Chris Hedges - I Don't Believe in Atheists (5/52)

By far this has been one of the most thought-provoking books I have ever read. Chris Hedges, who was a foreign correspondent for nearly twenty years for The New York Times and won the Pulitzer Prize in 2002 as part of a team of reporters that covered global terrorism, challenges the tenets of an emerging movement known as "new atheism." Led by Richard Dawkins, Chirstopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, these new atheists believe that moral progression is achieved, not through faith and religion, but through reason and science. As a result, Hedges argues that they have created a new form of fundamentalism that is startingly similar to the religious fundamentalism it means to attack.

The book starts off very intensely, with a long and weighty chapter entitled, "The God Debate." I was initially put off by Hedges' strong language and bold, often repetitive, statements, but I'm glad I stuck it out because he makes some truly compelling arguments. I think part of the reason it took me a while to really get into the book is because it is catered to an American audience. As Canadians, I don't think we've felt the effect of this atheism movement as strongly since it attacks Islamic fundamentalism, which has played a significant role in American foreign policy. Hedges believes that this new movement has emerged to help justify the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan under the banner of freedom, civilization and democracy.

These new atheists believe that "we are advancing as a species toward a world that will be made perfect by reason, technology [and] science" (pg. 9). Hedges vehemently disagrees; his main thesis argues that "the belief in collective moral advancement ignores the inherent falws in human nature as well as the tragic reality of human history" (pg. 10). He supports his arguments by referring to great thinkers, philosophers, scientists and authors such as Marcel Proust, Joseph Conrad, Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aldous Huxley, the list goes on. Truly it is Hedges' well-articulated arguments, combined with strong evidentiary support and his relevant experience as a foreign correspondent, which required him to live with and learn about the people of the Middle East, that convince his readers of his point of view. Hedges does a great job of informing his readers in the matters of history, politics, religion and science in order for them to fully understand how he came to his assertion and belief that these new atheists are just as destructive and frightening as any Islamic fundamentalist.

What I really enjoyed about Hedges was his ability to remarkably toe the line between science and religion. He is a graduate from seminary of Harvard Divinity School, but is also skeptic of religious institutions, which he argues are too easily corruptible to be trustworthy. In that sense, Hedges is in a unique position to critique both secular and religious fundamentalists without worrying that he has some hidden personal agenda to convert readers to his "side" since he doesn't belong to one. I liked how he presented his arguments and supported them with logic and evidence, without pressing the reader to choose religion or science and reason over the other. Instead he argues in favour of continually investigating new trains of thought to challenge our current ones because we, as humans, are forever evolving and our attitudes always changing, so it is of utmost importance to remain open-minded and avoid absolutist thinking.

I absolutely recommend this book. It really forced me to think about philosophy (I've got some research reading to do!) and the meaning of life in a different way, which was uncomfortably refreshing. Having said that, part of the reason I enjoyed this book so much is because my beliefs are somewhat aligned with Hedges' in that we both believe in religion and science co-existing in a way that isn't fundamentalist or necessarily contradictory. My only complaint about the book (aside from my initial concerns as stated above) is that I felt there were times when Hedges made his scope too wide, including certain aspects that didn't seem to tie in as directly to and therefore detracted from his main thesis. That said, I still recommend this book because even if you don't agree with what he says and he rambles on for longer than is probably needed, it will at least enlighten you to a different point of view and provoke you to think beyond your current philosophies and beliefs. I will probably do a book by Dawkins or Hitchens soon to counter balance this one, so keep a lookout for that in the coming weeks!