[Jim meets....] The Archbishop of Canterbury - University of Surrey

[GodTheHypothesis]

I'd love to actually know what Rowan Williams' objections are to memes cos he doesn't really offer any actual arguments- and I've seen him say the same in various places. It strikes me as patently obvious that if religion A and B start 2000 years ago- they are identical in every way except religion B includes the promise that all followers will go to heaven. If you come back in 2000 years time, I'd love to know what you'd "philosophically" expect to see.

[lucidman100]

wow! am i the only one who thinks jim is a bad interviewer and failed to see the holes in rowan's comments?

[naishjam]

@lucidman100 It's not a debate, it's an interview. Jim does a decent job. He sits back and lets people have their say. He's not trying to tear anyone's point of view down here, it's just a nice opportunity to hear what well-known figures think about various issues.

[naishjam]

@lucidman100 Actually, a forum where that happens rather than, say, the confrontational style of interview that you'd find on, say, Newsnight is quite rare. The only other example I can think of off the top of my head is the "Conversations with history" series from Berkeley.

[lucidman100]

@naishjam naishjam, thanks for the "conversations with history" tip. never heard of the series and loving it. great stuff.

[joshurichardson]

Men like Rowan Williams show Athiests that there is a distinction to be made between the individual and institutional elements of religious belief.

[GodTheHypothesis]

@joshurichardson

Yep, all of those millions of slightly different, personally customised beliefs, and they all claim to be of the same religion. It's quite clear why this is the case, although it's mostly unconscious- if you sign up to one of the main religions, your beliefs are respected by society. Otherwise, people laugh at you. As they probably should.

[godlosme]

However you view the topic you have to keep in mind that Kurt Gödel produced the scientific proof that you can neither disprove or prove Gods existance, the incompletness theorems. Anyhow, religion does bring a lot of good and is vital for some during times of depression, but those who seek to exploit the name of religion to oppress others, well, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned to put it mildly. /Agnostic

[bored1980]

Very interesting perspective from Dr Williams.

[quuanttum]

perhaps we exist in the mind of God. much like i create a world when i dream....this world.... my world....exists in the mind of another consciousness being....this being allows such existance due to being loving and good. thats why you can feel God absolutely everywhere...

[quuanttum]

the archbishop of canterbury is a very smart man. he has my respect.

[MrBrittish]

he has nothing to say on anything, C of E; thats what religion looks like when ya take the snakes fangs away!

[JoJeck]

Jim made a bad mess of introducing Richard Dawkins into the conversation. Absurd caricature of him. The idea of a militant athiest is barmy, why call him that?

[TenderHistoryInRust]

@JoJeck As an 'Atheist' myself, though I do not like labeling myself with negative beliefs, I prefer to call myself a Materialist, I see it as obvious that Dawkins is a militant Atheist, an Atheist who makes it his cause to 'convert' as it were non-atheists, which is what Dawkins does sounds militant to me. He has even claimed it himself (if his practice hasn't made it clear enough) just type militant atheism into google. I thought he introduced Dawkins completely correctly..

[sc23uk]

Lmao at 18:46

[bonnie43uk]

I have to say I find Richard Dawkins arguments against religion far more convincing than Rowan Williams views. Something tells me the Archbishop in his heart of hearts knows he's struggling to justify gods existance. Every scientific discovery takes us one step further away from a biblical god. The Archbishops arguments for things like prayer and miracles were very poor.

[brett20130676]

@autopsysal666 and what was there before god?

[autopsysal666]

@brett20130676 Good point. Maybe God, has a God? The God-father. lol. Personally I think we know too little about the universe and what was there before it all started to assume anything.

[bayreuth79]

@bonnie43uk Huh? You find Richard Dawkins' arguments against God and religion convincing? You must be aware that even many prominent atheists have written scathing reviews of his appalling book "The God Delusion"?! The problem is that people like Dawkins and yourself have not the slightest conception of what monotheists mean by "God" and "religion"; and the reason for this is obvious: Dawkins, et al, is ignorant of serious theological reflection. Its easy to debunk a "strawman"...

[bayreuth79]

@bonnie43uk "Every scientific discovery takes us one step further away from a biblical god". Not at all; you are quite mistaken. I would agree that scientific discoveries increasingly push the-god-of-the-gaps out of the picture; but then again the-god-of-the-gaps is not the Creator God of the Bible. The-god-of-the-gaps is a modern phenomena; and is anathema in the context of traditional Christian discourse. Thomas Aquinas points out that belief in the Creator is consistent with any physical...

[bayreuth79]

@bonnie43uk... theory, including evolution by natural selection. Why did he think this? The-god-of-the-gaps assumes that the creative activity of God is anthropomorphic, i.e., that God must create in a manner analogous to human beings. However, since God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, his activity is radically other than human creative activity. What we mean by "to create" when predicated of God is this: the radical causing of existence of whatever exists. So no conflict.