´óÏó´«Ã½

Terry Eagleton really doesn't appear to be saying anything at all, and his notion of "god" is so vapid (and cheap) that one has to wonder why he bothers. Eagleton's god is not the god recognised by most Christians, but that is irrelevant, because there is even LESS evidence for Eagleton's god than there is for YHWH or even Santa Claus. But who needs anything so shallow as "evidence" when we're talking about a big fluffy er... fluff-puff. Yes, that's it. Or no, it's not. That would be too specific, and therefore an attempt to limit god. And so on and so forth. From the coverage so far, the book does not sound like it adds much to his fatuous flump of a review of "The God Delusion", and I really can't see myself getting exercised enough over it. Eagleton is butter, and reality is a hot knife.

there's no Santa Claus?

Aw come on...

On an altogether different, yet, no doubt, equally (what was it) em, "vapid, fatuous fluff-puff flump", of a line of thought, the interview linked quotes PZ Myers, he of nail and dustbin fame as saying, "Imagine the culture we would live in now if, instead of a dead corpse on an instrument of torture, our signifier was a child staring in wonder at the stars."

Crap, does nobody get the flaming irony, even at a metaphorical level?

Is that so-called "money-quote" supposed to be impressive, or to make Eagleton's point by "putting manners on Dawkins, Hitchins and their ilk" somehow? Its just more of the same old drivel that "sophisticated theologians" (if that's not an oxymoron) have been coming out with for aeons.

1/10 - Must try (much) harder.

A.C. Grayling gave Eagleton's attack on Dawkins in London Review of Books very short shrift in the letters page.
Eagleton's article:


"Terry Eagleton charges Richard Dawkins with failing to read theology in formulating his objection to religious belief, and thereby misses the point that when one rejects the premises of a set of views, it is a waste of ones time to address what is built on those premises (LRB, 19 October).
For example, if one concludes on the basis of rational investigation that ones character and fate are not determined by the arrangement of the planets, stars and galaxies that can be seen from Earth, then one does not waste time comparing classic tropical astrology with sidereal astrology, or either with the Sarjatak system, or any of the three with any other construction placed on the ancient ignorances of our forefathers about the real nature of the heavenly bodies.
Religion is exactly the same thing: it is the pre-scientific, rudimentary metaphysics of our forefathers, which (mainly through the natural gullibility of proselytised children, and tragically for the world) survives into the age in which I can send this letter by electronic means." A.C. Grayling.

So that's that then.

Better close the blog down William!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Peter, what irony?

Apologies Helio, a domestic crisis got the better of me last night, I meant ironing. Does nobody get the amount of flaming ironing we have to do?

The irony is that your ironing probably isn't very irony at all.

Is that how you burnt your ear? Someone phone you in the middle of it again?

;-)

He burnt both ears.
Had to phone for an ambulance.

I too am awaiting the book. Intriguing how dismissive people can be of intelligent thought (Grayling should know better). Funny too how people who believe they are being scientific think they know what constitutes evidence when the subject is not science.

Peter, I too have to ask "which irony? specifically" ... I think PZ Myers catchy speculation contains many a true word ... but has nothing to do with Eagleton or his views on Ditchkins does it ?

"God didn't create the world. He loved it into being. Now what that means, God knows, but that's exactly what Aquinas was saying. The concept of God is what will not let you go. He will not let you slip through his fingers. It's that kind of unconditional love. If you like, that's impossible. We can only know conditional love, but if you are to have some kind of authentic idea of God that's the place from which you have to start, not seeing God as some kind of manufacturer."


If someone cannot tell if this is BS or not then they really need to take some time out and learn the elementary fundamentals of spotting BS.

Psybertron, The Princess is right (hi Princess! Is that you?). The whole point is that Eagleton's ramblings do not pass muster for "intelligent thought". Terry feels dissed because he is brushed off like an irritating fly, but frankly that is all he deserves.

Can I recommend "On Bu115h1t" by Harry Frankfurt as an indispensable little read? It'll take you no more than an hour to read, and it is well worth it.

Helio i blame the national curriculum. At the very least children should be taught how to spot BS coming from the likes of Terry the irritating fly.