Automation saves lives. A system can be programmed to handle 99% of eventualities but it is always that 1% that catches designers out. It is a human condition that we only focus on the mistakes. In fact it is human beings who make the most mistakes. No matter how well you train them, individuals will often respond differently under real stress (i.e. not in between coffee breaks in a simulator) and not perform as expected. Computers will always respond the same way. Of course, like people, computers need valid data to make a correct decision so keeping sensors clear of obstruction is important.
That's a gross oversimplification. Yes, air travel today is safer for use of automation. However, there are a lot of areas where the limits of automation may be due not to technical ability but to liability concerns (disagreement on airspeed indicators, obviously flying pitch and power is an easy out but instead let's switch off autopilot, switch to alternate law and give the pilots 30 different error messages to let them figure out what's wrong!).
So I think it is a mistake to be for or against automation. But I think we should be critical of how it is done.
This is also an area of significant ongoing research and development, both in terms of what to automate but also what not to, but when you see a possible stall of an aircraft in bad weather, it's important to ask how the systems and automation played into the disaster. Otherwise we are stuck with just "blame the pilots."