بارباروسا آكيم
الحوار المتمدن-العدد: 8311 - 2025 / 4 / 13 - 02:59
المحور:
العلمانية، الدين السياسي ونقد الفكر الديني
اليوم أَحبائي و بعد إنتهائي من الأدب الزطي ، أُحب أن اناقش كتاب مثير للجدل وهو كتاب للرفيق العزيز
Terry Eagleton
و الموسوم بعنوان :
Reason, Faith, and Revolution
أو
Reflections on the God Debate
Published with assistance from the Louis Stern Memorial Fund.
Copyright © 2009 by Terry Eagleton.
All rights reserved.
This book may not be reproduced, in whole´-or-in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers.
Set in Adobe type by Keystone Typesetting, Inc.
-print-ed in the United States of America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Eagleton, Terry, 1943–
Reason, faith, and revolution: reflections on the God debate / Terry Eagleton.
p. cm. — (The Terry lecture series)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 978-0-300-15179-4 (hardcover: alk. paper)
1. Apologetics. 2. Christianity and atheism. 3. Hitchens, Christopher. God is not great. 4. Dawkins, Richard, 1941–. God delusion. 5. Faith and reason—Christianity. 6. Humanism. I. Title.
BT121.2.E24 2009
261.2 1—dc22 2008044678
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992 (Permanence of Paper).
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
أثار الكتاب محل النقاش جدلا واسعا في الأيام الأخيرة وذلك لأن مؤلفه – وهو كاتب ماركسي – يعالج المسيحية من داخل بنيتها اللاهوتية والنصوص التقليدية وليس من خارجها كما اعتدنا في أغلب الكتابات الماركسية.
وهذه المقاربة تُعد مستغربة بالنسبة لي كما هي بالنسبة لكثيرين غيري
إذ درج أغلب الكُتَّاب الماركسيين بحسب ما قرأته واطلعت عليه على تجاهل النصوص الدينية بشكل شبه كامل مفضلين تحليل الظواهر الدينية من منظور اجتماعي واقتصادي يعنى بالبُنى العامة للمجتمع المسيحي لا بالنصوص ذاتها.
* من ناحية أخرى يبدو أن الكتاب يتخذ موقفاً ناقداً تجاه أطروحات ريتشارد دوكنز ويتضمن رداً ضمنياً على أفكاره وعلى التيار البرجوازي الذي ينتمي إليه. ويتجلى ذلك بوضوح في الفصل الثاني من الكتاب المعنون بـ ( الثورة المغدورة ) حيث يقدّم المؤلف تصوراً للإيمان المسيحي من داخل بنيته التقليدية في مقابلة الحداثة السطحية .
يرى الكاتب أن هذا التصور التقليدي أكثر واقعية في تعامله مع الطبيعة البشرية من الأطروحات العقلانية الحديثة إذ يعترف بعمق الفساد الإنساني وانحرافه ، على خلاف الطرح التفاؤلي الساذج الذي يقدمه دوكنز في ( وهم الإله ) مثلا
كما أن هذا التصور أكثر تشاؤماً من النظرة الليبرالية المعاصرة للإنسان بل ولا يضاهيه في السوداوية و التشاؤم سوى بعض تيارات التحليل النفسي أو فلسفة شوبنهاور
ومع ذلك ..
فإن هذا التصور لا يفتقر إلى الأمل !
فهو يرى في هشاشة الإنسان إمكانية للخلاص وهو موقف يتقاطع على نحو مفارق مع الرؤية الاشتراكية التي ترى في المهمشين نواة للمستقبل الاجتماعي الجديد .
أَحبائي ..
أنا شخصيا لست معنيا بتحليل موقف داوكنز أو تحليل الديانة المسيحية
و لا أنا بصدد إعداد دراسة ضمن فكرة جبران خليل جبران للقراء ( يسوع النصارى و يسوع الناصري )
لكن .. وعلى الرغم من تقديري للكاتب ولمشروعه الفكري فإني أجد نفسي مضطرا للاختلاف معه في نقطة أساسية ، تتعلق بالتمييز الذي أقامه بين المسيحية التقليدية والمسيحية (الإيديولوجية ) وهو ذات النمط من التمييز الذي يطبقه على الإسلام حيث يفصل بين إسلام راديكالي وآخر (مفترض )
و هذا النوع من التوصيف خطير وغير دقيق.
فلو عكسنا التحليل لوجدنا أن الإسلام المرتبط بالمؤسسات الرسمية والدولة أكثر اعتدالا وعقلانية من الإسلام المستقى من النصوص المجردة أو الممارسات التراثية .
ومن هنا فإن التمييز بين إسلام راديكالي وآخر مفترض وفق نموذج نظري مسبق يتجاهل الطبيعة التنظيمية والسياسية العميقة للصلعمايزيشن باعتباره ليس مجرد ديانة بل منظومة سياسية متكاملة.
وهذا ما يجب أن يضعه الكُتّاب الماركسيون الغربيون في حسبانهم عند التعامل مع الإسلام بخلاف ما هو مقبول في تحليل أديان أخرى ايا كانت تلك الديانات .
بالنسبة للمقارنة بين الإسلام والمسيحية فقد صرح ريتشارد دوكنز عندما سُئل عن رأيه في هذا الموضوع أنه يفضل المسيحية على الإسلام في كل الأوقات . ومن الجدير بالذكر أن هذا الرد يعد إجابة منطقية ومتوقعة من أي شخص عاقل .
ويعود ذلك إلى أن الإسلام كما تم التوضيح سابقا يُعتبر تنظيما سياسيا أكثر منه دينا .
https://youtu.be/COHgEFUFWyg?si=kzRAiwPFtBqqr-fY
بالطبع.. من المهم التأكيد على أنه لا مانع لدي من توظيف الأساليب التحليلية التي نراها ملائمة لدراسة البنية المجتمعية للدين.
ومن الطبيعي ألا يكون ثمة اعتراض على النظر إلى المجتمع الديني المفتوح بوصفه "طبقة" يمكن إخضاعها لتحليلات من قبيل التحليل الماركسي أو غيره من المناهج الاجتماعية.
ولعل ذلك ما يفسر لجوء عدد من الكتّاب الغربيين سواء محافظين او ماركسيين او ليبراليين منهم إلى توظيف أدوات التحليل الماركسي بغية فهم أعمق للبنى الدينية والاجتماعية.
غير أنني أتحفّظ على أي محاولة لتهميش أو إغفال دور النصوص الدينية في تشكيل البنية الفكرية في الدين .
فعلى سبيل المثال
حينما يحلل الفيلسوف لاري سيدنتوب الديانة المسيحية في صفحات ٣٥٣ و ٣٥٤ يقول :
In Democracy in Europe, I suggested an analogy to understand what Christian beliefs introduced into the world. It is an analogy with an argument in Marxism - the distinction Marx drew between a class in itself and a class for itself .
Marx meant that a class could exist objectively _identifield by income´-or-occupation _ without necessarily having any consciousness of itself as a class. He illustranted this by contrasting mediveal Peasants with the townspeople´-or-burghers, the bourgeoisie who became conscious of themselves as a class by struggling against feudal privileges. So I then applied this distinction to the role of Christianity.
Larry Siedentop
Inventing the Individual
The Origins of Western Liberalism
Penguin Random House UK Logo
First published by Allen Lane 2014
Published in Penguin Books 2015
013
Copyright © Larry Siedentop, 2014
The moral right of the author has been asserted
Set in 9.24/12.40pt Sabon LT Std
Typeset by Jouve (UK), Milton Keynes
--print--ed in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A.
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-141-00954-4
________________________________________________________________________
Review pages 56 to 59 of the book.
rather than the Yahweh who is homeless, faceless, stateless, and imageless, who prods his people out of their comfortable retirement into the trackless terrors of the desert, and who brusquely informs them that their burnt offering stink in his nostrils. One is told that there is an American prayer “for High Achievers,” in which God is said to be “the greatest achiever of all.” In fact, the only world to achieve, the means we can actually see with our eyes is the world and if this is the best he can do, one is distinctly underwhelmed by his talents.
Far from refusing to conform to the powers of this world, Christianity has become the nauseating cant of lying politicians, corrupt bankers, and fanatical economists, as well as an immensely profitable industry in its own right. There is a company in the United States today which for an annual sub-script-ion will automatically send off e-mail messages to your faithless friends and colleagues when Christ comes again, pleading with them for a last-minute conversion before you yourself are “raptured” into heaven and they are left stranded on earth. Probably no nation on earth has plucked such a farrago of superstitious nonsense from the New Testament as the United States, with its incurable talent for going over the top.
The Christian church has tortured and disemboweled in the name of Jesus, gagging dissent and burning its critics alive. It has been oily, sanctimonious, brutally oppressive, and vilely bigoted. Morality for this brand of belief is a matter of the
bedroom rather than the boardroom. It supports murderous dictatorships in the name of God, views both criticism and pessimism as unpatriotic, and imagines that being a Christian means maintaining a glazed grin, a substantial bank balance, and a mouthful of pious platitudes. It denounces terrorism, but excludes from its strictures such kidnapping, torturing, murdering outfits as the CIA. (One CIA intervention which has not received the urgent attention it merits, by the way, was the agency’s dissemination of a Russian translation of T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land during the Cold War. Was this to demonstrate the virtues of the free world’s verse form,´-or-to demoralize the Soviets by unleashing the rivers of nihilism into their midst?)
This brand of faith fails to see that the only cure for terrorism is justice. It also fails to grasp to what extent the monstrous is at its gates only because it fails to see this darkness as in part its own, unable to acknowledge this thing in its distorted visage. There is no saving the world by means of Dietrichian state, if anything, the effort is fatal to avoid the truth. It is the intelligent, resourceful, and imaginative one—the one that might just possibly could stand up against the monsters—that is most likely to fall victim to them.
I am talking, then, about the distinction between what seems to me a -script-ural and an ideological kind of Christian faith—a distinction which can never simply be assumed but must be interminably argued. One name for this thankless exercise is what Nietzsche, who held that churches were the tombs and sepulchers of God, called in Kierkegaardian phrase saving Christianity from Christendom. Any preaching of the Gospel which fails to constitute a scandal and affront to the political state is in my view effectively worthless. It is not a project which in present holds out much promise of success, yet it is from the standpoint of values which spring among other places from the Judeo-Christian legacy itself that we identify these failings in the churches—just as liberal civilization, so to speak, is its own immanent critique, as a discourse which allows us to castigate its shortcomings by reference to its own commendably high standards.
Even so, it might well be objected that the account of Christian faith I have sketched here is the produce of an intellectual delicacy remote from actual existing religion. This is what one might call the populist argument from the Person in the Pew. It is of course true that there is a gap between a sophisticated theological understanding of the Christian Gospel, and the faith of millions of men and women who have neither the leisure nor the education for such scholarly inquiries. Much the same gap yawns between Dawkins and your average believer in evolution,´-or-between Islamically educated and the derided Islamic radicals who are profoundly ignorant of their own faith. It is true that a great many Christians have fallen prey to flagrantly ideological versions of the Gospel—that is to say, versions of it which in one way´-or-another play into the hands of what Saint John darkly refers to as the powers of this world. As far as I can see, there is no support in -script-ure for what I believe may still be the practice at the Mormons’ Brigham Young University (I refrain from placing that last word in scare quotes), where students´-or-faculty members who need for medical reasons to grow beards are required to carry on their persons a so-called beard card. But perhaps I have overlooked some vital antivibrating verse in Luke´-or-Matthew here.
It is not in fact the case that this understanding of the Gospel is confined to an intellectual elite. My own father, who left school at the age of twelve to work as a manual laborer in a factory, and who scarcely read a book in his life, would, I am sure, have endorsed it similarly, those on the political Left who see socialism as more than just a matter of higher wages and more leisure are not simply a cerebral coterie who happen to be familiar with the intricacies of the Grundrisse. Among their many, hundreds of thousands, even millions of members of the working class movement have rejected such claims (claims themselves, as it happens, generally made by an intellectual coterie) for no more authentic version of socialism. Similarly there is no reason why this understanding of Christian movement. In any case, you do not settle the case of the New Testament on the basis of what the rich and powerful by appealing to what most people happen to believe, any more than you verify the Second Law of Thermodynamics by popular acclaim. You simply have to argue the question on the evidence as best you can.
*
CHAPTER TWO
The Revolution Betrayed
The account of Christian faith I have just outlined is one which I take to be thoroughly orthodox, -script-ural, and traditional. There is nothing fashionable´-or-newfangled about it indeed, much of it goes back to Aquinas and beyond. In my view, it is a lot more realistic about humanity than the likes of Dawkins. It takes the full measure of human depravity and perversity, in contrast to what we shall see later to be the extraordinarily Pollyannaish view of human progress of The God Delusion. At the same time, it is a good deal bolder than the liberal humanists and rationalists about the chances of this -dir-e condition being repaired. It is more gloomy in its view of the human species than the bien-pensant liberal intelligentsia (only Freudianism´-or-the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer can match it here), and certainly a good deal more skeptical than the naïve upbeatness of American ideology, which tends to mistake a hubristic cult of can-do-ery for the virtue of hope. (A nation which can even contemplate replacing the World Trade Center with an even taller building is clearly something of a slow learner, and not just from the viewpoint of homeland security.) Yet it also believes that the very frailty of the human can become a redemptive power. In this, it is at one with socialism, for which the harbingers of a future social order are those who have little to lose in the present.
● و الكاتب يعبر بصيغة أوضح حول الفكرة المشار اليها في الفصل الرابع صفحة ١٤١ حيث يقول :
Radical Islam generally understands exceedingly little about its own religious faith, and there is good evidence, as we have seen, to suggest that its actions are for the most part politically driven.
و المقصد أَحبائي أن نكون حذرين حين التعامل مع دعاية قد تكون في خدمة الصلعمايزيشين سواء عن قصد أو سوء تقدير
رغم إنني اعتقد بأن خطأ الكاتب هاهنا هو سوء تقدير و عدم فهم لأسباب العنف الإسلامي المرتبط بالنصوص و في النهاية فلكل جواد كبوة
و السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته
#بارباروسا_آكيم (هاشتاغ)
الحوار المتمدن مشروع
تطوعي مستقل يسعى لنشر قيم الحرية، العدالة الاجتماعية، والمساواة في العالم
العربي. ولضمان استمراره واستقلاليته، يعتمد بشكل كامل على دعمكم.
ساهم/ي معنا! بدعمكم بمبلغ 10 دولارات سنويًا أو أكثر حسب إمكانياتكم، تساهمون في
استمرار هذا المنبر الحر والمستقل، ليبقى صوتًا قويًا للفكر اليساري والتقدمي،
انقر هنا للاطلاع على معلومات التحويل والمشاركة
في دعم هذا المشروع.
كيف تدعم-ين الحوار المتمدن واليسار والعلمانية
على الانترنت؟
|
ارسل هذا الموضوع الى صديق
|
حفظ - ورد
|
بحث
|
إضافة إلى المفضلة
|
للاتصال بالكاتب-ة
اليوتيوب
لينكدإن
تيلكرام
تمبلر
بلوكر
الموبايل
