That's fair enough. All I'm saying is that I've seen forums like this infiltrated by atheists, and we need to be watchful. However, as you know, I've always enjoyed your worthwhile contributions. As for Mark, well, I heard one Fr. Murphy O'Connor (based in Jerusalem) pointing out the odd mistake. For example, he said, "he's a lousy geographer".
I feel there is a lot of confusion about the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism is based on the notion that there is not enough knowledge to draw a definitive answer whilst Atheism is based on the premise 'There is no God'. The Anglican faith position is that there is a God. It is entirely reasonable for an Anglican to take a faith position, and whilst holding this faith position, still be reasonably agnostic at a scientific level. Anselm argued that faith and science would come to the same conclusion if pursued honestly and completely. This seems contra to the traditional animosity that seems to exist between science and theology. One of the things I celebrate about being an Anglican is that there is always a place for intellectual integrity. I think I would be correct in assuming that all who seek the truth are welcome in this place. It scares me that when we are not being open to other human beings we may possibly not be being open to God. Our purpose is to help each other on the journey, not to help other people onto our journey. I suspect we need to be more welcoming than watchful. The truth will set you free -
That's constructive and fair enough. But I take it that you haven't seen the sneering, destructive comments of "atheists" in other forums, calling us deluded, illogical, unintelligent and even brain dead. That is what we need to avoid, and what the House Rules should protect us from. I'm quite capable of holding my ground against these people, but this is not the right place.
Members may be interested in Anselms modern day reincarnation; (from Wikipedia) The Rev Dr John Charlton Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS (born 16 October 1930) is an English theoretical physicist, theologian, writer, and Anglican priest. A prominent and leading voice explaining the relationship between science and religion, he was professor of Mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge from 1968 to 1979, when he resigned his chair to study for the priesthood, becoming an ordained Anglican priest in 1982. He served as the president of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1988 until 1996. Polkinghorne is the author of five books on physics, and 26 on the relationship between science and religion; his publications include The Quantum World (1989), Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship (2005), Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion (2007), and Questions of Truth (2009).[1] The Polkinghorne Reader (edited by Thomas Jay Oord) provides key excerpts from Polkinghorne's most influential books. He was knighted in 1997 and in 2002 received the £1 million Templeton Prize, awarded for exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension. ~~~~~~ Polkinghorne helped discover the quake. I haven't read any of his books but I intend to. Polkinghorne is proof you can be; brilliant, a scientist, and a Christian. Seagull may want to refer his "brain dead" accusers to him. I read a bit about quantum physics and cosmology and scientists seem to quite often (and only half jokingly) say thing in the vain of "to make this happen you need an all pervading influence across the universe.
Well, as another sitting on the agnostics and atheists benches, I hope I haven't sneered or been so impolite as to point out that you are deluded, illogical and brain dead (that's a joke, Seagull, that's a joke!). Unfortunately forums of all kinds attract the ill-mannered. On the point of agnosticism v atheism, many (even new atheists like Professor Dawkins — do I take it he's a new atheist?) sometimes describe themselves as agnostic because the absence of God cannot be proved, but atheist because they believe the likelihood so small that they can ignore it for all practical purposes. I am not, I hope, in danger of the chop if I admit that happens to be my own position.
Many thanks. Yes, I know of Polkinghorne and he is one of many. Closer to home, in our congregation at church we have a medical doctor, a vet, a physicist and various engineers. Our Bishop is an Oxford chemistry graduate and the Dean of our Cathedral holds a degree in medicine. I point this out to the jeering atheists and it makes them feel uncomfortable.
No, of course you haven't. When I was young not many people called themselves "atheists" (except in eastern Europe amongst the bosses there*). Many people, if pushed, used the word "agnostic". They didn't know or care and weren't worried. Atheists were normally fairly intellectual people who had come to a conclusion that God didn't exist: not a particularly easy conclusion to arrive at. These people were often perceived, rightly or wrongly, as "lefties" or "beardie-wierdies". Now the "new atheism" has become fashionable, and many/most its adherents are of a lower calibre. Possibly because of this, they are also liable to be aggressive. I have to say that Hughsie's post(s) made me a bit wary, not least because he appears to be "doing the rounds". But he seems to have left us. * Another source of discomfort to the "new atheists".