Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)

Speakers in order of appearance: 51. Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate in Physics, MIT 52. VS Ramachandran, World-Renowned Neuroscientist, UC San Diego 53. Bruce C. Murray, Caltech Professor Emeritus of Planetary Science 54. Sir Raymond Firth, World-Renowned Anthropologist, LSE 55. Alva Noë, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy 56. Alan Dundes, World Expert in Folklore, Berkeley 57. Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy, CUNY 58. Bede Rundle, Oxford Professor of Philosophy 59. Sir Richard Friend, Cambridge Professor of Physics 60. George Lakoff, Berkeley Professor of Linguistics 61. Sir John Sulston, Nobel Laureate in Physiology/Medicine 62. Shelley Kagan, Yale Professor of Philosophy 63. Roy J. Glauber, Nobel Laureate in Physics 64. Lewis Wolpert, Emeritus Professor of Biology, UCL 65. Mahzarin Banaji, Harvard Professor of Social Ethics 66. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Practical Ethics, Duke University 67. Richard Dawkins, Oxford Evolutionary Biologist 68. Bruce Hood, Professor of Experimental Psychology, Bristol 69. Marvin Minsky, Artificial Intelligence Research Pioneer, MIT 70. Herman Philipse, Professor of Philosophy, Utrecht University 71. Michio Kaku, CUNY Professor of Theoretical Physics 72. Dame Caroline Humphrey, Cambridge Professor of Anthropology 73. Max Tegmark, World-Renowned Cosmologist, MIT 74. David Parkin, Oxford Professor of Anthropology 75. Robert Price, Professor of Theology and Biblical Criticism 76. Jonathan Haidt, Professor of Psychology
Video Rating: 4 / 5

A School of Their Own (part 2)

The second and final part of a documentary about the history of American Functionalist Psychology, running from about the time the “school” was named “functionalism” by its chief opponent, EB Titchener up to the end of World War I. Includes material on Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, James Rowland Angell, James Mark Baldwin, Granville Stanley Hall, John Dewey, William Lowe Bryan, Noble Harter, Edward Lee Thorndike, Robert Sessions Woodworth, Walter Bingham, Walter Dill Scott, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, Harry and Leta Hollingworth, Hugo Munsterberg (Muensterberg), Henry H. Goddard, Lewis M. Terman, Robert Mearns Yerkes, Linus Kline, Willard Small, John Broadus Watson, and others. Producer/Writer: Christopher D. Green

23 Comments so far »

  1. shiz777 said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 12:18 am

    Your own anecdotal experiences are entirely irrelevant, I’ve provided a study to back up my claims now why don’t you do the same instead of crying like a little bitch.

  2. shiz777 said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 12:52 am

    I need more than just conjecture and imaginary explanations, try showing me some evidence that only 25% of people who don’t believe in God classify themselves as atheist.

  3. shiz777 said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 12:53 am

    i don’t know what you’re rambling on about but the poll clearly shows only 28% of scientists identifying themselves as atheists, in the pie chart below.

  4. J Pararajasingham said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 12:56 am

    You need to read the introduction to the video more carefully. You’ve totally missed the point. You’ve used very elegant language to make a very poor comment.

  5. songofsongs29 said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 1:50 am

    It seems like the rare forrays this video makes into the humanities are rather, um, “mapped out” in order to find academics who agree with the schema of the editor. Also, the topoi in the video and in the comments section are developing ruts from overuse.

  6. fa fasf said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 2:21 am

    —-> the word purpose means the reason for which something is done. this is unknown to us, at the beginning of our lives, and so, beginning with a lack of known original reasoning, and having a lack of coherent reasoning to base the rest of our thoughts on, we can then find no purpose by ourselves, that is not based in meaningless, information-less, random occurrences. however with the addition of an eternal source of infinite information, this problem is solved.

  7. fa fasf said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 2:24 am

    imagine that there is no god. imagine that you are here by random chance. the point at which you become conscious is not clear to you, because you did not know the reasoning up to that point. this reasoning can only be based off of previous physical action. if you want to define purpose somewhere in there, as inconceivable in origin or purpose, then you can do so, to a completely meaningless end.—->

  8. MumblingMickey said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 3:06 am

    Also that Pew Research poll in 2009? Well you misquoted the actual results… Whichis fine if thas what you really want to believe…then by all means go on believing it…. I wouldn’t try to apply it though.

    Would you like to try again… its available (as if you didn’t know) by typing ‘pew research Scientists and Belief’ into Google.

    Taking into account the negative connotations of being atheistic in the USA would you like to discuss this figure knowing what you do now about the halo effect?

  9. MumblingMickey said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 3:32 am

    The halo affect is a phenomena where respondents answer the question either subconsciously or consciously in an affirmative manner when they believe the affirmative answer better suits the questioner… or the circumstance, and ignore reality.

    The same is true in reverse. Respondents will tend to downplay affirmative actions perceived negative questions. For that reason only 25% of people who do not believe there is a God classify themselves as atheists.

  10. MumblingMickey said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 4:15 am

    BTW when studies are conducted the results are taken as they are… questions are asked, results are correlated and then reported.

    Like for example the question ‘have you attended church in the last week?’ the answer to that repeatedly in the US over the past 40 years has been 40% of respondents answering yes. However the actual numbers in attendance have shown the figure is 17.5% in reality….

    In demographics and marketing statistics this is referred to has the ‘halo’ effect.

  11. MumblingMickey said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 4:24 am

    “The majority of scientists believe in a God”

    Yeah that’s not true…. not unless my college is the only one on the planet where the Phd’s just all happen to be atheistic. I think there might be questions asked of the HR department in that case.

    The inverse curve of religiosity to academic achievement is pretty well known and understood… I doubt you’ll be overturning it by just suggesting its not there…and bandying figures of 28% about!

  12. MumblingMickey said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 4:42 am

    “purpose can only be derived from a higher authority.”

    Who said that? Theres no evidence that’s in any way valid.

    And yes purpose can be given by yourself to yourself, It pretty obvious since you do that every day of your life!

    Unless you are also going to argue you have no free will? are you?

  13. MumblingMickey said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 5:11 am

    ” you cannot prove that observation is a useable criteria”

    Thats right Ideas about Gods and Fairy’s or Goblins and whatnot are not in any way logical. No need then to devote any thought to the matter. Because it is not possible to have any consideration.

    Science is limited to observation and the reasoning of it… That is indeed a limitation.

    But so is everything else. I don’t think you’ve worked that out yet though.

  14. MumblingMickey said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 5:13 am

    Yeah seems that’s the stock answer all right… the brightest people are always the ones that are confused! lol

    Hey if that’s what rocks yer boat go for it!

  15. fa fasf said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 5:36 am

    purpose can only be derived from a higher authority. what you define as the need for purpose, cannot be given to yourself, by yourself, via limited, natural means. to explain further, if you were to try to pinpoint a time in your life when you gained a purpose, it would never be the result of your doing. the same goes for the first man who appeared. if you understand the feeling of purpose and its need, then you are required to gain this purpose from a higher authority, for it to have meaning

  16. J Pararajasingham said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 5:51 am

    “what is the purpose of arguing that your life has no purpose?”

    Nowhere have I argued that. I might argue against evidence for an objective, universal purpose of human beings, but that is quite different to saying my or anyone’s life has “no purpose”.

  17. fa fasf said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 6:03 am

    seeing as how we are not logic engines, but rather emotionally motivated, and capable of abstraction, in order to find what is important, i appeal to our most fundamental reasoning is thus that i can, and should, trust what i discern as meaning, because anything other than this would have no meaning. what i have discerned as meaning be neither logically nor grammatically explained. it is apparent to me, and has meaning, and i can explain no further. i have no need or means to do so

  18. fa fasf said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 6:10 am

    moreover, your argument for evidence is not based in logicality. you cannot prove that observation is a useable criteria, and so we cannot actually start any argument with logic, but rather intuitive notions. therefore “proof” does not apply when speaking of life in general; life can be regarded as speculation, because statistical data is not absolute, nor innately logical. thus is the limitation of science, since we cannot explain our intuitive understandings, which appear fundamental.

  19. fa fasf said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 6:18 am

    what is the purpose of arguing that your life has no purpose? your life has no meaning if you can reduce what you are to simply physical events; because, this would mean that the abstract concept of meaning is in itself nonexistent, when reduced to nothing but nature. it seems a very odd, and contradictory, not to mention self-defeating, philosophy. i dont like to waste my limited time with such useless, and contradictory ideas. from this perspective, “we”dont even exist or have any control.

  20. J Pararajasingham said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 6:27 am

    You’ve missed a key aspect: namely science’s finding that pure thought/intuition are inadequate (and usually wrong) in providing answers to even basic queries about reality (time, matter, gravity, etc.), let alone answers to complex queries such as purpose, ToE or ultimate reality. This is unsurprising given the evolutionary limitations of the mind noted by brain sciences.

    Science humbles scientists to base beliefs on evidence only, since any other method would involve unreliable speculation.

  21. jeffreydebra1 said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 6:30 am


  22. GowanBray said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 6:38 am

    Are you saying that anyone with a belief in any form of God is doing so rationally ?

  23. mumabird said,

    Wrote on October 23, 2012 @ 7:12 am

    These statistics don’t tell me anything other than people who have made a career of weighing scientific evidence are strongly biased, to the point of confusion, toward forming beliefs soley on the basis of scientific evidence. Evidence from science is certainly powerful, necessary and reliable for matters concerning physical phenomenon. However, no one is justified conflating physical science and metaphysical thought when we talk about the ontology of the universe as a whole.

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.