Skip to main content

"Is Catholicism a Force For Good?": Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs. Ann Widdecombe and Bishop (1 of 5)



Thanks to Blakeley Nixon for this link. Surprising vote at the end. To be fair to the Catholic side: as speakers, Widdecome and the Bishop were pretty awful and entirely outclassed.

Postscript. By the way, for anyone interested in this topic I would strongly recommend David Ranan's Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church, which is at least as exciting as The Da Vinci Code.

The Catholic Herald wrote:

Speaking of how other people may see us, I have been reading a fascinating, if somewhat uncomfortable book called Double Cross by David Ranan (Theo Press). When I tell you that it devotes 350 pages to attacking the Church ... you will understand why I would not recommend it to anyone who is not familiar with Church history and the general cut and thrust of apologetic debate. ... whenever I was able to check references they proved satisfactory. Withal, I found the book salutary. It reminds me how the credibility of the Church has so often been endangered not only by bad individuals but by bad trends. -- Catholic Herald, November 2007

Also see my blog debate with commentators on HIV, condoms and Catholicism - check comments.

Comments

Paul P. Mealing said…
I thought this was excellent, though I couldn't get the 5th video for some reason.

I thought Stephen Fry's presentation was the best.

Overall, what it showed is that the Catholic Church is a fatally flawed anachronistic institution, though it doesn't know it. It's more a debate about the modern world versus a stubbornly resistant dogma that won't evolve.

Regards, Paul.
anticant said…
The difference between "Double Cross"and "The Da Vinci Code" is that the former is factual and the latter is fiction.
b.b.b. said…
or you could read philip jenkins' anti catholicism - the last acceptable prejudice. but then that might not tell you what you want to hear.
Paul P. Mealing said…
Speaking of books, I would recommend Their Kingdom Come; Inside the Secret World of Opus Dei by Robert Hutchison (1997,2006).

I summarise some of Hutchison's arguments here, if anyone is interested.

Two brief reviews on Amazon.com can be found here.

Regards, Paul.
Tony Lloyd said…
Hi b.b.b.

Anti-catholic bigotry is a problem, not just in that it is wrong in itself, but also in that it obscures genuine criticism.

Neither Hitchens' nor Fry's words were, in the slightest, bigoted. But the existence of anti-catholic bigots let's you imply that they were and that whoever "you" is meant to refer to is closeminded enough to ignore counter-arguments. Remember that counter-arguments were presented in the debate and a link to the debate is as much a link to the two pro-Church speakers as to the anti.

Unfortunately for the quality of the debate the pro side were woeful, at least in comparison to Hitchens and Fry. Such a miss-match doesn't do much for a search for truth and one wonders whether the Church couldn't have been prevailed upon to supply an intellect to put the pro-case forward. Have all the Jesuits gone on strike?

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o