I Don't Believe in Atheists (Hardcover)

~ (Author)
Key Phrases: collective moral progress, new atheists, collective humiliation, The God Debate, United States, The Illusive Self (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Booklist

*Starred Review* Hedges is clear from the outset: there is nothing inherently moral about being either a believer or a nonbeliever. He goes a step further by accusing atheists of being as intolerant, chauvinistic, bigoted, anti-intellectual, and self-righteous as their archrivals, religious fundamentalists; in other words, as being secular versions of the religious Right. Like best-selling atheists Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, Hedges is disgusted with the Christian Right, going so far as to call it the most frightening mass movement in American history. Even more disturbing for Hedges, however, is the notion, which many atheists and liberal churchgoers share, that as a species humanity can progress morally. There is nothing in human nature or human history to support the idea, Hedges maintains, nor that the flaws of human nature will ever be overcome. He discusses the dark sides of the Enlightenment, Darwinism, consumer culture, the justifications for America’s wars (including in Vietnam and now Iraq), and obsession with celebrity, among other equally hot topics. His purpose in this small, thought-provoking book is, he says, to help Americans, in particular, accept the limitations of being human and, ultimately, face reality. --June Sawyers

Review

"Chris Hedges reminds us that the point of religion is not to make us disdain those who think differently but rather to help us become decent, responsive, and moral human beings." - 0, The Oprah Magazine (O, the Oprah magazine ) --This text refers to the Audio CD edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 224 pages
• Publisher: Free Press (March 4, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 141656795X
• ISBN-13: 978-1416567950
• Product Dimensions: 7.2 x 5.2 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.1 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (61 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #335,779 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #52 in

  Books > Religion & Spirituality > Spirituality > Agnosticism

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

198 of 244 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars What?! Who?, April 20, 2008

By	Kevin Currie-Knight "Education Grad Student" (Newark, Delaware) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

Amazon Verified Purchase

I might not be the typical reviewer of this book. I am an atheist, but one who is as annoyed as Hedges over the excesses and irresponsibilities of the more dogmatic of "public figure" atheists. But, wait! I gave this book two stars. Why would I give a book whose message I essentially agree with 2 stars?

Well, for starters, I don't agree with much in this book; suprising, because I thought that I would. Of the scores of things Hedges could have challengd these atheists - Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens - on, Hedges manages to miss most of them and add some that are quite illigitimate. Had I written this book, I would have taken the three authors to task on a few things:

a.) their simplistic and baffling view that not only religious extremists, but moderates, are to be condemmed. (Isn't religion a tool? Just as people can do bad with it, so they can do good, depending on their motive?)

b.) these authors occasional faith-driven zeal, that given enough time, sceince will explain all of the things it has tried and failed to explain (like morality, even though science deals with 'is' rather than 'ought' questions. (And don't get me started on the idea of 'memes' as opposed to the older, more sensical, idea of 'ideas.')

c.) These authors' very frequent exhibitions of the type of fanatical extremism and dogmatism they rightly point out as a flaw of their opponents (fundamentalists).

The only of these Hedges hits on is the third. Hedges is not even primarily against atheism. He is, rather, against dogmatism and fanasticism, which he rightly sees exhibited in spades amongst these new 'public figure' atheists.

But in his zeal - and judging by the redundancy, this was a book written in great haste without the benefit of editing or critical thought - he attributes many things to these authors that they, in fact, never actually say. This, of course, renders his books quite superfluous, irrelevant, and unimportant.

His main argument against these atheists is that they believe in moral progress in a utopian sense. Get rid of religion, they are alleged to say, and the world can be a utopia. Hedges says this of them several times. As one whose read all of the authors to which he refers, I was confused, because I don't remember any of them saying this. At least, I figured, he will quote them on this at some point. He never did.

He suggests that these authors do not believe in any idea resembling original sin; that humans have both a good AND A DARK narure. That is funny in a naive sort of way, because if Hedges had done homework, he would have easily known that the whole idea of evolutionary psychology (to which all of our authors subscribe)is ALWAYS lambasted for recognizing that we - evolutionary creatures - have inherited our predecessors' moral virtues and shortcomings. (Hedges should have remembered the uproar at Dawkins' book 'The Selfish Gene!').

For their parts, Harris and Hitchens are also quite clear in their books on the idea that moral perfection and utopianism should not be seriously taken. Hitchens, after all, is a raging fan of the anti-utopian George Orwell, who makes several moralistic appearances in Hitchens' book. And Harris says repeatedly that once religion is out, humans will just as easily fight over other things; the only difference will be that hopefully those things are more solvable and tractible than are beliefs that God gave this group or that group the holy land. (Religion IS in fact a good, but not the only, conversation stopper.)

Quite simply, Hedges' attribution and scolding of atheists that believe in unbounded moral perfectability is arguing against a ghost. Those atheists died out with Stalin. And as dead as they are, so dead is Hedges 'argument.'

Beyond this, Hedges also condems Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens - quite oddly - for the belief that humans can morally impove AT ALL!! Hedges is a pessimist in the fine tradition of those depressed social thinkers like Reinhold Neibuhr and Soren Kierkegaard. Like them, he reminds us that humans have natures and sometimes, those natures are selfish and devious. As such, we should never try to overcome any part of ourselves; we should simply accept the fact that sin exists.

Of course, anyone whose ever read Reinhold Neibuhr - I have, even as an atheist - knows that he never, ever was that pessimilstic. He simply suggested that moral PERFECTIBILITY was a chimera. Try as we might, there is always going to be an ideal that we fall short of, but that this should not keep us from trying for it and striving for it.

Hedges on the other hand reminds us again and again that "we live in a constant state of war," and that it is no good to try and change it. So how dare the atheists suggest that if we try hard, we may be able to gradually move beyond some of the moral quandaries of the day. Of course, we have in the past. At least in Western countries: slavery is outlawed women are no longer property of men; feudalism is gone; monarchy and dictatorship is more and more rare and looked down on; the first bills of rights have appeared on the planet. One wonders: if Hedges were writing 300 years ago, would any of this have happened? Or would he simply have reminded us of the evil that comes when we try to do better than we have in the past. And how dare the wicked atheists for suggesting that progress is a goal to strive for!!

I write this lengthy review, quite simply, to give prospective readers an idea of how poor this book is both in intellectual quality and message. If one wants to argue against the 'new atheism' for things like their dogmatism, and morally simplistic judgments against all things with the hint of religion, then do that! (I will welcome it myself!) But to suggest that the new atheism is evil because of a belief in moral perfection that none of its authors write about, and for the audacity to claim that humans can be decent if they try hard - what? Who?

113 of 139 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Worth Reading Even If You Don't Buy Everything He Says, March 16, 2008

By	L. L Teuling "meloroze" (McAllen, TX) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Amazon Verified Purchase

My interest in this book came from a nasty experience in college some years ago. I was talking about Christianity and its effect on my life. Apparently my views were too conservative and/or orthodox to suit two people I was talking to. They started to get in my face and insist that I was wrong. No matter what I said, they would take turns interrupting me and insisting that I was wrong and that Christianity had "changed," and that I needed to change with it. That I had been raised in the home of an ordained minister and had just about cut my teeth on a Bible didn't matter - to them, I didn't know that I was talking about and they wouldn't listen. I was bothered by this - not so much that they didn't agree with me, but that they wouldn't listen, and at one time they were almost shouting and backing me up against a wall - literally! Later on I thought, "If a so-called "fundamentalist" Christian had acted like that, they would have had his/her head on a platter!"

When I first found this book, I wondered if Chris Hedges had the same type of experience I did. Probably not - but his message rang true.

In my opinion, the title of this book is misleading. Hedges doesn't necessarily disapprove of atheists, if they have reached their position with an honest heart. His issue is with the "fundamentalist mentality" which he claims can happen as much with atheists as with believers in God.

This book contains a badly-needed two-fold message. First of all, that we need to come back to the idea of human corruptibility - a truth that we don't need to be Christians to accept. The other part both religious and non religious people need to reject the idea that we can perfect ourselves. In other words - we need to understand that the biggest evil is not outside of us, but rather IN us. I appreciated his use of quotes about human fallibility from sources who do not claim to be Christians (e.g., Sigmund Freud).

I found the book useful, and Hedges explained some things which I had felt on a gut level but couldn't articulate the way that I wanted to. I also appreciated the background information on how the tension developed between the United States and the Islamic world. I think that the chapter "Humiliation and Revenge" was worth the price of the whole book. He does not try to whitewash either professing Christians or Moslems, showing that both sides did some dreadful things.

As to what Harris, Dawkins, and the other atheists are like as people or what is in their minds and hearts - well, I can't say. I have checked out Dawkins' book and need to read it entirely to know exactly what he says. And in all fairness, I need to do the same with Harris' book. However, the quote on page 122 that Hedges gives from Harris' book THE END OF FAITH makes my blood run cold. I truly hope that . . . "facilitating the emergence of civil societies everywhere else . . . " doesn't consist in forcing something on other societies. The rest of the quote strikes me as implying that in some cases, a benign dictatorship will be necessary, and maybe even from outside. However, I'll need to see the entire Harris quote in context.

Both sides of the argument raise some questions for me:

First of all, is the problem actual religious belief - or is it how some people try to force it on others? Real Christianity does not "force" people to believe.

Second, is the problem Utopianism? Or is it what we feel we have to do to achieve it?

Also, I believe that both sides need to come to a common definition of the following words:

1. FUNDAMENTALIST. When I was younger, a "fundamentalist" was someone who wanted to return to the "fundamentals" or basic ideas of a belief (usually a religion). It did not necessarily refer to a pushy mindset.

2. LITERAL interpretation of a sacred text. A "literal" interpretation can mean that the text says what it means while acknowledging that some passages are poetic, mythical, etc.

3. FAITH. In my opinion, faith does not mean believing something without questioning. In fact, "faith" is what makes me able to get on an airplane and travel even though I can't see the air that's holding it up. The Bible Itself says, "We walk by faith, not by sight." It doesn't say "We walk by faith, not by reason."

We live in a time where many people who claim to be religious are not behaving well. I also remember a time when atheistic governments were mistreating religious people.

For all of us, a big dose of thorough self-examination is in order.

26 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Rants, mostly, June 23, 2008

By	Bill Reid - See all my reviews

He basically states that Dawkins, Harris and the like have created a new fundamentalism that's as scary and illogical as any religious fundamentalist, which I completely agree with. But his book is just a big pot of ill will he stirs, basically asserting that humans are intrinsically evil and left to their own devices, will destroy one another and eventually civilization.

There's a lot of name calling, a lot of straw man arguments and not much else. Some good thoughts here and there, but mostly a disjointed, disorganized batch of hostile essays.

He also seems to be of the opinion that Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens believes that the world will become a utopia if religion is banished. I'm not that well read in these men, but I don't recall any such assertion in what I have read. If anything, it's widely out of character for these guys. All of these guys can be accused of making unreasonable attacks on religion, but the picture painted by Hedges is inaccurate and dogmatic.