The Archbishop of Canterbury's Question to Richard Dawkins

This is an extract - See the full speech here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN6n29jb3wE&feature=PlayList&p=EA2AA45...

During a Question and Answer session which followed a lecture in Lincoln Cathedral entitled "Faith, Hope and Charity in Tomorrow's World," on Saturday 6 March, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams is asked by an audience member what question he might ask outspoken atheist author Richard Dawkins, if given the opportunity.

This lecture took during the Archbishop's visit to Lincoln as part of the centenary celebrations for Bishop Edward King, 1829-1910

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• archbishop
• of
• canterbury
• richard
• dawkins
• question
• lincoln
• cathedral
• bishop
• edward
• king

[WorkOverTime]

I am thoroughly impressed with this man's eyebrows.

[Shiftee88]

What a stupid question. Rowan Williams is a perfect example of how a posh accent and good education can give the outward illusion of intelligence.

[elsbymike]

Love comes from us. It was from a survival, without these characteristics a group would have fallen apart and made that group much harder to survive. Morality comes from us and not from the bible. Without us the church would be declaring heretics right now. Womens rights would not existm that was 100 percent secular. Women are treated appallingly in the bible. Slavery and 1 commandments says you shall not covet anothers WIFE. Now we know it was written by a man!!!

[elsbymike]

This loving god to allow the suffering in the world. 98% of species have died off sometimes in agony. A god that supposedly kills children in a flood, commits genecide, will torture someone to eternity all based on a edited and revamped book over 2000 years ago that historians in that period never noted. Love does not prove god, which one then? The first 2 of the ten commandments indicate a jealous god. The 2nd was changed in cathelic faith and the person exposing it was murdered. I reject it.

[Shiftee88]

@derth12546 No, Dawkins is a scientist who can give strong logically sound backing for his arguments.

[derth12546]

@Shiftee88 The same could be said for Dawkins I suppose

[RationalConclusion]

@scentofdawn Personal experience may be a good reason for the individual to believe whatever it is they've experienced but not for anyone else, unless of course the claim is some everyday mundane thing however if it is an extraordinary claim it's going to require more than somebodys say so.

[scentofdawn]

@RationalConclusion I know what you're saying. It's a bit of a vicious circle. I can empathise with both points of view and I don't think there is an easy answer. Words will never be enough evidence. Imagine this scenario: you see something no one else has seen, something no one even knows exists. You know what you've seen is real, but you also know people will think you mad if you tell them because they've never seen it. You have no other evidence than your own experience. What would you do?

[RationalConclusion]

@scentofdawn There are also those who believe that they've seen Elvis. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[scentofdawn]

@RationalConclusion As far as my imperfect understanding goes, the idea that love is from God or that God is love does not come from rational deduction but from mystical revelation. Many mystics of all religions have had visions of that place of infinite love and beauty where every contradiction is reconciled. Many have perceived it as a presence. Although their descriptions are often awkward, they do agree on one thing: everything else seems dull and poor when compared to it.

[RationalConclusion]

@scentofdawn Love is an emotion and of course it impacts on our actions and decision making. My point is that there's no reason to believe that love is from a god or has anything to do with the supernatural.

[jenius124]

@scentofdawn Uh? No? You seem to have totally missed what RationalConclusion was attempting to say, that love is nothing more than a process that takes place in the brain. He was explaining how love exists, not how it controls what we do.