Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Good evening and welcome to Q and A.
I'm Tony Jones and answering your questions tonight:
world renowned evolutionary biologist
and author of The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
and - wait a minute.
Hold your applause just for a moment.
And Australia's most senior Catholic Church man,
the Archbishop of Sydney - Cardinal George Pell.
Please welcome our special guests.
Okay. Q and A is live from 9:35 Eastern Time
and simulcast on News 24 and News Radio.
Go to our website to send a question
or join the Twitter conversation
using the hash tag on your screen
and stay tuned for the chance to join QandaVote.
You can register on your smart phone
or smart device at the address on the screen.
The address is qanda.vote - qandavote.tv, I should say.
Our first question tonight comes from Naomi Roseth.
At 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, let's start with you.
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 any other religion.
I think it would be very sad if it were true
that you really did 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 Quran 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 for getting your morals from the Bible,
I very sincerely hope nobody does get their morals from the Bible.
Itís true that you can find the occasional good verse
and the Sermon on the Mount would be one example,
but itís lost amid the awful things
that are dotted throughout the Old Testament
and actually throughout the New Testament as well
because the idea -
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 thatís a horrible idea.
Itís 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.
Okay, let's go to George Pell on that.
Well, thereís quite a few things that might be said.
First of all our tradition goes back about 4000 years
so whatever these values are
that weíve taken over, weíve got to go back a little bit of a distance
and itís interesting to look at Pagan Rome before there was Christian influence.
Forty per cent was slaves.
Men and women fought one another to the death in,
you know, the Circus Maximus or 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
we're Christians, we're New Testament people.
There was an evolution in the Old Testament.
There are some awful things there.
It developed. The notion of God
was purified as it went through the Old Testament.
Can I just interrupt you
just to bring you to 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.
You accept that?
Yeah, absolutely.
I think it helps to believe in God
because - thereís a Polish poet, Milosh,
who says that the *** of the people today
is the belief that they won't be judged by God when they die,
those who have committed great crimes,
done awful things
are going to get away with it
and that the people who have suffered unjustly,
had terrible lives, thatís it.
Okay, let's move quickly to our second question.
Itís from Clare Bonner.
Religion is precisely often blamed for being the root of war and conflict
but what about all the good it has done for society.
God-centred religion has been the birth place 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 a mechanism for survival,
then whatís the point and why should I bother?
Itís 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 rung out of our 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.
Now, to some degree youíve already answered this but there is a follow-up question.
Iím going to go to that now. It's from Rebekah Ray.
Okay, my question for you today is:
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, you can answer that and Iíll bring in Cardinal Pell.
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 have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian
when it comes to explaining why we exist.
Itís 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 would be a sort of Thatcherite society
and we want to - I 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.
George Pell.
Well, itís interesting because I think in the space of about two minutes,
Richard has said two different things,
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.
That can't.
Well, I simply contradict you in that case.
Well, 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 ***.
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.
Why be good?
There are... Why be good is a separate question,
which I also came to.
Why we exist,
you're playing with the word "why" there.
Science is working on the problem of
the antecedent factors that lead to our existence.
Now, "why" in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose
is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question.
You cannot ask a question like
"Why do mountains exist?"
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.
Itís true that there are still some gaps
but surely, Cardinal, you aren't going to fall for the God of the gaps trap
in saying that religion is going to fill in
those gaps which science has so far not yet answered.
No, Iím not going to be diverted at all.
I am happy to come back to that.
We will be coming back to it
because I know there are questions that relate to some of the bigger issues you're talking about
but you can respond and then we'll move onto our next question.
- I hope Iíll be allowed to. - You certainly will. - Thanks.
Itís part of being human to ask why we exist.
Questioning distinguishes us from the animals.
To ask why we're here,
I repeat and this is a commonplace in science,
science has nothing to say about that.
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.
Itís Hitler and Stalin.
I have said...
Because it is the struggle for survival,
the strong take what they can
and the weak give what they must
and there is nothing to restrain them
and we have seen that in the two great atheist movements
of the last century.
Oh, now thatís ridiculous. This is ridiculous.
A most unbiased audience youíve assembled here by the way.
Right, let's clearly distinguish two things here.
First, atheism had nothing to do with Hitler or Stalin.
Stalin...
Stalin was an atheist and 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.
Thatís 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 itís 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.
Whatís funny about that?
What is funny about that?
Okay, weíd like the audience not to yell out.
If we can do that, thatíd be great.
Weíre going to move on.
I didnít finish, Iím sorry.
- Okay, well, finish your point. - Okay.
Because there are lots of questions pertaining this we will be coming back to.
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 colour of jealousy?"
- Thatís a silly question. - Exactly.
"Why?" is a silly question.
"Why?" is a silly question.
You can ask,
"What are the factors that led to something coming into existence?"
Thatís a sensible question.
But "What is the purpose of the universe?"
is a silly question.
It has no meaning.
- Could I just interpose very briefly? - Very briefly.
I think itís a very poignant and real question
to ask: "Why is there suffering?"
We will be asking that question, believe it or not.
This is Q and A. Itís live and interactive.
Tonight we're experimenting with qandavote,
a new way for Q and A viewers to share their opinions
on the issues we discuss.
You can go to the qandavote.tv website
on your smart phone, tablet or computer
to vote in our very first question and that is:
Does religious belief make the world a better place?
Does religious belief make the world a better place?
Weíll report back later on your views.
First, letís move on to our next question for our panel.
It comes from Paul Hanrahan.
My question is for Richard Dawkins.
You're on the record as saying you can't prove that God doesn't exist
and you say you're agnostic rather than atheistic.
Why do you appear as the champion of atheism around the world?
Why do you accept offers
to appear as the champion of atheism
and why are you so evangelical in the prosecution of your cause?
Isn't that a touch hypocritical and unscientific?
Yes, Richard Dawkins, Iím a bit confused about this
because you just referred to yourself moments ago as being an atheist and yet,
with the Archbishop of Canterbury,
you referred to yourself as an agnostic?
In the "God Delusion" I made a seven-point scale.
One is Iím totally confident there is a God.
Seven is Iím totally confident there is not a God.
Six is to all intents and purposes Iím 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 am agnostic about the Easter Bunny.
Itís in the same respect
that I am agnostic about God. So...
What proof, by the way, would change your mind?
Thatís a very difficult and interesting question because...
I mean, I used to think that if somehow, you know,
great big giant 900 foot high Jesus
with a voice like Paul Robeson suddenly strode in and said
"I exist. Here I am"
but even that I actually sometimes wonder whether that would...
Iíd think you were hallucinating.
Exactly. I agree. I agree. I agree.
Well, can I just put a question to you?
Could you ever provide Richard Dawkins
with the sort of proof he requires for belief?
Scientific proof of the existence of God?
No, because I think he only accepts proof
that is rooted in sense experience.
In other words he excludes the world of metaphysics,
say 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 is more explosive, it's more dynamic.
You can shake people up,
whereas if you're just going around saying you're
an agnostic or a non theist,
it's not... - these are his own words.
Well, letís let Richard Dawkins respond.
I don't remember saying that.
It wouldn't totally surprise me.
It's a...
Itís in 2002.
Itís an ongoing issue, whatís the best way.
There is a problem with the word atheist,
especially in America.
I don't know whether it is true in Australia.
There is a lovely woman -
I am blocking on her name because I am jetlagged.
She's Irish American woman.
Anybody help me?
There are quite a few Irish American women.
Sorry about that.
Sorry? No.
Anyway, I do apologise personally to her
for forgetting her name. - What does she do?
She's an actress and she did a film
on how she escaped from the Roman Catholic Church
and it is 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 is Julia Sweeney.
Itís suddenly come back to me.
I strongly recommend that.
Now, the point is that the word atheist,
unlike just not believing in God,
has bad connotations
and 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 is the best name to use.
I sometimes call myself an atheist,
sometimes a non-theist
and sometimes just a non-believer.
George Pell, 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 2000 years ago
and not subsequently provide any proof after that?
Well, I don't think there's ever been any scientific proof.
I don't believe God does anything randomly,
although he might set up
he might set up a system which works,
apparently through - you know - through chance,
through random, but if you want something done,
you've got to ask somebody.
Itís no good, say, my asking everyone in the congregation
will you would 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...
Intellectually?
Intellectually, morally...
How can you know intellectually?
Because you see the fruits of their civilisation.
Egypt was the great power for thousands of years
before Christianity.
Persia was a great power, Caldia.
The poor - the little Jewish people,
they were originally shepherds.
They were stuck.
Theyíre still stuck between these great powers.
But thatís not a reflection of your intellectual capacity,
is it, whether or not you're a shepherd?
Well...
No it's not but it is a recognition
it is a reflection of your intellectual development,
be it like many, many people are very, very clever
and not highly intellectual but my point is...
Iím sorry, can I just interrupt?
Are you including Jesus in that,
who was obviously Jewish
and was of that community?
Exactly.
So intellectually not up to it?
Well, thatís a nice try, Tony.
The 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 powers.
But Jesus came not as a philosopher to the elite.
He came to the poor and the battlers
and for some reason he choose a very difficult
but actually they are now an intellectually elite
because over the centuries they have been pushed out of every other form of work.
Theyíre a... I mean Jesus - I think - is the greatest
the son of God but, leaving that aside, the greatest man that ever live
so I've got a great admiration for the Jews
but we don't need to exaggerate their contribution
in their early days.
All right. Youíre watching Q and A.
Remember you can send your web
or video question to our website.
The address is on the screen