I was always a little uncomfortable with God and religion, even when I was young and being taken to Sunday school. I eventually started looking at some of the stories with a critical eye, and became convinced that these stories were written thousands of years ago by men with no idea what would occur in the future. Most of the writings in the bible make absolutely no sense in todays world, and attempts to apply the "lessons" are futile. Luckily, it's clear that we can live happy, moral rational lives without such nonsense. And the majesty and beauty of the universe is so much greater and more poignant without insisting some god simply created it. When you start to understand the astonishing symmetries and mathematical structure underlying everything, the wonder of the universe becomes breathtaking. I would rather see the universe with these eyes untarnished by religious irrationality.
It's pretty obvious, if you apply any objective level of analysis to religious dogma and writings, that it's all complete bullshit. They make unsupported claims of things known to be impossible. They contradict themselves. They have no evidence. They don't even try. You have to either ignore all that and believe anyway, or some will tell you things like: it's not supposed to be taken literally, or they are moral lessons in some kind of story form. It doesn't even take any effort to critique them. It takes a ridiculous amount of effort and contortion to try to make sense of it, explain it and support it. You absolutely do not have to be athiest to reject religion. Religion is clearly bullshit, and dangerous bullshit at that. Believe in God if you like, I don't give a shit, but believe that the world will end because of some war between good and evil here on earth within your lifetime, and I think you should be treated for mental illness. When it's the man with the codes to unleash the nuclear arsenal who believes such, and we should all be terrified. Don't try saying that being certain that religion is bs is the same as being a religious zealot, because it's crap. There is plenty of evidence that religion is made up nonsense. Whereas religious zealotry requires a deep irrationality and a complete unquestioning surrender to words written thousands of years ago by men when all kinds of nonsense was commonplace. Believing in God is not the same as being religious, and following religious dogma and believing religious writings.
The alternative is to have the minority tell the majority "what to do". That doesn't sound better to me. Or perhaps you believe you can get a quarter of a billion people to come to a consensus on every decision?
"science can't disprove God..." This is basically the "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" claim. Actually, Victor J Stenger makes the very convincing case that absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence when such evidence should be abundant but isn't, and that this really is the case with the deist gods, such as the Christian God. I wholeheartedly recommend him: a very good read.
Dyjkstra: It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
The number is an abstraction. When you count, you are determining cardinality by forming a bijection between the members of the set and the first numbers in the number system. 101 is abstract. 101 Dalmatians is concrete.
What use is the differentiation in this case? And where is "number line" defined that way? It's nonsense. If I write "gallons" over the 1 on the number line, it's suddenly promoted from second-order to first order?
There is no excuse. When there is a multiple choice question where only one choice is allowed, (like most standardized tests), all correct answers should be counted as correct. If there are answers that are correct for subtle reasons, either put alternate (more obvious) incorrect choices, or allow them as alternative correct answers. No debate is necessary.
We think at different levels. In the one hand, I agree with you - we do it as a method of communication and of reasoning. Sometimes we hide faults by doing it. For example, when it turns out to be a compiler bug or a fault in the CPU. We reason about the software, as if it's truly executing, whereas it's really much more complex than that. The compiler, the CPU, execution units, comms. buses, memory controllers. But I believe that there is a deeper reason we find this tool such an obvious and handy one. Our languages and way of thought grow together; and evolved together. Dismiss it if you will, but I think you're missing something interesting, fascinating and revealing by doing so. Edsgar Dijkstra said we shouldn't talk about software behavior - instead we should reason mathematically and prove our algorithms. Yet, we all do it. It's almost universally pervasive (in software). I also think he was partly wrong. Some problems are easier to approach behaviorally.
The point *is* a bit subtle. All if those terms, even "send", imply agency. I work with some of the smartest computer scientists and software engineers. I written a lot of software, for many years. It's not language that we reserve for users. No one reasons about programs executing by thinking about the voltage potentials changing. We reason at a higher level. In fact, as high as necessary, but no higher. I think the higher levels tend to involve ascribing an agency. We know that's not how it works, but it is a shortcut in thinking. It is more efficient. And I don't think there is anything wrong with it.
Ever hear technical people talking about computers/sending/ packets? Or that a program "didn't like" it's input? Or that it didn't "know how" to process that particular protocol? We know the computers and programs aren't intelligent, but we talk as if they have agency. Even those that think they don't usually simply don't realize they do. There us a reason we talk like that.
It could be true that religious communities believe it. Probably not, and worse: it's irrelevant. Isn't it strange how the religious believe they would immediately start engaging in immoral activities were they to lose faith? I consider myself to be a very highly moral person. But I don't imagine someone looking over me ready to cast me into hell, or burn my soul in eternity. In fact, the mere idea of eternity is terrifying, even without hell and damnation.
Sometimes a vehement attack is warranted. For example, when a group with an agenda wants to pervert teaching of science to promote indoctrination of my kids.
What's unhealthy about it? I personally feel very healthy, and am quite happy to leave some things unexplained without resorting to superstition. Also, what's wrong with having people running amok challenging scientific principles? Scientists do it. It's exactly what I teach my kids to do. It seems to be something their schools discourage, but I digress. Finally, I think creationism should lead to some testable hypotheses, and be falsifiable before it should ever be allowed anywhere near a science class. String theory fails at the same hurdle.
Slashdot Mirror
+1
How would you defend the country?
I was always a little uncomfortable with God and religion, even when I was young and being taken to Sunday school.
I eventually started looking at some of the stories with a critical eye, and became convinced that these stories were written thousands of years ago by men with no idea what would occur in the future. Most of the writings in the bible make absolutely no sense in todays world, and attempts to apply the "lessons" are futile.
Luckily, it's clear that we can live happy, moral rational lives without such nonsense.
And the majesty and beauty of the universe is so much greater and more poignant without insisting some god simply created it. When you start to understand the astonishing symmetries and mathematical structure underlying everything, the wonder of the universe becomes breathtaking.
I would rather see the universe with these eyes untarnished by religious irrationality.
It's pretty obvious, if you apply any objective level of analysis to religious dogma and writings, that it's all complete bullshit.
They make unsupported claims of things known to be impossible. They contradict themselves. They have no evidence. They don't even try. You have to either ignore all that and believe anyway, or some will tell you things like: it's not supposed to be taken literally, or they are moral lessons in some kind of story form.
It doesn't even take any effort to critique them.
It takes a ridiculous amount of effort and contortion to try to make sense of it, explain it and support it.
You absolutely do not have to be athiest to reject religion.
Religion is clearly bullshit, and dangerous bullshit at that.
Believe in God if you like, I don't give a shit, but believe that the world will end because of some war between good and evil here on earth within your lifetime, and I think you should be treated for mental illness. When it's the man with the codes to unleash the nuclear arsenal who believes such, and we should all be terrified.
Don't try saying that being certain that religion is bs is the same as being a religious zealot, because it's crap. There is plenty of evidence that religion is made up nonsense. Whereas religious zealotry requires a deep irrationality and a complete unquestioning surrender to words written thousands of years ago by men when all kinds of nonsense was commonplace.
Believing in God is not the same as being religious, and following religious dogma and believing religious writings.
The alternative is to have the minority tell the majority "what to do".
That doesn't sound better to me.
Or perhaps you believe you can get a quarter of a billion people to come to a consensus on every decision?
"science can't disprove God..."
This is basically the "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" claim.
Actually, Victor J Stenger makes the very convincing case that absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence when such evidence should be abundant but isn't, and that this really is the case with the deist gods, such as the Christian God.
I wholeheartedly recommend him: a very good read.
Bias is not the issue. Fox News is one big very powerful propaganda machine.
News is incidental at most.
Actually, merely the process of quantum teleportation destroys the original state, and can only recreate the state once (at most).
Sir, your genius is showing.
Dude, in all seriousness, get some counselling.
It can really help.
You need it.
It's not your fault.
Really.
Dyjkstra: It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
That was a well thought out articulate comment.
What the devil are you doing at Slashdot?
The number is an abstraction. When you count, you are determining cardinality by forming a bijection between the members of the set and the first numbers in the number system. 101 is abstract. 101 Dalmatians is concrete.
What use is the differentiation in this case?
And where is "number line" defined that way?
It's nonsense. If I write "gallons" over the 1 on the number line, it's suddenly promoted from second-order to first order?
No. But it IS necessarily incomplete.
I completely agree. Especially about the wiggle room.
There is no excuse. When there is a multiple choice question where only one choice is allowed, (like most standardized tests), all correct answers should be counted as correct. If there are answers that are correct for subtle reasons, either put alternate (more obvious) incorrect choices, or allow them as alternative correct answers.
No debate is necessary.
We think at different levels. In the one hand, I agree with you - we do it as a method of communication and of reasoning. Sometimes we hide faults by doing it. For example, when it turns out to be a compiler bug or a fault in the CPU. We reason about the software, as if it's truly executing, whereas it's really much more complex than that. The compiler, the CPU, execution units, comms. buses, memory controllers.
But I believe that there is a deeper reason we find this tool such an obvious and handy one. Our languages and way of thought grow together; and evolved together.
Dismiss it if you will, but I think you're missing something interesting, fascinating and revealing by doing so.
Edsgar Dijkstra said we shouldn't talk about software behavior - instead we should reason mathematically and prove our algorithms. Yet, we all do it. It's almost universally pervasive (in software).
I also think he was partly wrong. Some problems are easier to approach behaviorally.
The point *is* a bit subtle.
All if those terms, even "send", imply agency.
I work with some of the smartest computer scientists and software engineers. I written a lot of software, for many years. It's not language that we reserve for users.
No one reasons about programs executing by thinking about the voltage potentials changing. We reason at a higher level. In fact, as high as necessary, but no higher.
I think the higher levels tend to involve ascribing an agency. We know that's not how it works, but it is a shortcut in thinking. It is more efficient.
And I don't think there is anything wrong with it.
No. The reason is much deeper. But you're comment says more about you than me.
Why am I even replying to a coward?
Ever hear technical people talking about computers /sending/ packets? Or that a program "didn't like" it's input? Or that it didn't "know how" to process that particular protocol?
We know the computers and programs aren't intelligent, but we talk as if they have agency. Even those that think they don't usually simply don't realize they do.
There us a reason we talk like that.
It could be true that religious communities believe it.
Probably not, and worse: it's irrelevant.
Isn't it strange how the religious believe they would immediately start engaging in immoral activities were they to lose faith?
I consider myself to be a very highly moral person. But I don't imagine someone looking over me ready to cast me into hell, or burn my soul in eternity.
In fact, the mere idea of eternity is terrifying, even without hell and damnation.
Sometimes a vehement attack is warranted. For example, when a group with an agenda wants to pervert teaching of science to promote indoctrination of my kids.
What's unhealthy about it? I personally feel very healthy, and am quite happy to leave some things unexplained without resorting to superstition.
Also, what's wrong with having people running amok challenging scientific principles? Scientists do it. It's exactly what I teach my kids to do. It seems to be something their schools discourage, but I digress.
Finally, I think creationism should lead to some testable hypotheses, and be falsifiable before it should ever be allowed anywhere near a science class. String theory fails at the same hurdle.