A few days ago, a peer of mine commented on how it is “stupid” that someone can “murder without going to jail if they’re crazy”. They were referring, of course, to Vincent Weiguang Li, a man held not criminally responsible for committing murder by reason of mental disorder.1 I greatly respect my peer but cannot help but judge that style of thinking on the issue as provincial and narrow-minded.
This habit of thought is not limited to my peer, however. A casual stroll across Facebook will reveal similar, but more extreme, attitudes.2 Because people are not always serious on social networking sites, I will ignore some of these more fervent requests. Rather, I will try to deconstruct and constructively criticize the much more mainstream mentality when it comes to Vincent Li’s responsibility for the killing of Tim McLean.
The murder was tragic and the details detestably gruesome.3 It was unbearably tragic for McLean’s family. To not feel overwhelmed with passion and anger at such a horrific cruelty one would have to be a sociopath. I know that I would feel quite similar to McLean’s mother and father after such a heinous act. I would not desire the cause of death, a being who would become an abstraction of evil in my mind, to live the rest of his days in an asylum or medicated on the streets. Such a reification of evil, no longer an idiosyncratic or nuanced individual, but the pure symbol of McLean’s death would sicken me. 4
But in such a state of pure, and perfectly human, longing for vengeance, I would not be fit make impartial moral or judicial pronouncements. As heartless as it may appear, much more detached third parties are necessary to make a more dispassionate assessment regarding responsibility and appropriate recourse.
Should Vincent Li be held criminally responsible for the death of Tim McLean? “Criminal responsibility” is a concept constructed around the idea that we are dealing people in a more or less coherent frame of mind. That is people with at least partial rationality.5 This legal construct is sometimes modified when dealing with environmentally caused (as opposed to hereditarily caused) impairment which are self-induced (intoxication brought on by excessive alcohol consumption). 6 7
But is criminal responsibility nullified by mental disorder? As importantly, is Vincent Li morally responsible for McLean’s death if his mind lacks coherence, as is characteristic with schizophrenia?
One method of analysis is to equate moral responsibility with causal responsibility. Vincent Li killed McLean, it is true. It was ultimately the inter-neuronal impulses in his brain which were transmitted to the motor neurons which physically caused Li’s extremities to appallingly kill McLean. No other physical entity so directly or immediately caused Tim McLean’s death.
Carol deDelley (McLean’s mother) has established the “deDelley Foundation for Life” 8 under the premise causal responsibility entails moral responsibility.
“‘Whether you have mental challenges or not, your actions, you need to be accountable for,’ deDelley said during a phone interview. ‘To have no criminal record afterwards really negates the fact that my son ever had a life.’” – Carol deDelley 9
“He still did it. Whether he was in his right frame of mind or not, he still did the act. There was nobody else on that bus, holding a knife, slicing up my child.”- Carol deDelley 10
Carol deDelley is undeniably correct in one point: there was no physiological entity aside from Vincent Li’s body causing McLean’s death. But, in his present state, should McLean be regarded as a rational agent who, in a more coherent state afterwards with a much more chemically balanced brain11, could be held responsible for barbaric acts committed when he was in a more coherent state. Is he even the same person or the same agent when in such a different state?
For all practical, legal, and moral purposes, we should differentiate Li as a physiological entity versus a person.12 Personhood is abstracted from the numerous mental processes occurring simultaneously within a brain. Personhood implies a given coherence to these processes which I would say is not found when a person is suffering from psychotic delusions. Their personhood, at that point, collapses as does their moral responsibility. The same physical medium13, a brain, can generate a series of mental processes that would entail personhood later. Li can, if his mental state is revised through medical and psychiatric help, regain personhood.
My (admittedly technical) response to the claim that Li should be guilty as he caused McLean’s death ultimately rests on this: when under severe hallucinations Li is fundamentally different. He is no longer a (partially) rational agent. This is the purpose of the mental disorder defence.14 It absolves of responsibility those who are not in a state of mind which constitutes personhood as they commit the crime.
The peer of mine found it stupid that Li was absolved of criminal responsibility simply because he heard (his own) voices15, which he identified as God’s, telling him to kill McLean. The self-awareness of Li as he committed the act is something I am unsure of. Which parts of his mind were operating and how much self-monitoring or self-awareness occurred? I am not sure of these questions and do not know the neuropsychologists who could give me an answer.16
What I am aware of is that Vincent Li was experiencing states of psychosis and hallucination, which disordered his mind. It is easy when we are in a sound mental state to assume that someone can easily disregard ubiquitous voices, coming from an authority as revered (at least by any believer) as God.17 The problem is that someone who lacks the self-awareness and mental self-monitoring to realize the voices they hear are in a state where they have substantially less self-control. They cannot veto more heinous ideas as easily as someone in a coherent state of mind has the luxury of doing.19
Vincent Li’s schizophrenia and psychosis are not some minor nuisances, which can easily be suppressed with diligent self-control. His mental disorders have severely affected his behaviour and his commitment to what he misidentifies as “God” is quite evident. He brought himself to follow the sun for hours on “God’s” command, an obsessive habit that caused him to be hospitalized.20
The point I am labouring here is that schizophrenia is much more nuanced than my peer or many others would point out. The disorder is difficult to suppress and ignore, it dissolves the rational coherence and agency of an individual, and absolves one of moral responsibility.
Now we come to the issue of who’s at fault. Did McLean “not ever have a life” by the law’s perspective if Vincent Li is absolved of moral responsibility for his death?
In one sense, fault can be assigned to an abstraction. Vincent Li’s manifestation of psychotic schizophrenia is to blame. Under this model, the only proper retribution is to eliminate the schizophrenia. That is another way of saying to medicate and counsel Li into rationality and beyond his psychotic schizophrenia.
But this recourse may very well be too intangible for most. A specific person is not punished, only a temporary manifestation of a dysfunctional mental state. Blaming relatively persistent and rational agents is much more traditional. At best I could see certain situations and institutions as (partially) responsible for this calamity. The system which allowed Li to fall through the cracks or insufficient Greyhound security is to blame here.
Ultimately, though, this incident was a random and largely meaningless tragedy. There is no tangible narrative we may derive from it. There is no one to really blame. It is as disorderly as Li’s mind was during the barbaric killing. Ultimately, cruel chance is all we can blame in this case.
ENDNOTES
1.The mental disorder in Li’s case is schizophrenia.
2.The 9,101 strong “Death Penalty For Vince Weiguang Li” being a particularly vociferous and somewhat frightening instance (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=28038647493). “Death Penalty For Vince Weiguang Li” had to disclaim members from directing personal death threats against Li because of liability issues (impersonal death threats, that is advocacy of drastic reform to the criminal justice system, is happily permitted, though). More disturbing and indicative of the “two wrongs make a right” vengeance mentality is the thirteen strong (as of Mar. 15, 2009) “Let's Decapitate Vince Weiguang Li!!!” (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=b653c8b024d32775301009a42f8aef63&gid=26548761363).
3. While I will not restate them here, the uninformed on this matter may find such details in “Please kill me, accused pleads” written by Joe Friesen on August 5, 2008 for the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080805.wbus06/BNStory/National/home).
4.Vincent Li’s status as a symbol of evil, rather than an individual, is nicely attested to by a witness of the murder’s account. "I don't know what I'd do if I ever saw him [Vincent Li] again, because he's just such a scarring image on my mind, that even seeing an image in the paper hurts." (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Health/Beheader+criminally+responsible/1356476/story.html)
5.I refer to “partial rationality” as all humans make many non-rational and sometimes grossly irrational decisions. Any study of cognitive neuroscience or Public Relations and advertising would surely confirm this. Instances of this can be found at http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/01/psychology-of-bias-why-republicans-win.html and Adam Curtis’s “The Century of the Self” (2002).
6.The rationale for this omission is that actions initiated when a person was in a partially rational frame of mind which afterwards lead to situations which cause criminal violence by an irrational individual are ultimately that more or less rational individual’s responsibility. This omission works as most individuals of fiery temperament should be informed enough to realize how their actions will be impaired in fiery situations if they intoxicate themselves. As for whether other, less obvious, self-induced environmentally factors (lets say prolonged dim lighting turns out to be correlated with severe aggression but few know), that is open for question.
7.This is a bit more nuanced, I admit. Whether a defendant’s mental state was altered by intoxication sometimes comes into play, with the “Intoxication Defence”. The Canadian Encyclopedia gives sufficient background on this (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0010725).
8.Hitchen, Ian. “Bus victim's mom to speak at vigil” (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/bus_victims_mom_to_speak_at_vigil-40343952.html). Winnipeg Free Press. February 26, 2009.
9.Hitchen, Ian. “Bus victim's mom to speak at vigil” (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/bus_victims_mom_to_speak_at_vigil-40343952.html). Winnipeg Free Press. February 26, 2009.
10.http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Health/Beheader+criminally+responsible/1356476/story.html
11.As precipitated by the counseling and medications he will receive under psychiatric care.
12.This differentiation is somewhat akin to Daniel Dennett’s “intentional stance”. When analyzing complex systems (like human beings) he finds it useful to distinguish between the physical stance (level of physics and chemistry), design stance(level described aptly by biology), and intentional stance(in which we attribute abstract notions like “beliefs” or “desires” to abstract entities like “rational agents” (persons). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance
13.Here I am treating the brain as a physical medium or machine and the mind as the operations it performs. Personhood is regarded as the sum total of these operations.
14. I should grant that not all “mental disorders” or variations in mental functioning should excuse one from moral and criminal responsibility. Only when the rational coherence of a mind is inhibited should a disorder exempt one from responsibility. William Cottrell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cottrell), for instance, conspired to commit eco-terrorism. Once arrested, his defence lawyers attempted to absolve him of responsibility because he had “Asperger syndrome”. The lawyers entailed Asperger syndrome made “knowing right from wrong and understanding consequences difficult”. This is not an acceptable defence, as many with Asperger’s have superior moral development compared to the statistically average individual (especially pertaining to social justice). See Tony Attwood’s “The Complete Guide to Asperger’s Syndrome” page 40 for details. In general, a condition like Asperger’s or High Functioning Autism should not absolve one from responsibility given that the mind frame of someone with the condition tends to be just as, if not more, rationally coherent as the statistically average individual’s.
15.Schizophrenia is a condition in which the sufferer mistakes their own internal monologue for external voices. Page 250, note 7 in Daniel Dennett’s Consciousness Explained (1991).
16. The psychiatrist Yaren is open to the possibility that Li was not self-aware of the act. Expressed in vernacular, Yaren said "It may be he's blocked it [aspects of the killing] from his consciousness . . . that it's just too awful for him to contemplate,".
17.Vincent Li was going through a psychotic episode where he heard “God” (some component of his mind) telling him to kill the evil doer. How self-aware or coherent he was as he (unwittingly) followed his own advice is unknown. My educated guess is that he was rather impaired. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Health/Beheader+criminally+responsible/1356476/story.html
18.This may be technically incorrect. Schizophrenics are actually so self-awarethat they mistake their own internal mental processes (themselves) for objects and actions in the external world. This is what an article, “Schizophrenia, Consciousness, and the Self”, by Louis A. Sass, PH.D. and Josef Parnas, M.D. and published in the Schizophrenia bulletin indicates (abstract present at http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/427 ). One should note, however, that the result is the same. Their self-awareness is functionally impaired if they mistake awareness of the self for awareness of the external world. I will continue to use “reduced self-awareness” when describing schizophrenics, simply because their self-awareness is impaired by mistaking it for the external world.
19.Not to say that it is utterly impossible. Schizophrenia varies between individual cases. Most with the disorder are more likely to harm themselves rather than others(which still evidences the impaired self-control and self-awareness that accompanies the disorder). http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0010555 John Forbes Nash, a brilliant mathematician, for instance, managed to train himself to ignore the internal voices and think rationally. http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/reality/brilliant_madness/index.shtml Sadly, not all schizophrenics are highly talented mathematicians with hyper-developed occupational rationality that is transferable elsewhere. Let’s not also forget that it took Nash years to overcome his schizophrenic auditory hallucinations.
20.http://www.thestar.com/article/595800
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Book Review: “I Don’t Believe in Atheists”
Christopher Hedges, a rather nuanced intellectual and senior fellow of The Nation Institute1, wrote a 2008 book entitled “I Don’t Believe in Atheists”. A liberal Christian very open and respectful to other modes of thought2, Hedges does not have a problem with atheism or atheists per se3. But he does take issue with what he considers to be the moralistic, scientistic, and culturally chauvinistic aspects of “New Atheist” literature, which he considers a mirror image of the fundamentalist Christianity4.
By “New Atheist” literature I am referring to the successful series of popular atheism books published by the Richard Dawkins5, Sam Harris6, Christopher Hitchens7, and Daniel Dennett8 from 2006-2007. Later, Victor Stenger9 and John Allen Paulos10 joined the flood of literature, though I am certain Hedges was not thinking of them when he wrote his critique of “New Atheism”. To an extent, it is even debatable as to whether Hedges critiques apply to Dennett or Dawkins, as he exhausts so much more of his energy and many more words on Harris and Hitchens than he does for Dennett or Dawkins.
Before continuing my review, I must admit I have not read Dawkins, Harris’s, Hitchens, or Dennett’s “New Atheism” books. I read parts of The God Delusion and God is not Great, but have yet to commit myself to the books. I own and am in the process of reading Breaking the Spell. So my judgement on Hedges accuracy when it comes to his evaluation of “New Atheist” ideas and arguments will be rather indirect, based at best on arguments I heard the authors proffer elsewhere.
Hedges paints his outlook as one defined by humility. Humanity, he claims, is beyond perfectibility. Vices and evils are not something external, possessed by others less righteous than we, but rather are inherent in all of us and may be unleashed in any individual if the proper societal restraints (against cruelty or impulsive killing) break down (as they do in war zones11). Perhaps most succinctly would be Hedges own words:
“We have nothing to fear from those who don not believe in god. We have everything to fear from those who do not believe in sin.”
Hedges further paints himself as being of an independent mind. He admits that all religious believers selectively pick and choose texts which nicely correspond with their own values, be it the fundamentalists who ignore the themes of economic justice in the Bible or the liberal Presbyterian Church he grew up in, which ignored the homophobic passages from the Bible. In this piece of description he admits that such practices by organized religion have given him distaste for the Church, which is why he no longer attends its services12.
Hedges clearly belongs to the intellectual fold and mindset. He greatly values critical thought and distrusts utopian systems13 which oversimplify human nature and assume the perfectibility of humankind. This makes him a skeptic of ideologies, be they secular or religious. His sophisticated style of prose, multifaceted thinking, and exaltation of critical thought all indicate his status as a member of the intelligentsia. 14
“New Atheist” literature represents a response to fundamentalism many have waited for. But Hedges proclaims that the “New Atheists” display the same flaws as the fundamentalists. One such flaw is an attempt to “externalize” evil. As he sees it, the “New Atheists” view evil not as something everyone struggles with, including them, but as a vice embodied in the unreasoning masses of the devout. The “New Atheists” hence attempt to elevate themselves above the unreasonable believers, demonizing the faithful in the process. Most troubling, according to Hedges, is how the “New Atheists” demonize Muslims and the Arab world in particular.
Hedges, quite rightly, points out passages from Harris’s “The End of Faith” claiming pre-emptive nuclear war with the Muslim world may be the only option to dealing with people so “fanatical” and “beyond reason” in addition to passages espousing torture and the Iraq War. Hedges likewise critiques Christopher Hitchens’s own hypercriticism (boarding on Islamophobia) of the Muslim world and apologetics for the Iraq War. From this he extrapolates that the “New Atheists” have a culturally chauvinistic mindset, incapable of appreciating the fact that the good of present day society is not purely a result of noble Western innovation, but combines the good from all cultures of the world, including those of the Arab World15. Likewise, the vice of present day, global society combines the bad of all cultures.
This cartoonish caricature of the Muslim world along with general oversimplification of complex issues makes “New Atheism” fundamentalist in Hedges mind. The “New Atheists” are not willing learn about complex and different cultures (the various Muslim nations) with likewise complicated issues and nuances. Their simplistic message, he furthers, makes the “New Atheists” representative of the worst elements of the middle class: sympathy towards imperialism and morally self-exaltation.
The “New Atheists” believe, according to Hedges, in a “cult of science”16, which is not actual science. They crudely overextend sciences, especially evolutionary biology, into areas it was never meant for, like the study of political, sociological, or psychological phenomena17. They even try to reduce complex ideas and intellectual discourse into a gene-like analogy (memetics)18, taking away the substance of robust discourse. Hedges concludes by noting how absolutist, dogmatic, and oversimplifying scientism is, for in science as opposed to the humanities there are only sole right answers. The “New Atheists” are trying to eliminate dissent and nuance from intellectual thought, so the argument goes.
There are ironies with Hedges book. His criticism, in interviews at least19, of the “New Atheists”, is how they lump disparate religious traditions or societies together20, yet Hedges himself seems indifferent to the variations of the “New Atheists”. Despite trying to paint the “New Atheists” as a unified and cohesive unit, there are real differences among the authors. Dawkins, for instance, has spoken out against trying to externalize and abstract evil in an article for The Guardian21, in which he also critiques the Iraq War22.
Hedges neglects to note the mellowness of Dennett’s book, which calls for mere analysis of religion. Dennett never condones an imperialist project shrouded under the moralistic guise of “enlightening the Arabs” or “spreading democracy”.23 Dennett even takes pains to note that “Islamists” are a tiny minority of Muslims deeply opposed by many Islamic leaders and intellectuals. 24
In this light, Hedges most serious criticism covers only Hitchens and Harris, two (not-so) liberal hawks25. From my take, Harris’s thought is intellectually shallow and Hitchens writes eloquently to rationalize inane programmes and justify prejudice or tribalism.26
The only serious criticism Hedges musters which covers the whole group of authors is that their writing and thinking style is well adapted for today’s intellectual environment, filled not with reason or nuanced arguments based on abstract prose, but rather concrete imagery. That is, the perceived simplicity of “New Atheist” thought is very much suited to the simplicity of a televised society.27
To counter this, I would say that the “New Atheists” authored popular books. Their intent was not to offer original or nuanced accounts of religion. Rather, it was to convey atheist ideas to the largest audience and to people unacquainted with the debate, including the piously (but not knowledgably) religious.28 To engage such a large cross section of society, the books could not be exceedingly thorough.29
Would Hedge expect the public to read classical atheistic literature, like “The Future of an Illusion”, by his much admired Freud30? Perhaps “Beyond Good and Evil”, by Nietzsche, would appeal more to modern audiences?31 There is, also, the extensive and highly academic work by the Internet Infidels to consider32. “Science and Nonbelief” by Taner Edis would be a terrific place to start33. But intellectual books critiquing religion seem to have failed at consciousness raising or getting the message across. Thus such popular books, oriented to the “worst elements of the middle class” (the largest market share as well) are all that seem to get attention.
In spite of my differences of opinion, Hedges book was thoroughly enjoyable. It presented a unique style of thought, was written in superb prose, and served to warn us quite elegantly of the dangers of moralism and self-exaltation. If nothing else, it is a mind opening book which offers a unique perspective on the general themes of morality and the harm that may be committed under noble guises.
ENDNOTES
1.The Institute affiliated with The Nation magazine, which Hedges serves as a columnist for. Before his time at The Nation, he served as a foreign correspondent for the New York Times, a position he lost due to expressing criticism of the Iraq War when it was popular with the American public. http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/chris_hedges
2.Nevertheless, Hedges is not too open. That is to say from respect he does not cross the line into intellectual, cultural, or moral relativism. He is willing to take moral stands, as he made clear in an interview with Salon. http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/
3.In an interview with Point of Inquiry, Hedges asserts that atheism has an “honoured place in the western intellectual tradition”, particularly admiring the “brilliance and madness” of Nietzsche. http://www.pointofinquiry.org/chris_hedges_i_dont_believe_in_atheists/
4.Hedges authored a book in 2006 entitled “American Fascists: The Rise of the Christian Right in America”.
5.Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. United Kingdom: Bantam Books.
6.Harris, S. (2006). Letter to a Christian Nation. United States: Random House.
7.Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. United States: Twelve Books.
8.Dennett, D. (2006). Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. United States: Viking .
9.Stenger, V. (2007). God: The Failed Hypothesis. United States: Prometheus Books.
10.Paulos, J. (2007). Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up. United States: Hill and Wang .
11.Hedges covered the Bosnian War as a foreign correspondent
By “New Atheist” literature I am referring to the successful series of popular atheism books published by the Richard Dawkins5, Sam Harris6, Christopher Hitchens7, and Daniel Dennett8 from 2006-2007. Later, Victor Stenger9 and John Allen Paulos10 joined the flood of literature, though I am certain Hedges was not thinking of them when he wrote his critique of “New Atheism”. To an extent, it is even debatable as to whether Hedges critiques apply to Dennett or Dawkins, as he exhausts so much more of his energy and many more words on Harris and Hitchens than he does for Dennett or Dawkins.
Before continuing my review, I must admit I have not read Dawkins, Harris’s, Hitchens, or Dennett’s “New Atheism” books. I read parts of The God Delusion and God is not Great, but have yet to commit myself to the books. I own and am in the process of reading Breaking the Spell. So my judgement on Hedges accuracy when it comes to his evaluation of “New Atheist” ideas and arguments will be rather indirect, based at best on arguments I heard the authors proffer elsewhere.
Hedges paints his outlook as one defined by humility. Humanity, he claims, is beyond perfectibility. Vices and evils are not something external, possessed by others less righteous than we, but rather are inherent in all of us and may be unleashed in any individual if the proper societal restraints (against cruelty or impulsive killing) break down (as they do in war zones11). Perhaps most succinctly would be Hedges own words:
“We have nothing to fear from those who don not believe in god. We have everything to fear from those who do not believe in sin.”
Hedges further paints himself as being of an independent mind. He admits that all religious believers selectively pick and choose texts which nicely correspond with their own values, be it the fundamentalists who ignore the themes of economic justice in the Bible or the liberal Presbyterian Church he grew up in, which ignored the homophobic passages from the Bible. In this piece of description he admits that such practices by organized religion have given him distaste for the Church, which is why he no longer attends its services12.
Hedges clearly belongs to the intellectual fold and mindset. He greatly values critical thought and distrusts utopian systems13 which oversimplify human nature and assume the perfectibility of humankind. This makes him a skeptic of ideologies, be they secular or religious. His sophisticated style of prose, multifaceted thinking, and exaltation of critical thought all indicate his status as a member of the intelligentsia. 14
“New Atheist” literature represents a response to fundamentalism many have waited for. But Hedges proclaims that the “New Atheists” display the same flaws as the fundamentalists. One such flaw is an attempt to “externalize” evil. As he sees it, the “New Atheists” view evil not as something everyone struggles with, including them, but as a vice embodied in the unreasoning masses of the devout. The “New Atheists” hence attempt to elevate themselves above the unreasonable believers, demonizing the faithful in the process. Most troubling, according to Hedges, is how the “New Atheists” demonize Muslims and the Arab world in particular.
Hedges, quite rightly, points out passages from Harris’s “The End of Faith” claiming pre-emptive nuclear war with the Muslim world may be the only option to dealing with people so “fanatical” and “beyond reason” in addition to passages espousing torture and the Iraq War. Hedges likewise critiques Christopher Hitchens’s own hypercriticism (boarding on Islamophobia) of the Muslim world and apologetics for the Iraq War. From this he extrapolates that the “New Atheists” have a culturally chauvinistic mindset, incapable of appreciating the fact that the good of present day society is not purely a result of noble Western innovation, but combines the good from all cultures of the world, including those of the Arab World15. Likewise, the vice of present day, global society combines the bad of all cultures.
This cartoonish caricature of the Muslim world along with general oversimplification of complex issues makes “New Atheism” fundamentalist in Hedges mind. The “New Atheists” are not willing learn about complex and different cultures (the various Muslim nations) with likewise complicated issues and nuances. Their simplistic message, he furthers, makes the “New Atheists” representative of the worst elements of the middle class: sympathy towards imperialism and morally self-exaltation.
The “New Atheists” believe, according to Hedges, in a “cult of science”16, which is not actual science. They crudely overextend sciences, especially evolutionary biology, into areas it was never meant for, like the study of political, sociological, or psychological phenomena17. They even try to reduce complex ideas and intellectual discourse into a gene-like analogy (memetics)18, taking away the substance of robust discourse. Hedges concludes by noting how absolutist, dogmatic, and oversimplifying scientism is, for in science as opposed to the humanities there are only sole right answers. The “New Atheists” are trying to eliminate dissent and nuance from intellectual thought, so the argument goes.
There are ironies with Hedges book. His criticism, in interviews at least19, of the “New Atheists”, is how they lump disparate religious traditions or societies together20, yet Hedges himself seems indifferent to the variations of the “New Atheists”. Despite trying to paint the “New Atheists” as a unified and cohesive unit, there are real differences among the authors. Dawkins, for instance, has spoken out against trying to externalize and abstract evil in an article for The Guardian21, in which he also critiques the Iraq War22.
Hedges neglects to note the mellowness of Dennett’s book, which calls for mere analysis of religion. Dennett never condones an imperialist project shrouded under the moralistic guise of “enlightening the Arabs” or “spreading democracy”.23 Dennett even takes pains to note that “Islamists” are a tiny minority of Muslims deeply opposed by many Islamic leaders and intellectuals. 24
In this light, Hedges most serious criticism covers only Hitchens and Harris, two (not-so) liberal hawks25. From my take, Harris’s thought is intellectually shallow and Hitchens writes eloquently to rationalize inane programmes and justify prejudice or tribalism.26
The only serious criticism Hedges musters which covers the whole group of authors is that their writing and thinking style is well adapted for today’s intellectual environment, filled not with reason or nuanced arguments based on abstract prose, but rather concrete imagery. That is, the perceived simplicity of “New Atheist” thought is very much suited to the simplicity of a televised society.27
To counter this, I would say that the “New Atheists” authored popular books. Their intent was not to offer original or nuanced accounts of religion. Rather, it was to convey atheist ideas to the largest audience and to people unacquainted with the debate, including the piously (but not knowledgably) religious.28 To engage such a large cross section of society, the books could not be exceedingly thorough.29
Would Hedge expect the public to read classical atheistic literature, like “The Future of an Illusion”, by his much admired Freud30? Perhaps “Beyond Good and Evil”, by Nietzsche, would appeal more to modern audiences?31 There is, also, the extensive and highly academic work by the Internet Infidels to consider32. “Science and Nonbelief” by Taner Edis would be a terrific place to start33. But intellectual books critiquing religion seem to have failed at consciousness raising or getting the message across. Thus such popular books, oriented to the “worst elements of the middle class” (the largest market share as well) are all that seem to get attention.
In spite of my differences of opinion, Hedges book was thoroughly enjoyable. It presented a unique style of thought, was written in superb prose, and served to warn us quite elegantly of the dangers of moralism and self-exaltation. If nothing else, it is a mind opening book which offers a unique perspective on the general themes of morality and the harm that may be committed under noble guises.
ENDNOTES
1.The Institute affiliated with The Nation magazine, which Hedges serves as a columnist for. Before his time at The Nation, he served as a foreign correspondent for the New York Times, a position he lost due to expressing criticism of the Iraq War when it was popular with the American public. http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/chris_hedges
2.Nevertheless, Hedges is not too open. That is to say from respect he does not cross the line into intellectual, cultural, or moral relativism. He is willing to take moral stands, as he made clear in an interview with Salon. http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/
3.In an interview with Point of Inquiry, Hedges asserts that atheism has an “honoured place in the western intellectual tradition”, particularly admiring the “brilliance and madness” of Nietzsche. http://www.pointofinquiry.org/chris_hedges_i_dont_believe_in_atheists/
4.Hedges authored a book in 2006 entitled “American Fascists: The Rise of the Christian Right in America”.
5.Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. United Kingdom: Bantam Books.
6.Harris, S. (2006). Letter to a Christian Nation. United States: Random House.
7.Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. United States: Twelve Books.
8.Dennett, D. (2006). Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. United States: Viking .
9.Stenger, V. (2007). God: The Failed Hypothesis. United States: Prometheus Books.
10.Paulos, J. (2007). Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up. United States: Hill and Wang .
11.Hedges covered the Bosnian War as a foreign correspondent
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
My Dilemma with Blogging
This is not my first weblog. In the past, I have maintained multiple blogs. Most were anonymous, although I wrote one blog intended to be a source of information on student council projects with numerous hints as to my authorship of it. That is to say, anyone who knew me would know I wrote the blog. Due to my own failure to popularize the blog, this plan fell through.1 As for my other blogs, I grew to consider them a drain on time and ceased typing new posts.
Another factor contributed to my absentia from the blogging world. I had read a book last summer entitled “Amusing Ourselves to Death”2, published by Neil Postman. In it Postman critiques the conceptual environment of our present society (or at least society in the nineteen eighties). His argument went that with the proliferation of image-based mediums, as opposed to the traditional word-based mediums, society and thought were being transformed for the worse.
Postman argued that books require concentration to read. He further argued that the type of reasoning which books offered was much more profound than anything found on an image-based medium. This is because books are structured much more rationally, in the form of arguments which a person can follow with sufficient focus. This enables them to reread the arguments and judge whether the premises are valid and lead to the conclusion. Books further provide context, which discrete images as seen on television do not. Postman argued that books were the highest form of reasoning and that the Age of Reason in America 3 (the Nineteenth Century, when the United States had one of the most literate populations) was also the era with the most intensive book reading.
Postman’s point was that in an environment highly saturated with literature, in which everything was read, the mind of the average person came to think in highly abstract terms. Words and text convey meaning much more abstractly than explicit images (a picture of a dog or a film of a dog, for instance). Postman maintained that in a society saturated with literature the architecture of the mind developed differently. It became a typographic mind.
Postman classifies the Age of Show Business as succeeding the Age of Reason. The foundations for this Age of Show Business, goes Postman, were laid by the telegraph! According to him, the telegraph laid down the concept of discrete information without context, a change of thought aided by the photograph. This era of discrete information, in which every gram of discourse is done for entertainment, so Postman reasoned, is the extreme result of all these technological (but not necessarily intellectual) innovations. Postman gave particularly egregious instances from the media (the transition on news broadcasts from a pleasant story, like a local resident winning the lottery, to the tragic, such as a homicide) to demonstrate that image-based mediums and much of modern technology has no logic behind it and results in low quality thought.
After reading that book, I grew to distrust television. The quasi-luddite seeds had been planted. In the meanwhile, I further read a piece in The Atlantic 4 on the effect the Internet, in particular, had on cognition. The general concept of how context lacking electronic information was had been laid in my mind by Postman. The article in The Atlantic served to apply this reasoning to my beloved Internet in particular. One of the most heinous instances that article described was of a blogger, possessing a doctorate in literature, who could not read any substantial piece of prose. The columnist (Carr) writing the piece himself relayed his own difficulties in reading lengthy passages.
This unsettled me mostly because I have noticed that my reading rate is quite slow. For instance, it takes me about three or four hours to finish a novella like Heart of Darkness. It only strengthened my resolve to discontinue blogging as an activity.
I perceived an overdependence on the Internet in other respects. To correct my grammar, I used spell check on word. To find the proper spelling of a misspelled word I would rely on Google.
Typing, as opposed to handwriting, may even have adverse effects on cognition. Carr noted a chilling tale of how Nietzsche’s writings became much more aphoristic and less rationally structure once he transferred from writing his books by hand to typing his books via typewriter (due to vision problems).
This disturbed me as some of my latter blog posts tended to be “bite sized” and lacked thorough arguments. The medium was affecting my message. So I began to distrust blogging itself, explaining my long absentia.
But blogging is something I truly love to do. I have and will always be faster at typing than handwriting and writing skills are something one has to keep intact with practice. The pen (or keyboard) is mightier than the sword, as it so often is said, and persuasive writing is a quintessential skill. Without blogging, I was spending less time writing, creating optimal conditions for the atrophy of that skill.
So I will resume blogging. But I am resolute on making my blogging style different, more rational and based on higher thought. My models for this process are blogs like Rationally Speaking5 and Atheist Ethicist6 . These are blogs based on thorough and nuanced argument. If you are curious, I did not choose this blog template to emulate these blogs superficially7 , this template is just happens to be appealing to me.
In line with this blog ideal I will take pains to ensure every post here is of high quality thought. Furthermore, I will not immediately prompt readers to another site with excessive hyperlinks. All links and notes of interest will be in an endnotes section.
To be a medium of rationality and advance reasonable arguments on any matter that sufficiently interests me are to be the primary functions of this blog. I may only hope to succeed in the task of persuasion and opening minds.
ENDNOTES
1.The blog was not particularly enjoyable to write, as well. To reach a broad student audience I had to use rather ordinary and taciturn prose. Colourful language and verbosity put the joy into writing for me, so it was not a very pleasurable experience.
2. Postman, N. (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York, New York : Penguin Group.
3.Postman also terms it the “Age of Exposition”.
4.Carr, N. (July/August 2008). Is google making us stupid: What the internet is doing to our brains.. The Atlantic
5. http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ Ironically, Pigliucci (the author of this blog) lead me to Postman’s works and subsequently softened my luddite tendencies with his post “The End of Solitude” (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2009/02/end-of-solitude.html).
6. http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/
7. At least that was not a conscious intention. Perhaps, subconsciously, a need to emulate these blogs prompted this rather intuitive decision on template.
Another factor contributed to my absentia from the blogging world. I had read a book last summer entitled “Amusing Ourselves to Death”2, published by Neil Postman. In it Postman critiques the conceptual environment of our present society (or at least society in the nineteen eighties). His argument went that with the proliferation of image-based mediums, as opposed to the traditional word-based mediums, society and thought were being transformed for the worse.
Postman argued that books require concentration to read. He further argued that the type of reasoning which books offered was much more profound than anything found on an image-based medium. This is because books are structured much more rationally, in the form of arguments which a person can follow with sufficient focus. This enables them to reread the arguments and judge whether the premises are valid and lead to the conclusion. Books further provide context, which discrete images as seen on television do not. Postman argued that books were the highest form of reasoning and that the Age of Reason in America 3 (the Nineteenth Century, when the United States had one of the most literate populations) was also the era with the most intensive book reading.
Postman’s point was that in an environment highly saturated with literature, in which everything was read, the mind of the average person came to think in highly abstract terms. Words and text convey meaning much more abstractly than explicit images (a picture of a dog or a film of a dog, for instance). Postman maintained that in a society saturated with literature the architecture of the mind developed differently. It became a typographic mind.
Postman classifies the Age of Show Business as succeeding the Age of Reason. The foundations for this Age of Show Business, goes Postman, were laid by the telegraph! According to him, the telegraph laid down the concept of discrete information without context, a change of thought aided by the photograph. This era of discrete information, in which every gram of discourse is done for entertainment, so Postman reasoned, is the extreme result of all these technological (but not necessarily intellectual) innovations. Postman gave particularly egregious instances from the media (the transition on news broadcasts from a pleasant story, like a local resident winning the lottery, to the tragic, such as a homicide) to demonstrate that image-based mediums and much of modern technology has no logic behind it and results in low quality thought.
After reading that book, I grew to distrust television. The quasi-luddite seeds had been planted. In the meanwhile, I further read a piece in The Atlantic 4 on the effect the Internet, in particular, had on cognition. The general concept of how context lacking electronic information was had been laid in my mind by Postman. The article in The Atlantic served to apply this reasoning to my beloved Internet in particular. One of the most heinous instances that article described was of a blogger, possessing a doctorate in literature, who could not read any substantial piece of prose. The columnist (Carr) writing the piece himself relayed his own difficulties in reading lengthy passages.
This unsettled me mostly because I have noticed that my reading rate is quite slow. For instance, it takes me about three or four hours to finish a novella like Heart of Darkness. It only strengthened my resolve to discontinue blogging as an activity.
I perceived an overdependence on the Internet in other respects. To correct my grammar, I used spell check on word. To find the proper spelling of a misspelled word I would rely on Google.
Typing, as opposed to handwriting, may even have adverse effects on cognition. Carr noted a chilling tale of how Nietzsche’s writings became much more aphoristic and less rationally structure once he transferred from writing his books by hand to typing his books via typewriter (due to vision problems).
This disturbed me as some of my latter blog posts tended to be “bite sized” and lacked thorough arguments. The medium was affecting my message. So I began to distrust blogging itself, explaining my long absentia.
But blogging is something I truly love to do. I have and will always be faster at typing than handwriting and writing skills are something one has to keep intact with practice. The pen (or keyboard) is mightier than the sword, as it so often is said, and persuasive writing is a quintessential skill. Without blogging, I was spending less time writing, creating optimal conditions for the atrophy of that skill.
So I will resume blogging. But I am resolute on making my blogging style different, more rational and based on higher thought. My models for this process are blogs like Rationally Speaking5 and Atheist Ethicist6 . These are blogs based on thorough and nuanced argument. If you are curious, I did not choose this blog template to emulate these blogs superficially7 , this template is just happens to be appealing to me.
In line with this blog ideal I will take pains to ensure every post here is of high quality thought. Furthermore, I will not immediately prompt readers to another site with excessive hyperlinks. All links and notes of interest will be in an endnotes section.
To be a medium of rationality and advance reasonable arguments on any matter that sufficiently interests me are to be the primary functions of this blog. I may only hope to succeed in the task of persuasion and opening minds.
ENDNOTES
1.The blog was not particularly enjoyable to write, as well. To reach a broad student audience I had to use rather ordinary and taciturn prose. Colourful language and verbosity put the joy into writing for me, so it was not a very pleasurable experience.
2. Postman, N. (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York, New York : Penguin Group.
3.Postman also terms it the “Age of Exposition”.
4.Carr, N. (July/August 2008). Is google making us stupid: What the internet is doing to our brains.. The Atlantic
5. http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ Ironically, Pigliucci (the author of this blog) lead me to Postman’s works and subsequently softened my luddite tendencies with his post “The End of Solitude” (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2009/02/end-of-solitude.html).
6. http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/
7. At least that was not a conscious intention. Perhaps, subconsciously, a need to emulate these blogs prompted this rather intuitive decision on template.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
