…and this is a 
A little more on Eagleton
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: October 24, 2006 12:10 PM, by PZ Myers
I've seen an email that cites that crappy Eagleton review of The God Delusion that seems to think this quote is somehow a significant rebuttal of the book, rather than an indictment of the reviewer's ability to comprehend the book without inserting his own biases against atheism into it.
Such is Dawkins's unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false. The countless millions who have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history—and this by a self-appointed crusader against bigotry.
If you actually open The God Delusion to pages 340-345 and read, you will find a substantial section in which Dawkins defends the Bible as a literary and historical source, deplores the lack of knowledge of the book by its most ardent defenders, and even argues that religious rituals like those for marriages and funerals are a good thing. It begins this way:
I must admit that even I am a little taken aback at the biblical ignorance commonly displayed by people educated in more recent decades than I was. Or maybe it isn't a decade thing. As long ago as 1954, according to Robert Hinde in his thoughtful book Why Gods Persist, a Gallup poll in the United States of America found the following. Three-quarters of Catholics and Protestants could not name a single Old Testament prophet. More than two-thirds didn't know who preached the Sermon on the Mount. A substantial number thought that Moses was one of Jesus's twelve apostles. That, to repeat, was in the United States, which is dramatically more religious than other parts of the developed world.
The King James Bible of 1611 — the Authorized Version — in English includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Songs, and the sublime Ecclesiastes (which I am told is pretty good in the Hebrew too). But the main reason the Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture.
I will speak for Dawkins when I say that the the real bigotry and the crime against history is when the religious take acts of human selflessness and credit them to a nonexistent phantasm rather than their true source…people. I think it's particularly galling when those paragons of virtue, the Christians who claim their goodness devolves from their religion, in general have such a deficient knowledge of their purported source of morality. Perhaps the reason Christians are such bad examples is that they don't know their religion as well as we atheists do?
Comments
Did anyone else catch the Dawkins' interview on "The World" yesterday? I really commend the interviewer for not just lobbing softballs.
http://www.theworld.org/
Posted by: MikeM | October 24, 2006 12:21 PM
Nothing changed since 1954.
Posted by: coturnix | October 24, 2006 12:27 PM
This certainly rings true. From time to time I get into a debate with my (otherwise highly intelligent) sister-in-law, who is a devout Christian. Lately I've been trying to get her to be at least somewhat critical of the Bible as a source of knowledge etc., though with little luck. In these discussions, it's become very apparent that her knowledge of especially the Old Testament is appalling. She is of the opinion that only very little of it 'counts' today as it supposedly did in its days of origin. She also has some strange ideas about what parts of the Bible are supposed to be read in which way (historical note, moral story, direct commandment etc.); the only way she can put it into words is that she's guided by her faith. Some might call that cherrypicking...
Martin
Posted by: Martin Christensen | October 24, 2006 12:28 PM
I read the book. Great book. PZ, I'm not seeing the connection between Eagleton's paragraph and yours.
Posted by: Adam | October 24, 2006 12:29 PM
Adam, Eagleton is essentially saying "Dawkins is a bigoted hypocrite because he hates all religions and all religious people as being useless chaff," whereas in the paragraph that Prof. Myers is quoting, Dawkins begins to discuss some of the things that Dawkins appreciates about religion, like the beauty of biblical passages read in the original Hebrew.
Posted by: Stanton | October 24, 2006 12:43 PM
I am certainly glad that no atheist would try to force his beliefs on anyone.
Of course there have been aberrations, like Trotsky but lets not get picky a about a few million dead.
Posted by: Grady | October 24, 2006 12:44 PM
indictment of the reviewer's ability to comprehend the book without inserting his own biases against atheism into it.
Having read several of Eagleton's books, I wouldn't say that he has a bias against atheism. I do think he has a scholar's bias against what he perceives, for better or worse, as shoddy scholarship.
And I don't think that conceding the Bible's literary sublimity is quite the same thing as conceding the influence of religion on what Eagleton, as a Marxist, would call praxis.
I thought Eagleton's review was fair, by and large...particularly the last paragraph. I hasten to add that atheism obviously doesn't stand or fall with Dawkins (and I personally think PZ is a better and more engaging writer on that topic anyway).
Posted by: Phila | October 24, 2006 1:00 PM
indictment of the reviewer's ability to comprehend the book without inserting his own biases against atheism into it.
Having read several of Eagleton's books, I wouldn't say that he has a bias against atheism. I do think he has a scholar's bias against what he perceives, for better or worse, as shoddy scholarship.
And I don't think that conceding the Bible's literary sublimity is quite the same thing as conceding the positive influence of religion on what Eagleton, as a Marxist, would call praxis.
I thought Eagleton's review was fair, by and large...particularly the last paragraph. I hasten to add that atheism obviously doesn't stand or fall with Dawkins (and I personally think PZ is a better and more engaging writer on that topic anyway).
Posted by: Phila | October 24, 2006 1:03 PM
Oh, some atheist tried to "force" something on you, Grady? What did that person do, force you at gunpoint to visit this site? Type your posts for you? Tie you up with your face aimed at your computer screen? Get over yourself.
What is happening is that Dawkins is pointing a finger at all of the waste--sheer waste--of human effort in the service of something that does not exist (and often to the detriment of other human beings, which we should favor over any deity, any time). Naturally that will piss people off, because people are inclined to continue to rationalize their efforts ("stay the course") rather than pull back and say, "Hey, this is nonsense, let's not do it anymore."
Of course, many followers of each religion claim that every single adherent of any other religion than theirs are 1) wasting their time and efforts, and 2) at best, misled; at worst, expendable. I guess that it is perfectly acceptable to Eagleton to allow religious people to continue to accuse each other of being heretics on their way straight to hell. That's "tolerance" to him, I guess.
Posted by: Kristine | October 24, 2006 1:04 PM
I'd agree with how incredible the lack of knowledge about the Bible and about their religion most Christians have. My wife is a devout Christian, and up until this year, she hadn't read any significant portions of the bible, and knows absolutely nothing about religious history. She gets most of her Christian knowledge from recent books like the Purpose Driven Life and other fluffy stuff like that.
Posted by: King Aardvark | October 24, 2006 1:07 PM
Maybe reading the bible leads to Athiesm. I remember reading the old testament and thinking - if this is god, he's a really nasty shit, I want nothing to do with him.
Posted by: oldhippie | October 24, 2006 1:08 PM
Someone here doesn't seem to know the difference between a cult of personality and a simple null hypothesis.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 24, 2006 1:10 PM
It's astonishingly easy to blow theists out of the water if one is even remotely educated in religion. I think most atheists are extremely well-informed about what it is they're rejecting, which is one of the reasons they reject it.
As for ignorance of the Bible: Many, many "christians" are unaware that the four gospels were not written in Jesus's lifetime and do not constitute verbatim, first-hand eyewitness accounts.
Any time I pass along that little bit of data, I get responses that range from shocked disbelief to disbelieving shock, as well as the occasional wide-eyed stunned silence, usually followed by a weak, lame sputter such as, "Well, that doesn't mean they're not true..."
Which isn't the point. The point, of course, is that most believers simply don't know shit about the Bible, which is supposedly the foundation of their beliefs.
Posted by: Warren | October 24, 2006 1:15 PM
Over at Internet Infidels I see posts from a number of former Christians turned atheist who got there because they sat down and read the Bible. And the ignorance of the thumpers who show up there is astonishing -- one guy, for instance, was arguing for/against in the usual way and when someone asked him about some aspect of the cruxafition he begged off, saying that he "hadn't read that part". Now this was a guy who beliveed that exact adherence to the Bible's teachings were a requirement to stay out of an everlasting hell. If I believed that I'd sure as hell know the book; I mean folks, that has to be the biggest darned final test (it determines the entire grade, supposedly) and I'd want to make sure I passed. That guy? not so much.
Posted by: QrazyQat | October 24, 2006 1:26 PM
Of course there have been aberrations, like Trotsky but lets not get picky a about a few million dead.
Not only is it's argument logically falicious, but it can't even get it's mass murderers straight.
Let's hear it for trolls, the internet equivalent of distilled weasel vomit.
Posted by: Graculus | October 24, 2006 1:26 PM
I know reading the bible has been a significant contributor to my paganism... Who wants to worship the "abusive father" deity of the Old Testament? Anyway, there is clear evidence in the old testament that the creation story in Genesis was itself originally polythestic. Indeed, the old testament frequently admits the existance of other gods (e.g. the first commandment).
Xianity is founded on the layman's ignorance of scripture, though. Paul's Xianity is based entirely on acts of faith, on participation in ritual; Paul's Cristianity is explicite in stating that Xians do not need to keep the Hebrew law (i.e. the commandments laid down in the Old Testament). Of course, you can't have it both ways. You can't have, at the same time, be ignorant of the Old Testament and cherry-pick laws from Leviticus to back up your absurd prejudices...
Of course, the bible is very explicite in saying that the laws of the Old Testament are part of a covanent between Yaweh and the Isrealites. If you aren't an Isrealite--if your mother isn't Jewish and you haven't been adopted into the tribe--those rules simply don't apply to you. Christ never expanded that covanent to the Gentiles. Instead, he brought a new covanent. If Xians knew the bible better, they'd know they don't need to worry about the Old Testament laws...
In many ways, Fundimentalist Xianity is a cult of ignorance. Your faith cannot be a rational decision; rather, it must result from an irrational faith-event, when the Holy Ghost comes into you and you are born again. While this sounds mystical, it is not. A true mystical experience partakes of the rational, merely not of the physical. The Xian rebirth, on the other hand, partakes of the physical, but not of the rational. It has its roots in the early reaction against Gnosticism, the herasy that holds as one of its tenants that one must know the truth of God; there is no need for faith.
Still, it's hedeously embarressing to be the only non-Xian in the room, and also the only person who knows what the bible has to say on an issue. I suspect the reason so many Xians advocate posting the ten commandments in public places is that none of them can remember what they are. (Ever been called on to recite them by a street preacher? Arguing with fanatics is fun.)
By the way... I once had an elementary school teacher try to explain to me where the X in Xmas and Xian comes from (public school... in the middle of nowhere... we had readings from Luke in our "winter concert" one year...). she had much the same story as the War on Christmas idiots have today... yet another malapropism brought on by the lack of a classical education. For $500 and a chance at the new car, can anyone give me the first initial for "Christos" in Greek?
Posted by: lytefoot | October 24, 2006 2:11 PM
That would be the letter Chi, or "X"
Posted by: Stanton | October 24, 2006 2:17 PM
Wow Grady, you sure got us there! Everyone here is totally a communist. I mean obviously you can lump every sing atheist in with Trotsky, Stalin, Lenin, or Mao. Yup, that's obviously not a straw man reminiscent of Joe McCarty.
But as long as we're tossing out straw men I'd love to join in! Of course it will take me... well... seconds to look up when any religion was spread by force. The muslim conquest of the North African kingdoms or Greece for example. The Thirty Years war in which protestants and catholics fought each other, make sure to check out the super-keen massacre of Madgeburg. The massacre of the waldensians. The Spanish Inquisition's murder of thousands. Or well heck you can even look in the bible and see how the ancient Israelites conquered, massacred, enslaved, and raped their neighbors.
Should I Godwin myself and pull out quotes from ol' Adolf about how his catholic faith helped to shape... nah that would be reaching.
Posted by: commissarjs | October 24, 2006 2:33 PM
I'm in the middle of reading The God Delusion., In a similar vein to PZ's post, anyone who claims Dawkins is ignorant of theology seems not to have read the chapter in TGD where he discusses the views of Swinburne and some other modern theologians, and recounts his participation in a Templeton Foundation clusterfuck of theologians and science journalists, where there certainly seems to have been an airing of views on both sides. So I'd be very surprised if Dawkins hasn't at least been exposed to the 'rarified' views of God expressed in modern theology.
I think he just has no more use for them, logically speaking, than he does for the vernacular theology of Falwell, Dobson, and other religious demagogues.
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | October 24, 2006 2:44 PM
It's not so much that atheists 'know' a believer's religion better than they do: it's clear to me that many of you simply don't 'get' the experiential aspect of belief. What atheists *are* often likely to know more about is the actual Bible. Many Christians don't read the Bible much for themselves, much less think critically about its claims, and so they actually base their worldview on how authority is vested through their leadership. It's a recipe for exploitation....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | October 24, 2006 2:47 PM
Sure we do. But there are still only four lights.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 24, 2006 2:50 PM
It's pretty ironic for somebody to defend Eagleton, who comes out of the Marxist tradition, by claiming that Trotsky is a good argument against atheism. In fact, a great many scholars, including Leszek Kolakowski, a famous Polish anti-communist, trace the Communist ideology to its roots in Christianity. But even ignoring the intellectual history angle, it's pretty clear to any reader of the New Testament that Jesus and his followers were radical lefties--very clever of right wingers to embrace the greatest red of them all and claim that he was actually a chamber-of-commerce motivatiional speaker in sandals.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | October 24, 2006 2:51 PM
I must say I wouldn't be too sure about what counts as abrahamic prophets either, though I know some of three different christian churces. It is the protestant and free churces concentration on the new texts and cherrypicking. (They prefer if you don't study the old stuff - not because it leads to many questions but to 'few anwers'. :-) I would try Abraham (of course) and Moses, and then start guessing any name I know. OTOH I know about the sermon.
"Maybe reading the bible leads to Athiesm."
Well, it was provoking to read descriptions of demon expelling. (Fooling it to change place into a heard of goats and drive them over a cliff; forgot the ref.) Too much woo to explain away. Don't know why they keep the braineating stuff, they have had several years to cut the crap. ;-)
"the four gospels were not written in Jesus's lifetime"
That was another woo moment.
For my last two exhibits of why christianity and 'godma' is its own worst enemy I choose when I heard that the golden rule, explained to me as the one unique general christian morality, was stolen from earlier cultures, and when a comparative religion teacher said in a discussion against normal descriptions and logic that "atheism is a religion" - he was a devout christian of course. The last one was so telling about the corruption of mindsets ('I'm religious and everyone must think like me') that I decided for certain then and there.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | October 24, 2006 2:59 PM
Caledonian, I'm ashamed to say I first think of Star Trek when I hear 'There are four lights!'
Posted by: Stogoe | October 24, 2006 2:59 PM
It is in this very section that Dawkins makes his most pathetic attempt to undermine religion by declaring that when the Bible says "Love thy neighbor" it means only people like you. If he had read the Bible for himself instead of letting his pal do it for him, he might have saved himself the embarassment of finding out that the Bible meant "anyone". Refer to Leviticus 19:33-34 and Luke 19:18 for definitions of neighbor. Remember that Samaritans were not Jews.
I'm not buying Dawkin's lip service. The chief problem is that he repeatedly goes after the worst of religion and does not own the worst of Science which includes eugenics, the building of the atomic bomb, and the making of those instruments of war now in use in Iraq. This is not to condemn Science as all bad -- it is a remarkably fruitful truthseeking exercise that for its examination of the natural world outstrips the accomplishments of religion in that sector -- but insist on fairness and truthfulness. No religious zealot has accomplished destruction unaided by the Science of his day. This should put a heavy cowl of modesty and responsibility upon scientists, not propel them to blaming others for the products of their researches.
Posted by: Joel Sax | October 24, 2006 3:05 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 24, 2006 3:05 PM
I doubt that Dawkins entertains any hope of convincing semi-literate mouth breathers such as your good self, Joel. Relax, you're not part of his target audience.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 24, 2006 3:08 PM
Hello, Pharyngula Readers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! :)
I will speak for Dawkins when I say that the real bigotry and the crime against history is when the religious take acts of human selflessness and credit them to a nonexistent phantasm rather than their true source...people. I think it's particularly galling when those paragons of virtue, the Christians who claim their goodness devolves from their religion, in general have such a deficient knowledge of their purported source of morality. Perhaps the reason Christians are such bad examples is that they don't know their religion as well as we atheists do?
This sounds like one of the typical Dawkinsian ibots--intellectual robots--saying, those emotionless, mindless ibots, just like Dawkins himself, who have had lost their own holistic and critical thinkings, scientific and spiritual!
What Dawkins has done in The God Delusion is indefensible--especially epistemologically or otherwise--it is a personal vendetta against the alleged creationists who had had once (in the mid or late 1990s) tricked Dawkins into a "battle of wits" interview; wherein he couldn't even answer or philosophize a life-origin question, while the camera was let running for minutes during his stunning silence!
I recalled this account with a creationist-philosopher here, Natural selection is recursive (PhysOrgEU; September 10). Since then, as expected, Dawkins' pseudo-Darwinian scholarship has had been increasingly becoming anti-Religionism as his new found messianic calling--or a bigoted atheist without conscience, as Eagleton and other book critics have had been trying to characterize him above and elsewhere.
By the way, has anyone had a chance of reading the American philosopher Thomas Nagel's review (The Fear of Religion) of The God Delusion as "the book is a very uneven collection of scriptural ridicule, amateur philosophy, historical and contemporary horror stories, anthropological speculations, and cosmological scientific argument"?!
Furthermore, in the recent Dawkins vs. Quinn debate, Dawkins was again silent on the epistemological questions of "matter-origin" and "free-will"--in a big time!
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter--just a food for thought, from a self-introspective Darwinist evolutionist perspective. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! :)
Best wishes, Mong 10/24/6usct2:17p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Posted by: Mong H Tan, PhD | October 24, 2006 3:17 PM
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, I'm innexorably reminded of this.
Posted by: lytefoot | October 24, 2006 3:17 PM
Dr Mong Tan, would it be possible for you to not post a long essay that is, for all intents and purposes, an advertisement for your latest published work?
Posted by: Stanton | October 24, 2006 3:24 PM
>Dr Mong Tan, would it be possible for you to not post a long essay that is, for all intents and purposes, an advertisement for your latest published work?
That's Mong Tan, PhD to you...
Posted by: postblogger | October 24, 2006 3:29 PM
There's another source?
Posted by: wintermute | October 24, 2006 3:32 PM
In his case it very definitely does seem to stand for "piled higher and deeper".
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 24, 2006 3:33 PM
"originally polythestic"
Yes, I forgot that - so many reasons. Another good reason to stay away from such woo - the concept of trinity means it is still polytheistic AFAIK.
"many of you simply don't 'get' the experiential aspect of belief"
I think this may be wrong. These feelings seem for some (most?) to translate fairly straight into similar aspects of spiritual or sexual experiences when they leave a religious life. Which Dawkins presumably did, so he should be able to tell.
A fanatical experiential aspect of belief is probably something else though.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | October 24, 2006 3:34 PM
Trinity doesn't represent polythesim, for two reasons.
First, the classical polythestic mindset is inclusionary. To say that Thor, Woden, and Loki are gods is not to say that Zeus is not a god. Many Xians use the tendancy of polytheistic religions to integrate the beliefs of their neighbors as a sign of their falsity, because they don't understand this idea.
Second, Trinity is not a notion of multiple deities as such. It's a notion of a single deity with three aspects, which are also seperate entities. The idea is in itself contradictory, which is why it's so difficult for rational people to grasp. I'll admit to not understanding it myself--my closest brush with Xianity was in being raised Unitarian, a sect that has diverged far from its heretical roots. The Gnostics I've spoken with seem to understand it, but of course Gnostics are helpless to explain what I know... most other Xians simply accept the contradiction as part of the dogma.
Posted by: lytefoot | October 24, 2006 3:47 PM
Mong:
"I will speak for Dawkins"
As if.
"What Dawkins has done in The God Delusion is indefensible"
As if. Dawkins become silent because he suddenly realised that he was interviewed by creos under false flag. Wouldn't you think before deciding how to throw several people out of your house? "I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper." ( http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm )
That you spread the lie covering up the deception is indefensible, however. Now I understand why you are a selprofessed hermit.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | October 24, 2006 3:47 PM
Scott:
Some may not, but I did. I turned way from religion because/in spite of the experience of belief. It's way too long to relate here. Eventually I'll put it up on TI for those who care to read it.
The synoptic version would be that I couldn't reconcile my belief in some kind of accepting, loving creator entity with the knowledge that certain aspects of my personality were unacceptable to that entity.
That got me looking at what other religions -- and faiths -- taught, and when I saw the more or less universal nature of their core values, it left me with one of two conclusions: Either they were all basically right, which was impossible, since they don't agree no details; or they were drawing from something deeper and, therefore, innate in human behavior to reach their ethical conclusions.
The second option points not to any kind of god, but precisely the opposite. If ethics can be innate (and I think it is), there is no need to posit a god to formalize the rules into a morality.
The point, though, is that I for one do get the experience of belief. And that's why I can reject it with such certainty.
Posted by: Warren | October 24, 2006 3:57 PM
Funny that, about the Bible. I decided to start reading the Bible because, much as I dislike Christianity and all, it really would be more fair of me to learn what's in the Bible. I had a nervous suspicion that reading the book would actually show me it's more sensible than I expected.
Little did I know how wrong I was on that point; Christianity makes even less sense than I had thought--both as a religion itself and as something anyone could place their faith in. The contradictions, the false statements about things in the natural world, the nonsensical pronouncements, and above all the utter cruelties and injustices wrought by God himself and by his explicit instruction are a stronger condemnation of this book than I could have made myself.
Posted by: Leon | October 24, 2006 3:58 PM
Well, this thread seems to have been hijacked by lunatics, so nitpicking the comments of sane people is probably a waste of time. But:
I guess that it is perfectly acceptable to Eagleton to allow religious people to continue to accuse each other of being heretics on their way straight to hell. That's "tolerance" to him, I guess.
The problem here comes with the word "allow," the alternative to which would seem to be "forbid." How would one go about doing that, exactly?
Also, Eagleton's written extensively to the effect that "tolerance" in its postmodern guise is destructive in part it makes people unable or unwilling to speak out against - let alone combat - religious extremism. In fact, he pretty much says as much in his Dawkins review.
I think it's difficult to understand Eagleton's review without some grasp of his politics relative to Dawkins', as well as the somewhat different terms of academic debate in the UK. Just my opinion, of course.
Sorry about the double post above, BTW.
Posted by: Phila | October 24, 2006 4:10 PM
lytefoot:
I don't see that your first point take you anywhere. (Which is a strawman btw, since we are discussing a religion and not a practiser.)
Trinity describes explicitly different entities, as you say, since the profet Jesus is identified as being a godly "son". Claiming that it this is a contradiction doesn't make it so - claiming that "aspects" is a welldefined simultaneous description is the contradiction.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | October 24, 2006 4:12 PM
Joel Sax wrote:
"If he had read the Bible for himself instead of letting his pal do it for him, he might have saved himself the embarassment of finding out that the Bible meant "anyone". Refer to Leviticus 19:33-34 and Luke 19:18 for definitions of neighbor. Remember that Samaritans were not Jews."
Leviticus 19:33-34
"When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."
Joel should have kept reading through Leviticus rather than just cherry picking the verse that best suited his agenda. Compare the verse he quoted with what is written just a few chapters later in Leviticus chapter 25
Leviticus 25:44-46
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you.
You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.
You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.
Or how about Deuteronomy 14:21
"You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a people holy to the LORD your God."
That sure is some neighborly love isn't it? I'm just glad that they're not my neighbors.
Posted by: DingoDave | October 24, 2006 4:22 PM
commissarjs, you forgot about what those fine upstanding christians did when they finally set foot in Jerusalem during the first crusade. Those crazy proto-islamofascists never did the same thing...
Posted by: Mena | October 24, 2006 4:29 PM
Wintermute, Next Gen directly ripped 'Four Lights' off from the end of 1984. At least they could have gone with 'There are Four Isolinear Couplings in the Primary Aft Jeffries Junction!' or some other such treknobabble.
Posted by: Stogoe | October 24, 2006 4:34 PM
Joel you are constructing a straw man. Science wasn't to blame for eugenics, racism was. Darwin's work was turned on its' ear to serve the vanity of egocentric men.
A thousand years ago there was no dichotomy between religion and science. Because of the monopoly on knowledge of the dominant religions of the day. Francis Bacon received his education from religions institutions.
The same technology employed to make weapons is invariably also used in other more peaceful pursuits. Furthermore the construction of weapons as "evil" is a matter for debate. A gun itself is an inanimate object. It is not alive. It does not choose who to shoot. That's left to the wielder of the gun. The same is true for any weapon.
Posted by: commissarjs | October 24, 2006 4:40 PM
I think PZ's title to this post ought to be 'A little too much on Eagleton.'
As in, 'Beating a dead horse.'
"The two most deadly texts on the planet," says Eagleton in the concluding paragraph of his review, "are the Bible and the Koran[.] [Dawkins] has done a magnificent job over the years of speaking out against that particular strain of psychopathology known as fundamentalism.... He is right to repudiate the brand of mealy-mouthed liberalism which believes that one has to respect other people's silly or obnoxious ideas... The book is full of vivid vignettes of the sheer horrors of religion, fundamentalist or otherwise..."
That's pretty positive as reviews go. That expresses most of what I took to be the strengths of The God Delusion, many of the strengths mentioned in these discussion threads, and much (as I remember) of what PZ took to be the strengths of the book in his review in Seed.
Then Eagleton goes on:
"But Dawkins could have told us all this without being so appallingly bitchy about those of his scientific colleagues who disagree with him, and without being so theologically illiterate."
Eagleton is being appallingly bitchy himself here, and the phrase 'theologically illterate' reeks of snobbery and turf-guarding, but Eagleton's overall criticism is not unreasonable: if believing in god differs radically from Dawkins' conception--either in the nature of the god or in how believing works-- then the book misses its mark. It misunderstands or misidentifies forces that must be understood if they are to be contained, and must be contained if they are as dangerous as both Eagleton and Dawkins claim.
Posted by: lockean | October 24, 2006 4:42 PM
I'm reluctant to post in a forum where it's apparently considered OK to refer to other posters as "mouth-breathers," but I am curious why Eagleton's review is hashed over endlessly in these and nearby quarters, whereas Thomas Nagel's more sophisticated critique in the New Republic is barely mentioned.
Posted by: Harold Henderson | October 24, 2006 4:56 PM
Mong, don't you even dare to accuse anyone of dualistic or compartmentalized "ibot" thinking. You know perfectly well that that footage is heavily edited. Dawkins has replied to those dorks who weaseled their little crackpot selves into his house. The footage to which you refer shows him, during the seconds, not "minutes," of his silence, contemplating and rejecting throwing these lowlives out of his house.
Posted by: Kristine | October 24, 2006 5:00 PM
Caledonian, Warren:
If you 'get it' (because you've had that sort of experience), that's great. I hope you guys understand that I'm not claiming that any sort of subjective experience validates any particular religious claim, either. I made my comments by way of comparing subjective experience (which you can't really directly test, even if you 'get it') with what can be objectively considered, the actual text.
And it is obvious that whether an atheist 'gets' religion or not, they are often far more knowledgeable about what the Bible actually says that many who claim to be believers....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | October 24, 2006 5:05 PM
...whereas Thomas Nagel's more sophisticated critique in the New Republic is barely mentioned.
This review is oh-so-eloquently entitled The Fear of Religion by Thomas Nagel.
If anyone subscribes, please post your thoughts. I'm on a subscription diet.
Posted by: Kristine | October 24, 2006 5:10 PM
Unfortunately I'm one of the hordes of ex-subscribers to Joe Liebermsn Weekly so I haven't seen Nagel's piece. Are there actually any subscribers left?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 24, 2006 5:13 PM
Mong: This believer similarly has no use for your misleading comments regarding Dr. Dawkins. 'Alleged' creationists, my eye! The film crew was working for Answers In Genesis, a fact which they concealed from Dr. Dawkins. AIG is THE creationist outfit operating in North America at the present time, and it would be difficult to imagine a more anti-scientific and dogmatic group of religious bigots than Ken Ham's group.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even offering such an ill-informed comment. I guarantee you that Nagel, who you also cite, would never make that sort of blunder.
My personal testimony is this: when I approached Dr. Dawkins for permission to use extracts of his work for a seminar I was offering at my church, he not only gave permission but offered a few paragraphs of free advice on what parts of his work would be most apropos. Dr. Dawkins knew full well that I was a believer. Does this generous and supportive communication lend any credence to the notion that Dr. Dawkins has a personal animus against belief, or believers of any ilk? I think not. He simply cares about what is true, and has different views on what is true than I do. Perhaps, Mong, you should be similarly gracious in your evaluation of his thought, rather than repeat long-discredited creationist canards at his expense!
Angrily....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | October 24, 2006 5:25 PM
Why aren't we commenting on a review locked up behind a subscribers-only firewall at a journal I have little interest in reading?
Gosh, I don't know.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 24, 2006 5:27 PM
So PZ you're not really interested in the views of one the most respected philosophers alive in the USA on the topic of religion? A little narrow minded don't you think?
Posted by: JJP | October 24, 2006 6:24 PM
I wouldn't mind reading the review. I'm not interested in subscribing to TNR.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 24, 2006 6:42 PM
I'm with PZ on this one. TNR is obnoxious not to allow readings of individual articles--the way Salon and other journals do--by only asking to you to watch an ad or two. But no, you have to %#$@in subscribe.
TNR can take their firewall and shove it.
Posted by: John Farrell | October 24, 2006 6:44 PM
If I have time for a cup of coffee at Borders this week I'll read it there, if it's in the issue currently on newsstands. I do very much respect Nagel, but find some of his views, eg. his mysterianism with respect to consciousness, highly unconvincing. I expect that same streak of irrationalism shows through in his response to Dawkins.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 24, 2006 6:48 PM
"many of you simply don't 'get' the experiential aspect of belief."
A friend of mine once was unwaveringly certain that Jerry Garcia had played the entire second set wearing a space helmet. Is that close?
Posted by: CCP | October 24, 2006 7:00 PM
"many of you simply don't 'get' the experiential aspect of belief."
A friend of mine once was unwaveringly certain that Jerry Garcia had played the entire second set wearing a space helmet. Is that close?
Posted by: CCP | October 24, 2006 7:01 PM
was was that that twice twice??
Posted by: CCP | October 24, 2006 7:04 PM
PZ said: rather than an indictment of the reviewer's ability to comprehend the book without inserting his own biases against atheism into it.
Which would be utterly surprising since Eagleton is an atheist himself. You are forgetting how diverse atheists are. The review should be seen as what it is: the review of a far-left atheist (Marxist-leaning, in fact) who regards Dawkins as an instance of a very bourgeois (note that he even gestures at it more than once in the review, calling Dawkins a suburbanite as an insult, for instance) and, in his view, intellectually lightweight form of atheism that he can't stand. It's unlikely he would consider your defense by appeal to Dawkins's comments about the literary and historical value of the Bible as anything more than yet another bourgeois failure to have good priorities -- Eagleton's far to the left of you, and would regard your defense just as he regards Dawkins's original argument: far too socially conservative and 'suburban'. That's a very different sort of atheism; and it's why Eagleton has more respect for Catholic critiques of capitalism, liberation theology, etc., than for Dawkins's critiques of religion.
Something similar can be said for Thomas Nagel's recent attack on the book as well; Nagel's an atheist whose atheism is predicated on a strong form of rationalism that he regards as incompatible with Dawkins's argument -- which he also regards as intellectually lightweight. Given how diverse atheists are, it's not at all surprising that some of the critical reviews will be by atheists who think Dawkins's approach is an inferior approach to their own.
The utterly silly thing is to assume without inquiry or argument that anyone who disagrees with Dawkins must have 'biases against atheism'.
Posted by: Brandon | October 24, 2006 7:08 PM
Wintermute, Next Gen directly ripped 'Four Lights' off from the end of 1984. At least they could have gone with 'There are Four Isolinear Couplings in the Primary Aft Jeffries Junction!' or some other such treknobabble.
It's "fingers" in 1984, so it's reasonable to be reminded of ST by "lights"...
Posted by: windy | October 24, 2006 7:37 PM
Perhaps someone could post the Nagel review? Anyway the point is that Dawkins hasn't done all of the intellectual work required; his attempts at 'philosophy' are less than brilliant. And that people who are philosophers have pointed this out. Sorry but not all questions can be answered scientifically. Again philosophers should be respect of science and the power of its methodology without falling into the trap of scientism. For example the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a tough philosophical question. Check out Bede Rundle's "Why there is Something rather than Nothing" which is a defence of naturalist/physicalist ontology that is very nuanced and sophisticated. In comparison, on the basis of "The God Delusion", Dawkins wouldn't survive an Oxford tutorial as a philosophy student for more than 5 nanoseconds. Now one of the benefits of learning about philosophy is that one realizes that there are very few 'knockdown arguments' and that the fragility of our ideas/concepts is very real. I happen to be a physicalist and embrace a naturalistic ontology but I'm not intellectually dishonest/illiterate enough not to acknowledge problems or weaknesses in that position - it's just that in my view the other alternatives have bigger problems and more fundamental weaknesses. Again see John Searle's defend of philosophical realism and the correspondence theory of truth in his "The Construction of Social Reality". In my judgment Searle's arguments are very good but they are hardly immune from any criticism or query. Actually Searle's main task in that book is to ask how can things like money or pain be both subjective and objective features of the world and his answers, I think, have some promise in understanding religious feelings/experiences (but that's for another discussion).
Moreover anyone that thinks metaphorically shouting 'IDIOT' into someone's face (as Dawkins does do) is a good way to get him or her to see your point of view isn't a very astute observer of human psychology. Whilst the right to be rude, to satirize etc. is to be defended, right now in the US I do think we need to get religious moderates on board with the whole "can we please just teach science in our science courses" debate. Again Dawkins fails to address the issue of value pluralism - in a liberal society there will be different conception of what makes for a 'good life' how to we balance different and incompatible claims, how do we agree to disagree in a civil way? (See John Gray, "The Two Faces of Liberalism"). The difficulty is that liberalism contains two philosophies. In one, toleration is justified as a means to truth. In this view, toleration is an instrument of rational consensus, and a diversity of ways of life is endured in the faith that it is destined to disappear. In the other, toleration is valued as a condition of peace, and divergent ways of living are welcomed as marks of diversity in the good life. The first conception supports an ideal of ultimate convergence on values, the latter an ideal of modus vivendi. And these two aspects of liberalism are in conflict with each other.
Oh incidentally Sam Harris - who is loved around these parts, almost as much as Dawkins is, thinks that torture is ok - not exactly my idea of upholding liberal ideas (see Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, Norton, New York, 2004; Sam Harris, "In Defense of Torture", The Huffington Post, 17th October 2005; Sam Harris, "Sam Harris on The Reality of Islam", Truthdig, 7th February 2006; Sam Harris, "Head-in-the-Sand Liberals: Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists", Los Angeles Times, 18th September 2006).
Posted by: JJP | October 24, 2006 8:04 PM
I meant Roger Bacon not Francis Bacon, too many Bacons...
mmmmmm.... bacon....
Posted by: commissarjs | October 24, 2006 8:05 PM
That's right - Dawkins is something of an intellectual lightweight outside of his subject of biology (well on the basis of his philosophical 'arguments' in The God Delusion at least).
And even with biology the notion of a 'meme' is absurd. And I'm an adaptionist if anyone is interested.
Posted by: JJP | October 24, 2006 8:09 PM
The truth is, I also would say that The God Delusion is not a particularly good book- it's just a rehashing of points that are boringly obvious to any freethinker, no new ground broken, no intellectual heavy lifting. I didn't particularly enjoy reading it (which didn't take very long.) Dennett's recent book is vastly superior. The thing is, the content of Dawkins's book, while exceedingly old news to many of us, will not be so to a lot of people who have lived their whole lives inside the hothouse of their religious upbringings, and who might pick it up simply because it's controversial and prominently shelved in bookstores. (As a former Unitarian I've met a fair number of "deconverts" from Xtianity so I feel I do have some insight into the psychology of their deconversions.) It's very questionable whether the kind of TLC some would have preferred Dawkins to provide is really more salutary for these people than the shock treatment he actually does give them. I think an enounter with a supremely self-confident, take-no-prisoners atheist like Dawkins may be exactly the jolt some of them need. Anyway there's quite a lot of the milk-and-water stuff about already, so there's surely room for something a bit stronger.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 24, 2006 9:28 PM
In the other, toleration is valued as a condition of peace, and divergent ways of living are welcomed as marks of diversity in the good life. The first conception supports an ideal of ultimate convergence on values, the latter an ideal of modus vivendi. And these two aspects of liberalism are in conflict with each other.
There's no ulitmate convergence of values. There's not some kind of pyramid with values harmony at the top that people climb. It's dog eat dog. Dawkins realizes that. Religion and science are in coflict. Hopefully, his clashing style will move us further in the direction of common sense. Hopefully, as more people pick up the banner of atheism, the idiotic god ideas in people's heads will be replaced by something better and wiser.
Diversity is devoutly to be wished, but diversity can't be about being nice to fundie nutcases who treat gays like shit, do everything they can to perpetuate intolerance, and create a fantasy being in their heads to justify their sense of superiority.
A lot of philosophy is bullshit. That's a massive generalization, I know, but it's true. Philosophy has a lot of the same disadvatages as religion. Philosophers tend to make up a lot of crap whole cloth in their heads and no one without professional training ends up knowing what the heck the poor philosopher is talking about, because it's so arcane.
Dawkins is a refreshing, down-to-earth, rubbish-intolerant, bullshit-destroying force for good in a world addicted to a lot of really dumb ideas.
Posted by: George | October 24, 2006 9:28 PM
Indeed, there are some questions science cannot answer. But I have yet to see any other system produce answers for those questions - indeed, I have yet to see any other system produce any meaningful answers at all. Superstitions, handwaving, crippled explanations - by the bushel. Answers? Not at all.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 24, 2006 10:24 PM
Stogoe: Technically 1984 had four fingers. Four lights really was a change.
No, it isn't - there is nothing great about possessing experience of what it is like to delude oneself about anything, excepting possibly that it is an excellent teacher of how not to do it again. Some people never learn.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 24, 2006 10:49 PM
the phrase 'theologically illterate' reeks of snobbery and turf-guarding,
But why is it snobbish to call someone theologically illiterate? You don't have to be religious to be a Bible scholar or an expert on Medieval scholasticism; you just have to complete a certain amount of study and effort, according to the official requirements of that field (or their equivalent).
Which brings me to this:
A lot of philosophy is bullshit. That's a massive generalization, I know, but it's true.
A lot of it is bullshit, perhaps. Nonetheless, if you're going to tell a philosophy professor that, say, Charles S. Peirce's "Some Consequences of Four Incapacities" is bullshit, then she has a right to expect a closely reasoned, logical argument that shows real familiarity and engagement with the text and its arguments. Otherwise, she'll probably consider you lazy at best and a blowhard at worst.
Posted by: Phila | October 24, 2006 10:58 PM
Um, no kidding. Fortunately we aren't making a claim about any specific philosophical work, but about the philosophical justification for the assumptions inherent in theology - only a general familiarity with theology is needed, not exacting knowledge of later works building on that foundation.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 24, 2006 11:03 PM
So philosophy is mere superstition, handwaving and crippled explanations then? If so I guess that thinkers like Spinoza, Hume, Wittgenstein, Searle et al., can all be ignored as so much rubbish to be placed into the dustbin of history? Now much philosophy is muddled headed rubbish (post-modernism springs to mind) but one does have to be a quite extraordinarily egregious philistine to think that all philosophy is worthless junk. To paraphrase Eagleton such an outlook makes Dick Cheney sound like Thomas Mann. Are all truths scientific truths? 2+2=4 a 'scientific' truth anyone??? Even if all scientific knowledge was discovered how would someone answer the question as to how to live