"The weak points in the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism that excludes history and its process, are at once evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions of its spokesmen, whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality."
--- Karl Marx Terry Eagleton is a disgrace. As for Schneider, the content of his article belles its bullshit title. There's no connection between the Death of God movement and the new atheism, or the old. So here are my bullet points. 1. 'Death of God' theology can be criticized in the same manner as Marx criticized Young Hegelians like Bauer and Feuerbach---the discussion remains entirely within the boundaries of ideology--in this case mythology--and simply juggles mythical concepts cut off from the realities that generate them. Only the higher criticism of the early 19th century made something progress, whereas the Death of God movement simply rationalized a dying (for the intelligentsia) religion. Altizer is an interesting character, but it's all nothing more than the retooling of mythology within mythology. 2. The lack of sophistication of Dawkins, Harris, Shermer and others in or out of the official grouping of the "new atheists", is another matter entirely. They don't have to be familiar with the intricacies of theology and prove their competence thereto in order to engage in debate about the falsehood of religious belief. All this liberal religion is very much a subterfuge in any case, playing a shady game of "as if" while being very cagey about what one actually commits oneself to--a game played by intellectuals who are too smart to believe what the ordinary person purports to believe but not honest enough to cut oneself loose from it. One finds this among liberal Jewish, Christian, and presumably other religionists. What Dawkins et al are deficient in is far more serious. First, they are philosophically naive or inept. They don't understand the interplay between the realms of philosophy and empirical science (cum scientific theory), and they don't understand how philosophy works. So when they make the leap to philosophical statements, they think they are still engaging in straightforward scientific propositions. But it's much worse than this. Dawkins et al don't know, AND DON'T WANT TO KNOW, anything about history or society or politics. (Hitchens knows something, but doesn't want to know it anymore, except for name-dropping self-promotion.) They want to read society, culture, and history directly off of biological evolution or cognitive psychology, unmediated by any engagement with real history or sociology. At 02:39 PM 1/5/2010, c b wrote: >Could God die again? >Death of God theology was a 1960s phenomenon that casts light on the >narrowness of the current debate > > > >Nathan Schneider >guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 October 2009 09.00 BST _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
