Is faith in God "Rational"? - Rowan Williams & Paul Kingsnorth
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2022
- Rowan Williams and Paul Kingsnorth are asked what they'd say if atheists like Richard Dawkins challenged them on the "rationality" of their Christian faith.
Watch the full Big Conversation between Rowan Williams & Paul Kingsnorth: • Rowan Williams & Paul ...
For updates, bonus content and more conversations sign up at: www.thebigconversation.show
The Big Conversation is a video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
Every time I come to this channel I learned something that I never even thought of. God bless you guys and thank you
We can reason ourselves into any belief. Rowan Williams here presents a fine example of deflecting from the question.
The assertions for a god by the likes of Mr. Williams and every other apologist and believer are genuinely shocking as they are clearly pure drivel. Its sickening to see religion has poisoned the minds of humans en masse.
Quantum Physics has shown that Reality is based on Probabilities.
A statistical impossibility is defined as *_“a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument."_* The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Furthermore, of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/ 10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer while trying to determine the origin of the universe.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely *Irrational and Unreasonable* hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists _‘must’_ believe in and promote because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, Information, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
Basically as I have suspected for many years, the only real argument regarding God is between deism and theism.
Atheism is a fools belief.
I was an Atheist until I was 21 years old. After years of research I became agnostic and eventually a devout Christian. I’m thankful for channels like this for providing rational, scientific and philosophical arguments for Theism.
So basicly you are very very bad at research... ok
Quick IQ test...
Solve: 4, 5, 14, 185, ...
@@rimbusjift7575 So after a billion years a person has evolved to solve your question? Solve this problem...How did dna come about?
I was indifferent to religion until i was 25 and like you now have Christ as my savour. All that happened was i was down in New Zealand looking at the stars and something in my brain said this beautiful sky was made not a product of chance.
@@dulls8475
A magic man in the sky. Duh.
When Rowan Williams is asked if faith in God is "Rational" he avoids saying this by asking _another_ question instead: *What do we mean by 'rational'?* Well how is that avoidance technique any different from what the Bible describes Pilot saying to Jesus in John 18.37 - 38: _'Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then?_ Jesus answered, _Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice._ Pilate saith unto him, *What is truth?* I wonder what Rowan would say _that_ response is supposed to indicatate? Probably something equally slippery like *'What do we mean by 'indicates'?*
Rationality as a way of systematically ordering propositions using various rules may be too narrow a definition to actually describe reality (or "rational thought"). Sense-making like riding a bike or dancing may be "rational" in that they involve ordering ourselves in reality but they are not propositional in the same sense. This is actually a debated topic within cognitive studies generally "is thought only propositional" if you are interested you could look up Hubert Dreyfus who argued that much of our thought isn't abstracted propositional about reality.
If my memory serves me, Rev. John Stott in quite a few occasions shared his view on this faith and reason question. He said faith is beyond reason but would not contradict reason.
Stating that I reasoned my way to learn how to ride a bicycle is ridiculous. Most people don’t know that its gyroscopic forces that allow you to ride a bicycle or motorcycle. Practice and experience is how you learn thru suffering the consequences of not moving fast enough to stay up. It’s the consequences that makes you reason to pedal the bike. If you use reason for God you will become an atheist. faith is all you have when it comes to God.
How did dna arise without intelligent input? You need faith to believe random processes produced dna. It is very reasonable to believe in God.
@@dulls8475 try reasoning with a child learning to ride a bicycle and see where that gets you.
@@dulls8475 Evolution is not a random process. It requires no God to start or run it.
@@dulls8475
_'How did dna arise without intelligent input?'_
According to my daughter DNA [Deoxyribonucleic acid] is a natural organic chemical that contains genetic information and instructions for protein synthesis and is one the best evidences we have for the natural evolution of species.
My daughter is a senior resurch scientist and an expert on DNA.
So tell me, what are your qualifications on the subject of DNA my friend?
@@johnhammond6423 I have no qualifications at all but i have opinions just like your magical daughter. Your daughter may know what dna is but she has not explained how it came about. I have views on planes as well but I am not a pilot. I see you have no qualifications either yet here you are....please explain how disorder goes to order....
The word 'Heart' is used many times but without a definition. When comparing it to Intellect and Mind it needs to be defined. The normal meaning of the word Heart is the thing that pumps blood round our body, in the context used it is something else. What is it?
Greetingz cuzinz and Earthlingz
I would really like to know why we evolved , what we evolved for , what is the purpose of evolution and if evolution is a process that will stop evolving or we are always evolving and never stop ?
Out of interest how did DNA come about?
Evolution is a mindless process, primarily driven by natural selection. It has no purpose and will never stop. In what direction we will evolve is hard to discern. If climate change runs rampant, surviving human populations may not closely resemble those of today.
@@dulls8475 Yeah! if only we had decades of research to explore since the discovery of DNA, and an internet with search engines like Google, instead of having to ask stupid questions in a obscure place like this. If you were all that curious about the origins of DNA, you wouldn't be here asking stupid questions, expecting to be spoon fed, you'd just GO AND DO THE F/KING RESEARCH YOURSELF.
If you're asking about the evolution of species by natural selection, then it has no purpose. It is an inevitable outcome for a system in which species are subject to change and reproduce, with different variants having different rates of success according to selection pressures exerted by the environment. Evolution of this sort will continue so long as each of those features is present.
No. Unfortunately, it’s not rational nor reasonable.
Please reply to this comment with the books they mentioned.
It is may opinion that if you need faith to believe in anything ,you would never step foot on a aeroplane using this way of thinking . To believe in something on faith ,is not using critical thinking ,but blind faith . NOT GOOD
It all boils down to rationality. Your concept of a deity is irrational. That should do it. No more BS. Stop using fallacious logical argument as your only source.
Even by the standards of conventional Western logic, the answer is yes, belief in God is rational.
Ironically, this sounds very New-Agey.
The problem is our intellect. When we try to reason out a system that defies intellect, but is obviously filled with solid intellect we should accept it on face value. That is how righteousness is made known to us because then we hit the correct emotional frequency that delivers Almighty God's and Jesus Christ's Living Waters into our daily lives. A repairing force that offers rebirth providing we avoid mosh pits and any other emotional waste of our inner nervous strength or any other unrighteousness.
Iain McGilchrist is interesting on this topic.
Can you name any mutation that has lead to an increase in information to the gnome structure?
Certainly. Polyploidy is an easy example. Also see the work on bacterial evolution of metabolic pathways by Lenski at MSU.
No, gnomes will always be concrete.
@@machintelligence Just read up on them and it is not new information. It is just duplication. 2 copies of Charles Darwins book is not an increase in information.
@@dulls8475 Ignorance on your part does not constitute a valid argument.
(Argument from personal incredulity.)
@@machintelligence Whatever, please explain how such complex information came about with no intelligent input. Please I have been insulted by experts.
Very easy. Faith by the very definition of it is irrational. And thus a believe in a god is necessarily irrational.
Not really
I dont believe dna came about randomly. Ergo God.
Hey, well this might be attacking straw man. In the Christian sense, one facet of faith is trust that you place in God. This trust is by no means blind, but grounded on evidence. Much like the faith that one has in their best friend. Hope this is helpful, cheers!
Nonsense. Fiat money operates by faith. A persons makes his great life decisions on faith simply because we cannot see the future. Men arrive at truth by reason, science, and by faith. Don’t disillusion yourself. Cheers
Faith is the reason given for belief when there are no valid reasons.
Religious faith is just gullibility all dressed up in its Sunday best.
I would love to see at some point when one of these men of God while debating Richard Dawkins turn to him and declare, by the power of the Christ you shall walk around blind for a season until you repent and turn to Jesus asking Him to return your sight, and spend the rest of your days declaring the good news of the gospel!
Given that the gospels are a set of horribly flawed records for a divine Jesus your point doesn’t hold up. Jesus is dead just like a everyone else from 2000 years ago
I would say : Thank you Richard Dawkins for opening the eyes of people to leave behind superstition and know the reality of life.
Now, to be reasonable is to use empirical information we pick up from the word and test it to see if that that we picked up is actually factual. Religion is not factual. Therefore is not rational.
Human behavioral studies in Economics, Relationships, and other areas has found people are irrational beings. Even scientists behave irrationally with their work and whats done with the knowledge gained from science can and is at times used irrationally.
This blind belief called Atheism is stealing the Scientific Methods developed by Theist and twist them to claim the ownership . Let us remember that although the Church might have opposed some Scientific researches , many monks and preachers were actually scientists. Saving the fact that all the Scientific development in Islamic culture was encouraged by the Islamic state
Its irrational. Its OK to assume but to conclude without good evidence is deluded.
What do you mean "conclude"? Unless told otherwise, why would you assume anyone has concluded anything?
Are you on CZcams or is it an assumption?
"Don't imagine thinking is just one thing..." Yet another word-salad of analogies and personal, unprovable assertions from Mr. Williams. Every apologist I've ever heard is actually good evidence for a god being a total fiction.
You can't reason your way into learning to ride a bicycle so you can't reason your way into believing in a god. And there's nothing wrong with defining rationality in mathematical terms. At least mathematics creates real results. Religion does not.
Pray for Richard.
Why so you can feel good about yourself for doing the least amount of efford and basicly asking for someone else to fix it inside your head?
@@themplar nope, its not about my feelings.
I just know how to be lost.
What do you mean fix it inside your head?
If i followed my feelings... my idea is not to care at all.
there is no rational case for God
I suggest you go and read Moses Exodus' comment in this comment section.
If you put such stock in science and rationality then I think you'll find yourself at an impasse afterwards.
@@Si_Mondo Moses never existed, there was no exodus.
I forgot what this channel is about.. is it like athiestic
No
@@nathanmckenzie904 well it’s about debates
Nope..
Its just a part, so that we can understand where Atheist is coming from.
@@daddada2984 so it’s like a Christian version of the atheist experience lol 😂
@@giraffewhiskers2045 not really
I would say to Dr Dawkins, testify in a LAW COURT the position of Atheism or whatever you label yourself and JUSTIFY yourself as being 'safe' for society. for your values and beliefs are a guarantee they are 'right' and 'true'. for dr dawkins is either a VICTIM of his lifestyle and belief, or saved through it. but he MUDT choose which one. Christianity has been JUDGED by ROMAN LAW, the basic of YOUR COUNTRY that is indebted to ROMAN LAW> the same law that crucified Jesus.
Our country is primarily a Common Law system. He has to presumed correct and you have to prove him wrong. Roman Law puts the burden the other way around.
I believe in God by the way, but get UK law's primacy correct if you're going to use such an analogy.
@@Si_Mondo wrong wrong. Atheists made a CLAIM. they said the disciples NEVER saw Jesus ALIVE after his death. with a claim you have to PROVIDE evidence of what they DID see my learned friend. you are the PROSECUTION. remember OSCAR PISTORIUS. it is not enough to say he did it knowing Reeva was in the bathroom. they had to give reasoning. You have to give reasoning of what the apostles saw. and for 2000 years not one 'little' atheist has been able to do so. We have given EVIDENCE. witness testimonies. I can call Bart Ehrrman as an historian. and say is there 'evidence' that Jesus died on a cross as it claims in the bible. and he says YES
What a mush-minded group this is.
Theistic rationalism= believing with out evidence .
Nope.
We follow where the evidence is leading..
Can you support this claim with evidence?
@@daddada2984 😂
@@daddada2984 But there is no evidence that a god does exist. And there is tons of evidence that the specific god concept of christians does not exist.
@@daddada2984
Quick IQ test...
Solve: 4, 5, 14, 185, ...
The problem is that you're using a broken brain.