Terry Eagleton is a Marxist literary critic who lambastes the new atheists. He has written a book on the subject, Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. Here is an interesting conversation with him in the atheist publication New Humanist, which begins with a sampling of Eagleton’s critiques:
Reading the first sentence of Terry Eagleton’s review of The God Delusion in the October 2006 edition of the London Review of Books was not unlike watching a gunfighter kicking over a table of cards in an otherwise well-ordered saloon. “Imagine,” fired Eagleton, “someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”
And that was only the opening volley. Further down the page Eagleton proceeds to shoot up Dawkins’s failure to do justice to the complexity of the God he sought to rout (“He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap”), his literality and lack of imagination (“Dawkins occasionally writes as though ‘Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness’ is a mighty funny way to describe a Grecian urn”) and his belief in the progressive nature of history (“We have it from the mouth of Mr Public Science himself that aside from a few local, temporary hiccups like ecological disasters, famine, ethnic wars and nuclear wastelands, History is perpetually on the up”).


{ 1 trackback }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
At my own blog last night, I noted a NY Times article about Dawkins, in which he talked about his new children’s book, where he tries to talk children out of reading fantasy and fairy stories:
Dawkins said, “I would like to know whether there’s any evidence that bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards and magic things turning into other things—it is unscientific, I think it is anti-scientific. Whether that has a pernicious effect, I don’t know.”
His book for children is to explore children’s relationships with fairy tales and to encourage them to think about the world scientifically rather than mythologically.
Speaking of the NYT, Stanley Fish recently discussed Eagleton’s criticism of religion.
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/god-talk/
And then a couple weeks later, he responded to the most vehement comments:
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/god-talk-part-2/
Both are excellent examples of the way Dr. Fish never reveals his own beliefs and spurs people to honest debate and discussion over big issues.
Pax Christi, y’all!
Eric
Hey Eric,
Thanks for the links to the Fish articles – the second response article is very well done, especially in light of the first. Again thanks.
fish is always a great read.
dawkins is infantile in his outlook. There are some atheists who challenge me to think. He is not one of those.