Chris Hedges & Lawrence Krauss on New Atheism and their role in Western imperialism & Islamophobia.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 тра 2024
- 🔴🔴🔴
Link for donation: paypal.me/sankymudiar
🔴🔴🔴
Become friends of the show by joining the channel: / @indiagloballeft
🔴🔴🔴
This video is part of two separate podcasts we did with Chris Hedges and Lawrence Krauss.
You can watch the full video here:
Chris Hedges: • Chris Hedges: US, Iran...
Lawrence Krauss: • Lawrence Krauss: Debat...
🔴🔴🔴
Follow us on
Twitter: / indiagloballeft
Instagram / indiagloballeft
🔴🔴🔴
We are also looking for sponsorships or small donations. If you can, consider giving us what you can. Thanks.
Write to us at indiagloballeft@gmail.com
🔴🔴🔴
So, Krauss is basically saying that if an atrocity is committed under the name of a religion its my duty as a scientist to fight against it. But, if an atrocity is committed by a state, that’s just politics, and I can’t talk about it because I’m a scientist.
Richard Dawkin's just called himself a "cultural Christian" and said he would choose "Christianity over Islam every single time" so he's definitely not as anti-Christian as he is anti-Islam as Krauss said here.
I like Richard Dawkins to some extent but his attack on Islam while defending Christianity is intellectually absurd. Christianity has a WORSE history when it comes to torture, mass murder, and intellectual suppression than Islam. It's ironic that many of the best works of the Greco-Roman intellectual tradition -- many texts of Aristotle, for example -- were preserved in the Muslim world after those books had been burnt and extinguished in Christendom.
Maybe Christianity has a worse record because it's had an extra 700 years to unleash mayhem and murder. 🤐
Exactly! They are all hypocrites when it comes to Christianity and Judaism vs Islam.
Dawkins thinks well of christ and His principles. He is quite a saintly man but he would hate me saying that lol
They both have issues. I don't get the insistence on calling Arabs people of color. Arabic speakers in the Levant are Caucasian. Many of us are whiter than many Europeans. Half my family have blonde hair, most of use have colored eyes and light skin (Lebanese). They need to snap out of their delusion, we are not people of color.
They both have issues. I don't get the insistence on calling Arabs people of color. Arabic speakers in the Levant are Caucasian. Many of us are whiter than many Europeans. Half my family have blonde hair, most of use have colored eyes and light skin (Lebanese). They need to snap out of it, we are not people of color.
I live in Senegal for 16 years, with a population of over 90% Muslim. There is respect between the Christian and Muslims and the country cohabitates in peace and celebrate religious feasts together. No one cuts hand off and all you state. People in Africa need religion: Christianity is big, Islam is big and Animist societies are big. Ignorance is dangerous or bliss. The US is the most dangerous country in the world.
Yes well said
Thank you for stating facts.
Yr last sentence.
Then according to your logic most of the Africans migrating to Europe and US should swerve round to Senegal. You should be brand ambassador and would be good for both worlds.
And nobody can safely be pagan, atheist, jewish, gay, or teach evolution and objective history, or change their religion, and parents can beat or cut kids, etc., etc. Apparently Africa “ needs “ that too
I lost respect for the new atheists when I saw and heard them supporting the war on terror
To be honest that really was their primary purpose. They didn't receive funding from nowhere.
I really don't think Hitchens would. be supporting this genocide though. He was quite outspoken against zionisms. Of course he would probably trash Hamas but he equally would trash the extreme right religious settlers that are running Israel today. I have no doubt he would have loathed Blinken
@@khansahb8who funded them? This makes a lot of sense
@@colbytravelingsomewhere he supported the invasion in Iraq, for the bullshitiest of reasons. He'd be better just saying he was paid for it.
How strange atheists would not like the threat posed by religious extremists. No, wait, that makes sense. Have you tried thinking about this?
It’s always uplifting to listen to Chris.
Except for the "people of color" thing. I'm an Arabic speaker (Lebanese) and ma not a person of color. I'm white. Most of my family have light skin and colored eyes. In fact, many Arabs are white, especially in the Levant. You can't box us all into the same category.
@@freepagani didn't catch the context he said that in, but I'd guess he was using "of color" to characterize a relation between Middle East Muslims and westerners: and among those in the West, particularly the types who would be pro-Israel, I think it's common for them to overgeneralize Muslims as all being the same "savages", who are conveniently color-coded for their conveniently simple worldview
@@freepaganbut either way, what u pointed out is important, maybe some people listening might make that generalization as well! It's a useful thing to point out to certain people you might try to persuade against Islamophobia
Lawrence Krauss simply won't let opposing opinion speak -- given, as Hedges points out, their scholarly ignorance and Islamophobic bigotry, they can't. And they NEVER listen.
He let him speak, Krauss was making a point that he was talking about religious fundamentalism not Islam, making a statement like "they NEVER listen" is as bigoted as an actual Islamophobe.
Hedges seems to be ignorant that Hitchens was a prominent leftist & comrade of Edward Said, he lost his mind sometime in the late 90s, he should know this.
Krauss is also a good friend of Noam Chomsky who he considers an academic mentor.
I see no evidence of this in the clip. If anything, the moderator let Chris Hedges speak without being interrupted, but interrupted Lawrence Krauss.
@@greggasiorowski1326 As well, Krauss is consistently shallow, not a clue on anything he's talking about. For example, it's anachronistic to speak of Christian fundamentalism in the Middle Ages. Krauss is a Christian in the sense the morality he takes for granted is Chrisitan. It's a cowardly dodge for the New Atheists to now say they oppose Islam fundatentalism, when they simply detest Islam period -- are Islamophobists. What difference does the fact that Hitchens was once a leftist make? He was a New Atheist. Maybe Krauss was once a scholar speaking of things he new something about. Listen to Hedges and learn something.
@@greggasiorowski1326 watch the debate between Hedges and Hitchens
@@sarigraham1
I did years ago.
It is just incredible how uninformed on Islam Krauss is. Would he write a physics paper on a topic that is outside his specialty without first educating himself on the topic, studying its literature and accurately quoting its experts? Yet he and Dawkins seem quite willing to pass judgement on Islam and Muslims by picking statements here and there, with no knowledge of the 1400 year Islamic civilization. Krauss would not be doing physics today were it not for the work of Islamic scholars during Europes dark ages.
Religion questions the laws of physics all the time. He was invited because he defended his right to work in America against the christian fanatics who think heaven is real and the earth is flat.
He's sore because he lost in a debate with Hamza Tzortsis, since then Islam is living rent free in his head. Such an a**se hole
They think Atheism is the Progressive one and the best version.
It's literally a satanist ideology. It's the death of humanity
Why is Krauss obligated to highlight the intellectual diversity or beauty in the history of islam or among a handful of intellectuals around today, when he is confronting the larger arc of actually existing islamic culture and politics today? Especially when the relatively reactionary reality of islam faces few efforts at reform (as its defenders can cite scripture in a way no other religion can)? Almost every version of islam available to live under today is reactionary, in over 50 of the 55 islamic majority countries, vast numbers are persecuted by it, there are no major non supremacist forms to interact with if you are a muslim looking for an enlightened sect of it, or a non muslim wanting to not be encumbered living next to it. Why should this broad context not be Krauss ‘ focus? Certainly islamic groups provide massive amounts of social services and civic infrastructure, but that was the case when and where the church, liberal state, or stalinist parties ran things too. It’s the only game in town.
Krauss talks as goofy as he looks. Doesn't know an iota about Islam or Christianity.
What I have realised as I have gotten older is that most conflicts are political in nature, including those where religious or even fanatical groups are involved. The sort of Lennon-esque and simplistic "Imagine [...] no religion too" solution ignores the underlying causes of conflict, denies the participants agency, and absolves the western imperialist powers of any historic or current responsibility. Even religiously motivated groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda have political goals.
Blaming radical islam for the problems in West Asia is purely a scapegoat tactic. It does not take into account the enormous amount of resources and effort the west has invested and keeps investing into promoting islamic fundamentalism in the region, both directly (e.g. through supporting and arming terrorist and seperatist groups) and indirectly through their conduct which naturally breeds opposition (which can take many forms), and destroying secular and/or socially progressive alternatives (like in Iran) while propping up repressive regimes.
The argument that "We did those bad things for political reasons" while "those backwards people in those backwards countries were compelled by their backwards religion" doesn't hold water. Even if it were true, as Krauss and his peers seem to believe, that arabs and other muslims are in a developmental stage 600 years behind the so-called "christian world" - Whose fault would that be? To quote George Galloway, "The Iraqis were teaching algebra while we were painting out faces blue". The global majority has been subjected to centuries of violence and humiliation which did not only hold it back, but without which the minority would not have been able to advance to the extent that it has. I am glad to see this system weaken.
One final point. If I trust a christian to be able to use his or her internal moral sense to (mostly) distinguish between the morally agreeable and disagreeable sections of their holy book, the only conceivable reason for me to not extend that same trust to a muslim is that I believe them to be less morally or intellectually able. These are deeply internalised orientalist beliefs.
You can do both and Krauss does. The west pushes islam but that doesn’t change the fact that islam is useful because it is more cultish. It doesn’t change that islam is reactionary in malaysia or indonesua or brunei far from the US backed taliban. Your final point is just wrong, because it’s a false analogy. The bible is a book about god. The Quran js a book written by god. Let’s see you say you have strong islamic faith but think some parts of the Quran are off track anywhere in the islamic world. That won’t be seen as legit by anyone and you will face censure
There was a report that was conducted by a historian and he listed which religion was the most violent.
By far ,the most violent was christianity, which claimed to have killed over 180 million people in the course of 1600 years ( not 2000 years because christianity became relevant when costandine made christianity rome's official religion).
The second came atheism with over 97 million deaths.
What christianity did in 16 centuries, atheism did within less than a century.
And since this video mentioned Islam.
Islam came fourth with only 30 million deaths within 13.5 centuries.(a lot of deaths mostly occurred when some mongol dynasties converted to islam but they still carried on with their brutality of invasions)
Clearly, a lot less than the first two.
I think atheism is far more dangerous than even christianity.
@@vinlondon8904 the report is silly , the atheism figure proves that clearly. But the point is , who cares that christianity was more violent? Is Krauss a Christian apologist? No. And we are fully aware of positive contributions of islamic regimes in history. And I like muslims just fine as i am sure Krauss does. but islam is a sect of christianity, or a cousin, or if you don’t like that - then the only other evangelical imperial abrahamic religion. The fact that it took us almost 2 millennia to get xtians to chill out , or that western powers bare much blame fir the sad state of mainstream islam today , is not at all comforting. I only care about the role superstition and conservative, racist , homophobic, culturally imperialistic dogma plays in preventing humans, many of them muslim humans from having the good life they deserve. Pretending people, muslim people, are not suffering just so we don’t make western supremacist bigots feel good is not going to empower reformers within the muslim world.
@tidakada7357 Again, you're speaking from a position of historical ignorance.
It didn't take 2 millenia for christianity to contain Christian violence.
Christianity was irrelevant for the first 4 centuries. It was an underground cult .
It became relevant when Costandine the Great made it an official roman religion.
And even then, it took a while before becoming an influencer in the policy making of the roman Empire. (Soon after costandine's death, the next emperor made it illegal as a religion. He detested christianity).
Therefore, from its relevance and the relevance of Islam, it probably had a gap of 2 centuries the most.
Krauss should have known that before making that ridiculous conclusion.
The study about religious and ideological violence was not conducted by a Muslim but by an American.
Atheism undoubtedly caused millions of deaths in a short period.
Soviet Union, communist China, faschism, and nazism were inspired by social darwinism, eugenics, and scientific racism.
You can't deny that. Otherwise, you're just an apologetic.
And lastly.
Christian fundamentalism has not been contained at all.
Christian zionism started 2 centuries before jewish zionism.
A prominent Catholic American priest speaks about that.
Christian fundamentalism is very much alive nowadays, and it's gotten hold of the most powerful empire today that still causes millions of unnecessary deaths.
@@vinlondon8904 you’re just grabbing whatever you can and throwing it illogically at the screen.
I never said 2 millennia I said “almost “, meaning rounding it off to speak in generalities for the sake of concision. I am not giving a history and kraus’s point is NOT about how we got here, but about what anyone not consumed by your whataboutism can see now. And actually know quote a lot antiquity and the origins of apocalyptic judaism and then early christianity.
Even if it was only 700 years and not 1600 years the point would still stand. Do you not understand that? Everybody knows about Constantine. But let’s just pretend I don’t know. Does that change anything here? Let’s pretend Christianity was founded only 600 years ago. Does that change anything? No.
Do we have hundreds of more years , if we, as this channel claims, are leftists - to establish some sane world order without people more engaged with tribalism, superstition, or escapism? No we don’t.
And again I almost mentioned that the Christian still might end the world and are in some places are still oppressive. But I rightly felt I didn’t mention that, since much more of the Christian world is no longer religiously literalist today -That is Krauss point. So there is a large example to work with, whereas in the islamic world there isn’t. There is Bosnia and Kazakstan and pockets of a few other countries. So more of the Christian world than the Islamic world believes that other religions or lack of religion could be justifiable, for any humans on earth. You can read the polling on that.
Finally, I absolutely do deny that atheism -through Nazism and communism and secularism- killed 100 million people ( and i never implied a muslim conducted it). More precisely i deny that any kind of measurement like that can be made. Do we also have to include the hundreds of millions of people that it saved, how much cholera cholera it eradicated? Or indeed how much some of these atheisms fought fascism and got kids out of copper mines? What counterfactual do we compare it to what alternate reality timeline? How many people died in religious India from avoidable deaths compared to the Soviet Union? One study found 1.6 billion avoidable deaths in India up until the britis left - so mostly still religious. The islamic rule in india is said to have ckst 300 million lives. I put no stock in these numbers either. Again it’s an impossible comparison , there’s way too many factors to bring in and there’s also the problem that many fascist or communist societies went through periods of being religious, using religion or allowing religion.
At some point you will need to let people trust their lying eyes. Nobody buys what you are selling. And it only drives more people toward tribalism , western supremacism, christian fadcism, and anti muslim bigotry, and it at the same time massages islamic supremacists or anti reformers. Krauss is speaking in everyday language about how much more literalist and intolerant one religion is in our part of history and comparing them in that sense to christians from 600 years ago - just to make that point about TODAY. Whether you care about religion, or islam, or atheism - or just harmony and freedom i don’t see the point in denying that. I can play islamic apologetics games too - for example when an islamic ruler promoted marrying Mongolian kafirs and built tons of confucian temples - or times when slaves were freed or science preserved by islamic regimes. I taught in an islamic school and count muslims among loved ones. But In the context of what Krauss is addressing, it is just evading real social problems in our time, just so we don’t look like Ben Shapiro
Houthi here 🇾🇪🇷🇺
❤❤❤Houthis 🇾🇪 ❤❤❤
Ansarallah = the most moral army in the world ✌️,sending ❤️ from Leeds,England 🤗
Love me some Houthis 🇾🇪🇾🇪🇾🇪🥰🥰🥰
I wish I was young enough to enroll in university and get suspended for protesting just to go learn in Yemen! Thank you all for caring for the oppressed and abused no matter where they are.
@@kathiduran9583 much love 🙏 🏴
Why do you have a Russian flag? You a Putinista?
🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦
Chris Hedges is my spirit animal
A good one to have, almost always right. None of us are perfect, unfortunately.
Lawrence Krauss lost the plot when he stated that Iran is a Medieval (whatever). I think his understanding of Iran is informed by US propaganda, and little else. For an advocate of scientific enquiry, this is hugely disappointing, and a slap to all the other good things he said in this interview. For starters, think Saudi, and how India treats its Muslim population (not trying to trigger anyone, as this is an Indian channel).
I didn’t hear him say Iran is medieval but I did hear him say ( 10:10) the Quran was written in medieval times. The Quran is said to have been written from 609CE to 632CE. In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages or medieval period lasted approximately from 500 CE to 1500,
As the interviewer said, they have zero understanding of geopolitics, the US invades your home kills your loved ones, and when you strike back in anger they screem " see? Savages, barbarians, their religion is violent" ignoring everything they have done to us. Exactly like Oct 7th, I$rahell commits war crimes after war crimes for 76 years, and when the palastanian resistance fight back they screem terrorism.
You clearly never met any iranians.
So far the only dogmatism is Lawrence, may he need to go watch praying for armageddon
Such an important topic. Leave it to Chris to take this on. Dude is fearless.
Standing on truth is truly freeing, that's Chris.
Dude knows what he is talking about because he does his research. Krauss is just a knob.
None of the so-called atheists dare to say a word about the rubbish brutality in the TORAH and the Israelis claim that they are the chosen people and that God promised them the land of the Palestinians.
Tim Freke covers all the Pagan origins of these "myths"
Exactly. Somehow Israel, Jewish supremacy, and Torahic/rabbinic fanaticism are exceptions to their anti-religious worldview.
Jews were almost eradicated, probably you don't read history.
That’s a very weak argument. Zionist dispossesion of arabs is not based on jewish religion or the torah, unless you want to claim that Zionism started 20 years ago. Further, most jews do not literally believe in the Torah and can criticize it, they can even admit that most of the bible is fiction.
Actually they have.
Krauss does not understand humans. Islamism is not a medieval phenomenon. It emerged as a reaction to Western Imperialism. For example Krauss says Iran is lead by medieval clerics. This is wrong medieval clerics would sit and pray to God to solve their problems. These clerics develop missiles, nuclear weapons etc. You may not like them but this has nothing to do with medieval mind. He should read Charles Taylor's A Secular Age, where Taylor defines different kinds of secularism. Also before Islamist terror organizations and states, there were Marxist organizations and socialist states in the middle east. Islamist rose in parallel to decline of socialism in the whole world. They need an ideology to mobileze masses. If in another world US was invaded and oppressed by external forces or even by an authoritarian regime, does he really think non of the Christian militias in the US would turn to violence to fight this? I don't defend Islamist is but no we do not live 600 years apart.
I am somewhat disappointed by the superficiality of Krauss' arguments and knowledge. He really should be put in conversation with Chris Hedge's himself since Krauss' thinking has some of the same problems as Sam Harris.
He is not that low & CH is not perfect as well.
Please provide an example (or two). Thanks.
Some of the same problems? They were a team.
You mean they're both Jewish?
One telling thing is that these "New Atheists" never criticize Israel much less Jews. They are deafiningly silent during the ongoing Gaza genocide. I call them spiritual Jews.
I don't care for any of the Abrahamic religions but no one should be killed for believing one brand or the other. Or not believing in any of them.
Bingo
So done with Abraham. And most religions for that matter.
Religion is a vital part of human social development. It is a pity that our general understanding of it in the modern western world is so distorted. They are mines of the human soul, the human psyche. The trouble is we all have a tendency to believe our conditioned view of life is a clear window on the world. It is not.
Netanyahu Invokes Genocide and the Story of Amalek and The Promised Land
"This is what the Lord Almighty says," the prophet Samuel tells Saul.
"I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
The Story of Amalek is the story of Two Brothers, Esau, and Jacob, twin grandchildren of Isaac, son of Abraham.
Esau, Jacob's Brother, is Amalek's grandfather.
The lineage from the Bible records the Amalekites are named after Amalek, who was the son of Eliphaz, who was the son of Esau, the father of the Esau, the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, and Esau was the twin brother of Jacob who was the father of the Israelites now there was enmity between the twin brothers because Jacob tricked his father Isaac into giving him the birthright blessing, they should have gone to the firstborn son Esau This hate was passed down to his descendants, including his grandson Amalek.
What nonsense,
It’s all about land. Always has been.
What Krauss calls "realism" is nothing more than a biased position that he doesn't seem able to acknowledge himself, and the interviewer was right to call him out on that.
I find it quite rich that someone would say Islamic fundamentalism poses a bigger threat to "the people" considering the particular strain of Christian fundamentalism of which Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and millions of deaths are a product - George W. Bush repeatedly used Christian symbolism and references in his speeches.
And Kraus' linear view of history whereby other cultures are merely on a lower rung on the ladder of progress and civilization is an outdated ethnocentric lecture of historical events. This is why it's important in my view that experts stay in their lane. The authority and reputation they have over their area of expertise shouldn't carry over to unrelated topics.
Krauss lecturing on abuse....look into Abu Ghraib,Guantanamo,the treatment of blacks in the US,the native Americans etc etc
Very simplistic
@@Ocinneade345 Simplistic? Is the white man superior?
The dude literally got fired for serial sexual abuse, not only that, he also took substantial Epstein money and probably went to the island at some point.
I think that Krauss’ point (as I understand it) is that countries that are led by religious dogma have intolerance baked into the system, whereas in a country where church and state are separate, at least there are laws intended to create equality. I am not defending the misuse of those laws - which I acknowledge. I am simply saying that Krauss (and other atheists) argue that in a religious state there is less acceptance of diverse views (religious or otherwise) while in a non-religious state the quest for diversity and equality is part of the system. Those who live in a healthy liberal democracy can take their employer, a landlord, a medical professional… to court for treating them differently based on their race, religion, etc. That is not a feature of religious states. I believe that was his point.
@@sylviak7352 I appreciate how easy it is to make this mistake, given the abundance of misinformation being put out there. White supremacy is not a religion but they are the people that would have you believe this is about anything but race, and that is simply untrue. Two men stood before us in this video, one was brilliant, one very much not so.
Hedges is a real one. Shame on The Real News Network for sacking him yesterday because of his critique of the Biden administration. That's completely unacceptable, especially for a non-legacy news outlet.
Agree/disagree with him all you want, Hedges is principled, well-read, and earnest. You can't ask for much more than that.
"critique of Biden admin" had nothing to do with editor's decision, they won't publish calls to not vote against Trump in swing states. Chris has a history of simply lying about why he gets terminated, like from The Nation. NY Times fired him for plagiarism, not politics.
I had no idea that he had been dropped. That is disappointing. Screw them.
He is a tankie that is so biased in his "anti capitalism anti imperialism" con that it has blinded him completely....he is incredibly inflexible and dogmatic. He literally blames Ukraine on America.... unreal tankie.
@@Raydensheraj I don't know what that means and I'm not sure you do either.
@@Raydensheraj That is not a bias, that is a realistic and honest appraisal of inarguable facts. Clearly your support for the evils of capitalist imperialism is messing with your mind and making you incapable of hearing simple facts.
It was funny seeing Krauss go on to perfectly illustrate Hedges' point about how ignorant New Atheists are. Hedges didn't even have to respond after that. Krauss proved him right.
I am an atheist, but these "new atheists" are so annoying.
Hmmm. This Krauss guy needs to stay in his lane (i.e. stick to physics - and not confuse that field with metaphysics).
Metaphysics you mean make belief physics? "I am a woman because I say so, heaven is real because it was written in the book"
@@user-ez8le1rp3x Right. Explains why FecalBook chose that prefix for the name of its Parent Company.
@@user-ez8le1rp3x No, you are just a clown who thinks his conditioned view of life is a clear window on the world. It is not.
As an atheist ex Muslim, I especially detest the genocidal Old Testament texts which were the progenitors of the Bible and the Quran. The Old Testament is the absolute worst textbook by humans. Ask those who are well versed in the hateful, violent and genocidal texts of the old testament and the Torah.
Nah, that would clearly be the Communist Manifesto. The death count of communism in the 20th century alone dwarfs the death count of all religious wars of the previous 19 centuries combined.
The old testament is not literal history. It is a brilliant collection of literary works on the human condition, born from the human psyche itself.
@@opinion3742 That description applies only to a handful of OT stories and passages. Most of the text is, ethically speaking, appalling, vile.
@@vaska1999 If they were prescriptive. But are they just because a bunch of idiots think they are? Look at the human race - this book is a clue to its inner workings. The gods of the OT are archetypes of the human soul.
Lawrence has absolutely no critique of Jewish fundamentalism. I wonder why!?
What is your thinking?
@@Ocinneade345 I would say it is because he is a hypocritical knob with a racist agenda.
Stop noticing
you anti semite. How dare you question “The Chosen Ones”
@@theorisoe3630😂
What about Israel treating Palestinians like subhuman
Some of the most infamous atheist critics on Islam are jewish, they never critize judaism even though the teachings are similar.
Are not similar at all.
Judaism is far far worse.
In judaism genocide is permissible, whereas in islam is prohibited.
In islam women and kids are spared in wars, in judaism and christianity are not.
Krauss is jewish, but he failed to mentioned that judaism is also very backwarded.
He thinks that if a religion is older, you grow out of it.
Well, not in the case of judaism, and we are clearly seeing it first hand.
Also, he failed to mentioned that atheism, is far far more dangerous than religious dogmatism is.
Atheism killed around 100 million people for less than 100 years.
He never also mentioned that social darwinism ,eugenics and scientific racism, all products of science, which led the nazis to exterminate most of his ancestors.
Link for donation: paypal.me/sankymudiar
Guys, we want to work full-time on this, but our financial woes keep us pushing away. If your wallet allows please drop us some support. We prefer the PayPal method since we don't lose half of the money, but you can also give us a super chat. If you are a large donor, we would obviously get in touch with you to give something back if we can. But if you can't no worries. Please subscribe, share, and like. That means a lot already
Chris is right about Germany.........
This video deceptively implies that CH and LK had a conversation they didn't, there is no reason to not split this into two video unless you are just going for the clickbait.
Interesting high contrast. Your second guest may know a lot about science but he knows diddley squat about history.
Suggest a prescription of Prof Roy Castagranda via the Austin Community College UA-cam channel and his fascinating lectures on …West Asian history. (Or some of it.) Arguably far more was understood about life the universe and everything when nothing was left out.
It's helpful if you can point out where Krauss was in error, or what point or comment, specifically, was incorrect. Can you do that so that we can understand your opinion better?
I have zero fear of Islamic fundamentalism.
You would if you were a little American Muslim girl who might be next to suffer FGM. Even though we have laws against it in the Us, they break the laws and our judges take the bribes to allow them
I am astonished by Lawrence Krauss, his woeful ignorance concerning Islam.
Did not expect Krauss to engage in this topic. Will be interesting.
"Chris Hedges & Lawrence Krauss on New Atheism ...." Well that was a misleading video title! It sounded like it was going to be a debate.
Did not expect Krause to think he knows enough about Islam to pontificate so erroneously.
@@MartinHaumann1 I was expecting that. Krauss maybe an idiot but he is unlikely to think he is any match for Chris.
That Krauss guy doesnt know history AT ALL and just spit bullcrap over and over...
Two very different discussions.
The Hedges discussion clearly distilled the ideas around the new “old” atheism and Western hegemony. I think the new thing is that it is linked to scientific thought, in that there are even scientists that push the propaganda of the West to everyone else. This shouldn't be that surprising however and I'd like to elaborate shortly.
The second discussion was a train wreck and really hard to listen to. The second speaker has clearly no idea about the topic and rambled on incoherently. One really got the feeling that the speaker is out of touch with reality and was quite happy to spout the classic tropes by the West towards everyone else built up over the last forty years. I leave my criticism here, I could go on, but I think it enough.
I'm an experimental research physicist of 40+ years working in the field of solid state physics.
Western scientific thought is in many ways a mirror of capitalistic thought and dare I say authoritarian capitalistic fundamentalism. It starts with the scientific method which I won't go into here but is also entrenched in the modern Western approach to the funding of science. There are truly plenty of scientist-cheerleader/sycophants/tarts for Western capitalism and your second guest certainly I think falls squarely into this category whether he, understands this or not however is mute.
Lastly there was a comment below that how can someone so intelligent be so ignorant about the propaganda the West spews forth.. That they wouldn't produce a scientific piece of work without doing due diligence to read the scientific literature. Actually I disagree. What I find is, what you see is what you get with most people no matter what the subject. How a person behaves is carried through to their entire life not just part. The guest could have “fessed” up and told the interviewer I haven't really thought about these things and I'm out of my depth here. But of course this didn't happen and I'm sure similar things will be the same with their scientific output - potentially even more so.
I think is because five eyes countries people are not well educated. We Indians who got to work in Muslim countries with every nationality never ever felt this hatred until many of us chose to emigrate and from day one you see this sore thumb amongst Whites against anyone from outside this five eyes domain. But there is a snail pace improvement. It may take another fifty years to get rid of UK colonial attitudes
Are you saying that there isn’t a large population of people in India who are anti-Muslim?
Krauss first talks about immence violence. And when asked about imperialism he beat around the bush. He wanted to only speak about religious violence i.e taliban. Well 9.11 killed 3000 people but the imperialist wars that followed killed millions of people. Note he also never critized israel. Only iran.
As a lifelong atheist, It seems to me that religion is not the problem so much as the way the ruling class use it to divide and rule the working-class.
I can only, if extremely reluctantly, agree with Chris here.
The race card is played far too easily too often nowadays, but I'm acutely aware that people whom I would otherwise listen to's views on Palestine are clouded by an element of racial prejudice.
Not believing mixed with a great hunger of domination and power, creates monsters as well
yes, the craving for power and domination is the greatest driving force of evil, not belief
Whenever Kraus enters a room, there is a giant elephant coming in with him… and it don’t speak math or physics…
My support worker kept using Sam Harris meditations for helping me do guided meditation until i pointed out how for someone who portrays himself as so brilliant, his views on islam boiling down to 'muslims, bad' is everything wrong with the New Atheism i was raised with, and distanced myself from. You wanna see an athiest get mad, tell them that atheism also requires faith about something (existence of a god/higher power) that may or may not exist...
So, you have faith in all of the gods/spirits that you don't believe in? That's utterly ridiculous.
Atheism is a faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
@@Charlotte_Martel Agreed. Thank you.
Lawrence Krauss is full of nonsense.
Why can't people just respect other people's belief.
Because their beliefs include that their beliefs are better
The earth is round. If as an adult you insist that it's flat you should not expect your view to get respect. Thunder and lightning are not made by Thor, again any adult saying that they are made by Thor should not expect to be taken seriously. I wouldn't want my kids to be taught by a person who thinks that the earth is flat and Thor creates thunder and lightning. I wouldn't want such a person to have any responsibility in my society, they seem to lack good judgement.
I think it is because Power is real and resources are limited and everybodies lives depend on getting some of both. All the terrible bullshit extends from there.
Supremacism, really.
"It is with great sadness that I must also conclude that my country has sunk to such political and moral depths that it is now an apartheid regime. It is time for the international community to recognise this reality as well."
Michael ben-yair, former attorney general of Israel
I don’t know, but I have a feeling that Lawrence Krauss has become more right-wing in his politics from how I remember him in the past. He used to be a big fan of Chomsky even politically.
I used to consider myself a part of the New Atheist movement until I got a real good look and Krauss' and Dawkins' ideology. My views on religion also got a lot more sophisticated as I realized there's not a lot of daylight between my views people like Chris Hedges.
That was a good program. Thank you.
People are in shock and denial. Chris Hedges is not the problem.
I'm not tired of listening to Chris Hedges!..He's well-spoken, interesting and thought-provoking.Thank you for having him in your podcast…We need another round !! Please bring him back
What about BiBi Netanyahu invoking Amelek in addressing his troops and Air Force pilots before sending them into Gaza? He's neither Christian nor Muslim.
So he’s opposed to violence in the name of their god, but violence in the name of capitalism which far exceeds anything else is ok 🤔🤔
Sure thing Krauss 👍
I'm anti-religion but Kruass has a cartoonish understanding of religion.
Kind of like how religions have cartoonish understandings of other religions.
He really does, it's childishly cartoonish.
Sam Harris' "End Of Faith" has got to be one of the most vile pieces of literature ever written. Its written so eloquently that you'd think it was written by Satan himself.
It's Always Amazing to hear from people about topics they think they know while actually they are ignorants.....
This is good, but not completely accurate. I'm an Arabic speaker (Lebanese) and ma not a person of color. I'm white. Most of my family have light skin and colored eyes. In fact, many Arabs are white, especially in the Levant. You can't box us all into the same category.
When they say White what they actually meant is Germanic. You think these "White" people see people like you as White ?
Americans love to impose their racial categories on everyone else in the world, whether it makes sense or not; that’s kind of their thing…
These people have no problem spewing anti-Christian and anti-Muslim diatribe while inverting the truth about everything political, social, historical. It is because they know they have all the power in every aspect of our world. But they will meet their justice eventually.
Ty 4 Chris ,
When Kraus says Dawkins is just as critical of Christianity as his Islam it really shows how disconnected from reality he is. I guess he missed all the times Dawkins said he wants England to remain a Christian country and is appalled at the idea of Islamic traditions being celebrated. The reason for that is racism, like Hedges said, pure and simple.
Positivism has long been a form of fundamentalism, to which Kraus is an exemplar of.
Two other interesting figures who also have some critical things to say about the New Atheists are Terry Eagleton and David Bentley Hart
Weak host did not properly challenge or explore the starting premises stated by Kraus. Did not even try to contextualise it.
I agree w the host. There are many more worse examples in US than to keep pointing at Islam’s issue with how they deal with crime.
You say this because you are not a woman in a Muslim country. 50% of the population in these countries have virtually no rights and are not treated equal to men - by law! It is time for all men to, at the very least, acknowledge the injustice to women instead of harping on about the USA being worse because of its hegemony. Yeah, yeah...we know. But all women would still rather live in the USA than a Muslim country. And that includes the majority of Muslim women who already live in the USA or Canada or Great Britain or Germany or France...or any other liberal democracy where they have tasted freedom and enjoy equal rights. Please men: start standing up for women in these countries instead of only seeing how things affect yourselves. Most women would surely not prefer to live in a Muslim country if they could live as a Muslim woman in any liberal democracy.
Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, is a secular Jew.
You don't need to believe in a God in order to commit and/or try and justify your unspeakable acts.
Great debate 👍👍👍
When I was in Iraq, the locals called the bombs we dropped on them Christian bombs.
Krauss' characterization of religion is so simplistic. As a scientist doesn't he feel compelled to learn about what he's trying to talk about?
While Hitchens did sometimes display a simplistic view of religions, it is dishonest to suggest that he exclusively criticized Islam.
He was quite explicit about his disagreements with the state of Israel, and his severe criticisms of Christianity. Strangely enough, when one of these atheists criticizes the Torah nobody accuses them of being antisemitic.
I think a lot of people here are mistaking this video as being pro-religion. It’s just talking about the racism in New Atheism.
New Atheism was a more powerful movement in the 00s-10s
Mr. Krauss, you have put into words exactly how I feel about Christianity and Islam. Thank you.
Yawn.
Absolutely he has moved to the right and showing his true colours
I find it surprising that in all this conversation about religion, the glaring omission in the discussion was the subjugation of women that is common in the three dominant religions. All religions are patriarchies, and the damage that they do to women and girls is something that is universal, and a testament to the inherent danger of religiosity, and the power of inflicting generations-worth of damage to a people by simply focusing on one gender. We are seeing a resurgence in anti-female sentiment in North America (Lawrence Krauss touched on this briefly in the context of embryos being labeled "people"). Unfortunately, he did not expand on this and the further erosion of women's rights through changes in abortion laws, thanks to the Christian right. Perhaps more women thinkers should be included in these discussions so that 50% of the population is not overlooked when having these discussions. The bottom line is: Atheism is good for women.
The Wiccans would disagree that all religions are patriarchies.
@@tradeprosper5002 Hahaha...alright. Ya got me. That's true.
“The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man - state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world...
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.”
― Karl Marx
The books that Chris Hedges & a few others have written about have proven to be correct & on target.
The comments here are abysmal. Economics is the most dangerous religion and prisons in the U.S. are an example of that, being a modern day slave trade and our police are the sailors out capturing, for the might deity, a dollar.
16:10 I used to believe this saying.
But it's not actually true.
Good people can be motivated to do bad things by many ideologies.
Not just religion.
Very true. I don't think Krauss realizes bad or fundamentalist religion when absent just gets replaced by ideology, explicit or implicit. He stated "the prisons aren't bad because of our beliefs" in the US. HA. We have culturally shared beliefs that create the largest prison system in the world, that create suffering for many, and profit for a few. We worship money and power here, to the point of irrationality (killing the very earth our children/grandchildren need for living.) There's so many types of "crazy" or "ridiculous" thinking."
@@eoharafisher very well put
Chris Hedges said that the religious right's reason for supporting Israel is racism. He was just saying that Hitchens argues against strawmen...
Unfortunately, much of the American religious Right's views on Israel are 'informed' by Biblical prophecy and their perceived crucial role in helping bring it about.
That's a darn sight more scary than racism.
I completely agree with the view on religions, however, unfortunately science has not solved most deep-sitting socio-economic issues of our times either.
*Krauss is a western dogmatist.*
And a jerk.
@@profe3330
Oh, that was deep. 😅
@@greggasiorowski1326 as Krauss
He is speaking without logic and reasonings.
His reasonings are ahistorical as well.
"Laws prohibiting blasphemy and blasphemous libel in the United Kingdom date back to the medieval times as common law and in some special cases as enacted legislation. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2024. Equivalent laws remain in Northern Ireland." ('Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom', Wikipedia)
Other side in June 2022:
"Two (Muslim) persons beheaded a 40-year-old (Hindu) man in broad daylight at his tailoring shop in a market in Rajasthan’s Udaipur city on Tuesday, after an exchange of a series of inflammatory social media posts in the last few days.
The victim, Kanhaiya Lal, had shared posts in support of suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma, who had made offensive remarks against the Prophet" ('Tailor beheaded in Udaipur for social media post backing Nupur Sharma', The Hindu)
I'm an American atheist. Since I'm 66 years old and became an atheists at 18, I guess I can't call myself a New Atheist. About 500 million people are atheists. Apart from not believing in a God, there's nothing else you can claim they agree on, so don't. Speaking only for myself, I am totally opposed to Imperialism by ANY NATION. Just because a few famous atheists speak favorably about empire doesn't mean the rest of us agree. And there are a lot of Muslims who are in favor of Imperialism when they get to impose it on others. Let's not ignore that.
I UNSUBSCRIBED at real news network! Looking forward to your network Chris!
The myth of human progress. Even George Carlin knew we were “barely outta the jungle” on this planet. Can you arrange a discussion/debate between Hedges and Krauss? That’d be fun to watch. I watched the old Chris vs Sam Harris debate. It wasn’t much of one. Hedges world experience and education together was on a higher level, the only thing that kept Harris going was his ego, and privilege. He looked like a fool but was too full of himself to know better. Atheism itself is a privileged position. Very shallow and self centered. “There are no atheists in foxholes” - Ernie Pyle.
Despite all of the 'facts and logic' enthusiasm of the past couple of decades, a lot of the people who were fans of the New Atheists because they were correct on one, intellectually simple position, that the supernatural claims of the religious aren't substantiated, the same New Atheists should be believed on other topics. Argument from authority, a classic fallacy.
there is no moral distinction between atrocities done in the name of a god and atrocities done in the name of a state (mythology). the former is simply more offensive to the "enlightened" liberal sensibilities of ppl like krauss, so he asserts it is worse, more dangerous somehow.
If the world survives Western secularism and its destructive science.
Oh this should be interesting
So, gentlemen, who gets to create the money put of nothing?
That guy dint know crap on Iran* Chris not allowed to set him straight*
I don’t quite understand the equating race when it comes to the conflict in the Middle East. It’s seems more religious based than race. Can someone educate me?
Racial categories get constructed in different ways depending on place, time and history. There is a strong tendency in the Western-Christian view to racialize Muslims (to assume they're a certain way because of an essence that's often understood biologically) even though on appearances there's no single Muslim race. Europeans especially have a powerful image of Muslims as brown South Asians and Arabs, as a combination of ethnicity and religion.
Let's be honest, Krauss is just a pseud.
Thank you guys. It was awesome interviews❤
Call it a label, Lawrence so you can dismiss it? Sorry, no, these are accurate signifiers which is why they were chosen. After hearing Chris' usual insightful and brilliant comments it is something of a shock to be forced to endure levels of stupidity one ought not associate with academics. What has become of us? As to the interviewer here, I would really like to know what it is that he admired about Dawkins if it wasn't his contribution to neo Darwinism.
The sheer arrogance of Krauss and the New Atheists never ceases. The statement that "the Quran...was written in a medieval time when people didn't understand anything about nature" is absurdly ahistorical, as if the first several centuries of Islam did not come with a flourishing of scientific and philosophical development, of intellectual life, with famous figures like al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes among them, all building on and furthering human knowledge, especially advancing classical Greek philosophy like that of Aristotle. A New Atheist might tell you some batshit nonsense like that everyone believed the earth was flat in the medieval period, but all these theologians were, among many things, intelligent astronomers. These medieval scientists did not simply discard the spherical model that was put forward so many centuries earlier. Indeed, medieval thinkers even grappled and corrected the theories of those like Aristotle. The Jewish philosopher/physician/astronomer Maimonides, who worked contemporaneously with Averroes and took great influence from the aforementioned Muslims, writes at great length about the current knowledge and debates in astronomy in his time-his Guide for the Perplexed even discusses theories of orbits and demonstrates a rudimentary but amazingly logical astrophysics. These medieval theologians were arguably far more rational with what knowledge they had than any contemporary New Atheist, who don't even bother to study philosophy.
Krauss here also talks of the "stages" of these religions, claiming Christianity is somehow in its more civilized stage, while the Islamic world is in its backward stage. Actually studying medieval science and philosophy reveals there to be clear tandem development between Jewish and Islamic philosophy. Yet Krauss seems to think Judaism would be in some different phase because it is older than Islam. He is completely ignorant of the common historical conditions of these religions and that each was born in a distinct historical context-in other words, they did not emerge in the same ways. To say their historical development is virtually identical is to fall into the trap of archaic late 19th century views of human evolution and history. Krauss's "stage" mentality would appear to be in the tradition of Ernst Haeckel's recapitulation theory, Oswald Spengler's civilization cycles, and Thomas Kuhn's scientific paradigms, probably picked up from more recent historical relativists (specifically 1990s neoconservatives) like Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. Ironically in Krauss's case, this sort of "stage" mentality is historically grounded in mystical thinking.
Excellent piece, but what's Kuhn got to do with anything that you lump him in with those guys? He's not drawing longue-duree schemes for all time, he focuses on the structure and dynamics of scientific revolutions (as the book title says), which he specifies in given cases. I recommend the Copernican book especially.
@@nicholasevangelos5443 See Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order," a neoconservative textbook endorsed by Kissinger himself. Huntington grounds his theory of "civilizational war" specifically on Kuhn's argument for conceiving historical development in terms of relativistic paradigms that radically replace one another. The issue in Kuhn is not really about him so much as a certain scientism that he reflects and reiterates, the kind of mentality that, for instance, believes the myth that Francis Bacon represents a unique and even unprecedented turn from ancient/classical nature philosophy to modern science. I'm not original in drawing the connection between someone like Kuhn and the likes of Oswald Spengler-neocons like Huntington have already done that and grounded their ideology in the conceptual affinity between those authors. Kuhn emerges from a relativistic milieu, a tendency in mainstream social life especially since the mid to late 19th century toward ethno-nationalism, new forms of mysticism, and scientistic racialism, among other developments.
As a result of the development of this morally corrosive tendency toward relativism, there has hardly been a major author in the last 75 years who has articulated a seriously objective philosophy of history. Probably not since Ernst Bloch's "The Principle of Hope," and as monumental as it is, even that is a niche read. Some circles of ecologists, anthropologists, and other natural and social scientists, maybe, but they also have little chance of reaching mainstream readership, as they get drowned out by bestsellers that often promote conceptually skewed or fraudulent "science" merely meant to reassert Western chauvinism and "principles" of social domination, i.e. Steven Pinker, Yuval Noah Harari, Jordan Peterson, etc. When the New Atheists promote shit like the racialist "Bell Curve" of IQ, they're following through on the essentially mystical, relativistic, and chauvinistic mainstream thinking that has conditioned their mentality and historically rewarded them. And that crap is based on "studies" conducted by actual neo-Nazis (Pioneer Fund hacks like Richard Lynn). This is to say Kuhn's "paradigms" were nothing novel-he simply furthered these developments and reasserted the relativistic view of history that had already been intensifying, mutating, and ever more deeply infecting the public consciousness.
See Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order," a neoconservative textbook endorsed by Kissinger himself. Huntington grounds his theory of "civilizational war" specifically on Kuhn's argument for conceiving historical development in terms of relativistic paradigms that radically replace one another. The issue in Kuhn is not really about him so much as a certain scientism that he reflects and reiterates, the kind of mentality that, for instance, believes the myth that Francis Bacon represents a unique and even unprecedented turn from ancient/classical nature philosophy to modern science. I'm not original in drawing the connection between someone like Kuhn and the likes of Oswald Spengler-neocons like Huntington have already done that and grounded their ideology in the conceptual affinity between those authors. Kuhn emerges from a relativistic milieu, a tendency in mainstream social life especially since the mid to late 19th century toward ethno-nationalism, new forms of mysticism, and scientistic racialism, among other developments. Some of the most notable scientists of the late 19th and early 20th century, from Haeckel to Jung and Oppenheimer, were notably driven by mystical sensibilities. Jean-Marie Guyau notes in the mid-1880s that a significant trend toward monism could be observed both in the sciences and in broader mainstream culture. And it's no mistake that "traditionalism" or "perennialism" emerges during this same period. Giants like Heidegger, Strauss, Huxley, Bergson, etc. both come from and contribute to the development of an extremely relativistic social (actually anti-social) mentality in mainstream culture. By the mid to late 20th century we end up with New Age "mystics" like Watts, Schumacher, and Campbell favorably citing explicitly reactionary authors like Guénon and Evola, Kissinger and Ronald Reagan are reading Spengler, and biologists like Ehrlich and Dawkins put out effectively Malthusian arguments about nature and ecology, emphasizing a brutal "survival of the fittest"... It's really not surprising when Krauss here takes up such a reactionary position, or when Sam Harris preaches his spiritualistic, psychedelic "atheism" while similarly taking up an aggressive moral relativism and peddling the neocon racialist "science" of Charles Murray. Nor should it be a surprise when Dawkins calls himself a proud "cultural Christian." As a result of the development of this morally corrosive tendency toward relativism, there has hardly been a major author in the last 75 years who has articulated a seriously objective philosophy of history. Probably not since Ernst Bloch's "The Principle of Hope," and as monumental as it is, even that is a niche read. Some circles of ecologists, anthropologists, and other natural and social scientists, maybe, but they also have little chance of reaching mainstream readership, as they get drowned out by bestsellers that often promote conceptually skewed or fraudulent "science" merely meant to reassert Western chauvinism and "principles" of social domination, i.e. Steven Pinker, Yuval Noah Harari, Jordan Peterson, etc. When the New Atheists promote shit like the racialist "Bell Curve" of IQ, they're following through on the essentially mystical, relativistic, and chauvinistic mainstream thinking that has conditioned their mentality and historically rewarded them. And that crap is based on "studies" conducted by actual neo-Nazis (Pioneer Fund hacks like Richard Lynn). This is to say Kuhn's "paradigms" were nothing novel-he simply furthered these developments and reasserted the relativistic view of history that had already been intensifying, mutating, and ever more deeply infecting the public consciousness.
My good reply to this keep getting removed when I try to add it here, ugh, so I'll be brief and to the point. The major neoconservative author Samuel Huntington (endorsed by Kissinger himself) directly cites Kuhn's paradigms as the basis for his thesis on "civilizational war."
Be careful who you listen to. Religion is not nonsense.
Holy shit it seems impossible for someone to pretend they have a profound understanding and have less
Kraus contracts himself saying there are no absolute truths. Why would he argue that what he’s saying is true then?