Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on November 22, 2015, 04:22:24 AM
-
News item:
JUSTIN WELBY has admitted that the terrorist attacks in Paris had made him doubt the presence of God.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said he was left asking why the attacks happened and where God was when the militant jihadis struck.
He said he reacted with ‘profound sadness’ at the events, particularly as he and his wife had lived in Paris when he was an oil executive.
Asked if these attacks had caused him to doubt where God was, he said: ‘Oh gosh, yes,’ and admitted it put a 'chink in his armour’.
Appearing on Songs Of Praise, which will be broadcast on BBC 1 this evening, he said: ‘Saturday morning, I was out and as I was walking I was praying and saying: "God, why - why is this happening?"
“Where are you in all this?” And then engaging and talking to God. Yes, I doubt.’
But he added that he nevertheless had faith that God was alongside people in their suffering and pain.
When asked what his reaction was to the attacks on the French capital, he said: ‘Like everyone else - first shock and horror and then a profound sadness. And, in my family’s case, that is added to because my wife and I lived in Paris for five years.’
But he warned against a knee-jerk military response, saying: ‘Two injustices do not make justice.
‘If we start randomly killing those who have not done wrong, that is not going to provide solutions. So governments have to be the means of justice.’
The Archbishop first admitted last year that there were times when he questioned whether God existed.
-
News item:
JUSTIN WELBY has admitted that the terrorist attacks in Paris had made him doubt the presence of God.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said he was left asking why the attacks happened and where God was when the militant jihadis struck.
He said he reacted with ‘profound sadness’ at the events, particularly as he and his wife had lived in Paris when he was an oil executive.
Asked if these attacks had caused him to doubt where God was, he said: ‘Oh gosh, yes,’ and admitted it put a 'chink in his armour’.
Appearing on Songs Of Praise, which will be broadcast on BBC 1 this evening, he said: ‘Saturday morning, I was out and as I was walking I was praying and saying: "God, why - why is this happening?"
“Where are you in all this?” And then engaging and talking to God. Yes, I doubt.’
But he added that he nevertheless had faith that God was alongside people in their suffering and pain.
When asked what his reaction was to the attacks on the French capital, he said: ‘Like everyone else - first shock and horror and then a profound sadness. And, in my family’s case, that is added to because my wife and I lived in Paris for five years.’
But he warned against a knee-jerk military response, saying: ‘Two injustices do not make justice.
‘If we start randomly killing those who have not done wrong, that is not going to provide solutions. So governments have to be the means of justice.’
The Archbishop first admitted last year that there were times when he questioned whether God existed.
It is encouraging to note that even in the most indoctrinated people, common sense still has the power to surface sometimes.
-
God is a very general word. Lot depends on what you mean by it.
If we believe in a personal guardian angel who is duty bound to protect us and ensure that we live the longest possible lives with maximum comfort possible and without any pain or loss....then it is true that our experiences in the world are at variance with this belief.
God is not a holiday resort manager.
-
Doubt is GOOD, certainty BAD where religion is concerned!
-
JUSTIN WELBY has admitted that the terrorist attacks in Paris had made him doubt the presence of God.
Why would anyone doubt the existence of god because of the Paris attacks ? It suggests that the Bosnian massacre, the Irish potato famine, the Nazi holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the Asian tsunami, these were all consistent with a god-in-charge universe but the Paris attacks were not somehow. I don't see anything qualitatively different; maybe Mr Welby ought to read more history.
-
It is encouraging to note that even in the most indoctrinated people, common sense still has the power to surface sometimes.
Can't speak for people of other religions and belief-systems, and I can't speak for all Christians, but doubt is - in my view - an integral part of faith. Furthermore, this is a principle that gos far beyond the confines of religious faith.
-
Why would anyone doubt the existence of god because of the Paris attacks ? It suggests that the Bosnian massacre, the Irish potato famine, the Nazi holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the Asian tsunami, these were all consistent with a god-in-charge universe but the Paris attacks were not somehow. I don't see anything qualitatively different; maybe Mr Welby ought to read more history.
Perhaps he expressed doubt at the time of the Bosnian massacre, the Rwandan genocide and the Asian tsunami, torri. He just wasn't in as high-profile a role at those times. I doubt he was in a position to doubt during the Irish potato famine and the Nazi holocaust.
Regarding the 'god-in-charge' bit, if I understand the situation correctly, President Hollande was 'in charge' at the time of the Paris attacks; are you suggesting that last week's attacks mean that he isn't/wasn't?
-
Doubt is GOOD, certainty BAD where religion is concerned!
May I slightly amend that sentence, Floo, and replace 'religion' with the word 'life'?
-
May I slightly amend that sentence, Floo, and replace 'religion' with the word 'life'?
No you may not, I was talking about religion, not life in general.
-
It is encouraging to note that even in the most indoctrinated people, common sense still has the power to surface sometimes.
Let us hope the that it reaches you soon,Len.
-
Let us hope the that it reaches you soon,Len.
Our LJ is one of the guys with the most common sense on this forum, you would indeed be fortunate if you had a quarter as much of that commodity as him!
-
No you may not, I was talking about religion, not life in general.
Whereas I'm suggesting that, as religion is one element of life, with other elements being science, sporting ability, entertainment, education, health, politics, etc., common sense is something that is common to all such elements - not confined to one.
-
Doubt is GOOD, certainty BAD where religion is concerned!
Not really. Although if Welby found he could no longer believe he should step aside.
Just like I expect Richard Dawkins to.
-
Our LJ is one of the guys with the most common sense on this forum, you would indeed be fortunate if you had a quarter as much of that commodity as him!
But, as with the post that OS quotes, he is sometimes lax in the application of that common sense, Floo.
-
Not really. Although if Welby found he could no longer believe he should step aside.
Just like I expect Richard Dawkins to.
OS, as I've mentioned before, doubt is part and parcel of life; religious (and non-religious) beliefs are also part of life, so one would expect that doubt would have an impact on those parts as well. After all, for a sizeable number of people, their religious faith came about as a result of doubt!!
-
Perhaps he expressed doubt at the time of the Bosnian massacre, the Rwandan genocide and the Asian tsunami, torri. He just wasn't in as high-profile a role at those times. I doubt he was in a position to doubt during the Irish potato famine and the Nazi holocaust.
Regarding the 'god-in-charge' bit, if I understand the situation correctly, President Hollande was 'in charge' at the time of the Paris attacks; are you suggesting that last week's attacks mean that he isn't/wasn't?
Maybe it was in the nature of a 'reality check' for him
I think you overrate the power M. Hollande has at his disposal; its not like he can create universes out of thin air merely by an act of willpower.
-
Why would anyone doubt the existence of god because of the Paris attacks ? It suggests that the Bosnian massacre, the Irish potato famine, the Nazi holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the Asian tsunami, these were all consistent with a god-in-charge universe but the Paris attacks were not somehow. I don't see anything qualitatively different; maybe Mr Welby ought to read more history.
I've got to admit that was my initial reaction too.
I remember reading an article where a reporter lost his faith.
He was covering the rescue of some children who were being flown to safety.
The plane had an accident on takeoff and all 150 children were killed.
I understood him, more than Mr Welby.
Seeing that happen must be horrendous especially as it had left with such hope, and as they were being rescued in the first place, what loving Christian God would do that?
But I think most of us know children get hurt, like in the holocaust, and many people try and reason it.
But to experience it must be awful :(
I think people just hang on to the idea that there will be justice ............. Especially for those things they are unable to make better or change.
It helps them move forward in life.
It's very easy to become bitter.
-
Welby first voiced doubts about his faith in relation to the death of his baby daughter in a car accident. I'm pretty sure that happened in Paris. It doesn't seem illogical to a person of faith, who has some kind of belief in God's care for us as individuals, to question why person x was at the theatre and not person y. And it's a tacit admission on his part that God allows evil to exist, and that is a hard one to get your head around when believing in the God of Love.
-
Maybe it was in the nature of a 'reality check' for him
I think you overrate the power M. Hollande has at his disposal; its not like he can create universes out of thin air merely by an act of willpower.
I'm sorry to remind you but there is also a lot of traffic going the other way with people seeking comfort.
-
Welby first voiced doubts about his faith in relation to the death of his baby daughter in a car accident. I'm pretty sure that happened in Paris. It doesn't seem illogical to a person of faith, who has some kind of belief in God's care for us as individuals, to question why person x was at the theatre and not person y. And it's a tacit admission on his part that God allows evil to exist, and that is a hard one to get your head around when believing in the God of Love.
I suppose one way of coming at it is to think everyone has their time when they die, it effect if a bullet has your name on it, it's time to go.
I suppose if you believe you are then reunited with deceased loved ones and it's just a matter of time before the rest join you, that could sort of explain it.
If you believe it only matters to us while we are living as we are and on death you get a different perspective.
Perhaps that could work as an idea. ???
:-\
-
God's perfect plan for each of us you mean? Difficult to argue that doesn't then make God a bastard.
-
OS, as I've mentioned before, doubt is part and parcel of life; religious (and non-religious) beliefs are also part of life, so one would expect that doubt would have an impact on those parts as well. After all, for a sizeable number of people, their religious faith came about as a result of doubt!!
You seem to have a different definition of doubt to many of the rest of us.
-
You seem to have a different definition of doubt to many of the rest of us.
Argumentum ad populum.
-
Argumentum ad populum.
No it isn't.
-
OS, as I've mentioned before, doubt is part and parcel of life; religious (and non-religious) beliefs are also part of life, so one would expect that doubt would have an impact on those parts as well. After all, for a sizeable number of people, their religious faith came about as a result of doubt!!
Whereas my lack of faith came about because of doubt, when it became overwhelming.
-
God's perfect plan for each of us you mean? Difficult to argue that doesn't then make God a bastard.
Yes when you come across a nasty death that happens close to you, so it can't be ignored, God would appear that way.
Especially if it happens to a child. :(
I have no answers to that one.
But then I suppose I have my own definition of how I see God.
Which isn't Christian.
-
Whereas my lack of faith came about because of doubt, when it became overwhelming.
Precisely, and this and the post you quoted reiterate the importance of doubt in all things faith-related.
-
Argumentum ad populum.
Its not an argumentum ad populum OS (though no doubt Shakes would have tried the same tactic had the shoe been on the other foot). It simply reminds us that every human being has different experiences during their lives and therefore arguing that one or more sets of experience are more or less valid than others is a fallacy.
-
Its not an argumentum ad populum OS (though no doubt Shakes would have tried the same tactic had the shoe been on the other foot).
No, because Shakes can recognise a logical fallacy when he sees one.
And spends a lot of time here pointing them out to the purveyors of long-standing fallacies.
-
Precisely, and this and the post you quoted reiterate the importance of doubt in all things faith-related.
As there is no evidence to support any faith one should have doubt, however much one wishes to believe it is true.
-
Maybe it was in the nature of a 'reality check' for him
I suspect, from what I've heard over the last week and more, that all the events that were originally referred to had believers questioning their faith. It has certainly occurred to me on a number of occasions. Doubt doesn't necessarily result in rejection of the idea/principle 'doubted'.
I think you overrate the power M. Hollande has at his disposal; its not like he can create universes out of thin air merely by an act of willpower.
As I am sure you appreciate, torri, my comment was an analogy. It wasn't meant to be taken literally in the way that you have.
-
No, because Shakes can recognise a logical fallacy when he sees one.
And spends a lot of time here pointing them out to the purveyors of long-standing fallacies.
and often makes the same mistakes himself. The 'log in one's own eye parable' comes to mind.
-
and often makes the same mistakes himself. The 'log in one's own eye parable' comes to mind.
Can we expect to see you point out, with quotes and links, these alleged "mistakes" given that you've signally failed to do so before despite repeated requests?
Or will it be another one on the ever-growing "Assertions that Hope has made and refused to provide a scrap of evidence for" pile? I remember this from three months ago:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10489.msg548928#msg548928
and still every bit as unsubstantiated as all the others.
-
It simply reminds us that every human being has different experiences during their lives and therefore arguing that one or more sets of experience are more or less valid than others is a fallacy.
I doubt you will see the sheer hypocrisy of what you have just posted.
However, your inability to see it makes it no less true.
-
I doubt you will see the sheer hypocrisy of what you have just posted.
However, your inability to see it makes it no less true.
No, I realised exactly what I had typed as I was typing it and felt quite happy in posting it.
-
Folk may be interested to read a piece that the Archbishop wrte after he had made the comments ath led to the comment that is the tread title.
Why arguing with God is not the same as not believing in him
The Archbishop of Canterbury·Monday, 23 November 2015
In a blog today Archbishop Justin Welby reflected on how headline writers interpreted his interview with BBC's Songs of Praise.
The Archbishop said:
Every now and then I spend a day kicking myself for getting things wrong. Yesterday was one of those days.
Last week I willingly agreed to do an interview for Songs of Praise in connection with the appalling attacks in Paris. During it, I was asked whether events like Paris ever caused me to doubt and question.
Foolishly, I said exactly what I thought, in a fairly lengthy discussion which particularly referred to Psalm 44.
The essence of my answer was that everyone has moments when they question things, and one sees that in the Psalms. The psalmist in Psalm 44 asks God if he is asleep, and challenges him in the most direct terms about his failure to deliver Israel. It is a psalm of protest.
When there are tragedies like Paris, when friends suffer, when evil seems to cover the face of the Earth, then we should be like the psalmist.
But that is not the same as a settled belief that God does not exist, or even any serious questioning about his reality. It's a moment of protest and arguing.
It's very much part of my normal prayer life, together with praise and wonder, with delight and awe, with petition and lament, with celebration and rejoicing.
So, for the record, I do believe in God, and that Jesus Christ is God himself, and I can say every word of the Creed without ever crossing my fingers once.
And why was I kicking myself? Because, even as I said it, I realised that it would be too tempting for an editor or headline writer to take things out of context, a long context of a whole discussion, and to make a good headline. I really need to remember that.
http://bit.ly/1T518vV
-
Can we expect to see you point out, with quotes and links, these alleged "mistakes" given that you've signally failed to do so before despite repeated requests?
I've pointed out a cxouple all ready on the threads they occur on, and will do so whenever I see the issue again - on the relevant threads.
-
I've pointed out a cxouple all ready on the threads they occur on, and will do so whenever I see the issue again - on the relevant threads.
Links?
Or are you just going to hide behind an unsubstantiated claim of "Already posted it ... somewhere else ... some other time" yet again?
What will have happened this time? Will the mods have removed the relevant thread(s) or will the dog have been sick on them?
-
Links?
Or are you just going to hide behind an unsubstantiated claim of "Already posted it ... somewhere else ... some other time" yet again?
What will have happened this time? Will the mods have removed the relevant thread(s) or will the dog have been sick on them?
A short while ago I asked you to point out where I had ignored taking up a swearing by On stage before it wore off, You haven't done so: has the relevant post been removed by the mods, or has the dog been sick on it?
-
A short while ago I asked you to point out where I had ignored taking up a swearing by On stage before it wore off, You haven't done so: has the relevant post been removed by the mods, or has the dog been sick on it?
That's peculiar, because I know precisely the instance you're referring to, and remember having to bring it to your attention despite the fact that you quoted Vlad's offending (to you) post without a murmur of disapprobation from you as to his language.
-
That's peculiar, because I know precisely the instance you're referring to, and remember having to bring it to your attention despite the fact that you quoted Vlad's offending (to you) post without a murmur of disapprobation from you as to his language.
Link?
-
No probs:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10719.msg546287#msg546287
-
Done up like a kipper, sunbeam ;)
-
No, I realised exactly what I had typed as I was typing it and felt quite happy in posting it.
Happy in your hypocrisy.
Twist in your sobriety.
-
There's another song I haven't heard in donkey's years.
-
Happy in your hypocrisy.
Twist in your sobriety.
Not sure what is hypocritical about saying that everyone has different experiences of life and that arguing that one or more sets of experience are more or less valid than others is a fallacy. That doesn't mean that one can't believe that Christianity (or any other philosophy) is the best way for humanity. It just means that stating that other beliefs are invalid (something I've never done) is wrong.
-
There's another song I haven't heard in donkey's years.
Not surprised; you've been far too busy singing the 'argumentum ad ...' song. ;)
-
No probs:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10719.msg546287#msg546287
:D How sad! I wonder how long it took to trawl through to find that; only for me to remind you that I would condemn anyone who used bad language. So you wasted your time, just to try and score a cheap point. What a loser!!
-
:D How sad! I wonder how long it took to trawl through to find that; only for me to remind you that I would condemn anyone who used bad language. So you wasted your time, just to try and score a cheap point. What a loser!!
But you did not condemn the post though, and that is the point.
-
Done up like a kipper, sunbeam ;)
See, M47. So, it's you, "done up like a kipper," but by yourself!! :D :D
-
See, M47. So, it's you, "done up like a kipper," but by yourself!! :D :D
No, you have been shown to be inconsistent in your approach to bad language.
-
No, you have been shown to be inconsistent in your approach to bad language.
Mind your own business. You don't know what you're talking about. I said I would condemn any body who used bad language, and I have. What's inconsistent about that? Look up the word and learn what it means. Incidentally, if you think I spend my time searching for swearers, then you are even more off the mark than I thought.. It's only the sad atheists who actually spend time looking for opportunities to score cheap points.
-
Not sure what is hypocritical about saying that everyone has different experiences of life and that arguing that one or more sets of experience are more or less valid than others is a fallacy. That doesn't mean that one can't believe that Christianity (or any other philosophy) is the best way for humanity. It just means that stating that other beliefs are invalid (something I've never done) is wrong.
If you choose to delude yourself that way. But you are wrong and hypocritical. I won't be supplying any evidence because this works fine for you when you are arguing any particular point. So what is sauce for the goose.....
-
Mind your own business. You don't know what you're talking about. I said I would condemn any body who used bad language, and I have. What's inconsistent about that? Look up the word and learn what it means. Incidentally, if you think I spend my time searching for swearers, then you are even more off the mark than I thought.. It's only the sad atheists who actually spend time looking for opportunities to score cheap points.
No you have not, and that was the point Shaker was making.
You have been shown to be hypocritical and inconsistent.
-
Not surprised; you've been far too busy singing the 'argumentum ad ...' song. ;)
Too many reasons to do so, alas, most of them yours.
-
:D How sad! I wonder how long it took to trawl through to find that
A few seconds. That's what the search function is for.
only for me to remind you that I would condemn anyone who used bad language.
Except Vlad, as anybody can see who follows the link I provided. You can't plead ignorance (well, not on this, anyway) or try to fob us off with the excuse that you didn't see it, as you quoted Vlad's post. Again, it's all there in the link.
Which makes you a hypocrite.
-
No you have not, and that was the point Shaker was making.
You have been shown to be hypocritical and inconsistent.
Not worth arguing: you just post from the same, tired, template, every time.
-
See, M47.
Seen it. It's a lie.
-
Not worth arguing: you just post from the same, tired, template, every time.
I assume that you concede that you do NOT in fact treat all posters equally when it comes to the use of certain words?
That is the only conclusion possible.
-
I wish BA would shut up about swearing, which is his favourite hobby horse! I wasn't going to mention this, but seeing he keeps on and on about the topic, I makes no apology for mentioning it. During one of our phone calls, when I was in personal communication with BA, he used the swear word 'B*GGER'. Yes he apologised for doing so, but it still came out of his mouth! ::)
-
I assume that you concede that you do NOT in fact treat all posters equally when it comes to the use of certain words?
That is the only conclusion possible.
It is not, but then it's you saying it.
-
I wish BA would shut up about swearing, which is his favourite hobby horse! I wasn't going to mention this, but seeing he keeps on and on about the topic, I makes no apology for mentioning it. During one of our phone calls, when I was in personal communication with BA, he used the swear word 'B*GGER'. Yes he apologised for doing so, but it still came out of his mouth! ::)
If I did, and I cannot either recollect it, or accept your honesty in relating it, then even such a saintly person such as myself can be excused one slip. Though I doubt I said it.
-
I wish BA would shut up about swearing, which is his favourite hobby horse! I wasn't going to mention this, but seeing he keeps on and on about the topic, I makes no apology for mentioning it. During one of our phone calls, when I was in personal communication with BA, he used the swear word 'B*GGER'. Yes he apologised for doing so, but it still came out of his mouth! ::)
Bugger isn't swearing... short for bugger lugs and cheeky term often used to refer to a moderately mischievous child.
I dare say you have said worse when you have hurt yourself...
-
Bugger isn't swearing... short for bugger lugs and cheeky term often used to refer to a moderately mischievous child.
Now do you want to know the actual etymology?
-
Bugger isn't swearing... short for bugger lugs and cheeky term often used to refer to a moderately mischievous child.
I dare say you have said worse when you have hurt yourself...
Funny I always thought b*gger was a swear word! Anyway the point was that BA used that word, and has now conveniently forgotten doing so! ::)
-
Funny I always thought b*gger was a swear word! Anyway the point was that BA used that word, and has now conveniently forgotten doing so! ::)
Just as conveniently as you have forgotten your prayers, which are still online. Yes?
-
A Prayer
Dear Deity,
If you exist, why are you not doing your job properly by reining in some of your nuttier followers, whose hypocrisy knows no bounds?
They whinge, whine and rant about us wicked non believers, yet they seem unable to understand that their behaviour is pretty awful! Of course they could be lacking in the intellectual department, which seems increasingly likely, and I suppose one should have pity for them, if that is the case.
Anyway there you have it, get off your backside and sort them out!
Amen aka Tat ta for now!
-
A Prayer
Dear Deity,
If you exist, why are you not doing your job properly by reining in some of your nuttier followers, whose hypocrisy knows no bounds?
They whinge, whine and rant about us wicked non believers, yet they seem unable to understand that their behaviour is pretty awful! Of course they could be lacking in the intellectual department, which seems increasingly likely, and I suppose one should have pity for them, if that is the case.
Anyway there you have it, get off your backside and sort them out!
Amen aka Tat ta for now!
Ah, so you are still a believer really!! ;D
-
God is a very general word. Lot depends on what you mean by it.
If we believe in a personal guardian angel who is duty bound to protect us and ensure that we live the longest possible lives with maximum comfort possible and without any pain or loss....then it is true that our experiences in the world are at variance with this belief.
God is not a holiday resort manager.
How about god isn't?
ippy
-
How about god isn't?
ippy
god isn't ... what? ;) Who or what you like to think s/he is?
-
god isn't ... what? ;) Who or what you like to think s/he is?
;D ;D ;D ;)
ippy
-
;D ;D ;D ;)
ippy
Glad you enjoyed the post. Perhaps you're too shy to say what you actually mean ;)
-
Glad you enjoyed the post. Perhaps you're too shy to say what you actually mean ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
ippy
-
Glad you enjoyed the post. Perhaps you're too shy to say what you actually mean ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
ippy
So sorry to hear that you suffer from shyness.