[Closed] Archbishop Rowan Williams

My argument/irritation with the 'Prove it' brigade, is unless you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, then it doesn't exist. Which is stupid as we know about lots of things that we cannot prove (yet)

Thats really not true most rational people realise that we don't know every thing. We use evidence to to home in on the truth at the moment that truth is changing all the time. The idea is to build up evidence and get closer to the truth.

What rational people don't do is decide something is true because of a "feeling" or because they like the sound of it. There is no verifiable evidence of the existence of a god NONE. In the whole history of mankind no one has been able to provide a shred of verifiable evidence. That is why rational people dismiss god. On the other hand we may be way off with the big bang theory but at least there is some verifiable evidence that supports it (galaxy's moving away from each other for one) in the future evidence my refute it then we will use that to come up with another theory and if that theory says god created the universe then I will kneel in the pew on Sunday with the rest of the congregation. Until then I will ride my bike 🙂

Christianity still thinks the Old testament is important but that the new testament has replaced it.

That's one of the more sweeping statements I've heard. And there are many millions of Christians who'd completely disagree with your assertion.

Hi. Sorry I'm late. I wasn't going to join in, but people are still saying things like:

if we are just a random occurrence as Atheists think

which is untrue twice.

1: Evolution is not "random".

2: Atheists do not think that it is.

And, let's not pick on xtianity, that's just bullying.

We should remember that ALL religions are equally ridiculous. 🙂

The only two answers to that question that I've come across are "they always existed" (a cop out) or the equivalent of "turtles all the way down" which is nonsensical

I agree with this, but the same argument seems to make sense for a non-thestic view to me.

Not to sure what the latest thinking is on the start of everything but I remember reading something in this book ->

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Never-Ending-Days-Being-Dead/dp/057122055X ]click here[/url]

About the reason that there is something rather than nothing is because it is because given infintite time(except there was no time before the big band obviously) and fluctuations in an empty void it is likely that is more energetically stable to have something rather than nothing hence something becomes into existences.

But it just seems to be the same arugment to me.

What was their before the world ? An empty space slow collecting enough material in the solar system to form a planet. What was there before the solar system ? A high density glump of matter left over from the irregularities of the big band. What was there before the big bang ? A possibly another big bang possibly an empty void with random fluctuations that meant that something must exist. What was there before the void, hmm we dont know yet but its stuff all the way back.

At the moment I just cant comprehend this stuff and frankly a god is a good as explanation as any. In that I cant understand it.

At the moment I just cant comprehend this stuff and frankly a god is a good as explanation as any

"We do not know what existed, if anything, before the big bang".

"Complexity is evolved from simplicity".

You find these things hard to understand? So hard, it seems, that you prefer to ascribe the actions of a mysterious invisible fairy to it...

Whilst I think of it, and as a resource to help any struggling like "scu98rkr", I offer the following encouragement - atheism has become globally represented...

Perhaps to some people that we are here, that is proof enough that there is something else.

Science doesn't know how we are here, and if we are random (evolution isn't random, the creation of DNA might have been) why it hasn't happened elsewhere that we can detect.

Also as far as rationality, the world isn't rational so why do you think that dealing with it in a rational way, would make it make any sense? Have you read into quantum physics? if not have a quick read about quantum tunnelling and the zeno effect, that's not rational or possible according to classic physics but it happens and we don't know why.

And, let's not pick on xtianity, that's just bullying.

We should remember that ALL religions are equally ridiculous

I completely agree - I know only one religion, however, so I can only comment on theat one. And I reserve the same level of scepticism for those who worship at the shrine of moly-coagulated uni-striped oxyacetylene-coated speaker cable as I do for any other religion.

I suppose I''ll have to say it again, for the hard of reading:

Evolution is not random. It is also a demonstrable fact.

Perhaps to some people that we are here, that is proof enough that there is something else.

I see. A teapot is proof that there are uncorns. Genius.

Science doesn't know how we are here

Yes it does. See above.

(DNA shouldn't have been able to exist, in the conditions it did),

Why not? See there is me asking for proof about a statement you've made. What conditions did DNA exist in that it shouldn't have?

Also as far as rationality, the world isn't rational so why do you think that dealing with it in a rational way, would make it make any sense?

The macroscopic world is very very rational. I'll accept that human being aren't though.

Have you read into quantum physics? if not have a quick read about quantum tunnelling and the zeno effect, that's not rational or possible according to classic physics but it happens and we don't know why.

Now that's just a massimve physics fail right there. Quantum rules do not apply to the macorscopic scale. Just because we don't understand it now, and we really really don't in this case, doesn't mean we won't at some point in the future. There still isn't a need to invoke a deity.

nickf - Member

And, let's not pick on xtianity, that's just bullying.

We should remember that ALL religions are equally ridiculous

I completely agree - I know only one religion, however, so I can only comment on theat one. And I reserve the same level of scepticism for those who worship at the shrine of moly-coagulated uni-striped oxyacetylene-coated speaker cable as I do for any other religion.

Indeed. That would just be silly.

What rational people don't do is decide something is true because of a "feeling" or because they like the sound of it

What's wrong with that?

Rational people seem to think that truth is far more important than anything else. Fine, but not everyone feels that way.

have a quick read about quantum tunnelling and the zeno effect, that's not rational or possible according to classic physics but it happens and we don't know why

Hehe.. have nothing but a quick read and you'll understand it as poorly as you seem to 🙂

So you are in the camp that thinks that the macroscopic and microscopic worlds don't operate in the same way, because the measurement tools are still being developed. How quaint.

As for evolution not being random .... so you don't believe that mutations (a random event, influenced by environment) give one generation an advantage over another, hence allowing them to be more successful at reproducing? How do you think it works then?

and finally to answer

Why not? See there is me asking for proof about a statement you've made. What conditions did DNA exist in that it shouldn't have?

I will quote Dawkin's, on the origin of life when Earth was a Rock covered in a chemical soup

The ‘Catch-22’ of the origin of life is this. DNA can replicate, but it needs enzymes in order to catalyse the process. Proteins can catalyse DNA formation, but they need DNA to specify the correct sequence of amino acids. How could the molecules of the Early Earth break out of this bind and allow natural selection to get started?

As for evolution not being random .... so you don't believe that mutations (a random event, influenced by environment) give one generation an advantage over another, hence allowing them to be more successful at reproducing? How do you think it works then?

[img] [/img]

............ bugger 😳

Mutations may well be random but the forces of natural selection acting on the population are not. And usually the forces of natural selection act upon the individuals and not generations.

So you are saying that a random event that may give a species a better chance of survival, does not infer that evolution has a random element to it?

So you are in the camp that thinks that the macroscopic and microscopic worlds don't operate in the same way, because the measurement tools are still being developed. How quaint.

Yup, that's me and the rest of the scientific community that think this way. The fact that a single photon can apparently be to travel by two different paths at the same time, which is impossible for say a car, would appear to be evidence of that. Then there are things like quantum entanglement which simply make my brain hurt. It may well be that at some point in the future we will come up with a explanation as to why both these worlds seem to operate in different ways or perhaps we'll find a different explanation that will include both. I'll leave that for brighter minds than mine. If you have an explanation I'm all ears.

What Dawkins book is that exerpt from? Sounds like an interesting read, although I'd be curious as what the following paragraphs are. Does he leave it at that or does he posit so kind of explanation?

So you are saying that a random event that may give a species a better chance of survival, does not infer that evolution has a random element to it?

How evolution works.

The majority of African elephants now have much smaller tusks than formerly. This is because poachers do not shoot them for their small tusks, there not being enough of a return on the investment.

There are, therefore, more "short-tusked" genes being propagated than "long-tusked" ones.

The "short-tusked" genes are more [i]fitted to survive[/i] in an environment that includes a "poaching predator" that kills off the "long-tusked" gene...

Simples.

yeah.... but.... will there ever be a boy born who can swim as fast as a shark?

yeah.... but.... will there ever be a boy born who can swim as fast as a shark?

Marine Boy?

"Complexity is evolved from simplicity"

are you lot joking ? Are you suggesting I dont understand evolution or how complex systems can develop from the repetition of simple actions ?

This is nt what I said at all. What I suggested is that currently a non-theistic explanation of existence has the same problem as a theistic explanation of existence.

Ie What was there before god ?

What was their before the big bang/void etc etc and dont bother giving me the there is no time before the big band I understand that but their presumably must be a cause and effect.

As I said the last thing I read on this seemed to be suggesting that actually the existence of something is actually more energetically favourable than the non existence of everything.

But still that seems to suggest there must have been something that caused the existence of something else I dont think we've got to the bottom of Why things exist and frankly I dont think science ever will.

It will still be the same flawed same argument as religious types have ie "its just because thats the way it is"

And frankly to me thats aa bad an explanation as because thats the way god made it to be honest its the same explanation in my mind.

gonefishin, its from the 'Greatest Show on Earth' if you ignore the small ranty bits (like most of his books) its an interesting/good read

MrW I agree with you about the outside influences not being random, however the bit that starts the whole process off which results in generation of a species an developing an advantage does appear to be random.

Explanation of existence

Q: Why does the world exist?
Theist : God decided to create the universe and everything in somehow.
Q: Why did god decide to do that and why does god exist ?
Theist : Oh, I dont know its just that way

Q: Why does the world exist?
Atheist : Void-BigBang-Delveopment of Universe-Planetsform-evolution-societies develop
Q: But what caused this to happen originally
Atheist : There may have been an infinite number of universes and this is the only one in which the right conditions exist.
Q : But what caused them universes to exist.
Atheist : Oh they may have been created inside black holes or be the results of the big crunch of another universe or them may all exist as once separatley in some kind of plane we dont understand or every quantum event might result in a new universe being created.
Q : But why did that process start ?
ATheist : Oh, I dont know its just that way

Q: Why does the world exist?
Agonist : I dont know its just that way

Result = same

Ie What was there before god

What god is that, then?

Why did god decide to do that and why does god exist

But why did that process start

... are not the same question.

And "I don't know" is the atheist response, not "It just is that way". Er, by the way...

Q: Why does the world exist?
Theist : God decided to create the universe and everything in somehow.
Q: Why did god decide to do that and why does god exist ?
Theist : Oh, I dont know it just that way

Q: Why does the world exist?
Atheist : Void-BigBang-Delveopment of Universe-Planetsform-evolution-societies develop
Q: But what caused this to happen originally
Atheist : There may have been an infinite number of universes and this is the only one in which the right conditions exist.
Q : But what caused them universes to exist.
Atheist : Oh they may have been created inside black holes or be the results of the big crunch of another universe or them may all exist as once separatley in some kind of plane we dont understand or every quantum event might result in a new universe being created.
Q : But why did that process start ?
ATheist : Oh, I dont know it just that way

Result = same

As I've said before, please stop conflating athiest with rationalist. They are two different things.

Personally I'd have stopped at question 2 with the answer "I do not know". Not very satifying but then as a rationalist I can accept that there are many thing to which this is the best answer.

go on ...

Funny - I didn't think any of the Rowans mentioned in this thread believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

But no explanation gives a good account of existence which is what I'm looking for.

Im just a bit annoyied at comments earlier suggesting I did n't understand evolution

Q: Why does God exist?
Religionist: Does it matter? God created us out of love, and he loves us, which makes me really happy. What's the problem here?

And "I don't know" is the atheist response, not "It just is that way". Er, by the way...

Yes but the religious answer is I dont know as well.

molgrips - Member
Q: Why does God exist?
Religionist: Does it matter? God created us out of love, and he loves us, which makes me really happy.

What god is that, then?

Q: Why does God exist?
Religionist: Does it matter? God created us out of love, and he loves us, which makes me really happy. What's the problem here?

I totally disagree with this. But it might be true some religious people think like this. But then surely many atheists just think I exist Im happy whats the problem ?

richc

iirc the current theory on how DNA arose is that it evolved from RNA which is better at catalyzing reactions and capable of replicating itself
im sure dawkins is well aware of that

Yes but the religious answer is I dont know as well.

No. The atheist is saying "We don't know how the universe was created before the big bang".

The theist is saying "I don't know why god created the universe" (having already accepted that this god did, as a contrast to the atheist's response).

Different questions.

What god is that, then?

The one with the beard.

RE: Dawkin's is, and was sceptical (in the book, might not be now). RNA has other issues, I don't have the book at hand and cannot remember what they were though.

If god existed he would never let these debates happen.

I totally disagree with this

You don't think that religionists think that way?

But then surely many atheists just think I exist Im happy whats the problem ?

Exactly!

that was a bit of poor sentence true.

Ok maybe Im not explaining my self right. I dont really care what other people think. Which is what alot of you seem to be interested in.

What Im actually interested in which approach to have myself thesist,athesist or agnostic. My vote is up for sale !

The little Q&A session above is more likely to be me putting myself in all three mind frames rather than another person.

No matter how I look at it all three approaches appear similar to me and there is no difference between them no approach is better than the other.

There do appear to be minor plus minus to each approach,

Thesist Disadvantage : no sex before marriage, advanatage : get to sing in nice building + traditional weddings + ready built community

Athesist Advantage : Sex before marriage, fit in on singletrack world : disadvantage : have to be an annoying git who tells everyone else what they believe is wrong

Here's a question for you then:

Can we ever know if God exists?

PS Have you ever considered calling yourself a pluralist? It annoys people 🙂

I've corrected this:

If god existed he [s]would never let[/s]wouldn't give a shit these debates happen.

Definition of a Thesist : Believes they are right about everything
Definition of an Athesist : Believe everyone else is wrong about everything

mcboo - Member

This guy believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Does he ? ............well he's kept quiet about that !

Still you can't blame him though, he's probably lose his job.

Definition of an Athesist : Believe everyone else is wrong about everything

Not at all. Atheism accepts that there may be a god. However, without evidence, it's just noise. The probability that there is a god is so infinitesimally small that it's as near to zero as makes no difference.

But, heck - all you have to do is demonstrate it...

Atheism accepts that there may be a god

You're thinking of agnosticism I think. Atheism means "No God"

But, heck - all you have to do is demonstrate it...

No, you don't 🙂

Not at all. Atheism accepts that there may be a god. However, without evidence, it's just noise. The probability that there is a god is so infinitesimally small that it's as near to zero as makes no difference.

But, heck - all you have to do is demonstrate it...

Well surely god is an infinitely complex creation. If you were to believe there was more than 1 universe/parallel universes or reapeting universes we basically have infinite time. As complexity can self develop from simple components though repeating actions surely given infinite time god is sure to exist.

He'd probably then create a new universe to start things going again maybe to eventually make a new god as he's lonely.

Thesist Disadvantage : no sex before marriage, advanatage : get to sing in nice building + traditional weddings + ready built community

you missed out a fair bit

hating gays
discriminating against women
covering up child abuse.....
etc etc etc

One of the golden rules of childhood applies- 'never trust a man with a beard'.

Well surely god is an infinitely complex creation

There being no evidence that a god exists, no.

you missed out a fair bit

hating gays
discriminating against women
covering up child abuse.....
etc etc etc

None of those things are unique to theists.

There being no evidence that a god exists, no.

So are you saying that without evidence of something, it doesn't exist?

So are you saying that without evidence of something, it doesn't exist?

Probably more like without evidence the assumption that something does exist is wrong.

Probably more like without evidence the assumption that something does exist is wrong.

So it depends on if you are a pessimist or an optimist, as there is a hell of a difference between *might* and *doesn't*

One of the golden rules of childhood applies- 'never trust a man with a beard'.

Specially that bearded git in a red suit..........he knew all I wanted was a Scalextric that Christmas, the tight-fisted arsehole.

So it depends on if you are a pessimist or an optimist, as there is a hell of a difference between *might* and *doesn't*

Not really. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not with those who doubt it. Thiests claim that there is a god and it is for them to provide the evidence to back up their claim, not for athiest to prove it incorrect especially as thiestic claims are generally non-falsifiable.

So back to the 'Prove it' argument.

Probably more like without evidence the assumption that something does exist is wrong

Well I do have evidence us. Given enough time the process of the known universe seems to assemble creations that are sufficiently complex to start to understand the universe around them and how it works.

I suspect given infinite time (which may be a stumbling block or may not) these creations would become infinitely complex to the extent they will be able to create new universes in the same way the original universe was created.

They will be God to that universe. Im just extrapolating what I see.
This may already have happened and God may have created the universe in such a way that the sentient beings in the universe are pre disposed to believe in God.

So anyway, after we've argued ourselves to death on whether or not there is a God, (kind of inevitable that any thread with an archbishop in it ends up this way really 😆 ) how do we feel about

-the Archbishop sticking his oar in again?

-does he [i]really[/i] have a [i]political[/i] agenda like Cameron, Osborne and Streeter (huuuugely serious comitted Christian by the way) have all insisted today?

-if he does have a political agenda, why is he so mean to NuLab too?

AND no one has answered my (OP) initial question; [b]What Would Jesus Vote?[/b]

(FWIW if he existed and had a uk vote, I think he'd go for 'pre-coalition-sellout' LibDem)

The problem with saying just prove it, is some things cant be proven.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de l's_incompleteness_theorems]Godel incompleteness theorems[/url]

So back to the 'Prove it' argument.

Well yes but as I said before in this context it is entirely appropriate. If you make a factual claim then you should be able to back it up. Why is that such a problem? If you say that it's a belief of yours but you can't back up it up with any proof then that's fair enough as far as I'm concerned (I can't speak for Mr Woppit) as it is not longer a statement of fact.

Not really. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim

Only if they are trying to convince you that there is a God. That's not the point of this thread though.

I am sticking up for religionists because you lot are accusing them of being stupid. Of course, terribly ironic - you think they're stupid because YOU don't get it 🙂

Well yes but as I said before in this context it is entirely appropriate. If you make a factual claim then you should be able to back it up. Why is that such a problem? If you say that it's a belief of yours but you can't back up it up with any proof then that's fair enough as far as I'm concerned (I can't speak for Mr Woppit) as it is not longer a statement of fact

Whats wrong with my argument above that the universe seems to construct more and more complex beings ?

What more do you want ? Surely its a possibility ?

I might be right I might be wrong.

This may already have happened and God may have created the universe in such a way that the sentient beings in the universe are pre disposed to believe in God.

You seem to be starting with the assumption that there is a god, and presenting a circular argument.

The problem with saying just prove it, is some things cant be proven.

Well this seems like a rather convenient get out as by framing the argument in a non-falsifiable way you get to just say "god did it" which just looks closed minded.

I am sticking up for religionists because you lot are accusing them of being stupid.

I haven't accused anyone of being stupid for being a thiest. I have criticised rather stupid arguments and an abundance of logical fallacies but that is something else entirely.

I guess my hang up on that argument is, I can make a statement based on belief, without evidence, but it can still be a fact. As evidence doesn't determine reality, it merely confirms it.

For example; I believe that we will find new species on earth. I cannot back this up with evidence as they haven't been found yet, however my belief is a reality, just without the evidence to confirm it.

For example; I believe that we will find new species on earth. I cannot back this up with evidence as they haven't been found yet, however my belief is a reality, just without the evidence to confirm it.

Your belief that we will find new species of life on earth is simply that a belief, albeit one that is based on previous experience of the rate at which we humans have discovered new species. It will only become a fact once said species is discovered and will be based on the rock solid evidence of someone saying "look at that, that's a previusly undiscovered species of whatever".

I haven't accused anyone of being stupid for being a thiest.

Someone else did up there ^

Then quote them, not me. 😉

Have a little faith, gf.

This may already have happened and God may have created the universe in such a way that the sentient beings in the universe are pre disposed to believe in God.
You seem to be starting with the assumption that there is a god, and presenting a circular argument

No Im not

If you actually read his editorial which is available on the New Statesman website you will find it is a much more wide ranging piece than an attack on the government policy. It certainly is critical of the state of politics, raises questions about the nature of political opposition, and also has some thoughts on what we should be aiming for in society. It is a very interesting piece,albeit in places quite academic. On this basis I am very comfortable with his invention although I don't agree with everything he says. What certainly does come through is that he is a thoughtful and intelligent man.

Only if they are trying to convince you that there is a God. That's not the point of this thread though.

If you are a Christian then you should be as evangelising is part of the deal 🙂

What certainly does come through is that he is a thoughtful and intelligent man

+1.

He certainly understands both sides of the debate much better than some on here.

Rowan Williams, being intelligent, earlier...

but maybe society does need a moderating force to encourage people to be less self-centred and materialistic, and more altruistic.

You're starting to get it.

I'm not religious in any way (not against it, just not my cup of tea), but I have a lot of respect for Rowan Williams after reading his letter to a 6 year old child, Lulu, in The Times.
I couldn't find the original letter, but this is the nearest thing I could find: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100084843/a-six-year-old-girl-writes-a-letter-to-god-and-the-archbishop-of-canterbury-answers/
I think he's a good man, irrespective of any religious beliefs.

The problem with saying just prove it, is some things cant be proven. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems]Godel incompleteness theorems

Oh for goodness sake, the relevance of Gödel to a discussion on religion vs atheism is what exactly? It's an interesting bit of logic and I seem to remember he proves it in a rather elegant way, but to argue that it means anything to an argument about whether religion does more good than atheism is stupid.

And to use Gõdel to argue that demanding proof of things is a bad idea is ridiculous given he is most famous for proving things, not to mention how silly it is to say that formal logic means that people shouldn't try and ask for evidence to support things you say.

Ps. Heisenberg would also be just as silly a thing to use to support your argument.

Mr Woppit - Member

Rowan Williams, being intelligent, earlier...

Ah, but his beard is a lot better these days. Shirley a good sign!

I'm am an atheist, scientist and believer in logical, rational thinking.

For this reason, this is hard to fault:

What certainly does come through is that he is a thoughtful and intelligent man.

Whatever your views on (his) religion, I believe that it is a good thing that we still have intelligent, thoughtful, people, whose public position is such that they have a platform - but not one that is corrupted by party politics or a corrosive media.

I don't agree with Rowan Williams' religious views, but I'm certainly prepared to listen to his views on society. I wish more would. That he has been lambasted is a sad reflection of our dumbed down and highly self interested, partisan, fragmented and dysfunctional country.