Hi DMB By the way I only meant check out the chapter titles for interest.
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Terry Eagleton's God Delusion > Hi DMB > > 'God' as a word for the source of all possibilities is well > covered in Sneddon's thesis on Whitehead & Pirsig, > it's simple stuff really, I'm sure you can grasp it. > > I think Whitehead's analysis of the distinction possible/actual > is key to expanding what Pirsig says about static/dynamic. > The physicist Shimon Malin thinks Whitehead's approach > is the ideal one for making sense of quantum theory, the > connections to Pirsig are obvious if you look at the chapters > in this: > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195161092/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-0430296-6025607#reader-link > > David M > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "david buchanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:16 PM > 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® >> Shopping. >> http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 >> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> moq_discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
