tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post6756367303275726695..comments2023-05-16T04:46:21.091-06:00Comments on ALONE ON A WINDY RIDGE: I got home last nightBrenda Schmidthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03576550905189206215noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-88609362539993171932007-03-30T19:44:00.000-06:002007-03-30T19:44:00.000-06:00Eek! This conversation would likely look a whole l...Eek! This conversation would likely look a whole lot different <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6500887.stm" REL="nofollow">if Darwin hadn't had that darned barnacle obsession</A>...Brenda Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03576550905189206215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-1427682229651967232007-03-30T16:19:00.000-06:002007-03-30T16:19:00.000-06:00Do you ever stop partying, Z? Madman, you are. Mad...Do you ever stop partying, Z? Madman, you are. Mad.GMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14663103545444712062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-90164111670368644732007-03-28T19:33:00.000-06:002007-03-28T19:33:00.000-06:00I'd also add that the cause-and-effect relationshi...I'd also add that the cause-and-effect relationship posited by Eagleton begs a number of questions. Religious fundamentalism and tribal violence has been around a lot longer than global capitalism. While I do believe that America is largely responsible for the hatred directed against it by people in the Middle East and elsewhere, it's something of a guilty-liberal cliche--and a gross simplification of centuries of political turmoil--to say that global capitalism is THE cause of fundamentalist terrorism.Zachariah Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02241595894807722933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-25340330781714102752007-03-28T19:23:00.000-06:002007-03-28T19:23:00.000-06:00It's reasonable, to the best of my knowledge. But ...It's reasonable, to the best of my knowledge. But what Eagleton doesn't acknowledge is the extent to which the histories of capitalism and Judaeo-Christianity, particularly protestantism of various types, have been complementary, if not coextensive. There's not much difference between Smith's "invisible hand" and God. And the Free Market has become something of a monotheistic ideal for the high priests of neoliberal economics.<BR/><BR/>It's a stretch, however--a big one--to say that Dawkins is a Hegelian teleologist or an apologist for American economic imperialism. If there's been no developed critique of global capitalism in Dawkins' work, it's most probably because he doesn't see its relatively limited claims as epistemological competition for scientific inquiry.<BR/><BR/>If Dawkins were to venture into socio-economics, I would hazard a guess that he'd be more allied with JK Galbraith and C. Wright Mills than Ronald Reagan. But I hasten to say this is just speculation.Zachariah Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02241595894807722933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-52415677086934455042007-03-28T18:24:00.000-06:002007-03-28T18:24:00.000-06:00Thanks, Zach. That was entertaining and highly rea...Thanks, Zach. That was entertaining and highly readable. While a number of Eagleton's remarks caught my attention, this one in particular speaks to some of the issues raised during the course of Talking Fresh:<BR/><BR/>"Dawkins quite rightly detests fundamentalists; but as far as I know his anti-religious diatribes have never been matched in his work by a critique of the global capitalism that generates the hatred, anxiety, insecurity and sense of humiliation that breed fundamentalism. Instead, as the obtuse media chatter has it, it's all down to religion."<BR/><BR/>How fair is this statement in your opinion?Brenda Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03576550905189206215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-62727613053121287262007-03-28T17:34:00.000-06:002007-03-28T17:34:00.000-06:00A far more persuasively written negative review of...A far more persuasively written negative review of TGD is Terry Eagleton's in LRB:<BR/><BR/>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html<BR/><BR/>Even Eagleton, however, deals more with Dawkins' tone, his supposed "bitchiness," than the substance of the arguments Dawkins makes and the questions he raises. And Eagleton is prone to mushy lapses, saying basically, "you can't approach God with Science because God isn't about reason, He's about love." He also mischaracterises some of Dawkins' thoughts, but not in the egregious wreckingball way that Robinson does. Which might actually be worse, because it's far more credible.Zachariah Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02241595894807722933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-54693012442926567972007-03-28T15:21:00.000-06:002007-03-28T15:21:00.000-06:00Har har, Anonymous.Zach, if I remember correctly, ...Har har, Anonymous.<BR/><BR/>Zach, if I remember correctly, essentially yes. A wishy-washy answer I know, but the session was a conversation between the writer and the audience and could easily be misrepresented here. Thanks for the link to the comment by Andrew Krause. I still haven't read TGD. I hope to crack its spine in May.Brenda Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03576550905189206215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-70425089801191783192007-03-28T01:24:00.000-06:002007-03-28T01:24:00.000-06:00Oy vey! That review is frigging unreadable, not ju...Oy vey! That review is frigging unreadable, not just for the turgidities of its prose, but for the bald dishonesty about--or at least incredibly stupid incomprehension of--Dawkins' basic arguments. Several of these are pointed out by Andrew Krause in the comments field of this post:<BR/> http://darwiniana.com/2006/10/23/marilynne-robinson-on-dawkins/<BR/><BR/>Brenda, did the person who mentioned this review think it was good? I hope not, because it's ridiculous.Zachariah Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02241595894807722933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-25124824536761430282007-03-27T22:38:00.000-06:002007-03-27T22:38:00.000-06:00Must be heavy !!Must be heavy !!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-43148872903852240032007-03-27T19:50:00.000-06:002007-03-27T19:50:00.000-06:00Good grief.Good grief.Brenda Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03576550905189206215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-10801569735189702052007-03-27T19:46:00.000-06:002007-03-27T19:46:00.000-06:00Probably not much, as your head is made of CEMENT!...Probably not much, as your head is made of CEMENT!Ariel Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14879719960202249424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-47994027142458312182007-03-27T19:13:00.000-06:002007-03-27T19:13:00.000-06:00Oh goody. As if you of all people needed help thin...Oh goody. As if you of all people needed help thinking of what to call me. What was I thinking...Brenda Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03576550905189206215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10177155.post-89872709972348209142007-03-27T14:20:00.000-06:002007-03-27T14:20:00.000-06:00Head of cement! Head of CEMENT!Head of cement! Head of CEMENT!Ariel Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14879719960202249424noreply@blogger.com