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 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.”
In the same way, lets be careful that we as Christians don't turn Christianity into something it's not either.
3 comments:
I saw the Fish article and thought it was pretty nice. He actually has a followup on it here: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/god-talk-part-2/.
i really like this stanley fish guy now. especially his cheeky link at the end =P. he reminds me of Lewis' writings in a way - thoughtful, with a writing style that's more contemplative then rhetorical.
what's more, both fish and lewis seem to share some ability to relate to readers at a level where they go beyond typical liberal/conservative christian arguments and instead start to challenge the logical grounds on which we all stand.
interestingly enough, though, eagleton, the guy fish is reviewing, has criticized fish's work and writings pretty severely (according to wikipedia).
Post a Comment