Religion and Engineers

[benbo]

Again, this is you adding value to what I said that wasn't there. I never said religious people couldn't do their jobs. I'm sure you are aware that Faraday's reference frame is much different than ours. He also came from a time/place that disenfranchised people and had debtors prison, perhaps we should also adopt those beliefs as well?

As far as arrogance, your arrogance is with regard to the superiority of your belief or non-belief system, not with whether you are a superior engineer.

Obviously, many people here inferred from your post that you were implying religious engineers couldn't adequately perform their jobs. That was what I inferred. And all this stuff about debtors prison, I don't know what that has to do with anything. THere were believing engineers then, there are believing engineers now.

I believe you implied that religious people could not be good scientists or engineers because their "superstition" would get in the way of logic. I am saying that obviously there is an exception to the rule because Faraday and many others were able to separate those beliefs. What difference does it make that people were disenfranchised? I completely don't understand that point. And it is the same now, at least in some cases, because I have been working as an engineer for many years, as have many of the people posting here. THese are people who perform complicated successful design, have patents to their names, and are well regarded in their profession. My bosses seem to understand that I can do my job fine, for some reason it doesn't matter to them what I believe.

I am not saying there are not universal laws. I am just saying that man does not yet, nor will he probably ever, understand all the nuances and exceptions to those laws.

I'm done, I wish I never got started in this discussion. It is completely pointless.

 

[EM_PS]

Ssmith -

I accept the fact that you do not accept a theistic hypothesis in your walk of life. I cannot understand why you seek then to try to explain accounts from the Bible without predication of the theistic hypothesis of which the book is based on.

I can accept your point of view and in so doing, i would (stochastically speaking) accept the null hypothesis; that is that there is no, nor ever has been, a God. In accepting this null hypothesis, i discount the whole of organized religion & all texts therein. I would not, could not, trip up on trying to explain passages from a book of which i don't even believe in.

Obviously, i accept the theistic hypothesis, reject the null hypothesis, and in so doing am comfortable in the accounts and passages contained in the Bible. My point is that trying to explain the accounts of biblical text without accepting the theistic hypothesis (there IS a God) is "striving after wind" as Solomon put it.

Its fine, your beliefs - you've demonstrated a persistent narrowminded approach to analyzing a situation. you refuse to accept the only hypothesis that can support the situation, yet point to those who do accept it as being questionable in their vocations; when in fact you've spotlighted yourself as being limited & judgemental in your approach to problem solving.

 

[maryannette]

I'm done, I wish I never got started in this discussion. It is completely pointless.

I'm absolutely sure it was not pointless. :th_rockon:

 

[mudpuppy]

Arrogant, boorish, narrow-minded, infantile, judgmental. Just some of the words that caught my eye as I skimmed through this thread.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Arrogant, boorish, narrow-minded, infantile, judgmental. Just some of the words that caught my eye as I skimmed through this thread.

Yeah, I really wish it was possible to have a civil discussion about religion, but it is just such a passionate topic for people (either for or against) that it almost always degrades into name calling before any meaningful discussion can take place.

 

[benbo]

Yeah, I really wish it was possible to have a civil discussion about religion, but it is just such a passionate topic for people (either for or against) that it almost always degrades into name calling before any meaningful discussion can take place.

I must be different than most people (well, I am pretty sure that's true). I find those words pretty tame, and this discussion fairly reasonable and interesting on both sides. Especially compared to some stuff I've read.

And that's even after being accused of abandoning my sanity.

 

[EM_PS]

Yeah, I really wish it was possible to have a civil discussion about religion, but it is just such a passionate topic for people (either for or against) that it almost always degrades into name calling before any meaningful discussion can take place.

i tried, Lord knows i kept it friendly on my end for purpose of civil discourse. . .dude wouldn't drop the implication that being religious somehow precludes one from being a worthy engineer, nor can he seem to get a grip on the fact that there are of a surety powers out there far greater than we can comprehend in our current state of 'knowing'. dude's got all the answers apparently.

- so much for the exhaustive analysis of possible explanations & hypotheses an engineer typically brings to the table - hello narrowminded, inside-the-box way of thinking .

 

[SSmith]

Ive been out doing family stuff the past few hours (about to go back out again); but judging from the tenor of the last few posts, it sounds like the point-counterpoint discussion has ended. It was a good run while it lasted, but maybe its time to close the thread? Can I get a second?

 

[Flyer_PE]

For whatever reason, the following joke by Emo Phillips is what runs through my head any time the subject of religion comes up:

* I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said,
"Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

"Well, there is so much to live for."

"Like what?"

"Well, are you religious?"

He said yes.

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow, me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915."

I said, "Die, heretic," and pushed him off.

 

[maryannette]

... maybe its time to close the thread? Can I get a second?

It will just go back into the archives and somebody will drag it back up in the future. And, I expect I will still be here offering my illogical, undefendable witness.

God bless us.

 

[benbo]

Can I get a second?

Amen.

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Ive been out doing family stuff the past few hours (about to go back out again); but judging from the tenor of the last few posts, it sounds like the point-counterpoint discussion has ended. It was a good run while it lasted, but maybe its time to close the thread? Can I get a second?

This thread died a fairly quick death the first time, then got drug up again a few days ago. I still think it's fun to discuss, even if it can't remain civil for more than a few hours at at time.

 

[SSmith]

Amen.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

When you throw a hanging changing-up high and over the center of home plate, you got to expect the batter to swing away.

 

[EM_PS]

This thread died a fairly quick death the first time, then got drug up again a few days ago. I still think it's fun to discuss, even if it can't remain civil for more than a few hours at at time.

Yeah, was surprised to see this thing get legs right during the New Year's holiday as it did - and it was fun. . .but I think Ssmith musta just been trollin' for his own chuckles on this one - he throws out statements like:

When we are talking amongst those who build our nation's bridges, design our city's buildings, electrical and road infrastructure, that engineer our nation's defense, it bothers me greatly that there is a part of them that puts reason and sanity aside for whatever reason.

and

This is exactly the reason I can't understand how someone can be a good engineer and be religious.

in an engineering forum in which he knows full well he's offending a significant percentage of the members here. When opinions are overly prejudiced, biased, ignorant, or based on refusal to accept or consider explanations or hypotheses outside of one's comfort margin, inflammatory commentary maybe should be held in check, as it certainly contributes nothing gainful to the conversation as a whole.

two things are definitively certain throughout all of history:

1.) You cannot prove the existence of God.

2.) You cannot disprove the existence of God.

no camp is less sane or reasonable than the other, in my book anyways - clearly isn't the case w/ all enquirers

 

[maryannette]

When you throw a hanging changing-up high and over the center of home plate, you got to expect the batter to swing away.

And, I think in heaven, I'll be able to knock that one out of the park.

 

[mudpuppy]

he knows full well he's offending a significant percentage of the members here. When opinions are overly prejudiced, biased, ignorant, or based on refusal to accept or consider explanations or hypotheses outside of one's comfort margin, inflammatory commentary maybe should be held in check, as it certainly contributes nothing gainful to the conversation as a whole.

That would rule out a huge number of posts on this board. Just because some or most of the members find something offensive doesn't mean it should be censored. Heck, I find most of DVINNY's political propaganda and Chucktown's bailout rants to be offensive, but I just ignore them. I'm sure I could argue they are overly biased, ignorant or prejudiced but they represent the opinions of intelligent colleagues that I respect and I don't feel they should be censored.

 

[Chucktown PE]

That would rule out a huge number of posts on this board. Just because some or most of the members find something offensive doesn't mean it should be censored. Heck, I find most of DVINNY's political propaganda and Chucktown's bailout rants to be offensive, but I just ignore them. I'm sure I could argue they are overly biased, ignorant or prejudiced but they represent the opinions of intelligent colleagues that I respect and I don't feel they should be censored.

Chucktown got a shout out as an intelligent colleague. Hey Oh. I thought I was both unreasonable and insane after yesterday.

arty-smiley-048:

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Chucktown got a shout out as an intelligent colleague. Hey Oh. I thought I was both unreasonable and insane after yesterday.
arty-smiley-048:

That still may be true...just not because of your religious beliefs.

 

[EM_PS]

That would rule out a huge number of posts on this board. Just because some or most of the members find something offensive doesn't mean it should be censored. Heck, I find most of DVINNY's political propaganda and Chucktown's bailout rants to be offensive, but I just ignore them. I'm sure I could argue they are overly biased, ignorant or prejudiced but they represent the opinions of intelligent colleagues that I respect and I don't feel they should be censored.

Yeah, i get that, and no where did i suggest or condone censoring. . .my suggestion was to not be deliberately inflammatory so discussion doesn't go off-kilter, as it clearly did. And none of your examples carried the implication that those w/ opinions counter to said examples were somehow not worthy engineers (this is an engineering forum, right?) as Ssmith has done. He leaps to a kneejerk assessment based upon no credible, tangible data about peers he knows next to nothing about? This guy is really a professional engineer representing safety & welfare of the public at large? With those inductive reasoning "skills"? Yikes!

I don't know if Ssmith was intending to be deliberately incendiary by throwing those barbed comments in there, as GT_ME or T-McK has, or if he truly was just coarsely & bluntly speaking his opinion, devoid of credible data as it may be. Whatev, i've said my piece on this - there are no grudges here

 

[SSmith]

if he truly was just coarsely & bluntly speaking his opinion, devoid of credible data as it may be. Whatev, i've said my piece on this - there are no grudges here

You guys have fun continuing to pat each other on the back.

But if you honestly with a straight face believe that it is both sane and rational to think that a man walked on water, then more power to you. I don't and will continue to not understand how any engineer could. If you honestly believe that is is both sane and rational to believe that 2 loaves of bread divided amongst 5000 people some number greater than 2 loves of bread, then more power to you. I don't and will continue to not understand how any engineer could.

You can call that coarse, blunt, or lacking 'data' (whatever that means in this context), but the burden of proof that those things occurred lies on those making the claim that they happened. And to that end, the missing credible data does not lie on this end.

This guy is really a professional engineer representing safety & welfare of the public at large? With those inductive reasoning "skills"? Yikes!

Isn't this exactly the same argument I posed, in reverse? Interesting...