Literally René Descartes, arguably one of the most important mathematicians and philosophers in history, spends most of his meditations trying to prove the existence of God. Religious people can be very logical and believe in their religion for logical reasons, even if you and I disagree with those reasons.
lol. there is literally no way to use logic to infer existence of god.
people believe in religion because they were brainwashed to it, usually at young age when they lacked the rational apparatus to resist such brainwashing.
to be fair, logic and inference are different things. logic helps you build structure around a given set of axioms.
actually pure logic can be horribly unhelpful if you start with axioms that are not aligned with reality. that's why some really smart people can believe in stupid things.
there is literally no way to use logic to infer existence of god.
Agreed
people believe in religion because they were brainwashed to it
It's way more complicated than that. First, most people normally absorb religion from our immediate environment. The biggest predictor for if you'll grow up to be your parents' religion is whether your parents displayed religious behavior, especially some that came at some kind of cost to them and you could perceive as a sacrifice (for example, if your religion says you shouldn't drink, but your father drinks, you probably won't find anything else convincing, but if you know your dad would otherwise drink, and that all his friends drink, seeing him drink water or soda when surrounded by drinkers is powerful).
Second, it's true that people who are already religious tend to tell themselves that they believe out of logic, and some of them eventually try to be intellectually honest and wrestle with these questions, but belief is only the biggest aspect of religion in some branches of Christianity.
In most religions out there, you can be agnostic and still practice religion, and the belief based model is extremely inaccurate at understanding and explaining those other religions, because unlike mainstream Protestant Christianity, which takes the belief in Jesus and the Bible as the one thing that separates a Christian from a non Christian, in other communities it can be more important whether you participate in holidays (like festivals with animal sacrifices in pre-Christian Europe; you can find evidence of Romans who didn't believe in their Gods back in the day, but unless they refused to engage in festivities people generally didn't care). There are also religions where belief is important but practice is equally important, like most of Islam.
I had religious trauma growing up and it's shit, and although I'm aware of people who had it way, way worse than me, to this day I still struggle with purity culture over a decade after formally leaving the church.
All of this is to say, brainwashing rarely works to make people stick around, people who stay due to coercion, often do because their religion functions as a high control group (such as Mormons and other branches of Christianity that isolate you from everyone who doesn't belong to your exact same religion), not because they were taught wrong information. There are exceptions, like people who are terrified of hellfire, but again, that's more often than not due to lots of abuse rather than just being told hell is real (even being told that as a child is fucked up, especially if you have OCD or intrusive thoughts in general).
i am using the word brainwashing to express my disdain for people who force religion on kids who can't make free choice, it is not meant to be taken in the strictest literal sense. otherwise i agree with your comment.
We know this now, due to in large part very smart people trying to prove it can be done in scientific ways with real philosophical and logic systems, and failing.... Not just non-believers saying it's obvious.
well no, we know it because non-existence is the default status quo. if you want to claim there is a spaghetti monster running the world, the burden of proof is on your side, no one has a responsibility to prove you it is nonsense.
so the effort of all these very smart people trying to find god would only be of interest if they had actually find him... in which case he should be handcuffed and brought to hague.
I think you may be conflating burden of proof with the effort involved in that burden. Without a rigorous effort, the default claim is less strong and has not stood up to scrutiny. While it may seem too obvious for such things, we now know that science and physics can get really weird and complex... So ideas like "I think therefore I am", first cause / Kalam, all the way to modern logic and number theory, all bolster claims of Occam's Razor violation in a rigorous way instead of hand waving. We can think the outcome is certain and a waste of time, but really out of it has come some fundamental and valuable research into logic.
Which he couldn't/didn't do, giving credence to my position that you don't come to belief in god through logic.
Look, I spent 40 years working with literal rocket scientists, I understand that smart people can be religious. Literally zero of them were raised without religion and came to it because of logical deduction. Smart people will either try to justify things they were raised to believe, or they'll just say that their religious beliefs come from a faith that isn't tied to logic. But rocket scientists who were raised Hindu will do the same with their pantheon as Christians do with their god.
I didn't say it made him dumb, I implied that faith doesn't flow from logic. Plus it's a little problematic to say that our great minds were people of faith when, for much of our history, not being a person of faith could mean death. But it's true, there were folks like Thomas Aquinas who were brilliant and more than average religious.
The narrative of Galileo vs the Church is misrepresented to push a specific narrative, the whole thing is obviously very nuanced, but to keep it short he was in disagreement with the Church, but he was a Catholic himself who happened to live in a period where the Church was on edge due to the tension with Protestantism. The fight wasn't on science vs religion, but on who had the religious authority, individuals or the Church.
Galileo is portrayed as a proto-skeptic later on because it was useful to present the European enlightenment as a rupture with the old world, nevermind that Europeans pushed racism as a science while claiming to be purely rational, you can see this kind of misrepresentation of many early scientists as well such as Newton, who's obsession with esoterism is rarely discussed, and even when promoting a grand narrative of the West as the cradle of reason people like to ignore that as far as we know Pythagoras was a weird religious dude with a cult, you don't need to be rational in all spheres to be rational in some, and if we want to highlight the diversity of western thought as a good thing (which I believe it is) we can also find examples of early skeptics way before the enlightenment. Cicero literally wrote a skeptic as one of his characters to express his ideas, and while he's clearly trying to promote stoicism instead, the fact that he includes a skeptic shows that there were already skeptics in society even back in Rome. And again, in my opinion this is a good thing, we generally need more skepticism, not less, but let's not reinforce narratives that are just false and used to whitewash the horrendous crimes of colonialism to this day.
Surprising amount of extemely logical people go full horse shoe into believing "religion is a useful technology despite being mostly quack". To me this is just sociopathy of a different flavor.
It's just people justifying their beliefs. As I said to someone else, I worked for decades with extremely smart people. A pretty good percentage of atheists, but lots of people who also believed whatever religion they were raised in. All of them made their peace with being scientists and being religious, one way or another.
Ironically, the pope is probably more tech literate than anyone over 50 in Germany's government. I bet Merz doesn't even know how to generate a PDF from a Word document.
There are many things that I disagree with the pope about, but it's well reasoned and argued, you can mostly skip the first two chapters, but three through five are worth a read.
I have not. I was raised catholic and consumed a lot of catholic stuff in my early years. I'm an atheist now and just can't get interested in any of it.
It goes to show that no matter who you are, your family will always know you as "the IT guy" and interrupt anything you are doing because their computer is broken.
And it came to pass that Leo spoke unto Mr. Lovera, saying: Behold, my brother John Prevost, even from the city of Chicago, did yet call upon the pontiff for aid with his machines.
And Mr. Lovera bore witness, saying: Thus spake Roberto unto his brother: "John, I am become pope."
And John answered him, saying: "Oh, forgive me, O pope, for my computer is broken, and I have none to mend it."
If this is real, it's honestly very impressive a man spent his entire life in the clergy, genuinely devoting himself to his flock, and still kept up with tech better than his brother, who I think is in finance of some kind?
It reminds me that over on Reddit there was a younger priest, I think he must be around 30 right now, that was a well known Linux user.
As someone who was raised Catholic, but hasn't gone to church in a minute, I think Jesus would approve of at least that one aspect of that priest's life. I don't know about any other.
Who knows? Maybe the Pope is a geek, and in his free time, he tests then debates about the best Linux distro out there!
Or he's hiding thanks to his peuso that he's an active contributor to some prominent opensource projects!
A homophobic and transphobic book club led by pedophiles isn't "fun". The Pope thinks your whole instance is a sin, stop defending someone that hates you.
"the faith in itself" is a weird death cult that worships a violent imaginary being, and instills such visceral fear in his followers, that they insist that the entire world must follow him too, so they don't get personally tortured for all eternity for displeasing him. The logo for "the faith" is the human mascot literally being tortured to death on an ancient torture device. There is nothing wholesome or positive about Christianity, or any other religion.
That's kind of the problem isn't it? All that goes with it includes a shit load of hate and also raping kids. The Pope and his christo-fascist following are pig disgusting and deserve no respect.
If you don't want to deal with it, then maybe you can go back to Reddit. I'm fine here, and believe me, we don't need Jesus.
The faith and the pedos are intrinsically linked because the huge amount the faith spends to protect the pedos.
81 Comments
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca · 356 pts · 1d
I like the idea of a technologically literate pope.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 184 pts · 1d
As long as he doesn't end up concluding every sermon with "I use Arch btw"
PoastRotato@lemmy.world · 244 pts · 1d
Certainly not. He uses Pope!_OS
ThePyroPython@lemmy.world · 88 pts · 1d
And just like that a new meme distro has
been bornbeen ordained.CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world · 56 pts · 1d
I figured it would have to be temple os
okwhateverdude@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 1d
I get the vibe Terry was more of a protestant guy
rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 1d
At the very least he grew up Catholic
huey_m@piefed.social · 2 pts · 23h
rozodru@piefed.world · 126 pts · 1d
he has a ThinkPad with two partitions. one has TempleOS, the other runs Arch with HolyWM
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 26 pts · 1d
My favorite thing about TempleOS is it's written in Holy C.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 21h
ThinkerOS, TempleOS is dead.
Then again, maybe the pope likes an excercise.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 30m
You say, his holiness dabbles in APP-cromancy?
3abas@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 13h
He just likes to use the holy window manager under heavenly arches of the temple.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 1d
Nice
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip · 41 pts · 1d
he has a BS in math. not something you usually associate with the pope 🤷♂️
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 1d
I'd say he must be very logical except, you know...
Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 22h
Literally René Descartes, arguably one of the most important mathematicians and philosophers in history, spends most of his meditations trying to prove the existence of God. Religious people can be very logical and believe in their religion for logical reasons, even if you and I disagree with those reasons.
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 21h
lol. there is literally no way to use logic to infer existence of god.
people believe in religion because they were brainwashed to it, usually at young age when they lacked the rational apparatus to resist such brainwashing.
hernanca@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 18h
to be fair, logic and inference are different things. logic helps you build structure around a given set of axioms.
actually pure logic can be horribly unhelpful if you start with axioms that are not aligned with reality. that's why some really smart people can believe in stupid things.
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 13h
starting with axioms "not aligned with reality" is not fault of logic 😂
vanillama@programming.dev · 5 pts · 17h
Agreed
It's way more complicated than that. First, most people normally absorb religion from our immediate environment. The biggest predictor for if you'll grow up to be your parents' religion is whether your parents displayed religious behavior, especially some that came at some kind of cost to them and you could perceive as a sacrifice (for example, if your religion says you shouldn't drink, but your father drinks, you probably won't find anything else convincing, but if you know your dad would otherwise drink, and that all his friends drink, seeing him drink water or soda when surrounded by drinkers is powerful).
Second, it's true that people who are already religious tend to tell themselves that they believe out of logic, and some of them eventually try to be intellectually honest and wrestle with these questions, but belief is only the biggest aspect of religion in some branches of Christianity.
In most religions out there, you can be agnostic and still practice religion, and the belief based model is extremely inaccurate at understanding and explaining those other religions, because unlike mainstream Protestant Christianity, which takes the belief in Jesus and the Bible as the one thing that separates a Christian from a non Christian, in other communities it can be more important whether you participate in holidays (like festivals with animal sacrifices in pre-Christian Europe; you can find evidence of Romans who didn't believe in their Gods back in the day, but unless they refused to engage in festivities people generally didn't care). There are also religions where belief is important but practice is equally important, like most of Islam.
I had religious trauma growing up and it's shit, and although I'm aware of people who had it way, way worse than me, to this day I still struggle with purity culture over a decade after formally leaving the church.
All of this is to say, brainwashing rarely works to make people stick around, people who stay due to coercion, often do because their religion functions as a high control group (such as Mormons and other branches of Christianity that isolate you from everyone who doesn't belong to your exact same religion), not because they were taught wrong information. There are exceptions, like people who are terrified of hellfire, but again, that's more often than not due to lots of abuse rather than just being told hell is real (even being told that as a child is fucked up, especially if you have OCD or intrusive thoughts in general).
So yeah, it's complicated.
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 13h
i am using the word brainwashing to express my disdain for people who force religion on kids who can't make free choice, it is not meant to be taken in the strictest literal sense. otherwise i agree with your comment.
Lemming6969@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 15h
We know this now, due to in large part very smart people trying to prove it can be done in scientific ways with real philosophical and logic systems, and failing.... Not just non-believers saying it's obvious.
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 13h
well no, we know it because non-existence is the default status quo. if you want to claim there is a spaghetti monster running the world, the burden of proof is on your side, no one has a responsibility to prove you it is nonsense.
so the effort of all these very smart people trying to find god would only be of interest if they had actually find him... in which case he should be handcuffed and brought to hague.
Lemming6969@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 9h
I think you may be conflating burden of proof with the effort involved in that burden. Without a rigorous effort, the default claim is less strong and has not stood up to scrutiny. While it may seem too obvious for such things, we now know that science and physics can get really weird and complex... So ideas like "I think therefore I am", first cause / Kalam, all the way to modern logic and number theory, all bolster claims of Occam's Razor violation in a rigorous way instead of hand waving. We can think the outcome is certain and a waste of time, but really out of it has come some fundamental and valuable research into logic.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 13h
I suggest you read Spinoza.
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 12h
Which he couldn't/didn't do, giving credence to my position that you don't come to belief in god through logic.
Look, I spent 40 years working with literal rocket scientists, I understand that smart people can be religious. Literally zero of them were raised without religion and came to it because of logical deduction. Smart people will either try to justify things they were raised to believe, or they'll just say that their religious beliefs come from a faith that isn't tied to logic. But rocket scientists who were raised Hindu will do the same with their pantheon as Christians do with their god.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 15 pts · 1d
Our greatest minds were peoplw of faith Plus beliving doesnt make one dumb
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 1d
I didn't say it made him dumb, I implied that faith doesn't flow from logic. Plus it's a little problematic to say that our great minds were people of faith when, for much of our history, not being a person of faith could mean death. But it's true, there were folks like Thomas Aquinas who were brilliant and more than average religious.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -1 pts · 19h
You could life and not be xealos or pious aka faithful. The past wasnt as xealot as you think it was
Edit: i would have poikted to Leibnitz and Hum as brilliant people, especially Leibnitz, who were faithful
Cypher@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 15h
Galileo might not have agreed with you.
Also the word is zealous.
vanillama@programming.dev · 2 pts · 14h
The narrative of Galileo vs the Church is misrepresented to push a specific narrative, the whole thing is obviously very nuanced, but to keep it short he was in disagreement with the Church, but he was a Catholic himself who happened to live in a period where the Church was on edge due to the tension with Protestantism. The fight wasn't on science vs religion, but on who had the religious authority, individuals or the Church.
Galileo is portrayed as a proto-skeptic later on because it was useful to present the European enlightenment as a rupture with the old world, nevermind that Europeans pushed racism as a science while claiming to be purely rational, you can see this kind of misrepresentation of many early scientists as well such as Newton, who's obsession with esoterism is rarely discussed, and even when promoting a grand narrative of the West as the cradle of reason people like to ignore that as far as we know Pythagoras was a weird religious dude with a cult, you don't need to be rational in all spheres to be rational in some, and if we want to highlight the diversity of western thought as a good thing (which I believe it is) we can also find examples of early skeptics way before the enlightenment. Cicero literally wrote a skeptic as one of his characters to express his ideas, and while he's clearly trying to promote stoicism instead, the fact that he includes a skeptic shows that there were already skeptics in society even back in Rome. And again, in my opinion this is a good thing, we generally need more skepticism, not less, but let's not reinforce narratives that are just false and used to whitewash the horrendous crimes of colonialism to this day.
drmoose@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 23h
Surprising amount of extemely logical people go full horse shoe into believing "religion is a useful technology despite being mostly quack". To me this is just sociopathy of a different flavor.
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 12h
It's just people justifying their beliefs. As I said to someone else, I worked for decades with extremely smart people. A pretty good percentage of atheists, but lots of people who also believed whatever religion they were raised in. All of them made their peace with being scientists and being religious, one way or another.
sik0fewl@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 1d
One plus one is two and Jesus is God incarnate.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 26m
The council of Ephesus strikes again!
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 21h
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 20h
oh my sweet summer child... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 41 pts · 1d
our emissary reports that The Holy Roman Empire entered the Information Era
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 12 pts · 1d
Ironically, the pope is probably more tech literate than anyone over 50 in Germany's government. I bet Merz doesn't even know how to generate a PDF from a Word document.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 25m
The Vatican quests us to destroy a bandit camp near them
chaogomu@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 1d
Have you read his Encyclical?
There are many things that I disagree with the pope about, but it's well reasoned and argued, you can mostly skip the first two chapters, but three through five are worth a read.
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca · 21 pts · 1d
I have not. I was raised catholic and consumed a lot of catholic stuff in my early years. I'm an atheist now and just can't get interested in any of it.
chaogomu@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 1d
The chapters I said to skip are the religious stuff.
The rest is mostly about AI and why we maybe shouldn't.
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca · 19 pts · 1d
Certainly can't disagree with him there
drmoose@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 23h
Religious leaders condemning AI will never not be hilarious. "The thought police doesn't like thought machines"
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 8 pts · 12h
He's really into downloading bootlegs and mixtapes of early punk music.
First_Thunder@lemmy.zip · 107 pts · 1d
Someone gotta deal with the Daemons
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 40 pts · 1d
"Catholicism.exe has stopped working"
(Choice buttons are "Wait for the Cardinals to respond" and "Schism now")
the_abecedarian@piefed.social · 91 pts · 1d
did you turn it off confess your sins, and turn it back on again?
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 39 pts · 1d
Yes I did, may you be touched by his noodly appendage, any other bright ideas?
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 77 pts · 1d
It goes to show that no matter who you are, your family will always know you as "the IT guy" and interrupt anything you are doing because their computer is broken.
arotrios@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 1d
Old skool definition of technopope - John Paul II in 1995:
The track he played
Disclaimer: this is all probably fake. Sadeness was old news by 1995. Also I'm high.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 29 pts · 1d
Not judging, mind you. I hope you're having fun or otherwise enjoying it 🙂
okwhateverdude@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1d
Aww, you pet all the stoners you meet? That's so sweet!
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 1d
okwhateverdude@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1d
The picture looks exactly like Pope Francis, not JP2, so...
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
I'm not complaining. I might be the teensiest bit high myself. Normally I'm at a [4] but today is a [7] day.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 42 pts · 23h
Pope of the Machine God.
Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 15h
I serve the Omnissiah.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 31 pts · 1d
And it came to pass that Leo spoke unto Mr. Lovera, saying: Behold, my brother John Prevost, even from the city of Chicago, did yet call upon the pontiff for aid with his machines.
And Mr. Lovera bore witness, saying: Thus spake Roberto unto his brother: "John, I am become pope." And John answered him, saying: "Oh, forgive me, O pope, for my computer is broken, and I have none to mend it."
crank0271@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1d
okwhateverdude@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
Might I suggest a replacement?
::: spoiler 🏢␠
:::
It isn't cannon, but close!
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 1d
Agreed
riskable@programming.dev · 24 pts · 1d
Who better to resurrect a dead computer?
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 26 pts · 1d
Why, a techromancer, of course!
By which I mean a tech necromancer, not a tech romancer (pictured below)
eurodyne@piefed.world · 2 pts · 11h
For when you need a computer that’s “fully functional“
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 21h
"It has risen"
HappyCatLuvs_U@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 12h
If this is real, it's honestly very impressive a man spent his entire life in the clergy, genuinely devoting himself to his flock, and still kept up with tech better than his brother, who I think is in finance of some kind?
Manalith@midwest.social · 8 pts · 10h
It reminds me that over on Reddit there was a younger priest, I think he must be around 30 right now, that was a well known Linux user.
As someone who was raised Catholic, but hasn't gone to church in a minute, I think Jesus would approve of at least that one aspect of that priest's life. I don't know about any other.
matlag@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 5h
Who knows? Maybe the Pope is a geek, and in his free time, he tests then debates about the best Linux distro out there! Or he's hiding thanks to his peuso that he's an active contributor to some prominent opensource projects!
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1d
Getting into St. Peter's Chair to give IT advice.
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 22h
God hates u bro.
funkajunk@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 18h
Is it because of the gay stuff or the bacon?
bricklove@midwest.social · 10 pts · 16h
Definitely the bacon. He was clear about that. The gay stuff is a bit more ambiguous.
funkajunk@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 16h
I'll never stop
Grimy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
Every penny saved on IT is a penny that can be used for lawyers to defend pedophiles. As God intended.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 14 pts · 1d
Go back to reddit and ruin fun there
Grimy@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 20h
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
A homophobic and transphobic book club led by pedophiles isn't "fun". The Pope thinks your whole instance is a sin, stop defending someone that hates you.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 19h
Calling it a book club. Oooh soo edging and daring. Why not just let people have fun. With fun i mean their faith and all that goes to it.
Yes the pedo cases are well aware but those have nothing to do with the faith in itself...
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 12h
"the faith in itself" is a weird death cult that worships a violent imaginary being, and instills such visceral fear in his followers, that they insist that the entire world must follow him too, so they don't get personally tortured for all eternity for displeasing him. The logo for "the faith" is the human mascot literally being tortured to death on an ancient torture device. There is nothing wholesome or positive about Christianity, or any other religion.
Grimy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6h
That's kind of the problem isn't it? All that goes with it includes a shit load of hate and also raping kids. The Pope and his christo-fascist following are pig disgusting and deserve no respect.
If you don't want to deal with it, then maybe you can go back to Reddit. I'm fine here, and believe me, we don't need Jesus.
The faith and the pedos are intrinsically linked because the huge amount the faith spends to protect the pedos.
"Fun".