3 ms·

I've been a full time dev since 2000 – 22 years. Right now I'm in training for ordained ministry in a Christian denomination. I came back into regular church w

I've been a full time dev since 2000 – 22 years. Right now I'm in training for ordained ministry in a Christian denomination. I came back into regular church worship a few years ago, and then started studying theology through my diocese and found I loved it. Now I'm close to completing a Masters of Divinity at university, and I'm in my third year of training at theological college. Software skills have been much more useful to all of this than you might think. In the church the idea of 'calling' has a particular prominence; sort of doing those things that you find rewarding, that you have the skills and aptitude for, and that also help others – God is seen to be in all of that, too. It took a while but at a certain point I just realised that while I'm really good at software, it's not the other two things for me. It's a funny thing to let it go, slowly, and if I am ordained I think it'll be my equivalent of playing with train sets in the garage. I guess what I'd take from all of this is that even in a secular sense, we're always learning about ourselves, and it's never too late to be brave and explore something new.

omginternets 5y ago
This is both cool and unusual! I have a question: did you ever get a feeling of what I can only describe as "numinous vertigo" when thinking about software systems? I sometimes get the sense that I'm peering into some basic universal structure, especially if the work has strong ties to theoretical CS or mathematics. It's as if I'm looking at something so fundamental and so meaningful that it ends being an emotional experience. At times, it's even been somewhat overpowering; it reminds me of Stendhal Syndrome in its quality [0]. Most people think it quite strange to have this kind of reaction to software, but computer science isn't really about computers in exactly the same way that geometry isn't about measuring the earth. In both cases, it feels like there's a divine essence. At any rate, I'm curious if your sense of calling in any way resembles this, or if this feeling is familiar to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome
- angrygoat 5y ago
  Awesome question. I don't have a hugely strong mathematical background (second year university in some areas, like calculus, some stats, linear algebra, but a long time ago), but I think I know what you're getting at. My answer is yes – I had a particular experience on a silent retreat which I think falls into this category. There's a 15th century text by Nicholas of Cusa that I think you might enjoy and which I think speaks to what you've raised. It's a fairly hard slog, especially if you haven't read anything similar – but I hadn't when I first read it, and I made it through. The title is De Visione Dei[0]. Cusa starts out with an Icon (a sacred image) which is omnivoyant: like the Mona Lisa, it gives the impression that it looks at each observer. Cusa builds a fairly complex mathematical argument, building on the observations of monks who process around the icon, reporting to each other their observations. From this Cusa builds a descriptive idea of the divine; but as the argument progresses, this breaks down. This, however, is not a failure – Cusa has rather wonderfully brought the scholastic, reasoned, philosophical approach into dialogue with the apophatic, negative, approach. I won't spoil the ending for you. Cusa's drawing on theology from the Western and Eastern traditions of Christianity, and also on theology from Islam. These big existential questions that fascinate me. To get a bit Kierkegaard, I think he's right in that it's what's real, it's what ought to ultimately draw our attention. One interesting thing studying theology/philosophy/... is that my working set of metaphors has somewhat switched. I used to think about everything in terms of software, and sometimes startle people; now I often think about things in terms of texts like Cusa; which also startles people :-) [0] https://jasper-hopkins.info/dialecticalmysticism.pdf https://jasper-hopkins.info/dialecticalmysticism.pdf (a reputable, scholarly translation)
  - omginternets 5y ago
    Thank you so much for this. I can already tell we're on the same wavelength, and I'm looking forward to a lazy Sunday afternoon of reading. >One interesting thing studying theology/philosophy/... is that my working set of metaphors has somewhat switched. Believe it or not, I come from a literary background (my B.A. was in literature and I switched to a STEM field afterwards) so I know exactly what you mean. There's always a tension between picking the metaphor that's most fitting and the metaphor that your audience will understand. On a related note, have you ever read Leibniz's Monadology [0]? It's an attempt at a bottom-up, constructive approach to proving the existence of God. Unsurprisingly, it fails at this task, but I've always been fascinated by how close he gets, at least on the surface. You have to think very hard to see where the proof breaks down; I had to look it up. [0] https://plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Monadology-1714-by-Gottfried-Wilhelm-LEIBNIZ-1646-1716.pdf https://plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-...
jrs235 5y ago
I'm on the brink of doing something like this! I'd love if you would reach out to me. Email in my profile.
RickJWagner 5y ago
That's a great calling. I wish your ministry great success.

omginternets 5y ago

This is both cool and unusual! I have a question: did you ever get a feeling of what I can only describe as "numinous vertigo" when thinking about software systems? I sometimes get the sense that I'm peering into some basic universal structure, especially if the work has strong ties to theoretical CS or mathematics. It's as if I'm looking at something so fundamental and so meaningful that it ends being an emotional experience. At times, it's even been somewhat overpowering; it reminds me of Stendhal Syndrome in its quality [0]. Most people think it quite strange to have this kind of reaction to software, but computer science isn't really about computers in exactly the same way that geometry isn't about measuring the earth. In both cases, it feels like there's a divine essence. At any rate, I'm curious if your sense of calling in any way resembles this, or if this feeling is familiar to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome

angrygoat 5y ago
Awesome question. I don't have a hugely strong mathematical background (second year university in some areas, like calculus, some stats, linear algebra, but a long time ago), but I think I know what you're getting at. My answer is yes – I had a particular experience on a silent retreat which I think falls into this category. There's a 15th century text by Nicholas of Cusa that I think you might enjoy and which I think speaks to what you've raised. It's a fairly hard slog, especially if you haven't read anything similar – but I hadn't when I first read it, and I made it through. The title is De Visione Dei[0]. Cusa starts out with an Icon (a sacred image) which is omnivoyant: like the Mona Lisa, it gives the impression that it looks at each observer. Cusa builds a fairly complex mathematical argument, building on the observations of monks who process around the icon, reporting to each other their observations. From this Cusa builds a descriptive idea of the divine; but as the argument progresses, this breaks down. This, however, is not a failure – Cusa has rather wonderfully brought the scholastic, reasoned, philosophical approach into dialogue with the apophatic, negative, approach. I won't spoil the ending for you. Cusa's drawing on theology from the Western and Eastern traditions of Christianity, and also on theology from Islam. These big existential questions that fascinate me. To get a bit Kierkegaard, I think he's right in that it's what's real, it's what ought to ultimately draw our attention. One interesting thing studying theology/philosophy/... is that my working set of metaphors has somewhat switched. I used to think about everything in terms of software, and sometimes startle people; now I often think about things in terms of texts like Cusa; which also startles people :-) [0] https://jasper-hopkins.info/dialecticalmysticism.pdf https://jasper-hopkins.info/dialecticalmysticism.pdf (a reputable, scholarly translation)
- omginternets 5y ago
  Thank you so much for this. I can already tell we're on the same wavelength, and I'm looking forward to a lazy Sunday afternoon of reading. >One interesting thing studying theology/philosophy/... is that my working set of metaphors has somewhat switched. Believe it or not, I come from a literary background (my B.A. was in literature and I switched to a STEM field afterwards) so I know exactly what you mean. There's always a tension between picking the metaphor that's most fitting and the metaphor that your audience will understand. On a related note, have you ever read Leibniz's Monadology [0]? It's an attempt at a bottom-up, constructive approach to proving the existence of God. Unsurprisingly, it fails at this task, but I've always been fascinated by how close he gets, at least on the surface. You have to think very hard to see where the proof breaks down; I had to look it up. [0] https://plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Monadology-1714-by-Gottfried-Wilhelm-LEIBNIZ-1646-1716.pdf https://plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-...

jrs235 5y ago

I'm on the brink of doing something like this! I'd love if you would reach out to me. Email in my profile.

RickJWagner 5y ago

That's a great calling. I wish your ministry great success.