1. Comment #58678 by BT Murtagh on July 25, 2007 at 6:15 pm

God is a verb?

Is god a transitive or intransitive verb, I wonder? Let's see...

I god. You god. He/she/it gods.

I god you. You god me. We god our godded family.

No, it's godding not doing it for me. God it!!!

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

2. Comment #58682 by Dr Benway on July 25, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Last I checked, hardly anyone was a Unitarian. The way Hitch's critics speak, just about everyone is.

We need to refine our terms. Maybe "religion with a creed" and "religion without a creed." The latter is atheism, effectively. The latter is a social club concerned with good deeds, passing as religion so as to avoid those awkward social moments, as when one is asked, "what church are you getting married in?"

Too often it seems the liberal religionists want to have it both ways. They want to be friends with the Catholics, Presbyterians, etc., and they want to talk like deists or atheists. Their vagueness leads to misunderstanding. So I think it's up to them to come out frankly, either for a religious creed, or no creed at all.

Let's take up a collection for a set of backbones to send to all those poor, misunderstood liberal religionists.

Or maybe we could send some courage certificates, like the one the Wizard of Oz gave to the cowardly lion, so they might boldly proclaim the courage of their lack of conviction.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

3. Comment #58684 by ColourOutofSpace on July 25, 2007 at 6:53 pm

"Religion is a way we attempt,always imperfectly, to wrestle with the mystery and meaning of existence."

Sure. But it's a rather maladaptive way. We can wrestle with our sense of mystery and awe before the universe without making truth-claims that have no basis in evidence.

"God is that mysterious force that works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness."

Occam's razor, my fine fellow. Why not just say that human beings seek the various things we associate with truth, beauty and goodness because doing so has served the survival of our species?

Most people understand "God" to be a conscious entity, a Creator, an all-powerful being. Trying to redefine the term as some nebulous whatever associated with the profundity of our existence is just confusing.

Other Comments by ColourOutofSpace

4. Comment #58688 by Canuck#1 on July 25, 2007 at 7:22 pm

I came to atheism through the entire spectrum of Christianity....the conservative right to the moderate centre to to the most liberal interpretations of Christianity.....and in none of these versions did I find any idea of god remotely related to to the concept put forward by Mr Hedges....a god so nebulous that he disappears like a whiff of smoke having served a personal approach to being able to argue with the bad atheists......

Other Comments by Canuck#1

5. Comment #58689 by Lil_Xunzian on July 25, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Philosophers need to be offended by this sort of talk. First of all, in what way aren't these just vacuous utterances? "Religion" means something in the English language, but not here. He seems to insert "religous" where he means to say something else, like "philosophical," perhaps. Like most theologians, he just defines God into existence. "Oh, the way we've used "God" up to now is preposterous because its referent doesn't exist? No problem! We'll just define God back into existence by choosing another referent (even if it means turning "god" into a verb)!"

This is the thing that pisses me off about theologians. They play with words. The syllable "God" is more important to Hedges than any reality that it designates. I mean, if you can just keep redefining God back into existence ad infinitum, then what meaning such a "word," if you can call it that at this point, even have? He even says it doesn't matter if God exists or not, so I suspect he's an atheist and only "religious" in a purely nominal sense. Basically, the "God" of the theologians isn't the god of the religious. And Hedges is even trying to take a step further and take the word "religion" away from the relgious. Hedges: "HAHAHAHA! What those religous folks believe isn't religion! The god they believe in isn't God! HAHAHAHAH!" In this respect, theologians are bigger assholes to religion than atheists (myself included). I mean, who is he to tell 99.9% of believers that the god they believe in isn't God afterall? that the religion they follow isn't true religion? What an ass. Too bad more religionists don't actually wise up to this kind of sophistry. He only agrees with the religious on a purely verbal level, but apparently a purely verbal agreement is good enough for them, no matter how insulting the implications. At least atheists have the intellectual honesty to attack "god" and "religion" in the ways that the religious understand them, rather than the cowardly way that theologians employ them, perpetually redefining them to avoid refutation.

How is his "God" the god of the Bible or Koran? What arrogance!

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

6. Comment #58691 by adonais on July 25, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Great comment #58689 by Lil_Xunzian, well said. Hedges's article can be easily summed up as: sophistry, obfuscation, and intellectually dishonest. Another "my religion isn't what he's attacking" type of apologist.

Other Comments by adonais

7. Comment #58693 by Ohnhai on July 25, 2007 at 7:57 pm

didnt get past the second Paragraph...

"Unencumbered by serious theological or biblical knowledge,"....

Here we go again.

'you cant criticize or attack religion without being extremely well versed in it's apologetics'.

If with an institution that is built on one 'fact' alone (the existence of god), and you doubt that 'fact' then then rest of the inverted pyramid of abject hand-waving and fiction means nothing at all.

You don't need to understand the finer points of theology because, without god, it is ALL meaningless, dangerous drivel that can and should be swept away and be done with.

as has been pointed out you dont need to get into the finer points of the god/s personal habits if you take issue with their very existence. Bitching about 'that's not MY god'is futile when our responce should be "well, he doesn't exist either!"

Other Comments by Ohnhai

8. Comment #58694 by steveroot on July 25, 2007 at 8:01 pm

Sonny and Cher had it right long before this idiot:
"I god you, Babe!"
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

9. Comment #58695 by VinceMcD on July 25, 2007 at 8:20 pm

His blind embrace of American imperialism and disregard for the rule of law makes him no better than the apologists for radical Islam and Christianity he seeks to discredit. His moral certitude and arrogance are no different. The consequences are as dangerous.

I give up?

What is Hedges talking about?

Other Comments by VinceMcD

10. Comment #58696 by gr8hands on July 25, 2007 at 8:29 pm

In response to Hedges, I am "encumbered by serious theological or biblical knowledge" having studied the subjects at great length at the university/seminary level. Therefore, I cannot be so swiftly cast aside (amazing that Hedges does not state his theological/biblical credentials).

Hedges appears to be under the belief that somehow "ossified forms of religious orthodoxy that have been misused for centuries to instill fear and obedience" are no longer the norm in America. Where does Hedges attend church? What denomination does he belong to?

He is confused thinking "great theologians from Paul Tillich to Ernst Kasemann to William Stringfellow" somehow "write with a deftness, nuance and erudition that shame the tired clichés that pad out" the Hitchens book. Clearly Hedges has been using a thesaurus without knowing what the words mean.

Tillich was condemned as an atheist by almost all theologians for years, and his writing is anything but deft. Käsemann felt Jewish apocalypticism was the basis or mother of christian theology -- in stark contrast to almost all other theologians -- and his nuance was of the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind. Stringfellow (a lawyer, unencumbered by serious theological or biblical training) is best known for finding manifestations of demonic powers (described in the bible) in contemporary governments and other organizations. He is definitely fringe, and his religious writings clearly not erudite.

The supposed "array of mysterious nonrational forces such as beauty, grief, love, the yearning for meaning, alienation and the specter of our own mortality. These forces do not lend themselves to rational deduction" -- in fact are being investigated by neuroscientists as I write, and they have been making wonderful progress towards removing the mystery.

Science, not religion, has the possibility of answering those questions, quantifying those "forces" and god/religion will not be part of that process or answer.

Hedges mentions "the authentic religious life." There can be no such thing, because religion is based upon fraud and lies. There is nothing authentic about that.

Hedges is wrong about Bonhoeffer. If he were to read "Widerstand und Ergebung: Briefe und Auszeichnungen aus der Haft (Letters and papers from prison)" he would see that Hitchens has him characterized reasonably well. Of course, remember that Bonhoeffer believed that singing in harmony was a sin (see "Gemeinsames Leben (Life Together)"), a religious notion which he appeared to have pulled completely out of his butt!

I agree with Hedges that "God is a human concept." (God is also a human construct.) He has confused "religion" with "philosophy" (or "ethics"). He has diluted the term until it is meaningless. And he doesn't see how fringe he is in that thinking.

Oh, there are academics who agree with him, but they are not the ones preaching in churches. Those who are, even seminary graduates, are not preaching what he's spouting. I suggest he actually attend church to verify what I'm saying.

Hedges, of course the question is whether god exists or not. It is THE central question about religion. The rest of that paragraph is pure drivel. Transcendence? The word itself is strictly religious (although there are transcendent functions in math), and deals with the supernatural BY DEFINITION.

Hedges, Hitchens' "moral certitude" is completely different than the theists because the theists insist their moral certitude comes from god, which is blatantly untrue. Hitchens says his moral certitude is totally natural and man-made. Certainly he can see there is a difference.

Hedges states Hitchens has a "disregard for the rule of law" -- I hope he will provide evidence for this. I know that as a religious person he is not used to having to provide evidence, but without evidence he is merely ranting, and poorly at that.

Maybe he'll read my post. Most likely, not. But I couldn't let it slide by without comment.

Other Comments by gr8hands

11. Comment #58697 by js5535 on July 25, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Somebody is jealous of other's far better book sales :(

Other Comments by js5535

12. Comment #58698 by Broshiesq on July 25, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Don't waste your time with this one, people. Many of the exact same phrases and sentences were repeated by Hedges in his TruthDig debate with Sam Harris. (video posted here 18 June) In my opinion, it is much more enjoyable (is that the right word?) watching and listening to Hedges nonsense than reading it.

Other Comments by Broshiesq

13. Comment #58702 by MattInOz on July 25, 2007 at 10:01 pm

"unencumbered by serious theological or biblical knowledge"

Yah! He also fails to take into consideration the momentous and categorically definitive musings of the late, great [insert choice here] whose Xth century BC ponderings have long since been recognised for their surprisingly nuanced commentary on contempory...... whatever!!

Hell, why can't these people just turn around, look in the mirror and see what vacuous nonsense is eminating from their own mouths and being passed off as relevent discourse.

Since when has ANYONE as widely and intelligently read as Hitchens et al "refused to concede.... that we are all driven and profoundly affected by an array of.... forces such as beauty, grief, love, the yearning for meaning, alienation and the specter of our own mortality."

On the contrary, they, esp Dawkins, Dennett and countless other evolutionary and cognitive scientists and thinkers thrive on an honest search for the answers to these questions.

In typically lazy fashion, only those of a religious bent could possibly claim ownership of the truth in these matters, in stunning juxtaposition with the utter absence of any real hard work. The arrogance of it all....!!! Then again, being raised in a blissfull, "evidence optional" environment will undoubtedly breed such flipancy,

Other Comments by MattInOz

14. Comment #58704 by Smith on July 25, 2007 at 11:00 pm

Are modern (dodgy) theology and postmodernism related?

Other Comments by Smith

15. Comment #58708 by roach on July 25, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Chris Hedges is clearly insane. God is a verb? Just watch the Hedges vs. Harris debate on truthdig. Personally, I thought Sam Harris gave Hedges a proper ass kicking.

Other Comments by roach

16. Comment #58714 by the_assayer on July 26, 2007 at 12:10 am

If we try to take Hedges seriously, ie. assume he's not just faking it, there is something worth cosidering here.
The religious often define truth as moral truth. His statement :"God is that mysterious force that works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness" testfies to this argument.
Somehow, they seem to be convinced that, if it weren't for these moral scriptures, people would not know right from wrong. I call this the "morality myth". The myth is this:

"Moral laws are not derivable. It must have been handed down by some unknown entity".

If you were to reflect on the complexities of the evolution of moral rules , you might begin to see why this myth is so prevalant.
Moral codes evolve(meme?) pretty much like scientific theories. They necesserily don't negate the old law, but rather try to fix or change the old law in a way thats fits the circumstances. In science the criterion is that the new theory should be able to fit data better and do a better job at prediction than the old one. In moral-science the criteria is that the new moral code should do a better job at minimising suffering than the old law.
One way to show that moral laws are not absolute is that almost all such laws have exceptions. Even "Thou shall not kill" is rested when its done for self defence or if we were to kill a terrorist. Surely killing is bad, but we wouldn't walk up to a person and say "How could you kill a man just because he was trying to kill you?".
It might be bad to cheat on your spouse, but we would sympathise with him/her if he/she was deprived of love at home and was natural seeking love elsewhere.
I liken the evolution of morality with playing "Snake". You constantly try to snake through the milieu of Good and bad things; and strategise and formulate rules so as to avoid harm(mental&physical). Fortunately our definiton of harm extends beyond ourselves, because of our biological capacity(eg. mirror neurons) to empathise.

I feel that we have to start talking more about the source of our secular morality. Science should be able to tell us amore bout the source of what we call "BAD" or "HARMFUL".

Other Comments by the_assayer

17. Comment #58715 by pewkatchoo on July 26, 2007 at 12:10 am

And here was me thinking that god was a metaphor. Dearie me, shows how much I know then.

The question is not whether God exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is that mysterious force that works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness. God is a verb. God is a process accomplishing itself, not an asserted existence. And God is inescapable.

That was so inspired that I decided to send it for publication in Private Eye's 'Psued's Corner'.

So the Hitch is simplistic, well I suppose it beats being simple-minded.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

18. Comment #58719 by Bonzai on July 26, 2007 at 12:52 am

Hedges' God is not an "objective" entity. It is a psychological device or a visualization aid.

He is correct that "array of mysterious nonrational forces such as beauty, grief, love, the yearning for meaning, alienation and the specter of our own mortality. These forces do not lend themselves to rational deduction" Those who argue from the canned rationalist script that neuroscience is the key to understanding these emotions are technically correct but they completely miss his point. "Explanations" are irrelevant if the purpose is not intellectual understanding.

Science *explains* romantic love in terms of genes and DNA, this is true but quite irrelevant to someone actually in love, for whom a good love song has more meaning than all the biology textbooks combined. Scott Atran made the point by challenging Sam Harris to go on a date with a fitness calculator to see how well he would fare.

Hedges wasn't speaking of reductive "explanations" offered by science as it is irrelevant to the way human experience these emotions. His purpose is not to explain and theorize, but to seek a framework for constructing meanings for these human conditions, which is subjective and perhaps irrational. Hedges finds it helpful for this purpose in believing in a "God" which evokes the feeling of transcendence. His is a subjective God, which serves the purpose of an artistic narrative rather than a scientific theory.

So he is not talking about the same thing as the athesists. He and his adversaries are really talking pass each other. For all intent and purposes Hedges actually sounds like an atheist who just happens to have a taste for religious symbolism.

Other Comments by Bonzai

19. Comment #58723 by Quetzalcoatl on July 26, 2007 at 1:00 am

The question is not whether God exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is that mysterious force that works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness. God is a verb.

I think you'll find the whole point is whether God exists! Yet another guy saying that the interventionist God everyone worships isn't the REAL God. The REAL God is some nebulous concept that is conveniently forever beyond the purview of banal human ideas of REASON and EVIDENCE.

Is anyone ever going to come up with DECENT counter-arguments?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

20. Comment #58724 by Bonzai on July 26, 2007 at 1:12 am

I think you'll find the whole point is whether God exists!

Why? This is only your preference. The "scientist's approach" to religion, which fixates on whether God exists is not the only possible way of looking at religion.

To a utilitarian the whole point is whether a construct is useful, not whether it is true. A utilitarian agnostic would probably say the question of whether god exists is unanswerable so it is a waste of time to debate that but he would believe in God if that serves a 'useful' purpose.



Other Comments by Bonzai

21. Comment #58726 by Blue Lithium on July 26, 2007 at 1:35 am

"religious orthodoxy that have been misused for centuries to instill fear and obedience."

"Misused"? As Harris argues, what a lot of fundamentalists believe is much closer to the text than moderates, particularly in Islam.

"the James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons"

Represent the kind of God that 99 percent of beleivers believe in--an omnipotent omnibenevolent creator.

"punctures his pronouncement that "religion teaches people to be extremely self-centered and conceited.""

Well, if you think about it, he's right. God loves ME, cares about ME and will save ME after I die. Unlike you heathens!!!

14 Smith: "Are modern (dodgy) theology and postmodernism related?"

I'd been wondering that myself...

Other Comments by Blue Lithium

22. Comment #58728 by ScienceBreath on July 26, 2007 at 2:09 am

Bonzai said:

To a utilitarian the whole point is whether a construct is useful, not whether it is true.

...unless it's a subject that actually matters. Is it better to think that I have a million dollars in the bank or is it better that it be true? Is it sufficient for me to think my wife is faithful or is it better if it is true? Is it better to think I have an imaginary friend or is it better to act like a fucking adult.

Other Comments by ScienceBreath

23. Comment #58729 by irate_atheist on July 26, 2007 at 2:16 am

Quetz - You and I know both know there are no '...decent counter-arguments'.

There cannot be.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

24. Comment #58730 by Quetzalcoatl on July 26, 2007 at 2:17 am

Bonzai-

so it is a waste of time to debate that but he would believe in God if that serves a 'useful' purpose.

But the whole point is that religion has overall done a lot more harm than it has good. I can see some advantages, ie promotion of charity, community and social aspects, but these are overshadowed by the problems that it creates in the world.

So is it your assertion that a Utilitarian would believe in a God only so long as said belief serves a useful purpose? This smacks very much of Pascal's Wager. Such belief as you describe is not belief in the typical sense, and seems to have quite a cynical aspect. Believing in something because it is comforting does not make it true. Is it better to believe in a comforting lie, or to try and make people face the truth and build on that?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

25. Comment #58731 by drive1 on July 26, 2007 at 2:18 am

I'm ok with this article. The smaller and more nebulous the definition of 'god', and the more gap-dependent it becomes, the more schisms we'll see. I'm all in favour of the religious redefining their god in this way. It's the thin end of the wedge in the general move from theism to deism. Chris 'Honey, I shrunk our god' Hedges is to be encouraged.

Other Comments by drive1

26. Comment #58732 by Quetzalcoatl on July 26, 2007 at 2:19 am

Irate Atheist-

you are probably right. But it would be nice if, once in a while, someone came up with a reasonably original argument, rather than rehashing old claims that have been dismissed.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

27. Comment #58739 by nickthelight on July 26, 2007 at 2:55 am

What a lot of toss.

Other Comments by nickthelight

28. Comment #58741 by the.atheist on July 26, 2007 at 2:59 am

Mr. Hedges' assault on Hitchens assumes many facts that aren't true, and is seemingly entirely an attack on a Straw Man, using loaded words. As usual, when reading some of these negative reviews, I can't help but think that they skipped a bit.

Other Comments by the.atheist

29. Comment #58742 by hungarianelephant on July 26, 2007 at 3:03 am

These forces do not lend themselves to rational deduction.

Why not?

Religion, the religious impulse, is an attempt to grapple with these spiritual truths, not explain a scientific fact.

In other words, if we can't explain it, we won't try to do so. Instead we will define it as a "mystery".

I guess some people might find that approach to life attractive, but count me out.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

30. Comment #58745 by fergusg on July 26, 2007 at 3:08 am

Unfortunately even sceptics can make up new verbs. Here's Michael Shermer saying "Science is a verb":

http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/ted_shermer_m_2005.mov

Other Comments by fergusg

31. Comment #58748 by irate_atheist on July 26, 2007 at 3:26 am

Quetz: Can we collectively put forward a hypothesis that there are no reasonably original arguments. The forums and articles here (and elsewhere) can be used to support or debunk it.

Assuming it passes peer review, we could call it the 'McGrath Theory', in honour of one of its most renowned demonstrators.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

32. Comment #58750 by Quetzalcoatl on July 26, 2007 at 3:31 am

Irate-

that gives him too much credit. In honour of its creators, it could be called something like: "The QuetzIrate Conundrum". It's catchy.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

33. Comment #58763 by sbooder on July 26, 2007 at 4:07 am

Well Mr Chris Hedges,
if you really think that Christopher Hitchens, is generalising religion, and lumping you all together, both extremists and moderates, then he is doing no more than any of us atheists...So the message to you is: "if you do not want to be herded with the extremists, then; as the saying goes 'clean up your own house'

Other Comments by sbooder

34. Comment #58782 by debaser71 on July 26, 2007 at 5:47 am

Notice though that folk aren't afraid to condemn folk like robertson and dobson anymore. People do seem to be stepping into the gap that opens when a shift in general thinking occurs. So all these anti-atheist articles are IMO good news for us. We are pushing the debate in the direction we want. Conversation favors us.

Other Comments by debaser71

35. Comment #58785 by BicycleRepairMan on July 26, 2007 at 5:57 am

Nail soup, thats what Hedges cooks here. Nails make great soup, you just have to add ham, potatoes, oatmeal and everthing else to it, and still claim its a soup made entirely from boiling a 6-inch nail.

Wherever Chris Hedges got his verb-God from, he didnt pull it out of the bible.

Any society based on the good book alone, is an intolerant, racist hell-hole. Only when confronted with 3000 years of science and common sense, can you pull this moderate wishy-washy stuff out of the bible.

God is not a moderate. God is man-made, as is the bible, as is Hedges "faith", so lets just not play with words: You are not a Christian, Chris Hedges, and that makes you a better person.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

36. Comment #58788 by savroD on July 26, 2007 at 6:07 am

It's pretty obvious he can't out-debate Hitch, so he thinks these attacks will somehow make him look more intelligent and justified. This guy should stick to trying to end war and poverty. Defending his mythology is a waste of time.

Other Comments by savroD

37. Comment #58796 by Rieux on July 26, 2007 at 7:05 am

Dawkins has written that he scribbles "teapot" in the margins any time he reads an apologist resorting to the "You can't prove there's no god...." escape hatch.

I think a similar tactic is appropriate with regard to apologetics like this one, so....

Everyone say it with me: "Courtier's Reply, Courtier's Reply, Courtier's Reply"! ( http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php .)


[That said, I would very much like to see Hitchens' rebuttal to Hedges on this point. I've read Dawkins, Harris, and (obviously) Myers explain why Hedges' argument here is meritless, but I've never seen Hitchens address the point squarely.]

Other Comments by Rieux

38. Comment #58800 by discipline on July 26, 2007 at 7:19 am

As drive1 said above, we secularists/humanists need to encourage liberal Christians like Hedges, not mock them.

A nation of wishy-washy Unitarians would be vastly preferable to the USA's current descent into fundamentalist theocracy. Dawkins-like "scientific rationalism" is going to take generations to achieve, so fuzzy "Hedges-think" is a step in the right direction.

Other Comments by discipline

39. Comment #58801 by Rieux on July 26, 2007 at 7:26 am

Oh--I've seen Dennett beat up the Courtier's Reply, too ("Perhaps some claims should just be laughed out of court"): http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/dawkinsreview.pdf

Here's Harris ("many religious moderates imagine, as you do, that there is some clear line of separation between extremist and moderate religion. But there isn't"): http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html

And, finally, here's our boy ("The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible"): http://richarddawkins.net/print.php?id=1071

Other Comments by Rieux

40. Comment #58802 by Jack Rawlinson on July 26, 2007 at 7:26 am

Same old same old. More disingenuous blethering about some unspecified (always unspecified) "serious" theological basis for religious belief, coupled with the totally unsupported slur that the atheist is behaving no better than the fundamentalist believer.

Once again, it's blackly hilarious that these dimwits still seem puzzled by the fact that many of us hold so little respect for them.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

41. Comment #58803 by monoape on July 26, 2007 at 7:27 am

"de-legitimize"? "nonrational"? She's making it up as she goes along!

"Hitchens ignores the deep religious urges and moments of transcendence that make up human existence.". Just because it feels good, don't make it right.

"These forces are not products of reason.". Isn't this the crux of the issue? Irrational belief is seen as a virtue by the religious, and an embarrassing affliction to the rest of us?

Other Comments by monoape

42. Comment #58804 by automath on July 26, 2007 at 7:29 am

I think this follows on nicely from this piece.

Which religion is the right religion?

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707260330

Other Comments by automath

43. Comment #58806 by Lauregon on July 26, 2007 at 7:35 am

The question is not whether God exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is that mysterious force that works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness. God is a verb. God is a process accomplishing itself, not an asserted existence. And God is inescapable. - Hedges

Episcopalian John Shelby Spong argues for nontheism and for a perspective somewhat similiar to that of Hedges. Spong's latest book is titled, "Jesus For the Non-Religious." While he has an enthusiastic following of non-theists, he is frequently and virulently denounced by believers as a heretic, as having been inspired by Satan, as evil, as an atheist, etc., etc., etc. His views are shocking even to many (if not most) moderate, liberal Christians who refuse his argument for non-theism and argue for defense of supernaturalism. Hedges would do well to discover and/or admit that his "God" views are
by no means anything approaching mainstream, and that creedal beliefs still hold sway over the imaginations of most believers as Hitchens and others describe. Dr Benway has it right: Christian creeds and articles of faith are what they are---and what they are is a far, far cry from Hedges' argumentation. While I have in the past applauded Hedges' denunciations of fundamentalism, his theology is far too marginal at this point to sustain his "God is a verb" argument against Hitchens. BTW, Hedges didn't invent the concept. Former nun and radical feminist thealogian Mary Daly wrote about God as a verb decades ago. Also, While Tillich's ideas may have cache among some liberal clergy, most people in the pews simply aren't there, and as clergy I've known quite well have argued, "you have to meet the people where they are." And since it's the people in the pews who pay the salaries of the clergy, it's usually best to leave the folks in the pew right where they are.

Other Comments by Lauregon

44. Comment #58808 by the_assayer on July 26, 2007 at 7:35 am

Discipline- well not necesserily. People like Hedges might cause belivers who've started to question their faith to retract back to the safety of their religion. What we can do instead, is to try to come up with a sympathetic rebuttal- no ad hominums.
I see the sudden explosion of these nuanced versions of "God" as a good sign, for people have started to "Doubt".

Other Comments by the_assayer

45. Comment #58810 by Rieux on July 26, 2007 at 7:39 am

discipline wrote:

As drive1 said above, we secularists/humanists need to encourage liberal Christians like Hedges, not mock them.

Hey, I am a Unitarian Universalist (though not, I hope, a "wishy-washy" one--I'm also an out-and-proud atheist and fan of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Myers and company). But the religious criticism that D/H/D/H/M/etc. provide is something that needs to be heard, even when it's sharply critical of my "wishy-washy" co-parishioners who agree with Hedges here.

I, of all atheists, agree that the world would be vastly better if we replaced all of the Pat Robertsons with Chris Hedgeses (or John Shelby Spongs, Bill Sinkfords, etc). But the societal Overton window needs to be stretched, and the "wishy-washy" religious need to be educated that some of their ideas (such as the notion that one can only be an atheist if one is totally ignorant of liberal religion) are flat wrong. We atheists have to respond to them; we won't get anywhere by hiding.

Other Comments by Rieux

46. Comment #58815 by PeterK on July 26, 2007 at 8:18 am

"The question is not whether God exists. ...blah blah blah...... And God is inescapable."

So we cannot escape from something whose very existence is in question?

Typical theist talking from one side of his mouth at the beginning of the paragraph, and then from one of the other seventeen sides of his mouth at the end of the paragraph

Other Comments by PeterK

47. Comment #58819 by jeepyjay on July 26, 2007 at 8:27 am

Rieux: How can you possibly be a "Unitarian" AND an "Atheist"? A unitarian is someone who believes in one god (Uni = One). An atheist is someone who believes in no gods (A = Not). This is another case of people redefining words to mean anything they like.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

48. Comment #58822 by Bonzai on July 26, 2007 at 8:36 am

Comment #58742 by hungarianelephant

Religion, the religious impulse, is an attempt to grapple with these spiritual truths, not explain a scientific fact.

In other words, if we can't explain it, we won't try to do so. Instead we will define it as a "mystery".

He didn't say they can't be explained, but that explanations are irrelevant to our subjective experience of these emotions. There is a big difference.

Love is just a nuero chemical function triggered by the reproductive impulse which in turn is a manifestation of genes seeking to replicate themselves. That is an explanation but I would bet you any amount of money that even Dawkins doesn't see his own wife as just a vehicle to propogate his genes. This may be "irrational" but that is the way we are. Life itself is probably "irrational", why go through all the troubles?

The way you argue is silly. It is like saying film criticism is a waste of time because it focuses on the fake stories and that we should "explain" a movie by only studying the physics behind the technology that goes into making and showing the movie. Well I don't know about you but I still want to watch my favourite TV show even though I know the images and movement are just flickering little colour dots formed on the screen by the impacts of high speed electrons.

An "explanation" is not a substitution for an experience. Experience is subjective and first person, it cannot be captured by the kind of reductive explanations and third person narratives that scientists seek.

To be perfectly clear, I am not saying religion is therefore necessary. One can construct meanings through other means such as philosophy and some people do not need any artificial system to generate meanings,--to each his own. My point is simply that to rebuke Hedges with "science can explain a b and c" completely misses the mark.

Other Comments by Bonzai

49. Comment #58826 by Bonzai on July 26, 2007 at 9:07 am

Comment #58730 by Quetzalcoatl

But the whole point is that releigion has overall done a lot more harm than it has good. I can see some advantages, ie promotion of charity, community and social aspects, but these are overshadowed by the problems that it creates in the world.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that religion might do more harm than good, but that would depend on the accounting scheme you use to tally the pros and cons and any such scheme would not be "objective", value judgements would be involved in weighing various consequences of religion, not to mention the definition of "religion" differ for different people(I won't go into it here except to note that it is not striaght foward to make such a balance sheet) But no matter, arguing that religion does more harm than good is a completely different argument from saying "the only question is whether God exists".

It is completely possible that one accepts God may not exist yet still thinks that religion is overall a good thing, this is not my position but it is a logically consistent one.If you find that odd this is basically Confucius' view. He was an agnostic even though he recommended religious rituals as a way to promote social cohesion and harmony (I disagree with him but just want to point out whether God exists is not the only issue in discussing religion)

So is it your assertion that a Utilitarian would believe in a God only so long as said belief serves a useful purpose? This smacks very much of Pascal's Wager. Such belief as you describe is not belief in the typical sense, and seems to have quite a cynical aspect.

Not necessarily. It would be the case only if "usefulness" is defined narrowly in the sense of the economist. From the article Hedges clearly thinks that some vague belief in God helps him makes sense of his life. It is a kind of utilitarianism but not quite as crass as Pascal's wager.

Moreover it is not cynicism if he truly believes in it.

Believing in something because it is comforting does not make it true. Is it better to believe in a comforting lie, or to try and make people face the truth and build on that?

And being true isn't always relevant. There are situations where truth is overrated. I honestly cannot see what good it would achieve in telling the proud parents in a baby shower the truth that their precious baby will surly die one day and becomes worm food and that's that. I don't know how it is a service to humanity to tell the guy down the street that he should wake up from his delusion that he is dashingly handsome and face the truth that he is an ugly toad. If believing that he is a Cassanova makes him happy why should I burst his bubble so he may kill himself as a result?

You said people should build on the truth rather than illusion. Well, romantic love is an "illusion" from a biological perspective but I doubt that you can build your intimate relationship based on Dawkins' the selfish genes.

It is sometimes "rational" to persue delusions if they serve some good, useful purposes, here I use the word "rational" in the sense of economics,--maximizing utility though utility is subjective.

As Nietzsche said, "We have art so that we don't die of the truth."

The way you argue this point is interesting. You assume that "making people face the truth" is apriori a good thing, a virtue. This is a moral axiom, not something that can be logically derived from rationally inspecting evidence alone. In case you don't notice this is a very "Christian" way of thinking. I am Chinese, my culture is a lot more wishy washy about "truth" with the big T. "Truth" maybe a neutral concept, but the claim that truth is preferred under all circumstances is a value judgement.

Other Comments by Bonzai

50. Comment #58827 by Rieux on July 26, 2007 at 9:16 am

jeepyjay wrote:

Rieux: How can you possibly be a "Unitarian" AND an "Atheist"?

Because Unitarian Universalism (please note I never claimed to be "a Unitarian") is much different from what you think it is.

A unitarian is someone who believes in one god (Uni = One).

Sure--150 years ago. But Unitarianism is a real-life entity that has long since moved on--in North America, at least--from that dusty old theological position.

Specifically, in the early Twentieth Century Unitarianism eliminated first Christianity and then theism from its statement of belief. Take a look at the first Humanist Manifesto, composed in 1933 ( http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html ); it has statements like

Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.

and

We are convinced that the time has passed for theism [and] deism....

...And yet a huge chunk of the authors and signatories of the Manifesto were Unitarian ministers! (This continued to be the case in Manifestos II (1973) and III (2003).) All of which is to say that there have been atheists within the (American) tradition called "Unitarian" for approximately a hundred years. In the mid-Twentieth Century, nearly every American who called herself a "Unitarian" was an atheist!

In 1961, Unitarianism merged with the Universalist church to form the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). That Association has no requirement of belief in anything, much less gods. The closest thing to a statement of beliefs from the UUA is the seven Principles (see http://www.pilgrimhouseuua.org/seven.html ), none of which even approach belief in gods.

In point of fact, there are thousands of atheists who belong to UU congregations all over North America. In fact, a significant number of those congregations are staunchly atheist (and overtly humanist) in their outlook and expression.

We atheist UUs are currently in a twenty-year-old brawl with Hedges-flavored UU theists who would like UUism to become much more theistic than it ever has been since the '61 merger. Would you like us to surrender to the theists? I intend to keep fighting to hold on to a place within UUism for nonbelievers.

An atheist is someone who believes in no gods (A = Not).

I'd say "a" = "without," not "not," but otherwise--sure. That's me: no belief in gods.


I have an introductory essay regarding Unitarian Universalism on my LiveJournal at http://dr-rieux.livejournal.com/ . (There's one about atheism, intended for UUs who need to learn about us, on there as well.)

I think UU congregations can be very valuable safe havens for atheists; for example, recall that Dawkins has written repeatedly about the value he sees in memorial services that are free from "he's in heaven now" nonsense. Well, there are lots of UU bodies (and ministers, plenty of them atheists themselves) that do that kind of thing very well. A UU funeral, or child dedication ceremony, or wedding (like mine) never references afterlives or immortal souls or that kind of silliness--and it will only include "God" if the parishioners who are centrally involved demand it.

Hedges-style language tampering is, alas, common within UUism--but supernatural superstition is not.

Other Comments by Rieux