He talks about straw man versions of Christianity used by modern atheists, and then defends his christianity, which he says is the chistianty of a few theologians like himself in resent times. So let me get this right, taking christianity to mean the broard spectrum of christianity, that the vastly greatest number of chritians follow today, and that everyone followed for the previous two thousand years, is straw maning christianity, but pretending that the christainty of, an almost none existant minority, in the last hundred years is the real thing, is not a straw man argument.

PS. Why single out Dawkins after saying that he knows almost nothing of Dawkins.

@Fernapple Not sure what you are saying here. I am not criticising his theological position, just some of the motifs he presents.

He seems to know about Dawkins’ ideas of creation because he cites them in the interview.

@Geoffrey51 Yes perhaps I was not clear, I am not criticising his theological position either, only his assumtion that his theological possition and that of a few like him, is effectively the same thing as christianity. As to the Dawkins point he is perhaps being facecious when he says. " The only thing I know about Dawkins was that his wife was in Doctor Who." But it come over as saying. "I have not read him at all."

@Fernapple
Eagleton doesn’t call himself a Christian or a theologian. If I defend gay rights it doesn’t mean I’m gay. He’s standing up for reason, not Christianity.

Quantum physics has the same problem. Every kind of quack NewAge philosopher (I won’t mention any names cough Chopra cough) and their multitudes of followers blithely weave a quantum motif into their spiritual worldview, while real physicists like Richard Feynman and Niels Bohr said things like “If you think you understand quantum mechanics you don’t understand quantum mechanics” and “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.”

So just because the popular view of quantum physics is in the majority, even though it’s nothing more than a justification for solipsistic NewAge narcissism, does that mean they should get to define the field, or should we listen to the tiny minority who have actually spent their lives studying it?

@skado Yes but in this video he does present himself as such.

And christian theology is not physics. Physics is a dicipline with strict edges, and people can not self define as physicists. Whereas christianity is subjective and anyone can self define as a christian. Are you saying then that my village vicar is not a christian ?

@Fernapple
at what time-stamp? I didn’t see it.

@Fernapple
I think people can self-define as whatever they want. I sometimes call myself a scientist, because, philosophically, I subscribe to it as the best method we currently have for determining the nature of nature, but I’m not a scientist by profession. On the other hand, the newspaper boy throws papers for a living, but that doesn’t give his voice the weight of a journalism professor.

For me, it’s not about whether someone IS something professionally, but rather, how good they happen to be AT it.

It’s not up to me to say who is a Christian and who is a physicist, but regardless of titles, some people understand the deepest essence of those fields better than others, and those who understand the deepest are almost always in a tiny minority.

@skado That is where the problem lies. A physicist may will be an expert on physics, but would not make statements biology or chemistry, or except in general terms, science as a whole. Therefore a theologian should not claim that there is a single essence of Christianity, in which he may indeed be an expert, and that his view therefore stands for all. Neither would an honest journalist claim to express the opinions of paper-boys, even though he is higher in the profession than them.

In the interview he give the essence of Christianity as, the view basic that, altruistic ideology will get you killed by the state. Well I am sorry, but though you may well make a good case for that as a good interpretation of some parts of the biblical story, but that is just cherry picking of the worst sort. (And I know it is a short interview. ) Christianity is rich and complex and so is the bible, there is no one essence that fits all, any more than we have as yet a final single theory of everything in science. The fact that he feels willing to cherry pick his own favourite interpretation of a small part of that, and use it to represent the whole, speak exactly to the sort of intellectual dishonesty which is the religion lite position.

Time after time you encounter exactly this deliberate ignoring of the bigger picture in order to justify religion lite. It speaks to the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty, and the lack of moral integrity which is religion lite. And the spoiled child, have my cake and eat it, or rather, have my sham authority without having to defend that which gives authority, or recognize that authority myself, mentality which is the rotten core of religion lite.

I am now searching for what he has to say about Karl Marx.

@Spinliesel Thanks

@Spinliesel Although I don’t hold with much of what Eagleton says, his book ‘Marxism and Literary Criticism’, is very interesting and an easy read. His closing remarks -

“Marxist criticism is not just an alternative technique for interpreting Paradise Lost or Middlemarch. It is part of our liberation from oppression, and that is why it is worth discussing at book length.”

You can download the full text here

[academia.edu]