Evolution, Religion, Atheism – “Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne”
November 11, 2010
18 Comments
Comments are closed.
Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics
Blog Associations
Site Counter
Ad Free
Comments are closed.
I put this up, not because I agree with Fr. Coyne’s answers, but because there are things of interest in the interview as a whole.
Do you know the date of the interview? I quite appreciated Schonborn’s Chance or Purpose? (which I think must be the book Coyne refers to), though agreed with a comment he made at it’s official launch that it might have been better titled Chance and Purpose?
Of course, the ID crowd felt quite betrayed and behaved as might be expected.
The video was uploaded to google a year ago; I’m not sure when, however, the interview was done. Plus, what is being discussed I think was a debate they had in the newspapers, when Coyne pointed out the problems of intelligent design (among of which, it isn’t scientific, and evolution, per science, must not be seen as directional, pointing to humanity).
From the science, I agree; we cannot discern teleology through science. Philosophy/theology on the other hand, things differ (hence my Sophiology). And when evolutionists speak of evolution as not being directional, this is not to say it is pure chaos (as some think it would mean).
I will have to watch the whole thing later, but even in the first few minuted Fr. Coyne said something that I’d like to comment on. This is my own transcription:
My comment is, where does one go to find “official positions,” and what exactly are they? I am still miffed about Limbo. We are now told that it was always speculation — never an “official teaching” of the Catholic Church. Well, you could have fooled me and millions of others who went to Catholic school when I did. If somewhere during Catholic grade school or high school I had declared I didn’t believe in Limbo, I cannot imagine my teacher (lay man or woman, nun, or brother) would have said, “Well, of course the existence of Limbo has never been an official teaching of the Catholic Church.”
From the old Baltimore Catechism:
Now, reading carefully, it does not definitively say unbaptized babies go to Limbo. However, it does say very clearly and without qualification that they cannot go to heaven. This is now not an “official teaching.”
It just seems to me it is very convenient to have an enormous amount of Catholic teaching that, when things change, can be said never to have been “official.”
Of course, in the future, if someone wants to bring Limbo back, it can be pointed out that it was never the official teaching of the Catholic Church that there was not such a place as Limbo.
David,
Often the confusion is that, to know which are official positions and which are not, one had to move beyond catechism. Most people do not get to that stage, and most get a confusion of teachings, some doctrinal, some dogmatic, some neither. Some things are difficult to determine which is which, some are not. The Catechism offers a group of official teachings, but not the only one, and in it, we must recognize not all teachings are of the same level of authority. This is a criticism many have had of the catechism, and it is difficult to explain, without further research, which level of authority each teaching has.
The Christian Faith: In the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church
Henry,
I did get By What Authority?: A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful, which is helpful, but I think the whole area of what is official teaching and what is not is very murky, and then, of course, there is a matter of interpreting what the official teaching says. As an example, I was having a disagreement with someone over the death penalty, and I quoted this, from Evangelium Vitae:
Then I quoted from Gaillardetz on how authoritative an encyclical is (very authoritative). Then I said I didn’t see how anyone could claim that, when Bush signed 152 death warrants, there could possibly be 152 cases, all in a row, in which executions were absolutely necessary, or how something done 152 times could be justified if it was supposed to be very rare, if practically non-existent. The response was that Benedict had said, “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion, even among Catholics, about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
For what it is worth, my opinion is that many Catholics (usually pro-lifers), divide Church teaching into two categories — intrinsic evils, and everything else. If a moral teaching is about an intrinsic evil (almost always abortion), then it is binding. If it is about anything else, then it is a matter of “prudential judgment.” But prudential judgment for these people seems to be a kind of moral relativism. Anybody’s prudential judgment is just as good as anybody else’s. You can’t win an argument on a matter of prudential judgment, because the person you are arguing with claims the right to make a prudential judgment, and the best you can do when somebody makes a prudential judgment is say what your prudential judgment is, which proves nothing.
In another discussion, I was trying to get at anything — anything at all — that is mandated by Catholic Social Teaching. My question was, can anyone fill in the blank here: “I am politically a liberal (or conservative), and my inclination would be to advocate ____________, but because the Church says otherwise, I must go against what my political leanings are.” I couldn’t get a response. Apparently Catholic Social teaching is 100% compatible with being on the right and being on the left. So if you are a liberal Democrat and believe health care is a right that should be guaranteed by the government, you are in line with CST. But if you are from the Tea Party and you feel that taxes are government theft, and everyone should either pay for his or her own medical care, and the poor should be provided medical care on the local level by private charitable donations, you are also in line with CST.
David
Yes, as I said, things are difficult; the point of one was to show the different levels of teaching and how difficult it might be to discern them, let alone interpret them. Nonetheless, some major sources should be: ecumenical councils, encyclicals, etc. There is, in some respects, a difficulty because people are trying to look to teachings in a way the Church has not taken them. And yes many Catholics do think poorly, and use fallacies like most people — this has nothing to do with Church teaching, but a lack of ability to think. As you say, some people limit discussion to intrinsic evils — but the Church does not — and you know how I have discussed moral guilt can be graver with a non-intrinsic evil than an intrinsic evil — there is a category confusion. But the problem is — to get people to see and understand this is not easy.
David,
I think your last two paragraphs are very accurate. There is a lot of confusion out there. And very little docility.
Very, very sensible conversation between two men of science.
Great comments by David and Henry. David you clearly stated the problem when politics and our Catholic Faith intersect. I share your confusion and have no concrete answers to the questions you stated but I have come to the conlcusion that a deep prayer life and a deep abiding faith in Jesus and his Church can lead us to the Truth. Like Henry said there are no easy answers to our wordly problems.
God Bless
Gordie
Very, very sensible conversation between two men of science.
And refreshingly civil, as well.
Thank you, Henry, for posting this spectacular video.
I’d have to listen again, more carefully to make sure of this, but I think I agree with everything Fr. Martin says, especially his rejection of a “God of answers” and a “God of the gaps.” He skewers intelligent design, explaining very, very well why the “fine tuning of the fundamental constants” is not “evidence” of a creator or designer, and is in fact another flavor of the contracted “god of the gaps.”
Fr. Martin’s makes one of many statements of profound faith at about 39 minutes into the video: “I will accept — in the way you presented it — the God in whom I believe, is superfluous. [. . .] The God in whom I believe gave himself superfluously.” His exposition of faith is nothing less than pure, flowing poetry.
This video doesn’t look like much of a “conversation.” Fr. Martin speaks 90 percent of the words, and contributes 99 percent of the content. Dawkins, understandably as a professed atheist, has very little to say about the topic of discussion.
Henry, Thanks for posting this. It is a perfect example of intelligent human conversation between a non-believer and a believer. At one point, if I remember correctly Dawkins stated he was fascinated by Coyne’s answer to a particular question.
Also, if I remember correctly there are only 5 dogmatic truths that catholics must believe and the rest is open for discussion.
The intrinsic evil concept has always frustrated me in the sense that those who build their problem solving strategies on this foundation seem to miss the reality that an “intrinsic evil” cannot exist without being constructed by fear, hate, competition, prejudice, racism, sexism, violence, poverty, selfishness, hopelessness, lack of meaning, powerlessness, etc., and that those who are the victims of these influences are identified as the problem to be eradicated or legislated against.
It is my belief that our concept of faith is built on a mistaken understanding of sin and human relationships.
Coyne seems to be an example of one who has been given the grace to compassionately understand human fragility and the wisdom to communicate his knowledge in a respectful open and graceful style.
Henry thanks for posting this -it made my weekend. Frank M expressed most of my sentiments – I also found Fr. Coyne’s take so delightful. I am a bit surprised by part of your first comment (..not because I agree with Fr. Coyne’s answers..).
just as I was a bit surprised that Fr. Coyne got as flustered as he did by the question regarding miracles and particular the Virgin conception.
It was so deeply moving to see this brilliant man opening up a window into his deep faith while fully embracing Science and the joys of discovering our surroundings freely.
I do not hold my breath however that the rising tide in our church of clergy that worries more about the proper way to worship will have much time for the sort of sophisticated arguments that Fr. Coyne makes.
Trying to figure out the minimum we have to believe reminds me of my five year old trying to bargain down the number of veggies he has to eat to get desert. Our goal in life is to conform our live’s to Christ not figue out the minimum we need to believe or do to attain heaven. And the way we conform our lives to Christ is to think with the mind of the Catholic Church and believe what she believes.
So whether that is conforming to the Church’s recent development on the death penalty, on war, on the evil of abortion, torture, contraception or divorce we are called as Catholics to think as the Church thinks.
As Pope Benedict recently put it:
In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.
Kimberley, Cardinal (Blessed) J. H. Newman certainly gave a lot of effort to “figuring out the minimum we have to believe” about such topics as the Trinity, papal infallibility and transubstantiation. He did so because de fide definitions carry the threat of excommunication and eternal damnation (cf. the Athanasian Creed), and to impose that threat for something that is not strictly necessary seemed to him a terrible abuse.
Of course he also saw the evil of devotional authoritarianism, and wrote in his last great theological text in 1878: “theology is the fundamental and regulating principle of the whole Church System. It is commensurate with Revelation”, “theologians being ever in request and in employment in keeping within bounds both the political and popular elements in the Church’s constitution, – elements which are far more congenial than itself to the human mind, are far more liable to excess and corruption, and are ever struggling to liberate themselves from those restraints which are in truth necessary for their well-being”.
Fr, Coyne (he asks us to call him George) isn’t “trying to bargain down” what he has to believe; that is indeed a very me-centered approach, developmentally appropriate to a five-year-old. Fr. George is exploring a much bigger inner and outer cosmos than most people ever imagine could exist. This is unmapped territory and he wants to know where the black holes are — so he doesn’t fall into one.
Furthermore, as he points out, “to think with the mind of the Catholic Church and believe what she believes” is not a simple matter of suppressing and confessing unfamiliar thoughts. The Church’s “mind” just isn’t as monolithic as what the Catechism or Catholic media present, nor can it be. There are good reasons to present faith, cosmos and life to a five-year-old on a five-year-old’s terms, or to a 25-year-old RCIA candidate on a 25-year-old’s terms. I’m grateful that VN exists for those among us who feel strong enough in faith to move beyond those terms.
I agree entirely that in our modern media and social milieu, uninformed dissent and ignorance pretend toward mature contribution. Have a look at the Google Video page for this interview and check out the comments. The majority do not even remotely qualify as “mature contribution,” irrespective of whether they support the “scientistic” or “religionistic” perspective. Fr. George clearly transcends and includes both perspectives, and Prof. Dawkins is clearly listening. Most of the Google Video comments are written at the level the Pope described in his address to the bishops, betraying their writers’ inability to comprehend — and even unwillingness to listen — to what either man is truly saying.
I think Fr. George’s difficulties at some parts reveals his lack of the tools of philosophy of science for talking about what science can and cannot say. I think scientists are almost inevitably tempted to reify the theories that their intellectual lives revolve around. Philosopher Bas van Fraassen has developed a compelling alternative to reifying scientific theories that is well-regarded in the philosophy world but virtually unknown in the literature on religion and science that could so benefit from it.