elfs | The Coyne/Haught Talk: I can understand the pearl-clutching!

So those of you who don't have regular access to the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (our motto: "What Black Helicopters?") have probably not heard about the great Jerry Coyne / John Haught kerfluffle. Haught is a famous theologian who has made his reputation by arguing for (that's important) the validity of evolution, but then turning around and arguing that philosophical naturalism (the premise that there is nothing "supernatural" with interest in our universe or with the capacity to meddle in it) is a limited point of view. He argued for the plaintiffs (i.e. against the so-called "intelligent design" proponents) in the infamous Dover Board of Education case, the one that ruled "intelligent design" to be a religious belief and not a valid topic for public [school] funding.

Jerry Coyne, on the other hand, is a well-known evolutionary biologist with more than a dozen books on the topic, as well as the various peer-reviewed papers and popular magazine articles by the score. He, too, argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in Dover.

Coyne and Haught agreed to have a debate (it was more like two lectures side-by-side, in which each knew in advance the position the other was going to take) on the validity of religion.

Haught's half hour is, well, to my untrained ear, blather. It's new-age blather about ultimate truths (which you can't know), and levels of reality, and the excuse that a dog can't understand a book, but a child can understand the words and narrative, and an adult can understand theme and nuance, and Haught makes the point that maybe (maybe!) there's more to reality than we can understand.

After the video was taken (wait, I hear you say, what about Coyne? I'm getting to that.), Haught refused to release it. After a loud protest from the interwebs, Haught relented, but not before saying,

I’m still in shock at how your presentation ended up. I was so offended both personally and as an academic by the vulgarity of it all that I did not want other people to have to share what I witnessed that night in October. Rather than answering my point that scientism is logically incoherent–which is really the main issue–and instead of addressing my argument that the encounter with religious truth requires personal transformation, or for that matter instead of responding to any of the other points I made, you were content to use most of your time to ridicule several isolated quotes from my books. I was absolutely astounded by your woeful lack of insight into, or willingness to grapple with, the real meaning of these passages.

That's some grade-a clutching of the pearls, and I can understand why.

Because Coyne didn't come with an acceptance of Haught's premises. He was "pugnacious" but hardly vulgar. I think the closest he came to a vulgarity all night was "whit." Instead, he starts out with two premises of his own: first, In religion, faith is a virtue. In science, faith is a vice., and second, When one method of discerning reality does not work and has never worked, and another not only consistently works but extends your grasp, you tend to favor one over the other. Philosophical naturalism, Coyne argues, is the logical outcome of the efficacy of methodological naturalism. Coyne makes points about the incompatibility of faith and science, and yes, they can have a monologue-- faith can sit there and listen to science tell it time and time again how it gets things wrong, but faith can't point to anything concrete and say, "Here's where I get things right that you can't grasp."

Basically, Coyne walked in as a scientist into a lecture that was supposed to be between theologians. They have different standards. For theological debates, you can disagree about particulars, but you never, ever attack the premises. Coyne showed that Haught's premises depend upon what he's trying to say and when he's saying them. Haught has no intellectual honesty behind his words. Of course he's horrified. Coyne vilified him in the public square, called him a liar to his face-- albeit politely.

Watch for yourself. You'll see what I mean.