A Little Bit of Hitchens and Fry
This is a good one, if you have the time.
Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?
It stands up for the oppressed and offers spiritual succor to billions say the Church's supporters. But what about the Church's teachings on condoms, gays and women priests, ask the detractors.
Speaking for the motion, Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdencombe MP. Speaking against the motion, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. For those of you who don't know, Christopher Hitchens recently said of Mother Teresa that, "...it's a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to."
There are 5 parts to this debate, each about 9 minutes long. The playlist can be found here.
I think Hitchens and Fry do a very good job in this little debate. However, I will say that the two do have a much better handle on rhetoric than do Onaiyekan and Widdencombe. And you always have to be careful when listening to an argument made by an impassioned and charismatic person. What they're saying may sound good but the substance behind their words can be terribly lacking.
Not really the case here, I'm glad to say.
The BBC ran a poll of the audience before and after the debate, counting those for, against, and undecided on the motion that the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. Onaiyekan and Widdencombe stand on the losing side before the debate even begins at 678-1102-346. After the debate they fall even further behind at 268-1876-34. What I don't really understand is why so many people cheer and hoot and holler when the results of the poll are read. I was reminded a bit of this, the people celebrating the re-illegalization of gay marriage in Maine.
In both cases, what have you gained? Why should you be so happy that gays can no longer be married? I can understand being of the opinion that homosexual marriage should be illegal (sort of) but I can't understand celebrating its illegalization. The same goes with this debate. I fully understand the atheist mindset and the opinion that organized religion is a crutch that humanity must free itself of if it's ever to reach its full potential. But celebrating the death of someone's deeply held ideas...?
That doesn't make sense, does it? Hoping that the world someday eradicates itself of religion is much more significant than celebrating the defeat of others in debate. The defeat of others in debates like these is a step towards the edification of religion. I make no sense.
I guess I'm kind of torn. I find myself in a bit of a paradox. On one hand I (like most the world) believe that my particular wordview is the "correct" one. My own understanding and interpretation of the universe is the correct one. And I recognize that there are lots of things that I don't know and won't know, but the way I think about things ensures that I won't make decisions if it requires knowledge that I don't possess, and I will always be capable of acquiring, internalizing, and applying new knowledge, even if it contradicts my own previously held paradigms. And part of how I see the world tells me that it would be better without faith. That if empiricism and logic and reason had a monopoly on human thought we'd be better off for it.
But I also have a part of me that recognizes how awful and Nazi-ish that is. The complete eradication of type of thought? Necessarily, the complete eradication of a certain type of people (the religious). How many steps away from book burning is that? From (a form of) genocide? Not many. How can I be of that mind?
I don't really know. I would never advocate making religion illegal. I would never tell someone that they ought not be religious. Yet I'd still tell them that they're wrong and that we'd all be better off if they could forget about all that stuff and concentrate on the here and now. On science and technology and art and music. And more importantly on love and people and friendship and goodness and kindness.
I don't really know.
- Michael
I need to write more substantial lj entries like this. I doubt many people read them but they keep my writing skills sharp(er). I didn't get that much practice at Mudd, but I know that good writing and good rhetoric are must-haves. And while we can't all be pnjky's we can at least try to better ourselves.
Click to viewIs the Catholic church a force for good in the world?
It stands up for the oppressed and offers spiritual succor to billions say the Church's supporters. But what about the Church's teachings on condoms, gays and women priests, ask the detractors.
Speaking for the motion, Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdencombe MP. Speaking against the motion, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. For those of you who don't know, Christopher Hitchens recently said of Mother Teresa that, "...it's a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to."
There are 5 parts to this debate, each about 9 minutes long. The playlist can be found here.
I think Hitchens and Fry do a very good job in this little debate. However, I will say that the two do have a much better handle on rhetoric than do Onaiyekan and Widdencombe. And you always have to be careful when listening to an argument made by an impassioned and charismatic person. What they're saying may sound good but the substance behind their words can be terribly lacking.
Not really the case here, I'm glad to say.
The BBC ran a poll of the audience before and after the debate, counting those for, against, and undecided on the motion that the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. Onaiyekan and Widdencombe stand on the losing side before the debate even begins at 678-1102-346. After the debate they fall even further behind at 268-1876-34. What I don't really understand is why so many people cheer and hoot and holler when the results of the poll are read. I was reminded a bit of this, the people celebrating the re-illegalization of gay marriage in Maine.
In both cases, what have you gained? Why should you be so happy that gays can no longer be married? I can understand being of the opinion that homosexual marriage should be illegal (sort of) but I can't understand celebrating its illegalization. The same goes with this debate. I fully understand the atheist mindset and the opinion that organized religion is a crutch that humanity must free itself of if it's ever to reach its full potential. But celebrating the death of someone's deeply held ideas...?
That doesn't make sense, does it? Hoping that the world someday eradicates itself of religion is much more significant than celebrating the defeat of others in debate. The defeat of others in debates like these is a step towards the edification of religion. I make no sense.
I guess I'm kind of torn. I find myself in a bit of a paradox. On one hand I (like most the world) believe that my particular wordview is the "correct" one. My own understanding and interpretation of the universe is the correct one. And I recognize that there are lots of things that I don't know and won't know, but the way I think about things ensures that I won't make decisions if it requires knowledge that I don't possess, and I will always be capable of acquiring, internalizing, and applying new knowledge, even if it contradicts my own previously held paradigms. And part of how I see the world tells me that it would be better without faith. That if empiricism and logic and reason had a monopoly on human thought we'd be better off for it.
But I also have a part of me that recognizes how awful and Nazi-ish that is. The complete eradication of type of thought? Necessarily, the complete eradication of a certain type of people (the religious). How many steps away from book burning is that? From (a form of) genocide? Not many. How can I be of that mind?
I don't really know. I would never advocate making religion illegal. I would never tell someone that they ought not be religious. Yet I'd still tell them that they're wrong and that we'd all be better off if they could forget about all that stuff and concentrate on the here and now. On science and technology and art and music. And more importantly on love and people and friendship and goodness and kindness.
I don't really know.
- Michael
I need to write more substantial lj entries like this. I doubt many people read them but they keep my writing skills sharp(er). I didn't get that much practice at Mudd, but I know that good writing and good rhetoric are must-haves. And while we can't all be pnjky's we can at least try to better ourselves.