TONY JONES: Good evening. Welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones and answering your questions tonight: the director of the Centre for Public Christianity John Dickson; theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss of the Origins Project; Health Minister Tanya Plibersek; the Shadow Minister for Climate Action Greg Hunt; and doctor and commentator and author Cindy Pan. Please welcome our panel. All right. Q&A is live from 9.35 pm Eastern Daylight Saving Time. It is simulcast on News 24 and News Radio. Go to our website to send a question or the Twitter conversation using the hash tag on your screen. Our first question tonight comes from Jenni Stoddart.

SCIENCE AND ETHICS

JENNI STODDART: Professor, Kraus, science claims more than method. In fact it claims to offer us a future hope. But in and of itself, science has no ethical boundaries. What are the values, if God and faith are to be excluded, what will actually measure the impact of science on human life?

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, I think it's wrong to say that science has no ethical boundaries. Science is based on telling the truth, which is really important ethical boundary. It's one that I don't think religion shares, in fact. The point is that telling the truth and full disclosure and also doubting yourself, being sceptical of - because the easiest person to fool is yourself and I think all those values are, in fact, the very values we need for a better society. All those things - if any of those things were true in my country, in Washington, it would be a better place and so I think that science can offer a better world and, in fact, a world that's more ethical and, to the extent that you talk about morality, than you can get from books written based on iron age peasants who didn't even know the earth orbited the sun. I really think that - in fact, if you look at democracies and science - science has not flourished in countries that don't democracies and democracy can't function without the very things that science is based on - an informed public, an informed legislature basically, who base public policy on empirical facts instead of ideology and that's very important in my mind.

TONY JONES: All right. So just briefly take the other side of the equation and that is the impact that religious ethics have upon science.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: It has none. None whatsoever. In fact, you know, religion never enters into science.

TONY JONES: But, for example, the Catholic Church has strong positions on reproductive technology, for example, so it does enter into the science market in that regard.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, whenever they do they get it wrong. Absolutely. I mean, when the Pope says that, say, condoms contribute to AIDS in Africa, that's not science. That's ideology and it's nonsense because, of course, we know that empirical evidence tells us that in fact, women whose husband have AIDS they should be using condoms. It's not an ideological question, it's a scientific one and we want to save lives and so I think that whenever you see the church or religion trying to intrude upon science, they almost always get it wrong.

TONY JONES: Let's go to John Dickson. Should the church - the values of faith and God, as the questioner asked - should they be involved in science in any way.

JOHN DICKSON: I agree with almost everything Lawrence just said actually except I would beg to differ about whether science can actually produce an ethic. I think human beings produce an ethic and we decide whether to use science positively or negatively according to our world view and history is littered with examples of science being used brilliantly, ethically so, and times when it's used badly. I disagree that science has any ethical import. It's a neutral discipline and it's a wonderful discipline. The little quips that I heard throughout about science is all about humility and so on I love. In fact Peter Harrison of Oxford University, who is one of the world's leading historians of science, thinks that it was a revolution in this doctrine of humility that flourished in the 14th and 15th centuries that got science going in Europe in part. It's not a total explanation but that as Augustine philosophy developed, which basically said human beings are flawed so we need better techniques. We can't trust our brains. We need to observe, and this Augustinian philosophy grew out of Christianity, as you know, and so Christianity probably is, in part, responsible for science in the first place. I agree that it shouldn't stick its head in now and tell the scientists what to do. My view is let the scientists do the science. My view is let the scientists do the science and let religious believers do what they do.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, I agree with you. I think historically, if you look at it, because the church was the only game in town in the 15th century. Science arose out of religion and it's great and it served a good purpose and now we should just put it aside (indistinct) ...

TONY JONES: Except in China, of course, where - I was going to say except in China, of course, where science flourished without this kind of religion at all. But let's just move on quickly. I want to hear from the rest of our panellists. We've got quite a lot to get through. Tanya Plibersek, your thoughts?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: I think that everybody should ask themselves, "What is a life well lived?" What do we owe to other people, not just what is owed to us. And some people are motivated to do that because they have religious beliefs and their values system says that God asks that of you. Other people ask that question of themselves not because God has asked it of them but because they have thought themselves, "How do I live my life well? What do I owe to others? And I've known some very moral atheists and I've known some pretty nasty Christians. I don't think that living a life well depends on an external system imposed upon a person but I do think you need to question and I do think you need to examine your own values and motivations, behaviours and beliefs often.

TONY JONES: Greg Hunt, do scientific values have a place in science at all?

GREG HUNT: Well, look, you had a role...

TONY JONES: Religious values, I should say.

GREG HUNT: You have a role for faith, a role for science which are equally about trying to give people a sense of hope and of aspiration, of improving the world in which we live and both can play a critically important part. Historically they have. Each has been used for good, each has been misused for bad on different occasions. That's about the hands in which it's exercised. But I had an experience just today where they both came together. I was in a little country church. It was for the funeral of a friend of mine. He was an 81 year old dairy farmer, John Colman, same name as the footballer. He lived a magnificent life. He was ultimately an incredibly rational person. He was an accountant and a banker. He became a dairy farmer. He used science in helping to advance feeding people, as he called it, giving people milk products. He was also a man of great faith and there was an incredible beauty as 300 people crowded into a small country church and there was a great sense that he had lived a life, to use Tanya's terms, which was the life well lived and it was based on the duality. And that was magnificent for me, this sense of a life of purpose and practise and living in the world of science and farming and food and a life of culture, of community and of faith and that, to me, is what we should be about.

TONY JONES: Cindy Pan?

CINDY PAN: Well certainly I think ethics, not necessarily religious ethics but ethics generally, has a central and vital role in science, certainly from a health perspective. And I was always taught by a professor that, in fact, ethics was the starting point for any study. If it didn't pass the ethics committee, they didn't look any further because if the ethics is bad, the science is bad and that was basically the dictum. If the ethics is bad you don't need to read any further because the science is, by definition, then bad. And certainly in terms of religion and science, I mean Lawrence was referring to the issue of, you know, Catholicism and condoms and HIV transmission. I was reading, you know, I mean the context of, you know, all the cardinals sort of jockeying for the new position and apparently this African cardinal is considered very progressive because he has said that in these sort of couples where one partner is HIV positive that condoms might have a role. So, I mean, obviously that is definitely so but I find it interesting that that's considered progressive because I think most people consider that obvious and then in terms of...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But that's progressive for the Catholic Church (indistinct).

CINDY PAN: Yeah. And then in terms of the Catholic position on abortion and even some non Catholics' position on abortion, I mean there was a recently highly publicised case of that woman in Ireland who died in a major public teaching hospital because a D&C wasn't carried out and there was certainly no good medical reason not to but I think it was more of a sort of a religious thing. And I'm sure many of the doctors there felt very tortured by that, having to let a perfectly healthy woman die. And personally I think that there's nothing ethical about allowing someone to die in those circumstances on religious basis. So I think there, religion and ethics actually become an oxymoron. Not always, but in certain instances definitely so.

TONY JONES: All right. Good underpinning for the discussion we're about to have. You're watching Q&A. Remember you can send your web or video questions to our website. The address is on the screen. Our next question is a video. It comes from Karey Harrison in Harrisontown - in Harristown, I should say, Queensland.

CREATIONISM IN SCHOOLS

KARY HARRISON: I expected my kids to be taught science in science classes at their local state school so I was a bit angry when my son was taught a creation story about the origin of the universe in his Year 11 physics class at a local high school. My son didn't want me to do anything because he was concerned about possible repercussions for his grades, which in Queensland count toward university entrance. So I want to know from the panel what your attitude is towards the teaching of religion in science classes and to Tanya and Greg in particular, what you and your parties will do to stop religion being taught in our science classes?

TONY JONES: Tanya Plibersek, let's start with you.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, I just think that's an extraordinary story. I'm quite happy for kids at school to participate in religious education if their parents want them to but science is science and I don't think there are many scientists who would accept the literal interpretation of the Bible creation of the earth. It shouldn't happen. We've got a national curriculum being developed and if creationism is going to be in the science curriculum of the national curriculum I'd be very surprised indeed.

TONY JONES: So will the Federal Government be in a position to impose the national curriculum on states like Queensland if they choose to continue not to do that?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, look, I'm not sure how widespread this is.

TONY JONES: Well, that's a state school.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Yes, but it's one state school. You might have run into one teacher with particular views in one school. I don't know that we can say that that is a characterisation of what's being taught in science in all of our state schools. I'd be very surprised and very disturbed if that was the case.

TONY JONES: We've got...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: People ring me and say to me: "come to Australia" and giving me a lot of examples in Queensland of the fact of creationism being used in science class.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, okay.

TONY JONES: In fact, I'll tell you what we'll go. We actually have another video question which I think demonstrates that this is a little more widespread. It's from Cathie Byrne n east Ballina, New South Wales. Let's go to that one as well.

CREATIONISM IN SCHOOLS

CATHY BYRNE: My question is for Lawrence Krauss. You may know that some evangelical religious groups have direct access to children in Australian public schools. My research has shown some of these organisations teach that men and dinosaurs once lived together, that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that children will burn in hell if they don't read the Bible every day. How might teaching such things to children in state education affect Australia's future?

TONY JONES: All right, Lawrence Krauss, that was directed to you so we'll go to you first and then we'll hear from the rest of the panel.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Okay. Well, I've recently, in the United States, just stated that teaching creationism is child abuse and I think it is. Namely, if you withhold knowledge or you do anything to children that puts them at a competitive disadvantage as adults, it's child abuse. It's mild forms of child abuse but it's like withholding medicine. Withholding knowledge that later on will cause kids to become less competitive because evolution is the basis of modern biology and teaching things that are basically lies, even if they are well intentioned, is child abuse. I mean people - it's not that people are doing this to be evil, but they're hurting their children, especially, of course, telling kids they're going to go to hell. That's definitely child abuse. It is inappropriate and teachers not only should not be doing this but, in fact, if they are they should be removed, in my opinion, because the purpose of education, as I've often said, is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it.

TONY JONES: John Dickson?

JOHN DICKSON: Yeah. This is going to be an agree fest, I think.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Great.

JOHN DICKSON: I agree but for one thing that I think lowers the tone. On the science I totally agree and you'll find that most mainstream Christians are very comfortable with science and with all of the discoveries of science, including the 13.72 billion years ago there was a bang and evolution by natural selection. This is standard. When you go to theological college you are taught how to read Genesis 1 and it's quite clear that Genesis 1 is written in a style that is most unlike the historical prose we know from other parts of the Bible. The style is not quite poetry but it's more in the direction of poetry. It uses number symbolism in a way that would blow your mind. The artistry of it is clear. Now, this is not Christians in the modern world scared of evolution or the findings of science and so changing what they think of the Bible. This was the view of ancient Jews, like Philo of Alexandria in the first century, the greatest theologian of the ancient world, Saint Augustine, Origen, Clement and so on. This was a pre scientific analysis of the text. So I think whatever science discovers and can truly demonstrate, I sign up for. Absolutely.

TONY JONES: So John, I'm going to interrupt you there. What do you think is going on in these schools then? I mean, is it some radical branch of the Christian church has somehow got into the schools?

JOHN DICKSON: No, look, there are a lot of...

TONY JONES: I mean what do you think is actually happening?

JOHN DICKSON: I think that it isn't happening a lot but it's up to the officials to go and find out how much it's happening and I've got plenty of friends who are six day creationists and I'm going to get some love mail after this for sure. But, look, you know, I have great relationships with them, I just think they are wrong. Wrong on the science. Wrong on the Bible.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: It's fear.

JOHN DICKSON: The only thing I want to pick up Lawrence with is to say to call it child abuse, to me there are two problems with this. One, it so inflames the conversation and I think the new atheism breeds of this kind of inflamed kind of conversation. The second thing I find very uncomfortable about it is that anyone in the audience who has actually been abused finds that a very odd use of that very loaded term. I know you don't mean it like that but it's like someone saying "Oh, that's a holocaust". There is one holocaust.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, I think you - look, I realise it's loaded but I think you have to draw attention to the fact that we shouldn't support at all lying to children and, in fact, presenting them with things which we know are wrong and leading them down the garden path.

JOHN DICKSON: Totally agree. But, look, they're going to get to university...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: And we all do that as parents too at some level but, you know, then we - the purpose, if you're a parent, is to try and get kids to think for themselves, to question and to say you shouldn't believe science because - and I think it's fear. The reason this is happening is that there are a lot of people who think that science will remove their faith and therefore it's better that their kids not know how the universe really works for fear they might stop believing in God but that's the same thing that drives the Taliban and they don't want kids to be educated.

TONY JONES: Okay.

JOHN DICKSON: But what you should be doing, Lawrence - what you should be doing - here's a tactic - hand them over to us. People like the Centre for Public Christianity, where I work, who are trying to educate not only the general public but also the Christian public on Biblical scholarship and scientific scholarship. To call it child abuse, I just think, is all wrong.

TONY JONES: When you say "Hand them over to us", do you mean the people who are teaching these things should actually be handed over to you for re-education?

JOHN DICKSON: Yeah, look, we have this little prison out the back. No, look, I just mean we could be the friend - we could be the friend to the new atheism and have the effect you want. I think all you are doing is firming up the opposition.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: And you can hand them over to us.

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm sorry. I'm just going to hear from the rest of the panel. Greg Hunt, the original question was addressed to both you and to Tanya Plibersek and the question was: what will you do to stop religion being taught in science classes?

GREG HUNT: Well, the first thing is a very simple principle: science for the science classes, Religion for the religious instruction classes and the battle between the two for the history classes, the renaissance, the reformation, because that is part of our great history and they do come together there.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Sure.

GREG HUNT: So the simple answer is: the national curriculum will keep science for the science class, of that I have absolutely no doubt.

TONY JONES: By the way, climate change for science classes?

GREG HUNT: Of course.

TONY JONES: Yep. Okay. Fine. Cindy Pan?

GREG HUNT: That was a sort of a passingly cheap shot, Tony.

TONY JONES: It was just a brief question and a brief answer. Cindy Pan?

CINDY PAN: What I was thinking when the two of you were talking, I was thinking about, you know, what children are being taught and maybe, you know, if a child happens to, one year in their schooling, be taught by a teacher who believes in creationist theory, I mean, fortunately I think there are a multiplicity of truths that will be presented to children and one of the most important thing that children and adults have to learn is that they will be presented with a multiplicity of truths and sometimes they have to eventually use their own judgment to discern what is true and what is false. For example, there are many people who believe that the tooth fairy and Santa Claus are real, some people think they're not real and some people are not sure. We are all taught at a certain point that they're real but at a certain age we all come to understand that maybe they're not and there's a period where, you know, they'll be saying, "So and so at school says they're not real but I'm not sure". And I must say I've been through this with my kids and I said - basically I drew the corollary with Jesus and God and I said, "Well, with God, there are people who believe he is real. There are people who believe he is not real and there are people that are not sure." And I said, "With Santa Claus, I'm not sure, what about you?" And my son said, "Well, I think Santa is real but I think God is not" and I think, you know, it's the same with the...

TONY JONES: So there's a lot of consistent philosophy going on in your family.

CINDY PAN: The creationist thing, I mean, they're going to hear that story and it is a story and all stories have value and sometimes it is not simply a question of: is the story true or is it false?. A story has value regardless of whether it is true or false. For example we all enjoy Little Red Riding Hood, The Three Bears. There are all these stories that are eternal that have mythical status but they have value because there's often a moral or they're entertaining or for whatever reason...

JOHN DICKSON: Cindy, I hope you are not making the comparison with the God thing here because how many adults do you know come to believe in Santa, right? You know...

CINDY PAN: Well, I'm just saying that it's...

JOHN DICKSON: Adults come to believe in God. The analogy doesn't work for me.

CINDY PAN: There are people of whatever age who believe and there are people who don't believe...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, Santa brings presents.

CINDY PAN: ...and there are people who are not sure. You believe, you don't believe and I'm sure there are many people who are not sure.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But this isn't a question about God. This is a question - you know, when you say all stories have value, that's fine. But the story that the earth is 6000 years old doesn't have any value because it's wrong.

CINDY PAN: But my point is - my point is that children - that children will learn...

TONY JONES: It's a good - sorry, I'm just going to interrupt you both because we actually a...

CINDY PAN: ...to realise that every...

TONY JONES: Sorry.

CINDY PAN: ...not all teachers...

TONY JONES: Cindy, sorry, I'm just going to - I'm going to interrupt you...

CINDY PAN: ...tell the truth or have the same, you know...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Yeah.

TONY JONES: There is a questioner here actually I think does believe in creationism and it's Tim Hubbard - Hubbell.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

TIM HUBBELL: Doctor or Professor Krauss, it seems to me that everything science examines shows us more beauty and complexity to the universe we live in. When you think about it philosophically, this amazing complexity points to an intelligent first cause. Well, I mean, that's how it works with humans, you know. Only intelligent minds can create complex things. Isn't it bad parenting to force your children to learn that people evolved from the ancestors of monkeys without letting them have the opportunity to think about it logically and come to their own conclusion?

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, look, I don't think should force kids to do anything. But what you should try and do is explain to them how the world works and give them evidence and, in fact, ask them to try and understand the world through evidence, okay? Now the point is the evidence tells us - it's not a matter of opinion. The evidence tells us that evolution happened, okay? And, in fact, it's the basis of modern biology. It's the basis of modern drug development and I agree with you that science tells us I mean, just makes the world fascinating and far more interesting than myth and, in fact, I get upset when people say that science isn't spiritual. I get spiritual wonder looking at every Hubble space telescope picture and science, in fact, is better kind of spirituality because it's real and I think that's the important thing. So you're absolutely right. I don't think parents should force kids to do anything but what they should try and do is encourage kids to learn and provide them the best available knowledge base and it is unfortunate that some people, for some reason, as you seem to do, fear the notion of the fact of the reality that humans and that all species descended from a common ancestor. It is just unequivocal. It's the best tested theory in science and it's not - we don't hold to it because we have some, you know, secret handshake. If it were wrong it would be great because the way to make - become famous in science is to prove your colleagues wrong and so...

TONY JONES: I'm going to go back...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Yeah. Anyway.

TONY JONES: You mentioned the Hubble telescope. Our questioner is Tim Hubbell. No relation I suspect. But in any event, I mean, listening to what you're saying, do you believe that evolution and religious theories about the origins of human beings should be taught alongside each other in science?

TIM HUBBELL: I think, yeah, they can be taught alongside each other I guess. The question is really the first cause and that a philosophical question. Science can't explain the first cause.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But that's got nothing to do with biology. First cause is a complex philosophical question and I deal with it in some sense as a scientist, as a cosmologist, who worries about how the universe began. But that's very different than the facts of biology and so the question that's of concern to you is very different than teaching kids how biology works and it's a disservice to them not to teach them.

TONY JONES: Okay. Tanya Plibersek?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Tony, there's just one of the things, I guess, that has concerned me in the last few years, there has been a real debate that essentially discredits science by saying that scientists are self-interested. The reason that people are researching climate change is that there's something in it for them and the practical impact of that really worries me because it allows people to ignore the vast body of scientific evidence in an area like climate change and cling to, "Well, you know, I don't feel hotter today than I did yesterday so it's obviously made up". And the example in Queensland that really worried me recently was the Queensland Government giving permission to local councils to stop putting fluoride in water. Now, the biggest health intervention in dental care in Australia for decades is putting fluoride in water. Any dentist you talk to will tell you they can tell who grew up in Queensland where they've had less fluoride in the water. They've got a mouthful of fillings compared with people who grew up with fluoride. And it drives me nuts that we've got people in the Queensland Parliament saying - one guy, who's a body builder, in the Queensland Parliament said he would rather take banned substances for a year than drink a glass of water with fluoride in it. It's nuts.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Is he American?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No.

TONY JONES: Dr Cindy Pan.

GREG HUNT: Is he especially well muscled?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: He is actually rather well muscled.

TONY JONES: His teeth, however...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: He's well muscled in his head, I think.

TONY JONES: Cindy Pan?

CINDY PAN: I was just going to say with your comment, the irony is these people who spent all this money buying bottled water because they're scared of tap water, they're the ones who have got the dental problems because that doesn't have the fluoride.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Yeah. Yep.

CINDY PAN: You know, this idea that tap water has problems, it's actually the best - it's the best thing to drink.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Yep, best drink.

CINDY PAN: Yeah.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Best drink to give your kids.

TONY JONES: And it's pretty much free. The next question comes from Aaron Kingsley.

KRAUSS ON NOTHING

AARON KINGLSEY: My question is to Professor Krauss. The last time that your good friend Richard Dawkins was on Q&A, he was asked, rather mockingly, how we can possibly get something from nothing. Being a biologist and not a physicist, Richard respectfully declined to give an comprehensive answer. He mentioned that people often found it hard to deal with the fact there was nothing before the Big Bang. Yet, when you ask the same people what came before God, they often say nothing or that he had always existed. Now that we have you here, could you please give us a more detailed explanation as to how the universe can, in fact, arise from nothing?

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Okay. In a minute. What is amazing - it is an amazing fact and I watched Richard when he was here actually trying to explain evolution to Cardinal Pell, who couldn't understand it. But the amazing thing is that one of the things we have learned from science is that our commonsense does not necessarily apply to the universe. We evolved to avoid tigers on the plains of Africa but not understand quantum mechanics. And so the way the universe really works is very often, as I say, defies commonsense and what is truly remarkable and the reason I have been talking and it and writing about it lately is that we understand that, in fact, empty space, which for many people is a good first example of nothing, is actually unstable. Quantum mechanics will allow particles to suddenly pop out of nothing and it doesn't violate any laws of physics. Just the known laws of quantum mechanics and relativity can produce 400 billion galaxies each containing 100 billion stars and then beyond that it turns out when you apply quantum mechanics to gravity, space itself can arise from nothing, as can time. It seems impossible but it's completely possible and what is amazing to me is to be asked what would be the characteristics of a universe that came from nothing by laws of physics. It would be precisely the characteristics of the universe we measure. And, in fact, one of your Australians measured a key part of it and won a Nobel Prize. He's been on this program. My friend Brian Schmidt. And that was completely unexpected. It is amazing that our universe looks exactly like a universe that could have come from nothing. Does that prove it? No. But it makes it plausible and that is amazing. Just like, in fact, before Darwin evolution was a miracle or life was a miracle. Every life form was especially created. Darwin didn't know about DNA and genetics but he showed that looking at the evidence it was plausible that all of the diversity of life could come from a simple beginning and I find those things worth celebrating independent of whether they relate to God or not. The universe is unbelievably amazing.

TONY JONES: Just before we - we've got a question on that. I'll just quickly bring in Harold Janson before I bring in the other panellists.

KRAUSS ON NOTHING

HAROLD JANSON: Yeah. So if you're claiming that the universe came from nothing and nothing isn't really nothing, where did the nothing come from?

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: No, well, look, you know, the interesting thing is science...

HAROLD JANSON: And can I add: where did the laws of physics come?

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I didn't say it's nothing. I actually think the point is science changes what we mean by words. So, you know, I've discussed with philosophers and they say, "You know what, we don't like your definition of nothing because it is not what Aristotle described". Well, the point is science changes the meaning of things. It's called learning and you may have said that nothing was an infinite empty void like the Bible would have said. Well, that would be empty space, okay? We've learned that that kind of nothing is much more complicated than you thought. There's nothing in it. There's no real particles but it actually has properties but the point is that you can go much further and say there's no space, no time, no universe and not even any fundamental laws and it could all spontaneously arise and it seems to me if you have no laws, no space, no time, no particles, no radiation, it is a pretty good approximation of nothing.

TONY JONES: But Harold actually asked the question I think you were saying did the laws of physics equally spring from nothing? Fully formed into existence from nothing?

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, what is surprising is that the conventional wisdom right now, which could be wrong and that's the other nice thing about science. We don't mind being wrong and changing our minds, unlike religion. But is that, in fact, because of discovering that empty space has energy, it seems quite plausible that our universe may be just one universe in what could be almost an infinite number of universes and in every universe the laws of physics are different and they come into existence when the universe comes into existence. So our laws of physics - physics may become, God forbid - forgive me for saying hat - but just environmental science.

TONY JONES: Could some of those universes have gods creating them?

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: No. Because - no. Because the point is that, you know, when people say, you know, you need a God to create a universe, you need intelligence to create a universe, then the key question, of course, is: well if God is more complex than the universe then how could God come into existence? And so...

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm sorry.

JOHN DICKSON: I would love to pick up on this.

TONY JONES: Yeah, I'm going to let you...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I threw that to you as a bone.

TONY JONES: But first of all Harold is truing be brave enough to re-enter this debate.

HAROLD JANSON: I mean forget - yeah. I mean forget the whole thing about God. What I'm hearing from you is that, hey, these people like Aristotle are addressing nothing and it's no properties, an empty set. But now, in order for us to answer it, let's change the meaning of the term so in order to get an answer, let's just change the question all together.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: No. No. No. Well, it's true that in science we try an answer questions that are answerable, which is really an important thing, I think. But I would argue that nothing is a physical quantity. It's the absence of something. Okay. So to understand what nothing is, you have to think carefully about what something is and that's what science tells us. So we're trying to - we're trying to take an empirical approach to try and understand what the absence of something is and I think there are deep philosophical issues that we're not going to resolve in this program but I do think...

JOHN DICKSON: But they are the problem with what you are saying. This is where I want (indistinct)...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Okay.

TONY JONES: No. No. I think we better let John jump in.

JOHN DICKSON: Physicists - physicists...

TONY JONES: Or he'll explode.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: The big bang. There'll be a bang.

JOHN DICKSON: Physicists have every right to go and discover things and to propose...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: An obligation, in fact.

JOHN DICKSON: ...to propose theories and Lawrence has a theory that's been out a while that, correct me if I am wrong - I am sure you will - that basically there is a vacuum.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: No doubt.

JOHN DICKSON: You've got virtual and antiparticles that pop in and out of existence. They have energy values but the average energy is zero. They're operating according to the quantum laws. That's nothing and I just want to say this is part of the problem with new atheism. It's the...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: It is science, not atheism.

JOHN DICKSON: It's the over reach. Here is a physicist telling us about something that all of us think sounds something and saying by some magical change of the English language, no, it's nothing and if you disagree with me then you don't understand science. But there are scientists, leading scientists, who agree this ain't nothing. It's a very complex and beautiful something. And I think Tim's point earlier is the key point. We live in a universe that operates according to these elegant, beautiful laws and when I read your book this week I was more convinced that that's the case. And this universe, operating according to these elegant laws, has produced minds that now understand the laws, especially this mind next to us. And so this, to me, all looks and this is not a proof for God but I'm just saying why a lot of people think the God thing has a lot going for it, the whole thing looks rational. The whole thing looks set up to be known. Now, only known in a rational, like the God of Einstein, so then you've got to ask yourself the question: is there any evidence on the world stage that this God we think is maybe just a mind has touched the earth in a tangible way? And for me, if you are asking me why do I think there's a God, it's this philosophy of science, plus the life of Jesus.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, yeah, but hold on. There was a bait and switch there that I object to and that was that...

JOHN DICKSON: Can I get to the end of the bait?

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, you said Jesus and then you started going off and we were no longer - okay.

JOHN DICKSON: So what I'm saying is you ask yourself the question: is there any tangible thing in the history of the world that looks like contact from the God we suspect might be there? The overwhelming - I think overwhelming evidence points in the direction of Jesus, his life, his teaching and his healings, his death and resurrection. And when I come to believe that, this opens up the world to me. It is like CS Lewis saying "I believe in Christianity for the same reason I believe in the sun, not because I can look at it but because by it I see everything". And, for me, Christianity explains the world I live in in such a spooky and deep way that I find I feel I have met the God I had a hunch was there based only on the beautiful elegant (indistinct)...

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. So now we've moved into the - I was going to say I would like Lawrence to respond to that. We have moved into the area of intuition now and perhaps...

JOHN DICKSON: And history.

TONY JONES: Perhaps we have also with your idea of nothing and this is the problem, isn't it? We have two competing theories as to how the world came into existence.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, I think the point is - I really object when it's two competing theories. One, a scientific theory is falsifiable, it is testable. God isn't testable. I can't disprove the existence of God. I can't disprove the possibility that we all were created three seconds ago with the memories of this delightful conversation we've had. So the point is that putting science...

TONY JONES: Well, we can play you back the tape later.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Putting science and religion as if they are competing theories does a disservice to science because science - you know, you can say...

JOHN DICKSON: That's not what you are hearing from me thought, is it?

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, no, it is because you're saying that explains the world to you. Christianity doesn't explain how aeroplanes fly.

JOHN DICKSON: No.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: And the bait and switch that worried me is when you say all of this provides clear evidence that there's intelligence or design. The point is the universe behaves...

JOHN DICKSON: I don't think I said that.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But the universe, if you look at it, it behaves as if there's no purpose to the universe. Now, does that prove there is no purpose? Absolutely not. But a universe that behaves without purpose and a universe created by God to look like a universe without purpose, well, they might as well be the same to me. It makes God irrelevant and God is irrelevant to science.

JOHN DICKSON: But when I...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Okay. No, I don't want to make the rest of our panel irrelevant. I want to hear how they're responding to your arguments and I'll start with Tanya Plibersek.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, the only thing that I'd like to hear a bit more of is the science of Star Trek, Lawrence, so if we could move the conversation a little bit more to the science of Star Trek, that would be excellent.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I'm happy to go there.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No, I'm really enjoying the discussion, Tony. I think the opposition of atheism and science on one side and religion on the other side, I don't think is a fair opposition, though and I think when you keep talking to Lawrence about the new atheism, that's not the point he is making at all. He is not trying to disprove the existence of God. He is just saying that there is a whole lot of science that explains a lot to us and that we're learning more about it all the time. And there is a whole lot of things that we can't explain with science yet but we may well one day and there's a great example of that at the moment in the last few years, there is a whole lot of genetic material, junk DNA, that people thought was irrelevant to the way that the human body worked and all of the time we now are finding in that junk DNA the little bits in between the bits that doctors and scientists have always been interested in. Finding that the junk DNA affects the way that the body behaves or responds to drugs or better treatments can be developed and I think that that's a really good analogy for our understanding of the world as well. I hope and expect that my children and grandchildren will understand the universe a whole lot better and one thing, though, Lawrence, I did want to disagree with you on, you talked about we have evolved to kind of escape from tigers but I think that it is a marvellous thing about the human mind that we have this quest for understanding of how the universe started and how our bodies work and, you know, all of the things that are unclear to us now. It is a beautiful and unique thing about the human mind that we are impelled to ask those questions and to seek answers for them.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I agree.

TONY JONES: Yeah. I just note that you want to hear about the science of Star Trek.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Yes, please.

TONY JONES: I am just imagining you sitting in Parliament thinking "Beam me up, Scotty".

GREG HUNT: Funny you should say that.

TONY JONES: Go ahead.

GREG HUNT: We are, in fact, debating the Big Bang in the next parliamentary sitting so it is quite an amazing...

TONY JONES: Are you serious about that?

GREG HUNT: Of course. You just watch. It's quite an amazing thing to be in a place where the decisions are made and you look at all of the different elements of our society. That's one of the things in our profession, that we get to, sort of, live not just in one sliver but right across the whole society, whether you are a local member or whether you're looking at national decisions.

TONY JONES: Did we go from the origins of the universe to ...

GREG HUNT: No. No. Wait. I'm about to...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: That was a good - that was a good - yeah, that was a pretty good.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Good segue.

GREG HUNT: The point about this is, you know, for years I have sensed it's a real privilege to be where we are. Tonight I asked Lawrence before we came on air, "So what came before the Big Bang?" and he looked at me and said, "I don't think that's a very good question." I'm sure he's treated you in a much more respectful way but we don't know the answers. We're not going to try to pretend. Lawrence is an extraordinary intellect. But I've asked Brian Schmidt the same question and he said, "Look, you could ask the cardinal or you could ask the physicist or others that same question about what came before the Big Bang". And what it says to me is that we all have to find our own way as to how we best live in this world. The science from the Big Bang to now, I have zero question about that. That, to me, was settled years ago when I was 11 or 12 or 13. But how we live, that's the question which is interesting in terms of faith and how people find their way through life and how they relate to each other. That's why the two are important and why they have to co exist together.

TONY JONES: Cindy Pan?

CINDY PAN: I think there's fiction and there's non fiction but I think there's just as much truth and value and inspiration in fiction as there is in non fiction. That's why it doesn't surprise me that you find the truths that you find in a story that I don't necessarily think is non fiction but I see the truth in it. I think just to draw an example other people will be familiar with, say the story The Life of Pi. Most people are familiar with that story either because it was a Booker Prize winner or because of the movie. I mean you go - when you read it, you go through it thinking, sort of suspending belief of "Did this really happen?". Then, of course, without wanting to spoil it, I mean at the end you realise the story had a kind of truth but it was a completely different truth. And, I think, and as the main character said, you know, you believe whichever story you like but they're both true. They're true one as an allegory or a metaphor but the truth is the same whichever way you want to look at it. And I think that in terms of the relevance of the truths and how powerful those truths are, obviously from a science and particularly from a medical perspective, the truth of evolution and, you know, Darwinism, Mendelian theory, I mean this is alive and well today and I was thinking when you were talking about physicists and evolution, I mean with physicists and scientists and doctors, it is survival of the fittest because, basically, if your theory can be destroyed by a fitter or more logical theory then it will be. So it is the survival of the most rigorously thought through theories that prevail and allow then further theories to built on those theories.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I just want to jump in one more time.

TONY JONES: Yeah.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Because, you know, it sounded very good what you said, Greg, but...

GREG HUNT: However.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, however, and it does sound good but I think your determination of the good life you want to live, to a great extent, is based on science. In fact, you know, it's based on the fact that you shouldn't have slaves, that women actually equals of man, that all the things that science has ultimately led us to have produced, I think, most of what you would describe as a good life. I asked people, "If you stop believing in God, would you go out and murder your neighbour?" I have actually had some people say, "Yes." But I think it's not God. It's not that faith. It's rationality and science has brought a rational view that has led to much of what I think you would describe as the good life that you promote.

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm going to move along because we've got a couple of issues - I think they relate a little bit to what Cindy was talking about - to move onto. You're watching Q&A. The next question comes from Milos Nikolic.

CLIMATE SCIENCE AND PHYSICS

MILOS NIKOLIC: You're a popular man tonight, Professor Krauss. This is, again, for you. Discussions about climate change have become increasingly polarised and emotionally charged. On one extreme, you have got people who deny that climate change is real and on the other extreme people deny that they're - they say that the science is done and that there is no debate and no uncertainty. So as a physicist, would you agree that due to the extremely complex nature of climate systems, climate science doesn't have the capacity for rigorous proof and sorry, what was my question - and predictive powers as physics does? And, if so, do you think this should influence the tone of the discussions around climate change?

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, climate science is complex. I do physics because it's easy. But I disagree with you. I think, you know, the point is that climate scientists are scientists. They're trying to make predictions and test their models. And, in fact, there's a tremendous amount of evidence that, in fact, our models are basically correct. But the thing that is often not realised about climate change, it's not a prediction of the future. It's happening. It is data. Sea levels are rising.

MILOS NIKOLIC: But there is a lot of predictions that are made by climate scientists and I'm not coming at this question from a....

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Yeah. But I think the key point that you mentioned is the word 'uncertainty'. The great thing about science is that there's uncertainty. Because in science, and probably it's the only area of human activity where you can actually quantify your uncertainty and the good climate scientists will build models and they'll quantify their uncertainty and that makes it more powerful and not less powerful.

MILOS NIKOLIC: But do you think that people acknowledge that though? Because I find that a lot in the public debate there's people who just say, "There is no uncertainty". What science says is...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Well, there's no uncertainty about the data. I mean facts - you know, it's true that models depend upon - you know some of them are right and some are them are wrong. But the facts are that the climate is changing and the climate has been changing at an incredibly accelerated rate that is completely consistent with human industrial activity and it's terrifying. I just ran a climate change meeting at my institute. It is terrifying how the real facts of climate change, especially in my country, are not discussed at all. I am very proud of Australia because of its carbon tax, to tell you the truth, although I am not so proud of the fact you don't tax the carbon that you sell to China so they can burn, you know...

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. This is a good time to bring Greg Hunt in.

GREG HUNT: Look, for me, for us, there's an acceptance of the science. There's also a recognition that science is always evolving, there's a new assessment report being done. Models are being re done. I won't predict what outcomes that will have but the general view is likely to be a reaffirmation, plus or minus some elements of the basic view. The real debate here is about the right policy response. What is actually going to reduce emissions and our debate in Australia and this is where I would absolutely disagree with Lawrence, is about the fact that our emissions go up, not down, under the carbon tax. You are ultimately a rational person, electricity is an essential service, therefore it's barely affected in its demand by price rises. What does that mean? It means that we go from 560 million tonnes of emissions in Australia in 2010 to 637 million tonnes. So the big thing about the carbon tax is it doesn't actually reduce emissions. Our emissions go up, not down. And so for everybody who is concerned about climate change, the first thing you'd say is "Actually, it doesn't do the job". Then...

TONY JONES: Okay. All right.

GREG HUNT: Then...

TONY JONES: No. No. On that...

GREG HUNT: Then it affects families and...

TONY JONES: On that score I have to bring in Tanya Plibersek.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: I need to actually respond to a number of those assertions. Actually we have seen already emissions coming down from electricity 8.6% since carbon pricing was introduced. That's a very important success. You've also got to - Greg is saying, "Oh, there's not really much debate in Australia about the science." His leader described himself first as a weathervane on climate change and then he said it was bullshit. This is the man who wants to be Prime Minister so...

GREG HUNT: Actually, that is...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: So take that with a grain of caution. And then Greg says, "Well, the real debate is how we deal with it". Yeah. We are dealing with it by putting a price on carbon pollution because mostly people respond when you make something more expensive; they use less of it. And we want the big polluters to pollute less, to innovate. Greg's proposal is that he should use taxpayers' money to give to large companies on the off-chance that they might reduce their emissions sometime in the future. So we use the money from the big polluters to change the way that people use electricity and we have the Opposition that say we use taxpayers' money to pay it to the big polluters in the hope that something will change in the future. That's the essential difference.

GREG HUNT: I think I better respond just briefly to that.

TONY JONES: Briefly because there is a question for you coming up. Okay, so...

GREG HUNT: The answer is very simple that the Government's system is an electricity tax and it's a gas tax and that means it is on families and small businesses. For the most part the big companies...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Nine out of ten...

GREG HUNT: For the most part the big...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Nine out of ten families have received assistance.

GREG HUNT: ...the big companies don't pay it, they pass the cost through. It's only those Australian firms which are export exposed which aren't able to pass it through, which is why today we have seen one of our great Australian firms Amcor talk about the loss of 300 jobs because, in part, due to the impact of electricity prices. So in places like the Prime Minister's own electorate, jobs were lost today. In places like Peter Dutton's electorate of Dixon, job with Amcor were lost today. A high dollar and then electricity prices and then the jobs go to China.

TONY JONES: All right. Quick response.

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

GREG HUNT: The jobs go to China.

TONY JONES: There is a question for you.

GREG HUNT: The jobs go to China and the emissions go to China.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Carbon pricing has had a fraction - a fraction - of the impact on Australian businesses that the Australian dollar has had and it is so tough for Australian businesses with the strong Australian dollar. The bad news is that is a vote of confidence from the rest of the world in our economy, that strong Australian dollar.

GREG HUNT: Wouldn't that make it the worst possible time to add an extra...

TONY JONES: Okay. No, I'm going to you. I'm going to interrupt this byplay because we've got another question. It's from William Fiedler and it is for you, Greg Hunt.

COALITION CLIMATE POLICY

WILLIAM FIEDLER: If successful in the next election, the Coalition has a stated commitment to a three year direct action plan to reduce carbon emissions. Will the Coalition rule out ever moving to some form of emission scheme?

GREG HUNT: Yes. I don't see it's every likely to happen. I don't see this is what's happening broadly. I think that when you look around the world, there are radically different approaches and when you look at the United States I know that the President just gave a State of the Union address. The real focus of that was the alternative systems that the United States would put in place. Canada has just had an election where they rejected a carbon tax. China is not going anywhere near this.

TONY JONES: That's actually, I'm sorry...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: That's not right. That's not right.

TONY JONES: No, I'm going to have to interrupt you there because China is actually piloting Emissions Trading Schemes.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Yeah. Yeah.

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

GREG HUNT: I can guarantee you - I can guarantee you that China will not be imposing a nationwide electricity energy gas tax?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: You can guarantee that, can you?

TONY JONES: I don't suppose you can guarantee that.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No, Tony, I have to say this.

TONY JONES: Okay.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: By the end of this year a billion people will live in countries, cities, provinces, states that have carbon pricing of one form or another. A billion people. All of Europe, New Zealand, China. It just out of control to say that no one else is doing this.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Let me jump in to, like, say why it's really important, even if you lose a few jobs now, that you consider doing this. Because you want to build innovation.

GREG HUNT: I want to reduce emissions.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I'm sure. Okay. But Let me just finish this thing.

GREG HUNT: I don't want to just send jobs to China.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But I think Australia is particularly susceptible. I know when I have come here periodically and I know there's been a lot of issues about refugees and immigrants. Well, all the models of climate change suggest that in the equatorial regions of the world, that's where they'll be hit the worst and now you are worried about refugees. When two billion people don't have places to live or, in fact, their agricultural systems are gone, you're really going to have to worry in Australia.

GREG HUNT: Sure.

COALITION CLIMATE POLICY

TONY JONES: Okay. Just pause I'll just put you on pause. I'm going to put you on pause for a moment because a tweet has come in from alicia_1o1: "13 years later, what does Hunt now have to say about his thesis 'A Tax To Make the Polluter Pay'?

GREG HUNT: Well, it's actually 23 years later and I am very proud of what was written then because it was about trade waste system and it was about the point that you've got to choose the right economic instrument for the right problem. And the problem with, as Nobel laureates have said...

TONY JONES: Which was the polluter in "the Polluter" here?

GREG HUNT: This was about trade waste, so things such as zinc, cadmium, lead, where if you have a local problem you can solve it locally. If, however, you have a problem with an inelastic good or an essential service, such as electricity, what you see is that you can drive up the price and it has very little effect. Those figures you gave were incorrect...

TONY JONES: A question quick for you...

GREG HUNT: ...because the overwhelming view...

TONY JONES: Quick question for you based on the philosophy of that idea that you just put forward. Do you agree that Co2 is a pollutant in the atmosphere?

GREG HUNT: Well, I believe it has an impact on our atmosphere. If you call it a pollutant, if you call it a source of impact, it's a source of climate change and climate change is a problem. The real point at the end of all of this is if you want to do something about Co2 and climate change, you wouldn't put in place a carbon tax because in Europe...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: You'd give handouts to big business.

GREG HUNT: In Europe it hasn't done the job. In the United States, we have actually had a decrease in emissions because of the change in technology, which has been a tremendously important thing and, in Australia, our emissions go up not down. Those are the facts.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: But companies don't change their technology unless you put an incentive in place for them to do it by pricing pollution. We priced pollution. You don't dump your garbage in the street for free.

GREG HUNT: It's not pricing pollution, it's increasing the cost of electricity.

TONY JONES: Okay. Hold on. We are almost out of time. Our last question, it is on this subject. It's a bit more general. It comes from Ian Parkin.

MEANING GOD & CLIMATE CHANGE

IAN PARKIN: As a Christian, I believe that my faith helps me to find meaning and purpose in my life and a sense of responsibility for the way we treat our planet. My question is: do Christians have a special responsibility to respond to human-induced climate change?

TONY JONES: John Dickson, let's start with you?

JOHN DICKSON: Yes. But most Christians accept the science. This is, I hope, one of the themes of tonight's Q&A. It's Christians get all the science Lawrence is talking about plus all the other wonderful stuff. So it is not just that wonderful stuff or...

MALE SPEAKER: Some of them.

JOHN DICKSON: So, yes, we have a deep responsibility. I mean there are some very deep ideas driving Christian response to climate change. It's the science, we're schooled by the scientist and then the Christian sits there thinking, "This creation is actually a creation; an intended, beautiful work of art and humanity is here to care for it". And more than that, that we are here to care for our neighbours, especially the neighbours that are going to feel the effects of climate change more than most; poorer communities. So there is, I would just say, I would just say, a deeper or added dimension to the Christian care of the earth. Whether that's showing itself in church action is another question but theoretically, Christianity should drive deep a very commitment.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But not a special one. I really object to this notion that somehow - look, I applaud that you get faith and meaning in your life from your faith, that's fine. I get faith I get meaning in my life from my lack of faith. I mean the fact that I see that the meaning in my life is the meaning I make and the meaning for all of us, we are so lucky to be here on this planet at this and have brains and be able to understand the universe back to the earliest moments of the Big Bang and be able to impact on our future and we should use those brains and we shouldn't rely on someone else guiding us.

JOHN DICKSON: But what I'm saying is I get all of that...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But hold on.

JOHN DICKSON: I get all of that plus Jesus. It's fantastic!

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But the point is that's fine. But the point is that doesn't give special - we are all humans so you may get your meaning from your life from Christianity but to argue that you have...

JOHN DICKSON: And science. I get science plus Jesus.

TONY JONES: Okay.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But to argue that you have somehow an addition that gives you more meaning in our life and more reason to take care of the earth is crazy. We all have responsibility to take care of the earth, whether we're Christians or not.

TONY JONES: I wanted to hear from all the panel but I have been told we've actually gone well over time so we'll have to leave it there. That's all we have time for tonight. Please thank our panel: John Dickson, Lawrence Krauss, Tanya Plibersek, Greg Hunt and Cindy Pan. Next week - next week on Q&A we'll turn our attention back to our own small corner of the universe with the US ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich; Australia's Foreign Minister Bob Carr; the Shadow Minister for communications Malcolm Turnbull; Egyptian novelist, commentator and activist, Ahdaf Soueif; and author, feminist and social commentator Eva Cox. Until next week's Q&A, goodnight.