32 ms·

"Physics seems to us a promising thing to work on, and alchemy and theology obvious wastes of time." I'm not sure which "us" pg is referring to, but the essay

by nocman 10y ago

"Physics seems to us a promising thing to work on, and alchemy and theology obvious wastes of time." I'm not sure which "us" pg is referring to, but the essay gives me the impression that he meant something like "most people" (I could be reading him wrong, but that was my impression). Alchemy is obviously a waste of time -- I won't dispute that, and I suspect that "most people" would agree with that assertion. Being that pg is an atheist, I would expect him to personally believe that the study of theology is a waste of time. However, even just taking Christian theology into account, given that over 100 million Bibles are sold or given away in the world every year (https://www.reference.com/world-view/many-copies-bible-sold-year-3a42fbe0f6956bb2 https://www.reference.com/world-view/many-copies-bible-sold-...), and the Bible continues to be "the most widely distributed and best-selling book in the world.", the "us" for which it is true that the study of theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time" seems to me to be much smaller group of people than the essay seems to imply. Again, this is just the impression I got from reading the essay. I would be happy to have pg respond and let me know if my impression was incorrect. (edited to remove unintentional indenting)

hueving 10y ago
50 shades of gray was also a best selling book. However, I think most of the readers recognize that studying it is not going to advance technology/science in any way.
- openasocket 10y ago
  Replace 50 shades of gray with Hemingway or Shakespeare. Studying Shakespeare isn't going to advance technology or science, but it could advance art, which is a noble human endeavor, as is science.
- nocman 10y ago
  There's a big difference between "a best selling book", and "the most widely distributed and best-selling book in the world." And I was not addressing whether people think that studying the Bible advances technology/science, but whether people think that studying theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time".
elefanten 10y ago
I read the "us" to mean something ranging from "readers of this blog" to "elite tech/science people". Wherever it lands between those two, his assumption that serious academic or ideological interest in theology among that audience is in the minority (and declining over time) seems fair.
ajuc 10y ago
If you go by number of sold copies astrology is still going strong. Doesn't mean it's good.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
olavk 10y ago
I'm just guessing here, but I suspect PG doesn't care what "most people" think about theology. He is probably writing from the perspective from an educated person who see the enormous influence of Newtonian physics, and see absolutely no benefit from his theological thinking. Seriously, who today even knows what Newtons theological theories were?
- pc2g4d 10y ago
  I don't think it matters what his particular theology was. What matters is that theology matters. It affects how people experience and interpret religion, which has a vast impact on the world. So the article's utter dismissal of theology as a waste of time seems misguided to me. Alchemy as well was not so ridiculous as people seem to think. Modern hatred for alchemy seems more like a way of patting ourselves on the back and saying "We're so smart! Good thing we don't believe in that nonsense like those benighted fools hundreds of years ago." But in reality alchemy was a pre-scientific attempt at understanding the world which, if I understand correctly, merged more or less directly into what we no consider science. It seems to me that the two things PG dismissed completely in his article are in fact the foundations upon which our modern world is largely built. There's more to the world than physics...even if physics is, in a sense, all there is.
  - olavk 10y ago
    Newton was trying to predict the end of the world by studying the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any privileged information about the end of the world. Therefore his endeavor was a waste of time. As far as I know Newtons theology had absolutely no impact on anybody except himself.
    - nocman 10y ago
      "The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any 'privileged information about the end of the world.'" Well, you might believe they did not, but many people in the world believe they did. If you do not accept the Bible as revelation from God (and I would guess from your response that you do not), then I can see why you would reach that conclusion. If, however, you do accept the Bible as revelation from God, the book of, well, Revelation :-D is a huge chunk of "privileged information about the end of the world". Granted, dates of events are not given, and a lot of the book is prophecy, so there is figurative language, but there is a lot of information there.
abecedarius 10y ago
Whatever you think of theology in general, here is the sort that Newton did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies#Biblical_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies#... I think it's fair to say that Newton's work on it was a bet that paid off poorly.
WhitneyLand 10y ago
It being popular you say, implies it's good? Wouldn't you have to instead weigh the good results vs. the bad results to know the net value to society?
- nocman 10y ago
  "It being popular you say, implies it's good?" ^ I never said "popularity of belief" in any way implies the correctness of belief. I could find and list many popular beliefs that I am certain are blatantly false. I merely pointed out that the essay seems (to me) to imply that "most people" in the world discount the study of theology as "crazy" and "a waste of time". The reference to the popularity of the Bible ( as "the most widely distributed and best-selling book in the world." ) was in support of my assertion that the "us" for which it is true that the study of theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time" seems to me to be much smaller group of people than the essay seems to imply.
  - WhitneyLand 10y ago
    I see your point, but in talking about Newton the context is science. In science anything that is not falsifiable is not useful, so in this sense is it not a fair appraisal? If the context is useful tools for those that practice religion, then I agree most would not consider theology a waste of time.
codingdave 10y ago
I've always been under the impression that pg talks to a very small specific audience. He is talking to the SV tech crowd, and those who want to be part of it. Much of his business advice does not apply unless you want to be a high-growth VC-backed startup, and his non-business advice is no better or worse than anyone else's.
jamesrcole 10y ago
> "Physics seems to us a promising thing to work on, and alchemy and theology obvious wastes of time." I'm not sure which "us" pg is referring to, but the essay gives me the impression that he meant something like "most people" (I could be reading him wrong, but that was my impression). I think "us" refers to the readers. Ie the kind of person likely to be reading an essay of his

by nocman 10y ago

hueving 10y ago

50 shades of gray was also a best selling book. However, I think most of the readers recognize that studying it is not going to advance technology/science in any way.

openasocket 10y ago
Replace 50 shades of gray with Hemingway or Shakespeare. Studying Shakespeare isn't going to advance technology or science, but it could advance art, which is a noble human endeavor, as is science.
nocman 10y ago
There's a big difference between "a best selling book", and "the most widely distributed and best-selling book in the world." And I was not addressing whether people think that studying the Bible advances technology/science, but whether people think that studying theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time".

elefanten 10y ago

I read the "us" to mean something ranging from "readers of this blog" to "elite tech/science people". Wherever it lands between those two, his assumption that serious academic or ideological interest in theology among that audience is in the minority (and declining over time) seems fair.

ajuc 10y ago

If you go by number of sold copies astrology is still going strong. Doesn't mean it's good.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

olavk 10y ago

I'm just guessing here, but I suspect PG doesn't care what "most people" think about theology. He is probably writing from the perspective from an educated person who see the enormous influence of Newtonian physics, and see absolutely no benefit from his theological thinking. Seriously, who today even knows what Newtons theological theories were?

pc2g4d 10y ago
I don't think it matters what his particular theology was. What matters is that theology matters. It affects how people experience and interpret religion, which has a vast impact on the world. So the article's utter dismissal of theology as a waste of time seems misguided to me. Alchemy as well was not so ridiculous as people seem to think. Modern hatred for alchemy seems more like a way of patting ourselves on the back and saying "We're so smart! Good thing we don't believe in that nonsense like those benighted fools hundreds of years ago." But in reality alchemy was a pre-scientific attempt at understanding the world which, if I understand correctly, merged more or less directly into what we no consider science. It seems to me that the two things PG dismissed completely in his article are in fact the foundations upon which our modern world is largely built. There's more to the world than physics...even if physics is, in a sense, all there is.
- olavk 10y ago
  Newton was trying to predict the end of the world by studying the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any privileged information about the end of the world. Therefore his endeavor was a waste of time. As far as I know Newtons theology had absolutely no impact on anybody except himself.
  - nocman 10y ago
    "The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any 'privileged information about the end of the world.'" Well, you might believe they did not, but many people in the world believe they did. If you do not accept the Bible as revelation from God (and I would guess from your response that you do not), then I can see why you would reach that conclusion. If, however, you do accept the Bible as revelation from God, the book of, well, Revelation :-D is a huge chunk of "privileged information about the end of the world". Granted, dates of events are not given, and a lot of the book is prophecy, so there is figurative language, but there is a lot of information there.

abecedarius 10y ago

Whatever you think of theology in general, here is the sort that Newton did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies#Biblical_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies#... I think it's fair to say that Newton's work on it was a bet that paid off poorly.

WhitneyLand 10y ago

It being popular you say, implies it's good? Wouldn't you have to instead weigh the good results vs. the bad results to know the net value to society?

nocman 10y ago
"It being popular you say, implies it's good?" ^ I never said "popularity of belief" in any way implies the correctness of belief. I could find and list many popular beliefs that I am certain are blatantly false. I merely pointed out that the essay seems (to me) to imply that "most people" in the world discount the study of theology as "crazy" and "a waste of time". The reference to the popularity of the Bible ( as "the most widely distributed and best-selling book in the world." ) was in support of my assertion that the "us" for which it is true that the study of theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time" seems to me to be much smaller group of people than the essay seems to imply.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  I see your point, but in talking about Newton the context is science. In science anything that is not falsifiable is not useful, so in this sense is it not a fair appraisal? If the context is useful tools for those that practice religion, then I agree most would not consider theology a waste of time.

codingdave 10y ago

I've always been under the impression that pg talks to a very small specific audience. He is talking to the SV tech crowd, and those who want to be part of it. Much of his business advice does not apply unless you want to be a high-growth VC-backed startup, and his non-business advice is no better or worse than anyone else's.

jamesrcole 10y ago

> "Physics seems to us a promising thing to work on, and alchemy and theology obvious wastes of time." I'm not sure which "us" pg is referring to, but the essay gives me the impression that he meant something like "most people" (I could be reading him wrong, but that was my impression). I think "us" refers to the readers. Ie the kind of person likely to be reading an essay of his