I read Chris Hedges' previous book, American Fascists, because I agreed with its thesis, but nevertheless found it highly disappointing. Giving the author the benefit of the doubt, I chalked it up to plain ineptitude. But when I saw this book, I began to suspect that Hedges was not just inept, but dishonest---and upon reading the book, those suspicions were confirmed.

Contrary to the misleading title, this is not a "there are no atheists in foxholes, everyone secretly believes in God and people who claim to be atheists just hate Him" kind of book---believe it or not, it is even worse than that. It is basically an attack an what Hedges calls "New Atheists." When I first heard this term a couple of years ago, I was skeptical about its validity, as one should always be wary of neologisms particularly in the political realm. "New Atheists" are those who not only are arrogant enough to actively disbelieve in God, but also have the effrontery to try to publicly defend their views---as opposed to the somewhat less unacceptable old atheists who kept their mouths shut and stayed in their place. Actually, there's nothing new about outspoken freethinkers, and they're in good company, joining the ranks of such radical skeptics as Socrates, Aristotle, Thomas Paine and several other Founding Heroes, etc.

Hedges' strategy is to single out the authors of several recent bestsellers promoting atheism, namely Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. To be sure, there are good grounds on which to criticize all of these people---Sam Harris, after claiming that religion is bad, then advocates Buddhism (he says it's more "scientific" than other mystical beliefs) and Dawkins, though a good polemicist against Creationism, is actually not a very good evolutionary theorist (he continues to advocate "gene selectionism," his defense of which in The Selfish Gene made him famous, despite the fact that most other reputable biologists dismissed the theory shortly thereafter)---but Hedges probably does not mind these flaws. What really makes him angry is the fact that these atheists claim to be certain that theism is wrong. This certainty, Hedges argues, places them in the same camp with the Christian fundamentalists he attacked in his previous book, their flaw also being that they held certain convictions---that is, it is not the content of their beliefs that is bad, but that they really believe them; not how they came to hold their views (by reason or faith? though it turns out there is no such question for Hedges, as he says the atheists' views are equally faith-based), but that they actually think that they are true.

To back all of this up, you might expect Hedges to offer us a lot of facts, as his fellow journalist Hitchens did in God is Not Great, but what we get instead is a lot of quotes from Marcel Proust and Joseph Conrad, among others. Dostoevsky was a great artist, and one of my personal favorite writers, but frankly he didn't know what he was talking about much of the time, and referring to some scene in Crime and Punishment is not evidence for Hedges' case---yet that is what he continually resorts to. He also makes a lot of completely unsupported assertions, such as that, contrary to the atheists' claims, the Koran unequivocally condemns suicide and does not exhort its readers to global jihad. Unlike the atheists, who actually cited chapter and verse of the Koran, Hedges just tells us this---and it may be true, but the point is that, like the Bible, the Koran says a lot of contradictory things that could be taken as justification for a lot of things, and clearly is taken as justification for such things in significant parts of the Muslim world today. For Hedges to blithely deny this insults his readers' intelligence.

Worse, he resorts to a lot of ad hominem attacks, based on straw-man misrepresentations of his opponents' actual views---for instance, he says that the "new atheists" advocate a state of perpetual war a la Orwell's 1984. This is utterly outlandish, and intellectual fraud of the worst sort. Hedges tells us that the atheists are bad because they try to dehumanize Islamic terrorists, who are actually trying to kill us, and make them look like monsters---then tells us that the atheists are inhuman monsters.

This sort of contradiction runs throughout, but for philosophical Pragmatists (into which camp I'm sure Hedges falls) it's just word games anyway, so they can say or do whatever they want, without regard for the truth, since they claim there is no "truth" in the sense of our minds actually being able to know external reality. That seems to be the underlying premise Hedges is working from, and I'm sure Richard Rorty would thoroughly approve of this mess.

Hedges' character could be summed up nicely (and devestatingly) by this passage from Ayn Rand (one literary figure I'd bet Hedges really hates) in Atlas Shrugged: "He was laboring to sound cynical, skeptical, superior, and hysterical together, to sound like a man who sneers at the vanity of all human beliefs and thereby demands an instantaneous belief from his listeners." ( )

This book provides the best critic of the so called "new atheism" that I've encountered thus far. The book articulates the position that seeking the transcendent experience is an integral part of the human experience. Suggestions that progress in human knowledge and science make religion unnecessary is labeled as arrogance out of touch with human nature. The author comes from a Christian background; He even has seminary training. However, this book is a defense of all religions, not just Christianity. The author indicates that he seldom attends church services, and when he does he rolls his eyes at the things said which indicate that the members consider themselves to be honorary sinners. So he's certainly not defending any religious organization as an institution. But rather he's defending it from the standpoint of human psychology, sociology, politics and history.

To my tastes, the author was a bit guilty of demonizing the targets of his criticism. He describes Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris as being irrationally extreme to the same degree as the radical religious fundamentalists on the other end of the spectrum. Apparently Hitchens and Harris have made comments that indicate that it may be necessary to make a preemptive military strike against radical Islamists to save civilization. (I don't think Dawkins has said anything like that.) Comments such as those don't deserve support. But I'm inclined to feel more accepting of atheist with a humanist inclination than I am of conservative religionists who seem to hate everything human. By painting his opponents in the worst possible light the author makes discrediting them easier. Ironically, that's the same tactic that Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris use against religion. ( )

Good subject, lousy execution.

I should have dropped it as soon he wrote something re how people in Third World countries aspire to a lifestyle "like ours" or like that of developed countries. No, they don't. Wait a minute--didn't this guy live overseas? In poor countries, poor people and middle-class people aspire to the lifestyle of their own upper-class, most certainly including their politicians. That means servants, chauffeurs, expensive jewelry, gigantic houses; they sure don't want to take the commuter trains, even if they're sparkling and bear no resemblance to the Japanese variety. Doesn't Hedges know these Mercs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? What about the minor functionary or cop with a $30,000 car? Hasn't he noticed that the politicians in developing countries have a hell of a lot more assets than ones in Japan, Europe and the U.S.?

He's not a good observer and is shockingly ignorant of great historical events, such as the Japanese war on and occupation of China and other Asian countries. ( )

Reading the jacket of this book, I was a little puzzled as to its subject. Having read it, I suggest The Misanthropic Wrath of Chris Hedges as a title. Hedges rages about how humanity disappoints him, especially the "West" and the United States. The text is disjointed, internally contradictory, and rambles over a wide range of topics, and I found it very poorly argued. The fury is so intense, that in the middle of the book, I flipped to the smiling jacket author portrait and wondered if Hedges was on drugs when they took it. I read an article once that angry people think that they are demonstrating their sincerity, but most people react to the rage and miss the message. My main reaction to the book is to hope that I am never trapped in the presence of Hedges.

One of his particular hatreds is for utopians who believe in the perfectibility of human nature and are willing to cull the least perfect with violence. Actually, I agree with this, and with most of Hedges assessment of the "war on terror", but I begin to worry about the company that I am in. Hedges attributes utopian thinking to "fundamentalists." I don't like the use of this term: it has a meaning with regard to religion, but not with regard to science. I think this is a rhetorical trick by which Hedges takes a term that has fallen into some bad repute and hurls it at people he doesn't like as a piece of invective, as if we needed more of that.

I don't that "human nature" is to be confused with cultural traits, which can be changed; accordingly, I think that Hedges misses the boat with his criticism of Dawkins' "memes." I don't necessarily associate religious fundamentalism with "utopian thinking" either. Some believe that the world cannot be redeemed, except by a miracle performed by god, and may actually have to be replaced.

Hedges is unclear as to what he means by "new atheists": sometimes he seems to be condemning science as a bad idea altogether, and other times he narrows his attacks down to Ron Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, E. O Wilson, Susan Blackmore, and Daniel Dennett. I should perhaps state here that I am an atheist. I have read at least some of the work by all five men, and I would agree that four of them are over the top in their expressions of atheism. Certainly, all of them think that science is a better guide for humanity than religion, but I am not convinced that they are in fact utopians. The best that Hedges can do is to make the case that Harris would sanction violence in defense of his own society, not exactly the same thing. When Hedges attempts to contrast this with Neibuhr, whom I think he admires, and who argues that pacifism can be carried too far, the effect is surrealistic. Hedges also accuses them of ignorance, as when Hitchens argues that the issue of the creation of the creator has never been addressed. Hedges' response to this leaves me more convinced than ever that it hasn't, although he obviously thinks he is making the opposite case.

At one point, Hedges asserts that "Reigns of terror are the bastard children of the Enlightenment." This is ahistorical poppycock. In the first place, it seriously conflicts with Hedges own assertion that human nature is unchanging. Secondly, the European Expansion began in 1500, well before the Enlightenment, and was carried out in the name of God and country (not to mention personal profit.) I happen to have read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel immediately before this book. Diamond makes it clear that in times and places far removed from the European Enlightenment, people generally "engulf" weaker neighbors. I think that this is a fair example of the level of Hedges' reasoning. Hedges also ignores the simple fact that some scientists are religious, especially as one goes back in time, and the same can be said of Enlightenment thinkers. In addition, it does not follow that all opinions of atheists are, or must be, based upon demonstrated scientific fact. If a Methodist bishop announced that tutti-frutti is the best sherbet, I don't think that most people would take that as a statement of dogma.

Hedges defends religion as a somewhat vague general concept, pointing to heroic believers. The problem is, atheists can point to truly appalling believers, and one is engage in a war of anecdotes. The one accomplishment I would give Hedges is that he points out, to a country chiefly worried about religious-based terror, that terrorists can be atheists, as well. Certainly one can demonstrate that religious belief and activity, or atheism, does not necessarily make one a good and kind person, but are the religious worse? As a friend of mine, also an atheist pointed out, people are violent, and it may be the religion is used as an excuse and is not really the source of violence. Unless someone can come up with a meaningful study of the effects of religion and irreligion, it is just a lot of hot air.

I can't really think of anyone to whom I would recommend this temper tantrum. ( )

What I was hoping for when I picked this up was some help in defending my faith against the arguments of followers of "new atheists" like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, without coming off as a fundamentalist right-wing nut-job. It seems that the extremists on both sides of the "God question" oversimplify their opponents, and we moderates - neither anti-Evolution nor pro-Intelligent Design - get caught in the crossfire.

But Hedges is just as guilty of letting a few extremists define atheism. He's not arguing with any of the atheists I know, he's arguing with the loutish, pro-war, anti-Muslim Chris Hitchen and his friends at "Reason" magazine. Worse, he throws moderate and liberate church-goers under the bus by calling us naive for wanting a better world.

Hedges sees any attempt to improve human morality as a delusional, destructive and down-right selfish attempt at a utopian society. As if trying to better myself and my community will inevitably lead to my wanting to eradicate the world of all evil. For Hedges there's no in between - if you want a better world (and why would you since according to him there is no chance at that ever happening), than you want to rule the world and kill any one that stands in your way. And, God-forbid, if you're a member of a liberal church you're even worse because you don't even *know* that this is what you want.

Hedges also errs in assuming that all atheists share the same beliefs, so to speak, of Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. The atheist bloggers I read are - and always were - against the war in Iraq. In fact, most seem to feel the need to separate Hitchens the Warmonger (and Hitchens the Egomaniacal Drunk) from Hitchens the Atheist - not that you ever truly can, but they try - before praising something he has said on the subject.

I was terribly disappointed with this book. Not only does it not bring something constructive to the subject, it uses over-generalizations - in exactly the same way extremists on both sides of the argument do - to confuse the topic even more. I would hope that the next author who tries to tackle this subject would take a few steps back and try to get a better view of the big picture. That would be a refreshing change from everything else I've read on this topic. ( )