Here's the Coyne/Haught religion/science debate video

[Silent3]

http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/GainesCenter/2011_boone_video.html

I haven't watched it yet myself, so I'll have to comment later. I figured in was better to post the video in a new thread rather than confusing the issue by putting it in a thread that might lead one to believe the video wasn't available.

[Silent3]

1. I've gotten through Haught's presentation...

...and I certainly wasn't impressed. That must mean I'm not making enough effort to understand it, and that I'm not letting myself be "open" to it. :eyes:

[cleanhippie]

2. You need to brush off your "other ways of knowing" skills...

:rofl:

[humblebum]

8. Hippie says they don't exist, therefore they don't exist. That's the reasoning

of a confirmed atheist. Enough said.

[Silent3]

10. It's a question of whether there's a *good reason* to believe...

...they exist, and absent a good reason if there's any sense in acting as if these "other ways of knowing" anyway, especially since many people who claim "other ways of knowing" purport to obtain vastly different and often contradictory knowledge.

I think you must know the above distinction, but time and time again you refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Why do you insist on blurring the distinction between strong doubt in a thing with insistence that said thing absolutely does not and cannot exist?

Do you actually not understand that distinction?

Have you decided that no matter what anyone says, if they make that distinction it's just "weasel words", and boy oh boy, you aren't gonna let 'em get away with it, you're gonna show 'em how you see right through their tricks?

[humblebum]

11. One strong reason is that I left the atheist 'fold', so to speak,

years ago when in college, when I realized just how narrowly focused their definition of "reason" truly was/is. Coyne makes several logical fallacies in his defense of atheism, least of which is his appeal to numbers, i.e. 90+% of scientists are atheists. All that really says is that such a percentage of scientists are dependent on what is generally described as logical positivism, a scientific philosophy. By its own admission it does not deny the existence of anything beyond that which can be observed or experienced, it merely does not consider such. IOW, narrowly focused (for a specific purpose) and limited.

Do you actually not understand that distinction?

[Silent3]

12. You answer my questions, then I'll answer yours.

If you consider your response an answer to what I asked, I do not. Try short, direct answers first, with explanations if you feel them necessary afterward. Please don't play the game of supplying only indirect answers so that you can conveniently lay the blame on me for failing to grasp your wisdom.

[Silent3]

17. It is not a fallacy to offer supportive evidence

If one put forth the argument, "90% of scientists are atheists, therefore atheism is true and religion is false", that would indeed be a fallacy. But Coyne did not do that, did he? You are so fond of straw men that it seems to be an internal mental process for you -- it's as if the things you disagree with turn into the straw men you present before you even have a chance yourself to consider any original non-caricatured argument.

The high level of atheism among scientists, however, certainly does strongly suggest that religion is not compatible with science. If scientists are "dependent on what is generally described as logical positivism" (not entirely accurate if one is strict about philosophical terminology) it would be because that philosophy is what makes science work best, and still leaves those highly atheistic scientists in the position of being good authorities on what is and isn't compatible with science.

Do you actually not understand that distinction?

The distinction between what and what? Between considering something and denying it? Between what you're calling "narrow focus" and something else? You'll have to make the question more clear.

As for "focus": In a dark room with one tiny light, there may be many places you can direct your eyes, and plenty of unknowns hiding in the darkness where you can't see, but the only place you can focus is on the light. To focus on the light is not to deny that there are other things waiting to be seen, there's simply nothing else that can be brought into focus. Science has done a far better job of being like that kind of metaphorical light than religion ever has.

[humblebum]

13. It's not really even a question of whether there is a reason to believe.

It is obvious that many do find a convincing reason to believe. As far as "other ways of knowing", again it is not a matter whether or not atheists consider them to be valid. I certainly do, and many subjective forms of reasoning are used every day, everywhere. It then becomes a question of why atheists, both strong and weak atheists, find it necessary to openly ridicule those who do not hold such narrow POV's. That is the atheist's business, but when ridicule enters the picture, it needs to be challenged.

"Why do you insist on blurring the distinction between strong doubt in a thing with insistence that said thing absolutely does not and cannot exist?" I don't. I am quite aware of the difference and have seen both opinions expressed several times here.

[Silent3]

18. The topic of the debate in the OP is the compatibility of science and religion

Do you consider arguing that science and religion aren't compatible a form of ridicule? If it isn't inherently ridicule, do you believe that any presentation of reasons while science and religion aren't compatible must be delivered only with the greatest delicacy and fawning respect for religious believers who might otherwise take offense?

It is obvious that many do find a convincing reason to believe.

So obvious in fact that one has to wonder why you even bother to mention this, since I know of no one who has disputed this fact. Of course, I have to take the word "convincing" to mean "personally convincing to the person who believes" for the statement to qualify as obvious. It is a very weak form of "convincing".

I certainly do, and many subjective forms of reasoning are used every day, everywhere.

So you'd like to define religion as nothing more than a "subjective form of reasoning"?

[skepticscott]

14. You can't provide any evidence that

they exist, despite having been given numerous opportunities to provide it, therefore we don't accept that they do. That's the reasoning of a confirmed rational person.

'Nuff said.

[humblebum]

16. All philosophers, scientists, theologians, and thinkers in general

are logical positivists. -SARCASM- There are no other epistemologies or methods. That is the conclusion of your statement. Brilliant. When you eliminate any other "way of knowing", that's the only possibility. The sharp one you are! And don't let anyone say otherwise.

[skepticscott]

19. Show me where I "eliminate"

any other way of knowing. You can't, because you made that up out of thin air, too (you're a regular straw man factory).

Until you demonstrate those other "ways of knowing" and the objective knowledge and understanding that they produce, your claim of their existence is just so much blather and hot air.

[Silent3]

3. Having watched both sides now, I have to ask...

...is there anyone here who is actually impressed by Haught's presentation? Who thinks he was compelling and persuasive?

Can anyone find anything to object to in what Coyne said, something that isn't merely critical of his "tone", something more than a vague accusation that Coyne "just doesn't get it"?

I think it's a bit more than mere self-serving confirmation bias to believe that my predictions of what this video would be like when I finally got to see it were fairly much on target.

There is a bit of philosophical contradiction I have to swallow here, however.

While I personally think arguments like Haught's about the supposed compatibility of science and religion are weak, I know it would be harmful if religious people interested in the sciences felt like they were being excluded from the sciences, or forced to give up their faith in order to pursue the study of science. Peaceful, civil functioning of society and the importance of taking advantage of the scientific skills of everyone willing to develop those skills means having to have the sciences fully open to believers and non-believers alike. That openness in turn requires giving weak arguments like NOMA, or what Haught provides in this video, a pass with a wink and a nod, at least in some contexts.

[trotsky]

4. I suspect you will be waiting a long time for a response. n/t

[struggle4progress]

5. It's surprisingly uninformative. Haught spends most of his time explaining his own views

of Christianity, and I myself don't see how those views could have any negative impact on science, since they really don't intersect much with science, but Haught doesn't really explain that in much detail. Then Coyne takes the floor and manages, in my opinion, to say very little of relevance to the issue either, though he manages to run through a number of the stereotype talking points that we all know from this forum

My own view would be that the burden of proof lies with anyone, who claims there is an essential contradiction, in this case Coyne

Coyne does a passable job of laying out, in a popular and superficial way, the notion that observation and theory-building are elements of scientific method, and points out quite correctly that supernatural explanations and irrationality ought to have no part in this process. And I would agree that anyone who wants to appeal to supernaturalities or ultimate purpose, in a scientific paper, ought to be laughed out of the room, as should anyone who wants to pretend to do as science anything that reduces essentially to things unobservable. But Coyne is not content to stop there: he thinks that anyone who makes the slightest concession to irrationality in any aspect of life, or who has any notion of ultimate purpose, or who discusses things unobservable, thereby forfeits forever in every scientific venue any right to be taken seriously -- even if they did not themselves bring such matters into any strictly scientific discussion. This is an intolerant demand for ideological purity beyond the realm of science, IMO: taken seriously, Coyne's view would mean anyone who found a painting or musical piece to be emotionally meaningful would forefeit any right to do science, as would anyone who thought his/her life had some meaning, or anyone interested in mathematical ideas not testable by experiment

Coyne exhibits a kinship with the religious fundamentalists by arguing that anyone who accepts the Bible must accept stories like Adam and Eve literally. Now, in fact, there is a very very long history of non-literal readings of these texts, as I have pointed out repeatedly by posts in this forum. So, for example, Coyne's contention, that all the religious folk believed in a literal six day creation until the scientists disabused of the notion, simply isn't historically factual. Coyne wants to make this point loudly, because it is his contention that people, by believing some things on faith, render themselves incompetent to do or understand any science whatsoever. Here, again, his ideology gets the better of him: even in the sciences, people take for granted most of what they are told, while investigating something in particular in great detail. Moreover, even a great scientific luminary like Newton could make enormous progress in his chosen field, while remaining quite credulous in matters outside his expertise: Newton, in fact, seems to have been something of a Biblical literalist, and while I do not find his Biblical views convincing in any way, I think it would be grossly idiotic to think that those bizarre views nullified the significance of his Principia

Coyne further points out some abuses within the church, such as the pedophile scandals. It would be natural to retort tu quoque here, since the scientific community has never been free of liars and perverts either; but I think it would be more appropriate to say that it is off-topic and a miserable exhibit of guilt-by-association to boot. One could, I suppose, point to the experiments of Nazi scientists who carefully suffocated Russian prisoners-of-war in vaccuum chambers or froze them to death in icy water, in any attempt to understand how to save German airmen at high altitude or German sailors plunged into the North Sea; and one could claim that such experiments discredited all of science; but that would be a vacuous argument for exactly the same reason Coyne's argument is vacuous

I could go on, but I think the above will convey the general flavor and quality of the talks

[trotsky]

6. I think you have greatly misstated Coyne's position.

But I can't say whether it was deliberate or not.

And I wonder why, if Coyne was so unreasonable and his arguments so without merit, Haught was still resisting the release of the video.

[Silent3]

9. "...anyone who found a painting or musical piece to be emotionally meaningful

...would forefeit any right to do science, as would anyone who thought his/her life had some meaning, or anyone interested in mathematical ideas not testable by experiment"

You think THIS is the logical consequence of what Coyne said? And you have the nerve to get on Coyne's case about "burden of proof" after pulling that out of your ass?

[humblebum]

7. After watching the video, I am as convinced as ever that science and religious belief

are indeed compatible within the human experience, but that they must remain and exist in their own respective "spheres" of existence in order maintain their relevance and benefit to humanity. However, to flatly state that one, or the other, is unquestionably wrong or doesn't even exist is ignorant of the extent of human reasoning and perception beyond the senses, and self-deluded.

[skepticscott]

15. Can you cite anyone, anywhere

who has said that religious belief doesn't even exist? Or is this just another idiotic straw man?