The Great Culture Debate: Christopher Hitchens vs. David Allen White

Peter666 · #1 08-13-2007, 04:38 PM

Is Western Civilization better off having had the Church? A radio debate between Christopher Hitchens, authour of "God is not Great" versus a mentor, Dr. David Allen White, traditional Catholic and Professor of Literature at the US Naval Academy.

Touches upon all the questions we bring up here.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkr...?RadioShowID=5

There are two parts, the first one is higher up.

NotReady · #2 08-13-2007, 08:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Touches upon all the questions we bring up here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good discussion, Hitchens was a slimeball only twice, probably a record for him in any two hour period.

Peter666 · #3 08-13-2007, 09:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Touches upon all the questions we bring up here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good discussion, Hitchens was a slimeball only twice, probably a record for him in any two hour period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitchens seemed to have broken down when White confronted him on his faith that science will understand conscience. Hitchens had to explain his assertion by stating that it is certain due to an exponential projection of accumulated scientific work...in other words, "I don't know, but I'm really really hoping." That makes him very religious! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

luckyme · #4 08-13-2007, 10:03 PM

Could set the stage for a good discussion but neither of them is informed enough about cognitive science to make any useful comments on the only interesting part they touched on.

luckyme

kbfc · #5 08-14-2007, 12:30 AM

Well that was an hour of my life that I wish I had back.

Justin A · #6 08-14-2007, 01:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Touches upon all the questions we bring up here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good discussion, Hitchens was a slimeball only twice, probably a record for him in any two hour period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitchens seemed to have broken down when White confronted him on his faith that science will understand conscience. Hitchens had to explain his assertion by stating that it is certain due to an exponential projection of accumulated scientific work...in other words, "I don't know, but I'm really really hoping." That makes him very religious! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think saying, "I don't know, but I'm really hoping" is actually very unreligious. Take me for example, I'm an atheist, but at the same time I still hope that somehow I'll live on after this life.

Peter666 · #7 08-14-2007, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Could set the stage for a good discussion but neither of them is informed enough about cognitive science to make any useful comments on the only interesting part they touched on.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the point was that the cognitive sciences don't have useful comments in regard to understanding sapience. If there is something that will unravel it, please point out the source.

Semiotics was brought up which points to a third party acting between mind and matter, or God.

Subfallen · #8 08-14-2007, 01:54 AM

I only listened to the first ten minutes because Hitchens mumbles something fierce. But neither debater had yet mentioned the symmetry of the artistic and ascetic psychologies! How can one seriously debate the "value" of religion without first defining what is decisively religious??

Peter666 · #9 08-14-2007, 03:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Touches upon all the questions we bring up here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good discussion, Hitchens was a slimeball only twice, probably a record for him in any two hour period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitchens seemed to have broken down when White confronted him on his faith that science will understand conscience. Hitchens had to explain his assertion by stating that it is certain due to an exponential projection of accumulated scientific work...in other words, "I don't know, but I'm really really hoping." That makes him very religious! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think saying, "I don't know, but I'm really hoping" is actually very unreligious. Take me for example, I'm an atheist, but at the same time I still hope that somehow I'll live on after this life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that qualifies you as a pantheist or some sort of immanent idealist rather than an atheist.

Justin A · #10 08-14-2007, 04:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I think that qualifies you as a pantheist or some sort of immanent idealist rather than an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to look up pantheist, and that is definitely not me.

What I mean when I say I hope I live on after death in this world is the same as the way I hope I find a winning lottery ticket on the ground tomorrow. There's a big difference between what I hope and what I actually believe.