Woz and Religion(danwin.com)
danwin.com
Woz and Religion
http://danwin.com/2012/09/woz-religion/
1 comments
Not sure what you mean...Many adherents of religion do so because it fulfills them, especially in the sense of providing a community. It's not as if all the members of Scientology joined because they, deep down inside, love the idea of paying money to join a group. Maybe in this case, it was the idea of having to pay money that particularly turned Woz off. But I think it's clear he didn't feel that an external group, period, would give him (extra) happiness.
But I think it's clear he didn't feel that an external group, period, would give him (extra) happiness.
I am not really sure that this is very clear from the quote, nor do I see what it has to do with religion. I have not read the book so I might be missing some info, but from this quote alone it's really hard to make those assumptions. For all you know one of the things he already has in his life that makes him happy might actually be a religion of some sorts.
I am not really sure that this is very clear from the quote, nor do I see what it has to do with religion. I have not read the book so I might be missing some info, but from this quote alone it's really hard to make those assumptions. For all you know one of the things he already has in his life that makes him happy might actually be a religion of some sorts.
You make a good point, and I was being resistant to it because I was actually trying to abstract the concept of Scientology away from its usual (negative) connotations because what Woz describes is a situation common to many forms of modern organized religion, even as Scientology has been particularly scrutinized on this point.
Religion aims to find truth and happiness; the OP title is simply stating, "This is Woz's take on religion". It can be interpreted as, "He does't like organized religion" or "Woz has his own religion of sorts, having found inner peace and happiness in his own unique way". That the evangelist here is a Scientologist (or that there is any evangelist at all) is mostly besides the point.
For more perspective, here is the other large passage in which Woz talks about religion:
> I had come to learn of Jesus, from my friend Randy Adair in college, that he always tried to find ways toward peace. Although I’m not a Christian per se, and don’t belong to any religion, what Jesus the historical figure stood for were things I stood for, and those stories Randy told me about him struck a chord with me emotionally. I didn’t believe in violence or hurting people. At De Anza, I thought deeply about the war. I considered myself to be athletic and brave. But would I shoot a bullet at another human being? I remember sitting alone at the white Formica table in my bedroom, coming to the conclusion that I could let someone shoot at me, but I couldn’t shoot back. I thought, What if I’m in Vietnam and I’m shooting at some guy? He’s just like me, that guy. He sits down just like I do. He plays cards and he eats pizza, or the equivalent of it, just like normal people I know. He has a family. Why would I want to hurt this person? He might have his reasons for being where he is in the world—and Vietnam had its reason—but none of these reasons ever touched me in California. From that standpoint, I could see how this war could be a pretty dangerous one for me. Because I was morally and truthfully a conscientious objector in every sense. But the military only counted you as one if you were in a church (which made you exempt from conflict duties), and I had no church. I had no religion. I just had my own logic. So I wasn’t a conscientious objector, I just objected to my personally having to kill or hurt anyone.
Wozniak, Steve (2007-10-17). iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon (pp. 73-74). Norton. Kindle Edition.
Religion aims to find truth and happiness; the OP title is simply stating, "This is Woz's take on religion". It can be interpreted as, "He does't like organized religion" or "Woz has his own religion of sorts, having found inner peace and happiness in his own unique way". That the evangelist here is a Scientologist (or that there is any evangelist at all) is mostly besides the point.
For more perspective, here is the other large passage in which Woz talks about religion:
> I had come to learn of Jesus, from my friend Randy Adair in college, that he always tried to find ways toward peace. Although I’m not a Christian per se, and don’t belong to any religion, what Jesus the historical figure stood for were things I stood for, and those stories Randy told me about him struck a chord with me emotionally. I didn’t believe in violence or hurting people. At De Anza, I thought deeply about the war. I considered myself to be athletic and brave. But would I shoot a bullet at another human being? I remember sitting alone at the white Formica table in my bedroom, coming to the conclusion that I could let someone shoot at me, but I couldn’t shoot back. I thought, What if I’m in Vietnam and I’m shooting at some guy? He’s just like me, that guy. He sits down just like I do. He plays cards and he eats pizza, or the equivalent of it, just like normal people I know. He has a family. Why would I want to hurt this person? He might have his reasons for being where he is in the world—and Vietnam had its reason—but none of these reasons ever touched me in California. From that standpoint, I could see how this war could be a pretty dangerous one for me. Because I was morally and truthfully a conscientious objector in every sense. But the military only counted you as one if you were in a church (which made you exempt from conflict duties), and I had no church. I had no religion. I just had my own logic. So I wasn’t a conscientious objector, I just objected to my personally having to kill or hurt anyone.
Wozniak, Steve (2007-10-17). iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon (pp. 73-74). Norton. Kindle Edition.
i think the core of the problem is that the author is extrapolating an anecdote and criticism about Scientology and applying it to "Religion". Without knowing (and without being given) much context of this quote, the title and commentary appear to be purporting a claim that is not supported by the quote.
Maybe I'm missing something but I feel like the author is trying to read something into this that isn't there.