Islamophobia
Something I came across on The Immanent Frame blog which is itself something that I recently came across, strikes an interesting thought and an intriguing cultural phenomenon:
http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/10/01/arnold-eisen-and-terry-eagleton-discuss-reason-faith-and-revolution/
En route to some homemade pizza or else I'd write more, but I have my priorities...
http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/10/01/arnold-eisen-and-terry-eagleton-discuss-reason-faith-and-revolution/
En route to some homemade pizza or else I'd write more, but I have my priorities...
posted by aram mitchell | 1:03 PM
1 Comments:
I haven't read Eagleton's book, and I haven't read Hitchins either. But I've read Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett (should we call them Hakinsett or Dennhawkis?)--I know a bit about theology--and I don't really agree with Eagleton. I'm an atheist, and I became one during this whole "New Atheist" book phenomenon. And Islamophobia doesn't really stick. It makes sense to say that this is a reaction because of 9/11, but they (NAs) are very clear about the specific aspect of *religion* that they think is detrimental to humanity. Well, you get that most heavily in Harris. What he specifically rails on is dogma, and he gives examples from the whole religious spectrum, not just Islam. It's kind of ridiculous for Eagleton to be talking about the New Athiests, then say "Islamophobia", and the examples he gives are Martin Amis and Salmon Rushdie (I mean, can you blame Rushdie for having a beef with Islam, with the fatwa and all). So, the argument is, New Atheists don't like religion. Amis and Rushdie (who are not "New Atheist" authors, as far as I know) have said Islamophobic things. Therefore, the New Atheists are Islamophobic. (?)
As far as these being "silly" books, written by people who don't know theology, I think that's missing the point. Or, maybe Eagleton does get the point--the New Atheists think that theology itself is silly. So the best comeback is to say, "You think theology is silly, but you don't know the first thing about it." Forgive me if this is insulting, but that's a bit like an astrologist saying to a physicist, "You think astrology is silly, but you don't know the first thing about astrology." Well, does a physicist, or just a well educated person, need to know a lot about astrology to know it's bogus? The issue is, how well do you know how the world works?
Like I said, I know a bit about theology. I fail to see how this is a devastating blow to the New Atheists. The only specific theological objection I've heard was during one of the debates between Dawkins and John Lennox. In Dawkins' book, he deals with this theistic argument that says, since there was a beginning to our universe, and science says you can't get something from nothing, then there must have been something that created the universe. Ergo, God. Dakwins points out that if you must have an explanation for the existence of the universe, then by the same reasoning you need an explanation for the existence of God. So, you need something like superGod to be around to create God. But then, how did superGod come into existence? Etc. Lennox basically called this silly, and said that Dawkins had an infantile knowledge of theology (or something to that effect). God isn't the kind of being that needs to be created. By definition, God is the kind of being that has always existed and always will.--I couldn't believe he said that. All Dawkins has to say is that, by definition, this is the kind of universe that comes out of nothing, then operates by the laws of physics that we know so well. By definition. Is this not silly? Where do you get these definitions? Theology is based on this kind of reasoning, and it's a bit much to say that Dawkins is out of his element because he doesn't know theology. But in a way, it's true. He's out of his element because he expects people to be able to back up their statements with empirical evidence. Theology cannot do this. It works by people making up definitions and asserting them with confidence. How do you win a theological debate? You say the other person doesn't know squat about theology.
That being said, I usually don't find myself defending the New Atheists. They go too far in their critique of religion. It's not the root of all evil. And I usually only recommend Dennett's book, *Breaking the Spell*. It's not as extreme as the others. Basically, it's an argument for studying religion as a natural phenomenon. But I think the New Atheists have contributed something important to the public consciousness in the United States. And I'm glad they have.
Post a Comment
<< Home