(no subject)

[tree_and_leaf]

The London Review of Books has a very interesting review of Dawkins' latest atheist tract by Terry Eagleton.

Comments

[ellid.livejournal.com]

If he's fairly representing Dawkins, this is devastating.

[tree_and_leaf]

It is, rather. I haven't read Dawkins' book yet, but Eagleton is a fine critic without any obvious ideological axe to grind (I don't know if his name's familiar, but he's one of the most prominent Marxist literary critics/ theorists), so I'm inclinded to trust him.

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

That is a pretty devastating review.
I haven't read the book myself - would you say it was fair comment?
I've developed a slight allergy to Dawkins because, in each of his books I've read, he does tilt at straw men and conspicuously displays his lack of knowledge about religion. And he's a bit of a stuck record isn't he? Ironic, really, for someone who apparently hates fanaticism.

I'd love to see Dawkins debate whether atheism is a faith position. (I think, if we behave only and strictly rationally, we have to be agnostic)

[tree_and_leaf]

I haven't got round to reading the book yet either, but it sounds as if it might be fair based on things I've heard Dawkins say in debates or newspaper articles (must have a look at 'the God Delusion', if only out of curiosity).

I absolutely agree that atheism is a faith position, but it would be fun to watch R.D. react to that...

Hmph.

[wemyss.livejournal.com]

One utter twat skewering another.

Dawkins is of course an ass. But, then, my opinion of Eagleton could not be lower, either.

Oh, for the days of Eliot, Sayers, and various Inklings! Criticism, like thought, has become uttterly rubbishing these days.

Re: Hmph.

[tree_and_leaf]

Well, I agree with you about us being the poorer without the Inklings et al, but I don't mind Eagleton. I think some of his ideas are wrongheaded to say the least, but he's got a hundred times more brains, bowels & etc than the bulk of people writing in literary criticism or purporting to be public intellectuals these days.

[snorkackcatcher]

Interesting indeed. I must admit, Dawkins irritates me a great deal, as do 'atheist fundamentalists' in general. Slight contradiction, chaps? At least religious fundies have a certain internal consistency. :)

[tree_and_leaf]

Dawkins is deeply annoying, I agree wholeheartedly!

Although I think the fundies annoy me more - but that may be a matter of wishing they;d go away because I feel that as a Christian, my faith is being tainted by association.

[(Anonymous)]

"Consistency is a hobgoblin." -Mahatma Gandhi

(Meaning, presumably, that if we focus on ends--or on theories--we miss out on the getting there.)

-Mrs. Wolf

[aervir.livejournal.com]

While I don't know anything about Richard Dawkins or theology in the first place and certainly do not agree with everything in this article, it amuses me insanely that such a staunch Marxist critic as Eagleton comes forward with a defence of respect for the Christian faith.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, I rather did a double-take.... I did enjoy the article, though, especially the bits contrasting Marx andDawkins on religion :)

[harriet-wimsey.livejournal.com]

Oh, that is interesting. I think I'll have to pass the link on to my dad. I encountered Eagleton in both my litcrit and pomo classes in college, but I don't remember that much about him. He's more articulate than I had remembered. I can certainly tell he's a Marxist, but on the whole he has a pretty good understanding of religion. It's nice to be understood. :D

[tree_and_leaf]

Glad you enjoyed it!

I remeber finding Eagleton more sensible than an awful lot of the fashionable critics, but that may not be saying all that much... Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised by the article.

[gramarye1971]

Intriguing...though now I'm upset that I haven't received my print copy of the LRB just yet. *scowls at postal service*

[tree_and_leaf]

Bah - the post can be very unreliable, at times.

[prelud.livejournal.com]

I didn`t know that Dawkins wrote about religion. I have read some of his writings when I studied sociobiology (as a psychology student, I had to acquaint myself with this theory). Reading sociobiologic texts made wince many times. That`s when I lost any interest in Dawkins & comp.
Unfortunately, the views he seems to have if Eagleton`s review is fair seem to show a very Dawkins-like tendency of overlooking important things and talking about things he knows nothing about.
Anyway, I already have met some people who shared Dawkins` ignorance about religion, yet they criticized it in Dawkins-like manner. (of course, I always find out that such people don`t know that atheism is a faith position, or resembles it). I`ll use some of Eagleton`s rebuttals next time I get into philosophical discussion with one of these people.

[tree_and_leaf]

This is the first book that Dawkins has written on religion, but he's been saying similar things in books and interviews for ages. The reference to the Bishop of Oxford in the article, incidentally, is another back-handed swipe at Dawkins, because actually the current Bishop of Oxford has very conscientiously backed Dawkins up when he was talking with his 'defender of the theory of evolution against young earth creationism' hat on.

I'm glad you found the article good, though.

[themolesmother.livejournal.com]

Mentioned your post to hubby. The response was a Cheshire Cat grin.

Agree it is very interesting to see a Marxist mounting a defence of relgion. Whatever next?

MM

[tree_and_leaf]

Flying pigs are surely the next step in evolution, right?

[themolesmother.livejournal.com]

*Ducks as large pink thing with wings whizzes past*

Next - flying llamas!

MM