# Terry Eagleton: The New Atheism and the War on Terror



## somnambulist (May 12, 2011)

Terry Eagleton is an influential literary theorist and Distinguished Professor of English Literature at the University of Lancaster. He has written more than forty books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction (1983), The Illusions of Postmodernism (1996), and, most recently, Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (2009).

Terry Eagleton: The reason I write so much is, actually, I don’t share this habit of reading other people’s books, which I’ve always found extraordinarily intrusive, to peer into people’s private space. If I want to read a book, I just have to write one, you see, so this is why Ajaz can’t keep up with me. I can’t keep up with myself, either. It’s delightful, always, to be back in Columbia, and I’m very grateful to Akeel Bilgrami in particular for inviting me here, rescuing me from Notre Dame for a couple of precious secular days, as it were. There we are.

Why are the most unlikely people, myself included, suddenly talking about God? I mean, why is it that just when the Almighty, like some aging celebrity, looks set for a well earned retirement from the public stage, no doubt glumly surveying the squalid course of the history he’s created and bitterly regretting having fashioned the slightest particle of matter, not least Dick Cheney – I mean, why is it that at this supposedly post-metaphysical, post-religious, post-historical point perhaps, He’s been whisked abruptly back on center stage, besieged by paparazzi, jostled by professors? Why have bookshops, at least where I come from, suddenly started sprouting sections called, “Atheism,” which they certainly didn’t have before? Why is it that Richard Dawkins and myself have been asked to contribute front-page articles on the so-called God debate? To what? No, not The Church Times, not The Guardian, but The Wall Street Journal, circulation 20 million I believe. What’s going on here?

I told The Wall Street Journal editor I’d be delighted to contribute, as long as my last sentence could be, “Jesus would never have been invited to write for The Wall Street Journal.” I mean, why in the world is the world suddenly thronged with atheists who are obsessed with religion as puritans are with sex? This is true even in England, where religion is generally a rather moderate sort of slightly shamefaced, discreet sort of thing where people are likely to believe that once religion starts to interfere with your everyday life, it’s time to give it up. A little like alcohol, perhaps, you know? One can’t imagine the queen’s chaplain asking you whether you’ve been washed in the blood of the lamb. He might ask you to pass the sherry, or something of that kind. That would be more his liquid, I think. You know, we are a moderate race. We like doing things gradually. If ever we decide to drive on the right hand side of the road, we shall do so gradually.

Though I think, perhaps, one must linger a little here over the word “atheism”. I mean, in order to reject religious faith, an atheist, presumably, must first grasp something of what it entails. That would seem a fairly simple, straightforward condition for being an atheist. Rather as you can’t argue about the value of synecdoche, or metonymy, if you think they’re small towns in upper New York State. Whereas, I must confess, it seems to be deeply doubtful that Ditchkins –as I have taken the liberty of dubbing Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins in a remarkably cheap and extraordinarily attractive book called, Reason, Faith, and Revolution– it seems to be highly doubtful whether they could be called atheists at all, since they don’t seem to have any idea of what it is they’re criticizing.

Το υπόλοιπο εδώ


----------



## nickel (May 12, 2011)

Είναι τεράστιο, τύπωσα το υπόλοιπο για νυχτερινό διάβασμα, είμαι σίγουρος ότι θα διαφωνήσω με αυτά που θα πει (επειδή ξέρω σχεδόν τι θα πει), αλλά είναι απόλαυση να τον διαβάζεις και να τον ακούς!


----------



## nickel (May 16, 2011)

Πήγε βόλτα το κείμενο; Γιατί δεν το βρίσκω σήμερα. Οπότε ας το έχουμε εμείς.

Η διάλεξη έχει ενδιαφέρον, αλλά τη συζήτηση μπορεί να την παραλείψει κανείς.

Ο Ίγκλετον πιστεύει σε δυο ουτοπίες, την ουτοπία του μαρξισμού και την ουτοπία του χριστιανισμού, αλλά, αν δεν εξελιχτεί ο άνθρωπος δαρβινικά σε καλό μαρξιστή και σε καλό χριστιανό, το πιθανότερο είναι ότι θα περνάμε από τη μια δυστοπία στην επόμενη. 

Η κριτική εναντίον του Ντόκινς έχει σημεία που θα άξιζε να συζητηθούν. Και το γραπτό του, χάρμα.


----------



## nickel (May 16, 2011)

Με την ευκαιρία, λίγα και καλά από τον Χόκινγκ, από τη συνέντευξή του στην Guardian:

*Science, truth and beauty: Hawking's answers*

_What is the value in knowing "Why are we here?"_

The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we can't solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those societies most likely to survive. We assign them higher value.

_You've said there is no reason to invoke God to light the blue touchpaper. Is our existence all down to luck?_

Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.

_So here we are. What should we do?_

We should seek the greatest value of our action.

_You had a health scare and spent time in hospital in 2009. What, if anything, do you fear about death?_

I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

_What are the things you find most beautiful in science?_

Science is beautiful when it makes simple explanations of phenomena or connections between different observations. Examples include the double helix in biology, and the fundamental equations of physics."​


----------



## Costas (Aug 25, 2014)

Διάβασα τη διάλεξη. Έχει πλάκα εκεί που δείχνει την ενόχλησή του από το γλωσσικό τικ τού like:
For this brand of thought, all certainty becomes authoritarian, and as such, is aligned with a certain kind of liberalism. As is, perhaps, I think this is surely the reason why so many young people today, not least in this great country of yours, insert the word “like” every three seconds into their discourse. To say, “It’s, like, 9:00,” is less unpleasantly dogmatic and authoritarian, than saying, “It’s 9:00,” with that kind of Stalinist ring to it, a situation where that kind of delight in ambiguity has infiltrated the everyday language of a whole generation.

Αργότερα, στις ερωτήσεις του κοινού, ο Audience Member 12 τον βομβαρδίζει με αυτά ακριβώς τα like:
I was – it was very disappointing to read Martin Amis talk about how, *like*, the Muslim community needs to be collectively punished. And it was very pleasant to read your rebuttal to that as well. So, my question is, did you find yourself reevaluating their work, of Martin Amis for example, after he made that comment? And I think, *like*, a more general question is, *like*, how do you evaluate, *like*, writers, for example, like Knut Hamsun, who are supposed to be very good writers, but also held a very disturbing philosophy? 

Τι τραβάνε κι αυτοί οι κονφερασιέδες!

Όσο για την ουσία των λεγομένων του, δυστυχώς ή ευτυχώς η φόρμα που χρησιμοποιεί (το χιούμορ, η ειρωνεία), και που είναι όντως πολύ ευχάριστη στο διάβασμα, είναι η κατεξοχήν φόρμα όπου είναι αδύνατον να τον βάλεις να σου εξηγήσει ποιες είναι οι θέσεις του. Εντάξει, κάνει κριτική στον μεταμοντερνισμό και στο σχετικισμό του. Ταυτόχονα λέει πως ο ύστερος καπιταλισμός είναι σχετικιστικός από τη φύση του. Κάποιος του απαντάει ότι ο ύστερος καπιταλισμός υπάρχει πια όπου γης, όχι μόνο στην άπιστη Δύση. Σ' αυτό δεν απαντά κάτι πειστικό.

Ο θαυμασμός του για τον Μαρξ είναι "εύκολος". Ο Μαρξ ναι μεν έβλεπε ολοκάθαρα πως ο ιμπεριαλισμός παρενέβαινε όπου γης αποκλειστικά για να προωθήσει τα συμφέροντά του, αλλά αυτό δεν τον εμπόδιζε να υποστηρίζει αυτές τις επεμβάσεις ως αντικειμενικά εκσυγχρονιστικές, όπως μπορεί κανείς να διαπιστώσει αν διαβάσει τι έγραφε για τον Πόλεμο του Οπίου, ότι έβγαλε τους Κινέζους from their stupidity. Ο Μαρξ δηλαδή ήταν σαφέστατα ένας οπαδός του εκδυτικισμού και του εκσυγχρονισμού ως "ιστορικά προοδευτικών" διαδικασιών, έστω και αν αυτός ο εκδυτικισμός και εκσυγχρονισμός σήμαιναν καταστροφή για τις τοπικές κοινωνίες. Αυτό έχει επισημανθεί εδώ και δεκαετίες, κι όμως απουσιάζει από την εικόνα που φτιάχνει ο Ήγκλετον γι' αυτόν, εικόνα ενός Marx που είναι αποκλειστικά that most unbeatable of characters who is at once an enlightenment rationalist, and a romantic humanist. Very hard to beat that combination, actually. Μία φράση ακριβώς νωρίτερα ωστόσο έχει πει, στην ίδια απάντησή του, ότι Marx is a famous atheist, but I wouldn’t really derive his atheism very directly from rationalism. Πώς είναι δυνατόν να λέει ότι ο αθεϊσμός του Μαρξ δεν προέρχεται απευθείας από τον ρασιοναλισμό, και στην αμέσως επόμενη φράση να λέει πως ο Μαρξ είναι κατά το ένα μέρος ένας ρασιοναλιστής του Διαφωτισμού; Και από πού δηλαδή παράγει τον αθεϊσμό του Μαρξ, αν όχι από τον ρασιοναλισμό;

Εν ολίγοις, το λογοτεχνικό είδος που υπηρετεί ο Ήγκλετον δεν είμαι σίγουρος ότι προσφέρεται για διαύγαση των θεμάτων που πραγματεύεται μέσω της συζήτησης, αν το ζητούμενο είναι βέβαια η διαύγαση.


----------

