True, but I know some highly intelligent well-educated people, who are extremely disaffected with the modern global democratic market machine who have been sucked in by his rhetoric, so it is hardly surprising that less intelligent, less well educated 'heartland' Americans, who really are doing it tough (unlike the well-educated people I referred to) are affected by it.

Two derivations of the word 'religion'.

1. Latin 'religio', 'an attitude of awe and reverence to the Gods'. (This was the sense of the word in respect of which Socrates was accused of atheism)

2. 'religare' - derived from ligare (ligament, ligature) 'to join'; in this context, 're-joining' So the meaning here is closer to that of the Sanskrit 'yoga', meaning 'binding' or 'joining' or 'uniting'.

I think a great deal of popular discourse, and even educated discource, about religions, assumes the first meaning and/or is unaware of the second.

Nor is [God] a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing — Wayfarer quoting Eagleton

Well I find that simply incredible, but since I haven't gone to personally ask "a great number of religious believers" to explain precisely what they believe; I will have to remain reliant on my incredulity. All I can say is that if they truly believed that, then they must be either hopeless morons, or have failed to gained any decent education beyond about year 5. — John

Or perhaps most religious believers are not adherents of the sort of hot air suffused word salad that Eagleton spews here. If the typical Christian, say, believes that God is merely "the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever" (whatever that Mad-Libs of a sentence may mean), how to account for intercessory prayer? Are those so engaged aware that they're praying to a non-existent entity?

(I would also ask: did Jesus exist? Is or was Jesus God? If a Christian answers "yes" to those questions, what of the claim that it is somehow theologically naive to say that God "exists"?)

On the personhood of God, I will quote Plantinga and Tooley:

According to classical theistic belief — classical Muslim and Jewish as well as Christian belief — first of all there is God, the chief being of the universe, who has neither beginning nor end. Most important, God is personal. That is, God is the kind of being who is conscious and enjoys some kind of awareness of his surroundings (in God’s case, that would be everything). Second (though not second in importance), a person has loves and hates, wishes and desires; she approves of some things and disapproves of others; she wants things to be a certain way. We might put this by saying that persons have affections. A person, third, is a being who has beliefs and, if fortunate, knowledge. We human beings, for example, believe a host of things… Persons, therefore, have beliefs and affections. Further, a person is a being who has aims and intentions; a person aims to bring it about that things should be a certain way, intends to act so that things will be the way he wants them to be… Finally, persons can often act to fulfill their intentions; they can bring it about that things are a certain way; they can cause things to happen. To be more technical (though not more insightful or more clear), we might say that a person is a being who can actualize states of affairs. Persons can often act on the basis of what they believe in order to bring about states of affairs whose actuality they desire. ¶ So a person is conscious, has affections, beliefs, and intentions, and can act… First, therefore, God is a person. But second, unlike human persons, God is a person without a body. He acts, and acts in the world, as human beings do, but, unlike human beings, not by way of a body. Rather, God acts just by willing: he wills that things be a certain way, and they are that way. (God said “Let there be light”; and there was light.)

http://afterall.net/quotes/alvin-plantinga-on-god-and-personhood/

Actually, I too don't believe in a God who is a person (one of the reasons I didn't get confirmed as Christian, as that was obligatory.) But the way I interpret it is that the ultimate truth is not 'it', but a 'you'. (I think I read in another of Eagleton's books, Culture and the Death of God, that this is something from Schellling.)

But, the upshot is, that perhaps this reality is quite capabe of manifesting as a being, because its actual nature is intelligent or alive (or even life itself). So, it's personal in the sense of not being a thing or force or material energy, but it's not a person in the sense of being a 'supersized human'. (I don't agree at all with Plantinga's depiction in the quote above, I think it's blatantly anthropomorphic.)

As for 'the condition of the possibility' etc - of course, it's a highly awkward phrase. The trouble is, the subject matter is such that it resists any kind of easy verbalisation. Look at the rhetorical knots that get tied around the so-called 'hard problem of consciousness' - and there, you're talking about something which is ostensibly obvious to anyone engaged in the conversation. (After all, we're all conscious.) Whereas, here, you're ostensibly talking about 'the first principle' or 'the origin of all that is'. So getting it wrong, misunderstanding or misrepresenting it, goes with the territory.

So the fact that

perhaps most religious believers are not adherents of the sort of hot air suffused word salad that Eagleton spews here. — Arkady

Doesn't really mean anything about the truth or falsehood of Eageton's critique of Dawkins. The fact that millions of people might believe something to be the case, doesn't mean it's true, as atheists like Dawkins never tire of telling us.

It's like: don't try and use fancy philosophical analysis to talk about what it might really mean; what it really means is what the believer-in-the-street says it means. And what they say it means, is a sky-father-god figure, who throws thunderbolts, and designs. Therefore a 'lowest common denominator' criticism of religion is all that's needed, as that is the only kind of religious sensibility that needs to be discussed.

So, we shouldn't take him seriously because he's new age and probably rich.

Or, he isn't really a Franciscan.

Or, it's detracting from social conservative institutions.

All about identity and ultimately "no true Scotchman" arguments. Boring.

All good reasons to stay stupid. You can disagree with the content of his speech but rejecting what he says out of hand based on personal perceptions is a sure way of only reconfirming what you already know. I'm an atheist and I thought the speech was interesting. He's an entertaining speaker and I agree with his critique on the trinity (I'm a raised catholic) and also recognise the need to operate on a different level to connect with the divine.

thanks Benkei! Spoken like a true Scotsman!

Actually, I too don't believe in a God who is a person (one of the reasons I didn't get confirmed as Christian, as that was obligatory.) But the way I interpret it is that the ultimate truth is not 'it', but a 'you'. (I think I read in another of Eagleton's books, Culture and the Death of God, that this is something from Schellling.)

But, the upshot is, that perhaps this reality is quite capable of manifesting as a being, because its actual nature is intelligent or alive (or even life itself). So, it's personal in the sense of not being a thing or force or material energy, but it's not a person in the sense of being a 'supersized human'. (I don't agree at all with Plantinga's depiction in the quote above, I think it's blatantly anthropomorphic.) — Wayfarer

I wasn't aware that one could be confirmed as a "Christian." (I've heard of, for instance, Catholic confirmation.) Whichever denomination you were at the threshold of joining, do you not find it instructive that a prerequisite of joining was that you accept a personal conception of God? It would seem to be an important part of Christian doctrine or dogma, wouldn't you say? That being the case, why get all hot under the collar when critics of religion describe the monotheistic God as a personal being?

As for 'the condition of the possibility' etc - of course, it's a highly awkward phrase. The trouble is, the subject matter is such that it resists any kind of easy verbalisation. Look at the rhetorical knots that get tied around the so-called 'hard problem of consciousness' - and there, you're talking about something which is ostensibly obvious to anyone engaged in the conversation. (After all, we're all conscious.) Whereas, here, you're ostensibly talking about 'the first principle' or 'the origin of all that is'. So getting it wrong, misunderstanding or misrepresenting it, goes with the territory.

Thank you for agreeing that that is an awkward phrase. I might go further and say that it's meaningless obscurantism (I have little familiarity with Eagleton's primary works, so if he provides a clear explication of such phraseology elsewhere, please feel free to point me to it).

I've repeatedly ask what phrases such as "ground of all being" mean, and have never been given a good answer. I suspect that it's a term of art among certain post-modern-aligned theologians which is more often stated and repeated than understood. While all philosophical subfields (phil of mind included) has its jargon, cant, and technical terminology, I don't know that they're all obscurantist.

So the fact that

perhaps most religious believers are not adherents of the sort of hot air suffused word salad that Eagleton spews here.

Doesn't really mean anything about the truth or falsehood of Eageton's critique of Dawkins. The fact that millions of people might believe something to be the case, doesn't mean it's true, as atheists like Dawkins never tire of telling us.

Ok. So if we're in agreement that "millions of people" hold the conception of God which Dawkins critiques in The God Delusion and elsewhere, I will ask the same question I've asked of you many, many times now: why fault Dawkins et al for engaging with beliefs people actually hold?

The New Atheists don't engage with your notion of God, and so they're wrongheaded, in your view. If this view is so wrongheaded, why are you not equally vituperative towards those religious believers who believe in the "wrong" sort of God? The New Atheists are but a handful of people (and they're down a member in the last few years). Surely the flock in the pews laboring under such misconceptions are much greater contributors to this theological confusion?

It's like: don't try and use fancy philosophical analysis to talk about what it might really mean; what it really means is what the believer-in-the-street says it means. And what they say it means, is a sky-father-god figure, who throws thunderbolts, and designs. Therefore a 'lowest common denominator' criticism of religion is all that's needed, as that is the only kind of religious sensibility that needs to be discussed.

I've never seen Eagleton offer any sort of analysis in any of the works which you've quoted. He offers discourse and assertions, but no real arguments. He says, "Doesn't Dawkins realize [word salad, word salad]," and then calls it a day. Unlike, say, a theist such as Alvin Plantinga, who offers myriad arguments for his view (Plantinga also had a scathing review of The God Delusion, if you want to check it out).

As for the LCD-criticism, natural theology has a long pedigree in philosophy, and cosmological and teleological arguments for God's existence (yes, existence) abound today. Again, simply because it's not the sort of God which you prefer doesn't mean that it's wrong, and it doesn't mean that Dawkins is committing any sort of error in criticizing it.

then to provide that in order to hang onto a fundamentalist constituency is also an act of adaptation. — John

Right, you're merely proving my point. Anything a church does to gain members is to "adapt," so you can't ever be wrong. I don't dispute what you say.

Father Richard Rohr needs religion but does religion need father Richard Rohr?

I wasn't aware that one could be confirmed as a "Christian." — Arkady

There's a ceremony called confirmation in Anglicanism (and I'm sure the other denominations.) It's the standard rite-of-passage into the Church. It takes place at early adolescence. You have to learn a Catechism and go to a set number of services. It seemed like a lot of work to me, I was a poor student anyway, and my family was not at all encouraging about it, so I didn't go ahead with it. But that was also because I didn't know if I really believed it. I've never been atheist, but I also don't have any kind of image or idea of what God is. (That is why, later, I found the 'way of unknowing' congenial.)

I've repeatedly ask what phrases such as "ground of all being" mean, and have never been given a good answer. — Arkady

I think that's because of the spirit in which you ask the question. As you're naturally inclined to scepticism about anything religious, your questions are of the 'clay pidgeon' variety, i.e. elicit a response which you then proceed to shoot at.

There is a description of 'the ground of being' in Paul Tillich's books, and other books by recent philosophers of religion. An example:

"Existence - Existence refers to what is finite and fallen and cut of from its true being. Within the finite realm issues of conflict between, for example, autonomy (Greek: 'autos' - self, 'nomos' - law) and heteronomy (Greek: 'heteros' - other, 'nomos' - law) abound (there are also conflicts between the formal/emotional and static/dynamic). Resolution of these conflicts lies in the essential realm (the Ground of Meaning/the Ground of Being) which humans are cut off from yet also dependent upon ('In existence man is that finite being who is aware both of his belonging to and separation from the infinite' (Newport p.67f)). Therefore existence is estrangement."

"Although this looks like Tillich was an atheist such misunderstanding only arises due to a simplistic understanding of his use of the word existence. What Tillich is seeking to lead us to is an understanding of the 'God above God'. We have already seen earlier that the Ground of Being (God) must be separate from the finite realm (which is a mixture of being and non-being) and that God cannot be a being. God must be beyond the finite realm. Anything brought from essence into existence is always going to be corrupted by ambiguity and our own finitude. Thus statements about God must always be symbolic (except the statement 'God is the Ground of Being'). Although we may claim to know God (the Infinite) we cannot. The moment God is brought from essence into existence God is corrupted by finitude and our limited understanding. In this realm we can never fully grasp (or speak about) who God really is. The infinite cannot remain infinite in the finite realm. That this rings true can be seen when we realize there are a multitude of different understandings of God within the Christian faith alone. They cannot all be completely true so there must exist a 'pure' understanding of God (essence) that each of these are speaking about (or glimpsing aspects of)...."

This plainly diverges from the depiction of the 'god as person' given in the Plantinga quote. It's more like the approach in classical theology, which says that God is not actually good, but that 'goodness' is an analogy, likewise the other supposed attributes of God. But to really explore the question, takes at the very least an open mind towards it, as it is the kind of question that can only be explored by contemplation. It doesn't concern a crisp definition which gives a finite and obviously measurable output, like a formula.

[Eagleton] says, "Doesn't Dawkins realize [word salad, word salad], — Arkady

I think that simply conveys your own inability to comprehend his review (and yes, it's a review, rather than a philosophical analysis.) I personally found his criticism perfectly lucid. (Thomas Nagel's review, entitled The Fear of Religion, was much more along the lines of philosophical analysis.)

The New Atheists don't engage with your notion of God, and so they're wrongheaded, in your view. If this view is so wrongheaded, why are you not equally vituperative towards those religious believers who believe in the "wrong" sort of God? — Arkady

Partially because they're inclined to be beyond argument, and partially because you're a lot less likely to encounter them on philosophy forums. But people who really do believe in biblical creationism are so immune to reason, that it is clearly pointless to argue with them. They argue with or about the fossil evidence. //ps// Although I've also come to the view that to argue against religion on the basis of fossil evidence, is a type of fundamentalism.//

and cosmological and teleological arguments for God's existence (yes, existence) abound today. — Arkady

I am well aware of that. But at issue is a very difficult question of ontology - what does it mean to say that 'God exists'? As the Tillich quote above indicates, the very term 'existence' implies 'separated, standing apart'. There's another great column I quote from time to time by Bishop Pierre Whalon, God does not Exist, which has a similar perspective - that 'what exists' is of a different order to the source of existence. (Whalon's article is very much in keeping with Platonic Christianity, which in turn is very much at odds with general Protestant philosophy of religion, in my view.)

This type of 'hierarchical understanding' used to be represented in the Great Chain of Being, versions of which are found in many different cultures. It differentiates between the mineral, animal, human, angelic and divine realms, which all exist on different levels or 'modes':


The Great Chain of Being - traditional woodcut.

In early theology, this differentiation of levels was articulated by John Scotus Eirugena. Very hard to present summarily, but a key point is as follows (from the SEP entry)

Eriugena proceeds to list ‘five ways of interpreting’ (quinque modi interpretationis) the manner in which things may be said to be or not to be (Periphyseon, I.443c-446a). According to the first mode, things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to be, whereas anything which, ‘through the excellence of its nature’ (per excellentiam suae naturae), transcends our faculties are said not to be. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to be. He is ‘nothingness through excellence’ (nihil per excellentiam).

The second mode of being and non-being is seen in the ‘orders and differences of created natures’ (I.444a), whereby, if one level of nature is said to be, those orders above or below it are said not to be:

For an affirmation concerning the lower (order) is a negation concerning the higher, and so too a negation concerning the lower (order) is an affirmation concerning the higher. (Periphyseon, I.444a). According to this mode, the affirmation of man is the negation of angel and vice versa (affirmatio enim hominis negatio est angeli, negatio vero hominis affirmatio est angeli, I.444b).

In subsequent centuries, this hierarchical ontology became progressively 'flattened', until we arrive at modern philosophy, when it was decided that only the material layer exists (which is scientific materialism). So Dawkins, et al, can only conceive of that level or mode of being, and then says 'it is ridiculous to believe that there is a God' - which it is, if that is your understanding of the nature of reality. You can fire up the LHC, or the Hubble, and he's not 'out there somewhere' or 'in there anywhere'. In the sense in which Dawkins, et al, understand the meaning of 'existence', then indeed, God does not exist.

There's a ceremony called confirmation in Anglicanism (and I'm sure the other denominations.) It's the standard rite-of-passage into the Church. It takes place at early adolescence. You have to learn a Catechism and go to a set number of services. It seemed like a lot of work to me, I was a poor student anyway, and my family was not at all encouraging about it, so I didn't go ahead with it. But that was also because I didn't know if I really believed it. I've never been atheist, but I also don't have any kind of image or idea of what God is. (That is why, later, I found the 'way of unknowing' congenial.) — Wayfarer

Yes, I'm familiar with confirmation with regard to, for instance, the Catholic Church. I just found your post somewhat confusing because you said you'd almost been confirmed "as a [generic] Christian." (I subsequently saw that in an earlier post responding to someone else, you had mentioned that you were almost an Anglican.

I think that's because of the spirit in which you ask the question. As you're naturally inclined to scepticism about anything religious, your questions are of the 'clay pidgeon' variety, i.e. elicit a response which you then proceed to shoot at.

I think this unfairly (and pointlessly) impugns my motives. Yes, I am skeptical that "ground of all being" has any substantial meaning, but my interlocutors could alleviate this skepticism by providing a meaningful definition (of course, such a definition would not necessarily convince me that (1) there is indeed a being called God, and (2) that said being actually is the "ground of all being," but it would be a start...).

There is a description of 'the ground of being' in Paul Tillich's books, and other books by recent philosophers of religion. An example:

"Existence - Existence refers to what is finite and fallen and cut of from its true being. Within the finite realm issues of conflict between, for example, autonomy (Greek: 'autos' - self, 'nomos' - law) and heteronomy (Greek: 'heteros' - other, 'nomos' - law) abound (there are also conflicts between the formal/emotional and static/dynamic). Resolution of these conflicts lies in the essential realm (the Ground of Meaning/the Ground of Being) which humans are cut off from yet also dependent upon ('In existence man is that finite being who is aware both of his belonging to and separation from the infinite' (Newport p.67f)). Therefore existence is estrangement."

"Although this looks like Tillich was an atheist such misunderstanding only arises due to a simplistic understanding of his use of the word existence. What Tillich is seeking to lead us to is an understanding of the 'God above God'. We have already seen earlier that the Ground of Being (God) must be separate from the finite realm (which is a mixture of being and non-being) and that God cannot be a being. God must be beyond the finite realm. Anything brought from essence into existence is always going to be corrupted by ambiguity and our own finitude. Thus statements about God must always be symbolic (except the statement 'God is the Ground of Being'). Although we may claim to know God (the Infinite) we cannot. The moment God is brought from essence into existence God is corrupted by finitude and our limited understanding. In this realm we can never fully grasp (or speak about) who God really is. The infinite cannot remain infinite in the finite realm. That this rings true can be seen when we realize there are a multitude of different understandings of God within the Christian faith alone. They cannot all be completely true so there must exist a 'pure' understanding of God (essence) that each of these are speaking about (or glimpsing aspects of)...."

It's unclear to me whether the passage beginning with "Although..." is part of another quoted source (as it refers to Tillich in the third person). I will consider it as such, but it doesn't really matter, as you again have not provided me with a definition of the phrase, but only a quote which contains mentions of it.

As for God being "beyond the finite realm," etc., I will again ask of putative Christians: (1) is or was Jesus (Christ) God, and (2) did or does Jesus "exist"?

This plainly diverges from the depiction of the 'god as person' given in the Plantinga quote. It's more like the approach in classical theology, which says that God is not actually good, but that 'goodness' is an analogy, likewise the other supposed attributes of God. But to really explore the question, takes at the very least an open mind towards it, as it is the kind of question that can only be explored by contemplation. It doesn't concern a crisp definition which gives a finite and obviously measurable output, like a formula.

Again, you smuggle in a rhetorical dig at me in lieu of providing an explanation or definition, by insinuating that my mind isn't open. My mind isn't closed, but it doesn't mean that I swallow just everything I'm fed. I submit that if a definition of a term such as "ground of all being" can't be provided (whether or not said definition is "crisp" we can discuss after the fact, I suppose), then the term is meaningless. I'm not asking for a formula.

I think that simply conveys your own inability to comprehend his review (and yes, it's a review, rather than a philosophical analysis.) I personally found his criticism perfectly lucid. (Thomas Nagel's review, entitled The Fear of Religion, was much more along the lines of philosophical analysis.)

The portions of the review which you quote do not lend themselves to comprehension. There is of course much of philosophy which is opaque or hard to understand, but Eagleton provides no analysis or arguments, which I would expect to find if he is to rebut Dawkins's claims. Otherwise, it's just argument by assertion.

Partially because they're inclined to be beyond argument, and partially because you're a lot less likely to encounter them on philosophy forums. But people who really do believe in biblical creationism are so immune to reason, that it is clearly pointless to argue with them. They argue with or about the fossil evidence. //ps// Although I've also come to the view that to argue against religion on the basis of fossil evidence, is a type of fundamentalism.//

Well, one can certainly argue against Biblical literalism using fossil (and archeological) evidence, wouldn't you say?

I am well aware of that. But at issue is a very difficult question of ontology - what does it mean to say that 'God exists'?

Sure. It's a thorny question to ask what it means to say that anything exists. That's part of philosophy. But we don't reach answers to that question by muddying the waters with obscurantist jargon.

As the Tillich quote above indicates, the very term 'existence' implies 'separated, standing apart'. There's another great column I quote from time to time by Bishop Pierre Whalon, God does not Exist, which has a similar perspective - that 'what exists' is of a different order to the source of existence. (Whalon's article is very much in keeping with Platonic Christianity, which in turn is very much at odds with general Protestant philosophy of religion, in my view.)

Is God capable of hearing (and answering) prayers? Did God send his son to Earth to die for the sins of mankind? Did God imbue the first man and woman with an immortal soul? Does God stand in judgment of the dead? Is Christ to return at the End of Days, as foretold in Revelation? A Christian would seem to be hard-pressed to answer in the negative to these questions; that being the case, I don't think it can be said that God stands totally apart from His creation.

This type of 'hierarchical understanding' used to be represented in the Great Chain of Being, versions of which are found in many different cultures. It differentiates between the mineral, animal, human, angelic and divine realms, which all exist on different levels or 'modes':

Steps.gif
The Great Chain of Being - traditional woodcut.

Yes, I am familiar with the "Great Chain of Being," a version of which originated with Aristotle, if I'm not mistaken (who obviously predated the Christian era)? My response to your lengthy post is itself getting lengthy, so I will leave it here for now...rest assured, I'm not ignoring your remaining points.

I will consider it as such, but it doesn't really matter, as you again have not provided me with a definition of the phrase, but only a quote which contains mentions of it. — Arkady

"Ground of being" is Christian mysticism. It goes back at least to Meister Eckhart. It's pretty much what it sounds like. As opposed to God being on high like the Great Architect, God is a primal source of all being. Maybe the quantum theory picture of a possibility field is similar. Christ is more an image than a person. Christ is an intermediary within every person through which they can connect in some way with God.

Bernard McGinn wrote a book about Eckhart. Worth the read.

I think this unfairly (and pointlessly) impugns my motives — Arkady

Apologies. You're a tough adversary, but I need to get off my high horse. Will refrain from that henceforth.

I will again ask of putative Christians: (1) is or was Jesus (Christ) God, and (2) did or does Jesus "exist"? — Arkady

Well, obviously, these are theologically vexed questions; in the early part of Christian history, there was a huge conflict over them, such at the Arian controversy, and various other disputes over heresy.

Anyway, Rohr's point is that Jesus' saying 'I and the Father are One' are what he calls 'unitive thought', which, he says, is directly comparable to the now-popular 'non-dualism' of Eastern philosophy, which has entered cultural discourse through Vedanta and Buddhism. However the full quote he's referring to is:

Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwells in me, he does the works.

John 14:10 (KJV)

Here I myself will venture into heresy, or at least comparative religion, and refer to the Indian belief in avatars (another word that has entered the popular lexicon). An avatar is an 'incarnation of diety'; of course, in India, there was an abundance of both deities and incarnations. It's a different matter in Christianity, where there is precisely one deity and only one incarnation of it; but, the 'incarnation of the spirit', or, 'God made flesh' is certainly the orthodox Christian view.

A point that I encountered in Indian discussions of this subject, was that when Jesus says 'I speak not of myself', he is referring to his person, ego, self - the person of Jesus. The 'father that dwells within' is the spirit, which is depicted in Hinduism as Brahman. Theologians will of course quibble, but from a comparative viewpoint, I think it holds up.

Whether Jesus lived - I personally believe so. I have read something of the 'critical scholarship' and agree that story that has been subject to a lot of mythologising, but I believe there is a reality behind the myth.

Eagleton provides no analysis or arguments, which I would expect to find if he is to rebut Dawkins's claims. Otherwise, it's just argument by assertion. — Arkady

Eagleton's review read like it was written off the cuff. But I find it quite intelligible. It starts with Dawkins' lack of knowledge of the subject he's critiquing - 'Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is theBook of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

He then picks out a few examples ('a molehill of instances' out of a mountain of them) - i.e. that all faith is blind faith, that to believe is to believe unquestioningly.

reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief. (Where, given that he invites us at one point to question everything, is Dawkins’s own critique of science, objectivity, liberalism, atheism and the like?)

Then, the claim that belief in God is a 'scientific hypothesis'. He says it's not, and then proceeds to try and say what it actually is.

To say that [God] brought it into being ex nihilo is not a measure of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather than need. The world was not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause and effect. Like a Modernist work of art, there is no necessity about it at all, and God might well have come to regret his handiwork some aeons ago. The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end.

All makes perfect sense to me.

Is God capable of hearing (and answering) prayers? Did God send his son to Earth to die for the sins of mankind? Did God imbue the first man and woman with an immortal soul? Does God stand in judgment of the dead? Is Christ to return at the End of Days, as foretold in Revelation? A Christian would seem to be hard-pressed to answer in the negative to these questions — Arkady

As I said, I declined confirmation, at least in part because I dared to doubt these 'articles of faith'. I didn't end up atheist, but, in the Christian view, apostate.

Wayfarer: at issue is a very difficult question of ontology - what does it mean to say that 'God exists'?

Sure. It's a thorny question to ask what it means to say that anything exists. That's part of philosophy. But we don't reach answers to that question by muddying the waters with obscurantist jargon. — Arkady

Again, it's not obscurantist, it is consideration of a, or the, foundational question of metaphysics and ontology, i.e. 'what is the source of being'. How do you think the natural sciences are going with that question right now? Have you been following it? The arguments about bubble universes and multiverses and whether such theories are falsifiable, and so on? Seems plenty 'obscurantist' to me.

And yet, here we are.

Trying to come to a point here: what is the subject of spirituality? It is, in my book, establishing and living in a relationship with the intelligence behind the Universe. Rohr says this at the end of his lecture: when you treat everything in existence as Thou, then how can you ever be isolated, separated, or alone? That is very much the spirit of his order's founder, St Francis. That, I honour and respect.

Bernard McGinn wrote a book about Eckhart. Worth the read. — Mongrel

McGinn's books are on my list, although I have to be careful reading the Christian mystics, as they tend to draw me in. ;-)

"Ground of being" is Christian mysticism. It goes back at least to Meister Eckhart. It's pretty much what it sounds like. As opposed to God being on high like the Great Architect, God is a primal source of all being. Maybe the quantum theory picture of a possibility field is similar. Christ is more an image than a person. Christ is an intermediary within every person through which they can connect in some way with God.

Bernard McGinn wrote a book about Eckhart. Worth the read. — Mongrel

Perhaps I'm just obtuse, but "ground of being" has no intuitive meaning to me...saying it's "just what it sounds like" doesn't help much. It likewise doesn't clarify things much to say that "God is a primal source of all being."

Allow me to posit a couple of possible explanations, and let's see if we can't get it figured out:

(1) God created the heavens and the Earth, therefore, everything which exists - at least with regard to contingent, concrete objects and entities - owes its existence to God, either directly or indirectly. Once created, however, such beings require no further intervention by God to sustain their existence.

(2) God continuously acts in the world to sustain the existence of every contingently-existing entity. That is, were it not for the constant intervention of God, such beings would simply wink out of existence.

Would you regard either of these statements to at least roughly encapsulate what it means to claim that God is the "ground of all being"?

Apologies. You're a tough adversary, but I need to get off my high horse. Will refrain from that henceforth. — Wayfarer

Thanks (I think), but for the record, I don't consider us to be adversaries.

Well, obviously, these are theologically vexed questions; in the early part of Christian history, there was a huge conflict over them, such at the Arian controversy, and various other disputes over heresy.

Sure. But would you not agree that accepting some version of the Trinity is a prerequisite for being called a Christian? After all, if Jesus were a mere mortal, without a hint of a divine nature, then he wasn't resurrected, he won't be returning at the end of days (thus negating virtually every form of Christian eschatology), etc. One may as well consider him to be just another prophet (as he is regarded in, for instance, Islam).

Whether Jesus lived - I personally believe so. I have read something of the 'critical scholarship' and agree that story that has been subject to a lot of mythologising, but I believe there is a reality behind the myth.

I also agree that Jesus was probably a real, historical person. Scholar of Christianity (and atheist, to boot) Bart Ehrman has written an interesting book on this subject (his viewpoint has brought him into conflict with "mythicists," who believe that Jesus was in fact not real).

Eagleton's review read like it was written off the cuff. But I find it quite intelligible. It starts with Dawkins' lack of knowledge of the subject he's critiquing - 'Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is theBook of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology[...]Then, the claim that belief in God is a 'scientific hypothesis'. He says it's not, and then proceeds to try and say what it actually is.

But, again (and this seems to be a central plank of our disagreement on this issue), Dawkins may well be unacquainted with the sources which you (and Eagleton) prefer, which seems to be theology of a highly rarified bent, incorporating certain aspects of modern and post-modern thought, but it is not incumbent upon Dawkins (or any author) to grapple with the entire corpus of thought with regard to the God question (which, of course, is not even limited to Christianity in particular).

Dawkins, being an evolutionary biologist, is especially opposed to creationism in all its forms, and thus it's expected and reasonable that his critiques (whether or not we deem them to be successful) are more oriented towards those who do treat God as a scientific hypothesis, e.g., natural theologians, intelligent design creationists, and creationists-lite such as Francis Collins.

And, as I intimated before, if you find the idea of God as a scientific hypothesis (or at least something whose existence is amenable to empirical confirmation) to be so odious, you may begin by directing your ire towards those religionists who promulgate such notions. Perhaps start a thread picking apart the arguments advanced by the Answers in Genesis website, for instance, and then move on to their somewhat more benign brethren Answers in Creation. You can then rebut the claims that so-called irreducible complexity is a signal of God's handiwork in designing certain complex biological systems. You might then move on to those such as Francis Collins, who attribute mankind's supposed moral sense to the touch of a divine, and who believe in "theistic evolution." Perhaps you can then tackle arguments such as the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, which posits that humans' very ability to reason serves a defeater for the claim that evolution (at least of humans) could have been a wholly naturalistic process, devoid of divine intervention. Perhaps then you can address modern cosmological-style arguments as advanced by William Lane Craig and others of his ilk.

Or you can simply continue to complain about a book that a popular science writer wrote over ten years ago.

Bart Ehrman has written an interesting book on this subject — Arkady

Was it Misquoting Jesus? I read that, t'was good.

Sure. But would you not agree that accepting some version of the Trinity is a prerequisite for being called a Christian? After all, if Jesus were a mere mortal, without a hint of a divine nature, then he wasn't resurrected, he won't be returning at the end of days (thus negating virtually every form of Christian eschatology), etc. One may as well consider him to be just another prophet (as he is regarded in, for instance, Islam). — Arkady

I suppose so, although Universalists don't necessarily. But one thing I noticed is that the idea of a trinity is found in Hinduism and Buddhism also - in the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, and the 'three bodies of the Buddha'. I suspect the 'triune nature of divinity' is an archetypal reality.

But, my reading of Advaita Vedanta very much changed my idea of what 'mortal' and 'divine' signify. Ramana Maharishi, who in my view was a bona fide Hindu sage (unlike the many bogus and spurious imitations that sprung up over the ensuing decades) is instructive in that regard. The thrust of his teaching was 'Who am I'? That when the mind traces its origin back to its source, it discovers its true identity as one with Brahman. That is the teaching of non-dualism (advaita) that Richard Rohr says is 'unitive thought', 'I and the Father are One'. But when the Church became an authoritarian institution, then God became in some way an authoritarian ruler, and so the whole question takes on a different hue.

Perhaps start a thread picking apart the arguments advanced by the Answers in Genesis website, — Arkady

Before Ken Ham went to Kentucky, where he found an audience (which he never could in Australia), he had a billboard I used to drive past quite often. I would thinkg, arguing with anyone who believes those ideas is an exercise in futility. But Dawkins is a mirror-image. He is also a fundamentalist. Actually I am inclined to think that anyone who believes science proves that God exists is a fundamentalist, anyone who thinks that science proves the opposite is a materialist. There is no ultimate proof, one way or the other.

If Dawkins did confine himself to campaigning against creationism or the abhorrent practises associated with some forms of religion I would cheer him on. But he patently, obviously, and loudly generalises from those views to religion is the source of all evil and humans are totally the product of the 'selfish gene'. So he's become a fanatic himself - many of his ideas are just as crackpot as those he criticizes, but as he wears the 'lab coat of authority', he takes in many people. Personally, I think the consequences of his ideas will be more insidious in the long run than Ken Ham's. (I've picked up a few of Bart Ehrmann's books, but never brought one home. As for Biologos and Francis Collins, I have no objection to their outlook but I don't feel much affinity with them as people, to be honest. They're all a bit too nice ;-) )

There are some very insightful Christian philosophical apologists - the ones I have in mind are the Catholics (Jesuits, typically) such as Robert J Spitzer and Stephen M. Barr. I also like Keith Ward a lot. Their analyses of scientific materialism and the case for faith is quite cogent. But no Catholic should ever believe that you can prove the reality of God through scientific means. The ultimate truth is over our cognitive horizon. But that doesn't mean clinging determinedly to dogma, either. The approach Rohr talks of, 'the way of unknowing', is the way to go, and is found, again, in many different faith traditions. Scientia is only one cognitive mode, a very useful one, but it has to be directed by sapience, and they're fundamentally different faculties.

Bart Ehrman has written an interesting book on this subject — Arkady


Was it Misquoting Jesus? I read that, t'was good. — Wosret

No. It was called Did Jesus Exist?. I agree, though, that Misquoting Jesus was a good book (as are all of Ehrman's books which I've read, which admittedly tend to skew more towards the "pop-religion" side of things; I've not read his more technical scholarly works).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman)

I only read the one, and also watched a couple lectures he did.

Yea. There's tons of great stuff about him on YouTube, including book readings, radio interviews, debates etc.

Before Ken Ham went to Kentucky, where he found an audience (which he never could in Australia), he had a billboard I used to drive past quite often. I would thinkg, arguing with anyone who believes those ideas is an exercise in futility. But Dawkins is a mirror-image. He is also a fundamentalist. — Wayfarer

I regard this as a gross false equivalency, to regard Dawkins as a fundamentalist on par with the likes of Ken Ham.

Actually I am inclined to think that anyone who believes science proves that God exists is a fundamentalist, anyone who thinks that science proves the opposite is a materialist. There is no ultimate proof, one way or the other.

I don't know why you would regard a person who believes that the existence of God to be empirically demonstrable to be a fundamentalist. In my understanding, a "fundamentalist" is one who takes an extremely strict (up to and including literalistic) interpretation of a given religion's (or ideology's) tenets, texts, or dogma, who generally wishes to foist these beliefs and practices upon unwilling parties, who has little tolerance for religious plurality or diversity, who is extremely closed to any contrary evidence or argumentation, etc. While these traits could apply to those who seek to demonstrate God's existence by appealing to empiricism, these traits don't seem inherent to such a position.

I also think that your position on materialism is a non-sequitur. One can (at least in principle) disbelieve in the existence of God, and yet still believe in non-material entities, as such a conjunction of beliefs entails no contradiction (unless one takes materialists to claim that God is only candidate for a non-material entity).

If Dawkins did confine himself to campaigning against creationism or the abhorrent practises associated with some forms of religion I would cheer him on. But he patently, obviously, and loudly generalises from those views to religion is the source of all evil and humans are totally the product of the 'selfish gene'. So he's become a fanatic himself - many of his ideas are just as crackpot as those he criticizes, but as he wears the 'lab coat of authority', he takes in many people.

This is false. Dawkins does not believe that religion is the source of all evil. He says exactly the opposite in The God Delusion. Perhaps you are thinking of the BBC documentary about religion titled Root of All Evil?, in which Dawkins starred? If so, you should know that that title was not of his choosing, and he neither liked nor agreed with its insinuation (I say "insinuation" because the question mark at the end perhaps softened it a bit).

Given that you are a non-dogmatic, non-fundamentalist, open-minded inquirer, I expect that, in light of this contrary evidence, you will accordingly revise your view of Dawkins being a crackpot.

I regard this as a gross false equivalency, to regard Dawkins as a fundamentalist on par with the likes of Ken Ham. — Arkady

Dawkins is certainly brighter than Ken Ham, all the more reason he should be less dogmatic. Besides, even Peter Higgs said he was 'almost a fundamentalist himself' and that his polemics against religion were 'embarrasing'.

I don't know why you would regard a person who believes that the existence of God to be empirically demonstrable to be a fundamentalist — Arkady

I was referring to those who claim to 'prove' that God exists with reference to science. As science is always changing, this is a two-edged sword. Karen Armstrong, in her book The Case for God, shows how the idea of referring to science to 'shew the handiwork of God' backfired in the long run, as science discovered more and more, and the 'gaps' became less and less.

It also makes the mistake of 'objectifying' deity as a player on the stage, or as director of the show, rather than, in David Bentley Hart's words, the

“one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.”

That is closer to the classical theological understanding, and is also why both Hart (Orthodox) and Catholic philosopher Edward Feser, who are both adamantly anti-materialist, will have no truck with 'intelligent design' arguments. (Interestingly, both are sometimes accused on those grounds of being 'close to atheism' by their ID antagonists.)

So, my point is that attitude which seeks to scientifically prove the literal truth of biblical creationism, is 'religious fundamentalism'; but the opposite tendency, to argue on the basis of biological evolution to disprove the Bible, is a product of that same kind of misunderstanding, because it takes Biblical literalism to be the normative view. But for the many Christians who never believed in the 'literal truth of Genesis' in the first place, the fact that it is not literally true, doesn't entail that it is literally false.

(Incidentally, there is no mention of anything like 'intelligent design' in the Articles of Faith of the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and Darwin's works were never put on the 'index of prohibited books' by the Catholic Church.)

Dawkins does not believe that religion is the source of all evil — Arkady

He most certainly does. Do you know that the TV series that Dawkin's made that was eventually broadcast as 'The God Delusion' was originally titled 'The Root of All Evil'? He says in many places that he believes religion is evil or the source of evil.

I will agree that 'crackpot' was a poor choice of words, but

Dawkins’ narrowmindedness, his unshakeable belief that the entire history of human intellectual achievement was just a prelude to the codification of scientific inquiry, leads him to dismiss the insights offered not only by theology, but philosophy, history and art as well.

To him, the humanities are expendable window-dressing, and the consciousness and emotions of his fellow human beings are byproducts of natural selection that frequently hobble his pursuit and dissemination of cold, hard facts. His orientation toward the world is the product of a classic category mistake, but because he’s nestled inside it so snugly he perceives complex concepts outside of his understanding as meaningless dribble. If he can’t see it, then it doesn’t exist, and anyone trying to describe it to him is delusional and possibly dangerous. — Eleanor Robertson

Dawkins is certainly brighter than Ken Ham, all the more reason he should be less dogmatic. Besides, even Peter Higgs said he was 'almost a fundamentalist himself' and that his polemics against religion were 'embarrasing'. — Wayfarer

I don't see how Peter Higgs's views are relevant. This doesn't even rise to the level of a fallacious appeal to authority, as Higgs is no more an authority on religion than is Dawkins. I could likewise produce laudatory quotes from scientists regarding Dawkins. What of it?

I was referring to those who claim to 'prove' that God exists with reference to science. As science is always changing, this is a two-edged sword. Karen Armstrong, in her book The Case for God, shows how the idea of referring to science to 'shew the handiwork of God' backfired in the long run, as science discovered more and more, and the 'gaps' became less and less.

I agree that the "god of the gaps" strategy is a poor one, given that the advance of science has been almost exclusively unilateral in demystifying phenomena once thought to be so complex or mysterious that they would never admit of a natural explanation.

However, it is a non-sequitur to claim that it therefore follows that empirical arguments for the existence of God are inherently misguided. If a physicist devises an experiment to search for a particular particle and fails to find evidence for it (in, say, the predicted range of mass), it doesn't mean that the test was inherently flawed: it simply means that the experiment did not detect what it was looking for. Indeed, empirical tests which can't be disconfirmed by evidence are worthless, as they are unfalsifiable.

It also makes the mistake of 'objectifying' deity as a player on the stage, or as director of the show, rather than, in David Bentley Hart's words, the

“one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.”

If God acts, or has acted, in the world, there should be evidence of this action in some form. Unless one wishes to maintain that God has zero causal interaction with the world, then there should indeed be detectable signatures of God's handiwork (contra Armstrong). Indeed, are we to believe that God is omnipotent, but never acts?

That is closer to the classical theological understanding, and is also why both Hart (Orthodox) and Catholic philosopher Edward Feser, who are both adamantly anti-materialist, will have no truck with 'intelligent design' arguments. (Interestingly, both are sometimes accused on those grounds of being 'close to atheism' by their ID antagonists.)

So, my point is that attitude which seeks to scientifically prove the literal truth of biblical creationism, is 'religious fundamentalism'; but the opposite tendency, to argue on the basis of biological evolution to disprove the Bible, is a product of that same kind of misunderstanding, because it takes Biblical literalism to be the normative view. But for the many Christians who never believed in the 'literal truth of Genesis' in the first place, the fact that it is not literally true, doesn't entail that it is literally false.

Not all evidential arguments for the existence of God are promulgated by biblical literalists. Most of the main proponents of intelligent design creationism, for instance, are not biblical literalists. So, it is still a non-sequitur to say that they're fundamentalists (not that I think they're correct, mind you...).

(Incidentally, there is no mention of anything like 'intelligent design' in the Articles of Faith of the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and Darwin's works were never put on the 'index of prohibited books' by the Catholic Church.)

No, but it doesn't mean that some Catholic scholars, for instance, aren't sympathetic to the intelligent design project (Catholic scholar Robert P. George has made approving statements of it, for example). And while the Vatican's official statements on evolution seem to be more agreeable than those promulgated by, say, evangelical Christians, even a Catholic must assert that there was some teleological design underlying the (seemingly random) evolutionary process, a design which would eventually yield humans (or at least some sentient beings, even if they were insectoid or reptilian or whatever).

He most certainly does. Do you know that the TV series that Dawkin's made that was eventually broadcast as 'The God Delusion' was originally titled 'The Root of All Evil'?

I do know that, and you would know that I know that had you read my above post carefully enough. As I said, that title was not one that he chose or one with which he agreed. This is what he says about it in The God Delusion, after mentioning that documentary, and saying how he fought the title:

Religion is not the root of all evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything. — Dawkins

He says in many places that he believes religion is evil or the source of evil.

Believing that something is evil, or leads to evil, is not equivalent to believing that it is the root of all evil.

I will agree that 'crackpot' was a poor choice of words, but

Dawkins’ narrowmindedness, his unshakeable belief that the entire history of human intellectual achievement was just a prelude to the codification of scientific inquiry, leads him to dismiss the insights offered not only by theology, but philosophy, history and art as well.

To him, the humanities are expendable window-dressing, and the consciousness and emotions of his fellow human beings are byproducts of natural selection that frequently hobble his pursuit and dissemination of cold, hard facts. His orientation toward the world is the product of a classic category mistake, but because he’s nestled inside it so snugly he perceives complex concepts outside of his understanding as meaningless dribble. If he can’t see it, then it doesn’t exist, and anyone trying to describe it to him is delusional and possibly dangerous. — Eleanor Robertson

What "insights", pray tell, have been proferred by theology? As for the rest of this quote, it is complete hogwash. Dawkins nowhere rejects the value of the humanities, and has spoken favorably about the arts. This is just woo from people who wish to appeal to "other ways of knowing" as a means of trying to justify nonsense. If one is making a claim about reality, there is either evidence to support that claim, or there isn't. I'm sorry, but it's really that simple: this applies whether we're speaking of history, science, journalism, religion, or whatever. I'd be hard-pressed to devise a greater caricature of Dawkins's position if I tried.

And your argumentative strategy of offering a litany of quotes in lieu of arguments is wearing thin. As I said, I could produce approving quotes of Dawkins, but what of it?

However, it is a non-sequitur to claim that it therefore follows that empirical arguments for the existence of God are inherently misguided — Arkady

They're inherently misguided, because the question of the existence of God is not an empirical claim.

If God acts, or has acted, in the world, there should be evidence of this action in some form. — Arkady

As you have already said you believe that Jesus actually lived - would you regard that as evidence?

What "insights", pray tell, have been proferred by theology? — Arkady

That is exactly what I mean by a 'clay pidgeon'. You have no interest in any possible answer, save as something to shoot down.

Dawkins nowhere rejects the value of the humanities, and has spoken favorably about the arts. — Arkady

.

Well, that's hogwash, too. Dawkins never tires of telling us that humans are lumbering robots whose only real purpose is the propogation of the selfish gene.

And your argumentative strategy of offering a litany of quotes in lieu of arguments is wearing thin — Arkady

I agree, but thanks for playing.

The 'hogwash' quote was from here. I generally agree with it, so there's obviously little point in going on.

They're inherently misguided, because the question of the existence of God is not an empirical claim. — Wayfarer

Argument by assertion and begging the question. And, as I stated, if God has interacted with the world, there should be signatures of his handiwork. The empirical search for God's existence is fruitless only if one has reason to believe in a wholly non-interacting God, which a Christian would be hard-pressed to accede to.

As you have already said you believe that Jesus actually lived - would you regard that as evidence?

I believe that the existence of Jesus makes it at least possible that the core doctrines of Christianity (as understood by, for instance, the Trinity) are true, as Christianity of virtually every stripe would be a nonstarter were Jesus mythical. But, no, from the mere existence of a historical Jesus, it does not follow that that person was God, or the Son of God, or anything of the sort.

That is exactly what I mean by a 'clay pidgeon'. You have no interest in any possible answer, save as something to shoot down.

Nothing was even presented to shoot down. I might say the same of you, as your rabid hatred of Dawkins has led you to attribute things to him which are patently untrue (as with the "root of all evil" comment. Please feel free to admit your error on that score, as you clearly committed an error). You are dealing with strawmen caricatures.

Well, that's hogwash, too. Dawkins never tires of telling us that humans are lumbering robots whose only real purpose is the propogation of the selfish gene.

This assertion is so confused I don't even know where to begin. Even if your characterization of Dawkins is accurate, how does it follow that he believes the humanities to be worthless? (I do agree, though, that he believes theology to be worthless.)

I agree, but thanks for playing.

The 'hogwash' quote was from here. I generally agree with it, so there's obviously little point in going on.

I don't really care where the quote was from. I complain about your usage of quotes from like-minded parties as a form of argumentation, and you link to the source material? Why? Shall I link to Jerry Coyne's blog and suggest you read it?

Even if your characterization of Dawkins is accurate, how does it follow that he believes the humanities to be worthless? — Arkady

He represents the view that the foundation of Western culture and civilised ethics is basically delusional, but, as his many critics point out, does not have the philosophical acuity or historical insight to understand what this means. He will agree that Darwinism is a lousy basis for any kind of social philosophy, but at the same time declare that it has dissolved the basis for traditional philosophy in the acid of 'Darwin's dangerous idea'. Then he will attempt to erect 'Science and Reason' as the basis of an alternative. Perhaps you pitch in. He has a lot of work to do.

He represents the view that the foundation of Western culture and civilised ethics is basically delusional, but, as his many critics point out, does not have the philosophical acuity or historical insight to understand what this means. — Wayfarer

Please don't tell me you are ceding the entirety of civilized ethics to Christianity? Give me a break. While Christianity has done immense good in the world, it has also done immense harm, and to say that religious dogma has a lock on prescribing ethical behavior is absurd at best. Ethics has been one long, miserable slog from humanity treating each other extremely horribly to treating each other very slightly less-horribly. If you think Christianity has anything close to clean hands, then you are the one ignorant of history.

As for the "foundation of Western culture" cant, I will simply say that the fact that Christianity was a powerful and organizing force in shaping the West does not speak one iota to its truthfulness, any more than the truth of the Greco-Roman pantheon is attested to by those cultures' immense influence in the ancient world.

He will agree that Darwinism is a lousy basis for any kind of social philosophy, but at the same time declare that it has dissolved the basis for traditional philosophy in the acid of 'Darwin's dangerous idea'. Then he will attempt to erect 'Science and Reason' as the basis of an alternative. Perhaps you pitch in. He has a lot of work to do.

This sounds more like Dennet than Dawkins, actually. As for the book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennet makes some good points, but there are also many able critiques of it (I believe I've previously mentioned H. Allen Orr's critical review, which is excellent - and this from an atheist or agnostic).

Please don't tell me you are ceding the entirety of civilized ethics to Christianity? — Arkady

For better or for worse, that is pretty much the case, although I mean it in the broader sense of the Judeo-christian tradition.

When I was finding my own path, I had the view that Christianity had in some ways 'locked up' much that was spiritually edifying in the traditions it had incorporated - for example, Neoplatonism - and then made acceptance of Christian dogma the price for accessing it. I still think there is some truth in that, but my views have changed somewhat since, mainly because of having found writers and teachers like Richard Rohr, who are within the tradition.

But I also understand the dark side of Christian history (in fact I think I have a book by that name.)

However, I'm certainly of the view that books like Dawkins' anti-religious polemics, along with many of Dennett's polemics, are a symptom of the general deterioration of Western culture.

Furthermore while I accept the facts of biological evolution, I think evolutionary naturalism is invested with far too much signifance as a kind of replacement creation myth for the secular age. (That is a point that Michael Ruse has written a lot about; for which he too has also been declared persona non grata by the new atheists.)

He says in many places that he believes religion is evil or the source of evil. — Wayfarer

This appears to be a commonly expressed opinion now. Especially with the rise of religious fanaticalism, there are many people who openly state, and most likely truly believe, that religion is the source of evil.

Ethics has been one long, miserable slog from humanity treating each other extremely horribly to treating each other very slightly less-horribly. — Arkady

There is a lot more to ethics than learning how to respect others, there is also learning how to respect oneself. And with that comes learning how to think and be intelligent. Respect for others is dependent on knowing how to be reasonable.

For better or for worse, that is pretty much the case, although I mean it in the broader sense of the Judeo-christian tradition. — Wayfarer

Christianity has a spotty moral record at best, and the Old Testament is likewise extremely morally spotty. I don't know why you would cede the entirety of ethical thought to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our modern notions of ethics arguably owe as much (if not moreso) to Enlightenment thinkers than to religious ones.

I could trot out the usual parade of horribles when discussing Christianity's impact upon the world, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the Conquistadors' treatment of Native Americans, etc. But, I think there are more subtle and somewhat lesser-appreciated aspects to consider. Take, for instance, the brutal treatment of children in Catholic-run Irish orphanages in the 20th century, which has recently come to light. Take also the Church sexual abuse scandal, which has inflicted untold suffering around the world (and the evils of which have possibly only begun to come to light).

The point is not so much that there are some bad actors in an organization as vast as the Catholic Church (that is more or less inevitable). The point is that when these abuses are perpetrated by an institution whose authority is taken to be unquestionable, who claims to speak infallibly when it speaks ex cathedra, which has a long history of squelching dissent (sometimes by quite brutal means), which threatens believers with acquiescence under the threat of eternal damnation, then this is not an institution which lends itself to questioning, debate, and accountability, which are the hallmarks of an open society. For all of the ecumenical overtures in some quarters in modern times, organized religion has never been something to invite debate and questioning, which are the necessary prerequisites of progress in intellectual life.

When I was finding my own path, I had the view that Christianity had in some ways 'locked up' much that was spiritually edifying in the traditions it had incorporated - for example, Neoplatonism - and then made acceptance of Christian dogma the price for accessing it. I still think there is some truth in that, but my views have changed somewhat since, mainly because of having found writers and teachers like Richard Rohr, who are within the tradition.

But I also understand the dark side of Christian history (in fact I think I have a book by that name.)

I have no doubt you are aware of it, given how well-read you are, which makes your claims regarding ethics all the more puzzling.

However, I'm certainly of the view that books like Dawkins' anti-religious polemics, along with many of Dennett's polemics, are a symptom of the general deterioration of Western culture.

If one identifies Western culture with widespread religiosity and general respect for or deference to religion, then yes, any diminution of this attitude would signal a decline or "deterioration." However, if Western culture is so identified, then I can only say that I would welcome such a deterioration. If religious belief of any sort is unable to prosper in the free marketplace of ideas, then consign it to the flames, along with other failed ideologies and institutions of history (Communism, Social Darwinism, etc).

Having said that, I agree that the rise of secular attitudes may be a mixed blessing, at best, at least regarding certain beneficial institutions whose importance was reinforced by religious doctrine (e.g. marriage, bearing children in wedlock).

Furthermore while I accept the facts of biological evolution, I think evolutionary naturalism is invested with far too much signifance as a kind of replacement creation myth for the secular age.

You bang on quite a bit about evolution's supposedly being a replacement for religion. I find that quite a dubious position, especially since (as I've pointed out to you at least once, in the old place) that the majority of Americans do not even accept unguided evolution: at most they adhere to a sort of quasi-theistic evolution of some sort.

(That is a point that Michael Ruse has written a lot about; for which he too has also been declared persona non grata by the new atheists.)

Poor fellow. Did he not get invited to the office happy hour? Does Dawkins hold barbecues and invite Sam Harris but not Michael Ruse?