Video of Richard Dawkins interviewing a Priest

[Areopagite]

I came across an extremely engaging interview with ol’ Dawkins and Fr. George Coyne, the former head of the Vatican Observatory.

I agree with almost everything this priest is saying … except a few things … yeah, he really has a couple weird ideas (that are technically not heretical, I guess, but … yeah). Despite his shortcomings, it was refreshing to see how civil this discussion was.

youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

(this is the first part … out of seven!)

 

[colmcille1]

I came across an extremely engaging interview with ol’ Dawkins and Fr. George Coyne, the former head of the Vatican Observatory.

I agree with almost everything this priest is saying … except a few things … yeah, he really has a couple weird ideas (that are technically not heretical, I guess, but … yeah). Despite his shortcomings, it was refreshing to see how civil this discussion was.

youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

(this is the first part … out of seven!)

Yes, it was indeed refreshing! (Another poster on another thread mentioned about the many variables to be taken into account in a face-to-face situation. He was contrasting the many times debates between posters on this site get very heated with what he would imagine would be a far more polite encounter if said posters were seated in a room together.)

Incidentally, Dawkins was interviewed on an Irish radio station recently. His opponent on this programme was an Irish religious affairs journalist. I have to tell you honestly that he (Dawkins) was not the softly-spoken urbane gent we see on the youtube clip. No. Instead the Irish journalist (David Quinn from the Iona Institute) really tore apart Dawkins every argument so that our urbane gent became more and more irascible as each tenet of his argument foundered. Just thought I’d mention this an an observation.

I will look at the other six clips.

God Bless,

Colmcille1.

 

[Slowlearner]

I came across an extremely engaging interview with ol’ Dawkins and Fr. George Coyne, the former head of the Vatican Observatory.

I agree with almost everything this priest is saying … except a few things … yeah, he really has a couple weird ideas (that are technically not heretical, I guess, but … yeah). Despite his shortcomings, it was refreshing to see how civil this discussion was.

youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

(this is the first part … out of seven!)

I can’t find it, but a while back I read a letter that he wrote to George Bush – a nutty rant.

Here’s a good one where Ben Stein gets him a bit uncomfortable.

According to Dawkins, space aliens may have created us but not God.

 

[Alex246]

That quite honestly felt like a nice refreshing glass of water poured over my head. Yes, I have an odd idea of refreshing
It’s good to see that there really can be good, thoughtful discussion between these two viewpoints that doesn’t attempt to make one party seem like an idiot.

 

[Sideline]

I can’t find it, but a while back I read a letter that he wrote to George Bush – a nutty rant.

Here’s a good one where Ben Stein gets him a bit uncomfortable.

According to Dawkins, space aliens may have created us but not God.

According to Dawkins we evolved after some form of chemical and biological abiogenesis.

Intelligent Design theorists posit that the designer need not be God. They desperately want Intelligent Design to be considered a science and not a religion, so they hasten to add that the creator doesn’t need to be God. Aliens are frequently given as one possible explanation.

According to Michael Behe: “Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel–fallen or not; Plato’s demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton’s phrase hypothesis non fingo.” (Michael Behe, “The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis,” Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165

According to William Dembski: “What’s more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation.” Commentary on Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch’s "Guest Viewpoint: ‘Intelligent design’ Not Accepted by Most Scientists

Dawkins said aliens may have created us because he was asked if he thought it was impossible that anything, anything at all could have intervened in life on Earth. Dawkins, by way of throwing a bone, said it was possible that aliens could have done it. He clearly made a mistake in thinking that Stein would be a journalistic cut above Michael Moore and show some integrity.

 

[Sideline]

That quite honestly felt like a nice refreshing glass of water poured over my head. Yes, I have an odd idea of refreshing
It’s good to see that there really can be good, thoughtful discussion between these two viewpoints that doesn’t attempt to make one party seem like an idiot.

It is a refreshing interview, which is kind of sad in a way if you think about it. Two people treating each other civilly in an interview has become noteworthy. Oh well, it’s nice to know that it’s not completely extinct.

 

[Areopagite]

I’m glad all of you also found this interview refreshing.

The posters on YouTube generally thought so too … and even the atheists generally had great respect for this priest. One atheist said something like, “The fact that this guy isn’t the Pope is proof that there is no God.” I found that rather humorous.