This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
We're now being told that God won't step in to stop climate change.
Probably in much the same way that it didn't step in when various genocides over the past couple of centuries took place.
I guess that also means it won;t step in to stop the next ice age - ****!
Not much of a surprise coming from the head of the Angnostican Church, but I don't know why he doesn't just reach straight for the otherwise inevitable conclusion about a god that doesn't intervene in anything. Maybe he just likes a singalong of a Sunday morning too much.
As a non Briton (is that still legal, or is it only referring to people as English that is banned?), I have approximately zero knowledge of the C of E, so I am curious: why do you refer to it as the 'Agnostican Church'? The term suggests to me a church of non/semi believers, which seems... odd.
According to the Bible, the merciful God is very fond of collective punishments.
Actually God does promise a happy ending (Revelation 21:4), but not for everybody. "For lo, he that denieth that ye changing of climate be caused by ye sins of Man, he shall in those days be consumed by a fiery wind, and shall be swallowed by the sea; and it shall be better for him if he had not been born" (IPCC, Chs 1-94 etc. etc ad nauseam). All of which proves: when people stop believing in God, they don't start believing in nothing; they start believing in anything.
Something has to fill the box that is emptied.
I think JEB already mentions this, that godless people are more gullible to buy into believing something else. I recall reading it in AGW as a religion.
I guess you can say that godless men... err.. people of science believe in it instead of a god.
So Chesterton said, but there is some doubt. According to a bit of research published last year or thereabouts a team claimed to have found what was promptly dubbed the "God Gene", possession of which renders an individual more likely than the norm to believe something in the absence of evidence.
Although it's very early days yet, this would explain much about religions and pseudoreligions. Chesterton's claim would then hold true for the set of believers, i.e. those with that gene or (more likely) gene combination. Personally, in conversation recently, I heard myself say that I can't recall ever having believed in anything; and on further thought realised it is true. (We were talking about Father Christmas, and when we stopped believing in him). To me, anything is accepted provisionally until a better explanation comes along.
Chesterton was right but he forgot the corollary, which is that when people replace belief in Chesterton's God with belief in something else at least some of them are right.
I believe the above comment is now illegal in the UK.
The definition of 'faith' as 'belief in the absence of evidence' is wrong. Faith is different from belief. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of [insert politician of choice] but one need not have faith in him/her. Conversely, one can have faith in somebody without believing that they will always do the right thing, or what you want. Faith is more of an active decision to make certain (rebuttable) basic assumptions about the world, people, etc.. For instance, a sensible person might be a Humanist without requiring evidence for the underlying axioms of Humanism.
Faith and “having faith in” are not synonymous, neither are feet and “having feet in”.
A false analogy, I suggest. Feet appear to exist independently of what they happen to be in at any given time, but you cannot have faith (or belief) without having faith (or belief) in something or somebody. Faith is defined by the act or condition of having faith in something.