[Boogster]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I'm almost ashamed to read that thing. The argument that religion does not involve blind faith because god exists so there is frankly embarassing, as is "On the horrors that science and technology have wreaked on humanity, he is predictably silent." The irony of criticising Dawkins for probably not having read works of christian philosophy whilst simultaneously presenting a blinkered at best interpretation of the scientific method should also not be lost.

There are several tacks you can take to criticise The God Delusion, it's probably too much to hope for to have people use the intellectual honest ones.

What? well I was ashamed to read TGD so there

I don't care whether you're ashamed, mildy disgusted, or merely peeved; the fact that you feel the need to inform me of your distaste for an argument that wasn't even presented in the first place is frankly baffling.

I don't think Eagleton is religious, and his argument that theology belongs in a similarly sophisticated realm to philosophy holds water. The fact that as a subject it is based upon posited fact does not automatically relegate it to the level of imbecility or intellectual chicanery.

Eagleton is right to decry the poverty of scrutiny and empathy in TGD, particularly with regard to the limited assiduity which Dawkins applies to his observations of the religious:

Now it may well be that all this is no more plausible than the tooth fairy. Most reasoning people these days will see excellent grounds to reject it. But critics of the richest, most enduring form of popular culture in human history have a moral obligation to confront that case at its most persuasive, rather than grabbing themselves a victory on the cheap by savaging it as so much garbage and gobbledygook. The mainstream theology I have just outlined may well not be true; but anyone who holds it is in my view to be respected, whereas Dawkins considers that no religious belief, anytime or anywhere, is worthy of any respect whatsoever.

It's absurd to write a book masquerading as a critique of a belief, or systems of belief, if you do not feel able to empathise with or understand the believers themselves. TGD is quite simply not the exposition of self-evident, scientific or empirical truths - it is an examination of a culturally ingrained psychology that deserves fuller examination than Dawkins is prepared to give.

I respect Dawkins for his determination and tenacity, for his dedication to the 'truth', and for being thick-skinned, willing to put his neck on the line. I loathe Eagleton, usually; TGD is just very limited.

Nevertheless, and on-topic, yours would be one of the libraries I'd be most curious to see.