Slashdot Mirror
Knuth lectures on "God and Computers" Online
pq writes "Donald Knuth talks about "God and Computers" as part of the MIT AI lab's 1999 lecture series - a live webcast is available from here, and archived transcripts will also appear there.
" Looks like three are finished already, with more coming over the next few weeks. Knuth is always worth listening to.
Crusades: Compare to the Islamic Jihads. Probably milder than the Jihads actually.
Inquisition: It's highly overrated in the popular imagination. But take a look at what Nero did to those who refused to call him God.
Burning people at stake: Why don't you take a look at what the Germanic cultures did before Christianity came along. It even grossed the Romans out. (The Romans whose preferred method was letting people die of exposure).
Genocide is really quite common in history. Consider what the atheists in Russia did to the Hebrews. I can't remember all the details, but there were some genocidal activities in East Asia too. Oh, by the way: the Spanish were not really responsible; most of the natives were killed by disease, not the Spaniards.
In other words, learn some history bubba.
-- Slashdot sucks.
The christian bashings I'm referring to are not judgements based on rationality or differences of opinions, or anything like that. What I am referring to is a bigotry based on ignorance or hatred, just like any other bigotry.
Calling Don Knuth stupid for believing in God is bigotry. Disagreeing with his beliefs is not. There are many posts here calling Don Knuth stupid, but he is anything BUT stupid.
Recent slashdot examples of bigotry: assuming that the Jesux distribution must be true because it follows the preconceived notions of what christians are like; belittling those who prayed for the earthquake victims of Taiwan, saying it was a complete waste of time, but expending much more energy in the belittling than the prayers did; and when a certain christian newletter recommended Linux, indignation erupted that christians were using that operating system.
In fact, everytime christianity is mentioned on slashdot, the topic is lost amidst accusations of stupidity, being the prime cause of wars, and inane parodies.
"What really pissed me off with people like the author I'm responding to, and the trend they are a part of, is that they're trying to get people to stop thinking."
What really pissed me off about the responder is his knee-jerk bigotry in assuming that since I'm a christian I must be trying to get people to stop thinking.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Just a short note to all of those who have posted replies to this story, and the John Katz piece: Thank you. Except for the inevitable few trolls, all have been thought provoking.
As a person who is evaluating their faith, it is very important to me that I get the opinions of the community of which I consider myself a member. I believe myself to be Christian too. And a free thinker. And a student of science. And vehemently oppose those who would control the minds of others for their personal gain.
The atheists in the community will ask: OK, dude, if you're a free thinker, and into science, and opposed to mind control, how can you be a Christian? It's all about mind control, isn't it? Aren't your morals and beliefs spoon fed to you? In a word, no. Example: As a student of science, I cannot and will not refute the knowledge that we as a species have won, or simply pass it over because it may conflict with my ethos. There are a few places where it seems to me that science and the Bible align - I don't want waste bandwidth with a long winded proof that isn't really there, because it's based on what I believe to be true. I know you're all saying "Chicken!!!", but I've found something that works for me. My belief, my truth. Of course your mileage will vary - you're not me, are you?
Some of the Christians here will think: You can't do that, zlotnik. You must comply with the Bible in all points or you aren't a true Christian. Again, not really. Don't forget people, faith is a human thing, not a computer thing. Conflicting points do not a core dump make in my mind. I can rationalize, I can see where science does not fly in the face of Christianity - it was created by God in the first place, wasn't it? Understanding science brings us closer to God, not farther. Any good coder will tell you that you have to test a program under all conditions in order to show that it will not break under stress. Test your faith, open your mind. But bury your head in the sand if you must - I'll be busy watching the wonders of Gods universe unfold before our eyes.
BTW, to the more, um, judgmental Christians out there, as far as I understand, being a Christian basically means that you love your enemies as well as your brother, and pass judgement on none but yourself. Jesus loves sinners - you should too.
I begrudge no one their beliefs, and hope no one begrudges me mine. I have accepted my faith with an open and clear mind, and I usually keep all of this to myself. The only reason I'm spouting off like this is because the forum was there, I thought I had some valid points, and I really did want to thank all for the fantastic input. I'll shut my yap now.
Go in Peace. God bless all.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
So he oughtta know what he's taking about.
That lecture kinda brings new meaning to the phrase "Deus Ex Machina"
I think that's what many new-ager types miss: we aren't called to 51% good. We're called to be perfect. To err is human, but it is not divine. That's why we need His help.
It's not about guilt. I don't really acknowledge guilt (here I differ from many Chrisitans). It's about Christ's power to make me better than I am so that I can do good.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Knuth is such a great guy. i'm listening to lecture #1 right now. :) JonKatz (and other assorted trolls) ought to listen to this - not all Christians are crazy, stupid, or preachy. SOme actually do have a clue. :)
:)
I've read Knuth's "3:16 - Scripture Verses Illuminated" as well, it's a beautiful book. Good insight into the verses presented as well. (It would take a computer scientist to invent a scheme such as this
Sure, but we can define "blue" as light with a wavelength from XXX to YYY nanometers.
True, with the caveat (which I needed as well for my own post) that we don't see light at all; at best, blue is a pattern of activation in the brain, often, but not always, triggered by light of x wavelength striking the retina.
More problematic is experience itself, which was the subject of post. You *can't* explain experience in terms of anything else; it's atomic and cannot be reduced. You can explain the physical (re)actions that accompany experience, but that tells you nothing about the experience itself. Saying that blue light is x nanometers tells me a lot about light and gives me a working definition of 'blue', but tells me nothing about the experience of blueness. This is the dreaded qualia problem that philosophy has thoughtfully dropped on our heads just as we were getting a handle on neurology.
The problem is that at this point we have a lot of people who've had religious experiences, but no physical correlate to those experiences, and no objective evidence that God exists. Objectively speaking, we can't say God exists; subjectively, those who have had such experiences have all the evidence they need. It's very possible that this will all be explained in the coming decades (I'm not foolish enough to say years), but it is also possible that it will not. Should that happen, we would be faced with the possibility that God exists, but is only accessable through direct experience and beyond the reach of science as traditionally formulated.
Actually, many very serious philosophers on both sides have reached the conclusion that objective truth *requires* the existence of God - that is, that nothing can be certain without God.
This has led those that believe in God to recognize that there can be no truth apart from that which He reveals to us, and at the same time, has led many of the modern postmodern philosophers to the nihilistic conclusion that nothing matters or can matter because nothing can be objectively true in a world where one begins with the premise that God cannot exist.
Ultimately, you have two choices: A world with God, in which things are knowable and objective truth exists, or a world without God, where nothing is knowable and nothing can have any meaning whatsoever.
The bleak nihilism that is the hallmark of postmodern thought is not simply a trendy blackness - it's the inevitable conclusion of a logical train of thought that begins with denying the existence of God - and even the most atheistic of philosophers freely admit this.
Finally, some are trying to draw a distinction between theology and science. Theology *is* a science - in fact, until this century, everyone would have been exposed to "the queen of the sciences" as theology was known then. (You can learn a lot by reading old books! Do so, and you'll discover how rare real critical thinking has become in our society, how few of us are prepared to do any at all, and how wrong much of what you may have been taught truly is...)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Two points, one of which is a direct grappling with your argument, and another which sidesteps it.
Grappling:
You could indeed tell me that God personally appeared to you and told you that you are Christ reborn. However, in accordance with what I described above, I'd expect you to outline for me some way I could have a personal experience which would verify the truth of what you were saying. That the Bible and some other religious texts do this is part of the point I was trying to express.
Of course, you could give me some crack and/or a tape of subliminal messages and stick me in a sensory deprivation tank and who knows what I might personally experience and end up beleiving. I wouldn't find such a proposition reasonable, but that's going to vary from person to person -- and does. Which is, of course, one reason why matters of faith don't lack for variation.
Sidestepping:
The ideas I posted aren't really meant to provide a watertight argument (I'm not sure that watertight arguments truly exist, except perhaps where you can narrow your assumptions, a la axiomatic mathematics. Other than that, there may only be good models). They're really meant to suggest a principle and/or outline a path one can choose to pursue in search of quality of existence. Viewed as objective arguments (intellectual objects) to be held at an arms length, they'll hold little impact on anyone. Which may be what some people want. But when they're lived in a way that seems "good" and/or "right" to the person in question, that's when they're really tested.
Tweet, tweet.
I will listen to your complaint as soon as you show me how two conflicting beliefs can both be true. You don't want tolerance, you want me to conceed that any belief is equally true. That is superficially and obviously false. The closest you can come is that all beliefs are false, but I don't buy that.
DO I refuse you your right to believe them? No. God gave you the right to believe them, who am I to take it away? But I will never, ever agree to a lie to assuage your notions of politeness. You, sir, are the one who is trying to make me give up my faith.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Nah. Nerf(tm) objects maybe, nothing more. No flamethrowers required. :^)
a ridiculously long troll thread, now made longer by pointing it out. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!
+&x
Don't forget Paul's letter to Philemon about his runaway slave Onesimus. He sends Onesimus back to Philemon with the letter now in our Bible and the powerful reminder that he should forgive Onesimus and treat him as a brother in Christ, just as he would treat Paul himself. To hammer it home he reminds Philemon that he owes his life to Paul.
That's a pretty powerful message about slavery, and one that sets a pretty high bar for Christian owners of Christian slaves.
Go read Philemon. It's real short, and you might even learn something. If you're not up to something even that long, try one of the letters to Timothy, as they are full of good advice.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
You're right. But that was the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately, religious belief is often abused for sociological and political purposes.
-- Slashdot sucks.
1). Would George Bush have ever been elected president if he had been Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist dare I suggest... GAY?
Possibly, if he hid it or maintained the pretense of hiding it. Being a hypocrite is a bigger requirement than being a christian, credibility-wise. GB Jr has raised so much dough by bringing the Republican party up to modern standards of hypocrisy.
2). Has there ever been a president who has been of a religion other than a Christian-based one?
I'll name two: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Both were Deists, a viewpoint which is historically related to Christianity, but is clearly different from it(for example it reject divine inspiration for the Bible, holds knowledge to be gained through rational inquiry, rejects the divinity of Jesus, etc.) Interestingly, they were in opposite political parties with very different views on government.
This kind of thing was more or less in the air in 18th c America. I've been recently reading Ben Franklin's autobiography (highly recommended: he truly was the geek's geek), and he definitely thought like a Deist.
3). Has there been a female president?
Well, obviously not, but I don't think you can blame the Christians on this one. Its only a matter of female candidates moving up through the ranks now. Even a state like New Hampshire has all of its top posts held by women, and they don't think it is any big deal. The real question is when the double standard for behavior for female presidential candidates will be relaxed. These days we expect, and even require male candidates to be able to project traditionally feminine qualities (empathy, crying etc.), but its a sure bet that the first female president will be a ball-busting harpy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The Babelfish (a small fish you put in your ear that allows you to understand every species in the universe by devouring the audible noise and excreting the meaning) disproved the Theory of God because having creating something so incredibly useful to the galaxy that can only come from god, violated teh first rule of Godhood, No Physical Proof. I believe the quote goes something like this "And God disappeared in a puff of logic."
+&x
You missed the point (or the important point, anyway). He stated, correctly, the religious experience is proof to the person who experiences it. Whether it can be proof to others is not at issue: it can't be, at least not directly. Your example points out one reason why. But since that was never in question, it is irrelevant.
And, I'm sorry to say this but I must, you don't understand Christianity. If you can say, for an instant, that God is "just can't wait to throw you into hell" then you don't understand it.
Look at it this way: Hell is the natural consequence of your actions. Seriously: separation from God is totally natural to something that is sinful. How could a sinful man handle a perfect God? But God went to great lengths (he died under torture according to Christians) so that you might be saved from sin.
Analogous to what God did would be if I saved your life, losing my own, after you held me up at gun point and raped my wife and child. That's God's love revealed, and thats why any Christian belief that denies the resurrection Just Doesn't Get It.
Sin is really its own punishment, believe it or not.
-- Slashdot sucks.
I didn't say that people of christian culture were to be excused. Read what I said and try again.
I said that the depredations suffered under regimes of Christian cultures were no worse and might be a bit better than those seen under other religious systems. I mean, there are religious systems out there that practice human sacrifice! Today!
Jeesh. Please answer what I said, not your own foolish nonsense.
-- Slashdot sucks.
While its true the Knuth seems to stay true to his intention of discussing his views on god (or rather on Christianity), the title of lecture series "God and Computers" is a little misleading in this respect. I was expecting some sort of tie in between his experiences with working with controlled, deterministic computers, and his views of the universe, meaning, and god as a whole.
Not an approach for random study of the Christian bible...
-
The MIT student newspaper had an interview with Knuth about these lectures, and gives some insight. http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N5 1/knuthtlin.51f.html. Basically just Knuth expressing his religious views.
If I see one more post here about how geeks are victimized, or how Christians are victimized, or any other self-proclaimed martyrdom, I hereby make an insanity plea in advance, because I will not be responsible for my actions.
GET OVER IT EVERYBODY. You are not a victim. Yes, you - the person staring at a screen reading this post right now. The world is not against you. There is no mass conspiracy to wipe out/shun your particular group. So stop defining yourself by the wrongs inflicted against you. If you consider yourself a part of a particular group and you feel that the other group is "profiling" you or abusing you, I suggest you look more closely at the other group, and see what they are really about.
I think you will find there is plenty of room in this world for both groups, and that they are not mutually exclusive.
That is all.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Jefferson didn't really create his own translation, he just cut'n'pasted the parts of the Gospels he liked into his own book....
Knuth just made an effort to provide an idiomatic translation of each verse mentioned in 3:16, not the whole Bible. Which is a good strategy, IMO.
Read my original post. My point is that anywhere you look, regardless of religious context, these kinds of atrocities happen.
His counter-argument was what about "all the usual suspects" (crusades, etc.), with an assertion that these somehow showed that Christians were worse than others. I replied with counter-examples of equal atrocities in just about every area of the world.
The point is that people suck. And I cannot regard a "politicized" Christianity as Christianity at all. But insofar as those committing these atrocities were the result of a Christian culture, they were no worse than atrocities found in other parts of the world.
Oh yeah... You or someone took issue with me not holding the spaniards responsible for wiping out whole tribes of Indians (by disease). Repeast after me: Louis Pasteur didn't come along till the 19th century!
-- Slashdot sucks.
That's Christianity. You don't have to like it, or agree. But that is the basic gospel message.
That God, after humanity spent thousands of years denying him, killing and abusing his prophets, and killing him (as Jesus Christ) saved us from death. You can say its "Just fucking stupid", but I guess you are the same AC who claims to understand Christianity? If you don't understand that, you don't understand Christianity.
And if you are that particular AC, what right do you as a non-believer have to tell me what I believe? How the hell do you know? In fact, judging by your language, I can say with some comfort that you are probably not a Christian. So, I ask again: what right do you have to tell me what I believe?
People around here need to stop reacting to what their addled brains have led them to think Christians beleive and start reacting to what we actually believe.
-- Slashdot sucks.
For whatever reason, God wants us to freely worship him. He wants us to follow his ways out of love, not fear. And the felt prescense of God in anything but the most mitigated way would overwhealm us.
A lot of otherwise rational people believe in God. And I think you will find that the ones who take God very seriously at all are all judeo-islamo-christian. Really, the only differences between these systems theodicy is the approach to atonement.
Besides, believing in God makes me happy. Why shouldn't I? Remember, I do not try to force you to believe, I just ask that you give me the freedom to believe without slandering or harrassing me.
-- Slashdot sucks.
So when Donald Knuth talks, people listen. Shame he's infected with that Christian meme, though... B-) (ducks objects thrown from /.'s Xian section, dons asbestos longjohns)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Doubtless Knuth will be able to turn it into an engaging book; a followup of sorts to 3:16 would be a very nice thing to see; I'm sure I'll acquire it once available...
Although I still have to say that I'd put higher priority on at least a preprint Vol. 5/6 of TAOCP. That would provide at least draft form for all of the series, what with The Stanford Graphbase at least providing the flavor of Vol. 4.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Yeah, what Khalid and MrSippery said. Plus he's done (and is doing) a lot more including non-computer related stuff. Check out his WWW site:
http://www-cs-staff.Stanford.EDU/~knuth/
Let me preface this by saying it is merely a what-if exercise, since I have not studied studied theology in seminary. I did read a few philosophy books, though.
I would rephrase the first assumption of your point in the opposite direction: our moral system resembles God's character. That may be important. If we accept the idea that God did create the universe and the idea that creation reflects His nature, we come to the idea that physical laws (like gravity) and moral laws (like those against murder) are similar.
One might as well ask, "Why do I fall when I step off of my roof?", but that doesn't really help.
Another piece to consider is the concept of divine justice and mercy. If you believe that God is all-knowing and all-loving (presupposed here, supported and explained in another argument), His view of justice and mercy is greater (as in, not limited by a certain amount of time or in scope to only a certain amount of people). I hate to use the word 'ineffable', but I think we bump up against human limitations quickly when attempting to understand Someone purported to be much greater than we are.
Another idea is much simpler. Does God make anyone do anything? (This is different from the question "Can God make anyone do anything?") It comes back to the free will argument again. (Standard Christian reasoning goes that God did not want a race of robots who love and obey Him because they were 'programmed' to do so -- He would rather some chose to do so, knowing that some would not.)
The previous poster's mention of God's purpose may help explain the pattern you bring up. The question there is, "What is God's purpose in acting in the world? Is it to enforce a standard of morality or is it to find a way to bring humanity back into relationship with him?" Christianity chooses the latter as His primary purpose.
What would I pick as an acceptable answer out of these? I would say that God allows moral choice (knowing that some will choose to do evil) and allows the consequences of these actions. If you are to believe Christianity, one day all wrongs will be righted and justice will prevail (tempered with great mercy, if you also accept their anthropology).
--
QDMerge 0.4!
how to invest, a novice's guide
You see, the hypocritical secular humanist atheist liberals (and members of false "religions" like Buddhism and Judiasm) are persecuting us Christians, and violating our right to freedom of religion every day of their lives!
How so, you ask? Easy!
They refuse to take orders from us. Our religion requires us to give them orders, and it requires them to obey. The free and unimpeded practice of our religion requires us to interfere in their private lives by means of legislation. We are required to force their children to pray to our God, we are required to send police officers into their bedrooms to put a stop to their immoral conduct, and the list goes on. But they keep trying not to let us do these things! It's true that we've had a lot of success in many areas, but as long as we're not entirely free to practice our religion, we are (in principle) not at all free to practice our religion. And as the saying goes, "if one man is not free, then none are free". Therefore, if our freedom of religion has been abrogated in this manner, than so has everybody else's freedom of religion. What that means, in simple terms, is that as long as a Buddhist is not forced to practice Christianity -- in fact, as long as he is even allowed to practice Buddhism -- he is being denied the freedom to practice his own religion (Buddhism)! It's an all-or-nothing proposition.
I hope this clarifies the bizarre persecution complex evinced by members of a religion which has totally dominated this country for more than 200 years. Name me a presidential candidate who hasn't professed conventional faith in the Christian God. Name me a self-described "born-again" Republican front-runner who has lost any significant support due to his religious views. Heh. Christian fundamentalists (as starkly opposed to sincere practicing Christians) have political power wildly out of proportion to their numbers. Nevertheless, they continually and quite hysterically paint themselves as "victims" of ill-defined persecution, in order to get sympathy and grab even more power.
Enough is enough. The "help-me-I'm-a-victim" game is annoying but understandable when played by somebody who really has gotten the shitty end of the stick[1], but an enormously powerful and wealthy political force like Christian fundamentalism is another matter entirely. Coming from them, it's just plain disgusting.
------------------------------
[1] My sympathy for some "victims" probably seems offensive to the fundies, and I don't blame them. After all, they feel equally offended by all of Christ's teachings, including his explicit prohibition of divorce.
It is irrelevant whether you can find verses to condemn slavery. People have great fun condemning Christians based on behaviours undertaken by a few who called themselves Christians, even though their actions were not at all biblical.
It is an historic fact that the abolition movement was lead by Christians, specifically Quakers. Read up and learn. If we are to be held responsible for wickedness done in the name of Christianity even though it was not Biblically based, should we not get the credit for good done in the name of Christianity even though it was not Biblically based?
I really, really, really wish that those who try to criticize Christianity on the basis of its history would learn some history first.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Looks like three are finished already, with more coming
;-)
Haven't I heard this about Knuth's work before?
In these talks, Knuth makes the extremely important point that is missing from so much of what we perceive about Christianity in the Western world today - religion is a private thing, as personal as a lover and just as sacred. In the first talk, he speaks of teaching at Stanford, and refusing to answer students' questions about God and politics. Could this possibly be because he's weak and unable to discuss the subject, or is it more likely that he recognizes what the Religious Right refuses to, namely that God's (however you define him/her) place is not in politics or education or courtrooms, but in the hearts of those who find him/her real?
Is it real? Will it save your life? Is it even Christianity if you don't smear it in your friend's faces? The overwhelming feeling from a scientist who cannot help but feel a reverence for the tradition and the mystery that is human existence is: who cares? What matters is not whether or not you dip or sprinkle, but whether or not you need it to feed your soul.
Many scientists are knee-jerk atheists, being unable to reconcile Genesis with the overwhelming evidence for something different. However, maintaining a spiritual life is not about adhering to the tenants of a specific doctrine. Having not done the research, it nevertheless seems safe to say that Knuth, as a man of scientific mind, cannot reconcile some of the tenants of his faith to what he knows to be true, and has yet found a way to embrace it as a valued and necessary part of his life.
There's a lesson here. Whatever brought us here, whatever keeps us cranking along in life, be it evolution, creation, or something else, there is a piece in 99% of us that is mystical, that asks for some outlet. Accepting Christianity as an outlet does not mean succumbing to the stupidities that are fraught within it, just as they are fraught within every other religion, in varying ways. It does mean acknowledging one's own need for the unknown, and a way to interact with it.
Actually, I just came back from Knuth's 3rd
lecture (well...had dinner first). It was on
translating Bible verses without knowledge of
Hebrew or Greek. Yes, I came in saying to everyone
around that "Knuth is God", etc. But the lecture
was horrible. Well...at least it was extremely
uninteresting, IMHO. Maybe some of the other
lectures in the series will be better (maybe first two were), but
that looks doubtful. Art of CP, TeX, good math are all well and supernatural, but
3:16 (what he talked about today) is not. He sounded more like a preacher and less like a diety; that and he can't really give a presentation. Well...I'm going to go back to my altar now...
-----------------------------------------------
how much bandwidth has been wasted by this sig?
Saying that religious people are the cause of bloodshed is simply idiocy. More wars have been waged for political reasons that religous reasons. Even the often used example of the Crusades is incorrect because it began for purely political reasons. It just so happened that the Pope backed it and recruited armies based on a false religious context.
Also, athiests have never truly been in power during history, so you cant blame religion for wars at all. Russia and China are the only non-religious run countries that I can think of, and they arent exactly utopias. It is the people in power that cause the problems in society, not religion.
Oh, and by the way. I am an athiest, not a religious zealot. I just dont agree with blaming religon for all of the world's problems simply because our leaders happen to be religious.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
"When your in the lake of fire screaming for mercy,"
,"?
Shouldn't that read... "When you're in the lake of fire screaming for grammar
Just wonderin'.
~m
It sounds as if you're trying to turn science into a religion. You are making it an article of your faith that stuff outside of science is "dumb".
Science cannnot deal with God, the supernatural, or anything else non-observable. It can't. It wasn't designed to. But neither does it deny the existance outside of observation, it merely states that such knowledge is outside of it's domain. Trying to use science to disprove the existance of God is like trying to use a hammer to saw wood.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Before you try to scare people you should consider what scares them. Promising a hell to someone who believes in no afterlife whatsoever is hardly a threat, now is it. Consider the alternative... It is what scared most believers so much they took religious insurance to try and ward it off. Your hell is actually an atheists heaven. Yet an atheists reality is your worst nightmare.
So who is scaring whoom here?
We see many examples of people who believe things without proof. That is faith. We see them do stupid things because of their belief in that faith. That is the proof that faith is bad.
It's not that without faith, nothing is ever bad, but if you base your beliefs on rationality, you're more likely to change your beliefs when they aren't representative of the world.
If you believe what you're told, for example "God exists" without demanding evidence (and i don't mean the ambiguous and self-contradictory Bible), you're not cool - you're just plain dumb.
That is true. Maybe a bit harsh, but true. Especially the part about "without demanding evidence."
People can be lied to, or be wrong. If you look for evidence and find faked evidence, or a liar offering to teach you, that doesn't make you stupid. What makes you stupid is to not look for evidence, and reject it when you find it.
Almost everyone on /. would laugh at someone who believed company benchmarks without demanding to try the product himself. Especially with companies like MindCraft around who do everything possible to distort the truth. Why should we be less critical of someone who believes, with less evidence, in the existence of a god?
It doesn't make them a bad person, but it doesn't indicate a very critical mind.
-- Slashdot sucks.
video stream: http://www.technetcast.com/av/tnc_mit_dk_02.rm.
He's one of those slimey Christian types: he'll probably try to repress you!
<apology>
I'm sorry, but Katz's repeated slams of Christians have really annoyed me pretty badly. Expect bitterness for a while.
</apology>
-- Slashdot sucks.
Apparently, Mr. Knuth's being a christian has deeply offended a lot of you. My guess would be that you're much, much more intolerant of other people than any imagined intolerance on christianity's part.
Geeks hate being wrong (I know, I am one). But that's what christianity is, telling you that you're wrong, a sinner, doomed. But you guys are so narrow minded that you can't get past that to find out that it also talks about what to do about it.
I could of course mention the fact that it was geeks killing christians at Columbine, but that's grossly unfair. Just as unfair as all these posts here blaming religion for all the atrocities in the world.
Christian bashing is the last refuge of the bigot in this era of political correctness.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"We see many examples of people who believe things without proof. That is faith. We see them do stupid things because of their belief in that faith. That is the proof that faith is bad."
You are mischaracterizing faith. It is much more than blindly accepting what someone else is telling you. It is accepting something because you *know* it to be true.
Every person with faith has strong and compelling evidence for that faith. But just because that evidence is not scientific, or is meaningless to you, does not make it any less evidence. I agree that "blind faith" is not very smart, but a faith bolstered by evidence, scientific or otherwise, is certainly not stupid.
"It doesn't make them a bad person, but it doesn't indicate a very critical mind."
I could go on and on about the great critical minds in history who were people of faith. But I won't, look them up in your own history books.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The fool below who claims that Christians enjoy no persecution in our society has been moderated directly up.
Oh yeah. For all you who whine about the evils of the religious right: THEY ARE NOT THE MAINBODY OF CHRISTIANITY! And stop your whining: have you people any idea what has been done to Christians in the past and in other countries? Our religious started out with its founder executed. As far as I know, at least 5 of the original twelve apostles were killed by the government of the time.
Why? Because people suck and power corrupts! And whatever group is in power will abuse it. So, you have gross abuse of power by atheists (think Stalin), including abuse of Christians. The Jews are documented to have done some pretty unpleasant things to their enemies (looked in Israel lately and the way they treat the palestinian Christians). Even Eastern faiths are not immune: look at the ethnic conflicts in India/Pakistan sometime. Or consider that the pacific half of WWII was caused by Shinto (the Japanese national religion) racism in addition to its obvious, secular causes. And you have gross abuse of power by putative Christians throughout history, but its probably nothing to compare to what has been done by non-Christians.
I can't speak for any other faith system, but calling yourself a Christian does not make you a Christian! Christ himself said so:
Of course, the trick is telling who is and who isn't a "real" Christian. The answer is that you can't. But if you devote yourself first to God then, like numerous Christians who stood up against injustice from the church (notably Dietrich Bonhoeffer in WWII, but also many, many others) you will know what God is calling you to do. Or, as the verse above continues: But, I guess I'm speaking to people who won't listen.Listen people: I don't slam you. I have in fact walked out of churches when they became to vehement in condemning people of other faiths (not because people of other faiths are right: universalism is an absurdity, but because I can respect them as other peoples attempts to pursue God even when they are wrong). All I ask is that you exercise some care to get your facts straight before you slander me and my brothers.
Oh yeah: for being such repressers, I find it interesting that Christian sentiment was what led most abolitionists to want to abolish slavery.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Need I say more?
-- Slashdot sucks.
God IS real.
Unless declared an integer.
(unfortunately not mine, although I don't know where I got it)
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx