*******Squaring the Circle of Our Rad Trad Catholic Girardian Conserberalism******* all 4 1 & 1 4 all
Good find! I once read transcripts of a live (or televised?) mano-a-mano exchange between the siblings. What a pair. Whatever else, they make the world a more interesting place!
Peter clearly understands the limits of science and of faith, unlike Christopher (and Richard Dawkins). Peter is that well-spoken and polite kind of Brit who would listen to a Hyde Park extremist, letting him have his say, but then rebut and later invite his adversary out for tea.Christopher, on the other hand, would blow smoke in the fellow's face with a pithy and adroit show of intellectual brilliance. Manners, dear fellow. Manners!
I love the photo juxtaposition of atheist/Christian, as you really can see the difference. Granted, it was intended.I still would love, and would pay money, to see Peter Kreeft debate him.Peace
There was a YouTube a couple of weeks ago (linked from Instapundit) of Al Sharpton (!) debating Hitch on the same book. I watched a few minutes of the preliminaries, then asked myself, "Why am I watching this?" Then thankfully bailed. Chris is actually much more interesting a village atheist than Dawkins, and a better writer and thinker. It's a pity that he felt compelled to jump on the recent dumb-books-about-God-by-atheists bandwagon. I had actually thought a little better of Hitch.
This post at Mahwah Literary Review (hey, looks like a great blog, by the way!) covers Hitchens' klutzy review of Waugh. Hmm. My estimation of Hitch is dropping by the second.Hitchens will debate Mark Roberts on Hugh Hewitt Tuesday night. There will be transcripts and audio at Townhall.
Post a Comment