Clip 4: "Ditchkins" and the Yeti theory of God (Templeton Foundation)

[zytigon]

For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Christopher Hitchens, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein

[jchintube]

heh, a brilliant man eagleton is

[JediJesseS]

Nothing more than meaningless babble.

[Zoundsism999]

Addled rubbish

[teatree80]

I like Eagleton, but I must admit that he doesn't offer any clear vision of what God is. No doubt God is clouded in mystery, but surely something positive can be said? If God means "ultimate reality," then how does the ultimate reality affect our lives? In what sense do we interact with it? Eagleton fails to get to the heart of the matter.

[amitavaxxx]

Eagleton produces no solid argument which can refute the Ditchkins. Whatever he says is flimsy and insubstantial. And verbose to boot.

[MrFogeyblue]

I agree with Ditchens, There is no crod.

[saburoemon]

wow. that was 5 minutes and 18 seconds of my life that i will never get back.

[gextvedde]

I wanted to find an interesting counterpoint to atheism here but came away thinking, "you've got a cheek calling Dawkins smug you pompous arse". Incidently he completely fudges the question of what faith might look like propositionaly. Also, just because someone at the end of their tether prays or struggles to find faith, it doesn't mean anyone is listening.

[faraz1729]

"God is a bit like the Yeti or Bigfoot."

If he had ended it there, I'd be in perfect agreement.

[polymath7]

"...aliens are simply [sic] a testimony to the paucity of the human imagination... Is this the best we can do?"

This is richly ironic coming from a literary critic, as it is painfully obvious that in Eagleton's mind the most intelligent and imaginative of human attempts to conceive of extraterrestrial life have been proffered by Hollywood and the nightly news.

I wonder who it is suffers a paucity of imagination?

I suggest Eagleton read Clarke and Asimov.

[falstaffswims]

I mean to say: Thomas Aquinas wasn't a dummy. There's more in the Summa Theologica than that "god exists."

Meaning is a more complicated thing than the average Youtube atheist thinks it is.

OF COURSE GOD ISN'T REAL. Neither is, oh, Long John Silver, neither are the brothers Karamazov. All made up. DOES IT FOLLOW THAT DOSTOYEVSKY DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING? And I can totally imagine Dawkins writing whole absurd books arguing that R.L. Stevenson and Dostoyevsky were unscientific liars.

[polymath7]

@falstaffswims

"Meaning is a more complicated thing..."

Meaning is an academic buzzword. What do you mean by meaning?

"DOES IT FOLLOW THAT DOSTOYEVSKY DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING?"

And how does it follow that anyone is suggesting it does?

How does it follow so inexorably that you feel the need to shout it?

Do you recall, or did you ever read, Dawkins' musings on the aesthetic merits of the King James Bible and Bach's 'St Matthew Passion'?

Or are *you* content to scream at straw men?

[falstaffswims]

Christ: there's a false debate here. I'm saddened by the state of atheism: we're boxing with straw men. Atheism, when it simplifies its opposition, simplifies itself.

I don't believe in God. I believe in the Big Bang. I believe Darwin pretty much hit the nail on the head. These beliefs in themselves are kind of obvious and banal. (No, I didn't call Darwin banal, I called my out-loud agreement with Darwin banal.) But this is what Dawkins makes a living saying out loud.

[levanyzzuf]

For some reason everytime Eagleton says "aliens" I burst into laughter.

[nickeilts]

Stick to literary theory and politics, bud.

[polymath7]

@nickeilts I assure you, he's not particularly good at that either.

[nickeilts]

@polymath7 And which of his works have you read?

[HConstantine]

'Refusing to give up on what he viewed on his source of life and love,' he didn't add, even it does not and cannot exist.

The idea of basing a religion on an executed criminal, instead of say, Jupiter Capitoline, is in itself utterly ridiculous.

'some ideology' like using reason to determine what is true.

[tubalooney]

Terry Eagleton.... hmmm pompous, trite, simpering, self congratulatory, verbose BS

celebrating, the brutal torture and death of an inconspicuous man from Palestine.

"Drink his blood eat his body", Christianity=cannabalism.

No matter how "erudite" his arguments are with all his exclusive quotations, ie quotations fom sources that most people have never heard of, intellectually bullying in a sense.. it is all an intellectual smoke screen and as usual his arguments add nothing to the debate.

Sad

[MaximisedInsight]

Disappointing. Packed with ad hominem and missing most of the atheists' central points. Also gives the fallacious impression that Atheism depended on a positive view of history or of progress with a capital P.

[JPO1618]

dogma 1. An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it.  2. A doctrine (or set of doctrines) relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth authoritatively by a religious organization or leader.

[vp1981ad]

Maybe someone should point him to surveys that show that most of humanity believes exactly in the yeti idea of God.

[turdmullett]

Wow, this degree of hubris and certitude coming from someone who is so clearly an intellectual light weight only reinforces the findings of a recent study wherein it was shown that incompetent people have no reservations or doubt about their positions, while competent people are besieged with reflection and unease. His flimsy book is as thin as his arguments.

[polymath7]

@turdmullett Indeed! "So weak a prop to support so great a burden"!

[PhilGalinsky]

Depressing, nauseating, a waste of brain space.

[dute]

Reframing the atheist objections about god in the "Yeti" argument adds nothing to the conversation. This has no bearing on the rational foundation of the notion of a god. And in fact it is probably false. While it is clearly true that some people, such as those those who study their faith as a vocation, struggle throguh their lives to find faith, the majority of believers are simply fed it as children. It's simple math: you can't exect the majority of people to think seriously. Ever.

[Nilopollis]

Thanks Templeton....

Thanks for a big sopping wad of expensive BS that has nothing to do with science.

Thanks a bunch.

What the hell is the point of this organization again? Subversion?

[polymath7]

@Nilopollis It's not bullshit, it's fluff. Bullshit has matter, even if it's excrable.

[thekoollemon]

@Nilopollis of course it's not science, Eagleton isn't a scientist and never claims to be a scientist

[samuelmorrison]

This guys is talking out his ass.