embarrassing).
However, this does not mean that atheists shouldn’t or can’t stand proud and make noise on stuff we can all agree on as atheists, I thought your point below for example was a very good one:
Well maybe we should do just that (although as Non-US voters I’m not sure you and I would be the best people to but you get my point) – I’m guessing the overwhelming majority of atheists do not appreciate being discriminated against!
My point was really that we need to be careful about assuming that our lack of religious belief automatically carries through to a specific set of political ideas that all “true” atheists subscribe to. If nothing else I do not think it is true – one look at Pharyngula threads should be enough to show that we atheists are a quarrelsome bunch who like nothing better than disagreeing with each other – and I can’t help hoping that this continues for a long while yet!
BTW, I am not exactly an atheist in the strict sense of the term, as I do believe it’s quite likely that there are plenty of Gods in the universe, just normal physical ones, that’s why for me the central questions are not about the existence or non existence of Gods, but whether ounce one gets rid of all these false religious delusions and purely makes use of reason, one can together construct a better functioning society, the politico-economical impact of all this.
I know that by pure reason, one can arrive at different conclusions, because analysis of the data is difficult, but it’s all about seeing whether there are areas of convergence. If people get swamped in the details and cannot see that that one can build consensus, we can never progress.
negentropyeayer @ 191 Good grief, what a loaded comment that is! I am not going to spend time picking that apart as I have other pursuits this day. Perhaps I’ll get back to it at another time, but suffice it to say that I most assuredly don’t agree with almost all of it. Enough said.
OT: Neg, I hope you don’t mind if I offer a tiny English lesson. I’ve noticed you invariably type “ounce” when you mean “once”. Although IMO your spelling is phonetically defensible, it unfortunately yields a different word – “ounce” – which is of course a unit of weight, 1/16th of a pound. You probably know this, but your fingers don’t. :-)
On the subject of gods, I wonder if a “normal, physical” god fits any but the most idiosyncratic definition of “god”.
It works for me… kinda… Hey, Thor isn’t a supernatural entity, he’s just a physically gifted dude with a very high-tech hammer, right?
Thor isn’t a supernatural entity, he’s just a physically gifted dude with a very high-tech hammer, right? – Kseniya
Reminds me irresistably of a joke (thanks again Kseniya!).
@ NG,No 194 :
Mwahahahahahahahahahahahaha…..
Again @ poor Neg No 191 :
//I am not exactly an atheist in the strict sense of the term, as I do believe it’s quite likely that there are plenty of Gods in the universe, just normal physical ones//
Like me? Or Kseniya? Going to worship her,or Lilly de Lure(i would lol),or Predator,or Alien,or the Klingons? Dont quite get that one to be honest mate…
And as Lilly pointed out so nicely above,there is no specific atheist position on the stock market or how to run the economy or anything else,reckon yopure more likely to get into a fight over politics with an atheist than with a religionist lol…
I’ve heard a different version:
“You’re Thor? What about me? I’m tho thor I can hardly pith!”
clinteas: negentropyeater is obsessed with the idea that natural beings might experimentally produce new universes. I don’t know why we should automatically think of such beings as “Gods”: does Craig Venter become God if he manages to create that artificial life form he’s been planning?
windy,
no, Craig Venter does not become God, of course not, he’s not even close.
Craig Venter is not even an Abiogeneticist, nor has he anything to do with the historical sciences at all.
How can you verify all the historical sciences, cosmology, abiogenesis, evolutionary biology, without creating a universe and observing what is going inside ? A species that can do this (which is theoretically possible) is a god.
That is the only definition I can think of that makes sense.
How many times has this been done in the past, prior to the big bang ? I don’t know. Why not millions of times. Was it the case for our universe. I don’t know, why would there be any difference between a random event and a controlled one ? Does it matter ? I don’t think so. Why would there not be already millions of Gods in this current universe ?
Traditionally creating life has been considered the province of Gods. It’s only because we understand life a bit better now, you feel that the title of God can be earned by creating a universe, but not by creating life. It’s a God of the gaps.
Observing a new universe is still not verifying what happened in this universe. It would be cool to observe a bunch of universes, but conceptually it’s no different from modeling the historical processes in more modest ways.
I think a species that can make universes is a species that can make universes. Why bring religious terminology into it?
Because, to paraphrase Fermi, they aren’t here yet. Millions of species busy making universes, but none of them doing interstellar travel or communication?
Windy,
1. Craig Venter won’t create life from inert matter, and no it’s not a god of the gaps, I’m not trying to make a theological argument, I’m giving a definition to a term for a hypothesis, which btw, would make this god capable of doing much more than just creating life.
2. that’s why I said observing what is going inside (read what I wrote). This universe would appear to us as a black hole, the surface of its event horizon would be, via the holographic principle, theoretically possible to decode.
(Kind of a 4D movieplex, also should provide quite some entertainment for that species, they are probably going to get bored with 2D movies after a while anyway, that one is much better, it’s reality, observing all what we have always dreamed of ! Ok, forget the science fiction…)
It is fundamentally different from modeling the historical processes in more modest ways, that’s whay I call it God.
3. Why would it be religious terminology ? Why accept that the religious hijack such words as God, design, supernatural, if they have never been capable of giving any sense to these words ? Should we just erase them from the vocabulary ? Fuck the religious sense, I’m not trying to convince the priests, I’m trying to see if this is a hypothesis that makes sense and there’s word that’s lying around that’s supposed to be used for a being creator of the universe, and I think it fits.
4. it’s probably much easier to become Gods than to travel faster than the speed of light. In view of the intergalactic distances, not a very interesting idea. It’s quite likely that there be only very few (maybe on average less than 1) sufficiently advanced species per galaxy. But there are 100 million galaxies…
The difficulty of detecting communication is also a known one, doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
negentropyeater: What the hell, I was getting ready to respond to your comment in # 191 as I mentioned in #192, but after reading Windy’s response in # 198 to yours in 197, I see that Windy covered most of my disagreement with your comments, particularly the statement “I think that a species that can make universes is a species that can make universes. Why bring religious terminology into it?” And the paraphrase by Fermi of “millions of species making universes, but none of them doing interstellar travel or communication?”
I like your comments on the various segments and am glad that you have been here before me and have a craft of communicating your opinions, comical as well as serious. But you have definitely convinced me that you are religious, and that in itself is sufficient to make me lose respect for your religious viewpoint, especially in the comments you described in # 191. This seems to be disingenuous as compared to other statements which I am sure you deigned to conceal behind other mundane comments. But those comments really shook me as I curtly expressed in mine at # 192. You must by now be convinced that I am an atheist, totally, in word, action and opinion, and have no tolerance for people who espouse that which I have contempt for. To try and use convoluted expressions and half apologies to explain away your religious bent does not mask your true opinions on this subject. Hell, I was really surprised at those remarks, and was taken aback because I have never seen you express them before this. Damn, I always considered you an atheist after reading and gleaning your comments, and yet you offer these revealed comments as if no one would notice or call you on it. I’ll say it again; I have absolutely no regard for religion, and am totally sure that the Universe has never been created by a god or gods, and is the result of random birth due to the Big Bang. So let Windy’s response serve as a model for what I feel and could not respond to as well Windy. It is a intelligent and honest reply to you, and one which I had the talent to express as equally.
Why ? Because I use the word God ?
God the way I define it (not a religious word, fuck the religious word) ? Species capable of creating a universe and observing what is going on inside.
Whether the universe would be created by God (the way I define it, again) or the result of a random event, the result would be exactly the same, we would have absolutely no way of knowing:
look it’s simple, think a bit further if a universe is the result of a random quantum variation in a false vaccuum that expands with inflation, which seems to be the most probable explanation so far, once we understand exactly the relevant conditions that are required and recreate the same conditions as a controlled environment, so we create a false vaccuum, universe inflates independentely from ours (Alna Guth has shown how theoretically possible and easy it would be), how can the inhabitants of the said universe eventually find out if they had been created or if they were the result of a random event ? they cannot. That’s why I say, this is not an interesting question. Why block yourself on this point ?
It doesn’t change in any way shape or form my hypothesis that there are many Gods in the meta-universe, ie this has already happened in the past, in the meta-universe, or is already happening in our own universe. Think many bubbles, some created, some not, and from each bubble branches out many other bubbles with different possibilities.
This has nothing to do with religion.
And about the Fermi paradox, this is very easy, read my point 4. #199. This is no argument.
negentropyeater@202
I think you’re wrong, the Fermi paradox is very strong evidence that advanced technological civilizations are rare. There is absolutely no need for FTL travel for such a civilization to explore and colonise a galaxy within a few millions or at most tens of millions of years. I’d bet that a von Neumann probe is going to be much, much easier to produce than a new universe; barring all-too-likely disasters, I would not be totally astonished to see the first batch sent out in my lifetime – and I’m 54.
My hunch is that technological civilizations just don’t last long: they discover capitalism, destroy their environmental support systems, and collapse before they have time to either send out such probes, or create new universes (assuming the latter is possible at all).
Nick,
self replicating probes are only interesting for the exploration of one’s own galaxy. To find potential habitable space. Never suggested the idea that there were several Gods per galaxy. I said likelihood is that the average is less than 1. Even if it’s let’s say 0.01 and there are 100 million galaxies, only in our universe (how many other universes are there ?), that gives 1 million potential gods in this universe who are already busy doing this.
We might be living in one such galaxy where there are currently 0 Gods, with one aspiring civilization that has a small chance, if it doesn’t fuck up everything, to become one.
Your hunch about technological civilizations that destroy themselves by overconsuming resources always miss becoming gods, well too bad for them. Maybe if they used reason to think about what is it they want to achieve they’d succeed.
Why this anthropocentrism, if we can’t do it because we are just so stupid, others can’t.
And what would happen anyway, if human cicilization was erased from this planet ? After a few million years, or hunderd million, there’d be another advanced civilization, chances are, this one wouldn’t do the same mistakes again, or it would, it’s trial and error, after a while, one is bound to find a way to live in harmony with nature, exploit its resources correctly, understand all there is to understand, verify it and enjoy the spectacle and the orgasm of the creation of a new universe.
Neg,i gotta tell you,what you said in No 204,is just a lil weird….
//Never suggested the idea that there were several Gods per galaxy. I said likelihood is that the average is less than 1. Even if it’s let’s say 0.01 and there are 100 million galaxies, only in our universe (how many other universes are there ?), that gives 1 million potential gods in this universe who are already busy doing this.//
Id like some of the drugs youre on mate..:-)
Nick, Holbach, Windy,
and also, you say “strong evidence that advanced civilizations are rare”, what do you call rare ?
So, if I say, the chances are that there are only 1/1,000,000 galaxies that are inhabited by Gods who are busy doing what I suggest, still gives me 100 gods in this very universe.
What difference does it make, to my hypothesis that there are many Gods in this universe ?
When I make the argument that, whether the universe would be created by God (the way I define it, again), as the result of a wanted, controlled environment or the result of a perfectly random natural event, the result would be exactly the same, we would have absolutely no way of knowing the difference, that’s why it’s not an interesting question, and what do I get in reply ?
Holbach’s “I have absolutely no regard for religion, and am totally sure that the Universe has never been created by a god or gods, and is the result of random birth due to the Big Bang.”
Clinteas,
read what I wrote, how I define Gods, criticize it if you can and then let me know.
So far no drugs.
negentropyeater@204 – I think you could use von Neumann probes for intergalactic exploration, at least so long as you’re within a gravitationally bound cluster. As for Earth, you’re over-optimistic. We only have about 1 billion years before we get a runaway natural greenhouse effect as the sun heats up – and it’s taken 4 billion to produce one technological species.
However, you’re right that it’s a big universe out there. I’ve come across the idea that universes might bud off this one, either naturally or as a result of deliberate action – but I’d thought they would not then be observable from our universe. What’s your source for thinking otherwise?
negentropyeater : One more comment from and I will not belabor further points. You have mentioned Joan Roughgarden in your comments, and I am not specifically referring to her study on the inferrence of biology and the gay connection, but her insanely religious viewpoint as it applies to Biology and her book “Evolution and christian faith” (small case letters on the last two words intentioned). I have watched her talk on the program “Beyond Belief” on The Science Network, on Sunday, November 5, 2006. Her whole premise is based on describing biology as it was prescribed by her god! Holy crap, I could barely force myself to listen and watch her to the conclusion of this insane ranting! I am expressing this viewpoint as an atheist, and so regard it as total bullshit! She finds a god in every biological part of nature and is so damn sure that this is definite and expects everyone, whether religion afflicted or not, to accept that as an unquestioned fact. Damn, it’s one thing to express your belief in a god, but don’t hitch that insane idea to the blatant facts of all-encompassing biology! It’s almost as if she is equating basic biological structure to an all-pervasive imaginary god with the seriousness of unquestioned fact. “See that segmented roundworm”? god did that! See that slime mold?, god did that also! And how about that cancerous growth on that person’s face? Yup, my god did that! And those horrendous intelligently designed destructive tornadoes that kill my adherents as well as the godless, yup, I did that too and much more! I am not discriminate in afflicting disease and death, and torture by my humans throughout my history, and don’t bother putting lightning rods on my houses of insanity for I will also burn them to the grown, because i am all-powerful, and not even the human brain can stop me because I made that too, even though it denies that insane idea! Biology is because I made it, and anyone who denies this will have to pay the price of malformations, floods, earthquakes and and other natural catastrophes I may deign to inflict.”
Biology is unhindered evolution, and to have Roughgarden ascribe an imaginary god to it’s function and purpose is sheer nonsense and bullshit. So you can see as an atheist, my regard for her and her illogical ideas are substantiated by my reason to unequivocally discount her in a serious and rational vein.
Nick,
read “information in the holographic universe” by Jacob D.Bekenstein, Sci.Am. Aug. 2003 unfortunately only have a hard copy.
Also “The Illusion of Gravity” by Juan Maldacena, Sci.Am. Nov. 2005
For a more theoretical approach to the holographic correspondence there are many articles on the arxiv
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9802/9802150v2.pdf
This one is by Witten who looks at the particular case of anti-de Sitter space.
Of course we still don’t know if this is the correct mathematical description, but I think it’s fair to say that the time will come when we, or a sufficiently advanced civilization will be able to build a “Hawking Radiation detector”, that will basically decode this hologram and transpose it for the benefits of their eyes.
Another question is of course whether one could act within the 4d conformal space of the universe by sending a precise signal at a precise location of the holographic boundary ?
Holbach,
haven’t read this book from Joan Roghgarden.
I don’t share the same level of disgust for religion, this probably stems from the fact I’m french and live in Barcelona where they basically have been reduced to roughly the equivallent of “knitting” to paraphrase PZ (not exactly, but almost).
I do understand where you are coming from though, and if I were American, I think I would react the same way as you do, it just is intolerable, the only way to react is to revolt against this nonsense.
As far as my Atheism is concerned, I’ve explained what I believe, that’s all. It’s not religious, it’s based on what my reasoning tells me. If my reasoning is wrong, then, someone needs to point it out to me.
negentropyeater @ 211 Points well spoken and taken. Are you able to log on to THE SCIENCE NETWORK? If so, go to BEYOND BELIEF, the 2006 programs and look for Joan Roughgarden. While your there listen to the other great speakers; you should recognize most of them.
As for your definition of atheism you’ll have to live with it. And heck, anyone can tell you that your reasoning is wrong, but it is up to you to delve further into the subject and reason, or not reason, what you are not grasping or what you insist on holding onto. I was not born an atheist or prodded into it; it was just observing the abundant facts at hand and reasoning that no invisible and imaginary entity is logically evident.
No, you didn’t understand what I meant. You can’t “verify” what happened in the past by observing another universe. If we manage to re-create the conditions for abiogenesis on Earth, and observe a new abiogenesis event, that is not proof that it happened the same way in the past. You will be observing a different event. It’s more evidence, but it doesn’t “verify” anything.
And you are vastly overestimating the ease of observing specific events by the holographic principle inside an universe. Think about it – how much data an observer would have to sift through to see that abiogenesis is happening in one pond on one planet in one galaxy in the universe they are observing from the OUTSIDE? Wouldn’t you need a universe-sized computer to process all that data?
You suggest that the 100 gods create new universes in order to study “cosmology, abiogenesis, evolutionary biology” happening inside the new universes. Why the heck aren’t they interested in observing abiogenesis and evolutionary biology on other planets in this universe??
I appreciate your arguing your view and don’t share Holbach’s disgust, but it’s your insistence of using the word God that is creating the confusion. Nobody agrees with your definition. If you said that a technologically advanced being might theoretically start off a new universe, no argument there.
If you are going to define such a technologically advanced being as “God” we might as well define it “supernatural” and creating new universes as “magic”. So you believe that the universe might have been created by a supernatural being through magic, as long as we are using my definition of those words. See, it’s confusing!
Windy @ 213 Good comments here and in my previous reference to Negentropyeater by way of yours. I am glad that I think you understand my opinions, and though you do not share my disgust, you know that it is genuine and not to bolster my contempt for all things irrational, but just to add emphasis to the matter at hand. After all, if I were to kick someone with a straight face, would the pain be any lessened if I had done so with a smile? I still regard your comments @ 198 to be well stated.
negentropyeater@210 Thanks very much – I’ve downloaded the Witten. I have read the two Sci.Am. articles, I’ll fish them out and reread.
Windy,
I’m suggesting that from without will be much easier than from within, because one is not limitted by the accelerated expansion of space-time and the speed of light.
Also, a computer would not have to sift through all the data, it could first detect the specific areas of the surface corrsponding to planets that are suitable for life and then only observe in detail those specific planets.
Doing the same thing from within the universe is impossible.
I never said that this would be equivallent to observing our own past, but it would be the most perfect and beautiful thing I could ever think of.
Men will most probably create an abiogenesis event in a lab and come up with a combination of thermodynamic and chemical reaction that transform inert matter into a live replicator. But that won’t make them Gods in my book.
You wish to force me to say that a God is necessarily supernatural and magical, because this is the way the religious have defined until now. Fuck the religious. Why should I care ?
Sifting through the entire information content of a universe is “easier” than communicating with other planets? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. What makes you think there are “areas corresponding to planets” on the surface? This all sounds very naive.
Observing other planets is impossible? What about telescopes?
And, haven’t you heard that it’s possible to extrapolate the totality of the universe from a piece of fairy cake ;)
I think meeting another intelligent species would be much more beautiful than catching some glimpses of them through the boundary layer of their universe.
No, you still don’t understand. You think it’s OK to redefine God to encompass natural things. But you don’t want to redefine supernatural and magic. Why? It seems to be some sort of emotional attachment to the term God.
Windy,
What are we doing today ? How will we find those planets ? (BTW we can’t even see those planets for the moment, just extrapolate them witin our own galaxy, outside our galaxy, forget it) So we are sifting through the content of our own galaxy, with the limitations of space time and of speed of light, in an universe which is expanding at an accelerated pace which means galaxies are getting further and further away from each other. Even if we increase further the resolution of our instruments, to being able to observe from the earth what is happening hundreds of thousands of light years away, we will still be limited by this. Whereas if you are outside of the universe, you are in a better position to observe all of this, you get outside of the limitations of space time.
You are blinded by your preconceived notions that from within the universe things are easier than from without the universe, and you cannot see that all you can do from this location from within can be done from without and you have the advantage of observing all the chronology of events fron the begining of time and their complete evolution, which you obviously cannot do from within.
I’m sorry but it’s rather rich to say that I’m blinded here. THINK about the information content of the universe. How much storage space do you need to analyse it? Are the atoms in this universe enough to store and process it? You seem to think that the boundary layer is like a screen at a drive-in.
In other words, even more unrealistic amounts of information to decode from the boundary layer.
No, it’s not the same thing as looking through a telescope. It would be more like having a record of every molecule that bumps off the walls of your room, and having to calculate what is happening inside the room by tracing back the paths of the molecules. Except you’d need to process an universe’s worth of data!
Is it “dogmatic” to reject your silly definition of God? I am not rejecting your hypothesis, but I wouldn’t call such a being God.
Here are some dictionary definitions of God:
“the supreme or ultimate reality”; “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe”; “a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship”
nothing much like the being you propose.
By the way, this is probably wrong, since according to a brief Googling, it seems that the holographic principle applies to ANY region of space. Correct me if I’m wrong. But if true, until you can decode all that happens in an arbitrary large region of space from its edge, I am very skeptical about the possibility to decode an entire universe :)
Holbach @214
Thanks for the vote of confidence! Since most of us tend to get accused of having contempt for the religious no matter what we say, I can’t entirely begrudge your unabashed stance ;) Sort of a “boy who cried wolf” situation.
Windy,
Who talks about decoding an entire universe ? I said, being capable of seeing what is inside.
In one case, radiotelescopes, you receive the very weak photons that have travelled through spacetime, which you still have to find somewhere from within the entire universe, in the other case, hawkins detector, you decode the instantaneous corresponding holographic emission at the boundary (which is not a weak signal). It so happens that when you are within your own universe, you cannot detect this emmission, but you can, for a universe that you create, and you are telling me, this is not interesting, and we, or another advanced species are not going to take adavntage of it ? I don’t think so.
What tells you you need to store the whole information of the universe before you can analyse it ?
Windy, why is my definition silly ? This is a silly definition : “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe”; they can’t even define what this power means, this wisdom means , this goodness means, how this creation was done, and what this ruling means. Just meaningless words, the only thing they can do is worship.
With my definition, it becomes much more interesting to ask ourselves the question, what would such a being have as wisdom, power, capabilities if he created a universe that way, would he be capable of observing what goes inside and how, and would he be capable of intervening and how ? It becomes very interesting to ask ourselves a shitload of questions related to, once we are outside of a universe that we have created, what can we do with that universe ?
You want to somehow force me to say that all of this is fairytales, impossible, but why ? Who is being dogmatic here ?
negentropyeater @ I try to avoid or tone down any diccussion of a god or gods with reference to philosophy and all it’s parameters, and to make it as concise as possible as reason and evidence so blatanly permit. If I were to offer a statement that I believe that something or an entity exists, I will offer proof of that statement by visual or material means. I know that I can take a train from Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan to Union Station in Chicago, for I know this is possible and have done so. In a similiar vein, I know that Stewart Island, off the South Island of New Zealand exists even though I have never been there yet, because maps, satellite photos, and speaking with people who have been there verify the island’s existence. Now, to elevate this idea a notch above, I can say to you, Neg, I have a five dollar bill in my pocket which may induce you to say, prove it, let me see it. No, I say, you have to take it on faith that there is a fiver in my pocket and you will assume this is true even without actually seeing the fiver, becuse I have set in motion a system of belief in having me never to prove it to you, and your unequivocal irrational belief to take my word that the unseen fiver exists. And yet, all you have to say is that you want to see the proof of the fiver, and I simply take it out and show you the five which immediately removes all doubt that the fiver exists with the mere seeing and holding the fiver. This is as simple as it can be without the need for philosophical maunderings. It just does not make sense that if there was a god or gods, that this god would in no way make it’s presence known since the dawn of life on earth with all it’s human mumbo-jumbo to wish it into creation which will rationally and materialistically never happen. What could be as simple as understanding that it is the human brain that is responsible for all our thoughts and creations, rational as well as irrational. This idea is totally applicable without the unnecessary niceties of philosophical applications. I cannot put it any simpler than that, and am totally confident in my explanation.
Holbach,
1. I don’t know if this universe was created or naturally caused.
2. I’m convinced that universes can be naturally caused
3. Once a species understands fully how 2. works, they can artificially create a universe
4. It so happens, and this is very counter-intuitive, that the entire contents of the universe they create (which appears to them as a black hole) radiate on the boundary of the said black hole in a holographic correspondence
5. what possibilites does this give to this species in terms of observation and action in this created universe, and why would they want to do this, I do not know exactly, I can only make educated guesses, but
6. once a species will have done it, it will know exactly, and my educated guess is that it will also know the answer to 1.
This has nothing to do with the human brain, nor evolutionary biology, I don’t believe in spirits, nor souls but it is a question I ask, whether a sufficiently advanced species could, create a universe, observe what is going on inside, focus its attention on the few thousand planets where it has detected the evolution of intelligent life, and make very limited and specific actions within this universe by acting on the boundary of the event horizon.
Negen. @ 224 I won’t quibble with Nos 1 and 2 as these are questions that do not need delving into. But on question # 3 I am beside myself to comprehend how anyone can create a universe as we know and understand it. Do you mean the universe that we now inhabit, with the billions of galaxies, hundreds of billions of stars, planets, moons with all the chemistry and physics they encompass, dark matter, dark energy, asteroids, comets, gravity, and so on that make up this unfathomable universe? Are you serious? Even a model of the universe in a flask would be impossible! Enlighten me; just what do you mean? And hell, I forgot to mention black holes, which have a possibilty of rendering you non-existent to even ponder the thought!
And good grief, this has everything to do with the human brain! Without it your proposition would be meaningless. It is your brain that is imbuing you with life, thoughts, and the very idea of creating universes. Did all previous life before humans existed ever ponder these propositions? Apes have brains; why aren’t they figuring out ways to ponder the universe and perhaps create another one, instead of daily looking for food and reproducing and hanging around in trees as evolution has deigned them to do because they do not possess the brains do do otherwise? If I cut your head off, would you still be alive, much less in pondering how to build universes? Without our brains we are nothing. The universe and evolution has unequivocally mandated this blatant fact.
And you also mentioned a species to “make very limited and specific actions within this universe by acting on the boundary of the event horizon”. Good grief, whole galaxies are destroyed and swallowed by black holes and yet you think a species can overcome these incredible phenomena and survive to describe them? Please, no more of this type of fantastic twaddle. I will not waste my time with it.
Holbach,
yep, complete universes, with everything inside. It would only depend on how well we are able to create the correct false vaccuum and realise the correct conditions for inflation, and it would require very little energy, and a complete universe would develop, completely independently from ours.
Alan Guth who is the father of infationary cosmology wrote : “I in fact have worked with several other people for some period of time on the question of whether or not it’s in principle possible to create a new universe in the laboratory. Whether or not it really works we don’t know for sure. It looks like it probably would work. It’s actually safe to create a universe in your basement. It would not displace the universe around it even though it would grow tremendously. It would actually create its own space as it grows and in fact in a very short fraction of a second it would splice itself off completely from our Universe and evolve as an isolated closed universe growing to cosmic proportions without displacing any of the territory that we currently lay claim to.”
When I say I would look like a black hole, not the kind of black hole you have in mind, but what is called a primordial black hole, which are hypothetical objects never really observed which are theoretically believed to be possible and who almost no gravitational pull outside of the event horizon. Do not forget that the entire universe has a total equivallent energy that is almost nil, as the total mass of the objects inside is balanced by the energy required for its expansion. So that explains why the equivallent primordial black hole that you would see would have very little gravitational effects.
So, no, you wouldn’t be swallowed by this kind of black hole, even if you were close by.
Since you can’t just “look inside” the same way you can use a telescope, by pointing it in a specific direction! ALL the information of the universe “lives” in the boundary layer. Do you understand the analogy of calculating what goes on inside a room by only measuring what happens on the walls?
Well, sometimes a concept is just silly. We can abandon discredited ideas like phlogiston and unicorns, without thinking “we must redefine them so that they make sense.”
Do you even bother to read what I write? I think it’s fine to discuss universe-creating aliens, but I refuse to call them Gods, and I think your visions of manipulating universes are very naive. How is this forcing you to do anything?
Windy,
Of course I know you wouldn’t just point in one direction and just look like in a telescope. It’s a completely different technology. But still, why do you think one would have to store all the information before one processes it ? It will depend on the precision you need, the mathematical correspondence which exists (ads/Cft ?) the sampling and filtering technologies you will develop. And it’s precisely because it would be all there, at our disposal, without having to move or anything, that it would be so interesting to develop research and technologies to take advantage of it.
You seem so very convinced that finding a needle in a haystack as we are doing it today, ie finding information in an immense 4D space is far easier than finding information in a 2D holographic representaion of that space, and that one would need to first decode the entire hologram in order to retrieve that information. All are unwaranted assumptions.
We can indeed. I can’t think of a phlogiston or a unicorn that makes sense. I’m not redefining the word God from one category of things to a completely different category, I’m just trying to give it a precise meaning, and ask the questions, what does it do, how does it do it, where does it come from, and unless you tell me one should keep the word God with no meaning for the religious and not touch it, I don’t see why, I shouldn’t use it.
So what do you want me to call it so that it’s ok with you ?