Living Out in Faith
henryzoo.com
Living Out in Faith
1–10 of 11 posts
Re: Living Out in Faith
#2There's a lot of revelation from the author in this post, but I suspect not all of it intentional.
Consider the claim:
> I started out in open source like a lot of us: wanting to get my name on a commit and counting on "getting" something out of it.
I can't find any good research on this area, but anecdata from a few decades dabbling in various free software communities suggest a) this isn't the primary motivation for most, and b) there's an inverse correlation between free software contributions and religiosity. (With the second, most of my experience has been in more secular societies - it may well be skewed differently through Asia and USA.)
Re: Living Out in Faith
#3The problem with faith is that there is nothing you can't believe based on it, no matter how incredible, supernatural, or unproven it is.
Faith is not a reliable path to truth.
Re: Living Out in Faith
#4Henry here, didn't expect this post to ever be on HN heh!
The podcast is a 10 episode series (pre-recorded it over the last 5 months) with my friend Nadia (who isn't religious)
I'm writing up a post about making it from scratch (never made a podcast before) and will post it soon as well!
Re: Living Out in Faith
#5The problem with faith is that there is nothing you can't believe based on it, no matter how incredible, supernatural, or unproven it is. Faith is not a reliable path to truth.
The definition I’ve been given of faith is that is is a “belief which is acted upon”. To “have faith” is then to believe something and act accordingly. Taken out of a religious context it’s clear that in order accomplish anything in life you must first believe in something and then act upon it.
Under this definition, faith can be a path (or perhaps the only path) to new or prevoiusly undiscovered truth. For example to prove P = NP (or P != NP) one must first believe that such a proof exists and then act on that belief in search of a proof.
You are right though in that it’s a stretch to call faith a “reliable” source of truth. For every truth that is believed and acted upon there are far more falsehoods to believe and act upon, some of which are really popular.
Re: Living Out in Faith
#6There's a lot of revelation from the author in this post, but I suspect not all of it intentional. Consider the claim: > I started out in open source like a lot of us: wanting to get my name on a commit and counting on "getting" something out of it. I can't find any good research on this area, but anecdata from a few decades dabbling in various free software communities suggest a) this isn't the primary motivation fo…
>there's an inverse correlation between free software contributions and religiosity
I'm curious where this comes from. Seems like there could be a lot of confounding factors. Anecdotally as well, I would speculate that religion among developers as a pool is smaller than it is in the general population (based on the sorts of personalities that tend to gravitate towards religion and those towards software development). However, of that portion I would be surprised if there was an actual inverse correlation.
Re: Living Out in Faith
#7Henry here, didn't expect this post to ever be on HN heh! The podcast is a 10 episode series (pre-recorded it over the last 5 months) with my friend Nadia (who isn't religious) I'm writing up a post about making it from scratch (never made a podcast before) and will post it soon as well!
Hey Henry, cool concept for a podcast. I'm also a Christian who started with commercial development and now is pushing more for open source (even got permission to open-source some of my employer's backend tech as a "20% project", which'll be exciting to release when it's ready).
Religiously, growing up in an evangelical setting, I didn't see that as a very effective way of reaching people (as you say, you're not going to convince people via argument), but I do believe in evangelism through actions. My close coworkers know my faith because they've noticed things and asked questions and I explained. And I find I take this stance with open-source as well. Talking about open-source being great is one thing, but actually putting it into practice is something else.
I'll definitely be listening to and sharing your podcast.
Re: Living Out in Faith
#8The problem with faith is that there is nothing you can't believe based on it, no matter how incredible, supernatural, or unproven it is. Faith is not a reliable path to truth.
The definition I’ve been given of faith is that is is a “belief which is acted upon”. To “have faith” is then to believe something and act accordingly. Taken out of a religious context it’s clear that in order accomplish anything in life you must first believe in something and then act upon it. Under this definition, faith can be a path (or perhaps the only path) to new or prevoiusly undiscovered truth. For example t…
To me, faith is the reason people give when they don't have a good reason for believing in something.
Re: Living Out in Faith
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The definition I’ve been given of faith is that is is a “belief which is acted upon”. To “have faith” is then to believe something and act accordingly. Taken out of a religious context it’s clear that in order accomplish anything in life you must first believe in something and then act upon it. Under this definition, faith can be a path (or perhaps the only path) to new or prevoiusly undiscovered truth. For example t…
To me, faith is the reason people give when they don't have a good reason for believing in something.
Aren’t belief and non belief two sides of the same coin? One fan believes his sports team will win, and another thinks they’ll lose. One person believes there is a Creator, and another believes there is no creator.
Re: Living Out in Faith
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, faith is the reason people give when they don't have a good reason for believing in something.
Aren’t belief and non belief two sides of the same coin? One fan believes his sports team will win, and another thinks they’ll lose. One person believes there is a Creator, and another believes there is no creator.
That's an argument to false equivalency.
As a non-religious person, I simply have no belief in the concept of a creator, nor any other supposed supernatural concept. I also don't have a belief that there isn't a creator, nor in any sort of "atheist doctrine" or "atheist gospel". I'm a non-believer, in other words.
Religion simply isn't a part of my life or world-view, other than as a mild curiosity and fanciful concept for stories and legend.
What I do do is put my trust in the scientific method and falsifiable proof, which doesn't require belief to work. And I adjust my world-view according to the findings and proof presented, so it's not set in stone. Obviously I don't just do that blindly, it does require convincing proof. Bigger claims need bigger proofs.