Great, what is origin of the universe ?
Excellent.
It would remind you of the cordial contretemps debating that is so routine in this place, whether it be the political threads or the matchday experiences.
I actually have more respect for The Archbishop’s stance than I do for the traditional crap there has been from successive Popes.
I do however feel that he himself has admitted that the Bible is wrong. The Bible is man written, not divine. He more or less agrees that his take on the on the origin of the species is the same as Dawkins, but whereas Richard on a scale of belief in god of 1-7, would place himself as agnostic not atheist. However he would not place himself as a 4 in the middle, but a 6.9, which is firmly in the camp that the balance of probabilities are firmly in the non-theist camp.
The Archbishop however, as I said largely agrees but places god in gaps we don’t know.
I thought he totally lost the argument at the end. When Dawkins asked him why religion still clings to the fable of the bible that he openly admitted was an 800BC version of their understanding of things, not a 21st century scientific understanding. Why does religion still pedal the myth? Why does it need to?
He had no answer.
What I got from his stance is that there is a difference between faith and religion. I respect that, not least because he at least admits to his understanding of faith and the religious deficiencies.
There are so many religions that will not admit the same no matter what the proof is. Not least the Catholic Church, but there are worse examples obviously.
www.express.co.uk
www.abc.net.au