The Hour:Chris Hedges on Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris

You be the judge. IS HE RIGHT OR IS HE WRONG.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Chris
• Hedges
• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Sam
• Harris
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Atheism
• Islam
• Religion
• Christianity
• CBC
• The
• Hour

[VigEuth]

At 4:00 Hedges speaks as if Darwin's writings are somehow the evolutionary bible for atheists, noting that Darwin never said that humans evolved morally. WHAT? Of course we've evolved morally. Otherwise we wouldn't have thrived as an intelligence species which rose to our current population. This was occasionally even aided by religion. The beauty of being modern humans is our ability to defy "instincts" and "tradition" and to achieve a more just society, something religion currently bulwarks.

[Mattlzpf]

Man, he hits the nail on the head! "The cult of science" --great!

[ashburnhouse]

Relativists, you just can't beat em.

[mystech]

@VigEuth Exactly. His misrepresentation, specifically of Harris' view of the role of science in ethics and building a better morality is outrageous. The claim that Harris/Hitchens/Dawkins see ethics as some linear road of advancement like evolution is so wrong I don't know where to start, but it is quite telling that he doesn't even seem to realize that this isn't even a good descriptor of biological evolution to begin with.

[devourerofbabies]

I'm a little disappointed in Hedges here. He accused Dawkins of saying that evolutionary biology can be used as a model towards the evolution of human morality. This is not true. Dawkins has constantly railed against that idea, as it is a common charge from evangelicals, i.e. that an atheist must use "survival of the fittest" as a template for morality. Dawkins has repeatedly said that trying to use evolution as a template for morality is "trying to derive an ought from an is".

[bayreuth79]

@MitchStarRepublic Christopher Hitchens referred to William Lane Craig as being "Very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable". It is interesting that in the light of this comment (and other comments by Sam Harris etc) that Dawkins is giving us some absurd rhetoric about Lane Craig being some bumbling idiot unworthy of deabte! A Grayling even lied about having debated Lane Craig previously. Intellectual honesty? Or is Dawkins more interested in book sales??

[bayreuth79]

@MitchStarRepublic I'm afriad that it is Richard Dawkins who is running scared of William Lane Craig. It is interesting that both Hitchens and Harris have stated in the past that William Lane Craig is a particularly tough opponent; and after Dawkins' humilitating experiences debating John Lennox, Dawkins is trying to evade another humiliating debate againt an even tougher opponent.

[bayreuth79]

@MitchStarRepublic I was referring to engaging with the work of Thomas Aquinas and Paul Tillich rather than the men themselves because both of them are of course dead. I notice that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris never refer to the great defenders of classical theism. There is one exception to this: Dawkins mentions the "Five Ways" of Aquinas in "The God Delusion". However, as Fr Brian Davies OP (an Aquinas specialist) has pointed out, Dawkins completely fails to understand the "Five Ways".

[MitchStarRepublic]

@bayreuth79 How are they supposed to engage the dead guys you mention? They have been willing to have debates with nearly any taker, so maybe your "DEEP THINKERS" with a pulse are just scared.

[MitchStarRepublic]

@RPenta I have read Harris and the supposed call for a first strike. ABSURD. That anyone with a modicum of reason could come to such a conclusion after what is so clearly written is beyond understanding. Hedges hates that he isn't the smartest guy in the room, which happens to him a lot I suspect, he just rarely as in this situation, realizes it.

[RPenta]

@MitchStarRepublic Harris is very dishonest about his writings on this issue-and his mark fans give him a pass-he sets up a hypothetical on false premises (both historical and present day) that invite the reader to draw the conclusion we should be ready to nuke the rag heads. . . .I mean Islamofascists. . .I mean radical Moslems. 

[RPenta]

@charlesvan13 Asshole, that was 10+before the 911 attacks-even Yellow Back Bush did not not use this to justify war-nor did the Congress rely upon that.

The vast majority of Iraqis that we have info on did not want the occupation of their country.