WORK IN PROGRESS
My responses to:
God, Dawkins and tragic humanism: In a new book, Terry Eagleton argues that liberal humanism woefully underestimates the horrors of which humans are capable.
By:
Mark Vernon
Published:
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 June 2009 11.00 BST
Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/11/humanism-eagleton-dawkins-christianity-atheism
Or consider Christianity. Christians in history have undoubtedly perpetrated many crimes. But their most fearsome judge is the very individual they claim to follow, the man who blessed peacemakers, tended lepers and loved enemies.
Well, if you follow the Christian narrative, then yes. However, if Christianity were a criminal offence - and I am not suggesting for one minute that it should be a crime - just how many Christians could be prosecuted for Christianity based on the evidence of them practicing their faith?
Another thing, if our most fearsome judge is a projection of our imagination, why wouldn't we mould the judgment of that super-being in order for it to fit in with our own idea of right, wrong and judgment?
I guess that what I am saying is that Eagleton takes the game to his territory, and then frames the debate accordingly, which is perfectly reasonable, in a political debate, but hardly a rigorous defense of an assumed and indefensible posture, no matter how cleverly we can manage the dialectic, subvert the rationale and twist an already badly bent metaphysics.
Eagleton's second point follows from this thought. He believes that the problem with the liberal humanism that the new atheists follow is its woeful underestimation of the horrors of which humans are capable.
Given the overwhelming evidence of man's inhumanity to man, within the last two hundred years, this charge against liberal humanism falls flat on its arse.