If you believe that the only true statements are ones where there is conclusive proof then you may call yourself "analytic" but the correct description is "ignorant". And whoever wrote this blog post is almost hilariously ignorant of the very rich and deep literature on science and religion.
Since many of the greatest statisticians believed in God, you can clearly be a great statistician and believe in God. Whether Bayes, Fisher etc.. (ore even EML Beale) qualify for the supposed category of "analytic" is a rather un-interesting question.
As for inventing a new religion, anyone who thinks they can do that simply doesn't understand the concept of a religion.
-----Original Message-----
From: A UK-based worldwide e-mail broadcast system mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vincent Granville
Sent: 22 January 2012 22:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: God vs. Analytics
Interesting discussion, with a very modern twist, about whether or not believing in God and being analytic are compatible. Of course, it depends on how you define God, and how you define analytic. It has a link to an new God-free religion, that seems to me like an anti-religion, possibly a strong form of atheism disguised as an "analytic religion".
Read the controversy at http://www.analyticbridge.com/profiles/blogs/god-vs-analytics
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
_______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet Mail Scanner,
powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive email
security service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.uk.clara.net
_______________________________________________________________________
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
|