Terry Eagleton

antiskeptic

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

Prof. Terry Eagleton's opening sentence to a rivetting demolition of TGD (and the thinking behind it). One could only hope that Terry would himself one day see the light - what a Christian apologist he'd make.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

legspin

antiskeptic wrote: »

Prof. Terry Eagleton's opening sentence to a rivetting demolition of TGD (and the thinking behind it). One could only hope that Terry would himself one day see the light - what a Christian apologist he'd make.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

I read that review and came away with the impression that Eagleton is nowt other than your typical condecending christian apologist bigot (I've since found out he has a track record of that), who had his mind made up before he even read the book. The LRB was disingenous in getting someone as biased as Eagleton to review a book with which he was never going to agree. Not only that but there was no review from anyone on this side of the fence or even on the fence. I bet you that even if Dawkins had proved beyond doubt his hypothesis Eagleton was still going to launch his diatribe of misdirection and obfuscation.

antiskeptic

legspin wrote: »

I read that review and came away with the impression that Eagleton is nowt other than your typical condecending christian apologist bigot (I've since found out he has a track record of that),

That's funny, I was at a lecture given by Terry Eagleton but a few weeks ago and he stated himself an unbeliever. How can an unbeliever be a Christian apologist?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's funny, I was at a lecture given by Terry Eagleton but a few weeks ago and he stated himself an unbeliever. How can an unbeliever be a Christian apologist?

You'll have to ask Mr Eagleton why he bothers to support something that he believes is nonsense. Though, noting that he's widely known as a popular and effective defender of christianity against reason, it seems plausible to suggest that he's making quite a good living doing what he's doing.

Regardless of that, whenever I happen across any of Eagleton's pompous and confused output, I'm reminded of the first few words of Peter Medawar's commentary on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's immensely silly The Phenomenon of Man:

Peter Medawar wrote:

The greater part of it, I shall show, is nonsense, tricked out with a variety of metaphysical conceits, and its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

You'll have to ask Mr Eagleton why he bothers to support something that he believes is nonsense.

Could you support the assertion that Eagleton finds Christianity a nonsense? Note that debunking TGD isn't supporting Christianity, it's debunking TGD.

Though, noting that he's widely known as a popular and effective defender of christianity against reason, it seems plausible to suggest that he's making quite a good living doing what he's doing.

Weasel words allied to a non-sequitur or two.

Could you link me to where Eagleton mounts a defence of Christianity (apologetics) as opposed to exhibiting non-antitheism traits. That an atheist isn't an anti-theist and can find a positive to Religion doesn't make him an apologist. It just makes him a traitor to those of an anti-theist bent.

Regardless of that, whenever I happen across any of Eagleton's pompous and confused output, I'm reminded of the first few words of Peter Medawar's commentary on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's immensely silly The Phenomenon of Man:

It would be better for you if you could support your position with something more substantial. Like this for instance:

Professor John Sitter, Chairman of the English Department at the University of Notre Dame and Editor of The Cambridge Companion to Eighteenth Century Poetry, describes Eagleton as "someone widely regarded as the most influential contemporary literary critic and theorist in the English-speaking world"

...otherwise pomposity and confusion is something more likely to be attributed to your assessment of Eagleton.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote:

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's funny, I was at a lecture given by Terry Eagleton but a few weeks ago and he stated himself an unbeliever. How can an unbeliever be a Christian apologist?

You'll have to ask Mr Eagleton why he bothers to support something that he believes is nonsense.

Could you support the assertion that Eagleton finds Christianity a nonsense?

Well, I have your word to go on that Eagleton is an "unbeliever". As such, I think it's fair to assume that he finds christianity lacking in common sense.

If, on the other hand, he finds it worth defending -- and he has done so at book-length -- then he really needs to figure out for himself if it's worth defending what he knows to be false.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Well, I have your word to go on that Eagleton is an "unbeliever". As such, I think it's fair to assume that he finds christianity lacking in common sense.

He suggests that the question 'do you believe in God?' is akin to asking someone whether they believe in the Loch Ness monster. Dawkins, he says, seems to imagine God 'if not exactly with a white beard then at least as some kind of chap', whereas even in the simplest sense, 'for Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is... He is the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.'


Eagleton is not convinced this God exists, but believes that anyone who holds that He does is to be respected, while Dawkins and his acolytes, he argues, 'consider that no religious belief, any time or anywhere is worthy of any respect whatsoever'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/dec/16/martinamis




I'm not sure quite what "lacking in common sense" means. Needless to say, the fact that someone is an unbeliever doesn't mean they need to find Christianity/Religion in general non-sensical or worthless. Which is why, perhaps, he can so easily ream The God Delusion (and the thinking behind it) such a large, new arsehole.

If, on the other hand, he finds it worth defending -- and he has done so at book-length -- then he really needs to figure out for himself if it's worth defending what he knows to be false.

Hmmm. From the preface of that book:

Religion has wrought untold misery in human affairs. For the most part, it has been a squalid tale of bigotry, superstition, wishful thinking, and oppressive ideology. I therefore have a good deal of sympathy with its rationalist and humanist critics. But it is also the case, as this book argues, that most such critics buy their rejection of religion on the cheap. When it comes to the New Testament, at least, what they usually write off is a worthless caricature of the real thing, rooted in a degree of ignorance and prejudice to match religion's own. It is as though one were to dismiss feminism on the basis of Clint Eastwood's opinons of it.

It is with this ignorance and prejudice that I take issue in this book.

It's ironic that his complaint (rationalist/humanist caricaturising of the real thing) is the very same thing that you do with his book - which isn't so much a defence of Christianity as it is an attack on ignorance and prejudice amongst rationalists/humanists


If you read that book or lunging, flailing, mispunching you'd have an idea why he takes on the likes of Dawkins-think. Perhaps he realises that just because you don't believe Christianity to be true (in a Jesus-actually-walked-on-water kind of way) doesn't mean Christianity is worthless. Perhaps he recognises that just because you are without belief doesn't mean you have the last word on anything: 'without' being the absence of something, not the presence of anything else (as the atheists are fond of reminding us). Perhaps he wouldn't err as you do, in suggesting that he knows Christianity - or any other religion to be false. You do know that you can't know Christianity to be false, don't you?

Perhaps he's just an without-belief-atheist, not an anti-theist-atheist like you, Dawkins and so much of what constitutes New Atheism

robindch

Moved off-topic posts here.

So anti skeptic I trust you read extensively on Asgardian and Olympian theology before you decided that they weren't true, right?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

You'll have to ask Mr Eagleton why he bothers to support something that he believes is nonsense. Though, noting that he's widely known as a popular and effective defender of christianity against reason, it seems plausible to suggest that he's making quite a good living doing what he's doing.

As far as I am aware, just because Eagleton is critical of other atheists, doesn't necessarily mean that he is supporting Christianity.

I thought atheism wasn't about party lines. It's almost as if Terry Eagleton is a "traitor" of sorts in your book.

Then we also have the unwarranted assumption that Christianity is antithetical to reason. Indeed, and the assumption that atheism is somehow the bastion of reason itself.

Morbert

There are two sides to Dawkins's polemic: A defence of atheism and a critique of religion (particularly Christianity).

I don't find his treatment of the latter to be convincing, but he gives a very good defence of atheism. By that, I mean he does a very good job of explaining why atheism is a valid and consistent world-view that can be adopted with intellectual integrity if someone is not convinced by the historical or personal evidence for Christianity (or any religion).

Ickle Magoo

Eagleton has never studies philosophy and yet it doesn't stop him spewing out book after book on the subject - to accuse dawkins of being ill educated to comment on religion without a theology degree is plain old hypocrisy.

I think Eagleton just fills a similar if slightly different niche, pandering to all who don't like dawkins style and who want religion held in some kind of special veneration, no doubt with one eye on his own bank account.

Dades

Terry Eagleton wrote:

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

Replace "theology" with "astrology" in that quote and you have my feelings on the matter.

Neither are a science, but both are made up by men and don't warrant scrutiny because of it.

robindch

Posts related to convincing (or otherwise) evidence of the present (or past) existence (or otherwise) of one (or more) deities has been moved to the following thread:

The existence or non-existence of a god/the gods

sublunar

i was at a lecture by eagleton recently and he was even worse than i'd imagined. he didn't really cover the topic of the talk, spending most of it going on about marx (which had nothing to do with the topic, at all) and was for the most part incomprehensible. he didn't make any concrete points, just made a few bitchy asides about dawkins and hitchens before going on to talk nebulous academic fluff for the best part of an hour. a few audience members asked him questions, which he didn't really answer, preferring to expound on marx a bit more. i asked him a few questions and he failed completely to answer them, he just talked around in circles. not surprisingly in retrospect, there weren't many people there. suffice it to say that if he's supposed to be dawkins et al's main opponent, the new atheists have nothing to worry about.

Fanny Cradock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Eagleton has never studies philosophy and yet it doesn't stop him spewing out book after book on the subject - to accuse dawkins of being ill educated to comment on religion without a theology degree is plain old hypocrisy.

I think Eagleton just fills a similar if slightly different niche, pandering to all who don't like dawkins style and who want religion held in some kind of special veneration, no doubt with one eye on his own bank account.

AFAIK, Dawkins doesn't have a degree in theology, history or philosophy - yet he wrote a rather successful polemic that used elements of all three against his targets. I assume you are equally dismissive of him?

I'm not sure what Eagleton's motives for putting pen to paper has to do with anything. His thoughts and critical analysis should be judged apart from any unsubstantiated accusations about his clawing desire for money.

sublunar wrote: »

i was at a lecture by eagleton recently and he was even worse than i'd imagined. he didn't really cover the topic of the talk, spending most of it going on about marx (which had nothing to do with the topic, at all) and was for the most part incomprehensible. he didn't make any concrete points, just made a few bitchy asides about dawkins and hitchens before going on to talk nebulous academic fluff for the best part of an hour. a few audience members asked him questions, which he didn't really answer, preferring to expound on marx a bit more. i asked him a few questions and he failed completely to answer them, he just talked around in circles. not surprisingly in retrospect, there weren't many people there. suffice it to say that if he's supposed to be dawkins et al's main opponent, the new atheists have nothing to worry about.

I was at the same talk. I found that he dealt with the subject of evil at quite an academic level, which was at the expense of a meat and bones dissection of the subject - the terrible practical out-workings of evil. Still, despite my initial disappointment (and this was in no small part due to my inability to hear him because the sound didn't travel up the back of the auditorium too well), when I got my head around his approach to discussing evil, I enjoyed it. The enthusiastic applause at the end showed me that there were many there who enjoyed his musings.

He began the talk by making clear that he wasn't a theologian, and his discussion wasn't strictly of a theological nature. Why would it be? However, many of the audience were interested in discussing theology (and even psychology), so he attempted to answer these questions while not fully committing himself to a theological answer. All fair enough.

And interesting perspective on the lecture here, here and here.

sublunar

the talk i was referring to was "atheism, postmodernism, and the war on terror" in the moore institute. it was crap, and followed by a bewildered silence from the audience. sounds like yours was better though.

Ickle Magoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

AFAIK, Dawkins doesn't have a degree in theology, history or philosophy - yet he wrote a rather successful polemic that used elements of all three against his targets. I assume you are equally dismissive of him?

This thread has been spliced from another...you are making the same point I was - Eagleton dismisses dawkins as being unqualified to write about theology because he has no degree in theology while merrily writing about subjects he has no degree in.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure what Eagleton's motives for putting pen to paper has to do with anything. His thoughts and critical analysis should be judged apart from any unsubstantiated accusations about his clawing desire for money.

Again, it has to do with the original thread my post was spliced from and eagletons own school boy tactics levelled at hitchens and dawkins.

Fanny Cradock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

This thread has been spliced from another...you are making the same point I was - Eagleton dismisses dawkins as being unqualified to write about theology because he has no degree in theology while merrily writing about subjects he has no degree in.

And that's why I asked a question at the end. Are you happy to say the same of Dawkins? Are you happy to say the same of anyone else who doesn't have the relevant 3rd level qualification?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Again, it has to do with the original thread my post was spliced from and eagletons own school boy tactics levelled at hitchens and dawkins.

I'm not sure what type of defence this is. You accused him of being in it partly for the money. Can you back this up? Can you explain to me what his motivations for writing a critique - as noble or base as they may be - have to do with the worth of his words?

ChocolateSauce

sublunar wrote: »

for the most part incomprehensible..... nebulous fluff

His hand writing is awful too! I invited him to speak with the UCD Humanists and he wrote back by hand; his signature was so illegible it took me 20 minutes to figure out who it was from, or even what the topic in the letter was!:pac:

Mark Hamill

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And that's why I asked a question at the end. Are you happy to say the same of Dawkins? Are you happy to say the same of anyone else who doesn't have the relevant 3rd level qualification?

I think you are missing Ickle Magoos point. The point is not that we think Eagleton shouldn't write books on philosophy because he has no formal education in it, the point is that is what he should be thinking , ie: if he truely believed that Dawkins shouldn't write about religion, purely because Dawkins has no formal education in it, then he wouldn believe the same thing about himself with respect with to philosophy. He obviously doesn't, therefore he is a hypocrite.

Ickle Magoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And that's why I asked a question at the end. Are you happy to say the same of Dawkins? Are you happy to say the same of anyone else who doesn't have the relevant 3rd level qualification?

Okay, I think you completely missed my point then. I didn't say that either dawkins or eagleton are insufficiently educated to write on their chosen subjects. Eagleton claims dawkins, as a geneticist, is ill qualified to write about religion because he has not studied theology while in the same breath quite happy to espouse philosophy and consider himself qualified to do so - his double standard, not mine.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure what type of defence this is. You accused him of being in it partly for the money. Can you back this up? Can you explain to me what his motivations for writing a critique - as noble or base as they may be - have to do with the worth of his words?

It isn't a defence, it's an observation. If he is not actually an atheist, as his multiple links to the RCC, theistic publications and organisations would alude but more interested in carving himself a niche as the christian poster boy against dawkins et al, hanging onto more popular coat-tails trying desperately to stay relevant and appear more rational then his ad-hominem embittered sniping regarding dawkins & hitchens, etc, holds even less worth, if that's possible.

PZ Myers pretty much sums up my opinion on eagleton here...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_eagleton_delusion.php

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think you are missing Ickle Magoos point. The point is not that we think Eagleton shouldn't write books on philosophy because he has no formal education in it, the point is that is what he should be thinking , ie: if he truely believed that Dawkins shouldn't write about religion, purely because Dawkins has no formal education in it, then he wouldn believe the same thing about himself with respect with to philosophy. He obviously doesn't, therefore he is a hypocrite.

I'm not sure Eagletons beef is Dawkins lack of theological education. It's that quite apart from the ways in which a person might become literate in that subject, Dawkins remains illiterate on the matter of theology. And because of that, he would be best off steering clear from theological comment.

He makes the point that Dawkins attacks a caricature of Christianity due to this ill-informedness. And he is dead right. Indeed, what else would you expect?

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I didn't say that either dawkins or eagleton are insufficiently educated to write on their chosen subjects. Eagleton claims dawkins, as a geneticist, is ill qualified to write about religion because he has not studied theology while in the same breath quite happy to espouse philosophy and consider himself qualified to do so - his double standard, not mine.

Has Eagleton actually claimed this? In "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching" he merely pointed out that Dawkins knowledge of the subject was severely limited. Which is quite a different matter to saying a person needs a degree in a topic before they can comment.

sublunar

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

His hand writing is awful too! I invited him to speak with the UCD Humanists and he wrote back by hand; his signature was so illegible it took me 20 minutes to figure out who it was from, or even what the topic in the letter was!:pac:

i wouldn't really advise getting him as a speaker, i can't imagine him being worth listening to even on a decent topic :rolleyes: and inviting him to talk lends him credence as an academic, which isn't deserved in my opinion.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Has Eagleton actually claimed this? In "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching" he merely pointed out that Dawkins knowledge of the subject was severely limited. Which is quite a different matter to saying a person needs a degree in a topic before they can comment.

I don't think he comes right out and says dawkins should get a theology degree, that's just me paraphrasing - ironically in my post that you actually quote I suggest he thinks dawkins et al are ill qualified to discuss theology, which would certainly be true.

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

without being so theologically illiterate

...that would make a first-year theology student wince

"What one wonders are Dawkins's views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them?"

These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday. Dawkins on God is rather like those right-wing Cambridge dons who filed eagerly into the Senate House some years ago to non-placet Jacques Derrida for an honorary degree.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

The continual referrals to dawkins being no theologian don't stop at that article...

They misinterpret that position to mean that theology doesn’t have to conform to the rules and demands of reason. Then theologians can say anything they like

http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/09/17/religion-for-radicals-an-interview-with-terry-eagleton/

"All I can claim in this respect, alas, is that I think I may know just about enough theology to be able to spot when someone like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens--a couplet I shall henceforth reduce for convenience to the solitary signifier Ditchkins--is talking out of the back of his neck."

http://www.yale.edu/terrylecture/eagleton.html

Will Ditchkins read this book and experience an epiphany which puts the road to Damascus in the shade? To use no less than two theological terms by way of response: not a hope in hell.

Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate - Terry Eagleton

Maximilian

I only had a quick read of that (that kind of rubbish makes me wince) but I just I think he could make the same arguments against vulgar caricatures of orbiting teapots that would make a first-year Astro-kitchenwareology student wince.

How can a rational person be anything other than dismissive of religion. I don't care how complex they've made it, theology-wise, it's still utter nonsense.

bnt

This criticism of Dawkins not being a theologian keeps coming up, and it's frankly spurious, in my opinion. You don't need to be an expert on a subject to know that you don't want anything to do with it. It's enough to see the effects, and base your judgement on that, without having all the facts about the cause(s).

I don't do drugs, and don't want to, but I'm not an expert on drugs. I can't describe the pharmacological properties of cannabinoids, nor can I cite conclusive research on the long-term effects, so I can't claim to know it all. Does that mean I should smoke some weed, just in case I'm wrong about it? So what if I'm saying no based on incomplete information? I don't have to do drugs, and I don't have to accept religion, just because other people do.

antiskeptic

bnt wrote: »

This criticism of Dawkins not being a theologian keeps coming up, and it's frankly spurious, in my opinion. You don't need to be an expert on a subject to know that you don't want anything to do with it. It's enough to see the effects, and base your judgement on that, without having all the facts about the cause(s).

The trouble is that Dawkins makes theological statements (ie: he declares on the intricacies of the nature of God). You don't need to be a formally educated theologian to do that ... but you do need to be "theologically literate"

If not, then your talking out your behind .. more or less.

antiskeptic

Maximilian wrote: »

How can a rational person be anything other than dismissive of religion. I don't care how complex they've made it, theology-wise, it's still utter nonsense.

Good grief!

Another one for the New Atheist thread

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Good grief!

Another one for the New Atheist thread

So you are well versed in Asgardian theology then?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So you are well versed in Asgardian theology then?

Why would I need to know about something I'm not making theological statements about? Dawkins does this with Christianity (therefore he needs to be well versed in what it says). I'm not doing that with Asgardianism.

Perhaps you could address this instead of hinting it's otherwise?

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why would I need to know about something I'm not making theological statements about? Dawkins does this with Christianity (therefore he needs to be well versed in what it says). I'm not doing that with Asgardianism.

Perhaps you could address this instead of hinting it's otherwise?

That's nonsense, unless you actually believe in Asgardian mythology.
The very act of not believing in it is a statement about it's theology.

How can a rational person be anything other than dismissive of Asgardianism. I don't care how complex they've made it, theology-wise, it's still utter nonsense.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

That's nonsense, unless you actually believe in Asgardian mythology.

The very act of not believing in it is a statement about it's theology.

Er.. you don't have to believe in something to engage in it's theology. Dawkins engages with Christian theology as a means of undergirding his rejection of it.

"This is what Christianity says" he says. "That's ridiculous for a,b,c reasons" he says. "Therefore I reject and everyone else should reject .. Christianity" he says.

The only fly in the ointment is that he hasn't actually a clue what Christian theology is - therefore his comments are based on a caricature of Christianity. And a pretty gross one at that.

Which undermines his argument - fatally. Which is what Eagleton is saying.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure Eagletons beef is Dawkins lack of theological education. It's that quite apart from the ways in which a person might become literate in that subject, Dawkins remains illiterate on the matter of theology. And because of that, he would be best off steering clear from theological comment.

Eh, are these two points not the same thing? His beef is not Dawkins lack of theological education, its Dawkins theological illiteracy?

antiskeptic wrote: »

He makes the point that Dawkins attacks a caricature of Christianity due to this ill-informedness. And he is dead right. Indeed, what else would you expect?

And yet, instead of just destroying Dawkins arguments by pointing out the strawmen and caricatures he suposedly uses and why they are not applicable to real life, he just insults Dawkins intelligence and claims that theological pondering should be left to the theologically educated (see Ickle Magoos post here). This kind of educational superiority and arrogance is normally accused of materialist atheists, its odd (and telling) to hear theists claim that their beliefs are above the criticising of the layman in such a way.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. you don't have to believe in something to engage in it's theology. Dawkins engages with Christian theology as a means of undergirding his rejection of it.

"This is what Christianity says" he says. "That's ridiculous for a,b,c reasons" he says. "Therefore I reject and everyone else should reject .. Christianity" he says.

The only fly in the ointment is that he hasn't actually a clue what Christian theology is - therefore his comments are based on a caricature of Christianity.

Which undermines his argument - fatally. Which is what Eagleton is saying.

And you, by not evening entertaining the notion of Asgardian theology are making the statement that "This is what Christianity says". "It's true for a,b,c reasons". "Therefore I reject and everyone else should reject .. Asgardianism (and every other religion)". Since you dont know anything about Asgardianism or a myriad of othe religions, you are making your assumptions based on caricatures or just plain ignorance of them. By your own logic, your argument fails-fatally.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Eh, are these two points not the same thing? His beef is not Dawkins lack of theological education, its Dawkins theological illiteracy?

You claimed Eagleton was criticising Dawkins lack of formal education - which isn't ( I don't think) the case. If Dawkins had literacy by other means than formal then Eagleton would have no issue.

Literacy - not how literacy is achieved, is the issue.

And yet, instead of just destroying Dawkins arguments by pointing out the strawmen and caricatures he suposedly uses and why they are not applicable to real life, he just insults Dawkins intelligence and claims that theological pondering should be left to the theologically educated (see Ickle Magoos post here).

I seems fair enough to me that an overriding and fatal flaw be pointed out. Would you empty a bath bucketful-by-bucketful when you can simply pull out the plug?

He's not insulting Dawkins intelligence - he's pointing out the fact that Dawkins isn't applying his intelligence in building his arguments on strawmen.

Which isn't intelligent if strong arguments are your goal.

This kind of educational superiority and arrogance is normally accused of materialist atheists, its odd (and telling) to hear theists claim that their beliefs are above the criticising of the layman in such a way.

a) the point up top should deal with your point here.

b) Eagleton isn't a theist that I'm aware of.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

You claimed Eagleton was criticising Dawkins lack of formal education - which isn't ( I don't think) the case. If Dawkins had literacy by other means than formal then Eagleton would have no issue.

Literacy - not how literacy is achieved, is the issue.

Then why doesn't he just show how theologically illiterate Dawkins is, rather than just claim that it is the case. Claiming Dawkins to be theologically illiterate is not the same as showing him to be.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I seems fair enough to me that an overriding and fatal flaw be pointed out. Would you empty a bath bucketful-by-bucketful when you can simply pull out the plug?

He's not insulting Dawkins intelligence - he's pointing out the fact that Dawkins isn't applying his intelligence in building his arguments on strawmen.

Which isn't intelligent if strong arguments are your goal.

But he hasn't demonstrated that they are strawmen, he just claims they are and then goes on a rant about Dawkins lack of theological literacy.

antiskeptic wrote: »

b) Eagleton isn't a theist that I'm aware of.

Then you are not being very aware. Eagleton makes the same strawmen arguments that theists do. He claims Dawkins is illiterate of theology without demonstrating it to be the case and claims that his apparent lack of experience with classical theist philosophers discredits his arguments. Such intellectual dishonest arguing is far more indicitive of a theist than an agnostic/atheist in this context.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And you, by not evening entertaining the notion of Asgardian theology are making the statement that "This is what Christianity (Asgardianism I presume you mean - antiskeptic) says". "It's true for a,b,c reasons". "Therefore I reject and everyone else should reject .. Asgardianism (and every other religion)".

This is most baffling logic!

I've made no theological claim at all regarding Asgardianism. But were I to, then I would do so on the basis of the theology of Asgardianism. The question would then be: did I reflect Asgardianism theology accurately - or did I reflect a caricature?

We'll have to wait and see - won't we.

Since you dont know anything about Asgardianism or a myriad of othe religions, you are making your assumptions based on caricatures or just plain ignorance of them. By your own logic, your argument fails-fatally.

I think your conflating rejection of a religion and the arguments whereby a religion is rejected. Dawkins argues Christianity be rejected by pointing to it's theology. I don't do that with other religions - I based my rejection of them on the truth of Christianity. Once arriving at the truth of Christianity, I can reject all other religions/philosophies sight-unseen.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is most baffling logic!

I've made no theological claim at all regarding Asgardianism. But were I to, then I would do so on the basis of the theology of Asgardianism. The question would then be: did I reflect Asgardianism theology accurately - or did I reflect a caricature?

We'll have to wait and see - won't we.


I think your conflating rejection of a religion and the arguments whereby a religion is rejected. Dawkins argues Christianity be rejected by pointing to it's theology. I don't do that with other religions - I based my rejection of them on the truth of Christianity. Once arriving at the truth of Christianity, I can reject all other religions/philosophies sight-unseen.

Frankly I see no difference it that statement than in this one:

How can a rational person be anything other than dismissive of Asgardianism. I don't care how complex they've made it, theology-wise, it's still utter nonsense.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then why doesn't he just show how theologically illiterate Dawkins is, rather than just claim that it is the case. Claiming Dawkins to be theologically illiterate is not the same as showing him to be.

Read the article, you'll find he points out Dawkins illiteracy in more detail than mere quip.

But he hasn't demonstrated that they are strawmen, he just claims they are and then goes on a rant about Dawkins lack of theological literacy.

If it's good enough for Dawkins to go on a rant (in the God Delusion)then it's good enough for Terry to do so in reviewing that rant. I've just started into his Reflections on the God debate book - in which he coins the Ditchens moniker so I imagine he'll have more to say there.

Then you are not being very aware. Eagleton makes the same strawmen arguments that theists do. He claims Dawkins is illiterate of theology without demonstrating it to be the case and claims that his apparent lack of experience with classical theist philosophers discredits his arguments. Such intellectual dishonest arguing is far more indicitive of a theist than an agnostic/atheist in this context.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that criticising Dawkins/New Atheism makes you a theist. That'd be a non-sequitur of pretty obvious proportions.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

b) Eagleton isn't a theist that I'm aware of.

In that case, Eagleton has the most bizarre notions about what lacking belief in a god entails...his lifelong close ties to the RCC seem to have rendered him incapable of seeing why arguing the minutiae of faith based theology is ultimately pointless bar pointing out the glaring contradictions and logical fallacies when the basic premise of the argument is there is no god, not that there is no religion.

Because the universe is God’s, it shares in his life, which is the life of freedom. This is why it works all by itself, and why science and Richard Dawkins are therefore both possible. The same is true of human beings: God is not an obstacle to our autonomy and enjoyment but, as Aquinas argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. Like the unconscious, he is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He is the source of our self-determination, not the erasure of it. To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is a matter of freedom and fulfilment. Indeed, friendship is the word Aquinas uses to characterise the relation between God and humanity.

Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching -Terry Eagleton

"That's right. Aquinas is saying that the relationship between God and the world is about the fact that the world is in some ways His. Not in the sense that my shoes are mine because I manufactured them but because at the centre of the world lies his love and freedom. God didn't create the world. He loved it into being. Now what that means, God knows, but that's exactly what Aquinas was saying. The concept of God is what will not let you go. He will not let you slip through his fingers. It's that kind of unconditional love. If you like, that's impossible. We can only know conditional love, but if you are to have some kind of authentic idea of God that's the place from which you have to start, not seeing God as some kind of manufacturer."

http://newhumanist.org.uk/2085/tragic-hero-laurie-taylor-interviews-terry-eagleton

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Frankly I see no difference it that statement than in this one:

Your exit is noted.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is most baffling logic!

Yes, well, it is your logic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've made no theological claim at all regarding Asgardianism. But were I to, then I would do so on the basis of the theology of Asgardianism. The question would then be: did I reflect Asgardianism theology accurately - or did I reflect a caricature?

We'll have to wait and see - won't we.

By claiming christianity to be the true religion, you have made theological cliams on all other religions, regardless of how ignorant you are of them. Or are you actually agnostic?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think your conflating rejection of a religion and the arguments whereby a religion is rejected. Dawkins argues Christianity be rejected by pointing to it's theology. I don't do that with other religions - I based my rejection of them on the truth of Christianity. Once arriving at the truth of Christianity, I can reject all other religions/philosophies sight-unseen.

But how can you verify the truth of christianity without knowing the claims of the other religions?

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In that case, Eagleton has the most bizarre notions about what lacking belief in a god entails...his lifelong close ties to the RCC seem to have rendered him incapable of seeing why arguing the minutiae of faith based theology is ultimately pointless bar pointing out the glaring contradictions and logical fallacies when the basic premise of the argument is there is no god, not that there is no religion.

An enjoyment of the cut n' thrust of debate would be sufficient reason to foil the attempts of Dawkins and Co. Perhaps he even despises New Atheism and chooses to pick at the many loose ends of it's arguments. Perhaps he see's a use for religion as a place to rest our 'spiritual' heads

I'm not sure what point your quotes are trying to make. Terry just seems to be making a theological point. You don't have to a believer to be a theologian.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

An enjoyment of the cut n' thrust of debate would be sufficient reason to foil the attempts of Dawkins and Co. Perhaps he even despises New Atheism and chooses to pick at the many loose ends of it's arguments. Perhaps he see's a use for religion as a place to rest our 'spiritual' heads

I'm not sure what point your quotes are trying to make. Terry just seems to be making a theological point. You don't have to a believer to be a theologian.

If it weren't for dawkins & co, we wouldn't even be discussing eagleton and most people wouldn't know who he is - which, I think, gives him all the motivation he needs to make adhominem attacks on dawkins and hitchens while espousing the joys of christianity.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, well, it is your logic.

I should have used the word "extrapolation". For that is what you do.

By claiming christianity to be the true religion, you have made theological cliams on all other religions, regardless of how ignorant you are of them. Or are you actually agnostic?

I've made a Christian theological claim ("all other religions are false") and I've said I find Christianity true. I've not made an Asgardian theological claim - though if I did, then I'd ensure I didn't caricature it (you do remember the point we're debating don't you?)

Once regarding Christianity true there is no need to consider other religions (given what Christianity says about them). Nor to be agnostic about them (given what Christianity says about them)

But how can you verify the truth of christianity without knowing the claims of the other religions?

Knowing about other religions wouldn't verify Christianity true. Christianity is verified true (to my satisfaction) by other means.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've made a Christian theological claim (all other religions are false) and I've said I find Christianity true. I've not made an Asgardian theological claim - though if I did, then I'd ensure I didn't caricature it (you do remember the point we're debating don't you?)

Once regarding Christianity true there is no need to consider other religions (given what Christianity says about them). Nor to be agnostic about them (given what Christianity says about them)

Knowing about other religions wouldn't verify Christianity true. Christianity is verified true (to my satisfaction) by other means.

Again, completely indistinguishable from this statement:

How can a rational person be anything other than dismissive of Asgardianism. I don't care how complex they've made it, theology-wise, it's still utter nonsense.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If it weren't for dawkins & co, we wouldn't even be discussing eagleton and most people wouldn't know who he is - which, I think, gives him all the motivation he needs to make adhominem attacks on dawkins and hitchens while espousing the joys of christianity.

Perhaps he's taking a leaf from Dawkin's "How to become Famous" book

Maximilian

antiskeptic wrote: »

Good grief!

Another one for the New Atheist thread

Was that supposed to be some kind of retort?

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps he's taking a leaf from Dawkin's "How to become Famous" book

Not doing a great job of it tbh...bitching and sniping at fellow authors while trying to cling onto a barely tangible theistic atheist position hoping to bamboozle any critic with frequent blustery showers of academia is hardly the stuff of legend.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've made a Christian theological claim (all other religions are false) and I've said I find Christianity true. I've not made an Asgardian theological claim - though if I did, then I'd ensure I didn't caricature it (you do remember the point we're debating don't you?)

But you did just make an Asgardian theological claim, you claim it is false and all the related theology is therefore false...you are not making a direct claim but by dismissing all and everything about any other religion you are still making claim that their version of events & evidence is lacking.