UPDATED: Cardinal George Pell to debate (well, sorta) Christopher Hitchens

UPDATE (Sept 16, 2009): A reader, Thomas, rightly notes that Cardinal Pell and Hitchens will not be debating directly, but giving talks on successive evenings presenting their respective positions/arguments. (It is interesting to note, by the way, that admission to Hitchens talk costs $65, while admission to Cardinal Pell's talk is just $20.)

From the website of the Archdiocese of Sydney (ht: ZENIT):

The Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, English-born international journalist, atheist and provocateur, Christopher Hitchens and outspoken feminist and academic, Germaine Greer are among the keynote speakers at Australia’s first-ever Festival of Dangerous Ideas to be held at the Sydney Opera House on Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October.

"Without God We Are Nothing" is the title of the Archbishop's address to the Festival on Sunday evening when he will draw not only on his own profound faith and scholarship but on scientific figures such as physicist Stephen Hawking, who despite his revolutionary model of the laws of physics and lifetime of research, admitted in "A Brief History of Time" that he was no closer to knowing whether God existed or not, "only that God was arbitrary."

"Science alone cannot provide answers either to the existence of God or to atheist options," Cardinal Pell says, and borrowing from English philosopher and former atheist turned believer, Anthony Flew, poses the question: "how can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self replication capabilities and ‘coded chemistry?'"

Describing secularism as a minority sport and a temporary phenomenon, the Cardinal will argue that it only survives in the Western World by attacking Christianity or living off Christianity's moral capital.

Read more. Wish I could be at that debate. Hitchens' segment, by the way, is titled "Religion Poisons Everything." Which reminded me of this little nugget, from a September 12th piece in the Indianapolis Star about a conference titled "Religion Under Examination":

That the conference kicks off close to the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is a coincidence, organizers say. But it is in many ways appropriate, given that one of the most common refrains from atheists is about religion's ability to motivate fanatical believers to violent ends.

But when it comes to really motivating "fanatical believers to violent ends", religion has struggled (and failed) in the past 100 years or so to keep up with atheists including Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and others. It's not that all religious people avoid committing murder; they just aren't nearly as proficient, skilled, and effective as those atheists who set about creating a bright and brave new world by killing a million here, four million there, and several more million elsewhere.

"People have a right to believe whatever they want," said Charlie Sitzes, a retired airline pilot and spokesman for the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign, which is behind the transit ads. "But they don't have a right to do things like fly airplanes into buildings and to shoot doctors in church buildings. The problem with belief is that people tend to act on it."

And the problem with silly, illogical comments is that people twho make them in public reveal how little thought they've really put into the matter at hand. Part of the silliness here is that "belief" is used in such a broad and ultimately empty way. And why is acting on "belief" considered so horrific when tens of millions of people were murdered in the 20th century because of men acting to significant and undeniable degrees upon their hateful dismissal of religious belief? Besides, every action is based in some sort of belief, even if that belief is primal ("I believe I'm hungry, so I'm killing a fatted calf for dinner!"), subconscious, unsystematic, ill-considered, or irrational. Why, the statement, "The problem with belief is that people tend to act on it," is itself a statement of belief and reflects certain tenets about the nature of man, morality, and society.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles and Excerpts:

• Are Truth, Faith, and Tolerance Compatible? | Joseph Ratzinger
• Atheism and the Purely "Human" Ethic | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Dark Ages and Secularist Rages: A Response to Professor A.C. Grayling | Carl E. Olson
• Professor Dawkins and the Origins of Religion | Fr. Thomas Crean, O.P. | From God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins
• Dawkins' Delusions | An interview with Fr. Thomas Crean, O.P., author of God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins
• Is Religion Evil? Secularism's Pride and Irrational Prejudice | Carl E. Olson
• A Short Introduction to Atheism | Carl E. Olson
• C.S. Lewis’s Case for Christianity | An Interview with Richard Purtill
• Paganism and the Conversion of C.S. Lewis | Clotilde Morhan
• Designed Beauty and Evolutionary Theory | Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M.
• The Universe is Meaning-full | An interview with Dr. Benjamin Wiker
• The Mythological Conflict Between Christianity and Science | An interview with Dr. Stephen Barr
• The Source of Certitude | Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M.
• Deadly Architects | An Interview with Donald De Marco & Benjamin Wiker

Comments

[Jim]

Hopefully, you wil be able to post Cardinal Pell's speech after he has delivered it. It should be a great read.

[Nancy]

Since nothing is the absence of something, I wonder how Mr.Hitchens will explain the fact that in order for there to be something, something must transcend the material universe, since we know that something had to create the Laws of Nature to begin with.

[Mark O'Neill]

Sounds like pearls will be fed to the swine once again.

[Stephen Sparrow]

Further to your comment Nancy, it was a former Archbishop of Canterbury (St Anselm) I think, who said, "It's impossible to conceive of nothing."

Atheist Faith cracks me up every time. I should try & go to that debate. A three hour flight & I'm there.

[Thomas]

Unless I missed something, there doesn't appear to be a head-to-head debate here (a la political campaigns). It's just separate speeches at different times.

Certainly still a valuable dialogue for those attending, but I would have loved to see Cardinal Pell in a face-to-face battle with Hitchens.

[Ed Peters]

You know, (jaded) admirer of Hitches as I tried to be for some timne (many years ago), I was very surprised to hear that he was going to debate Pell. CH just does not take on real live opponents anymore. But I thought, hey, maybe a little ember for CH is still glowing somewhere.

Alas, it's not a debate after all, it's just another speech by a man with some talent for making speeches. Sigh.

[lome]

Hitches must be shaking ,his knees getting weaker in the coming face to face dialogue with a man of God.

But it won't be him who would be shaking,it will be his double....

[Mark Trotier]

How can anyone have an open mind if one anticipates the outcome of a debate?

[W.]

"Hitches must be shaking ,his knees getting weaker in the coming face to face dialogue with a man of God."

If you remember back when Hitchens spoke in New York a year or so ago, he seemed to have no qualms about what he said while being in front of men of God, most notably Fr. Rutler who called him on his (lack of) argument and his behavior. There is video of it (which I will try to find), but Hitchens's behavior seemed to have been influenced by the drinks that were in his hand throughout the talk.

At the upcoming event, will he be allowed to drink while on stage?

[MLC]

Here is a piece you might find amusing:

http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html

[The Cantankerist]

This article beats about with a bit of a straw man in its fearless dissection, does it not?

The argument that Hitchens and co. would make re. religious murderers is that their stated justification is to kill "in the name of God" or "to honour God" or "to put the unworthy to the sword" or so on. Notice how this article shuffles sideways and says "in that respect, religion has struggled to keep up with atheists" - not "atheism", which would be the correct comparison but would make a mockery of the claim in the first place. Very few of those abhorrent killers would seek to justify their actions solely or chiefly by their adherence to an atheist outlook - "I killed these people because there is no God" is nowhere near as common as "I killed these people because God demanded it/they were unholy" etc.

I'm not suggesting that religion is only that, mind. But saying "well more atheists than religious people have killed" is not a fair response, as it misreads the proposition - which is that religious belief is often used as a justification for murder, and atheism much less so. If you think that point's debatable, then debate that.