I'll comment within the body of the following post.<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Joe Campbell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">Good points, Ted. Certainly my comments were a bit hyperbolic. Perhaps.<br><br>I'll try to get back to this later but I did not mean to indicate that<br>
neither Hichens nor Wilson has an interesting world view. My point was<br>only that each adopts a world view which is essentially disrespectful<br>of the other side. For instance, Hitchens thinks religion is OK --<br>except the supernatural aspect. Just take God out of the picture and<br>
everything is just fine, is essentially what he's saying. </blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>There are "superstitious" religious beliefs that are in non-theistic systems that Hitchens would object to, I am certain. And given my reading of Hitchens, someone who believes in a "God" but accepts the factual conclusions of science, and rejects superstition, or, for example, absolute revelation from God of scientific and ethical truth in books written a thousand years or more ago, is not the primarily the target of his attacks.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Science has been called "imagination in a straight jacket." Theology, on the other hand, sometimes needs the straight jacket of science, yet sometimes rejects science when it proves problematic. The disagreements on the definition of God are so dramatic and complex I've <strong><em>never read any theologian or philosopher who gave a coherent account that could not be replaced by some other clever brilliant theologian or philosopher's account, that disagreed. </em></strong>Science also has profound disagreements on various theories, but the questions are open to investigation and new data. Theology often is dogmatic, will not accept new data, and asserts a level of certainty that any reasonable scientific minded person knows is questionable. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Correct?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--------------------------</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">That is not<br>going to foster an interesting discussion. Note I'm not claiming that<br>Hitchens is wrong. There are lots of interesting people who adopt that<br>
same world view; likely most professional philosophers adopt that same<br>world view. I just don't see it bringing about any interesting<br>discussion other than: "Supernatural means superstitious." "No, it<br>
doesn't."</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>But clearly sometimes supernatural does mean superstitious, in ways that are rather clear and not subject to serious objections from reasonable scientific minded people, unless using sophisticated tactics of skepticism that can be used to shed doubt on any belief! I find it amusing that many religious dogmatists will engage in rigorous skeptical strategies to shed doubt on beliefs that contradict their religion, yet if they applied the same rigorous skeptical strategies, their own religious beliefs would be in question.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>Consider if Courtney applied this level of skeptical rigour to his religious beliefs, as he applies to the science behind anthropogenic warming. He would have to disprove all other religious theologies!:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-July/055108.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-July/055108.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Courtney wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Third, to demonstrate causality they have to disprove all other theories (sunspots causing global warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton). Space.com reports that Mars is emerging from an ice age. Unless Moffett thinks that Martians are driving too many SUVs around, then there has to be another explanation. And why doesn't that explanation work for the earth and only for Mars/Pluto/Triton/etc? <br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My response:<br> <br>For a scientific theory to be regarded as credible, the theory does not have to disprove all other theories. No one can disprove all other possible theories for any claim. No scientific theory could pass this test. After examining all known theories and data, the theory that best and most simply (Occams Razor) explains the data is most credible. This does not mean other theories may never be discovered to better explain the data, which would be the case if all other theories were incontrovertibly disproved. <br>
----------</div></div>
<div>Joe wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Trust me, one annoying point about this debate is this is metaphysics!<br>When I tell people I am a metaphysician, they laugh. Yet if you<br>discuss your metaphysics as if it were about politics and well being,<br>then you can write a best seller! I'm just passing that along to those<br>
who might want fame! </div>
<div>-------------------------</div>
<div>I'm not laughing. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>A best seller on metaphysics? Like books by Deepak Chopra, guru extraordinaire? I suppose Chopra may be doing some good, but sometimes when I've heard him being interviewed I had the suspicion, perhaps unfounded, that he is a sophisticated philosophical/theological scam artist. But I tend to think many involved in promoting religion are scam artists, though they seem to do such a good job of convincing themselves they are absolutely right their scam becomes unconscious.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hitchens is a professional writer, so of course the more controversy and exposure, the more books he will sell. But I find his work thought provoking and worth reading, even if it is not "academic philosophy." </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">There are a host of issues here that I wouldn't<br>even attempt to address in a single course, let along a book or a<br>
movie. This is an oversimplification of philosophy. As a philosopher,<br>this kind of stuff drives me up the wall. But I understand that<br>philosophy is open to all, so in the end there is nothing wrong with<br>it other than creating the illusion that one is really doing<br>
philosophy.<br></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'll have more to say but I don't think that you can have an<br>interesting, philosophical discussion if both parties find the other<br>view silly, or evil, or stupid, or dangerous. Better to talk about<br>some aspect of the debate upon which both sides agree and then try to<br>
move from there. But what would that be, in this case? I have not read<br>Hichens but I did meet him and based on that conversation I came away<br>believing that both parties agree that Christianity = Conservative<br>Fundamentalism. Again, the conversation after that is not interesting<br>
to me -- but I never said it wouldn't draw a crowd! Nor did I say it<br>wasn't a worthy conversation. Everyone is entitled to her own beliefs,<br>and to express them.</div>
<div>----------------------</div>
<div>I have not listened to the Hitchens/Wilson debate, nor do I plan to, unless for entertainment. I doubt I would hear any argument that I have not heard before on this subject.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I agree that from the point of view of academic philosophy the debate is probably worthless, for someone with a Phd.</div>
<div>----------------------<br><br>Best, Joe<br></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br>On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Ted Moffett <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Your comments about Christopher Hitchens are misleading. For one thing, he<br>
> does have academic credentials, if the bio below from "The Nation" website<br>> is correct, though I suppose the weight of these credentials can be<br>> questioned. It is well known Wilson received a Masters in Philosophy from<br>
> the U of I:<br>><br>> <a href="http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/christopher_hitchens" target="_blank">http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/christopher_hitchens</a><br>><br>> Born in 1949 in Portsmouth, England, Hitchens received a degree in<br>
> philosophy, politics and economics from Balliol College, Oxford, in 1970.<br>><br>> --------------------<br>> Also, though Hitchens' critique of religious superstition and faith is<br>> unyielding, to state that he thinks "religion in general is nothing more<br>
> than dangerous idiocy," is an oversimplifying generalization. Hitchens<br>> recognizes that religious cultural traditions have value, it appears, but he<br>> sharply (and some would say intolerantly) criticizes "the superstitious and<br>
> the supernatural."<br>><br>> To quote Hitchens' from an article on "Huffington Post":<br>><br>> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-hitchens/collision-is-religion-abs_b_326673.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-hitchens/collision-is-religion-abs_b_326673.html</a><br>
><br>> "Instead, we are asked to believe that the essential problem was solved<br>> about two-to-three thousand years ago, by various serial appearances of<br>> divine intervention and guidance in remote and primitive parts of what is<br>
> now (at least to Westerners) the Middle East.<br>><br>> This absurd belief would not even deserve to be called quixotic if it had<br>> not inspired masterpieces of art and music and architecture as well as the<br>
> most appalling atrocities and depredations. The great cultural question<br>> before us is therefore this: can we manage to preserve what is numinous and<br>> transcendent and ecstatic without giving any more room to the superstitious<br>
> and the supernatural. (For example, can one treasure and appreciate the<br>> Parthenon, say, while recognizing that the religious cult that gave rise to<br>> it is dead, and was in many ways sinister and cruel?)"<br>
> --------<br>> His statement above, given my reading, indicates that he recognizes<br>> religion gives expression to "what is numinous and transcendent and<br>> ecstatic," that it has "inspired masterpieces of art and music and<br>
> architecture," but he is promoting the idea we can keep these valuable<br>> aspects of religious experience and culture, without recourse to "the<br>> superstitious and the supernatural," without the negative impacts of these<br>
> sorts of beliefs.<br>><br>> Regardless of Hitchens' academic credentials, in simple terms he has<br>> expressed what has been in my life a central issue. I find it impossible,<br>> without lying to myself or others, to have certainty of belief in religious<br>
> propositions which evidence and reason indicate are highly questionable, yet<br>> still discover that I experience, as Hitchens' phrased it, "what is numinous<br>> and transcendent and ecstatic." I experience the bliss of Bach (for<br>
> example, Bach's beautiful composition "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring") without<br>> believing in Christianity, for example (though I prefer the electronic Wendy<br>> Carlos "Switched on Bach" version):<br>
><br>> Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring":<br>><br>> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwWL8Y-qsJg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwWL8Y-qsJg</a><br>> ------------------------------------------<br>
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>><br>> On 10/31/09, Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>> Mutally respectful discussion from Hitchens and Wilson? You haven't really<br>
>> followed the debate, have you. Hitchens thinks that fundamentalists like<br>>> Wilson are dangerous idiots. He also thinks that ALL Christians are<br>>> fundamentalists. Thus, religion in general is nothing more than dangerous<br>
>> idiocy.<br>>><br>>> Wilson, of course, thinks that Christianity allows for slavery -- that<br>>> some slavery is permissable -- and has written -- well, at least wrote part<br>>> of since the original work was partly ripped if from a discredited academic<br>
>> source -- a revisionist history of American slavery, where it turns out that<br>>> the best race relations in the country happened when we kept blacks in<br>>> chains!<br>>><br>>> This is not an academic debate -- they have exactly one MA between them.<br>
>> This is a circus, where difficult issues about religion are glossed over in<br>>> favor of insulting generalizations. Of course, this kind of crap has always<br>>> sold well!<br>>><br>>> Sent from my iPhone<br>
>> On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:10 PM, Selina Davis <<a href="mailto:selinadavis@hotmail.com">selinadavis@hotmail.com</a>><br>>> wrote:<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> And here's the link to info about the movie:<br>
>> <a href="http://www.collisionmovie.com/" target="_blank">http://www.collisionmovie.com/</a> and a link to Pastor Wilson with Chris<br>>> Hitchens for an hour on the nationally-syndicated Laura Ingraham Show today<br>
>> (haven't listened to it yet):<br>>> <a href="http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2009/10/23/70483.aspx" target="_blank">http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2009/10/23/70483.aspx</a><br>>><br>
>> It's always intriguing when someone around here gains a degree of<br>>> notoriety beyond our region. Can we anticipate a showing and spirited (yet<br>>> hopefully mutually respectful) discussion at the Nuart and/or Kenworthy<br>
>> sometime soon?<br>>><br>>> - Selina<br>>><br>>> ________________________________<br>>> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:41:30 -0700<br>>> From: <a href="mailto:rforce2003@yahoo.com">rforce2003@yahoo.com</a><br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Local Media Celebrity<br>>><br>>> fighting words<br>>> Faith No More<br>>> What I've learned from debating religious people around the world.<br>
>> By Christopher Hitchens<br>>> Posted Monday, Oct. 26, 2009, at 11:21 AM ET<br>>><br>>> This week sees the opening on various cinema marquees of the film<br>>> Collision: a buddy-and-road movie featuring last year's debates between<br>
>> Pastor Douglas Wilson, who is a senior fellow at New St. Andrew's College,<br>>> and your humble servant. (If I may be forgiven, it's also available on DVD,<br>>> and you can buy our little book of exchanges, Is Christianity Good for the<br>
>> World?)<br>>><br>>> Newsweek's reviewer beseeches you not to go and see the film, largely on<br>>> the grounds that it features two middle-aged white men trying to establish<br>>> which one is the dominant male. I would have thought that this would be<br>
>> reason enough to buy a ticket, but perhaps she would have preferred the<br>>> debate held in London last week featuring me and Stephen Fry (two<br>>> magnificent specimens of white mammalhood) versus a female member of<br>
>> Parliament who is a Tory Catholic convert and the Roman Catholic archbishop<br>>> of Abuja, Nigeria. It filled one of the largest halls in the city, and many<br>>> people had to be turned away. For a combination of reasons, the subject of<br>
>> religion is back where it always ought to be—at the very center of any<br>>> argument about the clash of world views.<br>>><br>>> Continues at: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2233586/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/2233586/</a><br>
>><br>>><br>>> ________________________________<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>