Instead of taking up any of Dawkin's or Hitchens's arguments and refuting them, Prof. Eagleton just carries out ad hominem attacks against them and is thus missing the point. He tries to redefine belief in order to get it out the way of its critics rather than defending his beliefs. Not very convincing.
His jokes aren't good, all being absurd metaphors to pop culture, but man, cold audience. I would've offered at least a chuckle.
I agree that atheists tend to take "believe in X" as "think X exists" in debates when theists mean it differently, but that's just a technicality...he never addresses Dawkins's or Hitchens's main points. Wasn't there something in the Bible about specks and logs and eyes? He needs to demonstrate that a deity exists before going on about other tribbles.
Im sorry to burst your bubble....but there is no evidence for the existence of GOD. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, claim revelation and cite the billions of believers 'who can't all be wrong'. Your still talking a load of bollocks and deluding yourself your going to survive death, be reunited with your friends, loved ones and pets.
I'm convinced many people cannot accept reality. Hence the creation of GOD and all the silly rules and rituals that go with it.
@DIGITALSCREAMS This is a pretty oblivious comment. You've decided what god/religion is, and you're arguing against that straw man. It has nothing to do with what Terry Eagleton is talking about.
Listen to the arguments he's making, then agree/disagree with those. But no one is interested in you making attacks against propositions that no one is defending.
I guess it is lucky for both me and the audience that I wasn't there in person since I would have found it difficult not to reward the speaker with at least a small chuckle here and there.
The audience looked like a group of Victorian Christian ladies attending a funeral and being told dirty jokes by the Vicar. They were most miserable and not amused. Edinburgh University must be a wretched place or at least this audience is very bad advert for it.
Perhaps no one laughed at his jokes because they were too easy and obvious and therefore not funny. I can't comment on the points he was trying to make because I'm not smart enough to understand them. It seems to me that Dawkins and Hitchens are more accessible for laymen because most people who read them can relate to what they are saying. Eagleton appeals mainly to very educated elites who hold views that are generally unrecognizable to the layman.
Professor Eagleton is such a clever man with a wonderfully clear view of culture and religion. He is able to see how religion has been essentially replaced by belief in power, possessions and empty values, all the while propping God up as a justification of our wants and selfishness. On the other side of the coin, rejection of God is a way to show the world you abhor the beliefs that amount to a pretty house in the suburbs, a car in the driveway and a gun stashed in the back of the closet.
I can only image how this clown would do in a debate against his ex colleagues and perhaps even friends that he is bashing and ridding on their succes would do. Ditchkins would make him look like a fool for all the nonsense this mans utters.
@josealonsoleon He's not a fool, really. He may or may not be right on particular points but that doesn't make him a fool. Actually his academic career is impressive and compares quite well to most YouTube shit talkers that want to suck Hitch's dying cock.
@S2Cents I really am not impressed by anyone's academic career. I'm only impressed by what people say and this guy did not impress me! Never said he was a fool either but rather that he would be made to look like one. And you're pretty nasty with your last comment about a dying man. I hope you never find yourself in Hitchen's situation!
@josealonsoleon Well you should be impressed by peoples' accomplishments since you're impressed by what you perceive to be failures. Re: You groupies getting all dewy-eyed over the Hitch is funny. Don't get me wrong, the shit is moving and I've been following it closely, actually. The Hitch is a brilliant and interesting man and communicator, but kind of a dick when he wants to be. Haaahaa, look at his career. He's a punk! He's a made a career at taking shit, albeit in very witty fashion
@S2Cents I am A Muslim who was an atheist for 5 years in the truest manner even at one time belonging to the cpusa (Communist party of the United States of America). I was Inspired in my studies of philosophy by Soren Kierkagaard and remain a supporter of his work. Add to that the fact that I am a Socialist in my political views (yes, some Muslims would call me a heretic). That said, this man is an intellectual though no George Carlin. Hitchens, also has my respect having said, Racism is
@mindwis3 Well usually a communist denotes an atheist!!! I won't say soemthing as stupid as "Only a Brit" because I happen to like Tony Benn and other English intellectuals and know you are not one of them. Make your point so I can have fun with your stupid ass. When you make your point (if you have one), you will find out what most people in these forums know already.
@mindwis3 I am black, so being "cocky" is not something I will let you make me ashamed of being. That is not anymore of an insult to me than it is to whites who you think are "profound". Next, I will ask you to study before commenting in a forum that I am in. The following is a free lesson: In Marxism, the theory taught in most communist organizations, There is the theory of the "Superstructure" that superstructure is made up of beliefs, myths, etc that help to keep the people manageable...
@mindwis3 It is agreed by Marxists that one of the instruments used is religion. That is behind the saying of Marx, "Religion is the opium of the people" and the general incompatibility between communism and religion. Although one could find a religious person who believes "people are all the same and it should be share and share alike", today, it is more common for a communist to be an atheist. That lesson is free. Never say a black man did nothing for you.
@mindwis3 It is more common to find an athiest who at least considers the validity of Socialism and communism. It is funny how you do not understand the opposition many religious peoples have to communism! It is not because they are in support of Capitalism or that they have even read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. It is because communism is generally opposed to religious belief. Next, We as human beings have beliefs that are stablelized, If you will, by other beliefs that are not in opposition
@mindwis3 Communism is frowned upon by people who believe perhaps wealth should be "redistributed" and health care should be free, but are not socialist in the sense that they believe the means of production should be controled by the working class and the distribution of revenue should be likewise determined by them. As to "less true manners", I have heard Buddhists say they were atheists and I've heard atheists refer to "lucky ties" and "karma" things no less "mystical" than the belief in God
"As to "less true manners", .. "lucky ties" and "karma" things no less "mystical" than the belief in God"
Well that's fair, i need to admit i consider stuff like 'Karma" is not particularly "atheistic", but we're about to confuse 'atheism' with 'skepticism', as long as one does not believe in 'god'..
And though i think we agree more then this discussion shows, i have to persist and say that being a member of the CP does not mean one can not believe in i.e. Karma either ;)
@mindwis3 I think "considering" is about as far as we are going to get, and since I am working on a book that I have neglected over the last few days that will have to suffice. One could believe in karma and be a member of the CP I suppose, but even then, they would have to jive that with the Marxist theory of Dialectical Materialism that most CPs have come to include in thier views. In the end, humans seem to need forms of reassurance that only differ to the degree that they are "fantastic".
"In the end, humans seem to need forms of reassurance that only differ to the degree that they are "fantastic".
Indeed, and perhaps for atheists, reassurance specifically as to what will happen "In the end", is in a way equally fantastic.
Perhaps rather then Communist Party membership, a "true atheist" can better be said to be pretty pessimistic wrt "immortality", but for fame and kids ;)
@mindwis3 to them. For example, if someone believes I, as a black man, am inferior to whites, My mistakes in spelling may be seen as "proof" of my cognitive limitations, where the spelling errors of a white may be chalked up to his or her haste in attempting to make a point. Get it? An athiest is more likely (in at least America as opposed to latin america or the caribbean) to be "open" to communsim and Most communists are athiest. The connection is not absolute, but dependable.
@mindwis3 No I am not a Buddhist, but some of my friends are. If by chance saw my channel and a video of the Dalai Lama, that is because as an intellectual, I am open to other views and on the subjects I feature he has a good point.
@S2Cents is irrational and as for himself he had traced his own origin back to Angola. Since I am Black and living in America, that statement was most welcomed for it is hardly ever said by whites here. I wish Hitch well and am pained when I see his state. I am not a passivist nor a saint, but I do respect some people who disagree with me and think Hitch at least keeps us agnostics and believers sharp. I will miss him, Muslim that I am.
Professor Eagleton, I'm reading your book "Faith, Reason and Revolution" and I want to thank you very deeply for the wonderful work, you are a bright mind and a warm heart in this world of cynics. And as this conference, really, this is the rudest audience in this world. Why? Atheists simply cannot bear believers. That's all. I won't try in the future to make myself understood. I don't care to what they think. It 's like explaining music to someone born without ears. And heart.
Eagleton really is a delusional tosser. He is the epitome of the fatuity and liberalization of the modern left. That this clown thinks his slavish devotion to the worlds most reactionary and fascist religion is in any sense compatible with Marxism is somewhat of a laugh. Is funny to hear him play the class card in his reference to Dawkins. Of course its usually intelligentsia gobshites like Eagleton who - like the inner party in 1984- try to tell us that 2+2=5 and perform their mental gymnastics
Sorry for getting aggressive, but you perfectly deserve it. You're ignorant AND stupid. Never heard about Theology of Liberation, the left wing of Caholic Church in South America? They've done a lot more for this world than the little pretensious guys like you.
@Onlylovesaves a lot of atheists are little right-wanker nerds that are more into video games and net porn than anything and they certainly don't care about South America. Or America except that it means more net porn and video games and easy IT jobs for fat ass geeks
Not to defend Eagleton's performance here, but I do understand frustrations with "Ditchkens". There is a big difference between defending the validity of atheism and the cynical reflex to say that theism is somehow patently wrong or delusional. Even Hitchens admits the existence of the numinous or transcedent, which puts him a hair's breadth from pantheism. To state that faith is beyond reason is no more irrational than to state that love is. My personal faith, for instance, is atheism.
A litany of straw-man arguments. Dawkins does not say that "everyone is getting better and better". Completely false. Aetheists will also be surprised to learn from Eagleton that it's them who have fantasies about living eternally, rather than the religious. And who is this Hitchkins??
Awkward stuff. Eaglton comes off as high-handed and makes disingenious, point-missing generalizations about his opponents. He also seems to think he deserves a laugh every-time he makes a reference to a popstar. All of his criticisms of 'Ditchens' can be accepted and it still would not make their essential argument less persuasive...
Eagleton is NOT in love with any REAL Jesus. He's in love with the character & story of Jesus & it's author, St. Paul. For him, the bible is literary, not literal. He's a romantic, like his hero, Marx. But while Marx was an avowed atheist (oddly, never mentioned), Terry intentionally MISappropiates him by treating ALL philosophers as literary critics of God's Word/Creation so that God can & should be judged by all his critics as an artist; sort of like Lloyd Webber's phantom of the opera.
I find it somewhat curious that Eagleton makes the point of distinguishing the "more recent 9-11" from the first one: the day of the chilean coup that toppled Salvador Allende which he claims happened in 1971 or 30 years before. The implication is somehow that these two events have something to do with each other, though he does not say what! It so happens said coup happened in 1973, not 71 which does not bode terribly well for Terry's grasp of History...
Intelligent people who attempt to defend religion in the modern world of science end up hiding religion in some mystical place created by their imagination while they design the rules that are applicable to that place so that human logic, rational thought and science cannot be used to investigate its validity or not. This looks to me like a desperate man's solution to defend something that has absolutely no merit.
I cannot understand his view on religion. Religion presents a world view which is either true or false. It seems to me that he proposes a third alternative option: that religion is false as far as describing the physical world (and he claims that religion is not supposed to do that) but it is true in some other mystical sense. In what sense religion is true that arguments based on rationality and logic cannot penetrate?
to hear a man, listen to his argument , and then dismiss is as false or unconvincing is alot different then dismiss someone as talking bull shit because YOU dont understand at the first place. It says more about you then the guy your listening.
What nonsense! Hitchens and Dawkins have much more sophisticated sense of reason that this numpty will ever have. Also his jokes stink(to high heaven presumably?) What a wast of 40 minutes - that's all I could stomach. I'm sure some people find this illuminating and humerous. That saya a lot about them! Utter crap!
One of the things he's saying clearly and loudly ab initio is: hey you, self proclaimed atheists, get a clue since obviously you have not the slightest when you talk about religion. After that, he's just being as keen and rigorous as he has always been—those of you who have read his books might get the sense of this a bit more easily. Just because he doesn't have Ditchkins' stridency doesn't mean you won't understand him... you just have to shut up listen attentively... and humbly :)
One of the things he's saying clearly and loudly ab initio is: hey you, self proclaimed atheists, get a clue since obviously you have not the slightest when you talk about religion. After that, he's just being as keen and rigorous as he has always been—those of you who have read his books might get the sense of this a bit more easily. Just because he doesn't have Ditchkins' stridency doesn't mean you won't understand him... you just have to shut up listen attentively... and humbly :)
professor eagleton accurately outlined why the debate is at cross-currents and no points of agreement are being reached. convinced of their own right-thinking, those who do not see any content value in this lecture either missed eagleton's points b/c (perhaps) they have no basis of understanding OR they are blinded by their own insistence. too bad.
i watched it twice just for the pleasure of the language and ideas. bravo!
"if you don't love, you are dead. if you do, they'll kill you."
Eagleton doesn't seem to have an argument of his own. I watched the video and still ldont know what he is saying? Also his sense of humour stinks. He has faith but I fear his faith is invested in his own assumed eloquence and erudition rather than anything outside of himself. Pompous arse is a phrase that seems to fit! He also makes the error of comparing atrocities to prove a meaningless point at the expense of the people that dies in 911. This guy has very liittle to offer to the dabate.
This deluded fool has apparently no idea why rational people are atheists...nor does he understand the utter stupidity of blind faith. He tries to add credibility to his own narrow brand theology and fails to cover the equally absurd belief systems that religion has spawned worldwide...what a bore.
i am afraid of the people who have deluded themselfs into thinking that they are morally superior or intellectually superior just because they belong to a group, these kind of people are immune to criticism and are he prime source of evil we can find in religion.
i have very few rational atheists and even fewer true christians, but i know many many people who think they are rational becasue their intuitions tell them so.
His driveling jokes totaly underestimate the audiece's intellingence; and this seems to be a personal characteristic. He also repeatedly tries to diminish the other parts in the so called "debate". It is plausible that he is trying make his own books hit the best selling lists. He is just picking up on the bad things the usual religious opponents desperatelly bring upon Hitchens or Dawkins, and add to that bad, bad jokes, and ad hominen arguments. No cigar here.
@zer0s0und I must confess that I found your comment quite amusing: after all, every statement that you make here could be referred to Dawkins or Hitchens: underestimating the audience's intelligence, diminishing the level of debate (did you read Dawkins' characterisation of the ontology? It's a ludicrous simplification!), trying to make their own books hit the best selling list, bad, bad jokes and ad hominen arguments!
Did he even read the bible? Half of what he says completely contradicts the words there. Maybe he reads those stories very differently (just as allegories), but then he cannot simply proclaim that every other religious person does the same.
Very useless talk. Dawkins at least brings some facts to the table.
Can anyone explain to why Mr Eagleton quite smugly just asserts that "belief in God" does not mean you think God exists? I may be ignorant but seems to me that that would be the primary assumption of any believer.
Either his jokes are bad or the audience is hostile to what he is saying. I can't tell, because his jokes don't seem particularly funny to me either. He lacks Hitchen's charm and way with words.
Why do some atheists have faith in the 'invisible hand' of the market?
Why do some atheists believe in the imagined community of the nation?
Why do some atheists still believe in the Protestant work ethic?
Religious thinking is all around us. But the main difference between older, radical forms of atheism and the modern Ditchkins variety, is that the older form chose to question all of the beliefs on which we base our civilization.
@electricrussell But see dawkins would simply assert that religion is evil, and deny any possibility that religion has caused or is the source of anything good. Then he would squawk back to his flock, claiming victory. Leaving nothing but a feces piled chess board and knocked over pieces in his wake.
@arktheball I don't think this is fair to Dawkins. He does not automatically claim that "religion has never caused anything good". He is way to academic in his thinking to assert such absolutes. He does say that false dogmas are always harmful in the long run, but that's quite different.
He also doesn't put all religions in one box, but does concentrate on the two dominant ones, that did quite obviously much harm.
@tokotokotoko3 I dont think Dawkins is fair to religious believers. As he insinuates that we suffer from a mental disorder. That we are ignorant and primeval. He is VERY much so insulting to religious believers of all sects in the way he speaks about them, and their beliefs. I cant think of a single instance where Dr Dawkins has been positive about religion. Nor an instance where he has attributed something positive to religion. So I think I was being quite fair to Dr Dawkins.
@arktheball I didn't say he is completely fair. But he stays to facts and reasoning more than his opponents (this vid is case in point).
He gives no respect to any religion, and that is hard to accept for many. I did also find him insulting at first.
But I think you misunderstand him a bit. He would not attack religion as he does if it would only consist of open minded and friendly people. Unfortunately even today fools and psychopaths are leading the organized religions. Hypocrisy rules.
@tokotokotoko3 Stays to reasoning and facts?! No one who makes the comments he makes could be attributed those two things.
I know he doesnt, which is why I am so harsh in my critique of the man. He is nothing but insulting to those of faith, even going so far as to insinuate that raising their own children is "child abuse"
I hardly think I do. BUT I am open to bieng prioved wrong. ATHIESM DOESNT EVEN FIT HIS CRITERION HERE!!!!! HE IS LIVING PROOF OF THAT. He is one of athiesms fools...
@arktheball I never disagreed that he is offensive. And you make it impossible to prove you wrong. If you're insulted that's your personal feeling. If I would be a very religious person, I would be maybe insulted too.
But my point was that he does not say things like "Religion did never do anything good". You can prove me otherwise with a quote.
His arguments are based on facts and followed with logic. As atheist it is logical to argue that forcing a religion on a child is abuse. Mind-abuse.
Whatever your views on the existence of God, one cannot help pity a man trying so desperately to get a laugh and failing so miserably. What a rude audience! And he seems like a nice man.
Atheist commenters who are complaining about his supposed obscurantism: take note. Terry Eagleton is sociologically analyzing (from a Marxist perspective) the rise of the New Atheist movement, NOT analyzing arguments against the existence of God.
He never purported to discuss the issue of God's existence. Not once. Please develop some listening skills.
@KittenButter Whatever he is doing, he does it very bad. Sorry. Please, no authority argument (although Eagleton himself doesn't see any problem with that, that is a problem; the bad discourse talks for itself, there are only bad "analysis" here: ad ominen plus horribly silly jokes).
people cant stand him because he does not say what they want to hear.
we believe and absorb the best the things we want to hear and believe, its a general sign of normal, not critical intelligence or rationality, but emotionality.
I disagree. I think he has deistilled Ditckins (and even Dennett) accurately. I think the conclusion he has is correct, the real creators of Dawkins, Hickens, Dennett et al is those of faith.. We have failled to challenge the straw man they have errected. We have failled to take on our own nutters and bring them into line. We have the Ditckins we deserve.
I would disagree with his view about Ditchkins et al. It's true that they are attacking a very specific religious outlook not held by everyone but it is a prominent view held by many conservative religious people. Belief in a supreme being is the bedrock of faith for many people & I think Eagleton misses this point.
Having said that I found him rather ammusing & it's a shame more people didn't laugh at his jokes which I must confess I did quite like.
It is rather amazing how well understood words can be stringed together in a syntactically legitimate way to create utterly meaningless grammatical constructs. There's too much nonsense there for me to stomach much longer.
@SilentMike0 What an asinine comment. Or are you just describing what you have written? Yes, it is meaningless and the best thing about it is that it isn't longer.
@SilentMike0 you found this talk hard to follow? sucks to be you. though, it could also just be your macho matter of fact "realism" feigning ignorance as an impulsive defense against cognitive dissonance
@victor1eremita Or it may be that the talk just isn't any good. That the speaker utters many meaningless statements and that he has very little in the way of a point.
When one stoops to psychoanalyze the person he's debating, that's not generally a sign that one has a very good case.
@SilentMike0 Haha just a mild criticism of your comment: "That the speaker utters many meaningless statements and that he has very little in the way of a point.
When one stoops to psychoanalyze the person he's debating, that's not generally a sign that one has a very good case."
Seemed to me that you were on the verge of providing an example of said statement in your comment. : ) Just ammused me, unfortunately you cant easily put ammusement into a post : /
To say that someone "utters many meaningless statements and that he has very little in the way of a point" is critical, maybe even rude and insulting, but it's not psychoanalyzing, just a statement of opinion as to the strength of his argument. I didn't get into conjecture over his deep underline motives for making the arguments that he made.
I really expected something more sensible. All I got was a standard technique of making god and faith something "beyond reason" so that not only do rational people have a moving target when debating religious people but also an invisible and untouchable one.
I somehow lost some respect for Terry Eagleton, he shouldn't comment on things he has an obvious bias on. And he also should investigate more in depth the positions of people he wants to confront.
@S0chan Wait, wait, so Richard Dawkins and (of all people) Christopher Hitchens don't have bias against religion? Both authors look at your standard corner-of-the-street parish with the same intellectual tools, with the same critical eyes, they use to criticize Osama Bin Laden or the Spanish Inquisition.
The point, and that is a big point, and the oh-so-smart Hitchens and Dawkins manage to completely miss it, is that debates about religion are, by definition, not rational.
@Shoon84 Of course they are biased against religion. But their arguments aren't, their arguments are rational, even if the reasons behind them may be biased.
And if debates about religion are not rational it is only caused by the style of discussion preferred by religious people which focuses on doing everything they can to somehow fog over the fact that even though we cannot understand god they know what she is and what she wants.
@S0chan Their arguments against organized religion might be rational; you may question, in, let's say, "legislative" terms, the executive prerrogatives of the Pope, for example; you might present, rationally, an argument against the existence of the Vatican. The (non)existence of God cannot be (dis)proved through the use of formal logic. Theology (and atheist tracts are theological) is not rational: it's a thing apart (not necessarily "above" or "below") rationality.
@Shoon84 I don't think any thinking person would disagree. Which is why people like Dawkins or Hitchens don't attempt to disprove god as it is not possible.
What they can do is who how improbable or at least undesirable a theist god is or would be if she existed. It seems like you are talking out of your ass without really knowing anything about their arguments and their attitude to both theist and deist claims which they clearly distinguish and always put emphasis on their difference..
@S0chan By the way, don't underestimate my intelligence, nor yours: Richard Dawkins' attacks against religion are nothing but diatribes, carried by an illiterate - and not a very intelligent one at that. The difference between Dawkins as a theologian and Bertrand Russell (a full-blown atheist who confronts the question of God in a serious manner) is the difference between the Flat Earth Society and Dawkins as a biologist.
"he shouldn't comment on things he has an obvious bias on."
lol , you mean like hitchens dawkins or sam hariss? yeah i think they should not comment on things they have no clue of, hm or maybe not, that would be limiting their right to free speech
@niinja2 As I already said: "Of course they are biased against religion. But their arguments aren't, their arguments are rational, even if the reasons behind them may be biased."
And I am aware that this phrasing might not have been the best but you understand what I mean by it. But please excuse me as I don't intend to argue over this lecture with you because it's been some time since I've seen it and I don't remember it well enough.
I think you'll notice that people like richard dawkins and christopher hitchens can address an argument without a five minute diatribe on the opponent by name. Of course, this is probably the problem with all creationism. Rather than making a case, it can only attempt to make the opponents seem silly, which if anyone actually listens to the opposition it's plain to see that they do have a case.
I don't think you can read Eagleton as a defender of creationism. As an admirer of Dawkins (though not Hitchens), I still have a strong sympathy for Eagleton's assertion that their position has an overly-simplistic authoritarianism to it (more so with Hitchens) that counters rather than serves human progress.
I read him perfectly as a standard defender of creationism because his opening statement (Hitchens/Boteach for a perfect example of this exact sort of verbal bamboozlery) only refferences the opponent in a cheecky 'Can you believe dawkins said this, and did this? outrageous!?' and makes no actual positive assertion towards anything. As far as 'authoritarianism' goes, I would think all the deaths incurred throughout history without any evidence of the supernatural has a much higher value.
Speaking of human progress, knocking heads out of the clouds actually serves more for the common good than lofty (and wontonly unverified) notions of the universe. I know its trite by now, but one pair of hands actually does some comparible actions as opposed to one million in prayer; at least on this plane of existence; and if you're going to tell me something that has to do with this reality, you're going to have to know more about how it works than antiquated supernatural mythos.
FIRST OF all, he's not a creationist. Second of all, this talk is not an argument or a diatribe against Hitchens/Dawkins, it's a criticism of the recent surge in popularity of 'the god debate'--hence the title.
Depending on how you define 'creationist', I could have overstepped my bounds. He is a Theist, and that's probably what I had intended to say, my apologies. As far as him saying anything constructive about the book, I can appreciate that people value his literary critisism, but I don't agree with his position on what he thinks should have been posited the point of the book (as I would most theists), because he's clearly defending (with only cliches) the same old dogma and trying to discredit.
Cliche's? Like what? Also, what book are you talking about? He's not talking about a book. And he's not 'defending the same old dogma', he's explaining the context of the recent emergence of the so-called new-atheism, and by doing so, he's criticizing the rationale the new-atheists. He's not arguing for the existence of God or challenging the notion there isn't one.
The book he's referring specifically to is Dawkins: The God Delusion. Seeing as he's a literary critic, I would imagine he's reviewing books from hitchens, dennett, and hitchens... As for the ideas inside the book that he's willing to criticise, he doesn't really touch on concepts like the 'religious meme' or anything that I would deem as a 'new-atheism' trait, I'm not seeing it. I've heard these arguments already, and excuse my liberal use of the word 'cliche', but it's been said already.
And as far as him 'not arguing for the existence of God', I find that hard to believe based upon his career experience(and he does, watch it again). He seems like he's been neck deep in religion for a very long time (if his wikipedia page has any validity), and he shows the same inability to interpret concepts from the athiest position. Not saying he has to, but it's no more insulting to be misrepresented like this yet again by someone falsely asserting some en-masse athiest agendas.
His talk is not about the God Delusion, and he's not refuting the arguments of the book (although he clearly is sceptical about the claims Dawkins makes). To be honest, I don;t think you really understand what he's saying at all.
He does refference the book (I'm looking for that specific quote now at 8:13), and he does refference arguments that are in Hitchen's God is not Great (closer to 9). Irreverrant ones (yes, society has improved), but material in the books nontheless. Is it coincedence that he does? And that he's a litterary critic? Very well, kudos. I think I've spent enough time on this argument and I'm willing to conceed to whatever argument is left to be said. Feel free to read the books though, plz
Such a quiet audience! I would've been rolling on the floor.
5555miles 2 days ago
this guy is hilarious!
BenNCM 1 week ago
Instead of taking up any of Dawkin's or Hitchens's arguments and refuting them, Prof. Eagleton just carries out ad hominem attacks against them and is thus missing the point. He tries to redefine belief in order to get it out the way of its critics rather than defending his beliefs. Not very convincing.
denzo0815 1 month ago
"To a believer no proof is necessary, to a non believer no proof is possible."
SDTillett 1 month ago
His jokes aren't good, all being absurd metaphors to pop culture, but man, cold audience. I would've offered at least a chuckle.
I agree that atheists tend to take "believe in X" as "think X exists" in debates when theists mean it differently, but that's just a technicality...he never addresses Dawkins's or Hitchens's main points. Wasn't there something in the Bible about specks and logs and eyes? He needs to demonstrate that a deity exists before going on about other tribbles.
WilliamLongfellow 2 months ago
what a bore,no wonder theres hardly a 100 there
tontobones 2 months ago
I Like The VIdeo THe God Debate IT Can Increase My Knowloedge
Kricardose 2 months ago
Steady I Really Like This Video
bebeheuy 2 months ago
I Like This Video Why Has God Suddenly Reappreared ...
Mjhond 2 months ago
Nice Video That You Share
AntoMelta 2 months ago
I Really Like The Video From Your
willamricard 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing
imegatrone 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing
bundawartini 2 months ago 3
yawn. . .
Ringolero 2 months ago
lols
katheryncruz24 3 months ago
Im sorry to burst your bubble....but there is no evidence for the existence of GOD. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, claim revelation and cite the billions of believers 'who can't all be wrong'. Your still talking a load of bollocks and deluding yourself your going to survive death, be reunited with your friends, loved ones and pets.
I'm convinced many people cannot accept reality. Hence the creation of GOD and all the silly rules and rituals that go with it.
DIGITALSCREAMS 3 months ago
@DIGITALSCREAMS This is a pretty oblivious comment. You've decided what god/religion is, and you're arguing against that straw man. It has nothing to do with what Terry Eagleton is talking about.
Listen to the arguments he's making, then agree/disagree with those. But no one is interested in you making attacks against propositions that no one is defending.
Rhuddlan 2 months ago
excellent video; thanks for posting.
seandevega 3 months ago
Thoroughly enjoyable and thought-provoking.
I guess it is lucky for both me and the audience that I wasn't there in person since I would have found it difficult not to reward the speaker with at least a small chuckle here and there.
CapanCrunch 4 months ago
Eagleton's audience in this lecture is desperately short of humour! Perhaps that just Edniburgh.
myroseaccount 4 months ago
Please tell Terry Eagleton that Allende's government was removed in a coup on the 11 Sep 1973 and NOT 11 Sep 1971.
myroseaccount 4 months ago
@myroseaccount isn't it soothing to know that even terry eagleton fucks up from time to time? I personally do :)
seandevega 3 months ago
Good routine, tough crowd. Happens to the best acts.
JackGraham999 6 months ago
The audience looked like a group of Victorian Christian ladies attending a funeral and being told dirty jokes by the Vicar. They were most miserable and not amused. Edinburgh University must be a wretched place or at least this audience is very bad advert for it.
timothymn2 6 months ago
@timothymn2 Yes, I felt this rather annoying.
Unbihexium 1 month ago
Perhaps no one laughed at his jokes because they were too easy and obvious and therefore not funny. I can't comment on the points he was trying to make because I'm not smart enough to understand them. It seems to me that Dawkins and Hitchens are more accessible for laymen because most people who read them can relate to what they are saying. Eagleton appeals mainly to very educated elites who hold views that are generally unrecognizable to the layman.
JoshwithaJ 7 months ago
Damn, total crickets at his jokes.
natedaug1 7 months ago
i wish i could live in a society where every citizen is a philosopher
saeedtsm 8 months ago
why was no one LOL'ing?
no srsly, why?!
tomimn2233 8 months ago 6
@tomimn2233 cause youre a homo
adamvideostar2007 1 month ago
Professor Eagleton is such a clever man with a wonderfully clear view of culture and religion. He is able to see how religion has been essentially replaced by belief in power, possessions and empty values, all the while propping God up as a justification of our wants and selfishness. On the other side of the coin, rejection of God is a way to show the world you abhor the beliefs that amount to a pretty house in the suburbs, a car in the driveway and a gun stashed in the back of the closet.
bboots100 8 months ago
The reference to 'sobered up' is a cheap shot, especially as I believe he has had his own drinking problem
firestartertwistedfi 8 months ago
That was a JOKE people! 2:21 -2:51
OurTroopsRule 9 months ago
I can only image how this clown would do in a debate against his ex colleagues and perhaps even friends that he is bashing and ridding on their succes would do. Ditchkins would make him look like a fool for all the nonsense this mans utters.
josealonsoleon 9 months ago
@josealonsoleon He's not a fool, really. He may or may not be right on particular points but that doesn't make him a fool. Actually his academic career is impressive and compares quite well to most YouTube shit talkers that want to suck Hitch's dying cock.
S2Cents 9 months ago
@S2Cents I really am not impressed by anyone's academic career. I'm only impressed by what people say and this guy did not impress me! Never said he was a fool either but rather that he would be made to look like one. And you're pretty nasty with your last comment about a dying man. I hope you never find yourself in Hitchen's situation!
josealonsoleon 9 months ago
@josealonsoleon Well you should be impressed by peoples' accomplishments since you're impressed by what you perceive to be failures. Re: You groupies getting all dewy-eyed over the Hitch is funny. Don't get me wrong, the shit is moving and I've been following it closely, actually. The Hitch is a brilliant and interesting man and communicator, but kind of a dick when he wants to be. Haaahaa, look at his career. He's a punk! He's a made a career at taking shit, albeit in very witty fashion
S2Cents 9 months ago
@S2Cents I am A Muslim who was an atheist for 5 years in the truest manner even at one time belonging to the cpusa (Communist party of the United States of America). I was Inspired in my studies of philosophy by Soren Kierkagaard and remain a supporter of his work. Add to that the fact that I am a Socialist in my political views (yes, some Muslims would call me a heretic). That said, this man is an intellectual though no George Carlin. Hitchens, also has my respect having said, Racism is
REASONINFUSION 8 months ago
@REASONINFUSION
"was an atheist for 5 years in the truest manner even at one time belonging to the cpusa (Communist party of the United States of America)"
What the hell does political membership have to do with atheism ?
(in a non-theocracy that is ;))
Only an american would use socialism as a measure stick for his atheism ;)
I guess McCarthy is to thank for that too ;)
"yes, some Muslims would call me a heretic"
Well, there's always one believer calling another one a heretic ;)
Kr,
mindwis3 8 months ago
@mindwis3 Well usually a communist denotes an atheist!!! I won't say soemthing as stupid as "Only a Brit" because I happen to like Tony Benn and other English intellectuals and know you are not one of them. Make your point so I can have fun with your stupid ass. When you make your point (if you have one), you will find out what most people in these forums know already.
REASONINFUSION 8 months ago
@REASONINFUSION
"I won't say soemthing as stupid as "Only a Brit"
That would just be wrong, not stupid.
"Make your point so I can have fun with your stupid ass"
Sure, Communism is a non-factor to atheism.
so neither is your membership to CPUSA, that's just an interesting fact, which is what i really think ;)
"you will find out what most people in these forums know already."
well, just basing it on your comment, i'm sticking with "cocky and in war mode", was that correct ?
Kind regards ;)
mindwis3 8 months ago
@mindwis3 I am black, so being "cocky" is not something I will let you make me ashamed of being. That is not anymore of an insult to me than it is to whites who you think are "profound". Next, I will ask you to study before commenting in a forum that I am in. The following is a free lesson: In Marxism, the theory taught in most communist organizations, There is the theory of the "Superstructure" that superstructure is made up of beliefs, myths, etc that help to keep the people manageable...
REASONINFUSION 8 months ago
@mindwis3 It is agreed by Marxists that one of the instruments used is religion. That is behind the saying of Marx, "Religion is the opium of the people" and the general incompatibility between communism and religion. Although one could find a religious person who believes "people are all the same and it should be share and share alike", today, it is more common for a communist to be an atheist. That lesson is free. Never say a black man did nothing for you.
REASONINFUSION 8 months ago
@REASONINFUSION
"Next, I will ask you to study before commenting in a forum that I am in".
lol, professor
I am well aware of what Marx said, duh, but that does not help you here.
Atheism still is ONLY a rejection of god belief,and it does not require an acceptance of a social structure, no matter how you spin it.
Today It is more common for an atheist NOT to be communist, neither does one have to be atheist to be communist.
Black men have done plenty for me, but you are not one of them.
mindwis3 8 months ago
@mindwis3 It is more common to find an athiest who at least considers the validity of Socialism and communism. It is funny how you do not understand the opposition many religious peoples have to communism! It is not because they are in support of Capitalism or that they have even read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. It is because communism is generally opposed to religious belief. Next, We as human beings have beliefs that are stablelized, If you will, by other beliefs that are not in opposition
REASONINFUSION 8 months ago
@REASONINFUSION
Sure, plenty of atheists have sympathies with socialism, but communism? that's not even popular amongst socialists, i never claimed otherwise.
"the opposition many religious peoples have to communism!"
i've never denied they do... they oppose all kinds of stuff.
That's nothing new, i am well aware of that.
"atheist for 5 years in the truest manner"
truest manner ? are there 'less true manners' ?
mindwis3 8 months ago
@mindwis3 Communism is frowned upon by people who believe perhaps wealth should be "redistributed" and health care should be free, but are not socialist in the sense that they believe the means of production should be controled by the working class and the distribution of revenue should be likewise determined by them. As to "less true manners", I have heard Buddhists say they were atheists and I've heard atheists refer to "lucky ties" and "karma" things no less "mystical" than the belief in God
REASONINFUSION 8 months ago
@REASONINFUSION
"As to "less true manners", .. "lucky ties" and "karma" things no less "mystical" than the belief in God"
Well that's fair, i need to admit i consider stuff like 'Karma" is not particularly "atheistic", but we're about to confuse 'atheism' with 'skepticism', as long as one does not believe in 'god'..
And though i think we agree more then this discussion shows, i have to persist and say that being a member of the CP does not mean one can not believe in i.e. Karma either ;)
mindwis3 8 months ago
@mindwis3 I think "considering" is about as far as we are going to get, and since I am working on a book that I have neglected over the last few days that will have to suffice. One could believe in karma and be a member of the CP I suppose, but even then, they would have to jive that with the Marxist theory of Dialectical Materialism that most CPs have come to include in thier views. In the end, humans seem to need forms of reassurance that only differ to the degree that they are "fantastic".
REASONINFUSION 8 months ago
@REASONINFUSION
"In the end, humans seem to need forms of reassurance that only differ to the degree that they are "fantastic".
Indeed, and perhaps for atheists, reassurance specifically as to what will happen "In the end", is in a way equally fantastic.
Perhaps rather then Communist Party membership, a "true atheist" can better be said to be pretty pessimistic wrt "immortality", but for fame and kids ;)
what do you think wrt immortality?
Kind regards,
mindwis3 8 months ago
@mindwis3 You got me with the "wrt"!!! Would that be "with regards to"?
REASONINFUSION 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@REASONINFUSION
""wrt"!!! Would that be "with regards to"?"
Yeah, or 'with respect to' i ran out of characters :)
mindwis3 8 months ago
@mindwis3 to them. For example, if someone believes I, as a black man, am inferior to whites, My mistakes in spelling may be seen as "proof" of my cognitive limitations, where the spelling errors of a white may be chalked up to his or her haste in attempting to make a point. Get it? An athiest is more likely (in at least America as opposed to latin america or the caribbean) to be "open" to communsim and Most communists are athiest. The connection is not absolute, but dependable.
REASONINFUSION 8 months ago
@REASONINFUSION
"Get it?" sure, that's called confirmation bias, what we are not talking about ;)
I agree that being a member of the CP makes it likely you are atheist as well, but nothing more then that.
But one does not necessarily follow the other.
You could be a Buddhist and a member of the CP for all i know (apart from you claiming you are not Buddhist ;)
That membership is not "proof" and neither a "measure" of your "manner" of atheism, and that's all i am saying.
Kr,
mindwis3 8 months ago
@mindwis3 No I am not a Buddhist, but some of my friends are. If by chance saw my channel and a video of the Dalai Lama, that is because as an intellectual, I am open to other views and on the subjects I feature he has a good point.
REASONINFUSION 8 months ago
@S2Cents is irrational and as for himself he had traced his own origin back to Angola. Since I am Black and living in America, that statement was most welcomed for it is hardly ever said by whites here. I wish Hitch well and am pained when I see his state. I am not a passivist nor a saint, but I do respect some people who disagree with me and think Hitch at least keeps us agnostics and believers sharp. I will miss him, Muslim that I am.
REASONINFUSION 8 months ago
I wish he would stop making the mistake of 911 chile being in 71 rather than 73, third time i,ve seen him do this.
foofkanon 9 months ago
Professor Eagleton, I'm reading your book "Faith, Reason and Revolution" and I want to thank you very deeply for the wonderful work, you are a bright mind and a warm heart in this world of cynics. And as this conference, really, this is the rudest audience in this world. Why? Atheists simply cannot bear believers. That's all. I won't try in the future to make myself understood. I don't care to what they think. It 's like explaining music to someone born without ears. And heart.
Onlylovesaves 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@S0chan
Well, since for you, life has no meaning, we really don't care about the robbery of one hour of a meaningless life!
Onlylovesaves 9 months ago
this video could stand as a definition of ad hominem
zusp123 10 months ago
I am twenty minutes in now and there is still no sign of an argument.
PatrickWhite1985 10 months ago
How many travelling expenses does this marxist get?? Jeeze, he's everywhere- except the revolutionary places. Lol.
Zoundsism999 10 months ago
Godawful agnostic rambling.
Zoundsism999 10 months ago
Eagleton really is a delusional tosser. He is the epitome of the fatuity and liberalization of the modern left. That this clown thinks his slavish devotion to the worlds most reactionary and fascist religion is in any sense compatible with Marxism is somewhat of a laugh. Is funny to hear him play the class card in his reference to Dawkins. Of course its usually intelligentsia gobshites like Eagleton who - like the inner party in 1984- try to tell us that 2+2=5 and perform their mental gymnastics
CosmosLoyal 10 months ago
@CosmosLoyal A religion cant be both fascist and reactionary.
Zoundsism999 10 months ago
@CosmosLoyal
Sorry for getting aggressive, but you perfectly deserve it. You're ignorant AND stupid. Never heard about Theology of Liberation, the left wing of Caholic Church in South America? They've done a lot more for this world than the little pretensious guys like you.
Onlylovesaves 9 months ago
@Onlylovesaves a lot of atheists are little right-wanker nerds that are more into video games and net porn than anything and they certainly don't care about South America. Or America except that it means more net porn and video games and easy IT jobs for fat ass geeks
S2Cents 9 months ago
57:20 wtf?
XOPWNDOX 10 months ago
5:20 wtf?
XOPWNDOX 10 months ago
Wow, a whole lecture based on nothing but ad hominems and straw-mans; what a treat!
namnack 11 months ago
Not to defend Eagleton's performance here, but I do understand frustrations with "Ditchkens". There is a big difference between defending the validity of atheism and the cynical reflex to say that theism is somehow patently wrong or delusional. Even Hitchens admits the existence of the numinous or transcedent, which puts him a hair's breadth from pantheism. To state that faith is beyond reason is no more irrational than to state that love is. My personal faith, for instance, is atheism.
Oneiricist 1 year ago
A litany of straw-man arguments. Dawkins does not say that "everyone is getting better and better". Completely false. Aetheists will also be surprised to learn from Eagleton that it's them who have fantasies about living eternally, rather than the religious. And who is this Hitchkins??
SarniaLute 1 year ago
Awkward stuff. Eaglton comes off as high-handed and makes disingenious, point-missing generalizations about his opponents. He also seems to think he deserves a laugh every-time he makes a reference to a popstar. All of his criticisms of 'Ditchens' can be accepted and it still would not make their essential argument less persuasive...
cp1492 1 year ago
Eagleton is NOT in love with any REAL Jesus. He's in love with the character & story of Jesus & it's author, St. Paul. For him, the bible is literary, not literal. He's a romantic, like his hero, Marx. But while Marx was an avowed atheist (oddly, never mentioned), Terry intentionally MISappropiates him by treating ALL philosophers as literary critics of God's Word/Creation so that God can & should be judged by all his critics as an artist; sort of like Lloyd Webber's phantom of the opera.
bondurango 1 year ago
I find it somewhat curious that Eagleton makes the point of distinguishing the "more recent 9-11" from the first one: the day of the chilean coup that toppled Salvador Allende which he claims happened in 1971 or 30 years before. The implication is somehow that these two events have something to do with each other, though he does not say what! It so happens said coup happened in 1973, not 71 which does not bode terribly well for Terry's grasp of History...
wayofgray 1 year ago
Intelligent people who attempt to defend religion in the modern world of science end up hiding religion in some mystical place created by their imagination while they design the rules that are applicable to that place so that human logic, rational thought and science cannot be used to investigate its validity or not. This looks to me like a desperate man's solution to defend something that has absolutely no merit.
paspro67 1 year ago
I cannot understand his view on religion. Religion presents a world view which is either true or false. It seems to me that he proposes a third alternative option: that religion is false as far as describing the physical world (and he claims that religion is not supposed to do that) but it is true in some other mystical sense. In what sense religion is true that arguments based on rationality and logic cannot penetrate?
paspro67 1 year ago
to hear a man, listen to his argument , and then dismiss is as false or unconvincing is alot different then dismiss someone as talking bull shit because YOU dont understand at the first place. It says more about you then the guy your listening.
niinja2 1 year ago 2
What nonsense! Hitchens and Dawkins have much more sophisticated sense of reason that this numpty will ever have. Also his jokes stink(to high heaven presumably?) What a wast of 40 minutes - that's all I could stomach. I'm sure some people find this illuminating and humerous. That saya a lot about them! Utter crap!
bigguitar22 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the things he's saying clearly and loudly ab initio is: hey you, self proclaimed atheists, get a clue since obviously you have not the slightest when you talk about religion. After that, he's just being as keen and rigorous as he has always been—those of you who have read his books might get the sense of this a bit more easily. Just because he doesn't have Ditchkins' stridency doesn't mean you won't understand him... you just have to shut up listen attentively... and humbly :)
pontoeuxino 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the things he's saying clearly and loudly ab initio is: hey you, self proclaimed atheists, get a clue since obviously you have not the slightest when you talk about religion. After that, he's just being as keen and rigorous as he has always been—those of you who have read his books might get the sense of this a bit more easily. Just because he doesn't have Ditchkins' stridency doesn't mean you won't understand him... you just have to shut up listen attentively... and humbly :)
pontoeuxino 1 year ago
Comment removed
pontoeuxino 1 year ago
professor eagleton accurately outlined why the debate is at cross-currents and no points of agreement are being reached. convinced of their own right-thinking, those who do not see any content value in this lecture either missed eagleton's points b/c (perhaps) they have no basis of understanding OR they are blinded by their own insistence. too bad.
i watched it twice just for the pleasure of the language and ideas. bravo!
"if you don't love, you are dead. if you do, they'll kill you."
maggierose1945 1 year ago 9
Eagleton doesn't seem to have an argument of his own. I watched the video and still ldont know what he is saying? Also his sense of humour stinks. He has faith but I fear his faith is invested in his own assumed eloquence and erudition rather than anything outside of himself. Pompous arse is a phrase that seems to fit! He also makes the error of comparing atrocities to prove a meaningless point at the expense of the people that dies in 911. This guy has very liittle to offer to the dabate.
bigguitar22 1 year ago
0:15:30 "It's a very solemn audience". No mate, your jokes are just shit.
UEffingC 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UEffingC I agree. This guy is a fucking joke!
bigguitar22 1 year ago
God is about as real as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
redkiller478 1 year ago
Comment removed
croutonfada 1 year ago
Comment removed
croutonfada 1 year ago
amusing stuff! Thanks!
Marenqo 1 year ago
Ditchkins lol
fishybishbash 1 year ago
alrigt I giggled at his "yetish" comment XD! An image of God "flitting through the forest" made me laugh XD
arktheball 1 year ago
This deluded fool has apparently no idea why rational people are atheists...nor does he understand the utter stupidity of blind faith. He tries to add credibility to his own narrow brand theology and fails to cover the equally absurd belief systems that religion has spawned worldwide...what a bore.
quarky1948 1 year ago
@quarky1948
i am afraid of the people who have deluded themselfs into thinking that they are morally superior or intellectually superior just because they belong to a group, these kind of people are immune to criticism and are he prime source of evil we can find in religion.
i have very few rational atheists and even fewer true christians, but i know many many people who think they are rational becasue their intuitions tell them so.
niinja2 1 year ago
Boooring
dblchckd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It appears Eagleton has nothing to add to the "debate" but silly jokes and ad hominen arguments...
zer0s0und 1 year ago
Comment removed
zer0s0und 1 year ago
His driveling jokes totaly underestimate the audiece's intellingence; and this seems to be a personal characteristic. He also repeatedly tries to diminish the other parts in the so called "debate". It is plausible that he is trying make his own books hit the best selling lists. He is just picking up on the bad things the usual religious opponents desperatelly bring upon Hitchens or Dawkins, and add to that bad, bad jokes, and ad hominen arguments. No cigar here.
zer0s0und 1 year ago 2
@zer0s0und I must confess that I found your comment quite amusing: after all, every statement that you make here could be referred to Dawkins or Hitchens: underestimating the audience's intelligence, diminishing the level of debate (did you read Dawkins' characterisation of the ontology? It's a ludicrous simplification!), trying to make their own books hit the best selling list, bad, bad jokes and ad hominen arguments!
neoclassicism1 1 year ago
Did he even read the bible? Half of what he says completely contradicts the words there. Maybe he reads those stories very differently (just as allegories), but then he cannot simply proclaim that every other religious person does the same.
Very useless talk. Dawkins at least brings some facts to the table.
tokotokotoko3 1 year ago
Can anyone explain to why Mr Eagleton quite smugly just asserts that "belief in God" does not mean you think God exists? I may be ignorant but seems to me that that would be the primary assumption of any believer.
cmxcmx 1 year ago
Either his jokes are bad or the audience is hostile to what he is saying. I can't tell, because his jokes don't seem particularly funny to me either. He lacks Hitchen's charm and way with words.
Razzputko 1 year ago
Why are some atheists ashamed of their bodies?
Why do some atheists have faith in the 'invisible hand' of the market?
Why do some atheists believe in the imagined community of the nation?
Why do some atheists still believe in the Protestant work ethic?
Religious thinking is all around us. But the main difference between older, radical forms of atheism and the modern Ditchkins variety, is that the older form chose to question all of the beliefs on which we base our civilization.
electricrussell 1 year ago
@electricrussell But see dawkins would simply assert that religion is evil, and deny any possibility that religion has caused or is the source of anything good. Then he would squawk back to his flock, claiming victory. Leaving nothing but a feces piled chess board and knocked over pieces in his wake.
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball I don't think this is fair to Dawkins. He does not automatically claim that "religion has never caused anything good". He is way to academic in his thinking to assert such absolutes. He does say that false dogmas are always harmful in the long run, but that's quite different.
He also doesn't put all religions in one box, but does concentrate on the two dominant ones, that did quite obviously much harm.
tokotokotoko3 1 year ago
@tokotokotoko3 I dont think Dawkins is fair to religious believers. As he insinuates that we suffer from a mental disorder. That we are ignorant and primeval. He is VERY much so insulting to religious believers of all sects in the way he speaks about them, and their beliefs. I cant think of a single instance where Dr Dawkins has been positive about religion. Nor an instance where he has attributed something positive to religion. So I think I was being quite fair to Dr Dawkins.
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball I didn't say he is completely fair. But he stays to facts and reasoning more than his opponents (this vid is case in point).
He gives no respect to any religion, and that is hard to accept for many. I did also find him insulting at first.
But I think you misunderstand him a bit. He would not attack religion as he does if it would only consist of open minded and friendly people. Unfortunately even today fools and psychopaths are leading the organized religions. Hypocrisy rules.
tokotokotoko3 1 year ago
@tokotokotoko3 Stays to reasoning and facts?! No one who makes the comments he makes could be attributed those two things.
I know he doesnt, which is why I am so harsh in my critique of the man. He is nothing but insulting to those of faith, even going so far as to insinuate that raising their own children is "child abuse"
I hardly think I do. BUT I am open to bieng prioved wrong. ATHIESM DOESNT EVEN FIT HIS CRITERION HERE!!!!! HE IS LIVING PROOF OF THAT. He is one of athiesms fools...
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball I never disagreed that he is offensive. And you make it impossible to prove you wrong. If you're insulted that's your personal feeling. If I would be a very religious person, I would be maybe insulted too.
But my point was that he does not say things like "Religion did never do anything good". You can prove me otherwise with a quote.
His arguments are based on facts and followed with logic. As atheist it is logical to argue that forcing a religion on a child is abuse. Mind-abuse.
tokotokotoko3 1 year ago
Curious why one would dub this The God Debate! Who is he willing to debate?
Neuroslicer 1 year ago
Whatever your views on the existence of God, one cannot help pity a man trying so desperately to get a laugh and failing so miserably. What a rude audience! And he seems like a nice man.
siljuseter 1 year ago 9
KittenButter and Catnip: He begins by assuming the existence of God and the historicity of Jesus. That's enough to put me off as biased.
mytrirat 1 year ago
Can't stand to listen to the guy.
mytrirat 1 year ago
Atheist commenters who are complaining about his supposed obscurantism: take note. Terry Eagleton is sociologically analyzing (from a Marxist perspective) the rise of the New Atheist movement, NOT analyzing arguments against the existence of God.
He never purported to discuss the issue of God's existence. Not once. Please develop some listening skills.
KittenButter 1 year ago
@KittenButter Whatever he is doing, he does it very bad. Sorry. Please, no authority argument (although Eagleton himself doesn't see any problem with that, that is a problem; the bad discourse talks for itself, there are only bad "analysis" here: ad ominen plus horribly silly jokes).
zer0s0und 1 year ago
@KittenButter
people cant stand him because he does not say what they want to hear.
we believe and absorb the best the things we want to hear and believe, its a general sign of normal, not critical intelligence or rationality, but emotionality.
niinja2 1 year ago
Brilliant man. I cherish this video.
KittenButter 1 year ago
Wow, that was a waste of time. He didn't really say much at all, and what he did say what utter bullshit.
tky011 1 year ago
anyone who can be so casually dismissive of the ideas presented here cannot possibly have been listening.
johnnyforjohnny 1 year ago
What a string of trite prejudices. It must have been embarrassing to be in that audience, and you can sense that.
I do agree with his political views however.
donrayjay 1 year ago
Great critic, great man.
levanyzzuf 1 year ago
I disagree. I think he has deistilled Ditckins (and even Dennett) accurately. I think the conclusion he has is correct, the real creators of Dawkins, Hickens, Dennett et al is those of faith.. We have failled to challenge the straw man they have errected. We have failled to take on our own nutters and bring them into line. We have the Ditckins we deserve.
bozzie61 1 year ago
@bozzie61 interesting
nickeilts 1 year ago
I would disagree with his view about Ditchkins et al. It's true that they are attacking a very specific religious outlook not held by everyone but it is a prominent view held by many conservative religious people. Belief in a supreme being is the bedrock of faith for many people & I think Eagleton misses this point.
Having said that I found him rather ammusing & it's a shame more people didn't laugh at his jokes which I must confess I did quite like.
gextvedde 1 year ago
COMMIE FAGS!!!!!!!
antwanswan1 1 year ago
Comment removed
IrishMarc1 2 years ago
If you don't know where the term "dour Scot" comes from watch this video. A brilliant lecturer wasted on a sad bunch of humourless people.
prodsmash2 2 years ago
Even as a believer of God I still don't agree with everything he says. Funny that. I still liked this though.
Jaspercat91 2 years ago 3
It is rather amazing how well understood words can be stringed together in a syntactically legitimate way to create utterly meaningless grammatical constructs. There's too much nonsense there for me to stomach much longer.
SilentMike0 2 years ago 4
As H.L. Mencken observed over a half century ago: "Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing."
fctchk 1 year ago 16
@fctchk
I can only agree.
SilentMike0 1 year ago
@fctchk Ironic, considering H.L. Mencken doesn't appear to have been worth knowing.
adlucem5 1 year ago
@SilentMike0 What an asinine comment. Or are you just describing what you have written? Yes, it is meaningless and the best thing about it is that it isn't longer.
endeavor8000 1 year ago
@SilentMike0 you found this talk hard to follow? sucks to be you. though, it could also just be your macho matter of fact "realism" feigning ignorance as an impulsive defense against cognitive dissonance
victor1eremita 1 year ago
@victor1eremita Or it may be that the talk just isn't any good. That the speaker utters many meaningless statements and that he has very little in the way of a point.
When one stoops to psychoanalyze the person he's debating, that's not generally a sign that one has a very good case.
SilentMike0 1 year ago
@SilentMike0 You were providing an example there?
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball
I fail to understand what you are getting at. Do you mean I psychoanalyzed someone in my comment? I can't see where.
SilentMike0 1 year ago
@SilentMike0 Haha just a mild criticism of your comment: "That the speaker utters many meaningless statements and that he has very little in the way of a point.
When one stoops to psychoanalyze the person he's debating, that's not generally a sign that one has a very good case."
Seemed to me that you were on the verge of providing an example of said statement in your comment. : ) Just ammused me, unfortunately you cant easily put ammusement into a post : /
arktheball 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arktheball
To say that someone "utters many meaningless statements and that he has very little in the way of a point" is critical, maybe even rude and insulting, but it's not psychoanalyzing, just a statement of opinion as to the strength of his argument. I didn't get into conjecture over his deep underline motives for making the arguments that he made.
SilentMike0 1 year ago
I feel robbed of an hour of my life.
I really expected something more sensible. All I got was a standard technique of making god and faith something "beyond reason" so that not only do rational people have a moving target when debating religious people but also an invisible and untouchable one.
I somehow lost some respect for Terry Eagleton, he shouldn't comment on things he has an obvious bias on. And he also should investigate more in depth the positions of people he wants to confront.
S0chan 2 years ago 14
@S0chan Wait, wait, so Richard Dawkins and (of all people) Christopher Hitchens don't have bias against religion? Both authors look at your standard corner-of-the-street parish with the same intellectual tools, with the same critical eyes, they use to criticize Osama Bin Laden or the Spanish Inquisition.
The point, and that is a big point, and the oh-so-smart Hitchens and Dawkins manage to completely miss it, is that debates about religion are, by definition, not rational.
Shoon84 1 year ago
@Shoon84 Of course they are biased against religion. But their arguments aren't, their arguments are rational, even if the reasons behind them may be biased.
And if debates about religion are not rational it is only caused by the style of discussion preferred by religious people which focuses on doing everything they can to somehow fog over the fact that even though we cannot understand god they know what she is and what she wants.
S0chan 1 year ago
@S0chan Their arguments against organized religion might be rational; you may question, in, let's say, "legislative" terms, the executive prerrogatives of the Pope, for example; you might present, rationally, an argument against the existence of the Vatican. The (non)existence of God cannot be (dis)proved through the use of formal logic. Theology (and atheist tracts are theological) is not rational: it's a thing apart (not necessarily "above" or "below") rationality.
Shoon84 1 year ago
@Shoon84 I don't think any thinking person would disagree. Which is why people like Dawkins or Hitchens don't attempt to disprove god as it is not possible.
What they can do is who how improbable or at least undesirable a theist god is or would be if she existed. It seems like you are talking out of your ass without really knowing anything about their arguments and their attitude to both theist and deist claims which they clearly distinguish and always put emphasis on their difference..
S0chan 1 year ago
@S0chan By the way, don't underestimate my intelligence, nor yours: Richard Dawkins' attacks against religion are nothing but diatribes, carried by an illiterate - and not a very intelligent one at that. The difference between Dawkins as a theologian and Bertrand Russell (a full-blown atheist who confronts the question of God in a serious manner) is the difference between the Flat Earth Society and Dawkins as a biologist.
Shoon84 1 year ago
@S0chan
"he shouldn't comment on things he has an obvious bias on."
lol , you mean like hitchens dawkins or sam hariss? yeah i think they should not comment on things they have no clue of, hm or maybe not, that would be limiting their right to free speech
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 As I already said: "Of course they are biased against religion. But their arguments aren't, their arguments are rational, even if the reasons behind them may be biased."
And I am aware that this phrasing might not have been the best but you understand what I mean by it. But please excuse me as I don't intend to argue over this lecture with you because it's been some time since I've seen it and I don't remember it well enough.
S0chan 1 year ago
@S0chan
"And I am aware that this phrasing might not have been the best but you understand what I mean by it."
very well put
niinja2 1 year ago
@S0chan I actually couldn't even tell exactly where he stands... All I hear is white noise
wildsanity 1 year ago
Comment removed
Onlylovesaves 9 months ago
@Onlylovesaves No meaning? That's a little presumptuous of you to say that.
Or are you joking? If so then well played.
S0chan 9 months ago
@S0chan
You see? Believers may have a good sense of humour too! Have a nice week end, friend
Onlylovesaves 9 months ago
I think you'll notice that people like richard dawkins and christopher hitchens can address an argument without a five minute diatribe on the opponent by name. Of course, this is probably the problem with all creationism. Rather than making a case, it can only attempt to make the opponents seem silly, which if anyone actually listens to the opposition it's plain to see that they do have a case.
vegassilenttype 2 years ago 4
I don't think you can read Eagleton as a defender of creationism. As an admirer of Dawkins (though not Hitchens), I still have a strong sympathy for Eagleton's assertion that their position has an overly-simplistic authoritarianism to it (more so with Hitchens) that counters rather than serves human progress.
taybankvideo 2 years ago
I read him perfectly as a standard defender of creationism because his opening statement (Hitchens/Boteach for a perfect example of this exact sort of verbal bamboozlery) only refferences the opponent in a cheecky 'Can you believe dawkins said this, and did this? outrageous!?' and makes no actual positive assertion towards anything. As far as 'authoritarianism' goes, I would think all the deaths incurred throughout history without any evidence of the supernatural has a much higher value.
vegassilenttype 1 year ago
Speaking of human progress, knocking heads out of the clouds actually serves more for the common good than lofty (and wontonly unverified) notions of the universe. I know its trite by now, but one pair of hands actually does some comparible actions as opposed to one million in prayer; at least on this plane of existence; and if you're going to tell me something that has to do with this reality, you're going to have to know more about how it works than antiquated supernatural mythos.
vegassilenttype 1 year ago
@vegassilenttype
FIRST OF all, he's not a creationist. Second of all, this talk is not an argument or a diatribe against Hitchens/Dawkins, it's a criticism of the recent surge in popularity of 'the god debate'--hence the title.
gavrilo2007 1 year ago 3
Depending on how you define 'creationist', I could have overstepped my bounds. He is a Theist, and that's probably what I had intended to say, my apologies. As far as him saying anything constructive about the book, I can appreciate that people value his literary critisism, but I don't agree with his position on what he thinks should have been posited the point of the book (as I would most theists), because he's clearly defending (with only cliches) the same old dogma and trying to discredit.
vegassilenttype 1 year ago
@vegassilenttype
Cliche's? Like what? Also, what book are you talking about? He's not talking about a book. And he's not 'defending the same old dogma', he's explaining the context of the recent emergence of the so-called new-atheism, and by doing so, he's criticizing the rationale the new-atheists. He's not arguing for the existence of God or challenging the notion there isn't one.
gavrilo2007 1 year ago
The book he's referring specifically to is Dawkins: The God Delusion. Seeing as he's a literary critic, I would imagine he's reviewing books from hitchens, dennett, and hitchens... As for the ideas inside the book that he's willing to criticise, he doesn't really touch on concepts like the 'religious meme' or anything that I would deem as a 'new-atheism' trait, I'm not seeing it. I've heard these arguments already, and excuse my liberal use of the word 'cliche', but it's been said already.
vegassilenttype 1 year ago
And as far as him 'not arguing for the existence of God', I find that hard to believe based upon his career experience(and he does, watch it again). He seems like he's been neck deep in religion for a very long time (if his wikipedia page has any validity), and he shows the same inability to interpret concepts from the athiest position. Not saying he has to, but it's no more insulting to be misrepresented like this yet again by someone falsely asserting some en-masse athiest agendas.
vegassilenttype 1 year ago
@vegassilenttype
His talk is not about the God Delusion, and he's not refuting the arguments of the book (although he clearly is sceptical about the claims Dawkins makes). To be honest, I don;t think you really understand what he's saying at all.
gavrilo2007 1 year ago
He does refference the book (I'm looking for that specific quote now at 8:13), and he does refference arguments that are in Hitchen's God is not Great (closer to 9). Irreverrant ones (yes, society has improved), but material in the books nontheless. Is it coincedence that he does? And that he's a litterary critic? Very well, kudos. I think I've spent enough time on this argument and I'm willing to conceed to whatever argument is left to be said. Feel free to read the books though, plz
vegassilenttype 1 year ago