Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail From: Richmond Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: George Coyne and Richard Dawkins Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 17:20:09 +0100 Organization: Frantic Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: <86r0dsh552.fsf@example.com> References: <868r044fxr.fsf@example.com> <86v8375w3b.fsf@example.com> <868r03mflw.fsf@example.com> <864jaqn6s3.fsf@example.com> <868r02cjd2.fsf@example.com> <867cflltwr.fsf@example.com> <86v834hgee.fsf@example.com> <65ae6765-0dee-4df1-95d1-6c6a4d351d56@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89"; logging-data="86779"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:gvQD3XVYQIKsU0xCkY6WodydpFQ= sha1:wEaA7LNFCeL4/50hU9FBIhx7ixk= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 04012229870; Thu, 23 May 2024 12:19:58 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C464822986E for ; Thu, 23 May 2024 12:19:55 -0400 (EDT) id DBC1A5DC4C; Thu, 23 May 2024 16:20:14 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay-1.kamens.us (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B86165DC40 for ; Thu, 23 May 2024 16:20:14 +0000 (UTC) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pmx.weretis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B11B3E8AE for ; Thu, 23 May 2024 18:20:10 +0200 (CEST) id E86043E86A; Thu, 23 May 2024 18:20:09 +0200 (CEST) X-User-ID: eJwFwYcBwDAIA7CXwrBpzqGM/0+IBKOwwgk6FlthZh97xfVO938F6YtsjgG1leHFWqjizHkiYxFi Bytes: 9085 Lines: 132 erik simpson writes: > On 5/23/24 5:16 AM, Richmond wrote: >> John Harshman writes: >> >>> On 5/22/24 8:59 AM, Richmond wrote: >>>> John Harshman writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/22/24 1:59 AM, Richmond wrote: >>>>>> *Hemidactylus* writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Richmond wrote: >>>>>>>> Martin Harran writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2024 14:58:19 +0100, Richmond wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Martin Harran writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:54:16 +0100, Richmond wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Martin Harran writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:16:16 +0100, 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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 should ask someone who thinks souls exist. >> 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). >> > 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 > 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. In your opinion. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/always-keep-backups-unprecedented-google-213555491.html "an 'unprecedented' Google Cloud debacle saw a $135 billion pension fund's entire account deleted and services knocked out for nearly two weeks"