About this title: The bestselling author of "The New Fascists" speaks out against religious and secular fundamentalism as he explores the New Atheists: those who attack religion to advance their causes.
Note: This is a general synopsis. Each listing is described below.
Binding: Paperback
Publisher: Free Press
Date Published: 2009-03-10
ISBN-13:9781416570783ISBN:1416570780
Description: Like New. May be shiny, in some instances dust jackets are not included, no missing pages, no damage to binding, may have a remainder mark. read more
Description: Good. 2009-Paperback----Used-Good-Hall Street Books proudly ships from Brooklyn, NY. All orders are processed and shipped within 24 hours, M-F. 100% money back No-Worry guarantee with expedited delivery and delivery confirmation available. read more
Description: New. 1416570780 New from the publisher-has remainder mark. Ships within 1 business day. Your 100% satisfaction is our guarantee! read more
Binding: Paperback
Publisher: Free Press
Date Published: 2009-03-10
ISBN-13:9781416570783ISBN:1416570780
Description: Like New. Never Owned Or Read! May Have Light Shelf Wear And Or Publisher Mark. NEW CONDITION OTHER THAN PUBLISHERS REMAINDER MARK! read more
"After the first hour of reading Chris Hedges' I Don't Believe in Atheists, my animus toward the new and very popular "fundamentalist" atheists was sated. Like Chris, I have as much disdain for these pompous ignoramuses as I do for narrow religious fundamentalists. Any wrongheaded and stubborn opinion rooted in ignorance ought to repulse us.
Pop atheists predictably erect a straw man of religion based on the worst and least knowledgeable of the faithful, whereas many religious fundamentalists, with negligible education crib together a world view that barely disguises its fairy tale, mythic in the worst sense of the word, substructure. After that first hour I was left with a desperate question, "Where on God's green earth did reasonable dialogue disappear to? Has our species not evolved from survival of the loudest and most aggressive to the truly fittest, those who listen and cooperate?"
Sadly, reviewing my first paragraph, I detect the same savagery. Chris kept his eloquent rant going for around five hours in audiobook form. In addition to the book are the interview versions of the message, full of the same steam and silver-tongued expression. It seems that the most articulate of believers and unbelievers preach at one another rather than sharpen and refine their views from the steel of their opponents convictions. If religion or philosophy, evolutionary or otherwise are to metamorphose, mutual understanding and appreciation must be mixed with conviction and desire to deepen. The rhetorical thermostat must be turned down. Not of course into the frigid zone; you do need enough heat to keep things moving, otherwise dialogue descends to icy lecturing.
To keep the rationality and momentum alive in our discussions, I suggest as a prologue to our world-view debates, an adult compact to learn from one another, a selection of the most sterling examples of our opposition's proponents and, after a thorough engagement of the issues, an openness to change our minds even if incrementally.
The question of the effect of religion or ideology on human flourishing is undoubtedly crucial. Asking the foundational questions of approach will include an understanding of culture, psychology, and the precarious relation between ideation and the physical world. I wonder who would be the best participants in this debate. Certainly not Robert Dawkins and Pat Robertson! My nominees could include on the religious side Huston Smith and Jurgen Moltmann, the opposition might be well served by well selected convictional and knowledgeable, but friendly or at least humanistic atheists or agnostics in the Stephen Jay Gould tradition. In addition to the professional academes, a panel of regular believers from both camps could be well moderated referees to keep the sides honest and accessible.
As for the focus of content, emphasis on the tautologies of the belief systems could be left aside for issues of practical relevance. I would wonder if the participants should reopen the revelation and reason debate or, if we as apparent post-moderns consider ourselves beyond that, perhaps we could discuss the possibility and feasibility of meaningful dialogue. The place of ideas in the causation of war would unquestionably be high on the agenda as would be ecology.
My imaginary symposium might end with expression of where we were genuinely enlightened or challenged by one another and where we can't understand or accept our opponents' viewpoint. This imaginary exercise has lowered the temperature of the debate, perhaps my blood pressure too, and at least suggested an exciting and courageous approach toward those whom I disagree. Very few of the modern dialogue partners in the press hold out much along this line and many of us on all sides await such a context beyond tabloid academics."
"hedges immediately does something in his book that drives me nuts he makes a claim and then does not cite an example to back up his claim. criticism of science based atheism does have its value to society. but to not cite or back up your claims is counter intuitive to argumentation. how can anyone question what you state to be the truth if you do not give them any recourse to do so. he makes wonderful points about the value of art in a society but then equates these valuable properties with religion. this is not logical argumentation it reminds me too much of the brainwashed he is critical of for ruining society."
"My circle includes atheists and some who believe in a higher power. I value the diversity of opinions in my group. But fundamentalist atheists don't want that diversity. Like fundamentalists of all stripes, they believe in a utopia that would be created if only everyone would just listen to their reasoning and run the world their way - dismissing those with contradictory opinions. It is that notion of dismissal that should scare us all.
Chris Hedges exposes the common threads of this (my pun intended) "holier-than-thou" approach to the world. It's when we claim to know the answer and suggest that everyone else should adopt that answer that we have fallen prey to utopian ideals, which have historically led to dictatorial regimes, even genocide. If you study the genocides of the 20th century (see Samantha Power), you find that they weren't all holy wars. Some of these brutal leaderships were based on atheist premises. (Read Francois Bizot's book The Gate for an intriguing conversation between a non-religious Westerner and Comrade Duch, a Cambodian Communist, in which Bizot asks why Duch's anti-religion group, the Khmer Rouge, mirrors so many of the local Buddhist rituals.)
Some reviewers have said that Hedges did not back up his accusations of Christopher Hitchens and others with quotations. That may be true. Hedges' critiques of known atheists were not the reason for my reading the book, and said atheists are not that familiar to me. It's been a year since I read the book and rather than go find it to do my own research, I'll say this: the value of Hedges' book lies in the idea that fundamentalism does not require religion."
"This book was rubbish. It was nothing but an opportunity for the author to air out some personal grievances he has with a couple of prominent atheists he happened to debate.
His main argument is that atheists are similar to Abrahamic fundamentalists in that they --
1. Use their belief in Utopia to justify all manners of violent atrocities. 2. Are inherently racist towards Muslims. 3. Are unwilling to entertain opinions and viewpoints that differ from their own.
I read about half of the book before I was overwhelmed by how much it all smacks of personal, petty vendetta.
L'Anthony summarizes it thusly:
"This is a transparent, ultra-personal mishmash of ad hominem attacks. Saying that "the new atheism" is bad because some new atheists are racists is like saying that football is bad because some players are bad students.""
We guarantee every item's condition, as described on Alibris. If you are not satisfied that an item is as described, return your purchase for a refund.
rating
