Talk:John F. Haught

comment on subject
An obvious casualty, if the 'new atheists' are right, is the meaningfulness of the life-work of theologians such as Haught, and it is only to be expected that they would try to defend this meaning tenaciously with such resources as are at their disposal. Alas, despite an Amazon review claim that Haught does this "without the vitriol that has characterized Hitchens et al," scarcely a page in God and the New Atheism neglects to take vitriolic swipes at the supposed reading deficiencies, frivolity of purpose and general lack of "depth" of Haught's "hard-core" opponents. "Unworthy of comment" is a typically dismissive phrase; nevertheless, no opportunity to comment dismissively is forgone. Apart from the glimpse it provides into the psyche of an apparently threatened academic, there is little of substance to be gained from reading this particular work. Certainly, the promised logical analysis is disappointly absent. To borrow a stylistic turn of phrase similar to those in the author's own arsenal, there's no evidence that Haught has ever opened a book of logic in his life or would know Modus Ponens from Modus Tollens. Logical equivocations and ad hominem attacks abound. As a philosophical critic, Haught is clearly out of his epistemological depth here and badly overmatched by the thinkers whose arguments he hopes to undermine. No doubt there are legitimate criticisms to be made of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, but this defiant statement of faith does not even begin to provide them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.15 (talk • contribs)

Debate
I tagged the article as involving a person in a current event. The debate is weeks old but the publishing/censorship controversy is just now being picked up by influential press such as Slashdot. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/02/0221259/theologian-attempts-censorship-after-losing-public-debate  Perhaps this passes quickly. Just an FYI. --Ds13 (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Lacking in "Debates, Lectures, and Writings" Section
The aforementioned section is not written in an unbiased manner, and the references used in it are almost entirely the work of Jerry A. Coyne, who is indeed an opponent of Haught's theories. See specifically References 8, 9, 11, and 12.

Even the subject matter of Reference 10 indicates a bias against Mr. Haught, as the title of the cited article is "Theologian Attempts Censorship After Losing Debate". (Emphasis added.) Not only is the mere reference to a particular stance on a philosophical debate biased, but a less than cursory review of the source itself indicates that the content it contains is highly biased and, at times, inflammatory.

Also, note the previous talk page sections, one of which is an objective critique of the positions of Mr. Haught himself rather than a discussion of the content of the Wikipedia article itself. The other is, at the very least, a misguided view of what constitutes "influential press" (referring to Slashdot, which is simply a forum for discussion threads. Notwithstanding the issue of whether or not Slashdot is "influential press," the citation to this particular discussion thread is problematic in that it 1) fails to demonstrate impartiality, and 2) fails to discuss the merits of the philosophical debate in any significant way.

Finally, the section itself does not contain any citations from references that provide an opposing view to those listed. This is prima facie evidence that the section is highly suspect for being partial.

164.119.14.188 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)VeritasDolet

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Haught. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004082742/http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day5pmsession.pdf to http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day5pmsession.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)