Hackers And Mysticism? 683
Chaoli the Grey asks: "Long before everybody and their mother used the Internet there were neo-pagan and occult ftp-archives and newsgroups. Margot Adler notes in her book _Drawing Down the Moon_ that among neo-pagans, '[an] amazingly high percentage [works] in computer, scientific and technical fields'. Appendix B in the Jargon File states that 'There is a definite strain of mystical, almost Gnostic sensibility that shows up even among those hackers not actively involved with neo-paganism, Discordianism, or Zen.' But has the interest in things mystical and occult among computer geeks watered down after the masses found computers and the Net? Do hackers still believe in magic or practice a mystical religion?" A risky question, as most of us have beliefs that we feel strongly about, but it is an interesting question nonetheless. So those interested in sharing what they believe in, please feel free. I'm sure others may find it interesting. The one thing I do ask is that you not judge people based on the information that is shared here, as all that is bound to do is cause problems.
Re:possible influence of sci fi (Score:2)
Because zen is a version of Buddhism, and is one of the world's leading religions. To include it in the same breath as 'occultism' betrays a lack of knowledge of the two very different religions.
I'm not going to go into the differences here; do a google search to find out for yourself (for starters).
Re:Atheism (Score:2)
Hackers and Jewdism (Score:2)
Point how many commandments are there in the first 5 books of the bible. (Hint its more than 10)
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Re:Hackers and Jewdism (Score:2)
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Not abnormal (Score:2)
I don't think this is any big deal, as those interested in computers come from a wide range of religions.
I'd be interested in seeing statistics on how many neo-pagans/heathens are interested in computers, and what percentage of those geeks study or follow neo-pagan religions. It'd certainly be interesting to find out.
I personally think computer's are Loki's domain because they are so tempermental. :)
Fialar
Vingolf Fellowship [vingolf.org]
You have no idea what you're talking about. (Score:2)
Furthermore many people view the "supernatural" aspects of religion as SYMBOLS. Human language is pretty shitty in terms of what information it can convey and symbols are often a powerful way to convey large amounts of data between a speaker and a listener.
Re:Questioning Reality (Score:2)
When Christians talk about "God" they are not talking about some brawny one-eyed diety with a spear that never misses. They are talking about someone that they believe to be omniscient and omnipotent. In other words it is clearly within his power to know how each of us will react and place us in situations which will allow us to excercise our free agency, so that we can learn and grow (assuming we choose correctly :).
Yes, this is true. On the other hand if you had something that made your life better wouldn't you want to share it with others. Honestly, most true Christians are only trying to help, and they generally don't get mad if you are not interested.
We all do this to some extent. For example, you talk about your more "normal" explanations. Which, of course, implies that a Christian's explanations would be somehow inferior. Not that I am criticizing you, I am simply pointing out that all of us have opinions on these sorts of subjects, and we all share them quite freely.
We also all believe that we have the "normal" explanations.
Believe it or not, there are well educated Christians. I personally believe that I am a better person for my beliefs, and I know that the Lord has helped me in many ways. I am certainly not perfect, but I am better than I was before, and will hopefully be better still tomorrow. You might scoff at my beliefs as delusion, that is certainly your right. But to judge my belief system without making the experiment yourself is hardly scientific. Open the scriptures with an open mind, read them, and pray to your Heavenly Father in Christ's name and ask him if he truly exists. Then make your judgements as to what is true.
Re:Questioning Reality (Score:2)
An outrageously high percentage of Americans are Christian. Some of these Christians are annoying (a small percentage), and somehow you believe the fault for these annoying people is Christ's.
On the other hand, there is a rather small percentage of Americans that are not Christian (less than 10%). Of this minority nearly all of them are quite vocal in their contempt for Christianity. Look at the number of Darwin fish you see, for example. Just like you don't want to hear me talk of Christ I don't particularly want to hear you compare Christians to Spammers. Especially since the vast majority of Christians are not banging on your door trying to get you to listen. Do you blame everyone in the world with an email address every time you receive spam? Then why do you blame all Christians every time you meet an annoying one.
FLAMEBAIT??? (Score:2)
I guess this just proves /. has a distinctively anti-Christian bias, eh? Way to go on the tolerance there people.
--
Re:FLAMEBAIT??? (Score:2)
--
Then theres always the Jesus Geeks. (Score:5)
When you get down to it, Jesus was the original geek. He was persecuted for the first thirty years of his life, then he "graduated" amidst a storm of insults and is now lord of all he surveys.
*boik*
--
Re:An atheist's viewpoint. (Score:2)
Your definition of agnostic is correct, you are however definately not one. Witness your next remarks:
There is no God. There are no gods.
An agnostic would never say this.
Here's a quick scorecare everyone can use:
If you answered (A), congratulations, you're a monotheist! God Bless!
If you answered (B), congratulations, you're a polytheist! Blessed Be!
If you answered (C), congratulations, you're an atheist! Have a nice day!
If you answered (D), congratulatoins, you're an agnostic! Your intellectual honesty (in admitting you don't know when you actually don't know) is highly admirable.
If you answered (E), congratulations, you're a strong agnostic! This is actually the traditional meaning of "agnostic", although (D) is also an accepted use of the word these days. You may or may not also be an epistemological sceptic (i.e. you deny the possibility of knowledge altogether).
To claim to know whether a god exists or not automatically makes you not an agnostic, regardless of whether that claim is that a god exists or that no god exists. To make either claim is to violate the very definition you gave for what it means to be agnostic. Since you believe no god exists, you are an atheist and definately not at all agnostic.
--
Re:Questioning Reality (Score:2)
Not if they obviously weren't interested.
Honestly, most true Christians are only trying to help, and they generally don't get mad if you are not interested.
Spammers are genuinely interested in generating customers, and are not the slightest bit interested in annoying people. They still annoy people, though, because they are intrusive with their unsolicited advertising.
Why are Christians so convinced that anyone who is genuinely interested won't be able to find their church? They're not that hard to find, people! Don't come knocking on my door, don't harass me as I walk between classes, I'm not interested! The fact that I'm in my home or walking to my next class rather than standing in your church ought to be a clue!
--
Re:TechnoPagan? (Score:2)
After following your hyperlink, I'm not sure if I can give a better answer, but I'll take a stab at it. I guess you might say I'm something of the Technoshaman type. I always giggle as the phrase "software engineer", since how I write code has nothing in common with what most people think of as engineering. It's an intuitive, artistic talent, based almost entirely on ones sense of aesthetics, or at least that's my experience. I completely dumbfounded my boss when he discovered I can't tell a resistor from a, well, I can't even think of the name of another electronic component to complete this sentence. I have no idea how computers work. Everything below the level of assembly language is simply magick as far as I'm concerned. I believe ideas exist independently of people, and I believe they sometimes desire to be expressed into the physical world. Philosophers have often wondered at how mental events cause physical events and vice versa (the lack of a plausible mechanism is the primary argument used against Dualism). I don't know and/or care much how it happens, but I know it does. Because of this, we serve as perfect conduits for ideas (completely mental things) who want to find physical expression, to actually affect the physical world. ESR has been known to describe programming as scratching an itch nagging at you. That itch is an idea trying to being expressed. For me, though, this would be a gross understatement. Some ideas I can ignore, and they either continue to hound me or go look for another conduit. But some are far more powerful than an itch. The really powerful ones take over completely. I am ridden, as a voudon preist ridden by the legba. I achieve a state psychologists call disassociation. I watch, passively, as this living, willful force expresses itself through me. I do not tire, I do not hunger, I have no sense of touch, I do not hear the events around me, I do not see except in the narrow tunnel before me. I feel the idea, I feel its presence. I don't think about algorithms, I feel them. There's no normal sensory analog, but I liken it to that feeling you get when you walk through a dark room that you're familiar with -- you can feel where all the furniture is. It's like that -- I feel the program taking shape, and I feel the idea moving about to flesh it out, and not being the kind of person who can easily dismiss the evidence of my own senses, I cannot possibly rationally disbelieve in the real, independent existance of the ideas, and their ability act idependantly of us. The ancient greek philosophers were right, the Forms are there, I know for I have seen them. I communicate with them, in a way, and they communicate with me, "speak" to me, "speak" through me when I let them (and sometimes I cannot help but let them).
Sometimes they are not around. Then, I plod through code like the untalented students I went to school with, producing mediocre stuff. But eventually, the spirits return, and I produce works of great beauty and efficiency. And I thank the gods for allowing me to serve this function.
I hope this answers your question...
--
My religion. (Score:2)
O lord hear my prayer (Score:2)
my URL says it all. :-) (Score:2)
To me, technology and (stereotypically Pagan) mysticism are a natural combination. Many Pagans believe, simply, in working to make the world a better place. Yeah it's a blatant cliche, but I freely admit to being an idealist.
I dream (and yes, I really do have dreams about this!) of a world where people are taken as people, and that is all. Maybe a touch of meritocracy, but where all of us realize the inherent equality of one another, and each of respects the rights and ideas of the rest.
To my mind, one of the major stumbling blocks in this idea(l) is the fact that most of us don't communicate well with one another. We get lost in the moment. (When was the last time you called your mother, by the way?) We get hung up on different eye colour, different skin colour, different religious preferences (both in interpretation of $DEITY and that whole KDE/Gnome debacle). We talk, we listen sometimes, but we rarely understand.
(Insert standard "Internet shattering communicative and cultural barriers" speech here.)
Re:My mystical experiences. (Score:2)
Re:Alternative Thinking, Alternative Religion (Score:5)
Paganism accepts that there is no one truth, so there is no one correct way.
So what you saying is that it's kind of like Perl?
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
OpenReligion (Score:5)
-Waldo
-------------------
Probably not true (Score:3)
To be a member of a minority religion or other belief system is difficult at best in a monotheistic society. (I'll spare you my rant on why I think monotheism virtually guarantees bigotry and intolerance; it's off-topic and probably flamebait anyway.) The pre-AOL internet was a good place for geographically distant minorities to meet and, well, hide. Hackerdom was also a good place to hide and to find community outside of the mainstream. Beyond that, I don't think there's any causal connection.
The nearer today's Internet comes to imitating TV, the less it comes to differ from the general populace. Those oldbies who remain have either hidden themselves a little deeper or moved on.
--
Re:An atheist's viewpoint. (Score:2)
What about the position "On present evidence I believe that God does not exist, but I can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If new evidence on the matter comes to light, I will re-evaluate my position."
What does that make me, according to your neat little five-way test?
Re:Hackers and Jewdism (Score:2)
Alpha
Re:Want to believe (Score:2)
Speaking as a born-again atheist, I agree. Good ol happy existence forever and ever, however implausible, because I would eventually run out of things to experience, still has a certain allure for my mortal self. As it stands, I still believe in the oblivion part, but feel free to convince me otherwise.
And you will convince me by proving that I am wrong. Though I can't think of anything more horrifying than the thought of a jealous and petty god who damns people to eternal suffering because of their sexual peccadilos or their use of profane language...
Re:Preaching. (Score:2)
Oh please. Linux. Windows. Unix. Emacs. Vi. GUI. Text.
Geeks are some of the most vocally opinionated people on earth and spare no opportunity to make their case for the technology they consider superior. I'm certainly a geek and I certainly do so, and I don't apologize for it.
Re:An atheist's viewpoint. (Score:2)
There is no God. There are no gods. Jesus was a man. He lived, he died. End of story
This sounds like the rarer variety of "strong atheism" that actively denies any existence of the divine, as opposed to the more common "weak atheism" (or "strong agnosticism") that says the existence of a higher power is unproven, unprovable, and at best irrelevant to everyday life. So I'd say you're not also agnostic, you have already made the ontological choice the agnostic refuses to make when he says that the existence of a god is unknowable.
Strong atheism is strictly speaking, logically indefensable, since you can't prove a negative you have no direct experience of or show that its existence is contrary to known facts about the subjects (thus I can prove there is not an elephant under my bed, because the physical dimensions of an elephant are incompatible with the space under my bed). This is a revision of the old saw "you can't prove a negative". In the case of a supreme entity, its existence would violate any number of laws of physics, but he who makes the rules can apparently break them if we're to take the definitions usually made of a god
I'm a strong atheist myself, and I defend this claim with the simple declaration that it's absurd. I start with the foundation of weak atheism: requiring a standard of proof, even for the most spectacular claims -- especially for them (I don't subscribe to the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, any evidence will do). But since logic is only a framework of consistency and not an epistemological foundation, I merely present the absurdity of the idea in general, of the good and evil forces, devils, demons, and how they are chuckled at in children's stories and other religions, but taken for granted in the mythos of a believer.
There's no winning the argument. With fundies, at some point it boils down to argumentum ad bacillum (argument from the club) that I'm damned to hell if I don't believe. Currently I continue to argue (not always fruitlessly, I've uncovered interesting variations on beliefs) at the illogic of hell. I think instead I just need to learn how to say "then I'll see you there" in the native tongues of a few other religions
Re:every geek is a solipsist (Score:2)
Re:I'm a Scientologist, and a Geek. (Score:2)
The Scientologists were the first to assualt web freedoms with legal bullying.
Wonderful daily contributions they make.
Re:I'm a Scientologist, and a Geek. (Score:2)
The documents were verbatim copies of supposedly 'secret, very sensitive documents' that they were charging upwards of $50k for copies of. See the whole fish man story.
At any rate, there was no *abuse*, unless you call depriving them of the ability to charge clueless cult followers fifty grand for some fiction a crime or abuse.
What is this GPL your talking about? Don't fuck with us or we sue you out of existence?
They even sued a fucking cult awareness site, non profit, non biased, because of some sensitive information regarding member of the fucking scientologist crap.
They got sued out of existence, after all, non profit organisations dont stand against cults with $50k+ paperback fiction fanatics.
Get a grip man.
Re:An atheist's viewpoint. (Score:2)
We sense time. We just cannot universally sense specific quantities of time.
The mind is its own proof of concept. The fact that we perceive, is fact that 'it' perceives. You *are* your mind, your body is simply an input device.
Consciousness is sensed. Every thought you think, of which you are aware, is 'sensed; by your consciousness. You can't touch a thought, if that's what your getting at, but human senses are not truly limited to the 5 common ones.
Some observations (Score:5)
How can rational people accept the supernatural? (Score:2)
I still manage to be surprised that rational people can accept supernatural explanations for their own subjective experiences. Read the sci.skeptic FAQ [xnet.com]? It's good stuff. I tend to pigeonhole theists alongside UFO freaks, crystal-waving new age bubbleheads and Carlos Castaneda fans. I really cannot understand how people who use computers daily can swallow such transparent myth.
On the other hand, I recently started reading about Buddhism here [ship.edu], and, modulo the culturally specific far-eastern context, found it very interesting and thought-provoking. Next thing in the reading pile happened to be The Elegant Universe [amazon.com], which discusses superstring theory and how it unifies quantum mechanics and relativity. (Links to Amazon, sorry B&N too slow... where else is there? anyone?) This last is utterly mind-bending. Now there are still some features of the universe and cosmology that are poorly understood; some things we may never be able to know, although we can invent untestable theories about what they might mean [amazon.com]. I can see that there is space within this framework for something... hard to comprehend. We may call this 'the mind of god' [amazon.com] if we like, but whatever it is, is sure as hell isn't an old guy with a big beard sitting on a cloud taking an interest in the events on planet Earth.
Christian Geeks? Do me a favour.
This comment posted with mozilla!
Camaron de la Isla [flamenco-world.com] 'When I sing with pleasure, my
Re:possible influence of sci fi (Score:3)
And the folks at Jonestown followed a version of Christianity... From what I understand, Zen Buddhists are a fairly minor sect, in the same way that Franciscans are a fairly minor sect in the Catholic church (note the choice of Franciscans for comparison: like the followers of Zen, I believe they have an influence on the mainstream religion that is definitely out of proportaion with their numbers.)
On the other hand, the number of mystics, new-age wannabes and other feel-good semi-religious types that have latched onto Zen as a vehicle for their various ideas probably outweighs the number of true practicioners, helping reinforce the image that many have that Zen is nothing more than some sort of mystical snake-oil that only an idiot could believe in. What's worse, they're right, in a way; that particular, watered down, corrupted, I'll-bend-it-to-meet-my-needs type of Zen really isn't really what Zen is like, any more than the folks at Jonestown were really what the vast majority of Christians are like.
Yes. (Score:2)
Second, my real identity, etc, are not available to slashdot users just so I can be honest about questions like this in this forum. (Yes, this means I basically trust Rob &co. to not reveal my e-mail address. Sue me for not being entirely cynical. Oh, wait, you can't, you don't know who I am...
Anyway.
I am a Pagan, and have been, and I've been on the net since '85 (though at that time, only usenet and e-mail), using Linux since '94. I dabbled in mysticism and gnosticism before I came to the realization that Paganism was what I believed, what I'd -always- believed, and just been afraid to -do- it. (i.e., when I was told that the Pagan myths were just myths, and the Christian myths were 'religion' and that people didn't follow the pagan myths anymore, I kind of cut that off as an option for religion, even though I felt that's what I -should- be doing. 'But why? I wish people still believed that way, it feels more right...' I thought, but eventually put away with time & indoctrination.)
Anyway. I think the commonality is the same thing that is in common with all people in all alternative lifestyles - they can look at the world and say 'wait - that may be what everyone does, but it isn't -right-' and change the direction their going in. This takes some combination of intelligence, curiousity, and independent-mindedness.
Which is something for a lot of people in the geek community to think about. You have a lot in common with alternative religions, political activists, transsexuals, homosexuals, mystics, and hell, even politicians. (You think people go into politics for the money? Shyeah, right, you'd make more as an NT Admin and not spend it all on your next campaign. They do it because they think they can -change- things.)
Think about it.
--Parity
All Mathematicians are Mystics (Score:3)
Isaac Asimov wrote a delightful essay, about his time as an undergraduate, that explains why all mathematicians are mystics. I won't bother to repeat the entire story, only the punchline. Mathematicians are mystics because they believe in the unreal and the imaginary. They conduct entire branches of their science around the notion that the square root of -1 exists and is real yet is also imaginary.
Personality types (Score:2)
By Jungs personality typing system, which became the Myers-Briggs, many IT people are INTPs. Introverted, intuitive, perceivers of possibilities and primarily driven by their thinking faculty. According to Jung, in his book "Psychological Types", the introverted intuitive is more open to the mystical, spiritual dimention of life.
This type is also more likely to find the first half of life the most difficult when it comes to worldly affairs, while the extrovert will dominate and succeed in worldly matters more easily. However, the dominance is reversed in the second half of life, where the extrovert finds it increasingly more difficult to deal with his/her own "twilight", and hence the bigger question of "why am I here?", "what does it mean to 'be'?" and "who am I?". The extrovert is simply not equipped, and may try to find fulfillment by trying to "stay young", having affairs etc. But the introvert is already open to these questions, and through philosophy, religion etc. will deepen his understanding and create more meaning.
Ok, now for a quick poll. Who here has ever heard of:
You're all welcome to add your favourite philosophy/guru/technique...
Re:An atheist's viewpoint. (Score:2)
Why would we even think of
constructing devices to enhance our senses unless we had every reason to think that things exist beyond our perception?
Planets. We first saw planets as stars that moved quickly, and then did little loop-de-loops in otherwise stable paths in the night sky. Lives were spent creating extravagant models to explain these movements in a geocentric model.
Various bright fellows (Galileo, Aristotle) had different ideas. They saw the patterns generated, and created a new models that placed Earth as another object wandering the heavens around a central body (the sun...), and the incredibly complex models of circles within circles within circles all revolving about changed into very simple ellipses.
This model repeats itself. We notice objects burning in the abscense of measurable heat. We ponder the situation. is God extending His Wrath? No, it's gamma radiation.
So far, we've found very solid reasons for phenomena within the physical realm. There is no apparant change in this happening.
I'd wager most atheists would change their mind on seeing angels sweeping down from on high, priests raising the dead or Wiccans effecting measurable and objective changes through magick, all in cases where other explanations don't fly.
I'd hope that most Christians would change their mind, given the chance, after they died and didn't turn into spirits. I.E., given irrefutable evidence, one is likely to change the tune being sung.
He's not saying he absolutely disbelieves in alternate beliefs, but that his own belief is one of atheism. Chill.
Re:Then theres always the Jesus Geeks - ae housema (Score:2)
you sleep and know not you are dead in vain
nor see in dreams how dark and bright
ascends in fire by day and smoky by night
the hate you died to quench and could but fan
sleep well, and see no morning, son of man.
But if grave rent, and stone rolled by,
you sit, ascendant, on your throne on high
and sitting so, remember yet,
your agony and bloody sweat,
the love, and passion, and life you gave,
bow hither out of heaven, and see, and save."
-- A.E. Houseman.
I think he had the same thing to say as the above comment, but just a little more eloquent.
Darn. Now I've violated copyright, probably.
Chiam Potok (Score:2)
Potok's books have been really good reads for me. The themes of personal struggle within a religious or cultural community spoke to me even though I'm outside of the Jewish communities he wrote about. Maybe it helped that The Chosen and The Promise were about smart people.
I definitely believe in magick (Score:5)
YOG-SOTHOTH
This is the spell of summoning of Bowie J. Poag.
By reciting this incarnation, you can summon a twisted and deformed being that has done absolutely nothing with other that posting a few tiled backgrounds -- something monkeys can be trained to accomplish.
Despite this, the deranged being will assert that it is some sort of leading light in the linux community and will pursue it's strange agenda of destroying VA Linux by making an ass of itself on the
Try the incantation, it really works!
--Shoeboy
A culture against absolutes (Score:2)
Basically the fundamental principal of Democracy is that we are all sovereign and that we bequeath that soveriegnty unto our chosen government officials. As an extension of this is the notion that we are all equal. From this has evolved a strong relativistic view point on the world that says nobody's right and nobody's wrong.
Out of this relativistic perspective is born the notion of tolerance. Basically if nobody is right or wrong then we should accept other people's beliefs. But it isn't a pure tolerance. If one was to be purely tolerant, one would even tolerate intolerance. But in fact what happens is that we believe everybody should be tolerant and open to others beliefs.
As a result, we find that people are actually very intolerant despite their claim of tolerance. They are only tolerant of those who are tolerant and relativistic as well. To be intolerant or to have an absolute belief in certain fundamental truths is considered arrogant.
To further the problem many people who believe in these truths have incorporated in their beliefs the notion that they must help others find the truth that they know. To relativists, this comes off as pig headed and pushy. How can you know the truth? What makes you better than everybody else?
Now, having said all that, I consider myself a relativist. But I think there's an important consideration people need to make in relativism. One can say that nobody has an iron grip on what the right answers are, but that doesn't mean you can't find truths that work within your own life. And it doesn't mean you can't respect people for the truths that they find in their life that make them happy.
If somebody tries to tell you that Christ is your savior, don't hate them for it. They are doing it because they think that if you don't believe that, you are going to suffer. They are doing it because they love you as a human being. Respect that fact, even if you disagree with them. Don't hold them in contempt if they found a belief that makes them happy. Respect them for it and move on to find what makes you happy.
---
TechnoPagan? (Score:2)
just wondering...
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:2)
Re:My thoughts exactly (Score:2)
check -- THIS [witchvox.com] -- out
Re:Bla (Score:2)
converse error, proposed slashdot poll (Score:2)
these surveys come from neo-pagan litterature, thus they are sampling from the *mystic* pool only...
it would be nice to have a slashdot poll on this stuff tho...
(Religiously) I am an...
1) Atheist, you morons!
2) Christian, you heathens!
3) Agnostic, you somethings?
4) Discordian/Subgenius
5) Neo-Pagan
6) Fluffy white bunny
7) Cowboy Neilist
Re:Wicca doesn't "recruit" (Score:2)
there are tons of pagans who are still in the "broom closet" and stay there because they can't stand to be shat upon for their religion...
ok, how bout this... WSU's aps sees about a dozen students, one grad student, and one staff member...
come Samhain (halloween, traditional holliday), I found out that 3 other faculty and staff were pagan... I was visibly pagan and they didn't say a thing to me... or prostelatyze or say a word about it...
Re:The Motion Presupposes The Mover... (Score:2)
I actually have quite the phillosophy on creation that coincides with evolution and personal powers of creation (software authorship)...
you see the duality, balance, and divinity of creaiton is central to Neo-Paganism... in particular the universe exists because of the "sexual" union of dieties (remember the Greek Eros [pantheon.org] and Gaia [pantheon.org]?)
modern Wicca embraces a simmilar creation idea, and Thelema even has a triumvate (father, son, spirit) simmilar to Christianity...
Re:Or "Internet usage involves some faith" (Score:2)
on the other hand how do you measure the failure of salvation or spirit based theodicy?
rather it's a failure to verify... does that exclude it from possability?
what if you write some code and stick it into gcc, but you die before it finishes compiling?
woah! it worked! (Score:2)
YOG-SOTHOTH
I deffinately believe...
Re:"Supernatural" is an oxymoron (Score:2)
I hypothesize that there are so many interactions within that brain that you can't understand it... only emulate it and attempt duplicate it and build on it untill you give birth to another divine intelligence like yourself...
you still won't understand it and won't be able to predict it... when you can predict it, it isn't alive... it isn't intelligent, thinking, or feeling...
but I suppose all of these little things can just be explained away, right?
Re:Ah, the Hypocrisy (Score:2)
yes, there is symbolism and reflection on "old ways" etc etc... but most people realize that nothing is as static as that!
Wicca is a modern religion modeled after stuff inspired by primitive beliefs and practices... but it's modernized for the most part...
yes, I do gag when I hear much about the "Celtic Reconstructionists" etc etc...
Re:OpenReligion (Score:2)
here's an open religion for you!
technopaganism! what is it? I'd like to know, you'd like to know... so talk about it!
Help define a developing beliefs system! [mailto]
project definition and scope available on my website... come define your own pantheons and put your own spin on this stuff!
Re:My mystical experiences. (Score:2)
if you can stand in with a local Pagan group I'm sure you'll enjoy the experience...
other great mystic events for me include a terrific wind storm I experienced on the beach in Key West...
Re:TechnoPagan? (Score:2)
if you haven't allready could you subscribe to the technopagan list [mailto]?
Re:My thoughts exactly (Score:2)
Yes, I'm Wiccan - Dianic Wiccan, to be precise. I'm an ordained minister, even have my certificate to show that, hanging on my wall (not that it does me any good, being solitary, but still...).
Yes, I have long hair as well. I find long hair sensual and soft, two aspects of myself that are hard to express with computers. I'll probably lop some off soon - these split ends are killing me
Am I then to be considered a criminal? From this anonymous coward's words, it would appear so. Gee, this brave, right-minded God-fearing Christian wouldn't even share his (or her) identity with us. Why am I neither surprised nor impressed?
Love and Light,
Jeannette
Re:..hostile to organized religion in general.. (Score:2)
The one constant trait of geeks is that they cannot be pigeonholed.
Re:..hostile to organized religion in general.. (Score:2)
Re:Discordianism (Score:2)
--
Re:zen (Score:2)
I just meant that it bothers me when people try to draw this kind of conclusion about techies in general.
And by 'obscure' I suppose I meant everythign aside from the Jews, Jesus & his fanclub, and their enemies.. and the Muslims.
Disturbing. (Score:3)
Do younger, tech-savvy people tend to stray from standard religion and perhaps look at more obscure things such as zen, etc? Certainly.
Does that mean they believe in magic (magik) or whatever? Sheesh. I'm betting not.
Many people I've spoken with, especially in the tech world, don't believe in *any* religion, otehr than things that help them obtain focus and peace of mind. To them, it is nothing but this.
Re:An atheist's viewpoint. (Score:4)
An atheist is fishing somewhere in the loch ness, when all-of-a-sudden the loch ness monster comes out and starts approaching his boat.
"Dear god save me!!" screams the atheist..
[BOOOM!] a thunderous explosion stops all creation freezing it in place and time, and this deep, powerful voice says "I thought you didn't believe in Me..."
the atheist says "gimme a break God, a minute ago I didn't believe in the loch ness monster either.."
I don't want to believe, I want to be left alone (Score:2)
That's an understatement
Look, you're obviously not an atheist, so stop pretending to know what all atheist in the world are thinking. Heck, even if you were an atheist you could never know that. Personally, I am an atheist, and it is not something I go around advertising. I am not the least bit vocal about it. In fact, a lot of good friends of mine probably don't even know it. The only reason I bring it up here is because it is relevant to the discussion. I'm not trying to hide anything, it's just that if the subject doesn't come up I don't mention it.
I think I know where you're getting this idea that most atheists are vocal about it, as I've experienced it firsthand, but you have a very important fact confused: it's generally not the atheists who bring it up. For example, back at my old high school I can remember the subject of religion coming up casually in a conversation, and I made the mistake of mentioning I was an atheist. Because of this, I was harrassed for years. I had people constantly bringing up the subject, again and again and again. I had people trying to convert me just about every single day. They always ask, "why are you an atheist?" Had said I was christian, jewish, muslim, or even budhist I can't imagine being asked that question so many times. But I was asked, "why are you an atheist" just about every single day by somebody or other. It's as if everyone felt that there was something wrong with me and it was their job to fix it. So what do I do? I tell them why I'm an atheist! I've had to tell them why so many times because I've been asked that damn question so many times.
And now we get people like you claiming that atheists go around advertising that fact because they want to be converted. You'll excuse me if I'm more than a little bitter after reading your comment, but you couldn't possibly be further from the truth. You ask why I don't treat religious people just like anyone else has their facts wrong? Guess what? I do! I have never once in my life tried to convince anyone to give up religion. I do not bring up the subject of religion for no reason. I have plenty of friends who are religious. No, I don't treat them any differently. It is religious people (admittedly not all religious people, but definately a large number of them) who treat me differently.
Well, I guess I'm about done with this ramp. You can disagree with me all you want, just don't try to convert me.
Re:..hostile to organized religion in general.. (Score:2)
This falls into the same category as those who decry as semi-literate those who say "ax" for the word spelled a-s-k. It was pronounced "ax" for a long long time before being modified to ask sometime around the evolution of modern english (16th cty). People may indeed be using it to slander, or out of ignorance, but it does not mean they're wrong.
A Crazy Hackers Viewpoint (Score:3)
First, lets take the posit of this article as true, so to do that, I'll say -
Observation: A disproportiantetly large percentage of hackers and other techland creatures belive in 'magic', or something close enough to it that no one but them would argue the point.
Now, we must look for the reason. But not really, because in social anomalies, there are usually
0) The RPG Integral:
Many have already suggested that the effects of Role Playing Games, Science Fiction, and Fantasy. So I wont go into detail, But it is a factor. It gives the mind something to chew on, so that when an expresion is needed, it may be used as a source. D&D doesn't make people crazy, but some crazy people have been exposed to D&D, and thus think that 'Feather Fall' will work. Same for religeons. And smart people like complex games, and games don't come more complex than D&D with all its expansions, so we get a large exposure base.
1) The Clark Equation:
Some people (not all people, but some) really like to make things happen. They get a kick from it. I'm one, Clark was another. Magic just seems the logical end of the curve, I point, it happens. Think about how many people you know that are going to LOVE good voice/gesture recognition as computre intarfaces. Thinks how many of those wish the real world worked like that. Xyzzy, anyone?
2) The Gonzo Factor:
Now, what if you are already weird? Well, if you are (and I am), normal social taboos don't apply very strongly to you ('cause society is already "punishing" you, what more can they do?), so you end up thinking about/trying many more things. This is why you see large (compared to the normal population) numbers of people aware that they are homosexuals in EVERY 'weird' group. If you are already a bixer/dancer/actor, there is not nearly as much pain in realizing that you are gay, so more of them do. The same things apply to religeons. If no one talks to you in high school already, maybe getting naked and freaky on the solstice doesn't seem as a likely to bring negative repercusions, so you "shop arround" as it were.
3) The I-Wanna-Be-Gonzo Coefficient:
Wanna-Bes, every group has them, and hackers are not an exception. If all the other guys whorship THor, and you don't really care, you might try it just to get along. ANd then the religion's got you hooked, as most of them are based upon social groups anyway, and there you go.
4) The Bicycle Exponent:
This is a weird one. You cannot (well, you can, but its the common example, and you should already know that, so hush) simultaneously ride a bicycle, and think about the muscle movements necessary to ride a bicycle. This is an example of a (rather large an interseting) class of actions which can be done, but cannot always be explained by the person doing them. Why? Well, cognitive studies shows us that there is a WHOLE lot more capacity "under the surface" of the mind than the conscious mind can ever get hold of (walking is HARD, yall), and all the true geniuses/artists/etc GO with that, and learn to toss problems to there undermind, problems that come back with answers that are obviously correct, but the peson is completely unable to explain how they did it (even to themselves). This makes some people look for answers (which is silly, as the answers is right there, your undermind
But finally, I think most just worship at the church of "Wouldn't It Be Pretty To Think So?", and I challenge anyone to tell me that the various magic, magik, majick, etc. religeons arent pretty.
::To set the record straight, I personally am a meta-agnostic, as I dont think the question 'Is there a God' can have a meaningful answer from inside the system, so I don't bother asking it; as opposed to agnostics who wonder about it, or atheists who belive that there is no God (which they cannot prove, which is my point.)
Have fun flamming me to death on this one, if you want.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Self-knowledge (Score:2)
I started both with mysticism and computers as a teen in the 60s, and I actually walked away from my first programming job because I realized very vividly that it was going to distract me from the search for self-knowledge (which was very big in the early 70s).
I explored mystics like Gurdjieff and psychological systems like Fritz Perls' gestalt psych, and I put a lot of effort into meditation as a way of seeing what was really going on in my psyche/subconscious.
By the mid-70s this range of 'gurus' had narrowed to one who was especially austere and conceptually challenging-- J Krishnamurti. From him I came to see that soiritual freedom was about living without preconceptions or attachments, which is a common theme of a lot of mystical schools (especially Zen), but one that Krishnamurti handled with greater honesty, I thought.
At a certain point then I turned away from the whole mystical 'quest' and just started living, and at that point sociobiology became very inspiring, as did (non-sci-fi) literature.
I formulated a philosophy I call 'Robot Wisdom' that demands-- ultimately-- computer models of human behavior, that fit the requirements of sociobiology but also have the humane dimension of literature.
So my whole thrust has been to wrestle with how to model human emotions on a computer, eg in video games. And I look to great literature (especially James Joyce) for inspiration about the laws of human emotion.
I still feel a lot of sympathy for mystical points of view, because they deal with real psychological phenomena that materialist viewpoints seem to deny, but I don't practice any form of organised worship.
Re:Or "Internet usage involves some faith" (Score:2)
As to noticing things, I think this is where heavy-thinkers get disturbed or dis-enfranchised by "organized religions" (defining organized religions as those that impose, rather than inspire belief). Speculation and contemplation of religious writings will inevitably result in paradoxes that people of simple faith will have difficulty defending to someone with good logical analysis skills. Yet there's a great and joyfull challenge for a thoughfull person in discovering consistency and constancy in the scriptures of all faiths. Metaphors and parables in religious literature have been intended to obscure the truth throughout history, both to inspire the believers to thorough study and contemplation and to protect the believer's activities from persecution. Joseph Campbell's studies show the inter-connectedness of belief systems throughout history.
Personally, I'm Baha'i [bahai.org]. I believe in progressive revelation from God that is guiding us in building a united, peacefull world. We can't wait around expecting miracles if we're not ready to start making things better ourselves. To do that requires a bit of faith, and alot of hard work and thought. I think it's my beliefs as a Baha'i that makes me so enthusiastic about open source. It's a community working together despite of, or even because of, their differences to make something better.
Re:woah! it worked! (Score:2)
All bow to the power of Magick.
Re:The RPG element (Score:2)
This lack of constraints appeals to the creative person who has little patience for the real world. The computer offers limitless possiblities and great power for those who understand them. In this sense, computers are much like magic, and the hacker much like a wizard.
Myths and fantasy are appealing to the hacker, because they offer flexibility and strangeness not found in the real world. But the most important part is that these systems are internally consistent, just like mathematics. It is fun to imagine things that cannot exist, but it is even more fun to imagine the ramifications of those things, and that can only be done if there is an order to their being.
That is why we just don't just settle for sword and sorcery stories, but construct a taxonomy of monstors and magical creatures, of spells and weapons, of characters and races, etc. It isn't enough to just make shit up, you've to got make up a system so that it can be understood and manipulated, otherwise, what's the point?*
So computers and fantasy do two things: they both offer greater possibilies than the mundane world, and they both offer much greater power over their respective environments than we are used to, so we can achieve more of those possibilities.
(*) This probably where us rationalists differ from actual mystics and romantics in our view of these things. The romantic likes fantasy because it's pretty, or horror because its scary. The mystic likes the lack of responsibility implied in being part of "something bigger".
every geek is a solipsist (Score:2)
(think about it)
--------
You don't believe in Dungeons and Dragons? (Score:2)
I suppose all the websites could be fakes, but I could take you to a convention where you could see it with your own eyes.
You could probably go and confirm it yourself too, if you just go to the store in town with a name like "The Dragon's Dicecup", "Gandalf's Library", or "The Android's Dungeon".
Or perhaps you are referring to the TV show. A lot of people have foggy half-memories that they suspect might be false, but if you watch Fox tomorrow morning, you can confirm that one for yourself, too.
Oh, by the way, the whole "pagan" movement mostly has to do with trying to justify orgies.
Orgies need no justification. An orgy is an end unto itself.
Hmmm, perhaps you forgot to add "...to your girlfriend." That makes more sense. If what it takes is some chanting, candle mood-lighting, and a bucket of goat's blood to get her going, you just thank your lucky stars that that's all.
--------
Yes, all hackers hate generalizations. (Score:2)
This is because hackers are highly individualistic and all deeply resent being referred to as having anything in common with other hackers than the ability to program computers.
Also, all hackers are open-minded and sensitive, so they don't like to exclude people who don't fit the description.
Finally, hackers universally reject all religion as superstitious nonsense, so they are annoyed by the suggestion that they believe in mystical crap.
--------
Re:..hostile to organized religion in general.. (Score:4)
Hah! Organized religions are really organized religious bigotry. Organization and religious tolerance don't go together. They are systems for gaining profit for the priests, and as such, they are generally as ruthless and intolerant as they can get away with, which is generally a function of what percentage of the population they can claim. This is why minority religions almost always seem gentler and friendlier: they are weak and could be wiped out if they made too much fuss. For example, Judaism seems a gentle, harmless religion (especially in America), but look in the Old Testament and you'll find that ancient Hebrew law in the days when it had a local near-monopoly was as brutally intolerant as the Catholic inquisition; look to modern Isreal and you can just how "gentle" and "harmless" it is becoming once again, now that the very government is based on the religion (mind you, this would happen with any organized religion; it doesn't matter what it's "about", the priesthood will always attract those who enjoy exercising the power abusing their authority gives them). Look to Iran, if you want to see the threat of organized religion with general support over a long period.
Mocking organized religion is an example of intolerance of intolerance: superficially intolerant, but generally aimed at a net gain in tolerance.
They don't mock the belief, but the ridiculous convoluted propaganda that is used to promote the belief, and the hypocracy of prominent members of the religion.
an example that you see here frequently is the use of "xtian" and "fundie".
Are we reading the same website? I hear xtians bitching about this from time to time, but I never have read it other than that. Anyway, they're just abbreviations, don't get your panties in a bunch.
--------
I know what the moon is about. (Score:2)
Later on I found out that the moon was important to various kinds of magic and was seen as the source of magical power. When I first heard the term "drawing down the moon" I realized that was what my emotions were about. That when I would stand out in my backyard and lookup at it and be filled with these powerful emotions, that that was what I was unconsciously trying to do. This explained an awful lot. You see while I don't believe in magic per se, I do believe in the ability of people to influence reality by the power of their will. Its something I've done all my life. Once upon a time I could change the weather. If I wanted it to rain, it would rain. I would sit in class on boring days and look out the window making the rain stop and start and stop again. I never got rained on when I was outside because I'd just reach up into the clouds and desire for the rain to stop, and it would. But then something bad happened. I came out here to Arizona in '92 and I didn't like how dry it was. So I encouraged the weather to change and for rain to fall. There were flash flood in phoenix and the interstate between Phoenix and Tucson was washed out in a couple of places. But the truly bad thing was that people died because of it. I dont know their names but I do know I'm responsible for their deaths. Ever since I realized this my influence over the weather has been gone. Actually I don't really think it is gone, I think I'm holding myself back from using it. I'm sorry for the deaths of those people and this is my subconscious way of keeping it from happening again. Maybe someday I'll get over this and have better mastery of this ability so that such things won't happen again. Phoenix is a desert, I was wrong to try and change that and others paid the ultimate price for my foolishness. Of course if I tell people these things they'll think I'm crazy, so I don't.
There are other less impressive things I can still do, such as predict with 90+% accuracy the outcome of coin tosses. If I think about it and try to figure out what will happen my accuracy goes to shit. But if I just let go and let the answer come to me I'll get it right almost always. My sister is even more talented in these areas than I am. Being female that only makes sense. Unfortunately she made the mistake of trying to talk to spirits and got a hold of a demon. The bastard set up house in the extra room of our house. I come home to find this malignant presence in one room and my sister terrified and in tears in the other room. I contronted the demon and eventually got him to leave but not before he put the screws to me including trying to possess my body. Not fun. Now my sister is a super devout christian who thinks anything that isn't christian is satanic. There is evil in the world but most of what I've experienced has been me and not other entities and I can't see how I'm satanic.
I'm also a computer geek/nerd/hacker (but not cracker). I always have been. When I was a young child and I first heard the word computer I knew it was something special and wonderful even though I didn't know what it was. Seems "magic" isn't the only thing I've dealt with in past lives. I've got a lot of talent with computers and understand things easily which others have difficulty with. I also have "magical" abilities with computers and other electronic things. Computers begin working just because I show up to look at the problem. This is a common thing I see with others who have ability in this area too. Now there are people who are into computers because computers are popular now. They aren't like me and their mindset and talents are not like mine. I was a computer geek long before being one was "cool." I'm the real deal you know? I'm sure there are lots of others here who are the same.
To some of you I've come accross as a nutcase, or an idiot or both. But those of you who have seen or experienced the kinds of things I've described know I'm not. In either case I just hope this post doesn't get flagged as flamebait or as the ravings of the insane. I was originally going to post it anonymously but not I've decided not to.
Lee
Re:An atheist's viewpoint. (Score:2)
I see mysticism as, in part, an intuitive leap forward from the senses. It's certainly not going to be as accurate as relying strictly on sensory input, but it is an enabler for seeing farther than your senses allow.
I believe the right path, if one can be said to exist, lies in a balance of sensory grounding with mystic thought and practice. To use science as an analogy, it is the great foundation of experimental evidence which grounds us, but it is the imagination and intuition of where to look next that provides progress and inspiration.
The complete skeptic may, IMHO, minimize the risk of being wrong. This same conservatism and fear, though, may inhibit personal growth and understanding of the world that surrounds us.
Quakerism, a mystical Christianity (Score:2)
-russ
Techgnosis (Score:3)
Here's the Amazon.com book review (and summary):
That's a pretty fair summary of the work. It's a decent read for people interested in this topic, and now it's out in paperback so you don't have to shell out to much cash to get it.
--
If This Were True, One Would Expect (Score:2)
But we're busy gathering signatures for the Seattle Monorail Initiative today, so I guess not.
Seriously, I think we're all a bit closer to the mystical, whether hacker or not. You need to put things in a frame of reference, and mysticism works pretty darn well when you have to keep trying and trying to get it working.
Although, if we mean hacking as an altruistic state, then there is Good Code, Grey Code, and Bad Code. MSFT churns out Bad Code, many people churn out Grey Code, and few attain the enlightened state of Good Code.
I was just thinking the same thing (Score:2)
And so it goes. Naturally, there will be plenty of hacker types that don't believe in X (and, btw, please spare the jokes about the windowing system--you know what I mean), but those counterexamples are either ignored or marginalized as "rare exceptions" or "not true hackers" or whatever.
If you want to see some really good examples of this phenomenon in action, have a(nother) look at the Jargon File [tuxedo.org]; it is rife with them. I mean, do we really believe that you're not a true hacker if you don't like Chinese food? I suspect not, but the guys that wrote the Jargon File liked it, and they constructed a whole mythology around why it was only natural that their hacker nature should lead to a love of Chinese food. It's the same thing with religion; in fact, with religion people have even more personal incentive to rationalize their beliefs, particularly in a subculture that prizes logic and analytical skills above all else.
My feeling is that there probably isn't any one religious stereotype that applies to hackers in general. There may be a slight trend away from mainstream religion, but even at that there seems to be no shortage of hackers that do follow a mainstream religion. Just believe what you want to believe, and don't worry about whether it's the "hackish" thing to do. And don't waste time trying to rationalize it. Religion is an inherently nonrational phenomenon, and that is not a bad thing.
-rpl
Re:blah (Score:2)
Beyond what Science can explain are a number of areas of philosophy which relate to human existance. For example, why are we here? While the answer provided by Science (that we are the chance happenings of an uncaring universe) may be intellectually satisfying to some, this sort of existentialist void is emotionally unsatisfying to most who really give it some thought.
My personal take, picked up from someone else, is that Science is great at explaining the "how" of the universe. Theology or philosophy or religion or whatever the heck you want to call it is great at providing the "why."
Re:Disturbing. (Score:2)
Actually, it depends on how you define magic(k). For example, I doubt anyone here would claim not to believe in the notion of magick as "the use of one's will to effect change in the universe."
I'm typing, as it is my will--and that is causing a change, if only in the fact that the typing is causing a post to appear on SlashDot.
When you really press people like Ceremonial Magicians, they tell you what they're really doing is engaging in "linguistic programming"--that is, they're doing all this oga-booga junk because they think it's cool, and that inherent "coolness" may effect change in their subconscious in such a way as to help them (for example) manage their cravings for cigarettes or help them focus so tomorrow's job interview may go better. That is, their "magick" is the use of their will to effect change in their own subconscious.
There are plenty of people who believe as I do that this notion of "sending mystical energy out to some unseen person" is a load of horse puckies--except that the effort in "sending mystical energy out" may cause the person doing the sending to behave better around the unseen person they're trying to "help." On the other hand, given how plain rotten most people are in their day to day lives, I couldn't give a tinker's damn if someone finds to be nicer in their day to day lives involves carving wierd looking Tolkienish ruins into wax candles and burning them out in the woods while they dance naked to the blood of the moon. Just as long as they're nicer to me...
Re:Wicca doesn't "recruit" (Score:2)
Oh, and (b) there are a number of organizations such as the OTO who forbid proselytizing, or even proselytizing about not proselytizing--has to do with belonging to a secret, oath-bound organization which positively forbids that sort of thing, AFAIK.
Re:The Aryan Religion (Score:2)
Or are you refering to that bullshit that a bunch of Germans came up with at the beginning of the century which was based on some really bad (and since debunked) anthropology?
Re:An atheist's viewpoint. (Score:3)
"Chi" literally just means "breath", which clearly exists; if you mean the semi-supernatural "life energy" extolled by some I'll agree that it doesn't have physical existence, yet concepts of chi can be useful in martial arts and in healing practices.
Atheism is not incompatable with Paganism. I label myself a Zen Pagan Taoist Atheist Discordian; it all fits together.
The following questions are left as an exercise for the reader:Does the number 3 exist? Does truth? Beauty? The note Bb? The color red? The property redness? Your thoughts? Your mind? My mind?
Who is more real: Mr. Spock, or John Smith, Esq. of Crofton, Maryland? One is fictional, one is (according to the phonebook) a real person; but Mr. Spock exists in many more minds than Mr. Smith. Which is the more durable existence?
Every see Penn & Teller in action? Your senses are limited and can be fooled; what reason do you have to think that what you can detect with them means anything? What assumptions are you making when you integrate sense data? What other sets of assumptions are possible? Can these other sets of assumption led to useful results?
The Paganism I practice has more to do with questions like this than with "How do I cast a love spell?"
Re:Gnostic? (Score:4)
I finally got around to playing Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri last night, and finished it in a couple of all-nighters.
Your quote reminds me of something from the game. Paraphrasing the game, "The question isn't why a perfect God would create this universe, but why a perfect God would create a universe at all".
My take on the topic at hand: Geeks are freethinkers. Because we acknowledge that it's very hard for one geek to understand all that's going on inside these boxes we call "computers", we're tolerant of views in the absence of conclusive evidence. All geeks believe that what does on inside the box is understandable, but the process whereby any one geek understands a piece of code is something uniquely a function of (a) the geek, and (b) the code.
If I extrapolate these beliefs about computability to the Real World, I see two tendencies:
- First - geeks will choose world views that imply the world is understandable and that there are processes whereby one can change the world.
- Unlike normals, geeks tend to be tolerant where evidence is unclear. We're willing to use the best tool for the job.
Traditional religions have never tolerated this - they tend to be monolithic one-size-fits-all solutions geared for memetic propagation, rather than best-of-breed solutions for particular subsets of philosophical problems.Whether it be Fundamentalist Christianity ("know God and follow His commandments"), Paganism ("Change the world through acts of Magick"), Buddhism ("You are the master who makes the grass green"), or Scientific Materialism ("The world operates according to physical laws which can be divined through experiment"), all of these world views provide adherents with tools whereby reality can be manipulated.
The scientific method is an excellent tool for figuring out how gravity works and why the stars shine. It's not as useful a tool for answering the answers to philosophical questions like "Why are we here", and "How shall we live?". Religions are pretty good for this. You may not like the answer any one religion provides, but you have to admit it's an answer.
Normals tend to want one tool for everything. Fundamentalist Christian Normals have a lot of trouble with dinosaur fossils. Scientific materialists have trouble with metaphysics. Normals end up like Linux users without an xterm trying to use Internet Explorer to rename 100 files, or MSOffice users trying to write annual reports in TeX.
The "joke religions", such as the Church of the SubGenius, or Discordianism, have a significant place in geek culture because they're explicit demonstrations of an important principle - "best tool for the job" doesn't mean "science or religion", but can mean multiple religions for multiple types of religious type questions.
Normals hate having to pick and choose and learn something new every time they encounter something new. Geeks love having to adapt - we do it for fun - it's what happens every time we design new software, debug old software, or play any game from Quake to Everquest to D&D.
I'll close off by describing my belief system: I'm a scientific materialist when solving real-world problems; I have no need of the God hypothesis to explain physics, evolution, or even human intelligence. I've chosen the Christian God (and I freely admit "because that's how I was brung up" - an accident of the religious affiliation of my parents, who infected me with the Judeo-Christan meme) as my arbitrary Big Brother figure. But I also like the Zen and Existentialist approaches to life when Big Brother doesn't give me what I want.
Oddly enough, I appear to lack the capability to really get into the altered mental/emotional states experienced by Pagans, neo-shamans, or to use the modern equivalent, trance/techno music and dance. So I concluded that the "really mystical" stuff that started this thread wasn't for me. (But if it's your thing, hey, more power to ya. It's your brain; if you've got the circuitry to enjoy this kinda stuff, enjoy the hell out of it!)
And I'm a card-carrying SubGenius. Which means I'm not really here -- I left Earth on July 5, 1998 with the rest of the SubGenii, and am beaming this message to MWOWM from my Pleasure Spacecraft. You are actually a brain in a vat, living in a World Without Slack.
The movie The Matrix was a practical joke we decided to play on you to see if you'd figure it out. Of course you missed the point completely, just like we knew you would. But it was right there in the movie -- for stupid primates to believe in a virtual world, it's gotta suck.
And that, humans, is why the world (well, at least the one you slackless gimps live in) is so fscked up.
Preaching. (Score:3)
I have also noticed that even with hackers and geeks that follow "mainstream" beliefs there is often a tendancy to reject the organised structures of thats belief, which in most religions is not against the word of the god(s), but can be against specific branchs of that religion (there are some obvious exceptions).
Re:Discordianism (Score:3)
Or "Internet usage involves some faith" (Score:5)
It could just be the fact that the people who are attracted to high-tech jobs tend to be intelligent and metnally active and, over time, start to notice things. Not a few of them are given to speculation, contemplation, and looking for patterns. Not only that, we may find that "nerds" suffer from some social austracism (okay, we've been over this). This might lead to a tendency to look outside the herd for ideas and beliefs.
Add the fact that programming can require the ability to enter near-autistic states of concentration and you have people looking at Zen (actually meditation) seriously. You might also get people thinking about the mystical connectivity of the Internet and also the fact that it all just "works" (if you have ever written a program on one computer and compiled it on another you may know what I mean) and you have "faith" in the system. None of us FULLY understands every aspect of computing and networking. We have faith that it all works most of the time. When we know what is wrong we fix it, but there is always some unknown factors. Refreshing isn't it? :)
--8<--
The RPG element (Score:3)
Me-- well I used to like playing M:TG, am a "hacker", and am also a born-again Christian. So I guess I broke the trend ;-)
Discordianism (Score:4)
Like this:
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
Follow the Law of Fives!
See this page here [cmu.edu] for more information on Discordianism, including... everything!
Being a M$ Support person (Score:5)
Eeka! Beeka! Boo!
Too smart for religion? (Score:3)
Oh, by the way, the whole "pagan" movement mostly has to do with trying to justify orgies.
Want to believe (Score:4)
Hackers/geeks like everyone else *want* to believe in religion a higher power to give them comfort. While some may deny this I think the prevalance of religious people on earth (for whatever reason) is more than enough to establish that the human pysche naturally craves something outside itself.
Unfourtunatly people of our persuasion often find "normal" religions inadequate. Whether it is because we are smarter than the average practitioner and hence see the flaws in their belif or because we are used to working in formal none emotive enviornment and hence aren't well equiped to handle the emotional type of religion often practiced hackers often seem to reject conventional religion.
This pushes them in several ways. First some of them turn to alternate spiritualites which let them blaze their own path. Also, as is quite obvious many of them turn to very vocal atheism. This atheism/agnosticism is most likely so vocal because secretly they want someone to come around and convince them they are wrong. If they simply thought others were making a factual mistake they would treat them no differntly than someone who belived (mistakenly) that Mt. McKinley is higher than everest but the desperate need to prove to them they are wrong and broudcast it loudly probably represents a desire to be proven wrong.
Well this is at least true of myself and maybe Im wrong in my generalization but im interested in your comments.
I think this article is actually an experience... (Score:3)
My money's on Linux desktops.
That's cuz computers work on magic, not science. (Score:5)
A conventional oven works on science. Gas flows down a vented pipe where it is ignited by a pilot light. The burning gas (reacting with oxygen) heats the oven chamber until a bimetallic metal strip inside the oven bends enough to trip a lever that cuts off the flow of gas. Then as the oven cools, the metal bends back until it opens the gas flow to again heat the oven. A regulated temperature hysterisis is maintained. All goooood solid reliable and science. All of the chemical and physical properties of this non-living system are readily known and predictable.
A microwave oven, on the other hand, works on magic. When you press the 'start' button, an unseen dimensional portal is opened up inside the oven chamber and a horde of tiny invisible demons is released. The demons poke your food with their magic charged pitchforks causing it to heat up. The demons are picky, though. They don't like to touch some materials so they don't heat up at all (e.g., glass or porcelin). The demons are also playful. Sometimes they deliberately leave a big region of your food uncooked and laugh feindlishly as you later bite into that big chink of ice in your otherwise scalding hot lasagne. Sometimes the demons get so excited that they actually explode. This explains the mysterious splatters you find stuck to the interrior walls of the oven even though you always keep your food covered while cooking it. (Demons, once dead, can no longer maintain their invisibility and so show up as visible splatterings). When the timer stops, power is cut, and the warp hole begins to collapse and sucks all the demons back into the other realm. So since they're based on magic and rely on conscious beings with random personalities, microwave ovens are inherently unreliable and unpredictable.
There is no doubt that computers operate on magic. The entire device requires a spell (we call them programs today) in order to do anything useful. Truly, we programmers are the modern day sorcerers.
Re:The RPG element (Score:5)
Role-Playing Games require an open mind in order to have fun playing them. More to the point, the people who played those games were mostly geeks. Why? Because they a) were smart enough to fully enjoy the game, and b) didn't have much of a social life anyway. We're talking about the stereotypical nerd here, I know, but bear with me.
Time ago, you couldn't just learn to code by using a "XXXX for Dummies" (tm) book. You had to try and experiment, and you also had to be smart and have a mind open to new ways of thinking. Which, amazingly, coincided with the description of RPG players.
So you had lots of proto-hackers, playing D&D and similar games, and the rest of the people just looked at them and thought to themselves: "Hey, they're always talking about demigods and magic and powers and stuff. They must believe in witchcraft and the like".
Add to that the many references to Adventure games included in the repertoire of many of those hackers, and there you go. That's where the idea that most hackers believe in magic comes from.
Of course, that's just my theory.
Not terribly surprising... (Score:3)
Of course, correlation does not imply confirmation. While a lot of Wiccan or other pagan groups may use the Internet to try to draw in new recruits, it's unlikely that there's much of a direct link between hacking and getting interested in mysticism, or being a mystic and getting interested in hacking. It's just that few of the mystics happen to be interested in many of the principles that power the open source movement.
..hostile to organized religion in general.. (Score:3)
Even hackers who identify with a religious affiliation tend to be relaxed about it, hostile to organized religion in general and all forms of religious bigotry in particular. Many enjoy `parody' religions such as Discordianism and the Church of the SubGenius.
To my mind, "hostile to organized religion in general" and "enjoy `parody' religions" come a lot closer to being religious bigotry than they are to being hostile to religious bigotry.
While I'm on the subject, an example that you see here frequently is the use of "xtian" and "fundie". I'm neither an xtian nor a fundie, but I find that sort of gratuitous nastiness distasteful. It only makes me think less of the person who uses it, not the person it's directed at.
---------
Well... (Score:3)
I... uh... don't go in the server room anymore. As of tomorrow, you can find me three miles away from the nearest signs of civilization, lying under a rock with my blankie and crying uncontrollably.
On second though... Ah, what the Hel (sic), I'll just keep sacrifing goats. I've heard that Windows 2000 requires black goats, so I think we'll wait to upgrade.
---
geeks and religion (Score:3)
I know a few guys at church that are pretty computer geek oriented. The computer geeks i know outside of church, i really dont know what there relegious affiliations are, religion is the last thing we talk about together.
But this is something that I have been mulling over in my mind lately. The internet has changed almost every aspect of how I live my life. The job I have is based somewhat on the internet. The way I keep in touch with freinds and family is 90% over the internet. Most of my recreation is on the internet. (linux + quake :)
But the internet has yet to change the way I worship, the way i practice my religion. Im not sure I would want to logon every sunday morning for my church services. Could I get closer to god in an AOL chatroom?
Ive also wondered why there doesnt seem to be any type of big Jerry Fallwell type Internet preachers the way there are the TV preachers.
Im wondering if technology and religion are mutually exclusive, or will these to social institutions converge the way everything else in my life has.