Thursday, November 03, 2011
Coyne and What Anyone Haught Not to Do
John Haught's initial refusal to permit the release of the video of his debate with Jerry Coyne, over the 'compatibility of science and religion,' was not only wrong and intellectually indefensible, but tactically stupid.
Haught made a terrible mistake. Long before it was announced that Haught had changed his mind, I signed the Go.Change petition demanding that Haught release the video. In doing so, I pointed out that if he had any intention of defending his decision based on Coyne being 'strident,' mean and nasty, Haught should, instead, want the video released post haste for all to see. The refusal, supposedly to spare the tender sensibilities of the ivory tower crowd, rang, to say the very least, as excessively hollow.
Okay, everybody makes mistakes and Haught, with only minor delay, has permitted the video to be seen but Haught's "excuse" was and is lame.
On the other hand, I've watched Coyne's presentation and gone through his Power Point slides. At the risk of being deemed "strident," mean and nasty myself, I wasn't overly impressed ... which is not to say that Coyne has no good arguments. Coyne notes that he will "have" to speak very quickly. He succeeds. The good arguments are just buried in the welter of what we may have to ... um ... coin as "a Coyne Gallop."
There are the usual Coyneisms:
Science is incompatible with religion because most members of the NAS report that they are atheists or agnostics but the existence of religious scientists is merely evidence of "cognitive dissonance."
Science is, sometimes, a methodology but, at other times, a "worldview."
Hume's problem of induction is no problem at all and because science "works" (except of course, when it doesn't) metaphysical naturalism is, therefore, a scientific result.
Coyne's certainty in metaphysical naturalism isn't an "ultimate truth" as exhibited by religious faith, since he never quite acknowledges the evidence it would it take for him to stop believing in such naturalism.
But the above Power Point slide from Coyne amused me. Apparently it is "unscientific" to say that something doesn't really say what it seems to say.
So, the Origin of Species, when it seems to say that there is an entity called "Nature" that actively "selects" the best organisms, has to be taken at face value and any attempt to deny that it means what it seems to say is "unscientific"?
.
Comments:
But they are not what you called "official Catholic theology."
How the Church reasons and arrives at its position is official theology. The fact that the Church thinks it's rules override secular ones is official isn't it?
But you and Coyne do.
Not really (atleast for me). The question asked of Haught is "if his morality is so very different from the Catholic church, why doesn't he just leave?"
And "why does he shore up a corrupt institution with his time and money?"
That is the only sense in which I assign any "responsibility" to Haught.
<< Home
Haught claims that he was told that Coyne didn't want to debate.
I’m wondering how the structure of the presentation then.. They each got 20 minutes to speak and then a brief q&A with the audience.
I haven’t gotten through the whole video as it doesn’t load very well, but Coyne says at the beginning of his portion that he specifically targets what Haught says because Haught is there and can defend himself.
But Haught went first, and as I understand it the Q&A followed. When was Haught supposed to respond to Jerry? And if he was told that this wasn't to be a debate, why would he have needed to prepare for one? The format didn’t provide for that, based on what I understand it to be, and so I can see why Haught is angry.
If it is the case as I understand it to be, Coyne took advantage of the format to make assertions that Haught didn’t have the opportunity to address. Going into the debate, They both understood the limitations of the format so that would explain, to me, Haught’s anger at what he perceived to be Coyne’s lack of courtesy.
I think if the format was set up differently, Haught would have prepared differently. If thie situation is as i’ve described, and the entire presention isn’t in the video yet, then Haught made an error in assuming that Coyne would extend him any professional courtesy based on the limitations of the format.
But, I’m not familiar with this kind of format – is it often the case that presenters attack the views of the other specifically when the other has no formal time to respond?
I’m wondering how the structure of the presentation then.. They each got 20 minutes to speak and then a brief q&A with the audience.
I haven’t gotten through the whole video as it doesn’t load very well, but Coyne says at the beginning of his portion that he specifically targets what Haught says because Haught is there and can defend himself.
But Haught went first, and as I understand it the Q&A followed. When was Haught supposed to respond to Jerry? And if he was told that this wasn't to be a debate, why would he have needed to prepare for one? The format didn’t provide for that, based on what I understand it to be, and so I can see why Haught is angry.
If it is the case as I understand it to be, Coyne took advantage of the format to make assertions that Haught didn’t have the opportunity to address. Going into the debate, They both understood the limitations of the format so that would explain, to me, Haught’s anger at what he perceived to be Coyne’s lack of courtesy.
I think if the format was set up differently, Haught would have prepared differently. If thie situation is as i’ve described, and the entire presention isn’t in the video yet, then Haught made an error in assuming that Coyne would extend him any professional courtesy based on the limitations of the format.
But, I’m not familiar with this kind of format – is it often the case that presenters attack the views of the other specifically when the other has no formal time to respond?
# posted by 
: 11:35 PM
: 11:35 PM
... is it often the case that presenters attack the views of the other specifically when the other has no formal time to respond?
I agree that, if that was the format and Haught had no chance to respond (the video only included one Q&A by the moderator), Coyne exercised bad form. But Haught didn't actually make that complaint. His main objection seemed to be that Coyne 'smeared' him with "Catholic evils." While I have noted, based on my own long-ago experience, that Catholic believers are not not necessarily tied to Catholic dogma, it doesn't seem to me to be actually unfair to upbraid Catholics with the official positions of their church. While Haught would, no doubt, be uncomfortable with part or all of those dogmas, he can hardly feign outrage when he still calls himself a Catholic.
I agree that, if that was the format and Haught had no chance to respond (the video only included one Q&A by the moderator), Coyne exercised bad form. But Haught didn't actually make that complaint. His main objection seemed to be that Coyne 'smeared' him with "Catholic evils." While I have noted, based on my own long-ago experience, that Catholic believers are not not necessarily tied to Catholic dogma, it doesn't seem to me to be actually unfair to upbraid Catholics with the official positions of their church. While Haught would, no doubt, be uncomfortable with part or all of those dogmas, he can hardly feign outrage when he still calls himself a Catholic.
Now that's a gnu view.
No, it's a view of any rational person when confronted with the situation in a public debate. Note that I wouldn't "upbraid" any Catholic I just happened to meet in the street this way, nor make a blanket condemnation of all Catholics. But when Haught was introduced as a Catholic theologian in a debate about the compatibility of science and religion, the dogma of the Church is fair game, though TB's point about the rules of the "debate" is valid, if true.
No, it's a view of any rational person when confronted with the situation in a public debate. Note that I wouldn't "upbraid" any Catholic I just happened to meet in the street this way, nor make a blanket condemnation of all Catholics. But when Haught was introduced as a Catholic theologian in a debate about the compatibility of science and religion, the dogma of the Church is fair game, though TB's point about the rules of the "debate" is valid, if true.
Well, Haught's pissed - he's not making good decisions so I don't expect him to articulate his problems well either.
But he can provide information, and Haught makes the point in his letter that he was told it wasn't to be a debate, that he was told Coyne didn't want a debate. While we have no way of knowing for certain right now if that was what Coyne said it it seems apparent to me that the format wasn't set up to support a back and forth debate, which would support Haught's assertion.
So again, within this format, is it considered good form to do what Coyne knows he did (he said that Haught was here to defend himself in the beginning) and put forth a whole bunch of assertions unchallenged?
If that's what usually happens, then Haught has no complaint. If not, then Haught was ambushed, set up to believe this was to be a different kind of conversation and hamstrung by the agreed format. Which kind of fits with the way Coyne operates online - how many times have you taken him to task for failing in discussion of the philosophy he claims to be addressing? And when you do, that's only on your blog here - it's not in his echo chamber so he has no need to address it. The format insulates his arguments to an extent.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone shouldn't challenge the dogmas of the church - I certainly do. But in fairness, pedophia isn't a dogma, and quite a few Catholics are incensed about this. Criticism about this is wholly justified in my book.
But it's not a dogma, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with whether religion and science are compatible. Yet he seems to have brought it up twice - once as a snide remark and once in some kind of context. I don't see how one can't escape a guilt by associate tag.
Again, haven't seen the entire film so I don't want to claim this with any certainty.
But as you bring up in your galloping gish comment, any one debating Coyne in the future should treat him like any creationist - make sure the format is at least fair and be prepared to show the holes in his arguments that Coyne isn't prepared to defend.
But he can provide information, and Haught makes the point in his letter that he was told it wasn't to be a debate, that he was told Coyne didn't want a debate. While we have no way of knowing for certain right now if that was what Coyne said it it seems apparent to me that the format wasn't set up to support a back and forth debate, which would support Haught's assertion.
So again, within this format, is it considered good form to do what Coyne knows he did (he said that Haught was here to defend himself in the beginning) and put forth a whole bunch of assertions unchallenged?
If that's what usually happens, then Haught has no complaint. If not, then Haught was ambushed, set up to believe this was to be a different kind of conversation and hamstrung by the agreed format. Which kind of fits with the way Coyne operates online - how many times have you taken him to task for failing in discussion of the philosophy he claims to be addressing? And when you do, that's only on your blog here - it's not in his echo chamber so he has no need to address it. The format insulates his arguments to an extent.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone shouldn't challenge the dogmas of the church - I certainly do. But in fairness, pedophia isn't a dogma, and quite a few Catholics are incensed about this. Criticism about this is wholly justified in my book.
But it's not a dogma, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with whether religion and science are compatible. Yet he seems to have brought it up twice - once as a snide remark and once in some kind of context. I don't see how one can't escape a guilt by associate tag.
Again, haven't seen the entire film so I don't want to claim this with any certainty.
But as you bring up in your galloping gish comment, any one debating Coyne in the future should treat him like any creationist - make sure the format is at least fair and be prepared to show the holes in his arguments that Coyne isn't prepared to defend.
# posted by : 8:19 AM
: 8:19 AM
@John
Note that I wouldn't "upbraid" any Catholic I just happened to meet in the street this way
Yes Yes I do that all the time. I also tell old ladies that when they die there is no heaven and also I ensure that every child I meet knows there is no Santa.
But a view is a view whether it is told to a person on the street or to a noted catholic theologian.
rules of the "debate" is valid, if true.
If? That's what its down to ? Idle speculation of what might have happened? Come on you can do better that.
Second - If you want to address the topic of Science and Religion one of the areas you will have to address is Theology. It's a fair point to show that "sophisticated" theology is as empty(and as unscientific) as the unsophisticated one. And it is a smart tactical move to use your opposing speakers words to make your point. This holds whether this is a debate or a presentation of your views.
Science is incompatible with religion because most members of the NAS report that they are atheists or agnostics
Im sure you read enough of Coyne's blog/website to know that this isn't his reasoning for Science/Religion compatibility. He does use the above fact to suggest a causal relationship (if memory is right). But correlated or causal the fact is damning.
I don't think you found much value in what Haught said either.
Note that I wouldn't "upbraid" any Catholic I just happened to meet in the street this way
Yes Yes I do that all the time. I also tell old ladies that when they die there is no heaven and also I ensure that every child I meet knows there is no Santa.
But a view is a view whether it is told to a person on the street or to a noted catholic theologian.
rules of the "debate" is valid, if true.
If? That's what its down to ? Idle speculation of what might have happened? Come on you can do better that.
Second - If you want to address the topic of Science and Religion one of the areas you will have to address is Theology. It's a fair point to show that "sophisticated" theology is as empty(and as unscientific) as the unsophisticated one. And it is a smart tactical move to use your opposing speakers words to make your point. This holds whether this is a debate or a presentation of your views.
Science is incompatible with religion because most members of the NAS report that they are atheists or agnostics
Im sure you read enough of Coyne's blog/website to know that this isn't his reasoning for Science/Religion compatibility. He does use the above fact to suggest a causal relationship (if memory is right). But correlated or causal the fact is damning.
I don't think you found much value in what Haught said either.
Yes Yes I do that all the time.
I don't remember saying you would. But is the idea that we should confront the "enablers" of all the bad things caused by religion unknown to Gnus? If so, I apologize.
But a view is a view whether it is told to a person on the street or to a noted catholic theologian.
Your view is your own. In this case we were discussing the proper rules for public debate (though I assume we are now off on another romp through everything and everything).
If? That's what its down to ? Idle speculation of what might have happened?
It's not "idle." The video that has been posted shows no opportunity for a reply by Haught, despite Coyne's assertion that he felt it was ok to attack him because Haught was there to "defend himself." If Coyne knew (or should have known, being a purportedly rational being) that Haught had no opportunity to reply, his statement is, at least, disingenuous, if not outright dishonest. If he knew Haught had no chance to reply, his attack in this form was not what would be expected in decent academic debate. In fact, it is the same sort of thing I would expect out of the DI.
It's a fair point to show that "sophisticated" theology is as empty ...
Dang! I should have said that Haught's theology was fair game! ... Oh, wait ... I did!
And it is a smart tactical move to use your opposing speakers words to make your point.
Do "smart tactics" outweigh the rules of fair and honest academic debate? If so, we can't criticize the DI for their tactics, can we?
Im sure you read enough of Coyne's blog/website to know that this isn't his reasoning for Science/Religion compatibility.
Well, no! I've read enough of Coyne's blog to know that he has a great deal of difficulty being rational about religion. But even if this isn't his "reasoning," it is what he keeps saying. It's not like I'm the only one who can see the illogic in it. Every time he says it, there are theists out there going "and atheists claim to be logical and rational!" It's what Augustine warned Christians about ... if you say stupid things in support of the faith, you are a scandal to the faith. Coyne seems determined to be a scandal to the faithless.
I don't think you found much value in what Haught said either.
So what? Is it ok to use disingenuous debate tactics against others if their arguments don't meet our standard of what a "good" argument is?
I don't remember saying you would. But is the idea that we should confront the "enablers" of all the bad things caused by religion unknown to Gnus? If so, I apologize.
But a view is a view whether it is told to a person on the street or to a noted catholic theologian.
Your view is your own. In this case we were discussing the proper rules for public debate (though I assume we are now off on another romp through everything and everything).
If? That's what its down to ? Idle speculation of what might have happened?
It's not "idle." The video that has been posted shows no opportunity for a reply by Haught, despite Coyne's assertion that he felt it was ok to attack him because Haught was there to "defend himself." If Coyne knew (or should have known, being a purportedly rational being) that Haught had no opportunity to reply, his statement is, at least, disingenuous, if not outright dishonest. If he knew Haught had no chance to reply, his attack in this form was not what would be expected in decent academic debate. In fact, it is the same sort of thing I would expect out of the DI.
It's a fair point to show that "sophisticated" theology is as empty ...
Dang! I should have said that Haught's theology was fair game! ... Oh, wait ... I did!
And it is a smart tactical move to use your opposing speakers words to make your point.
Do "smart tactics" outweigh the rules of fair and honest academic debate? If so, we can't criticize the DI for their tactics, can we?
Im sure you read enough of Coyne's blog/website to know that this isn't his reasoning for Science/Religion compatibility.
Well, no! I've read enough of Coyne's blog to know that he has a great deal of difficulty being rational about religion. But even if this isn't his "reasoning," it is what he keeps saying. It's not like I'm the only one who can see the illogic in it. Every time he says it, there are theists out there going "and atheists claim to be logical and rational!" It's what Augustine warned Christians about ... if you say stupid things in support of the faith, you are a scandal to the faith. Coyne seems determined to be a scandal to the faithless.
I don't think you found much value in what Haught said either.
So what? Is it ok to use disingenuous debate tactics against others if their arguments don't meet our standard of what a "good" argument is?
Depak can be excused for not knowing the history that John certainly does, and I do.
There was a time when creationists would barnstorm around the country and challenge anyone to debate. And well-intentioned scientists or advocates would take them up on that offer and they'd appear at some local venue.
And those well-intentioned scientists or advocates would lose. Flat out lose, and make science look bad in the bargain.
They wouldn't lose because they didn't know their science or the science wasn't correct, they lost because they weren't prepared for the strategies and tactics employed by the creationists. Coyne having his presentation compared to a Gish Gallop in not a compliment, BTW.
Over time, and with information spread on the Internet, some people could put a seed of doubt into what was usually an unfriendly audience. But even then, people were encouraged NOT to debate unless they were absolutely sure they could counter the tactics from the other side. In that sense, I have no idea whether Haught would have fared better if it had been a structured debate, and I don't care.
What do care about is I remember my outrage at learning all of this stuff way back when, and I can't exactly applaud when those tactics are employed by someone who purports to be defending science, especially against someone who did stand up for good science education in Dover.
Coyne can enjoy his "victory" for now, but it's as hollow as any of Gish's.
There was a time when creationists would barnstorm around the country and challenge anyone to debate. And well-intentioned scientists or advocates would take them up on that offer and they'd appear at some local venue.
And those well-intentioned scientists or advocates would lose. Flat out lose, and make science look bad in the bargain.
They wouldn't lose because they didn't know their science or the science wasn't correct, they lost because they weren't prepared for the strategies and tactics employed by the creationists. Coyne having his presentation compared to a Gish Gallop in not a compliment, BTW.
Over time, and with information spread on the Internet, some people could put a seed of doubt into what was usually an unfriendly audience. But even then, people were encouraged NOT to debate unless they were absolutely sure they could counter the tactics from the other side. In that sense, I have no idea whether Haught would have fared better if it had been a structured debate, and I don't care.
What do care about is I remember my outrage at learning all of this stuff way back when, and I can't exactly applaud when those tactics are employed by someone who purports to be defending science, especially against someone who did stand up for good science education in Dover.
Coyne can enjoy his "victory" for now, but it's as hollow as any of Gish's.
# posted by : 11:24 AM
: 11:24 AM
@John
I don't remember saying you would.
Is there a reason for your statement other than implying that I or other gnu's upbraid random Catholics on the street?
In this case we were discussing the proper rules for public debate
Were we? You mentioned that it's fair game to ask a Catholic theologian why he is a Catholic if he disagrees and indeed thinks that some official Catholic policy are evil. And if so , then why not any Catholic? And why only in a debate?
Do "smart tactics" outweigh the rules of fair and honest academic debate?
Again if you want to show that sophisticated theology is empty - why is it unfair or dishonest to use your opponents words?(assuming this isn't a debate). If you use some other theologian you'll simply be told to buy Haught's books and read them. If you talk in the abstract without concrete examples you'll lose the audience.
Let's take an example. Suppose you have a presentation(not debate) for "Why I am religious / non religious".
Someone doing the latter usually has a very short reason (No evidence, No proof or some anecdote). If you want to make it a 25 minute presentation a non believer *might* take on the topic of religion not being a way of obtain morals since this is a commonly held belief. He/she can - fairly and honestly use the opposing speakers religion to make his point. Is it an attack? Are you not giving the opponent a chance to defend himself/herself - if the format doesn't allow it?
Unless Haught was specifically told his views wont be touched there isn't anything dishonest about what Coyne did.
But even if this isn't his "reasoning," it is what he keeps saying.
So now you have a problem with the truth? That scientists are more likely to be non believers than the general population?
Whether you believe that this relation is correlated or causal , it is a damning statistic.
Coyne talks about epistemology when he talks about science/religion compatibility. Im sure you know that.
So what?
I'm just noting something that was missing in your original post.
I don't remember saying you would.
Is there a reason for your statement other than implying that I or other gnu's upbraid random Catholics on the street?
In this case we were discussing the proper rules for public debate
Were we? You mentioned that it's fair game to ask a Catholic theologian why he is a Catholic if he disagrees and indeed thinks that some official Catholic policy are evil. And if so , then why not any Catholic? And why only in a debate?
Do "smart tactics" outweigh the rules of fair and honest academic debate?
Again if you want to show that sophisticated theology is empty - why is it unfair or dishonest to use your opponents words?(assuming this isn't a debate). If you use some other theologian you'll simply be told to buy Haught's books and read them. If you talk in the abstract without concrete examples you'll lose the audience.
Let's take an example. Suppose you have a presentation(not debate) for "Why I am religious / non religious".
Someone doing the latter usually has a very short reason (No evidence, No proof or some anecdote). If you want to make it a 25 minute presentation a non believer *might* take on the topic of religion not being a way of obtain morals since this is a commonly held belief. He/she can - fairly and honestly use the opposing speakers religion to make his point. Is it an attack? Are you not giving the opponent a chance to defend himself/herself - if the format doesn't allow it?
Unless Haught was specifically told his views wont be touched there isn't anything dishonest about what Coyne did.
But even if this isn't his "reasoning," it is what he keeps saying.
So now you have a problem with the truth? That scientists are more likely to be non believers than the general population?
Whether you believe that this relation is correlated or causal , it is a damning statistic.
Coyne talks about epistemology when he talks about science/religion compatibility. Im sure you know that.
So what?
I'm just noting something that was missing in your original post.
TB
Ill come out of my self imposed silence to you for one response because you *might* be sincere in your response
The fact that you/John think that Coyne is indulging in a gish gallop is an opinion that you have based on your biases and prejudices(oh the irony!). Of the points that john notes
a. Science is incompatible with religion because most members of the NAS report that they are atheists or agnostics
Most members do report they are atheists or agnostics (Spare me the spiritual ones). This isn't Coyne's reasoning for science/religion compatibility. You should know that.
Hume's problem of induction is no problem at all
Is it for any one of us? Is it a problem that maths cant prove maths or logic can't prove logic?
Apparently it is "unscientific" to say that something doesn't really say what it seems to say.
Context is everything here.
The other two points I don't know enough about so Ill refrain from comment. But its a far cry to compare Coyne to indulging in a Gish Gallop.
Oh and I have no intention in answering any response you make. So please be "fair" and "honest" by your academic standards.
Ill come out of my self imposed silence to you for one response because you *might* be sincere in your response
The fact that you/John think that Coyne is indulging in a gish gallop is an opinion that you have based on your biases and prejudices(oh the irony!). Of the points that john notes
a. Science is incompatible with religion because most members of the NAS report that they are atheists or agnostics
Most members do report they are atheists or agnostics (Spare me the spiritual ones). This isn't Coyne's reasoning for science/religion compatibility. You should know that.
Hume's problem of induction is no problem at all
Is it for any one of us? Is it a problem that maths cant prove maths or logic can't prove logic?
Apparently it is "unscientific" to say that something doesn't really say what it seems to say.
Context is everything here.
The other two points I don't know enough about so Ill refrain from comment. But its a far cry to compare Coyne to indulging in a Gish Gallop.
Oh and I have no intention in answering any response you make. So please be "fair" and "honest" by your academic standards.
No problem, Deepak. I'll take the victory of getting you to respond at al and leave the discussion to John.
# posted by : 2:15 PM
: 2:15 PM
Is there a reason for your statement other than implying that I or other gnu's upbraid random Catholics on the street?
Yes. I was emphasizing that this sort of rule applies to the situation at hand, a public academic debate. What rules apply elsewhere are a different question.
And if so , then why not any Catholic? And why only in a debate?
Because in a debate of this sort the theist has, himself, put the question in play. That doesn't mean it can't be used elsewhere but, then, the fairness/relevance has to be judged by the different situation ... such as whether a Catholic just met in the street should be upbraided with such arguments.
why is it unfair or dishonest to use your opponents words?
The issue was not whether or not you could use other peoples' words, of course you can. The issue was, if you know your opponent can't respond, quote mining his words (if that was what Coyne did ... I didn't check them) and tarring him with the acts of others, whether those are fair tactics in an academic debate. Saying its a "smart tactical move" doesn't justify it. Now I said I don't know if that was the case but I wonder how fair you'd view it if it was William Lane Craig doing it to Richard Dawkins.
Whether you believe that this relation is correlated or causal , it is a damning statistic.
You can't, as Coyne does, logically hold that the fact that some scientists are religious is irrelevant to the compatibility of science and religion and the fact that others are not religious demonstrates incompatibility ... at least without more. Mere handwaiving about "cognitive dissonance" is no better than creationists waiving at the supposed problems in radiometric dating. The statistic tells us nothing more than that a small subpopulation tends toward non-theism more than the general population does. And let's not forget that Coyne is representing himself as part of a rational community that doesn't make those kind of mistakes. When he does these kind of things he makes all rationalists look bad.
This isn't Coyne's reasoning for science/religion compatibility. You should know that.
Here is where he says it flat out:
But don't just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith — it's amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists.
In the same article, Coyne said:
But the existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science, doesn't prove that the two areas are compatible.
Yes. I was emphasizing that this sort of rule applies to the situation at hand, a public academic debate. What rules apply elsewhere are a different question.
And if so , then why not any Catholic? And why only in a debate?
Because in a debate of this sort the theist has, himself, put the question in play. That doesn't mean it can't be used elsewhere but, then, the fairness/relevance has to be judged by the different situation ... such as whether a Catholic just met in the street should be upbraided with such arguments.
why is it unfair or dishonest to use your opponents words?
The issue was not whether or not you could use other peoples' words, of course you can. The issue was, if you know your opponent can't respond, quote mining his words (if that was what Coyne did ... I didn't check them) and tarring him with the acts of others, whether those are fair tactics in an academic debate. Saying its a "smart tactical move" doesn't justify it. Now I said I don't know if that was the case but I wonder how fair you'd view it if it was William Lane Craig doing it to Richard Dawkins.
Whether you believe that this relation is correlated or causal , it is a damning statistic.
You can't, as Coyne does, logically hold that the fact that some scientists are religious is irrelevant to the compatibility of science and religion and the fact that others are not religious demonstrates incompatibility ... at least without more. Mere handwaiving about "cognitive dissonance" is no better than creationists waiving at the supposed problems in radiometric dating. The statistic tells us nothing more than that a small subpopulation tends toward non-theism more than the general population does. And let's not forget that Coyne is representing himself as part of a rational community that doesn't make those kind of mistakes. When he does these kind of things he makes all rationalists look bad.
This isn't Coyne's reasoning for science/religion compatibility. You should know that.
Here is where he says it flat out:
But don't just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith — it's amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists.
In the same article, Coyne said:
But the existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science, doesn't prove that the two areas are compatible.
... a far cry to compare Coyne to indulging in a Gish Gallop.
The point of a Gish Gallop is to throw out so much all at once that the opponent can't reasonably reply to everything. By his own admission in his talk, Coyne was throwing out everything he could in the time alloted. But he still stated that Haught was there to "defend himself". If Coyne had said that he was laying out everything he could in the time alloted and he knew that Haught couldn't possibly respond to everything he said and suggested that the audience go out and look for responses to all the arguments on their own, I'd have a lot more respect for him.
The point of a Gish Gallop is to throw out so much all at once that the opponent can't reasonably reply to everything. By his own admission in his talk, Coyne was throwing out everything he could in the time alloted. But he still stated that Haught was there to "defend himself". If Coyne had said that he was laying out everything he could in the time alloted and he knew that Haught couldn't possibly respond to everything he said and suggested that the audience go out and look for responses to all the arguments on their own, I'd have a lot more respect for him.
@John
Because in a debate of this sort the theist has, himself, put the question in play.
Well anyone who calls himself a Catholic has sort of put the question in play. Ken Miller appears in videos where he says how he is an orthodox Catholic while being a scientist. Is this question valid to him? Andrew Sullivan proudly proclaims his Catholicism. Is this question valid to him?
and tarring him with the acts of others, whether those are fair tactics in an academic debate.
But he didn't. Coyne pointed out official Catholic theology(no quote mining and no misrepresentation there) and a Catholic theologian must answer how one evaluates his version against the Vaticans and how can evaluate which one is correct. At no point did Coyne imply that Haught shares these views.
So much so for tarring Haught.
The statistic tells us nothing more than that a small subpopulation tends toward non-theism more than the general population does.
The damning part is the why(an opinion of course, not fact)? What makes scientists different(or philosophers for that matter)?
Again you know that Coyne does refer to epistemology when he talks about incompatibility. From your link the sense I get is that Coyne is saying that his isn't a fringe view(that a bunch of people like to imply) and other scientists too believe the same thing (if used to justify science / religion incompatibility then its an argument to authority and an argument ad populum but that's not what I think Coyne is doing).
But I do wonder why you don't issue similar condemnations when Eugenie Scott or Ken Miller or Francisco Ayala say similarly themed stuff.
But he still stated that Haught was there to "defend himself".
Ah so now the problem isn't with the talk per se, its with what Coyne said later? Again the sense with which I read that comment is Haught could speak to Coyne about any misrepresentations (and Haught does imply that he personally told Coyne some stuff though I don't know if that was later) - But you have your biases and I mine.
the audience go out and look for responses to all the arguments on their own,
Oh sure. Because the audience were kindergarten students who believed that both Coyne's and Haught's positions neatly fit into two twenty five minute intervals.
Because in a debate of this sort the theist has, himself, put the question in play.
Well anyone who calls himself a Catholic has sort of put the question in play. Ken Miller appears in videos where he says how he is an orthodox Catholic while being a scientist. Is this question valid to him? Andrew Sullivan proudly proclaims his Catholicism. Is this question valid to him?
and tarring him with the acts of others, whether those are fair tactics in an academic debate.
But he didn't. Coyne pointed out official Catholic theology(no quote mining and no misrepresentation there) and a Catholic theologian must answer how one evaluates his version against the Vaticans and how can evaluate which one is correct. At no point did Coyne imply that Haught shares these views.
So much so for tarring Haught.
The statistic tells us nothing more than that a small subpopulation tends toward non-theism more than the general population does.
The damning part is the why(an opinion of course, not fact)? What makes scientists different(or philosophers for that matter)?
Again you know that Coyne does refer to epistemology when he talks about incompatibility. From your link the sense I get is that Coyne is saying that his isn't a fringe view(that a bunch of people like to imply) and other scientists too believe the same thing (if used to justify science / religion incompatibility then its an argument to authority and an argument ad populum but that's not what I think Coyne is doing).
But I do wonder why you don't issue similar condemnations when Eugenie Scott or Ken Miller or Francisco Ayala say similarly themed stuff.
But he still stated that Haught was there to "defend himself".
Ah so now the problem isn't with the talk per se, its with what Coyne said later? Again the sense with which I read that comment is Haught could speak to Coyne about any misrepresentations (and Haught does imply that he personally told Coyne some stuff though I don't know if that was later) - But you have your biases and I mine.
the audience go out and look for responses to all the arguments on their own,
Oh sure. Because the audience were kindergarten students who believed that both Coyne's and Haught's positions neatly fit into two twenty five minute intervals.
Well anyone who calls himself a Catholic has sort of put the question in play.
So anyone who says s/he is an atheist has sort of put in play all the bad things atheists have done, ala Stalin?
Coyne pointed out official Catholic theology
It's official Catholic theology to give "Protection [to] priests who abuse children"? To "[Make] women second-class citizens"? To "[Instill] fear and guilt in children"? Coyne introduces that list by saying it is "John's own faith" that does these things. It is certainly arguable that the hierarchy of the Church or individual believers have done these things but Haught could fairly argue that they have nothing to do with his faith.
What makes scientists different
Quite possibly because people who are disposed to see the world as the result of impersonal forces are self-selecting for careers in science.
... the sense I get is that Coyne is saying that his isn't a fringe view ...
A supposedly rational person who insists on taking a very public position on such questions should be able to make himself clear enough that you don't have to resort to what you "sense" he is saying. He is not just talking to fellow Gnus (or, if he thinks he is, he doesn't understand what he is doing). I repeat, he is risking becoming a scandal to the faithless.
But I do wonder why you don't issue similar condemnations when Eugenie Scott or Ken Miller or Francisco Ayala say similarly themed stuff.
Well, I'd have to see examples to know what you are talking about. There are a number of reasons why Coyne shows up on my radar more than other people, however. He is a prominent Gnu who is very public in his attacks on religion. As one of the faithless myself, his failures will be attributed to me and, therefore, I have every interest in countering those failures, even if it is only through the few people who might read this blog. His failures are mostly of a philosophical sort, which I have a particular interest in. There is also a touch of the amusement involved in shooting fish in a barrel.
Ah so now the problem isn't with the talk per se, its with what Coyne said later?
No, that was it all along ... I had and have no particular problem (other than the philosophical failures pointed out) with Coyne's talk. TB pointed out certain aspects of what went on that I thought, if true, showed that Coyne had, perhaps, acted badly in the context of an academic debate/presentation. It's not anything I'm willing to pronounce judgment on but I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand and, therefore, I'll point out where such dismissals fail.
Because the audience were kindergarten students who believed that both Coyne's and Haught's positions neatly fit into two twenty five minute intervals.
Because, in an academic setting, you should acknowledge the limitations of your own presentation.
So anyone who says s/he is an atheist has sort of put in play all the bad things atheists have done, ala Stalin?
Coyne pointed out official Catholic theology
It's official Catholic theology to give "Protection [to] priests who abuse children"? To "[Make] women second-class citizens"? To "[Instill] fear and guilt in children"? Coyne introduces that list by saying it is "John's own faith" that does these things. It is certainly arguable that the hierarchy of the Church or individual believers have done these things but Haught could fairly argue that they have nothing to do with his faith.
What makes scientists different
Quite possibly because people who are disposed to see the world as the result of impersonal forces are self-selecting for careers in science.
... the sense I get is that Coyne is saying that his isn't a fringe view ...
A supposedly rational person who insists on taking a very public position on such questions should be able to make himself clear enough that you don't have to resort to what you "sense" he is saying. He is not just talking to fellow Gnus (or, if he thinks he is, he doesn't understand what he is doing). I repeat, he is risking becoming a scandal to the faithless.
But I do wonder why you don't issue similar condemnations when Eugenie Scott or Ken Miller or Francisco Ayala say similarly themed stuff.
Well, I'd have to see examples to know what you are talking about. There are a number of reasons why Coyne shows up on my radar more than other people, however. He is a prominent Gnu who is very public in his attacks on religion. As one of the faithless myself, his failures will be attributed to me and, therefore, I have every interest in countering those failures, even if it is only through the few people who might read this blog. His failures are mostly of a philosophical sort, which I have a particular interest in. There is also a touch of the amusement involved in shooting fish in a barrel.
Ah so now the problem isn't with the talk per se, its with what Coyne said later?
No, that was it all along ... I had and have no particular problem (other than the philosophical failures pointed out) with Coyne's talk. TB pointed out certain aspects of what went on that I thought, if true, showed that Coyne had, perhaps, acted badly in the context of an academic debate/presentation. It's not anything I'm willing to pronounce judgment on but I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand and, therefore, I'll point out where such dismissals fail.
Because the audience were kindergarten students who believed that both Coyne's and Haught's positions neatly fit into two twenty five minute intervals.
Because, in an academic setting, you should acknowledge the limitations of your own presentation.
So anyone who says s/he is an atheist has sort of put in play all the bad things atheists have done, ala Stalin?
You'll notice I said Catholic not Christian or religious believer.
"Protection [to] priests who abuse children"? To "[Make] women second-class citizens"? To "[Instill] fear and guilt in children"?
All of which are true.
Which one do you think is false?
that they have nothing to do with his faith.
Depends on how you interpret "his faith". The policies and actions of the church are his faith(i.e. the Roman Catholic faith) - and his beliefs are also his faith. Coyne's words fit the former.
As one of the faithless myself, his failures will be attributed to me
Ah so he's Stalin and you are some poor random non-believer? I thought you don't accept that line of reasoning?
You'll notice I said Catholic not Christian or religious believer.
"Protection [to] priests who abuse children"? To "[Make] women second-class citizens"? To "[Instill] fear and guilt in children"?
All of which are true.
Which one do you think is false?
that they have nothing to do with his faith.
Depends on how you interpret "his faith". The policies and actions of the church are his faith(i.e. the Roman Catholic faith) - and his beliefs are also his faith. Coyne's words fit the former.
As one of the faithless myself, his failures will be attributed to me
Ah so he's Stalin and you are some poor random non-believer? I thought you don't accept that line of reasoning?
Deepak Shetty, you might have a decent case for arguing that it is official Catholic theology for women to be treated as 2nd class citizens. The case for it being official Catholic theology to instill fear and guilt in children is dodgy, but you may be able to construct something halfway plausible. However, if you think that protecting child rapists is official Catholic theology, rather than a betrayal of Catholic morality as well as common secular ethics, then you have drunk the Gnu Atheist Kool-Aid far too deeply.
On a different note, did you notice that on the one hand, Coyne cited a survey (on slide 6) where 64% of Americans would reject a scientific fact if it conflicted with their faith, but that on the other hand, he complained (on slide 17) that religion would turn the parts of itself that conflicted with science into metaphor -- which basically amounts to, well, accommodating the religion to fit the science? I think that's nearly as inconsistent as the first Coyneism that you mentioned.
On a different note, did you notice that on the one hand, Coyne cited a survey (on slide 6) where 64% of Americans would reject a scientific fact if it conflicted with their faith, but that on the other hand, he complained (on slide 17) that religion would turn the parts of itself that conflicted with science into metaphor -- which basically amounts to, well, accommodating the religion to fit the science? I think that's nearly as inconsistent as the first Coyneism that you mentioned.
A fair analysis by verbose stoic
http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/the-haughtcoyne-debate/
http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/the-haughtcoyne-debate/
# posted by : 10:56 AM
: 10:56 AM
@J J Ramsey
However, if you think that protecting child rapists is official Catholic theology,
Perhaps you should spend some time reading what the current Pope says whose authority is paramount in such cases and the steps to be followed (that was official catholic theology , was it not?).
And combine that with what actually was done with priests who were known to rape children.
rather than a betrayal of Catholic morality
Who defines what is "Catholic morality"?.
However, if you think that protecting child rapists is official Catholic theology,
Perhaps you should spend some time reading what the current Pope says whose authority is paramount in such cases and the steps to be followed (that was official catholic theology , was it not?).
And combine that with what actually was done with priests who were known to rape children.
rather than a betrayal of Catholic morality
Who defines what is "Catholic morality"?.
@J J Ramsey
that religion would turn the parts of itself that conflicted with science into metaphor
How is it inconsistent ? upto 36%(not necessarily all) of the religious could do this and Coyne would be consistent.
The common example is ofcourse Genesis.
Large number of religious christians (Creationists,ID'ers) reject evolution due to this (Hence slide 6)
Some of the remainder still say that Adam and Eve literal and evolution is true(e.g. Feser)
Some of the remainder say Genesis has deeper truths and is a metaphor and allegory (e.g. Sullivan and various accomodationists Slide 17) and ha ha how silly to take it literally (even though thats how every bible editor and most people took it)
And few christians treat Genesis as it should be (e.g. Spong)
what's inconsistent?
that religion would turn the parts of itself that conflicted with science into metaphor
How is it inconsistent ? upto 36%(not necessarily all) of the religious could do this and Coyne would be consistent.
The common example is ofcourse Genesis.
Large number of religious christians (Creationists,ID'ers) reject evolution due to this (Hence slide 6)
Some of the remainder still say that Adam and Eve literal and evolution is true(e.g. Feser)
Some of the remainder say Genesis has deeper truths and is a metaphor and allegory (e.g. Sullivan and various accomodationists Slide 17) and ha ha how silly to take it literally (even though thats how every bible editor and most people took it)
And few christians treat Genesis as it should be (e.g. Spong)
what's inconsistent?
"upto 36%(not necessarily all) of the religious could do this and Coyne would be consistent."
You misread. Coyne is saying that religious believers are being incompatible with science when then treat, for example, the creation stories in Genesis as metaphor.
"Who defines what is 'Catholic morality'?"
One would define Catholic morality in the same way that one would define Jewish morality or Hindu morality or Confucian morality.
That the pope considered child rape as something shameful to be hidden, or something to be blamed on others, makes it pretty clear that it's something that's not supposed to be a part of either Catholic morality or theology.
You misread. Coyne is saying that religious believers are being incompatible with science when then treat, for example, the creation stories in Genesis as metaphor.
"Who defines what is 'Catholic morality'?"
One would define Catholic morality in the same way that one would define Jewish morality or Hindu morality or Confucian morality.
That the pope considered child rape as something shameful to be hidden, or something to be blamed on others, makes it pretty clear that it's something that's not supposed to be a part of either Catholic morality or theology.
@J J Ramsey
That the pope considered child rape as something shameful to be hidden
Go by the actions , not by words. For e.g. a reasonable response to Child Rape cases would have been. "We report it to the police, we fully cooperate with them , we see that the perpetrators are severely punished. We take steps to prevent it from happening again"
Instead we get rambling missives that most priests interpreted as "keep it within the church" and indeed its what they did. We have examples of "punishment" that involve reassigning the perpetrators.
To then imply that the behavior of the Vatican is "betraying Catholic morality" when the Vatican is the adjudicator of what constitutes Catholic morality is stupid.
Note "Catholic" morality is not the same as Christian morality. Again at no point do I mean that a random Catholic in any way supports what has happened.
That the pope considered child rape as something shameful to be hidden
Go by the actions , not by words. For e.g. a reasonable response to Child Rape cases would have been. "We report it to the police, we fully cooperate with them , we see that the perpetrators are severely punished. We take steps to prevent it from happening again"
Instead we get rambling missives that most priests interpreted as "keep it within the church" and indeed its what they did. We have examples of "punishment" that involve reassigning the perpetrators.
To then imply that the behavior of the Vatican is "betraying Catholic morality" when the Vatican is the adjudicator of what constitutes Catholic morality is stupid.
Note "Catholic" morality is not the same as Christian morality. Again at no point do I mean that a random Catholic in any way supports what has happened.
@J J Ramsey.
Say you believe that the age of the earth is 6000 years. Say that sometime later science proves the earth is billions of years old.
Is it "scientific" , when faced with the above to conclude that a "year" is a different unit of time as used normally and that 6000 God years actually correspond to, metaphorically speaking, to the current age of the earth? You can call it philosophy , theology or whatever but you can't call it scientific , can you?
Say you believe that the age of the earth is 6000 years. Say that sometime later science proves the earth is billions of years old.
Is it "scientific" , when faced with the above to conclude that a "year" is a different unit of time as used normally and that 6000 God years actually correspond to, metaphorically speaking, to the current age of the earth? You can call it philosophy , theology or whatever but you can't call it scientific , can you?
All of which are true.
Which one do you think is false?
But they are not what you called "official Catholic theology."
Ah so he's Stalin and you are some poor random non-believer? I thought you don't accept that line of reasoning?
But you and Coyne do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be doing it to Haught. At least some theists will do the same thing with Coyne's failures. Haught wanted (he says) an opportunity to counter that kind of attribution. I have my blog to do it with Coyne.
Which one do you think is false?
But they are not what you called "official Catholic theology."
Ah so he's Stalin and you are some poor random non-believer? I thought you don't accept that line of reasoning?
But you and Coyne do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be doing it to Haught. At least some theists will do the same thing with Coyne's failures. Haught wanted (he says) an opportunity to counter that kind of attribution. I have my blog to do it with Coyne.
But they are not what you called "official Catholic theology."
How the Church reasons and arrives at its position is official theology. The fact that the Church thinks it's rules override secular ones is official isn't it?
But you and Coyne do.
Not really (atleast for me). The question asked of Haught is "if his morality is so very different from the Catholic church, why doesn't he just leave?"
And "why does he shore up a corrupt institution with his time and money?"
That is the only sense in which I assign any "responsibility" to Haught.
"As one of the faithless myself, his failures will be attributed to me ..."
Though not by this theist.
"There is also a touch of the amusement involved in shooting fish in a barrel."
I'm so glad to know I'm not the only one who indulges himself from time to time in that sport.
Though not by this theist.
"There is also a touch of the amusement involved in shooting fish in a barrel."
I'm so glad to know I'm not the only one who indulges himself from time to time in that sport.
# posted by : 11:11 PM
: 11:11 PM
DS: "Ah so he's Stalin and you are some poor random non-believer? I thought you don't accept that line of reasoning?"
"But you and Coyne do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be doing it to Haught."
But, but, but, but it's OK when Coyne and DS do it cuz they're on the right side!
"But you and Coyne do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be doing it to Haught."
But, but, but, but it's OK when Coyne and DS do it cuz they're on the right side!
# posted by : 11:13 PM
: 11:13 PM
hermes belt for sale
michael kors
longchamp sale
yeezy sneakers
patriots jersey
yeezy boost 350 v2
air jordan shoes
nike huarache
michael kors factory outlet
reebok shoes
michael kors
longchamp sale
yeezy sneakers
patriots jersey
yeezy boost 350 v2
air jordan shoes
nike huarache
michael kors factory outlet
reebok shoes
kobe 11
new balance
longchamp outlet
basketball shoes
belstaff jackets
michael kors outlet
flops
ralph lauren
kevin durant shoes
nike outlet
chenlina20180406
new balance
longchamp outlet
basketball shoes
belstaff jackets
michael kors outlet
flops
ralph lauren
kevin durant shoes
nike outlet
chenlina20180406
kyrie 7
bape clothing
birkin bag
a bathing ape
cheap jordans
jordan shoes
kd shoes
moncler
hermes belt
lebron shoes
Post a Comment
bape clothing
birkin bag
a bathing ape
cheap jordans
jordan shoes
kd shoes
moncler
hermes belt
lebron shoes
<< Home
