Debate Recap

I gotta say, it was an interesting night at the Chesterton Society/Worcester Humanists debate last night. There was a very good vibe in the air, lots of conviviality, and a genuine feeling that people were looking forward to a lively exchange of ideas.

I got to the debate at about 6:15, and there were already about ten cars in the parking lot (the debate was scheduled to being at 7PM). I had the feeling that there was some excitement about this debate, and that the crowd might be bigger than the twenty or thirty I anticipated. I entered the Unitarian church hall, where I had once been a parishioner, and it was a hive of activity. The humanists were working to set up the hall, to prepare the video equipment used to record the debate, setting out refreshments, and welcoming folks who were coming in the door.

I was engaged with last minute preparations with Michael Hughes, our principal debater, so I was somewhat distracted. I had also been trying to think of questions that might be posed to the Chestertonian side, and coming up with what I hoped were thoughtful answers. A particular question that had been bugging me: the claim that society had somehow "moved on" from Christianity, and that life had become progressively better as the Church's power had waned. I found an answer that satisfies me - have you?

I have to admit that I was nervous as things got started. I was glad that Mike had the intro - I could wait to see how things would go while he was on the hot seat. We had all heard the intro before - I had actually read his latest draft that morning. I knew that it was good, so I could take notes and see how the crowd was reacting. The crowd was large - all the chairs in the room were taken. It seemed that there were a lot more attendees on the Humanist side than the Chesterton side. But all told, there were over one hundred people in attendance. But it was not a hostile crowd. There were a few heads that consistently shook horizontally whenever the Chestertons spoke, but, by and large, the faces were generously listening.

The Humanists intro was pretty good. There were some inconsistencies, some bits of misinformation, and some claims that were slightly puzzling. But it was thoughtful, and it was a far cry from the usual fare of bits-and-parts bickering that usually makes up these discussions. Our opponents, Mr. David Niose and Mr. Brian Seitzman, were both gentlemen, well spoken, and generous.

I was somewhat dismayed that the schedule veered from what I thought it was going to be - instead of a five-minute rebuttal, we were asked to pose questions to the other side. As was evident from the rest of the questions that were posed that night, it was much easier to ask questions of the Catholic side, since there were more substanital issues and stances to which the Church subscribes. Trying to get a Humanist to answer questions about Humanism was somewhat like nailing jello to the wall. What it means to be a Humanist is fairly simple and stated in a few short phrases that do not provide traction for probing inquiry. I would have liked very much to have a few minutes to respond to the claims made by the Humanist side during the debate - especially things surrounding the fractured nature of Christian churches, some bits of misinformation about Christianity, and to discuss the reductionist nature of the Humanist position.

During the Humanists concluding remarks, I had to look down and take notes to prevent saying something like "Oh, my God" really loud. After an hour and change of debate, it was humorous, if exasperating, to hear their primary debater say that there could be no rational basis for religious belief and to basically blame it on a maternal guilt complex. Not shocking, but shocking, at the same time.

I call the debate a success, and here's why: we stated our position cogently without sinning against charity in the course of the debate. Well, I may have venially sinned against charity at several points in the debate, but luckily they only occurred between my ears and I didn't act on any temptation to smack anyone over the head. Victory!

Seriously, it was a success because we went into the lion's den and stated a case while preserving the bonds of charity. I don't care if anyone was converted (I do, really) they should have been!
One particularly difficult moment was when one of the Humanists got up, ostensibly to ask a question, and started reading what I presumed to be quotes from Hitchens' book on Mother Teresa. Total bunk, which was not unusual for the night, but I feel a certain delicacy in matters surrounding Mother Teresa. My response is akin to what one would feel if someone were insulting someone's mother. It is neither gentlemanly nor dignified to comment on such matters, and I feel the best, and most appropriate, response is a bonk on the head. Alas...

But three cheers for the Chestertons for their performance on that memorable evening, and especially for Mr. Michael Hughes, our chosen champion and fidei defensor. He acquitted himself admirably on the field of battle, and has shown himself trusty in pitched intellectual struggle.
The next debate will probably be in January or February of next year. (Mr. Niose, the Humanists' primary, humorously remarked that December is a busy time, even for a Humanist.) My wife recommended a more focused topic. I'm open to all comers - let me know what you think. Oh, and let me know what you're willing to do, as we'll be responsible for far more this time around. We can't be outdone in hospitality by the Humanists, who did, in fact, put on quite a nice evening.