Slashdot Mirror
The Vatican Lauds Hackers
angry tapir writes "Internet hackers have acquired a dubious reputation for piracy, sabotage and the spilling of sensitive secrets, but an authoritative Vatican publication appears to rehabilitate them and traces parallels between hacker philosophy and the teachings of Christianity. The charitable view of hackers was expressed by the Jesuit priest Father Antonio Spadaro in an article for the fortnightly magazine Civilta Cattolica, the text of which is vetted by the Vatican Secretariat of State prior to publication. Hackers should not be confused with crackers, Spadaro wrote, citing a definition penned by technology writer Eric S. Raymond: "Hackers build things, crackers break them.""
Hackers are more like heretics. Trying to uncover the hidden truths. The church has a long history of trying to hide the truth.
Religion stated it was good so naturally all these atheist hackers have to stop now or become mainstream.
So the Vatican gets the difference between hacker and cracker before the general populace...
We have entered the beginning of the end.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
And Martin Luther wrote the open source version.
Have gnu, will travel.
Software engineers are paid to build things in software. Hackers build things for ideological reasons. Crackers break things.
Also, it has nothing to do with IT.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
The Vatican tends to be a fairly conservative in its approach to technology (remember the fight over the confessional iPhone app a little while back?) and there is no doubt going to be much quibbling over hacktivism and other related activities for the next couple of hundred years. Who knows, maybe in 2300 we'll hear the future Pope say, "Oops, we were wrong when we called the iConfessional sacriligious. Also, we've begun the canonization process for a martyred Anonymous member today for his contributions in the war against false religions. Miracles have been reported near the town of New Clearwater, FL, which was rebuilt in 2220 after Hurricane Michael smited it."
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
That's it, I'm starting a new church with an old name. Join me, won't you, for the first meeting of the Church of Jesus Christ, Computer Programmer. Free kool-aid and cookies this Sunday.
Dude and how many people still don't get it?
Why complain when someone gets it correct?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Thank you Captain Jerk. Slashdot can't even keep the difference straight using the terms interchangeably. Now you are criticizing a non-technical individual for actually pointing out the difference in the terms?
Why do you feel the need to be a jerk about this?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
No. your logic is incredibly week. Just because someone draws a parallel between the ethos of a hacker and the ethos of a Christian does not make them the same.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Well the Catholic Church is a large organization and it is good to remember that there is a plurality of opinions in it, even among it's leaders. It isn't just a cabal of child molesters. The Catholic Church has in the past condemned both capitalism and communism in their extreme forms.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
FTFA
"To create the biggest collaborative encyclopedia of Internet it is estimated that it took around 100 million hours of intellectual work, which is the equivalent of the time the citizens of the United States spend watching advertising on TV in a single weekend," Spadaro wrote.
Dude, what?
Almost as weak as my spelling of "weak".
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I think it is good that he clarified. I mean, just look at the first line in the FA. If he hadn't, the media would have had a field day.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
This must mean the Vatican now prefers bazaars over cathedrals.
Anyone else getting a download dialog when clicking on the link?
And I swear it was an accident... I wasn't trying to read the article, honest!
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
It's Victory in Iraq day today. The good guys -- Western civilization, the Coalition of the Willing, the United States, and the people of Iraq -- won this war. The bad guys -- Saddam Hussein's regime, al-Qaeda's jihadis, all their allies and enablers -- lost it. The entire world will be a better place because of this victory. And that is a proper thing to celebrate.
In the U.S., blacks are 12% of the population but commit 50% of violent crimes; can anyone honestly think this is unconnected to the fact that they average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? That stupid people are more violent is a fact independent of skin color.
I think all teachers, day-care staff, and other adults in loco parentis for groups of children should be required to carry firearms on the job. Maintaining continued proficiency at rapid-reaction tactical shooting should be a condition of their continued employment. Their job is to protect children; if they are not physically, mentally, and morally competent to do that job, they donâ(TM)t belong in it.
Iâ(TM)m what PUAs call a âoenaturalâ, a man who figured out much of game on his own and consequently cuts a wide sexual swathe when he cares to. Not quite the same game theyâ(TM)re playing, however. For one thing, Iâ(TM)ve never tried to pick up a woman in a bar in my entire life. College parties when I was a student, yes; SF conventions, neopagan festivals, SCA events, yes; bars, no.
Also, and partly as consequence of where I hang out, it has been quite unusual for me to hit on women with IQs below about 120 â" and it may well be the case that Iâ(TM)ve never tried to interest a woman with below-average intelligence. (Er, which is not to say they donâ(TM)t notice me; even in middle age I get lots of IOIs from waitresses and other female service personnel. Any PUA would tell you this is a predictable and unremarkable consequence of being an alpha male.)
Try the work of Mitnick and the thousands of exploits in the 90s during the .com bubble. Media calling hackers bad guys isn't exactly a recent trend.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
I had a nice clever put down for the vat and the pope, but fuck it. Why take the time to type it, when they won't see it, nor understand it if they did.
The Vatican is like the mentally ill homeless dude who talks to himself and shouts crap all day.
Some entertainment value, but nothing here, keep moving.
Be seeing you...
He meant that the logic took 7 days to parse.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You've got the Vatican's attention.
You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
"tracing parallels between hacker philosophy and the teachings of Christianity."
See at Linux.com "Free Software's surprising sympathy with Catholic doctrine" (2005) http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/49533
Eleutheros Manifesto (2006) http://www.eleutheros.org/en/documents/manifesto/
I'm sorry Dave, you can't do that...
However, you can become an altar boy and get fucked _by_ high ranking residents of the Vatican.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
So you've been trying to clarify the difference but you insult people who clarify the difference.
From TFA: "Under fire are control, competition, property. It's a vision that is ... of a clear theological origin"
I guess it never occurred to Spadaro that putting control, competition, and property "under fire" might have had something to do with the origins of theology, rather than the other way around.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Onward Christian Hackers?
So what is the difference between a religion and a cult, anyway?
I'd say hackers are more like buddhists, in that they seek knowledge by "dissecting" reality and observing it as it is, without right/wrong prejudices. ...and with a little of dudeism contamination, which is just cool.
Tool of Satan or something? Yup. Here it is: http://slashdot.org/story/11/04/03/0252229/Vatican-Warns-That-Internet-Promotes-Satanism
Gee, I wish they'd make up their mind. Maybe they're too busy trying to stay relevant. Or take your attention away from the whole child molestation thing.
Which was an isolated incident!
Well, a couple of them, actually.
Maybe more than a couple, but *we* certainly didn't know anything about it.
Well, maybe we'd heard a few rumors.
But we didn't move priests around to keep things quiet.
Oh, yeah, we did. We're pretty much screwed, aren't we?
> childfucker.
You should really get over your anger issues before you post pejorative bullshit - it discredits the rest of your post.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
The Jesuits in particular have a long history of intellectual research, so it's not surprising that one or more of them may *get* the distinction between hacking and cracking.
True religion has absolutely nothing to fear from people who question things. Go ahead and wonder how Jesus did what he did, and try to imagine how you could copy it. Jesus' signs and works were given precisely so you would believe that he was really, truly God's son, because no one else could have done what he did.
The signs are pretty impressive: fed thousands from a handful loaves and fishes (twice); walked on water; calmed storms with a word; healed diseases at a touch, including the hearing and seeing of people born deaf and blind; and raised people from the dead (including himself), to name just a few.
You figure out how to do any of those, you let me know how that works out. At some point, you've got to decide whether these claimed signs are just hooey, or Jesus really was who he said he was.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Look up "affirming the consequent".
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
the first thoughts are not related to how much it has helped people.
If only they limited themselves to helping people. The reason slashdotters hate them is mainly because the hinder scientific progress and the top members (especially the ones at the vatican) are not so honorable.
Dude i think you need to find your nearest monastery and spend some time with the brothers drinking beer.
You do know that monks during their "free time" brewed some very nice beers (and wines btw).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
'We're the guys who don't accept the mantra from up high.'
Yeah we do:
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/taocp.html
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/316.html
Copernicus was also a Catholic priest. Georges Lemaître likewise (sure, Big Bang is convenient if one also dedicated his life to Abrahamic mythology, but...). Or Mendel, a Catholic monk... speaking of biological sciences, evolution and Vatican (emphasis mine):
How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth
...
...
the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Since he quoted me, I have replied to the report on Spadaro's article at Imprimatur me!
>>esr>>
The problem with education and intelligence is that it tends to lead one to think that they know all of the answers. A healthy dose of humility and perspective would solve a large number of these problems.
It's sad that when someone mentions anything to do with the Catholic church, the first thoughts are not related to how much it has helped people.
I agree that it is sad, but it is also accurate. It's also not the fault of techies, but the fault of the Catholic church for engaging in bad behavior. How many people have AIDS today because the Catholic church lied to them about contraception? How many children are going hungry because their parents can't feed 8 kids? How many people live with unnecessary guilt due to psychological abuse heaped on them by nuns?
Are you really going to blame the "techies" for all this?
The Catholic church is one of the most scientific religions out there.
The idea that faith and reason both are needed is one of it's fundamental tenets.
The most scientific religion is like the most delicious turd. It's still shit. Giving lip service to science doesn't absolve them for dealing in falsehoods and profiting off of peoples insecurities.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I don't know, Catholic Church has couple of centuries of history of claiming to have all the answers.
Hate to be a nitpick, but papal infallibility has some fairly strict conditions for which it has to meet. The pope could rape kiddies on air and still not have violated the rules of papal infallibility.
To put it simply, the pope has to 1) be the pope, 2) be speaking in the office of the pope, 3) define something, 4) that something has to be concerning either faith or morals, and 5) declare that the whole church has to hold this to be true.
So if any of those 5 aren't true, then the papal infallibility isn't applicable. Thus, the "degradation of human life" that you claim the pope has caused, even if true (I'm not saying one way or the other, I'm just nit-picking), does not disprove the concept of infallibility.
Cynical Idealist
We, collectively are SO FULL OF SHIT.
The Catholic church is one of the most scientific religions out there
They may be "one of the most scientific religions out there" but they're way... way far away from being scientifically credible in their beliefs:
Science tries to find theories to fit the facts; religions try to find facts to fit their theories. Being the most scientific religion is kind of like being the most "pro-nerd" bully in school. You may not hold the record for kids stuffed in lockers in a single semester, but no mathlete should ever let down his guard enough to turn his back on you...
I bet you'd find more child molesters among hackers than among priests. Just sayin'.
I doubt that, but even if it were true, you forget that priests have laid claim to the moral high ground and hackers have not. In fact, "hacker" and "pedophile" doesn't necessarily collide. One is disgusting, and it diminishes your worth as a human being, but not necessarily your capabilities or claims as a hacker. For a priest, preaching about the love of god, and teaching people how to behave and claiming that you know what is right and wrong and then raping a child does very much collide.
Or, in semantic terms, one set of attributes is within the same realm, the other is not.
Also, it takes a great deal of faith to be atheist. After all, there is no evidence that god doesn't exist. Agnostics FTW.
There is no faith in being an atheist. I do not "believe" in the non-existence of god in any sense that compares to religious faith. A-theism defines itself through the absence of a belief, not through having exchanged one god for another, or a concept.
Depending on how strictly you define agnosticism, I may be an agnostic, because my view is "there is no god, that is something I am as certain about as I can reasonably be" which means there is, as with all things, a tiny, tiny, inconsequential off-chance that I'm wrong. Of roughly the same probability that gravity doesn't really exist or I'm a brain in a jar somewhere and all the world is fed into my nerves by a simulation program.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yes, it does. But not half as much as institutionalised international child abuse discredits an organisation that claims a monopoly on right and wrong for itself.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
First, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever killed anybody else in the so-called "religious wars" we techies tend to get into. And your thinly veiled attempt to divert attention to "worse" religions completely ignores the fact that science seems to have thrived much better under other religions than christianity (look up the history of mathematics some time). And if your argument is about scientific progress today, consider that the western world is more secular than ever.
I knew it, Richard Stallman is Jesus Christ !
I didn't expect this kind of Spanish Inquisition!
"The Catholic church is one of the most scientific religions out there." There's only 1 problem: science and religion mix like oil and water... they don't. You either believe something or prove something. You cannot 'prove' the existence of any godlike entity and you cannot 'believe' in gravity. A god exists in your mind, gravity is a fact. And the fact that the catholic church needs science is a fact, but that same church has more tha once stood against scientific progress. Rememeber Copernicus and Galilei. Their 'heretical' ideas that the earth was not the center of the universe by the catholic chuch had nothing to do with science, but was all about keeping it's power over their followers.
Their pedophilia issues might be bad, but it's not something unique... most large organizations are going to have a few of those, they just got caught.
Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah. The pedophiles didn't "just get caught." They "just got caught" by the church which then "just got caught" not reporting them to the police and then quietly moving them to distant locations where they resumed their sexual abuse on a new batch of unsuspecting children.
But hey, tomato tomato, right?
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
These people believe in a book demonstrably full of forgeries, a religion that is full of contradictions and errors, and have chosen to work in an organization that has lied, defrauded, and murdered people for two millennia.
Their opinions and analyses of Catholic officials have neither moral nor intellectual value.
How many people have AIDS today because the Catholic church lied to them about contraception?
Can I blame the school because you failed health class?
No, but you can blame the school because you failed health class. Condoms prevent AIDS, Fact. The Catholic Church is opposed to condoms. Ergo, the Catholic Church is in favor of AIDS.
How many people live with unnecessary guilt due to psychological abuse heaped on them by nuns?
Actions of one define the whole, check.
One? Sure. One nun is responsible for the horror stories told by every former Catholic student I've ever met.
How many children are going hungry because their parents can't feed 8 kids?
You're saying people don't have a choice in this decision? You know, NFP and all?
Not everybody is capable of that kind of restraint. I'm sure you have no problems avoiding sex, but not everyone can do that. Condoms work when other methods fail. It is irresponsible not to make them available to everyone. In so far as the Catholic Church fights condom use, they are evil.
It's a failure on a personal level when you can't recognize the difference between your own personal bias and the entire truth.
It's also a failure when you can't correctly attribute causes.
The only failure here is that I'm wasting my time on a moronic troll. It wasn't even a particularly good one.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
...to all men? The Roman Catholic Church (tm) has only in recent times got round to the notion that the Earth goes round the sun. This is only several hundered years AFTER is was proved by various Astonomers, Physicists etc. Science 1, Religion 0. As for the whole "child rape" stuff, more is coming out pretty much every week. Religion, (esp. Roman Catholicism) better watch its' back if it is to be taken even slightly seriously in the Western world.
How many people have AIDS today because the Catholic church lied to them about contraception?
Can I blame the school because you failed health class?
No, but you can blame the school because you failed health class. Condoms prevent AIDS, Fact. The Catholic Church is opposed to condoms. Ergo, the Catholic Church is in favor of AIDS.
If this was any other topic, there would already have several people pointing out the horrible logical fallacy you just made. But as illustration:
Ice cream sales rise in the summer.
Crime increases in the the summer.
Ergo, ice cream leads to crime.
I believe in an unmoderated Internet.
People will use the Internet to display pictures of bestiality, child porn, etc.
Ergo, I must support bestiality, child porn, etc.
Just because the first two statements are true and related does not make the third true.
How many people live with unnecessary guilt due to psychological abuse heaped on them by nuns?
Actions of one define the whole, check.
One? Sure. One nun is responsible for the horror stories told by every former Catholic student I've ever met.
I attended a Catholic high school, and the nuns were by far my favorite people there. Even though they knew I was an atheist/agnostic. Their attitude was that if they showed true kindness, humility, and piety, that others may be convinced and try to follow their example. I wish more would act like they do; the evangelicals in particular seem to have forgotten in particular the humility part completely. Most of the teachers were pretty nice (except for one weird guy who said any non-Catholic denomination was Satanic. He didn't last all that long). It was the students I couldn't stand, but really that was more the problem that high school kids are generally dicks.
(Emphasis added)
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
you forget that priests have laid claim to the moral high ground and hackers have not
You've never witnessed a discussion among hackers about C formatting or which editor is better, have you?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
hinder scientific progress
Wow. Considering the church created the first universities in Europe and fostered education, philosophy and cultural development throughout its history and the fact that many of the most famous scientists in history were Catholic and often priests or religious, I find the perpetuation of that particular meme to be pretty amusing, if sad.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Perhaps you should understand what papal infallibility actually means before you start running off at the mouth. Papal infallibility "ex cathedra" has been invoked exactly twice in Church history. Once for the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 1850s and second the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950.
Your other assertions about the Pope are equally specious. Condoms in fact are pretty poor at preventing the transmission of AIDS since they are also pretty poor at preventing pregnancy. There is no evidence that the current Benedict was ever involved in "covering up or abetting" child molestation, but in fact has worked hard to hold those priests and bishops who did accountable. It may be possible to criticize him for not doing enough, but he has certainly never done what you claimed.
The Pope in his general actions in day to day life is as fallible as you or I. It is only when he speaks in communion with the Bishops of the Church on the matters of faith and morals, or makes an "ex cathedra" proclamation (which as I pointed out has only happened twice in 2000 years) is he considered to be infallible.
Hypothesis: Anonymous Coward is ignorant and wrong.
Observation: AC spews a bunch of ignorant ranting using completely incorrect understanding of simple concepts and tries to couch it in logical terms to make himself look smart.
Conclusion: AC is indeed ignorant. And looks really foolish.
Response: Suggest AC lighten on the pedantry.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Well, it's never happened.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Try reading the Church fathers, particularly Augustine and Aquinas and see if you still feel that way.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I can't mod you up Rakarra, so I will just say, "Well said!"
It's so funny to me that when it comes to the topic of _criticizing_ religion there is so much absurdity, bigotry and abandonment of logic. Really, some of these folks make the most wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalist look reserved.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
You know it's so funny how much mileage you critics get out of one event. If this were a constant thing over centuries you might have a point, but if you look beyond Galileo, you don't have much to go on, do you? Didn't think so.
The situation with Galileo was as much political as anything, and in fact, Galileo was forbidden to claim he had proven heliocentrism... and in fact he hadn't, but that it was merely a hypothesis. So yes, in this one case the leadership of the Church was wrong, and that one event defines 2000 years of history, right?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
fact that science seems to have thrived much better under other religions than christianity
Yes, let's talk about that. Science flourished very well in the Middle East for a couple centuries and then pretty much stopped by the 13th century or so. Meanwhile, the place where most scientific and cultural progress was made for most of the last 2000 years was Christian Europe. The first universities? Christian Europe. The first hospitals? Christian Europe. The preservation and propagation of Hellenistic philosophy? Christian Europe. The Scientific Method? Christian Europe. The Industrial Revolution? Christian Europe and Christian America (having its roots going back all the way to 16th and 17th century monasteries).
Yes, other parts of the world were more advanced at some times, mostly more than 1000 years ago, and nowadays there are many parts of the world that are not predominantly Christian that have caught up in terms up degree of continuing progress, but the most consistent and rapid progress have almost always been made in places that were predominantly Christian.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Or do you mean helped like the way the Catholic Church maintained a stance of indifference during the holocaust on grounds of "neutrality"?
You mean how he had to walk a fine line between doing everything possible to condemn atrocities without provoking people who could very easily send a batallion to take out the Vatican? Or how he _personally_ saved the lives of thousands of Jews in Italy and helped support the rescuing of hundreds of thousands more? Or how the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Christianity after seeing the Pope's example and took the Pope's first name "Eugenio" as his baptismal name?
These links give a pretty good summary:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm
http://www.zenit.org/article-29766?l=english
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods48.html
Read a little history and don't just swallow the leftie and commie propaganda.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Science says the truth exists, whatever that truth is.
Actually, truth is a philosophical term. Modern science, AFAIK, does not aspire to truth in the philosophical sense. Its premise is to find theories that describe and allow to predict the real world.
The idea that "postulations on those truths is useless" shows no understanding of similar discussions in the areas of the philosophy of science, metaphysics, and theoretical branches of certain areas.
My argument isn't that postulations on those truths are useless. It is that the word "truth" is meaningless in the context of theology.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
And the holy profit and teacher blogged: Here my brethren, witness as I have acquired Root, and Root I give unto you. He thus uploaded the Root kit unto Torrent for all the chosen people. There was much rejoicing and feasting. They ate of, Vienna sausages, jalapino poppers, pizza pockets, Cheetos, Pepsi Max, and Mc Donalds apple pies.
The purpose of all arguments, is to change reality.
Thank you Captain Jerk. Slashdot can't even keep the difference straight using the terms interchangeably. Now you are criticizing a non-technical individual for actually pointing out the difference in the terms?
Why do you feel the need to be a jerk about this?
In case the "Captain Obvious" wasn't obvious enough for you, I was being facetious with my comments here. There's no point in ANYONE clarifying the terms anymore, because we've been fighting that losing battle for literally decades now. "Hackers" will always be viewed in a negative light no matter what (fuck you very much mass media). Until the Government or the UN appoints someone as the Commander in Chief of Hackers with a very public and clear job description and let them create a positive impact for another decade or three, the clusterfuck between these terms will likely continue.
Linux smells like ascetic spirit, really.
I specifically said "Such a being could actively thwart scientific investigation and only reward blind obedience" and that's what I meant. You could still interact with the world so long as it was via prescribed "holy" methods. You could still have autonomy to choose from a well defined set of holy actions every day or suffer the consequences. Should I play my harp today or walk on the clouds? You would probably be required to wear pants every day, or they might just come permanently attached to your body. Only actions that were specifically disallowed would be thwarted. This does not make questions or information gathering impossible, it merely makes them superfluous because presumably all allowable actions would have already been instructed to you as you grew up. A simple form of science would still be possible though; attempt an action and if the result is incomprehensible then it's "unholy" or otherwise disallowed. Otherwise it's holy. In that sense, the set of holy actions is recursively enumerable. To fully destroy science would require either the destruction of sufficient intellect to recognize cause and effect or to eliminate cause and effect altogether. Science could, however, be reduced to "if you want an effect, pray for it." and it would be granted based on divine whim rather than comprehensible rules.
In short it would make human life extremely simple and one-dimensional; you could essentially dispense with all modern medicine and technology because bodies would either work or they would not and there would be nothing (short of prayer) that anyone could do about it.
I think you are incorrect about such an existence negating free will any more than a deterministic or uncertain universe does. At best, a naturalistic viewpoint can only grant random or non-deterministic free will; there's nothing magical about the atoms in our brains that lets them behave any differently than any other atoms in the universe. Dualists have a similar (generally unrecognized) problem in that free will ends up being just the mind of god causing everything to happen as planned.
I think suicide is probably the best option for such a world too, but now perhaps you understand why many christians are quite unhappy about the prospect of their worldview evaporating. To them it's a permanent and eternal suicide.