Slashdot Mirror
Censored Religious Debate Video Released After Public Outrage
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."
..and one giant win for science.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
...but debating these people only give them credibility they do not deserve. The people who believe in creationism will never be swayed away from it, because their reasons for believing in it it are not the same as ours are for believing evolution. It is not out of an attempt to explain nature and the universe, but an egotistical need to be above it. Being descended from primates is offensive to them because they see the sum of humanity as being a jumble of biological components, rather than our arts and sciences. No wonder: religion has usually opposed arts and sciences until they gained enough traction to threaten the religion itself should it resist further.
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.
Great Intellect...
While I'm in favor of piling onto Haught, he isn't a creationist.
"Censored Religious Debate Video Released After Public Outrage"..... to an audience 20x larger than would otherwise be present.
...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.
Well we're prepared for that
http://www.examiner.com/healthy-living-in-columbus/delaware-county-prepares-for-a-mock-zombie-outbreak
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
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.
"it's release"!? For the love of... ok, refresher course...
The Oatmeal
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.
Great Intellect...
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.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
Does he (she?) also speak in CAPITALS like DEATH?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I am uncertain if this is just a terrific trolling attempt or if you're really serious.
I can tell you for a fact that God loves you :) God wants us all to live together in love and peace.
I've never understood why is it so important for so many Christians that they feel there is 24/7 someone loving them. Is it insecurity? Would you be depressed if there wasn't? I am genuinely curious about this.
There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?
Christianity is far from "love and peace", take for example the crusades: Christians killed MILLIONS of people just because they didn't share the same religion. And not only killed, but tortured, raped, pillaged, took all belongings of even those they let live and enslaved them. Now, where is "love and peace" about that? Or in modern times, how many times have you heard about Christians spewing hatred and bile about all the "non-conforming" people, like us non-heterosexuals for example? There are plenty of examples where homosexuals have been tortured and killed by the religious, even in modern-day society. Hell, _I_ have had people literally come up to my door and start chastising me about how my ways are horrible, vile and I only corrupt everyone and everything around me with them and how I will go to hell and whatnot; I sure as heck do not go to strangers' doors and start judging their views and tastes, so what the hell gives Christians the right to do that?!
"Love and peace" my ass; it's all about CONTROL.
People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.
That is exactly the logic fallacy of it all: you can just claim absolutely ANYTHING as "God's will", and that's that.
God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever.
That is another example of a fallacy: human beings evaluate their environment and themselves through conflict. We NEED negative things to happen to us so we can appreciate the positive things. Without negative things we would not be able to appreciate the positive ones. If you never experience anything even mildly displeasing in your life you will simply become inherently bored as whatever you have will feel like nothing. So, in Heaven if there are only positive things and never EVER any kind of conflict then it cannot be a Heaven, atleast not for human beings. It is an oxymoron.
No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.
Bible actually teaches that God and Jesus are two totally separate entities and that it is blasphemy to call Jesus a God. Perhaps you need some soul searching to be done.
What happens to people who don't know about Jesus? For example, anyone born before Jesus or raised without knowledge of him? Do they still get into Heaven when they die? Or do they go elsewhere?
I've also wondered about this and I've even asked some priests and theologists about it, and the most common answer is that they still don't get to Heaven. Now, when I then follow with the question "So basically God doesn't even give them people a chance to get into Heaven, they're doomed to go to Hell already way before they're even born into this world?" their answers usually just fall flat on their faces. Then the people who say those people will get to Heaven as they are innocent of the condition of not knowing about God don't know what to answer when I ask them the question: "Why do you people then even tell others about God? If you never went out to teach about God we'd all get to Heaven, whereas by telling them about God you're deliberately exposing them to Hell."
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
Nothing Coyne said had anything to do with science, reason or argument. He just made a big rant online with zero intellectual content whatsoever. He even cites the fact Slashdot featured his retarded rant as evidence he "won" the argument. Won the debate? So being featured on slashdot proves God doesn't exist? Seriously editors, what is this stupidity you're posting?
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.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
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.
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
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.
Breakfast served all day!
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.
I'll "come out" and chime in on this.
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.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
I suggest you watch the video. As I suggested in a previous post, Jerry Coyne is rather childish and launches a horrible, sneering, ad hominem argument. Haught's argument is much better reasoned and much better -- regardless of who "won."
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
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
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
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 things to do with your time than hang out in Bible Belt tent revivals, so you weren't aware that Bible Belters quite often do rail against Buddhists. This is why such a big deal was made about Al Gore being friendly towards Buddhists during the Gore/Bush presidential race - he lost votes among conservative Christians in the so-called "heartland". Many fundamentalists will tell you quite sincerely that both the Buddha and Mohammed were direct manifestations of Satan, and that all non-Christian religions should be suppressed violently by the state. Some of them feel that way about the Pope, too.
If you avoid contact with religion you are unlikely to be able to speak authoritatively about it. This is a basic philosophic principle that scientists should not forget; purposeful ignorance does not grant enlightenment. Unfortunately, in the western world, everyone gets their faces jammed into Christianity all the time - governments directly sponsor it, through the scheduling of school holidays and other cultural events - so everyone tends to think they have lots of contact with religion, when really they've probably only had contact with one or two tiny, stagnant tide-pools in the vast sea of religious thought.
I would recommend that anyone, before reaching conclusions about what occurred, read Haught's open letter to Coyne (which really should have been linked from TFA) and, of course, watch the video.
Upon reading your post, I would classify you as agnostic, not atheist. At the risk of oversimplifying, I'd say agnosticism is usually a more principled stance; it inherently acknowledges that any intelligent actor can be mistaken or misled. Atheism, in its most strident form, is entirely faith-based; and in its more scientifically and philosophically defensible forms atheism tends to be difficult to distinguish from agnosticism or pantheism.
There are several religions that accept agnostic congregants, but the only explicitly agnostic religion I know of is one of the smaller Hindu sects. There are several atheist religions - the most interesting one is probably Jainism, which holds that any being that we would perceive as God is merely an extremely advanced person. Jains believe that they can perfect themselves morally, psychologically and philosophically and become as gods themselves. Jainism is much older than Christianity and still a vibrant living religious tradition, incidentally.