Father George Coyne Interview (5/7) - Richard Dawkins
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 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...
Amazing interview, both Coyne and Dawkins reveal what wonderful human beings they are without acrimony. An example to both deists and non-deists alike on how to have discourse and maintain respect for the other's position. It should have been a TV programme in its own right.
Agree. Like Cosmos, it would be great to have a program on open civil discussions with an open mind - what we know and what we are trying to know as well as we may or may not ever know. That would be brilliant.
They're just losers, is all.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... czcams.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/video.html
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.
George Coyne and Richard Dawkins gave us a reminder that in despite of all the negativity that humanity might of had in her history, there will always be good people with strong intellect.
If only all Catholics took a page out of George Coynes book. Fascinating individual
Theres over 1 billion Catholics of varying intellect in the world Fr Coyne is a very intelligent man so to think that all Catholics should be able to think at his level is absurd ..
I think Pope Francis did.
only christian are extreme. aint catholic
As an atheist, i really love to hear the coherent and fairly sensical arguments from george. He is truly honest and open minded.
No, he is a loser like you are.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... czcams.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/video.html
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.
Regardless if you "believe" in a God or not, Father Coyne comes across as a very intelligent, thoughtful and respectful person. As he continues to emphasize, science is science and religion is a belief. They are not the same. Father Coyne is one of the very few religious authorities who speaks openly and honestly. He is very refreshing in that sense.
Totally! After this interview, my view of Dawkins is gotten better. What an awesome interview!
There is nothing more gratifying than watching two educated people interact. Showing total respect for each other even if they have opposing views on the subject matter. Total admiration for Richard Dawkins and profound respect for Father George.
Such an exceptional person speaking clearly in response to the questioning of Dawkins. God is Love, the love we have for each other and the love we seek to show and to have.
I'm astounded, and have totally changed my mind about Richard Dawkins. I always saw him as someone who would argue science the way people argue religion - kind of in your face and ridiculing people, "proving things" and science being the ultimate truth. I'm completely turned around by this conversation, and in my eyes he grew so much as an individual.
In fact, I'm so deeply moved by this conversation, and the respect these two individuals show each other, I'm at a loss for words.
1:14 what an incredibly beautiful thought. I'm an atheist but this really moved me.
You’re not atheist
Coyne: 'I'm being very preachy, I admit'
Dawkins: 'you're being totally fascinating, I assure you'
Me: *belly laugh*
I agree with Richard, Coyne is a gem
Yeah, one loser admiring the other loser.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... czcams.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/video.html
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.
Richard Dawkins is such a nice person I think. When he says at 3:50 "You're being totally fascinating, I assure you." I just love it. Don't get me wrong, I know he gets really blunt with his confrontation of religious fundamentalists. But I think he truly cares about humanity and what we believe. He seeks truth. He cares about what children are taught. He values his knowledge and he works so hard to share his investigations. I realize he's making money from it, but he is genuinely wise.
This was a wonderful conversation.
Father Coyne is great! Please, God, send to us more priests like him!
BEST QUOTE EVER:
"This is religious faith, Richard. And I can't pretend that I can prove it to anyone, because if I did, it would not be religious faith."
This is why I get frustrated with atheists who think that the burden of proof is with theists. Why the hell should I prove it? Faith is subjective. To prove that God exists is like proving that love exists. I've found evidence within myself in the existence of both of those things. It's a matter of FAITH.
Faith in a God is giving you by the way you grow up, you were born not with a believe in a God. If you were born in Saudi, you were a Muslim, simple. Believers claim they know were we all coming from, science not, they want facts an proof, not revelations. That's why religion people has to proof there is a God not the scientists. Science never say there is no God, they simply don't know, but if believers claim that, they want proof...
Antonius vd Klis
And when I say that I believe in God, I'm not saying that I KNOW God exists. When it comes to religious faith, the whole point is believing. When it comes to science, the whole point is knowing.
Believing does not equal knowing.
butterscotchwm
Everybody can believe in a God, nothing against it, as long the believers give also freedom off speech, freedom off believe and don't try to gain power because they believe in a God...
Antonius vd Klis
I couldn't agree with you more :)
You are so clueless and arrogant. You are now Exhibit A of the willfull blindness of unbelievers. Dawkins said that even if all evidence was against evolution , he still wouldn't believe in creation or GOD. You and he are dead to GOD. TRue believers have solid evidence and know GOD because we have been forgiven and changed and now we experience GOD everyday while you remain in willfull ignorance. You totally deserve hell because you want self rule and self glory, IOW you want to be GOD
"MMMMMmmmm...do you have any easy questions?" I love this guy! I don't agree with him but he is SO honest and that is not typical of religious people.
"you're being totally fascinating, I assure you!"
lmao.
Man, what a reasonable, charitable dude.
I cannot express in words how cool I find this dialogue!
"I don't need God!"
Dawkins: "Go on, go on!"
:)
3:45
"Now I'm getting pretty preachy, I must admit--"
"You're being totally fascinating, I assure you"
Dawkins seems like he's truly enjoying the conversation. Coyne seems like a very reasonable person. I thought Dawkins would only target charlatans or delusional people... Kudos Dawkins
i appreciate Father Coyne's honesty at any rate. He accepts that his reasons for believing aren't based on anything to do with "reason" and are irrational in that sense. Hence his reasoning on miracles and beliefs of other religions, and his reasoning on god in general is specious.
Richard Dawkins is so amazing on so many levels. I like Coyne here too, but omg, the question about miracles just totally dismantled the whole web of nonsense. One thing is clear: humans are absolute experts at sheer imagination and self deception.
They're both losers.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... czcams.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/video.html
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.
sincere and nice man. what a dichotomy within there must be. especially in light of the fact that he calls himself a scientist. he is certainly one of a kind.
evolution does explain that, in order for the species to effectively survive it is necessary to help the other orgamisms, as only by doing so would it continue to survive. its like mothers looking after their children or crocodiles allowing birds to clean their teeth.
also, homo sapiens specialised in trades, such as tool making and hunting. it was more effective for them to specialise and trade goods than do it all themselves.
If you actually listen to what he's saying, he's far from an atheist. He has REAL faith. He doesn't follow one doctrine or someone else's faith, he has created and follows his own. That's what faith is - something you've created for yourself. Something you believe in.
Agreed. Whether you believe in God/Religion or no, there are some extremely smart and voluble clergy out there. And they are a pleasure to listen to.
Outstanding questions, earnest answers, civilized discussion. Well done.
as a non-theist i have to recognize this priest deserves my respect, as remarkable as he sounds though, he fails to give logical explanations to his beliefs, like the rest of people of faith
I have never seen Dawkins saying "I cannot disprove the existence of god based on what you said" as well as I have also never seen a priest saying "I don't need god !" Very interesting conversation
I love that Father Coyne admits that he's being inconsistent. That is a huge rarity in the religious population.
this is by far the best discussion between an atheist and a religious person I have seen.
A religious person who actually debates religion in a way that I like and respect. This is great.
07:40 Don't push me(laughing) 09:26 enters into crisis
This is such an important point to be made in this day and age. If those of us who believe in God rely on the inability of science to explain what we see around us to justify our faith, then God will fade away bit by bit as science progresses.
Instead, we must acknowledge that God serves a greater purpose even than understanding.
just the way it should always be in this sort of discussions.
Father George does a wonderful job highlighting personal experience behind the perspective of faith,,,,formatting the faith...regardless of whether real evidence of God or the persistent lack of evidence.
this is the most intelligent discussion ive ever heard they arnt forcing their beliefs on each other they are just discussing
Fascinating interview.
No, just two losers.
"The best scientific explanation we have, of the origin of the universe and everything in the universe, including all living systems, and ourselves, is by what I call neo-Darwinian evolution."
Father Coyne at 2:40 in this video... czcams.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/video.html
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.
Haha, i like your analogy. It reminds me of a quote by Gloria Steinem, who said "it's an incredible con job, when you think about it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations, with all their reward systems, don't try to make it posthumus!
"It puts me in an embarrassing position as a scientist" -- Father George Coyne.
what a great conversation
My eyes hurt from looking at the computer. Let me respond to what you said tomorrow. Peace to you, brother.
A great discussion, between two great people. Very stimulating and refreshing! I find myself wanting to comment after every part about how great it is.
Thank god for open-mindedness! ;)
@thevoice81111 because that is what he has been doing for a long time, because he is good at it, because he has a reputation to uphold.
I don't agree with George, but this interview made me respect him. I wish those who were religious were like him.
I don't see how this guy's religious conviction is consistent. He keeps saying "sure we don't need God for this, we don't need a God for that" but there is still a God in there somewhere but it's going further and further away.
We don't need God. He's saying he chooses God, the God of love.
I generally do no like listen to religious people's ignorance, but I have to say that Father George Coyne is a pleasure to listen to, even when he is religious and I am an atheist. He's intelligent and expresses his thoughts very well, kind of like Dawkins.
very impressed by this interview
or they say RIGHT or NOW before every sentence (particularly funny if it starts with the same word)
thanks for uploading :)
I agree. And, someone said on the previous video that Dawkins should interview more priests, which I agree with. I mean, if they had a conversation like this--calm, respectful, even affectionate. I just enjoy this kind of conversation much more than debates, because Father Coyne is being EMOTIONALLY honest. That's an important part of this discussion that is lacking in the debates, in my opinion.
well this is a breath of fresh air.. no let me correct myself: its a half breath of fresh air
Father, I respect your honesty and I understand your situation. It is very brave to be doing this debate. I think that our assumptions and our logic are conditional to our environment. I am a number 6 on the Dawkins scale.
See this is the kind of interview I want to see Richard Dawkins in. Him and a person of religion talking intelligently. They aren't trying one up each other they're talking to each other respectfully. I'm a Christian and I wish there were more Christian figures like Father Coyne out there.
I remember what einstein said, "things that count can't be counted, but things that can be counted don't necessarily count". Great man
yep, humans that respect each other try to copy each other to a surprising extent research has shown.
08:05 The God of Love that created children with cancer and thousands of ilnesses
Really enjoying this discussion. Coyne strikes me as a very intelligent and honest man. He deserves to come to his senses and lose the unfortunate braking block to his mind that is his Catholic faith.
well his quote "you will either get it or wont get it" made me lose all respect for him purely because that quote should be an argument against religion
Fr. Coyne need not be embarrassed by miracles. Keith Ward has a good exposition on the nature of miracles.
Hilarious! "You are being totally fascinating, I assure you."
The way you have phrased your argument is the way in which Dawkins does, and Coyne answers this very clearly.
He was not 'forced' to 'adopt' his Catholic theology, no one can be forced into a 'faith' or else it wouldn't be a true belief.
He sought God and found a relationship of truth and love, regardless of his history.
The fact it is Christianity is due to his history, but not the relationship..
You can not argue with this, science will never explain faith and this is the big 'problem'.
This is so fascinating, he pretty much admits there is no evidence and that he only somehow feels there has to be a god... he doesn't explain why and perhaps, if he examined these feelings, he would realize they are incredibly irrational. However, all-in-all he is a decent human being and that is so rare these days. I respect that.
Just a side note regarding the virgin birth. Richard poses the question that if George was born into Islam, then naturally he wouldn't believe in the virgin birth, to which he agrees. In fact, the Islamic faith also believe that the prophet Issa (Jesus) was born the virgin Miriam (Mary), so they are both mistaken in this issue.
@hicks727 "he can not support his religion"
I think he was saying "don't push me" because he doesn't believe in certain things he's supposed to and he didn't want to let that slip.
Best. Preacher. Ever.
I don't think religious would bother me nearly at all were they more like this man.
notice when George says "ok" with a type of question like tone.
that's where you notice he's talking about something he's almost sure that Dawkins wont believe, it's almost as if you can pin point the self doubts that George has about the whole thing.
"You're being so fascinating, I assure. "
After that Richard put a question about virgin birth.
Actually, the virgin birth of Jesus is in the Q'uran! Muslims do believe that Jesus was born from a virgin (Mary) and that Jesus did not have a human father. Muslims do love Mary and Jesus very much. That wasn't a good example...
However, the interview was fascinating and their interaction delightful, both of which are rare on debates between believers and non-believers.
I just commented this. It's very strange that Dawkins doesnt know this??
So, the one gap that Coyne clings to is the brain and emotions. We don't fully understand emotions and how the brain works. Love chiefly.
Coyne admits not only that dissonance is required to believe in god, but that dissonance itself IS the religious experience.
And yes for the most part choice is an illusion.... can you choose to be faster? brighter? more attractive? no...thats obviously not available to you... you can only choose things that are within your remit and capability.
But a I said... If you want to go on thinking that you are somehow special then don't let me get in the way. But when in 20 years time you are surrounded by people who all have an awareness you don't then remember it was your 'choice' to opt out. Take consolation in that!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🌌 Dawkins reflects on how science explains complex phenomena from simple beginnings, making God seem increasingly superfluous.
02:29 🌌 Father Coyne views God as superfluous in explaining natural phenomena and emphasizes God's primary role as a God of love.
05:26 🕳️ Both scientists believe science may not have all the final answers, leading to a sense of mystery and excitement.
06:24 🧙 Coyne admits belief in miracles, such as the virgin birth and resurrection, as God's free intervention for salvation, although they seem inconsistent with scientific explanations.
08:22 🕌 Dawkins questions the reconciliation of faith traditions and beliefs based on cultural upbringing, highlighting the subjective nature of religious beliefs.
There's an inaccuracy towards the end. Both Coyne and Dawkins seem to think that Muslims don't believe in the virgin birth, but the fact is, they do. Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet, and that he was born of the virgin Mary.
really, what a brilliant man. can you imagine what the world would be like if all believers had his outlook?
It's not just about politics or law, it's about what we teach kids in school and abortion issues and gay rights. This isn't about science. It's about religion. Science happens to be a nice way to critically think about the world, but it isn't the only reason why people are atheist. It's also social matters.
WOW...I'm all man and not religeous but that is the most beautiful old catholic man I have ever witnessed.
Wow 2 amazing minds.
Yes, I know my university physics.
You have to take into account the potential energy in the system and if the system is fed with energy from outside. Only the total entropy in an isolated system will always increase.
Example:
Jack makes a snowman. He even puts it a carrot nose. The snowman is a decrease in entropy. But the total entropy has increased. Why?
Jack couldn't have done it without the hamburgers he ate earlier. Out fat Jack has also put up a sweat (maybe he should eat more carrots).
what I find strange is that the catholic church take one verse of the bible (Matthew 16:18) taken totally out of context by the way, on which they base their entire doctrineof apostolic succesion. While at the same time ignoring dozens of verses concerning the creation of the world. And then say that this doesn't affect catholic doctrine in any way.
There is rich diversity across and also within religious traditions, but there is also much that is shared as comparative religious studies show.
I enjoy listening to george quite alot, He's rather rational and i admire that in a deeply religious man.
I think father Coyne is not hypocritical but he sure has a very peculiar and unique position (at least I had never encountered before a priest who thought like him). He also seems to struggle to articulate his opinions maybe because it is so subtle or maybe because he is being careful not to contradict doctrine.
If this video is full and uncut, why are there cuts?
My faith is disturbed.
If there’s a crater , is our brain to created , that’s why I’m calling all the people’s god , because each of us carry our god , this explanation gives more value to humanity.
"A close friend, carl sagan... " 9:39
How awesome would it be to be able to say that...
@UnitedKingdomify No, I am not removing the mother from the scenario. I'm not saying, "Protect the fetus instead of the mother." I'm saying, do everything you can to save both lives. But you cannot privilege the life of the mother over the life of the fetus.
"if we can't assume that people are what they label themselves as, then we really can't know anything" Well thats the issue : we always have a good reason to doubt yet doubt stimulates understanding and the capacity to listen. The whole logical and scientifical debate about religion is quite uninteresting because both views can hold their ground. However switching from a formal debate to a discussion on human nature, personal experience and politics to me is a much more open area!
I had to smile when Richard said "You're being particularly fascinating I assure" :) @3:46
This man may be who was the closest one to convert me. Almost. Asymptotically. LOL.
When you realize that once you die you will never again exist in the present form, or any other, and that your consciousness will simply shut down never to be turned on again, you might get an overwhelming feeling of sadness but it is better then to blindly believe in ancient books. It is better to face the truth and retain your sanity than to give in to delusion in order to obtain comfort.
Right you are on faith. There is always a need of someone to tell that that is the best way to choose and it mainly ends with an explanation with: ...and you will be rewarded to be by His side. This represents the image of a seal and his trainer. By a good deed it gets a fish, so here is the same things. Even worse maybe, because "the fish" is promised, but never given.
all of you calling this catholic priest "deist" just have never talked to an intelligent catholic person before, and dont know how to respond to how well he is handling this interview.
Despite what evidence? His whole argument was that God is not god of explanation but of love. He was extremely rational and had the foresight to see faith as not something to be proven but to be believed.
I don't know why Dawkins is perceived as militant He's far too polite in the face of faith based belief.
Too polite? Or maybe he's just open minded?
If you ask me, faith based belief is the only kind of belief. You either believe things out of faith, or you know them to be truth based off of proven scientific evidence.
butterscotchwm Not true. Science doesn't conflict with faith. Evil men interpret science in agreement with their own naturalistic worldview. Evolution is assumed because of worldview not because of observable repeatable or testable evidence, which BTW is the only kind that counts in science
He's interviewing someone, not on a stage as part of an act/pushing his own views. Same with Coyne.
I disagree, he makes it very clear that he believes God is superfluous, he doesn't need God.
He feels God's love for him on a personal level and can not deny it.
I think this gentlemen obviously has great scientific studies and from his knowledge can see where his God fits in.
I think he is not ignorant to science, accepts discovery and is very rational.
@MumblingMickey
"give him a grand general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is 'the results of modern investigation.' "
- Uncle Screwtape (Screwtape letters by CS Lewis)
I know... He is one rare person that have real faith.
Faith: believing something without any evidence.
Lots of believers believe that their is evidence for a god... At least this guy is intelligent enough to understand that there is none, that's why he is closer to atheism than fundamentalism. He believe ONLY because he want to believe and that is not a path to the truth... That's the only difference between him and me, I prefer to seek truth instead of blinding myself.
Carl and George were very good friends