Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Fundamentalism Kills
Update: Sam Harris responds to Chris Hedges at TruthDig.com
The gravest threat we face from terrorism, as the killings in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik underscore, comes not from the Islamic world but the radical Christian right and the secular fundamentalists who propagate the bigoted, hateful caricatures of observant Muslims and those defined as our internal enemies. The caricature and fear are spread as diligently by the Christian right as they are by atheists such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Our religious and secular fundamentalists all peddle the same racist filth and intolerance that infected Breivik. This filth has poisoned and degraded our civil discourse. The looming economic and environmental collapse will provide sparks and tinder to transform this coarse language of fundamentalist hatred into, I fear, the murderous rampages experienced by Norway. I worry more about the Anders Breiviks than the Mohammed Attas.
People embrace and mourn at the massive flower field laid in memory of victims of Friday’s twin attacks in Norway. (AP / Frank Augstein)
The battle under way in America is not between religion and science. It is not between those who embrace the rational and those who believe in biblical myth. It is not between Western civilization and Islam. The blustering televangelists and the New Atheists, the television pundits and our vaunted Middle East specialists and experts, are all part of our vast, simplistic culture of mindless entertainment. They are in show business. They cannot afford complexity. Religion and science, facts and lies, truth and fiction, are the least of their concerns. They trade insults and clichés like cartoon characters. They don masks. One wears the mask of religion. One wears the mask of science. One wears the mask of journalism. One wears the mask of the terrorism expert. They jab back and forth in predictable sound bites. It is a sterile and useless debate between bizarre subsets of American culture. Some use the scientific theory of evolution to explain the behavior and rules for complex social and political systems, and others insist that the six-day creation story in Genesis is a factual account. The danger we face is not in the quarrel between religion advocates and evolution advocates, but in the widespread mental habit of fundamentalism itself.
We live in a fundamentalist culture. Our utopian visions of inevitable human progress, obsession with endless consumption, and fetish for power and unlimited growth are fed by illusions that are as dangerous as fantasies about the Second Coming. These beliefs are the newest expression of the infatuation with the apocalypse, one first articulated to Western culture by the early church. This apocalyptic vision was as central to the murderous beliefs of the French Jacobins, the Russian Bolsheviks and the German fascists as it was to the early Christians. The historian Arnold Toynbee argues that racism in Anglo-American culture was given a special virulence after the publication of the King James Bible. The concept of “the chosen people” was quickly adopted, he wrote, by British and American imperialists. It fed the disease of white supremacy. It gave them the moral sanction to dominate and destroy other races, from the Native Americans to those on the subcontinent.
Our secular and religious fundamentalists come out of this twisted yearning for the apocalypse and belief in the “chosen people.” They advocate, in the language of religion and scientific rationalism, the divine right of our domination, the clash of civilizations. They assure us that we are headed into the broad, uplifting world of universal democracy and a global free market once we sign on for the subjugation and extermination of those who oppose us. They insist—as the fascists and the communists did—that this call for a new world is based on reason, factual evidence and science or divine will. But schemes for universal human advancement, no matter what language is used to justify them, are always mythic. They are designed to satisfy a yearning for meaning and purpose. They give the proponents of these myths the status of soothsayers and prophets. And, when acted upon, they fill the Earth with mass graves, bombed cities, widespread misery and penal colonies. The extent of this fundamentalism is evident in the strident utterances of the Christian right as well as those of the so-called New Atheists.
“What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?” Sam Harris, in his book “The End of Faith,” asks in a passage that I suspect Breivik would have enjoyed. “If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.”
“We are at war with Islam,” Harris goes on. “It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so. It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been ‘hijacked’ by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith, which recounts the sayings and teachings of the Prophet.”
Harris assures us that “the Koran mandates such hatred,” that “the problem is with Islam itself.” He writes that “Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.”
A culture that exalts its own moral certitude and engages in uncritical self-worship at the expense of conscience commits moral and finally physical suicide. Our fundamentalists busy themselves with their pathetic little monuments to Jesus, to reason, to science, to Western civilization and to new imperial glory. They peddle a binary view of the world that divides reality between black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. We are taught in a fundamentalist culture to view other human beings, especially Muslims, not as ends but as means. We abrogate the right to exterminate all who do not conform.
Fundamentalists have no interest in history, culture or social or linguistic differences. They are a remarkably uncurious, self-satisfied group. Anything outside their own narrow bourgeois life, petty concerns and physical comforts bores them. They are provincials. They do not investigate or seek to understand the endemic flaws in human nature. The only thing that matters is the coming salvation of humanity, or at least that segment of humanity they deem worthy of salvation. They peddle a route to assured collective deliverance. And they sanction violence and the physical extermination of other human beings to get there.
All fundamentalists worship the same gods—themselves. They worship the future prospect of their own empowerment. They view this empowerment as a necessity for the advancement and protection of civilization or the Christian state. They sanctify the nation. They hold up the ability the industrial state has handed to them as a group and as individuals to shape the world according to their vision as evidence of their own superiority. Fundamentalists express the frustrations of a myopic and morally stunted middle class. They cling, under their religious or scientific veneer, to the worst values of the petite bourgeois. They are suburban mutations, products of an American landscape that has been perverted by a destruction of community and a long and successful war against complex thought. The self-absorbed worldview of these fundamentalists brings smiles of indulgence from the corporatists who profit, at our expense, from the obliteration of moral and intellectual inquiry.
Stephen Dedalus in James Joyce’s “Ulysses” acidly condemned all schemes to purify the world and serve human progress through violence. He said that “history is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.” Dedalus in the same passage responded to the schoolmaster Deasy’s claim that “the ways of the Creator are not our ways,” and that “all history moves towards one great goal, the manifestation of God.” A soccer goal is jubilantly scored by boys in the yard outside the school window as Deasy expounds on divine will. God, Dedalus tells Deasy as the players yell in glee over the goal, is no more than the screams from the schoolyard —“a shout in the street.” Joyce, like Samuel Beckett, excoriated the Western belief in historical teleology—the notion that history has a purpose or is moving toward a goal. The absurdity of this belief, they wrote, always feeds fanatics and undermines the possibility of human community. These writers warned us about all those—religious and secular—who call for salvation through history.
There are tens of millions of Americans who in their desperation and insecurity yearn for the assurance and empowerment offered by a clearly defined war against an external evil. They are taught in our fundamentalist culture that this evil is the root of their misery. They embrace a war against this evil as a solution to the drift in their lives, their economic deprivation and the moral and economic morass of the nation. They see in this conflict with these dark forces a way to overcome their own alienation. They find in it certitude, meaning and structure. They believe that once this evil is vanquished, an evil that extends from Muslims to undocumented workers, liberals, intellectuals, homosexuals and feminists, they can transform America into a land of plenty and virtue. But this fundamentalism, which cloaks itself in the jargon of scientific rationality, Christian piety and nativism, is a recipe for fanaticism. All those who embrace other ways of being and believing are viewed, as Breivik apparently viewed his victims, as contaminates that must be eliminated.
This fundamentalist ideology, because it is contradictory and filled with myth, is immune to critiques based on reason, fact and logic. This is part of its appeal. It obliterates doubt, nuance, intellectual and scientific rigor and moral conscience. All has been predicted or decided. Life is reduced to following a simple black-and-white road map. The contradictions in these belief systems—for example the championing of the “rights of the unborn” while calling for wider use of the death penalty or the damning of Muslim terrorists while promoting pre-emptive war, which delivers more death and misery in the Middle East than any jihadist organization—inoculate followers from rational discourse. Life becomes a crusade.
All fundamentalists, religious and secular, are ignoramuses. They follow the lines of least resistance. They already know what is true and what is untrue. They do not need to challenge their own beliefs or investigate the beliefs of others. They do not need to bother with the hard and laborious work of religious, linguistic, historical and cultural understanding. They do not need to engage in self-criticism or self-reflection. It spoils the game. It ruins the entertainment. They see all people, and especially themselves, as clearly and starkly defined. The world is divided into those who embrace or reject their belief systems. Those who support these belief systems are good and forces for human progress. Those who oppose these belief systems are stupid, at best, and usually evil. Fundamentalists have no interest in real debate, real dialogue, real intellectual thought. Fundamentalism, at its core, is about self-worship. It is about feeling holier, smarter and more powerful than everyone else. And this comes directly out of the sickness of our advertising age and its exaltation of the cult of the self. It is a product of our deep and unreflective cultural narcissism.
Our faith in the inevitability of human progress constitutes an inability to grasp the tragic nature of history. Human history is one of constant conflict between the will to power and the will to nurture and protect life. Our greatest achievements are always intertwined with our greatest failures. Our most exalted accomplishments are always coupled with our most egregious barbarities. Science and industry serve as instruments of progress as well as instruments of destruction. The Industrial Age has provided feats of engineering and technology, yet it has also destroyed community, spread the plague of urbanization, uprooted us all, turned human beings into cogs and made possible the total war and wholesale industrial killing that has marked the last century. These technologies, even as we see them as our salvation, are rapidly destroying the ecosystem on which we depend for life.
There is no linear movement in history. Morality and ethics are static. Human nature does not change. Barbarism is part of the human condition and we can all succumb to its basest dimensions. This is the tragedy of history. Human will is morally ambiguous. The freedom to act as often results in the construction of new prisons and systems of repression as it does the safeguarding of universal human rights. The competing forces of love and of power define us, what Sigmund Freud termed Eros and Thanatos. Societies have, throughout history, ignored calls for altruism and mutuality in times of social upheaval and turmoil. They have wasted their freedom in the self-destructive urges that currently envelope us. These urges are very human and very dangerous. They are fired by utopian visions of inevitable human progress. When this progress stalls or is reversed, when the dreams of advancement and financial stability are thwarted, when a people confronts its own inevitable downward spiral, dark forces of vengeance and retribution are unleashed. Fundamentalists serve an evil that is unseen and unexamined. And the longer this evil is ignored the more dangerous and deadly it becomes. Those who seek through violence the Garden of Eden usher in the apocalypse.


248 Comments so far
Show Allwhen it comes to intelligent life on a planet...
mankind's not too smart in the realm he inhabits...
his unawareness of illusion in evolving different rules...
shows how quickly a thought plays its brain for a fool!...
Nice.
Excellent piece on fundamentalism which is a narrowing of the dialog.
As a country, for the last 30 years, we have avoided the hard problems of governance.
Instead of citizenship, we have entertainment in the media, wars to transfer wealth to a few, and corporations along with the very wealthy to capture politics.
Murdoch and his media empire are an explicit part of degrading the level of the dialog so it is unable to deal with the real problems.
Maybe the fall of the house of Murdoch, and his takeover of Britain, will allow more people to see that a similar process is going on here.
The final paragraph is an apt summary of our current social myopia of those who think that human transformation is/or will be a product of our broken political system.
i think that chris has succumbed to the hopelessness of his own rhetoric when he writes lines like: "All fundamentalists, religious and secular, are ignoramuses"
low brow and broad swiped - it invites an ugly assessment of liberals by the ignoramuses in turn
other broad comments from this article:
"Fundamentalists have no interest in history, culture or social or linguistic differences."
"All fundamentalists worship the same gods—themselves"
"We live in a fundamentalist culture"
he starts with: "The gravest threat we face from terrorism, as the killings in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik underscore, comes not from the Islamic world but the radical Christian right and the secular fundamentalists who propagate the bigoted, hateful caricatures of observant Muslims and those defined as our internal enemies."
i beg to differ: i would say the greatest threat we face (as humanity) is the american war machine, genetically modified foods, additive's in the drinking water, mass medications and vaccines, elective preemptive wars, terrorist banksters, corrupt politicians on all sides in most countries, tax dodging corporations, billionaitres and hedge funds - to name a few
somewhere in there chris invokes james joyce whom i daresay few have read
"James Augustine Aloysius Joyce (2 February 1882 – 13 January 1941) was an Irish novelist and poet, considered to be one of the most influential writers in the modernist avant-garde of the early 20th century. Joyce is best known for Ulysses (1922), a landmark novel which perfected his stream of consciousness technique and combined nearly every literary device available in a modern re-telling of The Odyssey. Other major works are the short-story collection Dubliners (1914), and the novels A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916) and Finnegans Wake (1939). His complete oeuvre includes three books of poetry, a play, occasional journalism, and his published letters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyce
quite a dichotomy between absolute pronouncements about ignoramuses and stream of consciousness art as typified by joyce - certainly joyce's pronouncements are not that certain or simple
such as finnegan's wake
"Finnegans Wake is a work of comic fiction by Irish author James Joyce, significant for its experimental style and resulting reputation as one of the most difficult works of fiction in the English language"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnegans_Wake
as a non-aligned political atheist i don't think these confrontational diatribes about the religious right or extremists or fundamentalists is well advised especially considering there is a lot of ugly rhetoric coming back from that side to the "liberals"
we need to remember these victims and we need to do our best to open dialogues between everyone - arab israeli american iranian chinese etc - whatever their understandings are and their beliefs are
chris needs to remind himself that the real threat is from our war machine and banking terrorists - not sarah palin or that ilk
this gunman in norway is a murderer, he appears mentally ill and his act, though horrendous, is not as important as homelessness, war, famine, disease or unemployment
i get the feeling as well, much as i like chris and his writing, that he is more frustrated at his own bases's lack of will than the determination of michele bachman to be president
lastly, our drones have killed more innocents this month than all the mentally ill assassins in the world will kill this decade and i know chris is against that as well
"i think that chris has succumbed to the hopelessness of his own rhetoric when he writes lines like: "All fundamentalists, religious and secular, are ignoramuses""
Of course you would. Those needing their hand held usally do!
Mainly agree with your analysis --
but few seem to note that Hedges, himself has a strong interest in preserving
"mainstream" Christianity.
And let me point out that certainly any belief in one all male god supremacist religion
will qualify as fundamentalism -- though obviously Chris Hedges is a long way
from seeing that.
Male supremacist beliefs -- organized patriarchal religion -- are themselves
fundamentalist -- !!
Not only has organized patriarchal religion over millennia been male supremacist
and anti-female -- it has had a long list of other enemies -- from Native Americans to
African Americans -- certainly Jews -- and homosexuals. We're still working on
freeing ourselves from these teachings which are quite contrary to "equality for
all" and democracy--!!
Again, I'd advise everyone reading the article to look behind organized patriarchal
religion and see that it is all fundamentalist -- and all dangerous.
And that those hierarchies teaching male-supremacist religion have a lot at
stake -- financially and personally.
QUOTE; --- Comment by Iconoclast further down the thread --
Right. Because the original title of his book: "I don't believe in atheists" really makes it clear the respect Hedges' has for nonbelievers in general instead of who he views as his personal nemeses.
Thanks for that disjointed rejoinder offering one sentence bullet points based on your own fantasies.
Great non-response -- when you have no debate, try insults?
Try telling us why organized patriarchal religion isn't male-supremacist --
Or why it would be wrong to suggest that their Papal Bulls didn't attack
Native Americans and Africans enslaved here --
"Enslave them or kill them" -- was the command.
Of course, there was no Christian war on Jews, either -- right?
And, no continuing war on homosexuals by Christianity right now, either -- right?
:rofl:
"Some use the scientific theory of evolution to explain the behavior and rules for complex social and political systems, and others insist that the six-day creation story in Genesis is a factual account".
I wish Chris learned a little more about science so that he won't equate the ability of science to describe and explain the reality with the wacko ideas of religious fundamentalists.
I do respect Chris very much, but disagree on this.
Chris is talking about the sociobiologists here, and he is correct. I used to teach a university class called Mythology, Religion and Science, covering exactly this. And Chris is right that fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether you are Muslim or Christian or Scientologist [whoops, I mean Scientist].
Slightly aside, but I think you missed that Chris Hedges is making a point
of slamming two atheists -- Sam Harris and Chris Hitchens -- for their writings
on religion -- and accusing them of rather vile things though they have both
exposed organized patriarchal religious teachings as being sexist, racist and
homophobic in their own self-interest. Which is, of couse true.
Chris Hedges, himself, of course, has a interest, as well, in preserving the concept
of "mainstream" organized patriarchal religion.by separating it from Christtian
fanatacism which most of the world understands as a form of poor mental health.
QUOTE FROM ICONOCLAST ...
Right. Because the original title of his book: "I don't believe in atheists" really makes it clear the respect Hedges' has for nonbelievers in general instead of who he views as his personal nemeses.
Excuse me while I clean the sarcasm off my keyboard.
AND IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAN THE ADMINISTRATORS OF COMMON
DREAMS COULD -- AT LONG LAST -- FIND SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HOW
TO OPERATE A WEBSITE SO IT WOULDN'T TAKE A 45 MINUTES TO MAKE
A FEW SIMPLE POSTS HERE?
P L E A S E --
*****************************************************************************
"Slightly aside, but I think you missed that Chris Hedges is making a point of slamming two atheists. . . "
It's you who missed what Ironblood was referring to. S/he wasn't referring to the part of the article criticizing the atheists but to the passage quoted by nzakhar, in which Hedges is referring to evolutionary psychology (what used to be called "sociobiology). What Ironblood said about this is quite correct.
As I pointed out in "aside" -- I wasn't responding to what was addressed by
the poster -- I was responding to what they did NOT SEE in the article.
The very basis of the article ignores the fact that ALL ORGANIZED PATRIARCHAL
RELIGION IS MALE-SUPREMACIST and therefore FUNDAMENTALIST.
That should have been the very first thing everyone here should have picked up
and commented on.
Fundamentalism, it seems to me, answers a need for certainty. I see many people on this site choking on the idea that science could be considered a sort of fundamentalism, so I’ll try to explain how I think it can be. This might take a while, so just skip over this post if you don’t want to consider it. It’s gonna be a two-parter.
In graduate school, I once wrote an essay on the history of paragraph instruction, which, I know, sounds really boring. But doing so taught me things about our era I’ve been mulling over ever since. I’d long wondered why composition textbooks always tell students to begin a paragraph with the topic sentence, even though you rarely see good, interesting writers following this rule.
The reason, it turned out, was the move in higher education toward emphasizing scientific knowledge. So many life-changing, world-changing scientific developments had arisen by the mid 19th century that the goal of education moved from developing and testing arguments—from inquiry—to the accumulating of all these multitudinous and very complex facts we’d learned. The purpose of writing instruction, then, followed the thinking of the time: writing was no longer to proceed inductively, piecing things together to form a conclusion, but to proceed deductively, explaining a conclusion from which one starts. Writing was no longer a vehicle by which to hone thoughts originating from the writer’s mind, a move from confusion to clarification, but rather a laying down of things you already know before you begin. You know them because somebody told you them. Somebody else came up with that “thing already known,” and you can bet he was a lot smarter than you are. He was a great scientist: see here, he’s famous. So take his conclusion and explain it, and by no means question him. There, you’re done, except fix that comma splice, look up the correct spelling of that word, etc.
Therefore, each essay must begin with the thesis statement. In other words, one begins with the conclusion, after fussing around for a few sentences to draw the reader in and provide context, and each subsequent paragraph must begin with the general statement of the paragraph—the much ballyhooed topic sentence--followed by examples and explanations of that general statement.
The psychology of deductive reasoning bled into nearly all of rhetoric, and I’d argue, into thought. For instance, one reason that my students cannot read anything from the 18th century is that writers often used what is now rather condemningly called the “loose” sentence, in which the main point is at the end. Contemporary writing tends strongly toward the periodic sentence, where the main point is at the beginning. Thus many of my students have been told that they cannot begin a sentence with “because.” They were never told why, and I doubt the English teachers who taught this ever questioned why, or noticed that sentences beginning with because are all over the writings they’ve assigned. If they’d been encouraged to think inductively, they might have noticed this oddity. They aren’t. They’ve been “scientifically” trained.
Here we have a central irony of what you could—with hesitation and caveats—call our scientific age. If the goal of education is to cram into the students’ minds the plethora of facts gained by scientific inquiry, there is no time in the curriculum for inquiry—which created those “facts” in the first place. We see this in our badly broken schooling, where thinking, considering, exploring thought is slighted. Deductive thought is the way to go.
It's the not the fault of science itself which is a continuous PROCESS of discovery and re-evaluating evidence that Victorian pedagogy was narrow and stiffing. That's like saying Huckleberry Fin is bad, because it is so often taught badly.
Fail!!!!!
One of my favorite books is Steven Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man, which argues furiously against the idea of fixed IQ and the procession of scientists who have taught us that people can be rated by sex and race. He proceeds through the process of debunking, sorting carefully through the work of proponents of genetic determinism and finding over and over the curious fact that the leading scientists who claim to have established this determinism started out with their assumption while claiming to have proven it. Gould argues passionately that science must not insist on its teleological vision that we’re building toward greater and greater knowledge, but must step back and be willing to question the conclusions we’re taught. In our flurry of doing, we must take equal time for debunking what we’ve been doing.
In our “scientific” educational system, there’s not much of that. We’ve made the unfortunate choice of telling people what to think rather than how to think. This is pretty much what radical debunkers of education are getting at. We are making people dumber in many ways and for many reasons, some intentional, but the root problem seems to be this rage for the deductive, the idea that science has developed a bunch of facts we can know absolutely. This is a form of fundamentalism, and it informs how we teach people to learn and thus think.
In my teaching, I try to undo this. I try to get my students to think inductively and I try to get them to debunk, because thinking so is creative and produces papers that aren’t going to bore me so badly I want to stick an ice-pick through my eyes. If I can get them to think inductively, they find writing much more interesting and write better and more interesting stuff. They’ll also figure out that they aren’t as dumb as they’ve been told they are. It’s a form of unleashing that can be breathtaking to watch unfold.
Sometimes I get a furious backlash because some people want to hold onto those facts they’ve accumulated and don’t want to see them knocked down. That would make them uncertain, and being uncertain is fear-provoking. Thus I had a student last spring, a senior who wants to become a psychiatrist, who was so angered by Adam Curtis’s “The Trap” that she set out to get me fired (well, there were likely other reasons). “The Trap” explores R.D. Laing’s success in treating schizophrenia by merely talking with patients, David Rosenhan’s “thud” experiment, which showed that psychiatrists couldn’t differentiate the sane from the insane, and Robert Spitzer’s (architect of the DSM) admission that we’re likely medicating people for normal feelings. She said that the documentary was biased, and so was I for bringing up such things. They did not agree with what she’d been taught, and that really pissed her off. Thinking about them would make her question her aspirations and the very basis of contemporary psychiatry. She didn’t want to think; she wanted to “learn”—specifically, to learn how to get an A so she could get her grade average up enough to get into medical school.
Of course, I get a strong reaction when I have students inquire into this ongoing attack on the Muslim world. They have the facts—Muslims have to be attacked because they are evil, the Koran is evil, and they’re out to get us, so the Christian (or Judaic) thing to do is to kill them or at least change them into people just like us. When you point out that, looking at the facts, we’re the ones doing most of the destruction and killing, it makes them very uncomfortable. Who am I to question the experts who have told them the facts? (My students often, when I'm bugging them to rethink what they think they already know, insist I can't say anything about this or that, economics or politics or whatever, because I don't have a PhD in a given subject and am thus not an expert, so shouldn't be listened to.) This is one of the reasons that this country is so resistant to looking at what is truly going on. Of course, we all want to be right, and we don’t want to realize our failings and especially not our evils, so we project them onto others. But also, we have been taught in such a way that we do not inquire. Our “scientific” education—bad science to be sure—has rendered too many of us incapable of doing so.
This also might explain why this thing I’m typing on was conceived by someone who was “uneducated.”
Elizabeth, The Mismeasure Of Man should be required reading.
And I'm currently reading The Gender Delusion, which is another book that debunks junk science. This time junk science that purports that the differences in behaviour and emotion btw men and women are biological/neurological
I'll check that book out. Thanks for the tip, Morticia.
Another tour de force, Elizabeth. Thanks again.
BTW, your research might explain a related pet peeve of mine: published works of literature, e.g. Pelican/Penguin publications of classics and similar scholarly editions, that perversely begin with a "Foreword" or "Introduction" that belongs AFTER the work, if anywhere.
I'm not talking about brief and usually helpful "Author's Notes" or other prefatory material that is nominally organically related to the main body of the work; I'm talking about those tacked-on scholarly lit-crit deals.
I'd long ago abandoned the habit of reading jacket blurbs, even before I knew that they were often perfunctory and contrived. But being a generally obliging, linear chap, I used to faithfully "begin at the beginning" and dutifully peruse the "Introduction".
Almost invariably, these proved at best obscure and confusing, and at worst off-putting. It took me far too long to realize that, paradoxically, they were predicated on a modicum of direct knowledge and understanding of the work, and yet were placed as obstacles to it!
In terms of your fascinating petit disquisition, they amount to backasswards "topic sentences" writ large. Now, if I read them at all, I read them AFTER I've read the actual work-- and find them much more salutary.
PS: Have you ever read Robert M. Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"? It is, or used to be, a favorite of mine; your comment makes me want to dust it off and re-read it.
What's your take on "Lila"? Strangely beautiful, or That-Difficult-Second-Album? I must confess to mood-dependent ambivalence.
And I concur what you said about what Elizabeth said. Phaedrus would've been proud.
Good to be reminded.
Thanks for your thanks, Obedient Servant. If we keep doing so, we'll just end up reeling each other into the road, hopefully laughing mostly mirthfully but likely a bit hysterically.
Never having read Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance all the way through is one more thorn in my side (one of many--I should rightly be a Catholic saint while still alive, as far as I'm concerned). When I hear a whiff of engine, I want to get a good mechanic.
If I can throw in another you might find compelling is Ken Wilber's book, Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality.
But thanks also, for the compelling critique. Well done.
This is a fine piece. One of the best I've read in decades. Brings to mind Eric Hoffer. Thanks Chris.
I see that Rupert Murdoch's Beck refered to all those slaughtered young people as "Hitler Youth" - so much for any of Rupert's media.
Ocean,
The only way to deal with Beck's horrible, irresponsible and conscienseless propaganda aimed to besmirch the victims and thereby justify any action taken against them on behalf of Israel is to turn the tables on him.
IF several major media outlets would all scream that Beck is Holocaust denier over and over, this Israeli shill would be ruined in a week. Do to him what he does to others.
Of course, considering who runs the media, that is a tall order. They have no problem lying about everything under the sun but lying about one of their pet shills is a no-no.
In his desperate vituperation last night, Obama, president of a country that has entered the wobble zone of the Long Emergency (i.e., economic, financial, political, and social collapse), despite all signs to the contrary, managed to invoke "The Greatest Country on Earth" (his very wording).
Such is the hold of U.S. fundamentalism on the mind that the president is compelled by this arch-mythical formation to invoke it while the country stands on the edge of national bankruptcy. "No, this can't be happening to the Greatest Country on Earth!"
Fundamentalism not only kills individuals, but entire countries.
Boosting one's own EGO with an angry tribal god is a disaster.
Exactly and something atheists critique not participate in, Hedges attack on innocent atheists is wholly unwarranted!!!
I am the smartest person ever.
I never lie and am always right.
I am made in god's image and was placed on Earth to dominate it.
Don't believe me?
I'll kill ya'.
Nice one.
Excellent. I'm gonna steal this ...
An atheist is one who choses not to believe in belief. There is no such thing as a fundalmentalist atheist, it makes no sense. What, the dogma of evidence? Hedges is a theist on a rant.
A religionist believes there is a god. The atheist believes there is no god. They both believe in the absence of evidence. We cannot know if there is one or is not one. So both the religionist and the atheist have 'faith'. There is no difference. Both behave sometimes good, often bad, and use their 'belief'' to shore up their behavior. Do not confuse fundamentalism with religion. They are only marginally related. Looked at rationally, all these 'ists' and 'isms' would be really, really funny if they were not so damned dangerous.
Brother you have got a lot of reading to do, new and old atheist writers. Your argument is so 19 century. Atheist with "faith" where do you get such ideas?
No. You are wrong.
Atheists do not believe there is no god. They know there are no gods nor anything supernatural using reason and factual evidence.
Atheists do NOT have faith of any kind.
"Atheists do NOT have faith of any kind."
_____________________
Although myself an atheistic and agnostic skeptic, I cannot forbear to point out the fallacy embedded in your own description of these capital-A "Atheists".
Even within the terms you set forth, it's obvious that such Atheists have "faith" of SOME kind: to absolutely "'know' there are no gods nor anything supernatural..." requires correspondingly absolute faith that "reason and factual evidence" are sufficient to ascertain ultimate, dispositive, and final knowledge and wisdom.
Your reply reminded me of "Am I an Atheist?", Bertrand Russell's classic 1947 essay on this topic. I imagine (with a high degree of certainty) that you've probably read it, O.S., but for those who haven't and might entertain an interest, here's the relevant excerpt:
"The question is how to arrive at your opinions and not what your opinions are. The thing in which we believe is the supremacy of reason. If reason should lead you to orthodox conclusions, well and good; you are still a Rationalist. To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one’s arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Proof of God
"Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.
"I never know whether I should say “Agnostic” or whether I should say “Atheist”. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
"On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
"None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
"Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.
Skepticism
"There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration. Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say “Atheist”, although it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go.
"When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless." [...]
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm
The negation of faith is not faith by logic and set theory, fail!!!!!
1. Let a equal the set of ALL beliefs accepted without evidence to support them.
2. Not a is the negation of all beliefs accepted without evidence to support them.
2. To say skepticism which is "not a" is a belief is to say "not a" is part of the set of a, yet we are already given "not a" is the negation of a.
Therefore skepticism is not a belief.
QED
Pull the string of believer Babie and she says, "thinking is hard I'd rather spew ad hominems against innocent atheists."
Sigh!!!!!!
I think you've proven the point--fundamentalists KNOW THEY ARE RIGHT.
The phrase "Atheists do NOT have faith of anykind" could only be made by an atheist fundamentalist.
People who live in the real world of scientific investigation know that faith is an integral part of life--it's what we put our faith in that counts. And it is doubt that drives science forward.
There is a great difference between every day faith and faith in organized
patriarchal religion which seems to have very little to do with any true
universal spirituality --
The everyday kind of faith is not fanatical and not blind -- USUALLY.
We will point to and then discount, however, those who are sure that
"god" let everyone on the plane die, but saved them! Yikes!
Under normal circumstances, we have average faith that everything
will turn out well -- that we will get across the street safely -- that
dinner will be on the table tonight -- that we have studied sufficiently
to pass an exam -- and/or that our significant other does love us.
The difference between that kind of faith and faith in a "god" in the sky
is immense --
In the "god" case ... no matter how poor the outcome the "god" will not be blamed --
and should the outcome go well, very likely the "god" will be exclaimed.
"i would have scored the touchdown - but God made me drop the football!"
Sorry Mrs. Addams, got to take issue with that.
Using reason and available evidence, I have reached the conclusion there are no deities. But the moment I say "I know" there are no deities, I'm getting into the realm of faith.
In the same way that it is unreasonable for a believer to suggest I have the burden of proof that there are no deities (because you can't prove a negative), it's not reasonable for me to claim that as knowledge (because I can't prove a negative).
Yeah, semantics, I know. What? You anti-semantic or something...?
[smirk]
Atheists do not adopt a theory of god --
And "god" theory is a personal belief -- usually pushed by organized patriarchal
religion which has its own financial interests and benefits at stake in keeping
the status quo of a one - all male "god" going --
Like many other theories, this one is not provable.
People of intelligence recognize that.
Look behind the organized patriarchal religion and wake up to what you see.
Yes there is.
A fundamentlist atheist is one who applies a literal reading to say, the Bible or Quran (and pays no attention the what people do), which is what many of the fanboys and fangirls of Hitchens, Dawkins et al do. You are an atheist in denial.
I have read neither. Comic books never interested me.
I do pay attention to what people do, just read American Holocaust by Stannard, a good book on what christians do.
How is that relevant to Christian belief today?
Perhaps because (and this is just based on looking briefly at the subject of Stannard's work) many of the same attitudes underpin how modern Christians actually act as compared to what modern Christians say they believe?
Let's just look at the seat of Christianity -- the Vatican --
It teaches a male-supremacist religion -- do you fail to understand how that
remains harmful today?
The Vatican continues to refuse to acknowledge the full personhood of
females as it acknowledges the full personhood of males.
Homosexuality is another issue which continues on where the Church
still teaches that homosexuality is an "abomination."
Pat Buchanan just recently called for a "Sodom-like" response to the
permitting of gay marriage in NYC.
Had it not been for WWII and the Holocaust, what would the Vatican still
be teaching of Jews? In fact, wasn't that the subject of Mel Gibson's film
a few years ago -- an attempt to resurrect hatred for Jews for the death
of Jesus ... ?
By the way neither a person found in history of the time --
Yes, today's one all male god -- organized patriarchal religion is as dangerous
today as it has ever been --
And there are more than 1 MILLION Muslims dead in Iraq to prove that!
Before you deny it, note that W. Bush referred to the war as a "CRUSADE'"
AND THAT GOD HAD TOLD HIM TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN AND THEN
TO ATTACK IRAQ!
And that Rumsfeld/Pentagon Memoranda and writings always carried
Christian messages from the Bible!