@TheLaw055 That's your defense? You're a moron. I guess that sums up both why you should shut the fuck up, and why age doesn't equate to intelligence.
If there is a heaven, this guy may be the only Christian eligible for entry. He's a credit to the human race, and a true thinker. If I was God, I'd be proud to call this guy one of my followers. These two just had the most amazing discussion I've ever been privy to.
Do you not see, as George has tried to explain throughout this interview, that faith and science occupy distinct domains and do different things? Scientific methodology is such that the scope of science is necessarily confined to verifiable materialistic explanations of the natural world. Yet this does not preclude belief in something which lies fundamentally outside the realm science.
@MikeDeFi God is injected into everything we do not understand. It's a blanket, comfort nothing more. Now the winged horse thing I do believe in because I have one right next to me here.
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 Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
Respond to this video...for example “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Here Jesus is clearly showing that he is fulfilling and evolving the scripture to it's pinnacle. However he speaks with reverence towards the old as it was Gods teaching for man up until then.
contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy of Gods saving love. The O.T has a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, however the N.T is the fulfillment of the old and as Jesus is the son of God, it is God who speaks directly to us. Like I said Jesus fulfilled the old and therefore brought man closer to God and to the fulfillment of the truth. This is why for the Jews, Jesus was a radical. He said,
contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy of Gods saving love. The O.T has a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, however the N.T is the fulfillment of the old and as Jesus is the son of God, it is God who speaks directly to us. Like I said Jesus fulfilled the old and therefore brought man closer to God and to the fulfillment of the truth. This is why for the Jews, Jesus was a radical. He said,
@MKcFirth Catholics understand that God’s plan of salvation involved taking an earthy, rebellious people (the Jews), and over time exposing them to what He expected from them. Much of the Old Testament, in fact, chronicles the Jewish people’s failure to follow God; yet we see that God, despite Israel’s sins, never abandons His people. God’s plan as recorded in the Old Testament is a preparation for the coming of Jesus Christ, who was without sin. These books, though they also
Respond to this video... as long as they live just lives according to their consiounce. However this does not mean that they worship the true God as Jesus stated clearly that he was the way, truth and the life. Only through him are we saved, but his love and mercy is for all of mankind. Muslims by the way do believe in hell, as for hindu's and buddhists im not sure. Dont be fooled, hell is for those who "love" evil! those who go to hell choose to go. God is love.
Respond to this video... Even when he was dying in agony on the cross he asked his father to forgive the men who had put him there and who had laughed, jeered, mocked, tortured and spat on him. He was love but he was also just. He told us to love and warned us if we live a life of evil, lust, greed, pride etc we will suffer eternal damnation. But Jesus is a God of mercy and compassion. As for Buddhists etc, Catholic teaching is that they too will enter into paradise
@MKcFirth When you speak of the Bible, you speak of the O.T. Have you read the N.T? The Old was a harsh teaching for a rather primative people. Jesus said "I make all things anew" When the Jews were going to stone an adulterer, Jesus stopped them in their tracks. He forgave the woman and told her to "sin no more". Jesus taught nothing but love and every action of his life was filled with love and compassion right up untill his death.
613 commandments? all the commandments come under this one, to love one another and to love God. If you love all the others fall into place. I am sorry but atheism is an empty state of being. We are a physical and spiritual being. To believe that this life is it is as meaningless as it can get. How many years do you have left? If I really believed this was it, I really wouldn't give a flying f""k about anything. There is a God, and there is a satan, believe me you will end up with one of them.
@MKcFirth Yes there are fundamentalist protestants who claim to know exactly how old the earth is etc, but they are idiots who take the OT literally. "why should we believe a supernatural force created it?" No one forces you to believe anything, that is up to you and your consiounce. For you a fairy-tale, for me as real as the sun is for you. I know God exists I love him and he is in me. How shallow, meaningless and without hope this life must be for those without belief in God.
@MKcFirth How can you say this? they are two completely different things, but how do they contradict one another? The NT Is completely true according to my faith. The OT was inspired by God to a primitive people. It is full of symbolism, messages and truths. Have you ever read the book of Sirach? it is amazing the wisdom in this book. How could a man living 4000 years ago understand the complexities of Gods creation, evolution etc? even today science doesn't fully understand it.
@MKcFirth Yes Coyne like myself does not believe in IT. So what? Truth is nobody really knows exactly how the evolution process took place, nor how the universe came into existence and anyone who claims to know is simply an arrogant prick. They are all theories and that's how they will remain. You say Coyne is lying? you don't seem to get the fact that believing in science is not disbelief in God! Science is simply study of how Gods creation works. So tell me where did everything come from?
@MKcFirth I know what the official Catholic teaching is on evolution, it is open to interpretation like Coyne's beliefs. However Many Catholics would sway toward the intelligent design theory. What you say is ridiculous, Coyne states that evolution in-fact strengthens his faith in God. Haven't you watched the entire video? There is no evidence against Gods existence, any more than there is evidence that everything came from nothing. For me this is much more of a fairy tale.
absolutely - i nearly shivered thinking what kind of comments would be attributed to this great interview - so I was relieved to see yours at the top so i'll stop there! Father Coyne is one of the ONLY faithful and religious figure of authority worth listening to. In history. This fact alone does not bode well for any future evolution in religion - thus ending in it's antiquity relatively soon - I hope!
@MrDespo3 Coyne is simply stating the teachings of the Catholic Church on evolution. This is why Dawkins stays clear from Catholics and prefers to interview fundamentalists, Muslims, and creationists. His argument that evolution disproves the existence of God is radically turned on its head when speaking with an educated Catholic.
the free time we had from not having to hunt all day everyday allowed us to spend our time trial and erroring various activites until we learned and discovered things like tools ,became very paranoid of all unknowns (the sun still is the most worshipped object in all history) tried to explain everything as a god until now we have dwindled god down to very vague illogical faith based explantions. God only exists in the minds of the believers, that said George coyne is very honest in his beliefs
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 vague insight into how God chose to create mankind
we are animals if animals dont have souls i dont think we do we arnt that seperate from chmips as we try to think we are, the only change really is we started eating cooked food, which is softer and broken down alows our body to absorb tons more energy from our food , this weakened our jaw muscle of generations which allowed our brain to develop much more after birth before the crack in the skull sealed. 50% of our total brain growth happens in this time (i think roughly 17 months -2 years old.
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
This man seems to omit a lot of the bad things from religion and imposes some of the god. I still have no respect for faith but having this guy being pope could at least instil a respect of science.
Wow. His insight into how the soul or spirit was emerging and developing along the lines until us thus far just as our biological traits did was astounding. It is one thing I have been struggling to find any sort of answer for and had lost hope that there could exist any reasonable and consistent way of approaching aside from faith alone. This man has shown what an open mind and intellectually honest way of looking looking at these questions can accomplish in faith and reasoning.
George Coyne is such an honest man. As an atheist scientist myself, I can certainly respect him for his honesty. He says straightforwardly that his god does not come from philosophy, or the coldness of metaphysics, or as an explanation for entirely natural phenomena. Rather his god comes solely from his own faith, unproveable, internal, but real to him regardless. Now, that is honest. He is admits without apology the inconsistencies inherent to this. Bravo..
@Mike96727 Whilst I think there is much to be admired in this comment, I think it is entirely wrong to characterise his position as solely based upon faith. Faith is the dominant informer of his belief, this is certain. However he does make appeals to philosophy earlier in the discourse, whilst highlighting the limitations. Further to characterise any of his positions and inconsitent is unfair as his logic is, at least, internally consistent.
@MrWildbill20056 Of course, his faith is internally consistent but not consistent with science. As he stammers through the idea of miracles, and admits to only the two that he MUST believe (Nicene Creed), his discomfort is nearly palpable . He does mention metaphysics, but the cosmological first mover seems pretty cold to him. Nor is any god of the gaps his god. At its core, his god is a god by faith--his faith. He is simply confident in his own intuition. Who can quarrel with him on that?
@Mike96727 I think George would reject any idea that his concept of 'God' is inconsistent with science. His discomfort over miracles comes from his own concept of a 'non tinkering' God. His concept, going back earlier consists of a Philosophical God as a foundation, with the concept of the 'God of love' layered over, who acts contingently. Miracles are simply contingent acts in that framework. His 'God' is not inconsistent with science, science simply has little to say about his 'God.'
@MrWildbill20056 You're right that he would deny that his god is inconsistent with science. But it is, nonetheless. Miracles are inconsistent with science and he accepts the veracity of at least two of them. The only god consistent with science is Einstein's and Spinoza's god. It is also fallacious to maintain that science has nothing to say about anything that resembles the Christian god. Check: Youtube+Lawrence Krauss. New data indicate that there is no reason to accept a creator god.
@Mike96727 Ah but now we come down to your making an assertion of inconsistency, which is fine as far as it goes, but not a counter to his position. If God is real, and capable of real action ie creation, then miracles are not inconsistent with the nature of the universe at all, no? Science has limited capacity to speak on Christianity, I did not say none. Krauss along with the rest relies on the laws of physics and quantum mechanics to bring a universe into creation, as opposed to nothing.
@MrWildbill20056 What science can say about Christianity and the thousands of other religious fabrications of the human mind is that there is no verifiable evidence whatever that any of those thousands of gods actually exist. There is no more verifiable evidence for Krishna than for Zeus than for Odin than for Allah than for Yahweh......etc. Therefore, as Coyne maintains, the ONLY position to take if one is a rational person is that one's god is faith---one's god comes from one's faith.
@Mike96727 Science has little to say, exactly, thus you are agreeing with both Fr. Coyne and myself. However you also implicitly concede that the 'God' Fr. Coyne posits is entirely consistent with a strict scientific view of the world on the flip side. However you are self limiting when you imply that science is 'everything.' Historical analysis, literary exploits, philosophy are not part of empirical science. You must reject those entirely to do away completely with the 'evidence' for 'a God.'
@MrWildbill20056 Surely you would not include fictional literature as part of rational discourse? Historical analysis CAN be verified and as such is verifiable evidence. Even by that standard, no more evidence exists for Yahweh than for Allah or Odin, and the evidence is contradictory. Philosophy is ESSENTIALLY speculative, not relying on anything but the manipulation of definitions and rules of logic.I repeat:--- no verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the 1000's of invented gods.
@Mike96727 With regards to your first question I wonder what you imply? If you are asking in general, I would say yes I would. If you are categorizing the Christian Bible as such, I reject that as an argument by assertion. Your take on the Judeo-Christian material is your take, I see nothing to reply to. Philosophy is useless appears to be your next implication, I disagree. There is no verifiable evidence for string theory, do you classify it similarly as 'Yahweh?'
@MrWildbill20056 No, I don't classify string theory in the same category as Yahweh, Zeus and the thousands of other fabrications. None of the gods has any utility whatever to me in understanding the Universe. String theory, on the other hand, while without verifiable evidence (as yet) has utility, and if results from the Hadron begin to point to it as a useful model---great utility! Einstein's math needed no cosmological constant-- added for the sake of metaphysics-- his biggest error!
@Mike96727 String Theory makes no verifiable predictions and has no intrinsic explanatory power. Sound familiar? It has utility to you as a model upon to base a 'potential' understanding of the universe. So does the God of George Coyne. Just as String theory isnt useful to Lawrence Krauss, George Coyne's God is not useful to you. Also simply throwing Zeus and 'Yahweh' together in a sentence with fabrication is fairly petty and not an argument. The qualitative differences in material are huge.
@MrWildbill20056 The qualitative difference between Zeus and Yahweh is non-existent. Both were war gods. Both had complex mythologies created by their worshippers. If anything, Zeus was better, as the Greco-Romans were more successful than the Jews. You exhibit the typical bias of religionists. While you consider belief in Zeus, Krishna, and Allah irrational, you cannot for the life of you understand why others would consider your belief totally irrational. It amazes me!
@Mike96727 I missed this in the melee :P Anyway I would say to you that you are however well meaningly, misrepresenting the material to a huge degree. The stand out difference would be the source material. None of the surviving Hellenistic material purports to be a historical account, the literature that survives is mainly poetic and vastly later in time than the events 'recounted.' The Christian Bible however is contemporaneous to it's subject matter, and is an explicit Historical account.
@MrWildbill20056 I'd encourage you to do a lot more study on early Christianity. Far from being contemporaneous, historical accounts, the books of the new testament were written by reporters (not eyewitnesses) of legend. Moreover, even the Q source, the basis of Mark, was written decades after the supposed death of JC. In addition, the Church, as it commonly did, destroyed any competitive books and we have them only through accident. Christianity is simply one more invented religion.
@Mike96727 You first may not assert that the authors were not eye witnesses. A current view would be that Mark and Luke definitely did not know Jesus, but that Matthew and John may have been directly involved in the creation of their named accounts. With regards to date, despite a minority discounted opinion for the second century, the general view places Mark from 60~73. Q is a supposed source we can't begin to place reliably in time. Writing was also within the lifetime of eye witnesses.
@MrWildbill20056 Re: historical authenticity of NT. You use the subjunctive constantly about those writings. I'd aggee that they are contradictory and inconsistent. Re: personal god. I'd bet a year's salary that the average Catholic in the pew makes very little distinction between elemnets of the triune god, the saints, and other invisible figures of religion. He uses them all as a palliative against the anxieties of life hoping that magic will happen. Then adds: "It was the will of god."
@Mike96727 I would agree that the Gospel accounts are contradictory 'on the surface.' However the same could be said of the witness accounts used to convict many criminals every day of the week in western legal systems. The more important question is whether they are fundamentally in conflict, I and others contest they are not... The belief of the 'average' Catholic is largely irrelevant. A pupil can be taught correctly and still answer wrongly.
@MrWildbill20056 Did you re-read your last response? To allege that the belief of the average Catholic is "irrelevant" is either naive (not realizing that a religion is composed of ordinary adherents) or totally pompous and arrogant. Wow. This discussion has become unproductive. If your beliefs are different from the ordinary Catholic, then you've established yet one more religion--and proved my point. Religions are fabrications. Inventions. In the thousands! Designed for palliation.
@Mike96727 Not at all. As I said, 'the pupil can be taught correctly and still answer wrongly.' There is one coherent belief system known, taking your lead, as Catholic Christianity. The individual beliefs of those who claim membership do not alter the established system. The system is the religion, the adherents are the religious. Does the pupil who answers 2+2=5 make it what he/she was taught? Similarly the belief of the religious does not alter the teaching of the religion itself.
@MrWildbill20056 Re: string theory. You should check the work of Michael Duff at the Imperial College. String theory will continue to make predictions that are experimentally testable. Will it be the final answer? Maybe not. To learn about the value of dead-ends, you should read more history of science. Also read Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" for clear evidence of the natural phropensity of Homo sapiens to invent fantasy gods. I like evidence.. Fantasy friends are useless to me.
@Mike96727 Now now, we both know that Duff's work has come under harsh criticism from eminent physicists, including other string theorists, so that appeal to authority is shaky at best. Further we both know that only certain versions of string theory make any testable predictions, so even if they are all rejected, multiple non testable forms will remain. Dennet's book is interesting, but is really a study in memetics in large part, and no critique of the validity of the beliefs themselves.
@MrWildbill20056 1) Even the most fruitful ideas in science may require generations for adequate testing. 2) Many ideas are dead ends in themselves but catalyze scientific creativity. 3) Dennett and others, together with the study of comparative religions, demonstrate that the invention of gods and religions--all different, inconsistent, contradictory, and competitive--is a character of Homo sapiens. If one NEEDS an invisible friend to be happy, don't claim that there's evidence for it!
@Mike96727 1) Yes, this still doesn't allow certain forms of String theory to be untestable and retain a superiority to a 'God hypothesis' simply because they come from the minds of scientists. 2) Absolutely 3) Irrelevant as to whether what is believed is actually true. One could argue that an environment which selects for 'God' belief would be consistent with one featuring a 'God.'Memes are fairly discredited in general however, and being a zoologist, I know this better than most.
@MrWildbill20056 If the formulation of an idea (calling string theory a "theory" is a bit inaccurate) catalyzes other ideas, then it has utility and is therefore superior to the "god hypothesis."...Because of its ubiquity across cultures, the invention of gods and religions quite likelly had survival value for H. sapiens as a social animal. Any value of theism today completely escapes me. I submit that this propensity of our species is like any other vestigial remnant--& much more dangerous.
@Mike96727 Now now, this is all getting terribly subjective. That's a big IF, as there is no need to assume that String 'theory' will be catalytic in terms of achieving the goal of 'explaining everything.' It may well lead to scientific progress in related fields, but then so has work based upon the 'God' hypothesis. Further the 'God hypothesis' is fundamentally superior IF it is correct. That's my 'if.' I restate my earlier point: that critique is irrelevant to whether the beliefs are true.
@MrWildbill20056 I agree. Much too subjective for my taste. I'm a verifiable evidence-philiac. Long ago, I came to the conclusion that there was no verifiable evidence for any god, and yet thousands upon thousands of definitions for them. Even the idea of "comfort" from an invisible friend seemed childish, as it did to Einstein. I prefer to minimize delusion, maximize reality, and live fully and rationally, as much as my brain is able. In short, any concept of god is irrelevant. Peace!
@Mike96727 I didn't mean to come back for the last word, but I did miss your earlier statement. Ultimately where be part ways is on the subject of evidence. You want verifiable evidence, which is fine, but limiting. I accept evidence coming from different, non repeatable, non verifiable sources ie ancient historical texts, philosophy, inferred observations. You, like Einstein refute an idea of 'God' no one believes in. If God is real, despite our opinions, it will be anything but irrelevant. :)
@MrWildbill20056 No one believes in the god that Einstein refutes? Come on now!!! Einstein was dismayed that any adult would believe in an invisible, personal friend who answered prayers and was concerned with the minutiae of our lives. Billions of people in the world believe in, pray to, implore, defend to the death, deny other people's rights in the name of, and fly airplanes into buildings to obtain rewards from that type of god! There are 1000's of definitions for 1000's of gods.
@Mike96727 Einstein denied an anthropological God. Christian philosophy does not propose one. Christian philosophy is entirely clear on 'God' being way beyond human understanding and that what insights we do have are entirely limited. I should have been more precise though, I agree: the 'God' refuted is not proposed by the Christian tradition. The 'personal' God is a symbol used to 'placehold' for the actual object of 'God.'
@MrWildbill20056 Billions of Christians would adamantly disagree! For them, the personal god is a critical element of their religion. What a friend we have in Jesus! The Catholic in the pew, who relies on his invisible friend, would find your ineffable god truly useless to him. Moreover, while I admit that Christianity is a clever design, it relies on 1) invisible friends and 2) the promise of afterlife for its success. Both are critical elements in the design. Sorry. Your god is deist!
@Mike96727 Ah now, you are conflating Jesus with the entire concept of the Christian 'God.' Christ is the 'accessible' face of 'God' to Catholics, (taking your lead) however Catholic theology teaches that Christ had both human and divine natures, and still does. The human nature adds the personal face, but no one teaches that this is the 'entirety' of 'God.' 'God' is thus capable of relating 'personally' without being a conventional 'person.' Prayer is also more complex than you present.
@Mike96727 I had a friend who was a priest. I learned that they actually go to school for at least 12 years and are very intellectual people. A philosophy course is one them. It reminded me of my conversation with him because even tho I am not a scientist like you I like science and knows a bit. So I would ask him scientific question contradicting to religion, and he would answer them rationally. I was amazed by that friend of mine. It did not turn into an argument but a learning process.
@Mike96727 Might I add that for catholics, faith is not blind beleif or even rational belief (though not inconsistent with the latter). Faith is mystical and transcends the human mind. Beleif, is merely the intellectual assent of the mind, and is only the more obvious, manifest, and superficial expression of Faith. As Coyne said before, Faith is dwelling in mystery, and IS God himself. Man needs faith because the human mind cannot grasp God. His truth is literally unbelievable.
@flockofseagulls87 As a recovering Catholic myself, I understand your concept of faith, and Coyne's After awakening from the delusion of theism, however, I find all of those concepts incredibly unsatisfying, whereas I do find, like Einstein, that the Cosmos itself is more than enough. I need not fantasy nor faith in the invisible.
@kos15280 probably because the whole thing was too long. from what i remember, parts were included. and i don't think it was edited or cherry picked to cast him in a bad light, but judge for yourself; the documentary is somewhere on youtube...
@tatumifulify Me too, but i'm starting to wonder why he is a priest. Science seems more his passion, not the Catholic faith, especially how he laughed when he said believes in the virgin birth
@thevoice81111 I don't see that. Although on some few minor points I would differ from Fr. Coyne, as a scientist (and I love science) I do not see why his position goes against the fact that my person is absolutely defined by Catholicism and specifically by the person of Christ (the Image of the Father). I mean, probably Fr. Coyne could have polished up some theological terms and explanations but that's not his main strength...nor does it have to be.
@thevoice81111 In fact, the superfluous reality and the evolutionary principles of Nature (by that I mean the created world) makes the Christological phenomenon that much more momentous and uniquely special (in that nothing can be more special than the coming on earth of Christ). Christ in this sense is all Religion in that only in his Person (not even in his teaching) does the tension between our ephemeral reality get "religato" (tied) with Eternity (i.e: God). con't...
@thevoice81111 So a better understanding of the Universe actually deepens my Faith and I could definitely see how someone would want to become a priest. I mean, what an honour to preside a mass where God, in the person of the priest, acts to make the Eucharist the body of Christ. Doing this with the knowledge that this is the epicenter of Love in all the Universe is just enormous....so I actually think that it's immensely beautiful that he is a priest with such a passion for science.
@thevoice81111 well i am very interested universe obviously just like coyne but also, i do have faith and im sure he became a priest because he was brought up in a catholic family and has faith and is pretty passionate about it. he is also alll about space so this most likely troubled his faith because in most respects its either faith or science. My guess is that for coyne this brought up an entire different genre for him and his new(er) passion is to explain the relationship between the 2.
So Fr Coyne believes in the Virgin Birth but not that at some point within evolution, when the biological system came to be human for the first time, God gave human beings souls. A bit of inconsistency there. To be honest, I cannot hold to evolution because it seems to me, a human being cannot, unnurtured, develope into such without having all of it's working parts present from the beginning. So no, I cannot hold to evolution even on rational grounds, let alone scientific.
Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:
"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
So, what I can't get is this: why can't we couple deciplines like science and philiosophy when the circumstances warrant it? So, Father George earlier in the interview (2/7) spoke about the mover. Science speaks of a beginning, that scientifically we can say there WAS in fact, a beginning. So, how then, when speaking of a First Mover, do we scientifically deny it to be God?
Someone tell me where are more of these believers with BRAINS plz for the love of what ever god, its our world to manage and take care of, HE wont do it for us nor help us so stop looking up and look forward. I love this priests words it to me is what all religion should be. You are not right, none of us are, so shut up plz with all the religious bulling and absolution that you are and same for anti-theists in the opposite. We have bigger problems to face together LEAVE GOD OUT OF IT...
I think what he means by "God is working with it all along," is that God is like the administrators of websites, providing the service, who does not interfere, but makes everything possible.
That is a cruel god because some of these websites have some painful things going on in them. As a moderator he should intervene...assuming he loves people and truly wants to help...or he doesn't want to help and intervene, and that does make him a cruel god.
@qlddave1966 In fairness I think Dawkins is most likely the better scientist....but Coyne is probably more intellectually capable....
Plus I've 'gone off' Dawkins to be honest... he definitely has a bloody neurosis at this stage...its like his mid life crisis never left him. And one cannot reason effectively if clouded by a preexisting personal dislike for an idea.
In all fairness I can see how you can come to that conclusion about Dawkins based on some footage I have seen. However he seems pretty relaxed in these interviews wouldn't you say? He lets Coyne talk most of the time. I have met some really obsessed/pushy atheists but Dawkins has a life in the biological community and studies outside of this so I don't think I would go as far personally as to kill him with a neurosis like problem. Plus his reasoning doesn't seem altered.
@LambdaQuarks Well most of the footage of dawkins being a pushy ass is put out by dawkins... I'm not the only one to notice...and I'm not only atheist myself but anti theist!
But I'm an anti theist that recognizes a truth of the human condition...which is that humans do not like to be told by others they perceive as being 'not an authority' that they are wrong...hence he preaches to the choir!
Thats okay in science, where only evidence is required... but religion ignores evidence
Being a ape don't reduce us in any way father, is just a classification of species, and because our anatomical features, we fit in that category, so the rest of the modern apes.
@ShadeOfLotus I think he meant that being just apes reduces us in a philosophical and theological way. That's the reason why he said that monkeys don't survive death because they have no soul. Humans do.
0:00 god loves all his children? it's clear that he haven't read the bible with opened eyes :D evolution DO contradict the bible and we all know it. I know richard is just trying to show that non literalists are good guys and to make evolution more acceptable in a smart way but I think he is as stupid as creationists :D
I do not believe in god and It's been more than a decate that I left the Catholic faith, but seeing this father speak, I can't feel but respect and admiration for this man. I don't know how he can have those ideas in his mind and feel good about it, but at least I think it is a peaceful, thoughtful and sincere way of thinking.
I wish more people in the world would be like him. I wish I could see someday a man like him as a Pope. It would bring hope to all of us.
Clearly this priest should be pope. He has an insigjht which is both humane and enlightening. But he is still placing restrictions on the activities of god and god(s) down to his own preferences. if god is not always certain of what is going to happen and life itself is a 'chance' process even from a god's perspective then surely that god is not omnipresent/omniscient/omnipotent. A 'God' would, by the chuirches definition, be incapable of not seeing everything at all times.
the more i watch you church people talk the more i know god is not real, i mean evolution is right in front of you your watching it, the smarter human is hawkin the older stupieder human is that church guy, get real start living in the real world not a fairytail land where their are invisible people in the sky,
@bennywright1 Yeah very curious. I wish all of the religious people out there -- especially in politics -- were as rational as this guy. The only reason he's rational, though, is because he's also a scientist.
This guy must be the most open-minded, rational, and intellectually advanced person in the whole catholic church. Trust Richard Dawkins to find him out of the thousands of other priests... :-)
@cyantulip Coyne was the person Sagan was aiming the proposition 'if the universe is endless in time, what need of a god... if not and it had a cause...and that cause is God.... then who made the god' speech at in the end of the Cosmos series... Sagan and Coyne were very good friends. And also had the same job... they were both astronomers.
Don't let his theism fool you...he's a very bright guy! Even if a little unorthodox in his position.
"As if theists were dumb just because they believed in God."
Thats not what I meant. Not that theism 'results' in lower intelligence...unless of course it stops one from exercising any form of reason or educating ones self etc. (and some religions do promote this level of forced ignorance)
What I meant rather was that one is less likely to be a theist in the first place with a higher intelligence to start with. For good or bad thats what the statistics show.
Reality is not physical, the physical reality is an illusion which springs from the real absolute indivisible existence that is God. The soul creates the entire physical world as it evolves its consciousness. All souls are within and are one with the oversoul. Our ultimate destiny is to become God who is infinite Knowledge Power and Bliss. If the truth interests you readup on Meher Baba.
Coyne claims he doesn't believe in a human soul, because HE DOESN"T HAVE TO. Whatever is not dogma, he IS ALLOWED to discard. This means that the Catholic church tells him what to accept and how to think. He appears to have separated faith from reality. He keeps stressing that "evolution is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation. Well, is science reality, or is faith?
Fascinating interview! It was such a breath of fresh air to see a representative of religious belief and a representative of atheistic belief in such a peaceful discussion. I'm so impressed by how respectful these two were toward each other. If only more atheists and more religious could treat each other this way, what a wonderful turn the world could take!
@jemmel87 The reason they were so respectful was mainly because they actually followed the same ideals. Take away the priests faith in god and he is pretty much the same as Dawkins. This is so unusual because most of the faithful do not respect science in such a way, and are indeed quite ignorant, which will in tail lead to heated discussions. I do agree though, it was definitely refreshing.
@wolverine005 I both agree and disagree with what you said. I agree that ignorance leads to misunderstanding which leads to aggravation and heated discussion. However, I disagree that the main reason they could respect each other was because they are "pretty much the same." You can definitely disagree and still have a calm, respectful discussion. I also think that your last point goes both ways. A proponent of science can be just as ignorant and disrespectful toward religion.
@jemmel87 You are indeed correct, but I rarely saw much disagreement between them, infact Dawkins was agreeing with a lot of what he was saying. Also correct on your last point, but can you really compare ignorance towards religion to ignorance towards science? I don't think so, but that is ofcourse my opinion.
@jemmel87 What I mean is, you could go your entire life without any knowledge of religion (unlikely, but hypothetically), and become a great scientist, contribute greatly to humanity and live a brilliant life. Whereas if you grew up with a total lack of knowledge of science (again hypothetically) I don't see how you could even progress into modern culture without acknowledging it. Ofcourse many people do progress, and ofcourse many do contribute.
@wolverine005 I don't think you need much of a knowledge of science to contribute to humanity. My mother is completely computer-illiterate, can't even send an email. However, her love for Christ inspires her to serve others unceasingly. She constantly helps the poor, feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, loves the unloved, etc. Is she wasting her time? Should she go get a degree in Quantum Mechanics?
@jemmel87 I guess I'm just trying to emphasize the point that religion is not necessarily needed, whereas Science is, it has done so much more for us, and if we didn't have science we would a lot more comparable to Apes than we are now. Again this is all under the pretense that religion and science cannot mix, which they can to a certain degree, as Father George clearly shows. Then there are people who let the bible rule their life, and it definitely gets in the way of how they think.
@wolverine005 I assume you know Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher Hitchens). Peter is a major proponent of religion due in large part to his experience in communist Russia. Very generally, his message is that whether or not you believe in religion, it is a major contributor to the happiness of all people. In Russia at the time, the lack of religious belief rendered the people bleak, unhappy, and lacking in all charity, even common courtesy.
@wolverine005 Don't get me wrong. You're obviously not religious but very courteous. I believe that that's there in you (whether you like it or not) due to the influences of a society that has been shaped by Christian charity. If we were to do away with all religion, I promise you those charities would fade, just as they did in communist Russia.
Also, is it really our technology that differentiates us from apes? Isn't it our ability to reason? Create? Love? Form societies, governments, etc.?
@wolverine005 I'd also like to discuss your claim that science has "done so much more for us" (culture? art? philosophy?). However, I need to start studying my O Chem. It's unfortunate that we don't know each other. I'd much rather just buy you a coffee and discuss this in person. We'd get a lot more ground covered that way.
Anyway, you're welcome to respond to what I've said, but I don't think you or I want to carry this on too much longer. Thanks for the discussion, though. Take care!
George Coyne doesn't believe in souls, doesn't believe god interferes, doesn't deny evolution... yet somehow gets an afterlife and believes the virgin birth. I think he's not catholic, but rather his own branch of pseudo-Christianity.
i would think that (father) george coyne is the only one scientist from christianity who would believe in god as well as science since bible is an extreme example of justifying non-existence and scientifically impossible measures of establishing existence of a higher power which is inevident... that's it....thank you for the conversation though....
I have great respect for George Coyne, but the one thing that always gets annoying is the Christian repeating, and repeating of "god loves you, god's love, etc etc love love love". It gets REALLY old REALLY fast.
No No you don't understand what he means,What he is saying and i am also saying is that it gets really annoying and irritating and winds us up we are not stupid,any atheist watching this you tube video is not stupid we don't need to hear this from you we have heard it from your fellow christians a million times,its not working for you please desist.
@LordOmberus so different that it's not even an ape. According to your "logic" apes are not apes but prokaryotes, the common ancestor of all things living on Earth. Once a prokaryote always a prokaryote, right?
You fool. What we would today describe as a prokaryote was at the time of our splitting from them the ONLY kind of cellular life. So no, we aren't prokaryotes in the same way we are not birds. But we ARE cellular. And we ARE apes.
I thought it was bold and but pleasing move how he wanted to limit god to be inside the universe. Because I've always hated how Christians use the word supernatural to explain away anything they wanted. Supernatural doesn't mean anything to me.
This is great, he has found a somewhat shaky bridge to connect Old Christian doctrines with what we know about the world through science. The problem is that in doing so he has to make some concessions where he must reject some Church teachings. I find this is a recurring theme in connecting religion and science
But if religion must always change to accommodate science, what is the value of fundamental religious beliefs in the first place? How can there be a constant truth if it keeps changing?
oh come on people! OK so there is more empathy with Coyne, but it all remains highly idiotic gruesome stupid shyte, nice guy or not. For god's sake (excuse the pun) ... his ideas, even if portrayed in the most sympathertic way, remain pure and utter bollocks and are as inconsistant as everyone elses who support these idiotic stories etc. ugh... come ooonn!
@TheLaw055 That's your defense? You're a moron. I guess that sums up both why you should shut the fuck up, and why age doesn't equate to intelligence.
beatonm198 1 week ago
If there is a heaven, this guy may be the only Christian eligible for entry. He's a credit to the human race, and a true thinker. If I was God, I'd be proud to call this guy one of my followers. These two just had the most amazing discussion I've ever been privy to.
beatonm198 1 week ago 3
@beatonm198 And you have just proven that you a dumb arse,
TheLaw055 1 week ago
@TheLaw055 Oh yeah? Based on what? I'm willing to bet you don't have a damn thing to contribute, you're just talking shit. Shut up, troll.
beatonm198 1 week ago
@beatonm198 I rest my case, you are an American & 25 years of age, is't that proof enough.??????????????????
TheLaw055 1 week ago
Two Sets of Books in action.
PowerCoefficient 3 weeks ago
@MikeDeFi @mQtek
Do you not see, as George has tried to explain throughout this interview, that faith and science occupy distinct domains and do different things? Scientific methodology is such that the scope of science is necessarily confined to verifiable materialistic explanations of the natural world. Yet this does not preclude belief in something which lies fundamentally outside the realm science.
rememberthiskk 3 weeks ago
good stuff but i've heard enough. good on ya George but you have a very difficult row to hoe.
iworkforme 3 weeks ago
"I can not give it a firm, rational explanation; or else it wouldn't be faith." Welp, there you have it folks.
MikeDeFi 2 months ago
@MikeDeFi God is injected into everything we do not understand. It's a blanket, comfort nothing more. Now the winged horse thing I do believe in because I have one right next to me here.
mQtek 1 month ago
@mQtek are you done showing off? May I have it back please?
MrBadumtish 3 weeks ago
G R A C E
TimotheosCauvin 2 months ago
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 Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Respond to this video...for example “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Here Jesus is clearly showing that he is fulfilling and evolving the scripture to it's pinnacle. However he speaks with reverence towards the old as it was Gods teaching for man up until then.
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy of Gods saving love. The O.T has a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, however the N.T is the fulfillment of the old and as Jesus is the son of God, it is God who speaks directly to us. Like I said Jesus fulfilled the old and therefore brought man closer to God and to the fulfillment of the truth. This is why for the Jews, Jesus was a radical. He said,
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy of Gods saving love. The O.T has a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, however the N.T is the fulfillment of the old and as Jesus is the son of God, it is God who speaks directly to us. Like I said Jesus fulfilled the old and therefore brought man closer to God and to the fulfillment of the truth. This is why for the Jews, Jesus was a radical. He said,
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
@MKcFirth Catholics understand that God’s plan of salvation involved taking an earthy, rebellious people (the Jews), and over time exposing them to what He expected from them. Much of the Old Testament, in fact, chronicles the Jewish people’s failure to follow God; yet we see that God, despite Israel’s sins, never abandons His people. God’s plan as recorded in the Old Testament is a preparation for the coming of Jesus Christ, who was without sin. These books, though they also
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
Respond to this video... as long as they live just lives according to their consiounce. However this does not mean that they worship the true God as Jesus stated clearly that he was the way, truth and the life. Only through him are we saved, but his love and mercy is for all of mankind. Muslims by the way do believe in hell, as for hindu's and buddhists im not sure. Dont be fooled, hell is for those who "love" evil! those who go to hell choose to go. God is love.
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
Respond to this video... Even when he was dying in agony on the cross he asked his father to forgive the men who had put him there and who had laughed, jeered, mocked, tortured and spat on him. He was love but he was also just. He told us to love and warned us if we live a life of evil, lust, greed, pride etc we will suffer eternal damnation. But Jesus is a God of mercy and compassion. As for Buddhists etc, Catholic teaching is that they too will enter into paradise
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
@MKcFirth When you speak of the Bible, you speak of the O.T. Have you read the N.T? The Old was a harsh teaching for a rather primative people. Jesus said "I make all things anew" When the Jews were going to stone an adulterer, Jesus stopped them in their tracks. He forgave the woman and told her to "sin no more". Jesus taught nothing but love and every action of his life was filled with love and compassion right up untill his death.
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
613 commandments? all the commandments come under this one, to love one another and to love God. If you love all the others fall into place. I am sorry but atheism is an empty state of being. We are a physical and spiritual being. To believe that this life is it is as meaningless as it can get. How many years do you have left? If I really believed this was it, I really wouldn't give a flying f""k about anything. There is a God, and there is a satan, believe me you will end up with one of them.
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
@MKcFirth Yes there are fundamentalist protestants who claim to know exactly how old the earth is etc, but they are idiots who take the OT literally. "why should we believe a supernatural force created it?" No one forces you to believe anything, that is up to you and your consiounce. For you a fairy-tale, for me as real as the sun is for you. I know God exists I love him and he is in me. How shallow, meaningless and without hope this life must be for those without belief in God.
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
@MKcFirth How can you say this? they are two completely different things, but how do they contradict one another? The NT Is completely true according to my faith. The OT was inspired by God to a primitive people. It is full of symbolism, messages and truths. Have you ever read the book of Sirach? it is amazing the wisdom in this book. How could a man living 4000 years ago understand the complexities of Gods creation, evolution etc? even today science doesn't fully understand it.
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
@MKcFirth Yes Coyne like myself does not believe in IT. So what? Truth is nobody really knows exactly how the evolution process took place, nor how the universe came into existence and anyone who claims to know is simply an arrogant prick. They are all theories and that's how they will remain. You say Coyne is lying? you don't seem to get the fact that believing in science is not disbelief in God! Science is simply study of how Gods creation works. So tell me where did everything come from?
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
@MKcFirth I know what the official Catholic teaching is on evolution, it is open to interpretation like Coyne's beliefs. However Many Catholics would sway toward the intelligent design theory. What you say is ridiculous, Coyne states that evolution in-fact strengthens his faith in God. Haven't you watched the entire video? There is no evidence against Gods existence, any more than there is evidence that everything came from nothing. For me this is much more of a fairy tale.
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
belief*
flockofseagulls87 4 months ago
I wonder why they don't sit down?
everybodysinshowbiz 4 months ago
@qlddave1966
absolutely - i nearly shivered thinking what kind of comments would be attributed to this great interview - so I was relieved to see yours at the top so i'll stop there! Father Coyne is one of the ONLY faithful and religious figure of authority worth listening to. In history. This fact alone does not bode well for any future evolution in religion - thus ending in it's antiquity relatively soon - I hope!
MrDespo3 5 months ago in playlist Debates - Speeches - Movers & Shakers II
@MrDespo3 Coyne is simply stating the teachings of the Catholic Church on evolution. This is why Dawkins stays clear from Catholics and prefers to interview fundamentalists, Muslims, and creationists. His argument that evolution disproves the existence of God is radically turned on its head when speaking with an educated Catholic.
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
@qlddave1966 Agreed, I love this, very much.
Core1138 5 months ago
the free time we had from not having to hunt all day everyday allowed us to spend our time trial and erroring various activites until we learned and discovered things like tools ,became very paranoid of all unknowns (the sun still is the most worshipped object in all history) tried to explain everything as a god until now we have dwindled god down to very vague illogical faith based explantions. God only exists in the minds of the believers, that said George coyne is very honest in his beliefs
irtehpwn09 5 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 vague insight into how God chose to create mankind
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
we are animals if animals dont have souls i dont think we do we arnt that seperate from chmips as we try to think we are, the only change really is we started eating cooked food, which is softer and broken down alows our body to absorb tons more energy from our food , this weakened our jaw muscle of generations which allowed our brain to develop much more after birth before the crack in the skull sealed. 50% of our total brain growth happens in this time (i think roughly 17 months -2 years old.
irtehpwn09 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
"In the after life I wanna have a gin and tonic and play tennis"...lol haha I love this guy.
suitabledude 6 months ago 15
Contrast this interview with the way Fox news deals with Prof Dawkins. Coyne is a breath of fresh air.
ilikezappa 6 months ago 13
this father make me want be a believe ;p
massarde9591 6 months ago
Thank you for posting this, richarddawkinsdotnet.
writersblock26 6 months ago
This man seems to omit a lot of the bad things from religion and imposes some of the god. I still have no respect for faith but having this guy being pope could at least instil a respect of science.
drummerkid1993 7 months ago
@drummerkid1993 well said feel exactly the same. However most likely whatever good he would do would be undone by the following pope
Dare2Blink 7 months ago
Wow. His insight into how the soul or spirit was emerging and developing along the lines until us thus far just as our biological traits did was astounding. It is one thing I have been struggling to find any sort of answer for and had lost hope that there could exist any reasonable and consistent way of approaching aside from faith alone. This man has shown what an open mind and intellectually honest way of looking looking at these questions can accomplish in faith and reasoning.
smawshot 7 months ago
gin and tonic, tennis! LMAO
joeMopar412 7 months ago
George Coyne is such an honest man. As an atheist scientist myself, I can certainly respect him for his honesty. He says straightforwardly that his god does not come from philosophy, or the coldness of metaphysics, or as an explanation for entirely natural phenomena. Rather his god comes solely from his own faith, unproveable, internal, but real to him regardless. Now, that is honest. He is admits without apology the inconsistencies inherent to this. Bravo..
Mike96727 7 months ago 46
@Mike96727 Whilst I think there is much to be admired in this comment, I think it is entirely wrong to characterise his position as solely based upon faith. Faith is the dominant informer of his belief, this is certain. However he does make appeals to philosophy earlier in the discourse, whilst highlighting the limitations. Further to characterise any of his positions and inconsitent is unfair as his logic is, at least, internally consistent.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Of course, his faith is internally consistent but not consistent with science. As he stammers through the idea of miracles, and admits to only the two that he MUST believe (Nicene Creed), his discomfort is nearly palpable . He does mention metaphysics, but the cosmological first mover seems pretty cold to him. Nor is any god of the gaps his god. At its core, his god is a god by faith--his faith. He is simply confident in his own intuition. Who can quarrel with him on that?
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 I think George would reject any idea that his concept of 'God' is inconsistent with science. His discomfort over miracles comes from his own concept of a 'non tinkering' God. His concept, going back earlier consists of a Philosophical God as a foundation, with the concept of the 'God of love' layered over, who acts contingently. Miracles are simply contingent acts in that framework. His 'God' is not inconsistent with science, science simply has little to say about his 'God.'
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 You're right that he would deny that his god is inconsistent with science. But it is, nonetheless. Miracles are inconsistent with science and he accepts the veracity of at least two of them. The only god consistent with science is Einstein's and Spinoza's god. It is also fallacious to maintain that science has nothing to say about anything that resembles the Christian god. Check: Youtube+Lawrence Krauss. New data indicate that there is no reason to accept a creator god.
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 Ah but now we come down to your making an assertion of inconsistency, which is fine as far as it goes, but not a counter to his position. If God is real, and capable of real action ie creation, then miracles are not inconsistent with the nature of the universe at all, no? Science has limited capacity to speak on Christianity, I did not say none. Krauss along with the rest relies on the laws of physics and quantum mechanics to bring a universe into creation, as opposed to nothing.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 What science can say about Christianity and the thousands of other religious fabrications of the human mind is that there is no verifiable evidence whatever that any of those thousands of gods actually exist. There is no more verifiable evidence for Krishna than for Zeus than for Odin than for Allah than for Yahweh......etc. Therefore, as Coyne maintains, the ONLY position to take if one is a rational person is that one's god is faith---one's god comes from one's faith.
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 Science has little to say, exactly, thus you are agreeing with both Fr. Coyne and myself. However you also implicitly concede that the 'God' Fr. Coyne posits is entirely consistent with a strict scientific view of the world on the flip side. However you are self limiting when you imply that science is 'everything.' Historical analysis, literary exploits, philosophy are not part of empirical science. You must reject those entirely to do away completely with the 'evidence' for 'a God.'
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Surely you would not include fictional literature as part of rational discourse? Historical analysis CAN be verified and as such is verifiable evidence. Even by that standard, no more evidence exists for Yahweh than for Allah or Odin, and the evidence is contradictory. Philosophy is ESSENTIALLY speculative, not relying on anything but the manipulation of definitions and rules of logic.I repeat:--- no verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the 1000's of invented gods.
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 With regards to your first question I wonder what you imply? If you are asking in general, I would say yes I would. If you are categorizing the Christian Bible as such, I reject that as an argument by assertion. Your take on the Judeo-Christian material is your take, I see nothing to reply to. Philosophy is useless appears to be your next implication, I disagree. There is no verifiable evidence for string theory, do you classify it similarly as 'Yahweh?'
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 No, I don't classify string theory in the same category as Yahweh, Zeus and the thousands of other fabrications. None of the gods has any utility whatever to me in understanding the Universe. String theory, on the other hand, while without verifiable evidence (as yet) has utility, and if results from the Hadron begin to point to it as a useful model---great utility! Einstein's math needed no cosmological constant-- added for the sake of metaphysics-- his biggest error!
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 String Theory makes no verifiable predictions and has no intrinsic explanatory power. Sound familiar? It has utility to you as a model upon to base a 'potential' understanding of the universe. So does the God of George Coyne. Just as String theory isnt useful to Lawrence Krauss, George Coyne's God is not useful to you. Also simply throwing Zeus and 'Yahweh' together in a sentence with fabrication is fairly petty and not an argument. The qualitative differences in material are huge.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 The qualitative difference between Zeus and Yahweh is non-existent. Both were war gods. Both had complex mythologies created by their worshippers. If anything, Zeus was better, as the Greco-Romans were more successful than the Jews. You exhibit the typical bias of religionists. While you consider belief in Zeus, Krishna, and Allah irrational, you cannot for the life of you understand why others would consider your belief totally irrational. It amazes me!
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 I missed this in the melee :P Anyway I would say to you that you are however well meaningly, misrepresenting the material to a huge degree. The stand out difference would be the source material. None of the surviving Hellenistic material purports to be a historical account, the literature that survives is mainly poetic and vastly later in time than the events 'recounted.' The Christian Bible however is contemporaneous to it's subject matter, and is an explicit Historical account.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 I'd encourage you to do a lot more study on early Christianity. Far from being contemporaneous, historical accounts, the books of the new testament were written by reporters (not eyewitnesses) of legend. Moreover, even the Q source, the basis of Mark, was written decades after the supposed death of JC. In addition, the Church, as it commonly did, destroyed any competitive books and we have them only through accident. Christianity is simply one more invented religion.
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 You first may not assert that the authors were not eye witnesses. A current view would be that Mark and Luke definitely did not know Jesus, but that Matthew and John may have been directly involved in the creation of their named accounts. With regards to date, despite a minority discounted opinion for the second century, the general view places Mark from 60~73. Q is a supposed source we can't begin to place reliably in time. Writing was also within the lifetime of eye witnesses.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Re: historical authenticity of NT. You use the subjunctive constantly about those writings. I'd aggee that they are contradictory and inconsistent. Re: personal god. I'd bet a year's salary that the average Catholic in the pew makes very little distinction between elemnets of the triune god, the saints, and other invisible figures of religion. He uses them all as a palliative against the anxieties of life hoping that magic will happen. Then adds: "It was the will of god."
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 I would agree that the Gospel accounts are contradictory 'on the surface.' However the same could be said of the witness accounts used to convict many criminals every day of the week in western legal systems. The more important question is whether they are fundamentally in conflict, I and others contest they are not... The belief of the 'average' Catholic is largely irrelevant. A pupil can be taught correctly and still answer wrongly.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Did you re-read your last response? To allege that the belief of the average Catholic is "irrelevant" is either naive (not realizing that a religion is composed of ordinary adherents) or totally pompous and arrogant. Wow. This discussion has become unproductive. If your beliefs are different from the ordinary Catholic, then you've established yet one more religion--and proved my point. Religions are fabrications. Inventions. In the thousands! Designed for palliation.
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 Not at all. As I said, 'the pupil can be taught correctly and still answer wrongly.' There is one coherent belief system known, taking your lead, as Catholic Christianity. The individual beliefs of those who claim membership do not alter the established system. The system is the religion, the adherents are the religious. Does the pupil who answers 2+2=5 make it what he/she was taught? Similarly the belief of the religious does not alter the teaching of the religion itself.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Re: string theory. You should check the work of Michael Duff at the Imperial College. String theory will continue to make predictions that are experimentally testable. Will it be the final answer? Maybe not. To learn about the value of dead-ends, you should read more history of science. Also read Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" for clear evidence of the natural phropensity of Homo sapiens to invent fantasy gods. I like evidence.. Fantasy friends are useless to me.
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 Now now, we both know that Duff's work has come under harsh criticism from eminent physicists, including other string theorists, so that appeal to authority is shaky at best. Further we both know that only certain versions of string theory make any testable predictions, so even if they are all rejected, multiple non testable forms will remain. Dennet's book is interesting, but is really a study in memetics in large part, and no critique of the validity of the beliefs themselves.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 1) Even the most fruitful ideas in science may require generations for adequate testing. 2) Many ideas are dead ends in themselves but catalyze scientific creativity. 3) Dennett and others, together with the study of comparative religions, demonstrate that the invention of gods and religions--all different, inconsistent, contradictory, and competitive--is a character of Homo sapiens. If one NEEDS an invisible friend to be happy, don't claim that there's evidence for it!
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 1) Yes, this still doesn't allow certain forms of String theory to be untestable and retain a superiority to a 'God hypothesis' simply because they come from the minds of scientists. 2) Absolutely 3) Irrelevant as to whether what is believed is actually true. One could argue that an environment which selects for 'God' belief would be consistent with one featuring a 'God.'Memes are fairly discredited in general however, and being a zoologist, I know this better than most.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 If the formulation of an idea (calling string theory a "theory" is a bit inaccurate) catalyzes other ideas, then it has utility and is therefore superior to the "god hypothesis."...Because of its ubiquity across cultures, the invention of gods and religions quite likelly had survival value for H. sapiens as a social animal. Any value of theism today completely escapes me. I submit that this propensity of our species is like any other vestigial remnant--& much more dangerous.
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 Now now, this is all getting terribly subjective. That's a big IF, as there is no need to assume that String 'theory' will be catalytic in terms of achieving the goal of 'explaining everything.' It may well lead to scientific progress in related fields, but then so has work based upon the 'God' hypothesis. Further the 'God hypothesis' is fundamentally superior IF it is correct. That's my 'if.' I restate my earlier point: that critique is irrelevant to whether the beliefs are true.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 I agree. Much too subjective for my taste. I'm a verifiable evidence-philiac. Long ago, I came to the conclusion that there was no verifiable evidence for any god, and yet thousands upon thousands of definitions for them. Even the idea of "comfort" from an invisible friend seemed childish, as it did to Einstein. I prefer to minimize delusion, maximize reality, and live fully and rationally, as much as my brain is able. In short, any concept of god is irrelevant. Peace!
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 I didn't mean to come back for the last word, but I did miss your earlier statement. Ultimately where be part ways is on the subject of evidence. You want verifiable evidence, which is fine, but limiting. I accept evidence coming from different, non repeatable, non verifiable sources ie ancient historical texts, philosophy, inferred observations. You, like Einstein refute an idea of 'God' no one believes in. If God is real, despite our opinions, it will be anything but irrelevant. :)
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 No one believes in the god that Einstein refutes? Come on now!!! Einstein was dismayed that any adult would believe in an invisible, personal friend who answered prayers and was concerned with the minutiae of our lives. Billions of people in the world believe in, pray to, implore, defend to the death, deny other people's rights in the name of, and fly airplanes into buildings to obtain rewards from that type of god! There are 1000's of definitions for 1000's of gods.
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 Einstein denied an anthropological God. Christian philosophy does not propose one. Christian philosophy is entirely clear on 'God' being way beyond human understanding and that what insights we do have are entirely limited. I should have been more precise though, I agree: the 'God' refuted is not proposed by the Christian tradition. The 'personal' God is a symbol used to 'placehold' for the actual object of 'God.'
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Billions of Christians would adamantly disagree! For them, the personal god is a critical element of their religion. What a friend we have in Jesus! The Catholic in the pew, who relies on his invisible friend, would find your ineffable god truly useless to him. Moreover, while I admit that Christianity is a clever design, it relies on 1) invisible friends and 2) the promise of afterlife for its success. Both are critical elements in the design. Sorry. Your god is deist!
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 Ah now, you are conflating Jesus with the entire concept of the Christian 'God.' Christ is the 'accessible' face of 'God' to Catholics, (taking your lead) however Catholic theology teaches that Christ had both human and divine natures, and still does. The human nature adds the personal face, but no one teaches that this is the 'entirety' of 'God.' 'God' is thus capable of relating 'personally' without being a conventional 'person.' Prayer is also more complex than you present.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@Mike96727 I had a friend who was a priest. I learned that they actually go to school for at least 12 years and are very intellectual people. A philosophy course is one them. It reminded me of my conversation with him because even tho I am not a scientist like you I like science and knows a bit. So I would ask him scientific question contradicting to religion, and he would answer them rationally. I was amazed by that friend of mine. It did not turn into an argument but a learning process.
tangnatalaga 5 months ago
@Mike96727 Might I add that for catholics, faith is not blind beleif or even rational belief (though not inconsistent with the latter). Faith is mystical and transcends the human mind. Beleif, is merely the intellectual assent of the mind, and is only the more obvious, manifest, and superficial expression of Faith. As Coyne said before, Faith is dwelling in mystery, and IS God himself. Man needs faith because the human mind cannot grasp God. His truth is literally unbelievable.
flockofseagulls87 4 months ago
@flockofseagulls87 As a recovering Catholic myself, I understand your concept of faith, and Coyne's After awakening from the delusion of theism, however, I find all of those concepts incredibly unsatisfying, whereas I do find, like Einstein, that the Cosmos itself is more than enough. I need not fantasy nor faith in the invisible.
Mike96727 4 months ago
Coyne's perspicacity and honesty is admirable. I think Dawkins appreciates it too
TheR3volutionary 7 months ago
why was this ommited from the program? It's very interesting.
kos15280 8 months ago
@kos15280 probably because the whole thing was too long. from what i remember, parts were included. and i don't think it was edited or cherry picked to cast him in a bad light, but judge for yourself; the documentary is somewhere on youtube...
ilytopy 7 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
"I don't believe in the soul." You don't hear that one every day... Maybe, you should.
iimbamii 8 months ago
Class I closeted atheism right here.
Kryptsanies 8 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
I love this guy
tatumifulify 8 months ago 2
@tatumifulify Me too, but i'm starting to wonder why he is a priest. Science seems more his passion, not the Catholic faith, especially how he laughed when he said believes in the virgin birth
thevoice81111 8 months ago
@thevoice81111 I don't see that. Although on some few minor points I would differ from Fr. Coyne, as a scientist (and I love science) I do not see why his position goes against the fact that my person is absolutely defined by Catholicism and specifically by the person of Christ (the Image of the Father). I mean, probably Fr. Coyne could have polished up some theological terms and explanations but that's not his main strength...nor does it have to be.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@thevoice81111 In fact, the superfluous reality and the evolutionary principles of Nature (by that I mean the created world) makes the Christological phenomenon that much more momentous and uniquely special (in that nothing can be more special than the coming on earth of Christ). Christ in this sense is all Religion in that only in his Person (not even in his teaching) does the tension between our ephemeral reality get "religato" (tied) with Eternity (i.e: God). con't...
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@thevoice81111 So a better understanding of the Universe actually deepens my Faith and I could definitely see how someone would want to become a priest. I mean, what an honour to preside a mass where God, in the person of the priest, acts to make the Eucharist the body of Christ. Doing this with the knowledge that this is the epicenter of Love in all the Universe is just enormous....so I actually think that it's immensely beautiful that he is a priest with such a passion for science.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@thevoice81111 well i am very interested universe obviously just like coyne but also, i do have faith and im sure he became a priest because he was brought up in a catholic family and has faith and is pretty passionate about it. he is also alll about space so this most likely troubled his faith because in most respects its either faith or science. My guess is that for coyne this brought up an entire different genre for him and his new(er) passion is to explain the relationship between the 2.
tatumifulify 8 months ago
"but it's a big IF..." exactly what Cavil from battlestar galactica said in the last episode regarding God XD
ComputerScience54 9 months ago
@ComputerScience54
We're all descendant from Cylons...
Callirgos1 8 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
All people who believe in a god does not really believe in any of the known gods. They all refute an all knowing, all powerful god.
AxeHomeless 9 months ago
I love Coyne's pronounciation of the "o" sound.
Is that a Baltimore accent?
mahlstadt 9 months ago
@mahlstadt I had a professor who had an almost identical accent. Don't know where it's from, though. Might be subcultural rather than regional.
dorsk188 8 months ago
@mahlstadt yes
Kep0v 8 months ago
So Fr Coyne believes in the Virgin Birth but not that at some point within evolution, when the biological system came to be human for the first time, God gave human beings souls. A bit of inconsistency there. To be honest, I cannot hold to evolution because it seems to me, a human being cannot, unnurtured, develope into such without having all of it's working parts present from the beginning. So no, I cannot hold to evolution even on rational grounds, let alone scientific.
fifalacious 9 months ago
@fifalacious "a human being cannot, unnurtured, develope into such without having all of it's working parts present from the beginning"
Why is that? And what is the significance of "nurtured"?
dujl 9 months ago
@fifalacious Try learning about evolution if you have the chance- it explains this in tremendous detail.
LeonhardEuler1 9 months ago
Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:
"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
fifalacious 9 months ago
So, what I can't get is this: why can't we couple deciplines like science and philiosophy when the circumstances warrant it? So, Father George earlier in the interview (2/7) spoke about the mover. Science speaks of a beginning, that scientifically we can say there WAS in fact, a beginning. So, how then, when speaking of a First Mover, do we scientifically deny it to be God?
fifalacious 9 months ago
Errr, can non cardinals vote for popes? I mean... i bet if we all put in a good word and all chipped we could get this man elected...
Voiderify 9 months ago
Someone tell me where are more of these believers with BRAINS plz for the love of what ever god, its our world to manage and take care of, HE wont do it for us nor help us so stop looking up and look forward. I love this priests words it to me is what all religion should be. You are not right, none of us are, so shut up plz with all the religious bulling and absolution that you are and same for anti-theists in the opposite. We have bigger problems to face together LEAVE GOD OUT OF IT...
bigdwarren02 10 months ago
I think what he means by "God is working with it all along," is that God is like the administrators of websites, providing the service, who does not interfere, but makes everything possible.
7lllll 11 months ago
@7lllll
That is a cruel god because some of these websites have some painful things going on in them. As a moderator he should intervene...assuming he loves people and truly wants to help...or he doesn't want to help and intervene, and that does make him a cruel god.
LambdaQuarks 10 months ago
@qlddave1966 In fairness I think Dawkins is most likely the better scientist....but Coyne is probably more intellectually capable....
Plus I've 'gone off' Dawkins to be honest... he definitely has a bloody neurosis at this stage...its like his mid life crisis never left him. And one cannot reason effectively if clouded by a preexisting personal dislike for an idea.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey
In all fairness I can see how you can come to that conclusion about Dawkins based on some footage I have seen. However he seems pretty relaxed in these interviews wouldn't you say? He lets Coyne talk most of the time. I have met some really obsessed/pushy atheists but Dawkins has a life in the biological community and studies outside of this so I don't think I would go as far personally as to kill him with a neurosis like problem. Plus his reasoning doesn't seem altered.
LambdaQuarks 10 months ago
@LambdaQuarks Well most of the footage of dawkins being a pushy ass is put out by dawkins... I'm not the only one to notice...and I'm not only atheist myself but anti theist!
But I'm an anti theist that recognizes a truth of the human condition...which is that humans do not like to be told by others they perceive as being 'not an authority' that they are wrong...hence he preaches to the choir!
Thats okay in science, where only evidence is required... but religion ignores evidence
MumblingMickey 10 months ago
why isnt he pope?
smellygiraffe 11 months ago
"Looking for a God of explanation, I would've been an Atheist." What a great quote to differentiate the two religions.
mrtrailerparkbilly 1 year ago
I can't believe he is retired, WTF! He should be sitting in St Peter's Basilica instead of Ratzinger.
4ThomasAllan 1 year ago
Of all the religions i could have been born into , Father Coyne makes me glad it was Catholic
carlingfordberg 1 year ago 2
Being a ape don't reduce us in any way father, is just a classification of species, and because our anatomical features, we fit in that category, so the rest of the modern apes.
ShadeOfLotus 1 year ago
@ShadeOfLotus I think he meant that being just apes reduces us in a philosophical and theological way. That's the reason why he said that monkeys don't survive death because they have no soul. Humans do.
JMVOX 11 months ago
0:00 god loves all his children? it's clear that he haven't read the bible with opened eyes :D evolution DO contradict the bible and we all know it. I know richard is just trying to show that non literalists are good guys and to make evolution more acceptable in a smart way but I think he is as stupid as creationists :D
insanewarlock666 1 year ago
Coyne is using some tangled language...I wonder how all this would look if written symbolically and examined for logical validity.
MinisterAilingTongue 1 year ago
How can you be Catholic without believing in he soul? This guy is a rationalist who is still in the closet, bless his soul.
1fotcn 1 year ago
I do not believe in god and It's been more than a decate that I left the Catholic faith, but seeing this father speak, I can't feel but respect and admiration for this man. I don't know how he can have those ideas in his mind and feel good about it, but at least I think it is a peaceful, thoughtful and sincere way of thinking.
I wish more people in the world would be like him. I wish I could see someday a man like him as a Pope. It would bring hope to all of us.
sadrequiem 1 year ago
god is an emotional attitude , father coyne is duffering from an emotional attitude , how ever sweet n kind he looks
science is not everything , but when its everything thats time its science , not b4
loly1969 1 year ago
god is an emotional attitude , father coyne is duffering from an emotional attitude , how ever sweet n kind he looks
loly1969 1 year ago
Clearly this priest should be pope. He has an insigjht which is both humane and enlightening. But he is still placing restrictions on the activities of god and god(s) down to his own preferences. if god is not always certain of what is going to happen and life itself is a 'chance' process even from a god's perspective then surely that god is not omnipresent/omniscient/omnipotent. A 'God' would, by the chuirches definition, be incapable of not seeing everything at all times.
mgollogly1 1 year ago
the more i watch you church people talk the more i know god is not real, i mean evolution is right in front of you your watching it, the smarter human is hawkin the older stupieder human is that church guy, get real start living in the real world not a fairytail land where their are invisible people in the sky,
bob1978amon 1 year ago
If he doesn't believe in a lot of what the church teaches then why is he a priest of the church?
A few hundred years ago he would have been shut up for blasphamy
begood20000 1 year ago
Coyne is a rational guy, but he does have inconsistencies.
Vanceldore58 1 year ago
@Vanceldore58 yeah he says he cant believe in a multivers because it is un-observable but he believes in an after life!? very curious man!!
bennywright1 1 year ago
@bennywright1 Yeah very curious. I wish all of the religious people out there -- especially in politics -- were as rational as this guy. The only reason he's rational, though, is because he's also a scientist.
Vanceldore58 1 year ago
This guy must be the most open-minded, rational, and intellectually advanced person in the whole catholic church. Trust Richard Dawkins to find him out of the thousands of other priests... :-)
cyantulip 1 year ago 2
@cyantulip dont kid yourself my friend you will probably find that this priests thinking is in the majority in the priesthood.
megamus3 1 year ago
@cyantulip Coyne was the person Sagan was aiming the proposition 'if the universe is endless in time, what need of a god... if not and it had a cause...and that cause is God.... then who made the god' speech at in the end of the Cosmos series... Sagan and Coyne were very good friends. And also had the same job... they were both astronomers.
Don't let his theism fool you...he's a very bright guy! Even if a little unorthodox in his position.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Don't let his theism fool you? As if theists were dumb just because they believed in God.
rafanoutube 11 months ago
@rafanoutube
"As if theists were dumb just because they believed in God."
Thats not what I meant. Not that theism 'results' in lower intelligence...unless of course it stops one from exercising any form of reason or educating ones self etc. (and some religions do promote this level of forced ignorance)
What I meant rather was that one is less likely to be a theist in the first place with a higher intelligence to start with. For good or bad thats what the statistics show.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
Reality is not physical, the physical reality is an illusion which springs from the real absolute indivisible existence that is God. The soul creates the entire physical world as it evolves its consciousness. All souls are within and are one with the oversoul. Our ultimate destiny is to become God who is infinite Knowledge Power and Bliss. If the truth interests you readup on Meher Baba.
soldatheero 1 year ago
As a man who was raised Catholic, Fr. Coyne for the papacy!!!!!
CrookedRaven 1 year ago
Coyne claims he doesn't believe in a human soul, because HE DOESN"T HAVE TO. Whatever is not dogma, he IS ALLOWED to discard. This means that the Catholic church tells him what to accept and how to think. He appears to have separated faith from reality. He keeps stressing that "evolution is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation. Well, is science reality, or is faith?
kadene2 1 year ago
@neveSykcul. Mankind does not need Popes. Kings. Queens. Iyatolas, Tzars, Gurus. Try and get it into your skull !!
MrJuno6 1 year ago
If this individual became the pope, he could change the world in a way no single person has done in centuries
neveSykcuL 1 year ago 104
@neveSykcuL so true!!!
A0Candle0In0The0Dark 7 months ago
Fascinating interview! It was such a breath of fresh air to see a representative of religious belief and a representative of atheistic belief in such a peaceful discussion. I'm so impressed by how respectful these two were toward each other. If only more atheists and more religious could treat each other this way, what a wonderful turn the world could take!
jemmel87 1 year ago
@jemmel87 The reason they were so respectful was mainly because they actually followed the same ideals. Take away the priests faith in god and he is pretty much the same as Dawkins. This is so unusual because most of the faithful do not respect science in such a way, and are indeed quite ignorant, which will in tail lead to heated discussions. I do agree though, it was definitely refreshing.
wolverine005 1 year ago
@wolverine005 I both agree and disagree with what you said. I agree that ignorance leads to misunderstanding which leads to aggravation and heated discussion. However, I disagree that the main reason they could respect each other was because they are "pretty much the same." You can definitely disagree and still have a calm, respectful discussion. I also think that your last point goes both ways. A proponent of science can be just as ignorant and disrespectful toward religion.
jemmel87 1 year ago
@jemmel87 You are indeed correct, but I rarely saw much disagreement between them, infact Dawkins was agreeing with a lot of what he was saying. Also correct on your last point, but can you really compare ignorance towards religion to ignorance towards science? I don't think so, but that is ofcourse my opinion.
wolverine005 1 year ago
@wolverine005 Well, in the great words of The Dude: "That's like...your opinion, man."
jemmel87 1 year ago
@jemmel87 What I mean is, you could go your entire life without any knowledge of religion (unlikely, but hypothetically), and become a great scientist, contribute greatly to humanity and live a brilliant life. Whereas if you grew up with a total lack of knowledge of science (again hypothetically) I don't see how you could even progress into modern culture without acknowledging it. Ofcourse many people do progress, and ofcourse many do contribute.
wolverine005 1 year ago
@wolverine005 I don't think you need much of a knowledge of science to contribute to humanity. My mother is completely computer-illiterate, can't even send an email. However, her love for Christ inspires her to serve others unceasingly. She constantly helps the poor, feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, loves the unloved, etc. Is she wasting her time? Should she go get a degree in Quantum Mechanics?
jemmel87 1 year ago
@jemmel87 I guess I'm just trying to emphasize the point that religion is not necessarily needed, whereas Science is, it has done so much more for us, and if we didn't have science we would a lot more comparable to Apes than we are now. Again this is all under the pretense that religion and science cannot mix, which they can to a certain degree, as Father George clearly shows. Then there are people who let the bible rule their life, and it definitely gets in the way of how they think.
wolverine005 1 year ago
@wolverine005 I assume you know Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher Hitchens). Peter is a major proponent of religion due in large part to his experience in communist Russia. Very generally, his message is that whether or not you believe in religion, it is a major contributor to the happiness of all people. In Russia at the time, the lack of religious belief rendered the people bleak, unhappy, and lacking in all charity, even common courtesy.
jemmel87 1 year ago
@wolverine005 Don't get me wrong. You're obviously not religious but very courteous. I believe that that's there in you (whether you like it or not) due to the influences of a society that has been shaped by Christian charity. If we were to do away with all religion, I promise you those charities would fade, just as they did in communist Russia.
Also, is it really our technology that differentiates us from apes? Isn't it our ability to reason? Create? Love? Form societies, governments, etc.?
jemmel87 1 year ago
@wolverine005 I'd also like to discuss your claim that science has "done so much more for us" (culture? art? philosophy?). However, I need to start studying my O Chem. It's unfortunate that we don't know each other. I'd much rather just buy you a coffee and discuss this in person. We'd get a lot more ground covered that way.
Anyway, you're welcome to respond to what I've said, but I don't think you or I want to carry this on too much longer. Thanks for the discussion, though. Take care!
jemmel87 1 year ago
George Coyne doesn't believe in souls, doesn't believe god interferes, doesn't deny evolution... yet somehow gets an afterlife and believes the virgin birth. I think he's not catholic, but rather his own branch of pseudo-Christianity.
nerdman1024 1 year ago 4
i would think that (father) george coyne is the only one scientist from christianity who would believe in god as well as science since bible is an extreme example of justifying non-existence and scientifically impossible measures of establishing existence of a higher power which is inevident... that's it....thank you for the conversation though....
jugal25081988 1 year ago
I have great respect for George Coyne, but the one thing that always gets annoying is the Christian repeating, and repeating of "god loves you, god's love, etc etc love love love". It gets REALLY old REALLY fast.
rrpauldoran 1 year ago
@rrpauldoran that's because the messae of God's love is thousands of years. its realy that old
sirzap 1 year ago
@sirzap
No No you don't understand what he means,What he is saying and i am also saying is that it gets really annoying and irritating and winds us up we are not stupid,any atheist watching this you tube video is not stupid we don't need to hear this from you we have heard it from your fellow christians a million times,its not working for you please desist.
MrWhatever45 1 year ago
I'm an Atheist and i think Fr. Coyne is Awesome! Gives me hope that there's something good in religion abide from the usual suspects.
nonoxynol 1 year ago 3
Sorry Coyne. You're an ape. That's just how evolution works.
Once a species has been an ape, it'll always BE an ape. Just a different KIND of ape.
LordOmberus 1 year ago
@LordOmberus Mumble Jumble!
SevenLivesManyFaces 1 year ago
@LordOmberus so different that it's not even an ape. According to your "logic" apes are not apes but prokaryotes, the common ancestor of all things living on Earth. Once a prokaryote always a prokaryote, right?
sondano 1 year ago
@sondano
You fool. What we would today describe as a prokaryote was at the time of our splitting from them the ONLY kind of cellular life. So no, we aren't prokaryotes in the same way we are not birds. But we ARE cellular. And we ARE apes.
LordOmberus 1 year ago
Anyone notice the "atheist" pin in Richard's jacket? lol. I knew he would have to wear something like that to a church. lol.
gary031183 1 year ago
I thought it was bold and but pleasing move how he wanted to limit god to be inside the universe. Because I've always hated how Christians use the word supernatural to explain away anything they wanted. Supernatural doesn't mean anything to me.
truckcompany 1 year ago
It's lovely to think that Dawkins was oddly fascinated with Fr Coyne - more so than with some of the usual bible thumpers he talks with. =)
gombis666 1 year ago 2
This is great, he has found a somewhat shaky bridge to connect Old Christian doctrines with what we know about the world through science. The problem is that in doing so he has to make some concessions where he must reject some Church teachings. I find this is a recurring theme in connecting religion and science
But if religion must always change to accommodate science, what is the value of fundamental religious beliefs in the first place? How can there be a constant truth if it keeps changing?
chessfan6 1 year ago
Pronounce your L's man
AdamBond7 1 year ago
oh come on people! OK so there is more empathy with Coyne, but it all remains highly idiotic gruesome stupid shyte, nice guy or not. For god's sake (excuse the pun) ... his ideas, even if portrayed in the most sympathertic way, remain pure and utter bollocks and are as inconsistant as everyone elses who support these idiotic stories etc. ugh... come ooonn!
trident3b 1 year ago
Great interview !
Fike2308 1 year ago
Fr. Coyne for pope!
nothingnesswithouten 1 year ago 128
@nothingnesswithouten Indeed.
magichristo 1 year ago
@nothingnesswithouten I would vote for him, lets do a revoliution to make him a pope!
nitro12onelt 11 months ago
@nothingnesswithouten YES
Kep0v 8 months ago
@nothingnesswithouten Imagine the wonderful changes that would take place!
ilytopy 7 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins