'…makes Dick Cheney sound like Thomas Mann.' October 25, 2006 12:23 AM Subscribe
He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms.
-- Terry Eagleton on Richard Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion.
posted by shakespeherian (205 comments total)
6 users marked this as a favorite
My name is Terry Eagleton, no one has ever heard of me.
My name is Richard Dawkins, my book is a bestseller. posted by matkline at 12:27 AM on October 25, 2006
The God Delusion previously appeared as a Channel4 program discussed here. posted by shakespeherian at 12:27 AM on October 25, 2006
Many people have heard of Terry Eagleton, don't display your ignorance like that. posted by Falconetti at 12:46 AM on October 25, 2006
Because that makes all the difference in who's opinion counts and who's criticisms are valid, right matkline?
Just like that guy up on the internet named matkline criticizing a guy no one has heard of who criticized some famous guy. posted by Matt Oneiros at 12:46 AM on October 25, 2006
Terry Eagleton has just as much claim to being a public intellectual, if not more, than Dawkins, matkline. Both are characters, to boot. posted by allen.spaulding at 12:47 AM on October 25, 2006
My name is Terry Eagleton, no one has ever heard of me.
My name is Richard Dawkins, my book is a bestseller.
Theodore Sturgeon wrote dozens and dozens of books and died impoverished.
Dean Koontz sells millions of books - at supermarket checkout stands.
Only one of these two writers is immortalized as a recurring character in other novels - Kurt Vonnegut's Kilgore Trout. (And only one of these two writers can actually write.) posted by loquacious at 12:52 AM on October 25, 2006
Dawkins is coolness. However, I'm well aware that religion justifies was, bigotry, and xenophobia. Dawkins assertion that religion damages children's intellectual development is quite believable & very interesting, but its ultimately a question for developmental psychologists. posted by jeffburdges at 12:57 AM on October 25, 2006
"It is rather to claim that while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it. For my claim to love you to be coherent, I must be able to explain what it is about you that justifies it; but my bank manager might agree with my dewy-eyed description of you without being in love with you himself."
You know, this actually explains a lot. People are in love with the idea of God. Literally. So no matter what God says, no matter how evil the commands from the organization or the little voice in your head become, you mostly just DO them, because you love him/her/it.
Hmph, I'd never thought about it this way before. A large chunk of the world (half, maybe?) would appear to be in an abusive relationship with an imaginary being. posted by Malor at 1:00 AM on October 25, 2006 [13 favorites]
Wait while I get my Uncle Bill, he's never seen a train wreck. posted by Joeforking at 1:01 AM on October 25, 2006 [2 favorites]
I'd be interested to read other critiques of the Dawkins book from people who've actually read it. But I'm afraid, shakespeherian, that this post will be deleted come the morn, as Dawkins cannot be discussed on MeFi due to admin fiat. posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:06 AM on October 25, 2006
Spot on, Malor.
I enjoyed Dawkin's books and TV shows, but I've never heard of that other fellow. Judging by the fact that he's an English Prof I think it's safe to assume that he can't write worth a damn.
Seriously, though. Do we need another flamewar about theism/atheism? posted by spazzm at 1:07 AM on October 25, 2006
Thanks for the post. Wow, that was quite a penetrating & forceful review.
I really wish the Dawkins crowd would read Kant & Wittgenstein. We shouldn't still be chasing our intellectual tails over this kind of thing 2 & quarter centuries after epistemology replaced metaphysics & nearly a century after Wittgenstein further clarified that the very notion of a rational proposition "about" metaphysical matters is a philosopher's fiction. Only fundamentalists (or scientists and/or philosophers setting up a strawman) would assert that God is a possible object of rational, empirical investigation.
My name is Terry Eagleton, no one has ever heard of me.
My name is Richard Dawkins, my book is a bestseller.
So, are you saying something like that fundamentalist t-shirt that goes: "'God is dead' - Nietzche; 'Nietzche is dead' - God"?
Anyhow, I'd heard of Terry Eagleton long before I'd heard of Dawkins. Guess it just depends on what your interests are. posted by treepour at 1:11 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
You'd be unsafely wrong assuming Eagleton can't write, spazzm. But you're right about unnecessary flames, so I'll stop now. posted by cgc373 at 1:12 AM on October 25, 2006
Have people really never heard of Terry Eagleton? I'm fairly certain he's sold many more books than Dawkins. I know this community will have its academic biases, but still, Eagleton is no chump. posted by allen.spaulding at 1:12 AM on October 25, 2006
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.
Assigning human-like motivations to a dispassionate Nature is a sure sign this guy can't see past metaphor.
It may be that Dawkins hasn't read the various theologians mentioned in the article, but one wouldn't expect a modern chemist to be well-versed on alchemy either. posted by starkeffect at 1:15 AM on October 25, 2006 [2 favorites]
This is hopelessly naïve, but my thinking was that the nature of the review might preempt a flamewar. posted by shakespeherian at 1:16 AM on October 25, 2006
Terry Eagleton (who I have heard) does make some interesting points but from the first line onwards (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) the review is shot through with clever anaologies masquerading as kick ass arguments.
Probably right not to discuss Dawkins here though. To use a perhaps unfortunate analogy, he's preaching to the choir. posted by rhymer at 1:18 AM on October 25, 2006
"Jesus hung out with whores and social outcasts, was remarkably casual about sex..."
Casual? He said that it would be better to cut off your hand than to masturbate with it, and better to pluck out your eye than to lust after beauty. Is that casual? posted by kid ichorous at 1:22 AM on October 25, 2006
starkeffect: Assigning human-like motivations to a dispassionate Nature is a sure sign this guy can't see past metaphor.
I think Eagleton is actually using a metaphor to try to give you a sense of what a non-naive theology might look like. posted by treepour at 1:27 AM on October 25, 2006
cgc373, my generalization about English Professors was written in the deepest seriousness. Clever of you to point out that it was incorrect because some English Profs (including, quite possibly, Eagleton) can in fact write. I'm at a loss to explain how I missed this.
Duly chastened, I now retreat to my squalid burrow. posted by spazzm at 1:30 AM on October 25, 2006
DELETED!
You come one faux pas (Dawkins on Metafilter), I'll commit another (Strong Bad references not on Fark). posted by switchsonic at 1:30 AM on October 25, 2006
He said that it would be better to cut off your hand than to masturbate with it
I was going to comment, "and that, my good sirs and madams, is how you tear someone to pieces," which I thought was a good summary of the review.
But apparently no one wants to actually discuss the merits of the review itself, and we're going to talk about how you haven't heard of Terry Eagleton (and you know what, neither had I, but it didn't affect my reading) and how it's impossible to talk about Richard Dawkins so we may as well all slide our pants down in this lovely foyer and unload a great pile of brown. All together now.
Whether or not it actually exists in practice, I admire and respect Mr Eagleton's writing about a Christianity based on thoughtfulness and understanding and all those good things that he explained twenty times more eloquently than I could hope to. If it was actually all like that in practice, sure, sign me up. Let's discuss the nature of the Original Cause. I want to have conversations like that. They are incomparably important questions to consider that Science is unable to address.
Yes, the major organized religions perverts what I, and, if I read correctly, Mr Eagleton, see as the foundational concepts that Christ and later Christian writers were developing and supporting, but that doesn't invalidate the entire thing, nor should it. Fundamentalist American evangelical Christianity is screwed up and fucked and needs to stop, but maybe we could talk about these things instead of just shitting all over the place.
If I wasn't so tired I would have tried to say that more tactfully, but really. This is an impressive piece of writing, whatever you think of the conclusions; can we not address it directly?
(On preview, which always gives me a chance to reflect: I suppose this is why we can't discuss Dawkins here. Someone says one thing and everyone, including myself, goes off in every direction. I honestly sincerely mean this comment to be constructive, my apologies for the scatalogy.) posted by blacklite at 1:48 AM on October 25, 2006 [2 favorites]
spazzm, you needn't stay in any burrow, squalid or otherwise; it's all my bad. I should have said something like, "Eagleton's a pretty good writer," instead of "unsafely wrong" blah blah, look at clever-pants-me, I'm a-writin' now, lookame go. posted by cgc373 at 2:03 AM on October 25, 2006
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?
Has your average Christian ever heard of them? Please. Dawkins argues against the gross god because that's what the majority of people believe in.
Look, I don't know the intricate minutia of Astrology, but I still know its bullshit. What value is there in analyzing the detailed, intricate philosophical system built entirely on false premises? If you believe the premises are false, no value can be achieved by philosophizing upon them.
Dawkins, as far as I know, isn't exactly complaining about Deists or whatever, but against popular folk religions such as the Christian story about Jesus being God's son and rising from the dead. There's not much 'epistemological' about that.
If you're one of those people who think of the bible as one big metaphor or whatever, then I don't think Dawkins exactly cares, although I don't know. I'm using "Dawkins" as a stand in for "Generic Atheist" I don't know that much about his specific arguments either. posted by delmoi at 2:05 AM on October 25, 2006 [4 favorites]
Seriously, though. Do we need another flamewar about theism/atheism?
Um, do you see any flames? A bunch of these threads have been deleted despite being almost entirely flame free. It's ridiculous. posted by delmoi at 2:14 AM on October 25, 2006 [2 favorites]
If you're one of those people who think of the bible as one big metaphor or whatever, then I don't think Dawkins exactly cares, although I don't know. I'm using "Dawkins" as a stand in for "Generic Atheist" I don't know that much about his specific arguments either.
I confess to not having read his book. Press about him suggests that he does care -- e.g., the recent Wired article on the "New Atheism" indicates that what separates Dawkins from less "evangelical" atheists is that, for him, a contemporary theologian or even deist scientist deserves no more respect than the most unthinking fundamentalist. I find such a position absurd, ignorant, & arrogant. But I should, too, actually read him before saying anything more about what he thinks. posted by treepour at 2:18 AM on October 25, 2006
cgc373, we cool? posted by spazzm at 2:27 AM on October 25, 2006
Press about him suggests that he does care -- e.g., the recent Wired article on the "New Atheism" indicates that what separates Dawkins from less "evangelical" atheists is that, for him, a contemporary theologian or even deist scientist deserves no more respect than the most unthinking fundamentalist.
Hmm, yeah my impression is that Dawkins is a bit over the top on a lot of things. (enforcing the Atheist = "Bright" thing, for example)
Still, I don't really think the "rebuttals" makes much sense at all. The author seems to be arguing that god cannot be debated because it does not "exist"
Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch Ness monster
What does "transcending universe" even mean? If he's not inside or outside of the universe, where is he? Does got exist only in our minds? If so how does he disagree with Dawkins? posted by delmoi at 2:32 AM on October 25, 2006
England argues that educated christians believe more subtle things. Sure, educated people always believe subtle things. So what? Dawkins only cares about the harmful consequences.
Not sure if Dawkins set himself up by straying into theological discussions. But theology is clearly not relevant to his stated goals of demonstrating that religion is harmful.
And Amen starkeffect! posted by jeffburdges at 2:38 AM on October 25, 2006
No matter how beautiful and intricate an ontological edifice you construct in defence of religion, it's still built on the quicksand of faith. And when you argue this toss with someone very clever, you invariably their vast reserves of intellectual firepower simply allow them to wrong for longer.
Although perhaps delmoi put it rather more pertly. I don't know the intricate minutia of Astrology, but I still know its bullshit. Ha. posted by rhymer at 2:43 AM on October 25, 2006
Dawkins only cares about the harmful consequences.
sorry should be a "find" in between inariably and their. posted by rhymer at 2:44 AM on October 25, 2006
what separates Dawkins from less "evangelical" atheists is that, for him, a contemporary theologian or even deist scientist deserves no more respect than the most unthinking fundamentalist. I find such a position absurd, ignorant, & arrogant.
I'll agree with you on one of those three points: arrogance. Dawkins equates a belief in supernatural beings with, for example, a belief in the geocentric model of the universe. To the casual observer, it appears as though the sun goes around the earth, and from a medieval point of view that belief is appealing-- man is the most sublime of creations, so it is only fitting that the rest of Creation should literally revolve around him.
Lest you think this mere demagogy, consider this-- how do you know that the earth revolves around the sun (assuming you do)? Do you accept it as faith, or do you know the reasons?
The point where Dawkins becomes arrogant regards the effect of a belief in God on human emotion. Modern theology is all about psychology, not physics (strong anthropic principle notwithstanding), and since science has no firm or easily explainable answers about why we feel the way we do, the explanations that theology offers are competitive. posted by starkeffect at 2:59 AM on October 25, 2006
Not a good review. Nothing torn to pieces.
I'll sum it up... "blah blah blah, my tooth fairy is special/different blah blah ontological."
The only good point he made (although it was irrelevant) was that science isn't perfect, and could stand with a bit of skepticism.
So, yeah, well, nicely put. Now, back to your delusional love with the divine imagined. posted by ewkpates at 3:02 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
treepour, "Evangelical atheists" object to "christian" being taken as synonymous with "moral" when the opposite is often true, just whipe off the teflon coating.
We object when religion's role in atrocities is conveniently forgotten and religion is then used to ellect the authors of future atrocities. posted by jeffburdges at 3:06 AM on October 25, 2006
"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?"
Richard Dawkins has shown that the domain and context for all these discussions, the realm of theology, is the realm of nonsense. He has shown that it is not necessary to demonstrate that a fairy's wing is not 6mmx9mm and that it is not composed of a green translucent silicone mesh, to show that the fairy does not exist. It must be extremely painful for theologians to be told that their life's work's domain, the joyous fairy's garden of minutae and debate they frolick in, is in fact less relevent to the nature of reality than the domain of a McDonalds staff member learning to efficiently sell fries. posted by Arcaz Ino at 3:08 AM on October 25, 2006 [4 favorites]
A sentence in Eagleton's article took me back to my childhood
Dawkins thinks it odd that Christians don’t look eagerly forward to death, given that they will thereby be ushered into paradise. He does not see that Christianity, like most religious faiths, values human life deeply.
When I was a child, three things struck me as odd about religious people (I was raised a Catholic): 1. they did not welcome death; 2. their religion did not seem to have a material impact on the way they lived their lives; and 3. they did not all become priests or nuns.
That was before I realised that most Christians were practicing atheists. posted by bobbyelliott at 3:20 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
It's rather funny. I never really understood the point behind most atheists, spending so much time caring about how they were certain there was no deity to speak of. It just seemed rather pointless, although rather benign. Even if they were right, what did it really matter? Dawkins puts some rationality behind atheism, giving it purposes both practical and moral. In doing so, he truly does make atheism a religion and himself the head evangelist.
Give me the agnostics, the deists, and the Unitarians. Believe what you will, I'll believe what I will, and as long as you don't break my leg or pick my pocket, we're cool. Any discussion of those happening, I'll rather leave aside for the moment. I simply find it disheartening to think that people so generally intelligent as Dawkins could do no better than to adopt the tactics of that which he loathes so.
Not to mention that the man simply cannot measure the peace of mind which religious faith has brought to so many people. Treat religion as a foe, and its followers will certainly return in kind. posted by Saydur at 3:26 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
So... to paraphrase, I think, the fact that Dawkins "puts some rationality behind atheism" makes it into a "religion", and it is "disheartening" that in this manner he "adopts the tactics of that which he loathes".
It is "disheartening" that he puts "rationality behind atheism".
Yes, I can see how that would be disheartening for you.
Not to mention that the man simply cannot measure the peace of mind which religious faith has brought to so many people.
Many things which are untrue have brought people peace of mind. When my milk-teeth were falling out, and all hope seemed lost, the tooth fairy carried me. posted by Arcaz Ino at 3:32 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
If Dawkins had defined religion as organised systems of belief, then his views would stand up much better. An organised system of belief is dedicated to preserving not only the aims of the organisation but, over time, its own stability as an organisation, in other words its own self-interest. Dawkins is assuming that religion means a certain set of beliefs held, individually, by large numbers of people. It is not. It is a system of beliefs, promoted, like a brand, by people who's livelihood is and, whose sense of public significance and self-worth is, deeply bound to its promulgation. It functions in a way not dissimilar to Volkswagen selling its brand of cars. posted by donfactor at 3:45 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
I should have added at the end that it functions also very much like Dawkins who earns his living as as the official public voice of scientistic orthodoxy. posted by donfactor at 3:48 AM on October 25, 2006
Saydur says: I never really understood the point behind most atheists, spending so much time caring about how they were certain there was no deity to speak of.
We care because the believers care. And the believers are busy fucking up the planet that we, too, live on. If the choice of religion were, in truth, no more important than the choice of favorite color, with no impact on the world, then I wouldn't care. Believe what you want. I care not that your favorite color is mauve. But when your religion begins to interfere with my life, my choices, my well being, and the future of the entire planet, then I care. I care alot. posted by jaded at 3:48 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
Dawkins is assuming that religion means a certain set of beliefs held, individually, by large numbers of people. It is not. It is a system of beliefs, promoted, like a brand, by people who's livelihood is and, whose sense of public significance and self-worth is, deeply bound to its promulgation
Like a meme? You know that word, "meme"? Richard Dawkins invented that word. It's true. Look it up. posted by Arcaz Ino at 3:50 AM on October 25, 2006
Dawkins mentioned the Flying Spagetti Monster on the Colbert Report. I can now die complete. posted by jb at 3:55 AM on October 25, 2006
Perhaps Saydur is saying that truth is not the ultimate good. Perhaps your happiness is more important than the truth. Who doesn't believe polite fictions that make life warmer and fuzzier? We believe our elected representatives are looking out for our interests. We believe we'll get rich with a lottery ticket. We believe animals don't feel pain, or at least don't care if they do. We believe our employees want to work hard. We believe we're a beautiful unique snowflake. Mothers believe their children don't masturbate. Children believe their grandparents don't have sex. Women believe their boyfriends don't ogle other women. Men believe their girlfriends want them for their wit and grace and manly physique.
Staying sane is a continual process of smearing over the cracks in our psyches with carefully selected bullshit. The fact is that the vast majority of the population is unable to face raw reality without crutches, and those that can are the ones who end up looking truly insane. If we force people to believe the raw truth, we're going to have a lot more snipers in clock towers. posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 3:56 AM on October 25, 2006 [2 favorites]
More seriously, I do find Dawkins to be an atheism fundamentalist. As the article points out, he is as blinkered about religion as any religious fundamentalist, only in the opposite direction.
Religion stunting intellectual development? And that explains why a millenia of brilliant thinkers were devoutly religious. Dogmatic religion, now there is something we can talk about as stagnating thought -- but that would include dogmatic irreligion as well.
Given the choice, I would take Erasmus over Dawkins any day (to set my moral compass, and as an open minded thinker. Not to do biology, of course).
That said, I'm glad he is correcting everyone about the evolution=accident mistake. If evolution were accidental, it wouldn't be any fun to study. posted by jb at 4:07 AM on October 25, 2006
Religion can inspire hatred, bigotry and wars.
Religion can also create community, inspire charity (both in the modern sense and in the ancient meaning of love and caring for your fellow human being), inspire people to better themselves, bring comfort and joy, meaning about what science does not (and never will answer), and bring art and music and creative outlets to those who would not otherwise have them. How many people sing each week, if they don't go to church? How many people dedicate their lives to helping those less fortunate who are not driven/supported by religion? (Some, but not that many - there is a reason the Sally Ann is religious.)
I seriously miss the church I attended. It was a place with friends, young and old, white and black, poor and rich - and those differences didn't matter. (Actually, when those differences started to matter, that's when my family hightailed it out of that church). We sang every sunday and put on musicals, we made art, we fed each other amazing potluck dinners. We have fellowship - and we had the miracle of communion which unites everyone. My life has been so much lonlier since I've become agnostic. I would never go back to that church, because I don't believe the basic tenets of the faith, let alone certain dogmas (if they would accept drinking, dancing and gay marriage, I might change my mind), but that doesn't stop me from realising that I have also lost something in sticking by my own principles.
So I understand why other people, if they have a community in which they feel comfortable, would want that. posted by jb at 4:19 AM on October 25, 2006 [2 favorites]
Yes, I can see how that would be disheartening for you.
Thank you for your kind interpretation of my words. My disappointment in Dawkins is that he uses the "rationality" of the believer. He must spread his point of view to save the world, and those who do not believe as he does are evil. Even if he is 99% sure that there is no deity of any sort, even if he can tack on nines after the decimal, there remains that last chance which is discounted in what amounts to a leap of faith in a lack of a deity. In this, he appears no different to me than a militant missionary. If that is the option of atheism, that certianly is disheartening.
As for the idea of things untrue bringing peace of mind, consider this. Even with the hypothesis that all religion is false, some people simply need that peace of mind that belief in a higher being brings. You may not, but others do. To take that from them would be as disturbing to their mind than an unlikely mathematical proof of the Christian God as viewed by George W. Bush would be disturbing to the minds of most people here, as well as Dawkins himself.
So, if you care to attack the foundations of the beliefs of others, go right ahead. It makes you simply a missionary with a different reason. If you can accept that, then I can only hope such a struggle does more good than harm, although I fear it would only provoke extremity from both sides.
On preview- Thanks hoverboards, for a different perspective on the matter. Perhaps I too am wrong to interfere in this idea, perhaps militant atheism is the faith that brings peace of mind to many intellectuals. To call it on hypocricy would be the same as calling out religion on the same. I do apologize if anyone is offended by my distaste for Dawkins and his movement. I just hate to see extremism used as a tool to battle extremism. posted by Saydur at 4:19 AM on October 25, 2006
Back to Eagleton: not a very good piece. Prospect did a better job. I think the problem is that, back in the day, Eagleton started out trying to blend the Catholicism of his childhood with Marxism. Hence the citing of Duns Scotus and Eriugena - replace with Hegel and Walter Benjamin and the reverence for elaborate systems is the same. Also, he's a lazy, repetitive writer these days. Try reading a few of his pieces while drinking a shot every time he makes a comic analogy. Have a double every time he does an alliterative riff along the lines of 'from Julia Kristeva to Kate Moss'. posted by Mocata at 4:20 AM on October 25, 2006
from the review:
But Dawkins could have told us all this without being so appallingly bitchy about those of his scientific colleagues who disagree with him, and without being so theologically illiterate.
this is the whole (weak) point of Eagleton's criticism. Dawkins was mean to Eagleton's buddies, and Eagleton doesn't like to be reminded that he -- and many others -- spent a lot of time putting massive intellectual effort in what, essentially, is fiction. the catch is, they think/thought/may have thought it wasn't fiction.
Shakespeare scholars do spend their lives studying fiction -- but they know Hamlet didn't really exist. many theologians aren't really aware that, say, YHWH is about as real as the fictional Hamlet (actually, less)
not to mention, very few people around the world kill in the name of Polonius
Dawkins has written a (long) pamphlet: it's a polemic, not a memoir or a treatise on how cool it is to quote St. Augustine while having tea at Oxford. its tone is certainly jarring, but the book is meant to be an attack. nonfundamentalist, polite, nice religious people are offended by Dawkins's book? they should be -- he argues that they're part of the problem, not of the solution. if it helps the conservative sensibilities, Dawkins is really mean to Islam, too -- he dismisses it quite quickly as essentially incompatible with modernity and the West.
(and it's hard to argue against Dawkins's point that it'd be surprising to see atheists crash hijacked planes into buildings, or settling on other people's lands because a 3,000+ year old, mostly fictional book, says so)
I'm not a biologist, I have no idea whether Dawkins's theory -- religion spreads through generations because of the evolutionary advantage of spawning naturally gullible children -- has any value. we need a biologist for that. Eagleton isn't a biologist -- he's just olffended that Dawkins is mean to nonfundamentalists, too. I say tough shit.
the problem I have with The God Delusion -- well, not a problem, but there are a few surprising lines. he misses his dead friend Douglas Adams a lot, and close to the end of the book Dawkins writes "I miss you Douglas". knowing full well that his friend is six feet under, and cannot hear him. that's the problem with enlightened, secular "brights" -- we all miss our dead loved ones like bastards. religion -- most of them, at least -- give you a way out, however improbable it might appear when you think hard about it. it'd be really awesome if Adams could really hear Dawkins moving words. science is awesome, but it cannot solve that -- in the atheist's world, Nazi war criminals who escaped human justice got away with it. forever.
a world without justice is a monstrous thought -- no wonder most people can't accept that. no matter how irrational the alternative.
Many people have heard of Terry Eagleton, don't display your ignorance like that.
speaking of ignorance, have you read The God Delusion? Some of us have. please share the wisdom. posted by matteo at 4:20 AM on October 25, 2006 [5 favorites]
MetaFilter: blah blah blah ontological.
Also, "kid ichorous" is one of the more awesome usernames I've seen in a while. posted by loquacious at 4:32 AM on October 25, 2006
Although I'm much closer to Dawkins on theistic religion, I have to credit Eagleton on one point, that Dawkins may have failed to address the strongest version of the doctrine he purports to refute. Sophisticated theologies such as Eagleton's ultimately don't stand up any better than those which Dawkins shoots down, but Dawkins would have had to add a chapter or so to show this clearly.
Eagleton goes way too far in calling his own variation of Christianity mainstream. His version actually implies a specific political program. In fact Christianity is such a protean religion that there are as many variations as there are Christians. And popular versions are really closer to Dawkins' representation (or caricature as Eagleton would have it).
There is plenty of sophistry too. Equating knowledge of theology to knowledge of biology, for example, begs some questions rather laughably, and that's just in the first lines.
Also, what delmoi and matteo said. posted by jam_pony at 4:35 AM on October 25, 2006
("I've never heard of Adam Roberts...") posted by ninebelow at 4:39 AM on October 25, 2006
Eagleton also lambasts Dawkins for being a biologist talking about theology. In fact, it is rather central to Dawkins' point that religion is a biological phenomenon and that it is Eagleton and his co-religionists who are not qualified to analyze it. posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 4:42 AM on October 25, 2006
Speaking as someone who is a fan of Dawkins, I have to say I can't stand it when he goes on about religion. When he's writing about biology, I love reading him, but he displays a painful ignorance when writing about religion. He is remarkably uninformed about religious history, (and, ironically, the history of science) and even more uninformed about the reasons why people have faith. Language cannot hold up a mirror to nature, so Dawkins is shooting himself in the foot by making appeals to rationality and reality, etc.
So, for example, I take it on faith both that gravity, as it has been described to me, is the actual reason why stuff goes down, and I take it on faith that stuff always goes down, or that it doesn't go up in the southern hemisphere. I've never done extensive reasearch into gravity, and haven't the time, and the offered explanations seem reasonable to me, mostly because they match my personal experience (when I drop stuff, it goes down). This is what Richard Rorty calls "retail certainty".
In much the same way, because of my experiences, I take it on faith that human beings are spiritual in nature, and that there is a spiritual dimension to the universe, and that universe is grounded in something that, because the word is handy, I might call God. I believe both that God created the universe and in modern physics and evolution -- all three together offer a description of the universe that agrees with my personal experience.
Now, in both the case of gravity and God, should either: my experience change, or: a better explanation come along, the nature of my belief in either might change. But what will not change is that, in order to function, I need the faith, the "retail certainty."
But, of course, Dawkins isn't interested in actually persuading his opponents of his case; he's already ruled them to be insane. In short, like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, he preaches to the choir, and has no interest in an actual dialogue. So, read him on bilogy, and evolution, where he's brilliant, and ignore him on religion. posted by eustacescrubb at 4:42 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
People really need to stop describing atheism as a religion, philosophy, or ethos. It really, really isn't one. It is the rejection of certain broad categories of beliefs. As a group, atheists don't have any more in common then a-toothfairyists. In fact, we'd probably be about as vocal as them too, except that toothfairyists aren't terribly common, and I've never seen one group of toothfairyists crash planes into a building, while another group blames the nonbelievers.
I have a question for the crowd that's calling Dawkins a "militant atheist". What exactly qualifies him as militant? Is it simply saying that religion is wrong and harmful? Because that standard would make just about every christian I've ever met a militant theist. Nearly every christian that I've met believes in hell for nonbelievers. It's an integral part of their belief system that I will be (and deserve to be) tortured for eternity for the crime of disagreeing with them. I've never heard an atheist suggest anything nearly that awful, even as a joke. In the end, maybe that's what makes Dawkins a militant: some bastard who deserves to burn in hell dares to disagree... posted by Humanzee at 4:53 AM on October 25, 2006 [4 favorites]
Belief in gravity is not faith. It is rational. This doesn't require rigorous proof, nor does it mean only deductive and than empirical reasoning. It simply means belief rationally based on sound reasons. The reasons for most people include consistent experience; ability to predict the results of experiments reliably; plausible explanations from people whom one trusts on the subject for other good reasons; experience that the explanations turn out to be consistent with everything else one knows; coherence of all the foregoing; and more.
Faith on the other hand is by definition an attempt to convince oneself in the absence of evidence, or contrary to the evidence. Religion absolutely depends on faith in this sense, and is supported by nothing else.
Many theists' arguments rely on merely using the same term for these fundamentally different mental phenomena - "belief" for both or "faith" for both. As soon as you sort one from the other, you can see that belief in gravity is nothing like faith in a god, and you can start distinguishing reality from nonsense. posted by jam_pony at 4:58 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
See... religion is evil. That's the problem.
If I say that females have no soul, and so are made to serve, that's evil.
If I say that people can't raise their own children because the church knows better, and order all children into church nurseries, then that's evil.
If I say that God doesn't want people to enjoy sex or music or art, then that's evil.
It's evil because these things are irrational.
Evil=Irrational
So, in Dawkins' lexicon, religion, even one that worships science, is evil.
P.S. Tolerance is for people who don't know the difference between right and wrong. posted by ewkpates at 4:58 AM on October 25, 2006
ewkpates, you give a few examples of silly things some religions have done, but that doesn't really demonstrate that all religions are necessarily irrational. posted by thirteenkiller at 5:18 AM on October 25, 2006
"Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean... [God] is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves."
My experience is that Christians do believe in a personal god. Well, Evangelical Christians anyway. It's part of their slogans, like, "You need a personal relationship with God!" Perhaps Eagleton is missing which audience Dawkins is addressing? posted by xmattxfx at 5:20 AM on October 25, 2006
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...
...and you'll also have a pretty good approximation of the qualifications of the overwhelming majority of voices in the media who feel no hesitation in giving us their thoughts on science.
This is, by and large, a fairly poor review, one that consistently misses the point by a pretty wide margin. Which is a shame, because Dawkins' book is really, genuinely poor - and I say that as a lifelong Dawkins fanboy. It's incoherent, its objectives are muddled, it's dismissive when it should be considered and pedantic when it should be concise.
The one thing Eagleton gets right is slating Dawkins for his sheer incuriosity about religion, which is simply embarrassing from someone who presents themselves as a champion of considered, rational investigation. In some places, his research doesn't seem to have gone any further than the first page of a Google search. posted by flashboy at 5:24 AM on October 25, 2006
Here's the original draft:
If you have a problem with religion, it's just because you don't understand it. And by understand it I mean, not simply having directly experienced a religious upbringing like billions of people of all kinds of social and cultural background have, including Mr Dawkins, but reading *and* accepting all the infinite subtleties of theological arguments before you start talking about some of the nefarious effects that religion in its fundamentalist form has on society, effects I'll glibly ignore for the next twenty five paragraphs, with the excuse that religion and religious fundamentalism are not just different things but exist in totally different universes, so those who have a problem with fundamentalism should never ever have a problem with religion.
But let's not talk about religion, let's talk about Christianity, because I'm a Christian, and because it is The Best Religion out there. Not like those other backward religions with their dietary prescriptions and ramadans and no alcohol and no pork and no shellfish, how lame and utterly irrational. Sure we're not supposed to eat meat on Fridays either but we're more developed, we don't actually follow that rule.
And ok, according to many theologians, and depending on your Christian denomination, but let's say roughly these are rules that are supposed to apply, in theory, to 1 billion people, we're also not supposed to have sex outside of marriage or use contraception or terminate unwanted pregnancies or divorce or allow stem cell research or let gays marry, which perhaps insofar as rules go have a little more impact and therefore would require a little more rational examination than dietary prescriptions, but let's not talk about that! Let's talk about how Christianity is the Best!
Christianity is The Best because of Jesus. Now watch me rewrite Jesus as a sex-positive anti-traditional-family queer-rights-advocate feminist revolutionary underground movement leader, which is *exactly* the kind of God worshipped by the kind of people Dawkins has a problem with.
Well not really, but I just want to talk some more about how great and modern and cool and hip Jesus is!
And woe to those Roman scum and their Jewish lapdogs who killed him because they did not tolerate political dissent and they had capital punishment, how backwards of them to be so undemocratic like 2000 years ago. Thank God today that doesn't happen anymore because we have religion.
Only God knows how many other they killed with the same pretext, but let's say they killed my friend Jesus just because they were evil and they were afraid of his message of Love, which proves it was indeed a great message of Love. Score one more for the subtleties of theology against hard, tangible, provincial middle-class English pedant reality!
Now let me go on some more about Christianity and all its coolness, how the God Jesus is great, and Dawkins is lame.
Social problems with religion in today's world? Well apart from a few crazy fundamentalist Christians in the former colonies, that backwards country full of rednecks, especially Texas, the nutters are all Islamic and so it's NOT MY PROBLEM because I'm in the cool religion. So why is Dawkins lumping us all in? really? what's HIS problem? Not enough Jesus love as a kid? Did I mention how Jesus is this loving, cool, hip figure that no one should have a problem with, and this makes religion itself cool?
If you think otherwise, no matter how much evidence you have of people and groups attributing to God exactly the opposite sentiments of vengeance and hate and using them to justify their actions and political demands, it's entirely their fault and they're satanic, and it's your fault and you're satanic for spoiling My God with association with that other one you criticise which is not The Real God anyway, because I say so.
See how much better than fundamentalists I am! My God is better than theirs, and you just can't argue with that. posted by pleeker at 5:28 AM on October 25, 2006 [5 favorites]
So, for example, I take it on faith both that gravity, as it has been described to me, is the actual reason why stuff goes down,
That's odd, because gravity has never been described by anyone. All we've ever done is go from "stuff falls down" to "stuff falls towards other stuff at a rate f(t)"
and I take it on faith that stuff always goes down, or that it doesn't go up in the southern hemisphere. I've never done extensive reasearch into gravity, and haven't the time, and the offered explanations seem reasonable to me, mostly because they match my personal experience (when I drop stuff, it goes down). This is what Richard Rorty calls "retail certainty".
Well, there is no way to prove that just because X has always happened X will always happen in the future. It's one of the largest holes in philosophy. However, if you wanted too you could go down to the southern hemisphere yourself and try it. In other words, you can actually measure the effect of gravity yourself. Not so with religion or god.
In other words, there is a huge difference between having "faith" that people aren't lying to you about measurements they've taken and things that they've physically seen or heard or whatever, and having "faith" in something that has never been measured or seen or heard by anyone. posted by delmoi at 5:28 AM on October 25, 2006
Ok, so I tried to read the whole thing.
Eagleton manages to suggest that, despite being "knocked about" by clerics as an integral part of his education, he was not thaught to have blind faith. Presumably, nothing encourages rational enquiry like a good whack upside the head.
He then goes on to suggest that relying on faith is the "sensitive, civilized" thing to do - without supporting that with anything beyond his own say-so.
That's where I gave up, I'm sorry to say. The article is drivel. Eloquent drivel, but drivel none the less.
While Eagleton has a supreme command of the English language, he has a rather tenous grasp on constructing a reasoned, rational argument.
But that, I guess, is why he's not a scientist. posted by spazzm at 5:29 AM on October 25, 2006
delmoi: Still, I don't really think the "rebuttals" makes much sense at all. The author seems to be arguing that god cannot be debated because it does not "exist"
I didn't get that. What the author is arguing that Dawkins' ignorance or refusal to deal with the wide scope of religion and theology make his arguments not very convincing to people with a casual understanding of theology. Personally, I've not soiled myself by checking out The God Delusion, but after reading Dawkins monthly works on this issue over the years, it's clear to me that:
1: He doesn't know what the heck he's arguing against. Most of the times he's just waving at a vague target, and when he does argue in specifics, it's almost always a straw man.
2: His attempt to explain the human psychology and sociology of belief is not even wrong. Reading Dawkins on psychology is rather like reading Darwins ramblings built on bar tricks.
delmoi: What does "transcending universe" even mean? If he's not inside or outside of the universe, where is he? Does got exist only in our minds? If so how does he disagree with Dawkins?
The transcendental argument for god goes something like this: the universe has a predictable structure and order. This predictable structure and order can be called "god." You don't have to agree with this, but arguments about invisible pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster are not that effective against transcendental dieties. Modern theology has become something of a game of three-card monty in that regard.
This is perhaps one of the areas on which Bertrand Russell (and before him, Huxley) was wiser than Dawkins is. Rather than trying to disprove all the the permutations, Russell just made a strong argument for doubt rather than faith as a reasonable default position. Russell also was able to do it in a way that was well-written, witty and funny, features that are painful in Dawkins' writing.
Arcaz Ino: Like a meme? You know that word, "meme"? Richard Dawkins invented that word. It's true. Look it up.
I have trouble deciding which is worse, Dawkins' dabbling in philosophy, or Dawkins' dabbling in psychology. In both cases he appears to wade into a field in bold ignorance of history and stronger theories to hand down "revealed wisdom."
matteo: I'm not a biologist, I have no idea whether Dawkins's theory -- religion spreads through generations because of the evolutionary advantage of spawning naturally gullible children -- has any value. we need a biologist for that. Eagleton isn't a biologist -- he's just olffended that Dawkins is mean to nonfundamentalists, too. I say tough shit.
Oh dear, why am in not surprised that Dawkins has jumped feet first into the worst parts of Evolutionary Psychology (in a way that is likely to be neither grounded in evolution, or psychology?) No, he's not just offended that Dawkins is mean to nonfundamentalists. He's rather justly calling Dawkins out on being a hack who has become an authority on religion.
You don't have to be religious to dislike Dawkins as the pied piper of contemporary secular thought, you just have to have a lick of common sense, and a casual read of the many people who are his betters on this subject. posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:47 AM on October 25, 2006
and having "faith" in something that has never been measured or seen or heard by anyone.
What? Are you seriously suggesting that no one in history has claimed to see/experience the divine in any way? Because that's the kind of ignorance of history I was talking about w/r/t Dawkins.
The mental process required to move from what I observe to accepting arguments about the kind of thing I have observed in other places and in other ways is the same w/r/t to gravity or God. In both cases I have my personal experiences; in both cases I have accounts of other people putting forth arguments based either on a system of logic (like math or philosophy) or based on their own personal observations. I accept or reject these arguments, in both cases, because of the soundness of the arguments.
I could easily go to the southern hemisphere and see how gravity works, but I could just as easily go there and see if what happens when I meditate stays the same as well. posted by eustacescrubb at 5:57 AM on October 25, 2006
Eagleton is exactly right. Dawkins' is a straw man argument that addresses the crudest possible version of theism. posted by unSane at 6:03 AM on October 25, 2006
hoverboards don't work on water: Eagleton also lambasts Dawkins for being a biologist talking about theology. In fact, it is rather central to Dawkins' point that religion is a biological phenomenon and that it is Eagleton and his co-religionists who are not qualified to analyze it.
Which is, IMO, Dawkins' worst sin. He attempts to reduce everything to biology. A frequent problem with people who are brilliant in one field is the tendency to believe their brilliance automatically crosses domains. To read something that is similarly silly, try to find B.F. Skinner's attempt to construct a utopian political philosophy around radical behaviorism. posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:03 AM on October 25, 2006
I'm about one third of the way through The God Delusion, and it looks fine so far. Quite convincing. I don't agree 100% with his approach, but I must say he is consistent, and that his arguments have held water at least so far.
I haven't read Eagleston's review (and won't until I'm done with the book), but the Eagleton quote in the post, "He seems to imagine God" etc., is somewhat ironic. Very early in the book, in the first chapter IIRC, Dawkins specifically emphasizes that he's not talking about or attacking the idea of bearded men on clouds, to prevent quotes like that from popping up in reviews.
That being said, the fact that Eagleton writes something like the previous quote makes him look bad - on preview.
Anyhow, I'll be expecting replies from Dawkins to his critics eventually. posted by lifeless at 6:19 AM on October 25, 2006
Religion stunting intellectual development? And that explains why a millenia of brilliant thinkers were devoutly religious. posted by jb
Or it explains why out of a millenia of brilliant thinkers, only the religious were allowed to flourish. posted by Happy Monkey at 6:19 AM on October 25, 2006 [3 favorites]
Sigh. Sensible, literate person dismantles ignorant book; passionate defenders of ignorant author leap in to defend ignorance. "We don't have to know nothin' 'bout no religion 'cause we know it's STOOPID!" Right, kiddies, sleep tight, atheism will protect you from all the bad things. posted by languagehat at 6:24 AM on October 25, 2006
You don't have to be religious to dislike Dawkins as the pied piper of contemporary secular thought, you just have to have a lick of common sense, and a casual read of the many people who are his betters on this subject.
Yes, and they are doing a wonderful job in preventing the spread of religion. posted by bobbyelliott at 6:24 AM on October 25, 2006
Pleeker, damn ... too much time on your hands, perhaps?
Dawkins has only one really good thing going for him. He's married to her. posted by grabbingsand at 6:25 AM on October 25, 2006
hoverboards don't work on water: Eagleton also lambasts Dawkins for being a biologist talking about theology. In fact, it is rather central to Dawkins' point that religion is a biological phenomenon and that it is Eagleton and his co-religionists who are not qualified to analyze it.
KirkJobSluder: Which is, IMO, Dawkins' worst sin. He attempts to reduce everything to biology.
Everything? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. I do find the "memetic" framework a much more enlightening explanation of what religion is than the theological one, though. posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 6:31 AM on October 25, 2006
This piece of psychological research seems to count heavily against Eagleton:
Barrett, J. L., and F. C. Keil (1996). "Conceptualising a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts." Cognitive Psychology, 31: 219-247 (can't find a link, sorry)
"In three story processing tasks, subjects often used an anthropomorphic God concept that is inconsistent with stated theological beliefs, and drastically distorted the narratives without any awareness of doing so."
KJS: "He attempts to reduce everything to biology"
This sort of comment makes me doubt if you've read the Dawkins argument you're criticising. In The Selfish Gene he points out the the Darwinian algorithm isn't specific to biology but applies to information in the abstract, which could include cultural phenomena. He offers that as an idea for further investigation, and Dennett and others have taken it forward.
Hoverboards dwow: "Dawkins' point that religion is a biological phenomenon"
Citation for this please? Is this what he claims in The God Delusion (which I haven't read)? It's unlike the argument he makes in The Selfish Gene (which I have). That something can be understood in terms of successful replication doesn't make it biological.
Eustacescribb: "Are you seriously suggesting that no one in history has claimed to see/experience the divine in any way?"
No, that's not what the text you are responding to says. You're attacking a straw man. posted by infobomb at 6:31 AM on October 25, 2006
As a pretty instinctive atheist (as for most people, it's really, really hard for me to even start imaging how I would go about believing in God) I was really impressed with Terry Eagleton's review. His theology does seem to squirm about like a worm when you try to grab hold of it, because (as is the defining trait of religion) it must inevitably fall back on circular justifications. But reading the article has certainly helped me to understand how intelligent people can believe in God.
For one thing he writes an awful lot better than Richard Dawkins, and comes across as a more interesting person to have dinner with. posted by silence at 6:32 AM on October 25, 2006
Right, kiddies, sleep tight, atheism will protect you from all the bad things
nah, religion will protect us. it has for millenia, after all, hasn't it posted by matteo at 6:43 AM on October 25, 2006
Treepour: I really wish the Dawkins crowd would read Kant & Wittgenstein.
Ugh, that's horribly presumptive. Dawkins did a very thorough philosophy course and did read those authors, according to an article he wrote about his education in Oxford Today magazine (which I don't think is online).
Is your negativity about metaphysics really a disagreement with Dawkins? Either God is active in the world (answering prayers and so on) or not. If the former, then there is a rational proposition there to investigate (and find wanting). If not, then God's existence is a purely metaphysical and Dawkins agrees with your negativity about the purely metaphysical. posted by infobomb at 6:48 AM on October 25, 2006 [2 favorites]
(and by the way, from the megachurches of the USA to the megadioceses of Central and South America -- not to mention those America-loving mosques all around the world religion is indeed getting more radicalized. the quiet progressive Catholics or, say, Episcopalians around here might be well advised to consider the fact that their brand of religion is increasingly irrelevant and will probably have vanished in less than a century. if radical Islam scares you, well, Christianity circa 2100 CE will probably look exactly like that)
but keep blaming the messenger for the bad news -- maybe religion will indeed help the cause of reason, equal rights, and peace.
as it always has. posted by matteo at 6:49 AM on October 25, 2006
Any review that starts by attacking the reviewee with the expression "card-carrying" should be taken with a grain several pounds of salt. posted by clevershark at 6:53 AM on October 25, 2006
So we can't have a post about Dawkins anymore, but we can have a post about someone else talking shit about Dawkins? posted by prostyle at 6:54 AM on October 25, 2006
MetaFilter never fails to disappoint in this area. posted by hermitosis at 6:55 AM on October 25, 2006
hoverboards: Everything? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. I do find the "memetic" framework a much more enlightening explanation of what religion is than the theological one, though.
And those people who study how ideas work in human cultural contexts don't find memetics to be a very enlightening explanation for much of anything.
infobomb: This sort of comment makes me doubt if you've read the Dawkins argument you're criticising. In The Selfish Gene he points out the the Darwinian algorithm isn't specific to biology but applies to information in the abstract, which could include cultural phenomena. He offers that as an idea for further investigation, and Dennett and others have taken it forward.
Well, there is the problem. The fact that genes can be explained as elements in information theory does not mean that all of information theory can be explained in terms of Darwinian algorithms. Quantum Mechanics can be explained in terms of information theory, but I don't see advocacy of Darwinian algorithms as the replacement for Quantum Chromodynamics.
Darwinian evolution works as a powerful theory with a very strong mathematical grounding because of specific properties of genes. First, the primary mode of transmission is parent-offspring. Secord, that information is context-indepentent. Third, the information is reasonably resistant to change. (Melanin suddenly does not become green, or blue, or orange.)
All three of these assumptions are questionable in most areas of human communication and learning. It is doubtful that "ideas" really exist as distinct units of information in cognitive structures. There is quite a bit of evidence that much of what we "know" is repeatedly re-invented on an ad-hoc basis. Even identifying a "meme" as a distinct unit of information becomes difficult given what we know of cognitive psychology.
It might be worth further investigation if it were not for the existence of 150 years worth of more comprehensive, more powerful, and better supported theory which does not depend on strained analogies to radically different phenomena.
matteo: but keep blaming the messenger for the bad news -- maybe religion will indeed help the cause of reason, equal rights, and peace.
By all means, secularism needs its champions. Dawkins however is ill-equiped to be that champion. posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:56 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
The review's well-written, but it's a veneer on palpable nonsense. You can see when he gets all hand-wavy, because he descends into things like:
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. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves.
For whose Judeo-Christianity? Surely not the one that had God walking about a garden, or appearing as a burning bush?
"The condition of possibility of any entity"? Yes, I'm sure people are praying to Schroedinger's cat. He picks up steam after this, but his whole "dismantling" as languagehat puts it depends on his particular God being not really the sort of God Dawkins could criticise, like.
KJS described it as "This predictable structure and order can be called 'god.'", which is true, but is essentially without meaning for a god who plays any active part in the lives of human beings. Unless the order of atoms in my table can tell me to stop killing.
and it's hard to argue against Dawkins's point that it'd be surprising to see atheists crash hijacked planes into buildings, or settling on other people's lands because a 3,000+ year old, mostly fictional book, says so
It's not that hard: humans do terrible things at the drop of a hat. Look what atheists did because their reading of The Communist Manifesto said so. posted by bonaldi at 6:58 AM on October 25, 2006
bonaldiwrites"Look what atheists did because their reading of The Communist Manifesto said so."
I don't think that book "The Communist Manifesto" says what you think it says. posted by clevershark at 7:04 AM on October 25, 2006
bonaldi: KJS described it as "This predictable structure and order can be called 'god.'", which is true, but is essentially without meaning for a god who plays any active part in the lives of human beings. Unless the order of atoms in my table can tell me to stop killing.
Well, yeah. I think Eagleton dances around the issue of the relevance of god. But I don't think that's Eagleton's point.
Rather, Eagleton's point is that Dawkins' failure (or inability) to address the complexities of theological thought makes him a less than effective critic of religion, unworthy of the fame and attention bestowed on him. posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:07 AM on October 25, 2006
I was under the impression that Eagleton is a Marxist atheist professor of literature. Was I wrong? posted by brownpau at 7:12 AM on October 25, 2006
clevershark: I don't think the quoted comment says what you assume it says. "Their reading" is there for a reason.
KJS: Yes, you could see that point in there. But as delmoi says: "What value is there in analyzing the detailed, intricate philosophical system built entirely on false premises?" posted by bonaldi at 7:14 AM on October 25, 2006
"This is perhaps one of the areas on which Bertrand Russell (and before him, Huxley) was wiser than Dawkins is. Rather than trying to disprove all the the permutations, Russell just made a strong argument for doubt rather than faith as a reasonable default position. Russell also was able to do it in a way that was well-written, witty and funny, features that are painful in Dawkins' writing."
CHRIST YES!
While I'm not a Bertrand Russell fanboy, the virulent polemics against religion that so engorge the atheist public here on MeFi come across as the bleatings of a man dumped by God after a particularly ugly relationship, not the rational examination and rejection of God and faith of a thinker. Dawkins is to theology what that "Women are teh dumbxor" thread was to relationship advice.
And that the criticism of this review tends toward the snarky and glib reinforces my view that people like Matteo et al. just don't have any opinions on the matter worth listening to.
Oh, and something that seems to be missed is that the truly fundamentalist and active evangelicals are simply the loudest minority. As I assume that the atheist grackles here are as well (since I know many atheists, and most of them aren't assholes when it comes to faith. Perhaps it's something about the internet that emboldens them). posted by klangklangston at 7:15 AM on October 25, 2006
I honestly don't think Dawkins is going to win any converts (sorry for the turn of phrase) with this book. If he thinks he will, he's a long way from understanding why some people are religious. They don't just give up their faith because someone tried to be rational about it in a book.
I also don't see why he needs to attack religion in order to "save the world". Once again, he doesn't seem to have the fundamentals of his argument down pat. Religion isn't the start of the problem, it's a step along the way. Religion exists because of liars, tricksters, and power-hungry charlatans. Religion exists because bored, rebellious need a cause to fight and die for. Religion exists because it returns good profits. Religion exists because it offers a useful explanation as to why we need to go kill the people over the ocean. Religion exists because it gives certain people control, wealth, power, respect. Religion exists because it can be a cold, scary world out there, and it makes a comfy security blanket.
Start from the beginning, and work your way up to religion as an unfortunate emergent property of human nature.
"and by the way, from the megachurches of the USA to the megadioceses of Central and South America -- not to mention those America-loving mosques all around the world religion is indeed getting more radicalized. the quiet progressive Catholics or, say, Episcopalians around here might be well advised to consider the fact that their brand of religion is increasingly irrelevant and will probably have vanished in less than a century. if radical Islam scares you, well, Christianity circa 2100 CE will probably look exactly like that"
Oh, bullshit, Matteo. The reality is more complex than your Znet-fueled screeds. posted by klangklangston at 7:19 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
"but keep blaming the messenger for the bad news -- maybe religion will indeed help the cause of reason, equal rights, and peace.
as it always has."
What, the implication is that it never has? posted by klangklangston at 7:22 AM on October 25, 2006
Only fundamentalists (or scientists and/or philosophers setting up a strawman) would assert that God is a possible object of rational, empirical investigation.
Is that the theological version of "I'm rubber and you're glue?"
Seriously, that line is the perfect illustration of "begging the question" in the traditional sense.
If you accept that there are things that cannot be rationally investigated, then you have already conceded the argument to the superstitionalists. posted by bashos_frog at 7:26 AM on October 25, 2006
KirkJobSluder: : He doesn't know what the heck he's arguing against. Most of the times he's just waving at a vague target, and when he does argue in specifics, it's almost always a straw man.
The first chapter of "The God Delusion" specifically addresses what type of 'god' Dawkins is discussing: a personal god. As seen by your comment, you are doing exactly what you deride Dawkins of.
languagehat: Sigh. Sensible, literate person dismantles ignorant book; passionate defenders of ignorant author leap in to defend ignorance. "We don't have to know nothin' 'bout no religion 'cause we know it's STOOPID!" Right, kiddies, sleep tight, atheism will protect you from all the bad things.
It's sad that you equate criticism of religion with being ignorant. Religion deserves no special protection from being criticized. posted by jsonic at 7:29 AM on October 25, 2006
Oh look, evangelical atheists engaged in a spirited, intelligent, and edifying debate with evangelical Christians.
This is clearly the Best Of The Web. Just like freerepublic.com. Or an Ann Coulter column. posted by dw at 7:29 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
The reality is more complex than your Znet-fueled screeds.
tell that to President Jim Wallis, who as we all know soundly defeated twice George W Bush -- progressive Christianity rules, I tell you.
and I guess all those madrassas are full of closet Voltaire readers -- good luck with that
Znet-fueled
don't project your bad taste on other people, really posted by matteo at 7:35 AM on October 25, 2006
(and Cardinal Martini totally got elected Pope defeating Cardinal Ratzinger, of course -- those liberals totally rule religion) posted by matteo at 7:37 AM on October 25, 2006
Take it this way then:
Does this book stand any chance of convincing religious people that they aren't rational?
No. So Dawkins is failing to inform anyone who doesn't already agree with him.
Is there any argument, any rational argument, that could convince a religious person that they, and their religion, aren't rational?
No. So maybe the point of the book is to inform those that aren't irrational about how religion is, and will continue to be, a problem for rational problem solvers. Did he do this?
Sounds like he did. posted by ewkpates at 7:41 AM on October 25, 2006
"Is there any argument, any rational argument, that could convince a religious person that they, and their religion, aren't rational?"
Not only do many religious people recognize that faith isn't rational, the book you're looking for is Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard. posted by klangklangston at 7:52 AM on October 25, 2006
Rather, Eagleton's point is that Dawkins' failure (or inability) to address the complexities of theological thought makes him a less than effective critic of religion, unworthy of the fame and attention bestowed on him.
This is the interesting thing about this whole story. Dawkins has taken up atheism as a cause, and he's received the fame and attention because he's a leading scientific mind embracing the casue of atheism. In other words, he's turning atheism into a positive thing (not positive meaning good, but positive meaning it a characteristic in an of itself, rather than merely being the lack of some other charateristic).
The problem that Dawkins and activist atheists have is that to the neutral observer, causes and religions are the same. They have their leading lights who espouse some idea, and they have followers who adopt it without much criticism or individual modification.
The arguments here about Dawkings not really understanding theology seem to me to be more about Dawkins complete lack of an alternative idea for those things that religion is really about - that which is not physical. All of you saying thinks like "Faith on the other hand is by definition an attempt to convince oneself in the absence of evidence, or contrary to the evidence" or echoes thereof are completely missing the point.
Faith is not about knowing or convincing. If I know something, I know it, the knowledge becomes something I no longer have to pursue. If I'm convinced of something, I have accepted something, and no longer need to debate or struggle with it. Once convinced, the debate ends, and again, you have achieved this steady state perspective on something.
What these philosophers and thoeologians are talking about is as much a criticism of christianity as practiced as it is an attempt to argue for God. I will get to Dawkins focus on Christian monotheism to the exclusion of other religions in a minute.
These guys were all saying that you are not allowed to achieve the steady-state stable mindset about God. Humans are incapable of knowing or understanding God, so stop trying to know God the way you know electricity or mechanics. If you think you know god, or you are convinced of him, you are wrong. It doesn't matter if every single christian living thinks this way, they are all wrong (according to theologians discussed here). You have to purse the question of God your whole life, and pursue the meaning of your life and the meaning of your non-life after you die for the entire course of your life. Paul Tillich is good here. Not the meaning of your life in the sense of what you have accomplished, but the meaning in the sense that at the moment of the heat death of the universe, what will your life mean in the face of that? What is existence in the face of non-existence?
Religion as truly practiced</em (you practice it because you can always get closer but never achieve full understanding, see also law, medicine) is pursuing a mystery that you know is unknowable to you but you pursue it anyway. Science has no analog to this. It's just a different intellectual discipline.
On the subject of Dawkins and Christianity's easy targets: Yes, we know that people who on one hand think the world was created 6000 years ago by a guy with a beard are stupid, that people who believe in aliens are stupid, and that people who need to accept God to stop drinking a fifth of gin every night are weak. We get it. I don't disagree. I disagree that they are somehow dangerous to society as Dawkins suggests, because stupid and weak people have been around forever and socisty has improved considerably, and furthermore stupid and weak people are easily led, so you just need a leader.
What is fascianting about Dawkins is his refusal to acknowledge the similarities between real christianity, buddhism, hinduisim and prechristian religions. For some reason, every culture on earth seems to have felt the need to ask big questions and to pursue the knowledge of god, independently of the shape their particular culture took. Secular, non secular, oppressive, open, etc. those things change the details, but not the fact that there's a pursuit of the mystery everywhere.
Dawkins instead is really arguing that faith is bad for scientists and making future scientists. I agree. But faith is great for artists and musicians, and it is great and very useful for putting science into context.
Let me put it another way: When (if) the universe ends, science will become an irrelevant fiction. There will be no way to prove how it once was that would make science relevant as a way of understanding the history of the universe, and there will be no present or future for science to enlighted. At the end of time and space, there is nothing left. The question is: Is something there? Something outside?
You can say no, absolutely nothing is there, there is no there there, no God, etc, but you can not prove it. It is scientifically and philosophically impossible to prove this.
You can say yes, there is something, an I-don't-know-what permeating the void. You cannot prove this either.
All you have left then, is the meaning. What does the first possibility mean? What does the second mean? Pursue the meaning. posted by Pastabagel at 7:55 AM on October 25, 2006 [2 favorites]
Is there any argument, any rational argument, that could convince a religious person that they, and their religion, aren't rational?
Is there any rational argument that could convince Dawkins that his views about religion aren't rational?
See, Dawkins and the fundie atheists that like his anti-religion screeds define "rational" to mean "not religious". Then they can accuse their interlocuters of being irrational and thus disqualify them from discussion.
But being rational just means being able to think critically and process information and make persuasive arguments founded on sound logic. Logic requires a priori premises to properly function, and two completely rational people can disagree because they hold different a priori foundations for their paradigms.
And, as someone noted above, Bertrand Russell's arguments are better-written, wittier, and more persuasive than Dawkins. Reading Dawkins made me understand evolution and like biology, but it never affected my faith. Reading Russell, on the other hand, was challenging and forced me to seriously rethink a lot of positions I had uncritically held. Seriously: skip Dawkins and read "Why I Am Not A Christian." posted by eustacescrubb at 7:55 AM on October 25, 2006
It's sad that you equate criticism of religion with being ignorant.
No, I equate ignorant criticism of religion with being ignorant. Dawkins knows nothing about religion except that it involves believing in things he finds ridiculous, and he doesn't care to know more. Which is fine, nobody is required to know about everything, but he should STFU about it instead of presenting himself as an expert. posted by languagehat at 7:56 AM on October 25, 2006
Arg. Sorry about the italics again. Only practice should be italicized. Ugh and arg. posted by Pastabagel at 7:56 AM on October 25, 2006
Seriously: skip Dawkins and read "Why I Am Not A Christian."
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:55 AM EST on October 25
Does Russell exmplain why you shouldn't be anything else either, or is the argument unique to Christianity (genuinely curious here, I haven't read it). posted by Pastabagel at 7:58 AM on October 25, 2006
jonsic: The first chapter of "The God Delusion" specifically addresses what type of 'god' Dawkins is discussing: a personal god. As seen by your comment, you are doing exactly what you deride Dawkins of.
And my post specifically says that I'm talking about the copious volume of materials that Dawkins has published on the subject in humanist and freethought journals. If he does finally address the type of god he is discussing, it might be worth checking out because it might be one of the few times he has actually done so.
It's sad that you equate criticism of religion with being ignorant. Religion deserves no special protection from being criticized.
Critiques of religion deserve no special protection either. I don't see anyone arguing that religion diserves special protection, only that Dawkins' is less than an effective critic of religion.
ewkpates: No. So maybe the point of the book is to inform those that aren't irrational about how religion is, and will continue to be, a problem for rational problem solvers. Did he do this?No. So maybe the point of the book is to inform those that aren't irrational about how religion is, and will continue to be, a problem for rational problem solvers. Did he do this?
Well... I see a real risk in the elevation of Dawkins on this subject because I don't really think that he understands what he critiques, either in terms of philosophy, sociology, or psychology.
Just in terms of philosophy, there is a broad scope of opinion as to what constitutes rationality, and what doesn't. posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:02 AM on October 25, 2006
Pleeker, damn ... too much time on your hands, perhaps?
Damn, grabbingsand, that hurt!
Look, if I really had much time on my hands, I could get all serious and boring and explain all the things about that article that really really bother me, and they bother me not because I am a Dawkins worshipper or a militant atheist which I'm not but because what I read in there carries an echo of all the 'if you feel this religion is a tad too oppressive, it's your fault for not grasping its message of Love' that I had to hear as a girl, all along with 'you can't do this and that and that's it'.
And I wasn't even raised by fundamentalist nutters, go figure. Just ordinary decent people who simply had inherited a religious tradition and wanted to pass it on.
I don't resent that, I don't even resent all religion in principle, and I don't think being religious equals being stupid, and I don't really care what one believes personally, but we do have a problem at social and political level. In the whole world, it may take different local forms but there's some common trends and while I resist any apocalyptic view, it doesn't mean I'm not worried. Because we just don't know how to deal with it.
Why doesn't the review really address any of those issues? All Eagleton is doing here is 'hey don't get mad at me, I'm not one of the nutters you're talking about', which is great, fine, I believe him, good for him, but so what? Why does he think his own ideas of his own religion, or the sophisticated arguments of theologians he approves of, are more relevant than those very real problems our societies have to deal with?
Look, I don't think it's fair to lump in fundamentalists and religious 'moderates' in one big 'dangerous religious people/religion root of all evil' group, but if the best even progressives can do is get mad and go 'but I'm one of the good ones!', then well they just are doing the fundies a favour and I don't think it's very fair on everybody else either. (A favour that's already been abundantly exploited, by the way.) posted by pleeker at 8:08 AM on October 25, 2006
Many people have heard of Terry Eagleton, don't display your ignorance like that.
speaking of ignorance, have you read The God Delusion? Some of us have. please share the wisdom.
I was merely pointing out that just because someone hasn't heard of Terry Eagleton, doesn't mean that Eagleton is ipso facto unimportant or unfit to criticize Dawkins. I was responding to a post. Are you implying that the original poster was correct, that the more famous or wellknown a commentator is, the more accurate or correct their pronunciations are? Because more people know about god than Dawkins.
PS I have read The God Delusion, yet I still remain ignorant in many things. posted by Falconetti at 8:14 AM on October 25, 2006
languagehat: Dawkins knows nothing about religion except that it involves believing in things he finds ridiculous, and he doesn't care to know more.
Can you actually support this claim?
KirkJobSluder: I don't see anyone arguing that religion diserves special protection, only that Dawkins' is less than an effective critic of religion.
This seems to be the common approach to criticism of Dawkins: claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about, yet not provide any support for said claim. posted by jsonic at 8:19 AM on October 25, 2006
Pastabagel: This is the interesting thing about this whole story. Dawkins has taken up atheism as a cause, and he's received the fame and attention because he's a leading scientific mind embracing the casue of atheism. In other words, he's turning atheism into a positive thing (not positive meaning good, but positive meaning it a characteristic in an of itself, rather than merely being the lack of some other charateristic).
Well, that's one of the things I find so bloody frustrating about reading Dawkins on this issue, he tends to be a one-trick pony. You read a journal like The Humanist or Free Inquiry and you will see dozens of articles going beyond just, "religion is bad" and describing educational expeirments, personal reactions to death, the role of atheists in the military, debates about the death penality and foreign policy. You might see an analysis of various forms of agnosticism, or claims about transhumanism. Not so with Dawkins.
In terms of reading works by atheists, I'd rather read Vonnegut, Sagan, Sche
Subscribe
My name is Richard Dawkins, my book is a bestseller.
posted by matkline at 12:27 AM on October 25, 2006