Archbishop of Canterbury admits doubts about existence of God

Archbishop of Canterbury admits doubts about existence of God (Guardian)

A refreshing rejoinder to those who think that Christianity does not include doubt.

Something is wrong with that link.

>2 MarthaJeanne: Thanks, and apologies. I've fixed it now.

Well, at least he seems to have parts of the bible in mind: "he wanted to "compete Wonga out of existence", although it was later pointed out that at the time the church was an investor in Wonga."

He has doubts about the existence of whatever he means by the word 'God', but is certain about having "beside him" someone claimed last seen on Earth almost 2,000 years ago?

<<Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives." "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.">> - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm

Does this mean that he'd make a poor catholic?

>1 John5918: This seems to be a very canny thing for the AoC to say. Everyone has doubts, rightfully, about a certain human-centered notion about God. So the AoC says: ""The other day I was praying as I was running and I ended up saying to God: 'Look, this is all very well but isn't it about time you did something – if you're there' – which is probably not what the archbishop of Canterbury should say." What this means, to me at least, is that the notion that God should "do something" is a very human feeling, based on our own sense of rightness and justice -- which almost always boils down to expecting that God will do something to satisfy our own personal sensibility. When God does not do something, we question God, not our sensibility. That seems very natural. If, however, we do question our sensibility, we inevitably have to realize that this sensibility does not dominate the universe. This could be a humbling moment for us, but often it is not; it's a moment that stimulates rebellion. But rebellion against what? The universe? That seems futile. Much better to summon up a threadbare notion of God and dump on Him. For some reason, that makes people feel better. Go figure.

He added: "It is not about feelings, it is about the fact that God is faithful and the extraordinary thing about being a Christian is that God is faithful when we are not."

And yet, as the AoC knows perfectly well, it's all about feelings -- our feelings that something is wrong when the world works in a way that scares or offends us. "God being faithful" merely means that the totality is what it is. "When we are not", merely means that sometimes we don't feel good being part of the totality.

Later in the interview, Welby said he was certain, however, about the existence of Jesus, even talking about his presence beside him.

"We know about Jesus, we can't explain all the questions in the world, we can't explain about suffering, we can't explain loads of things but we know about Jesus,"

Back to feelings. There's nothing to explain about suffering -- it simply is. Asking why and being dissatisfied that we can't find the answer or don't like whatever answer we come up with doesn't change anything one iota, except perhaps we make ourselves more miserable. "We know about Jesus" simply means that we know how Jesus overcame suffering, and we can do the same.

Thanks, John, for pointing out this article.

> 1

I know how the AoC feels. I myself have doubts occasionally about Lord Cthulhu.

But one must have faith - in the historicalness of the Story of Cthulhu:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUVofY6fJCo

Addendum: I wonder if Tom Cruise ever has doubts about Xenu or his prophet L.R. Hubbard?

I've been considering joining the Cthulhu Witnesses but I'm not sure if my faith is strong enough.

I suppose I need to pray more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1s_wNm2Ac

". . .doubts occasionally about Lord Cthulhu" (7)

Did Lovecraft believe in "Lord Cthulhu"? I always thought he was an unabashed fiction-writer!?

>9 rolandperkins: "unabashed fiction-writer"

You mean like "Mark", "Matthew", Luke (x2), and "John"?

For some examples: Bart Ehrman.

> 9

Yes, what zangasta said above.

But let's expand the thought. So then - why should we take the inspired writings of H.P. Lovecraft any less seriously than those of Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or, as previously mentioned, the various writers of the bible?

Many people now think that the stories in the christian bible are made up, I.e., fantasy. I mean, e.g., a talking snake, a flying chariot taking a guy to heaven, a magician multiplying fishes and loaves or raising a stinking corpses or two from the dead - how is any of that different in kind from H.P. Lovecraft stories?

Many now also think the Koran is likewise fantasy.

Some think similar fantasy works of those like the Hindu Upanishads and Vedas, the Confucian Analects, and the Buddhist Sutras, etc.

Sure, "believers" in each religion do not think their religion is fiction. They think that about the other guy's religion. lol.

It is SCIENCE which is about empirical evidence, testability, verification, repeatability, etc. - all that is non-fiction by definition. But scientific methodology is not to be confused with religion by those of sound mind.

In contradistinction FAITH is the foundation of religion - ALL religions. If religion were science then there would be only one religion instead of thousands. But FAITH knows no bounds.

Religion is about dogmas, i.e., non-falsifiable claims which are unscientific/nonscientific by definition.

At best only one religion (at most) is not fiction, by definition.

Which one?

Well, you have your faith and I have mine. Multiply by a few billion.

Plus, you can't DISPROVE my religion. So there. lol.

>11 JGL53:
If religion were science then there would be only one religion instead of thousands.
===========
“Only one science.”
What about phrenology.

>11 JGL53: Plus, you can't DISPROVE my religion. So there.

As Woody Allen said (back when he was funny...):
"You cannot prove the nonexistence of god; you just have to take it on faith.

> 12

What is accepted as at one time is sometimes found out to be pseudo-science as time goes on. Thus we still wind up with only one science. So, again, we can have thousands of pseudo-sciences - but only ONE science.

> 13

Ditto Santa and the easter bunny? lol.

My favorite Woody Allen witticisms regarding religion:

"Not only is there no god but try getting a plumber on weekends."

"Kant was right. The mind imposes order. It also tells you how much to tip."

"I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying."

"God is silent. Now if we can only get man to shut up."

And this from his character in his movie 'Love and Death':

“If it turns out that there is a God, I don’t think he is evil. I think that the worst thing you can say about him is that he is an underachiever.”