A theological question...
-
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?
-
Paul Watson wrote: I disagree. Not a rant nor troll and it is not insulting. Nice, Paul. And just what are you implying about all the posts that are in the Soapbox? :suss:
Shog9 --
Exchanging a walk-on part in the War
for the lead role in a Cage
Damn. I forgot to mention frivolous. Clear now? ;) 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?
-
Damn. I forgot to mention frivolous. Clear now? ;) 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?
-
Absolutely. But what I am saying is that this engineer, in particular is: a) A great engineer b) a fundamentalist christian Are they not mutually exclusive? When it comes to maths and me, the wheel's going but the hamster's dead.
Engineers need to get through the night, just like everyone else.
-
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?
i meant ask face to face. he commented about working with this type of engineer. i was thinking of http://www.yo-yoma.com/ when i chose my nick. Josef Wainz Software Developer