At no point in the Q &A (ABC TV) session last night between evolutionary biologist, author and militant atheist Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell did I hear the word faith and yet it seemed to me that an individual either has faith in God or one doesn't. Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen and it appeared to me that in one way or another both Dawkins in his attempt to come to terms with the notion of the Big Bang theory and anti-matter - in other words matter arising from unseen negative matter to explain the creation of the world, and Pell's perhaps inarticulate explanation of an unseen God as the clockmaker of a mechanistic universe, that they were both grappling with this notion of faith or trust, both trying to use reason to explain their belief in a system of thought that guides their lives. Minor points perhaps, but Pell dumbed down whilst discussing the concept of Holy Communion and the fact that Catholics believe that when they ingest the Eucharist, it is transubstantiation - a process in which the host changes into Christ's body and blood (not physically) but substantively that occurs when they receive and swallow a small round of bread at Mass. Why does the Archbishop of Sydney seem incapable of effectively articulating doctrine? It seems to me that the primary differences between Dawkins and Pell is that the former is an empiricist and the latter not - one only believes in what can be witnessed and proved, the other happy to be involved in speculation, faith and hope. However, it also occurred to me that Dawkins, unlike Pell, was keeping an open mind when it came to his investigation of things unseen and as yet unknown, such as the particle physics theory of anti-matter, whereas Pell was fixed and rather dogmatic in his viewpoint. No one in the audience asked why we had two men discussing the issue of God and why God is always referred to as masculine. Yes, yes, I know that it is because God the Father and his son Jesus Christ were male (as told in the Bible), but what of the Holy Ghost - a non-gendered spirit? I'd like to see two female members of our community discuss God - one who emanates from the sciences and one from religion and not necessarily from the Catholic persuasion, maybe then we would have a different outcome and a more interesting discussion?
© Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to [Julie Joy Clarke] and [Anything But Human] with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. Unless otherwise stated all images are Copyright to Julie Clarke (c)
You're right; it is surprising that the Archbishop of Sydney seems incapable of effectively articulating doctrine; how ever did he become an Archbishop? What made the debate more frustrating was the way Pell repeatedly misrepresented Christian doctrine. Would the Vatican agree that the biblical story of Adam and Eve is a "sophisticated myth used to explain evil and suffering rather than a scientific truth"? Does the Pope think that "evolution is probably true"? That humans are descended from Neanderthals? Pell had evidently done quite a lot of research to prepare for this encounter e.g. stating (incorrectly) that Charles Darwin declared belief in God on page 92 of his autobiography.
ReplyDeleteBy misrepresenting Catholic doctrine and presenting so many poorly researched mistakes in fact, Pell made any kind of rational debate impossible. Pell's bumbling and the encouragement of sections of the audience may have been frustrating, but Dawkins' impatience did his cause no good.
The inclusion of some females would have improved the discussion a great deal; especially if capable of presenting rational arguments (Oriental carpet makers included).
This comment came through to my email, but not to the blog, not sure why, anyway here it is:
ReplyDeleteLiam has left a new comment on your post "DAWKINS AND PELL + Q&A + ABC TV":
You're right; it is surprising that the Archbishop of Sydney seems incapable of effectively articulating doctrine; how ever did he become an Archbishop? What made the debate more frustrating was the way Pell repeatedly misrepresented Christian doctrine. Would the Vatican agree that the biblical story of Adam and Eve is a "sophisticated myth used to explain evil and suffering rather than a scientific truth"? Does the Pope think that "evolution is probably true"? That humans are descended from Neanderthals? Pell had evidently done quite a lot of research to prepare for this encounter e.g. stating (incorrectly) that Charles Darwin declared belief in God on page 92 of his autobiography.
By misrepresenting Catholic doctrine and presenting so many poorly researched mistakes in fact, Pell made any kind of rational debate impossible. Pell's bumbling and the encouragement of sections of the audience may have been frustrating, but Dawkins' impatience did his cause no good.
The inclusion of some females would have improved the discussion a great deal; especially if capable of presenting rational arguments (Oriental carpet makers included).
Liam, I think some Christians believe that evolutionary theory is not inconsistent with creationist theories and many also believe that the Bible is to be interpreted, rather than being taken literally. I was inculcated into Catholicism from the age of 5 to 12 and then rejected it based on the fact that I didn’t think that I was given rational answers to pressing questions. I actually found it interesting that Pell appeared to have a little knowledge about particle physics (he’s obviously read some of the literature about anti-matter), but had a distorted knowledge about his own field. I was frustrated (as was Dawkins) when much of the audience laughed for no apparent reason when he spoke.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBy 4pm today 173 people had read this post.
ReplyDeleteBy 12 August 410 people have read this post.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete664 people have now read this post.
ReplyDeleteAs of 22 October 2012, 2310 people have read this post. Just saying.
Delete