|  New Posts
 
ReasonableFaith.org > Forums > Choose Your Own Topic > Q&A Dawkins vs Pell
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
troyjs
Posted 04/11/12 Reply with quote  #1 
In Australia, Dawkins and Cardinal Pell were matched in a question and answer format on the programme, 'Q&A'.


Did anyone else have the opportunity to watch it?
Jared
Posted 04/11/12 Reply with quote  #2 
Watching it now. I'm amused by the video description.

Quote:
Richard Dawkins and Catholic Cardinal George Pell discuss religion, morals and evolution on Q&A. (10-4-2012 ABC TV) Unfortunately, the audience was full of Cardinal Pell's catholic minions.
lucid
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #3 
Just watching this. 

The christians in the audience are utterly clueless and I can't believe the ignorance of some of the questions. That big bang guy at 21:00 even got an applause! 

Richard Dawkins comes across thoughtful and calm as usual. 
lucid
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #4 
For all of the straightforward and patient answers Richard gave to oftentimes silly questions, I found Pells responses to be kind of smug and almost belittling. 

And I can't stand the ignorant, incredulous laughs of the christians in the audience, It's like they'll laugh at anything they cant or don't understand. 

Oh sweet jesus, did you watch the bit about neanderthals at 30:00!? This Pell guy and his sheep are complete idiots. Poor Dawkins has to put up with this. 

Who the hell does Pell think he is, with his level of ignorance, to talk about human origins next to one of the worlds most well known evolutionary biologists?

Thats the problem with christians, they get their knowledge from other christians. 

Does anyone else here understand Pells theology of the soul being a "principle of life"? I've never heard this before, can you guys get your story straight on this issue? Do jellyfish have souls? 

Had a bit of a change of heart about the Cardinal when he said that it was certainly possible for an atheist to go to heaven. I think he's a guy who believes in morality first and foremost, but is just a bit misguided. 
troyjs
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #5 

Quote:
 

Thats the problem with christians, they get their knowledge from other christians. 

Does anyone else here understand Pells theology of the soul being a "principle of life"? I've never heard this before, can you guys get your story straight on this issue? Do jellyfish have souls? 
 
I get my understanding of science from attending a tertiary level institution, and from reading journals and books including Dawkins. -- yet, I am a Christian. It is true though, that many theologians are ignorant in regards to science. This is obviously not necessarily so, as there are those who are both theologians and phd scientists. Your point is taken though in regards to Pell.
 
As for the soul being the 'principle of life', it is not new, in that it has been written about for a long time. Basically, souls exist in degrees with respect to living organisms, the measure usually being the capacity for intelligence and belief.  There is the 'chain of being', which is more well known, and there is Chardin's theologico-evolutionary theory.
 
Pell is not 'ignorant' per se, in that he is very well read. He is ignorant in regards to science however -- not more ignorant than most atheists, but too ignorant to be regarded as a Church authority on science. Dawkins himself would tell us that there are many theologians who are very well informed when it comes to science.
 
kind regards
lucid
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs
 
I get my understanding of science from attending a tertiary level institution, and from reading journals and books including Dawkins. -- yet, I am a Christian. 


I was making the point that the many religious misunderstandings about science e.g the definition of a theory, come from creationist propaganda within the religion. I don't know about your particular case, but when christians repeatedly ask the question "Why are there still monkeys if we came from them?" it's not because they have a genuine scientific gripe with biology, it's because they were told it by some ignoramus in their crowd. If they, like you, read more journals and books I'm sure they'd be better informed. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs
As for the soul being the 'principle of life', it is not new, in that it has been written about for a long time. Basically, souls exist in degrees with respect to living organisms, the measure usually being the capacity for intelligence and belief.  There is the 'chain of being', which is more well known, and there is Chardin's theologico-evolutionary theory.

Is any of this testable?  
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs
Pell is not 'ignorant' per se, in that he is very well read. He is ignorant in regards to science however -- not more ignorant than most atheists, but too ignorant to be regarded as a Church authority on science. Dawkins himself would tell us that there are many theologians who are very well informed when it comes to science.
 
Yep. 
Rostos
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid
Just watching this. 

The christians in the audience are utterly clueless and I can't believe the ignorance of some of the questions. That big bang guy at 21:00 even got an applause! 

Richard Dawkins comes across thoughtful and calm as usual. 

 

Did you read the tweets down the bottom?

 

"Who made God"?, "Sky magic", "Santa and the Easter bunny are the same as God"....

 

And you say the Christians are clueless?

 

 
lucid
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #8 
Interesting to hear Pell also say that he cannot think of a god that would send children to hell. But then lot's of other christians tend to say otherwise, who's right? You're both worshipping very different gods...
Rostos
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid
Just watching this. 

The christians in the audience are utterly clueless and I can't believe the ignorance of some of the questions. That big bang guy at 21:00 even got an applause! 

Richard Dawkins comes across thoughtful and calm as usual. 

WHy, because they havent been tricked into believing something can come from nothing?
lucid
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #10 
Loved Dawkins response to the question about suffering at 50:00

This whole issue on suffering has the cardinal stumbling pretty badly. 

Pell: "The Jews, there was no reason why they should suffer" 

What? Is this guy a deist or a theist? 
Rostos
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid
Interesting to hear Pell also say that he cannot think of a god that would send children to hell. But then lot's of other christians tend to say otherwise, who's right? You're both worshipping very different gods...


If you listened "carefully", you would would hear him say that he doesnt know, its none of his business specifically is what he said.

 

That is exaclty what the bible says, that there is only one judge, and it aint Pell, you or i.

 

If you think you know your Christianity, you would be very quick to point out to Christians that when they are judging, are in fact going against Jesus' words
troyjs
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #12 

Quote:
 

Did you read the tweets down the bottom?

"Who made God"?, "Sky magic", "Santa and the Easter bunny are the same as God"....

And you say the Christians are clueless?


As a Christian, I am saddened by the ignorance of Christians. I am not surprised that atheists are ignorant when it comes to theology, as people in general tend not to care of their own ignorance. One can hardly keep from being annoyed when atheists ask questions they seem to believe are unanswerable. Dawkins himself asks the same sort of questions, which embarasses other more informed atheists. 

Quote:
WHy, because they havent been tricked into believing something can come from nothing? 

The Parmenidean and Leibnizian belief that something can not come from nothing, was believed by both atheists and theists -- and it is still believed by atheists and theists who are well read in philosophy. If a scientist wants to verify the claim that something can in fact come from nothing, the 'nothing' must be inferred rather than accounted for, but then the something is not explained. To explain the phenomenon of 'something' by invoking 'nothing', is to offer no explanation at all. In this sense, science can not verify that something can come from nothing. What can be observed or inferred however, a la Krauss, is the  phenomenon of particle-pairing. Namely, particly x + particle y is equivalent to physical nothingness. This physical nothingness is called nothing, because it can not be observed, weighed, or measured in the empirical sense. The fact of 'bounce' or 'reversion', seems to suggest that the 'nothing' exists as a sum of existing values because of the predictability of the 'popping' into existence of the particles.

kind regards
Rostos
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #13 

I found it funny how Dawkins accused Pell of God of the gaps, then in the next sentence, Dawkins says, that science doesnt know now, but it wll eventually.

 

So Science of the gaps is fine but God of the gaps isnt....?

 

Interesting
stevieg
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rostos

I found it funny how Dawkins accused Pell of God of the gaps, then in the next sentence, Dawkins says, that science doesnt know now, but it will eventually.

 

So Science of the gaps is fine but God of the gaps isnt....?

 

Interesting



I think you misunderstand, god of the gaps is saying that the areas we do not understand are explained by god while saying that we do not know is not putting anything in the gap. Going on to say that science will explain everything eventually i think is a bit premature as it may not be capable of explaining everything.

However science has a far better track record at explaining things than religion that explains nothing by merely saying god did it.
Rostos
Posted 04/12/12 Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rostos

I found it funny how Dawkins accused Pell of God of the gaps, then in the next sentence, Dawkins says, that science doesnt know now, but it will eventually.

 

So Science of the gaps is fine but God of the gaps isnt....?

 

Interesting



I think you misunderstand, god of the gaps is saying that the areas we do not understand are explained by god while saying that we do not know is not putting anything in the gap. Going on to say that science will explain everything eventually i think is a bit premature as it may not be capable of explaining everything.

Thats what Dawkins is suggesting, they dont know now, but they will. Its science of the gaps.

However science has a far better track record at explaining things than religion that explains nothing by merely saying god did it.

 

Better track record? Like what? Can science tell us why there is something rather than nothing? Can science tell us how life came from non life?

 

These are lifes deepest quesions which from a scientific point of view havent been asnwered the last thousands of years....and still havent today.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.