khaosworks | (Reply)

From:

I haven't read Dawkins, though clearly I need to get around to his book; he's made a lot of people mad, which is a good sign. So far I've read about half of Sam Harris's The End of Faith, which combines a lot of good reasoning with some really horrifying statements about tolerance.

The excerpt you quoted is loaded with fallacies. The claim that everyone must live by faith is one of the standbys of religion. Eagleton seems by turns to be confusing faith with reasonable likelihood and with emotional response. The distinction between reason and science is valid (reason being the broader term), but that just dodges the fact that reason and faith are polar opposites.

Yes, most religious people in the West offer rational (at least in intent) arguments rather than only demanding faith, but this doesn't answer the question: If the rational arguments don't support the conclusion, will they still believe the conclusion? If the answer is no, then faith serves no valid purpose. If it's yes, then the reasoning is just for show.