Father George Coyne Interview (2/7) - Richard Dawkins
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- This is the full uncut interview with Father George Coyne which was omitted from Richard Dawkins' television program "The Genius of Charles Darwin" for Channel 4 in the UK. See more videos like this at richarddawkins.net - We will be releasing many more uncut interviews from "The Genius of Charles Darwin" on DVD soon through store.richardda...
All my respect to Father George Coyne. A very intelligent person, clearly open to debate, accept differences and exchange points of view without feeling the need to cathechize, impose his thoughts or recall absolute divine truths. I'm not religious and have a different view, not agreeing with him on many points, but oh well what a pleasure to know there are religious people like that!
This guy's pretty clever, genuine and polite.
Great interview.
Extremely interesting. As one brought up in Catholicism and relatively new to the truth that there is no proof of the existence of God it is fascinating to hear a brilliant man (Coyne) try to reconcile Faith with science in the presence of another brilliant man (Dawkins) who's life is rooted in the scientific method.
As eloquent as he may be Coyne's beliefs eventually rest on faith and I must agree with Dawkins purely scientific approach.
@@kgsgolf0500 loser, you're like these two losers in the vid, you don't care about science, you're a devoted loser running from it.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block My little man, you are completely insane! :D
@@amgjens oh, and I loved your proof of that which showed I'm insane by...
(blank)
Go join the other losers, loser.
I agree 100%, he is the most reasonable preacher I've ever heard. Not saying I agree with him, just saying he's a civilized, well educated man.
He's a priest, not a preacher.
So happy that you posted this. It is fascinating. As a believer, I appreciate that you allow Father Coyne to represent rational religious belief without censoring his thoughts. Thanks for posting!
Decent discussion and debate is so undervalued. It makes me sad that we don't see this in wider popular culture.
I'm an atheist and i gotta say that i don't see a lot of religious people having civilized conversations like this priests and for that reason he deserves respect. He listens and uses relatively understandable arguments.
George is the best senior verbal tap-dancer I've ever seen in my entire life.
Is that supposed to be a good thing or bad? Also u still alive bruv?
It is refreshing to hear a religious person speak in a somewhat rational way. It must have been hard for this priest to reconsile his believes with his (scientific) education. Great conversation.
And what an amazing conversation it is! So respectful of one another. The Coyne guy is new to me, but Dawkins really impressed me in this interview.
A discussion like this does a lot of good, I think.
No, stop with your "I think" when you really don't think.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
father George is such a nice man....but his argument is really such an easy target for Dawkins. I think Dawkins is being very delicate with him since he is such a nice old man.
I am a strict atheist.. However I have never heard a religious person argue for his/her faith in such an intelligent and articulate way. The most you usually get from religion is 'It is what it is, because it is what it is' This man has changed my view slightly on religious practice.. I will never believe in God. But I could not turn to this man and tell him there IS no God. A rare INTELLIGENT discussion about religion? wow! Thanks for uploading =)
I don t know what kind of discussions about religion in general you had and with what kind of people, that made you say that in general, religious people say "it is what it is". It is very sad that religious people are very ignorant and becouse of their lack of true interest in understanding their own religion, they cannot sustain a discussion about it.
I can guarantee you that there are a lot of catholics with whom you could have an absolutely terrific discussion about religion, science, philosophy, etc. You just have to find the right ones. Every forest with it s dead branches...as they say. The secret is to never stop searching...searching for those people, searching the truth, etc. Isn t this the greatest topic of all times, afterall? Thousands of philosophers, writers, thinkers, scientist, etc...allways debating about the meaning of life, where we came from, etc? So dig in. Study, read, debate, etc. But don t blame it on the christian dogma and teachings if you find an ignorant christian. Peace, dude!:)
@@lovepolice2152 I think that there are some filters and feedback effects at play. People on both sides of issues like this more frequently get exposed to rather poor examples of people with opposing ideas. UA-cam can literally filter for videos confirming and supporting our ideas, more often than not exposing us to people badly explaining ideas that are different than ours.
Rational and intelligent Christians and atheists are probably less inclined to argue and debate over things that have been hashed out over and over.
Rational discussions don't generate as much excitement or interest. Case in point, observe the number of views and likes for this excellent discussion.
I'm sure that misconceptions about other groups of people abound because the extremists and loudest, and even the most wrong examples tend to get the most attention.
The quiet rational types that we might like to be front and center, rarely are.
Personally, as an atheist i would see little benefit in debating with someone like George Coyne, as he seems to be an intelligent and good man that is doing a great deal of good in the world with little that is controversial to debate. I would however love to speak with him as he shows great intelligence and insight.
Usually, the aspects of religion that I might take issue with involve situations where theists impose issues of their beliefs on others with a negative impact. I know many good Christians that I respect that would never intentionally do that in their lives.
I think one of the most aggravating situations in discussions and debates is a person having their views misrepresented and attacked instead them of accurately discussing what the other feels and believes. And that situation seems to happen so often as to become cliche.
Lets hope that more rational discussions like this get greater exposure so that more people can learn more clearly about opposing ideas.
Tell me one logic argument that deny the existence of God.
I don't know many believers who say what ur saying . Faith and reason should go hand in hand .
Coyne is a pretty cool guy. He's very open, which is great.
So nice to see Dawkins talking with someone so capable, despite the occasional flight into fancy.
They're both losers.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
What a cool priest! He gives an inteligent conversation. I am not religious but its great to have see these conversations about this topic without 'hell & brimstone' and aggression. Our differences can be enriching not tearing apart, like you so often see.
Father George Coyne..What a brilliant intelligent man.
This Father Coyne is very well spoken!
He says nothing of value.
thats a stunningly beautiful church
I would have loved to see Carl Sagan (or now Neil Tyson) have a discussion with George Coyne.
Why, they're all losers.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
I really like Father Coyne - and he's a great writer too. I met him at a conference in Malta and floored him over lunch by identifying his accent as being from Baltimore. :)
RD: "What do you say to fellow Christians that take the book of Genesis literally, Adam and Eve, six days etc"
Fr GC: "I say as little as I have to... It reveals a fundamental ignorance of what scripture is about..." Brilliant!!!
absolutely incredible - two such intelligent people
NOW THIS IS A GOOD DEBATE. NO SHOUTING. NO INTERRUPTING. NO AGGRESSION. JUST PURE INPUT OF FACT, BELIEFS, OPINIONS AND EXCHANGE OF SPEECH. WELL DONE. BEAUTIFUL
Wow.
Just incredible.
I'm agnostic, but I totally agree with both speakers. The priest is very logical, calm and thoughtful and Dawkins is asking questions in order to get answers; though they have dissenting views.
Highly admirable. The world would be a better place if every person had this kind of mentality.
No wonder you're agnostic, you're a loser like the two losers in the vid.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block That makes a lot of sense
I sympathize with this gentlemanly priest for his fate of being painted into logical corners by his own religion. He does his earnest best to reconcile all of the contradictions to which he is sworn.
Excellent interview technique: 'Ask great questions and then actually listen to the answers'
5 stars priest!! humble open minded.
I like how the guys argument slowly unraveled as Dawkins questioned him. He may as well have argued that point Dawkins raised about "fairies at the end of the garden" as being real.
Logic and reasoning will always come out on top.
Coyne is one of the only rational deeply religious person I have ever heard. He is awesome I think I could get along well with him.
what a relief to listen to an intelligent religious man. I don't agree for a minute with his beliefs in the supernatural, faith, etc, but he is a type of religionist I can live with. moreover, this is a wonderful example of Richard Dawkins' gentle, respectful approach with people who are similarly well-spoken. The charges of arrogance against him are totally unfounded IMO, I've only seen him rear that head when faced with the worst of religionisits, the most arrogant and ignorant folks of all.
Such a good video
My advice to the viewers: watch the video, don't read the comments
+Severus of Antioch including yours? :p
***** Including mine. :P
He's basically saying dont stray to far.
That's good advice (I submit by not following it!).
Yes. Follow the evidence. A very scientific approach.
This is the most sensible and honest and rational priest ever!
I especially like the fact that part of his reason for believing in God is that religion has a coherance for him. I mean, the reason why I believe in science is because I find it coherant!
I like his lack of patience for people who take the bible literally, too, it definitely helps me to relate to him a bit more, despite our differences in beliefs.
(I really hope his social beliefs wouldn't horrify me...)
Wow, just wow, it was to expect from pt1, but with his first sentences here he totally droped the ball.
They're two losers enjoying each other.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
for all those people saying poor old priest, if you watched all of the videos you would realise these are two gentlemen who respect one another and are actually enjoying engaging in thought and exploring ideas. you are probably the kind of people that coyne talks about having no curiosity, you just dont look at things properly, as they are as is evident by 'poor priest' comments.
Father Coyne is a remarkable man. He's so sincere. His answers are not disingenuous. He readily admits he'd probably be a Muslim had he been raised Muslim. He's studied science, understands evolution, accepts that it is the best scientific explanation of the origins of life. If most of the Christians in this world had half of the wisdom this man possesses, I would whole-heartedly tolerate the Christian ideology. Father Coyne strikes me as wiser than god, as depicted in the Old Testament.
IF i would be religious i would follow this guy... a remarkable intelligent and eloquent guy. we need more people like him in general.. but on the other side ;)
Oh yes, respect is always the way to go. Even if we disagree we can atleast agree to disagree respectfully and not try to patronize each other like in most discussions on religion between people with different opinions
You have to admire the man for going toe-to-toe with RD, of course his arguments are the very definition of 'woolly', but i respect him for going as far as he did.
The comments of Father Coyne are wonderful examples of a great mind hijacked. He is clearly and intelligent man with a great mind. It is unfortunately being used to justify his belief in something which he cannot allow himself to answer any straight forward questions about. I have great respect for his ability to manipulate language to make arguments that to people not really listening sound valid and understanding.
Father George Coyne is my favorite religious figure, by a mile. Which I suppose isn't saying much since he's one of the only ones that I like to begin with.
Regardless, though, I must say that I have a lot of respect for him. What a great guy.
He's a loser like Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
If only all priests were as insightful as George Coyne is..
"Despite" his belief in the supernatural he is really reasonable.
"This is the full uncut interview with Father George Coyne... "
Precisely, those differences make it impossible that both Native American and Western theologians can be right.
I was raised Roman Catholic and am a scientist. I have not been a practicing Catholic for some years now and approached a priest to discuss the fact that I did not take the old testament literally and I fully believe evolution happened and will continue to happen. I have read Origin of Species, and Dawkins "The greatest show on earth" and long ago the Bible. The Priest agreed with me and we concluded Love Your Neighbor was the central message Jesus taught, the rest are man made traditions
This priest is the most honest I've ever heard but the fact is Richard is the boss and on an number of occasions the priest could not make rational and factual statements ... the reason why ... religions is 100% man made
back and forth about which one field is better equipped to solve a problem. They come together and work together. That is, to me, a perfect image of what society should be like. People coming and working together to solve societies problems. It certainly beats the divisiveness and bigotry that religion offers society.
EXACTLY! What many defenders of theology and theism don't seem to grasp, is the fact that there is a universal truth that applies to us all and does not occur on a spontaneous manner of divine intervention. This priest highly understands the facets of his religious tradition, however, he falls short of strict reasoning and understanding of what is simply true. We as human beings deserve to be aware of the truth and come to consensus over that truth as race in order to separate any----
LOL! I know, right? ;) Such a refreshing change to witness Dawkins encounter that rarest of beasts, an intelligent and enlightened "believer" :))
Coyne basically said- " I believe my religious doctrine because I do."
I respect Father Coyne, he believes what he believes, but backs up his science.
Father ( professor) George Coyne is a voice of the Church which should be more presented in the debate on origins of life and universe. He has a balanced point of view as a scientist (professor of astronomy and a mathematician) and a priest. He is a suitable person as a spokesman of Church and his point of view is immportant to see a wider picture of this topic. I'm saying this as an athesit.
@TheMordius He's certainly not the only one. To think of it, every single catholic priest must go through an extensive education before they can be ordained. Here in Brazil, Catholic priests must have a 3-year university degree in Philosophy, and then 4 more years in Theology before ordination, and I'm sure this norm applies around the world since it's stated in Canon Law. Being agnostic, I have respect for the Catholic Church because of men like George Coyne.
Here here... well put. I agree completely. Only thing I could add, is when cornered, the irrational mind without a proper argument usually falls back to petty insults. I do have to appreciate the level of conversation to someone that has almost negated views. Its a good video so far.
I think you hit upon the problem that Coyne faces, being a religious believer who also purports to respect the findings of science:
There IS no concrete evidence for his God, which is exactly why Coyne is forced to toss about vague terms and abstract concepts. He is engaged in utter speculation, trying his hardest to reconcile his faith with hard science. As a result, he offers no solid, cogent arguments, just a lot of "could be's" and "might be's."
An honest man simply admits, "I don't know."
I don't know how you can say that Coyne doesn't want to try to prove the existence of God or convince anyone when that is exactly what he tried to do by trying to use tradition as evidence. He just failed miserably at it because Dawkins pointed out the logical fallacy that a tradition doesn't prove that the traditional beliefs are true.
This interview is certainly a refreshing change of pace after watching the mind-numbing one with Wendy Wright.
What an inspiring discussion. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Richard Dawkins and his interleaved and scientific reasoning shone in that interview. That having been said I have to remark that I was very impressed with the level headed reasoning and articulations of George Coin as he likes to be called. He will be one of the very few religious figures that I can respect, even though I totally disagree with his religion. I am with Christopher Hitchens on this one, sometimes you have to look at the person and their religion separately to see and understand the real person.
The fact that you proclaim to know what I feel in my heart just goes to show that what I think about people like you is true. I'm not saying that there is or isn't a God. I'm saying that belief in something without evidence is not something to be proud of. You're also not reading what I'm writing. You're arguments aren't offending me. It is your attempt to discuss topics of which you clearly have no knowledge that offends me; also your grammar.
Great conversation. But may I suggest it would have been all the better with two cameras. I’m getting sea a sick at my desk watching the camera as the room spins.
very good discussion, very well delivered by the priest who clearly knows about the universe n has common sense, nice to hear him say religious beliefs are man-made... that is indeed what they are..in the end it still boils down to blind faith....good refreshing interview
He's a loser like Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Madman, you have a big point.
My compliments.
I am NOT saying; however, that because a belief system is comfortable it makes it true or more true, but rather that comfort has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
I'll give the man credit for this: most religious people have to deny science in some way to believe their religious dogma. He clearly does not do this. He knows science is king of facts. But I take issue to the glowing credit he gets by other commenters. There is a difference between being reasonable (which he certainly is) and logical. So far, his best reason for being Catholic is: "I think it's coherent". Coherence is the lowest bar I've ever heard to believe something to be true.
"They're not tricking us, they're not tricks"
All I heard was "Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah"
this is just lyrical gymnastics.
If only evolution / creation discussions between youtube posters could be this sophisticated and logical...
I think there are very clear reasons why a species as social as our own would come to value things like altruism and honesty. In fact, many scientists argue that altruism can be observed in the animal kingdom outside of our species. The specifics of right and wrong may not be so clear by a scientific reasoning, but then again the specifics of theological morality are highly disagreed upon as well within most religious traditions.
Father Coyne for pope!
You talk about scientists as if their ability to set aside differences they have about their ideas is not likely to happen. I hate to break it to you but that ability to understand and accept contradicting evidence and remold theory is at the heart of scientific thinking.
"However I have never heard a religious person argue for his/her faith in such an intelligent and articulate way. "
This is increasing I think .. the old is dying, new is being born.. shit might even start getting 'real' - meant in the sense that people actually speak 'from the heart' and are open to challenge rather than being all 'its like this cuz I say so, now move it move it move it!!' ..
one can only hope... :)
I like this talk, and RD's questions, very good.
@AegeanKing " I have never met an atheist that is not a materialist "
- Good for you... but that doesn't enter the definition of an atheist. Try again.
" the four horseman are widely recognized as the leaders "
- They're high profile.. not leaders.. next?
" Also, I dont consider religion an insult "
- Oh, so you were complimenting atheism?
" atheists are not combating anything "
- Oh? Those against I.D. or the separation of church and state ( among others ) would disagree
It went so well... for a while..! This well spoken and clearly highly intelligent priest comes short, as do they all, when it comes to "prove" the supernatural..! Quoting 2000 years + of written dogma is hardly proof..!
Best discussion I've ever seen between an atheist and a believer.
Atheist = not a theist. It's not a positive statement of anything, but a rejection of the theist's positive statement ("God exists") on the grounds that there is not sufficient evidence. It's not a leap; you can't prove a negative.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.
Beware of sophistry, for it too seems thoughtful, calm and rational.
It doesn't matter how "well spoken" George coyne is, he is wrong, and blatantly. He doesn't back up anything he says. Just twists everything and makes it seems like there is no right or wrong answer.
1:45 This is exactly where the priest loses the plot. When otherwise open-minded religious people resort to "Have I been duped?" or "is somebody trying to trick us?" (as he does) they are resorting to the easiest possibility to refute: that there is intentional malice in their disposition. That somebody was actually trying to trick them and that they are being irrational. This is a very subtle but very deadly flaw in reasoning. Of course it's extremely improbable and unlikely that original religious literature and thought was made by liars. What is more plausible and what they are actually afraid of is that they are simply mistaken. For thousands of years, like the thousands of other religions. This is what actually happened, and is a pretty simple explanation but it is not the first one their minds go to when imagining a possibility when they were wrong, their minds go for the most incredible explanation because it's easier to shoot down automatically.
"What is more plausible and what they are actually afraid of is that they are simply mistaken."
Let's keep it simple. The bible starts with God creating. Show me how I'm "mistaken."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
you would be surprised how many people who are extremely introspective and intelligent. It's just that many self righteous and fanatically people that tend to "stand out" and try to exert themselves with hostility and aggressiveness.
It is refreshing to hear someone like Coyne in comparison. but it is in comparison with others of his argument. Which are generally unagreeable. There is a sentence thats comes to mind that, as a sentence looks and sounds quite daunting.
'Reason from delusion resulting in delusion with reason'.
this is really out of context, but i love hearing the echoes as they talk
Great dialog. I wish that people with opposing views would have more dialogs like this. This is the first time that I've seen Mr. Dawkins be respectful. In other speeches I've seen, he seems no different in his approach than religious fanatics.
So nice to see loser you enjoy losers in this vid too.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
you are absolutely right my friend...
Thats a taking a huge leap of faith in the absence of evidence. Its equivalent to saying something like "I know you are 26 years old" yet I know not one thing about you. What Dawkins is saying is that science provides a way to continue striving for the truths about this world (as in evolution or any investigation of scientific truths), where, making rash statements as such, "the bible is the literal answer to creation", is simply bogus.
This post is referring to
OrdinaryRadical117"s comment.
The catholic man is so right when he says he grew up with tradition. I wish that people like them would realise that that is the thing that indoctrinated them. Dawkins brought this up somewhat.
Religion is nothing more than a comfort blanket for people who are afraid of dying...
I had the sad thought that Channel 4 dropped the interview as to civilezed and not controversial enough.
Why is Geroge Coyne so logical in argument? Because he studies science. Religious folk should use him as a role model.
Agree it is lovely to see that for once. Is it the same who talked to Bill Maher?
Accepted. But the general census of fact is agreement through experience and being able to re- experience under these agreements. Fact is and has to be the foundation of any truth.
To know what is outside any of this is just impossible to know, which refers that you can not discuss, talk or think about such a subject (to call it a subject immediately does this) with any degree of information accurate or not.
Thanks for saying that. I did not mean to jump down your throat with my double question mark.
I do not see it as, "Coyne used some of his resources on religion *instead* of science." I can't speak for Coyne, but I know a lot of religious scientists say that their faith inspires them to be better scientists. The believe they come to know God through a knowledge of his works (i.e. scientific knowledge). That doesn't mean God exists, but I'll take them at their word that their faith inspires.
Father Coyne basically observes the world with both his rationality and emotionality. Both exist in their own league, and should not cross the boarder without necessity. Here's an exmaple. When I learend that our emotion called "love" was just a hormone effect, I was personally very disappointed and after that I couldn't get it off of my head whenever I meet a girl. I was also displeased when I learned the curse of the Egyption King was just a bacterial virus.
George seems to think that if one rejects the church, he or she is juvenile. I would think the reverse is true.
I would think the reverse of that is true
now a guy like Coyne can recruit way more catholics than the guy in the street corner yelling, "your gonna burn in hell if you don't repent"
@JMVOX I think its wrong to think theres no way of knowing the answers, if that was the case no discovery would ever be made because everyone would be thinking like you, "We probably can't know the answer so what's the point in even trying", thats a very wrong way to live your life, surely you must agree with that.
richard dawkins is such a good questioner, halfway through each point the guy made i formed the exact same questions richard dawkins asks him next e g. 2:42. he phrases it much better though of course.
> Such authority depends on who succeeds in earning our trust. The relationship of trust is what justifies the privacy of my beliefs, whether we're addressing my belief in the historical accuracy of the Bible or in the accuracy of conclusions made within environmental science.
@TheSlaight Nope, the fact that he is wrong makes him wrong. He is just a well versed con artist. The religious definition of faith is to ignore evidence, reason and reject any new information. That is what makes him wrong.
If all major faiths are equally valid as the Fr Coyne seems to suggests, then where does that leave the notion of universal truth?
I'm Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. Scientists do not bicker aimlessly about who is correct or whose field is superior. The first thing a scientist will say when you ask him a question outside of his field of expertise is that he is not an expert. He will then try to explain the answer to the best of his understanding (sciences do tend to bleed into each other, but that doesn't make a biologist a chemistry expert) or refer you to someone better qualified to answer your question.
the light went out in the end.. must have been divine intervention!