In the USA the Second Amendment allows you to own your own
laser cannon but the government is not required to buy one for
you.
...incorrect. Laser cannons would be categorized as ordnance, not
arms. The laws covering laser cannons, dynamite and propane work somewhat differently.
"To this day I am happy that I was able to have those two years of C, letting me get close to the guts of the OS, forcing me to think about what I was doing every step of the way."
Compared with implementing Java solutions, I think that was largely the point. "Platform independence" implies independence from the hardware AND the OS.
"There is no question in my mind that it made me a better programmer in general, regardless of the language. I feel sorry for the people that start - then never leave - a much higher level language such as Java."
...which speaks to a different problem. Newcomers start off with Java, but don't spend enough time and effort on learning why things work as you were alluding to....problem-solving, data structures, algorithms, you get the drift. Ideally, Java allows a comparable level of performance (not every line of code gets compiled every time, nor needs to be) over more platforms within a level of security that C et al cannot match. Newbies who you may have worked with might not have known as much as they could about the Java API, which is rather substantial.
If turning out entry-level programmers expediently was the goal of computer science programs, I'd imagine they'd teach them Perl and set 'em loose....fast, cheap, real easy.
"Can't we just use the technology available to us, without being branded with the [Insert Keyword] Generation tag?"
...quoting Frank Zappa: "Most rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read."
I guess the above observation applies to more than rock journalism nowadays. To be fair, some journalists rely on over-used buzz-words and catch-phrases more than others.
As with the barbarians at the gates of Rome who only wanted the land and crops originally promised to them by the emperor, your customers only want easy access to the content you promise them. No one has proven that they are not willing to pay for that privilege.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. What seems to have happened here was the media business model that most of us grew up with is now obsolete. At the time you're referring to, Romans were dealing with civil war, outsiders in numbers large enough to damage the infrastructure, moral decline, religious upheaval and infectious, contagious diseases that their medical technology couldn't begin to handle.
We aren't living in the best of times....certainly not an intellectual golden age in my country, but life could be a lot worse.
...which makes for a satisfying and yet apt if not well-worn
sound-byte,...kinda.
Of course there's more to it. The above-mentioned
"win" was not the only goal being sought, and you could
also make a very convincing argument that it wasn't only
terrorists seeking that specific outcome.
On top of that, if we're assuming that this is a zero-sum
contest (are we certain that it is?), then there are certain
"levels of defeat" we seem to be prepared to accept -
assuming that the terrorists have won a final victory, which they
haven't,...
...but you knew that.
A more complete and final victory might take the form of the
"defeated" adopting the methods and more importantly,
the mindset of the "victors".
...and I take heat for quoting other people out of context
There was more to it of course. My question was "How many new deities can you name?...and which of them have caught on since Jews, Christians and Muslims are supposed to worship the same god, even though they seem to have different ideas about Him."
...my emphasis added, but then again it was my question, wasn't it?
...and we know that you yourself are less deluded because...?
"You believe it because so many others believe it. After all, how can all
these people be wrong, eh?
Everyone who is capable of thinking tries to make sense of the world as best
they can. Not everyone has the same capacity for logical and critical thought.
Also, not everyone has the same capacity to think things through for themselves....and they haven't all had the educational advantages that you've had.
"Use examples from the past. Greek gods and Roman gods would be one.
Egyptian gods another. Also Japanese emperor is a god figure as well. No one
believes any of these anymore, yet not so long ago, A LOT of people believed it
and you would be killed for saying different. A LOT of people can't be wrong."
That's actually a very good point. At that stage of history, the line
dividing religion and science was not well-defined at all. Logic and reason was
still new to the world. In many respects, religion and science were very much
the same. Come to think of it, religion and government were the same where
tribal chiefs to kings were serving double-duty as priests....and even as living gods on earth.
So, it does at times bother me that history repeats itself
"All current religions are just a natural continuation of the past
religions. As people outgrew their deities, we needed to create more powerful
ones."
How many new deities can you name?...and which of them have caught on since
Jews, Christians and Muslims are supposed to worship the same god, even though
they seem to have different ideas about Him.
"Why do we believe?"
"...we..."?
"People can't accept futility of their lives."
...and your own life is more meaningful because...?
"They think they are special and try to justify it with religion (eg.
afterlife and "god's will")."
If only they could all see the world the way you do, O wise one.
"Finally, people do not just start to believe in a religion. 95%+ percent,
they are indoctrinated into that religion from a little kid that can't think for
themselves."
Do you have any kids, Gnuman?
"Then they stay in that religion mostly out of fear - leave and maybe get
the wrath of god as preached by almost every religion so most don't want to take
risk like that. This explains the lack of mobility from one religion to
another."
...another good point. Religion as a matter of history, also serves a social
purpose as well as a spiritual one.
Do your own children have the same ideas about the world that you do?
Do you think that they always will?
"Aside: Santa has a basis in historical events that are a lot closer than
2000 years yet look what happened to that. Santa now lives in the North Pole,
sports a Coca Cola suit (yes, they made it red), and eats cookies and milk.
Santa, from real facts to current myth seems to mimic the so called "religious
historical facts" quite well."
On top of all that, some of the best schools and hospitals in the world were
built and are owned and operated by religious organizations.
Granted that some really horrible crimes against humanity have been committed
in the name of God, but faith-based groups have consistently fed, clothed,
housed and educated more people than the richest and most powerful of
governments.
"Those who whine and
mumble "It will never happen" think they are being 'realists', but they
are just dragging everyone
down with their own
depressive lack of vision."
Are you here to offer us even a ballpark timeline as to when "it" will
happen?
"Neil, you are as much a
part of the problem as the RIAA and other criminals."
How do you figure that?
Neil has an opinion to offer, as do I, as do you....only a slight
difference to you, but it's kindasorta obvious to the rest or us.
"What do you possibly
feel you have added to the discussion, other than what we all already
know?"
See above. You're really quite upset about his stance aren't
you?
"Want to add something
other than vague accusations?
Want to print the names
of those..."
Egad,...
Calm down. Inhale deep, exhale. By the way, they
make de-cafeinnated coffee nowadays....just the thing for
anonymous cow...
...agitated concerned contributors such as yourself. Peace.
"However, having lots of unenforced and silly laws on
the books makes everyone a criminal and subject to capricious
arrest anytime anywhere. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, maybe even
George Bush love laws like this because they can employ them at a
moment's notice against their perceived threats."
As bad as things have been under the present administration,
it rather trivializes the crimes against humanity of Hitler et al
when you casually lump Baby Bush in with that lot.
Even worse, it dulls the moral impact of the suffering of
their victims....and all to add weight to your argument against
"registration" of blogs, which isn't the law yet in
Italy, or in the US, and might never be.
"Well,
no. Japan, Holland, Canada, and a slew of other
nations have a lower instance of religious belief, and a lower
rate of crime, lower infant mortality, etc."
...and higher suicide rates....Japan and Canada anyway.
"Even within the USA, the Bible Belt states (actually
the Red States in general) have higher infant mortality rates,
lower productivity rates, higher crime rates, worse education
systems, along with being worse-off in a range of other
criteria."
Congratulations to NYC, Chicago and Los Angeles! You are now
"Red, Bible Belt states".;-)
"It isn't a stark difference--I'm not saying they're
in the dark ages--but the difference is easy to spot if you look
at the data."
Just for a moment, imagine that we live in a world where
numbers don't tell the whole story.
...and then snap out of it. We're already there.
"And in one way or another, we're all atheists."
...as is each and every tree, rock, and banana slug are all
atheists too. One significant difference is that they have no
doubts about their atheism....even when they near the end of
their respective existences.
People are supposed to be different because
of what we believe and the small matter of being capable of
believing at all.
...not because of what we do not believe.
"Is the world worse off because people don't believe
in Thor anymore?"
Not that many people believed in Thor to begin with. It's a
rather smaller number today, but they might even have a website.
Apollo on the other hand... There was a
thunder god.
"That's pretty much what I tell people when they
start preferring religion to science - they are the same
thing!"
More precisely, they are both attempts by people to make sense
of the world around them.
But they do not work the same way, nor were they meant to.
"Do you really believe God was too stupid to create a
universe that didn't have to be held together with magic?
Studying science is studying God's work, and thus you are in fact
learning about God."
I read a rather eloquent way of saying the same as the above,
though I forgot who I'm quoting: "Religion tells us about
what God did. Science tells us about how He did
it."
The problem with the above is that religion and science should
and were intended to offer different answers to different
questions. They fulfill different needs and expectations in the
way that reason and faith do or the way philosophy and
spirituality do. None of the aforementioned pairs are truly
opposites any more than science and religion because they too are
human endeavors to extend limits of ideas that aren't always so
tangible or approachable to everyone.
Unfortunately, there are those on both the faith/religious
side and on the reason/rational side who either can't or won't
tolerate other world-views that well. These are the folks who
have good intentions, but they end up applying answers found in
their faith to questions better left to science (think
"creation museums").
The other side of this paradigm is
more common on Slashdot where we find really good
"reasons" not to believe in God and "proof"
to back it up.
...because it is not the purpose of faith to accurately describe reality...
"So, how does that reconcile with your claim, "They are both attempts by
thinking people to make sense out of life, the world, and everything in it"?
Because faith doesn't cover everything. It wasn't meant to....neither does reason or logic.
Is
the purpose of faith to inaccurately describe reality? =)"
That's actually more the role of science when researchers get the math wrong.
"More seriously: faith operates in reality."
Faith ideally, helps people deal with reality by reminding them that there's
more to their existence than what they know as reality.
"Luminous beings are we....not this crude matter!"
- Yoda
"It is only in observable reality that we can assess the usefulness of its
operation towards its intended purposes."
...a matter best left to reason and logic, yes.
"Ultimately, of course, only the universe of reality can test the
effectiveness, but scientific methods facilitate observing the testing process
and results."
...common ground there.
"No; however, I don't recall ever claiming they were opposites, per
se."
...fair enough. You did not.
"Though the dot product in some social metric spaces is probably negative, I
suspect they generally have a sizable orthogonal component as well."
Faith wasn't meant to replace mathematics either.
...though I'd heard a story about Pythagoras sacrificing a bull to the gods
after proving the existence of irrational numbers. I enjoy a good barbecue
as much as the next man, but even I think that was a bit much.
"IT support to a philosophy department at an engineering school isn't all
that different, but pays about 50% better than restaurant work (unless you own
the restaurant)."
If I found out my Geek Squad geek applied scientific methods to a religious
matter, I wouldn't want him replacing my damn toner cartridges.
"No, humans seem pretty much alike to me; two eyes, so, nose in the middle,
mouth under."
Humans spend a lot of time prone, some more so than others, so mouths aren't
always under. I learned that watching my girlfriend sleep.
Sometimes she yells at me when I do that.
"It's always the same. Now if some had the two eyes on the same side of the
nose, for instance -- or the mouth at the top -- that would be some help."
There's more to people than physical appearances, Abb3w. Life
experience makes a huge difference and not everyone who was fortunate enough to
be born with two eyes gets to keep them
"These days, politics and religion are too closely tied for that to be a
discussion option."
...understandable. Politicians should know better than to simply write
off voters who attend church regularly.
"Mostly we talk about how charming and polite their semi-domesticated little
weasels are, how well they're doing in school, and so on."
Aww that's nice.:-)
"It takes all kinds to make a world; I didn't say I thought the ratios were
right. Also, while I'm quite fond of swamps (they're great for the overall
health of the ecology), that doesn't mean I want to have to deal with the
Okeefenokee up close and personal on a regular basis."
You don't have to kiss them. Merely understand that even though your
way of dealing with the world might not be the same as others, those others
probably take their ways as seriously as you do yours.
"I'm not convinced the latter view is sustainable." You may find
The Limits to
Growth [amazon.com] is an e
"Ok, people find hope, but in a fantasy world. It's not better than
finding hope in a video game."
Absence of evidence or proof does NOT conclusively dis-prove any claim,
belief, or argument. Merely understand that even though your way of
dealing with the world might not be the same as others, those others probably
take their ways as seriously as you do yours.
"Death will always be greater than us. But that does not mean religions
have any truth in them."
Seek and ye shall find. Not everyone finds truth in religion, nor
inspiration, nor guidance, nor meaning, nor anything remotely relevant in their
own lives. However, religion has always been more accessible too more
people, especially outside a university or otherwise cosmopolitan setting.
Of course there are those who would use religion to belittle and dehumanize
people who don't believe in what they do (not like you, of course), but overall,
religious institutions still have a better public image, a better track record
of helping those who need help.
"A German scientist. So? scientists can be as sinister as any other
person. But that has nothing to do with science."
...and yet you can't really separate science from the scientist. Way
too many jobs in science still involve behavior control, surveillance and
weapons research. Scientists need to eat too.
"That they tried to make social changes does not invalidate my argument."
But you haven't really proven that religion itself is ignorance either.
In this case, you don't have a real argument to invalidate until you offer up
some evidence to support it..
...and though not at present, there may come a time when even you might need
hope, comfort and inspiration in your own life. They might come from
somewhere you didn't expect. At a time like that, you might find out what
you really do believe in.
"We should all have been Dr Kings and Mahatma Gandhis."
If by that, you mean they were excellent role-models in spite of their flaws,
then yes. Visionaries are noted for what they believed in, not for what
they did not believe in.
"I can not disagree with that, and the middle ages is a testament to
that."
Of course, there's more to it. The Middle Ages is also evidence that
the world is imperfect, so are the people in it. If their belief in a god
that is perfect helps humanity survive troubled times, let them have it.
"Music, again, in the context of religion."
He who pays the piper calls the tune. What else is new?
"Jesus was a philosopher."
...which is further evidence that religion did indeed stimulate philosophy.
"In his teachings, he talks about the human state."
...and you don't have to be particularly religious to gain really important
insight from them. There really are valuable lessons for anyone who opens their hearts
and minds to Christ.
"Of course, in this day and age, we can not be sure of the origin of the
content of his speeches."
Of course, both then and now, you don't need to believe everything you read.
"Yeah, after 1500 years the Greeks have settled in all the Mediterranean.
You missed something there."
...not really. I suggested that religion fostered exploration. I
did not claim that religion was the only reason for exploration.
"But that's not the point. The missionaries went there in order to put the
locals under the boot of religion."
The missionaries brought the gospel message, as well as knowledge of European
languages, arts and sciences.
"And the explorers went there to loot."
They weren't all nice people. Neither were all of the missionaries.
"Or have we forgotten the massacre of native Americans by Spain?"
"Provide the specific quote, and I can be specific as to whether you're
misunderstanding me, or whether I spoke imprecisely; but I suspect one of the
two."
I'll get back to you on that one. There seems to be a lot of interest
in matters of faith and reason. Who would've thought...?
"My intended nuance you seem to omit is that while faith does not require
the same kind of proof, it also doesn't present a description of reality that is
probably accurate;..."
...because it is not the purpose of faith to accurately describe reality.
Is any of this sinking in yet?
"...it merely presents one that may sometimes be useful. The two
things aren't the same; descriptions may be accurate, useful, neither, or both."
Does that mean they are diametric opposites?...or even all that
opposite at all? Is anything that different to anything else its opposite
by definition?
...unless you're referring to Ubuntu and Vista, of course.
"Approximation algorithms show that. (See "Minimum Message..."
Let's get you back on track. I'll offer a simpler example: You
usually don't use a Philips head screwdriver for a task requiring a crescent
wrench.
"Not if you answer the question in a generalized manner, such that it may
be applied to specific cases by individuals."
For those of you just tuning in, the question Abb3w was referring to is:
"...what purpose do we want from our lives, in that case? And how best should
we go about seeking it?"
Thusly, someone applying a scientific approach to matters of faith or
religion might consider a purpose that involves meeting the public and serving
them French fries. The best way to "go about seeking it" would seem to be
submitting an application of some sort.
"Yes; one aunt, three cousins (on the other side of the family from her),
and those cousins' nine assorted spawn. There are other folk I'm merely socially
acquainted with (EG, some friend's neighbors), who I prefer to avoid as civility
and politeness allow. Relatives are more difficult to do that with; however, I
stopped discussing religion with most of my relatives quite a while back."
So, you've moved on to politics or those funny little differences between
races and genders?
"I think you mistake my belittling the source of their beliefs for
belittling the people themselves. Again, there's some difference."
If you replace the word "mistake" with "mistook", then it's a possibility.
I'd agree that there would be a difference.
"...it seems you do not mentally distinguish intrinsic, extrinsic, and
relational possessive pronouns.)"
Provide the specific quote, and I can be specific as to whether you're
misunderstanding me, or whether I spoke imprecisely.
... but I suspect one of the two.
"I'm quite glad there are a lot of people who think in different ways than
me."
...me too. However, you seem to have a peculiar way of expressing your
"gladness".
"I even suspect that the blind-faith mode of operation for society
may be a mode of operation that offers better odds of long-term survival for our
species than the rational/scientific/technological worldview."
Wow. How do you figure that?
"This does not preclude my disapproving of the current dominant selection
of foci for blind-faith literalism; nor does my assessment as "less useful"
imply they are completely useless."
"Which religion today offers meaning, inspiration,
and hope?"
Finding inspiration, hope and meaning is a very personal
matter. Not everyone finds it in faith or philosophy. I don't
think someone such as you would find it in religion.
Personally, I think any individual finds what they really
believe in when they can attain a state of serenity and peace,
but also in their darkest moments. I've heard of men who held reason,
rationalism and logic so dear and denying "the power and the glory"
only to make deathbed conversions before kicking the proverbial
bucket....just to be on the safe side, I'm sure. We're all human, right?
I've seen one man renounce his faith at the very end....in a
movie....and I can't even remember the name of it.
"...perhaps Islam that says 'all you sinners must
convert or die'? Christianity which says 'don't do any sex as
your god-given body dictates or you will burn eternally in
hell'?"
...whatever floats your boat, man.
...though I do remember saying something in my own post about meaning,
inspiration and hope offered by "religion at its best". Perhaps you
stopped reading early at some point to avoid complicating your view of what you
thought faith and religion really were.
...time for me to ask YOU a loaded question now. Who do you
think invented zyklon-B? Was it more likely a clergyman?...or a
scientist?
"Religion was not misused to exploit ignorance."
Think that through and we will both know you are wrong!
Religion has most certainly been mis-used to exploit ignorance
since the beginning of religion! Religion continues to thrive
partly because most religious people are not bad people.
"Religion *is* ignorance. Even if religious leaders don't
exploit believers, these people tend to take things as they are
because 'God made it so'."
Help me understand, Masterp...
Do you think Pythagoras was ignorant because of what he believed?...or
Maimonides?...or Mahatma Gandhi?...or Dr. King?
Do you think any of them took things as they were?
"Arts and language were encouraged by the Christian churches only within
the context of religion."
...fair enough. Funding for sciences and the humanities tends to dry up
when society breaks down.
I left out music, including a rather large portion of classical works.
"Philosophy..."
Of course, there's still a lot of debate as to whether Jesus really said and
did the things that the scriptures claim that he said and did, or whether he was
the son of God or not.
I also heard some terrble stories about bloodthirsty maniacs killing and
doing other unspeakable things in his name too. Back then, debates over faith
and reason, religion and science, and confusing all four of them didn't have the
benefit of message boards, texting, chat rooms, etc.
"'Answers' in science really aren't; they're just 'the best guess
available for now', and an answer in one area shouldn't be assumed to be an
answer in anything else until tested."
...tested and documented through enough iterations until we can get
consistent, reproducible results....yes.
"The methods are another matter. And the advantage of the conceptual
methods of science is that by answering one question, they can lead you to
better questions. For example: suppose science shows there is no sign of God
having every been anywhere, and that any "purpose" in life is merely the product
of what humans choose to read into and/or impose on the blind uncaring laws of
the universe. "You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the
game."
Well there again, you're talking about findings which involved applying a
scientific approach to a matter of faith....an act which is neither
reasonable, rational, nor logical, because faith doesn't require the sort of
evidence or proof that science does. You yourself posted words to that
effect earlier in this thread.
"This begs the question: what purpose do we want from our lives, in that
case? And how best should we go about seeking it?"
That might depend upon the individuals conducting the study. I'd
suggest they consider other careers since they have no business calling
themselves "scientists"....not that they couldn't get their findings
published anyway, but...
"I find that one a much more interesting and complicated question than
most simple religiously oriented minds can handle... "
Do you know anyone like that, personally?
"...and that, again, scientific and mathematical tools are can be more
useful overall than the hallucinations of an epileptic pedophile, or the yarns
spun by desert-trapped bullshit artists distracting themselves from the lack of
air conditioning."
You've painted a vivid and quite specific image there.
De-humanizing and belittling people for the acts of a few bad seeds and
thinking different beliefs and thinking different ways used to be the sort of
thing that reasonable folks used to associate with intellectual laziness and
disingenuousness.
"For the true answer to that question,
send me $50; satisfaction assured or double your religious persecution returned
back. =)"
...and thanks for raising the level of discussion.
"The difference is not in the purpose (both want to provide an explanation
for what we perceive as reality) but in the approach: science is based on logic
and rational thinking and religion is based on instincts."
I disagree. One purpose of science is to provide an explanation for
what we perceive as reality. At its best, religion should offer meaning,
inspiration, and hope. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way
"But, overall, religion has done more harm than good."
...if you only look at what went wrong and if you only call attention to how
religion was mis-used to exploit ignorance.
Intellectual honesty is supposed to be key to rational thought, Masterp.
Of course there's more to it. Organized religion stimulated the arts,
language, philosophy and exploration. Also the involvement of religious
organizations in schools and hospitals is not new.
...which suggests that religion helped to advance science. Before
corporate and government grants, scientists had to find other patrons. There is
one rather pressing scientific problem in the history of science that has yet to
be solved. Research aint easy....or cheap.
"The 1500 years of no progress is a tiny evidence for that."
...because religious solutions didn't offer much in terms of scientific
advancement? Do you think they should have? Specifically which 1500
years are you thinking of?
"Not those theories that are proven."
...which is why I'd suggest scientific solutions to address scientific
issues. Even you shouldn't have a problem with that.
"It may be revealed that the current theories are subsets or specific
solutions of greater theories, like Newton's theory of gravity which was a
specific solution of general relativity."
...good point. But until you've conclusively proven that those
theories really are the solutions, doesn't that rather blur the line between
logic and faith?
"But not scientific reasoning. There is a difference between 'reason' and
'scientific reasoning'."
Yeah, not all reasoning is all that scientific....next.
"A, yes, Martin Luther King. So?"
Well, you didn't seem to know who Dr. King was. You're welcome.
"Indeed, and the ancient Greeks kept their customs. That does not mean
they were full believers."
If that's the case, then I don't think I wanna know how many bulls those
"full believers" sacrificed!...or what the occasion was.
Slashdot Mirror
In the USA the Second Amendment allows you to own your own laser cannon but the government is not required to buy one for you.
...incorrect. Laser cannons would be categorized as ordnance, not arms. The laws covering laser cannons, dynamite and propane work somewhat differently.
"To this day I am happy that I was able to have those two years of C, letting me get close to the guts of the OS, forcing me to think about what I was doing every step of the way."
Compared with implementing Java solutions, I think that was largely the point. "Platform independence" implies independence from the hardware AND the OS.
"There is no question in my mind that it made me a better programmer in general, regardless of the language. I feel sorry for the people that start - then never leave - a much higher level language such as Java."
...which speaks to a different problem. Newcomers start off with Java, but don't spend enough time and effort on learning why things work as you were alluding to. ...problem-solving, data structures, algorithms, you get the drift. Ideally, Java allows a comparable level of performance (not every line of code gets compiled every time, nor needs to be) over more platforms within a level of security that C et al cannot match. Newbies who you may have worked with might not have known as much as they could about the Java API, which is rather substantial.
If turning out entry-level programmers expediently was the goal of computer science programs, I'd imagine they'd teach them Perl and set 'em loose. ...fast, cheap, real easy.
"Can't we just use the technology available to us, without being branded with the [Insert Keyword] Generation tag?"
...quoting Frank Zappa: "Most rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read."
I guess the above observation applies to more than rock journalism nowadays. To be fair, some journalists rely on over-used buzz-words and catch-phrases more than others.
...nor an artistic or generally imaginative one.
Is that like "jumbo shrimp"?
As with the barbarians at the gates of Rome who only wanted the land and crops originally promised to them by the emperor, your customers only want easy access to the content you promise them. No one has proven that they are not willing to pay for that privilege.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. What seems to have happened here was the media business model that most of us grew up with is now obsolete. At the time you're referring to, Romans were dealing with civil war, outsiders in numbers large enough to damage the infrastructure, moral decline, religious upheaval and infectious, contagious diseases that their medical technology couldn't begin to handle.
We aren't living in the best of times. ...certainly not an intellectual golden age in my country, but life could be a lot worse.
"The terrorists have won."
...which makes for a satisfying and yet apt if not well-worn sound-byte, ...kinda.
Of course there's more to it. The above-mentioned "win" was not the only goal being sought, and you could also make a very convincing argument that it wasn't only terrorists seeking that specific outcome.
On top of that, if we're assuming that this is a zero-sum contest (are we certain that it is?), then there are certain "levels of defeat" we seem to be prepared to accept - assuming that the terrorists have won a final victory, which they haven't,...
...but you knew that.
A more complete and final victory might take the form of the "defeated" adopting the methods and more importantly, the mindset of the "victors".
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster."
...and I take heat for quoting other people out of context
There was more to it of course. My question was "How many new deities can you name? ...and which of them have caught on since Jews, Christians and Muslims are supposed to worship the same god, even though they seem to have different ideas about Him."
...my emphasis added, but then again it was my question, wasn't it?
...nice try, but thanks for playing.
"Yes. It is called mass delusion."
...and we know that you yourself are less deluded because...?
"You believe it because so many others believe it. After all, how can all these people be wrong, eh?
Everyone who is capable of thinking tries to make sense of the world as best they can. Not everyone has the same capacity for logical and critical thought. Also, not everyone has the same capacity to think things through for themselves. ...and they haven't all had the educational advantages that you've had.
"Use examples from the past. Greek gods and Roman gods would be one. Egyptian gods another. Also Japanese emperor is a god figure as well. No one believes any of these anymore, yet not so long ago, A LOT of people believed it and you would be killed for saying different. A LOT of people can't be wrong."
That's actually a very good point. At that stage of history, the line dividing religion and science was not well-defined at all. Logic and reason was still new to the world. In many respects, religion and science were very much the same. Come to think of it, religion and government were the same where tribal chiefs to kings were serving double-duty as priests. ...and even as living gods on earth.
So, it does at times bother me that history repeats itself
"All current religions are just a natural continuation of the past religions. As people outgrew their deities, we needed to create more powerful ones."
How many new deities can you name? ...and which of them have caught on since
Jews, Christians and Muslims are supposed to worship the same god, even though
they seem to have different ideas about Him.
"Why do we believe?"
"...we..."?
"People can't accept futility of their lives."
...and your own life is more meaningful because...?
"They think they are special and try to justify it with religion (eg. afterlife and "god's will")."
If only they could all see the world the way you do, O wise one.
"Finally, people do not just start to believe in a religion. 95%+ percent, they are indoctrinated into that religion from a little kid that can't think for themselves."
Do you have any kids, Gnuman?
"Then they stay in that religion mostly out of fear - leave and maybe get the wrath of god as preached by almost every religion so most don't want to take risk like that. This explains the lack of mobility from one religion to another."
...another good point. Religion as a matter of history, also serves a social purpose as well as a spiritual one.
Do your own children have the same ideas about the world that you do?
Do you think that they always will?
"Aside: Santa has a basis in historical events that are a lot closer than 2000 years yet look what happened to that. Santa now lives in the North Pole, sports a Coca Cola suit (yes, they made it red), and eats cookies and milk. Santa, from real facts to current myth seems to mimic the so called "religious historical facts" quite well."
On top of all that, some of the best schools and hospitals in the world were built and are owned and operated by religious organizations.
Granted that some really horrible crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of God, but faith-based groups have consistently fed, clothed, housed and educated more people than the richest and most powerful of governments.
So...
What did YOU get from Santa?
"Those who whine and mumble "It will never happen" think they are being 'realists', but they are just dragging everyone
...only a slight
difference to you, but it's kindasorta obvious to the rest or us.
...just the thing for
anonymous cow...
...agitated concerned contributors such as yourself. Peace.
down with their own depressive lack of vision."
Are you here to offer us even a ballpark timeline as to when "it" will happen?
"Neil, you are as much a part of the problem as the RIAA and other criminals."
How do you figure that?
Neil has an opinion to offer, as do I, as do you.
"What do you possibly feel you have added to the discussion, other than what we all already know?"
See above. You're really quite upset about his stance aren't you?
"Want to add something other than vague accusations?
Want to print the names of those..."
Egad,...
Calm down. Inhale deep, exhale. By the way, they make de-cafeinnated coffee nowadays.
...but why does music require an "industry" anyway?
We shouldn't even really need guitars (though I do, myself, along with amps, pedals, etc.), but people can just get together and sing, right?
Modern submariners are a joke compared to their cold war predecessors.
They can't hold their breath as long?
...per capita. We Americans have more gun laws!
...which makes sense since we don't enforce our laws much even though we certainly have more lawyers.
"3. We don't have perfect leaders, but most if not all are more intelligent than Bush"
I'm not sure that really means much.
...trying to say is...
I don't know... my money's still on the pen.
What is a pen compared to the hand that wields it?
...or the human intellect that guides both?
"However, having lots of unenforced and silly laws on the books makes everyone a criminal and subject to capricious arrest anytime anywhere. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, maybe even George Bush love laws like this because they can employ them at a moment's notice against their perceived threats."
As bad as things have been under the present administration, it rather trivializes the crimes against humanity of Hitler et al when you casually lump Baby Bush in with that lot.
Even worse, it dulls the moral impact of the suffering of their victims. ...and all to add weight to your argument against
"registration" of blogs, which isn't the law yet in
Italy, or in the US, and might never be.
"Apollo on the other hand... There was a thunder god."
I'm always getting Apollo confused with Haikili for some reason.
" Well, no . Japan, Holland, Canada, and a slew of other nations have a lower instance of religious belief, and a lower rate of crime, lower infant mortality, etc."
...and higher suicide rates. ...Japan and Canada anyway.
"Even within the USA, the Bible Belt states (actually the Red States in general) have higher infant mortality rates, lower productivity rates, higher crime rates, worse education systems, along with being worse-off in a range of other criteria."
Congratulations to NYC, Chicago and Los Angeles! You are now "Red, Bible Belt states". ;-)
"It isn't a stark difference--I'm not saying they're in the dark ages--but the difference is easy to spot if you look at the data."
Just for a moment, imagine that we live in a world where numbers don't tell the whole story.
...and then snap out of it. We're already there.
"And in one way or another, we're all atheists."
...as is each and every tree, rock, and banana slug are all atheists too. One significant difference is that they have no doubts about their atheism. ...even when they near the end of
their respective existences.
People are supposed to be different because of what we believe and the small matter of being capable of believing at all.
...not because of what we do not believe.
"Is the world worse off because people don't believe in Thor anymore?"
Not that many people believed in Thor to begin with. It's a rather smaller number today, but they might even have a website.
Apollo on the other hand... There was a thunder god.
"That's pretty much what I tell people when they start preferring religion to science - they are the same thing!"
More precisely, they are both attempts by people to make sense of the world around them.
But they do not work the same way, nor were they meant to.
"Do you really believe God was too stupid to create a universe that didn't have to be held together with magic? Studying science is studying God's work, and thus you are in fact learning about God."
I read a rather eloquent way of saying the same as the above, though I forgot who I'm quoting: "Religion tells us about what God did. Science tells us about how He did it."
The problem with the above is that religion and science should and were intended to offer different answers to different questions. They fulfill different needs and expectations in the way that reason and faith do or the way philosophy and spirituality do. None of the aforementioned pairs are truly opposites any more than science and religion because they too are human endeavors to extend limits of ideas that aren't always so tangible or approachable to everyone.
Unfortunately, there are those on both the faith/religious side and on the reason/rational side who either can't or won't tolerate other world-views that well. These are the folks who have good intentions, but they end up applying answers found in their faith to questions better left to science (think "creation museums").
The other side of this paradigm is more common on Slashdot where we find really good "reasons" not to believe in God and "proof" to back it up.
Because faith doesn't cover everything. It wasn't meant to. ...neither does reason or logic.
Is the purpose of faith to inaccurately describe reality? =)"
That's actually more the role of science when researchers get the math wrong.
"More seriously: faith operates in reality."
Faith ideally, helps people deal with reality by reminding them that there's more to their existence than what they know as reality.
"It is only in observable reality that we can assess the usefulness of its operation towards its intended purposes."
...a matter best left to reason and logic, yes.
"Ultimately, of course, only the universe of reality can test the effectiveness, but scientific methods facilitate observing the testing process and results."
...common ground there.
"No; however, I don't recall ever claiming they were opposites, per se."
...fair enough. You did not.
"Though the dot product in some social metric spaces is probably negative, I suspect they generally have a sizable orthogonal component as well."
Faith wasn't meant to replace mathematics either.
...though I'd heard a story about Pythagoras sacrificing a bull to the gods after proving the existence of irrational numbers. I enjoy a good barbecue as much as the next man, but even I think that was a bit much.
"IT support to a philosophy department at an engineering school isn't all that different, but pays about 50% better than restaurant work (unless you own the restaurant)."
If I found out my Geek Squad geek applied scientific methods to a religious matter, I wouldn't want him replacing my damn toner cartridges.
"No, humans seem pretty much alike to me; two eyes, so, nose in the middle, mouth under."
Humans spend a lot of time prone, some more so than others, so mouths aren't always under. I learned that watching my girlfriend sleep.
Sometimes she yells at me when I do that.
"It's always the same. Now if some had the two eyes on the same side of the nose, for instance -- or the mouth at the top -- that would be some help."
There's more to people than physical appearances, Abb3w. Life experience makes a huge difference and not everyone who was fortunate enough to be born with two eyes gets to keep them
"These days, politics and religion are too closely tied for that to be a discussion option."
...understandable. Politicians should know better than to simply write off voters who attend church regularly.
"Mostly we talk about how charming and polite their semi-domesticated little weasels are, how well they're doing in school, and so on."
Aww that's nice. :-)
"It takes all kinds to make a world; I didn't say I thought the ratios were right. Also, while I'm quite fond of swamps (they're great for the overall health of the ecology), that doesn't mean I want to have to deal with the Okeefenokee up close and personal on a regular basis."
You don't have to kiss them. Merely understand that even though your way of dealing with the world might not be the same as others, those others probably take their ways as seriously as you do yours.
"I'm not convinced the latter view is sustainable." You may find The Limits to Growth [amazon.com] is an e
"Ok, people find hope, but in a fantasy world. It's not better than finding hope in a video game."
Absence of evidence or proof does NOT conclusively dis-prove any claim, belief, or argument. Merely understand that even though your way of dealing with the world might not be the same as others, those others probably take their ways as seriously as you do yours.
"Death will always be greater than us. But that does not mean religions have any truth in them."
Seek and ye shall find. Not everyone finds truth in religion, nor inspiration, nor guidance, nor meaning, nor anything remotely relevant in their own lives. However, religion has always been more accessible too more people, especially outside a university or otherwise cosmopolitan setting. Of course there are those who would use religion to belittle and dehumanize people who don't believe in what they do (not like you, of course), but overall, religious institutions still have a better public image, a better track record of helping those who need help.
"A German scientist. So? scientists can be as sinister as any other person. But that has nothing to do with science."
...and yet you can't really separate science from the scientist. Way too many jobs in science still involve behavior control, surveillance and weapons research. Scientists need to eat too.
"That they tried to make social changes does not invalidate my argument."
But you haven't really proven that religion itself is ignorance either. In this case, you don't have a real argument to invalidate until you offer up some evidence to support it..
...and though not at present, there may come a time when even you might need hope, comfort and inspiration in your own life. They might come from somewhere you didn't expect. At a time like that, you might find out what you really do believe in.
"We should all have been Dr Kings and Mahatma Gandhis."
If by that, you mean they were excellent role-models in spite of their flaws, then yes. Visionaries are noted for what they believed in, not for what they did not believe in.
"I can not disagree with that, and the middle ages is a testament to that."
Of course, there's more to it. The Middle Ages is also evidence that the world is imperfect, so are the people in it. If their belief in a god that is perfect helps humanity survive troubled times, let them have it.
"Music, again, in the context of religion."
He who pays the piper calls the tune. What else is new?
"Jesus was a philosopher."
...which is further evidence that religion did indeed stimulate philosophy.
"In his teachings, he talks about the human state."
...and you don't have to be particularly religious to gain really important insight from them. There really are valuable lessons for anyone who opens their hearts and minds to Christ.
"Of course, in this day and age, we can not be sure of the origin of the content of his speeches."
Of course, both then and now, you don't need to believe everything you read.
"Yeah, after 1500 years the Greeks have settled in all the Mediterranean. You missed something there."
...not really. I suggested that religion fostered exploration. I did not claim that religion was the only reason for exploration.
"But that's not the point. The missionaries went there in order to put the locals under the boot of religion."
The missionaries brought the gospel message, as well as knowledge of European languages, arts and sciences.
"And the explorers went there to loot."
They weren't all nice people. Neither were all of the missionaries.
"Or have we forgotten the massacre of native Americans by Spain?"
The history of the world is the history
"They are conclusively proven."
Some might be, but "Newton's Theory of Gravity" hasn't been accepted by everyone as law as of yet. Even Newton himself had reservations.
So it's very compelling and probably dead-on. That does not make it conclusively proven. ...close but no cigar.
"Provide the specific quote, and I can be specific as to whether you're misunderstanding me, or whether I spoke imprecisely; but I suspect one of the two."
I'll get back to you on that one. There seems to be a lot of interest in matters of faith and reason. Who would've thought...?
"My intended nuance you seem to omit is that while faith does not require the same kind of proof, it also doesn't present a description of reality that is probably accurate;..."
...because it is not the purpose of faith to accurately describe reality. Is any of this sinking in yet?
"...it merely presents one that may sometimes be useful. The two things aren't the same; descriptions may be accurate, useful, neither, or both."
Does that mean they are diametric opposites? ...or even all that
opposite at all? Is anything that different to anything else its opposite
by definition?
...unless you're referring to Ubuntu and Vista, of course.
"Approximation algorithms show that. (See "Minimum Message..."
Let's get you back on track. I'll offer a simpler example: You usually don't use a Philips head screwdriver for a task requiring a crescent wrench.
"Not if you answer the question in a generalized manner, such that it may be applied to specific cases by individuals."
For those of you just tuning in, the question Abb3w was referring to is: "...what purpose do we want from our lives, in that case? And how best should we go about seeking it?"
Thusly, someone applying a scientific approach to matters of faith or religion might consider a purpose that involves meeting the public and serving them French fries. The best way to "go about seeking it" would seem to be submitting an application of some sort.
"Yes; one aunt, three cousins (on the other side of the family from her), and those cousins' nine assorted spawn. There are other folk I'm merely socially acquainted with (EG, some friend's neighbors), who I prefer to avoid as civility and politeness allow. Relatives are more difficult to do that with; however, I stopped discussing religion with most of my relatives quite a while back."
So, you've moved on to politics or those funny little differences between races and genders?
"I think you mistake my belittling the source of their beliefs for belittling the people themselves. Again, there's some difference."
If you replace the word "mistake" with "mistook", then it's a possibility. I'd agree that there would be a difference.
"...it seems you do not mentally distinguish intrinsic, extrinsic, and relational possessive pronouns.)"
Provide the specific quote, and I can be specific as to whether you're misunderstanding me, or whether I spoke imprecisely.
... but I suspect one of the two.
"I'm quite glad there are a lot of people who think in different ways than me."
...me too. However, you seem to have a peculiar way of expressing your "gladness".
"I even suspect that the blind-faith mode of operation for society may be a mode of operation that offers better odds of long-term survival for our species than the rational/scientific/technological worldview."
Wow. How do you figure that?
"This does not preclude my disapproving of the current dominant selection of foci for blind-faith literalism; nor does my assessment as "less useful" imply they are completely useless."
I'm so very relieved.
"Which religion today offers meaning, inspiration, and hope?"
Finding inspiration, hope and meaning is a very personal matter. Not everyone finds it in faith or philosophy. I don't think someone such as you would find it in religion.
Personally, I think any individual finds what they really believe in when they can attain a state of serenity and peace, but also in their darkest moments. I've heard of men who held reason, rationalism and logic so dear and denying "the power and the glory" only to make deathbed conversions before kicking the proverbial bucket. ...just to be on the safe side, I'm sure. We're all human, right?
I've seen one man renounce his faith at the very end. ...in a
movie. ...and I can't even remember the name of it.
"...perhaps Islam that says 'all you sinners must convert or die'? Christianity which says 'don't do any sex as your god-given body dictates or you will burn eternally in hell'?"
...whatever floats your boat, man.
...though I do remember saying something in my own post about meaning, inspiration and hope offered by "religion at its best". Perhaps you stopped reading early at some point to avoid complicating your view of what you thought faith and religion really were.
...time for me to ask YOU a loaded question now. Who do you think invented zyklon-B? Was it more likely a clergyman? ...or a
scientist?
"Religion was not misused to exploit ignorance."
Think that through and we will both know you are wrong! Religion has most certainly been mis-used to exploit ignorance since the beginning of religion! Religion continues to thrive partly because most religious people are not bad people.
"Religion *is* ignorance. Even if religious leaders don't exploit believers, these people tend to take things as they are because 'God made it so'."
Help me understand, Masterp...
Do you think Pythagoras was ignorant because of what he believed? ...or
Maimonides? ...or Mahatma Gandhi? ...or Dr. King?
Do you think any of them took things as they were?
"Arts and language were encouraged by the Christian churches only within the context of religion."
...fair enough. Funding for sciences and the humanities tends to dry up when society breaks down.
I left out music, including a rather large portion of classical works.
"Philosophy..."
Of course, there's still a lot of debate as to whether Jesus really said and did the things that the scriptures claim that he said and did, or whether he was the son of God or not.
I also heard some terrble stories about bloodthirsty maniacs killing and doing other unspeakable things in his name too. Back then, debates over faith and reason, religion and science, and confusing all four of them didn't have the benefit of message boards, texting, chat rooms, etc.
...extra credit homework: Do a little research about Moses Maimonides, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas.
"...and exploration?"
Historically, among the earliest European settlers in Africa, Asia and the Americas were Christian missionaries.
"... you called me dishonest, but what are you?"
Frankly, I'm kindasorta giving you a history lesson. I think I even did some of your homework for you too. You're welcome.
"...need I remind you about Galileo? and countless others which where oppressed by the Church?"
"...others who were oppressed by the Church", dear. The Church never did apprecia
"'Answers' in science really aren't; they're just 'the best guess available for now', and an answer in one area shouldn't be assumed to be an answer in anything else until tested."
...tested and documented through enough iterations until we can get consistent, reproducible results. ...yes.
"The methods are another matter. And the advantage of the conceptual methods of science is that by answering one question, they can lead you to better questions. For example: suppose science shows there is no sign of God having every been anywhere, and that any "purpose" in life is merely the product of what humans choose to read into and/or impose on the blind uncaring laws of the universe. "You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game."
Well there again, you're talking about findings which involved applying a scientific approach to a matter of faith. ...an act which is neither
reasonable, rational, nor logical, because faith doesn't require the sort of
evidence or proof that science does. You yourself posted words to that
effect earlier in this thread.
"This begs the question: what purpose do we want from our lives, in that case? And how best should we go about seeking it?"
That might depend upon the individuals conducting the study. I'd suggest they consider other careers since they have no business calling themselves "scientists". ...not that they couldn't get their findings
published anyway, but...
"I find that one a much more interesting and complicated question than most simple religiously oriented minds can handle... "
Do you know anyone like that, personally?
"...and that, again, scientific and mathematical tools are can be more useful overall than the hallucinations of an epileptic pedophile, or the yarns spun by desert-trapped bullshit artists distracting themselves from the lack of air conditioning."
You've painted a vivid and quite specific image there.
De-humanizing and belittling people for the acts of a few bad seeds and thinking different beliefs and thinking different ways used to be the sort of thing that reasonable folks used to associate with intellectual laziness and disingenuousness.
"For the true answer to that question, send me $50; satisfaction assured or double your religious persecution returned back. =) "
...and thanks for raising the level of discussion.
Yes, well, some of the other best schools and hospitals in the nation are secular, so that's irrelevant.
Think it through. Organized religion is actively promoting institutions of research, innovation, healing and compassion.
Doesn't it kindasorta fly in the face of your rather paranoid nightmare scenario of "faith overpowering the forces of reason"?
"The problem would be if all schools and hospitals were run by a single religious organization. Then we'd be in trouble."
Yeah, the terrorists win, right?
"LOL!"
"The difference is not in the purpose (both want to provide an explanation for what we perceive as reality) but in the approach: science is based on logic and rational thinking and religion is based on instincts."
I disagree. One purpose of science is to provide an explanation for what we perceive as reality. At its best, religion should offer meaning, inspiration, and hope. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way
"But, overall, religion has done more harm than good."
...if you only look at what went wrong and if you only call attention to how religion was mis-used to exploit ignorance.
Intellectual honesty is supposed to be key to rational thought, Masterp.
Of course there's more to it. Organized religion stimulated the arts, language, philosophy and exploration. Also the involvement of religious organizations in schools and hospitals is not new.
...which suggests that religion helped to advance science. Before corporate and government grants, scientists had to find other patrons. There is one rather pressing scientific problem in the history of science that has yet to be solved. Research aint easy. ...or cheap.
"The 1500 years of no progress is a tiny evidence for that."
...because religious solutions didn't offer much in terms of scientific advancement? Do you think they should have? Specifically which 1500 years are you thinking of?
"Not those theories that are proven."
...which is why I'd suggest scientific solutions to address scientific issues. Even you shouldn't have a problem with that.
"It may be revealed that the current theories are subsets or specific solutions of greater theories, like Newton's theory of gravity which was a specific solution of general relativity."
...good point. But until you've conclusively proven that those theories really are the solutions, doesn't that rather blur the line between logic and faith?
"But not scientific reasoning. There is a difference between 'reason' and 'scientific reasoning'."
Yeah, not all reasoning is all that scientific. ...next.
"A, yes, Martin Luther King. So?"
Well, you didn't seem to know who Dr. King was. You're welcome.
"Indeed, and the ancient Greeks kept their customs. That does not mean they were full believers."
If that's the case, then I don't think I wanna know how many bulls those "full believers" sacrificed! ...or what the occasion was.