![\"image\"](\"https:\/\/31.media.tumblr.com\/f15a6279ef4d16702c505b598ac56e9b\/tumblr_inline_n7sn87rwey1s88eo4.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In his very philosophical and satirical style, Terry Eagleton[1]<\/a> attempts to uncover the flaws in modern philosophical thought that have attempted to defame religion, specifically Christianity, in Western culture.\u00a0 His style is very academic; yet he occasionally comes up for air to interpret and relate to a non-academic mind.\u00a0 Eagleton, to his credit, is arguing for an Orthodox Christian faith over the many philosophical and \u201cother gospel\u201d voices that are trying to capture the minds and souls of a twenty-first century populous.\u00a0 I am glad to have a comrade in this ideological world who fights on the side of Orthodox Christian faith since I don\u2019t have the mind to deal with the likes of Nietzsche, Voltaire, Schopenhauer, and the gamut of other thinkers whom Eagleton lists in his narrative.<\/p>\n So what is it that can fulfill the heart and soul of a human being, particularly in this new millennium?\u00a0 Are the answers to be found in Enlightenment thinking (namely, in Reason)?\u00a0 Or might the answers be found in \u201cIdealism,\u201d a mix of spiritual freedom, art, myth, culture, and nationalism?\u00a0 Or might we find solace in the thinking of \u201cRomanticism,\u201d which stresses the benefits of subjective \u201cfeelings\u201d?\u00a0 Perhaps \u201cCulture\u201d holds the answers to the big questions of life \u2013 but will a culturalized religion meet the eternal and daily longings of humanity?\u00a0 And which culture?\u00a0 Which religion?\u00a0 Which God?\u00a0 These are important questions for thinking people, ones that must eventually be answered in every life, every heart.\u00a0 Is God dead or alive?\u00a0 Perhaps a wanted poster needs to be made that says, \u201cWanted:\u00a0 God.\u00a0 Dead or Alive<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 Perhaps we can have these placed in every post office and every place of worship.\u00a0 I wonder what we would find?<\/p>\n According to Eagleton, Nietzsche was the first real atheist.\u00a0 But Eagleton also points out:<\/p>\n Of course there have been unbelievers in abundance before him [Nietzsche], but it is Nietzsche above all who confronts the terrifying, exhilarating consequences of the death of God.\u00a0 As long as God\u2019s shoes have been fulfilled by Reason, art, culture, Geist<\/em>, imagination, the nation, the state, humanity, the people, society, morality, or some other specious surrogate, the Supreme Being is not quite dead.\u00a0 He may be mortally sick, but he has delegated his affairs to one envoy or another, part of whose task is to convince men and women that there is no cause for alarm, that business will be conducted as usual despite the absence of the proprietor, and that the acting director is perfectly capable of handling all inquiries.[2]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So is there really such a thing as an atheist?\u00a0 Or are there merely different versions of non-theistic religions? Is Man merely worshipping his own species, or as Eagleton points out, is Man \u201c\u2026a true image of the God he denies, so that only with his disappearance from the earth can the Almighty be truly laid to rest\u201d?[3]<\/a>\u00a0 So, if God is dead, one needs to ask the question, \u201cWhich God is dead?\u201d<\/p>\n Of modern societies who are entrenched in the doctrines of Nietzsche and other secular-oriented thinkers, Eagleton says:<\/p>\n Modern secular societies\u2026have effectively disposed of God but find it morally and politically convenient \u2013 even imperative \u2013 to behave as though they have not.\u00a0 They do not actually believe in him, but it is still necessary for them to imagine that they do.\u00a0 God is too vital a piece of ideology to be written off, even if it is one that their own profane activities render less and less plausible.\u00a0 There is a performative contradiction between what such civilisations do and what they proclaim that they do.\u00a0 To look at the beliefs embodied in their behaviour, rather than what at what they piously profess, is to recognise that they have no faith in God at all, but it is as though the fact has not yet been brought to their attention.[4]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I found this most interesting, particularly because I have met many secular people, particular my students, but there have been few true atheists among them.\u00a0 Salvoj Zizek asks an import question that is pertinent to this discussion, \u201cWe know that God is dead, but does he?\u201d[5]<\/a>\u00a0 I love Zizek; he meets humans where their feet are as important as their heads!<\/p>\n I think that Eagleton hints at his Orthodoxy all through his text, but he finally \u201ccomes out\u201d when strongly stating:<\/p>\n That the death of God involves the death of Man, along with the birth of a new form of humanity, is orthodox Christian doctrine, a fact of which Nietzsche seems not to have been aware.\u00a0 The Incarnation is the place where both God and Man undergo a kind of kenosis or self-humbling, symbolized by the self-dispossession of Christ.\u00a0 Only through the tragic self-emptying can a new humanity hope to emerge.\u00a0 In its solidarity with the outcast and afflicted, the crucifixion is a critique of all hubristic humanism.\u00a0 Only through a confession of loss and failure can the very meaning of power be transfigured in the miracle of the resurrection.\u00a0 The death of God is the life of the iconoclast Jesus, who shatters the idolatrous view of Yahweh as irascible despot and shows him up him instead as vulnerable flesh and blood.[6]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wow!\u00a0 This description of the Gospel touched my heart deeply.\u00a0 Yes, God died.\u00a0 But he came back from the dead.\u00a0 Yes, humans are part of God, but this is only true through the Incarnation of Christ.\u00a0 Perhaps our poster should more accurately say, \u201cWanted:\u00a0 God. Dead and<\/em><\/strong> Alive.\u201d\u00a0 That would indeed be an accurate description of the true Christian God.<\/p>\n My own faith journey has been one of belief and of disillusionment and doubt.\u00a0 Even as I came into this doctoral program, I wondered if perhaps I was jumping the gun.\u00a0 Another \u201cChristian\u201d institution?\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Will I fit in?\u00a0 Isn\u2019t it time I got a degree from a secular institution?\u00a0 As I have said in other posts, I do not consider myself to be an Evangelical Christian.\u00a0 There are many reasons for this, but the biggest reason I do not claim these roots any longer is due to experiences of poor Christian role models, particularly with Christian leaders through the years.\u00a0 Frankly, I think, it is too easy to \u201cthrow the baby out with the bathwater.\u201d\u00a0 And I, at times, have done just that.\u00a0 This is hard to admit, but it is true.\u00a0 As I have read Eagleton, I was reminded that I am solidly a Christian, a believer in Jesus \u2013 in beliefs \u2013 though not always in behavior.\u00a0 I am amazed how our readings are reaching into my life, my mind, and my soul.\u00a0 This one was no exception.\u00a0 I am grateful for our readings.\u00a0 Thank you, Jason, for including this text at this time.<\/p>\n