Chris Hedges recently published an article called "The Dangerous Atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris," ( http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449 ) but he failed to include in it any indication of what he thinks is dangerous about their atheism. He thinks they have horrible political opinions, but does not explain how those relate to atheism. He thinks they have a fetish for science and technology, but does not explain how that relates to atheism. He thinks they cherish a simplistic utopian vision of progress, but he himself traces that to Christianity. He thinks they are fanatics willing to kill for their magical belief in human progress, but that would just mean they had something in common with a lot of theists.
There is good and bad to be found in our religious heritage, and our world is full of noble and ignoble acts by theists and atheists alike. For every admirable or offensive trait in an atheist, we can find one in a theist. For every Martin Luther King Jr., there's a Pat Robertson. But does theism or atheism, on the whole, tend to encourage more, or less, desirable behavior?
Hedges concludes his article by remarking that his new book is "a call to reject simplistic and utopian visions. It is a call to accept the severe limitations of being human. It is a call to face reality, a reality which in the coming decades is going to be bleak and difficult. Those who are blinded by utopian visions inevitably turn to force to make their impossible dreams and their noble ideals real. They believe the ends, no matter how barbaric, justify the means. Utopian ideologues, armed with the technology and mechanisms of industrial slaughter, have killed tens of millions of people over the last century. They ask us to inflict suffering and death in the name of virtue and truth."
No one could argue with any of that, if Hedges meant to apply it to theists and atheists alike. But he calls his book "I Don't Believe in Atheists," and he adds one more sentence to the end of the article: "The New Atheists, in the end, offer us a new version of an old and dangerous faith. It is one we have seen before. It is one we must fight."
This makes clear that what Hedges objects to is fanaticism, and that he knows it can be found in theists and atheists alike. But his marketing plan for this useful but less-than-groundbreaking insight is decidedly not headlines like "The Dangerous Fanaticism of a Few People Who Happen to Be White, Male, and Atheist." His whole brand is opposition to the supposed danger of atheism. So it comes as a disappointment to discover that Hedges doesn't even try to identify a connection between atheism and fanaticism. He describes a group of atheists who are fanatical about things that millions of theists are fanatical about too. He does not suggest that atheism in any way encourages fanaticism, or the belief that there has been moral improvement through human history, or any of the other notions he rejects. Hedges is convicting a handful of atheists of guilt by association. After all, the mere failure to believe in a particular cultural myth could hardly be a cause of their habits of thought.
Belief in theism, on the other hand, can have serious consequences. In fact, theism is unavoidably a simplistic and utopian vision. It may not result in adoption of any other simplistic visions, and it may not result in the use of force, but it does put one's mind in the habit of accepting nonsensical wishful thinking. Theism includes a "belief" that something called a god controls the world, and usually includes a "belief" that death is not real. Some of the most admirable people in the history of the world and living today have held these beliefs, and some of them have not. But these are beliefs that tend, as a rule, to encourage acceptance of the status quo, to discourage personal responsibility, and to put one in the habit of believing transparent falsehoods. That many people overcome these influences, with various degrees of success, does not make them less real.
Theism has a damaging influence on human thought and action, and the existence of different flavors of theism provides a justification for hatred and murder. If Iraqis were all Christians, millions of them would probably still be alive. The United States would probably not have done to Iraq what it has done over the past two decades. And the idea that Iraqis could govern themselves if left free to do so would be far more apparent to many more Americans. The entire "global war on terror" would collapse without Christianity and Islam.
I'm not agreeing with the millions of Muslims around the world who believe the primary motivation of U.S. crimes to be hatred of Islam. I think their religious identity blinds them to the tragic fact that the United States is attacking Islam because it is situated overtop of vast oil supplies. But it would be harder for the United States to attack the possessors of oil if they shared a religion or a lack thereof with Americans.
Of course, without theism, people would hate and kill others on the basis of race, class, ethnicity, and various other excuses. Atheism does not make any individual or population decent or good. Atheism doesn't make anyone think in any particular way. But theism, by its very nature, encourages obedience to authorities, and belief that such authorities should be trusted even if their ways are mysterious. The bizarre American reaction to 9-11 in which Rudi Giuliani and George W. Bush were so comically turned into figures of authority was facilitated by religious thought. If so many people were not in the habit of turning to a lord or savior in times of fear, Hedges and all those trying to talk some sense into them would have a much easier task.
http://www.davidswanson.org
DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.
It is often misunderstood that Christianity inspires blind obediance, it does not. We are to understand that God holds people in power to a higher standard. The Bible also tells us we are to discern and that by their fruit we will know them; a scripture too many Christians have forgotten in their glee to have a president that claimed Christ as Lord and savior. I agree too many drank the Bush Kool-Aid but Guliani?? He has never been greeted in the Christian community as a leader. He was morally corrupt and was reviled at the time of 911. The true culprit that turned Rudy into the annointed was the media, who branded him as the mayor of america, which was nonsense. Thankfully, the mystique has worn off now on him.
Hitchens is barely worth discussing. One of my first articles dealt with his propensity to prevaricate to try and make his point. Do a google search for his debates with D'Souza and you may find it more intellectually inspiring then the Hedges article.
I also do not agree that without the religious differences the fabricated war on terror would cease to exist. To say that is a bit naive as to what the "war" is really about - power and money. Sure they try wrapping religion around it but without religion, they still would have found another angle to start their wars of agression. This is simply the communist model with the arab replacing the russian. They may use religion as a wedge but it is not the lynchpin.
Thanks for being balanced in your piece at least. Sometimes it is easy to simply rip all Christians but truth is as you put it. There are fanatics on both sides. It is sad, but truly following the teachings of Christ would only result in a caring, loving world. It is man that ultimately perverts those teachings, which ironically is an argument against bioth theism and atheism (or more directly, humanism).
Be well.
by
Anthony Wade (132 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 428 comments)
on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 8:53:57 AM
THEISM TELLS US NOT TO QUESTION DEITY OR EARTHLY RULERS
But you forget that theism, at leasts the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic varieties, tells us that we cannot understand the reasons for God's actions. Whenever a tragedy happens, whether it be the death of a close relative or physical disability, such as becoming blind or paralyzed, we are told to accept it as "the lord's" or "God's Will." In fact, questioning, let alone refusing to accept this Will, is considered a sin. In the fundamentalist versions of these religions, anyone who questioned "the Lord's Will" would deserved to be burned in hell, forever and ever.
Such a servile attitude towards an imaginary ruler is bound to carry over into attitudes towards actual rulers, whether hereditary or elected. In fact, there is a scripture in the BIBLE instucting us to "be subject to the higher powers," and I have actually heard one fundamentalist say "I'm not a revolutionary in any society." OpEdNews carried the video of OpEdNews founder Robb Kall questioning John Conyers on impeachment. The only argument Conyers had was that if he is not pursuing impeachment, "there must be some reason." In other words, my governmental positions gives me access to certain facts that I can't tell you about and the only thing you can do is accept my decision. If this were our only option, we might as well have a monarchy.
But most importantly, if you believe things on faith, i.e. believe things without any evidence, then without argument and evidence to guide your selection, believing without this guide is esentially the same as jumping out at random and you're as likely to land on Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple as on Albert Sweitzer's altruism. True, your selection will be determined by your culture so that it is not random whether you land on a belief in God or Allah. But still, if your religious leaders tell you to kill and torture, you will not have the aid of reason in evaluating and rejecting their orders if you believe on faith, without evidence.
Voltaire said it best. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you comit atrocities.
'Whenever you go there will be people who will always explain the current situations as something inevitable, historically justified. They will explain that very lucidly. Do not believe that. People get history they deserve. There were many cases when a group of dedicated people would seize an opportunity and turn the wheels of history. To deny that would be a clever cowardice, a sin against the Holy Spirit.'
General Charles De Gaulle, a devoted Catholic
No, folks, religion does not profess obeidience. I am an atheist but I know that. True religion, no matter which professes HUMILITY and Self-Evaluation. Those who distort it, whether in Christianity or Islam - they first distort a message.
Let me tell you: if Iraqis were Christians to go to war with them GW would convert to Islam. Take it or leave it.
by
Mark Sashine (37 articles, 19 quicklinks, 221 diaries, 3062 comments)
on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 9:06:31 AM
for those who read the last post and wonder about some of my own interactions in these threads, you are right. God is still working on my reactivity. I never claimed to be perfect.
Just that I know everything.
Ok, that was a joke.
by
Anthony Wade (132 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 428 comments)
on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 9:23:06 AM
David Swanson raises important points for all of us theists to consider and respond to. I have often been troubled by the question of how to keep what is intrinsically good and necessary to the vast majority of humans at least at certain points in their lives, while eliminating the dangers involved in invoking invisible authorities to back up one's favorite assertions--which I see happen too often in all religions. I think you have a good point with "humility." It is humility that allows us to see that the other person may have more insight at least some of the time and to take time to address them thoughtfully. That builds friendship and lessens the possibility of war.
by
Patricia 0rmsby (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 45 comments)
on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 7:58:32 PM
Great points made here David.. Those seeking power need clear divisions, divide and you can conquer. In the struggle between Capitalism and Communism and Socialism, I have always thought it sad that so much has been written to disparage the latter two and to praise the former to such excess. It seems to me there are positive aspects, and negative, in each.
by
GeoRip (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 11:44:53 AM
With a new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ circulating the web, defining a new paradigm of faith and a moral 'Resurrection' understood metaphorically as the experience of transcendent power and change to create a new ethical insight within human nature, for the first time in recored history a religious tenet exists offering access to absolute proof for its belief and a testable justification of faith.
God, I get so tired of the left eating its own, be it Hedges or Swanson, when there are real enemies out there. But, if you can't beat 'em . . .
To say that theism is "unavoidably simplistic" is to say that Gandhi, King, Jefferson, Darwin -- how long could I go on -- Dostoyevksy, Bob Dylan, and -- dare I say it David -- Dennis Kucinich are simplistic thinkers. That's ridiculous. Without even reading Hedges' piece, I know he said nothing as absurd as that. And which of them accepted the status quo?
The point about religion and Iraq is also wrong. One of the Crusades failed to retake Muslim Jerusalem because the knights got distracted by the sacking of Christian Constantinople before they got there. Indeed, it is the Iraqi Christian community which has been the most devastated by the war, and neither George Bush nor any religious right preacher I know of has shown a particle of concern.
by
Gregg Gordon (20 articles, 41 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 170 comments)
on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 2:38:32 PM
ONE CAN BE SIMPLISTIC ON OE TOPIC AND SUBTLE IN OTHERS
A particular believer who believes in something simplistic is not necessarily simplistic in the rest of his or her though. Newton made profound contributions to science but he also believed in astrology. The belief in astrology does not refute the importance of his scientific contributions. And neith does the importance of his scientific contributions prove astrology.
So your list of examples does nothing to to prove theism.
Theism cannot be proven, nor can atheism. People have been trying for about 3,000 years, and no one has yet succeeded. Both are belief-systems untestable by science, and both require a leap of faith.
But if you would read King, or Gandhi, or Jefferson, or Dostoyevsky, or Tolstoy, or Milton, or Shakespeare, or Dante, or Plato, on the subject of religion, you might decide they were wrong, but you could not decide they were simplistic.
by
Gregg Gordon (20 articles, 41 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 170 comments)
on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 5:06:03 AM
