Hackers And Mysticism?

Chaoli the Grey asks: "Long before everybody and their mother used the Internet there were neo-pagan and occult ftp-archives and newsgroups. Margot Adler notes in her book _Drawing Down the Moon_ that among neo-pagans, '[an] amazingly high percentage [works] in computer, scientific and technical fields'. Appendix B in the Jargon File states that 'There is a definite strain of mystical, almost Gnostic sensibility that shows up even among those hackers not actively involved with neo-paganism, Discordianism, or Zen.' But has the interest in things mystical and occult among computer geeks watered down after the masses found computers and the Net? Do hackers still believe in magic or practice a mystical religion?" A risky question, as most of us have beliefs that we feel strongly about, but it is an interesting question nonetheless. So those interested in sharing what they believe in, please feel free. I'm sure others may find it interesting. The one thing I do ask is that you not judge people based on the information that is shared here, as all that is bound to do is cause problems.

Comments

Then theres always the Jesus Geeks.

[Amphigory]

Believe it or not, there is a substantial group of people who are quite Geeky and Christian. If you're interested, take a look at http://www.geeks4christ.org/ for a fledgling slashdot-like site that caters to Jesus-Geeks. (By the way, if you can do graphics... HELP! The site is really ugly, but it's at least moderately active.)

When you get down to it, Jesus was the original geek. He was persecuted for the first thirty years of his life, then he "graduated" amidst a storm of insults and is now lord of all he surveys.

*boik*

--

Re:Alternative Thinking, Alternative Religion

[GypC]

Paganism accepts that there is no one truth, so there is no one correct way.

So what you saying is that it's kind of like Perl?

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"

OpenReligion

[waldoj]

Who's for starting a religion on SourceForge? The OpenReligion project should be able to have GnuMysticism v0.1 out within a few weeks if we start now!

-Waldo

-------------------

Probably not true

[Angst Badger]

I'm a hacker and a Thelemite. I've been both for about fifteen years now. I remember that in the mid to late 80's there seemed to be a higher proportion of people professing belief in Eastern, polytheistic, and so-called "alternative" religions. That seems to have changed over the last decade.

To be a member of a minority religion or other belief system is difficult at best in a monotheistic society. (I'll spare you my rant on why I think monotheism virtually guarantees bigotry and intolerance; it's off-topic and probably flamebait anyway.) The pre-AOL internet was a good place for geographically distant minorities to meet and, well, hide. Hackerdom was also a good place to hide and to find community outside of the mainstream. Beyond that, I don't think there's any causal connection.

The nearer today's Internet comes to imitating TV, the less it comes to differ from the general populace. Those oldbies who remain have either hidden themselves a little deeper or moved on.

--

Some observations

[The Dodger]

If you take Clarke's Third Law, then it's obvious how hackers could be perceived as modern magicians - by doing stuff that other people cannot do within a medium which others don't understand. However, the public in general is, I think, becoming more jaded and jaundiced with technology. It's like one of those E. E. "Doc" Smith novels, where the characters keep building nth-power projectors and ships which go so fast as to be beyond all human conception of speed... After a while you just cease being impressed.

I would say that many hacker-types would identify more with Jedis or ninjas. The Force is kind of the equivalent of a natural hacking ability - you've either got the right mindset, or you haven't, but even if you have got it, you've still got to practise it. The interesting thing about ninjas is that there is nothing supernatural about them - they're just normal flesh-and-blood human beings who have, though devotion and practise, developed skills and abilities which seem supernatural to normal people, who don't possess these extraordinary abilities.

The other interesting thing about both Jedis and Ninjas is that neither worships gods or demons. There is no structured religion dictating what they should and should not do, and no deity or need to seek redemption, although the concepts of Good and Evil do exist within those frameworks, as they do in hacking.

Douglas Rushkoff, in his book Cyberia covered some interesting ground within the topics of hacking, drugs and technoshamanism. A lot of it's just wanking, but it's thought-provoking stuff and worth reading. I identified particularly with some of the sections dealing with rave culture. I used to be a club/rave DJ and I've experienced the uplifting feedback loop you get when you've got 2,000 people getting higher and more euphoric as a direct result of the music you're playing for them, and you're a buss from their reaction, which is spurring you on to lift them even higher... It's a unique experience and that whole mystical thing is something I've experienced in hacking as well.

Many hacker-types have the ability to adjust their mindset and way of viewing the world from the normal, physical reality of the ground, sky, buildings, doors, roads, etc., to one of networks, nodes, routing, directory structures, processes and so on. It's kind of like a different consciousness, an ability to perceive and inhabit a different world - i.e. cyberspace (to use what has become a cliched term).

And finally, we come right back round full circle to today, with films like the Matrix, which portrays a hacker-type who develops Jedi-like powers, and the ability to see beyond the facade which most normal people see (try drawing parallels with a Windows-style GUI or HTML, and the underlying shell, OS or protocols). It even includes Kung-Fu, which isn't a million miles away from Ninjas.

Even Neal Stephenson ventures into this sort of territory in Cryptonomicon, when we read Randy's classifications of different types of people, which he draws from Tolkein - men, elves, dwarves, wizards, etc.

These memes or themes permeate the hacking culture and there must be a reason for that.

As for religious beliefs, I personally think that many hacker-types are probably agnostic to a large extent, something which is often associated with scientists and other "intelligent" people.

And me? Well I just don't fucking know. I'm rather drunk and I'm going to bed now.

May the Source be with you.

D.
..is for "Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory..."

Re:possible influence of sci fi

[Samrobb]

And the folks at Jonestown followed a version of Christianity... From what I understand, Zen Buddhists are a fairly minor sect, in the same way that Franciscans are a fairly minor sect in the Catholic church (note the choice of Franciscans for comparison: like the followers of Zen, I believe they have an influence on the mainstream religion that is definitely out of proportaion with their numbers.)

On the other hand, the number of mystics, new-age wannabes and other feel-good semi-religious types that have latched onto Zen as a vehicle for their various ideas probably outweighs the number of true practicioners, helping reinforce the image that many have that Zen is nothing more than some sort of mystical snake-oil that only an idiot could believe in. What's worse, they're right, in a way; that particular, watered down, corrupted, I'll-bend-it-to-meet-my-needs type of Zen really isn't really what Zen is like, any more than the folks at Jonestown were really what the vast majority of Christians are like.

All Mathematicians are Mystics

[winterstorm]

Isaac Asimov wrote a delightful essay, about his time as an undergraduate, that explains why all mathematicians are mystics. I won't bother to repeat the entire story, only the punchline. Mathematicians are mystics because they believe in the unreal and the imaginary. They conduct entire branches of their science around the notion that the square root of -1 exists and is real yet is also imaginary.

I definitely believe in magick

[Shoeboy]

Y'AI 'NG'NGAH,
YOG-SOTHOTH

This is the spell of summoning of Bowie J. Poag.
By reciting this incarnation, you can summon a twisted and deformed being that has done absolutely nothing with other that posting a few tiled backgrounds -- something monkeys can be trained to accomplish.
Despite this, the deranged being will assert that it is some sort of leading light in the linux community and will pursue it's strange agenda of destroying VA Linux by making an ass of itself on the /. message boards.
Try the incantation, it really works!
--Shoeboy

Disturbing.

[mindstrm]

I always find it disturbing when people try to statistically (or otherwise) state (or try to prove) that 'hackers believe in xxx' or whatever.

Do younger, tech-savvy people tend to stray from standard religion and perhaps look at more obscure things such as zen, etc? Certainly.
Does that mean they believe in magic (magik) or whatever? Sheesh. I'm betting not.

Many people I've spoken with, especially in the tech world, don't believe in *any* religion, otehr than things that help them obtain focus and peace of mind. To them, it is nothing but this.

Re:An atheist's viewpoint.

[Marooned]

ever hear this joke?

An atheist is fishing somewhere in the loch ness, when all-of-a-sudden the loch ness monster comes out and starts approaching his boat.

"Dear god save me!!" screams the atheist..

[BOOOM!] a thunderous explosion stops all creation freezing it in place and time, and this deep, powerful voice says "I thought you didn't believe in Me..."

the atheist says "gimme a break God, a minute ago I didn't believe in the loch ness monster either.."

A Crazy Hackers Viewpoint

[Crutcher]

'kay, I'm gonna sit here and listen to my music and write a bit, so bear with, I'm going somewhere with this.

First, lets take the posit of this article as true, so to do that, I'll say -
Observation: A disproportiantetly large percentage of hackers and other techland creatures belive in 'magic', or something close enough to it that no one but them would argue the point.

Now, we must look for the reason. But not really, because in social anomalies, there are usually /several/ reasons, not one. So even if A reason does not seem sufficient to explain the observation, it does not mean that it is the only contributing factor. So the following are the primary factors that I propose to account for the observation.

0) The RPG Integral:
Many have already suggested that the effects of Role Playing Games, Science Fiction, and Fantasy. So I wont go into detail, But it is a factor. It gives the mind something to chew on, so that when an expresion is needed, it may be used as a source. D&D doesn't make people crazy, but some crazy people have been exposed to D&D, and thus think that 'Feather Fall' will work. Same for religeons. And smart people like complex games, and games don't come more complex than D&D with all its expansions, so we get a large exposure base.

1) The Clark Equation:
Some people (not all people, but some) really like to make things happen. They get a kick from it. I'm one, Clark was another. Magic just seems the logical end of the curve, I point, it happens. Think about how many people you know that are going to LOVE good voice/gesture recognition as computre intarfaces. Thinks how many of those wish the real world worked like that. Xyzzy, anyone?

2) The Gonzo Factor:
Now, what if you are already weird? Well, if you are (and I am), normal social taboos don't apply very strongly to you ('cause society is already "punishing" you, what more can they do?), so you end up thinking about/trying many more things. This is why you see large (compared to the normal population) numbers of people aware that they are homosexuals in EVERY 'weird' group. If you are already a bixer/dancer/actor, there is not nearly as much pain in realizing that you are gay, so more of them do. The same things apply to religeons. If no one talks to you in high school already, maybe getting naked and freaky on the solstice doesn't seem as a likely to bring negative repercusions, so you "shop arround" as it were.

3) The I-Wanna-Be-Gonzo Coefficient:
Wanna-Bes, every group has them, and hackers are not an exception. If all the other guys whorship THor, and you don't really care, you might try it just to get along. ANd then the religion's got you hooked, as most of them are based upon social groups anyway, and there you go.

4) The Bicycle Exponent:
This is a weird one. You cannot (well, you can, but its the common example, and you should already know that, so hush) simultaneously ride a bicycle, and think about the muscle movements necessary to ride a bicycle. This is an example of a (rather large an interseting) class of actions which can be done, but cannot always be explained by the person doing them. Why? Well, cognitive studies shows us that there is a WHOLE lot more capacity "under the surface" of the mind than the conscious mind can ever get hold of (walking is HARD, yall), and all the true geniuses/artists/etc GO with that, and learn to toss problems to there undermind, problems that come back with answers that are obviously correct, but the peson is completely unable to explain how they did it (even to themselves). This makes some people look for answers (which is silly, as the answers is right there, your undermind /is/ bigger/smarter than your upper mind) and some of those answers they find in mysticism. Many aspects of Hacking go into this dark place, which is of course why many people (including me) do it. It feels cool to 'talk' to a you that aint you, or something like that.

But finally, I think most just worship at the church of "Wouldn't It Be Pretty To Think So?", and I challenge anyone to tell me that the various magic, magik, majick, etc. religeons arent pretty.

::To set the record straight, I personally am a meta-agnostic, as I dont think the question 'Is there a God' can have a meaningful answer from inside the system, so I don't bother asking it; as opposed to agnostics who wonder about it, or atheists who belive that there is no God (which they cannot prove, which is my point.)

Have fun flamming me to death on this one, if you want.



-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>

Re:..hostile to organized religion in general..

[TheDullBlade]

"hostile to organized religion in general" and "enjoy `parody' religions" come a lot closer to being religious bigotry than they are to being hostile to religious bigotry.

Hah! Organized religions are really organized religious bigotry. Organization and religious tolerance don't go together. They are systems for gaining profit for the priests, and as such, they are generally as ruthless and intolerant as they can get away with, which is generally a function of what percentage of the population they can claim. This is why minority religions almost always seem gentler and friendlier: they are weak and could be wiped out if they made too much fuss. For example, Judaism seems a gentle, harmless religion (especially in America), but look in the Old Testament and you'll find that ancient Hebrew law in the days when it had a local near-monopoly was as brutally intolerant as the Catholic inquisition; look to modern Isreal and you can just how "gentle" and "harmless" it is becoming once again, now that the very government is based on the religion (mind you, this would happen with any organized religion; it doesn't matter what it's "about", the priesthood will always attract those who enjoy exercising the power abusing their authority gives them). Look to Iran, if you want to see the threat of organized religion with general support over a long period.

Mocking organized religion is an example of intolerance of intolerance: superficially intolerant, but generally aimed at a net gain in tolerance.

They don't mock the belief, but the ridiculous convoluted propaganda that is used to promote the belief, and the hypocracy of prominent members of the religion.

an example that you see here frequently is the use of "xtian" and "fundie".

Are we reading the same website? I hear xtians bitching about this from time to time, but I never have read it other than that. Anyway, they're just abbreviations, don't get your panties in a bunch.

--------

Techgnosis

[kabir]

There is actually a book on this subject (one of many I'm sure) called Techgnosis by Erik Davis. It's a bit old (1998), but it looks into the correclations between technology folks and "mystical" or alternative religeous traditions. Admittedly it does take something of a touchy-feely approach to the topic, but interwoven with that is a fairly cogent media analysis. I don't know how much I agree with what Mr. Davis has to say, but his arguments are fairly well crafted, and the book makes an interesting read.

Here's the Amazon.com book review (and summary):

The gap between the technological mentality and the mystical outlook may not be as great as it seems. Erik Davis looks at modern information technology--and much previous technology--to reveal how much of it has roots in spiritual attitudes. Furthermore, he explores how those who embrace each new technological advance often do so with designs and expectations stemming from religious sensibilities. In doing so, Davis both compares and contrasts the scientific attitude that we can know reality technologically and the Gnostic idea of developing ultimate understanding. Although organized into reasonable chapters, there's a strong stream-of-consciousness component to Davis's writing. His expositions may run, for example, from information theory to the nebulous nature of Gnosticism to the philosophical problem of evil-all in just a few pages. It's as if there are so many connections to make that Davis's prose has to run back and forth across time and space drawing the lines. But the result, rather than being chaotic, is a lively interplay of wide-ranging ideas. His style is equally lively and generally engaging--if sometimes straying into the hip. In the end, he succeeds in showing the spiritual side of what some may see as cold, technological thought.

--Elizabeth Lewis

That's a pretty fair summary of the work. It's a decent read for people interested in this topic, and now it's out in paperback so you don't have to shell out to much cash to get it.
--

Re:An atheist's viewpoint.

[Mr. Slippery]

There is no God. There are no gods... There is no such thing as chi.

One must define one's terms before making such a statement. What is God? If you mean some supernatural being outside the physical universe, I'll agree with you. But what about a more Taoist formulation? What about God taken as the entire universe considered as a single entity? What about gods considered as archetypical psychelogical manifestations? ESR's opinion is that All the Gods are alive. They are not supernatural; rather, they are our inmost natures; it's hard to make a statement that "our inmost natures" do not exist.

"Chi" literally just means "breath", which clearly exists; if you mean the semi-supernatural "life energy" extolled by some I'll agree that it doesn't have physical existence, yet concepts of chi can be useful in martial arts and in healing practices.

Atheism is not incompatable with Paganism. I label myself a Zen Pagan Taoist Atheist Discordian; it all fits together.

My point is, there is no reason to think that anything exists aside from what we can detect with our senses (and devices that enhance our senses, like radio telescopes).

The following questions are left as an exercise for the reader:

Does the number 3 exist? Does truth? Beauty? The note Bb? The color red? The property redness? Your thoughts? Your mind? My mind?

Who is more real: Mr. Spock, or John Smith, Esq. of Crofton, Maryland? One is fictional, one is (according to the phonebook) a real person; but Mr. Spock exists in many more minds than Mr. Smith. Which is the more durable existence?

Every see Penn & Teller in action? Your senses are limited and can be fooled; what reason do you have to think that what you can detect with them means anything? What assumptions are you making when you integrate sense data? What other sets of assumptions are possible? Can these other sets of assumption led to useful results?

The Paganism I practice has more to do with questions like this than with "How do I cast a love spell?"

Re:Gnostic?

[Tackhead]

> ISTM that many hackers feel the world is far too fscked up to have been created by a perfect, good being.

I finally got around to playing Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri last night, and finished it in a couple of all-nighters.

Your quote reminds me of something from the game. Paraphrasing the game, "The question isn't why a perfect God would create this universe, but why a perfect God would create a universe at all".

My take on the topic at hand: Geeks are freethinkers. Because we acknowledge that it's very hard for one geek to understand all that's going on inside these boxes we call "computers", we're tolerant of views in the absence of conclusive evidence. All geeks believe that what does on inside the box is understandable, but the process whereby any one geek understands a piece of code is something uniquely a function of (a) the geek, and (b) the code.

If I extrapolate these beliefs about computability to the Real World, I see two tendencies:

• First - geeks will choose world views that imply the world is understandable and that there are processes whereby one can change the world.

  Whether it be Fundamentalist Christianity ("know God and follow His commandments"), Paganism ("Change the world through acts of Magick"), Buddhism ("You are the master who makes the grass green"), or Scientific Materialism ("The world operates according to physical laws which can be divined through experiment"), all of these world views provide adherents with tools whereby reality can be manipulated.

• Unlike normals, geeks tend to be tolerant where evidence is unclear. We're willing to use the best tool for the job.

  The scientific method is an excellent tool for figuring out how gravity works and why the stars shine. It's not as useful a tool for answering the answers to philosophical questions like "Why are we here", and "How shall we live?". Religions are pretty good for this. You may not like the answer any one religion provides, but you have to admit it's an answer.

  Normals tend to want one tool for everything. Fundamentalist Christian Normals have a lot of trouble with dinosaur fossils. Scientific materialists have trouble with metaphysics. Normals end up like Linux users without an xterm trying to use Internet Explorer to rename 100 files, or MSOffice users trying to write annual reports in TeX.

  The "joke religions", such as the Church of the SubGenius, or Discordianism, have a significant place in geek culture because they're explicit demonstrations of an important principle - "best tool for the job" doesn't mean "science or religion", but can mean multiple religions for multiple types of religious type questions.

Traditional religions have never tolerated this - they tend to be monolithic one-size-fits-all solutions geared for memetic propagation, rather than best-of-breed solutions for particular subsets of philosophical problems.

• Christianity's great for when you want divine retribution upon your foes, or comfort in a better world ahead.
• Buddhism's great for existential angst when nothing makes sense anymore - that's OK because it's not supposed to make sense.
• Paganism and shamanism have been unbeatable for 5000 years for enjoying that ancient part of your brain that just wants to strip down nekkid and bliss out dancing around a giant burning wooden sculpture around this time of year.
• And the joke religions are great for when you start taking any one of the serious religions too seriously.

Normals hate having to pick and choose and learn something new every time they encounter something new. Geeks love having to adapt - we do it for fun - it's what happens every time we design new software, debug old software, or play any game from Quake to Everquest to D&D.

I'll close off by describing my belief system: I'm a scientific materialist when solving real-world problems; I have no need of the God hypothesis to explain physics, evolution, or even human intelligence. I've chosen the Christian God (and I freely admit "because that's how I was brung up" - an accident of the religious affiliation of my parents, who infected me with the Judeo-Christan meme) as my arbitrary Big Brother figure. But I also like the Zen and Existentialist approaches to life when Big Brother doesn't give me what I want.

Oddly enough, I appear to lack the capability to really get into the altered mental/emotional states experienced by Pagans, neo-shamans, or to use the modern equivalent, trance/techno music and dance. So I concluded that the "really mystical" stuff that started this thread wasn't for me. (But if it's your thing, hey, more power to ya. It's your brain; if you've got the circuitry to enjoy this kinda stuff, enjoy the hell out of it!)

And I'm a card-carrying SubGenius. Which means I'm not really here -- I left Earth on July 5, 1998 with the rest of the SubGenii, and am beaming this message to MWOWM from my Pleasure Spacecraft. You are actually a brain in a vat, living in a World Without Slack.

The movie The Matrix was a practical joke we decided to play on you to see if you'd figure it out. Of course you missed the point completely, just like we knew you would. But it was right there in the movie -- for stupid primates to believe in a virtual world, it's gotta suck.

And that, humans, is why the world (well, at least the one you slackless gimps live in) is so fscked up.

Preaching.

[Plinth]

One thing that I have not seen, and I hope never to, is any geek attempt to press his/her views on anyone else. One common trend seems to be, these are my beliefs, I will discuss them, but not try and convert people. Most people have the intelligence to choose there own way, and there seems to be a respect for that. (this does not apply to window managers)

I have also noticed that even with hackers and geeks that follow "mainstream" beliefs there is often a tendancy to reject the organised structures of thats belief, which in most religions is not against the word of the god(s), but can be against specific branchs of that religion (there are some obvious exceptions).

Re:Discordianism

[Greyfox]

Hail Eris!

Or "Internet usage involves some faith"

[rongen]

It could just be the fact that the people who are attracted to high-tech jobs tend to be intelligent and metnally active and, over time, start to notice things. Not a few of them are given to speculation, contemplation, and looking for patterns. Not only that, we may find that "nerds" suffer from some social austracism (okay, we've been over this). This might lead to a tendency to look outside the herd for ideas and beliefs.

Add the fact that programming can require the ability to enter near-autistic states of concentration and you have people looking at Zen (actually meditation) seriously. You might also get people thinking about the mystical connectivity of the Internet and also the fact that it all just "works" (if you have ever written a program on one computer and compiled it on another you may know what I mean) and you have "faith" in the system. None of us FULLY understands every aspect of computing and networking. We have faith that it all works most of the time. When we know what is wrong we fix it, but there is always some unknown factors. Refreshing isn't it? :)

--8<--

The RPG element

[Gandalf_007]

While I don't really know anyone who is a "mystic", one thing I did notice is that, at least back when I was in high school, the hackers and the "mystic" people overlapped. Like I said, I didn't know anyone who believed in mysticism and the like (although there were some atheists), but these people played Magic: The Gathering and other (more in-depth) role-playing games. Many of these were also the "hacker" (and some the "cracker") type.

Me-- well I used to like playing M:TG, am a "hacker", and am also a born-again Christian. So I guess I broke the trend ;-)

Re:The RPG element

[Vuarnet]

You know, I think we're getting close to a possible cause here...Ok, here's what I think:

Role-Playing Games require an open mind in order to have fun playing them. More to the point, the people who played those games were mostly geeks. Why? Because they a) were smart enough to fully enjoy the game, and b) didn't have much of a social life anyway. We're talking about the stereotypical nerd here, I know, but bear with me.

Time ago, you couldn't just learn to code by using a "XXXX for Dummies" (tm) book. You had to try and experiment, and you also had to be smart and have a mind open to new ways of thinking. Which, amazingly, coincided with the description of RPG players.

So you had lots of proto-hackers, playing D&D and similar games, and the rest of the people just looked at them and thought to themselves: "Hey, they're always talking about demigods and magic and powers and stuff. They must believe in witchcraft and the like".

Add to that the many references to Adventure games included in the repertoire of many of those hackers, and there you go. That's where the idea that most hackers believe in magic comes from.
Of course, that's just my theory.

Discordianism

[talonyx]

fool, you have done it wrong.

Like this:
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.

Follow the Law of Fives!

See this page here for more information on Discordianism, including... everything!

Being a M$ Support person

[jailbrekr2]

I have, on occassion, tried 'alternate' means to get a Windows NT server to work.....

Eeka! Beeka! Boo!

Too smart for religion?

[Ars-Fartsica]

Geeks think they're too smart for religion, but half of them believe in Dungeons and Dragons. Whatever.

Oh, by the way, the whole "pagan" movement mostly has to do with trying to justify orgies.

Want to believe

[logicnazi]

While I do generally dislike broad generalizations made about hackers/geeks this is quite an interesting question.

Hackers/geeks like everyone else *want* to believe in religion a higher power to give them comfort. While some may deny this I think the prevalance of religious people on earth (for whatever reason) is more than enough to establish that the human pysche naturally craves something outside itself.

Unfourtunatly people of our persuasion often find "normal" religions inadequate. Whether it is because we are smarter than the average practitioner and hence see the flaws in their belif or because we are used to working in formal none emotive enviornment and hence aren't well equiped to handle the emotional type of religion often practiced hackers often seem to reject conventional religion.

This pushes them in several ways. First some of them turn to alternate spiritualites which let them blaze their own path. Also, as is quite obvious many of them turn to very vocal atheism. This atheism/agnosticism is most likely so vocal because secretly they want someone to come around and convince them they are wrong. If they simply thought others were making a factual mistake they would treat them no differntly than someone who belived (mistakenly) that Mt. McKinley is higher than everest but the desperate need to prove to them they are wrong and broudcast it loudly probably represents a desire to be proven wrong.

Well this is at least true of myself and maybe Im wrong in my generalization but im interested in your comments.

I think this article is actually an experience...

[JCCyC]

...to determine which subject raises the highest zealotry flamefest, religion or Linux desktops.

My money's on Linux desktops.

That's cuz computers work on magic, not science.

[SlushDot]

There are exactly two forces in the universe. Science and magic. An example:

A conventional oven works on science. Gas flows down a vented pipe where it is ignited by a pilot light. The burning gas (reacting with oxygen) heats the oven chamber until a bimetallic metal strip inside the oven bends enough to trip a lever that cuts off the flow of gas. Then as the oven cools, the metal bends back until it opens the gas flow to again heat the oven. A regulated temperature hysterisis is maintained. All goooood solid reliable and science. All of the chemical and physical properties of this non-living system are readily known and predictable.

A microwave oven, on the other hand, works on magic. When you press the 'start' button, an unseen dimensional portal is opened up inside the oven chamber and a horde of tiny invisible demons is released. The demons poke your food with their magic charged pitchforks causing it to heat up. The demons are picky, though. They don't like to touch some materials so they don't heat up at all (e.g., glass or porcelin). The demons are also playful. Sometimes they deliberately leave a big region of your food uncooked and laugh feindlishly as you later bite into that big chink of ice in your otherwise scalding hot lasagne. Sometimes the demons get so excited that they actually explode. This explains the mysterious splatters you find stuck to the interrior walls of the oven even though you always keep your food covered while cooking it. (Demons, once dead, can no longer maintain their invisibility and so show up as visible splatterings). When the timer stops, power is cut, and the warp hole begins to collapse and sucks all the demons back into the other realm. So since they're based on magic and rely on conscious beings with random personalities, microwave ovens are inherently unreliable and unpredictable.

There is no doubt that computers operate on magic. The entire device requires a spell (we call them programs today) in order to do anything useful. Truly, we programmers are the modern day sorcerers.

Not terribly surprising...

[vertical-limit]

Many of these alternative 'religions' draw a lot of their appeal from the fact that they're not mainstream. Linux and the open source movement have the same sort of appeal -- they're a different way of doing things, which can attract a lot of people who feel shunned by or who are disinterested in average society. Remember, a lot of people think it's hip to be oppressed.

Of course, correlation does not imply confirmation. While a lot of Wiccan or other pagan groups may use the Internet to try to draw in new recruits, it's unlikely that there's much of a direct link between hacking and getting interested in mysticism, or being a mystic and getting interested in hacking. It's just that few of the mystics happen to be interested in many of the principles that power the open source movement.

..hostile to organized religion in general..

[update()]

I wasn't going to comment, because I consider this sort of "Geeks like Lego" "Hackers like guns" pigeonholing to be condescending and stupid. But what caught my eye was:

Even hackers who identify with a religious affiliation tend to be relaxed about it, hostile to organized religion in general and all forms of religious bigotry in particular. Many enjoy `parody' religions such as Discordianism and the Church of the SubGenius.

To my mind, "hostile to organized religion in general" and "enjoy `parody' religions" come a lot closer to being religious bigotry than they are to being hostile to religious bigotry.

While I'm on the subject, an example that you see here frequently is the use of "xtian" and "fundie". I'm neither an xtian nor a fundie, but I find that sort of gratuitous nastiness distasteful. It only makes me think less of the person who uses it, not the person it's directed at.

---------

Well...

[MWoody]

When our server crashed last week, in a fit of desperation, I sacrificed a goat. No more blue screens; everything worked fine. Just a slight, Gates-esque cackle on the edges of perception.

I... uh... don't go in the server room anymore. As of tomorrow, you can find me three miles away from the nearest signs of civilization, lying under a rock with my blankie and crying uncontrollably.

On second though... Ah, what the Hel (sic), I'll just keep sacrifing goats. I've heard that Windows 2000 requires black goats, so I think we'll wait to upgrade.
---

geeks and religion

[rathammer]

I am a mormon, which is fairly mainstream.

I know a few guys at church that are pretty computer geek oriented. The computer geeks i know outside of church, i really dont know what there relegious affiliations are, religion is the last thing we talk about together.

But this is something that I have been mulling over in my mind lately. The internet has changed almost every aspect of how I live my life. The job I have is based somewhat on the internet. The way I keep in touch with freinds and family is 90% over the internet. Most of my recreation is on the internet. (linux + quake :)

But the internet has yet to change the way I worship, the way i practice my religion. Im not sure I would want to logon every sunday morning for my church services. Could I get closer to god in an AOL chatroom?

Ive also wondered why there doesnt seem to be any type of big Jerry Fallwell type Internet preachers the way there are the TV preachers.

Im wondering if technology and religion are mutually exclusive, or will these to social institutions converge the way everything else in my life has.