UCSD Guestbook: George Coyne the Vatican Observatory

[@joegeorge8153]

I'am an atheist but i like this man.

[@mariamederos7872]

I absolutely love listening to Fr Coyne! :) I grew up in Catholic schools k-12 and then college. I find it absurd that some people think there is a conflict between both truths.

[@quocvietha5151]

The universal truth of science is (described by) number! The universal truth of faith/religion is (described by) love!

[@mrqsilveira]

Father Coyne is a bright mind. I love people like that! He feels my mind with hope and makes me love Jesus even more! As a very acute mind and focused spirit he knows that Galileo's and Darwin's cases are not even a speck before what Freud is saying outloud for more than a century now with the unconscious mind - here is the justice of God - as a factual channel from and to the Spirit . Galileo... Darwin ... All this bla-bla is reduced to distracting noise! Love you, Father Coyne!

[@mcc11505]

Thanks for sharing this and allowing comments too~! xox

[@CatholicAmerican]

I think one of the most striking examples of this in our day and age is the ungrounded exultation of embryonic stem cell research over the factual and grounded success of ADULT stem cell success. Creating a unique member of the species homo sapients, only to harvest his or her body parts (stem cells) and destroying that unique individual in the process is a vastly different practice than using adult stem cells that can be harvested from the patient who needs them without killing anyone.

[@hpa2005]

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." Pope John Paul II

[@ananiasacts]

I think you're saying that even if we did know what caused the universe to happen, it would only push back the question to the cause of that cause. Therefore deism is a meaningful conjecture about a first cause. In my mind, the same sort of Occam's razor leaves deism itself in search of a purpose. The burden is on them to come up with a compelling reason to surmise that something so fantastic is needed when the power intrinsic to the phenomenon of emergence can and does explain all known magic.

[@CatholicAmerican]

Beginning at 5:59 Fr. Coyne lays out a great explanation of the relationship between Faith and science. "...Not one establishes the other, or condemns the other."

[@ananiasacts]

I wish they'd have asked George if a universe that had no use or room for any supernatural processes or entities would be better or worse than one that did provide a place and role for an intelligent cosmic overseer.

[@genghisthegreat2034]

Fr.Georges Lemaître calculated the rate of expansion of the Universe quite accurately, before Edwin Hubble did, and he postulated a " primordial atom " before Hoyle called it a Big Bang.

[@CatholicAmerican]

God created the universe. Science is the study of HOW he did it.

[@ananiasacts]

It seems meaningful to me. Would you rather live in a universe that needed a deity to function or one that worked just fine with nothing but mindless physical laws to map present into future?

[@ananiasacts]

Well, technically it isn't really possible to have nothing. It would violate the uncertainty principle. Even the emptiest space is a seething mass of interactions between virtual particles (and their anti-particles) that pop into existence, possibly interact with other particles, and ultimately annihilate one another. Furthermore, emergent phenomenon pop into existence all the time and can last for ages! Maybe the lowest lawyers of what we experience as physical reality is an emergence too.

[@DarkStar666]

You CAN prove that you love someone (or be caught lying about it) with fMRI. Things that are neurologically-based are difficult but that does not mean they are automatically outside the realm of scientific inquiry. There are no valid questions that are outside the field of scientific inquiry. Answers to questions that are unanswerable are NOT better discovered through wishful thinking and making them up.

[@Maroceanful]

Religion - uses all the way, philosophy and science for their all attributes to accomplish, in togetherness of all - > the path of human deepening, in understanding and realizing the religious-philosophical task of regaining people for themselves into a wider world of godly-like soul and environment creation of such to all!! By Benedict XVI. The Vatican's science institute has 61 members - out of which, 29 are Nobel Prize Winners!! It does walk in it all, as it has, in their assertions!!

[@wildreams]

Side-step? which part are u refering to?

[@DarkStar666]

@tomtom002 How do you not see the problem with asserting that allowing in bias and false data is better - that is what you are proposing. "Are there any valid questions that lie outside of scientific inquiry?" can you categorize different types of questions? [questions about the nature of, questions about the behavior of, ... yes it seems so] What properties do the known categories of questions have? Are there any known instances of questions which are BETTER answered with bad data?

[@DarkStar666]

@tomtom002 The opposite, "I can know the answers to some questions BETTER in the complete and total absence of sound observations of reality", is logically absurd. And in the positive, a study of how brains work will certainly inform us on this question. Even the accepted postulates of logic & mathematics flow from observations of reality. What questions do you propose can be better be answered in the complete and total absence of careful observation and correlation with reality?

[@ananiasacts]

How this then, "Is it reasonable to conclude that it is possible the universe exists because it is the simplest possible state of affairs?" So far, everything we do understand has a quality about it that suggests a boundary (absolute zero, the speed of light, etc.) To me, that fact alone is circumstantial evidence of a sort to support the conclusion above. That if we could have a simpler universe, we would. (Occams' Razor on steroids?)

[@CatholicAmerican]

Do you believe that chaos can give birth to reason? I do not. And the more we advance the sciences, the more data we find that reveals a rational universe consisting in laws and order. As Einstein says, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." This same sentiment is found in Pope John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth".

[@CatholicAmerican]

To hinder scientific progress is not the issue. I don't think anyone can justify slowing down progress. The problem is the order of importance. Mankind comes first. Man is the observer and the one who benefits from progress. Progress is not a corporal being, it is the result of humans gathering and applying data. The application can either be beneficial or detrimental to mankind.

[@CatholicAmerican]

Truth existed before us and will continue even after our body is in the grave. Religion pursues truth. Science pursues data. They are different disciplines but they do not contradict each other. The papal encyclical "Fides et Ratio" gives a much greater explanation of the relationship between faith and reason than I can provide here. But I submit that any so called "progress" that works to devalue mankind in any way is no True progress.

[@aburling7]

@CatholicAmerican Order comes from chaos. How the hell do you think we got here?

[@DarkStar666]

@tomtom002 not sure what you think science is, it's not a magic box through which data flows, it is a process which tries to remove bias and errors. "is it immoral to kill an innocent human being" - I suppose you have missed the rash of books and scientific papers which already ARE studying morality scientifically? Both from attempting to actually define it rigorously as well as fMRI and other empirical measures of brain states.

[@CatholicAmerican]

The real question is, how does knowing that the earth could be 4.5 billion years old change the way you treat your fellow man? It appears that throughout history. The institution that focuses on humanity first, instigates the greatest advancements in science. Inspiring people like Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon, Nicolas Steno, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Nicolaus Copernicus, and George Lemaitre. God tells us to subdue the earth. Heaven is our ultimate goal, not advanced astrophysics.

[@DarkStar666]

@tomtom002 Did you ask yourself WHY we came up with the various "scientific methodologies"? To eliminate the biases and errors that have lead to false conclusions in the past. If methods in the past WORKED we wouldn't have needed science - we would just free think. Barron argues a strawman really. Philosophy only explores the REAL in so much as the conclusions are empirically justified. Even the axioms and operators of logic are reduced to the necessary & empirically justified

[@DarkStar666]

@tomtom002 No, I didn't say that scientific methodology is perfect, nor is it fixed, nor can it ANSWER all questions. I ONLY said it can be APPLIED to all questions. The purpose of Scientific methodology is to remove biases, false data, untruth, and errors from a field of study. Why? Because human perception alone is very susceptible to these influences. So again, you are trying to say that "I can best arrive at TRUE answers by ALLOWING biases, errors and false data", logically absurd.

[@DarkStar666]

@tomtom002 I cannot design an entire protocol within the limits of a youtube comment but already we're asking questions which we can study, so YES we can study this question using scientific methods. another approach would be bottom up - how does the brain behave, does it have the same rules as a computer, what questions can it ask, etc. difficult yes, but can be studied scientifically. Now answer MY question: what question is BETTER answered by making shit up and pretending it's true?

[@CatholicAmerican]

"to suggest that religion pursues truth is..." I argue that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Truth. I will not defend other religions, nor would it be reasonable for you to hold a Catholic accountable the erroneous actions of other religions. The pursuit of Truth is a religious activity. The pursuit of data is a scientific activity. You are making the mistake of turning science into a religion.

[@aburling7]

@CatholicAmerican I agree with some of what you say, but to suggest that religion pursues truthis a ridiculous statement. Religion seeks to ESTABLISH truth whereas science seeks to DISCOVER truth. Religions throughout history have made all sorts of claims of truths that are nothing than ludicrous nutbar. Virgin births, resurrections, walking on water, heaven, hell, etc... Spewing this nonsense isn't persuing TRUTH.

[@ananiasacts]

At least he doesn't take the scripture literally, realizing how utterly absurd that would be. But I have no idea why he, or anyone educated for that matter, would respect a body of literature that casts god into such a disgusting role. And you have to admire a guy that admits faith does nothing to help his pursuit of science. I think most of the phony Christians that are notable here in American would simply lie about that.

[@xrycisrts1024]

Jesuits are not priests! Enough with the dis-info!!