Transcription
Good evening, and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones, and answering your questions tonight are 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 Churchman, the Archbishop of Sydney, C George P. Please welcome our special guests. Okay.
Q&A is live from 9:35 Eastern Time and simulcast on News24 and News Radio. Go to our website to send a question or join the Twitter conversation using the hashtag on your screen, and stay tuned for the chance to join QuandaVote. You can register on your smartphone or smart device at the address on the screen. The address is qu.vote, quandavote.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, to be a peaceloving, 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. Um, it is true that, uh, Christianity has adopted many of the best values of, of humanity, but they don't belong to Christianity or indeed to 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. It's true that you can find the occasional good verse, and The Sermon on the Mount would be, would be one example, but it's lost amid the awful things that are dotted throughout the Old Testament and actually throughout the New Testament as well. Because the, 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, that's a horrible idea. It's a horrible idea that God, this Paragon of wisdom and, uh, uh, knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our sins than to come down to earth in his outer ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed, so that he could forgive himself.
Okay, let's go to George P on there.
Well, there's, there's quite a few things that might be said. Uh, first of all, our tradition goes back about 4,000 years, so whatever these values are that we've taken over, we've got to go back a little bit of a distance. And it's interesting to look at Pagan Rome before there was Christian influence. 40% were slaves; men and women fought one another to the death in the, you know, the Circus Maximus or the Coliseum; 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 um, the Christian story—we're Christians, we're New Testament people—there was an evolution in the Old Testament, and there are some awful things there. It developed; the notion of God was purified as it went through the, uh, Old Testament.
Can I, can I just interrupt you just to bring you to the 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?
Yeah, absolutely. You accept that?
Yeah, absolutely. I think it helps to, to believe in God because, uh, there's a, the Polish poet Milosz who says that the Opium of the people today is, is the belief that they won't be judged by God when they die; that those who have committed great crimes, done awful things, are going to get away with it; and that the people who've suffered, uh, unjustly, had terrible lives—that's it.
Okay, let's move to quickly to our second question. It's from CLA Boner. Religion is precisely often blamed for being the root of war and conflict, but what about all the good it has done for our society? God-centered religion has been the birthplace of schools, universities, hospitals, and, 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, a mechanism for survival, then what's the point, and why should I bother?
It's 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, why we're here—and we therefore have to make up our own meaning to life. We have to, uh, find our own purposes in life, which are not derived directly from, uh, our scientific history. Um, when you say that Christianity has been responsible for a lot of good, including science, by the way, which is somewhat ironic, um, I think that most of the great benefits in humanity, such as the abolition of slavery, uh, such as the emancipation of women, which the Cardinal both, uh, mentioned, both of—um, these have been rung out of the, our Christian history without much support from, from Christianity. I, as an atheist, my friends, as, 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, 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 you've already answered this, but there is a follow-up question I'm going to go to that now. It's from Rebecca Ray. Okay, my question for you today is, without religion, where is the basis of our values? And in time will we, uh, perhaps revert back to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest? Dawkins, you can answer that now. Bring in Cardinal P.
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've often said that I'm a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It's 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 up, 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, uh, society, um, 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, uh, set up our values and our, and our social lives.
George P?
Well, well, it's interesting because I, I think in the space of about two minutes, uh, Richard has said two different things: one of which is that science can't tell us why, uh, we're here, and then in the next minute, uh, trying to say that it does.
No, no, I, I said it can tell us why we're here.
I can't—
Well, I, I, I simply contradict you in that case. Well, what, what would, what is the reason that science gives why we're here? Science tells us how things happen; science tells us nothing about why there was the Big Bang.
That's right. 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 had 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—it's true that there are still some gaps—but surely, Cardinal, you're not going to fall for the god-of-the-gaps trap, saying that, um, that religion is going to fill in those gaps which science has so far not yet answered.
No, I, I'm not going to be, be diverted at all. I'm happy to come back to that.
Okay, uh, 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 on to our next—
I hope I'll be allowed to—
You certainly will. The, um, it's part of Being Human to ask why we exist. Questioning distinguishes us, uh, from the animals. It's, to, to ask, uh, why we're here, I repeat, and, uh, this is a commonplace, uh, in science. Science, uh, has nothing to say about that, as, whatever it might say about mountains, it, it can't say what is the purpose of human life, and, uh, it's not Maggie Thatcher who was, uh, in the epitome or the personification of social Darwinism; it's Hitler and Stalin, because it's the, it's the struggle of, for survival; they're strong, take what they can, and the weak give what they must, and there's nothing to restrain them, and we've seen that in the two great atheist movements of the last C—
That's ridiculous. That is ridiculous.
Nice, unbiased audience you've attended here by the way, right? Let's, let's clearly distinguish two things here. First, atheism had nothing to do with Hitler or Stalin. Stalin was an atheist; 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. That's, that's exactly why I said that I despised 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 it's 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: What's funny about that? What is funny about that?
Okay, we'd like the audience not to yell out if we can do that. That would be great. Um, we're going to move on. I didn't finish. I'm sorry.
Okay, we'll finish your point because there are lots of questions pertaining to this. We will. 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 color of jealousy? That's a silly question. Exactly. *Why* is a silly question. *Why* is a silly question. You can ask, ask what are the factors that led to something coming into existence; that's a sensible question, but what is the purpose of the universe is a silly question. It, it has no meaning.
Could, could, could I just interpose very briefly? Very briefly. I think it's 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&A; it's live and interactive tonight. We're experimenting with a new way for Q&A viewers to share their opinions on the issues we discussed. You can go to the quote.tv website on your smartphone, tablet, or computer to vote. And 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? We report back later on your views. First, let's move on to our next question from our, for our panel. It comes from Paul Hran. My question is for Richard Dawkins. You're on the record as saying you can't prove that God doesn't, that God doesn't exist, and um, 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. I'm a bit confused about this because you just referred to yourself moments ago as being an atheist, and yet, um, with the Archbishop of C, you refer to yourself as an agnostic.
In *The God Delusion*, I made a seven-point scale: One is, I'm totally confident there is a God; seven is, I'm totally confident there is not a god; um, six is, to all intents and purposes, I'm 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. Um, I cannot disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny, and so I'm agnostic about the Easter Bunny. It's in the same respect that I'm agnostic about, about God.
What proof, by the way, would change your mind?
It's a very, that's a very difficult and interesting question, because, um, I mean, I used to think that, 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," um, but even that, I actually sometimes wonder whether that would—
I think you're hallucinating.
Exactly. I agree. I agree. Make—
I agree. Can I ask—
Well, can I just put the question to you? Could, could you ever provide Richard Dawkins with the sort of proof he requires for belief—scientific proof of the existence of God?
Uh, no, because I think he only accepts proof that is rooted in sense experience. In other words, he, uh, excludes the world of metaphysics, say the principle of contradiction, and he excludes, uh, the possibility of, uh, arguments that don't go against reason but go, uh, beyond it.
But, but could I, 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's more explosive, it's more dynamic. You can, you can shake people up as if you're just going, going around saying that you're a, an agnostic or a non-theist. It's not—these are his own words.
Well, well, let, let's Richard—I don't remember saying that. It wouldn't, it wouldn't totally surprise me. It's a, it's a, um, it's in, it's in 200—it's an ongoing issue. What, what's the best way? That, there is a problem with the word atheist, um, especially in America. I don't know whether it's true in, in Australia. There's a, a lovely woman, um, I'm blocking on her name 'cause I'm jetlagged, um, uh, she's an Irish-American woman. Anybody help me there? Quite a few Irish-American women. Sorry about that. Sorry, no. Um, anyway, I do apologize personally to her for forgetting her name. She's an actress, and she's got a, she did a film on, um, how she escaped from the Roman Catholic Church, and it's a very moving film. And at the end, um, 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's Julia Sweeney—it suddenly came back to me. I strongly recommend that. Now, the point is that the word atheist, unlike justly not believing in God, uh, has bad connotations, and so to some extent people have wished to, 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's the best name to use. I sometimes call myself an atheist, sometimes a non-theist, uh, and, and sometimes just a non-believer.
George P, let's come back to you on this question of the existence of God. Why would God randomly, um, decide to provide proof of his existence to a small group of Jews 2,000 years ago and not subsequently provide any proof after that?
Um, 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, through random. But if you want to get somebody—if you want something done, you got to ask somebody. It's no good, say, "Am I asking a con—everyone in the congregation, will you do something?" Uh, 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, uh, or the intellectually—intellectually—
How can you know intellectually—
Because you see the fruits of their civilization. Egypt was the great power for thousands of years before Christianity. Persia was a, a great power. Calia, uh, the, the poor, the little Jewish people, they were originally Shepherds; they were stuck—they're still stuck—between these—
That's not a reflection of your intellectual capacity, is it, whether or not you're a Shepherd?
Well, uh, no, it's not, but it's a, it's a recognition—it is a reflection of your intellectual development. But, like, many, many people are very, very clever and not, and not highly intellectual. But my point is—
Can I just interrupt? Are you including Jesus in that, who obviously was Jewish and, uh, was of that, was of that Community?
Exactly. So intellectually not up to it?
Oh, uh, well, that's, that's a nice try, Tony, uh, the, the people, uh, in terms of sophistication, uh, the Psalms are remarkable in terms of their buildings and that sort of thing. They don't compare with the great, 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 chose—
They're very difficult, uh, but actually they are now intellectually elite because over the centuries they've been pushed out of every other form of work. Um, there are—I mean, Jesus, I think, is the greatest—the Son of God, but leaving that aside—the greatest man that ever lived. So I've got a great admiration for the Jews, but we don't need to exaggerate their contribution, uh, in their early days.
All right. You're watching Q&A. Remember, you can send your web or video questions to our website; the address is on the screen to find out how to do that. Our next question is a video; it comes from Andrew Watson in Blackburn, Victoria. Question for Richard Dawkins: The Big Bangers believe that once there was nothing, then suddenly, poof, the universe was created from a Big Bang. If I have nothing in the palm of my hand, close my fingers, speak the word "bang," then open my fingers again, still I find there is nothing there. I ask you to explain to us, in layman's terms, how it is that something as enormous as the universes came from nothing.
Richard Dawkins?
Well, obviously you're not a physicist, and, and nor am I, and, uh, I am delighted to say that during my time in Australia I shall be having a number of conversations, public conversations with my colleague Lawrence Krauss, uh, including one in the Sydney Opera House, uh, later, I think it's next week, um, and he, he's written a book on exactly that topic of how you can get something from nothing. And I shall be questioning him about that. Of course, it's counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course, common sense doesn't allow you to get something from nothing. That's why it's interesting. It's got to be interesting in order to give rise to the Universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe. Now, if you want to, to replace, if you want to replace a physical explanation by an intelligent God, that's an even worse explanation. It's an even more difficult explanation. What scientists are trying to do is to explain how you can get not just something, but the immense complexity of the, of the world, of the universe, and of Life. And Science has made, making a pretty good fist of doing that. Uh, life is now completely solved, barring the details. That was Darwin's contribution, and Darwin's, uh, successors. Physicists are still working on the origin of the cosmos; among them is Lawrence Krauss, whom I, whom I shall be talking to, uh, next week. Now, it is very mysterious how the Universe came into being. It's a deeply mysterious and interesting question, and—
And can I just interrupt? It's an old question, a very—
Old question. Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, was asking the same question. He said there must have been a time when no physical things existed, but something can't come from nothing. That was his view; it's just repeated by us. Something can come from nothing, and that's what physicists are now, are now telling us. Um, I could give you—you asked me to give you a, a layman's interpretation—it would be a very, very layman's interpretation. Um, when you have, um, matter and antimatter, and you put them together, um, they cancel each other out and give rise to, to nothing. What Lawrence Krauss is now suggesting is that if you start with nothing, the process can go into reverse and produce matter and antimatter. The, the theory is still being worked out; it's a very difficult theory, mathematical theory. I'm not qualified to answer the, the, the question, but what I am sure about is that it most certainly is not solved by postulating an intelligence, a creative intelligence, who raises even bigger questions of his own existence. That certainly is not going to be the answer. Whatever else is, George P. Thank you.
Um, the, the trouble—well, there are many troubles with Richard's, uh, teachings—but a fundamental one is that he dumbs down God and he soups up nothing. He, he, he continually talks as though God is some sort of upmarket figure within space and time. Now, from 45, 5, 500 BC, uh, where with the Greek philosophers, God is outside space and time. God is necessary, self-sufficient, uncaused, unconditioned. That's the hypothesis you've got to, uh, wrestle with. The second thing is that Krauss says nothing about, uh, the Big Bang coming out of nothing, uh, and it's admittedly he comes clean on about six pages from the end of his book, and I don't know whether Richard has read it that far because he gave it a forward, uh, what he says is what he, what Richard is describing as nothing is a sort of a mixture of particles and perhaps a vacuum with electromagnetic forces working on it. That's, uh, what Krauss is talking about under the heading of nothing, and there's a very good review of this in the New York Times, not a religious paper at all, uh, where the Krauss is absolutely, um, denied and, and demolished, although, uh, especially by his, his suborders, claiming that he says things come out of nothing. He, he doesn't say that. You quickly respond; you can dispute exactly what, what's meant by, by nothing, but whatever it is, it's very, very simple. And why is that funny? Well, I think it's a bit funny to be trying to define nothing, is it? Well, can I, can I put that, can I put that to you as a question? Is it, is it equally, um, feasible, since you can't prove the existence of God, that the nothing you're talking about is, in fact, some creative force? If you talk about a God who is a creative intelligence, then that is something very complicated and very improbable, and something that requires explaining in its own right. The nothing that Lawrence Krauss is talking about, whether or not it's what a naive person would conceive as nothing or what a sophisticated physicist would consider to be nothing, it is going to be something much, much simpler than a creative intelligence. We are struggling, we're all struggling; scientists are struggling to explain how we get the fantastic order and complex of the universe out of very simple and therefore easy to understand, easy to explain beginnings. Lawrence Krauss calls the, the, the substrate of his explanation nothing. It's possible to dispute whether nothing is quite the right word, but whatever it is, it is very, very simple and therefore is a worthy premise for an explanation, whereas a god, a creative intelligence, is not a worthy substrate for an explanation because it is already something very complicated, and it's no good invoking Thomas Aquinas and saying that God has defined as outside time and space. That's just a copout; that's just an evasion of the responsibility to explain; that's just setting out what you want to prove before you've even started. Okay, let's move on to a question. Let's move on to a question on evolution for Cardinal Pels from Joe Blades.
As a young Catholic scientist, I'd like to ask the Cardinal to clarify the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution and comment on whether the dichotomy between science and religion is, in fact, real. Well, science and religion are two different, uh, activities, and, um, in the Catholic Church, um, you can believe to, to some extent what you like about evolution. Um, I think Darwin made a great contribution. It, uh, uh, I remember talking with Julius Kornberg, a very distinguished biologist, and he's worked with ants for years, and he said, you know, he's managed to change them by changing the, the conditions, uh, but there are a number of things that, uh, evolution doesn't explain. Darwin realized that Darwin was a theist because he said he couldn't believe that the immense cosmos and all the beautiful things in the world came about either by chance or out of necessity. He said, I have to be ranked as a theist. Now, that's just not true. Excuse me, not true. It's on page 92 of his authorized biography. Go and have a look. Humans—you accept that humans evolved from non-humans—so let me put this to you as a question: At what point in this evolutionary scale was a soul imparted to the humans from God? Look, a soul isn't, uh, it's not like putting a spot of gin in a tonic. Yeah, the soul is the principle of life, so whenever there was, uh, a principle of life that could question, that could be open to awe, it was able to communicate, then we had, uh, the first human. Now, we believe that the first humans, uh, developed in South Africa. I'm not quite sure, um, how long ago, and that all, uh, you know, humans have developed, uh, from that, uh, we know most about that because of the drawings they left on the, on walls and caves and that sort of thing. No such thing from the Andals, uh, so we can't say exactly when there was a first human, but we have to say if there are humans, there must have been a first one. There might have been equal first, but if there, there is a progression, they got to be first. So, um, are you talking about a kind of Garden of Eden scenario with an actual Adam and Eve? Well, um, what Adam and Eve, uh, terms, what do they mean? Life and Earth. It's like every man—that's a, a beautiful, sophisticated mythological, uh, account. It's not science, but it's there to tell us two or three things: First of all, that God created the world and the universe; secondly, that the key to the whole of universe, the really significant thing, are humans; and thirdly, it's a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering, but it isn't a literal truth. You shouldn't see it in any way as being an historical or literal truth; it's certainly not a scientific truth, and, uh, it's, it's a religious story told for religious purposes. And, uh, just, just quickly, uh, because the Old Testament, in particular, is full of these kind of stories, I mean, is there a point where you distinguish between metaphor and reality? For example, Moses receiving the Ten Commandments, uh, inscribed directly by God on a mountain. I'm not sure that the Old Testament says that, uh, God inscribed the Ten Commandments, uh, but leaving that aside, it's difficult to know, uh, how exactly that worked, but there, Moses was a great man; there was a great encounter with the Divine. Actually, with Moses, we get the key that brings enables us to come together with the Greeks, with, with reason, because Moses said, who will I tell the Egyptians? And he said, tell them that my name is I am who I am. Okay, I'm, I'm going to bring Richard Dawkins back in here because we, we've moved from evolution obviously to, uh, the biblical versions of it. Your response.
Well, um, I'm curious to know if, if, um, Adam and Eve never existed, where did original sin come from? But I, I also would like to clarify the point about, uh, whether there ever was a first human. That's a rather difficult and puzzling question because, um, we know that the previous species from which we're, um, descended is probably Homo erectus, and before that, um, some sort of, um, ostop sign, but there never was a last Homo erectus who gave birth to the first Homo sapiens. Every creature ever born belonged to the same species as its parents. The process of evolution is so gradual that you could never say, aha, now suddenly we have the first human. Um, it was always a case of just a slightly different from the previous generation. That's the scientific point which I think is quite interesting. I'm not sure if it has theological significance except that, uh, I think successive popes have tried to suggest that, um, the soul did indeed get added, rather like gin and tonic, um, at some particular point during evolution. At some point in evolution, uh, there was no soul, and then later there was one. So it is quite an interesting question to ask. Now, we have rather a good fossil record from Africa of the descent of, of humans from australopith signs to, to various species of homo, perhaps homo habilis, perhaps Homo erectus, then archaic Homo sapiens, and then, um, modern Homo sapiens. At what point did the soul get injected, um, and what does the idea of original sin mean if Adam and Eve never existed? I'll just quickly let you respond to that.
Well, I mean, God wasn't running around giving injections, and if there is no first person—not where did the soul come from?—then the soul is the principle of life. There are animal souls; all living things have some principle of life. The, uh, uh, an animal has a principle of life; a human has, uh, a soul, a principle of life which is immensely more sophisticated. We even have a voice box, so that which is one of the great miracles, so that we can communicate our thoughts to one another rather than just, uh, grunting. I'm pleased we're not grunting tonight. Let's move along. You can, by the way, don't forget you can still vote at qu.vote, sorry, quote. I should say, on the question, does religious belief make the world a better place? Over 15,000 viewers have already voted, and we'll check before the end of the program for the final results. And next question for Professor Dawkins and Cardinal Pell is a video, and it comes from Kier and Dennis in Fern Tree Gully, Victoria. My question is for George Pell. George, as a climate change skeptic, you demand a very high standard of evidence to support the hypothesis that global warming has an anthropogenic cause. My question is, why then do you not demand the same standard of evidence for the existence of God?
Uh, I'm very, very happy to answer that. Uh, first of all, I'm not a skeptic about climate change. I grew up in Ballarat; the weather was always—I work for years in Melbourne. If you don't like the weather in Melbourne, wait 20 minutes. Uh, think of all the nonsense people like Flannery told us about years of drought here, and now we're, we're coping with flood. So, can I just clarify that you're a skeptic about global warming leading to climate? I'm a skeptical—I'm a skeptical about the human contribution to dangerous climate change. I think that is not established, and, and is—and sorry—is that because you're skeptical about scientific consensus, and is that partly driven by the, by what scientists believe about religion? No, got nothing to do with it. Uh, on, on the, on the weather question, I go on the evidence. When you come to talk about God, that is not a scientific question. The scientists, uh, concede that it is a question that is open, I believe, to reason. You have to reason about the facts of science, uh, ask whether you believe that, uh, the suggestion that, um, you know, random selection, um, is, is sufficient, and also most evolutionary biologists today don't believe that, don't believe what they don't believe in, uh, random—so this crude fundamentalist version of random selection that you propose—I do not propose it, and, um, I strongly deny that that evolution is random selection. Evolution is non-random selection. There, there's a purpose to it. Is there? No. Could, could, could you explain what non-random means? Yes, of course, I could, as my life's work. Um, it's, it's a hard thing to say, but keep it brief. There's random genetic variation and non-random survival and, and non-random reproduction, which is why, as the generations go by, animals get better at doing what they do. That is quintessentially non-random. It does not mean there's a purpose in the sense of a human purpose, in the sense of a guiding principle which is thought up in advance. With hindsight, you can say something like a bird's wing looks as though it has a purpose; a human eye looks as though it has a purpose, but it has come about through the process of non-random natural selection. There is no purpose in the human sense; there's a kind of pseudo-purpose, but it's not a purpose in the human sense of conscious, uh, guiding. But above all, I must stress that Darwinian evolution is a non-random process. One of the biggest misunderstandings, which I'm sorry to say the Cardinal just perpetrated, uh, is that there's some—is that evolution is a random process. It is the opposite of a random process. A brief response to that, if you can.
Yes, um, that, that is, uh, fascinating because most evolutionary biologists today believe that the animal world is, uh, developing according to patterns which, uh, we're starting to know more and more, um, about them, and, um, are you referring to intelligent design? No, I'm not; I'm leaving that, uh, right to one side. I, I do you believe in intelligent design? I believe, or that there's an intelligent designer? I believe God created the world. I'm not entirely sure, uh, how it works out, uh, scientifically, but, uh, I, I wonder, you know, whether Richard believes that the order, the patterns we see, uh, in nature, whether they are real or whether they're an illusion. I'm going to leave that question. They are real. All right. Okay, that's a quick answer. Um, let's go to, uh, next question. It is a video; it comes from Matthew Thompson and Tong, Victoria. I'm an atheist. What do you think will happen when I die, and how do you know? George P, will start with you. You ought to be an authority on this, I imagine.
Uh, well, I know from the Christian point of view, God loves everybody; that every genuine motion towards the truth is a motion towards God; and, uh, when an atheist dies, like everybody else, they'll be judged on the extent to which they have moved towards goodness and truth and beauty. But in the Christian view, God loves everyone except those who turn his back, uh, turn their back on him through, uh, evil acts. Oh, so atheism, not an evil act? No, not in—well, no, I don't—in most cases, it's not. So many—I guess to get to the point of the question, I suppose Ian, he may, may be having a little wager here, but, um, is it possible for an atheist to go to heaven? Well, it's not my business—no, but—well, you're, you're the only authority we have here. I, I would say certainly. Yeah, certainly. And just, just on the subject of Heaven, if we can, what is your own concept of what Heaven is? Well, even St. Paul was severely agnostic, but one, one way in which the, uh, Christians differ from the Greeks—the Greeks believed in the immortality of the soul; uh, we Christians believe, with one section of the Jewish people, in the resurrection of the body. So, uh, 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'll 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'll work out, I've got no idea, but that's, that's the, the general outline of Christian—but you, you, you, you believe, you think about it as a, 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? That's, I think that's a traditional—well, uh, that's certainly the traditional Christian view. It's, it's the view that I accept, and it's also the view of, of some of the Jews. Richard Dawkins.
Well, the answer to the question, what's going to happen when, when we die, depends whether we're buried, cremated, or give our bodies to science. Um, I, I'm—can I just, can I say this? If you, if you're actually an agnostic, and you keep aside this small portion of your brain, um, for subsequent proof, I mean, you might get presented with that proof when you die. The brain is what we do our thinking with; the brain is going to rot; that's, that's all there is to it. Um, I'm intrigued by the Cardinal saying that the Christians believe you're going to be resurrected in the body. I mean, that's an astonishing idea, and I, I don't believe you really mean that, and I, and I think, um, just, just as I don't believe you really mean that the, the wafer turns into the body of Christ, you must mean body in some rather special sense.
Mr. Dawkins, I don't say things I don't mean. Well, then, what do you mean? Do you—if you—I'll, I'll tell you, and I've just explained what the bodily resurrection means to the extent that I can understand it. I certainly believe that when the words of, of consecration are uttered, that they become the body and blood of Christ. Now, I, I've had a little kid come up to me when that was explained and say, can I have a look in the chalice to see if it's turned to blood? And, of course, it hasn't. We, we don't believe that; it's not—again—against reason. I believe it because I believe the man who told us that was also the Son of God. He says, this is my body, this is my blood, and I'd much rather listen to him and take his word than yours. But other, but other Christian denominations are quite happy to take that as a symbolic, uh, metaphorical meaning. Um, Catholics take it as a literal meaning, and I take it—I'm, I'm trying to be charitable by trying to suggest that it's that same sense in which you say that, that the body is resurrected, because the body is certainly not resurrected in terms of the cell, the protoplasm, the proteins, the DNA. That doesn't happen any more than the wafer turns into, into that. You're, you're right when you said that to, to the child. So you do not mean that the wafer turns into the body in any sense in which normal English language usage would, would understand. You mean it in some other sense, and I take it it's that same sense that the body is resurrected. Well, can I, can I ask you whether you do mean it in a metaphorical sense in the same way that you believe Adam is metaphorical? I don't; I follow it; I, I understand it according to a system of metaphysics that was spelled out by the Greeks before Christ came and which we've adopted, and that is, uh, there's a substance which is the core, uh, of a being, and it is revealed to us through what are called accidents. Now, I believe that the core, uh, of the being—becomes—the bread becomes the body and blood of Christ. It continues to look exactly as it was. Uh, we believe that in the Catholic—now, I know you're a cultural Anglican, uh, and we can't blame the—I'm also a rationalist. I mean, I, I mean, I use English as my native language; the wafer does not become the body of anybody in the English language. I, I think we've resolved that we both—well, that you both disagree on this point, uh, rather substantially. Let's go to our next question, which is from Michael Matty. Is it okay to tell a child that God doesn't exist? Richard Dawkins.
I think it's okay to tell a child the truth, uh, what I—but I would prefer to, um, encourage a child to make up her own mind and to think, uh, about the evidence and to believe things when there is evidence. What I think is not okay, what I think is deeply immoral, is to tell a child that when she dies, if she's not good, she's going to go to hell. That seems to me to be mental child abuse and an utter disgrace. I remember when I was in England, we were preparing some, uh, young English boys, uh, they're from very, preparing them for—come thank you—preparing them for first communion, and, uh, they were very patriotic young lads, and, uh, one
Of them announced, uh, very breezily to me, uh, that he didn't believe in hell. And, uh, I mean, certainly the idea of any child being sent to hell, I agree that that is grotesque, and that's uh, that's not the Christian God. But anyhow, this this kid, I said to K, this kid I said simply, um, "Hitler. Do you think Hitler might be in Hell? Started the second World War, caused the death of 50 million, or would you prefer a system where Hitler got away with it for free?" Anyhow, the little kid was quite patriotic, and he said he realized hell was in with a chance if Hitler was going to go there. What, what about a system where he was simply obliterated and didn't exist anymore? Well, he would have got away with too much, as far as I'm concerned. So, 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? No, no, no. The only people, uh, well, one, I hope nobody's in Hell. Uh, we, we Catholics generally believe that there, there is a hell. I hope nobody's there. I certainly believe in a place of purification. I think it'll be like getting up in the morning and you throw the curtains back; the light is just too much. God's light would be too much, uh, uh, for us. But I believe, uh, 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. Okay, well, I'm just going to go to our next question, which we can respond to some of these issues through that. It's a video question, comes from Nick Walsh in Ningan, New South Wales.
How can there be a compassionate God who is all-powerful and has created us, yet we suffer? Why create such a world in the first place? Richard Dawkins, you can reflect on that and the previous question. Well, it's hardly my business to say, um, how could a compassionate God like that exist? Darwin himself said it was impossible for him to believe in a God who was capable of creating such suffering. He actually was talking about suffering in the animal kingdom. Um, do, do you assume that suffering is a natural part of the Human Condition? It's, it's a natural part of the, of the living condition. Uh, it's a natural part of Darwinian natural selection, which is one of the reasons why I was so uh, keen to, um, to, to say that I didn't want to live by Darwinian principles. There is a massive amount of suffering in the natural world, a huge amount of suffering, and it seems to me that's an almost inevitable consequence of Darwinian natural selection. I'm more interested, however, in what's true than in what I would like to be true. It would be very nice if there were no suffering in the world. It would be very nice, uh, if, um, there were a sort of natural scale of justice, as the Cardinal was saying, but, um, I'm more interested in, in, uh, what's true. So it's not the business of an atheist to justify the ways of God to man; it is the business of a cardinal.
Okay, let's go to the Cardinal. Um, the question was, how can there be a compassionate God, is all-powerful and has created us, and yet we suffer? Why create such a world in the first place? I, I think that's, uh, it's probably the hardest question for us, uh, to answer. Do you struggle with it? Yes. Uh, if I get a chance to say, uh, to ask a question when I die, I think I'll ask the good God why is there so much suffering. Um, that's a problem for us. I think the greater problem for—and I'll come back to the question because it's a very good one—um, that's the, the heart of what we're about. I think it's a much greater problem for the atheist to explain why there is goodness and truth and Beauty. Our problem is to cope with, uh, uh, suffering. Now, one of the, uh, one of the unique, uh, I think it well, certainly special features of Christian teaching is the value of Redemptive suffering, and, uh, that is the significance of Christ suffering with us and dying on the cross, and that helps, that helps people. My, my first Easter after I was a priest was in the hills in Italy, very sad Village; all the men were away in Germany or Switzerland getting big money home only for three weeks a year, and the people were, were coming in, coming to confession, coming for consolation. I was even wetter behind the years than I am now. I didn't know what to say, and eventually I said to someone, well, look, Christ suffered too. Christ had a bad run, and, uh, Christ died on the cross, and we believe that through his suffering good will eventually Triumph. Can I take it, can I take it to a bigger level than that, um, Village, um, to the Holocaust, um, to genocide, to famine? If there is an omnipotent and all-powerful God, why does he let these things happen? That's a very good question. But if God is going to allow us to be good, he's got to give us freedom. There, there's no, uh, alternative to that. And but he chose to intervene at different times in history to save the Jews when they were going over the river Jordan. I mean, there are many times when apparently God has intervened in, in biblical times. Why not now? Well, that's, uh, I think Revelation is, is complete. That's a, a mighty question. Um, he helped probably through secondary causes, uh, for the Jews to, uh, escape, uh, and, uh, and continue. It's, it's interesting through these secondary causes, uh, probably no people in history have been punished the way the Germans were. Um, it's, it's a terrible, it's a terrible—M. There'd be a very strong argument saying that the Jews of Europe suffered worse than the Germans. Uh, yes, uh, that, uh, that's, um, that, that might, that might be right. Certainly the suffering in both, I mean the Jews, there was no reason why all they should suffer.
Okay, I'm just going to—we're running out of time—I'm going to go to another question. It's on a different subject, from Anita Woo. Jesus preaches love thy neighbor as thyself, so Cardinal P, how can you be against giving our gay neighbors marriage rights when equality and respect are the fundamental foundations of loving and spreading love? Well, it's, um, quite misleading and quite unfair to suggest, uh, that Christians hate homosexuals. Christians love everybody. Um, we, we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, that it is, uh, for the continuity of the human race. We believe that that, uh, men and women are made for one another spiritually, psychologically, physically. Uh, we believe that a man and a woman as a father with their children is far and away the best and most efficient and most economical system to bring up children, and government should support it. For, um, a homosexual couple to have a union, um, uh, well and good; there's no reason why that can't be—Can I just interpose a quick question on this? We are running out of time. I mean, do you believe that homosexuality, since it's not a question of choice, is part of God's natural order? Oh, creation's messy. Uh, I think it's the oriental carpet makers always leave a little flaw in their carpet because only God's perfect. But sorry, you're suggesting that homosexuals are flawed human beings? Uh, not necessarily, uh, but what I am saying is, uh, I, I don't think, uh, homosexual activity is, uh, simply the result of genetic makeup because we are free; we can control our, uh, instincts. And like with heredity, environment, a lot of this practice is, uh, is learned. But whatever about it, we've got to try to support, uh, uh, these, uh, these people, show compassion. The Catholic church is a great record there; we, we look after more HIV sufferers than any other non-government, uh, organization. But we don't, don't believe it's possible to have, uh, homosexual marriage. I'm going to—we're, we're almost out of time—we've got time for one more question that both of our guests can answer. It's from Katherine Chin. As an atheist, Professor Dawkins, do you believe that, um, believing in God for emotional support should be allowed, even temporarily? Research has proven that people who believe in God have a better chance of surviving terminal illnesses such as cancer, as well as, um, living longer when they, um, go to church. So do you think that believing in God is beneficial for our well-being, even if God is an illusion?
It's perfectly possible that, as you say, uh, believing in God has beneficial effects upon health. Um, it's possible that you're less likely to suffer a duodenal ulcer or something of that sort. But I do have to stress, I mean, that's an utterly trivial argument compared to the, the, the truth of whether God actually exists or not. I mean, that's a really big question; it's an important question, one that the cardinal and I would, would, would agree on. And if there is some minor benefit to health, one way or the other—the evidence is not good, by the way—but even bending over backwards to suggest that the evidence is there that, um, psychosomatic illness may be healed, may be alleviated somewhat by a belief in God—psychosomatic medicine is well known; placebos work. Um, if, if God is simply a placebo, that's fine, but I'm interested in whether he's actually there. Okay, C, final, actually, yeah, so am I. It's a question of Truth. Christians don't present God as like Santa Claus, uh, something that a myth that's useful for, uh, for children. And believing in God and being a Christian cuts both ways. More people were killed for their Christian belief in the last century than any other Century, probably than all the other centuries combined. They died on principle, to be faithful, uh, to Jesus. So we might get some benefits; we don't might get ulcers; we might live a bit longer; that might have much more to do with our heredity, uh, but, uh, we follow Christ because we believe it's the truth. I, I think it does bring a peace of mind; that it does help us, but sometimes it gets us into—my life would be much simpler and much easier if I didn't have to go to bed for a number of Christian principles. Have you ever regretted that? You do sometimes? I wonder seriously. No, no, no. Okay, that's all we have time for tonight. Before we go, let's check the final results of tonight's Q&A vote. With more than 20,000 of you voting, we have a 76% saying no; religious belief does not make the world—religious belief does not make the world a better place. Please thank our special guest, Professor Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George P. And next week, next week on Q&A, we return to worldly matters with Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, the Manager of Opposition Business Christopher Pyne, international human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, humanist philosopher AC Grayling, and Middle East analyst Lydia Khalil. Until then, good night.