Silent and unseen logic has a beauty of its own. Let us take a Smart Phone or a computer, rather than a flower or a rainbow. Many people, including the Archbishop himself, may use a smartphone or a computer, which he was told how to operate it and value its use. However the Archbishop, as an operator of Smartphones and computers, he can never appreciate the details of how the address bus, the data bus and the control bus can handle information to be rerouted between memory and the processor and any input and output port at such a fast speed beyond what the Archbishop can deliver over his pulpit. That is what drives an Engineer or a Scientist , they can see much deeper higher level processes than other people, when it comes to understanding the universe. When Dawkins met the Archbishop, the latter found it difficult to explain his God.
First you claim you’re alone, then a few sentences later after talking about your degenerate situation with another man. You then claim you’re not alone as your mum is with you. Does defiling yourself with another man give you brain damage?
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?
Now, with our understanding of neuroscience, we recognize that emotions like love, fear, and empathy are intricately tied to the functions of the amygdala and language processing in the left hemisphere of the brain. Then, the notion of a transcendent deity loses its sense. It is becoming increasingly evident that for societies to progress, it is imperative for outdated religious ideologies to evolve or fade away. Embracing a more rational and evidence-based worldview holds the key to fostering healthier and more cohesive societies.
I wish he would debate the Pope, who also believes in evolution. Maybe then he'll learn humans evolved the inquisitive traits that led to science and technology, rather than just praying for a deity to improve your life for your ignorant self.
Williams has argued that the partial adoption of Islamic sharia law in the United Kingdom is "unavoidable" as a method of arbitration in such affairs as marriage, and should not be resisted… To quote Williams: “Well, where the blazes does that come from?”
A church in America once tried to run Richard Dawkins down by a pick up truck,that is how not to convert a man.The former Archbishop and Richard have had some fascinating debates,both are tremendous intellectuals I don,think they could tell you the time in simple terms.
For as much as you Mr. Williams intends to defend your faith-based "fable" against strong scientific evidence it won't render any constructive results!!!
When someone asks why it is “human nature” to do anything, I think we go back to evolution, and in our case, survival and increased reproductive success for social apes. Certainly, as a species we notice patterns everywhere, even when they don’t exist ( Jesus on your morning toast.) certainly, as a species we are preoccupied with cause and effect, agents and actions. The archbishop’s people long ago decided an invisible, immensely,powerful anthropomorphic agent was responsible for many phenomena. Richard Dawkins’s sort of people figured out that it was the stuff of the universe interacting that made things happen, not spooks. Thus, I suppose the love and wonder Dawkins feels contemplating the universe in its infinite variety is one of a being delighted to know that it can understand at least some of the universe’s possibilities, a rich reward, and be tempted on and on. I contrast this with the Archbishop’s fascination with just a few of the archetypal stories that our species tells about itself. As if the universe stopped outside our skins. How very sad!
It's quite a weak argument, and fails on the same principle invoked by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and many others. Theists cannot prove there is a supreme, creative being of any sort, let alone by ones described by illiterate bronze age humans. So where also is the proof that an evolved universe without any supernatural creative force behind it cannot develop aspects of beauty and magnificent designs appreciated, admired and loved by sentient, evolved beings such as ourselves? This holy man's point of view is entirely based on the assumption that beauty cannot be found and appreciated without the influence of a supernatural being, which is refutable and repugnant.
I would ask, If the univers is just here by chance, and we are merely a collection of water and chemicals, is it rational for you to make ethical evaluations as you, and everyone else, does?
“Where the blazes does that come from ?” Rowan claims to absolutely know the answer and proclaims it professionally. Richard simply says he doesn’t yet know, and invites proof. He says that we may never know. Rowan’s question is just circular reasoning. It answers nothing. It just mirrors the difference in the two viewpoints. His question works in a congregation of believers, but not in an objective debate, and he knows it.
Love is the greatest form of expression, it transcends evolution. Evolution is real and a scientific fact, but love has not been fully examined scientifically...that's impossible. Same thing with consciousness, you can't scientifically get to the bottom of it, yet. God Himself is pure love.
Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers, but what it knows it knows, and this knowledge is validated by us every day. If Einstein’s Special and General Relativity theories were wrong, the GPS systems in our cars would start directing us to drive into the buildings … literally … Religion has arrogance to claim knowing everything, but, in fact, it has been “religion of the gaps” for centuries, since it lost its power to persecute free scientific inquiry - and those gaps are shrinking at a very fast rate, thanks to Science.
Suggestions are not evidence… oh God…now is absolutely no evidence, ridicule is not evidence either. Get paid to pretend there is a god, is stealing from uninformed otherwise innocent people….shame on you.
It’s not that simple. Do a thorough search on the process say, for photosynthesis, for example and see if you can so cavalierly dismiss it’s being the result of random variations and chance alone without first assuming that going in.
@@CSUnger just because it's complex doesn't indicate intelligent design. Do a Google on the evolution of the human eye. Perfectly demonstrates in a simple way how complex things evolve.
@ROFT Richard Dawkins citations … ‘A mind like that (creationist) is a disgrace to the human species.’ (Put ‘ Dawkins - Religion is a disgrace to the human mind’ in YT search.) RD tweet: I said I'd never despise individuals, just their views. But there are limits, and YE Creationists who refuse to look at evidence pass mine. "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.” Richard Dawkins quotations, quotes on God, Religion, Religious Beliefs We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane. -Richard Dawkins in "Put Your Money on Evolution", The New York Times Review of Books, 1989. What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world they live in. -Richard Dawkins in Heart Of The Matter: God Under The Microscope, BBC, 1996. “As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect” (321).
That's all you have? This ridiculous idea that love only comes from a deity is nonsense, and ignores the reality of nature itself.. clearly animals have the same urge when raising their young, and yet have no concept of jesus and a so called god.. it's clearly there as an EVOLVED practise and has been for as long as creatures (including humans) have been adapting to their environment.. for crissakes wake up.
Richard Dawkins is totally correct when talking about this god belief. Why do people still want to think that gods and magic are true. Sorry Rowan but there is simply no good and sufficient evidence for your Bronze Age beliefs that were told to you by another person and not by a deity. Gods are not needed, not wanted and certainly not necessary. No good comes from magical thinking and we need to grow up away from these childish stories of heaven and hell. Churches need to close, refit and serve the poor and homeless people of the world's needs.
Just another qwip where you have to insert a god as the cause and the effect,,,a being which hides from all for some an unknown reason ,,,not to mention the incredible expanse of this chaotic universe with what seems to be absolutely nothing devine but is physical at best.
What the F did that prove? It's just the same old lies about "nothing" which is a total strawman and a feeble lack of a theory of other (something most people acquire soon after they learn to speak). Loving the universe has nothing to do with bronze age middle eastern mystery cults. That's just racist. Pompous sophistry.
Again, again, again and again - the argument of incredulity. Pick whatever there is in human or in universal existence, and ask the question "Do you really think that the cause of X is pure physics/chemistry/biology?" And Rowan Atkinson (just as, incidentally, the affable Prof. John Lennox) are only two persons who have a most erudite and non-aggressive way of wording it - but it remains a senseless question. The time to start to believe something is when you have evidence.
So he just never read the blind watchmaker. It is a very nice lovely soft and stupid question. The grand canyon is beautiful and weird and overwhelming and complex. But still no one assumes you need a godlike figure to create it. You just need rain.
Virtually all religions are evil. For example, the Christian say that if you are not baptised you will languish for all eternity in hell. If that isn't evil I don't know what is.
Rowan Williams sounds like a simpleton. Bye the way there is nothing controversial about Richard Dawkins books. The controversial book is the bible, which is full of nonsense and evil.
Good way of looking at it. Controversial in the extreme. I don't remember Dawkins calling on gay people to be done away with, like the Bible does. It literally wants 10% of the population wiped out. If that's not controversial dunno what is.
