You wrote early in this thread that, "You can’t build a legitimate following purely on being anti-something, fomenting intolerance in the name of spurious freedoms. You have to offer a genuine alternative, underwritten by more than clichés."

If it is your simple criticism that Dawkins is not offering something to replace that which he would take down then I think you miss the point of science, which has no such responsibility attached to it.

If an adult destroys a child's belief in Santa Claus must he have something ready to fill the hole left in the child's life. How would he be viewed if he instead encouraged the child's belief indefinitely? Dawkins is the child who has come to question the belief he has been encouraged into, angry that the adult won't concede its deficiencies and continues only to highlight the value of the belief. If it is Dawkins' responsibility, as you contend Squeers, to offer an alternative then what could that be, surely not "follow me"?

There is a concern within Dawkins and other atheists about the power of religious banners to lead humanity into conflict as it has done down through the ages, conflict that atheists, who realize they are in growing number, want no part of. The fight against this has to begin simply with taking down religion and in doing so growing the number of atheists world-over, not offering suggestions for its replacement.

Yabby,

I think you're right that Pell gave us the dumbed-down version.

Luciferase,

It seemed to me that Cardinal Pell wafted in the direction of knowing something about the science he was discussing, then abruptly resorted to nebulosity that floated away like incense. His vague assertion that Homo Sapiens are "descended" from Neanderthals was a good example.

What of Hell - apparently it's a receptacle/state where the likes of people such as Hitler are contained. That is not a compelling argument for the existence of Hell. It is a "placebo" for humanity's need for a sense of Justice.

Squeers,

As you can see, I'm conflicted as to New Atheism forming a "church" that may further promulgate the status quo, yet I'm mindful that Christianity seems to have jumped on board the neoliberal bandwagon of consumer/industrial society without much more than the odd muted call in opposition to secular economic ethics. It's all just rolling along as it is at the moment.

Pell may have been an unfortunate spokesman for the theist cause, but only because he was vague and unconvincing (IMO). There is much, no doubt, that our minds can barely hope to grasp, yet I find the Christian explanation contrived, patched-up and sadly wanting.

*Absolutely nothing of any depth was discussed.*

The problem there, Squeers, was in your expecatation of what Q&A
is all about. It's for plain vanilla Australians asking plain
vanilla everyday questions. The sort of discussion that you, Poirot
and Pericles might have enjoyed, would go clean over the top of
most of the audiences heads and that is not the purpose of a show
like that. Those kinds of shows do exist, but that is not what this
one is all about.

I did learn something, namely it gave me more of an insight as to
what Pell thinks of religion and why.

Dan, Dawkins has debated plenty of creationists, just do a bit of
a google search. The thing is, creationists cannot even explain
the basics, like what happened to the freshwater fish during Noah's
flood. Perhaps they should get their own story a bit better worked
out, before they try to tackle serious intellectuals.

Runner, Pell represents the views of the largest Christian church
in Australia. Clearly your personal view is not one shared by
most Christians.

>>Although 'time and time again' (to quote the words of Grim) we have creationists (who are also scientists, despite what Grim was asserting) who argue the opposite to what you just said. The fossils quite clearly do not show the necessary evolutionary changes over time: They do not evidence changes which include birds evolving from dinosaurs and people evolving from ape-like ancestors.<<

Yes: but those Creationist biologists are vastly outnumbered by the evolutionist biologists. The scientific consensus is that evolutionary theory is sound at least broadly speaking: much argument goes on about the actual nuts and bolts. Consensus does not imply a theory is true: there was consensus on phlogiston. But consensus is achieved via the scientific method: theories become widely accepted if and only if they provide a better match for the available evidence than opposing theories.

Which evolution does in spades. Most of the Creationist conjectures on the subject of the fossil record that I've read involve fanciful notions about Great Floods and can be so easily and quickly falsified that they should be regarded more as jokes than legitimate hypotheses.

>>This is where the debate could begin. But you highlight why it won't easily be settled.<<

What debate? It's already been settled: science has gone with evolution because Creationism didn't match the evidence as well as evolution. That's why evolution is being taught over Creationism in every public school, every Catholic school, most other private schools and as far as I know every university in the country.

Cheers,

Tony

THIS IS GOD SPEAKING. I SEE ALL WHICH UNFORTUNATELY INCLUDES THAT POOR EXCUSE FOR A DEBATE.

PELL IS A TOOL. ME KNOWS WHAT THE LAST POPE WAS THINKING WHEN HE APPOINTED HIM. BUT DAWKINS HAS LOT TO LEARN AND IS IN FOR ONE HELL OF A SURPRISE (PARDON THE PUN) WHEN HE DIES.

DAN - I WORK IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS. DEVO WERE RIGHT - I MADE MAN BUT I USED A MONKEY TO DO IT.

HOPE YOU ALL HAD GOOD EASTER.

Not sure about that, Dan S de Merengue.

>>It's the creationists that are the natural opponents of Dawkins in the wild<<

The problem with creationists debating science is straightforward: absent the Bible from the discussion, and there would be no creationist theory.

There is no possibility whatsoever, that given the evidence available - fossils, rock strata etc. - that you would be able to demonstrate that once upon a time there was a Garden of Eden. Or that there was a guy called Noah who built an ark etc. etc. The pre-existing narrative is an essential prerequisite. As such, knowledge of geology etc. is of no value whatsoever, unless you first accept the Bible stories as accurate.

So your dismissive pigeonholing - "Pell's [speciality] is theology" - is odd, since he was for that reason exactly the right person to put across the creationist perspective.