Posts Tagged Richard Dawkins
This week’s Q and A on ABC 1 (9/4/12) featured the great debate about the existence of god (any god I think). The antagonists were Richard Dawkins and the ever obtuse George Pell. Goodness me if ever we were to be granted evidence of the non-existence of a catholic deity this was it.
Viewers of course could make up their own minds by watching the footage (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm), however any person with a functioning cranium could see that the poor old church is struggling to come up with evidence for the existence of their almighty imaginary friend god. It is just not acceptable to start an argument using scientific strategy and as soon as the going gets tough call for divine intervention. What a load of rubbish. The audience was stacked with sycophants who couldn’t even follow the debate closely enough to work out when to cheer on their hero. Embarrassingly, during moments of George’s extreme ignorance, the entire auditorium fell silent.
Message for George Pell: Arrogance is not an antidote for Ignorance.
The age-old question, “why does a benevolent deity create such extensive misery” was once again buried beneath a mountain of holier than thou faithspeak. When faced with the difficult questions Pell had nothing constructive or illuminating to offer. His ignorance of basic biology and the methods of science were breathtaking.
Unfortunately no-one posed the obvious to George. If the teachings of the catholic church are so intimately connected to goodness and caring for the wellbeing of others, why oh why, did George and his peers turn their backs on countless acts of sexual abuse within their own ranks? How can the purveyors of good simultaneously be the perpetrators of these acts of extreme evil? I hold the view that the person who is aware of such crimes and does nothing, ranks alongside the criminal. I fail to see how these cowards could possibly rate a seat on George’s heaven bus.
My final dismay with this most frustrating program was in regard to the existence of global warming and the influence of human activity on the process. George once again seized the high ground and pronounced that he was not convinced by the science. George is not qualified to evaluate the science. George has no problem accepting various miraculous acts in the absence of any plausible explanation such as parting the sea, converting water into wine, moving heavy stones and curing various uncurable conditions all without a scrap of evidence but when faced with the rather unsubtle reality of global warming can’t come at the science.
Thanks George, nature is my religion and your efforts do nothing to convince me otherwise.