When Atheism Becomes Religion, America's New Fundamentalists (previously published as "I don't believe in Atheists") by Chris Hedges (free press, 2008). It is categorically one of the best books of our time; containing astute observations, and leveling the tyranny of post-modern obtuse pseudo-intellectualism. I have searched for years to find a critical and serious work addressing the problems raised by thinkers over a hundred and fifty years ago, and have been faced with the extremes of irrationality to incomprehensibility on either side. Hedges is clear, concise, and prophetic. He asks us to consider faith apart from Utopian idealism.
The Public debate as spectacle is the spiritual sacrament of the secularist (the anti-theists) It serves religious function of catharsis, symbolically purifying the anti-theists of their faults because of “outwitting” the sacrificial victim. It doesn't matter whether the debate uncovers truth (as it proposes), the mere ritual of debate is catharsis, and the outcome helps to cement the validity of the secularist position.
ReplyDeleteSeveral techniques are employed, which might be called the liturgical approaches to debate, formally the ideas are presented. The liturgy includes a progression from mockery and Ad-homonym, to major equivocation, redefinition of terms, and appeals to higher authority, or self refuting statements (under the guise of statements of truth) such as the absolute nature of scientific method; and the grand trump card, the red herring, just outright change the subject.
Similar to the bull fight, the idea is to prick and annoy the opponent, until weakened, the rules of debate are set so as not to allow thoughtful reflection or careful choice of words, but favor the impulsive and offensive. The sacrificial opponent, it is hoped, in human nature, behaves so as to justify the contempt of the secularists ultimate prejudice. The Matador then seemingly drives his sword home, and declares the purification rite complete. Even a failed debate is later edited down cut copied and pasted so as to display only the weakness of the opponent, so that by inference we see the matador as victorious.
If only you knew - but then you so obviously don't - these words may come back to haunt you when your thinking has matured. Listen to some real atheists and consider what they are actually saying without any of your "religious" conceptual references above - which are clearly in my view, an aspect of your delusion, and certainly, not theirs.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc1pcDFM
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaeJf-Yia3A
Looks like a read I will have to visit.
ReplyDelete@ Pastor Phil. "When Atheism Becomes Religion: America's New Fundamentalists" [Paperback ISBN 1416570780)]2009 appears to be the same as "I Don't Believe in Atheists" (Hardback ISBN 141656795X), published in March 2008, of which I own a copy. It is a critique of what Hedges perceives as a radical mindset that rages against religion and faith. He states the book was motivated by debates he had with atheist authors Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens who, he feels, excessively "demonize" (a word they would not ascribe to in any event) religion, particularly Islam, in ways he believes, were eerily similar to the thinking of Christian fundamentalists.
ReplyDeleteThis is not surprising as Hedges is clearly not an atheist, not even a "moderate atheist"; rather, he sets out to undermine any form of atheism by forcing an inappropriate "fundamentalist" label upon it. Such a notion was subsequently debated - herewith, the first of its ten parts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHTSESAqfZo
Professor AC Grayling and Professor Richard Dawkins spoke against the motion and defeated it.
Philosopher A C Grayling maintains that since 9/11, the nature of the debate on religious commitment has become far more serious. He distinguishes between atheism, secularism and humanism. He refutes Moore's suggestion that atheists cannot fully understand the complexity of the religious experience, insisting that many atheists understand it all too well, having been brought up in a religious family or community.
Richard Dawkins defines fundamentalism as the following: blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence, allied to extremism. He argues that far from being entrenched fundamentalists, atheists have a commitment to exploring evidence, and a readiness to embrace change, and that we should not mistake the passion of their arguments or their refusal to remain silent for fundamentalism.
I found the book lacking in some basic honesty and quite misleading.
"It's these snarky and condescending rejections, not of faith itself but of those who profess it, that reflect a total unwillingness to learn something new about human nature, the world around us and even of science itself. While the neoatheists pay only cursory attention to dismantling arguments for God, they spend most of their time painting his followers as uncultured rubes. The fact that religion has inexplicably persisted, even despite Copernicus, Darwin and the Enlightenment, doesn't seem to have much sociological meaning for them." (S.E. Cupp)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/12/29/2010-12-29_the_arrogance_of_the_atheists_they_batter_believers_with_smug_certainty.html