Metal Reviews

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/

Many charges have been leveled at foreign correspondent Chris Hedges over the years, but shrinking from conflict isn't one of them. Hedges spent nearly seven years as Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times, covered the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, and was part of the New York Times team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of global terrorism. He took on the American military-industrial complex with his books "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "What Every Person Should Know About War," and provoked the rage of the Christian right by likening them to Nazis in last year's "American Fascists." Hedges now cements his reputation as an intellectual provocateur with the charmingly titled "I Don't Believe in Atheists."

While speaking out against the Christian fundamentalist movement and its political agenda, Hedges noticed another group -- this one on the left -- conspicuously allied with the neocons on the subject of America's role in world politics. The New Atheists, as they have been called, include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and bestselling author and journalist Christopher Hitchens -- outspoken secularists who depict religious structures and the belief in God as backward and anti-democratic.

Though Hedges, a Harvard seminary graduate and the son of a Presbyterian minister, considers himself a religious man, his quarrel with the New Atheists goes beyond theological concerns. In "I Don't Believe in Atheists," he accuses Hitchens and the others of preaching a fundamentalism as dangerous as the religious fundamentalist belief systems they attack. Strange bedfellows indeed -- according to Hedges, the New Atheists and the Christian right pose the greatest threat facing American democratic society today.


-sounds like an itneresting book, i liked war is a force that gives us meaning

I don't see what is so wrong with Dawkins and Hitchens but whatever. I can't see how anything Dawkins and Hitchens has said or wrote could be considered fundametalism.

Christopher Hitchens is a bit of a wierd one- someone that clearly despises the Republicans with his entire soul but still seems to think the Iraq War is the best thing since sliced bread. His debates with George Galloway on the subject are worth watching on youtube for the lulz, although you won't get too much insight out of them as they're both too busy levelling very wordy insults at eachother. "Drink-sodden former Trotskyist popinjay" springs to mind. Both are very good at trolling FOX news though... Hitchens telling Sean Hannity how happy he is Jerry Falwell's dead, and Galloway telling Bill O'Reilly how everything bad that's happened since WWII is the USA's fault both get pretty funny reactions.

Looking at just the synopsis noodles gave, it's an argument that is quite often made in the liberal UK media also... but Richard Dawkins is a threat to world peace? Silly exageration. However it is a stupid intellectual fad to talk about how we should be confronting religion wherever we find it, and sometimes militant atheist types (notably Martin Ames) tend to act as respectable validators for Islamophobic prejudices.

The "left" is terribly divided on this very issue currently here in the UK. ie, can it oppose warmongering in the Islamic world without becoming too close to the more unsavoury elements of that world? It is a cause of headaches for those of us that don't like Galloway at the one end or Hitchens at the other.

hitchens just seems like an IRL troll (as for actual bad stuff he's said, he seems to think its ok to kill people in the interest of spreading democracy :\). haven't read anything by dawkins though so i can't comment. chris hedges brings up some good points in the interview like that there's nothing intrinsically moral or amoral about religion/science. and such.

I'm probably going to agree with this book quite a lot, and I should probably give it a read. Hitchens et al (including Dawkins when he stops talking science and starts ranting) severely annoy me.

There's nothing wrong with not taking a religious or philosophical standpoint in life and having your own path. Now people gathering together with like minded views isn't either... But when it starts to really take off like a major religion when it's really nothing than the disbelief of such things, I do see an issue.

I do see the point trying to be made... But you know, I like atheist's a lot more than I like any other religious types.



I'm no " new atheist " but fuckin' A. It is backwards nonsense.

Ditto. This quote, in particular, I liked:



Very well said.

What's especially interesting about Dawkins (along with a lot of other "new atheists") is that his anti-theistic beliefs seem to be more based on the humanistic/social issues associated with belief in God than the scientific issues associated with it. His issues with belief in God are mostly that "it's resulted in non-stop warfare/violence" (as if these things would somehow not exist if nobody believed in God ), "it assaults personal freedom", "it makes us overconfident" (he actually blames 9/11 on American overconfidence and then roots it to our belief in God), etc. These are all sociological issues. He does have some occasional scientific concerns too, but it seems like a lot of his anti-theistic issues are more based on human psychology than anything else.

I'll never understand how some people seem to have a beef with a god they don't believe in anyway.

Because the people that do believe in that god make trouble for everyone else?

I'm with Charles on this one, I'm not a fan of religion, but neither am I one of Hitchens or Galloway. Describing the 'new atheists' as a threat is probably a hysterical counter-attack, but I tend to be cynical about everything political-related these days. Ultimately, lumping all atheists together is what fanatical religious types would do, but then so is lumping all religious types together... I judge people individually. Some are, some aren't.

Just from reading God is not Great and The God Delusion this book premise sounds absolutely stupid. Neither of the books promoted fundamentalism or threatened democracy.

Dawkins probably isn't the best speaker on religion being a biologist but he attempted to make much of the same arguments philosopher have made for centuries and millenniums except he pulled more from natural selection and the anthropoic principle than any others. As for Dawkins not making his anti-theism argument based on science, religious people have repeatedly ignored science and anthropology contradicting their beliefs; so what would it matter if he did base his arguments on science? The best response from theists is when they claim science is god's way of testing their faith. Then religious existentialism believes that god works outside of logic and reason so Dawkins tried to make an argument saying we would be better off as a society without religion. [/rant]

I suppose. I guess I'm too laid back and mellow. I can't even really put my faith in their not being a God.

that's not limited to people who believe in god though. there's assholes with lots of different beliefs

Even without religion, you will have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, but religion is the only way to get good people to do bad things.

What about good non-religious people that turn to extreme measures such as violence as a result of political or economic oppression?

Plenty of things can be used to spur people into doing bad things, religion is just one of them. Maybe the main one, but still...

And just as we should be critical of bad politics or economy, we should be critical of religion. Except that politics and economy are necessary for society to function, whereas religion is not.

Watching Jesus Camp again. Worse than any horror movie.

Sure, but the fact remains that religion is not the only thing that makes good people jdo bad things.

IN THE NAME OF KEYNESIAN CAPITALISM, I SMITE YOU DOWN!
No, don't really see it.


(Sorry, I'm being a dick using rhetoric rather than reason. It is true that atrocities have been committed for reasons other than religion, Stalin anyone?)

Well... playnig devil's advocate, not only was there serious doubt as to whether Stalin was an atheist, you could also make a convincing argument for communism being a religion. Charles'll hate me for saying that...