Chris Hedges is a journalist and author who focuses on American and Middle Eastern politics and society. He is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City and a Lecturer in the Council of the Humanities and the Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University. He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, where he spent fifteen years. He is the author of What Every Person Should Know About War and American Fascists. His newest book is I Don’t Believe in Atheists.

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, acclaimed foreign correspondent Christ Hedges shares his criticism of the New Atheists, calling them “fundamentalists” in their own right. He responds to their account of the origins of Islamic religious extremism, and he accuses the New Atheists of racism. He explains his view that the New Atheists are proponents of the Neo-conservative agenda and how the American Left does advance secular values in the Muslim world. He also criticizes what he calls the “utopianism” of the New Atheists, detailing his skepticism about moral progress for humanity.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org

Please ask a serious question. I happen to be Catholic (and once was Lutheran). I can’t speak for others.

Please be careful about asking rhetorical questions: if you’ve phrased the question so that no-one can answer rationally other than your preferred answer, it’s not really a question.

‘How can X’s be so stupid as to believe B?’ is pretty sure to be starting on the wrong foot.

I myself will not promise to answer just any question put to me, nor even reply to every posting directed to me.

Well, let’s see what happens.

Sincerely,

Kirk

Theism has a God who cares & intervenes.
But what would you call sustainment which does not intervene nor care?

Self-Help (Monkey) faiths and Other-Help (Cat) faiths are very different from one and other.
I am not sure where I heard this classification of religions—but it was years ago.  Yet it has served me well.

If an Other-Help believer asks a Self-Help believer if they believe in God, the answer would be meaningless.
If the self-help believer says “Yes”, the other-help believer walks away assuming far too much.  Likewise if the he/she says, “No.”
But then, one has to wonder why they are talking at all, then, I guess.

Take a step further and eat away at the deluded notion of self, then try to answer the question.

Atheists are busy fighting against the myopic pressures of those in the Cat faith.
One does not have to be defined by the interrogator.
Did that make any sense?

Here is the outline of a case for moral realism, lifted bodily from the thread ‘Interested Philosopher’. Pardon the outline format and the rather intense abbreviation; changing both would only make the post even longer. Nothing here is excitingly new, but then ‘new and improved’ is for cereals and mini-vans, not necessarily arguments.

There’s another case to be made by taking apart Hume’s argument - his arg makes moral facts irrelevant, it is not a direct attack on their existence. But that’s not in this post. I won’t spend time altering some of the unclear parts, and the abbreviations are pretty obvious in context.

B.  Generic arguments mostly con about moral facts (pp118-):

1.  The ‘queerness’ of morals as facts:
a.  The items and actions in a torture-chamber – unquestionably ‘facts’;
b.  vs the wrongness of the actions – a rather different kind of fact:
i.  it’s not a thing, it’s not quite measurable
(how heavy is wrong?
Does it make sense to ‘count’ the wrongs in the torture-chamber?)
ii.  This is the bad consequence of accepting the idea
that ‘oughts’ cannot be turned into merely a set of ‘izzes’
– See ch IV, pp103ff, ‘The Naturalistic Fallacy’
w/ the args of Hume (18th c.) & G.E. Moore (19/20th c.)
- those args show that moral ‘oughts’ are independent of other facts;
- they are not the usual kind of facts.
- now in V we are asking if that independence rather
prevents them from being really a kind of fact at all.

2.  Informal evidence for moral facts:
a.  Arg. 1:
i.  Morals do seem to be discoverable,
and beliefs about them seem stable, once discovered;
ii.  Other fields where things are discoverable and stable
have facts to be discovered, & facts to stabilize beliefs about them;
iii. Therefore, morality is also rests upon a base of facts.

b.  Arg. 2:
i.  Judging things as good, better than, best of
implies a standard – some facts – by which one can evaluate the things.
ii.  We also make reasonable-seeming judgments about morals;
iii. So, there are moral facts, that make such judgments intelligible.

3.  Arguments against moral facts:

a.  1st, recall the ‘queerness’ of morals if you think of them as facts, from 1. above.
One way to support moral facts is to claim one can observe morals
–with a non-physical, non-sensed moral intuition.

b.  Con Arg. 1:
i.  We cannot, and never have, observed such a ‘power’ or ‘faculty’,
Altho’ we can observe our sense-faculties: eyes to see, our ears to hear etc.
ii.  So the only way we ‘know’ we have a faculty of moral intuition
is by pro Arg.1 – but there’s no way to independently confirm
the existence of that power apart from that little argument.

iii. possible Reply:
Well, fine, we cannot independently confirm it
But all that means is that
pro Arg.1 is ‘demoted’ from a certain arg. to a probable or likely arg.
Specifically, it’s an arg by analogy.

Another arg by analogy:
I have toothaches, and make certain sounds and motions;
I observe someone doing the exact same sounds and motions;
It’s probable or likely that that someone’s got a toothache –
- but, I can’t independently confirm that, either.
(he might lie, he’s across the hall & I can’t talk to him, etc.)

c.  Con Arg. 2:
i.  There are many other ways to describe why we moralize
than by claiming there are moral facts;
ii.  And given con arg.1, we have no independent evidence they exist:
iii. Therefore, to claim ‘Morals are facts’
is superfluous, extra, and a bit of a bad fix – it’s ad hoc.
(Latin, ‘just for this’ – it was made up just to prove your point,
not b/c it’s reasonable, or the most likely expln)

iv. Possible Reply:
So what if it seems like positing ghosts?
As we shall see later in the chapter, all the other, non-realist theories
have massive problems of their own.
So, the non-realist really has given us a diff kind of problem:
Wh. is worse?
Entities that we have trouble confirming independently?
Or theories with massive metaphysical or logical problems?
Most ordinary people, it seems, allow for unseeable entities;
so moral facts are still plausible, if not yet proven likely.
Besides,
‘We can’t see moral facts’
begs the question
‘Can we observe them?’
It doesn’t seem weird to just know something’s going wrong
when we look at a torture
(Ex: I’ve never seen a torture before,
yet I’m sure I’d know it’s wrong the minute I saw it taking place)

d.  Con Arg. 3:
This will sound like con arg 1, but it’s concentrating
not on (failing to) observe this mysterious ‘power of moral intuition’
But on what would the independent evidence look like
to distinguish fact-based belief from fictional, mere belief?
i.  OK, assume there’s this wonderful moral intuition – how could it work?
ii.  We cannot observe any moral facts, different from other facts;
iii. And when we do change our minds about some moral belief,
often it’s b/c of some mere fact
(ex: realizing a living man is being hanged, rather than ‘only a thief’
iv. So therefore, just drop the idea of ‘separate’ moral facts.

v.  Possible Reply:
This con arg continues to assume that non-physical intuition is absurd;
Well, many, many people do suggest they can observe (im)moral acts,
although that doesn’t prove decisively that there are facts,
It makes moral facts as likely as that we have ‘minds’ and that we’re ‘conscious’ and that 2+2=4 independently of physical things.
Is the moral non-realist just attacking every non-physical object?
That’s not strictly a moral theory position – that’s a metaphysical assumption – and a diff subject – it seems we can talk about moral facts (or not)
w/o having to know if
physicalism, or monistic materialism,
or philosophical naturalism is true.

e.  Con Arg. 4:
i.  While con arg. 2 complained that positing moral facts seems weird,
this arg says it isn’t needed – it isn’t necessary,
ii.  After all, there are other ways to explain your actions.
(Ex: I think Hitler was depraved – but b/c I was brought up to believe it;
I don’t need to posit a moral fact about his depravity.)

iii. Possible Reply:
‘Need’ is a funny term here –
I’m looking for what is so, not for how ‘thin’ my metaphysics can be constructed.
I wasn’t saying that one ‘needs’ morals
because no other explanation might explain actions,
Rather, I was looking for the true explanation,
not the ‘thinnest’ or ‘least metaphysically heavy’
or ‘least committed’ explanation.
That suggests searching for the truth is like
conserving water and food in the desert.
Requiring ‘simplest’ or ‘thinnest’ or ‘metaphysically lightest’ theories
is an absurd requirement.
NB: Your instructor really has a grudge against ‘Ockham’s Razor’

f.  Supervenience.
(We shall not study this new twist on reducing moral ‘oughts’ to ‘izzes’. In your instructor’s opinion, none of the arguments about supervenience do much more than tell us about a ‘necessary condition’ for acting morally, which is accepted by many moral realists. Like this analogy: yes, containers are necessary for coffee-drinking, but coffee does not ‘supervene’ on coffee-cups. In fact it’s the other way around; we want coffee, and that requires getting a cup. Coffee isn’t *derived* from cups, even tho’ the coffee must ‘come from’ some cup or other; neither are morals ‘derived’ from scientific facts. Maybe next semester we’ll argue this in detail.)

I’d be interested in y’all’s opinions.

Small preview:

“Every society has the criminals it deserves.”

Camus, ‘Reflections on the Guillotine’
My sister would have been terrified, the night her junkie boyfriend beat her to death in that filthy motel room. Terrified, and disoriented; she would have been struggling to understand what was happening to her. Beating a human being to death is apparently not an easy thing to do. According to the coroner’s testimony, it took about five minutes for her to die. What was she thinking, in those five minutes? At what point in that five-minute period did she suspect she might die in that squalid room? At what point did she know she would die there, and then?

I would lay awake at night, for months after her death, unable to turn off the endless broken loop playing in my brain that kept repeating these questions. More than answers, I wanted revenge: hard, bloody-fisted revenge, bitter and uncompromising Old Testament revenge. More: I wanted to stand before those in power, point my finger at all the world’s Death Rows, and scream at the top of my lungs “Kill them all, and let God sort them out!” I was slowly going mad with my ache for revenge.

But. But. Revenge is not justice.

During the worst of my dark night of the soul, I came across an old friend who I had not thought about in years, decades: Albert Camus. I found myself re-reading his seminal essay, “Reflections on the Guillotine” (found in the closeout bin of a used bookstore). I read that tired, used old paperback copy until it literally fell apart in my hands. Camus’ demand that one must apply one’s reason to the question of ‘administrative murder’ finally penetrated my grief and my hate. Despite how I feel – indeed, because of how I feel – I am compelled to stand against the death penalty. It is important to discuss why.

Read more...

Brilliant. It was the first word that came to mind when I saw the bumper sticker. The vehicle ahead ground slowly through rush-hour traffic. I had time to study it, to think about what the thing meant.

It was yet another variant on the ubiquitous American “yellow ribbon.” Across the front, on a field of yellow, were the words “Support Our Troops.” The ribbon looped back and showed a field of white stars on a blue background, evoking the American flag. The cleverest part of the ribbon was the last section, hanging below the “Support Our Troops” slogan. It was red-and-white striped, intended to carry forward the American flag theme. But a subtle suggestion of a white sunburst joined with the vertical white stripe and overlaid it with a faint horizontal white stripe. It didn’t take me more than a few seconds to realize that this was intended to be a subtle evocation of the Christian cross.

There it was encapsulated, complete, uncut, pure: the symbolic essence of an America that has drifted far from civilization, an America that has grown very, very strange. The America that bumper sticker symbolizes has left behind the world of rational nation-states and slipped off into a sentimental realm of Romanticism.

Using genetic variation is an innovative way to infer a timeline.  I know it’s been done to set a date for the domestication of dogs.  It’s also been used to learn more about Neanderthals.  It is interesting that humans were living in small groups in Africa much like neanderthals in Europe.  One of the theories for the extinction of neanderthals is that they couldn’t compete with the more advanced culture, technology, and greater numbers of homo sapiens. 

I wonder if the homo sapien culture was the result of a genetic development or an adaption made due to growing numbers.  For example, I think there is a gene that scientists suspect made it possible for humans to communicate verbally.  Obviously we primates have a communal gene and the neanderthals’ small groups are consistent with other mammalian and primate social structures.  I wonder if there was further mutation of the communal gene and how significant that was to the rise of homo sapien or if a sharp population rise resulted in the development of large communities.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080425101050.cni2ks3u&show_article=1

Is all this anti-vaccination stuff just media and internet hype? :?:  I just started researching via Wikipedia, etc., but so far nothing convincing me one way or the other.  I know this forum is full of critical thinkers and would appreciate any insight.

On a side note… we don’t know the sex yet, but I recently looked into the whole circumcision thing… That’s something we will definitely will not do be doing.  After coming to that conclusion, I coincedentally found the thread here about it too.  My palms could’ve ended up much harrier had I been left uncut. 

Thanks,
A-Bomb

Pretty sad. I hope the parents get prison time.

The title question of “Is it worth it?” is what I have been thinking about the past few minutes and while making this post.

I am pretty much “spent”, at the moment after an hour long conversation with my father about religion. (I am raised Catholic and my father was raised Catholic by his father.) The conversation was hard to bear. It started off with me asking my father a question about “our” religion since I am sort of technically almost a Catholic.

It was full of personal insults like “well maybe thats the reason you are the way you are and so unsocial and unhappy.” ("that" being that I told my father I don’t believe in a “supreme being or any God”.)

I won’t even bother posting any of the others or it will just sound like I am looking for sympathy which I don’t think I am really looking for.

I don’t know I just think I am an idiot because I just wished I would have waited to pick the opportune moment to talk to my parents about religion / beliefs. I think that opportune moment would be after I have a very secure good job that I consider honorable and live in my own dwelling and basically support myself. But by then would it even be worth the time to basically argue with my parents over beliefs? Probably not.

Is it ever even worth talking to family about religion?

When I told my father I didn’t believe in a God I was also told by my father that not believing in God was depressing. Does everyone get this response from parents who are Catholic when they try to have a conversation about religion? My father automatically started acting like I was “attacking” him just by asking about his beliefs and what being Catholic means.

It just seems like it’s not even worth it. Not to mention the time I started talking about religion with my grandmother who is old senile and drunk almost all the time who ended a conversation with something about me scaring her and me going to hell.

I learned from tonight not to discuss or try to discuss religion with anyone in my immediate family. It seems impossible to do that without having personal insults thrown in.

Is discussing religion with family ever successful in the fact that people have tried it and it was a calm discussion without personal insults or anyone being offended?

Personally, after tonight, I don’t see myself ever discussing religion with anyone in real life (except maybe briefly with potential life partners) again. I have the utmost respect for anyone who can do it and not get broken down emotionally, but it just isn’t for me and won’t work out for me.

Oh, by the way, the meat of my conversation with my father was:
me asking why he believed the religion he does (Catholic)
and his response basically was:
1. tradition and I was raised that way by my parents (he made following a tradition sound honorable)
2. the acceptance of the religion when he was older and that acceptance leading to his continued faith (here he inserted an anecdote of how when he was 12 and some position in the church like pew something I think, he was at mass and felt the holy spirit and how it was an unexplainable experience and through hand and facial gestures made it seem like I was some sort of alien for not completely being able to relate to his experience.)