#shanenaz

Last year my pals and I cycled in The Galilee, Northern Israel, to raise money for Nazareth Hospital Paediatric Department. We raised over £50,000 but we could use more! Nazareth is the largest Arab town in Israel; the people are lovely, and the kids are awesome. Nazareth also treats kids in the West Bank of Palestine who have very limited access to healthcare. They need your help! Go to my sponsorship page to find out more and see what you can do! Maybe even join us in 2017..?
http://justgiving.com/shanenaz

27 September 2010

Terry Eagleton on Richard Dawkins [FAIL]

Terry Eagleton is some dude who fancies himself as a philosopher. This is what he actually wrote in a 2006 review of Dawkins' "The God Delusion":
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

Allow me to make a little tweak.
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Unicorns, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

There. Fixed it for ya, Terry!

5 comments:

  1. Hmmm. I'm not even sure that really works, but I'll leave it up anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ehhhh, yep! Glad you said that! I felt the start of a brain twist coming on... although 'unicorn seeker' that I am, I should be used to it! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. How about "British Book of Circular Arguments" for Dawkins AND Eagleton!

    There. That's fixed it.

    Graham

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Big Book of Universal Moral Rules"* by someone writing a book against objective morality - is the analogy that Eagleton should have used.

    But that's boring.

    Graham


    *Otherwise known as "Mere Christianity"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, I dunno. Eagleton thought he was being smart, but he was - in the arse sense. The problem for Eagleton is that the god Dawkins demolishes in TGD (and demolish it he does) is indeed the god believed in by the majority of theists, and sometimes goes by the name of Yahweh, Allah or just "God".

    But if you are after some apophatuous billowy unspecifiable entity like the First Cause or Universal Law Giver (pointless concepts, but hey), then no argument is required. There is no *point* in believing in such an entity; it can do you no good.

    So what is Eagleton *for*?

    ReplyDelete