Why the "New Atheists" Are Right-Wing on Foreign Policy

Sorry but I think the author here is looking far too deeply into a few statements without paying any attention to what is actually being said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is a shallow, severely impoverished piece that is wrong on almost every level.

Let's see.... three people who think religion is evil have politics Wright considers right-wing, so clearly the New Atheism must be right-wing.

Great logic. Or consider this sentence:

"Whether belief in posthumous rewards has on balance done more harm than good is an empirical question whose subtlety Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens don't exactly emphasize."

Yes, because the question of "what is good" is not a question about values, but something that can be empirically verified. A revolutionary insight! And here all us moral cripples throughout human history didn't think goodness was subject to empirical verification, but was instead a value constructed by humans.

But speaking of empirical verification, do they have Google at Wright's house? Because Dawkins, in a famous controversy a while back easily found on the internet....

...Richard Dawkins endorsed with others was the call for Europeans to suspend scientific grants and contracts until Israelis "abide by UN resolutions and open serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians".

Yes, that's Dawkins, a crazed right-winger for ya, because we all know how serious peace negotiations and abiding by UN resolutions are right-wing positions when it comes to Israel. About that same boycott it is also note:

"Signatories including Oxford professors Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins say they “can no longer in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities”.

This right-wing narrowmindedness is almost too much to bear!

If there is one thing that is even more peevish than a believer, it's the person who believes they are superior because they are not one of those "silly" people who take "extreme" positions.

And yes, religion is evil, and I say that as a lifelong progressive. I believe religion is evil for the same reason I believe that all systems of values that repose their moral legitimacy in a transcendent absolute like God, the State, the Objective Laws of History -- be it communism, christianity islam, nazism, fascism, whatever -- are evil. Behind every claim of absolute moral knowledge is a sword itching to come out.

Michael Turton

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are taking one aspect of an opposition to all religion and conflating it with a specific ideological position. Rather than accusing them of being right wing because they oppose Islam, why not accuse them of being antisemetic for opposing Judaism?

It isn't the fault of the new atheists that Islam is fiction. Pointing out the failing of poorly composed fiction may seem to support the ideology of the right, but it is rather just one point in the larger advocacy for the truth in all matters of religion.

Harris and others have suggested that moving all the Israelis to a largely unpopulated section of Montana, Mexico, or Texas to live without the threats of bombings and war would make everybody much happier and bring peace to the middle east. If religion plays no part in the conflict, then why are such suggestions never taken with any hint of seriousness. What's so special about that strip of land if the conflict has nothing to do with religion?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris see the struggle between rational debate and reasoned science versus imposed religious authoritarian dogma. It seems this is a legitimate concern as the religious design is to erase the enlightenment and reimpose the primacy of the subjective over the objective. Democracy is unavailable to a world where reason is discounted. Religion is necessarily and essentially irrational at its core and incompatible with the democracy of mind in the exercise of reason and of democracy generally. There may be more creative approaches to the struggle then reverting to middle ages strategies of beating them into submission. Nonetheless, the struggle is real and the threat is real and Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are right to draw our attention to what is at risk. Evil does not come into the equation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

enough for Israel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

me wonder whether the author of this piece has even bothered to read what these "right wing" crazies have written and what their political views are with, for example, respect to Israel and Palestine. What they have in common is that they think rational discourse and science offer a better way to tackle problems, than irrationality and superstition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with a lot of what others here have said in their responses, but I wish to add one more observation. As to Dawkins' statement regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I believe the author is incorrect. He asserts that the original establishment of Israel wasn't "essentially" religious. But what does this wishy-washy equivocation mean? That it was "sort of" religious? "Kind of" religious?

It it was religion that made it "essential" to establish the state of Israel geographically in Palestine, and it's the Biblical belief that Jews are divinely entitled to the land that drives the growth of settlements in the occupied territories. Does the author really believe that Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims would be in such an uproar if Israel had been founded in Germany or Eastern Europe? Trying to portray this conflict merely as two "ethnic groups" disputing who owns what land seems a bit disingenuous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fascinating reading! Recommended for both pro- and anti-Dawkins people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupidity at its finest.

Mate, it has everything to do with the the fact that being an atheist doesn't instantly make you a moral or cultural relativist who is ignorant as to the forces of nihilism that can be unleashed when relativism is taken to the logical extreme has some in the left have done.

Sam, Richard and Christopher have values which they believe in and unlike the left they aren't going to turn around and say, "human rights are ok, but if a female is getting their genitals cut up, I'm not going to appose it because that would be criticising their culture and thus it would be me imposing my western values on them!". Yes, I have heard people on the left and right use that very argument to justify horrendous atrocities because they are too weak willed to stand on some principles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As one of the "new atheists" I certainly do not consider myself right wing in any way shape or form.

One of the issues is the sloppy use of terminology. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who is busy warring on words or concepts is missing the point. No one can seriously wage a "war on terrorism" any more than wage a war on "democracy".

To believe that religion is not the motivating force in the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East is to live in a fantasy world. If you ask Jews and particularly those who call themselves Israelis, you will almost always get the response that "God gave us this land". That is religious motivation and that is the fundamental motivation for the very existence of Israel as a modern state.

Ask a Muslim and they will tell you the same thing. God (Allah) gave us this bit of land as well as any other land we put our feet on, and there shouldn't be any Jews on it. Read the Koran for what should happen to the Jews.

Religion is all nonsense from top to bottom and side to side. It is the remnant of primitive human beings. We no longer need superstitious explanations for lightening, thunder, rain, sunshine or the origin of the Universe. As long as people insist on living by astrology and biblical mythology, we will have misery caused by these superstitions.

There are more than enough things for people to fight about - together we can reason our way through most of our issues. But we cannot reason about irrationality itself - and that is exactly what religion is - irrationality treated as if it were a benefit rather than a bane to our existence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How's that for a review?

Sam Harris I'm not so familiar with, but let's face facts - Christopher Hitchens is a lying, drunken, shit. He writes books to get on TV. That's not being mean or hateful, merely accurate. Richard Dawkins? Well, having skimmed his book and seen his lecture I can say he's a thoughtless boob who's book blames religion for every evil ever. At least Hitchens doesn't contradict himself every other paragraph.

Personally, I find the entire thesis of religion as the cause of intolerance, violence, and fear to be specious at best. I think this line of thinking misses a basic force in any growing society - the elite, the powerful, the rich, will co-opt all social forces for their own benefit. Religion being an obvious choice. Every leader cops to being Godly, even if that's clearly not the case (Saddam Hussein springs to mind). All mandates, torture, and war will be justified as Godly. Righteous. But that's never the actual cause nor the reason, the powerful simply must rationalize and justify. Certainly Americans should understand this as, after 9/11, as a nation they followed the neo-con war and torture parade with a rat-faced president who actually stated he went to war because "God told him too". But really, George W. Bush didn't say that because he believed it, he said that to invite crappy liberal media write-up desperately trying to blame religion, God, and Jesus for what that bastard and his administration did for the elite, rich, and powerful. And as we can see, it worked. After all, if this thesis held any real water wouldn't the authors of these books be a lot smarter than these twits?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Consider Dawkins's assertion, in his book The God Delusion, that if there were no religion then there would be "no Israeli-Palestinian wars."

I'd agree with him. Without religion there would be no need for a Jewish state either administered, partitioned or independent. So there would be no conflict.

The motivation for moving to the eastern end of the Mediterranean is a religious one because of the historical teachings of the religion and the persecution of its practitioners at various times and in various places.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author is absolutely right to take the New Atheists to task. Folks like Hitchins, Harris, and Dennett have endorsed genocide, repression and execution of people with non-conforming beliefs, and the whole plethora of medieval horrors. (And yes, I can back all that up with direct quotes...like Harris's statement that we should nuclear first-strike the Muslim world, or Dennett's statement that Baptists should be put in concentration camps. I'm not sure if Dawkins has ever been overtly murderous in his writings, but the man has endorsed the other guys...)

The author is also right that the New Atheists - despite the claims by some of them to be "neuro-scientists" - show a shocking lack of sophisticated psychological understanding. As I've pointed out before, the Miligrim experiments (a.k.a, Obedience of Authority) were psychological experiments done in the 1970s that empirically disprove Sam Harris's and Christopher Hitchens's core assertions. (We don't need religion to make us evil...we just need an authority, doesn't matter what form the authority takes, and the 20th century shows that we'll quickly invent secular authorities in absence of religious ones.) You'd think a "neuro-scientist" like Harris would know that...although for some reason, I don't see any "neuro-science" in Harris's books except for the book's back-jacket, which reads like an attempt to disguise the fact that Harris has never held a real job.

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm all for rationality, and when evidence disproves a religion's claims, that religion is bust - or at least it should be. (So long, LDS.) But the New Atheists are just secularist Jerry Falwells.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wright says that Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins are "just wrong" in positing that if there were no religion, there would be no Israel-Palestinian conflict. Among the many things he fails to take into consideration is that the Israeli settlement movement keeps gobbling up Palestinian lands because God told them it was their destiny. This is akin to the loony tunes notions of the dominionist evangelicals, who support Israel -- and even fund its actions -- because a nuclear conflict in the Mideast will bring about the Rupture. Then, the real Christians will be taken up to Heaven while the rest of us burn in the resulting conflagration.

Hitchens is right: religion poisons everything.

Wright is just wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Zionism is an invention based on nationalism that grew out of the late 19th/20th century European nation-state.

Wright is right.

The worst atrocities of the last few centuries can be attributed to atheists:

1. Hitler
2. Stalin
3. Mao
4. US government - since WWII US government has killed millions around the globe; it has used chemical weapons with impunity.

Ironically, Hitchens has been championing US imperial goals for the last few years.

It is more palatable in the 21st century to sell imperialism by claiming that you are fighting religious extremism; this is nothing different than in the past when US justified wars of aggression by claiming it was bringing civilization to savge cultures (see the history of genocide of Native Indians at the hands of Europeans/Americans; see also the colonial history of Europe).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being an atheist ( neither new nor old whatever that means ) doesn't mean that I fit into some little box marked left, right, liberal etc. It means I don't believe in god.

As for my political views they are liberal on drugs and sex and obligations, left wing on democracy, right wing on law enforcement and free market on economics.

Like a great number of people ,I suspect, I don't live in an ideologically homogenized strait jacket. My views have evolved over decades of experience and I hold most of them quite strongly.

When it comes to election time all we are presented with is some caricature or other who pretends that a particular ideology will provide the answers to all of societies troubles and aspirations. Well that's just crap and I resent it.

Moreover I resent the author of this article inflicting such a shallow, poorly thought out premise on us. I read this online paper for it's left wing opinions but I expect them to be sensible at least. Mind you I read right wing publications that contain this kind of silliness too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The initial resistance to the settlements, and to the establishment of Israel, wasn't essentially religious, and neither was the original establishment of the settlements, or even of Israel."

Are you kidding me? You're kidding, right?

The Israelis wouldn't even BE there if not for their belief that a Bronze Age god promised the land to them. And the Palestinians, likewise, believing that the land is "holy" and shouldn't be degraded by the presence of (and rule by) non-Muslims.

I stopped reading after this ridiculous assertion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What religious notion created that ideology? I've read a couple of good articles by Robert Wright but I can't speak for this one too much. It's filled with a lot of resentment which is aimed at the loss of a religious notion that there is some thing called 'GOD' & that this 'GOD' is an innocent bystander to a war on terror. I can assure Robert, that whilst I was getting worked over by the Rudd Catholic Mafia for being an Atheist, it was all about religion & the "belief factor". The very reason I am being refused the right to vote, get an education, or access the law, are because of the "god" factor & the willingness to accuse me of being a threat to national security by the Bush, Howard, Blair & Rudd Religious fanatics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too bad my atheist friends have taken this 'war on terror' on face value, oddly allying themselves with the Christian Right. Of course, 911 precipitated the perpetual war on terror. But 911 was proved to be a false-flag CIA operation (see Tarpley "Synthetic Terror", Griffin "New Pearl Harbor", "The Hidden History of 911" -- to mention just a few studies).

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." Thomas Jefferson.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just as some people insist that you worship their god or else... some insist you worship no god at all or else.

Its not religion that is poisonous... its the insistence on forcing one's ideas on others that is poisonous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even if she did have her dark side, it was because she was in a system where it was difficult to decide what to do with the sick and the poor ! Hitchens twisted MT's words and framed her as a she-devil even when she turned out not to be so. That rightwing motherfucker can preach against abortion and euthanasia all he wants to but he's also pro-death and deserves to be thrown in a hurt locker !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Of course, when religion is handy, special problems can arise. If there were no belief in paradise, there would be few suicide bombers."

I'm not so sure this is true. Japanese Kamikazes, for example, weren't motivated by this.

The article is dead-on. These "new atheists" are bonkers when it comes to foreign policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spot-on, my man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let me see, why might it be that published "leaders" of a leftist demographic are pro-fascism? Could it be that there is a pro-fascist bias in publishing? Why is Anne Coulter's politics so out-of-step with the pro-peace mentality of the average woman? Hmmm...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Throughout the history of cilvilization it has been used as a vehicle for propaganda, indoctrination, control, and repression. This is not because all superstitious fancies are inherently evil; it is because the forces dependent on propaganda, indoctrination, control, and repression (namely, the eternal rightists) are evil. "Might makes right", "god is on our side", "rich people are better than poor people", "shut up and do as you are told"---these are sentiments that arise from tyrants and despots for their own purposes independently of religious dogma. Religious dogma, like mainstream media, representative government, and public opinion, is made to conform.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And as the risk of sounding judgmental,the man's a moron.

Atheists are no more monolithic in philosophy and politics, outside that we agree on the observable fact that there is no "guy-in-the-sky," than are the three great monotheistic superstitions. In fact, right here at Alternet.org, there are avowed wing nut atheists as well as progressive atheists.

Lumping me in with Christopher Hitchens when it comes to thoughts on foreign policy is akin to saying Cornel West and Fred Phelps agree on the meaning of the Eucharist, and in this they may be more in accord that I with Hitchens on how to deal with Islamists.

Poverty and the perception of cultural and politic slights from Europe and the United States toward the Islamic world, quite possibly stemming from a little unpleasantness called the Crusades, may very well be the underlaying causes of current Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, religion exacerbates the problem, giving each side doctrinal cover for neofascist racialism. Ultra-orthodox Israel Jews believe they are "god's chosen people," while fundamentalist Muslims believe that their guy, Mohammad, like Joseph Smith, has the only key to heaven so Jews and Christians are o.k., just a little hinky.

And it should be recalled that the father of modern Islamist thought Sayyid Qutb's anti-Western, anti-modernist ideas were cemented by his witnessing boys and girls dancing together in a Protestant church's basement in 1950s California. For Qutb this was a sure sign that Americans in particular and the West in general was a morally depraved lustful, sin pit and the only way the Islamic world could find its right place in the wider world was total rejection and eventual overthrow of Western influences, government and religions. To my way of thinking that's just plain nuts.

In fact the avowedly "Christian" author of the above essay, rather than castigating atheists, should be asking: Why do the world's leading politicians and "moderate" religionists take cross dressing old men, whether they be popes, cardinals, imans or ayatollahs, who utter patiently ridiculous and reactionary statements such as, no condoms for the poor and abortion's out or you can rape your wife because the epileptic who founded your religion says it's o.k, seriously?

Of all of humanities' inventions surely monotheism is the worst.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't believe this comment:
Of course, when religion is handy, special problems can arise. If there were no belief in paradise, there would be few suicide bombers. Then again, there might be less charity.

This is totally flawed logic. While I agree there would be few suicide bombers without religion (and likely none at all), religion does not charity make. The problem with religious "charity" is that there's always a hefty price tag attached. Go to a church for "help" and at best, you'll still have to endure their lectures, even if you don't believe in their religion.

My husband and I were once victimized by a "church" that was really a cult. They demanded obedience, down to the minutest detail. My husband had to take "classes" to determine if the cult was really right for him. They judged him on everything he did, and found him to be "wrong" according to their views, though he was doing nothing wrong. They were supposed to be helping us in a time of great need (due to a circumstance that was absolutely not our fault, and they knew this), but all they did was make judgments and empty promises. They hated me most of all, because they knew I was not of their religion and wasn't going to convert.

I won't say all religious groups are like that, but many are. Charity, if it doesn't fall within their guidelines, is subject to judgment of those in need, with the needy being on the losing side. They do not "give freely."

I have several friends who are atheistic/agnostic. I've never found a finer group of caring, charitable people than they are. I discovered that the "religious" like to yap about their "cause du jour" (such as protesting abortion), but those who are atheistic/agnostic are often the ones who not only actually care about those victimized by whomever, yet also will do what they can to help. The day I see an anti-abortion/forced-birther loon help an impoverished woman pay for the kids they and their fellow anti-abortion/forced-birther loons made her have is the day I'll concede that yes, charity is greater from the "religious."

Until then, I remain convinced that the most helpful are the ones who either are atheists/agnostics and the truly religious - the ones who live as they believe and never preach a word or try to force someone to believe in a religion. Sadly, the true believers are a tiny minority compared to the preachy, crazed zealots, who never do believe or behave as they themselves preach.

I find it sad that this author is pushing an ideal that long ago disappeared into thin air.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two anti-atheistic articles in one day on Alternet. WTF??

And, God (pardon the interjection), both of these articles are totally full of it.
I will not repeat all the good arguments made by others in the comments here. But, hey, duh, some atheists are not right-wing in any way. Sure figures that the pro-religious nutcase author would miss the absolutely obvious.

And Alternet, please find much better material to publish in the future!
There are a lot of IMPORTANT stories you often miss. But, hey, even a story or two about sex and celebrities would be an improvement over the insulting tripe like this article you sometimes publish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does anyone else find it strange, or is it just me who finds it rather ironic that atheists like Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins don't believe in God or sin, except in the case of religion, which they find to be a great "evil".

I suppose one could argue that evil is somehow different than sin, like "social maladjustment" is somehow different than evil and Dick Cheney is somehow guilty of promoting great harm but is not a sinner because of course, atheists don't believe in sin. As if, changing terminology because "sin" is perceived as a "religious" term, somehow changes the evil that men and women actually do.

These three promoters of blind faith "boogieman" magically appearing universes are are truly blind sheep following the blinder and, among the greatest of all liars. Bill O'Liely should take lessons from them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...that Christopher Hitchens is a one time hardcore ultra Left Wing propogandist. His political stance was only slightly to the right of Marxism.

His "conversion" seems to have happened along with his increasing income from articles and books...

See his acerbic article in this month's Vanity Fair on the current Prime Minister of the UK, Gordon Brown, long seen as old style Labourite but demonised as a sell out in the mould of his predecessor Tony "I Luv W" Blair.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I seen Bush on TV saying, “I pray a lot and seek God’s guidance.” Then Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I never heard one Christian or atheist ask Bush, why he applied the law of retaliation after Jesus specifically told him not to do that. If one follows the teachings of Islam, there would be no Muslim suicide bomber killing innocent children. Words or works, you atheists should stop blaming God for what people do. If people’s words do not match their works, you atheists should drop the hammer on them. I wonder how they would respond if you appeared more righteous than they do,not because of what you believe but because of the way you act. God did not say, “thou shall not kill but”, buts are like opinions and everybody has one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Into simplistic little cubyholes, the better to define what they are, and to either approve or disapprove their behavior or speech!
This is a leftover of the era in which quick thinking and decisions were necessary for survival, as one never knew who might be an enemy, or a rival for scarce resources. Of course, our ancestors were still dodging sabre-tooth cats and whooly rhinocerouses.
We seem to have lost the analytical thinking necessary for susvival, but kept the knee-jerk reactions no longer necessary in a world so dominated by our species.
Old atheists, new athesists, charismatics, blah, blah, are but cutsie names aimed at quickly defining people for peace of mind, or to seek advantage over them.
In my mind, humanity is roughly divided into two groups, thinkers and believers.
Thinkers have ALWAYS been better for humanity than believers.
Believers live in a closed, truncated world where they're always right, never wrong, and the rest of humankind is damned to perdition for not believing as they do or criticising them, or calling anything about them into question.
Thinkers have historically carried the rest of humanity on their shoulders, bringing the believers into the light of reason and enlightenment, kicking and screaming, as usual.
As for religion being evil,I don't think the religion itself, as self-defeating as it may be is intrinsically evil; it's the people who steal the show for their own dark purposes who are truly evil. The result is the same, however, and is evil.
As long as large numbers of people refuse to use the ability of analytical thinking, evil people will be there to victimize them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wright posits that without religion and the belief in heavenly rewards there would be no charity. The flaw here is he does not seem to know that the least religious countries in Europe are very generous with charitable contributions. He'll need to explain how this fits his theory. He seems fixated for some reason on zero-sum game theory. As though this is a great insight and answers everything. His book (I have only read about it and watched the video interview on his web site) purports to tie changes in scripture to the various changes occurring with the realities on the ground. But, he gives no statistical analysis of his assertions. Or at least he doesn't say anything about grounding his theories in something more than conjecture. This is a weakness of his book project I would think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and it was not the Garden of Eden (Gan Eden) which was a royal park in Iraq (ancient Babylon). The Apiru (from India) invaded the land when their herdsmen ran out of basics and their agricultural god yahweh was proclaimed the consort of the goddess (Asherah) of the Canaanites and Philistines (Palestinians) who had lived on that land thousands of years earlier without much warfare, advancing their civilization which the invaders destroyed. To claim that the contemporary state of Israel has a right to the land in 2009 is as false as it was in 1945-1948 when the British caved into the USA demands that it dismantle the UK's terroritial "protection" and give it to the dissettled Jews of Europe (east and west) based on the mythology of the Old Testament. Because of this nefarious act, Israel proclaimed itself a free nation and its roots back to the time of Solomon (of whom there is no record save in the OT) and David (at best a petty landlord and child molester). It is time that the nonsense of "biblical right" (an oxymoron for the entire bible is plagarized from far older literature, such as the infamous "Ten Commandments" (there are 3 sets) that were taken from Hammurabi's Code) be abandoned and the lands stolen by the Israelis be retored to the Palestinians and the Israeli government and military be tried for crimes against humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wright's essay doesn't really make sense. True, there is a kind of 'conservative' strain in the New Atheist diatribes, but what is Wright trying to pull here?
It seems that one strategy is to fool us into thinking that (his brand of) evolutionary psychology is really a liberal subject. In fact, it is not. Evo-psych has always been a suspiciously conservative subject, and Wright's behavior here makes no sense unless you consider his intent to fool us into rebranding his version of darwinism into a liberal politics. That's baloney.
commentary at:
from Darwiniana

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While history does show a religious path in regard to war, I wonder how one explains war amongst agnostic or atheist nations such as North Korea, China. or the former non religious Soviet Union who looking at WW2 and afterwards, invaded other countries. Or even neighbors who are non believers who are always at each others throat.

Human ego will grab at any excuse religious or not to shove beliefs down other peoples throats. The goal should be to have a civil society where free choice in ones personal life is the norm. This sounds easy, but in today's society here in the states we have way to many people who forget that free choice also means 100% personal responsibility, so that ones free choice doesn't cost another person or society at large money, time etc. You have a right to smoke as an example, but should not expect others to want you second hand smoke or the medical bills you incur because smoking has given you cancer or lung disease. Or someone who has type 2 diabetes because their free choice was eating junk food and a couch potato as a lifestyle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wright is just scraching the surface of history here. The people who are now the Palestinians and the Isralies were originally in the same group of tribes in the area that shared the same land. That was 3,000 years ago, and it was their choosing of different religions, and the "otherness" of those religions that generated this multi-millenia battle. Religion is the source of the hatred of others based on the same fear that generated religions in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The revoltingly combative Hitchens was once a progressive (of sorts) then did a 180 degree turn to become an atheist (of sorts).

I expect him to become an Anglo-Catholic (of sorts) at his next turn.

My preference would be for him to become a monk (of sorts) and immure himself in a cave far, far away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Wright brings a needed breath of fresh air and perspective to the radical extremism of Dawkins and Hitchens. Both men are out of their league when it comes to religion--their opinions are not worth more than the average man's. Blaming religion for nearly every human problem is common among some atheists. Let's recall that it was science and politics which gave us the nuclear bomb, which is surely the most obscene thing humans have every created. When an atheist argues that God does not exist, they sound foolish to me-because they really cannot know that. They can have all the opinions they want, but they don't really know. Organized religion is pitiful--it is in many ways pathological. But so is corporate predatory behavior and American foreign policy, so the blame can be equally shared. The individual faith of a person seeking real spirituality, ethical development and truth can hardly be compared to someone willing to use violence in God's name. These people will use violence anyway they can, and justify it if not with religion, but with politics, economic self-interest or their own survival.

Yes, I wish the Catholic church would disappear with its persecution of Galileo, its tacit support for the Nazis and its ever-pervasive pedophilia, sex-negative values and its absurd stance on reproduction rights, family planning, contraception and AIDS protection. Yes, I know they do a lot of charity. The harm they do is far greater than the good. We need critics of religion, we need the desperately. But to assert that human consciousness is the absolute extent of what's happening in our galaxy, and in the cosmos is about as arrogant and self-centered as any idea I've heard to date. Dawkins ought to go back to science and Hitchens back to his alcohol--extremism of any kind does not further the pursuit of truth.

Jerry Gerber

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just read this item and thought that it was so shallow and illogical that a comment was needed. Once I read the first several comments I realised people were already pointing that out. So I decided not to make the comment. Oops.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For starters, this is just wrong. The initial resistance to the settlements, and to the establishment of Israel, wasn't essentially religious, and neither was the original establishment of the settlements, or even of Israel.

The conflict is totally about religion. If the Israelis were Muslims, they'd be welcomed by the Palestinians. The Palestinians would be welcomed by the Israelis if they'd all convert to Judaism.

In neighboring Lebanon, the 15-year (1975-1990) civil war was all about religion too.

In Iraq, the bloodletting between the Shiites and Sunnis is about nothing but religion.

Pakistan was created just so Muslims would not have to live with Hindus, and three big wars between India and Pakistan was the result. The fourth will likely be nuclear.

Despite the long list of legitimate grievances that Catholics in Northern Ireland use to justify IRA terrorism, at the end of the day the conflict is between Catholics and Protestants. Erase religion, and that conflict will cease.

Religion isn't the only cause of war, but it sure motivates people to fight and keep the fight going until long after anyone can remember what ignited the war in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i read a lot of alternet articles. Been doing so for a long time. This is the worst one i have seen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only war ever fought between Cambodia and Vietnam by two officially atheist governments, repressively atheist in he case of the Khmer Rouge, has a simple explanation. Southern Vietnam, Kampuchea Krom, "Lower Cambodi", used to belong to Cambodia. Saigon was originally a Khmer town called Prey Nokor, "Sacred City", which was taken over by Vietnam by way of mass immigration by 1698. Backed by China, Democratic Kampuchea launched a campaign to retake Kampuchea Krom.

Vietnam had land that used to belong to Cambodia and they wanted it back.

The same historic battle for land is the driving force of the recent conflict between Thailand and Cambodia over the World Heritage status of the Preah Vihear Temple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Cambodian-Thai_stand-off

About half of modern Thailand, plus Laos, used to belong to Cambodia prior to the 15th century. Those Cambodian and Thai soldiers shooting at each other last year at Preah Vihear are from nations that are about 95 percent Theravada Buddhist. I don't have the slightest doubt that every one of them would call themselves devoted followers of the Buddha. So why are they shooting at each other? Religion is always a secondary issue when you have two nations, who speak languages that are as different from each other as French is from German, and they are fighting over the same land.

My wife is Cambodian. If you haven't ever heard a proud Cambodian express his resentment at Thailand and Vietnam for the loss of territory that used to belong to Cambodia, then you have no understanding of these battles over land in Southeast Asia.

The Caliphate of Reason proposed by Harris and Company is just as imperialist and driven by the same self-righteous smugness that motivated the Spanish Conquistadors in Mexico and Central/South America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've heard this from his own mouth at a public forum. He argues in favor of militarily invading and occupying Islamic countries and forcing them to change their beliefs at the point of a Cruise Missile. A kind of "Reformation" of the Islamic world brought about at the point of a Cruise Missile. Such a proposal is very revealing not only for its moral bankruptcy (People don't have a right to invade a neighbor's home and force them to change their beliefs at the point of a gun), but it also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the motivations for exercise of imperial power. No imperial power in history has ever used its power to help bring mass based public education to the people they are oppressing in its colonies.

The belief Harris has in an imperialism that can bring "enlightenment" demonstrates a naive belief in the "good intentions" of an imperial power. Besides, can anybody take seriously that American politicians are going to foster secular humanism outside the U.S., when they are against fostering secular humanism internal to the U.S.? That is what makes Harris' proposal laughable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I liked the article. I had already planned on reading the book. I only disagree with including Karl Marx among militant atheists. The following is my reply to absolutist atheists below. I hope some readers will find it useful:

Soulrebel, I suspect that you (and others militantly anti-religion people) once believed in a religion and that's why you're so pissed off at religions and religion in general.

I had the pleasure of being in the audience of one of Stephen Gould's last lectures. I always remember what he said: human beings can't help but to express their knowledge or lack of it through narratives, whether they be Genesis or the Big Bang theory.

Rationality is outside the realm of human knowledge. We'll never know the whys and the wherefores of our existence and of the universe --though possibly we might get some sort of a scrap of an inkling through science and various mystical traditions (the confluence between mysticism and quantum theory is pretty interesting). So I believe a bit of humility is called forth when talking about other people's beliefs as well as one's own (a blind faith in "Reason" is definitely akin to a belief in the supernatural --except that it might be even more limiting and certainly more boring than other stories we have invented).

As for the evils or benefits of religion, all I know as a historian is that human beings have done their best under the guise of religion and also their very worst.

Karl Marx has been mentioned in the article, but I have to differ with the author. Marx was never anti-religion as such. What he stated is that "religion is the opiate of the masses." What he meant is that religion was being used as an ideology, and I can see that it is still used that way today in many instances.

Any system of absolutist beliefs can be used as ideology (in the Marxist sense)and this includes the sort of absolutist militant atheism willfully ignorant of the traumatic socioeconomic conditions under which most of our fellow human beings have to live.

As for suicide bombers, I read a study not too long ago (I'm sure that anyone interested can find it) that suicide bombers in the majority are not so much driven by religion as by despair. A majority of them have been witness to atrocities and catastrophic traumas in their past. Their suicides were not so much aimed at ascending to paradise (and by the way its present absurd description is fairly recent in Islam --see Fatima Mernisi on that topic)but rather to end their suffering by killing themselves in a way that could somehow be useful. In other words, most if not all suicide bombers suffer from acute PTSD rather than religion.

As to the poster who taught in a predominantly Islamic country and who noted that people were living daily their religion, how is that different from our own country where we unquestionably live Christmas, Easter, take Sunday off, claim to trust in God, etc etc etc. Not to mention, most of our cuss words are of religious origins (it's difficult to swear without bringing God or hell into it....)We are so steeped in Christianity that we take it for granted.... The example of little kids complaining of being hungry during Ramadan is ludicrous, there is no clue in their attitude about what their faith will be when they reach adulthood. And even a religiously devoted adult can complain about hunger without questioning her faith. Just ask any members of the many religions that promotes fasting at certain times of the year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author is correct in asserting that religion is not the only cause of so many violent conflicts in the world. He underplays, however, the effective support system that religion is for people who want war for territorial or other reasons. He also underplays the primary effect religion has in instigating and promoting war. He says:
"The initial resistance to the settlements, and to the establishment of Israel, wasn't essentially religious, and neither was the original establishment of the settlements, or even of Israel."
The establishment of Israel was INDEED religious-a Jewish State for the "chosen ones". The justification for the Jewish settlements (land theft)in the West Bank is entirely religious-God gave that land to Israel. In fact the American religious right radicals support Israeli aggression in Palestine because they believe Israel has to control the area before the "second coming" of Jesus.
I think the "War on Terrorism" is a scam. I don't like the idea that men I admire: Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris in anyway support it. But I think their overall assessment of religion and its role is the world is closer to the mark than the author's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was thinking of writing an article in response to this entitled something like "Why Robert Wright is Full Of Crap" or "Why Robert Wrights Article is an Exercise in Illogic and Sophistry". But then I figured why bother.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dawkins and Hitchens are getting a feeble backlash. I bet Wright's book is great, at points, but piously respecting lunacy gets WAAAY too much good press, whereas rhetorical thrashing--for fun, spectacle and edification--seems to be coded as poor taste. But the link with foreign policy is hogwash. Maybe, in a William James sense, there's some temperamental connection between buying into the war on terror nonsense, in 2003, and getting "militant"ly atheist, but whatever.

Now is there a big difference between the Hitchens and Wright perspectives? Maybe. But I'd argue constant hammering against religion, in public debates, would render America and the Middle East at least European, in agnosticism. Which is why I have to side with Hitchens and Dawkins: beat, beat and beat again, scream it, write hilarious, mocking articles about how idiotic folk are to believe this stuff, and you will profoundly transform mainstream beliefs.

Will it change much? Probably not, but it's not my responsibility to care. It's like, what if there was an incredibly mean-spirited retarded kid, who had 50 pounds on everybody in the class, and beat up people for fun? You'd want to kick his ass, to teach him a lesson. Thrashing religion is just like administering a beating to that bullying retard. Do other kids bully? Yeah, but something about how smug the retard is really makes you mad, you know?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with the writer -- these new atheists bring together the worst elements of Western supremacy. However, their lineage is not surprising. The same ideology that drove the conquistadors to conquer others for God, Gold, and Glory, is at the core of this new atheism, where contempt for others who have different beliefs remains a virtue in itself. A totalist view that one has little to learn from others reflects a closed mind. In this world, to make a stark distinction, the battle isn't between the religious and the non-believers, it is one of those who have humane values and struggle for peace and justice and those who don't. And as for Hitchen's quote about religion poisoning everything, Mao said the same thing.

I would recommend Terry Eagleton's take down of these new self-styled Martin Luther who himself ended up creating another force of oppression with his ideology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fighting a war against any concept of God is still a religious war. If my belief is that God is Naught and that any God other than Naught is evil, then the void is what I serve, with a blood lust.

Any honest person would have to agree that every person on this earth has within them a place from which all moral choices and all moral authority springs. It is how anyone can call themselves a moral agent, or better yet, the only way anyone can call themselves FREE. For some people compassion and love for another is enough to treat others gently and respectfully. For others, it is not. Some require authoritarian beliefs about reward and punishment. Either way, it comes down to belief. This is ideology, and the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant. Waging war based upon this perspective is no less religious than any bible-thumping extremism.

This is why democracy was invented. I don't have to agree with the Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists about the existence of God. We can agree on human conduct without all of that. Till God shows up and settles things we have only democracy based upon reason and consensus, and an assumption of honor and good will. Some might call that trust, while others see no difference between trust and faith. The only other choice I know of is some sort of dictatorship and a system to police thought. I'll pass on that, thank you very much. In fact, I would likely fight a war against such a thing, regardless of whether the thought police were enforcing a belief in god, or a belief in the lack thereof.

The one universal constant that has no regard for religion is respect for life and property of others. Motive matters without respect for religious belief. In any culture, if I step on someone's toe and say 'I'm sorry. It was a mistake.', I'm more likely to receive a response such as 'No problem'. If I step on someone's toe and say 'I did that on purpose' or 'screw you for being in my way' I'm likely to receive a much more aggressive response.

Any ideological conflict can be construed to be a 'religious' war, even if your god is Naught.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I ended my first post by saying that Hitchens should go back to his alcohol. That's not exactly what I meant, I said that because of his support for Bush's war policies, but this is no excuse for wasting words. I don't really wish him to be addicted to alcohol. I do respect his intellect, but I think his understanding of our social ills is superficial and reactive.

Jerry Gerber

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For a more profound and comprehensive philosophy than either Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris offers us, I recommend reading both Reinhold Niebuhr, an American theologian, and P. D. Ouspensky, a Russian philosopher, journalist, and mathematician.

JG

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

explanations that are offered. After the '67 war Israel was suddenly much larger. After each foo far aw Israel turns up either larger or has not shrunk.

You don't suppose that this would make somebody angry? You don't suppose the God of Abraham might be getting used in this argument? It doesn't matter whether you are atheist or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The ground or otherwise mother religion, the one that never shows up but keeps behind Institutional Religions is LUST FOR POWER AND ENDLESS DRIVE FOR CONTROL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... that americans are so uncharitable to Karl marx? I have to wonder if they even understood the time and age he lived in and the kind of suffering he saw around him, we all probably would have written or said the same things if we were intellectually capable enough and had the interest, passion and enough free time on our hands.

I really get sick of the ignorance of the average american, he/she is nicely insulated from the brutality capitalism that is practiced far far away from them, if they lived in latin america or another country with american corporations and under sweatshop conditions there views they would gain some serious perspective.

It's nice and easy being part of worlds richest laborers, while the bottom 85-90% of humanity lives on barely anything.

The myopia that comes with a comfortable life is disturbing and I'm sure all well read americans who are charitable in their search for the truth and go to the depth necessary in their research, are quite annoyed by the average persons (educated or not) stupidity.

All men must be judged according to the age and circumstances in which they lived, it's easy to beat up on dead men, and men you have barely researched and read about the time in which they lived.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who decided that Hitchens was the "leading voice of atheism? Atheists, like their religious counterparts, come in all varieties and political persuasions. The only thing they all have in common, is a lack of belief in god, that and nothing more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A moments thought will give you half a dozen mainstream American films and television shows where suicide bombing, motivated by a desire to help others and a belief in the ineffectiveness of other action - belief in an afterlife not required - is portrayed in an unambiguously positive light.

The idea that it is something 'they' believe in and 'we' reject unconditionally is the most appalling act of double-think.

If you are really stuck getting out of the double-think, start with Independence Day and Aliens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not even bothering to respond to this piece of illogical thinking. Instead, I'll be checking Sam Harris' website for his rebuttal because I'm sure it's coming, and it will be eloquent. Sam hasn't lost a debate yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just reading isn't enough but cogitation and deliberation along with deconstruction and comparisons can work to help strengthen one's mind. Though I do wonder where the conservatives found recently that they are more likely to read others differing from themselves than liberals. A total contradiction from just a few years ago. The same ones I wonder who think Steven Cobert is like them and just parodies liberality? I smell something stinky in the bed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

an atheist who would have laughed at that bellicose trio.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is an invention of the fertile imagination of the human mind. It is a fantasy world. Not an established fact of Nature, rather a reaction to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Its basic premise, that the New Atheism is right-wing in foreign policy because Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are allegedly right-wing, has been comprehensively destroyed. Dawkins joined a boycott of Israel and has demanded that Israel comply with the UN resolutions and engage in genuine peace talks with the Palestinians. These are not right-wing positions by any stretch of the imagination.

The feeble, impoverished, obnoxious "logic" that underlies this article has already been ripped above.

Alternet really screwed up here...given the large number of pieces on the mainstream media here that emphasize how it never admits error and how its facts and logic are fouled up, doesn't it behoove Alternet to pull this tawdry foul up? Or, failing that, give an atheist with brains and the ability to use Google a chance to respond?

Michael Turton

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Forgot to point out before, but a particular position on a particular foreign policy area is not an indicator of anything. Instead, one must look at a number of foreign policy stances.

Since when did one's position on Islam/Israel become a valid indicator of right-wingedness? What is the position of Hitchens et al on Taiwan? India-Pakistan relations? China? etc.

It's a sad nod to the American obsession with the middle east that one's attitude toward Israel is the sole indicator of "right/left".

Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blu Ray Burner|||MTS Converter For Mac can easily convert MTS files to other popular video/audio formats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is a shallow, severely impoverished piece that is wrong on almost every level. links of london
tiffany
Let's see.... three people who think religion is evil have politics Wright considers right-wing, so clearly the New Atheism must be right-wing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]