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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of david buchanan Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:16 PM To: [email protected] 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 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/
