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.
Absolutely! And so nicely put! For myself, there was no one else around when I heard the lecture in my room, so I was able to laugh out aloud every now and then, without having to submit myself to a civilized consideration of anybody else's feelings...
They do not understand like most of the those making comments. Apparently they have read the title and know nothing of philosophy and think their personal attacks are profound...real it just shows their ignorance
Upon a re-examination of the Q and A, I am astounded that so many established scholars are able to put forth questions that exhibit such a profoundly deep ignorance of Christianity's baseline orthodox positions.
well when you're 'educated' in Western civilization, religious 'superstition' doesn't tend to figure in there, since humanity has it all figured out now with its 'progress' in leaps and bounds, haven't you heard?? i'm not surprised if they're really so ignorant, not even a little. don't overestimate intellectuals, they preach open minds and seeking truth but are afraid of God-talk because they got bored in church as kids
The questioners all seemed stuck in the basic Dawkins level questions of scientific evidence for God, like the speaker says it never gets beyond the Yeti or Loch Ness monster. This talk is only a decade old but wow, how of its time it is, especially the audience.
daquidi He asked precisely the question I would like to have asked, had I been there, which was to do with the foundation upon which Eagleton basis his religious views. I though it a good and relevant question.
The sound seems to be from a mic on his shirt; that picks up a small range of his voice and not much else - not the audience’s reactions (unless they were howling with laughter)
48:34 *reason must end somewhere* “One way in which one can see that ones love is not reducible to reasons (though it involves them) is that somebody else can accept all the reasons that you give and not love the person themselves.
Yeah, right, an aging Marxist who more or less admits his ideas are past their sell-by date, who engages in ad hominem attacks, who presumes to know the political views of his opponents and who offers no argued response to the atheism of those whom he cites. He makes no case for faith and displays a simple confirmation bias in conjunction with special pleading. He conflates Northern Ireland with the world-wide Islamic fundamentalist movement by claiming that they are both politically motivated; ironic given more recent events in the Middle East and the efforts of ISIS to establish a theocratic caliphate. His work on literary theory is interesting; he should stick to what he knows because here he just appears to be a washed-up, knee-jerk apologist with no real grasp of the issues involved in modern atheism.
As frustratingly disengaged as the audience was, I wonder if Eagleton wasn’t helping himself in being a little too clever for his own good. This is illustrated by the first question from the floor, which shows that a lot of what he was eloquently communicating was going in one rationalist ear and put the other. Someone like Alister McGrath would have nailed that.
Interesting that right before this I watched a different (or closely similar) version of the same lecture that he did at Yale and the audience LOVED it and was cracking up at all the jokes, this audience was terrifyingly cold, he was NOT popular in this room! American intelligentsia are so warm and fuzzy compared to the Brits lol.
Terry Eagleton is too intelligent for his time he is too subtle and nuanced for people to hook onto his ideas. People want answers that are certain, including new-atheists. They would say, "I know certainly there is no god", which is the same side of the coin to the theist position "I know for certain that there is a god", logically they two sides of the same coin, as absolute as the other. To say "I do not know, and I am comfortable in not knowing", not only is the source of wisdom, it is the start of science. In other words, it's a shame the wisdom that Terry Eagleton imparts is lost on the idiots in the comment feeds.
so you think you are nuanced? none of the new atheists says that they 'know for certain" that there is no god. quite the opposite: i can produce quotes proving my point for all of the 'four horsemen' if you insist.
@@Shm00ly They are arguing that the burden of proof for a god has not been met, and then they in turn argue that the same is true of theistic religions - the burden has not been met. They also argue that in fact many of the theistic gods are not worthy of worship or inherently contradictory, and they use the evidence provided by the religions themselves to show this. @Here0s0Johnny is right in that that is not the same as saying there is no god, it is merely saying that those who claim there *is* have not met their burden. It is one person making a positive claim and the other asking the person making it to prove their claim. Now, if they made the positive claim that there is no god - that is on them to prove. I wish them luck doing so. But they aren't. makes
The public clearly has no idea who Britney Spears, Bradd Pitt or Lady Gaga are..... sigh. That aside, what a brilliant and at the same time modest and inviting lecture. Quite different from the agressive, over self assured statements Dawkins c.s. shout. As if they trie to shut up the anxiety and doubt in their own minds. If we are ever to understand religion as something that can have value and is NOT an explanation or a narrow defined prescription on how to live your life, what to think, do and feel at any given time, but a way to look at people and to love them, we better listen to professor Eagleton. And if we are ever to escape the nihilism, hypocrisy and absurdity of hyper capitalist society - that put large bombshells under our neatly organized political systems - we better learn that we need the utter humanist values, that Jesus or Marx showed to us, rather than the mechanical and value-free view of society as a wealth producing and consuming assembly of people and resources. People need much more than being a consumer or emplyer/employee, to give their lives a perspective, that makes it worthwhile to keep on living, rather than just breathing, working, eating and crapping. But for that, one has to get away from the desire to prove that God exists and move to a position, in which it doesn't matter wether He exists or not, but that what is told to us by generations long before our time, holds some core values and lessons that still have significance today. To do away with mythology as a doctrine, one does not understand its purpose. And yes, then it becomes opium for the people in order to keep them quiet and obedient. And yes, one has to have read and understand Marx, to comprehend that.
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.
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
It sounds constrained of Eagleton to call September 11th 2001 the "second 9/11". Of course it's true, but if it were such an important point, he should have been able to date it back to the actual year of 1973, and not the historically more elegant 1971, just for rhetoric's sake.
That is Eagleton for you who was at my university tonight and he was just as pompous and smug . Somebody asked him what should they do if they can't bring themselves to believe the central doctrines of Christianity no matter how hard they tried. His response? "Don't be a Christian! It's not an obligation" Rest of the panel looked at him confusingly. And he goes on about the shortcomings of western liberalism and when I asked him a question about modernity and despair he dismissed it as angsty
Yeah, and then the host praised him on his humorous touches, which was the funniest part; "thanks for all the laughs, offered but not enjoyed by anyone in here."
I don't get it. I'm only 15 minutes in here, but he seems to be railing against the "new atheist" authors for their criticisms being a misunderstanding of this enlightened and educated view of the Bible. Which of course, is not what the vast majority of the believers believe or are even aware of. Obviously, their writings and lectures are entirely against what the vast majority believe, not what this particular scholar thinks about it all. Therefore, why isn't he railing against the believers?
I like Eagleton for his historical understanding of Marx. But his devotion to his own brand of criticsm has left him unable to understand why so many people wish to be done with god. Dawkins, et al. only jumped into it, saying what was already on the minds of many. Hitchens merely provided courage. People are tired of being forced to deal with injections of god everytime they want to talk about science, responsibility, freewill, cognition, knowledge, ethics, reality, ... how to spend freetime.
What would happen to Christianity if it stopped telling its believers the egregious lie that they are immortal ? If it acknowledged the obvious fact that all living organisms die?
Seems to me there's either a creator/god, like religious people believe, or there isn't, or we can't know. There is no evidence I've ever come across to believe in a creator God. Darwin struck biggest blow against the miraculous creation of life. Science continues to explain phenomenon that once seemed miraculous and there's less and less need for God. As for cultural/artistic significance, that's an interesting realm and can be fun to learn about.
I agree completely. He hardly cites anything that either Htchens or Dawkins wrote, but "refutes" them. Granted you can find things that are wrong in both these authors, but I see no refutation here. Mostly ad hominems. His remarks on Postmodernism though, are spot on.
I don't think he's as much interested in proof of God's existence as he is in the "essence” which is revealed by social practice is the dialectical unfolding of the thing through successively deeper and deeper meanings. Not a final essence which can never be revealed, but the process of revealing ever deeper meanings, if that makes sense? I kinda just think the two different camps are speaking two different languages at each over.
It's only a minor point, but he's not really critiquing Fukuyama. The name of the whole topic/debate etc. of course derives from his book, however he did not posit post-ideological pragmatism*. As written in the 1989 article: "[the 20th century] seems at its close to be returning full circle to where it started: not to an 'end of ideology' (...), but to an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism." * I think you already know this, but just to remind you.
@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.
I've just watched the same lecture given by the same person, twice, each time under a different title. The Death of Criticism. The God Debate. Shouldn't I ask for my money back?
Is Terry Eagleton serious? Why is "God" brought back in? Because many believe in a metaphysical, personal God as TRUTH. Has he not visited America? Has he not observed religious fanaticism? Why is he critizing Dawkins and Hitchens, who courageously ask for proof of a metaphysical personal God by many preachers and believers, who should be asked for justification for such a belief.
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.
as far as i'm aware dawkins usually states things about creation to creationists not anglica theists. who of course generally accept most of scientific understanding.
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...
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
Why is there anything, rather than nothing at all. Early in ...Sein und Zeit. This has always been the only question. It always will be . The Cosmos will evolve beyond mans contingent ability to understand, infinitely.
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.
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.
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.
and the second questioner reveals his ignorance about the equality of human beings as biblically attested, particularly in the New Testament and by St. Paul.... is this the quality of minds that the University of Edinburgh can produce???
I agree with the man who spoke about Islam conquering Europe. The threat of Islam, which is a terrible religion, makes it vital that Christianity should not only survive but flourish. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. It is a vital part of our culture which will not survive without it. The threat of Islam is much greater now than when this lecture took place.
You may very well be right, although I sincerely doubt you understand what he's talking about. People who throw around "nuff said" to make a rhetorical point betray ignorance. The truth is, you have no clue what he's talking about, do you?
Ok.. I have no problem that he is contrasting the argument as much of what he attributes to atheist argument has to do with creationism, which is a major problem in the U.S. and that an argument with a more moderate christian would have quite a different style to it's content in some places. What bothers be already within 15 minutes is that he simply rephrases the same assertions used by any other theist as to give it a more reasonable and artistic sound, shown using more subtle fallacies.
ooops, you gave it away again: "Completely absent is any convincing argument for the existence of God". Duh. That's not what he's talking about. It has nothing to do with anything he's said. Again, I don't think the problem is the speaker, it's you. You say "Marxism... a philosophy mired in irrational precepts". You don't have to agree with Marx to know that Marxism-Hegelianism is a rationalist philosophy. If you don't know that, then stop now, and go read books, please.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Whilst it was interesting, and whilst he's clearly not an outright athiest or a fundamental theist, having never heard anything about him previously, I'm left unclear as to what branch of this wider debate Terry Eagleton represents. Does anyone know? Is he's an agnostic, agnostic-theist, or a ('gentle') theist perhaps? Thanks!
It is so sad that this bloke is from the psychology department, and he so sceptically, arrogantly inquires for the evidence of God. If you read only the first chapter of Jung's Aion, you will find evidence based on facts i.e. experience (facere = do, factum = what has been done, neuter past particple; učinjeno = done, činjenica = fact činiti = do, tatsache = fact, tat is past participle form tun=to do, sache is thing, so a done thing) that God exists, but in a rather complex way. And I am so agitated and sad at the same time, because I have to stress that Carl Gustav Jung was, by far, the greatest psychiatrist an psychologist that ever lived; to me, he is the most important theoretician of all, because his works helped me incomparably. And you can sense this bloke's neurotics from a mile away. Why he is neurotic, I leave for someone else to discover, but I have a pretty clear idea. Freud destroyed him hahahahaha. Freud's theory is wrong, by the way, and completely false, at least concerning the structure of the psyche and man's motivations. He has done so much damage to the modern man. But, the point is that you have to be rational in order to arrive at a conclusion of God's existence, and of course you have to feel it. As an important early christian said, (I can't remember the name know, Augustus?) to know God is to know yourself. Enough. I have a presentation to prepare on The Wretched of the Earth, and I'm seriously running out of time. When you had two weeks to prepare, and you didn't, and you are due to present tomorrow, you would just like to bang your head against the wall. Now time is worth more than platinum.
no one's jealous of the "four horseman"...he appeals to people with intellectual leanings that are actually interested in philosophy, historical relevance and cultural critique, instead of merely waving away theology with a cliche "where's the evidence?" approach.
Collectorp123 Well, where is the evidence? Cliche does not imply folly. Perhaps in this particular case it has become cliched because it's still the best and most obvious refutation?
I agree there is no rational or emperical evidence for God, but the kind of 'return to the enlightenment rationality' that the new atheists invoke isn't going to get us anywhere either. We need ways of critiquing our era politically that doesn't fall upon science alone.
@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 ;)
Oh, I strongly disagree with that statement! I certainly dont 'beleive' in a god, but my position has come about, following the analysis of the facts, and because there is no credible evidence to support that hypothesis. HOWEVER, should credible evidence ever become available, then I'm more than happy to review my position in relation to that evidence; just as I'm prepared to review my position in relation to anything!
Really interesting perspective on the rise of new atheism. I think on the whole I agree with Eagleton's take on Christianity, but watching him defend his belief in God is painful. He seems to flounder around the idea that the veracity of Christianity hinges around some deep "truths" from his own interpretation of Scripture that resonate with him emotionally. IMO this is a rather unfortunate view, given the variety of truly rational ways to argue for God's existence (universal fine-tuning, etc.)
Are we gods? We're certainly playing god. And maybe what we evolve into one day, will become god-like, perhaps with the ability to create entire universes. And maybe that's what religion really is, an outer expression of our god like inner world, wherein infinite potential exists. Human beings are carrying around with them something incredibly powerful - that is to say the potential of god like intelligence. Religion in that sense is similar to the role science fiction plays today, preparing us for our destiny in the stars
@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.
I notice a few comments about the dull audience not laughing at his jokes. Well, jokes require humorous content do they not? Would have been great if Hitchens was still here so he could have wiped the floor with this boring man!
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.
ok, I didn't say I agreed with him, I just said he was funny, I actually don't like him much. But your response sounds pretty serious, you should calm down.
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??
Why? The idea of god is dying. People are getting smarter, not everyone feels the need to scapegoat their actions any more or believe in the silly legend of "god". Where is the proof? This guy doesn't give any sort real response to anything Hitchens says.
@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
@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).
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.
Absolutely! And so nicely put! For myself, there was no one else around when I heard the lecture in my room, so I was able to laugh out aloud every now and then, without having to submit myself to a civilized consideration of anybody else's feelings...
It's a shame no one's laughing at his jokes.
Who says it only cares about one tiny mammal?
The microphones are pointinng at him not them.
They do not understand like most of the those making comments. Apparently they have read the title and know nothing of philosophy and think their personal attacks are profound...real it just shows their ignorance
Upon a re-examination of the Q and A, I am astounded that so many established scholars are able to put forth questions that exhibit such a profoundly deep ignorance of Christianity's baseline orthodox positions.
well when you're 'educated' in Western civilization, religious 'superstition' doesn't tend to figure in there, since humanity has it all figured out now with its 'progress' in leaps and bounds, haven't you heard??
i'm not surprised if they're really so ignorant, not even a little. don't overestimate intellectuals, they preach open minds and seeking truth but are afraid of God-talk because they got bored in church as kids
The questioners all seemed stuck in the basic Dawkins level questions of scientific evidence for God, like the speaker says it never gets beyond the Yeti or Loch Ness monster. This talk is only a decade old but wow, how of its time it is, especially the audience.
I think the Chile coup was in 1973 but his point is taken; history didn't start or end in 2001 just because it was the US that was attacked
did the guy who asked the first question even listen to the lecture??? or did he read sam harris or dawkins while eagleton was speaking...
daquidi He asked precisely the question I would like to have asked, had I been there, which was to do with the foundation upon which Eagleton basis his religious views. I though it a good and relevant question.
Nai61a
Is Eagleton a believer?
Doug Tarnopol Yes, I think he is, which I find surprising.
Well, Chrisian Marxism surely exists. :)
Most of the questions missed the mark really
My GOD! What a stiff crowd.
He would have found more engagement presenting this in a science lab.
The sound seems to be from a mic on his shirt; that picks up a small range of his voice and not much else - not the audience’s reactions (unless they were howling with laughter)
48:34 *reason must end somewhere* “One way in which one can see that ones love is not reducible to reasons (though it involves them) is that somebody else can accept all the reasons that you give and not love the person themselves.
Brilliant thinker, and very humorous to boot
Yeah, right, an aging Marxist who more or less admits his ideas are past their sell-by date, who engages in ad hominem attacks, who presumes to know the political views of his opponents and who offers no argued response to the atheism of those whom he cites. He makes no case for faith and displays a simple confirmation bias in conjunction with special pleading. He conflates Northern Ireland with the world-wide Islamic fundamentalist movement by claiming that they are both politically motivated; ironic given more recent events in the Middle East and the efforts of ISIS to establish a theocratic caliphate. His work on literary theory is interesting; he should stick to what he knows because here he just appears to be a washed-up, knee-jerk apologist with no real grasp of the issues involved in modern atheism.
@@Nai61a Shut up dude noone cares
a brilliant lecture sadly lost upon the people who have been raised on a diet of ditchkins
Starts at 1:59. Good stuff!
As frustratingly disengaged as the audience was, I wonder if Eagleton wasn’t helping himself in being a little too clever for his own good. This is illustrated by the first question from the floor, which shows that a lot of what he was eloquently communicating was going in one rationalist ear and put the other. Someone like Alister McGrath would have nailed that.
Tough crowd 😬
Poor guy. So brilliant but ultimately a human who would have preferred the mob to laugh at his jokes.
Interesting that right before this I watched a different (or closely similar) version of the same lecture that he did at Yale and the audience LOVED it and was cracking up at all the jokes, this audience was terrifyingly cold, he was NOT popular in this room! American intelligentsia are so warm and fuzzy compared to the Brits lol.
Terry Eagleton is too intelligent for his time he is too subtle and nuanced for people to hook onto his ideas. People want answers that are certain, including new-atheists. They would say, "I know certainly there is no god", which is the same side of the coin to the theist position "I know for certain that there is a god", logically they two sides of the same coin, as absolute as the other. To say "I do not know, and I am comfortable in not knowing", not only is the source of wisdom, it is the start of science.
In other words, it's a shame the wisdom that Terry Eagleton imparts is lost on the idiots in the comment feeds.
so you think you are nuanced?
none of the new atheists says that they 'know for certain" that there is no god.
quite the opposite: i can produce quotes proving my point for all of the 'four horsemen' if you insist.
@@Here0s0Johnny So in that case what are new atheists arguing if not the absolute discrediting of religious belief?
@@Shm00ly They are arguing that the burden of proof for a god has not been met, and then they in turn argue that the same is true of theistic religions - the burden has not been met. They also argue that in fact many of the theistic gods are not worthy of worship or inherently contradictory, and they use the evidence provided by the religions themselves to show this.
@Here0s0Johnny is right in that that is not the same as saying there is no god, it is merely saying that those who claim there *is* have not met their burden.
It is one person making a positive claim and the other asking the person making it to prove their claim. Now, if they made the positive claim that there is no god - that is on them to prove. I wish them luck doing so. But they aren't.
makes
The public clearly has no idea who Britney Spears, Bradd Pitt or Lady Gaga are..... sigh. That aside, what a brilliant and at the same time modest and inviting lecture. Quite different from the agressive, over self assured statements Dawkins c.s. shout. As if they trie to shut up the anxiety and doubt in their own minds.
If we are ever to understand religion as something that can have value and is NOT an explanation or a narrow defined prescription on how to live your life, what to think, do and feel at any given time, but a way to look at people and to love them, we better listen to professor Eagleton.
And if we are ever to escape the nihilism, hypocrisy and absurdity of hyper capitalist society - that put large bombshells under our neatly organized political systems - we better learn that we need the utter humanist values, that Jesus or Marx showed to us, rather than the mechanical and value-free view of society as a wealth producing and consuming assembly of people and resources.
People need much more than being a consumer or emplyer/employee, to give their lives a perspective, that makes it worthwhile to keep on living, rather than just breathing, working, eating and crapping.
But for that, one has to get away from the desire to prove that God exists and move to a position, in which it doesn't matter wether He exists or not, but that what is told to us by generations long before our time, holds some core values and lessons that still have significance today.
To do away with mythology as a doctrine, one does not understand its purpose. And yes, then it becomes opium for the people in order to keep them quiet and obedient. And yes, one has to have read and understand Marx, to comprehend that.
Tough crowd .....
this is brilliant
Mohib Ali shah agreed, I would love days of conversation with him.
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.
or to use a more theological term 'just for the hell of it'
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
It sounds constrained of Eagleton to call September 11th 2001 the "second 9/11". Of course it's true, but if it were such an important point, he should have been able to date it back to the actual year of 1973, and not the historically more elegant 1971, just for rhetoric's sake.
First audience question could maybe have been handled by pointing out the “belief in evidence” itself is “evidence of belief”…
@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
"When religion starts to interfere with the rest of your life, then it's time to 'give it up'..." - TE (Edinburgh)... END
That is Eagleton for you who was at my university tonight and he was just as pompous and smug . Somebody asked him what should they do if they can't bring themselves to believe the central doctrines of Christianity no matter how hard they tried. His response? "Don't be a Christian! It's not an obligation" Rest of the panel looked at him confusingly. And he goes on about the shortcomings of western liberalism and when I asked him a question about modernity and despair he dismissed it as angsty
Yeah, and then the host praised him on his humorous touches, which was the funniest part; "thanks for all the laughs, offered but not enjoyed by anyone in here."
I don't get it. I'm only 15 minutes in here, but he seems to be railing against the "new atheist" authors for their criticisms being a misunderstanding of this enlightened and educated view of the Bible. Which of course, is not what the vast majority of the believers believe or are even aware of. Obviously, their writings and lectures are entirely against what the vast majority believe, not what this particular scholar thinks about it all. Therefore, why isn't he railing against the believers?
"Very solemn audience." 15:51
I like Eagleton for his historical understanding of Marx. But his devotion to his own brand of criticsm has left him unable to understand why so many people wish to be done with god. Dawkins, et al. only jumped into it, saying what was already on the minds of many. Hitchens merely provided courage. People are tired of being forced to deal with injections of god everytime they want to talk about science, responsibility, freewill, cognition, knowledge, ethics, reality, ... how to spend freetime.
Excellent camera work.
What would happen to Christianity if it stopped telling its believers the egregious lie that they are immortal ? If it acknowledged the obvious fact that all living organisms die?
Belief in God is for those afraid of the dark ( Hawking) unbelief is for those who are afraid of the light.
Seems to me there's either a creator/god, like religious people believe, or there isn't, or we can't know. There is no evidence I've ever come across to believe in a creator God. Darwin struck biggest blow against the miraculous creation of life. Science continues to explain phenomenon that once seemed miraculous and there's less and less need for God. As for cultural/artistic significance, that's an interesting realm and can be fun to learn about.
alrigt I giggled at his "yetish" comment XD! An image of God "flitting through the forest" made me laugh XD
Curious why one would dub this The God Debate! Who is he willing to debate?
'Unilateral spiritual disarmament' -- Like that phraseology....
pretty sure that like, his posturing of the end behind the use of the word like is like pretty accurate yeah
I agree completely. He hardly cites anything that either Htchens or Dawkins wrote, but "refutes" them. Granted you can find things that are wrong in both these authors, but I see no refutation here. Mostly ad hominems. His remarks on Postmodernism though, are spot on.
I don't think he's as much interested in proof of God's existence as he is in the "essence” which is revealed by social practice is the dialectical unfolding of the thing through successively deeper and deeper meanings. Not a final essence which can never be revealed, but the process of revealing ever deeper meanings, if that makes sense?
I kinda just think the two different camps are speaking two different languages at each over.
Watched all of it
It's only a minor point, but he's not really critiquing Fukuyama. The name of the whole topic/debate etc. of course derives from his book, however he did not posit post-ideological pragmatism*. As written in the 1989 article: "[the 20th century] seems at its close to be returning full circle to where it started: not to an 'end of ideology' (...), but to an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism."
* I think you already know this, but just to remind you.
@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.
I've just watched the same lecture given by the same person, twice, each time under a different title. The Death of Criticism. The God Debate. Shouldn't I ask for my money back?
@mindwis3 You got me with the "wrt"!!! Would that be "with regards to"?
Phenomenal.
Is Terry Eagleton serious? Why is "God" brought back in? Because many believe in a metaphysical, personal God as TRUTH. Has he not visited America? Has he not observed religious fanaticism?
Why is he critizing Dawkins and Hitchens, who courageously ask for proof of a metaphysical personal God by many preachers and believers, who should be asked for justification for such a belief.
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.
as far as i'm aware dawkins usually states things about creation to creationists not anglica theists. who of course generally accept most of scientific understanding.
Damn, he said some hilarious shit that nobody laughed @...somebody revive that crowd, I think they're dead!
Still no evidence of any kind of God, scientific or otherwise.
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...
@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.
Good routine, tough crowd. Happens to the best acts.
@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.
Gwyn Williams. Salvador Allende was not overthrown in 1971 but in 1973
That first question was embarrassingly aggressive and ignorant
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.
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.
Why is there anything, rather than nothing at all. Early in ...Sein und Zeit. This has always been the only question. It always will be . The Cosmos will evolve beyond
mans contingent ability to understand, infinitely.
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.
@SilentMike0 You were providing an example there?
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.
amusing stuff! Thanks!
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.
and the second questioner reveals his ignorance about the equality of human beings as biblically attested, particularly in the New Testament and by St. Paul.... is this the quality of minds that the University of Edinburgh can produce???
I agree with the man who spoke about Islam conquering Europe. The threat of Islam, which is a terrible religion, makes it vital that Christianity should not only survive but flourish. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. It is a vital part of our culture which will not survive without it. The threat of Islam is much greater now than when this lecture took place.
You may very well be right, although I sincerely doubt you understand what he's talking about. People who throw around "nuff said" to make a rhetorical point betray ignorance. The truth is, you have no clue what he's talking about, do you?
@arktheball
I fail to understand what you are getting at. Do you mean I psychoanalyzed someone in my comment? I can't see where.
Ok.. I have no problem that he is contrasting the argument as much of what he attributes to atheist argument has to do with creationism, which is a major problem in the U.S. and that an argument with a more moderate christian would have quite a different style to it's content in some places. What bothers be already within 15 minutes is that he simply rephrases the same assertions used by any other theist as to give it a more reasonable and artistic sound, shown using more subtle fallacies.
You tell 'em Dr. Lyndon
ooops, you gave it away again: "Completely absent is any convincing argument for the existence of God". Duh. That's not what he's talking about. It has nothing to do with anything he's said. Again, I don't think the problem is the speaker, it's you. You say "Marxism... a philosophy mired in irrational precepts". You don't have to agree with Marx to know that Marxism-Hegelianism is a rationalist philosophy. If you don't know that, then stop now, and go read books, please.
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.
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.
SHIVA'S THIRD EYE REVEALS THE TRUTH
@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.
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.
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.
Whilst it was interesting, and whilst he's clearly not an outright athiest or a fundamental theist, having never heard anything about him previously, I'm left unclear as to what branch of this wider debate Terry Eagleton represents. Does anyone know? Is he's an agnostic, agnostic-theist, or a ('gentle') theist perhaps? Thanks!
He seems to be a Marxist Catholic.
It is so sad that this bloke is from the psychology department, and he so sceptically, arrogantly inquires for the evidence of God. If you read only the first chapter of Jung's Aion, you will find evidence based on facts i.e. experience (facere = do, factum = what has been done, neuter past particple; učinjeno = done, činjenica = fact činiti = do, tatsache = fact, tat is past participle form tun=to do, sache is thing, so a done thing) that God exists, but in a rather complex way. And I am so agitated and sad at the same time, because I have to stress that Carl Gustav Jung was, by far, the greatest psychiatrist an psychologist that ever lived; to me, he is the most important theoretician of all, because his works helped me incomparably. And you can sense this bloke's neurotics from a mile away. Why he is neurotic, I leave for someone else to discover, but I have a pretty clear idea. Freud destroyed him hahahahaha. Freud's theory is wrong, by the way, and completely false, at least concerning the structure of the psyche and man's motivations. He has done so much damage to the modern man. But, the point is that you have to be rational in order to arrive at a conclusion of God's existence, and of course you have to feel it. As an important early christian said, (I can't remember the name know, Augustus?) to know God is to know yourself. Enough. I have a presentation to prepare on The Wretched of the Earth, and I'm seriously running out of time. When you had two weeks to prepare, and you didn't, and you are due to present tomorrow, you would just like to bang your head against the wall. Now time is worth more than platinum.
So this guy is for those who are jealous or angry at 'the four horsemen'?
no one's jealous of the "four horseman"...he appeals to people with intellectual leanings that are actually interested in philosophy, historical relevance and cultural critique, instead of merely waving away theology with a cliche "where's the evidence?" approach.
Collectorp123 Well, where is the evidence? Cliche does not imply folly. Perhaps in this particular case it has become cliched because it's still the best and most obvious refutation?
I agree there is no rational or emperical evidence for God, but the kind of 'return to the enlightenment rationality' that the new atheists invoke isn't going to get us anywhere either. We need ways of critiquing our era politically that doesn't fall upon science alone.
Well, where is it?
I'm asking you, where's the evidence? I don't even care if you've seen the 'lecture' or not.. I want to know from you.
@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 ;)
Oh, I strongly disagree with that statement! I certainly dont 'beleive' in a god, but my position has come about, following the analysis of the facts, and because there is no credible evidence to support that hypothesis. HOWEVER, should credible evidence ever become available, then I'm more than happy to review my position in relation to that evidence; just as I'm prepared to review my position in relation to anything!
Really interesting perspective on the rise of new atheism. I think on the whole I agree with Eagleton's take on Christianity, but watching him defend his belief in God is painful. He seems to flounder around the idea that the veracity of Christianity hinges around some deep "truths" from his own interpretation of Scripture that resonate with him emotionally. IMO this is a rather unfortunate view, given the variety of truly rational ways to argue for God's existence (universal fine-tuning, etc.)
Are we gods? We're certainly playing god.
And maybe what we evolve into one day, will become god-like, perhaps with the ability to create entire universes.
And maybe that's what religion really is, an outer expression of our god like inner world, wherein infinite potential exists. Human beings are carrying around with them something incredibly powerful - that is to say the potential of god like intelligence.
Religion in that sense is similar to the role science fiction plays today, preparing us for our destiny in the stars
@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.
I notice a few comments about the dull audience not laughing at his jokes. Well, jokes require humorous content do they not? Would have been great if Hitchens was still here so he could have wiped the floor with this boring man!
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.
ok, I didn't say I agreed with him, I just said he was funny, I actually don't like him much. But your response sounds pretty serious, you should calm down.
Good to see Charles Darwin sitting there at the front. Hopefully he learned something.
🤣
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??
He is refuting only a straw man. Proposing that he knows what Dawkins thinks then arguing against that is sad.
Yet you're proposing that you know what HE'S thinking. Hypocrite. Would your answer be, based on his words? Exactly.
Why? The idea of god is dying. People are getting smarter, not everyone feels the need to scapegoat their actions any more or believe in the silly legend of "god". Where is the proof? This guy doesn't give any sort real response to anything Hitchens says.
@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
What is funny is how often he tries to be humorous but invariably fails - tough sub
Even as a believer of God I still don't agree with everything he says. Funny that. I still liked this though.
No more than you dont have the facts that there is no spagetti monster, or a celestial teapot orbiting the sun!
@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).