4 ms·

"50 renowned plumbers speaking about landscaping" Burn, karma, burn.

glimcat 15y ago
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.
- almightygod 15y ago
  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.
  - glimcat 15y ago
    That's not at all what I meant, nor are all academics scientists.
- knieveltech 15y ago
  "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 15y ago
    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.
akuzi 15y ago
They may be world-renowned scientists and philosophers but none says anything that you wouldn't get by asking a random bunch of people on the street the same question. They also seem to share a Abrahamic view of God and religion. To me the best argument for an intelligent creator is the simulation argument (see http://www.simulation-argument.com/ http://www.simulation-argument.com/), to which there is some vaguely supportive evidence - eg. http://is.gd/iv04do http://is.gd/iv04do.

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.

almightygod 15y ago
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.
- glimcat 15y ago
  That's not at all what I meant, nor are all academics scientists.
knieveltech 15y ago
"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 15y ago
  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.

akuzi 15y ago

They may be world-renowned scientists and philosophers but none says anything that you wouldn't get by asking a random bunch of people on the street the same question. They also seem to share a Abrahamic view of God and religion. To me the best argument for an intelligent creator is the simulation argument (see http://www.simulation-argument.com/ http://www.simulation-argument.com/), to which there is some vaguely supportive evidence - eg. http://is.gd/iv04do http://is.gd/iv04do.