Are The New Atheists Really Just Neocon Appologists?

[Vigile]

In the Salon interview below Chris Hedges is responding to questions about his new book "I Don't Believe in Atheists"

 

He challenges Hitchens and Harris arguing that they are both as dangerous as the religious right. I'm not qualified to say as I've not read either. I did see an interview with Hitchens once though and the guy might as well have been speaking as a wing man for Cheney. I was unimpressed.

 

I'm mainly just starting this thread in order to highlight Hedges' views on empathy and perspective. I think the guy is spot on and he hits on something that is one of the biggest weakenesses I've seen in the US; an utter lack of understanding and empathy for other cultures and a willingness to see the world in binary terms. If for no other reason than that, I hope his new book brings this issue up for debate.

 

You believe new atheism has emerged in reaction to religious fundamentalism, but I wonder if you also see it as a reaction to a kind of cultural relativism and multicultural mind-set that a lot of people perceive as weak and self-destructive, in its tendency to sympathize with enemies.

 

*highlight mine*

 

Well, "enemies" is a pretty loaded word.

 

Let's say al-Qaida -- those whom we can with few qualifications say are in an antagonistic relationship with the West.

 

Well, I've spent a lot of time in Gaza with Hamas, with people who have an antagonistic relationship with the West. Circumstance, fate, nationality, geography create different reactions, and if I had been born in Gaza, especially given the horrific Israeli assault at the moment in Gaza, and had stood by for 60 years while the outside world ignored the injustices committed against the Palestinian people, who knows how I'd react? I think people who start dividing the world into us and them fail to have empathy.

 

Are you saying you might be a jihadist, if you had that upbringing?

 

I spent so long in war zones that I think we don't know what we would do under repression and abuse -- you know, if somebody killed my father. That's the brilliance of the great writers on the Holocaust, like Primo Levi and [bruno] Bettelheim. They understood the humanity of their own killers. That line between the victim and the victimizer is razor-thin. We all carry within us the capacity for abuse, and I think that's the most disturbing lesson you walk away with when you cover wars. We're all capable of evil, under the right circumstances, and very few of us are immune.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/...ges/index1.html

[florduh]

I would just comment that I don't agree that atheism is a reaction. The most religious societies have been and still are the poorest and least educated. I think we are all just getting more information that leads us to the atheist conclusion. The more we learn about our universe, the less we turn to the supernatural for an explanation.

 

I agree that empathy is crucial to any hope of understanding between people of widely diverse circumstance.

 

- Chris

[Grandpa Harley]

I liked Hitchen's study of Mother Theresa - "Hell's Angel"...otherwise he ranks alongside Dawkins as 'marginally iteresting but a little too involved in being shocking and iconoclastic to be really taken seriously'

[Vigile]

I agree with you Chris that atheism isn't a reaction. I'm just wondering if the two in question are not a bit reactionary and propping up what they consider to be the Muslim threat. This has nothing to do with atheism, but it seems to be high on their agendii from what I can gather.

[florduh]

I agree with you Chris that atheism isn't a reaction. I'm just wondering if the two in question are not a bit reactionary and propping up what they consider to be the Muslim threat. This has nothing to do with atheism, but it seems to be high on their agendii from what I can gather.

 

 

Well, there is a Muslim threat. They have declared war on the infidels and have attacked on numerous occasions. Many Muslims just want us dead, period.

 

I may be crazy but I think we should find out why. Their hatred of the West and the U.S in particular stems from many sources in my view. Our backing of Israel, our fiscal and trade policies, our hypocrisy, our occupation, etc. all figure into it. Too many of us see it as good vs. evil, or they are jealous of the benefits we enjoy in a free society, or we are simply decadent. It requires empathy to get a full understanding and have some hope of addressing the real reason we have terrorists running amok. Complex problems aren't solved with simplistic answers.

 

- Chris

[Vigile]

I agree with you Chris that atheism isn't a reaction. I'm just wondering if the two in question are not a bit reactionary and propping up what they consider to be the Muslim threat. This has nothing to do with atheism, but it seems to be high on their agendii from what I can gather.

 

 

Well, there is a Muslim threat. They have declared war on the infidels and have attacked on numerous occasions. Many Muslims just want us dead, period.

 

I may be crazy but I think we should find out why. Their hatred of the West and the U.S in particular stems from many sources in my view. Our backing of Israel, our fiscal and trade policies, our hypocrisy, our occupation, etc. all figure into it. Too many of us see it as good vs. evil, or they are jealous of the benefits we enjoy in a free society, or we are simply decadent. It requires empathy to get a full understanding and have some hope of addressing the real reason we have terrorists running amok. Complex problems aren't solved with simplistic answers.

 

- Chris

 

That's the point of the OP. Empathy. If you have it it is easy to understand the position of Islamists who have threatened us.

 

That said, I'm utterly unconvinced that the threat is major or that it deserves a global war on terror. Yeah, 911. 911 was a minor pinprick in a global reality. The threat is overblown due to the need for those in power to keep people scared and willing to spend money on the military industrial complex. It works because people perpetuate the fear due to a lack of empathy and understanding of those cultures outside the US; not to mention a poor understanding of US foreign policy history.

 

In short, drunk driving is a much broader threat to Joe Sixpack than Islamic terrorism. So are a lot of other everyday threats.

[Vigile]

Isn't that a very personal belief ?! I'm not sure I could lump all atheists in the same box. Maybe you can, but that would be binary thinking wouldn't it ?

 

Again, the point of the writer is that he is not lumping all atheists into the same box. Just two in particular. He's questioning whether these two writers might be dangerous fundementalists. Not that all atheists are.

 

As an atheist myself I certainly wouldn't want to be lumped in with the accusation.

 

I basically posted because I thought he raised an interesting issue about two prominent atheists and what they are saying. I also liked very much his emphasis on empathy.

 

As to the True™ atheist issue, I'm not arguing either way. I don't see atheism as the main issue here. Rather the us vs them mentality that these two writers seem to be perpetuating.

[R. S. Martin]

I liked Hitchen's study of Mother Theresa - "Hell's Angel"...otherwise he ranks alongside Dawkins as 'marginally iteresting but a little too involved in being shocking and iconoclastic to be really taken seriously'

 

What the religious right--and the world--needs at this point in history (in my opinion) is a shocking icon. If you (not just you, Gramps, but readers in general) have been probing the depths of the Christian world from evangelical intellectuals in the UK to the uneducated fundies in the American South, you can see that the tremors are vibrating far and wide. And deep.

 

This is all-out WAR! for goodness sake. We can't afford to sit around on couches debating whether or not he should have said it in those exact words or whether he should have put it more subtly. The New Atheists have a mission and they're doing it. We need to back them. Critizing them is just plain stupid and irrational; it's suicide!

 

Fundamentalist Abrahamic religions are threatening not only the human species but the planet itself. And you are quibbling as to which form of atheism is the best form of attack.

 

The monsters of the world at the moment are Ishmael and Isaac. Abraham spawned them both. Are you for them or against them?

 

As I see it, that is the question.

 

DISCLAIMER/QUALIFIER: I am not against all Christians, Jews, and Muslims per se. But I am against people imposing their religion on others via military or political force.

[Vigile]

This is all-out WAR! for goodness sake. We can't afford to sit around on couches debating whether or not he should have said it in those exact words or whether he should have put it more subtly. The New Atheists have a mission and they're doing it. We need to back them. Critizing them is just plain stupid and irrational; it's suicide!

 

Well, uh, yeah. This is pretty much what I was talking about.

 

Atheism itself is just a position on the god question.

 

This new atheism has not much to do with that question and has much more to do with dividing up sides. Us vs. Them.

 

I remain unconvinced that we are at all out war with each other. Some xians can make life a pain in the ass and they need to be held in check when it comes to them forcing their ideas on the rest of us, but I would hardly frame it as all out war.

 

If you are refering to military disputes taking place around the globe an argument, I think very valid, can be made that neither side is fighting for their religion but rather is using religion as propaganda. The reasons for fighting on both sides have everything to do with land disputes, shoring up commodities, and power brokering, not religion.

 

When we frame everything in these binary terms as in the religious and the non religious aren't we just making the same old good vs evil argument but reversing it in our favor?

 

Is that accurate? Are we good and they are evil? Personally, I think we are all just people. I don't want xians forcing their agenda on me but I certainly don't view them as my enemy. Christians aren't the only group trying to force their views on the rest of us. Finding ways to peacefully live next to one another is part of society. Framing this in military or religious terms can't lead to any good IMO.

[Vigile]

I agree that the binary positioning is reactionary. I have trouble with the idea that atheism itself is reactionary. As I stated, atheism is just a position on the god question. What we are talking about here is the meaning that gets attached after a position is taken. Some atheists seem to think that that means they are now in a new camp that is at war with another camp. This perspective doesn't have anything to do with the god question at all. It has to do with the human tendency toward group identification.

 

Make sense?

[chefranden]

Well, there is a Muslim threat. They have declared war on the infidels and have attacked on numerous occasions. Many Muslims just want us dead, period.

- Chris

 

I agree in part that there is a Muslim treat. But I think that the threat comes from bending over backwards to be tolerant of what is essentially bullshit. When Muslims or any other religionists make death threats over something like the publishing of a cartoon that cartoon should be published in every western and in every non-Muslim eastern paper. Instead most publishers back down. Whether they back down from sensitivity or fear, they end up tolerating this bullshit behavior. And it is that tolerance that Dawkins et al. are ranting about. I have read them.

 

In part I don't agree. Your chances of being offed by a Muslim are slim to none. Like Christians of old Muslims mostly kill Muslims. It is an interesting facet of religion that religionists hate others of their own faith the most. When I was a Church of Christ minister I was sent to Northern Wisconsin as a missionary. I came up here to save Lutherans, Catholics, and the occasional Baptist from hell. They were going to hell because they had not been immersed for the forgiveness of sin. One of the great tragedies of the Iraq war is giving Sunnis and Shites the opportunity to practice religious cleansing.

[chefranden]

...1.If you are refering to military disputes taking place around the globe an argument, I think very valid, can be made that neither side is fighting for their religion but rather is using religion as propaganda. The reasons for fighting on both sides have everything to do with land disputes, shoring up commodities, and power brokering, not religion.

 

2. When we frame everything in these binary terms as in the religious and the non religious aren't we just making the same old good vs evil argument but reversing it in our favor?

 

Is that accurate? Are we good and they are evil? Personally, I think we are all just people. I don't want xians forcing their agenda on me but I certainly don't view them as my enemy. Christians aren't the only group trying to force their views on the rest of us. Finding ways to peacefully live next to one another is part of society. Framing this in military or religious terms can't lead to any good IMO.

 

1. People need to hate before they can conduct modern war. Anyone can be violent in the heat of the moment, but it takes extra effort to continue being pissed off for years. Religion easily supplies the continuing hate needed for the effort. The leaders may have ulterior motives, but fighters live at a more visceral level. You can kill the bastards because your god says so. I don't think that modern war could exist without religion. By the way religion doesn't need a god. All it needs is dogma.

 

2. Sure you could be. Being atheist doesn't make anyone holy. We are still human. Nevertheless, it doesn't do to ignore the bullshit for the sake of being tolerant. There is another way to view the enemy besides seeing them as evil monsters. You can see them as people so that violence will be engaged only as a last resort* Christians have no difficulty in seeing you as an enemy, because you are a threat to their belief. And you are a threat -- not because you are threatening them, but because you can function as a nice moral human without god. Atheism makes you an enemy of religion especially Abrahamic religion whether you intended to be one or not.

 

*When they come at you with a weapon.

[Legion]

I think people who start dividing the world into us and them fail to have empathy.

Interesting thing to contemplate I think.

 

If I declare someone my enemy then my goal is to remove their ability or willingness to fight, right?. And it is key to know and understand your enemy. I think that empathy would be among the things I could use to try and understand them. So I don't know that I agree with this statement.

[sojourner]

Im glad you brought this article forth. I was looking at that book recently on Amazon but wasnt sure where he was coming from. I thought it sounded like another fundamentalist attack on athiesm. But it seems more an attack on fundamentalism no matter the guise and label it hides under.

I tend to agree that fundamentalist thinking crosses all bounderies and hides in all religions and non religions. Its what I have a strong aversion too.

 

sojourner

[Kuroikaze]

We also have to be careful of using the word "fundamentalist." The writer of this book is, presumably, arguing against dividing people into us, and them groups. But using the word "fundamentalist" could easily be seen as dividing people into groups as well.

 

"fundamentalist" is quickly becoming one of those buzz words that has no real meaning, just as Communist was during the cold war, for instance. People just use the word to describe anyone they don't like or disagree with, and even if the accusation has no or little merit it doesn't matter because any real discussion of the issues have been shut down.

 

I can't tell you the number of debates I've had with people who when they have nothing more of value to say will simply resort to calling me a fundamentalist atheist. It seems to regulate the discus ion to the "I know you are but what am I" defense.

 

I'm not sure writing a book attacking a group of people, or even some people in that group is really going to do much to accomplish this guys supposed goals. Even the title of the book "I Don't Believe in Atheists" seems to be designed to be divisive. Though perhaps I'm overreacting.

[sojourner]

Great point kurio

 

I hate labels too and yet I will use one to communicate at times cause its easy. But you are right. And lazy is not a good way to communicate.

 

That book doesnt interest me, I just agree with the point that this way of thinking if you will doesnt seem to be relegated to one group but perhaps we all have it in us in differing degrees. I dont think I would dislike it so much if I didnt have to deal with it on some level within.

 

sojourner

[Kuroikaze]

Great point kurio

 

I hate labels too and yet I will use one to communicate at times cause its easy. But you are right. And lazy is not a good way to communicate.

 

That book doesnt interest me, I just agree with the point that this way of thinking if you will doesnt seem to be relegated to one group but perhaps we all have it in us in differing degrees. I dont think I would dislike it so much if I didnt have to deal with it on some level within.

 

sojourner

 

Yeah, labels are to some extent necessary, we can't communicate without them. One thing I've always liked about Taoist teachings was the teaching that one has to use labels to communicate, but we must always be careful not to confuse the label with the thing itself. In other words, the thing being described is always more than the description.

 

I guess my main concern is that often, as with the label "fundamentalist," the term is so overused and over saturated that the even the basic meaning is skewed, its not even really a label anymore, as much as a stock insult that gets used by people who don't like what the other is saying. If effectively shuts down real debate and in the end the pursuit of truth gets trumped by a desire to be "right." (I've probably been guilty of this from time to time as well.)

 

My concern with this book is that I get the feeling this is sort of what this guy is doing by calling Dawkins a fundamentalist. He realizes that most of Dawkins arguments are leveled at "fundamentalists" and knows the worst insult to Dawkins would be to say he is what he is against. Of course I haven't read the books so maybe I'm off base.

[Vigile]

I agree with your points on the use of the word fundy Kuroi. One of the first epiphanies I had after dropping xianity was the realization that those I had previously labeled secular or worldy were just people as was I. It was quite freeing.

 

Even if they now view me as the enemy, I don't have to return them the favor. Moreover, I don't have to try and find a new enemy to make myself feel somehow superior.

 

For the record, the author made a point that he was not refering to Dawkins. His critique was of Harris and Hitchens. I can't comment beyond a brief exposure to Hitchens, who did indeed seem like a Dick Cheney apologist for the war in Iraq as he painted the Muslim threat as if it were the biggest danger the human race has had to face in millenia.