manicstreetpreacher goes for Round 2.
The second of my two recently recorded debates for Justin Brierley at Premier Christian Radio for his sceptics debate show, Unbelievable?, was whether atheism or Christianity was responsible for the so-called secular atrocities of the mid-20th century.
My opponent was Peter Harris, a teacher and a doctorate student of theology and apologetics who has a page on BeThinking.
Web access
Listen on demand from the Unbelievable? homepage
Tags: A History of Christianity, A Very Short Introduction to Atheism, Adolf Eichmann, adolf hitler, Alan Bullock, Alois Luigi Hudal, atheism, catholic church, christianity, debate, joseph stalin, Julian Baggini, justin brierley, Martin Luther, Michael Burleigh, Paul Johnson, Peter Harris, premier christian radio, Ratlines, unbelievable
16/08/2011 at 21:35 |
Peter Harris emailed Justin and me on 16 August 2011 with this to say about David Robertson’s comments which were read out at the end of the second show, which he has kindly permitted to me to reproduce.
A response to David Robertson’s criticism
Dear Justin,
I have just had a chance to listen to the feedback to Ed and my debate regarding the propensity of religion to cause people to kill and noted with interest David Robertson’s characterisation of our debate as ‘a bit disappointing’. As an apologist, I do not always find Robertson’s style and tone of debating with atheists helpful to the Christian cause as it, and so thought I would respond to his comment.
The show was subtitled as a response to Anders Breivik’s mass killings, but it was titled ‘Does Religion make people kill?’ Robertson objected to the fact that the show dwelt too little on Breivik and wandered off the topic. You, Ed and I were also criticised for not discussing Breivik’s views more broadly and for omitting to discuss Breivik’s world of warcraft obsession, his racist ideology and his alleged use of drugs. In response, it is clear from the title of the programme that a broader discussion than just Breivik’s lunacy was in the offing. More, it became apparent early on in the debate that Ed and I had no disagreement over Breivik’s ‘philosophy’ and motivation, and that fundamental Christianity was not to blame. The programme therefore had to move on to a more general discussion as agreement does not make for good debate radio! Ed honourably asserted he did not wish to make any capital for the atheistic cause out of Breivik and this also hastened the conclusion of our discussion. In addition, as the news of Breivik was so new, it was difficult to provide an in depth assessment of this man’s views and lifestyle. At the time, those investigating his crime regarded Breivik as not wholly understood and the British press seemed to be having a difficult time delineating the lineaments of Breivik’s world view. Finally, I think both Ed and I did our best to provide an accurate picture of the eclectic picture of Brieivk’s outlook. I remember describing Breivik’s occulticism, Islamophobia, probable anti-Semitism thus his racism was addressed), knights-templarism and extreme right wing politics. Ed supplemented this characterisation by referring to Breivik’s abnormal psychology and rambling political document. To be criticised for not mentioning Breivik’s warcrafting and his alleged use of narcotics seems to be a strong and unfortunate case of nit-picking on Robertson’s part.
With best regards,
Peter Harris