[Vision2020] Local Media Celebrity

Mon Nov 2 15:05:46 PST 2009

I'll comment within the body of the following post.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:

> Good points, Ted. Certainly my comments were a bit hyperbolic. Perhaps.
>
> I'll try to get back to this later but I did not mean to indicate that
> neither Hichens nor Wilson has an interesting world view. My point was
> only that each adopts a world view which is essentially disrespectful
> of the other side. For instance, Hitchens thinks religion is OK --
> except the supernatural aspect. Just take God out of the picture and
> everything is just fine, is essentially what he's saying.

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.

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 *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.  *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.

Correct?

--------------------------

> That is not
> going to foster an interesting discussion. Note I'm not claiming that
> Hitchens is wrong. There are lots of interesting people who adopt that
> same world view; likely most professional philosophers adopt that same
> world view. I just don't see it bringing about any interesting
> discussion other than: "Supernatural means superstitious." "No, it
> doesn't."

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.

 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!:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-July/055108.html

Courtney wrote:

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?

My response:

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.
----------
Joe wrote:

Trust me, one annoying point about this debate is this is metaphysics!
When I tell people I am a metaphysician, they laugh. Yet if you
discuss your metaphysics as if it were about politics and well being,
then you can write a best seller! I'm just passing that along to those
who might want fame!
-------------------------
I'm not laughing.

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.

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."

> There are a host of issues here that I wouldn't
> even attempt to address in a single course, let along a book or a
> movie. This is an oversimplification of philosophy. As a philosopher,
> this kind of stuff drives me up the wall. But I understand that
> philosophy is open to all, so in the end there is nothing wrong with
> it other than creating the illusion that one is really doing
> philosophy.
>

I'll have more to say but I don't think that you can have an
interesting, philosophical discussion if both parties find the other
view silly, or evil, or stupid, or dangerous. Better to talk about
some aspect of the debate upon which both sides agree and then try to
move from there. But what would that be, in this case? I have not read
Hichens but I did meet him and based on that conversation I came away
believing that both parties agree that Christianity = Conservative
Fundamentalism. Again, the conversation after that is not interesting
to me -- but I never said it wouldn't draw a crowd! Nor did I say it
wasn't a worthy conversation. Everyone is entitled to her own beliefs,
and to express them.
----------------------
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.

I agree that from the point of view of academic philosophy the debate is
probably worthless, for someone with a Phd.
----------------------

Best, Joe

>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your comments about Christopher Hitchens are misleading.  For one thing,
> he
> > does have academic credentials, if the bio below from "The Nation"
> website
> > is correct, though I suppose the weight of these credentials can be
> > questioned.  It is well known Wilson received a Masters in Philosophy
> from
> > the U of I:
> >
> > http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/christopher_hitchens
> >
> > Born in 1949 in Portsmouth, England, Hitchens received a degree in
> > philosophy, politics and economics from Balliol College, Oxford, in 1970.
> >
> > --------------------
> > Also, though Hitchens' critique of religious superstition and faith is
> > unyielding, to state that he thinks "religion in general is nothing more
> > than dangerous idiocy," is an oversimplifying generalization.  Hitchens
> > recognizes that religious cultural traditions have value, it appears, but
> he
> > sharply (and some would say intolerantly) criticizes "the superstitious
> and
> > the supernatural."
> >
> > To quote Hitchens' from an article on "Huffington Post":
> >
> >
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-hitchens/collision-is-religion-abs_b_326673.html
> >
> > "Instead, we are asked to believe that the essential problem was solved
> > about two-to-three thousand years ago, by various serial appearances of
> > divine intervention and guidance in remote and primitive parts of what is
> > now (at least to Westerners) the Middle East.
> >
> > This absurd belief would not even deserve to be called quixotic if it had
> > not inspired masterpieces of art and music and architecture as well as
> the
> > most appalling atrocities and depredations. The great cultural question
> > before us is therefore this: can we manage to preserve what is numinous
> and
> > transcendent and ecstatic without giving any more room to the
> superstitious
> > and the supernatural. (For example, can one treasure and appreciate the
> > Parthenon, say, while recognizing that the religious cult that gave rise
> to
> > it is dead, and was in many ways sinister and cruel?)"
> > --------
> > His statement above, given my reading, indicates that he recognizes
> > religion gives expression to "what is numinous and transcendent and
> > ecstatic," that it has "inspired masterpieces of art and music and
> > architecture," but he is promoting the idea we can keep these valuable
> > aspects of religious experience and culture, without recourse to "the
> > superstitious and the supernatural," without the negative impacts of
> these
> > sorts of beliefs.
> >
> > Regardless of Hitchens' academic credentials, in simple terms he has
> > expressed what has been in my life a central issue.  I find it
> impossible,
> > without lying to myself or others, to have certainty of belief in
> religious
> > propositions which evidence and reason indicate are highly questionable,
> yet
> > still discover that I experience, as Hitchens' phrased it, "what is
> numinous
> > and transcendent and ecstatic."  I experience the bliss of Bach (for
> > example, Bach's beautiful composition "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring")
> without
> > believing in Christianity, for example (though I prefer the electronic
> Wendy
> > Carlos "Switched on Bach" version):
> >
> > Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring":
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwWL8Y-qsJg
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> >
> > On 10/31/09, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mutally respectful discussion from Hitchens and Wilson? You haven't
> really
> >> followed the debate, have you. Hitchens thinks that fundamentalists like
> >> Wilson are dangerous idiots. He also thinks that ALL Christians are
> >> fundamentalists. Thus, religion in general is nothing more than
> dangerous
> >> idiocy.
> >>
> >> Wilson, of course, thinks that Christianity allows for slavery -- that
> >> some slavery is permissable -- and has written -- well, at least wrote
> part
> >> of since the original work was partly ripped if from a discredited
> academic
> >> source -- a revisionist history of American slavery, where it turns out
> that
> >> the best race relations in the country happened when we kept blacks in
> >> chains!
> >>
> >> This is not an academic debate -- they have exactly one MA between them.
> >> This is a circus, where difficult issues about religion are glossed over
> in
> >> favor of insulting generalizations. Of course, this kind of crap has
> always
> >> sold well!
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:10 PM, Selina Davis <selinadavis at hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> And here's the link to info about the movie:
> >> http://www.collisionmovie.com/ and a link to Pastor Wilson with Chris
> >> Hitchens for an hour on the nationally-syndicated Laura Ingraham Show
> today
> >> (haven't listened to it yet):
> >> http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2009/10/23/70483.aspx
> >>
> >> It's always intriguing when someone around here gains a degree of
> >> notoriety beyond our region.  Can we anticipate a showing and spirited
> (yet
> >> hopefully mutually respectful) discussion at the Nuart and/or Kenworthy
> >> sometime soon?
> >>
> >> - Selina
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:41:30 -0700
> >> From: rforce2003 at yahoo.com
> >> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> Subject: [Vision2020] Local Media Celebrity
> >>
> >> fighting words
> >> Faith No More
> >> What I've learned from debating religious people around the world.
> >> By Christopher Hitchens
> >> Posted Monday, Oct. 26, 2009, at 11:21 AM ET
> >>
> >> This week sees the opening on various cinema marquees of the film
> >> Collision: a buddy-and-road movie featuring last year's debates between
> >> Pastor Douglas Wilson, who is a senior fellow at New St. Andrew's
> College,
> >> and your humble servant. (If I may be forgiven, it's also available on
> DVD,
> >> and you can buy our little book of exchanges, Is Christianity Good for
> the
> >> World?)
> >>
> >> Newsweek's reviewer beseeches you not to go and see the film, largely on
> >> the grounds that it features two middle-aged white men trying to
> establish
> >> which one is the dominant male. I would have thought that this would be
> >> reason enough to buy a ticket, but perhaps she would have preferred the
> >> debate held in London last week featuring me and Stephen Fry (two
> >> magnificent specimens of white mammalhood) versus a female member of
> >> Parliament who is a Tory Catholic convert and the Roman Catholic
> archbishop
> >> of Abuja, Nigeria. It filled one of the largest halls in the city, and
> many
> >> people had to be turned away. For a combination of reasons, the subject
> of
> >> religion is back where it always ought to be—at the very center of any
> >> argument about the clash of world views.
> >>
> >> Continues at: http://www.slate.com/id/2233586/
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091102/07f14ea8/attachment-0001.html 