Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Larry Wall on religion and Perl culture (1999)

techgnosis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Larry Wall on religion and Perl culture (1999)

#31

Post by stopmi »

pak wrote: post #27
stopmi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but it is relevant in the scientific community.. if you are religious/spiritual, then you have to believe some phenomena are inexplicable, as they are performed/commanded by some entity we cannot comprehend it just doesn't usually encourage the kind of inquisitive/iconoclastic/skeptical attitude that scientists need and if you are doing research, it could also result in confirmation bias why do you think it is not re…

"Why was the universe created?" Do you think science will ever answer this question? The universe as a whole is on some level inexplicable, unless we somehow manage to transcend our existence in it... Saying that a scientist's belief in God causes confirmation bias in his research results is more ad hominem and less productive criticism. Einstein believed in God, and in fact wrote extensively about the relationship h…

einstein-god relationship has been proven false repeatedly. it has stuck around because people keep mass-forwarding stuff like that..

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." from http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691023689?ie=UTF8&tag=...

and a letter in which he wrote about his disbelief was auctioned a couple of years back: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscienc...

i said "_could_ result in confirmation bias". that is, make confirmation bias more probable, not absolute..

""Why was the universe created?" Do you think science will ever answer this question?"

hopefully, some day, if we work towards it..

should we instead give up and resign ourselves to the fact that a wizard did it?

Re: Larry Wall on religion and Perl culture (1999)

#32

Post by stopmi »

rosser wrote: post #23
stopmi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but it is relevant in the scientific community.. if you are religious/spiritual, then you have to believe some phenomena are inexplicable, as they are performed/commanded by some entity we cannot comprehend it just doesn't usually encourage the kind of inquisitive/iconoclastic/skeptical attitude that scientists need and if you are doing research, it could also result in confirmation bias why do you think it is not re…

if you are religious/spiritual, then you have to believe some phenomena are inexplicable Do I? Because, if so, I'm doing it wrong.

creation-myths, souls etc.

Re: Larry Wall on religion and Perl culture (1999)

#33

Post by doorhammer »

stopmi wrote: post #19
doorhammer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never fails to amaze me how otherwise very intelligent and thoughtful people remain stuck believing that it's relevant whether or not someone believes in God. I must say I can't help feel a little less impressed with people when I learn they are condescending.

but it is relevant in the scientific community.. if you are religious/spiritual, then you have to believe some phenomena are inexplicable, as they are performed/commanded by some entity we cannot comprehend it just doesn't usually encourage the kind of inquisitive/iconoclastic/skeptical attitude that scientists need and if you are doing research, it could also result in confirmation bias why do you think it is not re…

I think it's clear why the OP comes off as sounding condescending. Just as I think it's clear why I come off as condescending in that post.

I also think the implied definition of what is religious and spiritual is pretty narrow, and seems to lend itself to monotheistic and/or abrahamic traditions. A lot of what people might say is 'spiritual' can end up being a lot more philosophical than mystical. The terms always end up being muddy, so I'm not saying that as a personal dig.

I would say that being human results in the confirmation bias. A marked understanding of it's psychological mechanism can perhaps reduce your susceptibility, but I'd need to see good research on the topic ;). It's a pretty fundamental heuristic.

I don't think the ideas of coding and Religion are by necessity parallel and intertwined. Perhaps one can draw a more distinct parallel between hard-line, rigorous Computer Science (Capital CS), and a complete inability to be 'spiritual' but I've been mostly referencing folks who show creativity in more peripheral areas, or at least in areas not directly related to Formal Research. I also think that people who are heavily involved in sciences, and still subscribe to Christianity, tend to deemphasize the parts of the bible that seem like fairy-tales, being much more liberal in cutting them out (see the bible Jefferson edited) while focusing on the interesting philosophical and ethical implications of the portions they deem more legitimate. I'm not 100% familiar with Larry Walls interpretation, but it seems pretty darn flexible.

I also don't know that a religious confirmation bias is going to translate into his coding ("My algorithm is fast. God must have made it that way"? ;)

I don't mind people disagreeing with theism, or talking about it. What I don't like is the implicit attitude, which can often be, "you believe in something other than pure hard science, and I don't, so I'm smarter."

I'm not saying that's the only version of the general sentiment, just that it's frequent enough.

But you're probably just too self-righteous to even read this inspiring post

Re: Larry Wall on religion and Perl culture (1999)

#34

Post by stopmi »

doorhammer wrote: post #18
stopmi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" and why give weight to the ramblings of the religious but not to all schizophrenics? shouldn't we give both views equal respect without calling to reason? edit: referring to the "difficult to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences/delusions/hallucinations" symptoms when i said schizophrenics

If a schizophrenic developed an elegant solution for highly efficient, commercially viable solar-panels, I'd probably listen intently to his views on semiconductors, while politely opting out of the dissertation on talking toast.

heh.. or recruiting people to jump into the lion's den at the zoo to give it a hug?

edited my parent comment to make it clearer

Re: Larry Wall on religion and Perl culture (1999)

#35

Post by pak »

stopmi wrote: post #31
pak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why was the universe created?" Do you think science will ever answer this question? The universe as a whole is on some level inexplicable, unless we somehow manage to transcend our existence in it... Saying that a scientist's belief in God causes confirmation bias in his research results is more ad hominem and less productive criticism. Einstein believed in God, and in fact wrote extensively about the relationship h…

einstein-god relationship has been proven false repeatedly. it has stuck around because people keep mass-forwarding stuff like that.. "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." from http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691023689?ie=UTF8&tag=... and a l…

I didn't say he believed in a personal god. He believed in a more abstract sort of god, one that reflected the mysteries that humans will never penetrate; he also said this concept defined his sense of being religious.

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

Re: Larry Wall on religion and Perl culture (1999)

#36

Post by mckoss »

dasil003 wrote: post #29
mckoss wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence for the way the world works is all around us. Holding onto faith in creationism and other religion-based myths is holding many people back from understanding what real evidence we have about the world. If you want to go to the extreme of arguing that using evidence as a justification for believing (or not believing) in something is an act of faith, then I don't think we can have a reasonable argument about a…

My words are carefully chosen and you're not really paying attention. > Holding onto faith in creationism and other religion-based myths is holding many people back from understanding what real evidence we have about the world. When did I say that all religion was good or that faith never caused any harm? The thesis I was arguing against was that someone who has faith or mentions god is suddenly less capable of ratio…

I don't think there is anything outside physical reality. Or, if there were, then by definition its presence would be irrelevant to anything we can practically do about it.

But I think Larry is not talking about this sort of metaphysical question. He believes, for example, that Jesus lived on earth and is the son of God. And notice how he tortures himself to simultaneously hold both a belief in evolution, and devine omnipotence. Its rather interesting to see.

Re: Larry Wall on religion and Perl culture (1999)

#37

Post by chromatic »

mckoss wrote: post #30
nostrademons wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Larry Wall said in the interview that he considers evolution to be fact. And yes, the idea of using evidence as justification is itself an act of faith. This is not that extreme a position - take a look at The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for evidence (ironic, isn't it?) of that. At some point, you have to take some basic principles as given. Otherwise, you end up with circular reasoning. The decision to slice…

His statements about having to integrate contradictions in his thinking are very interesting. I wouldn't have the patience for it. Why not just discard the single belief (held only on faith), and get rid of the contradictions in one fell swoop? I can only believe that those positions hold such a cherished part of his personally identity, that he is unable, or unwilling to do it.

Why not just discard the single belief (held only on faith), and get rid of the contradictions in one fell swoop?

For one thing, even the best philosophers and epistemologists have been unable to do so for millennia, all swell foops aside.

Re: Larry Wall on religion and Perl culture (1999)

#38

Post by prodigal_erik »

dasil003 wrote: post #10
mckoss wrote: post #3

It never fails to amaze me how otherwise very intelligent and thoughtful people remain stuck believing in God. I must say I can't help feel a little less impressed with people when I learn they are theists.

What do you think God is? Evangelical atheists want him to be a straw man poking his head of the clouds Monty-Python-style; but what if God is just a metaphor for everything greater than the reality we are capable of understanding in our tiny carbon-based brains? Do you really want to believe that the only things that matter in life are those that can be hypothesized, measured, and analyzed with physical instruments?…

It's not just a metaphor. Christians self-report believing much more specific things about God's opinions and demands.

As for me, I don't "want to believe" things. What I want is for the model in my head to match reality. To have reasons other than apparent truth for believing anything is to invite self-deception. It's hard enough to winnow out the nonsense our culture has saddled us with, without actually rooting for some of it.

Re: Larry Wall on religion and Perl culture (1999)

#39

Post by stopmi »

dasil003 wrote: post #21
stopmi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" and why give weight to the ramblings of the religious but not to all schizophrenics? shouldn't we give both views equal respect without calling to reason? edit: referring to the "difficult to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences/delusions/hallucinations" symptoms when i said schizophrenics

> "that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" Exactly! And vice versa! Who said anything about "giving weight" to "ramblings"? You are fixated on everything being about truth and facts and who's right, but that's not what I'm talking about. Maybe you don't want anything bigger than observable facts and theories based thereupon in your life, but I hope when your parents say they love you…

"You are fixated on everything being about truth and facts and who's right"

would you rather i countered an argument with untruths and lies?

what i'm trying to say is, if you are willing to give credibility to any assertion which is without proof, then you have to give an equal amount to credibility to _all_ assertions without proof

i.e, all religions equally, fairies, leprechauns, elfs, russel's teapot, a furry-god, Elvis still alive, alien-invasions and abductions, etc..

and problems arise then, if you give credibility to _all_ religions, there will be contradictions

- they have different creation stories and timelines

- multiple 'unique' prophets

- multiple 'chosen' tribe/people

etc..

Re: Larry Wall on religion and Perl culture (1999)

#40

Post by chromatic »

mckoss wrote: post #25
doorhammer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never fails to amaze me how otherwise very intelligent and thoughtful people remain stuck believing that it's relevant whether or not someone believes in God. I must say I can't help feel a little less impressed with people when I learn they are condescending.

Sorry. I didn't mean to be condescending. I meant to emphasize that I am puzzled to see people straddling high logical faculties, while choosing to disregard those abilities when it comes to some of their beliefs.

I am puzzled to see people straddling high logical faculties, while choosing to disregard those abilities when it comes to some of their beliefs.

Isn't that an a priori assumption that Larry's completely disregards his logical facilities in certain areas of his beliefs? Have you ever talked to him about what he believes and why? He might surprise you.

Post reply on HN