I thought this was a very good discussion. What I like is that Father Coyne is careful, and consistent, to distinguish scientific arguments from philosophical arguments. It’s this singular lack of understanding, I believe, that makes this debate so erroneous in many instances, particularly in America.I disagree with his argument on ‘first cause’ but I also disagree with his assertion that the ‘anthropic principle’ is a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument.He alludes to the idea that God as ‘Creator’ is not necessarily the same as the God that people experience, or that he, himself, believes in. This is a point that I’ve made myself on occasionI was impressed that Dawkins would engage in a dialogue with him. In my reading of The God Delusion, I got the impression that Dawkins wouldn’t countenance anyone with a religious point of view at all.Regards, Paul.
This is the website of philosopher Stephen Law. Stephen is the editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy Journal THINK. He has published several books and is senior lecturer in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London. For school talks and media email Stephen: Think at RoyalInstitutePhilosophy.org.
I thought this was a very good discussion. What I like is that Father Coyne is careful, and consistent, to distinguish scientific arguments from philosophical arguments. It’s this singular lack of understanding, I believe, that makes this debate so erroneous in many instances, particularly in America.I disagree with his argument on ‘first cause’ but I also disagree with his assertion that the ‘anthropic principle’ is a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument.He alludes to the idea that God as ‘Creator’ is not necessarily the same as the God that people experience, or that he, himself, believes in. This is a point that I’ve made myself on occasionI was impressed that Dawkins would engage in a dialogue with him. In my reading of The God Delusion, I got the impression that Dawkins wouldn’t countenance anyone with a religious point of view at all.Regards, Paul.