I couldn’t resist saying something about Chris Hedges’ new book, I Don’t Believe In Atheists. I haven’t read it, but I did read Hedges’ essay here, so I’ll comment solely on that.

Speaking of the so-called new atheist authors (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens), he says this:

They too propose a route to collective salvation. They too believe in the moral advancement of the human species, this time through science and reason. The utopian dream of a perfect society and a perfect human being, the idea that we are moving toward collective salvation, is one of the most dangerous legacies of the Christian faith and of the Enlightenment. Those who believe in the possibility of this perfection often call for the silencing or eradication of human beings who are defined by them as impediments to human progress. They turn their particular good into a universal good. They are blind to their own corruption and capacity for evil. They soon commit evil not for evil’s sake but to make a better world. And they do this in the name of religion or science or reason.

Now, I have an enormous amount of respect for Hedges, and greatly enjoyed one of his previous books, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning. But here he is saying things that are just plain wrong.

First of all, having read the so-called new atheists, and having seen one of them in person, I can safely say that not a single one of them has ever written or said anything about a “utopian dream of a perfect society and a perfect human being.” And it’s also safe to say that none of the intellectual atheists in the world are calling for “the silencing or eradication of human beings who are defined by them as impediments to human progress.” The only people who wish to forcefully silence anyone are religious fundamentalists; either those who commit acts of terrorism, or those who wish to legislatively impose their beliefs on others. And for that matter, those who support illegal wiretapping, police-state security and never-ending war in the Middle East. Those people want to “eradicate” their opponents; most atheists I know would be happy just to change a few minds.

No atheist I have ever met has proposed to ban the Bible, or burn down churches, or force religious people to read 10-item manifestos tacked up on every empty courthouse and school wall. Yet, we can all think of cases where religious people have tried (and succeeded) to ban certain books, or make certain activities that they don’t like illegal. All that any non-theist is trying to do, either through writing or debating, is draw attention to the intellectual fallacy of supernatural belief. And no atheist I know of believes in the pursuit of “perfection.” Enlightenment, maybe; a broader understanding of the universe, yes. But perfection is an ideal that is only espoused when talking about Yahweh, Allah or the afterlife.

Ultimately, Hedges seems to be making the ‘can’t we all just get along’ argument. He appears to be saying that everyone who proposes change, or takes a stand, whether on the left or right, whether religious or secular, is all the same. This is dishonest and simply wrong. There is an enormous difference between writing books, making logical arguments, participating in debates and hoping that people will change their minds, which is what non-theists do, and proposing that the ten commandments should be hung up on every empty wall, that children should be forced to pray, that gay people should not be allowed to marry, and that there is a magical man in the sky who created the universe to whom we all owe fealty, which is what religious fundamentalists do. There is an enormous difference between changing minds and changing legislation. There is an enormous difference between hearing an atheist speak at a book signing and hearing a sermon in a church. Clearly, Hedges is smart enough to see that difference, so we can only speculate about his motives for making an argument that he can’t possibly actually believe.

Hedges’ claim of the mantle of centrism, though, like so many others’ claims of centrism, is what really bothers me. He illogically decries people who reject religion in the same way he decries people who embrace it too vehemently. Is his main argument, then, that most people should be sort of religious? Is his argument that people should go to church, but just kind of ignore the parts they don’t like? Because, truth be told, that’s exactly what is going on in religious America right now. I know that most people sitting in the pews of the average Presbyterian church have little to no idea what differentiates their religion from that of the Methodists down the street. Is Hedges seriously trying to make the case that this status quo, a kind of non-committal, rote religion, practiced by people who aren’t particularly striving for any end goal, is his ideal? Apparently so.

These atheists share a naïve belief with these fundamentalists in our innate goodness and decency. They, like all religious fundamentalists, fail to grasp the dark reality of human nature, our own capacity for evil, and the morally neutral universe we inhabit. There is nothing in human nature or human history to support the idea that we are morally advancing as a species or that we will overcome the flaws of human nature. We progress technologically and scientifically, but not morally. We use the newest instruments of technological and scientific progress to create more efficient forms of killing, repression, and economic exploitation and to accelerate environmental degradation as well as to nurture and sustain life. There is a good and a bad side to human progress. We are not moving toward a glorious utopia. We are not moving anywhere.

I don’t know anything about an “innate goodness;” in fact, given what I’ve seen of humanity, I’d argue against it. But, despite what Hedges says, there has been enormous moral progress in human civilization at the same time as there has been scientific progress. Is he really saying that we have made no moral advancement? None? All he’d have to do is go back about 150 years in history and spend about an hour there to see that that simply isn’t true. When this country was founded, for instance, women could not vote and people were bought and sold into slavery. Have we not made moral progress in righting those wrongs? And If Hedges’ argument is that our greater understanding of the universe had nothing to do with eradicating these and other blights, then what did? Our continued ignorance? Dumb luck?

I Don’t Believe in Atheists is a call to reject simplistic and utopian visions. It is a call to accept the severe limitations of being human. It is a call to face reality, a reality that in the coming decades is going to be bleak and difficult. Those who are blinded by utopian visions inevitably turn to force to make their impossible dreams and their noble ideals a reality. They believe the ends, no matter how barbaric, justify the means. Utopian ideologues, armed with the technology and mechanisms of industrial slaughter, have killed tens of millions of people over the last century. They ask us to inflict suffering and death in the name of virtue and truth. The New Atheists, in the end, offer us a new version of an old and dangerous faith. It is one we have seen before. It is one we must fight.

I agree that people ought to face their reality more than they do, and I’ve said that many times here. And I also reject the notion of shaping the future through force, which I’ve also said many times here. In fact, what I have argued for time and again on this site is that being an atheist is all about rejecting overarching ideologies (and their accordant violence) and simply sticking to what we know and what we don’t know. Too bad that as smart a person as Hedges doesn’t seem to realize that atheism is not an ideology, or a theology, it is the lack of those things. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of it. And the so-called new atheists are nothing more than a bunch of authors. They are not prophets, or priests, or even leaders of a movement. So when Harris and Hitchens suggest considering a nuclear strike on the Middle East, I am free to disagree with them. They do not represent me, or speak for me, and their words carry no more legal, moral or legislative weight than mine.

And as far as utopia goes, I agree that such a thing is little more more than a fantasy. The garden of Eden, for instance, considered by Jews and Christians to be a utopia, was, in fact a dystopia, a place where Adam and Eve could frolic and play only as long as they didn’t ask any questions. They were ‘free’ to do what they wanted as long as they didn’t try to understand the world, themselves, or make any effort to improve their status. If that’s utopia, then it’s not for me, thanks.

But if Hedges is actually saying that nothing can ever get better, and that no one should even try to even slightly improve themselves or society, then he is welcome to argue for the re-instatement of slavery, and the repeal of suffrage, and he is also welcome to simply die next time he gets the flu. He is also welcome to argue that rape and murder should be legal, and that children should work in factories. I also hope his offspring turn out to be poorer than him, and I hope that his current car will last, because it doesn’t sound like he’ll be getting a new one any time soon. And I certainly hope he’s never said anything good about MLK jr.

If what Hedges was saying about the “new atheists” was true, then I’d agree with him 100%. We ought to fight any “old and dangerous faith” which seeks to “inflict suffering and death in the name of virtue and truth.” Except that I don’t know of any atheist jihadists, or of any non-religious politicians advocating for legal sanctions against supernatural belief. Furthermore, I know of no utopian visions being offered up or embraced by any non-theists. I know of no atheist cults anywhere, and I know of no atheist militias in Idaho or Montana.

But what I do see is an author buying into a kind of ideological hyper-centrism, where all people who disagree with the status quo, for whatever reason, are equally alike and equally bad; so an atheist is as much a “fundamentalist” as is Pat Robertson. But to say that the people who argue against religion are equivalent to those who argue most strongly in favor of it is absurd on its face. Change that sentence to ‘the people who are the most anti-broccoli are equivalent to those who are the most pro-broccoli,’ and ask yourself if that’s true. Or why not say that the people who are the most anti-racist are equivalent to those who are the most racist? Where does this ‘logic’ end?

Hedges spends the entire essay arguing against ideology, but only under an ideology would this kind of fallacy make any sense. But then, in Hedges’ view, logic is itself a kind of ideology, so I guess that makes me an ideologue for logic. In fact, maybe I should start my own militia.

And finally, he writes that the new atheists “peddle the alluring and enticing fantasy of inevitable moral and material progress,” and he calls this “an act of faith.” Now, as to the claim of whether this is what the “new atheists” are actually ‘peddling,’ I don’t particularly think that’s true, but again, I don’t really care, as these authors do not speak for me or for anyone other than themselves. Compare this, by the way, to the authors of the Bible who apparently believed that they were speaking on behalf of Yahweh. But Hedges also claims that we are not moving “forward.” I agree. We are not moving horizontally, we are moving vertically. We’re trying to push a big rock up a very steep hill, and for every difficult step we take in the opposite direction of gravity, there is the possibility that we could go tumbling uncontrollably backwards. And in our world, backwards means a time when religion waged crusades, when religion defined what people could and could not say or think or do, and when people like Hedges could be executed for heresy.

Despite what Hedges claims about other atheists, I don’t believe that progress is inevitable at all. I think it’s hard won, and takes perseverance of intellect and character. And there are always people fighting against it. In fact, I agree with Hedges that it is in our natures to be barbaric and stupid and cruel, and that we are always fighting this. Just look at the kinds of things we find entertaining: football, hunting, violent movies, and yes, war. We must enjoy it since we keep doing it, right? But what is the alternative that Hedges proposes? That we stop trying to improve ourselves? That we, in fact, allow ourselves to go backwards, to succumb to our base natures and undo centuries of hard-fought progress?

Because, if we’re not going “forward,” as he says, then there is only one other direction to go. And I can’t believe, despite his rhetoric about the inevitability of human nature, that he would actually want his children to live in a world worse off than the one he inhabits.

But maybe he does. And if so, he has bigger problems than a few atheist books.