Naomi Reserve (Guest): If Easter Australia's
religious leaders invoke the name of God in order to preach peace, tolerance, political
Integrity, social and moral fortitude - all obviously positive and worthwhile values,
my question is, in what way is the practice of these values dependent on an
existing God? Is it possible for an atheist to be a peace-loving, socially
responsible person?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist): Well, obviously the
answer to that question is yes. I mean that could hardly be otherwise. It is
true that Christianity has adopted many of the best values of humanity but they
don't belong to Christianity or indeed to any other religion.
I think it would be very sad if it were true that
you really didn't need religion in order to be good. Because if you think about
it, what that would mean would be either that you get your morals and your
values from the Bible, or the Koran or some other holy book, or that you are
good only because you're frightened of God because you don't want to go to hell, or you do want to go to Heaven, now as forgetting your morals from the bible.
I very sincerely hope nobody does get their
morals from the Bible. It's true that you can find the occasional good verse
and the sermon on the mount would be one example but it's lost amid the awful
things that are dotted throughout the Old Testament and actually throughout the
New Testament as well because the fundamental idea of New Testament
Christianity, which is that Jesus is the Son of God, who is redeeming humanity
from original sin, the idea that we are born in sin and the only way we can be
redeemed from sin is through the death of Jesus.
I mean, that's a horrible idea. It's a horrible idea that God, this paragon of
wisdom and knowledge, power couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our
sins than to come down to earth in His alter ego as His son and have Himself
hideously tortured and executed so that He could forgive Himself.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well! Is that there's quite a few things that
might be said?
First of all, our tradition goes back about 4,000 years so
whatever these values are that we've taken over, we've got to go back a little
bit of a distance and it's interesting to look at pagan Rome.
Before there was
Christian influence, forty percent were slaves, men and women fought one
another to the death, this is the Circus Maximus of the Colosseum, women had no rights whatsoever, infanticide
was practiced regularly, the noble families didn't want baby girls.
Christianity changed that not perhaps by itself,
but largely and the Christian story where Christians when New testament people.
There was an evolution in the Old Testament. And there are some awful things
there. It developed the notion of God was purified as it went through the Old Testament.
Tony Jones (Host):
Can I can I just interrupt you just to bring you
to the point of the question which was really about whether Atheists can lead a
good life, and be good people and socially responsible and so on.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Absolutely accept that yeah absolutely. I think
it helps to believe in God because there's a polish Poet Milosz who says that the opium of the people today is the belief that they won't be
judged by God when they die, those who have committed great crimes and awful
things are going to get away with it and that the people who've suffered unjustly
had terrible lives. That's it.
Claire Bonner (Guest):
Religion is precisely often blamed for being the
root of war and conflict. But what about all the good it has done for our
society. God sent of religion has been the birthplace of schools, universities, hospitals
and countless developments in science as well.
Richard if you believe the human drive to seek
the truth and to constantly improve ourselves is merely as a mechanism for
survival, then what's the point? And why should I bother?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
It's an astonishing idea to say why should you
bother just because we have a scientific understanding of why we're here. We do
have a scientific understanding of why we're here, and we therefore have to
make up our own meaning to life. We have to find our own purposes in life which
are not derived directly from our scientific history.
When you say that Christianity has been
responsible for a lot of good, including science by the way, which is somewhat
ironic, I think that most of the great benefits in humanity such as the
abolition of slavery, such as the emancipation of women which the cardinal both
mentioned, both of these have been wrung out of. They are Christian history without much
support from Christianity.
I as an atheist, my friends as atheists, lead
thoroughly worthwhile lives, in our opinion because we stand up, look the world
in the face, face up to the fact that we are not going to last forever.
We have to make the most of the short time that
we have on this planet. We have to make this planet as good as we possibly can
and try to leave it a better place than we found it.
Rebecca Ray (Guest):
Without religion, where is the basis of our
values and in time will we perhaps revert back to Darwin's idea of survival of
the fittest?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
You can answer that now. Bring in caterpillar. I
very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning
our politics and our values and our way of life.
I've often
said that I'm a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist.
It's undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But
to live our lives in a Darwinian way to make a society a Darwinian
society. That would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It
will be a sort of Thatcher society and we want to mean in a way I feel that one
of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in
how not to set up our values and our social lives
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
It's interesting because I think in the space of
about two minutes, Richard has said two different things. If one of which is
that science can't tell us why we're here, and then in the next minute trying
to say that it does.
No no. I said it can tell us why we're here.
I can't.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Well, I simply contradict you in that case.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well what would, what is the reason that science
gives? Why we're here? Science tells us how things happens? Science tells us
nothing about why there was the Big Bang, why there is a transition from
inanimate matter to living matter. Science is silent on we could solve most of
the questions in science. And it would leave all the problems of life almost
completely untouched.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Why be good? There are quite a widely goods, a
separate question which I also came to why we exist.
You're playing with the
word why their science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that
lead to our existence. Now why in any further sense than that why the sense of
purpose is in my opinion not a meaningful question. You cannot ask a question
like why do mountains just as though mountains have some kind of purpose? What you can say is what are the causal factors
that lead to the existence of mountains and the same with life and the same
with the universe.
Now science over the centuries has gradually
pieced together, answers to those questions why in that sense. It's true that
there are still some gaps. But surely Cardinal you're not going to fall for the
god of the gaps.
Stop saying that that religion is going to fill
in those gaps which science has so far not yet answered.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
No, I'm not going to be diverted at all. I'm
happy to come back to that. Yeah
It's part of being human to ask why we exist. Questioning
distinguishes us from the animals. It's there to ask why we're here, so I
repeat and this is a common place in science, sir, has nothing to say about
that as whatever it might say about mountains. It can't say what is the purpose
of human life and it's not Maggie Thatcher who was in the epitome or the
personification of social Darwinism, it's Hitler and Stalin. Because it's the struggle of a for survival. The
strong take what they can and the weak give what they must and there's nothing
to restrain them and we've seen that in the two great atheist movement of the
last century.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
That is ridiculous. Nice, unbiased audience, then go get another
way. Right next let's clearly distinguish to that two things here first.
Atheism had nothing to do with Hitler or Stalin.
Stalin was an atheist, Hitler was not. It doesn't matter what they were with
respect to atheism. They did their horrible things for entirely different
reasons.
Now, you are right when you say that aspects of
what Hitler tried to do could be regarded as arising out of Darwinian natural
selection. That's exactly why I said that I despise Darwinian natural selection
as a motto for how we should live.
I tried to
say we should not live by Darwinian principles but Darwinian Principles
explain, how we got here and why we exist in the scientific sense.
Now Cardinal, you said it's part of human nature to want to ask
the question why in the sense of purpose. It may very well be part of human nature,
but that doesn't make it a valid question. There are all sorts of questions which
you can ask.
Okay, there are lots of questions pertaining this.
We will. The question why is not necessarily a question that deserves to be
answered. There are all sorts of questions that people can ask like what is the
color of jealousy. That's a silly question exactly. Why is a silly question you can ask? What are
the factors that led to something coming into existence? That's a sensible question. But what is the
purpose of the universe is a silly question. It has no meaning.
Paul Hanrahan (Guest):
My question is for Richard Dawkins. You're on the
record as saying something you can't prove that God doesn't exist and you say
you're agnostic rather than a theistic.
Why do you appear as the champion of atheism
around the world while you accept offers to appear as the champion of atheism
and why you so evangelical in the prosecution of your cause. Isn't that a touch
uncritical and unscientific?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
In the God Delusion, I made a seven-point scale.
One is I'm totally confident, there is a God, certainly as I'm totally confident
there is not a god. Six is to all intents and purposes.
I'm an atheist. I live my life as though there is
no God. But any scientist of any sense will not say that they positively can
disprove the existence of anything.
I cannot disprove the existence of the Easter
bunny, and so I'm agnostic about the Easter bunny. It's in the same respect
that I'm agnostic about God
Tony Jones (Host):
So what proof by the way would change your mind?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
That's a very difficult and interesting question
because I mean I’m used to think that if somehow, you know great big giant, nine
hundred feet high.
Jesus with a voice like Paul ropes and suddenly
strode in and said I exist here I am. But even that I actually sometimes
wonder whether that....
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
I think you're a loose lady.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
I agree!
Tony Jones (Host):
Or can I just put the question to you? Could you
ever provide Richard Dawkins with the sort of proof he requires to believe
scientific proof of the existence of God?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
No because I think he only accepts proof that is
rooted in sensed experience. In other words, he excludes the world of
metaphysics , the principle of contradiction and he excludes the possibility of
arguments that don't go against reason, but go beyond it.
But could I make one little suggestion as
to why Richard calls himself an atheist? Because in one of his blogs in 2002, he
was discussing whether he's an agnostic or a non-theist. He said he prefers to
use the term atheist because it’s more explosive, it's more dynamic. You can do.
You can shake people up. Whereas if you're just going around saying that you're
an agnostic or a non- theist.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
I don't remember saying that it's.... It wouldn't
totally surprised me. It's a tuneless into thousands an ongoing issue. What's
the best way that that there is a problem with the word atheist, but especially
in America. I don't know whether it's true in Australia.
There's a lovely woman. I'm blocking on her name
because I'm jet-lagged. She's Irish American. Will in anybody already helped me
know quite a few Irish Americans? I do apologize apparently daughter getting
her name. She's an actress and she's got a...She did a film on how she escaped from the Roman Catholic church,
and it's a very moving film and at the end her mother discovered that she was an atheist and
her mother phoned her up and said well I don't mind you not believing in God, but an
atheist
Her name's Julia, Sweeney, so it's that suddenly
come back to me.
I strongly recommend that now. The point is that
the word atheist unlike Joseph did not believing in God, has bad connotations, so
to some extent people have wished to. Depart from that and change the name to
non-theist or secularist or non-believer.
And I waver back and forth as to what's the best
name to use. I sometimes call myself an atheist, sometimes a non-theist and
sometimes just a non-believer.
Tony Jones (Host):
Can I just come back to you on this question of
the existence of God? Why would God randomly decide to provide proof of His
existence to a small group of Jews 2,000 years ago and not subsequently provide
any proof after that?
Well ,I don't think there ever been any scientific
proof. I don't believe God does anything randomly although He might set up a
system which works apparently through route, through chance, through random
center.
But if you want to get something, if you want
something done, you've got to ask somebody, it's no good.
Say my asking and connor everyone in the
congregation. Will you do something?
Normally you go to a busy person because you know
they'll do it and so for some extraordinary reason God chose the Jews. They
weren't intellectually the equal of either the Egyptians or the intellectual
apparently.
Tony Jones (Host):
How can you know intellectually?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Because you see the fruits of their civilization?
Egypt was the great power for thousands of years. Before Christianity, Persia
was a great power Chaldea, the poor, the little Jewish people than they
originally Shepherds, they were stuck there. They still started.
Tony Jones (Host):
That's when these are a reflection of your
intellectual capacity is that whether or not you're a shepherd
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well, No, it's not but it's a recognition. It is
a reflection of your intellectual development. I'd like many many people are very very clever
and not highly intellectual but my point is so.
Tony Jones (Host):
Can I just interrupt, are you including Jesus in
that who obviously was Jewish and was of that community?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Exactly!
Tony Jones (Host):
So intellectually not up to it?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well, that's that's nice try Tony.
He, people in terms of sophistication, the Psalms are remarkable in terms of their
buildings and that sort of thing they don't compare with the great was the great powers. But Jesus came not as a philosopher to the elite.
he came to the poor and the battlers. And for some reason He chose a very difficult, but actually, they are now and intellectually I'll
eat.
Because over the centuries they've been pushed
out of every other form of work. Clara I mean Jesus. I think is the greatest. Some of the son of God, but leaving that aside
the greatest man that ever lived. So I've got a great admiration for the Jews, but
we don't need to exaggerate their contribution in their early days.
Andrew
Watson in Blackburn, Victoria (Guest):
Question for Richard Dawkins. The Big Bangers believe that once there was
nothing then suddenly poof. The universe was created from a big bang. if I have nothing in the palm of my hand, close my fingers, speak the word bang, then
open my fingers again, still I find there is nothing there.
I ask you to explain to us in Layman's terms how it is that something as enormous as the
universe's came from nothing?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Well, obviously you're not a physicis and nor am I. And I am delighted to say that
during my time in Australia I shall]be having a number of conversations,
public conversations with my colleague Lawrence Krauss, including one in the Sydney Opera House.
Later, I think it's next week. And he's written a book on exactly that topic
of how you can get something from nothing and I shall be questioning him about that. of course it's
counterintuitive. You can get something from nothing.
Of course
common sense doesn't allow you to get something from nothing. That's why it's
interesting. It's got to be interesting in order to give rise
to the universe at all.
Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to
the origin of the universe. Now if you want to replace, if you want to replace
a physical explanation by an intelligent God, that's an even worse explanations even more
difficult explanation.
What scientists are trying to do is to explain how you can get not just something
but the immense complexity of the world of
the universe and of life and science is making a pretty good fist of doing
that.
Life is now completely solved barring the
details. That was Darwin's contribution and Darwin's successors.
Physicists are still working on the origin of the
cosmos. among them is Lawrence Krauss whom I I should be talking to next week.
Now it is very mysterious how the universe came into
being it's a deeply mysterious an interesting question.
Tony Jones (Host):
Canada [draft] is an old question, a very old question. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th
century was asking the same question. He said there must
have been a time when no physical things existed. But something can't come from nothing that was
his view it's just local seeded liars.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Something can come from nothing and that's what
physicists are now telling us.
I could give you what you asked me to give you a
layman's interpretation. It would be a very very layman's interpretation when
you have matter and antimatter and you put them together. They cancel each other out and give rise to
nothing.
What Lawrence Krauss is now suggesting is that if
you start with nothing the process can go into reverse. Produce matter and antimatter, the theory is still being worked out.
It's a very difficult theory mathematical theory.
I'm not qualified to answer the question, but what I am sure about, is that it
most certainly is not solved by postulating and intelligence a creative
intelligence who raises even bigger questions of his own
existence that certainly is not going to be the answer whatever else is.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
But the trouble, well, there are many troubles with Richards teachings, but a fundamental one is that he dumbs
down. God and he soup sup nothing
He Continually talks as though. God is some sort
of app market figure within space and time. Now from 450-500 BC where with the Greek philosophers,
God is outside space and time. God is necessary self-sufficient uncaused, unconditioned. That's the hypothesis you've got to wrestle with the second thing is that Krauss says nothing about the Big Bang coming out of nothing, and the admittedly, he comes clean about six pages from the end of his book and I don't
know where the Richard has read at that far because he gave it a forward.
What he says is what he, what the Richard is
describing is nothing, is a sort of a mixture of particles and perhaps a vacuum with
electromagnetic forces working on it. That's what krauss is talking about under the heading of
nothing and there's a very good review of this in the New York times, not a pro religious paper at all.
Where the cross is absolutely denied and demolished although especially by either his supporters claiming that
he says things come out of nothing. He doesn't say that.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
It's a quickly responded looking to dispute
exactly what what's meant by nothing, but whatever it is. It's very very
simple. I mean
[AUDIENCE LAUGH]
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Why is that funny?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well, I think it's a bit funny to be trying to define nothing.
Tony Jones (Host):
Well can I put that to you as a question? Is it is
it equally feasible since you can't prove the existence of
God that the nothing you're talking about is in fact some creative force?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
If you talk about a God who is a creative intelligence, then that is something very complicated and very
improbable and something that requires explaining in its own, right?
The nothing that Lawrence Krauss is talking about whether or not it's what a naive person would
conceive as nothing or what a sophisticated, Physicist would to be nothing. It is
going to be something much much simpler than a creative intelligence.
We are struggling. We're all struggling scientists are struggling to
explain wow we get the fantastic order and complexity of the universe
out of very simple and therefore easy to understand easy to explain beginnings.
Lawrence Krauss calls the Hartley the substrate of his
explanation nothing. It's possible to dispute whether nothing is quite
the right word, but whatever it is, it is very very simple and therefore is a worthy premise for an explanation.
Whereas a God a creative intelligence is not a
worthy substrate for an explanation because it is already something very complicated and it's no good invoking Thomas Aquinas and
saying that God is defined as outside time and space. That's just a cop out. That's just an evasion of the responsibility to
explain. That's just setting out what you want to prove
before you've even started.
Joe Blades (GUEST)):
As a young Catholic Scientist I'd like to ask the Cardinal to clarify the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution and comment on whether the dichotomy between science
and religion is in fact real.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well, science and religion are two different activities and in the Catholic church you can believe to some extent what you like
about evolution.
I Think Darwin made a great contribution to it. I remember talking with Julius Kornberg a very
distinguished biologists, and he's worked with ants for years and he said you know he's managed to change them
by changing the conditions.
But there are a number of things that evolution doesn't explain. Darwin realized that Talan was a theist because he said he couldn't believe that the immense cosmos and all the beautiful
things in the world came about either by chance or out of necessity. He said I have to be ranked as a Theist now.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
It's just not true.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Excuse me. It's on page 92 of his autobiography.
Tony Jones (Host):
Can I just bring you in a sense to the point of
the question. Do you accept that humans evolved from ape?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Yeah, probably from the and ethel's yes, whether here.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
But in the end the source!
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Probably
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Why from the animal?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
What, well to who else do would you suggest?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Neanderthals were our cousins. We,re not descended
from them and we're both descended from...
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
These are these extant cousins. Weird. While I find a neanderthal today if they're my cousin.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
They're not extant. They're extinct.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Exactly
that's my point!
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Your point is that because they're not it, but
because they're extent they can't be our cousins.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
I really not much fast.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
That's a clear...
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Something in the evolutionary story seems to have
come before human a lot of people say it secure.
Tony Jones (Host):
Can we say this humans you accept that humans
involved from non-human?
So let me put this to you as a question at what
point in this evolutionary scale was a soul imparted to the humans from God?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Look! A soul
isn't, it's not like putting a spotted gin and tonic. Yeah, the soul is the principle of life so whenever there was a principle of life that could question that could
be open to or it was able to communicate, then we had the first human.
Now, we believe that
the first humans developed in South Africa. I'm not quite sure how
long ago and that all humans have developed from that will be no most about that there aren't remains we know most about that because of the
drawings they left on balls and caves and that sort of thing.
No such thing from Neanderthals. So we can't say exactly when there was a first
human. But we have to say if there are humans, there must
be have been the first one that might have been equal first.But if there is a progression, they've got to be
first,
Tony Jones (Host):
So when are you talking about a kind of Garden in
Eden scenario with actual Adam and Eve?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well! What Adam and Eve terms? What do they mean life
and earth? It's like every man. That's a beautiful sophisticated and mythological account. It's not science, but it's there to tell
us two or three things.
First of all, that God created the world and the universe. Secondly, that the key to the whole of universe
the really significant thing humans. And thirdly, it's a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the
suffering.
Tony Jones (Host):
But it isn't a literal truth. You shouldn't see it in any way as being in
historical or literal truth.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
It's certainly not a scientific truth and It's, it's a religious story told for religious
purpose.
Tony Jones (Host):
And just just quickly, because the Old Testament in particular is full
of these kind of stories, I mean, is there a point where you distinguish
between metaphor and reality, for example, Moses receiving the Ten Commandments inscribed directly by God on a mountain?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
I'm not sure that the Old Testament says that God
inscribed the ten commandments. But leaving that aside. It's difficult to know
how exactly that work, but there Moses was a great
man. There was a great encounter with the divine. Actually with Moses, we get the key that Britain ables us to come
together with the Greeks with reason because Moses said whom I tell the Egyptians, and he said tell that my name is I am who I am.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Well, I'm curious to know if Adam and Eve never existed. Where did original sin come
from? But I also would like to clarify the point about whether there ever was a first human. If that's a
rather difficult and puzzling question because we know that the previous species from which
we're descended is probably homo erectus and before
that some sort of australopithecine.
But there never was a last homo erectus who gave
birth to the first homo sapiens. Every creature ever born belonged to the same
species as its parents the process of evolution is so gradual that you can
never say, aha, now suddenly we have the first human.
It was always a case of just as slightly
different from the previous generation. That's a scientific point which I think
is quite interesting. I'm not sure of it has a theological significance
except that I think successive Popes have tried to suggest that the soul did indeed get added rather like gin
Tonic at some particular point during evolution.
At some point in evolution, there was no soul, and then later there was one
so it is quite an interesting question to ask now
we have rather a good fossil record from Africa of the descent of humans from australopithecines to various species of Homo perhaps Homo, Habilis perhaps Homo erectus, then archaic homo sapiens, and then Modern homo
Sapiens, and what point did the soul get injected? And what does the idea of original sin mean if
Adam and Eve never existed?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well. I mean God wasn't running around giving
injections. And if there is no first person women.
Tony Jones (Host):
Where did this all come from? Then the soul is a
prince evolution.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
There are animals souls dude. Dude if are all living
things have some principle of life, an animal as a principle of life a human has a
soul a principle of language is immensely more sophisticated.
We even have a voice box so that which is one the
great miracles. So that we can communicate our thoughts to one
another rather than just grunting
Dennis in Ferntree gully Victoria(Guest):
My question is for George Pell. George as a climate-change skeptic, you demand a very high standard of evidence to
support the hypothesis that global warming has an anthropogenic cause. My question is, why then do not demand the same
standard of evidence for the existence of God?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
I'm very very happy to answer that. First of all, I'm not a skeptic about climate change. I grew up in Ballarat the weather
was always. I worked for years in Melbourne. You don't like the weather in Melbourne, wait 20
minutes. Think of all the nonsense people like flannery
told us. God! Years of drought here in our car. We're coping with flood.
Tony Jones (Host):
So you know it's a grouch a nice fire that you're
a skeptic about global warming to climate chill.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
I'm a skeptical of a skeptical about the human contribution to dangerous climate change, I
think that is not establishe.
Tony Jones (Host):
And it is....Sorry! Iis that because you're skeptical about
scientific consensus? It is that partly either by what
scientists believe about religion?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
No no no. Got nothing to do with it on the
under weather question I go on the evidence. When you come to talk about God, that is not a scientific question the
scientists concede that t is a question that is open. I believe to
reason you have to reason about the facts of science.
Ask whether you believe that the suggestion that
you know random selection is sufficient and also most evolutionary. Biologists today don't believe that…
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Don't believe what?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
They don't
believe in random so this crude fundamentalist version of
random selection that you propos.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
I do not propose it. And I strongly deny that that evolution is random
selection. Evolution is non random selection.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
There's a purpose to others day
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
No!
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Good good. Could you explain what non-random
means:
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Yes of
course I could as my life's work. There's random genetic variation and non-random
survival and and a non-random reproduction which is why as the generations go by. Animals get
better at doing what they do that is quintessentially non-Random. It does not mean there's a purpose in
the sense of a human purpose in the sense of a guiding principle which is thought up in advance with hindsight. You
can say something like a bird's wing looks as though it has a purpose, a human eye looks as though it has a purpose, but it has come about through
the process of non-random natural selection.
There is no purpose in the human sense. There's a
kind of pseudo purpose, but it's not a purpose in the human sense of conscious guiding. But above all, I must stress that
Darwinian evolution is a non-random process. One of the biggest misunderstandings, I'm sorry to say, the cardinals just perpetrated is that there are some is that
evolution is a random process it is the opposite of a random process.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Yes. That that's that is fascinating because most
evolutionary biologists today believe that the animal world is developing according to patterns which when we
starting to know more and more about them and…
Tony Jones (Host):
Are you referring to intelligent design?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
No. I'm
not. I'm leaving that right to one side.
Tony Jones (Host):
I do believe in intelligent Design. I believe
if there's an intelligent designer.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
I believe God is intelligen.
Tony Jones (Host):
It's obviously a loaded question,
but you believe in intelligent design. I will do an intelligent designer.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
It all
depends what you mean, I believe God created the world. I'm not entirely sure
ow it works out scientifically, but I wonder, you know, whether Richard believes that the order the patterns we see in nature whether they are real or whether
they're an illusion?
Matthew Thompson and 21 Victoria (Guest):
I'm an atheist. What do you think will happen
when I die and how do you know?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well I know from the Christian point of view God
loves everybody. That every genuine motion towards the truth is
emotion towards God and when atheist dies, like everybody else, they'll be
judged on the extent to which they have moved towards goodness and truth and
beauty.
But in the Christian view God loves everyone except
those who turn his back turned, their back on Him through evil act.
Tony Jones (Host):
Also atheism not an evil act.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
No, I
don't most cases. It's not so many on this lady.
Tony Jones (Host):
I guess did to get to the point of the
question I suppose. I mean he made having a little wager here, but is
it possible for an atheist to go to heaven.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well, it's not my business, no, but I love...
Tony Jones (Host):
You're the only authority we have here.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Oh, I would tell you certainly yeah certainly.
Tony Jones (Host):
And just this on the subject of heaven if we can
what is your own concept of what heaven is.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well even Paul was severely agnostic, but one one way in which the Christians differ from the Greeks, the Greeks
believed in the immortality of the soul, we Christians believe with one section of the
Jewish people.
In the resurrection of the body so in some sense,
we will be there as continuing persons in some with a new heaven and a new earth with all
the good things that we've done will be iccorporated into the New Heaven and New Earth. How to work out I don't know because I think physically and
morally and intellectually or at our peak at different stages in our life. Now it'll work out. I've got no idea but that's that's the the
general outline.
Tony Jones (Host):
You think about it as a kind of collection of
individual souls. In fact obviously billions and billions of individual souls
with their own personality existing
Galactic spac.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
That I think, that's a traditional, well, that's certainly the traditional Christian view,
it's the view that I accept and it's also the view of some of the Jews.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
I know me, I..
Tony Jones (Host):
Just kind of, say, this if you if you're actually
an agnostic. And you keep aside the small portion of your
brain for subsequent proof. I mean you might get presented with that proof
when you die.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
The Brain is what we do our thinking with the
brain is going to rot. That's that's that's all there is to it. I'm intrigued by the Cardinals saying that the
Christians believe you're going to be resurrected in the body. I mean that's an astonishing that I idea, and I don't believe you really mean that all right and I think just just as I don't believe you really mean that
the wafer turns into the body of Christ you must mean
body in some rather special sense.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Mr. Dawkins, I don't say things I don't mean.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Do you need...
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
I'll tell you and I've just explained what the bodily resurrection means to the extent that I can
understand it. I certainly believe that when the words of
consecration
uttered that they become the body and blood of
Christ.
Now I had a little kid came up to me when that was
explained and say can I have a look in the chalice the seabirds turned to blood. And of course it hasn't we we don't believe that it's naughty.
Against reason, I believe it because I believe
the Man who told us that was also the Son of God. He says this is My body. This is My blood and I'd
much prefer to listen to Him and take His word than yours.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
But other...but other Christian denominations are
quite happy to take that as a symbolic metaphorical meaning. Catholics take it as a literal meaning and I take
it. I'm trying to be charitable by trying to suggest
that it's that same sense in which you say that the body is resurrected because the body is certainly not
resurrected in terms of the cell the protoplasm the proteins the DNa. That doesn't happen anymore than the wafer turns into
into that you're you're right when you said that that to the child so you do not mean that the
wafer turns into the body in any sense in which normal English language usage would understand. You made it in some other sense
and I take it. It's that same sense that the body is resurrected
Tony Jones (Host):
Well can I can I ask you whether you do mean it
in a metaphorical sense of the same way you believe I don't know?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
I don't reaches. I don't. I follow it I understand it according to a system of metaphysics was spelled
out by the Greeks before Christ came in which we've adopted and that is there's a substance which is the core of a being and it is revealed to us to what are
called accidents now.
I believe that the core of the bane becomes the the bread becomes the body and blood of Christ. Eve continues to look exactly as it was. We believe that in the Catholic is now. I know
you're a cultural anglican and we can't blame me.
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
I'm also a
rationalist. I mean, I mean I I use English is my native
language. The wafer does not become the body of anybody in the English languag.e
Tony Jones (Host):
Okay. No, I think we resolved that. We both will do you both disagree on this point
rather substantially? Let's go to our next question which is from Michael Matty.
Michael Matty (Guest):
Is it okay to tell a child that God doesn't
exist?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
I Think it's okay to tell a child the truth. What I, but I would prefer to encourage a child to make up her own mind and to
think about the evidence and to believe things when there is
evidence what I think is not.
Okay. What I think is deeply immoral is to tell a child
that when she dies if she's not good, she's going to go to hell, that seems to me to be
mental child abuse and an utter disgrace.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
I remember when I was in England. We were
preparing some young English boys there from Vera preparing them for first communion and they were very patriotic young lads and one of them announced very breezily to me that he
didn't believe in Hell and I mean certainly the idea of any child being sent
to hell. I agree that that is Grotesque, and that's not the Christian. God, but anyhow
this this can I said to cure. This kid I said simply, do you think Hitler might be in hell? Started the second world war, caused the death of
50 million, what would you prefer a system where Hitler got
away with it for free?
Anyhow the little kid was quite patriotic Anita.
You realized Hell was in with a chance. If Hitler was going together.
Tony Jones (Host):
What have what about a system where he was simply
obliterated and didn't exist anymore?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well, if we were to go away with too much as far
as I'm concerned.
Tony Jones (Host):
So so you actually in what prefer the idea of
hell is a place of punishment for but to who? Where do you draw the line to unbelievers go to.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
No? No no the only people well one. I hope
nobody's in hell
We catholics generally believed that there
is a hell. I hope nobody's there. I certainly believe in a place of
purification. I think it'll be like getting up in the morning. And you throw the curtains back the light is just
too much God's light would be too much for us. But I believe on behalf of the innocent victims in history that
the scales of justice should work out, and if they don't life is radically unjust, the law of the jungle
prevails.
Tony Jones (Host):
Nick Walsh (Guest):
How can there be a compassionate God who is all
powerful and has created us yet we suffer? Why create such a world in the first place?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
Well, it's hardly my business to say how could a
compassion that God like that exist. Darwin himself said it was impossible for him to believe in a God who was capable of creating such suffering
. He actually was talking about suffering in the animal Kingdom.
Tony Jones (Host):
Do you assume that suffering is a natural part of
the human condition?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
It's a natural part of the of the living
condition. It's a natural part of Darwinian natural selection which is one of the reasons why I was so keen to just to say that I didn't want to live by
Darwinian principles.
There is massive amount of suffering in the
natural world, a huge amount of suffering and it seems to me
that's an almost inevitable consequence of Darwinian natural selection.
I'm more interested however in what's true than
in what I would like to be true. It would be very nice if they were no suffering
in the world. It would be very nice if there were a sort of natural scale of justice as
the cardinal was saying but I'm more interested in what's true.
So it's not the business of an atheist to justify
the ways of God to man. It is the business of a cardinal.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
I think that it's probably the hardest question
for us to answer. You struggle with it. Yes, if I get a chance to say, to ask a question when I die, I think I lost a
good God why is there so much suffering?
That's a problem for us. I think the greater
problem for them, and they'll come back to the question because it's a very
good one. That's at the heart of what we're about. I think
it's a much greater problem for the atheist to explain why there is goodness and truth and beauty.
Our problem is to cope with suffering. Now one of the One of the unique, I think it will certainly
special features of Christian teaching is the value of
redemptive suffering and that is the significance of Christ's suffering
with us and dying on the cross and that helps, that helps people.
My first Easter after I was a priest was in the
hills in Italy, very sad village. All the men were away in
Germany or Switzerland getting big money home only for three weeks a year and people were coming in, coming to confession, coming
for consolation. I was even wetter behind the years than I am now. I didn't know what to say and eventually I said to someone, well look Christ
suffered, to Christ had a bad run, and Christ died on the cross and we believe that
through His suffering good will eventually triumph.
Tony Jones (Host):
Can I take it to a bigger level than that village
to the holocaust, to genocide, to famine? if there is an Omnipotent and All-powerful God, why does He let these things happen?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
That's a very good question. But if God is going to allow us to be good. He's
got to give us freedom. There's no, there's no alternative to that an...
Tony Jones (Host):
But they chose to intervene at different times in
history to save the Jews when they're going over the river Jordan. I mean, there are many times when apparently God is intervened in biblical times. Why not now?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well, that's I think revelation is complete that's
a mighty question. He helped probably through secondary causes for the Jews to escape and and continue.
It's interesting through these secondary
causes probably know people in history have been
punished the way the Germans were. It's a terrible, It's a terrible Mr.. Haley.
Tony Jones (Host):
There'd be a very strong argument saying the Jews
of Europe suffered worse than the Germans.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Yes that, that's, that might that might be right certainly the
suffering and both.
I mean Jews, there was no reason why law that
they should suffer.
Tony Jones (Host):
Okay? I'm just gonna. We're running out of time. I'm gonna go to another question. It's] on a
different subjects from Anita Blue.
Anita Blue (Guest):
Jesus, Priests, preaches love thy neighbor as
thyself, so Cardinal Pell how can you be against giving our
gain neighbors marriage rights when equality and respect are the fundamental
foundations of loving and spreading love?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Well, it's quite misleading and quite unfair to
suggest that Christians say hate homosexuals. Christians love everybody. We believe that marriage is between a man and a
woman, that it is for the continuity of the human race. We believe that men and women are made for one another spiritually, psychologically, physically. We believe that men and women, is a father
with their children is far and away the best and most efficient and most economical system to bring up
children. And governments should support it for homosexual couple to have a union.
Well and good, there's no reason why [that] can't
be.
Tony Jones (Host):
I just need to pose a quick question on this we are running out of
time. I mean do you believe that homosexuality since it's not a question of choice is part of
God's natural order.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Oh, creations messy. That I think it's the oriental carpet makers
always leave a little flaw in their capital because I need God's perfect.
Tony Jones (Host):
But I gave it, you suggesting that homosexuals are
flawed human beings and....
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Not necessarily. But what I am saying is I don't think
homosexual activity is simply the result of genetic makeup because we
are free. We can control our instincts and like we're heredity and environment
a lot of this practice is learned but whatever about it and we've got to
try to support these people. Show compassion. The Catholic Church is a great record there. We
look after my HIV sufferers than any other non-government organization, but we don't believe it's possible
to have homosexual marriage.
Tony Jones (Host):
I'm going
to we're almost out of time. We've got time for one more question that both of
our guests can answer, from Catherine Shed.
Catherine Shed (Guest):
As an atheist, profess Dawkins do you believe that believing in God for emotional support should be allowed even
temporarily? Research has proven that people who believe in
God has a better chance of surviving terminal illnesses such as cancer as well as I'm leaving longer when they go to church, so
do you think that believing in God it's beneficial for our well-being even if God is
an illusion?
Richard Dawkins (Atheist):
It's perfectly possible that as you say believing
in God has benefit beneficial effects upon health. It's possible that you're less likely to suffer a
duodenal ulcer or something of that sort, but I do have to stress, I mean that's an utterly trivial argument
compared to the the truth of whether the God actually exists or not.
That's a really big question. It's an important
question one that the Cardinal I would would agree on and if there is some minor benefit to health one way or the other the
evidence is not good by the way but even bending over backwards to suggest that
the evidence is there that psychosomatic illness may be healed, may be alleviated somewhat by a belief in God. Psychosomatic medicine is well known placebos
work. If God is simply a placebo, that's fine, but
I'm interested in whether He's actually there.
Tony Jones (Host):
Okay, got another final word.
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
That is so my...It's a question of truth Christian's don't
present God is like Santa Claus. Something that myth. That's useful for four children and believing in Garden being a Christian cuts both
ways.
More people were killed for their Christian belief
in the last century than any other century probably than all the other
centuries combined. They died on principle to be faithful to Jesus so
we might get some benefits we don't might and get ulcers. We might live a
bit longer. Bed might have much more to do with our heredity but we follow Christ because we believe it's the
truth.
I think it does bring a peace of mind that it
does help us but sometimes it gets us into. My life would be much simpler and much easier. If
I didn't have to go to bat for a number of Christian principles.
Tony Jones (Host):
Have you ever regretted that you do?
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
Sometimes I wonde.
Tony Jones (Host):
Seriously!
Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell:
No. no. no.
Tony Jones (Host):
Okay, that's all we have time for tonight, but before
we go, let's check the final results of tonight's quanda vote with more than 20,000 of you voting, we have a seventy-six percent saying no religious belief
does not make the world where this belief does not make the world a better
place
REFLECTION:
Taken from one's personal
lifestyle, choice of habits, relationship with neighbors and loved ones,
attitude towards corporate or government commitment, can it be possible to
atheist inherit God's kingdom and can it also be possible for some Christians
not to inherit it? Why? Drawn from your personal, what are the inadequacies
that you could spot on from these communities?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment