Newest fundie lie: R. Dawkins advocates "social darwinism."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

Although everybody who read more than half a book by him knows he VERY loudly condemns such a travesty. Frequently.

Sigh. It's like "Hitler was an atheist."

[Deep13]

1. Even if that were true, there's still no god.

If they can't refute the argument, they go after the proponent of the argument. If they have no basis for an ad hominem attack, they make shit up.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Exactly

[moggie]

5. He's our God, you know

Nobody told me we're supposed to worship him! Great, now I'm going to end up in atheist hell with varkam.

[drm604]

3. They assume that anyone who believes in evolution believes in social darwinism.

It's not just Dawkins. They assume that anyone who believes in evolution believes in social darwinism. They think that evolution by natural selection logically implies social darwinism.

This just shows their ignorance and complete misunderstanding of the theory. They have a very simplistic understanding of it which amounts to an easily attacked straw man.

[charlie]

4. They don't assume, they insist

Harrumphing about a contrived consequence of Darwinism is a whole lot easier than arguing against the science of evolution. And why not? If you're not square with God, you're on the Devil's team anyway. Our resident fundie (Hey Zeb! :hi:) used to pull that shit all the time.

[onager]

6. And don't forget "Ditchkins!"

That's Terry Eagleton's contemptuous playground combo of "Dawkins" and "Hitchens." Over at the NY TIMES (a/k/a "Paper Of Broken Record"), the pompous ass Stanley Fish fellatially reviews Eagleton's latest whine-fest.

Stripped of its hi-falutin', $5-dollar-words, this is just another variation of what we can read any day in R&T.

Must suppress Bad Thoughts...like...maybe that fine atheist Mr. Pol Pot had the right idea about finding more useful employment for academics.

Here, read and listen to your blood boil. And my jaw dropped as well...I never realized human progress was so damn EVIL!

After what? Eagleton, of course, does not tell us, except in the most general terms: “The coming kingdom of God, a condition of justice, fellowship, and self-fulfillment far beyond anything that might normally be considered possible or even desirable in the more well-heeled quarters of Oxford and Washington.”

Such a condition would not be desirable in Oxford and Washington because, according to Eagleton, the inhabitants of those places are complacently in bondage to the false idols of wealth, power and progress.

That is, they feel little of the tragedy and pain of the human condition, but instead “adopt some bright-eyed superstition such as the dream of untrammeled human progress” and put their baseless “trust in the efficacy of a spot of social engineering here and a dose of liberal enlightenment there...”

I noticed Fish didn't dare compare the track records of religion and those secular "bright-eyed superstitions." Why do we even bother? Let's just wait for that "coming kingdom of God!" Hallelujah!

“Ditchkins,” Eagleton observes, cannot ground his belief “in the value of individual freedom” in scientific observation. It is for him an article of faith, and once in place, it generates facts and reasons and judgments of right and wrong.

“Faith and knowledge,” Eagleton concludes, are not antithetical but “interwoven.” You can’t have one without the other, despite the Satanic claim that you can go it alone by applying your own independent intellect to an unmediated reality: “All reasoning is conducted within the ambit of some sort of faith, attraction, inclination, orientation, predisposition, or prior commitment.”

What a load of gibberish. Read the whole thing here:

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/god-talk/

[moggie]

7. PZ's review of Eagleton

PZ Myers read Eagleton, and was not impressed. He was particularly unimpressed by "Ditchkins":

There was a part of O'Hehir's review that I could scarcely believe, and was even more astounded that O'Hehir thought it was clever: Eagleton invents an antagonist. He is specifically writing this book as a rebuttal to Dawkins and Hitchens and Dennett and all those other rowdy atheists, and while he does address some of their arguments directly (and poorly), he has also created this composite character he calls "Ditchkins". Ditchkins is a straw man, a dummy he can flog without fear of reply, and without worry that someone might actually find that his description of Ditchkins views is a caricature, because Ditchkins doesn't exist.

It's a bit disconcerting. There is a fine literary tradition in having a Simplicio foil to bounce ideas off of in a rhetorical exercise, but this one goes off the rails quickly. We'll have a section of the essay in which Eagleton is discussing some idea by Dawkins, for instance, and then suddenly he's telling us that "Ditchkins thinks…" or "Ditchkins believes…" or "Ditchkins says…" — it's rather creepy and more than a little cowardly. After all, Dawkins might be able to speak up and say that no, he doesn't think that…but Ditchkins never will. Ditchkins exists only to absorb abuse.

Ditchkins is a central figure in this book, and seems to have about as much reality to Eagleton as Jesus — at least, he seems to be mentioned about as often. One of the most tedious aspects of the book is the way poor uncomplaining Ditchkins is constantly dragged out for a flogging, a torture that lacks even the visceral thrill of a little blood and suffering, since Ditchkins bears his torment without even a squeak. Apparently, we're supposed to be impressed with the way Eagleton grunts with effort and sprays sweat around as he wields his whip. I wasn't; he's playing a futile game.

The full review is worth reading.

[onager]

11. It sure was worth reading.

Thanks for the link.

And Jebus on a participle! How did Eagleton ever become known as a "rebel" and "radical?" I noticed he pompously refers to himself as such, and pretty frequently. "If Dawkins were a radical like me..." Etc.

The only thing I see him rebelling against is clear and undertandable use of the English language. IMO, he writes as if the English language did him some great injury in the past, and now he has to take revenge on it. (I stole that from somebody.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Matt Taibbi has a pop at Eagleton and Fish too:

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/05/07/god-talk-stanley-fish-blog-nytimescom/

And he quotes Eagleton (from the lectures, I think, rather than the book, though it might be there too) as saying this:

For one thing, of course, God differs from Unidentified Flying Objects or the Yeti or the Tooth Fairy in not being even a possible object of cognition… it’s not just we cannot see Him, it is as it were that our not seeing him is inherent to God Himself, which is presumably not true of the Yeti.

Well, the central point of Christianity is that 'God' has indeed been an "object of cognition" - and not just a supernatural entity that communicates with some people somehow, but a living, breathing being - who was resurrected just to show how important it was that 'God' was a real person. So Eagleton, despite saying he's defending the 'religion of his ancestors' (Catholicism) elsewhere, will, when it suits his argument, says that the central dogma of Christianity is wrong, and goes against any defensible (in his opinion) idea of 'God'.

I get the impression from the reviews that Eagleton, who used to lecture at Oxford, has a grudge against a certain type of Oxford professor, has decided Dawkins is such a professor (I have no idea if they crossed paths there), and is taking out his anger on Dawkins as a result. And that means he doesn't care too much if his arguments make sense or not, as long as he gets his digs in.

[rrneck]

10. That pretty much sums

up what religion is.

“A society of packaged fulfillment, administered desire, managerialized politics and consumerist economics..."

As concise description of religion as I've seen in a while.

[trotsky]

8. It always takes me a bit by surprise...

to see just how much Dawkins' mere existence just gnaws at some believers. And what he said about his detractors still rings true: not a one of them actually counters his arguments, they just unleash personal attack after personal attack, or claim that he just hasn't studied theology enough, or whatnot. That recent thread in R/T is a textbook example.

[Lost-in-FL]

12. Isn't social darwinism, raw laissez fair?

:freak: