What do you think?
Rate this book
Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate
One of our most influential literary critics challenges those who too easily dismiss religion and faith
Terry Eagleton’s witty and polemical Reason, Faith, and Revolution is bound to cause a stir among scientists, theologians, people of faith and people of no faith, as well as general readers eager to understand the God Debate. On the one hand, Eagleton demolishes what he calls the “superstitious” view of God held by most atheists and agnostics and offers in its place a revolutionary account of the Christian Gospel. On the other hand, he launches a stinging assault on the betrayal of this revolution by institutional Christianity. There is little joy here, then, either for the anti-God brigade—Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in particular—nor for many conventional believers. Instead, Eagleton offers his own vibrant account of religion and politics in a book that ranges from the Holy Spirit to the recent history of the Middle East, from Thomas Aquinas to the Twin Towers.
Terry Eagleton’s witty and polemical Reason, Faith, and Revolution is bound to cause a stir among scientists, theologians, people of faith and people of no faith, as well as general readers eager to understand the God Debate. On the one hand, Eagleton demolishes what he calls the “superstitious” view of God held by most atheists and agnostics and offers in its place a revolutionary account of the Christian Gospel. On the other hand, he launches a stinging assault on the betrayal of this revolution by institutional Christianity. There is little joy here, then, either for the anti-God brigade—Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in particular—nor for many conventional believers. Instead, Eagleton offers his own vibrant account of religion and politics in a book that ranges from the Holy Spirit to the recent history of the Middle East, from Thomas Aquinas to the Twin Towers.
185 pages, Paperback
First published April 21, 2009
57 people are currently reading
1566 people want to read
About the author
Terry Eagleton
160 books1,277 followersWidely regarded as England's most influential living literary critic & theorist, Dr. Terry Eagleton currently serves as Distinguished Professor of English Literature at the University of Lancaster and as Visiting Professor at the National University of Ireland, Galway. He was Thomas Warton Prof. of English Literature at the University of Oxford ('92-01) & John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester 'til '08. He returned to the University of Notre Dame in the Autumn '09 semester as Distinguished Visitor in the English Department.
He's written over 40 books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction ('83); The Ideology of the Aesthetic ('90) & The Illusions of Postmodernism ('96).
He delivered Yale's '08 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in 3/10, titled The God Debate.
He's written over 40 books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction ('83); The Ideology of the Aesthetic ('90) & The Illusions of Postmodernism ('96).
He delivered Yale's '08 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in 3/10, titled The God Debate.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews
April 9, 2013
Terry Eagleton would be a great person with whom to go for a drink initially. He can be erudite, witty and intelligent, he is imaginative, insightful and thought-provoking and over a glass or two it would be fun BUT he would not let you get away with any kind of unsubstaniated or flabby comment, any shabby logic or high-handed holding forth on subjects upon which you know little would be severely dealt with. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (or Ditchkins as he calls them) Christian Fundamentalists, Islamic Fundamentalists, arrogant Vaticaneze and dubious Western superioritizers beware.
Everyone is taken to task for stupid, lazy and arrogant misquoting or mis-reading. People holding forth on areas upon which they have no real knowledge and talking as if they are experts are slammed.One example he quotes is of Richard Dawkins who berates at great length the tenets and teachings of the Koran and yet then has to admit later that he has never read it. His decisions, his understanding appears almost to be from a chinese whispered osmosis...never a great way upon which to base a balanced and well argued refutation of a closed minded opponent one would think. Berate people for being closed minded and unable to openly discuss by all means, but then live out that 'creed' by putting it into practice yourself; otherwise, shut up because you have no credibility.
At one point he remarks how a much vaunted liberal value of open-mindedness is often exercised with an Orwellian doublethink to marvel at in which they are open-minded to everything except something which might challenge their way of open-mindedness.
As probably anyone knows who has read a few of my reviews on religious books I am a catholic on the liberal wing of the Church and so in many ways i might be tempted to see Eagleton as one of my champions, he would be at pains to refute this. Though raised as a catholic he would not want in anyway to be listed amongst its members anymore, one of his chapters is called 'The Revolution betrayed' and in this he takes apart incisively the way in which the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been rarely tried in its wholeness in just as much a way as has Marxism very rarely been practiced or indeed true liberal values have often not been lived out by their most vociferous proclaimers. Humanity, he says, or at least those in authority and positions of power, fight to keep their pole positions whether by appalling acts of violence and cruelty or sometimes, just as definitively, by their refusal to discuss and listen.
Eagleton challenges 'nonbelievers' to put aside their false view of a God who has never really existed and face up to and debate honestly and sincerely with those who are trying to make sense of the world not through escaping into fairy tale faithland but by trying to understand the natural world in the light of a God in whom they cannot not believe. It is rather a question he says "of being gripped by a committment from which one finds oneself unable to walk away". This, as a groping towards a definition of faith, is one which I can understand. I cannot explain why I believe but it is not from want of trying, it is not an escape into hiding from difficulties, it is an attempt to understand where this yearning for this deepening relationship comes from.
faith articulates a loving committment before it counts as a description of the way things are
His challenge to believers is the same really.
We must try not to disfigure what we strive to know through fantasy, or reduce the object of knowledge to a narcissistic image of ourselves
The old temptation to just make God like me but more powerful, bigger so here we make God in our image rather than the other way round. Believers of all persuasions have an horrendous tendency to do this, he says, and it is a rank betrayal.
In his discussion on faith and knowledge he has an extended reflection on the relationship between these two things. He quotes Herbert McCabe
It is a romantic myth that there is some kind of moral superiority about people who refuse to make up their minds because the evidence is not 100% compelling. We have seen too many people who have insisted that we can't be absolutely sure that the Jews were persecuted in Germany, that apartheid was hideously unjust etc etc
Eagleton points out that faith is a normal way of living which most people exercise, to an extent, in many walks of their lives. One example he gives is the unconscious. Nobody has ever seen this he says but
many people believe in its existence on the grounds that it makes excellent sense of their experience in the world.
He uses the thoughts of the atheist philospher Alain Badiou who sees faith as central to becoming an authentic human being as opposed to simply being a part of the amorphous species. However faith for Badiou is not in a god but in what he calls an event.
An utterly original happening which is out of joint with the smooth flow of history and which is unnameable and ungraspable within the context in which it occurs. Truth is what cuts against the grain of the world, breaking with an older dispensation and founding a radically new reality
Each person must grasp this event themselves for
there is no truth event without the decisive act of a subject but there is no subject other than one brought to birth by its fidelity to this disclosure.
In other words it is in the embracing that we become real. Every person, for Badiou, needs to make a choice, an act of faith in something. This act of faith is in events that are real for Badiou yet they are not real in the sense that they could not be proven by any hard evidence, they are real but not in any way that you could capture them in a photograph or physical proof. Badiou uses examples as far reaching as the French Revolution, the moment of Cubism, the Chinese cultural revolution, the militant politics of 1968. Christians, though not Badiou, would add the resurrection of Christ. It is real, not photograph evidence real but then neither are any meanings or values.
I am not sure about his whole theory but committment to something, whether it be God, justice, forgiveness, love or indeed all of these and more, seems to broaden and deepen any life, gives it a reality. It is these things which make us who we are, the things towards which we travel, from which we draw strength, in which we believe.
At another point Eagleton says
For theology, science does not start far back enough - not in the sense that it fails to posit a Creator, but in the sense that it does not ask questions such as why there is anything in the first place, or why what we do have is actually intelligible to us. Theologians are interested in the question of why we ask for explanations at all or why we assume that the universe hangs together in a way that makes explanation possible.
I loved this because it is one of those questions which, when approached open mindedly gives men and women of genuine sincerity on all sides the opportunity to talk and discuss with respect. It is not denying Evolution as the best theory we have but it is recognizing that it does not finish the discussion. To question evolutionary theory is not to deny it but it is to say it is incomplete. Why evolution ? Why do we search for the answers and why do we assume they are there ? What are the laws of mathematics, how did they come to be and if the answer is simply, life as we know it could not have come into existence without them, then my follow up comment could be that with so many trillion to one chances having to coincide to bring about this marvel, this universe and to have it evolve and develop in its way, then it almost seems less an act of faith to believe in some Being having been involved in its journey then to have so much chance upon chance upon chance. Then I wonder, where does reason end and blind refusal to contemplate the fact that there might be something in the God thing start.
His final chapter is an equally fascinating delve into culture, civilization, multiculturalism and the rise of extremism. He explores the way in which the arrogance, as he sees it, of the West's project of global domination triggered a backlash in the form of Radical Islam. His theory is the West's suppression of many secular leftist governments and movements in so many parts of the world in an attempt to shore up the West's control backfired spectacularly as the vacum created by immoral monarchies and right wing militarist regimes being kept in power under duress was filled with avengance with opposition forces jammed to the brim with beliefs and creeds. Beliefs which the agnosticism of the West struggle to argue with. He discusses multiculturalism and the weakness present if it blandly embraces differences without looking deeply into what those differences might be. This he decries as it
numbs the habit of vigorously contesting other people's beliefs
something which it is imperative in a grown up society that we do. Conversely, he 'outs' the false god of 'common culture' so loudly trumpeted by many because it often means
one which incorporates outsiders into an already established unquestionable framework of values
when in reality he points out
A common culture in a more radical sense of the term is not one in which everyone believes the same thing, but one in which everyone has equal status in cooperatively determining a way of life in common
Wow, pie in the sky ? Not sure but that is something to work for surely !!
He certainly has an axe or indeed a whole armory to grind and his clinging to Marxism and Liberation Theology seems at times to be rather hysterical. He points out that both Hitchens and Dawkins are bad theologians and are far too simplistic in their sweeping generalizations and disingenuous in their switching of the siting for their various battles but I do think this is an, if not accusation then a suggestion that could be levelled at Eagleton. I found it a fascinating book, he has a very readable style, although the images and 'humorous comments' do get waring after a while.
Considering this book, in its original form, was based on a series of lectures he gave at Yale University in April 2008; his consistent belittling and making fun of the American political system and its social structure, its religious affiliations and its foreign policy at every oportunity (examples can be given if anyone would like to see them) either strikes one as very brave and challenging or in incredibly poor taste, taking advantage of a host's hospitality to be rude and offensive. I tend to walk the middle road.
The book struck me as rather an enfant terrible, desperate to live up to the presumably well advertized likelihood of outrage and controversy aplenty flowing through the lectures and he was desperate not to disappoint. I sometimes felt his overall intent and purpose got rather mislaid or confused in this desperation and that was a shame because when he flowed, when he made me think without reverting to 'clever witticisms' or right-on dudeness, or easy target practice against evidently dubious counterpositions or contradictions I found this a really fascinating and thought provoking study
Everyone is taken to task for stupid, lazy and arrogant misquoting or mis-reading. People holding forth on areas upon which they have no real knowledge and talking as if they are experts are slammed.One example he quotes is of Richard Dawkins who berates at great length the tenets and teachings of the Koran and yet then has to admit later that he has never read it. His decisions, his understanding appears almost to be from a chinese whispered osmosis...never a great way upon which to base a balanced and well argued refutation of a closed minded opponent one would think. Berate people for being closed minded and unable to openly discuss by all means, but then live out that 'creed' by putting it into practice yourself; otherwise, shut up because you have no credibility.
At one point he remarks how a much vaunted liberal value of open-mindedness is often exercised with an Orwellian doublethink to marvel at in which they are open-minded to everything except something which might challenge their way of open-mindedness.
As probably anyone knows who has read a few of my reviews on religious books I am a catholic on the liberal wing of the Church and so in many ways i might be tempted to see Eagleton as one of my champions, he would be at pains to refute this. Though raised as a catholic he would not want in anyway to be listed amongst its members anymore, one of his chapters is called 'The Revolution betrayed' and in this he takes apart incisively the way in which the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been rarely tried in its wholeness in just as much a way as has Marxism very rarely been practiced or indeed true liberal values have often not been lived out by their most vociferous proclaimers. Humanity, he says, or at least those in authority and positions of power, fight to keep their pole positions whether by appalling acts of violence and cruelty or sometimes, just as definitively, by their refusal to discuss and listen.
Eagleton challenges 'nonbelievers' to put aside their false view of a God who has never really existed and face up to and debate honestly and sincerely with those who are trying to make sense of the world not through escaping into fairy tale faithland but by trying to understand the natural world in the light of a God in whom they cannot not believe. It is rather a question he says "of being gripped by a committment from which one finds oneself unable to walk away". This, as a groping towards a definition of faith, is one which I can understand. I cannot explain why I believe but it is not from want of trying, it is not an escape into hiding from difficulties, it is an attempt to understand where this yearning for this deepening relationship comes from.
faith articulates a loving committment before it counts as a description of the way things are
His challenge to believers is the same really.
We must try not to disfigure what we strive to know through fantasy, or reduce the object of knowledge to a narcissistic image of ourselves
The old temptation to just make God like me but more powerful, bigger so here we make God in our image rather than the other way round. Believers of all persuasions have an horrendous tendency to do this, he says, and it is a rank betrayal.
In his discussion on faith and knowledge he has an extended reflection on the relationship between these two things. He quotes Herbert McCabe
It is a romantic myth that there is some kind of moral superiority about people who refuse to make up their minds because the evidence is not 100% compelling. We have seen too many people who have insisted that we can't be absolutely sure that the Jews were persecuted in Germany, that apartheid was hideously unjust etc etc
Eagleton points out that faith is a normal way of living which most people exercise, to an extent, in many walks of their lives. One example he gives is the unconscious. Nobody has ever seen this he says but
many people believe in its existence on the grounds that it makes excellent sense of their experience in the world.
He uses the thoughts of the atheist philospher Alain Badiou who sees faith as central to becoming an authentic human being as opposed to simply being a part of the amorphous species. However faith for Badiou is not in a god but in what he calls an event.
An utterly original happening which is out of joint with the smooth flow of history and which is unnameable and ungraspable within the context in which it occurs. Truth is what cuts against the grain of the world, breaking with an older dispensation and founding a radically new reality
Each person must grasp this event themselves for
there is no truth event without the decisive act of a subject but there is no subject other than one brought to birth by its fidelity to this disclosure.
In other words it is in the embracing that we become real. Every person, for Badiou, needs to make a choice, an act of faith in something. This act of faith is in events that are real for Badiou yet they are not real in the sense that they could not be proven by any hard evidence, they are real but not in any way that you could capture them in a photograph or physical proof. Badiou uses examples as far reaching as the French Revolution, the moment of Cubism, the Chinese cultural revolution, the militant politics of 1968. Christians, though not Badiou, would add the resurrection of Christ. It is real, not photograph evidence real but then neither are any meanings or values.
I am not sure about his whole theory but committment to something, whether it be God, justice, forgiveness, love or indeed all of these and more, seems to broaden and deepen any life, gives it a reality. It is these things which make us who we are, the things towards which we travel, from which we draw strength, in which we believe.
At another point Eagleton says
For theology, science does not start far back enough - not in the sense that it fails to posit a Creator, but in the sense that it does not ask questions such as why there is anything in the first place, or why what we do have is actually intelligible to us. Theologians are interested in the question of why we ask for explanations at all or why we assume that the universe hangs together in a way that makes explanation possible.
I loved this because it is one of those questions which, when approached open mindedly gives men and women of genuine sincerity on all sides the opportunity to talk and discuss with respect. It is not denying Evolution as the best theory we have but it is recognizing that it does not finish the discussion. To question evolutionary theory is not to deny it but it is to say it is incomplete. Why evolution ? Why do we search for the answers and why do we assume they are there ? What are the laws of mathematics, how did they come to be and if the answer is simply, life as we know it could not have come into existence without them, then my follow up comment could be that with so many trillion to one chances having to coincide to bring about this marvel, this universe and to have it evolve and develop in its way, then it almost seems less an act of faith to believe in some Being having been involved in its journey then to have so much chance upon chance upon chance. Then I wonder, where does reason end and blind refusal to contemplate the fact that there might be something in the God thing start.
His final chapter is an equally fascinating delve into culture, civilization, multiculturalism and the rise of extremism. He explores the way in which the arrogance, as he sees it, of the West's project of global domination triggered a backlash in the form of Radical Islam. His theory is the West's suppression of many secular leftist governments and movements in so many parts of the world in an attempt to shore up the West's control backfired spectacularly as the vacum created by immoral monarchies and right wing militarist regimes being kept in power under duress was filled with avengance with opposition forces jammed to the brim with beliefs and creeds. Beliefs which the agnosticism of the West struggle to argue with. He discusses multiculturalism and the weakness present if it blandly embraces differences without looking deeply into what those differences might be. This he decries as it
numbs the habit of vigorously contesting other people's beliefs
something which it is imperative in a grown up society that we do. Conversely, he 'outs' the false god of 'common culture' so loudly trumpeted by many because it often means
one which incorporates outsiders into an already established unquestionable framework of values
when in reality he points out
A common culture in a more radical sense of the term is not one in which everyone believes the same thing, but one in which everyone has equal status in cooperatively determining a way of life in common
Wow, pie in the sky ? Not sure but that is something to work for surely !!
He certainly has an axe or indeed a whole armory to grind and his clinging to Marxism and Liberation Theology seems at times to be rather hysterical. He points out that both Hitchens and Dawkins are bad theologians and are far too simplistic in their sweeping generalizations and disingenuous in their switching of the siting for their various battles but I do think this is an, if not accusation then a suggestion that could be levelled at Eagleton. I found it a fascinating book, he has a very readable style, although the images and 'humorous comments' do get waring after a while.
Considering this book, in its original form, was based on a series of lectures he gave at Yale University in April 2008; his consistent belittling and making fun of the American political system and its social structure, its religious affiliations and its foreign policy at every oportunity (examples can be given if anyone would like to see them) either strikes one as very brave and challenging or in incredibly poor taste, taking advantage of a host's hospitality to be rude and offensive. I tend to walk the middle road.
The book struck me as rather an enfant terrible, desperate to live up to the presumably well advertized likelihood of outrage and controversy aplenty flowing through the lectures and he was desperate not to disappoint. I sometimes felt his overall intent and purpose got rather mislaid or confused in this desperation and that was a shame because when he flowed, when he made me think without reverting to 'clever witticisms' or right-on dudeness, or easy target practice against evidently dubious counterpositions or contradictions I found this a really fascinating and thought provoking study
April 16, 2009
I knew the "New Atheism" was stupid, a weak echo of the much more interesting atheists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but I've had lingering doubts about my reaction to Dawkins and Hitchens, because I know I must have political, religious and national prejudices that bias my perception of their ideas. So I was thrilled when I realized that Terry Eagleton (who is a Marxist, an atheist and British) has written a book trouncing them. If Terry Eagleton and I both think Dawkins and Hitchens (who he calls "Ditchkins") are making ridiculous arguments (and for a lot of the same reasons), then maybe I can stop being outraged by the New Atheism and move on.
May 13, 2015
I read the first 78 pages of this book so you don’t have to.
I was trying to make it to at least 100, but I’m sorry. The body is willing but the mind is weak.
I added this book to my to-read list after reading The God Delusion; it somehow coming up as a counterpoint to Dawkins’ atheistic arguments. I just went back and re-read my review of that book, and I’m pleased to discover it’s less glowing than I thought it was. My atheist leanings have not diminished, but my enchantment with rationalism has, and Dawkins looks even more dogmatic to me now than he did to my 2009 self. In this respect, Terry Eagleton ably critiques the vitrolic nature of Dawkins’ writing. I can’t speak towards “Ditchkins” as a whole, because I haven’t read God Is Not Great. I added it to my to-read list along with this book, but it’s not exactly a priority these days. Because I have better things to do.
It’s not really the content of Reason, Faith, and Revolution that’s the problem here. If that were the case, I’d have hacked it out for all 200 small, wide-margined pages and reported back to you with a 1-star review, stuck it on my “read” shelf, and called it a day. I love demolishing arguments! No, most of the content is pretty sensible—at least, what I can decipher.
See, it’s Eagleton’s style that’s the problem. His writing is somewhere between abstruse academic word vomit and conversational diarrhea. Each individual sentence is comprehensible on its own—some of them are even catchy. Most paragraphs are cogent, albeit often requiring a level of erudition that eludes even me. But each paragraph seems to be disconnected from those that came before and after. One moment Eagleton is talking about the Englightenment, and then suddenly he’s discussing Marx, and then Wittgenstein (Wittgenstein always seems to come up as a parenthetical, for some reason).
And I’m just … wut?
There is just no coherent structure to Eagleton’s argument. And not just from chapter to chapter, which might be bad enough, but as I said above, it’s down to the paragraph level. I waded through the first chapter and a half of this book with very little idea of what Eagleton was saying, other than that everyone else has gotten everything about scientistic and theological thinking wrong, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves and each other. And I’m sure that somewhere in here is an argument worthy of analysis. But I was having to work way too hard to decipher it.
Cannot deal.
I know these derive from lectures, but that is no excuse. Douglas Coupland wrote an entire novel as a series of five hour lectures. Lawrence Hill, Neil Turok … every other author of a CBC Massey Lecture series has managed to create a halfway decent book out of their kick at the intellectual can. But no, you, you screwed it up, Eagleton. Well done.
I am all for reading books critiquing secular humanism, religion, scientism, atheism, rationalism, whatever. But they have to organized, well thought-out, and clear.
This is none of those things. So I’m going to go read another Animorphs novel before going to bed.
I was trying to make it to at least 100, but I’m sorry. The body is willing but the mind is weak.
I added this book to my to-read list after reading The God Delusion; it somehow coming up as a counterpoint to Dawkins’ atheistic arguments. I just went back and re-read my review of that book, and I’m pleased to discover it’s less glowing than I thought it was. My atheist leanings have not diminished, but my enchantment with rationalism has, and Dawkins looks even more dogmatic to me now than he did to my 2009 self. In this respect, Terry Eagleton ably critiques the vitrolic nature of Dawkins’ writing. I can’t speak towards “Ditchkins” as a whole, because I haven’t read God Is Not Great. I added it to my to-read list along with this book, but it’s not exactly a priority these days. Because I have better things to do.
It’s not really the content of Reason, Faith, and Revolution that’s the problem here. If that were the case, I’d have hacked it out for all 200 small, wide-margined pages and reported back to you with a 1-star review, stuck it on my “read” shelf, and called it a day. I love demolishing arguments! No, most of the content is pretty sensible—at least, what I can decipher.
See, it’s Eagleton’s style that’s the problem. His writing is somewhere between abstruse academic word vomit and conversational diarrhea. Each individual sentence is comprehensible on its own—some of them are even catchy. Most paragraphs are cogent, albeit often requiring a level of erudition that eludes even me. But each paragraph seems to be disconnected from those that came before and after. One moment Eagleton is talking about the Englightenment, and then suddenly he’s discussing Marx, and then Wittgenstein (Wittgenstein always seems to come up as a parenthetical, for some reason).
And I’m just … wut?
There is just no coherent structure to Eagleton’s argument. And not just from chapter to chapter, which might be bad enough, but as I said above, it’s down to the paragraph level. I waded through the first chapter and a half of this book with very little idea of what Eagleton was saying, other than that everyone else has gotten everything about scientistic and theological thinking wrong, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves and each other. And I’m sure that somewhere in here is an argument worthy of analysis. But I was having to work way too hard to decipher it.
Cannot deal.
I know these derive from lectures, but that is no excuse. Douglas Coupland wrote an entire novel as a series of five hour lectures. Lawrence Hill, Neil Turok … every other author of a CBC Massey Lecture series has managed to create a halfway decent book out of their kick at the intellectual can. But no, you, you screwed it up, Eagleton. Well done.
I am all for reading books critiquing secular humanism, religion, scientism, atheism, rationalism, whatever. But they have to organized, well thought-out, and clear.
This is none of those things. So I’m going to go read another Animorphs novel before going to bed.
January 1, 2017
This book is based on lectures given at Yale University in 2008. Its intent is to provide 'reflections on the God debate'. The usual suspects (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and the Enlightenment) are more or less lambasted — or at least their more 'extreme' positions are, but then again so are just about every -ism Eagleton can think of: there will always be some aspect or other which is 'wrong' or 'bad' or even 'evil' — and Christianity (Christianism?) does not escape either.
Christians who might think they can gain some comfort from this book can think again. 'God is every bit as pointless as Ditchkins tells us he is.' (p. 10) ('Ditchkins' is a fictitious composite of Dawkins and Hitchens). 'There is good evidence, one is gratified to report, that the New Testament considers the family largely a waste of time.' (p.14). 'There is nothing heroic about the New Testament at all, Jesus is a sick joke of a saviour." (p.19) 'The biblical name for God as judge or accuser is Satan...' (p. 20). 'The New Testament is a brutal destroyer of human illusion. If you follow Jesus and don't end up dead, it appears you have some explaining to do.' (p.27). '...Jesus' attitude to the family is one of implacable hostility.' (p.31). 'Any preaching of the Gospel which fails to constitute a scandal and affront to the political state is in my view effectively worthless.' (p. 58). And so on...
Postmodernism also gets a serve for its eschewing of any fundamental certainties — yet this whole work is most definitely a postmodernist text. It questions every ideology by redefining words (usually by qualifying them with adjectives or adverbs) until a very specific interpretation can be used to either praise or discredit it (sometimes both!) until it all becomes pretty much gobbledegook; and contradictions abound. For example, on p. 39 Eagleton tells us 'The advanced capitalist system is inherently atheistic.' but on p. 143 he tells us: 'Advanced capitalism is inherently agnostic.' Words such as 'faith', 'reason', 'science', etc are used with so many different qualifications in various locations that they become ambiguous, and their use in particular circumstances becomes misleading. Every sentence, every statement made, eventually becomes a morass of conflicting concepts.
In the end one does not know where one is — and I suspect neither does the author. He admits he knows little about either theology or science (p.2) then proceeds to attack those who allegedly make claims about them as being either ignorant or of misunderstanding what they are saying. I must admit that this book more than any others made me want to throw it away from me on numerous occasions as not being worthy of its machinations. I persisted, however, (perhaps masochistically?) and retained some form of sanity by marking up qualifying adjectives and adverbs, all sentences containing 'if' and 'may' and 'could', noting underlying assumptions and marking them with question marks, and identifying where I saw inconsistencies and contradictions. What remained was little. I made a mess of the book — appropriate, I felt, for the mess of the book itself!
So what or where does Eagleton stand in all of this? It seems that he believes in what he calls 'tragic humanism'; this holds that humanity can come to its own 'only by a process of self-dispossession and radical remaking' (p. 169), yet throughout the book it seems that he is attacking just about every attempt by humanity in the past to remake itself. The examples Eagleton uses in the book seem to be centred on a basically misanthropic view that delights in showing up the failures of every attempt, either secular or religious, to 'improve' society.
He does, however, seem to have a faith in Faith. God exists; he is male; he is not an entity (p.7) . He created the world as an artist, with no functional end in view but simply for the love and delight of it — for the hell of it — and 'he made it as a gift, superfluity, and gratuitous gesture — out of nothing rather than out of grim necessity.' (p. 8); he is transcendent, i.e. he doesn't need humanity, so he is not neurotically possessive of us; he doesn't need us, so he lets us be (= 'freedom'), which is where for Christian theology we belong to him most deeply. (p. 15). For Christian teaching, his love and forgiveness are ruthlessly unforgiving powers which break violently into our protective, self-rationalising little sphere, smashing our sentimental illusion and turning our world upside down... 'It is the flayed and bloody scapegoat of Calvary that is now the true signifier of the Law. Which is to say that those who are faithful to God's law of justice and compassion will be done away with by the state. If you don't love, you're dead, and if you do, they'll kill you.' (p.22). 'The traumatic truth of human history is a mutilated body. Those who do not see this dreadful image of a tortured innocent as the truth of history are likely to adopt some bright-eyed superstition such as the dream of untrammelled human progress...' (p. 27). And finally, 'The mainstream Christian theology I have outlined here may well be false, but anyone who holds to it is in my view deserving of respect.' (p. 33). To which I can only reply like Austin Powers: "Oh, puh-leese!"
Christians who might think they can gain some comfort from this book can think again. 'God is every bit as pointless as Ditchkins tells us he is.' (p. 10) ('Ditchkins' is a fictitious composite of Dawkins and Hitchens). 'There is good evidence, one is gratified to report, that the New Testament considers the family largely a waste of time.' (p.14). 'There is nothing heroic about the New Testament at all, Jesus is a sick joke of a saviour." (p.19) 'The biblical name for God as judge or accuser is Satan...' (p. 20). 'The New Testament is a brutal destroyer of human illusion. If you follow Jesus and don't end up dead, it appears you have some explaining to do.' (p.27). '...Jesus' attitude to the family is one of implacable hostility.' (p.31). 'Any preaching of the Gospel which fails to constitute a scandal and affront to the political state is in my view effectively worthless.' (p. 58). And so on...
Postmodernism also gets a serve for its eschewing of any fundamental certainties — yet this whole work is most definitely a postmodernist text. It questions every ideology by redefining words (usually by qualifying them with adjectives or adverbs) until a very specific interpretation can be used to either praise or discredit it (sometimes both!) until it all becomes pretty much gobbledegook; and contradictions abound. For example, on p. 39 Eagleton tells us 'The advanced capitalist system is inherently atheistic.' but on p. 143 he tells us: 'Advanced capitalism is inherently agnostic.' Words such as 'faith', 'reason', 'science', etc are used with so many different qualifications in various locations that they become ambiguous, and their use in particular circumstances becomes misleading. Every sentence, every statement made, eventually becomes a morass of conflicting concepts.
In the end one does not know where one is — and I suspect neither does the author. He admits he knows little about either theology or science (p.2) then proceeds to attack those who allegedly make claims about them as being either ignorant or of misunderstanding what they are saying. I must admit that this book more than any others made me want to throw it away from me on numerous occasions as not being worthy of its machinations. I persisted, however, (perhaps masochistically?) and retained some form of sanity by marking up qualifying adjectives and adverbs, all sentences containing 'if' and 'may' and 'could', noting underlying assumptions and marking them with question marks, and identifying where I saw inconsistencies and contradictions. What remained was little. I made a mess of the book — appropriate, I felt, for the mess of the book itself!
So what or where does Eagleton stand in all of this? It seems that he believes in what he calls 'tragic humanism'; this holds that humanity can come to its own 'only by a process of self-dispossession and radical remaking' (p. 169), yet throughout the book it seems that he is attacking just about every attempt by humanity in the past to remake itself. The examples Eagleton uses in the book seem to be centred on a basically misanthropic view that delights in showing up the failures of every attempt, either secular or religious, to 'improve' society.
He does, however, seem to have a faith in Faith. God exists; he is male; he is not an entity (p.7) . He created the world as an artist, with no functional end in view but simply for the love and delight of it — for the hell of it — and 'he made it as a gift, superfluity, and gratuitous gesture — out of nothing rather than out of grim necessity.' (p. 8); he is transcendent, i.e. he doesn't need humanity, so he is not neurotically possessive of us; he doesn't need us, so he lets us be (= 'freedom'), which is where for Christian theology we belong to him most deeply. (p. 15). For Christian teaching, his love and forgiveness are ruthlessly unforgiving powers which break violently into our protective, self-rationalising little sphere, smashing our sentimental illusion and turning our world upside down... 'It is the flayed and bloody scapegoat of Calvary that is now the true signifier of the Law. Which is to say that those who are faithful to God's law of justice and compassion will be done away with by the state. If you don't love, you're dead, and if you do, they'll kill you.' (p.22). 'The traumatic truth of human history is a mutilated body. Those who do not see this dreadful image of a tortured innocent as the truth of history are likely to adopt some bright-eyed superstition such as the dream of untrammelled human progress...' (p. 27). And finally, 'The mainstream Christian theology I have outlined here may well be false, but anyone who holds to it is in my view deserving of respect.' (p. 33). To which I can only reply like Austin Powers: "Oh, puh-leese!"
October 22, 2020
I started this book with fairly high expectations. I expected a thorough, systematic critique of the New Atheism of Dawkins, Bennett, and Hitchens. But after barely 40 pages, I had to throw in the towel, frustrated by the incomprehensibility of this book. Eagleton uses a particularly arrogant tone (just as he accuses Dawkins and Hitchens), and bluntly fires one statement after another at them, without setting up a coherent reasoning himself. Okay, this is a slightly edited version of some lectures, so systematics are a bit more difficult there. But Eagleton apparently likes to debit wisdom without paying attention to whether his audience is on board. I gather from his introduction that he has had a Marxist education, and that should have been a warning. His style is infathomable, and that makes the - presumably - interesting content incomprehensible, What a pity.
January 30, 2011
Eagleton is one of the most arrogant writers on the planet. He uses eloquent language to disguise a set of logically flawed and terribly stupid ideas. Don't be fooled into thinking this book has much to do with the god debate. Instead it is a volume of Marxist propaganda that uses Christianity as a platform for justifying extreme socialism. If Eagleton was even half as smart as the authors he childishly attacks in this book he would be able to put his masterful command of the English language to good use at credibly and decently debating the topics hinted at in his title.
This is nothing more than infantile and would be obvious as such if one removed the flagrant language that cleverly disguises Eagleton as more of an intellectual than he is. Only a fool could cling to the ideologies this book tries to justify.
I have not finished this book yet and may never as it is painful to read but I think I'm far enough in to stick by this review.
This is nothing more than infantile and would be obvious as such if one removed the flagrant language that cleverly disguises Eagleton as more of an intellectual than he is. Only a fool could cling to the ideologies this book tries to justify.
I have not finished this book yet and may never as it is painful to read but I think I'm far enough in to stick by this review.
March 24, 2019
أستطيع القول أن إيغلتن مفكر ماركسي "عتيد"، من الواضح أن لديه مشروع نقدي يشمل الأدب والفكر والسياسة وصولاً الى الدين .. يتبع اسلوب رائع في مقاربته للتاريخ الراهن والمستجد. أحب فيه طرحه أسئلة صعبة في كل فكرة ينقدها.
دراسة رصينة وقراءة مفيدة.
دراسة رصينة وقراءة مفيدة.
May 13, 2025
Kitabın Teması ve Ana Görüşler
• Eagleton, bu eserinde Tanrı tartışmasını, modern akılcılık ve devrimsel düşünce ile harmanlıyor.
• Kitap, özellikle yeni ateizm akımı (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens gibi isimler) ve onların Tanrı algılarını eleştiriyor.
• Eagleton’a göre, modern ateistler din kavramını son derece yüzeysel ve basit şekilde ele alıyor. Ona göre, inanç, yalnızca bir dogma değil, derin bir toplumsal ve kültürel deneyimdir.
⸻
Ana Başlıklar:
1. İnancın Yanlış Anlaşılması:
• Eagleton, modern seküler düşüncenin inancı sadece mitler ve boş inançlar olarak yorumlamasını eleştirir.
• İnancın, insanın varoluşsal ve ahlaki temellerine dokunduğunu savunur.
2. Aklın Sınırları:
• Modern akılcılık, her şeyin bilimle açıklanabileceğini iddia ederken, Eagleton bunun sınırlı bir bakış açısı olduğunu belirtir.
• Ahlak, sevgi, anlam arayışı gibi kavramların yalnızca akılla açıklanamayacağını öne sürer.
3. Devrimci İman:
• Eagleton, inancı durağan bir dogma değil, devrimsel bir güç olarak görür.
• Marksist bir arka planla, inancın toplumsal değişime olan etkisini vurgular. Hatta bazı yerlerde İsa’nın öğretisini bir “devrimci hareket” olarak ele alır.
4. Yeni Ateizmin Eleştirisi:
• Richard Dawkins ve Christopher Hitchens gibi isimlerin inanca yönelik eleştirilerini yüzeysel bulur.
• Onların Tanrı’yı yalnızca bir “doğaüstü varlık” olarak ele almasını, inancın derin felsefi boyutunu görmezden gelmek olarak yorumlar.
⸻
Eagleton’ın Bakışıyla İnanç:
• Eagleton’a göre inanç, salt bir metafizik iddia değil; toplumsal dayanışma, adalet arayışı ve ahlaki duruş anlamına gelir.
• İnancı, yalnızca bilimsel çerçevede değerlendirmenin yetersiz olduğunu, ona daha geniş bir anlam yüklemek gerektiğini savunur.
November 18, 2024
أعتقد أنها المرة الأخيرة التي أقرأ فيها ترجمةً لأسامة منزلجي
January 23, 2012
This is a pretty good book. My primary motivation for reading it was that it positions itself as a critique of Hitchens and Dawkins. On that ground it was successful. The moronic argument that somehow religion is uniquely the cause of evil in the world or unsuited for anything but control of primitive minds has always struck me as absurd. Eagleton does a very good job of making the absurdity of this position apparent, and doing so without the need to justify faith. Essentially he points out that all institutions are capable of atrocity, so singling out relgion as unique in this regard or advocating humanist enlightenment values that have an equally barbaric tradition is pretty straightforwardly false. He does, however, also attempt to justify why people have faith, and why the atheist attacks against faith are poorly founded. This also is a largely successful argument. He basically takes the prophetic tradition within the monotheistic religions and argues that the call to justice on behalf of the poor is foundational to them. He then points out that this characteristic of faith is admirable, indeed as admirable as the faith that scientific investigation will bear fruit or that human freedom is an aspiration that is attainable. He is less successful with his asides regarding postmodernism which don't really feel at home here. And his reduction of the fundemenatalist's motivation to economic causality rings rather hollow. Though there is truth to the argument, his presentation of it is overly reductionist and deterministic. All in all, however, this is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in moving beyond the either/or of faith and reason.
October 16, 2012
"The whole question of faith and knowledge, in short, is a good deal more complex than the rationalist suspects." (s.116)
Tähän kompleksiseen kysymykseen Eagleton esittää kiinnostavia näkökulmia tässä Yalen yliopistossa pitämiensä luentojen pohjalta kootussa teoksessa. Pidän Eagletonin konstailemattomasta tyylistä sekä ironiantajusta, joka muuten ilmeisesti joiltakin tuskastuneen negatiivisia arvioita kirjoittaneilta lienee jäänyt kohtalokkaasti havaitsematta...
Radikaali poliittinen ajattelu ja usko eivät välttämättä, kuten Eagleton tuo puheenvuorossaan esiin, alkuunkaan sulje toisiaan pois. Vapautuksen teologiaa tai feministiteologiaa tunteville tämä ei ole uusi näkökulma sinänsä. Eagleton ei tosin mielellään käytä "vapautuksen teologia" -nimitystä, koska hänestä kaikkea aidosti teologista ajattelua tulisi tarkastella vapautuksen näkökulmasta: "All authentic theology is liberation theology." (s.32)
Hienoimpia hetkiä kirjassa on muun muassa se, miten Eagleton selittää jotakin olennaista uskosta ranskalaisen ateistifilosofi Alain Badioun ajattelun inspiroimana (s. 118):
"What provokes a subject into existence for Badiou is an exceptional, utterly particular truth, which calls forth an act of commitment in which the subject is born. One thinks of the English word 'troth', meaning both faith and truth. But truth is also a question of solidarity, involving as it usually does the birth of a believing community such as the church. This commitment opens up a new order of truth, and being faithful to this truth is what Badiou means by the ethical. Like divine grace, a truth event represents an invitation which is available to everyone. Before the truth, we are all equal."
Eagleton toteaa kiertelemättömään tapaansa, että täysin ongelmaton Badioun teoria ei ole, mutta olennainen ajatus siitä, että uskossa on kysymys sitoutumisesta rakkauteen pikemmin kuin jostain ehdottomasta tavasta kuvata todellisuutta välittyy. Sitoutuminen merkitsee aktiivisuutta ja vastavuoroista vastuunkantoa, ei itsekästä individualismia.
Tästä ja monista muista eri aspekteista (muun muassa fideismistä, fanatismista ja humanismin eri tulkinnoista) Eagleton luennoi kiinnostavasti ja ajoittain tosiaan myös hauskasti. Kaunokirjallisuusviittauksia on useita, mikä on mukavaa. Tutut filosofiset ajattelijat Tuomas Akvinolainen, Zizek ja Kierkegaard muiden muassa keskustelevat Eagletonin tekstissä jouhevasti. Varsin suositeltava kirja aiheesta kiinnostuneille.
Tähän kompleksiseen kysymykseen Eagleton esittää kiinnostavia näkökulmia tässä Yalen yliopistossa pitämiensä luentojen pohjalta kootussa teoksessa. Pidän Eagletonin konstailemattomasta tyylistä sekä ironiantajusta, joka muuten ilmeisesti joiltakin tuskastuneen negatiivisia arvioita kirjoittaneilta lienee jäänyt kohtalokkaasti havaitsematta...
Radikaali poliittinen ajattelu ja usko eivät välttämättä, kuten Eagleton tuo puheenvuorossaan esiin, alkuunkaan sulje toisiaan pois. Vapautuksen teologiaa tai feministiteologiaa tunteville tämä ei ole uusi näkökulma sinänsä. Eagleton ei tosin mielellään käytä "vapautuksen teologia" -nimitystä, koska hänestä kaikkea aidosti teologista ajattelua tulisi tarkastella vapautuksen näkökulmasta: "All authentic theology is liberation theology." (s.32)
Hienoimpia hetkiä kirjassa on muun muassa se, miten Eagleton selittää jotakin olennaista uskosta ranskalaisen ateistifilosofi Alain Badioun ajattelun inspiroimana (s. 118):
"What provokes a subject into existence for Badiou is an exceptional, utterly particular truth, which calls forth an act of commitment in which the subject is born. One thinks of the English word 'troth', meaning both faith and truth. But truth is also a question of solidarity, involving as it usually does the birth of a believing community such as the church. This commitment opens up a new order of truth, and being faithful to this truth is what Badiou means by the ethical. Like divine grace, a truth event represents an invitation which is available to everyone. Before the truth, we are all equal."
Eagleton toteaa kiertelemättömään tapaansa, että täysin ongelmaton Badioun teoria ei ole, mutta olennainen ajatus siitä, että uskossa on kysymys sitoutumisesta rakkauteen pikemmin kuin jostain ehdottomasta tavasta kuvata todellisuutta välittyy. Sitoutuminen merkitsee aktiivisuutta ja vastavuoroista vastuunkantoa, ei itsekästä individualismia.
Tästä ja monista muista eri aspekteista (muun muassa fideismistä, fanatismista ja humanismin eri tulkinnoista) Eagleton luennoi kiinnostavasti ja ajoittain tosiaan myös hauskasti. Kaunokirjallisuusviittauksia on useita, mikä on mukavaa. Tutut filosofiset ajattelijat Tuomas Akvinolainen, Zizek ja Kierkegaard muiden muassa keskustelevat Eagletonin tekstissä jouhevasti. Varsin suositeltava kirja aiheesta kiinnostuneille.
December 28, 2012
An excellent, thought-provoking critique of both New Atheism and fundamentalist religion. In particular, it nails the myth that Dawkins, Hitchens et al represent an ideology-free standpoint purely concerned with "the facts". Rather, their position is exposed as being completely enmeshed in (and supportive of) the bloodless, rapacious neo-Positivist philosophy which is wreaking so much havoc and causing so much misery in the world today. This is a witty, intelligent, humane and closely-argued book. Will it change the minds of the likes of Dawkins? As Eagleton himself puts it, "not a hope in hell".
January 6, 2021
This was a delightful read, and I do so love Eagleton's gentle wit. My only grouse is that, despite the critical examination (not dismissal!) of Enlightenment/liberal humanist values, Eagleton has little self-awareness about how the views on religion that seem so self-evident and "authentic" to him are (often not unproblematically) filtered through that framework. While he has remarkable nuance to offer on the subject of Christianity, his comments on Islam-while well meaning- never live up to the same depth. Has any good ever come out of an unironic endorsal of the phrase "Judeo-Christian"?
March 8, 2018
ابوا يعني انت عايز ايه؟ مفيش فكرة واحدة متماسكة في الكتاب ولا أطروحة بيتم مناقشتها بشكل موضوعي
التدين مهما ارتدى أزياء عصرية سيظل يحمل في جوهره اللاشيء
بس حلوة يسار كاثوليكي دي، لا وجديدة!
التدين مهما ارتدى أزياء عصرية سيظل يحمل في جوهره اللاشيء
بس حلوة يسار كاثوليكي دي، لا وجديدة!
June 1, 2024
Don’t look at me, just on my way to becoming a Terry Eagleton stan as I wrestle with the idea of embracing a version of Marxist Catholicism.
February 9, 2025
Seven out of ten.
Eagleton is massively entertaining. In this book, he addresses his silver pen to some of the weaknesses of liberal and postliberal societies, especially New Atheist-style rationalist reductionism. As other reviewers note, he uses this takedown attempt as an opportunity to proselytize for his flavour of Marxist humanism (is that phrase oxymoronic? I don't think Eagleton himself uses it).
The book doesn't have a lot of revolutionary ideas for the contemporary world, though it was likely more groundbreaking when it was first published. Eagleton does have interesting perspective on the need to ground rationality in prerational commitments (faith, if you will). He insists that, unlike many postmodernists, one need not abandon reason entirely in doing so. However, I don't think his distinction is incredibly stable.
There's a certain amount of irony in Eagleton's attacks on Dawkins', and more particularly Hitchens' rhetorical facility and shallow, sophistic arguments. Perhaps this irony is intentional. In general, the wit in this book is slightly overdone.
I think this book is worth reading, but I'm not sure to whom I would recommend it. There are better resources out there for people who are skeptical of liberal humanism and New Atheism. Perhaps this book is aimed most directly at theoreticians like Eagleton himself.
Eagleton is massively entertaining. In this book, he addresses his silver pen to some of the weaknesses of liberal and postliberal societies, especially New Atheist-style rationalist reductionism. As other reviewers note, he uses this takedown attempt as an opportunity to proselytize for his flavour of Marxist humanism (is that phrase oxymoronic? I don't think Eagleton himself uses it).
The book doesn't have a lot of revolutionary ideas for the contemporary world, though it was likely more groundbreaking when it was first published. Eagleton does have interesting perspective on the need to ground rationality in prerational commitments (faith, if you will). He insists that, unlike many postmodernists, one need not abandon reason entirely in doing so. However, I don't think his distinction is incredibly stable.
There's a certain amount of irony in Eagleton's attacks on Dawkins', and more particularly Hitchens' rhetorical facility and shallow, sophistic arguments. Perhaps this irony is intentional. In general, the wit in this book is slightly overdone.
I think this book is worth reading, but I'm not sure to whom I would recommend it. There are better resources out there for people who are skeptical of liberal humanism and New Atheism. Perhaps this book is aimed most directly at theoreticians like Eagleton himself.
January 30, 2019
Fantastic. As an atheist who has long been well past fed up with Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, it is endlessly refreshing to find an intelligent critique of their brand of thinking from an atheist viewpoint. And bonus Marxism? Yes, please!
I will say that some sections here rambled a bit and seemed a little unfocused/hard to follow -- some of that might be the fact that I'm a few years past college and haven't made a habit of reading academic philosophy for fun, but I do think some of the more distant rambles could have been excised or condensed. There weren't many of them though (it is, after all, a relatively short book) and the on-point bits were amazing. I found myself copying down whole paragraphs to go back and look over again later. Definitely recommended for anybody looking for a more thorough critique of New Atheism beyond just, "they're arrogant, Islamophobic assholes."
I will say that some sections here rambled a bit and seemed a little unfocused/hard to follow -- some of that might be the fact that I'm a few years past college and haven't made a habit of reading academic philosophy for fun, but I do think some of the more distant rambles could have been excised or condensed. There weren't many of them though (it is, after all, a relatively short book) and the on-point bits were amazing. I found myself copying down whole paragraphs to go back and look over again later. Definitely recommended for anybody looking for a more thorough critique of New Atheism beyond just, "they're arrogant, Islamophobic assholes."
July 26, 2022
Dragi Terry, ako napišete knjigu kao svojevrsnu kritiku Novog ateizma, onda se bar potrudite da argumenti ne budu ad hominem za jadne Dawkinsa i Hitchensa. Napadi na Novi ateizam ne može biti samo uočavanje negativnih strana, isto kao što protuargumentacija ne može veličati jebenog Marksa. I, za kraj, dragi Terry, kritikovanje zapada (kojeg ste i sami dio) ne čini baš ništa, jer zapad i dalje savršeno postoji i funkcionira, a takvi kao Vi su mu najbolja reklama. Lijep pozdrav!
January 14, 2024
“Tragic humanism, whether in its socialist, Christian, or psychoanalytic varieties, holds that only by a process of self-dispossession and radical remaking can humanity come into its own.”
This is what we like to hear!
January 3, 2021
Even though Eagleton wrote this book in 2009, he describes what is happening politically in the USA in 2021. The author is an atheist and yet he takes great swings at the New Atheist writers. He has a compelling argument on why reason alone will not be able to keep humans on the track of humanity. A worthwhile read.
January 22, 2015
Although published in 2009, this book is a timely polemic on the God debate in light of recent terrorist attacks. I finished reading the book just as news of Charlie Hebdo was emerging. The so called new atheism that emerged on the heels of the twin towers attack in 2011 is viewed by Eagleton as a liberal humanist myopic response to religion which grossly overlooks the shortcomings of western civilisation's holy cows of humanism, liberalism and capitalism birthed in the Enlightenment. The likes of Ditchkens (Eagleton's short hand for Dawkins and Hitchens which in turn caricatures the other proponents of the new atheism) conveniently overlook the carnage science has wrought in Horishima and the U.S. sponsoring of Islamic fundamentalist regimes to overturn moderate progressive Islamic democracies and economic nationalist states decried as communists that did not accommodate western capitalism and U.S. interests. There is sufficient blood on the CIA's hands wrought from its own inspired terrorism of murder and torture in support of Eagleton's argument. Eagleton argues that this political self interest plays no small part in having planted the seeds of terrorism the West has now reaped.
For someone who claims to know little about religion or science, Eagleton mounts an impressive, articulated theological rebuffal to Ditchkens "theological howlers" and "straw-targeting" of Christianity. Not only do the new atheists make a fundamental "error of genre, or category mistake" about Christian belief, they also fail to recognise their own biased prejudices in claiming pure rationality, denying their own position as one of faith. Eagleton does not stop short of lambasting the new atheism and global capitalism but serves out equal lashings to religious fundamentalism, progressive liberal humanism and technocratic imperialism.
It is not a book for the intellectually faint hearted. There is enough in here to upset fundamentalists of all ilks and it would be surprising if anyone having finished the book would not be offended or in disagreement on at least some points. Nevertheless, Eagleton's arguments are robust and worthy of consideration. The book is worth the read for Egeltons biting humour alone. "Jesus does not seem to be any sort of liberal, which is no doubt one grudge Ditchkins holds against him. He would not make a good committee man. Neither would he go down well in Wall Street, just as he did not go down well amoung the money changers of the Jerusalem temple." (24) At points the polemic is reminiscent of CS Lewis but I put this down to the common Irish and literary heritage shared between these two British intellectuals. Eagleton would not be embraced as Evengelical by any stretch although the same could be said for much of what CS Lewis wrote.
I fought the urge to applaud as I neared the end of this polemical essay but resisted given the hour was late and the rest of the house was asleep. So instead I've rated it five stars. I could quibble about trivialities and rate it four but this would be churlish. Eagleton's argument could have been tighter, the Marxist framing was somewhat biased, and the polemic could have been more tactical in the referencing of its opponents arguments. But these are minor points which do not detract from the overall impact of Eagleton's scathing rebuffal of the so called new atheism. In fact, such quibbles are arguably indespensible to Eagleton's assertion that reason must be earthed in faith and commitment. The passion of Eagleton's polemic is fuelled by his own Marxist and Catholic beliefs. But this means he has declared his hand having made no bones about his own position as opposed to his antagonists Ditchkens who claim unbiased rationality but are according to Eagleton biased liberal humanists who make a straw man of Christinaity painting the whole church with the same brush of fundamentalism and evangelicalism as it stands today.
The book should at least make you reflect on not just the God debate but the broader implications of where the West stands in the face of rising fundamentalist religious fervour. It is unfortunate that many proponents on both sides of the debate are unlikely to ever consider reading a view other than one which bolsters their own biases. As Eagleton quips at the end somewhat ironically in light of Hitchens recent departure: "Will either side listen to the other at present? Will Ditchkens read this book and experience an epiphany which puts the road to Damascus in the shade? To use no less than two theological terms by way of response: not a hope in hell." (168)
For someone who claims to know little about religion or science, Eagleton mounts an impressive, articulated theological rebuffal to Ditchkens "theological howlers" and "straw-targeting" of Christianity. Not only do the new atheists make a fundamental "error of genre, or category mistake" about Christian belief, they also fail to recognise their own biased prejudices in claiming pure rationality, denying their own position as one of faith. Eagleton does not stop short of lambasting the new atheism and global capitalism but serves out equal lashings to religious fundamentalism, progressive liberal humanism and technocratic imperialism.
It is not a book for the intellectually faint hearted. There is enough in here to upset fundamentalists of all ilks and it would be surprising if anyone having finished the book would not be offended or in disagreement on at least some points. Nevertheless, Eagleton's arguments are robust and worthy of consideration. The book is worth the read for Egeltons biting humour alone. "Jesus does not seem to be any sort of liberal, which is no doubt one grudge Ditchkins holds against him. He would not make a good committee man. Neither would he go down well in Wall Street, just as he did not go down well amoung the money changers of the Jerusalem temple." (24) At points the polemic is reminiscent of CS Lewis but I put this down to the common Irish and literary heritage shared between these two British intellectuals. Eagleton would not be embraced as Evengelical by any stretch although the same could be said for much of what CS Lewis wrote.
I fought the urge to applaud as I neared the end of this polemical essay but resisted given the hour was late and the rest of the house was asleep. So instead I've rated it five stars. I could quibble about trivialities and rate it four but this would be churlish. Eagleton's argument could have been tighter, the Marxist framing was somewhat biased, and the polemic could have been more tactical in the referencing of its opponents arguments. But these are minor points which do not detract from the overall impact of Eagleton's scathing rebuffal of the so called new atheism. In fact, such quibbles are arguably indespensible to Eagleton's assertion that reason must be earthed in faith and commitment. The passion of Eagleton's polemic is fuelled by his own Marxist and Catholic beliefs. But this means he has declared his hand having made no bones about his own position as opposed to his antagonists Ditchkens who claim unbiased rationality but are according to Eagleton biased liberal humanists who make a straw man of Christinaity painting the whole church with the same brush of fundamentalism and evangelicalism as it stands today.
The book should at least make you reflect on not just the God debate but the broader implications of where the West stands in the face of rising fundamentalist religious fervour. It is unfortunate that many proponents on both sides of the debate are unlikely to ever consider reading a view other than one which bolsters their own biases. As Eagleton quips at the end somewhat ironically in light of Hitchens recent departure: "Will either side listen to the other at present? Will Ditchkens read this book and experience an epiphany which puts the road to Damascus in the shade? To use no less than two theological terms by way of response: not a hope in hell." (168)
April 30, 2009
If for no other reason (although luckily there are other reasons), this is a great book simply for mentioning "Situationism," the 1957-1972 French far-left poetic/politcal movement, and the theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) on the same page (p. 65, albeit each in passing).*
But beyond that, there's great amusement and appreciation to be had witnessing Eagleton -- the Marxist literary critic, himself no friend of religion -- schooling those enthralled by naive scientism (notably Hitchens & Dawkins, which E. shorthands to "Ditchkins") in the merits, or at least importance and relevance, of good theology. This is a very generous gesture that bespeaks of a non-ideological, subtle and creative mind. He calls it like he sees it, though, so calls Ditchkins & Co. to task for assuming that everything under the sun even could have a properly scientific explanation (e.g., the "biggies," like "why is there anything at all rather than nothing?", etc.), just as he also distinguishes literalist-fundamentalist beliefs from more subtly nuanced faith/reason relations (E. distinguishes between simple belief claims "that something or someone exists" and deeper faith "in something which might make a difference to the frightful situation you find yourself in..."). His criticism of all those who would willfully conflate faith with knowledge, or ignore their necessary interrelation, in whatever context of thinking, be it secular or religious, could be seen to echo Reinhold Niebuhr's insight that "Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are unsure that we are doubly sure."
So E.'s overall position -- equally against ideological fundamentalists, naive neoliberals, and also against misplaced confidence in an ultimately ungrounded scientism -- is similar to Chris Hedges' recent writings (yet espoused with more sophistication), in that E. is wise enough to see the "new atheists" as, sadly, simply a mirror image of the most superficial type of religiosity (as this is distinct, though, from E.'s respect and admiration for tragic religiosity). Himself a Marxist, it's to E.'s credit that he takes a stand for both the social-poltical radicalism of the Gospel message and for a truly searching variety of agnostic or atheist thought (as opposed to the simply naive or ideological variety, a la "Ditchkins").
Eagleton has a penchant throughout for hyperbolic analogies as a springboard for humor, but there are other nice one-liners strewn about as well, such as:
-- "Truly civilized societies do not hold predawn power breakfasts."
-- "There is good evidence, one is gratified to report, that the New Testament considers the family largely a waste of time."
-- "...those who are faithful to God's law of justice and compassion will be done away with by the state."
-- "...there is hardly anything about sexuality in the New Testament, which is no doubt one reason why the work is not taught in cultural studies courses."
-- "All authentic theology is liberation theology."
-- "Left-wing Christians are in dire need of dating agencies." (Etc.)
All of which keeps the reading pretty lively.
Streaming videos of the lectures which became the book are available online: http://www.yale.edu/terrylecture/eagl... .
---
*Although arguably there is actually room for a more substantial thematic connection of sorts, also, since the French Barthian Jacques Ellul was friends with Guy Debord in the 1950s. Eagleton himself also writes, in one of his many pithy but perceptive comments, "It was Christianity, not the French intelligentsia, which invented the concept of everyday life" (p. 19).
But beyond that, there's great amusement and appreciation to be had witnessing Eagleton -- the Marxist literary critic, himself no friend of religion -- schooling those enthralled by naive scientism (notably Hitchens & Dawkins, which E. shorthands to "Ditchkins") in the merits, or at least importance and relevance, of good theology. This is a very generous gesture that bespeaks of a non-ideological, subtle and creative mind. He calls it like he sees it, though, so calls Ditchkins & Co. to task for assuming that everything under the sun even could have a properly scientific explanation (e.g., the "biggies," like "why is there anything at all rather than nothing?", etc.), just as he also distinguishes literalist-fundamentalist beliefs from more subtly nuanced faith/reason relations (E. distinguishes between simple belief claims "that something or someone exists" and deeper faith "in something which might make a difference to the frightful situation you find yourself in..."). His criticism of all those who would willfully conflate faith with knowledge, or ignore their necessary interrelation, in whatever context of thinking, be it secular or religious, could be seen to echo Reinhold Niebuhr's insight that "Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are unsure that we are doubly sure."
So E.'s overall position -- equally against ideological fundamentalists, naive neoliberals, and also against misplaced confidence in an ultimately ungrounded scientism -- is similar to Chris Hedges' recent writings (yet espoused with more sophistication), in that E. is wise enough to see the "new atheists" as, sadly, simply a mirror image of the most superficial type of religiosity (as this is distinct, though, from E.'s respect and admiration for tragic religiosity). Himself a Marxist, it's to E.'s credit that he takes a stand for both the social-poltical radicalism of the Gospel message and for a truly searching variety of agnostic or atheist thought (as opposed to the simply naive or ideological variety, a la "Ditchkins").
Eagleton has a penchant throughout for hyperbolic analogies as a springboard for humor, but there are other nice one-liners strewn about as well, such as:
-- "Truly civilized societies do not hold predawn power breakfasts."
-- "There is good evidence, one is gratified to report, that the New Testament considers the family largely a waste of time."
-- "...those who are faithful to God's law of justice and compassion will be done away with by the state."
-- "...there is hardly anything about sexuality in the New Testament, which is no doubt one reason why the work is not taught in cultural studies courses."
-- "All authentic theology is liberation theology."
-- "Left-wing Christians are in dire need of dating agencies." (Etc.)
All of which keeps the reading pretty lively.
Streaming videos of the lectures which became the book are available online: http://www.yale.edu/terrylecture/eagl... .
---
*Although arguably there is actually room for a more substantial thematic connection of sorts, also, since the French Barthian Jacques Ellul was friends with Guy Debord in the 1950s. Eagleton himself also writes, in one of his many pithy but perceptive comments, "It was Christianity, not the French intelligentsia, which invented the concept of everyday life" (p. 19).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 7, 2016
Admittedly i'm a Sam Harris fanboy, simply meaning i find it hard to disagree with him and find that he usually asks the questions i, too, find important to ask. Almost the same with Dawkins and Hitchens. So when Olly at Philosophy Tube talked about them not being perfect i was really happy, because i'm annoyed by how perfect i find what they say (the only thing i could criticize is how they say it). Now Olly suggested this book so i read it. Again i'd like to reiterate i actually really wanted to know why "Ditchkins" isn't right, i really wanted to see their arguements shattered.
This did not happen at all.
Now, the book admits that "Ditchkins" is right about almost everything, then goes on to defend a version of faith for half the book which he - again - admits is a version that almost nobody believes. I should have stopped reading at this point, but i was really eager for who seem to be my idols being criticized to death. I'm not really fond of idols in any way. Olly said "he attacks the model of religion Dawkins and Hitchens work from" and sure, he does, while admitting that no real believer believes in a way he is defending
Then comes the other half of the book, which is mostly about culture and civilization and faith, which somehow ends on how marxism is awesome. Now, i would totally be interested in marxism, and some questions about the role of faith in the lives of people are interesting, but it just doesn't go anywhere. Maybe it's just because i was severly bored by the first half that i don't see it.
One thing's for sure, the main reason i love the writings of Sam Harris is the clarity he has and this book is anything but clear with over a page long references to novels and philosophers later claiming them to be surely not correct but interesting (again it might just be that i'm not educated enough).
The book explicitly sets out to criticize Dawkins and Hitchens but i think it doesn't even come close to it. If you want an alternative way to react to faith, check out street epistemology (Peter Boghossian might be too agressive still, but Antony Magnabosco is as nice as it gets)
This did not happen at all.
Now, the book admits that "Ditchkins" is right about almost everything, then goes on to defend a version of faith for half the book which he - again - admits is a version that almost nobody believes. I should have stopped reading at this point, but i was really eager for who seem to be my idols being criticized to death. I'm not really fond of idols in any way. Olly said "he attacks the model of religion Dawkins and Hitchens work from" and sure, he does, while admitting that no real believer believes in a way he is defending
Then comes the other half of the book, which is mostly about culture and civilization and faith, which somehow ends on how marxism is awesome. Now, i would totally be interested in marxism, and some questions about the role of faith in the lives of people are interesting, but it just doesn't go anywhere. Maybe it's just because i was severly bored by the first half that i don't see it.
One thing's for sure, the main reason i love the writings of Sam Harris is the clarity he has and this book is anything but clear with over a page long references to novels and philosophers later claiming them to be surely not correct but interesting (again it might just be that i'm not educated enough).
The book explicitly sets out to criticize Dawkins and Hitchens but i think it doesn't even come close to it. If you want an alternative way to react to faith, check out street epistemology (Peter Boghossian might be too agressive still, but Antony Magnabosco is as nice as it gets)
April 17, 2016
This is a book about religious belief written by a Marxist and atheist, yet it is not at all what you might expect. Eagleton is equally fed up with the New Atheist school of polemic writing as with fundamentalist religious belief, and sets out to offer a robust defense of religious belief that both celebrates Christianity's history of finding meaning in being human and is consistent with a Marxian view of the world. Plus he does it with wit and flair on top of the clear intelligence behind his writing.
It is simply one of the most powerful and affecting books about religious belief I have ever read, and a great defense of the value of Christianity in the abstract, though not of the actual actions of Christians living today. It is less than 200 pages and based on a series of lectures the author gave at Yale, so it is not a comprehensive academic tome. Instead, it is lighthearted and fun, but also quite serious and necessary.
I could turn to almost any page and find some cutting quote to give a sense of the tone of Eagleton's argument, but this early paragraph was among my favorites:
"For Christian teaching, God's love and forgiveness are ruthlessly unforgiving powers which break violently into our protective, self-rationalizing little sphere, smashing our sentimental illusions and turning our world brutally upside down. In Jesus, the law is revealed to be the law of love and mercy, and God not some Blakean Nobodaddy but a helpless, vulnerable animal. It is the flayed and bloody scapegoat of Calvary that is now the true signifier of the law. Which is to say that those who are faithful to God's law of justice and compassion will be done away with by the state. If you don't love, you're dead, and if you do, they'll kill you...the only authentic image of this violently loving God is a tortured and executed political criminal."
The book is a radical document, and focused on the rarely talked about radical Jesus, who would be happy to tear our families apart and piss on propriety. It is among the best and most insightful books about Christianity I have ever read.
It is simply one of the most powerful and affecting books about religious belief I have ever read, and a great defense of the value of Christianity in the abstract, though not of the actual actions of Christians living today. It is less than 200 pages and based on a series of lectures the author gave at Yale, so it is not a comprehensive academic tome. Instead, it is lighthearted and fun, but also quite serious and necessary.
I could turn to almost any page and find some cutting quote to give a sense of the tone of Eagleton's argument, but this early paragraph was among my favorites:
"For Christian teaching, God's love and forgiveness are ruthlessly unforgiving powers which break violently into our protective, self-rationalizing little sphere, smashing our sentimental illusions and turning our world brutally upside down. In Jesus, the law is revealed to be the law of love and mercy, and God not some Blakean Nobodaddy but a helpless, vulnerable animal. It is the flayed and bloody scapegoat of Calvary that is now the true signifier of the law. Which is to say that those who are faithful to God's law of justice and compassion will be done away with by the state. If you don't love, you're dead, and if you do, they'll kill you...the only authentic image of this violently loving God is a tortured and executed political criminal."
The book is a radical document, and focused on the rarely talked about radical Jesus, who would be happy to tear our families apart and piss on propriety. It is among the best and most insightful books about Christianity I have ever read.
May 23, 2011
This is a most interesting theological/philosophical work by a British professor of English literature who is a Marxist (his latest book is "Why Marx Was Right," 2011) and who purportedly is not a Christian. But in this book he sounds far closer to (real) Christianity than to the so-called "new atheists," whom he severely criticizes."
Here are two of the many noteworthy passages in the book. The first is from the Preface and the second from "Faith and Reason," the third chapter.
“Religion has wrought untold misery in human affairs. For the most part, it has been a squalid tale of bigotry, superstition, wishful thinking, and oppressive ideology. I therefore have a good deal of sympathy with its rationalist and humanist critics. But it is also the case, as this book argues, that most such critics buy their rejection of religion on the cheap. When it comes to the New Testament, at least, what they usually write off is a worthless caricature of the real thing, rooted in a degree of ignorance and prejudice to match religion’s own. . . .
“It is with this ignorance and prejudice that I take issue in this book. If the agnostic left cannot afford such intellectual indolence when it comes to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, it is not only because it belongs to justice and honesty to confront your opponent at his or her most convincing” (p. xi)
“‘A believer, after all, is someone in love,’ observes Kierkegaard in The Sickness unto Death, a claim that by no means applies only to religious believers. For Saint Anselm, reason is itself rooted in God, so that one can attain it fully only through faith. This is part of what he means by his celebrated assertion ‘I believe in order to understand’—a proposition which in a different sense could also apply to believers like socialists and feminists. . . . All reasoning is conducted within the ambit of some sort of faith, attraction, inclination, orientation, predisposition, or prior commitment" (p. 120)
Here are two of the many noteworthy passages in the book. The first is from the Preface and the second from "Faith and Reason," the third chapter.
“Religion has wrought untold misery in human affairs. For the most part, it has been a squalid tale of bigotry, superstition, wishful thinking, and oppressive ideology. I therefore have a good deal of sympathy with its rationalist and humanist critics. But it is also the case, as this book argues, that most such critics buy their rejection of religion on the cheap. When it comes to the New Testament, at least, what they usually write off is a worthless caricature of the real thing, rooted in a degree of ignorance and prejudice to match religion’s own. . . .
“It is with this ignorance and prejudice that I take issue in this book. If the agnostic left cannot afford such intellectual indolence when it comes to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, it is not only because it belongs to justice and honesty to confront your opponent at his or her most convincing” (p. xi)
“‘A believer, after all, is someone in love,’ observes Kierkegaard in The Sickness unto Death, a claim that by no means applies only to religious believers. For Saint Anselm, reason is itself rooted in God, so that one can attain it fully only through faith. This is part of what he means by his celebrated assertion ‘I believe in order to understand’—a proposition which in a different sense could also apply to believers like socialists and feminists. . . . All reasoning is conducted within the ambit of some sort of faith, attraction, inclination, orientation, predisposition, or prior commitment" (p. 120)
December 21, 2016
The set of ideas on which I agree with Eagleton form the basis of my own pedagogical creed:
1. Western culture, which is based on Protestant, Enlightenment values of political liberalism and economic capitalism, is meant to be a form of civilization in which people are free to pursue ultimate kinds of meaning in their own ways and on their own terms. This, for me, is a good thing, in general.
2. But the human condition is marked by pain and confusion, and tendencies to shallowness, selfishness and cruelty -- a condition the religious, wisdom, philosophical and political traditions of the world have tried to call our attention to, and to mitigate or ameliorate. "Tragic humanism, whether in its socialist, Christian[, Buddhist] or psychoanalytic varieties, holds that only by a [spiritual] process of self-dispossession and radical [political] remaking can humanity come into its own" (169). There will always be inner work to do – to reduce selfishness, anxiety, anger, etc. – and outer = political work to do, to make sure there’s enough justice and general welfare to go around.
3. However, Western civilization tends not to recognize this, because as a ground for its political freedoms, it has also produced the myth of human perfectionism: "A new, prestigious image of Man ... as free, controlling, agentlike, autonomous, invulnerable, dignified, self-responsible, self-possessed, contemplative, dispassionate, and disengaged" (82); with “enlightened trust in the sovereignty of human reason" (89), “self-satisfied faith in progress and civility, [and] purblineness to the more malign aspects of human nature” (94). This myth is hubristic and dangerous, given #2.
4. Add to this that Western liberalism overemphasizes individualism to the extent that "it fostered an atomistic notion of the self, a bloodlessly contractual view of human relations, a meagerly utilitarian vision of ethics, ... an impoverished sense of human communality, ... and a witheringly negative view of power, the state, ... and tradition" (94). These are among the "metaphysical articles of faith" of "liberal rationalism" (95), and therefor make caring and working for the oppressed difficult. "Modern market societies tend to be secular, relativist, pragmatic, and materialistic. They are this by virtue of what they do, not just of what they believe.... The problem is that this cultural climate also tends to undermine the metaphysical values on which [socio-]political authority in part depends" (143).
5. Therefore, when Church and State are separated, and especially when Church and Popular Culture are separated, many (if not most) people can't manage to find any kind of ultimate meaning to pursue, and spend their lives chasing after money, sex and power. When this happens, capitalism shifts from being a liberal freedom of livelihood to an existential creed: something that can give your life meaning. That makes Western culture not merely religiously-neutral but spiritually vacuous. "Freedom of cultural expression has culminated in the schlock ideological rhetoric, and politically managed news of the profit-driven mass media" (71). "A society of packaged fulfillment, administered desire, managerialized politics, and consumerist economics is unlikely to cut to the kind of depth where theological [existential] questions can even be properly raised" (p. 39). There is simply no consensus of political and ethical morality to object to the shallowness and depravity of crass materialism.
6. Much less is there political and ethical consensus to reign in those who are able to get so much money, sex and power that they become monsters who treat those with less power, including the Earth itself, like garbage. This problem is exacerbated by "globalization, meaning the right of capital to exercise its sovereign power wherever and over whomever it chooses" (72). Western "civilization ... seems bent on destroying the planet, slaughtering the innocent, and manufacturing human inequality on an unimaginable scale" (84-5); and "Liberal humanism is simply not radical enough" (68) to take the actual horrors of human and ecological injustice seriously, being obsessed with material/commercial progress and over-confident in human perfectionism.
7. Advances in science and technology, being conducted and utilized apart from any shared sense of ethical or political morality, become more powerful tools of mindlessness, selfishness, cruelty and injustice, as well as of dignity, compassion and justice. But in the West, "The idea that science might actually have contributed to our degradation as well as to our refinement is not even cursorily considered" (87).
8. Mainstream Western Christianity today is part of this whole problem. It has become about as far-removed from the life and message of Jesus as it can be -- more worried about church attendance, sexual purity and identity politics than about feeding the hungry and freeing political prisoners. "Christianity long ago shifted from the side of the poor and dispossessed and aggressive.... For the most part, it has become the creed of the suburban well-to-do, not the astonishing promise offered to the riffraff and undercover anticolonial militants with whom Jesus himself hung out" (p. 55).
9. The rise of Christian and Muslim fundamentalism is largely a response to all of this, as is the rise of new-age spirituality, which "offers a refuge from the world, not a way to transform it" (p. 41). "The age is equally divided between a technocratic reason which subordinates fact to value, and a fundamentalist reason which replaces fact with value" (137). And let's not forget, please, that "the West ... helped radical Islam to flourish by recruiting it as a force against so-called communism -- a label used to describe any country which dared to espouse economic nationalism against Western corporate capitalism" (104).
10. But there are also religious, philosophical, spiritual and socialist critiques of the dark side of Western civilization, which ought to be taken seriously by believers and non-believers alike, and apart from any supernatural meaning that believers tend to bring to these issues. This critique has two parts: one warning us against thinking that capitalism can be a source of existential meaning (Eagleton: "If by sin, one means violence, aggression, envy, exploitation, aquisitiveness, possessiveness, and so on, then that these damage our creaturely and affctive life can scarcely be denied" (p. 30)), and the other a prophetic urging to make love the organizing principle of our politics.
11. Of course we need to defend the liberal values of free speech, separation of church and state, etc. against terrorism. "The liberal principles of freedom are dogmas, and are none the worse for that. It is simply a liberal paradox that there must be something close-minded about [our commitment to] open-mindedness, and something inflexible about [our commitment to] tolerance. Liberalism cannot afford to be over-liberal when it comes to its own founding principles" (127). But we need just as much to point out the existential despair beneath selfish materialism and the injustices caused by capitalism run amok. "The only cure for terrorism is justice" (56). "If the British or American way of life were to take on board the critique of materialism, hedonism, and individualism of many devout Muslims, ... Western civilization would most certainly be altered for the good" (154).
Here's where I disagree:
1. Eagleton argues that nonbelievers should stop criticizing the everyday religious beliefs and practices of ordinary believers and instead see if their criticisms hold up to the more reasonable beliefs and practices of people like Eagleton himself, for whom religious faith is not belief in a Supreme Being but a commitment to "transformational love" made in recognition of the inherent pain and confusion of the human condition; and "is for the most part performative rather than propositional" (111). "[F]aith articulates a loving commitment before it counts as a description of the way things are" (119). "The rationalist tends to mistake the tenacity of faith ... for irrational stubborness rather than for the sign of a certain interior depth, one which encompasses reason but also transcends it" (139). In the first place, it's refreshing to read this kind of intelligent, humane construal of Christianity, and certainly, "liberalism, socialism, ... religion [and] science [must] stand under the judgment of [their] own finest traditions" (136). But this whole argument is a false dichotomy: both the minority, intelligent view and the majority unintelligent view should be critiqued -- especially since Eagleton’s book illustrates, his view may be merely "the product of an intellectual elite loftily remote from actually existing religion" (58).
2. The US is about the stupidest, most greedy, shallow and war-mongering nations in the history of the world. Actually, reading this book after the US 2016 election I can only half disagree with this.
3. “Intellectual is not at its finest when it springs from grief, hatred, hysteria, humiliation, and the urge for vengance, along with some deep-seated racist fears and fantasies" (141). I agree with this but have to use it against Eagleton himself, whose caricatures of Dawkins and Hitchens and of every aspect of American culture are so hyperbolic as to be cartoonish. As he so eloquently says, “The other side of pathologizing one's enemy is exculpating oneself" (108). In fact, in general, his over-the-top wit is only exhilirating until it becomes tedious, by about page 3. It’s also telling that he mostly takes Dawkins and Hitchens to task, with occasional jibes at Dennett, and makes no mention of the work of Harris, Jacoby and others. There is virtually no evidence that Eagleton thinks he can learn anything from these thinkers – he even blames them for not going far enough in criticizing the horrors of religious violence that he already condemns.
4. The book is full of false dichotomies –or saying "the difference between science and theology ... is one over whether you see the world as a gift or not" (p. 37) – and false equivalences, like calling atheism another kind of fundamentalism (how tired), or like saying that "Like religion, science is a culture, not just a set of procedures and hypotheses.... Science has its high priests, sacred cows, revered scriptures, ideological exclusions, and rituals for suppressing dissent" (132-33).
5. "[T]he arts ... provide an ersatz sort of transcendence in a world from which spiritual values have been largely banished" (83). Eagleton should read Dewey’s classic Art as Experience to realize how impoverished this understanding of art is.
1. Western culture, which is based on Protestant, Enlightenment values of political liberalism and economic capitalism, is meant to be a form of civilization in which people are free to pursue ultimate kinds of meaning in their own ways and on their own terms. This, for me, is a good thing, in general.
2. But the human condition is marked by pain and confusion, and tendencies to shallowness, selfishness and cruelty -- a condition the religious, wisdom, philosophical and political traditions of the world have tried to call our attention to, and to mitigate or ameliorate. "Tragic humanism, whether in its socialist, Christian[, Buddhist] or psychoanalytic varieties, holds that only by a [spiritual] process of self-dispossession and radical [political] remaking can humanity come into its own" (169). There will always be inner work to do – to reduce selfishness, anxiety, anger, etc. – and outer = political work to do, to make sure there’s enough justice and general welfare to go around.
3. However, Western civilization tends not to recognize this, because as a ground for its political freedoms, it has also produced the myth of human perfectionism: "A new, prestigious image of Man ... as free, controlling, agentlike, autonomous, invulnerable, dignified, self-responsible, self-possessed, contemplative, dispassionate, and disengaged" (82); with “enlightened trust in the sovereignty of human reason" (89), “self-satisfied faith in progress and civility, [and] purblineness to the more malign aspects of human nature” (94). This myth is hubristic and dangerous, given #2.
4. Add to this that Western liberalism overemphasizes individualism to the extent that "it fostered an atomistic notion of the self, a bloodlessly contractual view of human relations, a meagerly utilitarian vision of ethics, ... an impoverished sense of human communality, ... and a witheringly negative view of power, the state, ... and tradition" (94). These are among the "metaphysical articles of faith" of "liberal rationalism" (95), and therefor make caring and working for the oppressed difficult. "Modern market societies tend to be secular, relativist, pragmatic, and materialistic. They are this by virtue of what they do, not just of what they believe.... The problem is that this cultural climate also tends to undermine the metaphysical values on which [socio-]political authority in part depends" (143).
5. Therefore, when Church and State are separated, and especially when Church and Popular Culture are separated, many (if not most) people can't manage to find any kind of ultimate meaning to pursue, and spend their lives chasing after money, sex and power. When this happens, capitalism shifts from being a liberal freedom of livelihood to an existential creed: something that can give your life meaning. That makes Western culture not merely religiously-neutral but spiritually vacuous. "Freedom of cultural expression has culminated in the schlock ideological rhetoric, and politically managed news of the profit-driven mass media" (71). "A society of packaged fulfillment, administered desire, managerialized politics, and consumerist economics is unlikely to cut to the kind of depth where theological [existential] questions can even be properly raised" (p. 39). There is simply no consensus of political and ethical morality to object to the shallowness and depravity of crass materialism.
6. Much less is there political and ethical consensus to reign in those who are able to get so much money, sex and power that they become monsters who treat those with less power, including the Earth itself, like garbage. This problem is exacerbated by "globalization, meaning the right of capital to exercise its sovereign power wherever and over whomever it chooses" (72). Western "civilization ... seems bent on destroying the planet, slaughtering the innocent, and manufacturing human inequality on an unimaginable scale" (84-5); and "Liberal humanism is simply not radical enough" (68) to take the actual horrors of human and ecological injustice seriously, being obsessed with material/commercial progress and over-confident in human perfectionism.
7. Advances in science and technology, being conducted and utilized apart from any shared sense of ethical or political morality, become more powerful tools of mindlessness, selfishness, cruelty and injustice, as well as of dignity, compassion and justice. But in the West, "The idea that science might actually have contributed to our degradation as well as to our refinement is not even cursorily considered" (87).
8. Mainstream Western Christianity today is part of this whole problem. It has become about as far-removed from the life and message of Jesus as it can be -- more worried about church attendance, sexual purity and identity politics than about feeding the hungry and freeing political prisoners. "Christianity long ago shifted from the side of the poor and dispossessed and aggressive.... For the most part, it has become the creed of the suburban well-to-do, not the astonishing promise offered to the riffraff and undercover anticolonial militants with whom Jesus himself hung out" (p. 55).
9. The rise of Christian and Muslim fundamentalism is largely a response to all of this, as is the rise of new-age spirituality, which "offers a refuge from the world, not a way to transform it" (p. 41). "The age is equally divided between a technocratic reason which subordinates fact to value, and a fundamentalist reason which replaces fact with value" (137). And let's not forget, please, that "the West ... helped radical Islam to flourish by recruiting it as a force against so-called communism -- a label used to describe any country which dared to espouse economic nationalism against Western corporate capitalism" (104).
10. But there are also religious, philosophical, spiritual and socialist critiques of the dark side of Western civilization, which ought to be taken seriously by believers and non-believers alike, and apart from any supernatural meaning that believers tend to bring to these issues. This critique has two parts: one warning us against thinking that capitalism can be a source of existential meaning (Eagleton: "If by sin, one means violence, aggression, envy, exploitation, aquisitiveness, possessiveness, and so on, then that these damage our creaturely and affctive life can scarcely be denied" (p. 30)), and the other a prophetic urging to make love the organizing principle of our politics.
11. Of course we need to defend the liberal values of free speech, separation of church and state, etc. against terrorism. "The liberal principles of freedom are dogmas, and are none the worse for that. It is simply a liberal paradox that there must be something close-minded about [our commitment to] open-mindedness, and something inflexible about [our commitment to] tolerance. Liberalism cannot afford to be over-liberal when it comes to its own founding principles" (127). But we need just as much to point out the existential despair beneath selfish materialism and the injustices caused by capitalism run amok. "The only cure for terrorism is justice" (56). "If the British or American way of life were to take on board the critique of materialism, hedonism, and individualism of many devout Muslims, ... Western civilization would most certainly be altered for the good" (154).
Here's where I disagree:
1. Eagleton argues that nonbelievers should stop criticizing the everyday religious beliefs and practices of ordinary believers and instead see if their criticisms hold up to the more reasonable beliefs and practices of people like Eagleton himself, for whom religious faith is not belief in a Supreme Being but a commitment to "transformational love" made in recognition of the inherent pain and confusion of the human condition; and "is for the most part performative rather than propositional" (111). "[F]aith articulates a loving commitment before it counts as a description of the way things are" (119). "The rationalist tends to mistake the tenacity of faith ... for irrational stubborness rather than for the sign of a certain interior depth, one which encompasses reason but also transcends it" (139). In the first place, it's refreshing to read this kind of intelligent, humane construal of Christianity, and certainly, "liberalism, socialism, ... religion [and] science [must] stand under the judgment of [their] own finest traditions" (136). But this whole argument is a false dichotomy: both the minority, intelligent view and the majority unintelligent view should be critiqued -- especially since Eagleton’s book illustrates, his view may be merely "the product of an intellectual elite loftily remote from actually existing religion" (58).
2. The US is about the stupidest, most greedy, shallow and war-mongering nations in the history of the world. Actually, reading this book after the US 2016 election I can only half disagree with this.
3. “Intellectual is not at its finest when it springs from grief, hatred, hysteria, humiliation, and the urge for vengance, along with some deep-seated racist fears and fantasies" (141). I agree with this but have to use it against Eagleton himself, whose caricatures of Dawkins and Hitchens and of every aspect of American culture are so hyperbolic as to be cartoonish. As he so eloquently says, “The other side of pathologizing one's enemy is exculpating oneself" (108). In fact, in general, his over-the-top wit is only exhilirating until it becomes tedious, by about page 3. It’s also telling that he mostly takes Dawkins and Hitchens to task, with occasional jibes at Dennett, and makes no mention of the work of Harris, Jacoby and others. There is virtually no evidence that Eagleton thinks he can learn anything from these thinkers – he even blames them for not going far enough in criticizing the horrors of religious violence that he already condemns.
4. The book is full of false dichotomies –or saying "the difference between science and theology ... is one over whether you see the world as a gift or not" (p. 37) – and false equivalences, like calling atheism another kind of fundamentalism (how tired), or like saying that "Like religion, science is a culture, not just a set of procedures and hypotheses.... Science has its high priests, sacred cows, revered scriptures, ideological exclusions, and rituals for suppressing dissent" (132-33).
5. "[T]he arts ... provide an ersatz sort of transcendence in a world from which spiritual values have been largely banished" (83). Eagleton should read Dewey’s classic Art as Experience to realize how impoverished this understanding of art is.
May 2, 2009
The second half of this book is interesting, but you could probably just as well read some Zizek instead and none of that would be anywhere near as annoying as the first half of this book. That's where he gives his pet version of what Christianity's reallyabout, and it turns out Christianity doesn't think Jesus was divine or even that God really "exists." Heh? Basically a person can say whatever they want about Jesus, and there's a lot of value in what he does say about him and about "faith" in general, but you have to at least ask why so many people have believed something totally different for so long.
Also Terry Eagleton I accuse you of not being funny and making way too many bad, unhelpful analogies. Still worth reading overall but just barely!
Also Terry Eagleton I accuse you of not being funny and making way too many bad, unhelpful analogies. Still worth reading overall but just barely!
May 6, 2009
After reading Stanley Fish's blog review of Eagleton's book and then finding O'Hehir's review on Salon, I rushed to my library, which had the book, and I read it -- all in the same day! I've read Eagleton before, with pleasure, and this book, which I might have been able to follow more easily had it been written to be read, rather than as lectures, kept me involved throughout. Eagleton's passionate argument for a closer look at the actual Biblical Christ and the connection of that Christ to suffering humanity moved me deeply. His angry and at times witty attacks on sloppy thinking, wherever he finds it - whether in liberalism or in atheism, were convincing. I am glad I read this book.
April 23, 2012
The faith and reason chapter was superb. How delightful to read someone so funny and so attuned to the revolutionary character of the gospel and the ways in which it has been distorted.
"our age is accordingly divided between those who believe far too much and those who believe far too little"
"a supercivilized brand of cultural supremacism, one which no doubt find itself offended by common or garden racism, is now much in fashion, not least among the literary intelligensia. Since branding others as inferior because of their race is no longer acceptable, relegating them to the outer darkness because of their religion may serve instead."
"our age is accordingly divided between those who believe far too much and those who believe far too little"
"a supercivilized brand of cultural supremacism, one which no doubt find itself offended by common or garden racism, is now much in fashion, not least among the literary intelligensia. Since branding others as inferior because of their race is no longer acceptable, relegating them to the outer darkness because of their religion may serve instead."
December 14, 2009
I am in love with Eagleton's arguments on this topic, but my favorite presentation of them is still his article on Dawkin's God Delusion in the London Review of Books, entitled "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching." That article was easily a 5 star for me--unbelievably clever, philosophically tight, and deliciously snide.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews