I really appreciate this video because again Hedges nails it for me. The book title is unfortunate--and I'm betting chosen by a publisher wanting to create controversy and be funny--as it doesn't reflect what the book is about. It's not an attack against atheism in general but rather of a very specific brand promoted by Harris and Hitchens.
What he says here is so interconnected with many of the discussions we've had over the last 2 or so years. To me Hedges reiterates the claim Shane and I have made about a distrust in science but then also makes the very argument I tried to construct in our last email debate about religion. I agree with him on both accounts but would guess that Shane will only buy into his criticisms of science.
Religion is a noun, Hedges! I'd argue that intellectual progression encourages moral progression. I often wonder what the world would be like if we built more schools and less churches.
Anyways, I may belong to the Cult of Science... It wouldn’t be my first cult. I used to be LDS, too.
Welcome to the party! Thanks for your response. The exmo gang here are a rather educated bunch, but a barrel of laughs (except for Ron *wink and nudge*).
Distrust in science? Perhaps it is time to start defining terms. What do you mean when you use the term "science?"
Hedges, in no way, reflects any part of the "god delusion", "letter to a Christian nation", or "god is not great." I own, and have read, all three. I recognize NONE of hedges in the texts that I recall.
Atheism is the acceptance that god(s) have not been proved. It seems that Hedges draws a great deal from this. None of it accurate in my view.
I read much of hedges writings on mid-east conflicts, and found his writings compelling in that area. His clumsy attacks on atheists are a poor substitute for defending his Christianity. For, the defense of atheism, is nothing more than demonstrating theism (deism, pantheism, etc) as false. Once done, the atheist is required to to nothing else to be an atheist.
I will admit that Hitchens goes further by indicating that he is an "anti-theist." Not only is there no god, but (he argues) religion has no redeeming value. In fact, a net negative. This... we can find some common ground on. I can not enjoy Handel's Messiah without understanding that it was an outgrowth of religion. That the fresco's that adorn the Vatican are intertwined with the awe of ignorant savages inspired by tales of miracles, and gods.
I do think, on whole, that if you were to numerically calculate all the good, neutral, and evil done by religionists (because of their beliefs), religion has retarded mankind's moral and intellectual evolution.
I should have posted this to Ron's blog. I think I will cut/paste it there.
I've never read Hedges. My only exposure to him has been through this video and the podcast I sent, and, based on those, I find him to be saying some important things. But I dislike much of his terminology. Same can be said of the author of this blog. ;)
"Distrust in science? Perhaps it is time to start defining terms. What do you mean when you use the term "science?"
Hedges, in no way, reflects any part of the "god delusion", "letter to a Christian nation", or "god is not great." I own, and have read, all three. I recognize NONE of hedges in the texts that I recall."
I'm not following why you bring up how we define science. My guess is we will disagree, though, as you tend to only define science by what you deem good science. While I would define science as a social construct, albeit one of our best constructs, one I certainly trust over religion but not one that I believe will give me all the answers.
Hedges certainly questions religion; in fact he lambasts it (see more on this in my blog). So help get your point here.
You wrote: "I'm not following why you bring up how we define science." Becuase unless we have an agreed up definition we can have no real communication as to how/why science can/my not be a social construct." I define science, at its most rdimentery form, as "effective knowing."
"My guess is we will disagree, though, as you tend to only define science by what you deem good science." Good and bad have nothing to do with my definition of science. Science, as I have always maintained, is a METHOD. Scientists, as humans, may use scientific outcomes for good, evil, or neutral reasons. Science is amoral. "While I would define science as a social construct, albeit one of our best constructs, one I certainly trust over religion but not one that I believe will give me all the answers.""
And I know of no scientists (Dawkins, Dennett) nor non-scientist neo athiests (Hitchens) who have claimed that science will provide all the answers. That is where Hedges, Shane, and yourself continue to build a strawman. Some questions, by thier nature, are out of the scientific realm.
For example a question science is applicable to would be: "why do people behave in a certain way?"
A non-scientific question would be: "Why SHOULD people behave in certain ways, and not others?" This is a question of philosophy. Hedges argues that the "should" questions allow a gap for theism to fill.
As an athiest I argue that thiesm fills no gaps. It simply adds more questions ad infinitum. The unanswerable provides no support for religion, theism, or postmodernism since none of them provide any epistemological foundation.
MY general critisim of postmodermism is that there is no there, there. Language is not a medium of analysis or criticism. Language, as I veiw it, is the medium used communicate our analysis and criticism.
The postmodernist writings I have read (albeit still a small sampling) has appeared like a large vocabulary masquerading as an epistemology.
"And I know of no scientists (Dawkins, Dennett) nor non-scientist neo athiests (Hitchens) who have claimed that science will provide all the answers. That is where Hedges, Shane, and yourself continue to build a strawman. Some questions, by thier nature, are out of the scientific realm."
Talk about your strawman arguments. Unless you can cite exactly where I've said that, PLEASE don't tell me what I've said.
Indeed. I looked back 4 months into ron's, yours, and my blogs. I couldn't find a citation which would support my assertion that you have asserted that scientists claim all understanding will come through science. I retract my claim about your membership in said group, and humbly wish your pardon my good man.
Having said that, your membership in the "science as a social construct" ,and "neo-athiests are as dogmatic as religionists" group needs some clarification. More to dissect when you get to town.
10 comments:
I really appreciate this video because again Hedges nails it for me. The book title is unfortunate--and I'm betting chosen by a publisher wanting to create controversy and be funny--as it doesn't reflect what the book is about. It's not an attack against atheism in general but rather of a very specific brand promoted by Harris and Hitchens.
What he says here is so interconnected with many of the discussions we've had over the last 2 or so years. To me Hedges reiterates the claim Shane and I have made about a distrust in science but then also makes the very argument I tried to construct in our last email debate about religion. I agree with him on both accounts but would guess that Shane will only buy into his criticisms of science.
Religion is a noun, Hedges! I'd argue that intellectual progression encourages moral progression. I often wonder what the world would be like if we built more schools and less churches.
Anyways, I may belong to the Cult of Science... It wouldn’t be my first cult. I used to be LDS, too.
Love the blog :c)
Shannon,
Welcome to the party! Thanks for your response. The exmo gang here are a rather educated bunch, but a barrel of laughs (except for Ron *wink and nudge*).
Distrust in science? Perhaps it is time to start defining terms. What do you mean when you use the term "science?"
Hedges, in no way, reflects any part of the "god delusion", "letter to a Christian nation", or "god is not great." I own, and have read, all three. I recognize NONE of hedges in the texts that I recall.
Atheism is the acceptance that god(s) have not been proved. It seems that Hedges draws a great deal from this. None of it accurate in my view.
I read much of hedges writings on mid-east conflicts, and found his writings compelling in that area. His clumsy attacks on atheists are a poor substitute for defending his Christianity. For, the defense of atheism, is nothing more than demonstrating theism (deism, pantheism, etc) as false. Once done, the atheist is required to to nothing else to be an atheist.
I will admit that Hitchens goes further by indicating that he is an "anti-theist." Not only is there no god, but (he argues) religion has no redeeming value. In fact, a net negative. This... we can find some common ground on. I can not enjoy Handel's Messiah without understanding that it was an outgrowth of religion. That the fresco's that adorn the Vatican are intertwined with the awe of ignorant savages inspired by tales of miracles, and gods.
I do think, on whole, that if you were to numerically calculate all the good, neutral, and evil done by religionists (because of their beliefs), religion has retarded mankind's moral and intellectual evolution.
I should have posted this to Ron's blog. I think I will cut/paste it there.
HH =)
I've never read Hedges. My only exposure to him has been through this video and the podcast I sent, and, based on those, I find him to be saying some important things. But I dislike much of his terminology. Same can be said of the author of this blog. ;)
See ya soon, amigo!
Help me here Trav:
"Distrust in science? Perhaps it is time to start defining terms. What do you mean when you use the term "science?"
Hedges, in no way, reflects any part of the "god delusion", "letter to a Christian nation", or "god is not great." I own, and have read, all three. I recognize NONE of hedges in the texts that I recall."
I'm not following why you bring up how we define science. My guess is we will disagree, though, as you tend to only define science by what you deem good science. While I would define science as a social construct, albeit one of our best constructs, one I certainly trust over religion but not one that I believe will give me all the answers.
Hedges certainly questions religion; in fact he lambasts it (see more on this in my blog). So help get your point here.
Shannon,
I attempted to read your blogs. I guess I need an invite.
HH
Ron,
You wrote: "I'm not following why you bring up how we define science."
Becuase unless we have an agreed up definition we can have no real communication as to how/why science can/my not be a social construct." I define science, at its most rdimentery form, as "effective knowing."
"My guess is we will disagree, though, as you tend to only define science by what you deem good science."
Good and bad have nothing to do with my definition of science. Science, as I have always maintained, is a METHOD. Scientists, as humans, may use scientific outcomes for good, evil, or neutral reasons. Science is amoral.
"While I would define science as a social construct, albeit one of our best constructs, one I certainly trust over religion but not one that I believe will give me all the answers.""
And I know of no scientists (Dawkins, Dennett) nor non-scientist neo athiests (Hitchens) who have claimed that science will provide all the answers. That is where Hedges, Shane, and yourself continue to build a strawman. Some questions, by thier nature, are out of the scientific realm.
For example a question science is applicable to would be: "why do people behave in a certain way?"
A non-scientific question would be: "Why SHOULD people behave in certain ways, and not others?" This is a question of philosophy.
Hedges argues that the "should" questions allow a gap for theism to fill.
As an athiest I argue that thiesm fills no gaps. It simply adds more questions ad infinitum. The unanswerable provides no support for religion, theism, or postmodernism since none of them provide any epistemological foundation.
MY general critisim of postmodermism is that there is no there, there. Language is not a medium of analysis or criticism. Language, as I veiw it, is the medium used communicate our analysis and criticism.
The postmodernist writings I have read (albeit still a small sampling) has appeared like a large vocabulary masquerading as an epistemology.
HH =)
HH, you wrote:
"And I know of no scientists (Dawkins, Dennett) nor non-scientist neo athiests (Hitchens) who have claimed that science will provide all the answers. That is where Hedges, Shane, and yourself continue to build a strawman. Some questions, by thier nature, are out of the scientific realm."
Talk about your strawman arguments. Unless you can cite exactly where I've said that, PLEASE don't tell me what I've said.
Shane,
Indeed. I looked back 4 months into ron's, yours, and my blogs. I couldn't find a citation which would support my assertion that you have asserted that scientists claim all understanding will come through science. I retract my claim about your membership in said group, and humbly wish your pardon my good man.
Having said that, your membership in the "science as a social construct" ,and "neo-athiests are as dogmatic as religionists" group needs some clarification. More to dissect when you get to town.
Trav
Yes, I am in the latter crowd, although I might amend the second statement to say "can be" as dogmatic as religionists.
Post a Comment