In this radio interview (the last clip on the page) literary critic and opponent of the 'New Atheists' Terry Eagleton shares his views on the atheists and his own interpretation of Christianity.
I was quite surprised at how few clear statements he was willing to make about what religion is and means, and many of his points seem to contradict what I feel most believers would take for granted. For example he says that the idea of God as an "entity" is something no reputable theologian believes in, and seems to say that the very question "Does God exist" makes no sense. He also says the idea of God creating the universe is absurd and Christianity says "nothing" about that.
(As an aside I found it irritating how he would repeatedly make statements along the line of "It shows astounding ignorance to say [perceived atheists' argument]" but would not present an argument in return.)
His response to Dawkins' argument that a complex understanding of theology is irrelevant when you don't accept the initial premise of theology - that God exists - (should someone who doesn't believe in fairies have to debate the complexities of fairyology?) is basically that no, you do have to, and this is "intellectual dishonesty of the first order" (without saying why).
The end is especially interesting when the interviewer asks him whether he prays or not (making it clear that this is a simple question of doing or not doing, not a philosophical one), and Eagleton cannot give a yes or no answer, claiming it is too complex a question.
I should say that I am an atheist who broadly supports the views of Dawkins and Hitchens on religion, but what I'm most interested in here isn't the arguments for or against, but whether you think Eagleton's views on religion are shared by most (any?) believers - I'd be especially interested in Christians' responses to this.
Google gave up this choice quote from him
That's great, except his knowledge is on evolutionary science.. which uh.. does make him an expert on creationism-is-bullshit-ology."Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology"
The point is that a lot of the criticisms of religion and the concept of God you hear out of the mouths of militant atheists bely a very basic misunderstanding of what is being rejected. It makes it very difficult to debate the subject when one side actively refuses to gain any understanding of the opposing viewpoint. Before you can tell anyone what is wrong with something you should at least have a working knowledge of the subject at hand. I'm sure a lot of atheists think they know all they need to know about religion to be critical of it, but then they say something really ignorant.
Okay, but in this instance the arguments put forward by the atheists are primarily ones that seek to show religion and its claims to be false. What sort of understanding do you think is necessary before you can say "I think this isn't true, here's why"? It's this argument again:Originally Posted by Brad Grenz
If it's something to do with, for example, the effects of religion on society and the individual, regardless of the truth of said beliefs, then I agree with you. But I think the arguments Eagleton is taking issue with are primarily arguments against religion being true - it's somewhat hard to tell though as he rarely states precisely what he's railing against.
Generally things like what I'm talking about come up in the context of an atheist trying to demonstrate why they think religion is foolish. Then they will say something about religion intended to show it as inconsistent or foolhardy, only the example used is founded on a complete misunderstanding of the some facet of dogma, nature of God or even the purpose of life as proposed by said religion, etc, etc.
This is an excellent summation of what's wrong with many fervent atheists, including Dawkins. Well said.
That's great, but the quote wasn't about Dawkins' discussion of creationism. It was about Dawkins' discussion of theology. And when you listen to him babble about theology, you realize that he understands precious little about it.
Well it's kind of hard to argue against that when no specific examples are given.
I would say though (and Dawkins has said much the same) that often what some Christians consider to be his misunderstandings of the "nature of God" or what have you are actually what the majority of Christians in the world believe. So maybe you have a more sophisticated "theological understanding" than the general public (as Eagleton clearly thinks he does) and don't consider God to be an "entity" or whatever, but that's kind of irrelevant to Dawkins' arguments if the beliefs he's talking about widespread. Again I'm guessing here as you haven't quoted any specific statements.
My point still stands though - if the argument in question is one that attempts to show belief in God to be wrong, what "misunderstanding" could one have about Christian belief? And if the argument isn't about that, then you'll have to cite a specific argument because it could be any number of unrelated ones.
Which brings me back to my initial question, which was whether people think Eagleton's interpretation of religion is one shared by most Christians, and whether they think it to be true.
EDIT: As a general point, I could say (with truth as it happens) that the problem with many Christians is that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the arguments of atheists. But that isn't a productive line to take without getting more specific ;)
Last edited by Lh'owon; 06-20-2009 at 01:08 AM.
The answer to the question "Do most Christians share this view?" is no. My own interpretation of Jesus is at odds with the mainstream, but i've been around conservative churches my whole life, and from my own personal experience (attending a dozen or so churches, reading books, looking at websites) 80% of Christians don't often think about this kind of thing, and most of the ones who do have opinions that you'd find fairly standard of a Christian. If you'd ask a Christian "what do you think of this or that atheistic argument against Christianity?" and they'll probably just quote scripture at you.
Theology and philosophy is so often far removed from their mind. Any logical argument against theism will be countered in a way that will lead you to believe that they don't care and just want to get rid of you (most often by quoting scripture, or something like "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.") A good example of this is when I asked someone at my church what makes them think the Bible is infallible, and their response was a quotation from the Bible that all scripture is inspired, as if that was proof.
My suggestion is to not look at Christians as a group of people who have specific opinions on matters of theology or philosophy, but rather a section of the population that follows one of the various Church hierarchies, and as part of the bargain are willing to ascribe to whatever theology they are told. Not many people in the general population care about philosophy/theology, and it's the same in religion. This all might sound very harsh, but it's valid, and i'm saying it as a person who is a Christian.
Therefore, the opinions you quoted from Eagleton are not common, although many Christians (as many people do in general) would share his tendency to insult an alternative perspective without giving a valid argument in return.
thanks for this generalization
Here's an example from the Michael777 thread. EpicBoy said something to the effect of: "If God really cared he'd wave a magic wand and make me believe in him." Now, before I spoil it for you can you see the very obvious flaw in that statement? I don't know if he was being facetious, but it's the kind of sentiment you hear from atheists more than you should from a group ostensibly bound by their ability to think critically.
I am atheist, but enjoy theology just because I enjoy ideas. There's no reason to try and understand the different views on whether the Koran was created by Allah, or always existed in the same way Allah has always existed, or if God has physical attributes (the koran describes him as having face, hands etc but the nature of this is a point of dispute) And seeing how theologians/ philosophers worked to reconcile aristotle and christianity/ islam, well, to me it is interesting. Important, no, but then again what is?
The organisation/ structure of religion is also interesting, revealed vs esoteric, text based vs experience based, intermediaries required or not. e.g. the sunni/shia split in Islam is almost exact mirror of the catholic/ protestant split in christianity, and you can see parallels in different buddhist & hindu schools too.
None of this is relevant to existance/ not of god(s) FWIW, I think that the religions that allow ex cathedra updates (Shia & Catholics) have more coherent & logical theology than the others. Obvious really, the seminaries of Qom and Rome have had centuries of debate and discussion on this, and their organisations have some wriggle room to change their minds.
Ah, I see we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm talking specifically about the "New Atheists", primarily Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, as those are the two Terry Eagleton was referring to in the radio interview.
I can't speak for random forum posters, thank God ;)
actually, not far off a predestination based view of the world - strict calvinists for example. God has already chosen/ knows which of us will be saved
My wife is very religious (born muslim, now buddhist) She is OK with my atheism because, well, it is my takdir (fate/ doom) and so is something I must go through in this life. And if I do become a believer, that is part of the plan for me. Though i do sometimes get a bit put out when I do something well, and she thanks god, then congratulates me! (e.g. in her view, it was by the blessing of god that I was good enough to get promoted...)
So if it was in god's plan that epicboy believe in god, epicboy would. But it isn't, so he doesn't.
Notice this question never gets directly answered. How much do you need to know about fairyology before you are allowed to disbelieve in fairies? The truth according to religious pundits like Eagleton is "I can't answer that question without compromising my position, therefore I will continue to misdirect with vague allusions about what hypothetical atheists may say". Fortunately, you have Brad here to illustrate that. People on both sides of the issue understand what that question really does, which is redefine the terms of the debate in terms that are totally unacceptable to Christians. That's why Dawkins does it, and that's why Eagleton dodges it.
I also think Timsfker is right when he says the whole thing is largely irrelevant to the average Christian.
Personally, I find Christianity fascinating in terms of history and philosophy. But while reading and talking about the theological aspects that tie all that together has been personally enriching to me in terms of broadening my horizons, it is not necessary in order to be a sincere atheist. As Wisbechlad shows, you can always come up with a faith based, theological rationale after the fact for any offhand comment. That's why it's religion and not science.
Trying to separate theology from creationism is nothing new among anti-atheist 'debunkers' like this one. The problem is that it implicitly acknowledges the whole "God of the gaps" thing, which is basically admitting that Theology can only explain stuff which science can't. And since Science explains more and more and fills in the gaps in its models all the time... You end up with an ever-shrinking conception of the scope of God.
No you need to at least know enough about fairies not to conflate them with flying spaghetti monsters.Notice this question never gets directly answered. How much do you need to know about fairyology before you are allowed to disbelieve in fairies? The truth according to religious pundits like Eagleton is "I can't answer that question without compromising my position, therefore I will continue to misdirect with vague allusions about what hypothetical atheists may say". Fortunately, you have Brad here to illustrate that. People on both sides of the issue understand what that question really does, which is redefine the terms of the debate in terms that are totally unacceptable to Christians. That's why Dawkins does it, and that's why Eagleton dodges it.
Details about fairies, such as how tall they are and how many will fit on the head of pin, are meaningless* considering that fairies don't actually exist, along with flying spaghetti monsters, Bigfoot, and Jesus.
* unless one enjoys hearing and telling stories about fictitious creatures, of course.
Of course the answer is nothing. But I think it's not the right question. A better question is, how much do you need to understand about another person's beliefs in order to show that those beliefs are self-contradictory? One of the things that philosophers talk about is the fact that there are several ways that a reasonable person can interpret the same facts. They try to distinguish between what they themselves believe, what they acknowledge as a reasonable or a potentially true belief that they do not hold, and beliefs which are, in themselves, unreasonable. Dawkins and Harris and the like, though, don't engage in this kind of philosophically sophisticated discourse, and it makes it hard (for me at least) to take them very seriously. They treat "religion" as a single homogeneous "thing", and then find some examples of a religious person saying something foolish and treat it as proof positive that the whole "thing" is foolish. For serious and thoughtful people who have given real consideration to their beliefs and their basis, it is naturally quite frustrating to have this treated by the wider culture as a meaningful critique.
Of course, religious people who have thought very much about why they believe what they do are in a minority, but that doesn't change the fact that they are the ones you should be talking to if you want to critique the conceptual basis of religion. Most people who drive cars couldn't tell you much about how the engine works; they just know that it does from experience. If you want to criticise the design, though, the people to talk to are the engineers.
That's not to say that, ultimately, the theologians might not be wrong, that religion in general might not be bunk, that Dawkins et al might not be right. To me it seems the question is very much open. But yes; in short, disbelieve what you like. If you want to tell people to stop believing as they do, you should make a decent effort to understand a bit more about what they believe than just the silliest things you can catch churchgoers saying.
Congratulations, you can prove these things don't exist as long as you can count on the premise that these things don't exists. Guess which logical fallacy that is! You're making the same mistake as the Christian who quotes the Bible to prove it's true.
As you say, most people do not care about a sophisticated understanding of religion, and that includes most religious people. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that such an understanding is not really a part of the overall picture of religious belief in society. What many would mean by the fairy question is that in the absence of evidence for x supernatural belief, it is not the problem of those who don't believe in it to provide evidence or reasoning against it. The purpose of people like Eagleton is to shift the burden of proof in the other direction, whether they are using deceptive applications of scientific analogies (like the intelligent designers) or simply entrenching themselves in the language of culture war.
Certainly, you can take a deeper look at people who gave Christianity a lot of thought. It will likely be an interesting conversation that can be enjoyed with a lot of different kinds of people, whether you are focusing on the philosophical or the historical implications. But such a discussion has absolutely nothing to do with people like Eagleton, the (political) religious right in America, or the people that engage them on the other side like Dawkins. It definitely has no relevance to the vast majority of people caught in between.
I think one key difference that matters to me as an atheist is that Dawkins is actually pretty competent on his home turf and can do a masterful job of explaining evolutionary biology to laymen (like me). People like Eagleton, on the other hand, thrive on how far they can remove the discussion of theology or science (despite understanding very little of the latter) from troubling the minds of the vast majority of Christians. While the interaction between the two can be regarded as a failure on both sides, they are not equivalent in terms of their objectives.
Prove these things do exist. Over to you.
"That would be an ecumentical matter!"
I took religious studies from age four until I was eighteen in Catholic school. I'm totally qualified to call this. The answer is...I don't know.
BTW, those religious classes were some of the best classes I ever took, especially the world religion one. Everyone should take a religious studies course. Philosophy of logic should also be offered in every school, while I'm at it.
Prove they do exist. Until you do, I won't be wasting any time and effort to understand them; there are a lot of real things I do not understand yet which are taking up my attention.
I'll be kinder and say "show some evidence that might suggest these things exist, then we'll talk." Proof is a pretty high burden.
To put it another way, a lack of evidence supporting the existence of an entity (be it fairies or god or whatever,) combined with the existence of a plausible, consistent, and predictive explanatory model which does not require that entity, tends to indicate that said entity does not exist.
I guess, but there's no point. The course of this conversation is entirely predictable, and it's still not my fault if I choose to ignore fairy lore when I consider how to form my worldview.
Fairies,
Flying Spaghetti Monsters,
Bigfoot, and
Jesus.
I accept your challenge. I will now prove the existence of the following marvellous entities.
Fairies.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Bigfoot
Jesus
Brace yourselves, here it comes.
Fairies.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Bigfoot
Jesus
Too many pictures? Allow me to prove the existence of all four, Fairies, Spaghetti Monsters, Bigfoot, and Jesus, in one fell swoop. Are you ready?
Drumroll please...
Spoiler alert, Sandra Bullock ends up falling in love at the end.
Ta daaaa!
Awesome.
Further, I wonder if the people advocating this particular debate eject button could stand up to their own accusation when it comes to other religions they have decided are not the truth. Say, for example, Islam.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
