A theological question...
-
Actually, I find it rather obscure. I'm thinking that perhaps you are religious and that you have taken offence in some way. Either that or you're dating one. It is not so much a "thinking less of", rather a "not understanding". If you recall, my original question was for a result of understanding rather than criticism. I couldn't give two rat's asses if you believe in God, Buddah, Allah, Cheese or some retarded animal on a life-glug in it's own stable. I couldn't care less. Throughout this discussion, you have missed the point completely and taken my points as an anti-religious argument. I'd suspect nothing less from a mindwashed religious zealot, however you're on CodeProject.com so I also assume you're an engineer/coder/computer person of some sort. And I tell you, that's left me TOTALLY confused. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
Ben Ashley wrote: I'd suspect nothing less from a mindwashed religious zealot there you go again Ben Ashley wrote: It is not so much a "thinking less of", rather a "not understanding". How can I take it any other way. Your own words do you in.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
-
I guess you are saying that this engineer was unable to think logically which could be demonstrated in both his work, and personal beliefs. I wonder if you have doubts and if maybe he/she stuck a nerve. If I worked with someone that truly believed in the Easter bunny, and he was a bad engineer there would be no debate. I bet this guy won the debate and so you are still trying to win it, without him on Code Project. When I read your comments like the lesser among us, and this is because someone doesn’t share your believes, you sound kind of religious yourself.
Sorry, but this engineer was able to think incredibly logically, hence my posting. The comment "lesser among us" perhaps slipped out under a more personal-guise, but can be safely replaced with "others" to maintain the same argument. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
Ben Ashley wrote: I'd suspect nothing less from a mindwashed religious zealot there you go again Ben Ashley wrote: It is not so much a "thinking less of", rather a "not understanding". How can I take it any other way. Your own words do you in.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Perhaps my personal viewpoint on religion crept through there, tarnishing my original question which with all intents and purposes was intended to be neutral but I guess it got sidetracked. And perhaps my words do to me in, but my question (in my opinion) still stands. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
Ben Ashley wrote: The lesser among us need that kind of help to get out of their Tesco-bag-packing job. But the heaven/hell etherel award/fire and brimstone crap is a bit out-dated... This is your problem. Just because your friend has a different belief, you chastise him. You can't prove that he will be wrong. Therefore it is illogical for you to think Christians (fundamental or otherwise) are stupid (you said lesser among us).
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
:-O
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
"I live very much in the real world, it's just not the same world shared by most other people"
-
Jason Henderson wrote: God can neither be proven to exist nor proven to not exist. Jason Henderson wrote: What makes it illogical? See above ;P God is as provably true or provably false as the statement 'The moon would be made of purple cheese if my parents had named me Mortimer' -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
Mortimer Morris! :cool:
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
"I live very much in the real world, it's just not the same world shared by most other people"
-
You have a few questions to answer first. What makes a "good" software engineer ("cybernetic architect", whatever)? Is it someone who engineers good software? What is good software? Is it software that meets the user's needs? Who shot JR?
Shog9 --
Exchanging a walk-on part in the War
for the lead role in a Cage
Shog9 wrote: Who shot JR? Nice - took me at least ten seconds to figure out where the quote button had gone. :rolleyes:
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
"I live very much in the real world, it's just not the same world shared by most other people"
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Soapbox[^], please This seems like quite a well presented question, that is not designed to bait anyone. Seems okay being here to me.
"Je pense, donc je mange." - Rene Descartes 1689 - Just before his mother put his tea on the table. Shameless Plug - Distributed Database Transactions in .NET using COM+
-
Heh, well this is where it gets really theological, I guess :-) You're right, there is tons of "evidence". But nothing that can be verified. If you want to talk about verifiable evidence, lets make a button with an onclick event... it'll happen unless you screw it up. Scientifically you can call in to question the concept of a higher being. Superficially, looking at the way things go on this planet you can ask the same questions. At the end of the day, the answer is written on the unread minds of man, but that's not what this thread is about... it's about the ILLOGICAL thought process doing completely LOGICAL activities. :cool: When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
I think it's your definition of logic. Basing a conclusion on something based on evidence is logical. Take physics, for instance. How do we get the laws of physics? We either get them by mathematically proving something based on existing laws, or by evidence. And from time to time, we get new evidence, and the laws "change" (although really it's our understanding that changes.) When you say verifiable, all that means is that you have evidence for it. Engineering is simlar, you base your conclusions on evidence. The confidence you have that that overriding your OnClick handler will work is based on evidence that it has worked in the past, or knowledge of the internals of the system. However not everything in life is as well understood as the OnClick handler. Just because something isn't fully understood doesn't mean it's illogical to believe. Computing, engineering, physics, etc. tends to have more concrete answers than may other sectors of life is all. If your nose runs and your feet smell, then you're built upside down.
-
But alot of lessons were also learned the hard way. Yes, mother says "don't stick your hand in a boiling kettle"... some of us tried it, some of us got hurt and some of us did not do it again. That's hard facts for you. Then there are also some of us who never did do it because mom said not to. My mother has told me a lot of things, and not all of them have been correct so unfortunately I can't place her on the "defacto truth" panel. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
Ben Ashley wrote: My mother has told me a lot of things, and not all of them have been correct so unfortunately I can't place her on the "defacto truth" panel. Well, issues with your mother aside, my point was simply that there isn't a man alive who has proved to himself *everything* he believes. Or rather, there is - but some of his proofs come down to "'cause [Mother|Teacher|Mentor|God|Frank at the Hardware Store|The Neighbor's Dog} told me so".
Shog9 --
Exchanging a walk-on part in the War
for the lead role in a Cage
-
Sorry, but this engineer was able to think incredibly logically, hence my posting. The comment "lesser among us" perhaps slipped out under a more personal-guise, but can be safely replaced with "others" to maintain the same argument. When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
I admit to not reading it close enough. We all have personal believe systems that are not totally rooted in logic that can be seen as black or white. In a computer sense there is Apple vs PC .net vs java OOP vs procedial Database vs File System And the list can goes on. People can have opposite opinions on these and an infinite list issues. It would seem that they use logic and emotion to arrive there. In this person life he might need more of a purpose than the typical nature stuff which is to reproduce and get your genes into the next generation. I don't think that erodes the ability to write software. It could also be quite logical to assume that satisfying emotions is necessary for survival, so for him to survive he needs that believe system. I think that it has been proven that there is a spiritual region of the brain. An area that is active when people have spiritual experiences. This could explain why some people have more of a need for types of religions believes than others. I personally don't find it surprising that someone could have what might seem illogical believes in one area and logical in another.
-
Continuing in my attempt to bring "intellectually challenging thoughts and ideas" (Bonus pint of beer for those who can name the origin of that quote... clue, it started with "a veritable encyclopeadia of..."), I have a mental dilemma... How does a fundamentally religious person become a good engineer? Believing in a religion requires that you have faith. Faith being you believe in something you have been told, and/or have circumstantial evidence for. It's God's will. The Way of Allah. It's what the prophecy says. Little or no evidence... I digress, this post is not about discussing religion and it's pros and cons. A good software engineer (let's call them a cybernetic architect to bring the role in parallel with worshipper)... Knows his trade, everything is logical. Nothing is circumstantial unless it is a bug. It can only happen because of reason and of prior code. So how does a good engineer believe so profoundly in something illogical? Answers on a postcard and yes I will post that article on ISAPI/ATL/Managed C++... I just have no time except to write pointless posts. (Oh, and Paul... God did not invent the M5.... some German did... Was he religious?! :-)) :-O When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
Ben Ashley wrote: How does a fundamentally religious person become a good engineer? Not being a religous person (except when the brakes fail then it's Oh Jesus, Oh Jesus), but having worked with one that I respect the hell out of (a-ha!), I would have to say "God gives you the ability to work with His design". And if you're relgious, then you would HAVE to accept that there is NOTHING illogical about anything, that it's ALL part of the Grand Design. Me, I just load up Doom and kill demons.
Todd C. Wilson (meme@nopcode.com) NOPcode.com Visual Face Lift: Skinning for apps Listen! Audio Server: Be the music "Flow with whatever may happen and let your mind be free: Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the Way." - Chuang-Tzu "Zen in the Martial Arts"
-
Continuing in my attempt to bring "intellectually challenging thoughts and ideas" (Bonus pint of beer for those who can name the origin of that quote... clue, it started with "a veritable encyclopeadia of..."), I have a mental dilemma... How does a fundamentally religious person become a good engineer? Believing in a religion requires that you have faith. Faith being you believe in something you have been told, and/or have circumstantial evidence for. It's God's will. The Way of Allah. It's what the prophecy says. Little or no evidence... I digress, this post is not about discussing religion and it's pros and cons. A good software engineer (let's call them a cybernetic architect to bring the role in parallel with worshipper)... Knows his trade, everything is logical. Nothing is circumstantial unless it is a bug. It can only happen because of reason and of prior code. So how does a good engineer believe so profoundly in something illogical? Answers on a postcard and yes I will post that article on ISAPI/ATL/Managed C++... I just have no time except to write pointless posts. (Oh, and Paul... God did not invent the M5.... some German did... Was he religious?! :-)) :-O When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
I've been pondering this issue ever since I was a little whippersnapper force-fed a diet of religious drivel. Back then I did absorb some of the religious stuff but mostly focused on all the inconsistencies & problems religion has caused people in the history of this planet. Still I kept getting older, wiser & surviving all kinds of ridiculous circumstances so my guess is that I had a few guardian angels keeping me around for some reason or another, clearly it was to reply to younger computer geek religious wanna-be's... My best answer so far is that everything people can learn thru SCIENCE is not GOD related, because by definition GOD's power is completely beyond people's ability to understand. So even thru the centuries as people's knowledge & abilities increased because SCIENCE kept advancing learning more about things, there will always be some current limits to whatever science can do. And just outside these limits is where religion starts. My understanding of most major faiths is that you must believe in them before you die, because after you die, the truth will be revealed & if you made the wrong decision about believing ie, waiting until after your own death for "proof" of some sort, it's too late you are doomed. Hence the use of FAITH in religions, because proof of GODs existence won't be revealed to you until after you die. Because of this I personally so no conflict at all with being a somewhat religious computer person blah blah blah this thread already has 55 posts....
-
Continuing in my attempt to bring "intellectually challenging thoughts and ideas" (Bonus pint of beer for those who can name the origin of that quote... clue, it started with "a veritable encyclopeadia of..."), I have a mental dilemma... How does a fundamentally religious person become a good engineer? Believing in a religion requires that you have faith. Faith being you believe in something you have been told, and/or have circumstantial evidence for. It's God's will. The Way of Allah. It's what the prophecy says. Little or no evidence... I digress, this post is not about discussing religion and it's pros and cons. A good software engineer (let's call them a cybernetic architect to bring the role in parallel with worshipper)... Knows his trade, everything is logical. Nothing is circumstantial unless it is a bug. It can only happen because of reason and of prior code. So how does a good engineer believe so profoundly in something illogical? Answers on a postcard and yes I will post that article on ISAPI/ATL/Managed C++... I just have no time except to write pointless posts. (Oh, and Paul... God did not invent the M5.... some German did... Was he religious?! :-)) :-O When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
But wait... the basis of your argument - that belief in God is illogical - is off-base. For many people, including myself, there is much more evidence that God does exist, than that he does not. Therefore, it is logical in our eyes to believe that He exists, and in fact, illogical not to. If you can't see something, you have to find out whether it exists or not by the effects that it has. For example, we can't see wind, but we know that it is there because of its effects. Similarly, if someone had gone through an area and altered it somehow, and we didn't see him doing it, we could still tell that he did it because of the effects that he left behind. Now, we may be unsure that it was him, because it could have been someone else instead. One person could argue that it was a certain other person who did it, because of some evidence about the way the area was altered, and you may disagree, because "Look, see how [object] was altered in just such a distinctive way? Only [person] could have done that!". There are many areas that our finite understanding cannot grasp entirely. We may each interperet them in different ways, based on our background, our way of thinking, etc. This is one of them. The best thing to do in these areas is to think them through carefully, and come to conclusions, not based on our prejudices, but based on the evidence we see before us.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi -
But wait... the basis of your argument - that belief in God is illogical - is off-base. For many people, including myself, there is much more evidence that God does exist, than that he does not. Therefore, it is logical in our eyes to believe that He exists, and in fact, illogical not to. If you can't see something, you have to find out whether it exists or not by the effects that it has. For example, we can't see wind, but we know that it is there because of its effects. Similarly, if someone had gone through an area and altered it somehow, and we didn't see him doing it, we could still tell that he did it because of the effects that he left behind. Now, we may be unsure that it was him, because it could have been someone else instead. One person could argue that it was a certain other person who did it, because of some evidence about the way the area was altered, and you may disagree, because "Look, see how [object] was altered in just such a distinctive way? Only [person] could have done that!". There are many areas that our finite understanding cannot grasp entirely. We may each interperet them in different ways, based on our background, our way of thinking, etc. This is one of them. The best thing to do in these areas is to think them through carefully, and come to conclusions, not based on our prejudices, but based on the evidence we see before us.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma GandhiOK, I forgot to touch on the faith aspect. Suppose I come across something I haven't seen before, which claims to do something unusual. I may take a step into it, so to speak, on the faith that it actually does what it claims to. If I find that so far, it does as it claims, that gives me more faith that, yes, it actually does do as it claims, thus giving me the faith I need to take it even farther. For a slightly less abstract example, suppose I meet someone on the street, who tells me that something very unusual is true. No, at first, I may not believe him entirely, but I might take action on what he says anyway. If I find that what he says to be true is true (or if he satisfactorily proves that his theory is based on common sense, but that's partially beside the point here), I will have the faith that I need to more readily believe the other things he says.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi -
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Soapbox[^], please This seems like quite a well presented question, that is not designed to bait anyone. Seems okay being here to me.
"Je pense, donc je mange." - Rene Descartes 1689 - Just before his mother put his tea on the table. Shameless Plug - Distributed Database Transactions in .NET using COM+
Giles wrote: This seems like quite a well presented question, that is not designed to bait anyone. :| This is just another rant and it belongs to SoapBox.
-
But wait... the basis of your argument - that belief in God is illogical - is off-base. For many people, including myself, there is much more evidence that God does exist, than that he does not. Therefore, it is logical in our eyes to believe that He exists, and in fact, illogical not to. If you can't see something, you have to find out whether it exists or not by the effects that it has. For example, we can't see wind, but we know that it is there because of its effects. Similarly, if someone had gone through an area and altered it somehow, and we didn't see him doing it, we could still tell that he did it because of the effects that he left behind. Now, we may be unsure that it was him, because it could have been someone else instead. One person could argue that it was a certain other person who did it, because of some evidence about the way the area was altered, and you may disagree, because "Look, see how [object] was altered in just such a distinctive way? Only [person] could have done that!". There are many areas that our finite understanding cannot grasp entirely. We may each interperet them in different ways, based on our background, our way of thinking, etc. This is one of them. The best thing to do in these areas is to think them through carefully, and come to conclusions, not based on our prejudices, but based on the evidence we see before us.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma GandhiPerhaps that is the clincher. A matter of theological perspective. You're quite right in what you say... for me, the practice of a religion is illogical and for others, it is completely logical course of action. God being logical to some, and illogical to others. I find that circumstance far more intriuging than my original question, and perhaps one for another day! When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
-
I disagree. Not a rant nor troll and it is not insulting. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
why don't you ask one of them. Josef Wainz Software Developer
Isn't that what Ben is doing, asking? Seems to be a few engineers here on CP and enough Christians. p.s. Your nick is pretty rude, at least here in SA :-D regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
OK, I forgot to touch on the faith aspect. Suppose I come across something I haven't seen before, which claims to do something unusual. I may take a step into it, so to speak, on the faith that it actually does what it claims to. If I find that so far, it does as it claims, that gives me more faith that, yes, it actually does do as it claims, thus giving me the faith I need to take it even farther. For a slightly less abstract example, suppose I meet someone on the street, who tells me that something very unusual is true. No, at first, I may not believe him entirely, but I might take action on what he says anyway. If I find that what he says to be true is true (or if he satisfactorily proves that his theory is based on common sense, but that's partially beside the point here), I will have the faith that I need to more readily believe the other things he says.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma GandhiWhat reafirming, constructive principals does religion provide that cannot be gained through common sense or social living? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
I disagree. Not a rant nor troll and it is not insulting. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Miszou wrote: I have read the entire internet. on how boring his day was. Crikey! ain't life grand?