[MD] Terry Eagleton's God Delusion

[Ron Kulp]

Dmb,
I'll take a stab at it, I think Eagleton is using the old defence
against atheism, why not anything at all?
He seems to be using existence itself as validation for a god and that
god is distinguishable by it's
 antithesis, nothingness.. This tie's in with Ham's thoughs on
Essentialism.
perhaps you and Ham should beat this one around.
Thanks
-x

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of david buchanan
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:16 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Terry Eagleton's God Delusion

"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(r) Shopping. 
http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001
MSN20A0701