Richard Dawkins interview with Fr George Coyne

Bottle_of_Smoke

I'm just into the second part of an hour long interview but pretty interesting so far.

This guys a former director of the Vatican Observatory and he seems to believe pretty much everything an atheist does reguarding the history of the universe and animal(including humans) evolution. Very critical of intelligent design and creation. Most interesting about his critiscism of ID is that he explains in detail the motives and how it goes about pretending to be scientific.

He pretty much admits he's an agnostic without directly saying it. He's a devoted Catholic but acknowledges he'd probably be a Muslim if born into a Muslim family. You almost feel he knows he's agnostic but stands by the church out of loyalty

Would like to know what others think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

Fanny Cradock

"I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man sent by God to save us."

We must be watching a different debate because I'm just not getting the agnostic bit. I'd probably be a Muslim if I was born in Iran or wherever. It's not a staggering admission.

::Edit::

I'm on the 5th instalment now, and while there are some deeply fundamental differences between his and my vision of God, I just don't see the where the agnostic thing comes in. That said, he does rather back himself into corners.

pts

I think Fr. Coyne does come across as reasonably close to the definition of an agnostic theist. Which I think is very refreshing. I remember watching his interview in Religulous and thinking that he was the most reasonable theist in the whole film.

If anyone is interested in similar videos I highly recommend the video "How could God have allowed the tsunami?" by Rev. Tom Honey (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html)

Rev. Honey reflects on the Epicurean paradox. He seems to be advocating a non interventionist God, or God nearly being a Synonym for the universe. Reminds me a lot of Spinoza's philosophy on God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Philosophy)

Mickeroo

Yea,he came off looking really well in Religulous. Smart guy.

sink

Finally had time to sit down and watch them all and I must say I have utmost respect for this man and his beliefs. He obviously has some deep religious feeling which is absent in me, but does not try to externalise it like most. It is really only the externalisation of faith that bothers me about some religious believers as it directly conflicts with the naturalist and scientific philosophy.

robindch

Coyne has been popping up here and there for year at this stage. He's a good and decent guy -- there are a lot of religious leaders out there who could learn a lot from him.

PDN

So the guy's an agnostic despite saying "I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man sent by God to save us."

Robin, could you just run that definition of 'Christian' by me one more time?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Robin, could you just run that definition of 'Christian' by me one more time?

"you're a christian if you describe yourself as one".

Are you saying he's not describing himself as one?

philologos

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

He pretty much admits he's an agnostic without directly saying it. He's a devoted Catholic but acknowledges he'd probably be a Muslim if born into a Muslim family. You almost feel he knows he's agnostic but stands by the church out of loyalty

I've seen this footage, but I don't think that this makes him an agnostic because he finds a place for modern science within his Christian beliefs.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Jakkass wrote: »

I've seen this footage, but I don't think that this makes him an agnostic because he finds a place for modern science within his Christian beliefs.

It wasn't that part. For example I know a guy who believes fully in the theory of evolution and all modern science, and that God started the big bang. He also believes he gaves humans souls to get into Heaven and that Jesus is his embodiment. I don't see him as an agnostic, I see him as a Christian.

Fr Coyne's comments on other religious beliefs and possibilities are what make me think he's a Christian agnostic or possibly even a closet agnostic

Zillah

As disappointing and intellectually vapid as ever. The ambiguous obfuspeak* is tiring. Was laughing out loud as he tried to explain the "evidence".

* I just invented a word. It's a mix of "obfuscation" and "speak".

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

* I just invented a word. It's a mix of "obfuscation" and "speak".

Orwell would be proud...nice word although rather difficult to say...

b.o.t.

I don't think the christians posters here are prepared to accept that the priest is obviously tied by certain constraints of his religon and therefore the ambiguity in his replies. There is almost certainly a teeming agnosticism lurking underneath there.

philologos

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Fr Coyne's comments on other religious beliefs and possibilities are what make me think he's a Christian agnostic or possibly even a closet agnostic

Why on earth would he apply to the Vatican if he was an agnostic?

Everyone wants to claim a smart guy as their own I guess

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Why on earth would he apply to the Vatican if he was an agnostic?

Everyone wants to claim a smart guy as their own I guess

He's eloquent, I wouldn't describe him as smart. A smart person would be embarrassed trying to make that case for "evidence".

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote: »

He's eloquent, I wouldn't describe him as smart. A smart person would be embarrassed trying to make that case for "evidence".

That's an interesting statement to justify, you could claim he's deluded or misguided perhaps.
But there's no denying the guy is smart (as in intelligent) and well regarded in his particular scientific discipline.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

He's eloquent, I wouldn't describe him as smart. A smart person would be embarrassed trying to make that case for "evidence".

Evidence by indication is still evidence.

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

Why on earth would he apply to the Vatican if he was an agnostic?

Maybe he changed his mind.

stevejazzx

I actually, for once, think that Zillah is slightly wrong here. I think that Fr. Coyne is a very intelligent man indeed. The one word which best describes his answers during the interview has not been mentioned yet; compartmentalisation. And he has to make some startling disassociations in order for it to work. He wants to keep science and religion completely distinct from one another, non overlapping magisterium as it were.
Now we know that Dawkins is not a fan of this idea but he doesn't challenge him too strongly on it - mostly I imagine out of respect for Father Coyne as a scientist and a moderate. As the interview progresses however it is clear that Father Coyne is going to have more and more truouble in explaining his answers.
He cannot give a proper response to the geographical question, the idea that one is indoctrinated onto the belief system of the place where they are born and therefore disproving any notions of destiny associated with religious belief. Fr. Coyne can only offer a strand of an answer saying that perhaps all religions will eventually unite.
He admits that evolution is the best idea we have to explain life and he believes in 14 billion year old earth but then says that God inspired (he did not dictate) the original writers of scripture and that none of it should be taken literally. What an utterly confusing God.
It his acceptance of science while at the same trying to prevent it from overlapping with religion that ultimately undoes him. The comments that he perhaps harbors an agnostic side come from the fact that he accepts so about modern science and that he really has to place religion on a pedestal outside of all natural explanation. His explanation of God and religion are that we can't explain them.

Handsome Bob

Zillah wrote: »

He's eloquent, I wouldn't describe him as smart. A smart person would be embarrassed trying to make that case for "evidence".

lol, too bad you weren't in the Grand National yesterday because you would of had an awesome chance with those blinkers on. The guy is intelligent, just because you don't agree with what he was saying doesn't mean he's not smart.

philologos

studiorat wrote: »

Maybe he changed his mind.

Hardly if he speaks about Jesus Christ the way he does.

Zillah

Well obviously there are many definitions for what one would consider "smart" or "intelligent". The sense that I am using it is a holistic one; someone who can stammer about culture and belief for forty seconds when asked to provide evidence is not an intelligent person in my book.

nitrogen

I eventually got round to watching this. How could you say that George Coyne is not an intelligent man, just take a look at the scientific papers he has published. Zillah: if the man throw in the collar and became an Atheist, does that then make him intelligent?

He's a very intriguing character and equally as contradictory (Which is why the interview is engrossing). On another level, it just shows how religious people will pick and choose to suit their own view of the world. However a lot of Christians could learn a thing or two from the man. I feel the man does not want to be 100% honest with himself, for fear of knowing that he was fooled for a lot of his life.

He agrees with evolution, but doesn't see homo sapien as an ape, and thinks we are the only species that are rewarded with an afterlife. Fascinating was Dawkins reply, with which he may have meant baffled, and baffled was more my feeling.

robindch

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

This guys a former director of the Vatican Observatory and he seems to believe pretty much everything an atheist does reguarding the history of the universe and animal(including humans) evolution.

Fr George Coyne died on Tuesday at the age of 87:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/science/the-rev-george-c-coyne-dead.html

Shouldn't need to be said, but it does:

George Coyne wrote:

One thing the Bible is not, is a scientific textbook. Scripture is made up of myth, of poetry, of history. But it is simply not teaching science.

Akrasia

robindch wrote: »

Fr George Coyne died on Tuesday at the age of 87:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/science/the-rev-george-c-coyne-dead.html

Shouldn't need to be said, but it does:

He’s not in a better place now, or a worse place.

branie2

The Catholic Church does believe in evolution

branie2

Akrasia wrote: »

He’s not in a better place now, or a worse place.

May he rest in peace