50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God | Hacker News Reader

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God

ritholtz.com

12 pointswslh15 comments

Open articleView on HN

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2292#c...

"So...what does skepticism offer?"

"A wondrous, beautiful, doesn't-give-a-shit-about-you cosmos."

(and yes, anyone participating in this thread is just asking to get karma burn)

Some of these conversations strike me as a very Western view-point of religion, God and theism/atheism.

Religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Advaita Vedanta, Taoism and many eastern 'mystical' traditions don't actually talk about creator deities and the other meta-physics to which these scientists are non-believers.

I've always wondered why people feel they are able to hold constructive conversations about "God" without first having a mutual understanding of what the word means.

Alan Guth sort of addresses this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s47ArcQL-XQ#t=4m04s

I'm always surprised at the obsession that many atheists have with dumping on religion. Atheism in itself has taken on the characteristics of the very religions they "preach" against all too often. Not to say there aren't quiet, private atheists (just like there are quiet, private people with religion), but they are particularly vocal in the nerd centers of the intertubes (See the religion and atheism sub-reddits on Reddit for a laugh).

I used to get annoyed with pushy religious people, now I get to wade up to my neck in pushy atheists.

The problem with /r/atheism is not that it is full of pushy atheists. The problem is that it is full of pushy atheists with stupid arguments. There is an extensive body of sophisticated, logical, and convincing arguments for atheism from some of the deepest thinkers Man has produced. You won't find those on /r/atheism. Instead, you find naive and trivial arguments.

But why even explain the arguments to others that may be religious (or vice-versa for religious people to atheists)? If it's what you believe, why not just leave it at that and keep it to yourself? Of course, when I say this, I direct it at Atheists AND Religious people.

I just never saw the need to convince or push other people to believe the same things you do. We can't even begin to fully understand the complexity that is the universe, science and religion are both continuously wrong, and we are imperfect beings.

We are blind leading blind.

"50 renowned plumbers speaking about landscaping"

Burn, karma, burn.

You would have it that any arbitrary theologian is implicitly informed and unbiased?

This is not about religion, this is what people think about religion in a profession which stereotypically tries to keep religion at arm's length despite individual opinions.

I think stating in that way; "Science tries to keep religion at arm's length" makes science sound biased and negative. Really Science is just founded in evidence that can be observed and measured which doesn't mix with faith based beliefs nor should it.

That's not at all what I meant, nor are all academics scientists.

"This is not about religion, this is what people think about religion"

...

Deny that the everything from the title of the piece to the emphasis placed on several of the speakers being Nobel Laureates was designed as an attempt to add an air of credibility to the views expressed.

Follow that with an assertion that individuals who are not themselves spiritual, most of which freely admit having little or no education on or experience with spiritual matters are qualified in any way to speak on spiritual matters.

I find it interesting that the Christian interpretation of God is invariably singled out for criticism by academics, yet I haven't encountered any panel discussions on how Buddhism or Taoism are irrelevant superstitions. Someone tell me that doesn't smack of religious persecution, please.

In the mean time Academics (taken in aggregate) don't seem to understand that part of the reason the majority of the population (in the US anyway, I can't comment on other parts of the world) are inherently skeptical of the Academic community is folks "don't cotton well to having some ivory tower egg-head tell them they're a bunch of superstitious nutjobs".

I'd advise you to read The Courtier's Reply. Not that it covers everything you mentioned, but it is somewhat relevant.

People are much more likely to criticize what they see constantly around them. In a good portion of the world, Christianity is far more visible than Buddhism or Taoism. Ergo, Christianity gets criticized.

I'm just happy they speak about God and not about Allah ..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com