In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an explanation for, among
other things, the origin of the universe. And Professor Dawkins agrees
with him. How does evolution of any kind have anything to do with the
origin of the universe? surely it would need something to evolve from?
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an explanation for, among >>other things, the origin of the universe. And Professor Dawkins agrees
with him. How does evolution of any kind have anything to do with the >>origin of the universe? surely it would need something to evolve from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a wider sense
than just *biological* evolution, that life itself "evolved" from
chemical reactions.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks for the
link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never really explored his
ideas before and I was fascinated by how much what he was saying
echoed my own beliefs and ideas - there was nothing he said that I
would argue with and I thought he handled Dawkins extremely well.
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an explanation for,
among other things, the origin of the universe. And Professor
Dawkins agrees with him. How does evolution of any kind have
anything to do with the origin of the universe? surely it would need >>>>something to evolve from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a wider sense
than just *biological* evolution, that life itself "evolved" from
chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as "origin of
the content of the universe" and then say that it evolved from pure
energy. But I am not sure if that is evolution strictly, or just
changing from one thing to another. And I am not sure if energy is >>different from content, or if universe is different from content of
the universe. In summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a metaphysical
way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on the precise meaning of
specific words, it's the ideas behind the words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks for the
link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never really explored
his ideas before and I was fascinated by how much what he was saying
echoed my own beliefs and ideas - there was nothing he said that I
would argue with and I thought he handled Dawkins extremely well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite entertaining. I
think in that series Dawkins was struggling to keep the lid on his
temper at times, although that could just be his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was excluded?
On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an explanation for,
among other things, the origin of the universe. And Professor
Dawkins agrees with him. How does evolution of any kind have
anything to do with the origin of the universe? surely it would need >>>>>> something to evolve from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a wider sense
than just *biological* evolution, that life itself "evolved" from
chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as "origin of
the content of the universe" and then say that it evolved from pure
energy. But I am not sure if that is evolution strictly, or just
changing from one thing to another. And I am not sure if energy is
different from content, or if universe is different from content of
the universe. In summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a metaphysical
way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on the precise meaning of
specific words, it's the ideas behind the words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks for the
link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never really explored
his ideas before and I was fascinated by how much what he was saying >>>>> echoed my own beliefs and ideas - there was nothing he said that I
would argue with and I thought he handled Dawkins extremely well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite entertaining. I
think in that series Dawkins was struggling to keep the lid on his
temper at times, although that could just be his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was excluded?
At the beginning of the video Dawkins explains that it was left out as
there was too much overlap with an interview with the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
OK, I forgot that your link started ~4 mins in. I'll be interested to
hunt down the Archbishop of Canterbury episode, but I'd expect it to
have a lot of overlap with George Coyne. I think that a lot of USians
make the mistake of regarding the likes of Ken Ham as a representative
of mainstream Christianity when he isn't - at least not outside the
USA!
On 20/05/2024 17:16, Richmond wrote:
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an explanation for, among
other things, the origin of the universe. And Professor Dawkins agrees
with him. How does evolution of any kind have anything to do with the
origin of the universe? surely it would need something to evolve from?
It might be a reference to the following idea (which, IIUC, holds that
the universe is not fine tuned for life; it's fine tuned for black holes).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection
I don't find the hypothesis compelling.
On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an explanation for, >>>>>>among other things, the origin of the universe. And Professor >>>>>>Dawkins agrees with him. How does evolution of any kind have >>>>>>anything to do with the origin of the universe? surely it would >>>>>>need something to evolve from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a wider
sense than just *biological* evolution, that life itself "evolved"
from chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as "origin of >>>>the content of the universe" and then say that it evolved from pure >>>>energy. But I am not sure if that is evolution strictly, or just >>>>changing from one thing to another. And I am not sure if energy is >>>>different from content, or if universe is different from content of
the universe. In summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a metaphysical
way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on the precise meaning of
specific words, it's the ideas behind the words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks for the
link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never really explored
his ideas before and I was fascinated by how much what he was
saying echoed my own beliefs and ideas - there was nothing he said
that I would argue with and I thought he handled Dawkins extremely
well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite entertaining. I >>>>think in that series Dawkins was struggling to keep the lid on his >>>>temper at times, although that could just be his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was
excluded?
At the beginning of the video Dawkins explains that it was left out as >>there was too much overlap with an interview with the Archbishop of >>Canterbury.
OK, I forgot that your link started ~4 mins in. I'll be interested to
hunt down the Archbishop of Canterbury episode, but I'd expect it to
have a lot of overlap with George Coyne. I think that a lot of USians
make the mistake of regarding the likes of Ken Ham as a representative
of mainstream Christianity when he isn't - at least not outside the
USA!
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an explanation for, >>>>>>> among other things, the origin of the universe. And Professor
Dawkins agrees with him. How does evolution of any kind have
anything to do with the origin of the universe? surely it would
need something to evolve from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a wider
sense than just *biological* evolution, that life itself "evolved" >>>>>> from chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as "origin of >>>>> the content of the universe" and then say that it evolved from pure
energy. But I am not sure if that is evolution strictly, or just
changing from one thing to another. And I am not sure if energy is
different from content, or if universe is different from content of
the universe. In summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a metaphysical
way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on the precise meaning of
specific words, it's the ideas behind the words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks for the >>>>>> link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never really explored
his ideas before and I was fascinated by how much what he was
saying echoed my own beliefs and ideas - there was nothing he said >>>>>> that I would argue with and I thought he handled Dawkins extremely >>>>>> well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite entertaining. I
think in that series Dawkins was struggling to keep the lid on his
temper at times, although that could just be his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was
excluded?
At the beginning of the video Dawkins explains that it was left out as
there was too much overlap with an interview with the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
OK, I forgot that your link started ~4 mins in. I'll be interested to
hunt down the Archbishop of Canterbury episode, but I'd expect it to
have a lot of overlap with George Coyne. I think that a lot of USians
make the mistake of regarding the likes of Ken Ham as a representative
of mainstream Christianity when he isn't - at least not outside the
USA!
Coyne sounds rather confused to me. He doesn't seem to know what God
is. He says God is not an engineer, and then he says God created the universe, that he is a prime mover, and gave us brains, and then he says
God is superflous and doesn't explain things.
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:Coyne doesn’t think we are apes, so I disagree with him there.
On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an explanation
for, among other things, the origin of the universe. And
Professor Dawkins agrees with him. How does evolution of any
kind have anything to do with the origin of the universe?
surely it would need something to evolve from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a wider
sense than just *biological* evolution, that life itself
"evolved" from chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as "origin
of the content of the universe" and then say that it evolved from
pure energy. But I am not sure if that is evolution strictly, or
just changing from one thing to another. And I am not sure if
energy is different from content, or if universe is different
from content of the universe. In summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a metaphysical
way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on the precise meaning
of specific words, it's the ideas behind the words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks for
the link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never really
explored his ideas before and I was fascinated by how much what
he was saying echoed my own beliefs and ideas - there was
nothing he said that I would argue with and I thought he handled >>>>>>> Dawkins extremely well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite
entertaining. I think in that series Dawkins was struggling to
keep the lid on his temper at times, although that could just be
his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was
excluded?
At the beginning of the video Dawkins explains that it was left out
as there was too much overlap with an interview with the Archbishop
of Canterbury.
OK, I forgot that your link started ~4 mins in. I'll be interested
to hunt down the Archbishop of Canterbury episode, but I'd expect it
to have a lot of overlap with George Coyne. I think that a lot of
USians make the mistake of regarding the likes of Ken Ham as a
representative of mainstream Christianity when he isn't - at least
not outside the USA!
Coyne sounds rather confused to me. He doesn't seem to know what God
is. He says God is not an engineer, and then he says God created the
universe, that he is a prime mover, and gave us brains, and then he
says God is superflous and doesn't explain things.
But at around 56:31 when Dawkins asks him about ensoulment (a bugbear
of mine) Coyne says he doesn’t believe in the soul. Coyne explicitly
says around 56:43 that he doesn’t “believe this idea of at some time
in the evolutionary process God put a soul…”
Dawkins interrupts him. Seems he rejects ensoulment doctrine. But then
he invokes a Teilhardian spiritual emergence via evolution that God
was somehow involved in. More bottom up than top down? More continuous
than instantaneous. A bit fluffy though. Y
Coyne believes he survives death not a soul so he can have a gin and
tonic and play some tennis. He’s got jokes. There were places earlier
in the talk with Dawk that I found myself departing from Coyne’s
rhetoric but will need to review for details and time stamps.
It was a cordial talk, but Coyne commands some respect due to his astrophysics background. Dawkins hit him with some tough pointed
questions where you could see Coyne grappling with the reconciliation
of his theistic evolutionism.
He got himself into that pickle by saying God is not an intervening engineer. The alternative is that every living thing has a soul.
There are other alternatives. For example, the soul could be an emergent property of the body, particularly of the brain. If he gave us brains (mentioned above), souls could have come along with that, and perhaps
even gradually. Maybe chimps have near-but-not-quite-souls.
On 5/22/24 1:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:acknowledges that we evolved from apes so it is just how the
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:Coyne doesn’t think we are apes, so I disagree with him there. He
On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an explanation >>>>>>>>>> for, among other things, the origin of the universe. And
Professor Dawkins agrees with him. How does evolution of any >>>>>>>>>> kind have anything to do with the origin of the universe?
surely it would need something to evolve from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a wider >>>>>>>>> sense than just *biological* evolution, that life itself
"evolved" from chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as
"origin of the content of the universe" and then say that it
evolved from pure energy. But I am not sure if that is
evolution strictly, or just changing from one thing to
another. And I am not sure if energy is different from content, >>>>>>>> or if universe is different from content of the universe. In
summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a
metaphysical way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on the
precise meaning of specific words, it's the ideas behind the
words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks for >>>>>>>>> the link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never really >>>>>>>>> explored his ideas before and I was fascinated by how much
what he was saying echoed my own beliefs and ideas - there was >>>>>>>>> nothing he said that I would argue with and I thought he
handled Dawkins extremely well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite
entertaining. I think in that series Dawkins was struggling to >>>>>>>> keep the lid on his temper at times, although that could just
be his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was
excluded?
At the beginning of the video Dawkins explains that it was left
out as there was too much overlap with an interview with the
Archbishop of Canterbury.
OK, I forgot that your link started ~4 mins in. I'll be interested
to hunt down the Archbishop of Canterbury episode, but I'd expect
it to have a lot of overlap with George Coyne. I think that a lot
of USians make the mistake of regarding the likes of Ken Ham as a
representative of mainstream Christianity when he isn't - at least
not outside the USA!
Coyne sounds rather confused to me. He doesn't seem to know what
God is. He says God is not an engineer, and then he says God
created the universe, that he is a prime mover, and gave us brains,
and then he says God is superflous and doesn't explain things.
categories are defined. I think he means we are not identical to what
he thinks of as an ape.
But at around 56:31 when Dawkins asks him about ensoulment (a
bugbear of mine) Coyne says he doesn’t believe in the soul. Coyne
explicitly says around 56:43 that he doesn’t “believe this idea of
at some time in the evolutionary process God put a soul…” >> He got >>> himself into that pickle by saying God is not an intervening >>
engineer. The alternative is that every living thing has a soul.
There are other alternatives. For example, the soul could be an
emergent property of the body, particularly of the brain. If he gave
us brains (mentioned above), souls could have come along with that,
and perhaps even gradually. Maybe chimps have
near-but-not-quite-souls.
On Wed, 22 May 2024 07:44:39 -0700
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[time for a snip]
He got himself into that pickle by saying God is not an intervening
engineer. The alternative is that every living thing has a soul.
There are other alternatives. For example, the soul could be an emergent
property of the body, particularly of the brain. If he gave us brains
(mentioned above), souls could have come along with that, and perhaps
even gradually. Maybe chimps have near-but-not-quite-souls.
How about: God emerges from sapient (or could I say superstitious?) beings?
On 5/22/24 8:51 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2024 07:44:39 -0700The near-universal appearance of religion (however defined) in human societies suggests that religion should be considered in an evolutionary context. Is is part of our extended phenotype in the same sense as
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[time for a snip]
He got himself into that pickle by saying God is not an intervening
engineer. The alternative is that every living thing has a soul.
There are other alternatives. For example, the soul could be an emergent >>> property of the body, particularly of the brain. If he gave us brains
(mentioned above), souls could have come along with that, and perhaps
even gradually. Maybe chimps have near-but-not-quite-souls.
How about: God emerges from sapient (or could I say superstitious?) beings? >>
[]
beaver dams are an expression of that of beavers? An obvious positive advantage to human society is that religion can be a social glue; a
clear disadvantage is that it can provoke conflict between societies.
Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2024 07:44:39 -0700People created gods to make up for a puzzling explanatory gap and assuage existential angst stemming from self-awareness and knowledge of eventual death. The explanatory gap has shrunken but the fear of death remains. Transhumanism, which btw has forefathers in Huxley and Teilhard, is merely
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[time for a snip]
He got himself into that pickle by saying God is not an intervening
engineer. The alternative is that every living thing has a soul.
There are other alternatives. For example, the soul could be an emergent >>> property of the body, particularly of the brain. If he gave us brains
(mentioned above), souls could have come along with that, and perhaps
even gradually. Maybe chimps have near-but-not-quite-souls.
How about: God emerges from sapient (or could I say superstitious?) beings? >>
a technonerdish hope of cheating death.
On 5/22/24 8:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:You should ask someone who thinks souls exist.
On 5/22/24 1:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:acknowledges that we evolved from apes so it is just how the
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:Coyne doesn’t think we are apes, so I disagree with him there. He
On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an
explanation for, among other things, the origin of the >>>>>>>>>>>> universe. And Professor Dawkins agrees with him. How does >>>>>>>>>>>> evolution of any kind have anything to do with the origin >>>>>>>>>>>> of the universe? surely it would need something to evolve >>>>>>>>>>>> from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a
wider sense than just *biological* evolution, that life
itself "evolved" from chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as
"origin of the content of the universe" and then say that it >>>>>>>>>> evolved from pure energy. But I am not sure if that is
evolution strictly, or just changing from one thing to
another. And I am not sure if energy is different from
content, or if universe is different from content of the
universe. In summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a
metaphysical way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on the >>>>>>>>> precise meaning of specific words, it's the ideas behind the >>>>>>>>> words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks >>>>>>>>>>> for the link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never >>>>>>>>>>> really explored his ideas before and I was fascinated by how >>>>>>>>>>> much what he was saying echoed my own beliefs and ideas - >>>>>>>>>>> there was nothing he said that I would argue with and I
thought he handled Dawkins extremely well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite
entertaining. I think in that series Dawkins was struggling >>>>>>>>>> to keep the lid on his temper at times, although that could >>>>>>>>>> just be his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was >>>>>>>>> excluded?
At the beginning of the video Dawkins explains that it was left >>>>>>>> out as there was too much overlap with an interview with the
Archbishop of Canterbury.
OK, I forgot that your link started ~4 mins in. I'll be
interested to hunt down the Archbishop of Canterbury episode,
but I'd expect it to have a lot of overlap with George Coyne. I
think that a lot of USians make the mistake of regarding the
likes of Ken Ham as a representative of mainstream Christianity
when he isn't - at least not outside the USA!
Coyne sounds rather confused to me. He doesn't seem to know what
God is. He says God is not an engineer, and then he says God
created the universe, that he is a prime mover, and gave us
brains, and then he says God is superflous and doesn't explain
things.
categories are defined. I think he means we are not identical to
what he thinks of as an ape.
But at around 56:31 when Dawkins asks him about ensoulment (a
bugbear of mine) Coyne says he doesn’t believe in the soul. Coyne
explicitly says around 56:43 that he doesn’t “believe this idea of >>>>> at some time in the evolutionary process God put a soul…” >> He >>>>> got himself into that pickle by saying God is not an intervening
soul.engineer. The alternative is that every living thing has a
There are other alternatives. For example, the soul could be an
emergent property of the body, particularly of the brain. If he gave
us brains (mentioned above), souls could have come along with that,
and perhaps even gradually. Maybe chimps have
near-but-not-quite-souls. >> So at what point in the transition
from ape to human did the soul >> appear, and why? Did Neandertals
have souls, or other kinds of human? >> (And what's a soul
anyway?).
On 5/23/24 5:16 AM, Richmond wrote:
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:If you are really convinced your computer has a soul, saving it to an external disk isn't the best way to insure its immortality. Upload it
On 5/22/24 8:59 AM, Richmond wrote:You can't say whether it exists or not, unless you define
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:You should ask someone who thinks souls exist.
On 5/22/24 1:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:categories are defined. I think he means we are not identical to
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:Coyne doesn’t think we are apes, so I disagree with him there. He >>>>>> acknowledges that we evolved from apes so it is just how the
On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an
explanation for, among other things, the origin of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. And Professor Dawkins agrees with him. How does >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution of any kind have anything to do with the origin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the universe? surely it would need something to evolve >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a >>>>>>>>>>>>> wider sense than just *biological* evolution, that life >>>>>>>>>>>>> itself "evolved" from chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as >>>>>>>>>>>> "origin of the content of the universe" and then say that it >>>>>>>>>>>> evolved from pure energy. But I am not sure if that is >>>>>>>>>>>> evolution strictly, or just changing from one thing to >>>>>>>>>>>> another. And I am not sure if energy is different from >>>>>>>>>>>> content, or if universe is different from content of the >>>>>>>>>>>> universe. In summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a
metaphysical way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on the >>>>>>>>>>> precise meaning of specific words, it's the ideas behind the >>>>>>>>>>> words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never >>>>>>>>>>>>> really explored his ideas before and I was fascinated by how >>>>>>>>>>>>> much what he was saying echoed my own beliefs and ideas - >>>>>>>>>>>>> there was nothing he said that I would argue with and I >>>>>>>>>>>>> thought he handled Dawkins extremely well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite
entertaining. I think in that series Dawkins was struggling >>>>>>>>>>>> to keep the lid on his temper at times, although that could >>>>>>>>>>>> just be his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was >>>>>>>>>>> excluded?
At the beginning of the video Dawkins explains that it was left >>>>>>>>>> out as there was too much overlap with an interview with the >>>>>>>>>> Archbishop of Canterbury.
OK, I forgot that your link started ~4 mins in. I'll be
interested to hunt down the Archbishop of Canterbury episode, >>>>>>>>> but I'd expect it to have a lot of overlap with George Coyne. I >>>>>>>>> think that a lot of USians make the mistake of regarding the >>>>>>>>> likes of Ken Ham as a representative of mainstream Christianity >>>>>>>>> when he isn't - at least not outside the USA!
Coyne sounds rather confused to me. He doesn't seem to know what >>>>>>>> God is. He says God is not an engineer, and then he says God
created the universe, that he is a prime mover, and gave us
brains, and then he says God is superflous and doesn't explain >>>>>>>> things.
what he thinks of as an ape.
But at around 56:31 when Dawkins asks him about ensoulment (a
bugbear of mine) Coyne says he doesn’t believe in the soul. Coyne >>>>>>> explicitly says around 56:43 that he doesn’t “believe this idea of >>>>>>> at some time in the evolutionary process God put a soul…” >> He >>>>>>> got himself into that pickle by saying God is not an intervening >>>>>>>>> engineer. The alternative is that every living thing has a
soul.
There are other alternatives. For example, the soul could be an
emergent property of the body, particularly of the brain. If he gave >>>>> us brains (mentioned above), souls could have come along with that,
and perhaps even gradually. Maybe chimps have
near-but-not-quite-souls. >> So at what point in the transition
from ape to human did the soul >> appear, and why? Did Neandertals
have souls, or other kinds of human? >> (And what's a soul
anyway?).
'soul'. You
will also have to define 'exists' too though.
My computer has a soul. I back up the soul to a removable disk. If
the
computer dies I can buy a new one, restore the soul from the backup, and
my computer has lived on after its death.
(I don't have a backup really, backups are a thought experiment for
me).
to the cloud (many available services, such as iDrive are available,
often free if the soul is less a a few Gbyte). That way we'll never
be rid of it, even if we wanted to be.
On Thu, 23 May 2024 08:00:03 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/23/24 1:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2024 16:51:07 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2024 07:44:39 -0700
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[time for a snip] >> He got himself into that pickle by saying God
is not an intervening >> engineer. The alternative is that every
living thing has a soul.
There are other alternatives. For example, the soul could be an
emergent property of the body, particularly of the brain. If he
gave us brains (mentioned above), souls could have come along with
that, and perhaps even gradually. Maybe chimps have
near-but-not-quite-souls.
How about: God emerges from sapient (or could I say superstitious?)
beings?
"Though sensitive soul in man and brute agree generically, yet they
differ specifically. As the animal, man, differs specifically from
other animals by being rational, so the sentient soul of a man
differs specifically from the sentient soul of a brute by being also
intelligent. The soul therefore of a brute has sentient attributes
only, and consequently neither its being nor its activity rises
above the order of the body: hence it must be generated with the
generation of the body, and perish with its destruction. But the
sentient soul in man, over and above its sentient nature, has
intellectual power: hence the very substance of this soul must be
raised above the bodily order both in being and in activity; and
therefore it is neither generated by the generation of the body, nor
perishes by its destruction."
Thomas Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, chapter LXXXVIII, LXXXIX
To the extent that Aquinas can be understood here, he seems to be
going back to the first option, that God is an intervening engineer, >>creating and installing a soul into each human.
I can't claim any particular insight into Aquinas, I was just aware
from discussion elsewhere that he considered all animals to have a
soul of some type. What struck me in the above was where he said "As
the animal, man, differs specifically from other animals by being
rational …" He doesn't sound like somebody who would have been
perturbed at the idea of humans evolving from other species.
On Wed, 22 May 2024 09:59:37 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:Coyne doesnt think we are apes, so I disagree with him there.
On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an explanation >>>>>>>>>> for, among other things, the origin of the universe. And
Professor Dawkins agrees with him. How does evolution of any >>>>>>>>>> kind have anything to do with the origin of the universe?
surely it would need something to evolve from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a wider >>>>>>>>> sense than just *biological* evolution, that life itself
"evolved" from chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as "origin >>>>>>>> of the content of the universe" and then say that it evolved from >>>>>>>> pure energy. But I am not sure if that is evolution strictly, or >>>>>>>> just changing from one thing to another. And I am not sure if
energy is different from content, or if universe is different
from content of the universe. In summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a metaphysical >>>>>>> way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on the precise meaning >>>>>>> of specific words, it's the ideas behind the words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks for >>>>>>>>> the link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never really >>>>>>>>> explored his ideas before and I was fascinated by how much what >>>>>>>>> he was saying echoed my own beliefs and ideas - there was
nothing he said that I would argue with and I thought he handled >>>>>>>>> Dawkins extremely well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite
entertaining. I think in that series Dawkins was struggling to >>>>>>>> keep the lid on his temper at times, although that could just be >>>>>>>> his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was
excluded?
At the beginning of the video Dawkins explains that it was left out >>>>>> as there was too much overlap with an interview with the Archbishop >>>>>> of Canterbury.
OK, I forgot that your link started ~4 mins in. I'll be interested
to hunt down the Archbishop of Canterbury episode, but I'd expect it >>>>> to have a lot of overlap with George Coyne. I think that a lot of
USians make the mistake of regarding the likes of Ken Ham as a
representative of mainstream Christianity when he isn't - at least
not outside the USA!
Coyne sounds rather confused to me. He doesn't seem to know what God
is. He says God is not an engineer, and then he says God created the
universe, that he is a prime mover, and gave us brains, and then he
says God is superflous and doesn't explain things.
He acknowledges that we evolved from apes so it is just how the
categories are defined. I think he means we are not identical to what he
thinks of as an ape.
But at around 56:31 when Dawkins asks him about ensoulment (a bugbear
of mine) Coyne says he doesnt believe in the soul. Coyne explicitly
says around 56:43 that he doesnt believe this idea of at some time
in the evolutionary process God put a soul
He got himself into that pickle by saying God is not an intervening
engineer. The alternative is that every living thing has a soul.
Dawkins interrupts him. Seems he rejects ensoulment doctrine. But then
he invokes a Teilhardian spiritual emergence via evolution that God
was somehow involved in. More bottom up than top down? More continuous
than instantaneous. A bit fluffy though. Y
Coyne believes he survives death not a soul so he can have a gin and
tonic and play some tennis. Hes got jokes. There were places earlier
in the talk with Dawk that I found myself departing from Coynes
rhetoric but will need to review for details and time stamps.
It was a cordial talk, but Coyne commands some respect due to his
astrophysics background. Dawkins hit him with some tough pointed
questions where you could see Coyne grappling with the reconciliation
of his theistic evolutionism.
He has shifted around on what God is, partly identifying him with
everything, so that God can hide from physicists in plane sight, but that
makes God meaningless, or unnecessary, as Dawkins pointed out. And it
makes atheism indistinguishable from theism. But then he also has to
divide God in two, so he can have the God which loves him and everyone.
The comment toward the end was quite telling, he said he believed in the
virgin birth and resurrection "but don't press me". I think he states
this belief because he has to, as that's what he agreed to when he
became a priest.
Clearly he is divided in some way, and he is looking for ways to
rationalise that division, between small time scales or large, between
heart and mind, between faith and reason, between subjective and
objective....
Which reflects that theology does not have complete answers to
everything and sometimes struggles to adequately rationalise things
that we sense to be true. Just like science, indeed!
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
On 5/22/24 8:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:You should ask someone who thinks souls exist.
On 5/22/24 1:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:categories are defined. I think he means we are not identical to
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:Coyne doesn’t think we are apes, so I disagree with him there. He >>>>> acknowledges that we evolved from apes so it is just how the
On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an
explanation for, among other things, the origin of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. And Professor Dawkins agrees with him. How does >>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution of any kind have anything to do with the origin >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the universe? surely it would need something to evolve >>>>>>>>>>>>> from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a >>>>>>>>>>>> wider sense than just *biological* evolution, that life >>>>>>>>>>>> itself "evolved" from chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as >>>>>>>>>>> "origin of the content of the universe" and then say that it >>>>>>>>>>> evolved from pure energy. But I am not sure if that is
evolution strictly, or just changing from one thing to
another. And I am not sure if energy is different from
content, or if universe is different from content of the >>>>>>>>>>> universe. In summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a
metaphysical way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on the >>>>>>>>>> precise meaning of specific words, it's the ideas behind the >>>>>>>>>> words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks >>>>>>>>>>>> for the link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never >>>>>>>>>>>> really explored his ideas before and I was fascinated by how >>>>>>>>>>>> much what he was saying echoed my own beliefs and ideas - >>>>>>>>>>>> there was nothing he said that I would argue with and I >>>>>>>>>>>> thought he handled Dawkins extremely well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite
entertaining. I think in that series Dawkins was struggling >>>>>>>>>>> to keep the lid on his temper at times, although that could >>>>>>>>>>> just be his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was >>>>>>>>>> excluded?
At the beginning of the video Dawkins explains that it was left >>>>>>>>> out as there was too much overlap with an interview with the >>>>>>>>> Archbishop of Canterbury.
OK, I forgot that your link started ~4 mins in. I'll be
interested to hunt down the Archbishop of Canterbury episode,
but I'd expect it to have a lot of overlap with George Coyne. I >>>>>>>> think that a lot of USians make the mistake of regarding the
likes of Ken Ham as a representative of mainstream Christianity >>>>>>>> when he isn't - at least not outside the USA!
Coyne sounds rather confused to me. He doesn't seem to know what >>>>>>> God is. He says God is not an engineer, and then he says God
created the universe, that he is a prime mover, and gave us
brains, and then he says God is superflous and doesn't explain
things.
what he thinks of as an ape.
But at around 56:31 when Dawkins asks him about ensoulment (a
bugbear of mine) Coyne says he doesn’t believe in the soul. Coyne >>>>>> explicitly says around 56:43 that he doesn’t “believe this idea of >>>>>> at some time in the evolutionary process God put a soul…” >> He >>>>>> got himself into that pickle by saying God is not an intervening >>>>>>>> engineer. The alternative is that every living thing has a
soul.
There are other alternatives. For example, the soul could be an
emergent property of the body, particularly of the brain. If he gave
us brains (mentioned above), souls could have come along with that,
and perhaps even gradually. Maybe chimps have
near-but-not-quite-souls. >> So at what point in the transition
from ape to human did the soul >> appear, and why? Did Neandertals
have souls, or other kinds of human? >> (And what's a soul
anyway?).
You can't say whether it exists or not, unless you define 'soul'. You
will also have to define 'exists' too though.
My computer has a soul. I back up the soul to a removable disk. If the computer dies I can buy a new one, restore the soul from the backup, and
my computer has lived on after its death.
(I don't have a backup really, backups are a thought experiment for me).
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:Souls are as meaningless for computers as they are for living
On 5/22/24 8:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:You should ask someone who thinks souls exist.
On 5/22/24 1:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:He acknowledges that we evolved from apes so it is just how the
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:Coyne doesn’t think we are apes, so I disagree with him there.
On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an
explanation for, among other things, the origin of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. And Professor Dawkins agrees with him. How does >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution of any kind have anything to do with the origin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the universe? surely it would need something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolve from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a >>>>>>>>>>>>> wider sense than just *biological* evolution, that life >>>>>>>>>>>>> itself "evolved" from chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as >>>>>>>>>>>> "origin of the content of the universe" and then say that >>>>>>>>>>>> it evolved from pure energy. But I am not sure if that is >>>>>>>>>>>> evolution strictly, or just changing from one thing to >>>>>>>>>>>> another. And I am not sure if energy is different from >>>>>>>>>>>> content, or if universe is different from content of the >>>>>>>>>>>> universe. In summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a
metaphysical way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on >>>>>>>>>>> the precise meaning of specific words, it's the ideas behind >>>>>>>>>>> the words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never >>>>>>>>>>>>> really explored his ideas before and I was fascinated by >>>>>>>>>>>>> how much what he was saying echoed my own beliefs and >>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas - there was nothing he said that I would argue with >>>>>>>>>>>>> and I thought he handled Dawkins extremely well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite
entertaining. I think in that series Dawkins was struggling >>>>>>>>>>>> to keep the lid on his temper at times, although that could >>>>>>>>>>>> just be his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was >>>>>>>>>>> excluded?
At the beginning of the video Dawkins explains that it was >>>>>>>>>> left out as there was too much overlap with an interview with >>>>>>>>>> the Archbishop of Canterbury.
OK, I forgot that your link started ~4 mins in. I'll be
interested to hunt down the Archbishop of Canterbury episode, >>>>>>>>> but I'd expect it to have a lot of overlap with George
Coyne. I think that a lot of USians make the mistake of
regarding the likes of Ken Ham as a representative of
mainstream Christianity when he isn't - at least not outside >>>>>>>>> the USA!
Coyne sounds rather confused to me. He doesn't seem to know
what God is. He says God is not an engineer, and then he says
God created the universe, that he is a prime mover, and gave us >>>>>>>> brains, and then he says God is superflous and doesn't explain >>>>>>>> things.
categories are defined. I think he means we are not identical to
what he thinks of as an ape.
But at around 56:31 when Dawkins asks him about ensoulment (a
bugbear of mine) Coyne says he doesn’t believe in the
soul. Coyne explicitly says around 56:43 that he doesn’t
“believe this idea of at some time in the evolutionary process >>>>>>> God put a soul…” >> He got himself into that pickle by saying >>>>>>> God is not an intervening >> engineer. The alternative is that
every living thing has a soul.
There are other alternatives. For example, the soul could be an
emergent property of the body, particularly of the brain. If he
gave us brains (mentioned above), souls could have come along with
that, and perhaps even gradually. Maybe chimps have
near-but-not-quite-souls. >> So at what point in the transition
from ape to human did the soul >> appear, and why? Did Neandertals
have souls, or other kinds of human? >> (And what's a soul
anyway?).
You can't say whether it exists or not, unless you define 'soul'. You
will also have to define 'exists' too though.
My computer has a soul. I back up the soul to a removable disk. If
the computer dies I can buy a new one, restore the soul from the
backup, and my computer has lived on after its death.
(I don't have a backup really, backups are a thought experiment for
me).
organisms.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:Souls are as meaningless for computers as they are for living
On 5/22/24 8:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:You should ask someone who thinks souls exist.
On 5/22/24 1:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:categories are defined. I think he means we are not identical to >>>>>>> what he thinks of as an ape.
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:Coyne doesn’t think we are apes, so I disagree with him there. >>>>>>> He acknowledges that we evolved from apes so it is just how the
On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
In this interview, at the point I link to:
https://youtu.be/68ejfHahFK4?t=254
Father Coyne offers Neodarwinian Evolution as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation for, among other things, the origin of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. And Professor Dawkins agrees with him. How does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution of any kind have anything to do with the origin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the universe? surely it would need something to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolve from?
I got the impression that he was using "evolution" in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wider sense than just *biological* evolution, that life >>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself "evolved" from chemical reactions.
I suppose you could interpret "origin of the universe" as >>>>>>>>>>>>> "origin of the content of the universe" and then say that >>>>>>>>>>>>> it evolved from pure energy. But I am not sure if that is >>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution strictly, or just changing from one thing to >>>>>>>>>>>>> another. And I am not sure if energy is different from >>>>>>>>>>>>> content, or if universe is different from content of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. In summary, I am not sure.
When talking about a subject in what is essentially a
metaphysical way. I think we shouldn't get too hung up on >>>>>>>>>>>> the precise meaning of specific words, it's the ideas behind >>>>>>>>>>>> the words that matter.
A fascinating interview that I had not seen before, thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the link. Whilst I was aware of George Coyne, I never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really explored his ideas before and I was fascinated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much what he was saying echoed my own beliefs and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas - there was nothing he said that I would argue with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I thought he handled Dawkins extremely well.
The TV series from which it was excluded was quite
entertaining. I think in that series Dawkins was struggling >>>>>>>>>>>>> to keep the lid on his temper at times, although that could >>>>>>>>>>>>> just be his natural expression.
I wasn't aware of that series. Any idea why this episode was >>>>>>>>>>>> excluded?
At the beginning of the video Dawkins explains that it was >>>>>>>>>>> left out as there was too much overlap with an interview with >>>>>>>>>>> the Archbishop of Canterbury.
OK, I forgot that your link started ~4 mins in. I'll be
interested to hunt down the Archbishop of Canterbury episode, >>>>>>>>>> but I'd expect it to have a lot of overlap with George
Coyne. I think that a lot of USians make the mistake of
regarding the likes of Ken Ham as a representative of
mainstream Christianity when he isn't - at least not outside >>>>>>>>>> the USA!
Coyne sounds rather confused to me. He doesn't seem to know
what God is. He says God is not an engineer, and then he says >>>>>>>>> God created the universe, that he is a prime mover, and gave us >>>>>>>>> brains, and then he says God is superflous and doesn't explain >>>>>>>>> things.
But at around 56:31 when Dawkins asks him about ensoulment (a
bugbear of mine) Coyne says he doesn’t believe in the
soul. Coyne explicitly says around 56:43 that he doesn’t
“believe this idea of at some time in the evolutionary process >>>>>>>> God put a soul…” >> He got himself into that pickle by saying >>>>>>>> God is not an intervening >> engineer. The alternative is that >>>>>>>> every living thing has a soul.
There are other alternatives. For example, the soul could be an
emergent property of the body, particularly of the brain. If he
gave us brains (mentioned above), souls could have come along with >>>>>> that, and perhaps even gradually. Maybe chimps have
near-but-not-quite-souls. >> So at what point in the transition
from ape to human did the soul >> appear, and why? Did Neandertals >>>>>> have souls, or other kinds of human? >> (And what's a soul
anyway?).
You can't say whether it exists or not, unless you define 'soul'. You
will also have to define 'exists' too though.
My computer has a soul. I back up the soul to a removable disk. If
the computer dies I can buy a new one, restore the soul from the
backup, and my computer has lived on after its death.
(I don't have a backup really, backups are a thought experiment for
me).
organisms.
Much depends on how you define soul.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:31:37 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Calls today: | 17 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,188,906 |