The Archbishop of Canterbury's Question to Richard Dawkins
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 бер 2010
- This is an extract - See the full speech here:
• The Archbishop of Cant...
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
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
I am thoroughly impressed with this man's eyebrows.
Me too...not much else, though...
@gulbirk And what is the answer ?
So, why isn't Dawkins reply included?
@Shiftee88 and why is that? is it some kind of logical law?
@leitros The beauty of the Large Hadron Collider?
to refute my statements.
Let me ask you something, do you agree with me that if the universe had an absolute beginning that that then means it had a cause ?
@gulbirk Thats fine, im not saying you have, i just wanted to get an understanding of what you think love is. Is it just a chemical reaction in the brain or something deeper?
@sh3rv man, look it up in google, i dont wnat to transelate it from norwegian into english . because im not that good at english, it would probably just come out wrong.
@sh3rv thanks for the correction.
@prskaloo1 I could answer that question but its too long for a youtube comment...
i think i explained it already; if you have an absolute beginning of the universe then that means before that there was nothing, no energy no space, no fluctuation in vacuum, no gravity, no time. And if that is the case then there is a cause to universe because everything that comes to exist has a cause. But in order to 'come to exist' you need time because it is a temporal event, is it so ?
@Shiftee88 The same could be said for Dawkins I suppose
@splchk No problem, you're right, it's ok not to agree, when it turns personal then it becomes silly. Thanks
Love Rowan Williams. :D
@DarknessLPs That's low... but true.
If I asked them that, sometimes the answer is "Yes, sometimes we are the same person".
I.e. they can share sensations, feelings or thoughts in different locations.
This means consciousness is non-physical. This makes sense since it will never be identified as physical. This justifies the existence of the non-physical. I don't think consciousness needs to be justified at all, it simply exists, but if you want to deny your own existence then be my guest.
I made an error :o
replace of "existence of life" with "meaning of life"
@CarlosMarti123 Sorry, I think I misunderstood your response. It should've been directed at the other guy.
Well one answer I assume is ... "Yes that is not a mere description that is a love with the universe and that comes from my scientific understanding of it"
@RationalConclusion "Love is simply a word that we use to describe a particular emotion caused by brain function." Is that supposed to make it less real or less powerful? Love is not just something that happens to us, it is also a dynamic force that determines our actions and decisions. If I have the chance to do something wrong, but out of love I choose to do something good instead, doesn't that make my love more of a "cause of" than a "caused by"?
Dawkins and the Archbishop had an hour long debate yesterday. I think it will be on youtube soon. Not surprisingly, the bishop did not actually pose this question. It was a pretty mild discussion, with a surprising amount of agreement between the two.
@celticbre Are you a Christian?? I don't mind or anything.
@garysgreat No problem - :-)
So now we need to raise the question: is the love that I feel equal to the love that anybody else feels? And if I feel something called love .... Who can provide prove from what originated that love.... well .
Seams a unique experience, that felleing: love
@FreekinEkin2 Affirmative
@gulbirk Your English seems very good. I wanted to get your opinion on the question but never mind, : )
I said that his bodily resurrection was taught. I didn't conclusively say one way or the other if that meant he was divine or not.
And I don't intend to give my own personal thoughts on the matter because they're not relevant to the discussion.
The reason I´m in love with the universe is because I´m a part of it. No need for for my love to come from any where but my relation to the universe it self.
One of the main reasons i believe is the first cause. We now have strong evidence to believe that the universe had a beginning and is not infinite in the past, that being said it literally means (if that is the case) that it stared out of nothing, so that would mean that there was something outside of time (because time didn't exist) powerful enough to create universe from nothing.
i think the thing to do would be to indeed ask where love comes from rather than assuming it is supernatural in some way.
@Shiftee88 what logically sound backing for his science or his philosophy? you're confused.
@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.
Those equations are not my field or relevant to our discussion unless you disagree with the second law of thermodynamics, the principle is that energy is chaotic and will eventually lead to "heat death of the universe (wiki)". If physics says the universe will achieve heat death, AND physics says energy is eternal, then those two principles seem to be in conflict, so one of them should be incorrect.
I mean can you explain to me how something will end which has existed forever?
The cleric raises the old 'this universe is just too amazing to be brought about by natural forces' wheeze. Maybe we're amazed because the limits of our brains are the problem?
@fourbabies1 Ok thanks for the reply, btw its 'their' offspring not 'there' offspring, just thought id help you out with that one : )
@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.
I know 15 year olds that easily respond to this question and make this man look like a fool.
@sh3rv its a chemical reaction in the body, which releases a certain chemical stuff, that gives a feeling of what we call "love". that triggers something in the brain, and makes you think differently.
not believing in god(s) does not mean denying existence of love and emotion. He seems to suggest all atheists have no feelings but logic.
I am in the universe and the universe is in me. Why wouldn't I love it?
@CarlosMarti123 There is many reasons why I dismiss all those other religions, but I would have to say that the one thing that's different, is the God I believe in has lasted far longer (over 2000 years) than any other god belief. Answer this question, why does every civilization, that we can learn enough of, believe in a God at all? What reason did they have to make such a conclusion, at any time?
and sorry for my bad spelling, i am not a native speaker :)
thats ok.
It's a shame when people who clearly have the english language grasped so eloquently, and carry themselves in such a revered manner, can ask something so lacking in any substance other than "Because you describe something in a beautiful way, and you show love for it, therefore it must be made by god" This intellectual light weight really shows the blind faith attitude and non inquisitive nature of religious people.
@kubrox91 now THAT would floor him!
@Pwnagemerchant No, he didn't talk about earth (which can be explained through evolution, adapting to ones environment). He was talking about the universe. This is entirely different, especially when any of the constants altered either way make intelligent life completely unable to be formed. Right now people are believing in either an unmoved mover or multiple universes (multiverse). I can see how this might be easily confused.
I don't understand the low rating of this video. He made a terrific point. Does quantity equal quality? Existentially both of these possibilities would manifest themselves in different ways. How does Richard know that quantity equals quality?
In terms of material mathematics this could it might seem objectively true that quantity equals quality, but unfortunately for material mathematics (the language of science) it is itself irrational as a tool in proving its own epistemological absoluteness.
As to the article, have you actually read it?
1st We were talking about twins, the article has nothing to do with them.
2nd The article belongs to "Alternative and complementary medicine" section, which itself invalidates it... but I will do my best to comment on it as objectively as I can
3rd The study described is a non double-blinded study (5th line, DESIGN AND...): "the reciever was instructed to "remain open to recieve any image/thought from his/her partner". This completely invalidates it.
"Does that really suggest nothing to you?" Pantheism Maybe, but mostly just Awesomeness. "Does that really suggest that the last word lies with left-brain analytical thought?" Yeah, because that's what shows us this beauty. And right-brain thought too, if that's how we draw joy from it. But accurate thought about the world is the source of so much happiness. ...I love that phrase, "in love with the universe." It describes that happiness so well.
I think that if you take a look at how radiometric dating, especially carbon dating, works, then we can both agree that the math doesn't add up, when we can see that the atmospheric fraction of C14 has changed in just the short time that C14 dating has been used to date organic materials, such as these dinosaur bones. But, there are writings from ancient times referencing dragons, which i would say makes pretty decent sense, considering the finding of these bones.
People also wrote about Thor and how he would throw lightning bolts down to Earth. Do you believe in Thor?
"Consiousness exists..."
You should think about the following thing before saying so:
How can you be sure about someone else, besides you, being conscious?
You simply can't, you can only be sure about your own consciousness, right? As well as your own rage, love, happyness, memories and thoughts.
Now you would say: "we all have empathy, so we can know what the other people feel". Sure, but we will never have direct access to what the other people feel:
we can only see facial expressions...
@Shiftee88 how can something supernatural be in a realm of natural?
Both Math and religion resort to "invisible" objects... but eventually, math turn out to be the real code of nature, whereas religion or god don't.
i think you'll find he's a world leading expert on evolutionary biology.
@drewwhonumba22 it's a function that you can chose to you more or less often - just like you chose to believe in God or to not believe.
@bgordon9 Whether we are owed is a very mute point. What is important is that if there is a reason for life should we want to know? I find it hard to believe that a person wouldnt want to know that. Whether love and selflessnes are human traits is also not a good point, the point is how did these "evolve" above all other forms of animals. Why is is that ONLY humans, love this way.
We've got loads of them. Ancient history tells us that Jesus' crucifixion is one of those events that we can be absolutely certain of.
Furthermore, scholars like James D. G. Dunn and Bart Ehrman, will tell anyone that early Christians taught his bodily resurrection extremely close to the cross.
The whole "Jesus was a myth" thing has been pretty well-refuted by even the most sceptical of historians.
As much as I like Rowan Williams, I was hoping he'd come up with a better question.
>but gets us no closer to knowing what that cause could possibly be
well it does, we now it has to be outside of time, it has to be powerful... that doesn't prove a Christian God, but it proves that there is a deity in a seance which most people use the word for.
> something had to cause or great it. What or who made god
that only stands for things that came to exist, that had a beginning, like universe
@derth12546 No, Dawkins is a scientist who can give strong logically sound backing for his arguments.
@sids500 well said!!
We Atheists and believers cannot possibly know the answer to that question. However, science continues to explain how the universe works, and the origins of what is within it. Religion dictates that God created the universe despite a total lack of evidence. Any knowledge that religious believers claim to have about where the universe has come from is in no way of any use to furthering our understanding of the universe, or is it a valid logical explanation for the origin of the universe.
As much as I don't agree with him, you can't doubt this man's eyebrows.
Read your comment. It is not any answer to what i asked. Tell me the process of a turtle shell evolving based on the discoveries made to back it up. Tell me what the intermediate fossils looked like, and what the previous stages of the shell were helpful to the turtle for. Tell me what a giraffe looked like before it became what it is now, based on the fossil evidence. Tell me how it could be determined that the fur was not on an intermediate fossil of the naked bear before it had fur.
because then it means it had to had had a cause to it's existence, but
it is not the only reason.
it doesn't say about the number of causes; Occam's razor solves that problem.
>and a number of universes??
even if there is a number of universes, we have strong scientific evidence that tell's us that the universe had an absolute beginning
Now, I willingly concede that many experts are sceptical about its authenticity (and, personally, I myself don't know what to make of it) but just roll with me on a hypothetical.
Suppose we -did- figure that the inscription was also 2000 years old. Would that prove to you that this really was Jesus' brother? Or, would you question whether or not the inscription might have been a mistake or a prank done in the ancient past?
Just curious to know.
does not depend on the dimensions of the universes ie if it is one universe where we live or more the evidence apply's.
>You still haven't answered who created god?
I think i did. It should be somewhere below but for creation you need time, and if the cause is outside of time (and that is the case), it can't be created, there is no; ' who created the first cause '
If, a few 1000 years ago, I came up with a religion that said: "do unto others as others do unto you, love your neighbour, stay out of trouble & when you die you just turn into dirt," tell me if you think that concept would have taken off? We need God 'cose we are the only creatures on this planet aware we're going to die. Go on and live the next 80 years knowing that at the end there's a big fat zero. The only way people can wrap their brains around it is by lying to themselves & creating a God
@Shiftee88 oh i'm not doubting his scientific work, but rather his philosophic work. he has shown he's not so good at that.
@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.
Just because a person exists doesn't mean they are divine or holy.
Hi mister Archbischop, and if you where born in India, you would be a Hindu, born in the Middle East and you would pray 5 times a day with a compass in your hands... What does that make you?
im afraid thats as good as it gets from this crowd.
@FreekinEkin2 i like the cold, i love winter more than summer!
How many people wrote testimony to the actions of Thor? How many corroborating testimonies are there to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ?
Woah those eyebrows. Spectacular!
Alright then, let me ask a very simple question. What specific things would count, in your book, as archeological evidence of a person's existence? Just list them off.
...movements of the body, inflection and pitch of his/her voice and so on, and we "translate these things into" the proper sentiments, according to our everyday experience. Same goes for consciousness: when it comes to someone else's consciousness, you cannot tell... What we can actually tell is that we are made of neurons flash and bones, and "outside ourself", there is no such thing like consciousness, love, fear, happyness, memory and thoughts: these "thing" are concept, no more than that...
The irony of course in the question asked here by the archbishop is somewhat simple.
In the 21st century, scientists, such as Dawkin's himself, are closer to answering it, than any self appointed celestial bully wearing a dress reading scripture written in a desert 3000 years ago has ever been.
Atheists believe in love, thats a stupid question for such an inteligent yet religous man. A painting that is beautiful is still just pigments on canvas and yet is put together BY A HUMAN and is beautiful. So love is just parts of the brain reacting in our nature, but its still love by that HUMAN. Sorry Archbishop such a well respected man (by me too) cant even give Richard Dawkins a sensible question.
@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.
@mihaimoldo What was I thinking!? So do I! I probably meant extreme cold, it's not like lava is natures sauna though is it, nature can be just as violent and disgusting as beautiful.
While I am not in agreement with the Archbishop's outlook on reality, I liked this video for it's honesty and point for discussion.
For my take on things, I think that the beauty of the universe around us is infinitely more valuable in the absecnce of a creator. That it has come to be what we see and that we are here to see it at all makes us very fortunate to simply be alive and aware.
If you notice my statesmen you will see that what i claim is that the universe had a cause to it's existence (if it had an absolute beginning ) ... If it had an absolute beginning nothing existed before it, so there are no other universes before that absolute beginning. Absolute beginning means start to everything material.
And that is pretty much all I said, plus some a attributes that this cause would need to have. I didn't notice you disagreeing with it, or giving me any rational reasoning..
""eternal universe of energy and chaos" This is just nonsense."
I'm missing which part is nonsense, energy is ETERNAL, it can't be made nor destroyed, it is chaotic (second law of thermodynamics) and we (our existence) is a random accident. Well, I think that's what most scientists would say.
This ought to be good....
@sh3rv i promosie i did not make it up, just google love, the chemical reaction, or something like that. its the same thing that happens when you use drugs. i mean, its the same chemical reaction in the body.
Ok. Would you, please, write down in formulae the second law of thermodinamic and then explain what every single member of the eqaution means, and eventually, tell me the validity of that equation?
You are messing with fire XD
1)
I think I should first address the terminology you use:
"energy is chaotic" doesn't mean anything. Energy is a number. All we can say about it is that it is almost constant.
The thing about the "heat death of the universe" may or may not be true, but... whatever it is, it doesn't make our existence more or less meaningful than an "eternally ordered universe" would, ok?
2) As to the conflict between 2nd principle and conservation of the energy... well, it's not a conflict... because...
Is this the best question the Archbishop can come up with? No wonder his churches are emptying faster than a brother during a police raid.
And if god is supernatural, how can he mix with, or act upon, the natural domain?(of course we're just talking definition in this case, but it's important to stick to definitions, otherwise we could not barely communicate).
For example,I dare say that even Math shares many things with religion, in nature there is no such thing as the number one, or two, there's no such thing as a straight line, or a point, and mathematical objects are defined in a "supernatural" domain.
The fact u ask that question means u didnt understand what i wrote at all. Read it again.
view of what?!? something that we can only guess or speculate about. its fine to guess and speculate its not fine to take those ideas and use them for a world view to be acted upon. that's it, that's the point!! do you see? or do we have to continue going round in circles?
i wasn't quite correct there, some people are trying to prove his existence using science, the intelligent design movement, but so far this has not been proven to be any where near a good enough alternative.
Richard Dawkins would be chomping at the bit to answer Rowans question. The sheer wonder and awe of the universe is something to behold and be amazed at. Compare that with all the dogma's and superstitions of religion, which, when you examine their doctrines more closely( christianity in particular), you will find it's been built on very unstable foundations. Of the 2 men, it's Rowan Williams who seems to be struggling with answers to the meaning of life.
Okay, I follow - but I don't see how such evidence can be any more reliable. To give an example, there's the James Ossuary. It's 2000 years old, which puts it in the right time period, but you may have heard about the trial its inscription stirred up.
While many believe its inscription is a forgery, the judge ruled, "there is no evidence that any of the major artefacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt." (cont.)
@SinuousStudios You're right, Dawkins really doesn't get it.
Something s beautiful and awesome as the universe or the human body has to have been created by something. We can't just have emanated from nothing. The creater God is beyond all human understanding as is his complete and utter love for his creation.