Interview with Terry Eagleton Part 1

[junyDada]

@palmaaaa i hope you feel much better now :)

[Zoundsism999]

Looks drunk to me

[scarletghoul]

poinochet was '73 not '71

[BullInTheHeather1]

(cont.) Finally, why is theology held to be separate from philosophy? What's unique to theology, besides religious tendentiousness and intellectual dishonesty, that separates it from religious philosophy? Dawkins is well-versed in philosophy and I'm led to wonder why that isn't enough?

I suspect the root of Eagleton's vacuous argument lies in frustration that theological knowledge is simply not required in order to dismiss a religion which has no substantiating evidence.

Apologies for rambling

[levanyzzuf]

@BullInTheHeather1 "Dawkins is well-versed in philosophy"

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Dick-Dawk would receive a failing grade in any first year philosophy course. His "criticisms" of theology are not taken seriously by ANY professional philosopher. Read other reviews of The God Delusion, particularly one written by Alvin Plantinga.

[BullInTheHeather1]

(cont.)...on the logical consistency of his argument for the irrationality of theistic/deistic belief. If there is some huge, utterly convincing ontological proof in modern theology that renders Dawkins's arguments invalid then this should be elucidated. Otherwise ignorance of theology is entirely irrelevant when it comes to arguments about God's existence.

Mr Eagleton I imagine, doesn't feel the need to spend a few years studying L Ron Hubbards's writings before dismissing Scientology.(cont.)

[Lafforte]

@BullInTheHeather1 Absolutely. That's the utter weakness and stupidity of the argument that to see religion for what it is and have an intelligent opinion on the existence of God, one has to know Thomas Aquinas, etc.!? What idiocy. I need to read Mein Kamph and pore through the writings of the Nazis to know that the Nazis projects were stupid and immoral!?

[BullInTheHeather1]

(cont.)...reasoning are missing from Dawkins's evaluation of the arguments for and against God's existence? I'm open to the idea that Dawkins(and Hitchens, Harris et al) are ignorant of theology and that they might therefore be less au fait with modern-day theological rationalisations and interpretations. Many critics say that modern-day theology is a non-prescriptive subject which embraces uncertainty and that Dawkins therefore misrepresents it. However this has absolutely no bearing... (cont.)

[Lafforte]

@BullInTheHeather1 And besides, lots of us athiests know theology very well, and Harris likely knows more than this muttering fool. The only valid point he makes (practically the ONLY point at all that he makes other than his silly "jokes") is that Hitchens completely pooped the bed with his ridiculous support for Bush's invasion of Iraq. But that says nothing about his very solid book destroying religion.

[BullInTheHeather1]

I find it telling that the repeated criticism of Dawkins centres around accusations of 'theological ignorance'(without ever accompanying such sophistry with an explanation of what parts of theological reasoning Dawkins is actually ignorant of). I had had never heard of Dawkins before I was sent a copy of The God Delusion so I was baffled by the torrent of woolly-minded criticism that's come from sections of the media.

My fundamental question is this: what principles of theological...(cont.)

[levanyzzuf]

@BullInTheHeather1 the best article I've seen that outlines the various holes in Dawkins writing is titled "Who's Deluded?" and was written by Christopher Kaczor. Seek it out.

[brokennarcissist]

@levanyzzuf Thanks I love reading people bash that pseudo philosopher secular prophet.

[bertinotti]

Why do mediocre polemscists like the good rabbi, who would be schooled in about nine seconds by Hitchens (after Hitch has imbibed a half a quart of scotch) insist on smugly dismissing Hitchens. Eagleton, whom I have studied closely and admire (though find him plodding when lecturing), has the credentials. The good rabbi should defer to better minds. If you doubt what I say, does anyone here really believe Hitch could not hold his own with his old comrade Terry?

[jewfizzle]

@bertinotti he's actually not a rabbi, btw

[Alen2379]

bravo, prof Eagleton! silly little ditchkens, haha

[polymath7]

@Alen2379 Shakespeare was of course quite right about the lowset form of wit, and I challenge anyone who happens upon this board anytime soon to produce a pun more pristinely free of wit than "Ditchkens".

[Alen2379]

@polymath7 how about "silly little curmodgeonly God-attackers"? witty enough? or "oxbridge all-natural biologists"? or "genius journalists/biologists-turned-­theologians team"? or "smart-alecky little materialitsts"? I think "Ditchkens" is witty enough. just the right amount of high-brow contempt for these philosophically and theologically uneducated propagandistic tomboys that are obviously the glory of the intellectual world today.

[gmc1000]

does terry mean 9/11 1973?

[IcedPhoenix666]

This man is a fool.

[gorgeoushammer]

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, Mr. Eagleton, Allende in Chile was overthrown in 1973, not 1971.

[kittmac22]

anyone know where they are? is templeton an american uni?

[polymath7]

@kittmac22 "is templton an american uni?"

Very amusing.

Please do a search.

[CaiJHowls]

I wonder what makes him think that these so called 'New Atheist' books are "silly".  Perhaps it's got something to do with that little hat he's got on his head.

[ClumsyRoot]

LOL!

[ashburnhouse]

I love Terry's books on lit crit, but when he denigrates Chris and Rich, I want to vomit.