I Don't Believe in Atheists

"To be a utopian, to live for the creation of a fantastic and unreal world, was to live in no place, to remove oneself from reality. It is only by building an ethic based on reality, one that takes into account the dangers and limits of the human situation, that we can begin to adjust our behavior to cope with social, environmental and political problems." - I Don't Believe in Atheists, by Chris Hedges (2008), p.11.

Given our recent discussions on this topic, you'll understand why I was intrigued when I noticed this book at the library last week.

Chris Hedges is a seminary graduate-turned-foreign correspondent who writes about his reactions to the ideas of prominent atheists such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. As I have not read the majority of the work that he references, I can't comment on how accurately or poorly he represents the authors' ideas. The premise of his book is that the brand of atheism these thinkers espouse represents a mindset that is just as fundamentalist as one finds in extreme forms of religion.

Hedges refers many times to statements made by atheists about the evils of religion. He counters these with examples of secular evil. The point seems to be that evil is everywhere, and that secular misuse of science and reason is just as capable of producing evil as misguided religious idealism. The problem, he argues, is when we get caught up in defining the 'other' as the evil in this world. "Those who externalize evil and seek to eradicate this evil lose touch with their own humanity and the humanity of others." (p. 154)

The arguments he invokes reminded me of another quote, which I had been saving for a post titled 'The Essence of Compassion'. (If you will permit me this short digression...)

"You think the world can be scrubbed clean. It's not dirty. You want evil destroyed. Can you show me where evil is? Point it out. I am curious. I've not been able to find it in all these years."

The point being, if one wishes to rid the world of evil, one must first find it. Do we define a person as 'evil'? Or just the act that s/he performs? What of all the antecedent events that led that person to commit that act?

Is a person 'evil' when they lack what we perceive to be a 'normal' moral compass or conscience? If so, and we wish to eradicate the evil and ensure that it never happens again, are we to look to the sources of learning by which this person acquired knowledge about morality? Are we to look to genetics or biology for a defect? As certain types of genetic expression can be modified by environment, are we ever justified in declaring someone 'evil' beyond our capacity to rehabilitate?

Is a person 'evil' when they act with the intent to cause harm? Or does it depend on whether this person is acting from need (such as self-defense or survival) or desire? Is intention where we can find and eradicate evil? If so, how much previous experience must also be excised in order to ensure that this person never intends to perform the same act in the future? If past experience gives rise to malicious intent and/or lack of restrain in performing such an act, then what responsibility, if any, do the people who gave rise to this person's past experiences have for this evil?

Is an idea 'evil'? Is it evil only if it has been twisted to a perverse meaning or intent? If so, how then do we define those who knowingly transmit a flawed idea? How do we draw the lines when it comes to victims and perpetrators of flawed ideologies? What responsibility does the individual bear for examining what he or she was taught? Who bears the responsibility for teaching him or her to think critically?

These argument are not intended as a defense of 'evil'. Rather, they are intended to illustrate the shortcomings of declaring any person, organization, or ideology to be 'evil'. Focusing on defining something or someone as 'evil' misses too much of the complexity of interactions that gave rise to the particular behavior or idea that we see as 'evil'. Such a chain ultimately ends up right back in our own laps, and worse still, defining the other as 'evil' allows us to remain blind to our own expression of the same instincts, impulses, fears, and shortcomings.

The capacity for 'evil' is in all of us. All of us would make war, under the right circumstances. All of us would kill, if sufficiently threatened or to protect a loved one or if taught to do so. It doesn't even take a real threat to permit decent people to become capable of evil. This is part of the human condition.

I have no answer for this problem, but one suggestion... When you can see how another person has come to do what they have done, and when you can see how you could have come to that place too if your circumstances had been different, then you can act from compassion instead of fear. Fear will cause you to strike out, where compassion can stay your hand.

(End of not-so-short digression.)

Hedges argues that "knowledge is not wisdom" and that having knowledge alone still isolates us from the "deeper truths of life." These are the truths, he argues, that reach us via literary and artistic expression, and the appreciation of something greater than ourselves. Ultimately though, we value these things because they tell us something about ourselves - that we are finite, that we have limitations, that we are not alone in our pain or our joy. Religion also serves as one way in which man seeks answers to his questions about who and what he is. Hedges seems to argue that we need religion to give us a sense of the transcendent, and to remind us of our common humanity. I think we really only need empathy in order to appreciate our common humanity.

And as for the transcendent... Perhaps Hedges' quote from Reinhold Niebuhr sheds light there.

"Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime, therefore, we are saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history, therefore, we are saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone. Therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as from our own. Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness."