Religion and Engineers

[EM_PS]

See that's exactly the point. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not with those who are saying it doesn't make sense.
If I said I could fly, you would naturally say "prove it!" You would throw the BS flag with such a quickness if I just responded by saying "well you can't prove that I can't fly."

Hmm, i see your point - but typ, the burden of proof actually lies with those who challenge what has been written & recorded historically from the dawn of civilized time, and what whole cultures & societies practice & believe in. Imagine if things were the other way around - organized religion as we know it never existed; no Bible, Torah, Quran, etc. Then along comes a group who begin to talk about the existence of a divine creator. Who does the burden of proof lie with then? Why would it be any different for nonbelievers trying to 'debunk' the existence of God, despite 1000's of years of written texts and cultural history? You're basing your argument strictly on what you know of science, phyics, and engineering today. . .does that mean 1000's of years of history was all just convenient myth & legend? where then is your proof. . .

 

[SSmith]

Why would it be any different for nonbelievers trying to 'debunk' the existence of God, despite 1000's of years of written texts and cultural history? You're basing your argument strictly on what you know of science, phyics, and engineering today. . .does that mean 1000's of years of history was all just convenient myth & legend?

So if I write it down that I can fly and repeat it through my family for generations to the point that I'm given the nickname "Flying Smitty", that means I could actually fly? Absolutely not. Regardless of the degree of acceptance of the falsehood, it doesn't change the fact that it never occurred. The ones making the claim that "Flying Smitty" actually flew have to prove that it indeed occurred.

The very same rules apply here. Except for when its inconvenient to apply them.

 

[EM_PS]

So if I write it down that I can fly and repeat it through my family for generations to the point that I'm given the nickname "Flying Smitty", that means I could actually fly? Absolutely not. Regardless of the degree of acceptance of the falsehood, it doesn't change the fact that it never occurred. The ones making the claim that "Flying Smitty" actually flew have to prove that it indeed occurred.
The very same rules apply here. Except for when its inconvenient to apply them.

Its complicated. Belief in God (or a divine creator if you will) doesn't mean blanket acceptance or belief in all things irrational. I believe in God. i believe a man named Jesus Christ walked this earth & I believe he was truly man, truly God. I believe in a non-literal interpretation of the bible & have faith in the accounts contained within it. I do not believe you could fly, or any man could walk on water, or part the seas, turn rivers to blood, etc outside of that which has been chronicled in the Bible. Is God alive & well today? I hope so. . .could modern day Peters & Moses truly be performing similar miracles through the power of the Lord? I don't know. . . i think i'd be in your camp, and want somebody to "show me". Something happened significantly enough way back in the annals of time for these 'legendary stories' to be recorded thru time. . .i would think if something similar today occured, the evidence or proof of it would be at least as signicant(?)

I dunno. . .time to watch a movie & wait for midnite - this thread is fun

take er easy, Flying Smitty :beerchug: see ya in the New Year!

 

[Chucktown PE]

So how did man walk on water if you don't put Newtonian physics aside? Asked a different way--when do you decide to put Newtonian physics aside to create a situation where man walking on water aligns with something different than what is empirically true?

Name calling now? Anyways--Arrogant? Probably not. Vocal? Most definitely.

It's very convenient how you take one or two comments in a post out of context and then try to use that against whoever posted it. I said I don't put Newtonian physics aside when I'm designing a wastewater plant. And there are some things I can't explain which is where faith comes in. And yes, you are arrogant (which isn't name calling) to believe that some how you are the arbiter of who is or is not a good engineer based on their person spritual beliefs.

 

[maryannette]

Since miracles have been mentioned, I thought I would share what I consider a miracle.

A friend, JB, who was in his early 50's at the time, had a routine check-up and was scheduled for a colonoscopy. Routine. That's all. Well, during the colonoscopy, the doctor found a growth in JB's intestine. Further tests revealed that JB had a large malignant growth in his abdomen which could not be totally removed because it was wrapped around intestines and organs. Surgery was done to remove as much of the tumor as possible and a section of his colon. After the surgery, we found out that the doctor's diagnosis was stage 4 colon cancer which had metastisized to pancreas, liver, and lymph system. This meant that JB would probably not live a year. He went through 2 rounds of chemo and a second surgery and is now 100% cancer-free. He got past the 5-year mark.

I know that science is advancing medical treatments. My way of looking at it is that science has to evolve to keep up with what God can do. There are new scientific theories all the time. So, where is the limit for science? When circumstnaces exceed what science can explain, what then?

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Since miracles have been mentioned, I thought I would share what I consider a miracle.
A friend, JB, who was in his early 50's at the time, had a routine check-up and was scheduled for a colonoscopy. Routine. That's all. Well, during the colonoscopy, the doctor found a growth in JB's intestine. Further tests revealed that JB had a large malignant growth in his abdomen which could not be totally removed because it was wrapped around intestines and organs. Surgery was done to remove as much of the tumor as possible and a section of his colon. After the surgery, we found out that the doctor's diagnosis was stage 4 colon cancer which had metastisized to pancreas, liver, and lymph system. This meant that JB would probably not live a year. He went through 2 rounds of chemo and a second surgery and is now 100% cancer-free. He got past the 5-year mark.

I know that science is advancing medical treatments. My way of looking at it is that science has to evolve to keep up with what God can do. There are new scientific theories all the time. So, where is the limit for science? When circumstnaces exceed what science can explain, what then?

That's the great thing about science, it can explain a lot of nature, and fix a lot of problems. Cancer treatment has made fairly recent advancements in our society, so it may still seem like a miracle to people that cancer can be cured. In 100 years, it will probably be as exciting as putting neosporin on a cut to make it heal faster. For an example of this, see Ra, the sun god to the ancient Egyptians. Ra was used to explain the rising and setting of the sun every day because people hadn't discovered the rotation of the planet yet. Now it seems ridiculous to believe that a deity hauls the sun into the sky in his barge every day.

What if doctors had simply just prayed for JB to get better? Do you think that simple faith in God would have saved his life without the two surgeries and chemotherapy? I think the increase in life expectancy from, say, 100 years ago proves that advances in science and medicine have proven to be more useful than faith in God.

 

[SSmith]

It's very convenient how you take one or two comments in a post out of context and then try to use that against whoever posted it.

Most people would say responding to comments provided by another with a different perspective is called a discussion. If you don't want to be a part of that discussion, then you probably shouldn't throw your comments into said discussion. But it is certainly not a fault for those that choose to participate in that discussion.

I said I don't put Newtonian physics aside when I'm designing a wastewater plant. And there are some things I can't explain which is where faith comes in.

That was why I asked where you draw the line between where Newtonian Physics applies and where it doesn't. Very much in context of how you used it.

And yes, you are arrogant (which isn't name calling) to believe that some how you are the arbiter of who is or is not a good engineer based on their person spritual beliefs.

Again, this is you adding value where I have not. We are all arbiters of what makes an engineer "good" or "bad" as that gauge is as personal as the sum of our experiences to that point in time. I am simply expressing my perspective on the matter as it relates to the discussion at hand.

If you can't see how calling someone arrogant is calling them a name, then .

 

[Chucktown PE]

Most people would say responding to comments provided by another with a different perspective is called a discussion. If you don't want to be a part of that discussion, then you probably shouldn't throw your comments into said discussion. But it is certainly not a fault for those that choose to participate in that discussion.

That was why I asked where you draw the line between where Newtonian Physics applies and where it doesn't. Very much in context of how you used it.

Again, this is you adding value where I have not. We are all arbiters of what makes an engineer "good" or "bad" as that gauge is as personal as the sum of our experiences to that point in time. I am simply expressing my perspective on the matter as it relates to the discussion at hand.

If you can't see how calling someone arrogant is calling them a name, then .

I don't have a problem if you comment on my post as a whole, it's taking one half of one sentence and then trying to use that to contradict something else I wrote is what I have a problem with. That is the definition of taking something out of context.

And we are not all arbiters of what makes an engineer "good" or "bad". There are State boards established for that so until you find yourself in one of those seats, or there are laws on the books that say you can't sit for the PE unless you profess to be agnostic I'd say you can keep your opinion that some of us aren't good engineers because we believe in a God to yourself. And once again, it is very arrogant for you to think you can judge the quality of some of our work that you have never seen based on whether or not we do or do not believe in God.

I have explained the Newtonian physics issue well enough. If you don't understand where I draw the line then it seems to me you are being purposely combative.

 

[EM_PS]

Happy 2009!

Literal intreptation of the bible leads down no path of beneficial consequence. Remember the Hebrew origins & authors of the bible.

Throughout the centuries, the christian church has been influenced by Greek thought, which packages "truth" in propositions with which we can argue, agree or disagree - Two common examples:
1. The bible was dictated by God to the writers and is therefore inerrant. By using reason, we can deduce fundamental propositions which must be accepted:

- doctrines that we must believe.

- moral laws that we must obey.

- steps of the way of salvation that we must experience.

2. The Bible is a fallible human book. However, by using reason to get behind primitive and legendary material, we can find eternal truths valid for all time such as:

- God is the father of all humanity.

- All humans are brothers and sisters.

- All should follow the Golden Rule.

Both above ways of viewing the bible are Greek because both understand truth to be contained in propositions deduced by logical thought.

In contrast the Hebrew way of thinking is that truth manifests in an event, a story, or an encounter through which God addresses us. In other words, the Bible was not intended to deliver packages for religious propositions but as hearing events - stories which would break into the hearts of the people, demanding and creating change. In that sense, we do not find God; He find us through the truth manifestation as the Hebrews believed, which was a passionate, invoking, calling, begging, confronting appeal to us from God, which is the Word contained in the Holy Bible. It is more about the reaching of us (by God) through the Bible than about what the Bible teaches us or society as a whole.

FWIW, Lutheran teaching defends Hebrew thought over Greek thought.

 

[chaosiscash]

SSmith,

As far as the "using or setting aside of Newtonian Physics to do design work" argument goes, I can tell you how I look at it.

Two of my most basic beliefs (which I realize some may not agree with, but I'm telling you what I believe) are:

1. There is a God.

2. I'm not him.

Just because I believe that God has the ability (Omnipotence is one of the basic tenants of many organized religions, Christian in my example) to suspend the laws of physics in order to accomplish His will, doesn't mean I think I have the same power.

Basically, I believe that God, as an all-powerful entity, has the ability to accomplish the miracles that you pointed out (feeding of the 5000, walking on water, etc) as well as anything else that is part of His plan. I don't believe I have these powers, so when I design a facility, I stick with the rules.

I understand you don't believe the way I do, and thats fine by me. I think everyone has the right to believe what they want. I also realize that you probably disagree with item 1 of my beliefs above, and will require "proof" of it. All I can say to that is, a person either has faith, and understands what that means, or they don't. If you have any more questions about faith and my personal beliefs, feel free to PM me, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

However, while I encourage your questioning attitude and fully support your right not to believe, I do take offense to your statements that imply that only nonreligious engineers are competent in their jobs. To me, thats similar to saying that a persons ability to perform their engineering job safely or competantly is dependant on their race or sex. I just don't believe those factors apply to a person's job skills. I'm no GT_ME, but I'd be happy to compare my ability to perform my job with a group of random nonreligious engineers. I'd be willing to bet that I would perform worse than some, and better than some. Just as I feel that if you compared 1 random nonreligious engineer to a group of random religious engineers, that individual would also fall somewhere in the middle. I just don't see how one's religious beliefs (or race, sex, etc for that matter) impacts their ablility to do their job competantly.

Good luck in your search for information. I hope you at least see the position I am coming from, even if you don't agree with it. I definately understand how it would be hard (if not impossible) for one without faith to understand miracles. I just don't understand why you think it applys to one's job performance.

 

[benbo]

It is hilarious that atheists cannot understand how believers can separate their belief in a God or creative force in the universe, from using the laws and theories of physics. Most believers attribute the creation of those laws to the supreme being.

The originator of the Big Bang theory was a Roman Catholic priest. Even Einstein, although he did not believe in a personal religious God, was probably a deist, and at least an agnostic. Likewise, Faraday and Pastuer, and numerous other scientists in history held beliefs in a creative God. Most of the framers of the Constitution were at least deists, and I don't believe they threw reason and sanity out the window in the performance of the duties of their daily life.

I can certainly understand rejection of organized religion, although, although i am a practitioner of one. I can also understand the notion of agnosticism - actually, I waiver between belief and agnosticism myself. But a confirmed atheist is relying on faith and belief just as much as anyone else. And a person who ridicules any possibliity of the existence of God must certainly be confirmed in their belief of His non-existence.

And the term "arrogance" is no more pejorative than the term "superstition."

 

[SSmith]

It is hilarious that atheists cannot understand how believers can separate their belief in a God or creative force in the universe, from using the laws and theories of physics. Most believers attribute the creation of those laws to the supreme being.

So if the laws sometime apply or if your God is able to turn them off, doesn't that mean they aren't laws then? All it takes is 1 point of data to disprove a physical law as they represent the sum of human existence knowledge for that specific phenomena. So if man did walk on water, then the scientific law (Archimedes' principle in this case) is not a law. Belief that laws sometime don't apply necessarily means (albeit weakly) that laws aren't laws at all. This is exactly the reason I can't understand how someone can be a good engineer and be religious.

And the term "arrogance" is no more pejorative than the term "superstition."

The word applies aptly. Superstition: an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear.

 

[benbo]

So if the laws sometime apply or if your God is able to turn them off, doesn't that mean they aren't laws then? All it takes is 1 point of data to disprove a physical law as they represent the sum of human existence knowledge for that specific phenomena. So if man did walk on water, then the scientific law (Archimedes' principle in this case) is not a law. Belief that laws sometime don't apply necessarily means (albeit weakly) that laws aren't laws at all. This is exactly the reason I can't understand how someone can be a good engineer and be religious.

The word applies aptly. Superstition: an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear.

Arrogant also applies to you. def. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others.

You obviously believe your "logical" way of thinking is superior to others.

Like most atheists, you tend to infantilize religious arguments, reducing them to things like faith healing. And if you think that the current "laws" of science explain every phenomenon in the universe and will explain every phenomenon in the universe that will arise, then you are far more of a "believer" than me. And you have disregardd the history of physics, as somebody tried to explain to you. If you think Mr. Newton's "laws" apply in every referecne frame, as they did in his time, perhaps someone should introduce you to Mr. Einstein. "Logical" people now know that these "laws" only apply in certain inertial reference frames, but that knowledge is fairly recent historicaly. Did the knowlege of relativistic exceptions to Newton's laws, negate them in whole (as you state here)? Not as far as I know.

People can separate their beliefs in miraculous events which fall outside the norms of our intertial refernce frame, with the use of laws and theories in their daily lives. You either simply cannot or will not understand this, so it is pointless to argue it.

Then you insult people by saying they cannot do their jobs because they beliveve, although countless creative and briliant people through history have believed. I'm sure your contributions doing whatever it is you do far exceed those of people such as Faraday.

 

[EM_PS]

So if the laws sometime apply or if your God is able to turn them off, doesn't that mean they aren't laws then? All it takes is 1 point of data to disprove a physical law as they represent the sum of human existence knowledge for that specific phenomena. So if man did walk on water, then the scientific law (Archimedes' principle in this case) is not a law. Belief that laws sometime don't apply necessarily means (albeit weakly) that laws aren't laws at all. This is exactly the reason I can't understand how someone can be a good engineer and be religious.

The word applies aptly. Superstition: an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear.

Who / what created all things as we know them to exist? Not Archimedes. . .not Newton. . . Einstein. . . Heisenberg etc etc - If a deity created the heavens & earth, why why why can't you wrap your head around said deity having the ability to manipulate the very universe & all "laws" of whatever science as we know them to exist?

Who made law? Who calls them law? Mankind, right? Does mankind know all things? I certainly hope you don't think that you & everything you know in your little sphere of existence in this grand universe we live in is the be all, end all limit of all things worth knowing. It is now you sir, who alarms me in your ability to be a good engineer when you try to explain the things you speak of WITHOUT the existence of deisitic or theistic hypothesis. You are coming across as boorish & incredibly narrowminded when you discount the idea of a grand architect, yet try to solicit explainable solutions to the stories that are based on a deity. Far greater men than you have accepted or adopted ideas of deism & theism. . .your absolute steadfast refusal to even consider these things in my mind makes you far less worthy of the type of mind I would want representing the health & welfare of society at large.

 

[maryannette]

I will just say, God bless all of you. I mean no disrespect or harm to anyone, but I am a Christian and I'm pretty sure that a discussion will not change that. I'm also pretty sure that it will not convert anyone who does not want to be a Christian. I still hope God blesses you.

Happy New Year!!!

 

[benbo]

I will just say, God bless all of you. I mean no disrespect or harm to anyone, but I am a Christian and I'm pretty sure that a discussion will not change that. I'm also pretty sure that it will not convert anyone who does not want to be a Christian. I still hope God blesses you.
Happy New Year!!!

Agreed Mary. I don't think I could ever change anybody's mind. And I frankly don't care. I do not believe that in general people can be "convinced" into or out of religious faith. I just don't dig it when atheists insult huge groups of people saying they cannot do their jobs because they are religious. I believe historical facts prove this to be completely invalid.

 

[maryannette]

Agreed Mary. I don't think I could ever change anybody's mind. And I frankly don't care. I do not believe that in general people can be "convinced" into or out of religious faith. I just don't dig it when atheists insult huge groups of people saying they cannot do their jobs because they are religious. I believe historical facts prove this to be completely invalid.

I agree with you, benbo, but I guess it doesn't bother me as much. I don't get mad, I just forgive them ... and pray for them.

 

[benbo]

I agree with you, benbo, but I guess it doesn't bother me as much. I don't get mad, I just forgive them ... and pray for them.

I know. I've got to work on that. One resolution blown already! :brickwall:

 

[Dark Knight]

It has been my MO not to stick my faith or beliefs to others. You...me... WE... have free will and that means you can believe whatever we want. I heard someone saying once that people hide after religion, faith or whatever you want to call it, to give themselves hope because they are just losers. They think that God will come down of his throne and make a miracle to fix their pathethic lives.

I do not believe that. I choose to have faith no matter what. Reasons? I just want to and that is the way I have raised my kids. For years I have heard the way my In Laws compare my kids with their other grandkids, specially my FIL(a person that I love since he trully is a father to me). They have pointed to the social life of their other grandkids and how much fun they have. They say that my kids are shy, antisocial etc.

My kids, I realize, are not what you would call tipical kids. They are very close to us and have only few friends. They will prefer to spend their free time in family than going out with their friends, which they do every now and then. We, actually, encourage them to go out since we know their friends and their families.If you check my oldest son's I-Pod 90% of the songs are Christian songs. Him, by his own choice(we do not attend any church) decided to surround himself with Christian friends. His social group in college is the Christian Group. Again, him, the antisocial childish kid(he has been called like that by his Grandpa) decided to be that way in contrast of my FIL's oldest Grandson, who goes out with his friends in boats, hangs out in Pubs for Christmas and New Year Eve and is with beautiful girls all the time. I have seen his pics in MySpace ad Facebook.

Not so long ago my BIL had to go and pick up his son at the Police Station. He was drunk and coming back from a Pub totalled his Dad's SUV. It was a miracle, and I mean it, he was not injured. The only reason he walked away of the incident without DUI charges was because no one was injured, the only damaged property was my BIL's SUV, and the police officer's Dad is a detective and neighbor on the exclusive sub-division my BIL lives. I will take my shy, antisocial and childish behavior of my kids anytime better than having to go to pcuk up any of them at a police station or at a hospital because they were wasted with their friends. My In Laws can keep comparing them and saying how much better the others are over my kids. I don't give a hoot about it.

You might think is irrelevant but I bring this because there are different behaviors based on different beliefs here. Again, you can believe whatever you want but, as it was written in Joshua's, me and my house will serve the Lord. I respect what other people believe, even if it is not the same thing I do believe. But, I am convinced, there is a God. There are people that go to church because the fish and the bread. They think that going to church is a shield against bad things an they will become wealthy and will never suffer in life. Good Luck with that if you are in that group.

Did I see the Red Sea splitting?....Nope. But I believe it happened.

Did I see Jesus walking on water?...Nope. But I believe it happened

Did I see an empy tomb?...Nope. But I know is empty because he raised.

Can anyone see the electric current? Nope. But go and stick a fork inside an electric outlet. I can guarantee...you are going to feel it.

Do I see the wind?...Nope. But I feel it the same way I feel God is out there and....is a heck of an engineer.

 

[SSmith]

Arrogant also applies to you. def. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others. You obviously believe your "logical" way of thinking is superior to others.

At no point in this thread have I claimed to be a good engineer--just that I didn't understand religious engineers. That argument is a false dichotomy fallacy that I am sure you are aware of.

Like most atheists, you tend to infantilize religious arguments, reducing them to things like faith healing. And if you think that the current "laws" of science explain every phenomenon in the universe and will explain every phenomenon in the universe that will arise, then you are far more of a "believer" than me.

It is the role of science to explain phenomena we don't understand. The current laws may be wrong, but it would take observable and repeatable experimentation to replace them.

And you have disregardd the history of physics, as somebody tried to explain to you.

Not really sure how the history of physics is important to any part of the discussion here. In particular the religious views of people who lived several hundred years ago.

If you think Mr. Newton's "laws" apply in every referecne frame, as they did in his time, perhaps someone should introduce you to Mr. Einstein. "Logical" people now know that these "laws" only apply in certain inertial reference frames, but that knowledge is fairly recent historicaly. Did the knowlege of relativistic exceptions to Newton's laws, negate them in whole (as you state here)? Not as far as I know.

Newton's Laws aren't invalidated, but only have their reference frame adjusted. Instead of applying to all reference frames, they now apply to constant mass reference frames. Not sure the point here either.

People can separate their beliefs in miraculous events which fall outside the norms of our intertial refernce frame, with the use of laws and theories in their daily lives. You either simply cannot or will not understand this, so it is pointless to argue it.

Fair enough. How do you define a "miraculous event"? Is there a constant definition or does it apply to everyone's different reference frame?

Then you insult people by saying they cannot do their jobs because they beliveve, although countless creative and briliant people through history have believed. I'm sure your contributions doing whatever it is you do far exceed those of people such as Faraday.

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?