Get used to it, bitch, because as long as you religious fucks bring your idiotic religious beliefs into the real natural world with any air of legitimacy, I will walk across the waters and through your walls with my superior alien being godlike technology, and make your delusional lives miserable by being a thorn in your ass.

With me, it's a spiritual thing. And guess, what, if it isn't me, it will be some other thoroughly and righteously outraged alien being. For you people, it ain't getting any better, and it's about to get a lot worse.

Deal with it.

"I don't give a fuck what he is, when he publishes his delusions about religion in the real world, I will reveal them for what they are, total nonsense. A lot of people in the world are getting sick and tired of people just like Hedges pushing their delusions on them. And there are a lot of people a lot worse than him, the fact that he falls prey to those same delusions here makes it all the worse."

Hedges's point is not that he believes in God and that he thinks other people should, too. His point is that "getting rid of religion" (whatever that entails) is a) impossible and b) will solve nothing. The idea that eliminating religion from world conflicts will end them is, indeed, a delusion, and one that is growing.

"If you think that these so called 'attacks' on your delusions are going to cease, just because you think they hurt your feelings, you are even more deluded."

They don't hurt my feeelings, I'm merely baffled by the attempt at foisting what is obviously an argument based on emotion and intended to shock as a way of combatting what you and others perceive as irrational thought. Saying "fuck your messiah" doesn't hurt my feelings, it merely seems childish.

" If you keeps your delusions to yourself, as spirituality and beliefs about imaginary deities should be, then you've got nothing to worry about, but as soon as you publish your delusions, you had better be ready for 1) the shit test, and 2) analysis based upon the real world. Your delusions crumble in an instant when illuminated with reality.""

"The shit test" is hardly a test at all. It's just an attempt at epater la bourgeoisie, and one that doesn't seem to be working very well here. Your so-called "shit test" hasn't produced offense as much as the reaction one sees when a youth tries to shock by using a dirty word.

You were the one who talked about "results." I fail to see how trashing other people's beliefs and resorting to childish name-calling results in much other than ridicule.

Results are not based on belief, they are based on what works in the real world. If you can't grasp even these basic concepts there is no point in discussing them with you.

Actually, Hedges is pretty much an agnostic, based on interviews he's given.

I don't give a fuck what he is, when he publishes his delusions about religion in the real world, I will reveal them for what they are, total nonsense. A lot of people in the world are getting sick and tired of people just like Hedges pushing their delusions on them. And there are a lot of people a lot worse than him, the fact that he falls prey to those same delusions here makes it all the worse.

BTW, for someone who claims to believe in science, you seem to rely a lot on emotional attacks.

I'm just giving him a dose of his own medicine.

If you think that these so called 'attacks' on your delusions are going to cease, just because you think they hurt your feelings, you are even more deluded. If you keeps your delusions to yourself, as spirituality and beliefs about imaginary deities should be, then you've got nothing to worry about, but as soon as you publish your delusions, you had better be ready for 1) the shit test, and 2) analysis based upon the real world. Your delusions crumble in an instant when illuminated with reality.

If you want to share your spirituality with others, show them some real world examples.

The 'God' delusion doesn't cut it in the real world. The religion delusion is far worse.

"I'm afraid the onus is on you to prove your worldview.

Just asking me to 'prove' my worldview reveals your naive, juvenile and completely ignorant understand on how science works."

You were the one who talked about "results." I fail to see how trashing other people's beliefs and resorting to childish name-calling results in much other than ridicule.

"I suppose next you'll want me to prove my spirituality, which is none of your business."

And, again, you seem to be unwilling to give other people that same courtesy.

"However, Hedges crap IS my business, and became my business the second he published his ridiculous rant here. Hedges is an asshole who can't seem to transcend his Daddy's world."

Actually, Hedges is pretty much an agnostic, based on interviews he's given. BTW, for someone who claims to believe in science, you seem to rely a lot on emotional attacks.

"You are assuming that all of us believe in a corporeal God who lives on a cloud or some similar analogy.

No I'm not, I'm assuming that your 'god' is undefined, and thus nonsense. Until you define it, even if it may be speculation based upon physics, or even speculative physics, there is nothing to discuss. I'm not barging into your church on Sunday and trashing your beliefs, this is a public forum, I'm trashing nonsense that Hedges spews here, and all traditional religions, which I am intimately familiar with."

Actually, you're not placing any logical argument at all for us to refute. You're just spewing some nihilistic screed in an attempt to rile people up. When they don't rise to they bait, you pout.

If you were so "intimately familiar" with "all traditional religions," you would know that many do not have a messiah figure, or even a corporeal God.

[[I'm afraid the onus is on you to prove your worldview.]]

Just asking me to 'prove' my worldview reveals your naive, juvenile and completely ignorant understand on how science works.

The notion of 'proving' a theory or hypothesis is a common perspective even among long-time researchers. While this is erroneous in a strict sense, it is only problematic when 'proved' becomes synonymous with 'correct' and implies no change is required or possible.

[[Creating computer models still involves notions of falsifiability (testability). You appear to conflate Popper's thesis of how science evolves/progresses with the boundary problem of what constitutes science. Now, you are welcome to present your views the latter problem.]]

First of all, Popper fails miserably at the quantum mechanical level, and most likely at the higher energy physics level as well.

Soon we'll have vast neural networks, and I expect scientific methods will evolve to cope with those results, and then we'll have quantum computers, and another paradigm shift may occur. Even with what we have Popper is suspect, and he was a rip off artist anyways.

Determinism is so yesterday.

While, the progress of scientific theories is a worth a long discussion, and we agree that Popper's thesis is inadequate and misleading, the issue of concern in this thread is the boundary between scientific endeavors and non-scientific ones - any thoughts on this?

I'm afraid the onus is on you to prove your worldview.

Just asking me to 'prove' my worldview reveals your naive, juvenile and completely ignorant understand on how science works.

I suppose next you'll want me to prove my spirituality, which is none of your business.

However, Hedges crap IS my business, and became my business the second he published his ridiculous rant here. Hedges is an asshole who can't seem to transcend his Daddy's world.

Creating computer models still involves notions of falsifiability (testability). You appear to conflate Popper's thesis of how science evolves/progresses with the boundary problem of what constitutes science. Now, you are welcome to present your views the latter problem.

First of all, Popper fails miserably at the quantum mechanical level, and most likely at the higher energy physics level as well.

Soon we'll have vast neural networks, and I expect scientific methods will evolve to cope with those results, and then we'll have quantum computers, and another paradigm shift may occur. Even with what we have Popper is suspect, and he was a rip off artist anyways.

Determinism is so yesterday.

You are assuming that all of us believe in a corporeal God who lives on a cloud or some similar analogy.

No I'm not, I'm assuming that your 'god' is undefined, and thus nonsense. Until you define it, even if it may be speculation based upon physics, or even speculative physics, there is nothing to discuss. I'm not barging into your church on Sunday and trashing your beliefs, this is a public forum, I'm trashing nonsense that Hedges spews here, and all traditional religions, which I am intimately familiar with.

Most modern scientists have moved far beyond Popper, we have computers and models, for instance, and we now deal with phenomena that is far removed from ordinary reality.

Creating computer models still involves notions of falsifiability (testability). You appear to conflate Popper's thesis of how science evolves/progresses with the boundary problem of what constitutes science. Now, you are welcome to present your views the latter problem.

"Alien: how, pray tell, does your "test" actually work?

It works by distinguishing the realists from the fantasists right at the outset. Realists have confidence in their results, and will eagerly defend them, even if they end up to be wrong, and thus have no problems with ignoring the superficial and casual ridicule of the shit test. Fantasists on the other hand, have nothing but blind faith. I don't want to waste my time trying to reason with the paranoid and superstitious."

And I would argue that the idea that a person can claim to be a "realist" is as much an act of faith as any religion. We can only see the world through our own filters.

"You call us jerks, and if we complain, our religion sucks? It certainly seems that way.

Complain all you want, you've got nothing rational to discuss, even more so if you can't pass the simplest shit test. If you think you can reason with me, give it your best shot."

But you didn't offer a reasonable arguement. You simply said "fuck you." There is nothing rational in the least about that.

"I'm an astrobiologist, I can take it. From an astrobiological perspective, your religion sucks, you'll just have to trust me on that

What you think is god, looks to the rational as not even a moderately smart and long lived alien, it might even be bigfoot, you haven't got a clue. Run that by your shit test, this ought be be funny."

Again, I have not said anything about my own personal beliefs. You are assuming that all of us believe in a corporeal God who lives on a cloud or some similar analogy. You may be an astrobiologist, but you have a very limited view of religion.

"Results generally work for me. Invoking God and religion just shuts the 'results' stream right off. Since you've got nothing, why should I care?"

I'm afraid the onus is on you to prove your worldview. So you believe in science. Very well, then. Where is your moral code? How can you prove, scientifically, that one should treat others as they want to be treated?

I've heard a lot of atheists pay lip service to ideas like "compassion" or "love," but these things are not rational concepts. They transcend reason and logic.

Alien: how, pray tell, does your "test" actually work?

It works by distinguishing the realists from the fantasists right at the outset. Realists have confidence in their results, and will eagerly defend them, even if they end up to be wrong, and thus have no problems with ignoring the superficial and casual ridicule of the shit test. Fantasists on the other hand, have nothing but blind faith. I don't want to waste my time trying to reason with the paranoid and superstitious.

You call us jerks, and if we complain, our religion sucks? It certainly seems that way.

Complain all you want, you've got nothing rational to discuss, even more so if you can't pass the simplest shit test. If you think you can reason with me, give it your best shot.

I'm an astrobiologist, I can take it. From an astrobiological perspective, your religion sucks, you'll just have to trust me on that.

What you think is god, looks to the rational as not even a moderately smart and long lived alien, it might even be bigfoot, you haven't got a clue. Run that by your shit test, this ought be be funny.

You didn't even give us a chance to express our beliefs before rejecting them out of hand.

That's the point.

You have a negative reaction to belief, period. Very well, then how do you propose one lives their life?

Results generally work for me. Invoking God and religion just shuts the 'results' stream right off. Since you've got nothing, why should I care?

Alien: how, pray tell, does your "test" actually work? You call us jerks, and if we complain, our religion sucks? It certainly seems that way.

I still think Hedges has a point, that the new wave of atheists lack the intellectual rigor of Camus or Sartre and their generation. Instead of addressing the absence of God, they just throw out the whole thing.

"Actually, no, it was a simple test of the veracity of your religious faith, and you failed with flying colors. If your religion can't pass this one single simple test, it's a failure."

I actually said nothing about my religious faith. I personally believe that calling people's beliefs "shit" without even listening to them makes one sound like a petulant jerk. But maybe that's just me.

"You demand that I respect your FANTASY?"

Well, considering I didn't say anything about my so-called fantasy, I'm not sure where that comes from. Personally, my religious beliefs have a problem with people who jump to anger and abuse as their first response.

"Sorry, no can do. Not only will I not respect it, but clearly it doesn't deserve my respect.
"

You didn't even give us a chance to express our beliefs before rejecting them out of hand. You have a negative reaction to belief, period. Very well, then how do you propose one lives their life?

Present a domain of modern science that contains no constructs that involves some notion falsifiability (for the record, I do not think that the current equivalence of testability with falsifiability is precise - until I can demonstrate otherwise I'll just have to go with the accepted usage).

You too, like Hedges, are attempting to use a broad brush to portray a perspective using crushingly specific examples. I care not of domains, most science nowadays is astonishing in its multidisciplinary approach, and uses whatever methods that are useful and can be reproduced. Until you can produce a result I can critique, I can't take you seriously at all as a scientist, whatever your methods may be.

Most modern scientists have moved far beyond Popper, we have computers and models, for instance, and we now deal with phenomena that is far removed from ordinary reality. But these things nevertheless do exist, in the cores of exotic stellar objects for instance, and in the twisted minds of delusional theists.

You need to get up to speed, Popper had some interesting ideas but most of us have moved on.

The problem with Hedges is the broadness of his brush strokes. He attributes BELIEFS to his opponents without citation or example from their work, and then carries on with his argument as if he had established this as a fact. He also equates all atheists with religious fundamentalists, and proceeds to attribute characteristics and motives to both groups again without citation or example.
Hedges states that

"Religious Fundamentalists pervert and distort religion for reasons of fear and self -aggrandizement, and atheists do the same with reason and science."

Every single fundamentalist is the exact same as every other, and the are the same as all the atheists. Your co-worker who celebrates
Christian Passover instead of Easter, is the moral equivalent of the Taliban and Richard Dawkins. What nonsense.

There might be a reasonable argument underneath all this, but it needs a more capable advocate than Hedges.

BHIMA: I am done responding to you. Argue FOR Your limitations and you get to keep them. Ta Ta.

JBPM: Quite enlightening, and fair-minded posting. Thank you for sharing your erudition.

SiouxRose: I'm going to quote you, and change the subject to something that... like Astrology, has no evidence of truth. you may not agree with my statement about astrology, so lets use Fairies as the field of study (because I bet we both believe the chance for the existence of fairies is extremely low).

BHIMA: I am a scholar in my field [of fairies]. Talking to you is equivalent of speaking to a prejudiced 3rd grade student. Sorry. It's arrogant on your part to try to degrade a subject I have studied [fairies] for over 30 years. There are people who have likely seen [fairies]. Those who have not cannot understand or believe [in fairies]. MANY of us have had experiences that are not within "permissable" boundaries of credibility. That visionaries and mystics have seen [fairies] what scientists have not is a concept you cannot understand or appreciate. Let's drop it. You and I are obviously not vibrating at levels that can intersect, no less communicate. Enjoy the prison your walls of impenetrable 3D logic have built for you [may the fairies cry tiny tears for you].

Now, i'm not calling your study "fairies" I'm using the fairy context to show you that you, or ANYONE ELSE does not need a degree, or scholarly knowledge that the probability of fairies is next to nill. We look at basic evidence of their existence. The onus is on the "fairy scholar" to prove their existence. You see, having scholarship on a subject is not a guarantor of truth. That is all my model it trying to show. Give us evidence of fairies or whatever is claimed by mystics... evidence that can stand up to real scrutiny. Double-blind controlled studies, etc. You see, I'm not saying that their COULD NEVER be evidence for these things, I'm saying that there hasn't been any up to now.

WmC asks, is there such a thing as being "too rational"?

Well, perhaps not. At first glance it seems eminently sensible. But there is such a thing as being too arrogant and self-congratulatory about ones own rational and enlightened attitudes.

Marxist/Leninist Communism was supposed to bring an enlightened, rational and well-planned society. But... er... it didn't. Why? Because the planners were so far up their own arse (if you pardon the phrase) that they forgot about two insignificant annoying trifles... human nature and the limits of humanity (i.e. they were not as smart as they thought they were).

Any ideology that is not well grounded in the realities of the human condition is doomed to fail and to make worse the problems they earnestly intend to solve - this is the problem with modern liberalism.

Anyone that thinks they can plan for every possibility is day-dreaming. If you need proof, just look at the problems that have beset Heathrow Terminal 5. Try as we might, human beings simply don't have the mental capacity to consider all possible eventualities.

So, being too rational is not the issue. The problem is the underlying assumption that we can solve all our problems through rational thinking. We can't, we are not that smart.

http://rebelconservative.blogspot.com

>> Bollocks. If politics and ideas are subject to reality, then scientific thinking and rationality are the only proven tools at humans' disposal for making informed choices. For those of us living in the real world, that is.

> Hedges qualifies his use of scientific methods and restricts himself to those methods that focus on manipulating the material world, e.g. manufacturing, biological sciences, physical sciences, etc. …

I don't think you're right on that one. For one thing, his is an explicitly non-defining, or non-restrictive, use of a relative clause. He is saying scientific methods are part of the process of changing the material world. I cannot even guess in what way Hedges thinks that politics is not about changing the material (= real) world.

We are generally in agreement about the poor formulation. However, we get a general idea of what he is trying to communicate. The paragraph holds when one takes a manufacturing process (wherein there is a high degree of predictability) and tries to adapt it to a different domain of ethics(different structure, more variabilty, and more 'feelings').

Hedges was better off using a different phrase, say, "techniques within applied sciences" instead of the more general "scientific methods." He attempts a normative definition, albeit poorly.

Further, it is worthwhile to remember that modern scientific inquiry ONLY pertains to domains involving falsifiable constructs (hypotheses).

Sure, if you're a Popper groupie. Others understand that modern science is founded on a plethora of scientific methods, that evolve continuously and include verification as well as falsification. Why are you such an absolutist?

*Lol* Stating an observation does not make one an absolutist.

It wasn't an observation, it was a statement using the term 'only'. Quite restrictive, and indeed, patently false.

Example please. Present a domain of modern science that contains no constructs that involves some notion falsifiability (for the record, I do not think that the current equivalence of testability with falsifiability is precise - until I can demonstrate otherwise I'll just have to go with the accepted usage).

"Humans both secular and theist need a big does of humility."

"The common enemy of all of us are the fanatics, the people so sure of their own moral and intellectual superiority that they think they can use unlimited force against people they regard as dangerous."

"To stem fanaticism, we must first fight indifference to evil … We fight indifference through education; we diminish it through compassion."

"Of course, we should all keep trying, but we also must be mindful that excesses all have the same source: a lack of careful reflection and consideration whether you are a rationalist or a religious person."

"The problem is not people being "too rational", it's the notion that people can believe themselves to be perfectly rational."

Of course, if I had taken the time to read through all the above comments, I would have realized that others have said it better and with less words than me.

JBPM, that was very interesting, especially since you grew up in a fundamentalist home. I appreciate your insight, and I'll definitely check out those books. Great advice, as well, to remember that fundamentalism can appear in all sorts of ways, though I liked how you put it better. It's a real shame that Hedge's views only had a little space here, because it leaves it open to a lot of misinterpretation. He needs a lot of room to make clear why he's saying things which can definitely be seen as outrageous. His books are great though, especially 'War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning'. I recommend it for anyone, anywhere.

I'm glad to see this article from Chris Hedges. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home, and I've noticed that folks who grew up fundie tend to develop along three different trajectories.

First, you have the folks who give up asking the tough questions kids are prone to ask and who simply give in and become fundamentalists like their parents.

Second, you have the folks who, in a reaction-formation to their inflexible religious upbringing, develop a similarly inflexible contempt for all things religious and an almost religious adoration of science ("scientism" is the word, I think). These are the folks who think that any and all religious people are, by definition, morons, deluded, etc. and not worthy of engaging in serious conversation.

Third, you have those folks who saw that the problem wasn't religion per se, but the inflexibility and dogmatism. For the record, religion hasn't cornered the market on dogmatism and inflexibility. Just look at any given discussion thread on damn near any blog, and you'll see that people who question ANY aspect of ANY party line are treated to a healthy portion of derision, contempt, etc. --- all the responses you get from a challenged fundamentalist. Scientists who are confronted with unconventional research are as quick to attack the researcher (to call for his dismissal, etc.) as the Church was to attack Galilleo. THAT is what happens when you already KNOW what is true and what is not, and THAT is, in my experience, the definition of fundamentalism.

For a funny example of this in action, watch the "The Philosophical Implications of Quantum Mechanics" episode of No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed (http://www.pdcnet.org/nodogs.html). You've got three scientists: one provides the traditional "quantum mechanics is just math that works and it isn't weird" interpretation, one provides a "multiple universes" interpretation, and one provides a "consciousness is integral to the universe" interpretation. After an hour of conversation, the "logical" scientist with the least "weird" interpretation is livid and near screaming at the other two "flaky" scientists, just because they have left the script of philosophical materialism. THAT is fundamentalism.

Check out Robert Anton Wilson's books for a light-hearted skewering of these dogmatic tendencies on the part of people who are smart enough to know better. As a solution to dogmatism and inflexibility, he recommended regular reading of books, magazine, websites, from perspectives you don't share. I think that's good advice for our online world of increasingly insulated, self-selecting cliques.

I wish you peace.

Pass. If you can get over the shit test in real life like that, then indeed your religion is worthy. I haven't tested this in the real world, but from what I have witnessed thus far, 99.99% of the so called 'religious folk' would crack big time when confronted with this sort of constitutionally protected free speech.

It's not that I am feeling particularly suicidal, it's clear to me that most religions are particularly murderous. That's clear from simple observation, but it is easily tested.

Alien, I apologize for my unkind remarks. I really do. But, honestly, your rhetoric makes it difficult to take you seriously.

I wish you peace.

Well then, if that's the case, then remediation is certainly in order!

Let's see, you make idiotic cryptic remarks, and you don't quote anyone, so nobody knows what you are talking about, and your comments have no basis in reality. Let me guess, you're a Catholic priest!

Fuck your god, your messiah and your so called holey book. Pass or fail?

The longer you delay expressing yourself in the actual World the worse it will be for you when you eventually do.

In case you delusional religion freaks missed it, the actual world involves plants and animals and aliens from other worlds, which simple astrobiolobical considerations leads us to believe are watching your every move, and does not involve imaginary gods. In fact your very existence is dependent upon lifeforms right here that you can't see and very often don't even know they exist.

When you assholes feel like you want to join us adults in that real world, feel free, until then, I treat you with the respect you deserve.

Further, it is worthwhile to remember that modern scientific inquiry ONLY pertains to domains involving falsifiable constructs (hypotheses).

Sure, if you're a Popper groupie. Others understand that modern science is founded on a plethora of scientific methods, that evolve continuously and include verification as well as falsification. Why are you such an absolutist?

*Lol* Stating an observation does not make one an absolutist.

It wasn't an observation, it was a statement using the term 'only'. Quite restrictive, and indeed, patently false.

Well then, if that's the case, then remediation is certainly in order!

Clemsy April 9th, 2008 4:45 am
AlienBeing is a troll who's conclusions demonstrate suicidal tendencies and who's writing is semantically barren.

Aw, lighten up. The kid's only around 15 years old, I'd guess. He's just having a little fun with his daddy's computer.

@ Thought Shaman

> aelfinn (are you a fan of the wheel of time series?)

That would be fair to say, yes. :)

> However, you misunderstood one point (reproduced below):

>>> Scientific methods, part of the process of changing the material world, are nearly useless in the nebulous world of politics, ideas, values and ethics.

>> Bollocks. If politics and ideas are subject to reality, then scientific thinking and rationality are the only proven tools at humans' disposal for making informed choices. For those of us living in the real world, that is.

> Hedges qualifies his use of scientific methods and restricts himself to those methods that focus on manipulating the material world, e.g. manufacturing, biological sciences, physical sciences, etc. …

I don't think you're right on that one. For one thing, his is an explicitly non-defining, or non-restrictive, use of a relative clause. He is saying scientific methods are part of the process of changing the material world. I cannot even guess in what way Hedges thinks that politics is not about changing the material (= real) world.

Besides, science above all is about finding laws of nature and making predictions about them whose accuracy can be independently evaluated. I cannot for the life of me think of anything that would be more important to politics than that kind of mindset.

Please consider my two above "who's" edited to "whose" as the editing function seems to have slept in this morning.

"Clemsy, the 'test' does not apply to *some* notions of an impersonal god (or ground of being, or etc.)."

Thought Shaman, I'll accept that. In fact, I'll go on to say that any *notion* of an impersonal god is likely, nay doomed, to fail the test.

AlienBeing is a troll who's conclusions demonstrate suicidal tendencies and who's writing is semantically barren.

I think choosing to name one's self "AlienBeing" says a lot, but maybe I'm wrong.

I think annonymously lashing out on the Internets won't really satisfy you -AlienBeing-.

Rather, it will leave you in a state of even more heightened frustration.

The longer you delay expressing yourself in the actual World the worse it will be for you when you eventually do.

But maybe I'm totally off? Maybe you do express yourself like this in the World? Maybe even to people who hold opposing viewpoints and may harm you for your attitude if nothing else?

Maybe.

Doubt it. But maybe.

Please type curse words into your computer and then send them over some fiber-optic cables to another computer so I can command my computer to connect to it through more fiber-optic cable and see those words on my screen if it will make you feel better though.

But only if you promise to have FUN while doing it.

This ride is intended to be FUN.

(I'll leave it to you to determine which, if any, god you should "fuck" for this Idea)

-matti.

Thus any domain that involves constructs that cannot be tested (no area of falsifiability) falls outside the purview of science.

Oops! This above is poorly worded and misleading. The above use of domain can refer to a coherent theory as well, which is not my intent. Just ignore this last statement in my previous post.

>> Further, it is worthwhile to remember that modern scientific inquiry only pertains to domains involving falsifiable constructs (hypotheses).

Sure, if you're a Popper groupie. Others understand that modern science is founded on a plethora of scientific methods, that evolve continuously and include verification as well as falsification. Why are you such an absolutist?

*Lol* Stating an observation does not make one an absolutist. While scientific methods, procedures, etc. vary by fields and domains and change, the general process of scientific inquiry at some point involves testing. Verification, falsification, model generation/fitting, etc. all involve some notion of falsifiability. Thus any domain that involves constructs that cannot be tested (no area of falsifiability) falls outside the purview of science.

Well, I think you've been silly, but that's alright, it was neat. Unfortunately I won't be having a meltdown, but I will say you've been pretty amusing. The mistress of nothing? A brilliant insertion. I didn't know I had claimed to be mistress of anything at all! I've been busy having meltdowns and being masters of debate and a mistress of nothing and I didn't even know it. I feel like a character in a Bulgakov novel. I'm sure there's a world of other things you could inform me I am, but I've had enough absurdity. I've gotten a real kick out of these responses, but I'm afraid it has to end, since you don't want to talk about ideas with someone who obviously is so laughable. Good luck with your attempts to combat what you see as faulty thinking, it's certainly better than being a knee-jerk non-thinker (I'm honestly not being sarcastic). Charming talking to you, have a lovely evening.

But if you're going to criticize an article or people's comments, do it politely or don't bother.

And when I disrespectfully decline, will that shatter your fragile perspective on reality?

I do hope so, everybody loves a good meltdown.

Your methods, which are repugnant to all debate criteria

Says Miss Ann, the master of the debate rule book. Fuck your so called 'debate book' Ann.

You are the mistress of nothing.

Save your language and hysterics for others

No thanks, I'm having so much fun directing it directly at you right now. If the concept of secular fundamentalism wasn't so damn laughable in the context of the fraudulent fantasies and fictions of religion, I wouldn't even bother.

Haha, oh man, you crack me up. First off, don't deliberately misinterpret my meaning. When I said "what do you mean by keeping our thoughts", I was pointing out that you were doing no such thing yourself and everything that came after was founded on that first bit of hypocritical irrationality. That might require a bit of subtlety and depth to perceive, but I assumed you were up to it. My apologies.

I don't give a damn what your beliefs are, I was simply interested (and no longer, you're boring me) in how you could be quite so rude to people who are interested in having a civilized discussion, and then parade your own not caring as some sort of defensive weapon. Believe in one of a million things or believe in non-belief or believe in increasingly seeing things clearly. But if you're going to criticize an article or people's comments, do it politely or don't bother. If you'd like to explain your ideas to me, I'd enjoy hearing them and talking about them, but I don't care for childish insults. I'm fond of hearing other's perspectives and learning from them, but a discussion has to go both ways, and you've made up your mind about how to approach people (btw, anything you say would seem much more worthy of attention if you presented it with the slightest bit of wisdom. Your methods, which are repugnant to all debate criteria, lose any bit of validity when your fruits seem so obviously nasty and petulant). Save your language and hysterics for others (...and as for considering results, is that just a bit of Machiavellian thinking thrown in to really let me know that you don't care what I think? You're overdoing it. Your apathy towards other people's opinions would be far more believable if you relaxed).

Alienbeing, what do you mean by keeping our thoughts to ourselves?

You really need to work on your reading comprehension

It's not exactly debate, and since you're not interested in debate, why step in merely to insult?

Because I can. The universe is weird that way, and since your religion (whatever it is, I couldn't care less) is founded upon fraud, fantasy and fiction, I have no problems with it. Nobody gets burned at the stake, nobody gets persecuted, and only your itsy bitsy teeny weeny little feeewings get hurt. Too fucking bad. Your religious beliefs are an insult to my intelligence, and trust me, I'm not an atheist.

If you were at all interested in the subject matter that Hedges so thoroughly mangles, you could have done the simplest Google search and got the straight scoop on the first link :

http://atheism.about.com/od/secularism

But your aren't interested, your mind is so indoctrinated with dogmatic crap of the ages.

But I am interested, and I'm not even an atheist. Do you understand even that?

Somehow, I doubt it, but if you can see past the superficial insults intended to remove the blind deaf and dumb from the discussion, please do enlighten us. I'll only consider results, I care not a bit about your methods. If your results are useful, I'll reproduce them myself.

My field has never been disproved by science. Asking the circle to conform to a square or another linear form is hardly a basis for establishing a lack of viability. MUCH has been marginalized... it's part of what Chomsky terms the "manufacture of consent." And Rudolph Steiner, an important mystic said, "Science is the consensus of mediocre minds." Einstein was a true mystic and mathematician. There is a difference!

BHIMA: I am a scholar in my field. Talking to you is equivalent of speaking to a prejudiced 3rd grade student. Sorry. It's arrogant on your part to try to degrade a subject I have studied for over 30 years. There are people who have likely seen UFO. Those who have not cannot understand or believe. MANY of us have had experiences that are not within "permissable" boundaries of credibility. That visionaries and mystics have seen what scientists have not is a concept you cannot understand or appreciate. Let's drop it. You and I are obviously not vibrating at levels that can intersect, no less communicate. Enjoy the prison your walls of impenetrable 3D logic have built for you.

Further, it is worthwhile to remember that modern scientific inquiry only pertains to domains involving falsifiable constructs (hypotheses).

Sure, if you're a Popper groupie. Others understand that modern science is founded on a plethora of scientific methods, that evolve continuously and include verification as well as falsification. Why are you such an absolutist?

Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist. His ideas are ANAL to the extreme. Others have a much less rigid view on how science progresses.

AlienBeing you use faith and belief interchangeably. Belief is a proposition. In some contexts faith indicates belief, in others it indicates trust or a sense of being open.

Further, it is worthwhile to remember that modern scientific inquiry only pertains to domains involving falsifiable constructs (hypotheses).

Clemsy, the 'test' does not apply to *some* notions of an impersonal god (or ground of being, or etc.).

Alienbeing, what do you mean by keeping our thoughts to ourselves? I don't want to proselytize or preach to anyone, but when people want to discuss it then I'm going to go ahead and do it. No one asked you to comment on our "obviously crank" thoughts. If you don't like the topic of the article, you don't have to be nasty. You can hardly expect people to react positively when you throw names around, though you obviously are more interested in attempting to be shocking (yawn. it's been done before by better minds, and you're not even clear about what you're saying). It's not exactly debate, and since you're not interested in debate, why step in merely to insult? My my, you say your beliefs are none of our business, but you have no problem telling others what you think of their beliefs (without even knowing what they really think, because how on earth could you possibly gauge a person's values and ideas from a few short comments?). Did you just have some really terrible experiences with some people? That's one of the few explanations I can see for such irrational, vituperative outbursts.

I also fail to see how you can say other people don't deserve your respect, when you clearly haven't shown why anyone should care to have it.

aelfinn (are you a fan of the wheel of time series?) thanks for a nice attempt at deconstructing the article.

However, you misunderstood one point (reproduced below):

[> Scientific methods, part of the process of changing the material world, are nearly useless in the nebulous world of politics, ideas, values and ethics.

Bollocks. If politics and ideas are subject to reality, then scientific thinking and rationality are the only proven tools at humans' disposal for making informed choices. For those of us living in the real world, that is.]

Hedges qualifies his use of scientific methods and restricts himself to those methods that focus on manipulating the material world, e.g. manufacturing, biological sciences, physical sciences, etc. Yes, his qualification is weak and is easy to misinterpret as the scientific method also references an approach to problem representation and solving that is also effective in the domains of politics, ethics, values, etc.

---

Ms. Ann wrote: "...I think that though much of monotheistic thought is based on a hierarchy of beings, there are many people who identify as monotheistic who don't ascribe to it. They may be mislabeling themselves as monotheistic, but since they still use those words, I think we need to remember that when we talk about them as a group."

Understanding the monotheistic - monistic classification helps in relating to an existing body of work. People continuously examine labels and categories, and refine classifications depending on distinctions, usage, and context. I wouldn't worry about incorrect labels as long as the conversation establishes the limits and the meaning of terms in use. I think of theism as a belief in the existence of one or more deities. Often, the notion of a controller deity accompanies the same.

Oh lordy ...

Fuck your God, your Messiah and your so called 'book'. Pass or fail?

My so called 'book' : http://arxiv.org/

the choosing of a religion or not should be postponed until one is able to think for themselves instead of being baptized as a baby or confirmed as a teenager
then one can put to use ones brain (god designed or not) to listen to the pros and cons and make ones own decision about how to live and what to believe
Einstein I do not believe in a personal GOD (as do 75% of scientific Nobel lauriates) and 50% of literary ones
and as current christian spokesmen say 17% of us are non-believers interesting because when you read Scandinavian Almanacs enclude them into the largest and fastist growing category - but alas they enjoin freethinkers, humanists, agnostics, atheists,logical positivists and on and on and on over 2.5 bill well well well now whom do we trust or believe its up to you

Oh lordy... let's just leave it at that. (Insert rolling eyed emoticon here.)

Personally, I believe faith to be overrated.

That would be narcissism, your personal belief, unless, of course, you don't even believe in yourself.

Again, I apply the shit test. If you aren't willing to defend your beliefs, then we aren't having a conversation. I am quite comfortable defending the veracity of scientific methods and mathematics, anywhere, anytime, in fact, it is a moral imperative for me. I just don't like wasting my time - hence, the 'shit test'.

Any way I approach it, God, religion and a holy book just don't cut it. What I really respect, is that if you keep your faith and beliefs to yourself (i.e. - your spirituality) and just share your results. That really works for me.

@SiouxRose

But seriously,

Do i need to be a scholar in Greek Mythology to tell you its probability of literal truth is next to nothing?

Do I need to understand the intricacies of physics, geology and astronomy to know the earth is actually round?

I got it! I must also be a scholar on Elvis, then I can call those who believe he still exists nutjobs.

Your logical fallacy of scholarship on a topic that clearly needs no formal education to understand as being absurd (in the literal sense) has been used before, and gets shot down for what it is... an invalid argument.

Also, Science and scientists have been persecuted throughout history as well. This argument that tyranny made astrology obscelete is also not valid.

Why do you say I don't tolerate your beliefs? Not only are you entitled to whatever beliefs you have, whatever they are in no way impact mine. My, my.You do come off as quite defensive. You are pretty damn arrogant when you assume I have religious beliefs, and that, if I do, they are shit. I'm still saying your 'shit' test does not apply to an impersonal god.

Personally, I believe faith to be overrated.

My 'shit' test can be applied to anything.

Let me give you an example. I have beliefs and faith too. My spiritual beliefs are none of your business, but I also have faith in scientific methods and mathematics and logic, etc, and my faith is confirmed by my ability to construct instruments which work as expected.

My faith leads me to believe that your religious beliefs are shit, and are based on a faith in shit, and my belief in my faith instructs me to confront such idiotic beliefs.

Where is your tolerance for my beliefs? You'll just have to trust me that I confront my own beliefs and my own faith with the very same tests (along with numerous others) every day.

What I find remarkable is that very few people had the courage (besides a few cartoonists) to apply this test earlier. This isn't the dark ages anymore, you aren't going to get away with what amounts to a very poor propaganda campaign any longer, without being confronted like this.

AlienBeing, your 'test' pertains only to a personal god. You've been as framed by the Biblical tradition as most people in the West.

God may or may not exist (I'm more agnostic than atheist) but there is no way anyone can know whether that is true. I DON'T KNOW! AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE!

If that is the case, it follows logically that God is a fantasy, your holy books are fiction, and all religions are fraudulent.

That is your religious epiphany that you must experience before you can join the rest of us in the reality based world.

Hence, my litmus test. You can believe whatever you want, but when you air your obviously crank beliefs in a public forum, I will confront them with the simplest veracity test possible.

Once you can get past that, we can talk.

Horsefeathers!

AlienBeing, I really think you are being too harsh on "the believers". Live and let live, man. Better yet, live and help live, but not of course in the same sense that the U.S. is "helping" Iraq. If the delusion comforts them who am I to mock them? Is there an "intelligent design" behind the creation of the universe, and if so does that constitute the existence of a "God". Not necessarily. And, if there was a "creator" what makes anyone think they could know the nature of that being? And, why would I need a "priest" or an "imam" or a "rabbi" middleman between me and "the creator"? Oh. Yes. CONTROL of the masses would be the major reason. God may or may not exist (I'm more agnostic than atheist) but there is no way anyone can know whether that is true. I DON'T KNOW! AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE!

AdeleTheCzech: "And why should KNOWLEDGE have been deemed the forbidden fruit?"

Because lack of knowledge makes the control of the masses more efficient. We cannot have people thinking for themselves. Lord knows what might happen then!! (pun intended)

What an astonishingly sub-standard article. Any text like this would fail my writing classes for violating the most basic principles of argumentation, not to mention journalistic and scientific writing standards. Most egregiously, throughout the piece Hedges alleges that unnamed people or unspecified groups of people have said things he doesn't even bother to specify; and when he actually deigns to give specific names, throwing around allegations of breathtaking inanity, there is just one single quote from Sam Harris to back them up. That this shoddy piece of writing was ever published leaves me speechless. Well, almost.

> The battle under way in America is not a battle between religion and science. It is a battle between religious and secular fundamentalists. It is a battle between two groups intoxicated with the utopian and magical belief that humankind can perfect itself and master its destiny.

In matters of faith, we're supposed to take an elder's word for whatever they say. Not so in discussion. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

> ... We are assured we are advancing as a species toward a world that will be made perfect by reason, technology, science or the second coming of Jesus Christ. Evil can be eradicated. ...

Mistakes have been made, I assume. If you cannot or will not say who you think said these things, you can't be expected to be taken seriously in any rational discussion.

> Those who insist we are morally advancing as a species are deluding themselves. There is nothing in science or human history or human nature to support this idea.

Heaven forbid, because that would torpedo your argument, so it can't be true.

> Human individuals can make moral advances, as can human societies, but they also make moral reverses. Our personal and collective histories are not linear. We alternate between periods of light and periods of darkness. We can move forward materially, but we do not move forward morally. The belief in collective moral advancement ignores the endemic flaws in human nature as well as the tragic reality of human history. This belief in inevitable moral progress, whether it comes in secular or religious form, is magical thinking.

Ten assertions without any evidence whatsoever. Respect!

> The secular version of this myth peddles fables no less fantastic, and no less delusional, than those preached from many church pulpits.

Where the "secular version of this myth" can certainly be considerd a myth itself -- at least as long it is beneath Mr Hedges to even give a *reason* for believing what he says, let alone evidence.

> ... The current "war on terror" by the United States is a utopian vision. It is being fought so that evil can be violently uprooted. Its proponents promise a world that will become "reasonable," a "civil" world ruled by the "rational" forces of global capitalism.

Nicely done. This underhand conflation of rationality and its proponents with the propaganda war on terror would make any sleight-of-hand artist turn green with envy.

> The desire for emancipation, universal happiness and prosperity has a seductive pull on the human imagination. It preoccupied the early church, which was infused with exclusivist, utopian sects. [yatta-yatta-yatta] Nearly two-thirds of the life-support services provided to us by nature are already in precipitous decline worldwide. The old wars of conquest, expansion and exploitation will be replaced by wars fought for the basic necessities of air, food, sustainable living conditions and water.

Is there a point to all this?

> And as we race toward this catastrophe scientists continue to make discoveries, set these discoveries upon us and walk away from the impact. The belief that science and reason will save us makes it possible to ignore or minimize these looming catastrophes. We drift toward disaster with the comforting thought that the god of science will intervene on our behalf.

"Disingenuous" is perhaps the most benign description for this ... dare I say idea? If anyone alerted us to the imminent dangers in the first place, it was science and reason. In any case, what is the alternative to science and reason? Do you expect us to *pray* for climate change to go away? Good luck with that!

> It is dispiriting to live in a world where things are not moving forward and will most probably get worse. We prefer to believe that we are the culmination of a process, the end result of centuries of human advancement, rather than creatures trapped in the irrevocable limitations and blunders of human nature. The idea of inevitable progress gives us comfort in times of turmoil. It allows us to place ourselves at the center of creation, to exalt ourselves above others. It translates our narrow self-interest into a universal good. But it is morally irresponsible. It permits us to avert our eyes from reality and place our hopes in an absurdist faith.

If anybody believed such nonsense, you would certainly be correct. A psychologist would undoubtedly make much of the fact that Chris Hedges seems to take this drivel seriously.

> The belief that rational and quantifiable disciplines such as science can be used to perfect human society is no less absurd than a belief in magic, angels and divine intervention.

If we're to suppose that this is at all to the point, then you're apparently suggesting that rationalists and atheists have such a desire. I have to admit, Dawkins's choice of the word "delusion" suddenly makes a hell of a lot of sense. What's more, you recognised the absurdity of the thought but had no qualms about ascribing it to your opponents. Again, I should add, without any evidence whatever. If that isn't intellectually bankrupt, I don't know what is.

> Scientific methods, part of the process of changing the material world, are nearly useless in the nebulous world of politics, ideas, values and ethics.

Bollocks. If politics and ideas are subject to reality, then scientific thinking and rationality are the only proven tools at humans' disposal for making informed choices. For those of us living in the real world, that is.

> ... It is what has doomed populations in the past that have chased after impossible dreams, and it threatens to doom us again.

Tell that to the anti-slavery movements in America, democratic forces in pre-Enlightenment France, or to Gandhi shaking off the British Empire.

> ... We have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin.

Excuse me? Now you're freaking me out.

> ... The secular utopians from Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris to Daniel Dennett to Christopher Hitchens have also forgotten they are human. Both they and religious fundamentalists peddle absolutes.

Why am I not surprised that, again, you are unable to provide even one instance of any of the above-mentioned people even coming near "peddling absolutes"? I would challenge you to name even one place in e.g. "The God Delusion" or "Breaking the Spell" where the authors "peddle absolutes". That is, if you have even read those books, which on the evidence presented here one should firmly doubt.

> Those who do not see as they see, speak as they speak and act as they act are worthy only of conversion or eradication.

Kool-aid, indeed. It's hard to see how Dawkins et al. can be mistaken for Ann Coulter, but this is what must've happened here. Stranger things have ... uh, come to think of it, they haven't.

> ... atheist writers ... They too seek to destroy those who do not conform to their vision.

This is actually libellous. Also, making Ann Coulter seem to fall into the sane category is decidedly creepy.

> "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them," Sam Harris writes.

That certainly sounds bad. Care to explain the context in which Harris wrote this, Mr Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist? What a disgrace this text is to our profession. It's acutally in the quote itself: "otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing ... in self-defense". Which part of self-defense did you not understand? As Harris has made abundantly clear (cf. www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2), "Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in most cases this is impossible." That is certainly a debatable point, at least the second part. But your treatment of it is a joke.

> Harris and the other atheist authors mistake a tiny subset of criminals and terrorists for 1 billion Muslims. They justify the unjustifiable in the name of civilization.

Are you fucking kidding us? Dawkins et al. justify, as you say below, "suffering and death"? I suppose if you could produce even a shred of evidence for this moronic claim, you would have. (And here I am explicitly excepting Hitchens' support for the Iraq war, which I suppose is pretty schizophrenic.)

> Religious fundamentalists pervert and distort religion ... Atheists do the same with science and reason. ... These atheists and Christian radicals have built squalid little belief systems that are in the service of themselves and their own power. They urge us forward into a nonreality-based world, one where force and violence, where self-exaltation and blind nationalism, are an unquestioned good.

Spot-on for Bush and his kleptocracy. As for atheists (all of them??), might I suggest you have your head examined? Alternatively, you could actually *read* Dawkins and Dennett. Again, on the evidence presented here, one must conclude you haven't so far. They in fact say the exact opposite of what you allege they say. (Or, to quote Captain Edmund Blackadder: "Tell me, have you ever visited the planet Earth, sir?")

> The 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.

On the contrary. It is public idiocy that we must fight, for an open, democratic society depends on the prevailing of reason and rationality, not the twisted delusions of this or that fringe group.

There are so many insightful comments on this thread (to which I came a day late) that I'll take the advice of the poster who wrote "Be Humble" and just add two short thoughts of my own.

One: Having been raised without religion, I see all faiths from a distance. Buddhism and Christianity appeal to my soul more than the others, but Christianity's concept of original sin (echoed in Hedges' constant use of the word "sin") has always struck me as appalling. When you hold a young baby, your body and soul knows that this is an innocent creature who knows nothing of sin! And why should KNOWLEDGE have been deemed the forbidden fruit?

Two: As Hedges says, though, knowledge (science and otherwise) has its limits. I do find atheists tedious in their insistence that they "know" humans have no souls, and they "know" no human spirit lives on after the body's death. Being an agnostic, I find such certainty laughable; I've had a couple of spiritual experiences which I cannot explain (and I've never taken hallucinogens) so I have NO certainty as to these matters.

Finally, as to complaints that Hedges' article is saturated with despair -- indeed it is. But it might cheer him up a bit to learn that a recent psychological experiment showed that most people are happier when they're cooperating with other humans than when they're competing. This was not the result the experimenters were expecting, but I'm not surprised. Think of the last time you were planting flowers with a fellow nature-lover, or playing music with other instrumentalists, or just having an interesting conversation with friends!

Fail, in that you seem to have not made any sort of intellectual argument, but just resorted to name-calling.

Actually, no, it was a simple test of the veracity of your religious faith, and you failed with flying colors. If your religion can't pass this one single simple test, it's a failure.

You demand that I respect your FANTASY?

Sorry, no can do. Not only will I not respect it, but clearly it doesn't deserve my respect.

The problem is not people being "too rational", it's the notion that people can believe themselves to be perfectly rational. That is the hubris of someone like Sam Harris, who fails to acknowledge that the Soviets, for example, considered themselves perfectly rational.

We live in an age of faith.

"What a load of crap. Who can possibly take this idiot seriously. I have developed a valid test of your religion, any religion, doesn't matter.

Fuck your god and his messiah, and his 'book'.

Pass or fail?"

Fail, in that you seem to have not made any sort of intellectual argument, but just resorted to name-calling.

For the record, Hedges doesn't lump all atheists together - nor is he a Christian in any committed sense. In a radio interview, he came across as a cautious agnostic. What he does in detail in his book is compare the current wave of atheists (whom I would call "rationalist evangelists") with the previous generation, including Camus, Sartre, and even Freud and Darwin. These atheists recognized serious issues in dealing with a lack of God, rather than just saying "get rid of religion."

Thought Shaman, you made some very good points. Um, first, I think idols can be more than graven images. I didn't know if you were being sarcastic or serious. Clarifying the definition of idol is a good idea when discussing it, at least for me.

I agree that there are many evangelical preachers who do have a pitch of "God has a plan", etc. And I don't think it should be discounted when we discuss religion. A lot of people obviously are drawn to it, and so it has to be dealt with. I just don't think it should be the end of the story.

The monistic v. monotheistic designation is valid in a sense, but not in another. Isn't it important to recognize that in an academic sense we can distinguish between definitions, but also recognize that the working vocabulary for much of the world is entirely different?

I did misinterpret your earlier comment about "equating the totality of a religion"... I understand that if we are to discuss religion, Jerry Falwell is as much a part of what we're talking about as Paul Tillich. Unfortunately, Jerry Falwell and the like is so often what gets talked about, and other people get neglected. Perhaps another way I could put my point is, the actions of a five year old and the actions of a forty year old are vastly different. Both represent the human experience. A murderer and a nonviolent activist are both people. Neither should be ignored when discussing what humanity is or is not, but we can also recognize the ideal and keep that in mind. Do you agree with that argument in regards to discussing a spiritual world view?

I completely agree with you about a hierarchy of actions and values. And I think that though much of monotheistic thought is based on a hierarchy of beings, there are many people who identify as monotheistic who don't ascribe to it. They may be mislabeling themselves as monotheistic, but since they still use those words, I think we need to remember that when we talk about them as a group. Thanks for the very insightful analysis, it was great.

I, as an atheist, have no desire to harm anyone or to persuade anyone regarding their religious or non-religious beliefs. You true believers are free to continue in your delusions. More power to you if they give you comfort. Just don't push your beliefs at me. I don't push mine on you. Your "Gods" promise you an "afterlife" which gives you license to harm others because you have an avenue to "forgiveness" or "redemption" that I do not have. Instead, I do all I can to spread peace through nonviolence, because when you know that this life is all there is you tend to live life as peacefully and constructively as you can. So go ahead and cling to your delusions. I won't see you in your "heaven" and I won't see you in your "hell". I do hope my ashes can be used to help a tree grow, though.

We live in an age of faith.

What a load of crap. Who can possibly take this idiot seriously. I have developed a valid test of your religion, any religion, doesn't matter.

Fuck your god and his messiah, and his 'book'.

Pass or fail?

Now that I've read many of the comments and scanned the rest, I'm sorry I didn't read this article yesterday and get in on the conversation early. Not to press my dogmatic positions, only because it has been a constructive discussion.

I highly recommend "The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial Of Human Nature" by Seven Pinker for an excellent exploration of the issues Mr. Hedges raises here.

"It's not the people who believe they have access to the truth that are a problem, it's the ones who *know* they have access to The One And Only Truth. Dogma leads unavoidably to intolerance, and intolerance is the source of all evil, in my opinion."

Well stated, and I wonder if this isn't hedges point. Dogmatism isn't confined to theists and conservatives.

Seen that 'round here upon occasion.

WmC asked "Is it possible to be too rational? Too objective? Too unswayed by superstition and emotion?"

Maybe, maybe not, but it *is* possible to be too dogmatic. It's not the people who believe they have access to the truth that are a problem, it's the ones who *know* they have access to The One And Only Truth. Dogma leads unavoidably to intolerance, and intolerance is the source of all evil, in my opinion.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Didn't read the comments, nor have I read any Sam Harris.
The paragraph, from the article above, beginning "Some propositions are so dangerous..." seems to be explaining a phenomenon rather than defending one.

And the rest of the article sounds like a tantrum or a retaliatory rant. I agree that we are as much a product of our nature as well as our nurture. Mr. Hedges should have given credit to Steven Pinker as Pinker reveals in "The Blank Slate" the complexity of the issues Hedges addresses here.

I'm not going to send a barrage of derogotory names in his direction, but I believe Hedges is basically wrong. What we call nature, is in itself the result of millions of years of evolution, of changing circumstances and adaptations. And it is our nature to cooperate as well as compete. Mr. Hedges seems to conclude, on balance, mostly despair and failure from human history. That is the very heart of conservative thought.

Biko, you mirror my thoughts precisely. Perhaps it's my Catholic indoctrination, but the concept of sin is loaded... mainly with guilt and punishment.

People can behave morally without the threat of supernatural punishment. If we're playing with the definition of the word to mean "going against one's principles" then we're not really disagreeing... but I don't think you can define sin in this manner.

I agree that this is one of the better discussions going on here. Thank Chris and CD for that.

If Mr. Hedges is to be given resposiblity for one thing, I think he would be proud if it is this excellent discussion!

Truly a shining moment for an otherwise sadly declining CommonDreams!

I'll admit that most of the details of the above philosophical ideas went either right through me or over my head, for I am at base a practical person.

But I know what I know, and I think I can feel some pride that much of it was learned in the old-fashioned, self-directed way.

Namely through the use of specific plants and fungi, conscious or lucid dreaming and lots and lots of thought.

None of my knowledge would stand up to the kind of intellectual rigor that the above poster's could bring to bear, I'll bet, so I won't bother to throw it into the mix.

Except for this:

Storm is coming. Prepare.

All of my messengers agree on this. Those from the Earth, those from the Heavens, those from the Heart, those from the Mind, and those from the "in-between places" to which the Mind and Heart can sometimes travel.

Of course this preperation is not merely the Survivalist's hoarding of resources or knowledge in advance of the arrival of Storm.

No, to the contrary, Preparation must neccessarily involve the flowering of understanding and Co-operation amongst the People.

For none of us can live truly on our own, our Physical Mortality precludes this.

And even if this lonesome survival was possible, what kind of Life is that for a Human Being?

So, to our astounding abundance of Resident Philosophers (I'm floored, I had no Idea you were here) to our wonderful Thinkers, I give you the respect and space to conduct your craft, just as I would expect you to give me for mine (just what that maybe I'll leave tantalizingly unsaid, giving the impression that it is much more interesting than in Truth it is).

But I will offer one word of advice:

Be Humble.

As has been said, it is a Truth that one day, not very long from now in terms of the Earth, all of us here will be gone, and whatever fate is in store for our Souls (if we have them ;) ) our bodies will return to the substance of the Earth from which they came.

What will remain, thanks to the brilliant Genius of writing and the inborn nature of memory, will be our Words.

Let them be Humble words, as so to better reflect an Honest Understanding of our Humble Nature.

Also remember that even when the Words be humble, the Voice can betray this -and it is a fallacy to think that Voice cannot be "heard" in writings.

As unlofty, as uneducated as this advice may be, I think it could be to the benefit of some here.

-matti.

Good article, but the whole belief in SIN aspect really throws it into confusion. Chris, why not just let it rest as self interest and hurt and pain being played out and passed on. You really step off a cliff with the sin thing. The concept of Sin in itself presupposes some ideal perfect potential, some original state, it buys into the very BS you are slamming on, and rightly so. Of course we are limited, of course we choose self interest! We are also social and cooperative.

Ms. Ann, let me start with where we agree and move on from there.

The human mind grasps symbols to manipulate when attempting to understand the world. Creating Idols is one instance of this phenomenon. Rejecting absolutes and adopting a process of continuous improvement is a worthwhile endeavor as you point out. In this context, the injunction to avoid idols has also resulted in some religious folks replacing the idols with less substantial but equally gripping objects. For instance, the cross and the bible have become objects of veneration (ah! but they are not idols, as in they are not graven images - go figure).

Some use formulations like "God has a plan," in times of emotional distress. However, I encounter this formulation routinely from evangelists as part of their pitch. The God as controller concept is not limited to people who use deity as a crutch, it is also present among those who are devotional, so much so that the movie Dogma includes the phrase as part of the character Bethany's dialogue (obviously, this assumes that scriptwriters use phrases that resonate with a viewing audience).

No apologies are in order for repeating a few things that a person may already know to make a point clear in a dialogue. Redundancy can be good.

Funny, I only pointed out that your implication that the thoughts of people like Paul Tillich ought to be representative of a religion excludes the views of many other adherents of the religion. In this context, the intent is to provide evidence for the concept of the controller deity being a fundamental concept in the practice of monotheistic religions. The monistic vs. monotheistic contrast simply serves to clarify that Tillich's view qualifies as monistic rather than monotheistic.

[[As for "equating the totality of a religion with the views of a few thinkers ignores religious practice of the rest of its adherents"… have you met every last religious person on Earth? Why exactly do you feel entitled to make sweeping pronouncements based on your own limited experience?]]

How did you generate these questions from the quoted statement? In the original context, you pointed out that we ought to disregard the views of Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell in favor of the likes of Paul Tillich. I objected to this implication only, nothing more.

I am not against religion as an idea at all. Religion has inspired people to do good things as well as the bad (a study of the anti-slavery movement provides ample evidence for both perspectives). I only object to the "hierarchy of beings" many monotheistic religions promote. Paul Tillich's repackaging of the monistic Advaita concept of the "ground of being" helps people move away from the aforementioned flawed hierarchy.

Hmmm, it is possible to be familiar and knowledgeable in a field and yet not see certain connections within the body of knowledge. This is the genesis for much of original academic research :-).

Ann, when I talk about moving away from a hierarchy of beings it is more than a cute catch phrase. I place no creative, moral being above another, abilities and talents notwithstanding. Let me go out on a limb and say that in the realm of creating software and abstract models, I likely mop the floor with you. On the other hand, in the realm of readings in Christian thinkers, you likely sweep over me. Neither ability nor knowledge makes one of us better than the other. We may have different expertise and talents, but there is no difference in relative worth of each being. Each being has a duty to all other beings, and as a civilization, it is better to adopt a model based on a hierarchy of actions and values.

Interesting discussion. We have been beset by sins of every nature since the beginning of time and always will be. There will also continue to be believers and non-believers of all religions, scientific reasoning, and yes, astrology.

I believe Cris Hedges was just pointing out that no one philosophy is the answer to civilisation`s problems, but that we need to listen to each other, instead of trying to cram our own ideas down the others throats.

Our lack of leadership in our country has started the world on the wrong path, which is take care of ourselves and to H____ with everyone else. That attitude will mean the end of what most people thought was a world making some progress toward facing our problems together and bring chaos and death.

Hedges offers a one-sided account of utopian thought. He only tells half of the story, the dark, distorted underside of utopian thought: "To be a utopian, to live for the creation of a fantastic and unreal world, was to live in no place, to remove oneself from reality."
Surely he knows that the word can mean both no and good place, the prefix 'u' being legible as both. If utopian desire can be perverted, it can also be liberatory. Utopian thought hasn't simply concocted inhuman plans for coercing people into a perpetually peaceable republic whether they like it or not. It's been a fulcrum against oppression, a means of envisioning an emancipated future, and a means to criticize actual existing conditions of everyday life.
Utopian thinkers were instrumental in liberating the West from clerical tutelage and feudal oppression, advancing scientific inquiry, while being central to the ongoing resistance to the inhuman domination of people by capitalism, religious fundamentalism, or communism. It is tendentious to lump this vital strain of utopianism in with fundamentalists's dystopian ideologies.
Hedges may deride as utopian the idea that people can make moral advances collectively, but I do not have his god's eye view myself. Whether or not whatever Hedges takes to be the human totality in question can advance morally, the only thing an individual can do is to work compassionately for economic, social, environmental justice and I personally don't need a medieval concept of sin to guide me.

I think what Chris means is that when 2 groups are polarized, and one portrays it as a battle of Good vs Evil, or Truth vs Lies, the truth is generally in the middle of the 2 groups reality. I agree.

There is a war being fought today, which is a continuation of a battle that has been fought for well over 1000 years, where those who worship Lucifer, the son of light, who is the God of Knowledge, Science and Reason battle the faith based religions who sought to suppress them as being evil. Imagine, the world being round and not flat, or revolving around the sun, etc. Burn them at the stake.

Over the last 150 years or so, maybe longer, there has been a power shift from faith based religion to reason based religion. One of the first signs from a religious viewpoint was the Human Manifesto I published in 1930, and then we had a World War which gave us a Holocaust and destroyed many Jews, many of them whom were devout Torah following Jews, some of whom might be considered fundamentalists. The Human Manifesto II was issued the same time as the Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973. The current Manifesto of 2000 calls for globalization and talks of citizens rights, and responsibilities, and power of the UN of over nations, and a tax on the people, so you can see where this is going. This is secular fundamentalism.

Years ago, so they say, Eve chose knowledge despite being told not do do so, as knowledge would allow man to see Good and Evil. So man was punished by Adonai, the God of the main religions of today. Judaism, Christianity and Islam worship a spiritual god, based on faith and not reason. The non-fundamentalist forms of the religion tend to be good things, but the fundamentalist forms, the extremist forms, promote wars and hate against those who do not believe as they do, and whose leaders seek to control society use God as a tool to do evil. Thats the bad.

Secular humanists believe in Science, Knowledge and Reason, and are also good, so long as they are willing to live with those who have chosen a different path. Live and let live. If you want to believe in Creationism, your choice, just let me have my Evolution. Unfortunately, that never seems to work out, one group always wants to dominate the other. That probably because we are all products of the evolutionary process, but it is still bad.

Leading us today, are a group of secular humanists who have great power and lots of money, and they are behind the Globalization movement. They work within secret societies, at the highest levels, groups like the Pilgrim Society, Scottish Rite Masons, Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, CFR and their counterparts in the UK and Israel, and some who names we just do not know since they are the real secret society. While none of them admit being secular humanists of the Luciferian tradition, Albert Pikes, founder of the Scotish Rite Masons, wrote a book called Morals and Dogma that seem to prove otherwise. All of these groups seem to whistle the same tune on other matters as well.

In recent years conflicts between fundamentalist religous groups like the Christian Zionists and Islamic Extremists have served to discredit faith based religion, and those who argue for Creationism over Evolution cause anyone with an ounce of reason listening to their arguments to wonder in horror how this could be, conditions that presumably make people receptive to a new religion based on reason. The clear winners are those who want to destroy faith based religion and replace it with a secular humanist reason based religion. It is likely this has been done by design. Who created Islamism, we did, in Iran and Afghanistan. Zionism was a British creation and served to create a wedge between Muslims and Jews, and divided Christians and Jews. Christian Zionism served to unite Christian and Jews against Muslims. It is a divide and rule strategy by the secular humanists against faith based religion. We see it with the Christian Right (Protestant Patriotic Moral Conservatives) and Christian Left (African-Americans who say Goddam America and Liberal Catholics led by Pedophile Priests) being divided.

It is possible, if not likely,that the next holocaust will be among fundamentalist Muslims and Christians, especially Catholics and other devout Christians. Those left behind will be secular Christians and Muslims and Jews, and will be brought into the church of Lucifer, and the religion of secular humanism.

In the perfect world, the faith based religion of God (thesis) and the reason based religion of secular humanism (antithesis) would synthesize naturally over time, and take the best of characteristics of the 2, leaving behind the bad.

Unfortunately, those in charge of today are in a hurry, and will just give us a new kind of bad, where science, knowledge and reason will allow an elite few to dominate the masses and become Gods on Earth, just as our Popes and Kings have used religion to do so in the past. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. So it has been, so it will always be.

It may very well be that their haste is dictated by population growth and resource issues, and weapons of mass destruction, so the end justifies the means. In order to do evil, good men need to believe they are doing evil as a means to a good end. Personally, I think that is just an excuse they have manufactured to do evil at personal gain, at least for those at the top. Their followers must believe they are doing what must be done, since most people are generally good, yet easily deceived.

Why, thank you, Thought Shaman. You seem to have reached such heights of conceptual understanding, I'm so grateful to you for having explained books I've read and studied for years. I could never have understood what the authors were saying if you hadn't deigned to let me know what they were talking about. I apologize for sounding snarky, but seriously, that was a pretty pompous way to put that.

As for "equating the totality of a religion with the views of a few thinkers ignores religious practice of the rest of its adherents"... have you met every last religious person on Earth? Why exactly do you feel entitled to make sweeping pronouncements based on your own limited experience? You seem to disagree with religion as an idea, but then you switch and focus on the practice of the adherents instead of the ideas. If the ideas are good, does it matter if people get it wrong (because religion is supposed to remind us that we do get it wrong, us lowly practitioners, and that we need to keep trying)? Is the value of something to be deemed by the lowest common denominator, or the highest? Are you basing your opinions on religion because of Torquemada and the Inquisition and the modern religious right movement? Because I would say that those are exceptional, and do not in anyway represent all religions, let alone all religious practitioners. If you were to do so, you would need to take into account the religious practices of many other adherents.

What about people who never write books or become professors, but simple ordinary people who become social workers and community activists? Do they not count? You don't want religion to be judged by a few thinkers, but by the practice of the rest of its adherents. Well, though there are adherents who profess ideas and do things many of us disagree with, there are also those who, because of their faith, actively work to make a better world. The total sum of a religion is much more than a few thinkers; I did not say or imply that, you did. There are atheists/agnostics who don't trouble much about morality who do terrible things, and there are atheists and agnostics who have a splendid motivation to try and do some good. It's very important not to make careless sweeping pronouncements upon any belief system without really trying to understand as much as possible. And coming into something with a bias and determination to see evil is an immediate misstep.

Finally, I would like to address your comment about sayings like "God has a plan", people who use God as an excuse, as a crutch and a controller (and I'll acknowledge that many of us do that from time to time, but often in the face of great pain. Sometimes people need that comfort and it would be terrible to hurt them. And then, we are built with the need to hear such things at moments, and perhaps that is worthy of consideration as well. But I digress). A huge part of the Abrahamic religions is dealing with idol worship. In early Judaism, there was this revolutionary idea that God is above our names and images. God is this sort of space and we must not try to put things in there. Now, this is violated constantly for many reasons (forgive me for telling you what doubtless you already know), but it's important for us to try. By reminding ourselves that it is human nature to form idols, to accept absolutes and become limited, we can keep pushing ourselves to see other ideas, to accept that we may never know, to be humble before knowledge. I think that's pretty important.

What a great discussion! I've been a fan of Chris Hedges ever since I read WAR IS A FORCE THAT GIVES US MEANING. I had to read this article several times, mostly due to his use of the word sin and the statement, "The belief that human nature can be improved and perfected...".

Molly, thanks for your comments. They helped me to understand (I think!) how Chris is using the word sin. I'd like to also point out that "origonal sin" can be thought of as the moment that humankind moved from being children of (mother/female) nature into the world of (father/male) thought, and we've been stuck there ever since.

Ms Ann, to me it does not seem that Hedges is grouping all atheists together, but great posts.

SouixRose, thanks for the "The age of elites" formulation, a different focus on the "hierarchy of beings" concept.

*Lol* MollyJ, Ms. Ann, guilt as a spiritual driver is a uniquely Christian formulation. Sin, as Chris Hedges puts it "...a stark acknowledgement that we can never be omnipotent, that we are bound and limited by human flaws and self-interest...," or as Paul opines "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God [Romans 3:23]," is *also* a uniquely Christian formulation.

MollyJ, I did not accuse you of being a Christian for you to use the word "guilty" in your response.

Primarily, I am pointing out that the way we represent problems depends on the worldview that we hold. Further, a particular representation of a problem itself can skew its analysis and the resulting solution. Sometimes, the awareness of a different representation, or a different framework itself answers a question, or makes the question meaningless or irrelevant.

MollyJ, the "us vs. them" dichotomy is the obvious trap. As long as we represent values and actions as abstractions unto themselves rather than projections of our egos, we avoid this trap.

Rather than aspiring to a standard a person must meet, and therefore fall short (a la Sin), a different way to represent the problem is to evaluate the current state, identify areas of growth, and the practice of relevant actions. In this introspective model one does not "Sin" by falling short, they progress from "truth" to "truth" - no guilt involved nor any deity required. This only requires the acknowledgement of any pain/harm caused, and the realization of ignorance to overcome.

KIVALS/CLEMSY: Thank you for your generous acknowledgements.

Ms. Ann wrote: "You are missing out on the magnetic (and socialist) brilliance of Paul Tillich, the passion of Simone Weil, the humanitarian greatness of the Liberation Theologians. It's not about a "controller deity", and if you had the slightest familiarity with Christian thinkers, you wouldn't have made such a silly comment. would never have said that, so don't put words in their mouths. Gosh, read a book."

*Chuckle* Ann, equating the totality of a religion with the views of a few thinkers ignores religious practice of the rest of its adherents. Tillich's "ground of being" is a monistic view (monistic is distinct from monotheistic), similar to the monistic Advaita Vedanta. C.S. Lewis's "God would like us to be co-creators with him" also indicates a monistic bent in "Mere Christianity."

The concept of a controller deity as indicated by the often quoted "God has a plan," "God has a purpose for you," and "God is in control" formulations, is common among many monotheistic Christians. I am unaware of any Christian thinker who disavows this concept, or for that matter explicitly recognizes the same as a fundamental aspect of the worldview of many Christians, let alone pointing out that the concept is flawed.

Sin, as I understand the root of the word, means to "miss" the mark. The mystic sees the human being as an ongoing evolution. Although its derivation is not totally understood, the Tarot points to a map of human evolution. These cards (usually 78) depict just about any condition that human flesh is heir to. Furthermore, the meanings of the uppermost cards (major Arcanum) show the struggle between the human being's selfish (animal, it's said) nature, and his/her Divine nature.

I remember watching "The Ten Commandments" twenty-five years ago when I was teaching Tarot at community colleges, and realized that Moses' life depicted EVERY rung of the symbolic ladder depicted by the upper arcanum's 22 cards, cards such as the Hangman that shows that time in each life when one seems to come to a pause, or dead end, when the old ways no longer work or bring personal progress. One could say the entire nation of America has come to the hangman, or perhaps the DEVIL card which depicts the tendency to "profit the world and lose one's soul."

These themes, both ancient and contemporary, portray what every individual must master in himself/herself, and by extension, what every society wrestles with. On this polarity planet that manifests day and night, male and female, and the illusions of good and evil, we see in societies those that cleave to war and selfish aggressive measures that always cost more in the long run than taking the opposing path: that of sharing, cooperation, and working towards greater ideals that hold fastest and strongest when the vast majority benefit. The age of elites, my dear friend Kivals, is about to end... mankind spent 2200 years under the Mars-applied age of Aries, and the past 2200 years in the conundrum of Pisces' twin fish and marked duality felt as irreconcilable divisions among nations and religions... it came to me this week that mankind required all these centuries to reach the beginning stages of Aquarius: a phase of genuine brotherhood & sisterhood, where we learn to become friends, no longer using religion or politics to force ONE way on everyone. Rather we learn to celebrate diversity... scarcity of supplies and our beloved animal companiones may incite the beginnings of this spiritual revelation which will reverberate across the planet. It only takes the next 2200 years to fully mature!