Haught comes to town!

January 12, 2015 • 4:14 pm

OMG, one of my colleagues just got the following invitation from the executive director of Chicago’s Lumen Christi Institute. I don’t know what that institute is, but it sounds Catholish*:

I am pleased to invite you to a lecture and dinner on Thursday, February 19 at the University of Chicago. The lecture, entitled “Theology and Evolutionary Naturalism: How Much Can Biology Explain?” will be given by John Haught (Georgetown University) and will take place in the Biological Sciences Learning Center Room 001 at 4:30pm. Immediately following the event, you are invited to dinner with Prof. Haught and faculty at Gavin House (1220 East 58th Street). You can find out more about the lecture HERE.
I hope you will be able to join us for the lecture and dinner on February 19. Please RSVP to [name redacted to prevent embarrassment to the parties involved]
Of course given my history with Haught (see the Great Debate here and the Q&A here), I wasn’t invited, but I TAUGHT IN THAT ROOM! How dare they despoil a temple of real learning with Haught’s obscurantism and nebulous musings about the “layers of reality”? This town doesn’t have room for the two of us.
Many scientists and philosophers claim that a Darwinian understanding of life has rendered the idea of God unnecessary. Descent, diversity, design, death, suffering, sex, intelligence, morality, and religion—features of life that had previously been understood theologically—now seem open to a purely natural explanation. This lecture will consider whether the claims of evolutionary naturalists are coherent and whether a theological understanding of life can still be reconciled with biological accounts.

Any guesses about whether Haught will show that theology and biology can be reconciled? I’ll bet anyone $100 versus $1 that he will!

Haught is also lecturing the day before at the University Club downtown on “Science, Faith, and the New Atheism“:

The bestselling books by the “New Atheists” Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens provide colorful portraits of the evils of religions, especially those that profess belief in a personal God. In their passionate denunciation of faith in God the New Atheists appeal not only to morality but also to reason to convince readers of the absolute wrongness of belief in God. This lecture will summarize the main claims of the New Atheists and examine whether these claims are themselves reasonable.

And what do you think the chances are that Haught will consider the claims of New Atheists to be reasonable?

I note from the Lumen Christi description that Haught got a “Friend of Darwin” award in 2008 from the National Center for Science Education. I don’t think that if Darwin were alive, he’d consider Haught a friend, and the NCSE should reserve those awards for people who espouse naturalistic evolution not (as does Haught) spooky God-directed evolution.

 ________________
*I looked it up the Lumen Christi Institute, and it turns out to be what I thought:

The Lumen Christi Institute advocates, supports and nurtures intellectual work done in intimate relation to the Light of Christ, the Catholic Christian tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church.

The Lumen Christi Institute exists to strengthen and nourish contemporary intellectual culture by deepening knowledge of the Catholic tradition, and to build up the Catholic presence in higher education by fostering the cultural formation of the university.

 

68 thoughts on “Haught comes to town!”

      1. But is it the ascending or descending colon? That’s the vital question on which we differ from Prof Haught.

        1. Lumen – light
          Christi – anointed

          A from of glow-in-the-dark body wash.

          I have heard of them. They want to reconcile Science with Religion. Not the first, nor the last to want to do that.

  2. His lecture is for UofC faculty? If he wants an approving audience shouldn’t he post notices on church bulletin boards?

  4. Considering that Haught seemed to question a physical Resurrection in his Dover testimony, I fail to see his speaking as a Catholic scholar.

  5. A fun drinking game would be to take a shot every time a compatibalist suggests an theist would be right “if” anyone actually believed in the God they write about – which of course “no one” does! But then most of us would pass out about halfway through the lecture.

    In my semi-Faitheist youth, I thought for sure the progression was toward ceding the natural world to science and history, holding onto a symbolic god that was about morality and human affairs. Perhaps that is a position one would find among the Sophisticated and maybe the Unitarians, but the ones I’ve read leave too much space for an actual, interventionist God of creation (if only for the little people). I’m glad for the Haughts of the world – they make it that much easier to abandon religiosity completely. Life is so much easier when you don’t have to rationalize and make excuses for primitive, flawed epistemologies.

  6. Another otherwise respectable university lending credence to morons by allowing, in the name of free speech, space on campus where they can spout their gibberish. Oh, wait, it’s entertainment! Let’s hope the audience is sufficiently amused and responds appropriately with howls of laughter and rolling of eyeballs at all the right moments.

      1. Not sure what the “Heckler’s Veto” is. I oppose heckling. But if somebody says something stupid I don’t see anything wrong with a laughter from the audience.

        And since this event is hosted at a university I would hope that (a) the event is open to everybody which means that Jerry – invited or not – could attend (if he is willing to sit through the whole talk) and (b) there is a Q/A afterwards where the audience can grill him at least a little bit.

        2. “And since this event is hosted at a university . . . .”

          Seems that any university public or private, worthy of the name and in the spirit of free inquiry, would allow some space for the general public to attend an otherwise invitation-only university-sponsored event. However, private universities are not public universities, eh? To the extent that they are private, I gather that to some not insignificant degree private university administrators share the mindset of private corporate tyrants (and increasingly so at public universities during the last twenty years), but nowhere near as much act on that mindset (sectarian colleges of course excepted) due to the public relations damage doing so would cause.

          (Recent student protests regarding commencement speakers come to mind. So much for “free inquiry,” eh? I wonder if Hitch ever spoke at graduations and if they were videoed and if so where those speeches can be found. Bet those students would have had a calf if Hitch had spoken.)

          1. However, private universities are not public universities, eh?

            You are right. My culture bias strikes again. Here Germany, private universities are very rare so I have little experience with how things are handled there. In some of the states the term “university” is exclusively reserved for public institutions.

    1. The NCSE site says this:- “John F Haught […] author of a number of books on the theology of evolution, including God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution, second edition (Boulder [CO]: Westview Press, 2007), Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution (Mahwah [NJ]: Paulist Press, 2001), and Deeper Than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution (Boulder [CO]: Westview Press, 2003), he also testified effectively on the theological roots of “intelligent design” creationism for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v Dover, the case establishing the unconstitutionality of teaching “intelligent design” in the public schools.”

      I assume it’s the Dover thing because other people connected with the trial also got an award.

    2. John – I also failed to find a direct connection to the Friend award, but there is this from Wikipedia that may be related:

      “Haught testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. His opinion was that the effect of the intelligent design policy adopted by the Dover School board would “be to compel public school science teachers to present their students in biology class information that is inherently religious, not scientific in nature.”

      So, that seems to be testimony on the side of the good guys.

      But then the article continues:

      “He also testified that materialism, the philosophy that only matter exists, is “a belief system, no less a belief system than is intelligent design. And as such, it has absolutely no place in the classroom, and teachers of evolution should not lead their students craftily or explicitly to … feel that they have to embrace a materialistic world-view in order to make sense of evolution.”

      1. So public schools basically should be out of the pushing-a-worldview business. I’m not sure I disagree, as far as “pushing” as a practice, but I kind of think materialism is the no-worldview worldview, so I’m not sure what Mr. Haight and his ilk think science teachers are supposed to talk about (and not talk about). His is a posture that completely disregards the Xtian fundamentalist view, which really, really would prefer to have creationism and evolution taught as equal and opposing theories, if evolution is to be taught at all. Claiming evidence- and fact-based science is equivalent to intelligent design, because worldview, is a compromise that helps no one (except those who promote the compromise, of course).

        1. In that particular instance Haught was attacking a straw man (IMO). I don’t recall any instances of kids suing schools/science teachers claiming they were presenting philosophical materialism in class.

          There is some inherent methodological naturalism in science, but that’s pretty much as far as it goes at the HS level. Kids will learn to look for natural/physical explanations for phenomenon as part of the scientific method. If they draw a philosophical conclusion from that, well…that’s their own business. 🙂

        2. ‘pushing as a practice. . . .’

          Well, if it actually is the case with the universe that everything is made up of ‘muons and bosons,’ and that seems probable,’ then how can a conscientious teacher of any subject (including theology)NOT ‘push’? We teachers must teach what is the case, in the humanities as in the natural and social sciences). Otherwise, we are playing false with our students and ‘bad-faithing’ ourselves along the way.

  10. Yikes! Can you leave him strange notes in the classroom for him to happen upon? 🙂

    1. Oooooooh, I like that idea! 🙂

      How about: “What sound does an apologist make, when he is exposed to real science?”
      “How many creationists do you need to change a lightbulb? None, you just have to believe.”

  11. > I’ll bet anyone $100 versus $1 that he will!

    Try to bet with Haught – he might knock it off just to spite you.

    1. > And what do you think the chances are that Haught will consider the claims of New Atheists to be reasonable?

      I think he will not consider the claims of New Atheism, period.

      I think he will be misrepresenting the claims and ‘straw man’ his way through the entire talk.

  12. That’s funny — last time he wound up telling poor Professor Ceiling Cat that he needs to get out more. Now he won’t even send him an invitation. There’s no understanding some people.

    1. I’m thinkin’ that Georgetown (a private univ.) should invite Dr. C to speak, with an invitation to Dr. H to attend, and somehow subtly make sure Lumen Christi is aware. Dr. H would be hard-pressed to decline, unless he coincidentally had a scheduling conflict.

  14. I recently attended a presentation by Karlo Broussard of the Magis Center – another Catholic Center that seeks to demonstrate “the close connection between reason and faith.” I had hoped to gain some insight as to the nexus, but he spent nearly the whole time on various permutations of the anthropic principle. Since he was hawking his books after the lecture, I departed but sent him an email about the biological sciences and evolution – no response.

    http://www.magiscenter.com/

  15. I didn’t know that Fay Flam received an NCSE Friend of Darwin award 9 months ago

    NCSE quote:- “Finally, the Friend of Darwin and Friend of the Planet awards were also bestowed on two writers who have fought the good fight respectively for evolution and the environment: Faye Flam and Richard Alley. Flam wrote “Planet of the Apes”—the only newspaper column dedicated to evolution—for the Philadelphia Inquirer from 2010 to 2012. Said Ann Reid: “Faye’s scientifically informed (and witty) explanations of evolution and her responses to creationism have been a major contribution towards our mutual goals.”

  16. Surely, Prof CC has a suitable Darwin costume to wear when attending such nonsense.
    Does Darwin eats shoots and leaves?

    2. For some reason whenever I see the name “John Haught” my brain returns the face, and what I know of the views of Jonathan Haidt.

      1. And we know that intentions prove religion is true because the road to hell is paved with them.

        When I read about Haught’s ideas the physical stance I most often assume is the facepalm.

  19. Does anyone know how John Haught defines “God?” I know he’s Catholic, but there’s a lot of variation within that group.

    I thought I had one by him but no. I looked around a bit online — not seen it yet. Sometimes pinning down a definition helps with figuring out the tricks they’re playing.

    One day in the near future atheism will be considered a normal, legitimate viewpoint which any ordinarily intelligent person of wisdom and good will might hold. And then the John Haughts of the world will be screwed. Whether they realize it or not, their arguments all seem to rely on the subtle assumption that atheists lack some mental or emotional depth which only religion can provide. They breath the air of privilege granted matters of faith, which blends like smoke into values and virtues. Once the existence of God becomes a purely empirical issue to be weighed by reason it’s over for them.

    That’s one reason they keep screaming that it’s NOT one of those.

    1. Okay, I finally found a definition:

      The term ‘God’ … means “the transcendent future horizon that draws an unfathomable fulfillment yet to be realized.”

      Ah, I see. Imagine the shallow and arid interior landscapes of those who don’t believe in a transcendent future horizon that draws an unfathomable fulfillment yet to be realized. They are so unfulfilled. Not just now, of course, but in the transcendent future.

      Haught has a wicked enemy before him and a hard task indeed. The nonbeliever might very well be unreachable.

      1. Worse than that, his very definition declares it to be incomprehensible.

        So if even he doesn’t understand what the fuck he’s babbling about, how the hell is anybody else supposed to make sense of it?

        And, of course, he’s explicitly declaring it to be beyond that which can be seen — literally over the horizon.

        So his god is something nobody, not even he, understands, and which is incapable of being detected.

        And yet, even if we were to take it seriously…it’s relevant to reality…how, exactly…?

        b&

        1. Tonight I rewatched the Intelligence Squared debate, “Is The RCC A Force For Good In The World.” The one with Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry against an African Bishop and the Lady PM who switched from Anglican to RCC because the Anglican church decided to let woman be priests (you could not make up better shit than that, especially her condescending reply to a questioner as to why it was OK for a woman to be a PM, but not a priest)

          On to the point before I forget where I was going. Hold on, let me think a sec.

          Oh yea. Late in that debate, in his closing statement actually, Stephen Fry just eviscerated the Lady PM on just the thing you are criticizing in your comment. I almost felt sorry for her.

          In response to previous criticism about the RCCs doctrine on Limbo, she played the “most people won’t understand the theology of it all, but I do and Stephen doesn’t,” card. Let’s just say that Stephen’s rebuttal was . . . . very satisfying, both emotionally and rationally.

          1. Did you see Fry’s recent philippic directed at those who think Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons were poor satire and that this is somehow a relevant, mitigating factor?

          2. I haven’t, but thank you for the heads up. I will have to search for that.

            Speaking of music and Stephen Fry, I have been perusing Netflix recently because I have a free month, and I have been working my way through their documentary collection. I came across a documentary by Stephen Fry on Wagner titled Wagner & Me. In it he explores not only the music and Wagner’s music career, but also Wagner’s antisemitism and the association of Wagner’s music with the Nazi’s due to Hitler’s love of it. It was a very, very good documentary. I wish I could speak as well as Stephen. He brought tears to my eyes more than once.

          3. Seen it!

            Yes, it was good. One tangential thing that stood out to me was listening to the rehearsal accompanist. Sheesh! Given the level if the playing, I wonder how many rehearsal accompanists must be required to rehearse all the operas they mount during the festival. So much dense, complicated, hard music. I’d rate it more difficult that ANY piano concerto.

            Also, it would be an experience to see the Ring or Parsifal or Meistersinger at Bayreuth, but once you put your name on the list, waiting time is about 10 years! And you have to “renew” your spot on the list every year.

          4. When I was a student at ASU, I auditioned for the pit for one of Flagstaff Opera’s productions of the Ring. (Didn’t get past the first round.) To help me prepare, Dr. Bill Reber, the Music Director of ASU’s Lyric Opera Theatre, was generous to spend some time with me in his office. I had the photocopy of the excerpt list that they had mailed me. I handed it to him. He grabbed a full-sized conductor’s score from the middle of his bookshelf, flipped right to the spot, sat down at the piano, and started playing.

            No, I have no clue how the hell he did that.

            He remains to this day my favorite conductor under whom I’ve played for any length of time. Never any question where he was, what was going on, or what he wanted. I generally agreed with his interpretation, but, more importantly, when I didn’t, it was quite clear that his was entirely defensible and not at all unreasonable. And it felt like he was in constant eye contact with me, which I know can’t be the case because he was in constant eye contact with everybody else, too.

            And, again, this is in an opera conductor, who has to deal with all sorts of chaos going on at all times.

            I’ve done one-offs here and there with one or three other conductors who were in his league, but never anything long-term.

            b&

      3. The meaning of the word “god” isn’t deity, it is “to call a deity” or to “invoke a deity.”

        FYI

        1. Perhaps in your dictionary. And maybe even according to your own favored superstition.

          But, in everybody else’s dictionary, “god” is a noun, not a verb. And one synonymous with, “deity,” from “deus,” ultimately from “Zeus.” “God” is just the same idea from a Germanic source rather than a Greek one.

          Cheers,

          b&

        2. Are you saying that Haught makes this distinction? In the definition I quoted it doesn’t seem to mean an action.

  20. There are some red flags here.

    Haught is not asking of the New Atheist view is “complete”- he’s asking if it !*coherent*!. Now whatever else you may think of the Gnu As, the world-view is certainly “coherent”. Atheism is also entirely “reasonable” whether or not it is true. These are loaded words here.

    Wikipedia informs us that Darwin ‘declined a request by the Archbishop of Canterbury to join a ‘Private Conference’ of devout scientists to harmonise science and religion, for he saw “no prospect of any benefit arising” from it.;

  21. I think the atheist/Darwinian students on campus shall protest, holding a banner against Haughty.

  23. “This lecture will consider whether the claims of evolutionary naturalists are coherent and whether a theological understanding of life can still be reconciled with biological accounts.”

    Here are some other lectures I’d be equally interested in attending:

    The motor car, will it ever replace the horse?

    The automatic washing machine and its attempts to subvert the pleasures of beating clothes with a stone by the river bank.

    Antibiotics versus blood-letting; the controversy continues.

    The handwritten letter; its continuing role as a major medium of communication.

  24. This lecture will consider whether the claims of evolutionary naturalists are coherent and whether a theological understanding of life can still be reconciled with biological accounts.

    There’s that old false dichotomy again. Assuming for sake of argument that the TOE is incoherent, that fact wouldn’t provide any evidence for God. You can’t get from “current science incomplete” to “therefore Angels are pushing Mercury.” Well I guess you can, but its not a good idea.

  25. Ah the religious. And the Catholic Church with their propagandistic shenanigans.

    Fun Fact: “lumen” in anatomy means the empty space inside an organ. Like inside a blood vessel. Where your blood goes. In this case I’d say empty space covers it. 🙂

  26. Jerry, I’ll take that bet. I assume you accept Paypal, in case I lose?
    …
    I just want to able to say, when my grandkids ask me if I know anyone famous, Well, I once lost a bet to Jerry Coyne.

Comments are closed.