7 ms·

The idea of religious engineers has always been one that fascinates me.

by beefsack 12y ago

gfodor 12y ago
Even better, try biologist creationists. They exist!
- hnriot 12y ago
  I would contest that. They can be either but not both. They are either not very smart biologists or not very devout creationists. Or more likely just attention seekers.
  - a-nikolaev 12y ago
    There is a famous one, Michael Behe. Not exactly a creationist, but an intelligen design advocate. http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe edit: He has a nice paragraph on his web page: >>Official Disclaimer My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.
  - gfodor 12y ago
    Not true. I know someone who last I spoke was in graduate level cell biology and did lab work on brains at a top university, yet did not believe in evolution. In fact, I recall her citing her personal awe of the brain etc as evidence of intelligent design. Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence, the immense pressure of their peers, parents, and friends who have similar beliefs, and the underlying fear of death that motivates people to believe in an afterlife (and all the various attached beliefs from there) to allow compartmentalization of beliefs from knowledge.
    - hnriot 12y ago
      "Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence" - right, that pretty much proves my point, you friend is not a scientist.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  Your belief in pure Darwinism, 7-Day Creationism, or any theory in between, really doesn't have any impact on real-world biology or any of its applications (anatomy, physiology, medicine, agriculture, ecology, biotech, the creation of cyborg supersoldiers, etc, etc). I think real scientists are more interested in testable hypotheses about "how that thing works" than in untestable, unprovable claims about "how that thing got there".
imsofuture 12y ago
False dichotomy.
- zodraz 12y ago
  How is that a false dichotomy? I guess there's the implication that there is only religious and non-religious engineers. But isn't that a binary? I'm curious as to what other options there are.
  - imsofuture 12y ago
    I'm objecting to the implication you are either rational or religious.
  - zodraz 12y ago
    Thanks imsofuture, I didn't even pick up on that. It's plenty obvious that people can be rational in their professional life and still hold magical beliefs. It's not like software engineering has to teach good critical thinking skills.
zaphar 12y ago
I'm one. Feel free to ask me anything you want. With the caveat that I don't participate in uncivil discussions.
- pubby 12y ago
  How do you deal with all the inconsistencies between science and religion? e.g. evolution vs creationism.
  - zaphar 12y ago
    I consider most if not all those consistencies to be manufactured. Evolution vs Creationism is of course the poster child for this. The simple answer is I wasn't around for either Evolution or Creation whichever one happened so I can't give a definitive ruling either way. I happen to believe that God did some sort of creative act. What form that act took (7 days of creative work? or billions of years of guided evolution?) I can't really say. Either one is something of a miracle to my mind though. Both appear to be highly unlikely to occur, yet I and your are here having this conversation so one of them had to. I choose to believe God was the motivating force behind whichever one it was. I have one rule that I follow. My faith must be rational. If an article of faith is disprovable then I don't hold with it. That leaves a lot of room for faith though.
    - MaxDPS 12y ago
      Do you believe in the literal story of Noahs flood? As in, the whole world was covered in water?
      - zaphar 12y ago
        I can't say one way or the other. There is enough water to cover most of the earths surface if it's not tied up in ice at the poles so it's physically possible. And there is also evidence of water coverage over many parts of the earth that are not near any ocean. However the story could also be interpreted in terms of a localized flood covering all of the known earth. I do believe Noah was a literal person and I do believe there was a flood. I even like the idea of a global flood as it seems to allow one to explain some phenomena observed in Geological formations. However I'm not a Geologist so my opinions there are pretty uninformed and could just as likely be wrong.
Dewie 12y ago
That seems like a perfectly bland and normal combination. What on Earth makes it seem fascinating?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- gliese1337 12y ago
  My view on the divine intervention issue is, essentially, "God helps those who help themselves". Do as much as you can to accomplish your goals according to secular understanding, and after that it can't hurt to pray and faith, too. If I'm wrong about my faith, it might not help, but it certainly won't hurt. In the vast majority of cases, conflicts between my arational religious beliefs and rational scientific beliefs are essentially consequenceless; acting according to rational belief does not result in Sinning, so I can make practical use of scientific knowledge in my life while still gaining emotional satisfaction and sense of purpose from the belief in things that cannot be definitively proven one way or the other.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

The idea of religious engineers has always been one that fascinates me.

gfodor 12y ago

Even better, try biologist creationists. They exist!

hnriot 12y ago
I would contest that. They can be either but not both. They are either not very smart biologists or not very devout creationists. Or more likely just attention seekers.
- a-nikolaev 12y ago
  There is a famous one, Michael Behe. Not exactly a creationist, but an intelligen design advocate. http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe edit: He has a nice paragraph on his web page: >>Official Disclaimer My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.
- gfodor 12y ago
  Not true. I know someone who last I spoke was in graduate level cell biology and did lab work on brains at a top university, yet did not believe in evolution. In fact, I recall her citing her personal awe of the brain etc as evidence of intelligent design. Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence, the immense pressure of their peers, parents, and friends who have similar beliefs, and the underlying fear of death that motivates people to believe in an afterlife (and all the various attached beliefs from there) to allow compartmentalization of beliefs from knowledge.
  - hnriot 12y ago
    "Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence" - right, that pretty much proves my point, you friend is not a scientist.
joeclark77 12y ago
Your belief in pure Darwinism, 7-Day Creationism, or any theory in between, really doesn't have any impact on real-world biology or any of its applications (anatomy, physiology, medicine, agriculture, ecology, biotech, the creation of cyborg supersoldiers, etc, etc). I think real scientists are more interested in testable hypotheses about "how that thing works" than in untestable, unprovable claims about "how that thing got there".

imsofuture 12y ago

False dichotomy.

zodraz 12y ago
How is that a false dichotomy? I guess there's the implication that there is only religious and non-religious engineers. But isn't that a binary? I'm curious as to what other options there are.
- imsofuture 12y ago
  I'm objecting to the implication you are either rational or religious.
- zodraz 12y ago
  Thanks imsofuture, I didn't even pick up on that. It's plenty obvious that people can be rational in their professional life and still hold magical beliefs. It's not like software engineering has to teach good critical thinking skills.

zaphar 12y ago

I'm one. Feel free to ask me anything you want. With the caveat that I don't participate in uncivil discussions.

pubby 12y ago
How do you deal with all the inconsistencies between science and religion? e.g. evolution vs creationism.
- zaphar 12y ago
  I consider most if not all those consistencies to be manufactured. Evolution vs Creationism is of course the poster child for this. The simple answer is I wasn't around for either Evolution or Creation whichever one happened so I can't give a definitive ruling either way. I happen to believe that God did some sort of creative act. What form that act took (7 days of creative work? or billions of years of guided evolution?) I can't really say. Either one is something of a miracle to my mind though. Both appear to be highly unlikely to occur, yet I and your are here having this conversation so one of them had to. I choose to believe God was the motivating force behind whichever one it was. I have one rule that I follow. My faith must be rational. If an article of faith is disprovable then I don't hold with it. That leaves a lot of room for faith though.
  - MaxDPS 12y ago
    Do you believe in the literal story of Noahs flood? As in, the whole world was covered in water?
    - zaphar 12y ago
      I can't say one way or the other. There is enough water to cover most of the earths surface if it's not tied up in ice at the poles so it's physically possible. And there is also evidence of water coverage over many parts of the earth that are not near any ocean. However the story could also be interpreted in terms of a localized flood covering all of the known earth. I do believe Noah was a literal person and I do believe there was a flood. I even like the idea of a global flood as it seems to allow one to explain some phenomena observed in Geological formations. However I'm not a Geologist so my opinions there are pretty uninformed and could just as likely be wrong.

Dewie 12y ago

That seems like a perfectly bland and normal combination. What on Earth makes it seem fascinating?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

gliese1337 12y ago
My view on the divine intervention issue is, essentially, "God helps those who help themselves". Do as much as you can to accomplish your goals according to secular understanding, and after that it can't hurt to pray and faith, too. If I'm wrong about my faith, it might not help, but it certainly won't hurt. In the vast majority of cases, conflicts between my arational religious beliefs and rational scientific beliefs are essentially consequenceless; acting according to rational belief does not result in Sinning, so I can make practical use of scientific knowledge in my life while still gaining emotional satisfaction and sense of purpose from the belief in things that cannot be definitively proven one way or the other.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]