50 Famous Academics & Scientists Talk About God

[_The Nehor]

These are famous smart people?

Their arguments are largely simplistic.

God is provincial because he cares about the Earth in all the vast cosmos. Fallacious argument that size determines importance. By this logic I and everyone here am less important then many of the meteors that burn up hitting the atmosphere.

Seriously? This is what you came up with?

From the intro most don't think about God at all. Where I come from that is called intellectual laziness.

People accept God because they're uncomfortable with the unknown? Really? When it has been a hallmark for Christianity to define God as "unknowable". Do these people imagine they are making sense?

Wow...just Wow.

[_Some Schmo]

Do these people imagine they are making sense?

Only to reasonable people. That's the source of your confusion.

[_The Nehor]

Only to reasonable people. That's the source of your confusion.

In the land of the mad who wishes to be sane?

[_gramps]

Only to reasonable people. That's the source of your confusion.

In the land of the mad who wishes to be sane?

The Nehor, you are usually a little, note I said a little, humbler in your posts. You are off the charts on this one.

Krauss, intellectually lazy, and Feynman....right, sure The Nehor.

Wow...just Wow!

[_The Nehor]

The Nehor, you are usually a little, note I said a little, humbler in your posts. You are off the charts on this one.

Krauss, intellectually lazy, and Feynman....right, sure The Nehor.

Wow...just Wow!

Weak arguments generally come from intellectual laziness or a lack of knowledge about the subject. What do you think caused these? Or do you support the arguments I cited?

[_RayAgostini]

That was a very interesting video, but I have to agree with Mikwut:

For example, when that same video production could be done from the other side of belief, for example the likes of Charles Hard Townes, Nobel Prize winning Physicist, Ian Barber, World Renowned Physicist, Freeman Dyson, Professor of Physics, Princeton University, Keith Ward, Philosopher Univ. of Oxford, Mario Beauregard, Professor of Neuroscience Univ. Montreal, Malcolm Jeeves, Professor of Psychology at the University of St. Andrews former Pres. Of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, John Polkinghorne, Particle Physics Professor Univ. of Cambridge, Stephen Barr, Professor of Particle Physics Bartol Research Institute, DE, Michael Polanyi, World Renowned Chemist and Philsopher Oxford University, James H. Austin, Professor of Neurology, University of Colorado, Jennifer Wiseman, Chief of the Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Francis Collins, Led Human Genone Project, Sir Arthur Eddington, George Ellis, Professor of Mathematics Univ. of Cape Town, John Lennox Oxford Mathematics Professor, Holmes Rolston, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado State University, Arthur Peacocke, Professor of biochemistry Oxford University, Simon Conway Morris, Cambrdige Paleontologist Biologist, Ronald Hoffmann, Nobel Prize winnng Chemist, Prof. Cornell University, Denis Alexander, Cambridge Professor of Human Evolution, Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Professor of Philosophy Yale University, David Ritz, Finkelstein, Physics Professor author Quantum Relativity, Martinez Joseph Hewlett, Professor Molecular Cellular Biology Univ. Arizona, John Hedley Brooke – Professor of Science and Religion University of Oxford, Richard Swinburne, Oxford Philosopher, Brian Leftow Philosphy Professor Oxford University, John Leslie, World Renowned Philosopher, Thomas Patrick Flint, Professor of Philosophy Notre Dame, Owen Gingerich, Professor Astronomy Harvard University etc..

Yet many scientists — 40 percent according to a 1997 poll cited by Shermer — believe in God. This isn't big news to scientists, but might surprise people who rely on mainstream views of science.

How scientists really feel about God.

[_DrW]

The Nehor, you are usually a little, note I said a little, humbler in your posts. You are off the charts on this one.

Krauss, intellectually lazy, and Feynman....right, sure The Nehor.

Wow...just Wow!

Weak arguments generally come from intellectual laziness or a lack of knowledge about the subject. What do you think caused these? Or do you support the arguments I cited?

The Nehor,

You were not paying attention. As was stated in the very first interview on the video, the idea of God is not even deemed worthy of serious consideration by most (especially good) scientists.

Your argument against the statements by these scientists is exactly analogous to claiming that they need learn more about Zeus (or the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus for that matter) before they can make an informed decision as to the existence of these supernatural beings.

Do you want to talk about intellectual laziness? What about the religionist's belief that "God did it" when it comes to understanding how the Earth (or the Universe for that matter) came into being.

Can you perhaps demonstrate that you yourself are not intellectually lazy by refuting with facts even a single assertion made by the scientists in the video?

I didn't think so.

[_Milesius]

Krauss, intellectually lazy...

Wow...just Wow!

Judging from Krauss' debate with William Lane Craig and his subsequent pouting on pharyngula, I'd say he is intellectually lazy when it comes to several topics outside of his discipline. If he is going to opine on fields outside of physics, then he needs to spend less time reflecting on star trek and his own perceived greatness and more time familiarizing himself with those fields.

[_gramps]

Krauss, intellectually lazy...

Wow...just Wow!

Judging from Krauss' debate with William Lane Craig and his subsequent pouting on pharyngula, I'd say he is intellectually lazy when it comes to several topics outside of his discipline. If he is going to opine on fields outside of physics, then he needs to spend less time reflecting on star trek and his own perceived greatness and more time familiarizing himself with those fields.

Hi, do you have a link, specifically on Krauss' pouting (whatever that means) on pharyngula. Thanks in advance.

[_EAllusion]

Gramps -

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... am_lan.php

Obviously not pouting, but while I didn't follow the debate, from what he wrote here it sure doesn't sound like he knew how to best respond to Craig's bad arguments. He comes across as lazy to me as well. It's not like Craig's moral argument is a winner - it is a joke - but Krauss doesn't know enough about ethical theory to handle it right.

I understand that it is far easier to shotgun a series of bad arguments than it is to have the multi-disciplinary knowledge necessary to show what's wrong with them, but if you agree to a debate with someone like WLC, you should know what you are getting into. With the exception not using his DNA-intelligent design argument, he used all his standard arguments. There's no reason you can't be prepared for that.