Archbishop of Canterbury not sure that God exists
Discussion
XCP said:
Rovinghawk said:
XCP said:
Cogito ergo sum? That's just one theory.
Got a better one?I am 100% certain that I exist, and that other entities external to me exist. Although what exactly 'I' and 'me' consist of is open to debate.
Breadvan72 said:
I'm not sure I follow the logic of the argument.What has atheism got to do with morality?
Morals are personal. They cannot be imposed - they are called laws. Laws can be based on morality.
Laws can also be based on religion, such as restrictions on people due to sex, sexual orientation, birth, status and more, but I can't see why not believing in any religion is a moral stand.
Laws, such as murder, are based on the needs of the society.
Much of what we think of as civilised behaviour today is against the teaching of some religions.
The subject of morality and the way it has changed over the years is a much more interesting subject on whether religions are right or not - that's easy enough to work out.
Breadvan72 said:
As many of the comments on that article say - what a strawman argument it is!To quote one of the best comments on there (IMO);
Doesnotcompute said:
" I say this as a self described militant neo-atheist: any belief can become a religion. Even a disbelief can be followed religiously. Religion is nothing more than mindless conviction, the insistence of a conclusion irrelevant of reason or evidence. Communism is a religion. Capitalism is a religion. Tiger-mom-ism is a religion. And for some, few though some, atheism is a religion, and ironically so, for the vast majority of us arrive at skepticism as a direct result of rejecting mindless belief. It is that basic impulse, to accept a belief without consideration, which is the root of all the world's problems".
The straw argument is that atheism in general has become a religion. Most atheists choose to be so on the basis of applied scepticism, not faith. There is too much pandering to religion in public debate. It seeks and is too often given a privileged status in the marketplace of ideas.
There is nothing wrong with an atheist who holds their own personal belief while being willing to ponder and discuss that belief in a reasonable manner, just the same as the AofC questioning (with reason) his own faith.
The problem is not with the concept of atheism specifically, like theist religions the problem lies with some of the people that follow the religion and how they practise it. There are some supposed atheists on here that prescribe to the belief that all theist religions should be banished, then go on to put their faith in the written book of one man, namely Dawkins. To persecute those of other faiths and to justify that way of thinking by quoting a book, sound familiar?
The problem is not with the concept of atheism specifically, like theist religions the problem lies with some of the people that follow the religion and how they practise it. There are some supposed atheists on here that prescribe to the belief that all theist religions should be banished, then go on to put their faith in the written book of one man, namely Dawkins. To persecute those of other faiths and to justify that way of thinking by quoting a book, sound familiar?
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 20th September 09:26
Qwert1e said:
Jasandjules said:
I am only surprised that intelligent people believe in a God.
Since you've got it all cracked, can you just let us know why there is a universe?You see when push comes to shove there's only one question and it's rather a tricky one. Namely, why is there "anything" and not "nothing"?
The difference between rationalism and religion is that the rational person says "I don't know, but maybe one day we'll work it out based on evidence and reason" and the religious person says "BECAUSE GOD DUH!", the same as they explained a thunderstorm before we had meteorology, and the stars in the sky before we had astronomy.
Edited by BMWBen on Saturday 20th September 09:36
Breadvan72 said:
You have completely missed the point of the article, which is that the backlash against so called militant atheism is misplaced.
The article states:"Meanwhile, I'm losing count of and patience with the apologists who tell me there would be no morality without religion. The failure of the serious press and BBC to question this is as shocking as it is depressing. We are almost 150 years on from the moment in 1867 when Matthew Arnold heard the sea of faith's "melancholy, long, withdrawing roar" on Dover Beach. Are religious writers suggesting mid-Victorian Britain was a more moral country in its treatment of women, homosexuals and the poor?
"Few dare maintain that immorality has increased as religious observance has collapsed. Instead, they say that everyone's morality, whether they are religious or not, is rooted in our common Christian culture, or our common Judaeo-Christian culture or, as an opponent in debate told me last year, our common Judaeo-Christian-Islamic culture. Forget if you can that there is much in religious culture that is immoral, not least a willingness to slaughter each other, and consider that if everyone is religious then no one is religious; religion is emptied of meaning and just becomes a vague cultural inheritance, like driving on the left or letting off fireworks on bonfire night."
I fail to see the connection between atheism, which is nothing more that rejection of the idea of there being a god, and morality.
It is not a moral decision. The lack of faith in a god is the only thing that connects them, i.e. something that does not exist. Whilst the analogy of not belonging to a model railway club is rather numerous, there is a certain accuracy in it. Over and above the connection of not being in a club, they have nothing else in common.
I do not believe in any religion. All are man-made and this is so patently obvious that it requires no justification. But this does not impose on me any requirement for a course of conduct. I am appalled by actions of those who kidnap, torture and then murder people. This is done on purportedly religious grounds, although I tend to think that such people are just nasty and after power and authority. I accept these are two things which the religious organisers tend to favour as well, but there are such nasty people in government. Any actions I take against such evil people are not because of the fact I don't believe in any religion.
Not believing in religion does not mean I should do something. I resent having my freedoms limited by the religious, but then I feel the same way about politicians who do it without justification as well.
It is a fundamental error to equate religion with morals. There are no morals in abrahamic religions, just directions.
The country has not become more moral over the years. That is a silly thing to suggest. What we have done is to limit the restrictions based on sexual orientation, sex and, to a more limited extent, the vulnerable.
By the way I'm not one of those who says that a god, or lots of them, do not exist. My feeling is that whether they do or not is of no consequence.
Breadvan72 said:
You have completely missed the point of the article, and seized on one passing comment because it appeals to one of your many hobby horses.
Perhaps we should form a club then.Hardly one passing comment. I accept I can, as anyone, miss the point of an article. The mention of morality in the two passing paragraphs is what confused me.
Derek Smith said:
The obvious question.
The thing is, though, that atheists do not suggest they have it all cracked. Only the religious suggest they do.
The raving fundie might suggest that they've got it ALL cracked. I think the point of the thread is that the dear old C of E has loads of people in with a faith that allows of other possibilities-hopefully more a modest & quieter faith than that the sweeping claims of the extreme factions.The thing is, though, that atheists do not suggest they have it all cracked. Only the religious suggest they do.
Some who feel science is the ONLY way of establishing any 'truth' are close to claiming to have cracked it.
Maybe they're right. If they were I'd find that a little depressing.
standards said:
The raving fundie might suggest that they've got it ALL cracked. I think the point of the thread is that the dear old C of E has loads of people in with a faith that allows of other possibilities-hopefully more a modest & quieter faith than that the sweeping claims of the extreme factions.
Some who feel science is the ONLY way of establishing any 'truth' are close to claiming to have cracked it.
Maybe they're right. If they were I'd find that a little depressing.
Science obviously is nowhere near to cracking 'it', whatever it is. The history of science tells us that over the years some scientists suggest they are near to describing the universe and then another one comes along to show that they were working along the wrong lines.Some who feel science is the ONLY way of establishing any 'truth' are close to claiming to have cracked it.
Maybe they're right. If they were I'd find that a little depressing.
We've had genius to show us the way. Principia Mathematica is one of the most remarkable books to ever be produced and you can forgive, or at least empathise with, those who thought that there was little more to discover. Then along came Einstein and the same sort of thing happened again.
I accept that the cold reality of us being nothing more than a predicable (if you have the science) outcome of the specific environment of the Earth is a wee bit depressing but then there is something exciting about discovery.
And, of course, you never know. Nor will we. So there is always a chance there is something else, just out of reach at the moment. The only certain thing is that no religion has it either.
I honestly think there is something out there that will surprise and shock us and change our entire outlook. I also hope there is. If it turns out to be the god of Abraham, I'll be disappointed, and a little nervous, but the odds against that are very long indeed.
I think the most depressing thing for me is that I'll never know. But then, that goes for all of us. Or rather those who depend of faith to kid themselves that they have all the answers is just as/more depressing.
pork911 said:
Religions make a mistake when they attempt to invoke any facts or evidence.
Just as atheists make a mistake when they criticise theists for being unable to prove god.
Just being unable to prove anything about religion demonstrates enough for me. Just as atheists make a mistake when they criticise theists for being unable to prove god.
Esseesse said:
What is this God that you don't believe in? People say they believe/don't believe in God when I feel it's not really defined what God is. Perhaps with the right definition you do believe in God?
This confuses me too, exactly what is this god that so many billions believe in????Define what it is, and I'll tell you whether I believe in it, and if not, why not. And you'll understand what I mean when I say I don't believe in it.
Derek Smith said:
The history of science tells us that over the years some scientists suggest they are near to describing the universe and then another one comes along to show that they were working along the wrong lines.
And then the church comes along to tell us 'a big guy in the sky created it all'.....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff