Evrim ve İnanç
Georgetown Üniversitesi’nde ilahiyat (teoloji) profesörü olan John F. Haught yarın bizim okulda “Evrim ve İnanç” (Evolution and Faith) başlıklı bir konuşma yapacak.
Birkaç gündür heyecanla bu konuşmayı bekliyorum. John F. Haught daha önceden tanıdığım bir ilahiyatçı değil, fakat okulda konuşma yapacağını duyunca hakkında biraz birşeyler okudum. Wikipedia’nın dediğine göre uzmanlık alanı sistematik ilahiyat olan Haught özellikle bilim, kozmoloji, ekoloji ve evrim ile dini uzlaştırma konularıyla ilgileniyormuş. Tahmin edebileceğiniz gibi Haught, bilim (özellikle evrim) ve din konularında pek çok kitabın da yazarı.
Bugün, bulunduğum labdan 50 metre ötedeki nefis kütüphanede Haught’a ait en azından bir kitap olacağı düşüncesinin beynimde belirmesinden 3 dakika sonra kütüphanenin 4. katında kitapları koklarken buldum kendimi. Kitapların tozu alerjimi azdırdı, biraz hapşırdım, neyse ki etrafta rahatsız olacak kimse yoktu. BT712 H377 Haught’a ait kitaplardan biriydi fakat aradığım kitabı değildi malesef. Bununla birlikte, bu kitabın etrafı Darwin, evrim, bilim, Hıristiyanlık, tanrı, yaradılışçılık konularının ortaya bir karışık olarak sunulduğu kitaplar ile çevrilmişti. Şu anda o kitaplar (yukarıdaki fotoğrafta da görüldüğü üzere) evdeki çalışma masam üzerinde bulunuyorlar.
Kütüphanenin rahat koltuklarına yayılıp bu kitaplara göz atarken, aylardır birkaç kere “pek yakında bilim ve din hakkında bir yazı yazacağım” dediğim halde söz konusu yazıyı bir türlü yazamadığım geldi aklıma. Şimdilik o benim kafamda şekillenmeye devam etsin, ama ben en azından yarınki konuşmadan sonra size konuşmanın ilginç noktalarını aktarma sözü vereyim. Bu arada siz de Haught ile yapılan bir söyleşinin videosunu buradan izleyebilirsiniz (İngilizce) – ben henüz izlemedim.
Barus said,
Aralık 7, 2008 @ 09:11
Nassi gecti konusma, neler dedi?
Ne sordun ne soyledi???
Düygü said,
Aralık 8, 2008 @ 06:03
Yarın yazacağım yazısını umuyorum :)
riemann said,
Aralık 8, 2008 @ 16:02
deneme?
Tiffany said,
Kasım 11, 2014 @ 07:42
, he claimed Coyne’s ptonesratien was an offence to his sensibilities as a logician. He called it vulgar , monstrous , tasteless , etc.. It was really a three page ad hominem attack on Coyne, flinging up straw man after straw man. (For example, at one point he tries to claim that Coyne listed the crimes of the Roman Catholic Church to discredit accommodationism, which is ridiculous. Coyne is quite clear in the ptonesratien about why he did it: after having already discredited accommodationism, he listed the crimes as an example of what happens if accommodationism is taken seriously regardless.)I have seen no obvious lie.Oh, but I can point out some obvious lies.Let’s start with . Ah, here’s a good start: to begin with, he accuses Coyne of misleading statements where Coyne falsely assume(s) that he agreed to post the video. Now, we read , and where are these misleading statements? Hmm.Or, here’s another one. Haught claims that Coyne didn’t answer his point that scientism is logically incoherent (and, instead, made fun of him). You’ve watched the video, right? Did Haught even once mention the word scientism (I honestly don’t know I’d have to rewatch it I know he did in the questions, but Coyne had already answered that challenge during his ptonesratien and later in the Q&A)? Did he present anything approaching a point about scientism being logically incoherent? Seems to me that he spent his entire ptonesratien describing his hierarchical model of theology, and the need for purpose in the universe (and then, had the whole thing completely undercut by Coyne’s ptonesratien) but never made any point about scientism being incoherent (and, in fact, never even justifying his own model, let along discussing the problems in any others, such as scientism).I could go on, but the main point to make is that, yes, you’re not assuming Haught is a liar but to do that you’re ignoring the large body of evidence that suggests that he is. You’re making up excuses and justifications, some of which bizarrely seem to assume that Haught is some kind of innocent idiot (he agreed to record the debate, but never thought the video would be published?!?) while others assume that everyone else involved conspired to ambush him, rather than accepting the obvious reality that he’s just being childish. Why? What’s so hard to accept about the assumption that someone would act that childish? You accuse me of having Ben Stein logic because I’m looking for a conspiracy . No, actually, what I’m doing is saying that Haught appears to have acted childishly, and all evidence supports that hypothesis, therefore he probably did act childishly, which is hardly that shocking a conclusion you are the one making up alternative theories (complete with your own manufactured facts that defy the actual facts).You do realize that for your model of what happened to be valid:Haught would have to be an idiot (for agreeing to video the public performance, while never realizing the intention was to publish the video, despite the fact that the other debates in the series had their videos published).Haught would have to have valid reasons for thinking the debate wasn’t up to his academic standards but then, for some strange reason (you tell me!), he has decided to withhold those reasons and instead offer some amazingly lame excuses instead.Coyne and the event organizers would have had to have conspired to dupe Haught into taking part into this unacademic event despite the fact that Haught was the one who invited Coyne in the first place.Yet, I am the conspiracy theorist? Ben Stein logic is saying that the most obvious conclusion given the facts is probably the truth? Interesting; I wouldn’t have expected such a positive appraisal of Stein’s intellectual faculties on Canadian Atheist.I don’t assume people I disagree with are evil.Nor do I, but I don’t refuse to admit they’re dishonest when the evidence clearly suggests that they are. I also don’t make up evidence that they’re not dishonest, or make efforts to imply that everyone else involved in the affair is dishonest.No, actually, I compared the feeling of being ambushed. And, if you watch the video, you will see Coyne focuses quite a lot of his barbs directly at Haught, not just the discipline of theology. It was very much a personal attack, if not entirely ad hominem in every sesnse.You compared the feeling of being ambushed by suggesting that he was ambushed. How else could he reasonably have the feeling of being ambushed ? Unless you’re saying he just felt ambushed for no good reason?Frankly, I didn’t see what you saw. I saw one slide I thought was not really all that relevant one about Catholic crimes but everything else was not barbs at Haught, but rather at his claims. Which, really, is the point. You like Dawkins quotes, well, here’s a relevant one: Coyne’s ptonesratien was a paragon of clarity, not shrillness, and certainly not militancy. Pointing out the inconsistency and internal contradictions in Haught’s arguments is not attacking Haught; Coyne’s thesis is that science and religion cannot coexist, and any attempt to mix them won’t work, so showing that Haught can’t even manage it (despite claiming he can) is fair game. He was not attacking Haught personally, he was attacking Haught’s claims. Naturally, he picked those claims out of Haught’s books, rather than his ptonesratien, because he didn’t see the ptonesratien beforehand. But he very clearly, very meticulously and very effectively deconstructed the entire field of science-religion accommodationism, using Haught as the primary example with Haught there to defend himself, if he could (which he couldn’t, so instead he resorted to making ridiculous claims about Coyne). How is that a personal attack? It was exactly what Coyne was asked to do argue against any relationship between science and religion done with crystal clarity, backed up with evidence, and all of it done using Haught as the source, so that Haught could correct any mistakes on the spot.The fact that Haught took it as a personal attack is hardly surprising. Any time a religious person’s views and claims are deconstructed they take it as a personal attack. We see that all the time: merely claiming it is possible to be good without God is called a malicious, direct and personal attack on religious people, who fall over themselves to have ads and billboards making that statement buried. Gee, that sure sounds a lot like what Haught is doing, doesn’t it? As I said, this is hardly conspiracy thinking this is standard behaviour. This happens all the time, and the only thing notable about this case is that Haught is supposed to be an academic, which means he’s supposed to be held to higher standards.The fact that you think it was a personal attack is surprising. Which part, exactly, was a personal attack on Haught?Since you misrepresented it, I can see why you feel that way. But as Dawkin’s likes to say, you don’t have a right to not be offended. Oh well.I didn’t say I was offended, I said it was offensive. It’s to Coyne to feel offended at being compared to liars, not me. I just think it’s a sleazy thing to do. I also never claimed or even implied a right to be offended.But, since you misrepresented me, I can understand why you feel that way. Oh, well.