Yesterday I put up a video of Richard Dawkins’s debate with Archbishop George Pell of Sydney. Several of the readers noticed that Richard wasn’t as incisive as usual, something that I attributed to his jet lag and punishing schedule (really, the man needs a rest!). There were also problems with the moderator, and the audience behaved rather oddly.
I note this morning that Richard has left a comment on that thread giving his take on the debate and explaining how, beyond his jet lag, the logistics of the “debate” detracted from a free discussion. He also calls attention to a radio interview he did the next morning after a good night’s sleep; Richard’s much happer with that one. I am too. Have a listen; it’s only 13 minutes long.
Richard has also reproduced another comment from Pharyngula about how Catholics might have lied to stack the audience and obviate the ABC’s attempt to produced a “balanced” audience.
Religious people play unfair to give off the indication that their side is winning. Film at 11.
For what it’s worth, I haven’t watched the video and I doubt that I will. I get extremely annoyed when there’s a so-called debate and whenever one side is really sticking it to the other, the moderator (should be renamed interferer, or confabulator or something similar) decides to step in and interrupt it. Sorry, it’s a debate, not a joint press conference. If one party is unable to withstand his or her position being pressured, just perhaps that’s something an audience should see. It might just, mayhaps, indicate that either the defender of the position is inept, or the position isn’t as strong as one might otherwise think.
I’m no great fan of formal debates, but at least having a set time where no one’s going to interrupt a speaker is useful in actually letting said speaker finish an entire point.
I am confident that Richard did what he could within the confines of having a third wheel ready to leap in and supply just the right amount of squeak, and then fix it all by applying the right oil in the form of a change of subject.
I’m not much of a fan of Dawkins these days, but I’ll say this: even when he’s below his usual brilliant standard as a TV/radio performer, he’s still a few notches above the rest. Jetlagged or not, he made the good Cardinal look like the ignorant fool that he is. Even if he feels he wasn’t up to scratch, one thing Dawkins might like to take from the ‘debate’ is the fact that the Cardinal admitted that the central doctrine of the Christian church – the original sin of Adam and Eve and Jesus’s necessary ‘atonement’ – are, in fact, complete nonsense.
I don’t understand the complaint about the audience. I thought they were as much on Richard’s side as on the side of the buffoon.
That was the impression I got too – that they laughed at the Arhcbishop’s occasional gaffe as much as they laughed at Richard. They didn’t seem horribly biassed so much as – odd. They laughed in some curious places.
By the way, listened to Richard’s radio interview too, and it was good.
I especially liked the “silly” “why is Australia here?” question.
/@
Even better might be “Why does Antarctica exist? No human is ever born there, so why is it there?
And, what ‘proof’ do you have that it exists?”
Listen to the amount of applause that Dawkins and Pell each get after their respective introductions. The room was clearly packed with Catholics, and serious ones at that.
The ABC advertised the debate as being between “Archbishop” George Pell and “Outspoken British Atheist” Richard Dawkins. Hardly an attempt at providing a level playing field.
Has Q&A staged this kind of one-on-one session before? Why not have Richard as one of the usual five, as with Hitchens previously?
/@
Yes, in 2010. Here is the link. It has some good moments.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2831712.htm
It might interest posters here to know that the moderator/host/chairman, Tony Jones, is almost certainly an atheist. Just look at his interviews with Christopher Hitchens if you are in any doubt.
This program is based around audience questions as much as it is a debate between the guests. The reason why the host continually interrupted the guests was to bring in another question from the audience. Not to save George Pell.
Also, whenever George Pell had dug himself six foot under, there really was no need to let him dig himslelf in any further. It was embarrassing enough even for his supporters.
I still think Professor Dawkins is pretty sharp in these debates. Of course there are times where i wish he had responded differently or had been less dramatic, but that’s easy to say from my computer chair.
I think it’s important that he gets feedback. I’m sure some commenters here could help him to improve if only by reminding him of his best arguments.
I also hope Professors Coyne and Carroll do more debates as well. I thought both of their “youtube” debuts were great. I think they both could give Sam a run. Yes, I think Sam and Christopher have been the best at it so far.
The radio interview is FANTASTIC!
Agree. I took thirteen minutes out of my schedule and listened. Cogent, concise, well done.
I do wish that Dawkins would note that both Hitler and Stalin considered themselves demi-gods, and established religions were considered competitive with both the National Socialist and Communist Parties, yet religion in neither country was ever outlawed. “Gott Mit Uns” on Nazi Wehrmacht helmets. Like Islam, the penalty for apostasy under Stalin’s regime, and Hitler’s regime, was death. So, in fact, both were as faith-based and required ardent adherence to the faith as any religion. The Leader was God.
North Korea continues this tradition.
Can you give a cite for either of those claims? I’m very dubious about it being true for Stalin’s regime, since his communist party was officially atheistic. Hitler’s regime was thoroughly religious and theistic, so the claim is more plausible, but still needs supporting.
I’m sure that it was on their belt-buckles instead of their helmets. See:
nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
The audience clearly did not represent the majority of Australians. See the results of the associated poll “Does religious belief make the world a better place?” http://cl.ly/FgYt
I haven’t seen the debate but I note that it was based around the topic…””Has religion made the world a better place?”Perhaps such a debate is about as meaningful as one I was asked to write as a kid,”Do ducks wear gumboots?”
Never saw the debate and have only read the comments. It would be far more illuminating if all the rabid words and demeaning statements were omitted (by both sides). I am a practising Catholic who has read much of Richard Dawkins work – a very logical & sincere man. I have not met Cardinal Pell as he lives on the other side of the world. But people of faith that I meet are a very mixed bag – hypocrites, weak, loving, sincere, insincere, nasty, vile, wonderful … the lot. ‘Reality’ is not totally grounded in science any more than in a single religion. Charm quarks, parallel universes etc are an explanation not a reality, based predominantly on mathematical models and we know they can be wrong.Not all of us who have faith are deluded. There are many views – Richard Fortey, Stephen Jay Gould and so on. For me the journey of faith is personal and linked to my life-time exploration of science. Correspondents who mock or denigrate those of a contrary view need to remember we only hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see.