Let's analyze "Defeaters: The Problem of Science" - a sermon by Joe Coffey

[Chris OConnor]

I've recently stumbled upon a church in Ohio led by Dr. Joe Coffey called Hudson Community Chapel. How exactly this "stumbling" occurred is not important, but let it suffice to say that I am highly frustrated with one particular sermon Joe Coffey gave entitled, "Defeaters: The Problem of Science." The sermon is viewable online at http://hccvideo.com/ipod/wmv/100310.wmv and I'd like this thread to please stay focused only on that particular sermon video. In my opinion Joe Coffey is taking advantage of a scientifically illiterate congregation and pretending to actually know what he's talking about. Watch the video and it should be obvious as most BookTalk.org members are quite educated in the relevant fields.

I'm asking you guys to take the time to watch the video carefully and help me list where Joe goes wrong, namely the scientific inaccuracies and inductive logical fallacies. When you post please include the spot in the video so other people can quickly reference the error. Just say, "At 2:12 Joe says..." Include the time stamp please!

The goal here is to eventually contact Joe Coffey and see if he is aware of the errors. We might invite him to a debate. I'm not sure how this will turn out, but you all can maximize the probability of it turning out well by being as gentle and respectful as possible. I know we love heated debates here on BookTalk.org, but in this case it serves us best to soften our approach. We're not going to get anywhere with him if we're too aggressive. Skip the ad hominems please. Assume that every word you type will be read by this pastor.

When I first went through the video I took over 10 pages of handwritten notes and counted at least 50 errors or logical fallacies. But I'd like to see what you guys find prior to me sharing my opinion in too much depth.

Please LIST the errors and clearly label them. Break the video down and show where he uses false premises and logical fallacies to reach an invalid conclusion. Treat this like a project. If you have links to support your claims or show Joe to be wrong please include them. Cite your sources, check your own logic and be nice.

I'll give away some free books to those that participate and contribute the most to this challenge!

Here is the video http://hccvideo.com/ipod/wmv/100310.wmv

[stahrwe]

I think this is a great idea except that I hate videos. I checked but do not see the sermon available in transcript form. I suggest that everyone listen to the sermon all the way through one time. Then maybe a second time and then start making notes.

[Chris OConnor]

President Camacho, I deleted your post. Please reread my entire first post.

[DWill]

Ooh, that was painful. The speaker was all over the place, very hard to follow. I wouldn't find it worthwhile to analyze his thinking, so sorry for that, Chris (I also didn't have a timing feature). He lost my interest right from the start when stating that he was going to tell his listeners how to bring a skeptic to Jesus Christ by showing that science doesn't know what it thinks it knows. If I was responding to Joe Coffey in person, I'd ask him how anything he said has any bearing on whether the specific theology called Christianity is true. It's easy to get me to admit that there is something going on that I can't fathom, though I don't maintain any definite ideas on what that is. But I didn't need to see these questionable demonstrations and what amounted to an underhanded sales pitch to acknowledge that. Coffey was underhanded because he didn't want to come right out and say that he believes every single thing in the Bible is true, but doesn't he? He wouldn't say so because he must have known that his tirade against modern science, even if there had been truth to it, doesn't in any way lead to Christ.

[geo]

The goal here is to eventually contact Joe Coffey and see if he is aware of the errors. We might invite him to a debate.

What is the point, Chris? This guy has an agenda against science because it conflicts with his cherished beliefs. He has likely been rationalizing this stuff all of his life and is not likely to be reasoned with now. You can't debate someone who believes the Bible is irrefutable.

[Interbane]

I appreciate such mental exercise, I'll delve into it. So you know, right from the start, this will do nothing but make his beliefs more impenetrable. The benefit here is for mental exercise for us, and for those of his potential sermon who aren't critical thinkers, and aren't also already polarized against critical thinking.

If someone else is interested besides myself, pick a 15 second chunk and transcript it.

What is the point, Chris?

It's a challenge geo, free books and critical thinking exercise.

[stahrwe]

What a painful exercise watching that guy, ugh. Oh well, I made the sacrifice for Chris.

Right off the top, the only 'glaring' error I noticed was at 17:00 where he was talking about conservation of matter and energy and said that science has shown that at one time the universe was completely empty. Of course, according to the Big Bang theory, if I understand it correctly, the universe today contains exactly the same amount of matter/energy which it has ever contained. He needs to tweak that part of his presentation.

[geo]

I appreciate such mental exercise, I'll delve into it. So you know, right from the start, this will do nothing but make his beliefs more impenetrable. The benefit here is for mental exercise for us, and for those of his potential sermon who aren't critical thinkers, and aren't also already polarized against critical thinking.

If someone else is interested besides myself, pick a 15 second chunk and transcript it.

What is the point, Chris?

It's a challenge geo, free books and critical thinking exercise.

Okay, I can appreciate that. It's like Find Waldo except in this case you're looking for logical fallacies.

[Chris OConnor]

I guess I'll just come right out and tell you guys why I care so much about this particular sermon. Some of my family members attend this church and one of them encouraged me to watch this sermon video because they thought their pastor was effectively using science to support intelligent design and belief in a deity.

So I watched the video several times and found myself feeling all sorts of emotions. This pastor clearly isn't literate in the various sciences he touches upon in the sermon. He got his info from possibly http://www.icr.org/ or maybe http://www.answersingenesis.org/. Most of us are familiar with these pseudo-science websites, but the people attending this church are probably brand new to most of this material. What upset me more than anything is knowing that the majority of the people attending this sermon are going to watch and assume this pastor actually knows what he's talking about. In fact the family member that directed me to the video sermon seemed somewhat confident that if I only watched the video I would see that science really does support belief in an intelligent designer.

Joe Coffey name drops and throws around various science terms as if they are second nature to him. But while watching I kept hearing him attributing beliefs to scientists that I know they don't possess. I knew Stephen Jay Gould personally, have read most of his books and hundreds of his essays. Gould didn't believe as Coffey said he believed, yet the majority of the people watching this sermon are not going to know this. Coffey is either lying or ignorant. To be honest I don't know which one it is. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he spent a few hours on the creation research websites and then brought back that nonsense to regurgitate (with charisma, confidence and authority) to his parishioners.

Coffey does so much wrong in this sermon that it had my blood boiling. Right or wrong I get deeply upset when people employ conniving means to get ignorant people to believe in bullshit. Not everyone has the time, energy or intellectual capacity to study these subjects as we do here on BookTalk.org. Most people rely on figures of authority, such as Joe Coffey, for their education. So in my opinion this guy is committing an intellectual crime and possibly even breaking a commandment by lying.

I'm not always good at being gentle. When someone is so wrong that it makes my skin crawl I struggle to talk softly and respectfully. But not all of you are so easily aroused as me so I'm hoping on getting some of you to help me bullet-point the logical fallacies and scientific inaccuracies so that they can be shared with Joe Coffey.

How will he react? Will he react at all? I don't know. On the surface he appears to be a pretty nice guy. I don't see him as a confrontational or overly arrogant pastor. So if we approach this respectfully maybe he will acknowledge at least some of his errors. From experience this probably won't happen, but isn't it worth a try?

[Chris OConnor]

Okay, I can appreciate that. It's like Find Waldo except in this case you're looking for logical fallacies.

LOL Precisely. Consider this an exercise in honing our critical thinking skills.