Christopher Hitchens Vs. Chris Hedges on Religion - Part 2/4

[MenOfLetters]

Hedges battered this neocon fool.

[sharonmyk1]

Hitchens always comes across as a plumped up self centred egoist. And ultimately shallow in his preparation and execution. He's a liitle too full of hot air and his own sense of importance. Hedges on the other hand is much more balanced, modest and knowledgable. 

[bethnor]

@sharonmyk1 hedges is not modest at all. like every other theist, he claims to know the mind of god. how exactly does he know that god is loving? how does he know that god doesn't get a kick out of watching us kill each other? hedges has also condemned the far right and called obama a "disaster," leaving him the true christian. by what authority can he make that declaration?

[mogem]

Can one have depth in something that does not exit?

[mogem]

It is simply a matter of accepting truths or just making shit up

Reality=reality

[Matthysable]

@livingstonmail Thanks for your reply.

It's exactly because of what you call so aptly call "pseudo-intellectual hucksterism" that I consider Dawkings a far more dangerous voice than Hitchens. Hitchens was a crude polemicist, who, as I have said before, spent his life giving vent to the rage he felt against a god he didn't believe in. Like all atheists, he could never stop talking about God.

[livingstonmail]

@Matthysable That's pretty funny - he couldn't stop talking about God. You got the sense that Hitchens was fighting his own inner desire to believe in something beyond his own bulbous cranium.

[Sconezeta]

I love how religion cherry picks what they say they believe in from religious script. Which religion is correct? Why is yours correct now? What happens to those who don't believe in the same thing you do but claim the divine rights as well? Atheists don't need to say anything as people in one religion condemn those in another daily.

[LeonSpinx1]

stasis of conjecture.

[glower125]

BLABLABLA ISLAM BLABLABLAISLAM BLABLABLA ISLAM...JUST LIKE A FREAKING RABID DOG.

WHAT AN IGNORANT TRASH, BUT BLIND GARABAGE THINKS HE IS SAYING SOMETHING.

[damnbigfish]

Hedges makes the (IMHO) ridiculous argument (listen around 6:45 to 7:30 or so) that it's not the moral teachings that are at fault, it is the fact that they were written down and codified into "religion". WTF? Does writing something down that was said orally change the meaning? If the pronouncements of Jesus were just when spoken, they are just when written. If they are crap when spoken, they are crap when written. This is absurd.

[Matthysable]

Hitchens, the master of the straw man. He has no idea of what Christianity is, and then makes a fortune writing books attacking that no idea - what a waste of a good brain

[OrganicKing]

@Matthysable Typical Atheist self righteousness! I'm right and all others all wrong and shouldn't be tolerated!

[Matthysable]

@OrganicKing Yup, I agree. Hitchens spent his whole life fighting the god he didn't believe in - if that ain' a form of schizophrenia, I don’t know what is!

[MattSingh1]

@Matthysable Wow, you just entirely and exactly mischaracterized Hitchens’ unrivalled body of work. Hitchens of course wasn't fighting God, that would be ludicrous. He was fighting, and beating, people of 'faith'.

[Matthysable]

@MattSingh1 Read him again, paying attention this time!

Even his own brother wrote a book against him entitled "The Rage Against God" (read it some time). His entire life revolved around fighting his imaginary 'non-god', with a, "God, this town ain't big enough for the both of us!"

I consider him a sad sorry little narcissist who made a buck out of peddling his anger to people like you with clever little quips.

[Matthysable]

@MattSingh1 And, btw. as for his 'unrivalled body of work', I agree - quite unrivalled. Rarely have I come across a greater master of setting up strawmen and then getting rich by shooting them down again. Indeed, unrivalled!

[livingstonmail]

@Matthysable You nailed the Hitchens "product." Set up straw men, and burn them down - again and again. The sad thing about Hitch in later life is that he well knew what he was doing... how it bordered on pseudo-intellectual hucksterism... yet he could not stop doing it. I think to some degree he was amused at his own ability to get away with it, and kept pushing. What idiot could not make a cogent case against genital mutilation, etc.? But what does that have to do with "God" per se?

[SpaceExplorer]

Hedges is in over his head, completely outclassed by Hitchens, and all you religions idiots WHO THINK YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE ARE IN OVER YOUR HEADS

[TheDreamMechanic]

@SpaceExplorer

Actually, Hedges slaughtered Hitchens in their opening exchange. Apparently Hitchens never got the memo that you should actually know what you're talking about before you open your mouth; particularly in a formal debate. He has zero understanding of spirituality, and therefore no ground upon which to understand religion. Simply put, he is a propagandist.  Hedges, on the other hand, has a much more open minded (and less self assured) approach. Win for Hedges.

[MattSingh1]

@TheDreamMechanic "Actually, Hedges slaughtered Hitchens in their opening exchange. Apparently Hitchens never got the memo that you should actually know what you're talking about before you open your mouth; particularly in a formal debate" 1. You clearly haven't seen any of Hitch's other debates, have you? 2. Or, you have, and you're clearly in the tank, the typical snide, anti-Hitchens critic that never uses any imperial facts to disprove what Hitch asserts. Win for Hitch, as usual.

[Matthysable]

@MattSingh1 In your comment on TheDreamMechanic you use a phrase that's new to me - "imperial facts". Care to enlighten us less literate folks as to its meaning, esoteric or otherwise? Is you own comment an example of "imperial facts"? i.e. facts that, being 'imperial' do not requite premises but simply are what they are by imperial decree? Please tell us. Who knows, this might be a new breakthrough in obtaining true and sure knowledge - imperial facts. Love it!

[livingstonmail]

@MattSingh1 Haha! How dare - how DARE - a Hitchens "fan" cast about the term "snide" with such unselfconscious abandon? Gall. Mendacity. 

[MattSingh1]

@livingstonmail By all and any means sir, wallow in your own self-perpetuated self-aggrandisement...

[livingstonmail]

@MattSingh1 Whatever man. Hitchens just lost me when he started pounding the drum for George Bush II's war crimes in Iraq. So, take from that what you will.

[shrapn0]

@TheDreamMechanic Not true, listen to Hitchens' talk of spirituality upon the magnitude of the Hubble telescope's findings. Or the inspiring revelations of Lawrence Krauss that we are all "made of star stuff". As Hitchens himself articulated; far more inspiring than a burning bush. Hedges is incredibly close minded on the issue of religion, hes ok attacking the US religious right, but defends the religious right of third world countries as though it were some liberation theology. Sick man.

[KickingBirdDog]

@TheDreamMechanic "He has zero understanding of spirituality, and therefore no ground upon which to understand religion."

This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to faith.

It's the equivalent of saying "You have zero understanding of magic, and therefore no ground upon which to understand Voodoo." -_-

You would not accept this line of reasoning with any other superstitious belief, thus proving the logic is flawed.

[TheShadowOfMars]

The history of individual freedom is the history of struggles against opressive authority. The tribalist authorities always have traditional religion on their side: Christianity explicitly sanctifies "the powers that be".

Individualism as we understand it in the West today comes from the anti-clerical and anti-state movements of liberation: Reformation, Enlightenment, Liberal Revolutions and Socialist Revolutions. The cause has become progressive less religious as society wakes up to the above.

[arvind13]

liberation and the protestant reformation are thought forms that emerged within a christian theological framework. There is nothing neutral about it. Reformation and enlightenment isn't an escape from religion at all. In fact the distinction between religious and secular is drawn by a religion (christianity), within a religion, and is a religious distinction. Enlightenment thinkers just introduced a secularized form of religion without God/bible: dechristianized Christianity

[TheShadowOfMars]

@arvind13

Liberation ideology emerged out of a Christian culture, but since the late 18th century it has outgrown religion. While in the middle ages it made sense to run to the benevolence of Jesus for liberation, it has long been obvious that the "Father, God and King of All" is an absolutely authoritarian and reactionary ideal.

The enlightenment has escaped the gravity well of religion, and now stands for worldly liberation of the individual from all authorianism, including Christ.

[arvind13]

there is nothing modern, scientific or neutral about theories like individual liberty, secularism, and human rights. It only makes sense if you accept a number of deeply christian assumptions and notions of what a human being is. These concepts don't make sense within non-western cultures, especially asian cultures, whose notion of human beings is completely different. nothing against it because it is Christian. but there is nothing modern or universal about it.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@arvind13

The Christian view of humanity is that we are evil corruptions who deserve to go to Hell; desperately needing gracious forgiveness from an infinitely powerful and infinitely authoritarian Father-figure. In Christianity: individual liberty equals license to sin; secularism equals putting human ethics before God's word; human rights equals blocking divine justice against sinners.

Only with a modern scientific understanding of humanity can we justify authentically humane values.

[ProphetTenebrae]

@arvind13 The troll is strong with you but obvious troll is obvious.

Seriously, suggesting secularism is deeply Christian? You need to up your game.

[arvind13]

@ProphetTenebrae not trolling at all. I found the debate interesting, and just wanted to share my thoughts. it's an interesting intellectual discussion. however one has to remember that secularism emerged in Europe under certain conditions (religious conflicts between different christian denominations), within a certain cultural framework and is not intelligible and doesn't make sense in non-western cultures and cultures without religion.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@arvind13 Excellent point. Hitchens doesn't grasp how deeply Christianity has shaped Western morality. He was incredibly ignorant.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@TheShadowOfMars But that's not what's happening. Absolutism now has license in the West because Christianity has been de-teethed. What's happening is the old humanitarian values of Christianity are being rendered irrational as human beings realize they're just clever apes and morality just a matter of personal opinion.

[arvind13]

@RealCrusadeHistory believe it or not, I respectfully disagree with both you and Shadow of mars. Yes, western secularism and ethics were shaped by Christianity and christian moral laws. But these secular values are not universally applicable, we don't need secularism or ethical codes/laws to be a civilized society. Indian culture, for example, has survived for thousands for years without any moral laws or ethical codes.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@arvind13 But we are not Indian society, we are Western Civ. The history of a people has a tremendous impact on their future. We are not all going to morph into Indians.

[arvind13]

@RealCrusadeHistory good point. But western culture can certainly learn from these other cultures, just as other cultures learn valuable knowledge from western culture.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@arvind13 Without question. Personally I've always thought the presence of certain moral values in a people is a bit mysterious. Looking at the West, you can see the long history that's shaped it, as far back as Rome, Greece, and the Jews, all of it funneling up through Christianity, etc. It's always bugged me when people like Hitchens make these sweeping assumptions while ignoring deeper historical considerations.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@RealCrusadeHistory

Um, no. Christian values are anti-humanitarian: the regime under God is a thuggish paternal hierarchy in which the subjects are utter property of the almighty authority. It is totalitarian and absolutist. ?v=f40TRJl5vvI

Now that we're aware that we are self-governing apes, not subjects of an absolute moral regime, we are FREE to establish the social values that we most want. And as sociable and clever apes, those values will be humanitarian. ?v=LjpqeZirDqU

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@TheShadowOfMars Your assumptions are quaint at best. If there's one thing that human history teaches us, it's that mankind will come up with all sorts of moral systems. Plenty of people will decide that their moral goods are to steal, rape, enslave, and murder. And if we're just clever apes, then the universe certainly has nothing to say about them coming to such conclusions. Look at communist Russia. There you have an entire atheistic nation dedicated to crushing the human spirit.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@RealCrusadeHistory

Your sociology is quaint at best. Individuals come to value anti-social goods whenever they find themselves in a dog-eat-dog situation of individual competition where crime pays - but this is not functional society. The fact that criminal psychopathy has persisted throughout human history merely proves that human societies have never been all that healthy and harmonious. This is a problem that prosperity and rational culture can help us to begin solving.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@TheShadowOfMars Nonsense. The impulse to kill and steal from other human beings is just as much a part of our evolution as is the impulse to love and care for certain human beings. Morality is entirely elastic. Throughout history we see all sorts of moral variants. And you silly atheists wants to believe that you can create a utopia just by telling everyone they should be nice to each other? Absurd!

[TheShadowOfMars]

@RealCrusadeHistory

Yes, morality is elastic. No, we cannot create a utopia by telling everyone they should be nice to each other -- instruction is not what shapes people's morality, their mode of living is. The impulses to kill and steal only manifest whenever the individual finds oneself in the conditions in which humans are evolved to behave like that - scarcity and competition. We end barbarism by establishing social conditions of shared wealth and secure peace. Society.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@RealCrusadeHistory

The universe's judgement one way or the other of human morals has no bearing on us. Humans are humane and the cosmos is cosmic; two perspectives utterly alien to each other. There can be no kind of communication or shared ground between the universe/god and we mere animal mortals, the differences in scale and constitution are too vast for the parties to understand each other.

Humans can only be judged by human (humanitarian, emotional) standards.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@TheShadowOfMars Exactly, and human perspectives are always changing. The reason monotheism worked so well for so long is because 1) it bound people to something larger, and 2) it introduced this idea of universal humanity - that you should view all of man as having this larger relationship to a single god. That's where you get ideas like every human being should be treated with certain rights JUST because they're human. Outside of monotheism no such concept ever existed and it...

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@TheShadowOfMars ...only exists now in post-Christian Western civilization as an artifact of Christian thinking. (I.E. atheists in the West today are influenced heavily by Christian values). In fact from an evolutionary perspective it becomes meaningless. If we're all just animals then plenty of people will conclude that they should exploit certain groups while cooperating with certain other groups and that will lead to their best advantage. In fact that's what we're seeing today.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@RealCrusadeHistory

Here in the post-tribal interconnected modern world, we can choose to define our “tribes” non-genetically. To define your social-ethics “family” as your literal genetic relatives is to be ridiculously petty -- only racist crackpots allow themselves to be slaves of their selfish genes like that.

The modern world has such population density that the social altruism originally evolved exclusively for one tribe now allows us to exercise universal compassion.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@RealCrusadeHistory

“We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a ‘conspiracy of doves’, and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes. We can even try deliberately cultivating and nurtiring pure, disinterested altruism - something that has no place in nature and has never existed before in the history of the universe. We have the power to turn against our own creators.” - Richard Dawkins

[TheShadowOfMars]

@RealCrusadeHistory

The Soviet Union was atheistic, but it was very religious. You even admit that fact by describing it as "communist russia" - it was a regime governed according to the tenets of the communist doctrine, which functioned as the state's officially imposed religion. The Communist Party were the clergy of the Red Star pseudo-god. The Soviet state was a machine for crushing the human spirit, exactly like the Tsar's Orthodox-Christian regime had been before it.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@TheShadowOfMars An absurd analysis of Soviet Russia! comparing Tsarist Russia to Soviet Russia is nonsense. The Soviet regime introduced a level of human nightmare and torture unimaginable in its Trsarist predecessor. And of course you're wrong to compare communism to religion. Actually religion in the past had acted as an authority over the state, communism REPLACES religion, making the state the ultimate authority over man.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@RealCrusadeHistory

Soviet Russia was more extreme in its abuses against its people than Tsarist Russia had been only because electrical infrastructure gave it more efficient instruments and administration over the business of enslaving peasants and burning heretics. The "Autocratic sovereign Pope-Emperor of the Third Rome" would have done everything Stain did had the revolution gone a different way, and the Church he headed would have preached Romans 13:1 from every pulpit.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@TheShadowOfMars

Stalinist Communism is a religion of the totalitarian state being the righteous sovereign over all people, governing in ways that will ultimately be in the worker's own interests. The gospel of Marxist sociology teaches that centralised state power over economics will lead to ultimate emancipation, liberty and happiness for everybody in the future.

This is functionally identical to Tsarist Christianity: the Party is the Church and the Commune is the Millennium.

[cleanhomer]

@TheShadowOfMars New Atheism is a religion of non-belief in God being the righteous ideal & greatest weapon against the "evils" of theism. If you're going to be taking non-spiritual, passionate ideals & labeling them as religion for whatever reason, you're going to have to label ALL of them as religion- including New Atheism.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@cleanhomer

That is a good point, but not all passionate ideals qualify as religions. Theism and Communism qualify because their adherents see it as the ultimate "point" to everything they do in life, willing to kill or die for it. (Most) New Atheists don't count defeating the evils of theism as the supreme goal to strive and make sacrifices for.

Also, New Atheism doesn't have any well-defined articles of belief beyond rejecting God, so there's nothing much to have faith in.

[cleanhomer]

@TheShadowOfMars But a lot of New Atheists are speaking of religion as if it's the ultimate evil that must be defeated, and religious people as lost sheep doing the great evil. And with every great evil or Satan, you need a hero, a Savior. The article of hope or salvation you said isn't well-defined has been by Dawkins (haven't read Hitchens or Harris) as: rejection of evil theism & adopting scientific curiosity. (Though, I wonder why he didn't include love as well.)

[TheShadowOfMars]

@cleanhomer

I don't agree with your assessment. Some New Atheists might speak in language that sounds like that, but Dawkins doesn't call theism the Great Satan whose slaughter shall bring in a scientific golden age of reason. I consider theism to be a symptom rather than a cause of the evil and irrationality in society.

If there are "a lot" of New Atheists propounding such a religiose attitude, I've not met them. The literary movement is really just a critical reaction to theism.

[cleanhomer]

@TheShadowOfMars So, theism is NOT the source of all violence or evil in the world? Atheists can be violent or evil without suspicion that they're becoming theistic? Theists, even outwardly religious people, can be good, peaceful people, too?

[TheShadowOfMars]

@cleanhomer

Yes, yes, yes. And the reverse statements are true, too. The idea that all people with opposing religious opinions must be evil, is a delusion of bigoted fundamentalism. Fanatics from all kinds of belief systems make that mistake sometimes.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@cleanhomer

Even if we were facing up against a Great Satan with the knowledge that a perfect world awaits us if it can be slain, that doesn't mean we look for a hero to save us: One of the things we hate about Monotheism is how it fosters the disenfranchising mindset of hopefully looking upwards for salvation, rather than having faith in oneself and taking the courage to combat evil directly. That's why we directly spread anti-theist messages, as fellow citizens discussing politely.

[youtu33time]

@TheShadowOfMars You're correct that waiting for God to do good without taking action yourself is a terrible mindset. The Christians to do take courage and combat evil are motivated by gratitude to Jesus for their own gift of salvation. Evil has a dark spiritual aspect-so we need the assistance of light, a pure, holy spirit to help overcome it. With access to spiritual power from God, we can be more effective in our actions. Thank you for your thoughtful remark, I appreciate you.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@TheShadowOfMars Atheism is dangerous because it puts morality in the hands of government dictators, giving them an excuse to act as gods over other men. That's why it's no surprise to historians that atheistic regimes like Nazi Germany, communist Russia, and Maoist China have been INFINITELY more murders and brutal than anything that came before.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@RealCrusadeHistory

That is a potential danger of atheism. It takes moral authority away from absolute ideals and into the hands of humans; morality becomes politics.

But the results of this vary according to the politics:- Totalitarianism plus atheism leads to the state being an abusive god; Libertarianism plus atheism leads to the free individual being sovereign with inalienable rights; Communalism plus atheism leads to social happiness, peace and love being people's gods.

[TheShadowOfMars]

Hedges is nuts. Monotheism portrays people as naught but means to the end of God's Plan. The New Testament treats the people in posession of The Word (the Judaic nation BC, the Christian nation AD) as a tribe, with Jesus as the rightful King who may oppress individualistic dissidents.

[thethikboy]

Hitchen's is a pretentious ass with one fallacious drone - God doesn't exist because human cultures have mis-used religion. Wow what a revelation. There are no arguments necessary if you don't believe, and none that can reach if you do.

[jermd1990]

@thethikboy

>God doesn't exist because human cultures have mis-used religion.

Straw man.

[destroyah92]

@thethikboy Man's extensive and often violent "miss-use" of religion throughout history has nothing to do with why Hitchens is an atheist. Nice try though. How does one miss use religion, anyway? If miss use is defined simply as not adhering to that particular religion's teachings, then no one alive would hold up to such a demand. However, if we did, the results would be horrifying: homosexuals burned at the stake, children being stoned to death for insubordination, etc.

[thethikboy]

@destroyah92 He spends so much time blustering about religion, and offers nothing logically conclusive otherwise for his atheism, that it functions in a insinunating way as an argument - of course he doesn't state it that way - because, then its fallacy would be laid bare. And agreed the misuse of religion has nothing to do with God. Then why rant about it? What does it prove?

[destroyah92]

@thethikboy Why does everything Hitchens talks about have to do with the reason for his atheism? He's already given his reason numerous times, and in great detail. A quick search through youtube would yield more than enough content to prove this. And although it's impossible for me to get inside his head to see what he's thinking, my assumption is that he spends so much time discussing the miss use of religion because of its incredibly high potential for abuse.

[Aeschylus]

Hedges sounds like an undergraduate.

[hghbunger927]

@Aeschylus

How so?

[arvind13]

that's why the pagan indifference is the best attitude. pagan practices don't revolve around any beliefs in their gods, contrary to popular opinion. there are pagans who believe that their gods exist. there are pagans who don't believe their gods exist. typical pagan attitude: i take part in the rituals regardless of whether the gods exist or not, because these are the traditions of my ancestors. I don't need a REASON to do these practices nor do I need a reason or purpose to exist.

[TheShadowOfMars]

@arvind13

Like.

[arvind13]

being happy is more important than whether X or Y is true of false

[phildirt3]

@arvind13 good point,except peoples religious beliefs enter into political policies and thats scary

[Domzdream]

-If I get told everytime when the coin lands, what's on the winning side, vesus the christian (theist) who has faith (hopes) that it's heads not tails.

I will win every time because I have knowledge, not faith.

Faith by default is idiotic.

[Domzdream]

Anybody who believes in religion via FAITH by definition, to me, is a fool.

I'm sorry but you are. Religious people are fools. Political correctness aside, you have to agree to this, that if you're a believer in a Balrog of hell, you're a deluded fool.

But that's merely belief in winged devils, with hooves and pointed tails. But really the essence of my condemnation of christians is this. Faith.

Faith is always trumped by knowledge.

Let's make an experiment

We flip a coin. Who will win? -

[manonthemount]

its fantastic to see hedges, who is often hailed as a western barometer to middle eastern opinion that reports from western europe, be contrasted by the only journalist who reported the same events from the safety of GROUND ZERO

[NixonisLord]

Hedges' Mainline Churches are, by his own admission, irrelevant and stupid and boring. Why should I get involved in the one set of churches he admires? Why should I run twice as fast to get to the same place? If I can be moral without religion, why bother with religion? If you can paint your house just as well with a brush, why bother with a spray can?

[vicj0r]

I am a skeptic and I think Hitchens is very good here but both these guys agreed that Religious Orthodoxy is the true monster and where Hitchens credits our biological systems as the true arbiter of behavior Hedges at least (cloaked in god talk) acknowledges that the mind has powers to shape actions beyond what we can rationalize as biologically imperative behavior. Hitchens says irrational behavior can only damn us, Hedges says in the right situation (a desperate one) it can save us. Art v Sci

[fusedchromosome]

at 6:34 Hedges says "The problem is not religion. The problem is religious orthodoxy and the form it takes in religious institutions."

The problem is a willingness to justify the acceptance of fairy tales with basically no evidence or critical analysis. So having deep faith, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, is somehow a good thing. He could just as easily be defending "witch hunts." After all, they were the result of "deep" faith.

[fusedchromosome]

at 4:46 Hedges says "... we refuse to deal with the nuances and depth of religious faith."

He's trying to glorify religious faith despite the fact that, considering all the thousands of incompatible gods and religions, virtually all religious faith is nothing more than misguided wishful thinking. Of course that doesn't stop the /deeply faithful/ practitioners of these religions from condemning and/or persecuting everyone else for failing to recognize the one /true/ faith.

[abelincoln5000]

@fusedchromosome While it's true that religion can be intolerant, they can also be immensely charitable and helpful towards society, (e.g.: The Irish Church protecting vast amounts of knowledge through the dark ages). They are a double-edged sword, a reflection of society, and open to manipulation, as are governments.

[fusedchromosome]

@abelincoln5000

"they can also be immensely charitable and helpful towards society"

People can be immensely charitable and helpful towards society, or not, whether they are religious or not.

"a reflection of society"

Now I can agree with you there. Since religions were invented by men, they certainly can (and do) manipulate them. However, if people would apply a little critical analysis to all the unsupported supernatural claims, religions would quickly lose their influence and go extinct.

[iowntwocats]

@fusedchromosome well said sir

[abelincoln5000]

@fusedchromosome There are billions of people in the world who live more happy, full-filled and peaceful lives because they have access to a belief system which makes sense of a sometimes brutal and arbitrary existence. If you were a world traveler like Hedges, maybe you would have encountered some of them. Our best scientists can't explain God. They can't even explain electricity. The mystery is there whether you acknowledge it or not.

[fusedchromosome]

@abelincoln5000

"There are billions of people in the world who live more happy..."

There are also billions of people in the world who have belief systems that are indistinguishable from believing in unicorns and fairies. How does "it makes you happy" factor into the question of whether it's true? Ignorance and wishful-thinking are the birthplace of the gods.

"Our best scientists can't explain God."

If you can explain /gods/ and unicorns, you can explain "God."

[jvaish]

Hedges is a genius. Hitchens only appeals to the emotional self-righteous ego. I have observed that people who worship Hitches are essentially the same folks who are on Fox news and watch evangelists on TV.

[stevensw]

@jvaish Yea that's why Fox News has made mockeries of him, numbnut.

[jvaish]

@stevensw yeah. Nice ad hominem. Classic Hitchens technique. Obviously, I meant the people exhibit the same basic behavioral patterns in the sense they react based on emotion and ideology rather than fact or a true sense of discernment; not that they are the same people literally as on Fox or watch evangelists. Thanks for proving my point, though, with the numbnut comment. Stiimulus ->Anger->reaction.

[abelincoln5000]

@jvaish There seems to be an element of absolutism, intolerance and bullying within the Hitchens supporters. Hedges seems to me to have a more inclusive, peaceful and tolerant viewpoint on life. I vote for him too.

[jvaish]

@abelincoln5000 Agreed :)

[abortfailure7646]

How anyone could view hedges argument as anything but accurate and insightful is a fool and should go read a bit more, make that a lot more. This isn't about truths and falsehoods of Gods and religion, but of humans and the corrupting nature to manipulate movements out of self interest and power systems. The difference between hedges and hitchens is the awareness of the former and the spite of the latter.

[Dgoosh1000]

I cant believe how people can swallow what this absolute trite and fatuouse prick, Hedges, has to say about indivdualism in christianity. It is sick, it is false.

Greeks were much more individual than Christian Europe and indeed Christian America. In fact it is imoral to say that about christianity when the crimes commited against those who were different were of such a magnitude that only a sincere aplology and the dismantaling of all their asssets would give a shred of morallity back to them

[benaberry]

Listening to Hedges is like being in church.

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, TheStevenBlue.

[benmols]

Hedges just sounds like a computer talking. Nobody can match Hitchens oration skills.

[LtColVenom]

It looks quite easy to pile up achievement and contribution on monotheism but the arguments in favor of these statements are missing.

Perhaps monotheism civilised Hedges himself and gave him a personal appreciation for it but it does not necessarily means it improved the whole world.

There's places in the world that had non-monotheistic beliefs for millenia (like china) and were as individualistics and civilised as america long before it was discovered.

[preemptivestrike20]

Hedges is scum.

[wh333t]

@preemptivestrike20 Hedges' argument was more sophisticated, deep, and empathetic than Hitchens, clearly. More disturbing than Hitchens' arrogance and fundamentalism: his supporters. Did you support the war in Iraq too? just wondering

[preemptivestrike20]

@wh333t I don't engage with brain dead fools who watch Russian state sponsored propaganda. I pity you.

[wh333t]

@preemptivestrike20 Nice reply. Deep. I asked you something: did you support the invasion of Iraq too?

[twooffour]

@wh333t

I've got a question - Hitchens is a fundamentalist of what? He appeals to fundamentals of what?

[enticed2zeitgeist]

@twooffour Some call them secular fundamentalists, promoting the cult of science. I see their point. Hitchens, like the Christian fundamentalists, externalizes evil. And once evil is embodied in an external force, eradication or conversion are the only solutions. This is fundamentalism.

The promotion of violence is also endemic to fundamentalism; indeed, Hitchens supported the invasion of Iraq.

Fundamentalism is a mindset. And Hitchens, among other New Atheists, represents that mindset.

[twooffour]

@enticed2zeitgeist

But the definition of a religious fundamentalist isn't necessarily the externalization of evil - it's just the adherence to the "fundamentals" of a given religion, or scripture.

No adaptation to society, no beating around the bush, just serving the scripture as it says, and believing everything it says.

So I'd like to know what kind of teachings or foundations a secularist, or atheist "fundamentalist" is supposed to cling to.

Is there any central dogma to any of it?

[twooffour]

@enticed2zeitgeist

What is "cult of science"? Sure, promoting a view embracing all scientific findings, not just cherrypicking what you like, could be called "fundmentalism", but there's another word for that: rationality.

We don't call actors who adhere to a text in a play "fundamentalists", and neither do we call doctors who don't make up stuff next to adhering to results of papers and evidence fundamentalists.

So how is promoting a view based on science and reason "fundamentalism"?

[twooffour]

@enticed2zeitgeist

Promotion of violence can be done for a vast number of reasons, and isn't the definition of "fundementalism". Promoting violence against dangerous criminals isn't fundamentalism.

I'm not an expert on Iraq, but Hitchens seems to support it because he couldn't support any policy that allowed Hussein to continue his reign.

Misguided or not, I don't see anything "fundamentalist" about his reasons, as I don't see anything "externalizing".

[twooffour]

@enticed2zeitgeist

He doesn't externalize evil to religion (he frequently points out how evil can be done in name of atheistic ideologies, or by atheists in general), he doesn't externalize evil to other countries (frequently criticizes "home-grown" personalities) - so what exactly does he externalize evil to?

By contrast, many Christian or Muslim fundies may think that evil rests in all of us - in fact, one of the meanings of "Jihad" is the inner fight against evil.

If they believe it because

[twooffour]

@enticed2zeitgeist

... their holy book tells them to, they're doing it for fundamentalist reasons. INTERNALIZING EVIL, that is.

"eradication or conversion are the only solutions."

Yes, that's how the law treats violence criminals, btw. Treat them to change their "mindset", or execute / lock up.

Especially in crisis situations - if someone's holding a group of hostages, you either convince them to give in, or find a way to kill them.

If you're talking about religious people, Hitchens...

[twooffour]

@enticed2zeitgeist

... is known for saying repeatedly that he doesn't care about religious people as long as they don't impose their ideas on society.

Yet Hedges seems to think that people of his mindset would start "harming Muslims" in a crisis situation, because they "externalize evil" to religion.

He seems to have a very poor grasp of Hitchens' views, and so do you.

[OdinLowe]

Christopher Hitchens has been my greatest role-model... When he leaves this world my life will be all the more bitter.

[alienmeetworld]

How unimpressive of Chris Hedges, he writes a speech and then reads it. Beautiful language and poetic lyrics cannot hide the true foundation of religion. Religions create gods to explain what they don't understand. God of fire, god of the moon, god of the sun, god of the wind, gods riding chariots across the sky, all things which are laughable with our science based advances in understanding ourselves and universe. Insisting that a god is the answer to what isn't understood is a losing strategy

[spgtenor]

@alienmeetworld - Exactly, how did people not fall asleep during Hedges dissertation? Hitchens also comes prepared with an outline of topics, but he doesn't sound like he''s reading word for word, plus Hitchens is funny. Hedges may be intelligent, but he is simply boring.