Alicorn comments on Bloggingheads: Yudkowsky and Aaronson talk about AI and Many-worlds - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (102)
Like I said, they're a sneaky bunch. Out of 13 contributors, they invite three or four forthright atheists, just to make it seem like they're being fair. The rest are theists (one Muslim and lots of Christians) or 'faitheists', agnostics and pantheists who believe in belief.
First, the Templeton Foundation's current president, John Templeton Jr., is an evangelical Christian. The softboiled pantheism you think you're seeing is Christianity hidden by prodigious volumes of smoke.
Second, whatever happened to caring about the truth? Would you also say that belief in a cube-shaped Earth might just be the way to cut the knot between angry round-Earthers and angry flat-Earthers?
I did a little poking on Wikipedia.
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.
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.
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.
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 I have not read the essays, but if I were answering the question about whether religion is obsolete, I doubt my answer would be interpreted as an unambiguous Yes.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.
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.