Chris Hedges on New Atheism, the God Debate, Science and Religion, and Self-Delusion (2008)
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered by rational argument wherever its influence arises. About the book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/141656795X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=141656795X&linkCode=as2&tag=tra0c7-20&linkId=c7807cd150f603db1e65fffa1056655d The term is commonly associated with individuals such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (together called "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" in a taped 2007 discussion they held on their criticisms of religion, a name that has stuck),[2] along with Victor J. Stenger,[3] Michael Shermer, Lawrence M. Krauss and A.C. Grayling.[4] Several best-selling books by these authors, published between 2004 and 2007, form the basis for much of the discussion of New Atheism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others for thousands of years. In philosophical terms, such arguments involve primarily the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality) and also the theory of value, since concepts of perfection are connected to notions of God. A wide variety of arguments exist which can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, or subjective. Does God exist? Is there a god? The existence of God is subject to lively debate in philosophy,[1] the philosophy of religion, and popular culture. The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological. The field of theodicy arose from attempts to answer this question. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God was logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful; and Immanuel Kant, who argued that the existence of God can be deduced from the existence of good. Thinkers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include David Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell. In modern culture, the question of God's existence has been discussed by scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Francis Collins, Richard Dawkins, and John Lennox, as well as philosophers including Daniel Dennett, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga. Atheists maintain that arguments for the existence of God provide insufficient reason to believe. Additionally, some contend that it is possible to affirmatively disprove the existence of God, or of certain characteristics traditionally attributed to God such as perfection.[2] Fideists acknowledge that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation, but rests on faith alone. The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is available in the "natural light of human reason" alone.[3] Other religions, such as Buddhism, do not concern themselves with the existence of gods at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God Image By Stained glass: Alfred Handel, d. 1946, photo:Toby Hudson (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons
Comments
-
Chris Hedges is brilliant. I find him able to articulate the state of the world, human nature and pathways to hopeful outcomes, like no one else I have come across.
-
Maybe it's just me, but it seems sometimes these intellectuals are a bit too smart for their own good. This isn't meant to be an indictment of Chris Hedges or anyone else, just a general statement based on listening to some of them speak.
Why do these people rarely give a clear, direct, and concise answer to what appear to me as pretty straightforward questions?
I think these listed below are good questions which were asked in the video(starting just after 26:11), unfortunately I didn't hear Mr. Hedges say anything which really answered them in any coherent way.
"Your argument is based on the premise that the world is not simply black and white, yet fundamentalists on both sides would have us believe that it is: has the divisiveness permeated the political, social and religious discourse so completely that we can no longer engage in discussion or compromise?"
"Do you think it's important to pick a side of faith and atheism, or is the path of undecided the highest road to take?"
"And lastly, what this questioner asks: If you have suggestion on how to discuss these matters with family or friends who've been pulled in to fundamentalist groups?"
I won't count the minutes, but he goes on for a while without really answering the question, at least not in any way I could appreciate. -
I think what he is trying to say is that there is a difference between necessary evils and more than necessary evils. There is a difference between realistic ideals and unrealistic ideals. When we present unrealistic ideals and when we facilitate more than necessary evils often by assumptions about the greater good coming from them - for example "greed is good" "might is right" "Free markets are just and rational" etc. We set ourselves up for a very unjust world.
If instead we accepted some evils as necessary such as government, force, defense, commerce etc. All of these are necessary evils- once we accept that then we can discuss what mitigates harm and detrimental fallout. The answer to that is sustainable technologies. Sustainable defined in the context of human life, health, ecosystems, the environment aka fallout. When we consider detrimental fallout we should consider the net outcomes so that we can try to design net benefit from industrialization and the use of science and technology etc.
Social awareness and sustainable system designs should be informed by understanding and compassion. And ethics should also be informed by understanding and compassion. Because these are always in context of reality over time. So sustainable agriculture, sustainable energy from solar, wind, hydro, and newer battery technologies, etc. These are what would bring about a better world.
So we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or status quo, but we shouldn't also let the good be the enemy of the better or best because our impact on the environment has brought about climate change and ocean acidification. Neither of which would have happened if we had focused on sustainable energy. -
This guy clearly has never read the Bible. If he had, he would readily realize the Bible clearly state there IS NO Utopia to be had at the hands of man. Before giving a talk, do your homework. Not impressed
-
This is the only disagreement I have with Mr. Hedges, I believe in a personal relationship with God because I'm experiencing it, yet with that being said, God is no respecter of persons, so if my bane in life is cancer so be it, but I will not suffer it alone without His assurance and presence.
-
One has to work on being moral with the help of God. To work on one's self alone without God's help will end in failure. This is the purpose of God to help man in the transformation of his heart as it is, tainted with original sin.
The Prophet Jeremiah says that the heart is evil above all things and who can know it. God can and that is why each of us need His help in our moral and spiritual development. The Apostle Paul wrote, When I was a child I did childish things, but as I grew I put childish things away. -
I do not typically comment on Youtube videos. But, reading through the comments I feel as if many people have misinterpreted Hedges' meaning in this talk. By criticizing "New Atheists" he is not criticizing atheists who are new to Atheism, or all atheists. He is criticizing a new atheism pushed by figures like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, or Bill Maher. And specifically, he is criticizing how these figures have taken the belief that atheists should stop sitting on the sidelines and criticize/condemn religion and sympathy for religion as wrong/destructive, and used it to condemn Islam and justify US military intervention in the Middle East.
This is not an attack on all atheists, just the ones who use their atheism to justify ethnic hatred and violence...especially the ones who have become famous and enriched themselves in that way. If you can't understand that, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't appreciate Chris Hedges' writing. -
Art is not a religious function. Chris Hedges uses common social/religious problems to blame atheism. He is wrong on all counts. He puts all atheist in the same pot and blames them for world problems. Atheists have little or no political power. Atheist fight for the constitution and against religious power.
-
Atheists have not been involved in violent overthrow of governments or institution as was Christianity. Hitler and
Stalin and pol pot were products of political radicalism not scientific and moral atheism. Atheism. Massive retaliation against Arabs is not an atheist policy. If you believe in miracles such as virgin birth and resurrection you are radical. No one person speaks for atheists, as do leaders of other religions. All religions base their beliefs on unscientific faith, which is dangerous. There is no fear that atheist will support blood baths and war of any kind. Atheist support conservation. This guy knows little of atheism. -
In one breath Chris Hedges condemns The New Atheists as stereotyping ALL Muslims as inferior while stereotyping ALL atheists as holding this perspective & thinking the same in general in regards to all topics of discussion, the hypocrisy is great with this one on this subject & he seems totally blind to it, truly amazing.
-
he's pretty spot on before minute 18. after that he does meander into fact-less assertion.
-
Hedges, Harris, Dawkins, Chomsky, et al, have their flaws, as we all do, but overall are brilliant men. Hedges' sermonic speech is indicative of his seminary training. Chomsky becomes a gatekeeper on 9/11; and the late Hitchens was a war monger when it came to Iraq. Harris has been faulted for his views on Muslims; and Dawkins is weak at times in getting his points across....
-
I'm a huge Hedges fan and in fact, he's probably my hero, but he really is out of his fucking mind when it comes to comments about "new atheists" and the arguments that he puts in their mouths (intolerance towards Muslims) are atrociously inaccurate. He doesnt' go anywhere near far enough to define what a new atheist is. He seems to lump ALL atheists together and then compares them with fundamentalist christians just because of one bad experience with Hitchens. Lumping people together is exactly the same thing he accuses Hitchens of doing to intellectual christians. This is a sophomoric talk and Hedges should be embarrassed by his complete lack of clarity and his immense vindictiveness. To say that new atheists lack humanity is off the charts dangerous and divisive, not to mention woefully inaccurate. Add to that the fact that Hedges has NEVER once explained how on earth he can call himself a Christian when his beliefs about Jesus here are NOTHING like anyone I have ever known who calls themselves a Christian. From what I can tell, his "christianity" is just massive rationalization so that he can still identify with his dead father who he idolizes. He's a Christian in only the loosest sense of the word and those people are the worst because it's pretty clear they're just engaged in rationalizing. Talk about self-delusion. the irony is palpable. I lost a lot of respect for the man in this little talk of his. I'll never view him the same way again.
-
His comments on t he atomic bomb are wrong. Hiroshima was a military target. HQ of 20th Japanese Army. The bomb was aimed at the parade ground. Whether it should have been used is a different issue. I quite agree with Hedges on societal issues, but his quaint belief that worshiping god will save us is ridiculous.
-
Atheism is shaping up to be the new right wing. I daresay within 20 years there will be no more right wing politicians pretending to believe in God anymore. Atheism has already devolved into shock-jockery and a twisted scene of "skepticism" which just be the rejection of any new social/political/economic ideas or ideologies. Skeptical of even knowledge itself. In their sheer skeptically inspired ignorance they will revert back to 19th century ideas like social Darwinism and Malthusian economics. This will be so because... they are human... just as human as the religious dogmatists whose crown they now wear. It is easier for humans to reject ideas than to examine them critically, even at the cost of a ones own personal identity.
-
My Nigga
That being said, I do beleive in intellegent design-God/nature selects the fittest animals and evolves them into intellegently and beautifuly design creatures. -
Gotta hate the "NU-keel-er" weapons.
-
"I think those who do not fully pursue their religious impulse & explore the transcendent are NOT FULLY HUMAN".
Now that you have made clear your tribal tendency for hate. You see to dehumanise atheism.
I am and I suspect all atheists are ready to hear your apology when you are ready.
Hypocrite much? -
To say the Bible wasn't intended and a guided to how live ones life suggests he hasn't yet read the 10 commandments or Leviticus.
-
Since when do atheists dehumanise Muslims. We might criticise some unfounded religious ideas and beliefs but beliefs are not immutable. To criticise a person for their skin colour etc... That is immoral. That might be dehumanising. I'm guessing this guy doesn't know many atheists whatsoever. He is merely reciting his own personal prejudices. Ironic.
0m 0sLenght
190Rating