Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hinduwoman · 09-07-2002, 05:32 PM

So what is wrong with the realization that various tribal codes are the basis of morality?

I think this is the Designer argument in reverse: "I create computer languages, so there must be a God to create the language of morality".

Jamie_L · 09-09-2002, 07:47 AM

Quote:

[if god doesn't exist], then we really are the slaves of our selfish genes, and there's no basis for morality other than various forms of tribalism".

Regardless of whether or not this statement is true, it has no bearing on whether or not god exists or not.

Think about it. It's like saying "If invisible fairies that clean up my room don't exist, then I'll have to clean up my own room all the time."

Maybe so. Maybe you don't like it. What's the relevance to the actual existence of the fairies?

Jamie

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 09-09-2002, 03:16 PM

Gang,

Quote:

Originally posted by Skid:

I should probably clarify a bit -- it's not as much his take on morality, but his arguments for the existence of the christian god that interests me.

Does he have anything new or unique to say, or is it just the same old arguments in disguse?

Incidentally, I have a few colleagues that *do* turn to people like him to defend their faith. After all - if he's such a genius in computer languages and software, then *of course* he can't be wrong on religion. Right??

Wow...you guys really missed the boat here.

If you actually read the /. article you would have realized that he (Larry Wall) is *not* giving a proof of God...nor is he trying to...nor does he need to. He was just explaining his belief and how it pertains to what he does for a living.

Sheesh...talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

Personally, I found this statement rather profound...

The evidence is there if you care to look, and if you don't get distracted by the claims of various people who have various agendas to lead you in every possible direction, and if you don't fall into the trap of looking for a formula rather than looking for God as a person.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,

SOMMS

Jobar · 09-09-2002, 04:23 PM

"The evidence is there if you care to look, and if you don't get distracted by the claims of various people who have various agendas to lead you in every possible direction, and if you don't fall into the trap of looking for a formula rather than looking for God as a person."

SOMMS, we are all waiting, with bated breath, to see the evidence spoken of here. We *really do* care to look at it. This is the 'Existence of God(s)' forum, right? Bring it on!

Well... OK, so I'm not *really* holding my breath...

Skid · 09-09-2002, 05:19 PM

Quote:

If you actually read the /. article you would have realized that he (Larry Wall) is *not* giving a proof of God...nor is he trying to...nor does he need to. He was just explaining his belief and how it pertains to what he does for a living.

Hi SOMMS,

In a way, you're right -- I realize he wasn't trying to give a "proof" of God, at least in any formal sense of the word. In fact, I hesitated posting this in this forum (as opposed to Misc. Religion), as his statements were not part of any debate on the existence of god.

I found the article interesting primarily because of his stature in the programming world. As I said earlier, his words carry considerable weight for some that I'll call (good-naturedly) "Christian Computer Geeks". His response begins with:

Quote:

I take it to mean that you find it more or less inconceivable that someone with a scientific mind (or at least technical mind, hah!) could choose to believe in God. I'd like to at least get you to the point where you find it conceivable.

He is obviously trying to convince someone with a "technical" mind that belief in God is logical. Here's a guy *known* for his extraordinary abilities in a field that *requires* logical thinking. My questions to the group ares simply: Is his response logical and reasonable? Does anyone now find the belief at least "conceivable"?

Being a (non-christian) computer geek myself, I'm a novice when it comes to formal proofs of God -- and this is why I was asking for opinions from more knowledgable members of this forum. IMHO, his "evidence is there" statement sounds like the Argument from Design, and he also relies on "Religious Experience" to make his points.

Definitely not a *proof*, but I found his responses to be a little more than just explaining his beliefs.

Regards,

Mark

Steven Carr · 09-10-2002, 12:59 AM

Well, to be honest, I was a bit thrown by his claim that the Lord of the Rings popped into existence in the same way that Hawking says the Universe did (out of nothing???)

I find it hard to believe that 3 volume novels appear out of a quantum fluctuation.

In short, his whole answer appears designed to prove that 'systematic theology' really is an oxymoron, and that all that is offered are bizarre unsystematic ramblings , by somebody who thinks he can second-guess the mind of any being powerful enough to be able to create a universe.

galiel · 09-10-2002, 07:00 PM

Being a long-time slashdotter, I was dismayed, not so much by the sophomoric nature of his religion answer, but by the fact that no one there, and no one here so far, has identified several classic logic fallacies he commits right at the beginning of his argument. He misuses geek language, flipping bits to endear himself to the tech crowd, in exactly the same way creationists misuse science. Or more aptly, in the same way a flim-flam artist cons his audience.

He starts by creating a false minimal standard of proof, namely to demonstrate that:

A) God exists, and
B) God is good to people who really look for him.

Perhaps I'll analyze why that is flawed another time, because the biggest whopper happens in the very next paragraph, where he makes the following unfounded leap:

Now, it appears that you're willing to admit the possibility of bit A being a 1, so you're almost halfway there.
(that's geekspeak for A being a "yes")

Having thus "proved" that God exists, he, through classic misdirection, makes the whole conversation about B!! as if that is a relevant question at all (the questioner asked "please tell us how in the world a scientific or at least technical mind can believe in God").

I haven't even bothered to respond there yet, I am so amazed no one has picked up on this grade-school sleight of hand.

Question: Are you guys looking for the aliens:
Answer: please look directly into this flashy thing. Yes, you are right, we did come here to buy fresh corn.

DarkBronzePlant · 09-12-2002, 07:58 AM

I read the same article on Slashdot. Good thing for me I can't stand using PERL anymore.

Anyhow, when I read the quote you posted, I put it in the context of the "...therefor god exists" thread, as such:

[if god doesn't exist], then we really are the slaves of our selfish genes, and there's no basis for morality other than various forms of tribalism"...therefore, god exists.

Sounds convincing to me!

galiel · 09-12-2002, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkBronzePlant:

Anyhow, when I read the quote you posted, I put it in the context of the "...therefor god exists" thread, as such:

[if god doesn't exist], then we really are the slaves of our selfish genes, and there's no basis for morality other than various forms of tribalism"...therefore, god exists.

Sounds convincing to me!

MortalWombat · 09-13-2002, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkBronzePlant:
I read the same article on Slashdot. Good thing for me I can't stand using PERL anymore.

Why should the strengths or weaknesses of a computer language be judged on the reliqious beliefs of its creator? Besides, Perl is free, so it's not like you are supporting him financially when you install it or use it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-07-2002, 05:32 PM	#11
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	So what is wrong with the realization that various tribal codes are the basis of morality? I think this is the Designer argument in reverse: "I create computer languages, so there must be a God to create the language of morality".

09-09-2002, 04:23 PM	#14
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	"The evidence is there if you care to look, and if you don't get distracted by the claims of various people who have various agendas to lead you in every possible direction, and if you don't fall into the trap of looking for a formula rather than looking for God as a person." SOMMS, we are all waiting, with bated breath, to see the evidence spoken of here. We really do care to look at it. This is the 'Existence of God(s)' forum, right? Bring it on! Well... OK, so I'm not really holding my breath...

09-10-2002, 12:59 AM	#16
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Well, to be honest, I was a bit thrown by his claim that the Lord of the Rings popped into existence in the same way that Hawking says the Universe did (out of nothing???) I find it hard to believe that 3 volume novels appear out of a quantum fluctuation. In short, his whole answer appears designed to prove that 'systematic theology' really is an oxymoron, and that all that is offered are bizarre unsystematic ramblings , by somebody who thinks he can second-guess the mind of any being powerful enough to be able to create a universe.

09-10-2002, 07:00 PM	#17
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	Being a long-time slashdotter, I was dismayed, not so much by the sophomoric nature of his religion answer, but by the fact that no one there, and no one here so far, has identified several classic logic fallacies he commits right at the beginning of his argument. He misuses geek language, flipping bits to endear himself to the tech crowd, in exactly the same way creationists misuse science. Or more aptly, in the same way a flim-flam artist cons his audience. He starts by creating a false minimal standard of proof, namely to demonstrate that: A) God exists, and B) God is good to people who really look for him. Perhaps I'll analyze why that is flawed another time, because the biggest whopper happens in the very next paragraph, where he makes the following unfounded leap: Now, it appears that you're willing to admit the possibility of bit A being a 1, so you're almost halfway there. (that's geekspeak for A being a "yes") Having thus "proved" that God exists, he, through classic misdirection, makes the whole conversation about B!! as if that is a relevant question at all (the questioner asked "please tell us how in the world a scientific or at least technical mind can believe in God"). I haven't even bothered to respond there yet, I am so amazed no one has picked up on this grade-school sleight of hand. Question: Are you guys looking for the aliens: Answer: please look directly into this flashy thing. Yes, you are right, we did come here to buy fresh corn.

09-12-2002, 07:58 AM	#18
DarkBronzePlant Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Francisco, CA USA Posts: 3,568	I read the same article on Slashdot. Good thing for me I can't stand using PERL anymore. Anyhow, when I read the quote you posted, I put it in the context of the "...therefor god exists" thread, as such: [if god doesn't exist], then we really are the slaves of our selfish genes, and there's no basis for morality other than various forms of tribalism"...therefore, god exists. Sounds convincing to me!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.