Humphrys in search of god

[Filippo Lippi]

In the first show of his new series on Radio 4 John Humphrys challenges Rowan Williams to reignite JH's lost faith. (Here if you are in the UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/insearchofgod.shtml)

Interesting stuff on prayer from the Ab of C, he prays in the hope that some of god's stuff may, just, however remote the chance, come through and act upon the world in a good way. He also says that people make a choice when they reject god, because he believes that god is hard-wired into us from birth. I'd have challenged him on this, because this apparent hard-wiring seems a bit ambiguous to me and so many people choose the wrong god; maybe this is explored in the full fifty-odd minute interview (which is also on the site).

Perhaps the biggest revelation is the idea that eternal salvation is still open to the unrepentant atheist even after death as long as he/she turned away from god in the right way.

ETA - The opposite of damned if you do...

[Asolepius]

I heard the full interview, and thought Humphrys was very sharp. The archbishop was remarkably wet and woolly. No direct answers to anything. In fact even he didn't sound too sure that God exists, in any personal sense. Is this modern theology? All very vague and flexible, no hard facts and no basic tenets. And of course no evidence.

[Mr Clingford]

But what is wrong with not making dogmatic statements about things where there is no evidence? Sounds sensible to me.

[Asolepius]

I was just remarking on how theology seems to have shifted away from dogma, at least as portrayed by this theologian. I could not really identify what Williams does believe, it was so nebulous. Humphrys said he was looking for a reason to believe, and didn't get it.

[Mr Clingford]

Yes, I see what you mean. Williams seems strongly of the camp that language can be inadequate at describing theological concepts. I did feel that at times he could have tried to have been more direct but maybe he felt that he would have become inaccurate if he had tried.

[SusanB-M1]

#2 - I agree that the Archbishop was woolly and seemed very uncertain about God and his belief and, who knows, he might even become an atheist.....well, probably not, as he'd lose all the status etc. I must say, though, that his voice really irritates me and has done since he was appointed. Some people can enunciate perfectly and it is very pleasant to listen to, but he does so in such a deliberate way that it sets my teeth on edge. Also he seems to speak in a sort of whisper rather than an ordinary voice.

#3 - It seems to me that the Archbishop of all people should be the one who makes clear, dogmatic statements.

On the BBC MBs (of which I go to 6) there were so many threads started on the subject, that it was quite confusing, but in general I think the views tended towards the sceptical.

[Mr Clingford]

I agree that the Archbishop was woolly and seemed very uncertain about God and his belief and, who knows, he might even become an atheist.....well, probably not, as he'd lose all the status etc.Harshly cynical that last bit! But I don't see the problem with not sounding like a fundamentalist nutjob; surely it isn't the case that the options are either atheism or dogmatism? Sounds like a fundamentalist approach to me.
It seems to me that the Archbishop of all people should be the one who makes clear, dogmatic statements.Perhaps, of all people, he should be the one to make it clear that it is not black and white?

[SusanB-M1]

Harshly cynical that last bit! But I don't see the problem with not sounding like a fundamentalist nutjob; surely it isn't the case that the options are either atheism or dogmatism? Sounds like a fundamentalist approach to me.

No, my views are not fundamentalist, I assure you! I was simply expressing an opinion briefly, rather than making it too long; and with tongue somewhat in cheek.

[Mr Clingford]

He also says that people make a choice when they reject god, because he believes that god is hard-wired into us from birth. I'd have challenged him on this, because this apparent hard-wiring seems a bit ambiguous to me and so many people choose the wrong godBut I don't think that he specified the Christian god so people who follow a god are not following the wrong god.

I like the Archbishop because he is being honest that he doesn't know the 'answers'; surely that is good rather than wet and woolly. Furthermore, I'm not sure that it is modern theology but the way theology has always been, a 'groping' in the dark for possible answers.

[Asolepius]

I suppose there is a distrinction between religion and theology. Religion is for congregations and theology is for academics. What I react to is that Williams could not provide any sort of mental `tool kit' for the search for truth. Science does exactly that, and it works. I do think that, although Humphreys was very good, he might have used a few bad examples, which led into a discussion of free will. Major natural disasters would have been worth exploring - why does a loving god wipe out 200,000 people at a stroke? This may be seen by theologians as a hackneyed argument, but it has never been properly answered, bacause it can't be.

In summary, Williams' flexible and unstructured approach did not wash with Humphrys, or with me.

[chriswl]

I suppose there is a distrinction between religion and theology. Religion is for congregations and theology is for academics.
But Williams is the Church of England's equivalent of the Pope. He isn't an academic but a major religious leader.

[Filippo Lippi]

Second one on line now with transcripts. This week, wonder how many theological knots Dr Tariq Ramadan can tie himself up in trying to explain why, when the Koran says you should stone someone, you shouldn't stone them.

There's transcripts of both programmes up there, so non-licence fee payers can join in.

[Pauliesonne]

But Williams is the Church of England's equivalent of the Pope. He isn't an academic but a major religious leader.

That's why I believe every last word that slides out of his mouth.

Do I own at sarcasm or do I suck at it? - YOU DECIDE!

[Mr Clingford]

But Williams is the Church of England's equivalent of the Pope. He isn't an academic but a major religious leader.But Williams has been both, having taught at both Cambridge and Oxford Universities.

[chriswl]

But Williams has been both, having taught at both Cambridge and Oxford Universities.
Yes, but he's no longer speaking as an academic. If his studies mean that he can no longer believe in the doctrines of his religion then I think that makes him a very poor choice to actually lead that religion.

But what the hell. No one cares what the leader of the Church of England thinks. Most C of E believers aren't particularly religious but nor do they seem to have any problem with mouthing things they don't believe. So why would they care anyway?

[Mr Clingford]

Yes, but he's no longer speaking as an academic. If his studies mean that he can no longer believe in the doctrines of his religion then I think that makes him a very poor choice to actually lead that religion.His studies don't appear to have led to a loss of faith. Why would you think the language he uses suggests this might have happened?

But what the hell. No one cares what the leader of the Church of England thinks. Most C of E believers aren't particularly religious but nor do they seem to have any problem with mouthing things they don't believe. So why would they care anyway?I think you are being unfair and inaccurate here, at least in my experience; many are devout (true a fair number have little faith and attend out of duty etc) and would have a great problem mouthing things they don't believe.

[pmckean]

Well, this series of three programmes has now finished, and I think it was an oustanding effort; a genuine attempt to engage representatives of major faiths to explain their beliefs.

John Humphreys dealt with the big issues - not nit-picking confrontation. It was mature conversation between intelligent, thoughtful people, one of which happened to be an athiest, and the rest of whom happened to be believers. All involved approached the debate in a serious, thoughtful and balanced way.

Sometimes we're guilty of characterising those who hold religious belief as somehow muddled and irrational, yet I think the interviewees pitched their beliefs with, by and large, as much intellectual clarity as Richard Dawkins might promote athiesm. It just so happens that I - and most of the people on this board, would disagree with them.

The conceit of the series, of course, was for the faith representatives to help JH regain a belief in God. Rather predicatably, this didn't happen - it would be rather astonishing if it had!

Apparently, the series has prompted a huge volume of correspondence with the BBC, with plenty of people writing to express their appreciation and plenty more sending Bibles!

[pmckean]

I should add that for those who are interested, and missed the programmes, they are available here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/insearchofgod.shtml

[Asolepius]

I thought that of the three, Sacks was the most erudite. He seemed to have the clearest conviction. Williams was the least clear. It must have been tempting for Humphrys to go into the mid east situation, but was probably warned off that as too political. I can to an extent relate to Sacks' justification of faith by benefits to care of children, the elderly etc, but JH wasn't asking that - he was wanting evidence that God exists, or even assuming that he exists, that he cares a toss about us. None of the believers came close to answering that.