Chris Hedges has written a book that is very thought-provoking. The basic premise of this book is that utopian thinking is dangerous and is the cause of most of humanity's problem. He says we are not progressing morally as a species, and that this delusion drives much of the horror that has occurred over time. To some extent I think he is right. His ovearching thesis is that we just replace one kind of immoral action with another and delude ourselves into thinking that what we put in its place is moral. He says morals are, to some extent, informed by technology and the living circumstances of people. Take away comfort and technology and humans become animals who will do anything for raw, physical survival. They will also exploit others to maintain comfortable living conditions and turn a blind eye to the exploitation that makes their lives possible. He also quotes other thinkers like Freud, Joseph Conrad, Dostoevsky, and others who make similar points in their writings. He says Freud believed that humans are geared toward aggression, especially when they feel threatened in some way, and that this is driven by two instincts: the one to preserve life and the one that seeks death. I agree with Hedges that human belief in a perfect human world, whether on the part of social constructionists or religious writings, is misguided. I think the point of the bible is that humans are self-deluded, seek knowledge and mistake that for wisdom, will do anything for power, and are prone to self-aggrandizement. I agree with Hedges that this is a mirror we need to look in as a species so we recognize our very real limitations. However, he also says that the human condition is irretractable, while also saying we need to live examined lives. If our essential makeup cannot be overcome at all, what is the point of living such a life? Is it even possible? I'm not sure you can have it both ways.
There is one big thing that disturbs me about this book. I got this book in the library, and it is shelved in the religious section, largely I think because of it's misleading title. This man is an atheist who can't seem to cloak himself in that label because he has a virilent dislike of the New Atheist movement comprised of people like Denett, Harris, Dawkins, ect. He also ascribes things to these new atheists that they have not advocated in the way Hedges says they do. I have read the books by these people, and I did not see what he sees. These are people who, by and large, do not see a god who stops suffering, and this has led them to conclude that there is no god worthy of the name. They also believe that codified religion causes alot of problems in the world, as do I. So, if Hedges is hesitant to call himself what he really is, why just not say he does not believe in a god being while separating himself from some of the views of the New Atheist movement? Hedges alludes to a religious past, and occasionally tries to cloak himself in an extremely margional religious view in this book. Why not just own up to what he is?
My conclusion? This is not a book so much about religion or spritiual belief as it is a commentary about the socieological makeup of humans, and the lengths we go to to uphold our delusions. It is also a call to action, although what that call really is is not made clear at all.
I enjoyed the book, but be aware of what it is.
