we are happy that you are inspired by the load of knowledge that has been shared and your mind came to the conclusion that this is the most impressive fact. You Sir are a figurehead of the modern intellectual society.
"I see no good reason why the views contained in this volume should shock the religious beliefs of anyone"- "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble"--Charles Darwin Darwin would never stop throwing up if he heard Dawkins support himth-cam.com/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/w-d-xo.html
As-Salamu Alaikum. Peace and blessings of God to all mankind, the children of our father Adam (as) and our mother Eve (as). Dear brothers and sisters, I have a message for you. I would appreciate it if you read it. If you are 20 people, and only 1 of them is on the right path while the other 19 are misguided, and they do not listen to that 1 person but rather get angry at him, that 1 person stays quiet. This will not make those 19 people right; they will still remain wrong. Therefore, the truth is known to the one who listens and accepts the best of what they say, who protects himself from the evil in his heart, and who welcomes good things. The majority of people in this world are misguided, chasing their desires and negligent of God. If you follow these misguided people, you will not harm God in any way; rather, you will end up hurting yourself. The life of this world is just a blink of an eye, and the true home is the hereafter, where we have to live forever. Therefore, those who consider this world to be everything will make you heedless of the hereafter, and you will suffer a great loss. So, brothers, do not follow those who are heedless of their hereafter and are chasing their desires. These people will be ruined on the Day of Judgment, and they will also ruin your hereafter. Brothers, save yourselves from the regret of that Day when a person will wish to return to the world just once more, to believe in God and perform good deeds. But what can be done now when the bird has already eaten the crop?
Materialism and imperialism have led people to destruction in the last century. It is not possible to be happy with material gain alone. Human nature, by nature, exists with peace, family ties, love, respect, faith and cooperation. Atheism drags people into emptiness, and the thought of disappearing after death makes people sad. People are filled with the feeling of eternal existence. A believer will attain eternal heaven in return for his good deeds.❤❤
@@arthurraleigh5812 The funny thing about video's like this is, we don't have to watch them to get it. The content is the conversation. I would complain about the camera if it were an action movie.
This might be my new favorite atheist - theist conversation or debate, Father George has a really interesting perspective on his religion and a great ability to present it. Thank you for posting.
@@bruha321 You have clearly studied the Bible, but like this priest, have not understood what it really says. Oh well, this priest also makes fun of his own religion, apparently you can just remain a priest, that's democratic of course.
I agree, I’m encouraged and blown away by this conversation, the respect both men show each other, and the openness to forgetting about dogma. Brilliant
I often have trouble getting to sleep. For years I have turned to this conversation to soothe me into slumber. The good nature of the conversation, the dulcet tones of father Coyne, the mutual respect shown at all times. It just relaxes me.
Sensible??? A believer in the jesus myth. That some uncreated god rules the universe. A corpus of superstitious beliefs that exists without evidence. Look, the guy has found his niche in the catholic bureaucracy, and he's using the hard-won scientific findings done by others to bolster his indoctrinated views. He accepts science as a valid method, but then refuses to apply the findings of science to his own beliefs. And, beginning at 9:53 , it becomes clear he does not understand what "evidence" really means - i.e., he accepts "traditions' as evidence. He then rambles on to "coherence". All along, Dawkins is courteous in alluding to the inconsistencies in this approach. Sensible? Really???
The priest seems to have managed to compartmentalise the two sides of his belief system. He asks far less in the standard of proof and evidence for his religious side than he ever would as a scientist. This split personality seems like it came from being unable to abandon his upbringing. He is comforted by belief in a God. Dawkins was REALLY patient.
Richard Dawkins, thank you for all you have done throughout your career. I have been inspired and influenced by your books and talks. This interview with Father George Coyne was particularly fascinating.
The Bible is not so difficult that readers can agree to disagree on the reality of the doubting Thomas story and still come up with the same 'big picture', one is a guide about the future of this earth and the fictional version is a long novel from the fiction section. The spoiler version is to read Ge:1-2 and Re:20-22 as a summation of the past and a peek into how things 'turn out in the end'. The 'series' version uses Ge:3:15 as the 'Pilot' and Re:12 as the divider of events associated with each of two bruises. As you go through the rest of the book, you get to decide which bruise the prophecy belongs to. When that is completed, you have an idea of what the final scene is promoting. The big picture is part of many big pictures that fits together into an animation with a timeline.
Me, as a lifelong atheist, find myself very respectful of this priest, his thinking, like he said, not being incompatible with his faith, and it is a very solid but humble faith. I obviously don't agree with him but I didn't feel anger or resentment towards him at any point, and that's rare
he's a crafty Catholic.. trying to seem " moderate" but underlying it all he is an Evil man who believes that unbelievers are tormented in hellfire for eternity
I was hoping the topic of "hell" was going to be discussed. If George would have said he believes in hell it would have looked really bad to me. He did say "original sin" which seems like nonsense to me. But... This was one of the most level-headed conversations between an atheist and a theist that I have ever heard. Father Coyne seems much more grounded in reality than most of the American theists that I have the displeasure of hearing on a much too regular basis. Here in America, many Christians are offensive in the extreme, with all their science denial and "everybody who doesn't believe our story is going to hell" crap. I enjoyed this conversation.
Jesus said hall was a place of eternal fire. But an eternity of torture is an embarrassment for Christians. Of course they don't want to discuss it. My guess is they made an agreement not to bring it up.
This is a great conversation. With all due respect to Father Coyne, some of these explanations are great examples of the mind bending without evidence that is required to answer the question. It also seems to confirm to me that the more science advances, the more religion is forced to retreat until there ends up being no dragon at all in the garage. Excellent chat and enjoyed it very much.
This struggle of ex-believers fascinates me enormously - because I never had access to this kind of thinking. My parents were both moderately religious. I went to church and my parents read children's books of the bible stories to me, along with Homer and other mythologies. But it never occured to me, that the adults are taking all this serious. To me it was like all other fairy tales I read. I found Homer moderately interesting, some stories of the Bible ok, but more on the boring side, the few Hindu fairy tales about gods I found somewhat confusing, but also interesting. I loved elaborate fairy tales from Hauff, Tiek or E.T.A. Hoffmann. Same with Santa Claus. I enjoyed the Christmas spririt. But not even as a small child I believed that Santa was real. More than that: I was absolutely not aware anyone did. When I found out that people really believed these god or Santa stories, at the age of 7, I immediately became consciously an atheist. Now I'm 63 and still struggle to grasp how it's possible to believe in gods, fairies and the Easter Bunny. And sometimes I think I'm missing something. What I most wonder about in this discussion: Of the thousands of gods people invented, why exactly this one. The one whose holy book is so full of atrocities, nonsense and contradictions. And it makes me a bit sad to see how this obviously nice, intelligent and knowledgable man make all these mental contortions to talk about a - to me obvious - fairy tale.
At one level the Bible is a collection of human stories dating from the oral tradition, through the bronze and iron ages up to the doorstep of the age of reason. At another level the Bible as the autobigraphy of humans' psychological journey from animal awareness to human awareness, as we develop conscious ethics through the personal and cultural traumas that stimulate growth. At another level the Bible is the assertion that consciousness and free will exist, that it is creative and that we carry that in us. It is even more than this, but just the first two make it a very important set of documents, and the third is a significant antidote to philosophical nihilism that demands serious thought to consider what testable hypotheses it generates.
Intelligent people wouldn't believe in talking snake, talking donkey ,virgin birth etc . What the fuck is wrong with people who think people are too stupid to be brainwashed into talking snake are Intelligent
This was so amazing. Early on in my faith journey I was taught to believe Richard Dawkins was evil. Thankfully, my faith has evolved and matured quite a bit over the decades. He is such a lovely and kind man.
as is the case with a few dozen comments above, you (and myself for that matter) seem to admire both gentleman exactly because of their civil way of sharing thoughts....and the very fact how you wrote "I was thought to believe" is a proof to me that we need to make our own conclusions...to the level each of us is capable/prepared to....I "come from the other side" but equally admire father Coyne....unlike some other "scientists" from the Catholic church, like John Lenox....who, to my intellectual understanding, in his lamentations (though very eloquent) actually makes many logical extrapolations which are wrong in core...and to the level of self admiration enjoys his fake, semi jokes.....unlike father Coyne...👍
Dawkins has always been my favorite athiest. it's hard to come across a truly humble athiest, and though he's not always been perfect (who among us is?), he's aged like a fine wine, and has grown to have the patience of a saint.
Excellent conversation between two intelligent and respectful persons. There is more agreement between them than it would seem at first. The disagreement is in their beliefs beyond scientific explanations. Not everything in our lives can be explained rationally; it is in this other part - call it philosophy, metaphysics, theology, or wathever - in which both, and not only the Catholic priest, have different beliefs. A great idea to repost it!
@@joegordon-p6xwow, super ignorant. Do u know how many brilliant atheists way smarter than u admit that not everything can be explained rationally?! Don’t let those male hormones trick u into thinking ur somehow better than people who have dedicated their lives to this stuff. My guess is that ur either a cradle atheist or a former Christian who hates anything to do with God! Sadly, that makes up like 99% of the nonbelievers! Here’s where you go wrong - this subject is so important for u because if ur wrong the stakes are unbearably high! Me as a Christian could be wasting my life, but at least I’m “playing it safe” per se. Go read Aquinas and Augustine especially, but for more input, check out the writings of these people: Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swimburne, William Lane Craig, Joshua Rasmussen, Alexander Pruss, Eleonore Stump, Yujin Nasagawa, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Mark C. Murphy, Robert Merrihew Adams. And don’t give me that “bot BS.” U are a real person, u matter, but u need to shut down ur sickening pride…gracious.
@@joegordon-p6x And what about explaining phenomenological states? Subjectivity? Greatly aesthetic experiences? Scientific naturalism addresses a particular type of data through very particular epistemologies, but there are things in this world which are fundamentally non-rational.
Finally a theist who completely understands the scientific method and who separates science and philosophy. As an atheist I can totally accept a position like "I can't scientifically prove the existence of God, but I just know/believe that he exists". I cannot accept a position like "here are 5 scientific proofs that God exists", which we see every day everywhere.
Scientifically - God, as the Creator, is a supernatural being not part of the created world and therefore cannot be proven using the scientific means. Philosophically, however, it’s quite easy to establish God’s existence. It’s a logically necessity, in fact.
I just watched this after stumbling upon the absurdity that was the Wendy Wright interview, and wow! What a breath of sanity and fresh air this conversation is! Although I see the cracks in George’s foundational structure of his religious belief, but by all the gods, he at least presents his viewpoint with reason and understanding. Fantastic discussion!
Things happening by simple means from simple beginnings. Sounds like not just the Big Bang, but the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the birth of the Church, the end of the British slave trade, and many other examples of God's _modus operandi_. "Despite not the day of small things." "If you have faith the size of a grain of mustard seed, you can move mountains."
This is by far the most useful interview for me personally. A joy to listen to. So lucky to have stumbled upon it. The discussion took me to a new depth, without drowning me completely..... Nothing is Absolute. Neither Science nor Religion (in the words of the Pastor himself). But only by acknowledging this can you go deep into your choice of belief without denying yourself the opportunity of a continuous better understanding.
I can sort of understand a belief in god/gods, but religion is a different story. History, and even current events disprove all religious beliefs from where I'm standing. Holy wars prove that religion poisons the human species.
This is the most honest religious man I've ever heard. Hats off to this guy. If for some reason I drop nihilism and convert to Christianity, this is how I'd aspire to be. Move over William Craig, give this man the mic.
I’m not a nihilist, pretty much born into Christianity but I reject being part of a religious group for the simple fact that everybody has their own belief they feel is truth, depending on the region you were born in w/o choice you’re VERY likely to be a part of a religion associated with region… I’m a theist but believe in a lot of things that will trigger many Christians such as evolution which there is evidence of even now e.g. diversity that we Clearly see today is caused by the process of evolution where change happens over time that would help cope to environment. Like the guy said in the vid I guess many people don’t like to believe in a god touching up on things so I would feel like I would be a contradictory to Christian belief
@@S3.14codm I am a Christian and not only do I believe in evolution but I constantly teach it to everyone around me and have convinced most of them of it. I also give logical explanations of the faith and Christianity but only to the best of my ability. The issue of the geographical distribution of beliefs has been discussed at length and in depth, and there are videos about it on TH-cam, but in general, the issue in essence is not a problem because a large number of people change their convictions, and the strength or validity of an idea is not related to the number of its followers or their location.
@@chrispoet3885lmao. You said “logical explanations of faith”. Oxymoron my guy. You people are so willing to twist the facts to meet your delusion. Yikes.
@@anthonyweller3808 Your way of discussing does not suggest to me that you are more informed than the so-called „active“ or „missionary“ atheists I have known in my life. One of them told me two weeks ago that he started going to church without full conviction and that he was happy. The other one also told me this month that he is very interested in Christianity and for the first time he is interested in a religion since leaving his previous religion years ago as he had never been a Christian before. To come to your words, the only oxymoron here, in my opinion, is the belief that everything around us, that all the precision in the laws of physics, all the greatness in the laws of evolution, and all that was ready for humanity, not only in terms of survival and energy needs, but areas of research, discovery, and endless mental satisfaction, have all come. From nothing. This is the contradiction I see. Providing logical explanations for faith is the origin of the Christian faith and the writing of thousands of Greek philosophers whom we call today the Fathers of the Church in the first centuries. There is a difference between providing conclusive evidence, between presenting a convincing argument that makes the matter likely, between providing a necessary logical explanation, and blind faith.
@@Paul_G73 So it had nothing to do with the ease in which Craig demolished fellow Oxford professors; Peter Atkins, A. C. Grayling and Peter Mullican? Or Craig's destruction of two of the Four Horsemen of Atheism? Dawkins went on the recruit the physicist Lawrence Krauss - Craig destroyed him too.
This is much closer to my idea of the relationship between God, existence, religion and science than any other cleric i have ever heard. Great conversation.
And I say, they don't belong in the same conversation. Theists bring nothing to the table save for logical fallacy. So theists like this kind of chat. But people with open, and truly scientific, rational minds do not make supernatural claims. That's not science. Science is testable. Theists seek viability through science terms. See that? They don't have their own terms to work with anymore. In claiming they have "proof," they demonstrate they don't even have faith. Keep the theists at the kiddie table.
@@aljoschalong625 a name is just a label. The issue is the properties of the deity. most hindu traditions don't see Ganesh as the supreme being though the Ganapatya does. Many people seek the common ground between faiths, so if you want to call the supreme being that is the source of everything 'Ganesh' or 'Yahweh' knock yourself out.
Great conversation. Huge respect to both Dawkins & Coyne for an honest and respectful coversation about difficult topics. I do wish the Church would adopt more of Father Coynes positions as offical as I think that would do a lot for both the enlightenment of its followers and also in allowing the more rational to believe in God without needing to buy into the irrational.
What we see here is a very honest and intelligent individual being forced to speak in very careful and non-committal ways about God and the supernatural because he is fully aware of the cognitive disonance between his scientific mind and his religious beliefs. His attempt to redefine evidence for the supernatural was tortured and I appreciated the way Prof Dawkins did not press the point. At times I found it almost sad that Father George was obliged to defend something undefendable in scientific terms and, through respect, Prof Dawkins repeatedly backed away.
Prof Dawkins didn't shy from asking some awkward questions. But I was relieved that he didn't press the point on occasion. Father George comes across as a sincere, thoughtful and honest man - and scientist. Full credit to him for engaging in a serious discussion with someone of Prof Dawkins possibly intimidating reputation. (I'm an atheist, by the way).
this exchange of thoughts brings us closer to what we continuously seek and helps us better position ourselves in our reality. i do not have enough places to bookmark this video to avoid loosing track of it
The main problem I had with George was his claimed that his God was not the god of explanation but he was the god of love, but he offered nothing tangible to support that position .
Because he cannot offer tangible support for it. It is a 'God of the gaps' argument and an appeal to ignorance/emotion. One day we may be able to measure 'love waves' that humans generate and their interactions with reality and other humans, but until then...
@@lukemacmillan4030 Your god is going to let me chose to go to hell on insufficient evidence? No god worthy of being called loving would subject me to an eternity of torture for any reason. There could be nothing more inhumane than that. Your casual acceptance of this ultimate horror speaks to the mindlessness that your religion instills in followers.
Because clergy are people who have specialised in theology and pastoral care. The Catholic church is exceptional in having institutions like the Vatican observatory which allow people to continue their science. I know plenty of laity who are well educated (I'm finishing my MSc at the same time as a friend from church is qualifying as a medical doctor, for example).
So are the people that promote Pangaea, that doesn't mean they have a strong grip on reality: th-cam.com/video/0iW5HUrEkc8/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUSbmVhbCBhZGFtcyBwYW5nZW9c Neal Adams - Science: 11 - The Pangea Theory: The Big Lie!
Georges Lemaître would be someone to have a look at. The Belgian priest who came up with the expanding universe, confirmed by Hubble's observations and "inventor" of the Big Bang. He first derived "Hubble's law" and published the first estimation of the Hubble constant in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.
He seemed like a nice man and was certainly an interesting fella to listen to, but the same mental gymnastics still persist with these people, in the end. Because in the end he deflects the really awkward questions with wishy washy faith reasons which he has no explanation for, and the spoken tone seems almost apologetic about it.
this is how we all should deal with each other .regardless what we believe in . very pleasing and highly repectful,intelligent and educating conversation.thx for posting mr,dawkins
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 Someone can be a theist and a scientist, they're not mutually exclusive. Theism and atheism are beliefs but being a scientist is a role that anyone can take on, so long as they follow the scientific method and any other necessary procedures in their work.
@@javierramirez637 Sure they can but they cant be trusted! If you believe theres a magic pixie doing magic that will effect your "science". Atheism is a lack of a belief theism is the baseless belief you should know as you have a baseless belief in a magical thingy! why do you have this belief? Fail to answer here! LOL
@@celinehynes3336 Oh do you have a baseless belief in a magical god! WHY? So why not apply science to your baseless belief that is from a book proven false by science? Just for the fail prove your false claim! "your comment indicates that you certainly are not a scientist"
54:30 There is no such thing as a actual "chance process." In some sense, a probabilistic inference measures what we don't know about a system due to its intractability. Just because we don't know the outcome, does not suddenly cause the system to become nondeterministic.
I doubt I will have as much charisma and courage as Richard D. to make videos at 82 Richard is one of the people I respect the most. His messages on science and the importance of rational evidence-based thinking are as important now as ever they were, in fact probably more so in this age of disinformation and cheap shots. Some of the comments further down here are shocking trash. Typical trolls I suppose.
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairy tale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
The mental gymnastic required to reconcile the story of Earths and mans origins offered in Genesis with scientific understanding is absolutely mid blowing.
You clearly have not listened to a word the guy said. Genesis lays out the poetic substructure of our cognition and is a creation story in that sense. It lays out the fundamental categories that arise in our consciousness. Heaven and earth (the spiritual and the material), light and darkness, the water and the land etc. Those are the fundamental categories by which we function and on which our entire existence is build.
@@aeiouaeiou100 OP never accused the priest of saying that. Clearly you didn't pay attention to when the Priest was debunking the idea of YEC. Which is what OP was likely referring to.
@@aeiouaeiou100 there are many creation stories. Of which this is definitely one. One that actually contradicts itself. You seem attached to this one because why?
@@jackhartford521 Because it is the Christian origin story and I was born in a historically Christian country. Therefor it's my origin story and it is yours too probably.
This was very interesting listening to two very articulate, thoughtful, intelligent people! I wonder, in spite of any real scientific evidence, if either of these two have ever even slightly entertained the notion of otherworldly, outside intervention or influence on our evolution by other intelligent species of beings. I have always kept an open mind to the possibility, and it could explain why we are so similar, but also so different than other species on the planet.
this is the best Catholic priest I've ever seen. So thoughtful, doing the best he can to deal with the absolute Mystery that is everything. God bless both these sincere men)
Father Coyne is very well spoken and I gave great respect, but it seems to me that he, as they say, 'want his cake and eat it to'. Isnt he creating his own 'god of the gaps'?
It's crazy how clearly and rationally he views his scientific findings, and then when it comes to his religious beliefs he just goes "well I don't think we've all just been duped for 2000 years🤷♂️".
Yes, but isn't the very first event - the Prime Mover - just as even less plausible and more of a magical occurence as any of these miracles? You could argue that the virgin birth is based in reality - consider parthenogenesis (virgin births) which occur naturally.
"Christianity is the belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree." Richard Carrier
At least the Catholic Church (eventually ) evolves and certainly does NOT hold the bible is infallible or literal (in most cases) like a significant majority of the protestant folks do. This makes it (I think) at least more focused on being truly "Christ-like" and not "bible thumping". Also, the Catholic organization has a solid orthodoxy, structured liturgy and well formalized sacraments. This makes for a comfortable "hominess" being a member. A lot of evangelical "worship" is focused on music and the charisma of the passtor. Unfortunately all religion is man-made and thus will always have it depravity and corruption. I still love the Catholic experience and always feel that protestants are as authentic as the wine they serve when the "do the Lord's supper*". * - in case you don't know they always use grape juice.
@@onedaya_martian1238 I get what you say but not agree. Catholicism hasn't "evolved to adapt", it just has understand better. As catholics were the ones who selected the Bible books, the Catholic Church knows what the Bible is truly about. That's why they don't have to stick to every little interpretation, since they understand most book origins. But the teachings don't change, maybe the teaching of the society and education, but not the fundamental dogmas. I don't think the Catholic institution is man made religion since Jesus found it himself, but I agree it's composed by humans and of course that makes it far from perfect
Coyne is under duress. He is not free to express himself on camera as a priest. He must say that he cannot question his beliefs against the Catholic Church.
I'd say the opposite: Coyne is free to express himself as a priest, but not as a scientist... The 'God of the gaps' is doing some heavy lifting in this priest/scientist's worldview he is portraying.
Fun fact: Fr. George Coyne has an asteroid, "14429 Coyne", named after him. He studied the polarization produced in cataclysmic variable stars, or interacting binary star systems that give off sudden bursts of intense energy, and dust about young stars. Prior to that, he had research interests in polarimetric studies of the interstellar medium, stars with extended atmospheres, and Seyfert galaxies, which are a class of spiral galaxies with very small and unusually bright star-like centers. Polarimetry studies can reveal the properties of cosmic dust and synchrotron radiation regions in galaxies and other astronomical objects. In 1985, Coyne, along with Remo Ruffini (University of Rome "La Sapienza"), Riccardo Giacconi (Nobel Prize for Physics 2002), Abdus Salam (Nobel Prize for Physics 1979), Paul Boynton (University of Washington), Francis Everitt (Stanford University), Fang Li-Zhi (University of Science and Technology of China) founded the International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics (ICRA) in order to collaborate and exchange ideas among astrophysicists around the world.
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairy tale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
Absolutely fascinating. I respect this interview so much as it highlights how difficult it must be for faith-based believers to ‘un-believe’ what their childhood selves were raised to believe.
I can confirm this from personal experience. Was raised a believer. Even though I figured out all my reasons to believe were bad reasons I still struggled for years to free myself of the (false) beliefs I had been raised with.
Yes he is a great intelligence and nice person but it really shows how hard some people will work to cling onto religious belief, and i don't find that admirable. Knowing when you are wrong and have been wrong is also a great virtue.
Yes, fascinating watching how he works to cling onto his belief. But, alas, it's not as simply as simply admitting you're wrong. It's not like saying, "I'd always thought so-and-so was the best bass player, but now I have to admit that this other gal is." For so many believers, it's the foundation of not only their entire world view but even their daily social life. Not easy to walk away from. Extremely scary to even consider, internally.
Anyone who watches this video can see the clear difference between the position of a fundamentalist and a believer with a an understanding of reality outside his faith. The priest here is very clear about what he believes and how the whole structure of beliefs came to be. He understands history, poetry, human development, the actual nature and purpose of science. That is why he can have a calm, clear conversation with Richard without becoming a shouting match. As a former catholic i can say that most of the priests i have talk with about these themes, have done so in a calm and respectful manner. Very different from most evangelicals.
I also experienced a much more open view in catholic clericals than I found in many evangelical ones around. I grew up in german "pietistic" environment and never liked this. They are much more dogmatic than catholics are usually. This doesn't mean I like to convert to catholicism. I'm a true atheist after all, but see a more philosopical attitude in catholics usually which I very much appreciate. Evangelical christ quite often restrict themselves to a very limited view of the universe and the "world". Catholics are restricted by their autorities of course, but they appear to rebel slightly more by thinking by themselves.
Richard, agrega subtitulos en ESPAÑOL a tus videos de TH-cam!!!. Por favor 🙏. Tienes que dar esa facilidad para que llegar a esta región. Espero que lo consideres. Muchas gracias.
{Surely those who dispute God’s signs with no proof given to them have nothing in their hearts but greed for dominance, which they will never attain. So seek refuge in God. Indeed, He alone is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing. The creation of the heavens and the earth is certainly greater than the creation of humankind, but most people do not know. Those blind and those who can see are not equal, nor are those who believe and do good to those who do evil. Yet you are hardly mindful. The Hour is certainly coming, there is no doubt about it. But most people do not believe. Your Lord has proclaimed, “Call upon Me, I will respond to you. Surely those who are too proud to worship Me will enter Hell, fully humbled.” It is God Who has made the night for you to rest in and the day bright. Surely God is ever Bountiful to humanity, but most people are ungrateful. That is God, your Lord, the Creator of all things. There is no god except Him. How can you then be deluded? This is how those who used to reject God’s signs were deluded. It is God Who made the earth a place of settlement for you and the sky a velarium. He shaped you, perfecting your form. And He has provided you with what is good and lawful. That is God your Lord. So Blessed is God, Lord of all worlds. He is the Ever-Living. There is no god except Him. So call upon Him with sincere devotion, All praise is for God Lord of all worlds.}
Great conversation. I am wondering what explanation Fathyer Coyne would have to suffering, how loving God can allow for his beloved child so much suffering as some people experience in their lifes.
Ah yes...Mysterious Ways. It's God's Plan. And Free Will (get your head around that one, free will *and* god's plan). Suffering is required to make you appreciate well, not suffering. They're had thousands of years to loophole their way out of awkward questions like that.
I am not sure, I certainly believe it is a form of blind faith . But when he said he cannot question what he believes, I don't know if he meant he is not allowed or incapable.
It is always fascinating to me how an intelligent person can twist logic and facts to make sense of beliefs that are obviously ridiculous. The fact that George Coyne thinks that an all powerful deity couldn’t come up with a better way to save the world other than sending his son to be tortured and executed is just plain lunacy. Furthermore, why would you want to worship such a dumb god? Fascinating
I think he has already considered that. Paul covers that thought in 1 Cor 1.18 'The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God unto Salvation". So Christian thought has already accommodated the issue sacrifice as the means of redemtion
Fascinating on the soul. As a Catholic who doesn't believe in soul, at mass does he say every Sunday; "Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed" ? Presumably he prefers the older version "Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed"?
{Those who have exceeded the limits against their souls, Do not lose hope in God's mercy, for God certainly forgives all sins, God is indeed the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Turn to your Lord, and submit to Him before the punishment reaches you, then you will not be helped. Follow the best of what has been revealed to you from your Lord, before the punishment takes you by surprise while you are unaware.}
I grew up terrified of getting pregnant long before I ever had sex because of that virgin birth story. There was plenty of stigma about unmarried women back then, so there would have been a lot of social consequences.
Clericism is to blame for your anxiety. You'd be shocked at the kind of stuff they teach in a seminary . Almost like they de- Catholicise you so you can think objectively and appear awesome to your congregation who are trapped in a brain wash cycle. Priests are taught to think objectively but to keep this quiet. They are almost atheists when they leave the Seminary. They are coached into how to answer difficult theological questions and how to deliver sermons etc.. They exploit your fear and this gives them power over you.
To completely discard revelation as a source of truth all you have to do is look at Heaven's Gate, whose revelation involved suicide so that they could get on the spaceship hiding behind a comet.
Right because when one uses any information for their own personal wrong agenda, then that information or source must be false. An extreme few uses guns to kill a lot of folks, so lets say guns are bad. More folks die to cigs, cars, and sugar annually, why not get rid of those too? Fact is, folks believe or dont want to believe whatever they want, be it with facts or not. Science while good, has often proved itself wrong due to human's own limitation of knowledge and technology.
What's the name of this priest? Anybody knows? I'm impressed with his candor. His position explains the fundamental reason people remain religious in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
A perfect example of how to confront different points of view in a respectful manner. We need much more of this. Thank you.
I think I'm most impressed by the fact that they both stood for an hour.
Haha.....I know right.
which leads to the question WHY? LOL
Yeah, thought the same, but does gives a different perspective to the presentation which felt fitting.
we are happy that you are inspired by the load of knowledge that has been shared and your mind came to the conclusion that this is the most impressive fact. You Sir are a figurehead of the modern intellectual society.
😅😅😅😅😅😂😂😂😂
Great respectful conversation
"I see no good reason why the views contained in this volume should shock the religious beliefs of anyone"-
"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble"--Charles Darwin
Darwin would never stop throwing up if he heard Dawkins support himth-cam.com/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/w-d-xo.html
As-Salamu Alaikum. Peace and blessings of God to all mankind, the children of our father Adam (as) and our mother Eve (as).
Dear brothers and sisters, I have a message for you. I would appreciate it if you read it.
If you are 20 people, and only 1 of them is on the right path while the other 19 are misguided, and they do not listen to that 1 person but rather get angry at him, that 1 person stays quiet. This will not make those 19 people right; they will still remain wrong.
Therefore, the truth is known to the one who listens and accepts the best of what they say, who protects himself from the evil in his heart, and who welcomes good things.
The majority of people in this world are misguided, chasing their desires and negligent of God. If you follow these misguided people, you will not harm God in any way; rather, you will end up hurting yourself.
The life of this world is just a blink of an eye, and the true home is the hereafter, where we have to live forever. Therefore, those who consider this world to be everything will make you heedless of the hereafter, and you will suffer a great loss. So, brothers, do not follow those who are heedless of their hereafter and are chasing their desires. These people will be ruined on the Day of Judgment, and they will also ruin your hereafter.
Brothers, save yourselves from the regret of that Day when a person will wish to return to the world just once more, to believe in God and perform good deeds.
But what can be done now when the bird has already eaten the crop?
One sided boring bs
Can’t imagine pulling off such a natural conversation with a camera floating back and forth around me.
Cameraman’s doing a workout😅
Concentration on the subject at hand my friend. A little analogy, is an actor has to forget the cameras to become their character.
Seriously! Just put up two cameras, one on each side, and edit it later. No distracting camera man.
Materialism and imperialism have led people to destruction in the last century. It is not possible to be happy with material gain alone. Human nature, by nature, exists with peace, family ties, love, respect, faith and cooperation. Atheism drags people into emptiness, and the thought of disappearing after death makes people sad. People are filled with the feeling of eternal existence. A believer will attain eternal heaven in return for his good deeds.❤❤
@@arthurraleigh5812 The funny thing about video's like this is, we don't have to watch them to get it. The content is the conversation. I would complain about the camera if it were an action movie.
This might be my new favorite atheist - theist conversation or debate, Father George has a really interesting perspective on his religion and a great ability to present it. Thank you for posting.
on day one god created light, then on day 4 he created actual light, the sun
@@bruha321you are very close minded and not willing to be honest
@@oxysz God created dinosaurs in His image!
@@bruha321
You have clearly studied the Bible, but like this priest, have not understood what it really says.
Oh well, this priest also makes fun of his own religion, apparently you can just remain a priest, that's democratic of course.
I agree, I’m encouraged and blown away by this conversation, the respect both men show each other, and the openness to forgetting about dogma. Brilliant
I often have trouble getting to sleep. For years I have turned to this conversation to soothe me into slumber. The good nature of the conversation, the dulcet tones of father Coyne, the mutual respect shown at all times. It just relaxes me.
I've tried this with several different conversations. Works a treat , especially 3/4 speed 😂
@@mattb4494 I never considered reducing the speed. I’ll give it a try.
Hi dragon from the future.
What year are your writing this from ?
As video was posted 8 days ago and you have been sleeping to it for years
@@venkatraju1987 there have been other versions of it on youtube for years:
m.th-cam.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/w-d-xo.html
@@venkatraju1987 its been on youtube elsewhere for 15 years th-cam.com/video/po0ZMfkSNxc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=f6pKcknOez9BQtjm
This was lovely, I think in part, because it HADN'T been professionally "edited". It has a certain "raw" more natural, conversational quality.
"God is speaking to us" He says that with such conviction. Without one iota of evidence. That's what gets me the most.
He didnt try to duck the difficult questions, fascinating conversation. If only more religious people were this sensible, seems like a lovely guy
Sensible??? A believer in the jesus myth. That some uncreated god rules the universe. A corpus of superstitious beliefs that exists without evidence. Look, the guy has found his niche in the catholic bureaucracy, and he's using the hard-won scientific findings done by others to bolster his indoctrinated views. He accepts science as a valid method, but then refuses to apply the findings of science to his own beliefs. And, beginning at 9:53 , it becomes clear he does not understand what "evidence" really means - i.e., he accepts "traditions' as evidence. He then rambles on to "coherence". All along, Dawkins is courteous in alluding to the inconsistencies in this approach.
Sensible? Really???
@@larryparis925😂😂
A good person yes but still wrong.
He agreed that he cannot question his own faith or beliefs.
Sounds like a man believing what he wants to believe
Simply stunning the way Father George Coyne put the things. Thanks, Professor Dawkins for bringing this conversation to the general public.
Loved how this conversation was so respectful and full of genuine inquiring without a drive to win a debate
The priest seems to have managed to compartmentalise the two sides of his belief system. He asks far less in the standard of proof and evidence for his religious side than he ever would as a scientist. This split personality seems like it came from being unable to abandon his upbringing.
He is comforted by belief in a God.
Dawkins was REALLY patient.
Richard Dawkins, thank you for all you have done throughout your career. I have been inspired and influenced by your books and talks. This interview with Father George Coyne was particularly fascinating.
One of the best conversations about difficult issues I've heard in a long time
The Bible is not so difficult that readers can agree to disagree on the reality of the doubting Thomas story and still come up with the same 'big picture', one is a guide about the future of this earth and the fictional version is a long novel from the fiction section.
The spoiler version is to read Ge:1-2 and Re:20-22 as a summation of the past and a peek into how things 'turn out in the end'.
The 'series' version uses Ge:3:15 as the 'Pilot' and Re:12 as the divider of events associated with each of two bruises. As you go through the rest of the book, you get to decide which bruise the prophecy belongs to. When that is completed, you have an idea of what the final scene is promoting. The big picture is part of many big pictures that fits together into an animation with a timeline.
Me, as a lifelong atheist, find myself very respectful of this priest, his thinking, like he said, not being incompatible with his faith, and it is a very solid but humble faith. I obviously don't agree with him but I didn't feel anger or resentment towards him at any point, and that's rare
he's a crafty Catholic.. trying to seem " moderate" but underlying it all he is an Evil man who believes that unbelievers are tormented in hellfire for eternity
As an ex evangelical, listening to Catholics has been quite the eye opener for actually cohesive theological positions
cohesive theological argument is an oxymoron , give an example @@BullSheeper
@@joegordon-p6x I’d humbly suggest reading the first few chapters of the catechism. It was hard for me to remain an atheist after reading it
Your conclusion is absolutely correct, this priest is on the wrong track as a theologian.
I was hoping the topic of "hell" was going to be discussed. If George would have said he believes in hell it would have looked really bad to me. He did say "original sin" which seems like nonsense to me. But... This was one of the most level-headed conversations between an atheist and a theist that I have ever heard. Father Coyne seems much more grounded in reality than most of the American theists that I have the displeasure of hearing on a much too regular basis. Here in America, many Christians are offensive in the extreme, with all their science denial and "everybody who doesn't believe our story is going to hell" crap. I enjoyed this conversation.
Jesus said hall was a place of eternal fire. But an eternity of torture is an embarrassment for Christians. Of course they don't want to discuss it. My guess is they made an agreement not to bring it up.
Perhaps he's just too clever and critical thinking? Is he building his faith around science or is he trying to make science accommodate his faith ?
Thanks
This is a great conversation. With all due respect to Father Coyne, some of these explanations are great examples of the mind bending without evidence that is required to answer the question. It also seems to confirm to me that the more science advances, the more religion is forced to retreat until there ends up being no dragon at all in the garage. Excellent chat and enjoyed it very much.
He is polite tho which instantly makes him much preferable than 99% of his peers
@daemon9737 - agreed
Thanks!
A degree of mental gymnastics rarely seen...
one of the best conversations I listened. Thank you Mr. Dawkins.
This struggle of ex-believers fascinates me enormously - because I never had access to this kind of thinking. My parents were both moderately religious. I went to church and my parents read children's books of the bible stories to me, along with Homer and other mythologies. But it never occured to me, that the adults are taking all this serious. To me it was like all other fairy tales I read. I found Homer moderately interesting, some stories of the Bible ok, but more on the boring side, the few Hindu fairy tales about gods I found somewhat confusing, but also interesting. I loved elaborate fairy tales from Hauff, Tiek or E.T.A. Hoffmann.
Same with Santa Claus. I enjoyed the Christmas spririt. But not even as a small child I believed that Santa was real. More than that: I was absolutely not aware anyone did. When I found out that people really believed these god or Santa stories, at the age of 7, I immediately became consciously an atheist.
Now I'm 63 and still struggle to grasp how it's possible to believe in gods, fairies and the Easter Bunny. And sometimes I think I'm missing something.
What I most wonder about in this discussion: Of the thousands of gods people invented, why exactly this one. The one whose holy book is so full of atrocities, nonsense and contradictions.
And it makes me a bit sad to see how this obviously nice, intelligent and knowledgable man make all these mental contortions to talk about a - to me obvious - fairy tale.
At one level the Bible is a collection of human stories dating from the oral tradition, through the bronze and iron ages up to the doorstep of the age of reason.
At another level the Bible as the autobigraphy of humans' psychological journey from animal awareness to human awareness, as we develop conscious ethics through the personal and cultural traumas that stimulate growth.
At another level the Bible is the assertion that consciousness and free will exist, that it is creative and that we carry that in us.
It is even more than this, but just the first two make it a very important set of documents, and the third is a significant antidote to philosophical nihilism that demands serious thought to consider what testable hypotheses it generates.
Fascinating to see two giant intellectuals respectfully putting forward their views. Gives me hope for humanity.
I only observe one giant intellectual. And that's Richard.
Intelligent people wouldn't believe in talking snake, talking donkey ,virgin birth etc .
What the fuck is wrong with people who think people are too stupid to be brainwashed into talking snake are Intelligent
Maybe one intellectual and the other doing fantastic mind gymnastics
There is a massive disconnect in your understanding of the words you choose. Back to the basics, kiddo.
flipping each other's hamburgers ...
This was so amazing. Early on in my faith journey I was taught to believe Richard Dawkins was evil. Thankfully, my faith has evolved and matured quite a bit over the decades. He is such a lovely and kind man.
He attac believers , in his book God desulusion, here in Brasil." Deus é um delirio.
He attacs the christian's faith.
@@josevalverde7431
Well someone has to call out claims being made without evidence.
as is the case with a few dozen comments above, you (and myself for that matter) seem to admire both gentleman exactly because of their civil way of sharing thoughts....and the very fact how you wrote "I was thought to believe" is a proof to me that we need to make our own conclusions...to the level each of us is capable/prepared to....I "come from the other side" but equally admire father Coyne....unlike some other "scientists" from the Catholic church, like John Lenox....who, to my intellectual understanding, in his lamentations (though very eloquent) actually makes many logical extrapolations which are wrong in core...and to the level of self admiration enjoys his fake, semi jokes.....unlike father Coyne...👍
@@vtwin1979 I think you are missing the point. Both men had valid points and neither one was attempting to do "gotchas", but to understand each other.
This is a wonderful and fascinating deep-level discussion.. I don't think I've ever seen Dawkins so enthralled by anyone else from the religious camp.
Dawkins has always been my favorite athiest. it's hard to come across a truly humble athiest, and though he's not always been perfect (who among us is?), he's aged like a fine wine, and has grown to have the patience of a saint.
Excellent conversation between two intelligent and respectful persons. There is more agreement between them than it would seem at first. The disagreement is in their beliefs beyond scientific explanations. Not everything in our lives can be explained rationally; it is in this other part - call it philosophy, metaphysics, theology, or wathever - in which both, and not only the Catholic priest, have different beliefs. A great idea to repost it!
Well, by definition, “different beliefs” cannot involve just one person, but both parties. But I get what you’re trying to say.
sorry but everything can be explained rationally or it can't be explained at all.. Trust in Science not the BULLSHIT of THEOLOGY😄
At the point when something can’t be explained, insert nothing and be comfortable saying I / we don’t know. Very liberating
@@joegordon-p6xwow, super ignorant. Do u know how many brilliant atheists way smarter than u admit that not everything can be explained rationally?! Don’t let those male hormones trick u into thinking ur somehow better than people who have dedicated their lives to this stuff. My guess is that ur either a cradle atheist or a former Christian who hates anything to do with God! Sadly, that makes up like 99% of the nonbelievers! Here’s where you go wrong - this subject is so important for u because if ur wrong the stakes are unbearably high! Me as a Christian could be wasting my life, but at least I’m “playing it safe” per se. Go read Aquinas and Augustine especially, but for more input, check out the writings of these people: Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swimburne, William Lane Craig, Joshua Rasmussen, Alexander Pruss, Eleonore Stump, Yujin Nasagawa, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Mark C. Murphy, Robert Merrihew Adams. And don’t give me that “bot BS.” U are a real person, u matter, but u need to shut down ur sickening pride…gracious.
@@joegordon-p6x And what about explaining phenomenological states? Subjectivity? Greatly aesthetic experiences? Scientific naturalism addresses a particular type of data through very particular epistemologies, but there are things in this world which are fundamentally non-rational.
Finally a theist who completely understands the scientific method and who separates science and philosophy.
As an atheist I can totally accept a position like "I can't scientifically prove the existence of God, but I just know/believe that he exists". I cannot accept a position like "here are 5 scientific proofs that God exists", which we see every day everywhere.
You are thinking of William Lane Craig who Dawkins ran away from.
Scientifically - God, as the Creator, is a supernatural being not part of the created world and therefore cannot be proven using the scientific means.
Philosophically, however, it’s quite easy to establish God’s existence. It’s a logically necessity, in fact.
@@alebeau4106 ok
Wait why can you not accept it?
@@Superman111181 Because that's not how science works.
I just watched this after stumbling upon the absurdity that was the Wendy Wright interview, and wow! What a breath of sanity and fresh air this conversation is! Although I see the cracks in George’s foundational structure of his religious belief, but by all the gods, he at least presents his viewpoint with reason and understanding. Fantastic discussion!
Brilliant and thought provoking conversation. Thank you
Things happening by simple means from simple beginnings. Sounds like not just the Big Bang, but the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the birth of the Church, the end of the British slave trade, and many other examples of God's _modus operandi_. "Despite not the day of small things." "If you have faith the size of a grain of mustard seed, you can move mountains."
This is by far my favorite discussion to listen to on faith and science.
This is by far the most useful interview for me personally. A joy to listen to. So lucky to have stumbled upon it.
The discussion took me to a new depth, without drowning me completely..... Nothing is Absolute. Neither Science nor Religion (in the words of the Pastor himself). But only by acknowledging this can you go deep into your choice of belief without denying yourself the opportunity of a continuous better understanding.
I can sort of understand a belief in god/gods, but religion is a different story. History, and even current events disprove all religious beliefs from where I'm standing. Holy wars prove that religion poisons the human species.
An interesting insightful take on our world, and the world to come. Have faith Richard !
i really enjoyed this conversation, far more nuance and wisdom than the usual battering ram disagreements that do nothing to make inroads
I remember this conversation from back then! Which goes to show how good it is!
This is the most honest religious man I've ever heard. Hats off to this guy. If for some reason I drop nihilism and convert to Christianity, this is how I'd aspire to be. Move over William Craig, give this man the mic.
This comes from Vatican II
I’m not a nihilist, pretty much born into Christianity but I reject being part of a religious group for the simple fact that everybody has their own belief they feel is truth, depending on the region you were born in w/o choice you’re VERY likely to be a part of a religion associated with region… I’m a theist but believe in a lot of things that will trigger many Christians such as evolution which there is evidence of even now e.g. diversity that we Clearly see today is caused by the process of evolution where change happens over time that would help cope to environment. Like the guy said in the vid I guess many people don’t like to believe in a god touching up on things so I would feel like I would be a contradictory to Christian belief
@@S3.14codm
I am a Christian and not only do I believe in evolution but I constantly teach it to everyone around me and have convinced most of them of it. I also give logical explanations of the faith and Christianity but only to the best of my ability.
The issue of the geographical distribution of beliefs has been discussed at length and in depth, and there are videos about it on TH-cam, but in general, the issue in essence is not a problem because a large number of people change their convictions, and the strength or validity of an idea is not related to the number of its followers or their location.
@@chrispoet3885lmao. You said “logical explanations of faith”. Oxymoron my guy. You people are so willing to twist the facts to meet your delusion. Yikes.
@@anthonyweller3808
Your way of discussing does not suggest to me that you are more informed than the so-called „active“ or „missionary“ atheists I have known in my life.
One of them told me two weeks ago that he started going to church without full conviction and that he was happy. The other one also told me this month that he is very interested in Christianity and for the first time he is interested in a religion since leaving his previous religion years ago as he had never been a Christian before.
To come to your words, the only oxymoron here, in my opinion, is the belief that everything around us, that all the precision in the laws of physics, all the greatness in the laws of evolution, and all that was ready for humanity, not only in terms of survival and energy needs, but areas of research, discovery, and endless mental satisfaction, have all come. From nothing. This is the contradiction I see.
Providing logical explanations for faith is the origin of the Christian faith and the writing of thousands of Greek philosophers whom we call today the Fathers of the Church in the first centuries. There is a difference between providing conclusive evidence, between presenting a convincing argument that makes the matter likely, between providing a necessary logical explanation, and blind faith.
I will be 93 in December and as a lapsed Catholic I can now die in peace having had a long and happy life!
Dawkins is the man.
Who became a frighted little boy and ran away when William Lane Craig came to Oxford.
@@TBOTSS Another defender of reformed epistemology having a meltdown. No one ran away.
@@TBOTSS Dawkins had admitted he wants nothing to do with someone who has a pompous voice and spews Old Testament nonsensical tripe.
@@Paul_G73 Dawkins did to the Guardian.
@@Paul_G73 So it had nothing to do with the ease in which Craig demolished fellow Oxford professors; Peter Atkins, A. C. Grayling and Peter Mullican? Or Craig's destruction of two of the Four Horsemen of Atheism? Dawkins went on the recruit the physicist Lawrence Krauss - Craig destroyed him too.
What a wonderful and educational conversation. Thank you.
This is much closer to my idea of the relationship between God, existence, religion and science than any other cleric i have ever heard. Great conversation.
And I say, they don't belong in the same conversation. Theists bring nothing to the table save for logical fallacy. So theists like this kind of chat. But people with open, and truly scientific, rational minds do not make supernatural claims. That's not science. Science is testable. Theists seek viability through science terms. See that? They don't have their own terms to work with anymore. In claiming they have "proof," they demonstrate they don't even have faith. Keep the theists at the kiddie table.
I guess you're talking about the Christian god. Why not Ganesha?
@@aljoschalong625 a name is just a label. The issue is the properties of the deity. most hindu traditions don't see Ganesh as the supreme being though the Ganapatya does. Many people seek the common ground between faiths, so if you want to call the supreme being that is the source of everything 'Ganesh' or 'Yahweh' knock yourself out.
@@chrispercival9789 Oh please. Was it not obvious that my comment was ironical?
The whole idea of a "supreme being" is utterly ridiculous.
@@aljoschalong625 more ridiculous than everything spontaneously appearing out of nothing? Precisely how are you judging that?
One of such open and honest dialogue I have ever watched
richards patience and tolerance is immeasurable
I think he fell asleep actually
@@user-xt4xu7mr1j If any of of could speak so eloquently in our sleep it would be astounding. But you're right the catholic was pretty boring.
@@user-xt4xu7mr1j😂😂
@@user-xt4xu7mr1jGeorge Coyne was talking stupid things. 😂😂
I've never seen a priest, vicar, minister or pastor of any denomination who is as scientifically literate as this guy.
{:o:O:}
Great conversation. Huge respect to both Dawkins & Coyne for an honest and respectful coversation about difficult topics. I do wish the Church would adopt more of Father Coynes positions as offical as I think that would do a lot for both the enlightenment of its followers and also in allowing the more rational to believe in God without needing to buy into the irrational.
there is NO Rationality believing in any Fake GOD in the sky NONE
What we see here is a very honest and intelligent individual being forced to speak in very careful and non-committal ways about God and the supernatural because he is fully aware of the cognitive disonance between his scientific mind and his religious beliefs. His attempt to redefine evidence for the supernatural was tortured and I appreciated the way Prof Dawkins did not press the point. At times I found it almost sad that Father George was obliged to defend something undefendable in scientific terms and, through respect, Prof Dawkins repeatedly backed away.
Prof Dawkins didn't shy from asking some awkward questions. But I was relieved that he didn't press the point on occasion. Father George comes across as a sincere, thoughtful and honest man - and scientist. Full credit to him for engaging in a serious discussion with someone of Prof Dawkins possibly intimidating reputation. (I'm an atheist, by the way).
Question : Why do the Vatican have an Observatory ? And why do they fund many more areas of science too ?
sorry but i cant afford to be a paying member , anyways these videos are ALWAYS worth waiting for !!!!, please keep them coming Richard
this exchange of thoughts brings us closer to what we continuously seek and helps us better position ourselves in our reality.
i do not have enough places to bookmark this video to avoid loosing track of it
The main problem I had with George was his claimed that his God was not the god of explanation but he was the god of love, but he offered nothing tangible to support that position .
No god of love could permit any of its creation to be subjected to an eternity of torture for any reason, let alone for not stroking that god's ego.
the plagiarized god known as the christian god is either all good, or all knowing. The middle ground is where ignorant bigots offer to the coffer.
Because he cannot offer tangible support for it. It is a 'God of the gaps' argument and an appeal to ignorance/emotion.
One day we may be able to measure 'love waves' that humans generate and their interactions with reality and other humans, but until then...
@@Garrison169you condemn yourself no need for God to do that for you nor does he want it of you.
@@lukemacmillan4030 Your god is going to let me chose to go to hell on insufficient evidence? No god worthy of being called loving would subject me to an eternity of torture for any reason. There could be nothing more inhumane than that. Your casual acceptance of this ultimate horror speaks to the mindlessness that your religion instills in followers.
p.s. I saw this a few yrs back Richard. ~ Very respectful, thoughtful & insightful conversation!
I've never seen a priest, vicar, minister or pastor of any denomination who is as scientifically literate as this guy.
{:o:O:}
Because clergy are people who have specialised in theology and pastoral care. The Catholic church is exceptional in having institutions like the Vatican observatory which allow people to continue their science. I know plenty of laity who are well educated (I'm finishing my MSc at the same time as a friend from church is qualifying as a medical doctor, for example).
So are the people that promote Pangaea, that doesn't mean they have a strong grip on reality:
th-cam.com/video/0iW5HUrEkc8/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUSbmVhbCBhZGFtcyBwYW5nZW9c
Neal Adams - Science: 11 - The Pangea Theory: The Big Lie!
Georges Lemaître would be someone to have a look at. The Belgian priest who came up with the expanding universe, confirmed by Hubble's observations and "inventor" of the Big Bang. He first derived "Hubble's law" and published the first estimation of the Hubble constant in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.
Pop into the Vatican observatory
Great interview! Thank you
He seemed like a nice man and was certainly an interesting fella to listen to, but the same mental gymnastics still persist with these people, in the end. Because in the end he deflects the really awkward questions with wishy washy faith reasons which he has no explanation for, and the spoken tone seems almost apologetic about it.
He isn't apologetic at all and seems quite clear in his beliefs.
this is how we all should deal with each other .regardless what we believe in . very pleasing and highly repectful,intelligent and educating conversation.thx for posting mr,dawkins
Sadly for us, Fr George died in February 2020. God rest his soul. Hope he's playing tennis.
You can tell by his collar he aint no scientist! theist is opposite of science!
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 Someone can be a theist and a scientist, they're not mutually exclusive. Theism and atheism are beliefs but being a scientist is a role that anyone can take on, so long as they follow the scientific method and any other necessary procedures in their work.
@@javierramirez637 Sure they can but they cant be trusted!
If you believe theres a magic pixie doing magic that will effect your "science".
Atheism is a lack of a belief theism is the baseless belief you should know as you have a baseless belief in a magical thingy!
why do you have this belief?
Fail to answer here! LOL
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307look him up. He was most definitely a scientist
@@celinehynes3336 Oh do you have a baseless belief in a magical god!
WHY?
So why not apply science to your baseless belief that is from a book proven false by science?
Just for the fail prove your false claim!
"your comment indicates that you certainly are not a scientist"
54:30 There is no such thing as a actual "chance process." In some sense, a probabilistic inference measures what we don't know about a system due to its intractability. Just because we don't know the outcome, does not suddenly cause the system to become nondeterministic.
I doubt I will have as much charisma and courage as Richard D. to make videos at 82 Richard is one of the people I respect the most. His messages on science and the importance of rational evidence-based thinking are as important now as ever they were, in fact probably more so in this age of disinformation and cheap shots. Some of the comments further down here are shocking trash. Typical trolls I suppose.
This is from 2008…
@@Lord_Pender OK. Well I still doubt I would have as much charisma at 60 :)
So refreshing to hear somebody who has thought so deeply about their faith. Very interesting human. Enjoyed this very much.
So do they believe homo-erectus is in heaven? Or when do they think the soul evolved?
George said, "I / we don't know", which is the only honest answer. I give him props for that.
@@meridianheights6255 u mean its a ridiculous answer because it highlights the ignorance between creationism and evolution.
A beautiful and respectful exchange. We need more of this in this world. Bravo to both men 👏🏽
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life
Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairy tale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started.
Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
The mental gymnastic required to reconcile the story of Earths and mans origins offered in Genesis with scientific understanding is absolutely mid blowing.
You clearly have not listened to a word the guy said. Genesis lays out the poetic substructure of our cognition and is a creation story in that sense. It lays out the fundamental categories that arise in our consciousness. Heaven and earth (the spiritual and the material), light and darkness, the water and the land etc. Those are the fundamental categories by which we function and on which our entire existence is build.
@@aeiouaeiou100 OP never accused the priest of saying that. Clearly you didn't pay attention to when the Priest was debunking the idea of YEC. Which is what OP was likely referring to.
@@aeiouaeiou100 there are many creation stories. Of which this is definitely one. One that actually contradicts itself. You seem attached to this one because why?
@@jackhartford521 Because it is the Christian origin story and I was born in a historically Christian country. Therefor it's my origin story and it is yours too probably.
This was very interesting listening to two very articulate, thoughtful, intelligent people! I wonder, in spite of any real scientific evidence, if either of these two have ever even slightly entertained the notion of otherworldly, outside intervention or influence on our evolution by other intelligent species of beings. I have always kept an open mind to the possibility, and it could explain why we are so similar, but also so different than other species on the planet.
Of course there is "otherwordly" influence on our evolution. Cosmic rays produce a lot of damage to DNA and they do speed up evolution by doing that.
Always love to hear from the Dawktor.
this is the best Catholic priest I've ever seen. So thoughtful, doing the best he can to deal with the absolute Mystery that is everything. God bless both these sincere men)
Richard Dawkins is a rare treasure to our world which is drowning in superstition & ancient beliefs that belongs to extremely ancient times.
Great sir, love from a rationalist Uttar Pradesh, India
He was a good sport.
This was my favorite interview
Wish the best to both here and elsewhere
Father Coyne is very well spoken and I gave great respect, but it seems to me that he, as they say, 'want his cake and eat it to'. Isnt he creating his own 'god of the gaps'?
It's crazy how clearly and rationally he views his scientific findings, and then when it comes to his religious beliefs he just goes "well I don't think we've all just been duped for 2000 years🤷♂️".
~1750 years
Its like the PFC just turns off!?
@@Jay-ft3xh1750? Please tell me you aren't going off the myth of constatine lol
Aka ad populum fallacy...
Yes, but isn't the very first event - the Prime Mover - just as even less plausible and more of a magical occurence as any of these miracles? You could argue that the virgin birth is based in reality - consider parthenogenesis (virgin births) which occur naturally.
"Christianity is the belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."
Richard Carrier
This should be good!
Every conversation should be like this.
I feel so home In the Catholic Church
You like little boys, I presume?
scnr
Fine, providing you stay there indoors.
At least the Catholic Church (eventually ) evolves and certainly does NOT hold the bible is infallible or literal (in most cases) like a significant majority of the protestant folks do. This makes it (I think) at least more focused on being truly "Christ-like" and not "bible thumping". Also, the Catholic organization has a solid orthodoxy, structured liturgy and well formalized sacraments. This makes for a comfortable "hominess" being a member. A lot of evangelical "worship" is focused on music and the charisma of the passtor.
Unfortunately all religion is man-made and thus will always have it depravity and corruption. I still love the Catholic experience and always feel that protestants are as authentic as the wine they serve when the "do the Lord's supper*".
* - in case you don't know they always use grape juice.
to each his urn haha. Every molecule of my being is revolted by Catholicism.
@@onedaya_martian1238 I get what you say but not agree. Catholicism hasn't "evolved to adapt", it just has understand better. As catholics were the ones who selected the Bible books, the Catholic Church knows what the Bible is truly about. That's why they don't have to stick to every little interpretation, since they understand most book origins. But the teachings don't change, maybe the teaching of the society and education, but not the fundamental dogmas. I don't think the Catholic institution is man made religion since Jesus found it himself, but I agree it's composed by humans and of course that makes it far from perfect
I could listen to both of these men forever.
Me too ❤
Coyne is under duress. He is not free to express himself on camera as a priest. He must say that he cannot question his beliefs against the Catholic Church.
Any and all dogmatists are under duress when faced the evolution of their belief system.
I'd say the opposite: Coyne is free to express himself as a priest, but not as a scientist...
The 'God of the gaps' is doing some heavy lifting in this priest/scientist's worldview he is portraying.
I'm glad we got the uncut version.
George seems a nice guy but digs a deeper hole every time he says anything.
Incredible conversation!
Fun fact: Fr. George Coyne has an asteroid, "14429 Coyne", named after him.
He studied the polarization produced in cataclysmic variable stars, or interacting binary star systems that give off sudden bursts of intense energy, and dust about young stars. Prior to that, he had research interests in polarimetric studies of the interstellar medium, stars with extended atmospheres, and Seyfert galaxies, which are a class of spiral galaxies with very small and unusually bright star-like centers. Polarimetry studies can reveal the properties of cosmic dust and synchrotron radiation regions in galaxies and other astronomical objects.
In 1985, Coyne, along with Remo Ruffini (University of Rome "La Sapienza"), Riccardo Giacconi (Nobel Prize for Physics 2002), Abdus Salam (Nobel Prize for Physics 1979), Paul Boynton (University of Washington), Francis Everitt (Stanford University), Fang Li-Zhi (University of Science and Technology of China) founded the International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics (ICRA) in order to collaborate and exchange ideas among astrophysicists around the world.
❤
nice one Dawko! splendid navigation of the two domains.
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life
Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairy tale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started.
Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
Imagine being such an agile mental gymnast at his age!
This is from years back no?
@@fio-pz9zeI think he said 2008? And I was talking about the priests gymnastics trying to "science".
Whose age?
@@cherylween4973 Priest.
He has got to choose his words carefully. He doesn't want to be defrocked at his age.😅
This was great thank you both.
Absolutely fascinating. I respect this interview so much as it highlights how difficult it must be for faith-based believers to ‘un-believe’ what their childhood selves were raised to believe.
I can confirm this from personal experience. Was raised a believer. Even though I figured out all my reasons to believe were bad reasons I still struggled for years to free myself of the (false) beliefs I had been raised with.
You're extremely misinformed about what is taught in faith run schools. I had a fantastic scientific education in a girls' Catholic school.
How enjoyable to watch a civilised conversation.
Yes he is a great intelligence and nice person but it really shows how hard some people will work to cling onto religious belief, and i don't find that admirable. Knowing when you are wrong and have been wrong is also a great virtue.
Easily argued that there is no greater virtue.
Yes, fascinating watching how he works to cling onto his belief. But, alas, it's not as simply as simply admitting you're wrong. It's not like saying, "I'd always thought so-and-so was the best bass player, but now I have to admit that this other gal is." For so many believers, it's the foundation of not only their entire world view but even their daily social life. Not easy to walk away from. Extremely scary to even consider, internally.
Thank you, very interesting. 😊
Anyone who watches this video can see the clear difference between the position of a fundamentalist and a believer with a an understanding of reality outside his faith. The priest here is very clear about what he believes and how the whole structure of beliefs came to be. He understands history, poetry, human development, the actual nature and purpose of science. That is why he can have a calm, clear conversation with Richard without becoming a shouting match. As a former catholic i can say that most of the priests i have talk with about these themes, have done so in a calm and respectful manner. Very different from most evangelicals.
I also experienced a much more open view in catholic clericals than I found in many evangelical ones around. I grew up in german "pietistic" environment and never liked this. They are much more dogmatic than catholics are usually. This doesn't mean I like to convert to catholicism. I'm a true atheist after all, but see a more philosopical attitude in catholics usually which I very much appreciate. Evangelical christ quite often restrict themselves to a very limited view of the universe and the "world". Catholics are restricted by their autorities of course, but they appear to rebel slightly more by thinking by themselves.
Richard, agrega subtitulos en ESPAÑOL a tus videos de TH-cam!!!. Por favor 🙏. Tienes que dar esa facilidad para que llegar a esta región. Espero que lo consideres. Muchas gracias.
in a nutshell, by the end, to me, he sounds like he's agnostic but likes the idea of being loved unconditionally and a comfortable afterlife
{Surely those who dispute God’s signs with no proof given to them have nothing in their hearts but greed for dominance, which they will never attain.
So seek refuge in God. Indeed, He alone is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.
The creation of the heavens and the earth is certainly greater than the creation of humankind, but most people do not know.
Those blind and those who can see are not equal, nor are those who believe and do good to those who do evil. Yet you are hardly mindful.
The Hour is certainly coming, there is no doubt about it. But most people do not believe.
Your Lord has proclaimed, “Call upon Me, I will respond to you. Surely those who are too proud to worship Me will enter Hell, fully humbled.”
It is God Who has made the night for you to rest in and the day bright. Surely God is ever Bountiful to humanity, but most people are ungrateful.
That is God, your Lord, the Creator of all things. There is no god except Him. How can you then be deluded?
This is how those who used to reject God’s signs were deluded.
It is God Who made the earth a place of settlement for you and the sky a velarium. He shaped you, perfecting your form. And He has provided you with what is good and lawful. That is God your Lord. So Blessed is God, Lord of all worlds.
He is the Ever-Living. There is no god except Him. So call upon Him with sincere devotion, All praise is for God Lord of all worlds.}
No, he's a believer, but is not a simplistic faith. All the ravages of life are still with the believer, but he contains hope in his breast despite.
Great conversation. I am wondering what explanation Fathyer Coyne would have to suffering, how loving God can allow for his beloved child so much suffering as some people experience in their lifes.
Ah yes...Mysterious Ways. It's God's Plan. And Free Will (get your head around that one, free will *and* god's plan). Suffering is required to make you appreciate well, not suffering. They're had thousands of years to loophole their way out of awkward questions like that.
The priest needs to study the psychology of religion. The brain holds the key to understanding why humans practice religion.
religion did to language what gambling did with currency
@@josephno1347 save the romance for the arts.
@@Jay-ft3xh shows the nature of humans, cockroaches unable the differentiate the counter top from the floor
“Don’t push me” - What a wonderful man. I am not so made as to be able to believe but George Coyne is such a great human being.
Coyne said that he cannot question what he believes. Isn't that blind faith?
I am not sure, I certainly believe it is a form of blind faith . But when he said he cannot question what he believes, I don't know if he meant he is not allowed or incapable.
Coyne did say.... both Science and Religion are not Absolute. Holy Scriptures were authored by Men hence must not be taken literally.
Faith is blind by definition.
More accurately described as bigotry.
What a genuine man. Confused, but with integrity,
It is always fascinating to me how an intelligent person can twist logic and facts to make sense of beliefs that are obviously ridiculous. The fact that George Coyne thinks that an all powerful deity couldn’t come up with a better way to save the world other than sending his son to be tortured and executed is just plain lunacy. Furthermore, why would you want to worship such a dumb god? Fascinating
I think he has already considered that. Paul covers that thought in 1 Cor 1.18 'The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God unto Salvation". So Christian thought has already accommodated the issue sacrifice as the means of redemtion
@@japhinnyengera4427 right . Thank you for making my point. Paul never met Jesus. It’s all lunacy
Fascinating on the soul. As a Catholic who doesn't believe in soul, at mass does he say every Sunday; "Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed" ?
Presumably he prefers the older version "Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed"?
{Those who have exceeded the limits against their souls, Do not lose hope in God's mercy, for God certainly forgives all sins, God is indeed the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Turn to your Lord, and submit to Him before the punishment reaches you, then you will not be helped.
Follow the best of what has been revealed to you from your Lord, before the punishment takes you by surprise while you are unaware.}
I grew up terrified of getting pregnant long before I ever had sex because of that virgin birth story. There was plenty of stigma about unmarried women back then, so there would have been a lot of social consequences.
I grew up gay and was told homosexuals would burn in hell for eternity. Lucky for me, I never believed the BS.
Clericism is to blame for your anxiety. You'd be shocked at the kind of stuff they teach in a seminary . Almost like they de- Catholicise you so you can think objectively and appear awesome to your congregation who are trapped in a brain wash cycle. Priests are taught to think objectively but to keep this quiet. They are almost atheists when they leave the Seminary. They are coached into how to answer difficult theological questions and how to deliver sermons etc.. They exploit your fear and this gives them power over you.
U can believe ij god without a reglion I do
Best interview ever.
To completely discard revelation as a source of truth all you have to do is look at Heaven's Gate, whose revelation involved suicide so that they could get on the spaceship hiding behind a comet.
Right because when one uses any information for their own personal wrong agenda, then that information or source must be false. An extreme few uses guns to kill a lot of folks, so lets say guns are bad. More folks die to cigs, cars, and sugar annually, why not get rid of those too? Fact is, folks believe or dont want to believe whatever they want, be it with facts or not. Science while good, has often proved itself wrong due to human's own limitation of knowledge and technology.
What's the name of this priest? Anybody knows? I'm impressed with his candor. His position explains the fundamental reason people remain religious in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
Interesting. I haven't heard a Catholic priest with that view before.