Father George Coyne Interview (3/7) - Richard Dawkins
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 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...
George Coyne is amazing. Clear minded and a great speaker.
Great interview.
It's not just civility, it's that he knows and accepts scientific explanations, shows respect for the beliefs of others, clearly delineates when his statements are based on belief rather than fact, and can just generally hold a reasoned discussion without sermonizing.
Yes, he does have a religious blind spot that he, likely mostly subconsciously, avoids exposing as best as he can--he wouldn't be a believer if he didn't--but if more theists were like him the world would surely be a better place.
David H.
I am an athiest but have a lot of respect for Father Coyen.
I think your comment is exactly right.
Priests should never be lumped into the same boat as protestant and evangelical pastors.
Catholicism and Greek Orthodox still hold the concept that the Greek philosophers are as Justin Martyr called “Christians before Christ” because they employed reason (had access to the Logos).
Many atheists would certainly protest Christianity is not reasonable. But as an ethical philosophy which was called “right Logos” they felt it superior to Aristotle or the Stoics etc. Ethical philosophy can be completely rational with the exception of value claims. So we all if we adopt an ethos make value claims which can’t be categorized as “pure reason”. The often have a priori qualities. For Jesus it was love of others and God. For Aristotle Courage and prudence etc.
The Logos Doctrine idea is dominant in Catholicism and Greek Orthodox religion. In many Protestant denominations the Pauline idea is dominant.
The are actually two contradictory theologies. And historically they were at odds with each other. The Logos doctrine emphasized for the most part allegory and the Pauline literal interpretation (the Marcionists).
Basically the Logos doctrine states that the Logos is Jesus. You can conclude from that Jesus and your religion is the only way, or you can go with the abstract that Reason itself is the only way.
The issue is Logos means more than just reason, it means divine order of the universe.
for a man who has spent his life looking at the stars, this Priest has gained a unique perspective and speaks so wisely and humbly on tricky subjects. great.
Coyne is the brightest Catholic clergyman I've ever seen. Dawkins is being commendably respectable in this interview. This is a refreshing watch.
Wow this is amazing. I love the direction that some of our priests are taking. the church may survive yet. Thank you Fr. Coyne
Dawkins got him on that question. Coyne stated he believed that God works through people, but then when Coyne stated that people 5,000 years ago had no scientific knowledge, they don't know how the creation of the universe started. Dawkins then asked then how do we know when God is speaking through us? Brilliant.
im catholic, and i think he did a great job, I'm a bio major as well, still believe God is real, and he basically was trying to prove, that science and religion don't contradict each other, which he did a very good job, he did not fail to do that.
Wow, you are a bio major, and still think that God is reall- quite dangerous, though! I meant intellectually dangerous. If God is real, then God has to be a female. Biologically speaking, parthenogenesis, only a female can give birth to an offspring asexually. God, a man, gives birth to Jesus, a guy?
By the way, I was an ex Catholic seminarian! I grew out of believing God as real, in the same way, I did not believe Santa Claus was real when I was 7 yrs.
@@thangcao8550 I know a lot of seminarians and even deacons and priests who I know I can take to the cleaners theologically and philosophically. You simply did not understand the God the Church was teaching you about. czcams.com/video/2BQSqHrU7ns/video.html
As a Catholic, it really inspires me when I see an intelligent priest like Father Coyne talking to a non-believer. I can tell from this interview that Richard Dawkins is very humble and polite, as well as Father Coyne.
I'm not a Catholic, but this man is a great mind in our world. I'm not even christian, but I will enjoy listening to him more.
Thank you for posting this video! Whenever I try to talk with secularists, I just end up sounding like a big idiot (which they LOVE to call me any chance they get) because I want to say things similar to this, but the words don't flow nearly as elegantly as Father Coyne's, so it comes out the wrong way, and everyone just gets flustered and pissy...and I'm like "No wait, that's not what I meant!"...I'm just going to refer people to this video from now on! I even respect Dawkins here!
Your Coyne is just a joke like Dawkins. Please stand for God, not for lies. You have the guts to speak up for God and I admire that, but don't get wishy-washy and stand up for losers who don't care about evidence. Use your knowledge of evidence to put down those that speak up against God that has ALL the evidence and losers have NONE.
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.
"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
I grew up Catholic, and the social structure the Church brought was almost like an extended family, at the very least an extended community. I think at our core we are social creatures, and its really hard to move past this, especially in a society that is still very unaccepting of non-believers. Faith was such an important part of my life that even at this point there are a lot of conflicting feelings internally over it, and if not for all the modern day hate I see, I might still believe.
Great interview, thanks for uploading.
I really appreciate this type of thoughtful Catholic theology. It's so much more respectful and respectable than what I often hear from deeply religious people.
You can tell that there is a real respect and hunger for accuracy and truth. Religion needs more of this.
This is typical of Catholic priests
I like how the view count drops steadily from one video to the next in the series haha. Shows how short people's attention span is on CZcams.
It happens with practically every series of anything on here, except for the final part.
What a courteous and coherent man. I'll respect and engage in conversation with anyone like this man.
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.
Funny how this was omitted from the program just like Dawkins debate with Alister McGrath was omitted from the "Root of all Evil"
@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...........
Father Coyne is clearly no idiot. He proves that one does not have to willingly close ones mind to have faith. One does not have to willingly turn off the switch, so to speak, of reason and logic in one's brain. One can value religious tradition, even have faith in god, without degenerating into a pseudo-intellectual fundamentalist. Unlike so many religious leaders and politicians in America in recent years, Father Coyne is a truly great man with a faith that does not impede his judgement.
One of the best ever chats I have heard for the Catholic church thoughts.
So open minded chat.
No, such lies from both of them.
"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.
from 2:41-3:25 in part 1/7: "My position... is that 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... that is, that the whole theory of Darwin modernized with genetic mutation, natural selection, and all that, I think is the best explanation of these origins that I spoke of."
Excellent observation, thank you.
This is not a debate. It's a conversation.
I must admit I am pleasently surprised to see the very fundemental understanding that Father Coyne has. I disagree on some of the finer points, but it proves that there is a legitimate arguement for religion, that is worth debating.
Man, if only most religous persons are more like this man.
Father Coyne is great! Priests like him keep me as a catholic. The press talks a lot about pederasty in priests, but they completely forget the scientists and philosophers among the catholic priests.
Wow.. you contributed...well done....
This is the type of religious person i can truly understand, respect and admire.
Thats the Ad Hoc component of your argument. Its like arguing isn't a tiger the same as a trash bin, and then trying to contrive all sorts of strained analogies in order to make it seem as if a tiger is the same as a trash bin.
I agree. These men are having a discussion, in an extremely civilized manner, that I think most atheists/theists are afraid to ever fall into. If nothing else they are an example of what great men of their fields should be.
He is tailoring his beliefs as the torch of science lights up the evidence.
No, he's showing what a loser he is.
"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.
Superb questions lead to civilized discussions. Well done.
Proof that intelligence transcends points of view, righteousness of opinion and education...
For anyone wondering: this is one hell of a debate!
Coyne is one of very few religious bigwigs I can listen to without getting annoyed. If only all faithheads were this self-aware and thoughtful there would be no need for the new atheism movement.
Never thought I'd enjoy listening to a religious guy talk. This differentiates religious people who are honest, and the preachers who have made it a for-profit business.
he's fairly emphatic earlier in the interview, because he was brought up that way.
Amazing isn't it? Dawkins and the Pope actually agree about something. My respect for Catholic Church goes up and so does my disdain for literalism and fundamentalism whether christian or islamic.
yeah i always used to think "thats strange is it an error in count?" then realized people don't watch videos until the end..
The text (Read it) says . . .We are NOT assuming that a THIRD force [for good or bad] is encapsulated in the works of say, Picasso or Shakespeare.
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.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📚 Father Coyne explains that the Genesis accounts of creation are poetic expressions meant to convey God as the source of all things and not scientific descriptions.
01:28 📖 God's inspiration in scripture is seen as working through fallible humans to provide foundational religious beliefs and traditions.
02:27 🎙️ Pope John Paul II's statement in 1996 acknowledged the convergence of scientific disciplines on the best explanation of evolution, but some found it delayed and not surprising.
05:21 💡 Intelligent design attempts to use science to establish philosophical and theological implications, but it is criticized for seeking gaps in scientific understanding and stepping outside the scientific method.
08:14 🕊️ Father Coyne believes intelligent design creates a false notion of God as an engineer constantly intervening in the universe, which is not consistent with his own beliefs.
I used to be a Catholic, however, this priest reminded me of the superiority of Catholicism over the other 'Abrahamic religions', (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) Of course, Christianity and Catholicism are two sides of the same coin, however, the latter is much more progressive than the former. Anyway, I love Father Coyne, he's just great. And yes folks, that's coming from an atheist...
I took on board Evolution 15-20 years ago. I used to agree that this process enveloped by that word.... was free standing on it's own merit. Although, as I believed in God i felt it was possible he started it all and then it continued on by itself...and here we are. Not any more. The cascading, layering levels of complexity, which grows every day as our knowledge digs below the surface as we don't know much, tells me there is something very weired going on: always, all the time, everywhere.
for their own existence. The are dependent on external entities to explain how and why they are the way they are. So for instance, the reason why there the Earth is able to support life is because of the fact that it is positioned a certain distance away from the Sun, allowing it to be not too cold, and too hot, and because when the Sun's rays enter the Earth, they are absorbed by plants, who store the energy they receive in the process of photosynthesis. Because of the fact that the(continued)
to all this hate comment's authors, fighting and insulting each other: learn from these two men you are watching, what a pleasure to watch educated, polite and intelligent people discussing, even though their points of view to a greater extent are completely opposite. !
From 8:50 towards the end of Father Coyne is my main problem with intelligent design as well, why would a God have to constantly improve or engineer an area he/she has already created, when they already have the position of being a God...thus defeating the pure notion and definition of what a "God" is supposed to be...absolute perfection.
Darwin's Doubt has not been publish at the time of this interview.
I am a Musliam and I respect Mr. George Coyne with my differences arising from my personal history.
Matthew Parris(Atheist) in the Times. '...... The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall....!'
@HistorySkeptic no, it's proof that certain people THINK. This man manifests a grasp of a context which far supercedes your mockery. If for nothing else, why class a well spoken, thoughtful, and very courteous gentleman as a psychologically unstable individual? This is one of the more sane conversations I've seen Richard Dawkins involved in.
IE..'This Nature study takes Kern's research to the next level, seeing the high-resolution structure of the hidden, high-energy state for the first time....But it was thanks to some clever protein design together with dynamic NMR that hidden structures in the high-energy state are in fact essential for catalysis. Basically, all the steps need to be choreographed just right, like steps for a beautiful dancer. An enzyme can only function well with the perfect choreography of all the components."
from 4:06-4:46 in this part (3/7): "[Pope John Paul II] said, the point is there is... a convergence here to this best scientific explanation, the theory of evolution -- there is a convergence among many very significant disciplines: geology, paleontology, molecular biology, cosmology, astrophysics -- that they all converge -- with many differences... that the best scientific explanation from all of these disciplines together was evolution."
I like George. I dont agree with his point of view on religious matters, but he generally has his feet on the ground scientifically speaking.
I really like his answers but started to hear the Batimorese and sure enough Hon, he's from Baltemore Merlin and watches dem Owh's on the TV. Makes me homesick.
nothing because it would contain within itself pure being itself. And this isn't just "making stuff up". This is what philosophers would call an "a posteriori argument"(argument from observation)..................
Each rung on the DNA ladder, 3 billion of them, are generic using either G/A/C/T by the way
Why? There have been many prominent priests that have been scientists. Look at Father George Lemaitre and Gregor Mendel for example............
My fave is always'Turn It On Again'!!
My sentiments exactly. He is harmless (I think), and he was not in the least bit condescending towards Dawkins. I feel he sees relgion as a very personal belief, and seems to respect others beliefs or lack there of.
@Skippa1986 Did you miss the part where they talked about POPE John Paul II.?
You are right!
Contrary to Dawkins, Coyne clearly distinguishes the different »orders« (in Pascal's language) of science and religion.
He did not say that *science* started in the 17th Century...he said that MODERN science started around that time.
@smawshot I meant Wendy Wright. Search in youtube, or just look on the side suggestions, it's the blonde lady.
@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.
I'm with science, always. And I don't think there is a contradiction between science and religion. I just think we just can't understand how the two can actually get along pretty well and, hopefully, one day, one can explain the other.
@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
I love this guy
Judging from your first sentence, people are too busy blaming each others to do anything themselves. Now, I spend a lot of time making fun of people and spreading nasty rumours about them (even if not true) but I don't ever tend to ever blame other people for circumstances, except if it gives me profit. The only person worth to blame for free is yourself when you're not doing anything about the circumstances you disapprove of. How else would I get things done than by kicking myself in the ass?
@FelG1022 Yes, I know that Catholicism is a 'Christian thing'. However, there are differences between those that call themselves Catholics and those that call themselves Christians (although they both belong to the same religion). I stated this in my comment. And no, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. My point, was to illustrate that the Catholic church embraces science (like evolution and an old Earth/universe), while 'Christians' don't (many take the bible literally).
Thank you for replying. I have never been religious, but I know what you're talking about. Sure, religion brings people together, but at the same time, isolates the whole community from other communities. I sometimes experience it myself. Religious people are often suspicious with me when I reply to their question "Do you believe in God?". As if I could brake the ten commandments anytime, because "nothing is keeping me from doing so".
Why is the fault with schooling, rather than with individual teachers, who compose the schooling?
@HistorySkeptic It is not manipulation, it is representation of belief. Faith is personal, and in essence different from religion. Faith is the representation of a sense of purpose, something one believes fundamentally to be true, and does not apply directly to scientific reasoning or knowledge.
Curiosity is one the best attributes of humankind, perhps the one that distinguishes us the most, and it is not impeded by genuine belief in any way.
@obdami
I completely agree with your low esteem of all three televangelists. I think they did more damage to Christianity than Marx ever could.
The Catholic priests are highly educated men in theology, philosophy and science. The televangelists are simply con-men raking in donations from believers.
I believe that if more Christians were like Father George Coyne, the world would be a much better place.
Much respect for this man for holding such an intelligent and civil discussion with Richard Dawkins.
I think you guys are being too hard on the priest. He's doesn't think the bible is a history book or a science book. There are two mysteries in the world; the how and the why. Science is the approach we take to explain the how, and the religious traditions are a way of exploring (not explaining) the why. This is a great conversation between two people who see the world in very different ways.
Dawkins words cut like a knife through hot water
He's a loser along with Coyne.
"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.
@@2fast2blockhaha what a waste of words
yep, just thinking same thing
There is a difference between just picking and choosing based on his own discretion, and picking and choosing based on his own discretion AND claim that to be absolute truth.
I have no problem between someone picking as choosing something that does not affect me, and someone picking and choosing and claim that it is absolute truth, AND try to impose that on everyone else.
Thats outrageous.
Absolutely agreed. It seems that many people across the world are able to reconcile their religion with science.
The problem with this type of worldly patient approach is that the theologian assumes to know so much that is not available to him. His talk is full of very reasonably put phrases like, "What they meant by that," or "They naturally assumed," or "Gods purpose clearly was," Assuming a knowledge of the unknowable is also 'God of the gaps' stuff.
In actual fact it depends entirely on the religious individuals belief/faith concerning the origins of man, the universe, and whether the teachings of the various monotheistic religions as per the approved canons, are to be considered "true".
The overlap occurs here, where science offers a far better explanation for the existence of man, the universe, and by implication for the moral teachings of society.
You are quite right though. The religion isn't explanation, it's speculation.
As a theist its quiet refreshing to have a religious person making logical points and not making a fool of themselves or trying to enforce there view
Yes i did say God is the "Ground of all being". Because that is how he has been traditionally described from a monotheistic perspective, whether you read the writings of Augustine, or Aquinas, or Maimonides, or Avicenna and Al Ghazali. Fairies are not described as "the ground of all beings". Fairies are traditionally known as little elf like creatures with wings, and a wand that can grant you a certain amount of wishes(continued)
I should´ve clarified it better perhaps. The church is rather economically progressive, but extremely socially conservative, including JPII. Look it up.
From science Magazine online: '....."Cells cleverly separate the most active genes into their own special neighborhood, to make it easier for proteins and other regulators to reach them," says Job Dekker, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular pharmacology at UMass Medical School and a senior author of the Science paper.
God Cleverly!
Wise comments on Evolution (acceptance of) and the Intelligent Design movement (rejection of).
I must say I do like Father George Coyne. It just depresses me a little when he says "I firmly believe..." and then says a lot of things that he can't possibly know or prove, and which he has the sense not to even try to justify.
1:25 to 1:40 that is where it all falls apart.
What a cool guy Father Coyne is. He's like a kindly Grandfather. Of course, I think he's totally wrong when it comes to religion, but how refreshing it is to have a religious, yet rationale man, as opposed to a Pat Robertson or Oral Roberts or Jerry Falwell.
What Father Coyne is saying is music to my ears. I wish half the christians were half as enlightened as he is
RD: Omg! this man is almost convincing me, guess what he would do to a layman.
I take your point. We do the same with the works of Beethoven and even concrete objects like a painting by Picasso. However what we are trying to do is to understand the artists intentions based on a first hand concrete examples. We are not assuming evidence of a third force for malignancy or good (Though some weirdoes do) or supernatural messages for us to interpret and present as factual proof of the existence of some god or other. Vastly different I think?
@HistorySkeptic
"what isn't worth doing, isn't worth doing well."
Very well said, Sir!
His mumbling about the "days of Creation" mixed up with his correct attitude about evolution has the taste of Coca-Cola mixed with garlic sauce.
Painfullywitty: I don't think Genesis 1 is poetic. I think the second account of the creation is in Ge. It is becoming increasingly clear that Gen 1 is a 'to the point' description in chronological order.
Enough to render the issue of the authorship of the universe a milk issue when Ge 1 is viewed along with all the other 'physical world' statements.
@echalko The scriptures aren't speaking about science. As Coyne points out, the modern sciences didn't even come until 1500 years later. So to think the scriptures are scientific is to make a fundamental category error regarding genre. Just because they're not scientific doesn't mean they're wrong about biology.
The problem is the word 'Science'. The general population believes the word Science is to do with describing the physical world. Science actually means
the physical world description produced by means of rational hypothesis testing.
or the one who brought the cause to light.
If Mr Dawkins was showing as much respect every time he speaks about religion, that would be pretty cool too.
@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.
How can George say he doesn't believe in the interfering God described in The Bible?! Yet he stated he believed the story of Jesus, which is the ultimate case of God interfering in a world he deemed to be erroneous.
He claims the church is too behind in 'judging' and accepting science. Despite having an astronomer, The Vatican still thinks science is something you ignore or discourage until you're FORCED to accept new truths, hence why they fired George Coyne for his stance in evolution.