The archbishops of atheism and Anglicanism have a polite chat in which Dawkins does a Bertrand Russell and declares he has really been an agnostic all along and Rowan says he doesn’t believe God “intervened” when humans came to be or, by implication, in miracles.
This does not cohere with my memory of the discussion: “Rowan says he doesn’t believe God “intervened” when humans came to be or, by implication, in miracles.” I do not believe that he denied miracles in any way; he did discuss the process of evolution by which human beings came to be, a process instituted by and guided by God as the creator. Perhaps you could post the minute in the discussion where this came up to allow us to check on it? As I said, it does not fit with what I recall of the discussion.
I did say,“by implication” and I do think the implication is there – at least by any useful definition of “miracle” which surely must include God’s “intervention”.
The remark is at 40:26 where Kenny asks Rowan: “Do you think there was any divine intervention when the first humans evolved from their non-human ancestors.” Rowan says, “I’m wary of saying that God somehow bends down and tinkers with the machinery”.
I think what Rowan has done is redefine “miracle” to be something that most Christians wouldn’t recognise. Take a look at this clip where he says:
I think you are being unfair to the Archbishop. He was asked a question about evolution and he states that humans evolve according to natural processes, but these processes are the result of God’s creation. The Archbishop speaks of humanity emerging from a relationship between proto-humans and God; this we could speak of as the soul. There are many other Christian theologians and scientists who speak of the emergence of humanity in this way. If you want to call this relationship “intervention,” I suspect you could, but Rowan Williams does not want to do so.
As to the other quotation, I do think the language of miracles is difficult, but he certainly believes in them (as I do also)and he attributes them, as per your quote above, to God “breaking through the surface to create something new.” That is God acting in human life. I recognise that as a miracle.
I think that what you call “the language of miracles” is important, but I can’t quite see what makes it difficult unless one is bent on avoiding a straightforward definition along the lines of “an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God.”
I agree that Rowan Williams believes in miracles in some sense; but what sense? If you define a miracle as a pork pie hat, Richard Dawkins would believe in them, too. Rowan Williams is obviously uncomfortable with the notion of God “tinkering” with the universe – what Kenny called “intervention”. The quote from the second clip (you left an important piece out, I think) is “the underlying action of God breaks through, breaks through the surface to create something new.” By saying “underlying action”, he appears to be making miracles an inevitable consequence of a mechanistic sequence set in motion, I presume, at the moment of creation – because he can’t countenance the idea of God “tinkering”.
I can’t see that this fits any sensible meaning of the idea of a miracle.
David,
I think we have a fundamental diagreement not about the reality of miracles, but about how to describe them, or God’s action. I think this is worthy of further discussion, so I want to respond at my website (www.biblejunkies.com). I will not be able to get to this until tomorrow at the earliest, but I will check back with you when I do. As I said, I think Rowan Williams gives a stronger view of God’s presence and activity in miracles than you do, but I would like to gather a bit more information and think about what you have said a little more. Thanks.
John,
OK, I’ll look forward to it….. in the meantime I will remain persuaded that our descriptions are different because we are describing different things.
David,
Here’s my post, which expands on my comments more fully: http://www.biblejunkies.com/2012/02/archbishop-williams-and-miracles.html. Thanks! I hope to talk to you soon.
John
John,
My response to your article was too big for the Blogger comment field, so I have posted it here.