Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 8:58 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Sadly, this is not uncommon. However, many, including myself, have
>>> argued that you cannot have such a drastic error in thinking, and not
>>> have it spill over into your own discipline,
>>
>> Huh. Odd. Some of the smartest people I know doing computers are
>> devoutly religious. I can't imagine why you'd think that belief that
>> Jesus sacrificed himself to save you would interfere with your ability
>> to design computer software, for example.
>>
> Right.. Because there isn't, for example, a very weird association 
> between either engineers *or* computer science, and the tendency of both 
> to think ID makes more sense than Evolution. Its invariably one or the 
> other, which ends up being the discipline someone belongs to, when they 
> claim to advocate ID. 

You know, I don't know where you grew up or anything, but I have the hardest 
time in the world understanding WTF you're going on about.  That entire 
sentence makes no sense. It's like a written version of the G-Man speaking.

You said "you can't have such a drastic error in thinking" (i.e., being 
religious) "and not have it spill over into your own discipline."

I give examples of where you can.

I don't understand what you're trying to say in response, but it doesn't 
sound like anything addressing what I said.


>>> I flat out do not believe
>>
>> So, in other words, "seems reasonable, so I have faith that it is so"?
>>
> Sorry, did I make the mistake of failing to denote "believe" in this 
> context as, "based on my experience, not just because I want it to be 
> true." 

And I'm saying you have confirmation bias. Just like the people who say 
"thinks just don't *work* that way" are basing it on their experience.

> Because, you know.. Having nearly every moron I have ever seen 
> show up on a science blog denying evolution 

Now you're going on about something else.

Please explain how the lack of belief in evolution affects ones ability to 
program computers. You simply assert this, yet none of your examples 
actually show it affects that.  You simply point out that computer 
scientists do indeed sometimes assert this. So? Does it "spill over into 
your own discipline"?

You say you've argued this. What's your argument?

Now, if you said "You can't believe in creationism and not have it affect 
your discipline if your discipline is biology or medicine", then sure, I'd 
believe that.

> It does effect things. 

Sheesh. I've seen about thirty people today attempting proof by vigorous 
assertion.

> You don't need to believe in the earth 
> being billions of years old to be a car mechanic either, but if you 
> found yourself having to find your own oil

... then you'd no longer be a car mechanic, now would you? You'd be a geologist.

> Same for someone that thinks genetics is a lie, and programs 
> computers. If they never deal with the obscurity of genetic algorithms, 

I think it's entirely possible for someone to believe Jesus is their savior 
and still understand how genetic algorithms work. I think it's entirely 
possible for someone to believe in creationism and understand how genetic 
algorithms work. Why wouldn't they?

> and they don't need to build their own chips, 

I've been a professional computer programmer for 30+ years. I have a PhD in 
it. I've never needed to use a genetic algorithm or build my own chips, in 
spite of actually knowing the physics behind how semiconductors work, which 
is more than I can say about 99% of anyone else I know who programs 
computers, most of whom don't even know how many connectors a transistor has.

> Same with every other field. 

Oh, I'm pretty sure you can be a carpenter without knowing how evolution 
works. I'm almost certain you can lay cement and build roads and still 
believe the Mohamed spoke directly to angels.

Indeed, not only can you be a carpenter and religious, I'd go so far as to 
say you can even be a carpenter and be GOD HIMSELF.  ;-)

> you may be completely unaffected by the fact that you also believe 
> something contradicted by the existence of the gadget you are using in 
> the first place. 

I don't follow. How does believing that Jesus is the son of God and died for 
our sins on the cross prevent me from understanding how an electrical 
circuit works?  Above, you say "you argue that" but you haven't actually 
given me an explanation except in cases where it's actually relevant to the 
work you do.

How does believing in Jesus' resurrection prevent me from understanding how 
computers work?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message