Imagine no religion is from John Lennons song! He also imagined evolution was untrue and silly. Someone should do that song in respect of lennons song. What is the passion against religion? It doesn't influence people now or in the past save for small percentages. It affected the English world more and is the reason for the rise of same. Less religious nations are why Coyne's ancestors left those places and preferred very protestant civilizations. Is he really passionate about evolutionism or just needs a system to allow no God in creation?? Does this bias inner reflection on the merits of evolutionism ? Motivations are not everything but they are something.
Again what free copies for Sandwalk regular Canadian posters?
I think you're question may bend looking too deep into the issue. He likely writes these books for monetary gain and perhaps recognition from fellow anti theists. Coyne is a brilliant scientist but doesn't take the time to understand theology. Dawkins, Coyne, Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar are men cut from a similar cloth.
Most atheists understand theology very well. They undestand what's important—do gods exist—and what's not. The problem with most theists is that they skip over the important part and get hung up on trivial questions like the problem of evil and the meaning of transcendence.
Beau, Jerry writes books out of a sense of morality that is lacking from those under the spell of religion. Belief in magic holds a powerful sway in this hemisphere, with influences that reach deep into politics and undermines societal value of science. The world is getting warmer and our gov. sits on its hands b/c of a lack of interest in science. God will provide, you see. Parents refuse to vaccinate children, and worse, every year many children will die because their parents refuse to seek life saving medical procedures b/c of their religious objections to blood transfusions, abortion in even ectopic pregnancy, and for other reasons that come from their religious 'ethics'. Burying children that could have been saved is all perfectly legal (!) Jerry does understand theology. I bet he has read far more about theology than most of its practitioners. It is a powerful and damaging world view even though it is, bizarrely, a subject without an object. It is time it were gone.
Beau, you wrote "Coyne is a brilliant scientist but doesn't take the time to understand theology." Actually, Coyne took seriously the challenge that he didn't know enough about real, sophisticated theology and he has spent at least the last two years reading the heavy-weights in the genre. His book may or may not be worthwhile (I haven't read it) but your criticism of Coyne's credentials to write it is invalid.
Less religious nations are why Coyne's ancestors left those places and preferred very protestant civilizations.
I really marvel at people like Booby Byers who demonstrate a capacity for commenting so authoritatively from such a vast fund of ignorance. I suspect that Prof. Coyne's ancestors left their native land to escape raging antisemitism which reigned over much of Eastern Europe for centuries.
It is hilarious that Coyne writes about the incompatibility of science and religion but most of what he calls science is based on faith of peoples like him that is worshiped as if it were religion.
His is supposed to be a brilliant scientists but he can't seem to distinguish the difference between religion and faith, just like he can't distinguish micro from macro evolution.
If acceptance of evolution is a matter of faith, then we would have to substantially redefine what constitutes faith. But I much prefer to refer to the accepted definition of faith as a belief, deeply held, in the absence of supporting evidence.
Like any robust science evolution rests upon observations and experiments, and is subjected to revision. Just because its central tenets shows no signs of revision does not mean that biologists are entrenched in dogma against a tide of counter-evidence. It just means that its central tenets has held up very well to an ever expanding range of experiments and observations. This is no different from central theories in chemistry or physics or astronomy. Religion, on the other hand, has been left in the dust a couple centuries ago as a means of understanding the world and its past. Religion makes no advances in knowledge or discovery of truth because those who have faith in religion do not welcome efforts to test and revise the assertions of religion. In fact, any questioning of religious dictates is corrosive to religion (but note that questioning assertions is strengthening in science).
And btw I know that Jerry does understand very well the difference between micro and macroevolution. But I bet you do not.
Why am I even bothering? Nothing I say will stick.
Imagine no religion is from John Lennons song! He also imagined evolution was untrue and silly. Someone should do that song in respect of lennons song.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the passion against religion? It doesn't influence people now or in the past save for small percentages. It affected the English world more and is the reason for the rise of same. Less religious nations are why Coyne's ancestors left those places and preferred very protestant civilizations.
Is he really passionate about evolutionism or just needs a system to allow no God in creation??
Does this bias inner reflection on the merits of evolutionism ?
Motivations are not everything but they are something.
Again what free copies for Sandwalk regular Canadian posters?
I think you're question may bend looking too deep into the issue. He likely writes these books for monetary gain and perhaps recognition from fellow anti theists. Coyne is a brilliant scientist but doesn't take the time to understand theology. Dawkins, Coyne, Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar are men cut from a similar cloth.
DeleteMost atheists understand theology very well. They undestand what's important—do gods exist—and what's not. The problem with most theists is that they skip over the important part and get hung up on trivial questions like the problem of evil and the meaning of transcendence.
DeleteBeau, Jerry writes books out of a sense of morality that is lacking from those under the spell of religion. Belief in magic holds a powerful sway in this hemisphere, with influences that reach deep into politics and undermines societal value of science. The world is getting warmer and our gov. sits on its hands b/c of a lack of interest in science. God will provide, you see. Parents refuse to vaccinate children, and worse, every year many children will die because their parents refuse to seek life saving medical procedures b/c of their religious objections to blood transfusions, abortion in even ectopic pregnancy, and for other reasons that come from their religious 'ethics'. Burying children that could have been saved is all perfectly legal (!)
DeleteJerry does understand theology. I bet he has read far more about theology than most of its practitioners. It is a powerful and damaging world view even though it is, bizarrely, a subject without an object. It is time it were gone.
Beau, you wrote "Coyne is a brilliant scientist but doesn't take the time to understand theology." Actually, Coyne took seriously the challenge that he didn't know enough about real, sophisticated theology and he has spent at least the last two years reading the heavy-weights in the genre. His book may or may not be worthwhile (I haven't read it) but your criticism of Coyne's credentials to write it is invalid.
DeleteRe Booby Byers
DeleteLess religious nations are why Coyne's ancestors left those places and preferred very protestant civilizations.
I really marvel at people like Booby Byers who demonstrate a capacity for commenting so authoritatively from such a vast fund of ignorance. I suspect that Prof. Coyne's ancestors left their native land to escape raging antisemitism which reigned over much of Eastern Europe for centuries.
It is hilarious that Coyne writes about the incompatibility of science and religion but most of what he calls science is based on faith of peoples like him that is worshiped as if it were religion.
ReplyDeleteHis is supposed to be a brilliant scientists but he can't seem to distinguish the difference between religion and faith, just like he can't distinguish micro from macro evolution.
If acceptance of evolution is a matter of faith, then we would have to substantially redefine what constitutes faith. But I much prefer to refer to the accepted definition of faith as a belief, deeply held, in the absence of supporting evidence.
DeleteLike any robust science evolution rests upon observations and experiments, and is subjected to revision. Just because its central tenets shows no signs of revision does not mean that biologists are entrenched in dogma against a tide of counter-evidence. It just means that its central tenets has held up very well to an ever expanding range of experiments and observations. This is no different from central theories in chemistry or physics or astronomy. Religion, on the other hand, has been left in the dust a couple centuries ago as a means of understanding the world and its past. Religion makes no advances in knowledge or discovery of truth because those who have faith in religion do not welcome efforts to test and revise the assertions of religion. In fact, any questioning of religious dictates is corrosive to religion (but note that questioning assertions is strengthening in science).
And btw I know that Jerry does understand very well the difference between micro and macroevolution. But I bet you do not.
Why am I even bothering? Nothing I say will stick.
I have a line of " complains" ...
DeleteIs question and answer session done in the usual Darwinian way
ReplyDeleteor can I counteract, somehow?
In order to have some chance of counteracting, you first must attempt to speak coherent English.
Delete