Eagleton’s return to Christianity?
Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are old enough and ugly enough not to require my assistance in seeing off their critics. But I am becoming rather irritated by reviews that claim Terry Eagleton, in his recent supposed riposte to “Ditchkins” (Reason, Faith and Revolution: reflections on the God Debate) “successfully shreds” and “effortlessly and ruthlessly…tears apart” Dawkins and Hitchens. The first quote comes from Piers Paul Read writing in the Observer on 24 May 2009, the second from Jonathan Bartley in the Guardian of 4 July: both writers, incidentally, are campaigning Christians, though that fact is not prominantly signalled or mentioned in either article.
I should, at this point, make it clear that I have not yet read Eagleton’s book, but from his numerous recent articles on the subject of religion, and from the (mainly sympathetic) reviews, I have to say that I find it difficult to believe that this pompous, vacuous and intellectually dishonest shyster could “shred” either Dawkins or Hitchens on the subject of religion (or anything else). The most widely quoted and admired ”argument” in Eagleton’s book seems to be this: “(Dawkins) falsely considers that Christianity offers a rival view of the universe to science…(Hitchens makes) the same crass error…Christianity was never meant to be an explanation of anything…it’s rather like saying that thanks to the electric toaster we can forget about Chekhov.”
What the hell is that supposed to actually mean? The most charitable explanation is that Eagleton is rehashing an argument previously, and much more convincingly, presented by the late Stephen Jay Gould, who called it “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA). Put briefly, and crudely, NOMA postulates that there is no real conflict between science and religion because the two operate in entirely different domains; science is empirical, factual and theoretical, while religion is concerned with morality and value. These two “magesteria” operate by different intellectual criteria and do not overlap. Science asks “how” things happed, while religion asks “why”. It’s an attractive theory, especially for people who are frightened by full-on atheism and are seeking a sort of half-way house. Gould argues for it quite convincingly, but ultimately it’s a cop-out and a sleight of hand. Religion must stand or fall on the same intellectual basis as every other belief, and any attempt to provide a special set of rules for religion is, in reality, an admission that the intellectual case for belief simply doesn’t stand up. At its worst (and I suspect Eagleton’s version falls into this catagory), it’s actually no more than a fancy version of the Ontological argument (dating back to the 11th Century) for the existance of God :
1. God is the most perfect being concievable.
2. It is more perfect to exist than not exist
3. Therefore, God must exist.
Whether in its “sophisticated” NOMA form, or the crude circularity of Ontology, this is a strange line of argument for a “Marxist” (as Eagleton still, apparently, claims to be) to be putting forward. In fact it’s a version of what Plekhanov called “dualism”.
But is Eagleton any longer any sort of Marxist at all? And has he returned to his Christian roots? The Catholic Piers Paul Read seems to think that Eagleton is still, nominally, a Marxist and an atheist, but predicts that “Eagleton himself is en route for Damascus and will one day stop kicking against the goad.” In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that Eagleton submitted to the goad some time ago: when asked in a recent US radio interview whether he prayed, Eagleton avoided giving a straight answer...
Ed said,
July 7, 2009 at 9:09 am
I have read Eagleton’s book. I am much more critical of Dawkins and Hitchens than Jim (and the execrable Sam Harris, whose book is truly awful – yet cheerfully endorsed by Dawkins), and I was hoping to find much food for thought in Eagleton’s book.
Well there is some. As I find quite often with Eagleton it alternates between pages of quite good, sensible comment, pages of wild assertion (much of the book seems to work on the principle that the denser the wild assertions the more powerful your argument) and then pages of just incomprehensible waffle. (Sometimes the waffle is by way of assertion).
He says he is ‘ventriloquising’ Christianity, ie, making an argument on their behalf. It is quite odd. It means at no point can you really tell if he believes what he is saying, or is proposing a line of argument that would be good if you wanted to believe it.
I’m sure he’s right that ‘Ditchkins’ as he calls them oversimplify their target; and for sure – this is my main criticism – they don’t make much effort to understand *why* people are religious (which Stephen Jay Gould, for instance, certainly did – and was part of his motivation for devising ‘NOMA’).
But the version of God Eagleton proposes just seems incomprehensible to me (which is presumably the point, God being by definition so – apparently Karen Armstrong’s just written a new book along these lines). Ironically, given part of the complaint against Ditchkins is that they don’t really engage their opponents’ ideas, Eagleton makes no effort at all to actually persuade an atheist.
Has he gone back to church? The book reads like someone who really doesn’t want to say.
asquith said,
July 7, 2009 at 12:31 pm
See also the ringlicking review of Koran Armstrong’s latest & the hack job on Ophelia Benson.
Things are definitely amiss at supposedly liberal publications.
Rosie said,
July 7, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Eagleton is a slippery customer. As well as your description “shyster” another one I’ve heard is “opportunistic slyboots”. He’ll dance around a subject in full pirouette so as not be caught taking any particular position.
Anyway, I read a bit by D J Taylor (his description is “faintly disingenuous”) in The Independent on Sunday, which I thought amusing:-
“There was a terrific example in last week’s Guardian critique of the second volume of Isaiah Berlin’s letters, in which Professor Terry Eagleton offered a kind of masterclass in the art of using the subject put in front of you as an excuse for doling out your own opinions while leaving the book itself trailing forlornly in your wake.
As well as allowing Eagleton to cover the by no mean uncharted territory of how much he loathed Oxford and its social-climbing dons, it was also faintly disingenuous. At no point in the proceedings, for example, would you have gathered that Eagleton himself taught at Oxford for years and was as much a part of its establishment – albeit its default establishment – as the hoariest old port-swilling snob from Christchurch.
As it happens I remember Terry Eagleton from Oxford. I remember the hilarious episode in which Dr Colin McCabe, a fanatic, radical post-structuralist, lately relieved of his Cambridge tenure, was invited to the English faculty to lecture.
Led on stage by Eagleton, who clearly thought the revolution had arrived, gave a clenched-fist salute and told us that “this man needs your support”, Dr McCabe offered only an uncontroversial hour on Shakespearian prosody. All of which made me think that Eagleton’s take on university life is, in its way, quite as stylised and otherworldly as Isaiah Berlin’s – as bogus in the end as Damon Albran’s cockernee vocalising. . .”
(Eagleton’s review mentioned in this excerpt can be found here:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jun/27/isaiah-berlin-enlightening-letters-review)
raincoatoptimism said,
July 7, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Eagleton is this country’s most public and vocal supporter of Slavoj Zizek, who uses a lot of the Christian method in order to iron out some of the anomalies of today’s global capitalist landscape (there is way more to it than that, but I have written an introduction on a Zizek journal to it here).
Zizek is a Marxist and atheist and in fact is not any less so for utilising aspects of Christian ethics, so it seems of no real “biggie” that Eagleton should juggle his politics with his faith. Hitchens in God is not Great even notes that Marx’ classically – and misused – phrase ‘religion is the opium of the people’, should not be considered diatribe against religion.
Eagleton’s’ general stab at “Ditchkins” noting that “he” fetishes atheism in the sense that it is inadvertently good (to the point that they ardently deny Stalin or Eichmann were real atheists but rather more than just politically comparable to totalitarian religions) speaks for itself. I think of that crazy article A.C. Grayling wrote on CiF a while back speculating on how good for the country an atheist PM would be (Miliband it was at the time) – for that reason alone, since Grayling’s politics are liberal to the nth degree, which means being a against a helluva lot that Miliband and his party stand for – so we can see clearly the shortfall here in such an argument.
As for NOMA, I don’t know if Eagleton does appeal to this, but NOMA is quite true. Remember that it doesn’t just provide a blow to atheists who think they can answer all questions with science, but it applies to creationist’s who think they can use science to answer “those” questions.
I haven’t read Eagleton’s latest book, but I’ve read a number of others, including his introduction to the Gospels, and The Meaning of Life among others, and can safely say that Eagleton’s latest probably offers the reader this conclusion; science doesn’t answer some of the questions that religion asks, but neither does religion answer those questions either, or at least not sufficiently for Eagleton. New Atheism or arch-Darwinism should not pretend it answers those questions either, but should accept the “limits of science” (Peter Medawar, whose book on the subject is called “The Limits of Science” is critiqued in The God Delusion), and not pretend that politically it has just the same shortfalls as fundamentalist religious ideologues. Its a safe bet I reckon.
martin ohr said,
July 7, 2009 at 10:52 pm
The problem with NOMA is that it is just a fudge -the only winners are the religious who can tell us to stay out of their business. Besides which science also answers the why’s as well as the how. he genius of Dawkins is that answered the ‘why’ in the Selfish Gene long before he started on militant atheism.
Would it be good if we had an atheist PM? Well if the choice was between a catholic socialist and an atheist tory then maybe not, but all things considered then of course, it should be the minimum requirement that to be elected to any position you do not believe a set of what are obvious falsehoods.
Maybe Eagleton is just falling for the new set of lies that up-to-date christians propose. I had chance to quiz an RE teacher (he trained as a priest, his wife is a vicar) recently. I asked the obvious questions like ‘do you go to heaven when you die’, ‘did neanderthal man go to heaven’ ‘does god actually talk to you’ ‘isn’t christianity just Judaism adapted to a 5th century understanding of the world’ etc. The answers were as you’d expect pretty slippery, except for the question about judaism which led to fury.
finally to correct a point above, scientists don’t believe they can answer all the questions, but that they will at some point by finding evidence, proposing theories, testing them, arguing about what the results mean, refining the theories and so on. We already know more enough to demolish every single truth that christians currently hold -how much more do we need to prove there is no god.
Jim Denham said,
July 8, 2009 at 12:23 am
Very good (and short) article from the ‘Wall Street Journal’, by Laurence M. Krauss; “Why God and Science Don’t Mix”:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597314928257169.html
johng said,
July 8, 2009 at 3:20 am
should, at this point, make it clear that I have not yet read Eagleton’s book, but from his numerous recent articles on the subject of religion, and from the (mainly sympathetic) reviews, I have to say that I find it difficult to believe that this pompous, vacuous and intellectually dishonest shyster could “shred” either Dawkins or Hitchens on the subject of religion …
did no-one else laugh out loud after reading this? Or perhaps stop reading?
Matt said,
July 8, 2009 at 7:29 am
My dad was in the same class as Eagleton at a Catholic grammar school in Salford in the 50′s. The Irish brothers who ran it always saw Eagleton as their star pupil. Even when he later declared himself a Marxist, I reckon they still regarded him indulgently as one of their own (which as a lapsed Catholic in their eyes he was) going through a not untypical phase of youthful rebellion.
An Irish academic who knows him told me a couple of years ago that Eagleton had ‘gone back’ to the Church, not sure if he attends Mass regularly but I wouldn’t be surprised if he did.
charliethechulo said,
July 8, 2009 at 7:34 am
Once again, Father John G Coughlin shows his true colours, and jumps to the defence of religion. As with Eagleton, one is forced to wonder how this enemy of enlightenment values can still claim to be a Marxist..?
Lobby Ludd said,
July 8, 2009 at 10:49 am
Having read johng’s comment (I assume that’s who you are referring to Mr Chulo) I am pretty sure you are talking nonsense.
Matt said,
July 8, 2009 at 7:47 am
I should say that to his credit, Eagleton’s autobiography ‘The Gatekeeper’ makes some interesting points on the overlap between Catholicism and Trotskyism and is very funny in parts.
johng said,
July 8, 2009 at 12:23 pm
In what sense did anything I either ‘defend religion’ or justify a comparison with a 1930s American clerical fascist? I just find it amusing that someone claiming to be defending enlightenment values criticises things without reading them (the use of terms like charleton and the like make this laugh out loud funny). The persistance of religion has nothing to do with lack of propaganda for science. It has everything to do with a world which requires illusions. That world is a capitaliist world which includes science. The Marxist approach is really very simple. The rabid hostility to that approach on this site never ceases to amaze me.
maxdunbar said,
July 8, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Yes and I wonder what Marx would say about academics and pseudo-academics that prefer feudal theocracy to capitalist democracy?
Lobby Ludd said,
July 8, 2009 at 6:59 pm
“Yes and I wonder what Marx would say about academics and pseudo-academics that prefer feudal theocracy to capitalist democracy?”
I think he would ask under what circumstances they preferred feudal theocracy to capitalist democracy.
If they thought that theocracy were intrinsically superior to democracy, he would say one thing. If they were talking, say, about a war of aggression he would say another.
This kind of ‘gotcha’ mentality is a pain in the arse. If I ‘support’ X against Y it does not mean that I have any great love for X. This should not be difficult to understand. Unfortunately it seems to be.
johng said,
July 8, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I have no idea Max. Do any academics or pseudo academics prefer feudal theocracy to capitalist democracy? I’ve never come across any.
Ed said,
July 8, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Surely there’s a distinction between an attitude *to religion* (ie an understanding of its persistence, etc) and an attitude *to religious movements*, ie politics. On the former, I think johng has a point. On the latter, the SWP is all over the place.
Aguirre said,
July 8, 2009 at 5:51 pm
What a character johng is. Fellating Islamic fundamentalists one minute, the next eagerly offering his palid arse to Christian ex-Marxists. The degenerate nature of today’s far left is perfectly illustrated by him, so in that respect at least he is very useful.
John, what do you plan to indulge in with Hindu extremists? Someting truly filthy I hope!
Lobby Ludd said,
July 8, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Aguirre, you are a fool. You have not understood what johng wrote.
This web site, despite the good intentions of its owners, seems often to be a playground for idiot anti-SWP sentiments.
Harry’s Place is where arses like Aguirre should play, plenty of room for them, somebody might even agree with you Aguirre, you prat.
johng said,
July 8, 2009 at 6:24 pm
What ought the attitude of Marxists be to religious movements?
johng said,
July 8, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I should say that I am simply wondering what contributers to this site think. My own belief is that that attitude ought to be conditioned by the Marxist attitude to religion, rather then seperated from it. Importantly this does not give a stock answer to the question.
Matt said,
July 8, 2009 at 8:27 pm
johng, the Marxist attitude to religious movements is conditioned by those movements attitudes to the working class, womens rights etc. You cannot formulate a single outlook that covers groups such as Quakers and Baptists as well as Wahabbi Islam and the Roman Catholic Church.
Aguirre said,
July 8, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Apologies, I was incorrect. There is ONE religion John and his SWP chums utterly detest. Can you guess which it is???
Dr Paul said,
July 8, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I’ve always had my doubts about Dawkins, I find that his rooting every problem in religion is quite banal. It also leads him into some very dubious places, such as:
‘In an interview with the Guardian, he [Dawkins] said: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told — religious Jews anyway — than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/01/internationaleducationnews.religion
Now if anyone wrote that on this site, he would be mauled by Jim D — and quite rightly too.
The Guardian did print my response:
‘The limitations of Professor Richard Dawkins’ narrow secularist approach are sadly apparent in his comment about the supposed strength of what he terms the “Jewish lobby” in the US (Atheists Arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America’s unbelievers, October 1). The “Jewish lobby” doesn’t exist; an Israel lobby certainly exists, but it does not “monopolise US foreign policy”; it is not primarily a religious movement, religious Jews do not play that much of a role in it, and its most religious faction is that of the Christian Zionists. The development of a secular movement in the US would be welcome, but Dawkins’ ignorant assertion will do nothing to put it on a healthy footing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/04/religion.uk
I tend to see ‘Ditchkins’ as inverted theologians; whereas a theologian sees his religion as the fount of all knowledge and goodness; the ‘Ditchkins’ of this world see religion as the fount of all ignorance and evil. Marx had this pinned a long, long time ago, when he clearly understood the genuine reason for and role of religion in society. Dawkins & Co seem unaware of this, and are actually going a few steps backwards from Marx. We have to build on Marx, not retreat from him.
As for Terry Eagleton, I was under the impression that he was always a Roman Catholic. Now when he adopted Marxism (and some might ask if he ever did so), and whether he still considers himself a Marxist, that’s another matter…
johng said,
July 8, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Matt your position is completely correct. There is no one attitude to religious movements. I read Eagleton’ s book on Ethics and I’d heartily recommend it to any Marxist.
johng said,
July 8, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Have’nt read the book on religion yet but an American friend who is as hard an athiest as its possible to be enjoyed it enourmously.
johng said,
July 8, 2009 at 11:59 pm
“Marx had this pinned a long, long time ago, when he clearly understood the genuine reason for and role of religion in society. Dawkins & Co seem unaware of this, and are actually going a few steps backwards from Marx. We have to build on Marx, not retreat from him”
Nicely put. Its distressing to see the retreat of would be Marxists from Marxism into the realms of mysticism.
johng said,
July 9, 2009 at 12:16 am
The serious consequences of all those discussions about what kinds of clothes muslims wear. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for those who think there is no such thing as Islamophobia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8136500.stm
johng said,
July 9, 2009 at 1:07 am
Engels on early christianity:
http://atheism.about.com/library/marxism/bl_EngelsEarlyChrist.htm
An interesting foot-note on Islam reveals an orientalist contrast between christianity as a social movement and Islam as a social movement. For Engels Christianity did allow a fight to the finish against an old social order, but in Islam its a recurring pattern. This is however not rooted in the essential nature of either Islam or Christianity, but in different social systems for Engels (viz the contrast between western feudalism deemed part of a linear development and eastern despotism deemed cyclical), even if he derives these models from other sources. Oddly the pattern he describes does resemble that of one of the great Islamic philosophers: can’t remember his name. Nevertheless, its far and away superior to anything written by the likes of Dawkins despite this. The footnote is here:
1] NOTE BY ENGELS: A peculiar antithesis to this was the religious risings in the Mohammedan world, particularly in Africa. Islam is a religion adapted to Orientals, especially Arabs, i.e., on one hand to townsmen engaged in trade and industry, on the other to nomadic Bedouins. Therein lies, however, the embryo of a periodically recurring collision. The townspeople grow rich, luxurious and lax in the observation of the “law.” The Bedouins, poor and hence of strict morals, contemplate with envy and covetousness these riches and pleasures. Then they unite under a prophet, a Mahdi, to chastise the apostates and restore the observation of the ritual and the true faith and to appropriate in recompense the treasures of the renegades. In a hundred years they are naturally in the same position as the renegades were: a new purge of the faith is required, a new Mahdi arises and the game starts again from the beginning. That is what happened from the conquest campaigns of the African Almoravids and Almohads in Spain to the last Mahdi of Khartoum who so successfully thwarted the English. It happened in the same way or similarly with the risings in Persia and other Mohammedan countries. All these movements are clothed in religion but they have their source in economic causes; and yet, even when they are victorious, they allow the old economic conditions to persist untouched. So the old situation remains unchanged and the collision recurs periodically. In the popular risings of the Christian West, on the contrary, the religious disguise is only a flag and a mask for attacks on an economic order which is becoming antiquated. This is finally overthrown, a new one arises and the world progresses.
[2] “Pardon the humble and make war on the proud.”
johng said,
July 9, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I don’t know if Jim Denham has read Engels account of early Christianity as Communism etc, or his comparisons of Social Democracy and a religious movement. Perhaps, as with so many things, he might realise that whilst he thinks he’s attacking a degeneration away from Marxism, he’s actually just attacking Marxism.
maxdunbar said,
July 9, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Talk amongst yourself, johng
johng'spsychiatrist said,
July 9, 2009 at 2:58 pm
John is indeed talking amongst himself, for he has Proxymorphic Multi Personality Syndrome. Uniquely however, all John’s personalities are crushingly boring* and morally stunted.
* Bar ‘Torvig’ a 9th century Viking hesir, who speaks in a booming voice and rails against all the other personalities’ membership of the StWC.
johng said,
July 9, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Well given that Engels would probably have been denounced for returning to Christianity in exactly the same way and opposing ‘narrow rationalism’ it does seem relevent. The idiocy and ignorence of people who claim to speak in the name of the enlightenment is a wonder to behold.
johng's psychiatrist said,
July 9, 2009 at 8:01 pm
That particular personality was Shirley, a radical contrarian who lived in Crouch End in the mid to late 60′s. She is one of John’s more interesting personalities. Which says it all really.
charliethechulo said,
July 9, 2009 at 10:44 pm
How many more times do us educated Marxiasts have to spell this out to the ignorant (eg John G): Marx was an atheist, and considered atheism fundamental to the enlightenment, of which his thought was a part. Atheism was not, and is not, sufficient: but it’s the starting point for rational thought. John G does not appear to grasp the elementary point that Marx’s criicism of bougeois atheists *wasn’t* their atheism, but their failure to link it with its socio-economic roots. Their atheism was what he AGREED with them over. Which is why the SWP’s sell-out to Islamism is so intellectually despicable…and a betrayal of elementary Marxism: it means that the SWP are not just practically now an anti-working class organisation, but are also theoretically an anti-Marxist organisation.
Rosie said,
July 11, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Piece re Eagleton & Marxism & religion here:-
http://newhumanist.org.uk/2085
As is often said at Butterflies and Wheels Eggheaddown is anxious to rescue Christianity from the crude literalism that he says is in the works of Ditchkins (oh how witty!). Oddly, he doesn’t seem to want to rescue Christianity from the crude literalism that is preached by Pentecostals or Creationists or whoever. Perhaps he could tell those f’wits who think every word of Genesis is true that:-
.
maxdunbar said,
July 11, 2009 at 3:39 pm
‘But what [Eagleton] can never overlook in his opponents is their failure to ever engage in intellectual debate with the likes of the Dominicans who changed the course of his own life at Cambridge. It is because they never exposed themselves to this type of theological debate that they can now be indicted for having “bought their atheism on the cheap”.’
Except that Hitchens toured the Deep South, debating priests, when he published God is Not Great.
Rosie said,
July 11, 2009 at 7:35 pm
I’d love to see a debate between E’ton and Hitchens. I’d put my money on Hitchens. I’ve heard that Martin Amis offered to take E’ton on about Islamism but E’ton wouldn’t agree to it.
maxdunbar said,
July 11, 2009 at 9:01 pm
That lAmis debate was supposed to be at Manchester uni. Eagleton initially agreed but ducked at the last minute. I agree, a clash with Hitchens would be fun.
Eagleton Ducks Out « Shiraz Socialist said,
March 13, 2010 at 12:37 pm
[...] Rosie B, islamism, literature) P>A while ago I said how much I’d like to see a debate between Terry Eagleton and Christopher Hitchens. It seems I’m bound for disappointment according to this interview here:- Interviewer:- One [...]