Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate by Terry Eagleton

Terry Eagleton’s Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate is a 21^st Century update of William James’ classic The Will to Believe.  Both works face down an aggressive atheism, and Eagleton grapples specifically with those “neo-atheists” who go beyond a reasonable stance that God does not exist and that we might be better off without religion to a fundamentalist stance that belief in God is inherently harmful and that religion is the root of all evil.  The popular published neo-atheists, specifically Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, hold that reason has rendered the question of God definitively answered in the negative.  Eagleton, like James before him, understands that reason alone can never pretend to answer the question of God, and that its better use is in grasping what religious belief truly offers (and understanding the harm it has wrought) as each individual faces the question of God that remains open for all to consider, Dawkins and Hitchens (or “Ditchkins”, as Eagleton comically conflates the two) notwithstanding.

Eagleton, a Marxist who appears to personally hold to that more reasonable version of atheism, nevertheless takes the gloves off in an inspired defense of religious belief, highlighting the sundry ways in which segments of the religion most familiar to Eagleton, Christianity, stand for the poor and dispossessed left behind by globalized capitalism.  And, even more so than religion, it is the state of the globalized world that is ultimately in question in Reason, Faith, and Revolution.  Eagleton captures the current unnerving vulnerability of our collective plight as we stare down religious fundamentalism of all stripes, terrorism wrought by extremists and states alike, staggering inequality of wealth, and ecological catastrophe.  Reading Eagleton, it is clear that the history of western civilization is not the upward arc out of religious irrationalism that the neo-atheists paint it to be.  In fact, it is not clear in which direction the arc is currently heading.  Eagleton’s genius here is that whatever his personal beliefs as to the question of God may be, he understands that what direction that arc ultimately takes depends in large part on the actions of our believers. 

Whatever our individual beliefs, we all must carve out a healthy space in our midst for our believers and their contributions.  Closing the question of God, as the neo-atheists would have us, just might give us the end to the human story, and I’m not talking about Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history.”   I think I’ll take The Neverending Story, even if the end of the story that I’ll never get to is rational certainty as to the answer to the question of God.  I’m almost certain that it’s more fun not knowing how things turn out.  

The Professional by Robert B. Parker

Readers lost one of their great storytellers earlier this year with the death of Robert B. Parker. By the time of his passing, Parker had published forty installments of the Spenser novels that made him both famous, and, in this reader’s opinion, the greatest hardboiled crime fiction writer of all time. What separates Parker’s Spenser from Hammett’s Spade, Chandler’s Marlowe, and all other pretenders to the crown, is the philosophy that shines through every page of Spenser that Parker ever wrote: a world in which evil is constantly afoot is redeemed when courageous individuals risk all for their sense of honor and justice, and are supported in doing so by the love that binds them to others. And the second half of that equation, represented by Spenser’s lasting love for Susan, in her own right one of our greatest fictional shrinks, and Spenser’s fraternal bond with Hawk, the embodiment of unbounded masculinity, is as important as the first. Between Spenser, Susan, and Hawk, Parker put on paper his very own wholeness. Readers return to Spenser again and again not just because Parker was a master of crackling dialogue, wise guy humor, edge-of-your-seat fisticuffs, and flawless pacing, but because the trinity of Spenser, Susan, and Hawk shows us a way forward in this oft cruel world. The Professional, one of the last Spensers, is up to Parker’s usual standards, i.e. it is sublime. Rest in peace, Robert B. Parker, and thank you for writing forty Spenser mysteries. I only wish you could write forty more.

Obama Gets Tough?

In a recent interview with Today show host Matt Lauer, President Barack Obama had his “talking tough” moment.  Obama explained that he had been talking to regular, everyday Americans , not ivory tower experts, about the gulf oil spill in order “to know whose ass to kick.”  Upon learning of these remarks I was immediately reminded of Obama’s Oval Office predecessor, President George W. Bush.

            

Bush built his entire presidency around a tough guy response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.  Bush’s tough guy theatrics, which notoriously included the “Mission Accomplished” incident in which Bush arrived on a US aircraft carrier via fighter jet dressed in full fighter pilot regalia, reached their rhetorical peak in 2003 when Bush taunted the “Islamofascists” with a hearty “Bring ‘em on.”

            

While Bush was a disaster as president, he was, nevertheless, well suited to his role as tough guy.  His firm resolve to use force, even, as in the case of Iraq, when uncalled for, required minimal nuance.  And nuance, as exhibited by Bush’s singularly unimaginative “Bring ‘em on,” was not Bush’s strong suit.   Much better for Bush, at least stylistically, to round up a posse and “stay the course,” come hell or high water.  Bush the tough guy had a few good months rallying the American people after 9/11, and the dye was cast for the next seven years of his presidency.  Ironically, Bush publicly voiced regret for his “Bring ‘em on” remarks at the end of his presidency, which was like the 2 Live Crew expressing regret for their explicit lyrics; without incessant chants for female genitalia 2 Live Crew would never have existed in pop culture.  Similalry, Bush only ever existed as president in the guise of the tough guy.

            

Obama was elected president for a number of reasons, and not least among them was an intelligence plain for all to see (and hear).  One of the qualities of Obama’s particular brand of intelligence is his capacity for nuance; Obama successfully touched the third rail of racial politics during his campaign precisely because of this ability to engage with a complex issue on many of its nuanced levels.  In this sense, as in others, we elected Bush’s opposite.  It would be absurd to suggest that Obama is somehow not tough, as any African American able to win the presidency must necessarily possess vast reservoirs of toughness.  But Obama is just too nuanced to play the part of ass-kicking tough guy convincingly.  One gets the sense from Obama that when he does dispense discipline it is in a controlled fashion, measured and delivered with a precision simply foreign to an old-fashioned butt-whooping.  But, “I will diligently pursue those responsible and hold them accountable” doesn’t sound nearly as tough as “I’ll find them and kick their ass,” and the polls must strongly suggest that what Americans want from Obama in response to the gulf oil spill right now is unadulterated aggression.

            

But a more interesting contrast between Bush and Obama is apparent when we look carefully at Obama’s exact words here.  When Bush said “Bring ‘em on,” we had a good idea as to whom the intended recipient of the ass-kicking was (the qualifications for “Islamofascist” were not crystal clear, but at the very least we knew they had to be Muslims).  But explicit in Obama’s tough guy turn is his confusion as to where to open his can of whoop-ass.  Recall that he spoke to those average Joes “so I know whose ass to kick.”

           

Obama’s indeterminate target is a symptom of the most significant threat America faces today and for the foreseeable future.  While I certainly hope to avoid any terrorist violence, the threat posed to civilization, western or otherwise, by terrorism pales in comparison to the potential danger of ecological catastrophe.  And while some would argue that we have created the terrorists just as much as we have created the threats to a sustainable environment (and some would deny that we have created either), it remains far easier to target any given human enemy of the state, be they communists, terrorists, or illegal aliens, then it is to target the agents of ecological disaster.  Blame BP and/or the US Federal Government for the oil spill if you wish to delude yourself, because never has “we have met the enemy and he is us” been more true than in the case of all things “environmental.”

            

Obama’s confusion as to whose ass to kick re. the gulf oil spill is a preview of things to come.  As “the environment” begins to unravel, and basic human resources such as food and potable water begin to diminish, an enraged public will clamor for the responsible heads to roll, just as they have in the case of the gulf oil spill.  But the only ass to kick is our own, since we all created this mess together.   Of course, the outcome of man-made natural disasters such as the gulf oil spill will make that collective beating a fait accompli.  As in all disasters, man-made or otherwise, those at the bottom of the ladder will take the brunt of the beating.  But perhaps ecological catastrophe may be the great equalizer.  It’s silly when they call Obama a socialist; oil, the lifeblood of capitalism, may, when spilled across the earth, turn out to be the greatest socialist of all, i.e. we’re all equally screwed.