Fathers of Linux Revealed: Tooth Fairy & Santa Claus 739
An anonymous reader writes "The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, which published the results of their very thorough investigation today, turned out to be right. Linus really isn't the father of the Linux operating system. After having been found out, Linus had no choice but to admit -- this is what he has to say: 'Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.'"
Humour is a sophisticated weapon (Score:5, Insightful)
Only when you are sufficiently confident in your premises do you venture to be droll to your enemies, and make no mistake, the AdTi is Linus' enemy. The use of humour is simultaneously the ultimate statement of confidence and the ultimate put-down - it's a pre-generated sound-bite. It's a kick in the vitals. To all on the (winning) side of Linux, it's a rallying cry. Go Linus.
There's nothing more satisfying than placing your critics up on a pedestal and ripping them to shreds - the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and it doesn;t depend on pointiness
What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source - the ultimate goal is obviously to get them to discredit themselves to such an extent that they can be held up as an example of how *not* to do it. Given their paymaster, the hopeless nature of their case, and the imperatives they must put forward each time, I think we have a significant chance of a sacrificial lamb in Linux' cause... Rope to hang themselves is what we want... Remember that
Simon
Stand-up. (Score:1, Insightful)
OK. How come Slashdot doesn't have a comedy section?
You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
The flaw in this argument... (Score:5, Insightful)
But remember folks,
Linux copying the behavior of various UNIXes is stealing, but Microsoft copying the behavior of the Mac or Xerox Star is not. And Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM PC BIOS is what caused the death of the PC industry!
Oh wait.
--LP
P.S. I'd be nervous if the press release said AdTI president and pundit Kenneth Brown was tracing the code... but it says he "traces the free software movement over three decades". Hrm, good luck there, Ken!
what they will say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon (Score:4, Insightful)
I am curious, is there anyone who takes ANY analyst seriously ? They are ALL paid shills. Everytime something happens in the SCucks case, Pretenderle and Didiot come out of the blue corner, and Dion Cornett comes out of the red corner. Each one has an agenda. Each one has paid "opinions" Would any buisness make an important descision based on these shills ? It's like my beloved NY Post. I like reading it, but take everything with a grain of salt
Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon (Score:3, Insightful)
Were they ever? I seem to remember that, like, the very first time I ever saw AdTI mentioned on Slashdot the response was "yeah, this isn't a threat, these people have been around awhile, they're these loopy pseudo ayn rand ideological attack dogs for the conservative right wing, no one really listens to them except other right wingers, they're known to have no journalistic integrity anyway".
They don't seem to have much of a reputation to ruin.
Fathers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Í like it (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no point in trying to point out their idiocies. Anyone with enough braincells to count in binary can see that they are spouting irrational codswallop. But there is no point in losing your temper and trying to point out the idiocy of their ways - these guys are beyond redemption. Laughter is the safest refuge - laugh lest ye cry. Well done (again), Linus.
ridiculous. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:/. should STOP giving creedence to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can buy the second statement, but not necessarily the first. There are plenty of people with higher education who are not scientists.
In fact in most churches a prerequisite to joining the clergy is an advanced degree. Furthermore, the "professional degree" that you need to be a priest or pastor is a Master of Divinity, which normally requires an undergraduate degree, much like a law degree. There are no [yale.edu] shortage [duke.edu] of [nd.edu] top [ox.ac.uk] universities [uchicago.edu] that have excellent theology or divinity departments. Some of the world's most influential and interesting thinkers have been theologians.
As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.
In spite of what some might say, science can't really illuminate our understanding of God very much, because by nature you can't perform an experiment on God. Furthermore God can easily escape whatever assumptions a scientist may make (or, as one Vatican astronomer put it, "God is not a boundary condition"). By the same token our understanding of God can't do much to illuminate science, because when (for example) the bible contradicts a scientific observation, the observation must win. Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.
In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God. One either believes that God exists or doesn't exist, and that belief affects the remaining propositions in one's life as any other axiom might. In no way is this incompatible with a career in science. In fact, if one believes (as I do) that God exists, what we know about the universe contributes to a sense of awe concerning the greatness of God. And, as one theologian suggests, this is one important aspect of religion: the "fear" of God puts you and your petty problems into perspective.
Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe. Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why it's a correlation coefficient. In fact, it's not even very high; most Americans believe in God.
As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.
Wrong. Religion claims to answer the whys, but there's no reason to think they get it right. Here's how Richard Dawkins put it:
Or there is the notion that science can answer 'how' questions and religion
can answer 'why' questions, as in this item from a television discussion of
science and religion.
Science can tell us how chemicals bond but only religion can answer the
why questions, why do we have a universe like this at all?
But of course religion can't do any such thing. It only says it can, which is
a different matter. Anyone can say that. Anyone can say anything at all. But
since the answers religions give are not true, it is not clear why their
answers to the 'why' questions are any better than their answers to the 'how'
questions, or any other questions. Richard Dawkins, again, puts the matter
well:
I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to
explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my)
ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of
physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible.
"Ah," he smiled, "now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where
I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain." But why the
chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike
chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions.
But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims
seriously?
Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.
It's not a stereotype, it's a statistical reality. A large portion of Americans believe it.
In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God.
That doesn't make it an axiom, it makes it an unneccessary hypothesis!
Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe. Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.
Religion is a human invention, and as such means different things to different people. To many people, it means the things you disavow.
Re:what they will say (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The original "study" is correct in that Linus didn't invent very much at all, but they fail to acknowledge that this is completely beside the point. Linus constructed the Linux kernel from scratch. Like all people who progress humanity, he only did so by standing on the shoulders of giants.
For what it's worth, Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, either, but even decades later, we'd hardly accuse him of theft. Moreover, he built cars that existing drivers would already know how to drive by making them look like the cars that were there beforehand.
The situation is similar to what Darrel Huff in How to Lie with Statistics refers to as "the semi-attached figure". If you can't prove something, prove something else and pretend they're the same. So, for example, you say your toilet cleaner "kills germs faster" and strongly imply, though never right-out say, that this has something to do with your family's health even though it probably doesn't.
Worst of all, this kind of thinking completely ignores how human progress happens. It's the myth of the genius all over again. Progress happens on the fringes of what we already have. When you get down to it, every work is a derivative work (except in the legal sense of the term). Einstein couldn't have come up with the idea of relativity without centuries of work by smart physicists and mathematicians before him.
Hell, Unix is just a castrated version of Multics, right?
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:4, Insightful)
Take the realm of unicorns. I do think there are unicorns, but I suppose that there is a non-zero chance that there is one in the forests somewhere, magical and all. After all, we cannot disprove it since we can argue that magic keeps it hidden.
Does that make me unicorn-agnostic, or unicorn-athiest, so to speak.
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is NOT as, alot of religious folk like to pretend "a belief that there is no God", and nor would such a belief be hypocritical, as is often claimed. If God decided to make himself known obviously (desecend from the heavens on shining lightbeams, get interviewed on E!, that sort of thing) most atheists would concede he exists.
Myself, I reserve judgment on the existence of God, although I tend toward the negative. But at least if we're talking about the God in the Christian bible, I wouldn't worship whether I knew he existed or not.
Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...] (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for the best ones. Like Stanford's Donald Knuth [stanford.edu], for example.
Or take the case of Reverend Thomas Bayes, the parish priest who discovered Bayes' theorem, on which modern machine learning/data mining relies so heavily, including spam filters named after him.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Read what the parent poster said again. The post never claimed that religion answers the "whys". Let me quote again:
If it helps, substitute "philosophy" for "religion", because religion is really a part of philosophy.
For example, in the case of morality and ethics, science tries to find out what we can do, but philosophy tries to find out what we should and should not do. Science, for example, has resulted in technology that can keep people alive on machines long after they would otherwise have died. Philosophy asks: Is this a good idea in all cases?
Simiarly, science gives us tools to help determine who committed a certain crime. But it cannot (and should not attempt to) answer the question of what is "justice".
Dawkins falls into the same trap that many scientists (whether theist or atheist) fall into, namely, assuming that every field of human endeavour is science. They are not. Most touch on science in various ways (just as most touch on philosophy, for that matter) but they are not science.
Another example: The biology of perception and cognition touch on the fine arts, such as music. But the study of the fine arts isn't the same study as the study of science.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong, he is asking why we should give credence to what a priest says about the "whys." What reason do we have to believe that the answers they give are worth anything? There's no reason to think that priests will do any better with these question than all the hows they've gotten wrong in history. The same can not be said of your sociology example.
For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.
You're begging the question. You're starting out by assuming the thing you mean to prove or support.
I should point out that none of these contradict anything that science knows.
No, but neither do millions of unsupportable beliefs you don't have faith in. The reason it doesn't work is that you are mistaking burden of proof. Those that claim there are deities have the burden of proof, just as if they had claimed there are tiny teapots orbiting our sun. There's no reason to believe it, even though it does not "contradict anything that science knows."
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:2, Insightful)
I find the truth usally somewhere in the middle. I beleive that we were created in some one's image, and that the Neanderthals where chosen as the starting point for some unknown reason. It's why there is no missing link it's because there was a forced jump of evolution.
I ask this of any really religous person, Why did God after 4,000 years of Fire & Brimstone suddenly stop using those methods and instead send one emmissary of peace???? In the 2,000 years since Jesus(yes a real person he was & he probally did die on the Cross) Why haven't cities turned to salt?, Why haven't the heavans drowned us sinners in a flood? Why did it cut off so abruptly? Or did it even exsist that way, and there are other reasons for each of those diasasters.
Then agian Science can't explain how life forms(today), Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted? The probalities would say it should of happened.
Why Science does every corner of the planet have a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures?
Somethings don't make sense, some need help from other points of view, and some never will. Expand your mind.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, this is just an ignorant thing to say.
The fact that you're posting that ignorant comment means that neither you nor your parents died from a childhood disease. Thank a scientist.
In fact, it's not likely that you had any siblings that died in infancy. Thank a scientist.
And you probably more had more fat kids than undernourished in your school when you were a kid. Thank an agricultural scientist.
You probably had the opportunity to know your grandparents, since they probably lived to be about 75 years old or so. Thank a scientist.
You never had to worry about getting yellow fever from a mosquito bite. Thank a scientist.
When it gets dark out, you don't need to go to bed. You can stay up and read to get an education. Thank a scientist.
Hell, you can fricking educate yourself all day long. You don't have to scratch in the dirt just to eat. You've got the luxury of spending the first couple decades of your life just feeding your brain. Thank a whole shitload of scientists
I could go on and on and on, but it's the unvarnished truth that BILLIONS of people are alive today because of what scientists have done. On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint.
I think you owe a lot of scientists quite a lot more than an apology, but I doubt they'll get it from you. Just like a bully in grade school, it's just too much damn fun to beat up the smart kid.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:5, Insightful)
What?! What about chimpanzees and dolphins?
Why Science does every corner of the planet have a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures?
Many corners of the planet have a flood myth too. That does NOT mean that Noah's myth is a historical fact.
Somethings don't make sense, some need help from other points of view, and some never will. Expand your mind.
Just because science can't hasn't yet explained something doesn't mean religion can. It's called the divine fallacy [skepdic.com].
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true. It's called argument from incredulity, and it's just as wrong.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
Those are acceptable (unverifiable) axioms. One might equally well assume that God hates all humans.
The problem comes in the conclusions that people try to derive from them ("eat fish on fridays", "no gay marriage"), and that they forget that they are only arbitrary assumptions.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientific theories are built up from base principles. If we forgot everything we know back to the stone age, man would eventually figure out the speed of light, gravitation, etc. Evidence + time + observation = truth.
Religion only works if you get the whole book at once, or at least in big chunks. You can't build it up from base principles... you can't build it up at all, you either believe or burn.
Since this pretty much contradicts how science works, it makes sense that many scientists reject it.
Many scientists are very religious... A stance I find confounding, but it's their life, not mine.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a stereotype, it's a statistical reality. A large portion of Americans believe it.
a large portion of americans believe we have 49 or less states and can not name all the states in the union...
Does this makes a large portion of americans horribly dumb or undereducated? let alone comprehend an advanced theological/scientific concept like relativity.
we DO NOT know for a fact that religion is a human invention and only fools say such things without irrefuteable proof. the rest of us simply accept it's existance and choose what we like or dislike knowing full well that the existance of a "higher being" or God can never EVER be proven or disproven.
What blows my mind is the atheists that go to great lengths to convince others that their beliefs are right yet bitch about "believers"...
Hey kettle, the pot is calling.
I have an idea, I'll believe what I want, you believe what you want and we get working on the neat stuff in life.
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's take an example: a box either contains a blue coin, or it does not. The coinist would believe in the existance of the coin, the acoinist would not believe in the coin. Both are expressing belief. The agnostic refuses belief, he accepts that he is ignorant about the existance, or non-existance, of the coin. The decision is suspened, possibly forever.
I'm definately in the camp of the self-admitted ignorant. I do not know whether any deity exists or not. I can't be an athiest, because I don't *disbelieve* in deities; but I can't be a theist because I don't *believe* in deities either. I'm simply suspending judgement until better evidence comes along. I'm certainly not going to go around having faith in one answer or the other.
I see both athiesm and theism as being essentially the same: both require faith. Agnosticim requires no faith, merely the courage to accept that you don't have an answer to a rather important question. I think that by admitting my ignorance on this topic I'm showing more wisdom than those who claim to know things when there is no evidence. The box might have a coin, then again it might not; unless we can open the box and look I refuse to say one way or the other.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
All I can say is: Go back and read the original post, and respond to what it said, not what you thought it said. The original poster deliberately did not suggest that it's religion's job to ask questions like "why".
I love the Weinberg quote, BTW.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, your set of three axioms require massive contortion to apply to real life, since the existence of a loving creator is, at a glance, inconsistent dozens of natural phenomena, from disasters to disease, and that's only in the "DIS" section of the dictionary. If Euclid's system had required such contortions, it would have been forgotten long ago.
A rational being would dismiss #3 out of hand. It's much simpler to believe that God is either indifferent or sadistic; many difficult problems of the Loving Creator model resolve themselves immediately.
Re: I like it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:1, Insightful)
Where in the parent's post did he say we shouldn't be grateful for science? Where does it say that we shouldn't credit science with all the things you angrily listed? What evidence can you provide that the parent has anything but the utmost respect for science and scientists? Maybe the parent shouldn't have singled out scientists as uncompassionate, but to jump to the conclusion that the parent discredits science is shockingly prejudicial (on your part).
On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint.
I know you must be trolling here, since without the efforts of Mother Teresa and others that followed in her footsteps, a lot of people wouldn't even be aware of the plight of the poor within Calcutta's slums. But science is the answer to all of the world's ill's, isn't it? Why is it that science has come up with all kinds of wonderful and useful technology that could be used to combat poverty (medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods), but the Third World is worse off today than ever?
Sure, give science the credit its due, but don't assume that it can deal with moral problems. That is exactly where the visionary leadership and compassion of moral leaders such as Mother Teresa is needed.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a tenet in Judeo-Christian belief that God exists, created the universe, and loves all humans. It cannot be tested, and is therefore an axiom for those religions. The single biggest issue, however, is not if there is a God, but who is God.
The majority of people with a higher education believe in some God. Those with an education in science may follow the tendancy to not believe that there is a higher being, but they are definitely not the majority. The highest form of thought, philosophy, and the majority of philosophers out there have established that there is or was a God. There are the few that pointedly disbelieve, but if you really examine those philosophers, they in themselves are supporting themselves as Gods.
In the end, it comes down to whether or not you believe that someone can affect your destiny and situation in life, what you experience exists or is a delusion, and whether or not it is because you experience it, or because you believe it. On the one hand, you have empiricism, which basically states that man is the measure (and measurer) of all things. On the other, you have Platonism, Kantian belief, Spinozan belief, Christian belief, and a sleiu of others.
Religion is not a matter of logic. You cannot prove that faith is logical or not. You might as well prove to me that the color that you call green is the same exact color that I experience and call green. You can't. If you state it as so, you'd be "begging the question." The point is that with religion, it is an a priori belief, something that has to be accepted as true, even though it cannot be proven true.
Logic is the invention of man, which helps man to become the center of his own universe. If man can look at it and prove it, then man has mastered and understood it. Science and logic are just another religion that someone can subscribe to, with man being God. There really is nothing more to it.
It doesn't matter "how" or "why." What matters is what is . Do you have faith in God? If so, what God do you have faith in?
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, to make your theorem the negation of my statement "God exists", my statement also has to be a theorem. Look up the rules of formal logic if you don't believe me - the opposite of an Axiom is another Axiom, and the method of disproving an Axiom is fundamentally different from disproving a Theorem. You prove your view is right, but only by redefining my view so that you can claim a universal negation of my axiom can somehow be a theorem. You also either offer a theorem without being willing or able to show a derivation, by claiming the burden of proof falls on me instead, and require me to prove an Axiom by means which only work for theorems, or alternately, you yourself believe in the non-existence of God as one of your fundamental Axioms, which means you too are begging the question by your own definition.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:1, Insightful)
If assuming what you want to prove as an axiom isnt intellectually lazy then I don't know what is.
Definition of axiom
1) A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock).
2)An established rule, principle, or law.
3)A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
With Euclidean geometry, the axioms, at least the first few that I know of, are "self evident" and are thus true. Anyone can see that.
What do you have to smoke to make your three "axioms" self-evident ?
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but he decided to spend years of his time designing and implemented TeX, and CWEB. Sure these are great pieces of technology, but Knuth's real contributions are his analysis of mathematics and algorithms.
Now he's going to waste some enormous amount of time rewriting TAOC from scratch since 30+ years of computing have found better solutions here and there for some of the things he discusses.
Ok, Knuth's contributions are great, but they would probably be greater if he just outsourced the rewritting of his first three volumes to some grad students armed with google and he went ahead and wrote the other volumes.
Knuth just reminds me of Galois. A genius of high order who let irrational things get in the way him realizing his full potential which just delays the rest of humanity from benefitting from what could have been discovered.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh I see, It's easier for you to call your enemies trolls than to reason with them. I may have a fucking offensive name, but I'm also an engineer for a company that loves Linux.
Where in the parent's post did he say we shouldn't be grateful for science?
Anyway, you start off with a strawman. As far as I can see, he didn't say that, but that wasn't what I was criticising either. He questioned scientist's compassion, and I was pointing out that compassion means NOTHING without actions. The actions of scientists have saved billions of people from death.
to jump to the conclusion that the parent discredits science is shockingly prejudicial
What are you talking about? I didn't have to jump to a conclusion, I just had to read it. The slur against the character of scientists is right there in black and white.
As far as Mother Theresa goes, I'm not trolling. Read the Wikipedia article on her, [wikipedia.org] there's plenty of criticism there.
a lot of people wouldn't even be aware of the plight of the poor within Calcutta's slums.
Scientists have figured out how to solve their problems, but the politicians won't implement them. And even Mother Theresa, whom you defend, was opposed to the birth control that would have eased the burden of raising millions of unwanted children.
Why is it that science has come up with all kinds of wonderful and useful technology that could be used to combat poverty (medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods), but the Third World is worse off today than ever?
Because people like you would rather unfairly criticise those who have solved the problems, but you cannot see the mote in your own eye. The evil that snatches the food from the babies' grasp is part government, and part superstition. The good that has succeeded in making the technologies that CAN solve serious problems is science.
Sure, give science the credit its due,
That would be ALL of the credit then.
don't assume that it can deal with moral problems.
And what makes you think that religion can deal with moral problems? So far, it's not doing too well. Mother Theresa would have done more good if she had gotten a PhD. and turned her hovels where people went to die into real hospitals.
Orthodoxy [Re: What do such people believe in] (Score:3, Insightful)
There are different uses of words like fundamentalist/orthodox: the literal sense of "sticking to the very fundaments and core concepts" are nowadays almost overridden by very negative connotations e.g. extremist, "not allowed to have fun"... [anybody expect the Spanish Inquisition ;-) ?].
But a priori, whether a fundamentalist, i.e. somebody who takes the fundaments on which something is built or based very seriously, is a good thing or not depends on what that fundament actually is. And that varies a lot across doctrines. For example, in Christianity, the fundament is the principle of love of God and your neighbour as embodied in the (first two of the) ten commandments. This is the core of Christian orthodoxy (and yes, I'm just re-stating official teaching [vatican.va] here); so in that sense a fundamentalist can be something of high moral value in accordance even with other belief systems.
If, on the other hand you consider orthodox to mean what the average person on the street thinks, then it is not too surprising that there's a lot of divergence compared to experts you mention, since the average (wo)man in the street might not (have time to) read as much about religion to clarify their minds in times of time-tables, reality TV, beeping pagers, and ./.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you'd ever had a conversaion with a theologian of a mainstream religion on this topic, you'd know better.
By "mainstream", of course, I conveniently ignore any lunatic fringe/extremist elements, thus defining any religion which doesn't fit my argument as not "mainstream". I'm fully aware of this. Nevertheless, if you speak to a theologian of any mainstream religion, chances are you'll find they have more questions than answers.
Re: Agnosticism (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that ignorance of existence should be enough to qualify one for agnosticism. Otherwise, what am I?
Answer: In too much of a hurry to seek classification.
Solution: Forget about it. When people ask that question wanting to know your religion, tell them their question has no meaning to you. If you have to, acknowledge that while it has meaning to them, that doesn't immediately require it to have meaning to you. It may upset them, but fuck 'em. Get on with your life, don't let little things trouble you. ;)
Re:Dishonest list? (Score:3, Insightful)
How very odd. If there is a God, he created you. He gave you a mind and a will. And he sustains your existence this very moment. It seems to me that this question should at least arouse your interest...
If there isn't a God, I don't vanish in a puff of smoke, either. I still exist, somehow, and an alternate explanation must also exist. In fact, many alternate explanations do exist.
In any case, religion can only be proven in the positive. That is, you can only prove that religion is right, you can never prove that it is wrong. What good would it be if it were so easy to disprove? Can't be done, can it?
Without that set point of reference, there's no way to make the kind of judgements you're attempting.
Are there any religions that don't believe in God that maintain some modicum or morality? Why yes there are. IN fact, every single religion (with a few obscure exceptions) contains a set of rules virtually identical to those presented in the Bible, either testament, in fact. Moreover, you'll be hard pressed to find atheists or anybody else lacking religion to be completely immoral people as a result.
Now, I agree that morality is something that for some people requires an objective foundation. Most people seem to be satisfied with a subjective foundation, as in "It's not right to steal because then other people could steal from you." Or "It's not a good idea to steal because you'll go to jail". Whatever. But I am definitely one of those people who require an objective foundation, and the only objective foundation I've found is Freedom. It's real simple, there's one postulate, which is that we are all Free individuals.
To build a system of morality using Freedom as a base, I shall leave as an exercise for the student. It should (and is) be possible to build a system of morality that very closely resembles the common base of morality practiced by every religion (at least taught, if not practiced by every individual), and it should be (and is) possible to wind up with at least 5 of the ten commandments, along with Jesus's revisions, all using Freedom as a base, and requiring no leap of faith that there's God, Jesus, and so forth.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:2, Insightful)
As every righteous XP advocate will tell you, all you need are test cases. Code passes the test case or fails it. Phenotype doesn't aid in surviving, creature carrying genes for phenotype dies.
Linux has a purpose (see for example Tanenbaum for definition of an OS). Now what purpose does life have? Obviously if it doesn't have a predefined goal there's no need to for anyone to guide it towards that goal, isn't it?
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, you came so close. IN the following quote, s/archaeology/science
"Archaeology is the pursuit of fact. If it's Truth you want, check out ..." the philosophy class down the hall. (Sorry, memory gave out and I forgot the rest of the quote)
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is a God, what's the point of doing good to others? Fear of hell?
Seriously, if your only concept of right and wrong is based on the threat of punishment, whether by the State or by some deity, then you have real problems.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Thank you, God, for killing those other 10 million people with AIDS, but not me!"
There are many speculations that they are human creations. HIV, SARS etc.. Thank a scientist.
Trying to get yourself passed over as paranoid/credulous, huh? Well it won't work... even if HIV and SARS were artificial diseases (laughable thought), they'd still be God's responsibility.
If you believe in God, then every time you "Thank a scientist", you should "Thank the God" too. But there are many things beyond the power of science- for those things, good or bad, you can still "Thank the God"
How do you know that you're existing?
That's simple, actually. I think I exist, so I do. The circularity of that argument is no weakness. Regardless of what the definition of "existence" might turn out to be, we can show that some things meet it.
In oposite, it teaches us to love every man, every creation in this world.
It does not... the Christian Bible is full of examples of the rightness of killing and vengeance. However, even if I accepted that relgion attempts to teach love for others, a look around will tell you that it has failed. The USA is one of those most heavily Christian places on earth; especially according to its own president [christianitytoday.com]; and yet it also maintains the most powerful killing force this planet has ever seen.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fathers? (Score:1, Insightful)
By the way..
Contrary to some common misconceptions, the following are still legal bases for discrimination in hiring [eeoc.gov] and lending. [hud.gov]
This is not your father's democracy. (Score:3, Insightful)
They must be talking about Ashcroft's democracy.
Re:I believe in a rock in my backyard (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe a rock in my backyard created all of existence.
I will merrily debate the merits of Christianity versus um... RockInYourBackyardanity.
See how fun it is to declare that a certain belief "might" be true--as is true of absolutely any random theology you could conjure up, such as belief in the tooth fairy?
With all due respect, you're begging the question. We are arguing whether a universal moral standard exists with God as it's foundation. You cannot dismiss the issue by declaring it a "random theology" and associating it with something absurd. The belief in the existence of God is based thousands of years of philosophical observation and reasoning. Examples include:
Now, to debate these underlying principles, and the conclusions derived, is perfectly reasonable (and fun!). But to dismiss the entire question as random absurdity is to not understand it.
...but you happened to
Ah, yes, what you're saying is that without belief in God, you can't have morality or ethics.
Actually, I would argue that you can have a system of ethics without a belief in God. However it's arbitrary, and you can't expect anyone else to follow it. Which is not what we find. If I stomp your foot on accident, you probably wouldn't get angry (at least not seriously). If I stomp your foot with malicious intent, you probably would. Why? Because, even if you've never met me, you expect me to recognize a moral standard and act accordingly.
Point is, the concept of ethics and morality in a human society are really the outcome of an evolved set of survival instincts.
I fully agree that we do possess various instincts that promote our own survival as well as the survival of our community (herd). And that this instinct is probably purely natural.
However, I would argue that there is more at work here. For example, suppose that you look outside your window late at night and see someone being attacked. Immediately you'll be affected by at least two natural instincts. You'll have an instinct to protect the herd by intervening and helping the person. But there is also danger involved. You'll likely feel fear at the possibility of being injured or killed if you intervene. So there's a herd instinct to help and a self-preservation instinct to not get involved.
But there's also a third thing in play. You know that you ought to help the person. It's the right thing to do. There's something inside us that tells us which instinct should be encouraged and which should be suppressed. It judges the two instincts and assigns a moral priority. If you don't help the person, you'll feel shame. And other people will view you with disgust.
If the moral law is nothing but instinct, and only those instincts are in your mind, then the stronger of the two instincts must win out. But very often the prompting of the moral law encourages us to choose the weaker of the two instincts. For example, you may want to be safe much more than you want to help a person you don't even know. But at times like this the moral law is most visible, encouraging us to "wake up" or strengthen our herd instinct and suppress our survival instinct. The thing that is doing this encouraging cannot itself be the herd instinct. The herd instinct can't say "I'm asleep, wake me up!" It has to be something else, something that is not an instinct and is above instinct. And this thing I argue to be the supernatural moral law.
Which is a twisted looney way of thinking of course, a belief you're told to think.
But I certain expect this very simple concept to escape you..
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you define God as an omniscient, omnipotent object, it exists by construction (it's the Universe).
If you define God as an omniscient, omnipotent being, it's unprovable (will is unprovable outside of the object in question).
The problem is the poor definition of God. If you construct "God" as 1, then "God exists" is an axiom inasmuch as "The Universe exists" is an axiom. If you construct "God" as in 2, then "God exists" is an axiom inasmuch as the person believes it, and a completely self-consistent Universe can be built on top of either axiom: "God exists" and "God does not exist."
In other words, either side should just believe what they want, and leave the other side alone, because neither of them could ever be proven to be "more right" than the other, within their own frame of reference.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. (Score:4, Insightful)
Choose any two.