This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin"

"The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin" - Comments

mmurray's Avatar Comment 1 by mmurray

I wonder if the Archbishop will speak or whether he will just do "silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark".

Michael

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:21:43 UTC | #920232

Quine's Avatar Comment 2 by Quine

I have been waiting ...

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:27:18 UTC | #920234

Ranting Socrates's Avatar Comment 3 by Ranting Socrates

I like the Archbishop, he isn't one to be looked down upon and mocked. I hope people can appreciate the difference between him and a William Lane Craig, or a Rabbi Shumley for instance.

Other than that, I can't wait for the dicussion.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:27:19 UTC | #920235

mmurray's Avatar Comment 4 by mmurray

Comment 3 by Ranting Socrates :

I like the Archbishop, he isn't one to be looked down upon and mocked. I hope people can appreciate the difference between him and a William Lane Craig, or a Rabbi Shumley for instance.

Other than that, I can't wait for the dicussion.

Yes, yes I am well aware that religious people occupy a broad spectrum and I would trade the A of C any day for the Pope. But anyone who says things like what I just quoted and who cultivates his eyebrows deserves a bit of joshing.

More seriously I don't see him supporting secularism and I find his defence of sharia law worrying.

I was rather hoping the A of C would do his silence trick and Richard would talk about the origins of humankind.

Michael

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:37:44 UTC | #920237

Quine's Avatar Comment 5 by Quine

mmurray: I was rather hoping the A of C would do his silence trick and Richard would talk about the origins of humankind.

I am rather hoping the A of C would seriously think about the questions Richard asks him.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:50:15 UTC | #920239

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 6 by Steve Zara

Comment 3 by Ranting Socrates

I like the Archbishop, he isn't one to be looked down upon and mocked.

I think he certainly deserves to be both viewed from above and the subject of ridicule. If he was not an Archbishop I would not suggest these things. The world is full of all kinds of people with archaic and amusing views, and they should be largely left alone. But, if they decide to preach those views then they are fair game.

This man has a position of power, a position he was not elected to by those he says he represents, and a position that is based on supernatural nonsense. He says he views theological matters questioningly, and yet he does not hesitate to make moral and political statements that, by his own admission, have no foundation other than uncertain theology and church politics. His statements have led to considerable unhappiness, as women have not been permitted to take up equal roles in his organisation, and many, many gays and lesbians who want true equality have not been able to get married because of his position.

He could have been a courageous man, using his position to act as a leader against inequality and injustice, but instead he panders to the worst in his church for the sake of unity.

He is far from an admirable man.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:51:07 UTC | #920240

RDfan's Avatar Comment 7 by RDfan

Comment 6 by Steve Zara

As always, brilliantly said, Steve. It's amazing how many people can be easily seduced by a few flowing robes and archaic titles; not you, I'm glad to see.

Indeed, whilst the A of C is no raving lunatic, his ideas on religion certainly are delusional and harmful. These ideas deserve to be as ridiculed as any other religionist's ideas are. I hope RD does so.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:03:55 UTC | #920243

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 8 by ZenDruid

From what I understand, Old Beetlebrows invited sharia right in. If so, that may make him a traitor to his own civilization.

If.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:09:14 UTC | #920247

The Jersey Devil's Avatar Comment 9 by The Jersey Devil

Good luck, Mr. Dawkins. And for god's sake, memorize the title to that book!!!

Just kidding. Good luck.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:25:08 UTC | #920251

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 10 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - potentially defamatory

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:29:27 UTC | #920254

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 11 by mirandaceleste

Comment 1 by mmurray :

I wonder if the Archbishop will speak or whether he will just do "silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark".

Michael

Does the truth ever arrive? Or do the Archbishop and The Question Mark co-exist in a perpetual state of ineffable pure mysterious waiting, like the main characters in Waiting for Godot? Will The Question Mark be accompanying the Archbishop to this discussion? And, if so, does The Question Mark get his own chair? So many questions...

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:30:46 UTC | #920255

zengardener's Avatar Comment 12 by zengardener

Maybe I should get some flowing robes, and give myself a proper title.

If theologians can get a "Dr." tagged on their name, I should get at least as good a title from what I now of the various D&D Gods, planes of existence, pantheons, and worlds.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:32:16 UTC | #920256

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 13 by susanlatimer

I really hope Richard Dawkins asks some terribly direct questions.

I can't bear another round of the deist christian. Which is it? Is it the ineffable mystery or the necessary sacrifical blood of the messiah to yahweh? The breathless wonder at the universe or the withholding of gay rights? Make up your mind.

They are not the same thing. Spit it out. What do you believe and why?

The snarky comments about your eyebrows aren't fair. I have no issue with your eyebrows but I do take issue with you claiming and enjoying authority because the universe is still so incomprehensible and the way you use it to justify unfounded claims about Jesus. Your robe and your cross undermine the whole question mark angle.

There is nothing incomprehensible about superstitious beliefs about Jesus. Nothing at all. It was made up and people believe things that are made up if they hear them often enough.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:45:27 UTC | #920261

Warren-S's Avatar Comment 14 by Warren-S

What about the Warhammer 40K Chaos Gods? Don't they also count? After all, the xtian one is no more real than they are!

Maybe Williams will have a giant, gold question mark mounted on a sceptre? Or will dress in the Seventh Doctor's get-up? "I am High Priest of the Holy Order of the Question."

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:50:31 UTC | #920265

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 15 by Premiseless

Comment 1 by mmurray :

I wonder if the Archbishop will speak or whether he will just do "silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark".

Michael

I wondered if he might insist on the O2 arena?

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:15:00 UTC | #920274

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 16 by Vorlund

@Comment 10 by Michael Gray @Comment 6 by Steve Zara

Agreed, superficially he comes over like a nice chap wanting to talk about the cosmic implications of weak tea and and jam sponge parties but there is something unhealthy about him, something of the night, like a dark cellar crawling with tegenaria and reeking with wet rot.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:17:04 UTC | #920275

sbooder's Avatar Comment 17 by sbooder

I suspect that all the answers and statements the A of C will give, will be as usual, wrapped in and enigma, inside an illusion, hidden in a mystery, swaddled in a fantasy, enclosed in a daydream and all boxed in utter bollocks!

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:17:06 UTC | #920276

BenS's Avatar Comment 18 by BenS

I think the noble Professor should wear a tie subtly sporting question marks for some light hearted comedy value. From what I've seen the AofC would probably take it in good humour.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:19:41 UTC | #920279

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 19 by Premiseless

Comment 18 by BenS :

I think the noble Professor should wear a tie subtly sporting question marks for some light hearted comedy value. From what I've seen the AofC would probably take it in good humour.

Yes, great idea, with answers on the back of course, plus an award: a nebuliser which has rational application should he bedeviled by palpitations at some of Richard's remarks.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:26:01 UTC | #920280

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 20 by strangebrew

There are few religious leaders to venerate...it approaches 0 as a function of relevance.

'Catweazle has always been out of his depth as A of C...he does seem a fairly run of the mill theologian, but does lack a certain vision for the future of the Anglican cult, as is a common feature in all such sunbeams for jeebus .

He is just fighting little fires here and there and achieving very little for a cult that is literally imploding under its own dogma. He is propping it up and is not outward looking and fails to comprehend that a church in the 21st century must reflect 21st century knowledge. If they are so convinced they hold the secret to morality the onus must be for them to provide practical moral advice and comfort in a role as the cohesive glue in society...not the purveyor of tired discredited and out date fairy tale gobbly gook. They must answer the questions like why a certain moral imperative applies to what situation being addressed and explain it fully.

It is not anywhere near acceptable to claim a god whispered it to one of their bead and shell rattling shamen or basing the meme on a compendium of fairy stories that is ambiguous to downright sensationalist if not actually genocidal, the actual damage being done to those they actively persecute and denigrate does not fly any-more...They might smile and wring handy pandies while they do it...but they still do it.

Because 'god says so' is not an answer to anything...because there is no evidence to indicate that point besides a personal bigotry of old and geriatric men that twist words to suit.

If they and the A of C continue to preserve the status quo of a medieval worship oriented cult of invisible and absent supernatural beings while pretending such a deity are there watching your every move they will fade away, as is apparent now, might take a few decades but the future is clear, there is none for them.

The re-definition of what they are about and why must be done within the next few years, certainly before the next decade begins...or not at all...because it will be to late to excuse their nonsense.

It is actually rather to late now...time for them to grow up and do something useful for humanity and not stroke the bigoted ignorance of their sheeple that lack cognitive analytical ability.

If they really want to help people...shoving bullshite down their throats is not conducive to the stated aim.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:45:12 UTC | #920283

Follow Peter Egan's Avatar Comment 21 by Follow Peter Egan

Comment 18 by BenS :

I think the noble Professor should wear a tie subtly sporting question marks for some light hearted comedy value. From what I've seen the AofC would probably take it in good humour.

Richard would look like a 1980s Dr Who! I'd be all for that. Might give Lalla some unwelcome flashbacks.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:38:30 UTC | #920297

Cook@Tahiti's Avatar Comment 22 by Cook@Tahiti

Brace yourself for an avalanche of wooliness, vague poetical language, and quotes from CS Lewis.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:42:03 UTC | #920298

sunbeamforjeebus's Avatar Comment 23 by sunbeamforjeebus

If the actual agenda reflects the title it could be a pretty specific discussion with Dumbledore not really being put under any pressure by Richard.What he could slip under the radar is the question I keep thinking in light of the events of recent weeks and that is 'What else can you do Archbishop to try to convince a disbelieving and disinterested public that you and your kind have any relevance left at all?'

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:57:44 UTC | #920303

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 24 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:01:37 UTC | #920306

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 25 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:04:03 UTC | #920307

Michael Gray's Avatar Comment 26 by Michael Gray

Have I missed something or are you a tad confused here Michael? I don't seem to remember there being a systemic problem with "kiddy-rapist pædophile priests" within the C of E....

You most certainly have missed something, that is fer shure. Just search "anglican church sex abuse scandals australia" to find but a minor inkling of what you have been missing.

they ain't even priests.

Tell them that, not me. My Anglican priests called themselves "priests". Are you saying that they are mistaken?

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:11:27 UTC | #920311

Jumped Up Chimpanzee's Avatar Comment 27 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee

Comment 3 by Ranting Socrates

I like the Archbishop, he isn't one to be looked down upon and mocked. I hope people can appreciate the difference between him and a William Lane Craig, or a Rabbi Shumley for instance.

I agree there are far worse religionists and religions than Rowan Williams and the C of E. However, I am not totally taken in by the wishy-washy tea and biscuit brigade. I think the benign image of the C of E is carefully cultivated to not rock too many boats to ensure it remains in a seat of power and influence for far longer than it has any right.

Remember they still occupy seats in parliament, they still want to get their hands on our children's education (all of them if they could), and they still want to discriminate against large groups of people on the basis of how they were born. Rowan Williams thinks so little of people's welfare that he would like some British people to be subject to Sharia Law. Just for that he deserves to be called a word I shall refrain from using on this occasion.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:37:44 UTC | #920315

mmurray's Avatar Comment 28 by mmurray

Comment 24 by Ignorant Amos :

Have I missed something or are you a tad confused here Michael? I don't seem to remember there being a systemic problem with "kiddy-rapist pædophile priests" within the C of E....they ain't even priests. I don't think the Arch Bish is "an enabler, an abettor, a concealer, an encourager, a perpetuator of crimes of his underlings" either....he does get on my wick with his wishy washy way's, but I think these accusations are a wee bit off base. Have you got the Arch Bish confused with someone else or is it I that is missing something?

They can be priests. Confused me when I first encountered as where I grew up the only priests where Catholic and the rest where Vicars. I think it's the High Church, Low Church thing

Historically, the term "priest" has been more associated with the "High Church" or Anglo-Catholic wing, whereas the term "minister" has been more commonly used in "Low Church" or Evangelical circles.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest#Anglican_or_Episcopalian

High Church CofE are a bit like Catholics and I assume represent some of the ones the Pope is trying to suck back into the RCC fold.

Michael

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:55:31 UTC | #920319

mmurray's Avatar Comment 29 by mmurray

Oops. Quoted my post instead of editing it.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:00:12 UTC | #920320

Metamag's Avatar Comment 30 by Metamag

Wait, weren't his eyebrows completely white in previous pictures?

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:21:18 UTC | #920323