Orijinalini görmek için tıklayınız : [Bitti] Richard Dawkins vs. Cardinal Pell - Atheism vs. Catholicism
Henüz Türkçe'ye çevrilmemiş bir Richard Dawkins videosu. (video uzunluğu 1.00.56)
Belki şu an başka çeviri projelerimiz olduğu için el atamayız ama ilerisi için bir kenarda dursun.
En azından çeviriyi yaparsak videoya ekleyemesek bile güzel bir röportaj makalesi olur bundan..
Video aşağıda..
Richard Dawkins ve Kardinal Pell - Ateizm ve Katolik Kilisesi
LX7tz78RVEI#!
Önemli bir tartışma arkadaşlar. Çevriminizi dört gözle bekliyoruz.
Transkripler internette hazır varmış arkadaşlar. Transkripti çıkarmamıza gerek kalmadı. Sadece Türkçe'ye çevirip hangi cümlenin kaçıncı dakikada konuşulduğunu belirlemek lazım gelecek. Transkript aşağıda:
TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones and answering your questions tonight: world renowned evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins and - wait a minute. Hold your applause just for a moment. And Australia's most senior Catholic Church man, the Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell. Please welcome our special guests.
Okay. Q&A is live from 9.35 Eastern Time and simulcast on News 24 and News Radio. Go to our website to send a question or join the Twitter conversation using the hash tag on your screen and stay tuned for the chance to join QandaVote. You can register on your smart phone or smart device at the address on the screen. The address is qanda.vote - qandavote.tv, I should say. Our first question tonight comes from Naomi Roseth.
VALUES OF ATHEISM AND FAITH 00:01:16
NAOMI ROSETH: At Easter Australia's religious leaders invoke the name of God in order to preach peace, tolerance, political integrity, social and moral fortitude, all obviously positive and worthwhile values. My question is: in what way is the practice of these values dependent on an existing God? Is it possible for an atheist to be a peace loving socially responsible person?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, let's start with you?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, obviously the answer to that question is yes. I mean that could hardly be otherwise. 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. I think it would be very sad if it were true that you really did need religion in order to be good because if you think about it what that would mean would be either that you get your morals and your values from the Bible or the Quran or some other holy book or that you are good only because you're frightened of God, because you don't want to go to hell or you do want to go to heaven. Now, as for getting your morals from the Bible, I very sincerely hope nobody does get their morals from the Bible. It’s true that you can find the occasional good verse and the Sermon on the Mount would be one example, but it’s lost amid the awful things that are dotted throughout the Old Testament and actually throughout the New Testament as well because the idea - the fundamental idea of New Testament Christianity, which is that Jesus is the son of God who is redeeming humanity from original sin, the idea that we are born in sin and the only way we can be redeemed from sin is through the death of Jesus, I mean that’s a horrible idea. It’s a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our since sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive himself.
TONY JONES: Okay, let's go to George Pell on that.
GEORGE PELL: Well, there’s quite a few things that might be said. First of all our tradition goes back about 4,000 years so whatever these values are that we’ve taken over, we’ve got to go back a little bit of a distance and it’s interesting to look at Pagan Rome before there was Christian influence. Forty per cent was slaves. Men and women fought one another to the death in, you know, the Circus Maximus or the Colosseum. Women had no rights whatsoever. Infanticide was practiced regularly. The noble families didn't want baby girls. Christianity changed that. Not perhaps by itself but largely. And the Christian story 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.
TONY JONES: Can I just interrupt you just to bring you to point of the question, which was really about whether atheists can lead a good life and be good people and socially responsible and so on.
GEORGE PELL: Yeah, absolutely.
TONY JONES: You accept that?
GEORGE PELL: Yeah, absolutely. I think it helps to believe in God because - there’s a Polish poet, Milosh, who says that the opium of the people today is the belief that they won't be judged by God when they die, those who have committed great crimes, done awful things are going to get away with it and that the people who have suffered unjustly, had terrible lives, that’s it.
TONY JONES: Okay, let's move quickly to our second question. It’s from Clare Bonner.
IS RELIGION A FORCE FOR GOOD 00:05:33
CLARE BONNER: 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?
RICHARD DAWKINS: It’s an astonishing idea to say why should you bother just because we have a scientific understanding of why we're here. We do have a scientific understanding of why we're here and we therefore have to make up our own meaning to life. We have to find our own purposes in life, which are not derived directly from our scientific history.
When you say that Christianity has been responsible for a lot of good, including science by the way, which is somewhat ironic, I think that most of the great benefits in humanity, such as the abolition of slavery, such as the emancipation of women, which the Cardinal both - mentioned both of, these have been rung out of our Christian history without much support from Christianity. I, as an atheist, my friends as atheists, lead thoroughly worthwhile lives, in our opinion, because we stand up, look the world in the face, face up to the fact that we are not going to last forever, we have to make the most of the short time that we have on this planet, we have to make this planet as good as we possibly can and try to leave it a better place than we found it.
TONY JONES: Now, to some degree you’ve already answered this but there is a follow-up question. I’m going to go to that now. It’s from Rebekah Ray.
VALUES OF “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST”? 00:07:25
REBEKAH RAY: 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?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, you can answer that and I’ll bring in Cardinal Pell.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It’s undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.
TONY JONES: George Pell.
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.
GEORGE PELL: Well, what is the reason that science gives why we're here? Science tells us how things happen, science tells us nothing about why there was the big bang. Why there is a transition from inanimate matter to living matter. Science is silent on we could solve most of the questions in science and it would leave all the problems of life almost completely untouched. Why be good?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Why be good is a separate question, which I also came to. 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 down 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. Now, science, over the centuries, has gradually pieced together answers to those questions: “why” in that sense. It’s true that there are still some gaps but surely, Cardinal, you aren't going to fall for the God of the gaps trap in saying that religion is going to fill in those gaps which science has so far not yet answered.
GEORGE PELL: No, I’m not going to be diverted at all. I am happy to come back to that.
TONY JONES: We will be coming back to it because I know there are questions that relate to some of the bigger issues you're talking about but you can respond and then we’ll move onto our next question.
GEORGE PELL: I hope I’ll be allowed to.
TONY JONES: You certainly will.
GEORGE PELL: Thanks. It’s part of being human to ask why we exist. Questioning distinguishes us from the animals. To ask why we're here, I repeat and this is a commonplace in science, science has nothing to say about that. Whatever it might say about mountains, it can't say what is the purpose of human life and it’s not Maggie Thatcher who was in the epitome or the personification of social Darwinism. It’s Hitler and Stalin.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I have said...
GEORGE PELL: 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.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Oh, now that’s ridiculous. This is ridiculous. A most unbiased audience you’ve assembled here by the way. Right, let's clearly distinguish two things here. First, atheism had nothing to do with Hitler and Stalin. Stalin was an atheist and Hitler was not. It doesn't matter what they were with respect to atheism, they did their horrible things for entirely different reasons. Now, you are right when you say that aspects of what Hitler tried to do could be regarded as arising out of Darwinian natural selection. 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. 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. There are all sorts of questions which you can ask.
(AUDIENCE LAUGH)
RICHARD DAWKINS: What’s funny about that? What is funny about that?
TONY JONES: Okay, we’d like the audience not to yell out. If we can do that, that’d be great. We’re going to move on.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I didn’t finish, I’m sorry.
TONY JONES: Okay, well, finish your point.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Okay.
TONY JONES: Because there are lots of questions pertaining this we will be coming back to.
RICHARD DAWKINS: The question why is not necessarily a question that deserves to be answered. There are all sorts of questions that people can ask like “What is the colour of jealousy?” That’s a silly question.
GEORGE PELL: Exactly.
RICHARD DAWKINS: “Why?” is a silly question. “Why?” is a silly question. You can ask, “What are the factors that led to something coming into existence?” That’s a sensible question. But “What is the purpose universe?” is a silly question. It has no meaning.
GEORGE PELL: Could I just interpose very briefly.
TONY JONES: Very briefly.
GEORGE PELL: I think it’s a very poignant and real question to ask, “Why is there suffering?”
TONY JONES: We will be asking that question, believe it or not. This is Q&A. It’s live and interactive. Tonight we're experimenting with qandavote, a new way for Q&A viewers to share their opinions on the issues we discuss. You can go to the qandavote.tv website on your smart phone, tablet or computer to vote in our very first question and that is: does religious belief make the world a better place? Does religious belief make the world a better place? We’ll report back later on your views. First, let’s move on to our next question for our panel. It comes from Paul Hanrahan.
DAWKINS – ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC? 00:14:00
PAUL HANRAHAN: My question is for Richard Dawkins. You're on the record as saying you can't prove that God doesn't exist and you say you're agnostic rather than atheistic. Why do you appear as the champion of atheism around the world? Why do you accept offers to appear as the champion of atheism and why are you so evangelical in the prosecution of your cause? Isn't that a touch hypocritical and unscientific?
TONY JONES: Yes, Richard Dawkins, I’m a bit confused about this because you just referred to yourself moments ago as being an atheist and yet, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, you referred to yourself as an agnostic?
RICHARD DAWKINS: In the God Delusion I make a seven-point scale. One is I’m totally confident there is a God. Seven is I’m totally confident there is not a God. Six is to all intents and purposes I’m an atheist. 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.
TONY JONES: So what proof, by the way, would change your mind?
RICHARD DAWKINS: That’s a very difficult and interesting question because, I mean, I used to think that if somehow, you know, great big giant 900 foot high Jesus with a voice like Paul Robeson suddenly strode in and said "I exist. Here I am" but even that I actually sometimes wonder whether that would...
GEORGE PELL: I’d think you were hallucinating.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Exactly. I agree. I agree. I agree.
TONY JONES: Well, can I just put a question to you? Could you ever provide Richard Dawkins with the sort of proof he requires for belief? Scientific proof of the existence of God?
GEORGE PELL: 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. But could I make one little suggestion as to why Richard calls himself an atheist? Because in one of his blogs in 2002, he was discussing whether he's an agnostic or a non-theist. He said he prefers to use the term atheist because it is more explosive. It’s more dynamic. You can shake people up, whereas if you're just going around saying you're an agnostic or a non theist, it’s - these are his own words.
TONY JONES: Well, let’s let Richard Dawkins respond.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I don't remember saying that. It wouldn't totally surprise me. It’s...
GEORGE PELL: It’s in 2002.
RICHARD DAWKINS: It’s an ongoing issue, what’s the best way. There is a problem with the word atheist, especially in America. I don't know whether it is true in Australia. There is a lovely woman - I am blocking on her name because I am jetlagged. She's Irish American woman. Anybody help me?
TONY JONES: There are quite a few Irish American women. Sorry about that.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Anyway, I do apologise personally to her for forgetting her name.
GEORGE PELL: What does she do?
RICHARD DAWKINS: She's an actress and she did a film on how she escaped from the Roman Catholic Church and it is a very moving film and at the end her mother discovered she was an atheist and her mother phoned her up and said "Well, I don't mind you not believing in God but an atheist!" Her name is Julia Sweeney. It’s suddenly come back to me. I strongly recommend that. Now, the point is that the word atheist, unlike just not believing in God, has bad connotations and so to some extent people have wished to depart from that and change the name to non theist or secularist or non-believer and I waver back and forth as to what is the best name to use. I sometimes call myself an atheist, sometimes a non theist and sometimes just a non-believer.
TONY JONES: George Pell, can I just come back to you on this question of the existence of God. Why would God randomly decide to provide proof of his existence to a small group of Jews 2,000 years ago and not subsequently provide any proof after that?
GEORGE PELL: Well, I don't think there's ever been any scientific proof. I don't believe God does anything randomly, although he might set up he might set up a system which works, apparently through, you know, through chance, through random but if you want something done, you’ve got to ask somebody. It’s no good, say, my asking everyone in the congregation will you would do something. Normally you go to a busy person because you know they'll do it and so for some extraordinary reason God chose the Jews. 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?
GEORGE PELL: Well, that’s a nice try, Tony. The people, in terms of sophistication, the psalms are remarkable in terms of their buildings and that sort of thing. They don't compare with the great powers. But Jesus came not as a philosopher to the elite. He came to the poor and the battlers and for some reason he choose a very difficult but actually they are now an intellectually elite because over the centuries they have been pushed out of every other form of work. They’re a - I mean Jesus, I think, is the greatest the son of God but, leaving that aside, the greatest man that ever live so I’ve got a great admiration for the Jews but we don't need to exaggerate their contribution in their early days.
TONY JONES: All right. You’re watching Q&A. Remember you can send your web or video question to our website. The address is on the screen to find out how to do that. Our next question is a video. It comes from Andrew Watson in Blackburn Victoria.
BIG BANG FROM NOTHING 00:21:08
ANDREW WATSON: 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?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, obviously you're not a physicist and nor am I and I am delighted to say that during my time in Australia I shall be having a number of conversations, public conversations, with my colleague Lawrence Krauss, including one in the Sydney Opera House later - I think it’s next week and he's written a book on exactly that topic of how you can get something from nothing and I shall be questioning him about that. Of course it’s counter intuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course commonsense doesn't allow you to get something from nothing. That’s why it’s interesting. It’s got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe. Now, if you want to replace if you want to replace a physical explanation by an intelligent God, that’s an even worse explanation. It’s even a more difficult explanation. What scientists are trying to do is to explain how you can get not just something but the immense complexity of the world, of the universe and of life, and science is making a pretty good fist of doing that. Life is now completely solved barring the details. That was Darwin's contribution and Darwin's successors. Physicists are still working on the origin of the cosmos. Among them is Lawrence Krauss whom I shall be talking to next week. Now, it is very mysterious how the universe came into being. It’s a deeply mysterious and interesting question.
TONY JONES: And can I just interrupt? It’s an old question, a very old question. Thomas Aquinis in the 13th Century was asking this same question. He said there must have been a time when no physical things existed but something can't come from nothing. That was his view. It’s just been repeated by...
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, something can come from nothing and that is what physicists are now telling us. I could give you - you asked me to give you a layman's interpretation. It would be very, very layman's interpretation. When you have matter and antimatter and you put them together, they cancel each other out and give rise to nothing. What Lawrence Krauss is now suggesting is that if you start with nothing the process can go into reverse and produce matter and antimatter. The theory is still being worked out. It is a very difficult theory, mathematical theory. I’m not qualified to answer the question but what I am sure about is that it most certainly is not solved by postulating an intelligence, a creative intelligence, who raises even bigger questions of his own existence. That certainly is not going to be the answer, whatever else is.
TONY JONES: George Pell.
GEORGE PELL: Thank you. The trouble well, there are many troubles with Richard's teachings but a fundamental one is that 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. Now, from 450, 500 BC where, with the Greek philosophers, God is outside space and time. God is necessary, self-sufficient, uncaused, unconditioned. That’s the hypothesis you’ve got to wrestle with. The second thing is that Krauss says nothing about the big bang coming out of nothing and admittedly he comes clean about six pages from the end of his book and I don't know whether Richard has read it that far because he gave it a forward. What he says is what Richard is describing as nothing is a sort of mixture of particles and perhaps a vacuum with electromagnetic forces working on it. That’s what Krauss is talking about under the heading of nothing and there’s a very good review of this in the New York Times, not a pro religious paper at all, where Krauss is absolutely denied and demolished, although especially by his supporters claiming that he says things come out of nothing. He doesn't say that.
RICHARD DAWKINS: It’s a matter...
TONY JONES: You can quickly respond to that.
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.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I take...
TONY JONES: Well, can I put that to you as a question? Is it equally feasible, since you can't prove the existence of God that the nothing you're talking about is, in fact, some creative force?
RICHARD DAWKINS: If you talk about a God who is a creative intelligence then that is something very complicated and very improbable and something that requires explaining in its own right. The nothing that Lawrence Krauss is talking about, whether or not it’s what a naive person would conceive as nothing or what a sophisticated physicist would consider to be nothing it is going to be something much simpler than a creative intelligence. We are struggling - we are all struggling, scientists are struggling - to explain how we get the fantastic order and complexity of the universe out of very simple and therefore easy to understand, easy to explain, beginnings. Lawrence Krauss calls the substrate of his explanation nothing. It’s possible to dispute whether nothing is quite the right word, but whatever it is it is very, very simple and therefore is a worthy premise for an explanation. Whereas, a God, a creative intelligence is not a worthy substrate for an explanation because it is already something very complicated and it is no good invoking Thomas Aquinis and saying that God is defined as outside time and space. That’s just a cop out. That’s just an evasion of the responsibility to explain. That’s just setting out what you want to prove before you have even started.
TONY JONES: Okay, let's move onto a question - let's move onto a question on evolution for Cardinal Pell. It’s from Jo Blades.
EVOLUTION AND THE CHURCH 00:28:35
JO BLADES: As a young Catholic scientist, I’d like to ask the Cardinal to clarify the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution and comment on whether the dichotomy between science and religion is, in fact, real?
GEORGE PELL: Well, science and religion are two different activities and in the Catholic Church you can believe, to some extent, what you like about evolution. I think Darwin made a great contribution. I remember talking with Julius Kornberg, a very distinguished biologist, and he's worked with ants for years and he said, you know, he's managed to change them by changing the conditions but there are a number of things that evolution doesn't explain. Darwin realised that. 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.
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 extant 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.
TONY JONES: But can we say this: humans - you accept that humans evolved from non humans so let me put this to you as a question: at what point in this evolutionary scale was a soul imparted to the humans from God?
GEORGE PELL: Look, a soul is not like putting a spot of gin in a tonic. The soul is the principle of life. So whenever there was a principle of life that could question, that could be open to awe, that was able to communicate then we had the first human. Now, we believe that the first humans developed in South Africa. I’m not quite sure how long ago and that all, you know, humans have developed from that. We know most about that. There aren't remains. We know most about that because of the drawings they left on the on walls and caves and that sort of thing. No such thing from Neanderthals, 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. They might have been equal first but if there is a progression there’s got to be first.
TONY JONES: So are you talking about a kind of Garden of Eden scenario with an actual Adam and Eve?
GEORGE PELL: Well, Adam and Eve are terms - what do they mean: life and earth. It’s like every man. That’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science but it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and the universe. Secondly, that the key to the whole of universe, the really significant thing, are humans and, thirdly, it is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and suffering in the world.
TONY JONES: But it isn’t a literal truth. You shouldn't see it in any way as being an historical or literal truth?
GEORGE PELL: It’s certainly not a scientific truth and it’s a religious story told for religious purposes.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because the Old Testament in particular is full of these kind of stories, I mean is there a point where you distinguish between metaphor and reality? For example, Moses receiving the Ten Commandments inscribed directly by God on a mountain?
GEORGE PELL: I’m not sure that the Old Testament says that God inscribed the Ten Commandments but leaving that aside it’s difficult to know how exactly that worked but Moses was a great man. There was a great encounter with the divine. Actually, with Moses we get the key that enables us to come together with the Greeks with reason because Moses said who will I tell the Egyptians and he tell that my name is "I am who I am".
TONY JONES: Okay, I’m just going to...
GEORGE PELL: And we’ll come back to that.
TONY JONES: I’m just going to bring Richard Dawkins back in here because we’ve moved from evolution obviously to the biblical versions of it. Your response.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, I’m curious to know if Adam and Eve never existed where did original sin come from? But I also would like to clarify the point about whether there was ever a first human. That’s a rather difficult and puzzling question because we know that the previous species from which we're descended is probably homo erectus and before that some sort of australopithecine but there never was a last homo erectus who gave birth to the first homo sapiens. Every creature ever born belonged to the same species as its parents. The process of evolution is so gradual that you can never say, aha, now suddenly we have the first human. It was always a case of just a slightly different from the previous generation. That’s a scientific point which I think is quite interesting. I’m not sure if it has a theological significance except that I think successive popes have tried to suggest that the soul did indeed get added, rather like gin to tonic, at some particular point during evolution; at some point in evolution there was no soul and then later there was one so it is quite an interesting question to ask. Now we have rather a good fossil record from Africa of the descent of humans from australopithecines to various species of homo, perhaps homo habilis, perhaps homo erectus, then archaic homo sapiens and then modern homo sapiens. At what point did the soul get injected and what does the idea of original sin mean if Adam and Eve never existed?
TONY JONES: I’ll just quickly let you respond to that, George?
GEORGE PELL: Yeah, well, I mean God wasn't running around giving injections and if there is no first person we’re not humans.
TONY JONES: Where did the soul come from then in the point of evolution?
GEORGE PELL: The soul is the principle of life. There are animal souls.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Do jellyfish...
GEORGE PELL: All living things have some principle of life. An animal has a principle of life. A human has a soul, a principle of life, which is immensely more sophisticated. We even have a voice box, which is one of the great miracles, so we can communicate our thoughts to one another rather than just grunting.
TONY JONES: I’m pleased we're not grunting tonight. Let’s move along. You can - by the way don't forget you can still vote at qanda.vote. Sorry qandavote.tv, I should say, on the question: does religious belief make the world a better place? Over 15,000 viewers have already voted and we’ll check before the end of the program for the final results. Our next question for Professor Dawkins and Cardinal Pell is a video and it comes from Kieran Dennis in Ferntree Gully, Victoria.
CLIMATE SCIENCE AND PROOF 00:36:33
KIERAN DENNIS: My question is for George Pell. George, as a climate cha00nge sceptic you demand a very high standard of evidence to support the hypothesis that global warming has an anthropogenic cause. My question is why then do you not demand the same standard of evidence for the existence of God?
TONY JONES: George Pell?
GEORGE PELL: I am very, very happy to answer that. First of all I’m not a sceptic about climate change. I grew up in Ballarat. The weather was always I worked for years in Melbourne. If you don't like the weather in Melbourne, wait 20 minutes. Think of all the nonsense people like Flannery told us about years of drought here and now we're coping with flood. But the droughts will be back.
TONY JONES: So can I just clarify that you're a sceptic about global warming leading to climate change?
GEORGE PELL: I am sceptical - I’m sceptical about the human contribution to dangerous climate change. I think that is not established.
TONY JONES: And, sorry, is that because you're sceptical about scientific consensus and is that partly driven by what scientists believe about religion?
GEORGE PELL: No, got nothing to do with it. On the weather question, I go on the evidence. When you come to talk about God, that is not a scientific question. The scientists concede that. It is a question that is open, I believe, to reason. 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 fundamental gist 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.
TONY JONES: It’s a hard thing to say but keep it brief.
RICHARD DAWKINS: 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. It doesn't mean there is a purpose in the sense of a human purpose in the sense of a guiding principle which is thought up in advance. With hindsight you can say something like a bird's wing looks as though it has a purpose, a human eye looks as though it has a purpose but it has come about through the process of non-random natural selection. There is no purpose in the human sense. There is a kind of pseudo purpose but it’s not a purpose in the human sense of conscious guiding. But above all I must stress that Darwinian evolution is a non-random process. One of the biggest misunderstandings, which I’m sorry to say the Cardinal has just perpetrated, is that evolution is a random process. It is the opposite of a random process.
TONY JONES: A brief response to that if you can?
GEORGE PELL: Yes. That is fascinating because most evolutionary biologists today believe that the animal world is developing accord to go patterns which we're starting to know more and more about them.
TONY JONES: Are you referring to intelligent design?
GEORGE PELL: No, I’m not. I’m leaving that right to one side.
TONY JONES: Do you believe in intelligent design? Or that there is an intelligent designer?
GEORGE PELL: I believe God is intelligent.
TONY JONES: No but it’s obviously a loaded question but do you believe in intelligent design and an intelligent designer?
GEORGE PELL: It all depends what you mean. I believe God created the world. I am not entirely sure how it works out scientifically. But I wonder, you know, whether Richard believes that the order, the patterns we see in nature, whether they are real or whether they're an illusion.
TONY JONES: I’m going to leave that question for the...
RICHARD DAWKINS: They are real.
TONY JONES: All right. Okay. That’s a quick answer. Let's go to our next question. It is a video from Matthew Thompson in Toowong, Victoria (sic).
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I DIE? 00:41:25
MATTHEW THOMPSON: I am an atheist. What do you think will happen when I die and how do you know?
TONY JONES: George Pell, we’ll start with you? You ought to be an authority on this, I imagine?
GEORGE PELL: Well, I know from the Christian point of view, God loves everybody but every genuine motion towards the truth is a motion towards God and when an atheist dies, like everybody else, they will be judged on the extent to which they have moved towards goodness and truth and beauty but in the Christian view, God loves everyone except those who turn his back turn their back on him through evil acts.
TONY JONES: So atheism is not an evil act?
GEORGE PELL: No, not - well, no, in most cases it’s not.
TONY JONES: So I guess to get to the point of the question, I suppose - I mean he may be having a little wager here but is it possible for an atheist to go to heaven?
GEORGE PELL: Well, it’s not my business.
TONY JONES: You’re the only authority we have here.
GEORGE PELL: I would say certainly.
TONY JONES: Yeah.
GEORGE PELL: Certainly.
TONY JONES: Just on the subject of heaven, if we can, what is your own concept of what heaven is?
GEORGE PELL: Well, even St Paul was severely agnostic but one way in which the Christians differ from the Greeks, the Greeks believed in the immortality of the soul. We Christians believe with one section of the Jewish people in the resurrection of the body.
GEORGE PELL: So in some sense we will be there as continuing persons. In some with a new heaven and a new earth with all the good things that we’ve done will be incorporated into the new heaven and new earth. How it will work out I don't know because, I think, physically and morally and intellectually we're at our peak at different stages in our life. How it will work out I’ve got no idea but that is the general outline of Christian teaching.
TONY JONES: But you think about it as a kind of collection of individual souls, in fact obviously billions and billions of individual souls with their own personality existing in some galactic space?
GEORGE PELL: I think that’s a traditional well, that’s certainly the traditional Christian view. It’s the view that I accept and it’s also the view of some of the Jews.
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins?
RICHARD DAWKINS: 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.
TONY JONES: Can I say this: if you're actually an agnostic and you keep aside a small portion of your brain for subsequent proof, I mean, you might get presented with that proof when you die.
RICHARD DAWKINS: The brain is what we do our thinking with. The brain is going to rot. That is all there is to it. I am intrigued by the Cardinal saying that Christians believe you’re going to be resurrected in the body. I mean that’s an astonishing idea and I don't believe you really mean that and I think - just as I don't believe you really mean that the wafer turns into the body of Christ. You must mean body in some rather special sense.
GEORGE PELL: Mr Dawkins, I don't say things I don't mean.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, then what do you mean then?
GEORGE PELL: I’ll tell you and I’ve just explained what the bodily resurrection means to the extent that I can understand it. I certainly believe that when the words of consecration are uttered that they become the body and blood of Christ. Now, I have had a little kid come up to me when that was explained and say, “Can I have a look in the challis and see if it has turned to blood?” Of course it hasn't. We don't believe that. It’s not against reason. 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.
RICHARD DAWKINS: But other Christian denominations are quite happy to take that as a symbolic metaphorical meaning. Catholics take it as a literal meaning and I take it - I’m trying to be charitable by trying to suggest that it’s that same sense in which you say that the body is resurrected because the body is certainly not resurrected in terms of the cell, the protoplasm, the proteins, the DNA. That doesn't happen any more than the wafer turns into that. You're right when you said that to the child. So you do not mean that the wafer turns into the body in any sense in which normal English language usage would understand. You mean it in some other sense and I take it it’s that same sense that the body is resurrected.
TONY JONES: Can I ask you whether you mean it in a metaphorical sense in the same way that you believe Adam and Eve are metaphorical creatures?
GEORGE PELL: No, I don't. I follow it, I understand it, according to a system of metaphysics. It was spelled out by the Greeks before Christ came, which we have adopted and that is there is a substance which is the core of a being and it is revealed to us through what are called accidents. Now, I believe that the core of the being becomes the bread, becomes the body and blood of Christ and continues to look exactly as it was. We believe that in the Catholic Church. Now, I know you're a cultural Anglican and we can't blame the Anglican...
RICHARD DAWKINS: I’m also a rationalist. I mean I use - English is my native language. The wafer does not become the body of anybody in the English language.
TONY JONES: Okay. All right. No, I think you both disagree on this point rather substantially. Let's go to the next question from Michael Matty.
CHILDREN AND “NO GOD” 00:47:15
MICHAEL MATTY: Is it okay to tell a child that God doesn't exist?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins?
RICHARD DAWKINS: I think it is okay to tell a child the truth but I would prefer to encourage a child to make up her own mind and to think about the evidence and to believe things when there is evidence. What I think is not okay, what I think is deeply immoral, is to tell a child that when she dies if she's not good she's going to go to hell. That seems to me to be mental child abuse and an utter disgrace.
TONY JONES: Okay.
GEORGE PELL: I remember when I was in England we were preparing some young English boys, they were from very...
(AUDIENCE LAUGH)
GEORGE PELL: Preparing them for...
(AUDIENCE BOO)
TONY JONES: Come on.
GEORGE PELL: Thank you. Preparing them for the first communion and they were very patriotic young lads and one of them announced very breezily to me that he didn't believe in hell and I mean certainly the idea of any child being sent to hell, I agree that that is grotesque and that’s not the Christian God but, anyhow, I said to this kid - I said simply "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?" Anyhow the little kid was quite patriotic and he said, “Mm.” He realised hell was in with a chance if Hitler was going to go there.
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.
TONY JONES: So you actually - well, prefer the idea of hell as a place of punishment for - but for who? Where do you draw the line? Do unbelievers go to hell?
GEORGE PELL: No. No. No. The only people - well, one - I hope nobody is in hell. We Catholics generally believe that there is a hell. I hope nobody is there. I certainly believe in a place of purification. I think it will be like getting up in the morning and you throw the curtains back and the light is just too much. God's light would be too much for us. 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.
TONY JONES: Okay, I’m just going to go to our next question which we can respond to some of the issues through that. It is a video question. It comes from Mick Walsh in Nyngan, New South Wales.
SUFFERING 00:50:15
MICK WALSH: How can there be a compassionate God who is all powerful and has created us, yet we suffer? Why create such a world in the first place?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, you can reflect on that and the previous question.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, it’s hardly my business to say how could a compassionate God like that exist. Darwin himself said it was impossible for him to believe in a God who was capable of creating such suffering. He actually was talking about suffering in the animal kingdom.
TONY JONES: Do you assume that suffering is a natural part of the human condition?
RICHARD DAWKINS: 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. There is massive amount of suffering in the natural world, a huge amount of suffering and it seems to me that’s an almost inevitable consequence of Darwinian natural selection. I’m more interested, however, in what’s true than in what I would like to be true. It would be very nice if there were no suffering in the world. It would be very nice if there were a sort of natural scale of justice, as the Cardinal was saying, but I’m more interested in what’s true, so it’s not the business of an atheist to justify the ways of God to man. It is the business of a Cardinal.
TONY JONES: Okay, let's go to the Cardinal. The question was: how can there be a compassionate God who is all powerful and has created us and yet we suffer. Why create such a world in the first place?
GEORGE PELL: I think that is probably the hardest question for us to answer.
TONY JONES: Do you struggle with it?
GEORGE PELL: Yes. If I get a chance to say to ask a question when I die I think I will ask the good God why is there so much suffering? That’s a problem for us. I think the greater problem and I will come back to the question because it is a very good one it’s at the heart of what we're about. I think it’s a much greater problem for the atheist to explain why there is goodness and truth and beauty. Our problem is to cope with suffering. One of the unique I think, well, certainly special features of Christian teaching is the value of redemptive suffering and that is the significance of Christ suffering with us and dying on the cross. That helps people. My first Easter after I was a priest, it was in the hills in Italy. Very sad village. All the men were away in Germany or Switzerland getting big money, home only for three weeks a year and the people were coming in, coming to confession and coming for consolation. I was even wetter behind the ears than I am now. I didn't know what to say and eventually I said to someone "Well, look, Christ suffered too. Christ had a bad run. Christ died on the cross and we believe that through his suffering good will eventually triumph".
TONY JONES: Can I take it to a bigger level that than the village, to the Holocaust, to genocide, to famine: if there is an omnipotent and all powerful God, why does he let these things happen?
GEORGE PELL: That’s a very good question but if God is going to allow us to be good he’s got to give us freedom. There is no alternative to that and...
TONY JONES: But he chose to intervene at different times in history to save the Jews when they were going over the River Jordan. I mean there are many times when, apparently, God has intervened in biblical times. Why not now?
GEORGE PELL: Well, that’s I think revelation is complete. That’s a mighty question. He helped probably through secondary causes for the Jews to escape and continue. 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: Yes, that might be right. Certainly the suffering in both I mean the Jews there was no reason why they should suffer.
TONY JONES: Okay. I’m just going to - we’re running out of time. I’m going to go to another question. It’s on a different subject. It’s from Anita Wu.
GAY EQUALITY
ANITA WU: Jesus preaches love thy neighbour as thy self so, Cardinal Pell, how can you be against giving our gay neighbours marriage rights when equality and respect are the fundamental foundations of loving and spreading love.
GEORGE PELL: Well, it’s quite misleading and quite unfair to suggest that Christians hate homosexuals. Christians love everybody. We believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, that it is for the continuity of the human race. We believe that men and women are made for one another, spiritually, psychologically, physically. We believe that a man and a woman, a father with their children, is far and away the best and most efficient and most economical system to bring up children and governments should support it. For homosexual couples who have a union, well and good. There’s no reason why that can't be...
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.
TONY JONES: But, sorry, are you suggesting that homosexuals are flawed human beings?
GEORGE PELL: Not necessarily but what I am saying is I don't think homosexual activity is simply the result of genetic makeup, because we are free. We can control our instincts and like with heredity and environment, a lot of this practice is learned. But whatever about it, we’ve got to try to support these people, show compassion, the Catholic Church has a great record there. We look after more HIV sufferers than any other non-government organisation but we don't believe it is possible to have homosexual marriage.
TONY JONES: I’m going to - we’re almost out of time. We’ve got time for one more question that both of our guests can answer. It’s from Katherine Shen.
GOD IS GOOD FOR US
KATHERINE SHEN: As an atheist, Professor Dawkins, do you believe that believing in God for emotional support should be allowed even temporarily? Research has proven that people who believe in God has a better chance of surviving terminal illnesses, such as cancer, as well as living longer when they go to church. Do you think that believing in God is beneficial for our wellbeing even if God is an illusion?
RICHARD DAWKINS: It is perfectly possible that, as you say, believing in God has beneficial effects upon health. It’s possible that you're less likely to suffer an ulcer for something of that sort but I do have to stress, I mean, that’s an utterly trivial argument compared to the truth of whether God actually exists or not. I mean that’s a really big question. It’s an important question, one that the Cardinal and I would agree on. If there is some minor benefit to health one way or the other - the evidence is not good by the way but even bending over backwards to suggest that the evidence is there, that psychosomatic illness may be healed, may be or alleviated somewhat by belief in God - psychosomatic medicine is well know. Placebos work. If God is simply a placebo that’s fine but I’m interested in whether he's actually there.
TONY JONES: Okay, Cardinal Pell, final work actually.
GEORGE PELL: So am I. It’s a question of truth. Christians don't present God as, like Santa Claus, something that a myth that’s useful for children and believing in God and being a Christian cuts both ways. More people were killed for their Christian belief in the last century than any other century, probably than all the other centuries combined. They died on principle to be faithful to Jesus so we might get some benefits. You know we mightn’t get ulcers, we might live a bit longer, that might have much more to do with our heredity but we follow Christ because we believe it’s the truth. I think it does bring a peace of mind. It does help us but sometimes it gets us into 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.
TONY JONES: Okay. That’s all we have time for tonight. Before we go, let's check the final results of tonight's qandavote, with more than 20,000 of you voting. We have a 76% saying, no, religious belief does not make the world - religious belief does not make the world a better place. Please thank our special guests Professor Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell. And next week on Q&A we return to worldly matters with Attorney General Nicola Roxon, the Manager of Opposition Business Christopher Pyne, international human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson; humanist philosopher AC Grayling and Middle East analyst Lydia Khalil. Until then, good night.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm
Hazır yer almasına sevindim. Şimdiden kolay gelsin. Burada da Dawkins'in başka bir din adamıyla yaptığı tartışma. Belki ileride bunun da çevirisi yapılabilir.
youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0
Hazır yer almasına sevindim. Şimdiden kolay gelsin. Burada da Dawkins'in başka bir din adamıyla yaptığı tartışma. Belki ileride bunun da çevirisi yapılabilir.
Bu da çok güzel bir video ve mutlaka Türkçe'ye kazandırılmalı. Buna dair aynı bölümde video ile aynı başlığı taşıyan yeni bir başlık açarsanız belki çalışma yapmak isteyenler orada katılım yapabilirler. Bu şekilde bu video da arada kaybolmaz.
Sabırla koruk helva olurmuş. İlk bir kaç bölümleri ben çevireyim o halde.
TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones and answering your questions tonight: world renowned evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins and - wait a minute. Hold your applause just for a moment. And Australia's most senior Catholic Church man, the Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell. Please welcome our special guests.
Okay. Q&A is live from 9.35 Eastern Time and simulcast on News 24 and News Radio. Go to our website to send a question or join the Twitter conversation using the hash tag on your screen and stay tuned for the chance to join QandaVote. You can register on your smart phone or smart device at the address on the screen. The address is qanda.vote - qandavote.tv, I should say. Our first question tonight comes from Naomi Roseth.
TONY JONES: İyi akşamlar ve Q&A'ye hoş geldiniz. Ben Tony Jones ve bu gece sizin sorularınızı cevaplayacağım: dünyaca ünlü evrimsel biyolog ve Tanrı Yanılgısı'nın yazarı Richard Dawkins ve - Bir dakika bekleyin. Bir an için alkışlarınızı tutun. Ve Avustralya'nın en üst düzey Katolik Kilise adamı, Sidney Başpikopası Kardinal George Pell. Özel konuklarımıza hoş geldin yapın lütfen.
Evet. Q&A Doğu Saati ile 9.35'de canlı yayında ve News 24 ve News Radio ile aynı anda yayın yapmakta. Bir soru yollamak için web sitemize gidin veya ekranınızda hashtag (#) kullanarak Twitter oturumuna katılın ve Qonda oylamasına katılma şansı için bizden ayrılmayın. Akıllı telefonuz veya akıllı cihazınıza ekrandaki adresi kayıt edebilirsiniz. Adresin qanda.vote - qandavote.tv olduğunu söylemeliyim. Bu akşam ilk sorumuz Naomi Roseth'ten geliyor.
VALUES OF ATHEISM AND FAITH 00:01:16
NAOMI ROSETH: At Easter Australia's religious leaders invoke the name of God in order to preach peace, tolerance, political integrity, social and moral fortitude, all obviously positive and worthwhile values. My question is: in what way is the practice of these values dependent on an existing God? Is it possible for an atheist to be a peace loving socially responsible person?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, let's start with you?
ATEİZM VE İNANCIN DEĞERLERİ 00:01:16
NAOMI ROSETH: Paskalya bayramında Avustralya'nın dini liderleri, barış, hoşgörü, siyasi bütünlük, toplumsal ve ahlaki metanet, açıkça tüm olumlu ve kıymetli değerleri vaaz etmek için Allah'ın adını anarlar. Benim sorum: bu değerlerin uygulaması var olan bir Tanrı'ya ne şekilde bağlıdır? Bir ateist için barış sever, sosyal sorumlu bir kişi olmak mümkün mü?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, sizinle başlayalım mı?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, obviously the answer to that question is yes. I mean that could hardly be otherwise. 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. I think it would be very sad if it were true that you really did need religion in order to be good because if you think about it what that would mean would be either that you get your morals and your values from the Bible or the Quran or some other holy book or that you are good only because you're frightened of God, because you don't want to go to hell or you do want to go to heaven. Now, as for getting your morals from the Bible, I very sincerely hope nobody does get their morals from the Bible. It’s true that you can find the occasional good verse and the Sermon on the Mount would be one example, but it’s lost amid the awful things that are dotted throughout the Old Testament and actually throughout the New Testament as well because the idea - the fundamental idea of New Testament Christianity, which is that Jesus is the son of God who is redeeming humanity from original sin, the idea that we are born in sin and the only way we can be redeemed from sin is through the death of Jesus, I mean that’s a horrible idea. It’s a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our since sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive himself.
Eh, tabii ki bu sorunun cevabı evet. Ben bunun aksinin pek olamayacağı fikrindeyim. Hıristiyanlığın insanlığın en iyi değerlerinden bir çoğunu benimsediği doğrudur ama bu değerler Hıristiyanlığa veya herhangi bir dine ait değildir. Eğer iyi olmak için dine gerçekten ihtiyaç duyuyorsan ve bu doğru olsaydı bunun gerçekten çok üzücü bir şey olduğunu düşünüyorum, çünkü bunun ne anlama geldiği üzerine düşünürsen, bu sizin ahlak ve değerlerinizi İncil'den veya Kuran'dan ya da başka bir kutsal kitaptan aldığınız ya da sizin sadece Tanrı'dan korktuğunuz, cehenneme gitmek istemediğiniz ama cennete gitmek istediğiniz için iyi olduğunuz anlamına gelir. Şimdi ahlakınızı İncil'den aldığınız için, samimi olarak hiç kimsenin ahlakını İncil'den almadığını umuyorum. Zaman zaman İncil'de iyi ayetler de bulabilirsiniz, bu doğru, mesela İsa peygamberin dağdaki vaazı gibi, ama Eski Ahit boyunca, aslında Yeni Ahit'te de noktalarla belirtilmiş korkunç şeylerin ortasında bunlar kaybolur, çünkü fikir, Yeni Ahit'teki Hıristiyanlığın temel fikri, insanlığı ilk günahtan kurtaran İsa'nın Tanrı'nın oğlu olduğu, günahla doğduğumuz fikri ve günahlarımızdan kurtulmanın tek yolu olarak İsa'nın ölmesi gerektiği, bunların korkunç bir fikir olduğunu düşünüyorum. Gücün, bilgeliğin ve bilginin kusursuz örneği olan Tanrının bizi günahlarımızdan bağışlamak için başka bir yol bulamayıp ikinci bir şahsiyet olarak Dünya'ya inmesi, oğluna ve kendisine korkunç işkence yaptırarak infaz ettirmesi, böylece kendisini affettirmesi bu korkunç bir fikir.
TONY JONES: Okay, let's go to George Pell on that.
GEORGE PELL: Well, there’s quite a few things that might be said. First of all our tradition goes back about 4,000 years so whatever these values are that we’ve taken over, we’ve got to go back a little bit of a distance and it’s interesting to look at Pagan Rome before there was Christian influence. Forty per cent was slaves. Men and women fought one another to the death in, you know, the Circus Maximus or the Colosseum. Women had no rights whatsoever. Infanticide was practiced regularly. The noble families didn't want baby girls. Christianity changed that. Not perhaps by itself but largely. And the Christian story 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.
TONY JONES: Can I just interrupt you just to bring you to point of the question, which was really about whether atheists can lead a good life and be good people and socially responsible and so on.
GEORGE PELL: Yeah, absolutely.
TONY JONES: You accept that?
TONY JONES: Tamam, buna dair George Pell'e gidelim.
GEORGE PELL: Peki, buna dair denilebilecek epeyce şeyler var. Öncellikle aldığımız değerler ne olursa olsun, tüm geleneklerimiz 4.000 yıl geriye gider, bu yüzden biraz daha geriye gidip Hıristiyanlık etkisinden önceki Pagan Roma'ya bir göz atmak ilginç olur. Halkın yüzde kırkı köle idi. Erkekler ve kadınlar ölümüne birbirleriyle savaşıyorlardı, bilindiği gibi Circus Maximus veya Kolezyum... Kadınların herhangi bir hakkı yoktu. Bebek katliamları düzenli uygulanıyordu. Soylu aileler kız çocuk istemiyordu. Hıristiyanlık bunu değiştirdi. Belki de kendiliğinden değil ama büyük ölçüde. Ve biz Hristiyanlar Hristiyanlığın tarihiyiz, biz Yeni Ahit'in insanlarıyız. Eski Ahit'te bir evrim oldu. Orada bazı korkunç şeyler vardır. Bu gelişme gösterdi. Eski Ahit'te geçen Tanrı görüşü arındırıldı.
TONY JONES: Sözünü kesebilir miyim, sadece ateistlerin iyi bir hayat sürebileceği, iyi insanlar ve sosyal sorumluluk sahibi ve benzeri olabileceği konusundaki asıl soruya yönlendirmek için?
GEORGE PELL: Evet, kesinlikle.
TONY JONES: Bunu kabul ediyor musunuz?
istatistik
16-02-2013, 21:56
GEORGE PELL: Yeah, absolutely. I think it helps to believe in God because - there’s a Polish poet, Milosh, who says that the opium of the people today is the belief that they won't be judged by God when they die, those who have committed great crimes, done awful things are going to get away with it and that the people who have suffered unjustly, had terrible lives, that’s it.
TONY JONES: Okay, let's move quickly to our second question. It’s from Clare Bonner.
IS RELIGION A FORCE FOR GOOD00:05:33
CLARE BONNER: 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?
RICHARD DAWKINS: It’s an astonishing idea to say why should you bother just because we have a scientific understanding of why we're here. We do have a scientific understanding of why we're here and we therefore have to make up our own meaning to life. We have to find our own purposes in life, which are not derived directly from our scientific history.
When you say that Christianity has been responsible for a lot of good, including science by the way, which is somewhat ironic, I think that most of the great benefits in humanity, such as the abolition of slavery, such as the emancipation of women, which the Cardinal both - mentioned both of, these have been rung out of our Christian history without much support from Christianity. I, as an atheist, my friends as atheists, lead thoroughly worthwhile lives, in our opinion, because we stand up, look the world in the face, face up to the fact that we are not going to last forever, we have to make the most of the short time that we have on this planet, we have to make this planet as good as we possibly can and try to leave it a better place than we found it.
TONY JONES: Now, to some degree you’ve already answered this but there is a follow-up question. I’m going to go to that now. It’s from Rebekah Ray.
VALUES OF “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST”? 00:07:25
GEORGE PELL: Evet, kesinlikle. Bence tanrıya inanmada yardımcı olur çünkü - Polonyalı bir şair, Milosh, günümüz insanının afyonu, öldüğünde tanrı tarafından yargılanmayacağına inanmasıdır demiş, büyük suçlar işleyen, korkunç şeyler yapan bu insanların yaptıkları yanlarına kar kalacaktır ve bu adaletsizlik yüzünden acı çeken insanlar, korkunç bir hayat sürecektir, bu kadar.
TONY JONES: Pekala. Hızlıca ikinci sorumuza geçelim. Sorunun sahibi Care Bonner.
IS RELIGION A FORCE FOR GOOD00:05:33
CLARE BONNER:Din sık sık savaşın ve anlaşmazlığın kaynağı olarak gösterilir ancak peki ya toplum için yapılan onca iyilik ne olacak? Tanrı merkezli din okullardaki, üniversitelerdeki, hastanelerdeki ve bilimdeki sayısız gelişimin çıkış yeridir. Richard, eğer insanın gerçeği aramasının ve kendini sürekli olarak geliştirmesinin, sadece hayatta kalmak için geliştirilmiş bir mekanizma olduğuna inanıyorsan, o zaman tüm bunların anlamı ne ve neden çabalayalım?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Neden buradayız sorusuna bilimsel bir anlayışla yaklaştığım için "neden çabalıyorsun" demek şaşılacak bir mantık. Neden varız konusuna bilimsel bir yaklaşım takındığımız doğru ve biz, tam da bu nedenle hayatımızın anlamını kendimiz belirlemeliyiz. Hayattaki, doğrudan bilim tarafından türetilmemiş olan amacımızı kendimiz bulmalıyız.
Hristiyanlık bir çok iyi şeyden, ki buna bilim de dahil, sorumludur demeniz bir şekilde ironiktir, bence insanlık tarihindeki en büyük kazançlar; köleliğin kaldırılması gibi, kadınlara eşit hakların verilmesi gibi, ki kardinal de her ikisinden bahsetmişti, hristiyanlıktan herhangi bir destek almadan bizim hristiyan tarihimizin içinde ortaya çıkmıştır. Ben, bir ateist olarak, arkadaşlarım ki onlar da ateist, kesinlikle yaşamaya değer hayatlar sürdürdüğümüzü düşünüyoruz, çünkü anlıyoruz, karşındaki dünyaya bak, sonsuza kadar burada olmayacağımız gerçeği ile yüzleş, bu dünya üzerindeki geçireceğimiz şu kısa süre içinde elimizden gelenin en fazlasını yapmalıyız, bu dünyayı olabileceği kadar iyi bir yer yapmalıyız ve bulduğumuzdan daha iyi bir yer olarak bırakmalıyız.
TONY JONES: Şimdi, bir noktaya kadar buna cevap verdiniz fakat bunu takip eden bir soru da var. Şimdi de bunu aktaracağım. Rebekah Ray soruyor:
VALUES OF “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST”? 00:07:25
Harikasın İstatistik, hep beraber el atarsak böyle daha çabuk biter. :)
VALUES OF “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST”? 00:07:25
REBEKAH RAY: 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?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, you can answer that and I’ll bring in Cardinal Pell.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It’s undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.
TONY JONES: George Pell.
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.
UYGUN OLANIN HAYATTA KALMASI İLKESİ 00:07:25
REBEKAH RAY: Size bugünkü sorum şu olacak; Din olmasa değer yargılarımız nerede olacak? Acaba zamanla Darwin'in uygun olanın hayatta kalması ilkesine geri mi dönerdik?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, buna cevap verebilirsiniz, daha sonra Kardinal Pell'i dahil edeceğim.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Politikalarımızı, değerlerimizi ve yaşam tarzımızı planlarken uygun olanın hayatta kalması fikrine geri dönüş yapmayacağımızı ümit ederim. Her zaman neden var olduğumuzu açıklama yönünden, güçlü bir Darwinist olduğumu söylerim. Hiç şüphesiz bizim ve tüm canlıların Dünyada var olma nedeni budur. Toplumumuzu Darwin ilkesine göre şekillendirmek ve hayatımızı bu şekilde düzenlemek hiç de hoş olmayan bir yaşam şekli olurdu. Bu bir nevi Thatcherci bir toplum şekli ve istiyoruz ki -yani bir şekilde, Darwin'in evrim kuramını öğrenmenin bir nedeni de, bundan bir ders alıp toplumsal değer ve yaşamımızı buna göre ayarlamak olmalıdır.
TONY JONES: George Pell.
GEORGE PELL: Hmm, iki dakikalık bir zaman içinde, Richard'ın iki farklı şey söylemesi enteresan. Birincisi bilimin bizim neden burada olduğumuzu bilemediği, hemen sonra da bildiğini.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Hayır, hayır niçin burada olduğumuzu söyleyebilir dedim.
GEORGE PELL: Söyleyemez.
RICHARD DAWKINS: O halde, bu konuda açıkça zıttını iddia ediyorum.
VALUES OF “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST”? 00:07:25
REBEKAH RAY: 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?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, you can answer that and I’ll bring in Cardinal Pell.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It’s undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.
TONY JONES: George Pell.
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.
GEORGE PELL: Well, what is the reason that science gives why we're here? Science tells us how things happen, science tells us nothing about why there was the big bang. Why there is a transition from inanimate matter to living matter. Science is silent on we could solve most of the questions in science and it would leave all the problems of life almost completely untouched. Why be good?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Why be good is a separate question, which I also came to. 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 down 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. Now, science, over the centuries, has gradually pieced together answers to those questions: “why” in that sense. It’s true that there are still some gaps but surely, Cardinal, you aren't going to fall for the God of the gaps trap in saying that religion is going to fill in those gaps which science has so far not yet answered.
GEORGE PELL: No, I’m not going to be diverted at all. I am happy to come back to that.
TONY JONES: We will be coming back to it because I know there are questions that relate to some of the bigger issues you're talking about but you can respond and then we’ll move onto our next question.
GEORGE PELL: I hope I’ll be allowed to.
TONY JONES: You certainly will.
REBEKAH RAY: Size bugunki sorum su olacak; Din olmasa, deger yargilarimiz nerelerde olacak? Acaba, zamanla Darwin'in, en guclunun hayatta kalmasi ilkesine geri mi donerdik?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, siz vevap verin, Cardinal Pell'i sonra dahil edecegim.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Politika, ve gunluk hayatimizi planlarken, en guclunun hayatta kalma fikrine geri donus yapmayacagimizi umit ediyorum. Her zaman neden var oldugumuzu aciklama yonunden, guclu bir Darwinist oldugumu soylerim. Hic suphesiz, bizim ve tum canlilarin dunyada var olma nedeni budur. Toplumumuzu Darwin ilkesine gore sekillendirmek ve hayatimizi bu sekilde duzenelemek, hic de hos olmayan bir yasam sekli olurdu..Yani bir nevi Thatcherite society sekli(http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Thatcherite+society&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbriandeer.com%2Fsocial%2Fthatcher-society.htm&ei=QRcgUYL9G-m9yAGwuIHACg&usg=AFQjCNEIRaXriXPxdu2wlTCz7w4SyEt6rQ) ve biz istiyoruz ki, yani, bir sekilde, Darwinian evrimi ogrenmenin bir nedeni de, bundan bir ders alip, toplumsal deger ve yasamimizi buna gore ayarlamak olmalidir.
TONY JONES: George Pell.
GEORGE PELL: Hmm, iki dakikalik bir zaman icinde, Richard iki farkli sey soylemesi enteresan; Birincisi, bilimin bizim neden burada oldugumuzu bilmedigini, hemen sonra da bildigini.
RICHARD DAWKINS: hayir, hayir, nasil burada oldugumuzu soyleyebilir dedim.
GEORGE PELL: soyleyemez
RICHARD DAWKINS: o halde ben zittini iddia ediyorum.
GEORGE PELL: Hmm bilimin bizim burada oluşumuzu açıklama mantığı ne?? Bilim bize olayların nasıl geliştiğini açıklar, neden bir big bang olduğu hakkında bir şey demez. Cansız maddeden, canlılara neden geçiş olduğu hakkında sessiz kalır. Bilim bütün sorulara cevap bulsa bile, hayatla ilgili problemlere hemen hemen tamamen cevapsız bırakır. Neden iyi olunsun ki?
RİCHARD DAWKİNS: Neden iyi olunsun bazen benim de sorduğum başka bir soru. Neden varız, "neden" kelimesiyle oynuyorsunuz. Bilim, bizim var oluşumuzla neticelenen, önceki faktörler, problemler üzerinde çalışır. Amaç manasında sorulan neden kelimesi benim için manasız bir sorudur. Dağlar neden vardır gibi, sanki dağların bir amacı varmış gibi sorular soramazsınız. Dağların oluşumuyla neticelenen faktörler var diyebilirsiniz, aynı hayatın ve kainatın olduğu gibi. Bilim, asırlar boyunca bu sorulara verilen cevapları toparladı; "Neden"in manası bu. Hala aralıklar olduğu bir gerçektir kardinal, umarım bilimin günümüze kadar dolduramadığı bu boşlukları, tanrı dolduruyor kapanına düşmeyeceğinizi umarım.
GEORGE PELL: Hayır saptırılmayacağım, daha sonra bu mevzuya döneceğim.
TONY JONES: Geri döneceğiz, çünkü bahsettiğiniz daha mühim sorunlarla ilgili sorular olduğunu biliyorum. Fakat cevap verir ve gelecek sorumuza devam edebiliriz.
GEORGE PELL: Umarım buna müsade edersiniz.
TONY JONES: Hiç şüpheniz olmasın
Hay zeus, yine ayni yeri cevirmisiz. Neyse biraz daha ileri gitmisim, Kirik turkcemi, sesli gormeden duzeltebilirsiniz.
Harika Vartor da el atmış. Şöyle yapalım Vartor, şu an seninle çevirdiğimiz aynı bölümleri kendi mesajıma ekleyip dahil edeyim. Çoğu yerde senin çevirilerin daha güzel göründü bana. Geri kalan çevirdiğin bölümlere Türkçe harfler ekleyeyim. Tamam mı?
Tamam şu an halledildi. Ben mola yapıyorum, yani çevirmiyorum şu an. Nitekim başka bir videonun tercümesini şu an bitirdim ve videoya alt yazıları ekliyorum. Yani bu çeviriye devam etmek isteyen bunu şu an yapabilir. Karışıklık olmasın :)
Not:
İsterseniz çevirmek istediğiniz bölümler için önceden rezervasyon da yapabilirsiniz. Çevirmeden hemen önce o bölümü kısaca alıntılayıp altına not düşerek "şu an tarafımdan çevriliyor" veya "işlemde" gibi kısa mesajlar yazılabilir. Böylece o an kim ne çeviriyor karışıklık olmaz. Çeviriyi de ya o mesajın içine ekleyip düzeltir ya da düzeltme yetkisi olmayan arkadaşlar çeviri tamamlandığında o çeviriyi yeni mesaj olarak atar ve biz de eski mesajı çöpe atarız.
istatistik
17-02-2013, 21:39
Vartor'un da katılması çok güzel olmuş. El birliği ile bu işi bitirebiliriz. o zaman devam ediyorum.
GEORGE PELL: Thanks. It’s part of being human to ask why we exist. Questioning distinguishes us from the animals. To ask why we're here, I repeat and this is a commonplace in science, science has nothing to say about that. Whatever it might say about mountains, it can't say what is the purpose of human life and it’s not Maggie Thatcher who was in the epitome or the personification of social Darwinism. It’s Hitler and Stalin.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I have said...
GEORGE PELL: 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.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Oh, now that’s ridiculous. This is ridiculous. A most unbiased audience you’ve assembled here by the way. Right, let's clearly distinguish two things here. First, atheism had nothing to do with Hitler and Stalin. Stalin was an atheist and Hitler was not. It doesn't matter what they were with respect to atheism, they did their horrible things for entirely different reasons. Now, you are right when you say that aspects of what Hitler tried to do could be regarded as arising out of Darwinian natural selection. 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. 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. There are all sorts of questions which you can ask.
(AUDIENCE LAUGH)
RICHARD DAWKINS: What’s funny about that? What is funny about that?
TONY JONES: Okay, we’d like the audience not to yell out. If we can do that, that’d be great. We’re going to move on.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I didn’t finish, I’m sorry.
TONY JONES: Okay, well, finish your point.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Okay.
TONY JONES: Because there are lots of questions pertaining this we will be coming back to.
RICHARD DAWKINS: The question why is not necessarily a question that deserves to be answered. There are all sorts of questions that people can ask like “What is the colour of jealousy?” That’s a silly question.
GEORGE PELL: Exactly.
RICHARD DAWKINS: “Why?” is a silly question. “Why?” is a silly question. You can ask, “What are the factors that led to something coming into existence?” That’s a sensible question. But “What is the purpose universe?” is a silly question. It has no meaning.
GEORGE PELL: Could I just interpose very briefly.
TONY JONES: Very briefly.
GEORGE PELL: I think it’s a very poignant and real question to ask, “Why is there suffering?”
TONY JONES: We will be asking that question, believe it or not. This is Q&A. It’s live and interactive. Tonight we're experimenting with qandavote, a new way for Q&A viewers to share their opinions on the issues we discuss. You can go to the qandavote.tv website on your smart phone, tablet or computer to vote in our very first question and that is: does religious belief make the world a better place? Does religious belief make the world a better place? We’ll report back later on your views. First, let’s move on to our next question for our panel. It comes from Paul Hanrahan.
GEORGE PELL: Teşekkürler. Neden var olduğumuzu sormak insan olmanın bir parçasıdır. Sorgulamak bizi hayvanlardan ayırır. Biz neden buradayız diye sormak, tekrarlıyorum, bu bilimde basmakalıp bir yer edinmiştir ve bilimin buna verebilecek bir cevabı yoktur. Sözüm ona dağlar hakkında her şeyi söyleyebilir, ancak insan hayatının amacı konusunda bir şey diyemez ve sosyal Darwinizmin canlı örneği ya da kişilik bulmuş hali Maggie Thatcher değildir. Hitler ve Stalindir.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Demiştim ki…
GEORGE PELL: Çünkü bir hayatta kalma mücadelesidir, güçlü alabileceğini alır ve zayıf vermek zorunda olduğunu verir, onları engelleyebilecek hiçbir şey yoktur ve bunu geçtiğimiz yüz yılın iki büyük ateist hareketinde gördük.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Oo.. işte şimdi saçmaladın. Bu gerçekten saçma. Bu arada, en tarafsız seyirci olarak burada toplandınız. Tamam, gelin burada iki şeyin kesin olarak ayrımını yapalım. Birincisi, ateizmin Hitler ve Stalin ile hiçbir ilgisi yoktur. Stalin bir ateistken Hitler değildi. Yaptıkları ateizm için bir şey ifade etmez, tüm o korkunç şeyleri tamamen farklı nedenlerden yapmışlardır. Şimdi, Hitlerin yapmaya çalıştığının Darwin’in doğal seçilim fikrinden ortaya çıkmış olabileceğini açısından söylediklerinizde haklısınız. Tam da bu yüzden, Darwinci doğal seçilimi nasıl yaşamamız gerektiği konusunda örnek almamalıyız, diyorum. Demek istediğim, Darwinci prensipler yoluyla yaşamamalıyız, fakat Darwinci prensipler buraya nasıl geldiğimizi ve neden var olduğumuzu bilimsel olarak açıklar. Şimdi, Kardinal, “ne amaçla” diye sorgulamanın insan doğasının bir parçası olduğunu söylediniz. Bu pek tabi insan doğasının parçası olabilir ancak bu onu mantıklı bir soru yapmaz. Sorabileceğiniz her türden soru var.
(KALABALIKTAN GÜLÜŞMELER)
RICHARD DAWKINS: Bunun nesi komik? Bunun nesi komik?
TONY JONES: Pekala, seyircinin bağırmamasını istiyoruz. Bunu sağlayabilirsek çok iyi olur. Devam edeceğiz.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Kusura bakmayın, daha bitirmedim.
TONY JONES: Tamam, peki, sözünüzü tamamlayın.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Tamam.
TONY JONES: Bununla alakalı birçok soru olduğundan tekrar geri döneceğiz.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Asıl soru, bunun neden cevaplandırılmaya değer bir soru olmadığıdır. İnsanların sorabileceği “Kıskançlığın rengi nedir” gibi pek çok türden soru mevcut. Bu aptalca bir soru.
GEORGE PELL: Kesinlikle.
RICHARD DAWKINS: “Neden” aptalca bir sorudur. Bu aptalca bir soru. “Bir şeyin var olmasını sağlayan faktörler nelerdir” diye sorabilirsiniz. Bu mantıklı bir soru. Fakat “Evrenin amacı nedir” aptalca bir sorudur. Hiçbir anlamı yoktur.
GEORGE PELL: Bu noktada kısa bir şey ekleyebilir miyim?
TONY JONES: Kısa olsun.
GEORGE PELL: Bence, sorulabilecek gerçekten delici ve önemli soru; “Neden acı var?”
TONY JONES: İnansak da inanmasak da bu soruyu soracağız. Bu Q&A. Canlı ve interaktif. Bu gece, qandavote’da deney yapıyoruz, Q&A izleyicilerinin tartıştığımız konu üzerine düşüncelerini paylaşabilmeleri için yeni bir yol. Qandavote.tv web sayfasına, en önemli sorumuzu oylamak için akıllı telefonunuzdan, tabletinizden ya da bilgisayarınızdan bağlanabilirsiniz: Dini inançlar dünyayı daha iyi bir yer yapabilir mi? Dini inançlar dünyayı daha iyi bir yer yapabilir mi? Daha sonra görüşlerinizi buradan açıklayacağız. Şimdi, açık oturumumuzun sıradaki sorusuyla devam edelim. Paul Hanrahan’dan geliyor:
DAWKINS – ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC? 00:14:00
PAUL HANRAHAN: My question is for Richard Dawkins. You're on the record as saying you can't prove that God doesn't exist and you say you're agnostic rather than atheistic. Why do you appear as the champion of atheism around the world? Why do you accept offers to appear as the champion of atheism and why are you so evangelical in the prosecution of your cause? Isn't that a touch hypocritical and unscientific?
TONY JONES: Yes, Richard Dawkins, I’m a bit confused about this because you just referred to yourself moments ago as being an atheist and yet, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, you referred to yourself as an agnostic?
RICHARD DAWKINS: In the God Delusion I make a seven-point scale. One is I’m totally confident there is a God. Seven is I’m totally confident there is not a God. Six is to all intents and purposes I’m an atheist. 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.
TONY JONES: So what proof, by the way, would change your mind?
RICHARD DAWKINS: That’s a very difficult and interesting question because, I mean, I used to think that if somehow, you know, great big giant 900 foot high Jesus with a voice like Paul Robeson suddenly strode in and said "I exist. Here I am" but even that I actually sometimes wonder whether that would...
GEORGE PELL: I’d think you were hallucinating.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Exactly. I agree. I agree. I agree.
TONY JONES: Well, can I just put a question to you? Could you ever provide Richard Dawkins with the sort of proof he requires for belief? Scientific proof of the existence of God?
GEORGE PELL: 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. But could I make one little suggestion as to why Richard calls himself an atheist? Because in one of his blogs in 2002, he was discussing whether he's an agnostic or a non-theist. He said he prefers to use the term atheist because it is more explosive. It’s more dynamic. You can shake people up, whereas if you're just going around saying you're an agnostic or a non theist, it’s - these are his own words.
TONY JONES: Well, let’s let Richard Dawkins respond.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I don't remember saying that. It wouldn't totally surprise me. It’s...
GEORGE PELL: It’s in 2002.
DAWKINS – ATEİST Mİ YOKSA AGNOSTİK Mİ 00:14:00
PAUL HANRAHAN: Sorum Richard Dawkins'e. Tanrının var olmadığını ispatlayamayacağınızı ve ateistten ziyade agnostik olduğunuzu söylediğiniz kayıtlarda.. o halde neden kendinizi dünyaya ateizm şampiyonu olarak tanıtıyorsunuz? Neden sizi ateistlerin önderi gösteren sunumlara katılıyor, davanızı korumaya neden iki elle sarılıyorsunuz? Bu yaptığınız biraz bilimden uzak ve iki yüzlülük değil mi?
TONY JONES: Evet, Richard Dawkins, benim de kafam biraz karıştı; az önce kendinizi ateist olarak tanıttığınız halde, Canterbury Başpiskoposuna kendinizden agnostik olarak bahsettiniz.
RİCHARD DAWKİNS: Tanrı Yanılgısı'nda yedi basamaklı bir aşama sundum. Birincisi tanrı var olduğuna tamamen emin olduğumu, yedincisinde tanrı var olmadığına katıyetle emin olduğum. altıncı tüm yaptığım ve amaçlarımla bir ateist olduğum hakkında. Hayatımı hiçbir tanrı yok gibi düzenlediğim halde, hiçbir bilim adamının kesinlikle bir şeyin yokluğunu ispat edemeyeceğini biliyorum. Paskalya tavşanının var olmadığını ispat edemediğim için, paskalya tavşanı hakkında agnostiğim dediğim gibi, tanrı hakkında agnostiğim.
TONY JONES: O halde hangi ispat sizin fikrinizi değiştirebilir?
RİCHARD DAWKİNS: Çok enteresan bir soru; yani bazen 900 ayak (274 metre) boyunda Paul Robeson'un ses tonuna sahip bir İsa çıksa karşıma ve işte varım, buradayım dediğini düşünürdüm. Buna rağmen acaba....
GEORGE PELL: Hayal gördüğünü zannediyorum.
RİCHARD DAWKİNS: Kabul ediyorum, tamamen.
TONY JONES: Hmm soruyu size yöneltebilir miyim? Richard Dawkins'in inanabileceği bilimsel olarak tanrının varlığının ispatını, bir gün sunabilir misiniz?
GEORGE PELL: Hayır, çünkü sadece deneysel ispata dayalı bir görüş onu tatmin edebilir. Diğer bir deyimle metafizik dünyasını tamamen yok sayıyor. Herşeyi mantık çevresinde görüp daha ilerisine bakmıyor. Size Richard Dawkins'in kendine neden ateist dediğini söyleyebilir miyim? Çünkü 2002'deki bloglarından birinde, agnostik mi yoksa non-teist mi olduğundan bahsediyordu. Ateist teriminin, agnostic veya tanrı karşıtı deyimlerinden daha dinamik olduğunu, insanları uyaracağı, sarsacağı için demişti. Bunlar kendi sözleri.
TONY JONES: Hmm, Richard Dawkins'den alalım cevabı.
RİCHARD DAWKİNS: Böyle dediğimi hatırlamıyorum, bu beni şaşırttı.
GEORGE PELL: 2002 yılındaydı.
RICHARD DAWKINS: It’s an ongoing issue, what’s the best way. There is a problem with the word atheist, especially in America. I don't know whether it is true in Australia. There is a lovely woman - I am blocking on her name because I am jetlagged. She's Irish American woman. Anybody help me?
TONY JONES: There are quite a few Irish American women. Sorry about that.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Anyway, I do apologise personally to her for forgetting her name.
GEORGE PELL: What does she do?
RICHARD DAWKINS: She's an actress and she did a film on how she escaped from the Roman Catholic Church and it is a very moving film and at the end her mother discovered she was an atheist and her mother phoned her up and said "Well, I don't mind you not believing in God but an atheist!" Her name is Julia Sweeney. It’s suddenly come back to me. I strongly recommend that. Now, the point is that the word atheist, unlike just not believing in God, has bad connotations and so to some extent people have wished to depart from that and change the name to non theist or secularist or non-believer and I waver back and forth as to what is the best name to use. I sometimes call myself an atheist, sometimes a non theist and sometimes just a non-believer.
TONY JONES: George Pell, can I just come back to you on this question of the existence of God. Why would God randomly decide to provide proof of his existence to a small group of Jews 2,000 years ago and not subsequently provide any proof after that?
GEORGE PELL: Well, I don't think there's ever been any scientific proof. I don't believe God does anything randomly, although he might set up he might set up a system which works, apparently through, you know, through chance, through random but if you want something done, you’ve got to ask somebody. It’s no good, say, my asking everyone in the congregation will you would do something. Normally you go to a busy person because you know they'll do it and so for some extraordinary reason God chose the Jews. 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?
RICHARD DAWKINS: En iyi yol hangisi, bu devam eden bir konu. Ateist kelimesi ile ilgili bir sorun var, özellikle Amerika'da. Bunun Avustralya'da doğru olup olmadığını bilmiyorum. Orada sevimli bir kadın var. Jetset olduğum için şu an ismini hatırlamakta zorlanıyorum. İrlandalı Amerikan kadın. Bana yardım edecek biri var mı?
TONY JONES: Orada epeyce İrlandalı Amerikan kadın var. Bunun için üzgünüm.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Neyse, onun adını unuttuğum için kendisinden şahsen özür dilerim.
GEORGE PELL: O ne yapıyor?
RICHARD DAWKINS: O bir oyuncu ve Roma Katolik Kilisesinden nasıl kaçtığına dair bir film yapmıştı. Çok duygulandırıcı bir filmdi ve sonunda annesi onun ateist olduğunu öğrendiğinde ona telefon etmişti. Telefonda ona "Tanrıya inanmadığın sorun değil ama ateist olman bir sorun" demişti. İsmi Julia Sweeney. Birden aklıma geldi. Mutlaka izlemenizi öneririm. Buradaki nokta, ateist kelimesinin Tanrıya inanmıyor olmanın aksine kötü bir çağrışım yapması ve bu yüzden insanların belli bir dereceye kadar bu tanımdan vazgeçerek non teist, laik ya da inançsız gibi isimler kullanması. Hangi tanımın daha iyi olduğu hakkında ben de bocalıyorum. Bazen kendimi ateist, bazen non teist ve bazen de sadece inançsız olarak nitelendiriyorum.
TONY JONES: George Pell, Allah'ın varlığına dair bu soru hakkında size geri dönebilir miyim? Tanrı 2000 yıl önce neden rastgele küçük bir Yahudi grubuna kendi varlığını bildirmeye karar verdi ve ondan sonra kendisine dair hiç bir kanıt göstermedi?
GEORGE PELL: Şimdiye kadar hiç bir bilimsel kanıtın var olduğunu sanmıyorum. Tanrının rastgele bir şeyler yaptığına inanmıyorum, ancak görünüşe göre rastgele veya tesadüfe dayalı çalışan bir sistem kurmuş olabilir ama eğer bir şeylerin olmasını istiyorsanız bunu birisinden istemeniz gerekiyor. Bu iyi değil, diyelim ki cemaatte herkes bir şeyler yapmanızı istiyor. Bunu isteyeceklerini bildiğiniz için normalde çok meşgul olmanız gerekecek ve bu nedenle Tanrı bazı olağanüstü nedenlerden dolayı Yahudileri seçti. Onlar entelektüel olarak Mısırlılara eşit değildi veya..
TONY JONES: Entelektüel olarak?
GEORGE PELL: Entelektüel ve ahlaki...
TONY JONES: Entelektüel eşit olmadıklarını nasıl bilebilirsiniz?
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?
GEORGE PELL: Well, that’s a nice try, Tony. The people, in terms of sophistication, the psalms are remarkable in terms of their buildings and that sort of thing. They don't compare with the great powers. But Jesus came not as a philosopher to the elite. He came to the poor and the battlers and for some reason he choose a very difficult but actually they are now an intellectually elite because over the centuries they have been pushed out of every other form of work. They’re a - I mean Jesus, I think, is the greatest the son of God but, leaving that aside, the greatest man that ever live so I’ve got a great admiration for the Jews but we don't need to exaggerate their contribution in their early days.
TONY JONES: All right. You’re watching Q&A. Remember you can send your web or video question to our website. The address is on the screen to find out how to do that. Our next question is a video. It comes from Andrew Watson in Blackburn Victoria.
GEORGE PELL: Çünkü medeniyetlerinin meyvelerini görüyorsunuz. Mısır, Hıristiyanlık öncesinde binlerce yıl en büyük güç oldu. Persler büyük güçtü, Keldaniler. Yoksul, küçük Yahudiler ise başlangıçta çobandılar. Sıkışıp kalmışlardı. Hala olsun büyük güçler arasında sıkışıp kalmışlar.
TONY JONES: Fakat çoban olup olmamanız entelektüel kapasitenizi göstermez, değil mi?
GEORGE PELL: Hayır, göstermez ama entelektüel gelişimizin bir tanımlaması, bir yansımasıdır, isterse bir çok kişi çok çok zeki olsun ya da fazla entelektüel olmasın, benim belirtmek istediğim nokta..
TONY JONES: Özür dilerim, sözünüzü kesebilir miyim? Yahudi olduğu ve o topluma ait olduğu için İsa'yı da buna dahil ediyor musunuz?
GEORGE PELL: Kesinlikle.
TONY JONES: Yani entelektüel gelişmiş değildi?
GEORGE PELL: Peki, güzel bir denemeydi Tony. Mezmurlar, insanların kültürlülüğü ve bunları nasıl sergiledikleri açısından çok ilgi çekicidir. Onlarınki yüce güçlerle karşılaştırılamazlar. Yalnız İsa, filozof olarak elitlere gelmedi. O yoksullara ve fakirlere geldi ve bazı nedenlerden zor olanını seçti ama aslında entelektüel elit şu an onlar, çünkü yüzyıllar boyunca her türlü işten kovulduar. İsa'nın Tanrının en yüce oğlu ve şimdiye kadar yaşamış olan en büyük adam olduğunu düşünüyorum. Bunu bir kenara bırakacak olursak Yahudiler için büyük bir hayranlık duyuyorum ama onların ilk günlerdeki katkılarını abartmaya gerek yok.
TONY JONES: Anlaşıldı. Şu an Q&A'yı takip ediyorsunuz. Unutmayın web sitemize internet veya video sorularınızı gönderebilirsiniz. Adresimizi ve nasıl gönderileceğinizi ekrandaki açıklamalarda bulabilirsiniz. Sonraki sorumuz bir video. Blackburn Victoria'dan Andrew Watson'dan geliyor.
BIG BANG FROM NOTHING 00:21:08
ANDREW WATSON: 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?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, obviously you're not a physicist and nor am I and I am delighted to say that during my time in Australia I shall be having a number of conversations, public conversations, with my colleague Lawrence Krauss, including one in the Sydney Opera House later - I think it’s next week and he's written a book on exactly that topic of how you can get something from nothing and I shall be questioning him about that. Of course it’s counter intuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course commonsense doesn't allow you to get something from nothing. That’s why it’s interesting. It’s got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe. Now, if you want to replace if you want to replace a physical explanation by an intelligent God, that’s an even worse explanation. It’s even a more difficult explanation. What scientists are trying to do is to explain how you can get not just something but the immense complexity of the world, of the universe and of life, and science is making a pretty good fist of doing that. Life is now completely solved barring the details. That was Darwin's contribution and Darwin's successors. Physicists are still working on the origin of the cosmos. Among them is Lawrence Krauss whom I shall be talking to next week. Now, it is very mysterious how the universe came into being. It’s a deeply mysterious and interesting question.
TONY JONES: And can I just interrupt? It’s an old question, a very old question. Thomas Aquinis in the 13th Century was asking this same question. He said there must have been a time when no physical things existed but something can't come from nothing. That was his view. It’s just been repeated by...
YOKTAN BÜYÜK PATLAMA 00:21:08
ANDREW WATSON: Richard Dawkins'e bir soru. Büyük patlamacılar, bir zamanlar hiç bir şeyin olmadığını ve evrenin hop diye aniden büyük bir patlamadan oluştuğuna inanıyorlar. Eğer elimin içinde hiç bir şey yoksa ve elimi kapayıp patla dersem ve tekrar elimi açarsam elimde hala hiç bir şeyin olmadığını görürüm. Uzman olmayan herkesin anlayacağı bir şekilde bize evrendeki tüm muazzam şeylerin yoktan nasıl var olduğunu anlatır mısınız?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Belli ki siz fizikçi değilsiniz, ben de değilim ve Avustralya'da, Sydney Opera Evinde de dahil olmak üzere meslektaşım Lawrence Krauss ile bir dizi tartışma ve kamu konuşmaları yapacağımızı söylemekten memnuniyet duyarım. Bunun önümüzdeki hafta olacağını düşünüyorum, yoktan bir şeyin nasıl var olabileceği hakkında bir kitap yazdı ve bu konuda ona sorular soracağım. Tabi ki yoktan bir şeyin var olması mantıksız. Tabii ki sağduyu yoktan bir şeyin olmasına izin vermez. İşte bunu ilginç yapan da bu. Evrene yol açan nedenler hakkında ilginç olacak. Evrenin başlangıcına yol açan oldukça gizemli bir şey. Şimdi fiziksel olarak açıklanması gereken bir şeyi akıllı bir Tanrı ile açıklamaya çalışırsanız bu daha kötü bir açıklama olur. Hatta daha zor bir açıklama olur. Bilim insanlarının yapmaya çalıştıkları şey, dünyanın, evrenin ve yaşamın muazzam karmaşıklığının sadece nasıl ortaya çıktığını değil kendisini de açıklamak ve bilim bunu oldukça iyi bir şekilde yapıyor. Ayrıntılar dışında hayat artık tamamen çözüldü. Bunu yapan Darwin'in katkıları ve Darwin'in varisleriydi. Fizikçiler hala evrenin kökeni üzerinde çalışıyor. Bunların arasında gelecek hafta konuşacağım Lawrence Krauss var. Evet, evrenin nasıl meydana geldiği çok gizemli. Derin bir gizem ve ilginç bir soru.
TONY JONES: Sözünüzü kesebilir miyim? Bu eski bir soru, çok eski bir soru. 13. yüzyılda Thomas Aquinis aynı soruyu sormuştu. Fiziksel şeylerin olmadığı bir dönem olması gerektiğini ve yoktan bir şeyin var olamayacağını söylüyordu. Bu onun görüşüydü. Bu sadece tekrarlanmış oldu...
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, something can come from nothing and that is what physicists are now telling us. I could give you - you asked me to give you a layman's interpretation. It would be very, very layman's interpretation. When you have matter and antimatter and you put them together, they cancel each other out and give rise to nothing. What Lawrence Krauss is now suggesting is that if you start with nothing the process can go into reverse and produce matter and antimatter. The theory is still being worked out. It is a very difficult theory, mathematical theory. I’m not qualified to answer the question but what I am sure about is that it most certainly is not solved by postulating an intelligence, a creative intelligence, who raises even bigger questions of his own existence. That certainly is not going to be the answer, whatever else is.
TONY JONES: George Pell.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Bir şey yoktan var olabilir ve fizikçilerin şu anda bize söylediği de budur. Uzman olmayanlar için benden bir açıklama istemiştin, bunu verebilirim. Bu fazlasıyla basit bir açıklama olabilir. Eğer madde ve antimaddeyi karşı karşıya koyarsan birbirlerini yok ederler ve hiçliğin oluşmasına neden olurlar. Lawrence Krauss'un şu an öne sürdüğü şey, eğer hiçlikle başlatırsanız süreç tersine dönebilir ve madde ve antimadde üretebilir. Teori üzerinde hala çalışılıyor. Bu çok zor bir teori, matematiksel bir teori. Sorunun uzmanı değilim ama emin olduğum bir şey var, o da bu teorinin kesinlikle kendi varlığına dair daha büyük sorular ortaya çıkaran bir zeka, yaratıcı bir zeka varsayarak çözülmediğidir. Her ne olursa olsun, cevabı bu olmayacaktır.
TONY JONES: George Pell.
GEORGE PELL: Thank you. The trouble well, there are many troubles with Richard's teachings but a fundamental one is that 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. Now, from 450, 500 BC where, with the Greek philosophers, God is outside space and time. God is necessary, self-sufficient, uncaused, unconditioned. That’s the hypothesis you’ve got to wrestle with. The second thing is that Krauss says nothing about the big bang coming out of nothing and admittedly he comes clean about six pages from the end of his book and I don't know whether Richard has read it that far because he gave it a forward. What he says is what Richard is describing as nothing is a sort of mixture of particles and perhaps a vacuum with electromagnetic forces working on it. That’s what Krauss is talking about under the heading of nothing and there’s a very good review of this in the New York Times, not a pro religious paper at all, where Krauss is absolutely denied and demolished, although especially by his supporters claiming that he says things come out of nothing. He doesn't say that.
GEORGE PELL: Teşekkür ederim. Richard'ın öğretilerinde birçok sorun var ama en temel sorun Tanrıyı aşırı şekilde basitleştirmesi ve yeni hiç bir şey getirmemesi. Devamlı sanki Tanrı zaman ve mekandan münezzeh değilmiş gibi konuşuyor. Şimdi, M.Ö. 450-500'de, Yunan filozoflarında Tanrı zaman ve mekanın dışında. Tanrı muhakkak kendi kendine yeten, nedensiz ve koşulsuz doğuştan olandır. Uğraşılması gereken hipotez budur. İkinci şey, Krauss büyük patlamanın yoktan var olduğunu söylemiyor ve kuşkusuz kitabının yaklaşık son altı sayfasında bunu açıkça dile getiriyor. Richard'ın bunu okuyup okumadığını bilmiyorum çünkü o bu konuyu atladı. Onun söylediği ve Richard'ın hiçlik olarak tanımladığı şey, bir tür parçacık karışımı ile belki de elektromanyetik güce sahip bir vakumun onun üzerinde etki etmeleri. Krauss'un hiçlik hakkında söylediği şey budur ve bu konuda özellikle onu destekleyenler tarafından onun yoktan var olmayı kast ettiği iddia edilmesine rağmen hiç de dini bir gazete olmayan New York Times'te buna dair Krauss'un reddedilip yok edildiği çok güzel bir yazı mevcut. O bunu demiyor.
Çeviri için yardıma ihtiyacım var.
The trouble well, there are many troubles with Richard's teachings but a fundamental one is that he dumbs down God and he soups up nothing.
Burada "he soups up nothing" cümlesinin tam anlamı nedir? Ben "hiç bir şeyi açığa kavuşturmaması" şeklinde çevirdim ama doğru olup olmadığından emin değilim.
Diğer bir konuda;
I don't know whether Richard has read it that far because he gave it a forward.
Burada "because he gave it forward" ne demek? Ben "çünkü o buna ileri bir yön veriyor. " olarak çevirdim. Doğru mu?
Teşekkürler..
RICHARD DAWKINS: It’s a matter...
TONY JONES: You can quickly respond to that.
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.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I take...
RICHARD DAWKINS: Bu bir mesele ...
TONY JONES: Kısaca yanıt verebilirsiniz.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Hiçliği kesin şekilde tartışabilirsiniz ama ne olursa olsun, bu çok çok basit.
(İZLEYİCİLER GÜLÜYOR)
RICHARD DAWKINS: Bu neden komik?
GEORGE PELL: Yokluğu tanımlamaya çalışırken bunun biraz komik olduğunu düşünüyorum.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Alıyorum..
The trouble well, there are many troubles with Richard's teachings but a fundamental one is that he dumbs down God and he soups up nothing.
buradaki manasi, tanri fikrini asagiladigi halde, yerine birseyler getirmiyor.
Ben oyle anliyorum.
He gave it a forward, bence burayi atladi manasinda.
Bu arada uzerime aldigim kismi cevirdim. Bir gozden gecirir, turkcelestirir misin?:)
Teşekkürler Vartor, şu an seninkilere de Türkçe karakterler ekledim.
istatistik
25-02-2013, 01:28
TONY JONES: Well, can I put that to you as a question? Is it equally feasible, since you can't prove the existence of God that the nothing you're talking about is, in fact, some creative force?
RICHARD DAWKINS: If you talk about a God who is a creative intelligence then that is something very complicated and very improbable and something that requires explaining in its own right. The nothing that Lawrence Krauss is talking about, whether or not it’s what a naive person would conceive as nothing or what a sophisticated physicist would consider to be nothing it is going to be something much simpler than a creative intelligence. We are struggling - we are all struggling, scientists are struggling - to explain how we get the fantastic order and complexity of the universe out of very simple and therefore easy to understand, easy to explain, beginnings. Lawrence Krauss calls the substrate of his explanation nothing. It’s possible to dispute whether nothing is quite the right word, but whatever it is it is very, very simple and therefore is a worthy premise for an explanation. Whereas, a God, a creative intelligence is not a worthy substrate for an explanation because it is already something very complicated and it is no good invoking Thomas Aquinis and saying that God is defined as outside time and space. That’s just a cop out. That’s just an evasion of the responsibility to explain. That’s just setting out what you want to prove before you have even started.
TONY JONES: Okay, let's move onto a question - let's move onto a question on evolution for Cardinal Pell. It’s from Jo Blades.
EVOLUTION AND THE CHURCH 00:28:35
JO BLADES: As a young Catholic scientist, I’d like to ask the Cardinal to clarify the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution and comment on whether the dichotomy between science and religion is, in fact, real?
GEORGE PELL: Well, science and religion are two different activities and in the Catholic Church you can believe, to some extent, what you like about evolution. I think Darwin made a great contribution. I remember talking with Julius Kornberg, a very distinguished biologist, and he's worked with ants for years and he said, you know, he's managed to change them by changing the conditions but there are a number of things that evolution doesn't explain. Darwin realised that. 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.
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 extant 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.
TONY JONES: But can we say this: humans - you accept that humans evolved from non humans so let me put this to you as a question: at what point in this evolutionary scale was a soul imparted to the humans from God?
TONY JONES: Pekala, sana bununla ilgili bir soru sorabilir miyim? Tanrının varlığını kanıtlayamadığına göre, aynı mantıkla, senin sözünü ettiğin hiçlik de aslında bir tür yaratıcı güç olabilir mi?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Eğer akıllı bir tasarlayıcı olan tanrıdan bahsediyorsan o zaman bunun çok karmaşık, umulmadık ve kendini ortaya koyan bir açıklamaya ihtiyacı vardır. Lawrence Krauss’un sözünü ettiği “hiçlik”, ister naif bir insanın tasavvur edebileceği bir hiçlik isterse de sofistike bir fizikçinin tasavvur edebileceği yaratıcı bir akıldan daha basit bir şey olan hiçlik olsun. Mücadele ediyoruz –Hepimiz mücadele ediyoruz, bilim adamları mücadele ediyor- çok basit ve bu nedenle anlaması kolay, açıklaması kolay, böylesine bir temelden nasıl oldu da böylesine fantastik bir düzene ve karmaşıklığa sahip bir evren elde ettik. Lawrence Krauss bunu hiçbir şeyin açıklamasının substratı(özgenil) olarak adlandırır. “Hiçbir şey”in doğru kelime olup olmadığı tartışılabilir, fakat yine de bu çok çok basit ve bu nedenle bir açıklama için substrat olmaya değerdir.Bunun yanında, bir tanrı, yaratıcı bir akıl açıklama için substrat olmaya değer değildir çünkü hali hazında kompleks bir şeydir ve Thomas Aquinis’in de dediği gibi zamanın ve mekanın dışında olarak tanımlandığı için buna uygun değildir. Bu sadece yan çizmektir. Bu sadece açıklamak sorumluluğundan kaçmaktır. Bu sadece ne kanıtlamak istediğini daha başlamadan ortaya koymaktır.
TONY JONES: Pekala, hadi sıradaki soru ile devam edelim, Kardinal Pell için sorulmuş evrim üzerine bir soru ile devam edelim. Jo Blades soruyor:
EVRİM VE KİLİSE 00:28:35
JO BLADES: Genç bir Katolik bilim adamı olarak, Roman Katolik Kilisesinin evrim konusundaki tutumunu açıklamasını ve bilim ve din arasında gerçekte, hakikaten bir ayrılma olup olmadığını yorumlamasını istiyorum.
GEORGE PELL: Şey, bilim ve din iki farklı faaliyettir ve Katolik Kilisesinde bir yere kadar, evrim hakkında istediğine inanabilirsin. Bence Darwin büyük bir katkı sağladı. Seçkin bir biyolog olan Julius Kornberg ile olan konuşmamı hatırlıyorum; yıllarca karıncalar üzerine çalışmıştı ve dedi ki, bilirsin, şartları değiştirerek onların (karıncaların) değişmesini sağladı fakat evrimin açıklayamadığı bazı şeyler vardı. Darwin bunu fark etti. Darwin bir teistti çünkü engin evrenin ve dünyadaki tüm bu güzelliklerin ya şans eseri ya da zorunluluk nedeniyle ortaya çıktığını düşünemem der. “Teist olarak sınıflandırılmalıyım” demiştir.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Bu doğru değil…
GEORGE PELL: Kusura bakmayın ama öyle…
RICHARD DAWKINS: Bu sadece uydurma, doğru değil.
GEORGE PELL: Otobiyografisinin 92. Sayfasında. Buyrun, göz atın.
TONY JONES: Özür dilerim, size, sorunun mantığına göre bir bakış açısı getirebilir miyim? İnsanların, insansı maymunlardan evrildiklerini kabul ediyor musunuz?
GEORGE PELL: Yeah, probably. From Neanderthals, yes. Whether...
GEORGE PELL: Evet, muhtemelen, Neandertallerden, evet. Ya da…
RICHARD DAWKINS: Neandertallerden mi?
GEORGE PELL: Muhtemelen.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Neden neandertallerden?
GEORGE PELL: Pekala, sen kimi önerirdin?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Neandertaller bizim kuzenimiz. Bizler onların nesillerinden değiliz, her ikimiz de...
GEORGE PELL: Onlar ortadan kaybolmayan kuzenlerimiz mi? Eğer kuzenlerimizse bugün bir neandertali nereden bulabilirim?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Ortadan kaybolmadılar(extant) değil, nesilleri tükendi(extinct).
GEORGE PELL: Kesinlikle. Benim dediğim de bu.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Sizin demek istediğiniz, ortadan kaybolmadılar ve bizim kuzenlerimiz olamazlar.
GEORGE PELL: Gerçekten pek özen göstermedim.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Bu çok zekiceydi.
GEORGE PELL: Evrimsel hikayede insanlardan önce de bir şeyin gelmesi gerekiyormuş gibi görünüyor. Birçok insan bunun neantertaller olduğunu söylüyor.
TONY JONES: Fakat şöyle diyebilir miyiz: İnsanlar –ki siz insanların insan olmayanlardan evrildiğini kabul ediyorsunuz bu yüzden şunu sormama izin verin- Bu evrimsel cetvelde tam olarak hangi noktada tanrıdan insana ruh üflendi?
Bu arada, en son tüm bu birleştirilmiş çevirileri aynı mantığa oturtmak için de baştan sona bör düzeltme yapacağız sanırım. Muhtemelen aynı ifadeleri farklı kelimeler ile kullandık. Mantık bütünlüğünü de sağlamamız gerekecek.
Evet bu iyi olur istatistik, herkesin kendi tarzında bir çeviri şekli ve kelime seçimi var. Belki birimiz sadece Richard Dawkins'i, diğerimiz sadece Georg Pell'in dediklerini çevirirse bütünlük daha iyi sağlanılmış olur bilemeyeceğim. Ama şimdi işe çoktan başladık, isteyen istediği yeri çevirsin, böyle devam edelim. Belki çeviri bitince birimiz Richard Dawkins'i diğermiz de Georg Pell veya başkasını üstlenir ve sonradan düzeltmeler yapar. Ama zaten videoyu ben alt yazılanrımayı düşündüğüm için ister istemez sonradan bazı cümleleri farklı kuracağım diye düşünüyorum. Yeter ki bitsin bu çeviri :)
GEORGE PELL: Look, a soul is not like putting a spot of gin in a tonic. The soul is the principle of life. So whenever there was a principle of life that could question, that could be open to awe, that was able to communicate then we had the first human. Now, we believe that the first humans developed in South Africa. I’m not quite sure how long ago and that all, you know, humans have developed from that. We know most about that. There aren't remains. We know most about that because of the drawings they left on the on walls and caves and that sort of thing. No such thing from Neanderthals, 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. They might have been equal first but if there is a progression there’s got to be first.
TONY JONES: So are you talking about a kind of Garden of Eden scenario with an actual Adam and Eve?
GEORGE PELL: Well, Adam and Eve are terms - what do they mean: life and earth. It’s like every man. That’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science but it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and the universe. Secondly, that the key to the whole of universe, the really significant thing, are humans and, thirdly, it is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and suffering in the world.
GEORGE PELL: Bakınız ruh, toniğin içine bir damla cin koymak gibi değildir. Ruh hayatın prensibidir. Eğer sorgulanabilir, huşuya açık bir yaşam prensibi varsa ve iletişim kurabiliyorsa bu ilk insanlarda vardı. Şu an ilk insanların Güney Afrika'da ortaya çıktığına inanıyoruz. Ne kadar önce, nasıl oldu bundan tam emin değilim ama insanlar bundan oluştu. Bunlara dair çoğunu biliyoruz. Geride kalmadılar. Çoğu şeyi, geride bıraktıkları duvar ve mağara çizimleri, buna benzer şeylerden biliyoruz. Neandertal gibi değiller, bu yüzden ilk insanın ne zaman olduğunu tam olarak söyleyemeyiz ama eğer bugün insanlar varsa ilk insanın da var olmuş olması gerektiğini söylemek zorundayız. Başlangıçta eşit olmuş olabilirler ama eğer bir ilerleme ve gelişme olmuşsa bunun bir ilki de olmalı.
TONY JONES: Yani bir nevi Adem ve Havvalı, gerçek bir cennet bahçesi senaryosundan mı bahsediyoruz?
GEORGE PELL: Adem ve Havva sadece birer isimlendirme. Onlar ne anlama geliyor; hayat ve toprak. Her insanın olduğu gibi. Bu güzel, sofistike, mitolojik bir anlatım. Bu bilimsel değil ama bize iki veya üç şey hakkında bir şey söylüyor. Birincisi Tanrı her şeyden önce dünyayı ve evreni yarattı. İkincisi tüm evrenin anahtarı, gerçekten kayda değer şey insanlar ve üçüncüsü, dünyadaki kötülük ve acıları anlatmaya çalışan çok sofistike bir mitoloji.
TONY JONES: But it isn’t a literal truth. You shouldn't see it in any way as being an historical or literal truth?
GEORGE PELL: It’s certainly not a scientific truth and it’s a religious story told for religious purposes.
TONY JONES: Just quickly, because the Old Testament in particular is full of these kind of stories, I mean is there a point where you distinguish between metaphor and reality? For example, Moses receiving the Ten Commandments inscribed directly by God on a mountain?
GEORGE PELL: I’m not sure that the Old Testament says that God inscribed the Ten Commandments but leaving that aside it’s difficult to know how exactly that worked but Moses was a great man. There was a great encounter with the divine. Actually, with Moses we get the key that enables us to come together with the Greeks with reason because Moses said who will I tell the Egyptians and he tell that my name is "I am who I am".
TONY JONES: Okay, I’m just going to...
GEORGE PELL: And we’ll come back to that.
TONY JONES: I’m just going to bring Richard Dawkins back in here because we’ve moved from evolution obviously to the biblical versions of it. Your response.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, I’m curious to know if Adam and Eve never existed where did original sin come from? But I also would like to clarify the point about whether there was ever a first human. That’s a rather difficult and puzzling question because we know that the previous species from which we're descended is probably homo erectus and before that some sort of australopithecine but there never was a last homo erectus who gave birth to the first homo sapiens. Every creature ever born belonged to the same species as its parents. The process of evolution is so gradual that you can never say, aha, now suddenly we have the first human. It was always a case of just a slightly different from the previous generation. That’s a scientific point which I think is quite interesting. I’m not sure if it has a theological significance except that I think successive popes have tried to suggest that the soul did indeed get added, rather like gin to tonic, at some particular point during evolution; at some point in evolution there was no soul and then later there was one so it is quite an interesting question to ask. Now we have rather a good fossil record from Africa of the descent of humans from australopithecines to various species of homo, perhaps homo habilis, perhaps homo erectus, then archaic homo sapiens and then modern homo sapiens. At what point did the soul get injected and what does the idea of original sin mean if Adam and Eve never existed?
TONY JONES: I’ll just quickly let you respond to that, George?
GEORGE PELL: Yeah, well, I mean God wasn't running around giving injections and if there is no first person we’re not humans.
TONY JONES: Where did the soul come from then in the point of evolution?
GEORGE PELL: The soul is the principle of life. There are animal souls.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Do jellyfish...
GEORGE PELL: All living things have some principle of life. An animal has a principle of life. A human has a soul, a principle of life, which is immensely more sophisticated. We even have a voice box, which is one of the great miracles, so we can communicate our thoughts to one another rather than just grunting.
TONY JONES: I’m pleased we're not grunting tonight. Let’s move along. You can - by the way don't forget you can still vote at qanda.vote. Sorry qandavote.tv, I should say, on the question: does religious belief make the world a better place? Over 15,000 viewers have already voted and we’ll check before the end of the program for the final results. Our next question for Professor Dawkins and Cardinal Pell is a video and it comes from Kieran Dennis in Ferntree Gully, Victoria.
TONY JONES: Fakat bu kelimesi kelimesine bir gerçek değil mi? Siz aslında, kelimesi kelimesine veya tarihi bir gerçek olarak görmüyorsunuzdur..
GEORGE PELL: Dini amaçlar için söylenmiş dini hikayeler, kesinlikle bilimsel bir gerçek değil
TONY JONES: Hemen ilave edeyim, bilhassa Eski Ahit bu tür hikayelerle doludur, yani gerçekle benzetmeyi ayırt edebilecek bir nokta var mı? Mesela, Musa'nın tanrı tarafından tablete kazılan On Emri dağda teslim alması gibi.
GEORGE PELL: Eski Ahit'in tanrının On Emri tablete kazıdığını söylediğine emin değilim ama, bunu bir tarafa bırakırsak, tam nasıl olduğunu bilmek zor, fakat Musa büyük bir insandı. Yaratıcıyla büyük bir karşılaşmaydı. Aslında Yunanlılarla aynı noktaya varışımızın anahtarını Musa'yla ediniyoruz, çünkü Musa Mısırlılara söyleyeceğim ve ismimim “Ben Ben’im” olduğunu bileceksiniz demişti.
TONY JONES: Tamam, şimdi sırada..
GEORGE PELL: Eğer Adem ile Havva var olmadıysa, büyük günahın manası ne? ve bu konuya geri döneceğiz.
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins'i konuya tekrar dahil ediyorum zira açıkça evrimden, İncil'deki şekline geri döndük. Sizin cevabınız.
RİCHARD DAWKİNS: Adem ile Havva'nın hiç yaşamış olup olmadığı ve büyük günahın nereden çıktığını merak ediyorum. Dünyada hiçbir zaman, ilk insanın var olup olmadığı noktasını da açığa kavuşturmak isterim. Bu da biraz zor bir bilmece; Homo erectus'tan geldiğimizi, onun da Australopithecine'den geldiğini biliyoruz. Ancak aniden, son bir Homo erectus'un ilk Homo sapiens'i doğurduğu söylenemez. Var olan her canlı türü, bir müddet ebeveynlerinin türüne aitti; evrimleşme o kadar yavaş gelişir ki, aniden aha şimdi ilk insan geldi denilemez. Her seferinde, bir önceki türden, küçük farklılıklarla ayrılır. Bu enteresan bulduğum bir bilimsel gerçektir. Teolojik bir mana ifade eder mi bilemeyeceğim, ancak, geçmiş papalar, evrimin bir noktasında, toniğe cin katıldığı gibi, ruh ilave edildiği görüşünü belirttiler. Evrimin bir noktasına kadar ruhsuz olan insan nasıl bir anda ruh sahibi oldu sötüsü enteresandır.. Şimdi elimizde Afrika'daki fosiller sayesinde, Australopithecine'lerden değişik Homo türlerine, belki Homo habilis'e, belki Homo erectus'a dolayısıyla ilk Homo sapiens ve nihayetinde modern Homo sapiens'e dönüştüğünü biliyoruz. Ne zaman ruh aşılandı ve... .
TONY JONES: Hemen bir cevaplar mısınız George?
GEORGE PELL: Hmm, Tanrı etrafta koşuşturup ruh aşılamıyordu. Bir ilk şahıs yok ise, biz insan değiliz.
TONY JONES: O halde evrimin hangi noktasında ruh sahneye girdi?
GEORGE PELL: Ruh yaşamın esasıdır. Hayvanların da ruhu vardır.
RİCHARD DAWKİNS: Deniz analarının?...
GEORGE PELL: Bütün canlıların bir yaşam düzeni vardır. Hayvanın da vardır. İnsanlardaki da çok daha gelişmiş bir ruh, bir yaşam düzenidir. Hırlama yerine konuşup anlaşabileceğimiz, en büyük mucizelerden biri olan bir ses kutumuz bile var.
TONY JONES: Bu gece hırlamadığımıza çok memnunum. Evet, ilerleyelim, bu arada qanda.vote'da hala oy kullanabileceğinizi hatırlatırım. Pardon, qandavote.tv 15.000 seyirci dini inançlar dünyayı daha yaşanılabilir yapar mı sorusuna oy verdi ve programın sonunda son neticeyi açıklayacağız. Gelecek soru profesör Dawkins ve Kardinal Pell, Victoria Ferntree Gully'den Kieran Dennis'ten bir video.
CLIMATE SCIENCE AND PROOF 00:36:33
KIERAN DENNIS: My question is for George Pell. George, as a climate cha00nge sceptic you demand a very high standard of evidence to support the hypothesis that global warming has an anthropogenic cause. My question is why then do you not demand the same standard of evidence for the existence of God?
TONY JONES: George Pell?
GEORGE PELL: I am very, very happy to answer that. First of all I’m not a sceptic about climate change. I grew up in Ballarat. The weather was always I worked for years in Melbourne. If you don't like the weather in Melbourne, wait 20 minutes. Think of all the nonsense people like Flannery told us about years of drought here and now we're coping with flood. But the droughts will be back.
TONY JONES: So can I just clarify that you're a sceptic about global warming leading to climate change?
GEORGE PELL: I am sceptical - I’m sceptical about the human contribution to dangerous climate change. I think that is not established.
TONY JONES: And, sorry, is that because you're sceptical about scientific consensus and is that partly driven by what scientists believe about religion?
GEORGE PELL: No, got nothing to do with it. On the weather question, I go on the evidence. When you come to talk about God, that is not a scientific question. The scientists concede that. It is a question that is open, I believe, to reason. 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 fundamental gist 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.
TONY JONES: It’s a hard thing to say but keep it brief.
RICHARD DAWKINS: 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. It doesn't mean there is a purpose in the sense of a human purpose in the sense of a guiding principle which is thought up in advance. With hindsight you can say something like a bird's wing looks as though it has a purpose, a human eye looks as though it has a purpose but it has come about through the process of non-random natural selection. There is no purpose in the human sense. There is a kind of pseudo purpose but it’s not a purpose in the human sense of conscious guiding. But above all I must stress that Darwinian evolution is a non-random process. One of the biggest misunderstandings, which I’m sorry to say the Cardinal has just perpetrated, is that evolution is a random process. It is the opposite of a random process.
TONY JONES: A brief response to that if you can?
GEORGE PELL: Yes. That is fascinating because most evolutionary biologists today believe that the animal world is developing accord to go patterns which we're starting to know more and more about them.
TONY JONES: Are you referring to intelligent design?
GEORGE PELL: No, I’m not. I’m leaving that right to one side.
TONY JONES: Do you believe in intelligent design? Or that there is an intelligent designer?
GEORGE PELL: I believe God is intelligent.
TONY JONES: No but it’s obviously a loaded question but do you believe in intelligent design and an intelligent designer?
GEORGE PELL: It all depends what you mean. I believe God created the world. I am not entirely sure how it works out scientifically. But I wonder, you know, whether Richard believes that the order, the patterns we see in nature, whether they are real or whether they're an illusion.
TONY JONES: I’m going to leave that question for the...
RICHARD DAWKINS: They are real.
TONY JONES: All right. Okay. That’s a quick answer. Let's go to our next question. It is a video from Matthew Thompson in Toowong, Victoria (sic).
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I DIE? 00:41:25
MATTHEW THOMPSON: I am an atheist. What do you think will happen when I die and how do you know?
TONY JONES: George Pell, we’ll start with you? You ought to be an authority on this, I imagine?
GEORGE PELL: Well, I know from the Christian point of view, God loves everybody but every genuine motion towards the truth is a motion towards God and when an atheist dies, like everybody else, they will be judged on the extent to which they have moved towards goodness and truth and beauty but in the Christian view, God loves everyone except those who turn his back turn their back on him through evil acts.
TONY JONES: So atheism is not an evil act?
GEORGE PELL: No, not - well, no, in most cases it’s not.
TONY JONES: So I guess to get to the point of the question, I suppose - I mean he may be having a little wager here but is it possible for an atheist to go to heaven?
GEORGE PELL: Well, it’s not my business.
TONY JONES: You’re the only authority we have here.
GEORGE PELL: I would say certainly.
TONY JONES: Yeah.
GEORGE PELL: Certainly.
İKLİM BİLİMİ VE KANIT 00:36:33
KIERAN DENNIS: Sorum Georg Pell için. İklim değişikliğine kuşkulu bakan biri olarak Georg, siz küresel ısınmanın insan nedenli olduğunu söyleyen hipotez için daha yüksek standarda sahip kanıtlar talep ediyorsunuz. Benim sorum, o halde Tanrının varlığı için de neden aynı standarda sahip kanıt talep etmiyorsunuz?
TONY JONES: George Pell?
GEORGE PELL: Bunu cevap vermekten çok memnunluk duyarım. Öncelikle iklim değişiklikleri hakkında şüpheci değilim. Ben Ballarat'ta büyüdüm. Melbourne'da yıllarca çalıştığım zamandan beri hava hep aynıydı. Eğer Melbourne'da havayı beğenmezseniz 20 dakika bekleyin. Bize anlatılan tüm saçmalıkları düşünün, Flannery gibi insanlar burada yıllarca kuraklık olduğunu anlattılar ve şimdi sel ile uğraşıyoruz. ama kuraklık tekrar gelecek.
TONY JONES: Küresel ısınmanın iklim değişikliklerine yol açtığı konusunda bir şüpheci olduğunuzu netleştirebilir miyim?
GEORG PELL: Ben şüpheciyim - insanın tehlikeli iklim değişikliğine neden olduğu konusunda şüpheciyim. Bunun doğrulanmadığını düşünüyorum.
TONY JONES: Özür dilerim, bu bilimsel konsensüs hakkında şüpheci olduğunuz için mi ve kısmen bilim adamlarının din hakkında söylediklerinden dolayı mı?
GEORGE PELL: Hayır, bunlarla ilgisi yok. Hava konusunda ben kanıtlara bakarım. Tanrı hakkında konuşursan bu bilimsel bir soru olmaz. Bilim adamları böyle kabul ediyorlar. Bu açık bir soru, ben akla inanıyorum. Bilimsel gerçekler hakkında tartışmalı ve rastgele seçilimin yeterli olduğu var sayımına inanıp inanmadığınızı sormalısınız. Bugün çoğu evrimsel biyolog buna inanmıyor.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Neye inanmıyorlar?
GEORGE PELL: Rastlantıya, sizin önerdiğiniz rastgele seçilimin bu basit versiyonuna inanmıyorlar.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Bunu ileri sürmüyorum ve evrimin rastgele seçilim olduğunu kesinlikle reddediyorum. Evrim rastlantısal olmayan seçilimdir. Tesadüfi değil.
GEORGE PELL: Yani bir amacı var mı?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Hayır.
GEORGE PELL: Rastgele olmamanın ne anlama geldiğini açıklar mısınız?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Evet, tabi ki. Bu benim iş hayatım.
TONY JONES: Bunu söylemek zor ama kısa tutun.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Rastgele genetik varyasyon, tesadüfi olmayan sağkalım ve tesadüfi olmayan üreme vardır ve bunlar, nesiller geçtikçe canlıları yaptıkları işlerde daha iyi yapan nedenlerdir. Kendi doğasına uygun olarak rastgele değildir. Bu bir amaç olduğu anlamına gelmez, bu önceden düşünen ve yol gösteren insani anlamda bir amaç değil. Geriye dönüp bakıldığında sanki bir kuşun kanadı gibi bir amaç varmış gibi görünebilir veya insan gözünün bir amacı varmış gibi düşünülebilir ancak bunlar tesadüfi olmayan doğal seçilim süreci ile ortaya çıkmıştır. İnsani anlamda bir amaç yok. Sözde bir amaç varmış gibi görünür ama bu bilinçli bir yönlendirme gibi insani anlamda bir amaç değil. Ama her şeyden önce Darwinci evrimin tesadüfi olmayan bir süreç olduğunu vurgulamam gerekir. En büyük yanlış anlaşılmalardan biri, biraz önce Kardinalın yaptığı gibi, evrimin rastgele bir süreç olduğunun sanılması. Rastgele sürecin tam tersidir.
TONY JONES: Mümkünse buna kısaca bir cevap verebilir misiniz?
GEORGE PELL: Evet. Bu çok etkileyici, çünkü bugün çoğu evrimsel biyolog, canlılar dünyasının hakkında gitgide daha çok şeyler öğrenmeye başladığımız desenlere göre geliştiklerine inanıyorlar.
TONY JONES: Akıllı tasarımı mı kastediyorsunuz?
GEORGE PELL: Hayır, değil. Bunu bir kenara bırakıyorum.
TONY JONES: Akıllı tasarıma inanıyor musunuz? Ya da akıllı bir tasarımcı olduğuna?
GEORGE PELL: Tanrının zeka olduğuna inanıyorum.
TONY JONES: Hayır ama açıkçası bu şaşırtıcı bir soru, akıllı tasarıma ve akıllı bir tasarımcıya inanıyor musunuz?
GEORGE PELL: Ne demek istediğine bağlı. Tanrının Dünyayı yarattığına inanıyorum. Bunun bilimsel olarak nasıl olduğundan emin değilim. Ancak Richard'ın doğada gördüğümüz düzen ve desenin gerçek mi yoksa bir yanılsama mı olduğu hakkında inandıklarını merak ediyorum.
TONY JONES: Bu soruyu yanıtlamak için..
RICHARD DAWKINS: Onlar gerçek.
TONY JONES: Evet, tamam. Bu hızlı bir cevap oldu. Gelecek sorumuza gidelim. Toowong Victoria'dan Matthew Thompson'un videosu.
ÖLDÜĞÜMDE NE OLACAK? 00:41:25
MATTHEW THOMPSON: Ben bir ateistim. Öldüğümde ne olacak ve bunu nereden biliyorsunuz?
TONY JONES: George Pell, sizinle başlayalım? Bu konuda bir otorite olduğunuzu sanıyorum?
GEORGE PELL: Eh, ben Hıristiyan bakış açısıyla biliyorum. Tanrı herkesi seviyor ve gerçeğe doğru atılan her samimi hareket Tanrı'ya doğru atılmış bir adımdır ve bir ateist öldüğünde herkes gibi onlar da iyilik, hakikat ve güzelliğe yöneldikleri ölçüde değerlendirilecektir ama Hristiyanlıkta Tanrı, şeytana uyup ona sırtına dönenler hariç herkesi sever.
TONY JONES: Yani ateizm, kötü bir hareket değil mi?
GEORGE PELL: Hayır, değil - yani hayır, çoğu durumda değil.
TONY JONES: Sanırım sorunun işaret etmek istediği noktaya gelmek için, küçük bir şansa sahip olarak bir ateist için cennete gitmek mümkün mü?
GEORGE PELL: Şey, bu benim işim değil.
TONY JONES: Burada sahip olduğumuz tek yetkili sizsiniz.
GEORGE PELL: Kesinlikle bunu söyleyebilirim.
TONY JONES: Evet.
GEORGE PELL: Kesinlikle.
TONY JONES: Just on the subject of heaven, if we can, what is your own concept of what heaven is?
GEORGE PELL: Well, even St Paul was severely agnostic but one way in which the Christians differ from the Greeks, the Greeks believed in the immortality of the soul. We Christians believe with one section of the Jewish people in the resurrection of the body.
GEORGE PELL: So in some sense we will be there as continuing persons. In some with a new heaven and a new earth with all the good things that we’ve done will be incorporated into the new heaven and new earth. How it will work out I don't know because, I think, physically and morally and intellectually we're at our peak at different stages in our life. How it will work out I’ve got no idea but that is the general outline of Christian teaching.
TONY JONES: But you think about it as a kind of collection of individual souls, in fact obviously billions and billions of individual souls with their own personality existing in some galactic space?
GEORGE PELL: I think that’s a traditional well, that’s certainly the traditional Christian view. It’s the view that I accept and it’s also the view of some of the Jews.
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins?
RICHARD DAWKINS: 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.
TONY JONES: Şimdi cennet konusuna dair, cennetin ne olduğu hakkında sizin kişisel görüşünüz nedir?
GEORGE PELL: Evet, Aziz Pavlus bile ciddi şekilde agnostikti ama Hristiyanları Yunanlılardan farklı yapan bir yön, Yunanlıların ruhun ölümsüzlüğüne inanmalarıydı. Biz Hristiyanlar ve Yahudi halkının bir bölümü vücudun dirileceğine inanırız.
GEORGE PELL: Yani bir anlamda bizler devamı olan kişiler olacağız. Yeni bir cennet ve yeni bir dünya hakkında; yaptığımız tüm iyi şeyler yeni cennet ve yeni yeryüzüne dahil edilecektir. Bu nasıl olacak bilmiyorum, çünkü fiziksel, ahlaki ve entelektüel olarak hayatımızda farklı aşamaların zirvesinde olduğumuzu düşünüyorum. Bu nasıl olacak hiç fikrim yok ama bu Hristiyan öğretisinin genel hatlarıdır.
TONY JONES: Ama bunun aslında galaktik bir uzayda kendi kişilikleriyle var olan, milyarlarca bireysel ruhtan oluşan bir nevi ruh koleksiyonu olduğunu mu düşünüyorsunuz?
GEORGE PELL: Bunun geleneksel bir getiri, kesinlikle geleneksel bir Hristiyan görüşü olduğunu düşünüyorum. Bu benim kabul ettiğim ve aynı zamanda bazı Yahudilerin de kabul ettiği bir görüş.
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Ölünce bize ne olacak sorusunun cevabı gömüleceğimize veya yakılacağımıza ya da vücudumuzun bilime mi bağışlanacağına bağlı.
TONY JONES: Can I say this: if you're actually an agnostic and you keep aside a small portion of your brain for subsequent proof, I mean, you might get presented with that proof when you die.
RICHARD DAWKINS: The brain is what we do our thinking with. The brain is going to rot. That is all there is to it. I am intrigued by the Cardinal saying that Christians believe you’re going to be resurrected in the body. I mean that’s an astonishing idea and I don't believe you really mean that and I think - just as I don't believe you really mean that the wafer turns into the body of Christ. You must mean body in some rather special sense.
GEORGE PELL: Mr Dawkins, I don't say things I don't mean.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, then what do you mean then?
GEORGE PELL: I’ll tell you and I’ve just explained what the bodily resurrection means to the extent that I can understand it. I certainly believe that when the words of consecration are uttered that they become the body and blood of Christ. Now, I have had a little kid come up to me when that was explained and say, “Can I have a look in the challis and see if it has turned to blood?” Of course it hasn't. We don't believe that. It’s not against reason. 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.
TONY JONES: Şöyle diyebilir miyim: eğer sen aslında agnostiksen ve beyninin küçük bir bölümünü sonradan ortaya çıkacak bir kanıt için bir kenara saklıyorsan, öldükten sonra bu kanıtın gösterileceğini mi düşünüyorsun?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Beyin, onunla düşündüğümüz şeydir. Beyin çürüyüp bozulacak. Sonunda hepsi böyle olacak. Kardinal'ın Hristiyanların vücutlarıyla dirileceklerine inandığını söylemesi ilgimi çekti. Bu hayret verici bir fikir ve bunu gerçekten böyle demek istediğinize inanmıyorum, yani ayinde dağıtılan ekmeğin de gerçekten İsa'ya dönüştüğünü kastettiğinize inanmadığım gibi. Vücuttan kastın size göre özel bir anlamı olmalı.
GEORGE PELL: Bay Dawkins, kastetmediğim şeyleri söylemem.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Peki, o zaman bununla ne demek istiyorsunuz?
GEORGE PELL: Bunu anlatacağım ve bedensel dirilişin benim anlayabildiğim ölçüde ne demek olduğunu biraz önce açıklamıştım. Kutsama sözcükleri söylendiğinde onların İsa'nın bedeni ve kanı haline dönüştüğüne gerçekten inanıyorum. Şimdi, bunlar anlatılırken küçük bir çocuk yanıma gelip "çanağın içine bakabilir miyim, kana dönüşmüş mü görebilir miyim?" diye sormuştu. Tabi ki dönüşmedi. Buna inanmıyoruz. Bu mantığa karşı değil. Tanrı'nın oğlu olduğunu söyleyen adama inandığım için buna inanıyorum. O, "bu benim bedenim, bu benim kanım" dedi ve ben onun sözlerini dinlemeyi senin sözlerinden daha yeğ tutarım.
GEORGE PELL:eski ahitin tanrinin on emi tablete kazidigini soyledigine emin degilim ama, bunu bir tarafa birakirsak, yam nasil oldugunu bilmek zor, fakat Musa buyuk bir insandi. yaraticiyla buyuk bir karsilasmaydi. Aslinda Musa'yla Yunanlilarla ayni noktaya varisimizin anahtarini Actually, with Moses we get the key that enables us to come together with the Greeks with reason because Moses said who will I tell the Egyptians and he tell that my name is "I am who I am". (burayi anlayamadim)
Şu şekilde çevirdim;
"Aslında Yunanlılarla aynı noktaya varışımızın anahtarını Musa'yla ediniyoruz, çünkü Musa Mısırlılara söyleyeceğim ve ismimim “Ben Ben’im” olduğunu bileceksiniz demişti."
Türkçe karakterler de mesajına eklendi sevgili Vartor..
RICHARD DAWKINS: But other Christian denominations are quite happy to take that as a symbolic metaphorical meaning. Catholics take it as a literal meaning and I take it - I’m trying to be charitable by trying to suggest that it’s that same sense in which you say that the body is resurrected because the body is certainly not resurrected in terms of the cell, the protoplasm, the proteins, the DNA. That doesn't happen any more than the wafer turns into that. You're right when you said that to the child. So you do not mean that the wafer turns into the body in any sense in which normal English language usage would understand. You mean it in some other sense and I take it it’s that same sense that the body is resurrected.
TONY JONES: Can I ask you whether you mean it in a metaphorical sense in the same way that you believe Adam and Eve are metaphorical creatures?
GEORGE PELL: No, I don't. I follow it, I understand it, according to a system of metaphysics. It was spelled out by the Greeks before Christ came, which we have adopted and that is there is a substance which is the core of a being and it is revealed to us through what are called accidents. Now, I believe that the core of the being becomes the bread, becomes the body and blood of Christ and continues to look exactly as it was. We believe that in the Catholic Church. Now, I know you're a cultural Anglican and we can't blame the Anglican...
RICHARD DAWKINS: I’m also a rationalist. I mean I use - English is my native language. The wafer does not become the body of anybody in the English language.
TONY JONES: Okay. All right. No, I think you both disagree on this point rather substantially. Let's go to the next question from Michael Matty.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Ama diğer Hristiyan mezhepler bunu sembolik ve mecazi olarak anlamaktan gayet memnunlar. Katolikler bunu kelimesi kelimesine kabul ediyorlar ve ben de iyi niyetli olmaya çalışarak bedenin dirildiği hakkında söylediğin şeyle bunun aynı anlama geldiğini ortaya koymaya çalışıyorum, çünkü vücut kesinlikle hücre, protoplazma, proteinler, DNA açısından dirilmiş değil. Ekmek buna dönüştüğünde bu olmuyor. O çocuğa bunları derken haklısın. Yani normal İngilizce dil kullanımındaki anlaşıldığı şekilde ekmeğin vücuda dönüştüğünü söylemiyorsun. Bunu başka bir anlamda söylüyorsun ve bundan vücudun dirilmesi sırasındaki hisle aynı anlama geldiğini anlıyorum.
TONY JONES: Buna, Adem ile Havva'nın mecazi yaratıklar olduğuna inandığınız gibi mecazi bir anlamda mı inandığınızı sorabilir miyim?
GEORGE PELL: Hayır değil, metafizik bir sisteme göre buna inanıyorum ve uyuyorum. Benimsediğimiz İsa gelmeden önce Yunanlılar tarafından açıklanmıştı, varlığın özü olan bir madde vardır ve bu bize beklenmedik olaylar aracılığıyla vahiyle açıklanır. İnanıyorum ki varlığın özü ekmek olur, Mesih'in bedenine ve kanına dönüşür ve var olduğu şey olarak görünmeye devam eder. Katolik Kilisesinde biz buna inanıyoruz. Biliyorum, sen kültürel olarak bir Anglikansın ve Anglikanları suçlayamayız.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Ben aynı zamanda bir rasyonelistim. Yani İngilizce benim ana dilim. İngilzice'de ekmek hiç kimsenin vücuduna dönüşmez.
TONY JONES: Tamam iyi. Hayır, bu noktada ikinizin tamamen farklı fikirlerde olduğunu düşünüyorum. Bir sonraki Michael Matty'nin sorusuna geçelim.
CHILDREN AND “NO GOD” 00:47:15
MICHAEL MATTY: Is it okay to tell a child that God doesn't exist?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins?
RICHARD DAWKINS: I think it is okay to tell a child the truth but I would prefer to encourage a child to make up her own mind and to think about the evidence and to believe things when there is evidence. What I think is not okay, what I think is deeply immoral, is to tell a child that when she dies if she's not good she's going to go to hell. That seems to me to be mental child abuse and an utter disgrace.
TONY JONES: Okay.
GEORGE PELL: I remember when I was in England we were preparing some young English boys, they were from very...
(AUDIENCE LAUGH)
GEORGE PELL: Preparing them for...
(AUDIENCE BOO)
TONY JONES: Come on.
GEORGE PELL: Thank you. Preparing them for the first communion and they were very patriotic young lads and one of them announced very breezily to me that he didn't believe in hell and I mean certainly the idea of any child being sent to hell, I agree that that is grotesque and that’s not the Christian God but, anyhow, I said to this kid - I said simply "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?" Anyhow the little kid was quite patriotic and he said, “Mm.” He realised hell was in with a chance if Hitler was going to go there.
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.
TONY JONES: So you actually - well, prefer the idea of hell as a place of punishment for - but for who? Where do you draw the line? Do unbelievers go to hell?
GEORGE PELL: No. No. No. The only people - well, one - I hope nobody is in hell. We Catholics generally believe that there is a hell. I hope nobody is there. I certainly believe in a place of purification. I think it will be like getting up in the morning and you throw the curtains back and the light is just too much. God's light would be too much for us. 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.
TONY JONES: Okay, I’m just going to go to our next question which we can respond to some of the issues through that. It is a video question. It comes from Mick Walsh in Nyngan, New South Wales.
ÇOCUK VE "TANRI YOK" 00:47:15
MICHAEL MATTY: Tanrı'nın var olmadığını, bir çocuğa anlatmak doğru mudur?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Ben bir çocuğa gerçeği söylemenin doğru olduğunu düşünüyorum ama bu konuda bir çocuğun kendi fikirlerini oluşturmasına, kanıtlar üzerinde düşünmesine ve kanıtlar varsa bir şeye inanmasına teşvik edilmesini tercih ederim. Bir çocuğa iyi değilse öldüğünde cehenneme gideceğini söylemenin doğru olmadığını, bunun son derece ahlaksız bir şey olduğunu düşünüyorum. Bu zihinsel bir çocuk istismarı ve tamamıyla bir rezalet gibi görünüyor.
(Seyirciler gülüyor)
GEORGE PELL: Onları hazırlarken..
(Seyirciler yuhalıyor)
TONY JONES: Hadi ama..
GEORGE PELL: Teşekkür ederim. Onları ilk komünyona hazırlarken, ve onlar çok vatansever delikanlılar, onlardan biri hayli enerjik şekilde bana cehenneme inanmadığını söyledi ve herhangi bir çocuğun cehenneme gideceği fikri yani bence de bu çok ucube bir fikir ve buna katılıyorum ama bu Hristiyan bir Tanrı değil, her neyse ben bu çocuğa basitçe; "Hitler. Sence Hitler cehennemde midir? İkinci Dünya Savaşını başlatan ve 50 milyon insanın ölümüne neden olan Hitler'in ceza almadan kurtulacağı bir sistemi mi tercih ederdin?" Her neyse genç çocuk zaten vatanseverdi ve "hmm" dedi. Hitler'in gideceği bir cehennem fikrinin bir şans olduğunu fark etti.
TONY JONES: Onun yok edildiği ve artık var olmadığı bir sistem hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz?
GEORGE PELL: Bana kalırsa çok fazla şey hak etmiş olurdu.
TONY JONES: Yani aslında bir ceza çekme yeri olarak cehennem fikrini tercih ediyorsunuz - ama kimler için? Çizgiyi nerede çekiyorsunuz? İnançsız kişiler cehenneme gidecek mi?
GEORGE PELL: Hayır, hayır, hayır. Sadece münhasır kişiler -yani birleri- Umarım hiç kimse cehennemde değildir. Biz Katolikler genel olarak cehennemin var olduğuna inanıyoruz. Umarım hiç kimse cehennemde değildir. Ben kesinlikle bir arınma yerine inanıyorum. Sabah kalkıp perdeleri açtığınızda çok fazla ışık olması gibi olacağına inanıyorum. Tanrı'nin ışığı bize çok fazla gelirdi. Ancak adalet terazisinin tarihin masum kurbanları adına çalışması gerektiğine inanıyorum. Eğer çalışmazsa hayat tamamıyla adaletsiz olur ve orman kanunları hüküm sürer.
TONY JONES: Tamam, bazı konulara cevap bulabileceğimiz bir sonraki soruya geçiyorum. Bu bir video sorusu. Yeni Güney Galler, Nyngan'dan Mick Walsh'ın sorusu.
istatistik
19-03-2013, 01:43
SUFFERING 00:50:15
MICK WALSH: How can there be a compassionate God who is all powerful and has created us, yet we suffer? Why create such a world in the first place?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, you can reflect on that and the previous question.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, it’s hardly my business to say how could a compassionate God like that exist. Darwin himself said it was impossible for him to believe in a God who was capable of creating such suffering. He actually was talking about suffering in the animal kingdom.
TONY JONES: Do you assume that suffering is a natural part of the human condition?
RICHARD DAWKINS: 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. There is massive amount of suffering in the natural world, a huge amount of suffering and it seems to me that’s an almost inevitable consequence of Darwinian natural selection. I’m more interested, however, in what’s true than in what I would like to be true. It would be very nice if there were no suffering in the world. It would be very nice if there were a sort of natural scale of justice, as the Cardinal was saying, but I’m more interested in what’s true, so it’s not the business of an atheist to justify the ways of God to man. It is the business of a Cardinal.
TONY JONES: Okay, let's go to the Cardinal. The question was: how can there be a compassionate God who is all powerful and has created us and yet we suffer. Why create such a world in the first place?
GEORGE PELL: I think that is probably the hardest question for us to answer.
TONY JONES: Do you struggle with it?
ACI ÇEKME 00:50:15
MICK WALSH: Biz acı çekerken, nasıl olur da her şeye gücü yeten ve bizi yaratan, merhametli bir tanrı olabilir? En başta, böyle bir dünyayı neden yaratsın?
TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, bunu ve bir önceki soruyu cevaplandırabilirsiniz.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Pekala, böyle bir merhametli bir tanrının nasıl var olacağını söylemek aslında benim işim olamaz. Darwin’in kendisi; Bu kadar acıyı yaratabilme kapasitesine sahip bir tanrıya inanabilmenin kendisi için imkansız olduğunu söylemiştir. Burada aslında hayvanlar alemindeki acıdan bahsetmiştir.
TONY JONES: Acı çekmenin insan olmanın doğal bir parçası olduğunu mu farz ediyorsunuz?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Yaşamın doğal bir parçası. Darwinci doğal seçilimin doğal bir parçası ki; bu çok keskin bir şekilde “Darwinci prensiplere göre yaşamak istemezdim” dememin nedenlerinden biridir. Doğada, çok büyük miktarda “acı” var, muazzam miktarda bir acı ve bana öyle geliyor ki bu, Darwinci Doğal Seçilimin kaçınılmaz bir sonucu. Yine de gerçek olmasını istediğimden çok neyin gerçek olduğu ile daha çok ilgileniyorum. Dünyada hiç acı olmasaydı daha iyi olurdu. Cardinalin de dediği gibi, eğer bir tür doğal adalet terazisi olsaymış daha iyi olabilirmiş, fakat ben neyin gerçek olduğu ile daha çok ilgiliyim, bu nedenle tanrının insana uyguladıklarının savunmasını yapmak bir ateistin işi değildir. Bu kardinalin işi.
TONY JONES: Tamam, o zaman kardinale dönelim. Soru şuydu: Biz acı çekerken, nasıl olur da her şeye gücü yeten ve bizi yaratan, merhametli bir tanrı olabilir? En başta, böyle bir dünyayı neden yarattı?
GEORGE PELL: Bence bu bizim cevaplayabileceğimiz en zor soru.
TONY JONES: Çok mu uğraştırıyor?
istatistik
21-03-2013, 21:41
GEORGE PELL: Yes. If I get a chance to say to ask a question when I die I think I will ask the good God why is there so much suffering? That’s a problem for us. I think the greater problem and I will come back to the question because it is a very good one it’s at the heart of what we're about. I think it’s a much greater problem for the atheist to explain why there is goodness and truth and beauty. Our problem is to cope with suffering. One of the unique I think, well, certainly special features of Christian teaching is the value of redemptive suffering and that is the significance of Christ suffering with us and dying on the cross. That helps people. My first Easter after I was a priest, it was in the hills in Italy. Very sad village. All the men were away in Germany or Switzerland getting big money, home only for three weeks a year and the people were coming in, coming to confession and coming for consolation. I was even wetter behind the ears than I am now. I didn't know what to say and eventually I said to someone "Well, look, Christ suffered too. Christ had a bad run. Christ died on the cross and we believe that through his suffering good will eventually triumph".
TONY JONES: Can I take it to a bigger level that than the village, to the Holocaust, to genocide, to famine: if there is an omnipotent and all powerful God, why does he let these things happen?
GEORGE PELL: That’s a very good question but if God is going to allow us to be good he’s got to give us freedom. There is no alternative to that and...
TONY JONES: But he chose to intervene at different times in history to save the Jews when they were going over the River Jordan. I mean there are many times when, apparently, God has intervened in biblical times. Why not now?
GEORGE PELL: Well, that’s I think revelation is complete. That’s a mighty question. He helped probably through secondary causes for the Jews to escape and continue. 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: Yes, that might be right. Certainly the suffering in both I mean the Jews there was no reason why they should suffer.
TONY JONES: Okay. I’m just going to - we’re running out of time. I’m going to go to another question. It’s on a different subject. It’s from Anita Wu.
GEORGE PELL: Evet. Eğer öldüğümde bir soru sorma şansı yakalayabilecek olsaydım, iyilik dolu tanrıya “Neden bu kadar acı var?” diye sorardım. Bu bizim için bir sorun. Bence daha önemli bir sorun ve soruya tekrar döneceğim çünkü olduğumuz şeyin tam kalbi merkezi olarak iyi bir soru(???). Bence, neden iyiliğin, doğruluğun ve güzelliğin olduğunu açıklamak, ateistlerin karşılaştığı daha büyük bir problem. Bizim problemimiz “acı” ile başa çıkmak. Bence her şeyden önemlisi, Hristiyan öğretisinin özel öğretisi kurtarıcı acının değeri ve bu İsa’nın bizimle birlikte acı çekmesi ve çarmıhta ölmesinin önemidir. Bu insanlara yardımcı olur. Rahip olduktan sonraki ilk Paskalyam, İtalya’nın tepelerindeydi. Çok üzgün bir kasabaydı. Tüm yetişkin erkekler, para kazanmak için uzaklarda Almanya’da ya da İsviçre’deydi, eve yılda 3 haftalığına geliyorlardı, günah çıkarmaya ve avunmaya geliyorlardı. O zamanlar şimdikinden farklı, çaylağım. Daha ne diyeceğimi bilmiyorum ve bir seferinde, birine, “Şey, İsa da acı çekmişti” dedim. Çileli bir yaşam sürdü. Çarmıha gerilerek öldü ve inanıyoruz ki acı çekmesi sayesinde sonunda zafer onun olacak.
TONY JONES: Bunu bir köyden daha büyük bir aşamaya taşıyabilir miyim, bir katliama, bir soykırıma, bir kıtlığa: eğer her şeye kadir, her şeye gücü yeten bir tanrı varsa, neden bunların da olmasına izin veriyor?
GEORGE PELL: Bu çok güzel bir soru fakat eğer tanrı iyi olmamıza izin verecekse, bize özgürlük de vermiştir. Bunun bir alternatifi daha yok ve…
TONY JONES: Fakat tarihte farklı zamanlarda Ürdün Nehrini geçerken Musevilere yardım etmeyi de seçti. Demek istediğim, görünüşe göre, İncil’de anlatılan dönemlerde, Tanrı pek çok kez müdahale etmiş. Neden şimdi etmiyor?
GEORGE PELL: Şey, bence bu devrim tamamlandı demek. Bu zorlu bir soru. Muhtemelen, ikincil nedenlerden dolayı Musevilere kaçmaları ve devam etmeleri için yardım etti. İlginçtir ki, bu ikincil nedenler yüzünden muhtemelen tarihteki hiçbir kavim Almanlar gibi cezalandırılmadı. Bu korkunç bir gizem.
TONY JONES: Avrupa Musevilerinin Almanlardan daha büyük acılar çektikleri yönünde ciddi kanıtlar var.
GEORGE PELL: Evet, bu doğru olabilir. Kesinlikle, her iki seferde de Musevilerin acı çekmesi için bir neden yoktu.
TONY JONES: Tamam. Devam edeceğim – Zamanımız tükeniyor. Başka bir soruya geçeceğim. Farklı bir konu üzerine. Soru Anita Wu’dan geliyor:
??? Şeklinde işaretlediğim bölüm konusunda emin değilim. Bilmediğim bir deyim kullanıldığını düşünüyorum.
Bence daha önemli bir sorun ve soruya tekrar döneceğim çünkü olduğumuz şeyin tam kalbi merkezi olarak iyi bir soru(???)
??? Şeklinde işaretlediğim bölüm konusunda emin değilim. Bilmediğim bir deyim kullanıldığını düşünüyorum.
Bunu şu şekilde çevirdim sevgili istatistik:
Bence daha önemli bir sorun ve bu soruya tekrar döneceğim çünkü üstünde konuştuğumuz konunun tam da can alıcı noktası olduğu için çok iyi bir soru.
GAY EQUALITY
ANITA WU: Jesus preaches love thy neighbour as thy self so, Cardinal Pell, how can you be against giving our gay neighbours marriage rights when equality and respect are the fundamental foundations of loving and spreading love.
GEORGE PELL: Well, it’s quite misleading and quite unfair to suggest that Christians hate homosexuals. Christians love everybody. We believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, that it is for the continuity of the human race. We believe that men and women are made for one another, spiritually, psychologically, physically. We believe that a man and a woman, a father with their children, is far and away the best and most efficient and most economical system to bring up children and governments should support it. For homosexual couples who have a union, well and good. There’s no reason why that can't be...
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.
TONY JONES: But, sorry, are you suggesting that homosexuals are flawed human beings?
GEORGE PELL: Not necessarily but what I am saying is I don't think homosexual activity is simply the result of genetic makeup, because we are free. We can control our instincts and like with heredity and environment, a lot of this practice is learned. But whatever about it, we’ve got to try to support these people, show compassion, the Catholic Church has a great record there. We look after more HIV sufferers than any other non-government organisation but we don't believe it is possible to have homosexual marriage.
TONY JONES: I’m going to - we’re almost out of time. We’ve got time for one more question that both of our guests can answer. It’s from Katherine Shen.
Bu bölümün çevirisini ben üstleniyorum.
Sadece bir bölüm daha kaldı :)
ANITA WU: İsa, komşumuzu kendimiz gibi sevmemizi söyledi, Kardinal Pell, eğer eşitlik ve saygı sevginin ve sevgiyi yaymanın en önemli temelleri ise o halde eşcinsel komşularımıza evlilik haklarını vermeye nasıl karşı olabilirsiniz?
GEORGE PELL: Hristiyanların eşcinsellerden nefret ettikleri iddia etmek oldukça yanıltıcı ve oldukça haksız bir varsayımdır. Hristiyanlar herkesi sever. Biz insan ırkının devamlılığı için evliliğin bir erkek ile bir kadın arasında olması gerektiğine inanıyoruz. Biz erkeklerle kadınların ruhsal, psikolojik, fiziksel olarak birbirleri için yapıldığına inanıyoruz. Çocuk yetiştirmek için bir erkek ve bir kadının, çocukları ile birlikte bir babanın, öbürlerinden kat kat daha iyi olduğunu ve bunun en verimli ve de en ekonomik sistem olduğuna inanıyoruz, devlet de bunu desteklemelidir. Eşcinsel bir çift arasında bir birleşme varsa bu iyi ve güzel. Bunun olmaması için bir neden yok.
TONY JONES: Buna dair araya bir soru sıkıştırabilir miyim? Zamanımız tükeniyor. Homoseksüelliğin bir tercih konusu olmadığı bilindiğinden bu yana eşcinselliğin Tanrı'nın doğal düzenin bir parçası olduğuna mı inanıyorsunuz?
GEORGE PELL: Yaratılış karmakarışık. Sadece oryantal halı üreticilerinin halılarında daima küçük bir hata bıraktıklarını düşünüyorum çünkü sadece Tanrı kusursuzdur.
TONY JONES: Pardon ama eşcinsellerin kusurlu insani varlıklar olduğunu mu ima ediyorsunuz?
GEORGE PELL: Tam olarak bu değil ama söylemek istediğim şey eşcinsel davranışların sadece genetik sonucu olduğuna inanmıyorum çünkü özgür irademiz var. İçgüdülerimizi kontrol edebilir ve kalıtım ve çevre gibi bu pratiklerin bir çoğu öğrenilmiştir. Ama bu konuda ne olursa olsun bu insanlara destek veremeye çalışmalı, şefkat göstermeliyiz, Katolik Kilisesinin buna dair büyük bir kaydı var. Biz başka bir sivil toplum örgütünden daha çok HIV hastalarına bakıyoruz ama eşcinsel evliliğin mümkün olduğuna inanmıyoruz.
TONY JONES: Ve şimdi de - evet, neredeyse zamanımız kalmadı. Tek bir soru için vaktimiz var ve her iki konuğumuz da bunu yanıtlasınlar. Sorumuz Katherine Shen'den geliyor.
istatistik
27-03-2013, 22:32
GOD IS GOOD FOR US
KATHERINE SHEN: As an atheist, Professor Dawkins, do you believe that believing in God for emotional support should be allowed even temporarily? Research has proven that people who believe in God has a better chance of surviving terminal illnesses, such as cancer, as well as living longer when they go to church. Do you think that believing in God is beneficial for our wellbeing even if God is an illusion?
RICHARD DAWKINS: It is perfectly possible that, as you say, believing in God has beneficial effects upon health. It’s possible that you're less likely to suffer an ulcer for something of that sort but I do have to stress, I mean, that’s an utterly trivial argument compared to the truth of whether God actually exists or not. I mean that’s a really big question. It’s an important question, one that the Cardinal and I would agree on. If there is some minor benefit to health one way or the other - the evidence is not good by the way but even bending over backwards to suggest that the evidence is there, that psychosomatic illness may be healed, may be or alleviated somewhat by belief in God - psychosomatic medicine is well know. Placebos work. If God is simply a placebo that’s fine but I’m interested in whether he's actually there.
TONY JONES: Okay, Cardinal Pell, final work actually.
GEORGE PELL: So am I. It’s a question of truth. Christians don't present God as, like Santa Claus, something that a myth that’s useful for children and believing in God and being a Christian cuts both ways. More people were killed for their Christian belief in the last century than any other century, probably than all the other centuries combined. They died on principle to be faithful to Jesus so we might get some benefits. You know we mightn’t get ulcers, we might live a bit longer, that might have much more to do with our heredity but we follow Christ because we believe it’s the truth. I think it does bring a peace of mind. It does help us but sometimes it gets us into 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.
TONY JONES: Okay. That’s all we have time for tonight. Before we go, let's check the final results of tonight's qandavote, with more than 20,000 of you voting. We have a 76% saying, no, religious belief does not make the world - religious belief does not make the world a better place. Please thank our special guests Professor Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell. And next week on Q&A we return to worldly matters with Attorney General Nicola Roxon, the Manager of Opposition Business Christopher Pyne, international human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson; humanist philosopher AC Grayling and Middle East analyst Lydia Khalil. Until then, good night.
TANRI BİZİM İÇİN İYİDİR
KATHERINE SHEN: Profesör Dawkins, Bir ateist olarak, tanrıya inanmanın, duygusal destek açısından, geçici süreyle de olsa mazur görülebilir olduğuna inanıyor musunuz? Araştırmaların da kanıtladığı üzere, ölümcül hastalıkların son aşamasındaki hastalar arasında, tanrıya inananların hayatta kalma şansı daha yüksek; örneğin kanserde, kiliseye giderse, daha uzun süre hayatta kalıyorlar. Bir hayal bile olsa, tanrıya inanmanın bizim iyiliğimiz açısından faydalı olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Sizin dediğiniz gibi, Tanrıya inanmanın sağlık üzerinde olumlu etkileri olması, pek tabii ki mümkün. Böyle bir şeyin, senin ülserden daha az acı çekmende yardımcı olması mümkün, fakat bende strese neden olmak zorunda; demek istediğim, tanrının var olup olmadığı gerçeği ile karşılaştırıldığında tamamen önemsiz bir argüman. Demem o ki, bu gerçekten büyük bir sorun. Bu kardinalin ve benim üzerinde uzlaştığımız üzere önemli bir soru. Öyle ya da böyle, eğer sağlığa ufak bir katkısı varsa, -ki kanıtlar bu yönde değildir her ne kadar sonuçlar o yönde çarpıtılsa da kanıtlar ortada; psikomatik hastalıklar, tanrıya inanarak bir şekilde belki iyileştirilebilir ya da hafifletilebilir.- bu bilinen bir psikomatik ilaçtır. İşe yarar bir plasebo. Tanrı, en basit hali ile bir plasebo fakat ben onun orada olup olmadığı ile ilgileniyorum.
TONY JONES: Pekala, Kardinal Pell, son bir diyeceğiniz var mı?
GEORGE PELL: Evet. Bu bir hakikat sorunu. Hıristiyanlar, tanrıyı noel baba gibi görmezler; çocuklar için kullanışlı bir şey, bir mit olarak görmezler ve tanrıya inanmak ve Hıristiyan olmak bunu her iki anlamda da sağlar. Hıristiyan inançları nedeniyle, geçmiş yüz yıllardakinden, muhtemelen toplamından bile, daha fazla insan geçtiğimiz yüz yılda öldürüldü. İsa’nın dediği anlamda inançlı insanlar olma prensipleri için öldüler ki biz biraz olsun faydalanabilelim. Biliyorsunuz, ülser olabiliriz, biraz uzun yaşayabiliriz, bu irsi bir durum da olabilir ancak biz İsa’yı bunun gerçek olduğuna inandığımız için izleriz. Bence bu zihinlerimize huzur getirir. Bu bize yardımcı olur ancak kimi zaman, bir kaç Hıristiyan prensibine sırt çevirmiş olsam daha basit ve daha kolay bir hayatım olabilirdi noktasına da getirebilir.
TONY JONES: Bu konuda hiç pişmanlığınız oldu mu?
GEORGE PELL: Bazı zamanlarda oldu, sanırım.
TONY JONES: Gerçekten mi?
GEORGE PELL: Hayır, hayır, hayır.
TONY JONES: Pekala, Bu gecelik hepsi bu kadar. Bitirmeden önce, bu geceki, 20.000 oyun kullanılmış olduğu büyük oylamanın nihai sonuçlarını bir gözden geçirelim. %76 diyor ki, HAYIR, dini inançlar dünyayı daha iyi bir yer yapmaz, dini inançlar dünyayı daha iyi bir yer yapmaz. Lütfen, özel konuklarımız Profesöz Richard Dawkins ve Kardinal Pell’i alkışlayalım. Ve önümüzdeki hafta O&A’da dünyevi meselelere geri dönüyoruz; Opposition Business Christopher Pyne yöneticisi Başsavcı Nicola Roxon, Uluslar arası insan hakları avukatı Geoffry Robertson, hümanist filozof AC Grayling ve Ortadoğu Analizcisi Lydia Khalil. O zamana kadar, iyi geceler.
Son vuruşu da yaptığımıza göre düzenlemeler ellerinden öper sevgili ALKA :D
Harikasınız hepiniz...
Tamam bunları düzenleyip videoya alt yazıları eklerim arkadaşlar.
Hepinizin ellerine sağlık.
Ana sayfamızda Tercüme Çalışmalarınında da asarım.
Richard Dawkins ve Kardinal Pell'in, 'Ateizm ve Katolik Kilisesi' konulu ve 1:00:56 saat süren tartışma programının tümünü tek parça olarak izleyebilirsiniz. Emeği geçen arkadaşlara teşekkürler.
dXW3AMm0TwY
En cok da sana tesekkurler ALKA
Merhaba Vartor, hatırlıyor musun bu videoda Richard Dawkins gelecek hafta Lawrence Kraus ile Bing Bang ve Yoktan Var oluş hakkında konuşacağım demişti. O video Türkçe'ye tercüme edilmiş. Aşağıda linkini de vereyim izlemek isteyenler için:
TW8f9Vc1mHw
Bu da Playlist'in linki
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3FDA6D78E39204EC&feature=plcp
idontneedagod
02-05-2013, 12:07
Arkadaşlar harika bir ekip çalışması oldu. Hepinize teker teker teşekkür ediyorum. Bir kez de altyazılı izlerim artık :)