Jerry Coyne is upset (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 06, 2012, 02:02 (4439 days ago)

Scientists are leaving the sinking Darwin ship: Shapiro especially:-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-make-sociopath-through-brain-injury-trauma&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120905-Fodor and Nagel are new enemies. I've got Nagel's book and he is looking for a third way. As an atheist he can't cotton to God, but he also doubts Darwin, and is looking for a compromise position. No-man's land? But there is the third way I offer, theistic evolution.

Correction: Jerry Coyne is upset

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 06, 2012, 19:25 (4439 days ago) @ David Turell

Scientists are leaving the sinking Darwin ship: Shapiro especially:
> 
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-make-sociopath-through-brain-i... 
> Fodor and Nagel are new enemies. I've got Nagel's book and he is looking for a third way. As an atheist he can't cotton to God, but he also doubts Darwin, and is looking for a compromise position. No-man's land? But there is the third way I offer, theistic evolution.- Correct Website:-http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/larrry-moran-reviews-shapiros-anti-darwinian-book-and-another-new-anti-evolution-book-by-thomas-nagel/

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 31, 2015, 14:23 (3442 days ago) @ David Turell

John Horgan takes him on and picks him apart. Coyne is a would be killer of religion:-http://www.wsj.com/articles/preaching-to-the-converted-1432931302?KEYWORDS=John+Horgan-"Mr. Coyne castigates not only religious believers but even non-believers less hostile to religion than he is. He reviles “accommodationism,” the notion that science and religion can find common ground. This view, he claims, “gives unwarranted credibility to faith, a credibility that, at its extremes, is responsible for many human deaths and might ultimately contribute to the demise of our own species and much other life on Earth.” If we don't all agree with Mr. Coyne, in other words, we're doomed.-"Mr. Coyne overlooks any positive consequences of religion, such as its role in anti-slavery, civil-rights and anti-war movements. He inflates religion's contribution to public resistance toward vaccines, genetically modified food and human-induced global warming. Conversely, he absolves science of responsibility for any adverse consequences, such as weapons and ideologies of mass destruction. “The compelling force that produced nuclear weapons, gunpowder, and eugenics was not science but people.” Right. Science doesn't kill people; people kill people.-"Mr. Coyne's critique of free will, far from being based on scientific “fact,” betrays how his hostility toward religion distorts his judgment. Evidence against free will, he says, “kicks the props out from under much theology, including the doctrine of salvation.” Mr. Coyne thinks that if religious people believe in free will, it must be an illusion. -"Mr. Coyne's loathing of creationism, similarly, leads him to exaggerate what science can tell us about our cosmic origins. Mr. Coyne asserts that “we are starting to see how the universe could arise from ‘nothing,' and that our own universe might be only one of many universes that differ in their physical laws.” Actually, cosmologists are more baffled than ever at why there is something rather than nothing.-"The popularity of multiverse theories—a hypothetical corollary of several highly speculative physics theories—merely shows how desperate scientists are for answers. Multiverse enthusiasts seem to think that the existence of an infinite number of universes will make ours appear less mysterious. The problem is, none of these other universes can be observed, which is why skeptics liken multiverse theories to untestable religious beliefs.-"Mr. Coyne repeatedly reminds us that science, unlike religion, promotes self-criticism, but he is remarkably lacking in this virtue himself. He rejects complaints that some modern scientists are guilty of “scientism,” which I would define as excessive trust—faith!—in science. Calling scientism “a grab bag of disparate accusations that are mostly inaccurate or overblown,” Mr. Coyne insists that the term “be dropped.”-"Actually, “Faith vs. Fact” serves as a splendid specimen of scientism. Mr. Coyne disparages not only religion but also other human ways of engaging with reality. The arts, he argues, “cannot ascertain truth or knowledge,” and the humanities do so only to the extent that they emulate the sciences. This sort of arrogance and certitude is the essence of scientism."

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, June 01, 2015, 08:44 (3441 days ago) @ David Turell

Sounds like a pretty unsavory character to me, the type that would make you want to choke him within minutes of meeting him.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by David Turell @, Monday, June 01, 2015, 14:21 (3441 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: Sounds like a pretty unsavory character to me, the type that would make you want to choke him within minutes of meeting him.-He is one of the worst of the Neo-atheists.

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by romansh ⌂ @, Tuesday, August 04, 2015, 02:00 (3377 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Sounds like a pretty unsavory character to me, the type that would make you want to choke him within minutes of meeting him.-I have met him ... Should I pass judgement of you based on your written word?

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by David Turell @, Monday, August 03, 2015, 22:10 (3377 days ago) @ David Turell

Another review of his book, looking carefully at both sides of the issue: Coyne cannot solve an insolvable problem:-https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/science-and-theology/2015/08/03/77136504-19ca-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1-"The current blood feud between religious science-deniers and New Atheist religion-bashers sells a lot of books. For many people, religious or not, the polarization brings to mind Mercutio's “a plague o' both your houses!” But Jerry A. Coyne's new book, “Faith vs. Fact,” rejects accommodationist bipartisanship. He asserts that “science and religion are incompatible, and you must choose between them.” -"He argues this for two reasons. The first is that the major attempts to support religion through science, or even merely to avoid conflict with science, just don't work. The second and stronger claim is that they can't work because the very ways in which science and faith seek to understand the world are intrinsically opposed." ?

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by romansh ⌂ @, Tuesday, August 04, 2015, 01:56 (3377 days ago) @ David Turell

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/steve-pinker-reviews-faith-versus-f... here is mine:-http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32955#p32955-Have you read Jerry's book? What did you think of it?

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 04, 2015, 12:50 (3377 days ago) @ romansh


> 
> Romansh: And here is mine:
> 
> http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32955#p32955
&#... 
> Have you read Jerry's book? What did you think of it?-No. I've seen your review. It is all a matter of viewpoint, not fact.

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by romansh ⌂ @, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 15:28 (3369 days ago) @ David Turell

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by romansh ⌂ @, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 18:16 (3369 days ago) @ romansh

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 20:36 (3368 days ago) @ romansh

Rom:https://www.spreaker.com/user/8084919/132-jerry-coyne-faith-vs-fact
> 
> Jerry Coyne from minute 18 to 51 or there abouts-I still think Gould's NOMA is reasonable.

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by romansh ⌂ @, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 22:59 (3368 days ago) @ David Turell

I still think Gould's NOMA is reasonable.-Fair enough. But what were Jerry's reasons for disagreeing with this position?

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 23:44 (3368 days ago) @ romansh

Daivd: I still think Gould's NOMA is reasonable.
> 
> Rom: Fair enough. But what were Jerry's reasons for disagreeing with this position?-Simply, the gulf between the two approaches is too wide. They have nothing to offer each other. He points to the Bible stories, which I don't use, and points out they are counter to science. I do understand that parts of the OT are true history born out by archeological explorations. I've stood in excavation of the City of David outside the walls of the old city of Jerusalem.

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by romansh ⌂ @, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 23:59 (3368 days ago) @ David Turell

Daivd: I still think Gould's NOMA is reasonable.
> > 
> > Rom: Fair enough. But what were Jerry's reasons for disagreeing with this position?
> 
> Simply, the gulf between the two approaches is too wide. They have nothing to offer each other. He points to the Bible stories, which I don't use, and points out they are counter to science. I do understand that parts of the OT are true history born out by archeological explorations. I've stood in excavation of the City of David outside the walls of the old city of Jerusalem.-Are these Jerry's reasons "the gulf is too wide". "They have nothing to offer each other"? You really should read the book.-I have stood on the Banks of the River Jordan? The Eucalyptus trees I thought were interesting.

Jerry Coyne book is criticised by Ed Feser

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 22:54 (3206 days ago) @ romansh

Feser is a Catholic philosopher. The book is Faith vs. Fact:-http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/02/omnibus-of-fallacies-"Coyne's own method, then, is to characterize religion however he needs to in order to convict it of irrationality. Nor is “religion” the only term Coyne uses in a tendentious way. The question-begging definition is perhaps his favorite debating trick. He characterizes “faith” as “belief without—or in the face of—evidence” and repeatedly uses the term as if this is what it generally means in religious contexts. Naturally, he has no trouble showing that faith so understood is irrational. But this simply is not how faith is understood historically in Christian theology. For example, for scholastic theologians, faith is assent to something that has been revealed by God. And how do we know that God exists and really has revealed it? Those are claims for which, the theologian agrees, evidence needs to be given.-***-"But not so fast, because a couple of pages after that he says that if scientism is the view that science is “the only reliable ‘way of knowing,'” then “most of my colleagues and I are indeed guilty of scientism” and “scientism is a virtue”—never mind that he has just dismissed the accusation of scientism as a “canard.” Reading Coyne trying to do something as simple as defining his terms is like watching him play tennis with himself. And losing-" Then there is the problem that to appeal to science alone in order to show that science is reliable is to argue in a circle. Coyne is aware of the problem, but answers, “I'll pay attention to the circularity argument when someone comes up with a better way to understand nature.” Yet the only criteria of better and worse that Coyne will accept are scientific criteria. Hence his response to the charge that he has given a circular argument is to repeat the same circular argument. "-Comment: Feser's complaints are generally that Coyne keeps changing his position and doesn't understand at all the religions he is discussing.

Jerry Coyne is criticized with good reason

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 18:45 (3369 days ago) @ romansh

Rom:- http://blog.edsuom.com/2015/08/faith-vs-fact-two-opposing-sides-of.html-This excellent review is why I don't use religion in my thinking.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum