Hells yes. Love that line about the most robust reasoning cannot be explained through reasoning. Sounds like Heschel: "What history does with the laws of nature cannot be explained by a law of nature."
@XXthewaveXX I don't think Eagleton would say that love is (necessarily) ideological - near the end of The Ideology of the Aesthetic (1989) he suggests that love can transcend ideology via what he calls a 'materialist ethics' (p.413); he HAS written & published quite a few books since 1976, including this year Why Marx was right - clearly sold out then!
love/believers have reasons which reason knows [not enough] of- Pascal. Eagleton is right to restate the theist position, and right to suggest that Ditchkins is too simplistic in not taking account of the specific construction of belief, prefering to define it negatively as absence of reason, but Ditchkins' position can incorporate that readjustment easily. The distinction is irrelevant; that belief plays a role is the sole issue as it is this element which is challenged, not the quantity of it.
Seems like you are giving "faith" a job that it isn't qualified to do. Being human gives us enough meaning and purpose without the requirement of some illusory faith based proposition. "Attunement" is a way of suggesting that without religion/faith, humans cannot find meaning or purpose. Such a religion/faith based meaning/purpose would be illusory, but real meaning and purpose of ones life is found in the face of reason on the stage that is reality.
@fubintien exactly. Let's skip the BS and simply move on with our lives.
My take on theology is the following. I am firmly convinced that either God simply does not exist, OR - which comes to the same thing - that God does exist but requires no faith and is simply a self-evident propositional fact of reality. In both instances, there is no need for either churches or holy books or popes or anything else requiring deferential special treatment except humility in the face of the universe itself.
I disagree. It all begins with the inductive assessment of the efficacy of reason, parsimony and other tools of the scientific method.
We don't need to start with assumptions, but inductively tease out what works and simply build an epistemological methodology based on the success of our tools.
His "Caricature" of "reason" is fairly annoying to hear after he has finished accusing others of caricaturing "religion" or "faith". Reason and Faith are both products of being humans, and both should be accepted as such. Reason and Religious Faith comes from our requirement to make sense out of this seemingly random and chaotic world around us. And thus we should favor(not in a religious sense) the tool that is more successful in this regard.
sure... favour the tool that is more successful in making sense of the world around us... It is Faith not Reason that provides this attunement to reality as it is...
Hells yes. Love that line about the most robust reasoning cannot be explained through reasoning. Sounds like Heschel: "What history does with the laws of nature cannot be explained by a law of nature."
jewfizzle 6 months ago
@XXthewaveXX I don't think Eagleton would say that love is (necessarily) ideological - near the end of The Ideology of the Aesthetic (1989) he suggests that love can transcend ideology via what he calls a 'materialist ethics' (p.413); he HAS written & published quite a few books since 1976, including this year Why Marx was right - clearly sold out then!
DrHurdler 6 months ago
I love Eagleton's appeal to a 'good Wittgensteinian point' to dispute fideism, especially considering Wittgenstein was a fideist.
phelps6660 1 year ago
Eagleton calls love ideological in crit&ideology (1976), i don't think Hitchens is the only one who's sold out Marxism.
XXthewaveXX 1 year ago
love/believers have reasons which reason knows [not enough] of- Pascal. Eagleton is right to restate the theist position, and right to suggest that Ditchkins is too simplistic in not taking account of the specific construction of belief, prefering to define it negatively as absence of reason, but Ditchkins' position can incorporate that readjustment easily. The distinction is irrelevant; that belief plays a role is the sole issue as it is this element which is challenged, not the quantity of it.
XXthewaveXX 1 year ago
K2nsl3r, what has the universe got to do with your argument? God is the universe?
XXthewaveXX 1 year ago
how does he no reason doesn't go all the way down?
danny123xvz 2 years ago
@danny123xvz because it's turtles all the way down, of course
DrHurdler 6 months ago
Seems like you are giving "faith" a job that it isn't qualified to do. Being human gives us enough meaning and purpose without the requirement of some illusory faith based proposition. "Attunement" is a way of suggesting that without religion/faith, humans cannot find meaning or purpose. Such a religion/faith based meaning/purpose would be illusory, but real meaning and purpose of ones life is found in the face of reason on the stage that is reality.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Another of those who reprimand atheists for not first studying Imaginary Imperial Fashion before declaring that His Majesty is naked.
fubintien 2 years ago
@fubintien good point
RomTheSpaceknight 2 years ago
@fubintien exactly. Let's skip the BS and simply move on with our lives.
My take on theology is the following. I am firmly convinced that either God simply does not exist, OR - which comes to the same thing - that God does exist but requires no faith and is simply a self-evident propositional fact of reality. In both instances, there is no need for either churches or holy books or popes or anything else requiring deferential special treatment except humility in the face of the universe itself.
K2nsl3r 1 year ago
"Reasons don't go all the way down?"
I disagree. It all begins with the inductive assessment of the efficacy of reason, parsimony and other tools of the scientific method.
We don't need to start with assumptions, but inductively tease out what works and simply build an epistemological methodology based on the success of our tools.
philstilwell 2 years ago
Couldn't agree more.
His "Caricature" of "reason" is fairly annoying to hear after he has finished accusing others of caricaturing "religion" or "faith". Reason and Faith are both products of being humans, and both should be accepted as such. Reason and Religious Faith comes from our requirement to make sense out of this seemingly random and chaotic world around us. And thus we should favor(not in a religious sense) the tool that is more successful in this regard.
Gwisss 2 years ago
sure... favour the tool that is more successful in making sense of the world around us... It is Faith not Reason that provides this attunement to reality as it is...
camfreecam 2 years ago