This is really good and GKC is a jewel, I would wish we had more or even one right now who can so eloquently speak the faith in terms non-religious and the masses can understand.
"Thinking involves accepting certain things. Things that cannot be proved but can only be accecpted on faith. All thinking begins with assumptions that cannot be proved." This is brilliant.
Chesterton was a post-Huxley evolution denier. Thomas Huxley's debate in 1860 pretty much put doubt of evolution (from a scientific standpoint) to rest. It is unwise to grant Chesterton a pass on this issue as by his time there was more than enough information to determine that evolution was a clear, concise, and true theory. As many have before him, he let his faith get in the way of reason.
@hockeyman92 - What specifically did Chesterton deny about evolution? You don't know, do you? You haven't read Chesterton. Read what he wrote about evolution, and post again. Meanwhile, don't make claims you can't substantiate.
I didn't post any quotes last time because of youtube's character limit.
""Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism."
Yeah, what's wrong with Chesterton's thoughts on Evolution? He was merely responding with taking Evolution to some sort of quasi-religious social darwinism; which he opposed and rightly so.
I disagree. I feel like Chesterton's quote from orthodoxy is mainly speaking to the fact that no philosophical or theological conclusions can be made from evolution, which I feel is extremely ignorant.
That's kind of what I said: taking evolution (as understood then) to make quasi-religious or theological conclusions. You have to remember that Eugenics, Euthanasia, etc. were prevalent at the time and were based heavily on Darwinism. We all know which regime it was that promoted through heavy propaganda these and other evils. Science should never impose a philosophy, because it's ultimately based upon a philosophy. Good on Chesterton for standing up against these fascist ideals.
@hockeyman92 - OK, hockeyman, there's the quote. Now instead of claiming that this proves Chesterton doesn't get Evolution, why don't you tell me what this quote MEANS, in context? How does Evolution (Darwinsim) destroy rationalism? Answer that and quit the name calling, and I'll have more respect for you. If you want more space, go to my blog thwordinc.blogspot.co . Chesterton is making a very specific point here. What is it?
@TheaterOfTheWordInc And by the way, I'm very aware that the quote continues and that he clearly states that he has no problem with "theistic evolution" (a ridiculous concept if you know anything about the actual theory). It would be wise for you to not attack people whose level of knowledge you are unaware of. Believe it or not, people can disagree with you and be intelligent at the same time. Anyways, I respect Chesterton as a thinker, but he was ignorant on evolution.
@hockeyman92 Tell me what the quote you quoted MEANS and prove you're not ignorant about the point Chesterton was making. And that particular quote has nothing to do with what you call "theistic evolution".
@TheaterOfTheWordInc It means "No matter what we learn from science, who cares about you 'extremely well-substantiated scientific theories' when I have my dogma." That's what it's saying and it's shameful. You'd honestly want to pollute and muddle up real, well-supported, verifiable science with ancient creation myths, wouldn't you? (and yes, you do need a rather large chunk of it if you still wish to justify you belief in original sin, the human soul, etc...)
@TheaterOfTheWordInc Look, I understand that you can ALWAYS place God as the backdrop of evolution, retrospectively of course, but that seems to me an incredibly contrived AND a mighty convenient/easy claim to make (which is why I don't give it the benefit of the doubt, why I don't give it more consideration and respect than it deserves). But it's completely unnecessary, in the same sense that "ancient alien contact" is completely unnecessary in explaining how the pyramids were made.
@TheaterOfTheWordInc And remember: If evolution (under "divine guidance") is true, we were "designed," for the vast majority of our species' existence, to serve as prey to other animals, to suffer and fight for survival like the animals we truly are, to see a vast majority of our young die in childbirth or at a very young age, and to barely dodge the bullet of extinction on multiple occasions. That is a very capricious, frivolous, unsympathetic, and cruel god.
@TheaterOfTheWordInc I'm sorry, but I won't just stand by and watch religious faith arrogantly pretend to have some sort of dominance or authority over verifiable science, for no reason other than "It is written in my holy book" or "I 'know' it's true."
@CarlSagan6 - OK, Carl Sagan, who said "It's written in my book" or "I know it's true"? Let me try to interject some intelligence here - science and faith are both about discovering and affirming the truth. Using a book or innate knowledge to reject any truth is despicable. Carl, we would agree on that. But you are, like Darrow in this video, arguing against your fundamentalist maiden aunt, not against what the Catholic Church says about science.
@TheaterOfTheWordInc I would absolutely agree that the Catholic Church is quite scientifically "open" (compared to a vast majority of faiths). But it's that attitude of "faith first, science second," ultimately the same basic attitude of the creationist ("Are you going to believe God's word or fallible man?"), that I can in no sense justify. And by the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but you absolutely *do* believe in the central tenants of your faith precisely because they are in your holy book.
@CarlSagan6 No, we believe in the central faiths because they are true. If, for instance, it could be proven that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then our "faith" would be misplaced and should be abandoned. Both science and religion are seeking to discover and explain ultimate truths. If either becomes "blind faith", or faith removed from what is real and what is true, then they become bad science and bad religion. The "book" is only authoritative if God is real and the events in it true.
"If, for instance, it could be proven that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then our 'faith' would be misplaced and should be abandoned." I'm afraid nobody can do that. Just like they can't prove Gautama Buddha didn't walk on water on multiple occasions.
"The 'book' is only authoritative if God is real and the events in it true." Like the Great Flood when God drowned thousands of babies and small children or the part were *Jesus* walked on water?
What you have put here is nothing more than a strawman take on Christianity. I'm afraid the evidence is just too great to doubt Jesus rising from the dead. In fact, we have more historical evidence for Jesus than we do for Julius Caesar, and no one doubts his existence.
@MrTrilliondollarman yes, we have evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure, but what we don't have is evidence of his authenticity. Just like every last allegedly divine historical figure (like Gautama Buddha). And please, before you say we have "eyewitness accounts" (as if those have some sort of intrinsic credibility anyway) check out "Hindu milk miracle" on wikipedia (or something like it). And if I was making a strawman argument, I apologize. Where was I making a strawman argument?
that's a pretty dumb stand right there. Since you just admitted Jesus was a real historical figure, then you've already admitted to His authenticity. So someone who was actually there and witnessed Jesus doesn't count as a reliable source? I hope you don't work in the legal field...the milk miracle proves nothing since Hinduism has no basis for determining miracles.
@MrTrilliondollarman What? How is that "dumb"? Do you believe that Joseph Smith or Muhammad were actual historical figures? Of course they were... so that proves they were genuine and authentic? What?
What do you mean by "Hinduism has no basis for determining miracles?" There have been countless "miracles" that have allegedly occurred throughout history. And they were believed by their respective cultures for *exactly* the same reason you believe in yours: faith.
Here's why it's dumb: you are arguing about their authenticity. It's well established Smith's claims could not be verified and Muhammad was just repeating earlier Christian heretical teachings. But by admitting Jesus really walked the earth, you are admitting what the Gospels say about Him are true.
As for your take on belief in miracles...you are wrong. Christianity provides a basis for saying miracles are possible...others do not.
@TheaterOfTheWordInc My general point is this: I don't feel it's as easy as you think to incorporate biological evolution into your religion (as I said before). As @hockeyman92 said, evolution absolutely does lead us to certain implications that, frankly, don't give a good forecast to religious "hybrids" like intelligent design. I just don't think Chesterton should be venerated for putting "faith first, science second." But I understand your point of view. Sorry about the rant :)
One of the few downsides to Chesterton, in my opinion, was his attitude toward evolution. Then again, I don't think that by 1931, or even by Chesterton's death in 1937, "Darwinian" evolution had nearly the amount of authentic scientific support it does now. My general impression, which may be flawed, is that Darwin had remarkable scientific intuition (though not so great a moral sense), but the real backup came gradually, and was not really conclusive until the mid to late 20th century.
@aelredtheless Let me add, evolutionary theory has also been considerably improved since Chesterton's time and will likely continue to be tweeked. This could be seen as a partial fulfillment of Chesterton's prediction of new evolutionary theories in the future, that would replace the one current at his time.
Chesterton didn't have a problem with Evolution as a science; what he opposed (and I agree) is turning it into a philosophy of social darwinism. He has a quote explains his position:
"Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say"
I especially liked Chesterton's description of that very rare animal, the true Skeptic, whose authentic skepticism forbids thought. I was such for a very short time, during one of the darkest times in my life. Both the truth of the word our senses reveal to us and, even more damagingly, the power of human reason, do not seem to be verifiable by reason alone, at least as far as I can tell. It's good to hear another Catholic apparently recognize this (whether it is Chesterton or Alquist).
@BarbaraMarcis Actually, Barbara, there is no transcript of this debate. This is a dramatic reconstruction written by Dale Ahlquist, based on two things: 1. contemporary reviews of the debate and quotations from it given in those reviews; 2. Chesterton quips from his vast body of work that are pertinent to this issue. This dramatic reconstruction sums up Chesterton & Darrow's views, and also the general tenor of the debate, which the audience agreed GKC clearly won.
Although I really do respect Mr. Darrow's intellectual prowess, according to contemporary sources, he was simply not up to snuff in this particular debate.
"Although the terms of the debate were determined at the outset, Darrow either could not or would not stick to the definitions, but kept going off at illogical tangents and becoming choleric over points that were not in dispute."
I can not believe that this is word for word how the debate went. If it isn't word for word then the editing is done to make Mr. Chesterton's point the only one that is presented with any sort of intellectual honesty. That would mean it isn't a real debate at all. This is not helpful to either side. I wish whoever had done this would have presented Mr. Darrow in something close to a true light. Or, if they were actually honest they might provide a link to the actual minutes of the debate.
Just came back from a long day, and it was refreshing to see this video.
Its interesting to note, though, that the growth of early civilization itself is tied to the development of religion... and one of the central discoverers of genetics was Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk.
@Paddy234 - I think only to a certain extent. I think he'd be a proponent of Theistic Evolution, which is supported by any thinking man of religion. Quantum randomness is more of a primitive idea than a six day creation; order does not come from disorder without intelligent thought.
Man is not merely a plant or an animal; but we now have links in the chain.
@TedSeeber Chesterton's view was that this is not the first evolutionary theory (Ancient Greece), and it won't be the last.
Pertaining to Biblical fundamentalism and the Origin of Species, Chesterton wrote: The Catholic Church, more importantly, believes in something more fundamental than fundamentalism, and knows the origin of that origin.
Chesterton's position was no position. It's not even worth knowing. We're here, and there are things that are much more consequential to postulate.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
G K Chesterton's third novel - The Ball and the Cross - is a paeon in praise of religious terrorism. It explains in detail how - if your faith is strong enough - it is quite legitimate to fly a plane into an office block. (The novels main character - Evan MacIan - spends most of the story trying to murder someone who refuses to share his faith).
G K Chesterton is basically a 1920's Osama bin Laden;- only fat and with spectacles.
@thallassocracy "The Ball and the Cross" is not at all about that. For starters, it was written before planes - with the exception of the Wright Brothers, who were having limited success. It was even before almost all "office blocks", if by that you mean skyscrapers.
You have demonstrated that not only have you never read anything by Chesterton, but your only intention is to slander him as a proto-terrorist.
I think we know who the intellectual terrorist is here, at any rate.
Chesterton argued - in 1904 - that what Europe needed was a world war to restore faith in human values. When that war came, Chesterton continued to argue that the destruction and slaughter were valuable experiences.
Chesterton argued throughout the 1930's that if Germany ever attacked France, France' superior army would destroy the Wehrmacht overnight.
@thallassocracy This is utter slander and a complete lie. Chesterton said NONE of those things. If you think he did, prove it.
If you atheists can't argue better than this, you're sunk. When I was an atheist, we respected rational thought and believed it could dis-prove the lie of faith. But goofballs like thallassocracy can't even make a believable slanderous statement.
Chesterton's call for a world war to improve the state of morality (in 1904) is made in the opening pages of 'The Napoleon of Notting Hill'. (And throughout that novel).
@thallassocracy I've read it several times. That statement is nowhere in the novel. You are a despicable liar, and you're banned from further comments. See the inane thing thallassocracy said about Chesterton advocating planes flying into skyscrapers - before planes and before almost all skyscrapers even existed.
Jerry, we are making progress here, for the truth that reason reveals can not contradict the truth that faith affirms.
But you won't make much progress in the Adam and Eve argument, as geneticists posit a single human ancestor. So science, in fact, points in that direction.
Lay Catholics are supposed to believe the dogmas of the Church. Whether most of them do are not is beside the point here. The question is are the dogmas true, not are they popular.
Darrow, applied Huxley's agnostic method to religious claims. Agnosticism merely applies the scientific method to issues outside of, say, biology or astronomy. Given what we know about the world through science, we can reasonably conclude that literalistic religious accounts, such as the story of Adam and Eve, are not historically true. This elucidation is one aspect of what "reason" can "do for you." A question: Do you think lay Catholics believe in a literal Adam and Eve? Did G.K.?
Now, then, I'm a former atheist turned Catholic and I do not plead with any unbelievers BELIEVE and not THINK FOR YOURSELF. On the contrary, if you think for yourself you may indeed be brought to the precipice of belief. Faith and reason must go together. If not, there is something wrong.
And Jerry I affirm what I said below, if religion is indeed a pleasant illusion, to hell with it.
To continue: I'm suggesting that religious faiths, or at least faiths based on "Holy Scriptures", are most popular when taken as factually true, instead of allegorically or metaphorically true. And yes, I do think most folks are drawn to religious belief by what they believe it promises (their immortality, for instance), instead of a dispassionate truth seeking. Why else do calls for conversion plead "BELIEVE," and not "THINK FOR YOURSELF?" BTW, can we have better comments from you?
Ignoring your insulting comments: If we look at religious trends, we find that advanced nations (Europe and Japan, for examples) have populations becoming more secular and less religious. Conversely, in developing countries, we find an explosion in literalistic religions. In the USA, more liberal Christian churches have been losing ground to literalistic faiths for decades. My point: lay folks seem to be moving toward literalism, or rejecting it and the flowerpot (religion) it comes with.
The stupidity and arrogance of these comments is getting ridiculous. JerryWayne58, how unsophisticated do you think the average Joe is? What do you think he "demands of his faith"? Consolation only? You don't think he's looking for Truth? If he's looking for consolation and is finding it in a lie, then to hell with him and may the atheists prevail. As to what the average Joe is demanding from "his" reason, what do you expect "your" reason to do for you? Can we all try for better comments?
Of course G.K. was no fundie. I suggest that resurgent fundamentalism has grown while liberal Christian faiths have receded. An agnostic of the Darrow type would be relevant to the current climate by challenging dead on the alleged historicity of literalism, whereas G.K.'s notions that allegory or metaphor or myth can still present a Higher Truth, while sophisticated, is nonetheless not what the average Joe demands of his faith, or his reason.
Well, it's good to see that Chesterton is hitting home. The comments below mightily try to dismiss him. Brain-is-Busted 1000, what in particular shows how vaporous Chesterton's reasoing is?
Really, can any of you atheists be specific or are you just going to slam Chesterton's reasoning by name calling and innuendo?
This is a farce. The actor playing the agnostic Darrow is fanatical Christian, wholeheartedly attempting to make Clarence Darrow look like an imbecile. He is overacting the part he tries to convey.
Also, he makes it look like every little bit of Chesterton rhetoric stunned Darrow with the profundity of it, so much so that he couldn't hide his admiration of it. Even my mind is not small enough to notice how vaporous Chesterton's reasoning is.
Indeed fundamentalism is a problem, but Chesterton (as the video shows) was far from being a fundamentalist.
His anti-Darwinist statements have not been shown to be wrong, though I can't vouch for how the creationists use them. There are problems with Darwinism, scientifically and philosophically, and Chesterton pointed those out. He would have done the same thing with creationism.
I do not doubt G.K.'s intellectualism. My point was: just as Darrow was off the mark about the near future of religious belief, G.K. too erred in his anti-Darwinist views which have not received substantiation in mainstream science. (His views pop up today on anti-science "creation-science" sites.) BTW, even though Darrow was criticised even in his own time for equating religion with scriptural literalism, with the rise again of fundie ideas, Darrow may be more relevant today than G.K.
Chesterton was anything but anti-science. He had a better understanding of science and its limitations than almost every other thinker of his day. See "Chesterton - a Seer of Science" by Stanley Jaki.
I am seeing more and more people taking the line that Chesterton's witticisms were somehow glib and masking ignorance or bias. They are not at all that. What makes him a true wit is the depth of perception his witticisms convey.
This all comes, my friends, FROM NOT READING CHESTERTON!
Thanks for the context. Darrow on a bad night? Or a biased audience? Nevertheless, this debate is interesting, but quaint. Darrow clearly did not foresee the return of fundamentalism as a world force,or the general growth of religion, as seen in current events today. Similarly, Chesterton's anti-Darwinism does not hold up well today, as his witticisms masked a seemingly reactionary anti-science position.
True, Jerry, but the context you're not getting is what host Dale Ahlquist says about this debate. People were astonished at how poorly Darrow performed. Contemporary reviews were unanimous that Darrow seemed unprepared, flustered and overmatched by GKC.
Both Darrow and Chesterton were esteamed debaters. Unfortunately, this recreation seems to disrespect Darrow by the way it is performed. First, unlike real debates of this era, this video presents a give and take format, no doubt to have G.K. puncture Darrow's arguments, given the program's intended Catholic audience. Also, the way Darrow is presented, he appears smug and easily frustrated by Chesterton, contrary to the real Darrow who was folksy and an experienced, well seasoned debater.
besides saying that the crusades were evil is stupid. We are all capable of cruel acts, atheists to devoutly religious. You can think it stupid that people would be religious, but they have that right. I'm against abortion and refuse to pay a tax for somebody else to get one. That dosen't mean I will kill anybody or blow a clinic up. I would just stop paying the tax and protest. Even if it meant jail time. That's my opinion. Hate me if you want, but I won't change.
Galileo wasn't executed or tortured. You are asking the same thing every athiest can come up with. he wasn't punished for the idea of the revolution of the earth around the sun, because copernicus theorized about it before him. And copernicus was a Catholic cleric. I politely recommend don't listen to everyone but read things written by the people you disagree with.
No, my friend. Chesterton was very genial toward his opponent. He always praised what was good in their arguments, before he critiqued what was flawed in their arguments. Try reading "Orthodoxy", or "Heretics". He is still considered one of the greatest minds of the last 150 years.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I've already made my way through the two books mentioned, in addition to The Man Who Was Thursday, The Napoleon of Notting Hill and The Everlasting Man. Yet still - I'm afraid I must arrive, again, at the same conclusion concerning the fellow: surreptitiously unforgiving, self-obsessed, close-minded, old-fashioned, tyrannical, gluttonous and last but not least, Christian. Truth bless.
Chesterton was very genial toward his "opponent. He always praised what was good in their arguments...."
Perhaps live, but not necessarily in his books. While he praised Wells in Orthodoxy a couple of times, he also threw several daggers with no praise in front of them. Wells was just as bad though. That's good if you ask me. There are few lies worse than fake grace.
Chesterton also wrote about 10,000 essays. I bought a couple books of them off ebay. I think this man was either a genious or a prophet. We're always hearing about religion causing wars, I think you'll find in every case the winner packed the losers stuff back home with him. So, was it religion or greed , avarice, and fear.
"We're always hearing about religion causing wars...."
Yes, I tire of that one too. Most wars are actually fought over land. Chesterton was right though when he said that the holy wars were the only ones worth fighting. Ideals are always worth fighting for.
And it continues to do so for the word was given directly to the church , which is why christ instituted it It is not all written down by the way, and it certainly wasn't at the time of the cruicfixion, the church has always possessed the fullness of truth , in spite of what anyone says. There is only one true church that christ created , and that is the one founded on the apostles with peter appointed as its head by jesus himself
The church may have been the foundation for science yet on numerous occasions they hid/lied about what they knew, because they were the only ones with the knowledge.
I thank the Church for nothing apart from Crusades, Inquisitions, wars in Northern Ireland and propagation of AIDS.
Religion is about a relationship between you and God. There is no need for an inbetweener.
No no no. The church is the inbetweener that is SUPPOSED to bring God to the world. The facts and stats prove that they have failed in spreading the word.
Worse yet. Ask anybody why they don't like religion and they will describe what the church has done: NOT religion. The Church has given God a bad name. Shame on it
The Lord chose me for the good word. He chose you. We are all spreaders of the word. No need for silly old men in pointy hats to give their opinions. It's written down already!
How about one example of the Church lying about what "they knew". You can thank the Church for the fact that you have a Bible to ignorantly thump. Who do you think chose the different books of the Bible to preserve? You sir, are an philistine.
Crusades were in fact a defensive war. Inquisition was tame in comparison to modern mans propensity of kill his challengers. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the civil war in Northern Ireland. And AIDS has spread through out a pagan world
And I blame the Church for removing books that should have gone in, and editing bits out as they pleased.
You seem to have a reason for everything don't you. You don't even realise that God is used to send you Americans to war, let it be by reference to evil or simply "God is on our side". It takes less than a philistine to realise that religion has been used to excuse major wars and although it may not be the reason, it always takes sides. That's not God. That's the Church.
You blame the Church? So who should choose? You. Your dad? Perhaps we should leave it up to the Church who was given the responsibility of shepherding the flock. Thank God the responsibility didn't fall to an uneducated philistine like yourself!
Agree, I mean protestants say 100 million people died in the inquisition... While in fact around 10,000 - 20,000 people died. Most heretics and most secular criminals, all put to death by secular arms.
so was GK Chesterton but converted to RC around 1920's. Read Orthodoxy, he wrote that before he converted. But most historians now a days, agree with last part and the Church laid down the foundation for modern science.
Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of a character named "Simplicio" in his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", who basically comes off as a simpleton in it. Up to that point, Pope Urban had been one of Galileo's biggest supporters and defenders, saying, at one point, that so long as he lived, Copernican theory could be investigated. By inadvertantly alienating Urban, Galileo had given his enemies in the church and in academia the rope to hang him with.
So, it was really more political than religious. It was a sad case, and unfortunately, was repeated during the Reign of Terror in France and in the Soviet Union (see Suppressed research in the Soviet Union on Wikipedia).
You are correct; there is no known transcript. This version is a dramatization by Dale Ahlquist, based on detailed newspaper accounts of the debate, with some quotes from other sources of Chesterton's writing mixed in.
My God, Chesterton quoted Plato twice. Bravo! Bravo!
MontChevalier 1 week ago
This is really good and GKC is a jewel, I would wish we had more or even one right now who can so eloquently speak the faith in terms non-religious and the masses can understand.
aaron1983 2 months ago
"Thinking involves accepting certain things. Things that cannot be proved but can only be accecpted on faith. All thinking begins with assumptions that cannot be proved." This is brilliant.
MrPeanut228 2 months ago
so refreshing to hear such wisdom with humour
simonpeter57 3 months ago
@gwcstudio - Name one claim that the Catholic Church teaches dogmatically about objective reality that science has "disproven".
TheaterOfTheWordInc 5 months ago
Chesterton was a post-Huxley evolution denier. Thomas Huxley's debate in 1860 pretty much put doubt of evolution (from a scientific standpoint) to rest. It is unwise to grant Chesterton a pass on this issue as by his time there was more than enough information to determine that evolution was a clear, concise, and true theory. As many have before him, he let his faith get in the way of reason.
hockeyman92 8 months ago 2
@hockeyman92 - What specifically did Chesterton deny about evolution? You don't know, do you? You haven't read Chesterton. Read what he wrote about evolution, and post again. Meanwhile, don't make claims you can't substantiate.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 8 months ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc
I didn't post any quotes last time because of youtube's character limit.
""Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism."
-Orthodoxy
hockeyman92 7 months ago 2
@hockeyman92
Yeah, what's wrong with Chesterton's thoughts on Evolution? He was merely responding with taking Evolution to some sort of quasi-religious social darwinism; which he opposed and rightly so.
Jim1905 7 months ago
@Jim1905
I disagree. I feel like Chesterton's quote from orthodoxy is mainly speaking to the fact that no philosophical or theological conclusions can be made from evolution, which I feel is extremely ignorant.
hockeyman92 7 months ago 3
@hockeyman92
That's kind of what I said: taking evolution (as understood then) to make quasi-religious or theological conclusions. You have to remember that Eugenics, Euthanasia, etc. were prevalent at the time and were based heavily on Darwinism. We all know which regime it was that promoted through heavy propaganda these and other evils. Science should never impose a philosophy, because it's ultimately based upon a philosophy. Good on Chesterton for standing up against these fascist ideals.
Jim1905 7 months ago
@hockeyman92 - OK, hockeyman, there's the quote. Now instead of claiming that this proves Chesterton doesn't get Evolution, why don't you tell me what this quote MEANS, in context? How does Evolution (Darwinsim) destroy rationalism? Answer that and quit the name calling, and I'll have more respect for you. If you want more space, go to my blog thwordinc.blogspot.co . Chesterton is making a very specific point here. What is it?
TheaterOfTheWordInc 5 months ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc And by the way, I'm very aware that the quote continues and that he clearly states that he has no problem with "theistic evolution" (a ridiculous concept if you know anything about the actual theory). It would be wise for you to not attack people whose level of knowledge you are unaware of. Believe it or not, people can disagree with you and be intelligent at the same time. Anyways, I respect Chesterton as a thinker, but he was ignorant on evolution.
hockeyman92 7 months ago 2
@hockeyman92 Tell me what the quote you quoted MEANS and prove you're not ignorant about the point Chesterton was making. And that particular quote has nothing to do with what you call "theistic evolution".
TheaterOfTheWordInc 5 months ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc It means "No matter what we learn from science, who cares about you 'extremely well-substantiated scientific theories' when I have my dogma." That's what it's saying and it's shameful. You'd honestly want to pollute and muddle up real, well-supported, verifiable science with ancient creation myths, wouldn't you? (and yes, you do need a rather large chunk of it if you still wish to justify you belief in original sin, the human soul, etc...)
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
Comment removed
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc Look, I understand that you can ALWAYS place God as the backdrop of evolution, retrospectively of course, but that seems to me an incredibly contrived AND a mighty convenient/easy claim to make (which is why I don't give it the benefit of the doubt, why I don't give it more consideration and respect than it deserves). But it's completely unnecessary, in the same sense that "ancient alien contact" is completely unnecessary in explaining how the pyramids were made.
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc And remember: If evolution (under "divine guidance") is true, we were "designed," for the vast majority of our species' existence, to serve as prey to other animals, to suffer and fight for survival like the animals we truly are, to see a vast majority of our young die in childbirth or at a very young age, and to barely dodge the bullet of extinction on multiple occasions. That is a very capricious, frivolous, unsympathetic, and cruel god.
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc I'm sorry, but I won't just stand by and watch religious faith arrogantly pretend to have some sort of dominance or authority over verifiable science, for no reason other than "It is written in my holy book" or "I 'know' it's true."
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
@CarlSagan6 - OK, Carl Sagan, who said "It's written in my book" or "I know it's true"? Let me try to interject some intelligence here - science and faith are both about discovering and affirming the truth. Using a book or innate knowledge to reject any truth is despicable. Carl, we would agree on that. But you are, like Darrow in this video, arguing against your fundamentalist maiden aunt, not against what the Catholic Church says about science.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 3 months ago
Comment removed
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc I would absolutely agree that the Catholic Church is quite scientifically "open" (compared to a vast majority of faiths). But it's that attitude of "faith first, science second," ultimately the same basic attitude of the creationist ("Are you going to believe God's word or fallible man?"), that I can in no sense justify. And by the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but you absolutely *do* believe in the central tenants of your faith precisely because they are in your holy book.
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
@CarlSagan6 No, we believe in the central faiths because they are true. If, for instance, it could be proven that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then our "faith" would be misplaced and should be abandoned. Both science and religion are seeking to discover and explain ultimate truths. If either becomes "blind faith", or faith removed from what is real and what is true, then they become bad science and bad religion. The "book" is only authoritative if God is real and the events in it true.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 3 months ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc
"If, for instance, it could be proven that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then our 'faith' would be misplaced and should be abandoned." I'm afraid nobody can do that. Just like they can't prove Gautama Buddha didn't walk on water on multiple occasions.
"The 'book' is only authoritative if God is real and the events in it true." Like the Great Flood when God drowned thousands of babies and small children or the part were *Jesus* walked on water?
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
@CarlSagan6
What you have put here is nothing more than a strawman take on Christianity. I'm afraid the evidence is just too great to doubt Jesus rising from the dead. In fact, we have more historical evidence for Jesus than we do for Julius Caesar, and no one doubts his existence.
MrTrilliondollarman 3 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman yes, we have evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure, but what we don't have is evidence of his authenticity. Just like every last allegedly divine historical figure (like Gautama Buddha). And please, before you say we have "eyewitness accounts" (as if those have some sort of intrinsic credibility anyway) check out "Hindu milk miracle" on wikipedia (or something like it). And if I was making a strawman argument, I apologize. Where was I making a strawman argument?
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
@CarlSagan6
that's a pretty dumb stand right there. Since you just admitted Jesus was a real historical figure, then you've already admitted to His authenticity. So someone who was actually there and witnessed Jesus doesn't count as a reliable source? I hope you don't work in the legal field...the milk miracle proves nothing since Hinduism has no basis for determining miracles.
MrTrilliondollarman 3 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman What? How is that "dumb"? Do you believe that Joseph Smith or Muhammad were actual historical figures? Of course they were... so that proves they were genuine and authentic? What?
What do you mean by "Hinduism has no basis for determining miracles?" There have been countless "miracles" that have allegedly occurred throughout history. And they were believed by their respective cultures for *exactly* the same reason you believe in yours: faith.
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
@CarlSagan6
Here's why it's dumb: you are arguing about their authenticity. It's well established Smith's claims could not be verified and Muhammad was just repeating earlier Christian heretical teachings. But by admitting Jesus really walked the earth, you are admitting what the Gospels say about Him are true.
As for your take on belief in miracles...you are wrong. Christianity provides a basis for saying miracles are possible...others do not.
MrTrilliondollarman 3 months ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc My general point is this: I don't feel it's as easy as you think to incorporate biological evolution into your religion (as I said before). As @hockeyman92 said, evolution absolutely does lead us to certain implications that, frankly, don't give a good forecast to religious "hybrids" like intelligent design. I just don't think Chesterton should be venerated for putting "faith first, science second." But I understand your point of view. Sorry about the rant :)
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
One of the few downsides to Chesterton, in my opinion, was his attitude toward evolution. Then again, I don't think that by 1931, or even by Chesterton's death in 1937, "Darwinian" evolution had nearly the amount of authentic scientific support it does now. My general impression, which may be flawed, is that Darwin had remarkable scientific intuition (though not so great a moral sense), but the real backup came gradually, and was not really conclusive until the mid to late 20th century.
aelredtheless 8 months ago
@aelredtheless Let me add, evolutionary theory has also been considerably improved since Chesterton's time and will likely continue to be tweeked. This could be seen as a partial fulfillment of Chesterton's prediction of new evolutionary theories in the future, that would replace the one current at his time.
aelredtheless 8 months ago
@aelredtheless Oops, I guess Chesterton died in 1936, not 1937. My mistake.
aelredtheless 8 months ago
@aelredtheless
Chesterton didn't have a problem with Evolution as a science; what he opposed (and I agree) is turning it into a philosophy of social darwinism. He has a quote explains his position:
"Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say"
Jim1905 7 months ago 4
I especially liked Chesterton's description of that very rare animal, the true Skeptic, whose authentic skepticism forbids thought. I was such for a very short time, during one of the darkest times in my life. Both the truth of the word our senses reveal to us and, even more damagingly, the power of human reason, do not seem to be verifiable by reason alone, at least as far as I can tell. It's good to hear another Catholic apparently recognize this (whether it is Chesterton or Alquist).
aelredtheless 8 months ago
five people couldn't get past the not-so-great acting :/ :p
J1Militans 8 months ago
nice to see a religious sweeping the floor with an atheist, to bad he is wrong
Terje1337 9 months ago
@BarbaraMarcis Actually, Barbara, there is no transcript of this debate. This is a dramatic reconstruction written by Dale Ahlquist, based on two things: 1. contemporary reviews of the debate and quotations from it given in those reviews; 2. Chesterton quips from his vast body of work that are pertinent to this issue. This dramatic reconstruction sums up Chesterton & Darrow's views, and also the general tenor of the debate, which the audience agreed GKC clearly won.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 9 months ago
Mr. Darrow, of course, very much echoes Dawkins and Hitchens and the rest of them.
GenghisKhan44 10 months ago
Fuck yeah, Chesterton.
TiniestViolin 1 year ago
Wonderful little speech. I love Chesterton!
MariaCGMF25 1 year ago
@Aldaan3333 Thank you for explaining why.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@RobVerma
Although I really do respect Mr. Darrow's intellectual prowess, according to contemporary sources, he was simply not up to snuff in this particular debate.
"Although the terms of the debate were determined at the outset, Darrow either could not or would not stick to the definitions, but kept going off at illogical tangents and becoming choleric over points that were not in dispute."
cathoman7 1 year ago 10
I can not believe that this is word for word how the debate went. If it isn't word for word then the editing is done to make Mr. Chesterton's point the only one that is presented with any sort of intellectual honesty. That would mean it isn't a real debate at all. This is not helpful to either side. I wish whoever had done this would have presented Mr. Darrow in something close to a true light. Or, if they were actually honest they might provide a link to the actual minutes of the debate.
RobVerma2396 1 year ago 2
Just came back from a long day, and it was refreshing to see this video.
Its interesting to note, though, that the growth of early civilization itself is tied to the development of religion... and one of the central discoverers of genetics was Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk.
charliec81 1 year ago
Do you think Chesterton would accept evolution if he were alive today based on what we know
Paddy234 1 year ago 2
@Paddy234 Read what he said about it then and let me know what you think.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago 11
Comment removed
nabokovdiplomat 11 months ago
Comment removed
nabokovdiplomat 11 months ago
Comment removed
nabokovdiplomat 11 months ago
@Paddy234 - I think only to a certain extent. I think he'd be a proponent of Theistic Evolution, which is supported by any thinking man of religion. Quantum randomness is more of a primitive idea than a six day creation; order does not come from disorder without intelligent thought.
Man is not merely a plant or an animal; but we now have links in the chain.
TedSeeber 10 months ago
@TedSeeber Chesterton's view was that this is not the first evolutionary theory (Ancient Greece), and it won't be the last.
Pertaining to Biblical fundamentalism and the Origin of Species, Chesterton wrote: The Catholic Church, more importantly, believes in something more fundamental than fundamentalism, and knows the origin of that origin.
Chesterton's position was no position. It's not even worth knowing. We're here, and there are things that are much more consequential to postulate.
TenderTrap86 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
G K Chesterton's third novel - The Ball and the Cross - is a paeon in praise of religious terrorism. It explains in detail how - if your faith is strong enough - it is quite legitimate to fly a plane into an office block. (The novels main character - Evan MacIan - spends most of the story trying to murder someone who refuses to share his faith).
G K Chesterton is basically a 1920's Osama bin Laden;- only fat and with spectacles.
thallassocracy 1 year ago
@thallassocracy "The Ball and the Cross" is not at all about that. For starters, it was written before planes - with the exception of the Wright Brothers, who were having limited success. It was even before almost all "office blocks", if by that you mean skyscrapers.
You have demonstrated that not only have you never read anything by Chesterton, but your only intention is to slander him as a proto-terrorist.
I think we know who the intellectual terrorist is here, at any rate.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago 25
Chesterton argued - in 1904 - that what Europe needed was a world war to restore faith in human values. When that war came, Chesterton continued to argue that the destruction and slaughter were valuable experiences.
Chesterton argued throughout the 1930's that if Germany ever attacked France, France' superior army would destroy the Wehrmacht overnight.
Faith leads to unusual clarity.
thallassocracy 1 year ago
@thallassocracy This is utter slander and a complete lie. Chesterton said NONE of those things. If you think he did, prove it.
If you atheists can't argue better than this, you're sunk. When I was an atheist, we respected rational thought and believed it could dis-prove the lie of faith. But goofballs like thallassocracy can't even make a believable slanderous statement.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
@TheaterOfTheWordInc
Chesterton's call for a world war to improve the state of morality (in 1904) is made in the opening pages of 'The Napoleon of Notting Hill'. (And throughout that novel).
You should read it sometime.
;-)
thallassocracy 1 year ago
@thallassocracy I've read it several times. That statement is nowhere in the novel. You are a despicable liar, and you're banned from further comments. See the inane thing thallassocracy said about Chesterton advocating planes flying into skyscrapers - before planes and before almost all skyscrapers even existed.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
I can't wait for christmas cuz my parents are going to buy me at least one season of this show. woo hoo
tatripp 1 year ago
Jerry, we are making progress here, for the truth that reason reveals can not contradict the truth that faith affirms.
But you won't make much progress in the Adam and Eve argument, as geneticists posit a single human ancestor. So science, in fact, points in that direction.
Lay Catholics are supposed to believe the dogmas of the Church. Whether most of them do are not is beside the point here. The question is are the dogmas true, not are they popular.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
Darrow, applied Huxley's agnostic method to religious claims. Agnosticism merely applies the scientific method to issues outside of, say, biology or astronomy. Given what we know about the world through science, we can reasonably conclude that literalistic religious accounts, such as the story of Adam and Eve, are not historically true. This elucidation is one aspect of what "reason" can "do for you." A question: Do you think lay Catholics believe in a literal Adam and Eve? Did G.K.?
JERRYWAYNE58 1 year ago
Good, Jerry, you're showing some improvement.
Now, then, I'm a former atheist turned Catholic and I do not plead with any unbelievers BELIEVE and not THINK FOR YOURSELF. On the contrary, if you think for yourself you may indeed be brought to the precipice of belief. Faith and reason must go together. If not, there is something wrong.
And Jerry I affirm what I said below, if religion is indeed a pleasant illusion, to hell with it.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago 2
To continue: I'm suggesting that religious faiths, or at least faiths based on "Holy Scriptures", are most popular when taken as factually true, instead of allegorically or metaphorically true. And yes, I do think most folks are drawn to religious belief by what they believe it promises (their immortality, for instance), instead of a dispassionate truth seeking. Why else do calls for conversion plead "BELIEVE," and not "THINK FOR YOURSELF?" BTW, can we have better comments from you?
JERRYWAYNE58 1 year ago
Ignoring your insulting comments: If we look at religious trends, we find that advanced nations (Europe and Japan, for examples) have populations becoming more secular and less religious. Conversely, in developing countries, we find an explosion in literalistic religions. In the USA, more liberal Christian churches have been losing ground to literalistic faiths for decades. My point: lay folks seem to be moving toward literalism, or rejecting it and the flowerpot (religion) it comes with.
JERRYWAYNE58 1 year ago
The stupidity and arrogance of these comments is getting ridiculous. JerryWayne58, how unsophisticated do you think the average Joe is? What do you think he "demands of his faith"? Consolation only? You don't think he's looking for Truth? If he's looking for consolation and is finding it in a lie, then to hell with him and may the atheists prevail. As to what the average Joe is demanding from "his" reason, what do you expect "your" reason to do for you? Can we all try for better comments?
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
Of course G.K. was no fundie. I suggest that resurgent fundamentalism has grown while liberal Christian faiths have receded. An agnostic of the Darrow type would be relevant to the current climate by challenging dead on the alleged historicity of literalism, whereas G.K.'s notions that allegory or metaphor or myth can still present a Higher Truth, while sophisticated, is nonetheless not what the average Joe demands of his faith, or his reason.
JERRYWAYNE58 1 year ago
Well, it's good to see that Chesterton is hitting home. The comments below mightily try to dismiss him. Brain-is-Busted 1000, what in particular shows how vaporous Chesterton's reasoing is?
Really, can any of you atheists be specific or are you just going to slam Chesterton's reasoning by name calling and innuendo?
Kevin O'Brien - over-acting former atheist
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
This is a farce. The actor playing the agnostic Darrow is fanatical Christian, wholeheartedly attempting to make Clarence Darrow look like an imbecile. He is overacting the part he tries to convey.
Also, he makes it look like every little bit of Chesterton rhetoric stunned Darrow with the profundity of it, so much so that he couldn't hide his admiration of it. Even my mind is not small enough to notice how vaporous Chesterton's reasoning is.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
Jerry,
Indeed fundamentalism is a problem, but Chesterton (as the video shows) was far from being a fundamentalist.
His anti-Darwinist statements have not been shown to be wrong, though I can't vouch for how the creationists use them. There are problems with Darwinism, scientifically and philosophically, and Chesterton pointed those out. He would have done the same thing with creationism.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
I do not doubt G.K.'s intellectualism. My point was: just as Darrow was off the mark about the near future of religious belief, G.K. too erred in his anti-Darwinist views which have not received substantiation in mainstream science. (His views pop up today on anti-science "creation-science" sites.) BTW, even though Darrow was criticised even in his own time for equating religion with scriptural literalism, with the rise again of fundie ideas, Darrow may be more relevant today than G.K.
JERRYWAYNE58 1 year ago
(continued from below) Read him and then you'll know his mind is not to be taken lightly. Nor his heart.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
Chesterton was anything but anti-science. He had a better understanding of science and its limitations than almost every other thinker of his day. See "Chesterton - a Seer of Science" by Stanley Jaki.
I am seeing more and more people taking the line that Chesterton's witticisms were somehow glib and masking ignorance or bias. They are not at all that. What makes him a true wit is the depth of perception his witticisms convey.
This all comes, my friends, FROM NOT READING CHESTERTON!
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
Thanks for the context. Darrow on a bad night? Or a biased audience? Nevertheless, this debate is interesting, but quaint. Darrow clearly did not foresee the return of fundamentalism as a world force,or the general growth of religion, as seen in current events today. Similarly, Chesterton's anti-Darwinism does not hold up well today, as his witticisms masked a seemingly reactionary anti-science position.
JERRYWAYNE58 1 year ago
True, Jerry, but the context you're not getting is what host Dale Ahlquist says about this debate. People were astonished at how poorly Darrow performed. Contemporary reviews were unanimous that Darrow seemed unprepared, flustered and overmatched by GKC.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 1 year ago
Both Darrow and Chesterton were esteamed debaters. Unfortunately, this recreation seems to disrespect Darrow by the way it is performed. First, unlike real debates of this era, this video presents a give and take format, no doubt to have G.K. puncture Darrow's arguments, given the program's intended Catholic audience. Also, the way Darrow is presented, he appears smug and easily frustrated by Chesterton, contrary to the real Darrow who was folksy and an experienced, well seasoned debater.
JERRYWAYNE58 1 year ago
Look at Clarence Darrow: it's so upset. Instead, Chesterton is always serene... G.K. Chesterton was such a genious at debating
RingoDude66 1 year ago
Without a doubt, Chesterton was the man most responsible for my return to the faith.
At times I wish he was a saint, actually xD
St. Gilbert, Patron Saint of Common Sense and Humor :)
cathoman7 1 year ago 6
besides saying that the crusades were evil is stupid. We are all capable of cruel acts, atheists to devoutly religious. You can think it stupid that people would be religious, but they have that right. I'm against abortion and refuse to pay a tax for somebody else to get one. That dosen't mean I will kill anybody or blow a clinic up. I would just stop paying the tax and protest. Even if it meant jail time. That's my opinion. Hate me if you want, but I won't change.
LittleSlugger1986 2 years ago
Galileo wasn't executed or tortured. You are asking the same thing every athiest can come up with. he wasn't punished for the idea of the revolution of the earth around the sun, because copernicus theorized about it before him. And copernicus was a Catholic cleric. I politely recommend don't listen to everyone but read things written by the people you disagree with.
LittleSlugger1986 2 years ago
Too funny.
blackepitome 2 years ago
Hey, friends of Gilbert... can anybody tell me whether I can find this recreation (with actors) in spanish or not?
If not, how can I find this debate in writing?
Thanks and Bless you
dvqe 2 years ago
Maybe you could find someone who could write it down to you.
Arminevh 2 years ago
The actual debate is not in writing, sadly.
You'd have to transcribe it and then translate it yourself (Google has a good translator).
therealdrag0 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chesterton was an unutterably unforgiving emo.
AspiringScoundrel 2 years ago
No, my friend. Chesterton was very genial toward his opponent. He always praised what was good in their arguments, before he critiqued what was flawed in their arguments. Try reading "Orthodoxy", or "Heretics". He is still considered one of the greatest minds of the last 150 years.
coachtaskmaster 2 years ago 33
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I've already made my way through the two books mentioned, in addition to The Man Who Was Thursday, The Napoleon of Notting Hill and The Everlasting Man. Yet still - I'm afraid I must arrive, again, at the same conclusion concerning the fellow: surreptitiously unforgiving, self-obsessed, close-minded, old-fashioned, tyrannical, gluttonous and last but not least, Christian. Truth bless.
AspiringScoundrel 2 years ago
Fair enough. I came to different conclusions. Peace.
coachtaskmaster 2 years ago
Chesterton was very genial toward his "opponent. He always praised what was good in their arguments...."
Perhaps live, but not necessarily in his books. While he praised Wells in Orthodoxy a couple of times, he also threw several daggers with no praise in front of them. Wells was just as bad though. That's good if you ask me. There are few lies worse than fake grace.
gmdinformation 2 years ago
What? Did the mic really malfunction?
railenmiles 2 years ago
Chesterton is awesome!
Shieldmaiden23 2 years ago 8
Chesterton also wrote about 10,000 essays. I bought a couple books of them off ebay. I think this man was either a genious or a prophet. We're always hearing about religion causing wars, I think you'll find in every case the winner packed the losers stuff back home with him. So, was it religion or greed , avarice, and fear.
stann777 2 years ago 7
"We're always hearing about religion causing wars...."
Yes, I tire of that one too. Most wars are actually fought over land. Chesterton was right though when he said that the holy wars were the only ones worth fighting. Ideals are always worth fighting for.
gmdinformation 2 years ago 15
And it continues to do so for the word was given directly to the church , which is why christ instituted it It is not all written down by the way, and it certainly wasn't at the time of the cruicfixion, the church has always possessed the fullness of truth , in spite of what anyone says. There is only one true church that christ created , and that is the one founded on the apostles with peter appointed as its head by jesus himself
wjm7259 2 years ago
Great job. Good way of pointing out how the 'new atheism' arguments have been the same all along.
xychr0 2 years ago 5
religion has also been used as an engine for genocide and ethnic cleansing
broyalwithcheese 2 years ago
Yeah people can be such bastards can't they. They'll use anything as a reason to torture, butcher, abuse, steal and cheat one another.
ballyboneman 2 years ago
Comment removed
broyalwithcheese 2 years ago
This is like some insane Monty Python sketch.
JosephPaul2 3 years ago
Oh come, lets not demonize Darrow
jimmbo13 3 years ago
I disagree with the last bit... that's why i'm a protestant.
nitotom 3 years ago
Which part is that nitotom?
nishicooray2 3 years ago
The church may have been the foundation for science yet on numerous occasions they hid/lied about what they knew, because they were the only ones with the knowledge.
I thank the Church for nothing apart from Crusades, Inquisitions, wars in Northern Ireland and propagation of AIDS.
Religion is about a relationship between you and God. There is no need for an inbetweener.
nitotom 2 years ago
The lord instituted the so called in betweener to bring the good news to the world , the church is the inbetweener the brings god to the world
wjm7259 2 years ago
No no no. The church is the inbetweener that is SUPPOSED to bring God to the world. The facts and stats prove that they have failed in spreading the word.
Worse yet. Ask anybody why they don't like religion and they will describe what the church has done: NOT religion. The Church has given God a bad name. Shame on it
The Lord chose me for the good word. He chose you. We are all spreaders of the word. No need for silly old men in pointy hats to give their opinions. It's written down already!
nitotom 2 years ago
Which facts and stats?
bewarethebeardedman 2 years ago
How about one example of the Church lying about what "they knew". You can thank the Church for the fact that you have a Bible to ignorantly thump. Who do you think chose the different books of the Bible to preserve? You sir, are an philistine.
Crusades were in fact a defensive war. Inquisition was tame in comparison to modern mans propensity of kill his challengers. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the civil war in Northern Ireland. And AIDS has spread through out a pagan world
mandatum 2 years ago
And I blame the Church for removing books that should have gone in, and editing bits out as they pleased.
You seem to have a reason for everything don't you. You don't even realise that God is used to send you Americans to war, let it be by reference to evil or simply "God is on our side". It takes less than a philistine to realise that religion has been used to excuse major wars and although it may not be the reason, it always takes sides. That's not God. That's the Church.
nitotom 2 years ago
You blame the Church? So who should choose? You. Your dad? Perhaps we should leave it up to the Church who was given the responsibility of shepherding the flock. Thank God the responsibility didn't fall to an uneducated philistine like yourself!
mandatum 2 years ago
Agree, I mean protestants say 100 million people died in the inquisition... While in fact around 10,000 - 20,000 people died. Most heretics and most secular criminals, all put to death by secular arms.
RockyBalboa211 1 year ago 2
@nitotom From someone who lives in the North of Ireland this conflict has NOTHING to do with religion
Paddy234 1 year ago
so was GK Chesterton but converted to RC around 1920's. Read Orthodoxy, he wrote that before he converted. But most historians now a days, agree with last part and the Church laid down the foundation for modern science.
mellydad 2 years ago 2
How do explain Galileo vs The Church then?
nitotom 2 years ago
Galileo? Two thousand years of Catholic Church history and all you got is Galileo? Fail.
mandatum 2 years ago 4
Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of a character named "Simplicio" in his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", who basically comes off as a simpleton in it. Up to that point, Pope Urban had been one of Galileo's biggest supporters and defenders, saying, at one point, that so long as he lived, Copernican theory could be investigated. By inadvertantly alienating Urban, Galileo had given his enemies in the church and in academia the rope to hang him with.
bewarethebeardedman 2 years ago
So, it was really more political than religious. It was a sad case, and unfortunately, was repeated during the Reign of Terror in France and in the Soviet Union (see Suppressed research in the Soviet Union on Wikipedia).
bewarethebeardedman 2 years ago
PWNED!
Bes1987 3 years ago
This is way too campy. It should be more serious.
lindenprof 3 years ago
The article G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is An attack upon thought itself by Lita Cosner cites this debate. creationontheweb . com / chesterton
jono64a 3 years ago
It is my understanding that there is no actual transcript of the debate. Am I wrong? Is this the actual transcript?
smallllama 3 years ago
You are correct; there is no known transcript. This version is a dramatization by Dale Ahlquist, based on detailed newspaper accounts of the debate, with some quotes from other sources of Chesterton's writing mixed in.
TheaterOfTheWordInc 3 years ago
Loved when the microphone went out and Chesterton said "As you can see Mr. Darrow science is not infalliable,"
knuckleheadedninja 3 years ago 2
Heheh, that's awesome. :D
LordShadowblade 3 years ago
thanks for sharing, 6:50 - 7:55 is classic chesterton
plukethep 3 years ago 2