At this point what I want to argue with this passage of Desmond is that the attempt to tell the atheist that his atheism is what stands in the way of conceiving the true Hegel, the one who is consistent with christian religion, is a spurious argument given that other christians also say that Hegel's notion(s) of God is not compatible with christian religion. 

Here the accusation of atheism does not hold because Desmond is not one, he is a man of religious conviction and seems a stern defender of the relevance of christian theology.

João.

---In hegel@yahoogroups.com, <ponikvaraj@...> wrote :

Yes, Desmond is an interesting critic both of Hegel and theologically minded Hegelians. 

Even though I do not agree with his reading of Hegel, it is a carefully crafted and original reading. 

Desmond is a serious thinker which is the main reason he is read and discussed. 

He does not approach Hegel as a dogmatist. He simply does what we all should do which is give ourselves over to the text. 

Of course, this giving over does not guarantee that one's reading will be any good. 

But at least it is nice to see that there are texts that people on this site are talking about. 

It is useful to see how diverse the readings. No one should be surprised by this. 

As I have always said, the texts do not interpret themselves. These diverse readings are evidence of this. 

- Alan

On Sep 19, 2014, at 2:42 PM, "vascojoao2003@... [hegel]" <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Mary,

I think, given your certainty that Hegel is all about God and Chriatian religion and that atheists are not equiped to comprehend his texts, that you should notice those who being christians like you are nonetheless critical of Hegel's theology, better said, of Hegel's whole approach to the concept of God. 

With these others, that like you are also christians, you can no longer rest on the same simple and immediate self-confidence you exhibit here, with these you might actually will have to do a bit more than throwing around quotes of the LPR. 

For instance William Desmond:

“(…)in time I become a critical sympathizer, then a sympathetic critic, then a critic, and then with Hegel’s God (2003) the door at the back of the church was pointed out to  me and I took the message that for the pious Hegelians I was now anathema. So  be it. I have been increasingly more critical of Hegel in thinking there is a  systematic bias at work in his practice of dialectic. 

The issue came to a head for me in relation to God whose unsurpassable transcendence is systematically reconfigured by Hegel, producing a counterfeit double of God, as I have argued  in Hegel’s God. I think many read Hegel much too innocently – this is especially  true of those who want to make religious use of him. He is far more dialectically slippery and equivocal than they seem to realize or want to grant. That said, he  is an essential thinker with whom one must come to terms. I’m afraid many of  those who think they are beyond Hegel and dialectic are not quite where they claim to be. That is another reason why a recuperation of dialectic, both in its Hegelian and non-Hegelian forms is a continuing task. Dialectic is not univocal.”

file:///C:/Users/owner/Downloads/62-205-1-PB.pdf

João.