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

13»

Comments

  • #62
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure how on earth you figure he hasn't read The God Delusion [...] When he says (in the LRB article):
    Eagleton wrote:
    "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?
    Not really. I'm more wondering how he managed to miss the forty-eight pages of chapter five in which Dawkins discusses at length the benefits which flow from religion. Since I assume Eagleton can read, I think it's simpler to assume that either he didn't read chapter five, or else he ignored it, pace my postmodernist comment above.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    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.
    It's rather difficult to separate the two, don't you think?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'd agree that the review took the opportunity to have an overall go at Dawkins-think.
    Not quite. He took the opportunity to rant about some worthless caricature of what Dawkin's think. Even to the extent of pretending an entire chapter does not exist. Now, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if he wants to appeal to those religious (most of them, I would imagine) who are not going to want to read the book, but do feel that they should "know" something about it. And as with religion itself, Eagleton is simply providing to the religious what he knows they'll be happy with.

    But then again, doing that by misrepresenting Dawkins is hardly honest.


  • #63
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What do you think he means when he says:
    ?

    That his grasp of theology is less than impressive, which is different from criticising him because he has no qualification in the area.


  • #64
    sonicthebadger*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    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?)

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

    Source?
    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.

    Source? I know of about four people who find him impressive and you're one of them.
    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)

    Indeed, same way as saying, "I'm going to Maynooth", wouldn't attract the same reaction as saying "I'm going to Maynooth to become a Pedophile" (no offence intended).


  • #65
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    That his grasp of theology is less than impressive, which is different from criticising him because he has no qualification in the area.

    In his article, Eagleton says: "they [Dawkins and other atheists] invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince." Eagleton may not expect Dawkins to have a qualification in the area of theology, but certainly seems to think he should be formally educated in it (given the analogies he uses).

    Besides being hypocritical, its just a poor argument to say that someone has no business "holding forth" on subject because they have not read every opinion on it. Many subjects fail as a real life applications long before you get to the semantics generally argued by their philosphers and theism, with its semantics as discussed by Aquinas, Rahner and Moltmann (examples of philosophers that Eagleton doesn't think Dawkins has read) is no different.


  • #66
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    That his grasp of theology is less than impressive
    As Eagleton puts it:
    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?
    But that's to miss the point by a mile.

    Dawkins disagrees with the very basis of theology: that there's a god there in the first place who requires endless explaining. And he views the broad field of theology as an attempt to make the unreal seem real, and the outlandish seem plausible -- it's empty sophistry at its most pure.

    In this context, the hundreds of millions of words of Aquinas, Scotus, Eriugena, Rahner, Moltmann and the thousands of other religious commentators are all simply superfluous, their efforts being devoted, as Orwell pointed out in another context, to giving an appearance of solidity to pure wind.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Maximilian
    Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 5,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭Maximilian


    robindch wrote: »
    As Eagleton puts it:But that's to miss the point by a mile.

    Dawkins disagrees with the very basis of theology: that there's a god there in the first place who requires endless explaining. And he views the broad field of theology as an attempt to make the unreal seem real, and the outlandish seem plausible -- it's empty sophistry at its most pure.

    In this context, the hundreds of millions of words of Aquinas, Scotus, Eriugena, Rahner, Moltmann and the thousands of other religious commentators are all simply superfluous, their efforts being devoted, as Orwell pointed out in another context, to giving an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

    That's what I was trying to say earlier - except you said much it better. Great post.


  • #68
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Eagleton may not expect Dawkins to have a qualification in the area of theology, but certainly seems to think he should be formally educated in it (given the analogies he uses).

    Which is it :confused: You have given and taken away in the same sentence.

    I entered this debate because of the following line:
    [...]to accuse dawkins of being ill educated to comment on religion without a theology degree is plain old hypocrisy

    I've still seen no evidence that his lack of theology PhD or whatever is a factor. (One can be well versed on whatever subject without any formal education.) Rather, Eagleton accuses him of general ignorance on the entire subject.


  • #69
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    robindch wrote: »
    Dawkins disagrees with the very basis of theology: that there's a god there in the first place who requires endless explaining. And he views the broad field of theology as an attempt to make the unreal seem real, and the outlandish seem plausible -- it's empty sophistry at its most pure.

    In this context, the hundreds of millions of words of Aquinas, Scotus, Eriugena, Rahner, Moltmann and the thousands of other religious commentators are all simply superfluous, their efforts being devoted, as Orwell pointed out in another context, to giving an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

    Well, bully for him. Nevertheless, given that he is discussing God, his properties and the common arguments for his existence, he is engaging in theology. It just so happens to be a particularly negative sort of theology, which is a well trodden path. But this is all an aside to my reason for entering this debate - the erroneous claim that Eagleton heavily criticised Dawkins simply because he didn't have ThD beside his name.

    However, assuming you are correct, and Dawkins thinks that the words of Aquinas, Scotus, Eriugena, Rahner, Moltmann and the thousands of other religious commentators are all simply superfluous - I'll paraphrase this as "naught but foolishness" - I see no reason to assume that he is well versed in theology. And it is at this point that Eagelton enters the discussion and the point I exit.

    *Vanishes in a puff of logic*


  • #70
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    That his grasp of theology is less than impressive, which is different from criticising him because he has no qualification in the area.
    It is, in fact, entirely logical that those who see religion as nothing but false consciousness should so often get it wrong, since what profit is to be reaped from the meticulous study of a belief system you hold to be as pernicious as it is foolish? … So it is that those who polemicize most ferociously against religion regularly turn out to be the least qualified to do so, rather as many of those who polemicize against literary theory do not hate it because they have read it, but rather do not read it because they hate it. It is as though when it comes to religion … any old travesty will do….
    Terry Eagleton - Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate

    No doubt you are going to insist eagleton meant something else or was, in fact, referring to someone else or, indeed, doesn't specifically mention ThD but his constant alluding that the only way faith and the question of gods (non) existence should be discussed is using the old fashioned theological heavyweights despite the patent irrelevancy from an atheistic perspective, is well documented.


  • #71
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Which is it :confused: You have given and taken away in the same sentence.

    It is possible to be formally educated in something without having a qualification it. I've had some formal education in statistics, but I dont have a qualification in it.
    You can look at Ickle Magoos and Robindchs response as well if you like, they say what I'm trying to say but more eloquently.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Terry Eagleton - Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate

    No doubt you are going to insist eagleton meant something else or was, in fact, referring to someone else or, indeed, doesn't specifically mention ThD but his constant alluding that the only way faith and the question of gods (non) existence should be discussed is using the old fashioned theological heavyweights despite the patent irrelevancy from an atheistic perspective, is well documented.

    You made a specific claim, and as far as I can see the only evidence you have provided in support is your own reading into his words - which amounts to subjective guesswork about authorial intent. If you can show me words supporting your oft repeated claim that Eagleton said that Dawkins' lack of formal theological qualification is the problem - which is distinct from commenting on his general ignorance of the subject - I will be happy to admit that he is being hypocritical.

    At the same time, given Robin's helpful post on Dawkins' position, I think that if he readily dismisses the study of theology because it is "sophistry at its most pure" Eagleton might well be justified in criticising his grasp of theology. Indeed, that is the whole point of the piece you have quoted. Are we supposed to believe that somebody who has disdain for the study of theology will embark on the "meticulous study of a belief system"? I'm thinking the answer for Eagleton is "no". Therefore, it seems more likely that he is criticising this general lack of knowledge on the subject, rather then your assertion that it's all about not having a piece of paper that says BTh, MTh or ThD. He is hardly the first person to do this.

    Further, I will also be happy to acknowledge your claim that Eagleton is in it for the money if you can provide evidence for this. As it stands, without any such evidence, what you have written amounts to a cheap slur, and one that could be levelled at just about any author, Dawkins included. Given that you have previously accused Eagleton of "ad-hominem embittered sniping regarding dawkins & hitchens" I think it rather unfair of you to be making claims about his motives.

    Tell you what: why don't you email Eagleton to find out what he meant and his reasons for writing?


  • #73
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,842 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    You made a specific claim, and as far as I can see the only evidence you have provided in support is your own reading into his words - which amounts to subjective guesswork about authorial intent.

    At best, you are doing the same thing.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    If you can show me words supporting your oft repeated claim that Eagleton said that Dawkins' lack of formal theological qualification is the problem - which is distinct from commenting on his general ignorance of the subject - I will be happy to admit that he is being hypocritical.

    The analogies used by Eagleton (first year theology student, religion being the queen of science) greatly infers it. To deny it, without evidence, screams of pedantry.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    At the same time, given Robin's helpful post on Dawkins' position, I think that if he readily dismisses the study of theology because it is "sophistry at its most pure" Eagleton might well be justified in criticising his grasp of theology. Indeed, that is the whole point of the piece you have quoted. Are we supposed to believe that somebody who has disdain for the study of theology will embark on the "meticulous study of a belief system"? I'm thinking the answer for Eagleton is "no". Therefore, it seems more likely that he is criticising this general lack of knowledge on the subject, rather then your assertion that it's all about not having a piece of paper that says BTh, MTh or ThD. He is hardly the first person to do this.

    But, if you read Robins post, you would see that this is moot. Dawkins doesn't need a "meticulous study of a belief system" to demonstrate its fallacies, as they evident at fundamental levels. The fact that there is so much material that would require meticulous study points to the attempts to cover up these fallacies. Also, if the study of these is really needed to properly dispute these belief systems, then surely the same logic calls into question the sincerety of those believers who have not meticulously studied this material-for how should they truely believe in something they obviously dont understand?


  • #74
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Are we supposed to believe that somebody who has disdain for the study of theology will embark on the "meticulous study of a belief system"?
    Dawkins has studied religion from a perspective -- a memetic one -- which was pretty much original with him. His treatment of religion within TGD is written from that perspective and it's a perspective which Eagleton merrily ignores for much the same reason that other religious apologists (Alistair McGrath springs to mind) simply because they don't get it at a very fundamental level. In essence, they are missing the entire point of his analysis. As I've already suggested above when I pointed out that Eagleton seems to have missed an entire chapter.

    WRT Dawkins alleged ignorance of religion, I'm not sure that many religious people would consider themselves unduly ignorant for dismissing the Flying Spaghetti Monster out of hand, so it's not clear to me why should they criticize Dawkins for ignorance when he dismisses their deity?


  • #75
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,171 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    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.
    Have you actually read Dawkins on this subject, e.g. The God Delusion? I suppose you're referring to the section on theological arguments, which is something of a literary review, since the questions are hardly new, and neither are the answers. He doesn't claim to be a totally original thinker on the subject, and is quick to credit the work of others. That's what you do when you examine a subject scientifically: you aren't expected to work in a vacuum, you can review and cite the work of others.

    Back to Eagleton: I just read a review of his latest book, on Evil, in which A.C. Grayling does a good job of summarizing why Eagleton gets the eyeballs rolling:
    ... he sets off on one of those complexifying journeys, like the route of a pinball bouncing backwards and forwards among a thicket of pingers, from William Golding to St Augustine, Macbeth to Pseudo-Dionysus, original sin to the Holocaust, Shakespeare to Freud, Satan to Thomas Mann, Arendt to Aristotle, and so copiously on – a verbal pinball ride among the entries in the telephone book of Western culture, to tell us what evil is. But do not expect, by the end, a conclusion, still less a definition, nor even a summary. Eagleton has been too long among the theorists to risk a straightforward statement. You have to grasp at fragments as you bounce among the pingers, not always quite sure whether he is agreeing or disagreeing with this or that author, even whether he is still paraphrasing an author or speaking with his own voice.

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • #76
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jeepers Fanny, I'm hardly alone in being cynical of the motives of the self-professed marxist who actually owns three houses and I'm certainly not alone in thinking it's blindingly obvious what his repeated alluding to study, theology and historic theologians as being the only way to approach religious discussion while calling dawkins & co theologically illiterate and buying their atheism on the cheap is getting at.

    You don't want to see it that way, of course, fine. Yet you are happy to make your own assumptions and claim he wasn't accusing dawkins & hitchens of being ill qualified or lacking theological qualification but - if I may be so bold - there are reems of eagletons inferences and quips of academic supremacy & precious little from him that suggest he thinks they are already amply qualified to write what they do. All the while, eagleton conveniently ignores the fact "new atheists" very much succeed in their primary aim, which was never to be yet more archaic theologians trying in vain to interpret the uninterpretable but to pick apart the central tenets of religion and faith for the consideration of the masses. If eagleton consider tGD too low brow then he's rather missed the point.

    That aside, surely the global fracas surrounding "new atheism" speaks volumes in itself. That a mere scratch in the surface of theology is sufficient to oust the glaring contradictions in religion and kick off such a reaction from both sides. That books like tGD cause such passionate discussion and debate mean they have already fulfilled their objective. Debating the minutia of religious proclamations and assumptions while lacking belief in the core tenet is waste of time, point out the more obvious fallacies and the rest tumbles like a house of cards and becomes irrelevant ramblings - but of course, a theologian and historical theist feels on much more solid ground flapping & getting misty eyed about aquinus and co, while making personal attacks against another author just for having the sheer audacity to write an international best seller that picks vast holes in all he holds dear. Bless him. :)


Advertisement