Canterbury Rowan Williams's Essay 'Ultimate Questions'

My pious intrigue started out at a Christian Cult in 1991, I was fresh and away from homely comforts, hence, open to learn about pro-creative ideologies and to experience them. No thought was to disbelieve, whatsoever. Why should I, I trusted my elder's wisdom more than my own and my peers - within two months I found incongruity; faces weren't as friendly any longer, I was ostracised. It seemed overnight their mood changed drastically, alas, I was the same person, who'd done no evil. Moving onwards to today, since I see the exact character trait (s) which has shackled humanity to this social-disease. I am one of the fortunate ones, I was saved... thanks to my quest for knowledge, (deciphering over certainties of all forms). Without rule or
it denotes a lifetime as a Historian and Philosopher. Having read Williams's published reaction for a duration, I decided to write this monologue, a thought process into Rowan Williams's article: 'The truth is out there;' published in the 'New Statesman,' he was particularly feral towards Magee; worth noting the Philosopher is no polemicist nor did he stick out an acid-tongue against those who believe in a Superior Being; (I refer to a 'Superior Being' because that's what deism implies wholeheartedly), why the essay, 'Ultimate Questions' per se, via title alone can be forgiven in not providing actual answers. It appears Williams has been misled; not the first time either. I hereby, defend Magee, for the sake of freedom of speech and intellectual
'as I shift into un-chartered areas of deistic humanology, the greater the divide, and away from the concept of a creator I wade from. Personal invention is the core essence of an entity has nothing to do with a creator of everything, surprisingly I didn't expect this, I hoped somehow there was a tangible link.' This sort of phraseology is designed to show frailties - all religious types at a drop of a hat embrace the concept of human frailty. Williams may've shown mercy to Magee, if Magee was embracing 'mankind's sickness' instead of being a Philosopher, Williams's prose at best may've had an iota of meaningful credibility - albeit, Philosophy and Religion are world's apart, to believe they're affiliated to the same cause, those who ascertain there is a cross-over point have little knowledge of the fundamental subjects. Again, if you judge I'm being harsh, may I refer you to Williams's initial question, he asks himself: "What's the difference between what we know and what we believe?" You probably can see the idiocy straightaway - tangibility is notably convincing. Nevertheless, Williams grabs circles and claims they're squares, you'd have thought he'd cover first base when he siphon towards the idea of relativity and quantum field theory, subjectively Stephen Hawking expertise whereby he blurts out a carefree comment: "we should know the mind of God." Williams's waspish response was a "Hawkings may have lived to regret using precisely this form of words, but