Bishop of Bath and Wells Darwin Debate

[CountDeMoney]

Grallon is the Bishop of Bed, Bath and Beyond.

[Eddie Teach]

If you are convinced there is no God, you believing in God anyway, for whatever reason, wouldn't have much integrity to it.  I think that is what he is getting at.

I hear people say alot something like 'I wish there was a God but I just do not see the evidence that can support it' or some such.

If you are convinced there is no God, it's impossible for you to "believe" in God. People really can't choose what they believe, though they can choose what they tell themselves and others.

[Sheilbh]

If you are convinced there is no God, it's impossible for you to "believe" in God. People really can't choose what they believe, though they can choose what they tell themselves and others.

This isn't the case, I think there's some element of choice.  And there's a whole strand of theology that says in a case of disbelief what's best is to follow the laws of God and hope that after that God grants you belief.

[Martinus]

If you are convinced there is no God, it's impossible for you to "believe" in God. People really can't choose what they believe, though they can choose what they tell themselves and others.

This isn't the case, I think there's some element of choice.  And there's a whole strand of theology that says in a case of disbelief what's best is to follow the laws of God and hope that after that God grants you belief.

Yup. Pascal's wager postulated this, for example.

[alfred russel]

They did at one point. They just lost their battle and were reduced to comments like those starting this thread earlier than other locales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Oxford_evolution_debate

Oh yeah, that debate's famous.  But the modern CofE has no issue with science and hasn't for a very long time.  There really is no science vs religion culture war in this country in terms of what science and religion think.  The only conflict is on certain ethical/moral issues, even then it's generally a pretty elevated debate with Bishops and Professors sparring through lectures and letters to the Times.

And actually, the debate hasn't gone away--it has just moved on to more fundamental issues. Britons such as Hitchens and Dawkins are very much involved in the science versus religion debates, even if the COE doesn't fight darwinism anymore. And the COE seems to be increasing losing the fight. It is in that light I see the bishop's plea for a "respect for mystery."

[garbon]

This isn't the case, I think there's some element of choice.  And there's a whole strand of theology that says in a case of disbelief what's best is to follow the laws of God and hope that after that God grants you belief.

That's not really believing then, is it?

[ulmont]

This isn't the case, I think there's some element of choice.  And there's a whole strand of theology that says in a case of disbelief what's best is to follow the laws of God and hope that after that God grants you belief.

Yup. Pascal's wager postulated this, for example.

Pascal's wager doesn't scale past the decision to believe or not in a single religion.  Once you get two or more mutually exclusive religions, believing in one leaves you totally screwed if you picked incorrectly.  The larger the number of mutually exclusive religions, the worse off your odds are.

[Berkut]

And Binky really fucks things up.

[Eddie Teach]

Pascal's wager doesn't scale past the decision to believe or not in a single religion.  Once you get two or more mutually exclusive religions, believing in one leaves you totally screwed if you picked incorrectly.  The larger the number of mutually exclusive religions, the worse off your odds are.

Yeah but if you don't play, you still lose.

[Viking]

They did at one point. They just lost their battle and were reduced to comments like those starting this thread earlier than other locales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Oxford_evolution_debate

Oh yeah, that debate's famous.  But the modern CofE has no issue with science and hasn't for a very long time.  There really is no science vs religion culture war in this country in terms of what science and religion think.  The only conflict is on certain ethical/moral issues, even then it's generally a pretty elevated debate with Bishops and Professors sparring through lectures and letters to the Times.

And actually, the debate hasn't gone away--it has just moved on to more fundamental issues. Britons such as Hitchens and Dawkins are very much involved in the science versus religion debates, even if the COE doesn't fight darwinism anymore. And the COE seems to be increasing losing the fight. It is in that light I see the bishop's plea for a "respect for mystery."

The  COE seems to be conceding on the point of the existence of god as well.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/believe-it-or-not-the-bishops-an-agnostic/2009/05/19/1242498751437.html

So surely, he argues, it can find room for people like him - Christians who don't believe in God.

[Malthus]

This isn't the case, I think there's some element of choice.  And there's a whole strand of theology that says in a case of disbelief what's best is to follow the laws of God and hope that after that God grants you belief.

Yup. Pascal's wager postulated this, for example.

Pascal's wager doesn't scale past the decision to believe or not in a single religion.  Once you get two or more mutually exclusive religions, believing in one leaves you totally screwed if you picked incorrectly.  The larger the number of mutually exclusive religions, the worse off your odds are.

Plus it is subject to the "Pratchet Problem" - namely, after death, finding yourself in the hands of some gods saying "look what we do with Mr. Clever here ...". 

[Barrister]

Pascal's wager doesn't scale past the decision to believe or not in a single religion.  Once you get two or more mutually exclusive religions, believing in one leaves you totally screwed if you picked incorrectly.  The larger the number of mutually exclusive religions, the worse off your odds are.

Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive.  Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.

[ulmont]

Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive.  Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.

  You aren't seriously going to try and claim that there are less than two mutually exclusive religions in the world, are you?

[Viking]

Pascal's wager doesn't scale past the decision to believe or not in a single religion.  Once you get two or more mutually exclusive religions, believing in one leaves you totally screwed if you picked incorrectly.  The larger the number of mutually exclusive religions, the worse off your odds are.

Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive.  Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.

Ecumenism exists within a religion not between them. Ecumenical movements with in Christianity and (apparently Buddhism) seek to either re-unite the scismed religion or to bring the sects into communion (a term the christians use for "live and let live and use each others churches"). A Catholic does believe that the Catholic Church is the only true way to salvation, but a Lutheran or an Orthodox Christian might get lucky while a Moslem or a Hindu really is screwed if he has rejected Christ.

[Malthus]

Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive.  Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.

  You aren't seriously going to try and claim that there are less than two mutually exclusive religions in the world, are you?

That certainly is something that many mystics believe - for example, see the poetry of Hafiz.

I Have Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call Myself 
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.


Hafiz
Source: The Gift