

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God - wslh
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/50-renowned-academics-speaking-about-god/

======
ender7
[http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2292#c...](http://www.smbc-
comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2292#comic)

"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)

------
akuzi
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.

------
joelhaus
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>

------
gtaylor
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.

~~~
tzs
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.

~~~
gtaylor
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.

------
knieveltech
"50 renowned plumbers speaking about landscaping"

Burn, karma, burn.

~~~
glimcat
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.

~~~
knieveltech
"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".

~~~
jokermatt999
_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'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.

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

