Censored Religious Debate Video Released After Public Outrage 717
First time accepted submitter tkel writes "On October 12, 2011 Theologian John Haught publicly debated prominent evolutionary scientist and atheist Jerry Coyne at the University of Kentucky. Although both agreed to a videotaping of the event, Haught later prohibited its release because he felt he had been treated unfairly. Coyne released blog posts addressing the matter as an offense to free speech. Reviewing their new status in the blogosphere, Haught and his associates at the University of Kentucky have decided to release the video."
One small victory for a man.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One small victory for a man.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is always good to see occasions where the saying "have you ever noticed that the less someone knows, the louder they know it?" is shown to not always be true, that sometimes, the knowledgeable can be noisy too :-)
Re:One small victory for a man.. (Score:4, Informative)
You obviously didn't watch the video particularly closely. Coyne (and me and all the rest of the scientists) are telling you exactly the type of things that would change our minds. Human fossils in the precambrian, any anachronistic fossil for that matter, whole amputated limbs regrowing just because of some prayer and not modern medicine, things in the bible like predictions about electrons or something else that couldn't have been written by men in the bronze age, things like that. That is not blind faith. It is falsifiable.
Why not use a tool like science, when it is there, and it makes predictions about the world? Something religion never has done.
Re: (Score:3)
"falsifiable", aka "faked".
You do not know what "falsifiable" means in this context. Therefore, the rest of your argument is invalid.
Please obtain knowledge before returning. You may begin by googling "Popper" and "scientific method".
Hrm. The latest theme in the religious PSYOPS (Score:5, Insightful)
Posts like these reveal the latest tactic in the religious fundamentalist PYSOPS campaign - the attempt to cast "science" (which is a process) as a "belief system" or "religion" and thus either elevating their religion to the same level as science or pulling science down to their level (whichever view you prefer)
Sometimes, the reveal is the use of the new portmanteau "sciencism" but other times - like in this case - it is more baldly stated.
The ironic thing is that I think this particular theme is meant as much in defence as it is offense; most religious fundies give each other a degree of professional courtesy and refrain from directly attacking each other's dogmas - you don't often see Bible Belters railing against Buddists. Perhaps they hope that if they can recast science as a belief system, science will extend that "professional courtesy" to them and leave them the hell alone.
Sadly, they are tilting at windmills; "science" does not care one whit about religious dogma. It's not even on the radar. What science "cares" about is the propogation of knowlege teased out through experiment. If religion contradicts this, science - quite rightly - seeks to correct the error (the same way science seeks to eliminate error from science).
If science winds up systemically dismembering religious dogmas, well, so much the worse for religion - but it isn't PURPOSEFUL.
The problem with religion is that it has made claims about the workings of the universe which are demonstratively, testably, and predictively FALSE - and they are still, after centuries of Enlightenment, still not equipped to deal with it.
So nice try - but we're on to this tactic too.
DG
Re:Hrm. The latest theme in the religious PSYOPS (Score:5, Interesting)
You've got a couple of small errors there. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your statement describing "the problem with religion" does not distinguish between some religions (i.e., the science-denying, intolerant ones like Baptist Christianity and Orthodox Judaism) and all religions (which would include religions that specifically endorse the scientific method or have no such conflicts, for example Unitarian Universalism and some of the various later forms of Judaism popular in the USA).
You've also made an error of fact, although it's understandable - I assume you've got better thi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only because there aren't enough Buddhists in the Bible Belt to make it worthwhile.
I'm not sure what a "Buddhist Fundamentalist" would look like -- the core of the Buddha's teaching (the Four Noble Truths) has fsck-all to do with metaphysics. You can be a Buddhist and an scientific atheist at the same time with no conflict. Even the Dalai Lama, head of one of the more woo-woo sects of Buddhism, has expressed admiration for the scientific method an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You should ask yourself: How many people that feel the same way your wife did are there? And how many of them DON'T die suddenly?
Re:Hrm. The latest theme in the religious PSYOPS (Score:4, Insightful)
Before I start, allow me to express my deepest condolences on the passing of your wife. And I really, truly, mean that.
My assumption is that, given that you have broached this subject, that you are recovered enough from that loss to discuss it.
There are four possibilities:
1. Through some biological mechansim not currently understood (but understandable, once discovered and studied) your wife was subconciously aware that something was profoundly wrong, and it manifested itself as fear;
2. Your wife's fear was irrational, but, thorugh a mechanism not currently understood (but also potentially understandable) that fear directly caused the embolism. There are cases of demonstrated "mind over matter" (the Placebo Effect is very real, and currently not understood) so this is actually possible;
3. Your wife's fear and her sudden passing are completely unrealated and utter coincidence; or
4. Some invisible, "divine" presence was warning your wife of her impending demise (and yet - I'm trying not to be harsh here - did nothing to prevent it)
Three of those explainations are plausible and require no supernatural influence. One requires both supernatural influence and, I would argue, inhuman cruelty.
I clearly cannot say which, if any, of these scenarios are "the truth". But I hope for all of humanity that #4 isn't it.
And again, you have my sympathies. I would not wish what you have gone through on my worst enemy.
DG
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
..and one giant win for science.
Right. Because Coyne's "win for science" advanced it so much in so many valuable ways for mankind. What a hallmark in human civilization development this was! AND - AND the best part has to be the repeatable experiments he demonstrated for the audience to prove his points.
Re:One small victory for a man.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I watched the video and I want my hour back. I thought I was going to get a Creationist being roasted but instead got a reasonable sounding theologian being attacked somewhat irrationally by Coyne. Coyne mentions stuff like the belief in angels etc ... what? Haught wasn't talking about any of that stuff. I think Coyne wrote his talk wanting to counter Creationism irregardless of its relevance to the actual talk. Lame. I thought Haught made reasonable (but sadly incorrect) arguments.
I thought most of what Coyne said was obvious and he went on and on and overdid it. He was wrong about the necessity of having to talk fast etc. Gees.
I was going to say more but have decided it is a waste of time.
Re:One small victory for a man.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought I was going to get a Creationist being roasted but instead got a reasonable sounding theologian being attacked somewhat irrationally by Coyne.
If you read the exchange between Coyne on his blog and Haught in the comments (comment 122 i think), you get the same impression. Haught says that the attacks and irrationality are why he did not want to release the video.
But Slashdot scores a win here, as it can drop the word "censorship" and "religion" and out come all the militant athiests to ridicule the idiot theologians. Its a win for them, because they KNOW people cant help starting a flamewar when theres an opportunity to attack religion. I mean, how many people in this very discussion actually READ Coyne's post, and Haught's response? Or watched the video? Or even asked themselves if there was any side of the story other than Coynes? No, 80% of the posters here have an axe to grind, rationality be damned.
Re:One small victory for a man.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The important thing is that it is released. Now we can all watch and decide for ourselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Eventually it will be a word, just like "inflammable." The English language moves on. So should you--err, I mean, so shouldst thou.
Re: (Score:3)
I hasten to point out that your historical analogy supports your contention poorly.
"Inflammable" is not the prom-queen-popular misspelling of "flammable". It is a legitimate word formed by "-able" suffix formation of "inflame". It has a legitimate and completely independent existence from "flammable", which is the corresponding "-able" suffix expansion of "flame".
If that had too many syllables, let me "tl;dr" for you: "inflammable" is a legitimate word. "Irregardless" is not. The fact that language "move on
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html [shakespeare-online.com]
"The English language owes a great debt to Shakespeare. He invented over 1700 of our common words by changing nouns into verbs, changing verbs into adjectives, connecting words never before used together, adding prefixes and suffixes, and devising words wholly original."
I'm pretty sure that verbing nouns and nouning verbs is against the "rules" of English (as they are determined by consensus). But now they're words, because someone started using
Re:One small victory for a man.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw the video and I must recall my previous post. I see no science in Coyne's part, this is Michel Moore's 'science'. E.g. you never can draw conclusions on "A truth" from some poll difference between population and scientists in US (the picture can be completely opposite in some states in EU btw). E.g. he treats the article from Nature like religious truth --- science is great because it doesnt afraid of failure - ANY theory can be falsified by new findings and everybody must be happy of it, because it is a pure gain. Superluminous neutrino ? if yes, it is not a shame for articles in Nature, it is a big leap forward.... Very big loss for science, if somebody uses its name to backup his hates. As he said, he did, this was a destructive monologue and other scientists look like idiots now.
Re: (Score:3)
Dialog is good and all... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time for religion to be closed out from the scientific debate altogether. "Faith" has no place in a field based on empirical evidence and doubt. Creationism doesn't even deserve a title as a discredited theory, it belongs with mythology like Atlantis and elves, and should rightly be laughed at with impunity.
Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:5, Informative)
Do we actually know Haught's side of the story? When this topic was last discussed, we only heard what Coyne and his supporters were saying about the refusal to release the video.
An open letter [uky.edu] has been posted in which Haught says "I never gave permission before or after the panel to post the video". If this is true, then the whole matter needs to be seen in an entirely different light. In particular, I'm not sure exactly what Haught needs to seek forgiveness for? Unless thought crimes such as Christianity are themselves a sort of sin?
Re: (Score:2)
Lead by example ;-)
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:4, Interesting)
I always find it deeply amusing when bullies play the victim card.
- school prayer
- one nation, under god
- in god we trust
- commandments in the courts
- opening prayer in congress
- christmas and easter notional holidays
The problem is that what you list is the based on the agenda of right wing Evangelicals. There are many more christian denominations and groups in the US that do not push those items. With regards to the original topic on the debate, Haught is roman catholic and none of those items apply to the catholic church. Just as not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians are extremists.
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also interesting to read his open letter to Coyne [uky.edu] that is posted along with the video.
He may be wrong, deluded, full of himself, or just lying, but I have a strong sense that the reporting of this whole event was very badly skewed against Haught. At least now, with the presentations and video made available, we can see how it really played out.
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this incident was the way that so many people automatically jumped to a wrong conclusion, without even considering that there might be another side to the story. In the last Slashdot discussion, nobody asked what Haught's opinion was. Nobody cared. They just assumed that the nasty creationist theologian had lost the debate and was trying to censor the result, which is a shameful conclusion to jump to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, now, there's no need for facts on this site. All religions are creationists, all smart people that matter on the internet are evolutionists. You cannot debate unreasonable people because they are just wrong.
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a staunch atheist, but the letter reads to me like Haught had some valid criticisms. In particular, the list of "evils" associated religion. You could easily come up with such a list for science. It's not pertinent to a debate on the compatibility of religion and science.
It'll be interesting to see the video. I'm glad Haught changed his mind, and I give him credit for that.
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:4, Insightful)
"He also testified that materialism, the philosophy that only matter exists, is "a belief system, no less a belief system than is intelligent design."
A statement like that shows that you can take the creationism out of the creationist, but not the mindset that led to it. If anything, he is smart enough not to adopt the most easily disproved position, in favor of sneakier ones like "you can't prove religion is false so our positions as just as valid." Of course, again this is me going off Wikipedia having not watched the rather long video yet. He might be a fine and reasonable man... yet something tells me that isn't to be expected.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you are pretty close. His basic idea is "I believe in all the science you can throw at me, but that still doesn't disprove God". And though he somehow thinks that makes him different, to a real scientist it's not much different from "do you believe in Odin or does Zeus sound more believable?"
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What we have here is a false dichotomy. Many folks with religious beliefs merely believe that some things that aren't explained by science might be the hand of God, which is subtly but significantly different from the position you describe. Such an attitude does not mean that we should not use science to learn what we can, but rather shows a humble acceptance that some truths may be fundamentally impossible to grasp from within the confines of our universe. They would argue that we may never be able to e
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's not it at all. It's the fundamentalist Christians (and at times, Catholics) that are out of hand. Fundamentalist atheists are just a reaction against them.
Tell a Hindu that the Earth doesn't sit on a turtle. They'll either laugh, or get offended that you stereotype them as a superstitious savage. Tell a Christian that the world is over a billion years old, and they will tell you that scientists only say that to get funding.
The scientific method *did* benefit from the immense skepticism against ne
Re: (Score:3)
Fundamentalist atheists are just a reaction against them.
And that makes it better somehow? Just a reaction? If you can't control your emotional reactions you have no business in this sort of debate. Neither do the Christian fundies.
Re: (Score:3)
And what of the rest of us who think both fundamentalist positions are just plain stupid? You're missing the point here. Atheists have the opportunity not to sink to down to that level, and it is disappointing when they do. We expect it from the fundamentalist religious. They are for the most part uneducated. But to be an atheist, you either have to be very lazy (in which case not a fundamentalist) or at least marginally intelligent (you think about these things a bit) in which case we could hope you would
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell a Christian that the world is over a billion years old, and they will tell you that scientists only say that to get funding.
I know some Christians online who would react as you describe, but tell any of the Christians I know personally that the world is over a billion years old and they will say "Yes, I know".
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:4, Informative)
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ⦠For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.
-- Einstein.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:5, Interesting)
The fundamentalist-atheist claim that religion and science are fundamentally at odds is no less a religious belief than traditional theistic religions, and more to the point, is an utterly arrogant belief that effectively spits on the countless contributions of the religious to the very foundations of science as we know it today. And although it is held with the same arrogant religious fervor as the beliefs of the most devout faithful, it is a comically naÃve belief built on nothing more solid than smugness and the believer's own desire to feel superior to someone else, usually to make themselves feel less inferior. Frankly, whenever I see such rubbish, it almost makes me ashamed of the human race as a whole.
As Einstein put it, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Claims to the contrary demand extraordinary proof.
This whole discussion is muddy as Hell. I'll make my position clear:
Religious people can do science. The church has historically supported science, mainly by virtue of it providing the only centers of learning. Religion can inspire a desire to understand creation. How much of this though is due to religion being the only game in town?
Religion and science can be fundamentally at odds; heard of young earth creationism and Biblical literalism? How about the persistent Catholic belief of transubstantiation? What about the Scientologist's e-meter, or the claim that praying can alter physical reality? It is not fundamentalist atheism to say that beliefs such as these are incompatible with science, but even so, a creationist could do science so long as they don't insert their beliefs in to their work. That is the important distinction. One may as well ask if rape is compatible with being a good doctor? The answer is yes, so long as the doctor doesn't rape any of his patients. Bacon had a mustache. Are mustaches compatible with science, well yes, except perhaps if the scientist uses their mustache in lieu of beakers and a bunsen burner.
Oh, and Voltaire said "A witty saying proves nothing." Einstein's beliefs are notoriously difficult to pin-down.
These people need to be seen in their culture. Could Michelangelo have been a great artist without religion? Sure, so long as someone else was around to act as a patron.
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:4, Interesting)
Religion and science can be fundamentally at odds; heard of young earth creationism and Biblical literalism? How about the persistent Catholic belief of transubstantiation? What about the Scientologist's e-meter, or the claim that praying can alter physical reality?
Er ... you're comparing apples and iPods, friend. Creationism, Biblical literalism, and belief in transubstatiation and the physical efficacy of prayer are all examples of faith in things for which there is no physical evidence. Scientology's e-meter, by contrast is a device that measures galvanic skin response. It is not based on faith at all, but on medical/forensic science, combined with a decision tree of common neuroses. That's the devilish thing about it (and the reason why Scientology is so adamantly opposed to psychiatry - because they rightly see it as their competition!): the e-meter/decision tree combination is actually pretty effective at identifying common neuroses in people to whom it is applied. And human nature is such that, having been forced to confront neuroses that they've been repressing, most folks immediately feel better about themselves - and they give Scientology the credit for that, and get sucked into the progressively-more-expensive process that leads to the revelation (at the highest and most expensive end of the scam) that Xenu entombed Thetans in an ice volcano (!) and so on.
Disclaimer: I am not a Scientologist, nor do I in any way endorse Scientology as a religion or a lifestyle. I do, however, prefer any discussion to be based on facts, not propaganda.
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I'm sure many of the listed scientific luminaries were fully sincere in their faith, it's worth noting that it's only very recently that Atheism as a concept, let alone a life choice, came about. It would never have occurred to a number of these scientists that non-belief was even an option.
It is through their work however that our knowledge of the universe has grown to a degree where belief in a deity IS strictly optional and the number of serious scientists who profess faith in a Creator has diminished accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
But when pressed on that matter Einstein also said:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
You present a list of religious scientists without ever knowing what they "really" thought,
Re:Haught isn't in favor of creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
The one you want to be quoting in this debate would be Thomas Aquinas who, ~800 years ago, defined a set of rules that would allow Christianity and scientific inquiry to happily coexist. Which, apart from the odd extremist, they have been doing ever since.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh... religion and science ARE fundamentally at odds. One is based on empirical study, the other is the rejection of the empirical in favour of what is effectively make-believe.
You don't actually know what religion is, do you?
Re: (Score:3)
Sure he is. "Intelligent Design" is just creationism with a party hat.
From the wiki link you waved:
Re: (Score:2)
Summary: Facts are non-negotiable.
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:5, Interesting)
Creationists also have a hard time talking their way around the massive problems with Noah's flood: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html [talkorigins.org]
Full disclosure: I used to be a born again christian, (these days I consider myself an agnostic... I don't really know if there's a god or not) but sites like these really opened my eyes. Most people only believe because they are told the same things over and over again from childhood and free thought is discouraged. I don't know if ministers/seminaries are ignorant of the true history of Christianity or if they are aware and simply covering it up to maintain control over people. Bible "study" is simply re-indoctrinating yourself over and over. Once something happens in your life to make you start questioning what you've been told, your whole worldview inevitably falls apart. It's only a matter of time.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really know if there's a god or not either, but I consider myself an atheist anyway because I would be a lot more surprised if it turned out there is. Plus it pisses off my family.
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:5, Interesting)
If there is a god, I'm very certain that it isn't the spiteful yahweh god of the old testament. Even Jesus seems to be a composite of lots of earlier pagan traditions. Lots of what he said can be traced back to earlier philosophers and the similarities are so uncanny that it's basically plagiarism. (another good site is http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ [jesusneverexisted.com] ) Even when I was still indoctrinated I noticed lots of inconsistencies in the New testament but I was conditioned not to ask questions and just accept it.
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:4, Interesting)
Even Jesus seems to be a composite of lots of earlier pagan traditions. Lots of what he said can be traced back to earlier philosophers and the similarities are so uncanny that it's basically plagiarism.
Not just what he said. There are also stories much like his or parts of his all around the middle east at that time. Basically, The Life of Brian is probably the most accurate movie regarding the proliferance of people a lot like Jesus.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as agnostic, I think the term is kind of useless. I don't think anyone takes the
Re: (Score:3)
And then there's others of us who followed the opposite path from atheism/agnosticism to being some sort of theist. In that boat, I can say that it's going to take a whole lot more than anything science has shown me thus far to change my mind. The only thing for me is that I actually believe that science and faith can and should live harmoniously; I'm not the type to discredit evolution, etc. just because it doesn't match some interpretation of the bible that I've been told all my life (actually, it matches
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:4, Insightful)
If a creator independently designed each organism, then lots of stuff that shouldn't be there somehow made it into the finished product.
So? Perhaps God did it for amusement, perhaps he's artistically inclined. Look at the average painter's paintings (and the stuff the doesn't even like himself and destroys/hides), does he produce useful or aesthetically perfect paintings? How can flaws in nature be an argument against creationism any more than they can be used against evolution theory, when evolution supposedly optimizes away flawed designs in the long run?
(before you ask, I'm an atheist/agnostic, but I find it pointless to even debate particular ideas of people suffering from a popular form of mass psychosis)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Creation science is one of the greatest sources of really concentrated stupidity to be found anywhere.
Ladeez gemmun, I give you: baraminology [rationalwiki.org].
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:4, Insightful)
Creationists also have a hard time talking their way around the massive problems with Noah's flood: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html [talkorigins.org]
Really? You need a page to explain it? I always thought it'd be a ton easier:
Look: Noah took in all the animals. Let's just accept that point. But what about all the plants? Not many of the plants we have around today would survive 40 days submerged. So either they evolved after the flood (say hi to evolution) or the bible forgets to mention a second creation (the holy book incomplete?) or it's all a big pile of nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Or the mass of 2 of each of the 30 million animal species?
Or the ability of him to save both salt- and freshwater fish?
Or the time it would take 2 examples of each species or, say, snails to travel from (say) the opposite side of the world, or at least the poles, to his ark?
Or the logical impossibility of the entire land surface of the planet being covered with water...and then not?
Seriously, one really doesn't need much explanation to see that the Noah story simply cannot be literally true.
Now, the idea th
Re: (Score:3)
Evolution of universe/life compatible w/ religion (Score:2)
Many religious people and some churc
Re:Evolution of universe/life compatible w/ religi (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, it is now a part of the canon of science, in spite of that. I'm still wondering when major religions will not just stop questioning, but actually declare a part of their religion, things like evolution and quantum mechanics. It seems the closest they can get is dragged by public outcry into making some sort of declaration not to talk about it anymore. Point being, science might have some bias, and doesn't everything, but it definitely overcomes it faster.
In the end, it is what you say, not who you are, that matters. The problem I have is when people who have avowed beliefs not backed by any form of evidence begin to make claims involving them. Want to be a creationist christian and a chemist? Sure, why not. But don't act as if I am small-minded if I am more suspicious of him than of others when the same person goes into biology and begins making findings that he claims undermine evolution. Further, I am entirely within my right to laugh at every "theologian," preacher, or priest which declares he knows better than science, yet refuses to provide evidence, or says religion is on the same level as science.
"Many religious people and some churches believe that belief in god may require faith but that understanding god's creation is done through science. That includes both the evolution the universe and the evolution of life."
Which is all fine and good, but that doesn't give them the right to attempt to dictate what is science, should it offend them at some point. I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.
Re:Evolution of universe/life compatible w/ religi (Score:5, Informative)
I'm still wondering when major religions will not just stop questioning, but actually declare a part of their religion, things like evolution and quantum mechanics. It seems the closest they can get is dragged by public outcry into making some sort of declaration not to talk about it anymore.
The roman catholic church operates an observatory, supports academic research into cosmology and works with leading observatories and cosmologists around the world. They seem to be actively researching the evolution of the universe, quantum mechanics, etc. Regarding the evolution of life I believe the church says there is no conflict with faith and the scientific findings regarding evolution. They teach evolution in their science classes. They don't take the book of genesis literally. I believe various other churches have similar perspectives.
I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.
I'm just pointing out that some folks with a deep faith are also actual scientists. A bishop, Grosseteste, helped lay out the framework for the scientific method and also did early work in optics. Another bishop, Saint Albert, did early work in chemistry and biological field research. Copernicus was a clergyman. A friar, Mendel, did early genetics research. A priest, Lemaitre, revolutionized cosmology is recent history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Vatican_Observatory [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:5, Informative)
You've made the tragically common mistake of believing that a scientific "theory" means that it has no support.
Rather, it is the opposite - a scientific theory is something which has overwhelming support.
And while science may not yet (or ever) know the exact details of man's origins, we at least have something concrete and observable, unlike theologies wild-ass-guesses. And something is greater than nothing.
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:4, Insightful)
THEORIES and FAITH
Here's the difference:
Questioning faith: Discouraged. Sometimes even punished.
Questioning theories: Encouraged, by design.
Now: which do you think is the better system?
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what I'm understanding you to say, is that your wild-ass GUESS about the origin of man is better than someone else's wild-ass GUESS, just because they may believe that the Flying Spagetti Monster or some other Deity is responsible for creating us?
No, because the evidence we have available supports our "guess", and thoroughly debunks the religious one.
It's a guess at first. You always start out with a guess. Say you and I don't know what the weather is like in Norway today. We both make a guess. Now we part ways. Religion starts to write a book about it, explaining why the weather is as it guessed it is, and burning everyone who says otherwise. Science, on the other hand, tries to find out whether or not the guess is right. Assume we can't get to Norway within a day, so we can never find out for sure what the weather was. But we can go there and see what the weather is tomorrow. And ask the people who live there. And check the ground for signs of recent rain or snow. We can gather all kinds of evidence that either supports or refutes our initial guess. Using that, we may modify our initial "guess". It now becomes what scientists call a "theory". The more our evidence converges, the stronger our theory gets. If the ground is dry, locals are saying it has been sunny all week, it is sunny today - it becomes very, very likely that it was indeed sunny on the day in question.
Problem is, both sides have no PROOF of their position.
See above. Your request of absolute proof borders on the psychotic. We regularily send people to prison for life based on evidence, not proof. A lot of conclusive evidence all pointing to the same result is very often as close to proof as we can get in the real world.
Yes, both sides do not have 100% proof. But one side has a mountain of evidence on their side, and the other has a badly written book of folk-tales.
someone will find a bone fragment (not even a whole bone), yet conceptually render what that person looked like.
It's called inference. It's a perfectly normal process. In fact, you do it yourself every day. You see a small part of a human body, say a leg under a table, and you assume that there's a whole body attached to it. Scientists do the same, just a lot more complicated. But we have enough knowledge about anatomy to be able to make those "guesses". For example, if you have a leg, you can usually assume that there's at least a second leg and that it looks a lot alike, because almost all the animals we know work that way.
Either way, there is no scientific PROOF as you are requiring, and in my opinion, all there will ever be are Wild-Ass Guesses. Then again, maybe the FSM will show itself tomorrow, and prove that we're all descended from bees.
No, we know that it's not bees. The FSM didn't have a license for winged flight.
Look, you have an extremist binary definition of proof. You ignore that the real world isn't binary, that proof is just the name we use for conclusive evidence, and that not every guess is a "wild-ass" guess. There are different qualities of guesses. If we both were to guess about where exactly Barack Obama is at this very moment, a guess of "in his bed" would be a likely guess at this time, while a guess of "on a small moon orbiting one of the planets of Betelgeuse" would be a very unlikely guess. The point being that not all guesses are equal.
It's a stupid trick. "You have no proof, so your guess is as good as mine! Nanana". Sorry, no. Obama may not actually in bed right now, but the two guesses are not equally likely.
Re: (Score:3)
The pyramids were built in ancient times, yet the modern scientific method was not developed back then.
And we rightfully admire them, knowing what a task it was with the means available.
I never said religion can not push men to do extraordinary things. We have much evidence not only in architecture (european cathedrals as well), but also in the arts.
The point was about progress.
The problem with the scientific method and other outdated theories
Sorry, I missed the memo about the scientific method becoming outdated. Where did that come from?
but they were still thought to be true at one point in time and there was evidence to think that way. And every generation believes these falsities to be true until they are proven false (only until someone proves again that what they currently thought is wrong in a continuous manner).
You phrase that in the usual way that misrepresents the whole thing. This is how non-science works - folk-lore, mythology, that kind of t
Re: (Score:3)
Considering those have been provided and provided again, ad nauseam, you'll forgive me if I continue saying that those following a 2000-3000 year old book in favor of modern facts (or even philosophy) aren't worth listening to. If they bring something serious to the table, I'm sure I will be forced to tak
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:4, Informative)
Having watched the video though, that's not what is done here. At no point is the phrase "you're an idiot" used, or any synonym for it. Instead, a very reasoned argument is given – religion is predicated on the idea of accepting things that you "know" to be true, or "want" to be true, or "feel" to be true no matter what evidence you're given against them. Science is predicated on immediately dismissing things as false if you're given evidence to show that they're false. These two points of view are mutually incompatible. Ergo, religion and science are not compatible things.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we even tolerate the profession of "Theologian" in the 21st century? Somehow he's committing fraud if he can make a living off being one.
"Theologian" is based on "theology" - that is, the study of religion.
Next time you don't actually understand a word, look it up [wikipedia.org] before telling everyone you're a fool.
Re:Dialog is good and all... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does science answer the question, "what is the purpose of the universe?"
Why does it even need one? Why does there have to be purpose at all? What is the purpose of a volcano? Not it's function, we all know what a volcano does and what it is a reaction to, but what is it's purpose? Purpose assumes some weird sort of sentience, an ambition or drive that exists beyond the physical: "A volcano's purpose is to prevent buildup of pressure in the Earth's crust." That's ridiculous, obviously, a volcano is caused by these things, it has no purpose, there is no 'meaning' in a volcano, it is what it is. We can study volcanoes, and we can predict how they will behave, but it is purely scientific...
What is the 'purpose' of anything? What is the purpose of a rock? What is the purpose of oxygen? What is the purpose of the planet Mars? What is the purpose of heat rising? What is the purpose of snow? There's no purpose in any of these things, they are natural reactions based on the physical laws of the universe, laws which we are just barely beginning to understand, but laws nonetheless. The fact that ice floats doesn't have some grand cosmological 'purpose', but it sure is handy, and convenient to the development of life. However, that doesn't imbibe it with some sense of purpose, it's just a natural reaction to the fact that water ice is less dense than liquid water.
There's nothing wrong with drawing a big question mark on the things we don't yet understand. I have no idea why so many people are so afraid of that question mark that they need to fill in the blanks with some magical, intangible cosmic being...
Streisand Effect (Score:2, Insightful)
At long last... (Score:5, Funny)
...the nightmare is over. I don't know how many sleepless nights I've had since this began. Now, we can come together, as a nation, and begin the healing process, by one group of people gloating that they made better logical arguments against another group of people that don't use logic anyway.
Truly, the long night is over.
This reflects badly on Slashdot and its editors (Score:5, Informative)
My initial views about this were similar to the popular sentiment on slashdot.
However, it is a shame that the person at the receiving end of the criticism wasn't given a chance to present his version of things, and now that he has, it has still not received the same attention that the original controversy did here on slashdot.
Here is John Haught's own version of the events: http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/GainesCenter/Letter%20To%20Jerry%20Coyne.pdf [uky.edu]
I am sure I will disagree with his views if and when I do read about them. And I have no idea how accurate his version of the events is, but he damned well has the right to be heard.
Re: (Score:3)
As this is a PDF, here is the full answer:
"An open Letter to Jerry Coyne:
Dear Jerry,
Your distorted reading of my motivation for not releasing the video of our conversation
in Kentucky has given birth to an inordinate number of hostile letters to me. Because of
misleading statements on your website (11/1/2011), I have received a considerable
amount of hate mail, often laced with obscenities, though often also tempered with
inquisitive politeness. The mail mostly complains about my “cowardly” reneging
Re: (Score:3)
Having seen some of it first hand now, I'm pretty repelled by Coyne, his comments, and the comments of just about everybody that hangs around his online forum. They all seem like a bunch of ignorant, blinkered, petty, rabid zealots. Not one of them seems prepared to communicate with even a modicum of civility -- which they term "accommodation" -- let alone actual academic discourse. Everything is straw men, ad hominem attacks, appeals to ridicule, and every other logical fallacy in the book. This isn't the
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I'd disagree. I think Haught is open to reasonable polite debate. I see no reason why anyone should see the need to respond to an attack like Coyne's. A reasonable debate requires a response. An attack, not so much. In addition, in a debate, just because someone does not provide a citation, does not mean they can't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The blog posting by Coyne was, at least to me, also not very trustworthy. It was so full of mudslinging and name calling that he really lost credibility to me in this matter.
Having read Coyne's blog post linked to the previous /. post, I almost start to fully believe remarks like
I have had wonderful conversations with many scientific skeptics over the years, but my meeting with you was exceptionally dismaying and unproductive.
by Haught. I haven't watched the video, and have no intention to do so, as both parties and actually mostly Coyne have not given me the idea that this would be a really interesting debate where people would respect one another's vi
"Haught later prohibited it's release" (Score:3)
"it's release"!? For the love of... ok, refresher course...
The Oatmeal [theoatmeal.com]
Wtf Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wtf Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on your comment I don't think you've bothered to read more than a few random words of these stories and the associated blog posts.
I'd like to weigh in on this... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a Christian. There, I said it. I've been hanging out on Slashdot for over 10 years. And I'm a Christian. Hold on, I'm not done yet.
I am a degreed engineer from one of the top private engineering schools in the country. I watch sci-fi. A lot. I believe in Evolution. I don't think humans evolved from pond scum OR monkeys. I believe in God. I believe he is on our side and is in favor of us. I believe God made the universe. I believe in the Bible. (See below) I have experienced things in my life which reinforce my beliefs. I know strict interpretation of the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old. I wasn't there then, I'm not going to argue about it. I'll leave that to people like Kent Hovind, he likes to argue.
I hate "religion". Religion has done more to harm people and discredit belief in God more than anything. Religion does not equal belief in God nor is the opposite true either. Religion is something people created.
I am suspicious there are important parts of the Bible that have been removed. There are things we've forgotten and not been told. I believe that there are certain parts of eastern mysticism that the Christian ought to pay attention to, such as meditation and the energy points in the body. See David Sereda regarding spirituality across religious boundary lines.
As a Christian, an Engineer and a Technologist I point to the spooky stuff in Quantum Physics as an olive branch between the two camps. There is a God, and we don't understand enough things yet to make science agree with that.
Re:I'd like to weigh in on this... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm also a Christian. (And not worried about karma... :) ) I came here for the tech news and got sucked into the wars... (Vi rules! Windows Sucks!)
But I would disagree with you, while I am not a deist, I do believe that the workings of the universe can be completely explained by science, down to the spooky stuff in Quantum Physics. If God is God, he is God of that too, but I don't think we ever need to look for a gap for God to fill in science. That to me diminishes God to nothing more than a cop out.
Re: (Score:3)
the universe cannot be completely explained by science in cases where rules break down, like in a black hole or a few peta seconds after the big bang. Science is constantly evolving as well, coming up with new theories and evidence to support our best explanations as to how the universe works. Do you honestly believe there will be a point where humanity learns all the secrets and has an understanding of everything? I think there will be a lot of good guesses, but no one will really know everything, and th
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, religions are something that people created. A massive set of mutually incompatible often warring belief sets that all proclaim they are the one true one.
Christianity is one of those religions.
Certainly not more than one of these views can be correct. And there is no logical way to choose one. So people tend to adhere to the one that is prevalent in their culture. Not because they have support for their belief in observable phenomena, but because they were told from birth to have faith.
Now if there was
Re:I'd like to weigh in on this... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a Christian. There, I said it. I've been hanging out on Slashdot for over 10 years. And I'm a Christian.
Heh. So what? The majority of slashdot readers are christians. There's a higher percentage of atheists here, but that's because there's a higher percentage of atheists among techies. That's still not a majority, you're just more likely to come across them on slashdot and get a reply.
I am a degreed engineer from one of the top private engineering schools in the country. I watch sci-fi. A lot. I believe in Evolution.
Ok.
I don't think humans evolved from pond scum OR monkeys.
What does that mean? You're commenting on how pond scum and monkeys are bad terms for the organic material in primordial earth and our primate ancestors? Or are you saying we don't come from those things? If you're saying we didn't evolve from these things, what did we evolve from? I mean, you believe in evolution, so you believe we evolved, right? Or did everything else evolve, and just not humans. Dude, that was confusing.
I believe in God. I believe he is on our side and is in favor of us. I believe God made the universe.
That's your prerogative, it's fine. I don't have a beef with that.
I believe in the Bible.
Literally? Because we have scientific evidence that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt the Bible is not literally true. If you want to believe they are allegories, you are free to believe that. If you want to believe in the literal creation story, the flood, and all that....well, you're being intellectually dishonest with yourself by ignoring evidence that goes against your beliefs.
I know strict interpretation of the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old. I wasn't there then, I'm not going to argue about it.
There are other dating methods, you don't need to be there. It's like watching one of the sci-fi movies you like and going, "they say they used cgi for the special effects, but I wasn't there for the filming. I'm not going to argue whether this is real or not."
As a Christian, an Engineer and a Technologist I point to the spooky stuff in Quantum Physics as an olive branch between the two camps.
"I don't understand Quantum Physics, so I think God has something to do with it." Pointing out things you don't understand doesn't prove it can't be understood. Same goes for things nobody understands. We understand a whole lot more about the universe now than we did 200 years ago, and we'll understand a whole lot more 200 years from now.
There is a God, and we don't understand enough things yet to make science agree with that.
If you want to take the existence of God as an axiom, you are completely free to do so. Just understand that you've done that. You've made a choice and said, "I believe God exists no matter what. I take it on faith that it's true." This prevents you from using stupid arguments trying to prove the existence of God, and it prevents others from trying to use stupid arguments to try to prove God doesn't exist. It's an unfalsifiable concept, it's not the realm of science. Always believe on evidence first. For everything else, you can have faith or not. Just don't try to force the rest of us to share your faith, and we'll get along fine. If anyone tries to force their lack of faith on you, I'll side with you on that. Even if I don't share your faith, I believe you have the right to lead the life you want according to the principles you hold dear.
Before all the little atheists celebrate... (Score:5, Informative)
Haught's side (Score:3)
I would recommend that anyone, before reaching conclusions about what occurred, read Haught's open letter to Coyne [uky.edu] (which really should have been linked from TFA) and, of course, watch the video.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.examiner.com/healthy-living-in-columbus/delaware-county-prepares-for-a-mock-zombie-outbreak [examiner.com]
Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, a quick analysis of your arguments and some counterarguments per paragraph.
par. 1: You state that Christianity=love&peace, and that no-one should hate love and peace. But the one does not require the other, as there can be love and peace without Christianity.
par. 2: You state that Christianity and science are not in conflict. There are two counterarguments: Christianity is inherently anti-scientific in its nature, as it is a belief in something without evidence. Thus, Christianity trains unscientific thought patterns. Second argument is that in politics, Christianity is used as an argument to hinder science. So Christianity and science are in conflict.
par. 3: You state that you should believe in god without any evidence. That there is no way of showing god exists, certainly not in a statistically measurable way. So if god does not influence our lives in the slightest, why believe at all?
par. 4: This paragraph is a bit of a jumble. You state here that love and peace are unattainable on earth, thus conflicting with par. 1. Besides that, it is stated that god died on the cross, but instead it was his son as you should be well aware, or you are considering your god as three gods, the real one, Jezus and the holy spirit. Lastly you state that god does not intervene where we would consider it possible or beneficial. This, again, raises the question of his existence, and my counterargument of: if he does not influence our lives, why believe at all.
Cheers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm a dude who knows God loves you, Jesus is LO (Score:5, Insightful)
Many modern atheists have bad theology. They think: How does an all powerful and good God let bad things happen?
No, generally not. This isn't a question that we struggle with, or wonder about. It's like asking if Alice is going to go to the store tomorrow. If I don't believe that Alice exists, then I won't ask her to pick anything up for me, and so if Alice is presumed to be going to the store or not is completely irrelevant to me. However, the question is interesting to believers, and that's why we bring it up in debates with believers.
It's not even like we invented the question, Christians came up with it themselves. "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" It's been asked longer than before the Book of Job was written. Except now there is an alternative answer to creation. Even if one of the people in the age of the Founding Fathers of the USA were to not believe in Christianity, there still wasn't any good explanation for the origin of life. They believed in a "Creator" because there just wasn't a better answer available to them.
But now we have no need for the hypothesis of a god. So, really now the situation becomes one of pure personal opinion. God/Religion is the why, and Science is the how. The problem is that there are still people out there asserting that God/Religion is the how, and that their holy scriptures are the infallible word of a deity.
So, in short, atheists don't have "bad theology", they don't have to deal with theology at all. Beyond simple, "there are in all likelihood no gods." We bring up these horribly difficult questions of theology, because you theists have been struggling with them for centuries, and the more we can get people to ponder them, and see the most rational explanation accounting for the apparent absence of any deity at all... the more converts we win.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoever moderated the parent as "Troll" is an idiot. He is stating his beliefs. Yes, I agree, he's stating his opinions as if they were facts, but nonetheless, this is not a troll. It's an honest statement of what he believes and an honest attempt to contribute to the discussion.
I disagree with the substance of what he says, but moderating him down for it is not the way to respond to or refute it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is no debate... (Score:4, Informative)
As I said, religion is arbitrary, you can claim whatever you want
Some try, but not all do. A lot of theological thought is well-grounded in classical philosophy (from Plato and Aristotle straight through to the modern day), which itself laid the foundation for the scientific method.
String theory is also considered to be unfalsifiable -- hence, arbitrary and non-scientific -- by many physicists, yet rational people don't try to argue that the only way to discuss and debate string theory is to ridicule it. That's the tactic of a schoolyard bully, not an intellectual.
Re: (Score:3)
This is certainly the way I read it. I watched the video and almost as soon as Coyne started I felt my hackles rise. For a "scientist" he made a pathetic and childish argument, a sneering rant in fact.
If Jerry Coyne's the best science can come up with I'm going back to worshipping trees.