Dawkins v Pell on Q & A in Australia

15 Apr

Talk-back television is perhaps not the best kind of forum to advance serious thought about the validity or otherwise of the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient god, whether as the core belief of organized or unorganized religion. 

Pell turned up for a debate and relied upon his researchers to trawl through the blog musings of Dawkins to look for shades of inconsistencies in positions Dawkins may have taken over the years: an ad hominem, gotcha exercise altogether worthy of this prelate who has shown himself more concerned with defending the bureaucracy to which he belongs, the Catholic Church, which accords him power and status, than the flock over which the Church arrogates authority to him .  Truth for Pell and his like is of no concern and may be completely disregarded if it does not serve their ultimate self-interest.  Pell’s court attendance in support of one of his colleagues, a pedophile, against the interests of his colleague’s victim is a case in point.

Dawkins, jet lagged as he mentioned, was overly sensitive to the ill-informed and largely irrelevant reactions of the audience, and allowed Pell to get away with the kind of logical nonsense that that is typically uttered by anyone who concocts arguments to support of an irrationally derived belief rather than examines the validity of arguments in order to discover the truth.  On the one issue of substance put to Pell – why Pell’s omnipotent, omniscient god should insist upon his adherents acting with love and compassion in their dealings with the species homo sapiens while this same god facilitates the grossest forms of torture, staving, and all manner of sufferings upon homo sapiens, even the most innocent, children below the age of reason, on this issue Pell confessed to being flummoxed.  Furthermore, Pell effectively conceded that the Christian notion of Original Sin was a nonsense because, in the nature of evolution, there could not have been any single male and female pair we could point to as being the homo sapiens Adam and Eve.  Thus, even that uniquely theological notion of guilt by genetic inheritance is expunged as the excuse for the Christian god torturing and staving children to death. 

Of course, the moderator, Tony Jones, was more interested in interrupting his two guests so that he could keep the show rolling and, to that end, allowing all and sundry – the studio and viewing audience – to have their say.

Perhaps Q & A can run a show on brain surgery techniques, quantum theory or whether one plus one make two if you really don’t want it to: let the punters have their say and make a show of it. 

There are some issues which of their nature, political issues for example, are the subject of legitimate public debate, the stuff of a democratic society.  Talk-back television is not suited to the consideration of matters which general audiences cannot be expected to have an informed view.  The adherents of religions can be expected to know what their religions teach and what they have been brought up to believe or they find emotionally appealing as an antidote to the notion of nothingness following death, but they cannot be expected to contribute to the debate about the truth of their beliefs unless they have studied theology and/or philosophy.

Non ad hominem.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: