Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 11:04 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Its not about where I grew up. 

What you've experienced isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying that you're 
the only person on here that posts entire posts that are utterly 
incomprehensible to me. It's like you took a handful of clauses from some 
books and strung them together with no commas. It doesn't matter what you're 
talking about. Half the time you just don't make any sense, regardless of 
whether I'd agree or disagree were I able to understand.

It may be me. I'm not saying it's you. I'm just saying half your posts sound 
like disconnected babble to me, referring to things in your own head that 
you haven't actually written in the post or something.

My wife used to do that. She'd be telling me something that happened at work 
between her and Steve, and by the end of the story she's talking about six 
other people, all of whom I think are Steve, because she never mentioned 
someone came in. And wouldn't finish half her sentences before starting the 
next sentence.

> That is the point I am making. 

I agree entirely. But that's not what you said. You said "being deluded 
about creationism damages your ability to do anything else." That's what I'm 
disagreeing with.

> In my experience, even being *very good* 
> at your discipline, seemingly, doesn't mean that your belief in certain 
> religious concepts won't "bleed over" into that discipline, and 
> undermine your ability to do you job. 

I think you have to decide whether he's *very good* at his job, or whether 
his beliefs damage his ability to do his job. I don't think you can have it 
both ways.

> At best, the only argument that *is* valid, with regard to the idea that 
> it may not have an effect, would be, "Depending on whether or not the 
> goofy shit you believe directly addresses some subject you are studying, 
> you may escape having your thinking muddled *in* your studies." 

Well, yes. That's why I said creationism doesn't really affect computer 
programming much, but certainly affects biology.

> question then becomes, "How sure are you that what ever those goofy 
> things are, you will *never* run across something that contradicts it, 
> in your field?"

I'm pretty sure believing that Jesus saves your soul or that John Smith had 
magic golden plates isn't going to affect your ability to calculate 
someone's federal income tax or implement the bittorrent protocol.

> That is what I see happening with some of these people. 

Sure. But you implied it happens with all of these people. That's the 
assertion to which I'm objecting.

I think overgeneralization damages truth.  Pointing out that fixing a Mac's 
web cam requires taking the whole computer back to the store I think is much 
more effective than screaming "All Mac users are fags!"

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

Post a reply to this message