10 April, 2012

Dawkins and Pell battle it out in one hell of a debate

Dawkins and Pell battle it out in one hell of a debate


  1. Cardinal Pell claims Darwin as a theist and when Prof. Dawkins objects tells him to look at page 92 of his autobiography

    "Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

    Seems clear cut. Point taken, Game set and ...

    But wait, the following paragraph

    "This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake"

    At best Darwin was an agnostic. I would have expected a more honest representation of Darwin's views from the Cardinal.


    1. Charles Darwin never preached against the existence of God, as far as I know. He lived in another time. To do so would have had profound effects upon not only his own life but also that of his family. Also, it is well to remember that he was a naturalist by profession and not any kind of social activist.

      He's dead and has been for quite a while. Best let him lie, I say. He wrote a good book. Take it for what it is. What it isn't is about God and whether or not he exists. Dawkins is as wrong as Pell to try and drag poor dead Charlie into today's controversy.

      I follow Jesus. I don't know or care whether he was the son of God or that we are all, including him God's children. The guy was definitely on to something, don't you think? Pell, Dawkins, you and I can probably all agree to that. Why don't we?


Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics