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}

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.

<sup>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.</sup>