The implication of this video is rationalizing the irrational it provokes fundamental abstracted ideas of creationism but which does not at all recognize or support the ideals of Christianity. It's provocative it's creative and this should be; and is, allowed to be discussed in public school.
Although father George is poised and well spoken man and acts as one who is critically thinking he does the same things as all other priests and believers do - he invests "holly books" with meaning to suit the needs of his faith. He has no good answers to Dawkin's questions he has just his firm belief. He is kind.Period. I would like to listen holy mass held by him- does he read from the Bible and say to believers - in reality nothing here is literal. What about Jesus? Metaphor too? ;)
Well.....First off you have to understand the differences in religions and what the bible is. The bible is comprised of books put together by the church, catholic I believe. Some were left out, maybe for obvious reasons. The Bible is comprised of two distinct, yet connected, religions. The first is the Old Testament, that is practiced by Jews. The second is the New Testament, which is practiced by Christians. You have mistaken scripture's from the Old Testament as Christian ideology.
If bible is true, well than how about the mistakes in it, how about the catholic belief of confession and christ says to pray to father directly, incest and slavery in bible, like wise in other religious books...Yet Father George Coyne a grown up man believes in his catholic church and its teachings and bible...pure foolish
Well...First off you have to understand the differences in religions and what the bible is. The bible is comprised of books put together by the church, catholic I believe.Some were left out, maybe for obvious reasons.The Bible is comprised of two distinct, yet connected, religions. The first is the Old Testament, that is practiced by Jews. The second is the New Testament, which is practiced by Christians. You have mistaken scripture's from the Old Testament as Christian ideology
It's funny. This priest is probably the most awesome religious person I've heard. He makes sense in a way. But his view does not represent even a tiny fraction of the religious population on this planet.
belief in a higher power is present in all cultures, It's a part of evolution!!! It functions to develop morality and values which in turn preserves our physical being! stick that in your peace pipe and smoke it! I love you all! x
@00000Me1 That's wrong sir, religion does not give you a compass, that Implies that those whom wrote the bible had morality before and during and after writing it which contradicts what you just said. Animals show morality, do they believe in a god? No. It's part of evolution yes, but by saying that you believe in something higher and therefore you are moral is utter bullshit.
You have morality because of millions and millions of years of evolution, not a belief in a higher power.
@mQtek I'm actually an Atheist myself. I was merely offering my understanding of why this kind of belief undeniably arises in all cultures. In my opinion primitive cultures must delude themselves into believing in a God, simply to counter-act any leaders inability to be a constant source of knowledge and inspiration, whether those failing arise due to the individual leaders weaknesses or inevitable eventual death. Before People could record their history,they create Gods for fear of degeneration
@mQtek Right or wrong, just offering my thoughts. Of course I do hope that evolution will kill of the God delusion eventually. But It does seem to serve a self preserving purpose for any evolving group. I'm no fan of religion!
@00000Me1 I agree on everything u said except you said that people need religion in the very beginning to get a moral compass (thus it being "invented" in the first place) which is wrong. Just pointing that out :)
I'm not religious in anyway whatsoever, but I have a lot of respect for this guy. If all religious people thought as rationally as this, the world would be a better place.
@skynyrd202 You are a moron, by making this stupid comment you just lowered the IQ of all who have read your stupid statement by 10%. Thank you for making me dummer.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
This priest is very cool and all, but there is a reason he is low in the hierarchy.
In its core, the Catholic church is often as conservative as any fundamentalist evangelical church. He will never be a cardinal, much less the pope. In the end, they know that progressive thought is detrimental to religious organization and that's it.
@TimotheosCauvin Yeah man I did, but here's the thing: JPII was actually a big conservative on many things. His right hand during his papacy was the current pope, who can be considered a reactionary even. I admit that the catholic church is not as averse to science like some other religions or branches of christianity - as is often the case they only try to absorb new scientific discoveries inside their doctrine - but when we are talking about social issues it still has a long way to go.
@Skippa1986 I disagree completely, the whole reason evangelicals went on their own was because the Catholic church wouldn't give in to their extremes.
Although you are right that there are conservative Catholics that skew the faith to fit there own agenda. But they are not the majority and are fought very vigorously by people like Fr. Coyne.
There has to come a point in the evolution of knowledge where options start dropping off the table, so to speak.
Knowledge has advanced to the point where informed individuals can discuss the universe as an open or closed system, but they can no longer say the world came into being in six days.
Saying religious explanations are equal to scientific explanations is like saying astrology’s explanative power is equal to astronomy’s.
@Waltham1892 But religion doesn't say 6 days anyway; Genesis is a story and always has been seen as that, the Scopes Monkey Trial was a sensation in America; hardly caused a ripple over here. I suggest that in knowledge we are only just scraping the top layer off; we still have so far to go not only externally but internally; this is very clear. Can you imagine a time without war or killing ? That's the kind of ideal we should have; especially in view of our knowledge
I agree, we have just scrapped off the top layer and there is far yet to go. That does not mean that we get to keep our superstitions and irrational beliefs until we no longer need them to explain what we do not understand. We can get rid of them now.
What you, and the good Father, are trying to do is admit to just enough science so as not to look out of step while trying to sneak god in the back door.
I agree, we have just scrapped off the top layer and there is far yet to go. That does not mean that we get to keep our superstitions and irrational beliefs until we no longer need them to explain what we do not understand. We can get rid of them now.
What you, and the good Father, are trying to do is admit to just enough science so as not to look out of step while trying to sneak god in the back door.
@Waltham1892 But initially you implied we knew it all already. I see no contradiction in a creative power and science; where is this idea of sneaking in the back door when we are out there with it; religion has been at the forefront of education and science I suggest; look at the faith Jesuit universities and schools that promote science and learning and are overloaded with applications from all religions and none; this is a nonsense to claim a contradiction
In order for the statement that religion has been at the forefront of science and education to be true; burning books, banning books, torture, murder, and excommunication would have to be considered legitimate tools in education and science.
Galileo is turning over in his grave at this point.
Please, I may be an American but I have read history.
@Waltham1892 Religious education is inclusive of science and looks for the progress of mankind in a holistic manner; this is undoubtedly true and factual. The atrocities you refer to came from man notr from God; from the abuse and misuse of power, even today with the US President sending his troops to war with God Bless America; I suggest this is a misuse; a manipulation and abuse of power, just like in the Bible; God is nothing like that my friend
@Waltham1892 Existence ... this is what is attributed to the Big Bang isn't it; prior to that there was "no-thing"... not nothing; which has been a theological, philosophical and scientific query as well
@Waltham1892 But the Big Bang theory is about creation from a singularity..... at least it would appear from cosmological science ... if there only is a singularity ... when all was one .. then that is where everything comes from that exists in this universe/cosmos or whatever you want to call it ... there was nothing else
You are attempting to evade the question I asked you.
If you can not answer, or would rather not try to answer, then withdraw from the discussion. Changing the subject and hoping I won't notice is not going to work.
Would you like me to repeat the question I put to you?
@Waltham1892 i suggest you are being evasive here, Hawkings and his contemporaries seek explanation of this singularity and refer to it in various terms but mainly " God" for ease of explanation, that is why Hawkings went in search of a God. I already said that science will be a positive in the search for a creative power. Question answered
@Waltham1892 This caricature of God is why I rarely use the term; you've referred to it as an "invisble man in the sky" which is a poor analogy.If you can imagine the vast power required to create this entire cosmos and creation and not gie it a term such as God; but instead consider whether this power; which obviously is factual, has "intelligence" ... another stumbling block .. and is relational; i.e.: does it lead to something else ? Is contingency involved ?
@Waltham1892 What exactly do I evade ? I use science in the context. I'm not interested in atheism or any other ism, just addressing science in it's place in creation. Tell me exactly where I have made an error in scientific or philosophical terms here? Or maybe better; what you understand religion to be ?
Religion is a system of beliefs which ascribes supernatural causes to naturally occurring phenomena.
Now, again, my question to you is pick any event and show me proof that god was its direct cause. Allow me to stress the words “direct cause” and “proof.”
@Waltham1892 The answer to that question is we will end up back at the beginning.I should be aware that since you asked me to "Name one thing you can identify that came from God directly, without man or a natural force as an intermediate agent" and did, and yet you didn't indicate whether you accepted this answer or not as a reasonable rational one.
@Waltham1892 The answer to that question is we will end up back at the beginning.I should be aware that since you asked me to "Name one thing you can identify that came from God directly, without man or a natural force as an intermediate agent" and did, and yet you didn't indicate whether you accepted this answer or not as a reasonable rational one. But read on .....
@Waltham1892 First of all some ground rules; you are a unique person .... which I assume you agree with; there is no-one else with your fingerprints, your unique DNA, your life and existence; only you.
2nd you did not choose life; you are here by virtue of an act elsewhere by other means; therefore you are a contingent being. Again this is straightforward rationalisation but necessary..........
@Waltham1892 .....3rd there is a spiritual element to you; your thoughts are those part of you that no-one can know or touch or feel or understand; only you can. We are not talking here about measuring brainwaves or electrical impulses in the brain but the "thought itself".
@Waltham1892 This question we ask is one that has been asked since the time men began to think it would appear; but if we only go back to the ancient Greeks; prior to Christianity, we know of Philosophers and Scientists who were rationalising and reasoning their way to a creative power...........
@Waltham1892 ...Aristotle for example used motion and reasoned on an uncaused cause to start it all.
Again this is open to discussion or conjecture; but nevertheless valid and now confirmed by the Big Bang; which itself is an uncaused cause according to the leading cosmologists and scientific thought as confirmed by Dawkins and Fr Coyne here.
So we have ..... An unnameable singular causation.
@Waltham1892 Given all of the foregoing; you are here right now; alive and thinking, a person with an element of choice as to how you think and act and perceive the world around you. The big question underlying all of this is why are we/you here ? .........
@Waltham1892 What is the point (if any) of creation or existence and how did we get here ?Again I assume you accept this as it is fairly standard in Philosophical and Scientific terms; humanity searches for understanding of itself and the world around as well as for "the good" in life; some might call it the American Dream, but whatever it is, we see it as good.So we have ... Mankind seeks good.
@Waltham1892 In light of these three points; which are reduced drastically for this reply (I detest reductive literalism as well) my belief is in a "unique creative power that seeks good".
I reject the idea that we are here by an accident of creation; bearing in mind there was "no-thing" prior to the Big Bang according to the cosmologists. I don't accept that you or I are mistakes by any manner of means and I suggest that we both have purpose to our existence ......
@Waltham1892 I can't look at a child and see their life as meaningless or a homeless person and see their life as worthless. Life for me is to achieve the "good within me" as best as I can and harm no-one else.
Therefore .. I believe in a singular creative power that seeks good.
@Waltham1892 I believe in an objective truth; and we know there is Truth, so my belief is that from a thought that leads to action from an uncaused cause we are seeking good. This statement is for me very sound, reasonable, realistic and true. I can then fill in the blanks ... but one more thing on truth to finish with ....
@Waltham1892 Truth..(A dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras) Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion. Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion? Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective. ......
@Waltham1892. I guess you haven't read much but nothing there in my response is imaginary, never referred to a bible or church, only science and reality
@Waltham1892 anyway you got a very clear and defined answer to your question, one that is based on reality and can be measured but doesn't refer to god or religion and because of that you're fucked really, go on, admit it !
@Waltham1892 The ironic thing here is that you made a broo ha ha about intellectual dishonesty and why you becamse an atheist; yet can't own up to a scientific fact; one that is supported by Dawkins, Harris and really great scientists like Stephen Hawkings and accept there is "a creative power" that has started this whole cosmos on it's (limited?) journey. You fail to see or acknowledge the ridiculousness of your position but try to fundamentalise the proposition here; how dishonest is that ?
I've asked you a simple question, three times. Each time you have refused to answer it. We both know you can't answer it.
Answering questions is, after all, the end of superstition (faith).
I’m sure Hawkings would agree, since his statement that you don’t need a god for creation is viewable here on youtube, as are the lectures of Harris and Dawkins.
You are not going to be able to lie your god into existence so easily.
@Waltham1892 I've given you a detailed answer based on a logical process so there could be no disputes ... so let me clearly state again in a one liner since this appears to be all you can understand ...... I believe in a singular creative power that seeks good. .... Now tell me what is wrong with that without mentioning God, The Bible or Religion
@Waltham1892 and of course in rejecting a power that acts for good is rejecting Sam Harris proposition for morality. I guess you are lost so just need to make a thoughtless minimalist response which argues against the stance of the leading atheist proponents of morality
In an American court I would make an objection, saying that you have not offered proof that a force exists, that it is intelligent, or that it is good.
A judge would sustain my objection.
Here is where we make or break your delusion. Offer me direct evidence that there is a force, that it is intelligent, and that it is good.
@Waltham1892 how about evolution as a force for good, in dawkins book the selfish gene that is what evolution is, tell me what was delutional in my response ?
Your delusion is that believe your god is any different from the 10,000 other gods men have worshiped. Gods who have gone from all powerful deities to statuary in a museum.
These gods did not retire or find employment elsewhere, they never existed. Neither does yours, get over it.
Time to stop making excuses for someone who isn't even there.
@Waltham1892 you keep bringing God in, I only used real and scientific proposition which is entirely correct. You are the one who is evasive. Do u reject evolution as a creative power for good? I'm talking about something not someone and it is right in front of you and proven factually but you can't accept it. I wonder why when you espouse the brilliance of dawkins but disagree with him here?
@Waltham1892 and does this mean you reject this creative power? You don't believe in evolution? Or that mankind is good? Strange one that, you would sound like a fundamentalist creationist then
@Waltham1892 .....Socrates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
@Waltham1892 If there is only a "singularity" .. prior to the Big Bang as the cosmologists suggest; then we could give this singularity a name couldn't we ? After all we name new stars and nebula's all the time; why not the singularity that began it all. This singularity; according to the cosmologists; was prior to time and space. This is a scientific theory. Now you have to admit that there are certain factors here that are supportive of theology; to deny that would be dishonest
@Waltham1892 I and I suggest Fr Coyne have no issue with science; but science takes it place in the scheme of life; it's not the reason for it; science too has it's greater question to answer, that is why there are depts of philosophy for medicine and physics and biology et al; because there are questions beyond the scientific ones
Don’t you think that line of reasoning makes god(s) pitiable? We have explained the physical universe to 10 to the negative 43 seconds after the big bang. So really, the only place for god(s) now is before that time.
This reminds me of the old maps, when uncharted areas carried the annotation “there be dragons here.”
God(s) now are only needed to explain what we don’t yet understand. They are placeholders for what we dont' yet.
The first part is a response, the second a historical analogy, the third is a comment. Of course, your can respond to any, all, or none, as you see fit.
@Waltham1892 There is clearly a relational aspect to the bible story; it is full of parables and analogy and symbolism that is relevant today. The Good Samaritan is an atheist promoting story if ever there was one, the non religious doing the right thing; how does that story play out in the atheist agenda ? Listening to Fr Coyne should be a pointer about what religion should be about; doing the right thing; harm no one, help everyone you can; love your neighbour as yourself
@Waltham1892 There is clearly a relational aspect to the bible story; it is full of parables and analogy and symbolism that is relevant today. The Good Samaritan is an atheist promoting story if ever there was one, the non religious doing the right thing; how does that story play out in the atheist agenda ? Listening to Fr Coyne should be a pointer about what religion should be about; doing the right thing; harm no one, help everyone you can; love your neighbour as yourself
@Waltham1892 I don't agree aboput your statement or the premise you base the idea of God upon. We can say for certain we don't (yet) know what caused the Big Bang; therefore the issue of a creative power is open for explanation. This explanation of the "creative powers existence" has nothing to do with the relational aspect of this creative power; how we connect with someone is irrespective of their being and how they got here. The diea of what is presented in the bible is also a living proposal
@Waltham1892 On the contrary, I think that is quite a job description; of utmost importance. I think it is quite literally the center of the universe. Like the first floor of a skyscraper, it's not the relative size of it that makes it important, but rather its linear relationship to everything else. Until we know what happened before that first "10 to the negative 43 seconds," I think everyone should refrain from pretending like they know, with any degree of certainty, the answers.
The array of possible answers to the question "what happened before 10 to the negative 43 seconds" is not as broad as it was 20 years ago and is certainly broader than it will be in 10 years.
To put it politely, god(s) are not one of the answers being researched. We’ve moved on.
You can explain the universe with gods, or you can explain it with science, you just can’t do both at the same time.
@Waltham1892 Oh--please don't feel the need to spare my feelings with politeness if it hinders you from making a substantive point, and if it's agreeable, I'll do the same. That said, I'll say that it's clear that "god(s) are not one of the answers being researched," because no research methodology exists to look at that option. As such, I agree that other options must be considered and researched--they are after all, the only ones that can be.
@DStud29 As far as your assertion that the universe must be explained with either gods or science: what makes you believe that the two are mutually exclusive? Is it your predetermined position that such god(s) do not exist? If so, that's not very scientific. (Don't worry, it's not lost on me that that statement sounds a bit absurd, but I still believe it to be true.) My suspicion is that the uncountably infinite nature of the universe is one that CANnot be explained by science alone.
Science and religion are mutually exclusive because science says except nothing on faith, everything must be proven while religion says what can not be proven must be accepted through faith.
You can believe whatever you want to believe. The human mind is GREAT at holding contradictions; just don't kid yourself about what you are doing.
Speaking as someone who is not religious, what a gracious man George Coyne is. With such humility as his, I'm sure he makes lots of valuable contributions to his community.
With all due respect, Father Coyne is as attached to fallacies as are fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews.
In fact, that Father Coyne has a basis in the physical sciences makes his attachment to irrational beliefs WORSE than the fundamentalists, because he knows better.
Father Coyne is nothing more than a highly educated, highly articulate, village shaman.
@Waltham1892 typical atheist response to any religious person who can express themselves in an articulate and highly sophisticated way. News flash, many of the people who are in science today, and were in science historically were religious people......
The fact the Father Coyne speaks well does not make what he says true. Further, that some in the sciences have religious beliefs does not make relgion in any way true.
The truth is, religious belief on the part of a scientist requires him to believe on Sunday what he would discard Monday through Friday.
Because science demands evidence, replication, and a congruent under lying theory.
Religion demands no proof, no replication, and does not require an underlying theory other than "it was a miracle."
Further, science is dynamic; changing as our body of information changes. Religion is static, inquiry ended when the final draft of whatever religious text you ascribe to went to the printer's.
@Waltham1892 I don't agree with that. Religion requires evidence too I suggest. There is also the issue of living a belief as opposed to just saying we believe; actions speak louder than words at times and doing good as opposed to just thinking we are good. Our understanding of any creative power develops as well I believe; Fr Coyne expresses this wish and thought also. I suggest if we use the term creative power rather than God we adopt a different approach which might be beneficial
@Waltham1892 It is possible from a scientific view that this is the case; cosmologists have ventured this as well as things like parallel universes. The term intelliegence is of course vital in understanding this view; which was proposed from the ancient greek philosophers as well as medieval theologians and philosophers. Certainly the term Big Bang was coined by a Priest and perhaps as we come to understand creation more by scientifc methods we can see we are only scratching the surface
@Waltham1892 I most certainly believe in evolution; no contradiction for me there, and my experience in dealing with people and bio ethics is that science is opening our understanding in ways not predicted. For example many atheists like Harris and Dawkins (tho not Hitchens) are pro abortion, yet understanding the development of the creative process has turned the leading light in pro abort against it. The TV in the womb and subsequent developments lead to so much more knowledge for us
@Waltham1892 That there is an element of intelligence in evolution is I think the case; certainly Harris appeasr to develop this thought and process with morality for example; it is inherent in us is what he applies, so it is part of our intelligence in this situation perhaps. I also like this discussion here with Dawkins/Fr Coyne because of the manner in which it is conducted as opposed to the name calling on other posts. What do you think ?
So you would say "yes", that there is an intelligent force which guides the universe. And, from you answer, you agree with the position of "Intelligent Design."
You are taking great pains to avoid making a definitive statement that you would be required to defend.
@Waltham1892 There is undoubtedly some design in evolution do you not think? I'm not in any pain whatsoever; there is no contradiction in any of this, the whole idea of a creative force or power fits in exactly with science and cosmology in my opinion. It will be interesting to see if we come across other intelligence in the whole of the cosmos; but of course it doesn't make any difference to a creative power or even the stance of the Catholic Church for example
No, I don't believe that evolution evidences design. Further, I don't believe evolution evidences a creator.
Saying that there is no contradiction between the world revealed by science and the world revealed by religion is to either ignorance or a disingenuous argument.
At the end of the day, we are either going to believe in invisible spirits or we are going to have to accept the universe as we understand it to be.
@Waltham1892 That seems to be a leap of faith there; I see no contradiction in science and religion. That the universe was created by the Big Bang is the best possible explanation; what could the Big Bang be ? Since we don't know and can't explain this, the idea of a creative power is unquestionably true to date; we just can't determine what it is. But I suggest there is design in evolution; the design is in relation to surroundings; we see it in animals and plant life and how creatures ......
@Waltham1892 respond to their surroundings in order to survive; Certain animals developed camouflage to protect themselves; this is a design by any means, one in response to an external situation but a design nevertheless
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity. God created the heavens and the earth. And this isn't opposed to evolution as evolution is simply a theory or vague insight into how God chose to create
He's a reasoned priest. Measured and intelligent. In fact .. he's almost an atheist ! he's almost there. But something in him believes in a God. And it doesn't make ANY sense. I think Dawkins is being reverential - but too much so; he's being too nice. What's the point of agreeing with Darwinism AND God? It has to be one or the other surely.
@everybodysinshowbiz no it doesn't, and this is the fallacy atheist make all the time. They think evolution means you reject god, or science means you reject god. Science deals with natural phenomenons and so are silent on the issue of god or divine revelation. Many people, including many biologists such as ken miller and francis collins accept evolution and science. The only people who see a contradiction are the religious fundamentalist and certain atheists. Funny how they agree on that....
@azzwal Are you really going down that path of intelligent design? The natural question to it is: who designed the designer? You get an infinite regress of designers!
As an atheist, I find this man the most eloquent and gentle among all other believers. It is a sigh of relief for me to see this discussion after seeing all the rabid, frothing at the mouth arguments that usual atheist v religion debates usually come to.
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 guy is smart, i bet the only reason he continues to "believe" is because the church made him rich famous and because he would be hated if he said it was a lie. Everyone forgets the real human emotions of greed and ignorance. Life is about collecting money untill you die. thats it.
This man is one of the people who embodies why I prefer the catholic church; there's room for people who have a (strong) scientific basis. (I'm still not religious though and I still think he took the easy way by being religious, although it doesn't seem that way)
1. I am impressed with Dawkins performance here. I didn't believe he actually had such manners when discussing these things but can see otherwise.
2. Coyne has a good grasp on what he knows and what he believes and the context of what he believes.
3. If believers had such open-mindedness, applied enough thought, and understood their faith they would do better for themselves and their own faiths.
@3200manpro no he doesnt. he just doesnt follow your catholic views. as he said in the first video. there is many ways to interpret catholicism. many followed through with ignorance.
philosophy is not going beyond science, it is pre-science. Biology, physics and so on, used to be the philosophy of nature. What i find most interesting and strange at the same time, is that most religious people say its about something that cannot be explained by science or anything else....and then start to explain how it works.
@koraxsan agreed. showing how something 'works', i.e. trying to explain phenomena, trying to find a constant law behind the goings on of nature, (cause and effect) is really the posture of science. We watch how things happen, watch them again, and eventually narrow down causes--what could have cause this result to happen? then we put the cause that we've found to be true aside, on the shelf, or in textbooks, and strut away thinking we're on top (which we are)but without any wonder at the cause
you can admire george coyne as much as you want, but the fact is its amazing that we are surprised to see an intelligent christian. there are a lot of intelligent christians, there are a lot of intelligent atheists, and members of other religions. the fact he believes in the gospels and christianity shows a kind of lack of understanding anyway. its annoying though, talking to "smart" christians. they generalize all the time, never give firm answers and just say theres truth in all religions.
@frusciantefan122 guess you want it both ways. If you were talking to a christian who wasn't too bright you would be happy that he blurts out answers without thinking about it and then call him an idiot. On the other hand, if you talk to an intelligent christian you'll get annoyed because he doesn't give you the straight answer you want, but a thorough and methodical explanation of his/her faith. Seems contradicting and hypocritical to me....
@jamaicanification actually i do enjoy talking to "Less bright" christians, because you really understand the absurdity of theyre beliefs. it doesnt matter how intelligent you are, at the end of the day trying to rationalize these beliefs doesnt the core stupidity of the beliefs. a true rational person would look at religion from a cultural, historical, and pysological viewpoint, not take the scriptures as the actuall word of god like all religions claim to have
@frusciantefan122 so i guess in your own preconceived view, only atheists are the truly rational people in the world, and the rest of us are just crack pots. meeehh, what can ya do :s...... In the end i dont really care cause lots of my friends are atheists and i disagree with them on this. Not like im gonna put a gun to your head and force my beliefs on you like most atheist think religious people do on their spare time all the time....
@jamaicanification i never said only atheists were rational people. most christians are rational people with irrational beliefs. your not really answering anything or giving any points to support what you believe, your just telling me what i think and getting it wrong. can i ask you how you rationalise the view that 2000 years ago a man in israel who called himself god, did miricales and was brutally murdered to save our souls? or were you just brought up to believe it??
@frusciantefan122 the only thing i can say to that is if you approach the question from the presupposition of a theistic believer, then it wouldn't be impossible that a supreme deity assumed the form of one of his many creations. That concept can only be understood if you look at it from an Abrahamic theistic perspective though(even though i recognize that judaism and islam say that belief in the trinity or christ being the son of god is blasphemous)..
@frusciantefan122 they generalize because thats all there is. the knowledge we have of universal workings is general. athiest or not all we have is generalizations. to give a firm answer is pure ignorance.
Whenever the Father says, "Okay..." he says it plaintively and betrays his own apprehension in the veracity of the thing said. It is, actually, heartbreaking.
@johneamer I thing that Hitch would do a better job than Dawk because his debut style would put Coyne on a bigger challenge. Richard is too mild for this .
"My God, he or she, is not an engineer." lol Jesuits. This kind of talk would drive 99.99% of the Catholic laity bonkers. It's probably a good thing for Coyne's career that he spent it looking through gold-plated telescopes rather than as a church spokesman.
If it took God 6 days to create the Earth, Sun, and Moon, it must have taken him 4,830,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so years to create the rest of the universe.
As George Coyne demonstrates here in his assessment of intelligent design people can often see the absurdities in other people's religious beliefs but can seldom see the absurdities of their own.
God is nothing, and this man knows that. Nevertheless he cannot give up his belief system. He works a special "mental gymnastics" with lots of contorsions in order to justify the unjustifiable!
@wtfzwrong redundant point. Anyways if you have a phobia of religious people, go and live on another planet cause 90% of the planet believes in religion. You dont see me saying im afraid of atheist because of their beliefs. If your an atheist, good for you. Just be respectful of other peoples beliefs instead of raving on about your irrational fear of every single person who is religious
@jamaicanification Its not me that fear religious people but them that fear their own god. Thanking God for the good things in life and blaming themselves for the bad things that happen. Comes to mind battered woman's syndrome. Yea well, most people are too passive to even attempt at seeking reasoning behind Religion. The idea of an eternal paradise in exchange for a shred of sacrifice, if even that, and the compliance to a powerthirst institution seems to be a fair tradeoff to most of the ppl.
The implication of this video is rationalizing the irrational it provokes fundamental abstracted ideas of creationism but which does not at all recognize or support the ideals of Christianity. It's provocative it's creative and this should be; and is, allowed to be discussed in public school.
lglglggl 2 days ago
If only we heard from this side of religion more often. The Christian Taliban should listen to this guy.
grumhelden 2 weeks ago
Although father George is poised and well spoken man and acts as one who is critically thinking he does the same things as all other priests and believers do - he invests "holly books" with meaning to suit the needs of his faith. He has no good answers to Dawkin's questions he has just his firm belief. He is kind.Period. I would like to listen holy mass held by him- does he read from the Bible and say to believers - in reality nothing here is literal. What about Jesus? Metaphor too? ;)
silvanakb1958 3 weeks ago
Well.....First off you have to understand the differences in religions and what the bible is. The bible is comprised of books put together by the church, catholic I believe. Some were left out, maybe for obvious reasons. The Bible is comprised of two distinct, yet connected, religions. The first is the Old Testament, that is practiced by Jews. The second is the New Testament, which is practiced by Christians. You have mistaken scripture's from the Old Testament as Christian ideology.
OffTheGlass87 3 weeks ago
If bible is true, well than how about the mistakes in it, how about the catholic belief of confession and christ says to pray to father directly, incest and slavery in bible, like wise in other religious books...Yet Father George Coyne a grown up man believes in his catholic church and its teachings and bible...pure foolish
me1anxiety 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@me1anxiety
Well...First off you have to understand the differences in religions and what the bible is. The bible is comprised of books put together by the church, catholic I believe.Some were left out, maybe for obvious reasons.The Bible is comprised of two distinct, yet connected, religions. The first is the Old Testament, that is practiced by Jews. The second is the New Testament, which is practiced by Christians. You have mistaken scripture's from the Old Testament as Christian ideology
OffTheGlass87 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, an intelligent theist! I'm impressed!!!
allanfries76 1 month ago
Wow, an intelligent theist! I'm impressed!!!
allanfries76 1 month ago
@allanfries76 You condescending git.
valarmanwe 1 month ago
It's funny. This priest is probably the most awesome religious person I've heard. He makes sense in a way. But his view does not represent even a tiny fraction of the religious population on this planet.
soygoratsu 1 month ago
An atheist and a holyman actually having a civil conversation.
In other News
-Hell has frozen over and is now selling ice cream
-The KKK is now admitting people of color
-A real live girl, complete with the XX chromosome, was found on the internet
MileenasFloss 1 month ago
belief in a higher power is present in all cultures, It's a part of evolution!!! It functions to develop morality and values which in turn preserves our physical being! stick that in your peace pipe and smoke it! I love you all! x
00000Me1 2 months ago
@00000Me1 That's wrong sir, religion does not give you a compass, that Implies that those whom wrote the bible had morality before and during and after writing it which contradicts what you just said. Animals show morality, do they believe in a god? No. It's part of evolution yes, but by saying that you believe in something higher and therefore you are moral is utter bullshit.
You have morality because of millions and millions of years of evolution, not a belief in a higher power.
mQtek 1 month ago
@mQtek I'm actually an Atheist myself. I was merely offering my understanding of why this kind of belief undeniably arises in all cultures. In my opinion primitive cultures must delude themselves into believing in a God, simply to counter-act any leaders inability to be a constant source of knowledge and inspiration, whether those failing arise due to the individual leaders weaknesses or inevitable eventual death. Before People could record their history,they create Gods for fear of degeneration
00000Me1 1 month ago
@mQtek Right or wrong, just offering my thoughts. Of course I do hope that evolution will kill of the God delusion eventually. But It does seem to serve a self preserving purpose for any evolving group. I'm no fan of religion!
00000Me1 1 month ago
@00000Me1 I agree on everything u said except you said that people need religion in the very beginning to get a moral compass (thus it being "invented" in the first place) which is wrong. Just pointing that out :)
mQtek 1 month ago
This warms the heart, A believer and an atheist having a grown up conversation!!!
00000Me1 2 months ago
All of the clergy should be like this guy.
Cupit29 2 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
I'm not religious in anyway whatsoever, but I have a lot of respect for this guy. If all religious people thought as rationally as this, the world would be a better place.
skynyrd202 2 months ago 34
@skynyrd202 You are a moron, by making this stupid comment you just lowered the IQ of all who have read your stupid statement by 10%. Thank you for making me dummer.
TheLaw055 1 week ago
I HOPE TO GOD HE'S MADE UP .
diegoinhoops 3 months ago
@diegoinhoops who?
link0zeldarulz89 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 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This priest is very cool and all, but there is a reason he is low in the hierarchy.
In its core, the Catholic church is often as conservative as any fundamentalist evangelical church. He will never be a cardinal, much less the pope. In the end, they know that progressive thought is detrimental to religious organization and that's it.
Skippa1986 3 months ago 6
@Skippa1986 Did you miss the part where they talked about POPE John Paul II.?
TimotheosCauvin 2 months ago
@TimotheosCauvin Yeah man I did, but here's the thing: JPII was actually a big conservative on many things. His right hand during his papacy was the current pope, who can be considered a reactionary even. I admit that the catholic church is not as averse to science like some other religions or branches of christianity - as is often the case they only try to absorb new scientific discoveries inside their doctrine - but when we are talking about social issues it still has a long way to go.
Skippa1986 2 months ago
@Skippa1986 I don't agree with you on that one, but thanks for the clarification.
TimotheosCauvin 2 months ago
@Skippa1986 I disagree completely, the whole reason evangelicals went on their own was because the Catholic church wouldn't give in to their extremes.
Although you are right that there are conservative Catholics that skew the faith to fit there own agenda. But they are not the majority and are fought very vigorously by people like Fr. Coyne.
playbak 1 week ago
Proof that intelligence transcends points of view, righteousness of opinion and education...
For anyone wondering: this is one hell of a debate!
SpaceVulcan 3 months ago
There has to come a point in the evolution of knowledge where options start dropping off the table, so to speak.
Knowledge has advanced to the point where informed individuals can discuss the universe as an open or closed system, but they can no longer say the world came into being in six days.
Saying religious explanations are equal to scientific explanations is like saying astrology’s explanative power is equal to astronomy’s.
Faith falls in the presence of knowledge.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 But religion doesn't say 6 days anyway; Genesis is a story and always has been seen as that, the Scopes Monkey Trial was a sensation in America; hardly caused a ripple over here. I suggest that in knowledge we are only just scraping the top layer off; we still have so far to go not only externally but internally; this is very clear. Can you imagine a time without war or killing ? That's the kind of ideal we should have; especially in view of our knowledge
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman
I agree, we have just scrapped off the top layer and there is far yet to go. That does not mean that we get to keep our superstitions and irrational beliefs until we no longer need them to explain what we do not understand. We can get rid of them now.
What you, and the good Father, are trying to do is admit to just enough science so as not to look out of step while trying to sneak god in the back door.
Can’t be done.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman
I agree, we have just scrapped off the top layer and there is far yet to go. That does not mean that we get to keep our superstitions and irrational beliefs until we no longer need them to explain what we do not understand. We can get rid of them now.
What you, and the good Father, are trying to do is admit to just enough science so as not to look out of step while trying to sneak god in the back door.
Can’t be done.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 Where is the contradiction between God and science ? Give me a list ?
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 But initially you implied we knew it all already. I see no contradiction in a creative power and science; where is this idea of sneaking in the back door when we are out there with it; religion has been at the forefront of education and science I suggest; look at the faith Jesuit universities and schools that promote science and learning and are overloaded with applications from all religions and none; this is a nonsense to claim a contradiction
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
No, I did not imply we knew it all.
In order for the statement that religion has been at the forefront of science and education to be true; burning books, banning books, torture, murder, and excommunication would have to be considered legitimate tools in education and science.
Galileo is turning over in his grave at this point.
Please, I may be an American but I have read history.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 Religious education is inclusive of science and looks for the progress of mankind in a holistic manner; this is undoubtedly true and factual. The atrocities you refer to came from man notr from God; from the abuse and misuse of power, even today with the US President sending his troops to war with God Bless America; I suggest this is a misuse; a manipulation and abuse of power, just like in the Bible; God is nothing like that my friend
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Name one thing you can identify that came from God directly, without man or a natural force as an intermediate agent.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 Existence ... this is what is attributed to the Big Bang isn't it; prior to that there was "no-thing"... not nothing; which has been a theological, philosophical and scientific query as well
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
Ok, now without saying "well, who else could have done it" explain your answer.
Out of all the theories of how the universe came into being, prove to me with evidence and logic that "an invisible man in the sky did it."
While you are doing that, prove to me your god, as opposed to any others, did it.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 But the Big Bang theory is about creation from a singularity..... at least it would appear from cosmological science ... if there only is a singularity ... when all was one .. then that is where everything comes from that exists in this universe/cosmos or whatever you want to call it ... there was nothing else
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
You are attempting to evade the question I asked you.
If you can not answer, or would rather not try to answer, then withdraw from the discussion. Changing the subject and hoping I won't notice is not going to work.
Would you like me to repeat the question I put to you?
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 i suggest you are being evasive here, Hawkings and his contemporaries seek explanation of this singularity and refer to it in various terms but mainly " God" for ease of explanation, that is why Hawkings went in search of a God. I already said that science will be a positive in the search for a creative power. Question answered
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 This caricature of God is why I rarely use the term; you've referred to it as an "invisble man in the sky" which is a poor analogy.If you can imagine the vast power required to create this entire cosmos and creation and not gie it a term such as God; but instead consider whether this power; which obviously is factual, has "intelligence" ... another stumbling block .. and is relational; i.e.: does it lead to something else ? Is contingency involved ?
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
Again, you evade the question.
What disheartened me most when I became an atheist was not that there is no god or heaven. Most, on some level, understand that.
What was truly disheartening was that religion's greatest advocates were revealed to be, at best, intellectually dishonest.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 What exactly do I evade ? I use science in the context. I'm not interested in atheism or any other ism, just addressing science in it's place in creation. Tell me exactly where I have made an error in scientific or philosophical terms here? Or maybe better; what you understand religion to be ?
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
Allow me to demonstrate how to answer a question:
Religion is a system of beliefs which ascribes supernatural causes to naturally occurring phenomena.
Now, again, my question to you is pick any event and show me proof that god was its direct cause. Allow me to stress the words “direct cause” and “proof.”
Please, no more dancing about or philosophizing.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 The answer to that question is we will end up back at the beginning.I should be aware that since you asked me to "Name one thing you can identify that came from God directly, without man or a natural force as an intermediate agent" and did, and yet you didn't indicate whether you accepted this answer or not as a reasonable rational one.
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 I also don't agree with your very limited description of religion but lets go ahead anyway.
I give you my own reasoning here based on observation, thought and experience.
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 The answer to that question is we will end up back at the beginning.I should be aware that since you asked me to "Name one thing you can identify that came from God directly, without man or a natural force as an intermediate agent" and did, and yet you didn't indicate whether you accepted this answer or not as a reasonable rational one. But read on .....
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 First of all some ground rules; you are a unique person .... which I assume you agree with; there is no-one else with your fingerprints, your unique DNA, your life and existence; only you.
2nd you did not choose life; you are here by virtue of an act elsewhere by other means; therefore you are a contingent being. Again this is straightforward rationalisation but necessary..........
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 .....3rd there is a spiritual element to you; your thoughts are those part of you that no-one can know or touch or feel or understand; only you can. We are not talking here about measuring brainwaves or electrical impulses in the brain but the "thought itself".
So we have .... A thought that leads to action.
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 This question we ask is one that has been asked since the time men began to think it would appear; but if we only go back to the ancient Greeks; prior to Christianity, we know of Philosophers and Scientists who were rationalising and reasoning their way to a creative power...........
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 ...Aristotle for example used motion and reasoned on an uncaused cause to start it all.
Again this is open to discussion or conjecture; but nevertheless valid and now confirmed by the Big Bang; which itself is an uncaused cause according to the leading cosmologists and scientific thought as confirmed by Dawkins and Fr Coyne here.
So we have ..... An unnameable singular causation.
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 Given all of the foregoing; you are here right now; alive and thinking, a person with an element of choice as to how you think and act and perceive the world around you. The big question underlying all of this is why are we/you here ? .........
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 What is the point (if any) of creation or existence and how did we get here ?Again I assume you accept this as it is fairly standard in Philosophical and Scientific terms; humanity searches for understanding of itself and the world around as well as for "the good" in life; some might call it the American Dream, but whatever it is, we see it as good.So we have ... Mankind seeks good.
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 In light of these three points; which are reduced drastically for this reply (I detest reductive literalism as well) my belief is in a "unique creative power that seeks good".
I reject the idea that we are here by an accident of creation; bearing in mind there was "no-thing" prior to the Big Bang according to the cosmologists. I don't accept that you or I are mistakes by any manner of means and I suggest that we both have purpose to our existence ......
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 I can't look at a child and see their life as meaningless or a homeless person and see their life as worthless. Life for me is to achieve the "good within me" as best as I can and harm no-one else.
Therefore .. I believe in a singular creative power that seeks good.
This I believe to be the truth
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 I believe in an objective truth; and we know there is Truth, so my belief is that from a thought that leads to action from an uncaused cause we are seeking good. This statement is for me very sound, reasonable, realistic and true. I can then fill in the blanks ... but one more thing on truth to finish with ....
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 Truth..(A dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras) Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion. Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion? Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective. ......
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@no1hoopsman
So, a tangential philosophical response is the best defense you can offer of your imaginary friend?
That is it, that is all you've got?
What a disappointing performance on your part and your god's.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892. I guess you haven't read much but nothing there in my response is imaginary, never referred to a bible or church, only science and reality
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
Nothing in your response is imaginary, because it is not a response.
I asked you a question and you have refused to answer it.
There is nothing more to talk about, is there.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 anyway you got a very clear and defined answer to your question, one that is based on reality and can be measured but doesn't refer to god or religion and because of that you're fucked really, go on, admit it !
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 The ironic thing here is that you made a broo ha ha about intellectual dishonesty and why you becamse an atheist; yet can't own up to a scientific fact; one that is supported by Dawkins, Harris and really great scientists like Stephen Hawkings and accept there is "a creative power" that has started this whole cosmos on it's (limited?) journey. You fail to see or acknowledge the ridiculousness of your position but try to fundamentalise the proposition here; how dishonest is that ?
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
I've asked you a simple question, three times. Each time you have refused to answer it. We both know you can't answer it.
Answering questions is, after all, the end of superstition (faith).
I’m sure Hawkings would agree, since his statement that you don’t need a god for creation is viewable here on youtube, as are the lectures of Harris and Dawkins.
You are not going to be able to lie your god into existence so easily.
Waltham1892 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Waltham1892 I've given you a detailed answer based on a logical process so there could be no disputes ... so let me clearly state again in a one liner since this appears to be all you can understand ...... I believe in a singular creative power that seeks good. .... Now tell me what is wrong with that without mentioning God, The Bible or Religion
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 and of course in rejecting a power that acts for good is rejecting Sam Harris proposition for morality. I guess you are lost so just need to make a thoughtless minimalist response which argues against the stance of the leading atheist proponents of morality
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@no1hoopsman
In an American court I would make an objection, saying that you have not offered proof that a force exists, that it is intelligent, or that it is good.
A judge would sustain my objection.
Here is where we make or break your delusion. Offer me direct evidence that there is a force, that it is intelligent, and that it is good.
Otherwise we are done here.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 how about evolution as a force for good, in dawkins book the selfish gene that is what evolution is, tell me what was delutional in my response ?
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
Your delusion is that believe your god is any different from the 10,000 other gods men have worshiped. Gods who have gone from all powerful deities to statuary in a museum.
These gods did not retire or find employment elsewhere, they never existed. Neither does yours, get over it.
Time to stop making excuses for someone who isn't even there.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 you keep bringing God in, I only used real and scientific proposition which is entirely correct. You are the one who is evasive. Do u reject evolution as a creative power for good? I'm talking about something not someone and it is right in front of you and proven factually but you can't accept it. I wonder why when you espouse the brilliance of dawkins but disagree with him here?
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 and does this mean you reject this creative power? You don't believe in evolution? Or that mankind is good? Strange one that, you would sound like a fundamentalist creationist then
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 ....Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do.
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 .....Socrates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 If there is only a "singularity" .. prior to the Big Bang as the cosmologists suggest; then we could give this singularity a name couldn't we ? After all we name new stars and nebula's all the time; why not the singularity that began it all. This singularity; according to the cosmologists; was prior to time and space. This is a scientific theory. Now you have to admit that there are certain factors here that are supportive of theology; to deny that would be dishonest
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 I and I suggest Fr Coyne have no issue with science; but science takes it place in the scheme of life; it's not the reason for it; science too has it's greater question to answer, that is why there are depts of philosophy for medicine and physics and biology et al; because there are questions beyond the scientific ones
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
Don’t you think that line of reasoning makes god(s) pitiable? We have explained the physical universe to 10 to the negative 43 seconds after the big bang. So really, the only place for god(s) now is before that time.
This reminds me of the old maps, when uncharted areas carried the annotation “there be dragons here.”
God(s) now are only needed to explain what we don’t yet understand. They are placeholders for what we dont' yet.
Not much of a job description.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 Is that response meant for me or just a comment ?
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman
The first part is a response, the second a historical analogy, the third is a comment. Of course, your can respond to any, all, or none, as you see fit.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 There is clearly a relational aspect to the bible story; it is full of parables and analogy and symbolism that is relevant today. The Good Samaritan is an atheist promoting story if ever there was one, the non religious doing the right thing; how does that story play out in the atheist agenda ? Listening to Fr Coyne should be a pointer about what religion should be about; doing the right thing; harm no one, help everyone you can; love your neighbour as yourself
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Waltham1892 There is clearly a relational aspect to the bible story; it is full of parables and analogy and symbolism that is relevant today. The Good Samaritan is an atheist promoting story if ever there was one, the non religious doing the right thing; how does that story play out in the atheist agenda ? Listening to Fr Coyne should be a pointer about what religion should be about; doing the right thing; harm no one, help everyone you can; love your neighbour as yourself
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 I don't agree aboput your statement or the premise you base the idea of God upon. We can say for certain we don't (yet) know what caused the Big Bang; therefore the issue of a creative power is open for explanation. This explanation of the "creative powers existence" has nothing to do with the relational aspect of this creative power; how we connect with someone is irrespective of their being and how they got here. The diea of what is presented in the bible is also a living proposal
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 On the contrary, I think that is quite a job description; of utmost importance. I think it is quite literally the center of the universe. Like the first floor of a skyscraper, it's not the relative size of it that makes it important, but rather its linear relationship to everything else. Until we know what happened before that first "10 to the negative 43 seconds," I think everyone should refrain from pretending like they know, with any degree of certainty, the answers.
DStud29 3 months ago
The array of possible answers to the question "what happened before 10 to the negative 43 seconds" is not as broad as it was 20 years ago and is certainly broader than it will be in 10 years.
To put it politely, god(s) are not one of the answers being researched. We’ve moved on.
You can explain the universe with gods, or you can explain it with science, you just can’t do both at the same time.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 Oh--please don't feel the need to spare my feelings with politeness if it hinders you from making a substantive point, and if it's agreeable, I'll do the same. That said, I'll say that it's clear that "god(s) are not one of the answers being researched," because no research methodology exists to look at that option. As such, I agree that other options must be considered and researched--they are after all, the only ones that can be.
DStud29 3 months ago
@DStud29 As far as your assertion that the universe must be explained with either gods or science: what makes you believe that the two are mutually exclusive? Is it your predetermined position that such god(s) do not exist? If so, that's not very scientific. (Don't worry, it's not lost on me that that statement sounds a bit absurd, but I still believe it to be true.) My suspicion is that the uncountably infinite nature of the universe is one that CANnot be explained by science alone.
DStud29 3 months ago
Science and religion are mutually exclusive because science says except nothing on faith, everything must be proven while religion says what can not be proven must be accepted through faith.
You can believe whatever you want to believe. The human mind is GREAT at holding contradictions; just don't kid yourself about what you are doing.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
Speaking as someone who is not religious, what a gracious man George Coyne is. With such humility as his, I'm sure he makes lots of valuable contributions to his community.
Woodroffski 4 months ago
With all due respect, Father Coyne is as attached to fallacies as are fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews.
In fact, that Father Coyne has a basis in the physical sciences makes his attachment to irrational beliefs WORSE than the fundamentalists, because he knows better.
Father Coyne is nothing more than a highly educated, highly articulate, village shaman.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 typical atheist response to any religious person who can express themselves in an articulate and highly sophisticated way. News flash, many of the people who are in science today, and were in science historically were religious people......
jamaicanification 4 months ago
The fact the Father Coyne speaks well does not make what he says true. Further, that some in the sciences have religious beliefs does not make relgion in any way true.
The truth is, religious belief on the part of a scientist requires him to believe on Sunday what he would discard Monday through Friday.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 No it doesn't.... and how would you term religious belief ?
no1hoopsman 4 months ago in playlist Fr Coyne v Dawkins
@no1hoopsman
Let us not play word games. I think everyone, with the possible exceptions of scientologists, knows what a religion looks like.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 Where does it conflict with science then ?
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Because science demands evidence, replication, and a congruent under lying theory.
Religion demands no proof, no replication, and does not require an underlying theory other than "it was a miracle."
Further, science is dynamic; changing as our body of information changes. Religion is static, inquiry ended when the final draft of whatever religious text you ascribe to went to the printer's.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 I don't agree with that. Religion requires evidence too I suggest. There is also the issue of living a belief as opposed to just saying we believe; actions speak louder than words at times and doing good as opposed to just thinking we are good. Our understanding of any creative power develops as well I believe; Fr Coyne expresses this wish and thought also. I suggest if we use the term creative power rather than God we adopt a different approach which might be beneficial
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman
So, you believe that an intelligent and creative force created and guides the universe?
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 It is possible from a scientific view that this is the case; cosmologists have ventured this as well as things like parallel universes. The term intelliegence is of course vital in understanding this view; which was proposed from the ancient greek philosophers as well as medieval theologians and philosophers. Certainly the term Big Bang was coined by a Priest and perhaps as we come to understand creation more by scientifc methods we can see we are only scratching the surface
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 I most certainly believe in evolution; no contradiction for me there, and my experience in dealing with people and bio ethics is that science is opening our understanding in ways not predicted. For example many atheists like Harris and Dawkins (tho not Hitchens) are pro abortion, yet understanding the development of the creative process has turned the leading light in pro abort against it. The TV in the womb and subsequent developments lead to so much more knowledge for us
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@no1hoopsman
You are attempting to be clever and avoid the question:
Do you believe that an intelligent and creative force created and guides the universe?
The answer is a simple "yes" or "no".
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 That there is an element of intelligence in evolution is I think the case; certainly Harris appeasr to develop this thought and process with morality for example; it is inherent in us is what he applies, so it is part of our intelligence in this situation perhaps. I also like this discussion here with Dawkins/Fr Coyne because of the manner in which it is conducted as opposed to the name calling on other posts. What do you think ?
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman
So you would say "yes", that there is an intelligent force which guides the universe. And, from you answer, you agree with the position of "Intelligent Design."
You are taking great pains to avoid making a definitive statement that you would be required to defend.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 There is undoubtedly some design in evolution do you not think? I'm not in any pain whatsoever; there is no contradiction in any of this, the whole idea of a creative force or power fits in exactly with science and cosmology in my opinion. It will be interesting to see if we come across other intelligence in the whole of the cosmos; but of course it doesn't make any difference to a creative power or even the stance of the Catholic Church for example
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
No, I don't believe that evolution evidences design. Further, I don't believe evolution evidences a creator.
Saying that there is no contradiction between the world revealed by science and the world revealed by religion is to either ignorance or a disingenuous argument.
At the end of the day, we are either going to believe in invisible spirits or we are going to have to accept the universe as we understand it to be.
God exists, or he doesn’t, and he doesn't.
Waltham1892 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 That seems to be a leap of faith there; I see no contradiction in science and religion. That the universe was created by the Big Bang is the best possible explanation; what could the Big Bang be ? Since we don't know and can't explain this, the idea of a creative power is unquestionably true to date; we just can't determine what it is. But I suggest there is design in evolution; the design is in relation to surroundings; we see it in animals and plant life and how creatures ......
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@Waltham1892 respond to their surroundings in order to survive; Certain animals developed camouflage to protect themselves; this is a design by any means, one in response to an external situation but a design nevertheless
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
I love this guy
lordclaude678 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism:
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity. God created the heavens and the earth. And this isn't opposed to evolution as evolution is simply a theory or vague insight into how God chose to create
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
Comment removed
skeptic365 4 months ago
He's a reasoned priest. Measured and intelligent. In fact .. he's almost an atheist ! he's almost there. But something in him believes in a God. And it doesn't make ANY sense. I think Dawkins is being reverential - but too much so; he's being too nice. What's the point of agreeing with Darwinism AND God? It has to be one or the other surely.
everybodysinshowbiz 4 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
@everybodysinshowbiz no it doesn't, and this is the fallacy atheist make all the time. They think evolution means you reject god, or science means you reject god. Science deals with natural phenomenons and so are silent on the issue of god or divine revelation. Many people, including many biologists such as ken miller and francis collins accept evolution and science. The only people who see a contradiction are the religious fundamentalist and certain atheists. Funny how they agree on that....
jamaicanification 4 months ago
What a courteous and coherent man. I'll respect and engage in conversation with anyone like this man.
evenshadow 4 months ago
Jesuits for the win!
MrMichaelEdie 4 months ago 6
@azzwal Are you really going down that path of intelligent design? The natural question to it is: who designed the designer? You get an infinite regress of designers!
SAMagic 5 months ago
As an atheist, I find this man the most eloquent and gentle among all other believers. It is a sigh of relief for me to see this discussion after seeing all the rabid, frothing at the mouth arguments that usual atheist v religion debates usually come to.
jolorulz 5 months ago 2
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
This guy is smart, i bet the only reason he continues to "believe" is because the church made him rich famous and because he would be hated if he said it was a lie. Everyone forgets the real human emotions of greed and ignorance. Life is about collecting money untill you die. thats it.
craigherbert1 6 months ago
@craigherbert1 all priest live a life of poverty.. and olnly make around 2,000 a month.. priests are in no way rich.
zapatac1 5 months ago
This man is one of the people who embodies why I prefer the catholic church; there's room for people who have a (strong) scientific basis. (I'm still not religious though and I still think he took the easy way by being religious, although it doesn't seem that way)
plantenbak1000 6 months ago
If this man represented religion as a whole I would not have as much of a problem with it as I do.
chaosbalrog 6 months ago 2
Thank you for posting this, richarddawkinsdotnet.
writersblock26 6 months ago
wow amazing, such a educated conversation on religion! amazing!!
maximilianitoaguirre 7 months ago
1. I am impressed with Dawkins performance here. I didn't believe he actually had such manners when discussing these things but can see otherwise.
2. Coyne has a good grasp on what he knows and what he believes and the context of what he believes.
3. If believers had such open-mindedness, applied enough thought, and understood their faith they would do better for themselves and their own faiths.
smawshot 7 months ago 3
@smawshot You wanna see manners? Watch is interview with mandy bright. You will want to shoot yourself after first five min, guaranteed.
Thephyguy 6 months ago
@Thephyguy got a link?
smawshot 6 months ago
@smawshot I meant Wendy Wright. Search in youtube, or just look on the side suggestions, it's the blonde lady.
Thephyguy 6 months ago
@Thephyguy To be fair though, they way that lady talked to him wasn't conversational or open at all...
wygram 5 months ago
i would like to see an interview preist george, coyne slap wendy wright!!
joeMopar412 7 months ago
i would to see an interview preist george, coyne slap wendy wright!!
joeMopar412 7 months ago
He keeps avoiding questions and expressing non-catholic views
3200manpro 7 months ago
@3200manpro no he doesnt. he just doesnt follow your catholic views. as he said in the first video. there is many ways to interpret catholicism. many followed through with ignorance.
bakerpd4 7 months ago
So well spoken and thought, but why does he need to impose god into the situation?
TheSultan03 7 months ago
or the one who brought the cause to light.
ringawing 7 months ago
philosophy is not going beyond science, it is pre-science. Biology, physics and so on, used to be the philosophy of nature. What i find most interesting and strange at the same time, is that most religious people say its about something that cannot be explained by science or anything else....and then start to explain how it works.
koraxsan 7 months ago
@koraxsan agreed. showing how something 'works', i.e. trying to explain phenomena, trying to find a constant law behind the goings on of nature, (cause and effect) is really the posture of science. We watch how things happen, watch them again, and eventually narrow down causes--what could have cause this result to happen? then we put the cause that we've found to be true aside, on the shelf, or in textbooks, and strut away thinking we're on top (which we are)but without any wonder at the cause
ringawing 7 months ago
you can admire george coyne as much as you want, but the fact is its amazing that we are surprised to see an intelligent christian. there are a lot of intelligent christians, there are a lot of intelligent atheists, and members of other religions. the fact he believes in the gospels and christianity shows a kind of lack of understanding anyway. its annoying though, talking to "smart" christians. they generalize all the time, never give firm answers and just say theres truth in all religions.
frusciantefan122 7 months ago 2
@frusciantefan122 guess you want it both ways. If you were talking to a christian who wasn't too bright you would be happy that he blurts out answers without thinking about it and then call him an idiot. On the other hand, if you talk to an intelligent christian you'll get annoyed because he doesn't give you the straight answer you want, but a thorough and methodical explanation of his/her faith. Seems contradicting and hypocritical to me....
jamaicanification 7 months ago
@jamaicanification actually i do enjoy talking to "Less bright" christians, because you really understand the absurdity of theyre beliefs. it doesnt matter how intelligent you are, at the end of the day trying to rationalize these beliefs doesnt the core stupidity of the beliefs. a true rational person would look at religion from a cultural, historical, and pysological viewpoint, not take the scriptures as the actuall word of god like all religions claim to have
frusciantefan122 7 months ago
@frusciantefan122 so i guess in your own preconceived view, only atheists are the truly rational people in the world, and the rest of us are just crack pots. meeehh, what can ya do :s...... In the end i dont really care cause lots of my friends are atheists and i disagree with them on this. Not like im gonna put a gun to your head and force my beliefs on you like most atheist think religious people do on their spare time all the time....
jamaicanification 7 months ago
@jamaicanification i never said only atheists were rational people. most christians are rational people with irrational beliefs. your not really answering anything or giving any points to support what you believe, your just telling me what i think and getting it wrong. can i ask you how you rationalise the view that 2000 years ago a man in israel who called himself god, did miricales and was brutally murdered to save our souls? or were you just brought up to believe it??
frusciantefan122 7 months ago
@frusciantefan122 the only thing i can say to that is if you approach the question from the presupposition of a theistic believer, then it wouldn't be impossible that a supreme deity assumed the form of one of his many creations. That concept can only be understood if you look at it from an Abrahamic theistic perspective though(even though i recognize that judaism and islam say that belief in the trinity or christ being the son of god is blasphemous)..
jamaicanification 7 months ago
@frusciantefan122 they generalize because thats all there is. the knowledge we have of universal workings is general. athiest or not all we have is generalizations. to give a firm answer is pure ignorance.
bakerpd4 7 months ago
Coynes a great man, but i know he's lying to himself. Its very sad..
xxhavoxx 8 months ago in playlist Father George Coyne Interview - Richard Dawkins
Whenever the Father says, "Okay..." he says it plaintively and betrays his own apprehension in the veracity of the thing said. It is, actually, heartbreaking.
Rhettsplaylist 8 months ago
It is a good thing that Hitchens did not do this interview.
johneamer 8 months ago 6
@johneamer Why? Hitchens would simply have been rude about it. It's nice to be nice, manners go a long way.
thevoice81111 8 months ago
@thevoice81111 Hitchens would simply hitchslap the poor guy ...
hldemi 7 months ago
@johneamer I thing that Hitch would do a better job than Dawk because his debut style would put Coyne on a bigger challenge. Richard is too mild for this .
hldemi 7 months ago
"My God, he or she, is not an engineer." lol Jesuits. This kind of talk would drive 99.99% of the Catholic laity bonkers. It's probably a good thing for Coyne's career that he spent it looking through gold-plated telescopes rather than as a church spokesman.
dorsk188 8 months ago
If it took God 6 days to create the Earth, Sun, and Moon, it must have taken him 4,830,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so years to create the rest of the universe.
jabasoner 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stupid old fool ,
loly1969 9 months ago
lol, maybe God has an engineering degree...
ComputerScience54 9 months ago
As George Coyne demonstrates here in his assessment of intelligent design people can often see the absurdities in other people's religious beliefs but can seldom see the absurdities of their own.
joshuacharles78 9 months ago
Wise comments on Evolution (acceptance of) and the Intelligent Design movement (rejection of).
LsBaba 9 months ago
I just know!! Give me a break.
johneamer 9 months ago
1:40 - 1:50
I actually started laughing loudly alone when he said it. :p
FreeScience 9 months ago
Comment removed
FreeScience 9 months ago
Comment removed
FreeScience 9 months ago
God is nothing, and this man knows that. Nevertheless he cannot give up his belief system. He works a special "mental gymnastics" with lots of contorsions in order to justify the unjustifiable!
48acar19 9 months ago
@48acar19 you're not listening.
fifalacious 9 months ago
@48acar19 *insert stock atheist phrase to make myself think I'm smart*
8)
GenghisKhan44 9 months ago
Religious people r stupid and fearful.
wtfzwrong 10 months ago
@wtfzwrong that statement in itself is stupid and fearful
jamaicanification 8 months ago
@jamaicanification Your attempt at mirroring what I said is in itself stupid and illogical.
wtfzwrong 8 months ago
@wtfzwrong redundant point. Anyways if you have a phobia of religious people, go and live on another planet cause 90% of the planet believes in religion. You dont see me saying im afraid of atheist because of their beliefs. If your an atheist, good for you. Just be respectful of other peoples beliefs instead of raving on about your irrational fear of every single person who is religious
jamaicanification 8 months ago
@jamaicanification Its not me that fear religious people but them that fear their own god. Thanking God for the good things in life and blaming themselves for the bad things that happen. Comes to mind battered woman's syndrome. Yea well, most people are too passive to even attempt at seeking reasoning behind Religion. The idea of an eternal paradise in exchange for a shred of sacrifice, if even that, and the compliance to a powerthirst institution seems to be a fair tradeoff to most of the ppl.
wtfzwrong 8 months ago
Proof that the smartest person will strain good sense and put himself into all sorts of contortions to hold onto his psychosis...
HistorySkeptic 10 months ago
@HistorySkeptic
Yes I agree with you. I only saw your reply after writing mine.
48acar19 9 months ago