Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Richard Dawkins Interviews Father George Coyne

Dawkins inverviews one of the rational religious persons, Father George Coyne. He rejects intelligent design and accepts the importance of science but (the bad part begins) still thinks that we need faith to explain other things.

A short clip from the interview:

File size: 954 MB
Duration: 1h

http://ulozto.net/xk1gG351/the-genius-of-charles-darwin-the-uncut-interviews-father-george-coyne-avi

[Buy the DVD]

1 comment:

landunter said...

to me the point is, this father coyne does decidedly NOT say that "we need faith to explain other things", but very much on the contrary, that there are things (belief) to be excluded from explanation aka reasoning aka science.

not that i've become a believer to my old days now, for christ's sake (jesus, where comes this sudden inconsiderate language from? did the father catch me after all?) - but i do consider the guy's line of argument rather smart: he deliberately labels creationism bullshit, cause it tries to conquer darwinism, atheism from within science - and must by doing this be a complete loser for sure.

but, if you consider mankind's attitude of reasoning only one possible approach to the things, among others - like poetry, music, religious belief - then there's suddenly space made for the supernatural, for a virgin mary.. for all the crap.

scientific arguing being only one approach - his pov is verified by simply noticing the world as is, including one's own inability to refrain from.. let's say emotionally triggered lapses.

of course, one can argue, those mentioned "different approaches" in fact can be explained within science, consequently updated darwinism itself. though there's no handy prove like fossils or dna for the development of art, moral values, the belief in supernatural - all these forms of brain work eventually can be pinned down to being parts of cultural evolution, reasons found why they needed to occure. (btw. dawkins' thingy to explain religion as an overwhelming evolved inherited urge to "thank" someone for the comforts provided, in the end needing a god to be thanked for, seems nice a try, but doesn't satisfy me sufficiently. but well, we just label this: a phenomenum, plausible solution in progress).

so what, coyne says: these are results of reasoning only. i'm in the fields myself too. but this has no effect on the other means we've got, to cope with: what, where, why, how we are.

i mean, this is insane: for me he kinda gets away with this. dawkins is not the usual triumphant "winner" here, but in a position to throw in those standard arguments he obviously is not happy with himself this time. like. "but how bout all that different religions, different gods - how dare you think your christian catholic specimen of is the one?" no problem there for our father - according to him, god gives a shit about how in particular he's being believed in - just do it guys, will you? - contradictions, inconsistency? no terms to be applied here, welcome to the world anything goes. even catholicism, one of the true plagues. (why is this? raised to be one myself, long ago, for example.)

er.. i realize, this here is not meant stage to start a debate on certain aspects of atheistic world view - but maybe by chance there's somone out exactly having the fitting lines from a book or whatever ready for me to overcome this, let's face it, small argumentative crisis i'm left with after watching this, btw. very much appreciated, upload.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...