tip off

Why Pell and Dawkins need each other

Your correspondent arrived back in Oz last week for a short sojourn, and was almost immediately hit with a force-10 virus that left him out for the count for more than a week.

The two results of this period of incapability and delirium were 1) that he could not file on the issues of the day, and 2) that he really enjoyed the Richard Dawkins-George Pell Q&A smackdown. Given the period in which it occurred — amid the Melbourne atheist conference, and, in Victoria, the latest fudge on holding the Catholic Church to account for its past evils — it amounted to a moment of sorts. It is, across the world, a rare broadcasting corporation that will devote an hour to a debate about religious metaphysics, and leave out much of the extraneous stuff (i.e. the kiddie-fiddling, Islamism, etc). Given that, it’s worth some consideration of what the show told us about the state of belief and non-belief today.

For many of us who class ourselves as existential atheists — meaning that the possibility of something called God being a real entity can never be ruled out, but one never has the faintest day-to-day belief in it as a meaningful way to view the world — the show was to be approached with trepidation.

Dawkins, as a leader of the so-called neo-atheists, has for the past decade, attacked religion using scorn and ridicule as his preferred weapon, a move that has largely seen him playing to a rationalist gallery, and making little headway in the middle area of those with vague notions of faith, a deity, the supernatural, etc. Indeed, as a recruiting sergeant for theism, he was surpassed only by the late Christopher Hitchens, whose alcoholic post-Trotskyist lurching from one desperate and demented cause to the next served, I suspect, to convince millions that they better find something more than the vagaries of history to anchor their life, lest they end up lurching from one TV studio to the next unshaven, plugged with Chivas, and calling for more slaughter.

Dawkins, as was Hitchens, is not nearly as good on his feet as he thinks he is — especially going up against clerics who expound metaphysical concepts for a living, and deal with 14-year-old atheists all the time. Weeks ealier in the UK, Dawkins had been skewered while he was launching a new (and very useful) report by his foundation into the degree to which the UK was actually Christian — and establishing that most people who called themselves such had no belief in the divinity of Jesus, the trinity, regular church going, etc.

In other words, they were really some sort of fuzzy deists/theists, unable, for example, to name a single book of the Gospel. It was this factoid that got Dawkins pinged, for when he raised this, his interlocutor, Canon Giles Fraser (the man who had resigned from St Paul’s rather than throw out the Occupy protesters), asked him to recite the exact title of one of Darwin’s books. Instead of making the obvious response — that he knew the working titles, he just wanted people labelled as “Christians” to know the actual works their faith was based on, Dawkins got himself into a hilarious tangle:

GILES FRASER: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes I could.

GILES FRASER: Go on then.

RICHARD DAWKINS: On The Origin Of Species. Uh. With, Oh God. On The Origin Of Species. There is a sub title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

GILES FRASER: You’re the high pope of Darwinism … If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said 2% got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go ‘they don’t believe it after all’ …

Dawkins’ problem in debate has always been that he can’t credit versions of theism that are more sophisticated than old-man-in-the-sky type stuff — so when he meets people who have genuinely wrestled with the idea of what a non-mythical God might be, and thus have a pretty thought out account of it, he is quickly at sea. However, to his credit, he has over past years, toned down his act, and learnt from early defeats, and presents a more circumspect account. Luckily for us. Lucky too, that in George Pell he was up against someone still willing to spruik a mythologised God — a sophisticated version of such, but still a mythologised account nevertheless, and one that, as it becomes elaborated, reveals itself as essentially childish and absurd.

Several days later, conservatives such as Greg Sheridan and Andrew Bolt scored the encounter as a decisive win for Pell. Well they would, wouldn’t they? Personally, I scored it as a narrow win for Dawkins, insofar as the general, agnostic and curious viewer might be concerned, but as a far from decisive victory. Dawkins seemed to narrowly prevail, not merely because Pell appeared so willing to throw in a series of cheap shots and gotchas — confronting Dawkins with two different (but far from contradictory) statements he’d made about his own atheism in the past — and announcing triumphantly that Darwin had declared his own theism “on page 92 of his autobiography!”.This was slightly desperate stuff, and came across as such. Indeed, neither party did themselves any favours — a jet-lagged Dawkins meandered about some movie he’d seen with some actress who said something about atheism, while Pell, showed himself ignorant about some key basics of science when he put the parallel sub-species of the Neanderthals (homo neanderthalis or homo sapiens neanderthalis) as the ancestor of modern humans — and then displayed an utter unconcern with his ignorance of the facts (something to remember when he next dilates on climate change).

But the crucial moment as far as I’m concerned came with the question of the origins of the universe, which revealed the inadequacy of both men’s formulations. Responding to a question about the “big bang”, Dawkins noted that physicists such as Lawrence Krauss were now postulating the way in which a universe of something could emerge from nothingness.

Pell chided him for believing that the “nothing” that physicists speak of is the real Nothing we speak of when we ask the founding question (“why is there something rather than Nothing at all?”), and went on to expound the Aquinist “natural law” view — that God (the amalgam of Judeo-Christian monotheism and the Aristotelian prime mover) is a necessary conclusion from the contradictions inherent in any other view of the world. At that point, for many viewers, one could say that Pell had the advantage, because he’d put forward a simple and philosophical idea of God “outside of space and time” — a God whose existence was as likely as non-existence.

Fortunately, in the next exchange, on evolution, humanity and the soul, he then gave the game away:

TONY JONES: Just on the subject of heaven, if we can, what is your own concept of what heaven is?

GEORGE PELL: Well, even St Paul was severely agnostic but 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.

GEORGE PELL: 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 incorporated into the new heaven and new earth. How it will work out I don’t know because, I think, physically and morally and intellectually we’re at our peak at different stages in our life. How it will work out I’ve got no idea but that is the general outline of Christian teaching.

TONY JONES: But 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 in some galactic space?

GEORGE PELL: 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.

Pell had earlier denied the Cartesian notion that an immaterial soul somehow resided in the body — but refuting such an obviously contradictory hypothesis leaves you with a no-less absurd proposition, the full resurrection of the body. It’s only then that the utter entanglement of current Catholic doctrine is laid bare — on the one hand God as a non-spatio-temporal prime mover of whose explicit character we can know nothing — and on the other, a celestial judge presiding over some vast gymnasium of eternity at the end of Time, in which we are all restored to our body at some “high” point of its existence.

What? Before I put on 20 pounds but after I got my teeth fixed? What if someone lost an arm committing war crimes? Can bre-st implants be retained? And so on.

It’s this sort of childish, mythologised just-so nonsense that reminds you that, for all the Dawkins-Hitchens bluster, one really is an atheist, and that Pell’s theology and cosmology, stands in utter contradiction to any intelligent grappling with Being and the mystery of the universe. Having got into his stride, Pell gave us the full megillah — God, heaven and hell exist because otherwise evil would go unpunished. Essentially Christian cosmology is a way of avoiding the contemplation of irredeemable suffering:

TONY JONES: So you actually — well, prefer the idea of hell as a place of punishment for — but for who? Where do you draw the line? Do unbelievers go to hell?

GEORGE PELL: No. No. No. The only people — well, one — I hope nobody is in hell. We Catholics generally believe that there is a hell. I hope nobody is there. I certainly believe in a place of purification. I think it will be like getting up in the morning and you throw the curtains back and 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 …

Really, if this is the best that Catholicism can do as a philosophical-religious movement, then it’s pathetic. One understands that the global poor, the badly educated, those still sunk in mythical ways of thinking will cleave to a mythical version of Christianity, but are we really in dialogue with a Church that believes this sort of stuff at its heights? If nothing else, such encounters remind us what we’re up against — intelligent men and women who are willing to believe a series of elaborate and absurd jerry-built cosmologies for a mixture of inherited culture, psychological need and cultural power.

In doing so, they are ultimately unwilling to confront the world with courage and follow a truly existential theism — one that acknowledges, post-Holocaust (although numerous other events will serve) that anything called God, if it exists, is indifferent to our suffering and fate. What could be more wicked than the Catholic Church’s current hagio-mongering, in which saints are turned off the production line a dime a dozen, after this or that respite from childhood leukemia or some such somewhere has been turfed up and declared a miracle? What sort of belief system continues to honour this possibility while believing that the same God would allow the gassing and shooting of six million? It is the theology of cowards, nothing less.

Of course, there are many who have a more sophisticated take on religion, and of Christianity — as a philosophy of absence, of an unknowingness within which faith exists. This is the tradition that goes through Kierkegaard, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Kung and others, and a tradition with which existential atheists can be in dialogue with — indeed a tradition we are closer to than much of the metaphysical materialism (which includes Marxism) that passes for atheism at events such as the recent conference.

Yet Dawkins shows as little interest in debating that sort of theism, than do mythical Catholics such as Pell in having a true encounter with the world. To a degree Pell and Dawkins need each other — and if the show served to remind us of the absurdities that crouch within the mainstream religious mindset, all the better. But some day it would be good to see a real encounter between theism and atheism at their best.*

*Those interested in a stunning take on the founding question should consult my namesake Bede Rundle’s 2004 zingily-titled book Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (OUP)

38
  • 1
    Sidamo
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    I think Dawkins has little interest in debating “that sort of theism” because the sort of theism which results from a personal metaphysical quest doesn’t usually result in a theism which inspires all of the abuses which have been committed over the years by organised religion.

    I suspect Dawkins would mellow quite considerably if, at some stage in the future, we had the same amount of people believing in a deity, but with the organised religions having no influence on daily life, i.e: keep the billions believing in a personal god but get rid of the sermonising from the pulpit.

  • 2
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    just had to mention the kiddie fiddling didn’t you?

  • 3
    syzygium
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    A few weeks ago Radio National presented a talk by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks for their Big Ideas program. It was the most lucid, rational account of what a modern theism looks like. He didn’t completely convince me, but he did move me. I imagine Rabbi Sacks would eat Dawkins’ lunch, but agree that the debate/discussion would be well worth having.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/easter-sacks/3892022

  • 4
    Barry Brannan
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    I’ve never heard of “Kierkegaard, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Kung and others” and I suspect neither have many other atheists. They might be good topics for the next Global Atheist Convention. But on the face of it, I don’t see a problem with Dawkins et al tackling the easy subject matter first before moving onto advanced stuff. There are still far too many people believing the Pell-style nonsense to worry about the nuanced variations yet.

  • 5
    Steve Gardner
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    I’ve no doubt that Pell made it a condition of his appearing on the show that there would be no discussion of child abuse by Catholic priests. And in a way, I can understand why the ABC agreed to this: the topic would have taken over the whole show and left Dawkins more or less a spectator. But still, I would have loved to have seen a video question, “Cardinal Pell, you say that atheists have no purchase on morality. Yet the Catholic Church is a criminal accessory to the sexual abuse of thousands of children. The Church has silenced the victims and protected the abusers. My question to you is: where do you get the nerve?”

  • 6
    Jeepers
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Sidamo: yes, exactly.

    Guy: you do realise that Dawkins is exactly the sort of atheist that you describe in your definition of “existentialist atheist”? Despite the protestations from people on both sides of the debate that he’s the sort of extremist they’d rather he was.

    I would also question whether you have any reason to believe that Dawkins hasn’t made headway with “those with vague notions of faith, a deity, the supernatural, etc”. He has testimony from plenty of ex-believers of all stripes.
    Of course he rubs lots of people the wrong way. I would say that goes with the job - and a lot of those people are on the “atheist side”, oh so worried that he’s giving us a bad name. Gimme a break.

    Agreed, though, he wasn’t in great form on Q&A.

  • 7
    michael r james
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    I suspect Rundle’s febrile state may have interfered with his assessment of the Dawkins-Pell debate. IMO, it was not much of a debate but mostly because of the lamentably lame performance by Pell. As evidence, what more do we need than an enthusiastic endorsement by Greg Sheridan?
    I wouldn’t particularly hold the comment about Neanderthals against Pell since it was not especially fundamental. Most Australians — except pure Africans — contain a little bit of Neanderthal genome in ours, which to be sure was likely transmitted horizontally rather than vertically — that is, not via common lineage — picked up on our way out of Africa (by indigenous Australians (and the few other ancient remnant populations such as the indigenous Japanese Ainu) in a very early wave, then about 50 millenia later by the rest of us who became Europeans and Asians etc.).

    Anyway I vaguely remembered that Bede Rundle (actually Bernard Bede Rundle, a Kiwi) had an obit in the Guardian last year at his death. I extract a relevant bit below. (For someone who taught at Oxford for 40 years there is remarkable little on the internet about him, no Wiki entry). I am dubious about that book, not just because of its 2 star Amazon rating, though Guy’s endorsement counts for something. The thing is, like Pell or any number of either medieval philosophers or latterday churchmen, there are “things under heaven” we still do not understand. That is different to believing we need to fill the gap with fantasy.

    (guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/31/bede-rundle)
    In the third of his most notable books, Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (2004), which received considerable attention, Rundle tackled one of philosophy’s most important questions, formulated by Gottfried Leibniz in the 18th century, in a new way. Rundle contended that the question cannot be answered by science, but must receive a genuine philosophical treatment. He did so by addressing a famous argument in favour of the existence of God, presented by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.

    Since this universe is contingent, that is to say it might not have existed, at some point it did not exist, and at a later point it came into existence. Since something can only begin to exist in relation to something else already existing (for instance, a football match can only start if the players are on the field), a non-contingent, necessary thing, God, must have existed for this universe to begin to exist. Had there been no necessary thing, God, there would be nothing now.

    Unlike most recent philosophers, Rundle found some truth in this argument. In his version, we must indeed claim that if nothing had existed, nothing would exist now, in other words that it is impossible that nothing at all should have existed. For to say that there might have been nothing “then” (before the Big Bang) or “now” presupposes a temporal framework of reference, and thus space, motion and objects.

    If I remember correctly Pell rather sneered at the notion of “something from nothing” which Dawkins did not entirely adequately address (it was one of those points that he was visibly tetchy). Being a geneticist I have no idea of the current status of such ideas but I remember that it was a certified documented process that happens all the time in physics experiments: namely in cloud chambers or suchlike fundamental particle observational setups, tracks are observed diverging 180 degrees from each other that indicate a matter particle and a anti-matter particle (eg. electron/positron pair) can be generated from nothing, literally nothing. When such particles meet (or I suppose the positron meets any electron in our mostly matter sector of the universe) they disappear back to nothing. No laws of physics have been broken.

    This phenomenon was called “vacuum fluctuation” and was the basis for the theory of the origin of the universe that was the alternative to Big Bang, namely Steady State. Herman Bondi made the model in which the universe has always existed as we see it, everything moving away from everything else and with continuous creation in the “vacuum” so created. This model fell out of favour for reasons I forget, however it does point back to the original question. For there to be a universe of net “matter” something must cause the asymmetric behaviour of anti-matter Perhaps it disappears into the mysterious dark matter or dark energy that current theories require; I dunno. But not knowing does not turn me into a Diest.

  • 8
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Dawkin’s is about as far from an existential atheist as Pell is.

  • 9
    colin77
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    I thought Tony Jones won the debate. Quickly decided Dawkins was sub-par and so skewered Pell with his questions.

  • 10
    Microseris
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    We don’t need to make up pretend deities to idolise, we already have a true religion which can be proven by basic scientific analysis. Its called nature. It has a set series of laws and flow on effects which essentially cannot be broken without consequences.

    Unfortunately there are too many non believers not respecting nature which is resulting in the progressive deterioration of the systems of the natural world on which we all depend.

  • 11
    davidk
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    I don’t care who won the night, but Pell definitely showed himself up when talking about Egyptians being intellectually superior to the Jews because they built pyramids while the Jews herded sheep. He seemed to be referring to individuals rather than societies and was then tripped up by Jones who reminded him Christ was a Jew. I assume he didn’t know. The funniest bit of the night.

  • 12
    michael r james
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    Oh, I cannot help making a comment about the origins of all these religion warriors. Our (as opposed to Bede) Rundle was a bit harsh on Christopher Hitchens but he must surely understand one historical factor behind that revulsion, and likewise for Dawkins and no less for George Pell.

    Yes, of course they are all products of Oxford! Let me admit that I have Oxford on my cv too but, as these blokes would be sure to remind everyone, in a totally different way: as a mere peon of a scientist working (literally and figuratively) on the fringes of the real Oxford; ie. working at, not educated by… (I don’t know if Tony Abbott or Malcolm Turnbull are any more “real” Oxonians because of their very brief “gap years” in Oxford.) But enough to have realized that these types have one over-riding characteristic: the profound desire to prove the other guy is a dunce and irrelevant nincompoop, who can be dismissed with barely a sideways focus of their (Hitch, Dawkins) overpowering intellect and mastery of the subject.

    I wonder if Dawkins knew of Pell’s Oxford education (possibly they even overlapped, 1971)? Of course it is even worse. Oxford is intensely tribal so it depends on what college you went to. Hitch may have only managed a Third (in PPE of course) but it was from Balliol, the creme de la creme. Dawkins is also a Balliol man!

    Well, regardless, one can appreciate their writings on this subject. But I must say that I find A.C. Grayling (Birkbeck College London) more to my liking, as he revealed on this week’s Q&A (and ABC RN). Of course, would that have anything to do with him being a graduate of U of Sussex, same as me? (No, I only just peeked at his Wiki entry.) And he went on to do post-grad at Magdalene Oxford!

  • 13
    Furthingtron-Phipps Bob
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    It kind of irritates me how (liberal and athiest) political commentators such as yourself dismiss Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens with a bored, irritated wave of the hand. It’s almost like the snobbery of the music enthusiast who finds his favourite band suddenly thrust into mainstream popularity, and then wouldn’t be seen dead wearing their t-shirt. What, it’s not cool to like Hitchens and Dawkins anymore? Already? They’re like the U2 of atheism, man.

    This piece seems more geared to making Guy Rundle appear clever and superior for being an athiest, while dismissing Dr Dawkins and Mr Hitchens as the loud, tacky FM radio of atheism while touting his superior scholarship by touting a long list of authors you haven’t read.

    Both of these men wrote seminal, important books that helped many people — myself included — escape the fog of the supernatural. I think there are a lot of people like me who had something of an epiphany after reading The God Delusion, and rather than anointing Dawkins as a Saint of Reason and the last authority on the subject, were instead encouraged to read further and more widely, on everything from philosophy to biology to astronomy. That’s kind of the whole point of the books.

    So, whatever you might think of Dr Dawkins or Hitchens personally, they remain the authors of important books, highly accomplished in their professional fields, and deserving of more respect.

    I think you will also find that in the opening pages of his book, The God Delusion, Dr Dawkins goes out of his way to explain that the concept of a bearded sky-god is quaint, and that he doesn’t suggest the majority of Christians still believe in such a deity. He instead says that he intends the book to address the agnostic.

    That Dawkins is tetchy and aggressive is probably because he is forced to repeat the same s*** to the same crowd day in day out to pouting audiences who cling to old bones and refuse to open their minds. It must be horribly frustrating to do this — and to fight daily to defend the teaching of evolution in US schools — when the guy could be doing more ‘advanced’ stuff.

    Mr Rundle, if you want to scoff, there are plenty of more deserving targets. We get that it’s not cool to like Bono, but don’t forget the albums Boy and War were f***ing brilliant.

  • 14
    Shane Nixon
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    Pell is a quote miner. The so called page 92 gotcha where he claimed that Darwin was a theist is a quote by Darwin taken out of context. Darwin was talking about belief and disbelief and man’s capacity to reason and goes on to say “I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”
    That is on page 94 Cardinal Pell. Look it up.

  • 15
    mikeb
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    Is there an equivalent of “Godwin’s law” in a discussion about religion so that if an irrelevant reference to “kiddie fiddling” or similar is brought up that argument is automatically lost? If not there should be.
    As to the “debate” itself – a lot of it was interesting but Pell was out of his depth and couldn’t think quickly enough whereas Dawkins just couldn’t think quickly enough. Jones was the winner by a double knock-out.

  • 16
    floorer
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    Pell went to Oxford? If I were a Catholic I would’ve been gutted by the quality of his arguments.

  • 17
    michael r james
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    Floorer at 5:16 pm.

    Quite. Though it is not really related to Oxford. That is, aren’t we kind of led to believe a Cardinal is a very smart bloke. If so, Pell does a very good job of hiding it!

    (Pell) …received a Licentiate of Sacred Theology from the Urbaniana University in 1967, and continued his studies at the University of Oxford, where he earned a DPhil in church history in 1971.[3] During his studies at Oxford, he also served as a chaplain to Catholic students at Eton College, where he celebrated the first Roman Catholic Mass since the English Reformation.

  • 18
    floorer
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    F-P Bob said “This piece seems more geared to making Guy Rundle appear clever and superior” As usual. Hitchens is so far ahead Rundle could’nt ever even see his vapour trail. Hitchens v Pell. I’d have paid to see that.

  • 19
    floorer
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    Thanks M R James. “Pell does a very good job of hiding it”. Indeed.

  • 20
    Mark M
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    I’m with you Colin. Jones was in good form. If there were any winners and losers, then it would be best described as a loss to Pell, not a win to Dawkins. It quickly became the Pell show as Dawkins receded into silence for most of the last half. And Pell just kept on digging - hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

    Many of the Catholics I know are gobsmacked that Pell might be in charge of anything.

  • 21
    Mr. Goodtrips
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    I’m just shocked people still watch Q&A.

  • 22
    Furthingtron-Phipps Bob
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    @Floorer 5:27 — you managed to summarize in half a line what was trying to articulate in 20. His prose is opaque, arguments illogical, and the tone of his articles are high-handed and apparently designed to make the reader feel stupid, whereas Hitch’s prose was brilliant, you could follow the thread of his logic (and even, on occasion, glimpse at where it may be flawed), and you were always left, at the end of an essay, feeling like you just learned something.

    This bitter outburst seems a lot like professional jealousy to me.

  • 23
    floorer
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Hey F-P, this is not the first time Mr.Rundle has had a shot at Hitchens whom I view much the same as you, just got a bit narked and had a shot back. I’m guessing Rundle won’t be too upset tho.

  • 24
    Furthingtron-Phipps Bob
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Yes, I’m sure his apparently robust ego will provide sufficient insulation from anything we have to say about his writing ability or point of view. It takes a certain kind of person to publicly put down the achievements of their betters from the safety of total obscurity.

    He hasn’t seemed to have gotten over Hitch’s dalliance in right-wing politics. I read an excellent piece by Rushdie in Vanity Fair about exactly, perhaps he’ll get some closure after reading it. Or maybe Hitch didn’t reply to Guy’s fan mail, or snubbed him somehow. Hell hath no fury than an op-ed writer scorned.

    Slap a sufficiently provocative headline containing the words ‘Dawkins’ and ‘Hitchens’ on a column, and you are bound to get some kind of attention. I just hate how so many writers these days descend to a deliberately contrarian stance in order to appear ahead of the curve, to to make a fresh story more interesting.

    There is just no way any sincere person could believe that Pell and Dawkins ‘need each other’. For what? In order to maintain a high public profile, make money? What depressing cynicism. Dr Dawkins has repeatedly said he wishes he could invest less energy in debating the stubborn and willfully irrational — like Archbishop Pell. I can’t speak for Dr Dawkins but I think he engages in these debates in the interests and hopes of reaching more people, changing a few more minds. Or else he’s a masochist. I know he won’t debate creationists any more: ‘That would look good on their resume, not so good on mine’.

    Perhaps a bit of reflected attention for Mr Rundle, still, that disrespect needs to be called out.

  • 25
    mattsui
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    @ Floorer, you were right….. at least about the vapour trail.

  • 26
    Furthingtron-Phipps Bob
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    I guess my point is, what would Guy Rundle, as an athiest, have Dr Dawkins do? Shut up and go back to the lab, and let these ridiculous clerics continue to write the moral prescriptions for our public policy? In the US, the republicans just repealed a piece of equal pay legislation, the Christians are almost in exact parallel with their Taliban counterparts in their attacks on women, and Mr Rundle spends his time scoffing at the tireless efforts of Dr Dawkins (and Mr Hitchens) to introduce some reason, and protect secular institutions? How disingenuous and depressing.

    Peace out.

  • 27
    michael r james
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    MARK M at 5:33 pm |
    Many of the Catholics I know are gobsmacked that Pell might be in charge of anything.

    He’ll be in charge of the next PM in all likelihood.
    That should scare a lot more than Catholics.
    …………………….
    I think it became obvious that Dawkins felt he was wasting his time. He was right. It was not a high quality debate, so he was probably just waiting to get outta there while thinking “why did I agree to this?”.
    ……………………..
    I am not unsympathetic with Rundle’s opinion of Hitch. The problem is that, as clever as he was, he was a bit too ego-driven (that Oxford superiority-complex thing) and he got it seriously wrong in the post-9/11 world. And his cleverness and deep learning (and ridiculous feats of recall) were no help in his rather lame justifications for invading Iraq etc.
    I was not keen on his anti-Clinton obsession and the seemingly ridiculous standards he would set for Clinton(s) but not for GW Bush! He hardly let an article (Slate, Vanity Fair) go by without a vicious swipe at either or both Clintons, no matter the topic. Again, I suspect some of it was a leftover Oxford thing. (Even though in Hitch22 he says he doesn’t really remember meeting Clinton who was there as a Rhodie at the same time, later in the memoir he unconvincingly tried to pin on Clinton the advance ratting-out to the police of a anti-Vietnam demonstration Hitch led in Grosvenor Sq (US Embassy in London)! Kind of desperate and probably dishonest. Likewise, his putdowns of Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal were seemingly entirely ego related. And related to his late-life switch to the neo-cons.

    The fact that in the last decade he became the ideal “public intellectual” for the neo-cons was an unfortunate thing. I mean, GW Bush and cronies like Wolfowitz, Chertoff (and Rumsfeld & Cheney by association), et al. ? Defending the whole American military-industrial-complex as if this was the way to defeat “isl*mo-f*scism”? Seriously? Joining the Hoover Institute! No, sadly it seems he was seduced by the sheer power of being in with the Washington power elite, no matter how despicable it was at that time. The Clinton hatred was all of one with this. (The Republicans and neocons hated Clinton with a fevered passion, not least because he survived everything they threw at him and ran a successful economy, balanced budgets and the last period of American prosperity.) How could he get in bed with these people especially as it was crawling with Christian fundamentalism.

    Close to the end he continued to get things wrong. He stridently upbraided Obama (who in a curious twist, he had dissed in the campaign against Hilary!) over his “dithering” over Libya. Yet Obama’s caution and time taken to build an international consensus, including several Arab countries, to impose the no-fly zone was, in retrospect near-perfect strategy — for both the Libyans, the region and the USA. And he never recanted this, or ceded he was dead wrong (like in Iraq) in the months he had left.

    I think he was seduced by the power and suffered the disjunction between theoretical analyses versus the actual real-world exercise of power (where there is no perfect decision or outcome).

    Still, with all the flaws, it was still better to have Hitch than not.

  • 28
    Bo Gainsbourg
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Reminds me of a joke about hell, told by an Irish busdriver. Annoyed with the local priest visiting his house continually and hogging the spot near the warm fire and after suffering the priest piously recalling a dream in which he,the good Father, had gone to heaven and experienced its joys the annoyed and cold bloke says “I had a dream, too, except I went to hell. “Tell me was it unbearably hot there”, says the Father, with affected concern. ” Not really, couldn’t get near the fire for all the feckin priests” says the bloke.

  • 29
    floorer
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Mattsui, snide is not a nice look.

  • 30
    AR
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

    It was a shocker for Pell - any day now he should be getting a PLEASE EXPLAIN from the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (aka Inquisition. last CEO, Joe Ratzinger) for his dismissal of Eden (and thus original Sin), Jehovah writing the Commandents (Exodus 24.12 is pretty explicit, as is Duetoronomy 5.22 about Jaweh “writing” them with his finger of fire…)
    Pell was perfect example of what happens when underlings prepare crib sheets & briefing notes for someone too dumb to understand the background so the real question is, how did such a dim bulb become Archbishop? Is the talent pool so shallow?

  • 31
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Dawkins & Pell. Two fundamentalist reactionaries. So dull, I didn’t bother watching. Did they at least get to publicly agree on the one thing they do have in common — Islamophobia?

  • 32
    Furthingtron-Phipps Bob
    Posted Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

    DR_TAD, what nonsense. And if you didn’t watch, and seem ever so bored by the conversation, why are you participating? So saying clearly that the shrouding of women and girls, keeping them locked up, preventing them from driving or working or having basic human rights, the mutilation of their genitals, the total ownership of their bodies is called out as being morally wrong, and it’s Islamophobia now. The condemnation of the Islamic support for the state-sponsored murder of a private citizen over a work of fiction is Islamophobia? The burning of books, the firebombing of bookstores, the death threats, we should all keep silent for fear of being called Islamophobic? The mass rallies in support of the murder of cartoonists? Is condemning this Islamophobic too?

  • 33
    Posted Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    Shorter Furthingtron-Phipps Bob:

    Dr_Tad is correct. My New Atheism is a cover for my malignant Islamophobia.”

  • 34
    SBH
    Posted Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Once again a Rundle piece distinguished by the quality of comments rather than the piece itself. Guy you have expended your quota of commas. I think the proper classification for one who doesn’t see a god but admits the possibility of one is agnostic rather than any kind of atheist. I won’t belabour the etymology but it’s all there for those who care to look.

    What seems to be lost on a lot of people is that George Pell is no dope. I see nothing contradictory in his simplistic explanations. He has greatly simplified a philosophical view that has taken many thousands of years to develop (as an aside this aeons long development is an astonishing human achievement). Pell’s theological understanding is subtle, comprehensive and highly developed. Because he doesn’t lay this all out for a TV audience, which at best would comprise various capacities of understanding, is no surprise but to dismiss him as some sort of 13th century country monsignor is to commit a grave error.

    The central issue isn’t from whence the universe sprang (and I don’t know of any serious physical theory that suggests it came out of nothing - rather that we can’t measure the preconditions of our current universe) but whether or not we should say that we know something for which we do not and can never have, any evidence about. That is, maintain and promulgate an irrational (without a rational basis) belief.

    Catholicism says that the only way you can know (not believe, that is an entirely different and lesser thing - read your C S Lewis) the mysteries of the religion is that they are revealed by god. No process of investigation, experiment or analysis allows this poor clay to know god. Science on the other hand says if you can prove it I will know.

    Now it might seem that we end up in very similar places. Neither side can prove how the universe started or what happens after we die. The difference for me is that religion tells me to forestall my enjoyment of the world I live in, in the hope (sorry knowledge) that a better one awaits. On this dubious principle, ordinary people lose the joy of living and punish themselves and others for experiencing that joy. To me this is unacceptable.

    Michael R James - a pleasure as always - thanks for your consistently outstanding contributions.

  • 35
    Furthingtron-Phipps Bob
    Posted Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Touche, Dr_TAD. I guess I’m out of practice at the sparkling, effortlessly witty cocktail-party one-liners. “I hope the Hindus are right, and you come back as a Saudi woman.” How’s that? Short enough?

  • 36
    garydj
    Posted Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Guy. If God is outside of time and space and indifferent to our fate, why
    bother with it?

  • 37
    QUIGLEY JOSEPH
    Posted Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    I’ll never forget Geraldine Doogue’s comment on the Ron Casey
    v Normie Rowe punch up on the Mid-day Show.
    “It shouldn’t have happened but it was good television.”
    Television is a peculiar medium. It is not enough to add pictures, moving
    pictures at that, to the words/conversation we might hear on that other great
    medium, the wireless. It needs conflict - physical, emotional, intellectual,
    spiritual. I’m not so sure about the last element but I put it in for
    completeness.
    That is why sport (legitimised conflict), crime/war (intra- and extra- social
    conflict), life & death stories, etc are its bread and butter.
    The ABC and SBS, whatever their faults, still believe there’s a place for
    intellectual conflict.
    Good on ‘em for making the effort, even if the moderator/facilitator/
    umpire (and Tony Jones is one) becomes more important than the
    combatants in keeping the conflict alive.

  • 38
    Brown Kerry
    Posted Friday, 20 April 2012 at 2:46 am | Permalink

    I’m agree with Guy, the Cardinal and Professor are two sides of the same coin, blocking out other currencies, notably the atheistic spiritual traditions. I think the Dawkins v. Pell debate would have been deepened and lightened by the inclusion of Buddhist monk Ajahn Brahm (who is also a former physicist) and an Aboriginal elder.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...