Living Out in Faith
henryzoo.com
henryzoo.com
The podcast is a 10 episode series (pre-recorded it over the last 5 months) with my friend Nadia (who isn't religious)
I'm writing up a post about making it from scratch (never made a podcast before) and will post it soon as well!
Religiously, growing up in an evangelical setting, I didn't see that as a very effective way of reaching people (as you say, you're not going to convince people via argument), but I do believe in evangelism through actions. My close coworkers know my faith because they've noticed things and asked questions and I explained. And I find I take this stance with open-source as well. Talking about open-source being great is one thing, but actually putting it into practice is something else.
I'll definitely be listening to and sharing your podcast.
Consider the claim:
> I started out in open source like a lot of us: wanting to get my name on a commit and counting on "getting" something out of it.
I can't find any good research on this area, but anecdata from a few decades dabbling in various free software communities suggest a) this isn't the primary motivation for most, and b) there's an inverse correlation between free software contributions and religiosity. (With the second, most of my experience has been in more secular societies - it may well be skewed differently through Asia and USA.)
I'm curious where this comes from. Seems like there could be a lot of confounding factors. Anecdotally as well, I would speculate that religion among developers as a pool is smaller than it is in the general population (based on the sorts of personalities that tend to gravitate towards religion and those towards software development). However, of that portion I would be surprised if there was an actual inverse correlation.
Faith is not a reliable path to truth.
Under this definition, faith can be a path (or perhaps the only path) to new or prevoiusly undiscovered truth. For example to prove P = NP (or P != NP) one must first believe that such a proof exists and then act on that belief in search of a proof.
You are right though in that it’s a stretch to call faith a “reliable” source of truth. For every truth that is believed and acted upon there are far more falsehoods to believe and act upon, some of which are really popular.
As a non-religious person, I simply have no belief in the concept of a creator, nor any other supposed supernatural concept. I also don't have a belief that there isn't a creator, nor in any sort of "atheist doctrine" or "atheist gospel". I'm a non-believer, in other words.
Religion simply isn't a part of my life or world-view, other than as a mild curiosity and fanciful concept for stories and legend.
What I do do is put my trust in the scientific method and falsifiable proof, which doesn't require belief to work. And I adjust my world-view according to the findings and proof presented, so it's not set in stone. Obviously I don't just do that blindly, it does require convincing proof. Bigger claims need bigger proofs.
And no, belief and non belief are not two sides of the same coin.
Belief is a positive claim, that needs to be proven.
Not belief is just the rejection of such a claim, and doesn't require any supporting evidence.
Here is a quick example: imagine we walk in a park and I tell you that the number of grass blades in this lawn is even. Do you believe me?
Probably not.
Does that mean you think that the number is odd?
No. You're not making any claim. You are just rejecting my claim because I can't support it with evidence.
People with a non belief in god (atheists) are simply rejecting the claim that a god exists. It doesn't necessarily mean they imply that gods don't exist (some do, though, but that's a positive claim that requires evidence).