Terry Eagleton - taking on the atheists in Galway

MackDeToaster

Just spotted this in the latest Galway Advertiser, useless rag that it is. Oh great, something to look forward to indeed. Quoting just some of it...

"Defending Christianity

Prof Eagleton is famous, not only for his Marxism, but because he is one of the most forceful voices against the rise of the fanatically intolerant atheism personified by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. A magnificent example is Prof Eagleton's powerful critique of Dawkins The God Delusion in the London Review of Books. Many atheists took great offence to it when they saw their high priest laid low.
"And they're going to take more offence as I have a book coming out where I continue my critique of Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens," declares Prof Eagleton, with no little relish.
Prof Eagleton finds the chief characteristics of the 'new atheism' to be a high level of intolerance and a contentment to deal with religious people through crass, ill informed charactures, sweeping generalisations, and crude, vulgar stereotypes.
"Atheism can be a plausible position but what I object to is the evangelical atheism" he says. "They advance a version of Christian belief that is crude"."

Blah blah blah. Apparently in November he was appointed Adjunct Professor of Cultural Theory at the Moore's Institute for Research in the Humanities and Social Studies in NUIG. I've written a letter to the rag in reply though I doubt it'll be published in it's entirety. I managed to refrain from suggesting that maybe he should have been appointed to the board of Mutton Island instead, the local sewage plant.

lostexpectation

dawkins and hitchens take very differing attitudes to religion...

Zombrex

MackDeToaster wrote: »

"fanatically intolerant atheism"

I love the hyperbole :P

"fanatically intolerant gardening"

Galvasean

Galway rag wrote:

fanatically intolerant atheism

Galway rag wrote:

crass, ill informed charactures, sweeping generalisations, and crude, vulgar stereotypes.

Tim_Murphy

I read this yesterday, waiting for a reference to Dawkins as a 'high priest', and sure enough thye didn't disappoint. :rolleyes:

Anyone read this review of TGD that is mentioned?

MackDeToaster

Here ya go...

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

Zombrex

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

I read this yesterday, waiting for a reference to Dawkins as a 'high priest', and sure enough thye didn't disappoint. :rolleyes:

Anyone read this review of TGD that is mentioned?

It is the usual stuff, mainly an attack on Dawkins' motives and his alleged desire to unfairly characterise all religion as equally bad, rather than a serious effort to actually respond to any of points in the TGD

Ironically, for all the bluster about evangelical atheism, sometimes I think TGD was too subtle for a lot of believers, a lot of the arguments seem to have been lost on them. But then again as Dawkins himself says in the book, it isn't written for believers.

Tim_Murphy

Wicknight wrote: »

It is the usual stuff, mainly an attack on Dawkins' motives and his alleged desire to unfairly characterise all religion as equally bad, rather than a serious effort to actually respond to any of points in the TGD

Ironically, for all the bluster about evangelical atheism, sometimes I think TGD was too subtle for a lot of believers, a lot of the arguments seem to have been lost on them. But then again as Dawkins himself says in the book, it isn't written for believers.

I would think that many of them just are not interested in the types of arguments Dawkins makes in the book. I think if a person is not interested in thinking about the issue of gods existance without also considering the religious and social implications then they are not likely to find Dawkins convincing, e.g:
(from link above)

The central doctrine of Christianity, then, is not that God is a bastard. It is, in the words of the late Dominican theologian Herbert McCabe, that if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you. Here, then, is your pie in the sky and opium of the people. It was, of course, Marx who coined that last phrase; but Marx, who in the same passage describes religion as the ‘heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions’, was rather more judicious and dialectical in his judgment on it than the lunging, flailing, mispunching Dawkins.

Now it may well be that all this is no more plausible than the tooth fairy. Most reasoning people these days will see excellent grounds to reject it. But critics of the richest, most enduring form of popular culture in human history have a moral obligation to confront that case at its most persuasive, rather than grabbing themselves a victory on the cheap by savaging it as so much garbage and gobbledygook. The mainstream theology I have just outlined may well not be true; but anyone who holds it is in my view to be respected, whereas Dawkins considers that no religious belief, anytime or anywhere, is worthy of any respect whatsoever. This, one might note, is the opinion of a man deeply averse to dogmatism. Even moderate religious views, he insists, are to be ferociously contested, since they can always lead to fanaticism.

Zombrex

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

I would think that many of them just are not interested in the types of arguments Dawkins makes in the book. I think if a person is not interested in thinking about the issue of gods existance without also considering the religious and social implications then they are not likely to find Dawkins convincing, e.g:
(from link above)

The argument is the same one everyone on the Christianity forum seems to make, that you cannot criticise moderate religious belief because moderate religious people aren't starting wars or blowing themselves up.

This falls back on the view commonly held by believers in western countries that religion that doesn't cause direct harm shouldn't be crticised

toiletduck

The Advertiser is merely a glorified classifieds leaflet tbh.

Saw this yesterday, usual lazy writing that one would expect from them.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055414037 - worth a read

Tyler MacDurden

Wicknight wrote: »

The argument is the same one everyone on the Christianity forum seems to make, that you cannot criticise moderate religious belief because moderate religious people aren't starting wars or blowing themselves up.

This falls back on the view commonly held by believers in western countries that religion that doesn't cause direct harm shouldn't be crticised

Didn't Sam Harris address this issue in The End of Faith?
If I recall correctly, he criticises the moderate believers for perpetuating the cultural environment in which the fundamentalists can emerge. Even lazily making up the numbers allows the belief system to propogate itself. The occasional lunatic will to take it to heart, with predictable results.

Húrin

Tyler MacDurden wrote: »

Didn't Sam Harris address this issue in The End of Faith?
If I recall correctly, he criticises the moderate believers for perpetuating the cultural environment in which the fundamentalists can emerge.

The USSR created an atheistic cultural environment, and murderous fanatics (not of religion) still emerged.

brianthebard

I'm going to ask Terry to supervise my dissertation! :P

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

The USSR created an atheistic cultural environment, and murderous fanatics (not of religion) still emerged.

Which is why it is a good idea not to create an environment of moderate unquestioning devotion to an idea or authority, because in that environment fanatical unquestioning devotion to an idea or authority can emerge.

Religion when you strip it down is really no different than any other system that places faith in an unquestioned authority. Religious people like to think that religion is some how "special" (because they believe their particular belief comes from a deity, which is the whole point of the objection). In fact religion is simply a human construct, similar to a lot of other flawed human constructs.

The idea that moderate religion should be beyond criticism is as flawed as saying moderate fascism or moderate communism should be beyond criticism. All are human social constructs, all should be criticised and critiqued

And before any religious people go off on another "We question all the time!" rant, if you do not believe God can be wrong then you are not unquestioning. Questioning something means being open to the idea that the thing you are questioning can be wrong or flawed. If you already believe God is beyond questioning (ie cannot be wrong) then you are unquestioning (unquestioning is not the same as not asking questions. I'm sure religious people ask questions of their god, but they are not open to the idea that the answer can be wrong)

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is why it is a good idea not to create an environment of moderate unquestioning devotion to an idea or authority, because in that environment fanatical unquestioning devotion to an idea or authority can emerge.

I agree. Harris however, claims that moderates create an environment where questioning is not permitted. This is false.

It is typically the moderates who are most open to questioning, and it is also the moderates who have the knowledge to question and criticise the fundamentalists where it can disarm their extremism the most.

if you do not believe God can be wrong then you are not unquestioning.

A questioning state of mind does not preclude having any beliefs at all. Only if the believer does not know why they believe, has not considered the arguments against a belief such as this one, and insists that their belief cannot be questioned, is the above statement true.

What is your position, for instance on the oldest philosophical question - is the world real? Are you really prepared to be an agnostic about everything? It seems that it is you making a special case for religion.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

I agree. Harris however, claims that moderates create an environment where questioning is not permitted. This is false.

That isn't false, you can see many examples of just that.

Húrin wrote: »

It is typically the moderates who are most open to questioning, and it is also the moderates who have the knowledge to question and criticise the fundamentalists where it can disarm their extremism the most.

You have come up an argument that God can be wrong have you? How many religious people, moderate or fundamentalist, have been convinced by it?

Again, like so many times this discussion has come up, I imagine you are going to try and explain that moderates question interpretation all the time. But that isn't actually the point. Moderates (in general) don't question the infallibility of God, nor do they question a person accepting the idea of an infallible authority in the first place. Moderates simply question whether this or that interpretation of the infallible world of God is correct or not.

It is precisely this acceptance of the basic flaw in religion (the believe that there is a perfect infallible authority), that acceptance that such a belief is normal and healthy, that is the problem with moderate religion.

Húrin wrote: »

A questioning state of mind does not preclude having any beliefs at all. Only if the believer does not know why they believe, has not considered the arguments against a belief such as this one, and insists that their belief cannot be questioned, is the above statement true.

And that is precisely the problem with religion because it is not actually about your belief, it is about God's belief. You don't need to know why God does or does not hold a position, your job is to follow it. Unquestioningly because God is not wrong. If he was wrong he wouldn't be God.

Húrin wrote: »

What is your position, for instance on the oldest philosophical question - is the world real?

My position on it is dependent on how one defines "real". I would find it hard to say the world is not "real" because to me "real" is defined using the multi/uni-verse as a standard. So what ever the universe is, that is what is real.

Húrin wrote: »

Are you really prepared to be an agnostic about everything?

To a point yes. It is impossible for someone to know something for certain. We are too limited in our ability to understand all aspects of something. Science is helpful in this regard (religion is not), but we are still fundamentally limited in what we can know.

On the other hand it is possible to make assessment based on evidence, testing and modelling. This is not perfect, you will never understand something fully this way, but it is a lot better than other methods of learning and study.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't false, you can see many examples of just that.

I'm not saying it's never true, I'm saying that Harris is wrong to think that it's nearly always true.

You have come up an argument that God can be wrong have you?

Yes, the ideas that God is imperfect, or composed of both good and evil, are old ones.

How many religious people, moderate or fundamentalist, have been convinced by it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Again, like so many times this discussion has come up, I imagine you are going to try and explain that moderates question interpretation all the time. But that isn't actually the point.

If you are tired of the argument, then stop going online and arguing it. Are you out to convert people?

Moderates (in general) don't question the infallibility of God, nor do they question a person accepting the idea of an infallible authority in the first place. Moderates simply question whether this or that interpretation of the infallible world of God is correct or not.

Moderates question both, at different times. I don't think that settling on a belief once you have assessed the options is a problem.

It is precisely this acceptance of the basic flaw in religion (the believe that there is a perfect infallible authority), that acceptance that such a belief is normal and healthy, that is the problem with moderate religion.

Whether you think it is healthy or not has nothing to do with the crucial question of whether it is real or not.

And that is precisely the problem with religion because it is not actually about your belief, it is about God's belief. You don't need to know why God does or does not hold a position, your job is to follow it. Unquestioningly because God is not wrong. If he was wrong he wouldn't be God.

If you have already decided that God is an infallible authority, why would you need to? That is why it is about your belief. It all depends on that. After that all you need is the humility to follow.

My position on it is dependent on how one defines "real". I would find it hard to say the world is not "real" because to me "real" is defined using the multi/uni-verse as a standard. So what ever the universe is, that is what is real.

Do you not find it hard to plan your life without being sure that the sun will rise tomorrow?

To a point yes. It is impossible for someone to know something for certain. We are too limited in our ability to understand all aspects of something.

We are all agnostic to a point. I agree with this paragraph.

On the other hand it is possible to make assessment based on evidence, testing and modelling. This is not perfect, you will never understand something fully this way, but it is a lot better than other methods of learning and study.

So it is alright that you have opened your mind on how to gain knowledge through various methods of study, and closed it again on these scientific methods, but it is not alright for people to think about notions like the existence and infallibility of God and come to different conclusions than you did?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, the ideas that God is imperfect, or composed of both good and evil, are old ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

But not very common ones (you know a lot of Gnostics running around)

So again you aren't really contradicting Harris saying it is nearly always true.

Húrin wrote: »

Moderates question both, at different times.

once again you are missing the point. If someone asks the question "Can God ever be wrong" and comes to the conclusion that "No he can't" and then carries on in their religious beliefs based on that axom, they are no long questioning of God.

Leaving aside the ridiculousness of decided that God can never be wrong (how would someone possibly rationally determine that), it still leads to the climate that Harris (and myself) are objecting to, the atmosphere of general admiration for people who have decided that the commandments of a deity are beyond question.

Húrin wrote: »

Whether you think it is healthy or not has nothing to do with the crucial question of whether it is real or not.

Yes but the question is not whether it is real or not, the question is whether it is healthy. But you see that is the great trick religions like Christianity pull, they make is so important (through concepts like hell) that you conclude it is real you really have to obey.

I could say even if God is really it is better not to follow what he says because you cannot take it as being moral, and the vast majority of Christians, moderate and alike, would say that is nonsense. It has to be moral because God said it, and if we don't follow it we are wicked.

Again, this is the environment that moderates facilitate. It is taken to the extremes by fundamentlists, but it is the mdoerates that make this form of thinking acceptable in the first place

Húrin wrote: »

If you have already decided that God is an infallible authority, why would you need to?
...
After that all you need is the humility to follow.

This is exactly the type of thinking I'm talking about

Húrin wrote: »

Do you not find it hard to plan your life without being sure that the sun will rise tomorrow?

Not in the slightest. It is the people (normally religious people I must say) who claim certainty about someone or some event who end up in trouble when the event fails to happen.

Húrin wrote: »

We are all agnostic to a point. I agree with this paragraph.

I would have hoped we "all" would be, but a quite trip to the Christianity forum demonstrates that this isn't true.

Húrin wrote: »

So it is alright that you have opened your mind on how to gain knowledge through various methods of study, and closed it again on these scientific methods, but it is not alright for people to think about notions like the existence and infallibility of God and come to different conclusions than you did?

yes

I know Im supposed to go "No coming to different conclusions to me is fine, I'm totally tolerant of all conclusions and view points. Everyone is equally right" and all that wishy washy hippy nonsense, but the simple fact of the matter is that some view points are wrong and dangerous.

Reality is not a democracy. Because someone wants something to be true doesn't mean it is.

Science is better than religion at determining truth about reality. The fact that a lot of religious people don't like that idea because science so often doesn't confirm the religious beliefs they so strongly want to be true, is irrelevant to that. One can say I'm closing my mind to other ways of discovering wonderful truths about the universe, but that is nonsense. People aren't finding out truths about the universe, they are finding out comforting answers, irrespective of whether they are actually true or not, because often the comforting answer isn't the correct one, but people are more interested in the comforting answer.

Moderate toleration and acceptance of ideas like following unquestioningly the commands of a deity, are harmful and leads to an environment where extremists from.

The fact that a lot of religious people like the idea of a deity that cannot be wrong, that this brings certainty to their lives that is comforting and that they otherwise wouldn't have, again doesn't change that

UU

Oh yeah because "evangelist atheists" are out every Saturday afternoon trying to buy people into their cult of nothingness!!! :rolleyes: Seriously what a load of nonsense! After all religious nuts fly planes into buildings and shoot abortion doctors and militant atheists write books!!! :eek:

Húrin

UU wrote: »

Oh yeah because "evangelist atheists" are out every Saturday afternoon trying to buy people into their cult of nothingness!!! :rolleyes: Seriously what a load of nonsense! After all religious nuts fly planes into buildings and shoot abortion doctors and militant atheists write books!!! :eek:

Indeed they don't have to resort to such things, when they can just collectivise agriculture, purge the bourgeoisie and condemn dissidents to the gulag.

pH

UU wrote: »

Oh yeah because "evangelist atheists" are out every Saturday afternoon trying to buy people into their cult of nothingness!!! :rolleyes: Seriously what a load of nonsense! After all religious nuts fly planes into buildings and shoot abortion doctors and militant atheists write books!!! :eek:

Turns out militant atheists also firebomb churches. So upset were militants by Sarah Palin running for VP that a crack squad was sent to Wasilla to burn down the church she attends.

"some Christian activists contending secular intolerance and bigotry directed toward Christians remains a serious problem in America."

"some say the fire is just a reminder of permissive intolerance toward Christians that goes on with the tacit blessing of an increasingly secular American society."

“We know persecution is going to increase,” said Bishop Hollis, adding Christians should take comfort in the fact the Bible foretold of certain hardships. But she stressed Christians must remain vigilant in the fight to preserve their faith.


Also (From the Telegraph):

If - and it is still a big if - arson was committed by militant homosexuals or liberals simply driven by hatred of Palin, then that is a phenomenon that should greatly concern the American public. Anti-Christian jihadism fuelled by secularism is as unacceptable as that driven by militant Islam.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/12/15/if_sarah_palins_church_was_burned_by_arsonists_it_is_a_warning_to_christians

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

condemn dissidents to the gulag.

I have to admit, Dawkins is a great one for the Gulags ... we keep telling him, Dick, it would be far quicker to just burn them all to death, but does he listen!

Ziggurat

pH wrote: »

Turns out militant atheists also firebomb churches. So upset were militants by Sarah Palin running for VP that a crack squad was sent to Wasilla to burn down the church she attends.

"some Christian activists contending secular intolerance and bigotry directed toward Christians remains a serious problem in America."

"some say the fire is just a reminder of permissive intolerance toward Christians that goes on with the tacit blessing of an increasingly secular American society."

“We know persecution is going to increase,” said Bishop Hollis, adding Christians should take comfort in the fact the Bible foretold of certain hardships. But she stressed Christians must remain vigilant in the fight to preserve their faith.


Also (From the Telegraph):

If - and it is still a big if - arson was committed by militant homosexuals or liberals simply driven by hatred of Palin, then that is a phenomenon that should greatly concern the American public. Anti-Christian jihadism fuelled by secularism is as unacceptable as that driven by militant Islam.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/12/15/if_sarah_palins_church_was_burned_by_arsonists_it_is_a_warning_to_christians

I've read over these articles and I'm kind of struggling to find where, exactly, it states the perpetrators come forth claiming they did what they did in the name of atheism or liberalism.
Or, indeed, where the perpetrators were caught and admitted, or were found out, to have done this in the name of atheism or liberalism.

FFS, it says, right there, "If - and it is still a big if". Could that be because there's no evidence? Nah, must be the "liberal media elite" conspiring to prevent anything being found out. :rolleyes:

pH

Quinine wrote: »

I've read over these articles and I'm kind of struggling to find where, exactly, it states the perpetrators come forth claiming they did what they did in the name of atheism or liberalism.

What? The facts getting in the way of a good story? OMG my post was sort of "on topic" for this thread, that's setting a bad precedent, I must try harder!

Ziggurat

pH wrote: »

What? The facts getting in the way of a good story? OMG my post was sort of "on topic" for this thread, that's setting a bad precedent, I must try harder!

I apologise if you were trying to be facetious but, as I'm sure you know, it's quite difficult to convey subtle intonation with the written word.

If you weren't being sarcastic...could you explain your above statement?

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

Turns out militant atheists also firebomb churches.

Where does it say they were atheists? Not that I'm denying that atheists could be capable of such an act. Examples where the offenders where in actual fact proven to be atheists acting on behalf of their atheism would be more constructive to your point.

pH

At least they published a letter in response.

Eagleton comments on atheism are the usual canards

Dear Editor,

So Mr Eagleton (Galway Advertiser, Dec 18) looks forward to taking on the atheists in Galway, if this is honestly the case then he's going to have to bring more to the table than the usual canards, strawmen and misrepresentations as the words in this article are nothing other than the typical vacuous soundbites of a religious apologist lacking any real content.
More

robindch

pH wrote: »

More... "not collecting stamps or claiming that bald is a hair colour"

Methinks the anonymous author has tripped by boards...

Meanwhile, here's another Eagleton, this time in Oz. Hiroshima was a slaughter "in the name of science", apparently.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Methinks the anonymous author has tripped by boards...

Reading that this morning afternoon when I came into work I thought that myself. It wasn't me anyways.

MackDeToaster

Aw jaysis, that was me. I can't believe they actually printed it in that state ? :eek: ? Or was it only online ? It was only a five min hit 'n run rant email as I was in a rush and didn't have the time to edit or tidy it up in any way. Gah, de shame

Dades

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Aw jaysis, that was me. I can't believe they actually printed it in that state ? :eek: ? Or was it only online ? It was only a five min hit 'n run rant email as I was in a rush and didn't have the time to edit or tidy it up in any way. Gah, de shame

Well done, sir.

pH

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Aw jaysis, that was me. I can't believe they actually printed it in that state

Time to get your ballpoint out again!

Dear Editor,

After reading the letter published in your excellent newspaper on December 30 last, titled "Eagleton comments on atheism are the usual canards" I would like to express one or two thoughts that this letter created in me.

First of all the writer claims that atheism stands for nothing, it is not even...

I pray for Eagleton says former atheist

MackDeToaster

Dear dawg, where's the facepalm smiley when ya want one? I can't be bothered actually, numptyism like that knows no bounds. Former atheist my bottom, some people just 'want' to believe.

pH

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Dear dawg, where's the facepalm smiley when ya want one? I can't be bothered actually, numptyism like that knows no bounds. Former atheist my bottom, some people just 'want' to believe.

He lost me at "excellent newspaper".