On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:49:44 -0500 Ralph Dumain <rdum...@autodidactproject.org> writes: > "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
Feuerbach was a rather important thinker for the Death of God crowd. Then again, the theologians had already pretty much "baptized" him anyway. Karl Barth, the proponent of neo-orthodoxy, had already Feuerbach a central figure for 20th century theologians. And likewise Nietzsche and Freud had become required reading for the theologians too. I suppose that intellectually, the radical theology movement, including the Death of God crowd, pretty much regurgitated the ruminations of the Young Hegelians, and those influenced by them in the 19th century. > > 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 The New Atheists, in my judgment, know enough theology in order to be able to debink its claims. Where they are lacking in sophsitication is in their grasp of social theory, both Marxist and non-Marxist. Their explanations of religion and religious phenomena, therefore, tend to biologistic, idealist, and abstract as a consequence. > > 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. That's long been the position that humanist philosophers have taken in regards to liberal theology., i.e. Sidney Hook, and Corliss Lamont. > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ Love Spell Click here to light up your life with a love spell! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=M5A_47JH9RXrBsf2KgqXcQAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARwAAAAA= _______________________________________________ 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
