Welcome to this week's guest blogger, 'eejit' - a voice of reason on the blog comment page - 'eejit' is not pulling any punches with his review of the titanic struggle between good vs evil from Canada (where else?).
Not so much the Rumble in the Jungle or the Thriller in Manila, the atheistic hammer blow of Christopher Hitchens met God’s representative on earth, Tony Blair, in a heavyweight title fight at the , er, Roy Thompson Hall, sponsored by Canadian businessman Peter Munk. Yes, the Peter Munk. The Lurch in the Church? The Feeble up the Steeple? At stake was God himself. Or herself. The braying masses demanded to know whether “Religion is a force for good in the world.”
It says something about the nightlife in Toronto that this yawn fest was selling tickets at $60 a shot, with touts asking $500. (What?.... Canadian dollars? ...Oh, right). But as students of this blog site know, nothing gets under the skin like a good religious debate. What Munk has to do with it is anyone’s guess, as apparently he hasn’t taken holy orders, though he is thought to be descended from a munkey. At this point of Advent, dear reader, you may feel inclined to agree with Wittgenstein and decide that of which you cannot know, you will remain silent. But let us keep bu*gering on as Churchill would have said.
Hitchens will be well known to many as the Ayatollah of the New Atheist Mujahadeen, a cabal that includes Richard Dawkins, Philip Pullman, Steven Hawking and darling of the middle brow, Stephen Fry. Blair needs no introduction, the rumours of his going down on his knees in front of, sorry, with George dubbya tell their own story and in between harvesting cheques for his various companies, Blair has founded a faith based foundation for world domination - PEACE, PEACE, PEACE, it’s peace ok?
Reports suggest that the gloves weren't completely off, with mutual respect and a subdued atmosphere. Hitchens is undergoing treatment for oesophageal cancer and Blair’s conciliatory admission of doubts may have contributed to the mood. Blair looked at the title of the debate with the eyes of the lawyer he is, arguing that religion, despite the evil it causes, does some good, therefore it is a force for good. Hitchens gamely set out the case for the prosecution – rationalism, God as despot etc etc. But it was not much better than going through the motions of a school debate.
It says something about the nightlife in Toronto that this yawn fest was selling tickets at $60 a shot, with touts asking $500. (What?.... Canadian dollars? ...Oh, right). But as students of this blog site know, nothing gets under the skin like a good religious debate. What Munk has to do with it is anyone’s guess, as apparently he hasn’t taken holy orders, though he is thought to be descended from a munkey. At this point of Advent, dear reader, you may feel inclined to agree with Wittgenstein and decide that of which you cannot know, you will remain silent. But let us keep bu*gering on as Churchill would have said.
Hitchens will be well known to many as the Ayatollah of the New Atheist Mujahadeen, a cabal that includes Richard Dawkins, Philip Pullman, Steven Hawking and darling of the middle brow, Stephen Fry. Blair needs no introduction, the rumours of his going down on his knees in front of, sorry, with George dubbya tell their own story and in between harvesting cheques for his various companies, Blair has founded a faith based foundation for world domination - PEACE, PEACE, PEACE, it’s peace ok? Reports suggest that the gloves weren't completely off, with mutual respect and a subdued atmosphere. Hitchens is undergoing treatment for oesophageal cancer and Blair’s conciliatory admission of doubts may have contributed to the mood. Blair looked at the title of the debate with the eyes of the lawyer he is, arguing that religion, despite the evil it causes, does some good, therefore it is a force for good. Hitchens gamely set out the case for the prosecution – rationalism, God as despot etc etc. But it was not much better than going through the motions of a school debate.
The problem was in part the question; Blair’s answer would have cut little ice with theologians. Do we hold God to a balance sheet? This does not really begin to address the presence or absence of God, merely leading to the sort of answer the Spitting Image David Owen/Steele puppet might come up with – not no good or all good but something in between.
Let’s assume that none of the audience were fanatics (it was Canada) and that they respect the honestly held views of other intelligent people. The question of whether there is a God does not seem to be the most important (there is or there isn’t, end of debate). Nor do the religious members of audience believe in the literal truth of every word written in the religious text they choose. We are therefore in the realms of the relative, the ambiguous, social, historical and political context. A more interesting question would be does God care? Or put another way, do we believe in a God who intervenes?
Let’s assume that none of the audience were fanatics (it was Canada) and that they respect the honestly held views of other intelligent people. The question of whether there is a God does not seem to be the most important (there is or there isn’t, end of debate). Nor do the religious members of audience believe in the literal truth of every word written in the religious text they choose. We are therefore in the realms of the relative, the ambiguous, social, historical and political context. A more interesting question would be does God care? Or put another way, do we believe in a God who intervenes?
Should have said, Hitchens won 2:1, but both speakers increased their share of the vote (I suppose this means the audience made their mind up, when at the start there were a lot of don't knows)
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that it would be ridiculous to suggest that God does not exist - there are places of worship everywhere - he or she may only be a cultural construct but the fact that God has billions of followers means that God intervenes in a very tangible way for good and bad. He/she intervenes with annoying regularity in a raft of things that God should stay out of - state education is one example.
ReplyDeleteOn the whole I agree with you about state education in that I don't support faith schools. Having said that I do support the idea of a "daily act of worship" as in the 48 Act, but understood very broadly - multifaith, multicultural, including examples of humanist ceremony etc. I think children need to learn about religion & be given tools to use in the future if they wish, that have cultural resonance - learning the Lord's prayer & hymns like "Abide with me" are important cultural as well as religious statements.
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that people think something exists is not proof that it does - just proof of the number of desperate/gullible people in the word. Something doesn't exist because people want ti ttoo. Also schools should not have an daily act of worship but should instead learn about cultures, religions, beliefs etc (as most schools do). Religion , as rightly pointed out, is not for most schools but is a matter for children and their families. Am I nit-picking with your comments or do you stand by them as they read?
ReplyDeleteWhat I was trying to suggest was that if people think he exists and build institutions etc to worship him then God does exist in a practical sense. The fact that God's existence can't be proved is a red-herring. I agree with you on the daily worship business.
ReplyDelete