Silly Christiantists

I can always count on Andrew Sullivan to have interesting discussions on religion - he is a practicing Catholic, and gay - but oftentimes it's what he links to that turns out to be the most thought provoking. There is an article about a new book by University of Manchester (England) professor and Yale University lecturer Terry Eagleton called "Reason, Faith and Revolution". The article is written by Stanley Fish on his New York Times blog. You can get to that article here:

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

But the rebuttal that Sully points to is what's really worth reading. It's written by Matt Taibbi, and it gives an agnostic's response to Fish's over-the-top, sanctimonious lovefest of a review of Eagleton's book, which apparently is an attempt on Eagleton's part to counter the wildly successful arguments from the atheist/agnostic books and commentaries by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I won't read this book - I have absorbed enough of the gist of it from Fish's googly-eyed ravings. However, if you have time, I think reading Fish's views, and some of the comments he has received, followed by Matt's response, is a stimulating way to spend some time. Here is what Matt has to say:

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

I like a lot of what he has to say, and he certainly has style as a writer, too, but I will highlight the same part that Sully highlighted in his blog post:

As for the actual argument, it’s the same old stuff religious apologists have been croaking out since the days of Bertrand Russell — namely that because science is inadequate to explain the mysteries of existence, faith must be necessary. Life would be meaningless without religion, therefore we must have religion.

But this sort of thinking is exactly what most agnostics find ridiculous about religion and religious people, who seem incapable of looking at the world unless it’s through the prism of some kind of belief system. They seem to think that if one doesn’t believe in God, one must believe in something else, because to live without answers would be intolerable. And maybe that’s true of the humorless Richard Dawkins, who does seem actually to have tried to turn atheism into a kind of religion unto itself. But there are plenty of other people who are simply comfortable not knowing the answers. It always seemed weird to me that this quality of not needing an explanation and just being cool with what few answers we have inspires such verbose indignation in people like Eagleton and Fish. They seem determined to prove that the quality of not believing in heaven and hell and burning bushes and saints is a rigid dogma all unto itself, as though it required a concerted intellectual effort to disbelieve in a God who thinks gays (Leviticus 20:13) or people who work on Sunday (Exodus 35:2) should be put to death. They’ll tie themselves into knots arguing this, and they’ll probably never stop.

Needless to say, I have added Matt as a blog that I follow. You can find the link to Matt Taibbi on the right under My Blog List.