Terry Eagleton vs. Richard Dawkins
Terry Eagleton was one such negative reviewer, and a later interview did reveal much which should have been admitted earlier:
Unlike most left-wingers, you have been a champion of religion.
I did attack Richard Dawkins’s book on God because I think he is theologically illiterate. I value my Catholic background very much. It taught me not to be afraid of rigorous thought, for one thing.
Where do you think all these neo-atheists like Dawkins are coming from?
I suppose it is a reaction to various ugly types of fundamentalism. I’m entirely with Dawkins in condemning redneck fascists from Texas to the Taliban. But the trouble with Dawkins is that he thinks that’s what religion is. ...
Have you read anything good lately?
I don’t actually read other peoples’ books. If I want to read a book, I write one myself. I have written more than 40 books.
Source: The New York Times
Terry Eagleton's negative review of Dawkins' book The God Delusion is often cited by Dawkins' critics, so it's important to understand exactly where Eagleton was coming from. Eagleton is open about "valuing" his Catholic background, but not about whether that colored his perception of Dawkins' arguments. Eagleton accuses Dawkins of being "theologically illiterate," but he doesn't demonstrate that he is any more "literate."
Indeed, part of his main argument against Dawkins was that he lacked theological training, but Eagelton isn't a trained theologian. First, why should only "experts" be given any credence when they express opinions on theological issues? Why should scientists or others be dismissed? Eagleton never explains these assumptions, he just uses them as if it were obvious — or perhaps as if they were too difficult to defend.
Second, isn't it begging the question in favor of religious theism to think that someone with theological training is an "expert" qualified to have a credible opinion? After all, if there are no gods, then theology itself is a field of inquiry with no object to study. Religious studies would of course remain a legitimate field because religion exists even if no gods do, but the status of theology would, at the very least, be subject to serious questions.
Finally, if people need theological training to express a credible opinion on religious matters, then doesn't Eagleton's lack of said training disqualify him from expressing a credible opinion on Dawkins' arguments? Eagleton is applying a significant and self-serving double-standard when he argues that Dawkins' lack of theological training discredits or even undermines his positions, but ignores his own lack of theological training when presuming to pass judgement on Dawkins' arguments.
Eagleton insists that it's wrong to conclude that fundamentalism is "what religion is," and it would be correct to note that religion encompasses more than just religious fundamentalism. It would be just as wrong, however, to insist that fundamentalism is not a legitimate and powerful aspect of religion — and that's just what Eagleton seems to be doing. Like so many other religious believers, Eagleton seems to be acting as though fundamentalism were "false" religion that can ignored when it comes to evaluating religion itself.
Moreover, Dawkins' criticisms are not limited solely to religious fundamentalism. Much of what he writes is applicable to things believed by large numbers of Christians and other theists. It is argued that his criticisms don't apply to "sophisticated" theology and religious beliefs, but people adopting this position don't manage to explain what their theological position is such that it isn't subject to Dawkins' critiques.
Finally, if Eagleton doesn't "actually read other peoples' books," has he read Dawkins'? Has he read it closely and carefully? Perhaps not, in which case his opinions about it can definitely be dismissed as uninformed and irrelevant. When you are a prominent book reviewer, it's probably a bad idea to state publicly that you don't read others' books.
Comments
Claiming to not read other author’s books is the height of arrogance. Can you imagine a film director refusing to watch someone else’s movies?
This guy obviously lives in his own little world and doesn’t give a crap about what other people think. Why should we care what he thinks?
Also, you don’t need to be an expert in Pastafarianism to know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is fake.
Hey,
I’m a Christian who is working on a series on Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” at my blog at:
http://michaelkrahn.wordpress.com/richard-dawkins/
Join me there for some discussion.
The god who made the Galaxies (as opposed to the god who made mankind) comes out looking rather like the Flying Spagety Monster, except more nebulus than noodly
The thing which amuses me most is his claim that his Catholicism taught him not to be afraid of rigorous thought. Rigorous thought within the Catholic church can only exist within boundaries. The Catholic church is authoritarian. Views come down from above. They do not go from below up theladder. I have heard priests and bishops reasoning out issues but in reality only repeating arguments as they come from the Vatican.
Clergy who really do engage in vigorous thought coming to conclusions opposed to official views are not well received.
A book reviewer, who doesn’t read books.
Wow, can I proclaim to be a prophet of god? And hand down words from on high?
Michael Krahn,
Since you are a Christian (and I assume not willing to give up your beliefs) then I believe we have nothing to discuss.
Chuck
Eagleton’s point was that Dawkins hadn’t done adequate research to understand the opposing position, which if true, could seriously undermine his arguments. He was NOT saying that one needs a degree in theology to speak about the subject. Also, it’s obvious that Eagleton has read many books. I can’t believe that anybody who read his review would seriously suggest that he hasn’t read the book. That’s pretty cheap. Finally, Eagleton suggests that to dismiss God and/or religion you have to overcome the strongest case for it. It is easy to attack fundamentalism, and so to argue against this one aspect of religion to damn the whole is probably disingenuous.
This is a hypocritical position unless one has done a similar amount of research in order to support the position.
So, he was lying?
Yes, he does, but he doesn’t say that in order to accept god/religion you must understand and accept the strongest case for it. This is why he is a hypocrite: he’s OK with people fervently believing based on weak and lousy arguments, but he objects when critics argue against those lousy arguments — critics are held to a higher standard.
Not necessarily. If you treat religion as a social phenomenon, it is entirely appropriate to address first and foremost the most popular manifestations of it. If you are going to be critical of sports in America, it’s reasonable to focus first and foremost on professional football, baseball, basketball, and hockey while generally ignoring events like curling.
Theology is a very old and well-developed system or “science.” Every possible angle of approaching the subject has been explored before, and as such, it has a very well-developed technical vocabulary. It is this tradition and VOCABULARY which Richard Dawkins does not know. Even though I have great respect for the man and the scientist, he sometimes thinks that his ideas about “religion” are new and revolutionary and of great impact, when they are not. His lack of scholarlship in Theology shows, just as if I were to talk historical science to him. Theological studies predate Plato, and have never ceased. Dawkins needs to study this, just to be part of the conversation.
What makes it a science?
Or perhaps it has become so insulated and self-referential that it takes an outsider to come along to point out that the “theos” of theology is non-existent, thus removing the entire foundation for the field.
If there is no good reason to believe in any theos, what reason is there to know more about the tradition and vocabulary of theology? What reason is there to know about the tradition and vocabulary of the study of something that does not exist?
What you are offering is known as the Courtier’s Reply. Were you aware of this term? If not, does this mean you don’t know enough of “the vocabulary” to be part of the conversation?
What is the ’strongest case for religion?’ And which of the multitude of religions are we to overcome the strongest case for in the first place? And what is the ’science’ of religion and how does it qualify as science in the first place? The ’science of religion’ as a phrase is but a contradiction in terms. I read the Christian bible. There are no proofs given, only commandments to believe it or else–like many other religions. Which religion should we overcome ‘rigorously’ in the first place? Everyone one knows his religion is the ‘only’ one! Just ask and ye shall be told it is so. It is hopeless to discuss religion since no agreement has ever or will ever be reached, which is why it can not be a science. It is no more provable than #13 or walking under ladders and other superstitions like astrology that are endlessly touted by all the same types of people who endlessly proclaim this and that belief without offering a shred of proof. People may believe something to be true but that does not make it a fact. A belief is at best an hypothesis.
That is why Eagleton and the dissenters above only criticize Dawkins for being ignorant but avoid any attempt to enjoin his argument. They can’t. And yet, it is up to them to supply the proof for their ‘beliefs.’ No amount of empty rhetoric aimed at atheists can construct their religious house of cards. That is the burden of the believers, not the unbelievers, who have done their work, if necessary, already. I for one am not holding my breath!
dci
Ref: Johnny eh’s comments.
Professor Eagleton’s claim to not read others’ books is clearly tongue in cheek. A heightened sense of reason shouldn’t lead to a dulled sense of humour Johnny!
Not walking under ladders is NOT a superstition! If there is a ladder up against a wall it’s very likely that there is somebody at the top of it with tools in his hand. He, or she, may inadvertantly drop them. If you’re underneath at the time, hard luck!
Walking under ladders won’t give you bad luck, but it might give you a headache if you already have bad luck!
“This is a hypocritical position unless one has done a similar amount of research in order to support the position.”
Sure, but you’ve only deferred the “if” to Eagleton in a tu quoque. If he hasn’t read his fair share of theology, then he’s being hypocritical. Regardless, this doesn’t mean that Dawkins would thereby be justified in writing about something he hasn’t read a good deal about, if that’s really what he’s done.
“So, he was lying?”
He was joking. He’s a literary critic. He has to read other people’s books. That’s how he manages to cite, discuss, and criticize them in the first place.
“Yes, he does, but he doesn’t say that in order to accept god/religion you must understand and accept the strongest case for it. This is why he is a hypocrite: he’s OK with people fervently believing based on weak and lousy arguments, but he objects when critics argue against those lousy arguments — critics are held to a higher standard.”
Since when does he have to say that? Since you decided to make him say it, even tho he never said it? Just because he’s criticizing Dawkins doesn’t mean that he isn’t critical of Dawkins’ opposite. Eagleton is critical of fundamentalism and he’s addressed it before in books like “After Theory” and “Holy Terror.” The latter I haven’t read, but it apparently builds on the former’s ideas, focusing on terrorism throughout history – probably religious terror in large part. From its description he draws on a good deal of theological literature too, cause, you know, he has read a fair amount of the stuff.
“Not necessarily. If you treat religion as a social phenomenon, it is entirely appropriate to address first and foremost the most popular manifestations of it. If you are going to be critical of sports in America, it’s reasonable to focus first and foremost on professional football, baseball, basketball, and hockey while generally ignoring events like curling.”
But is there any significant distinction between these sports based on legitimacy? A baseball fan versus a curling fan isn’t a strong analogy to a thoughtless fundamentalist versus a thoughtful theologian. Still, I agree that fundamentalist and various forms of widespread religious idiocy deserve their comeuppance, but Eagleton’s point – that to refute theology in toto one has to take into account its best arguments – remains.
The argument that one needs to read a lot about theology to criticize religion and theism is invalid; the fact that believers don’t feel any need to do the same in order to defend religion and theism merely reveals that they don’t believe it either.
It’s necessary to be consistent. It’s hypocritical to insist that critics be able to reject the supposedly “strongest” cases for religious theism in order to be justified, but OK for believers to believe — or even understand — because of the “strongest” case.
It’s begging the question to presume that fundamentalists are “thoughtless.” The question isn’t how “thoughtful” they are, but how good their reasons for believing are. Eagleton’s premise is that the theologians’ reasons are oh-so-much better’ one of Dawkins’ responses is that he’s addressing religion as a mass social phenomenon and thus it’s entirely appropriate to address the reasons for belief used by the masses in society.
Is there any point at which Dawkins says “I’m going to refute theology in toto”?
The argument that one needs to read a lot about theology to criticize religion and theism is invalid; the fact that believers don’t feel any need to do the same in order to defend religion and theism merely reveals that they don’t believe it either
Clearly no one has said that he can’t criticize religion and theism without reference to theology. They extend well beyond it. However, if his aim is the complete discrediting of religion, and Dawkins isn’t coy about this, then it’s disingenuous for him to ignore theology and the vast literature of intelligent, carefully argued religious utterances. And it’s patently absurd to suggest that he shouldn’t have to read or address them because plenty of vulgar believers don’t. If he wants his argument to extend beyond believers of this type, which he obviously does in his blanket condemnations of religion, then he’s obligated to.
It’s necessary to be consistent. It’s hypocritical to insist that critics be able to reject the supposedly “strongest” cases for religious theism in order to be justified, but OK for believers to believe — or even understand — because of the “strongest” case.
Since when would he be crazy for allowing people to belive based on the strongest arguments? He’s saying that Dawkins hasn’t bothered with plenty of strong currents in religious thought. Whether believers are justified in believing in them or not is an open question, which remains open because Dawkins, according to Eagleton, has ignored them.
And anyhow, you seem to have taken a different tack. You suggested, to the contrary, that because he didn’t say that believers had to believe the strongest case in order to be justified, that he thus allowed for its opposite, which was simply baseless. You then said he’s hypocritical for allowing people to believe based on “weak and lousy” arguments, and disallowing Dawkins from criticizing their “weak and lousy” arguments. But where does Eagleton do this? Saying “since when does he have to say this” means, plainly enough, “he doesn’t, and he hasn’t.”
It’s begging the question to presume that fundamentalists are “thoughtless.” The question isn’t how “thoughtful” they are, but how good their reasons for believing are. Eagleton’s premise is that the theologians’ reasons are oh-so-much better’ one of Dawkins’ responses is that he’s addressing religion as a mass social phenomenon and thus it’s entirely appropriate to address the reasons for belief used by the masses in society.
I said “thoughtless fundamentalists” in reference to “thoughtless fundamentalists,” not “fundamentalists” plain and simple. Same for “thoughtful theologians.” They’re restrictions used for the precise purpose of avoiding generalizations.
Dawkins is justified in criticizing religion as a mass movement, and he has plenty of worthwhile criticisms; but when his polemic extends to UNrestricted condemnations of religion, his justification gets wobbly.
Is there any point at which Dawkins says “I’m going to refute theology in toto”?
So Dawkins doesn’t want to refute the intellectual and justificatory foundations of religion? He’s not trying to promote religion’s extinction? Let’s not beat around the bush, he’s clear in these matters. Are these not his words:
“What has ‘theology’ ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has ‘theology’ ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. [...] The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes you think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?” (Free Inquiry, Volume 18, No. 2, Spring 1998)
Well, don’t be coy yourself: please quote him where he’s said this.
It’s not absurd if your target is the religion of most believers.
I didn’t say that. The problem is that he doesn’t mind believers embracing religion for the weakest arguments, but non-believers must reject religion only if they can tackle the strongest arguments. That’s hypocritical.
I don’t think it’s baseless. Given the context, if he thought that believers were equally wrong for believing on the basis for the arguments which Dawkins is targeting, he should have said so. There are for more people believing due to those arguments than there are people criticizing those arguments, so if there is a problem it si mostly with the former.
Yes, there are. First, the words don’t express the goal you claim. A person saying “I see nothing useful in theology” isn’t also saying “I’m going to construct a detailed argument refuting theology in toto.” On the contrary, if theology is really that vacuous there would seem to be little reason to bother. I’ll bet he would say the exact same thing about astrology without also intended to spend a lot of time refuting it. Second, what’s incorrect about those words? They are valid questions. If you think theology has ever been any use or said anything true (but not obvious), feel free to point it out.
Thanks for cleaining that up.
CLINE – Well, don’t be coy yourself: please quote him where he’s said this.
I don’t see why you’re so intent on arguing that Dawkins isn’t opposed to religion as such: “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” These unqualified criticisms of religion aren’t rare for him. Even a fellow atheist like Daniel Dennett distinguishes between himself and Dawkins based upon this issue: Dawkins looks hopefully towards the extinction of religion, while Dennett is skeptical.
CLINE – It’s not absurd if your target is the religion of most believers.
Then why the unqualified references to religion?
CLINE – I didn’t say that. The problem is that he doesn’t mind believers embracing religion for the weakest arguments, but non-believers must reject religion only if they can tackle the strongest arguments. That’s hypocritical.
The problem, long addressed, is that you have no basis for saying this. Where does he say it? As you state it, you consider it a statement by omission, which amounts to little more than fallaciously putting words in his mouth.
CLINE – I don’t think it’s baseless. Given the context, if he thought that believers were equally wrong for believing on the basis for the arguments which Dawkins is targeting, he should have said so.
Since when? Since people will ascribe beliefs to him that he never subcribed to himself, whether directly or by suggestion? It’s simple as this: he didn’t say that, nor did he suggest it. Indeed, he voiced a common bond with Dawkins on the question of fundamentalism – a modern beacon of religious weaknesses, if you will – which he’s addressed and criticized on numerous occasions. He didn’t say that he deplores religious bigotry either, but that doesn’t mean he thereby condones it.
CLINE – There are for more people believing due to those arguments than there are people criticizing those arguments, so if there is a problem it si mostly with the former. I don’t think it’s baseless. Given the context, if he thought that believers were equally wrong for believing on the basis for the arguments which Dawkins is targeting, he should have said so. There are for more people believing due to those arguments than there are people criticizing those arguments, so if there is a problem it si mostly with the former.
Obviously both parties in a dispute can have their faults. Criticizing one side doesn’t automatically put you in favor of the other.
CLINE – Yes, there are. First, the words don’t express the goal you claim. A person saying “I see nothing useful in theology” isn’t also saying “I’m going to construct a detailed argument refuting theology in toto.”
Clearly he said more than that. He said that his sum total view of theology was as being useless when not outright erroneous, which is nothing less than a refutative statement.
CLINE – On the contrary, if theology is really that vacuous there would seem to be little reason to bother. I’ll bet he would say the exact same thing about astrology without also intended to spend a lot of time refuting it.
Funny thing is, he isn’t writing numerous tomes criticizing astrological beliefs. As for the theological brand – particularly in its popular forms, tho quite often not acknowledged as such – that’s a different story.
CLINE – Second, what’s incorrect about those words? They are valid questions. If you think theology has ever been any use or said anything true (but not obvious), feel free to point it out.
The claim isn’t that he’s wrong; it’s that he hasn’t sufficiently addressed the theological tradition, which you’ve basically admitted from the start in your excuse that it’s irrelevant. They’re valid questions, surely, but just questions, not fleshed-out arguments on the subject, which is basically what Eagleton was asking for – no less valid, considering the broadness of Dawkins’ statements.
Being against religion isn’t the same as adopting the specific goal of discrediting religion in toto.
Pehaps because, in context, they aren’t unqualified. In The God Delusion, he makes it clear early on what sort of religion he is talking about and then doesn’t continually qualify it for the rest of the book.
As I state it, it should have been included if he believed it — the unqualified criticism of atheists criticizing the weakest arguments should not have been made without noting that believers shouldn’t be believing for those weak arguments anyway.
No, he didn’t say that. He asked when it wasn’t either and said that he’s never seen a theologian saying either. His words aren’t a refutative statement
He isn’t writing numerous tomes criticizing theology, either. He hasn’t written even one.
No, Eagleton was attacking Dawkins and claiming that Dawkins’ entire position was undermined by the fact that he didn’t engage in fleshed-out arguments against whatever Eagleton personally thinks are the strongest theological arguments in whichever religious tradition. What Eagleton and you do not do, however, is give a good reason why Dawkins should do this given his actual stated goals.
It’s worth noting that for all the quotes you have offered of Dawkins, none have expressed an actual goal, aim, or plan. Why is that? Aren’t you just imputing a plan to him on the basis of… well, nothing much? You’re ultimately begging the question over and over: he’s critical of religion, therefore his goal is to refute all of theology… but that’s the argument you are supposed to be supporting in the first place.
CLINE – Being against religion isn’t the same as adopting the specific goal of discrediting religion in toto.
When he’s aiming for the extinction of religion, and he attacks it so broadly, it’s safe to call it “in toto.” That’s why he doesn’t say, “Religion is essentially erroneous and harmful, but that doesn’t mean I’m attacking it in toto.” He’s not afraid to admit that he’s attacking religion qua religion.
CLINE – Pehaps because, in context, they aren’t unqualified. In The God Delusion, he makes it clear early on what sort of religion he is talking about and then doesn’t continually qualify it for the rest of the book.
Where? And does this carry over to Dawkins’ numerous other statements that target religion generically? Quite the contrary, I think his muscled universals are purposefully thus, not castrated particulars in disguise. He’s not pulling his punches.
CLINE – As I state it, it should have been included if he believed it — the unqualified criticism of atheists criticizing the weakest arguments should not have been made without noting that believers shouldn’t be believing for those weak arguments anyway.
The unqualified criticism of atheists criticizing the weakest argument? Where? You must’ve missed the whole part where he particularlized Dawkins’ arguments by class, geography, politics, and philosophy – historicizing him, in effect. He doesn’t have a bone to pick with atheists:
“Now it may well be that all this is no more plausible than the tooth fairy. Most reasoning people these days will see excellent grounds to reject it.”
He has a bone to pick with Dawkins, and only then on particular faults, not the entirety of his pursuit. Take Eagleton’s last paragraph as a case in point:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
CLINE – No, he didn’t say that. He asked when it wasn’t either and said that he’s never seen a theologian saying either. His words aren’t a refutative statement.
So because he based them in the form of question, regardless of their obviously rhetorical character, you honestly don’t think he was gainsaying anything? These questions, like the one I just asked you and like many I’ve been asking you, aren’t intended as any less refutative because of their question marks. Thus their admixture with declaratives:
“What has ‘theology’ ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has ‘theology’ ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. […] The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes you think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?”
CLINE – He isn’t writing numerous tomes criticizing theology, either. He hasn’t written even one.
Theology at its simplest is argumentation about the nature of god and religion, so clearly he’s attempting to discredit this in particular vis-a-vis pop-theology, and in general vis-a-vis god and religion.
CLINE – No, Eagleton was attacking Dawkins and claiming that Dawkins’ entire position was undermined by the fact that he didn’t engage in fleshed-out arguments against whatever Eagleton personally thinks are the strongest theological arguments in whichever religious tradition.
Again, you could at the very least read the final paragraph. Eagleton isn’t agaist Dawkins’ entire position. He agrees with him on several fronts.
CLINE – What Eagleton and you do not do, however, is give a good reason why Dawkins should do this given his actual stated goals.
Stated goals still unquoted, even after they’ve been repeatedly requested. I’m the only one who’s offered any substatiation here.
CLINE – It’s worth noting that for all the quotes you have offered of Dawkins, none have expressed an actual goal, aim, or plan. Why is that? Aren’t you just imputing a plan to him on the basis of… well, nothing much? You’re ultimately begging the question over and over: he’s critical of religion, therefore his goal is to refute all of theology… but that’s the argument you are supposed to be supporting in the first place.
For whatever reason, you don’t see blanket dismissals and repudiations of theology and religion – whether labeled useless, erroneous, essentially fallacious, or viruslike – as implying any global aim towards these subjects whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form. Neither are you convinced when his compatriot Daniel Dennett likewise takes Dawkins for accepting the hypothetical extinction of religion as a good thing. Least of all would Dawkins arguing ‘yea’ in a live debate entitled “Would we be better off without religion?” convince you. By now your incredulity seems motivated more by an attempt to salvage a weak point than by a desire to see his intentions for what they are. Dawkins is philosophically anti-religion. It could be much worse. Moreover, some people feel that some of his arguments – as stated, and despite their various postives – are at once overly broad and reductive. This could also be much worse.
And in case you hadn’t heard of it:
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=2768
Are you saying you have quotes showing him saying that his arguments are aiming at ending religion entirely? Yes, he’d like to see religion disappear, but you don’t offer any reason why “I’d like to see religion disappear” is something that would require addressing “the best arguments Christian theology has to offer.”
I don’t have a copy with me at the moment, but it’s quite early on and stated unequivocally. Are you saying here that you haven’t even read it? Yes, I would say that it carries over to his other statements about religion because he’s making the same arguments inside and outside the book.
No — anyone who thinks that he has missed something is invited to show what, where, and how. I notice you haven’t, for example, and so long as anyone can’t it suggests that he’s correct.
Non sequitur. I didn’t say that Eagleton is against Dawkins’ entire position, I said that Eagleton argued that Dawkins’ entire position is undermined. I can agree with you while also thinking that you’re doing something to undermine yourself.
What, you’re admitting that you don’t know Dawkins’ goals? Thank you. Since you don’t know them, you can’t say whether the absence of dealing with mountains of theology is relevant or not. This completely undermines your entire argument — in toto. Please come back when you have an actual stated goal which you can connect to needing to read, address, and refute “the best arguments Christian theology has to offer.” If you can’t, then you simply have no legitimate criticism to offer.
CLINE – Are you saying you have quotes showing him saying that his arguments are aiming at ending religion entirely?Yes, he’d like to see religion disappear, but you don’t offer any reason why “I’d like to see religion disappear” is something that would require addressing “the best arguments Christian theology has to offer.”
Depicting religion as essentially a virus and arguing explicitly in debate that the world would be better off without it doesn’t imply a radically ambiguous purpose. What’s more, it does require a more comprehensive treatment of religion (not simply Christian), which naturally includes the best arguments it has to offer.
CLINE – I don’t have a copy with me at the moment, but it’s quite early on and stated unequivocally. Are you saying here that you haven’t even read it? Yes, I would say that it carries over to his other statements about religion because he’s making the same arguments inside and outside the book.
So what? I’m supposed to take this as your word against Eagleton’s? Quote something already or stop blathering. I’ve provided instances of Dawkins’ unambiguous dismissal of religion as such, and all you’ve managed to say is that somewhere, at some unreferenced portion of this one book, which you haven’t bothered to cite, he assures his readers that by “religion” he doesn’t mean religion as such, because not all of religion is subject to his criticisms, but rather the least justified, popular instances of religion. If it’s there, I don’t see why you didn’t bother to cite this to begin with.
As for The God Delusion, I haven’t read that one, but I’ve read Dawkins before, and I’ve listened to him in interviews and debates numerous times. He’s not an easy guy to miss.
CLINE – No — anyone who thinks that he has missed something is invited to show what, where, and how. I notice you haven’t, for example, and so long as anyone can’t it suggests that he’s correct.
No, huh? Well that settles that. It’s doubly settled seeing as you’re taking them as rhetorical questions, anyway, by treating them as declarative refutations in need of counterrefutation – fallaciously assuming that, since you, yourself, haven’t seen such a counterrefutation, that his claim is thereby validated. Arguments from ignorance don’t become you, sir.
CLINE – Non sequitur. I didn’t say that Eagleton is against Dawkins’ entire position, I said that Eagleton argued that Dawkins’ entire position is undermined. I can agree with you while also thinking that you’re doing something to undermine yourself.
No cigar. A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. You’re trying to argue that my premise is wrong. Unfortunately, this is itself based on a specious premise. You think there’s a big enough difference between being against his entire position and claiming that his entire position is undermined, that using one for the other completely changes the meaning. No, which is why I can say, “Eagleton doesn’t think that Dawkins’ entire position is undermined. He agrees with this position on several fronts. Thus, the entire position isn’t undermined, just the parts that veer into overly reductive generalization.” Again, see his final paragraph.
CLINE – What, you’re admitting that you don’t know Dawkins’ goals? Thank you. Since you don’t know them, you can’t say whether the absence of dealing with mountains of theology is relevant or not.
I can’t say “nice try.” You made reference to Dawkins’ “actual stated goals,” and claimed that they’re different from the examples and summaries I’ve offered. Therefore I asked you to offer proof of these stated goals to contradict the evidence I’ve offered. Simple enough. Instead you lamely waffle and try to play it off as an admittance of ignorance. That’s poor showmanship.
CLINE – This completely undermines your entire argument — in toto.
But this doesn’t mean you disagree with my entire position, of course? Of course.
CLINE – Please come back when you have an actual stated goal which you can connect to needing to read, address, and refute “the best arguments Christian theology has to offer.” If you can’t, then you simply have no legitimate criticism to offer.
Funny enough, you completley snipped and ignored my entire last paragraph: you ignore that he openly considers religion an intellectual virus; you ignore that he’s obviously dismissing theology as useless and erroneous in the aforementioned quotation; you ignore that Daniel Dennett likewise acknowledges Dawkins’ aim of speeding up religion’s extinction; and you ignore when Dawkins votes in favor of the motion in a debate over the question, “Would we be better off without religion?” Yes, Dawkins intends to refute religion itself. That’s why he often uses the word, by itself, including generic terms like “faith,” instead of simply “fundamentalism” or “dogmatism”
or “fanaticism” or “religious extremism” by themselves. He’s not shy about this. Frankly, I like the guy, despite his faults. His forthrightness is one of his better qualities.
Depends upon what “religion” exactly he is targeting.
I may quote something when I have the book handy, but you don’t seem to understand that I was trying to help you. You’re the one advancing a position about what Dawkins’ goals are and to do so you should have some idea of how he defines his terms. I was telling you where you could find the information you need. I don’t need it, you do.
In the mean time, perhaps you should consider the fact that you really don’t know what Dawkins has said and, therefore, can’t justify your criticisms thus far.
Fortunately I haven’t offered an argument from ignorance; you have, however, misrepresented me. That becomes you quite well, given how you’ve criticized Dawkins without reading the primary document in question. I didn’t say that his questions need a “counterreufation,” but rather simply an answer from anyone who thinks he’s mistaken. Anyone who says “he’s wrong” can’t also simply not answer the questions he posed.
I don’t “think” this, it’s as plain as day.
CLINE – What, you’re admitting that you don’t know Dawkins’ goals? Thank you. Since you don’t know them, you can’t say whether the absence of dealing with mountains of theology is relevant or not.
No, I haven’t. I’ve asked you to cite them and explain how they require Dawkins doing what you and Eagleton allege he needs to have done.
Of course — they are independent issues.
And I’ll do it again, because your entire last paragraph fails to do what you need to do at a very bare, minimum level of intellectual honesty: cite Dawkins’ stated goal and explain how he hasn’t achieved that. You haven’t even read his principal book on the subject, so how could you possibly be aware of his goals and how he wants to go about them?
CLINE – Depends upon what “religion” exactly he is targeting.
So, depending on the religion he’s targeting, he’s allowed to make generic criticisms of it that significantly miss the mark of comprehensiveness.
CLINE – I may quote something when I have the book handy, but you don’t seem to understand that I was trying to help you. You’re the one advancing a position about what Dawkins’ goals are and to do so you should have some idea of how he defines his terms. I was telling you where you could find the information you need. I don’t need it, you do.
Your help is greatly appreciated, bumbling though it is. You don’t seem to understand that claiming that Dawkins explicitly limits his criticisms to weak, popular religious justifications, rather than religious justification itself, IS advancing a claim about his goals. I’ve offered proof of him making blanket dismissals of religion and theology. You claim, particularly of the former, that these have rigid restrictions in his philosophical outlook, basing your argument in evidence you haven’t bothered to cite, because you don’t have the book “handy.” Well, then why not put off responding til you do have the book handy and you’re ready to cite your evidence? And why ignore the criticism that he shouldn’t use the word in the first place if his target is so particularized? And why ignore the criticism that he doesn’t make such qualifications elsewhere?
CLINE – In the mean time, perhaps you should consider the fact that you really don’t know what Dawkins has said and, therefore, can’t justify your criticisms thus far.
Like I said, I’ve read Dawkins, heard him in debate and interviews, and quoted sections therefrom for your benefit. You’ve appealed to a ghostly qualification that you haven’t bothered to cite. In the portions of the book printed online (the selection from chapter 1, for example, printed on his website) he doesn’t make them. He refers to the religious and nonreligious generically, making his main distinction with respect to Einsteinian religiousness. He doesn’t make it in this quote from chapter 4, subtitled “How moderation in faith fosters fanaticism”: speaking of suicide bombers he says, “What is so hard for us to understand is that…these people actually believe what they say they believe. The take-home message is that WE SHOULD BLAME RELIGION ITSELF, NOT RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM—as though that were some kind of terrible perversion for real decent religion” (my emphasis). Plenty of reviews, from friend and foe, recognize his purposeful and all-too-obvious generalizations:
“The God Delusion is an extended diatribe against religion in general and belief in God in particular”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
“It is his conviction that faith has been the principal source of violence and suffering throughout history. The world, in his view, would be a lot better off without it.”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1085803.ece
“Dawkins demands the eradication of religion.”
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11
“He is an enemy of religion, wants to explain why, and hopes thereby to drive the beast to extinction.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775
“The God Delusion is a comprehensive, no-holds-barred attack on all forms of theistic religion.”
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1250
“Many reviewers of The God Delusion have noted, with varying degrees of dismay, that Dawkins gives little quarter to “liberal” theism, that is to say, the kind of undogmatic, diffident, and even dilute faith that finds it easy to coexist with atheism in a social context, that eschews high-pressure proselytizing, and that offers no objection to evolutionary biology or cosmology or to science in general. In that sense, Dawkins is indeed a hard-liner.”
[…]
“As I read the book, I found myself wincing at Dawkins’s references to religious people as ‘faith-heads,’ as being less intelligent, poor at reasoning, or even deluded, and to religious moderates as enablers of terrorism. I shudder because I have religious friends and colleagues who do not fit these descriptors, and I empathize at the pain such pejorative appellations cause them.”
http://www.screaming-penguin.com/node/6988
“but on one central issue we are not (yet) of one mind: Dawkins is quite sure that the world would be a better place if religion were hastened to extinction and I am still agnostic about that.”
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/dawkinsreview.pdf
CLINE – Fortunately I haven’t offered an argument from ignorance; you have, however, misrepresented me.
I would say speak for yourself, but you two don’t appear to be on speaking terms: “No — anyone who thinks that he has missed something is invited to show what, where, and how. I notice you haven’t, for example, and so long as anyone can’t it suggests that he’s correct.” Claiming that a lack of refutation suggests validity is a classic example of an argument from ignorance. What makes it worse is that you don’t seem to understand the context in which I’m quoting him – i.e. you ignore that I’m proving what he’s said (which you previously and unsuccessfully attempted to deny), not trying to disprove the content of what he’s said; thus you’re shifting the argument. Also, you ignore the subjectivity your claim. You simply assume that because you haven’t seen a refutation of this random claim he made once in “Free Inquiry” that, up until this point, no has been able to refute him, which to you suggests that he’s right. We could also most certainly cherry-pick specious claims from The Journal of Historical Review that no one’s ever tried to refute (or which, at least, you’ve never seen a refutation of) without it thereby being that much more valid.
CLINE – That becomes you quite well, given how you’ve criticized Dawkins without reading the primary document in question.
Frankly, I’m beginning to wonder if you have.
CLINE – I didn’t say that his questions need a “counterreufation,” but rather simply an answer from anyone who thinks he’s mistaken.
We don’t need more split hairs. An answer from one who thinks he’s mistaken would naturally involve a refutation.
CLINE – Anyone who says “he’s wrong” can’t also simply not answer the questions he posed.
Fetch your reading glasses, my boy. You missed this: “The claim isn’t that he’s wrong; it’s that he hasn’t sufficiently addressed the theological tradition, which you’ve basically admitted from the start in your excuse that it’s irrelevant. They’re valid questions, surely, but just questions, not fleshed-out arguments on the subject, which is basically what Eagleton was asking for – no less valid, considering the broadness of Dawkins’ statements.”
CLINE – I don’t “think” this, it’s as plain as day.
Cheers to waffling. Not only do you simply cut and ignore large portions of my argument. In response to my criticisms, you dogmatically assert the truth of your statements, sans substatiation, and expect that to stand in place of an honest argument.
CLINE – No, I haven’t. I’ve asked you to cite them and explain how they require Dawkins doing what you and Eagleton allege he needs to have done.
You did make reference to Dawkins’ “actual stated goals.” Thus the quotes; it’s your phrase. You also claimed that they’re different from the examples and the summaries I’ve offered: “Pehaps because, in context, they aren’t unqualified. In The God Delusion, he makes it clear early on what sort of religion he is talking about and then doesn’t continually qualify it for the rest of the book.” I ask where, and all you can manage is: “I don’t have a copy with me at the moment, but it’s quite early on and stated unequivocally.” But you haven’t bothered to quote them, merely hanging it over my head as a spectral, unreferenced refutation of the concrete examples I’ve given of Dakwins leveling essentializing attacks against religion.
CLINE – Of course — they are independent issues.
And yet your assertion that my argument is utterly undermined amounts to nothing else than utter disagreement with it. An odd coincidence that. Of course, you cut and ignored the revised assertion (basically a trade-off of synonyms), thus, no doubt haughtily, fleeing from refutation yet again. It’s joined the graveyard of your claims: Eagleton’s a hypocrite for not reading other people’s books, Eagleton’s a hypocrite for allowing people to base their belief on the weakest arguments, theology is irrelevant because plenty of vulgar religoius folk don’t read it, and so on and so forth.
CLINE – And I’ll do it again, because your entire last paragraph fails to do what you need to do at a very bare, minimum level of intellectual honesty: cite Dawkins’ stated goal and explain how he hasn’t achieved that. You haven’t even read his principal book on the subject, so how could you possibly be aware of his goals and how he wants to go about them?
Imperiously dismissing and ignoring something because you consider it a failure is a mark of a dishonest arguer. I, for example, consider a great deal of your responses irrelevant, but I don’t ignore these sections. I call them out for what they are, and I explain why, citing and responding to them directly, rather than vaguely or not at all. What of his claim that religion is a virus or his argument for the motion over the question of whether we’d be better off without religion? Did you even listen to the debate? Neither he nor the other participants made any the qualifications that you’re thrusting upon him for the purpose of this argument. They’re clear examples in practice of his unfettered dismissal of religion itself.
How ironic that your comment was marked by the system as spam — because that’s ultimately all it is. You obviously spent a lot of time hunting down other people’s opinions of Dawkins, but no time hunting down any primary source material. Since that’s the only thing that can provide substance to your argument, the extensive quoting of others’ opinions — all also appearing without direct quotes of primary material — is tantamount to an admission of having nothing to offer. Lots of words and links, but nothing of real substance.
Well, so long as the best you can manage is to waste time quoting others’ opinions, don’t expect anything more of a response than this. If you don’t care enough about your position to do any primary research on it, I’m not going to give it a second thought.
No time hunting down any primary source material whatsoever? Did you ride roughshod over the prior paragraph once you saw the fancy addresses? (That is, while hypocritically not hunting down any primary source material yourself.) You missed this:
“Like I said, I’ve read Dawkins, heard him in debate and interviews, and quoted sections therefrom for your benefit. You’ve appealed to a ghostly qualification that you haven’t bothered to cite. In the portions of the book printed online (the selection from chapter 1, for example, printed on his website) he doesn’t make them. He refers to the religious and nonreligious generically, making his main distinction with respect to Einsteinian religiousness. He doesn’t make it in this quote from chapter 4, subtitled ‘How moderation in faith fosters fanaticism’: speaking of suicide bombers he says, ‘What is so hard for us to understand is that…these people actually believe what they say they believe. The take-home message is that WE SHOULD BLAME RELIGION ITSELF, NOT RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM—as though that were some kind of terrible perversion for real decent religion’ (my emphasis).”
Spam indeed.
On the central point of the review, that Dawkins is theologically illiterate, Eagleton is indisputably correct. Whether that counts against Dawkins’s atheism is a separate issue. But Eagleton is reviewing a book, not Dawkins’s belief that God doesn’t exist. And insofar as the book reveals the author to be poorly informed about the theology and religion he criticizes, Eagleton is correct to take him to task. Dawkins doesn’t have to know anything about religion to be an atheist; he can arrive there however he likes. But it is embarassing for Dawkins that he speaks so freely about things he knows nothing about. A bit like a creationist pillorying the biological theory he so clearly doesn’t understand.
Feel free to show how this is the case — and please note that you would have to show that Dawkins is theologically illiterate of the religion he criticizes, not the religion you or others think he should have criticized. This basically means the religious and theological beliefs of the masses, not those beliefs of a few philosophers.
Mr Cline,
Which sort of religious belief are you suggesting that Prof. Dawkins IS attacking?
I agree with mixmaster. Prof. Dawkins IS theologically illiterate. I don’t think that theological literacy is necessary for his particular belief that God does not exist. But as someone who is relatively theologically literate, I think that he comes off sounding much like the anti-evolutionists who attack evolution because it says that “we come from monkeys” must sound to an evotionary biologist. How does one respond rationally to such obvious ignorance of the subject? Where does one begin? That’s how many of us who have done the hard work of theological education react to the theological illiteracy of Prof. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchins, et. al.
If I agreed with you–if Prof. Dawkins IS only engaging a very specific kind of religious belief (an obviously negative one) then I wonder why bother? Violent fundatmentalists aren’t going to be persuaded by his book(s).
And why not get clear that that’s his only enemy and join with those of us who DO believe in God, but are not irrational, and condemn this sort of religion?
Given the caricature of Christians that seems to dominate these days, it may be hard to believe this, but many Christians have a healthy respect for “protest atheism.” It helps us to look critically at ourselves and to work towards eliminating various idolatries.
It’d be nice if we could all be a little more self-critical and at the same time use a hermeneutic of charity regarding others.
Rob Rhodes
It’s not for me to “suggest” — he’s clear about this in his book. If you’ve read the book, then you know what his target is; if you don’t know what his target is, then you haven’t read the book and have no basis for your accusation.
Then you should be able to demonstrate how.
Creationists aren’t readily persuaded by books critiquing creationism, so therefore there’s no point in such books?
Maybe because he doesn’t agree with other sorts of religion either?
You’re right, it is hard to believe — because I have yet to see any evidence of it.
Jesus Christ is God made manifest.He is the Redeemer and Savior. And the Catholic Church legitimately is the prime carrier and teacher of those facts.
You can write about your atheism forever and it will still be wrong.
So Babel on. Semper Fi and carry on.
Frannie
Unsupported claims are worth less than the energy you used up to post them.
You sir are an imbecile, that worst kind in fact. The one with enough bought credentials to fancy yourself a thinker. And not only are you an imbecile, you are also a lair.
Eagleton’s critique of Dawkins, which is elaborated in full in the London Review of Books that you fail to provide a link to, is that he does not approach is subject matter with any seriousness. In his review (for those interested you can find it at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html), he insists that the problem with Dawkins is that he makes a feeble attack on religion by hitting the most obvious targets. Dawkins’ failure as a thinker is to fully investigate the not only the historical and cultural context of religion, but also previous critiques. Far superior thinkers have made stronger cases than Dawkins against religion. For instance, D’Holbach made the case 200 years ago that a society of atheists could be happy and content. Nietzsche made the definitive critique of religion and rendered it null in any sphere of serious argument. How does then, Dawkins’ mediocre opinions offer any further insight than what the last two hundred years of European philosophy have offered? This is what is really the problem with Dawkins. Furthermore, Eagleton who is an atheist and a Marxist by the way, raises a very valid point against Dawkins’ refusal to examine other equally pernicious dogmas such as global capitalism and neo-liberal ideology. Also, as any good student of history will tell you, religion is not the primary cause of the slaughters that have been committed on its name in the same way reason is not to be faulted by those committed in its behalf. Are you aware for example, that hundreds of frenchmen and women were excuted in Revolutionary France for holding religious beliefs incompatible with rational thought? are you aware that they were murdered in the most horrible ways? (including drowning in a river and being cannonballed to death.) Are you aware that the European imperial project of the 19th century was justified through rational thought? Have you ever heard of the theory of scientific racism that was used to justify the colonial enterprise? Dawkins is
irresponsible for attribution the cause of an event to what is in fact merely a manifestation of deeper undercurrents. What provokes fundamentalism, whether it be that
of rationalists or the pious, are social and economic conditions specific to a historic moment. In other words, what Eagleton argues is that there is more than a slight chance that the fundamentalism that Dawkins denounces is made possible by the conditions created by the inequity of globalization. It is understandable though, that a petty reactionary like Dawkins or you would be dead afraid to point the finger at the real cause of the problem. You sir, give us atheists a bad name.
A couple of things.
1) I’d like very much to think that Eagleton was joking about not having read the book he was reviewing. Given his dry wit, and the tone of the rest of the interview, I don’t think that’s much of a stretch. If he’s not, then for shame.
2) Eagleton is right, but he’s wrong. Dawkins obviously didn’t do the kind of research the critic would have preferred him to have done. And as somebody who thinks there’s something to be learned about ethics and morality from SOME theology, I’d probably liked him to have mentioned a couple of recondite thinkers as well. But illiterate? Let’s be clear, BeGob. Given the professed intent of Dawkins’ book, which he states very early on in page 42, it isn’t necessary at all. What he is addressing is the propositional attitude that allows us to believe in supernatural gods and to consider the absence of evidence not as an objection, but an argument for its veracity. A curious inversion indeed.
That most certainly does not cover all of religion, to say nothing of spirituality (which is even more nebulous a concept). For instance, is pantheism less religious simply because it need not involve any obviously bogus and unfalsifiable claims? Was Spinoza less of a Christian because he was a panthesist (keeping in mind that he thought of himself as one)? Is Nagarjuna deifying Nirvana, even though the concept of a supernatural deity is anathema to his Buddhist theology? (You can see what I mean about my penchant for esotericism…apologies to all) What of mysticism?
Good questions. WORTHY questions. NOT Dawkins’ questions.
The matter of whether or not there is or can be any justification for the belief in the existence of a supernatural agent/creator/god is actually pretty simple, and there is a recurring suite of arguments that even the “strongest cases” regularly employ to get that part out of the way so they can get down to the (admittedly interesting) theories about how their god arranges things. Dawkins interviews and debates theologians all the time, who presumably DO know about Aquinas on subjectivity, etc. One would think, then, that they would have brought these venerable figures up rather than trotting out the Cosmological Argument or faulting science for being an incremental process. In this context, I recommend the interview with Alister McGrath, which I believe can be found on richarddawkins.net and was originally part of the Root of All Evil documentary. Mr. Cline will correct me if I’m wrong.
That we jump to the conclusion that it is ALL religion he’s after should serve as an indication of how wedded to supernaturalism the Abrahamic religions are.
Dawkins, despite some of the more pyrotechnic reviews of his book, is not Nietzsche, and the God Delusion is not the Antichrist. on the contrary, he bends over backward not to approach his subject with the vitriol he knows beforehand that he will be accused of. Personally, as somebody who’s followed Dawkins with great interest since the Selfish Gene, I can’t really find the polemic jump into unfamiliar territory that people accuse him of. How dare a scientist write about religious belief! But is that so much of a leap, really? Who do you think Dawkins has had to explain evolution to more clearly than people who object to it on principle because it conflicts with the holy books? Read the Blind Watchmaker, and you will find many of the same arguments against the coherence of a deity, worded in language that is perhaps more genial.
3) Eagleton may well be right that there is greater philosophical sophistication to the belief in God than the supernatural, and that more of the laity than one expects may have it. But Dawkins is not tilting at straw men if he confines himself to supernaturalism as a cultural phenomenon, which, even if it makes first year theology students wince, is nevertheless all that many (and I once included myself among them) need to make the accept the sophisticated argumentation later on. We do need to look at the believers as much as the belief, and the Abrahamic religions at least have simply been around too long and are too pervasive to have lived by theology alone. If there is even one person who qualifies as a Dawkinsian believer (and I believe there are many, especially in America), then it is legitimate to question them about the basis of their belief.
4) Eagleton makes the point that Dawkins ignores the sociological, political, and economical contexts that direct conflicts overseas, even though they are couched in religious language. Reza Aslan actually made a similar objection to Sam Harris in a debate on CNN. I don’t know either way. So I’d be grateful to anybody who could direct me to some sources on Islam and Middle Eastern politics that would allow me to evaluate that claim.
I thank you for allowing me to post my opinion. I hope anyone who would like to discuss the review or the book, or anything really, will not hesitate to respond in a civil manner.
The central fallacy in Eagleton’s argument is evident in the first sentence of his review. There is no basis for comparing biology to theology. In fact, the comparison is palpably unsound. Biology is an established science with a proven track record by all accepeted criteria for scientific inquiry. Theology is a complete muddle, a collection of essays, most (or all) of which are based on guesswork and/or rank superstitution. Therefore, there is no reason for Dawkins to familiarize himself with the intricacies of theology, as it has no record to justify such an inquiry. It is enough that he notes the obvious and moves on.
‘Eagleton accuses Dawkins of being “theologically illiterate,” but he doesn’t demonstrate that he is any more “literate.”‘
Are you serious? Have you read the review? It’s nothing short of devastating, and *highly* theologically literate. Which is not surprising, since Dawkins’ book is nothing short of incompetent — he gets even the science wrong.
Prove it.
Have you read the review? It’s nothing short of devastating, and *highly* theologically literate.
What theological sophisticates believe is essentially irrelevant. They are forever recasting their notion of the divine in an attempt to reconcile it with humanity’s evolving understanding of the real world without contravening inviolable dogma.
Consequently, their God is a shifting and increasingly incomprehensible target. Even if successful (a bif if) , that is not a proof that God exists. It may be necessary but it is not sufficient.
I must confess that I grow weary of these petty arguments concerning the existence and non-existence of God, petty in so far as they rarely transcend what is obvious (i.e. you cant see God, you cant measure God quantitatively, ergo he does not “exist”). I feel I can identify with you atheists to a certain extent, for I too have experienced the vehement anti-intellectualism and inhibiting parochialism of popular religion. Even so, what frustrates me most of all is not the ignorant Bible beating televangelist prostituting his faith to the masses with his demagogic flair; rather, it is the modern prejudice against and/or ignorance of the scholarly insights of the past which upsets me the most. I am speaking of the modern atheist who, like the world denying Manichean, sees the world in absolutes and holds firm to his categorical notions outlining existence in the most concrete, albeit crude, fashion. This infidel, wearing the title with the hubris of Phaeton, speaks merely a different dialect of the same language, metaphysical intolerance and parochialism. I speak in the defense of humankind, who is both a being of resolute faith and passionate inquiry, a species who in its lifespan has undergone the same exact thought processes concerning the speculation of being for centuries. I wont elaborate as I know first hand how the empirically faithful shun ontological and epistemological speculation that derive no direct material benefits or conclusive advancement. Still, I find that the philosophically myopic, on both the side of science and religion, have much to learn from each other concerning the nature of what it means to be human. These questions have been pondered dialectically since the Pre-Socratics all the way to Heidegger and beyond. Unfortunately, the adolescent bias of the protean Epicurus proves all too reluctant to assess the feasibility and veracity of his own spiritless outlooks. In his or her opinion, the senses are justified in themselves and need no further investigation. That, I feel, lies in contradiction to the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Ultimately, I am in agreement with philosophers who believe that science is gradually probing into areas that will inevitably compromise its own objective integrity (quantum mechanics, the observer effect, ect.) With the senses betraying us nearly as often as our attempts at everyday syllogisms, I find it interesting that people are still so fervently self-assured on the camp of the atheistic positivist. It is sad to see very promising people reject the insights of any system of thought without considering the true constitution or makeup of the opposition. If you scientific materialists had your way, there would be no metaphysics, no art, no more inquiry into the nature of existence or reality, something science presupposes or neglects to altogether. I had thought that Popper outlined the limits of science beautifully in his doctrine of falsifiability. Though he was a champion for objective scientific truth, he did not, like the overly benighted and amateurish Dawkins, cast all transcendental speculation and subjective inquiry to an unmarked grave. Furthermore, if any of you actually read Eagleton to begin with, you would know that he has committed his life to the study of semiotics, linguistic semantics and literary theory more so than any of you. His defence of religion is based not on its objective truths concerning cosmology or teleology, but on the symbolic aptitude of the aesthetic human creature to establish meaning and discover BEAUTY and DIGNITY. Without faith in the good and the beautiful, faith in its more abstract sense, we would all still sit in Plato’s cave masturbating to the dancing shadows cast upon some damp wall. Eagleton, who is actually well versed in the insights of literary theory, Marxist theory and others, understands and appreciates that his train of thought grew out of the scholastics. In sum, I see Dawkins as no more than an iteration of the same skepticism and naturalist fetishism that grew out of the Enlightenment. This bickering is simply bigoted and tedious and undeserving of Mankind, not God. If any of you studied religion, you would realize the wisdom contained within the world’s oldest intellectual and poetic traditions. Why do you feel compelled to compromise the lives of the faithful when the alternative you offer them miserably fails to restitute? These people want faith because faith concerns the ends of investigation, the peace and cessation of doubt and anxiety. The spiritually-minded want to experience beauty, harmony and purity and communion with the world. They WILL that their existence is meaningful, that they are validated. The self-contained Ptolemaic perceptions compromised by the discoveries of Copernicus and the elaborations of Galileo was not a victory over ignorance. That “ignorance” had a deeper existential significance regarding the position of man in the universe. The problem of the modern atheist is that he is completely uncultured and unversed in the humanistic tradition from which texts like the Bible are a part. For this, I pity them for their blind rejection of these things. Though they may not be able to elaborate or articulate what it is they actually believe, in the depths of the mystic’s consciousness is a willed attempt to escape the unabashed nihilism and squalid realities of the modern age.
I suggest that you read Thomas Mann’s Magic Mountain, the works of Jung, The Interpretation of Dreams by Freud, Baruch Spinoza’s Ethics, Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche, The Variety of Religious Experience by William James, Roger Penrose’s The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, the works of James Joyce, the work of the Sufi mystics of Islam and the texts of the South and East Asian traditions.
Do make sure you have dabbled in a variety of outlooks before you propogate your own! If I have a tenet, it is that I am constantly reworking my own based on what I come across both as a complete human being. And it is humanity that is my end.
Have you read Dawkins? It seems unlikely, since he is unambiguous in critiquing religion’s claims to objective truth. Therefore, Eagleton’s objections to Dawkins completely miss the point and are irrelevant.
I think you thought you were trying to defend Eagleton, but in reality you reveal better than any of his critics just how empty and worthless his objections to Dawkins really were. Thank you.
It’s arrogant to assume that I have not studied religion.
Feel free to show where anyone’s life is being compromised.
Right, because we all know how much better people are when they are absolutely certain, lacking any doubts.
Wait, didn’t you just get through castigating atheists for holding on to absolutes? Now atheists are bad for undermining absolutes with doubt.
And they need religious theism for this?
Feel free to support this accusation.
It’s arrogant to assume that I or others here haven’t read any of this.
I think it might be worth adding the principle of asking questions before making arrogant assumptions about accusations against people you’ve never met and don’t know.
Mr. Cline,
I did not mean to offend you in any personal way. You are correct in assuming that I have not met your acquaintance and have no idea how astute you are, though I thought much of these more personal criticisms and qualified objections to my words implicitly lacked a need for any recourse. Yet, I will apologize in both senses of the word. As you could tell, I love to argue, particularly when I choose to espouse views conflicting with my own. I love to argue, as do you, I presume.
As far as Im concerned, we seem very much a like in this pursuit for sensible explanations, yes? If not for sensibility, then for what purpose, eh? In fact, I am convinced that you and I differ from one another only in the appearance or the particular form of our words. Given our different background books, histories and traditions, it could hardly be assumed that we would align in this regard. And yet, our beliefs, and you possess belief in something, I would hope, are in fact shaped by the slight sliver of erudition we each possess in the grand scheme of human scholarship. In sum, what I dont know, what I have not read, greatly exceeds the petty sum of knowledge I think I possess. Thus, my concern is over humility and the Axial tradition of humility assumes various forms based on the particular context. I dont care about the specifics of things, creationism, evolutionism, the dumbed down and ever recurring arguments of our day! Yet, I respect Aristotelians like yourself (let me know if you dont like this term) who keep in mind the subsistence or basis of all abstraction in concrete entities. However, something within me demands something more. Please respect this yearning if you ever witness this struggle in other people.
I am concerned with the preservation of humility and the ability to maintain distinct modes of thoughts simultaneously, particularly those that seem to conflict superficially. I apologize if you do not appreciate the irony of my message and how it contravenes the means by which it was presented. I am a literary guy and I guess it is in my blood to partake in this deeply political struggle over meaning and purpose.
I have not read Dawkins, in that assumption you are right (see how verbally efficient assumptions can be?)
Indeed, I hope my having not read Dawkins was obvious. Know that I tried, but ultimately I couldn’t do it. I tried, but after watching his documentaries, I could not muster up the “gumption” to do so. I admit that was pretty tongue in cheek of me, I know, but only for the sake of wit, which I believe is somehow tied to the arrogance I so desperately mean to correct. I guess we all have our little peccadillos, dont we?
At any rate, I do not mean to cast aspersions on atheists in general, but only on a particular brand of atheism that is equally, if not more, arrogant in its own assumptions. I see this in Dawkins just as you read, quite correctly, the arrogance of my prose. I do appreciate your words, theism and atheism are not the only options available. In fact, binarism rarely manifests. My argument concerns those who equate spirituality with a fascination for pseudo-scientific explanations for our origins and our destination. Spirituality, as you obviously know, encompasses much more.
If, however, the true psychological reasons explaining a personal election of faith or, conversely, faith’s rejection were revealed by the proselytizer or the crusading apostate, that is, if the subjective or deeply personal side of this issue was made apparent, I would be satisfied with whatever the individual deems to be true. I am, after all, fully convinced that feelings and innate prejudices stemming from deeply personal experiences form the basis of all knowledge and taint even the most high-minded methodology that painstakingly avoids all supposition. Belief and perception are, after all, products of psychological dynamics, which have tangible influences, there is little doubt. However, there are in truth ideations that take on a life of their own that can not be explained by the modern methods of scientific investigation nor can they be completely mastered by the afflicted. And, we are all afflicted. This is why psychiatry is looked upon with suspicion by mainstream science. Still, I hardly believe that you would take the Cruisean notion that Psychiatry is a hoax…it entails effective results. What of religion, then? Can the same be said? If you read William James, then you are familiar with this. You must surely understand this to be at least tolerable, yes? I am not saying that you must believe what I believe. I dont really care. I would at least like to know that the people around me have a deep appreciation for life that basically amounts to a spirituality that may or may not use certain symbols or background books as its material. This is not what Dawkins is considering. He truly believes that faith, in all of its forms, simply encourages backwards thinking that can inflict harm on others. However, he is over-emphasizing the dangers without addressing the beauty of it all. I have my doubts like you that I find hard to eliminate. Indeed, I would think abandoning them would be a form of defeatism, insulting to my dignity as a person. Still, I value beauty over all things, beauty not as vanity, but beauty as a silent appreciation for existence and the plurality and the monistic aspect of existence. I apologize if you hate paradox…I am somewhat fond of the elucidating confusion of oxymorons, contradiction and the like.
This was fun.
No, not particularly.
1. I did not assume it.
2. If you have not read Dawkins, you’re in no position to defend Eagleton’s review of Dawkins. You certainly aren’t in any position to call him “overly benighted and amateurish.”
If you “love to argue,” perhaps you should strive to ensure that you understand a subject before trying to argue about it?
That would be the position of Scientology, not a “Crusian notion.” Failing to accurately identify the position suggests that you really don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Feel free to quote him on this.
Oh, wait, you haven’t read him. So you don’t know what he has written, do you?
“Furthermore, if any of you actually read Eagleton to begin with, you would know that he has committed his life to the study of semiotics, linguistic semantics and literary theory more so than any of you.”
So what! He should have studied the semiotics of “I don’t believe. Period.” The Sun does not orbit the Earth.
…reality, something science presupposes or neglects to altogether.
Right, because science DOESN’T inquire into the nature of reality and existence. Astronomy is not concerned with the study of the cosmos, nor biology the nature of living organisms, nor psychiatrists the nature of the brain…
I’m not entirely sure how you did it, but you managed to achieve a level of density in that paragraph rivaling that of any collapsar, and with a commensurate level of suckage as well.
The universe came into being. Day One etc.,
Adam and Eve started the human race manufactured from dirt, bone and a breath of air from God.
Jesus was born of a virgin was murdered by Jews but ascended bodily into heaven. He performed, during his life many miracles. (And tricks of legerdemain)..
The Bible is the revealed word of God.
Belief in Christ will atone all sins.
Unbelief will confine you to a burning hell.I could go on and on.
This is CATHOLICISM. Sounds just like FUNDAMENTALIST beliefs to me. Can someone tell me the difference?
I would point out that Cline’s last response (44) to Talaria (43) sounded a lot like Eagleton’s review of the God Delusion.
Talaria’s verbose over long pontifications apropos not much at all. Contain assertions about Dawkins, complete with confessions of not reading his book. Seems a bit like Eagleton to me.
Now I haven’t, as yet, finished reading the Koran. The Bible yep. I doubt that I ever will as I really can’t make a great deal of sense out of it. (Both Books.) Something wrong with me? As I’m into my eighties, I reckon what little time is left to me could be better spent perusing more interesting fiction. Never was much into Fables and Fairy Stories even as a kid.
Seems to me that Eagleton is just another “Reviewer” who is paid well enough to make observations after skim/speed reading a book, with pre conceived ideas. Having read Dawkin’s works. I am left with a feeling of. He could have done better. If anything I think he is too gentlemanly in his observations about “Believers.” Too restrained in his remarks and much too polite. Hector Hawton was so much more pointed in his remarks, especially towards the Established Churches of Catholicism and Anglicanism.
When I think of religious beliefs as being stupid, childish and irrelevant. I have to temper it with the knowledge that not all my friends who, in the main, are “Believers.” fit generally with that description. Puzzling that. Just that I believe they are wrong in the area of religion, as they do so of me.
Being Australian of course helps. Most Ozzies really don’t care. Maybe Dawkins is also restrained by his knowledge that he has many,otherwise intelligent, friends with firm religious beliefs.Probably puzzles him as much as it does me.
OK, I have to enter this frail if for nothing else than to support Austin who has spent an incredible amount of time responding to zealous readers.
Would the truth matter more or less if it came from a child or Hegelian absolutist having read every book in the world? Ad hominem attacks and appeals to personal authority based on the number of books read and following implications of how well they’ve been read has absolutely nothing to do with the truth. It is a sad kind of confirmation bias. To read more may bias you more. If you want to compare library size mines 10,000 and my penis is 12 inches long.
The argument of In Toto also is pointless and I am surprised no one roasted Christopher Hitchens who happily outlines how religion poisons everything even chess. But they do espouse that there is no such thing as pure evil so of course not every move in life is infused with religious truth unless you call it meaning placed there by the human thinking it.
If you want to say that your entire life is infused with religious meaning than be prepared to have it skewered by rhetoric addressing the copula religious. As Maslow say if you think of life as a hammer everything looks like a nail. I think of Sartre’s Devil and Good Lord here.
The idea of intention may help here but this is not a very scholarly discourse as I see no footnotes or real quotes so why argue hard philosophy in an epistolary rage of immediate word smithing. Shall we put forth Aquinas’s argument in latin and then tease apart what an ontological proof of God means and how that relates to joe bagodonuts heading to his megachurch means?
Perhaps we could examine the word logos and what the greeks meant when they translated that in the sentence in english being in the beginning was the word. Would that we could ask a real greek about it but then that is the problem with history. It is written by the winners and it is never current and always reflective observation of what someone else meant even if just trying to interprete their own words babble or not.
Then there is the psychology of it as Travis, Haigt, and the economist Kahneman point out again and again we justify emotional conclusions with rational evidence. Usually wrong. How is anyone who has enjoyed a religious moment, culture, or lifestyle, going to dis it even when they leave it. Many rape victims blame themselves.
More importantly we praise making lemonade out of lemons, we praise including the under dog, we say learn from our mistakes, there are no stupid questions. Westerners work hard to build esteem and make people feel good even when patently false: there are no losers, we are all winners.
Wasn’t this emblamized by Carl Rogers who espoused unconditional positive regard and coined the term self-actualization. How do you ferret out truth in this mishmosh of feel good social psychology? Are we not going through a phase of positive psychology started by martin seligman to show that happiness or well being is important to attain and is an indicator of mental health?
Of course ideologies, culture, and civilization are annealed in the heat of religious confirmation. But how much so. Anthropologists can’t begin to agree on whether war per se is from ideological, culturally material, environmental, or neurobiological sources. Which war, when, at what time of the war.
The American civil war began as the end of a long road to state rights and what things states wanted to do with their own rghts. Lincoln brilliantly moved the ideology to slave holding merely one of the aspects of states rights southerners were arguing about as being untenable constitutionally and morally. Yet, most scholars and northerners and the populist civil war scholar will ackowledge that the war was about slavery.
Is abortion really about the time of life at conception, the rights of a person, or the time a person is a person. Of course secularists have no experience here but those who talk of the trilogy know well the arguments of what constitutes a person: how can god be three and one and some notably muslims have long accused this of polytheism.
Maybe the argument doesn’t have jack to do with conception but rather the idea of a soul and is a religious argument for these interlocutors,. There are antibortion atheists though that don’t see this as a religious argument. Shall we diss them as being really religionists in disguise? Mental ashes of lost ideas or rather fragments left in social discourse without source that another picks up as seeming true without the originating baggage that evoked the idea?
Nonlinear dynamicists talk about the butterfly wings beating that can cause the hurricane to arise. Gibbions writes about the decline and decadence of rome allowing christians to usurp their spiritual power. Or is it a reaction against the romans razing the temple which was a reaction to zealots killing romans which if everyone had enough food and say in their governance might not have happened at all. Or the geneticists that say slight increases of testosterone can swing specious arguements to rule. Or more recently that language itself undermines the ability of humans to come to peace with each other. Meanwhile the bacteria still keep reproducing regardless of our thinking.
There will be no easy agreement here. And who is to say what is true. But rather than slip into roughshod relativism, let’s say that truth matters? How do we get there? If 4 billion say something is true does that make it true? There are no black swans in the world, then the world expands and suddenly there are black swans. Do we accept the explorer’s word, do we need a photo, a speciman, do we diss it as an anomoly, do we exceptionalize the species, do we apologize for ignorance and say there were no black swans before and the world has changed fundamentally?
There is no question that there is no physical need for war in this world. We have enough food to feed everyone or close enough to it that it is possible and not concieveable. What gets in the way of this? Is it even an interesting or desired goal?
To return to the four horseman, dawkns, hitchens, harris, and dennett they comdemn, are saddened, denigrate, wish to explore, use the verb of your choice here, the view that religious moderation is an acceptable means of dealing with religious fundamentalism.
Harris exceptionally at the AAI conference spoke about flying under the radar, spreading secularism with as little social jarring as possible, abandoning even the rubric of self titlement nominally but that in no way was meant to abandon the fight to disprove the utility or teleology of religion. It was a call to more pacifist intervention much as Ezd Said has said hitting Hamas will only inflame. Prison is full of people who insist they are not guilty. Psychology again: ego preservation, humility preservation, shame and guilt avoidance are fundamental to feeling good, and well being is king right now. You will have to decide whether you want to throw bricks from outside or within but which is more effective has nothing to do with the truth of the goal but rather the assessment of what is effective, to which person, family, society. This is why Kurtz has called for a multisecular approach. It is also why Maimonides strived to apply reason to religion in his guide for the perplexed and now folks like David Sloan Wilson are trying to do the same again with evolution and creationism.
It is sad to think that scientists are devoid of beauty, goodness, and meaning as proposed by the science haters here or at least those who believe that science lacks these things. If you want teleological meaning you will never find it in any epistemology other than revealed epistemolgy–until these gods or god show themselves more tangibly.
Why this matters is we need some way of surviving the world. It is true that thinking god helps you or that you are smarter than average or that you can think like the lion can help you survive to a point. There are good reasons for imagination and the cartesian theatre to exist but this doesn’t deny the task of these abilities was to help people survive and flourish. When imagination goes to delusion the utility of it lessons and the necessity of veracity heightens.
At some point we say it’s better not to hurt one’s feelings than to insist on truth. How many times have you let an argument go over an obvious falsehood like astrology, homeopathy, bending spoons with mind, etc etc etc ad nauseum to preserve peace and foster friendship. All because we believed social relations and networking were most important at that time. A very strong reason for exbelievers to apologize for their intellectual baggage and their friends. In the blood and guts world of evolution relations often trump truth. That is why positive tit for tat works and anything you can do to get more people involved in your world makes you more able to live well in your world.
Who wants to tell 101 yr old Great Aunt Harriet that her comfort in God is false. Her comfort is real and its effect is real. That you could get the same effect from a puppy, Winnie the Pooh stuffed animal, or belief in Osiris is not going to help her and do you see her easily seeing the truth and changing at this point? Yet, I need some polite way of inserting myself into her world so I feel I have something to contribute and am not merely an object of her desires. A traditionalist might think this foolish.
So why strive for truth. Because at some moment you need to know that when the red oil light goes on in your car you should stop the engine immediately. When the gas company calls to shut off the fuel you need to believe it. Good to imagine luck causing you to win the lottery or have Aunt Harriet leave you dough but count on it not. If you need to count on it to feel sane then it’s time to get your head together and produce better incentive unless you seek a strait jacket as resolution.
Flights of fancy are great, so is LSD, Disney, Kaballah, and myriad other imaginative devise but at some point I need to return to earth or die of asceticism and bodily neglect. Yes, I think suicide should be allowed and isn’t de fact proof of insanity but my world would be much poorer if many did it at this point in time on earth.
Of course, maybe survival isn’t the point but if I have a choice.
As to rational versus irrational, all arguments regardless of content use logic or we couldn’t follow the discourse and would have to interprete the speaking in tongues. Of course theologians use reason and rationality so does the crazy man on the street telling us he’s jesus today. As dennett says we could not have free will without determinism. You can speak of emotional appeals, poor logic, and so forth but we are all de facto doomed to using both rational, irrational, and empirical statements
If I speak strongly against religion it is because I see it as an antiquated device that has survived like an old tool that doesn’t quite work anymore. It acknowledges that governance and religion are created for specific reasons that may not be true or necessary anymore and relies on physical apparitions that are patently false because religion did and does try to resolve physical manifestations in this world. You can say the world was flat is an appropriate statement to those unable to see or calculate the earth’s roundness but once you do know it then you should acknowledge and use that information to take you further. To say it’s just words and then use them as a means of maintaining pure obedience to revealed text, even if just allowing the myth to continue, is unhelpful at best and eggregious typically.
There is meaning in life because of evolution, because of human observation, because there is a world there. I would not be here if all the forces of the world weren’t suited to it. Man I want to hold onto it and see it as clearly as possible because it is a great place worth paying attention to and I have been evolved to enjoy and live in it.
cheers
Jim
Clearly the author is poorly very versed in the world of literary criticism to display such a flagrantly misguided understanding of Eagleton’s position. I recommend that you read some of his work rather than taking an interview out of context. Eagleton is for all effective purposes an atheist, he simply values the culture of religious thought as a valuable institution. I would place Eagleton’s line of thought in with Anglican non-realists (although he is Catholic) which hold belief in god a simply a cultural application of theory rather than an actual metaphysical entity. Dawkins obsessively materialist position lacks perspective and devalues culture. Eagleton has a far more advanced understanding of theology than would even make sense for Dawkins to have. Why study something that you not only don’t value but believe to be intrinsically empty. Contrary to popular belief it is within the last couple of hundred years that religion became this medium for personal faith which has breed fundamentalism. Grand narratives are dead and everyone nows it, and attempting to extinguish religion is about as realistic belief in god himself. As far as the book comment goes, it was most certainly sardonic, irony being of coarse another thing that militant atheism seems to be unable to recognize in its vindictive fury and superstitious tendency.
You are, of course, more than welcome to show how any of his words in the original article reveal his “real” position as you understand it.
This depends entirely on ignoring much popular religious thought, unless you wish to argue that Eagleton sees value in religious thought like denying evolution and affirming a literal world-wide flood.
He’s a Catholic, but he is also “for all effective purposes an atheist”? Sorry, but the two aren’t compatible. Either you believe that some sort of god exists or you don’t.
Since most popular religious belief treats god as an actual entity, Eagleton’s beliefs are irrelevant to those Dawkins is criticizing.
You did know, I assume, that Dawkins was quite explicit as to what he was criticizing and what he wasn’t?
Feel free to show how, rather than just flinging about vague attacks.
Eagleton never mentions Dawkin’s lack of ‘training.’ He simply points out that Dawkin’s has made little effort to get to grips with the basics of theological though and philosophy. You’d be a fool to deny that Eagleton is infinitely more erudite and learned in this department. Yes he’s a pompous old goat, but more so Dawkins for guffing on for hundreds of pages, clumsily wading through hundreds of years of philosophy like a sixth-form student at debating society.
Yet he never even tries to show that Dawkins is ignorant of theological thought and philosophy that is necessary for the sorts of arguments Dawkins is making.
And I don’t think he can.
Yet you can’t show that’s relevant, either.
That’s a pretty serious personal attack. It’s significant that it’s all you can manage to offer — not a single substantive, serious, adult critique of anything Dawkins writes.
In the end, then, your objection is as poor as Eagleton’s: it’s nothing more than a fallacious attack on Dawkins personally without any effort to address anything Dawkins says. That’s a good sign of a person who knows very well that Dawkins is right, but because of personal ideological reasons can’t or won’t admit it.
That’s the most intellectually dishonest form of apologetics that exists. I’d rather read the tripe produced by fools like McDowell. At least they are honest in their foolishness.
I find it absolutely hillarious that christians and their pathetic little sub-cults such as mormons and J.W.’s want to try to end racism and hatred when the bible clearly states that God is the author of all bigotry and hate. Ever read the story of the tower of babel? Think about it. If that sad little god they put so much stock in does exist, then it’s obvious he wants us at each others throats so that when he does come to “open his proverbial can of whup-ass” on us, we won’t be unified enough to fight back.
I think Eagleton’s point was that Dawkin’s lack of understanding in Christian (and other) theology and his assumption of religion as merely an unsubstantiated assertion of God’s existence rendered his analysis superficial.
Can you point to where Dawkins says that religion is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion?
What Eagleton ignores is the fact that Dawkins – and Hitchens and Harris and Dennett – pretty much dismiss “sophisticated” theology because it is merely liberal secular humanism with a different paint job. There is nothing in the Bible, etc. that even begins to allow for its teachings not to be taken literally. You are not given a choice to pick and choose, and that is one of religion’s great failures. Morality comes from society’s reaction to the religion, not religion itself.