Hedges in the Debate
There is another Sam Harris “debate” scheduled for tonight, May 22, 2007, at 8pm, this time with journalist Chris Hedges. The topic appears to be “Religion and Politics: The End of the World?,” which is more of a discussion starter than a formal proposition for serious debate. And this is the problem with Harris’s debates heretofore: he only takes on opponents from the liberal end of the spectrum who already agree with him on the important theological and philosophical issues. For example, did anyone really expect Andrew Sullivan to best the atheist, especially since he already implicitly conceded Sam’s naturalism in ethics (homosexuality), origins (evolution), and authority (Scripture not infallible)? Harris chooses his opponents for his public performances wisely.
So who is this Chris Hedges? Not the kind of guy you want defending your Christianity. He recently referred to “the radical Christian right,” as, “the most dangerous mass movement in American history.”[i] He may be brilliant, but he's hardly the kind of religious expert I want representing my side. He follows, fanatically urging that conservative Christians have “built a binary worldview of command and submission wherein male leaders, who cannot be questioned and claim to speak for God, are in control and all others must follow.”
By caricaturing the Christian right this way, Hedges distances himself from any conservative leaders, and at the same time basically agrees with Harris’s slanderous portrayal of the majority of American Christianity. So whom does Hedges really represent in this debate (representation is always a key issue!)? I'll let the reader figure that out.
Why anyone would take these guys seriously is hard to say. Certainly no conservative Christian should. So why does Sam Harris single him out for debate?
It may very well be a smokescreen. The liberal left is in the process of mounting forces for the next elections. They realize they got beat over the past two elections to the religious vote. Instead of trying to deceive and appear religious themselves, some are mounting a tremendous anti-religion propaganda campaign. They are trying to divide and diffuse the power base of the religious vote. This stands in contrast to another part of the left (Obama, Clinton), that tries to flaunt its religion when publicly advantageous.
This debate is nothing but a showcase of a radical leftist who happens to be an atheist, and a radical leftist who claims religion has some value. Whoever wins, the radical left wins. Religion will appear weak whatever the case, human reason will be exalted beyond measure whatever the case, and the Christian right will be vilified whatever the case. This is no real debate — it is merely a bunch of liberal leftists hedging their bets.
You don’t have to look very far to find evidence that my suspicion is warranted. Just listen to the appeals in Sam Harris’s writings for example. He admits that he has little hope of converting conservative Christians to his views. So he makes his appeal to the so-called “moderate” Christians, who are almost always leftists.
No, this debate is not a debate. It is an intellectual pillow fight. Harris and Hedges might as well show up in their pajamas, dim the lights and play “truth or dare.”
When the atheists, liberals, and other radical leftists get done with their intramural games, then maybe they’ll be practiced up for a real debate. It would be nice to get the outspoken Harris in the ring with a real Christian debater, and do it in a formal debate setting. But we know it’ll probably never happen. Harris likes to choose his opponents — and his stages, and his audiences — too cleverly.
End Notes:
[i] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070128_christianists_on_the_march/
So who is this Chris Hedges? Not the kind of guy you want defending your Christianity. He recently referred to “the radical Christian right,” as, “the most dangerous mass movement in American history.”[i] He may be brilliant, but he's hardly the kind of religious expert I want representing my side. He follows, fanatically urging that conservative Christians have “built a binary worldview of command and submission wherein male leaders, who cannot be questioned and claim to speak for God, are in control and all others must follow.”
By caricaturing the Christian right this way, Hedges distances himself from any conservative leaders, and at the same time basically agrees with Harris’s slanderous portrayal of the majority of American Christianity. So whom does Hedges really represent in this debate (representation is always a key issue!)? I'll let the reader figure that out.
Why anyone would take these guys seriously is hard to say. Certainly no conservative Christian should. So why does Sam Harris single him out for debate?
It may very well be a smokescreen. The liberal left is in the process of mounting forces for the next elections. They realize they got beat over the past two elections to the religious vote. Instead of trying to deceive and appear religious themselves, some are mounting a tremendous anti-religion propaganda campaign. They are trying to divide and diffuse the power base of the religious vote. This stands in contrast to another part of the left (Obama, Clinton), that tries to flaunt its religion when publicly advantageous.
This debate is nothing but a showcase of a radical leftist who happens to be an atheist, and a radical leftist who claims religion has some value. Whoever wins, the radical left wins. Religion will appear weak whatever the case, human reason will be exalted beyond measure whatever the case, and the Christian right will be vilified whatever the case. This is no real debate — it is merely a bunch of liberal leftists hedging their bets.
You don’t have to look very far to find evidence that my suspicion is warranted. Just listen to the appeals in Sam Harris’s writings for example. He admits that he has little hope of converting conservative Christians to his views. So he makes his appeal to the so-called “moderate” Christians, who are almost always leftists.
No, this debate is not a debate. It is an intellectual pillow fight. Harris and Hedges might as well show up in their pajamas, dim the lights and play “truth or dare.”
When the atheists, liberals, and other radical leftists get done with their intramural games, then maybe they’ll be practiced up for a real debate. It would be nice to get the outspoken Harris in the ring with a real Christian debater, and do it in a formal debate setting. But we know it’ll probably never happen. Harris likes to choose his opponents — and his stages, and his audiences — too cleverly.
End Notes:
[i] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070128_christianists_on_the_march/
12 Comments:
I doubt Harris would pass up a chance to debate one of you ultra-Fundys, especially if they have any prominance. You folks are the easiest to win against since you really believe in the talking snakes, literal Leviticus, and all. It's easy for him to make that look ridiculous - which of course, it is. I'm sure Harris would have loved to debate your saint Falwell or Pat Robertson or any of your other favorite TV preachers.
Even though fellow Fundys will say your side won no matter what, you'd still have to admit such ideas tend to make you look ridiculous to the moderate Christians and atheists who are the subject of your blog. It won't help your appeal to middle America that you still need to win elections. Therefore, I think the reluctance to debate will be more likely from your side since you don't want to give the evil moderate Christians and atheists any fodder and publicity right now.
It's actually harder and more of a challenge for Harris to beat a moderate Christian in debate anyway. All us atheists know that - we'd much prefer Harris went after you so we can CONTINUE to make the world see that when fundy forces join politics it results in dangerous fools like Bush being elected. There, your success has led to your ultimate downfall.
I think your characterization of Harris is completely false. Although I don't personally know him yet, I could, because I have a close associate who knows him well. If you'd like to set up some sort of debate with one of the more prominent members of your Calvinist/TAG sort, maybe a John Frame or even better, Alvin Plantinga, I might be able to help you arrange it. Feel free to IM me as before.
I wouldn't classify Sam Harris as a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Seems to be more of a neo-con to me. His views on the Iraq war, American supremacy, torture, and the value of pacificm are hardly examples of ultra-liberalism. In any case, didn't Mr. Harris sort of have a debate with conservative preacher and author Rick Warren and get Rev. Warren to say that he himself would not be altrusitic if he didn't believe there was a God and then go on to invoke the old Pascal's wager. Rev. Warren's comments were hardly a powerful endorsement for religious belief if you ask me.
Zheng-Hardy,
Thank you for pointing that out. Sam Harris is no leftest. Like me he is hard to label but he is definitely conservative on defence and even libertarian in some of his views of government.
What so many Christians don't seem to realize is that atheism is not an ideology or philosophy. We simply don't believe in any gods. I myself, voted for Reagan and other conservatives more often than Democrats (sometimes holding my nose).
I would say that atheists might skew to the left a bit, particularly on social issues, but otherwise we're a pretty moderate bunch. And much of that skew is naturally due to the discrimination and stigmatization of atheists by conservatives. If atheists were mainstream, the skew would diminish. If you look at societies that are now largely atheist, like in Europe, atheists run the gamut like everywhere else.
Neo-cons are leftists by any measurement.
Harris calls for government funding of stem-cell research, and foreign aid/welfare. Both leftist. He gets half of his info from either the UN (leftism incarnate), and the other half from primarily leftist journalists. Trace his footnotes.
Hitchens also supports the war. Would anyone make the case he's not a leftist?
Athiesm is perceived as leftist because atheism since the 1700's has bred mainly leftism politically.
Rand may be an exception philosophically. But her atheism was compromised by her belief that she was divine (or so it would seem).
One of the most prominent libertarian writers, Rothbard, though an agnostic, began with Augustine's natural law when writing his book on Ethics and Liberty.
Joel,
I would tend to agree that most prominent and outspoken atheists lean left. But I don't think you know many everyday atheists - especially the kind who stay in the closet.
I don't think you can classify Hitchens as leftest except on some social issues. He used to be an extreme leftest but he has become more libertarian. A lot of the problem is how you define right and left. Are Harris and Hitchens for big government or higher taxes for more social programs? No. Do they want to keep govt. out of our bedrooms and personal lives? Yes. Those are classically conservative positions. Are they pro-choice? Yes - and that is considered leftest though if you think about it, it's really arguably neither left nor right. It is ultimately about personal freedom (a conservative ideal) where pro-life people weight the personal freedom/rights of the fetus equal to or higher than the putative mother.
You tag public funding of stem cell research as leftest. Then most of the country is leftest then since it is widely supported - even by many conservatives.
Of course, your working assumption seems to be that leftest ideas are all evil. That is worthy of a separate blog and debate on its own. You seem to have a very rigid, dogmatic, and inflexible world view.
You seem to have a very rigid, dogmatic, and inflexible world view.
As do you, Jane.
Really, Tim?
At least I back up my claims with logical arguments. Where have I indicated an inflexible world view?
Most conservatives in this country are quasi-socialists. Even most Christians, though they would never admit it.
And there is nothing more rigid, dogmatic, and inflexible than scientific materialism. Nothing.
Joel,
Again, there is no argument, only assertion. You need to talk to your friend Ron, he wouldn't appreciate how you try to prove a point.
It sounds like you didn't read all my arguments. I'm not committed to materialism and it doesn't completely describe my beliefs anyway. In any case, my mind is open on the subject and yours isn't. Plus, my beliefs concerning materialism don't have much affect on my politics. I could introduce you to atheists who you would think are conservative Christians (Pro-Life, against stem cell research, voted for Bush, etc., etc.) if you didn't know they didn't believe in God.
Hoewever, your pronouncements on this website indicate that your religious dogmas cause you and your brethren to march lockstep on social and political issues. If I'm worng, please tell me the big disagreements among you.
I can also describe several means by which I would reject materialism and believe in God. Quite flexible. Let me hear the ways in which or the evidence you'd need to discard your belief in God. If you're like most Fundys, you won't be able to imagine this and you'll simply preach to me.
Jane,
My post did not accuse you personally of being a materialist. All I said was that that particular belief - which most atheists adhere to by the way (Dawkins has admitted he does) - is itself dogmatic and rigid and inflexible. Dogma at some level is inescapable. So spread the accusation around a little if you're going to throw it.
Most people admire their intellectual companions for "not backing down" while at the same time name-calling their opponents as "dogmatic" for exhibting the same trait.
(While this smacks of argumentum ad tuum, it . . . well, ok, it is.)
But if my religious dogmas drive my conclusions, it is because I have accepted those dogmas as providing the best conclusions at which to logically arrive. I cannot say the same for materialism, which is ultimately arbitrary, and cannot logically provide the necessary preconditions for all of human experience.
So to simply say my that mind is not open is a weightless comment. Talk about mere assertions without argument. It's the atheist's version of saying "you're going to hell and I'm not --- na-na-na."
As far as marching lock-step - I just asserted that most Christians are quasi-socialists. Judging by the number of Christians who support government schooling (for starters), that assertion can't be far off. Meanwhile, I'd love to see Ron Paul - the biggest anti-socialist in Washington or Texas - in the White House. Is that in lock-step?
Joel:
Here is a definition of dogma from wikipedia:
Dogma:is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation.
Science is based on open minded doubt and skepticism and is clearly not dogma. We are always open to new evidence willing to discard or modify theories that no longer model the universe. Presented with evidence of properties transcendent to the material world, science will consider this. There are a number of prominent scientists who believe that materialism cannot fully explain or model consciousness for example. That does not mean, however, that it is beyond scienific inquiry. Even here, you will find that logic, reason, and evidence reign over dusty books that must be accepted on faith.
Tell me Joel, what evidence would you need to discard your God hypothesis/belief/commitment/dogma?
Joel,
I realize I didn't answer your political questions. First, you need to know that I wasn't referring to all Christians - just the Calvinist Fundies in your cadre.
But if you'll be supporting Ron Paul, who believes in evolution and supports its teaching, then that is certainly not lock-step - unless, for you, he's only the best of a bad lot and therefore your default with your nose held firmly closed. I would have thought you a Huckabee supporter. So good for you.
I could support Ron Paul too. See, maybe we're not so different!
Post a Comment
<< Home