He does sound like a compassionate man, but what he's talking about sound like madness.
That "many people" are unhappy with God as a result of the problems of the 20th century, as opposed to the millennia of suffering, disease and violence seems hugely anthropocentric and arrogant.

'Whether you are a ... Strong Atheist... compassionate discussion on the nature of God should make you think.'

that does not make sense - because gods do not exist!

how is this man qualified on this subject? he's just a vicar. it's just religious babble.
daniel dennett should have debated him after this talk, now that would be worth watching.

>> ^adamwsmith6580:
That "many people" are unhappy with God as a result of the problems of the 20th century, as opposed to the millennia of suffering, disease and violence seems hugely anthropocentric and arrogant.

I don't think he was talking about the problems of the 20th century, but rather the supposedly sophisticated theological answers then offered to the "Epicurean Paradox". In other words, many more people began to contemplate the problem of an almighty and benevolent God allowing evil in the world, and were dissatisfied with the doctrinal responses.

>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
'Whether you are a ... Strong Atheist... compassionate discussion on the nature of God should make you think.'
that does not make sense - because gods do not exist!

Perhaps you should have paid more attention to the first line of my description - "Leave your preconceptions at the door, and just listen to this talk". Your comment suggests that you did not. Ultimately he suggests a characterization of God that does not entail an individual entity, but rather a recognition of the divine in everything, i.e., a very Taoist point of view.


I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I just wanted folks to open their minds and think deeply about the nature of humanity and the universe.

He is basically coming to agreement with the Quakers. While I think that the Quaker perspective is more compassionate, and considerate of observable reality then the Anglican view, it's still superstition. Beyond a discussion of comparative religion I fail to see how this would hold any interest for an atheist.

you could say 'leave your preconceptions at the door' about anything, i can't help being able to use logic.
i attempted to leave them at the door anyway, but it didn't help.

Logic is not a preconception, it is a tool, a specific method of reasoning. It is applicable in many situations, but not all. You wouldn't use logic to evaluate art, would you?

More to the point, logic relies on assumptions. I was simply asking you to drop all assumptions. Let yourself think freely. I just promoted this video as an adjunct to this conversation, as it points out the kind of preconceptions I would hope people would drop while thinking about this. Like I said, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just trying to get you to think beyond the bounds to which you are accustomed. I would write a very similar response to a biblical literalist. You have approached the topic with a particular belief structure, and all I ask is that you try to dismantle that before assessing Tom Honey's talk. I know, it's close to impossible to do completely, but awareness of the elements of that framework is the place to begin.

is this art though? can you sum up the point he's putting across? he does say God a hell of a lot.
i really love TEDtalks, so it surprises me when they get people like this on. the one other time they did they had Daniel Dennett on straight after as a kind of rebuttal (which was smart).
i don't have a belief structure, it's the lack of one that allows me to see this for what it is, sorry.

>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
is this art though?

No, of course not. I was using an unrelated example of a subject which is not amenable to logic, in order to avoid a circular argument.

can you sum up the point he's putting across?

I'll try (but what I think he's saying isn't entirely relevant). First, he's describing the classical characterizations of God and how they have failed in the face of greater awareness and deep thinking. He then offers another way of thinking of God which is not a definition, but just a starting point. Ultimately, he says, "I don't know". The main point that really struck me, though, was his suggestion to view God not as an individual intentional entity. But that's just me. What you take from it is for you.

i really love TEDtalks, so it surprises me when they get people like this on.

Why surprised? I mean, the concept is "Ideas worth spreading", and the idea of considering divinity in a radically different way from church doctrine seems worth spreading to me.

i don't have a belief structure, it's the lack of one that allows me to see this for what it is, sorry.

Demonstrating that you do (as does everyone) is well beyond the scope of this conversation, but consider how and why you know everything you think you know.

I've avoided doing so, but perhaps I should point out that I'm an atheist - at least as far I think the question of the existence of a god is meaningful.

[edit] Generally I would call myself an agnostic, but neither term is appropriate, because I don't think the question "Does God Exist?" is very meaningful. Is has to be more specific than that. What I meant here is that I'm atheistic in terms of the Abrahamic God, but that's a very narrow question - much narrower than Rev. Honey's talk.

Jonny,
The problem I see is that, rather than his being a perspective or set of ideas which illuminate, he is approaching the question of a God from preconception of existence. This is not one which I share, due to the scarcity of any evidence for God. So I find his continued attempts to seek explanation and meaning though "God" to be like madness. (Why not assume that God is sometimes evil, or cruel, or even moody).
I also find his thoughts on the nature of "God" to be very self-obsessed and unreasonable. He described the change he experienced when giving a sermon on the Tsunami. However, the world did not chance that day, and I find his invocation of that event to be superficial. Perhaps one life cut short is not as objectively terrible than thousands, but for an individual parent or child, one death will be terrible enough. God's omnipotence requires reflection then, not only as the result of a huge tragedy.

His talk seems like a rather ham-fisted attempt to "have his cake and eat it". To maintain the existence of a God, with qualities, while creating those qualities himself.

The comparison with art is interesting, but I don't think art is presumed to be more than the product of human (or animal) imagination. God is. If God and Art are to be equated, then that may be helpful. But that is a significant change from the Creator, the Father, the Sky-Man with plans and designs and laws for us to follow.

>>i don't have a belief structure, it's the lack of one that allows me to see this for what it is, sorry.

Demonstrating that you do (as does everyone) is well beyond the scope of this conversation, but consider how and why you know everything you think you know.<<
i don't have a belief structure, it's the lack of one that allows me to see this for what it is, sorry.

Demonstrating that you do (as does everyone) is well beyond the scope of this conversation, but consider how and why you know everything you think you know.<<<
True, but not all beliefs are equal. I might believe that illness is caused by witches, or I must sacrifice to make sure that the sun rises. These would be false beliefs.

The problem is that the Classical conception of God has failed not as a result of greater awareness or deeper thinking, but as a result of a lack of evidence for the God described all those years ago. Why the desire to re-invent a "God"?

Tom Honey's speech was far closer to a sermon than a philosophy class.

i'd partially agree with the concept of a god if it was just said that it was something
we just hope exists that was the creator of what we hope to be a biocosm. hoping that it's
a good being or bunch of beings too. a lot of assumptions, but that is what it would take. even then it would just be a vague hope, and no evidence to believe it.

see how scientology has become seriously followed like a religion - despite it being made up by someone that was alive recently, and that he was a fiction writer.
examples like this i think indicates that belief in a father figure creator (and other attached ideas) are memes that we re-create through some inherited archetypal mental process. it propagating itself is probably one of the reasons we're a successful species.

i see how it's been useful, but now it poses a threat because we need to have our eyes open to reality to save our species - not blind following of things that are made up.
i feel at one with the universe through knowledge of it and how i'll always be part of it, why invent some 'god' thing? we're adults now.

adam - that you see no evidence of the existence of god does not mean that he doesn't. I think he probably sees the evidence every day. I won't quibble with you over the nature of that evidence, as I'm making a supposition anyway, but I think you know what I'm getting at. As for why not assume god is occasionally evil, cruel, or moody, I think he does address that in the talk. His answer is that if that is in fact the case, he wants no part of that god.

The distinction between the death of one and the death of hundreds of thousands I thought would be clear, at least in the context. The death of one is generally seen as a natural part of life, even when it occurs by some ridiculous accident. Even in the case of intentional actions, say the murder of an individual vs genocide, I think most people have a much harder time wrapping their heads around the latter than the former, theists and atheists alike. The world did change on the day of the tsunami, e.g., the civil war in northern Indonesia basically ended right then and there. One of the former rebel leaders is now a governor(?) of one of those territories. Yes, there is still a lot of strife, but the active military campaign was ended.

The failure of doctrinal views of God in modern times is due to many reasons. As you say, for many it is simply a matter of lack of objective evidence, but for others it is not, because objective evidence was never a criterion for them.

He's not trying to define God, but rather come to some comprehension of God. And ultimately, he answers "I don't know". To me, he seems to be specifically trying to avoid a preaching or sermonic attitude. I think to an extent you're right though, his talk does presuppose the notion of divine existence, but he has to start somewhere. He is addressing a question that billions of people have wrestled with, many of them far smarter than you or I. Even Einstein recognized a certain divinity in the universe, though his views would hardly be in line with the Anglican Church. But I think Tom Honey is heading in the same direction. He says for a long time he was afraid of openly questioning church doctrine, but ultimately to remain true to himself and his congregation, he found he must delve into these questions.


>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
i see how it's been useful, but now it poses a threat because we need to have our eyes open to reality to save our species - not blind following of things that are made up.

Yes yes yes! That is, I think, exactly what Honey is getting at. But he is not inventing God, that was done a long time ago. Nor is he inventing reasons for God's existence. That humans are spiritual beings and have deeply spiritual experiences would be hard to deny. He is offering a starting point for many people to begin to reconcile all these disparate notions, and at the same time pointing out the failure of religious doctrine.

Anyway, I thank you guys for the very interesting comments. I had hoped some more folks would jump in on this, but I suspect it is for many a closed case, and for many others too tiresome. The atheism/theism conversation has been repeated here so many times, and often with some rancor, so I understand a certain reluctance to get into it again. That was partly why I posted this - I saw it as an interesting starting point for a conversation contemplating the nature of Nature, with a heavy dose of compassion and understanding. Perhaps it's time for another silly kid sift from me.

One other point I wanted to make here is that I'm uncomfortable with entangling the problems of organized religion with commentary on personal beliefs. Organized religions are social constructs like most other social constructs, i.e., mechanisms for a small group of people to have power over a large group of people. Confusing that with the philosophical questions raised here is a Bad Idea, imo.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by mauz15.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.