In conjunction with the Global Atheist Conference which concluded yesterday, Australia’s national broadcasting station, the ABC, invited Professor Richard Dawkins onto to it’s program of panelists, Q and A. The topic to be discussed was, none too coincidentally, “God, Science and Sanity”. And given the makeup of the panel on last Monday night (8 March 2010), it comes as no surprise that Prof. Dawkins stole the show.

For those of you unaware – of which I assume this is the vast majority of you – the Q and A program pits pollies, professionals and “pundits” up against each other while passing the questioning over to the audience, whether to a member in the studio or to someone watching at home who participates via the program’s website. The idea is quite simple: grab a hodge-podge of celebrities, specialists and politicians, throw them in the same room, given them a topic and then let the public “have at it”.

And “have at it” was the operative word last Monday; but not against Prof. Dawkins – that was one parrot that wasn’t going to get knocked off his perch. But the other panelists, namely those who identify as theists, sure did get a hammering.

To give you some idea of what types of minds consisted of the panel of six guests, hosted by well-known Australian journalist Tony Evans, look no further than this list:

  • Prof. Richard Dawkins – who needs no introduction to most of you, I’m sure
  • Rabbi Jacqueline Ninio – a “progressive”, ordained female rabbie
  • Prof Patrick McGorry – Australian of the Year and psychiatric specialist
  • Sen Steven Fielding – leader of the Family First Party and an evangelical Christian
  • MP Juli Bishop – Opposition Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party
  • MP Tony Burke – Federal Minister of Agriculture

Sound like a fitting line-up to place alongside of Dawkins? I think not. In fact, I think the ABC was clearly showing an anti-theistic bias, effectively giving Dawkins a silver platter on which to serve his anti-God views. And boy – did the audience ever lap it up, too!

Whatever the producers of the show were thinking, they handpicked those guests that, I suspect, would fare poorly against Dawkins. Not only were the guests carefully selected for such a reason, but I’m sure the audience members (who must undergo a profiling application to “register” as an audience participant – kind of like a reality show, really, where the participants are selected to “best” represent a cross-section of “reality”?) were likewise handpicked to lean heavily towards Dawkins’ viewpoint. Quite conceivably, so were the questions fielded from the studio audience and the audience at home.

A quick word on the two most apparent theists on the panel – the Rabbi Ninio and Sen Fielding. Firstly, I’d discount any theist who describes themselves as a progressive; any such theist is bound not to have any real arguments for the watered-down, feel-good, smorgasbord faith that she contends. And Sen Fielding … don’t get me started. Faith, for Fielding, is something that’s “personal”, that everyone should have the freedom to pursue. In all seriousness, I lost count at how many times both Fielding and Ninio gave their weak-willed deflective “faith is personal” clap-trap much to the derision of the crowd. Is it any wonder Dawkins’ views came up trumps? Heck, Dawkins needn’t have said anything at all – the other panelists, trying to defend a place of faith in society, flaked around like fish on a hot rock and the audience squeezed in the lemon and salt.

Have a view of the program (it runs just shy of an hour) and see for yourself how pathetic the theist point of view was upheld against such nominal atheistic objections and obvious straw men. As I mentioned to Duane in an email at the end of last week, watching the show was like driving by a train wreck – the “representative” theists articulated themselves exceptionally poorly as they attempted, cowering with wild, emphatic hand gesturing, to avoid being skewed by a spear from Dawkins.

Frankly, I’m embarrassed for Prof. Dawkins – there was no oppostion there to stimulate his thinking at all.

I dare you to last beyond the first 15 minutes of this painful programming. Be sure to add your comments and thoughts below so we can discuss.

Other related Aristophrenium articles: