One wit spots another
Terry Eagleton has at least one fan anyway.
Eagleton…is determined not to commit the same elementary errors he ascribes to such foes as biologist Richard Dawkins and political journalist Christopher Hitchens. (Those two, collectively dubbed “Ditchkins” by Eagleton, are the self-appointed leaders of public atheism and the authors of bestselling books on the subject, Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” and Hitchens’ “God Is Not Great.”)
He gets it right by saying Eagleton ascribes these elementary errors, but then he promptly labels Dawkins and Hitchens ‘foes’ – why are they foes? Because Eagleton doesn’t like what they’ve written. That doesn’t really make them his foes, it just makes them people he is quarreling with. ‘Foes’ is more ascribing. And then, what is that ‘self-appointed leaders of public atheism’ doing there? They’re not self-appointed leaders of anything; they wrote books about something. Eagleton writes books about things; now he is busy ascribing things to ‘foes’; does that make him a self-appointed leader of public anti-Ditchkinsism? Not particularly. We’re all allowed to write books without being labeled self-appointed leaders of something or other. (And this ‘Ditchkins’ thing…that’s just childish.)
[Eagleton] freely admits that what Christian doctrine teaches about the universe and the fate of man may not be true, or even plausible. But as he then puts it, “Critics of the most enduring form of popular culture in human history have a moral obligation to confront that case at its most persuasive, rather than grabbing themselves a victory on the cheap by savaging it as so much garbage and gobbledygook.”
That’s just populist bullying. Why do they? Why can’t critics of any form of popular culture – no matter how enduring, how popular, how ‘authentic,’ how anything you like – just criticize whatever they think is bad about it? In argument it’s better to argue with the strongest case, but in criticism, you can go after the worst stuff, because that’s your point. There’s no ‘moral obligation’ to be deferential to the most enduring form of popular culture in human history; how pompous to say there is.
Still, attacking them in broad and often hilarious strokes – he depicts Dawkins as a tweedy, cloistered Oxford don sneering at the credulous nature of the common people, and Hitchens as a bootlicking neocon propagandist and secular jihadist – lends his book considerable entertainment value.
Hilarious? That’s hilarious? Oookay, if that’s the taste level, I won’t bother reading any more.
Oh, you should have kept reading. You would have learned that one of the silly misconceptions atheists have about Christianity is (in Eagleton’s words) “that faith in … God means above all subscribing to the proposition that he exists.”
Got that? When Christians say they have faith in God, they don’t necessarily mean that they believe in his existence. Only a laughable ignoramus would assume that people actually believe in the things they have faith in.
I guess the idea is that if everything you say is totally nebulous, your opponents will have no option but to knock down strawmen. And then you can chuckle about how ignorant they are.
Oh, darn…I will have to keep reading. [heaves sigh] He does keep churning out the nonsense.
Yes, and when the reviewer chucks in such quotables as:
“A few years ago, I read an article by a Roman Catholic theologian who wryly observed that the quality of Western atheism had gone steadily downhill since Nietzsche.”
“I had to read it [Eagleton’s book] through twice before concluding that it’s one of the most fascinating, most original and prickliest works of philosophy to emerge from the post-9/11 era.”
and
“What the rationalist myth sees in the modern age are the tremendous advances made in curing disease and in increasing agricultural yield, which neither believer nor atheist wants to do without. It views Zyklon-B and the hydrogen bomb as momentary setbacks, if it notices them at all, and it generally avoids comment about the contradictory and confused economic system our allegedly liberal-humanist age has produced.”
well…
what more could anybody ask for?
Hmmm, maybe Mr. O’Hehir’s credentials for writing such gullible nonsense?
Anyone interested, his c.v. is public and available on Linkedin, here
Maybe he should stick to “independent & foreign film” in future…?
Quite so Jack Pantalones.
I stopped reading at the paragraph where Eagleton, according to the reviewer ‘is cagey about the nature of his personal beliefs’ and ‘never makes any unambiguous truth claims for doctrine’.
I recall shortly after The God Delusion was published a transcript of an interview with Elaine Pagel who made similar criticisms of Dawkins’ theological unsophistication. Twice asked by the interviewer what her sophisticated theology was, she twice avoided answering.
Kiwi Dave
Sigh…it’s the same old familiar nonsense about how real Christianity is waaaaaay more sophisticated than that silly stuff that the ‘new’ atheists talk about – as if he’d never so much as glanced at the outpourings of popes and bishops and ministers in the newspapers and pulpits and Vaticans. What it amounts to is
1) Yes most people in churches believe God is real but they’re wrong wrong wrong.
2) the real thing is much more abstract and sophisticated than that.
3) the new atheists should be talking about my version of what God means and not what most people in churches mean by God and I’m going to call them names in major newspapers until they do what I tell them because I know all about it and they’re rank amateurs and frauds and fundamentalists and I hates’em.
Eagleton’s attempts at humour are normally elephantine facetiousness. If the reviewer finds them “hilarious” he’s from a different reading planet.
First rule of warfare or controversy: never estimate your enemy or foe or antagonist. Eagleton is witty and clever. I don’t what reading planet I come from, but he makes me laugh. That being said, Eagleton is superficial and confused, basically unthinking. He’s quite good at the ad hominem attack, but very weak at developing sustained arguments.
Just saying it doesn’t make it so. I haven’t seen one word in any of his ‘new’-atheist attacking or his Rushdie-attacking that I would call the least bit witty or clever.
In fact I haven’t seen anything in this stuff that even purports to be witty – it’s more like hysterical engorged spit-flecked screaming than wit.
The thing is, Dawkins and Dennett at least get after what is most persuasive about religion – that there is a personal god who keeps score. WIthout that, Christianity (or Islam or Hinduism or what have you) just becomes an ordinary system of morality and ethics which has to be judged on its merits and against secular philosophies. Religion loses any privilege it has when it is stripped of its divine imprimatur, any reason why we should grant it any hearing whatsoever instead of dismissing it out of hand, laughing at its contradictions, and recoiling at its grotesqueries.
And I think it should be mentioned that Dawkins et al don’t dismiss religion as culture; on the contrary, they advocate that it be taught as such. Since it seems his entire argument seems not to be predicated on the existence or non-existence of god, Eagleton is either ignorant, dense, or dishonest. Or probably a combination.
I loved this bit:
“Would anyone be permitted to write a book about courtly love in the Middle Ages based on several visits to a Renaissance Faire, or a book about Nazism based on episodes of “Hogan’s Heroes”?”
Such a deliciously postmodern exercise. I’d start today but I’m having trouble getting my permit.
Methinks Eagleton doth protest a bit too much.
This actually belongs further back in the comments about what Julian wrote, but no one is likely to look that far back anymore. It’s relevant here, though, inasmuch as people like Eagleton didn’t bother being so anti-atheist till atheist voices started making themselves heard as loudly as nowadays: http://www.blacksunjournal.com/current-affairs/1989_in-your-face-tactics-working-exactly-as-planned_2009.html
The pieces that inspired the blog post will be familiar to most here, but what I felt really hit the mark was the comparison between the two scenarios, down near the bottom of the post.
I read a review of The God Delusion by Eagleton where he claims religious people have faith in God in the same way that you might have faith in a friend.
It’s not a very original argument, but it is so unbelievable stupid. Did he even think that through before he wrote it?
When religious people are in dispute with atheists, they are not arguing over whether God should be trusted.
Regarding Stewart’s link to Black Sun Journal:
Doesn’t the opening graphic on that site demonstrate the sort of thing Baggini is getting at?
“Adults with imaginary friends are stupid.”
I suppose that isn’t intemperate language as such, but it does seem needlessly ‘in your face’. Surely there’s a difference between being firm and unabashed in your atheism, and being unnecessarily confrontational?
The tone to be employed is surely up to the discretion of the person making the criticism. To say that adults with imaginary friends are stupid is to try to give a bit of a jolt to the sentiment that might more politely be expressed by saying that religion is actually the persistence of childhood traits into adulthood. One of the biggest battles we face is due to the fact that religion is so entrenched that it really is perceived by many as deserving of protection from criticism. The reason atheists feel they have to be more in people’s faces is because it isn’t just a case of a difference of opinion. It’s resistance to a set of unsubstantiated ideas that until quite recently held tyrannical sway pretty much worldwide and that – even in most places where its real power has been lost – still retains unjustified privileges in public life. Those holding positions within the various religious establishments include both those who have begun to accept that they can no longer act the way they did in the past and those whose fight to retain as much power as they can has become more desperate precisely because they have more real and vocal opposition than ever before. To denigrate them as childish is not only justified, but it is a very important and necessary step in demystifying them. The whole blasphemy thing is really only about whether they can frighten us into not saying certain things, things that if said and heard and understood would weaken their hold on the population. If they had really good arguments for their case, they’d never have to try to silence anybody who didn’t agree with them; their opponents would simply be laughed away. And if the arguments of the nuttier ones were true, people like Dawkins et al would have been zapped by lightning ages ago as a lesson to all of us.
Stephen, you reacted to the opening graphic on the page, but what about the two scenarios at the bottom? That’s what I really wanted to point at and I think it also answers your reservation, probably better than I just did.
Quite. I think the willingness to resort to the occasional shock-remark is in direct proportion to the entrenchment of the belief that religion is ‘deserving of protection from criticism.’ I think it’s a response to the automatic, unthinking, adamant quality of that belief. Like a bit of dyno to loosen up the rock.
– “The tone to be employed is surely up to the discretion of the person making the criticism.”
Of course. So? The nature of the response it may elicit is surely up the reader.
– “To say that adults with imaginary friends are stupid is to try to give a bit of a jolt to the sentiment that might more politely be expressed by saying that religion is actually the persistence of childhood traits into adulthood. “
Sure, and you and I may see it that way, but what the believer sees when they look at such an example is an atheist calling all theists stupid. That’s pretty much the first thing he says to the reader. (I don’t mean to make too much of this one website or pick on Sean particularly, I’m just using it as an exemplar of the sort of thing Baggini may have been meaning.) Can you seriously not see how even a very open minded a believer would find that opening salvo condescending? That’s the quickest way to get people to be defensive. Same with titling books things like “God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”. Sure, it’s attention getting; sure the first part is clever in its simplicity (personally I object to the title on aesthetic grounds: that silly subtitle distracts from the pity main title). Believers, however, will head into it defensively – antagonized – if they read it at all.
– “Those holding positions within the various religious establishments include both those who have begun to accept that they can no longer act the way they did in the past and those whose fight to retain as much power as they can has become more desperate precisely because they have more real and vocal opposition than ever before. To denigrate them as childish is not only justified, but it is a very important and necessary step in demystifying them.”
The “them” you refer to is the latter, right? Those trying to hold on to past power. If so, I agree that they deserve a bit of mocking and harsh criticism. But “those who have begun to accept that they can no longer act the way they did” don’t need to be lumped in with them. You mention blasphemy, for example. I agree with strongly criticizing supporters of blasphemy laws – I’m fine with well directed criticism, satire and mockery. I just wonder if the “all you believers are stupid” approach does anything other than support the notion that atheists are arrogant anti-religious bullies.
As for the rest of his post, including those scenarios, I found him to make an interesting case. Still, his first scenario misses the point that the criticism is from other atheists, who think that some of the tone and approach of the so-called new atheists is counterproductive; hence the answer to “why the objection”.
I like the sound of scenario two, and of atheists “coming out” to their families etc. But I think it can be achieved by, well, a continued ‘coming out’; by (as I said) being firm and unabashed in your atheism; by making strong clear arguments; by criticizing and campaigning against blasphemy laws. I still sympathize with the view there’s some unnecessarily confrontational, aggressive tone involved by some atheist proponents that does no good.
…oops. I’ve got “pity” above, but meant “pithy”…
Sorry if this is brief, but…
Of course everyone can respond as they see fit, but please note a hugely important difference: I’m not aware of anyone saying that atheism is above criticism (partly because it’s not a thing, but a non-thing), but we are all aware of the many who go beyond argument to lawsuits and physical violence to prevent any voices critical of religion being heard. So let’s not pretend that our starting point is a playing field that is in any way level. The U.S., where I don’t live, may protect from established religion, but I trust you’re aware of the states that still have anti-atheist laws on their books. Many of the arguments against atheists being “shrill” can only even begin to make sense once formal negative discrimination no longer exists.
I think almost all the current prominent writers and speakers from an atheist perspective would agree that talking the religious out of their beliefs is a far lower priority than gaining genuine equality of rights for non-believers (and, yes, any privilege or status enjoyed by religious organisations that is not also extended to non-religious organisations or bodies makes a mockery of equal rights – things like bishops in the House of Lords, for example) and emboldening atheists and non-believers to come out into the open. Using formulations that don’t beat about the bush shifts the window of what one may say about religion. And let’s also not forget: why on earth should anyone worry about insulting believers when they still reserve a place of honour for texts that not only insult but threaten non-believers (and other groups)? I don’t think religion developed as a backlash against “militant” atheism, but non-belief has begun to raise its voice (finally, after centuries of martyrdom) against wrongs that are more than just “perceived.”
There is no Supreme Council of Atheists making policy and strategy (nothing like the Wedge document); there are individuals with varying amounts of influence with perhaps a general agreement on the direction that ought to be followed (and sometimes individual actions with surprising success, like the Atheist Bus campaign). However, inasmuch as some of them are weighing various strategies, I can well understand how the creation of a fear-free environment for atheists logically takes precedence over avoiding unnecessary offence to believers. Once no one is afraid to speak his mind (because all can see that it regularly happens without ill effect) one can look into avoiding unnecessary offence. But if too much consideration is exercised in advance, we may simply never get to that point. Of course it is better to do things civilly, but it takes two to tango. Considering all the physical violence religion has done to non-believers (and it’s far from over), the representatives of religion ought to be grateful, rather than petulant, that raising their voices and being dismissive is all the atheists are doing now. Any talk of disproportionate response must focus almost exclusively on the religious side; the atheists are reacting to centuries of religious violence with talk and too many religious people today are reacting to the atheists’ talk as if it were physical violence. Is that not totally skewed?
Yes, fair enough, it’s skewed.
However, I’d like to say:
1) Regards “Using formulations that don’t beat about the bush…” I’m not suggesting we beat around the bush. For example, I’m totally against blasphemy laws and think all atheists should oppose them, unequivocally, and publicly. If that offends a religious person, tough.
2) I’m not primarily concerned about “talking the religious out of their beliefs” either. You said “I can well understand how the creation of a fear-free environment for atheists logically takes precedence over avoiding unnecessary offence to believers”. Except, it may be that avoiding unnecessary offence to believers is a requirement of getting the sort of level playing field you mention. Part of your case is that atheists are in the minority and at an institutionalized disadvantage. The other side has many institutionalized advantages (blasphemy laws, House of Lords etc), so they enjoy a privileged status and they’re in the majority. Therefore, don’t atheists to some degree need the co-operation of (some) theists to change things?
Firstly, just looking at the democratic “Christian West”: surely a majority of those with direct power (politicians, other people in authority) are believers of some sort, and those with indirect power (voters) are also mostly believers to some degree. (This would be especially true in the USA, I would think.) Is not the power to change the institutions (anti-atheist laws or what have you) in the hands, to a large degree, of people who are to some extent or other “believers”? Most of them aren’t fundamentalists though, and many would have very liberal views, so why make them defensive and antagonize them unnecessarily? This has nothing to do, by the way, with atheists reducing our prominence – I’m all for the Bus Campaign, for example. It is not about appeasing unreasonable theists (see my comments on blasphemy above). As I said, targeted harsh criticism, satire etc, is appropriate and certainly valid. But emphasizing publicly that all believers are childish or delusional is maybe not so useful, and I wonder if it isn’t counterproductive to aims such as achieving a level playing field.
Secondly, this is perhaps more pertinent when dealing with the Muslim world – a huge portion of the world‘s population with a long way to go to reach the West‘s level of secularism. Like it or not, it appears we will need the cooperation of moderate Muslims to deal with the worst excesses of religious fanaticism and intolerance (eg the Taliban).
Incidentally, I actually think Baggini overstated the case somewhat, and ignored the positive aspects of the “four horsemen’s” approach (such as encouraging atheists to “come out‘, as Sean put). But I think he had some points worth considering.
We don’t have a great deal of disagreement, I see. Some responses:
To the extent that moderate believers support our rights to real equality, there’s no point in antagonising them bloody-mindedly. The problem is that there’s no real way around a certain fact and I’m sure that any atheist who has identified her/himself as such to a believer will have sensed it. There is always some little implicit “you’re crazy” (or feeble-minded) in there, because the statement that one simply doesn’t believe something that the other party does has somehow got to mean that the other party is gullible. I think a bit of that is always going to be in every statement of disbelief and the question of what tone to give it has to be answered by each individual for her/himself. Even if Julian’s recently expressed sentiments piss some of us off, by admitting to non-belief he’s also admitting that he finds the arguments of believers unsatisfactory. One way of summing up his piece might be that he finds it a shame that in his opinion the people who are right express themselves less politely than those who are wrong. I must say I don’t find it at all surprising that religions have historically and regularly split off into more and less fanatic groupings, but I do find it a little odd that the unbelievers sometimes seem on the verge of doing so.
Ideally, all societies would have laws that are enforced guaranteeing equality, right? Isn’t that what keeps a predominantly religious country like the U.S. from going overboard? And other than Judaism, the Abrahamic religions command proselytising. And of course there’s no atheistic text that has to be obeyed that demands the same. And this is why, even in our ideal society, the level playing field is very difficult to maintain, even if it is achieved. Frankly, it only seems to work where religion has become weak (I’m thinking of places like Sweden).
I find the suggestion that atheists “need the co-operation of (some) theists” unsettling. There may be practical senses in which it is true, but to precisely that extent it also tells us what is still wrong with our societies. No one should need the co-operation, support, goodwill etc. of anyone else in order to have equal rights. If equal rights aren’t there, yeah, it’s got to be screamed about, which brings us back to the beginning of our discussion. Equality means no one’s doing anyone else a favour. No one needs to, if we all have equal rights. Coming out in full strength (because they/we have been psychologically empowered to do so) is what will really change things, not refraining from fully expressing our views out of consideration or gratitude to the moderates. Politically speaking, we all know that if there were enough known atheist votes out there to be worth courting, the appropriate candidates would emerge and the whole landscape would start to change. And when someone like Obama, whatever he himself believes, makes a point of including non-believers in the nation he leads, the appreciation is noticeable (how is one expected to react to the contrary sentiment reportedly expressed by Bush senior?).
I do agree fully that an argument that descends to the level of a slanging match is not what anyone should be aspiring to. But freedom of speech means that aspect can’t be regulated. Plus, what Ophelia quoted Mill on back on 21 April, which summed up again argues that when one side already has the upper hand, that’s the side that ought to be most careful about retaining moderation and avoiding “vituperative language.”
And if we don’t like what Julian wrote, we should call him on it and argue specific points and not all pile up on him. We should probably leave this now, unless Ophelia wants to run a new thread on it, because hardly anyone else will see it.