Is there such a thing as "atheist fundamentalism"?

The first time I heard of Chris Hedges was a few weeks ago when he was on television discussing the rise of inverted totalitarianism in America. As far as that topic goes, he seemed to hit the nail bang on the head.

Other than that, I don't know very much about him. However, I think his argument is that the problem isn't religion or false doctrine, the problem is that human nature and the human 'heart' is fundamentally flawed. In other words, so long as we externalize 'evil' with religious or non-religious ideologies rather than looking inward, we will continue to see many religions and non-religions (fundamental atheists) that are being used to justify atrocities, such as holy wars or in the case of atheists, Harris and Hitchens clumping all Muslims together as dangerous and saying that the Muslim faith in and of itself breeds extremism - which isn't true. We should instead each understand that it is not ideologies and external factors that are the cause of evils, but rather the human heart. Thus, no matter what religion or non-religion that is created to justify wtv, the outcomes will be similar unless we each understand that it is human nature itself that needs to be examined and changed, not the religious ideology created. I could be wrong though.

With that being said, I may buy his book. He actually seems quite interesting.


Some videos of Hedges discussing/debating Harris/Hitchens:

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Atheism is not a belief system.

Professing a belief that you don't believe in something that you don't believe in is a fallacy of equivocation.

Is there atheist fundamentalism? no. There's not.

It's not atheist fundamentalism. It's called ANTI-THEISM.

In other words, so long as we externalize 'evil' with religious or non-religious ideologies rather than looking inward, we will continue to see many religions and non-religions (fundamental atheists) that are being used to justify atrocities, such as holy wars or in the case of atheists, Harris and Hitchens clumping all Muslims together as dangerous and saying that the Muslim faith in and of itself breeds extremism - which isn't true.

You're flip-flopping here, Chris.
On the one hand you say that it is in using religious ideologies rather than looking at the nature of things as the wrongful justification of atrocities, then you criticise Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens who QUOTE the religious ideologies as an example of those things which breed the environment that allow much of those atrocities to happen: Extremism.

If you think they're being "extreme" because of oppression, think again.
Sharia Law. Need I say more?

I certainly don't agree that it should be an acceptable practice to treat women like chattel and I don't accept that it's okay simply because it's a product of the culture they grew up in.

It can't hurt to want to understand human desires. In this society we have people who do that for a living.
They're called psychotherapists.

To be clear, I was summarizing my understanding of what his argument was, hence me beginning with "I think his argument is" and not "my argument is". Please understand that I may not agree with him but first I must understand his argument before I can make that judgment. I'll probably read his book soon, just because it seems like an interesting topic to me. I'm going to try and argue from an alternative perspective to see what happens.

Originally Posted by Demojen

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Atheism is not a belief system.

Professing a belief that you don't believe in something that you don't believe in is a fallacy of equivocation.

Is there atheist fundamentalism? no. There's not.

It's not atheist fundamentalism. It's called ANTI-THEISM.

I don't think his argument involves the dictionary definition of the word 'atheist' or 'atheism' but rather it is a reference to a label of the collective movement growing in the name of atheism. For example, the rise of atheism convention in Australia. There is a growing sect of "Dawkins Atheists" and "Harris' Atheists", and there is a growing movement in the name of 'atheism'. So although the dictionary definition of atheism simply is not a belief in a god, there is a growing movement hijacking the word atheism and inserting a bunch of other beliefs such as 'reason' and 'science', etc underneath it. I'm not saying all atheists are the same, they aren't, but I can see how the collectivization of more and more atheists is beginning to form a group with a common set of values and principles.

Originally Posted by Demojen

You're flip-flopping here, Chris.
On the one hand you say that it is in using religious ideologies rather than looking at the nature of things as the wrongful justification of atrocities, then you criticise Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens who QUOTE the religious ideologies as an example of those things which breed the environment that allow much of those atrocities to happen: Extremism.

If you think they're being "extreme" because of oppression, think again.
Sharia Law. Need I say more?

I certainly don't agree that it should be an acceptable practice to treat women like chattel and I don't accept that it's okay simply because it's a product of the culture they grew up in.

It can't hurt to want to understand human desires. In this society we have people who do that for a living.
They're called psychotherapists.

I don't agree either, but at the same time you can't say it is because of Islam that this happens. Of course you can argue to say the qu'ran justifies male dominance, sharia law, and violence, but at the same time you could probably use the qu'ran to argue against it or anything you want - thus is the nature of theological texts. To say the bible or qu'ran advocates violence is itself a theological argument because it rests on the assumption that you are interpreting the text the correct way it was intended to be heard. It is not Islam in and of itself that is the problem, it is humans that have failed to realize their own true nature and instead have tried to justify actions by hijacking religious doctrine.

On the other hand, Harris is no better than some religious extremists (will explain further down). He makes blanket statements about the religious world, he wrongfully argues that extremism to muslims is not extreme. I have Muslim friends, some from Pakistan, and they cringe every single time they hear of a suicide bomber making another attack. Their goal isn't to spread islam, they couldn't care less, their faith is their own personal faith - not one that breeds intolerance and hatred. I have one friend in York's Poli Sci program, he is muslim and moving back to Pakistan this summer. He wants to get into politics there to try and change and improve his country to show how wrong these extremists are and to create a country of tolerance and prosperity. So obviously the argument that Islam breeds extremism is a flawed statement.

In addition, Harris argues that its time for the entire world to get up and condemn theology. He says that Islam is a 'cult of hate'. He literally argues for a nuclear first strike against the Muslim world:

"If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe."

This is absurd and down right fanatical. All of this is done under the guise that he knows better and that instead of 'faith' it is 'reason' that should be put in its place (not that I disagree) but all of this is done under the guise of 'atheism'. Ultimately he is no better than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Harris breeds intolerance just like Robertson and Falwell. It is the rise of atheists that follow Harris' work under the name of atheism that has given birth to the rise of fundamental atheism.

I understand where you're coming from, Chris, in drawing a common term used by these propogandists to give fuel to their own agendas, but I simply refuse to give them this word or the credibility therein.

Fundamental Atheism implies that there are ideals inherent to atheism, where in fact atheism claims no ideal.
Saying "I don't believe God exists" does not equate to "Anyone who believes God exists is wrong."

Beliefs are a very personal thing and it is because of the proponents of propoganda, that we are in this conflict to begin with.
Take me for instance. I can tolerate people who don't agree with my beliefs about God. I can plan events with them and I can live and let live as long as their beliefs don't restrict the practice of my own or anyone elses.

I would however, never date a Christian. I wouldn't date a Jehovah's witness. I would not marry anyone who was among a denomination under the command of a fictional character. I see no advantage to marriage save for tax purposes.

If people think that just because "I am unwilling to love someone I can't agree with on certain topics" means "I hate them", that is their problem, not mine.
The opposite of love is not hate. It's apathy.

For further research, I recommend The Origins and Nature of Fundamentalism in Society by Niccolo Caldararo

Originally Posted by Demojen

I understand where you're coming from, Chris, in drawing a common term used by these propogandists to give fuel to their own agendas, but I simply refuse to give them this word or the credibility therein.

Fundamental Atheism implies that there are ideals inherent to atheism, where in fact atheism claims no ideal.
Saying "I don't believe God exists" does not equate to "Anyone who believes God exists is wrong."

Beliefs are a very personal thing and it is because of the proponents of propoganda, that we are in this conflict to begin with.
Take me for instance. I can tolerate people who don't agree with my beliefs about God. I can plan events with them and I can live and let live as long as their beliefs don't restrict the practice of my own or anyone elses.

I would however, never date a Christian. I wouldn't date a Jehovah's witness. I would not marry anyone who was among a denomination under the command of a fictional character. I see no advantage to marriage save for tax purposes.

If people think that just because "I am unwilling to love someone I can't agree with on certain topics" means "I hate them", that is their problem, not mine.
The opposite of love is not hate. It's apathy.

I agree, it doesn't make sense to say "fundamental atheist" when atheism is only a word to describe a person without religious beliefs. However, definitions aren't immune to change and in fact perhaps if these Harris/Dawkins/Hitchen flavours of atheism continue, maybe we will see additions to the dictionary. I think this is highly unlikely but perhaps something along the lines of "Atheism -noun: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. 3. the doctrine or set of beliefs and practices that utilize science, rationality, and reason as a guiding principle". Maybe even something as wild as "3. the belief that there is no god but that through science, rationality, and reason, the human race may progress". Definitions aren't static, they change with the times and are built on. Today atheism might only mean one thing, but perhaps in the future it might mean a few things - similar to the word 'theory' as explained in Dawkins' latest book.

Anyway, aside from the title, I think it is very arguable that Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and even Dennett are creating a group of 'Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris flavoured atheist' fundamentalists, or as Rationella would call them, 'Harris Fundamentalists'. To paraphrase Hedges, these new atheists emulate, with secular language, the same as the Christian right does in America. They largely advocate a binary world view of 'us' vs 'them'. For example, a common argument is the 'rational' vs 'irrational'. They (to be clear, by 'they' I am referring to the adherents of the flavours of atheism I mentioned above) label religion as being irrational behaviour and to be looked down upon, some (i.e. Harris) going as far as saying it is something that should be removed from society. They are utopian in the sense that their 'rational beliefs' will lead humanity to a better and utopian society. They largely blame religion itself for worldly problems, rather than recognizing social inequalities, oppression, famine, and even globalization as the source of violence and unrest.

On the other hand, although it may appear as if many problems manifest themselves in religion, instead I would argue that religion is just a tool used to cope with or fight the previously mentioned problems. For example, what motivates a suicide bomber to blow himself up? Is it religion in and of itself? No. Rather, as Hedges has said, it is a 'long and slow drip of oppression, collective humiliation, daily indignities, the loss of hope, the inability to achieve economic independence, that finally lead these young men and women to a cul-de-sac where the only way they can affirm themselves is through death.'

I have strayed a bit from the original topic but I think that no matter what, even if there was no such thing as religion, we would still see extremism and fanatics. It isn't religion that breeds these, it is social inequality, oppression, and the disastrous and tearing effects of globalization that are tearing this world apart. If there are not religious wars, there will be wars between classes, between governments and the proletariat, often these 'religious wars' are wars with a root in economic inequality, oppression, etc, so I find it hard to believe people blaming religion as the root of the problem. Maybe it's just the polisci student in me speaking out, but history shows other wise. Look at Christianity, it spread like wildfire through people whom were oppressed and marginalized by by economic inequality. Christianity empowered people as a tool to fight their oppressors. I highly doubt Christianity would be a significant religion that it is today if equality existed between all classes and groups of people back then.

Anyway, although fundamental atheism doesn't make sense by definition, nonetheless there is a rising group of new atheists that most likely can be considered fundamentalists and are largely on the same level as the fundamental christian right, but have just changed the wordage from christian to secular.

You two should watch this, I'd be interested to hear what you think. It is a few parts long though so it may require 30-40 min of your time.

Dear Chris: You said, "...the Muslim faith in and of itself breeds extremism - which isn't true." How do you know this isn't true? Are there not pasages in the Koran that call for war on "infidels" (us)?