How do these videos only have 60-70k views? Seems to me, that while there are plenty of atheists who are smarter or more articulate than Dawkins, there is NO individual with the intelligence, honesty, and sincerity that Coyne brings to this discussion. As such, this has got to be the only interesting or valuable debate/discussion I've ever heard, and I've seen them all. Props to both parties, but Coyne has given me new hope that the religious can be both genuine and articulate, he's amazing.
sincere and nice man. what a dichotomy within there must be. especially in light of the fact that he calls himself a scientist. he is certainly one of a kind.
George Coyne speaks quite articulately and purposefully when speaking separately of either his scientific or religious beliefs, but when he switches from one to another you can almost watch his brain changing gears. His language becomes more vague and less eloquent, and he avoids eye contact and uses more hand gestures than usual.
Coyne is an intelligent man, but it does appear there is some compartmentalization going on within his mind.
@LogicalPhallusy You are very right. However, I don't see this as being an issue. :-) Every person compartmentalizes. To him, religion seems to be a very emotional thing, not something you use to explain the world (as some people do). And science is a way to see how the world actually functions and came to be etc. So those two are not mutually exclusive to him, but also do not have a similar way of thinking. :-)
Scientific explainability of a phenomenon by no means makes God superfluous. That's the Christian doctrine of providence and God's sovereignty. We can explain the rainbow scientifically, yes. But not a single rainbow appeared, appears or will ever appear without God willing it to appear.
@TimotheosCauvin Or you could just have rain and light, pluss humans perception of light. In one of many universes with constants who allows rainbows. Then you don't need a god to make it;)
@Roleren Or you could just have rain and light, plus human perception of light in a providentially governd universe with created constants who allow rainbows. That, of course, is not a scientific approach. I agree, given the phenomena your explanation absolutely reasonable (though the multiverse theory is equally faith based). But: I don't believe in God, because I believe in creation. I believe in creation, because I believe in God. Plus, I live in a world that allows for creation ...
Really enjoying this discussion. Coyne strikes me as a very intelligent and honest man. He deserves to come to his senses and lose the unfortunate braking block to his mind that is his Catholic faith.
@NiangoChan I'm Catholic and I think the same of Dawkins. I prefer listening to Hitchens usually because Dawkins comes across as angry and bitter alot of times. No one has all the answers so my firm believe is that respectful discussions like this is beneficial to all.
See this is the kind of interview I want to see Richard Dawkins in. Him and a person of religion talking intelligently. They aren't trying one up each other they're talking to each other respectfully. I'm a Christian and I wish there were more Christian figures like Father Coyne out there.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
So much respect for George, but the grunt of discomfort at 6:04 was just the best thing ever. In a way the strength of his arguments has made me more sure of my atheism than if he had been another weak minded creationist. It shows that theism even taken to it's best and most coherent is still not rational.
George Coyne would be an even more wonderful thinker if Catholicism didn't get in the way. I respect his individualistic approach to thought and the amalgamation of *Philosophy/Science/Spirituality* which he eloqantly weaves together for a best aprroxamation of reality
@SpidermanInLondon However, total 'freelance thinking' (i.e. not restricted by any organised religion) is the best way to approach factual answers: leave miracles at the door of history and be constantly ready to rewrite your personal guide for life based on better arguments. A kind of survival of the fittest for thoughts is how intend to live my life.
The bit from 1:00 to 5:00: is seriously one of the most poignant and powerful statements I've read or listen to in a long time. It's just wonderful, by far the best interview of the whole program. Darwin deserves to be celebrated by such a deep intellect.
This is why Dawkins doesn't interview Catholics, he choses fundamentalists-creationists-muslims because he can use evolution to make them look like fools. With Catholics this isn't so easy and infact Fr George Coyne makes Dawkins look like the less educated one.
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity. God created the heavens and the earth. And this isn't opposed to evolution as evolution is simply a theory or vague insight into how God chose to create
Right .. Dawkins gets Coyne on the Christianity/Muslim thing. He doesn't answer satisfactorily and we're back to ' ... well it's just my faith ...'. The Virgin birth either happened or it didn't. But he chooses to believe.
He believes that god is superfluous, and yet can intervene and perform miracles when he wants to. I've never seen a more blatant contradiction in my life.
George carlin said it best: "He has a list of rules, and if you break any one of these rules he will send you to a fiery, dark, horrible place full of death, decay and pain and torture, where you will suffer until the end of time!.....................But he loves you."
@CatholicCrusader2000 And that, in an of itself, disproves the entire idea of religion. Things that are real and that exist are things that can be proven scientifically. I can scientifically prove the human need to eat and sleep. I can scientifically prove gravity or friction, or the atmosphere, and that makes those things real. Something that you believe in with absolutely no proof is just believing a lie. I could believe on faith that there is a spaghetti monster, that doesn't make it real.
Hes a very sensible man George coyne he thinks like an atheist, but credits existence and its workings to a god, when physics electro magnatism etc explain it without the need for a god. And if god is existence its certainly not an intervening god, at best right now all u can say is god set it all in motion and has left it too it anything else would have too much to answer for. Personally i think he only believes in god cos his indoctrination took hold and he cant lose the concept.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
the first and second law of thermodynamics apologises for the fact that there is no god. coyne is afraid to say that the religion hes selling is false infact its barely brushed upon. the first law denies the virgin birth and the second law denies the possibility of the resurrection. ween yourself from titty its time to grow-up
This is why Catholicism in it's ESSENCE is the true Christian faith: it allows a person to THINK and REASON.
I believe in God, but I hate it when christians (e.g. Evangelicals, Baptists, etc) come with their non-sense. There's too much people who are endoctrinated and openly admit that even if all the evidence in the universe pointed to something outside their belief system, they would reject it based purely on blind faith.
Like Dawkins once pointed out: that's a disgrace to the human species.
If more religious believers were more like this guy the world would be a better place. I still think he's wrong about a lot of things, but he seems like a good person.
George Coyne is obviously a very good guy, very sincere, self-discerning, humble,and very thoughtful. His belief in miracles is inconsistent with his statements about a god who brought the universe into being and sustains it, but leaves things alone. The virgin birth is probably part of what early Christians HAD to say to compete with other mystery religions. For him to deny the resurrection of JC would be heresy. Other than for miracles, Coyne's god could nearly be the same as Einstein's.
@BrentGrainger2000 No, he is entirely consistent. He bases everything on God not being essential to scientific explanatory 'power.' Further he does not dispose of God from the process of creation altogether, he clearly adopts the Prime Mover philosophy, thus he permits God to have power to act physically and contingently. To intervene in human history is not an alteration, or suspension of the material facts of the universe, there is no fine tuning of the material design.
@MrWildbill20056 We'll just have to disagree on that one. He obviously struggles to find a path where his science and his faith can coexist. The path that he finds is awfully close to Einstein's and Spinoza's god, with a twist here and there to accommodate Catholic theology. The inconsistency shows up most clearly when he states that his god doesn't fool around with the laws of physics but then affirms the virgin birth and the resurrection. Still, who can argue with a god of faith?
@BrentGrainger2000 I fail to see any struggle whatsoever. Basically his implied premise is that Science has very little to say about 'God.' Thus their coexistence is no issue as, in his mind, the two disciplines have limited overlap. He actually isn't internally inconsistent. He affirms a God who is very real and capable of contingent acts, who can intervene by further contingent acts, but who he hopes wouldn't do it too often :P
@MrWildbill20056 I can only suggest that you study some modern physics, either in text, or more easily from YouTube videos. Start with YouTube+Lawrence Krauss and go from there. There is fundamental conflict between science and theism, whether Coyne acknowledges it, or not. I still admire him for his honesty and integrity. He makes the best accommodation that he can between his passion for science and the faith that he received in childhood. Were all religionists like him!
@BrentGrainger2000 Honestly I'm pretty up on modern physics, my partner is an astrophysicist, and whilst I am only a lowly molecular zoologist, I'm not clueless. Modern physics in no sense accounts for there being 'something rather than nothing.' The nothing of Quantum mechanics is, in fact not nothing at all. Krauss is on record saying all that is required are the laws of physics to bring something from nothing. The prime mover is certainly not done away with.
@MrWildbill20056 The best book that I know on science and "god" is by Victor J. Stenger, prof of physics at U. Col. entitled "God The Failed Hypothesis." Stenger reviews all the standard cosmological arguments and presents the most recent physics to show conclusively that ther is no verifiable evidence for any god. "The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no god." he writes after an excellent chapter on "why is there something rather than nothing."
@BrentGrainger2000 I know, and have read the book, and I agree it is entirely interesting. However ultimately beyond a statement of assertion his opinion on why there is something rather than nothing is no better than exactly that. He relies on the 'unstable nothing' which is clearly not nothing at all, outside of semantic games. Edgar Andrews made a better response than I would, however I would suggest Stenger is terribly guilty of knocking down straw men, however well meant.
George Coyne, what a wonderful man. I disagree with him in some ways, namely his views on original sin and miracles but damn, he sure knows what he's talking about, and it's hard to dislike him simply for some disagreeances. 'My faith itself is God.' That's a nice way of putting it, and perhaps he's right.
George Coyne and Richard Dawkins gave us a reminder that in despite of all the negativity that humanity might of had in her history, there will always be good people with strong intellect.
@Andover27 Yes. I am very impressed with Dawkins's conduct during this interview. I have never seen him show such courtesy and willingness to listen to one speaking a position contrary to his own but I think that it was Coyne's intellectual honesty that commanded this from him. Nonetheless I am still impressed with the courtesy he showed.
Cool priest. But he sounds more like he believes in a deistic version of God than anything else. Though his personal history, as he'd say, with Catholocism seems hard to shake off.
I think all major religions are going to have to start sounding like Coyne if they're going to survive the 21st century. ...And then the topic of miracles came up, and he started to visibly yank on the chains of orthodoxy...
...at 6:05 and 7:40 Coyne is so charmingly disarmed and embaressed when Dawkins is runing rings around him with the miracles issue I felt sorry for him ;)
Anyway, I wish all clergy (not only in the Catholic Church) be like father George, that'd be a real miracle and probably salvation...
I'd call him "grandfather". He's the most supper awesome pep-pep. What a nice guy, and sincere too. I don't agree with him, but he's a smart nice guy.
Lovely guy with a great attitudein the interview but watch the big gulp after he says he believes in the miracle of the virgin birth and reserection lol. He knows Dawkins is going to pounce.
I believe it becomes an argument of history and that is an imperfect science. When it comes down to it though, most religions are not all that different, I would say.
I believe it becomes a argument of history and that is an imperfect science. When it comes down to it though, most religions are not all that different, I would say.
But it's beyond the point. I think a Jew, or a Hindu would be a better example. And the question asked is one of the toughest questions a person of faith can be asked. I should know.
All people of sincerity, embrace Truth, as they see it. Truth dawns on all, even atheists. But the truth that dawns on anyone, if rejected, is to his own hurt! Faith too(revelation) is given to everyone! Be he Muslim, Hindus or atheist. The fullness of Truth is IMO Christ. An atheist shares in some of this Truth! He is LIKE GOD in knowing & loving Truth as God knows and loves Himself(Truth). An atheist follows God's voice, albeit unknowingly! So he is headed to the fullness of Truth! WOW!
@utube2344 why not believe that all religious people are in fact like Father George Coyne, and that most people who claim to be religious in fact are not? That way you won't have a problem with religion...instead you'll have a problem with people who misuse religion for their selfish and full of ignorance/malice purposes.
@Ojokernegro I have seen very few examples of religious people like Coyne. Unfortunately the destructive power of religion far exceeds any minor emotional benefits this is why I think it should be altered or just removed. People of high position often get corrupted into lying like the televangelists who use hypnosis and pretend its God and make millions. In a world with religious people like Coyne there would be no issue with religion sadly this is not a world like that although I wish it were.
@utube2344 It's only natural to believe that without religion, perhaps those corrupted people would never be corrupted in the first place. But that's a fallacious thought. Religion is not the only hierarchic field that has to deal with corruption. Religion is not a characteristic of human nature, evil (from which corruption comes from) is. So there is no reason for you to believe that without religion evil (corruption) would be gone, the so called religious. wud still let themselves b corrupted
@Ojokernegro In other words it's a question of principles and integrity, which most people lack. It would be like the brazilian movie where the cop finally gets rid of the drug dealers in town, only to find out that the drug dealers weren't really the root of the problem (hopefully you'll get my point).
Ok, after listening to Fr. Coyne, I gotta say he's got a level head on his shoulders.
He's right. God is not a necessary explanation for the natural.
But He always was there. He always is. Not to fill the gaps in our understanding of the universe, but to fill in the gap of what lies beyond this universe. How nature came to be. What there was before time, and what there will be after we're dead and gone.
@UnitedKingdomify I'm not sure about that. He is a Catholic priest, after all, so obviously he still thinks it important to offer Him praise, thanksgiving, and worship. And while he wasn't asked anything about the afterlife, I imagine he believes in it and its importance. I don't think deism addresses the issue of the afterlife.
As for nature, God created nature. Science only tells us how He did it. To say, as a scientist, that God did it is redundant.
I like George Coyne, he's real.... but i'm still a atheist and i highly doubt that will ever change unless "god" comes down here and presents himself.
Why should anyone who's a scientist or fascinated with science have to divorce his belief in a god if he or she chooses not to.? Of course, because argued by many if everything was created by a god then everything would be made out of cotton candy and sugar and spice with everything nice because god talk is cozy and full of imaginary fairy tail thoughts... but with no thought that an external force so powerful actually existing could be the direct result of many wonderful scientific findings.
Father, I respect your honesty and I understand your situation. It is very brave to be doing this debate. I think that our assumptions and our logic are conditional to our environment. I am a number 6 on the Dawkins scale.
When you meet theists like that, it all comes downs to faith and nothing more. I think its the final step before agnostecism. Because its not about not being educated or being stupid, its just about the faith part. What you could ask if WHY they think God is real. Of course you are not going to get a scientific answer, and you are not going to get proof either. So again that also just comes down to faith.
@gulbirk Maybe the answer is because it's convenient. And can we really blame them? If it's comfortable for them to believe in such things, why not? People like this man are intelligent enough to avoid the common mishaps of literal and fundamentalist interpretation guiding their actions, which will ensure they won't become a burden on society by trying to impose particularly misguided ideas of a group on the entire collective.
@FeanorBR No i dont think we can blaim people like this. Because I dont think its fair to force people into not believing. However, what this man is doing is making the number of religious people higher. In other parts of the world you can have the same kind of people just believing another religion. And though this man would never go to war or do something bad, he might be on the side that does this because they have the majority of the population on their side.
@FeanorBR No no im not. Go read my coment again. If you have enough people believing the "same" idea or ideology. It doesnt matter how EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM act. And it doesnt matter that some of them are nice and some are bad. The fact is that by belonging to this ideology, that give it power. Which can be misused by others beloning to the same ideology.
@gulbirk Yet you fail to realize that simply by declaring yourself a catholic, for example, does not automatically make you part of a hivemind, which seems to be your fear. It doesn't matter if the number of religious people is higher. If, for example, there are a lot of people who align themselves with the catholic religion, but at the same time reject certain ideas like the ban of abortion, then they won't vote for these particular ideas.
@FeanorBR No, but they will give power to the group that can influence the goverment by poiting to the fact that they have a majority population. This is really simple. Forexample they can say, """Hey, why should religios teachings in schools not be allowed when 80% of our population is religious""". The thing is that it doesnt matter WHO they are, because not everything gets VOTED for. I assume you might be from USA. But in many european countries, we dont vote for everything.
@gulbirk Your example, again, fails to support your point. Many religious people don't think religion should be taught at school. It all comes down to the individual opinion, and about voicing your opinions correctly. If you disagree with something, make sure you and your group are heard about it - sometimes, a minority gets their way like this simply because they weren't passive on the issue. Also, a religious person might be openly against it. It's all about personal convictions.
@FeanorBR No you dont get, go study politics. In most countries you dont VOTE FOR EVERY SINGLE LITTLE THING. So if someone says ""Hey lets try to make it leagel to teach religion (as a fact) in schools""". They can actually point to having the majority of the population in the same belief system as them. It doesnt matter that allot of the ones that belong to this system doesnt like it, it doesnt change the fact that they are suported it on theory.
@gulbirk Stop stating the obvious, we all know that. Your comments raise another issue, though - if you are against something, and don't voice your opinions, then it's partially your fault in the end that something got approved.
So, in your example, it doesn't matter the religion you profess - as long as you voice your damn own opinions, that is. Do you?
@FeanorBR What? no you dont get it now? after I explained it? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but im not indoctrinating people with my opinion. Im not the one who wants shcools to teach children that god might not exist. In fact I dont want to change the laws at all. Its my fault? How is it my fault?
@gulbirk I will state this for the last time: professing a religion =/= being connected to a hive mind. A weak minded person will surely be duped into mindlessly repeating the nonsense they are fed without thinking. Someone who has their own set of ideas and ideals and actually uses their brains, though, can be part of a religion and actually stand against stupid ideas when they are presented by their Church or similar. Your fears are exaggerated. And I'm done here.
@FeanorBR But you dont get it. You just dont get it. Do you realise how law passing works? Do you realise how the real world works? LISTEN NOW FOR THE FUCKING LAST TIME. LOTS OF COUNTRRIES CAN PASS LAWS THAT ARE BENEFITIAL TO A CERTAIN RELIGION, BECAUSE THEY CAN POINT TO STATISTICS SHOWING THAT THE MAJOIRTY OF THE POPULATION BELONG TO THAT RELIGION. THEN IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOU ARE AGAINST WHAT THAT, AS LONG AS YOU ARE A PART OF THAT GROUP, YOU GIVE THE WHOLE GROUP POWER.
@gulbirk You are the one who don't get it. Statistics don't mean shit if people against a certain law write to their congress representative etc etc - in other words MAKE THEIR VOICE HEARD! That's what everyone should always do, period. And I'm out of here, I'm tired of running in circles with you.
@FeanorBR Yeah but everyone doesnt do that, LOL. you are contradicting everything you said. Because your idea is based on that people actually give a damn, but most people dont.
@gulbirk Are you doing your part, or are you simply riding the wave of "I'm just one, my opinion won't matter!"? And if you want a crusade done, make one trying to raise awareness towards this way of affecting the decisions in your society instead of trying to bar the faith of others. The problem is not the faith, it's of people not voicing their opinions - that was always my point, I see no contradiction. Do your part and incite others to do theirs.
@FeanorBR Well my point was to look at the statistics, I base my points on the real world. If christian people disagree with other christians then why arent they out there protesting. I mean honestly, how many times have you seen theist protest against other theist?
@gulbirk There are those who do it. They just don't usually publicly state their creed because that is unneeded - it's an idea you are rejecting based on your own conjectures, so they don't really need to go out and say "I am a christian and I don't like this idea!". People just protest, period. Or do you think only atheists protest against things like stem cell research or even abortion? You still think christians share a big hivemind of sorts?
@FeanorBR I think if the christians go out there and actually protest against people like Kent Hovind. Ok, and where are the HUGE marches of christians that protestad against anti-abortion people, or anti-science people?
As an agnostic atheist myself, I do think that Father Coyne is an intelligent and reasonable man. But it is still troublesome how he has to do backflips to reconcile his faith with his scientific background. I have no doubt that he must have had his share of crises in that faith as a result.
@dujl Theists make a positive claim there is a God based on faith and/or on reason. Atheists make a negative claim based on the same. Agnosticism, however, is a claim of ignorance. Agnostic means without ("a") knowledge ("gnosis").
One can still believe there may or may not be a God without being sure (because they don't know anything about God). This is called "weak" or "agnostic" atheism or theism.
@GenghisKhan44 Depends on your source- some dictionaries define atheism as you did, some define it as disbelief in god (which is not a claim, either positive or negative), and some use both (m-w.com, for example). However, if you look at the etymology of the word it is clear that "disbelief in god" is more consistent, and, more to the point, the vast majority of pronounced atheists hold this point of view; hence, in the context of discussions like this, atheism makes no claims.
@vikramrao2002 yeah, but that's the point behind "faith".. u don't need a reason for it.. and he's the prime example imho that this "could" be a nice way to live.. not for me, for sure, but this is religion i "would" support in a way.. (hope i made myself clear.. english isn't my primary language)
@sample2501 I agree with you partially. Yes this is a choice people tend to make to lead their life.But that does not make it true.People who like to have faith without evidence tend to believe in blind faith.Historically we have had several blind faiths which are no longer followed.Religion is the only blind belief which managed to stick for a very long time.
@vikramrao2002 damn.. u got me wrong.. i never wanted to imply that beliving something makes it true... but the stuff this preacher is talking about is kinda ok..
@sample2501 okay I got you now :) Of course its nice to see moderately religious fathers. However, I'm sure religion will be eradicated in centuries to come as the science grows and reaches the common man. I like Richard Dawkins because his main effort is to make the science available for the common man.
@vikramrao2002 i also think so. dunno if it will take years or centuries or millenias to "wipeout" (not the best wording, but i lack a better one now...) religion, but it will happen.. it's just the most rational thing to do and a necessarity at some point imo.
I just don't agree with this guy's idea that god is superfluous, yet shows his love by creating himself to be superfluous, and loves everyone as well. This is just another faith statement and has no explanatory value. Sorry father, you're an intelligent man but you have shut yourself off from the logical loophole you just created out of thin air...maybe you're actually god, since you can create something outta nothing!
@warterra HE knows to much to question the observably obvious thats for sure... If he didn't have the collar on and wasn't staninf in a church one might suggest he's not catholic...but rather a rational panthiest or deist.
I wonder what goes through his head when he drinks from a chalice and asserts it is blood... (although catholics do not believe the wine is actually blood)... but words like 'the virgin mary' must stick in his craw a lot!... he knows that these are clearly fabrications.
It's obvious how a particular dogma can cause an otherwise intelligent person, such as Mr. Coyne, to tie himself in knots, trying to defend the rediculous.
since sperms can move their way up to the egg there is a given probability for every women of getting pregnant without any penetration of her partner. so while the virgin pregnancy might be a rare event it's certainly not impossible nor is it a miracle or anything like that.
@mdinka Nor did it happen even as you suggested anyway since the idea mary was a virgin came about a long long time after everyone concerned was dust! The same way mary shooting off into heaven whilst still alive came about not too long ago either!
Probably one of the reasons that 'new' supernatural events added to holy book are pretty rare since most people would just laugh now. Yet those people go back to reading holy books and consider that they they did occur in the past.
All I wanted 2 say is given the right conditions a "virgin" birth isn't that unlikely. I suppose that even back in ancient times women were all aware of the fact that 1 could become pregnant w/o penetration.The only thing they probably didn't knew is how this might happen. So, I assume mary and joseph had "innocent" sex but premarital, jesus came and those biblical "virgin" stories were then later added to cover things up... by mary & her mother sitting in the kitchen and thinking it through :)
@mdinka well odds are she was just past puberty... Girls were married off at 9-12 in biblical times. So her input into any excuse was either ZIP or some childish story (since she was a child)
I think its a lot more likely she got pregnant and the marriage was too important to both familys to result in the legal jewish punishment of the day which was execution by being buried and stoned.
It has been known on occasion for people to lie to save their lives!
@MumblingMickey wasn't it just mistranslated from Hebrew 'alma' meaning "young woman" ? The easiest thing to do would be to say that "it's just a mistranslation" that caused a lot of confusion..
@sinofalchemy In biblical terms a 'young woman' would not yet be ten. The average life expectancy in iron age Judea for those surviving the first 5 years of life was less than 30, most died from disease. It was a common complaint of the Rome that soldiers were more likely to die of disease in Judea than battle.
Young women in 2011 in the west are in their 20's... but that same woman in Swaziland would be looking forward to being a grandmother!
@mdinka There is no mention of mary married to Joseph prior to her pregnancy in the bible. Since in biblical times a womans purpose was to marry and have children its unlikely to be an oversight.
My guess is that when it was pointed out she was pregnant before marriage the magic of angels was stuffed in there. They had to, since nobody would worship a bastard prophet!
Same as Mohammad... when did his rather die again... 6 months before his birth? and he had away from home how long?
Dawkins got him on the ropes with the virgin birth question and I sense he's moving in for the knockout blow. But I do admit this priest has given him a run for his money!
A great discussion, between two great people. Very stimulating and refreshing! I find myself wanting to comment after every part about how great it is.
It's not a gap; I think we understand love and emotions and the human condition a lot better philosphically. It's a domain that science begins to fail at because we have the self and free choice. This equivalence with the mind and the brain is why the social sciences don't work; science is only one part of the human experience and is not the sole arbriter of our knowledge and truth.
@Jim1905 That was probably the case until recently... but probably not for much longer. Its commonly been a failsafe of religion to point to humanities self of self, consciousness etc. and claim dominion over it...
But if one feels ones ideas are under pressure...and hastily retreats to this philosophy position then what will happen to that belief when its investigated with a scientific outlook?
And thats whats under way... mostly by those involved in AI... Even philosophy is no hiding place.
lol ok I thought such twentieth century ideas had long died out but apparently not; Science rests entirely on Philosophy so no that won't happen. We've replaced truth, knowledge with progressive, modern, etc. and if a theory (scientific or not) fits that scheme it doesn't matter whether or not if it's true or actual knowledge. Science will never be able to define it because it involves empirical knowledge it can never attain.
You realize we have machines now that carry out the planning and design of experiments designed to gain scientific knowledge... maybe you could tell me what philosophical outlook they use?
Love, emotions, desires, morality, consciousness etc. These are all functions that can be explained...and reproduced artificially. They are anything but outside the realm of 'empirical' knowledge. As cybernetics engineers will inform you.
"give him a grand general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is 'the results of modern investigation.' "
No they are not functions that can be explained or reproduced artificially! What is consciousness exactly? What is this choice and what is making the choice; if we are simply the sum total of mechanical interactions then choice is an illusion. If you think all humans are simply machines and automatons then you're going down a dangerous and unproven road; something you wish to believe not because it's been proven but because you want it to be true.
@Jim1905 Okay obviously Ken Warick is mistaken in his physical solid device.. maybe he was just imagining the operation that gave him a new sense too? One you or I aren't able to understand cos we never had it. (sonar)
Did you know that when he had that device removed he said it was like someone removing part of his awareness.
Anyway when its available commercially I'll be first in line... you can opt out of higher awareness if you like... After all its all just unproven and imaginary ...
How do these videos only have 60-70k views? Seems to me, that while there are plenty of atheists who are smarter or more articulate than Dawkins, there is NO individual with the intelligence, honesty, and sincerity that Coyne brings to this discussion. As such, this has got to be the only interesting or valuable debate/discussion I've ever heard, and I've seen them all. Props to both parties, but Coyne has given me new hope that the religious can be both genuine and articulate, he's amazing.
beatonm198 1 week ago
@beatonm198 I couldn't agree more.
playbak 1 week ago
"you got it or you will get it." what about those who die atheist like hitchens? i would assume he never "got it" explanation?
mateo4424 3 weeks ago
sincere and nice man. what a dichotomy within there must be. especially in light of the fact that he calls himself a scientist. he is certainly one of a kind.
iworkforme 3 weeks ago
I don't agree with George, but this interview made me respect him. I wish those who were religious were like him.
summerlytriangle 1 month ago 4
u mean to tell me Richard Dawkings does not believe in Muhamed's winged horse?
this2shallpass2008 1 month ago
Coyne is less a priest and more a hippy-trippy astronomer
MrJeezus 1 month ago
George Coyne speaks quite articulately and purposefully when speaking separately of either his scientific or religious beliefs, but when he switches from one to another you can almost watch his brain changing gears. His language becomes more vague and less eloquent, and he avoids eye contact and uses more hand gestures than usual.
Coyne is an intelligent man, but it does appear there is some compartmentalization going on within his mind.
LogicalPhallusy 1 month ago
@LogicalPhallusy You are very right. However, I don't see this as being an issue. :-) Every person compartmentalizes. To him, religion seems to be a very emotional thing, not something you use to explain the world (as some people do). And science is a way to see how the world actually functions and came to be etc. So those two are not mutually exclusive to him, but also do not have a similar way of thinking. :-)
Gigator 4 weeks ago
look up cesare borgias hehehe
imcrazy85 2 months ago
hes one sentence away from saying god is just like what a thought is lol and he has denied everything the bible says so he is just full of shit lol
imcrazy85 2 months ago
Scientific explainability of a phenomenon by no means makes God superfluous. That's the Christian doctrine of providence and God's sovereignty. We can explain the rainbow scientifically, yes. But not a single rainbow appeared, appears or will ever appear without God willing it to appear.
TimotheosCauvin 2 months ago
@TimotheosCauvin shhhhh
imcrazy85 2 months ago
@TimotheosCauvin Or you could just have rain and light, pluss humans perception of light. In one of many universes with constants who allows rainbows. Then you don't need a god to make it;)
Roleren 1 month ago
@Roleren Or you could just have rain and light, plus human perception of light in a providentially governd universe with created constants who allow rainbows. That, of course, is not a scientific approach. I agree, given the phenomena your explanation absolutely reasonable (though the multiverse theory is equally faith based). But: I don't believe in God, because I believe in creation. I believe in creation, because I believe in God. Plus, I live in a world that allows for creation ...
TimotheosCauvin 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"God gave us brains" <--- great quote
s4lesman 2 months ago
Comment removed
s4lesman 2 months ago
I'm on the edge of my seat. I was just waiting for him to say that the stories about Jesus were just made up.
lazycackle 2 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
Really enjoying this discussion. Coyne strikes me as a very intelligent and honest man. He deserves to come to his senses and lose the unfortunate braking block to his mind that is his Catholic faith.
andreasdrg 2 months ago 2
i'm an atheist...but I think this priest is a genius
NiangoChan 3 months ago
@NiangoChan I'm Catholic and I think the same of Dawkins. I prefer listening to Hitchens usually because Dawkins comes across as angry and bitter alot of times. No one has all the answers so my firm believe is that respectful discussions like this is beneficial to all.
theflyingblues 3 months ago
See this is the kind of interview I want to see Richard Dawkins in. Him and a person of religion talking intelligently. They aren't trying one up each other they're talking to each other respectfully. I'm a Christian and I wish there were more Christian figures like Father Coyne out there.
johnhamilton08 3 months ago
GOD
Aldelirium 3 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
So much respect for George, but the grunt of discomfort at 6:04 was just the best thing ever. In a way the strength of his arguments has made me more sure of my atheism than if he had been another weak minded creationist. It shows that theism even taken to it's best and most coherent is still not rational.
1234funsies 3 months ago
Comment removed
SpidermanInLondon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
George Coyne would be an even more wonderful thinker if Catholicism didn't get in the way. I respect his individualistic approach to thought and the amalgamation of *Philosophy/Science/Spirituality* which he eloqantly weaves together for a best aprroxamation of reality
SpidermanInLondon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpidermanInLondon However, total 'freelance thinking' (i.e. not restricted by any organised religion) is the best way to approach factual answers: leave miracles at the door of history and be constantly ready to rewrite your personal guide for life based on better arguments. A kind of survival of the fittest for thoughts is how intend to live my life.
SpidermanInLondon 3 months ago
Comment removed
SpidermanInLondon 3 months ago
Comment removed
SpidermanInLondon 3 months ago
i really really like him. much love and respect
CrayZDude2 3 months ago
If all theists were like George the world would be a better place.
lazycackle 3 months ago 18
The bit from 1:00 to 5:00: is seriously one of the most poignant and powerful statements I've read or listen to in a long time. It's just wonderful, by far the best interview of the whole program. Darwin deserves to be celebrated by such a deep intellect.
YaraGChiara 4 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
I wish more Christians were like this.
lordclaude678 4 months ago
This is why Dawkins doesn't interview Catholics, he choses fundamentalists-creationists-muslims because he can use evolution to make them look like fools. With Catholics this isn't so easy and infact Fr George Coyne makes Dawkins look like the less educated one.
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
@damienbrennan1 said "This is why Dawkins doesn't interview Catholics"
Dawkins is interviewing a Catholic in this video, and he posted it to richarddawkinsdotnet.
What are you smoking?
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism:
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity. God created the heavens and the earth. And this isn't opposed to evolution as evolution is simply a theory or vague insight into how God chose to create
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
Right .. Dawkins gets Coyne on the Christianity/Muslim thing. He doesn't answer satisfactorily and we're back to ' ... well it's just my faith ...'. The Virgin birth either happened or it didn't. But he chooses to believe.
everybodysinshowbiz 4 months ago
He believes that god is superfluous, and yet can intervene and perform miracles when he wants to. I've never seen a more blatant contradiction in my life.
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago 3
"He's a god of love."
George carlin said it best: "He has a list of rules, and if you break any one of these rules he will send you to a fiery, dark, horrible place full of death, decay and pain and torture, where you will suffer until the end of time!.....................But he loves you."
Once again, religion is full of holes.
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago 2
George Coyne for pope!
superkeny 5 months ago
There are certain things in religion that cannot be simply explained by science...it MUST be taken on faith.
CatholicCrusader2000 5 months ago
@CatholicCrusader2000 And that, in an of itself, disproves the entire idea of religion. Things that are real and that exist are things that can be proven scientifically. I can scientifically prove the human need to eat and sleep. I can scientifically prove gravity or friction, or the atmosphere, and that makes those things real. Something that you believe in with absolutely no proof is just believing a lie. I could believe on faith that there is a spaghetti monster, that doesn't make it real.
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago 2
@IAmBadatStarcraft I must repectfully disagree with you. Do you believe in the mathematical principle of infinity? If so, then you believe in God.
CatholicCrusader2000 4 months ago
@CatholicCrusader2000 You're gonna have to explain that one, because logically that makes no sense to me.
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago
'I didn't reason my way to god.' - Of course, it would be impossible. One cannot reason one's way to unreason.
stevehayes13 5 months ago
@stevehayes13 Dude, I'm putting that on a fucking t-shirt.
IAmBadatStarcraft 4 months ago 2
@IAmBadatStarcraft You're welcome.
stevehayes13 4 months ago
Hes a very sensible man George coyne he thinks like an atheist, but credits existence and its workings to a god, when physics electro magnatism etc explain it without the need for a god. And if god is existence its certainly not an intervening god, at best right now all u can say is god set it all in motion and has left it too it anything else would have too much to answer for. Personally i think he only believes in god cos his indoctrination took hold and he cant lose the concept.
irtehpwn09 5 months ago
The example at 9:15 concerning the Virgin Birth and Muslims is moot. Muslims DO believe in the Virgin Birth.
JediPaladin 5 months ago
Coyne admits not only that dissonance is required to believe in god, but that dissonance itself IS the religious experience.
GetMeThere1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
the first and second law of thermodynamics apologises for the fact that there is no god. coyne is afraid to say that the religion hes selling is false infact its barely brushed upon. the first law denies the virgin birth and the second law denies the possibility of the resurrection. ween yourself from titty its time to grow-up
jrjupton 6 months ago
@jrjupton you need to learn that mainstream science can barely produce an accurate answer for most things.
what would you say the placebo effect is for instance? how can you have a sham operation get rid of the problem in the same way the operation would?
wygram 5 months ago
This is why Catholicism in it's ESSENCE is the true Christian faith: it allows a person to THINK and REASON.
I believe in God, but I hate it when christians (e.g. Evangelicals, Baptists, etc) come with their non-sense. There's too much people who are endoctrinated and openly admit that even if all the evidence in the universe pointed to something outside their belief system, they would reject it based purely on blind faith.
Like Dawkins once pointed out: that's a disgrace to the human species.
Gazdo01 6 months ago
please dont push me lol !!!
samuelsixvids 6 months ago
If god is superfluous, then why believe in him?
NormacHC 6 months ago
@NormacHC because people want more ...
hldemi 6 months ago
@NormacHC This video JUST explained it.
ChiWehWeh 6 months ago
Thank you for sharing this!!
ilMazina 6 months ago
Thank you for posting this, richarddawkinsdotnet.
writersblock26 6 months ago
George Coyne seems way too smart to be a priest, I suspect that he at least considers the possibility of there not being a god
Dare2Blink 6 months ago
If more religious believers were more like this guy the world would be a better place. I still think he's wrong about a lot of things, but he seems like a good person.
LittleKropotkin 7 months ago
George Coyne is obviously a very good guy, very sincere, self-discerning, humble,and very thoughtful. His belief in miracles is inconsistent with his statements about a god who brought the universe into being and sustains it, but leaves things alone. The virgin birth is probably part of what early Christians HAD to say to compete with other mystery religions. For him to deny the resurrection of JC would be heresy. Other than for miracles, Coyne's god could nearly be the same as Einstein's.
BrentGrainger2000 7 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 No, he is entirely consistent. He bases everything on God not being essential to scientific explanatory 'power.' Further he does not dispose of God from the process of creation altogether, he clearly adopts the Prime Mover philosophy, thus he permits God to have power to act physically and contingently. To intervene in human history is not an alteration, or suspension of the material facts of the universe, there is no fine tuning of the material design.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 We'll just have to disagree on that one. He obviously struggles to find a path where his science and his faith can coexist. The path that he finds is awfully close to Einstein's and Spinoza's god, with a twist here and there to accommodate Catholic theology. The inconsistency shows up most clearly when he states that his god doesn't fool around with the laws of physics but then affirms the virgin birth and the resurrection. Still, who can argue with a god of faith?
BrentGrainger2000 6 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 I fail to see any struggle whatsoever. Basically his implied premise is that Science has very little to say about 'God.' Thus their coexistence is no issue as, in his mind, the two disciplines have limited overlap. He actually isn't internally inconsistent. He affirms a God who is very real and capable of contingent acts, who can intervene by further contingent acts, but who he hopes wouldn't do it too often :P
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 I can only suggest that you study some modern physics, either in text, or more easily from YouTube videos. Start with YouTube+Lawrence Krauss and go from there. There is fundamental conflict between science and theism, whether Coyne acknowledges it, or not. I still admire him for his honesty and integrity. He makes the best accommodation that he can between his passion for science and the faith that he received in childhood. Were all religionists like him!
BrentGrainger2000 6 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Honestly I'm pretty up on modern physics, my partner is an astrophysicist, and whilst I am only a lowly molecular zoologist, I'm not clueless. Modern physics in no sense accounts for there being 'something rather than nothing.' The nothing of Quantum mechanics is, in fact not nothing at all. Krauss is on record saying all that is required are the laws of physics to bring something from nothing. The prime mover is certainly not done away with.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 The best book that I know on science and "god" is by Victor J. Stenger, prof of physics at U. Col. entitled "God The Failed Hypothesis." Stenger reviews all the standard cosmological arguments and presents the most recent physics to show conclusively that ther is no verifiable evidence for any god. "The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no god." he writes after an excellent chapter on "why is there something rather than nothing."
BrentGrainger2000 6 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 I know, and have read the book, and I agree it is entirely interesting. However ultimately beyond a statement of assertion his opinion on why there is something rather than nothing is no better than exactly that. He relies on the 'unstable nothing' which is clearly not nothing at all, outside of semantic games. Edgar Andrews made a better response than I would, however I would suggest Stenger is terribly guilty of knocking down straw men, however well meant.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
George Coyne, what a wonderful man. I disagree with him in some ways, namely his views on original sin and miracles but damn, he sure knows what he's talking about, and it's hard to dislike him simply for some disagreeances. 'My faith itself is God.' That's a nice way of putting it, and perhaps he's right.
ilytopy 7 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
For Information Only: Muslims do believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus
xsdnide 7 months ago
George Coyne and Richard Dawkins gave us a reminder that in despite of all the negativity that humanity might of had in her history, there will always be good people with strong intellect.
08infidel 7 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins 12
this interview changed my view on dawkins as i now view him as a nicer, certainly more calm person compared to the rest of the new atheists.
Andover27 7 months ago
@Andover27 Yes. I am very impressed with Dawkins's conduct during this interview. I have never seen him show such courtesy and willingness to listen to one speaking a position contrary to his own but I think that it was Coyne's intellectual honesty that commanded this from him. Nonetheless I am still impressed with the courtesy he showed.
smawshot 7 months ago
Cool priest. But he sounds more like he believes in a deistic version of God than anything else. Though his personal history, as he'd say, with Catholocism seems hard to shake off.
animals0feel1pain2 8 months ago 3
Lovely man, the fact he laughed after saying he believes in the virgin birth and resurrection makes me wonder why he is a priest though.
thevoice81111 8 months ago 9
@thevoice81111 because that is what he has been doing for a long time, because he is good at it, because he has a reputation to uphold.
mQtek 1 month ago
If this video is full and uncut, why are there cuts?
My faith is disturbed.
YawnGod 8 months ago
"A close friend, carl sagan... " 9:39
How awesome would it be to be able to say that...
OverdriveRevival 8 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins 4
@OverdriveRevival lol yeah its not the average Christian debater who can say that! It must command some respect.
InnocenceExperience 8 months ago
@OverdriveRevival Holy shit that is awesome!!
A0Candle0In0The0Dark 7 months ago
If all catholics were like him, I wouldn't be that far from joining them haha.
Monscent 8 months ago
I think all major religions are going to have to start sounding like Coyne if they're going to survive the 21st century. ...And then the topic of miracles came up, and he started to visibly yank on the chains of orthodoxy...
dorsk188 8 months ago
...at 6:05 and 7:40 Coyne is so charmingly disarmed and embaressed when Dawkins is runing rings around him with the miracles issue I felt sorry for him ;)
Anyway, I wish all clergy (not only in the Catholic Church) be like father George, that'd be a real miracle and probably salvation...
qbaxrace 9 months ago 3
@qbaxrace
I'd call him "grandfather". He's the most supper awesome pep-pep. What a nice guy, and sincere too. I don't agree with him, but he's a smart nice guy.
Callirgos1 8 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
Lovely guy with a great attitudein the interview but watch the big gulp after he says he believes in the miracle of the virgin birth and reserection lol. He knows Dawkins is going to pounce.
Two good guys here.
Kenyonsofjordan 9 months ago
I believe it becomes an argument of history and that is an imperfect science. When it comes down to it though, most religions are not all that different, I would say.
Gkorn17 9 months ago
I believe it becomes a argument of history and that is an imperfect science. When it comes down to it though, most religions are not all that different, I would say.
Gkorn17 9 months ago
Muslims do believe in the Virgin birth............. I thought anyway.
Gkorn17 9 months ago
@Gkorn17 Yes, they do.
But it's beyond the point. I think a Jew, or a Hindu would be a better example. And the question asked is one of the toughest questions a person of faith can be asked. I should know.
TheMikeyReilly 9 months ago
All people of sincerity, embrace Truth, as they see it. Truth dawns on all, even atheists. But the truth that dawns on anyone, if rejected, is to his own hurt! Faith too(revelation) is given to everyone! Be he Muslim, Hindus or atheist. The fullness of Truth is IMO Christ. An atheist shares in some of this Truth! He is LIKE GOD in knowing & loving Truth as God knows and loves Himself(Truth). An atheist follows God's voice, albeit unknowingly! So he is headed to the fullness of Truth! WOW!
watchful38 9 months ago
Im not religious but Coyne is a OG if all religious people were like him I wouldn't have any problems with religion at all.
utube2344 9 months ago
@utube2344 why not believe that all religious people are in fact like Father George Coyne, and that most people who claim to be religious in fact are not? That way you won't have a problem with religion...instead you'll have a problem with people who misuse religion for their selfish and full of ignorance/malice purposes.
Ojokernegro 9 months ago
@Ojokernegro I have seen very few examples of religious people like Coyne. Unfortunately the destructive power of religion far exceeds any minor emotional benefits this is why I think it should be altered or just removed. People of high position often get corrupted into lying like the televangelists who use hypnosis and pretend its God and make millions. In a world with religious people like Coyne there would be no issue with religion sadly this is not a world like that although I wish it were.
utube2344 9 months ago
@utube2344 It's only natural to believe that without religion, perhaps those corrupted people would never be corrupted in the first place. But that's a fallacious thought. Religion is not the only hierarchic field that has to deal with corruption. Religion is not a characteristic of human nature, evil (from which corruption comes from) is. So there is no reason for you to believe that without religion evil (corruption) would be gone, the so called religious. wud still let themselves b corrupted
Ojokernegro 9 months ago
@Ojokernegro In other words it's a question of principles and integrity, which most people lack. It would be like the brazilian movie where the cop finally gets rid of the drug dealers in town, only to find out that the drug dealers weren't really the root of the problem (hopefully you'll get my point).
Ojokernegro 9 months ago
Ok, after listening to Fr. Coyne, I gotta say he's got a level head on his shoulders.
He's right. God is not a necessary explanation for the natural.
But He always was there. He always is. Not to fill the gaps in our understanding of the universe, but to fill in the gap of what lies beyond this universe. How nature came to be. What there was before time, and what there will be after we're dead and gone.
GenghisKhan44 9 months ago 2
Comment removed
UnitedKingdomify 9 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify I'm not sure about that. He is a Catholic priest, after all, so obviously he still thinks it important to offer Him praise, thanksgiving, and worship. And while he wasn't asked anything about the afterlife, I imagine he believes in it and its importance. I don't think deism addresses the issue of the afterlife.
As for nature, God created nature. Science only tells us how He did it. To say, as a scientist, that God did it is redundant.
GenghisKhan44 9 months ago
Coyne held his own until till the virgin birth!
johneamer 9 months ago
I am really impressed by George Coyne, thank you for producing this interview.
ZF1000 9 months ago 64
@ZF1000 Agree! I´m a atheist but i just surended to this priest. Lovely! all the best to mankind..=)
FranciscoKGuerreiro 8 months ago 8
I like George Coyne, he's real.... but i'm still a atheist and i highly doubt that will ever change unless "god" comes down here and presents himself.
aprox23 10 months ago
@aprox23 Kind of like He did 2000 years ago? hahahaha. Not meant to start an argument, just found it ironic.
Gkorn17 9 months ago
Why should anyone who's a scientist or fascinated with science have to divorce his belief in a god if he or she chooses not to.? Of course, because argued by many if everything was created by a god then everything would be made out of cotton candy and sugar and spice with everything nice because god talk is cozy and full of imaginary fairy tail thoughts... but with no thought that an external force so powerful actually existing could be the direct result of many wonderful scientific findings.
HoustonTexas457000 10 months ago
Coyne: 'I'm being very preachy, I admit'
Dawkins: 'you're being totally fascinating, I assure you'
Me: *belly laugh*
I agree with Richard, Coyne is a gem
PorkFrog 10 months ago 63
Father, I respect your honesty and I understand your situation. It is very brave to be doing this debate. I think that our assumptions and our logic are conditional to our environment. I am a number 6 on the Dawkins scale.
nsugathadasa 10 months ago
When you meet theists like that, it all comes downs to faith and nothing more. I think its the final step before agnostecism. Because its not about not being educated or being stupid, its just about the faith part. What you could ask if WHY they think God is real. Of course you are not going to get a scientific answer, and you are not going to get proof either. So again that also just comes down to faith.
gulbirk 10 months ago
@gulbirk Maybe the answer is because it's convenient. And can we really blame them? If it's comfortable for them to believe in such things, why not? People like this man are intelligent enough to avoid the common mishaps of literal and fundamentalist interpretation guiding their actions, which will ensure they won't become a burden on society by trying to impose particularly misguided ideas of a group on the entire collective.
FeanorBR 10 months ago
@FeanorBR No i dont think we can blaim people like this. Because I dont think its fair to force people into not believing. However, what this man is doing is making the number of religious people higher. In other parts of the world you can have the same kind of people just believing another religion. And though this man would never go to war or do something bad, he might be on the side that does this because they have the majority of the population on their side.
gulbirk 10 months ago
@gulbirk You are confusing religious fundamentalists nutjobs with this guy.
FeanorBR 10 months ago
@FeanorBR No no im not. Go read my coment again. If you have enough people believing the "same" idea or ideology. It doesnt matter how EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM act. And it doesnt matter that some of them are nice and some are bad. The fact is that by belonging to this ideology, that give it power. Which can be misused by others beloning to the same ideology.
gulbirk 10 months ago
@gulbirk Yet you fail to realize that simply by declaring yourself a catholic, for example, does not automatically make you part of a hivemind, which seems to be your fear. It doesn't matter if the number of religious people is higher. If, for example, there are a lot of people who align themselves with the catholic religion, but at the same time reject certain ideas like the ban of abortion, then they won't vote for these particular ideas.
FeanorBR 10 months ago
@FeanorBR No, but they will give power to the group that can influence the goverment by poiting to the fact that they have a majority population. This is really simple. Forexample they can say, """Hey, why should religios teachings in schools not be allowed when 80% of our population is religious""". The thing is that it doesnt matter WHO they are, because not everything gets VOTED for. I assume you might be from USA. But in many european countries, we dont vote for everything.
gulbirk 10 months ago
@gulbirk Your example, again, fails to support your point. Many religious people don't think religion should be taught at school. It all comes down to the individual opinion, and about voicing your opinions correctly. If you disagree with something, make sure you and your group are heard about it - sometimes, a minority gets their way like this simply because they weren't passive on the issue. Also, a religious person might be openly against it. It's all about personal convictions.
FeanorBR 10 months ago
@gulbirk And no, I am not american. Didn't the BR at the end tip you off? I'm brazillian.
FeanorBR 10 months ago
@FeanorBR No you dont get, go study politics. In most countries you dont VOTE FOR EVERY SINGLE LITTLE THING. So if someone says ""Hey lets try to make it leagel to teach religion (as a fact) in schools""". They can actually point to having the majority of the population in the same belief system as them. It doesnt matter that allot of the ones that belong to this system doesnt like it, it doesnt change the fact that they are suported it on theory.
gulbirk 10 months ago
@gulbirk Stop stating the obvious, we all know that. Your comments raise another issue, though - if you are against something, and don't voice your opinions, then it's partially your fault in the end that something got approved.
So, in your example, it doesn't matter the religion you profess - as long as you voice your damn own opinions, that is. Do you?
FeanorBR 10 months ago
@FeanorBR What? no you dont get it now? after I explained it? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but im not indoctrinating people with my opinion. Im not the one who wants shcools to teach children that god might not exist. In fact I dont want to change the laws at all. Its my fault? How is it my fault?
gulbirk 10 months ago
@gulbirk I will state this for the last time: professing a religion =/= being connected to a hive mind. A weak minded person will surely be duped into mindlessly repeating the nonsense they are fed without thinking. Someone who has their own set of ideas and ideals and actually uses their brains, though, can be part of a religion and actually stand against stupid ideas when they are presented by their Church or similar. Your fears are exaggerated. And I'm done here.
FeanorBR 10 months ago
@FeanorBR But you dont get it. You just dont get it. Do you realise how law passing works? Do you realise how the real world works? LISTEN NOW FOR THE FUCKING LAST TIME. LOTS OF COUNTRRIES CAN PASS LAWS THAT ARE BENEFITIAL TO A CERTAIN RELIGION, BECAUSE THEY CAN POINT TO STATISTICS SHOWING THAT THE MAJOIRTY OF THE POPULATION BELONG TO THAT RELIGION. THEN IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOU ARE AGAINST WHAT THAT, AS LONG AS YOU ARE A PART OF THAT GROUP, YOU GIVE THE WHOLE GROUP POWER.
gulbirk 10 months ago
@gulbirk You are the one who don't get it. Statistics don't mean shit if people against a certain law write to their congress representative etc etc - in other words MAKE THEIR VOICE HEARD! That's what everyone should always do, period. And I'm out of here, I'm tired of running in circles with you.
FeanorBR 10 months ago
@FeanorBR Yeah but everyone doesnt do that, LOL. you are contradicting everything you said. Because your idea is based on that people actually give a damn, but most people dont.
gulbirk 10 months ago
@gulbirk Are you doing your part, or are you simply riding the wave of "I'm just one, my opinion won't matter!"? And if you want a crusade done, make one trying to raise awareness towards this way of affecting the decisions in your society instead of trying to bar the faith of others. The problem is not the faith, it's of people not voicing their opinions - that was always my point, I see no contradiction. Do your part and incite others to do theirs.
FeanorBR 10 months ago
@FeanorBR Well my point was to look at the statistics, I base my points on the real world. If christian people disagree with other christians then why arent they out there protesting. I mean honestly, how many times have you seen theist protest against other theist?
gulbirk 10 months ago
@gulbirk There are those who do it. They just don't usually publicly state their creed because that is unneeded - it's an idea you are rejecting based on your own conjectures, so they don't really need to go out and say "I am a christian and I don't like this idea!". People just protest, period. Or do you think only atheists protest against things like stem cell research or even abortion? You still think christians share a big hivemind of sorts?
FeanorBR 10 months ago
@FeanorBR I think if the christians go out there and actually protest against people like Kent Hovind. Ok, and where are the HUGE marches of christians that protestad against anti-abortion people, or anti-science people?
gulbirk 10 months ago
As an agnostic atheist myself, I do think that Father Coyne is an intelligent and reasonable man. But it is still troublesome how he has to do backflips to reconcile his faith with his scientific background. I have no doubt that he must have had his share of crises in that faith as a result.
beerbrain420 10 months ago
@beerbrain420 What's an agnostic atheist? Either you are theist, atheist or agnostic, are you not?
dujl 9 months ago
Comment removed
UnitedKingdomify 9 months ago
@dujl Theists make a positive claim there is a God based on faith and/or on reason. Atheists make a negative claim based on the same. Agnosticism, however, is a claim of ignorance. Agnostic means without ("a") knowledge ("gnosis").
One can still believe there may or may not be a God without being sure (because they don't know anything about God). This is called "weak" or "agnostic" atheism or theism.
GenghisKhan44 9 months ago
@GenghisKhan44 Depends on your source- some dictionaries define atheism as you did, some define it as disbelief in god (which is not a claim, either positive or negative), and some use both (m-w.com, for example). However, if you look at the etymology of the word it is clear that "disbelief in god" is more consistent, and, more to the point, the vast majority of pronounced atheists hold this point of view; hence, in the context of discussions like this, atheism makes no claims.
LeonhardEuler1 9 months ago
Is this guy sincerely speaking his mind?Looks like an atheist by belief but religious by profession
vikramrao2002 10 months ago
@vikramrao2002 yeah, but that's the point behind "faith".. u don't need a reason for it.. and he's the prime example imho that this "could" be a nice way to live.. not for me, for sure, but this is religion i "would" support in a way.. (hope i made myself clear.. english isn't my primary language)
sample2501 10 months ago
@sample2501 I agree with you partially. Yes this is a choice people tend to make to lead their life.But that does not make it true.People who like to have faith without evidence tend to believe in blind faith.Historically we have had several blind faiths which are no longer followed.Religion is the only blind belief which managed to stick for a very long time.
vikramrao2002 10 months ago
@vikramrao2002 damn.. u got me wrong.. i never wanted to imply that beliving something makes it true... but the stuff this preacher is talking about is kinda ok..
sample2501 10 months ago
@sample2501 okay I got you now :) Of course its nice to see moderately religious fathers. However, I'm sure religion will be eradicated in centuries to come as the science grows and reaches the common man. I like Richard Dawkins because his main effort is to make the science available for the common man.
vikramrao2002 10 months ago
@vikramrao2002 i also think so. dunno if it will take years or centuries or millenias to "wipeout" (not the best wording, but i lack a better one now...) religion, but it will happen.. it's just the most rational thing to do and a necessarity at some point imo.
sample2501 10 months ago
He'll say that evolution is true, but then bring up "Original Sin".
Does that sound weird to anyone else?
Forserean 10 months ago
I just don't agree with this guy's idea that god is superfluous, yet shows his love by creating himself to be superfluous, and loves everyone as well. This is just another faith statement and has no explanatory value. Sorry father, you're an intelligent man but you have shut yourself off from the logical loophole you just created out of thin air...maybe you're actually god, since you can create something outta nothing!
echalko 11 months ago
they should both jump off the deep end
derman077 11 months ago
Great debait
bellyzbad 11 months ago
this guy should be be the new kent hovind but he would be billion times better and make people think :D
bellyzbad 11 months ago
But Father, what if you are being duped? I wish he would at least consider the possible implications.
ovinophile 11 months ago
Yes it's obvious that on some level Fr. Coyne doubts what his faith states to be absolutely true.
warterra 11 months ago
@warterra HE knows to much to question the observably obvious thats for sure... If he didn't have the collar on and wasn't staninf in a church one might suggest he's not catholic...but rather a rational panthiest or deist.
I wonder what goes through his head when he drinks from a chalice and asserts it is blood... (although catholics do not believe the wine is actually blood)... but words like 'the virgin mary' must stick in his craw a lot!... he knows that these are clearly fabrications.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
It's obvious how a particular dogma can cause an otherwise intelligent person, such as Mr. Coyne, to tie himself in knots, trying to defend the rediculous.
toelesshoe 11 months ago
Guilty of name dropping towards the last of this segment. I couldn't blame him for dropping this one in particular though.
AmericanCritiquer 1 year ago
7:39 "don't push me" He can not support his religion. They will not answer honest questions.
hicks727 1 year ago
@hicks727 "he can not support his religion"
I think he was saying "don't push me" because he doesn't believe in certain things he's supposed to and he didn't want to let that slip.
Jugglable 1 year ago
since sperms can move their way up to the egg there is a given probability for every women of getting pregnant without any penetration of her partner. so while the virgin pregnancy might be a rare event it's certainly not impossible nor is it a miracle or anything like that.
mdinka 1 year ago
@mdinka Nor did it happen even as you suggested anyway since the idea mary was a virgin came about a long long time after everyone concerned was dust! The same way mary shooting off into heaven whilst still alive came about not too long ago either!
Probably one of the reasons that 'new' supernatural events added to holy book are pretty rare since most people would just laugh now. Yet those people go back to reading holy books and consider that they they did occur in the past.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
All I wanted 2 say is given the right conditions a "virgin" birth isn't that unlikely. I suppose that even back in ancient times women were all aware of the fact that 1 could become pregnant w/o penetration.The only thing they probably didn't knew is how this might happen. So, I assume mary and joseph had "innocent" sex but premarital, jesus came and those biblical "virgin" stories were then later added to cover things up... by mary & her mother sitting in the kitchen and thinking it through :)
mdinka 11 months ago
@mdinka well odds are she was just past puberty... Girls were married off at 9-12 in biblical times. So her input into any excuse was either ZIP or some childish story (since she was a child)
I think its a lot more likely she got pregnant and the marriage was too important to both familys to result in the legal jewish punishment of the day which was execution by being buried and stoned.
It has been known on occasion for people to lie to save their lives!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey wasn't it just mistranslated from Hebrew 'alma' meaning "young woman" ? The easiest thing to do would be to say that "it's just a mistranslation" that caused a lot of confusion..
Am I thinking about this right?
sinofalchemy 11 months ago
@sinofalchemy In biblical terms a 'young woman' would not yet be ten. The average life expectancy in iron age Judea for those surviving the first 5 years of life was less than 30, most died from disease. It was a common complaint of the Rome that soldiers were more likely to die of disease in Judea than battle.
Young women in 2011 in the west are in their 20's... but that same woman in Swaziland would be looking forward to being a grandmother!
So in context Mary was a child when married.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@mdinka There is no mention of mary married to Joseph prior to her pregnancy in the bible. Since in biblical times a womans purpose was to marry and have children its unlikely to be an oversight.
My guess is that when it was pointed out she was pregnant before marriage the magic of angels was stuffed in there. They had to, since nobody would worship a bastard prophet!
Same as Mohammad... when did his rather die again... 6 months before his birth? and he had away from home how long?
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
Such a nice calm man, so refreshing.
yamuma698 1 year ago
Dawkins got him on the ropes with the virgin birth question and I sense he's moving in for the knockout blow. But I do admit this priest has given him a run for his money!
somethingdiffereable 1 year ago
A great discussion, between two great people. Very stimulating and refreshing! I find myself wanting to comment after every part about how great it is.
Thank god for open-mindedness! ;)
RationalAtheism 1 year ago
So, the one gap that Coyne clings to is the brain and emotions. We don't fully understand emotions and how the brain works. Love chiefly.
MinisterAilingTongue 1 year ago
@MinisterAilingTongue
It's not a gap; I think we understand love and emotions and the human condition a lot better philosphically. It's a domain that science begins to fail at because we have the self and free choice. This equivalence with the mind and the brain is why the social sciences don't work; science is only one part of the human experience and is not the sole arbriter of our knowledge and truth.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905 That was probably the case until recently... but probably not for much longer. Its commonly been a failsafe of religion to point to humanities self of self, consciousness etc. and claim dominion over it...
But if one feels ones ideas are under pressure...and hastily retreats to this philosophy position then what will happen to that belief when its investigated with a scientific outlook?
And thats whats under way... mostly by those involved in AI... Even philosophy is no hiding place.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey
lol ok I thought such twentieth century ideas had long died out but apparently not; Science rests entirely on Philosophy so no that won't happen. We've replaced truth, knowledge with progressive, modern, etc. and if a theory (scientific or not) fits that scheme it doesn't matter whether or not if it's true or actual knowledge. Science will never be able to define it because it involves empirical knowledge it can never attain.
Jim1905 11 months ago
@Jim1905 @Jim1905 "Science rests entirely on Philosophy"
You realize we have machines now that carry out the planning and design of experiments designed to gain scientific knowledge... maybe you could tell me what philosophical outlook they use?
Love, emotions, desires, morality, consciousness etc. These are all functions that can be explained...and reproduced artificially. They are anything but outside the realm of 'empirical' knowledge. As cybernetics engineers will inform you.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey
"give him a grand general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is 'the results of modern investigation.' "
- Uncle Screwtape (Screwtape letters by CS Lewis)
Jim1905 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey
No they are not functions that can be explained or reproduced artificially! What is consciousness exactly? What is this choice and what is making the choice; if we are simply the sum total of mechanical interactions then choice is an illusion. If you think all humans are simply machines and automatons then you're going down a dangerous and unproven road; something you wish to believe not because it's been proven but because you want it to be true.
Jim1905 11 months ago
@Jim1905 Okay obviously Ken Warick is mistaken in his physical solid device.. maybe he was just imagining the operation that gave him a new sense too? One you or I aren't able to understand cos we never had it. (sonar)
Did you know that when he had that device removed he said it was like someone removing part of his awareness.
Anyway when its available commercially I'll be first in line... you can opt out of higher awareness if you like... After all its all just unproven and imaginary ...
MumblingMickey 11 months ago