Heated debate between Cardinal Pell and Professor Dawkins

Cath News ^ | April 9, 2012

[NYer]

Screenshot from The Sydney Morning Herald

---

Frustration and something bordering on barely concealed mutual disdain boiled over more than once during the ABC's Q&A television show Monday evening, in the hour-long debate between Cardinal George Pell and Professor Richard Dawkins, reports The Sydney Morning Herald.

Charles Darwin was claimed as a theist by the Cardinal, because Darwin ''couldn't believe that the immense cosmos and all the beautiful things in the world came about either by chance or out of necessity'' - a claim disputed by Professor Dawkins as ''just not true''.

Cardinal Pell won applause when he shot back: ''It's on page 92 of his autobiography. Go and have a look.''

The clergyman remained unmoved on gay marriage and climate change, but he said evolution was ''probably'' right, and that atheists could ''certainly'' get into heaven.

Professor Dawkins declared he was ''trying to be charitable'' by suggesting there was no way Cardinal Pell meant the body would literally be resurrected.

The clergyman's view that people would return after death in some kind of physical form earlier had been dismissed by Professor Dawkins. ''The brain is going to rot, that's all there is to it,'' he said.

Cardinal Pell said: ''Mr Dawkins, I don't say things I don't mean".

''I believe it because I believe the man who told us that was also the son of God. He said, 'This is my body, this is my blood'. And I'd much prefer to listen to Him and take his word than yours.''

FULL STORY

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

[NYer]

Ping!

[iowamark]

The full hour video is at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

There are live people whose brains have rotted!

[Rich21IE]

ping

[Tax-chick]

The clergyman remained unmoved on gay marriage and climate change ...

What do "gay marriage" and climate change have to do with atheism? Climate change - causes and outcomes, useful responses to - is purely a matter of scientific fact, with no element of belief involved. Observation and experiment prove the facts, or they don't.

Did Mr. Dawkins have the intellectual consistency to say that an obession with non-reproductive genital activity is an example of natural selection's eliminating from the gene pool certain elements which are obviously defective?

[Mach9]

Absolutely amazing. These “scientists” can believe that a seed from a dead plant can produce an entirely new growth, but they can’t believe that the soul of a far superior creation can be rejoined or renewed with a body after death. Only seeing is believing. Plato’s shadows on the cave wall.

[guitarplayer1953]

The clergyman remained unmoved on gay marriage and climate change, but he said evolution was ''probably'' right, and that atheists could ''certainly'' get into heaven.

Please tell me how an atheist can get into heaven?

[PapaBear3625]

The clergyman's view that people would return after death in some kind of physical form earlier had been dismissed by Professor Dawkins. ''The brain is going to rot, that's all there is to it,'' he said.

Once you assume the existence of an omnipotent God, who can suspend or reverse natural laws and modify reality as He pleases, then nothing is "impossible".

[Natural Law]

"Please tell me how an atheist can get into heaven?"

Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act and its opposition to God's law. It also requires a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Ignorance, through no fault of the individual (referred to as invincible ignorance by the Church), can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense.

[guitarplayer1953]

We are all born into sin a fallen state that needs redeption and that redeption only comes from Christ.

[Natural Law]

"We are all born into sin a fallen state that needs redeption and that redeption only comes from Christ."

Amen to that, FRiend. However, an atheist's ignorance doesn't in any way negate Christ's existence or the capacity of His mercy.

[guitarplayer1953]

There is a difference between being an atheist and being agnostic. The atheist says there is no God and the agnostic is not certain. The bible also says that the liar and the thief will not see heaven. So if the atheist or the agnostic is a liar or a thief then they still have three strikes against them.

[GunRunner]

Many atheists also say they don’t know. Agnosticism isn’t saying “I don’t know”, it is saying that such a question in unknowable.

[guitarplayer1953]

The atheist want to take God out of the pledge of alliance and off the dollar bill. The atheist one day will bow their knee to Jesus. God know His sheep and the sheep know their masters voice. Many will come to grips with their disregard to the prompting of the HS once they stand before the white throne of judgment. Hell is a real place and will be filled with hard headed people who hardened their hearts to the HS and will spend eternity knowing that fact. Agnosticism is a stance that they have taken inspite of all the evidence in nature and the universe that says there is a God.

[WhoHuhWhat]

What a wretched job the cardinal did in such an open forum with the self aggrandized Dawkins. Dawkins looked booked up and rational while the cardinal reached for comfortable stories mixed with Time magazine science (Neanderthal — really?).

The cardinal did not push on morality (why should I not shoot you here and now). He did not push on nothingness (pleased with his applause line, he let Dawkins redefine nothingness to “not much”). His treatment of evolution had even the shots of his supporters in the audience looking befuddled.

The tweets captioned during the show showed just how little was needed to answer the questions. A first year Sunday School teacher for the 9-11 age would have done a better job.

[GunRunner]

OK, well that's your opinion. Some people have come to different conclusions.

My point was that your definitions of atheist vs. agnostic was incorrect.

[guitarplayer1953]

And my original question is how is a authority in the church giving false hope that atheist are going to heaven and saying that Adam and Eve are just a bed time story? To me this statement about atheist’s going to heaven sounds like universalism where everyone will get to be in heaven even the devil and his angles. And he undoubly does not believe that the word of God is true and valid in all it says other wise he would of said of course the Adam and Eve is a factual account. My question to Pell would be if the Adam and Eve is just a story what else is just a story? Was Moses just a story? Maybe Jesus is just a story since there is no historical evidence that He ever did live. May be it is just a racket that someone thought up to control people and to get money from.

[Natural Law]

"To me this statement about atheist’s going to heaven sounds like universalism where everyone will get to be in heaven even the devil and his angles."

Cardinal Pell was asked "CAN" an atheist go to heaven, not "WILL" a specific atheist go to heaven. As I pointed out in post #10 it is possible. The Cardinal was correct.

[guitarplayer1953]

An atheist can not go o heaven unless they have placed their faith in Christ. There is no side door no back door on the narrow gate.