h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well argued and informative; but "mainstream theology" is a phrase a little hard to digest; would this be "mainstream Anglican theology", or is there more of a consensus than I thought in the world?

Can't help noticing typos/redundancies:

"The term for this is called a 'straw-man argument'" is a bit Humpty Dumptyish. "This is called" or "The term for this is" would suffice.

End of the same par (just above "Conclusion"): "diverity". (Two true?)

Or is it too late for such nitpix?

I think 'mainstream christian theology' is fair enough. Have you read that entry in the project? It's written by an Anglican priest who was originally ordained a Catholic priest, so I think it covers a wide Christian theological perspective.

Typos: 'Diverity' Dammit! I'll see if I can get it changed...

Fair enough on the 'is called a' part. Not worth changing though. As you say, a bit late. But thanks anyway.



Ste

"I think it covers a wide Christian theological perspective" -- well I know there are theologians in both the Anglican and Roman traditions who are converging excellently, and those who invited to Dalai Lama to address the Good Heart conference are in my opinion well on the ball, but how mainstream are they in their respective home camps? I'd guess there is a great deal of diverity in the world of theology, even within each sect! A rule of thumb might be, if an Anglican bishop endorses it and that isn't a publicly controversial act, it's mainstream Anglican; if the bishop of Rome endorses it it's mainstream Catholic . . .

Which entry are you asking me did I read? All I've read of yours so far is the Creationism one.

A699573 - 'Creation - A Mainstream Christian Viewpoint' is the mainstream theological perspective I refer to.



Ste

Just read that. I found it slightly anodyne, but that is no doubt because of my own attitude, another reading might pick out what was important in your examples. I also looked at another one in the series, on Science and Religion, and found that I take issue with "Religion requires, first and foremost, faith". I include Buddhism in my definition of religion (my daughter is Buddhist) and that is a religion which is premised on the non-existence of gods. My own position is close to A1024156 Wittgenstein's -- I don't see God as requiring worship in a sect, but I respect others' religious feelings.

Douglas Adams and his friend Richard Dawkins represent 'Strong atheism' but I am afraid Dawkins is on a bit of a loser. The more you hit religion the stronger it gets -- like pruning a vine. He should in my h.o. get used to the fact that it's not going to go away.

"Douglas Adams and his friend Richard Dawkins represent 'Strong atheism' but I am afraid Dawkins is on a bit of a loser."

Neither Adams or Dawkins are "strong atheists". They are both agnostic, negative, or "weak" atheists as they do not assert that no god exists, but rather that there simply is no evidence to believe in any of the god's that have so far been proposed to exist.

Correction: Should be gods not god's...

I'm very surprised you should say that. Douglas Adams described himself as a radical atheist, and we can hear Dawkins numbering himself among the atheists just after 3 minutes into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoJyONmcGbM

For a scientist, 'no evidence' is as negative as it gets.