[I am thinking this
will be a semi-regular thing on my blog now. Sure I am not the greatest Dad in
the world, and my experience is limited to a single son; but at the end of the
day every little step along the way is an important one, and perhaps some of my
experiences will have merit beyond my own doorstep. Let me know what you think
in the comments below.]
In my six odd years of having a son, I have discovered that
one of the hardest things to try and explain to him is the concept of evolution.
I see this as a bit of a problem, as being a dinosaur nut like his old man,
evolution is vital to his understanding of these creatures.
From our recent trip to the Melbourne Museum, where Harrison could finally tell me most of his favourite dinosaur's names. #DadPride
This problem can be doubly difficult because at its most
basic level, the theory of evolution is a very simple concept, however it relies
on a lot of concepts and grounding that is just out of reach of young children.
Saying to your child that evolution is how animals change
over time to adapt to their surroundings can lead to a lot of misunderstandings
of how exactly they change, and how they adapt. I often found myself getting exasperated
trying to explain through simple examples such as a giraffes neck; explaining
how having a longer neck helps them reach higher food, but then being sure to
stress that the individual didn’t get a longer neck because they want one, but
that their children, if born with a slightly longer neck, will pass that trait
on down.
Before you know it, your explanation has gone on longer than
you wanted it to, and has included too many new words and concepts for your
child to really stick to the point.
Don’t get me wrong, my son is one bright kid. Ask him what
light is made of and he has two answers; a joke one (light is made from torches),
and the real one (light is made of photons). It is just that getting kids’
minds to work on the scale of evolution takes a lot of mental effort on their
part. Kids very rarely want to think of the consequences of their actions
beyond the days play, let alone the consequences of animal’s actions across the
generations.
Over the years my son’s understanding of the natural world has
progressed quite well, and I am very proud when he talks about biological
features as evolved, and ponders what their purpose is in helping the animal
survive. But it was just the other day when we were discussing evolution (yes
this is what my son and I do sometimes) that I hit on a better way to explain
it to him.
I don’t quite recall how we got onto the subject, but I
shocked Harry by telling him that our dog was descendant from wolves. Now
perhaps this isn’t the most surprising fact for a child, but consider my dogs
appearance:
This is why when i write of my dog, i often put inverted commas around the word 'dog'....
“That’s a wolf?!” He exclaimed (with an inflection well worthy of an interrobang).
I explained that back when man was still living somewhat in
the wild, we domesticated wolves for companionship and to help make our lives
easier.
I reminded him that a lot of traits in animals can be
inherited from their parents (he is aware that he got half his DNA from me, and
the other half from my wife, but luckily he hasn’t asked how they got mixed
yet…), then asked him what would happen if we picked the ‘nicest’ wolves, got
them to have babies, and then keep picking the nicer, friendlier, ones to have
around us. He was pretty quick in understanding how these traits could be
selected, and bred into the population. It was working a treat.
Next example I used was the domestication of the cow. I
explained how we domesticated them from Aurochs, creatures that were twice as
big, and quite nasty customers. Picking the smaller, more docile ones each time
and having only those in your paddock, I was able to show how this selection
can likewise change a population over time.
Perhaps I should have caught onto utilising artificial
selection as a way of explaining this long ago after all Charles Darwin, the great man
himself, used this introduction to his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species.
Once this fundamental concept is understood, it is pretty
easy to cross from artificial, to natural selection. All that has to be
explained then it how animals in the wild aren’t selected by people because of
the traits they want to propagate, but instead the individuals are ‘selected’
by nature, because they are the ones that survive better and have more kids.
It is a great feeling to see that you have successfully explained
something to your kids, when you see that little click of comprehension, and
the pride they feel having learnt something new. The only thing that worries me
now is that he is garnering all of this information at a rate that much exceeded
my own at his age. If our generation isn’t careful, these guys will be taking
over in twenty to thirty years……
I have been away for the
Easter holidays (which in some part explains my lack of blogging lately), but
was delighted to find that as I came home Monday night, there was to be a
televised sparring between the venerable Richard Dawkins, and the........ well,
and George Pell.
It is always great to see
Dawkins on the fly. So often news reports depict him as a militant atheist, who
is rude, or arrogant, and attacks religious belief with wanton disregard. Then
when I watch his appearances, I am always reminded of just how polite and
British the man is. His worst retorts after all are generally along the lines
of an Oxfordian “utter nonsense”, or “patently absurd”.
If this is considered the
epitome of a rude atheist, then I must be a positively abhorrent one.
During the show I was
surprised at how flimsy Pell arguments were. No doubt I was always going to
come out in support of Dawkins, but I had expected there to be more formidable
arguments either for religious belief, or else against atheism. Yet I found
myself being able to predict the weak arguments before they were pulled out of
what must be quite a tattered bag of apologist tropes.
Hitler was an atheist, or
social Darwinist; therefore evolution can’t be a good thing. We evolved from
Neanderthals. If there were no justice after death, that would be very nice,
therefore, there must be. Darwin was a theist. And so on.
All in all I had a great
time watching the show, and though I had promised myself that I wouldn’t go
into a twitter overload, I ended up tweeting around 22 times during the
fifty-odd minute show. Not too bad an outcome though, as I managed to get one
of my tweets up on screen to be seen by 863,000 Australians, which is
around 4% of the population, so I am happy with that. It also got me a sizable
new chunk of followers on twitter, and it is always nice to know that your
crazy twitter rants are appreciated.
Then as I decided to
write a blog on this episode of Q&A, I quickly found my initial thoughts on
the program spiralling out of control into an almost blow by blow account of
the interaction. So rather than make this solely a reflective piece, I have
decided to make it a sort of running commentary of my favourite bits of the
night, supplemented with quotes from the transcript.
This ended up running
into around five thousand words (I remember uni days when such a word count
would have killed me), but I hope it is somewhat entertaining for those of you
who watched the show, and perhaps even those who missed it. So yes it is rather longer than my usual posts, and doesn't have as many interesting pictures to look at, but it is just a culmination of a lot of stuff i wanted to get off my chest after watching the show.
Here goes.
The first question was
quite a stock standard one, regarding whether or not an atheist can essentially
be a good person. It is one often brought out in these debates, but also one
that most people know the answer to from either side; yes, but with some
conditions.
Dawkins points his
response that “it is true that
Christianity has adopted many of the best values of humanity but they don't
belong to Christianity or any other religion”, and goes on to point out the
bad things espoused in the Bible, both New Testament and Old. Then Pell
counters with a quote which seems to me a bit too understanding of
Christianity’s nature as a created religion, not a metaphysical truth:
“We’re Christians, we're New Testament
people. There was an evolution in the Old Testament. There are some awful
things there. It developed. The notion of God was purified as it went through
the Old Testament.”
It seems odd for him to
be talking of the notion of God changing, and of parts of the Bibles teachings
being awful.
Now on to audience question
number two, where things start to get moving along quicker:
“Religion is precisely often blamed for
being the root of war and conflict but what about all the good it has done for
society. God-centred religion has been the birth place of schools,
universities, hospitals and countless developments in science. Richard, if you
believe the human drive to seek the truth and to constantly improve ourselves
is merely a mechanism for survival, then what’s the point and why should I
bother? ”
This second question was
a bit all over the place. First it is talking about remembering all the good
things that religion has done rather than focusing on the bad things, then
after simply stating that as if it should be a powerful point, the questioner
quickly darts aside and asks ‘what’s the point’ if we are products of
evolution.
I mean, perhaps a
pertinent question, but where is the lead up, and what’s more; where is the
alternative? It is all well and good to say, ‘what is the point if we are the
product of evolution’, but perhaps if you are arguing for religion as the
alternative, you should at least offer a reason why us originating from a god’s
creation would imbue us with any more purpose, beyond that of merely being
created by a god.
As Dawkins said “We have to find our own purposes in life,
which are not derived directly from our scientific history”, which I agree
with completely because I think that any purpose we want to derive for
ourselves should depend on our own qualities and attributes, not just our physical
origins.
Pell isn’t brought into
the debate here, which was a pity if we wanted to hear an alternative purpose
of life. But nonetheless, the third question quickly followed as a bit of an
extension of this:
“Okay, my question for you today is:
without religion, where is the basis of our values and in time, will we perhaps
revert back to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest? ”
Having read a lot of
Dawkins writings, I knew he would have an answer for this which really seems
like common sense to anyone who understands science’s place in our lives. That
answer is simply that Darwinian principles explain how we got here; they are a
physical law and shouldn’t be used to determine how we run our society any more
than the theory of gravity should. Dawkins says this, and states emphatically
that he would definitely not like to live by Darwinian principles.
The discussion then went
towards science, and how it can tell us about why we are here. Pell, being a
self stylised authority on why we are here, leapt on this chance, which lead to
this little exchange:
GEORGE PELL: Well, it’s interest because I
think in the space of about two minutes, Richard has said two different things,
one of which is that science can't tell us why we're here and then in the next
minute, trying to say that it does.
RICHARD DAWKINS: No. No. I said it can tell us why we're here.
GEORGE PELL: It can't.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, I simply contradict you in that case.
Here we begin to see the
germ of a core misunderstanding between Pell and Dawkins as one talks about why
we are here in a sense of ‘what is our purpose’, and the other talks about why
we are here in a sense of ‘what caused us to be’.
Dawkins put it nicely,
and with his trademark scientific air:
“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 have 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.”
This is the age old ‘science
can answer how, but not why’ argument, where those in favour of this rhetorical
side step fail to elucidate why there must be a why, as opposed to simply just a how.
Then, at around the 9
minute mark I believe it was, Pell proved himself to be quite a premature
invoker of Godwin’s Law when he took what is considered a fatal step in
internet arguments, and committed a Redictio Ad Hitlerum:
“[...] it’s not Maggie Thatcher who was in
the epitome or the personification of social Darwinism. It’s Hitler and
Stalin. [........] Because it is the struggle for survival, the strong
take what they can and the weak give what they must and there is nothing to
restrain them and we have seen that in the two great atheist movements of the
last century.”
Not only is this a
premature appeal to Hitler, but also the classic mistake of counting him, and
his Nazi cronies, as vanguards for atheism. Dawkins of course being a veteran
of these unctuous arguments was quick to label this as ridiculous and again pointed
out that:
“That’s exactly why I said that I despise
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”
At this point we reach
the first of a few instances where a group of the audience flat out laughed at sporadic
points during Dawkins explanations, to which he would ask the audience ‘Why is
that funny?’ but never got a direct response. The laughter in this case was
caused by the statement from Dawkins:
“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.”
They laughed, Dawkins
asked why, but I don’t think he got a response.
As this went further, and
Dawkins further explained why he believes that a question like “What is the
purpose of the universe?” is a silly question, Pell interjected to say “I think it’s a very poignant and real
question to ask, “Why is there suffering?””.
Well it may be poignant,
and real; but it has nothing to do with the question they were talking about!
On talking about
suffering Dawkins later pointed out that “it
is a natural part of the living condition. It is a natural part of Darwinian
natural selection, which is one of the reasons why I was so keen to say that I
didn't want to live by Darwinian principles.”
Again a clear explanation
of what he believes to be the place of science and evolution in human affairs,
but one which is constantly ignored by his detractors.
Next a question was
directed toward Dawkins about his use of the label ‘atheist’ despite the fact
that he has self-identified as being an agnostic in the past. Even Tony Jones
seemed uncharacteristically uninformed about this distinction, but Dawkins
seemed to explain it rather succinctly (with examples from his book The God
Delusion), and a nice reference to the Easter season we find ourselves in:
“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. I cannot disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny
and so I am agnostic about the Easter Bunny. It’s in the same respect that I am
agnostic about God”
Though I was happy to see
the whole agnostic/atheist thing brought up with regard to Dawkins beliefs, I
couldn’t help but think it could have been handled a bit better. I am of the
ilk that describes ourselves as agnostic-atheists; we don’t believe in god, but
we also don’t claim to know that there is no god. The label agnostic can be
applied to any number of propositions, as Dawkins points out, as it deals with
claims of knowledge. Atheist however can only be applied to one proposition, namely
ones beliefs regarding deities. It deals only with these beliefs, and not the
nature of whether or not the validity of such beliefs can be known with
absolute certainty.
It is in this way that I
think it is pertinent that we use the label atheist to describe ourselves,
rather than just agnostic, as it gives a true indication of what our beliefs
are, not just how certain we can claim to be regarding them.
The discussion then went
towards what proofs would sway Dawkins mind, to which he had no direct answer,
and was open in admitting this and the questions tricky nature. Tony then asked
Pell whether he would be able to provide Dawkins with some of the proof he
would require, to which Pell replied:
“No, because I think he only accepts proof
that is rooted in sense experience. In other words he excludes the world of
metaphysics, say the principle of contradiction, and he excludes the
possibility of arguments that don't go against reason but go beyond it.”
Arguments that go beyond
reason....... I don’t know what to make of this.
Tony then presses Pell a
bit further with a great question regarding why this god would choose a small
group of Jews 2,000 years ago, and make no subsequent proof after that. George
Pell then digs himself a nice little hole to sit in when he remarked that the
Jews were intellectual inferiors to their contemporaries, which led to a bit of
ribbing by the host:
GEORGE PELL: They weren't intellectually
the equal of either the Egyptians or the...
TONY JONES: Intellectually?
GEORGE PELL: Intellectually, morally...
TONY JONES: How can you know intellectually?
GEORGE PELL: Because you see the fruits of their civilisation. Egypt was the
great power for thousands of years before Christianity. Persia was a great
power, Caldia. The poor - the little Jewish people, they were originally
shepherds. They were stuck. They’re still stuck between these great powers.
TONY JONES: But that’s not a reflection of your intellectual capacity, is it,
whether or not you're a shepherd?
GEORGE PELL: Well, no it’s not but it is a recognition it is a reflection of
your intellectual development, be it like many, many people are very, very
clever and not highly intellectual but my point is...
TONY JONES: I’m sorry, can I just interrupt? Are you including Jesus in that,
who was obviously Jewish and was of that community?
GEORGE PELL: Exactly.
TONY JONES: So intellectually not up to it?
The next viewer question
was my favourite, so I shall show it in its entirety, as well as link to it:
“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 at the universes came from nothing? ”
First of all, Big
Bangers; I love this label.
I like his little
experiment, and the challenge he puts forth as if he has shook the foundations
of the Big Bang theory, but at the end of the day this guys argument about
closing and opening his hand is as laughable as the old ‘Peanut butter proves
that there can be no abiogenesis’ argument.
I still cant believe this guy is serious.....
I also have to ponder why
it is he thinks that the enormity of the universe would impact on its ability
to come from nothing. This is particularly important to note as after all, the
Big Bang theory tells us that the universe was once super condensed, and as
such was not all that enormous (though still contained all the energy/mater we
have today apparently).
People want a simple
answer for the beginning of the universe, and then balk at the mention of
anything that might sound a bit beyond their understanding. If an answer cannot
be understood by them intuitively, then they don’t believe it has any weight as
an explanation, This may well be a good argument if you think you live in a
world where such explanation usually are intuitive. But talk to any physicist
and you will soon find that much of the way the world works isn’t intuitive;
just Google quantum mechanics and you will see how far the rabbit hole goes.
When the discussion
continues and talk of new theories regarding the appearance of the
universe gets moving, Pell attacks some of Dawkins arguments, and invokes what
must be one of the biggest cop out arguments in the arsenal of the Christian
apologist:
“he dumbs down God and he soups up nothing.
He continually talks as though God is some sort of upmarket figure within space
and time”
‘Within Space and time’
is the important part there. You will constantly hear people saying that their
god is outside of space and time, and thus not subject to its ways, but you
never hear an explanation of what this means, and how it can be reconciled with
other forms of thinking prevalent in their theology. For instance, if this god
is outside of space and time, how can he create a universe? The very act of
creation requires time to already exist, after all you can’t have a ‘before and
after’ the universe, without having time. And you can’t have a universe,
without having space-time.
Regarding the outside of
space and time excuse, Dawkins replied:
“it is no good invoking Thomas Aquinis and
saying that God is defined as outside time and space. That’s just a cop out.”
FYI, I didn’t realise
Dawkins phrased this almost exactly as I did above, but I am nonetheless pleased
by it.
I think some more direct
audience participation with Dawkins would have been good. After all, so many
times when the audience laughed at something he said, Dawkins wanted to know why
it was funny, but received no explanation. It made him seem more offended by
their laughter rather than genuinely curious and ready to engage, as I believe
he was.
This second bit of
audience participation was spurred on by this remark:
RICHARD DAWKINS: You can dispute exactly
what is meant by nothing but whatever it is it’s very, very simple.
(AUDIENCE LAUGH)
RICHARD DAWKINS: Why is that funny?
GEORGE PELL: Well, I think it’s a bit funny
to be trying to define nothing.
Of course you do George,
because you are not a philosopher or a scientist, so you don’t have to define
or describe things; you are a theologian, and as such simply have to interpret
things within your own stationary worldview. The Cardinal talks as if
definitions in a philosophical or rational debate aren’t worth ruminating over.
The audience members who
were snickered here no doubt consider such things equally absurd, because like
most philosophical debates worth having, there is an instinctive answer that
some are just willing to accept. We think it is silly to try and define
nothing, because we have our own understanding of the word built up since we
were a child. Much like if people are asked to define what happy is, or sad,
they will probably shy from the task, because rather than question their own
personal understanding of the concepts, it is easier to treat them as
self-evident truths and be done with it. Perhaps more pragmatic, but by no
means philosophically satisfying.
Next came one of Pell’s
biggest slip-ups which unfortunately I believe wasn’t properly debunked. That
is Pell’s insistence that Charles Darwin was a theist.
The exchange went like
this:
GEORGE PELL: 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.
RICHARD DAWKINS: That just not true.
GEORGE PELL: Excuse me it’s...
RICHARD DAWKINS: It’s just plain not true.
GEORGE PELL: It’s on page 92 of his auto
biography. Go and have a look.
Dawkins displays his
incredulity at this falsehood, but as the discussion is quickly moved along by
Jones; there is no real room for rebuttal. But there is room on this blog for
all manner of things I would wish to rant about, and so here I shall!
In a sense Pell is right
about Darwin having been a theist, however not in the sense he actually wants
people to believe. Darwin was a
theist, much like he was a baby: but
then he grew up. He was a theist, but then he lost this faith, and the quote in
his autobiography as reference by George was clearly talking about beliefs
Darwin had had, not ones he maintained at the time of writing. In fact if he
had only read a few pages further, to page
94, he would have read Darwin affirming himself as an agnostic, and then elucidating
just how one can go about living according to this, without recourse for a god
to explain things.
The night of the show I
looked up page 92 of his autobiography and got a nice link to Darwin’s online
writings. However if you search for a similar thing today, you will find links
to heaps of blogs discussing the very thing I am discussing now; the use of
this by Pell on Q&A. The misinformation patrols are quick at work for our
religious friends however, as one Catholic site is already exclaiming “Cardinal Pell shows up Richard
Dawkins ignorance about Charles Darwin”.
Then, having failed to
understand the history of Darwin’s religious beliefs despite the fact that he
was claiming to have read his autobiography (which is a nice read and like all of Darwin's work, available for free online), Pell exposed his lack of
understanding with regard to mankind’s evolutionary history with this startling
exchange, which seemed to enliven Dawkins from his jetlag:
TONY JONES: Sorry, can I just bring you, in
a sense, to the point of the question? Do you accept that humans evolved from
apes?
GEORGE PELL: Yeah, probably. From
Neanderthals, yes. Whether...
RICHARD DAWKINS: From Neanderthals?
GEORGE PELL: Probably.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Why from Neanderthals?
GEORGE PELL: Well, who else would you
suggest?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Neanderthals were our
cousins. We’re not descended from them and we’re both descended from...
GEORGE PELL: These are extant cousins?
Where will I find a Neanderthal today if they're my cousins?
RICHARD DAWKINS: They’re not extant,
they’re extinct.
GEORGE PELL: Exactly. That’s my point.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Your point is that because
they're extinct they can't be our cousins?
GEORGE PELL: I really am not much fussed.
RICHARD DAWKINS: That’s very clear.
GEORGE PELL: Something in the evolutionary
story seems to have come before humans. A lot of people say it’s the
Neanderthal.
Sure perhaps it is a bit
much to attack the Bishop for this mistake; after all he has no expertise in
the matter whatsoever. But nevertheless, Pell should have just pushed it aside
by saying, ‘oh well, I don’t really know much about mans evolutionary history’,
rather than trying to argue about the relevance of this other species of human
being extant, or cousins. He even goes on to state how Neanderthals weren’t the
equivalent of humans because they didn’t draw on cave walls, even though there
is new
evidence that they in fact did do just that.
As the discussion
continued about mans evolution and the implications of this toward those religions
that believe man in unique and has a soul, I think there was further evidence showing
Pell’s ignorance of modern evolutionary theory. For example he shows a
misunderstanding of the continuous nature of species here:
“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 doesn’t have to be
a first human at all, just because there is a human now. There is gradual
change, so that no parent and offspring would be so dissimilar as to be
labelled members of different species, yet these gradual changes would nevertheless
compound over time to inevitably change the species (Dawkins in fact goes over
this briefly, but adroitly, in a later segment, to which Pell inanely replies “if
there is no first person we’re not humans”).
In talking about these
‘first people’ Pell made some headlines (virtual ones at least) in this article when he referred to Adam and Eve as mythology, and not fact.
When he started going
over this mythology, Pell highlighted one of the things that I believe is a
major difference between a theist’s mindset versus that of an atheist’s:
“[...] the key to the whole of universe,
the really significant thing, are humans”
A very self centred view
of the nature of existence I would think. What do you know, it is all about me
after all. It’s like Phillip J Fry once said: “So I really am important? How I
feel when I'm drunk is correct?“
“and, [...], it is a very sophisticated
mythology to try to explain the evil and suffering in the world.”
I will just say quickly
about the above that I don’t believe it is very sophisticated to assert that
sins can be inherited, and that people are born, as Hitchens used to quote "created
sick, commanded to be well”.
A while later when the
talk again moves towards Richard’s expertise in science my favourite moment of
the night appears. Take a look:
George
Pell: You have to reason about the facts of science, ask whether you
believe the suggestion that, you know, random selection is sufficient and also
most evolutionary biologists today don't believe that.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Don't believe what?
GEORGE PELL: They don't believe in random
so this crude fundamentalist version of random selection that you propose
RICHARD DAWKINS: I do not propose it and I
strongly deny that evolution is random selection. Evolution is non-random
selection. Non-random.
GEORGE PELL: So there is a purpose to it is
there?
RICHARD DAWKINS: No.
GEORGE PELL: Could you explain what non-random
means?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes, of course I could.
It’s my life's work!
I love it, especially because so many religious apologists
seem to forget that these scientists do have a whole lot of research behind
what they are doing, and unlike a lifetime built up on theological ideas, they
can explain them with due recourse to facts and observations. It just goes to
show how much of religious disapproval of evolutionary theory is based on an
unchanging image of the science as constructed by apologists, rather than an
active understanding of the theory. That evolution is still considered by many
who don’t understand it as a random process, is something which must infuriate
Dawkins, and other evolutionary biologists, to no end.
Dawkins great strength is
how he can explain something so well, in so few words. Take for example the explanation
of evolution’s non-random nature which he gives to Pell:
“There is random genetic variation and
non-random survival 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.”
Next, an atheist asks a
question about what will happen when he [the atheist] dies and we get a long
response from Pell (prodded by Tony of course) which goes into some of the
intricacies of the Christian mythology, but again I like the concise and
rational nature of Dawkins response:
“Well, the answer to the question of what’s
going to happen when we die depends on whether we're buried, cremated or give
our bodies to science.”
Bam, done.
As the discussion delved
into more Christian mythology, and Pell defended such things as bodily
resurrection and transubstantiation, he again hinted toward the mortal origins
of Christianity upon acknowledging the adoption of yet more Greek culture and
thinking into the Christian ethos:
“I understand it [edit: transubstantiation],
according to a system of metaphysics. It was spelled out by the Greeks before
Christ came, which we have adopted [......]”
Though I suppose it could
be said that the referrals back to a previous culture don’t just show the human
origins of religion, but rather that it may reflect a universal truth not quite
grasped correctly by the Greeks. But honestly; which is the simpler
explanation?
Dawkins calls out another
tricky tactic of the religious apologist when he continually tries to get Pell
to explain how some of the language he is using actually applies to real world
usage, and our way of employing the English language. When Pell tries to
explain how the wafer does become the body of Christ via transubstantiation,
but remains as a wafer for all intents and purposes, Dawkins retorts:
“I mean I use - English is my native
language. The wafer does not become the body of anybody in the English
language.”
However as Pell had
previously said:
“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 prefer to listen to him and take his word than yours.”
It is clear that a
rational discussion about language and how it should be employed (with common
definitions and syntax) is useless against someone who defines words by divine
fiat, not in any proper linguistic fashion.
Seeing that this
discussion was going nowhere, Tony interjected with a new, and refreshingly
brief, question from the audience:
“Is it okay to tell a child that God
doesn't exist? ”
This is one I have
thought about a lot as my son is growing up in a culture that frequently talks
of God, gods and heaven, albeit generally in a metaphorical or profane (“God
damn it!”) sense. Dawkins does well, saying that he would prefer for her to
figure it out based on the evidence [he has a great open letter to his
daughter, hence the ‘her’, that can be found over here]. After all, he is
an agnostic atheist, and would not be willing to tell his child that a god
doesn’t exist with 100% certainty anyhow.
Then when Pell was
starting his response to this question, he unintentionally got the biggest
laugh of the night with this statement, which were it not coming from a member
of the catholic church, would barely have registered a stifled giggle:
“I remember when I was in England we were
preparing some young English boys”
I smell a meme on the
way!
Thank you Sam Dekok for being so on the ball making this
Some people have said that it was a bit crass of Dawkins to
laugh when the audience took amusement from Pell reminiscing about ‘preparing’
some English boys, but I think that given the Catholic Church’s history in this
regard, it is hardly an unwarranted jest.
Then when the laughter
dies down, and he finally gets it out, Pell’s self styled ‘simple’ answer to
the question of whether kids should be told they are going to hell is this:
"Hitler. 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?"
Would you prefer it? As
if preference has a bearing upon reality. I am sure the kid would prefer a
universe where suffering such as the like committed by Hitler, was simply not
possible.
This personal drive for
justice to be handed out even after the grave is brought home when Jones
presses him further (as he is sooooo good at doing):
TONY JONES: What about a system where he
was obliterated and didn't exist anymore?
GEORGE PELL: Well, he would have got away with too much, as far as I am
concerned.
But Pell doesn’t give up,
he is determined to show that simply wanting the universe to be a preferable
and just one is somehow an argument for it actually being such a universe.
“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.”
‘On behalf of the innocent
victims’, implicitly suggesting that those atheists who don’t believe there is
justice in the universe from some divine after death source, are somehow not on
the side of the victims.
True, a world where the Hitler’s and Mengele’s can simply
die and escape justice may not be a just world at all. However saying this
doesn’t really add weight to the argument to that your idea of what the world
could be like is nicer than an alternative, and therefore that it must be true.
I believe that the world is essentially an indifferent
place, which is why I don’t think that justice is something to be doled out
from beyond the grave, but rather that justice, like ethics and happiness; is
an entirely human affair.
Dawkins likewise is
having none of this, and simply responds to the question of which reality is
more preferential with this little nugget of rationality:
“I’m more interested, however, in what’s
true than in what I would like to be true.”
Any talk of suffering or
justice in regard to a religious worldview is bound to ask the question of why
an omnipotent god would allow such things to happen. Pell offers up the same
‘free will’ argument so often employed, yet very rarely explained:
“That’s a very good question but if God is
going to allow us to be good he’s got to give us freedom.”
Freedom perhaps, but
ability; no. We can easily be given the freedom to do things, without making
every possible action available to be done. For example, we have the ability to
kill, and maim; but is this physical reality required in order for our will to
be truly free? I don’t think so. We could have bodies incapable of feeling
pain, or being killed, whilst retaining our free will, so this reality still
needs to be accounted for.
As the night quickly came
to an end, I think Pell was beginning to lose interest in the whole affair. He
had shot himself in the foot a few times along the way, and then added this
nice snafu to the mix when talking about secondary causes in regard to how a perfect
god would design a just universe:
GEORGE PELL: It is interesting through
these secondary causes probably no people in history have been punished the way
the Germans were. It is a terrible mystery.
TONY JONES: There would be a very strong argument saying that the Jews of
Europe suffered worse than the Germans.
George Pell, you have
been Tony Jones’d.
As if that weren’t enough
to highlight Pell’s mounting disinterest in his side of the exchange, his final
words for the night consisted of this exchange:
GEORGE PELL: [...] my life would be much
simpler and much easier if I didn't have to go to bat for a number of Christian
principles.
TONY JONES: Have you ever regretted that you do?
GEORGE PELL: Sometimes I wonder.
TONY JONES: Seriously?
GEORGE PELL: No. No. No.
Ah yes, if only it was
the good old days, when Catholic Cardinals didn’t have to try and explain
themselves to the people, and could just force through their will with divine
right.
Anyhow, that is my
commentary on the Dawkins v Pell episode of Q and A. I hope it was enjoyable.
MM
Oh, and one quick last minute mention of another meme created after George Pell replied to a question about the existence of gays within his god's master plan in this exchange:
TONY JONES: 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? GEORGE PELL: Creation is messy. I think it’s the oriental carpet makers always leave a little flaw in their carpet because only God is perfect.
2010 marked the year of extensive lunar mapping thanks to the launch of
the Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter, and as a result scientists and regular science
loving people were quick to come out and use some of this new lunar photography
to thwart an old foe, stuck firmly in the popular imagination: the Moon
Landing Hoax conspiracy theory.
Back in September of last year images of the Apollo moon landing sites were released, which showed not only the remains left behind from the lunar landers,
but also the tracks left by the astronauts themselves (as the moon has no
atmosphere to disturb them after 40 odd years).
Then again last week another announcement was made which had one article boasting“refute this hoax lovers; more proof
men totally walked on the moon”. This was in response to more images made
public which show moonwalkers Pete Conrad and Alan Bean’s tracks from their sojourn
to the Surveyor 3 probe while on the moon as a part of the Apollo 12 mission.
Now I love science as much as the next guy, and yes if I meet someone
who entertains the idea of a moon landing hoax, I am quick to get an argument
going (if only a friendly one). But it seems a bit odd to be touting this new
evidence as being in any way convincing to those in the conspiracy theory camp. After all, they are willing to dismiss photos apparently taken on the
moon back in the 60’s-70’s; so why should we feel confident in debunking their
theories with photographs taken remotely? Not to mention the more important
fact that these new images were produced in the modern age of Photoshop and
computer generated imagery. If anything, the release of these images is
something that would have been long expected by any forward thinking hoax
claimer. Of course NASA and the shadowy government conspiracy (which
must be staffed with a lot of very old men these days) would have the ability
to fake photos from satellite; after all they even placed laser
reflectors on the moon to support their lie. I wouldn’t even be surprised if when future people return to the moon, and
the Chinese explorers there tour the remains of a once mighty America’s space
efforts, that there would be people who still maintained that the landing was a
fake, and any subsequent evidence was a party to this. This is always going to be the case, as with most conspiracy theories
there are pervasive elements at work that undermine our mental faculties. They
are driven by wants and desires; generally of the kind where we don’t want
something to be true. We don’t want to believe that an influential person like
JFK, who seemingly had such a steadfast place in history set out before him,
could be so easily taken from the world by the actions of a lone gunman. So we
push our reasoning slightly aside, and delve into the conspiracy theory box to
pull out something that agrees with how we want the world to be.
Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes once said “It is a capital mistake to theorize
before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead
of theories to suit facts”, which seems to capture the general idea, except
that in this case the conspiracy theorist twists the facts to their theories
when the alternate theories seem too impalpable.
This abandonment of rational thinking is a dangerous thing, as once you get rid
of the tenets of evidence and logical thinking, you will find self referential
confirmation and verification all too easily. It reminds me of that other great conspiracy theory. The one that states
that after we die we don’t actually cease to exist, but rather there is some obscure
secondary existence awaiting us. Something that is hidden from the world as we
know it, but nonetheless must be out there, because if it wasn’t, then we would
have to live up to uncomfortable realities. And the best part about conspiracy theories (and yes, religions too), is
that it takes relatively little effort on our behalf in order to ascribe to them,
and reap the mental benefits of believing our world is just that little bit
better. It is easy to assert that man didn’t walk on the moon, as you don’t have
to give up anything, except perhaps the respect of a few more discerning
people. The problem with conspiracy theories, as with religion, is that you can
evoke your powerful external force in order to explain away any objections to
the theory. In the Moon Hoax example the external force is some form of
government body who are either working to keep the lie undercover, or else have
simply succeeded in their goal of fooling the world, and are now inactive.
In the case of most modern religions, the external force is much more
potent, as any god can generally be said to have controls over reality, and
thus any contrary evidence to the god’s theory can be explained away through
magic. This is akin to how people used to claim (and some still do today) that
the fossil record is a work of the devil, put there to fool man. The external
powerful force at work.
Clearly the work of the devil
Once you start entering in these agents with seemingly limitless
abilities, you can work your way around almost any rational argument, or
contrary evidence.
This is the crux of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster’s theology, where any experiment or evidence which appears
contradictory to the word of the Pastafarians only appears so due to the diligent
manipulations of ‘his noodly appendage’.
So in closing, though I like these new images being
produced from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, I don’t think it is wise to use
this evidence in an argument against conspiracy theorists. Their bag of magic
tricks can explain away anything that could be used as proof, especially now
that the thing we are talking about is set firmly in the past, and beyond
direct investigation.
Rant complete.
MM
P.b. (post bloggedum)
I also note that Russia has announced plans to get a cosmonaut to the moon by 2030. I guess second place in the space race is still quite an achievement, even if it would mark sixty years since the yanks beat them to it.
Then again, it might get crowded up there, what with the Chinese and Indians hoping to beat the Ruskies to it in 2025 and 2020 respectively.
Yesterday, my wife and I rewatched the 2009 disaster film 2012.
Witty caption pending
Though generally this film was lambasted by critics, I cant help but take the line of US film critic Roger Ebert who at least seems to get these kinds of films, without trying to pretend that they are an exemplary example of what all films should be (which I feel is a problem with many critics out there).
Check out his review here, or just read this quote:
"This is fun. "2012" delivers what it promises, and since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year. It even has real actors in it. Like all the best disaster movies, it's funniest at its most hysterical. You think you've seen end-of-the-world movies? This one ends the world, stomps on it, grinds it up and spits it out."
Like the man suggests, unless you missed out on Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow, you should know what a Rolland Emmerich film has in store for you. Leave your brain at the door, and just enjoy yourself. These films aren't looking for realism, they are just looking to entertain; and at the end of the day there isn't anything wrong with that. Not every film needs to be a masterpiece; not every character needs an arc.
I think of films like this as the equivalent of MacDonalds, or one of those microwavable pizzas; its not a great meal, and you wouldn't want to subsist on this for the rest of your life. But every now and then you just want a quick, easy, and tasty meal.
Sometimes its best to just think of these films as set in an alternate reality, where things are different, people always beat the odds, and so on. That way at least you can let a lot of things slide and just enjoy the ride (hey that rhymes).
That all being said, I still cant help but cringe at a few points in the film.
Like the opening montage of shots set in space, showing the alignment of the planets. Now I can look past the whole 'alignment of the planets causing catastrophic problems for earth' theory, but the fact that the solar systems planets are either shown as being much more massive, or else much close to each other, than they effectively are ruins the moment for me (especially when the films plot relies so little on this fact).
Then, right near the start of the film again, we have an astrophysicist talking about neutrinos, and studyting them in a subeterranean laboratory. This had its promise, because I know this is exactly what they do. But then we hear some nice 'sciency' buzz words, as we are informed that these nuclear particles are behaving strangely, and are interacting with matter in a way that they usually dont. The astrophysicists explanation: they are mutating.
Nuclear particles, mutating.
Why not just say they are degrading into other particles, or transforming, or something like that. Anything but mutating, a term which should sit firmly in biology, and not physics.
As you can see, this evidence clearly shows these neutrinos are going through puberty.
I could go on all day about the scientific inaccuracies in the film, but I don't want to give the impression that all of this bothers me too much. As I said, brains at the door fun. Its just that these little things could easily have been avoided or changed without altering the film pretty much at all. I can let the objections to tsunamis making waves in the middle of the ocean big enough to knock over ships, and the improbability of a limousine being able to drive through a building as it collapses, fly out the window; because this is the entertaining stuff I wanted from this kind of movie, and it wouldnt be the same without it. But the
astrophysicist could have just said something more sensible, and the planets aligning could have been shown to look more like stars, than actual planets in the near distance.
On to the next cringe worthy moment, and this time it was due to technical buzz words, as opposed to scientific ones.
In every scene that he is in, much like his role in Zombieland (also released in 2009); Woody Harrelson steals the show. This was a great year for fans of Woody (that doesnt sound right), one of which I happen to be ever since growing up in the 90's when he taught me that in fact white men can jump.
Two prime examples of how not to wear a cap so as to keep the sun out of your eyes
Anyhow, childhood references aside, Woody Harrelson plays Charlie Frost, a deranged conspiracy theorist who turns out to be pretty much right about everything in the end. The thing that bugs me here is only a minor point, but it irked me on re-watching nevertheless.
When Charlie is trying to inform the protagonist of the worlds impending doom, he tells him to 'download my blog', to which John Cusack clicks a few buttons on a laptop, and ends up watching a nice little flash animation outlining the films basic disaster plot.
'Download my blog'? Is that really how we talk about it? Perhaps I am being picky, perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps this was just meant to be the crazy characters quirky way of talking; yet I cant help but be annoyed that he didnt at least say 'look at my blog', or 'watch this video', or something that makes a bit more sense. It really just seems like someone who isnt savvy with todays technology trying to write some dialogue. [p.s. I know Woddy's character to be computer literate as he made the animations himself].
"Stand back; I'm about to do some internets"
My last gripe with this movie involves the President of the United States character played by Danny Glover. After he gallantly decides to remain with the American public as their nation comes to an end, rather than flee with the other main notable actors to the ships in China, he delivers his stirring last address, and utters this little line:
"We are a nation of many religions, but I believe these words reflect the spirit of all of our faiths: The Lord is my shepherd, I shall..." [dramatic cut-off]
This is what he was quoting, Psalm 23 from the Bible. Tell me, how does that reflect the spirit of all faiths? Also, what about the 30 million atheists in the United States? Do they not warrant a mention here? I know past American presidents have shown a less than accommodating stance toward us unbelievers ("I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God" - George Bush Snr.), but at least Obama's inaugural speech mentioned them on equal footing with other citizens ("We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers." - Obama). I mean it isnt really a big deal, but like everything else in this rant; it bugs me all the same. How does such a quote reflect the spirit of Buddhism for instance? They arent really fans of the whole 'Lord is our shepherd' thing. Nor are Hindus, or Sikhs, or to a degree Muslims. And what about the poor Scientologists?
"I'm too old for this comparative religion shit" President Murtaugh
Something I also noticed on the news the other day is this report on the suns solar activity, which is at its highest peak since 2005. Spooky huh? After all, it is 2012, the year the Mayans famously predicted the end of the world. Except for it isn't. The Mayan long count calendar ends in December 2012, but then again so does the calendar on my desk at work. When that time comes, I wont be cowering with the ones I love, converting into a dodgy Christian and appealing to my shepherd to look after me; I'll just order another calendar. Note that this is also what happens with the true Mayan calendar. 2012 doesn't signal the end of the world, but rather just the start of a new long count calendar. So like most end of the world scares, this too is quickly dispersed with a healthy dose of logic. NASA has a great article debunking the whole 2012 over here.
I am
a bit late with my obligatory September 11th
post, but then again I was around a year late in starting this blog,
so I figure I can still get this post out there.
True
to the enterprising spirit that made the United States the capitalist
juggernaut of the 20th
century (I'm not extending this into the current century because I’m
not that optimistic), the wreckage of the Twin Towers has been
utilised in two interesting ventures.
The
first is perhaps the most American of the two; the building of a
warship, the aptly named USS New York. Soon to be followed by two
sister ships named after the other crash sites from the terrorist
attacks (the USS Arlington and the USS Somerset), the New York was
created partially with steel from the collapsed towers.
Ooh-rah!
I
guess it is fitting that a relic of the greatest attack on the United
States homeland become a part of the navy designed to protect it, but I cant help find it amusing that of all things in Americas arsenal, a
warship is probably the last thing that would be useful in combating
the threat of terrorists; especially those who hide out inland, be it
in caves, or swanky Abbottabadcompounds.
The
scrap steel utilised from the towers was melted down and now forms
part of the ship’s bow, and though it only comprises less that 0.1%
of the ships total mass, it was more of a symbolic gesture to go
along with the ships name.
There
is something true to that war hungry oriented view of the United
States which goes along well with this usage of World Trade Centre
scrap metal. Even if you don’t look at the militaristic nature of
the U.S as a bad thing (it was a thing of pride for many people in
watching the forces of ‘freedom’ rise up in opposition to the
growing communist war machine many years ago), it is still somewhat
fitting that what was once a symbol of American power is now
transformed into another, more literal, form of power projection.
However
we don’t only associate Americans power and influence with the tip
of their metaphorical sword, but also with their technological and
scientific reach. That’s why I was again both surprised, but also
quite accepting to find out this week that there are parts of the
World Trade Centre rubble now on Mars, exploring the red planet.
It
seems that one of the contractors working for NASA on their latest
Mars Exploration programme was able to incorporate some of the rubble
from the towers in their design.
Honeybee
Robotics was tasked with the creation of the drilling mechanisms for the Spirit and
Opportunity rovers due for launching to the forth rock from the sun
in the year 2004. Their offices are located in lower Manhattan, and
as such the events of those days really hit home for them, and they
decided to honour the spirits of those lost by including some parts
from the collapsed towers in the rovers.
They
used recovered aluminium to create the cable shield for the rock
abrasions tools each of the rovers use to analyse the martial soils.
You can see a picture of one of them, stereotypically adorned with the
emblem of the flag of the United States, in the image below.
