Hitchens + Dawkins = Ditchkins

(Tim, thanks to James) Alright, alright; I'll say something good about Stanley Fish. Check out two posts (one and two) he recently did for the New York Times' web site in review of Terry Eagleton's Reason, Faith, and Revolution. To whet your appetite, here's an excerpt from the first post...

“Self-sufficient” gets to the heart of what Eagleton sees as wrong with the “brittle triumphalism” of liberal rationalism and its ideology of science. From the perspective of a theistic religion, the cardinal error is the claim of the creature to be “self-originating”: “Self-authorship,” Eagleton proclaims, “is the bourgeois fantasy par excellence,” and he could have cited in support the words of that great bourgeois villain, Milton’s Satan, who, upon being reminded that he was created by another, retorts , “[W]ho saw/ When this creation was…?/ We know no time when we were not as now/Know none before us, self-begot, self-raised” (Paradise Lost, V, 856-860).That is, we created ourselves (although how there can be agency before there is being and therefore an agent is not explained), and if we are able to do that, why can’t we just keep on going and pull progress and eventual perfection out of our own entrails?

That is where science and reason come in. Science, says Eagleton, “does not start far back enough”; it can run its operations, but it can’t tell you what they ultimately mean or provide a corrective to its own excesses. Likewise, reason is “too skin deep a creed to tackle what is at stake”; its laws — the laws of entailment and evidence — cannot get going without some substantive proposition from which they proceed but which they cannot contain; reason is a non-starter in the absence of an a prior specification of what is real and important, and where is that going to come from? Only from some kind of faith.

Comments

Tim,

Link to "one" worked. Link to "two" didn't on my computer. Got there through "one."

Thanks, Robert; it's working, now.

The God Delusion Debate online was a great listen:

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

What do y'all think of Van Til/presuppositionalism, I've never read any. For me all of my arguments come down to suppositions so I always end up talking about the Big Bang etc. and how irrational that is.

Add new comment