This book has been touted as the “answer” to the recent spate of popular books by atheists, particularly Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. Hedges, a journalist with the New York Times, was raised Christian and attended Harvard Divinity School. He has written on religion in the United States previously: Losing Moses on the Freeway was about the Ten Commandments, while American Fascists took as its subject the growing influence of fundamentalist Christianity in the US. If anyone can marshal the arguments to rebut the popular atheist works, surely Hedges can.
Unfortunately (for him), however, Hedges can’t. His command of logical fallacies is impressive, but his favourite is clearly the straw man. In fact, this book contains so many straw men it should come with a warning to keep it away from open flames. Hedges opens by making it clear that he is not attacking all atheists – just those he calls “fundamentalist atheists.” To make it clear that his attack is not only against atheists, he also attacks the “fundamentalist mindset” among the religious as well – so often, in fact, that one begins to wonder whether he did not invent the “fundamentalist atheist” just so that he could trot out his old arguments from American Fascists and get another book out of them.
A “fundamentalist atheist”, according to Hedges, promote “a rival religion that … ignores human nature, is chauvinistic and intolerant, and speaks in jingoistic cant.” These atheists
Hedges’ biggest problem with atheists is that they, according to him, are children of the Enlightenment and therefore see humanity as generally progressing, getting more moral and less belligerent. Atheists put forth the idea that this progression will lead to paradise on Earth, where everyone is rational and happy. Wait a minute, says Hedges, that’s not how I see it. People are generally nasty to one another, not moral, and there are all kinds of bad things coming, from nuclear annihilation (he doesn’t seem to think we can avoid it) to ecological disaster (ditto) to terrorism (all the fault of the US, apparently). His view is probably more informed by his career as a reporter who has gone to numerous war zones, from Central America to the Balkans to the Middle East, and he probably has seen atrocities that most of us wouldn’t want to believe. However, he fails to address the numerous areas in which humanity has inarguably progressed and is continuing to progress: the abolition of slavery in most of the world, the gradual move towards equality of the sexes, races and creeds, the improvement in the treatment of women and children, and the spread of human rights and freedoms. He also fails to back up most of his claims about what atheists say, simply asserting that they say what he thinks they say. When he does quote from Dawkins or Harris, he takes sections out of context and twists their meanings. For instance, when he quotes Dawkins on the improvement in human morality since biblical times, he takes Dawkins to be saying that human progress is inevitable, irreversible and constant, even while quoting the section of The God Delusion that refers to “the advance [as] not a smooth incline but a meandering sawtooth.”
From this general observation made by Dawkins, that things are getting generally and gradually better in the way people treat one another, Hedges claims that atheists “alone (they think) understand how to bring about collective salvation and redeem the human race.” He never says what it is that humanity needs to be saved from (unless it is just our nasty nature), or what it means to be “redeemed.” This seems to be a common thread among those believers (especially Christian) who would attack atheists and atheism: they take for granted that humans need to be saved from something. Such an assumption, of course, is very convenient for them, as they can then trot out Jesus Christ as the Saviour who gave his life for us, etc., etc. However, the atheist answer is simple: saved from what? Hedges never tells us.
Another thing Hedges never does is to address the central question raised by atheism: does God, or do gods, exist? In a chapter titled, ironically enough, “The God Debate”, Hedges says “The question is not whether God exists.” This would come as a surprise to most atheists when discussing atheism! In fact, one could plausibly argue, on the basis of what Hedges has written in this book, that he is actually an atheist: “The concept of God, even within the same religious tradition, mutates as human societies change. … There is no immutable concept contained in the word God, ‘instead the word contains a whole spectrum of meanings, some of which are contradictory or even mutually exclusive.’” Hedges asks the “new atheists” which God it is that they attack: “Is it the God of the mystics, the followers of the Social Gospel, the eighteenth-century deists, the Quakers, the liberation theologians or the stern God of the patriarchs?” The answer, of course, is that an atheist sees no reason to believe in any of them; they are all on an equal footing, with no evidence for their existence. Hedges never tells us, though, which of these Gods he is trying to defend. In fact, he isn’t really defending God at all; he is defending religion, which he claims “points humans toward inquiry [and] seeks to unfetter the mind from prejudices that blunt reflection and self-criticism.” An astounding claim for which Hedges offers not one iota of evidence.
At less than 200 pages (not counting footnotes, bibliography and index), this is not a long book, but even so it contains much padding. A long discursion into the morality of American foreign policy in the Middle East and another into the dumbing-down of American society have nothing at all to do with atheists or atheism (except, perhaps, that Christopher Hitchens has supported the war in Iraq and Sam Harris has made pronouncements about Islam and the war on terror – as though their positions come from their atheism and are binding on all atheists!). Hedges’ credibility is not helped by simple factual errors, such as referring to the date of the bombing of Hiroshima as April 6, 1945, nor by his simplistic approach to such complex issues as whether that bombing was justifiable: in one paragraph, he refers to it as “not part of the cost of war” and “morally indefensible”, sweeping away all debate over whether it was preferable to an invasion of Japan or whether any other realistic options were available.
There may yet be a well-written, thoughtful defense of faith with which to answer Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. This isn’t it.
<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=thejamesrandi-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=141656795X&fc1=000000&IS2=1<1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=CD0635&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Unfortunately (for him), however, Hedges can’t. His command of logical fallacies is impressive, but his favourite is clearly the straw man. In fact, this book contains so many straw men it should come with a warning to keep it away from open flames. Hedges opens by making it clear that he is not attacking all atheists – just those he calls “fundamentalist atheists.” To make it clear that his attack is not only against atheists, he also attacks the “fundamentalist mindset” among the religious as well – so often, in fact, that one begins to wonder whether he did not invent the “fundamentalist atheist” just so that he could trot out his old arguments from American Fascists and get another book out of them.
A “fundamentalist atheist”, according to Hedges, promote “a rival religion that … ignores human nature, is chauvinistic and intolerant, and speaks in jingoistic cant.” These atheists
Anyone who has read Dawkins, Dennett or Harris would see these straw men for what they are. Hedges’ presumable intended audience, that great soft middle of the population who like their religion weak and weekly and who have heard of the “Four Horsemen” but don’t read anything deeper than the latest potboiler, though, would eat this up.perpetuate their belief systems with fear, fear of the other who seeks to destroy us and our way of life. They go into excruciating detail when speaking about the danger posed by their enemies, but slip into a dreamy vagueness when they attempt to describe their new heaven and new Earth. … Would it be a deathless life? Would we be eternally young? Would we live in monochromatic and stifling harmony? Would we all be alike in our desires and our needs? Would human suffering come to an end?
Hedges’ biggest problem with atheists is that they, according to him, are children of the Enlightenment and therefore see humanity as generally progressing, getting more moral and less belligerent. Atheists put forth the idea that this progression will lead to paradise on Earth, where everyone is rational and happy. Wait a minute, says Hedges, that’s not how I see it. People are generally nasty to one another, not moral, and there are all kinds of bad things coming, from nuclear annihilation (he doesn’t seem to think we can avoid it) to ecological disaster (ditto) to terrorism (all the fault of the US, apparently). His view is probably more informed by his career as a reporter who has gone to numerous war zones, from Central America to the Balkans to the Middle East, and he probably has seen atrocities that most of us wouldn’t want to believe. However, he fails to address the numerous areas in which humanity has inarguably progressed and is continuing to progress: the abolition of slavery in most of the world, the gradual move towards equality of the sexes, races and creeds, the improvement in the treatment of women and children, and the spread of human rights and freedoms. He also fails to back up most of his claims about what atheists say, simply asserting that they say what he thinks they say. When he does quote from Dawkins or Harris, he takes sections out of context and twists their meanings. For instance, when he quotes Dawkins on the improvement in human morality since biblical times, he takes Dawkins to be saying that human progress is inevitable, irreversible and constant, even while quoting the section of The God Delusion that refers to “the advance [as] not a smooth incline but a meandering sawtooth.”
From this general observation made by Dawkins, that things are getting generally and gradually better in the way people treat one another, Hedges claims that atheists “alone (they think) understand how to bring about collective salvation and redeem the human race.” He never says what it is that humanity needs to be saved from (unless it is just our nasty nature), or what it means to be “redeemed.” This seems to be a common thread among those believers (especially Christian) who would attack atheists and atheism: they take for granted that humans need to be saved from something. Such an assumption, of course, is very convenient for them, as they can then trot out Jesus Christ as the Saviour who gave his life for us, etc., etc. However, the atheist answer is simple: saved from what? Hedges never tells us.
Another thing Hedges never does is to address the central question raised by atheism: does God, or do gods, exist? In a chapter titled, ironically enough, “The God Debate”, Hedges says “The question is not whether God exists.” This would come as a surprise to most atheists when discussing atheism! In fact, one could plausibly argue, on the basis of what Hedges has written in this book, that he is actually an atheist: “The concept of God, even within the same religious tradition, mutates as human societies change. … There is no immutable concept contained in the word God, ‘instead the word contains a whole spectrum of meanings, some of which are contradictory or even mutually exclusive.’” Hedges asks the “new atheists” which God it is that they attack: “Is it the God of the mystics, the followers of the Social Gospel, the eighteenth-century deists, the Quakers, the liberation theologians or the stern God of the patriarchs?” The answer, of course, is that an atheist sees no reason to believe in any of them; they are all on an equal footing, with no evidence for their existence. Hedges never tells us, though, which of these Gods he is trying to defend. In fact, he isn’t really defending God at all; he is defending religion, which he claims “points humans toward inquiry [and] seeks to unfetter the mind from prejudices that blunt reflection and self-criticism.” An astounding claim for which Hedges offers not one iota of evidence.
At less than 200 pages (not counting footnotes, bibliography and index), this is not a long book, but even so it contains much padding. A long discursion into the morality of American foreign policy in the Middle East and another into the dumbing-down of American society have nothing at all to do with atheists or atheism (except, perhaps, that Christopher Hitchens has supported the war in Iraq and Sam Harris has made pronouncements about Islam and the war on terror – as though their positions come from their atheism and are binding on all atheists!). Hedges’ credibility is not helped by simple factual errors, such as referring to the date of the bombing of Hiroshima as April 6, 1945, nor by his simplistic approach to such complex issues as whether that bombing was justifiable: in one paragraph, he refers to it as “not part of the cost of war” and “morally indefensible”, sweeping away all debate over whether it was preferable to an invasion of Japan or whether any other realistic options were available.
There may yet be a well-written, thoughtful defense of faith with which to answer Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. This isn’t it.
<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=thejamesrandi-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=141656795X&fc1=000000&IS2=1<1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=CD0635&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Last edited by a moderator:
