General / Off-Topic After the attacks in Paris, the archbishop of Canterbury recognizes to have doubted the presence of God

[Patrick_68000]

After the attacks in Paris, the archbishop of Canterbury recognizes to have doubted the presence of God

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc...e-of-God-admits-Archbishop-of-Canterbury.html

 

[Jason S]

And at the same time many scientists are starting to believe consciousness is fundamental, immortal and everywhere.

Ironic.

 

[Avago Earo]

And at the same time many scientists are starting to believe consciousness is fundamental, immortal and everywhere.

Ironic.

Which ones? Dawkins, Klauss ? Sarcasm aside I am interested if you have any sources to hand.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc...e-of-God-admits-Archbishop-of-Canterbury.html

Why did it take that event to shake his faith? I'd have thought one look at the history books covering just about any day in the last 3,000 or so years should have been enough to raise doubts.

 

[Surfinjo]

Why did it take that event to shake his faith? I'd have thought one look at the history books covering just about any day in the last 3,000 or so years should have been enough to raise doubts.

Justin Welby said he was left asking why the attacks happened, and where God was in the French victims' time of need

The problem is surely that both you and the Rev Welby assume that a supreme being would necessarily prevent suffering.

If a supreme being created everything, then it follows that suffering was created as well as anything else.

 

[Boxtree]

What kind of lore is this??

 

[Avago Earo]

The problem is surely that both you and the Rev Welby assume that a supreme being would necessarily prevent suffering.

If a supreme being created everything, then it follows that suffering was created as well as anything else.

I don't believe in a supreme being. You assumed my assumption. I just find it amazing that one such event could shake faith what with everything else. It could be that the Rev was disturbed as a result of accumulated disasters; the straw that broke the camels back and all that. Not to be confused with the one going through the eyer of a needle of course.

Anyway, I thought (Genesis) that there was no suffering until after the fall of Man. You know when Adam and Eve covered their bits out of 'shame' after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge on recommendation from a talking snake, and Man would have to toil the earth and Woman would suffer pain giving birth. I think that's when meat eating is supposed to have started too.

 

[Surfinjo]

I don't believe in a supreme being. You assumed my assumption. I just find it amazing that one such event could shake faith what with everything else. It could be that the Rev was disturbed as a result of accumulated disasters; the straw that broke the camels back and all that. Not to be confused with the one going through the eyer of a needle of course.

Anyway, I thought (Genesis) that there was no suffering until after the fall of Man. You know when Adam and Eve covered their bits out of 'shame' after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge on recommendation from a talking snake, and Man would have to toil the earth and Woman would suffer pain giving birth. I think that's when meat eating is supposed to have started too.

No, you made comment about the relative strength of someone's faith. I'm simply pointing out a logical flaw in your and his positions.

I'm not interested in your beliefs system or his. And one of the hazards in an open forum is we end up discussing relative faith, your faith and his.

The issue is the relative logic.

 

[Avago Earo]

No, you made comment about the relative strength of someone's faith. I'm simply pointing out a logical flaw in your and his positions.

I'm not interested in your beliefs system or his. And one of the hazards in an open forum is we end up discussing relative faith, your faith and his.

The issue is the relative logic.

Yes I totally agree with you there. The OP posted about a Rev questioning his faith after the Paris attacks and I feel strongly, as I guess most of us do, that those acts were atrocious beyond words and merely pasting French flags on one's Face Book profile picture (cheap in my opinion, a gesture, for sure, but cheap all the same). I am being a little confrontational but not to upset anyone. I also may have misunderstood your response to my post. It's such an emotive thing it's hard to respond (for me at least , unless I spend a day thinking of the right words). In fact it's that emotive I find it hard to express anything that can be taken seriously, as I wasn't there, in Paris. I have friends who have a belief in the Super N and Atheist. The fact we're friends demonstrates a desire, from God or from successful group survival through natural selection, that we care for one another.

I hope you didn't take my comments in the wrong light. This is a gaming forum but the OP wanted to raise a point (and why not?)

Take care.

 

[Surfinjo]

I hope you didn't take my comments in the wrong light. This is a gaming forum but the OP wanted to raise a point (and why not?)

Take care.

I certainly didn't take your comments as anything other than welcome. There are many things that it's more fun to do yourself, a conversation is not one of them, IMO.

I do so agree with you about trite demonstrations of solidarity, overlaying FB profiles with varying colours seems to have become as interesting as those little pieces of twisted ribbon some people wear for almost ever occasion.

I think people like Mr Welby have a somewhat difficult task. They are expected, by those that employ them, to come up with interesting comments about every occasion, not too challenging, but just enough to hopefully earn a knowing nod from the sort of people who read the Sunday Telegraph.

The organisation he runs has a rather interesting history in this regard. I still recall with rather more astonishment, than would qualify me as a typical Telegraph reader, at the comments by the then Arch Bishop of York who stated that the war in Iraq was necessary.

I'm sure we can all forgive the gung ho comments attributed to many CofE clergy in WW2 that god is on England's side. After all, who doesn't love WW2?

The impressions of CofE clergy in WW1 blessing guns are a matter of record and consequence.

 

[Mikey2305]

I think mr welby's comments were sincere and from the heart in the face of unimaginable horror allegedly in the name of religious belief. God on our side in WW2 was a lie in my opinion designed to reinforce the establishment position of sending our kids to war to be killed. I find him refreshing...

 

[Mephane]

The problem is surely that both you and the Rev Welby assume that a supreme being would necessarily prevent suffering.

If a supreme being created everything, then it follows that suffering was created as well as anything else.

Omniscient
Omnipotent
Benevolent

Pick two. The evidence is overwhelming that if such a supreme being existed, it could only have two of these properties.

There is, in my view, a massive difference between a religion not having proof for their god(s), and a stark incompatibility of their particular god with the world as it actually is. It is one thing to belief in a particular type of supreme being for which there is no proof. It is an entirely different thing to belief in it in spite of contrary evidence.
In other words, the ancient religion of, say, the Roman Empire (Iupiter, Mars etc.) was less at conflict with reality than, for example, Christianity.

 

[Surfinjo]

Omniscient
Omnipotent
Benevolent

Pick two. The evidence is overwhelming that if such a supreme being existed, it could only have two of these properties.

There is, in my view, a massive difference between a religion not having proof for their god(s), and a stark incompatibility of their particular god with the world as it actually is. It is one thing to belief in a particular type of supreme being for which there is no proof. It is an entirely different thing to belief in it in spite of contrary evidence.
In other words, the ancient religion of, say, the Roman Empire (Iupiter, Mars etc.) was less at conflict with reality than, for example, Christianity.

Benevolence is by definition a opinion. A mother who spanks her children might be seen as benevolent. The other two are absolutes. Not sure where this evidence is.

The rest of your post relates to the validity of a belief.

I'm sure some will welcome such a discussion.

I hope you find someone who does.

Not me.

 

[Mephane]

Benevolence is by definition a opinion. A mother who spanks her children might be seen as benevolent. The other two are absolutes. Not sure where this evidence is.

While there are certainly grey areas in which it becomes difficult to define what counts as belevolence and what doesn't, there are also very clear, stark, absolute borders for the concept. Let's take the very blunt and obvious example: if god loved all humans, and were omniscient, and omnipotent - in no way would he have let the holocaust happen. Either he didn't know, or he couldn't do anything about it, or he didn't care about (or even liked to watch) the millions that were murdered; or he doesn't exist.

 

[Iskariot]

And at the same time many scientists are starting to believe consciousness is fundamental, immortal and everywhere.

Ironic.

That sure is news for me, because I am quite active in that regard.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Anyway, I thought (Genesis) that there was no suffering until after the fall of Man. You know when Adam and Eve covered their bits out of 'shame' after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge on recommendation from a talking snake, and Man would have to toil the earth and Woman would suffer pain giving birth. I think that's when meat eating is supposed to have started too.

You are talking about my former bible god. The theodice problem is like an ever present ulcer to christendom.
Many christians have a hard time to believe that stuff. So they decided to scrap it from their theology and make up something else that sounds more acceptable.

 

[FuzzySpider]

While there are certainly grey areas in which it becomes difficult to define what counts as belevolence and what doesn't, there are also very clear, stark, absolute borders for the concept. Let's take the very blunt and obvious example: if god loved all humans, and were omniscient, and omnipotent - in no way would he have let the holocaust happen. Either he didn't know, or he couldn't do anything about it, or he didn't care about (or even liked to watch) the millions that were murdered; or he doesn't exist.

The judgement of whether something is benevolent is basically a moral judgement, and without belief in a deity or multiple deities there can be no absolute definition of morality because it is purely a human social construct. One persons moral obligation (death penalty) is another persons definition of evil. Let's take your example - the Holocaust. Mr Hitler believed, right up until his dying day, that he was fully justified in doing it and would be vindicated by history. We can all agree here that it was an act of vile evil, but it would be an argumentum ad populum to claim that it was evil based upon that. Is there any other logical argument, not an appeal to emotion, that can be made as to why it was so terrible?

 

[Mephane]

The judgement of whether something is benevolent is basically a moral judgement, and without belief in a deity or multiple deities there can be no absolute definition of morality because it is purely a human social construct.

That's true but also meaningless when looking at a religion that claims their god is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent - the latter judged by the morals of that religion, morals which very well condemn, for example, murder.

 

[FuzzySpider]

That's true but also meaningless when looking at a religion that claims their god is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent - the latter judged by the morals of that religion, morals which very well condemn, for example, murder.

That depends. An omnipotent being can not, by nature, be considered omnipotent unless it is free to do anything. It wouldn't necessarily be bound to the morals of its own teachings.

Secondly you have the problem of free will. If god did swoop down and stop the holocaust it would be eliminating the human need for freedom - a potentially greater evil - as free will is basically conscience, our very beings and how we define ourselves. If we were not able to act as our own agents anymore that would in itself be a kind of death.

Lastly, and most importantly, to stop the holocaust would require a potential god to commit an evil of its own. It would have to move in and kill people, potentially innocent people, to prevent it.

 

[Iskariot]

That's true but also meaningless when looking at a religion that claims their god is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent - the latter judged by the morals of that religion, morals which very well condemn, for example, murder.

Are you saying that the christian god condemns murder?

That is a mistake people very often make.
You must just kill the right people. The god of the book will reward you for that.
There are many orders to murder and to massacre in the bible and the god himself is also very keen on getting his hands dirty himself.
Very often it is the only solution he can come up with for all kinds of problems.

The benevolence of the bible god is only for those who meekly submit and obey.

 

[Surfinjo]

if god loved all humans, and were omniscient, and omnipotent - in no way would he have let the holocaust happen. Either he didn't know, or he couldn't do anything about it, or he didn't care about (or even liked to watch) the millions that were murdered; or he doesn't exist.

Nonsense. All life ends. It doesn't prove or demonstrate anything other than a personal value judgement.

Omniscient Omnipotent are definite, absolutes. They mean specific things. If the criteria are not met then the labels don't apply. Benevolence is whatever you choose it to mean.

Either he didn't know, or he couldn't do anything about it, or he didn't care about (or even liked to watch) the millions that were murdered; or he doesn't exist.

Or possibly, it was part of a greater plan to ensure that Jewish people would finally have a homeland and the self confidence to defend it against all comers.

Just saying. Many died in the fight for American independence. Given the way war works, especially at the end of the 18th century, many of those would have been ordered to do things which their commanders knew would result in their deaths. They are hailed as heroes. Their commanders, the Father's of the nation.

Value judgement. People die.

 

[Surfinjo]

The real Islam of the majority of Muslims:

[video=youtube;dQVMdh6d3h0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQVMdh6d3h0[/video]

The quotes he is giving, I've seen these and can confirm they are absolutely real and well known among Muslims everywhere.