Alicorn comments on Bloggingheads: Yudkowsky and Aaronson talk about AI and Many-worlds - Less Wrong

18 Post author: Vladimir_Nesov 16 August 2009 04:06PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (102)
Tags: links bloggingheads

Comments (102)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Alicorn 17 August 2009 06:41:02PM *  4 points [-]

I did a little poking on Wikipedia.

  • An atheist, culturally Jewish
  • A Dominican friar
  • A Methodist
  • A possible Muslim, although the Wikipedia page doesn't come out and actually say it and there's some evidence that he is a non-theist and critical of Islam
  • A non-theist with a Christian upbringing and general theist sympathies
  • An atheist raised Orthodox Jewish
  • Christopher-freakin'-Hitchens
  • A Church of England priest
  • Another atheist
  • Unclear what Jerome Groopman is
  • Another atheist
  • A Catholic
  • A guy with a very nontraditional definition of God, sort of reminiscent of what byrnema has said

Given the demographics of the population at large and the content of the question the contributors were answering, I think four actual Christians out of thirteen contributors is very modest.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 17 August 2009 09:07:10PM 3 points [-]

Look at the past winners of the Templeton prize. If you look at the winners before 2000, a lot of them were evangelists who had nothing to do with science+religion: Pandurang Shastri Athavale, Bill Bright, Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Kyung-Chik Han Mother Theresa.

Comment author: Furcas 17 August 2009 07:20:21PM 1 point [-]

Like I said, three or four forthright atheists (depending on what you think of Michael Shermer), the rest are theists or faitheists.

I mean, just take a quick look at the essays (not the titles). Only three answer the question, "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" with a clear Yes. Shermer is less clear, but let's count him as a Yes. The remaining nine answer with No.

Comment author: Alicorn 17 August 2009 07:25:24PM *  3 points [-]

The question was not, "Does science make it clear that it is an error to believe in God?" I have not read the essays, but if I were answering the question about whether religion is obsolete, I doubt my answer would be interpreted as an unambiguous Yes. Obsolescence isn't about accuracy, it's about consensus of historicity over contemporary usefulness.

Comment author: thomblake 17 August 2009 07:29:30PM 4 points [-]

I must say, I'd answer "No" straightforwardly to that question. While it may be the case that belief in God is 'obsolete', I think what that question means at least needs some unpacking (How is a belief obsolete? Is that a category mistake?), and I don't think science is necessarily what makes that belief 'obsolete'.

Reason, perhaps, or good philosophy, might do the trick.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit