Dawkins on Q and A

This was on The Punch the other day.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/for-gods-sake-our-mps-should-stick-to-their-day-jobs/

You can watch the QndA episode here:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2831712.htm?clip=rtmp://cp44823.edgefcs.net/ondemand/flash/tv/streams/qanda/qanda_2010_ep05.flv

There were over 200 comments on this article for The Punch. I must admit I didn't read them all so I may have added something that had already been discussed. Oh well. Here's what I wrote:

Weird, David Penburthy. Not sure what had you all riled up that you wanted to kick the plasma! As you observed, this was an excellent session of QandA. Sorry for the late comment; I only saw the show yesterday.

Far from being intellectually belligerent and plain rude, I thought Richard Dawkins was a model of restraint and courtesy. At one point he was attacked by Tony Burke, and lost his cool slightly, but I think he did well, given the nonsense spoken by most of the rest of the panel.

Here's the weird thing about religious beliefs, whether you have them or not! No one wants to talk about them!! Aparently they are personal, not for public discussion, and even more bizarrely, they are not to affect our public behaviour or actions! You say it yourself David, and you're a self confessed atheist: "But many of us in Australia regard politics as the public sphere of life, and religion (or a lack of religion) as very much the private sphere."

I find this plainly bizarre! When Tony Burke was asked to talk about his Christian beliefs on the show, he swallowed nervously and said something along the lines of "I don't want to go there". What's going on here: Is he unsure of his belief? Is he ashamed of it? Why are his theist beliefs, significant as they are in informing his morality and general take on the universe, off-limits for public discussion? Richard Dawkins asked the same question on the show!

I don't agree with Tony Abott about much, including, most significantly his beliefs that are clearly inspired by his Catholism, but I am far more comfortable that he be open and honest about those beliefs, than I am that Tony Burke slinks around with the substance of his Christian beliefs unavailable for discussion or analysis, or even identification. I am amazed and appalled at the amount of Christianity that exists, apparently, in our houses of parliament, but I much prefer to know about it than not.

And the reason that I want to know about these background beliefs is because it's nonsense to say that "private" beliefs about the nature of God should not intrude on the course of day to day decision-making! Of course in an ideal world they shouldn't. But all of us, atheist and theist, we are all informed by our deepest beliefs about the nature of the universe. It's nonsense to say we are not, or that we can suppress that. Thus, I'd rather have it out in the open, rather than sneaking around behind this pretense of objectivity.