God. The Interview. A Club Troppo Exclusive

God speechless at outrageous Atheistic slurs

It was billed at the debate to end all debates. The one where the big questions would be finally resolved. Renowned God scoffer, Richard Dawkins verses Australian stuffed-shirt-in-chief Cardinal George Pell were to have it out on the ABC’s Q&A.

Many however were disappointed. Cardinal Pell came away looking the same silly old duffer he always does, and Dawkin’s maintained his cantankerous academic schtick to the end – but no conclusion regarding the existence or otherwise of God was made, despite thousands of dollars of taxpayers money being spent to stage the event.

To remedy this Club Troppo has decided to cut to the chase – bypass the middle men – and put the questions that we all want answered directly to God himself. Club Troppo’s religious affairs reporter Rex Ringschott, in preparation for this unique opportunity has sought advice from neither religious scholars nor physicists but rather has spent literally minutes thinking about the important questions as they relate to us today. Over to you Rex.

 

Rex R :  Oh Mighty God, and Lord of all the heavens and the earth. Thanks for making the time for us today, it really is a great privilege, There’s a lot of interest in the subject of You, and frankly, a lot of things that need to be cleared up.

Firstly though, I wonder if you have a preference as to how you like to be addressed. As you no doubt realise there’s been a profusion of names for your good self: God, Our Lord, Heavenly Father, Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, Akal, Ahura Mazda, Ra – Do you have a preferred moniker?

God :

Rex R : No particular preference?  Right, okay, well we’ll go with just God then if that’s alright with you?

Now God, there’s been a awful lot of killing perpetrated in your name over the centuries. With the Christians the Muslims the Jews, and the Hindus and countless others all claiming to have the inside running, being the true followers of God. And in their disagreements with each other about who has proprietary rights over Your Good Self, they’ve committed bloody carnage and dreadful atrocities. So the question on everyone’s lips which we’d like answered today is: Whose got it right?

God :

Rex R : Come on now. Don’t be shy. This is your opportunity to clear it up once and for all. C’mon who’s got it right? The Christian? The Jews?

God :

Rex R : Don’t tell me it’s the Muslims?

God :

Rex R : The Bahai?

God :

Rex R :  Oh I get it – Don’t want to create offence huh? Well our readers will be fascinated to learn that political correctness is a big problem in Heaven also. You have our sympathy. I’ll see if I can get Piers Ackerman onto it.

Alright – so moving on. It won’t have eluded the attention of your all-seeing-eye that….You do have an all seeing eye don’t you?

God :

Rex R : Yeah fair call. dumb question. As I was saying, It can’t have eluded your attention that the Athiests have been garnering some interest ‘round these parts of late. They claim, that you don’t exist at all – which is frankly ludicrous given that here you are being interviewed by me this very minute right?

God :

Rex R : Exactly – Now these Athiests say that any idea that you are an intelligent entity with the will and the power to intervene in human affairs and to create the universe with all its incredible complexity in six days or six seconds or however long it took is just not credible.

They say that any concept of god, if you want to believe in one at all, is best conceived of as a collection of physical rules assembled in the vacuum of a bubbling quantum soup in the moments prior to the big bang and now blindly governing the function of our universe which is leading us inexorably and inevitably toward heat death due to the unforgiving effects of entropy.

What do you say in response to these Athiests?

God :

Rex R : Speechless!  And rightly so!  Might I say that you’ve done well to restrain yourself from smiting them. If it were up to me I wouldn’t be so compassionate.

I suppose you realise by the way that there’s a huge gathering of Athiests in Melbourne  right now. I was just wondering if your motivation for granting this interview was to prove your existence to them without doing all of the smiting, which of course you could do right now, and quite efficiently too given they’re all in one place at the one time. Just a well placed lightning bolt from the Heavens ought to do it. What do you say to that?

God :

Rex R : Yeah, well okay I’ll drop the smiting thing. It clearly makes you uncomfortable. The fact that you’re here giving such thoughtful responses to my questions should be proof enough I reckon.

And so to the future. What do you think you’ll be doing 500 Billion years from now? Any thoughts? Plans? Doing any renovation work in Heaven? Any suggestions for Humanity. Any other Commandments you’d like to add while we’ve got the opportunity?

God:

Rex R : Well you can’t blame me for trying.  God, I really want to thankyou for giving us your valuable time today – It’s been totally awesome. I got a lot out of this and I know that our readers will also be immensely grateful to you for clearing at least some of the mysteries up. When you’re back in town next it’d be really great if we could continue this conversation ‘cause there’s probably many more questions that I should have asked but just couldn’t think of due to the immense pressure and responsibility of interviewing you.

So maybe if I get my people to call your people – and we can do this again soon. Yeah?

God :

Rex R : Thanks God and all the best with everything. Hope it all works out.

41 thoughts on “God. The Interview. A Club Troppo Exclusive

  1. Many however were disappointed. Cardinal Pell came away looking the same silly old duffer he always does, and Dawkin’s maintained his cantankerous academic schtick to the end – but no conclusion regarding the existence or otherwise of God was made,

    Rex, ya think? Dawkins was atrocious in that debate and couldn’t understand why the audience was laughing at him at some of the crap he was coming up with (nothing is something). He in fact lost the debate.

    I particularly liked how he equated Thatcher’s Britain with the Darwin survival of the fittest model and the law of the jungle. What an asshat.

    If Hitch were alive he would have been a far better debater. AL Bottom (Alain de Botton) would have been great. Dawkins was in way over his head. In any event Dawkins appears to be more of a bigoted Proto type.. angry at the RC.. than a legitimate spokesman for the non-believing side.

  2. I particularly liked how he equated Thatcher’s Britain with the Darwin survival of the fittest model and the law of the jungle. What an asshat.

    Truth hurts righthards.

  3. To be honest I didn’t watch it all. I got bored. I agree that that Dawkins didn’t acquit himself particularly well in the bit that I saw, but Pell was far from impressive

    His nutty observations about the intelligence of the early Jews was pretty stupid stuff – when what he meant to say was that they not as sophisticated culturally as their contempories.

    He’s very much a plodder is Pell.

  4. Both Dawkins and Pell put in a poor performance, but then the format doesn’t allow for much.

    What an asshat.

    A debate between an atheist and a Catholic, and it’s the libertarian who gets offended…

  5. I seem to recall one person who watched the debate grumping that Dawkins didn’t leap on Pell for his climate change skepticism. (But I can’t recall who said this, or what forum they said it in, sorry).

    One reason for this may be that Dawkins is a climate change skeptic himself – he’s notably grumpy-old-mannish in a number of ways, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

    Just imagine the horror on the part of Dawkins fans out there if that particular piece of news came out. ‘Twould be most amusing.

  6. Nothing on this thread disabuses me of my impression that avoiding anything said or written by both Pell and Dawkins saves a lot of time and aggravation.

  7. His nutty observations about the intelligence of the early Jews was pretty stupid stuff – when what he meant to say was that they not as sophisticated culturally as their contempories.

    Yea, I forgot about that. He really fucked that one up. But I think jones was responsible for his argument coming out contorted, as the doofus was playing gotcha. In fact he was doing the gotcha thing with both of them. It was obvious Pell was trying to say some crap that the Jews were in fact comparatively less advanced and unsophisticated at the time. Jones tried to turn it into one of those, “are you racist” thingis when it was clear it was nothing of the sort and so the argument was lost as Pell never recovered.

    I think Jones messed up the venue Rex. It was supposed to be a debate and Jones was acting like the devils advocate with both of them instead of allowing the thing to flow more.

  8. A debate between an atheist and a Catholic, and it’s the libertarian who gets offended

    Desi

    I’m not offended. I was really pissed off Dawkins tried to pull such an ignorant or dishonest stunt like that. Hitch never would have and neither would Al Button.

  9. Pell kept stepping on rapes. The bloody told us modern humans are descended from Neanderthals and misconstrued evolutionary theory (the bit about randomness for instance) among other inanities. Dawkins was also disappointing and not terribly articulate. But he had an excuse as he was jet lagged; conversely Pell had no excuse for acting like someone who was in the process of laying the mother of all cables after a week of easter egg induced constipation.

  10. Mel

    Pell is technically right if the theory is correct as I presume he was talking about the general theory of human descent.

    Here’s the portion of the transcript.

    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.

    The theory as I understand it is that a bunch of humans came out of Africa and colonized the Eurasian land mass. They were all then cut off from the African continent, as a result of the cold spell(glaciation) and the two distinct groups evolved in different directions.

    The big freeze ended and more groups traveled out of Africa. What they found were Neanderthals and because they lived in very small family groups the men were killed off and the women kept on to mate (raped actually). Asian and Europeans have neanderthal genes while African generally don’t.

    So Pell was correct and Dawkins, by referring to them as our cousins, was wrong. If you’re of Euro or Asian descent you are likely to have neanderthal genes.

    I don’t think either of them were very clear, but Pell was still hugging the road..barely.. while Dawkins went off and landed in a ditch. Dawkins had no freaking idea what he was talking about.

  11. The fact that Homo sapiens who left Africa may have a tiny trace of Neanderthal DNA does NOT makes Pell’s comment less idiotic. Dawkins is right- Neanderthals were our cousins.

    Umm yes, FDB, I’m very tired. Got up way too early this morning.

  12. “Jones was acting like the devils advocate with both of them instead of allowing the thing to flow more.”

    As he so often does. Whenever the conversation starts to flow on QandA, Tony Jones regards it as his job to stop it and turn it back into a set piece argument.

    Very tedious.

    And what I saw of the debate was dreadful. Dawkins was sharp and quite compelling in his pilly way, and though I’m completely unsympathetic to Dawkins, George Pell was simply dreadful. So used, I presume, to talking to obedient Catholics that he is no use whatever when called upon to actually advocate his view of the world to people who aren’t fawning in admiration.

  13. Mel

    This is what Dawkins says:

    RICHARD DAWKINS: Neanderthals were our cousins. We’re not descended from them and we’re both descended from…

    If the prevalent theory is the one they are both discussing then Dawkins is incorrect. The neanderthals are not our cousins. We do not descend directly from our cousins as who we descend from happens further up the chain. And we do (may) descend partially from the neanderthals, or at least those people with Euro and Asian ethnicity. Furthermore, what Dawkins seems to be getting at is that we descended from one line and while the neanderthals died out our line continued on. That’s bullshit according to the prevailing theory of the moment as the neanderthals continue to live on.. in us.

    They were supposedly smart little buggers too, but weren’t chatty or gregarious and never liked big groups which is possibly why they got wiped out, as they were attacked by larger numbers.

    Lets not labor this one though, as both of them weren’t great performers.

  14. I don’t have a link but there is some very recent genetic research suggesting that the sexual contact which created our very small Neaderthal inheritance may have been far more limited than previously thought implying sexual interaction was extremely rare.

  15. JC I think you are being unfair to Dawkins. Yes he was snippy and they both gave uninspired performances, but I don’t think Dawkins was wrong on the Neanderthal issue. It is fairly likely that a very small portion of the genome of most Europeans and Asians is inherited from Neanderthals. But this is only a very small amount. Dawkins description of Neanderthals as cousins of modern humans is fair use of language. Pell was wrong when he said that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals, he was probably avoiding saying chimp-like apes and that is the point that should have been discussed.

  16. Thanks Paul. I was feeling completely overshadowed by Dawkins and Pell there for a while. You’ve resurrected my self-esteem to its rightful place.

  17. GEORGE PELL: Something in the evolutionary story seems to have come before humans. A lot of people say it’s the Neanderthal.

    About 4% of our genes are Neanderthal ones so it is weird to claim that we descended from neanderthals. No one with any expertise says that we descended from Neanderthals or that “the neanderthals continue to live on .. in us”.

    JC makes claims about the “prevalent theory”, and I would be interested to see any references.

    Here is my source which contains an interesting video by Chris Stringer: http://www.edge.org/conversation/rethinking-out-of-africa

    As well Pell’s misconception of Natural Selection as random and his misunderstanding of how species arise were amazing.

    Dawkins might not have been particularly impressive, but I was astounded by the ignorance of Pell.

  18. I too was astounded by Pell’s ignorance. But referring to Natural Selection as ‘random’ is OK. He’s obviously referring to the idea of mutation. He would understand the obvious point that Dawkins made subsequent to that – that natural selection selects for survival fitness. It’s just silly ‘gotcha’ to say that Pell didn’t know that.

  19. Stephen:

    “4% of genes” is a hell of a lot of genes in terms of our make up especially with a species (us) that is pretty freaking similar from one end to the other.

    By Prevalent, I was generally referring to Stanford’s Cavali-Sforza’s work and his genetic map/composite. It’s a truly magnificent piece of research.

    ajwak1

    To be honest I was turned off in the first part of the show when Dawkins tried to politicize the debate by introducing Thatcher’s Brutopia.

    In reference to the neanderthal comment, on balance Pell was right. We partially descend from them and they aren’t our cousins. They are our long lost “parents”, particularly from the female side I would guess, as the males would have been wiped out.

  20. Not true, Nick. Creationists, IDers etc are always making the point that natural selection is entirely random and science sites like Pharyngula are continually setting the record straight. It is profoundly wrong to say natural selection is random. Try typing “is evolution random” into google and have a squiz at what comes up.

  21. At least Pell outed himself as a loony David Irving style anti-semite.

    Sorry, Pell, but your Mel Gibson “heh, look, I was drunk when I said that” style apology just doesn’t cut it.

    What is it with Catholics and Jew baiting?

  22. Thanks for the link Mel.

    But Pell’s explanation is on the level. When asked was he including Jesus in his comments he said ‘Exactly’. That was his point. So in that context why is what he said anti-semitic?

  23. I don’t think Pell is getting enough credit. Surely it is significant enough that he accepts evolution; is it entirely necessary that he be familiar with the details? While he may not have been as eloquent or knowledgeable as some might desire (the statement about the early Jews was an innocent mistake), he certainly didn’t live up to the evil, bigoted, arrogant opponent that Dawkins wanted him to be.
    The big problem with Q&A is that it perceives every issue to be one of polar opinon, and is incapable of appreciating the possibility that the truth might lie in a more subtle middle ground. Like it’s less glorified SBS cousin Insight, it is impossible to learn anything from the program because the debate is essentially a shouting match, and everyone involved walks away having merely reinforced their initial positions.

  24. After Rowan Atkinson did, “The Jews were right,” it’s been very tough to go one better on the God gag, but congratulations on a fair effort.

    What is it with Catholics and Jew baiting?

    England 1200: and Jews worked as tax collectors and money lenders. People didn’t much like paying tax, and they didn’t much like paying back their debts, but such simple folk lacked the modern sophistication to make war against abstract nouns; so they just randomly killed Jews instead.

    I guess they probably figured that since they were the 99%, then the other guys were a minority and therefore would be defenceless. As it happens, the 99% were 100% successful on that particular occasion :-)

    “heh, look, I was drunk when I said that”

    I’m careful never to be caught sober in public, to ensure maximum plausible deniability. If Mel Gibson wants to get drunk at my place, I promise not to hit him up for alimony in the morning.

  25. Great comment Paul. Could’t have put put it better myself. I have simply given up watching QandA for precisely that reason.

  26. Thanks Tel, I realised from the outset that the God gad has limited scope for improvement. But for some reason that didn’t stop me from stumbling right on in and giving it a whirl.

  27. Pingback: Shock – horror – Pell speaks some truth « Balneus

  28. “problem with Q&A is that it perceives every issue to be one of polar opinon”

    Dawkins is tailor made for this , if you ever read him on Genotype Vs phenotype (‘selfish genes’) just like the most polarised Soul vs body dualism.

  29. As a Troppo elder statesman and custodian of the Troppo Mercedes Sports (currently in the panel beaters in Dubai after an unfortunate incident with the Bin Ladens), this post is in breach of Troppo’s truth in headlines policy – though the point is somewhat technical.

    The interview is billed as an “exclusive”. Or, to be absolutely precise an “Exclusive”.

    Yet God has been giving interviews like this to many people – myself included. He’s been doing it for a long time, many centuries in fact, and, on some theories has been giving them to unsuspecting chunks of rock and giant clouds of hydrogen for literally billions of years.

    Some exclusive.

    On behalf of the Troppo “executive”, or to be absolutely precise, the Troppo “Executive” I call for immediate clarification.

    Disappointed,

    Port Melbourne.

  30. One reason for this may be that Dawkins is a climate change skeptic himself – he’s notably grumpy-old-mannish in a number of ways, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

    I really doubt this. The RD website contains articles hammering some of the typical pseudoscientific claims made by CC skeptics.

  31. The interview is billed as an “exclusive”.

    Surely you are not suggesting the profound divinity of His silence in this interview is not worthy of the label “exclusive”. The intensity and awe in His message here is unique and unmatched by any other interview at any other time.

    To suggest God would merely repeat himself across interviews with His silence is a blasphemous insult! His knowledge and wisdom are infinite; He could give silent interviews to every man, woman and child on Earth until the end of time and He would not need to repeat himself. Every mathematician knows that infinity divided by infinity is divinity; it’s such an amazing number that it doesn’t belong on the number line with the other mortal numbers. Each and every silent interview He gives is most definitely a divine exclusive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.