Article <86r0dsh552.fsf@example.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<86r0dsh552.fsf@example.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
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 <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
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>
	<o0po4jdontahdtsuefikj5eeojavt2lfd6@4ax.com>
	<86v8375w3b.fsf@example.com>
	<rrso4j1p2nsv1a3462p2hgl3enkr4i2unm@4ax.com>
	<868r03mflw.fsf@example.com>
	<ppmp4jd81vnqkel231vlqnmigmqimmun3n@4ax.com>
	<864jaqn6s3.fsf@example.com>
	<h1SdnZDKxfww19D7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
	<868r02cjd2.fsf@example.com>
	<dcucnQVYsJZFmdP7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
	<867cflltwr.fsf@example.com>
	<DZKdnXLacbwh4dP7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.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=
Bytes: 9085
Lines: 132

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:

> On 5/23/24 5:16 AM, Richmond wrote:
>> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 5/22/24 8:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>>> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/24 1:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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"