Theologian Attempts Censorship After Losing Public Debate

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."

Comments

Fundies just can't stand the heat

[makubesu]

... wait a second, let me read the wikipedia article on this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Haught#cite_note-Haught-Coyne-7
- 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?

Persuade, inform, advocate, and entertain

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Ihmhi]

Here's 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.

A fatal flaw in Christianity.

[Zombie Ryushu]

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.

Nah...

[onezeta]

They're using this 'ban' for people to become curious and demand to see the video. And both he and Coyne will have lots of money.

Re:You are *assuming* this is why he's 'censoring'

[cryptoluddite]

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:The religious use facts, proof and logic too

[The Creator]

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.

A "true" scientist would of course answer that the God hypothesis is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

From where did you get this notion that a scientist would answer with that abomination that you suggested?

Re:You are *assuming* this is why he's 'censoring'

[Asic Eng]

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.

Re:How the mighty have fallen

[ArhcAngel]

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.

Re:What was the point of this exercise?

[LordLimecat]

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. 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:

• 1) There was never an agreement to post the video, and Coyne does not argue this. Courts of law often are recorded too, but that does not mean the videos will see the light of day. Coyne, however, went on to state that there was an implied agreement to release the video. Thats his complaint-- that he assumed the video would be released. Guess he was wrong.
• 2) Haught indicates that the format was supposed to be two sides presenting their cases. Coyne decided to start attacking Haught's views (which was not part of the plan, says Haught), quoting from his books, and according to Haught resorting to ad hominems-- none of which, aside from potential logical problems, were part of the agreed upon format. Hence why Coyne remarks that

  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.

• 3) Haught also claims that the conclusion to Coyne's talk, rather than being a summary of what he had said, was a tirade about how Catholicism is the cause of all evil in the world. Myself, I dont find that to really be "debate material"; you can get into an endless debate about which religion or ideology causes the worst evil, but its not really germane in the setting they were in.

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.