1. Comment #299400 by Tzsak on December 9, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Mm, the guy seems pretty reasonable. Liking the interview so far. May send this interview to friends who still think of Dawkins in the way the media tends to portray him.

Other Comments by Tzsak

2. Comment #299405 by amuck on December 9, 2008 at 3:20 pm

I saw Father George Coyne on Bill Mahers film 'Religulous' and I thought he came across as one of the more rational of the religious interviewed by Bill Maher.

This prompted me to see him in person at a lecture he gave in Toronto at the Newman Centre Chapel, Univerity of Toronto:

Naming the Holy Lecture Series - The Dance of the Fertile Universe: Searching for God in a Scientific Culture, Prof. George V. Coyne, SJ, Astronomer, the Vatican Observatory, President, the Vatican Observatory Foundation, Adjunct Professor, University of Arizona, Wednesday Nov. 12, 2008, 7:30pm

This was presented in the Catholic church to a (strangely enough) predominantly Catholic audience, and we got to see the real Fr. Coyne hidden under a (thin) veneer of rationality.

After an hour or so of a very good review of why science is the best tool we have for understanding the universe, and a number of pot shots at creationists and intelligent designoids, we got to hear what he really thinks.

Basically, living beings are organized as a tree, the tree appears to have a direction, and only god could have given it this direction.

That was it. What a waste of time. I could not see the difference between Fr. Coyne and the rest of the 'I don't understand it therefore nobody can understand it therefore nobody will ever understand it therefore god done it' crowd.

By the way, from a brief chat I had with Fr. Coyne, he seems to be somewhat ambivalent about his role in Religulous. I assured him that he came across very well (from an evidence based perspective), but I suspect he may have had different criteria.

One comment from another member the audience touched on the 'Bill Maher made all these people look bad' theme. This generated a lot of sympathetic murmering and buzzing from the rest of the audience. No one seemed to consider the fact that the people that came across as foolish in Religulous were foolish people.

Other Comments by amuck

3. Comment #299408 by maton100 on December 9, 2008 at 3:36 pm

So literature is supernatural? Wow!! Now that's brilliant theology.

Other Comments by maton100

4. Comment #299413 by j.mills on December 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Hmm. In part 2 he rejects biblical literalism and effectively says it was written by fallible humans. In part 1 his "positive evidence" for god is the scriptures and traditions of christianity and other religions. Shome mishtake shurely?

Conceding all the scientific ground, he leaves little for god to do, little to bother believing in. The mindset is endlessly exasperating - and, in its retreat to the gaps, quite unrepresentative as usual of the grass-roots believers.

Other Comments by j.mills

5. Comment #299419 by Osmano on December 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Yeah, Father Coyne looks like a reasonable man.

Other Comments by Osmano

6. Comment #299420 by black wolf on December 9, 2008 at 4:39 pm

j.mills,
you beat me to it; that's exactly what I noticed. His only apparent reason for his faith is his belief in the depth of tradition. Maybe he has grown so attached to his faith that his mind just gives up and refuses to contemplate the thought that all these tens of thousands of people who wrote scripture and theology over the last forty or sixty centuries could have been fundamentally wrong. Writers who themselves were thrown on the wrong track merely by doing exactly what he is doing now, refusing to acknowledge the very plausible and parsimonious possibility that all it took were a few ignorant or deluded or gullible or even deceptive men to start it off. Mankind has started off hundreds of thousands of religions, and many of those survived and prospered for long times.
Sticking with the story from a position of a nearly totally crisis-safe and well-paid occupation within the system is reasonable from a personal standpoint, and of course that makes the mind all the more reluctant to consider letting even the most intellectually shaky position go. Intellectual rigor and honesty are not high on a list of human priorities in comparison to things like food, clothing, lodging and emotional security, even if a false sense of security. Ironically, that's exactly what evolutionary theory would predict.
Exasperating is exactly the word I had in mind when I heard what he said at the end of part 1. The justification for the assumption that the supernatural exists is the assumption that the evidence lies outside the realm of nature. I cannot comprehend how someone can insult his own intelligence so gravely and confirm it with a straight face without bursting into tears. The strength of the self-defence our minds build up around cherished delusions is truly phenomenal.

Other Comments by black wolf

7. Comment #299424 by Alternative Carpark on December 9, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Nice old guy, but listening to him it is clear that he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

8. Comment #299427 by Ygern on December 9, 2008 at 5:09 pm

He does come across as a thoughtful and rational person. But I'm still hoping to hear what he thinks constitutes 'positive evidence' for God.

This is where he stops sounding reasonable and merely sounds wishful.

Other Comments by Ygern

9. Comment #299430 by Casa Addams on December 9, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Thanks!

It seams like pt4 is missing the HQ option for some reason...

Other Comments by Casa Addams

10. Comment #299433 by polestar on December 9, 2008 at 5:26 pm

What a lovely guy and what lovely quotes to be used by our lot.

He (and the Vatican) accepts the whole of science but just tacks God onto the first nano-second of creation (note the small C) and adds the soul onto humans - neither of which can be disproved (only because you can't prove a negative, not because the beliefs have any merit).

Politically (with a small P, in the sense of suasion and argument) we should clutch Fr. Coyne to our breasts rather than picking on his supernatural fallacies: Dawkins's handling of the interview shows us the way - and must be contrasted with his visible disgust in another interview with a raving Muslim who told him he should cover his women.

Our American fellows here should note that this wishy-washy version of religion is very characteristic of Europe in general, especially the Roman Catholic church and the Church of England: we have very few Christian fundamentalists (alas, a growing number, however) although we have plenty of Islamists (actually a small number but of great impact). J.Mills appears to disagree but I would not nit-pick on the basis of his brief comment about "grass-roots believers."

Other Comments by polestar

11. Comment #299438 by Kiwi on December 9, 2008 at 5:40 pm

I don't agree with Polestar about clutching this guy to our collective breast.

This kind is the most dangerous theist to debate with. He seems so reasonable, and yet it all comes down to him believing because of what he was indoctrinated with as a child, and subsequently reinforced as an adult. As others have said it's remarkable to watch an intelligent trained scientist deluding himself like this.

I agree with RD's interview technique in this case, gentle questioning, allowing him to expose his foundationless beliefs. But because of the gentle conversation, we are tempted to let him get away with his supernaturalism. Remember he is a Catholic priest with all that entails.

Other Comments by Kiwi

12. Comment #299440 by tiove on December 9, 2008 at 5:48 pm

this guy is quite amazing he seems so kind, and what he says about the unification of faiths/religions interests me. I mean that would be amazing because i think you would need a level of rationality and and progressive thinking to try and build bridges, or to even unify religion. It would be such a monumental reform but obviously it would be gradual not something overnight, and it could occur best with an increased belonging in society i mean where inter faith people can mix together, i am an ex muslim, and i can say that people who are religious tend to be more kinder to me [this could be hard to apply to muslims] and i feel this is why it could work; if they could stop trying to highlight the contradictions with each other and increase that sense of belonging through wanting to understand and finding commonalities than why not but then the idea of recognition of jesus from jews and the same with muhammad from Christians seems quite unlikely.

However it would definitely require some rationality and post structuralist thinking to unify the faiths, and with such an intellectual basis you can make the argument that interpretation of scripture will be from a more mature perspective thus reducing the violent reactions from religious thinking
ammar minhas

Other Comments by tiove

13. Comment #299441 by Goldy on December 9, 2008 at 5:55 pm

I mean that would be amazing because i think you would need a level of rationality and and progressive thinking to try and build bridges, or to even unify religion.

Surely the rational wouldn't bother. Get rid of the mythology and then mankind would fight purely for concrete reasons, such as resources :-)
The kindness of the religious could also become intense hatred - witness communal and sectarian violence.

Other Comments by Goldy

14. Comment #299443 by Lucas on December 9, 2008 at 6:10 pm

...then mankind would fight purely for concrete reasons, such as resources.

Goldy, this is what mankind tends to fight for. The religious justifications are often a smokescreen. What is the Israel problem about? Land and water. What is the Iraq War about? Oil and shipping lanes. Almost all major wars can be explained by resource management. The politics and religion and idealogy are just used by the ones in control to convince the populace to support a war that is really about something else.

(And before anybody freaks out, I don't think the Iraq War is JUST about oil, of course. The motivations are always complicated and convoluted and multifaceted.)

The justification for the assumption that the supernatural exists is the assumption that the evidence lies outside the realm of nature.

Nicely put, wolf. Turn that into a proscription with the "is" replaced by a "cannot be" and you have a good debating point.

Other Comments by Lucas

15. Comment #299446 by Goldy on December 9, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Comment #299443 by Lucas
Exactly. Without religion, we won't have any bollocks about it being God's will etc (TB and GWB would have been out quicker with their "God told me it was right" excuse).
If one is going to see taxes going towards a war, might as well make it a war with a proper reason (even if it is a stupid reason), as opposed to justifying it with fairy sprinkles....

Other Comments by Goldy

16. Comment #299451 by T0psp0T on December 9, 2008 at 6:30 pm

I wonder how one could not have doubts about the validity of a particular religion when acknowledging the fact that mere coincidence, i.e. the environment where one grew up in, most often is a main determinant of believing a particular religion rather than another. No matter to what extent one being brought up in a particular religious atmosphere may deny, the mind of many such individuals is prone to having a unconscious preference for the religion in question. Therefore, when one attempts to emphasize the inconsistency of having a particular belief being based solely on environment, an answer from such an individual that holds that environment as such hasn't had a profound impact on his or her particular 'choice', but instead was the result after having considered other religions, to some extent cannot be taken seriously. It would be different of course in the case of the former atheist, whose mind wasn't preoccupied by a particular religion in the first place.

Other Comments by T0psp0T

17. Comment #299453 by Amnis73 on December 9, 2008 at 6:33 pm

I love the intelligent and well thought out comments that more often than not are found throughout this site. I'm sure I've said it before, but I learn a lot from the different viewpoints so eloquently expressed and yet again my expectations of human beings are saved by the rational few.

Personally, I'm torn between debating with these sorts of theists, or writing them off. They seem to be the ones that show the most promise when it comes to making the leap from letting go of those last tenants of 'faith' to accepting rationality; yet they are highly dangerous to the argument for rationality because their foot in the door is what leaves room for the religiots to thrive.

I have a friend who insists he still believes in god; though a scientist, his idea is that the realm of the unknown is god's realm, and until science explains EVERY unknown phenomenon, god will exist to him. I remind him that the realm of god has been shrinking for millenia, is it so hard to think that there may not be one, and one day we will indeed explain life, the universe and everything? I think he really is clinging to the brainwashing he received as a child. Another reason I think he clings to his shredded faith is because after losing his mother to cancer, he wants to believe he'll see her again after death.

Now I've lost people very close to me and I cannot for the life of me reconcile the childish wants of the 'soul' surviving after death with what I understand reality to be; we cease to exist when we shuffle off this mortal coil. But how in the world can you say that to someone who lives their life as though they will have something to look forward to after they die?

Anyone that has any experience in this sort of situation please PM me because its really a question that I've been struggling with for a while, and I could use some outside input. Every grief counselor I've spoken to seems to think that one should find comfort in knowing their loved one is 'in a better place,' or whatever bullshit dream they think will satisfy the bereaved, but I find no comfort in such absurdity. Reality cannot be suspended for the mollycoddling of human emotion (this may explain why people consider me to be a heartless bitch :)


edited for poor grammar, oops

Other Comments by Amnis73

18. Comment #299462 by theonlybap on December 9, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Thanks for posting this!

I like Father Coyne -- was my professor last semester in astronomy. He's a great guy, and I really did learn a lot about astronomy from him. Doesn't let his beliefs muck up his science, which I found respectable.

Other Comments by theonlybap

19. Comment #299465 by tvictor on December 9, 2008 at 7:08 pm

"Eventually science will uncover all mysteries. Those that it can't explain don't exist.
This is the bedrock of Dawkins' argument,"

Not really, read Chapter 2 : The Poverty of Agnosticism:
"The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something does not put existence and non-existence on an even footing."

Dawkin merely said that, even though science cannot disprove god, it can make statistical "weighings" of its high unlikeliness.

I know that this is just one of several points from the review but im too sleepy read that wall of text

EDIT: It disapeared :o

Other Comments by tvictor

20. Comment #299466 by SmilingAtheist on December 9, 2008 at 7:27 pm

I live in Australia and I've finally seen the first episode of The Genius of Charles Darwin last night. The next episodes are over the next few weeks on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning on the History channel, of all places (would have made more sense on Discovery but I'll take what I can get). I'll wait to see the other episodes before I see the uncut interviews. My wife and I really enjoyed the first part. Reading some of the reviews from when it was originally released I was a touch concerned but found them to be unwarranted. Richard Dawkins did a wonderful job as far as I'm concerned. (I thought about downloading the torrents but never got around to it)

Other Comments by SmilingAtheist

21. Comment #299467 by Dr. Hameer on December 9, 2008 at 7:43 pm

I see that the article of Deepak Chopra's critique on Richard's The God Delusion, IS NO LONGER THERE!!! I posted it as food for thought for all of the 'enlightened' thinkers on this forum so we may exchange ideas. Did the admin of this website remove it?

If so, that's a shame and pathetic to say the least!

[edit from admin: I moved it to the 'alternate' comment thread. Please keep the discussion here related to the video. If you'd like to start a different discussion, please do so in the forum: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/. ]

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer

22. Comment #299474 by Laurie Fraser on December 9, 2008 at 8:25 pm

How could anyone have respect for a dullard like Chopra?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

23. Comment #299479 by kkelly on December 9, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Comment #299451 by T0psp0T

wow, you're cute.

Other Comments by kkelly

24. Comment #299481 by croatcat on December 9, 2008 at 8:52 pm

A nice example of the beauty of catholicism. Hypnotizingly subtle. Everything is open to interpretation, to a point, then all is drawn back to the love of god. Thus there are never any contradictions to worry about defending.

I did find this slightly amusing

re. John Paul II statement "the church, for very good reasons...It trails behind in making a declaration like this. It trails behind by too long a period of time in absorbing scientific culture and then judging it and speaking out on it."

How about because religion is irrelevant to scientific endeavors. Which is what the good Fr. said, but then said god's hand is in all things, but he doesn't intervene, except for the virgin birth and ressurection...and on and on..."You're getting very sleepy."

Other Comments by croatcat

25. Comment #299482 by Layla Nasreddin on December 9, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Just to be an insufferable nitpicker...

I have to correct RD on one thing -- in Part 5 at about 9:15, he says, "if you had been raised Muslim you would not believe in the Virgin Birth" (of Jesus). Muslims DO believe in the Virgin Birth, the story of it is told in the Qur'an more than once as an example of "Allah does whatever he wants, he says 'Be' and it is." Muslims don't believe that he was the Son of God (just a prophet) or that he was crucified and raised from the dead; generally it is held that somebody else was crucified in his place or that it was a hallucination, and Allah took Jesus "to himself."

That said, this was a very fascinating interview.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

26. Comment #299484 by andyl on December 9, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Thanks to Richard Dawkins and all others involved for providing this video to us for free.

Coyne makes some very contradictory statements regarding evolution and the spirit/soul. He says the soul was not injected or conferred to homo-sapiens at any particular time in evolutionary history by God/Jesus (the evolutionary history he claims to accept as truth), but then he says no other animal has a soul or lives after death except humans. Well, if the human species is descended from other animals, the predecessor creatures either had souls too, or God must have decided to put souls into humans at some particular point in time. Yet, the Father says that didn't happen, that God doesn't involve himself in the world that way; that the soul was a gradual process like evolution itself.

This whole notion that souls are only within humans is very arrogant and egotistical. It's as if Theist humans think they're superior to other creatures on Earth, and only THEY THEMSELVES have been granted access to a wonderful afterlife with many pleasures and privileges. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes no sense. We ARE animals, like the others on this planet! Either heaven is filled with bacteria, worms monkeys, birds, lizards, and humans, all bearing souls, or there's no such thing as a soul.

Coyne's remarks that "God loves all his children" is absolutely absurd too, and I was expecting Dawkins to ask a question about the occurrence of natural disasters that kill millions of innocent humans and cause massive levels of suffering, but the question wasn't asked. No matter, Coyne would have found a cheap way to poetically quasi-explain himself out of it, much like Allistar McGrath has done when interviewed.

Someone say "He's having his cake and eating it too" ? Spot on, Alternative Carpark.

Other Comments by andyl

27. Comment #299487 by DalaiDrivel on December 9, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Firstly: yes, thankyou to rd.net for posting this.

Secondly: Spoiler Alert.

I found it interesting that Coyne was embarrassed as a scientist by his belief in miracles, and asked for "easy questions" when apparently he finds his religious tradition coherent with his being a scientist.

Perhaps I missed the conflict... or did I?

I also, I must say, found it myself to be a Hitchens-esque "there, I got you to say it" moment when Coyne said, "I agree with you, God is superfluous" after Richard brought up God's superfluousness as an explainer.

There are of course other contradictions and conflicts that others have brought up...

Lovely quotes for our lot, as Polestar said.

I myself quoted him and made his statement my msn name when he said, "I didn't reason my way to God" after which I added, "I KNOW!"

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

28. Comment #299488 by Jolly Bloger on December 9, 2008 at 10:47 pm

That was awesome. Very interesting.

I made a few comments as I was watching it:
http://jollybloger.blogspot.com/2008/12/them-sneaky-catholics.html

But I think I was a little quick on the draw, and assumed opinions of Coyne that he later rejected. He seems to be a very reasonable scientist, as far as that goes, which I think makes his brand of religion that much more subversive.

A bit odd he thinks the soul is an evolved trait though. The standard materialist arguments apply - by what mechanism? how do you account for brain activity determining personality, etc. but the genetic component is a new one.

By that logic there must be a gene for death survival! Is there variation in our population? Could a mutant be born who is human in every way, except they lack the ability to survive their own death? Could we stick the gene in a fish, and fill heaven up with salmon?

Other Comments by Jolly Bloger

29. Comment #299496 by jdaudett on December 9, 2008 at 11:25 pm

I like Coyne. He is a nice guy who believes that the scientific worldview is the only approach for explaining observable phenomena, and that trying to use theology to explain worldly phenomena is at best naive. He is a skeptic about most things, and that isn't half bad.

The thing I like about Christian theology is the idea that god is love. I have to say, in my own belief system, the idea of love (of many different types) is on a pedestal as something not to trivialize. If all religious people followed theologies similar to Father Coyne's theology, the world would be a much better place.

Naturally, I like my own set of mostly rational, but some not thoroughly rational beliefs better than anyone else's book, but that's just me.

Other Comments by jdaudett

30. Comment #299501 by Ned Flanders on December 9, 2008 at 11:44 pm

The best "scientific" explanation.

Haha, nice one Father.

Other Comments by Ned Flanders

31. Comment #299509 by Bart Van Bockstaele on December 10, 2008 at 12:22 am

Thank you very much for posting these videos.

The interview made me relive part of my childhood. I went to a Jesuit school for a number of years. I hated the Jesuits, and they hated me, so they "lovingly" gave me the boot, and I was grateful for it. This interview is quite comparable to what I heard at the time.

Essentially, we were supposed to be happy that there was no evidence for God because if there were, it wouldn't be "faith". I think that is completely irrational, and they agree, just as in this interview. God is, because God is. It doesn't go any further than that.

Other Comments by Bart Van Bockstaele

32. Comment #299511 by Logicel on December 10, 2008 at 12:27 am

jdaudett at 32 writes: The thing I like about Christian theology is the idea that god is love. I have to say, in my own belief system, the idea of love (of many different types) is on a pedestal as something not to trivialize.

_______

That is the aspect about Christian theology that I view as being the most badly informed, useless, primitive, outdated, and misleading crapola. Love, in its many variations, is simply an emotion, like anger, envy, jealousy, etc. ALL emotions are valuable, they get us up out of the bed each morning. However, they are not magical forces in themselves though without our ability to be emotional we could not move a muscle despite how rational we may be.

Since we feel many emotions, it is much more interesting and helpful to focus on them all, how they interact, how they can be channeled for concerted efforts, etc. Christian theology actually cheapens and trivializes love, with its blinkered and ignorant over-emphasis of its importance and its 'magical power.'

Other Comments by Logicel

33. Comment #299534 by Beau Leeman on December 10, 2008 at 1:33 am

@29 (andyl)

When you get down to the spirit/soul area, it's easy to be contradictory, since it's a very esoteric realm. Contrary to the consensus opinion of most neuro-scientists, I see strong evidence of 'duality'. The bio-form, be it human, chimpanzee, dog or cat is a functioning vehicle of sorts. It doesn't think, but gathers data from the senses for the inhabiting entity. It's actually a spirit form, that 'drives' the body, like one drives a car or plane, and perceives its surroundings based on the sensory input.

So when Coyne said "no" to the question of animals having souls, he qualified it with, "but I could be wrong about that" or some such. Earlier, he had also denied the existence of a 'soul', but later acceded to himself continuing on after death. It's confusing, of course, but whatever you choose to 'term' it, there is an entity that rides in the bio-vehicle, if you will. You could term it a spirit, soul, or whatever, it's the thing that is the recipient, as well as the animating force, of the bioform.

Why do I 'believe' that? I've been OOB several times, and it was unmistakable. BUT, and here's the caveat; my saying it doesn't validate it. ... nor does your (or Richard's) denying it, refute it.

I feel that all higher phyla have consciousness, but on different levels. It logically follows then, that they are animated by a spirit form. The good part is that removed from the bioform, one could perhaps travel within galaxies. Otherwise, we're just short-lived DNA, and stuck in one lousy little corner of this vast cosmological jungle.

@29's last paragraph: " 'God loves all his children ' is absolutely absurd ... " Remember, this part of Coyne's spiel is based on his religious teachings. But refutations of that axiom are among Dawkins' favorite. Coyne did admit that he didn't take much of the Bible literally. I feel the much of the O/T is given via the 'man filter'. Moses had an agenda, to take his people out and to pilfer the land, take it back as it were. That meant to kill every tribe they came upon, and divide the booty, include young virgin girls. Did God direct him to do that, and say, "Repeat those words to my people?" Moses had an agenda. More likely, they were the 'conqueror's' words.

We have free will to do as we like, and so-called 'original sin' is a misnomer; it's simple the exercising of that will.

Other Comments by Beau Leeman

34. Comment #299538 by MPhil on December 10, 2008 at 1:40 am

Beau,

please don't take this as condescension, but as a philosopher specializing in the philosophy of mind and neurophilosophy - I have to tell you that all notions of "duality" lead to contradictions and cannot even in principle have any explnatory value - nor does the term "spirit form" help in any way...

I suggest reading some Daniel Dennett (Consciousness explained, Kinds of Minds), Paul Churchland (A neurocomputational perspective, The Engine of Reason - The Seat of the Soul), Antonio Damasio (Descartes Error), Jaegwon Kim (Physicalism - Or something near enough), Patricia Churchland (Neurophilosophy) et al


btw - what qualifies you to make this judgement? Have you studied the relevant disciplines?

Other Comments by MPhil

35. Comment #299546 by sbooder on December 10, 2008 at 1:52 am

Sorry...but I could not even get past part 2.

It annoys me when people think that because someone is calm and soft spoken that they are rational, because this guy is not. To answer his question, "because I was bought up in a catholic family, dose that mean I was duped?" YES.

And the supernatural being outside of Scientific enquiry is such a cop out.

Sorry mate you are a superstitious child...now grow up.

Other Comments by sbooder

36. Comment #299552 by zecat on December 10, 2008 at 2:00 am

Fr. Doyle elevates the debate to a new level and I think it would be a mistake that we atheists ever debate at a lower level than that. People willing to debate at a lower level (creationists, IDists, Bible literalists, etc) should simply be redirected to believers like Fr. Doyle. If even the Vatican says ID is a pile of nonsense, why on earth should WE ever lose our time dealing with it?! Let the Vatican do that job.

We should only be debating with people like Fr. Doyle. I'm sure we can find more like him, and in different religions too.

Points I'd like to be further developped:

- Fr. Doyle says he sees God as superfluous and unnecessary. He says his view of God, i.e. his faith, is very personal and hence unquestionable. I can agree with that, but then how does he reconcile a PERSONAL view with a PUBLIC presence? He's part of the catholic church, which is not about keeping personal convictions in the private sphere, but to the opposite spreading the Good News and interfering with political matters (contraception, abortion, religious leaders meeting political ones, etc). How a personal view can be stretched to a good news which may apply to anyone? Where does he find justifications that it's right to publicly advertize what is and should remain personal-only views?

- Miracles: Fr. Doyle believes in some miracles, and in particular the virgin birth and the resurrection. However, he says he feels quite uncomfortable with reconciling his belief in them with his scientific background. I think this point should be further developped. He said science and God had nothing to do with each other because of the very nature of science God will always be outside of science. But it seems to me that miracles are by definition scientific claims, so why should they be immune from scientific inquiry?

- Evidence of God: Fr. Doyle points to the 5'000 years or so of accounts and stories related by many people and books. Again, why these apparent evidence should not be subject to scientific inquiry? Why some from one religion should be given more importance than others from other religions? Why should they be considered as evidence of God, rather than evidence that humans have a natural tendency to become superstitious? Where does he place the border between respectable faith and superstition?

Other Comments by zecat

37. Comment #299555 by Beau Leeman on December 10, 2008 at 2:06 am

MPhil,

I don't take as condescending, just of your differing opinion, and one based on your own research. I've read Dennett, seen most of his videos, and even emailed him 1200 words of blather while he was in the hospital recovering from aortic surgery. Not preaching, by the way. ;-)

I understand the arguments for and against. But I've done some empirical testing on my own, and I've have seen evidences for the position I take. But I'm not done testing, and reading of dual blind tests, lab experiments, etc.

When I read Michael Shermer's account of his OOB test of sorts, using strong magnetic fields, I had to smile when he said something to the effect, "For a moment, I thought I saw myself walk by ... "

That's not exact, and I don't have the time to review the vid just now (it's 3 am and I have to be up at 6). Search at youtube, "michael shermer out of body" to view it.

Like I said, like you, I have read extensively, but what really attracts me (like Shermer), is trying it myself!

Other Comments by Beau Leeman

38. Comment #299568 by StuE on December 10, 2008 at 2:39 am

A lovely man - it would appear that blind belief in the 'miracles' of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are the cross he has to bear for his Catholic faith.

Other Comments by StuE

39. Comment #299571 by ridelo on December 10, 2008 at 2:46 am

Mr. Coyne (he's not my father so I don't call him Father) does need God and I don't. There!

Other Comments by ridelo

40. Comment #299580 by Dhamma on December 10, 2008 at 3:19 am

The moment 4:10 to 4:35 of part one is hilarious. Coyne starts saying how he doesn't want to call it only a theory, as he finds it a fact, which Dawk absolutely loves to hear. Then he goes on to say "And it does not at all contrast with any Catholic teaching"... Dawk waits and goes "Riiiiight.." - Haha, so funny!

Other Comments by Dhamma

41. Comment #299582 by Laurie Fraser on December 10, 2008 at 3:22 am

Hey, Dhamma - long time. Everything OK with you?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

42. Comment #299591 by Dhamma on December 10, 2008 at 3:39 am

Hi there, Laurie! Yes, it's pretty fine, thank you. I've recently moved to a new city in Sweden, so it's nice, but I wouldn't mind warming up my ass a bit, down under!

How's everything with you? Such a cute granddaughter(?)!

Just came to think of an awfully bad joke I heard once:
-What's an Australian kiss? It's like a French kiss, but down under.

Other Comments by Dhamma

43. Comment #299593 by Laurie Fraser on December 10, 2008 at 3:44 am

Sick! But good :)
Everything's good with me, mate. Little Tia is my joy.

What city are you in now?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

44. Comment #299599 by Richard Dawkins on December 10, 2008 at 3:56 am

I've just listened to the whole thing and marvelled, yet again, at the pernicious effect that a religious upbringing can have on an otherwise intelligent mind. Parts of what Father Coyne says are truly fascinating examples of religiously inspired doublethink.

Incidentally, one or two of the commenters on Youtube have complained about the camera work. This is grossly unfair to the cameraman, Tim Cragg, who is probably the best cameraman I have ever worked with. The whole point is that this is an UNEDITED interview. We are all used to watching interviews on television that have been carefully edited to remove the transitions between camera angles, focusing, zooming etc. We don't normally see what goes on behind the scenes. Here we do. Finished TV interviews have cosmetically tailored cuts between wide-angle and close-up shots, they have 'noddies' recorded after the interview, and so on. The only cuts here are to remove interventions by the Director, after which you sometimes see me repeat a question that Father Coyne has previously answered. Obviously, in a finished documentary, the repetition would be eliminated and only one version used.

If somebody with a YouTube account feels like sending in a comment to this effect (or just quoting me if you want to) I would be grateful.

Thanks
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

45. Comment #299601 by Swordmaiden on December 10, 2008 at 3:56 am

Thank you for posting this. I cannot get enough of interviews like this; but PLEASE can you do an extended, uncut version of the Ted Haggard interview with RD? It would be such a joy to behold! I could do with a laugh right now!

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

46. Comment #299609 by Anvil on December 10, 2008 at 4:15 am

7. Comment #299420 by black wolf

The justification for the assumption that the supernatural exists is the assumption that the evidence lies outside the realm of nature.

Spot on. This is all so much NOMA.

27. Comment #299481 by croatcat:

"You're getting very sleepy."

Yeah, 'hypnotic' really is the word here. Nearly started making chicken noises for a bit listening to this. I do agree with an earlier post that it is this level of religiosity that allows the Falwels of the world to spout their hate.

36. Comment #299534 by Beau Leeman:

The bio-form, be it human, chimpanzee, dog or cat is a functioning vehicle of sorts

Yes, but for DNA/RNA/Genes.

I'm not a scientist or academic, just a bloke on the street, but as far as I recall (I'm sure MPhil will correct my vast ignorance on the subject)Cartesian theistic dualism posits a situation where mind and body exist as separate entities and that the mind – or soul – can exist independent of the body, ie; without the body. This position, through logical reasoning and the use of a large Cartesian crowbar, allows for immortality, an afterlife, and the existence of God.

Furthermore, Descartes asserts, that as with one, so with the other; if the mind can exist without the body, so the body as a separate entity in and of itself, can exist without the mind.

Wow ZOMBIES!

This is, of course, in my honest opinion, a complete and total load of bollocks... Honestly Rene, what were you thinking?

Fr Coynes take on this is that this dualism 'develops' in the higher animals into a spirituality that cheats death and goes on to meet God - he denies belief in the soul in one moment then asserts it in the next. I felt tempted to shout: 'SHOW ME THE TRANSITIONAL SOULS'

It seems to me, again, a simple lay person, that this is just wishful thinking. How does this dualism differ from yours? BTW I haven't watched the video you mention, but I will - thanks for the pointer.

Otherwise, we're just short-lived DNA, and stuck in one lousy little corner of this vast cosmological jungle.

That is exactly what I believe to be the case. We may, however, be able to 'seed' our DNA out of our little corner of this vast cosmological jungle - perhaps then we can travel 'within galaxies'. Fingers crossed.

Thanks for the post. Made me think.

Anvil.

Other Comments by Anvil

47. Comment #299613 by Dhamma on December 10, 2008 at 4:20 am

Laurie,

Let's hope you recover fast then.

It's a small city called Varberg, 60km south of Göteborg (Gothenburg). You wouldn't want to go here in the winter though :)

It's the Nobel prize ceremony today. Would it ever be possible to see Dawkins there? Maybe the peace prize for his work against our invisible enemy.

Other Comments by Dhamma

48. Comment #299615 by Richard Dawkins on December 10, 2008 at 4:23 am

Thank you for posting this. I cannot get enough of interviews like this; but PLEASE can you do an extended, uncut version of the Ted Haggard interview with RD? It would be such a joy to behold! I could do with a laugh right now!

Alas, no. There are only two of my Channel Four interviews that the lawyers won't let us reproduce. Ted Haggard is one of them. The 'Psychic Sisters' is the other.

The Psychic Sisters have a franchise in Selfridges, one of London's largest and most prestigious department stores. I interviewed them for 'Enemies of Reason' but they refused to sign the release form after one of them 'channeled' my father from 'the other side', giving me all sorts of messages from him, about how he was sad not to have said goodbye properly, and sorry that I didn't keep a photograph of him by my side etc. I let her run on like this for a while before breaking it to her that my father was alive and well and living in Oxfordshire (still is, I am glad to say). She immediately terminated the interview, ordered us to stop the camera and refused to sign the release form. We then attempted to film her colleague, another of the Psychic Sisters, and she too tried to give me a Tarot Reading. However, she terminated it on the grounds that her clairvoyant second sight could see that I was surrounded by a 'red wall' of scepticism.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

49. Comment #299617 by Roedy on December 10, 2008 at 4:30 am

Father George Coyne, the former Vatican astronomer, defines God as the Prime Mover. He argues that nothing moves unless someone moves it. That means there must have been someone who moved that mover, all the way back to the Prime Mover who started it all. But this is obviously nonsense. Rivers flow all by themselves without anyone frantically paddling the water. Further, an astronomer such as Father Coyne surely knows that his argument presumes a very naive view of time, that ignores what Einstein learned, and ignores the discovery that time itself has a beginning. In other words, he is fully aware his argument is scientifically bogus, but presents it anyway hoping it will convince the naive.

Using a slightly more sophisticated Newtonian view of his logic, you might imagine inanimate objects move either because they were already moving or because something bumped into them. I would expect a lay person should have no difficulty at all with the Hindu view that this moving process has been going on indefinitely into the past. If it going for 5 billion years does not bother you, then surely it could go for 5 billion years and one day without needing a magic jump-start.

Postulating that previous to some point, nothing existed, then shazam, the entire universe appeared fully formed, all moving in complex patterns, as if it had just woken from a dream, strikes me as too bizarre for words. Why would god do nothing for that infinite time prior to the creation? Surely the fact of the universe is mind-boggling enough without making up even more mind-boggling god-based creation myths for which there is no evidence.

Father Coyne is fully aware of the mathematics and astronomical observation that can look back in time to see the birth of the universe, because light travels so slowly, and because the universe is expanding, some of the light that left at time of the creation is just arriving on earth now. Scientists, including Father Coyne, know how this moving process started and evolved in considerable detail. However, he continues to try to bamboozle others with his Prime Mover argument for motives that must remain a mystery.

Father Coyne was charming and polite, but he is also a lying humbug. I suppose though he might be persuasive to someone even more Catholic than he. Perhaps that is why Richard Dawkins let so many points pass.

Other Comments by Roedy

50. Comment #299619 by gcdavis on December 10, 2008 at 4:32 am

Intelligent people who retain belief in god seem to share one thing in common and that is an ability to compartmentalise their belief so that it is ring fenced against rational argument. It is as if the temporary suspension of disbelief that we all use in order to enjoy a film or a novel has become permanent in this one discreet area of their thinking.

There are probably lots of explanations as to why they do this but the really interesting question is how. I wonder if much research has been done in this area?

Other Comments by gcdavis