• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Eric Reitan in the Atheism Debates: A Pox on Both Your Houses

June 15, 2011 by Mark Linsenmayer 10 Comments


On the Schleiermacher episode, we referred tangentially to Is God a Delusion? A Reply to Religion's Cultured Despisers, by Oklahoma State University's Eric Reitan (who has his own blog). Thanks to my nicely networked local library system, I now have a copy of this in my possession and thought I'd give you a taste from his introduction.

He stated that his working title for the book was "How the Religious Right Gets Religion Wrong," and that it was only upon reading Dawkins's The God Delusion that he felt he should change his approach. He says that a colleague suggested he should call it "A Pox on Both Your Houses," and even though the book is an attempt to rebut point by point Dawkins's arguments (which Reitan summarizes nicely in this introduction), Reitan is also very critical of the very beliefs Dawkins attacks (from p. 7):

I will not be defending the doctrine of biblical inerrancy because I think it is both mistaken and dangerous. I will not be defending the doctrine of hell because I think that it is mistaken and (at least in its most traditional formulations) dangerous. I will not be defending the divine command theory of ethics... because I think it is both mistaken and dangerous. I will not be defending the legitimacy of "faith" understood as stubborn belief without regard for evidence because faith in that sense is a dangerous and inappropriate basis for forming one's convictions...

What should be clear is that many actual religions tread shamelessly... into the domain of superstition and ideology; and when they do so, they render themselves appropriate fodder for Dawkins' attacks. Dawkins' mistake is... to blithely assume that theistic religion itself falls prey to these attacks. It does not.

Like Karen Armstrong's book, this supposed entry in the "pro-religion" column is a liberal reinterpret of religion, and like Schleiermacher, Reitan faces the challenge of making what he's defending at all relevant to what most Christians think they're defending. From p. 6:

I teach and work in Oklahoma, which is at least one "buckle" of the American Bible Belt. And I soon learned after coming here that when I describe my faith to my students, calling myself "Christian" strikes many as akin to describing an eighteen-legged purple animal with an elephantine nose, and then calling it a horse.

Time permitting, I'll dip into this further in preparation for our new atheists episode, which is currently planned for recording in late July or August.

Reitan's book is available in Kindle editionor in its very overpriced book form.(The two-star review that currently shows up second on the book page is the one I was referring to on the episode.)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: PEL's Notes

Comments

  1. Jan Smuts says

    June 15, 2011 at 9:45 am

    If your favorite book is the New Testament are you a Christian?

    Why not?

    If your favorite book is Being and Time you are a Heideggerian.

    The New Testament is an original work with unique themes.

    Reply
  2. Ethan Gach says

    June 15, 2011 at 10:27 am

    One need only look at Monday night’s Repulican presidential debate to know how much these religious re-interpretations are sticking. Not one of the candidates (except maybe Ron Paul), felt that the country was religiously neutral. Yes, we “tolerate” other religions, but really it’s always been a Christian nation right?

    On the one hand, the Christianists do not make up a majority in this country, but on the other, they are still probably the largest single block of religiously inspired people.

    From the recent episode, it seemed like schleiermacher wanted people to look at religion as expressive, but not necessarily as something containing truth value (am I getting that right?).

    That’s the jump that seems to me to be the problem. From, through my religion I experience profound meaning, to, through my religion I experience truth. In the former, one gets in contact with a motivational force it seems, that can than be channeled. In the latter, one gets in touch with a first principle that then informs all other others.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      June 15, 2011 at 10:42 am

      Reitan may be clearer than Schleiermacher on this. Just from his adumbration of what will be in the book, he states that he conceives faith as a species of hope, which it is rational (on practical grounds) to hold. So it’s not knowledge, as in “I know that God is such and such,” but it’s also not foreign to the whole realm of knowledge as Schleiermacher claims. It’s “I don’t have epistemic grounds to claim that God is such-and-such, but it would be awesome if that were the case, and there’s no evidence against it, and it makes my life better to live as if it were true.” With this defense, it has to sell itself on practical grounds: a life filled with love and respect that leaves everyone better off, as opposed to a defensive, assholish claim to superiority and indignation.

      Reply
    • Daniel Horne says

      June 15, 2011 at 2:39 pm

      Interesting point, Ethan. I guess the real problem in the culture is disagreement over what constitutes a “religion”. I have always associated religious belief as requiring belief in some kind of supernatural entity. Of course, the evolution of religious belief has led to redefinitions of what constitutes the supernatural.

      (Or if I understand Mark correctly, he believes those tensions have always been present…it’s just that for thousands of years dogmatic religious cataphatists had the means to persecute and suppress non-dogmatic apophatists.)

      But your conception sounds more like a kind of humanistic ethical (or existential?) commitment. I don’t mean this as a criticism, but how would your religion be meaningfully distinguished from the worldview of someone like Richard Dawkins?

      Dawkins is devoted to both truth and ethical principle (he’s a fan of Bentham). But Dawkins certainly would not describe himself as religious. Again, I’m not trying to gainsay you, just asking – what’s the cash difference between those two approaches?

      Reply
    • Ethan Gach says

      June 15, 2011 at 4:26 pm

      Honestly Daniel, to me, nothing.

      That’s why I’ve never felt very offended by the “New Athiests.”

      Yes, their rhetoric is harsh, and usually over the top, to the point where many who might agree with less controversial formulations of their positions are forced to dismiss them. But as someone who is a political junkie, I’m use to reading between the lines.

      Now maybe that makes me a “New Atheist” revisionist. It’s not clear that how I would formulate their positions is something they would agree with. But I’ve never seen them as hostile as negative as others.

      Harris is a mystical empiricist, Dawkins a scientific naturalist, and Hitchens a literary polemicist. But more than anything, they like to write books, give debates, and do media appearences.

      I’m sure if we were in the throws of dogmatic, Darwinian materialism they would push back in the opposite way.

      So in the end, I view their strong positions as largely reactionary ones necessitated by what they see as a rhetorical context favoring their opponents in fundamental and deeply socialized ways.

      I agree about the supernatural part, and I think most if not 99% of regular people associate having “religious belief” with having belief in something supernatural and immaterial, i.e. not of this world or comprehensible by it.

      Reply
  3. lexmentis says

    June 17, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Although it is common to respond to the new atheists by defending religion, I think a better response would explicitly draw on the values characteristic of the philosophical tradition. The Platonic dialogues, for instance, often lead their readers through chains of reasoning that are mind-expanding and uplifting. Socrates, moreover, insists always on sticking step-by-step with his interlocutor, always with the aim of assisting the interlocutor in genuinely seeing and loving the truth. The new atheists, on the other hand, speak in the voice of the verdict, not the inquirer or benevolent mentor. Their modus operandi is to publicly mock and marginalize the religious, using the truth as a weapon with which they may annihilate their religious foes for the betterment of the culture. In the service of their epistemic superiority, they are eager to fly the flag of their rationality over the religious territory they regard science as having conquered and colonized. They have responded to the culture war by enlisting in it and finding ways of outdoing their opponents with respect to both volume and rhetoric.

    I fail to see any of the philosophical virtues characteristic of Socratic moral instruction or Kantian regard for dignity in their approach. In terms of academic merit, moreover, professional philosophers will hardly feel threatened by those naive scientistic remarks about science and morality that folks like Sam Harris disseminate in such a profound, original tone.

    I say none of this, by the way, to dismiss the concerns motivating the movement or the conclusions that they come to, mostly with which I have great sympathy.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      June 17, 2011 at 4:18 pm

      This seems an accurate description of Hitchens, certainly. At the other extreme, Dennett’s book is all about “here are some intriguing theories from evolutionary biology that we need to consider,” not about stating completed verdicts.

      Reply
  4. Ron Ferguson says

    December 1, 2012 at 7:05 am

    First, let me say that I find these podcasts to be fantastic. Great listening – thanks, guys. (As someone who lives on an island off the north coast of Scotland, I was intrigued by the notion that people who live in the north tend to have “harder” philosophies than those in the south. As a Scottish Presbyterian – an endangered species – I think that the same thing applies to theology. Theology as geography? Up in these lands of winter darkness, we know how to give “dour” a bad name.)
    I found the Kierkegaard and Schleiermacher discussions fascinating. (Daniel is a star, by the way.) It is interesting to me, as someone who doesn’t find faith easy, how religion keeps popping up – despite the fact that it’s supposed to be on the wane. Has that surprised the guys running the show?

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      December 1, 2012 at 9:00 am

      Thanks for listening, Ron. Yes, Daniel will be back to talk with us about Buber in 2013.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Eric Reitan (via Pale Blue Dot) Refereeing the Atheism Debates | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    October 21, 2011 at 9:01 am

    […] I’ve written before about Eric Reitan, a modern follower of Scheleirmacher, and on this episode of Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot, Reitan gives I think a great explanation of the disagreement between the new atheists and humanistic, liberal Christians: they may agree on nearly all of the same principles (being against Biblical inerrancy and other implausible and morally pernicious parts of fundamentalist Christianity) but still have a different overall assessment of religion because they’re “playing different language games.” His explanation of religion as an essentially contested concept (a new term to me, though certainly a familiar concept in outline) is alone sufficient to make the episode worth a listen. The concept “religion” is not just a categorization of various things, but it has, like “work of art,” a normative judgment built into it. It’s just that at this point in history, some folks have a positive evaluation built into the concept, and some have a negative evaluation. So Hitchens and a liberal theologian, according to Reitan, can both agree about nearly everything, but while the theologian holds up some historical fruits of religion and say “see, isn’t religion great,” Hitchens will respond that that isn’t really religion; while Hitchens will point out horrible crimes associated with religion and the theologian (like Scheiermacher) will deny that these are part of the essence of religion. So it’s largely an argument over words at that point, though we’d have to be more specific about the particular points of remaining disagreement to determine whether they’re really worth arguing over. […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Larry Young on Ep. 310: Wittgenstein On World-Pictures (Part One)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap April 2022
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 305: Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” (Part Three for Supporters)
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 305: Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” (Part Three for Supporters)
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 306: Dworkin and the Dobbs Decision (Part Three for Supporters)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in