With respect, Eagleton, it seems to me, sounds almost Chopraesque in his initial deepities, although I do resonate with this statement: "Only by breaking with the whole notion of 'deep' meaning can we break free."

Many of you who have reacted negatively to this quotation have misunderstood it. It's not trying to bring God back. It's saying that many of the abstractions put forward by philosophers are likewise not significantly more real than God.

"Deep" or hidden or occult meaning is fundamentally a religious concept, sure. Life just is what it is, a series of things happening. Once you get that through your head, it's easier to bear. You don't fancy that it's personal or "supposed" to be some way or other.

It does not follow however that you have to then confine yourself to atonal or serialist music, abstract art, and nonsense poetry. Things can be lyrical or have beginning, middles, ends and some kind of narrative. You can express things coherently. You just don't need to take it very seriously.

Imho, God in this context is the God of the Bible. To assert that we have given him a series of new names such as Nature, Humanity, Reason etc is to make a nonsense of the English language.and to abandon rationality.

I regard metaphysics, as opposed to the philosophy of science, as an absurdity.

I regard theology as a time-wasting activity engaged in by the cognitively challenged.

Do I sound like an ass-hole of a bitch? Yes, I do. I have no time for such sloppy thinking. See also my bio.

We have not really killed god. Are you telling me to look at the trees and the sunset? The Internet has killed god. He is desperately gasping and still kicking but the fatal wound has been made.

Such nonsense... And of course don't defend your position

We cannot kill that which does not exist. I agree o the issue of metaphysics. Still, I use the word "deep" to convey that the construct conveys more different and significant cognitive connections at different levels of complexity. Good to see you posing again. Das freut mich!

"It may also be that even postmodernism, with its aversion to absolute foundations, secretly smuggles such an absolute into the argument. It is not, to be sure, God or Reason or History, but it behaves in just such a bottom-line sort of way. Like these other absolutes, it is impossible to delve beneath it. For postmodernism, this is known as Culture."

What was the source of this drivel?

I think 'substance' needs to be defined here and which philosopher's thinking is behind this.

Don’t my kmow about that. Post modernism will evolve in part to neo-tribalism and the depth of communal and personal connection must emerge, the natural counter to neo-liberalism.

Depths, essences and foundations represent the awe-inspiring, inexplicable mystery of reality, conscious awareness, existence itself. How can we possibly break free of deep meaning when the nature of existence is such a staggering and profound mystery?

Because something like the ultimate nature of self is beyond physics is no reason to dismantle the concept. It might be tempting for some to be free of ignorance and mystery, but that kind of freedom is impossible in my opinion.

what a load of crap! so progress and nature is another name for god and divine? really? and you call yourself secular? this post is total bullshit!