[MD] Terry Eagleton's God Delusion

[david buchanan]

"ian glendinning" quoted Terry Eagleton and said:
Take it away, Eagleton fans.

dmb says:
I'm not sure if I'm a fan but the topic interests me. One of the remarkable 
things about Eagleton is that he is both a Marxist and a devout Catholic. I 
think that is quite a trick. It seems to me that one would have to do some 
pretty fancy contortions to make that work, which is probably why we find 
him saying such bizzare things. I'd draw your attention to this section of 
his article, for example, where he gives us his description of God...

Terry Eagleton wrote:
...For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore 
arguably is. Nor is he 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. God and the universe do not add up to two, 
any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects. This, 
not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim 
that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love; 
and this would still be the case even if the universe had no beginning...

dmb continues:
Perfectly coherent? I don't think so. If memory serves, I offered a million 
dollars to anyone who can explain what this is supposed to mean. God is the 
condition of possibility for any entity? What does that mean? What is "the 
condition of possibility" and on what basis is this equated with God? What 
reason is there to believe that "all things" are sustained by love? What 
kind of love? In what sense does love sustain things? It sounds real pretty 
and nice but does it actually mean anything? As I see it, this is nonsense 
piled on top of nonsense.

I asked about this same notion a few moons ago and recieved only one short 
reply from DM. It was too short to answer the question. Let me elaborate so 
you can see my problem, dear reader. As speakers of english, we all know 
what "condition" and "possibility" mean. We all understand how to make ice, 
we all know that water and cold are among the "conditions of possibility" 
for ice. Fire requires fuel and air, etc. So here we have Eagleton saying 
that God is what makes all things possible. And this matches his assertion 
that God and the universe are NOT two things. In other words, he's saying 
God is identical to the universe, the whole framework of existence and the 
things that are possible within that framework.

In which case, God cannot be distinguished from anything else. This is my 
problem with Eagleton's definition. A thing that cannot be distinguished 
form anything else has no value, no meaning and does not exist. So what kind 
of definition is that? This is especially since our pal Terry is angryly 
defending God even as he defines it out of existence.

That's why I think his artlcle was NOT perfectly coherent. I suspect he's 
taken Marx's dialectical materialism and added back some of that Hegelian 
"Absolute Idea" spiritualism so that God becomes the material conditions of 
existence.

But its too goofy to be believed. I mean, it seems awfully odd to make "the 
conditions of possibility" into any kind of thing or general category in the 
first place. I mean, logic would dictate that the existence of any thing or 
being proves that the conditions of possibility have been met even if we 
have no idea what they are. And since these conditions can't really be 
isolated so simply as the fire and ice examples. If we explored further, 
we'd likely find that these conditions extent way beyond a few local 
ingredients and would ultimately include every other thing or being. I mean, 
it seems to me that the phrase really has no meaning insofar as we can never 
know what it refers to in any specific way. Again, a thing that cannot be 
distinguished from anything else does not exist. As Eagleton uses the 
phrase, "the condition of possibility" is an empty concept. And so is "God".

Any takers?

Thanks,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Find what you need at prices you’ll love. Compare products and save at MSN® 
Shopping. 
http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701