One name for Chris Hedges — Norman Borlang.

> Finally, you make the claim that I “dismiss” “Sam Harris
calling for a nuclear first strike against the Middle East.”

I made no such claim. Please show where such a claim was made.

Here’s what I said:

> > It’s interesting how the blogger has succinctly ignored D.J.Grothe’s amazing oversight and attempted misrepresentation of what Hedges said. Here’s the conversation:

> > Hedges: fanaticism… terror are not forces in any way exclusive to religious belief systems. You know, Nazism, Communism, Pol Pot

> > Grothe: … Everyone can say it’s mostly religion and you’re saying it’s mostly, what, American Empire.

That is not a request for clarification. Nazism and Communism had nothing to do with American Empire.

Grothe used “amorphous” terms like “the Left”, “radical Islamic nations” which he could not qualify when asked to be specific. That is not science.

If you wish to do science, you must present data. Harris, Dennett, Dawkins and Hitchens present absolutely none. (I’ve read enough of their works to know.) In a recent conference when it was pointed out to Harris that even followers of his favorite religion, Buddhism, have performed suicide terrorism — Tamil Tigers, Japanese Kamikaze pilots — he merely dismissed them [Beyond Belief 2006].

If one wishes to make the claim, which the new atheists do, that religion is the cause of all the world’s problems then, logically, they face the burden of proof to show that these world conflicts were caused by religion. This is not easy because the presence of strong religions institutions in conflicts is not an indicator of the cause of the conflict — their presence could have been caused by the conflict, for instance. Another burden that anyone wishing to prove the thesis is to show that religion has not been a force for good. Chris Hedges mentioned the priests in Myanmar and Muslims in Serbia in this interview, Scott Atran mentions Muslim clerics in Sudan. The Civil Rights Movement was deeply religious with its roots in Christianity.

This is hardly a simple topic and if someone wishes to present any thesis in a serious manner they must consider all the factors in a conflict. None of these details are addressed by the new atheists. In other words, they are not scientific.

To attribute intentions to someone whose motives you do not know is irrational. You cannot assert that Grothe’s intentions were solely those of a Devil’s advocate. Grothe has always gone on about “a science based morality” when absolutely none exists. Just a few weeks ago he asked Marc Hauser what his opinion of a science based morality was. Hauser expressed pretty much the same opinion as Hedges saying that he had no hope for us to overcome our instinctive moral intuitions; how we could, with practice overcome them in one moral situation (euthanasia in Europe) but how we would just go right back to our natural instincts in similar cases (generic harm by omission versus action).

The new atheists all believe in a utopian dream and the that they are morally superior to “them”. This is unfounded in fact.

These new atheists have absolutely no facts. What they say is no different from the religious fanatics of the world and certainly what they say is not founded in facts. There have been many studies of suicide bombers and all of them, without exception, say that there is no causal link between religion and suicide terrorism. The consequences of shills like the new atheists will lead to our doom and destruction. I would feel much safer if these people were thrown off a cliff. Of course to say that is very impolite and what I say must not be followed upon.

Sorry, “Anon,” but it doesn’t work. Instead, you ramble on about an alleged “oversight by Grothe” that you characterize as “amazing,” yet you fail, also, to reveal that “oversight” in any lucid detail. Quoting a portion of the interview, the only only thing you have is a possible mischaracaterization that Grothe was using to attempt to get Hedges to clarify a point. Any listener of Grothe’s interviews knows that this is a frequent interview tool and, he was indeed, playing Devil’s Advocate as he always does.

Hedges appeared too self-centered and narcissistic to notice the opportunity to clarify a point and missed a chance to solidly explain his position. I was actually eager to hear his response for which nothing came.

In addition, Grothe was again playing Devil’s Advocate for the position of Harris, Hitchens, et al in his “Islamic nation” question, but, once again, Hedges acted like a pompous ass and became passively aggressive to his interviewer rather than recognizing an opportunity to elucidate the point and genuinely take the floor. Yet again, this is an interview style that has worked well with Grothe with nearly every subject he’s interviewed -they all get it. Hedges’ ego apparently prevents him from getting it.

Finally, you make the claim that I “dismiss” “Sam Harris calling for a nuclear first strike against the Middle East.”

And if there is a single factual thing you’ve written above, it is this. I dismiss it because no where has Sam Harris made this call. But the deluded care little about facts, evidence, or supporting their wild and speculative accusations. They, of course, have a conclusion to which the only data relevant is that which supports their delusions -even if the data is a lie.

But if I’m wrong, I challenge you to demonstrate where it is that Harris has called for this alleged “nuclear first strike” or where it is that he’s advocated torture. Please cite page and paragraph.

It’s interesting how the blogger has succinctly ignored D.J.Grothe’s amazing oversight and attempted misrepresentation of what Hedges said. Here’s the conversation:

Hedges: fanaticism… terror are not forces in any way exclusive to religious belief systems. You know, Nazism, Communism, Pol Pot

Grothe: … Everyone can say it’s mostly religion and you’re saying it’s mostly, what, American Empire.

A conclusion that does not follow at all from what Hedges said.

Furthermore, the blogger completely ignores the fact that Grothe could not mention /one/ Islamic nation that supported his (or if he was merely playing Devil’s Advocate, which I doubt, Harris’s and Hitchens’s) thesis. Hedges gave the example of how *muslims* did a lot to help.

Grothe again had his thesis torn to shreds when he claimed that all social advances were driven by secular forces. He pointed out that even Gandhi was deeply religious.

If you ignore everything about the interview, I guess the bloggers delusions hold.

That said, even though I’m an atheist, I can’t join Harris in his campaign against all religion. I have had too much common cause with people of various faiths in matters of social justice, fighting poverty, advocating the rights of ethnic, racial and sexual minorities, and opposing war. It doesn’t hold me back from questioning religious beliefs or from criticizing them. But I still hold a great deal of respect for people whose faith motivates them to do good deeds. Those people are the worker bees of many a social justice movement.