Robert Blachford v G.K. Chesterton - ACS Season III

In this episode we see Robert Blachford and G.K. Chesterton debate over miracles.
Copyright EWTN

[@MariaCGMF25]

"If you do not think it extraordinary that a pumpkin is always a pumpkin, you have not even begun philosophy."

[@email2hector]

The best way to put this argument is as follows: Science only tells "how" something happens but philosophy/religion tells "why" things happen. For example science tells us that a teapot has boiling water because (the how part) the energy of the fire causes the molecules to move faster. But philosophy would answer that the teapot has boiling water because (this the why/motive) I wanted tea. The "why" and an agent will always manipulate the "hows (laws of nature)" to get what it wants. But science can only explain the hows and philosophy can only explain the why.

[@MontChevalier]

We need a new Chesterton...

[@benhulletthere]

Each of these debates is amazing to be able to watch. For me, the acting is a caricature of the speakers. Unfortunately, for us, we do not have the actual live debates, but these are still helpful to our "modern" generation in seeing the thoughts of the past. It is a testament to Christianity that "heretical" ideas do not change much. We just have new words for old concepts.

[@cont3ssa]

This is an excellent discussion. Chesterton reveals the strange or missing logic behind many arguments of modern materialistic philosophy. Our time would need more discussions of that quality.

[@LittleSlugger1986]

What's amazing is that he usually forgot the things he wrote down at home. He was able to debate on cue. I wish most poloticans were able to do so.

[@TenderTrap86]

@LittleSlugger1986 lmao Yeah. I heard Chesterton was incredibly absent minded. The mark of true genius! But, I remember what Bishop Fulton Sheen said about writing things down in preparation for a lecture or a debate. He said he was giving a homily and kept looking down at his notes to make sure he covered all his points. He heard a lady in the front row whisper to another: "Glory be to God... If he can't remember it, how does he expect us to?". He never used notes of any sort after that. :)

[@BarzOnTheWindow1]

Brilliant Man, this Chesterton.

[@Tredoslop]

Ah, so this was the determinist that Chesterton mentioned in Orthodoxy. ;)

[@milburncherian5785]

Chesterton can put atheist in a tight seat, for only fools disbelieve in a 'GOD'. And those who want to continue to be BLIND, do not understanding the meaning, and the SERIOUSNESS of a REAL HELL and a REAL HEAVEN for ETERNITY. Who can help them then, when HELL one day should hit them fully in the face ONE DAY.

[@SkengRudebwoy]

respect to blanchford, i have read his book 'not guilty' and it is ever more relevant today as it was back in the early 20th century. Its similar to Clarence Darrows 'resist not evil' in subject, problem and solution of crime. A man with all people at heart are a rarity.

[@bailong329]

Actually there was a reason why its called British Humor cuz in that Society Humor is part of conversation. Watch any Parliamentary debate or watch the movie Amazing Grace and you see they use it constantly in debate. In US Society we tend to take too much seriously in debate this is just reflective how we treat serious things. In Britain however ( Where Chesterton is from) even the most serious topics will be debated with humor.

[@tatripp]

Robert Blachford looks suspiciously like Clarence Darrow.

[@Ronsuestmartin]

We got to get captions for these little clips. Good Stuff.

[@richardgrablin2103]

I wouldn't say "atheism" was logically defeated because one first needs to know what is meant by "atheism"--there are different kinds/degrees. Certainly, however, "positivism" has been thoroughly dismantled, and positivism was a huge foundation for most atheistic (and "scientific") thinking until about 50 years ago. Positivism, however, remains in popular culture today because it takes a while for culture to catch up with the philosophers, like Socrates and Athens.

[@J1Militans]

Though I do think the debate would have more impact in today's impact if it was held in our society's standards.... Like the Hitchen's video to the right... :D

[@J1Militans]

Were those debates real or supposed? And did people in that age debate like that? (with laughter and all?) Just wondering, cos I've always imagined Chesterton more serious. Keep it up! God bless.

[@J1Militans]

heh! What'ya know! It sounded pretty weird to me. Thanks! :D pax

[@rexnecis]

This is not actual audio. It is just the actors. :( sadface yes.

[@TedSeeber]

Atheism was logically defeated a hundred years ago. That anybody would still believe in it is ridiculous.

[@mnpadin]

I’m not an atheist so please don’t misinterpret my following question: How was atheism “logically” defeated a hundred years ago? Surely, a philosophical case can still be made for atheism. As the late Christopher Hitchens argued, “the burden of proof rests with the believer not the skeptic.” Until you can provide positive, conclusive evidence for the existence of God, atheism remains a valid position. To date, no cosmologist or physicist has argued the God hypothesis.

[@stephenandersen4625]

It really isn't the domain of the Cosmologist or the physicist. There have been many proofs over the ages, in many traditions; Ontological, teleological, contingency, etc. Aquinas opined that it could be done purely by reason and provided his 5 ways. Those like Hitchens who sort of petulantly stamp their feet demanding proof give me the impression of what at best is is intellectual laziness and at worst intellectual bigotry. They seem quite well-intentioned with their arguments about Theodicy but that appears to be all they have and in my experience do not appear open to any counter argument of any sort regardless of its rigor (i'm thinking of Stephen Fry in this instance). Hardly paragons of open mindedness. I would like to know their particular exceptions to the existing arguments... to push away several millennia of intellectual tradition and arbitrarily declare "the burden of proof is on you" again seems lazy.

[@rougebaba3887]

The atheist who talk this way are simply trying to hold the sole position of the unbiased judge of all evidence, argumentation and reasoning. It's as if they wish to claim the position of the only unadulterated thinkers, void of all presuppositions. Thus, their position must be taken as true by default. They want their position to be the starting point. This IS lazy thinking. If you want to watch an atheist's head spin, ask them questions that reveal their presuppositions, showing how their own starting presuppositions are themselves antithetical to very atheism they favor.

[@Duffytoler]

Excellent discussion, lousy acting.

[@LazlosPlane]

Couldn't they find a WORSE wig for Chesterton??