Speaking of weird partisanship, here's yet another Calvinist sitting in the peanut gallery and cheering on the atheists because they happen to be quarreling with Catholics. Better that God be blasphemed than that any slight pettiness of the 16th Century quarrel be abandoned for one second. We must have our priorities!He's complaining because I posted a link to a debate in which a Roman Catholic archbishop and a Roman Catholic member of the British parliament got trounced in a debate with Hitchens and Fry (link to my previous post).
He didn't make the same complaint when I posted a link to a debate between Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza (link to my previous post).
Perhaps that's because I had positive things to say about Dinesh's performance and negative things to say about the performance of Archbishop Onaiyekan. That is a bit odd, though, because I didn't see Shea complain when Patrick Madrid posted this same debate and said negative things about Archbishop Onaiyekan's performance (link to Madrid's post).
Shea mentions something about cheering from the peanut gallery, but frankly if you read my post, there isn't actually any "cheering" going on there. In fact, there was more cheering in the Dinesh post than in the Onaiyekan post.
What makes Shea's botched potshot more amusing is that so far no atheists have complained about "weird partisanship" because of my comments about Dinesh. Although, in fairness, Roman Catholic Dave Armstrong did mock me for my post saying something nice about Dinesh's performance (link to Dave Armstrong's mockery).
So, when I post a debate that went poorly for Rome, I get targeted by Shea while he leaves Madrid alone; meanwhile when I post a debate that goes well by a Roman Catholic debater I get targeted by Armstrong.
The moral of the story: you can't make folks with double standards happy.
10 comments:
Actually, it's a fair question whether Roman Catholic bishops, who are official spokesmen of the church, and some of whom are intelligent and well-educated men, can put up a good defense of their faith in a debate with atheists. That's a way of testing the intellectual resources, or lack thereof, of contemporary Catholicism.
"The moral of the story: you can't make folks with double standards happy."
Shea isn't Armstrong. How can it be a double standard if they are actually two standards possessed by two different people?
Madrid criticized the Catholic debaters but he did so sympathetically. He also thanked them for making the effort. In you post, on the other hand, it seemed perhaps somewhat ambiguous how you felt about the atheist "victory."
Yes, Shea and Armstrong are two different people. You're quite right about that.
I saw nothing wrong with your commentary regarding that debate, and I was embarrassed with their poor performance and lack of specific facts. They should have known how Hitchens was going to approach the debate because his attitude and arguments are very well known. However, I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you to wait and see if Shea will revise his comments.
Steve, with that type of commentary we can see how intellectually dishonest you really are due to your bias. One of the most used logical fallacies is using a particular and generalizing it to represent the universal.
Sincerely,
Troll
Alex said...
"Steve, with that type of commentary we can see how intellectually dishonest you really are due to your bias. One of the most used logical fallacies is using a particular and generalizing it to represent the universal."
Catholic bishops, as members of the Magisterium, do represent the institutional church as a whole. They are not just discrete particulars.
"Catholic bishops, as members of the Magisterium, do represent the institutional church as a whole. They are not just discrete particulars."
The poor performance of a single bishop does not "count" against Catholicism any more than Luther's loss against Eck "counts" against Protestantism. If you are going to invoke Catholic ecclesiology (sp?), why not actually build your critique based on actual Catholic theology?
"Actually, it's a fair question whether Roman Catholic bishops, who are official spokesmen of the church, and some of whom are intelligent and well-educated men, can put up a good defense of their faith in a debate with atheists. That's a way of testing the intellectual resources, or lack thereof, of contemporary Catholicism."
The problem is that different bishops will have different specialties. Even the most devout Catholic does not expect a bishop to be equipped to skillfully deal with all possible objections in a public debate, just as no Reformed thinker can be an expert in all areas of apologetics.
We disagree on theological matters, but that is no reason to erect strawmen or deal with each other uncharitably.
a) What makes you think Luther lost against Eck?
b) Luther's relationship to "Protestantism" is different than a Roman Catholic bishop's relationship to Rome. After all, the Roman Catholic church is a single institution, whereas "Protestantism" is a sociological category that includes many institutions.
"What makes you think Luther lost against Eck?"
Same standard as the recent U.K. debate: public/audience opinion. Eck at Leipzig, like Hitchens and Fry, knew and worked his audience better than his opposition.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/351950/Martin-Luther/59846/Luther-Cajetan-and-Eck
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05271b.htm
http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5003_87_5.html
'Luther's relationship to "Protestantism" is different than a Roman Catholic bishop's relationship to Rome.'
I realize this, but, as regards a public debate, it's pretty much the same (i.e. a bishop doing badly in a debate has no bearing on the truth or falsity of Catholicism, just as poor performance by a Protestant theologian or pastor wouldn't show Protestantism was false). Debates generally just show who is a better debater, not which position is definitely true.
I really didn't mean anything significant with regard to Luther or Protestantism. I was just arguing that Steve's point wasn't really accurate in regard to either Catholic ecclesiology or the nature of public debates. If Catholics and Calvinists are going to argue about theological matters, they should do so without stawmen.
Alphonsus:
How about comment box dialogues. Do you think they also simply show who is more rhetorically skilled? If so, why do you participate?
"How about comment box dialogues. Do you think they also simply show who is more rhetorically skilled? If so, why do you participate?"
To tell the truth, I often have mixed feelings (and thoughts) regarding the usefulness of combox discussion. On the one hand, I find that people who regularly read philosophy and theology blogs tend to be set in their ways. I have yet to see a combox "conversion." On the other hand, it seems wrong to let errors or misunderstandings of one's beliefs stand without any correction.
I suppose I think of Ezekiel 3:17-21. Even if no one agrees with what I post, I think it is still virtuous to proclaim the truth.
I suppose to answer your question, I would say, if it were simply a matter of nature (i.e. without considering grace), I think combox debates are generally a matter of rhetoric. The better arguer wins the argument. As a Christian, however, I think that God can use even online comments if he chooses to, so I generally make some effort to defend the truth. Even if I change no one's mind, the exchange challenges me to learn more about my faith and the beliefs of others, so some good has still come of it.
Merry Christmas.
Post a Comment