News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Bishop of Bath and Wells Darwin Debate

Started by swallow, August 09, 2009, 04:15:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

CountDeMoney

Grallon is the Bishop of Bed, Bath and Beyond.

Eddie Teach

Quote from: Valmy on August 09, 2009, 06:03:27 PM
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.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Sheilbh

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2009, 05:09:14 AM
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.
Let's bomb Russia!

Martinus

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 05:19:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2009, 05:09:14 AM
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

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 04:50:02 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2009, 11:01:01 AM
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."
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

garbon

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 05:19:02 AM
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?
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

ulmont

Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2009, 07:09:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 05:19:02 AM
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

"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Eddie Teach

Quote from: ulmont on August 10, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
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.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Viking

Quote from: alfred russel on August 10, 2009, 07:28:21 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 04:50:02 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2009, 11:01:01 AM
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

QuoteSo surely, he argues, it can find room for people like him - Christians who don't believe in God.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Malthus

Quote from: ulmont on August 10, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2009, 07:09:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 05:19:02 AM
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 ...".  ;)
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Barrister

Quote from: ulmont on August 10, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
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.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

ulmont

Quote from: Barrister on August 10, 2009, 03:44:47 PM
Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive.  Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.

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

Viking

Quote from: Barrister on August 10, 2009, 03:44:47 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 10, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
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.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Malthus

Quote from: ulmont on August 10, 2009, 03:53:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 10, 2009, 03:44:47 PM
Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive.  Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.

:yawn:  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.

QuoteI 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
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius