Christians v. Intelligent Design: Featured: George Coyne

Posted 11 October 2008 by PvM

George Coyne, a Jesuit priest and formed director of the Vatican Observatory has never hidden his dislike of "Intelligent Design". Father Coyne holds a doctorate in astronomy from Georgetown University as well as a bachelor's degree in mathematics from Fordham University. Father Coyne also has spoken out strongly against Cardinal Schoenborn's comments on evolutionary theory.

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn claims random evolution is incompatible with belief in a creator God. Here, in an exclusive rebuttal of that view, the Vatican's chief astronomer says that science reflects God's infinite purpose

I discussed Coyne's position in 2006 Coyne, has a fascinating perspective on faith and science. First of all he is upfront that his faith comes from his parents education as well as the people who surrounded him. He also finds that science gives his faith a new dimension but he is also clear that science does not lead him God.

QUESTION: Father Coyne, has there been a conflict in your life in resolving your interest in science with your religious calling? FATHER COYNE: I must honestly say, for me very personally, it's never been a conflict, in fact, far from it. The two have been very supportive. Let me say a word about it, though, because it's been my personal history, that my science has never led me to believe, to have faith. I haven't come to believe because I have convinced myself it was the right thing to do by doing science. Far from it, faith to me is a gift, which I willingly received as a little child, and then questioned as I grew up. By a gift, I mean that God gave me the gift of faith. I don't mean that in any miraculous sense, I mean through the parents who educated me, through the brothers and sisters I grew up with, the schools I went to, there was this influence upon me which was the faith, in the concrete. I accepted it, I questioned it, I grew up with it, and in the end, as a mature adult, I continue to accept it. Now, having the faith, not having acquired it, but having been given it, as I do my science I find that it supports my faith, it enriches it, it gives it a whole new dimension. But, I have never come to know God, to see God, to believe in God through doing science. He's not the conclusion of some sort of process of my personal scientific investigation. But, my scientific investigation, because God is reflected in the world in which me made, in some sense, my scientific investigation has always supported my belief in God in a very real sense. It helps me to pray better. I have more things to pray about, my prayer is enriched, et cetera. As a religious priest I find it a very enriching experience to do my scientific research. So far from there being any conflict, in that sense in which I explained, the scientific research, being a scientist helps to support both my life as a Jesuit and my belief in God.

More recently Coyne has come out strongly against Intelligent Design. On September 4, 2008, he gave a lecture

"I am going to, for better or worse, take on the intelligent design movement in this country," Coyne began the lecture. "I'm not going to apologize on the statements I make."

On the topic of "teach the controversy", a religio-political motivated attempt to introduce the teachings of "intelligent design" into public schools, Coyne has the following to add

Coyne spoke briefly about the religious and political implications of the debate between intelligent design and evolution. "The chasm between religious faith and scientific research is falsely created, especially in this country," he said.

and

"You shouldn't talk about God in a science classroom," he said. According to Coyne, it is the parents' duty to teach their child about God if they want, not the science teacher's responsibility.

Finally, let me point to what I see as a very open position towards faith and science, where science informs faith, where faith should not be a restriction to do science and finally where faith goes beyond that which can be established rationally. In other words, while science can inform faith, science cannot prove or disprove faith.

FATHER COYNE: It's a very real difficulty. There are many people who do view scientific research as alienating us from religion and from God, and when so many people do, there must be some reason for it. As a scientist I would address that in two ways. One is that at the very origins of modern science people like Isaac Newton, Descartes, and Galileo were all very religious people. So doing science is not inherently incompatible with religious faith. However the great successes of science - Galileo's telescopic observations, Newton's law of gravity, etc - all of this great success caused people to sort of say, what if we could establish religion on that same successful basis? What if we could have a good rational foundation for religious belief. What if religion could be sort of like science. Of course, that can't be. The whole dimension of religious belief requires transcendence, it requires going beyond what you can establish rationally.

Father Coyne is a voice of reason in the debates on faith and science and his word should serve as a focal point for resolving many of the unnecessary and foolish attempts to insist on science being subservient to our faith.

Useful links George Coyne at Meta-Library Vatican astronomer rips Intelligent Design theory

97 Comments

Azazel · 11 October 2008

It is amazingly refreshing to hear someone of the cloth actually say that science and religion do not have to be exclusive from each other. Even though I am an atheist, it would be an immense honor to meet Father Coyne and pick his brains over a meal.

-Azazel

PvM · 11 October 2008

While I personally am not too impressed by some of the Catholic Doctrine on women, reproductive health etc, I have much respect for many of the cloth. I went to a Catholic High School (public school) run partially by monks who not only were excellent teachers but also showed an incredible openness.

Azazel said: It is amazingly refreshing to hear someone of the cloth actually say that science and religion do not have to be exclusive from each other. Even though I am an atheist, it would be an immense honor to meet Father Coyne and pick his brains over a meal. -Azazel

Johnny Vector · 11 October 2008

Fr. Coyne sez:

The whole dimension of religious belief requires transcendence, it requires going beyond what you can establish rationally.

And there you have it, folks. This is why I have to agree with PZ; when it comes to religion, there's just no there there. Does he even realize he just put his religion in the same category as unicorns and flying teapots? Not exactly science informing faith, here. More like "Just keep the science well away from teh fayth, and everything will be fine." Points for honesty, though.

iml8 · 11 October 2008

Johnny Vector said: Points for honesty, though.

I tend to like the idea that, as per THE SIMPSONS, the courts should issue an injunction ordering that science and religion keep at least 500 feet away from each other at all times. Whatever the differences of opinion, the fighting gets tiresome and not really worth either side's time. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

PvM · 11 October 2008

A bit of a an oversimplification but I understand why some may come to hold your beliefs. PZ's position is as valid as Coyne's really, after all this is not about what can be established rationally.

Johnny Vector said: Fr. Coyne sez:
The whole dimension of religious belief requires transcendence, it requires going beyond what you can establish rationally.
And there you have it, folks. This is why I have to agree with PZ; when it comes to religion, there's just no there there. Does he even realize he just put his religion in the same category as unicorns and flying teapots? Not exactly science informing faith, here. More like "Just keep the science well away from teh fayth, and everything will be fine." Points for honesty, though.

Dale Husband · 11 October 2008

Oh, so you don't believe that all non-Christians are heading for hell? Because that's what I was taught in church (Southern Baptist) and that later drove me to reject Christianity when I considered how flawed the religion is and how virtuous most non-Christians are. If irrationality gets you into heaven, then God himself is a lunatic. Sorry, my view of God is higher than that of any religion, or even that of the ID promoters. There's not really that much difference between the ancient Judeo-Christian view of God and the pagan view, from a modern philisophical perspective. The real God MUST be better than the one of the Bible to gain my allegiance to Him. Dale Husband (agnostic)

PvM said: A bit of a an oversimplification but I understand why some may come to hold your beliefs. PZ's position is as valid as Coyne's really, after all this is not about what can be established rationally.
Johnny Vector said: Fr. Coyne sez:
The whole dimension of religious belief requires transcendence, it requires going beyond what you can establish rationally.
And there you have it, folks. This is why I have to agree with PZ; when it comes to religion, there's just no there there. Does he even realize he just put his religion in the same category as unicorns and flying teapots? Not exactly science informing faith, here. More like "Just keep the science well away from teh fayth, and everything will be fine." Points for honesty, though.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

my science I find that it supports my faith,

Of course it does. That's because for Father Coyne, no possible evidence would contradict his faith. A Big Bang reinforces his belief, but then so would a steady state or living under a dome with pinpoint lights. Evolution may reinforce his faith, but discovering a fossilized Garden of Eden would reinforce it even more. Father Coyne certainly isn't a voice of reason, but he's less irrational that most believers.

PvM · 11 October 2008

Yes, the position that anyone who is not 'born again' or who is not a member of a church will go to hell, has been a main reason for me to reject YECism, mimicking much of Dale's experiences.

Dale Husband said: Oh, so you don't believe that all non-Christians are heading for hell? Because that's what I was taught in church (Southern Baptist) and that later drove me to reject Christianity when I considered how flawed the religion is and how virtuous most non-Christians are. If irrationality gets you into heaven, then God himself is a lunatic. Sorry, my view of God is higher than that of any religion, or even that of the ID promoters. There's not really that much difference between the ancient Judeo-Christian view of God and the pagan view, from a modern philisophical perspective. The real God MUST be better than the one of the Bible to gain my allegiance to Him. Dale Husband (agnostic)
PvM said: A bit of a an oversimplification but I understand why some may come to hold your beliefs. PZ's position is as valid as Coyne's really, after all this is not about what can be established rationally.
Johnny Vector said: Fr. Coyne sez:
The whole dimension of religious belief requires transcendence, it requires going beyond what you can establish rationally.
And there you have it, folks. This is why I have to agree with PZ; when it comes to religion, there's just no there there. Does he even realize he just put his religion in the same category as unicorns and flying teapots? Not exactly science informing faith, here. More like "Just keep the science well away from teh fayth, and everything will be fine." Points for honesty, though.

PvM · 11 October 2008

You are correct, science should never be a reason for one's faith, either to accept it or reject it. As such Coyne is surely a voice of reason as his clearly separates what rationality can do and what it cannot do. What do you find so troublesome about Coyne's position?

Greg Esres said:
my science I find that it supports my faith,
Of course it does. That's because for Father Coyne, no possible evidence would contradict his faith. A Big Bang reinforces his belief, but then so would a steady state or living under a dome with pinpoint lights. Evolution may reinforce his faith, but discovering a fossilized Garden of Eden would reinforce it even more. Father Coyne certainly isn't a voice of reason, but he's less irrational that most believers.

Dale Husband · 11 October 2008

I disagree with that assessment, actually. The steady state theory, if it had been confirmed, would have totally debunked the notion of a Creator in a way that the Big Bang theory does not. That was the only time that the religious doctrine of Creation was under serious threat by science. Creationists who see evolution as a threat to their beliefs have a very shallow faith indeed. In this case, it was the anti-religious bias of the scientists who came up with the steady state theory that I condemn.

Greg Esres said:
my science I find that it supports my faith,
Of course it does. That's because for Father Coyne, no possible evidence would contradict his faith. A Big Bang reinforces his belief, but then so would a steady state or living under a dome with pinpoint lights. Evolution may reinforce his faith, but discovering a fossilized Garden of Eden would reinforce it even more. Father Coyne certainly isn't a voice of reason, but he's less irrational that most believers.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

As such Coyne is surely a voice of reason as his clearly separates what rationality can do and what it cannot do.

Because rationality is all there is. The decision not to use rationality requires the use of rationality, but using it poorly, either by basing the reasoning on false premises or fallacious arguments. The false premise used by most Christians is that "faith" is a virtue. It isn't.

iml8 · 11 October 2008

Dale Husband said: In this case, it was the anti-religious bias of the scientists who came up with the steady state theory that I condemn.

Of course, the irony is that Sir Fred Hoyle is also heavily cited by the Darwin-bashers for his "tornado in a junkyard" notion. I think his attempt to label Archaeopteryx a con job has been generally given up as a lost cause, though it still gets recycled by Darwin-bashers whose sense of discrimination is NONEXISTENT instead of merely SLIGHT. Also ironically, I have read Darwin-bashers who claim that scientists do not like Big Bang cosmology and would prefer Steady State concepts, since Steady State would discard the creation event. Alas for this notion the Big Bang is doctrine these days and attacking it will get a near-universal annoyed response. "We buy the Big Bang because the evidence demands it. The metaphysical issues are academic, you can read what you like into it. Believe it or not, not even the most outspoken atheists in the science community are doing science just to spite you folks." White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

I disagree with that assessment, actually. The steady state theory, if it had been confirmed, would have totally debunked the notion of a Creator in a way that the Big Bang theory does not.

For you, maybe, but if you are a believer, then I doubt it. You would have found some other rationalization. But my point was to Coyne, whom you can't speak for.

PvM · 11 October 2008

I see, you hold to the faith, that rationality is all there is. Other's don't, why do you believe your position has more relevance? If faith a virtue or is it not, that strongly depends on how you see the concept of faith. Certainly Christians are quite right when they consider faith to be a virtue of course those who disagree are similarly right in claiming faith is not a virtue. Now which side is right or wrong here?

Greg Esres said:
As such Coyne is surely a voice of reason as his clearly separates what rationality can do and what it cannot do.
Because rationality is all there is. The decision not to use rationality requires the use of rationality, but using it poorly, either by basing the reasoning on false premises or fallacious arguments. The false premise used by most Christians is that "faith" is a virtue. It isn't.

PvM · 11 October 2008

But then neither can you? What am I missing?

Greg Esres said:
I disagree with that assessment, actually. The steady state theory, if it had been confirmed, would have totally debunked the notion of a Creator in a way that the Big Bang theory does not.
For you, maybe, but if you are a believer, then I doubt it. You would have found some other rationalization. But my point was to Coyne, whom you can't speak for.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

I see, you hold to the faith, that rationality is all there is. Others don't, why do you believe your position has more relevance?

Because a contrary position is self-contradictory.

which side is right or wrong here?

Christians are wrong. My faith says that Zeus is creator of the Universe. That conclusion contradicts yours that God created the Universe. If God and Zeus are two different beings, then this produces a contradiction, showing that the argument is invalid.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

But then neither can you? What am I missing?

I'm pointing out that the "scientists" are making ad hoc arguments. They will not state ahead of time what discoveries will disprove their belief in God. Only after something is discovered, they say "This proves God!"

Dale Husband · 11 October 2008

Of course faith is a virtue, in the right amounts, and in the right things. If you have faith in nothing, you would have to even deny the value of the scientific method, which is based on the assumption that the laws of science discovered by it are constant. If they are not, then science itself is useless and we evolutionists would indeed not have a leg to stand on, because nothing about the natural universe could be certain, not now, nor in the past, nor in the future.

I find it amazing how Creationists say that modern science is based on Biblical concepts of God and His Creation (it wasn't), while denying the assumption I just gave (which IS the basis of modern science)! LYING HYPOCRITES!!!

PvM · 11 October 2008

Greg Esres said:
I see, you hold to the faith, that rationality is all there is. Others don't, why do you believe your position has more relevance?
Because a contrary position is self-contradictory.
which side is right or wrong here?
Christians are wrong. My faith says that Zeus is creator of the Universe. That conclusion contradicts yours that God created the Universe. If God and Zeus are two different beings, then this produces a contradiction, showing that the argument is invalid.

Your point being? Why could not both be true? Or one could be true and not the other. Or what if one is true for you and one is true for me, why would that lead to a contradiction? Surely we can hold different opinions without a necessary contradiction. Which if why logic, especially when poorly applied is such a poor tool.

Stanton · 11 October 2008

Greg Esres said:
which side is right or wrong here?
Christians are wrong. My faith says that Zeus is creator of the Universe. That conclusion contradicts yours that God created the Universe. If God and Zeus are two different beings, then this produces a contradiction, showing that the argument is invalid.

If you were an actual devotee of Zeus, you would have known (and said) that Zeus is merely the ruler of the Universe, not the creator of the Universe, which would be the sire of Gaia, Erebus, Nyx, and Tartarus; Chaos the Unformed.

PvM · 11 October 2008

Greg Esres said:
But then neither can you? What am I missing?
I'm pointing out that the "scientists" are making ad hoc arguments. They will not state ahead of time what discoveries will disprove their belief in God. Only after something is discovered, they say "This proves God!"

That seems a bit strange. First of all, why should our knowledge about how, contradict our position about God? Why are you assuming that there is a requirement to provide what would disprove a God. Again you are applying non sensical standards and methods. Also, your conclusion may be somewhat flawed, it is not that it proves God, it is that it is reconcilable with religious faith. And of course, we all know that science is tentative so why should religious people be concerned about whether or not science contradicts faith, where both have such different standards? These scientists are not making scientific arguments when they discuss faith. Simple really. I believe it would help understanding the position before drawing 'conclusions' about how these people think, especially since you have no direct insight into their thoughts, and given your faith in reason as the ultimate truth, likely any attempt of insight will be doomed since you operate from a different premise.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

Your point being? Why could not both be true?

You haven't pointed out a way in which logic has been poorly applied. Both Zeus and God cannot both be creators of the Universe. And "true for me" vs "true for you" has no meaning. Sounds like you're beating a retreat into post-modernism.

Matt G. · 11 October 2008

This push to reconcile religion and science reminded me of an interview the Washington Post did with Francis Collins in their On Faith series (link to video below). Collins criticizes people on both sides, but his criticism of atheists ticked me off. He goes on about how religious people get "caricatured" and "mischaracterized" by atheists, and complains that the portrayal of faith presented in Dawkins' book (I assume he means The God Delusion) "is not a view of faith I recognize." Well that may be, Francis, but it IS a view that half the country DOES recognize because they hold it: the Young Earth Creationists. The irony is that he himself is guilty of mischaracterization. If atheists were portraying an extreme fringe of believers as being the mainstream, that would be a mischaracterization. This isn't the case. YECs in the US are fully 50% of the population, and it is these folks who are being described by Dawkins and others. I'm sure the number is actually far greater because many (most?) ID folk are just concealing - or in denial about - their real (Bible-based) beliefs.

You can find the part about atheists just into the third minute. Interestingly, he qualifies his remarks by insisting that he is talking about the views of what he calls "mature believers." Well guess what - there are a lot of immature believers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/04/03/VI2008040303663.html

As for Father Coyne, much of what he says is simply too muddy to be intelligible. He accepted faith before he questioned it? If you've already accepted it, how meaningful can the "questioning" really be? "Having the faith, not having acquired it, but having been given it,...?" Does he mean acquired as in through research? He "willing" received it as a little child, not directly from God but through his parents, siblings, schools? As a little child you willing receive almost anything. I appreciate his efforts in condemning ID, and agree with some of what he says, but much makes no sense to me.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

If you were an actual devotee of Zeus, you would have known (and said) that Zeus is merely the ruler of the Universe, not the creator of the Universe, which would be the sire of Gaia, Erebus, Nyx, and Tartarus; Chaos the Unformed.

This is an article of faith for me, and you therefore are a heretic. :-)

Stanton · 11 October 2008

Maybe the reason why Christian scientists (and scientists of other faiths) don't like to state what will destroy their belief in God or other higher powers because for a person to be forced to point out the boundaries of one's own faith destroys the whole purpose of having faith in the first place. Even if some theist scientists had some particular discovery or circumstance that would negate their faith if they encountered it, did it ever occur to you that they might think it be very rude for someone to demand that they divulge it?

Greg Esres said:
But then neither can you? What am I missing?
I'm pointing out that the "scientists" are making ad hoc arguments. They will not state ahead of time what discoveries will disprove their belief in God. Only after something is discovered, they say "This proves God!"

Stanton · 11 October 2008

I am not a heretic, you moron: it's been taught to every schoolchild for thousands upon thousands of years that Chaos gave birth to Gaia, that Gaia gave birth to her husband (O)Uranus, then by (O)Uranus, Gaia gave birth to the Cyclopes, the Hecatonchires, and the Titans, and that the Titan Cronus married his sister Rhea, and had Zeus as a son, who spent his childhood in the care of Almathea and the Kouretes on the island of Crete. So, then, please explain to me exactly how the ancient Greeks or their modern-day descendants believed that Zeus created the Universe if the Universe already existed when Zeus came into being?

Greg Esres said:
If you were an actual devotee of Zeus, you would have known (and said) that Zeus is merely the ruler of the Universe, not the creator of the Universe, which would be the sire of Gaia, Erebus, Nyx, and Tartarus; Chaos the Unformed.
This is an article of faith for me, and you therefore are a heretic. :-)

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

Of course faith is a virtue, in the right amounts, and in the right things. If you have faith in nothing, you would have to even deny the value of the scientific method, which is based on the assumption that the laws of science discovered by it are constant.

That really isn't the same meaning of "faith" at all. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because it did yesterday, the day before, the day before that, etc, for the last few billion years. Induction alone would say that it's a reasonable conclusion that the sun will continue to rise in the near future. Religious faith is asking people to believe in things that have *never* been observed, and are contrary to the observed laws of the universe.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

I am not a heretic, you moron: it’s been taught

I don't give a rat's ass what they taught school children, nor do I give a rat's ass what you believe about Greek mythology. I'm telling you what my FAITH is and it is beyond the reach of miserable facts or rational discussion. And it's just a arbitrary example, as I do not really believe that Zeus exists or has ever existed. How could you possibly think I was making a serious proposition about Zeus? Good God!

Stanton · 11 October 2008

Greg Esres said: And it's just a arbitrary example, as I do not really believe that Zeus exists or has ever existed. How could you possibly think I was making a serious proposition about Zeus? Good God!

If you intended mock other people's faith by pretending to be a fact-impervious devotee, it would have helped your masquerade greatly if you didn't make a glaring, galling mistake that even the most brain-dead, slavering fanatic would never make. Perhaps you could have picked a better example with which to make a snarky fool out of yourself with?

Stanton · 11 October 2008

And tell us again how alienating theist scientists by mocking their faith and or demanding that they divulge the circumstances of their potential apostasy will help scientists and science in general?

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

glaring, galling mistake that even the most brain-dead, slavering fanatic would never make.

I didn't make a mistake. My beliefs for my Lord Zeus don't have to correspond to what others say about him. Because the truth was personally revealed to me by Zeus himself.

PvM · 11 October 2008

Greg Esres said:
Your point being? Why could not both be true?
You haven't pointed out a way in which logic has been poorly applied. Both Zeus and God cannot both be creators of the Universe. And "true for me" vs "true for you" has no meaning. Sounds like you're beating a retreat into post-modernism.

Again you seem to be missing the point. To me God can be the Creator of the Universe while to you Zeus is the Creator of the Universe. True for me versus true for you has incredible meaning as it guides our daily interactions. Instead of retreating, I am showing the flawed 'logic' in your claims. The same person for instance can be both cure and ugly, depending on who you ask. Certainly we should thus not conclude that the person does not exist. Especially when there are no compelling reasons why I should take your claim about Zeus seriously. Of course, neither should you have to take my claim about God seriously. But to conclude that this leads to a contradiction seems rather illogical.

PvM · 11 October 2008

After more than 60% of the response was wasted on Collins, we finally get to Coyne. You raise good questions but are you really interested in pursuing what he means by it or is the term 'too muddy' sufficient for you to reject them. I understand that much of this may make no sense to atheists but then again to many much of what atheists believe make no sense either. What is one to do but to acknowledge that different people can hold to different faiths, one not being superior over the other, just different?

Matt G. said: As for Father Coyne, much of what he says is simply too muddy to be intelligible. He accepted faith before he questioned it? If you've already accepted it, how meaningful can the "questioning" really be? "Having the faith, not having acquired it, but having been given it,...?" Does he mean acquired as in through research? He "willing" received it as a little child, not directly from God but through his parents, siblings, schools? As a little child you willing receive almost anything. I appreciate his efforts in condemning ID, and agree with some of what he says, but much makes no sense to me.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

To me God can be the Creator of the Universe while to you Zeus is the Creator of the Universe.

You're mistaking beliefs with reality. You can believe the earth is flat all you want, but that doesn't make it so. I'm sorry, but you're claiming there no such thing as truth and you say I'm being illogical?

PvM · 11 October 2008

Inconsistency seems to be not objection for you to continue your 'argument'. So much for rationality being all there is.

Greg Esres said:
glaring, galling mistake that even the most brain-dead, slavering fanatic would never make.
I didn't make a mistake. My beliefs for my Lord Zeus don't have to correspond to what others say about him. Because the truth was personally revealed to me by Zeus himself.

PvM · 11 October 2008

Greg Esres said:
To me God can be the Creator of the Universe while to you Zeus is the Creator of the Universe.
You're mistaking beliefs with reality. You can believe the earth is flat all you want, but that doesn't make it so. I'm sorry, but you're claiming there no such thing as truth and you say I'm being illogical?

Are you saying that there is something like truth? Sure when it comes to issues of science, there are ways to determine a best description of the facts as we know it right now, even though history has shown that science has often been wrong or at best a poor or mediocre approximation. When it comes to issue that are beyond science, such as issues of personal taste, preferences, perception and tradition then indeed, truth is a very tough proposition.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

Inconsistency seems to be not objection for you to continue your ‘argument’. much for rationality being all there is.

Non sequitur. Just pointing out to the poster that he was silly to bring up the issue.

PvM · 11 October 2008

Silly to bring up the issue, now there is something ironic in that statement

Greg Esres said:
Inconsistency seems to be not objection for you to continue your ‘argument’. much for rationality being all there is.
Non sequitur. Just pointing out to the poster that he was silly to bring up the issue.

Robert · 11 October 2008

Just came from UD where every thread reads like a theological rant, even when they're talking 'science?'.
It's dissapointing to see that the position held by an ostensible ally (in most respects) Father Coyne, should lead to our own theological shit kicking.
I was brought up a Catholic and have been born again into atheism. But we are not so thick on the ground that we can knock about allies.
Father Coyne and his like drive YEC officianados up the wall, and make Dembsky's neck veins bulge; good enough for me. That, and the fact that I still visit the old seminary, and Fathers, whom were my teachers; we have a toddy and talk history and literature: Father Eustice is now 87, Darwin Bless Him!
Rob.

Stanton · 11 October 2008

If you've already admitted that it was intended to be a (poorly crafted) farce, why do you insist on persisting in it?

Greg Esres said:
glaring, galling mistake that even the most brain-dead, slavering fanatic would never make.
I didn't make a mistake. My beliefs for my Lord Zeus don't have to correspond to what others say about him. Because the truth was personally revealed to me by Zeus himself.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

Are you saying that there is something like truth?

Certainly.

Sure when it comes to issues of science, there are ways to determine a best description of the facts as we know it right now, even though history has shown that science has often been wrong or at best a poor or mediocre approximation.

But I wager that *most* scientists think we're getting closer and closer to "truth", and we're not just discovering models that give us good answers. I don't think many would find that very satisfying.

When it comes to issue that are beyond science, such as issues of personal taste, preferences, perception and tradition then indeed, truth is a very tough proposition.

I would hesitate to say that anything is beyond science (or more generally, empiricism), but even granting that some things were, those weren't the sort of things being discussed here. The existence of God, if his existence has some implications for the physical universe, is not necessarily beyond the reach of science. And even if it were, that doesn't mean a belief in him is rational. There are an infinite number of possible gods whose existences have no material consequences, and asserting the existence of any one in particular is entirely arbitrary. The odds of being right trend towards zero.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

If you’ve already admitted that it was intended to be a (poorly crafted) farce, why do you insist on persisting in it?

Because it seems to freak you out. :-)

PvM · 11 October 2008

Greg Esres said:
Are you saying that there is something like truth?
Certainly.
Sure when it comes to issues of science, there are ways to determine a best description of the facts as we know it right now, even though history has shown that science has often been wrong or at best a poor or mediocre approximation.
But I wager that *most* scientists think we're getting closer and closer to "truth", and we're not just discovering models that give us good answers. I don't think many would find that very satisfying.

Wow, seems that your view of scientists may not be that different than that of religious people. But I appreciate your faith here, which you call a wager.

When it comes to issue that are beyond science, such as issues of personal taste, preferences, perception and tradition then indeed, truth is a very tough proposition.
I would hesitate to say that anything is beyond science (or more generally, empiricism), but even granting that some things were, those weren't the sort of things being discussed here. The existence of God, if his existence has some implications for the physical universe, is not necessarily beyond the reach of science. And even if it were, that doesn't mean a belief in him is rational. There are an infinite number of possible gods whose existences have no material consequences, and asserting the existence of any one in particular is entirely arbitrary. The odds of being right trend towards zero.

What makes you think that these were not the things that were being discussed here. They were exactly the things being discussed here. Even if you were correct that His Existence has some implications for the physical universe, why should you believe that science can identify this? In fact to some, the universe itself is an implication of God. And again you are confusing faith with rationality and while there are surely a variety of ways to reconcile them both, the thought that rationality is all there is is as tentative as the concept that there is more. There are an infinite number of possible universes and thus asserting the existence of any one is particular may be entirely arbitrary. The odds therefor trend towards zero. See how poor logic can lead one down a path of triviality? I appreciate your efforts though

PvM · 11 October 2008

Greg Esres said:
If you’ve already admitted that it was intended to be a (poorly crafted) farce, why do you insist on persisting in it?
Because it seems to freak you out. :-)

A the ultimate form of rationality. Must be true that that's all there is...

PvM · 11 October 2008

Greg Esres said:
Are you saying that there is something like truth?
Certainly.

Funny how your position may not be that different from how some people of faith approach the issue.

Greg Esres · 11 October 2008

Wow, seems that your view of scientists may not be that different than that of religious people. But I appreciate your faith here, which you call a wager.

Not faith, induction. And it's inherently verifiable, which makes it scientific.

Even if you were correct that His Existence has some implications for the physical universe, why should you believe that science can identify this?

Why should it not? If you can make material predictions for a universe with a God, then science should be able to verify those material predictions, at least in principle.

In fact to some, the universe itself is an implication of God.

But none using good logic.

There are an infinite number of possible universes and thus asserting the existence of any one is particular may be entirely arbitrary. The odds therefor trend towards zero. See how poor logic can lead one down a path of triviality?

No, that paragraph was incoherent. I don't hypothesize the existence of the universe, we have one in front of us, so the odds are 100%..

PvM · 11 October 2008

Greg Esres said:
Wow, seems that your view of scientists may not be that different than that of religious people. But I appreciate your faith here, which you call a wager.
Not faith, induction. And it's inherently verifiable, which makes it scientific.

SO you claim but in fact, it is as much an issue of faith as the faith of a religious person

Even if you were correct that His Existence has some implications for the physical universe, why should you believe that science can identify this?
Why should it not? If you can make material predictions for a universe with a God, then science should be able to verify those material predictions, at least in principle.

There lies the problem, how would you be able to verify said predictions if you lack a universe with and without a God. I understand that Dawkins holds a very similar position that a universe with a God would be very very different and yet he provides, for good reasons, no compelling arguments to support this. If you can make material predictions then science may be able to address this. Note the may.

In fact to some, the universe itself is an implication of God.
But none using good logic.

Again that depends on your definition of logic. Certainly the logic is not much different from those who insist that there was no God involved.

There are an infinite number of possible universes and thus asserting the existence of any one is particular may be entirely arbitrary. The odds therefor trend towards zero. See how poor logic can lead one down a path of triviality?
No, that paragraph was incoherent. I don't hypothesize the existence of the universe, we have one in front of us, so the odds are 100%..

So in other words, your logical argument fails because it leads to a contradiction. Exactly my point

CW · 12 October 2008

SO you claim but in fact, it is as much an issue of faith as the faith of a religious person

That's not remotely accurate. The "faith" of a religious person is faith without or often despite evidence. Yes, in English (a language, as the man said, which makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style) you can verbally confuse the distinction between belief-without-evidence and confidence-based-upon-evidence by choosing to label them both as "faith", but it's a reprehensible semantic tactic rather than a valid comparison.

There lies the problem, how would you be able to verify said predictions if you lack a universe with and without a God.

While in a purely theoretical sense that's an interesting seeming question, in actual practice it's merely silly. The predictions in question don't have to be treated as a nebulous class of possibilities, we can actually address them whenever religion makes assertions about reality. When Christians (like Coyne) make claims for the power of prayer (just for example) we can certainly test those claims. So, sure, if you want to make arguments which might apply to a tiny minority of what we consider religion, go ahead. I agree that claiming that religion in all it's possible forms is always subject to material prediction is overstepping. Certainly there are pantheistic "religions" which don't really say much of anything testable or predictive. However that's hardly what I think of when discussing "religion". And it certainly isn't what Coyne is talking about. The fact is that he (and others like him) have already discarded the portions of their religion (once regarded as unassailable truths) that turned out not to conform to reality. They now call these bits metaphors, parables, poetic allusions or the like. What is left, what has not yet been too blatantly refuted, is retained. This makes it absolutely meaningless for someone like Coyne to discuss science "supporting" their faith. The only way science supports their faith is by not refuting the bits they still espouse too directly. And if science does clearly refute some facet of their dogma then that facet is simply discounted (like Coyne discounts literal Creationism or the story of Noah's Ark). It's just religion of the gaps with science being painted as "supporting" everything it hasn't refuted or can't address. Sure, that's science and religion coexisting but, really, why would anyone bother?

dave s · 12 October 2008

Why all the shock and horror about Coyne's perfectly reasonable arguments? OK, he's starting from a position of blind faith, but in that position has no problem with accepting and supporting the findings of science which superficially contradict a particular literal misreading of biblical texts. Not new, and an issue ably stated by Gray in his 1860 essay: Natural selection & natural theology -
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/84/69/

That had Darwin's full support, though he himself was by then a vaguely Deistic agnostic. Darwin had learnt at Cambridge that honest science and religion could not be incompatible, and that science was a religious search for God's laws. It's rather ironical that this concept, of God introducing species through laws rather than inconsistent miracles, was part of Paley's theodicy (answer to the problem of evil) in the same book that inspired both Darwin and our modern ID creotards –
http://www.psych.uni-goettingen.de/abt/1/sydow/von_Sydow_(2005)_Darwin_A_Christian_Undermining_Christianity.pdf

Dave Luckett · 12 October 2008

One of the truly trying things about debates on religion is that nobody ever notices that their own dogmas are dogmas. "The rational is all there is", is a dogma, supported by an "ought to be" argument along the lines of "if it isn't, then (insert bad consequence here)". The weakness of this should be clearly apparent. Moreover, if the Universe is made up solely of the rational or (though this is often not noticed) of the material, then the rationalist and the materialist have actually defined God out of their Universe, and can hardly be surprised if they do not find Him.

Me, I have no idea. I have dogmas of my own, one of which is that I refuse to believe in an infinitely vengeful God. Another is that I distrust faith itself - I have a dogma that there should be no dogmas, if you like. It is at that point that I meet myself on the way in, and retreat in baffled confusion. But here's the thing - if it all meets in a paradox, well... don't I get to wonder a bit?

infidel.michael · 12 October 2008

2 Dave Luckett:

If you believe in dogmas, you're dogmatic. If you reject dogmas, you're anti-dogmatic dogmatist. I'm wondering whether the word "dogma" still has any meaning. Consider this: If you reject smoking cigarettes, you are an air-smoker. Does it make sense?

TomS · 12 October 2008

Dale Husband said: The steady state theory, if it had been confirmed, would have totally debunked the notion of a Creator in a way that the Big Bang theory does not. That was the only time that the religious doctrine of Creation was under serious threat by science.

Aristotle held that the universe was eternal. This made for problems among Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophers who respected the authority of Aristotle. One solution was given by Thomas Aquinas, who said that it could not be demonstrated that the universe had a beginning in time, although it could be demonstrated that it was caused, that it was consistent to believe in both the eternity of the universe and its being caused, and that the beginning in time was a matter of revelation, not reason.

Stanton · 12 October 2008

No, I find it annoying that you persist in pretending to act like an idiot in order to lend illusionary strength to your argument that all religious people are slavering, fact-immune fanatics. It makes you rather hypocritical, even.

Greg Esres said:
If you’ve already admitted that it was intended to be a (poorly crafted) farce, why do you insist on persisting in it?
Because it seems to freak you out. :-)

FL · 12 October 2008

Okay, let's point out a few things. (1) Other than Fr. Coyne's support of evolution and his usual conflation and attacks upon ID and creationism, he doesn't seem to offer much of anything. In terms of "reconciling science and faith", the PZ Myer-type evolutionists aren't exactly flocking to his door. Not at all. (2) Me, I just don't know what religion Coyne belongs to, honestly. Maybe you know, maybe PvM knows, but I sure don't know. We do know that Pope Benedict replaced Fr. Coyne with a Catholic astronomer (Fr. Fuenes), and that's a good thing. But that still doesn't tell us what religion Fr. Coyne belongs to. Is Coyne a Deist, for example? He sure talks like a Deist in the 2008 article PvM referred to.

God gave the universe a certain structure so we could come about, but he didn't predetermine it," he said. "He created the universe and then let it go."

Now notice. That there, is NOT the position of Catholic Christianity. It's not the position of Protestant Christianity. It's not the position of Biblical Christianity. It's deism. And no, Coyne is NOT saying "He created the universe and then let it go, but then He suddenly got back in the predetermination and hands-on-involvement game when it came to originating and dealing with humans on Earth." No, that's not what Coyne said. Coyne's position is God created the universe (but not with any forethought) and then let it go after he created it. That's very close to the religion of DEISM, baby!!! And Deism is not Christianity. Period. So, as for me, I do not know what religion this Coyne guy belongs to. Maybe Coyne don't know either. But it's not Christianity, not Catholicism. That's for sure. *** There's another important aspect of Coyne's position there. Coyne's "God doesn't intervene" position essentially obeys the first commandment of NOMA (SJ.Gould)---a requirement to abandon all belief that God intervenes in history AT ANY TIME through miraculous or non-natural means. The only way to avoid violating NOMA and mixing science & religion, Gould wrote in his book Rocks of Ages, was to obey that one specific commandment (and yes, he said it was a commandment.) Coyne's non-interventionist position does exactly that. Fits perfectly. However, Catholic, Protestant, and Biblical Christianity ALWAYS violate that prime NOMA commandment (because all three stubbornly claim that God DID miraculously intervene in history through the miraculous birth, miracles/healings/exorcisms, and miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hence, what Coyne believes (deism?) isn't what Christianity teaches. His position directly disagrees with the Bible, BOTH the Old and New Testaments. After all, in the Bible, God has NEVER "let the universe go" after its creation. In fact, Colossians 1:16-17 and Hebrews 1:3 tells us that not only is Jesus Christ the Creator of the Universe, but that from moment to moment, Jesus keeps this entire universe, and eeverything in it, all glued together right this very minute though his word and power. There's no "letting it go" as per Deism.

16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 11:3a And He is the radiance of (God's) glory and the exact representation of (God's) nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.

******************* So, there are problems with Coyne. These problems have existed for a long time now. PvM titled this thread "Christians vs Intelligent Design", but right now it's more like "Coyne vs Intelligent Design." Is Coyne a Christian at all these days? Sure don't sound like it. In fact, when Coyne says the word "God", do you really know what kind of "God" Coyne has in mind? Listen to Catholic writer Martin Hilbert:

In Coyne’s scenario, the “fertility of the universe” takes over God’s role. An impersonal creative force—a creative chaos—accounts for the most amazing elements of the universe, while at the same time doing away with a Personal Designer. In refusing to adopt Coyne’s vision of the “fertility of the universe,” the church need not worry that it is closing the door on “the best of modern science.” Rather, it is rejecting a nebulous philosophy that claims for itself the mantle of science. --- Hilbert, Touchstone Magazine

So, just think about it, that's all. Do you really want to hire Coyne for your poster boy on reconciling faith and science??? FL

PvM · 12 October 2008

FL said: Okay, let's point out a few things. (1) Other than Fr. Coyne's support of evolution and his usual conflation and attacks upon ID and creationism, he doesn't seem to offer much of anything. In terms of "reconciling science and faith", the PZ Myer-type evolutionists aren't exactly flocking to his door. Not at all.

Should we expect Myer type evolutionists to flock to Coyne's door? What a silly concept. Of course both extremes, with on the other side the FL-types, unlikely will listen to what Coyne has to say, and of course, they are not the intended audience. FL has shown to be unwilling to look at the scientific data and rejects anything that does not match his faith as 'non-Christian'. Such foolish position is not what I have in mind when I introduce Christians like Fr. Coyne who have managed to reconcile faith and science in a wonderful and non-confrontational manner where science mostly informs faith.

FL said: (2) Me, I just don't know what religion Coyne belongs to, honestly. Maybe you know, maybe PvM knows, but I sure don't know. We do know that Pope Benedict replaced Fr. Coyne with a Catholic astronomer (Fr. Fuenes), and that's a good thing. But that still doesn't tell us what religion Fr. Coyne belongs to.

Catholicism of course, that's self evident

FL said: Do you really want to hire Coyne for your poster boy on reconciling faith and science???

Why not?

JPS · 12 October 2008

Stanton said: I am not a heretic, you moron: it's been taught to every schoolchild for thousands upon thousands of years that Chaos gave birth to Gaia, that Gaia gave birth to her husband (O)Uranus, then by (O)Uranus, Gaia gave birth to the Cyclopes, the Hecatonchires, and the Titans, and that the Titan Cronus married his sister Rhea, and had Zeus as a son, who spent his childhood in the care of Almathea and the Kouretes on the island of Crete. So, then, please explain to me exactly how the ancient Greeks or their modern-day descendants believed that Zeus created the Universe if the Universe already existed when Zeus came into being?
Greg Esres said:
If you were an actual devotee of Zeus, you would have known (and said) that Zeus is merely the ruler of the Universe, not the creator of the Universe, which would be the sire of Gaia, Erebus, Nyx, and Tartarus; Chaos the Unformed.
This is an article of faith for me, and you therefore are a heretic. :-)

This may be a bit pedantic, but in fact the religion of the ancient Greeks was very little like what is presented to elementary school children, as there is no central sacred text, and the cosmology accounts vary widely. No one actually granted Homer or Hesiod the authority that Christians grant the Bible, and the orderly and linear progression and ranking of the gods was as much literary device as attempt to codify the faith or explain the universe. Even up into the introduction of Christianity, the average Greek would have been much more likely to worship at the temple of a local oracle or harvest god, without much mind that some Athenians might have had married her to Zeus for the sake of narrative continuity. The medieval Christian authorities were much more threatened by the ongoing cult of Pan than by Zeus-worship (and thus the visual reconfiguration of Pan as Satan). So really the whole argument's something of a moot point, as the Greeks were neither as united in faith nor as dogmatic as are Christians, and what we know of their beliefs is widely discordant with what we teach children. However, if one wants to make the point, a la Dawkins, that their gods are all dead and buried, just as the Christian god will be, then that might be worth expressing. It amazes me how comfortable most believers are in accepting the absurdity of dead/geographically distant religions while simultaneously believing that they lucked into the right historical time and place for "true" faith. I'm reminded of something about removing the plank from your own eye.

PvM · 12 October 2008

CW said: The fact is that he (and others like him) have already discarded the portions of their religion (once regarded as unassailable truths) that turned out not to conform to reality.

Just as with science. Now I understand why you would hold religious people to a certain amount of ridicule, much we reject out of ignorance or fear and so we make up silly notions about what Coyne may or may not think while ignoring the flawed logic that was presented (note that FL is falling for the same):

There lies the problem, how would you be able to verify said predictions if you lack a universe with and without a God.

And that is an important question

So, sure, if you want to make arguments which might apply to a tiny minority of what we consider religion, go ahead. I agree that claiming that religion in all it’s possible forms is always subject to material prediction is overstepping. Certainly there are pantheistic “religions” which don’t really say much of anything testable or predictive. However that’s hardly what I think of when discussing “religion”.

What do you think of when you discuss 'religion'? We have to be careful not to create our strawmen. So your argument is that we could test the benefits of prayer. And yet that depends on whether or not God hears all our prayers or that his prayers are answered when and if he so decides. We already know that the first kind of interpretation is overly simplistic and the second one ill-determined as it lacks strong predictions. SO perhaps we should explore how a universe with and without a God would differ.

rward · 12 October 2008

FL,

How arrogant you are to tell another human being that they're not 'Christian' because they fail to meet your definition. Father Coyne is quite capable of determing for himself whether he considers himself a follower of Christ. Your intolerance is only too apt to lead to burning the 'heretic' at the stake.

I don't think Christ would have approved of you or what you turned his message into.

PvM · 12 October 2008

Remember that in FL's world of limited faith he not only has to reject science but in fact countless fellow Christians who fail to join him in his position. I am glad that FL does serve his purpose as an example of the dark side of faith.

rward said: FL, How arrogant you are to tell another human being that they're not 'Christian' because they fail to meet your definition. Father Coyne is quite capable of determing for himself whether he considers himself a follower of Christ. Your intolerance is only too apt to lead to burning the 'heretic' at the stake. I don't think Christ would have approved of you or what you turned his message into.

PvM · 12 October 2008

CW said:
SO you claim but in fact, it is as much an issue of faith as the faith of a religious person
That's not remotely accurate. The "faith" of a religious person is faith without or often despite evidence. Yes, in English (a language, as the man said, which makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style) you can verbally confuse the distinction between belief-without-evidence and confidence-based-upon-evidence by choosing to label them both as "faith", but it's a reprehensible semantic tactic rather than a valid comparison.

Just because you label the faith of the religious as 'despite the evidence' you provide no foundation for such nor do you establish why confidence-based-upon-strong-evidence is a correct label for the other position. You call it a semantic tactic but in fact it is a fundamental philosophical issue. Why do you get to determine someone's faith using semantic tactics and then to accuse others of using reprehensible semantic tactics? That seems a bit self contradictory. In fact, one may very well hold that a position of 'rationality will explain all' is as much a blind faith here. Once we come to realize that both sides prefer a philosophical approach we can explore the relevance of 'faith'. In the end the theist and the atheist are not that far apart after all.

Dale Husband · 12 October 2008

I'd like to point out that many of the Founding Fathers of the USA were Deists, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson. So I'll say the same thing (sort of) to you that I said to PvM.

Oh, do you believe that all non-Christians are heading for hell? Because that’s what I was taught in church (Southern Baptist) and that later drove me to reject Christianity when I considered how flawed the religion is and how virtuous most non-Christians are. If irrationality gets you into heaven, then God himself is a lunatic. Sorry, my view of God is higher than that of any religion, or even that of the ID promoters. There’s not really that much difference between the ancient Judeo-Christian view of God and the pagan view, from a modern philisophical perspective. The real God MUST be better than the one of the Bible to gain my allegiance to Him.

FL said: Is Coyne a Deist, for example? He sure talks like a Deist in the 2008 article PvM referred to.
God gave the universe a certain structure so we could come about, but he didn't predetermine it," he said. "He created the universe and then let it go."
Now notice. That there, is NOT the position of Catholic Christianity. It's not the position of Protestant Christianity. It's not the position of Biblical Christianity. It's deism. And no, Coyne is NOT saying "He created the universe and then let it go, but then He suddenly got back in the predetermination and hands-on-involvement game when it came to originating and dealing with humans on Earth." No, that's not what Coyne said. Coyne's position is God created the universe (but not with any forethought) and then let it go after he created it. That's very close to the religion of DEISM, baby!!! And Deism is not Christianity. Period. So, as for me, I do not know what religion this Coyne guy belongs to. Maybe Coyne don't know either.

Dale Husband · 12 October 2008

FL, if I were you, I wouldn't be so eagar to spit out such absurdities from the New Testament in a public forum like this. You know, there were reasons why the Catholic Church tried for centuries to prevent the Bible from being translated from Latin and into English and other languages of the common people. You just showed us one of them. If God and Jesus is holding the whole universe together through His power, then He is also to blame for every act of evil ever committed and thus He is a totally useless God. There might as well be no God at all. Besides, you might be totally misreading that passage to say something it never meant. Remember, the New Testament was written mostly in Greek and translating it into English is not always a certain thing.

FL said: After all, in the Bible, God has NEVER "let the universe go" after its creation. In fact, Colossians 1:16-17 and Hebrews 1:3 tells us that not only is Jesus Christ the Creator of the Universe, but that from moment to moment, Jesus keeps this entire universe, and eeverything in it, all glued together right this very minute though his word and power. There's no "letting it go" as per Deism.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 11:3a And He is the radiance of (God's) glory and the exact representation of (God's) nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.
FL

Dale Husband · 12 October 2008

No, I'm not contradicting myself. The Catholic Church tried to prevent translations from the Latin Vulgate to stop people from coming up with their own ideas about religious doctrine based in their translation and reading of the scriptures, as well as to keep the historical and philosophical errors and contradictions of the scriptures hidden from the public. Once those problems became obvious, the Catholic Church could no longer keep a stranglehold on religious thought in Western Europe and this paved the way for the secularism and religious freedom that American later became known for. Misreading of the scriptures is a small price to pay for freedom of thought. Christians, and followers of all other religions, need to stop looking for absolute knowledge in their faiths. It doesn't exist. That would be obvious to everyone if only they would be HONEST!

Dale Husband said: FL, if I were you, I wouldn't be so eagar to spit out such absurdities from the New Testament in a public forum like this. You know, there were reasons why the Catholic Church tried for centuries to prevent the Bible from being translated from Latin and into English and other languages of the common people. You just showed us one of them. If God and Jesus is holding the whole universe together through His power, then He is also to blame for every act of evil ever committed and thus He is a totally useless God. There might as well be no God at all. Besides, you might be totally misreading that passage to say something it never meant. Remember, the New Testament was written mostly in Greek and translating it into English is not always a certain thing.

Dan · 12 October 2008

FL said: So, as for me, I do not know what religion this Coyne guy belongs to. Maybe Coyne don't know either. But it's not Christianity, not Catholicism. That's for sure.

FL seems to believe (1) that the term "Catholicism" is a trade mark and (2) he owns the trade mark. If he says it, then "for sure" it's true!

Wayne Francis · 12 October 2008

Azazel said: It is amazingly refreshing to hear someone of the cloth actually say that science and religion do not have to be exclusive from each other. Even though I am an atheist, it would be an immense honor to meet Father Coyne and pick his brains over a meal. -Azazel

Actually there are a few Catholic priests out there that are fairly vocal. Father James Wiseman is pretty good in expressing theology and science. here is a video of Father James Wiseman talking at the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Holiday Lectures. http://www.hhmi.org:8080/ramgen/evolution_religion_225.rm

eric · 12 October 2008

FL said: Me, I just don't know what religion Coyne belongs to, honestly. Maybe you know, maybe PvM knows, but I sure don't know. We do know that Pope Benedict replaced Fr. Coyne with a Catholic astronomer (Fr. Fuenes), and that's a good thing. But that still doesn't tell us what religion Fr. Coyne belongs to.

Um...yes it does. If he was Catholic to begin with, and he hasn't renounced his faith (he hasn't), and he hasn't been excommunicated (he hasn't), he's Catholic. Oh yeah, there's one other possibility. If you, FL, are the head of the Catholic church, you can decide what counts as Catholic. Are you the head of the Catholic church? I thought not. So Father Coyne can go on not subscribing to every little trivial detail you think matters and still be Catholic.

So, there are problems with Coyne.

There are problems with all of us. I thought one of the claims of Christianity was that having problems did not disqualify you from being Christian. I guess I was wrong!

Dave Luckett · 12 October 2008

"If you reject smoking cigarettes, you are an air-smoker. Does it make sense?"

You mean, does the analogy make sense? Alas, no. I can tell smoke from air by observing empirical evidence. I cannot tell if "the rational is all there is", or "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God" are true or not from empirical evidence. I can slightly favour the former and doubt the latter, but I don't know, and I know I don't know.

Sadly, the rejection of dogma is in itself dogma, that is, it depends on the dogmatic assertion that the correct observation of empirical evidence is the only way to know anything. Perhaps that is true. I don't know.

On another point, "Catholic" is said to mean something like "all-embracing", "over-arching" or even "universal". Of course that hasn't been factually true in over a thousand years, but the idea still persists, in abstract form, that a "Catholic" church can accommodate many different understandings of the nature of God, subject only to what that church regards as absolutely essential. Regrettably, this caveat tended to become larger and more intrusive during the middle history of the church, but of recent centuries there has been a wholesome desire in Rome to refrain from adding to it, and even to back-pedal on it.

The contribution, if you can call it that, of the Calvinists was to insist on redemption by faith alone, which caused their adherents and their posterity to define what they meant by "faith" ever more narrowly, based (as they also insisted) on readings of Scripture. Since they could never agree completely on what exactly Scripture says (because Scripture is manifestly polyvalent), the inevitable result was schism, a process which continues to this day, and probably will go on indefinitely. Good Calvinists (if I may repeat so grotesque an oxymoron) are still willing to inform you that the meaning of Scripture is the meaning which their own schismatic sect places on a specific translation of it, and that absolute faith in that alone is acceptable, notwithstanding all other interpretations, or indeed, any empirical evidence whatsoever. And, yes, FL, I'm looking at you.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 12 October 2008

Dale Husband said: If irrationality gets you into heaven, then God himself is a lunatic.

Do you believe, then, that rationality is the only way by which something can be judged? Aren't there realms -- art, for instance -- in which merits are judged irrationally? (Or at least arationally?

There's not really that much difference between the ancient Judeo-Christian view of God and the pagan view, from a modern philisophical perspective.

As a Pagan I'm biased, of course, but I think that polytheism is way more sensible than monotheism. The problem of the existence of evil alone tips the balance in our favor.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 12 October 2008

Greg Esres said:
If you were an actual devotee of Zeus, you would have known (and said) that Zeus is merely the ruler of the Universe, not the creator of the Universe, which would be the sire of Gaia, Erebus, Nyx, and Tartarus; Chaos the Unformed.
This is an article of faith for me, and you therefore are a heretic. :-)

Fortunately Pagans don't much care what people believe, as long as they do the right thing. So neither of you are heretics, although one is misinformed as to ancient belief.

Wayne Francis · 12 October 2008

Greg Esres said:
my science I find that it supports my faith,
Of course it does. That's because for Father Coyne, no possible evidence would contradict his faith. A Big Bang reinforces his belief, but then so would a steady state or living under a dome with pinpoint lights. Evolution may reinforce his faith, but discovering a fossilized Garden of Eden would reinforce it even more. Father Coyne certainly isn't a voice of reason, but he's less irrational that most believers.

You don't understand Father Coyne at all. He's said before he doesn't take stories like Genesis and Noah's flood as literal. He no more expects to find evidence of a global flood then he expects to look through a telescope and find the planets being pulled by chariots. He isn't someone that would say everything fits his faith. Honestly research the man before you make gross statements like that. Science reinforces his faith because he view what science reveals as an insight into the mind of "God" He would have deep trouble reconciling a literal 6 day creation with his view of "God" and "God's" relationship with man.

FL · 12 October 2008

If he says it, then “for sure” it’s true!

Your claim, not mine. I'll just say it again: I don't know what religion George Coyne is. His stated non-interventionist position and "fertile universe" position clearly runs against both Catholic doctrine (as stated in their Catholic Catechism book) and Christian doctrine (as stated in the Bible) and is lined up with both DEISM and Gould's NOMA which calls for a complete abandonment of God's intervention in history at any time in history via miracles. (Which entails a complete negation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, btw.) As such, Coyne appears to be a singularly poor poster boy for reconciling science and faith. A rational person can't even know for certain what this Deism-devotee means when he says the word "God." You're welcome to disprove my analysis. I see a lotta ducking so far, but I don't see a lotta disproving. Coyne's problems are clear. Neither the Bible, nor Christianity, nor the Catholic Catechism, are fuzzy-wuzzy Zen koans. They are all clear enough to where you can see that Coyne DOES indeed disagree with the Bible, with Catholicism, and with Christianity. He's got some other kinda religion. Apparently it starts with a "D." You may want to actually engage this Coyne mess sometime, at your convenience. FL :)

JPS · 12 October 2008

David Fickett-Wilbar said: > Do you believe, then, that rationality is the only way by which something can be judged? Aren't there realms -- art, for instance -- in which merits are judged irrationally? (Or at least arationally?

This is a really strained analogy to excuse anyone from judging faith rationally. Art doesn't make factual claims about the nature of reality (or at least no art I deal with). But beyond that, psychologists have attempting for decades to investigate and categorize the reasons that humans find the various sensory inputs that comprise art appealing or unappealing. What you say is an arational or irrational exercise is possibly just a rational exercise that people lack the vocabulary to express, at least in that instinctive reactions to artistic elements like sound, shape, and color exist for researchable evolutionary reasons. And most accomplished art (and I mean art in the widest sense) criticism, if unable to express mathematical criteria for great or awful art, can at least express a rational basis for what the individual critic likes. I would allow that our reaction to art is highly subjective, but subjectivity and arationality aren't the same thing. More importantly, claiming that faith is beyond rationality is typically a way for believers to have their cake and eat it, too. On one hand, god is or gods are a personal experience beyond empiricism, while simultaneously an entity that judges the sexual and reproductive practices of ones neighbors and grants eternal salvation or damnation. I only a small problem with the idea of god as a personal intuition, but in reality virtually no believers accept a role that small for their deity/deities. It's fairly simple: If god is a physical cause for anything, than that causation should be detectable, at least in principle. If god isn't a physical cause for anything, than the intuition that believers claim to experience as evidence for god can't possibly exist, as intuition is, like all levels of thought, itself a physical experience. Either god uses some physical means to inform us of his/her/its/their presence, and is hence a physical agent, or does not and is not. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that anything is simultaneously outside of and inside nature as a means of dodging demands for proof.

FL · 13 October 2008

Yes, the position that anyone who is not ‘born again’ or who is not a member of a church will go to hell, has been a main reason for me to reject YECism, mimicking much of Dale’s experiences.

I'm committed to staying with the thread topic, but I honestly have to ask about this statement. It wasn't YEC organizations like AIG and ICR who said, "You must be born again." Last I checked, it was the founder of Christianity who said it, the guy that Christians are supposed to be following.

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (John 3:3) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:16-18)

I don't expect atheists to agree with these words. I don't expect deists to agree with 'em either. But shouldn't Christians, the one who claim that Jesus Christ is their Savior and their Lord, agree with what HE clearly says here?? FL

PvM · 13 October 2008

FL said:
Yes, the position that anyone who is not ‘born again’ or who is not a member of a church will go to hell, has been a main reason for me to reject YECism, mimicking much of Dale’s experiences.
I'm committed to staying with the thread topic, but I honestly have to ask about this statement. It wasn't YEC organizations like AIG and ICR who said, "You must be born again." Last I checked, it was the founder of Christianity who said it, the guy that Christians are supposed to be following.

Seems FL is quote mining the Bible again rather than understanding its message he insists on a reading which suits his biases and needs. YECers abuse their dogma to mislead its followers to not just ignore good science but also fall for a flawed interpretation of the teachings of Christ. Understanding is more than quote mining dear FL. I doubt you will ever understand How sad.

PvM · 13 October 2008

FL said:
If he says it, then “for sure” it’s true!
Your claim, not mine. I'll just say it again: I don't know what religion George Coyne is. His stated non-interventionist position and "fertile universe" position clearly runs against both Catholic doctrine (as stated in their Catholic Catechism book) and Christian doctrine (as stated in the Bible) and is lined up with both DEISM and Gould's NOMA which calls for a complete abandonment of God's intervention in history at any time in history via miracles.

Seems that as usual, FL is uninterested in finding out what Coyne really believes. In fact, Coyne would disagree with FL's description of non-interventionist. Again, FL, foolishly, let's his prejudices guide his ignorance.

PvM · 13 October 2008

Let me explain: Born again, or perhaps more properly 'born from above' means to be born of Love. One need not know personally of God to be born of Love and still be save, as opposed to those who proclaim their faith through meaningless rituals.

Dale Husband · 13 October 2008

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Dale Husband said: If irrationality gets you into heaven, then God himself is a lunatic.

Do you believe, then, that rationality is the only way by which something can be judged? Aren't there realms -- art, for instance -- in which merits are judged irrationally? (Or at least arationally? I wasn't referring to judging art or any form of beauty, but judging both empirical facts and ethical consistency. Or do you think we can go to heaven by loving the Mona Lisa above the works of Andy Warhol?

There's not really that much difference between the ancient Judeo-Christian view of God and the pagan view, from a modern philisophical perspective.

As a Pagan I'm biased, of course, but I think that polytheism is way more sensible than monotheism. The problem of the existence of evil alone tips the balance in our favor. Note I said ANCIENT view. A more modern perpective, informed by secular and democratic principles, blows both ancient monotheism and ancient paganism out of the water and leaves the assumption of the perfection of any religion with roots in the past as empty of any real meaning. MODERN Paganism, as well as MODERN montheism, does better. And no, FL, you are NOT a modern monotheist. You are just a spiritual fascist.

Dale Husband · 13 October 2008

FL said:
Yes, the position that anyone who is not ‘born again’ or who is not a member of a church will go to hell, has been a main reason for me to reject YECism, mimicking much of Dale’s experiences.
I'm committed to staying with the thread topic, but I honestly have to ask about this statement. It wasn't YEC organizations like AIG and ICR who said, "You must be born again." Last I checked, it was the founder of Christianity who said it, the guy that Christians are supposed to be following.
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (John 3:3) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:16-18)
I don't expect atheists to agree with these words. I don't expect deists to agree with 'em either. But shouldn't Christians, the one who claim that Jesus Christ is their Savior and their Lord, agree with what HE clearly says here?? FL

There you go ASSUMING that whatever words were put in Jesus' mouth by people who lived decades after he was crucified are of any real certainty. Need I point out how idiotic that would be if that standard were applied to the likes of George Washington?! For many decades, there was a story about him as a boy chopping down a cherry tree and then admitting his misdeed to his father, saying, "I cannot tell a lie." Ironically, that story WAS a lie and was debunked long ago. The simple truth is that we have no idea what Jesus was really like. He may have been a serial murderer for all we know. I'm not saying he was, but the story about him cursing a fig tree for not giving him figs to eat makes one wonder about his mental state. He could have just eaten bread.

Dale Husband · 13 October 2008

And by the way, that same argument I just posted applies equally well to the Book of Genesis. There is no evidence that it is part of the Word of God and I think it blasphemy to claim it as such. I myself could write a better creation story than that of the Bible, without a talking snake or a forbidden tree. Or a world destroying flood for that matter. Assuming the world arose from one pair of humans a few thousand years ago actually requires a lot of evolution for all the different races of mankind to emerge, yet because of the Bible you refuse to accept evolution? GET OUT OF HERE!

infidel.michael · 13 October 2008

Dave Luckett said: Sadly, the rejection of dogma is in itself dogma, that is, it depends on the dogmatic assertion that the correct observation of empirical evidence is the only way to know anything. Perhaps that is true. I don't know.

Not accepting dogma is a dogma, ok. So could you give me an example of non-dogmatic attitude to dogmas? According to your logic it's not possible. You can accept dogma and you're dogmatic, or you don't accept dogma, therefore you are dogmatic. Great, nobody can be non-dogmatic, therefore the word doesn't make any sense anymore. If you don't get it, consider this: Are these statement equal: 1. Theorem doesn't assume X is true 2. Theorem assumes X is false Lack of assumption is not assumption of the negative. Not accepting a dogma isn't the same as accepting the dogma of the negative.

Dale Husband · 13 October 2008

At the Creation museum founded by that whackjob Ken Ham, they contrast "Human reason" which supports evolution, with "God's Word" which teaches Creationism. That anyone would call the Bible the Word of God when it is common knowledge that it was written and edited by hundreds of different people over a thousand years or more is nonsense. And to reject the ability to think that God himself supposedly gave mankind is also nonsense. And from a theological perspective, what must you call it when you attribute nonsense to God? BLASPHEMY!

Dan · 13 October 2008

FL said: As such, Coyne appears to be a singularly poor poster boy for reconciling science and faith.

No one ever promoted Coyne as a "poster boy". The whole idea of "poster boys" (and girls) is disgusting. Why did you bring it up?

Dale Husband · 13 October 2008

Dan said:
FL said: As such, Coyne appears to be a singularly poor poster boy for reconciling science and faith.
No one ever promoted Coyne as a "poster boy". The whole idea of "poster boys" (and girls) is disgusting. Why did you bring it up?

I still would like FL to answer for his blasphemy. That's even worse than calling a Catholic priest a "poster boy". Or maybe FL ran away.

Dave Luckett · 13 October 2008

infidel.michael:

Perhaps we should define our terms, always a useful step. I take "dogma" to mean "a statement which is held to be true on authority, notwithstanding any evidence."

Some dogmas (such as "The Bible is inerrant" or "The Universe was created in six days") are falsifiable. These do not pose any difficulty to me. If they are falsifiable, then I am willing to be persuaded (and in those instances, am persuaded) by good evidence of their falsehood. It is the unfalsifiable dogmas (such as "There is a God" or "Human beings have immortal souls") that concern me. A non-dogmatic attitude to these would be to refuse to either accept or reject them - in other words, to admit to not knowing. A dogmatic attitude would be the converse - to accept or reject them. That would be to declare from authority (one's own) what is true notwithstanding a lack of evidence.

Thus, I believe that there is a clear sense to the word "dogmatic", and that it is possible to be non-dogmatic.

One might wish to define "non-acceptance" a little more closely. I understand you to imply that "non-acceptance" of a dogma might not necessarily be the same as "rejection" of it. I am a little concerned that this may not be generally understood, and that for many people non-acceptance of a statement necessarily implies rejection of it. If we can agree that "non-acceptance" does not imply outright rejection, merely an inability to decide, there doesn't seem to be any great issue.

Rolf · 13 October 2008

PvM said: Let me explain: Born again, or perhaps more properly 'born from above' means to be born of Love. One need not know personally of God to be born of Love and still be save, as opposed to those who proclaim their faith through meaningless rituals.

Death as symbol and reality must be kept apart, if one shall understand what inner realities are hidden in this image. All life is subjected to a species-specific life span. Man with his consciousness stands apart in the organic world by not only living in the present – but also in the past – and future. The latter constitutes a heavy load on the mind, - to know that one is going to die! Defense mechanisms therefore are automatically invoked to bear this fact, and the instinct of self-preservation will by itself tend to extend man into eternity. Man has a need for a belief in a life after death. But an eternal life then should be valid for all men; it cannot be a special privilege for certain creeds, or even a particular sect within such, even if a marked tendency for certain groups to b privileged also in this area. Death as a symbol – that is the reality we have to deal with in the world of religious systems – expresses the wish for liberation from all that stands in the way of self-expression. It is the wish for renewed life – to be born anew – a symbolism that has been with man from ancient times until this day, and will continue to be for all future – central and important that it is. In dreams and in arts – in all development – it is a recurrent theme. Death means the wish for a new, redeemed life. It has the same meaning in Christendom – the mystery of Calvary. It represents inner conditions that one wishes to terminate and replace with resurrection and renewed life. We all resist the accomplishment of this. The attitude towards life once established is sought extended by all means and with all the mechanisms at hand – rationalization, projection and literalism. One wishes to cling to the belief that the Saviour lived on this Earth a couple of thousand years ago and died for us on the cross. Therefore, we should be spared! We do not then have to wander this way of death. Someone else did it for us. By the suffering of a stand-in, we may continue being the way we are, that we do not have to change our ways – not to put away our aberrations, prejudices and all that stands in the way of our understanding. And yet there is no other way. Each and every one has to walk it with his burden – through suffering to the darkness of death and on towards light, redemption and renewed life. That this really is the meaning can also be seen from the name Calvary – an Aramaic word, meaning skull. The drama shall take place in our inner – in the human mind – which live under the bony cupola of the skull, which in Latin is called Calvaria. From where the English name, Mount Calvary, is derived. The road leads to our inner – through suffering towards new acknowledgment – new life. We all must relive and suffer The Mystery of Mount Calvary, whether in a religious or personal setting, with oneself as stage, actor and audience in this eternal human game of life and death. Most people become stagnant at an early stage. They do not pay heed to the prompter that from the deep tries in vain to deliver the redeeming cue that can get the game going again. Again and again, day by day, year by year, the same initial scenery is enacted with its outward projections, rationalizations, sense of guilt, delusion, suffering and symptoms. The voice from the deep is not heard, is being stifled. The meaning of what is going on is not grasped. The symbolic speech of the play – the language of the deep is like an incomprehensible tongue. Therefore, the play does not reach its final scene. It as a rule gets stuck in a secondary role early in the first act, which is being enacted again and again. But the fulfillment of the drama of man lives on in dreams, in art, in religion – the three related means of expression that reveal our inner life – our inner secret plan, if one can listen, suspect and decipher the enigmatic language of symbols in our fate-determining primal images. Art is a means of redemption and recognition. It springs forth from an inner necessity and is an expression of the inner reality. The great artists are mankind’s seismographs that register and articulate in its form language the nature, strength and direction of the force of the inner powers. They are the intermediaries of the deep and the pathfinders of development. Such sensitive and useful instruments they can only be when they themselves are on the right path, and struggling towards freedom and independence from all sides - and obeys the inner demands and intentions.

FL · 13 October 2008

Let me get this straight, Dale. YOU think it's possible that Jesus was a serial murderer, but you want ME to answer for blasphemy (which, in Dale's book, turns out to be the crime of calling the Bible "the Word of God").

Simply Stated: Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh no!!

Are you aware that in John 10:35, Jesus calls the Scriptures "the word of God"? So now you effectively accuse Jesus of blasphemy, Dale. That's just great.

(Are you aware that you've got a judicial appointment with this guy when you pass away from this life?? We all do of course, but I think I will avoid standing next to YOU in the queue!!!)

****************

Okay, let's get back to the Coyne thing.
Let me ask y'all this:

When it comes to the ongoing effort to reconcile faith and science, do you identify more with George Coyne (who does not believe in the historical claims of Genesis) or with Francis Collins (who, as Bill Maher told Richard Dawkins, "believes in the talking snake")?

Who would make the better (ahem) "poster boy" in your opinion? Coyne or Collins?

FL :)

eric · 13 October 2008

Re: FL's "born again" argument. You guys are going off the rails into theological disputes for nothing. Its really quite simple: FL's sectarian definition is ridiculous.

If 'born again' has a sectarian meaning like he claims, then everyone not of that sect is going to hell, because they got it wrong. Given that protestantism started in the 16th century, this would mean that according to FL the author of John 3:3 is going to hell.

If, on the other hand, 'born again' has some more general meaning, his claim about Coyne (or PvM, or anyone else for that matter) fails. If the author of John 3:3 didn't have to be an evangelical protestant to make it to heaven, then Coyne doesn't have to be either. And neither do you.

Flint · 13 October 2008

I think I'm with FL on this one, more or less. Coyne seems very clear that his faith (and FL's faith, for that matter) were gifts, by which he makes very clear, were the result of pure indoctrination in early childhood, reinforced by the indoctrination of his parents, his friends, his environment of churches and religious training.

The rather obvious conclusion here is that science (and purely rational approaches) cannot lead one either toward or away from such gifts. Convictions not reached by rational means, cannot be altered by rational means.

But FL seems uncomfortable with Coyne's "ships that pass in the night" approach to science and religion, saying he doesn't know which god Coyne worships or what faith he actually follows. And this is an excellent insight. Coyne's god, unlike FL's god, isn't in the business of making statements of observable fact which are prima facie false, even absurdly false.

And if your god seems to require that you ignore or misrepresent the evidence around you, that you deny it and mock those whose eyes are open, what CAN you do but denounce those with eyes to see as not being "true" members of the "one true faith"?

Coyne was indoctrinated by people as sensible as religious faith permits, and has been fortunate that this gives him the ability to compartmentalize his faith into such airtight isolation. FL's indoctrination was done by fools, forcing him to limit his reality to one inconsistent scriptural base where the objective universe can never penetrate, and follow circular arguments endlessly. And neither Coyne nor FL has any choice in the matter whatsoever, and hasn't since they were perhaps 6 years old.

And I can't doubt the same is equally true of non-religious people whether scientists or not. We each see reality through the prism of our upbringing. Science provides a priceless tool which, over time and very gradually, lets us all see how seriously our emotional needs distort our vision. Coyne and FL are useful illustrations of very different locations on the spectrum of that distortion.

Dave Lovell · 13 October 2008

FL said: Are you aware that in John 10:35, Jesus calls the Scriptures "the word of God"? So now you effectively accuse Jesus of blasphemy, Dale. That's just great.

You're totally missing the point. In John 10:35, Jesus reportedly calls the Scriptures "the word of God"? Besides this, you also use the worst possible example. If the reporter has been correctly reported about comments on the words of a truly devine Jesus, the assertion that the scriptures were the "word of God" would then be true, and by definition not blasphemous.

Dave Luckett · 13 October 2008

Flint, how do you account for people like me? If ever a person could be programmed by parents and community to have the "gift of faith", it was me - son of a Presbyterian minister, a regular churchgoer and Sunday school teacher, prayed every night, all that, suddenly at 22 years old, realised I didn't know jack about any of it. Spent some years trying to learn, but found nothing but a cloud of vague words and vaguer ideas, while in the process the whole thing unravelled.

And there's the adult converts who get it worse than those born to it. I had an acquaintance once, made a reasonable living by taking her clothes off to music, somehow or other got hooked by the JW's and went far, far off the deep end and never came back. I think she prays for me, now, in between bouts of terror and remorse over what a scarlet woman she was - which, incidentally, she wasn't.

Nah, I don't think Coyne was saying that he was given the gift of faith by his parents or community. I think he's saying that it's a divine gift, all on its own. Which perhaps it is. I seem to be saying this a lot, but I don't know.

Dale Husband · 13 October 2008

FL said: Let me get this straight, Dale. YOU think it's possible that Jesus was a serial murderer, but you want ME to answer for blasphemy (which, in Dale's book, turns out to be the crime of calling the Bible "the Word of God"). Simply Stated: Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh no!! Are you aware that in John 10:35, Jesus calls the Scriptures "the word of God"? So now you effectively accuse Jesus of blasphemy, Dale. That's just great. (Are you aware that you've got a judicial appointment with this guy when you pass away from this life?? We all do of course, but I think I will avoid standing next to YOU in the queue!!!)

That's what happens when you totally don't get reality. It's called a delusion, FL. Jesus did NOT write anything attributed to Him in the New Testament, including John 10:35. Someone else wrote that story about Him decades after He died, so I do not blame Him for any errors, contradictions, or outright lies that may be found in any part of the Bible. If Jesus had actually written the Gospel, instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter, then you'd have a real case to promote the teachings of "Christianity" as that of Jesus. But Jesus wrote NOTHING in the New Testament, so you don't. Remember, God may judge you for being stupid too. He gave you a brain and it must anger Him to see you waste it on unfounded nonsense.

Mike · 13 October 2008

The most insightful thing I've ever heard that informs me about the relationship of faith and science came from a speech given by an atheist, Isaac Asimov, at Cleveland State in the 70s. "People are stupid. You, me, we're all stupid." And everything I've ever since observed in studying and conducting science, and in my fumbling with religion, has confirmed this observation magnificently. We didn't even suspect that we were missing a major portion of the universe till very recently. Both extremes that claim absolute certainty, aggressive atheists and religious fundamentalists (so much alike its funny), far from bringing anyone enlightenment, are busily producing only strife and confusion. They fundamentally can not admit, ever, that all our understanding comes through the very imperfect filter of our limited powers of observation. That's science, religion, economics, sexual preference, everything. Sorry, but science doesn't produce absolute truth, and, sorry again, but the Bible doesn't either. The Bible, like everything else, has to be interpreted in our imperfect minds. Get some humility. Experience suggests that we get things right more often when we pool our limited powers of observation. That's the way science works, as a community. A community needs certain things to survive, like tolerance.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 13 October 2008

Dale Husband said: Besides, you might be totally misreading that passage to say something it never meant. Remember, the New Testament was written mostly in Greek and translating it into English is not always a certain thing.
FL said: After all, in the Bible, God has NEVER "let the universe go" after its creation. In fact, Colossians 1:16-17 and Hebrews 1:3 tells us that not only is Jesus Christ the Creator of the Universe, but that from moment to moment, Jesus keeps this entire universe, and eeverything in it, all glued together right this very minute though his word and power. There's no "letting it go" as per Deism.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 11:3a And He is the radiance of (God's) glory and the exact representation of (God's) nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.
FL
Indeed. The linen that FL has bolded seems 1) a warning to Creationists, saying that if certain things are discovered to be certain ways, they shouldn't say that God doesn't approve, since Jesus upholds all things, presumably the way they are. 2) That line reads to me like "Jesus provides ontological reality to the way things are."

David Fickett-Wilbar · 13 October 2008

FL said: Neither the Bible, nor Christianity, nor the Catholic Catechism, are fuzzy-wuzzy Zen koans.

FL, you need to learn more about Zen. If the student gets the answer wrong, the usual response is a whack with a stick. Koans are anything but fuzzy.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 13 October 2008

FL said: Are you aware that in John 10:35, Jesus calls the Scriptures "the word of God"?

But he doesn't then go on to say, "and these are the books that make up scripture." The composition of the canon, or the rules by which it is composed, are manmade. This is at the root of all forms of Christianity which believe in sola scriptura -- without non-scriptural tradition there is no scriptura to be sola. It's worse, of course, since we can't even say, outside of tradition, that the book of John from which you are quoting is part of the scripture, and thus to be paid attention to.

FL · 13 October 2008

Jesus had actually written the Gospel, instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter, then you’d have a real case to promote the teachings of “Christianity” as that of Jesus. But Jesus wrote NOTHING in the New Testament, so you don’t.

Here's why you're wrong about that, Dale. Please read (carefully) the following explanation.

"If what Jesus said was so important...why didn't he write it down himself?" 1. The prevalence of orality over writing in ancient society. Today transmitting something orally is considered equal with not relaying it in a trustworthy manner, and we demand to see things "in writing" before we believe them. As hard as it may seem to believe, exactly the opposite was true in ancient times! Ancient literacy was no higher than 10 percent at any given time, so the primary method of communication was oral. Memory capabilities were correspondingly much stronger, so that it can not be said that oral transmission was unreliable, or that because something was important, it "ought to have been written down". Neither Jesus nor anyone else in ancient society would share this modern sentiment. (For more on this, see here. For a full overview of the ancient view of writing as a less-trusted "supplement" to orality, see Tony Lentz, Orality and Literacy in Hellenic Greece.) 2. The role of scribes. Related to this, the rarity of literacy made for an excellent business of scribal activity! And the paradigm of the day did NOT require that a teacher be the one writing down his own works -- rather, he would hire a scribe to do it as he recited his teachings. The role of Matthew in this regard is quite obvious and mirrors precisely the scribe/teacher relationship of Jeremiah and his faithful scribe Baruch. (And as one commentator pointed out, wouldn't Jesus' time have been better spent preaching and healing anyway, rather than pursuing the laborious task that writing was in those days?) This point is further elucidated by Achtemeier in his article "Omne Verbatim Sonat" (JBL, 109, 1990, 3-27). He stresses that in antiquity the "normal mode of composition" was to dictate to a scribe. "Dictation was recommended over writing in one's own hand by Dio Chrysostem, and famous personages, we are told, were regularly accompanied by a slave prepared at any time to take dictation" -- even if they were on horseback, or in the public baths! Though there was some disagreement on this preference (Quintillian preferred writing himself to dictation), it is clear that Jesus "doing it himself" was not a requirement. Thus the general objection that Jesus did not write anything misses the point, because it anachronistically assumes a modern view of the importance of writing upon ancient peoples. ....But if that is not enough (as it should be), then ask your friend this: Why didn't Socrates write anything down himself, either? From: Tektonics.Org http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jeswrite.html

Hope you find this helpful, Dale! FL

PvM · 13 October 2008

FL ignores the argument, quote mines something he does not understand and avoids dealing with the real issues raised. How more foolish can one get?

FL said:
Jesus had actually written the Gospel, instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter, then you’d have a real case to promote the teachings of “Christianity” as that of Jesus. But Jesus wrote NOTHING in the New Testament, so you don’t.
Here's why you're wrong about that, Dale. Please read (carefully) the following explanation.
"If what Jesus said was so important...why didn't he write it down himself?" 1. The prevalence of orality over writing in ancient society. Today transmitting something orally is considered equal with not relaying it in a trustworthy manner, and we demand to see things "in writing" before we believe them. As hard as it may seem to believe, exactly the opposite was true in ancient times! Ancient literacy was no higher than 10 percent at any given time, so the primary method of communication was oral. Memory capabilities were correspondingly much stronger, so that it can not be said that oral transmission was unreliable, or that because something was important, it "ought to have been written down". Neither Jesus nor anyone else in ancient society would share this modern sentiment. (For more on this, see here. For a full overview of the ancient view of writing as a less-trusted "supplement" to orality, see Tony Lentz, Orality and Literacy in Hellenic Greece.) 2. The role of scribes. Related to this, the rarity of literacy made for an excellent business of scribal activity! And the paradigm of the day did NOT require that a teacher be the one writing down his own works -- rather, he would hire a scribe to do it as he recited his teachings. The role of Matthew in this regard is quite obvious and mirrors precisely the scribe/teacher relationship of Jeremiah and his faithful scribe Baruch. (And as one commentator pointed out, wouldn't Jesus' time have been better spent preaching and healing anyway, rather than pursuing the laborious task that writing was in those days?) This point is further elucidated by Achtemeier in his article "Omne Verbatim Sonat" (JBL, 109, 1990, 3-27). He stresses that in antiquity the "normal mode of composition" was to dictate to a scribe. "Dictation was recommended over writing in one's own hand by Dio Chrysostem, and famous personages, we are told, were regularly accompanied by a slave prepared at any time to take dictation" -- even if they were on horseback, or in the public baths! Though there was some disagreement on this preference (Quintillian preferred writing himself to dictation), it is clear that Jesus "doing it himself" was not a requirement. Thus the general objection that Jesus did not write anything misses the point, because it anachronistically assumes a modern view of the importance of writing upon ancient peoples. ....But if that is not enough (as it should be), then ask your friend this: Why didn't Socrates write anything down himself, either? From: Tektonics.Org http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jeswrite.html
Hope you find this helpful, Dale! FL