When Atheism Becomes Religion: America's New Fundamentalists

Religious people, or theists, depend on faith. They believe in a God whose existence cannot be scientifically proven. In other words, there is no evidence that God exists. Atheists also depend on faith. They believe that God does not exist since there is no scientific evidence of His existence. But there is also no scientific evidence that He does not exist. Both theists and atheists therefore depend on faith. We all live our lives based on faith.According to the author, both theists and atheists are organized groups. Theists have religions, such as Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Atheists also have organized groups, such as Nazis, communists, fascists, and liberals who base their faith in science and science alone. Atheism is a system with beliefs and an ideology. It is a system based on faith.There have been many atrocities committed throughout history in the name of religion. There have also been many atrocities committed by non-theists groups, such as Nazis and communists. Scientific progress brings both peace and destruction. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the majority of them women and children.What message is Hedges giving us? Basically, both theists and atheists are organized groups, and both have their flaws. Religion has not been able to deliver a utopian world, nor have atheistic groups. The Nazis tried to create utopia, but they failed. Similarly, communist doctrine promised a utopia. It too failed.The message I understood from this book is that as much as theists don't believe in atheists, atheists don't believe in theists just as much! Why? Because both doctrines have flaws; because man is imperfect.The author goes on to say that because most people cannot recognize the ideology of atheism is exactly why it is so dangerous. Atheists want to create a world free of religion, and based entirely on logic, reason, and science. They believe that religion is the cause of evil, and that the world will be a better place without it. Yet, millions died under the philosophies of communism and Nazism, both atheistic groups. The author rejects the ideas that people would be better off if they stopped believing in God, as the atheists Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins suggest.I really enjoyed reading this book, and it gave me a better understanding on how atheists think.

This book is not about religion, it is about the blinkered thinking of some leading athiests who fall into the trap of doing exactly what those they criticise do: simply attempting to polarise views into "us" and "them".Hedges references well his arguments throughout the book. One does not need to agree with his assessment of all religions, however, what he has revealed about the goals and the stated methods to achieve these goals by leading proponents of athiesm is very very eye opening.This is a very significant book, it shows that fundamentalism also exists amongst athiests and this fundamentalism can be just as dangerous as any other.Hedges presents compelling argument as to why fundamentalist athiests deserve to be considered in the same light as religious fundamentalists and rightly outlines through numerous examples that these are as closed minded as each other.The book contains many very useful quotes from the leading athiests of our time, these quotes show that their rhetoric and their solutions are just as perturbing as those touted by religious extremists.This book is well worth reading and recommending to others, I have already ordered a copy for a friend.

This is an outstanding, deeply thoughtful and provocative book -- a profoundly religious book and a harsh and persuasive criticism of fundamentalism whether it be the religous right or the atheists. Hedges argues that man is basically imperfectible -- that the argument from Genesis that man is basically evil and that moral progress is a myth has been clearly demonstrated by history.His real target is the Enlightenment and the atheistic Utopians who have the notion that evil is something that exists outside of ourselves -- something that can be extinguished forever. The profound meaning of Original Sin is that evil is part of human nature and always will be. It is the religious impulse that acknowledges this truth.He describes God as "that which works through us and upon to find meaning and relevance in a morally neutral universe". I can't imagine a better definigion of God.

Chris Hedges should be required reading. This is a companion volume to his book on the fundamentalist take over of America. While atheism may be seen as a counterattack to bizarre religiosity, Hedges thesis is that it has become a type of religion itself and that society is losing a basic structure at a time when it needs it most.

Chris H brilliant as usual. I consider my self an atheist but I love how the author exposes the hidden prejudices, manipulation and interests of those who claim to lead the "atheist" movement. It's an eye opener.

Hedges is trying to shift some of the key elements of this debate away from the traditional 'god exists', oh-no-he-doesn't, oh-yes-he-does game. Instead, he is attempting to look at the political dimension of atheism in today's US (a very different animal from UK or European atheisms). He is onto something, I think, but it becomes a bit boring and predictable in places. It's quite negative in fact, and he doesn't really present a positive case that has proper coherence - but who can blame him, seeing what he has seen. I suspect that in future debates on this topic are likely to be moving towards the field where Hedges is fighting - and on that basis I believe the book is recommendable. Plus there is no disputing that Hedges is a great writer, and despite being downbeat the book is quite a pleasurable read.

More repetitive rant than argument. Not what I would have expected from Mr. Hedges.

I was disappointed. What started out as a great critique of the worsts aspects of religion and atheism returned to an apology for religion juxtaposed to his straw man anti-'new-atheism' position. He is right of course that the enlightenment brought with it the 'hope' and faith of a utopian future (a new religion), where there was no more conflict, war, etc. It was born from the failure of religion to bring anything but war, conflict and oppression for the vast majority of society. It was people like Grotius and his ideas of natural laws, which we could all agree on, which served as the basis for the end of religious wars. It was the emptiness of religious conjectures, about the natural world, which were refuted by scientific discoveries, that led to reformation and reassessment of what 'true' religion is. Hedges talks about people cherry-picking their faith position, as if it is a good thing; that there is no absolute truth, or right way, but that's ok because the Bible (or religious texts) are all metaphor and allegory about spiritual 'truth' unobtainable through reason. Some atheists may have hope for a better future but I don't. What Hedges talks about as the corruption of man (sin), and his irredeemable moral depravity, which we have to recognise (which religion describes), is our evolved animal nature. We mask our true animal nature with civilisation practices, religion, and moral law, but in times of difficulty the mask falls off. We are straw men, we are hollow men, we are animals with the mask of the delusion of imagio dei or the pinicle of evolution. Hedges avoids this conclusion to soft sell his religious position (unproclaimed, thankfully). Yes, he is right, the enlightenment and dreams of a utopian future brought as much pain and misery to the world as religion, but no hope of a redemption or salvation in an imaginary next life with it. "Religious thought is a guide to morality. It points humans towards enquiry...." Which is bulls***. Religious thought about morality is a pretention to knowledge about morality (but don't stop thinking about what truth is on my say so). The statements of conjecture, which make up all religious texts, and for that matter the theology born from them, are multifaceted and mysterious because they say absolutely nothing. They point to a state of being that is imaginary, imagined by the first authors. and adapted and reassessed by subsequent thinkers, when things didn't add up. I deeply respect the works of Barth, Niebuhr, Bonhoffer etc. for attempting to bring theology into the real world, but for all their words, all they point out is the obvious: that we are not homo 'sapiens', we are not 'perfect', there is no golden future, and all who promise such are false idols; but they, like Hedges, return to their own 'hope', that there is more to life than this, which they all pretend to know. I get the critique of new atheism, and its calls for the irradication of religion, as if genocide is a good thing, and the communist experiment in that aspect worked so efficiently, but failed (because you can't irradicate hope). Hope, is a human tragedy; It is what gets us out of bed in the morning, but hope is as empty as faith, and hope is the reason we kill others that don't share 'our' hope. We hope in what we do not see, and there is no evidence for, and yet Hedges thinks this is a good thing. He highlights the limits of reason, where a 'sense of the religious' takes us to 'truth' and yet doesn't have the reason/intelligence to see that that 'sense' is just as imaginary as the thing he criticises and it is not 'truth'. My interpretation of this imaginary world/'truth' is flawed, because it is beyond reason, and because it can never be universal. The problem with every religion is the fact that the interpretation of this 'sense' is not universally the same between any two individuals. There are no absolutes, they are just claimed as conjectures. Hedges, like Midgley, and Werleman, point to the faults of scientific and reasoned enquiry, to dismiss them as myths (evolution, wrongly understood as the myth of progress), faith, and religion, as if that makes their 'faith' position more valid, or 'true'.. and that doesn't follow. In the end I was disappointed, with the man, and I half liked his book for its attempt to critique the worst aspects of atheists polemics, but hated it.. because it only did so to attempt to make religion seem more reasonable in the end. He failed