Theologian John Haught refuses to release video of our debate

November 1, 2011 • 4:46 am

UPDATE:  I have received an email from Dr. Rabel, asserting that I have instigated people to write him emails, and claiming that some of those emails have been abusive, calling him a coward and so on.  I did not of course ask readers to write any emails, nor did I provide any email addresses.  But if you write to Rabel or Haught on your own initiative, please be polite!  There is no point in name-calling in such emails; the issue is one of free inquiry, and if you expect to achieve a result (and you won’t anyway, I suspect), you have to be polite.  Anyway, Rabel has threatened legal action against me, so don’t make it worse!

_____________

This is the story of the cowardly and intellectually dishonest actions of a theologian—one who is suppressing release of a video that shows the lameness of his religious beliefs. It’s also the story of an academic center supposedly dedicated to fostering open debate, but actually complicit in suppressing that debate.

On October 12 at the University of Kentucky, I debated Catholic theologian John Haught from Georgetown University on the topic of “Are science and religion compatible?” It was a lively debate, and I believe I got the better of the man (see my post-debate report here).  Haught didn’t seem to have prepared for the debate, merely rolling out his tired old trope of a “layered” universe, with the layer of God and Jesus underlying the reality of the cosmos, life, and evolution.  I prepared pretty thoroughly, reading half a dozen of Haught’s books (you need read only one: they’re all the same), and watching all his previous debates on YouTube. (Note that he’s sanctioned release of those videos.)

Haught seemed to have admitted his loss, at least judging by the audience reaction, but blamed it on the presence of “Jerry’s groupies,” an explanation I found offensive.  I’m not aware of any groupies anywhere, much less in Kentucky!

The debate, including half an hour of audience questions, was videotaped.  Both John and I had given our permission in advance for the taping.  I looked forward to the release of the tape because, of course, I wanted a wider audience for my views than just the people in the audience in Lexington.  I put a lot of work into my 25-minute talk, and was eager for others to see why I found science and religion to be at odds.

Well, you’re not going to see that tape—ever.  After agreeing to be taped, Haught decided that he didn’t want the video released.  Here’s what happened:

  • Dr. Robert Rabel, head of the Gaines Center for the Humanities, which sponsored the debate, informed me on Sunday that Haught had requested that he did not want the video posted. Note that Haught had already agreed to be taped, so his appeal that it not be made public was a post facto decision. 
  • Rabel decides to honor Haught’s request on the grounds that he didn’t get permission from Haught in advance to post the video.  I find this bizarre because the whole idea of taping the event is to make the debate more public, and because previous debates in this series have been posted.  The idea of posting is implicit when one agrees to be taped, and, believe me, I would not have gone back on that agreement even if I had lost badly. That is not only bad form, but intellectually dishonest.
  • Eager to at least get my part out, I asked Rabel to just edit the tape omitting John’s talk and his answers in the question session.  Rabel refuses, saying that it would be too much trouble.
  • I ask Rabel for Haught’s email address so I can try to persuade the theologian to change his mind, or at least find out why he won’t sanction posting of the video (Rabel, Haught, and I had all exchanged three-way emails before the debate, but I lost Haught’s address).  Rabel refuses to give me the email address because he wants to “stay out of it,” telling me that I can search for it online.  I find the address and email Haught, asking politely if he won’t change his mind about releasing the video, and, if not, requesting his reason.
  • Unwilling to give up, I ask Rabel for a copy of the tape—offering to pay any expenses for it—so that I can edit out Haught’s part and just post mine.  Rabel refuses, saying that he “didn’t think that would work.”
  • Haught responds to my email asking him to change his mind. His short response says that the event “failed to meet what I consider to be reasonable standards of fruitful academic exchange,” and that he would have no further comment.

I am deeply angry about this stand, and can see only one reason for what Haught has done: cowardice.  He lost the debate; his ideas were exposed for the mindless theological fluff that they were; and I used his words against him, showing that even “sophisticated” theology, when examined under the microscope of reason, is just a bunch of made-up stuff, tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The stuff about “reasonable standards of fruitful academic exchange” is laughably dishonest.  Presumably Haught thinks that his discourse was fruitful and reasonable, so the fault here could only be mine. But if that’s the case, then the tape would show that his stance was far superior to mine, and would in his view be worth posting.

Haught is acting like a child, not a respectable academic.  He can’t be the the pitcher (bowler for you Brits), so he’s taking his ball and going home. His actions are contemptible, and I have no qualms about exposing them. And, by bowing to Haught’s post facto refusal to approve posting of a video whose making he approved, the Gaines Center is censoring a lively and fruitful debate rather than offend one of its participants.  This is not academia’s finest moment, and it’s a new low for theology.

I was looking forward to posting or linking to that video, and I’m deeply sorry that I can’t. I’ve tried all avenues of approach, and have failed.

The only good thing to come from this affair is that it exposes not only the follies of “sophisticated” theology, but the cowardice of a famous theologian. (Haught is the most prominent American theologian who writes about evolution and its comity with religion.)  If Haught can’t win a debate, then he’ll use all his God-given powers to prevent anyone from seeing his weaknesses.  I’ve written to other well-known atheists who have debated theologians, and not one of them is aware of anything like this ever happening.

Censorship like this is not good for academic discourse; it serves only to protect the weak bastion of theology from the cannons of reason.  Shame on you, John Haught, and shame on the Gaines Center for being complicit in the censorship.

529 thoughts on “Theologian John Haught refuses to release video of our debate”

  1. Haught sees to it that his take down is censored and Nick’s only concern is someone might have said something unkind. WTF? Talk about retarded priorities. Guess what, Nick all theologians make shit up, pointing out that fact and even demonstrating it in a debate is neither immoral nor illegal. Get a clue.

  3. Yup, Rabel’s email is down. I attempted to send him a rather polite email. Well, let’s just put it here, instead:

    I would like to comment briefly on the recent debate between Drs. Haught and Coyne. I think it is inappropriate to allow one party in that debate to determine after the fact that it can not be publicly disseminated on the grounds that he feels it reflects poorly on him. Selective dissemination contingent on positive portrayal of a theist viewpoint suggests that the Gaines Center is acting in a religiously biased and intellectually dishonest manner. This is inappropriate for a
    center for higher learning, particularly at a public institution. This taped presentation should be made public, not withheld because it is considered unkind towards a preferred viewpoint.

    1. I still like my suggestion of the inflatable doll…I’m thinking of the autopilot in Airplane, here…

  5. There must be some acceptable way of releasing the video. How about if it is released as a video with no sound? After all, most people who see it are not going to be swayed in their opinion by what is said in the debate, are they?

    1. Offhand I can’t think of anything likely to be more damaging to Haught – and the Gaines Center and Dr. Rabel – than this “Debate-Gate” instigated and abetted by Dr. Coyne rousing his rabble …. so to speak.

        1. Exactly. And with nary an independent thinker among them and all as easily herded as cats ….

          1. that’s a pathetically poor analysis, as usual, Steersman.

            In fact the person who instigated this mess was…

            Haught.

            not Jerry.

            you really need to understand what the Streissand syndrome is all about.

            If Haught had not attempted to stifle a PUBLIC..

            let me repeat that for you:

            P U B L I C

            debate, which is insane in and of itself, then none of this ever would have happened.

            to blame the result of this on Jerry, FFS, is missing the forest for the trees.

  6. Well that would be the silliest lawsuit ever. On what grounds could he take “legal action”? Did he mean his legal action would be pursued in one of those *religious* courts?——because there he might get somewhere!

  7. I sent a strongly-worded-but-polite email to Rabel and Broome-Price this morning (which went through, as far as I can tell):

    Dear Drs. Rabel and Broome-Price-

    Please release the video of the Coyne-Haught debate. You represent an institution of higher learning and are expected to adhere to high standards of academic integrity. Haught signed a release, as I understand it, and should honor it. In academia, it is intellectually dishonest to suppress that which doesn’t go your way, and you don’t get to change the rules in the middle of the game.

    Sincerely,

    [My full name + degree]

  8. Do not agree, in the future, to do any events where your publicity/transparency requirements can’t be guaranteed up front. Put in penalties, if the agreements are broken. Simple.

    Let others know of Rabel’s behavior so they can avoid him and his institution in the future.

    1. Thanks for the clarification. That’s relevant from a legal standpoint but not an academic one. What kind of academic doesn’t want his or her scholarship publicized?

    2. Of course it was intended to be for public consumption, and of course everyone was aware of that.

      If you do not want a presentation recorded and put online, you tell the organizers that before you speak (eg what Ayaan Hirsi Ali did at her recent presentation at USAO). You dont do a presentation in front of a camera, let everyone think you dont have a problem with it, and then bitch about it weeks later (and bitch about the other presenters not being psychic and pissed off you pulled a bait-switch).

      I am a presenter newb and I know this– how many of these things has whats-his-face done? He doesnt understand what cameras mean? Please.

    3. Verbal agreements are still binding; they’re just harder to establish, is all. But with multiple witnesses attesting to the agreement, and the simple fact that public institutions generally prominently record public events with the intent of releasing the recording to the public, I find it had to believe that any court would decide that such an agreement had not been reached or is invalid.

      Combine that with the FOIA angle and the fact that I would expect the NEH to be very upset with Rabel’s and Haught’s antics, and I rather suspect that the video will be released as soon as somebody can think of a face-saving way to do so.

      “Upon deeper consideration, we have come to realize that it’s in the best interests of our student body to make this recording available for academic study, and we regret any confusion our earlier statements may have caused.” That sort of thing.

      Cheers,

      b&

    4. If there’s a treat of legal action, could that mean the tape could be acquired via subpoena?

      1. Almost certainly, but any such copy would be accompanied with a very strict court order regarding its usage and release. The court might not even let it out of the courtroom.

        But, long before it came to such a thing, a FOIA request would likely prove fruitful. And that’s assuming that cooler heads don’t prevail upon Rabel in the first place, as I strongly suspect they will.

        Cheers,

        b&

    5. Checking in from the airport to discover that…wow, so this huge blog-pocalyspe has been launched before the facts are even clear? Several people in this very thread wrote emails to the Gaines center claiming a release form had been signed. It’s amazing how “facts” can emerge from speculation and assumption. Now we don’t even know if Haught ever verbally agreed to have the video posted, or if he gave conditional agreement, or would be given the option later, or whatnot.

      For all we know, the UT video office, IT office, or whatever it is, requires confirmation in email from the participants that they agreed to put the video online. This could well be a hard legal requirement for any video that UT posts. If one of the participants doesn’t agree, well then, that’s it, and the Gaines Center can’t do anything about it.

      As for the ethics of putting the video up — would it be nice to see it? Sure, it would be interesting. Does Haught have an obligation to? Well, that’s a more complex question. The very fact that permission is asked means that there isn’t an obligation. If someone felt like they were treated rudely, or ambushed, for instance, then they might have reasonable cause to deny permission to post the video. If someone felt the speaker and some student fans colluded to embarass them, that might be a reason also. It all depends on what you assume about the details of the situation.

      Cue outrage over the speculations above. See how it feels? You guys are doing the same thing to Jack Haught when you call him a coward, despite abundant evidence that he’s nothing of the sort (go read his cross-examination by the ID guys in Kitzmiller). In reality — if anyone cares about what people are like in real life, rather than in the fevered imagination that often substitutes for reality in the blogosphere — he’s basically like the nicest grandfather you can imagine. And he’s an extremely patient and non-dogmatic fellow. But he’s in the process of being run into the gnu-o-sphere’s grinder, at least until the next ElevatorGate begins and the gnu-o-sphere returns to gnus running each other through the grinder.

      Re: the various silly insults and cowardice charges — all y’all who are too chicken to use your real names don’t really have any basis to criticize.

      Think about how all this sort of behavior looks to the outside world. Think about how you felt when the gnus on the other side went after your side in ElevatorGate. Is drop-of-the-hate, shoot-from-the-hip outrage, invective, and email-bombing really the right response? It might be entertaining when you’re bored at work, but is it right?

      1. I Kitzmiller see Kitzmiller Nick Kitzmiller is Kitzmiller still Kitzmiller tone Kitzmiller trolling Kitzmiller.

        Must Kitzmiller be Kitzmiller an Kitzmiller awfully Kitzmiller boring Kitzmiller layover Kitzmiller there, Kitzmiller Nick Kitzmiller.

        Cheers,

        bKitzmiller&

        1. Sigh, trying that again:

          LOL:

          drop-of-the-hate –> drop-of-the-hat

          …Freudian slip I guess.

      3. I, for one, said that it was “my understanding” that a release form had been signed. I did NOT claim that a release form had been signed, and am fully prepared to accept correction (after all, I am a scientist). This could all be cleared up by Rabel with a simple post here or email to Jerry.

        I do not use my full name because I work for a Christian school and do not trust my employer to not hold what I post here against me. (As for WHY I choose to work for an organization I don’t trust: I do it for my students, whom I DO trust.)

        1. Sorry, but there is more rant in me. Nick, are you really surprised the we expect censorship and suppression of information? This is the kind of intellectually dishonest BS that creationists and their defenders pull ALL THE TIME, Kitzmiller being a classic example as Ben has already pointed out.

      4. It’s amazing how “facts” can emerge from speculation and assumption.

        The Ox-Bow Incident.

        I’ll agree that everyone is somewhat prone to a “rush to judgment” to some extent, but painting a too-rosy picture would seem to be just as much a problem. And I see that Dr. Haught is a Catholic theologian and from what I’ve seen of their “theology” – primarily from reading Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism – it looks just as fundamentalist and just as problematic in its literalism as that of the most rabid creationist. Given your past criticism of the latter I’m a little surprised that you seem to be sympathetic to the former.

        Re: the various silly insults and cowardice charges — all y’all who are too chicken to use your real names don’t really have any basis to criticize.

        I see from your Wikipedia entry that you were Nic Tamzek for some time, although, of course, I don’t know whether your real name was available at the same time or not. But I also noticed that the TalkOrigins site recommended “Use common sense and do not give out personal information or any other information that you do not want to be generally known”. Given the number of crazies – mostly within the fundamentalist crowd as evidenced by the threats and abuse apparently received by Drs. Coyne, Dawkins and Myers from them – that seems to be somewhat of a necessity, at least until such time as it is necessary to stand up and be counted.

      5. Nick, get real. Does Haught have an obligation to? YES, he does. He does because he is an academic, supposedly one with integrity. One of the most important things in academic endeavors is sharing ones ideas so that others may consider and judge the ideas. A public debate at a university in the year 2011 should be released online. It should be a given. Even if the contents of the debate was bad, let the public be the judge of that. Haught has an obligation to make sure the tape of the debate is available. He may have some legal right to shirk on that obligation, but he has the obligation nonetheless.

        And what’s this talk about “Jack” Haught? Is he like your best bud or something? It doesn’t matter who he is as a person, how he’s like the nicest grandfather, or what he did in Kitzmiller, he has a responsibility to make that tape public. I don’t care if someone is my best friend, if they do a public debate, the tape should be on the internet.

        Never mind charges of cowardliness. (Though Rabel is a coward in that he is avoiding confrontation. That’s not working well for him and his email box, either.) Haught is intellectually dishonest and is cheating. He entered into a public debate. And now he is trying to hide the debate from everyone. An honest person would make the debate available. His censorship is simply unfair to Jerry Coyne and to the rest of us who want to watch the debate. And if Coyne did “win” the debate with better preparation and arguments, Haught is cheating by hiding his “loss”. Coyne can’t truly “win” now, which is dishonest regardless how Coyne and Haught performed.

      6. Matzke: [Haught is] basically like the nicest grandfather you can imagine

        I would happily compare the rancorous vitriol that Haught uses generously in his scholarly publications to the comments on this blog post. Excerpts from Haught’s book God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens:

        p. 68. Dawkins treatment of morality in the Bible is a remarkable display of ignorance and foolish sarcasm. I do not enjoy speaking in such a blunt manner, but not to do so here would be evasive. … Dawkins treatment of morality and faith is almost unworthy of comment.
        p. 16. The new books by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens would never have made the list of required readings. These tirades would simply reinforce students’ ignorance not only of religion, but ironically also of atheism.
        p. 36. Readers have every right to expect fairness and balance from journalists and academics. They do not receive that from Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. In a sense, this is not surprising since the authors bring no scholarly expertise to their diatribes, and everyone knows that ignorance about one is rejecting always leads to caricature.

        I am dumbstruck that anyone believes that a scholar who attacks his opponents in print in this manner should be held beyond reproach for attempting to conceal a public debate—a public debate held at a public university at which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and for which the public’s money was used.

        Matzke, why do you ignore Haught’s full record and enable his pathetic attempt at censorship?

        1. He wasn’t at all grandfatherly at the UK event. He was a dissembling, sarcastic buffoon. That assessment was also made by my buddy whom I would consider rather impartial because he *didn’t* know from Haught or Coyne before we witnessed the slaughter.

  11. I understand that during that same symposium (but on a different day) there was a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. David Hunter.

    Was THAT debate taped .. and made public?
    If so, wouldn’t that be a precedent?
    If it was taped, but not published, could Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Hunter be asked to ask for publication? (So that it WOULD create a precedent)?

  12. Submitting to Slashdot. May well generate an uncomfortably large amount of publicity for Rebel and Haught.

    1. Whoa! I thought PZ writing about it would generate some attention, but you’ve just gone nuclear!

  13. I agree, hence my statement about HuffPo’s “cv”. But as I meant to imply, for Haught to rather regularly submit his dreck to HuffPo (where Kim Kardashian gossip is but a click away) and to also put on airs about “standards of fruitful academic exchange” is really absurd.

  15. Submitted to Slashdot ; don’t know if they’ll accept it though.

    My submission.
    “RockDoctor writes “Theologian John Haught publicly debated prominent evolutionary scientist and atheist Jerry Coyne at the University of Kentucky back in October. Before the debate, both parties agreed to the debate being video-taped. Coyne is of the opinion that he convincingly won the debate over Haught. But we’ll never know, because Haught, with the assistance of staff at University of Kentucky who sponsored the debate, is banning publication of the video of the event. They are even refusing to release the half of the debate containing Coyne’s comments and questions, which is his intellectual property. And that latter is theft, plain and simple, in addition to Haught’s cowardice.””

          1. Yup, way to go putting it on /.

            Cowardly indeed to to now threaten legal action because people think they’re jerks because of what they themselves did.

  16. Must….unsubscribe….can’t get any work done….265+ emails and comments….brain exploding. See you all next website post.

  17. I wrote an email to Dr. Rabel. I was polite. I told him that I looked forward to his changing his mind when he realized it was his professional and intellectual duty to release the video.

    I didn’t use the word “coward”. I could have. Maybe should have. But didn’t.

    If he says I called him a coward I’m going to sue, that’s what I’ll do!

  18. A dishonest as opposed to a simply delusional theologian – the Jesuits must be having a hard time with recruiting upstanding educators.

  19. Dr. C.: Time to get that FLIP video camera. Simple, tiny, works great, puts you in charge. Directly uploads to web content. Nice little machine!

  21. Kink sez that anybody who has three hardback copies of WEIT, two of them autographed by the author, qualifies as and is Proud to Be a Coyne Groupie.

    Wooooooooo! Kegger on Friday, Jerry’s buying!

  22. An open Letter to Jerry Coyne:

    Dear Jerry,

    Your distorted reading of my motivation for not releasing the video of our conversation in Kentucky has given birth to an inordinate number of hostile letters to me. Because of misleading statements on your website (11/1/2011), I have received a considerable amount of hate mail, often laced with obscenities, though often also tempered with inquisitive politeness. The mail mostly complains about my “cowardly” reneging on an alleged agreement that you falsely assume I made to post online the video of our panel at the University of Kentucky. When I was in Kentucky I was never asked to do so. Later, after reflecting on what to me was a most unfortunate event, I wrote to Prof Rabel requesting that any video not be released.

    Anyway, Jerry, your own words impute cowardice to me for this refusal, but how do you know that’s the reason for my reluctance? Here is a typical reaction stirred up by your remarks: “What a pathetic, sociopathic dweeb you are. Hiding behind your sick belief system you call a religion. You are an insult to academia, and a dim bulb for the uninformed masses. You deserve the insults you are getting and should be fired. Coward, liar and fool you are, loser. And no doubt a Republican too!” (I’m tempted to say that I can live with every accusation except the last.)

    I want to make it clear that Rob Rabel at the University of Kentucky has confirmed that I never gave permission before or after the panel to post the video. You need to make this clear to your audience. I never broke the agreement that you have unkindly caused your readers to assume I made.

    However, the more interesting issue has to do with my reasons for refusing permission to post the video, and whether it was wrong for me to do so. I have no regrets about anything I had to say during the panel, and if you agree to post this letter on your site I will be happy to have the video released unedited, for public scrutiny. Those who are reading this blog are free to look at other videos of my comments on science and religion available online. They will see that I have no need to hide my views from the public, and in fact I am quite eager to have my thoughts made available provided they are presented accurately and fairly.

    Why then do I hesitate in this case? It has to do with you alone, Jerry, not anyone else, including myself. I have had wonderful conversations with many scientific skeptics over the years, but my meeting with you was exceptionally dismaying and unproductive. I mentioned to you personally already that in my view, the discussion in Kentucky seldom rose to the level of a truly academic encounter. I agree that it was probably entertaining to the audience who gave us a standing ovation at the end. Nevertheless, instead of being flattered by this I went away terribly discouraged at what had just taken place. I wish to emphasize that I do not exempt myself from criticism.

    The event at the University of Kentucky did not take place in the way I had expected. My understanding was that each speaker was to provide a curt 25-minute presentation of how he understood the relationship between science and theology. I did just this, and I have no objection to having that presentation made public. People who attended the event, moreover, can testify that in my presentation I avoided talking about or criticizing you personally. Instead I was content to make some very general remarks about why I consider science completely compatible with theology as I understand it.

    When Robert Rabel of the Gaines Center at the University of Kentucky, a true gentleman who remains far above reproach in all of this, contacted me last summer and invited me to participate in the event, he asked me for names of people who would differ from my own position. I recommended you as someone who would definitely have a different perspective, to say the least. Prof. Rabel informed me that you agreed to participate with the qualification that you did not want to debate me, but simply to lay out your own way of looking at science and religion. I took this to mean that you would do something parallel to what I did in my presentation.

    Instead, you used the event primarily to launch a sneering and condescending ad hominem. Rather than using your 25 minutes as an opportunity to develop constructively your own belief that science and religion are always and inevitably in conflict, you were content simply to ridicule rather than refute several of my own ideas, as you interpreted them. On the other hand, my own presentation, as those who watch the video will see, was a dispassionate attempt to have the audience understand some of the reasons why the new scientific picture of the universe is so troubling to many traditionally religious people. I don’t believe that at any point in that presentation I resorted to ridicule, or that I focused on, much less misrepresented, anything you have written. Instead, I argued in a purely academic way that scientism is simply unreasonable. This was clearly my main point, and I was expecting you to respond to it in an academic manner as well.

    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. Sophisticated argument requires as an essential condition that you have the good manners to understand before you criticize. Your approach, on the other hand was simply one of “caricature and then crush.” Citation of a few isolated sentences or paragraphs, the meaning of which requires reading and understanding many chapters, is hardly useful criticism. You grossly distorted every quotation you used, and then you coated over your [mis]understanding of these statements with your own uncritical creationist and literalist set of assumptions about the Bible and theology. There was no room for real conversation, as impartial viewers will notice.

    Instead of trying to convince the audience of the logical coherence and philosophical finality of your belief that science is the only reliable guide to truth, you began by arbitrarily announcing to the audience that John Haught is the chief representative of theology in the conversation of science with religion. You gave no evidence for that, and in fact it is by no means evidently true. I am but one of a great number of theologians involved in the discussion, and many others do not share my views. But your strategy was to show that if the principal figure is stupid, then you need not take his subordinates seriously either. This is a convenient method for shrinking the territory that needs to be covered, but it is hardly a fair way of dealing with all the other theological alternatives to your own belief system.

    But let me come to the main reason why I have been reluctant to give permission to release the video. It is not for anything that I said during our encounter, but for a reason that I have never witnessed in public academic discussion before.

    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. I still don’t.

    I’m referring to the fact that your whole presentation ended up with a monstrous, not to mention tasteless, non sequitur, to give it the kindest possible characterization. You put on the screen a list of all the “evils” you associate with Catholicism: its stance regarding divorce, contraception, priest pedophilia, homosexuality–and I can’t remember what all–as though these have anything at all to do with the topic of the panel or with my own personal views on the relationship of science to theology. The whole focus of your presentation was on me, but when you came to your conclusion you never bothered to find out what my own position regarding your list of Catholic evils might be. I have never witnessed such a blatant smear or malicious attempt to impute guilt by association in all my years in university life.

    Your list of Catholic evils, contrary to what you were suggesting, has absolutely nothing logically to contribute to your argument that science is opposed to religion. But even if it did, you never asked me whether I dissent from some or all the items on your list of “evils,” as many Catholics do, and whether such dissent might, in your twisted way of arguing, perhaps make my own position more credible. Your insinuation could only have been that somehow the priest sexual abuse crisis, for example, discredits my views on science and theology. You should be grateful that I have tried to protect the public from such a preposterous and logic-offending way of bringing your presentation to a close.

    There is much more to be said, but this is all I will have to say to you or others on this matter. If you are willing to post this letter on your blog, go ahead and ask the Gaines Center to release the video as well. I have no objections now that I have had the opportunity to present my reservations to possible viewers.

    Sincerely,

    John Haught

    1. I will respond only briefly to John’s claims, since it’s best if people simply watch the video—a video that he, says, he’ll allow to be posted after his comment appears. I’ve put a newer post highlighting the issue above, and request that you comment on this matter at that newer post.

      1. As I said in my latest post, I regret any nastiness or incivility involved in my readers’ communications with Haught or Rabel. I’m not sure, though, whether it was my own readers who engaged in such behavior, or those readers who found out about this affair from other websites. Regardless, I again ask my own readers to maintain politesse at all times when communicating with officials or responding to John’s piece here.

      2. John has stated several times that I distorted his actions: that he never gave his permission to post the video. I never stated that—I stated the truth, which was that he gave his (verbal) permission for the video to be made. That information I got first hand from Robert Rabel, head of the Gaines Center. I never stated that John gave permission for the video to be posted. However, John’s drawing such a distinction seems bizarre to me: the video was intended to be posted from the outset, and we all understood that. That is what was told to us when we were asked for verbal permission.

      3. Haught claims that my attacks on him were unfairly personal. I disagree. I did use his own published words to make my case, but merely as examples of the ludicrous lengths theologians go to when trying to reconcile science with faith. I ask you to watch the video and judge for yourself. And Haught should have known what I would say on the issue, for he told me he’d read my website posts, which I started putting up when reading his books several months before our exchange. Further, I told Robert Rabel in advance that my talk would be “hard hitting,” and he was okay with that. To Rabel’s credit, he did not attempt to steer my talk one way or another. Finally, if you read John’s book, God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, you’ll find that he’s quite dismissive of atheist claims—with just as must stridency and harshness as he attributes to me.

      4. Haught claims that the quotes I used from him were taken out of context, and don’t reflect what he really said in his book. I vehemently disagree: I read his books carefully and urge you to do the same. My quotations, which you’ll see in the video, accurately reflect John’s views.

      5. John’s main objection seems to be that I went after his own Catholicism in an unfair way. If you watch the debate, you’ll see that I make a strong connection between the official policies of the Catholic church and the way that religious people (the Church establishment in this case) establish “truth”. It is the disparity between how science and religion find “truth” (religion can’t find it, of course), that leads the faithful to take pernicious social action when they apprehend a truth through revelation. That is one important difference between religious and scientific “truths.” It is the Church’s view that humans have souls, for example, that makes it oppose abortion and end-of-life euthanasia. In the talk I make the point that while both faith and science try to apprehend truths, the “truth” that comes from faith is combined with a dogmatism and a system of beliefs that immediately connects those truths with social action. But you’ll see this all in the video.

      Finally, let me say that I think John’s strong reaction comes from having had the tenets of his faith questioned strongly and directly. “Sophisticated” theologians aren’t used to that: they are used to the warm syrup of accommodationism. But I don’t believe in Haught’s God; I question his lame reasons for believing in one; and I think that the official tenets of his own faith—Catholicism—are monstrous. If John doesn’t agree with those tenets (and I outline half a dozen at the end of my talk), why doesn’t he dissent publicly? (Note that in his response he implies that he disagrees with some Church policies, but, as always, such theologians are very careful not to specify which policies.) By remaining a Catholic, by being associated with the Church in the strong way that he is, and by not publicly dissenting from official Vatican policy (if he did he’d be excommunicated, of course), Haught is complicit in the damaging things done by the Catholic church. That doesn’t have much to do with the debate, but it has everything to do with John’s reaction. His religion poisons everything.

      1. Very well said, Jerry. I won’t add more, but I think it should be made very clear to believers that they will not be mollycoddled just because they are religious believers. This applies especially to religious organisations like the catholic church which has so many retrogressive positions and practices which cause untold misery to thousands. No one who is a catholic, and especially anyone who is a flag bearer for the church as Haught it, should be allowed to get away with saying, in general terms, “Well, I don’t believe everything the church teaches.” If he doesn’t he should make it very clear which teachings he abhors, and why he does so, and he should make some effort to bring about change where those teachings and practices impact people in negative (sometimes very negative) ways.

        1. “but I think it should be made very clear to believers that they will not be mollycoddled just because they are religious believers.”

          I think you’ve nailed the heart of Haught’s issue, here, Eric. In his letter, Haught lists (I’m tempted to write “whines” instead of lists) his several complaints about the failure of the talk to live up to his expectation, which is entirely understandable if one assumes that Haught’s expectation was that he his beliefs, particularly his Catholic beliefs, would be given the deference and accommodation he is accustomed to receiving in these sorts of symposiums.

          That this was not given is illustrative again of the fact that Haught did not properly prepare for the debate. At the very least, he underestimated his opponent–and knowing who you’re speaking against, as well as at least some familiarity with their talk style and tactics is so basic, it should go without saying. It’s not as if Coyne’s talks aren’t readily available online.

          It’s really genuinely offensive that Haught characterizes Coyne’s talk as an extended ad hominum, but completely in keeping with Haught’s expectation that, as a theologian, no one should lay a glove on him.

          Those days are over.

        2. Exactly. The Catholic church is what it is, and silent secret dissent from selected (but unspecified) bits of its teaching does nothing to make it any better.

          1. Haught should be asked to state exactly how he disagrees with Catholic doctine, and then explain it to the Pope, so that the Church’s teachings can be brought into line with sophisticated theology.

        3. Great summation for my now blurry eyes. The very notion of religions feeling, what I can only describe as persecuted, is astonishing. Holding so much power and feel this way when their “warm syrup of accommodationism” (love that by the way) runs dry and are met with ridicule for their ridiculous claims. Look forward to watching the debate.

      2. It looks like he went to a debate with a non-accommodationist while expecting the non-accommodationist to act like an accommodationist.

        No wonder he was flustered.

      3. Boy, this is just as vacuous as Haught’s presentation itself.
        So, John, why are you upset the Jerry used your own quotes against you? What is so wrong with that? You think the audience shouldn’t hear what you have said about the subject in the past? Or is it that you discovered, much to your dismay, that you hadn’t done your homework for the debate?
        You were presenting a certain viewpoint. Jerry’s use of your quotes is not a personal attack. Nor did he claim that you are the only one defending that viewpoint. Nonetheless, you were the representative of that viewpoint during the debate, don’t you think? And so your own words were representative of what that side has to say on the matter. Why were you so shocked?
        As for the bad things your faith has done-they were not out of context. Jerry was showing why religion and science are incompatible. One of those happens to be that you claim the divine is a source of knowledge, and this claim allows you to do all those things like harassing gays, which could never be done if your source of info were empirical knowledge only. You don’t think this is a fair distinction to make?
        Really, get over it.

    2. Dear Sir:

      “an alleged agreement that you falsely assume I made to post online the video of our panel at the University of Kentucky”

      You signed an agreement for video-taping. All previous debates in this series were video-taper and posted online. You cannot claim that by signing the agreement to video-tape, you weren’t agreeing to posting the video.

    3. Dear Mr Haught,

      How about you stop with all the double-talk and tap-dancing, and release the video?

      If your claims have any merit, others will speak up. Until then, you cannot be considered as anyone with any credibility.

      You agreed to the video taping and now you want to suppress the video. Can you see where this calls your honesty and integrity into question?

      Mike
      http://atheistroundtable.com/

    4. 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.

      I’d be clutching my pearls too if I hadn’t accidentally dropped them out the window of my ivory tower.

    5. Shorter John Haught-

      Dont bother even trying to be polite to me. I will interpret everything as an uncivil attack, as it is my primary defense mechanism. I will respond to everything you say with inappropriate, hyperemotive language, in the hopes that people wont notice my responses contain no content. Also, you are a poopy-head.

      This is why I dont waste good manners on ogres.

      And I dont know how stupid your friends are, Johnny, but Jerrys are smart enough to watch a presentation and make their own decisions and conclusions. They dont need Jerry to nanny (read: censor) videos so their puny brains dont explode.

      Also, welcome to the internet.

    6. Am I understanding your response correctly– did you really mean to explicitly admit your objection to the video being made public was predicated wholly by the desire to suppress an opponent’s public speech at a symposium, after previously paying lip-service to the fruitful standards of academic exchange? I respectfully submit you’ve done yourself no favor by doing so.

      1. Seconded.

        In light of this explanation from Dr. Haught, whether he ever agreed to have video of his own presentation made public is entirely irrelevant. The goal was, instead, to suppress Dr. Coyne’s presentation. This is more damaging than anything in the debate (which I have now seen). It unambiguously reveals Dr. Haught as an academic thug trying to silence his opposition.

    7. Once again, we see religious privilege in action. Dr. Haught, thank you for so clearly demonstrating.

    8. instead of being flattered by this I went away terribly discouraged

      I’m sorry, John, but in saying this you make it very clear that your reasons for trying to suppress the video of the debate have nothing to do with Jerry, and EVERYTHING to do with you.

      Your stint on the fainting couch is noted.

      Your credibility has taken a serious hit.

      all downhill from here.

      have you considered a quiet retirement?

      1. John – sit quietly and wait for the next auditory hallucination from God almighty. Perhaps she’ll inform you that she created evolution in order to sit back and watch the brutality of natural selection. God is Omnipotent!! She created: The plague, the potato famine, aids, Adolf Hitler, Joe McCarthy, etc.. What the bleep – God created the digestive track, and our dependence on food, ie, the killing of other species in order to survive. If God exists, she/he is a meglomanical motherbleeper, wallowing in the joy of creating pain for her sons and daughters. WAKE UP JOHN!!

    9. » You should be grateful that I have tried to protect the public from such a preposterous and logic-offending way of bringing your presentation to a close.

      That must be the most laughably patronizing thing a sore loser has ever said. And quite dickish if you ask me.

    10. John Haught,

      Firstly I’d like to thank you for agreeing to let us see the video. Allowing the public to see this symposium so that we can judge the content of your and Jerry’s ideas for ourselves is very important to academic discourse.

      I’m a bit perplexed by your letter and your talk. You talk about academic discussion. I myself am an academic. From what I understand it is essential to academic discourse that it allows disagreement and people to be shown wrong. In math and science, based on reason, evidence, and examples you can be wrong. I myself am wrong at times, it just never gets published. Part of that is because the methods of inquiry and discourse allow colleagues to point to something showing they are wrong. Much of mathematics is constructing and analyzing counterexamples, much of science is disproving hypotheses. Even the positive results depend on thinking about and checking how one might be wrong.

      I don’t see how in your approach to academic discourse you can ever be shown to be wrong. You seemed to expect Jerry Coyne to only make a positive argument for his worldview and never make arguments against your own worldview. I just don’t see how the Jerry Coyne could ever point how you are incorrect about something or even express any real disagreement. Moreover, Jerry’s job was to show how science and religion were incompatible, as that was the topic of discussion, and I don’t see how he could do a good job of that without demonstrating incompatibilities and engaging with why people like yourself think science and religion are compatible.

      Moreover, your theological view discussed in your talk didn’t seem to allow for you to ever be wrong. You set it up so that God or The Infinite are beyond human comprehension. You suggest that personal transformation is necessary to say anything competent about The Infinite. Now given that, how is an atheist or skeptic ever permitted to challenge your theology? All you have to say is that they don’t understand it, they apparently haven’t gone through a personal transformation yet. This doesn’t seem to permit criticism.

      Another thing I noticed in your talk is you spoke a lot about cosmic purpose and being grasped by The Infinite, i.e. spiritual experience and tranformation. You said little to nothing about what your religion claims and what God or The Infinite specifically is. You seemed almost to be avoiding or disinterested in that issue. I have to wonder then, and pardon my boldness, but do you believe in God or do you believe in cosmic purpose and spirituality and consequently believe in belief in God? Just struck me like you were primarily concerned about preserving cosmic purpose and transcendent experience.

      One final note. I mean this all as civilly and honestly as possible. I do want to understand how we can have a meaningful discourse and what you believe and why. I worry you might be offended by some of this and that was not intentional nor the content of my comment. Also, sorry for the length 🙂

    11. (Speaking as one of the people who apparently had significant effect in getting this subject to “go viral”, via my submission to Slashdot).
      Mr (or is it Dr? I’m not sure. “Mr” seems very likely from the name, but an academic position does not necessarily imply a doctorate, PhD or medical) Haught makes various assertions which I’m now going to check against reality by watching the video. Thank you Mr Haught, but I’m quite capable of making up my own mind, thank you. from what I’ve heard about the Catholic church via my ex-Catholic father, I’m not terribly surprised that you find this an undesirable, if not heretical, attitude.
      However one lesson can be taken home by both sides in this dispute : establish what the ground rules are (including publication issues) in writing, transparently, before the event. That would have rendered this whole ugly affair (of the attempted censorship) moot.
      Now, I’m off to watch the videos. And, to be honest, with a gloat in my black, black heart.

      1. Well, I would watch them if they’d play … oh hang on, after 10 minutes, it starts … but it’s taken 15 minutes of clock time to get to the 1 minute mark ; I’m going to have to lay off this until I get home and off this Tanzanian hotel network! Meanwhile, I’ve paying work to do.
        If I were on my home computer, I’d probably be able to download the video off-line ; but I’m not, so I won’t.

      2. However one lesson can be taken home by both sides in this dispute : establish what the ground rules are (including publication issues) in writing, transparently, before the event.

        Several commenters have made similar statements. I think I do not agree. The principle of open, free, honest disagreement is a well established aspect of academic life. There is no reason to bog every intellectual exchange down with a contract and a set of lawyers. Not only would this be counterproductive, it isn’t needed. When someone violates this basic principle, as John Haught and Robert Rabel did, they are called on it and HAVE to backtrack or lose whatever is left of their professional standing. No contracts needed.

    12. John Haught:

      The burden of proof is with those making the positive claim, so if you want to claim that Coyne took your quotes out of context, it is up to you to show, in context, what the quotes actually meant and that this was different from the way Coyne represented them. I challenge you to take just one quote that Coyne used incorrectly, and explain what it meant in context. Just one will do. Until you do this we are justified in dismissing this claim without evidence, just as it was asserted without evidence.

    1. You mean the one where they position themselves to ream their neighbor? It is the “hard love” they are famous for.

  24. Well, this whole shameful experience, aside from being a damning indictment of the baselessness of theology in general and of Haught’s utter lack of ethics & honesty in particular, is a tip for any scientist/atheist/reasonable person entering into any kind of debate with a theologian/accomodationist/goddist: take detailed notes, make your own recording & post your own video/audio/transcript! If Jerry had had his own camera there, Haught would have nothing to say about what Jerry did with it and any attempt to suppress it would meet with an epic Streisand Effect.

    It scarcely needs to be said, but always make recordings within the bounds of legality and fairness, i.e. with the prior knowledge & agreement of all participants. Part of me thinks it’s extremely likely that Haught & his “groupies” made sure the video would always remain sole property of the host and that no third-party recording would be permitted, on the off-chance that Haught would be humiliated and shown as a fool by a better man with a better mind & better arguments.

    Back to the Streisand Effect, I think Haught underestimated exactly what his refusal to release the tape would do. Just this morning (Melbourne time) I’ve read Ophelia, Jerry and PZ (and I’ve now seen a big list of trackbacks here) all castigating this intellectual imp for his rank cowardice & all calling for the immediate release of the tape.

    Why is it that religionists don’t seem to grasp that petulantly trying to suppress something just makes it more tantalising & desirable? Simply letting this tape out into the open, as previously agreed by all parties, would have been far less embarrassing than the furore that has now erupted.

    1. Not just the religious I remember Thatcher trying to ban Spycatcher, I simple got a mate to buy a copy in Australia for me. In the age of the Internet it’s almost impossible to suppress something.

      1. Also futile – look at the stink this has kicked up already! This debate’s getting way more attention than it would have if Rabel had just released it – y’know, like an honourable and ethical person would do. Instead of a relatively small internet humiliation, Haught & Rabel will now have to endure protracted scrutiny of their behaviour & unflattering evaluations of their character before eventually releasing the tape and THEN experiencing an even greater humiliation. Who knows; “Haught-o-gate” (sorry :)) may even migrate from the blogosphere and hit a broadsheet or two.

        I remember the Spycatcher thing, but was probably a bit young to understand it completely. However, I do remember thinking “Now I want to see what all the fuss is about!” I’m an Aussie and I could’ve, but I never got around to it. But now you’ve reminded me, I’m going to find it.

        In your face, Thatcher!

        1. Malcolm Turnbull (yes, that Turnbull) wrote a book about it.

          He defended the book in the court case where the Thatcher government tried to have it banned in Australia. A fun read.

        2. I got my copy in the USA. It’s worth a read, but also worth remembering that Wright was a paranoid far-right nutcase, obssessed with the idea that those at the top of British “Intelligence” were Soviet spies.

          Haught? Oh, yeah. Well, now I’ll watch the video and judge for myself, just like he didn’t want anyone to be able to do.

          1. “obssessed with the idea that those at the top of British “Intelligence” were Soviet spies.”

            Well, it was true about Kim Philby et al. It could have happened again, I suppose, after all the Soviets would just have to keep recruiting at Oxford and Cambridge, and they might get lucky and have their recruit get invited to join MI-6.

  26. Why stop at just one letter? As new info appears here, let’s use it!! For example:

    lisa.broome-price@uky.edu
    Cc:
    chorne@email.uky.edu, rrabel@uky.edu, haughtj@georgetown.edu, pres@email.uky.edu, newstip@wkyt.com, info@neh.gov, challenge@neh.gov, info@michaelmcdonaldweb.com

    Dear Gaines Center,

    In case you are unaware, your actions to suppress the Coyne-Haught debate violate the terms of your NEH support, which says in part:

    “Dissemination of Project Results

    Recipients are expected to publish or otherwise make publicly available the results of work conducted under an award. Unless otherwise specified in the award documents, two copies of any published material resulting from award activities should be forwarded to the appropriate NEH program officer as soon as it becomes available. This material should be labeled with the identifying NEH award ID number.

    All publication and distribution agreements shall include provisions giving the government a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish or otherwise use the material for federal purposes and requiring the acknowledgment of NEH support. The publication shall also include the disclaimer contained in Article 3 of these General Terms and Conditions for Awards”

    The community expects that the tape of this debate, which was made with the permission of both participants, and was funded in part by public money, will be posted, as other debates in this series have been posted.

    In any debate, there are winners and losers. If losers are given the right to suppress the results, these debates will not serve the public good. The decision on the part of Dr Rabel to suppress the Coyne-Haught debate will have a chilling effect on the ability of the Gaines Center to attract important debaters in the future. It will also rightly cause the NEH and other sponsors to question the intellectual honesty of the Center itself.

    I hope that you will make the right decisions, and meanwhile I will continue to alert the NEH (and other funding bodies) to this incredible behavior.

    Lou Jost

    It would be helpful to find better-directed NEH addresses . I found that the Gaines Center received an NEH challenge grant in 2005, so I sent this to challenge@neh.gov. But that’s probably over by now. It would be better to send such things to NEH legal counsel if anybody knows that address. I have this one:
    info@michaelmcdonaldweb.com
    but maybe somebody knows a better one.

  27. Lucky I haven’t breakfast this morning, because John Haught’s cowardice makes me sick.

    And Jerry, when you say of Haught’s books, “you need read only one”, shouldn’t the word “need” be in inverted commas?

    And threats of legal action? On what possible grounds?

    1. Haught should be suing Jesus for letting him lose so badly to a mere naturalisationing scientismic materialismist.

  28. Threatening legal action? Dear god what a pussy this man must be. (Oops, not very polite there was I?)

    1. Haught certainly seems like he’s painted himself into a corner with his response – an occupational hazard with the religious, at least more so than for the non-religious. But I’m not sure that various sexist comments really does the cause of atheism all that much good.

  30. For future reference, the laws in most states do not require permission to record and to post anything that happens a public assemblies where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Anything you want recorded, just do so.

  31. Jerry, if you’re feeling offended at the groupie comment, fear not. I’m sure we can get Abbie to spare a few of her ilk to graze in the babbling fields, and blossoming brooks over here.

  32. Rabel threatened legal action? On what basis? How intellectually dishonest can these people be…

  34. Maybe they could release an edited copy of the video where Coyne’s opponent’s face is blurred and his voice altered.

    1. Also Thatcher sans Gerry Adams, censorship is complete bollocks, they make themselves look stupid just by indulging in it.

      1. That was amusing: the BBC got round the ban on Sinn Fein leaders speaking by showing them doing do while an actor read their words.

  36. Jerry,

    If the Kentucky FOIA binds the Gaines Centre, would you make an application for the footage?

  38. FWIW, I just e-mail NEH:

    To Whom It May Concern:
    Mellow greetings. I write this e-mail to draw to your attention an issue which I’m uncertain precisely to whom I should be direct it. I’ll try to be brief, yet sufficiently comprehensive.

    Issue: 12 October of this year, Professor Jerry Coyne and ‘Dr.’ John Haught had a public discussion arranged and sponsored by the Gaines Center for the Humanities as one event in their Bale Boone Symposium. The topic under consideration dealt with the compatibility between science and religion. Part of the arrangement was that the ‘discussion’ (not a debate proper) was to be recorded on video by the Gaines Center; a proposition to which both participants acceded without protest it seems. All of these videos have to my knowledge so far been made public and posted on various social media sites (e.g., youtube) to fulfill part of the purpose of the whole endeavor; i.e., public discourse on complex, socially important issues involving ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, history – the Humanities generally. This was held on campus: please see site, and flyer here:
    http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/GainesCenter/2011BaleBooneSymposium.pdf
    http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/GainesCenter/

    The party who reportedly fared less well has requested that a public institution, using public monies provided to them by a grant from NEH deliberately and actively debar the whole of the public from its proper entitlement to reap the harvest this largesse has, in part, made manifest. Note that the flyer and lecture series are by name mentioned as being funded, in part, by NEH; so this makes this truly your problem, in part, to help me, a member of the public, watch this discussion. It is a disservice to the citizenry to have some endowed functionary decide for the whole of the public that it is expressly prohibited from viewing that discussion, which has obvious academic interest for any carefully reflective, active participant in our republic.

    To recapitulate, your agency provided to to Gaines Center a grant to, in part, endow a chair for the public good and education of the humanities, to sponsor, in part, a discussion/debate/dialogue series for the public, which were all, and are, held on public property, and to be distributed to the public for whatever academic value can be found in it. Having memorialized this on the public’s nickel, now, the public are told that no, this half-goose-step of an academician has determined that the public’s right to view this video, made for the public expressly, is moot because the loser in the debate doesn’t like the fact that he came ill-prepared to discuss the topic. Yes, this reflects poorly on Haught’s scholarship. That’s just too bad for him; he should have done better – this does not outweigh the public’s interest in viewing a public discussion it paid for.

    Now, to whom should I directly address this pressing issue that we might start realizing a proper return on our investment?

  39. Hello,

    I wanted to congratulate both of you brave men for laying the smack down on uppity atheist Jerry Coyne. We can only defeat atheism by ridding the world of evil atheist ideas. I suggest Georgetown and UKY start an annual joint book burning. Should I send the swastikas to both of your offices or is there a dedicated P.O. Box for swastika donations?

    Yours in Christ,
    ________________

  42. This is why live streaming is a good idea. The required equipment is not more expensive than a conventional video camera.

    But of course maybe Haught would have refused to even show up if the events was to be streamed.

  43. Depending on the pre debate discussions and agreements, I’d think this would be legally actionable.

    You were invited to talk. You expended time and effort to prepare and present.

    You were asked to agree to a taping. I would think it is implicit in that agreement in an academic setting that the tape would be released, or at the very least you would be provided a copy of your talk. Implicit or not, I would think that would be for a jury to decide based on email and testimony about the discussions you had.

    There was an invitation, an offer, and consideration given. Sounds actionable to me. Certainly, on moral grounds, you have a right to a copy regardless of what the law says, so I wouldn’t feel bad about pressing the issue in court. You delivered on the agreement, and they did not. They should be compelled to, or compelled to make restitution.

  44. Shocking behave on both their parts. In Dr Rabel, I’d expect much better from an educated man.

    I’ve tweeted your post to the BBC Science correspondent here in the UK. The story is a bit far from our shores, but it might still be picked up. I feel the more it is exposed in the mainstream press, the greater the pressure will be to release the video (which I’m sure everyone will now want to watch!).

  46. You dont need to resort to name calling. It is a shame that he did not prepare as well as you.

    Perhaps he is ashamed of his performance and feels that it would not be representative of what he truely believes. Is this dishonest or cowardice ? Not necessarily. Is it fair spirited ? No. it is not in the spirit of the debate or fair.

    In any case, it is downright dangerous to generalize a poor debate performance and assume that the entire stance is incorrect, and to generalize this to theology as a whole.

    This is the same mistake that most Creationists make when they debate their cause, equating a successful debate with correctness of belief.

    What is absolutely wrong is for the Gaines Center to take sides. They should be benign throughout the entire process, and contacting you after deciding not to release is simply poor form. They should have hooked the two of you up immediately so that you all could reach a mutual 3 way argeement, since this was the orginal term of contract..

    any bad press should rightly go to the Gaines Center for not promoting the values that they (should) stand for.

  47. Can’t expect much more from these people hell bent on pushing gOD down the throats of every one. These religious people are no more than mind controllers, polluting the innocent minds of young children with their dose of global panhysterian.

  48. I’m not an atheist and I’m not a creationist. I suppose that makes me some kind of pariah in both circles. Regardless, I’m disgusted at the censure of this video. If we can’t be witness to civil debate and discourse about these issues, it is proof to me that we are failing as a society in more areas than I care to contemplate at the moment. At least before breakfast.

    I seriously hope that someone releases this debate somehow, surreptitiously or not.

    Good luck.

  49. Lesson learned ? Next time someone asks you to participate in a debate, and have the debate videotaped say:

    Yes, I agree to be videotaped, provided I get a copy of the tape.

  50. It seems that if evolutionists want to continue debating creationists it would be in the evolutionists best interest to have standard written contracts to keep the creationists honest. Seems backwards if morals came from god, but it makes perfect evolutionary sense.

    1. Haught is actually not a creationist at all – he accepts evolution. (He famously testified on the plaintiffs’ side, supporting that ID was religious, in the Dover trial.) This makes this quite boggling.

    2. All the same, a standardized, written contract, brief and to the point, stating an unedited copy will be provided within ___ number of days after the experience really does make excellent sense. Perhaps the RDF would have the resources and interest to look into this?

  51. Dear Mr. Coyne,
    I am an affirmed, lifelong athiest.
    That said, I took your advice to use carrots, not sticks, and told a white lie or two in the email below to Dr. Rabel as a way to make my point- publish the video- but not being mean or abusive at all.
    Admittedly it was difficult to not be a little mean 😉

    “Dear Dr. Rabel:
    I fear the creeping dominance of athiesm/agnosticism in at least our nation, if not several nations in the world.
    And I hope that you and your esteemed colleagues will find it in your heart to publish that debate to help defend God from athiests and their ilk.
    I debate some of my less godly friends/family on similar topics, ineptly no doubt, and would greatly appreciate the opportunity to see this new, informed debate if for no other reason than to see how a proverbial “pro” like Father Haught does it, no doubt doing it far, far better than myself.

    I am confident you will choose to publish this debate, even if by doing so you dishearten Coyne and his followers, as their inaccurate beliefs are scorched in the bright light.

    I am sure you’re being pummeled with emails now, so there is no need for you our your staff to reply.
    Just wanted to throw in my two cents and support.
    You will be in my prayers.

    Sincerely,
    Paul Thomas”

  52. John Haught and Dr. Rabel are both scum-sucking weasels, and they beautifully demonstrate the foundation of lies that all religion is based on.

    Religion is a cancer upon humanity, and people like John Haught prove it beyond any doubt.

    1. Other than meeting your need to ventilate, what exactly does “scum sucking weasels” add to the debate?

      1. “Other than meeting your need to ventilate, what exactly does “scum sucking weasels” add to the debate?”

        Mentioning “scum sucking weasels” adds panache, ambiance, and light sprinkling of heady earthiness to any debate. 🙂

        1. Bleep the “panache, ambiance…”, but I to embrace a “…light sprinkling of heady earthiness…” Carry on – you have received your confessional blessing!

        1. In the interest of pure scientific exploration, I believe we need some verifiable evidence of just what a “scum sucking weasel” is?

          A priestly pedofile?
          A TV Evangelist?
          Governor Perry?
          NRA members?
          Rushbo?
          Met fans?

          Your turn!

          7. Lol, that definitely needed that link!

            A signed copy of my book (if I ever have one) if you can work in “ermine.”

          10. Yea. Such stereotyping is giving weasels a bad name and is “stoatally unjustified”. At least with them what you see is what you get, not like the religious in general and theologians in particular, many of whom show more than a passing resemblance to ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing ….

          11. Wolves? No, wolves actively hunt their prey.

            Theologians have a life cycle more like that of a liver fluke.

          12. Microraptor said,

            Wolves? No, wolves actively hunt their prey. Theologians have a life cycle more like that of a liver fluke.

            You might be right, although most theologians seem more self-deluded than not which may or may not be consistent with the fluke analogy. But more of what I had in mind with the “ravening wolfs” analogy was many of the television evangelical preachers who seem to be outright crooks and charlatans, one of the most odious being Benny Hinn:

            In November 2004, the CBC Television show The Fifth Estate did a special titled “Do You Believe in Miracles” on the apparent transgressions committed by Benny Hinn’s ministry. With the aid of hidden cameras and crusade witnesses, the producers of the show demonstrated Benny’s apparent misappropriation of funds, his fabrication of the truth, and the way in which his staff chose crusade audience members to come on stage to proclaim their miracle healings. In particular, the investigation highlighted the fact that the most desperate miracle seekers who attend a Hinn crusade—the quadriplegics, the brain-damaged, virtually anyone with a visibly obvious physical condition—are never allowed up on stage; those who attempt to get in the line of possible healings are intercepted and directed to return to their seats.

            Curious that government can protect people – more or less – from the likes of Bernard Madoff and company, but is powerless to do much about the likes of Hinn and Camping – too many vested interests likely to get their toes trampled on I expect.

          13. “Weasels” tells us that they are duplicitous and evasive. “Scum-sucking” gives us an idea of their character.

          15. “just what a “scum sucking weasel” is?

            A priestly pedofile?
            A TV Evangelist?
            Governor Perry?
            NRA members?
            Rushbo?
            Met fans?”

            None of these things rises to the level of “scum sucking weasel”.

            Rushbo, for example, can only aspire to (someday) be referred to as a “scum sucking weasel”. He is (scientifically speaking, a “rotund, confabulating gasbag”, but without any of the redeeming qualities.

            The others in your list equate roughly to “septic tank runoff”, albeit the toxic kind. 🙂

  53. Well, now, in fairness, let’s not all get manipulated. Let’s look at this objectively. I’m a firm believer in evolution and an agnostic, yet let’s not all just assume that Professor Coyne’s account is correct, that Professor Haught blocked the release of the tape because he “lost” the debate.

    Isn’t it possible Professor Haught felt that the debate was unfair, that the questions were maligned, or that the viewing audience was unfairly packed with Coyne’s supporters? Perhaps Haught felt he had been stood up deliberately to look foolish.

    We’ll never know because Haught is taking the high road by not commenting. Coyne, meanwhile, is shamelessly gloating over his “victory,” isn’t he?

    1. “Isn’t it possible Professor Haught felt that the debate was unfair, that the questions were maligned, or that the viewing audience was unfairly packed with Coyne’s supporters?”

      Sure, anything is possible. Why won’t the great professor release the tape and let us decide for ourselves, or is that too much to ask?

      Seriously, there is NO excuse for Professor Haught’s behavior. It shows just how bankrupt religious academics are at heart. Scrutiny is anathema to them.

      Anyone this determined to suppress the debate is someone that I’ll ever have any respect for.

      Mike
      http://atheistroundtable.com

      1. Mike, you make good comments, but I think many people here are missing the essential point. People here are charging that Haught and Rabel are suppressing the “truth,” but I have a sneaking suspicioun that something very rotten is going on here, just based on Coyne’s language.

        It’s full of contempt, disdain, inflammatory rhetoric, and unnecessary ridicule. It looks obvious to me Coyne is pulling a classic ad hominem.

        His behaviour is certainly not that of a civil, professional academic. It’s more like that of someone hoping to make guest appearances on Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Springer.

        You can disagree with someone’s beliefs without being contemptuous.

        So let me put it this way. Just as the devil’s advocate, let’s say you agree to an academic discussion/debate on whether or not science and theology are compatible. You expect a fair, civil, intelligent exchange of ideas. But when you get there, you find that your opponent attacks *you* as person, shows disdain for your beliefs, launches ad hominem attacks, and resorts to a host of logic fallacies in a blatant attempt just to make you look stupid. It’s not about an intelligent discussion, it’s an absurd pep rally for your line of thinking.

        You’d walk away thinking, “That’s BS. That’s not what agreed to. That guy’s a jerk and pulled a fast one just for his own self aggrandizement. That was *not* an academic discussion.” You’d also probably conclude that the video should not be released because it’s not what you mutually agreed to.

        Now I ask you in fairness: Would that be “suppressing the truth” or simply denying some grandstanding shill his cheap payday?

        Let’s all be objective and open-minded here.

        It appears that Professor Haught has agreed to allow the video to be released. I’m sure I will not agree with his positions, but I bet it will come out that Haught was the academic and Coyne was the shill.

        Kudos to Coyne for manufacturing this whole “controversy” and driving huge readership to his blog…which I am foolishly fueling.

        1. Wanna lay a couple of bucks on that?

          IF your assertion were true, and Coyne had behaved as you characterize things, what possible motive would Haught have for preventing the world from seeing this?

          Don’t make me laugh.

        2. “But when you get there, you find that your opponent attacks *you* as person, shows disdain for your beliefs, launches ad hominem attacks, and resorts to a host of logic fallacies in a blatant attempt just to make you look stupid.”

          Rubbish.

          In the first place, it has not been established by so much as a comma that what you say happened, happened. You made this up.

          In the second place, your characterization is not consistent with what Coyne’s readers have observed for themselves as habitual readers of his blog. It is not Coyne’s style to attack the person, to launch ad hominen attacks or engage in logical fallacies. Were he to do so, his habitual readers would fall on him like a house. As for making Haught look stupid, one suspects that Haught does not need Coyne’s help in this regard.

        3. “It’s full of contempt, disdain, inflammatory rhetoric, and unnecessary ridicule. ”

          You say that as if it’s a bad thing.

          1. >>>IF your assertion were true, and Coyne had behaved as you characterize things, what possible motive would Haught have for preventing the world from seeing this?<<>>Rubbish.

            In the first place, it has not been established by so much as a comma that what you say happened, happened. You made this up.<<>>“It’s full of contempt, disdain, inflammatory rhetoric, and unnecessary ridicule. ”

            You say that as if it’s a bad thing.<<<

            In academia it most certainly is. Only Limbaugh, Springer, Hannity, and Jonathan Stewart it's not.

            Unfortunately nowadays, very few people understand the difference. We have lost our civility.

          2. “We have lost our civility.”

            You characterized the blog’s host in a negative way, without submitting any evidence as to why your characterization had merit, and you did it in the host’s own house.

            If you are asserting that “we” have lost our civility, I would point out that your own manners leave a great deal to want.

        4. just based on Coyne’s language.

          It’s full of contempt, disdain, inflammatory rhetoric, and unnecessary ridicule.

          I don’t know what website you’ve been reading, but Dr. Coyne has been nothing but civil throughout this whole affair.

          In the interest of civility I think you should retract your untrue statement.

        5. If he has agreed to release the video – as you assert – “It appears that Professor Haught has agreed to allow the video to be released.” – then please post a link to something citing that. Given they are complaining about the negative attention they are getting – all they need to do is announce that and the negative attention will stop. Google still cant find such an announcement. There is a word for posts like this. Troll.
          And Yes – until the Video is released – the truth is suppressed – no matter whether the blog here is disdainful inflammatory (which i dont happen to agree). However none of those things alther the fact that the video /transcript is being supressed – and by a university. Appalling.
          No academic should countenance this. In fact no one should – period !

        6. “You can disagree with someone’s beliefs without being contemptuous.”

          Sure you can. But when those beliefs are as vile and stupid as Catholicism, why would you?

  54. First off, I am a religious person. As a scientist (by training, if not career), I also believe wholeheartedly in evolution. Scripture says God created things, but doesn’t say much concrete about his methods. To me, science and religion are both compatible, if you realize that religion is a discussion of metaphors and philosophy, and that literal truths can only be derived very broadly with regard to such topics.

    That being said, I find Haught and Rabel’s actions here to be despicable. Truth, of any sort, will never be found with suppression of arguments and debate. An honest person should be willing to step back and look at their own arguments, willing to say “I still think I am right, but there are some issues raised here that I do not yet have an answer for.”

    I have no doubt that this will be something of an example of the Streisand effect. Many more people are going to hear about this because of the censorship than would have ever watched the video debate in the first place. Way to act counter to your own interests, Mr. Haught.

    1. I am a practicing Catholic myself, and also a scientist (degree in meteorology) with a lifelong interest in space science. I also do not see any conflict between God and science. Bible descriptions of ‘creation’ were designed for people with barely an understanding of simple math, and concepts like ‘billions of years’ would have been nonsensical and useless.

      However, the video should be released.

    2. “First off, I am a religious person.”

      Don’t worry, your secret is safe with us.

      “Scripture says God created things”

      Scripture says a lot of stuff, most of it untrue, harmful, or batshit crazy.

      “To me, science and religion are both compatible”

      Then you should see a doctor and up your meds. Science and religion are compatible in the same way that sucking chest wounds and good health are compatible.

      1. No need to be contemptuous and offensive. You are just showing a lack of awareness about the breadth of religious views. I am an agnostic (there is no proof that God does or does not exist). Until somebody explains what kicked off the big bang then God seems as feasible as the universe spontaneously appearing out of nowhere.

        1. Steven, there is also no proof that fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster do not exist. Are you agnostic about them? And not knowing “what kicked off the bing bang” is not an argument for anything. Google “God of the gaps fallacy”.

        2. Actually, God isn’t a feasible explanation.

          First of all, there’s been observed instances of events happening with no outside cause- radioactive decay, for example. Therefore, it is, in fact, plausible that the Big Bang did not require an outside cause.

          Second of all, saying “God is a reason” doesn’t actually answer anything. It’s not a testable prediction, because “god” isn’t a defined force or phenomenon. There’s no way to differentiate the effects of “god” as a causative agent from the effects of invisible pink unicorns, pogo sticks, or bananas. There’s also the problem of if god created the universe, what created god? If the answer is “nothing/god is eternal/god created itself,” why can’t the same be said about the universe?

          The principle of Occam’s Razor is that when faced with multiple possible explanations for something, it is best to choose the one that contains the fewest and simplest unknown variables. And there isn’t an unknown variable that’s bigger than “God did it.”

        3. Each of the various gods described by human religions are as equally feasible as any of the infinite number of possible explanations for the big bang. As you said, we don’t know. Picking just one option out of an infinite number doesn’t seem like a good bet, does it?

        4. “No need to be contemptuous and offensive.”

          Actually, there is. When you postulate fantastic things without a shred of proof, and then INSIST that “it could be”, then it’s time for people to treat you with contempt, and be offensive to those who promote those toxic ideas.

          “Until somebody explains what kicked off the big bang then God seems as feasible as the universe spontaneously appearing out of nowhere.”

          Ohhh, I get it. If it can’t be explained (yet), then “GOD DID IT” is your default “explanation”. As someone else mentioned, “the god of the gaps” is a bogus response.

          It’s stupid, it’s ignorant, and it’s little more than mental masturbation.

        5. God (or Bod, or X, Y whatever variable you might use) may kick off big bang, but how do you believe that same God (or Bod ..) is the same as the God in your bible?

          There is a big different between saying God (or Bod ..) create something, and assuming that same God (or Bod..) is the one the begat jesus.

    3. “Scripture says God created things, but doesn’t say much concrete about his methods.”

      On the contrary. It says he created plants before the sun, made a man out of mud, and made a woman out of the man’s rib. This nonsense about metaphors and philosophy was only dragged up when it became clear the Bible is a crock of shit.

  55. Haught’s words: “You should be grateful that I have tried to protect the public from such a preposterous and logic offending way of bringing your presentation to a close.” Imagine the repercussions of this statement if it were commonly adopted. There would be no more constitutional rights including free press, freedom of speech, etc. Mr.Haught condemns himself and his theology with this attack on the free dissemination of information. I had to read his words three times before I actually could believe anyone could say it. And, how could he possibly assume that Jerry should be grateful? I was astounded. The man is out of touch with reality as are many religious leaders.

  56. “[..] Rabel refuses to give me the email address because he wants to ‘stay out of it,'”

    If he wanted to ‘stay out of it’, he shouldn’t have offered to host the debate. By chosing to host the debate, he gave up the ‘staying out of it’ part and got involved pretty much as directly as possible.

  58. I completely support your cause, and I think that the theologian is being dishonest and cowardly, but next time be more careful in what you agree to ahead of time. Make sure all parties agree that the event will not only be taped, but that you can get a copy for your personal use and that the institution hosting the debate will agree to make the tape available.

  59. Honestly, Rabel deserves abusive E-Mails, and he is a coward. Haught is disingenuous and also a coward. Supressing a debate because you don’t like the results is cowardly, and threatening legal action because someone revealed you did this is doubly cowardly. Of course, I know this is how religious nuts operate so I’m not surprised.

    1. Replying to myself, I am pleased that the choice has been made to release this video, and apologize for the strong words againt Rabel and Haught. It does take courage to admit you made a mistake (about censoring the video) and make it right. I’m glad you did and I respect that.

  60. lol.

    “Sophisticated argument requires as an essential condition that you have the good manners to understand before you criticize”

    Yeah…….I think that only applies when what you’re talking about is actually true and not a make-believe story.

    Jerry should have just started theologizing on the Three Little Pigs and how it may have been possible for one of the Pigs to have built his house of straw in such a more advanced way so as to directly withstand the huffing and puffing of the Wolf. Perhaps if the Pig first built a gigantic wall of straw in front of his house of straw then the wolf would never have had the chance to blow his house down.

    If Haught objects, tell him “Hey why don’t you first go an learn about the Science of Straw Engineering before you start dismissing my claim that proper straw engineering practices could have prevented the Wolf from blowing that Pig’s house down”.

    lol.

    The sophistication of the theologian’s argument basically can be observed from conversations between 6 year olds about who would win a fight between Superman and Spiderman.

  61. That’s what can happen when you let others have control over reporting. In future debates you should probably make sure there’s at least one recorder YOU control – at the very least, an audio recorder – at the event.

    1. Interesting. And nicely done as well, I’d say.

      (Though I was kind of hoping we’d eventually get Obama involved and have another beer summit…)

  64. Crazies will always write crazy things. The best examples of this are found in the FFRF newspaper. The comments are unbelievably dumb and crude, much more, I expect, than anything sent to Haught. The people who write these things do not need any encouragement, they do it all on their own.

  65. “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. I still don’t.”

    Dr. Haught: your concern is admirable. Might I suggest a donation to the National Society for the Distribution of Smelling Salts?

  66. I read your post in Penn Jillette’s voice… sorry, but I got hooked on Bullshit!… anyway, sounds like it fits with their College episode.

  68. You either made your points clear in the presentation or you did not. I want to thank both of you for reminding me that no matter how high on the ladder Homo Sapiens think they are? It will inevitably descend into nothing more than a flame-war on the internet; the proverbial modern form of apes flinging feces at one another.

  70. I’d like to say “Thank you” to Mr. Haught for agreeing, albeit under pressure, to make the video available to the public.

  71. Good point. There is no way to disprove magical, theological and delusional claims and propositions.

    Since immediate emotional arousal and certainty, as evolution would create all emotions to be, it’s akin to symptom chasing.

  73. Unpacking Haughty’s comment. This is a bit long, but heck it’s Sat nite.

    The core fallacy seems to be the ever popular hyper-personalization of ideas. So for Haughty, it’s not about ideas, it’s about people– him and his feelings.

    Our comments:

    “Dear Jerry,
    Your distorted reading of my …..has given birth to an inordinate number of hostile letters to me. Because of misleading statements on your website…”

    Blaming the messenger

    …..“Why then do I hesitate in this case? It has to do with you alone, Jerry, not anyone else, including myself….”

    To wit: Abusive ad hominem (bullying/personal abuse/personal attacks) involves insulting/ belittling one’s opponent in order to attack her claim or invalidate his argument. Also includes pointing out factual but apparent character flaws/actions that are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious. Insults and negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of arguments or assertions.

    “The event at the University of Kentucky did not take place in the way I had expected. My understanding was that each speaker was to provide a curt 25-minute presentation of how he understood the relationship between science and theology. I did just this, and I have no objection to having that presentation made public. People who attended the event, moreover, can testify that in my presentation I avoided talking about or criticizing you personally.”

    Well, except for now, that is

    “When Robert Rabel of the Gaines Center at the University of Kentucky, a true gentleman who remains far above reproach in all of this,”

    In contrast to the devil’s minion, our Jerry

    “Instead, you used the event primarily to launch a sneering and condescending ad hominem…”

    So now deserve my abusive ad hominem, so THERE!

    “Rather than answering my point that:
    • scientism is logically incoherent–
    which is really the main issue

    Another rhetorical trick. Scientism is a straw man.

    • and instead of addressing my argument that the encounter with religious truth requires personal transformation”

    aka, warm fuzzy feelings a lot of the time

    “But let me come to the main reason why I have been reluctant to give permission to release the video. It is not for anything that I said during our encounter, but for a reason that I have never witnessed in public academic discussion before.”

    What!? The prior listing weren’t the main reasons!? Here we go.

    “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. I still don’t…..
    I’m referring to the fact that your whole presentation ended up with a monstrous, not to mention tasteless, non sequitur, to give it the kindest possible characterization…..

    Wait! If “personal transformation” is going to be used as a bulwark for claiming the “evidence” of religion, the behaviors of the religious should be fair assessment of what behaviors that “transformation” accompanies.

    …..”Sincerely,John Haught”

  74. here is the central problem with Haughty — nothing he says can be falsified.

    This is true with all hyper-personalized belief systems and solipsism.

    He comment on this post is full of hyper-personalized ideas and propositions — none of which can ever be proven false. Clever.

  75. Hey! Quick question that’s totally off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My blog looks weird when viewing from my iphone4. I’m trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to resolve this problem. If you have any suggestions, please share. Many thanks!

Comments are closed.