Well, yeah, that's pretty stupid. Not so much the not being able to state it but the claim that he would be able to do so - he would have been better to point out that science doesn't stand on untouchable sacred texts whereas Christianity kinda does (though presumably not to Eagleton).
Or really to many people at all. Who really cares if Luke goes first? It kinda makes some sense to keep the really crazy one until last, from a narrative perspective. But whether people can remember the order is immaterial.
I don't think you simply state "but it wouldn't" - some people obviously do become like him, Dawkins for one.
Hardly the man on the Clapham omnibus though yes? My suspicion is that he is abnormal psychologically, but even if that is not the case he is mapping his own process onto others in a way that doesn't really sustain analysis.
Also, while Eagleton's view is muddled and contradictory and ineffectual, I'm sure that Dawkins would prefer that to the fundamentalism and certainty which are the most objectionable aspects of religion and which lead people to demand religious say in how society operates.
He may well prefer it. That does nothing for the left-wing critique of that position.
We haven't found it yet. I'd say the jury is still out though. Although I'm tempted to agree with you, I can't really see what true freedom or altruism would actually mean.
The jury may be out but as you suggest, it's impossible to conceive of what true freedom and altruism would mean. But we demand them. There is perhaps a third existential demand, the demand for facts - I suspect this will make you bristle but I would like to suggest that, without in anyway seeking to undermine the importance of science, there really are no facts. We demand facts, so we have facts, but in a crucial sense they are not there. As with altruism and freedom. We are all metaphysicists, though we all pretend not to be.
Dawkins, and this is not a criticism, seems to live and has lived a pretty comfortable academic existence. It is fine for him to emphasise the existential demand for facts (science) over philosophical libertarianism and altruism (religion and spirituality) - though he cannot existentially do without either completely. Nonetheless, he knows little of the lives of the people he is addressing - who need these ideals more (opium of the people, and all that).
But I see no evidence for the claim that he's pushing people towards a darker place
What would such evidence look like? What are you looking for here?
- is that what you mean by religious people becoming like Eagleton?
Well not exactly, he's another academic. They will buy crystals or get into Anthony Robbins or more alcohol or something along those lines in most cases.
Also, there is a sense in which the societal implications of what he's doing are unimportant.
From a perspective that demands the primacy of facts over altruism and freedom yes. But I suspect this is ultimately begging the question.
There is no God, that is the truth, Dawkins feels some commitment to that truth.
Again, 'there is no God' is a metaphysical statement.
Even if you believe that the removal of a comforting lie will ultimately be bad for society there is a debate to be had about whether or not to maintain that lie.
Sure, but someone who emphasises the nature of capitalism and a commitment to the existential force of altruism is probably going to be sympathetic to the structures that seek to harness and nurture that existential force.
Addendum: I suspect the existential demand for altruism is considerably weaker than the demand for freedom and knowledge, which is why it may need more nurturing.
