Theologian Attempts Censorship After Losing Public Debate 943
RockDoctor writes "Theologian John Haught publicly debated prominent evolutionary scientist and atheist Jerry Coyne at the University of Kentucky back in October. Before the debate, both parties agreed to the debate being video-taped. Coyne is of the opinion that he convincingly won the debate over Haught. But we'll never know, because Haught, with the assistance of staff at the University of Kentucky, who sponsored the debate, is banning publication of the video of the event. They are even refusing to release the half of the debate containing Coyne's comments and questions."
Suggestion (Score:4, Funny)
I propse... (Score:5, Funny)
The Comfy Chair!
Re:Suggestion (Score:4, Funny)
Crucifixion? Could be worse. Could be stabbed. Crucifixion at least gets you out in the open air.
Always look on the bright side of life!
Re: (Score:3)
Streisand Effect (Score:5, Informative)
Wait! It gets better! (Score:4, Informative)
From the update to TFA:
So not only is the guy refusing to release the record, but he's now threatening legal action because people are calling him names and being mean.
When your in a hole, rule #1 - stop digging.
Re:Wait! It gets better! (Score:4, Funny)
rule #1 - stop digging.
Dig up, stupid!
Re:Wait! It gets better! (Score:5, Funny)
Dig up, stupid!
Wrong website dude.
Re:Wait! It gets better! (Score:4, Funny)
>
When your in a hole, rule #1 - stop digging.
He subscribes to a different philosophy. "BE the hole!"
Re:Wait! It gets better! (Score:5, Insightful)
As I noted on the web site, this is likely actionable by Coyne.
He expended time and effort to prepare for and engage in the debate with a justified expectation of having the video posted. An agreement, with consideration given. Sounds actionable to me. Haught should be made to deliver on the agreement, or give compensation.
Re: (Score:3)
IANAL, but, the University owns the video, not Coyne and it is theirs to do with as they please. There was no agreement with the parties involved that they would have access to the video.
How the mighty have fallen (Score:3)
So not only is the guy refusing to release the record, but he's now threatening legal action because people are calling him names and being mean
Jehova must be having an off day. Can you imagine Moses crying to the Pharaoh "Let my people free .... or I'll get my lawyer to bring an action"? Or Jesus saying "You have turned the holy temple into a den of thieves ... expect a writ soon.
where is Haught's trust in the Lord?
Re:How the mighty have fallen (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How the mighty have fallen (Score:4, Funny)
Even Jesus is quoted as telling his followers not to fight with non-believers. There are numerous scriptures that basically tell believers to abstain from defending God because God is more than capable of defending himself if He so chooses. Whenever I hear about a Christian trying to prove the Bible or God's existence I know immediately they are simply using the Bible as a weapon to force their ideals on others instead of a guidebook on how they should live. When that fails they quickly fall back to secular (non-religious) means to meet their goal. If he was really interested in proving God's existence he would try to act more like Him.
Mistake: You did not capitalize the word "himself" when referring to God.
Punishment: Eternal damnation.
God's Grammar Police.
Re: (Score:3)
Even with this,* and the Creation Museum, and the Democratic Governor approving a $40M tax incentive to a Noah's Ark theme park (which I would at least partially forgive if they would just name it Noah's Park) and continuing huge subsidies to coal mining companies, I'd still rather live here than Ohio.
*I don't blame the state or the denizens for this particular action, though - it's totally on Haught and Rabel.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, you mean there was a debate (I assume there was some kind of public, but I didn't RTFA, this is /. after all), and NO ONE recorded it? No one posted it to youtube? is that even possible nowadays?
Re:My thoughts exactly (Score:4, Funny)
Speak for yourself.
Fundies just can't stand the heat (Score:4, Interesting)
- Is an evolutionary creationist
- Testified against ID in a court case
What exactly were these guys debating about?
p.s. anyone have a real source on this article?
Re:Fundies just can't stand the heat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe they are, but only if you water down the religion side so much it's barely a religion at all.
Some religions claims are incompatible, yes. But even when you water these down, it is still religion. Stuff like wonders and virgin birth are a really small part of what religion is all about. Religions care way more about stuff like values, morals and rituals. Sciene can never be incompatible with these because science describes things, it doesn't assign moral values to them.
Re:Fundies just can't stand the heat (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always found it a worrying concept that someone can, for one, claim that the Bible is the verbatim word of God, Jesus, and the prophets, and represents the kernel around which to build their world view, while for another happily write off or ignore any part of the Bible which has either been proved wrong (e.g. literal young earth creationism) or is inconvenient (dietary restrictions, money lending rules, circumcision).
Surely it's either the words and instructions of the almighty, omnipotent creator who will judge your immortal soul (and you really should listen to it very carefully), or it's not (and you should pick a more stable basis for your life philosophy)?
Re:Fundies just can't stand the heat (Score:4, Insightful)
Sciene can never be incompatible with these because science describes things, it doesn't assign moral values to them.
But ethics, moral values and how they come to be, why we feel what about them, what the psychological foundations are, etc. etc. are coming into the part of knowledge that science is checking out.
Even if science doesn't assign moral values, it is good at discovering which moral values are bullshit. And that's a great deal of progress for society. Many of the prejudices against blacks or gays, for example, were based on faulty "knowledge" about them. With the debunking of that crap, science did its share in dismantling the prejudices. In finding out why we have prejudices and what purpose they used to have and which part of that we don't need anymore, we open our minds.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess that's debatable. (Personally I call that the "Gould Gambit", and do not ascribe to it).
If you call this a gambit you seem to agree that stuff like wonders and virgin birth are only a small part of religions. Because a gambit is small sacrifice to get to a advantageous position. So if you still believe this argument needs debate then you must think that science can prove moral values wrong or how rituals should be done. Scientific claims always need to satisfy the criterion of falsifiability. I don't see any way how anyone could ever falsify any moral claim, unless it is self-contradictory.
The thing is, when you get to that point, what's the difference between being "religious" and "following a moral code"? I'm an atheist. I have a moral code. A lot of the time (but not always) my moral code matches a lot of what the christian faith teaches as being moral. Am I christian?
No... I am definitely not christian. The reason I am not is because I do not believe in God; do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God; do not believe in the concept of heaven; and so on. These are all "wonder
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fundies just can't stand the heat (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you accept that the world wasn't made in seven days, when the genesis story says it was, then... how can you trust any of it?"
If you find a error in a textbook, would that cause you to loose all trust in its whole content?
But the more important question is:
Is that even a error or isn't it just a completely wrong way to understand a biblical text? Most of time literal interpretation seems to completely miss the point. They are like claiming "The Fountainhead" is a book about modern architecture. Some answers aren't much smarter either, they are like claiming "There is no real Stanton Institute of Technology, therefore Any Rand's objectivism is proven to always wrong."
Also: The hebrew word used for day in the genesis story can be translated to both "day" and "time span".
Re:Fundies just can't stand the heat (Score:4, Insightful)
The difficulty is that the bible has no claim to truth other than it being based on revelation. If the bible is not the word of god, then how does one begin to choose which parts are true and which are not? If some parts are false, then you have no basis to claim the rest is true.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, let's not interpret the Bible literally then. Jesus wasn't literally resurrected, that was a metaphor, right? Because that contradicts pretty much everything we know about biology, and it seems that the only way you can tell where the Bible is being metaphorical i
Don't be so Haught-y (Score:3)
(Rimshot)
A fatal flaw in Christianity. (Score:4, Interesting)
There is evidence to support the idea that Paul invented the idea that 100% of all Humans go to Hell with the exception of those saved by Jesus as a way of breaking the original covenant with Abraham the Jews had. The idea is that Adam brought Sin into the world, and at that point all Humans were damned to Hell. Jews of Paul's time were rejecting Christianity, while the surrounding "Pagans" were adopting it. The Jews were a disliked class, so this little poison pill was a way of condemning the Jews.
This also explains why there are Christian Creationists. For Christianity to be true, and the Jesus Crucifixion to have had any purpose, that particular story is the most important story after the story of Jesus. Without Creationism, Christianity collapses entirely because Yahweh has no original sin with Which to condemn us all to Hell from the start.
Paul provided Christianity with the rope to hang itself. Because he created the clause in the Bible that requires the initial original sin of Adam to take place for any of this to mean anything. The Original sin of Adam is the PRIMARY reason for the Crucifixion in Jesus, ordinary Human failings are SECONDARY.
I understand what Paul was trying to do, he was looking for a way to make the laws of the Torah invalid for salvation. He wanted to be able to go to the Jews of his time, and say "Yahweh doesn't care if you follow the laws of Moses any longer. You were bad followers so he no longer wants you because you have the audacity to reject the sacrifice of the savior. So, see you in Hell."
We know the world is not 6000 years old, we know that the Genesis myths were allegory because those desert nomads didn't know how the world began, Paul hedged the entire religion on the foundation of that myth.
So in conclusion, Christianity is the cult of Paul. This only applies to Christianity. But it is the critical fault in Christianity that disproves it. Thats why creationists cling tp the creation myth more than any other myth in the Bible. It's the corner stone that collapses the whole religion.
Christianity offers a wide range of opinions (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Christianity offers a wide range of opinions (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that they claim their book is the word of their god. If they can discard parts as allegory, but others as truth, then how do they decide? At whom's whim does the decision rest?
That people need to create new explanations for why the Bible says something that they decided it doesn't mean to say anymore makes me think that the book wasn't right in the first place and people are desperate to keep it relevant. If 'god' didn't want people to think the world was 6,000 years old, why say it was in the book? Seems like 'a long long time ago' would have conveyed the same idea, but prevented people that believe the book to be true from running around with obviously flawed information. Even George Lucas figured out it was easier to be vague, one would think the creator of all things would at least be at that level. That some are 'quite comfortable' with their ever changing assumptions regarding the content of their book doesn't make them enlightened, it makes them look like they would rather change the entire meaning of the book rather than admit it might not be true.
Making one's faith fit science seems to be a lesser evil that forcing the science to the faith, but in the end you are still forcing something to be 'true' when an entirely different conclusion could reached by throwing away the requirement that the answer hold to a bronze age religion.
Nah... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nah... (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, a creationist and an atheist have teamed up to use shady marketing tactics in order to collect on that big "theological debate audience" dollar. Sure.
Attempts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like he succeeded. Didn't publish a video is not merely an 'attempt'. Now then... you can call it an 'attempt' as soon as we see the content available despite their efforts.
Actually it sounds like the University itself is responsible for the censorship... specifically Mr. Rabel, and I would say based on the article... it sounds like the uni is a biased venue that would choose to publish or not publish based on who won. Shame shame.
The participant decided he didn't want it published after the fact, but since he had already granted his permission, the ball rests totally in the uni's court....
You are *assuming* this is why he's 'censoring' it (Score:4, Insightful)
That somehow one party legitimately won a debate of factual, unemotive series of arguments, over his opponent, is a pretty big assumption here. There's many other reasons why the poor fool may have decided to censor it - blatant ad hominem attacks that would get the guy in trouble with friends / family / job being the first that comes to my mind. (And no, you don't have to be 'guilty' for such attacks to work)
Seriously, when was the last time you watched a debate, and it was a civil exchange of factual, unemotive, sincere argumentation? Richard Dawkins, for instance, who is by now a champion of atheism, and has absolutely no need to do so, *still* resorts almost continuously to ad hominem attacks in his debates; the man does his homework (and rather seems to enjoy it, in fact). And I'd expect most people in debates with a known opponent would too, since the point of a debate is usually 'to *win' the debate, and not to obtain a mutually improved selection of arguments, (where no winner exists as such).
In fact, I'd say the fact that the slashdot response to this has been so stereotypical -- a witchhunt, and very quick to label this guy as a religious nut with dangerous delusions and now a sore loser --, rather justifies his decision, even at the risk of a Streisand Effect (which his opponent was very quick to pursue).
We should assume the worst (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If he's going to great lengths to hide it, we're going to assume the worst.
I reckon he let slip that his expressed belief in creationism was just cover for his membership of the Church of Satan and his practice of gay paedophilia.
Re:You are *assuming* this is why he's 'censoring' (Score:5, Interesting)
Richard Dawkins, for instance, who is by now a champion of atheism, and has absolutely no need to do so, *still* resorts almost continuously to ad hominem attacks in his debates; the man does his homework
If the opponent is basing their argument on their own self, like saying "god spoke to me" or "I know this is true" (ie trust me) or using the respect of their office then it isn't ad hominem to attack their person -- they opened the door by using themselves as their argument. Unfortunately there aren't very many compelling arguments for religion that don't boil down to 'trust me' or 'god spoke to me', but it isn't Dawkin at fault.
Re:You are *assuming* this is why he's 'censoring' (Score:4, Interesting)
Richard Dawkins, for instance, who is by now a champion of atheism, and has absolutely no need to do so, *still* resorts almost continuously to ad hominem attacks in his debates
Each time I see one of these debates he seems to have extraordinary amounts of patience with his opponents. What are you referring to, really? Or do mean something like calling someone deluded when they claim that god spoke to them? That seems fair - even if you share their belief you'd have to acknowledge that this can only be viewed as a delusion by someone who doesn't.
Lots 'o debates out there (Score:5, Informative)
In fact there's a bit of an obsession out in Atheist-land at beating one guy: William Lane Craig [commonsenseatheism.com], who is considered technically by many to be the top Christian debater... and arguably has never "lost" (sorry I really have to put that last word in quotes), as the linked Atheist site describes, despite going up against some serious popular intellectual heavyweights such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Famously, Dawkins recently backed out of a debate with him.
It's worth noting here, for anyone interested, this blog [blogspot.com] which does a pretty nice job of reviewing and rating many of these debates from an Agnostic perspective.
These debates generally are not specifically on evolution, but virtually all of them include it to greater and lesser degrees.
Re:Lots 'o debates out there (Score:4, Informative)
the Christian side "wins" most of these debates. The reason isn't necessarily that they Christian side is right, but that the Christian side generally has the better public debating skills: they dominate and frame the questions.
Not surprising. I know a couple people (remotely, friends of friends) who studied Theology - the amount of rhetorical and dialectical training that future priests receive has no competition. The only people who can hold a candle to them are those who either have a natural talent or have received special training. And by that I don't mean a week, you'd need a lot more than that, these guys receive years of training in writing their speeches and winning discussions.
Re: (Score:3)
The only way one can chalk these up as "wins" is if one accepts sophism and paramount to being accurate. The problem is that most people can't tell the difference between science and sophism, which certainly gives the sophist the leg up.
There may be more than is apparent here. (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I am a theologian. Or, at least, I have a Ph.D. in New Testament and was an ordained minister and pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention (although I no longer affiliate with them.) I don't know John Haught, nor have I read any of his books that I can recall, because at this point the whole evolution debate bores me.
I would suggest two alternative possibilities to the "theologian lost and was scared" rationale.
The first may simply be that he said something that, upon reflection, he wished he hadn't, thought was poorly phrased, or otherwise didn't want getting out there. Theologians, particularly Catholic theologians, are in an odd position. Their personal and private opinion may not always line up with the official position of the church. For a Catholic theologian, and particularly an American Catholic theologian, this is quite common when looking at social issues -- divorce and remarriage, women in ministry, etc. However, if they explicitly, publicly state that they don't agree with the teaching of the church, they can sometimes lose their jobs and/or the ability to publish with Catholic publishers and/or permission to publish (if they're a priest or other clergy.) I'm just speculating here, but it may well be the cause that John Haught said something under pressure that didn't accord with the teaching of the Catholic Church, and now he doesn't want it getting outthere.
Alternatively... reading this guy's blog, frankly he strikes me as more than a little childish (like most militant atheists -- the more militant, the more childish.) As a publishing theologian, your stock in trade is your reputation for sustained, reasoned discourse on theological topics. You don't advance that reputation by slapping at gnats. This is, incidentally, why things like the Davinci Code tend to get ignored -- not because they're credible, but precisely because they're too absured to bother with.
Dr Rabel is the problem. (Score:3)
The long and the short of it is why should anyone trust this person as a moderator.
Jerry Coyne and John Haught agreed to debate on the basis of a set of rules.
Only the height of dishonesty would enable John Haught to claim that when he agreed to the debate being recorded he was not agreeing to the record being made public - a sophistry that would not be recognized even in contract law where sophistry is expected. The "Meeting of the Minds" was clear, that John Haught entered into it with no intent of being held to it equally clear.
John Haught, merely by attempting this, establishes himself as dishonest.
But that Dr. Rabel, acting as a supposedly neutral moderator, vacated the pre-existing agreement arbitrarily based on this kind of weak argument is the real dishonesty - Jerry Coyne entered into an agreement based on a degree of trust that the agreement would be enforced regardless of the outcome. He spent time preparing for the debate, and Dr. Rabel threw out the agreed upon conditions based on a line of argument that would get any 5 year old spanked.
Dishonesty and prevarication in no way means John Haught is not someone to debate - Jerry Coyne is a big boy and can look out for himself, so long as the rules are enforced.
As a moderator however, Dr. Rabel should be blacklisted. He cannot be trusted to enforce the rules impartially, or indeed at all.
Pug
Released (Score:4, Informative)
The videos have been released.
http://vimeo.com/31505142 [vimeo.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Persuade, inform, advocate, and entertain (Score:5, Interesting)
The point of public debate is to sway those (perhaps few) in the audience who are undecided on the matter being debated; to inform in a dramatic manner; and to raise the profile of an issue that the debaters and venue consider important.
Re:Persuade, inform, advocate, and entertain (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's [youtube.com] an example of exactly that, a debate involving Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. (Or rather, the link is to the results of the debate tracked by the audience responding to a question via ballot before and after the debate to reflect their opinion and whether it has changed.) Watch the whole debate, it's worth it and heavily mirrored on YouTube.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
facts are facts, science is compatible with whatever is transcendent by definition of both science and transcendent, since the object they talk about is exactly complementary.
Even if science can come up with models of an eternal universe with no prime cause, it makes an assumption when it says: a transcendent plane is unneeded therefore it's not there.
Proof: f(t)=t is a one-celled eternal universe where the state of the cell is known for all values of real number t which we can call the time line of such u
Re: (Score:3)
And here we have a good example of the type of logic applied to "proving" god. An eternal univers,e by its very definition, cannot have a prime cause or any other - it's *eternal*, without beginning or end. Your sentence therefore is nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly Jerry Coyne was shortsighted. He should have insisted that a copy of the tape be provided to him immediately after the debate. In all fairness, we only have one side of the story.
Re: (Score:3)
But when people disagree on facts and logic, we have debates and arguments in order to resolve those disagreements. Afterwards, people should change their views accordingly.
The Catholic church claims that their world view is rational and that its theology and morality follows logically and rationally from observable fact. If one disagrees with them (as the majority of humans on this planet do), then one can have a debate with them about it in order to test their statements.
Despite the sugar coating by Cat
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still all how you turn a phrase. You can make dogma sound like a bid for world domination easily by simply importing motives to that dogma that may or may not exist.
For instance, the Catholic church is not too fond of gays or at least, not too fond of practicing homosexuality. Is this because the hierarchy hates gays or is it because there's a few Bible quotes that say that being gay is bad? I'd say that it is because of the Bible quotes. Even if the people in the Church all really liked gay people, if God says that you aren't really supposed to approve, and you accept God as well... God, then you pretty much have no choice. On the other hand, there are other quotes which describe God as someone who doesn't like homosexuality, but he's pretty fond of sinners as people. So I am sure there are Catholics who hate gays, but does that make Catholicism bad or are those people bad Catholics?
The problem that arises when people who are very skeptical about religion evaluate dogma is that they tend to assign the same thought processes to the believers as they do to themselves. They see all the possible ways that dogma could be used to reinforce power structures or oppress undesirable groups, and of course, they're absolutely right, they can be and have been used for that. That doesn't mean that even a large minority of the clergy thinks that way. And even if ALL of the clergy AND the believers think that way, it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God or even the correctness of any of the propositions laid down. It just means that everyone is a hypocrite.
I agree with many posters on one thing: the debates are worthless. The existence of God or any omnipotent, omniscient entity can't be proven or disproven by science. You can't use logic to logically disprove the entity that sets the axioms. There is no puff of smoke (sorry Douglas). Sure, you can say that Pope Fred said that heliocentric theory is wrong or and prove that he was wrong instead, but all that proves is that Pope Fred is wrong. If you are trying to use those arguments to sway public opinion, you'll certainly make some converts, but ultimately you are attacking the believers and not the proposition. At best, you are making a case for a serious reform of the Catholic Church, at worst, you are being hypocritical yourself.
In other words, in the current mindset with current attitudes, God as outlined by dogma may seem like a gigantic asshole. Anyone who makes that case convincingly in a debate is probably going to seem to win. Anyone who makes belief seem ridiculous will also win rhetorically (ie. "imaginary friend", "flying spaghetti monster", etc.). But none of that actually proves the truth of the assertion.
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot never disappoints: Apparently noone here has, nor intends to read the article.
If you did, you would see that (as one might have expected) there was more to the story than Coyne gave. You can read Haught's response here [wordpress.com]. Additionally, he has posted the video, after recieving some apparently quite nasty emails (way to show them how reasonable athiesm is, by personally attacking people with hatemail!)
The issues seemed to be as follows:
Haught didn’t seem to have prepared for the debate, merely rolling out his tired old trope .... I prepared pretty thoroughly, reading half a dozen of Haught’s books
-- It was because (if Haught is correct) that the format WAS to present what your views were.
Personally, having read Coyne's initial post, he comes off as rather unpleasant-- despite no agreement in place, and no reasonable cause to think the video would be posted or recorded for anything other than archival purposes, he refuses to take no for an answer and stirs up his readers to send hatemail to two professors at a university. He continues to pester them for quite some time, and doesnt even mention on the initial post that the video is being released-- its a separate blog entry, but is easily missed if you arent browsing his entries, and means that people will likely continue attacking Haught because they do not realize that the "issue" is over. He also comes off as quite "humble", declaring himself the victor, and saying "if I were in his situation, _I_ wouldnt have acted badly".
And then what is slashdot's response? To take Coyne at his word and declare him the victor-- despite noone having seen the video. Claiming that censorship is being attempted-- despite no agreement to post the video. Claiming the video isnt being released-- even though it has since been OK'd. Its almost like the editors WANT to stir up a flamewar for no reason.
Well, at least I know that Slashdot will stay classy, read the articles, and make relevant comments, rather than mindlessly bashing how stupid and ignorant Haught must be. Way to keep that standard high.
Disclaimer-- I probably disagree with about 80% of what Haught believes.
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:5, Insightful)
"A truly scientific worldview would lead to opinions such as: we don't know, there is no proof one way or the other." ...therefore, till new proofs appear, we'll stick to the simplest explanation, the one without the imaginary friend, that is.
Occam's razor, they call it.
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:5, Informative)
Occam's razor is concerned with the simplest explanation in the sense of making the least number of assumptions. Introducing God in to an argument tends to require a great number of unevidenced assumptions. A man getting struck by lightning twice in a year is normally quite unlikely. A naturalistic explanation may appear complicated by comparison to invoking the wrath of an angry god, but the latter requires far more assumptions.
Re: (Score:3)
They only see one assumption, which is proven with circular logic. "Because god said so" or "Because god did it."
Don't know the answer? Blame god. One simple (but wrong) answer to anything and everything they don't understand. And the proof of God? Well, it's in this book, so it must be true. {sigh}
It's a never ending battle of intelligence versus cultish following of a single book (although made up of several books of dubious origins).
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:4, Informative)
Simpler than that is that God created us both just before you posted that, memories in place.
Simpler that *that* God created just me, and you don't even count, 10 seconds ago . . .
Pug
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:4, Informative)
> Weird, I see imaginary friend as the simpler explanation
Not the same definition of "simpler". When discussing Occam's razor, "simpler" means "less things involved."
For instance, sun rises, could be due to motion of the Earth, could be due to the rotation of the Earth due to a guy who throws thunderbolts and lives on a mountain in Greece.
Occam's razor notes that the second of these two includes an extra factor that is not needed, and therefore is more likely to be wrong. Not wrong, but more likely. In the real world, "more likely" is a number very close to 100%
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is god?
Why did he make the world?
Why 7 days?
What made god?
That last one is important, because whatever your answer just was, could probably be applied to the original question.
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:5, Insightful)
What made god?
The typical response is that God is eternal, but if you are willing to believe that then why not simply believe that the universe itself is eternal?
You only have to look at the world to see how ridiculous the Christian notion of God is. Imagine you were a student living on campus. Your room is cold and damp, the heating is broken, the mattress has springs poking out, mud comes out the taps, there are large cracks in the windows. You ask faculty staff if the landlord can do something about it, and they tell you "Yes, he is well aware of the situation and could fix everything with the wave of a hand. And most of all he loves you, he wants you to have a good life. Thing is he doesn't get involved directly, you have to fix everything yourself. If you keep texting him he might offer some words of encouragement, but you still have to do all the work."
You sigh and spend months cleaning, fixing and tidying the place, making it liveable and saving yourself from hypothermia. Just as you are re-painting the last damp stained corner the faculty staff member turns up again and says "Wow, you must be thankful that the landlord provided all this stuff and helped you with all this work by sending ambiguously worded emails to us. You didn't get cc'ed in? Well, take our word for it, none of this would have been possible without his support. Don't forget to thank him if you don't want to spend your post-student life flipping burgers for eternity."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:5, Funny)
"And what is a day before god made the Earth?"
Obviously a holiday since he didn't do shit that day.
Re: (Score:3)
It's simple to say that the universe always existed, that it is to say that god made the universe AND god has always existed.
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:4, Insightful)
"God made the world in 7 days" sounds far simpler than anything science has come up with.
Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation that fits all known facts is the one most likely to be correct.
........
All those niggly details about things like fossils and evolution and stuff can be soooooo inconvenient
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is "God made the world in 7 days" is not as simple as it sound because there are a ton of implications to the concept of "god", in omnicient and omnipotent entity of unknown origin, location, or form that communicates with only a select few, one at a time, takes direct action in our lives (so called miracles as well as tragedy), and has a plan (heaven, hell, nirvana, reincarnation, etc) for our souls (another unseen, untestable, "entity") after death.
Or ... a few simple rules concerning evolutio
Re: (Score:3)
So, you're saying the simplest answer is the best? Well...
An invisible critter who knows everything just did it.
Or...
A documentable chemical reaction occurred, and progressed through many transformations over aeons, which we are now observing a very small subset of that transformation, to which we will be a forgotten link in the chain of events thousands to millions years from now. There are libraries full of information on how it is and could be done, along with archeological evidence demonstrating quite a bit of it. (i.e., proof) There are missing elements in the proof, which simply have not been found and tested by the larger scientific community.
The first one seems simpler. Unfortunately, it is also wrong.
it only seems simpler at first glance. Unfortunately, that is wrong. Assuming the existence of God is one thing; assuming the properties of God is another. Any time you use God as the explanation for any event, you must now explain God. When you fold the complexity of explaining God into the argument it only makes it more difficult to explain, and indeed causes the debate to return -1, invalid, since no one has succeeded in doing that from a scientific basis yet.
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:4, Insightful)
See, here's the problem with that. The ideas of god or no god, santa or no santa, unicorns or no unicorns is not some 50/50 odds thing. There is literally zero evidence of any of them. So on the one hand, we have an emerging scientific worldview that does a very good job of either accounting for things as they are, or tearing itself apart in very short order such that it can find a new explanation that fits the data, and on the other, we have a fairy story that fits no data at all.
Giving the truth/myth sides equal weight on these subjects, which are all identical in nature, is ludicrous, either the act of the deluded or the deceiver. When you have evidence for any of them, bring it forth, and that'd be of huge interest. Until then, it's just fairy stories, no matter how many people believe them.
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:5, Funny)
Any 6 year old can tell you there is more proof of Santa. When they ask Santa for something there's a good chance they will get it. When they pray for something there is little chance.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with such evidence is that people have been making up shit, intermixing it with real events, culture and ethics, and then dying over it all over the planet and throughout human history.
Which leads to the following questions:
1) Why do you think Christian and Jewish bullshit is better than anybody else's bullshit.
2) Why an all-powerful god would not give everybody the same message all around the world at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
2) Why an all-powerful god would not give everybody the same message all around the world at the same time.
and, the ability to multicast (sorry, I'm a networking guy) has been around for decades.
but nooooo. 'god' wanted to have his message sent 2000 yrs ago to ONE tribe and all this has been absent the last 2000 yrs but we are to believe this one tribe and an edited group-made book that came centuries after the fact and tries to re-write what was already claimed 'the word of god'. word of god version 2.0
Re: (Score:3)
Gee. If it's all bullshit, what's the point of differentiating?
That's my conclusion. You're welcome to try to differentiate how the Christianity story is different from all the countless religions that people believed in before. Talking about religious books, history, and people dying is hardly unique.
I don't believe God gives out different answers. Though He may, and for His reasons, I don't believe he does.
And your evidence for this is? Where's the history of either the Jewish message or Christian message in cultures that weren't exposed to those religions? Asia, South America, North America, Africa, Australia. People all over the world came up with their own religions.
And
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but you're all just ACs. Just trolling, I guess, rather than interested in learning any new truths. For everyone else reading this, I thought I'd include a standard rejoinder about the nature of scientific 'proof', just in case.
When one does not have proof, one need not avoid any conclusions; evidence is sufficient. Most of the evidence suggests that there is no imaginary friend; all of the evidence otherwise is provided by anecdote, fallacy, fraud, or fiction. There is evidence that his friend is imaginary, in one sense of the word. There are indicators in the brain that are associated with religious activity; literally faith is all in your head.
I'll believe in god when there is more evidence in favor of its existence than there is against it. I won't do it because some random clown on the the street with a bullhorn (or on the Internet) yells about it. That isn't evidence. You believe; too bad for you. If I knew more about you, I might even be able to explain why you believe (probably because you were raised with the notion of god as a child, but perhaps not). But your belief is not evidence.
See? An open mind that evaluates evidence and comes to a conclusion using the best data available. That's how you have to deal with the scientific worldview.
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:4, Insightful)
You talk of proof. If you tell me something insane (my imaginary friend created the universe), the burden is absolutely NOT upon ME to prove it correct. That's on YOU. Otherwise, YOU are the one who is insane. Not me.
Playing devil's advocate for a minute:
If you tell me something insane (the universe popped into being all by its self and life evolved through no external design), the burden is absolutely NOT upon ME to prove it correct. That's on YOU. Otherwise, YOU are the one who is insane. Not me.
Note: I'm actually an agnostic, but I can easily see how someone who has faith in a god can use *exactly* the same argument as someone who has faith in there being no god.
As an agnostic, I don't really have any faith either way. But to me, the existence of a god doesn't actually answer any meaningful questions (i.e. if we decide that intelligence couldn't possibly come about without design then how did the designer come into existence? It just pushes all the questions back a level). Also, by definition, there can be no evidence either for the existence or nonexistence. So since the whole thing is a fundamentally unprovable question that doesn't meaningfully answer any questions, I don't really worry about it.
Re: (Score:3)
"the universe popped into being all by its self and life evolved through no external design"
Just for the record, there are theories that say our universe is only one of many. And some that say that universes are constantly being created. The question is somewhat ill-formed. The real question is: why is there something rather than nothing. No one has an answer to that question, although it is not entirely clear it is a sensible question if universes are created and die ad infinitum in the past as well as the
Re: (Score:3)
Except that those who say the Universe popped into being 13.7 billion years ago and that life evolved naturally over the period of approx. 4 billion years have literally mountains of evidence to back up their claims.
And no evidence to suggest that a god didn't do this.
There are so many things wrong here that I'm not entirely sure where to start.
First, nobody says "the Universe popped into being 13.7 billion years ago." All cosmologists say was that the universe was all there, but was very small and very dense 13.7 billion years ago. It expanded into what it currently is. Saying that the universe was "created" there implies that you can point to a time, say 15 billion years ago, when there was no universe. You can't do that, because there's no such thing as 15 billion
Re: (Score:3)
If we're allowed to just make stuff up as we go along there's still no reason to prefer one fairy story over another.
That was exactly my point that you seem to have missed. There is _no evidence_, nor can there be any evidence as to whether or not there is a creator. Whether you believe there is one or you believe there isn't one, you're still "making stuff up as you go along". Instead, the scientific thing to do is accept that you just don't know, stop worrying about it and move along.
I don't care which you believe - what I do care about is people pushing their beliefs upon other people. This applies equally whether
Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the scientific answer is to definitely not assume the existence of a creator.
You're confusing "scientific" with "ontologically consistent". It is not scientific to posit any entity which is neither observed directly nor necessary to explain observed behaviour, and it is not unscientific to posit that such an entity does not exist on the basis of parsimony.
It's perfectly scientific to say there is not a mirror universe Earth which is totally inaccessible from our Earth which is currently the exact same as here except that Obama has a goatee, even though there is no evidence and there cannot be any evidence. Don't get caught up in the fact that the statement appears absolute. Consider a case where there can eventually be evidence: it's also possible that the first monkey given a typewriter after 2127 will produce the complete works of Shakespeare on that typewriter, but it's perfectly scientific to say that monkey will not, even though you can say that technically this is possible and you can argue that we won't really know until 2127 at the earliest.
Likewise, there could be a creator, but until you come up with any evidence then no is a valid scientific answer. "Maybe" is also somewhat valid, but only in an extremely unuseful sense, like "maybe Stonehenge was build by leprechauns, which left the world 300 years ago and erased all evidence of their existence save for their legends and stonehenge" or "maybe the universe was created last tuesday with our memories intact" or "maybe the entirety of modern history was an extreme random anomaly that appeared consistent by sheer chance, and we'll start getting more probable results now, basically resetting modern physics to square 1 (if we don't abandon it entirely)". The scientific answer to those is, no, that didn't happen, until and unless you give a good reason for these hypotheses.
I also don't give a shit whether somebody believes so long as they don't hurt anybody else, and I'm not going to try to "convert" them to atheism or anything, but you cannot usefully claim that science is neutral here. If somebody believes in god, fine. You don't have to go and drag science into it and try to claim that the belief is scientifically valid. Everybody is wrong about some things, so if you disagree, leave it at that. Science doesn't have a lot to do with why you believe a lot of other things either, eg. which book you believe is most entertaining (well, unless it's a science textbook...).
Honestly, you're pushing agnosticism pretty hard here, which seems a little contrary to your thing about pushing beliefs on other people.
Ontologically, I would agree that *any* reasonable person is strictly agnostic in the semi-useless sense that we're talking about. It's pretty much my definition of a reasonable, non-fundamentalist person, whether theist or atheist. That doesn't mean they haven't also taken a position, theist or atheist, and I that very few people truly, truly have not to at least some extent. And that doesn't mean it's scientific to entertain the positive and negative notions equally.
Re: (Score:3)
Science can however perform experiments that conclude that "No matter if God exists or not, the age of this planet must be in the order of billions of years and not thousands"
The argument that God falsifies the ex
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You seem to be presenting the "I don't believe either way" agnosticism. However, unless you believe in God, you are an atheist. Do you believe in God?
I don't know whether there is a god or not, nor do I particularly care.
On the other hand, an atheist believes that there is no god - again, I don't know whether there is a god or not, I don't particularly care either way, so I'm not an atheist.
So you are a lazy, spineless pompous atheist. "I don't believe in God, but I don't care enough to actually say that because it would be takings sides in a battle I don't care to associate with."
No, I don't hold a position at all on the existence/non-existence of a god. It is something I don't believe is knowable, and I have no faith either way.
If you think that you determine people what they believe, even when you've never met that person, then that's up to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You have some particular aversion to that descriptor, so you claim another.
I have an aversion to being associated with people who actively believe there is no god. The popular interpretation of atheist is exactly this so I choose a term that doesn't have the same association in the eyes of the populace.
Re: (Score:3)
Rather than "I don't care if this exists or not because it doesn't provide me with any useful information", I'd go for the "that is meaningless as it doesn't provide me with any information, useful or not.". I'd say that it is relevant with regards to science - if a hypothesis doesn't make any (falsifiable) predictions, then it's not scientific.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, proving a negative is impossible...
Prove it.
Re: (Score:3)
"Winning" a debate is simply a popularity contest with the audience as judges.
If you're defending a popular view for a particular audience, you'll win regardless of what you say.
If you're a charismatic person and your opponent isn't, you'll win regardless of what you say.
Debates should not be competitions, their goal should be to uncover truth or atleast create mutual understanding.
Re: (Score:3)
We understand none of it and therefore goddidit? Yeah, that's going to advance our understanding.
Re:Speaking as an Creationist and Evolutionist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
christian video games boss??
what's that? 'press [shoot] for salvation' ??
Re: (Score:3)
Christianity worships truth
Assuming that is correct (haven't read the bible. I have it, but I haven't gotten around to reading it, just like the Quran): The church doesn't worship thruth. They seem to dispise it. They tried to hide things like priests raping little boys.
This leads me to a Ghandi quote: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Re:Speaking as an Creationist and Evolutionist (Score:5, Insightful)
(Chapters 2 and 3, if you want to cross-check that for yourself.)
You really sure you want Genesis to be literally interpretable? Because it makes your God out to be evil, selfish and kinda insecure.
Re:Speaking as an Creationist and Evolutionist (Score:5, Insightful)
So God is the original troll? Given how the universe feels, your explanation makes me MORE inclined to believe in God.
Re: (Score:3)
You should check out God in Job. Whole thing starts out as a bet with the Devil. At the end God still comes out kind of egocentric and petulant. I am a man of Faith, who believes in a greater power and believes in science as well. I see the bible as a historical novel and guide book for faith, but not a religious tome (this coming from a PK). If a theologian cannot defend his statements in public he is lacking in both inner faith and belief in himself. How these weak spirited people get to positions o
Re: (Score:3)
The religious use facts, proof and logic too (Score:5, Insightful)
As demonstrated by the priest referred to above, the religious may also use facts, proof and logic. They just don't do so on religious matters, there they have articles of faith. Of course some atheists seem to have articles of faith themselves, their faith is merely of the opposite polarity. When true scientists are asked about God the answer tends to be: I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other.
Re: (Score:3)
When true scientists are asked about God the answer tends to be: I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other.
If a scientist gives equal weight to the lack of proof of god's existence, and the lack of proof that there is no god, then he is rather sloppily disregarding probabilities. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if no evidence can be found despite our best efforts, one may safely proceed on the premise that the claim is false even if you cannot conclusively disprove it.
Or the scientist was just being polite. More honest answers are:
"The existence of a god is not a falsifiable asserti
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A "true" scientist would of course answer that the God hypothesis is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong [wikipedia.org]
From where did you get this notion that a scientist would answer with that abomination that you suggested?
Re:How could a creationist win a debate exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How could a creationist win a debate exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, this thing you call "belief"? Science doesn't use it.
Of course it does. There are frequently no absolute answers (especially at the leading edge of science) and scientists base their work on what they believe to be true. Occasionally, someone comes up with a new hypothesis and gets hell from the other scientists for their crazy theories. Sometimes those crazy ideas are shown to work better than the established theories and everyone has to shift their belief. Scientific belief is a lot more fluid than religious belief, but don't kid yourself - it is a fundamental part of science and there is always a lot of resistance to changing it.
Re: (Score:3)
The funny thing is that the known errors in those books have all been corrected and published in new books, which will again be corrected and improved upon in books still to come.
What happens with the errors in the bible?