You might want to consider this passage from an account of a debate Clarence Darrow had against G. K. Chesterton at New York City’s Mecca Temple on the topic, “Will the World Return to Religion?" It's hardly likely to have been biased in favor of Chesterton over Darrow, it was in The Nation magazine, hardly a Catholic friendly media venue.
In the ballot that followed, the audience voted more than two to one for the defender of the faith, Mr. Chesterton of course, and if the vote was on the relative merits of the two debaters, and not on the question itself, it was surely a very just one. Mr. Chesterton’s argument was like Mr. Chesterton, amiable, courteous, jolly; it was always clever, it was full of nice turns of expression, and altogether a very adroit exhibition by one of the world’s ablest intellectual fencing masters and one of its most charming gentlemen.
Mr. Darrow’s personality, by contrast, seemed rather colorless and certainly very dour. His attitude seemed almost surly; he slurred his words; the rise and fall of his voice was sometimes heavily melodramatic, and his argument was conducted on an amazingly low intellectual level.
Ostensibly the defender of science against Mr. Chesterton, he obviously knew much less about science than Mr. Chesterton did; when he essayed to answer his opponent on the views of Eddington and Jeans, it was patent that he did not have the remotest conception of what the new physics was all about. His victory over Mr. Byran at Dayton had been too cheap and easy; he remembered it not wisely but too well. His arguments are still the arguments of the village atheist of the Ingersoll period; at Mecca Temple he still seemed to be trying to shock and convince yokels.
Mr. Chesterton’s deportment was irreproachable, but I am sure that he was secretly unhappy. He had been on the platform many times against George Bernard Shaw. This opponent could not extend his powers. He was not getting his exercise.
Another account of the debate by Joseph J. Reilly
It was a Sunday afternoon and the Temple was packed. At the conclusion of the debate everybody was asked to express his opinion as to the victor and slips of paper were passed around for that purpose. The award went directly to Chesterton. Darrow in comparison, seemed heavy, uninspired, slow of mind, while G.K.C. was joyous, sparkling and witty …. quite the Chesterton one had come to expect from his books. The affair was like a race between a lumbering sailing vessel and a modern steamer. Mrs. Frances Taylor Patterson also heard the Chesterton-Darrow debate, but went to the meeting with some misgivings because she was a trifle afraid that Chesterton’s “gifts might seem somewhat literary in comparison with the trained scientific mind and rapier tongue of the famous trial lawyer. Instead, the trained scientific mind, the clear thinking, the lightning quickness in getting a point and hurling back an answer, turned out to belong to Chesterton. I have never heard Mr. Darrow alone, but taken relatively, when that relativity is to Chesterton, he appears positively muddle-headed.”
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. He seemed to have an idea that all religion was a matter of accepting Jonah’s whale as a sort of luxury-liner. As Chesterton summed it up, he felt as if Darrow had been arguing all afternoon with his fundamentalist aunt, sparring with a dummy of his own mental making. When something went wrong with the microphone, Darrow sat back until it could be fixed. Whereupon G.K.C. jumped up and carried on in his natural voice, “Science you see is not infallible!” Whatever brilliance Darrow had in his own right, it was completely eclipsed.
"... as if Darrow had been arguing all afternoon with his fundamentalist aunt, sparring with a dummy of his own mental making." You can say the same thing about most of the popular atheists in debate against an able opponent, today. They can't deal with anything but the most cartoonish of fundamentalists because the God they don't believe in is that God. And that's the best of them, the typical online atheist is even more dependent on setting up dummies of their own mental making because they can't argue against anything but that.
Sometimes they can't even argue against that.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I'm indebted to at Baby Blue is that it exposed the intellectual shallowness of modernism, atheism and the play-left and showed me what a disaster those have been for American liberalism.
DeleteI've also learned, though mostly from researching the problems listed above, how much double-speak there is in even alleged science. The ubiquitously issued claim that Darwinism doesn't present evolution as a progressive development is constantly and dishonestly refuted by the very presentation of Darwinists, from Charles right up to Dawkins, Coyne, etc. They're so used to parroting the claim that it doesn't present evolution as some kind of progression that they don't get that a few sentences or paragraphs before or after that they've claimed exactly the opposite. And it is exactly on that claim that natural selection rests, turning the banal tautology of survivors of the survivors into survival of the fittest, winners and losers as an explanation of the far, far more subtle and variable evolution of species. It is in that inevitable aspect of assigning progressivity to mere change, of attributing superior virtue to the survivors that makes it identical to social Darwinism and its other byproducts of eugenics, fascism and Nazism. I have started looking at the far less available foundational texts of Italian fascism, starting with D'Annunzio et al and am finding that they were definitely motivated by Darwinism and the Darwin inspired overturning of morals found in such writers as Nietzsche. I still am impressed that Frances Cobbe anticipated a lot of that in the 1860s in her critique of the moral consequences of Darwinism, something Darwin dismissed even as he was asserting what she pointed out was inevitable.
I find scientist in general to be decent enough, but they aren't really critical thinkers. They accept the data they are fed in college, and they function from that, thinking "skepticism" is "objectivity" is "science."
ReplyDeleteThat is, the ones who think about it at all, or claim science as some form of knowledge that replaces religion (or just usurps it).
Critical thought would require actually reading Darwin, not just accepting what some teacher told you Darwin "actually" said. Science education is too busy stuffing facts in brains to take the time to read Newton or Einstein or Godel or Darwin. At most, they read about them. It's no wonder they don't really understand.