Funny, I just finished that book yesterday (and started on Reading Lolita in Tehran right after). This had to be one of the most ridiculous things I've read in years. The whole time I was reading it I kept on looking up to my wife and saying, "This is so stupid, so stupid." The only thing I liked, and really agreed with wholeheartedly, was his rejection of the idea of human perfection. He understood human depravity. Otherwise . . . rather puerile and childish, I think.

P.S. Heather. are you really "not as ready as Hedges to give up on the idea that we are moving towards a better future"?

If so, why not re-read the Great Controversy?

Cliff

Cliff
I'd be interested in hearing your views on the Dawkins' and Hitchens' arguments. Especially, the role that rational argument and falsification can play in a discussion about realities that lie beyond evidence.

As to human progress, I'm not quite as pessimistic as you. When I look at the last five hundred years, significant progress has been made, especially in the area of human freedoms and tolerance (think religious dissidents, ethnic and sexual minorities.)

Cliff

Read Great Controvery (My Copy is the trade rdition The Triumph of God's Love) page 366 in G.C. 621-623 under the heading Perfect in Christ. (This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble.)

This statement was the launching pad of M. L. Andreasen, K. Wood, Herbie Douglaus et al. It remains the great divide in Adventism. If you have been following the recent threads in this web site you must agree with Hedges.

If you believe G.C's end time, you are just the guy Hedges was speaking to-

Yes humanity is redeemable but not prefectable this side of the parusia. Until that time they cling to Christ's Righteousness. (I recall once K. Wood writing in the Review: "The idea of mere Righteousness By Faith". I called him on it. How can anyone call something that God has done: "mere"?

It is the lunitic fringe that creates the Hedges.

The Christian community should be asking itself: "What are we doing that give grist to Hedges mill?" Rants like yours don't cut the flow! Tom

I'm only halfway through the book, but I, too, was struck with his apparent denial of a perfect future world through the redeeming power of Jesus. But I really did agree with what he says about the certainty and lack of humility in those of a fundamentalist mindset, a number of whom frequently post here.

Cliff, I see your scorn and superiority is not reserved just for some of us Spectrum posters, but is liberally applied to anyone you disagree with! You are really a pretty likeable guy in person, but in writing you often come across as insufferable!

Heather
Thanks for your interesting and well-written review!
Dave

Thanks, Heather, for this review. I have not yet gotten to read this book, but I went to a talk by Hedges just a month ago, in which he talked about this book (and other things). As such, I can't address the book's content, but I have been impressed with Hedges' commitment in recent years to take on the New Atheists, not from an apologist, conservative perspective, but as a liberal Christian who will critique the politics of these New Atheists as well as their religious orientation.

The New Atheists are a dangerous breed: simultaneously reinforcing fundamentalist religion by simplistically defining all religion by its most dangerous and arrogant extreme, and undercutting the truer, humbler faith of the rest of us by positing 'atheism' as the ultimate good. Hedges is right to point out that these New A's continue the same trend as fundamentalists of externalizing evil and reifying it, in other people, instead of looking for the more complex interplay of good and evil in each of us, which requires more mature engagement than the ease of labeling 'good' or 'bad.' These New A's have seemed to picked up the theology regarding evil of those they purport to reject.

I think Hedges' perspective, especially his cynicism, is sown deep within his experience far before he became the newest anti-New-Atheist champion - experience that demands respect from anyone who takes seriously the call to live out the gospel in the world today. As a journalist, he worked in some incredibly violent war zones, in El Salvador during the war, in the former Yugoslavia, and riding with troops during the first Gulf War invasion. In his talk in May, he spoke about the months of recovery he needed after those experiences, suffering PTSD like all the other soldiers and civilians who have to live through such horrors. This was much of the material he covered in his first hit book, "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning." But I don't think he is over those experiences, in that they have thoroughly and permanently impacted his philosophy. As someone who has not lived through such experiences, I cannot know whether I would agree with the theology that comes out of it. What makes his experience quite unique is that he went to seminary before turning international journalist, so he brought a solid theology already composed with him into those experiences, which could be challenged and amended intentionally as years passed.

I am sorry to hear the book did not live up to its goals, then, but I am not surprised, since in the two times I've heard Hedges speak, he has seemed to be covering a wide range of material that would be challenging to fit into one book. His memory for the details of personal stories is astounding (no notes!), so perhaps the next book he should write is a theology-laced autobiography. I'll definitely pick up that one.

Cliff, we're trying to encourage a discussion here, not poll people up or down about the book.

No examples? No reasons? Having read the same defensive dismissals - from a drunk Hitchens - of nuanced debate, it's becoming clear to me that surface-level literalists and atheists are really talking about emotional problems.

Here we have a young, thoughtful Adventist wrestling with serious issues, and, like what occurs all too often, an elder in the church dismisses our questions and says reread the GC and call me in the morning.

Alex

I didn't realize I was putting her down. I was just interested in someone whom I assume is an SDA making a statement that she thought the world was going to get better, that's all. I kind of thought it was just understood that things were going to be progressively worse. Or is that just more of my literalistic mindless thoughtless SDA traditional conservatism coming through. Or, too, is the idea of the world getting worse just more of those old traditions that Chuck Scriven his postcast said that "creative Adventists" (whatever that was supposed to mean) need to discard?

Also, I make a statement about a private conversation I had with my wife about parts of the book that I thought were really bad, and I post that on here, and Carol Grady starts attacking me as well for expressing my views?

YOu said you want discussion, Alex. I am trying to add my part to it. Excuse me for breathing.

Your comment, Cliff:

"I kind of thought it was just understood that things were going to be progressively worse."

Perhaps your understanding as Chicken Little, but that is an assumption that certainly doesn't describe all Adventists, does it? Or, do you hang out with the parnoid crowd (there are plenty who get all their history and future from GC)? How long have things been getting progressively worse from your perspective? Personal, or global? Or, is your glass always empty? If it is, pick a few flowers and place them in the glass, they will enjoy the water and continue to bloom.

"I was just interested in someone whom I assume is an SDA making a statement that she thought the world was going to get better, that's all. I kind of thought it was just understood that things were going to be progressively worse."

Cliff,

If you read my review carefully, you will see that I am not making an argument for Adventism. I am trying to offer a thoughtful response to a book that I believe requires one and that the glib private remark of "That's so stupid" doesn't quite accomplish. Whatever assumptions you have about me, what makes an Adventist, what the future holds, you should at least own them as your own. You seem genuinely surprised whenever you discover that there are people of faith in the world who do not see things just as you do. If that surprise led you towards a more curious exploration of the beliefs and experiences of others rather than reflexively making passive aggressive statements painting yourself as a victim of liberalism you and I would (perhaps) find this kind of discussion far more productive.

Heather

Audrey,

Thanks for providing more context for this discussion about Hedges. Given what you wrote, I would be very interested in reading more by him. Just to clarify, I do think he succeeded in this book to refute the New A's (I like your abbreviation--makes me think of a sports team)in ways that many modern apologists have failed to do. I only wish he had developed his argument more fully--especially in those places where it seems to hinge on such ideas like human nature and sin. But I loved how he showed the similarities between New A's and Fundys (another sports team). I'm kind of suprised that there hasn't been more comment on the blog about Hedges' rejection of utopian ideologies and his indicment of perfectionism as dangerous.

Take care,

Heather

"I kind of thought it was just understood that things were going to be progressively worse."

Perhaps your understanding as Chicken Little, but that is an assumption that certainly doesn't describe all Adventists, does it? Or, do you hang out with the parnoid crowd (there are plenty who get all their history and future from GC)?"
Posted by: E (not verified) | 28 June 2008 at 11:03

Actually that degenerating glideslope of history comes from the Bible.
Cliff didnt pick it out of thin air.
The course of history is Eden to Armegeddon not the other way around.
Check it out.

As far as discribing all Adventists, I'm not sure there is even one single issue that can say that.
Even the bible said the wheat and the tares grow together till the end. Thats in the bible too.

Heather--

The comment was to my wife, from one Adventist to another, from my SDA perspective, the filter through which I view the world, that's all (and we all, always, filter the world through our own views). I found some of his material even more disturbing because he is, I guess, a Christian.

What, I am not allowed to have strong views on things? Or at least not express them on here? I read Hedges book and, with the exception of his pessimism on humanity, I thought it was a thoroughly moronic view of reality; I seriously doubt a New Atheist would do anything but laugh at it. I mean, how about this brilliant line: "The moment the gospel writers began to set down [in writing] the words of Jesus, they began to kill the message", for starters?

And, again, since this is an "Adventist" sight, I assumed you views reflected your understanding of Adventism, and so I asked, and I didn't think in a harsh or unkind way, if you had read GC, for which I was summarily attacked by Alex. Or, perhaps, I should have asked, have you read Matthew 24, or Daniel 12, because the view of things going down is, as Michael said, a biblical view.

I thought we're not supposed to attack folks on here, and that's fair enough (though I seem to get my fair share, right, Carol?); but ideas? Are they not fair game? And how ironic, the moment I come strong on a view, I am attacked personally. I guess that's kind of a liberal thing . . . ?

(Write a review of Reading Lolita in Tehran, fast turing into one of the best and most exciting reads I've since Infinite Jest. The Spectummies would love this one: all these wacko religious fundies enforcing their views on others. It's perfect for my Spectrum cyber family! Besides that, it a fabulous, just a fabulous read. My wife can't get me to stop talking about it, and I ain't even done reading it yet!)

Cliff

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

Once again we have fallen into Cliff's trap because once more we are focusing upon him and his way of expressing himself rather than the book we came here to discuss. Once again he is the center of attention.

I doubt that he consciously intends to make himself the center of attention by expressing himself as forcefully as he does. This is almost always the outcome, nevertheless.

I think the best thing for us to do is to stop stepping into his trap. The way we do this is to attend to the substance of his remarks and pretend we don't even see his discourteousness. It might be that he'll stop acting this way once he learns that it no longer makes him the center of attention.

We have asked Cliff for years to express whatever he has in mind more respectfully. We should stop letting him have all the power. We should not permit him to derail us any more.

The best way to do this is to ignore his rudeness. The next step after that is to ignore him altogether. The next step after that is to bar him from posting.

Thank you!

Dave

"The best way to do this is to ignore his rudeness. The next step after that is to ignore him altogether. The next step after that is to bar him from posting.

Thank you!

Dave"

Posted by: davidrlarson | 29 June 2008 at 6:07

Perhaps if your scale was a little more balanced we would agree with your suggestions. Where is your angst with the bulk of Raymonds posts or even these for starters?

"Perhaps your understanding as Chicken Little, but that is an assumption that certainly doesn't describe all Adventists, does it? Or, do you hang out with the parnoid crowd (there are plenty who get all their history and future from GC)?"
Posted by: E (not verified) | 28 June 2008 at 11:03

"Cliff, I see your scorn and superiority is not reserved just for some of us Spectrum posters, but is liberally applied to anyone you disagree with! You are really a pretty likeable guy in person, but in writing you often come across as insufferable!"

Are these examples of topical debate? Cliffs trap?? Center of attention? You implicitly accuse him of conscious grandstanding for his vanity?
"It might be that he'll stop acting this way once he learns that it no longer makes him the center of attention."

Thank you for suggesting we stick to the issues but please, in future lets do the accountability thing evenhandedly.

Funny, Dave, how when Rayond Cottrell had a vitrioic name-calling attack on the church and some of our theologians read in a churcn in Loma Linda, you responded in Atoday with effusive praise to the talk; not one mention of the nastiness, which was by far much worse than my horrible tone on here, so I flat out reject the entire premise and concluson of your posts regarding me and my "trap" and desire to be the "center of attention." Funny, but I have the suspicion that if my theology were more akin to yours, you wouldn't be posting these messages.

All that being said, since I and my tone are becoming the issue, which was never my intention, I am out of here. No ill will, but this isn't what I thought the blog was going to be about.

If you want to harass me, you'll have to do it on my AToday blog.

It's been fun, but enough is enough.

Bye and God bless you all (you need it).

The following review, along with my reading of the first chapter available for free on Amazon, is enough to make me not want to waste my time or money with the book.

The author's background makes the book one more instance of poorly thought through and presented "pro-christian" arguments damaging rather than helping Christ's cause.

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Believe-Atheists-Chris-Hedges/dp/141656795X

"His main argument against these atheists is that they believe in moral progress in a utopian sense. Get rid of religion, they are alleged to say, and the world can be a utopia. Hedges says this of them several times. As one whose read all of the authors to which he refers, I was confused, because I don't remember any of them saying this. At least, I figured, he will quote them on this at some point. He never did.

He suggests that these authors do not believe in any idea resembling original sin; that humans have both a good AND A DARK narure. That is funny in a naive sort of way, because if Hedges had done homework, he would have easily known that the whole idea of evolutionary psychology (to which all of our authors subscribe)is ALWAYS lambasted for recognizing that we - evolutionary creatures - have inherited our predecessors' moral virtues and shortcomings. (Hedges should have remembered the uproar at Dawkins' book 'The Selfish Gene!'). "

Thanks for the great review Heather.

I didn't find the book at all "pro-christian." Rather, it is decidedly anti-fundamentalist and I wholeheartedly concur with this thrust of the book.

I cringed at the hopelessness of his world view and I winced as some of Hedge's statements began to paint me as a fundamentalist with my hope in a better future and a literal second coming. Call me naive but please, not a fundamentalist.

Perhaps this is part of what got under Goldstein's skin as he read the book. On page 33, Hedge's shares one of his frequent Niebuhr quotes, "Men seek a universal standard of human good.... After painful effort they define it. The painfulness of their effort convinces them that they have discovered a genuinely universal value. To their sorrow, some of their fellow men refuse to accept the standard. Since they know the standard to be universal the recalcitrance of their fellows is proof, in their minds, of some defect in the humanity of the nonconformists. Thus a rationalistic age creates a new fanaticism. the nonconformists are figuratively expelled from the human community." (Or, literally invited to leave the Adventist community.) Did that hit a little too close to home?

It is too easy to point a finger at the New A's and Right-wing Nuts and cry fundamentalism. Much more challenging and painful is to acknowledge our own tendency to join up with the Fundy's.

Dave:

Cliff is a very unique person in a very narrow world in which self expression must be muted. Spectrum is one of the few places he can ventilate. I, as well as others, have taken his exhaling personally. For Cliff's sake and his mental,emotional, and spiritual good health let us
try to live and respond above the implications of his outbursts. I know it will be difficult for me, but I successfully worked with and under two self absorbed dental deans--I think at 83 I can accommodate Clff's need for unfettered expression for the rational time I have left.

Cliff--go for it--hit it out of the ballpark every time your at bat! Tom

Heather said,

However, I’m not as ready as Hedges to give up on the idea that we are moving towards a better future.

Kant drifted back and forth on this question himself as he saw us building towards an end of either equilibrium or apocalypse.

As he died he became more and more pessimistic (I would say, Christian) about our prospects. He spent quite a bit of time criticising utilitarianism and said that its proponents were defenders of what he called the "dark soul" of humanity and argued that virtue does not aim at or ensure happiness.

Cliff,
I agree that the Great Controversy is relevant. And I wish you felt we were worth the few minutes it would take to write a paragraph or so offering a respectful reply.

Larson is not banning you. As I read it he's asking for a constructive engagement. I know that older people sometimes don't realise that because of respect given to them because of their position, stature, accomplishments etc. means that what they consider to be candour can come across as crass.

I don't see the request for constructive engagement as equalling a demand for ideological adherence. I see that as requesting that you give us more of yourself.

I think that the last sentences in your first comment
1. comes across as patronisingly dismissive and disrespectful of the post and its author
2. denies us all the opportunity to hear why the Great Controversy is relevant

Cliff
I believe we are here to discuss the book. I would appreciate it if in a few lines you would summarize its main themes in a way that the book's author would find fair and accurate. Having done that, I would appreciate a more substance account of what you found helpful and not-helpful. In any case, I hope we can stay focused on the book that Heather brought to our attention. Many thanks!
Dave

Tom
Great advice from an accomplished administrator. Thank you!
Dave

Brenton,
Your comment was very insightful. Thinking of how "Much more challenging and painful is to acknowledge our own tendency to join up with the Fundy's." or, how our move away from fundamentalism could make for interesting results, I am reminded of one of the scenes in the Zizek documentary where he compares authority in two parenting styles- a post-modern father and an authoritarian father. Here it is:

Alex wrote a post on Zizek over on the Spectrum blog which you can read here.

/I have the dvd but I'm pretty sure you can watch the entire documentary online if you search around.

P.S. Cliff

Remember if you crowd the plate, look out for a high inside fast ball!. Tom

Dave,

Please, please do not bar Cliff from this site. We need his voice however annoying. Remember Cliff is a Johnny-come-lately to Adventism. His knowledge of even Adventist current history is second hand. He was not around during the 1950's to the 1980's. We owe him knowledge of his heritage.

He has been given the awesome responsibility of communicating Adventist beliefs with the church. Every week, Adventists around the world hear his voice. That he believes he has a pulse on the life of the church demonstrates his naivety and just how much he needs to be a part of the conversation on Spectrum.

From our early days as a church, the movers and shakers within Adventism have been a remnant, a small group of believers that saw the big picture and pushed the church into new directions. While Cliff may believe that the voices at this site do not represent a cross section of the church, the thought leaders gathered here are the nidus for the next generation of Adventism.

Donna

Hi Donna!

I intend no rudeness to you or anyone else when I decline as respectfully as possible to discuss any further Cliff's tone or style. I don't want our conversations to be sidetracked once again.

You touch on one of the items that comes up now and then and this is whether "Spectrum" represents a cross-section of our denomination. I agree that it doesn't.

Of the 15 million or so SDAs around the world, many of whom can neither read nor write--though our church will give them these skills as rapidly as possible, as it is inclined to do, this being one of many reasons why I am happy to be a SDA-- very few are interested in what we discuss here.

I'm OK with that.

It has been my hope that we could reach 1% of the world-wide membership. I notice that some say we can hope for no more than 2%. That's 100% more than my personal goal!

But 1% of 15 million people is a significant number. Its important increases if these are people who have had the undeserved advantage of a good education.

I say "undeserved" intentionally. Those of us who have had the opportunity to go to school for many years must keep in mind that this was more happenstance than anything else.

Had we been born at a different time and place, we would be no more educated than many others.

Thank you, Donna!

Dave

Heather,

I, too, want to thank you for your well written and thoughtful review.

As to the thread of thought on the world getting better, I like the take that by the resurrection of Christ we are now living in the age to come. When Christ arose he ushered in his everlasting kingdom and we are now living in that reality and are to continue his redemptive work on this planet until his revealing.

We are stewards of God's world. Even in its fallen state it still reflects his glory. As Christian's we are to work for the betterment and uplifting of humanity. If this means that diseases are cured and better crops are developed and laws are passed that eliminate discrimination and life improves for the earth's inhabitants than we should rejoice in the progress.

Donna

I don't recall anyone banishing Cliff. He decided to go on his own. All of us who post here should abide by the stated rules that we do not make personal attacks, which is what he did when calling the book (and author) as "stupid" without addressing the ideas in the book. Is that too much to ask that comments address the topic rather than make attacks with no substantive direction as to the specific ideas in the book? I think not.

P.S.:

I have no power to determine who gets to participate in these discussions. This is up to Alex Carpenter in consultation with his closest colleagues and, though I express my opinion now and then, I trust his judgement completely. He gets the final say and this is a good thing.

Many thanks!

Dave

I think the question, "Is the world better and can it keep getting better?" can be separated from the idea that it will be better at the end.

Personally I find the view that we are on some long slow slide into decline to be both pessimistic and inaccurate. I think our consciousness about human rights has been raised worldwide and, while we are more aware of the abuses now, we are also less tolerant of them. Clearly it is two steps forward, one step back in how we treat our fellow humans but I do think few can argue that the world was better off 100 years ago, 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago.

I don't think it is contradictory to say that we humans do have the God-given and God-enhanced capacity for goodness as well as evil and we are capable of making the world better, at least for awhile.

Will the world be worse right before the second coming? Could very well be but that doesn't mean it could be better before that.

I have to agree with bevin too. I think saying the New A's are calling for a utopia apart from religion is a strawman. I haven't come across that in my reading of them, though I could have missed it. My sense is that their overall view is things could go all sorts of ways. They don't see religion as a help in improving the world but they certainly don't think that we are bound to achieve some sort of moral greatness without it. Utopia is a word with strong emotional connotation and I think it is disingenuous for Hedges to use it here.

When Christ returns, will He find faith on the earth?
Argumentation for sure! Works for sure! Faith at work--who knows? Isn't that God's job not ours? My father used to tell this story: "A jewish father put his young son on the mantel of the fireplace and said: "David, jump into father's arms, David refused saying, "I'm afaird you will drop me." To which the father replied: "David, I am your father, I would never drop you!" So David jumped and the father stepped aside and David hit the stone hearth." While the boy was still crying the father said, "See Davd, don't trust nobody!"

It would be difficult indeed to find faith, trust, and love, in these exchanges. Courtesy has largely returned
passion certainly remains. I think Paul saw a simple theology and James saw a practical application and I am comfortable with those simplicities. Tom

Heather,

Your comment, "suggests a movement away from hope in any form of Christian eschatology, any statement that all will be made well one day. It’s almost as though Hedges gave up the part of the Christian story that ends in healing and renewal and kept the part about how we got into this mess in the first place."

I have not read the book but I am commenting on your statement.

How is it that not believing that this world can end in lasting Peace because of our nature is giving up on the "healing and renewal?"

I suggest it is the very purpose and need of the eschatological consummation occuring in the pre-millenial return of Christ.

Babel was man in his autonomy seeking to build their own city. Babylon in Rev.14:8 is attempting to do the same while promising peace and safety.They attempt to remove rest from the saints... Instead, rest will be removed from them.Rev.14:11.

Christ's bride attends the Wedding Supper of their realized Husband and Lamb in whom they find peace.Rev.19:9.

pat

I meant to say:

Will the world be worse right before the second coming? Could very well be but that doesn't mean it COULDN'T be better before that.

As a Johnny come lately to this thread, I am waiting for a doctors appointment that will require heavy sedation. So I picked up "I Don't Believe in Atheists" by Chris Hedges and then reread both Heather's review and I Don't believe in Atheists."

Heather is a little better than the book. I read Chris months ago and highlighted a few lines. In rereading, I find the book a very important warning against simplistic thinking-the art form of fundamentalism.

Fundamentalists immediately classify and then they go to war against their straw men.

I think Chris Hedges used a National Public Radio level of journalism and for good reason.

To say Chris is the last word on the debate is naive. To condemn the book is ego-centric.

To Heather, thanks. I enjoyed the book more on the first read than the second. It did get me ready for surgry. "Lay on McDuff!!" Tom