Reason, Faith and Revolution
By Terry Eagleton
Review by Stanley Fish
God Talk
In the opening sentence of the last chapter of his new book, Reason, Faith and Revolution, the British critic Terry Eagleton asks, �Why are the most unlikely people, including myself, suddenly talking about God?��His answer, elaborated in prose that is alternately witty, scabrous and angry, is that the other candidates for guidance, �science, reason, liberalism, capitalism,� just don�t deliver what is ultimately needed. �What other symbolic form,��he queries, �has managed to forge such direct links between the most universal and absolute of truths and the everyday practices of countless millions of men and women?� �
Eagleton acknowledges that the links forged are not always benign, many terrible things have been done in religion�s name, but at least religion is trying for something more than local satisfactions, for its �subject is nothing less than the nature and destiny of humanity itself, in relation to what it takes to be its transcendent source of life.� And it is only that great subject, and the aspirations it generates, that can lead, Eagleton insists, to �radical transformation of what we say and do.�
The other projects, he concedes, provide various comforts and pleasures, but they are finally superficial and tend to the perpetuation of the status quo rather than to meaningful change: �A society of packaged fulfillment, administered desire, managerialized politics and consumerist economics is unlikely to cut to the depth where theological questions can ever be properly raised.� �
By theological questions, Eagleton means questions like, �Why is there anything in the first place?� �Why what we do have is actually intelligible to us?� and �Where do our notions of explanation, regularity and intelligibility come from?� �
The fact that science, liberal rationalism and economic calculation cannot ask, never mind answer, such questions should not be held against them, for that is not what they do. And, conversely, the fact that religion and theology cannot provide a technology for explaining how the material world works should not be held against them, either, for that is not what they do. When Christopher Hitchens declares [in God is not Great] that given the emergence of �the telescope and the microscope,� religion no longer offers an explanation of anything important, Eagleton replies, �But Christianity was never meant to be an explanation of anything in the first place. It�s rather like saying that thanks to the electric toaster we can forget about Chekhov.� �
Eagleton likes this turn of speech, and he has recourse to it often when making the same point: �[B]elieving that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world . . . is like seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus.� �Running for a bus is a focused empirical act and the steps you take are instrumental to its end. The positions one assumes in ballet have no such end; they are after something else, and that something doesn�t yield to the usual forms of measurement. Religion, Eagleton is saying, is like ballet (and Chekhov); it�s after something else.
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.� �
Progress, liberalism and enlightenment � these are the watchwords of those, like Hitchens, who believe that in a modern world, religion has nothing to offer us. Don�t we discover cures for diseases every day? Doesn�t technology continually extend our powers and offer the promise of mastering nature? Who needs an outmoded, left-over medieval superstition?
Eagleton punctures the complacency of these questions when he turns the tables and applies the label of �superstition��to the idea of progress. It is a superstition, an idol or a belief not logically related to a course of events�(American Heritage Dictionary) because it is blind to what is now done in its name: �The language of enlightenment has been hijacked in the name of corporate greed, the police state, a politically compromised science, and a permanent war economy,� all in the service, Eagleton contends, of an empty suburbanism that produces ever more things without any care as to whether or not the things produced have true value.
And as for the vaunted triumph of liberalism, what about �the misery wreaked by racism and sexism, the sordid history of colonialism and imperialism, the generation of poverty and famine?� Only by ignoring all this and much more can the claim of human progress at the end of history be maintained: �If ever there was a pious myth and a piece of credulous superstition, it is the liberal-rationalist belief that, a few hiccups apart, we are all steadily en route to a finer world.��
That kind of belief will have little use for a creed that has at its center �one who spoke up for love and justice and was done to death for his pains.�� No wonder �Ditchkins� �� Eagleton�s contemptuous amalgam of Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, perhaps with a sidelong glance at Luke 6:39 - �Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?� � seems incapable of responding to the kind of commitment made manifest by a human being at the end of his tether, foundering in darkness, pain, and bewilderment, who nevertheless remains faithful to the promise of a transformative love.
You won�t be interested in any such promise, you won�t see the point of clinging to it, if you think that �apart from the odd, stubbornly lingering spot of barbarism here and there, history on the whole is still steadily on the up�, if you think that �not only is the salvation of the human species possible but that contrary to all we read in the newspapers, it has in principle already taken place.� How, Eagleton asks, can a civilization, which regards itself as pretty well self-sufficient, see any point in or need of �faith or hope��?
�Self-sufficient� gets to the heart of what Eagleton sees as wrong with the �brittle triumphalism� of liberal rationalism and its ideology of science. From the perspective of a theistic religion, the cardinal error is the claim of the creature to be �self-originating�: �Self-authorship,� � Eagleton proclaims, �is the bourgeois fantasy par excellence,� and he could have cited in support the words of that great bourgeois villain, Milton�s Satan, who, upon being reminded that he was created by another, retorts , �[W]ho saw/ When this creation was?/ We know no time when we were not as now/Know none before us, self-begot, self-raised.��(Paradise Lost, V, 856-860). That is, we created ourselves (although how there can be agency before there is being and therefore an agent is not explained), and if we are able to do that, why can�t we just keep on going and pull progress and eventual perfection out of our own entrails?
That is where science and reason come in. Science, says Eagleton, �does not start far back enough�; it can run its operations, but it can�t tell you what they ultimately mean or provide a corrective to its own excesses. Likewise, reason is �too skin deep a creed to tackle what is at stake�; its laws � �the laws of entailment and evidence -� cannot get going without some substantive proposition from which they proceed but which they cannot contain; reason is a non-starter in the absence of a prior specification of what is real and important, and where is that going to come from? Only from some kind of faith.
�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.� Meaning, value and truth are not reducible to the facts themselves, in the sense of being ineluctably motivated by a bare account of them.� Which is to say that there is no such thing as a bare account of them. (Here, as many have noted, is where religion and postmodernism meet.)
If this is so, the basis for what Eagleton calls �the rejection of religion on the cheap� by contrasting its unsupported (except by faith) assertions with the scientifically grounded assertions of atheism collapses; and we are where we always were, confronted with a choice between a flawed but aspiring religious faith or a spectacularly hubristic faith in the power of unaided reason and a progress that has no content but, like the capitalism it reflects and extends, just makes its valueless way into every nook and cranny.
For Eagleton the choice is obvious, although he does not have complete faith in the faith he prefers. �There are no guarantees,� he concedes, "that a transfigured future will ever be born.� But we can be sure that it will never be born, he says in his last sentence, �if liberal dogmatists, doctrinaire flag-wavers for Progress, and Islamophobic intellectuals . . . continue to stand in its way.� �
One more point. The book starts out witty and then gets angrier and angrier. (There is the possibility, of course, that the later chapters were written first; I�m just talking about the temporal experience of reading it.) I spent some time trying to figure out why the anger was there and I came up with two explanations. One is given by Eagleton, and it is personal. Christianity may or may not be the faith he holds to (he doesn�t tell us), but he speaks, he says, �partly in defense of my own forbearers, against the charge that the creed to which they dedicated their lives is worthless and void.��
The other source of his anger is implied but never quite made explicit. He is angry, I think, at having to expend so much mental and emotional energy refuting the shallow arguments of school-yard atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins. I know just how he feels.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Terence Francis Eagleton (born 22 February 1943, is a British literary theorist and critic, regarded by some as Britain's most influential living literary critic. Formerly Eagleton was Thomas Warton Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford (1992-2001) and John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester until 2008. In October 2008, Terry Eagleton was appointed to a Distinguished Professorship in English Literature at the Department of English & Creative Writing at Lancaster University. He also holds a visiting professorship at National University of Ireland, Galway. He has written more than forty books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction (1983); The Ideology of the Aesthetic (1990), and The Illusions of Postmodernism (1996).
Stanley Eugene Fish (born 1938) is an American literary theorist and legal scholar. He is among the most important critics of the English poet John Milton in the 20th century, and is often associated with postmodernism, at times to his irritation as he describes himself as an anti-foundationalist. He is the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor of Humanities and a Professor of Law at Florida International University, in Miami, as well as Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and the author of 10 books. Professor Fish has also taught at the University of California, Berkeley, Johns Hopkins University, and Duke University.
