tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1255828131534786398..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Haught vs Coyne: "Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?"Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25314660175103665772011-11-06T09:13:15.308-05:002011-11-06T09:13:15.308-05:00Maybe I didn't listen carefully, but it seems,...Maybe I didn't listen carefully, but it seems, that John Haught's only argument for compatibility of religion and science is that you may put some meaning into what you read (it's that "other kind of evidence") - i.e. you can make stuff up.<br /><br />But you can put any meaning into any book you want. And if you can imagine whatever you want, how it could bring you closer to truth?Arek W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63975069376728236772011-11-05T04:01:32.089-04:002011-11-05T04:01:32.089-04:00I think the key is the "IF THE MULTIPLE LAYER...I think the key is the "IF THE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF EXPLANATION ACTUALLY EXIST". Science and religion are compatible in the sense that one can conceptualise a scenario in which a deity exists and science does not know/care. I believe it's called Deism. One can conceptualise them, yes, but conceptualisation does not make them true. The important thing is that not ALL religion is compatible with science and, for me at the least, the religions that ARE compatible are largely pointless and irrelevant. <br /><br />I'm yet to watch the video (although I will) but it sounds like Haught knows this and is playing the game of talking about a deist-like non-interventionist god, while at the same time trying to imply that is is also true for other religious positions, such as Catholicism. He gets caught on this in the Q&A and has to reject Catholicism (in essence, if not explcitily) to maintain his position. It is right to attack his defence of universal compatibility and force him to explicitly recognise that not all religions - including most of the major ones - are compatible with science.<br /><br />On the other hand, I think the atheists need to be careful too. In "The God Delusion", Dawkins defines "God" (and hence religion) in a very particular way - Deist gods are excluded. (Who cares, or can say anything, about a god that does nothing?) This is useful for such a book and enables reference simply to "god" or "religion" but when targeting the wider population with the notion that "religion and science are incompatible", one has to remember that this is only true for some (albeit probably most) religion. Otherwise, one paints oneself into an uncomfortable corner where on has to start attacking legitimate (if pointless) positions to maintain an over-zealous statement. (As I say, I have not seen the video yet, so I am not suggesting Coyne does this. I have seen it happen on discussion boards etc. though.)Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29803439706377658682011-11-05T00:20:05.924-04:002011-11-05T00:20:05.924-04:00The argument is nuts.
There is only one level tha...The argument is nuts.<br /><br />There is only one level that is correct to answer on, and that is on the level one thinks the question is applying to.<br /><br />That is, when someone enters the house and ask "why is the water boiling ?", they do not want the scientific answer - they want to know why THERE IS water on the boil. <br />The only correct way to answer, of course, is to state why someone wanted some boiling water - an answer to do with intent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51496827372540573692011-11-04T20:56:42.492-04:002011-11-04T20:56:42.492-04:00I just watched the Q&A, and was very confused ...I just watched the Q&A, and was very confused at the end, when Haught said he didn't believe any of the standard doctrines of Christianity that Jerry mentioned. Haught should clearly be excommunicated, which is probably why he avoids actually saying clearly what he does and doesn't believe. I think that Larry's right, Haught's just a deist. He's a desist who has spent so much time identifying with the Catholic Church that he has too much to lose by going public with the fact that he doesn't believe any of the things they say a member of their church must believe. It's very annoying that he won't be honest. I think this is the true mark of sophisticated theologians, telling us that they don't believe in any of the literal stuff, but then not telling us what they do believe. It's extremely dishonest, and possibly even cowardly. I wish these people would just clearly state what it is that they do believe...Chris Slabynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63486092293340324002011-11-04T14:21:41.513-04:002011-11-04T14:21:41.513-04:00Whoa... Haught consented to release the video? The...Whoa... Haught consented to release the video? The fact that he put up such a fight to prevent it from being released should say more than the debate itself ever could.Mike Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097261108461657167noreply@blogger.com