The Unbelievers

I said this in a movie once:

"Everyone knows the same truth,

and our lives consist of

how we choose to distort it."

I am kind of amazed at what

Lawrence and Richard are doing

because they are walking

into some pretty prickly

arenas,

and they have no armor,

other than

their own mental faculties.

I think what these two men

are doing out there,

promoting a scientific

world view,

is something of great value

because it is part of

what humanity's all about...

To be curious, to understand

what is the real world

surrounding us.

And this is what I love

about science, is that

it's knowledge,

and knowledge is power,

and it empowers you

and it frees you,

because then you're not stuck,

you're no longer stuck

where you've been or where

somebody else has been stuck.

There are no scientific

authorities. There are

scientific experts.

Richard knows a lot

about zoology; I know

a lot about physics.

But there's no one whose views

are not subject to question.

Science just seeks

the truth without prejudice,

for better or worse.

It doesn't say,

"should I find this out?"

It says, "can I?"

And that's

They don't change the facts.

Facts, if you're rational,

should change your beliefs.

Throughout history,

new discoveries

have challenged

existing beliefs.

Religion is no exception.

Religion is just like

any other topic

and should not be

sacrosanct at all.

You should be able

to discuss religion.

Why not?

I think religion

should be open to discussion.

I think everything

should be. I think

when you make things taboo,

even when feel like

you're protecting it,

it's not for the greater good.

We cannot close down

a conversation

about a set

of beliefs that lead to actions

which affect all of us.

All this stuff I was

taught about evolution

and big bang theory and all that

is lies straight

from the pit of hell.

This is the trouble

with ethics and morality

and the big questions

and the fact that

religionists think they

own that conversation.

Quite the contrary.

They kill that conversation.

And I think we follow people

who have courage, you know,

to think about things

that we haven't

thought about before,

and in these times,

where intolerance

is kind of championed,

I'm pretty impressed

that someone is

taking on the quest.

That's what I get

from these guys:

The permission to

question everything.

Richard, ten years ago,

I asked you the question

in the popular writing

and speaking that

you do, which is,

what's more important

in some sense

if you had a choice,

which is to explain science

or destroy religion?

Oh, I think that

they go together,

because "destroy religion"

makes it sound negative.

Yeah.

To me, it's positive.

Science is wonderful.

Science is beautiful.

And religion

is not wonderful.

It's not beautiful.

It gets in the way.

There are all sorts of

other things wrong with it,

but I mostly

care about truth,

the beauty of truth,

the poetry of reality,

which is science,

and the fact that religion,

as a scientific explanation...

It is a competing

scientific explanation...

It's so dull,

it's so boring,

it's so petty.

It's wrong too.

And it's also

wrong, yes.

Which I think

is a bit more...

more important, yeah.

I think the same as you.

I want people to understand

how the universe really works.

As an aside, ultimately,

is this other incompatibility

between science and religion

that when empirical evidence

tells you something,

you have to accept it...

When you give up that

by saying, "I can believe

this myth and fairy tale,"

then it opens you up

to lots of other things.

So it's not innocuous.

Inevitably, when you have

to deal with the real world.

You inevitably make

bad decisions.

If we can get people

to believe that,

then it's easier...

Or should be easier to convince

people that evolution is true

because the evidence

is so strong.

Once you tell them

the evidence for evolution,

they say,

"oh, right, okay.

So much for God."

Well, tonight Richard is in

Sydney while I'm in canberra,

and he's going to debate

on a television program

called q and a

the archbishop of Sydney,

and I'm here in canberra

debating in a Muslim

debate initiative.

We're both sort of launching out

against the forces of evil

in different places,

and that poetry was

to compelling to resist.

As far as I can see,

this event has been advertised

only in the Muslim community.

Except for the few people

I've told about it,

no one will know about it

except the Muslim community,

so it'll be

an interesting audience.

Oh, look over there.

That's fascinating.

That may be our audience

right there, by the way.

That could be it.

Hi, how ya doin'?

- Nice to see you.

- Morning, Professor.

- How are you?

- Hi.

I'm the, uh...

uthman. Uthman badar.

Oh, okay.

You're the other person

that's going to talk.

That's right.

It's interesting...

I looked online and didn't

see any advertising for it.

It'll be interesting

to see.

We'll see how that goes.

But I have a rule... if there's

less than five people,

we just go for coffee.

Does that sound good?

I'm gonna sit in the back now

and read my Bible,

which is...

I just thought

I'd pick it up

for inspiration.

Christopher always inspires me.

Cardinal George pell is the

most senior

Roman catholic

in Australia,

he's the archbishop of Sydney,

and I know rather

little else about him,

I'm afraid.

And he is sometimes talked about

as a possible candidate

for pope.

I have always refused to debate

religious fundamentalists.

It is my understanding

that a cardinal of

the Roman catholic church

is not a fundamentalist.

If he is, I've made a mistake.

We're very excited to have these

two gentlemen here this evening

for this discussion.

We know them already.

Please let us introduce

them properly

and make them feel very welcome.

Please help me welcome

the author of the God delusion,

the evolutionary biologist

Richard Dawkins.

...the archbishop of Sydney,

please welcome

cardinal George pell.

Five, four, three...

George pell,

do you accept that

humans evolved from apes?

Yeah, probably.

From neanderthals, yes.

From neanderthals?

Probably.

Why from neanderthals?

Who else would you suggest?

Neanderthals were our cousins.

We're not descended from them.

These extant cousins?

Where would I find

a neanderthal today

if they're my cousins?

They're not extant.

They're extinct.

That's my point.

Your point is that

because they're not...

That because they're extant,

they can't be our cousins?

I'm really am not much fussed.

That's very clear.

Ignoring the limitations

of science

also leads to sloppy

and arbitrary science.

A good example is the field

of quantum mechanics.

The evidence of logic

derives from the evidence

of reality.

Is it logical that I can be

in two places at once? No.

But if I am an electron,

I certainly can be.

Because while you refer

to quantum mechanics,

Rate this script:5.0 / 1 vote