…and this is a 
Eagleton vs. Dawkins
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: October 22, 2006 4:05 PM, by PZ Myers
You should only read Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion if you enjoy the spectacle of "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching." That's the title of the review, but I think it's more a description of the contents. You can get the gist from just the first paragraph.
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. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.
Shorter Terry Eagleton: "How dare a mere scientist criticize theology?" The whole thing blusters on in that vein for far too long.
He really misses the point, though. What we have in Dawkins is a scientist who has a fairly good grasp of what the real world is and how it works, noting that the personal spiritual guardian of most religious beliefs doesn't appear to be doing anything in that world, and that all the convoluted rationalizations of theology seem to be a desperate grasping at straws, trying to insert an a priori belief in a supernatural entity into a universe that doesn't need it. Eagleton practically snarls that Dawkins is "theologically illiterate"…which I think is a good thing. I don't need to know the arcana of drawing up a horoscope to know that astrology is bunk; similarly, no one needs to spend years poring over the scribblings of theologians to see that their god is a phantasm. It ain't the geopolitics of South Asia; South Asia exists, and bears a body of hard data.
And good grief, how can anyone speak of theology as the "queen of the sciences" as if that were a good thing? You've got to laugh at the notion, but this fellow writes as though the addition of half a millennium of knowledge that has dethroned his gibbering, senile queen was a great mistake.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
In his review Terry Eagelton asks,
These questions are about as relevant as those concerning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They are only of interest to those who already believe in God.
Dawkins raises question about the very existence of God. Until that question is answered, it's a waste of time to discuss the concept of grace. I'm surprised that Terry Eagelton doesn't understand this fundamental point. I'm sure that knowing Rahner's views on grace aren't going to help us understand whether God exists.
There's also a great deal of hypocrisy in what Eagelton writes. He unfairly accuses Dawkins of not addressing the sophisticated rationalizations of modern religious thought while blithely focusing on C.S. Lewis-type Christainity as though that were the only version of religion that evades the criticisms in "The God Delusion." One wonders whether Eagelton rejects Hinduism; and if he does, is it because he has read all the modern Hindu apologists?
Posted by: Larry Moran | October 22, 2006 4:51 PM
Woo... Eagleton called him a name: "card-carrying rationalist". Somehow, I know that was intended as a slur, like: "card-carrying child molester", or "card-carrying wife beater", but if someone called me a "card-carrying rationalist" I would take it as a good thing! Not Eagleton... anything would be better than rationality! Isn't it amazing how these folks can turn common sense on its head?
Card-carrying Uncle Don
Posted by: Don Culberson | October 22, 2006 4:52 PM
PZ, you might be interested in the New York Times review of The God Delusion.
Posted by: Orac | October 22, 2006 4:57 PM
Also of interest is the discussion following Adam Roberts' account of the Eagleton review on the Valve. Much rancor, much fun ... but that's the long version. You may prefer the short one.
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | October 22, 2006 5:11 PM
I must agree that Russell is a far deeper atheist than Dawkins. But it doesn't matter; they dismissed Russell too.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | October 22, 2006 5:12 PM
Theology is "queen of the sciences"? I always thought that mathematics was the queen.
In the coming bitch fight, I'm putting my money on math.
Posted by: Zeno | October 22, 2006 5:43 PM
The defining feature of the sciences is hypothesis invalidation. If theology is the queen of sciences, it must therefore postulate hypotheses and attempt to invalidate them.
How, exactly, does theology made testable statements about the existence and nature of God? Where can these statements and their tests be found?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 22, 2006 5:49 PM
Yes - just like all of those creationists who delve so deeply into the details of evolution when making their arguments.
So glad to have found your blog. Richard Dawkins in my god! :)
Posted by: Mary | October 22, 2006 5:50 PM
I agree with you guys on your criticism. However, If Eagleton's criticism was mainstream Christianity I would be exceedingly pleased!!
Posted by: CalUWxBill | October 22, 2006 6:02 PM
I did some flailing and punching at the Eagleton review last week while it was still subscription, here and here. (Some commenters - well, one, anyway - have been using the 'how can you ask all these fool questions about what people mean by an omnipotent loving god who allows all this suffering when there are thousands of articles in theology journals that answer the questions?' routine on me. It's not a very convincing ploy, it seems to me.)
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | October 22, 2006 6:07 PM
I had not heard of Terry Eagleton, but the Wikipedia page tells me he is a "Professor of Cultural Theory."
That's the most fraudulent corner of academia short of theology itself. Not only do cultural theorists waste millions of university dollars and hours of students' time, but they also contribute tremendously to anti-intellectualism by being precisely the type of elitist, unrealistic, ivory tower pricks that the stereotypes suggest. Every time one of these half-wits opens his mouth, he turns somebody off to the entire idea of higher education. Nobody wants to pay $100,000 for their kids to come out of college talking like these goofballs.
Their field is not a world of facts, reason, and inquiry, but of pointless name-dropping citations and contests to misuse the most avant garde vocabulary words in a single paper. They strive for obfuscation rather than clarity in their papers, and if you sit down to decipher one you'll spend hours and eventually find that it didn't actually say anything at all.
Eagleten seems to at least have some idea of his own uselessness, considering this quote from the Wiki page:
Of course, he must not fully understand the point, or he would not pretend to be qualified to criticize Dawkins.
Posted by: JasonN | October 22, 2006 6:21 PM
What giggles me is that Eagleton rants furiously for 20-odd paragraphs and *then* accuses Dawkins of being "appallingly bitchy". Tu quoque!
Posted by: Jeremy Henty | October 22, 2006 6:24 PM
"And good grief, how can anyone speak of theology as the "queen of the sciences" as if that were a good thing? You've got to laugh at the notion, but this fellow writes as though the addition of half a millennium of knowledge that has dethroned his gibbering, senile queen was a great mistake."
PZ the only one that is laughing is you and your minority friends.
Posted by: The Laugh | October 22, 2006 6:26 PM
Suppose one studied religion and came to the conclusion that what is central in religion is not God, but belief. After all, the defining characteristic of a phenomenon need not be its most visible one. The believer casts the world (of people) into two categories - those who believe and those who don't. It is this that produces all the social effects commonly associated with religion. Among other things, in a religious world, the construction of one's sense of self is tied to belief.
All that is happening on this blog is then that a religionist of one type is saying to the religionist of another type that "my belief is more rational than yours". If Dawkins is successful, he has merely replaced one mode of religion with another. To be truely successful, IMO, he has to change the mode of thinking altogether. For example, a different ethic would be - what you do is what counts. Your identity is constructed from what you do and how you relate to others, not in what you believe. So, e.g., in a culture with this ethic, the following will be unintelligible: ""There are times when I am so little like myself that one would take me for another man of entirely opposite character" (Rosseau)
The reason this is that for most people, the belief in scientific materialism is quite barren as a guide for daily living. It leads to this : "It is a purely consumer society. There is not much to life out there except buying things. Granted, a medieval serf would have regarded this as a problem much to be desired, but it leads to a certain bleakness today." (Fred Reed).
Posted by: Arun | October 22, 2006 6:44 PM
Indeed, how dare a scientist criticize theology without taking the time to understand the arguments?
Marilyn Robinson does a nice number on Dawkins in the recent issue of Harper's Magazine (November 2006), pointing out rather adeptly that Dawkins cannot be accused of foisting science on theology because his epistemology is hardly scientific.
An excellent read that I cannot summarize here but do so on my blog later. This agnostic agreed with it on many points. When it comes to epistemology, Dawkins can hardly be called rigorous and truthseeking, just another gnat in the eye of human searching.
Posted by: Joel Sax | October 22, 2006 6:48 PM
Quoth Eagleton, "Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins..."
The use of the word "rationalist" as a pejorative is a fairly good indicator of an author's departure from reality. However, I have to admit that I'd love to obtain a rationalist card--I could flash it to any missionary who attempts to convert me to this, that, or the other.
Posted by: JasonG | October 22, 2006 6:54 PM
"South Asia exists".
Actually, "South Asia" as a political or geographical division is a modern construct. It used to be part of the Orient. Columbus would have referred to any part of "South Asia" (as well as parts distant from it) as "India". Though the British ranged all over South Asia, they had a "East India Office" and not a "South Asia Office", etc. As far as I can tell, "South Asia" dates from the Cold War.
Moreover the "South Asian" identity is a contested one.
E.g.,
http://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/2006/09/imagining-south-asia-journal-cfp.html
Posted by: Arun | October 22, 2006 6:58 PM
"The reason this is that for most people, the belief in scientific materialism is quite barren as a guide for daily living. It leads to this : "It is a purely consumer society. There is not much to life out there except buying things. Granted, a medieval serf would have regarded this as a problem much to be desired, but it leads to a certain bleakness today." (Fred Reed)."
Yeah, I'm sure if you compare the consumer spending of the average Christian with the average agnostic or atheist in this country, those non-believers would rival Mellon or Rockefeller in their rapacious desires in comparison to the generous, self-denying theists. Please. The megachurches that are engulfing more and more of the nominal "Christian" population in this country are built on the foundations of Marketing 101, and they encourage personal accumulation and the furtherance of economic inequality as amendments 11 and 12 to the (as ol' Al Gonzalez might say) quaint decalogue that is just so damned demanding. Very convincing, Arun.
As for you referral to evolutionary biology as a religion - well, if you've actually been reading this blog as you indicate, you should have a better understanding of why such a silly claim is as tired as the rest of your arguments.
Posted by: Tom Huxley | October 22, 2006 7:04 PM
Oh no there are many more.
It seems to me all these people bang on Dawkins for this or that when it is more than clear to anyone that all they have to do is simply provide even the smallest thread of evidence but simply cannot do so.
Posted by: GH | October 22, 2006 7:09 PM
Joel Sax asks,
Which arguments concerning the existence of God do you think Dawkins doesn't understand?
This is your big chance to enlighten all atheists. I can't wait to hear what you have to say.
Posted by: Larry Moran | October 22, 2006 7:15 PM
Joel Sax asks,
Which arguments concerning the existence of God do you think Dawkins doesn't understand?
This is your big chance to enlighten all atheists. I can't wait to hear what you have to say.
Posted by: Larry Moran | October 22, 2006 7:16 PM
This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince.
Excuse me, who is best at coming up with "vulgar caricatures of religious faith" if it's not the religious themselves?
I don't see much "wincing" when self-caricatures emit their unintentional self-parody and allow this drivel to influence what they call foreign or domestic policy.
Posted by: Kristine | October 22, 2006 7:48 PM
You guys just don't get it - you're reading this review as if the words on the page mean what they say they mean. I've been looking at my super-clever, theoretically-constructed machine which applies the latest neo-Foucauldian, re-de-constituted Freudian frameworks to texts and it has spat out a rewriting of the idea that theology is "Queen of the sciences". In fact, theology is the drag queen of the sciences. Yes, it tries to tuck away the parts that would give away it's fakery and dress itself up in a big old wig - but in fact, it's nothin' but a drag queen.
When you think of theology, just think of a woman with chest hair. Or this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4alLarEefs
Posted by: Tom Morris | October 22, 2006 7:48 PM
"These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday"
Yeah right! Like maybe in some parallel Fetishist Queen universe where theology is the science of choice. And especially if they get to dress up like the catholic church dudes with funny hats and all.
Posted by: JamesR | October 22, 2006 7:54 PM
I won't gainsay the general tone of criticism found here, as I haven't read the article in question. I merely note the following:
1) PZ's summary of the article does not, in fact, follow from the excerpt quoted above. The situation is *not* 'How dare a scientist discuss theology?'. The complaint seems to be 'Why should I regard the opinion of the theologically unsophisticated on the question of God?' In other words, Dawkins isn't to be disqualified on the basis of being a scientist; the implied lack of credibility is instead to be derived from Dawkins' alleged lack of theological sophistication. The article may well eventually make the point PZ claims it makes; I will read it for myself to decide.
2) Whichever argument that Eagleton is making, neither are valid with respect to 'The God Delusion' and Dawkins' position as a whole. Dawkins could be a complete ignoramus on theology, but only some of his arguments refer to theology. The fact that one discipline has proposed solutions to the problem of evil (theodicy) does not make it any less of a problem, since their proposed models are not testable.
3) Having said all that, if Dr. Dawkins is really interested in drawing those with liberal or moderate religious sentiments to consider abandoning the 'God delusion', he would be more effective if those arguments which referred to theology considered viewpoints other than those of fundamentalists.
Respectfully submitted...SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | October 22, 2006 7:54 PM
Their field is not a world of facts, reason, and inquiry, but of pointless name-dropping citations and contests to misuse the most avant garde vocabulary words in a single paper. They strive for obfuscation rather than clarity in their papers, and if you sit down to decipher one you'll spend hours and eventually find that it didn't actually say anything at all.
Well said. Exactly my impression. The whole review is just one long series of disconnected babblings by someone who tries too hard to sound intelligent, and fails miserably. A real struggle to finish it.
Posted by: jeffw | October 22, 2006 7:58 PM
"Queen of science" -- as in a sort of a garish, Bangkok lady-boy artifice of the real thing. I have to say, I kinda like this analogy! I guess you can think of theology as science's overly-eager, heavy-jawed "girlfriend" sitting at the bar of academia: sure, after enough alcohol she looks enticing, but once you get to third base, you realize you've made some embarrasing errors in judgement... Suddenly, being a "positivist" never sounded so good.
My goodness, how dare somebody who's job it is to study the natural world using reason and empirical evidense write a book about theology! After all, scientists are interested in things that have a basis in reality -- they're totally ill-prepared to talk about God! They just don't have the insights and expertise on things that don't "exist" in the literal sense. This rube actually seems to say this:
Ah yes, God is the sound of one hand clapping, too. Wow, that's totally deep. You freakkin' blew my mind! Dude, you should totally write a book or something.
I really enjoyed The God Delusion, but I would say that Dawkins didn't go far enough in his critique of the creation myth. Evidently, he didn't make it clear enough to folks like Eagleton that "God did it" isn't a legitimate answer to the question "how is there something instead of nothing?", since it doesn't answer the question in any meaningful way. "God did it" isn't even the right answer to the right question, since any explanation involving poofing things into existence doesn't actually address the original question of how. I don't think Dawkins intentionally pulled punches, but I wish he had made this point more clearly for the Eagletons of the world.
This really is a strange book review. Is it just me, or are most paragraphs of it are devoted to defending Eagleton's own favorite flavor of Jesus-n-me/"I got a tingly feeling" treacle? It seems that his disagreement with Dawkins is used as sort of a predicate for carrying on about his own religious agenda. I have to admit I'm not an ardent reader of the London Review of Books, but this seems like a very unsual format, and I would have expected higher standards. Aren't there editors that are supposed to keep hacks like from going on tangents like this?
Posted by: j.t.delaney | October 22, 2006 8:16 PM
"Eagleton practically snarls that Dawkins is 'theologically illiterate'...which I think is a good thing. I don't need to know the arcana of drawing up a horoscope to know that astrology is bunk; similarly, no one needs to spend years poring over the scribblings of theologians to see that their god is a phantasm."
It may be a good thing to be theologically illiterate; but Eagleton seems to be making the unexceptionable point that you shouldn't be theologically illiterate when opining about . . . theology. Unexceptionable in most most places but this one, I guess.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | October 22, 2006 8:25 PM
Dawkins would rebut this guy in his typical fashion. He would ask how much the critic knows about the theology of Zeus and Thor. The guy would naturally say, "not much". Then Dawkins would ask him if he believed in the gods Zeus and Thor. The guy would say no, and then Dawkins would ask him how he had the nerve to not believe in a theology that he knew so little about.
Posted by: Chiefley | October 22, 2006 8:35 PM
I disagree with the above analyses, almost completely. To wit: http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2006/10/about_god_and_theologians_and.php. Why is Dawkins more suited to tackle the God issue than Terry Eagleton?
Posted by: BRC | October 22, 2006 8:45 PM
I simply cannot understand why people presume Dawkins hasn't heard or considered all manners of theology. I doubt very much as if he is but recognizes even the alleged advanced theology for what it is mere handwaving.
He is entitled to his view as are any of us. Who exactly would be better suited to discuss an invisible entity?
Posted by: GH | October 22, 2006 8:51 PM
But it's precisely because Dawkins, and most commentators on this page, think that he *is* better suited than the likes of a Terry Eagleton, or you, or me, that interests me. Plus, reducing it to a conversation about "an invisible entity" is quite odd to my mind.
Posted by: BRC | October 22, 2006 8:58 PM
frick. link was not added right, three replies above. trying again:
http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2006/10/about_god_and_theologians_and.php
Posted by: BRC | October 22, 2006 9:02 PM
frick. link was not added right three replies above.
trying again:
http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2006/10/about_god_and_theologians_and.php
Posted by: BRC | October 22, 2006 9:02 PM
Eagleton proclaimed:
"Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch Ness monster."
But, rather simply:
Why isn't believing in God exactly "like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist."
As the notion of a god is as notions of aliens and tooth fairies are, theologians must be considered, inconsiderately, merely tellers of fairy tales.
The Loch Ness monster's "transcendence and invisibility" are precisely all of what it is. What other parts are there, of Eagleton's god, that differentiate it from the monster?
Posted by: R. Fye | October 22, 2006 9:04 PM
The problem is: who is "theologically literate"? Are theologans any more qualified to give reliable answers on the existence of God and the supernatural than Dawkins? What is a meaningful yardstick of literacy for a field of study that has no measurable basis in reality? I contend that Dawkins is as eminently qualified and "literate" as any theologan. Then again, for the sake of disclosure, I think my pet cat is equally fit to give reliable answers about the thoughts, motivations and inner workings of supernatural beings.
Posted by: j.t.delaney | October 22, 2006 9:07 PM
Eagleton: "Dawkins may be relieved to know that I don't actually know where he lives."
What's that all about?
An Eagleton quote:
"All propaganda or popularization involves a putting of the complex into the simple, but such a move is instantly not constructive. For if the complex can be put into the simple, then it cannot be as complex as it seemed in the first place; and if the simple can be an adequate medium of such complexity, then it cannot after all be as simple as all that."
Huh? I'll take Dawkins any day.
Posted by: George | October 22, 2006 9:13 PM
"The reason this is that for most people, the belief in scientific materialism is quite barren as a guide for daily living. It leads to this : "It is a purely consumer society. There is not much to life out there except buying things. Granted, a medieval serf would have regarded this as a problem much to be desired, but it leads to a certain bleakness today." (Fred Reed)."
Sorry... This was a while back. I just got home from work. To chime in with Tom Huxley above, this reminded me of the time we were driving back from a vacation and were passed on the highway by a gold-trimmed Cadillac Escalade adorned with a gold-trimmed X-tian fish icon... With some X-tian-themed vanity license plate as well... That incident is such a microcosm of my experience with X-tianity. Have these people ever read any of the words of X?
A gold-plated fish!
I still can't believe it...
Posted by: Don Price | October 22, 2006 9:15 PM
Eagleton's big mistake is to act like Dawkins is discussing theology at all. He isn't, he's discussing whether or not a truth claim about the existence of God holds up. The most telling part of the review, to my mind, is this: after outlining his friendly brand of Christianity, Eagleton admits,
Well, that's all that matters then, isn't it?
Posted by: nicole | October 22, 2006 9:17 PM
The situation is *not* 'How dare a scientist discuss theology?'. The complaint seems to be 'Why should I regard the opinion of the theologically unsophisticated on the question of God?' In other words, Dawkins isn't to be disqualified on the basis of being a scientist; the implied lack of credibility is instead to be derived from Dawkins' alleged lack of theological sophistication.
The problem is Eagleton doesn't present a strong case for this. Instead of specific examples, Eagleton just makes simple declarations that this is the case.
He does the same thing regarding God as a scientific hypothesis. "God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in." Why on Earth not? What makes a consideration of God so special? We can't ask that because Terry Eagleton says so? "His transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch Ness monster." Well that's convenient. You can discuss empirical evidence of the Loch Ness Monster because the nature of the Monster is corporeal, but if you posit an invisible, metaphysical "entity"/non-entity, you can't point to lack of any evidence, because lack of any evidence is part of the definition.
Not only that, but some of his paraphrases of Dawkins arguments make me suspicious. "In some obscure way, Dawkins manages to imply that the Bishop of Oxford is responsible for Osama bin Laden." In other words, although Dawkins never says the Bishop of Oxford is responsible for OBL, but I'll go ahead and put those words in his mouth anyway. Or the rather bizarre passage about where Dawkins grew up. "...one can be reasonably certain that he would not be Europe's greatest enthusiast for Foucault, psychoanalysis, agitprop, Dadaism, anarchism or separatist feminism. All of these phenomena, one imagines, would be as distasteful to his brisk, bloodless rationality as the virgin birth. Yet one can of course be an atheist and a fervent fan of them all. His God-hating, then, is by no means simply the view of a scientist admirably cleansed of prejudice. It belongs to a specific cultural context. One would not expect to muster many votes for either anarchism or the virgin birth in North Oxford." Ignoring the non sequiter about Dadaism/anarchism/et al, the shorter Eagleton is: Dawkins doesn't believe in God simply because he grew up in North Oxford.
Posted by: dorkafork | October 22, 2006 10:28 PM
"The problem is: who is "theologically literate"? Are theologans any more qualified to give reliable answers on the existence of God and the supernatural than Dawkins? What is a meaningful yardstick of literacy for a field of study that has no measurable basis in reality?"
I think you're missing my point. Whether theology has any measurable basis in reality is irrelevant; it is itself a subject matter, as real as any other subject matter, about which a person can choose to know more or less. The best critic of theology would have an extensive and accurate knowledge of that subject matter. Dawkins has been criticized, more than once, for being quite a bit weaker on the subject of theology, and on the broader subject of religion, than he is on the relevant science. Maybe such criticism is just plain wrong as applied to Dawkins, but that's the only pertinent thing to say here; not how wonderful it is to be an ignoramus about theology.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | October 22, 2006 10:33 PM
Indeed. What makes this so rich in irony is all the folk in science who are definitely *not* getting rich, and who have often chosen a less fiscally-rewarding but more personally-compelling career as an educator, researcher or field worker in science....as opposed to the generally more-lucrative and well-worn medical or engineering career paths. This is something like a secular vocation for many folk, and one of the consequences of this choice is they tend to have families later, and less children.
Meanwhile, you've got gobs of Christians involved in the religious equivalent of multilevel marketing, all the while chirping about a 'prosperity doctrine' from a God that they fervently believe wants them to be materially successful and famously reproductive. Gotta raise up godly seed for the Lord and all that, not to mention keep the cash flowing,.
All I can say about such teachings is that they are vulgar at best and, at worst, heretical; they are primarily a product of our present consumer culture, rather than the historical teachings of the Church. It is easy to see that they serve primarily to materially benefit the religious leaders who push it. Talk about selfish memes!...SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | October 22, 2006 10:37 PM
Um, no. The fact that you believe it to be irrelevant is quite illuminating as to the quality of your judgment.
Quite simply, there is no value to purely arbitrary knowledge. Such a set of teachings can only have been constructed from whole cloth - if we consider them to have any truth value at all, then, we must consider them to be lies.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 22, 2006 10:43 PM
Who can this even be? And other than being aware of a certain type of thinking what does it say about the thinkings accuracy?
Posted by: GH | October 22, 2006 11:04 PM
I find a Harry Potter analogy to be the most fruitful here. Imagine that several years down the road, a devoted group of Harry Potter fans start believing that Harry actually exists and has magical powers and all the rest, and they start departments of Potterology at prestigious universities. Then someone writes a book that points out that there is no evidence that Harry exists, and in fact there's lots of evidence that he was dreamt up in an Edinburgh coffeeshop by J.K. Rowling, so no one really should believe he exists.
The defenders of Harryism retort that the person is unqualified to make the criticism because they're not an expert Potterologist (and didn't even read the Goblet of Fire)! Well, I haven't read a single Harry Potter book and yet I know he doesn't exist. What makes anyone think the situation with their favorite god is any different?
Posted by: Pete | October 22, 2006 11:36 PM
Larry Moran: Start with Dawkin's attempt to lay down once and for all the only true way to allow for the existence of God. Robinson's article in Harper's works a fine number on that one.
Personally, Buddhist agnostic that I tend towards, I can only shake my head in perplexity that the lot of you are ever bit as dedicated to first causes as the average Fundmentalist.
To be free, you must know what the problem is. It ain't Science, it ain't Religion.
Oh, dear me, not only have I set you all to do some HOMEWORK OF YOUR OWN, but I've dismissed your concern about whether God exists or not. We agnostics can be pretty mean when it comes to it.
Bye bye!
Posted by: Joel Sax | October 22, 2006 11:39 PM
I don't have to know anything about trines and ascending cusps to say, with as much authority as is necessary, that astrology is a pile of poo. For if the "area of study" in question has no measurable basis in reality, then any knowledge of it amounts to little more than memorization of random definitions applied to arbitrary terms. Or do you think you need an exhaustive knowledge of the dungeon master's guide to believe rightfully that Dungeons and Dragons is fiction?
Posted by: MarkP | October 22, 2006 11:43 PM
... Religion, not EVEN a theory. Just a belief with no supporting evidence.
Science my ass.
Posted by: Desert Donkey | October 23, 2006 12:16 AM
The chief characteristic of the more "sophisticated" believer is that they are great at saying what their god is not, but are stunningly incapable of saying what their god is. To me, the telling quote in Eagleton's review is this:
If Eagleton could explain what "the condition of possbility of any entity whatsoever" means, and if he could tie that to human love, which he claims is important to his theology, and if he could show that's what the historical Jesus was about, then he might have a point. My bet is that he can't. There are, of course, volumes of theology that put forth similar theses. It has been all the rage since the demise of more traditional theology as having any rational claim. A lunging, flailing, mispunching rage against that demise.
Posted by: Russell | October 23, 2006 12:18 AM
You know whether something "is a pile of poo" by knowing something about it. Your critique is likely to be less valuable the less you know about it. It says nothing bad about MY judgment that I think you should know, as best you can, what you're talking about first before critiquing it. That these banally obvious points are not quite registering with some who post here only confirms what I already knew: that a profession of atheism is no guarantee of intelligence.
I'm an atheist by the way. I say this only in the probably vain hope of forestalling a certain line of especially stupid comment that I already see starting to stir. I don't find much good in theology, but I've seen it up close and for a long time, and have formed my opinion on the basis of long study. That lengthy acquaintance, not just with Christianity (especially early Christianity), but also with Greek and Roman paganism and, to a lesser extent, the religions of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, has made obvious to me that religion exercises a hold on minds in some cases as good as, or even better than yours, that can hardly be shaken by flippant comparisons to the Easter Bunny, or Harry Potter, or even astrology. Religion flows from several different sources, not all of them vicious, and for several different reasons is as real to those committed to it as anything else could possibly be. Yahweh has, and at one time Zeus had, a reality that makes comparisons to Harry Potter so much feeble guttersnipery. Should you refrain from attacking religion? No. Should you at least know as fully as you can what the fuck you're talking about? Unless you like being the village atheist and village idiot rolled into one, I'd say that's a no-brainer.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | October 23, 2006 12:34 AM
"These questions are about as relevant as those concerning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."
That reminds me of the monastery's "Angels and Pinhead Project"
http://brobartleby.blogspot.com/2006/03/angels-and-pinhead-project.html
Of course, relevant it is!
Shalom,
Bro. Bartleby
Posted by: Bro. Bartleby | October 23, 2006 12:36 AM
There is no way to put forth a rational argument for the existence of a creator deity, as there is no physical evidence, nothing to perceive. Conversely, the power of the irrational in humans is of sufficient size as to merit scientific inquiry. Proving there is/isn't some mono-theistic deity at the wheel is just so much blather, as that is a game that has no real playing field, just descriptions and ideas.
If belief is a pathology, then perhaps there is a scientific way of understanding its function: theology cannot hope to effectively examine science with anything approaching detatchment, but science can, with some effort, examine theology and the observer's own biases at the same time--imperfectly, yes, but at least it would have a good chance of being a good-faith effort. My own contention is that religious zealots do not believe in God: they believe in a particular set of descriptions about a purported God. Big difference.
+++
Posted by: mjs | October 23, 2006 12:56 AM
Alright, I think for the first time ever I (sort of) disagree with you, PZ.
From what I've read, there's something to be said for Eagleton's claim that Dawkins is lacking in theological literacy. It's not as if he's carefully worked through Anselm or Scotus, right? I'm guessing that his attitude is that carefully working through their arguments is a bit like trying to reason with the mentally ill on their own terms.
Of course, there will be many of us who think this attitude is completely justified, but in a way that's to grant part of Eagleton's point. I doubt, however, that many of Dawkins' critics will be terribly happy with my analogy so if they'd like, I'll offer this one instead. Maybe the real problem with Dawkins' book is that he's shooting dead fish in a small barrel with big missles when the fish isn't even there to be shot.
Posted by: Clayton | October 23, 2006 1:24 AM
My own contention is that religious zealots do not believe in God: they believe in a particular set of descriptions about a purported God. Big difference.
I agree. Without real evidence, there are only the descriptions of God people provide. Those are so plentiful and vary so wildly that there might as well be a thousand different gods as one.
It's difficult to refute god talk because people are describing stuff that only exists in their heads. We know from thousands and thousands of novels that people are terrifically good at making this kind of fantasy stuff up.
A simple switch, from seeing God as real, to seeing him as just a fantasy, akin to the character in a novel (but reproduced by a huge set of writers over and over and over again), is all that's needed, but the vast majority seem unwilling to take that simple, obvious step.
Posted by: George | October 23, 2006 2:10 AM
The New York Times review linked early in comments is by far the most thoughtful and level-headed review of this book that I have seen to date.
-C
Posted by: Lab Lemming | October 23, 2006 3:54 AM
Those who find Eagleton upsetting are likely to be even more upset by my review of the book, in Prospect: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803
and a follow-up was at
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2006/09/post_387.html
The shortest form of all these objections is this analogy: Suppose that I, knowing nothing about economics, write a book saying that the world would be better off without money: that money has led people to terrible crimes, and may even be thre root of all evil -- "and besides, when you look at it money doesn't even exist: who is this 'I' who promises to pay the bearer on demand? Why should we believe in dollars when no one believes in Reichsmarks or in cowrie shells?"
Would this be a scientific work? Would it advance our understanding of money, or of economics?
There are lots of us who believe that religion is primarily a social reality. The way to study social realities, and to understand them, is not to ponce around saying "Nyah nyah nyah it's all just an illusion."
Dorkafork - Eagleton is describing, more or less from the inside, what Catholics actually believe. I don't see how else this can come across except as a set of assertions. But they are supported, in the sense that if you ask literate and educated Catholics what and how they believe, those are the sort of answers you will get. What other evidence could there be?
As for North Oxford -- that's not where Dawkins grew up: It's where he lives, along with most of the richer dons of the university.
Posted by: Andrew Brown | October 23, 2006 4:09 AM
I think you're missing my point. Theology is not a subject matter like any other subject matter. This is a field of study where the very existence of its focus is questionable, and reliable epistemology is non-existent. The problem is not that Dawkins isn't sufficiently authoritative on the subject; the real problem is that neither is anybody else, either.
If somebody with a doctorate in divinity from Oxford (or Orel Roberts University) tried to pontificate about non-ferrous metallurgy, proteomics, or fluid mechanics, it would be unsderstandable that their authority would be called into question. Why? Because these are research subjects based on empirical evidense, where there are verifiable facts. However, theology is somewhat unique as a "study", since there are zero verifiable facts about the nature of God, other than the fact that there isn't much to go on. The average Oxford regius professor of new testament studies has exactly the same number of facts to rely on as the local street sweeper or cafeteria worker when it comes to verifying anything about the true nature of God. All of the above are equally qualified to make declarative statement on theology (and/or toothfairyology, for that matter.) This is a very different case than what can be said about the faculty in the physics or chemistry departments.
Posted by: j.t.delaney | October 23, 2006 5:58 AM
Of course Eagleton is refering to medevil Catholicism as the "religion" that he thinks is the "queen of the sciences". How evangelical, quaint, and narrow-minded of him to ignore the thousands of other religions and the by-far more numerous followers of those religions.
Posted by: bones | October 23, 2006 6:12 AM
I am going to defend Eagleton, a writer and critic I respect and admire in much the same way as most of you respect Dawkins. I knew this was coming as soon as I read the article; I even drafted but didn't send PZ a link to this article earlier today. I suspected his thoughts would be close to what they were. I contend, with the maximum possible respect, PZ, that you've totally missed the point. I know this is the wrong venue to defend this critique; I guess I will just trust that you guys are as into open discussions as you claim to be. I read (and enjoy) this weblog regularly, but you guys can be pretty dogmatic at times. Since I'm positioning myself against my audience, I'd better do so out in the open. I'm an academic; I work on eighteenth-century English lit. I am an atheist, methodologically working in Marxism, psychoanalysis, historicism, and the problems of philosophical materialism.
I will say this. Some of you in the comments are exposing yourselves as not having understood Eagleton's argument (notable exceptions: Arun, Scott Hatfield, Clayton, Andrew Brown, maybe Joel Sax); this is not really surprising, either. The point is that the subtler brand of philosophically-interesting Christianity has never been a mass-phenomenon; critiquing megachurch Christianity on epistemological grounds is like me critiquing the research methodology of high school students' bio labs and taking Biology to task. Get this: I'm pretty sure Eagleton would say that the Creationists don't understand theology either. The mass might as well be in Latin. A lot of these people believe whatever James Dobson tells them to, because the content of the belief is not so much the point as a kind of quixotic oppositionism in the name of a past tradition that may not have ever existed.
I suspect you guys also think that academic theologians are generally believers. This is not always true. I know a few who are not, but who find the rich medieval philosophical tradition interesting.
I've read maybe three or four of Eagleton's books and numerous articles, and you guys (some of whom seem to think he's a Christian?!? Huh?) may be surprised to learn that he, one of the greatest Marxist literary critics of the previous generation, is almost certainly an atheist, just an atheist with a fair amount of historical sensitivity. JasonN callously and cluelessly takes Terry Eagleton to task for being both one of the most consistent and incisive critics of "cultural theory" since the mid-80s and for simultaneously being identified as a cultural theorist on Wikipedia (he is famous for his debates in the pages of the New Left Review with Fredric Jameson about the question of Postmodernism: Eagleton is not a fan, on basically Marxist grounds). What a scandal!
There's something that historians of science call triumphalism. It is a theoretical error, in writing the history of science (or other intellectual history) without empathy, without any attempt to understand why past scientists or natural philosophers thought as they did. In other words, telling the history of science from the point of view of modern science makes the past into "the prehistory of now," in a phrase of Georg Lukacs', and ignores ways that knowledge serves contemporary needs.
With statements like GH's "who exactly would be better suited to discuss an invisible entity?" you give yourselves away as not having any insight into the very real and palpable entity that had been actually under discussion: theology. You just know that this God thing they keep talking about does not jibe with the current state of natural science. Needless to say, it has occurred to theologians for the past several millennia that God is not visible -- his verifiability is not really up for discussion. And you are welcome to join me in disbelieving in Him. Religion, however, is a very real thing, one with real social consequences for good and ill, and demonizing the entire institution is going to get you absolutely nowhere. It's about as tedious as demonizing "Science" as if it were a self-consistent entity.
Dawkins has overstepped his training before, which may be the reason for some of Eagleton's snideness. During the right-wing fad for "sociobiology," he published a book called "The Selfish Gene," which I imagine you all know. It contained what I believe to have been a coinage of the term "meme," which has taken off among bloggish people. In an ill-considered argument, he suggests that, like genes, units of culture could also be considered as autonomous agents, so that the social world can also be considered as a genealogical system in which "better adapted" things survive. This idea was briefly interesting to some people. I haven't read the book in years, but it takes only a moment's reflection to realize that he has done away with, for example, any kind of theory of ideology or space for political critique. Why does it make more sense to argue from the point of view of the selfishness of the meme, rather than from the use of the cultural form to concrete historical actors (as in a garden-variety historicism)? In other words, even if (as one tends to find) the culture that is sustained is the culture that serves the interests of the people who get to make the decisions, Dawkins argues that this is somehow because it is better adapted. Better adapted to elite interests, I guess. He does not escape a humanism, because the selfishness of his memes (differently than his selfish genes) is set in an environment of real people fighting real struggles, not indifferent nature. In other words, because of the ambivalent nature of the selection pressure itself, the genealogical/iterative method of evolutionary thought needs serious modification to work. I don't see what it adds, and I do see what it distorts.
He has, in effect, naturalized cultural history. To pick a tendentious example, in what sense is the creationism "meme" "well adapted?" It does a poor job of describing the world, it doesn't help raise livestock or anything, it brands its advocates rednecks in the official culture. Creationism is best explained, I think we would all agree, as a cynical ploy to evoke a culture war that keeps a conservative electoral base, a majority in parts of the country, riled up to support a political party that offers them little of substantial value. Meme theory would reinterpret this from the point of view of Creationism, as if it weren't an obvious hobbled-together fake idea, insincerely held. It produces a certain frisson, and it allows people who have spent their whole lives getting picked on to enjoy defeating at the polls long-haired, smart-ass, left-wing nerds like me. I guess you could argue that this very viciousness is a kind of success. (Those who are actually interested in trying to make genealogical arguments about culture in a politically-responsible manner should consider the work of Mexican philosopher Manuel De Landa or the recent work of Franco Moretti.)
(Oh wow, this got long fast. I'm sorry, I'm somewhat drunk. I'll finish up as quick as I can.)
It may surprise some of you to encounter the notion that theology has only since the Protestant Reformation really taken on the sense as a set of facts to be believed (the way postmodern creationists "believe" the world is 6,000 years old). Remember, before the Reformation, the Mass was conducted in Latin, a language spoken only by elites. Scholastic argumentation -- the cultural tradition Eagleton defends -- did as much to preserve and incorporate pagan (read: Greek) knowledge as to defend orthodoxy. The rank-and-file Christian had faith, certainly, but it was not a faith in the same way that Evangelicals talk about faith today in terms of a personal relation to God, and a belief in specific tenets, etc. It was likely neither more nor less intellectual.
The natural sciences as we know them grew out of 17th century natural philosophy, which was a curious hybrid of empirical experiment (in England), Cartesian rationalism (in France), and Scriptural exegesis (pretty much everywhere). Even the Enlightenment of the late eighteenth century was not nearly so opposed to faith as has often been presented. Lots of people were accused of atheism, but nobody really was one yet. In the eighteenth century, it's something mean you say about someone you don't like. If anything, it is the nineteenth century that invents the Scientist as a figure opposed to faith. Before that, scientific enquiry and faith got along fine, and were even amazingly productive for a few centuries, inventing microscopes and steam engines and theorizing cells and the ideal gas law, all while believing in God.
Dawkins, in his zeal to pretend that science and religion are somehow incompatible, in the face of the historical evidence, instead of a (historically-coherent) Gouldian model, comes off as a bigot and gets everyone pissed off. So, when Dembski says that Dawkins is God's gift to Creationists, I see what he means.
Posted by: Nick Valvo | October 23, 2006 7:18 AM
Arun, re: "South Asia exists".
Not to nit pick or anything, but nothing you mentioned negates the existence of "South Asia". Using similar analogies one might argue about the existence or lack thereof of say "North America". On second thought maybe you're right North America doesn't really exist either...
If nothing else, "The UNITED States" is somewhat of a misnomer
Just for the record I keep a globe om my desk with the north pole facing towards the surface of the desk and the south facing towards the ceiling.
More often then not people ask me why my globe is upside down?
My answer is always the same, it isn't, I just prefer to look at it from a different perspective.
Try not to cling so tightly to your dearly held paradigms for a change, not that I think you can, but that's just MHO!
Posted by: Fernando | October 23, 2006 7:23 AM
I think I fully understand your point, which again demonstrates that you don't seem to grasp mine. I'll try again. You can study the history of religion, or of theology, in exactly the same way you study the history of science, or of any other intellectual activity. When you do that sort of thing, it is quite beside the point whether, say, alchemy as practiced in the 16th century was a field of study where the very existence of its focus was questionable, and reliable epistemology was non-existent. You can still study the history of alchemy, and your account will be more or less accurate insofar as you observe or violate the same canons of historical investigation that one applies, say, to the American Civil War. It behooves you, I think, if you want to speak authoritatively on the subject of alchemy, to learn a great deal about it as accurately as you can.
A much more cursory investigation might convince you that alchemy is a crock. Fine, but you wouldn't (I hope) write a book on the subject without doing a little more leg work. Theology, and religion, are, I'm inclined to think, subjects at least as complex as alchemy, and not adequately addressed in a serious critique by the usual atheist blog bull sessions. In a serious critique, for example, after citing Harry Potter and tea kettles orbiting Saturn, you'd have to make some effort to explain why God, and not Harry Potter, exists for billions of not certifiably insane or brain-damaged people. That effort takes genuine research. Some here wallow in the kind of anti-intellectualism that they rightly resent when spouted by a fundamentalist. Start observing your own principles consistently, and maybe you won't have so much trouble getting my obvious point.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | October 23, 2006 7:38 AM
...and at that point, I would argue, you're no longer studying theology ("n. -- the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe..."). Once you omit the study of SkyDaddy's true nature from the discussion, I would say what you're describing falls into the juristiction of sociology, ancient history, group psychology, anthropology, philology, or some other more tangible banch of human knowledge. These other subjects can