Yes, religion changes... way too slowly, and usually only because of the pressure from secularists and a population it can no longer keep ignorant. And bringing in the papal system is probably one of the worst examples: just look at how the remain opposed to contraception, abortion and homosexuality, for example, when these things are accepted as perfectly moral by the majority in "western" countries. Of course, where people have had less secular influence/education, such as Africa, their immoral stance still causes major damage.

>> ^longde:

OK, so who gets to choose? You want me to choose a subjective thing like "good" on your behalf? I get enough of that from religious people, I don't need college professors getting into the act.
edit: This is how I interpret his talk: Scientific moralism: people using the scientific method to glean principles from genetics, neurology, etc that can be tied to a set of axioms and laws of moralism. To me it sounds like he wants to replace religious high priests with scientific high priests.
And religion changes all the time. The papal system is a good example of that.>> ^hpqp:
>> ^longde:
I'm not convinced. I think "good" and "bad" can be very well defined; the problem is that they are arbitrary. At the core, who gets to define what is "well being" and "good"? We can't even all agree on medical "health".

This is a cop-out stance, pure and simple.

OK, so who gets to choose? You want me to choose a subjective thing like "good" on your behalf? I get enough of that from religious people, I don't need college professors getting into the act.

edit: This is how I interpret his talk: Scientific moralism: people using the scientific method to glean principles from genetics, neurology, etc that can be tied to a set of axioms and laws of moralism. To me it sounds like he wants to replace religious high priests with scientific high priests.

And religion changes all the time. The papal system is a good example of that.>> ^hpqp:

>> ^longde:
I'm not convinced. I think "good" and "bad" can be very well defined; the problem is that they are arbitrary. At the core, who gets to define what is "well being" and "good"? We can't even all agree on medical "health".

This is a cop-out stance, pure and simple.

>> ^longde:

I'm not convinced. I think "good" and "bad" can be very well defined; the problem is that they are arbitrary. At the core, who gets to define what is "well being" and "good"? We can't even all agree on medical "health".


This is a cop-out stance, pure and simple.

edit: I should probably develop, although to me it seems obvious. Of course morality is "arbitrary", if by "arbitrary" you mean "in relation to humankind's current knowledge". To die of teeth problems at 30 after a relatively sickness-free life was probably once considered as the hight of good health, just as slavery and arranged child marriage were once considered perfectly moral. The comparison with science and medicine is a very pertinent one: you can still do science with a schematic of four elements instead of the table of elements we have now, but it's not as efficient, nor as close to the "truth of reality" (as in "humankind's working model thereof"). We know now that adults fucking children will mess the latter's psyche up, and yet not long ago (and still today in some places) it was a common practice. And here, like elsewhere, is where religious/superstitious beliefs become so noxious, as they enshrine the morals and knowledge of peoples past as everlasting, refusing progress.

Before adding to the debate, I'd like to point out that @kevingrr has made, imo, the most pertinent commentary so far. Notably, that Hedges is intellectually dishonest (and that's a euphemism), and is simply piggy-backing on the success of thinkers such as Harris and Hitchens to sell a couple books, even if that means smearing them and the whole atheist/antitheist movement, grasping at strawmen and making indefensible claims... you know, what religious apologists usually do. (It's actually tempting to invoke * lies, considering how badly he misrepresents Harris, but I'll leave that to the OP to decide).

@dystopianfuturetoday

Of course you're not threatened by Hedges, as he has absolutely nothing to contribute. The so-called "New Atheists" (if you can call Epicurus and Paine "New") are fighting for change, progress, while the religious apologists and fundies are fighting either for the status quo or for regression*. Hedges is just propping himself above everyone else in an attempt to sell books and condescend.

_{(*by progress/regression, I'm speaking of moral, social and intellectual.)}

One thing needs to made clear about religion (the following is also addressed to you @SDGundamX): it is not the fundamentalists that are the problem, it is the fundamentals. And yes, I am not ashamed to admit that that is a quote borrowed from Sam Harris. As kevingrr points out, humanity has made immense moral progress over time, and what has been one of its biggest obstacle has been the fundamentals of religious ideologies, especially the desert monotheisms.

What makes religion religion? Supernatural truth claims. Take that away, and you have philosophy, history, poetry, law, etc... all things that are dependant on human thought and experience, and can be reshaped with experience, evidence, etc. But supernatural truth claims cannot be challenged, cannot be empirically experienced or disproved by anyone, and that is why they are such a powerful tool of manipulation, and why it is child abuse to indoctrinate kids with such beliefs at an age when they take everything their parents/authority figures say as truth (survival demands it). Monotheism is all the more dangerous because it provides an unchallengeable dictatorial authority to whomever wields it (versus polytheism's plurality), be they imams, rabbis, priests or simply bigoted parents.

Saying that we should focus on the bad results of fundamentalism and leave religion itself (and all other forms of superstitious belief) alone is like saying one should focus on the symptoms but ignore the disease. Sure, the symptoms need to be treated, but if we do not also attack the sickness that is causing them we are wasting our time.

I am not saying we shouldn't side with religious moderates to fight the symptoms. But it's not as believers that they should be sided with, but simply as fellow human beings fighting for human well-being and moral progress. If some want to delude themselves into thinking that their actions are driven by the will of an invisible sky-daddy instead of their own humanity and empathy, so be it (although it's pretty sad).

So you're saying that if it wasn't for religion humans would find some other aspect of human nature to exploit? Not really profound, but it really does make sense. For example, religion is being used as a means to deny gays the same rights the rest of us have. However, when it comes down to it, some people just feel that homosexuality is icky. And you know what? As ignorant as that is, it's just as natural for somebody to be repulsed by certain sexual behaviors as it is to be attracted to some sexual behaviors. As long as people disagree there will be conflict. The problem with religion, though—as our friend Tim Minchin says—it teaches us to externalize blame. What I mean is, religion paints a very binary portrait of the world—of what's right and wrong. It doesn't teach relativity or tolerance. I think it's ok to assume that if we eliminate religion, the basis for that ignorance will lose power. Furthermore, if somebody doesn't agree with something that's ok. And since there is no god, therefore no word of god, our differences are merely individual preference.>> ^peggedbea:

I want to believe that this is the point chris hedge's is attempting to make:
whenever i listen to or read anything from sam harris i feel like he's trying to blame religion for all the evil. but i don't feel like he's naming it correctly. there's a more basic manipulation taking place. religion is simply the chosen mechanism. religion is a tool for social control. faith is a rather benign human characteristic. people WANT to have faith in something. and religion manipulates that desire to control X population. it's not the faith in something mystic and silly that fucks up the world, it's the emotional manipulation employed. but in alternate universe B, maybe the mechanism for social control looks completely different. and there are more than one mechanism for social control happening in this universe. class and race and sex are the most obvious. in harris's effort to vilify one single mechanism, instead of the underlying attribute (you could call it greed?), it often feels like he's creating another kind of tribalism. us vs. them. smart atheists vs. stupid evil religious people. i feel very divisive when i listen to him and his ilk. i'd rather not dislike religious people. i'd rather focus all my bad feelings on the men who manipulate basest desires to control the masses for financial gain. i'd rather hear more about who they are and how to stop them then about how insane religious people are going to destroy all of creation.

I want to believe that this is the point chris hedge's is attempting to make:

whenever i listen to or read anything from sam harris i feel like he's trying to blame religion for all the evil. but i don't feel like he's naming it correctly. there's a more basic manipulation taking place. religion is simply the chosen mechanism. religion is a tool for social control. faith is a rather benign human characteristic. people WANT to have faith in something. and religion manipulates that desire to control X population. it's not the faith in something mystic and silly that fucks up the world, it's the emotional manipulation employed. but in alternate universe B, maybe the mechanism for social control looks completely different. and there are more than one mechanism for social control happening in this universe. class and race and sex are the most obvious. in harris's effort to vilify one single mechanism, instead of the underlying attribute (you could call it greed?), it often feels like he's creating another kind of tribalism. us vs. them. smart atheists vs. stupid evil religious people. i feel very divisive when i listen to him and his ilk. i'd rather not dislike religious people. i'd rather focus all my bad feelings on the men who manipulate basest desires to control the masses for financial gain. i'd rather hear more about who they are and how to stop them then about how insane religious people are going to destroy all of creation.

i'm upvoting only for the discussion here.

i'm an atheist. but i'm not a passionate one.
i normally really like chris hedge's.
i normally really don't like sam harris, or pz myers for that matter. i used to really really dislike hitchen's (the whole pro-iraq war thing) but i find him more palletable now. i think hedge's nailed what exactly it is about those men that rubs me the wrong way, it's the haughtiness.



but... this clip is full of straw men. it's beneath hedge's. feels like an advertisement for his book. but instead of making me want to read it, it makes me want to throw it at him for trying to sell shit with straw men and inflammatory-ish-ness. he can do better.

This guy is a christian. He talks about and believes in magical things that just do not exist or are invisible, silent, unproven, and lacking any verifiable evidence. He is not different from any other garden variety christian creationist. Of course Chis Hedges must attack the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennet men of whose logic is unimpeachable and unapproachable by the likes of Chis Hedges.

I like both Chris and Sam, but after reading the passage I think Sam was irresponsible in his writing - though I see it as more glib than malicious. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who disagrees, but the way I interpret the passage is...

"If Muslim Jihadists - who fear not death and want nothing more than to nuke us for religious reasons - ever came to power in a state that possessed nuclear weapons, our only option would be to nuke them first. It would be horrible, absurd, unthinkable and would result in millions of deaths and would likely lead to retaliation.... BUT IT WOULD BE THE FAULT OF RELIGION."

I think the problem is three-fold, a) that he mounts an argument that justifies preemptive global nuclear war, b) that, sadly, he paints our conflict as one of religion and not one of foreign policy and c) that he sees Muslims as crazy people who would sacrifice the lives of their children in exchange for dead Americans and heavenly virgins. This is indefensible.

Let me respectfully remind my good sift libs that Middle Eastern rage against the US has to do with foreign policy, not religion. It's blowback. It was Bush that said they hate us for our freedom, and Chomsky (on the left) and Ron Paul (on the right) that said they want us to stop bombing them, building bases in their countries and installing puppet dictators. Are we really going to side with the Bush doctrine instead of having to concede something to a person of faith?

Again, I like both these guys and would rather they didn't fight, but Hedges makes a fair point. We atheists aren't used to being criticized from the left and it puts us in a weird position. I don't think Sam is a hater, I think he just wrote an irresponsible couple of paragraphs in haste.

Anyway, the full passage is below. Judge for yourself. Tell me where I'm wrong.

SAM HARRIS: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? 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. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

Nice find! BTW, isn't it easier to make money off of being extreme than moderate?>> ^kevingrr:

Wow. Every time I hear Chris Hedges speak speak more lies fly out of his mouth. Sam Harris is not, has not, and my guess will never advocate for a nuclear strike.
Per: Sam Harris Regarding Nuking the Arab World and Torture
Chris Hedges is good at two things.
1. Making fallacious straw man arguments where he distorts, misrepresents, and lies about his opponents position.
2. Making money off pretending to be moderate.

Wow. Every time I hear Chris Hedges speak speak more lies fly out of his mouth. Sam Harris is not, has not, and my guess will never advocate for a nuclear strike.

Per: Sam Harris Regarding Nuking the Arab World and Torture

Chris Hedges is good at two things.


1. Making fallacious straw man arguments where he distorts, misrepresents, and lies about his opponents position.
2. Making money off pretending to be moderate.

I really wanted to * quality this because it was refreshing to see a calm and rational opposing point of view to the anti-theism movement. But I can't.

I am a harsh critic of both Sam Harris and Hitchens for many of the reasons that Hedges mentions in this video. HOWEVER, I don't believe for a moment that either one of them condones violence as a means to promoting atheism. What Hedges is suggesting about them is a gross misrepresentation of their positions. See, for example, Harris's rebuttal of Hedges's claims about the nuclear first strike here:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

I wholeheartedly agree with @dystopianfuturetoday that it doesn't serve any purpose to attack people, who ultimately have the same goal as anti-theists--a more peaceful and equitable world--simply on the grounds that those people have faith in a religion. While Greta Christina points out that anti-theists have many reasons to be angry, if that anger turns to blind fury and they begin striking out at innocent bystanders I think it'll doom their movement.

^Hitchen's was a neocon back in the Bush days. Not sure if he is still. Sam Harris made some comments in his debate with Hedges that painted Muslims with a very broad brush, and were arguably racist. I think Sam's comments were more ignorant than actively racist. Most Americans (myself included) lack a real understanding of Islamic culture, so it's easy for us to categorize them as a bunch of crazy fundamentalists that like to mutilate female genitals and will kill you for making cartoons. Hedges made the point that most Muslims are just regular people trying to get by, and that the proportion of angry, violent Islamic fundamentalists was equal to that of angry, violent American fundamentalists. (Mini editorial: I think fundamentalism is a bigger problem than any individual religious or group, be that group Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Conservative, Libertarian, Liberal, Capitalist, Socialist, etc. When you believe your personal philosophy to be the living embodiment of goodness, holiness, liberty or perfection, you lose the ability for critical thought.)

Hedges is to be respected. We could use more like him.

"You have figure like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris who are religious illiterates and bigots whose right wing policies do not differ in any way from the christian fundamentalists they attack. They're all chanting for war in the middle east and demonizing muslims in the name of western civilization rather than in the name of satan."

Wow... not sure what to say here.

Edit:
Just learned that Hedges is the only person that Sam Harris will no longer speak to or shake hands with, because of his vehement dishonesty and hatred for those who possess a difference of opinion. Again wow.

His debate with Sam Harris is excellent. It's on the sift. Chris Hedges has a very different kind of faith than most. Although he self identifies as a Christian, it feels to me more of an Einsteinian type of religion, interested in the mysteries of science and human existence, and not obsessed with heaven and hell and taking scripture literally. I'm guessing most atheists on the sift would find a lot of common ground with him, so careful with the knee jerk reactions.

Let's not forget all the potential for good in Christianity, even if the loudest Christian voices in the media tend to be cruel, shallow and judgemental. I think the defiance of the early part of this atheist revival helped us establish ourselves, but now we are mainstream (to a degree). It's time for the next step, where we show tolerance to religious people who are kind, loving and empathetic. We hate it when we are all painted with the same stripe, so lets not be hypocrites

The powers that be love to see us divided and beating the crap out of each other. What if we stopped fighting each other and turned that aggression against our corporate wardens.