knowledge corrupts

**Malcar Morab** · 06-04-2002

"Well, I've studied it. I've read four different bibles cover to cover over the course of my life. How about yourself? I think I have the right to say I know what I'm talking about."

Four bibles? I guess your not talking King James or NIV eh?

Just because youv'e read the bible (and I'm asuming this is the Holy bible) dosn't mean that you know everything about it. Did you study it? The proof? Do a bible study? Talk to other Christians who are knowledgable?

You can't just sit down and begin reading the bible, it's not a Tom Clany novel, it is a book that needs study. Treat it like an algebra book, you can't just open it and start reading, it has to be researhced, thought out, the bible is a deep, deep book, like reading Plato.

"Well, when one side has extreme probability, and one side has the next closest thing to none... I just cant understand why you would chose the vastly improbable over the highly probable. I really don't understand that."

I see, through my own research, that Christianity has far more proof supporting it than any other belief in the world. That is why I believe in the probable, it is probable, and the more I study, the more I understand and find proof verafying that fact.

**lightatdawn** · 06-05-2002

>>Four bibles? I guess your not talking King James or NIV eh?

King James was one. I dont recall the names of the others off hand. I'm not sure I have the others anymore.

>>Did you study it?

Yes.

>>The proof?

Well, I've seen exactly zero proof to date.

>>Do a bible study?

Yes.

>>Talk to other Christians who are knowledgable?

Yes. Many many many times. And not with a close minded approach either. But i've yet to recieve one single piece of logic supporting the theory. Every argument stems from the fact that first, you have to believe the bible. Its all highly circular. What I have seen is people who really want to believe and who refuse to be conviced otherwise.

I've noticed through study in some cases (I'm being very specific and not generalising in any way) that it is impossible to logically disprove religion. I have however been succesful on more than one occasion of removing the insecurities that certain people had that had caused them to use religion as a crutch (again; I'm not stating that this is always the case). With the insecurities gone, they stopped blindly following what their church told them, and through asking them questions, I was able to get them thinking about what they were believing unquestioningly. I never told them what to think, merely asked them why they thought what they did. When they realised that they had no concrete reasons... I [very] strongly disagree with the "follow me" religious attitude. I cant accept it and I never will. Everyone has their own interpretations of 1000 different bibles. I myself can (and have) pulled many different possible meanings from the same verse. Wheres the order in that?

Now to clarify: I might get carried away in some of these threads but as a human being I respect your right to believe what you will. However, as someone who sees a mathematically structured and ordered universe around me, I find it difficult just let people ignore it. So to sum up; I can respect your right to believe it and I wouldnt change that, but that doesnt stop me from saying you're wrong and pointing out why.

**VirtualAce** · 06-05-2002

I normally do not participate in these discussions but I was taken aback by a field of study being called ignorant when I and thousands of others have studied the topic of theology till our eyes fell out - much like studying math till your head explodes for computer science.

No, religion is not science and it will never be. I cannot, could not, and will not attempt to prove nor disprove anything relating to a belief in God. But I can point out some serious flaws in critical thinking and that is what I attempted to do. I'm not spouting off some words that my professor's drilled into my brain, quite the contrary many of my professor's challenged me to think, to take sides that were 100% contrary to what I personally held true, and to critically think through areas of my faith. Cookie cutter answers were not accepted and frankly they were some of the hardest classes I've ever had to take because you could not just memorize something and throw it up on the test. Yes, some classes you could but not in theology. It required you to think and think hard - which is why most of my fellow classmates despised these classes. But I love to think, research, and think some more - which is why I love computer programming as well. It was hard for me to understand the people that did not want to think or even study the very thing they would be teaching and preaching in the future. But I cannot be responsible for them. All I can do is my level best to never teach something that I know nothing about - in any subject.

Did all of my colleagues think through the issues? No. Are there some out there that just spout off second hand knowledge? Yes. But we see this happening in all kinds of occupations. Some people just get by in college and some really take that time to think through the issues and study hard.

The big problem is that no amount of mental assent can bring you one step closer to answering the question of the existence of God. And this is where the infamous faith word comes into play. It is about faith, but there are many many areas of religion that can be studied very closely. The interpretation of texts, languages, and historical events can all be studied. Heremeneutics not only applies to religious texts but also applies to any text and truly is the science of interpreting written literature. However, this science did not help my grade in English literature during my college days.

So I'm not debating about faith here, that is the reader's choice. I'm just pointing out some very important logical fallacies. Usually the one's who claim to be the most open-minded end up being actually the most close-minded people. This is because they are open-minded about a very select few things and absolutely will not tolerate anything else. Yes some believers fall in this category but so do many non-believers. If you think very hard about yourself and others, we are all close-minded about one issue or another. It is very hard for humans to accept multiple answers to questions because it is too hard for us to grasp them all. So we reach out to what is familiar and what sets right with us - what we can accept. The same holds true for computer science. I can look up one topic in programming and find about 100 different answers and approaches to the same problem all claiming that they have the right way. I haven't directly stated my position in this debate because it is not relative. The position that I take is to always critically think through things and question every thing because I feel this is the road to understanding the world around us. It's not good to simply write off things at first glance. That is what I would term close-mindedness. Writing something off w/o fully understanding why you are writing it off.

Anyways, I've been through many of these debates with all kinds of different people with different beliefs. In the end, really, it is simply a personal choice. But you cannot write people off in any field or write off any field of study simply because of personal ignorance, resulting from either lack of study due to personal choice or lack of interest.

Also remember that all of us here are programmers and most of us are extremely logical people. Let's keep this debate centered around the topic at hand and not get into personal attacks. The moment you dive into personal attacks you have turned a debate into a personal vendetta against someone. Good debates do not get personal. So if we cannot debate w/o getting personal it may well be best if we do not post at all and save our posts for issues like arrays in C or something similar that is not so volatile for all of us.

This is my last post on this topic but to get it back on track I would say that knowledge does not corrupt. It is how the knowledge is used that can corrupt. The use of knowledge is a field I would call wisdom. So a lack of wisdom, or a knowledge of how to properly use your knowledge, corrupts. But knowledge in and of itself does not corrupt. For instance, just because most of us know how to write computer viruses does not mean that we will. We know that is not a proper application of our knowledge and so we do not pursue it. We have the wisdom to realize that our talents and knowledge can be used to better our world instead of being used to wreak havoc on it.

**Clyde** · 06-05-2002

"Clyde, science supports a young earth, evolution demands an old earth.

.... NO, it does not.

"physics says: "given enough time and things become less complex"
evolutions says: "given enough time things become more complex"
Hmmm, gee, how about that. "

You have NO idea what you are talking about. Please do not argue from ignorance.

**novacain** · 06-05-2002

The problem with ALL religions is simple and universal.

They are all mans interpretation of the reason we are here. The scriptures (ie bible ect) were written by men, not god.

Humans are flawed. Even with the best intentions they do horrible things. ie Australias stolen generation done by well meaning Christians to 'fauna'.

Flawed humans could not possible explain the thoughts of a god powerful enough to create the universe.

We are not special enough to be that divine creation only concieted enough to think so.

(I was a strict Methodist but I saw the light in Nepal when I meet the 'Crazy baba of Singapore', now I beleive in myself. Jesus was a brave and insightful man well ahead of his time, but just a man)

**Clyde** · 06-05-2002

"I normally do not participate in these discussions but I was taken aback by a field of study being called ignorant when I and thousands of others have studied the topic of theology till our eyes fell out - much like studying math till your head explodes for computer science"

Studying religion in an objective sense is not ignorant, i was refering to religion as whole, and what it does.

"So I'm not debating about faith here, that is the reader's choice."

Faith is a joke.

"I'm just pointing out some very important logical fallacies."

Where?

" It is very hard for humans to accept multiple answers to questions because it is too hard for us to grasp them all"

Well indeed, thats why the "here are the answers on a plate, shut and believe" (Religion) seems to do so well.

"The position that I take is to always critically think through things and question every thing because I feel this is the road to understanding the world around us"

That process is correct, assuming you know how to reason. And if you do know reason and you follow your own advice, you do not end up believeing in irratonal ideas like..... God.

"Also remember that all of us here are programmers and most of us are extremely logical people"

No you are hopelessly wrong, let me tell you about "logic", people SUCK at it. Being good at computer science, means very little, being good at conventional doesn't necessarily mean much either; i'd say atleast 80% of my year have not got a clue.

Let me explain myself, there is no doubt that you need logic to program, BUT your application of that logic is within strict confines. You learn a set of rules, and you learn to apply them, as soon as you free from the context of programming those rules evaporate.

People are incredably poor at thinking outside confines, so many science students are just as bad, sure they can derive physical equations, and enterpret experimental data, but they never make the leap that the focus of their subject and the world around them are exactly the same. I know it's hard to believe, and somewhere in the back their head they most know it to be true, BUT they do not apply the reasoning they displayed in closed problems with the box is lifted.

Most science students they get through the exams using memorisation and specifically learning how to answer questions (by learning rules and how to apply them), 99% of the time they have not got a CLUE what is actually going on. They never realise that it is possible to grasp the concept, and even if they do (and believe me when I say people don't, i'm at one the top universities, the 250 people in my year got 29 points on average out of a normal max of 30, at A-Level, they all got the maximum grade possible at Chemistry, and they represent the cream of academia, and the vast majority do not have a clue.) very few make the additional leap that what they are studying and the world around them are exactly the same, the same principles apply.

So no, people are not logical.

"Anyways, I've been through many of these debates with all kinds of different people with different beliefs. In the end, really, it is simply a personal choice"

It's always a choice, but there are rational choices and irrational ones.

"Good debates do not get personal"

Attacking religion ........es people off, i know this because i 've done it so often, I went through phases we're I played as innocuous a role as possible, but I began to realise that

A: They always got ........ed off, if I pushed my points, no matter how unagressive the manner i take.

B: I got through more when I argued heatedly, I made more people think. My best friend at university, was a muslim when i met him, we argued for about two years, he HATED me with a passion for atleast year, now we're great friends and he is an atheist (for all the problems it causes him at home). I have had a huge impact on the people I know because I made them think. (I don't that kind of effect here, because message arguing is far less effective than verbal, AND the people i knew had some base knowledge to work with, like knowing that any religious text being "literally" true is a joke).

**stevey** · 06-05-2002

Originally posted by compjinx
Clyde, science supports a young earth, evolution demands an old earth.

physics says: "given enough time and things become less complex"
evolutions says: "given enough time things become more complex"
Hmmm, gee, how about that.

There is proof, according to science, that the earth cannot be 15 billion years old, in fact it can't be more than 40,000!

can you please expand on this. i'd like to see the scientific proof that the earth can't be more than 40,000 years old. thats very interesting.

**-KEN-** · 06-05-2002

>>Morons like Mike_K and Bubba? I think that they explained, pointed out, and have shown that Christians can be very wise and understanding people<<

No, I knew someone would take it as that, but let it be known I was referring to past instances.

**-KEN-** · 06-05-2002

>>No you are hopelessly wrong, let me tell you about "logic", people SUCK at it. Being good at computer science, means very little, being good at conventional doesn't necessarily mean much either; i'd say atleast 80% of my year have not got a clue.

Let me explain myself, there is no doubt that you need logic to program, BUT your application of that logic is within strict confines. You learn a set of rules, and you learn to apply them, as soon as you free from the context of programming those rules evaporate.<<

Eh, it's far too generalized to say "All people suck at logic" - sure it's hard to think outside of rules and laws set forth for you, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible.

**Clyde** · 06-05-2002

"Eh, it's far too generalized to say "All people suck at logic" - sure it's hard to think outside of rules and laws set forth for you, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible"

It's not impossible, but the vast majority of people suck at logic, or rather they suck at being able to apply logic across the board, look how many people justify their beliefs with "faith", prime example.

But no it's not impossible.

**Clyde** · 06-05-2002

"I see, through my own research, that Christianity has far more proof supporting it than any other belief in the world. That is why I believe in the probable, it is probable, and the more I study, the more I understand and find proof verafying that fact."

Your "own" research.......... riiiiight. You live in society which is predominantly christian, you probably have christian parents and you've learned christian theology, what a suprise you think Christianity is the "correct" religion, guess what tho, people who live in a predominantly mulsim society, who have muslim parents and who study mulsim theology guess what conclusion they come to.

Because these conclusions are NOT based on evidence, nor reasoning, they are due to social environment and enforced by ignorance and mal-reasoning.

**Clyde** · 06-05-2002

"can you please expand on this. i'd like to see the scientific proof that the earth can't be more than 40,000 years old. thats very interesting"

It's "interesting"...... that's one word for it, personally i go with it's "BS".

**-KEN-** · 06-05-2002

*sigh* I TRIED turning this discussion away from that damned religous iceberg and towards the friendly seas of a logic discussion, but noooo, you all have to suck at life and bring it back around.

**lightatdawn** · 06-05-2002

>>suck at life

Damnit, i just cant get the hang of this thing. Theres more rules than Microsoft has 'standards'.

>>religous iceberg

"Hard starboard!" *screeeeeeeeeech*

... Ah well... I'm away til Sunday (going surfing at Long Beach) so it looks like I'll be missing out on this one. Enjoy your iceberg, people. HINT: Find your lifeboat before the christmas rush.