Print
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers
by Associated Press
Thanks to Ben Hope for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/13/europe/EU-REL-Britain-Archbishop-Atheists.php
LONDON: Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, criticized popular atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins on Saturday, saying they misunderstand religious beliefs and unfairly portray faith in God as "an eccentric survival strategy."
"There are specific areas of mismatch between what Richard Dawkins may write about and what religious people think they are doing," Williams said in a speech at the Taliesin Arts Center in Swansea, a port city in southwestern England. "There are few things more annoying than people saying 'I know what you mean.'"
Williams described Dawkins, a British expert in evolutionary biology and author of the best-selling book "The God Delusion," as a "wonderfully lively and attractive writer," but criticized the way he has attacked belief in God as irrational.
"Don't distract us from the real arguments by assuming that religion is an eccentric survival strategy or irrational form of explanation," Williams said in a lecture to about 1,000 people in the fully packed auditorium or listening via speakers in nearby rooms.
Recently, militant, atheist writers such as Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the author of "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," have been making an all-out assault on religious faith and the influence of religion in the world among nonbelievers.
Williams said many Christians would not recognize their religion as it is described by such critics.
"When believers pick up Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, we may feel as we turn the pages: 'This is not it. Whatever the religion being attacked here, it's not actually what I believe in,'" the archbishop said.
He said Darwinism is hailed as a "better explanation" of the world than religion, and that such writers often say: "Why doesn't religion retire graciously from the fold and say so?"
But Williams said religion cannot be accurately viewed in terms of science, as hypotheses, because belief in God comes with no conditions attached. For believers, he said, God is real and existed before the universe did.
"The believer who worships assumes absolutely that God is there and worth attending to," Williams said, adding: "If God was there before the Big Bang, he must be complex."
He urged atheist writers to better understand religion.
"The religious believer says that moral integrity, self-introspection, honesty and trust are styles of living that connect with the character of an eternal and free agency, the agency most religions call God. Agree or disagree, but I would say to critics, at least grasp that that is being talked about. Often the atheist seems to be talking about something else."
Reposted from:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/13/europe/EU-REL-Britain-Archbishop-Atheists.php
LONDON: Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, criticized popular atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins on Saturday, saying they misunderstand religious beliefs and unfairly portray faith in God as "an eccentric survival strategy."
"There are specific areas of mismatch between what Richard Dawkins may write about and what religious people think they are doing," Williams said in a speech at the Taliesin Arts Center in Swansea, a port city in southwestern England. "There are few things more annoying than people saying 'I know what you mean.'"
Williams described Dawkins, a British expert in evolutionary biology and author of the best-selling book "The God Delusion," as a "wonderfully lively and attractive writer," but criticized the way he has attacked belief in God as irrational.
"Don't distract us from the real arguments by assuming that religion is an eccentric survival strategy or irrational form of explanation," Williams said in a lecture to about 1,000 people in the fully packed auditorium or listening via speakers in nearby rooms.
Recently, militant, atheist writers such as Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the author of "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," have been making an all-out assault on religious faith and the influence of religion in the world among nonbelievers.
Williams said many Christians would not recognize their religion as it is described by such critics.
"When believers pick up Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, we may feel as we turn the pages: 'This is not it. Whatever the religion being attacked here, it's not actually what I believe in,'" the archbishop said.
He said Darwinism is hailed as a "better explanation" of the world than religion, and that such writers often say: "Why doesn't religion retire graciously from the fold and say so?"
But Williams said religion cannot be accurately viewed in terms of science, as hypotheses, because belief in God comes with no conditions attached. For believers, he said, God is real and existed before the universe did.
"The believer who worships assumes absolutely that God is there and worth attending to," Williams said, adding: "If God was there before the Big Bang, he must be complex."
He urged atheist writers to better understand religion.
"The religious believer says that moral integrity, self-introspection, honesty and trust are styles of living that connect with the character of an eternal and free agency, the agency most religions call God. Agree or disagree, but I would say to critics, at least grasp that that is being talked about. Often the atheist seems to be talking about something else."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 161 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #78562 by padster1976 on October 13, 2007 at 3:52 pm
"There are specific areas of mismatch between what Richard Dawkins may write about and what religious people think they are doing," Williams saidThere's an understatement - 'what they think they are doing' - ties nicely with 'Christians would not recognize their religion as it is described by such critics'.
I'm reminded of Hitchins saying then that the 'believer' is not adhering correctly to their faith. He was talking about so-called fanaticism and was attacking 'moderates'.
So I think the jist was that 'god' is entirely personal. So how can they deem to 'know him' and then say he is unknowable and then deem to interpret his wishes into rules on behaviour. Rules that, oh! support certain interests in positions of authority.
Other Comments by padster1976
3. Comment #78563 by Skeptic Pete on October 13, 2007 at 3:54 pm
"When believers pick up Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, we may feel as we turn the pages: 'This is not it. Whatever the religion being attacked here, it's not actually what I believe in,'" the archbishop said.------------------------------------------------
So they don't believe in virgin births, resurrections, miracles and an intercessionary deity after all?
"The religious believer says that moral integrity, self-introspection, honesty and trust are styles of living that connect with the character of an eternal and free agency, the agency most religions call God."
-----------------------------------------------
Hogwash.
Other Comments by Skeptic Pete
4. Comment #78564 by alan_s on October 13, 2007 at 3:55 pm
All I ever want to see one of these cult leaders asked to their face in front of millions - prove it.Other Comments by alan_s
5. Comment #78567 by black wolf on October 13, 2007 at 4:01 pm
...belief in God comes with no conditions attached. For believers, he said, God is real and existed before the universe did.
and
Don't distract us from the real arguments by assuming that religion is an ... irrational form of explanation
and
the character of an eternal and free agency
Belief? Character???
Dear Bishop, do you realize your cognitive dissonance, or do you refuse to grasp rational thinking?
Please enlighten us, what
Keep your goalposts, we don't want them.
Other Comments by black wolf
6. Comment #78568 by Teratornis on October 13, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Liberal faith-heads have to answer for fundamentalists just as atheists have to answer for mass-murdering Communist despots. I don't believe it satisfies any person of faith when a secular humanist atheist dismisses questions about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot with a "Well, that's not my style of atheism" or "No atheists I know actually promote show trials, gulags, and mass murder." Therefore, any faith-head who trots out that chestnut is no longer exempt from questions about promoting the style of thinking (faith) which reliably leads to fundamentalism in many people.
What's more, liberal faith-heads are still printing and distributing copies of ancient holy books which promote all the evils they claim not to believe in any more. At least secular humanist atheists are not printing and distributing books which promote violent Communist insurgency (I think). We actually edit our books to reflect our current thinking.
Other Comments by Teratornis
7. Comment #78571 by Richard Morgan on October 13, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Thanks for pushing up the book sales figures, Bish.Beckham couldn't have done better!
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
8. Comment #78572 by Matt7895 on October 13, 2007 at 4:18 pm
You can hardly expect the de facto head of the Church of England to say anything else. It is his job to support religion. Actually, its time the Queen gave her title of Head of the Church of England over to him, and become a truly secular head of state. Other Comments by Matt7895
9. Comment #78573 by Quine on October 13, 2007 at 4:19 pm
The common faithful do see Prof. Dawkins et al. attacking what they believe. I am waiting for them to turn to the theologians and ask the experts why they don't believe what the common faithful believe. (Not holding my breath while waiting, however.
) Other Comments by Quine
10. Comment #78574 by Ben Hope on October 13, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Comment #78568 by Teratornis With respect I wouldn't use the "Well, that's not my style of atheism" argument to counter accusations about Stalin et al. No the fallacy with such accusations lies in the implication that their crimes were directly to do with, or followed logically from, atheism (or specifically a-yahwehism) when in fact this is merely a *lack* of some specific belief. Instead one can only blame their positive dogmatic beliefs in communism, fascism etc. After all, these regimes were also aunicornistic, afairyistic, aPoseidonistic, aThoristic, and so on ad infinitum, but one would never dream of blaming Stalin's lack of belief in fairies.
Other Comments by Ben Hope
11. Comment #78575 by Cartomancer on October 13, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Rowan Williams is a wonderful Archbishop of Canterbury. Ticks all the boxes - big beard, soothing authoritative voice, so woolly and liberal that pinning him down on an issue is harder than nailing an ocean to the wall... If all faith-heads were genuinely nice, dotty old avuncular figures like him then I'd have no trouble living in a world full of them.I'm just waiting to see him in the grand final of the world eyebrow jousting championships against Sir Bernard Ingham...
Other Comments by Cartomancer
12. Comment #78577 by Titchfield on October 13, 2007 at 4:28 pm
How very patronising. Please note, he's still not offered any evidence for the existence of his god. Also, I'd expect the Archbishop to sack any Bishop who proclaimed that he didn't know how bad child abuse was in 1990 because it was a different time back then. But he didn't do that either. From my point of view, he's a monster.As for the Queen, I don't think she can just give over the title, constitutionally speaking. I do however think it's totally unreasonable for the government to continue to force the reigning monarch to cowtow to one religion or another, particularly when they don't have to (anymore).
Other Comments by Titchfield
13. Comment #78578 by A.Lex on October 13, 2007 at 4:29 pm
A-bishop Williams urges atheist writers to better understand religion.RD responds: "Do you have to read up on leprechology to disbelieve?"
Other Comments by A.Lex
14. Comment #78579 by Cartomancer on October 13, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Oh, and last time I checked Swansea was in Wales, not England... Other Comments by Cartomancer
15. Comment #78580 by GBG on October 13, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Article in short: Rowan Williams stamped his feet and said "mummy, make the man stop saying horrible things about my invisible friend". Other Comments by GBG
16. Comment #78581 by Richard Morgan on October 13, 2007 at 4:35 pm
He urged atheist writers to better understand religion.OK. As long as you don't mind my starting with Catharism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Are you ok with that, Bish?
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
17. Comment #78582 by Paul Creber on October 13, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Cartomancer 11 Rowan Williams is a wonderful Archbishop of Canterbury. Ticks all the boxes - big beard, soothing authoritative voice, so woolly and liberal that pinning him down on an issue is harder than nailing an ocean to the wall... If all faith-heads were genuinely nice, dotty old avuncular figures like him then I'd have no trouble living in a world full of them. I'm just waiting to see him in the grand final of the world eyebrow jousting championships against Sir Bernard Ingham....
Brilliant. You just hit the nail on the ... ocean.
Other Comments by Paul Creber
18. Comment #78583 by Cartomancer on October 13, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Catharism eh? Funnily enough I'm writing a paper at the moment on certain thirteenth century English theologians' responses to dualist heresies (one of whom, John Blund, was actually Archbishop of Canterbury in 1232) and the tone adopted by some of them reminds me of nothing other than our very own Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion... Other Comments by Cartomancer
19. Comment #78585 by Teratornis on October 13, 2007 at 4:46 pm
In reply to comment #78573 by Quine:The common faithful do see Prof. Dawkins et. at. attacking what they believe. I am waiting for them to turn to the theologians and ask the experts why they don't believe what the common faithful believe. (Not holding my breath while waiting, however.)
I'm sure most of the common faithful are too heavily mired in the style over substance fallacy to save your life if you should decide to hold your breath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_over_substance
Anyone who lacks the critical thinking skills to grasp Prof. Dawkins' arguments will probably think somewhat animalistically like this:
1. Prof. Dawkins is questioning my ideas.
2. When someone questions my ideas, I feel offended, and automatically reject what he says (at least until the crushing weight of overwhelming reality forces me to entertain the possibility that I could be wrong, farfetched as that may seem).
3. The Archbishop is standing up to Prof. Dawkins.
4. Therefore, Dawkins bad, Archbishop good.
Of course the chain of "reasoning" won't be in so many words. That's more of a narrative describing the magma of emotions swirling through the subconscious.
However, while I still don't advise holding your breath, I think there is much value in the long run from having Prof. Dawkins and the other "new atheists" exposing the disconnect between the beliefs of the rank and file vs. the professionals they pay to represent them. If nothing else, it might at least raise awareness of the charade that has gone on since around the Enlightenment, as religious intellectuals began evolving away from piety in the sense still understood by hoi polloi.
A central enabling principle of religion is to train people not to question. That's one reason why the most dogmatic faiths regularly churn out such spectacularly scandal-ridden characters who turn out to be exactly the opposite of what they claimed to be. Of course the hucksters were able to fool masses of people who have been trained not to ask tough questions, and instead to trust religious men at their word.
If the new atheist books get people in the pews to start asking questions such as:
1. What do I really believe?
2. What do my leaders really believe?
3. How do we know we are right, and the new atheists are wrong?
it's going to make faith feel increasingly less comfortable to any believer with an IQ much above 100.
Other Comments by Teratornis
20. Comment #78590 by Johnny O on October 13, 2007 at 5:19 pm
the Taliesin Arts Center in Swansea, a port city in southwestern England.
Last time I looked Swansea was in Wales...
because belief in God comes with no conditions attached
What?? So the whole, "Do what I say or you'll go to Hell" isn't a condition?
Williams said, adding: "If God was there before the Big Bang, he must be complex."Which, (if he had read TGD properly he would see), is the very reason that He almost certainly does not exist.
Talk about preaching to the choir, this is a sad attack on Atheist books and seems to be based on reviews of them, rather than actually addressing points made in them.
Other Comments by Johnny O
21. Comment #78591 by Teratornis on October 13, 2007 at 5:20 pm
In reply to comment #78574 by Ben Hope:
With respect I wouldn't use the "Well, that's not my style of atheism" argument to counter accusations about Stalin et al. No the fallacy with such accusations lies in the implication that their crimes were directly to do with, or followed logically from, atheism (or specifically a-yahwehism) when in fact this is merely a *lack* of some specific belief. Instead one can only blame their positive dogmatic beliefs in communism, fascism etc. After all, these regimes were also aunicornistic, afairyistic, aPoseidonistic, aThoristic, and so on ad infinitum, but one would never dream of blaming Stalin's lack of belief in fairies.
Well, I think the religious person's view is that Christianity specifically discourages mass murder, and for the past several centuries that has arguably been the case, that is if we ignore the atrocities done to the Native Americans, African slaves, and Tasmanians, and the mass bombing of civilians by all sides during World War II, etc., actions which weren't usually done in the name of religion but were certainly compatible with it. If belief in fairies could have prevented Pol Pot from seizing power, or made him into a nicer person when he reached the top, then fairies would be germane to the argument. I would imagine the Christian doesn't buy the fairy argument here because the Christian doesn't see fairy beliefs having the power to transform evil men into good men like Christianity does (or so they believe).
I'm not sure what sort of argument we can make which will put a dent in that belief. Mere logic isn't going to cut it.
Of course the argument has nothing to do with the correctness of the belief system which might happen to restrain dictators. It may be worth pointing out that Germany was probably a majority Christian nation throughout the Third Reich, and that did not restrain Hitler very much. Actually there were substantial objections to the eugenics policies of the Nazis from Roman Catholic Germans, at least when the victims were the defective relatives of good German Catholics. When the victims became the Jews, and the pretense of "eugenics" lost any logical basis it might have had (European Jews were by objective measures generally superior on average to the people who killed them, in terms of average education level, lower propensity to criminality, testable IQ, etc.), then the complaints from German Catholics declined to a manageable level.
This article mentions some of these ideas, as well as Steven Pinker's comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Slippery_slope
I should add that Communist despots did to atheism something like what Hitler did to eugenics: made it almost impossible for anyone to think logically about the topics thereafter. Imagine trying to justify "classical" eugenics today based on purely logical arguments (for example, try suggesting compulsory sterilization for the mentally retarded, which used to be accepted in many modern nations as a matter of course), and that is something like what atheism is up against in the minds of the faithful who have been trained to associate atheism with Communist despots. I'm not sure what kind of argument it takes to cut through that association, whether the association is spurious or not.
Other Comments by Teratornis
22. Comment #78592 by Quine on October 13, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Teratornis 19 Of course the chain of "reasoning" won't be in so many words. That's more of a narrative describing the magma of emotions swirling through the subconscious.
Last night a friend told me that people trying to recover from substance abuse had to find a "higher power" to succeed. I tried (unsuccessfully
) to explain that that "higher power" was the unconscious mind. Other Comments by Quine
23. Comment #78595 by Theocrapcy on October 13, 2007 at 5:37 pm
BISHOP IN ATHEIST CRITICISM SHOCKER Other Comments by Theocrapcy
24. Comment #78601 by edwaltthespisactor on October 13, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Tut tut tut. Archbishop, how noble of you to take the moral high ground and not give a rise to the various debates of atheism. How paternal for you to gently shake your head and say:"they misunderstand religious beliefs "
and
"atheist writers [should strive to] better understand religion."
As clearly the detail and breadth of the arguments by the popular atheist writers is insufficient held up against your own superlative consciousness around the ins and outs of the current debate.
Your comments on the origin of the universe, game theory, and the of course the 'real arguments' belie your flagrant laziness in exploring the atheist position, even to the degree of simple self defence. Even Kent Hovind appears more switched on to the debate and its verious topics than your reverend self.
Furthermore, what is this supposed to connote, suicide atheist bombers???:
"militant, atheist writers such as Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, "
I have yet to see Hitchens or the Prof with a gun in their hands. The only WMD's on this side of the fence are the elegant and stirring Words of Messiah Disproval.
Best to avoid praise before a but:
"wonderfully lively and attractive writer,"
Because it makes you sound like a used faith salesman - Younger model, only 2000 on the clock, strong appreciation, retains value well over a 3 day rest-ascension period, runs on water as comes with catalytic converter as standard. Why am I selling, well...no longer fits my lifestyle.
Other Comments by edwaltthespisactor
25. Comment #78602 by Teratornis on October 13, 2007 at 6:17 pm
In reply to comment #78592 by Quine:
Last night a friend told me that people trying to recover from substance abuse had to find a "higher power" to succeed. I tried (unsuccessfully :sad:) to explain that that "higher power" was the unconscious mind.
You might not have been immediately successful, but I am pudding proof that the seeds of such seditious ideas can take root even in a faith-shackled mind, and eventually blossom into a verdant forest of doubt, with every bough sagging under the bounteous fruit of mixed metaphors.
For me, one of the questions that got my doubt groove going was one that was originally intended to generate more piety. Some preacher or someone had asked, rhetorically, something like:
"If the Holy Spirit withdrew from the world today, how many church programs and activities would continue as if nothing had changed?"
I think the point of that question was to get Christians to examine their activities and root out worldliness or something, but I remember thinking about that for a long time. Each time I observed the Christians around me doing things, I evaluated what I observed against that test: how much of what I was seeing could have occurred without any sort of divine input? And the answer, eventually, turned out to be "All of it." The more I thought about it, the more I increased my estimate, 80%, 90%, 95%, eventually 100%.
I kept trying to see God in anything I observed at church, and I could not. Everything appeared to have perfectly plausible natural explanations. There was never anything remotely miraculous that I saw, and nothing that any of my fellow Christians could document even to a preliminary degree that would have justified a more serious investigation.
I had also noticed a suspicious correlation between the miraculousness of any miraculous claims, and their distance in terms of time and space. God allegedly was doing or had done mighty works, but always in times or places I could not check. As if God was like the mythical "Hide-behind," the creature that always runs behind the back of your head, no matter how quickly you turn to look. (Although you could try to outwit the Hide-behind with mirrors, I suppose.)
It took me years to get to that realization that God played no apparent role in anything I could observe in the faithful. I could not have absorbed that point on the first hearing. So be patient with your friend, and just keep applying the steady pressure which gradually effects change, like the earthworms which can slowly bury boulders by steadily undermining the soil beneath them. It may be easier for your friend to grasp the non-miraculous nature of what other people around him or her are doing, as we tend to be less mystified by others in some ways than by ourselves (standing awestruck over our own introspective abyss).
Other Comments by Teratornis
26. Comment #78603 by Quine on October 13, 2007 at 6:31 pm
From comment #78602 by Teratornis... eventually blossom into a verdant forest of doubt, with every bough sagging under the bounteous fruit of mixed metaphors.
Wordslinger, heal thyself ...
Actually, I enjoyed your comment very much, and encourage you to expand it and submit it to the deconversion section.
Other Comments by Quine
27. Comment #78605 by Jack Rawlinson on October 13, 2007 at 6:51 pm
"Don't distract us from the real arguments by assuming that religion is an eccentric survival strategy or irrational form of explanation,"Okay, now you're going to explain what the "real arguments" are, and how your religion is not an "irrational form of explanation", right, Williams? Can't wait.
*Wind howls across a dustblown prairie*
"When believers pick up Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, we may feel as we turn the pages: 'This is not it. Whatever the religion being attacked here, it's not actually what I believe in,'"
Okay, now you're going to explain what "it" is; what you actually believe in, right, Williams?
*A distant bell tolls mournfully*
"He urged atheist writers to better understand religion."
Okay, and now you're going to explain it better to us, so that we may better understand, right, Williams?
*Tumbleweed rolls*
You've got nothing, Williams. You, Eagleton, the whole pathetic lot of you. You whine and whine that your beliefs are misunderstood and misrepresented but never - NOT ONCE - do any of you take the time to explain carefully and precisely what they are. Because you've got nothing. You know damned well that the second you tried to do that we'd tear whatever it is you defined right down along with the invisible sky pixie God, the Judeo-Christian Old testament God, Allah, Ganesh and the rest. The truth is you either look silly by explaining your belief or you look silly by refusing to explain your belief; by falling back on the obvious cowardly device of grandly declaring that your god is, and must remain, beyond clear apprehension.
Williams, you and your ilk are contemptible spiritual weaklings. Go pray to your shapeshifting fuzzy cloud of a deity, you silly old fool. Come back if you ever manage to find the guts to define your god and hold it up for examination.
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
28. Comment #78609 by steveroot on October 13, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Oh, shoot. I thought it said "Rowan Atkinson". I was expecting something like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTzXJMU1sLc
Sigh.
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
29. Comment #78610 by keith on October 13, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Teratornis,Very good comments. At first I was confused as to why you hadn't used the argument espoused by Ben Hope (a disbelief in fairies) and Richard Dawkins (the moustaches of Hitler and Stalin) as factors in explaining away the mass murders of atheists. But you are right, in the minds of the faithful these don't have the power to transform bad men into good, as does a belief in god. However, it does seem unfair that we atheists should have to claim 20th century mass murderers as our own. Do you have a way out of this? I suppose just say that their actions weren't motivated by their atheism, unlike jihadis.
If you're interested in music, I recommend Where you're eyes don't go by 'They Might Be Giants', a song about the Hide-Behind.
Other Comments by keith
30. Comment #78611 by keith on October 13, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Wow Jack, you sound a little angry.. Other Comments by keith
31. Comment #78612 by Spinoza on October 13, 2007 at 9:07 pm
"The religious believer says that moral integrity, self-introspection, honesty and trust are styles of living that connect with the character of an eternal and free agency, the agency most religions call God. Agree or disagree, but I would say to critics, at least grasp that that is being talked about. Often the atheist seems to be talking about something else."
I'm an atheist, and a philosopher, and a writer, and I'm not talking about something else, I'm talking about that "character of eternal and free agency"... it doesn't exist.
Except insofar as it is natural... and that ain't your God, sir. That's MY God. The natural universe.
Deus sive Natura. :)
Other Comments by Spinoza
32. Comment #78615 by octopus on October 13, 2007 at 9:44 pm
As religious people, it's not that God is the explanation for this bit or that bit of the universe, even the very beginning of the universe. We're saying that the nature of our relationship with the universe, the process of thinking and explaining, that very structure requires some comprehensive energy at another level, which sustains it as it is.
So, to summarise: no creation, no interference, even no supreme being as such, us in the centre and a bit of mumbo-jumbo about some unknown form of energy.
Are we abandoning personal god now?
Sounds to me more like archbishop of feng-shui.
However, it is illusory to think a religous person will change their mind overnight (or at all). Conditioning of neural nets in limbic brain(or if you will, firmware upload) is done early in childhood and is difficult to change during the life (especially if you do not have formed basic subroutine that does "if new idea makes more logical sense than old idea -> replace/upgrade"). That is why I strongly agree with Richard's position about child abuse with all this religous nonsense.
Historical expulsion of god from mountains to clouds, to orbit, to outer space and now even beyond (whatever beyond is) is certainly encouraging, but it will take time.
One more point - about journalist. Calling Richard militant is really outrageous. One could write something like that only if:
a) he never read anything from Richard (incompetence)
b) he intentionally does it for propaganda reasons (malicious)
Other Comments by octopus
33. Comment #78622 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 11:02 pm
ARCHBISHOP UNWIN"There are few things more annoying than people saying 'I know what you mean.'"
CARR
One of the great ironic statements of our time, by a man whose writing often has a fog index of over 30.
ARCHBISHOP UNWIN
'So to be in Christ is to be committed to this
action for the sake of each other and for the world; the hope of our calling is the hope of this mutuality whose full possibility is given by the one faith and one baptism into our one Lord.'
CARR
I know what you mean.
ARCHBISHOP UNWIN (attacking Dawkins)
"The believer who worships assumes absolutely that God is there and worth attending to," Williams said, adding: "If God was there before the Big Bang, he must be complex."
He urged atheist writers to better understand religion.
PROFESSOR ALVIN PLANTINGA (attacking Dawkins)
'First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple...'
CARR
How can you understand something that is just being made up on the spur of the moment?
Other Comments by stevencarrwork
34. Comment #78623 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 11:10 pm
TETRARTONISWell, I think the religious person's view is that Christianity specifically discourages mass murder...
CARR
William Lane Craig debates many atheists, and he wanted to debate Dawkins.
Watch Craig defend mass murder....
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
Other Comments by stevencarrwork
35. Comment #78626 by junklight on October 13, 2007 at 11:44 pm
I got the impression from the John Humphries interview some time ago, and other statements that The ArchBishop has made that he barely believes in God at all. He certainly doesn't think God can or even would intervene in human affairs for example. If we wasn't head of the Church of England I would have him down as a Theist and leave it at that (ie. believes in some wooly vague 'higher being' that set up the big bang but has bugger all to do with us humans when it comes right down it it type of god)Other Comments by junklight
36. Comment #78629 by nothing on October 14, 2007 at 12:36 am
CARR
William Lane Craig debates many atheists, and he wanted to debate Dawkins.
Watch Craig defend mass murder....
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
Thank you for this link. I have finally lost all respect for William Lane Craig.
Unfortunately, to my knowledge, it remains the case that he is still a successful propagandist. Why? Because he's a professional debater and he uses every trick, lie and half-truth in and out of the book to convince those all-too-eager to be convinced.
Other Comments by nothing
37. Comment #78635 by Vadjong on October 14, 2007 at 1:33 am
BTW : WOW, I'm astounded how such a unremarkable non-article can spawn such a rich plethora of comments, full of wit, wisdom, literacy and even poetry (as ever, actually). I know which side I am on."There are few things more annoying than people saying 'I know what you mean.'"
Does he have this backwards, or what ? One of the 'few' things more annoying is people saying : "I refuse to let your insights dispell the fog in my head. I'm not hearing you ! LALALALAAA !"
Other Comments by Vadjong
38. Comment #78637 by Vaal on October 14, 2007 at 1:40 am
Oh DearThey really are on the run. Pew's getting emptier Archbishop?
Other Comments by Vaal
39. Comment #78639 by PaulJ on October 14, 2007 at 2:13 am
Watch Craig defend mass murder....Utterly despicable. I feel unclean after reading Craig's piece.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
Other Comments by PaulJ
40. Comment #78640 by Northern Bright on October 14, 2007 at 2:34 am
He urged atheist writers to better understand religion.
By which he really means, to suspend their disbelief and stop applying their irritating demands for evidence to something for which, clearly, there is no evidence whatsovever. Or in other words: "Cut us some slack, guys. Stop asking us to prove things - you know that's not fair."
No doubt it would be reasonable to assume that he's also urging theist apologists to better understand scientific explanations for the existence of the universe, the origin of life on Earth, the origins of morality etc?
No? Oh, silly me.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
41. Comment #78641 by Peacebeuponme on October 14, 2007 at 2:39 am
"If God was there before the Big Bang, he must be complex."Dianelos, are you watching? Care to take that up with the bushy-eyebrowed one?
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
42. Comment #78643 by mmurray on October 14, 2007 at 3:05 am
There is something irritating about the hypocrisy of people like this. Happy to go along with all the mumbo-jumbo associated with christmas and easter but at heart he probably doesn't believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection. Why doesn't me admit that he agrees with Richard that there is no personal god that answers prayers and is interested in our sex lives. Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
43. Comment #78647 by Ian on October 14, 2007 at 3:40 am
The believer who worships assumes absolutely that God is there and worth attending to," Williams said, adding: "If God was there before the Big Bang, he must be complex.
But dear Archbishop, the whole attack on darwinism rests on the assumption that complex things require explanation precisely because they are complex. You can not just assume whatever you want and expect to be believed, because it gives no justification to favour one belief over another. If you want to take that stance then you are going to have to justify why anyone should prefer Christianity, because at the moment your position in that regard is unjustified.
Also, the admission that believers assume the existence of God relegates religion to a position under science, epistomologically, because science requires corroboration for any proposition.
Consequentially, your position does not address the great mysteries of existence and so cannot make a meaningful contribution to them. This is profound only in the degree to which it fails to say anything worthwhile.
The religious believer says that moral integrity, self-introspection, honesty and trust are styles of living that connect with the character of an eternal and free agency, the agency most religions call God.
Are the religious really so foolish as to assume they have some special handle on integrity, honesty and self-introspection (btw, what other kind of introspection can there be)?
The truth is that all human beings have some degree of introspection and they are free to decide to be honest and cultivate integrity without regard to either supernatural beings or even other people.
The religious claim that they have some extra grasp of these things is proof that they don't. It shows that if they were really committed to integrity the religious wouldn't claim that we need to study theology when that field of study had no relevence to the question of whther God exists at all. That is a rhetorical ploy inconsistent with integrity.
Other Comments by Ian
44. Comment #78648 by drive1 on October 14, 2007 at 4:13 am
Don't distract us from the real arguments ...
.. belief in God comes with no conditions attached
Smokescreen. The 'real arguments', from the ArchBish's point of view, are all about preventing the Anglican empire from disintegrating on his watch. With the threat of African and American schisms, this is just a case of transference. He's too intelligent to think this will really work (the faithful will be distracted, but his arguments will be ripped to shreds) .. but desperate people do desperate things.
Other Comments by drive1
45. Comment #78651 by scottishgeologist on October 14, 2007 at 5:00 am
PaulJYes, that Craig article is pretty grim. But regarding mass destruction, there are still plenty of faith heads who would have no qualms about it today.
Check out Franklin Graham (Billy Grahams son) on CNN:
http://cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lt.01.html
In particular:
GRAHAM: This is different, this is for the sake and security of this nation. And this may sound rough, Judy, but we need to use every weapon in our arsenal that need be to defeat this enemy. And I don't think we should hold back. And we'll make a great mistake if we hold back our technology and hold back our weapons and put young men and women in there and sacrifice them because we're scared to use some of our major weapons. And I think we're going to have to use every -- and I hate to say it, hellish weapon in our inventory, if need be, to defeat these people.
AND
But let's use the weapons we have, the weapons of mass destruction if need be and destroy the enemy.
Chilling stuff.
SG
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
46. Comment #78657 by idmaer on October 14, 2007 at 6:15 am
Teratornis/78585: However, while I still don't advise holding your breath, I think there is much value in the long run from having Prof. Dawkins and the other "new atheists" exposing the disconnect between the beliefs of the rank and file vs. the professionals they pay to represent them.
I think the dear archbish is doing us a favour here, because anyone becoming receptive to the RD (et. al.) message at least stands a chance of recognising that his (Williams') argument is a bit short on substance. Of course there will be some who will be reassured by his "expertise" and "authority" and, relieved, retreat back into their mental cage, but anyone who has actually started to think ("doubt" in religionist parlance) may well perceive that our learned prelate's "misunderstood" perspective on whatever it is he insists on believing in amounts to little more than fog.
In my view it is the first stage, of starting to think, that most needs encouragement, and for this the continuing publicity that RD generates - often with the help of his detractors - is enormously valuable. Just knowing that a significant sector of society is non-religious, and regards "faith" not as admirable but with contempt, will be enough to get a few honest minds working.
As for the "disconnect", yes these "sophisticated" religious "thinkers" should be pressed to make clear to the "punters in the pew" exactly what they do - and more tellingly don't - believe in. But for many "believers" the disconnect may not be so great - they probably already recognise that an overwatching and intervening type of God is pretty implausible but cling to the notion that "there must be Something" and that they are somehow improved by giving It recognition. These folk may even be relieved to learn that it's too difficult for them to really understand, because that allows them to continue to "believe"! And others, alas, will become attracted to the simplicities and certainties of fundamentalism.
Other Comments by idmaer
47. Comment #78658 by Jiffy on October 14, 2007 at 6:17 am
Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it!"Don't distract us from the real arguments by assuming that religion is an eccentric survival strategy or irrational form of explanation"
So presumably the good Bishop is asserting that religion is rational. By definition it would then be susceptible to some sort of rational enquiry, lets say the scientific method. The scientific method quite likes to deal with evidence before lending support to a particular hypothesis. Oops no evidence therefore nothing to support the conclusion. Atheists don't 'assume' religion is an irrational form of explanation we 'demonstrate' that it is! Calling something rational does not make it so.
But Williams said religion cannot be accurately viewed in terms of science, as hypotheses, because belief in God comes with no conditions attached. For believers, he said, God is real and existed before the universe did.
In other words I can't rationally explain what I believe in and I can't back it up with any proof, it just is OK. That's not my fault there must be something wrong with your scientific method. Please stop asking me difficult questions.
"The believer who worships assumes absolutely that God is there and worth attending to," Williams said, adding: "If God was there before the Big Bang, he must be complex.
Translated as: I believe it therefore it exists. How dare you call me irrational, I can arrange words in an apparently logical way. What I say must therefore be logical. Hey presto I have squared the circular argument.
He urged atheist writers to better understand religion
We understand it better than you know. Fortunately we are not capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast and are capable of recognising logical fallacies when we see them. By all means keep trying to defend the indefensible, by doing so you are only strengthening and publicising our arguments!
Other Comments by Jiffy
48. Comment #78662 by lbq on October 14, 2007 at 6:39 am
The Church of England (like the Church of Sweden, which I was nominally baptized into) has never been known for believing in anything particular, except the established order, including itself of course. So it is not really possible to accuse it of being religious. It is simply the Royal Board of Ceremonies.—The C. of Sweden was disestablished, more or less, in 2000, and its membership is going down precipitously. This would undoubtedly happen in Britain too, if the British should have a fit of religious freedom.Other Comments by lbq
49. Comment #78665 by rgpratt on October 14, 2007 at 7:03 am
Much as I agree with many of the sentiments here, I'm afraid that these criticisms are somewhat off the mark:edwaltthespisactor
Furthermore, what is this supposed to connote, suicide atheist bombers???:
"militant, atheist writers such as Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, "
I have yet to see Hitchens or the Prof with a gun in their hands.
octopus
One more point - about journalist. Calling Richard militant is really outrageous. One could write something like that only if:
a) he never read anything from Richard (incompetence)
b) he intentionally does it for propaganda reasons (malicious)
Perhaps a quick view of RD's TED Talk http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113 target="_blank">
here might convince you? (See 5:00 - 5:30 in the talk).
RD is of course speaking with his tongue firmly in cheek, but the point is that we shouldn't really object to the "militant" label; at least one meaning is "aggressive in the service of a cause". (It does nevertheless open the door to those faith-heads who want to conflate this with the other meaning of "engaged in warfare or combat".)
Other Comments by rgpratt
50. Comment #78666 by bouwe on October 14, 2007 at 7:30 am
A few snippets from the aforementioned William Lane Craig article (for the benefit of those who may have found it -- understandably -- too painful to click the link and read it for themselves):So the problem isn't that God ended the Canaanites' lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn't that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it's not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God's commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God's command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.
On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.
And a little later in the same article:
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
"...those who did so were national heroes"
Um.... that , Dr.Craig, is not what we find disturbing here, you pile of crawling scum.
BTW, comment 21 seems to have just disappeared.
Other Comments by bouwe
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #78561 by shaunfletcher on October 13, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Other Comments by shaunfletcher