Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Terry Eagleton

2

Comments

  • #32
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭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?


  • #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #34
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #41
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #43
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    King Mob wrote: »
    Frankly I see no difference it that statement than in this one:


    Your exit is noted.


  • #44
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭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?


  • #45
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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. ;)


  • #47
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #49
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭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

    :)


  • #50
    Maximilian
    Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 5,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭Maximilian


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Good grief!

    Another one for the New Atheist thread

    Was that supposed to be some kind of retort?


  • #51
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    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.

    There's not much profit in continuing in this part of the discussion: the objective opinion on Eagleton appears to find him impressive. The opinions of those who consider Dawkins the father of modern atheism can be expected to see any assailant in only negative light.


    But you did just make an Asgardian theological claim

    I made a Christian theological claim - which is a claim about Asgardianism - not an Asgardian theological claim. Can you see the difference?

    .. 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.

    You appear to be conflating theology (the study of a religions mechanics) and claims that a religion is true. Theology isn't an activity that estabishes the truth of a religion. For all I know Asgardianism has a more satisfactory theological structure than Christianity (which frequently terminates in mystery)


  • #53
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


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

    Keep in mind that the response below are based on the assumption that what Eagletons quotes as Dawkins arguments, so, as someone who has never read Dawkins, I can only assume he is being honest and accurate.

    In the fourth paragraph (the first instance of actually mentioning one of Dawkins arguments) he says that "christian and muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly" is a strawman. Which it demonstratable isn't. In the Islamic religion, you are not allowed to leave the religion (apostasy) and any system which claims to encourage honest questioning, but wont allow for a particular answer, is, simply being dishonest about being questioning. As for christianity, there have been threads on this board where people detailed the reactions of loved ones reactions to their "coming out" as atheist, and the more christian the loved one, the worse the reaction (from disregarding the announcement as a passing fad up to being disowned). So its in the same dishonest boat as Islam in that respect.

    The next strawman he claims is that Dawkins questions how god can be personal, and talk to everyone on the planet simultaneously, and while that would seem like an odd thing for dawkins to claim, Eagleton then says that theists dont actually belief god "exists" :"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist", which I would imagine is a spectacualr strawman in of itself. (And tbh, his explanation of what god is, all two and a hlaf paragraphs of it, reads so far away from what most theists I've heard god described as, that I'd imagine that its his own personal belief, which brings his atheism into question.)

    He tries to claim that Dawkins portrayal of god is wrong, that god doesn't have a neurotic need for us and just wants to be allowed to love us. I'm afraid that if you cant see what is wrong with that statement, then there is no point in me going on and explaining anything else as you mind must be completely lost.

    Eagletons point about Dawkins point that Jesus wanted death being wrong rings hollow as if god wanted to be allowed to love us and it was sin preventing him from doing so, then god obviously wanted some way to get rid of all that sin, so he decided than Jesus dying would do the trick. Since Jesus and god are one ( as claimed by Eagleton, who use Jesus as friend and lover idea to soften the image of god as judge in an earlier paragraph) therefore Jesus wanted to die.

    Eagleton later in the article strawmans science quite horribly when he claims that science and technology have wreaked horrors on humanity and that the apocolypse will most likely be caused by science. All horrors inflicted unpon humanity are caused by humanity. It is not plutoniums fault that it can be turned into a bomb, its not phosgenes fault that it is so poisonous.

    He does make a somewhat valid point on Dawkins idea of N. Ireland troubles ending or ISlamic evaporating without religion, I would see this more as Dawkins being a bit naive. I am sure that without religion, these troubles would change, but to think they would disappear would be to underestimate humanities skill at finding reasons for killing each other. (That said, islamic politics and socio-economics is formed around its religion, so who knows what might be different, if there was no religion).

    Thats all for now (I think i covered most of what Eagleton seemed to be implying where strawmen).
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    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.

    From Eagletons article:
    He is, rather, 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.

    This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love; and this would still be the case even if the universe had no beginning. To say that he brought it into being ex nihilo is not a measure of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather than need. The world was not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause and effect. Like a Modernist work of art, there is no necessity about it at all, and God might well have come to regret his handiwork some aeons ago. The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end.

    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.
    For an atheist, he seems to have very stronge opinions on a god he seems to belief exists. Maybe he is more deist than theist, but he is no atheist.


  • #54
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Perhaps he's just an without-belief-atheist, not an anti-theist-atheist like you, Dawkins and so much of what constitutes New Atheism
    FYI - other than for special cases like the pope, Ken Ham, Pat Robertson and other propagators of religion, I'm certainly not an "anti-theist-atheist". I am strongly anti-bullshit, but that's quite different from being "anti" the people who hold such views.

    But, I digress. Back to Mr Eagleton:
    Mr Eagleton wrote:
    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.
    Eagleton clearly has no sense of irony. It's entertainingly rich for him to claim he's writing a book against a "worthless caricature of the real thing" and then to go and invent a character named "Ditchkins" who is a worthless caricature of the real thing. Equally well, it's more than a little hypocritical that he wags his finger for page after page at Dawkins for talking about what he does not understand, when it's clear that Eagleton himself -- from his grand ignorance of what the book actually says -- has failed to read The God Delusion. A bit of intellectual honesty, or indeed a few hours with the book concerned, would have gone a long way.

    In fact, if I had the time (which I don't, thankfully) I could object to just about every sentence in Eagleton's immensely silly LRB article. Even the very fact that Eagleton has managed to pen a 3,750 word "review" without so much as a single quotation from Dawkins is something of a postmodern achievement in itself.

    But the more I read of Eagleton's jarring and overblown prose, the more I call to mind the Sokal Affair and the suspicion grows within me that that Eagleton is actually playing a witty, if predictable, postmodern joke on the religious. For Eagleton is no fan of religion, as he makes clear when he refers to it as "a squalid tale of bigotry, superstition, wishful thinking, and oppressive ideology" (is that a "worthless caricature"? We should be told!) And equally well, nobody who's billed so prominently as a "literary critic" could seriously write a review so wonderfully unconnected to the book it was supposed to be about without doing so with a wry grin and a tip of the hat to Sokal.

    So I await with interest the time -- it must surely be soon -- when Eagleton leaps out of his metaphorical wedding cake with cape and sunglasses to blow a raspberry at the religious for being credulous enough to believe that his comments on religion were serious. And we can then perhaps see that this worthwhile highlighting of the credulousness of the average religious was his real point. All the same, I doubt he'll return the royalties or the speaking fees.

    .


  • #55
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    There's not much profit in continuing in this part of the discussion: the objective opinion on Eagleton appears to find him impressive. The opinions of those who consider Dawkins the father of modern atheism can be expected to see any assailant in only negative light.

    What objective opinion is that then?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I made a Christian theological claim - which is a claim about Asgardianism - not an Asgardian theological claim. Can you see the difference?

    There is no difference. All you are doing is making theological claims. The theological claim that christianity is right implies the theological claim that all other relgions are wrong (as they are mutually exclusive).
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You appear to be conflating theology (the study of a religions mechanics) and claims that a religion is true. Theology isn't an activity that estabishes the truth of a religion. For all I know Asgardianism has a better theological structure than Christianity (which frequently terminates in mystery)

    If he was an atheist who studied theology, then his arguments would start with, "if x religion were true, then a,b,c is source below". In his article, all he does is make grand claims about one particluar religion, writing identically to those who believe it to be true.
    Look at it like this. Replace religion in this discussion with dungeons & dragons (a game). You have Eagleton who claims to be someone who enjoys studying the game, who enjoys looking that the way the rules work etc. etc. but along comes Dawkins who just start claiming that if it were real, this doesn't make sense, that doesn't make sense etc. (and worse, this and that are not accurate represenatations of what goes on in the game). Eagleton, instead of arguing that a)its only a game, and b)in the context of the game, it all makes sense, he argues as if the game is real. His argument doesn't follow from the line of thought of an atheist theologer who sees that Dawkins is making a mistake and who wants to correct him. He spends too much of his article making announcements of the greatness of god.


  • #56
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    So I await with interest the time -- it must surely be soon -- when Eagleton leaps out of his metaphorical wedding cake with cape and sunglasses to blow a raspberry at the religious for being credulous enough to believe that his comments on religion were serious. And we can then perhaps see that this worthwhile highlighting of the credulousness of the average religious was his real point. All the same, I doubt he'll return the royalties or the speaking fees.

    If that is the case, then I would say that he has well earned his royalties and speaking fees :).


  • #57
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Keep in mind that the response below are based on the assumption that what Eagletons quotes as Dawkins arguments, so, as someone who has never read Dawkins, I can only assume he is being honest and accurate.

    Fair enough.

    In the fourth paragraph (the first instance of actually mentioning one of Dawkins arguments) he says that "christian and muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly" is a strawman. Which it demonstratable isn't. In the Islamic religion, you are not allowed to leave the religion (apostasy) and any system which claims to encourage honest questioning, but wont allow for a particular answer, is, simply being dishonest about being questioning.

    He doesn't actually say anything in defence of the islamic case - he merely mentions that this is a claim Dawkins makes regarding Christian an Muslim children.

    His point is built around the Christian case.

    As for christianity, there have been threads on this board where people detailed the reactions of loved ones reactions to their "coming out" as atheist, and the more christian the loved one, the worse the reaction (from disregarding the announcement as a passing fad up to being disowned).


    Yet we'd have no problem raising a thousand hands of those who laid their Christianity aside without any problem from anybody whatsoever. Remember too that Terry is speaking from the English perspective - where you hadn't the same church supremacy as you had here.

    You might also ignoring negative views some have of atheism in your survey - with that negative view (part-)informing the reaction. "I'm leaving my job" won't attract the same reaction as "I'm leaving my job to become a pimp" (no offence intended)

    The next strawman he claims is that Dawkins questions how god can be personal, and talk to everyone on the planet simultaneously, and while that would seem like an odd thing for dawkins to claim, Eagleton then says that theists dont actually belief god "exists" :"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist", which I would imagine is a spectacualr strawman in of itself. (And tbh, his explanation of what god is, all two and a hlaf paragraphs of it, reads so far away from what most theists I've heard god described as, that I'd imagine that its his own personal belief, which brings his atheism into question.)


    I dunno. It seems that all Terry is doing is raising the level at which God is to be begun to be considered. He's trying to indicate that God isn't just another thing, something that is subject to the same kind of analysis and conclusion which Dawkins would apply to everything else in his materialistic world.

    In order for Dawkins to dismiss God altogether, he has to be able to nail God to a cross (so to speak). The way he does this is to miniaturise God - making him small enough and simple enough for Dawkins to handle. God is confined into capabilities of Dawkins own choosing. And loses ...

    Eagleton does the right thing: he raises God up so that he is the source for all else: the laws, the logic, the reasoning, the truth. Such a God cannot be dismissed by man. Not even in principle. He'd be in line with Christians who, whilst attempting to explain God to unbelievers are themselves only clutching at his hem.

    God is mysterious - even to those humans who are closest to him.

    He tries to claim that Dawkins portrayal of god is wrong, that god doesn't have a neurotic need for us and just wants to be allowed to love us. I'm afraid that if you cant see what is wrong with that statement, then there is no point in me going on and explaining anything else as you mind must be completely lost.

    It seems clear to me that God can't force his love on us. And so we must permit him to express it. And God is overarchingly, love - basic theology that.

    That he is also wrath against sin is a natural outworking of love. If you love kids you must hate the work of a paedophile and ultimately - should there be no rescuing of the paedophile possible - you must hate the paedophile himself.

    That you are dismissive of this aspect of theology and can't get it means that you, if you were Dawkins, would be on this ice at this portion of your book. You don't understand the theology - and so handwave it away. A point Terry makes.



    Eagletons point about Dawkins point that Jesus wanted death being wrong rings hollow as if god wanted to be allowed to love us and it was sin preventing him from doing so, then god obviously wanted some way to get rid of all that sin, so he decided than Jesus dying would do the trick. Since Jesus and god are one ( as claimed by Eagleton, who use Jesus as friend and lover idea to soften the image of god as judge in an earlier paragraph) therefore Jesus wanted to die.


    Non sequitur. Death was a necessary price to be paid. It doesn't mean death was welcomed.


    Eagleton later in the article strawmans science quite horribly when he claims that science and technology have wreaked horrors on humanity and that the apocolypse will most likely be caused by science. All horrors inflicted unpon humanity are caused by humanity. It is not plutoniums fault that it can be turned into a bomb, its not phosgenes fault that it is so poisonous.

    I think he means the body Science which is indeed driven by men. Science as a body of people who've invented all sorts of horrendous ways to inflict death and mayhem. I doubt he condemns science outright - but would suspect that he's attempting to poke a hole or two in Dawkins worshipping of it by hightlighting it's darker contribution.

    You would agree that scientific progress is that which has made the accelerated denuding of the world and it's resources possible don't you? I mean science & technology inventing ways to more rapidly destroy the planet than we could otherwise dream of?


    He does make a somewhat valid point on Dawkins idea of N. Ireland troubles ending or ISlamic evaporating without religion, I would see this more as Dawkins being a bit naive. I am sure that without religion, these troubles would change, but to think they would disappear would be to underestimate humanities skill at finding reasons for killing each other. (That said, islamic politics and socio-economics is formed around its religion, so who knows what might be different, if there was no religion).


    Fair enough.

    For an atheist, he seems to have very stronge opinions on a god he seems to belief exists. Maybe he is more deist than theist, but he is no atheist.

    I've seen nothing where Eagleton suggest he believes in any god. And have read him stating that he doesn't believe in the Christian one. I think he enjoys the intellectual mechanism that is theology - which wouldn't be unusual for an atheist. I know a believer studying theology in Trinity and he says all the lecturers are atheists of one shade or the other. Strange, but there you have it.


  • #58
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    FYI - other than for special cases like the pope, Ken Ham, Pat Robertson and other propagators of religion, I'm certainly not an "anti-theist-atheist". I am strongly anti-bullshit, but that's quite different from being "anti" the people who hold such views.

    My apologies: I should have said anti-theism not anti-theist. My point stands however.

    But, I digress. Back to Mr Eagleton:Eagleton clearly has no sense of irony. It's entertainingly rich for him to claim he's writing a book against a "worthless caricature of the real thing" and then to go and invent a character named "Ditchkins" who is a worthless caricature of the real thing. Equally well, it's more than a little hypocritical that he wags his finger for page after page at Dawkins for talking about what he does not understand, when it's clear that Eagleton himself -- from his grand ignorance of what the book actually says -- has failed to read The God Delusion. A bit of intellectual honesty, or indeed a few hours with the book concerned, would have gone a long way.

    Was this his Reflections..? I haven't read it yet but am just starting on it.

    I'm not quite sure how on earth you figure he hasn't read The God Delusion - other than perhaps to make a point built of unrefined hyperbole. When he says (in the LRB article):

    "Such is Dawkins’s unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith.."

    ...your asking us to believe that someone else informed him that this was the case?


    In fact, if I had the time (which I don't, thankfully) I could object to just about every sentence in Eagleton's immensely silly LRB article. Even the very fact that Eagleton has managed to pen a 3,750 word "review" without so much as a single quotation from Dawkins is something of a postmodern achievement in itself.

    Not sure there's any hard point in this.

    But the more I read of Eagleton's jarring and overblown prose, the more I call to mind the Sokal Affair and the suspicion grows within me that that Eagleton is actually playing a witty, if predictable, postmodern joke on the religious. For Eagleton is no fan of religion, as he makes clear when he refers to it as "a squalid tale of bigotry, superstition, wishful thinking, and oppressive ideology" (is that a "worthless caricature"? We should be told!)

    Given his insight, I'm inclined to suppose he sees the same distinction as Christians do between Christian Religion and Christianity. It's the Religion he's dissing here. And I fully agree with him.

    And equally well, nobody who's billed so prominently as a "literary critic" could seriously write a review so wonderfully unconnected to the book it was supposed to be about without doing so with a wry grin and a tip of the hat to Sokal.

    I'd agree that the review took the opportunity to have an overall go at Dawkins-think.

    So I await with interest the time -- it must surely be soon -- when Eagleton leaps out of his metaphorical wedding cake with cape and sunglasses to blow a raspberry at the religious for being credulous enough to believe that his comments on religion were serious. And we can then perhaps see that this worthwhile highlighting of the credulousness of the average religious was his real point. All the same, I doubt he'll return the royalties or the speaking fees.

    Whatever happens, I seriously doubt he'll fall into the arms of modern atheism.

    .[/QUOTE]


  • #59
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Yet we'd have no problem raising a thousand hands of those who laid their Christianity aside without any problem from anybody whatsoever. Remember too that Terry is speaking from the English perspective - where you hadn't the same church supremacy as you had here.

    And what do you think th correlataion between those who became atheist with no issue and those with strong theist parents is? The reason for the lack of issue in many cases is because of the lack of actual theistic belief in the loved ones around him. Most of the so called catholics in this country would scoff at the things that catholics are supposed to believe in. Parents still so deep in their beliefs that they would emphasize the labelling of their kids as catholic/christian are the ones who would give the most trouble to their kids if they tried to become atheist.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You might also ignoring negative views some have of atheism in your survey - with that negative view (part-)informing the reaction. "I'm leaving my job" won't attract the same reaction as "I'm leaving my job to become a pimp" (no offence intended)

    Which is irrelevent to my point. If a theistic parent raises their kids to be truely honestly questioning, then they have to allow the child any answers it sees fit to accept, regardless of the negative view they might have of it. If, however, the parent is only interested in the child asking questions to further cement their in their mind the belief the parent decides for them, them any questioning encouraged is insincere and dishonest.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I dunno. It seems that all Terry is doing is raising the level at which God is to be begun to be considered. He's trying to indicate that God isn't just another thing, something that is subject to the same kind of analysis and conclusion which Dawkins would apply to everything else in his materialistic world.

    Your missing the point. This view Terry is purporting is the same view that the vast majority of theist would hold to, but in reality, very few would hold to the idea that god doesn't actually exist, that he is merely there because there ia need for god to be there, he is creating a strawman of theist views to fight Dawkins with. The alternative, of course, is that this is Terrys own beliefs, which would call his atheism into question.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    In order for Dawkins to dismiss God altogether, he has to be able to nail God to a cross (so to speak). The way he does this is to miniaturise God - making him small enough and simple enough for Dawkins to handle. God is confined into capabilities of Dawkins own choosing. And loses ...

    Without knowing exactly what Dawkins said about god, I cant say wether any of his assumptions about god are actually unwarrented, given the varying nature of god as described in the bible.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Eagleton does the right thing: he raises God up so that he is the source for all else: the laws, the logic, the reasoning, the truth. Such a God cannot be dismissed by man. Not even in principle. He'd be in line with Christians who, whilst attempting to explain God to unbelievers are themselves only clutching at his hem.

    So to counter Dawkins making god simply defined and therefore easy to discredit, Terry makes god the most complex thing possible, so complex its impossible to discredit. Assuming thats true, all you have is two men arbitrarily applying definitions to an entirely unknown entity. Both are as bad as each other. Unless, of course, you think that Terry eagleton, an atheist, has an entirely accurate description of god....
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God is mysterious - even to those humans who are closest to him.

    Funny how such a statement is indistinguishable from god not existing and those "closest to him" trying to hand wave away inconsistencies in what they make up.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It seems clear to me that God can't force his love on us. And so we must permit him to express it. And God is overarchingly, love - basic theology that.

    Really? Any source for that? Because its seems clear to me that god can do what he damn well pleases, he is god after all, its not like he has any problems forcing his anger on us.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That he is also wrath against sin is a natural outworking of love. If you love kids you must hate the work of a paedophile and ultimately - should there be no rescuing of the paedophile possible - you must hate the paedophile himself.

    Maybe, but then again I am just a man, I am not an infinite well of mercy and love as god is supposed to be. Hate and anger are of no use to an infinite being.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That you are dismissive of this aspect of theology and can't get it means that you, if you were Dawkins, would be on this ice at this portion of your book. You don't understand the theology - and so handwave it away. A point Terry makes.

    Its hard to truely understand a theology that is self contradictory, that tries to put human limits on god and arbitrarily decides that some divine emotions work exactly as weakly as in a human as they do in a god but others dont.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Non sequitur. Death was a necessary price to be paid. It doesn't mean death was welcomed.

    Death was a necessary price to be paid because god chose it as the price. He didn't have to, he could have made any arbitrary action result in the wiping of sin from humanity, but he chose death, therefore he desired it.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I think he means the body Science which is indeed driven by men. Science as a body of people who've invented all sorts of horrendous ways to inflict death and mayhem. I doubt he condemns science outright - but would suspect that he's attempting to poke a hole or two in Dawkins worshipping of it by hightlighting it's darker contribution.

    So what he means is he condemns the people who have used science to inflict pain and suffering on others. But this is different to science, the concept of developing and testing theories on our materialistic universe. To conflate the two (which he does in how he writes his comdemnation) would be like condemning carpentry because a man used a hammer to kill his wife. Patently ridiculous, i'm sure you would agree.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You would agree that scientific progress is that which has made the accelerated denuding of the world and it's resources possible don't you? I mean science & technology inventing ways to more rapidly destroy the planet than we could otherwise dream of?

    Science is a method for understanding the universe. It makes a great deal of things possible, but it is completely impartial to what it promotes as it is only an inanimate tool, a way to design thought process for dealing with ideas. It is an abstract which is used to verify the reality of an idea, not its merit. Science may have made steel possible, but it didn't tell anyone to shape it into a weapon and use it to kill their neighbour.


  • #60
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    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.

    If his criticism is based on what you say, I would agree that he is being hypocritical. I wonder, though, where he said this?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    If his criticism is based on what you say, I would agree that he is being hypocritical. I wonder, though, where he say this?

    What do you think he means when he says:
    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.
    ?


Advertisement