Simon Blackburn

[Philosophy Now]

Simon Blackburn is a Vice President of the British Humanist Association, a member of the Humanist Philosophers’ Group, a former Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, and currently a Distinguished Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Rick Lewis asks him about his atheism.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Simon_Blackburn

[tbieter]

Simon Blackburn is a Vice President of the British Humanist Association, a member of the Humanist Philosophers’ Group, a former Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, and currently a Distinguished Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Rick Lewis asks him about his atheism.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Simon_Blackburn

"How did you become an infidel?

"I am not sure I ever had any faith to lose, so I can’t identify a definite, dated process. I was at a Church of England school, but gradually became less and less interested in the Church’s sayings and doctrines. At about the age of sixteen I read Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not A Christian, and never looked back." (Bold added)
And I'll bet that in his dogmatism Blackburn never bothered to read any of G. K. Chesterton's books, such as his classics Heretics and Orthodoxy.

I seem to recall that Russell engaged in a public debate with Chesterton and the latter bested the former.
http://americanchestertonsociety.blogsp ... urces.html

"Chesterton debated many of the celebrated intellectuals of his time: George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Clarence Darrow. According to contemporary accounts, Chesterton usually emerged as the winner of these contests, however, the world has immortalized his opponents and forgotten Chesterton, and now we hear only one side of the argument, and we are enduring the legacies of socialism, relativism, materialism, and skepticism. Ironically, all of his opponents regarded Chesterton with the greatest affection. And George Bernard Shaw said: “The world is not thankful enough for Chesterton.”"
http://www.chesterton.org/discover-ches ... -this-guy/

Rick, why not sponsor a debate between Professor Blackburn and Professor Peter Kreeft? They are almost neighbors.

Let my comment be a challenge to you and Blackburn!
http://www.peterkreeft.com/home.htm

"Kreeft joined the philosophy faculty of the Department of Philosophy of Boston College in 1965. He has debated several academics in issues related to God's existence. Shortly after he began teaching at Boston College he was challenged to a debate on the existence of God between himself and Paul Breines, an atheist and history professor, which was attended by a majority of undergraduate students. Kreeft later used many of the arguments in this debate to create the Handbook of Christian Apologetics with then undergraduate student Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft

Chesterton on atheism:
http://www.chesterton.org/discover-ches ... n/#Atheism

[tbieter]

Next Tuesday I'll attend the monthly meeting and discussion at the Amercan Chesterton Society- Twin Cities Chapter.

The founder and moderator will be Dale Ahlquist. We are truly fortunate to have him resident in St. Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Ahlquist


I've really enjoyed reading the assigned reading which is Chesterton's The Poet and the Lunatics
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? ... hest%2Caps

In the second story, "The Yellow Bird," Chesterton gives a profound definition of liberty:

"What exactly is liberty? First and foremost, surely, it is the power of a thing to be itself." Kindle, location 495

Consider the homosexual who lives in a community that requires gays and lesbians to "be in the closet" for their security. He or she lacks "the power" "to be" who he or she is. Philosophically, he or she is deprived of autonomy!

What an enormous injustice committed by such communies.

What are some other implications of Chesterton's definition?

[tbieter]

Next Tuesday I'll attend the monthly meeting and discussion at the Amercan Chesterton Society- Twin Cities Chapter.

The founder and moderator will be Dale Ahlquist. We are truly fortunate to have him resident in St. Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Ahlquist


I've really enjoyed reading the assigned reading which is Chesterton's The Poet and the Lunatics
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? ... hest%2Caps

In the second story, "The Yellow Bird," Chesterton gives a profound definition of liberty:

"What exactly is liberty? First and foremost, surely, it is the power of a thing to be itself." Kindle, location 495

Consider the homosexual who lives in a community that requires gays and lesbians to "be in the closet" for their security. He or she lacks "the power" "to be" who he or she is. Philosophically, he or she is deprived of autonomy!

What an enormous injustice committed by such communies.

What are some other implications of Chesterton's definition?

I attended the meeting which was at the beautiful University Club on historic Summit Avenue in St. Paul. There were about thirty people attending. I enjoyed the discussion and will go again.

Seated next to me was a visiting young fellow who is associated with Institute on Religion and Democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_ ... _Democracy He spoke briefly on a new project. During the discussion, I mentioned PhilosophyNow
and he leaned over and said "That's an atheist magazine!" I almost laughed out loud. Rick, is that true? Is my soul put in peril when I read the mag?

I learned that there is a transcript of the debate between Chesterton and Bertrand Russell. I'm going to get it and post it here.

http://www.universityclubofstpaul.com/

https://www.google.com/search?q=summit+ ... 24&bih=653

[tbieter]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/s ... onrofessor

Blackburn signs letter protesting a state visit by the Pope.

We, the undersigned, share the view that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country. We believe that the pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country. However, as well as a religious leader, the pope is a head of state, and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:

Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.

Promoting segregated education.

Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.

Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.

The state of which the pope is head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties ("concordats") with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states. In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican.

Stephen Fry, Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor Susan Blackmore, Terry Pratchett, Philip Pullman, Ed Byrne, Baroness Blackstone, Ken Follett, Professor AC Grayling, Stewart Lee, Baroness Massey, Claire Rayner, Adele Anderson, John Austin MP, Lord Avebury, Sian Berry, Professor Simon Blackburn, Sir David Blatherwick, Sir Tom Blundell, Dr Helena Cronin, Dylan Evans, Hermione Eyre, Lord Foulkes, Professor Chris French, Natalie Haynes, Johann Hari, Jon Holmes, Lord Hughes, Robin Ince, Dr Michael Irwin, Professor Steve Jones, Sir Harold Kroto, Professor John Lee, Zoe Margolis, Jonathan Meades, Sir Jonathan Miller, Diane Munday, Maryam Namazie, David Nobbs, Professor Richard Norman, Lord O'Neill, Simon Price, Paul Rose, Martin Rowson, Michael Rubenstein, Joan Smith, Dr Harry Stopes-Roe, Professor Raymond Tallis, Lord Taverne, Peter Tatchell, Baroness Turner, Professor Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC FBA, Ann Marie Waters, Professor Wolpert, Jane Wynne Willson

[tbieter]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/s ... onrofessor

Blackburn signs letter protesting a state visit by the Pope.

We, the undersigned, share the view that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country. We believe that the pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country. However, as well as a religious leader, the pope is a head of state, and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:

Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.

Promoting segregated education.

Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.

Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.

The state of which the pope is head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties ("concordats") with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states. In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican.

Stephen Fry, Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor Susan Blackmore, Terry Pratchett, Philip Pullman, Ed Byrne, Baroness Blackstone, Ken Follett, Professor AC Grayling, Stewart Lee, Baroness Massey, Claire Rayner, Adele Anderson, John Austin MP, Lord Avebury, Sian Berry, Professor Simon Blackburn, Sir David Blatherwick, Sir Tom Blundell, Dr Helena Cronin, Dylan Evans, Hermione Eyre, Lord Foulkes, Professor Chris French, Natalie Haynes, Johann Hari, Jon Holmes, Lord Hughes, Robin Ince, Dr Michael Irwin, Professor Steve Jones, Sir Harold Kroto, Professor John Lee, Zoe Margolis, Jonathan Meades, Sir Jonathan Miller, Diane Munday, Maryam Namazie, David Nobbs, Professor Richard Norman, Lord O'Neill, Simon Price, Paul Rose, Martin Rowson, Michael Rubenstein, Joan Smith, Dr Harry Stopes-Roe, Professor Raymond Tallis, Lord Taverne, Peter Tatchell, Baroness Turner, Professor Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC FBA, Ann Marie Waters, Professor Wolpert, Jane Wynne Willson

P. S. Here is a book by Blackburn that I'll read in due course.

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Questions-Phi ... +blackburn

[RickLewis]

Seated next to me was a visiting young fellow who is associated with Institute on Religion and Democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_ ... _Democracy He spoke briefly on a new project. During the discussion, I mentioned PhilosophyNow
[/i] and he leaned over and said "That's an atheist magazine!" I almost laughed out loud. Rick, is that true? Is my soul put in peril when I read the mag?

Our souls are in peril at every moment, Thomas! Constant vigilance is the only way.

No, Philosophy Now is not an atheist magazine, although I am an agnostic and a humanist. My editorial colleagues include both Christians and atheists. One issue in the past was edited by a friend who is now a rabbi. We do our best to cover all sides of the debates about God and religion, and to encourage all sides to put forward their best arguments. The magazine takes no editorial "position" except that philosophy is a good thing.

The young guy you spoke to reminds me of a time early in the history of Philosophy Now when I used to be visited occasionally by a couple of elderly Jehovah's Witnesses who would engage me in long theological debates on the doorstep. I once tried to give them a copy of Philosophy Now but they refused to take it - they literally shrank back like I was waving a crucifix at a vampire! (If that isn't a disrespectful comparison!) One of them then told me off, saying something like that all of the World's problems were created by Man and therefore could only be solved by God. I think her view was that any magazine not taking an explicitly religious position on ethical problems was therefore atheistical by default. Do you think that could be what the young guy you spoke with also meant ? Or maybe he was just unfamiliar with Philosophy Now.

[tbieter]

Seated next to me was a visiting young fellow who is associated with Institute on Religion and Democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_ ... _Democracy He spoke briefly on a new project. During the discussion, I mentioned PhilosophyNow
[/i] and he leaned over and said "That's an atheist magazine!" I almost laughed out loud. Rick, is that true? Is my soul put in peril when I read the mag?

Our souls are in peril at every moment, Thomas! Constant vigilance is the only way.

No, Philosophy Now is not an atheist magazine, although I am an agnostic and a humanist. My editorial colleagues include both Christians and atheists. One issue in the past was edited by a friend who is now a rabbi. We do our best to cover all sides of the debates about God and religion, and to encourage all sides to put forward their best arguments. The magazine takes no editorial "position" except that philosophy is a good thing.

The young guy you spoke to reminds me of a time early in the history of Philosophy Now when I used to be visited occasionally by a couple of elderly Jehovah's Witnesses who would engage me in long theological debates on the doorstep. I once tried to give them a copy of Philosophy Now but they refused to take it - they literally shrank back like I was waving a crucifix at a vampire! (If that isn't a disrespectful comparison!) One of them then told me off, saying something like that all of the World's problems were created by Man and therefore could only be solved by God. I think her view was that any magazine not taking an explicitly religious position on ethical problems was therefore atheistical by default. Do you think that could be what the young guy you spoke with also meant ? Or maybe he was just unfamiliar with Philosophy Now.

"I think her view was that any magazine not taking an explicitly religious position on ethical problems was therefore atheistical by default. Do you think that could be what the young guy you spoke with also meant ? Or maybe he was just unfamiliar with Philosophy Now."

I don't think he was very familiar with the magazine. I've met guys like him before. Their enthusiasm tends to lead to an excessive dogmatism. And he really was enthusiastic.

Dale Ahlquist is a convert to Catholicism. He certainly is the expert on Chesterton. And he is enthusiastic. When he made a critical statement about Josef Pieper, I roared, said I was offended, and said I was leaving. Everybody laughed and Dale he reined me in. But, I have wondered if in his mind Chesterton's thought has the status of scripture even relative to other Catholic writers.

In an email about the reading to be discussed, Alhquist began with this quote from the reading:

"I doubt whether any truth can be told except in a parable."
Gabriel Gale in one of the stories from The Poet and the Lunatics (but I'm not going to tell you which one)"

I don't agree with the quote. I expected someone to disagree when Dale mentioned it, but no one did. And the meeting ended. Thus, I wonder if any member ever disagrees with something written by Chesterton?

I definitely look forward to the next meeting.

[thedoc]

Rick, is that true? Is my soul put in peril when I read the mag?

Our souls are in peril at every moment, Thomas! Constant vigilance is the only way.

Rick and Thomas, (or anyone else, but I think I know what some will say) do you believe that Human beings have a 'Soul', that is some spiritual (non-physical) component that continues after death? Note, I'm not asking about any particular religions definition of a soul but any one in general.

[marjoramblues]

I think the 'constant vigilance' refers to the mind and 'heart' being swayed; also remaining aware of how people can be hurt as well as helped by certain religious/political doctrines and goals.

{If mind and 'heart' is equivalent to spirit, or soul, I can't see how it can continue after brain death. How would that work and why would it be necessary?}

from the article [emphasis added]:

As an atheist/infidel, do you think it’s important to campaign for a less religious society?

It all depends on what the religionists have got it into their heads to clamour about. At present in the USA it is important, because religious fundamentalism aims to keep people ignorant about science and scientific method. In Catholic countries there is the wicked suppression of birth control. In the UK this is fortunately not so true; but even here religionists oppose assisted dying, are at least half-inclined to moralize about harmless variations in sexual tastes and lifestyles, and constantly campaign to have a louder voice in political affairs than they deserve.
They need watching.

[tbieter]

Next Tuesday I'll attend the monthly meeting and discussion at the Amercan Chesterton Society- Twin Cities Chapter.

The founder and moderator will be Dale Ahlquist. We are truly fortunate to have him resident in St. Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Ahlquist


I've really enjoyed reading the assigned reading which is Chesterton's The Poet and the Lunatics
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? ... hest%2Caps

In the second story, "The Yellow Bird," Chesterton gives a profound definition of liberty:

"What exactly is liberty? First and foremost, surely, it is the power of a thing to be itself." Kindle, location 495

Consider the homosexual who lives in a community that requires gays and lesbians to "be in the closet" for their security. He or she lacks "the power" "to be" who he or she is. Philosophically, he or she is deprived of autonomy!

What an enormous injustice committed by such communies.

What are some other implications of Chesterton's definition?

Last night I attended the monthly meeting of the local Chesterton Society. In preparation we read the first half of Chesterton's biography of St, Francis of Assisi.

We had a surprise, an address by Chesterton, in the form of Dr. Chuck. http://www.terrificspeakers.com/html/ch ... lberg.html

He will also appear next month. I'll try and get a photograph to post here.